Coffeehouse Thread

48 posts

Tobacco companies ordered print confession on packages

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    JohnAskew

    http://us.cnn.com/2012/11/27/health/tobacco-court-order/index.html?hpt=hp_bn12

    Tobacco companies have been ordered by a federal judge to publicly admit, through advertisements and package warnings, that they deceived American consumers for decades about the dangers of smoking.

    It is shameful how American corporations insured their profits by lying to the public and government.

    Greeks smoke more cigarettes than anyone else. Why? What does it mean? Corrolate with? Devil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_cigarette_consumption_per_capita

    If you do smoke, please enjoy the brands that don't stink up your clothes, they usually cost more... Wink

    And these days it is being demonstrated that second hand smoke is much worse for heart than imagined in the past.

    Strong stuff...

  • User profile image
    Bas

    Generic Forum Image

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    On a fun side note, Chantix works well if you want to quit.  Plus you get to feel what it is like to have no desire for anything for a month or two.

  • User profile image
    Proton2

    @JohnAskew: Aren't most people that were "deceived" dead by now?

  • User profile image
    spivonious

    , Proton2 wrote

    @JohnAskew: Aren't most people that were "deceived" dead by now?

    Exactly. Dangers of smoking were well known when I went through elementary school in the 80s. Anyone who starts smoking today is well aware of the risks.

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , Proton2 wrote

    @JohnAskew: Aren't most people that were "deceived" dead by now?

    Yep. And people who are alive and smoking now (and in their right mind) aren't defending their smoking by saying "nobody has proved that it's harmful" or "but the health benefits of smoking are disputed!"

    All in all a fairly bland ruling. People who want to smoke will continue to smoke, and those that don't will continue to not smoke. And 16-year olds deciding to take up smoking won't be put off by the fact that cigarette companies lied to their grandparents about how bad it was for them.

  • User profile image
    DeathBy​VisualStudio

    , evildictait​or wrote

    *snip*

    Yep. And people who are alive and smoking now (and in their right mind) aren't defending their smoking by saying "nobody has proved that it's harmful" or "but the health benefits of smoking are disputed!"

    All in all a fairly bland ruling. People who want to smoke will continue to smoke, and those that don't will continue to not smoke. And 16-year olds deciding to take up smoking won't be put off by the fact that cigarette companies lied to their grandparents about how bad it was for them.

    While true I think it puts an unfair burden on society to have to care for these people as they get sick. The same as those who eat fast food, ding-dongs, etc. and then blame the obesity "disease". People who make these obviously poor choices that cost the rest of us should be required to pay extra in health insurance premiums, sign "do not resuscitate" waivers, etc. so they can exercise their "rights". If not that then we need to put a healthcare tax on every one of these types of debilitating products. The same goes for alcohol and marijuana. If people are so dead set on being stupid then let them but let them also pay for their own coffin.

    If we all believed in unicorns and fairies the world would be a better place.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    JohnAskew

    How is tobacco being marketed in Vietnam, Cambodia, the Philipines today? For profit only.

    It remains the 'moral responsibility' of each country's governments to state health concerns and restrict advertising only because the tobacco companies only care for profits and continue to attempt to sell their product without warning of health issues. It's reprehensible.

    ...of the 1.22 billion smokers, 1 billion of them live in developing or transitional economies.

    In Indonesia, the lowest income group spends 15% of its total expenditures on tobacco. In Egypt, more than 10% of households expenditure in low-income homes is on tobacco. The poorest 20% of households in Mexico spend 11% of their income on tobacco.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco#Advertising

  • User profile image
    JohnAskew
  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @DeathByVisualStudio: These people die an average ten years younger then non smokers. So they don't need pensions and hip replacements. Smokers are cheaper for society then non smokers.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30092491/

    Also, negative campaign ads on packages have been proven to be less effective then putting messages on the packages that help smokers quit.

  • User profile image
    Dr Herbie

    @DeathByVisualStudio: I would prefer to see a tax on 'unhealthy' products at point of sale (which in fact we have in the UK on cigarettes and alcohol), but the problem is that the tax raised is not ring-fenced for health costs. In the UK all tax goes into the Treasury's single income bucket, and then Treasury then decide how to spend it; they may spend it on bailing out banks, or more doomed defense projects rather than on the areas that the original politicians intended when they passed the law.

    Herbie

     

  • User profile image
    Harlequin

    3rd hand smoke is also just as bad as 2nd hand smoke as well. This is the smoke stank on clothes you can smell as a smoker walks by.

  • User profile image
    JohnAskew

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    @DeathByVisualStudio: These people die an average ten years younger then non smokers. So they don't need pensions and hip replacements. Smokers are cheaper for society then non smokers.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30092491/

    You should see who is making that claim, and you're not relaying this part of the article with your statement at all:

    Dr. Terry Pechacek, the CDC associate director for science in the office on smoking and health, said that data seeking to quantify economic benefits of smoking couldn't capture all the benefits associated with longevity, like a grandparent's contribution to a family. Because of such uncertainties the CDC won't put a price tag on savings from smoking.

    Child care savings with non-smoking grandparents may more than offset the health expense (of long-lived non-smokers).

    Besides, who's in favor of controlling health care costs through promoting activities which shorten lifespan?

    Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi studied the net costs of smoking-related spending and savings and found that for every pack of cigarettes smoked, the country reaps a net cost savings of 32 cents.

    A Dutch study published last year in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal said that health care costs for smokers were about $326,000 from age 20 on, compared to about $417,000 for thin and healthy people.

    Who would be so crass as to state that non-smokers are a bigger drain on health care? Are tobacco companies funding these studies?

    More recently, in 2006 the Heartland Institute partnered with the National Association of Tobacco Outlets (NATO) in "a campaign to change public opinion about tobacco." The campaign will utilize press releases, letters to editors and an effort to win coverage in magazines and journals, according to an article about the partnership on the NPN Market Pulse web site, a news and information site for petroleum and convenience store marketers. Tom Briant, NATO's Executive Director, said, vowed to work to prevent public health smoking restrictions from being enacted in any more states. "We will certainly work to try and prevent similar statewide smoking bans from being adopted in other states," Briant said, "because we believe the owners of bars and restaurants should have the right to determine how they accommodate their customers and not have government dictate those kinds of regulations."[

    In February 2009 Heartland lists 5 of its personnel as being "Tobacco Policy Experts".[21] These were Joseph Bast, Ralph Connor, the Local Legislation Manager; John Nothdurft, Heartland's Legislative Specialist; Brad Rodu, from the University of Louisville and W. Kip Viscusi, a Professor of Law at Vanderbilt University Law School.

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute_and_tobacco

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    Smokers are cheaper for society then non smokers.

    Generic Forum Image

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , Dr Herbie wrote

    I would prefer to see a tax on 'unhealthy' products at point of sale (which in fact we have in the UK on cigarettes and alcohol), but the problem is that the tax raised is not ring-fenced for health costs.

    ++

  • User profile image
    Blue Ink

    , JohnAskew wrote

    ...

    Greeks smoke more cigarettes than anyone else. Why? What does it mean? Corrolate with? Devil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_cigarette_consumption_per_capita

    One of the mandated messages states that "Here's the truth: smoking kills 1200 Americans. Everyday".

    Maybe the Greeks just hate Americans.

  • User profile image
    Blue Ink

    , DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

    *snip*

    While true I think it puts an unfair burden on society to have to care for these people as they get sick. The same as those who eat fast food, ding-dongs, etc. and then blame the obesity "disease". People who make these obviously poor choices that cost the rest of us should be required to pay extra in health insurance premiums, sign "do not resuscitate" waivers, etc. so they can exercise their "rights". If not that then we need to put a healthcare tax on every one of these types of debilitating products. The same goes for alcohol and marijuana. If people are so dead set on being stupid then let them but let them also pay for their own coffin.

    Wow.

    Do you realize where this "righteous reasoning" is going to lead?

    What about HIV positives, unwanted pregnancies, bikers (darned bikers, paramedics should also check if they are wearing the mandated protective gear and, if not, leave them there to bake like roadkills), those who engage in extreme sports, couch potatoes, people who believe in homeopathy or other unsanctioned medical procedure... Oh, and why cure inmates, while we are at it? That bunch of murderers, rapists and serial double parkers made all the bad choices that led them there; they are already "an unfair burden on society", don't let them ruin healthcare too.

    I was afraid this would turn into a reductio ad hitlerum, turns out it's more of a reductio ad inquisitionem. That's creepy.

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    @Blue Ink:I know you were trying to play the game where you take things to illogical extremes and we see the error of our ideals, but I'm not finding the downside to anything you describe.

    I would hope that the only thing we can all agree on about taxes is that they discourage the taxed behaviour.  If we could tax bad behaviour, why wouldn't we?

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.