Do tobacco execs smoke?

[wheresmybacon]

I have a budy who's a regional manager for a major US alcohol producer, and he drinks like a fish (like me). I was wondering if tobacco execs followed suit with their product.

hmmmm


EDIT: edited for clarity

 

[Trogdor91]

I doubt it, they know more than anyone how bad it is for you!

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Nope. At least most don't. I read a quote from an unnamed tobacco exec somewhere which said, in effect, "We're not stupid enough to smoke that shit".

They know their product is dangerous so they abstain from using it while forcing it upon the public.

Alcohol OTOH, can be consumed in moderation with few ill effects. So it makes sense that alcohol execs would drink. As for your buddy and other high ranking managers, I suspect the excess is just from the stress of their jobs.

 

[FoBoT]

everyone that works for Big Tobacco gets free cigs, so of course they do

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: Trogdor91
I doubt it, they know more than anyone how bad it is for you!

..it was popular at one time but not now.

 

[nboy22]

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha
Nope. At least most don't. I read a quote from an unnamed tobacco exec somewhere which said, in effect, "We're not stupid enough to smoke that shit".

They know their product is dangerous so they abstain from using it while forcing it upon the public.

Alcohol OTOH, can be consumed in moderation with few ill effects. So it makes sense that alcohol execs would drink. As for your buddy and other high ranking managers, I suspect the excess is just from the stress of their jobs.

If I was the Exec of a big Alcohol company of course I would drink..

On the job too..

My Excuse? Quality Assurance

 

[imported_LoKe]

Probably. It would be hard to speak for something if you don't use it.

Everyone knows cigarettes are bad for you, and some choose to smoke them anyways.

 

[Bill Brasky]

I don't think there would be as much of a correlation. I think a better question is, what percentage of all execs smoke?

Wait... there might be a correlation if non-smoking execs have personal issues working for big tobacco. Hmm... I'll get back to you on that one.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha
Nope. At least most don't. I read a quote from an unnamed tobacco exec somewhere which said, in effect, "We're not stupid enough to smoke that shit".

They know their product is dangerous so they abstain from using it while making it available to the public.

Alcohol OTOH, can be consumed in moderation with few ill effects. So it makes sense that alcohol execs would drink. As for your buddy and other high ranking managers, I suspect the excess is just from the stress of their jobs.

Fixed

For the record, I don't smoke habitually. Also, smoking in moderation rarely results in anything bad either. A few cigarettes a week is nothing for example.

 

[clamum]

hungfarover drinks like a fish, hmmm never would've guessed it! Haha.

 

[alchemize]

I had a friend who used to be a vendor to the tobacco industry. This was about 15 years ago, but he said when he would go into a conference room, they'd have all their products, lighters and ashtrays ready to go, and most would indulge.

 

[Mr Incognito]

Lol, they aren't that dumb.

 

[Tiamat]

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha
Nope. At least most don't. I read a quote from an unnamed tobacco exec somewhere which said, in effect, "We're not stupid enough to smoke that shit".

They know their product is dangerous so they abstain from using it while forcing it upon the public.

Alcohol OTOH, can be consumed in moderation with few ill effects. So it makes sense that alcohol execs would drink. As for your buddy and other high ranking managers, I suspect the excess is just from the stress of their jobs.

They don't "force" it onto the public. The public is stupid enough to pay lots of hard-earned cash to buy the product, even with warning labels clearly visible.

 

[Dualist]

Not that I heard about, chances are they know it's not good for their health.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: LoKe
Probably. It would be hard to speak for something if you don't use it.

Everyone knows cigarettes are bad for you, and some choose to smoke them anyways.

They target minors who are not entirely capable of making informed judgements or understand consequences. Ever see the numbers on the odds of someone not smoking if they don't light up for the first time before they are 18? Take a look and tell me they don't target minors specifically. The strength of the addiction hardly makes ongoing use a "choice".

 

[imported_LoKe]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: LoKe
Probably. It would be hard to speak for something if you don't use it.

Everyone knows cigarettes are bad for you, and some choose to smoke them anyways.

They target minors who are not entirely capable of making informed judgements or understand consequences. Ever see the numbers on the odds of someone not smoking if they don't light up for the first time before they are 18? Take a look and tell me they don't target minors specifically. The strength of the addiction hardly makes ongoing use a "choice".

We're brought up knowing smoking is bad for you, what with all the cancerous labels and T.V. ads. We see the effects of smoking throughout our family, as well as in the shows and movies we watch. Even under 18, it's unlikely that the majority is anywhere near that ignorant.

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Originally posted by: Tiamat

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha
Nope. At least most don't. I read a quote from an unnamed tobacco exec somewhere which said, in effect, "We're not stupid enough to smoke that shit".

They know their product is dangerous so they abstain from using it while forcing it upon the public.

Alcohol OTOH, can be consumed in moderation with few ill effects. So it makes sense that alcohol execs would drink. As for your buddy and other high ranking managers, I suspect the excess is just from the stress of their jobs.

They don't "force" it onto the public. The public is stupid enough to pay lots of hard-earned cash to buy the product, even with warning labels clearly visible.

Yea they do. Tobacco laws have increasingly limited the types of advertising allowed, so it just isn't as prevalent as it used to be. You still see posters and magazine ads, and up until a few years ago, tobacco brand logos were plastered all over race cars.

Every time another law is proposed to limit tobacco advertising, the companies fight vigorously against it. They are continuously losing advertising options so they have to force their existing ones as far as legally possible to avoid losing revenue.

Geez, that's a couple posts going against me now...I didn't think I'd see support for Big Tobacco in here

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha
Nope. At least most don't. I read a quote from an unnamed tobacco exec somewhere which said, in effect, "We're not stupid enough to smoke that shit".

They know their product is dangerous so they abstain from using it while forcing it upon the public.

Alcohol OTOH, can be consumed in moderation with few ill effects. So it makes sense that alcohol execs would drink. As for your buddy and other high ranking managers, I suspect the excess is just from the stress of their jobs.

Sigh... I hate the brainwashed. You're completely ignorant and unobjective of the facts, but you fling accusations with seeming authority.

First, if tobacco execs smoke less on average than the general populace, that would be because the wealthy and successful smoke less on average than does the general populace. Smoking today is predominantly a problem in the lower classes. That can be readily seen at almost any workplace environment.

Second, no one "forces" tobacco products on anyone. Grow up.

Third, if anyone consumed alcohol as much as the typical smoker consumes tobacco (i.e. to intoxication all day every single day), the ill health effects would be significantly worse (I suggest you volunteer at a homeless shelter or alcoholic treatment center and see for yourself). However, if a smoker smoked as little as most drinkers drink (i.e. a few times a month), the health effects would be less. Dosage is everything. And what this demonstrates is that the greater danger of smoking is the addiction which drives the use to horrendous abuse.
Get your facts straight.

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: LoKe
Probably. It would be hard to speak for something if you don't use it.

Everyone knows cigarettes are bad for you, and some choose to smoke them anyways.

They target minors who are not entirely capable of making informed judgements or understand consequences. Ever see the numbers on the odds of someone not smoking if they don't light up for the first time before they are 18? Take a look and tell me they don't target minors specifically. The strength of the addiction hardly makes ongoing use a "choice".

Thank you. Someone here understands what I'm saying. If you don't light up before age 18, there's a greater than 90% chance you won't ever. They try to hook you while you're young.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: LoKe

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: LoKe
Probably. It would be hard to speak for something if you don't use it.

Everyone knows cigarettes are bad for you, and some choose to smoke them anyways.

They target minors who are not entirely capable of making informed judgements or understand consequences. Ever see the numbers on the odds of someone not smoking if they don't light up for the first time before they are 18? Take a look and tell me they don't target minors specifically. The strength of the addiction hardly makes ongoing use a "choice".

We're brought up knowing smoking is bad for you, what with all the cancerous labels and T.V. ads. We see the effects of smoking throughout our family, as well as in the shows and movies we watch. Even under 18, it's unlikely that the majority is anywhere near that ignorant.

Teens often do things they have been told are not good for them, dangerous, etc. Do you understand the brain is not fully developed in certain areas until after they have already made some of these poor choices, including becoming addicted to drugs.

The odds of someone not trying smoking if they wait until they are 18 drops enormously. The cig execs knows this, which is why they target minors.

Cigs should be pulled off the shelves for good. It is on the only product on the market that used in the manner intended will kill you. They have managed to avoid FDA oversight by falsely claiming their product is 100% natural, and by funneling significant cash contributions to politicians.

 

[imported_LoKe]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
The odds of someone not trying smoking if they wait until they are 18 drops enormously. The cig execs knows this, which is why they target minors.

I know plenty of people including myself who have tried smoking on more than one occasion before they were 18. To this day, none of them are regular smokers.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: Tiamat

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha
Nope. At least most don't. I read a quote from an unnamed tobacco exec somewhere which said, in effect, "We're not stupid enough to smoke that shit".

They know their product is dangerous so they abstain from using it while forcing it upon the public.

Alcohol OTOH, can be consumed in moderation with few ill effects. So it makes sense that alcohol execs would drink. As for your buddy and other high ranking managers, I suspect the excess is just from the stress of their jobs.

They don't "force" it onto the public. The public is stupid enough to pay lots of hard-earned cash to buy the product, even with warning labels clearly visible.

Yea they do. Tobacco laws have increasingly limited the types of advertising allowed, so it just isn't as prevalent as it used to be. You still see posters and magazine ads, and up until a few years ago, tobacco brand logos were plastered all over race cars.

Every time another law is proposed to limit tobacco advertising, the companies fight vigorously against it. They are continuously losing advertising options so they have to force their existing ones as far as legally possible to avoid losing revenue.

Geez, that's a couple posts going against me now...I didn't think I'd see support for Big Tobacco in here

No one here is supporting Big Tobacco, moron. :roll:

Advertising is no more "forcing" than is political free speech. It's not like those idiot radio talk show hosts force anyone into being a neocon just by speaking (or vice versa, that radical "activists" force anyone into being a populist).
And just like with political free speech, it is the laws limiting it that are the forcing, not the free exercise thereof (even when you personally disagree with it, believe it or not, even to point that you find it offensive).

Take a civics class someday or something...

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: LoKe
Probably. It would be hard to speak for something if you don't use it.

Everyone knows cigarettes are bad for you, and some choose to smoke them anyways.

They target minors who are not entirely capable of making informed judgements or understand consequences. Ever see the numbers on the odds of someone not smoking if they don't light up for the first time before they are 18? Take a look and tell me they don't target minors specifically. The strength of the addiction hardly makes ongoing use a "choice".

Thank you. Someone here understands what I'm saying. If you don't light up before age 18, there's a greater than 90% chance you won't ever. They try to hook you while you're young.

This is retarded. I have a 4 year old who is well aware that smoking cigarettes are bad for you. Obviously he is well educated on lung cancer, but he knows that it can make you "very sick and you cannot get better sometimes". He is always telling me how he hates that his mother smokes whenever she walks outside to have one. If my 4 year old can grasp that concept then I would expect minors over twice his age to get the full picture. If not, I blame the parents for not educating them. Parents are responsible for teaching their kids about matters like these. Not the govt or corporations. Although the govt chooses to spend money doing so anyways. Very nice of them.

Also, don't use statements like "forcing it upon the public" unless you intend on people taking it in the literal sense. There is a huge difference between "forcing" and voluntarily choosing not to educate. You are bitter and are comparing apples and oranges.

Oh and that 90% chance thing is complete garbage. Attending college at a dorm your freshman year will make that very apparent.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: LoKe
Probably. It would be hard to speak for something if you don't use it.

Everyone knows cigarettes are bad for you, and some choose to smoke them anyways.

They target minors who are not entirely capable of making informed judgements or understand consequences. Ever see the numbers on the odds of someone not smoking if they don't light up for the first time before they are 18? Take a look and tell me they don't target minors specifically. The strength of the addiction hardly makes ongoing use a "choice".

Thank you. Someone here understands what I'm saying. If you don't light up before age 18, there's a greater than 90% chance you won't ever. They try to hook you while you're young.

"THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"

:roll:

 

[imported_LoKe]

Originally posted by: Vic
Take a civics class someday or something...

I don't think they offer that class until the 10th grade, so he has a few years yet.