Do tobacco execs smoke?

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: 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.

:laugh:

Are you seriously that dim?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: Alistar7

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.

:laugh:

Are you seriously that dim?

Ya no kidding. Wait a minute! We should pull all alcohol too. Oh!! And how about over the counter pain meds? That's a good one. Oh but wait! Lets close down all fast food restaurants. Minors can't possibly understand or make the right choices when it comes to nutrition. Better yet! Let's just revoke all of our freedoms and ask the government to completely dictate what we can and can't do based on what they feel is good and bad for us. That should solve it.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: Alistar7

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.

:laugh:

Are you seriously that dim?

Ya no kidding. Wait a minute! We should pull all alcohol too. Oh!! And how about over the counter pain meds? That's a good one. Oh but wait! Lets close down all fast food restaurants. Minors can't possibly understand or make the right choices when it comes to nutrition. Better yet! Let's just revoke all of our freedoms and ask the government to completely dictate what we can and can't do based on what they feel is good and bad for us. That should solve it.

How about we just let the proper government ageny, the FDA, determine if it should be available. Why do you think they fight their oversight, they (cig makers) know their product would be pulled from the shelves. They are also aware of the age factor in determining the likelyhood of someone becoming addicted. You think they throw all that money at congress to stop FDA oversight and at marketing towards minors for no reason?

Maybe you shoud learn how the brain develops and the effect that development has on an individual at different points in their life.

Are you seriously that ignorant?

Text

Long after the size of the brain is established, it continues to undergo major stages of development. One of the last regions of the brain to mature is the pre-frontal cortex?home of the so-called "executive" functions?planning, setting priorities, organizing thoughts, suppressing impulses and weighing the consequences of one's actions. This means the part of the brain young people need the most to develop good judgment and decision-making develops last!

 

[Vic]

It is on the only product on the market that used in the manner intended will kill you.

It's this line IMO, which is completely false, that drives the newest generation of moral prohibitionists, just like the previous generation was the drug war, and that prior was alcohol. Always saving the world instead of themselves.

The "manner intended" of cigarettes is to cause intoxication (which in the case of tobacco is very subtle and mild, but still very much there). Just like the "manner intended" of alcohol (which OTOH is about as intoxicating as intoxicating gets).
Pfft... if one subsisted on a diet solely of Cheetos, they'd probably die sooner than a smoker. Is that the "manner intended"??
Hell, if a pot smoker smoked pot as much as tobacco smoker smokes cigarettes, they'd probably suffer worse ill health effects and die sooner (and I'm strongly pro-legalization BTW).
Once again, the issue is abuse. The probably with smoking is that tobacco has a very high addiction rate that drives the user to a very high level of abuse. Therein is the problem, not the "manner intended."

 

[Mo0o]

THe smart drug dealers dont do their own product either.

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Originally posted by: 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.

You're confusing a couple of factors. Tobacco execs, and other wealthy people do smoke less, but the wealthier classes are also more educated than poorer classes. What about economically middle class people who are well educated? They make far less money than executives, but they have a similarly low smoking rate because they are similarly well-educated. I believe education is the key factor here; it just happens to positively correlate with income.

Originally posted by: Vic
Second, no one "forces" tobacco products on anyone. Grow up.

Alistar7 and I already addressed this. They absolutely do.

Originally posted by: Vic
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.

Read the first sentence of my first post again: "in moderation". I am well aware of the ill effects resulting from drinking excessively on a daily basis.

I disagree with your assertion that moderate smoking is not harmful. There are over 2000 known carcinogens in cigarettes. Smoking does have a psychologically relaxing benefit for some people, but there is no debating the harmful chemicals in cigarettes. In contrast, studies have shown that 1-2 glasses of red wine every day provides anti-oxidants that reduce the risk of developing various types of cancer, and also lowers the risk of developing heart disease.

As for addiction, consider the withdrawal from tobacco vs. alcohol. While tobacco withdrawal is certainly uncomfortable, users can detox independently, even "cold turkey" in some cases. This is not physically possible with alcohol. Alcohol is one of the few substances where "cold turkey" withdrawal can lead to death.

Alcohol has more devastating macro-level costs than tobacco, but the point is that alcohol can be used in moderation to little detriment; tobacco causes harm in any dosage. The damage merely increases with a higher dosage.

 

[1prophet]

Most people are not as smart or independant in their thinking like the members of these forums.


The psychological techniques developed by Edward Bernays, using his uncle's (Sigmund Freud) analysis of human behavior, for the tobacco companies and other industries interested in pushing their products have been used successfully to get people to do what many here would consider stupid or illogical.

From smoking to selling products and many other things about the psychological manipulation of the masses are gone into depth in these videos.


century of self

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Vic

It is on the only product on the market that used in the manner intended will kill you.

It's this line IMO, which is completely false, that drives the newest generation of moral prohibitionists, just like the previous generation was the drug war, and that prior was alcohol. Always saving the world instead of themselves.

The "manner intended" of cigarettes is to cause intoxication (which in the case of tobacco is very subtle and mild, but still very much there). Just like the "manner intended" of alcohol (which OTOH is about as intoxicating as intoxicating gets).
Pfft... if one subsisted on a diet solely of Cheetos, they'd probably die sooner than a smoker. Is that the "manner intended"??
Hell, if a pot smoker smoked pot as much as tobacco smoker smokes cigarettes, they'd probably suffer worse ill health effects and die sooner (and I'm strongly pro-legalization BTW).
Once again, the issue is abuse. The probably with smoking is that tobacco has a very high addiction rate that drives the user to a very high level of abuse. Therein is the problem, not the "manner intended."

Given that nicotine levels are doctored, not natural, the manner intended by the manufacturer is addictive use. I would venture to guess that Cheetos are not engineered to guarantee an addiction, especially one that will lead to copius consumption resulting in severe health problems including death from sole use of the product.

Text

Previous research indicates that if a child reaches age 18 without becoming a smoker, his or her odds of remaining smoke-free are around 90 percent.

I feel sorry for your 4yr old Xavier....

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Vic

It is on the only product on the market that used in the manner intended will kill you.

It's this line IMO, which is completely false, that drives the newest generation of moral prohibitionists, just like the previous generation was the drug war, and that prior was alcohol. Always saving the world instead of themselves.

The "manner intended" of cigarettes is to cause intoxication (which in the case of tobacco is very subtle and mild, but still very much there). Just like the "manner intended" of alcohol (which OTOH is about as intoxicating as intoxicating gets).
Pfft... if one subsisted on a diet solely of Cheetos, they'd probably die sooner than a smoker. Is that the "manner intended"??
Hell, if a pot smoker smoked pot as much as tobacco smoker smokes cigarettes, they'd probably suffer worse ill health effects and die sooner (and I'm strongly pro-legalization BTW).
Once again, the issue is abuse. The probably with smoking is that tobacco has a very high addiction rate that drives the user to a very high level of abuse. Therein is the problem, not the "manner intended."

Given that nicotine levels are doctored, not natural, the manner intended by the manufacturer is addictive use.

Text

Previous research indicates that if a child reaches age 18 without becoming a smoker, his or her odds of remaining smoke-free are around 90 percent.

I feel sorry for your 4yr old Xavier....

The alcohol levels in alcohol drinks are "doctored" too... :roll:

 

[imported_LoKe]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Given that nicotine levels are doctored, not natural, the manner intended by the manufacturer is addictive use.

As with every other food and drink item we consume...

 

[Kirby]

I find it amazing that people would rather the government make decisions about their health than themselves. I guess personal responsibility isn't cool anymore.

 

[imported_LoKe]

Originally posted by: nkgreen
I find it amazing that people would rather the government make decisions about their health than themselves. I guess personal responsibility isn't cool anymore.

The same people later turn around and bitch about the lack of freedom.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: nkgreen
I find it amazing that people would rather the government make decisions about their health than themselves. I guess personal responsibility isn't cool anymore.

You have no problem with the FDA overseeing safety measures of any drug, except nicotine. I find that amazing.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: LoKe

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Given that nicotine levels are doctored, not natural, the manner intended by the manufacturer is addictive use.

As with every other food and drink item we consume...

All foods are not natural? All foods/drink are engineered to guarantee a potentially fatal addiction?

 

[Pugnax]

The movie "Thank You For Not Smoking" sheds some light on this.

 

[manowar821]

Anyone who's been living outside a cave for most of their life knows that the tobacco executives think less of their customers than they do dogs.

The only reason they don't make ALL of the cigarettes without filters is because they need you to smoke for a good chunk of time to make money off of you. You can't be dying just yet, buddy! You have MONEY to waste!

You're their slaves. They OWN you. Put the fucking cigarettes down.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Previous research indicates that if a child reaches age 18 without becoming a smoker, his or her odds of remaining smoke-free are around 90 percent.

I feel sorry for your 4yr old Xavier....

I don't. While I do not wish for him to start smoking, I would rather him have the freedom to choose for himself while understanding the consequences which I fully plan to teach him about. He will learn about it just fine despite any facts about brain development. If I was capable of learning and making educated decisions about this topic when I was a minor then he can too.

Also, despite his mother's smoking habits, he is never in contact with any second hand smoke coming from her. That combined with him already disapproving of her habit at such a young age makes me believe that he has a much better shot at falling into that other 10% assuming your number is even accurate.

 

[imported_LoKe]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: LoKe

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Given that nicotine levels are doctored, not natural, the manner intended by the manufacturer is addictive use.

As with every other food and drink item we consume...

All foods are not natural? All foods/drink are engineered to guarantee a potentially fatal addiction?

Why is addiction a factor in any of this?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: 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.

You're confusing a couple of factors. Tobacco execs, and other wealthy people do smoke less, but the wealthier classes are also more educated than poorer classes. What about economically middle class people who are well educated? They make far less money than executives, but they have a similarly low smoking rate because they are similarly well-educated. I believe education is the key factor here; it just happens to positively correlate with income.

Originally posted by: Vic
Second, no one "forces" tobacco products on anyone. Grow up.

Alistar7 and I already addressed this. They absolutely do.

Originally posted by: Vic
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.

Read the first sentence of my first post again: "in moderation". I am well aware of the ill effects resulting from drinking excessively on a daily basis.

I disagree with your assertion that moderate smoking is not harmful. There are over 2000 known carcinogens in cigarettes. Smoking does have a psychologically relaxing benefit for some people, but there is no debating the harmful chemicals in cigarettes. In contrast, studies have shown that 1-2 glasses of red wine every day provides anti-oxidants that reduce the risk of developing various types of cancer, and also lowers the risk of developing heart disease.

As for addiction, consider the withdrawal from tobacco vs. alcohol. While tobacco withdrawal is certainly uncomfortable, users can detox independently, even "cold turkey" in some cases. This is not physically possible with alcohol. Alcohol is one of the few substances where "cold turkey" withdrawal can lead to death.

Alcohol has more devastating macro-level costs than tobacco, but the point is that alcohol can be used in moderation to little detriment; tobacco causes harm in any dosage. The damage merely increases with a higher dosage.

Wow... what an amazing job of avoiding all my arguments with a you're-right-because-you-say-so. :roll

In order:

I said "classes," not income.

Alistar7's and your "addressing" of the "force" issue was completely and utterly scuttled, to the point where you both look like childish fools. Advertising is a form of expression. You are openly advocating the suppression of free expression, and calling the alternative "force."
Like I said, take a civics class someday.

I did not at any time say that moderate smoking is not harmful. I specifically said LESS harmful. Either you weren't paying attention or you have resorted to disingenious straw man.
And thanks for helping prove my point that severe alcohol abuse would be MORE harmful than comporable tobacco abuse, particularly in withdrawal complications. How do you live with yourself, you evil Big Alcohol apologist?

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: nkgreen
I find it amazing that people would rather the government make decisions about their health than themselves. I guess personal responsibility isn't cool anymore.

You have no problem with the FDA overseeing safety measures of any drug, except nicotine. I find that amazing.

Everyone knows the risks of smoking. It's not like some drug that no one has every heard and that's never been tested. Do you want to outlaw Crisco?

 

[imported_LoKe]

Why don't we pull chewing tobacco into this argument?

Someone who chews is more likely to die of natural causes than they are from mouth cancer. And yet, the nicotine levels in chewing tobacco are astounding, much higher than that of a cigarette. What's your argument on this subject?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: nkgreen
I find it amazing that people would rather the government make decisions about their health than themselves. I guess personal responsibility isn't cool anymore.

You have no problem with the FDA overseeing safety measures of any drug, except nicotine. I find that amazing.

Everyone knows the risks of smoking. It's not like some drug that no one has every heard and that's never been tested. Do you want to outlaw Crisco?

Exactly, the effects are nothing new. Most would say that what you need to know (i.e. smoking can potentially leave permanent effects on you or kill you) is common knowledge at this point. Even at a young age, people know this stuff. The details are also being taught at a much younger age than they used to.

Education about this subject is fine. The rest is all about people, old and young, making choices based on that knowledge which is what freedom is all about in this country. Stop trying to take that away from us! You have the freedom of choosing not to smoke so allow us the same freedom of choice please.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: nkgreen
I find it amazing that people would rather the government make decisions about their health than themselves. I guess personal responsibility isn't cool anymore.

Actually, it's not that amazing to understand that they are not asking the government to make decisions for themselves. Moralists just want you to believe that as a red herring, like they would have you believe that anyone who doesn't share their extreme prohibitionist stance is either a shill or an addict.
What they doing is asking the government to force their decisions ON OTHER PEOPLE. Hence, "personal responsibility" has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue. Unless you want to look at the issue as something that the prohibitionists wish didn't exist.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: 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.

You're confusing a couple of factors. Tobacco execs, and other wealthy people do smoke less, but the wealthier classes are also more educated than poorer classes. What about economically middle class people who are well educated? They make far less money than executives, but they have a similarly low smoking rate because they are similarly well-educated. I believe education is the key factor here; it just happens to positively correlate with income.

Originally posted by: Vic
Second, no one "forces" tobacco products on anyone. Grow up.

Alistar7 and I already addressed this. They absolutely do.

Originally posted by: Vic
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.

Read the first sentence of my first post again: "in moderation". I am well aware of the ill effects resulting from drinking excessively on a daily basis.

I disagree with your assertion that moderate smoking is not harmful. There are over 2000 known carcinogens in cigarettes. Smoking does have a psychologically relaxing benefit for some people, but there is no debating the harmful chemicals in cigarettes. In contrast, studies have shown that 1-2 glasses of red wine every day provides anti-oxidants that reduce the risk of developing various types of cancer, and also lowers the risk of developing heart disease.

As for addiction, consider the withdrawal from tobacco vs. alcohol. While tobacco withdrawal is certainly uncomfortable, users can detox independently, even "cold turkey" in some cases. This is not physically possible with alcohol. Alcohol is one of the few substances where "cold turkey" withdrawal can lead to death.

Alcohol has more devastating macro-level costs than tobacco, but the point is that alcohol can be used in moderation to little detriment; tobacco causes harm in any dosage. The damage merely increases with a higher dosage.

Wow... what an amazing job of avoiding all my arguments with a you're-right-because-you-say-so. :roll

In order:

I said "classes," not income.

Alistar7's and your "addressing" of the "force" issue was completely and utterly scuttled, to the point where you both look like childish fools. Advertising is a form of expression. You are openly advocating the suppression of free expression, and calling the alternative "force."
Like I said, take a civics class someday.

I did not at any time say that moderate smoking is not harmful. I specifically said LESS harmful. Either you weren't paying attention or you have resorted to disingenious straw man.
And thanks for helping prove my point that severe alcohol abuse would be MORE harmful than comporable tobacco abuse, particularly in withdrawal complications. How do you live with yourself, you evil Big Alcohol apologist?

Alcohol addiction rates are far lower than tobacco. Withdrawl from nicotine is comparable to heroin withdrawl, do DTs really compare?

Advertising aimed at minors who cannot make the proper judgement of an addicting product that is harmfull is civicly allowable? Why have the tobacco companies been held to account for this "freedom of expression"?

I never said anything about force, perhaps you should review the thread. Denying the factual evidence is childish.

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Originally posted by: Vic

The alcohol levels in alcohol drinks are "doctored" too... :roll:

:laugh:...you're not serious!

I don't know how they regulate things in the US, but in Canada, alcohol containers very clearly display the alcohol percentage, and it's regulated by law. Link

B.02.003. Where an alcoholic beverage contains 1.1 per cent or more alcohol by volume, the percentage by volume of alcohol present in the alcoholic beverage shall be shown on the principal display panel followed by the words ?alcohol by volume? or the abbreviation ?alc./vol.?.

Examples:

B.02.120. . Cider

(a) shall

(i) be the product of the alcoholic fermentation of apple juice, and

(ii) contain not less than 2.5 per cent and not more than 13.0 per cent absolute alcohol by volume; and

B.02.104. . Vermouth shall be wine to which has been added bitters, aromatics or other botanical substances or a flavouring preparation, and shall contain not more than 20 per cent absolute alcohol by volume.