Do tobacco execs smoke?

[randay]

cigarettes make you cool.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Should the FDA have the authority to regulate food/drugs to make sure they are safe for the consumer?

The advertising is a moot point, congress has already reviewed that aspect and passed legislation. So sorry they did not agree with your opinion.

We're not discussing regulation here, we're discussing prohibition. Which BTW, you brought up.

Congress did not review this so-called issue of "force," and the Supreme Court makes decisions regarding the constitutionality of congressional legislation.

Again, I never used the term force. I stated the advertising was marketed towards minors. You claimed it was a freedom of expression in this case, congress disagreed. Let me know when the Supreme Court overturns their decision, until then it stands.

The FDA as part of their regulative authority can prohibit the distribtion/sale of food/drugs.

Where there is wrong is that you think you have the moral right to interfere, by force of law and government, in other people's decisions and choices simply because you disagree with them and want to protect them from themselves

Do you stand by your comment or not? Should the FDA have the authority to regulate food/drugs to make sure they are safe for the consumer?

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: 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?

me think it's probably because of the crap they put into the cigs to keep it burning as opposed to chewing tobacco, which probably doesn't need all that other crap.

how does pipe tobacco burn?

Chewing tabacco is different than the pipe variety no?

 

[oogabooga]

Originally posted by: tehdispenser
so does anyone know the answer to the question from the OP?

I doubt anyone knows except them and those close to them and it varies greatly from exec to exec.

I figure more than likely they either do smoke or at least are very tolerant of it or they would not be working where they do. It would surprise me greatly to find an exec who doesn't enjoy the fine cigar from time to time (or more often)

My guess? They smoke in moderation (maybe a pack a week, but probably less), nothing like a 2-a-day does.

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: 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?

me think it's probably because of the crap they put into the cigs to keep it burning as opposed to chewing tobacco, which probably doesn't need all that other crap.

how does pipe tobacco burn?

Chewing tabacco is different than the pipe variety no?

They don't put crap in pipe tobacco to make it burn. It's 100% tobacco.

 

[Vic]

Regulation and prohibition are entirely different things. For example, prescription drugs are regulated while marijuana is prohibited. The proven result is that prohibition invariably leads to a complete absence of regulation.

So when Alistar7 advocates prohibition, faces opposition from me, and then comes back with a comment implying that I might be opposed to the FDA's regulatory powers in general, it's just fscking straw man city. As far as I am concerned, he is the one opposed to regulation.
Which makes for an interesting side point. In recent years, a lot of the marijuana underground has become ironically hostile to legalization (while still demanding decriminalization). And why? Because they know that what comes with legalization is regulation.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Again, I never used the term force. I stated the advertising was marketed towards minors. You claimed it was a freedom of expression in this case, congress disagreed. Let me know when the Supreme Court overturns their decision, until then it stands.

The FDA as part of their regulative authority can prohibit the distribtion/sale of food/drugs.

Where there is wrong is that you think you have the moral right to interfere, by force of law and government, in other people's decisions and choices simply because you disagree with them and want to protect them from themselves

Do you stand by your comment or not? Should the FDA have the authority to regulate food/drugs to make sure they are safe for the consumer?

These statements are very gray for reason. Hence, my previous post. Hell, if these were taken literally then that could mean they could ban all food products which exceed a maximum number of fat grams per serving. I think you overestimate their power and underestimate how easily your freedoms can be taken away from you if you let them.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Should the FDA have the authority to regulate food/drugs to make sure they are safe for the consumer?

The advertising is a moot point, congress has already reviewed that aspect and passed legislation. So sorry they did not agree with your opinion.

We're not discussing regulation here, we're discussing prohibition. Which BTW, you brought up.

Congress did not review this so-called issue of "force," and the Supreme Court makes decisions regarding the constitutionality of congressional legislation.

Again, I never used the term force. I stated the advertising was marketed towards minors. You claimed it was a freedom of expression in this case, congress disagreed. Let me know when the Supreme Court overturns their decision, until then it stands.

The FDA as part of their regulative authority can prohibit the distribtion/sale of food/drugs.

Where there is wrong is that you think you have the moral right to interfere, by force of law and government, in other people's decisions and choices simply because you disagree with them and want to protect them from themselves

Do you stand by your comment or not? Should the FDA have the authority to regulate food/drugs to make sure they are safe for the consumer?

Originally posted by: Alistar7
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.

For the last time, your argument here is fallacious. Regulation and prohibition are entirely different, and you advocated prohibition.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Your question to me is basically the same thing. Yes, I support reasonable regulation. Of course. No, I do not support prohibition.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha
Fine. Let's go with your view of moderate smoking being "less harmful" than moderate drinking. It's not. I pointed out the health detriments of cigarettes, and the health benefits of moderate drinking. Compare the two.

You're welcome. The facts need to be known about these substances and I make no apologies for Big Alcohol either. Misused, it has terrible effects. Why do you think alcohol companies are required to say "please enjoy our products responsibly" in their advertising? Do you ever see tobacco companies do this?

You're still missing the point. It is possible (and quite common) to use alcohol without becoming addicted. It is more difficult to use tobacco without becoming addicted, because nicotine is more addictive than alcohol. But controlling for other health factors, even moderate tobacco users will suffer health effects; moderate alcohol users will not. Many moderate alcohol users will in fact see health benefits.

I'm not missing any point, you're just straw man-ing right back around full circle to now attack me with my own earlier arguments. I already said that the problem with smoking compared to other drugs is its sky-high potential for addiction. ("And what this demonstrates is that the greater danger of smoking is the addiction which drives the user to horrendous abuse. ")

None of your argument yet have justified your calls for prohibition, nor equating advertising that you disagree with as being "force," nor that you accused anyone who disagreed with you in this thread of being a Big Tobacco apologist (you obviously missed the sarcasm in my Big Alcohol apologist comment to you).
Those are the points before you, going back to your first post in thread. Not your bullsh!t.
Smoking is bad for one's health. Everyone knows this. I don't smoke. Some people choose to. Some other people choose to sell tobacco products those who make that choice. There's no right or wrong in any of that. Where there is wrong is that you think you have the moral right to interfere, by force of law and government, in other people's decisions and choices simply because you disagree with them and want to protect them from themselves.I swear, the Puritanical streak in America only evolves so as to disguise itself in different forms, but never goes away.

Should the FDA have the authority to regulate food/drugs to make sure they are safe for the consumer?

The advertising is a moot point, congress has already reviewed that aspect and passed legislation. So sorry they did not agree with your opinion.

Yes, but there also needs to be a limit in terms of their power which I believe is a cornerstone of the argument here. There also needs to be some checks a balances. You see, I want them to keep me safe. I just don't want them to take away my freedom of choice for certain things. Obviously, I do not want to have random products on the shelves where some will most likely make me very ill in one sitting and others are perfectly healthy to the point where I can't tell the difference. However, there is a fine line between "regulating" and "removing your freedom of choice". I want that line to be preserved. I want them to do what they were intended to do and nothing more. That includes not being able to ban cigarettes or alcohol.

Their role is not to make choices on whether or not an individual will opt to use a food/drug. Before you would have that choice though cigarettes would have to be able to pass the same requirements of all food/drugs under their scrutiny. They would not, they would be prohibited.

Phillip Morris actually supports FDA regulation, under the condition that cigarettes are held to a completely different standard that would still allow the consumers that personal choice. Very good chance legislation will pass that is similar to their preference, $ talks.

Coming soon to you FDA approved cigarettes

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: LoKe

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: 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?

me think it's probably because of the crap they put into the cigs to keep it burning as opposed to chewing tobacco, which probably doesn't need all that other crap.

His argument seems to lie within the addictive properties of tobacco, not of cigarettes themselves. However, he's targeting smokers only, and seeing as how nicotine is more prevalent in chewing tobacco, his qualm should be with both.

Smoking is just more wide-scale and he's been brainwashed by all the bullshit.

I think smoking is idiotic, but I am not going to decide for everyone else what they are gonna do, as long as they don't smoke near me, I don't have a problem with it. Everyone has the right to choose their own poison. Mine is sugar and caffeine.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: 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?

me think it's probably because of the crap they put into the cigs to keep it burning as opposed to chewing tobacco, which probably doesn't need all that other crap.

how does pipe tobacco burn?

Chewing tabacco is different than the pipe variety no?

They don't put crap in pipe tobacco to make it burn. It's 100% tobacco.

But the original argument was about chewing tobacco compared to cigarette. So pipe smoking is better than cigarette. I am pretty sure pipe goes out unless you keep puffing, unlike cigarettes.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sdifox
I think smoking is idiotic, but I am not going to decide for everyone else what they are gonna do, as long as they don't smoke near me, I don't have a problem with it. Everyone has the right to choose their own poison. Mine is sugar and caffeine.

:thumbsup:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Their role is not to make choices on whether or not an individual will opt to use a food/drug. Before you would have that choice though cigarettes would have to be able to pass the same requirements of all food/drugs under their scrutiny. They would not, they would be prohibited.

Phillip Morris actually supports FDA regulation, under the condition that cigarettes are held to a completely different standard that would still allow the consumers that personal choice. Very good chance legislation will pass that is similar to their preference, $ talks.

Coming soon to you FDA approved cigarettes

Your argument makes no sense. There are MANY products freely available that would not pass FDA standards if they were forced to do so today. Alcohol and aspirin would be just the tip of the iceberg.

And given your admission that you're a smoker, there's something very very Larry Craig-like about your position.

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha
Fine. Let's go with your view of moderate smoking being "less harmful" than moderate drinking. It's not. I pointed out the health detriments of cigarettes, and the health benefits of moderate drinking. Compare the two.

You're welcome. The facts need to be known about these substances and I make no apologies for Big Alcohol either. Misused, it has terrible effects. Why do you think alcohol companies are required to say "please enjoy our products responsibly" in their advertising? Do you ever see tobacco companies do this?

You're still missing the point. It is possible (and quite common) to use alcohol without becoming addicted. It is more difficult to use tobacco without becoming addicted, because nicotine is more addictive than alcohol. But controlling for other health factors, even moderate tobacco users will suffer health effects; moderate alcohol users will not. Many moderate alcohol users will in fact see health benefits.

I'm not missing any point, you're just straw man-ing right back around full circle to now attack me with my own earlier arguments. I already said that the problem with smoking compared to other drugs is its sky-high potential for addiction. ("And what this demonstrates is that the greater danger of smoking is the addiction which drives the user to horrendous abuse. ")

None of your arguments yet have justified your calls for prohibition, nor equating advertising that you disagree with as being "force," nor that you accused anyone who disagreed with you in this thread of being a Big Tobacco apologist (you obviously missed the sarcasm in my Big Alcohol apologist comment to you).
Those are the points before you, going back to your first post in this thread. Not the bullsh!t you keep trying to change it into.
Smoking is bad for one's health. Everyone knows this. I don't smoke. Some people choose to. Some other people choose to sell tobacco products to those who make that choice. There's no right or wrong in any of that. Where there is wrong is that you think you have the moral right to interfere, by force of law and government, in other people's decisions and choices simply because you disagree with them and want to protect them from themselves.
I swear, the Puritanical streak in America only evolves so as to disguise itself in different forms, but never goes away.

I am far from a Puritan. I support people's decisions to consume whatever art, music, literature, etc. they like, engage in whatever relationships they choose, and hold whatever viewpoints they want such that none of this infringes on someone else's same rights. I support legalization of drugs as you do. I do not like prohibition, and I know that it is ineffective.

I did not mean literal "force", I mean it metaphorically. Tobacco companies are known to "push" their products on youth, and encourage youth to use cigarettes and become addicted. There simply isn't enough tobacco education to counter the large advertising budget of Big Tobacco. I agree that parents have a role to play, but let's face it, not every parent is competent enough in providing facts about drugs.

Facts about alcohol consumption should be more widely disseminated (such as in school) as well, instead of nanny-state bullshit about "you can't have a drop until you're 21/19/18 etc."

I would like to see tobacco, alcohol and other drugs sold in (what are now) liquor stores, to people 16 and over. (One can obtain a driver's license at this age, so one can produce identification). Information and referral services should be prominently displayed and accessible. If people choose to consume these substances, that's fine - they do need to know the potential risks and benefits, however.

Call that what you will, but it is neither Puritanism nor prohibition.

 

[Reel]

A previous job of mine was as a consultant. Fellow consultants told me their worst assignment was at a tobacco company. The company allowed smoking in all facilities so employees were constantly smoking and the consultants could barely breathe and felt sick at the end of every day.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Their role is not to make choices on whether or not an individual will opt to use a food/drug. Before you would have that choice though cigarettes would have to be able to pass the same requirements of all food/drugs under their scrutiny. They would not, they would be prohibited.

Phillip Morris actually supports FDA regulation, under the condition that cigarettes are held to a completely different standard that would still allow the consumers that personal choice. Very good chance legislation will pass that is similar to their preference, $ talks.

Coming soon to you FDA approved cigarettes

Your argument makes no sense. There are MANY products freely available that would not pass FDA standards if they were forced to do so today. Alcohol and aspirin would be just the tip of the iceberg.

And given your admission that you're a smoker, there's something very very Larry Craig-like about your position.

Whether I smoke or not is a moot point. I just offered that as you assumed my position was based on my personal anti-smoking opinion, not that facts at hand.

Cigarettes are not a natural product, hence they should fall under FDA regulation. Given that fact it should up to the FDA to make a scientifically based decision on whether the product is safe enough to bring to market, a risk/benefit assesment is included in that judgement. That risk/benefit assesment has been made regarding aspirin/alcohol and they are still available. That same assesment would be made of cigarettes, my arguement is let them stand or fail on their own merit.

Text

A report on the issue pointed out that cigarettes are unique in that they contain carcinogens and other dangerous toxins and would be banned under federal law if these statutes did not expressly exempt tobacco. Cigarettes being among the most dangerous consumer products ever marketed

 

[Vic]

That's already been addressed. Alcohol is not a natural product. Aspirin is not a natural product. They as well would be banned is not previously exempted.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Vic
That's already been addressed. Alcohol is not a natural product. Aspirin is not a natural product. They as well would be banned is not previously exempted.

They are FDA approved and regulated, there is no federal exemption. Alcohol over 7% is regulated by the ATF.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...nd_Drug_Administration

The legal requirement for safety and efficacy have been interpreted as requiring scientific evidence that the benefits of a drug exceed its risks, and that adequate instructions exist for its safe use.

Why shouldn't cigarettes be judged/regulated by the FDA on their own merits, just like all other non natural foods/drugs like aspirin and alcohol? Why should they be protected by special federal exemption?

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sdifox
I think smoking is idiotic, but I am not going to decide for everyone else what they are gonna do, as long as they don't smoke near me, I don't have a problem with it. Everyone has the right to choose their own poison. Mine is sugar and caffeine.

:thumbsup:

Shit Vic, I just noticed you have 10 times the amount of posts I have....

 

[imported_LoKe]

Congrats on getting your lifer post here, Alistar7. It only took 5 years. =)

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: LoKe
Congrats on getting your lifer post here, Alistar7. It only took 5 years. =)

lol ty, I think I laid down 9k+ of them in the first year of the Iraqi invasionoccupationliberationcolonialization < yoar pick.

Before that I was strictly a trader, now I mostly nef here in OT. Honestly though, not much more irrelevant than post count/join date IMHO. Outside of the trading forums it serves no purpose and only adds to the hostility/superiority complex of many of our members. I don't even look at either, and would not have noticed I tripped the lifer line without your heads up.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sdifox
I think smoking is idiotic, but I am not going to decide for everyone else what they are gonna do, as long as they don't smoke near me, I don't have a problem with it. Everyone has the right to choose their own poison. Mine is sugar and caffeine.

:thumbsup:

Shit Vic, I just noticed you have 10 times the amount of posts I have....

I don't even pay attention to postcount anymore. What's RossMAN's up to these days?

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sdifox
I think smoking is idiotic, but I am not going to decide for everyone else what they are gonna do, as long as they don't smoke near me, I don't have a problem with it. Everyone has the right to choose their own poison. Mine is sugar and caffeine.

:thumbsup:

Shit Vic, I just noticed you have 10 times the amount of posts I have....

I don't even pay attention to postcount anymore. What's RossMAN's up to these days?

68k?

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Vic
That's already been addressed. Alcohol is not a natural product. Aspirin is not a natural product. They as well would be banned is not previously exempted.

They are FDA approved and regulated, there is no federal exemption. Alcohol over 7% is regulated by the ATF.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...nd_Drug_Administration

The legal requirement for safety and efficacy have been interpreted as requiring scientific evidence that the benefits of a drug exceed its risks, and that adequate instructions exist for its safe use.

Why shouldn't cigarettes be judged/regulated by the FDA on their own merits, just like all other non natural foods/drugs like aspirin and alcohol? Why should they be protected by special federal exemption?

Perhaps in the future you should just stick to the facts when debating an issue rather than relying on personal opinion, ignoring scientific fact, and making blanket assumptions about an individual to define their position/character/political philosphy so that it explains their disagreement.

Vic - Where there is wrong is that you think you have the moral right to interfere, by force of law and government, in other people's decisions and choices simply because you disagree with them and want to protect them from themselves.

Rather ironic you think it is morally acceptable to interfere with the FDA by using the force of law and government when it supports your choice, even though it does not protect anything other than a dangerous product. Need a mirror or was that sufficient?

/.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Vic
That's already been addressed. Alcohol is not a natural product. Aspirin is not a natural product. They as well would be banned is not previously exempted.

They are FDA approved and regulated, there is no federal exemption. Alcohol over 7% is regulated by the ATF.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...nd_Drug_Administration

The legal requirement for safety and efficacy have been interpreted as requiring scientific evidence that the benefits of a drug exceed its risks, and that adequate instructions exist for its safe use.

Why shouldn't cigarettes be judged/regulated by the FDA on their own merits, just like all other non natural foods/drugs like aspirin and alcohol? Why should they be protected by special federal exemption?

Perhaps in the future you should just stick to the facts when debating an issue rather than relying on personal opinion, ignoring scientific fact, and making blanket assumptions about an individual to define their position/character/political philosphy so that it explains their disagreement.

Vic - Where there is wrong is that you think you have the moral right to interfere, by force of law and government, in other people's decisions and choices simply because you disagree with them and want to protect them from themselves.

Rather ironic you think it is morally acceptable to interfere with the FDA by using the force of law and government when it supports your choice, even though it does not protect anything other than a dangerous product. Need a mirror or was that sufficient?

/.

What the hell are you blabbering about now? I already told you that I favor regulation. Why do you keep coming back time after time like I am opposed to it, or as if you, in your self-proclaimed strict prohibitionist stance, are in favor of it? I can't help if you can't or won't understand the difference between regulation and prohibition, and keep pretending like they're the same thing.

Let me help you: regulation is where a product is made available and as safe as possible to those people who insist on acquiring it and are considered capable of knowingly consenting to it.
Prohibition OTOH is where a product is either outlawed entirely or is regulated so prohibitively that so same persons cannot acquire it, hence opening up an illegal black market with crime, unregulated (and thus unsafe) product, and high prices, etc.

We already learned this lesson in the 1920s. Alcohol was prohibited (NOT regulated), prices went up (by many orders), usage went up (women began drinking when they rarely did so before), product safety went into the toilet (the phrase "blind drunk" originated during that period, referring to the permanent after effects of getting drunk on wood alcohol, which one usually does not discover until it is too late).