Do tobacco execs smoke?

[Alistar7]

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?

How the drug is introduced into the body plays a role. This is not a personal responsibility issue. Cigarettes are not a natural product, they are an addictive, manufactured drug with serious negative health consequences and should be under scrutiny of the FDA. If they were, they would likely be outlawed.

Not that it matters when discussing the facts, but I am a smoker.

 

[imported_LoKe]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Withdrawl from nicotine is comparable to heroin withdrawl.

BULLSHIT. Where'd you read that FUD?

Originally posted by: Alistar7
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"?

What advertising?

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Cigarettes are not a natural product, they are an addictive, manufactured drug [...].

So is chewing tobacco. Congratulations on completely side-stepping my question.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Recorded alcohol addiction rates are far lower than recorded 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.

Be careful what you read and understand that people record many more statistics about subjects which are taboo such as smoking vs those which are more generally accepted such as regular alcohol intake.

Also, "comparable" is a very loose term. I know smokers. I know alcoholics. I have known those addicted to acid. I have known those addicted to coke. And I also know one girl who used to be very close to me and was addicted to heroin. Trust me. The differences between heroin and nicotine are like night and day in terms of withdrawal despite whether there are "comparable" examples.

Hell that is like saying the gasoline in my car is comparable to rocket fuel.

 

[sdifox]

At this point I would like to recommend a movie "Thank you for Smoking". A very interesting take which I personally agree with.

 

[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.

 

[Kirby]

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?

 

[imported_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.

 

[meltdown75]

Gee I don't know if they smoke. Let's poll all of the tobacco execs at Anandtech and find out.

 

[Jeff7]

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.

Force it? I've never been assaulted by tobacco reps, and held down while a lit cigarette was forced into my mouth.

I don't like tobacco companies, I don't like that they market a carcinogenic product, which has had its chemistry altered to make it more addictive. Fact is though, there's a market for this stuff. If the industry didn't make it, people would find other ways of obtaining it themselves, from individual farmers. Then the farmers band together, and soon you've got a tobacco conglomerate all over again.

I think it's sadder that people are still so susceptible to advertising.
"You want this product. You never wanted it before I told you, but believe me, you want it."
"Duh....ok. I'll buy it."

Originally posted by: Xavier434
This is retarded. I have a 4 year old who is well aware that smoking cigarettes are bad for you.

....

Hitler also knew that smoking was dangerous. The Three Stooges episodes featured references to the dangers of smoking. Smoking = unhealthy is not old news.

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha
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.

Every industry does that. Toy companies try to turn kids into compulsive consumers early on. Sunday school indoctrinates children early on. Public school tells kids that the Founding Fathers were all perfect men who "could not tell a lie." Food companies market products to children using "happy" looking characters, colors, games on the box, and crappy little toys packaged with the product. McDonald's - "Happy Meal." Apparently you can buy happiness, at your local McDonald's.

Originally posted by: 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.

The whole issue in PA about motorcyclists wearing helmets came to mind. However, make sure that there actually IS a correlation between the two. The same ones complaining about mandatory motorcycle helmets might also complain about excessive regulation of the drug industry.

Originally posted by: 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.

The customers have traditionally shown that they've got about an equivalent intelligence.
People know that the product is addictive, and it has been shown to cause multiple fatal illnesses, but they still not only use it, but they are willing to pay a considerable amount of money for the privilege. That doesn't sound especially intelligent to me.


Simply put, we've got a free economy. There's a market for addictive, carcinogenic drugs, and thus there is money to be made. If one person doesn't fill it, someone else will.

 

[Tiamat]

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

I don't support tobacco, but its business as usual. They are in it for the profit, and the target audience are people who don't really care about the health risks. Thats a viable market for them, and they will pursue it. They care not of ignorance in their target.

People need to decide what compromises to their health are acceptable to them. And that is exactly what they do when they decide whether or not to pay for the expensive tobacco products for their personal consumption. If they are unable to make that decision, that is their own problem, not that of the business.

The customers are forcing it upon themselves. If the customers didn't want it, the business would fail.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 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.

Are you even capable of actual debate? That percentage of the drug by volume is or is not disclosed was not in question or of issue. The issue was the "doctoring," or that the level of the drug is changed by some means that is not "natural." In which case, alcoholic drinks are not only "doctored," but "tailored," as your own retort here even proved.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

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.

Force it? I've never been assaulted by tobacco reps, and held down while a lit cigarette was forced into my mouth.

I don't like tobacco companies, I don't like that they market a carcinogenic product, which has had its chemistry altered to make it more addictive. Fact is though, there's a market for this stuff. If the industry didn't make it, people would find other ways of obtaining it themselves, from individual farmers. Then the farmers band together, and soon you've got a tobacco conglomerate all over again.

I think it's sadder that people are still so susceptible to advertising.
"You want this product. You never wanted it before I told you, but believe me, you want it."
"Duh....ok. I'll buy it."

Originally posted by: Xavier434
This is retarded. I have a 4 year old who is well aware that smoking cigarettes are bad for you.

....

Hitler also knew that smoking was dangerous. The Three Stooges episodes featured references to the dangers of smoking. Smoking = unhealthy is not old news.

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha
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.

Every industry does that. Toy companies try to turn kids into compulsive consumers early on. Sunday school indoctrinates children early on. Public school tells kids that the Founding Fathers were all perfect men who "could not tell a lie." Food companies market products to children using "happy" looking characters, colors, games on the box, and crappy little toys packaged with the product. McDonald's - "Happy Meal." Apparently you can buy happiness, at your local McDonald's.

Originally posted by: 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.

The whole issue in PA about motorcyclists wearing helmets came to mind. However, make sure that there actually IS a correlation between the two. The same ones complaining about mandatory motorcycle helmets might also complain about excessive regulation of the drug industry.

Originally posted by: 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.

The customers have traditionally shown that they've got about an equivalent intelligence.
People know that the product is addictive, and it has been shown to cause multiple fatal illnesses, but they still not only use it, but they are willing to pay a considerable amount of money for the privilege. That doesn't sound especially intelligent to me.


Simply put, we've got a free economy. There's a market for addictive, carcinogenic drugs, and thus there is money to be made. If one person doesn't fill it, someone else will.

:thumbsup:

 

[InflatableBuddha]

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?

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.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: LoKe

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Withdrawl from nicotine is comparable to heroin withdrawl.

BULLSHIT. Where'd you read that FUD?

Originally posted by: Alistar7
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"?

What advertising?

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Cigarettes are not a natural product, they are an addictive, manufactured drug [...].

So is chewing tobacco. Congratulations on completely side-stepping my question.

I answered your question, I did not side step the issue. Both chewing tobacco and cigarettes should be under FDA scrutiny. I just pointed out why smoking is more harmfull than chewing due to the way it is introduced into the body.

http://www1.umn.edu/perio/tobacco/nicaddct.html

Tobacco is as addictive as heroin.

http://www.quittersguide.com/withdrawal-symptoms.shtml

For example the 12 month success rate for somebody who has quit heroin is double that of nicotine addicts. People can quit using heroin twice as often as smokers can quit smoking.

http://www.tobaccocontrol.neu....ons/MSAadvertising.htm


Talk about people being brainwashed, unreal.

 

[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.

 

[Xavier434]

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.

I am not about to debate which is better and which is worse. However this is also an age old argument which often excludes one very important fact due to everyone's lack of ability to measure it. Namely, stress. Stress is a gargantuan contributor to a tremendous number of health problems for people. It's almost shocking what it can do over long periods of time. Nicotine is a way to control stress levels. While I would never recommend it over other methods, there is no question that this individual effect can also be considered a "health benefit".

Now, is it worth it? Probably not considering the alternative options, but the same can be said about alcohol and dozens of other things which people put in their bodies such as unhealthy foods and prescription drugs. Yet, you rarely find anyone pissing and moaning about that stuff to the point where they want it completely banned.

 

[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.

 

[Robert Munch]

so does anyone know the answer to the question from the OP?

 

[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.

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: Mo0o
THe smart drug dealers dont do their own product either.

theres a huge difference tho. drug dealers traditionally cut their product to get the stuf they did, which would lower the quality. they also would take their own profits and put it into a personal stash. how would execs at a corporation go about this? they get paid whether half their crops get wiped out by a hurricane or not, they arent making less if they take a carton a month off the shelf. bad correlation there.


i heard on the radio this morning that the next thing anti smokers are going to try to get voted in for phoenix is to ban it in cars with children. i smoke. i smoke in my truck. i dont smoke in my truck with my kids there. i also dont smoke in my house. these laws are getting ridiculous.

 

[Vic]

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

I doubt there have been any specific studies with which to answer that question.

Of some revelance though is the fact that alcohol makers have been known to actually force their employees to consume their products. For example, a couple years back, IIRC, a Coors exec was fired for being seen ordering Budweiser at a bar.

I wonder, which is worse?

 

[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.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

I would definitely. Its probably a requirement.

 

[moshquerade]

i doubt they smoke. just like employees at the rat poison factory don't eat the product they manufacture.

 

[imported_LoKe]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
i doubt they smoke. just like employees at the rat poison factory don't eat the product they manufacture.

:laugh: