Who thinks persecuting tobacco companies is stupid?

[Dputiger]

Ok, that's not my whole point. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif Here's my thought:

Here in America we allow the manufacture of cigarettes, which contain chemicals that create physical and psychological dependency, as well as an altered state of consciousness. The chemicals found in these cigarettes have also been linked to many diseases which are expensive, debilitating, and painful.

Now here in America we also promote free enterprise and individual choice--which is where things get REALLY stupid on this issue.

WHY do we allow tobacco companies to make a product, then tax, sue, and beat the hell out of them for doing so? (This post was set off by reading a recent research project that suggests banning smoking from movies as it encourages young people to smoke).

It seems RIDICULOUS to me to allow a company to function legally, yet to launch a government campaign to convince people NOT to use their product.

And on a slightly more philosophical note: Why are tobacco and alcohol legal and marijuana not? I'm not taking a position on whether all three should be legal or illegal here, but don't they all fundamentally do the same thing?

[Barney]

That got me thinking,too.

Here in the Netherlands I think about 70% of what you pay for ciggarettes are taxes (make it more expensive to discourage people to buy smokes,yeah right!).They also try to discourage people by printing on the packs that it can cause lungecancer (like that will stop people from buying it).Tobacco commercials (on tv) are forbidden here,alcohol commercials aren't.

As you probably know,soft drugs (including Marijuana or something) are legal here.I think the reason for that is that now the government can put taxes on it,so they make more money.They say that people will buy it anyway,so why not make it legal?What a bunch of ****!

I think drugs and alcohol should be banned and not ciggarettes,because drugs and drinks kill other people.People who smoke will only kill themselves.The government tries to do the exact opposite.

Makes no sense to me.

Ronald

[Dputiger]

Actually, because of second-hand smoke, there's good evidence that smoking a cigarette yourself COULD hurt the people around you.

So should smokers be confined to little glass smoking cages with high-powered scrubbers to filter the air, while the rest of us laugh at point?

I'm only half-kidding.

[desmocat]

Dputiger, you are not far off from reality with the scrubber thing. In Fort Worth, the city makes resturants install a special ventalation system in the smoking areas of the resturants. Most of the small ones went smoke free because they couldn't afford the cost of the systems. All of the resturants in Arlington(between Ft Worth and Dallas) are smoke free by city ordinance.

Alot of the smaller places I go to had a notice on the door about the changes when they went into effect, and some lost quite a bit of business over it.

[Szech]

I think that the Government keeps tobacco and alcohol legal because they are afraid of old fashioned bootlegging. IOW, if they make them illegal, then the mafias will profit off producing and selling them. Prohibition didn't do jack. Meanwhile, the state is making a fat profit off the taxes and lawsuits, which I'm sure they don't want to give up.

Anyway, I do think it's stupid to persecute the tobacco companies because it doesn't really affect their margins. They'll just pass the fines onto the smokers.

As for marijuana being illegal, I have read two explanations of that. One theory is that in early anti-Mexican propaganda, Marijuana was said to have driven them to rage. Of course it was bull, but the idea was to create anti-Mexican sentiment, and laws were eventually passed to persecute them. The other theory is that cotton farmers saw marijuana as competition to their industry (since hemp can be produced cheaply and used in many similar applications as cotton). They paid off local politicians to push to make it illegal, and they got their wish.

[Toadman]

Us and the the Gov't know nicotine is addictive and difficult to break the habit, so if they really cared about personal welfare and not revenue, stop smoking programs would be fully insurance-covered. But alas, Carolinas/Kentucky and other tobacco growers politics intervene, under the guise of promoting a healthy lifestyle. :/

[Dputiger]

Here's what I find interesting. Compare alcohol, cigs, and marijauna:

All are addictive.

All have been strongly correlated with negative side effects from long-term usage.

All three have been known to cause accidental deaths in large numbers. (Cigarettes more from accidental fires, alcohol and marijuana from car crashes).

All three are mind-altering drugs and produce altered states of consciousness that range from mild (cigs) to extreme (alcohol, marijuana).

All three can create medical conditions collectively costing billions to treat.

Yet TWO of these products are legal. One is not. This is a fundamental inconsistency of law.

I can see defending ALL THREE as good because they allow people to express themselves. I can see outlawing ALL THREE because of their risk and damage. What I do not understand is why two are legal and one is not.

[fshanda]

This is just another example of our United States Government getting too BIG. This is the newest form of taxation without representation. You don't need to increase anyones personal taxes or raise tax rates for corporations the US government has finally figured out how to just steal it ( extortion). You can't lower our taxes and increase the size of the Government without getting money from somewhere. Just find out what is harming us poor, stupid Americans and Uncle Sam will just sue those nasty corporations that are harming us and make us feel all better. People need to wake up and see this for what it is.
Who is next:
McDonalds or any other fast food corporation. Selling us all of that fatty food and clogging our arteries is also costing our healthcare system millions of dollars a year. They will be sued next.

All alcoholic beverage manufactures. Feeding us those harmful products and destroying our livers and killing us in car accidents. This also costs taxpayers millions of dollars a year that the government must get back for us.

Any corporation or industry that is successful at the expense of someone's health or welfare will be targets of this in the future. Suing the tobacco companies was the first step in my opinion.

Fshanda

Oh yea, I do think it's stupid and frightening.

[This message has been edited by fshanda (edited 01-07-2001).]

[BBA]

This is another example of left-wing 'Do-Gooder' idiots.

The tobacco companies that manipulated Nicotine levels to be more addictive...yea, they have some responsibility...but the others...nope, they didnt force you to smoke!

As for making things illegal...Do-Gooders again.... brought on by overreaction and false expectations that some ailment of society could be cured by making a law against it.

They had no concept of reality!

They tried to make alcohol illegal...boot-legging and violance/murder resulted.

I wonder when they will figure that out about todays illegal drugs...IE: if crack were legal, some honest person would not be murdered tonight in a robbery so a crackhead can get a fix.

It's strange in a way...the 'Do-Gooders' are more responsible for murder than for anything good that resulted from making drugs illegal, lol

[This message has been edited by BBA (edited 01-07-2001).]

[Graham]

It's all down to money, at least here in the UK. The money they get from taxes clouds the governments 'care' for its citizens.
As Dputiger says, it is hypocritical to allow manufacture, tax sales, not allow advertising, then complain at the harm done by the product.

G

[Graham]

Desmocat,
I heard of something similar in France, all restaurants seating more than a certain No. had to have a no smoking policy, the French, in their inimitable style, looked for ways not to comply, and some of the smaller establishments put some tables outside! Other places, I'm sure, just Galically ignored it.

G

[skai]

Money is the key,alcohol is a time consuming and imperfect product to manufacture so is tobacco ,people like to buy a finished product with a known consistency and pay a tax for that convenience.
Hemp on the other hand will grow almost anywhere does not have to be processed except drying so Govt cant collect Tax therefore it is illegal. I smoked for 35yrs,nobody forced me! I wouldn’t have the conscience to sue if I become sick on my head be it! this is the only time I would support a rise in tax ,tax the weed out of existence.Phew! sorry for the long post.skai

[krusty the klown]

Governments are caught in a moral dilemma. They know that smoking causes cancer and cardiovascular disease. They can't be seen to promote smoking, but they enjoy huge revenues from it. In the UK, tobacco is a net big winner for the government, alcohol makes no money (the biggest alcohol-related Governmental expense is policing drunk people), but it keeps a LOT of people in employment and cannabis costs money, as the Government cannot collect taxes from it.

If smoking were banned in the UK, our Government would have to find ~£6bn / yr in taxes from other sources. Despite the policies, they surely don't want to lose that revenue.

As for cannabis, I believe the 'hemp vs cotton' wars were instrumental in its' criminalisation. The fact of the matter is that not only is hemp extremely low in psychoactive ingredients, but much more environmentally friendly (high yields for little fertilisers) than cotton, but there was huge vested interest cotton and very influential people controlled it, so out comes the BS propaganda.

Now we face a situation whereby cannabis's criminalisation means that many people who purchase imported cannabis (I'm still back in the UK where the climate does not allow sucessful outdoor cultivation) are unwittingly giving money to some right nasty b******s who deal in tons of it a long way down the line. If the cultivation of a very small number of plants (a quantity that was obviously for personal consumption) was de-criminalised, the person who enjoys a smoke in the privacy of their own home could cultivate a small number of plants and smoke them without any money ever ending up in the pockets of the people at the top of the chain.

A simple supply and demand situation. The Govt could hit them harder with softer tactics. Instead, they choose to put money in the dealer's pockets, then spend taxpayer's money busting the dealers.

There are still many people who refer (or should that be reefer http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif ) to any illegal substance as 'drugs' and do not view alcohol and tobacco as 'drugs' because they have always been told about the 'evils of drugs' and associate all illegal drugs as being on the same level. Probably sat there watching TV, drink in one hand, cig in the other saying how disgusting the 'drug problem' is.
Generally people are not too well educated - you only need to read some of the Governmental public information drug 'literature'. Most is utter cr@p.

They fail to show you the effects of alcohol addiction. A person in end-stage alcohol addiction is in as much trouble as someone seriously addicted to heroin: I did not use the words 'end stage' for no reason. It really is shocking what alcohol can do if it takes control of a person. Cannabis does not do this. Period. Cannabis does not generate revenue. Cannabis does not create jobs (well not legitimate jobs anyway http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif ).

So back to the original question after that ample digression http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif : I agree that it is hypocritical of the Government to persecuting tobacco companies, as they blatantly make so much money from them. If tobacco was not taxed, Governments would not be hypocritical to persecute them.


[This message has been edited by krusty the klown (edited 01-08-2001).]

[BFlurie]

The bottom-line motive for the lawyers & politicos is bucks. The big 'bacco comps have it, and they want it.

[oblivion]

It has been proven that the cigarette companys have witheld information about the harms of smoking for years.......that is where they should become liable,and that is the grounds of thier liability,and justly so.Need I say more?

[Dputiger]

Key point:

Hemp and marijuana are not the same thing. Hemp, in fact, is a related plant useful in the making of rope and many other goods--it has no mind-altering properties.

[BBA]

oblivion...

How long have you been around cigarettes? Since the early 70's I rememeber people talking about how bad smoking ius for you.

In the early 80's the tobacco companies HAD to put warnings on all adds and containers...and have.

So, my theory is that if you got sick from smoking, you smoked recently enough to have seen the warnings...and since the warnings have been around so long...you could have stopped before it caused you injury, therefore it's your own fault!

It's the bleeding heart sue crazy socialistic 'Do-Gooder's that ruin most of America's freedoms...just remember that!

[GroundZero3]

hahah hey Dputiger that reminds me of a tom green episode where he was sitting in a glass both that he could move around with and he tried to go in restuarants that forbid smoking. pretty funny. but i mean if i get second hand lung cancer certainly someone is gonna pay for my medical bills. (if it ever happened) for ages people knew that smoking casues harm. i think those cases should be thrown out. "well i didn't know it would casue cancer" BS man come on someone trying to get something for free in this world. like you didn't think enhaling smoke was bad???

JaYsin

[MiKe85]

I have a lot of friends that smoked [I don't smoke, tastes bad and my dad would probably choke me] http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

People keep filing lawsuits against cigarette companies (Which doesn't seem to be doing anything) The cigarette ads are directed straight to kids, so somehow all you need to do is keep the ads from teenagers.. (Which is basically near impossible to do)
On another note:

I think the U.S. Government would start legalizing drugs (Hey why not get some extra $$$$) but that would kind of contradict what they are trying to do (Put lots and lots of drug dealers into prison)
BUT..If they WERE to legalize marijuana-A lot of people would be happy...


Mike

[krusty the klown]

That's a very good point, Oblivion. They knew nicotine was addictive for years and years before the health risks were admitted http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/frown.gif

[skai]

Point 1.in Asia and the Pacific Cannabis is also known as Indian Hemp.
Point 2. When I was in my teens and after if you were told smoking would cause your "Whatsit" to drop off ,most of the peer group I hung around with would still have smoked .We knew it was bad for you ,but it was COOL!In retrospect we all shake our heads at our stupidity ,the present generation are smarter, not as many get hooked ,but with all the facts available a lot still smoke.I repeat my theory that tax's are the best way to get rid of Nicotine addiction.skai

[welsh wizard]

double post


[This message has been edited by welsh wizard (edited 01-09-2001).]

[welsh wizard]

I smoke, no apologias. I enjoy it.

If some one wants to give up smoking I will give as much support as I can.

I will be the last die hard with my smokes,

Why should I not have the right to take legal action against Tobacco companies, over 50 years ago we were told it was bad for you, it would stunt your growth, even it would kill you, when I started smoking 95% of adults smoked, but we still had the right to say NO,

for over 20 years most smokes carried a warning that it might kill, ( it was now official) I still smoked knowing the risk in doing so, a smoker forfeits the right to legal recompense,
( if you tell some one that putting a gun to his head and pulling the trigger will kill them, and they do it should next of kin be able to sue the Gun maker, NO , it was free choice.)

Every day we are in environments that kill just as effectively as smokes, you walk on the pavement ( sidewalk ) in a major city at rush hour for half an hour, your lungs will get a higher dose of cancer carrying fumes than smoking twenty smokes a day.

You work in a machine shop, you work a lathe for 8 hours a day, the gases from the cutting coolant will kill you far quicker than smokes.

I spend hours working with a soldering iron, breathing in the gases from the flux, this is going to kill me faster than the smokes,

these are all choices we make do we end up suing the whole world or except that with living some things involve risk.

WW



[This message has been edited by welsh wizard (edited 01-09-2001).]

[Dputiger]

Welsch,

Should smokers (including yourself) be segregated (in your opinion) to prevent the harmful effects of the smoke from being inhaled by those who don't wish to breathe it?

[blind to truth]

PC people, what can you do. Beat them at their own game.

Idiot: "Hey, put that ciggerate out, I don't like smoking!"

You: "It's my choice"

That should do it.

PS Taxing ciggerate companies is wrong, no one forces people to smoke, and if you think "Ciggerate adds will make people smoke", then your a puppet, don't speak.

[welsh wizard]

Dputiger
I have one policy with smokes, if I visit a non smokers house I don't smoke, if they visit mine they do so knowing I smoke, it's there decision.
So you know my feelings on the question.

As for bar's where I grew up you had a Saloon Bar where you could smoke, ( interestingly Lady's were not allowed in there, regardless of character )
and you had a Lounge Bar where you were not allowed to smoke, ( open to all) and a ladies bar also smoking allowed but no Male's allowed.
It worked fine, then came the 60's and every thing changed, but then again just about every one smoked one thing or another in those day's.

Making laws that deny a person right completely is unjust, that's why the EEC made it law for smoke free companies to give smokers so much time for a smoke while working, NON Smoker moan about it but how many said they were smoker to get the Smoke Time.?

( you have people who wish to ban gun's in the States, but the majority defend the right to carry a gun as a personal right,)

WW