Big Tobacco Wins Again

[a_unique_person]

Seems it just never loses.

Quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Monday sided with Philip Morris USA, refusing to disturb a court ruling that threw out a $10.1 billion verdict over the company's "light" cigarettes.
The court issued its order without comment.
Last year, the Illinois Supreme Court threw out the massive fraud judgment against Philip Morris, a unit of the Altria Group Inc., in a class-action lawsuit involving "light" cigarettes.
Because the Federal Trade Commission allowed companies to characterize their cigarettes as "light" and "low tar," Philip Morris could not be held liable under state law even if the terms it used could be found false or misleading, the state court said.
The case involved 1.1 million people who bought "light" cigarettes in Illinois. They claimed Philip Morris knew when it introduced such cigarettes in 1971 that they were no healthier than regular cigarettes, but hid that information and the fact that light cigarettes actually had a more toxic form of tar.
An Illinois judge ruled in favor of the smokers in March 2003, saying the company misled customers into believing they were buying a less harmful cigarette.

"Misleading" is a funny way of putting it, when people are worried about their lives.

[Redtail]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Seems it just never loses.



"Misleading" is a funny way of putting it, when people are worried about their lives.

If they were worried about their lives why start/continue smoking?

[a_unique_person]

A lot of people start as teenagers. (Tobacco companies have specifically targetted young people). Smoking is very hard to give up, so many thought (as the names imply), that 'light' was safer, when it was no such thing.

[RandFan]

Uh... tobacco companies have lost some pretty damn big cases. Tobacco companies are forced to pay into state run programs that create anti-tobacco ads. Google Eliot Spitzer and tobacco and you will see just how successful these suits have been in the United States.

[ail]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

A lot of people start as teenagers. (Tobacco companies have specifically targetted young people). Smoking is very hard to give up, so many thought (as the names imply), that 'light' was safer, when it was no such thing.

After reading this thread I thought about its relevance on the JREF forum. Then I few things dawned on me.

Before I respond further can anyone suggest what similarities there are with smoking and living a woo woo lifestyle ?

[steverino]

Originally Posted by Redtail

If they were worried about their lives why start/continue smoking?

I agree with AUP here. (gulp!) I have known people with alcohol problems to choose lite beer over regular beer even though the alcohol content is almost the same. (Calories are more the issue.) Some folks felt through advertising propaganda that certain cigarettes were a healthier compromise or even a baby step to kicking the habit.

Also teens smoke because it's cool of course and are not that aware of their mortalitiy at that age. Then they are hooked.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Smoking is very hard to give up, so many thought (as the names imply), that 'light' was safer, when it was no such thing.

I noticed a story on the news this morning about a study suggesting that cutting down on smoking (as distinct from giving up altogether) does not reduce the liikelyhood of premature death. Heavy smokers 'must quit totally':

Quote:

Scientists found no evidence that heavy smokers who halve their daily cigarette intake cut their premature death risk.

I'm not sure if this is strictly relevant to the issue of "light" cigarettes, but I would have thought that switching to a lower tar brand would be analogous to cutting down on the number of cigarettes.

[skeptifem]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

A lot of people start as teenagers. (Tobacco companies have specifically targetted young people). Smoking is very hard to give up, so many thought (as the names imply), that 'light' was safer, when it was no such thing.

thats really not an excuse. I started as a teenager and yeah, its really hard to quit but no one is forcing me to continue.

Anyway, where is the proof that they aren't lighter? Ads do list how much tar is in each type of cig sold (lights, filters, menthol, etc) and they indicate that menthols have the most and lights have the least.

I don't know anyone who smokes lights because its healthier. Not one. and I know a lot of smokers. All the smokers I know who smoke lights (myself included) smoke lights or ultra lights because its not as harsh on the throat. Its very easy to tell when you smoke, there is a difference for sure. I remember sucking down misty light 100's in high school, tearing the filter off, and still being pissed because it was like smoking air.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by steverino

I agree with AUP here. (gulp!) I have known people with alcohol problems to choose lite beer over regular beer even though the alcohol content is almost the same. (Calories are more the issue.) Some folks felt through advertising propaganda that certain cigarettes were a healthier compromise or even a baby step to kicking the habit.

Also teens smoke because it's cool of course and are not that aware of their mortalitiy at that age. Then they are hooked.

NEW RESEARCH ALERT: According to recent study, reported yesterday in Orlando Sentinel, teens are aware of their mortality, etc. more than most adults are - but since (according to the study) they are aware of same they figure at some point something is gonna get them so it makes sense to do whatever feels good. If I had known I would be mentioning it so soon, I would have copied more of the data but I didn't so I didn't.

But then I did:http://www.orlandosentinel.com/featu...,5056904.story

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by nails

thats really not an excuse. I started as a teenager and yeah, its really hard to quit but no one is forcing me to continue.

But they had no hesitation in playing on immature people's weaknesses and getting them hooked. You might be hooked, but they knew when they targetted you that that was exactly what would happen.

Quote:

Anyway, where is the proof that they aren't lighter? Ads do list how much tar is in each type of cig sold (lights, filters, menthol, etc) and they indicate that menthols have the most and lights have the least.

They are lighter. But it turns out that doesn't really help, or even makes things worse. To get the same hit, you have to smoke more. The article states there is less tar, but it has been enhanced to be more potent, and more dangerous.

Quote:

I don't know anyone who smokes lights because its healthier. Not one. and I know a lot of smokers. All the smokers I know who smoke lights (myself included) smoke lights or ultra lights because its not as harsh on the throat. Its very easy to tell when you smoke, there is a difference for sure. I remember sucking down misty light 100's in high school, tearing the filter off, and still being pissed because it was like smoking air.

That's sad.

[skeptifem]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

But they had no hesitation in playing on immature people's weaknesses and getting them hooked. You might be hooked, but they knew when they targetted you that that was exactly what would happen.

Simply having the product available wasnt preying on any weakness. I chose to smoke. I CHOOSE to smoke every time I buy cigs and smoke them. Its tough to quit, but its not their fault that I continue to smoke.

Quote:

They are lighter. But it turns out that doesn't really help, or even makes things worse. To get the same hit, you have to smoke more. The article states there is less tar, but it has been enhanced to be more potent, and more dangerous.

This is supposed to be news? Smokers know.

Quote:

That's sad.

You shouldn't feel bad for people who make poor choices, they have to deal with it and thats just imo.

[steverino]

Originally Posted by fuelair

NEW RESEARCH ALERT: According to recent study, reported yesterday in Orlando Sentinel, teens are aware of their mortality, etc. more than most adults are - but since (according to the study) they are aware of same they figure at some point something is gonna get them so it makes sense to do whatever feels good. If I had known I would be mentioning it so soon, I would have copied more of the data but I didn't so I didn't.

But then I did:http://www.orlandosentinel.com/featu...,5056904.story

Intriguing article. Thanks for sharing it. I remember feeling invulnerable in certain areas as a teen and took absurd chances. I shutter when I think back to my hitch hiking, hanging out with dangerous people, yes. the drug stuff. One could argue that the army is a more attractive option at age 19 than 30 for these reasons. But these things do seem to contradict that study. Maybe I was just more naive back then.

[daenku32]

Originally Posted by ail

After reading this thread I thought about its relevance on the JREF forum. Then I few things dawned on me.

Before I respond further can anyone suggest what similarities there are with smoking and living a woo woo lifestyle ?

Smokers delude themselves from reality? Some time ago I posted about going ahead and start selling "CD demagnetizers" to those consumers who insist that they work. The comments were that we shouldn't support woo-woo even if it doesn't directly affect us or hurt them.

In this same way we should oppose tobacco products even we don't personally use them. It's just the same fight against the woo-woo. Especially since with tobacco people are going to get hurt.

[Wheezebucket]

I actually really want to start smoking (ciggerettes), but I was curious - are there any *real* healthier alternatives to, say, a pack of Marlboros? Without having to roll 'em myself, that is. And how about price-wise? What's the cheapest route to take to sweet, smokey pleasure?

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Wheezebucket

I actually really want to start smoking (ciggerettes), but I was curious - are there any *real* healthier alternatives to, say, a pack of Marlboros? Without having to roll 'em myself, that is. And how about price-wise? What's the cheapest route to take to sweet, smokey pleasure?

If you have never started, I'd recommend against. I smoked on and off for years. Quitting is a bear, but a good idea. Better to have never started.

Cigars, now and again, is the most I'd suggest, but be careful, tobacco is an acquired taste.

DR

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Cigars, now and again, is the most I'd suggest, but be careful, tobacco is an acquired taste.

Especially in a combat zone.

It's amazing the type of cigars available in Baghdad. Sitting on the rooftop near midnight, on the banks of the Tigris, smoking Cubans (I found I prefer cigars from El Salvador, actually), and drinking .... drinks.

If you can't smoke in a war zone, where can you smoke?

But I only did/do it there.

[skeptifem]

Originally Posted by daenku32

Smokers delude themselves from reality? Some time ago I posted about going ahead and start selling "CD demagnetizers" to those consumers who insist that they work. The comments were that we shouldn't support woo-woo even if it doesn't directly affect us or hurt them.

In this same way we should oppose tobacco products even we don't personally use them. It's just the same fight against the woo-woo. Especially since with tobacco people are going to get hurt.

are you serious? Smokers know the products are dangerous, I know I will give myself cancer or otherwise kill myself if I keep smoking. If woo woos knew the danger/lies to whatever woo they prefer and continued to use I would say 'more power to ya', I respect other peoples choices when they arent harming myself or others. Its a good policy to have, if everyone is informed its not your place to tell others how to live.

Oh, and I suggest if you oppose tobacco you look up what other brands they own. Someone I know was bitching about how evil phillip morris is while eating oreos. LOL.

[daenku32]

Originally Posted by nails

are you serious? Smokers know the products are dangerous, I know I will give myself cancer or otherwise kill myself if I keep smoking. If woo woos knew the danger/lies to whatever woo they prefer and continued to use I would say 'more power to ya', I respect other peoples choices when they arent harming myself or others. Its a good policy to have, if everyone is informed its not your place to tell others how to live.

Oh, and I suggest if you oppose tobacco you look up what other brands they own. Someone I know was bitching about how evil phillip morris is while eating oreos. LOL.

I don't know a single person that eats a box of oreos a day, every day, every month, for years. And if I did, I would certainly beg them to stop.

Of course if you insist on smoking and get lung cancer, I'll laugh at you for the rest of your short life.

[WildCat]

If anyone actually cares about the legal view of the case, instead of some knee-jerk attitude whereby tobacco should lose every case regardless of its merits, here it is:

Quote:

In overturning the award last year, the Illinois Supreme Court said smokers couldn't invoke a state consumer protection law because the Federal Trade Commission had endorsed the "light" and "low-tar" descriptions in settlements with other cigarette makers. Like many states, Illinois bars claims over actions "specifically authorized" by a government agency.

Now a_u_p, was it a good decision or not? Explain your answer please.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by nails

are you serious? Smokers know the products are dangerous, I know I will give myself cancer or otherwise kill myself if I keep smoking. If woo woos knew the danger/lies to whatever woo they prefer and continued to use I would say 'more power to ya', I respect other peoples choices when they arent harming myself or others. Its a good policy to have, if everyone is informed its not your place to tell others how to live.

Oh, and I suggest if you oppose tobacco you look up what other brands they own. Someone I know was bitching about how evil phillip morris is while eating oreos. LOL.

Don't get that logic? If someone does something bad, doesn't matter if they also do something inoffensive?

There is a difference between 'knowing' and knowing. Fatalism is easy when you are young. Young people have the most car fatalities, and it's not because they are less capable of driving properly, but greater risk takers.

[ail]

Originally Posted by daenku32

In this same way we should oppose tobacco products even we don't personally use them. It's just the same fight against the woo-woo. Especially since with tobacco people are going to get hurt.

I agree.

I see parallels between being an atheist = non-smoker and a theist = smoker. The point I'd like to put across is that if you truly call yourself a skeptic/critical thinker/atheist then you would be a hypocrite if you are also a smoker.

Does anyone disagree ?

Big Tobacco Companies can be compared to Big Organised Religions. One profits through more consumers buying more of their products while the other profits through greater contributions by more faithful members.

No matter how much the evidence shows that smoking is harmful to your health smokers delude themselves from reality and continue to need to smoke. No matter the evidence, theist need to believe and continue to have faith in God for a miracle.

I would be interested if anyone has set up a poll to see how many JREF supporters are long term smokers. I guess less than 10%

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by ail

I see parallels between being an atheist = non-smoker and a theist = smoker. The point I'd like to put across is that if you truly call yourself a skeptic/critical thinker/atheist then you would be a hypocrite if you are also a smoker.

Does anyone disagree ?

Let me guess. Your logic is based upon smoking being a known health risk, yet people doing it anyway?

In that case, you'd need to include:

BASE jumping
Skydiving
Motor racing

as pursuits which atheists wouldn't pursue - they are all deadlier than smoking, after all, smokers can get life insurance, BASE jumpers can't. (Not for jumps, anyway)

Plus, with the smokers, you'd have to add:

Anyone who drinks and drives (ever)
Anyone who binge drinks
Anyone who does illegal drugs - or even possibly legal drugs

Atheism is no safeguard against stupidity.

[Dark Jaguar]

I have to say that I could understand people smoking back when people were all trying to be "hip and cool" in school like every single era up to the 70's. I can understand why those people have a hard time quitting.

For the life of me, why do people still START to smoke, in this day and age? Even if someone is "just" a teenager they should still be smart enough to figure out how stupid it is. I mean it was hammered into my brain year after year when I was in school, and though some things were exaggerated, as I later found out, it still was accurate in terms of the fact that smoking kills and is very hard to stop. What makes teenagers these days, and still in such large numbers, take up the habit? I'd think we'd have gotten past this and all we needed to do, as a species anyway, was just outlive the previous generations and smoking would be eradicated for good (put THAT in your pipe and... sorry).

[ail]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Let me guess. Your logic is based upon smoking being a known health risk, yet people doing it anyway?

In that case, you'd need to include:

BASE jumping
Skydiving
Motor racing

as pursuits which atheists wouldn't pursue - they are all deadlier than smoking, after all, smokers can get life insurance, BASE jumpers can't. (Not for jumps, anyway)

Plus, with the smokers, you'd have to add:

Anyone who drinks and drives (ever)
Anyone who binge drinks
Anyone who does illegal drugs - or even possibly legal drugs

Atheism is no safeguard against stupidity.

I wouldn't call calling smoking a pursuit. More like a habit.

What evidence do you have that BASE jumping, Skydiving, Motor racing is deadlier than smoking ?

Being able to get insurance doesn't make the activity less deadly

Yes, my experience is that stupidity doesn't discriminate.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by ail

I wouldn't call calling smoking a pursuit. More like a habit.

Call it human activity then.

Originally Posted by ail

What evidence do you have that BASE jumping, Skydiving, Motor racing is deadlier than smoking ?

None at all, I just thought it looked pretty good! I could be a smart arse and tell you to look at the chances of dying at a rate of each cigarette = 1 BASE jump. Comparing two different things, but the insurance factor tells you that those pursuits are high risk as well. Not every smoker dies from it, not every skydiver hits the ground at terminal velocity.[/quote]

Originally Posted by ail

Yes, my experience is that stupidity doesn't discriminate.

Ignorance is an equal opportunity employer!

I think your problem is that you're looking for a rationalist rather than an atheist. Atheist simply = no god/s. An atheist could equally be right into healing crystals, chiropractic or acupuncture. They're still atheists. Cheatin' low-down ones, but atheists nonetheless.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by WildCat

If anyone actually cares about the legal view of the case, instead of some knee-jerk attitude whereby tobacco should lose every case regardless of its merits, here it is:

Now a_u_p, was it a good decision or not? Explain your answer please.

Light and low tar they may be, but the tobacco companies knew that people who bought light and low tar were just going to smoke more, and that the tar was not normal tar, but modified. Of course, you can't tell that, because cigarette companies are not obliged to put the ingredients of their product on the packaging.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by ail

Being able to get insurance doesn't make the activity less deadly.

It's a damn good indication. I'm an insurance auditor and I have to attend conferences every year that discuss risk management and the cost of premiums is a damn good indicator. It's not perfect I'll concede but the industry pays big bucks to egg heads known as actuaries to track and calculate risk. Insurance companies are like casinos, they don't like to lose so, like casinos, they put great care in calculating risk.

"The race isn't always to the swift or the fight to the strong. But that's the way to bet." --Damon Runyon.

I'd bet on it in a heart beat.

[a_unique_person]

A smoker can get life insurance, but they have to pay a premium to get it. A person may decide base jumping is too dangerous and stop doing it, but they won't need special medical help to do so, or many attempts. Base jumping is not addictive like tobacco is.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Light and low tar they may be, but the tobacco companies knew that people who bought light and low tar were just going to smoke more, and that the tar was not normal tar, but modified. Of course, you can't tell that, because cigarette companies are not obliged to put the ingredients of their product on the packaging.

Irrelevant, the Federal gov't specifically set rules by which cigarette companies could put the "low tar" or"light" label on their cigarettes. The state law under which the decision was based specifically "bars claims over actions specifically authorized by a government agency". And not just for tobacco btw.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Irrelevant, the Federal gov't specifically set rules by which cigarette companies could put the "low tar" or"light" label on their cigarettes. The state law under which the decision was based specifically "bars claims over actions specifically authorized by a government agency". And not just for tobacco btw.

The real question, then, is what made the government agency decide the way it did? Was it genuine ignorance, simple incompetence, or egregious corruption?

CynicMonkey sez: all three. Plus probably some Big Tobacco hookers were involved.

[a_unique_person]

If it's low tar, it's low tar. That's a simple fact. It doesn't specify what type of 'tar' and if that affects the smoker.

[a_unique_person]

I would call it a case of fraud, since they deceived the Federal Govt. Now, is the Fed going to take this up?

[peptoabysmal]

Originally Posted by ail

I agree.

I see parallels between being an atheist = non-smoker and a theist = smoker. The point I'd like to put across is that if you truly call yourself a skeptic/critical thinker/atheist then you would be a hypocrite if you are also a smoker.

Does anyone disagree ?

You could be a skeptic / critical thinker and still choose to smoke. It's not the best choice to make, but you could still choose it. Knowing the right thing does not always ensure doing the right thing. I've known many doctors who smoked, even though they knew it was not good for them. They are not hypocrites unless they go around telling others not to smoke and then light up.
Atheist has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it, unless there is a religion based on cigarettes that I haven't heard of.

I was a smoker myself from the time of the Vietnam war until last month, when I finally quit.

If you polled the JREF forum, I would bet that the percentage roughly matches the general world population percentage who choose to smoke. I don't think skepticism has much control over a drug habit.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Atheism is no safeguard against stupidity.

I may add that to my sig. Even education is no safeguard against stupidity.

DR

[skeptifem]

Originally Posted by daenku32

I don't know a single person that eats a box of oreos a day, every day, every month, for years. And if I did, I would certainly beg them to stop.

Of course if you insist on smoking and get lung cancer, I'll laugh at you for the rest of your short life.

You missed the point. Oreo=nabisco=alteria (sp?)=phillip morris. People give money to phillip morris constantly wether or not they smoke. Voting with your dollars only works when you know what the hell you are talking about, and most people who complain about tobacco companies dont.

Smoking is pretty damn satisfying. I dont think its anyones business if I continue or not, its sure as hell doesnt make me less of a skeptic.

I have a lot of life ahead of me regardless of wether or not I smoke, Im 20. But thanks.

Quote:

I see parallels between being an atheist = non-smoker and a theist = smoker. The point I'd like to put across is that if you truly call yourself a skeptic/critical thinker/atheist then you would be a hypocrite if you are also a smoker.

Does anyone disagree ?

A true scotsman would never smoke!

Someone else made an equally silly argument about skeptics and fast food in the forum community section, you should check it out. Skeptics mess up just like everyone else.

Quote:

Don't get that logic? If someone does something bad, doesn't matter if they also do something inoffensive?

it certainly isnt my business, thats for sure.

Quote:

There is a difference between 'knowing' and knowing. Fatalism is easy when you are young. Young people have the most car fatalities, and it's not because they are less capable of driving properly, but greater risk takers.

we are not all that way. I've driven like a granny from day 1 and still do.

[Almo]

Originally Posted by Redtail

If they were worried about their lives why start/continue smoking?

That's not the point. The point is they were led to believe that the Light cigs were not AS bad for them, when in fact they were.

[wastepanel]

Originally Posted by Almo

That's not the point. The point is they were led to believe that the Light cigs were not AS bad for them, when in fact they were.

Did you know what the chances of quitting using a supplement like Nicorette are? 30%. Do you know what the chances of quitting a second time using Nicorette? -0-%.

I just quit chewing tobacco 87 days ago today. I've joined an online forum (www.quitsmokeless.org if anybody is interested) to assist my quit. It's been a pain to quit, but not once have I blamed the tobacco company for fooling me.

In fact, UST Inc. is the largest producer of smokeless tobacco in the US. Here is a link where they claim that smokeless tobacco is safer than smoking and less addicting: http://www.ustinc.com/uploadedFiles/...rceSummary.pdf

Quote:

Adult cigarette smokers in the United States have a serious misperception about the
comparative health risks of cigarette smoking and smokeless tobacco use. That fact is evidenced
by the results of a 2001 survey reporting that 82 percent of the adult cigarette smokers
questioned believed that smokeless tobacco was just as likely to cause cancer as smoking
cigarettes. Clearly, the level of disinformation in the marketplace is alarming, and there is a need
to provide adult cigarette smokers with truthful information about the comparative health risks of
tobacco products.

I've been through numerous quits. Any time that I have picked up a can, I've viewed the consequences. It's an enjoyable vice, and the addiction step sneaks up on you before you know it.

I feel that it is funny that many of you laugh at how stupid our addiction is. Guess what? We do too. It makes no sense why we would want to do this to ourselves. What we know is that the current buzz we obtain from tobacco feels great. I don't think every alchoholic, smoker/chewer, drug user wakes up and says "I want to be a slave to chemical that makes me feel better." It happens. It starts out simple, and its easy to fall into (even for you). Stop looking down your nose at us.

So, no, I am not upset that the companies have escaped this reward. It's dumb. Nobody made me chew. No company shoved advertisements in my face when I was a teenager and said "Looky here!". I never attended the "Winston Prom" or my "Marlboro Homecoming" game. I made that damn decision on my own, just like every other person in that class action. I just choose to take responsibility for my actions.

[ail]

Originally Posted by peptoabysmal

You could be a skeptic / critical thinker and still choose to smoke. It's not the best choice to make, but you could still choose it. Knowing the right thing does not always ensure doing the right thing. I've known many doctors who smoked, even though they knew it was not good for them. They are not hypocrites unless they go around telling others not to smoke and then light up.

I freely admit lumping atheist/skeptic/critical thinkers under one banner was wrong .

AUP correctly suggested that I really should be referring to those you think themselves as rationalists.

I am also referring to the second definition of hypocrite below.

Those who rely on reason as the basis for establishment of truth that smoking is harmful and state so would be hypocrites if they smoke.
If a Doctor believes in the truth that the act of smoking is harmful and says so then he/she would be a hypocrite if they smoked

I also admit to being a hypocrite sometimes (knowingly and unknowingly).

Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: hyp·o·crite
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings