I hate all images of people smoking cigarettes

a reply to: neutronflux

Cigarette Industry lied

Used false advertising - actually no. The cigarette industry disagreed on many points with the anti-smokers. Their advertising reflected that disagreement. To this day, the only disease to meet the criteria of have an increased risk of at least 2 is lung cancer. After 70 years of reserch, nobody can say HOW smoking causes lung cancer. So we have correlation but we don't have CAUSATION. But in the post-modern, misuse of epidimiology, if you disagree, you are lying and every defense out of your mouth is only more proof of guilt.

Its exactly the way global warming works. If you disagree, in even the most mild of deviations, you are lying.

Lets have a clear definition of what the word lying means.

I have already discussed how and why cigarette tobacco is manipulated. No need to into it further.

Targeting children. One day when the staff of tobacco company were discussing how to increase sales, they played a game of spitballing ideas, no matter how ridiculous. One idea was to stock ice cream trucks with cigarettes to have a convenient point of sale in the suburbs. Considering children of that time were routinely sent to the store to buy cigarrettes, it wasn't that outragous an idea. Anti-smokers made that into, they wanted to sell cigarettes to children.

Frankly, I think stocking ice cream trucks was a good idea to supply suburban housewives in bedroom communities who didn't have access to cars during the day. The idea may seem out of context today but it was't in the 1960's.

Big Tobacco doesn't need to target children anymore than marijuana and drug dealers and big pharma do. Children seek these things out.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

By the way, just in case you haven't noticed, I have been researching this subject for about 15 years now. In detail

a reply to: neutronflux

Define the term: "disease related to smoking" what does that actually mean

As you pointed out, the toxin is in the dose. No study ever conducted on any disease found any significant correlation with moderate smoking. Many many smokers are moderate smokers.

Some people smoke only while they are in collage or on social occasions and 50 years after their last cigarette, their lung cancer is still attributed to smoking. Now if that is not lying by statistics, I don't know what is.

What I feel like after reading this thread:

a reply to: tadaman

Be careful

According to anti-smokers, if you read this thread, you have been exposed to fourth hand smoke and will die a painful, horrible, premature death.

What the hell does the term premature death actually mean?

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

It is shameful that you protect the fraudulent behavior of an industry of addiction.

Big Tobacco’s Biggest Lies
www.thedailybeast.com...

Lies, Damn Lies and Big Tobacco
www.tobaccofreekids.org...

12 Things The Tobacco Industry Doesn’t Want You To Know
m.huffpost.com...

10 Really Bad Things the Tobacco Industry Has Done to Entice Kids to Start Smoking
www.lung.org...

Tobacco industry manipulation of the hospitality industry to maintain smoking in public places
tobaccocontrol.bmj.com...


Tobacco industry systematically manipulated cigarette menthol content to recruit new smokers among adolescents and young adults
www.hsph.harvard.edu...

Tobacco companies forced to tell the truth
academicdepartments.musc.edu...

Why smoking is MORE deadly and addictive than it was 50 years ago: Charity reveals the underhand tactics tobacco companies now use to make sure we're hooked
www.dailymail.co.uk... ke-sure-hooked.html

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: neutronflux

Define the term: "disease related to smoking" what does that actually mean

As you pointed out, the toxin is in the dose. No study ever conducted on any disease found any significant correlation with moderate smoking. Many many smokers are moderate smokers.

Some people smoke only while they are in collage or on social occasions and 50 years after their last cigarette, their lung cancer is still attributed to smoking. Now if that is not lying by statistics, I don't know what is.

Doesn’t take a genius to figureout a hibit that reduces oxygen in your blood stream, dumps tar in your lungs, dumps chemicals in your body weakens and stresses your immune system.

Every Smoker Costs An Employer $6,000 A Year. Really?
www.forbes.com...

Smokers Less Productive than Nonsmokers, Survey Finds

In a survey of employees at 147 U.S. companies, smokers incurred the highest health-related productivity losses compared with nonsmokers and former smokers, according to an article in the October edition of the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.
Josh Cable | Oct 11, 2006

www.ehstoday.com...

a reply to: neutronflux

Very good at last you provide information

Lets take the first one

It complains of old advertisements as puts their own spin on it. But no context was given. Its clear that some of the advertising is quite old. Further, it implies that ad campaign was set to target children with absolutely no proof except "I said so"

The purpose of advertising is not to bring in new smokers. Its purpose to influence the choices of existing smokers (ie smoke is "smoother" and "irritating" because the tobacco is toasted (or ammonia is added to the mix).

Not of this is unusual. Can you think of one company that sells any product (health products included) that doesn't try to influence customers to choose their particular brand?

What is missing from this article is proof of when the commercial aired and what was known at that time. I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that little was known for sure because little is known for sure now. (you can't even find proof that smoking causes lung cancer 70 years after the antis-smoking began.)

I notice that it is reported that the company appealed the judges ruling for 11 years. As Big Tobacco did something wrong by appealing. That is what you do when you disagree with the required actions. You appeal. Yet somehow big tobacco is not allowed to appeal. An appeal is further proof of their guilt. How dare Big Tobacco use the justice system.

I have closely followed the RICO case when it occurred. There is little doubt of enormous bias that was influenced by the anti-smokers. But they didn't get what they wanted. They wanted billions of dollars and the judge said NO.

I am confident that current ad campaign imposed by the justice system is imposed and is based on anti-smokers interpretation of Big Tobacco's actions.

I also have little doubt that the settlement to run the ad campaign is lot of smoke and mirrors

academicdepartments.musc.edu...

Please notice the statements in this anti-smoking campaign

The ad campaign has received some criticism, mainly because it has taken so long for the ads to appear and that the ads themselves are so bland that no one will notice them. Cummings has a different take, though.

So these truth statements are bland and unnoticable. So the difference between lies and truth when put through a court of law turn out to be bland and unnoticable

Cummings said the corrective statements finally are being published after 11 years of legal wrangling, and it simply reminds him that the cigarette companies are experts at the art of non-confession. “When I see the corrective statements I’m angry. I’m sad it has taken so long. And when I hear tobacco company representatives refer to them as ‘alleged’ factual statements, it makes my blood boil. They knew back in the ’50s their products killed people, and they lied about it. It is time for them to fess up to their actions.”

This isn't news. Its his opinion and its likely spin.

LOL Sorry OP.
Your rant, then your signature.

Thank you for the laugh.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

www.nbcnews.com...

here are some of the statements that the court ordered big tobacco must make:

Some of the statements people will see in newspapers and on television:

Altria, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, Lorillard, and Philip Morris USA intentionally designed cigarettes to make them more addictive. Cigarette companies control the impact and delivery of nicotine in many ways, including designing filters and selecting cigarette paper to maximize the ingestion of nicotine, adding ammonia to make the cigarette taste less harsh, and controlling the physical and chemical make-up of the tobacco blend.


When you smoke, the nicotine actually changes the brain — that's why quitting is so hard.



Secondhand smoke kills over 38,000 Americans each year. Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer and coronary heart disease in adults who do not smoke. Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, severe asthma, and reduced lung function. There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.

Now how do they know if a heart attack or lung cancer was caused by second hand smoke???? This is straight epimidiology and is a lie. Google James Enstrom and read the story of the largest study conducted by the American cancer Study

Point 1 -goodness, Cigarette producers found out what their customers want and gave it to them. How evil can you get.

point 2 - notice that there is no use of the word "addictive". in this thread we have already discussed why the definition of the word "addictive" is so problematic) I have also discussed that the release of endorphorins actually changes the brain. That is why everything is addictive and has no meaning. That is not to say that quitting isn't hard. Its hard to change all kinds of habits.

Point 3 - Now how do they know if a heart attack or lung cancer was caused by second hand smoke???? This is straight epimidiology and is a lie. Anti-smokers have known this a lie since 2003 Google James Enstrom and read the story of the largest study conducted by the American cancer Study

www.bmj.com...

The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.

The story of James Enstrom and what happened to him as the result of this study in

www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org...

The story is quite interesting and let to politicans defending him. The story is quite interesting and involves the effects of fine particulate (PM 2.5).

www.jpands.org...


Don't bother responding to me until you have read James Enstrom story

and its conclusion

dailybruin.com...

Don't you even think you have done any meaningful research at all until you have read this story

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

You the one defending a industry making money of an addiction.

Spin and false arguments after false arguments by you.

The only thing You showing is you sold out to corporations. So sad.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Quote some truthful advertising by big tobacco?

a reply to: neutronflux

The job of advertising is truth??? Since when? I thought companies paid for advertising to entice customers to their brand?

Is this truth thing applied only to tobacco companies?

Did you read about James Enstrom? I refuse to debate with you until you know the story.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: neutronflux

The job of advertising is truth??? Since when? I thought companies paid for advertising to entice customers to their brand?

Is this truth thing applied only to tobacco companies?

Did you read about James Enstrom? I refuse to debate with you until you know the story.

So if cigarettes are safe, list true advertising by big tobacco.

Is advertising is not true, then it’s a lie.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

here is a bunch of big pharma 1950s ads.

www.vintageadbrowser.com...''

Where was the truth?? Why don't they have publish corrective statements? Wonder what was in all the weight loss pills?

a reply to: neutronflux

Did you read the James enstrom story????

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Order statement from the Tobacco Companys

There is no safe level of exposure to second hand smoke???

So that would make second hand smoke more toxic and dangerous than exposure to sarin gas

www.osha.gov...

Summary of CDC and U.S. Army Airborne Exposure Limits Airborne Exposure Limits Maximum Time of Exposure Concentration of GA (mg/m3) Concentration of GB (mg/m3) Concentration of GD/GF (mg/m3) Concentration of VX (mg/m3) IDLH (Immediately Dangerous to Life/Health) one time exposure 0.1a,b 0.1a,b 0.05a,c 0.003a,b STEL (Short-Term Exposure Limit) 15-minute exposure, limited to one occurrence per day 0.0001a,b [1E-4] 0.0001a,b [1E-4] 0.00005a,c [5E-5] 0.00001a,b [1E-5] WPL (Worker Population Limit) Time-weighted average (TWA) for 8 hr/day, 5 days/wk 0.00003a,b,c [3E-5] 0.00003a,b [3E-5] 0.00003a,c [3E-5] 0.000001a,b [1E-6] GPL (General Population Limit) Time-weighted average (TWA) for 24 hr/day, 7 days/wk, lifetime 0.000001a,b [1E-6] 0.000001a,b [1E-6] 0.000001a,c [1E-6] 0.0000006a,b [6E-7] Percutaneous Vapor Toxicity Calculated Minimal Effect Values for 2 hour Exposure Period 2.7 1.5 0.375 0.03

So you, a reasonable intelligent person, actually believe that there is no safe level of exposure to second hand smoke but there such limits for Sarin gas.

So you actually believe that it is safer to be exposed to sarin gas than second hand smoke??

And nothing about common sense causes you to question this?

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

If the ad campaigns by big tobacco are not lies, then quote their truthful adds?

If it’s not true, then it’s a lie, if it’s a lie, that is fraudulent advertising.

Cigarette companies will tell the truth when forced by settlements.

Big Tobacco to spend millions on self-critical ads as part of legal settlement
By Jennifer Maloney
Published: Oct 3, 2017 8:25 a.m. ET

www.marketwatch.com...


Broadcast television networks and metro newspapers are about to get a boost from an unexpected but familiar source: Big Tobacco.

It’s an old media buy to resolve an old fight. Starting as soon as next month, Altria Group Inc. MO, -0.13% and British American Tobacco PLC BATS, -0.91% will begin running court-mandated ads to put to rest a lawsuit brought nearly two decades ago by the U.S. Department of Justice over misleading statements the industry had made about cigarettes and their health effects.

Altria, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, Lorillard, and Philip Morris USA intentionally designed cigarettes to make them more addictive,” one ad will say. Another reads: “More people die every year from smoking than from murder, AIDS, suicide, drugs, car crashes, and alcohol, combined.”

Please state the noble case of defending big tobacco again.....

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Order statement from the Tobacco Companys

There is no safe level of exposure to second hand smoke???

So that would make second hand smoke more toxic and dangerous than exposure to sarin gas

www.osha.gov...

Summary of CDC and U.S. Army Airborne Exposure Limits Airborne Exposure Limits Maximum Time of Exposure Concentration of GA (mg/m3) Concentration of GB (mg/m3) Concentration of GD/GF (mg/m3) Concentration of VX (mg/m3) IDLH (Immediately Dangerous to Life/Health) one time exposure 0.1a,b 0.1a,b 0.05a,c 0.003a,b STEL (Short-Term Exposure Limit) 15-minute exposure, limited to one occurrence per day 0.0001a,b [1E-4] 0.0001a,b [1E-4] 0.00005a,c [5E-5] 0.00001a,b [1E-5] WPL (Worker Population Limit) Time-weighted average (TWA) for 8 hr/day, 5 days/wk 0.00003a,b,c [3E-5] 0.00003a,b [3E-5] 0.00003a,c [3E-5] 0.000001a,b [1E-6] GPL (General Population Limit) Time-weighted average (TWA) for 24 hr/day, 7 days/wk, lifetime 0.000001a,b [1E-6] 0.000001a,b [1E-6] 0.000001a,c [1E-6] 0.0000006a,b [6E-7] Percutaneous Vapor Toxicity Calculated Minimal Effect Values for 2 hour Exposure Period 2.7 1.5 0.375 0.03

So you, a reasonable intelligent person, actually believe that there is no safe level of exposure to second hand smoke but there such limits for Sarin gas.

So you actually believe that it is safer to be exposed to sarin gas than second hand smoke??

And nothing about common sense causes you to question this?

I believe that cigarettes companies conspired to produce a product not vital to life more addictive, and lied to cover up how harmful their products are.

a reply to: neutronflux

Like sugar companies?

... or GMO companies?