Best
89 Comments
Post
  • #6
    !
    Can we get these same federal courts to make Barry pay for TV/radio/internet commercials stating the truths about all his "falsehoods", or is this just going to be a continuation of trying to demean and degrade what certain groups dont like so they have to try and destroy it for everyone?
    Barry would be broke in a week if he had to pay for his lies that he's told to the American public.
    If people don't know by now that tobacco use "could" affect you adversely and maybe even kill you, then maybe they need some rat poison mixed in with their food on a daily basis. Barry smokes, its a wonder he's not suing the tobacco company.
    Here's an idea, why can't people leave others alone? Why do certain "holier than thou" groups need to impose their will onto others? Pathetic society this once great nation,(turned global joke) we have become.
  • #3
    !
    Not many people watch TV anymore. Not many people who do watch commercials. Not many people don't already know that the tobacco companies lied. Not many people smoke any more. The money would have been better spent providing healthcare to those who were harmed.
  • #49
    !
    I do agree with your logic. I think all this is geared for the upcoming generation of smokers though. The idea being hit em hard hit em young.
  • #75
    !
    @PNWest I haven't watched TV in the traditional sense we brought a DVR in the house. Occasionally I slow down during commercials if something year catches my eye. I fully agree with your comments.
  • #86
    !
    How exactly did they lie? I'm no fan of tobacco. But if you put X amount of cancer-causing material into your body doesn't it follow that 2X or any number greater than 1 times X is going to pose a greater risk and then by definition doing the smaller amount would indeed be "safer", not "safe" but "safer". If they had said "low tar low nicotine cigarettes are perfectly safe and without risk" that would've been a lie. Saying they are "safer" is self-evidently true, unless there's something I haven't heard of. If they seriously adulterated low-tar low-nicotine cigarettes to the point where the new health dangers outweigh any decrease in the other harm-causing materials then it would be a lie.
  • R Load more replies

  • #2
    !
    The free speech argument is weird. It's bad enough that we have an industry based on selling an addictive carcinogen. Are the tobacco companies claiming they have a constitutional right to lie about their products' safety?
  • #36
    !
    @dances-weebles First, they do have the right to lie, but they also have to face the liability of doing so when lying about the safety of their product. Second, smokers don't have the right of someone making them feel guilty about it, in fact, if someone feels they want to make you feel guilty about something it is their first amendment right to do so.
  • #38
    !
    @AceLuby ah... so you're saying that my mother was only exercising her first amendment rights when she spreads guilt like butter?
  • R Load more replies

  • #21
    !
    They should have published the cost to the Federal Tax payer for these 1200 people a day dying for the last six months of their life and have the $'s contributed to Medicare, Medicaid or to unpaid hospital bills rather than enriching the TV stations for air time
  • #16
    !
    Here is the hypocrisy of govt in full bloom. The govt makes more money than the tobacco companies from the sale of a pack of cigarettes. State taxes and federal taxes combined. If they're so concerned (and I don't smoke) then why don't they just ban it? Follow the money, always follow the money.
  • #19
    !
    Because (and this line of thinking is more prevalent due to the political climate the last few years) the tobacco corporations are just heartless leeches getting rich off blood money! Whereas the government is the symbolic embodiment of the will of We The People! It is pure and beyond reproach! Sigh.
  • #22
    !
    @Real4WheelDrv I sincerely wish you Obama haters would stop pretending that this is any different under obama than it has been for the last 40 years. We have known the dangers of smoking for at least that long and govt has made trillions on tobacco taxes under every president during that time. Obama is no better or worse in this particular case.
  • #24
    !
    @jessejaymes Nowhere did I mention the current administration, I said "government". Taxes were being raised and collected on tobacco products long before Obama filled the office. Doesn't matter what we do as long as people blindly support platforms instead of the individuals behind them...and I'm enough of a bitter cynic to believe that government officials on both sides probably receive kickbacks from drug cartels and many other sources, so keeping pot legalization/immigration and other issues in eternal gridlock is beneficial.
  • #53
    !
    Our experience with trying to control alcohol and pot should remind us that trying to keep Americans from their own stupidity is an exercise in futility. Might as well tax the bejeesus out of it and make some voluntary tax money from that stupidity.
  • R Load more replies

  • #29
    !
    If we're going to institute policies that put any industry out of business I can't think of a better choice.
    Lets put these cancer merchants out of the murder business.
  • #35
    !
    These commercials will hardly put any tobacco companies out of business. For onr thing, most have diversified so much or been swallowed up and are now part of conglomerates that if they went belly up, it would not be the end of them. Second, tobacco addiction will continue to keep tobacco farms tilling their soil.
  • #9
    !
    no. they should have been made to pay for medical expenses only to ex smokers. no big cash payouts either.
  • #20
    !
    @bsking

    Why? is there something wrong withh having a smoke now and then? i bet my lungs are ealtier than someone living in Phoenix (but it's a dry smog...)
  • #8
    !
    Stupid. In the early '50s both cigarette companies & the government showed us films on the dangers of smoking. It wasn't the films that scared us away from smoking...it was the fear of our parents wrath that did. Ever since the advent of "The Geat Society" & cradle to grave welfare and schools teaching that home, traditional American values, and that government not parents rules has led to the breakdown in societal norms that kept America from declining into a second rate 3rd world jungle. Citizens will rue the day that they voted for the clown and his "bread & circuses" act.
  • #13
    !
    What cause is that? hyped falsehoods?

    maybe what we need on that issue is the vaccine deniers to make a commercial sayingg they lied about it...
  • #27
    !
    @bsking

    people who dont want their kids or grandkids contracting some preventable disease because some parents bought into some false hype.
  • #51
    !
    Absolutely woodstick! Science proved their part in this whole fiasco with childhood shots, but Jenny McCarthy and her crew never had to prove a damn thing. It'll take a long time to get over the damage they have done.
  • #54
    !
    @Loridae Plus part of the issue was taking that many shots in a single dose. Now they have the shots singly so you can give them one by one.
  • R Load more replies

  • #77
    !
    They didn't lie. By definition if there is less tar or nicotine the cigarette is less dangerous.
    If it's really an important point to make they should require them to say "when all factors pertaining to the way a customer uses it are equal, they are safer." All factors meaning you smoke the same exact number and in the same exact way (same sort of breathing and not covering up the holes in the filter) and then it is safer. Saying it isn't really safer because of how the customer chooses to smoke them is disingenuous. One could still get the benefits by smoking these cigarettes the same way most people smoke any cigarette.
    I'm not pro-cigarette but the ruling in this case and the reasoning used to argue that isn't really "safer" is a bunch of mental gymnastics. If you have two similar products when used the same way and one has less of a harmful substance in it, that one is safer. If people don't use it the same way, that's their own fault.
  • #72
    !
    I haven't seen these particular ads, but some of the anti-smoking ads the tobacco commpanies paid for in ca. are very powerful and effective in getting the message across, so i like the idea, but really what they should do is give prison time to the folks who knew they were lying about the dangers. People have a right to informed consent and they lied and misled people into making a deadly choice, paying for ads hardly makes up for it.
  • #71
    !
    I have a vivid memory of when I was around three years old looking at my mother smoking and telling her "smokes bad" and her saying "yeah I know". Anyone who has ever believed the lie's big tobacco has ever told wanted to be lied to. Still it's a personal choice. I smoke rarely but I do find that my Bourbon is enhanced by it.
  • #68
    !
    They have already paid. This is ridiculous. The more the govt pushes against smoking the more kids will smoke.
  • #63
    !
    I'd be more pleased if they started promoting ads on the dangers of smoking pot...That will come 20 years from now , after they assess that damage, both mentally and physically.
  • #65
    !
    Oh come on, Mimi!
    I've been smoking pot for years, since I was an adolescent. In Hawaii, we had some of the best ganja in the world, and..........and..........and. .........
    What the hell was I saying? Uh..........
    Oh well, it'll come to me!

    Where AM I, anyway!!!???
    LOL
  • R Load more comments...
Post