Atheistforums.com

(mobile link)

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0FO0ZM20140719?irpc=932

QuoteORLANDO Fla. (Reuters) - A Florida jury has awarded the widow of a chain smoker who died of lung cancer punitive damages of more than $23 billion in her lawsuit against the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, the nation's second-biggest cigarette maker.

The judgment, returned on Friday night, was the largest in Florida history in a wrongful death lawsuit filed by a single plaintiff, according to Ryan Julison, a spokesman for the woman's lawyer, Chris Chestnut.

Cynthia Robinson of Florida Panhandle city of Pensacola sued the cigarette maker in 2008 over the death of her husband, Michael Johnson.

Johnson, a hotel shuttle bus driver who died of lung cancer in 1996 at age 36, smoked one to three packs a day for more 20 years, starting at age 13, Chestnut said.

"He couldn't quit. He was smoking the day he died," the lawyer told Reuters on Saturday.

After a four-week trial and 11 hours of jury deliberations, the jurers granting the widow $7.3 million and the couple's son $9.6 million in compensatory damages.

The same jury deliberated for another seven hours before deciding to award Robinson the additional sum of $23.6 billion in punitive damages, according to the verdict forms.

Lawyers for the tobacco company, a unit of Reynolds American Inc [RAI.N] whose brands include Camel cigarettes, could not immediately be reached for comment.

But J. Jeffery Raborn, vice president and assistant general counsel for R.J. Reynolds, said in a statement quoted by the New York Times that the company planned to challenge "this runaway verdict." Such industry appeals are often successful.

Chestnut countered, "This wasn't a runaway jury, it was a courageous one."

Robinson's lawsuit originally was part of a large class-action litigation known as the "Engle case," filed in 1994 against tobacco companies.

A jury in that case returned a verdict in 2000 in favor of the plaintiffs awarding $145 billion in punitive damages, which at the time was the largest such judgment in U.S. history.

That award, however, was tossed out in 2006 by the Florida Supreme Court, which decertified the class, agreeing with a lower court that the group was too disparate and each smoker smoked for different reasons.

But the court said the plaintiffs could file lawsuits individually. Robinson was one of them.

The Florida high court also let stand the jury's findings that cigarettes are defective, dangerous and cause disease, and that Big Tobacco was negligent, meaning those issues did not have to be re-litigated in future lawsuits.

I find this ridiculous. I understand, as a smoker for 29 years (since I was 8 years old), that even back then (as my second topic here shows) the propaganda spewed by cigarette companies was abysmal however, the person smoking has the ability to quit, at any time, when they choose just like any other drug (legal, or otherwise).

Yes, cigarette companies have certain responsibility but this is making it farcical.

One smokers opinion.

-Nam

Yeah, that's ridiculous.  Personal responsibility, FFS.

Fuck the tobacco industry. I'm still a smoker, but the lies and deceit they've engaged in blatantly poisoning untold millions over the years they ought to be strung up and hanged in public. They intentionally target children and glamorize smoking and if our laws become to much for them they sell wherever the law permits. It's an industry that knows full well their product is deadly with no redeeming qualities. By the way, the biggest manufacturer of cigarettes in the world is the Chinese government.

Yeah, but this particular person started smoking in (double-check my math please) 1973, a couple years after cigarettes were known to be harmful and kept on sucking 'em down anyway til the day he died.

That said, the cigarette companies have done a lot of crap over the years (particularly trying to hide the harmful effects of second-hand smoking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-hand_smoking#Tobacco_industry_response)) and deserve whatever they get there.  And I personally would like nothing more than to see this whole industry collapse.  And here's how you do it:  don't smoke.  Discourage other people from smoking if you can, but don't force it.  Take it one person at a time.  Just like religion.

Tobacco is demonstrably the most dangerous drug ever, based on numbers of people killed and the many health risks of smoking. so first of all, why is it so easily obtainable, and secondly, why don't the tobacco companies stop producing it, knowing  they are the sellers of a dangerous, highly addictive product?

You can levy blame all around on the issue, from tobacco executives, politicians even the users. So make a choice and bitch about it.

I think it will be overturned in the appeal.  RJ Reynolds is a large corporation that has existed long after the research that proves they sell a dangerous addictive substance that kills.  They've done it in a large part by paying off politicians.  If there is any company that knows how to buy politicians, it's RJ Reynolds.  As to the question, who's at fault in this case?  Lots of people and organizations, and in no way least of all, the user.  In the end, I think it will be difficult to pin the responsibility solely on RJR.  They will walk away.

However, should they be fined into bankruptcy and out of existence, I would not shed a tear.  But that's a pipe dream.  And I don't think you could legislate them out of business, without opening up another aspect of the illegal drug trade.

But I think personally, while selling tobacco is completely legal, it's a vile and contemptible business. 

Cigarettes have been known as "coffin nails" since I was a kid. Everyone has always (yes, that's two superlatives) known that smoking was bad for you. I smoked for over 20 years, and quit. I don't blame anyone for my smoking, as it was my choice. It's like people suing Mcdonalds because they're fat. Drop the fucking cheeseburger, and you won't be so fat.

I don't think it's ridiculous at all. I am in favor of holding the very powerful tobacco lobby responsible for the deaths of smokers from smoking-related illnesses.

A couple of facts about the tobacco companies:

--They target advertising toward "replacement smokers", and until there was an outcry, targeted children in their advertising in overt and then subtle ways. Their advertising practices are nothing short of evil. They target lower-income people and certain ethnic groups, and quite successfully by looking at the statistics. The tobacco industry spends billions of dollars each year on cigarette advertising. They specifically target young people when they are at their poorest decision-making time of their lives, so they count on getting people addicted early and often.

-Smoking costs us, as a country, billions of dollars in lost productivity and healthcare every year.
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/

--Speaking of children:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLETWr0eEiE

--The tobacco lobby successfully blocked legislation that would require the Food and Drug Administration from regulating tobacco products. WHY? Nicotine is a drug, and a dangerous one. As a result, tobacco companies are free to do whatever they want and put whatever they want into their product. Cigarette smoking kills HALF of smokers. Fifty percent. You have a fifty percent chance of dying from using this product. Any FDA-regulated substance sold for consumption would not be legal for sale in the US if it caused something as benign as a discolored toenail in 50% of its users. The stastistic for smoking-related illnesses that do not end up killing the user is higher, so smoking causes adverse health events in MOST smokers.

--Cigarette smoking causes about one of every five deaths in the United States each year, making it the leading preventable cause of death.

--They purposefully adjust the amount of nicotine in tobacco to keep people optimally addicted


I used to be a smoker and fully understand the difficulty in quitting. People cannot just quit whenever they want. It's unbelievably hard to do. The tobacco companies count on your addiction.

IMHO although I think the tobacco corporations are complete arseholes, 23 billion is way over the top. Why not 23 trillion or some other ridiculous amount?   

23 billion in tobacco dollars is like telling them to give that family a stick of gum. It's not a matter of mere choice. If I sold bottles of wholesome clean water laced with arsenic chalked full of goodness would that be a matter of choice whether you drank it or not?

Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on July 20, 2014, 01:43:24 AM
Fuck the tobacco industry. I'm still a smoker, but the lies and deceit they've engaged in blatantly poisoning untold millions over the years they ought to be strung up and hanged in public.

I agree on the basis it isn't a farce. This is definitely a farce to award this one person so much based on something he had the ability to end if he really wanted to. But the propaganda laid out toward countless people, especially children, should be what these amounts are aimed at, not one single person.

-Nam

Agreed.  And btw, welcome back.  :)

Quote from: Hydra009 on July 22, 2014, 02:40:05 AM
Agreed.  And btw, welcome back.  :)

Was I gone? I didn't notice.

-Nam

interesting. How many people here would legalize pot I wonder.

Quote from: doorknob on July 22, 2014, 03:17:31 PM
interesting. How many people here would legalize pot I wonder.

I would.  There are lots of pros and few cons.  And if some pot smokers get addicted, it's their own...wait, I see what you did there.

Quote from: doorknob on July 22, 2014, 03:17:31 PM
interesting. How many people here would legalize pot I wonder.

I would legalize many drugs that are currently illegal and that is the problem with the settlement above. The negative effects of smoking have been known since way way before the plaintiffs death. He kept smoking anyway and that should mitigate the damage award. Even though it's addictive, he bears some responsibility. 

Lots of the people who are selling legal Pot are now subject to the same legal attack if this precedent stands. I have no problem with pot at all and I think that bankrupting that industry because some people WILL abuse it, and some people WILL suffer medical problems from it's use is not the way to go.

Quote from: doorknob on July 22, 2014, 03:17:31 PM
interesting. How many people here would legalize pot I wonder.

Apples and oranges. Pot doesn't cause almost immediate and powerful addiction and is not used in the same way as tobacco. I am in favor of legalizing it. I am also in favor of FDA regulation of marijuana.

Quote from: Mermaid on July 23, 2014, 07:08:52 PM
Apples and oranges. Pot doesn't cause almost immediate and powerful addiction and is not used in the same way as tobacco. I am in favor of legalizing it. I am also in favor of FDA regulation of marijuana.

It's not that the drugs are the same.
Marijuana does have some harmful effects and can be abused. If you allow those who suffer any bad consequences to bankrupt the distributor then you will probably find yourself on the wrong side of the equation somewhere along the line.

I also smoke Pot every now and then and I don't want to see it driven back underground by lawsuits.
BTW, even if this action is successful at destroying the cigarette company. The "success" will drive cigarettes into the illegal market as well since people are not going to stop smoking just because it isn't legal. The "win" is actually a loss IMO.

Quote from: Mermaid on July 23, 2014, 07:08:52 PM
Apples and oranges. Pot doesn't cause almost immediate and powerful addiction and is not used in the same way as tobacco. I am in favor of legalizing it. I am also in favor of FDA regulation of marijuana.

Good post! pot is not physically addictive, but tobacco is, and it is not regulated and can have anything added to it that is poisonous. Same for pot. Solitary

Quote from: doorknob on July 22, 2014, 03:17:31 PM
interesting. How many people here would legalize pot I wonder.

I've been on the legalize pot band wagon for awhile, because my wife has MS. I haven't personally smoked pot for many years, but I certainly would if it were available. I have a lot of aches and pains every day, and it would ease my wife's suffering considerably. She takes everything from anti nausea meds to muscle relaxants to Hydrocodone for her legs and back, and pot would serve to medicate most of that.

The tobacco thing really is ridiculous. How executives with a company that sells demonstrably the deadliest poison on the planet legally can justify it to themselves is beyond me. And probably go to church every sunday.

Anyone who can fuck the tobacco industry has my vote. 23 billion in tobacco dollars is chicken feed.. Extremely cheap chicken feed at that.

TOO MUCH! According to TobaccoAtlas.org (PDF files), the top six tobacco producing companies in the world made $346,200,000,000 in the year 2008. That's just for one year! Solitary

Quote from: Solitary on July 24, 2014, 11:55:09 AM
TOO MUCH! According to TobaccoAtlas.org (PDF files), the top six tobacco producing companies in the world made $346,200,000,000 in the year 2008. That's just for one year! Solitary

That's revenue, not profit. Profit was about 1/10th of that or around $35 billion for six companies.
I'm not in favour of tobacco, however, people who chose to smoke (or chose any other non healthy thing) chose the risks that go with it. Warning labels about the dangers of smoking have been mandated since the early 70's. Advertising has also been banned for decades. I can't see how anyone can claim they were duped into smoking.

I would legalize and control many other drugs apart from tobacco, but if you simply want to bankrupt any manufacturer or distributor then we are going to go right back to a black market and that solution is worse IMO.

Quote from: Berati on July 28, 2014, 12:50:00 PM
That's revenue, not profit. Profit was about 1/10th of that or around $35 billion for six companies.
I'm not in favour of tobacco, however, people who chose to smoke (or chose any other non healthy thing) chose the risks that go with it. Warning labels about the dangers of smoking have been mandated since the early 70's. Advertising has also been banned for decades. I can't see how anyone can claim they were duped into smoking.

I would legalize and control many other drugs apart from tobacco, but if you simply want to bankrupt any manufacturer or distributor then we are going to go right back to a black market and that solution is worse IMO.

Have you seen my second topic?

http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=5287.msg1022731#msg1022731

-Nam

You know what? I would be in favor of no longer going after the tobacco companies if their own revenue was used to care for those that developed diseases directly linked to their smoking. I'm willing to bet such legislation would make them think twice about pushing their poison.

Quote from: Shol'va on July 28, 2014, 03:44:52 PM
You know what? I would be in favor of no longer going after the tobacco companies if their own revenue was used to care for those that developed diseases directly linked to their smoking. I'm willing to bet such legislation would make them think twice about pushing their poison.

http://philanthropy.com/blogs/philanthropytoday/tobacco-company-paid-for-lung-cancer-research/14732

-Nam

Quote from: Shol'va on July 28, 2014, 03:44:52 PM
You know what? I would be in favor of no longer going after the tobacco companies if their own revenue was used to care for those that developed diseases directly linked to their smoking. I'm willing to bet such legislation would make them think twice about pushing their poison.

Already been done in 1998.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agreement

From the article:

Quote"the companies agreed to curtail or cease certain tobacco marketing practices, as well as to pay, in perpetuity, various annual payments to the states to compensate them for some of the medical costs of caring for persons with smoking-related illnesses. The money also funds a new anti-smoking advocacy group, called the American Legacy Foundation, that is responsible for such campaigns as The Truth. The settlement also dissolved the tobacco industry groups Tobacco Institute, the Center for Indoor Air Research, and the Council for Tobacco Research. In the MSA, the original participating manufacturers (OPM) agreed to pay a minimum of $206 billion over the first twenty-five years of the agreement."

Oh knock it off.. Fuck those cocksuckers. They've been dealing death for far to long and the settlement was a slap on the wrist. Their product is nearly all profit. It's not like they have to mine and refine ore to roll cigarettes and they successfully fought any legislation to slow them at every front till the 70s. If they had their way they'd make smoking mandatory for school children. In fact they were found to be giving free cigarettes out in schools overseas..

Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on July 28, 2014, 07:44:27 PM
Oh knock it off.. Fuck those cocksuckers. They've been dealing death for far to long and the settlement was a slap on the wrist. Their product is nearly all profit. It's not like they have to mine and refine ore to roll cigarettes and they successfully fought any legislation to slow them at every front till the 70s. If they had their way they'd make smoking mandatory for school children. In fact they were found to be giving free cigarettes out in schools overseas..

I believe your last part and I source my second topic (link above) as evidence.

-Nam

Fuck it..I can't argue with anyone who even tries to remotely defend the tobacco companies after they've knowingly killed millions upon millions of people and will continue to. They ought to be shot at sunrise, every fucking one of them..

Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on July 28, 2014, 09:23:37 PM
Fuck it..I can't argue with anyone who even tries to remotely defend the tobacco companies after they've knowingly killed millions upon millions of people and will continue to. They ought to be shot at sunrise, every fucking one of them..

I feel the same way about people who are antitampons.

(Mobile link)

http://m.mic.com/articles/54367/texas-legislature-bans-tampons-but-allows-guns

QuoteYou'd think the day Texas plans to put an end to safe and legal abortion, they'd be extra nice to the women whose fundamental rights will suddenly be stripped away by a bunch of Republicans with two-dollar haircuts. Nope. Not only is Texas planning to pass the most draconian anti-abortion bill in the country, but they're also planning to do it while proverbially slapping Texas women in the face. 

According to journalists on the ground, on Friday afternoon, security guards started confiscating tampons and pads from women attending House proceedings. Yup. Women who are on their period and need their sanitary products will need to leave their "weapons" at the door or be turned away. But don't worry, if you happened to bring your gun and you have your concealed carry permit, you're all set! Go right in. No need to check your gun at the door, but you're going to have to leave your tampon with them. Why are they taking pads and tampons away from women? To punish them for having a uterus? No of course not. That's what SB1, the bill that will shut down most abortion clinics in the state, is there for. According to Huffington Post, it was to preserve the "rules of decorum" because officials suspected they would be used as projectiles.

When the news about the no tampon rule spread on Twitter, women could not contain their outrage (or their lady hormones as Texas Republicans would probably put it).

-Nam

That's got to be a troll. Please let it be a troll.

Quote from: Shol'va on July 28, 2014, 10:11:40 PM
That's got to be a troll. Please let it be a troll.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/14/fringe-factor-tampons-but-not-guns-banned-in-texas-legislature.html

Guns allowed, tampons not. Because firing a bullet is nothing compared to throwing a tampon.

-Nam

If someone kills themselves with a drug because they're too stupid to quit, I feel that that's a rational outcome in the grand scheme of things.

Wait. Throwing your tampon at someone is a thing? Someone please tell me that's not a thing.

Quote from: Mermaid on July 29, 2014, 12:00:56 AM
Wait. Throwing your tampon at someone is a thing? Someone please tell me that's not a thing.

It happened last year in Texas. See, their logic actually was that registered guns with bullets in them was okay but tampons and pads were not because women protesters could use these non-lethal products against those in the Texas Congress.

Guns okay. Tampons not okay.

-Nam

Quote from: zarus tathra on July 28, 2014, 11:38:28 PM
If someone kills themselves with a drug because they're too stupid to quit, I feel that that's a rational outcome in the grand scheme of things.

1. It's not the drug (nicotine) that kills you; it's all the rest of the crap that comes along with it in the chosen delivery system (smoke). It is incumbant on the tobacco industry to deliver the actual product (nicotine) in a safer manner.

2. When you are addicted to a drug, you have a diminished capacity to make choices. Physical withdrawl is a very unpleasant thing to experience, and so you structure your whole life around having ready access to that drug. Yes, some may be able to quit on their own, but the drug addiction itself discourages that, and as such the most successful at breaking the addiction do so with medical intervention.

3. Cigarettes are sold as a cosmetic thing, like makeup or clothes â€" they're part of an image. They have no medical value. They are also advertized such that kids and teens will be enticed into making a poor decision early on, and the product designed to keep you hooked with physical addiction.

So the tobacco companies have been engaged in a campaign to catch users before they have the full reasoning capacity of an adult, with a product designed to discourage quitting when that capacity does develop, and the product is detrimental to health even with proper use. That's malicious and malevolent, and as such tobacco companies shoulder a lot of the blame for anyone's death by cigarettes.

It doesn't help when unethical scientists that work for the tobacco companies downplay or give false information about the dangers of cigarette smoking from their research. Solitary

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 29, 2014, 07:12:17 AM
1. It's not the drug (nicotine) that kills you; it's all the rest of the crap that comes along with it in the chosen delivery system (smoke). It is incumbant on the tobacco industry to deliver the actual product (nicotine) in a safer manner.

2. When you are addicted to a drug, you have a diminished capacity to make choices. Physical withdrawl is a very unpleasant thing to experience, and so you structure your whole life around having ready access to that drug. Yes, some may be able to quit on their own, but the drug addiction itself discourages that, and as such the most successful at breaking the addiction do so with medical intervention.

3. Cigarettes are sold as a cosmetic thing, like makeup or clothes â€" they're part of an image. They have no medical value. They are also advertized such that kids and teens will be enticed into making a poor decision early on, and the product designed to keep you hooked with physical addiction.

So the tobacco companies have been engaged in a campaign to catch users before they have the full reasoning capacity of an adult, with a product designed to discourage quitting when that capacity does develop, and the product is detrimental to health even with proper use. That's malicious and malevolent, and as such tobacco companies shoulder a lot of the blame for anyone's death by cigarettes.

I started when I was 8 years old. It was advertised everywhere, and in the 80's and the 90's where I lived while they kept regular cigarettes at the front of the counter (and behind), they kept cigars, mini cigars, chewing tobacco, and snuff etc., in the candy aisle.

THE CANDY AISLE!!!

Where kids go.

Also, in the candy aisle they had candy that looked and acted like tobacco products. Like, the cigarettes. Stick gum wrapped like a cigarette and instead of sucking you blew on it and powder would come out like smoke.

Then you had the "chew" gum, in a bag like chewing tobacco, with a baseball player on the package showing you that chewing is cool because baseball players do it.

Then you had the tape gum that was supposed to look like a snuff can.

Etc.,

That's how they got me, and the cigarette adverts in school. I remember one in elementary where at the front of the Cafeteria they had cartoon adverts for smoking, and how it was good for you after or before a meal. All children saw that before lunch.

I heard the excuses afterward: those were adverts for the teachers not the students. Rebuttal: they were cartoons. Answer: teachers like cartoons.

Etc.,

I was coerced into it like so many other children from the 1970's to the early 1990's when they aggressively targeted children.

People who say that didn't happen are blind to reality. My second topic is evidence it happened. I wish I had more photographic evidence but I don't but that one to PRESCHOOLERS should be enough.

Now, for people like my sister who smoke, and didn't start smoking until they were adults because "my friends do it", are fuckin' morons, in such regard. If they're going to sue people they should sue themselves for being fucking retarded.

-Nam

Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on July 28, 2014, 09:23:37 PM
Fuck it..I can't argue with anyone who even tries to remotely defend the tobacco companies after they've knowingly killed millions upon millions of people and will continue to. They ought to be shot at sunrise, every fucking one of them..

I get what you're saying but I'm trying to look at the bigger picture. This is not at all about defending the tobacco industry, it’s about personal responsibility. I think you know my views enough by now to know that I’m no shill for corporate America , but…

This is the same mentality that has people suing their local bar for being “over served”

I think the tobacco companies and farmers could still be sued for their treatment of migrant workers and use of children for labor. But I have little to no sympathy for smokers.

I’m over 50 now and I remember my older brother and I getting in trouble when I was around 10 years old for hiding my mother’s cigarettes because we had already heard how dangerous smoking was. I was 10 in 1973 and I knew it then. Anybody today claiming they were duped into smoking is just plain lying.

Why not sue Coca Cola if you’re fat and diabetic. Coke used to advertise itself as a health drink at the turn f the century.

Sorry, but IMO 26 billion to one person for their self inflicted wounds is, as the title of this thread says, ridiculous!

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 29, 2014, 07:12:17 AM
1. It's not the drug (nicotine) that kills you; it's all the rest of the crap that comes along with it in the chosen delivery system (smoke). It is incumbant on the tobacco industry to deliver the actual product (nicotine) in a safer manner.

2. When you are addicted to a drug, you have a diminished capacity to make choices. Physical withdrawl is a very unpleasant thing to experience, and so you structure your whole life around having ready access to that drug. Yes, some may be able to quit on their own, but the drug addiction itself discourages that, and as such the most successful at breaking the addiction do so with medical intervention.

3. Cigarettes are sold as a cosmetic thing, like makeup or clothes â€" they're part of an image. They have no medical value. They are also advertized such that kids and teens will be enticed into making a poor decision early on, and the product designed to keep you hooked with physical addiction.

So the tobacco companies have been engaged in a campaign to catch users before they have the full reasoning capacity of an adult, with a product designed to discourage quitting when that capacity does develop, and the product is detrimental to health even with proper use. That's malicious and malevolent, and as such tobacco companies shoulder a lot of the blame for anyone's death by cigarettes.

Just a few comments.
Nicotine by itself is incredibly toxic. There is a very small amount in each cigarette but 1 gram of pure nicotine would kill you very quickly. Nicotine is also the addictive part of cigarettes. So even leaving all the other crap out would still leave you with a deadly and addictive substance. Even if you grow your own tobacco (which is legal) you will still get the nicotine and the carcinogens (which always occur when you combust organic material like leaves) Who would you sue then? Yourself?

Everything you say about addiction and drugs can also be said bout alcohol... but alcohol is still advertised, cigarettes are not and have not been for quite some time. The campaigns you refer to to catch users while young were banned since before most of you here were born. I can't see that being used as an excuse anymore.

Alcohol companies are the next ones who will be sued by those who chose to drink (it's already happening) so be prepared to pay allot more for your booze.

BTW, I hope you all realize that the companies will simply pass the cost of the lawsuits back into the cost of the cigarettes or alcohol itself. You smokers and drinkers will be paying off the ridiculous amounts being awarded to individuals for their self inflicted wounds. Even if some of your dreams come true and the cigarette and alcohol industry are destroyed... all we will end up with is a black market (which is way worse that what we have now)... and people will still smoke and drink.

Quote from: Berati on July 29, 2014, 07:00:31 PM
I’m over 50 now and I remember my older brother and I getting in trouble when I was around 10 years old for hiding my mother’s cigarettes because we had already heard how dangerous smoking was. I was 10 in 1973 and I knew it then. Anybody today claiming they were duped into smoking is just plain lying.

So, I am a liar?

Fuck you.

-Nam

Quote from: Nam on July 29, 2014, 07:46:00 PM
So, I am a liar?

Fuck you.

-Nam

Get used to it. I've never seen him argue a case without making unbased assumptions and generalizations.

Quote from: Berati on July 29, 2014, 07:28:58 PM
Just a few comments.
Nicotine by itself is incredibly toxic. There is a very small amount in each cigarette but 1 gram of pure nicotine would kill you very quickly. Nicotine is also the addictive part of cigarettes. So even leaving all the other crap out would still leave you with a deadly and addictive substance.

Irrelevant. In the dosages delivered in your typical cigarette, nicotine is not particularly toxic, just addictive. Dosage is everything.

Quote from: Berati on July 29, 2014, 07:28:58 PM
Even if you grow your own tobacco (which is legal) you will still get the nicotine and the carcinogens (which always occur when you combust organic material like leaves) Who would you sue then? Yourself?

Irrelevant. It is the tobacco companies who make the product, so they can be subject to lawsuit because they are the ones who develop the product for mass consumption and as such bear responsibility for making the product as safe as feasable in its intended use.

Quote from: Berati on July 29, 2014, 07:28:58 PM
Everything you say about addiction and drugs can also be said bout alcohol... but alcohol is still advertised, cigarettes are not and have not been for quite some time. The campaigns you refer to to catch users while young were banned since before most of you here were born. I can't see that being used as an excuse anymore.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/ca/Big_League_Chew_bubble_gum.JPG/220px-Big_League_Chew_bubble_gum.JPG)

Made today, mimics chewing tobacco. It's all a part of the image. Explicit advertisement to children is illegal, but there's still implicit and parallel advertisement.

Quote from: Berati on July 29, 2014, 07:28:58 PM
Alcohol companies are the next ones who will be sued by those who chose to drink (it's already happening) so be prepared to pay allot more for your booze.

Minneolas to oranges (ie, while the comparison is closer, it's still not the same). You can drink moderately your entire life and not suffer ill effects from alcohol, and might even benefit medically. Not so with smoking. Used as advertised, smoking will damage your health. Also, alcohol doesn't come with a bunch of other carcinogenic crap.

I also don't think there is a single drinker out there who drinks every hour or so just to feel normal, like with cigarettes.

Quote from: Berati on July 29, 2014, 07:28:58 PM
BTW, I hope you all realize that the companies will simply pass the cost of the lawsuits back into the cost of the cigarettes or alcohol itself. You smokers and drinkers will be paying off the ridiculous amounts being awarded to individuals for their self inflicted wounds.

Self inflicted, but in diminished capacity. It speaks to the addictiveness of the cigarette that a smoker will brave the blistering cold of Vermont to have their smoke break every couple of hours. It speaks to the addictiveness of the cigarette that quitting cold turkey rarely works, and that the most successful at quitting smoking involve medical intervention. These people just don't think right when it comes to cigarettes.

Also, I doubt that the full $23 billion will actually be paid. It'll probably be knocked down as it works it's way through the appeals.

Quote from: Berati on July 29, 2014, 07:28:58 PM
Even if some of your dreams come true and the cigarette and alcohol industry are destroyed... all we will end up with is a black market (which is way worse that what we have now)... and people will still smoke and drink.

Oh, come off it. The current crop of companies may go under, but tobacco and alcohol will still both be legal â€" even if people have to resort to growing tobacco themselves (as you pointed out before). What will happen is that new companies will crop up and buy out the bankrupt companies, and start fresh with cigarettes that are more benign and may even be phased out in favor of alternative delivery modes. (I doubt alcohol will be touched by their own lawsuits; the situation is way different, and there are still microbrews.)

Yeah I gotta call bullshit here. The second time I smoked was from 1985 to 2000. Most of that time (except for a week on either end) I smoked 4 packs a day. That time period included the 11 years I lived in Taiwan and smoked their cheapest brand, Long Lifes. Those were basically Lucky Strikes with a filter. Yeah, you are talking a hooker's ass after a long pay day weekend. Nasty smokes.

I am not dead yet, dammit, and I have not wanted a smoke since 2000. But that is another story. Hey, you choose to smoke, you gambling bro. Sometimes the house wins.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 29, 2014, 10:32:57 PM
Irrelevant. In the dosages delivered in your typical cigarette, nicotine is not particularly toxic, just addictive. Dosage is everything.
Irrelevant. It is the tobacco companies who make the product, so they can be subject to lawsuit because they are the ones who develop the product for mass consumption and as such bear responsibility for making the product as safe as feasable in its intended use.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/ca/Big_League_Chew_bubble_gum.JPG/220px-Big_League_Chew_bubble_gum.JPG)

Made today, mimics chewing tobacco. It's all a part of the image. Explicit advertisement to children is illegal, but there's still implicit and parallel advertisement.
Minneolas to oranges (ie, while the comparison is closer, it's still not the same). You can drink moderately your entire life and not suffer ill effects from alcohol, and might even benefit medically. Not so with smoking. Used as advertised, smoking will damage your health. Also, alcohol doesn't come with a bunch of other carcinogenic crap.

I also don't think there is a single drinker out there who drinks every hour or so just to feel normal, like with cigarettes.
Self inflicted, but in diminished capacity. It speaks to the addictiveness of the cigarette that a smoker will brave the blistering cold of Vermont to have their smoke break every couple of hours. It speaks to the addictiveness of the cigarette that quitting cold turkey rarely works, and that the most successful at quitting smoking involve medical intervention. These people just don't think right when it comes to cigarettes.

Also, I doubt that the full $23 billion will actually be paid. It'll probably be knocked down as it works it's way through the appeals.
Oh, come off it. The current crop of companies may go under, but tobacco and alcohol will still both be legal â€" even if people have to resort to growing tobacco themselves (as you pointed out before). What will happen is that new companies will crop up and buy out the bankrupt companies, and start fresh with cigarettes that are more benign and may even be phased out in favor of alternative delivery modes. (I doubt alcohol will be touched by their own lawsuits; the situation is way different, and there are still microbrews.)

QFT.

-Nam

Quote from: Lao Tou on July 29, 2014, 11:36:34 PM
Yeah I gotta call bullshit here. The second time I smoked was from 1985 to 2000. Most of that time (except for a week on either end) I smoked 4 packs a day. That time period included the 11 years I lived in Taiwan and smoked their cheapest brand, Long Lifes. Those were basically Lucky Strikes with a filter. Yeah, you are talking a hooker's ass after a long pay day weekend. Nasty smokes.

I am not dead yet, dammit, and I have not wanted a smoke since 2000. But that is another story. Hey, you choose to smoke, you gambling bro. Sometimes the house wins.

I choose to smoke? Fuck you, too. I don't choose shit. I have attempted to quit so many times I couldn't even count. My father paid me for two years not to smoke. The physical addiction may go away after a month but the mental addiction is for life.

My sister has been smoking now for 12 years, she's tried to quit, too. Even took a pill. I tried SNUS but it didn't get me to stop smoking but to stop smoking as much. Before SNUS, I was a pack a day smoker, then during using SNUS I was a pack a week smoker. I still craved the cigarette.

And you are a liar. Ain't no way in hell you smoked 4 packs a day unless you didn't inhale. I see that with a lot of young smokers: they go through pack to pack as if it were candy but they don't inhale. They may have minute amounts of nicotine in their system but nothing that really effects in the long run.

If you smoked 4 packs a day, you'd be vomiting all the time. That's true for smoking anything in extreme excess.

-Nam

So I should be perfectly within my rights to market a product, say baby formulae made from arsenic and ground glass, market it to young mothers and kids as long as there's a disclaimer saying, "THIS IS FUCKING POISON" and if mom kills her kids with it its all on mom...  Gotcha..

Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on July 30, 2014, 12:15:51 AM
So I should be perfectly within my rights to market a product, say baby formulae made from arsenic and ground glass, market it to young mothers and kids as long as there's a disclaimer saying, "THIS IS FUCKING POISON" and if mom kills her kids with it its all on mom...  Gotcha..

McDonald's does it.

:wink:

-Nam

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on July 29, 2014, 09:23:54 PM
Get used to it. I've never seen him argue a case without making unbased assumptions and generalizations.

So I make unbased assumptions and generlizations?

Fuck you.


- Berati

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 29, 2014, 10:32:57 PM
Irrelevant. In the dosages delivered in your typical cigarette, nicotine is not particularly toxic, just addictive. Dosage is everything.
Irrelevant. It is the tobacco companies who make the product, so they can be subject to lawsuit because they are the ones who develop the product for mass consumption and as such bear responsibility for making the product as safe as feasable in its intended use.

It is relevant because the product is dangerous by nature. Just like alcohol it can't be made safe. People know this and still want to smoke, drink, and do all kinds of things that are not good for them. It's their responsibility, not someone elses.

QuoteMade today, mimics chewing tobacco.

It's bubble gum, it's not made by the tobacco industry nd it's terrible for you. Let's sue them for tooth decay.

QuoteMinneolas to oranges (ie, while the comparison is closer, it's still not the same). You can drink moderately your entire life and not suffer ill effects from alcohol, and might even benefit medically. Not so with smoking. Used as advertised, smoking will damage your health. Also, alcohol doesn't come with a bunch of other carcinogenic crap.

It's addictive and dangerous. Thousands die every year from liver disease, alcohol poisoning and drunk driving. So actually it's more like Navel oranges to Valencia oranges.

QuoteAlso, I doubt that the full $23 billion will actually be paid. It'll probably be knocked down as it works it's way through the appeals.
Oh, come off it. The current crop of companies may go under, but tobacco and alcohol will still both be legal â€" even if people have to resort to growing tobacco themselves (as you pointed out before). What will happen is that new companies will crop up and buy out the bankrupt companies, and start fresh with cigarettes that are more benign and may even be phased out in favor of alternative delivery modes. (I doubt alcohol will be touched by their own lawsuits; the situation is way different, and there are still microbrews.)

I agree that the fines will likely be reduced and that companies won't be going under. I was replying to the idea that they SHOULD be run out of business.
They won't, but the costs will be passed along. Of that I have no doubt.

Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on July 30, 2014, 12:15:51 AM
So I should be perfectly within my rights to market a product, say baby formulae made from arsenic and ground glass, market it to young mothers and kids as long as there's a disclaimer saying, "THIS IS FUCKING POISON" and if mom kills her kids with it its all on mom...  Gotcha..

So I should eat, drink and smoke whatever I want and if I get sick... it's somebody else's fault, not mine... Gotcha..

Quote from: Nam on July 29, 2014, 07:46:00 PM
So, I am a liar?

Fuck you.

-Nam

Sorry, my comment was not directed at you personally. I hadn't read your post directly preceding mine since I was replying to someone else so while it did appear as though I was calling you out specifically, I wasn't.

However, this doesn't change the fact that as far back as '73 a 10 year old me (and my 11 year old brother) knew that smoking was bad for you and you only started in '85.  As an 8 year old kid, did you hide your smoking from your parents? Was it because you knew it was bad?

Also, aren't you the one who started this thread and also said:
"the person smoking has the ability to quit, at any time, when they choose just like any other drug (legal, or otherwise). "

I can't tell where you stand anymore.

Quote from: Berati on July 30, 2014, 12:58:45 PM
So I should eat, drink and smoke whatever I want and if I get sick... it's somebody else's fault, not mine... Gotcha..

You're blaming everything on the person, in some cases you may be correct. For people like me you are not. I was targeted from the early 1980s as a child, and so were many other children where I lived. Adverts in a preschool, in elementary school. They had designated smoking areas for students at my Middle School (early 90's) and high school (early to mid 90's). Cigarette companies and the school board have responsibility in me being a smoker. They don't have 100% responsibility but you're telling me they have zero responsibility since you knew it was bad when you were younger.

I bring evidence you bring your biased opinion.

-Nam

Quote from: Berati on July 30, 2014, 02:52:26 PM
Sorry, my comment was not directed at you personally. I hadn't read your post directly preceding mine since I was replying to someone else so while it did appear as though I was calling you out specifically, I wasn't.

You're targeting people like me.

QuoteHowever, this doesn't change the fact that as far back as '73 a 10 year old me (and my 11 year old brother) knew that smoking was bad for you and you only started in '85.  As an 8 year old kid, did you hide your smoking from your parents? Was it because you knew it was bad?

My parents don't smoke. A lot of things I did back then, whether "good" or not I usually got in trouble for anyway but I never heard smoking was bad until my paternal grandfather, probably around 1990, suggested (not told) to me it was a bad habit and I shouldn't smoke but by then I was addicted.

QuoteAlso, aren't you the one who started this thread and also said:
"the person smoking has the ability to quit, at any time, when they choose just like any other drug (legal, or otherwise). "

One has nothing to do with other. However, one does have the ability to choose not to do it, like me, but the struggle is to not smoke again. It's simple to choose not to do something, it's difficult to carry it through. As I've stated: I've chosen to quit many times but while my body no longer craved it, my mind did, because I knew what it could do for me physically.

QuoteI can't tell where you stand anymore.

Not my problem.

-Nam

Quote from: Berati on July 30, 2014, 12:54:59 PM
It is relevant because the product is dangerous by nature. Just like alcohol it can't be made safe.

No chemical is "safe" by that definition. Fats, sugars, and preservatives are not "safe" by your definition, but you cannot live without fats or sugars, and better a small amount of preservatives than the toxins produced by spoilage. There is no "safety" in this world; only relative risk.

Quote from: Berati on July 30, 2014, 12:54:59 PM
People know this and still want to smoke, drink, and do all kinds of things that are not good for them. It's their responsibility, not someone elses.

People have a hard time assessing risk, even under the best of circumstances. Other, more immediate "needs" such as wanting to fit into a group or present a cool image can and often does override assessments of long term harm. We just have a hard time assessing long term consequences and weighing them properly against immediate gains. This is the reason why we have an environmental crisis shaping up in the form of CO2 pollution.

Tobacco companies are depending on the fact that people are bad at assessing long term risk. Add that to the physical cravings of addiction up against the abstractness of the future, and this makes a very bad combination for people to make sound decisions. All this makes them very culpable for the damage they cause.

Quote from: Berati on July 30, 2014, 12:54:59 PM
It's bubble gum, it's not made by the tobacco industry nd it's terrible for you. Let's sue them for tooth decay.

How about addressing the point that it's chewing gum designed to emulate chewing tobacco, instead of a strawman?

Quote from: Berati on July 30, 2014, 12:54:59 PM
It's addictive and dangerous. Thousands die every year from liver disease, alcohol poisoning and drunk driving. So actually it's more like Navel oranges to Valencia oranges.

All of which you can defend against: if you get stupid drunk, you can stay home or call a cab. You have a cut-off where you will not be served any more alcohol for the evening, reducing alcohol poisoning. You can tollerate low levels of regular alcohol consumption without incurring liver disease, and those low levels seem to have medical benefits like reducing serum cholesterol. There are things you can do to reduce the risk of alcohol consumption to nearly zero or even garner a net positive.

Contrast that with cigarettes, that have no known benefit, and any regular habit that keeps you feeling normal will eventually kill you through accumulated damage.

Sorry, the oranges to minneola comparison stands.

Quote from: Berati on July 30, 2014, 12:54:59 PM
I agree that the fines will likely be reduced and that companies won't be going under. I was replying to the idea that they SHOULD be run out of business.
They won't, but the costs will be passed along. Of that I have no doubt.

The only way such companies are going to be "run out of business" for good is the negative press of tobacco companies' slimy practices, the marginalization of the smoking population, and improved treatments for people wanting to break addiction â€" as well as the attitude that addiction of all types is a medical problem, and not a failing of one's character.

Quote from: Berati on July 30, 2014, 12:36:59 PMSo I make unbased assumptions and generalizations?

Yes.

Anymore questions?

This is an interesting thread and a lot of things that have been said i agree on, but to be honest the idea of 1 person being awarded millions of dollars in damages against a tobacco company is i think,  just fucking crazy.
Thousands of people worlwide die every day through smoking related diseases and Scotland is right up there near the top of the league, so to speak.
The majority of people who smoke know that it can seriously damage their health and mibbe kill them but they still do it so nobody to blame but themselves
Personally speaking , i gave up smoking because of health issues after being a smoker for 40 years, i just wish id known when i had that 1st cigarette aged 13 what the consequences would be but i didnt, i kept on smoking through my teenage years and into adulthood knowing that it was doing me damage but i enjoyed it so much that i just didnt care.
I also know that some people can have difficulty in stopping but in my own case i stopped dead, mibbe could have worded that a bit better, but i mean i just stopped, cold turkey style and that was it, havent had a smoke since, 10 months now........................

Quote from: Green Bottle on July 30, 2014, 05:39:04 PM
This is an interesting thread and a lot of things that have been said i agree on, but to be honest the idea of 1 person being awarded millions of dollars in damages against a tobacco company is i think,  just fucking crazy.

Billions not millions.

QuoteThe majority of people who smoke know that it can seriously damage their health and mibbe kill them but they still do it so nobody to blame but themselves

Have you ever had an addiction before? Was it easy for you to stop? If it was so easy we wouldn't be having this conversation

QuotePersonally speaking , i gave up smoking because of health issues after being a smoker for 40 years, i just wish id known when i had that 1st cigarette aged 13 what the consequences would be but i didnt, i kept on smoking through my teenage years and into adulthood knowing that it was doing me damage but i enjoyed it so much that i just didnt care.

So you equate your experience with everyone else's? How simplistic of you.

QuoteI also know that some people can have difficulty in stopping but in my own case i stopped dead, mibbe could have worded that a bit better, but i mean i just stopped, cold turkey style and that was it, havent had a smoke since, 10 months now........................

10 months? This is your first time quitting? You'll most likely smoke again.

-Nam

Nam i dont know what point or pts ur trying to make man, this is my own personal experience of smoking and i wasnt trying to compare or equate as u say with anyone else.
And yes i have had other addictions apart from the smoking cigarettes, and no it wasnt easy to stop, i said that i stopped smoking ''just like that but i never said it was fkn easy.
You also said that id '' most likely start smoking again, no , i wont and i know it for a fact, you dont know me at all so stop assuming you do,
And ok , i said millions instead of billions so fkn sue me.......................

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on July 30, 2014, 05:16:41 PM
Yes.

Anymore questions?

Yah, why are you such a sore loser?

Quote from: Green Bottle on July 30, 2014, 06:21:47 PM
You also said that id '' most likely start smoking again, no , i wont and i know it for a fact, you dont know me at all so stop assuming you do,

I don't need to know you. And you can't say, "I know for a fact I won't start again" -- idiots say crap like that. Are you an idiot?

-Nam

Quote from: Nam on July 30, 2014, 07:27:43 PM
I don't need to know you. And you can't say, "I know for a fact I won't start again" -- idiots say crap like that. Are you an idiot?

-Nam

No but you obviously are, when i said that i wont smoke again i  meant it, i dont give a flying fuck  if u beleive this or not, its a fact.

Quote from: Green Bottle on July 30, 2014, 07:34:09 PM
No but you obviously are, when i said that i wont smoke again i  meant it, i dont give a flying fuck  if u beleive this or not, its a fact.

Whether you "meant it" or not is irrelevant to reality. You do not know the future. You have no idea what your future self will do.

-Nam

Quote from: Nam on July 30, 2014, 03:05:21 PM
You're blaming everything on the person, in some cases you may be correct. For people like me you are not. I was targeted from the early 1980s as a child, and so were many other children where I lived. Adverts in a preschool, in elementary school. They had designated smoking areas for students at my Middle School (early 90's) and high school (early to mid 90's). Cigarette companies and the school board have responsibility in me being a smoker. They don't have 100% responsibility but you're telling me they have zero responsibility since you knew it was bad when you were younger.

I bring evidence you bring your biased opinion.

-Nam

First, I didn't say they had zero responsibility, I AGREED WITH YOU that $26 billion for one case was ridiculous. I supported the tobacco master settlement worth some $200 billion which I mentioned and I also suggested they be sued over their use of migrant and youth workers. So no, I'm not seeing this from just one side , but at some point smokers have to own their decisions in life. IMO we've past that point.

And I bring evidence as well.
Why does you're not knowing the dangers of smoking as a child constitute evidence but my knowing of the dangers of smoking as a child not count as evidence?
Why doesn't bringing up the advertising ban several times count as evidence?  Are things only evidence when they support your position?
Also, even when the advertising was in place, there were plenty of anti smoking campaigns on TV, in newspapers, surgeon generals warnings etc... Clearly many people did know it was a hazard and didn't smoke while others just ignored the warnings.
I've also brought up the "over served" example to show how people are wrapping themselves in victimhood, but that seems not to count because it's only booze. You know the other addictive and deadly drug advertised to young people that can in no way be compared to nicotine.  :wall:

But you and APA are the smokers here. You are the ones who will be paying for these settlements not me. It's your money, so rail on.

Quote from: Berati on July 30, 2014, 08:12:01 PM
First, I didn't say they had zero responsibility, I AGREED WITH YOU that $26 billion for one case was ridiculous. I supported the tobacco master settlement worth some $200 billion which I mentioned and I also suggested they be sued over their use of migrant and youth workers. So no, I'm not seeing this from just one side , but at some point smokers have to own their decisions in life. IMO we've past that point.

In today's day, sure. But your day? My day? Barely.

I have done many drugs in the past: acid, morphine, marijuana, alcohol, mushrooms, etc., it was easier to quit all those but the last one, cigarettes not simple at all.

Nicotine doesn't need to be in cigarettes. Tobacco companies can actually remove it but they don't. It's not the cigarette we're actually addicted to, it's the nicotine. Dependant on length of time and dosage.

I took SNUS for two years; I stopped because it was hurting my chest; I still have a can in my room but it just sits there because I'm not addicted to SNUS, I am addicted to the nicotine in it.

Take out the nicotine take away the addiction and then it becomes 100% the smokers fault.

Oh, and you agreed with me on one issue, then added other things.

QuoteAnd I bring evidence as well.
Why does you're not knowing the dangers of smoking as a child constitute evidence but my knowing of the dangers of smoking as a child not count as evidence?

That's not my evidence. My evidence is children being targeted by cigarette companies. I provide a link to my second topic on here which shows my class picture from preschool in 1981/1982 where it has KOOL cigarettes on a Charlie Brown and Snoopy background. It's on a hot air balloon.

Do you think they stopped there? They weren't telling us smoking was bad, they weren't telling us anything they were letting the adverts do the work and none of them were anti-smoking adverts.

QuoteWhy doesn't bringing up the advertising ban several times count as evidence?  Are things only evidence when they support your position?

What year was this ban? What is it Nationwide? Or just where you lived?

QuoteAlso, even when the advertising was in place, there were plenty of anti smoking campaigns on TV, in newspapers, surgeon generals warnings etc... Clearly many people did know it was a hazard and didn't smoke while others just ignored the warnings.

Again: Nationwide or just where you live/d? Because it wasn't where I lived until the mid to late 1990s.

QuoteI've also brought up the "over served" example to show how people are wrapping themselves in victimhood, but that seems not to count because it's only booze. You know the other addictive and deadly drug advertised to young people that can in no way be compared to nicotine.  :wall:

Uh huh.

QuoteBut you and APA are the smokers here. You are the ones who will be paying for these settlements not me. It's your money, so rail on.

Uh huh.

-Nam

Quote from: Berati on July 30, 2014, 07:02:27 PM
Yah, why are you such a sore loser?

Pointing out that you like making broad, unqualified statements hardly makes me a sore loser (or any sort of loser, for that matter). If you don't want to be criticized for it, fix your arguments.

I read at varying places that the ad campaign by cigarette companies targeted toward young adults (aka children) ended in 1997. While the radio and television adverts ended in 1970.

Cartoons aren't something normally aimed at "young adults" but rather children. In my opinion (and many others).

-Nam

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on July 30, 2014, 09:54:25 PM
Pointing out that you like making broad, unqualified statements hardly makes me a sore loser (or any sort of loser, for that matter). If you don't want to be criticized for it, fix your arguments.

What makes you a sore loser is following me around with baseless insults because I shot down your pet philosophy.

Next time you think I've made a broad unqualified statement, point it out and we can hash it out. Otherwise your snipes are just cowardice and the sign of a sore loser.

Quote from: Nam on July 30, 2014, 09:15:37 PM
What year was this ban? What is it Nationwide? Or just where you lived?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_advertising
Since 1967:
"In June 1967, the Federal Communications Commission ruled that programs broadcast on a television station that discussed smoking and health were insufficient to offset the effects of paid advertisements that were broadcast for five to ten minutes each day. "We hold that the fairness doctrine is applicable to such advertisements," the Commission said. The FCC decision, upheld by the courts, essentially required television stations to air anti-smoking advertisements at no cost to the organizations providing such advertisements."

Nation wide ban on radio and television since 1971.

QuoteAgain: Nationwide or just where you live/d? Because it wasn't where I lived until the mid to late 1990s.

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/Data_statistics/sgr/history/index.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_packaging_warning_messages

The United States was the first nation to require a health warning on cigarette packages starting in 1966

"Caution: Cigarette Smoking May be Hazardous to Your Health (1966â€"1970)
Warning: The Surgeon General Has Determined that Cigarette Smoking is Dangerous to Your Health (1970â€"1985)
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy. (1985â€")
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Quitting Smoking Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to Your Health. (1985â€")
On January 11, 1964, Luther L. Terry, M.D., Surgeon General of the U.S. Public Health Service, released the first report of the Surgeon General's Advisory Committee on Smoking and Health."

http://www.antismokingadvisor.com/anti-smoking-ad-campaigns

"Since the 1960s, anti-smoking ad campaigns have circulated in the United States. At first, they were funded by private, usually socially conservative, groups who viewed smoking as more of a moralistic problem than a health concern. But as time went on and the negative health effects of smoking became more known and accepted, the anti-smoking campaigns began to focus more and more on the negative health effects of cigarette smoking. This shift began in 1964, after the Surgeon General released a comprehensive study based upon 15 years of research revealing the negative health effects of smoking. Even so, it took decades of further education, in the face of constant tobacco industry denial, to firmly implant the negative effects of smoking in the public mind."


There has been plenty of warning for a long time about the dangers of smoking. People chose to smoke anyway.

And from your own source, you see an advertisement for cigarettes that only ended within the last four years:

Quote
Recently, even further restrictions took effect under the newly enacted Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. Effective 22 June 2010, the new regulations prohibit tobacco companies from sponsoring sports, music, and other cultural events. Also, tobacco companies can no longer display their logos or advertise their products on T-shirts, hats, or other apparel. Eventually, the law is planned to require almost all tobacco advertisements to consist of black text on a white background, but the constitutionality of that requirement has come under scrutiny.[57]

So we have had something like 49 years where tobacco companies were free to advertize in the form of sponsoring sports events, etc, their logos displayed unobtrusively in the background, and on tee-shirts. So everyone older than four has potentially seen these ads.

Quote
There has been plenty of warning for a long time about the dangers of smoking. People chose to smoke anyway.

And the tobacco companies make that decision worse in almost every way. While they may have to devote space on their packages to warn the public, they don't take this product off the shelf altogether. They manipulate the nicotine content to maximize addiction, making sure that if and when the smoker does decide to quit, it's that much harder to quit. They still use smoke as a nicotine delivery system, instead of phasing it out for less dangerous ways to deliver the drug. As tobacco companies were still allowed to advertise their product up until four years ago, everyone over four probably has seen them. They are simply not interested in our health.

Yeah, ultimate responsibility rests with the smoker, but when your entire business is built around exacerbating that poor choice, you bear part (even most) of the blame.

Quote from: Berati on July 31, 2014, 01:09:03 PMWhat makes you a sore loser is following me around with baseless insults because I shot down your pet philosophy.

You have a very interesting memory of past arguments.

Quote from: Berati on July 31, 2014, 01:09:03 PMNext time you think I've made a broad unqualified statement, point it out and we can hash it out. Otherwise your snipes are just cowardice and the sign of a sore loser.

I've done no sniping. I warned another user that you are known for making broad, unfounded generalizations. Since you had done exactly that (assuming that everyone should know cigarettes are dangerous by a certain age when this is patently untrue) right before I issued this warning, I don't see how this is unfair of me to say. Again, if you do not wish to draw criticism, fix your arguments.

I am going to put you on my ignore list now. I have neither the desire nor the patience to argue with someone who is only interested in mudslinging.

Quote from: Berati on July 31, 2014, 01:33:30 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_advertising
Since 1967:
"In June 1967, the Federal Communications Commission ruled that programs broadcast on a television station that discussed smoking and health were insufficient to offset the effects of paid advertisements that were broadcast for five to ten minutes each day. "We hold that the fairness doctrine is applicable to such advertisements," the Commission said. The FCC decision, upheld by the courts, essentially required television stations to air anti-smoking advertisements at no cost to the organizations providing such advertisements."

Nation wide ban on radio and television since 1971.
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/Data_statistics/sgr/history/index.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_packaging_warning_messages

The United States was the first nation to require a health warning on cigarette packages starting in 1966

"Caution: Cigarette Smoking May be Hazardous to Your Health (1966â€"1970)
Warning: The Surgeon General Has Determined that Cigarette Smoking is Dangerous to Your Health (1970â€"1985)
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy. (1985â€")
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Quitting Smoking Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to Your Health. (1985â€")
On January 11, 1964, Luther L. Terry, M.D., Surgeon General of the U.S. Public Health Service, released the first report of the Surgeon General's Advisory Committee on Smoking and Health."

http://www.antismokingadvisor.com/anti-smoking-ad-campaigns

"Since the 1960s, anti-smoking ad campaigns have circulated in the United States. At first, they were funded by private, usually socially conservative, groups who viewed smoking as more of a moralistic problem than a health concern. But as time went on and the negative health effects of smoking became more known and accepted, the anti-smoking campaigns began to focus more and more on the negative health effects of cigarette smoking. This shift began in 1964, after the Surgeon General released a comprehensive study based upon 15 years of research revealing the negative health effects of smoking. Even so, it took decades of further education, in the face of constant tobacco industry denial, to firmly implant the negative effects of smoking in the public mind."


There has been plenty of warning for a long time about the dangers of smoking. People chose to smoke anyway.

[EDIT]

I guess you missed my other comment where it said it didn't end everywhere else but TV and RADIO until 1997? Or you ignored it.

I see most were eliminated by 1997, some more in 2010, and other ways still out there.

Do you think radio and television is the end of adverts?

-Nam

Quote from: Nam on July 31, 2014, 04:13:17 PM
I guess you missed my other comment where it said it didn't end everywhere else but TV and RADIO until 1997?

Or you ignored it.

-Nam

Sorry Nam, forgot to warn you: He's also a fan of cherrypicking.

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on July 31, 2014, 04:16:16 PM
Sorry Nam, forgot to warn you: He's also a fan of cherrypicking.

It's okay, I'm stubborn and pigheaded and don't let go of things easily. :wink:

-Nam

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on July 31, 2014, 04:08:25 PM
You have a very interesting memory of past arguments.

You mean accurate.

QuoteI've done no sniping. I warned another user that you are known for making broad, unfounded generalizations.

Speak for yourself. I have allot of likes in the short time I've been here. You are the one with the problem here, not me.

QuoteSince you had done exactly that (assuming that everyone should know cigarettes are dangerous by a certain age when this is patently untrue) right before I issued this warning, I don't see how this is unfair of me to say. Again, if you do not wish to draw criticism, fix your arguments.

And I listed all of the evidence to show when the ad bans began, when the warning labels went out, and when the anti smoking campaigns began... so no, my ill informed troll, that is not a broad, unfounded generalization. It's a statement of fact backed up by evidence. Once again you are having a childish fit because a big bad meany on the internet just refuses to acknowledge your superior intellect. Grow up and learn to debate without taking it personally. I'm just as good as you at playing the insult game.

QuoteI am going to put you on my ignore list now. I have neither the desire nor the patience to argue with someone who is only interested in mudslinging.

LOL.. the irony coming from Captain mudslinger.
I'm happy to be on your ignore list. You're useless and petty insults bring zero to any discussion and I wish you had put me on ignore the moment I started posting here.

Quote from: Nam on July 31, 2014, 04:13:17 PM
[EDIT]

I guess you missed my other comment where it said it didn't end everywhere else but TV and RADIO until 1997? Or you ignored it.

I see most were eliminated by 1997, some more in 2010, and other ways still out there.

Do you think radio and television is the end of adverts?

-Nam

Nope, didn't miss it, but it doesn't invalidate the point that unless you've been living in a cave, everyone has been aware of the dangers of smoking for decades. I simply don't buy the argument that anyone in the last 40 years just didn't know smoking was bad for them and were hapless victims. It has been listed, printed, discussed, talked about, advertised and literally shouted from the roof tops so much so that even a 10 year old in 1973 was aware that it was a dangerous habit.

And even should we agree on all the facts, we will still probably disagree on what to do about it since it comes down to a judgement call.
BTW, I don't hate you or anyone for disagreeing with me. I'm not like Hijiri so I won't be carrying over any disagreement in this thread to every other thread.

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on July 31, 2014, 04:16:16 PM
Sorry Nam, forgot to warn you: He's also a fan of cherrypicking.

Said the childish sore loser with an axe to grind.

Quote from: Berati on July 31, 2014, 07:19:29 PM
Nope, didn't miss it, but it doesn't invalidate the point that unless you've been living in a cave, everyone has been aware of the dangers of smoking for decades. I simply don't buy the argument that anyone in the last 40 years just didn't know smoking was bad for them and were hapless victims. It has been listed, printed, discussed, talked about, advertised and literally shouted from the roof tops so much so that even a 10 year old in 1973 was aware that it was a dangerous habit.

And even should we agree on all the facts, we will still probably disagree on what to do about it since it comes down to a judgement call.
BTW, I don't hate you or anyone for disagreeing with me. I'm not like Hijiri so I won't be carrying over any disagreement in this thread to every other thread.

FOX NEWS say they are "all about the facts" yet other outlets keep shouting that they are not.

Get it?

Of course not. You only understand your opinions and viewpoint.

-Nam

Quote from: Nam on July 31, 2014, 07:25:59 PM
FOX NEWS say they are "all about the facts" yet other outlets keep shouting that they are not.

Get it?

Of course not. You only understand your opinions and viewpoint.

-Nam

And you've shown your different how?

Quote from: Berati on July 31, 2014, 07:19:29 PM
Nope, didn't miss it, but it doesn't invalidate the point that unless you've been living in a cave, everyone has been aware of the dangers of smoking for decades. I simply don't buy the argument that anyone in the last 40 years just didn't know smoking was bad for them and were hapless victims.

This is a strawman. Nobody is saying that any given smoker is a "helpless victim." What we're pointing out is that tobacco companies share in the blame of the ultimate damage done to a smoker. In the real world, culpability does not fall on any one person's shoulders, and it doesn't here.

Quote from: Berati on July 31, 2014, 07:19:29 PM
It has been listed, printed, discussed, talked about, advertised and literally shouted from the roof tops so much so that even a 10 year old in 1973 was aware that it was a dangerous habit.

Okay, let's grant you probably everyone knows that smoking's bad for you. Now let me ask you, how many teenagers have done stupid things, putting their health and lives at risk, knowing that they are putting their lives and health at risk? At that age, you pretty much think you're indestructable.

One could make the argument that this is what being a teenager is all about.

Now consider, the teenager/young adult does not have a fully developed prefrontal cortex until their early to mid-twenties, yet are legally allowed to smoke at age 18, and those who do start the habit probably started earlier. That's a good five years they've had to develop an addiction before their decision making faculties have fully developed. By the time they're able to make a decision on par with most adults, they're already hooked.

There is a reason why the age of majority comes when it does â€" any earlier and our already notoriously poor decision-making is much worse.

The notion that a smoker must accept full responsibility for their addiction assumes that he is a completely rational decision-maker with access to all relevant data. This flies in the face with the fact that we are not. We are demonstrably very poor decision makers as a species. This is why we need laws to protect the public. This is why we have companies prove the safety and efficacy of their products, such that any product that a consumer is likely to go for will not be completely awful no matter what choice they make. That is the kind of society we live in â€" one that keeps the egregiously dangerously products out of the consumer chain entirely. But with the cigarette, every choice is a very, very wrong one, yet it is sold in the same stores as groceries. Please forgive the stupid consumer has a sense that such an item is comparable in safety to fruits and vegetables, when certain artificial sweeteners are banned for much less.

Quote from: Berati on July 31, 2014, 07:31:45 PM
And you've shown your different how?

Well, I didn't post only evidence that backed my viewpoint and past comments like you did. On one comment (as noted) went back and edited additional information that I didn't have or know.

You just keep backing your position and disregarding other facts presented.

-Nam

Quote from: Nam on July 31, 2014, 10:36:39 PM
Well, I didn't post only evidence that backed my viewpoint and past comments like you did. On one comment (as noted) went back and edited additional information that I didn't have or know.

You just keep backing your position and disregarding other facts presented.

-Nam

I accepted your facts and brought new ones. I didn't disregard a thing you said.  I agreed with your original post and you are upset because I don't agree with 100% of what you have to say and you said as much. And when I made a mistake when I missed your post I apologized.
That makes me the opinionated one?

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 31, 2014, 10:27:34 PM
This is a strawman. Nobody is saying that any given smoker is a "helpless victim."

Are you sure you've read the posts here?

QuoteWhat we're pointing out is that tobacco companies share in the blame of the ultimate damage done to a smoker.

I agree and I pointed that out as well. Remember when I listed the Tobacco master settlement agreement or said they should be sued over the migrant worker and child worker issues. The master settlement involves ongoing payments in the billions so the blame is already shared. Awarding $26 billion to an individual is ridiculous. That is the point of this thread and that is the point I agree with.

QuoteIn the real world, culpability does not fall on any one person's shoulders, and it doesn't here.

Sometimes, sometimes not.  I can easily list many instances where one person is 100% culpable for what they have done to another. I'm sure you can think of many as well.

QuoteOkay, let's grant you probably everyone knows that smoking's bad for you. Now let me ask you, how many teenagers have done stupid things, putting their health and lives at risk, knowing that they are putting their lives and health at risk? At that age, you pretty much think you're indestructable.

One could make the argument that this is what being a teenager is all about.

Now consider, the teenager/young adult does not have a fully developed prefrontal cortex until their early to mid-twenties, yet are legally allowed to smoke at age 18, and those who do start the habit probably started earlier. That's a good five years they've had to develop an addiction before their decision making faculties have fully developed. By the time they're able to make a decision on par with most adults, they're already hooked.

There is a reason why the age of majority comes when it does â€" any earlier and our already notoriously poor decision-making is much worse.

The notion that a smoker must accept full responsibility for their addiction assumes that he is a completely rational decision-maker with access to all relevant data. This flies in the face with the fact that we are not. We are demonstrably very poor decision makers as a species. This is why we need laws to protect the public. This is why we have companies prove the safety and efficacy of their products, such that any product that a consumer is likely to go for will not be completely awful no matter what choice they make. That is the kind of society we live in â€" one that keeps the egregiously dangerously products out of the consumer chain entirely. But with the cigarette, every choice is a very, very wrong one, yet it is sold in the same stores as groceries. Please forgive the stupid consumer has a sense that such an item is comparable in safety to fruits and vegetables, when certain artificial sweeteners are banned for much less.

So why not making smoking illegal? I think you know the answer to that so I won't bother with a long winded discussion.

Since we do make it legal, we can't then go after anybody who sells the legal product like they have committed a criminal act. We have made the decision to legalize cigarettes, we have made the dangers known to everyone, and it's strictly regulated.

Quote from: Berati on August 01, 2014, 08:32:41 AM
I accepted your facts and brought new ones. I didn't disregard a thing you said.  I agreed with your original post and you are upset because I don't agree with 100% of what you have to say and you said as much. And when I made a mistake when I missed your post I apologized.
That makes me the opinionated one?

You didn't bring new ones, you brought the same ones.

Reply #22:

QuoteWarning labels about the dangers of smoking have been mandated since the early 70's. Advertising has also been banned for decades. I can't see how anyone can claim they were duped into smoking.

Advertising has not been banned for decades; except on radio and TV; there are other methods of advertising that has been pointed out to you several times.

Reply #39:

QuoteI’m over 50 now and I remember my older brother and I getting in trouble when I was around 10 years old for hiding my mother’s cigarettes because we had already heard how dangerous smoking was. I was 10 in 1973 and I knew it then. Anybody today claiming they were duped into smoking is just plain lying.

This is your opinion based on your life. This is not evidence of anything.

Reply #52

QuoteHowever, this doesn't change the fact that as far back as '73 a 10 year old me (and my 11 year old brother) knew that smoking was bad for you and you only started in '85.  As an 8 year old kid, did you hide your smoking from your parents? Was it because you knew it was bad?

Repeating an opinion as if it's a fact that represents all since it represents you.  That's not evidence.

Reply #64:

QuoteAlso, even when the advertising was in place, there were plenty of anti smoking campaigns on TV, in newspapers, surgeon generals warnings etc... Clearly many people did know it was a hazard and didn't smoke while others just ignored the warnings.

I asked proceeding this comment (which I believe you never answered): was this nationwide or just where you live. You can't state where you grew up is the same where I grew up, or where someone else grew up. This is conjecture. You're assuming since anti-tobacco ads existed where you live/d it must have everywhere else.

I provided evidence (more than once) about a preschool I attended as late as 1982 where it shows KOOL cigarettes being advertised in the picture with Peanuts' characters. I stated that I saw advertising in my elementary school; there were smoking sections for students in my Middle school and High school up to 1992/3.

So, by all that information/evidence I provided one can determine that anti-tobacco adverts were nominally nonexistent where I lived up to the early to mid 1990s; there was the opposite, the promotion of it.

Your reply #69 and following is the same regurgitation that you keep spewing.

-Nam

A lot of the arguments here are framed in personal responsibility. Definitely, it is your personal responsibility to not smoke, and the consequences you suffer that stem from your personal use of tobacco are yours alone. But, if that is a reasonable argument then what about the responsibility of tobacco manufacturers to not sell dangerous products? And if it is just as reasonable to say that people should suffer the consequences of their personal decision to smoke knowing full well that it will kill them, then it is just as reasonable to say that tobacco manufacturers should suffer consequences from continuing to sell knowingly harmful products. Those consequences just happen to involve lawsuits. Look at it as a personal choice, if you want to sell harmful shit then you have to endure the consequences of your actions. 

Quote from: Berati on August 01, 2014, 08:57:24 AM
Are you sure you've read the posts here?

Yes. Apparently 'hyperbole' is not in your vocabulary.

Quote from: Berati on August 01, 2014, 08:57:24 AM
I agree and I pointed that out as well. Remember when I listed the Tobacco master settlement agreement or said they should be sued over the migrant worker and child worker issues. The master settlement involves ongoing payments in the billions so the blame is already shared. Awarding $26 billion to an individual is ridiculous. That is the point of this thread and that is the point I agree with.

It is ridiculous, but I think everyone agrees that it is ridiculous.

Quote from: Berati on August 01, 2014, 08:57:24 AM
Sometimes, sometimes not.  I can easily list many instances where one person is 100% culpable for what they have done to another. I'm sure you can think of many as well.

Do it. You say you can list many but you didn't even bother to give a single one. Do it. Submit one realistic case, not one that is obviously forced. I think I can find that even in seemingly clear-cut cases, that the blame doesn't lie entirely on one person.

Why? Because in the end, we are products of our environment and inborn proclivities. There's no getting around the fact that, ultimately, as individuals and as a society we are adrift in the sea of time.

Quote from: Berati on August 01, 2014, 08:57:24 AM
So why not making smoking illegal? I think you know the answer to that so I won't bother with a long winded discussion.

Since we do make it legal, we can't then go after anybody who sells the legal product like they have committed a criminal act. We have made the decision to legalize cigarettes, we have made the dangers known to everyone, and it's strictly regulated.

Cigarettes are NOT strictly regulated. Tobacco companies are free to adjust the content and composition of those cigarettes by wide margins, and they have adjusted that composition to maximize addictiveness. "Strict regulation" includes a wide range of requirements that a cigarette must adhere to in order to be considered legal, such as coming under a limit to nicotine (so that it is not very addictive and those who need to give up a habit after a long time of smoking have a much easier time of it), and having a cap on the amount of tar that may be deposited in the lungs (to improve safety). That's what it would take to be "strictly regulated."

Furthermore, we have NOT made the dangers known to everyone. I cannot, as a statistician, from the top of my head, give you a risk assessment for long term smoking. Yeah, I know it increases the risk of cancer, but I couldn't tell you by what amount. That is something you need to know in order to make a rational decision about smoking.

I don't smoke because I find it an odious and disgusting habit. Really? Willfully breathing a noxious mix of chemicals called 'smoke', the principle cause of death in fires? A habit that makes you and yours smell like a garbage dump walking? No thanks. The fact that I have a congenital lung condition that makes smoking particularly dangerous for me is just icing on the cake. I also admit that it is completely an emotional response, but â€"fuck itâ€" I don't care. Smoking: blech!

And that's why I cannot fault anyone starting smoking. They don't really 'know' what kind of risk they are putting themselves in. How much does smoking increase risk of lung cancer, heart disease and emphysema? How bad are each of those diseases in terms of risk of death, and physical, emotional and financial burden? Do you even know what those numbers mean? I'm betting that most people you ask will not be able to give you an answer to those questions. To them, "cigarettes are dangerous" is just something that they have been told. That doesn't mean anyone necessarily believes it as far as they have been told, or even have the same standard of what that alleged danger is. It doesn't even come down to a judgement call â€" there can be no rational "judgement" in this kind of scenario. It's a vague conception of danger competing with a tangible, immediate benefit of chemical stimulation and peer pressure. For the average consumer, it is strictly an emotional decision: does the feeling of danger override the need to fit in, or does the need to fit in quash the feeling of danger?

Contrast this with big corporations. Every large institution has armies of lawyers whose job it is to point out the legal and ethical liabilities of every action of that institution. The tobacco companies cannot be held ignorant â€" they know exactly what they're doing. The tobacco companies have willfully chosen to profit on human suffering. There are consequences for that willful decision, as there are consequences for willfully starting to smoke, only the company is fully aware of those consequences.

I'm not for making smoking illegal. But you can make it socially unacceptable, and imposing that strict regulation on the product itself to be not nearly as nasty for you. In the end, I think negative publicity will kill tobacco.

Quote from: Nam on August 01, 2014, 04:38:57 PM
You didn't bring new ones, you brought the same ones.

The same ones were new when I brought them up. They were ignored so I brought them up again.
There are not that many facts to either side of this debate. It will come down to a judgement call.

QuoteThis is your opinion based on your life. This is not evidence of anything.

Reply #52

Repeating an opinion as if it's a fact that represents all since it represents you.  That's not evidence.

You started off by bringing up your opinion based on the facts of your life. I did the same thing so I can't see how you can object to this.

QuoteI asked proceeding this comment (which I believe you never answered): was this nationwide or just where you live. You can't state where you grew up is the same where I grew up, or where someone else grew up. This is conjecture. You're assuming since anti-tobacco ads existed where you live/d it must have everywhere else.

We are discussing the United States. The ads I listed were indicated as National ads, as were the surgeon general warnings and the labelling on cigarette packs. If you live in the US then all of it applies to you as well.

Quote

I provided evidence (more than once) about a preschool I attended as late as 1982 where it shows KOOL cigarettes being advertised in the picture with Peanuts' characters. I stated that I saw advertising in my elementary school; there were smoking sections for students in my Middle school and High school up to 1992/3. So, by all that information/evidence I provided one can determine that anti-tobacco adverts were nominally nonexistent where I lived up to the early to mid 1990s; there was the opposite, the promotion of it.

I never denied this evidence, I just disagree as to the consequences of a clip art project. The bans were placed on radio and television as this is where children were most likely to see them. They continued in magazines as children are not usually exposed to them. Not many kids read GQ, or Time. It doesn't mean that they will never ever hear of the existence of cigarettes but I don't agree that hearing about the existence of cigarettes entitles anyone to claim their smoking is the fault of someone else.

I agree that we are repeating ourselves but it's not just me. As I stated, even if we agree on all the facts we can still disagree on what to do about it. If you want to hate on me because I refuse to fall in line, go ahead. I think this topic has been exhausted.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on August 01, 2014, 06:59:09 PM
Yes. Apparently 'hyperbole' is not in your vocabulary.

My own statement was no more hyperbolic than the ones I was replying to.

QuoteDo it. You say you can list many but you didn't even bother to give a single one. Do it. Submit one realistic case, not one that is obviously forced. I think I can find that even in seemingly clear-cut cases, that the blame doesn't lie entirely on one person.

Sigh... The rape of a 15 year old leaps immediately to mind. Does the victim share in the culpability? ANd no, that is not a forced example, it happens all the time. I can't see how you can claim that blame is always somehow shared. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

QuoteWhy? Because in the end, we are products of our environment and inborn proclivities. There's no getting around the fact that, ultimately, as individuals and as a society we are adrift in the sea of time.
Cigarettes are NOT strictly regulated. Tobacco companies are free to adjust the content and composition of those cigarettes by wide margins, and they have adjusted that composition to maximize addictiveness. "Strict regulation" includes a wide range of requirements that a cigarette must adhere to in order to be considered legal, such as coming under a limit to nicotine (so that it is not very addictive and those who need to give up a habit after a long time of smoking have a much easier time of it), and having a cap on the amount of tar that may be deposited in the lungs (to improve safety). That's what it would take to be "strictly regulated."

Furthermore, we have NOT made the dangers known to everyone. I cannot, as a statistician, from the top of my head, give you a risk assessment for long term smoking. Yeah, I know it increases the risk of cancer, but I couldn't tell you by what amount. That is something you need to know in order to make a rational decision about smoking.

I don't smoke because I find it an odious and disgusting habit. Really? Willfully breathing a noxious mix of chemicals called 'smoke', the principle cause of death in fires? A habit that makes you and yours smell like a garbage dump walking? No thanks. The fact that I have a congenital lung condition that makes smoking particularly dangerous for me is just icing on the cake. I also admit that it is completely an emotional response, but â€"fuck itâ€" I don't care. Smoking: blech!

And that's why I cannot fault anyone starting smoking. They don't really 'know' what kind of risk they are putting themselves in. How much does smoking increase risk of lung cancer, heart disease and emphysema? How bad are each of those diseases in terms of risk of death, and physical, emotional and financial burden? Do you even know what those numbers mean? I'm betting that most people you ask will not be able to give you an answer to those questions. To them, "cigarettes are dangerous" is just something that they have been told. That doesn't mean anyone necessarily believes it as far as they have been told, or even have the same standard of what that alleged danger is. It doesn't even come down to a judgement call â€" there can be no rational "judgement" in this kind of scenario. It's a vague conception of danger competing with a tangible, immediate benefit of chemical stimulation and peer pressure. For the average consumer, it is strictly an emotional decision: does the feeling of danger override the need to fit in, or does the need to fit in quash the feeling of danger?

Contrast this with big corporations. Every large institution has armies of lawyers whose job it is to point out the legal and ethical liabilities of every action of that institution. The tobacco companies cannot be held ignorant â€" they know exactly what they're doing. The tobacco companies have willfully chosen to profit on human suffering. There are consequences for that willful decision, as there are consequences for willfully starting to smoke, only the company is fully aware of those consequences.

I'm not for making smoking illegal. But you can make it socially unacceptable, and imposing that strict regulation on the product itself to be not nearly as nasty for you. In the end, I think negative publicity will kill tobacco.

I don't deny that you make some valid points, but IMO when we decide to allow a product to be legal, we have given the responsibility for its use to the user, not the provider. I don't feel it legally acceptible to say OK you can sell this product, but we will ruin you if you do.
Lawsuits are out of control IMO and this is just one of many examples of this. Yes...I will list many spurious lawsuits if you wish. I think there pretty well know by now but I'll list them if you insist. I'm just out of time at the moment.

Quote from: Elect on August 01, 2014, 04:58:42 PM
A lot of the arguments here are framed in personal responsibility. Definitely, it is your personal responsibility to not smoke, and the consequences you suffer that stem from your personal use of tobacco are yours alone. But, if that is a reasonable argument then what about the responsibility of tobacco manufacturers to not sell dangerous products? And if it is just as reasonable to say that people should suffer the consequences of their personal decision to smoke knowing full well that it will kill them, then it is just as reasonable to say that tobacco manufacturers should suffer consequences from continuing to sell knowingly harmful products. Those consequences just happen to involve lawsuits. Look at it as a personal choice, if you want to sell harmful shit then you have to endure the consequences of your actions.

The legal term of what we are discussing is the assumption of risk.  Precedent has already been set in activities like attending a baseball game and being struck by a line drive. You cannot sue the batter, the pitcher, the park owner or anyone else. You assumed the risk.
There are many risky activities/products that people engage in or use. If you go white water rafting you understand that it's dangerous so you can't sue the provider of the service because of the assumption of risk.

If you smoke cigarettes, you know your chances of illness are increased so the same logic applies. The dangers of smoking have been known and made known for a very long time now right on the packaging itself so I can't see claiming you were not aware of these dangers as a defense.

How is tobacco different than alcohol?

Quote from: Berati on August 05, 2014, 08:32:44 AM
The same ones were new when I brought them up. They were ignored so I brought them up again.
There are not that many facts to either side of this debate. It will come down to a judgement call.

You started off by bringing up your opinion based on the facts of your life. I did the same thing so I can't see how you can object to this.
We are discussing the United States. The ads I listed were indicated as National ads, as were the surgeon general warnings and the labelling on cigarette packs. If you live in the US then all of it applies to you as well.

Did you read the rules and guidelines to this website before joining? Not to say, in that case, adults aren't responsible but a child doesn't read such things.

QuoteI never denied this evidence, I just disagree as to the consequences of a clip art project. The bans were placed on radio and television as this is where children were most likely to see them. They continued in magazines as children are not usually exposed to them. Not many kids read GQ, or Time. It doesn't mean that they will never ever hear of the existence of cigarettes but I don't agree that hearing about the existence of cigarettes entitles anyone to claim their smoking is the fault of someone else.

Like Time magazine or similar were the only magazines out there back then.

QuoteI agree that we are repeating ourselves but it's not just me. As I stated, even if we agree on all the facts we can still disagree on what to do about it. If you want to hate on me because I refuse to fall in line, go ahead. I think this topic has been exhausted.

Hate? Please...

Mississippi is a good example: it has no ACA. Many people there says it's evil, discourage their citizens from getting healthcare -- don't you think the same could be said for when cigarette companies had to stop promoting in certain venues that they used (by buying them off) the state to promote cigarettes to people. "The liberals say it's bad but we know it's not..." or some crap?

Just because we live in the same country doesn't mean we live in the same society.

-Nam

Quote from: doorknob on July 22, 2014, 03:17:31 PM
interesting. How many people here would legalize pot I wonder.

I would.  It's natural, unless it's laced.
It helps, along with pain med., with the pain in my feet from being diabetic. I'm trying not to add or increase the pain medication and pot helps immensely, and I can actually sleep more than just 3-4 hours a night.

Aurelia

Quote from: Nam on July 29, 2014, 12:18:09 AM
It happened last year in Texas. See, their logic actually was that registered guns with bullets in them was okay but tampons and pads were not because women protesters could use these non-lethal products against those in the Texas Congress.

Guns okay. Tampons not okay.

-Nam

I can't believe my state reps could be stupid....oh wait....they're republicunts, so of course they can!  If I could see to drive I'd take a glass bottle of coke and throw it at them and let them take a softness comparison.  Those dumbfucks!

Quote from: Nam on August 05, 2014, 11:21:43 AMJust because we live in the same country doesn't mean we live in the same society.

Or in other words: this is a fucking huge country and we don't all consume the same media outlets.

Quote from: Berati on August 05, 2014, 08:52:35 AM
Sigh... The rape of a 15 year old leaps immediately to mind. Does the victim share in the culpability? ANd no, that is not a forced example, it happens all the time. I can't see how you can claim that blame is always somehow shared. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

Only in this society. In certain African tribes, institutionalized rape is not only considered okay, but a rite of passage for young men. You can hardly blame such young men for knowing rape is wrong when they've been taught their entire lives that it's okay.

Quote from: Berati on August 05, 2014, 08:52:35 AM
I don't deny that you make some valid points, but IMO when we decide to allow a product to be legal, we have given the responsibility for its use to the user, not the provider. I don't feel it legally acceptible to say OK you can sell this product, but we will ruin you if you do.

The underlined part is the sticking point. We haven't "decided" that cigarettes are legal. Like many things, they have simply been grandfathered into what we allow to be sold. They have never been subject to the kind of systematic review we put to, say, a new drug to be put on the market.

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on August 05, 2014, 01:49:06 PM
Or in other words: this is a fucking huge country and we don't all consume the same media outlets.

True. Also, what local and state governments propagate doesn't always align with other states or even the Federal government.

-Nam

Quote from: Jmpty on August 05, 2014, 09:59:59 AM
How is tobacco different than alcohol?

It is a lot more quickly physically addictive, and is unregulated.

Quote from: Mermaid on August 05, 2014, 06:06:07 PM
It is a lot more quickly physically addictive, and is unregulated.

And nobody ever died from nicotine withdrawal.

Quote from: Jmpty on August 05, 2014, 06:25:51 PM
And nobody ever died from nicotine withdrawal.

but 50% of smokers die from the effects of smoking. How many people who drink get addicted to alcohol? How many people who smoke get addicted to cigarettes?

I know lots of occasional smokers. Cigars, hookahs, etc. An addictive drug is an addictive drug. Period.

Quote from: Jmpty on August 05, 2014, 06:25:51 PM
And nobody ever died from nicotine withdrawal.

Yeah, never heard of that myself, but it fucking feels like you're dying. Vaping now. Down to 18mg from 24mg now. Taking it slow to increase my chances of success.

Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on August 06, 2014, 01:08:25 AM
Yeah, never heard of that myself, but it fucking feels like you're dying. Vaping now. Down to 18mg from 24mg now. Taking it slow to increase my chances of success.

My aunt's doing the same thing. She's down from 24mg to 16mg. I'm starting next month. (I still have two cartons; not wasting that money).

-Nam

Quote from: Jmpty on August 05, 2014, 07:53:31 PM
I know lots of occasional smokers. Cigars, hookahs, etc. An addictive drug is an addictive drug. Period.

I strongly disagree with you that cigarettes are the same as alcohol with regard to addictive properties. Period.

(http://assets.theatlantic.com/static/sullivan/6a00d83451c45669e20133f581b565970b-550wi)

(http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/files/1-medical-marijuana-images/ranking-20-drugs-and-alcohol-by-overall-harm-2.png)

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004477

I speak from experience here.  With the exception of herion, ecstasy, meth and a few others I have tried it all.  Tobacco is by far the most addictive, at least for me.  I never became addicted to alcohol.  I can drink a beer or crown for weeks on end and then stop and then never touch the stuff for months.  I can smoke pot every day for a month and then quit with no problems at all.  In my early days I've dropped acid like its pez and never once had a jones for more. I've never binged on anything else like painkillers or speed so I can't say what would have happened there.  I don't do any of that other stuff anymore.  Don't want to and don't need to.  I might have an occassional beer and that's it.  But tobacco I have never been able to stop.  I think it depends on the individual.  Some people are more succeptible to becoming addited to alcohol than others.  One person might find cocaine extremely addicting while others may not.  Maybe its your body or brain chemistry or something.

Is chocolate ice cream more addictive than vanilla ice cream?

Quote from: Jmpty on August 06, 2014, 11:38:40 AM
Is chocolate ice cream more addictive than vanilla ice cream?

Only when snorted.

Quote from: Desdinova on August 06, 2014, 10:49:40 AM
I speak from experience here.  With the exception of herion, ecstasy, meth and a few others I have tried it all.  Tobacco is by far the most addictive, at least for me.  I never became addicted to alcohol.  I can drink a beer or crown for weeks on end and then stop and then never touch the stuff for months.  I can smoke pot every day for a month and then quit with no problems at all.  In my early days I've dropped acid like its pez and never once had a jones for more. I've never binged on anything else like painkillers or speed so I can't say what would have happened there.  I don't do any of that other stuff anymore.  Don't want to and don't need to.  I might have an occassional beer and that's it.  But tobacco I have never been able to stop.  I think it depends on the individual.  Some people are more succeptible to becoming addited to alcohol than others.  One person might find cocaine extremely addicting while others may not.  Maybe its your body or brain chemistry or something.

Like you, I've taken many drugs. The drugs I'm addicted to is tobacco, caffeine, and morphine. I haven't had an alcoholic beverage since 10/11/08 (brother got married) before that January 2000. I haven't had marijuana since 2001, morphine since 2003  and every other illegal drug I've taken since 1998.

It's different for different people, I guess.

-Nam.

I use to be a serious caffeine addict, I'd drink like 3-5 cups of coffee a day. It was when I started to get high blood pressure and felt mild heart palpitations that I made a choice to lessen myself, down to 1 coffee a day.

Quote from: Munch on August 09, 2014, 06:51:02 AM
I use to be a serious caffeine addict, I'd drink like 3-5 cups of coffee a day. It was when I started to get high blood pressure and felt mild heart palpitations that I made a choice to lessen myself, down to 1 coffee a day.

I'm a soda/tea drinker; not a coffee drinker.

-Nam

Quote from: Jmpty on August 06, 2014, 10:16:16 AM
http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004477

Interesting. I repeat: Addiction to cigarettes results in 50% of users dying from it.
88,000 people die annually from alcohol use.
443,000 people die annually from tobacco use.

Both of these numbers are horribly high.

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/health/attrdeaths/index.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cdc%2FGEla+%28CDC+-+Smoking+and+Tobacco+Use+-+Main+Feed%29

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-facts-and-statistics

80-90% of people who smoke become addicted.
http://www.healtheducation.uci.edu/tobacco/socialsmoking.aspx

I can't find (or am too lazy to look very hard) any credible statistic on the percent of people who consume any alcohol that become addicts.

Alcohol is nonaddictive. People can, and quite frequently abuse alcohol. You'll find websites and/or studies saying that's a myth; they call it "selective addiction" -- meaning: long term use can equate to a psychological addiction. By that logic billions of people are addicted to food, sex, breathing etc.,

There are no percentages on alcohol addiction because it's a fallacy. They use "alcohol abuse", or what the opinions of family members/friends state about those who abuse alcohol, crime related statistics involving alcohol, and medical treatment.

It's pretty much like those against cigarettes using every death by cancer having solely be about cigarettes when many times there's no relation.

-Nam

Quote from: Mermaid on August 09, 2014, 10:40:12 AM
Interesting. I repeat: Addiction to cigarettes results in 50% of users dying from it.
88,000 people die annually from alcohol use.
443,000 people die annually from tobacco use.

Both of these numbers are horribly high.

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/health/attrdeaths/index.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cdc%2FGEla+%28CDC+-+Smoking+and+Tobacco+Use+-+Main+Feed%29

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-facts-and-statistics

80-90% of people who smoke become addicted.
http://www.healtheducation.uci.edu/tobacco/socialsmoking.aspx

I can't find (or am too lazy to look very hard) any credible statistic on the percent of people who consume any alcohol that become addicts.

Wow...  :/ I knew that number was high, but not that high...

It's basically a flip of a coin....  :(

Sent from your mom

Quote from: Nam on August 09, 2014, 11:36:58 AM
Alcohol is nonaddictive. People can, and quite frequently abuse alcohol. You'll find websites and/or studies saying that's a myth; they call it "selective addiction" -- meaning: long term use can equate to a psychological addiction. By that logic billions of people are addicted to food, sex, breathing etc.,

There are no percentages on alcohol addiction because it's a fallacy. They use "alcohol abuse", or what the opinions of family members/friends state about those who abuse alcohol, crime related statistics involving alcohol, and medical treatment.

It's pretty much like those against cigarettes using every death by cancer having solely be about cigarettes when many times there's no relation.

-Nam

I know, right? That's why people die from alcohol withdrawal.

Quote from: Mermaid on August 09, 2014, 10:40:12 AMI can't find (or am too lazy to look very hard) any credible statistic on the percent of people who consume any alcohol that become addicts.

Me neither.  Best I can do is binge/heavy drinking statistics (http://www.samhsa.gov/data/nsduh/2k11results/nsduhresults2011.htm#3.1.1).

Quote from: Nam on August 09, 2014, 11:36:58 AM
Alcohol is nonaddictive

This is patently false.

Quote from: Jmpty on August 09, 2014, 12:00:45 PM
I know, right? That's why people die from alcohol withdrawal.

Me neither. The numbers are pretty huge.

I have had a hard time trying to articulate the idea that alcohol is a pleasure-recreational thing, while smoking has no redeeming value. It's simply a smelly, expensive addiction. Cigarettes are bad always. Alcohol is bad in excess.

Quote from: Mermaid on August 09, 2014, 02:23:20 PM
This is patently false.

Evidence? Your opinion is not evidence.

-Nam

Quote from: Mermaid on August 09, 2014, 02:28:41 PM
Me neither. The numbers are pretty huge.

I have had a hard time trying to articulate the idea that alcohol is a pleasure-recreational thing, while smoking has no redeeming value. It's simply a smelly, expensive addiction. Cigarettes are bad always. Alcohol is bad in excess.

Being "bad" doesn't equate to addictive.

-Nam

Quote from: Nam on August 09, 2014, 02:32:58 PM
Evidence? Your opinion is not evidence.

-Nam

It is not my opinion. It's a fact. It sounds like your assertion is more opinion than fact.

As an aside, someone I know tried to dry out on his own and is now going to live in a nursing home for the rest of his life because of the severe brain damage he sustained as a result.

Here is one of many references (and associated citations) on the pathophysiology of addiction to alcohol.

http://www.zi-mannheim.de/fileadmin/user_upload/downloads/lehre/vorlesungen/20130710_Seminar_Suchttheorie_u_-modelle_Alcohol_book_proofs_chapter_10.pdf

A relevant excerpt:

Treatment of acute withdrawal
Sudden withdrawal from alcohol causes central and autonomous hyperexcitability with symptoms
ranging from dysphoria and sleep disturbance to severe vegetative disturbances, delirium, and con-
vulsions. In contrast to withdrawal from most other drugs, alcohol withdrawal is a life-threatening
condition that requires qualifi
ed treatment. Symptoms can be alleviated by reintroducing alcohol.
First-line clinical therapy is to use benzodiazepines or other GABA-mimetics with cross-tolerance
to alcohol and to taper these off
over a few days. Alternatively, antiglutamatergic compounds
such as the glutamate release inhibitor lamotrigine, or the glutamate receptor antagonists me-
mantine or topiramate can counter acute withdrawal symptoms in humans ( 57 ). Both the GABA-
mimetic and the antiglutamatergic strategy are well founded within the earlier discussed fi
ndings
on the cellular and synaptic actions of ethanol and resulting neuroadaptations that cause physical
dependence.
According to the DSM-IV, physical dependence is neither suffi
cient nor necessary for a diagnosis
of alcohol addiction. In fact, even aft
er extensive drinking periods some people do not experi-
ence withdrawal symptoms. More importantly, treatment of acute withdrawal seems to have no
eff
ect on the relapsing course of the disorder ( 58 ). On the other hand, animal studies suggest
that hyperglutamatergic states induced by acute ethanol withdrawal may provide the signal for
triggering long-term neuroplasticity underlying addictive behaviours ( 28 , 47 , 59 ). Also, humans
that have experienced multiple treatments for acute withdrawal show much greater impairment
in PFC function and addictive behaviours than patients in earlier stages of their addiction ( 48 ). If
a link between hyperglutamatergic states during acute withdrawal and subsequent relapse liability
could be established, this would provide renewed incentive for medication development in this
area ( 47 )

Quote from: Nam on August 09, 2014, 02:34:09 PM
Being "bad" doesn't equate to addictive.

-Nam

Come on. Seriously? Have you never heard of DT's?

Where are you getting your information? 

I would like to specify in regards to me saying that "alcohol is nonaddictive". By that I mean: it doesn't have a compound in it, like cigarettes, that makes a person need another one about an hour after use. That means, any "addictive" quality of alcohol is solely psychological, and physical dependence comes after a long period of time in consumption not right after taking it within, say, a month.

-Nam

Okay? So you're saying it's addictive.

Quote from: Jmpty on August 05, 2014, 07:53:31 PM
I know lots of occasional smokers. Cigars, hookahs, etc. An addictive drug is an addictive drug. Period.

Evidence isn't your strong suit, is it? You're like the conservative politician who's against gay people but says, "I have gay friends."

The only "addiction" of alcohol is psychological. The physical dependence (not addiction) comes after long term abusal use.

There are no statistics on alcohol addiction because it is nonexistent. There are statistics that relate to the abuse of alcohol but abuse does not equate to addiction.

-Nam

Quote from: Mermaid on August 09, 2014, 02:48:20 PM
Okay? So you're saying it's addictive.

No.

-Nam

People don't die from withdrawal to psychologically addictive substances. Are you really as obtuse as you appear, or just trolling for lulz?

http://www.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/alcoholism/risk-factors.html

Quote from: Jmpty on August 09, 2014, 03:26:36 PM
People don't die from withdrawal to psychologically addictive substances. Are you really as obtuse as you appear, or just trolling for lulz?

There are many ways to die from alcohol none of which means those who died from it were dependent, "addicted", or otherwise.

Alcohol is not addictive. There is no compound in alcohol that makes a person crave it. If a person craves it it's entirely psychological from ABUSING the use of it.

Let's say I quit smoking. I don't smoke for 6 months. I am no longer physically craving a cigarette but psychologically I am and I start again. Then immediately my body begins to crave the nicotine. I have a psychological and physical addiction to cigarettes.

I got the physical addiction a month (+/-) after first inhaling. A person doesn't get such a craving with alcohol because it doesn't have a particular compound in it that makes you physically crave it, and it's only after abusing it over a long period of time does one create a psychological dependency on it that some refer to as "addiction" (though medically it's recommended to refer it independently as a "dependence" and not an "addiction").

Therefore, alcohol is nonaddictive.

-Nam

Quote from: Jmpty on August 09, 2014, 03:31:23 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/alcoholism/risk-factors.html

QuoteU.S. National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism

That entire article doesn't say anything about alcohol being addictive. It's says what I am saying.

-Nam

Alcohol is in a class of drugs called sedative-hypnotics. Sedative hypnotics are highly addictive. Your smoking analogy is a good one, except that it is EXACTLY the same mechanism in someone ADDICTED to alcohol. I'd say ask the AMA, But you're obviously smarter than them.

Quote from: Nam on August 09, 2014, 03:43:02 PM
There are many ways to die from alcohol none of which means those who died from it were dependent, "addicted", or otherwise.

Alcohol is not addictive. There is no compound in alcohol that makes a person crave it. If a person craves it it's entirely psychological from ABUSING the use of it.

Let's say I quit smoking. I don't smoke for 6 months. I am no longer physically craving a cigarette but psychologically I am and I start again. Then immediately my body begins to crave the nicotine. I have a psychological and physical addiction to cigarettes.

I got the physical addiction a month (+/-) after first inhaling. A person doesn't get such a craving with alcohol because it doesn't have a particular compound in it that makes you physically crave it, and it's only after abusing it over a long period of time does one create a psychological dependency on it that some refer to as "addiction" (though medically it's recommended to refer it independently as a "dependence" and not an "addiction").

Therefore, alcohol is nonaddictive.

-Nam

Source?

Quote from: Nam on August 09, 2014, 03:48:51 PM
That entire article doesn't say anything about alcohol being addictive. It's says what I am saying.

-Nam

What does the word alcoholism mean?

Quote from: Jmpty on August 09, 2014, 04:23:13 PM
Alcohol is in a class of drugs called sedative-hypnotics. Sedative hypnotics are highly addictive. Your smoking analogy is a good one, except that it is EXACTLY the same mechanism in someone ADDICTED to alcohol. I'd say ask the AMA, But you're obviously smarter than them.

Your own evidence from the NYT Times based on the agency it mentions agrees with me. You just can't admit you're wrong.

Everything you are mentioning is based on one's psychological mindset. Alcohol has nothing to do with that. That's just the drug that most people choose because it's easy to obtain.

You lost the argument. Your own evidence proved you wrong, and me right.

Get over it.

-Nam

Quote from: Nam on August 09, 2014, 03:05:54 PM
Evidence isn't your strong suit, is it?

This is kind of ironic since you are still insisting that alcohol is only psychologically addictive.

Quote from: Nam on August 09, 2014, 03:07:01 PM
No.

-Nam

Am I missing something? Maybe I don't use the same definition of "addiction" as you do?

Quote from: Nam on August 09, 2014, 02:45:41 PM
and physical dependence comes after a long period of time in consumption

-Nam

Quote from: Nam on August 09, 2014, 04:29:29 PM
Your own evidence from the NYT Times based on the agency it mentions agrees with me. You just can't admit you're wrong.

Everything you are mentioning is based on one's psychological mindset. Alcohol has nothing to do with that. That's just the drug that most people choose because it's easy to obtain.

You lost the argument. Your own evidence proved you wrong, and me right.

Get over it.

-Nam

Yeah, no. Please show me the source that shows alcohol is not addictive.

A person can be psychologically addicted to alcohol. Alcohol itself is nonaddictive. It's like a person can be psychologically addicted to pornography but pornography is nonaddictive.

The fact you people aren't understanding this makes you look stupid, not me.

Cigarettes are addictive because they have an addictive compound in it called nicotine.

Coffee, sodas, chocolate etc., are addictive because they have a compound in it called caffeine.

Alcohol does not have a compound in it that is addictive. Anyone addicted to alcohol is purely from a psychological standpoint.

-Nam

Quote from: Jmpty on August 09, 2014, 04:58:09 PM
Yeah, no. Please show me the source that shows alcohol is not addictive.

You haven't shown me a source that it is. It's like a Christian providing evidence Biblegod exists by using the Bible. We call them out on it, then they say, "Show me evidence where it says Biblegod  doesn't exist."

Though a synonym of dependency is addiction they (medical journals, associations etc.,) do not use the term "addiction" because alcohol isn't addictive; people abuse it and over time become dependent on it. Dependent in this case means "Requiring something for support."

It begins as a choice, just like with smoking cigarettes but there's no physical addiction. The body doesn't crave it after use (unless continuously abused over a long period of time) unlike with cigarettes where the body craves the nicotine after every use.

You drink a bottle of beer your body doesn't crave another bottle.
You smoke one cigarette your body craves another cigarette.

The "addiction" with alcohol is purely psychological. Therefore, alcohol is nonaddictive.

-Nam

What are sedative-hypnotics?
Sedative-hypnotics are drugs that depress or slow down the body's functions.  Often these drugs are referred to as tranquilizers and sleeping pills or sometimes just as sedatives.  Their effects range from calming down anxious people to promoting sleep.  Both tranquilizers and sleeping pills can have either effect, depending on how much is taken.

Barbiturates and benzodiazepines are the two major categories of sedative-hypnotic.  Some well-known barbiturates are secobarbital (Seconal) and pentobarbital (Nembutal), diazepam (Valium), chlordiazepoxide (Librium), chlorazepate (Tranxene), lorazepam (Ativan), and alprazolam (Xanax).  A few sedative-hypnotics do not fit in either category.  They include methaqualone (Quaalude), ethchlorvynol (Placidyl), chloralhydrate (Noctec), and mebrobamate (Miltown). Additionally, alcohol belongs to the sedative-hypnotic group.

What are the warning signs?
All of these drugs can be dangerous when they are not taken according to a physician's instructions.  They can cause both physical and psychological dependence.  Regular use over a long period of time may result in tolerance, which means people have to take larger and larger doses to get the same effects.  When regular users stop using large doses of these drugs suddenly, they may develop physical withdrawal symptoms ranging from restlessness, insomnia, anxiety, convulsions, and death.  When users become psychologically dependent, they feel as if they need the drug to function.  Finding and using the drug becomes the main focus in life.

What are the effects?
The effects of barbiturates are, in many ways, similar to the effects of alcohol.  Small amounts produce calmness and relax muscles.  Larger doses can cause slurred speech, memory loss, irritability, changes in alertness, decreased interpersonal functioning, staggering gait, poor judgment, and slow, uncertain reflexes.  These effects make it dangerous to drive a car or operate machinery.  Large doses can cause unconsciousness and death.  Accidental deaths sometimes occur when a user takes one dose, becomes confused and unintentionally takes additional or larger doses.  Additionally, there is less difference between the amount that produces sleep and the amount that kills.

Babies born to mothers who abuse sedatives during their pregnancy may be physically dependent on drugs and show withdrawal shortly after birth.  Their symptoms may include breathing problems, feeding difficulties, disturbed sleep, sweating, irritability, and fever.  Sedative-hypnotics may also pass through the placenta, creating birth defects and behavioral problems in babies.

How can someone get help?
The first step is to determine if there is a problem.  A Certified Addictions Counselor can effectively perform an assessment to determine what level of care is most appropriate.  For a free confidential assessment, call the Illinois Institute for Addiction Recovery at (800) 522-3784.  An assessment can be completed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  Appointments are preferred, but walk-ins are always welcome.

Sources: National Institutes on Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, American Psychiatric Association

Still waiting.

What is the difference between alcoholism and alcohol abuse?
Not all alcohol abusers develop alcohol dependence or alcoholism, but it is a major risk factor.  Sometimes alcoholism develops suddenly in response to a genetic predisposition from a family history of alcoholism or due to a stressful change, such as a breakup, retirement, or another loss.  Other times, it gradually creeps up on you as your tolerance to alcohol increases.  If a person is a binge drinker or drinks every day, the risks of developing alcoholism are even greater.

NCADD Self-Test:  What Are the Signs of Alcoholism

Are you concerned about the role alcohol plays in your life?  With 26 questions, this simple self-test is intended to help you determine if you or someone you know needs to find out more about alcoholism.  This test specifically does not include drug use.  To take a self-test focused specifically on drug use, take the Drug Abuse Screening Test.

Signs and symptoms of alcoholism:

Alcoholism involves all the symptoms of alcohol abuse, but also involves another element:  physical dependence-  tolerance and withdrawal.

1.      Tolerance:

Tolerance means that, over time, you need more alcohol to feel the same effect.  Do you drink more than you used to?  Do you drink more than other people without showing obvious signs of intoxication?

2.      Withdrawal:

As the effect of the alcohol wears off you may experience withdrawal symptoms:  anxiety or jumpiness; shakiness or trembling; sweating, nausea and vomiting, insomnia, depression, irritability, fatigue or loss of appetite and headaches.  Do you drink to steady the nerves, stop the shakes in the morning?  Drinking to relieve or avoid withdrawal symptoms is a sign of alcoholism and addiction.

In severe cases, withdrawal from alcohol can be life-threatening and involve hallucinations, confusion, seizures, fever, and agitation.  These symptoms can be dangerous and should be managed by a physician specifically trained and experienced in dealing with alcoholism and addiction.

3.      Loss of Control:

Drinking more than you wanted to, for longer than you intended, or despite telling yourself that you wouldn’t do it this time.

4.      Desire to Stop-  But Can’t:

You have a persistent desire to cut down or stop your alcohol use, but all efforts to stop and stay stopped, have been unsuccessful.

5.      Neglecting Other Activities:

You are spending less time on activities that used to be important to you (hanging out with family and friends, exercising- going to the gym, pursuing your hobbies or other interests) because of the use of alcohol.

6.      Alcohol Takes Up Greater Time, Energy and Focus:

You spend a lot of time drinking, thinking about it, or recovering from its effects.  You have few, if any, interests, social or community involvements that don’t revolve around the use of alcohol.

7.      Continued Use Despite Negative Consequences:

You drink even though they know it’s causing problems.  As an example, you realize that your alcohol use is interfering with your ability to do your job, is damaging your marriage, making your problems worse, or causing health problems, but you continue to drink.

"Sedative-hypnotics, such as alcohol, are well known for their propensity to induce physiological dependence. This dependence is due to alcohol-induced neuro-adaptation. Withdrawal is characterized by neuropsychiatric excitability and autonomic disturbances. Dependence on other sedative-hypnotics can increase the severity of the withdrawal syndrome."

Medical Toxicology 2003

Quote from: Nam on August 09, 2014, 05:09:38 PM
You haven't shown me a source that it is.

There are COUNTLESS sources.

Including the book chapter I just posted to you explaining in detail the physiologic phenomena in the brain that are associated with addiction to alcohol. With references. Am I missing something here?

Quote from: Jmpty on August 09, 2014, 05:43:18 PM
"Sedative-hypnotics, such as alcohol, are well known for their propensity to induce physiological dependence. This dependence is due to alcohol-induced neuro-adaptation. Withdrawal is characterized by neuropsychiatric excitability and autonomic disturbances. Dependence on other sedative-hypnotics can increase the severity of the withdrawal syndrome."

Medical Toxicology 2003

Where in any of that does it say "Alcohol is addictive"? Nowhere.

-Nam

Can't you read? I guess not.

http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1971-09517-001
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s002130050169
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1937-05711-001
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/bjp.2008.30/full
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1941-04209-001
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028393204000715
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306460304003958
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/24/46/10542.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163725804001068
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4615-6525-3_15

Quote from: Nam on August 09, 2014, 05:59:26 PM
Where in any of that does it say "Alcohol is addictive"? Nowhere.

-Nam

What does "physiological dependence" mean to you?

And so it goes...

Nam, you're fucking with us, right?

Quote from: Jmpty on August 09, 2014, 05:37:53 PM
What is the difference between alcoholism and alcohol abuse?

I have been waiting for you to mention this; you took a little longer than I expected, but I knew you would.

The problem you have here is that alcohol itself is not addictive. You have never shown how it is classified as an addictive drug.

It is not listed anywhere (unless highly one sided) as an addictive drug because it has no addictive compound in it. You keep ignoring that and repetitiously posting links to how one can become addicted to alcohol but never have you shown where it says that alcohol is addictive because it has this addictive compound in it.

Cigarettes are addictive because it has nicotine in it. It's an instant (basically) addiction where your body craves it.

Alcohol only becomes an addiction after a long period of time of ABUSING ITS USE not just by drinking it alone.

You lost a long time ago. Give up.

-Nam

So what gives here, Nam? Seriously.

Quote from: Mermaid on August 09, 2014, 06:18:34 PM
So what gives here, Nam? Seriously.

What gives?

You people keep on posting links or quoting from whatever that states how peoples tolerance levels become by drinking alcohol, and how people can become addicted to it because of abuse (family, life, society in general) but only after a long time has passed does this "addiction" actually set in. How many people abuse alcohol which you use to link to alcohol being an addictive substance without any evidence showing alcohol itself having an addictive compound in it, or of itself. How genetics play a role but not how alcohol itself is a classified addictive drug but since people are genetically dependent on alcohol somehow that's the same thing.

If I took a drink of beer right now, would I physically crave another one afterward? Would the vast majority of people? No. Because it is not addictive.

-Nam

No, I posted multiple links to peer reviewed medical and scientific journals explaining in biochemical detail how a person gets addicted to ethanol. There is no denying the behavioral component, and that it does take time, but the fact remains that alcohol IS an addictive substance. 

I don't really understand how you are refuting that.

Quote from: Mermaid on August 09, 2014, 06:06:42 PM
What does "physiological dependence" mean to you?

The first paragraph mentions:

QuoteAlcohol withdrawal syndrome is a set of symptoms that can occur when an individual reduces or stops alcoholic consumption after long periods of use. Prolonged and excessive use of alcohol leads to tolerance and physical dependence.

Sedative-hypnotics, such as alcohol, are well known for their propensity to induce physiological dependence. This dependence is due to alcohol-induced neuro-adaptation. Withdrawal is characterized by neuropsychiatric excitability and autonomic disturbances. Dependence on other sedative-hypnotics can increase the severity of the withdrawal syndrome.

He purposely left that out to make his position correct. He took it out of context.

He's exactly like a Christian in arguing a position.

That's what I think of it.

Sad.

-Nam

Quote from: Mermaid on August 09, 2014, 06:31:12 PM
No, I posted multiple links to peer reviewed medical and scientific journals explaining in biochemical detail how a person gets addicted to ethanol. There is no denying the behavioral component, and that it does take time, but the fact remains that alcohol IS an addictive substance. 

I don't really understand how you are refuting that.

Yes, HOW A PERSON GETS ADDICTED TO it. Not that alcohol itself is addictive. It's not the same thing.

You keep saying it is.

-Nam

Quote from: Mermaid on August 09, 2014, 02:48:20 PM
Okay? So you're saying it's addictive.

In the same way that the internet is addictive? Yeah, sure. Physical addiction? No, fuck off with that shit.

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on August 09, 2014, 07:04:26 PM
In the same way that the internet is addictive? Yeah, sure. Physical addiction? No, fuck off with that shit.

Look what they've posted. All of that and none of it says that alcohol is addictive UNLESS the person abuses it, and does it over a long period of time.

-Nam

You can't get addicted to nicotine unless you use it repeatedly. You are a fucking idiot.

Quote from: Nam on August 09, 2014, 06:49:33 PM
Yes, HOW A PERSON GETS ADDICTED TO it. Not that alcohol itself is addictive. It's not the same thing.

You keep saying it is.

-Nam

How is it not the same thing? Seriously. Addiction is addiction.

Quote from: Nam on August 09, 2014, 07:25:42 PM
Look what they've posted. All of that and none of it says that alcohol is addictive UNLESS the person abuses it, and does it over a long period of time.

-Nam

Okay, what? You have to use something repeatedly to get addicted. Yeah. Got it. Some things are just faster than others. How does any of that mean alcohol itself isn't addictive?

There is very strong scientific evidence to the contrary. It may take a while, but ethanol is most certainly addictive.

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on August 09, 2014, 07:04:26 PM
In the same way that the internet is addictive? Yeah, sure. Physical addiction? No, fuck off with that shit.

Sorry?

Quote from: Jmpty on August 09, 2014, 07:33:02 PM
You can't get addicted to nicotine unless you use it repeatedly. You are a fucking idiot.

Repeatedly in a short period of time, like a month (+/-) as I mentioned. See, if you actually read what I write and not skim or skip you'd understand what I am saying.

But let's take your position for a moment: it takes (average) years of abusing alcohol to become dependent on it, and then have the physiological (with the psychological) dependency.

Now, if someone drinks moderately for years, are they too dependent on alcohol?

Here's a link for you, read the book, you might like it. Hell, if not the entire book just read the preview:

http://www.lakesidemilam.com/alcohol-drug-addiction/under-the-influence/a-guide-to-the-myths-and-realities-of-alcoholism/

Here I'll give you an excerpt:

QuoteMyth: Addiction to alcohol is often psychological.

Reality: Addiction to alcohol is primarily physiological. Alcoholics become addicted because their bodies are physiologically incapable of processing alcohol normally.

Now, before you say, "See, you're wrong and I am right." Read the book.

-Nam

My father was an alcoholic (I say father though he wasn't biologically, I'm from a sample given to a sperm clinic by a random donor) and he drank 6-8 cans of strong alcohol a day.

He wasn't addicted to the extra strength special brew, which tasted of cats piss, he only liked it because he wanted to be drunk, all the time, since he couldn't handle the real world around him and wanted to numb his senses to it.

THATS why he drank, and eventually killed himself to cancer developing in his bladder. It wasn't because beer was addictive to him, he just wanted to remain numb to life.

Oh, and just FYI: I am an alcoholic. I first quit in the summer of 2000. I relapsed in October of 2008. I've been clean since then.

I abused alcohol for 3 years. I drank a bottle of bourbon almost every day in that three year period. I was the happy party drunk; then I became the angry drunk and I stopped.

Perhaps you're an alcoholic, perhaps you know someone who is; either way: alcohol itself is not addictive.

And those who are "addicted to it" is very rare; and mainly only after years of abusing it.

This is the end of the discussion for me.

-Nam

Both of my parents were alcoholics, and when I was a teenager I drank to get drunk and be the life of the party. In my twenties I drank moderately until till one night I got really drunk and then drank a half bottle of gin straight out of the bottle until it was gone. The next day I woke up and my hair hurt (figuratively speaking.) I threw up for three days and fell in love with my cold toilet bowl, and missed a week of work. I never drank again for three years. Now it is one or two drinks of beer or ale when I go out, or one or two glasses of wine. I really don't like to feel deathly sick, and will never drink to get drunk again. Solitary

I still don't get why Nam was so insistent on alcohol not being addictive despite the overwhelming body of scientific evidence to the contrary, but whatever.

Quote from: doorknob on July 22, 2014, 03:17:31 PM
interesting. How many people here would legalize pot I wonder.

Besides the law makers in Colorado and Washington state?

Why not? At least when pot smokers agree to purchase a product that puts their mouth at risk for oral cancer, their esophagus, and their lungs too, they got high for the price.

Cigarettes are stupid. People buy cancer and only cancer by the pack and the carton.

This jury in this particular award must have been high. Billions? There has been a warning about the risk of cancer for decades and right on the pack.
If this woman's husband was too stupid to read, or figure out that inhaling smoke into his lungs was bad for him, he died stupid.

His widow shouldn't get paid a fortune because her husband paid a fortune choosing to smoke himself to death.

Quoteinteresting. How many people here would legalize pot I wonder.

There are plenty of ways to consume pot that don't involve carcinogens at all, so not sure why that is relevant.

Quote from: Shiranu on August 10, 2014, 06:47:14 PM
There are plenty of ways to consume pot that don't involve carcinogens at all, so not sure why that is relevant.

I have emphysema, so I can't smoke it. Doesn't stop me from enjoying it.

pot brownies?

Quote from: Munch on August 10, 2014, 08:12:10 PM
pot brownies?

And cookies. Keeps the coughing down. No idea why.

http://www.everydayhealth.com/head-and-neck-cancer/specialists/does-marijuana-cause-oral-cancer.aspx

QuoteUnfortunately, the current research on cancer and smoking marijuana is mixed. Researchers have shown both negligible risk and an increased risk (in different studies) of head and neck cancer with marijuana use. Many large epidemiologic studies do not seem to show a large increase in oral cancer risk, but quantities and types of marijuana use vary greatly from study to study, and there are confounding factors such as concurrent tobacco smoking in many marijuana smokers, so it is not possible to say whether smoking one or two joints a week will significantly increase your risk for oral cancer.

http://www.fhcrc.org/en/news/releases/2004/06/marijuanastudy.html

QuoteStudy Finds No Association Between Marijuana Use and Incidence of Oral Cancer, Contrary to Previous Reports

SEATTLE â€" Jun. 1, 2004 â€" Contrary to previous research findings that have suggested a link, marijuana use does not appear to be associated with an increased risk of developing oral cancer, according to a large, population-based study led by researchers at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center.

Their findings, the result of the most comprehensive evaluation to date regarding the association between marijuana use and the incidence of oral squamous-cell carcinoma, appear in the June issue of Cancer Research, a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research.

The study, conducted in collaboration with researchers at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and Seattle's Center for Health Studies, Group Health Cooperative, found no association between marijuana use and increased oral-cancer risk, regardless of how long, how much or how often a person has used marijuana. The study also found no increased risk among marijuana users who had other underlying risk factors for oral cancer, such as a history of tobacco use or heavy alcohol use.

"When asking whether any marijuana use puts you at increased risk of oral cancer, our study is pretty solid in saying there's nothing going on there," said Stephen M. Schwartz, Ph.D., a member of Fred Hutchinson's Public Health Sciences Division and the senior author of the study.

To make an outright claim that Marijuana causes oral cancer is spurious. The problem with any such claims is that you have to have a body of research independent of tobacco use and other carcinogens. The research seems to disagree.