Ridiculous!

[Berati]

Yes.

Anymore questions?

Yah, why are you such a sore loser?

[Nam]

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

[Green Bottle]

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.

[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.

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

[Berati]

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. 

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.

[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.

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.

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?

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.

Why 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?

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.

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

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. 

Uh huh.

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.

Uh huh.

-Nam

[Hijiri Byakuren]

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.

[Nam]

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

[Berati]

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.

[Berati]

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.

Again: 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.

[Hakurei Reimu]

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

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.

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.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

What 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.

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.

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.

[Nam]

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

[Hijiri Byakuren]

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.

[Nam]

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.

-Nam