U.S. Wants Tobacco Firms To Admit Smoking Dangers

[William Wallace]

https://www.npr.org/2011/02/23/134008299/u-s-wants-tobacco-firms-to-admit-smoking-dangers

The Justice Department disclosed Wednesday it wants to require the tobacco industry to admit publicly that smoking causes a multitude of medical problems and kills 1,200 Americans every day.

The government proposed that a federal judge order the companies to say in advertisements that they lied to the public about the safety and dangers of smoking.

"We falsely marketed low tar and light cigarettes as less harmful than regular cigarettes to keep people smoking and sustain our profits," one of the government's proposed statements begins.

The department released its hard-hitting proposed statements after winning U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler's approval to place them in the public record. She has said she wants the industry to pay for "corrective statements" in various types of ads, both broadcast and in print, but she has not made a final decision on what the statements must say, where they must be placed or for how long.

The judge ruled in 2006 that the tobacco industry had concealed the dangers of smoking for decades. If the judge approves, the proposed statements by the cigarette-makers would become the remedy to ensure the companies do not repeat the violation. The case was brought by the government against the industry in 1999.

The industry, which is expected to contest the wording of the proposed admissions, sought 90 days to respond to the government's corrective statements, but the judge denied that request. The tobacco companies have until March 3 to respond.

There was no immediate reaction from the companies Wednesday evening. Kessler was to meet with all parties on Thursday.

The government proposed 14 statements to cover the addictiveness of nicotine, the lack of health benefit from "low tar," "ultra-light" and "mild" cigarettes and negative health effects of secondhand smoke.

Each proposed statement is labeled "Paid for" by the name of the cigarette manufacturer "under order of a federal district court."

One of the statements begins: "For decades, we denied that we controlled the level of nicotine delivered in cigarettes. Here's the truth." It goes on to say: "We control nicotine delivery to create and sustain smokers' addiction, because that's how we keep customers coming back."

Other proposed statements:

"A federal court is requiring tobacco companies to tell the truth about cigarette smoking. Here's the truth: ... Smoking kills 1,200 Americans. Every day."

"We told Congress under oath that we believed nicotine is not addictive. We told you that smoking is not an addiction and all it takes to quit is willpower. Here's the truth: Smoking is very addictive. And it's not easy to quit."

"Just because lights and low tar cigarettes feel smoother, that doesn't mean they are any better for you. Light cigarettes can deliver the same amounts of tar and nicotine as regular cigarettes."

"The surgeon general has concluded'' that "children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome, acute respiratory infections, ear problems and more severe asthma."

 

Honestly, is this necessary? Given the anti-tobacco crusade that has lasted for 30 years, isn't it reasonable to think that people who smoke now are aware of the dangers?

Since people have made movies and written books about the tobacco industry's deception, isn't reasonable to assume that the public knows about it?

[Birch Boy]

I guess one can't assume everyone knows until everyone's told.

[King Postwhore]

Yup.  Waste of man hours and time.  Isn't there other things the docket worth doing?

[orcus116]

The number of deaths reported in stuff like this always seems a bit off. I feel like the number of deaths that are directly related to smoking is far less.

[ResultsMayVary]

Yup.  Waste of man hours and time.  Isn't there other things the docket worth doing?

My thoughts exactly. Don't we have a deficit or something?

[7StringedBeast]

As if our gov wants people to stop smoking.  I'm sure tobacco brings in a nice chunk of change for our economy and gov is not willing to let that go.  This is all just publicity crap.  Everyone knows it won't hurt tobacco companies either way.  It's just political posturing.

[Chino]

As if our gov wants people to stop smoking.  I'm sure tobacco brings in a nice chunk of change for our economy and gov is not willing to let that go. 

I'm not to sure of that. I'd like to know how much is spent on people in hospitals with smoking related illnesses compared to the revenue generated from sales.

[7StringedBeast]

As if our gov wants people to stop smoking.  I'm sure tobacco brings in a nice chunk of change for our economy and gov is not willing to let that go. 

I'm not to sure of that. I'd like to know how much is spent on people in hospitals with smoking related illnesses compared to the revenue generated from sales.

Well considering we tax the shit out of tobacco I'm guessing the government makes a pretty good dollar off of it.  Not to mention this country was basically partly built on tobacco.

[Nigerius Rex]

What a joke. If only the government intended to match these statements with some of their own describing their preference toward lying, wasting money, and failure.

[rumborak]

Hmm, posts are becoming rather predictable around here.

rumborak

[El Barto]

As if our gov wants people to stop smoking.  I'm sure tobacco brings in a nice chunk of change for our economy and gov is not willing to let that go. 

I'm not to sure of that. I'd like to know how much is spent on people in hospitals with smoking related illnesses compared to the revenue generated from sales.

Well considering we tax the shit out of tobacco I'm guessing the government makes a pretty good dollar off of it.  Not to mention this country was basically partly built on tobacco.

The bigger fiscal aspect of it is the amount saved on entitlements from people who die before they reach retirement.  Uncle Sammy doesn't like non-taxpayers.  It's also likely that a person dieing of cancer at 52 is cheaper than a person surviving all the other things that frequently pop up between 50 and 80.  There are a lot of numbers to throw around either way. 

[rumborak]

I'm sorry, but to suggest somebody is sitting in a room making the calculated decision to let a few more thousand people die for better tax revenue, has disqualified himself for further discourse.

rumborak

[Perpetual Change]

Well, it's true.

Also, these are how packages of cigarettes are labeled in the supposed libertarian paradise in which I now reside:

[orcus116]

To paraphrase Dennis Leary, how many people are seriously going at that and go "Holy shit, these things are bad for you?!".

[William Wallace]

I'm sorry, but to suggest somebody is sitting in a room making the calculated decision to let a few more thousand people die for better tax revenue, has disqualified himself for further discourse.

rumborak

It's acceptable to restrict people's behavior because they will cost the state more in health care expenses, but unacceptable to respond that they actually cost less? Why? Aren't you putting a price on life either way?

Hmm, posts are becoming rather predictable around here.


rumborak

How...predictable.
 

[rumborak]

To paraphrase Dennis Leary, how many people are seriously going at that and go "Holy shit, these things are bad for you?!".

One thing that's easy to forget is, you and I have been around for a while. Young people (15-18) have not, and they will not have had the exposure of information we have. Mind you, I'm not particularly supporting this specific decision, but it's not that there's a point in time where you will be able to say "done! Now everybody knows". The new generation will not know.

It's acceptable to restrict people's behavior because they will cost the state more in health care expenses, but unacceptable to respond that they actually cost less? Why? Aren't you putting a price on life either way?

There is an implicit price on life, yes. What I am objecting to is the notion that somebody directly and actively trades lives for tax revenue, as part of the "eeeeevil government!!".

rumborak

[TheVoxyn]

Well, it's true.

Also, these are how packages of cigarettes are labeled in the supposed libertarian paradise in which I now reside:
]https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_7FGL4UwsEB0/TOPII4LLpgI/AAAAAAAAAG4/nqrZ2seLvH0/s1600/cigarette+warning+labels-Hongkong.jpg[/

Packets here (Netherlands) have had half the package filled with a random message like 'smoking kills cancer' or 'smoking is unhealthy for the people around you'. They (the government) were also thinking about adding images like in your pic to the message, but that didn't come through.

I don't know if it works, but at least it makes people realise what they are doing.


(translates roughly into 'Smoking kills' or 'Smoking is lethal')

[rumborak]

Actually, "Smoking is deadly"

(same word in German, "tödlich")

rumborak

[Sigz]

'smoking kills cancer'

Best mistranslation ever

[ResultsMayVary]

To paraphrase Dennis Leary, how many people are seriously going at that and go "Holy shit, these things are bad for you?!".

One thing that's easy to forget is, you and I have been around for a while. Young people (15-18) have not, and they will not have had the exposure of information we have. Mind you, I'm not particularly supporting this specific decision, but it's not that there's a point in time where you will be able to say "done! Now everybody knows". The new generation will not know.

I'm 19 years old and I'm fully aware and have been for YEARS that smoking causes cancer and is extremely bad for you. To say young people in that age range don't know that is a very wrong assumption.

[orcus116]

Yeah. I dunno how it was for you growing up, rumborak, but "smoking is bad" gets drilled into your head from a number of places, direct and indirect, from elementary school onwards around here.

[TheVoxyn]

'smoking kills cancer'

Best mistranslation ever

oops  

causes*

Actually, "Smoking is deadly"

(same word in German, "tödlich")

rumborak

Somehow the word deadly didn't appear to me, so I used lethal . But you are right of course.

[Birch Boy]

To paraphrase Dennis Leary, how many people are seriously going at that and go "Holy shit, these things are bad for you?!".

One thing that's easy to forget is, you and I have been around for a while. Young people (15-18) have not, and they will not have had the exposure of information we have. Mind you, I'm not particularly supporting this specific decision, but it's not that there's a point in time where you will be able to say "done! Now everybody knows". The new generation will not know.

I'm 19 years old and I'm fully aware and have been for YEARS that smoking causes cancer and is extremely bad for you. To say young people in that age range don't know that is a very wrong assumption.

I'm 16 and I agree. From at least fourth grade when we started taking Health that was one of the first things that was drilled into us. Thought to be honest, we didn't cover it at all last year when I was in tenth grade when I took Health again. All throughout elementary and middle we always talked about it but in high school I guess it's just assumed that we know (and rightfully so, I think everyone my age knows).

[rumborak]

Fair enough. As I said, I'm not too hot on this legislation myself and also wasn't when it was introduced in Germany back in the day. I think it's past of what's considered "reasonable labeling requirements". I fully support cigarette packs spelling out the potential dangers of consumption, what I don't like is forcing cigarette companies to make their products an anti-smoking ad.
That said, I also can't feel much sympathy for one of the most vile and death-calculating industries in the world. I mean, those guys really willingly condemned millions of people to their death in the name of profit. Many avenues of making cigarettes less deadly were dismissed over the decades.

BTW, I learned this the other day: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=radioactive-smoke
Cigarette smoke is radioactive too.

rumborak

[jsem]

On the topic of smoking btw:

I think there should be laws against smoking in public places. And I'm still a libertarian... there can be special rooms for smokers or whatever. I don't want my air destroyed. Neighborhood effect should justify such laws.

[William Wallace]

On the topic of smoking btw:

I think there should be laws against smoking in public places. And I'm still a libertarian... there can be special rooms for smokers or whatever. I don't want my air destroyed. Neighborhood effect should justify such laws.

Why not leave it to people who own the property to decide? The simple fact that the majority of the population no longer smokes will ensure that there are smoke-free restaurants, bars etc.

[jsem]

Well. If it's public property, the public should vote on the matter. Or a party should adopt such propositions and we can choose to vote for those politicians (although I'd prefer direct democracy).

If it's a private property, of course they should decide if they want smoking in it or not. I mean, if there's a restaurant that wants to allow smoking in it - let them. Doesn't mean all other restaurants will follow their example. It will be profitable to run both.

[TheVoxyn]

Over here it is already illegal to smoke inside public buildings, restaurants and bars. I like it, I never come back from a concert smelling of smoke and with a sore throat anymore.

[skydivingninja]

Yeah. I dunno how it was for you growing up, rumborak, but "smoking is bad" gets drilled into your head from a number of places, direct and indirect, from elementary school onwards around here.

This.  As for the OP, I think putting the surgeon general's warning on the front of the box might be a better way to get the word out that cigarettes are bad for you rather than going through this whole charade of political posturing.  I don't think there's any reason tobacco companies should have to agree to make those public statements that someone else wrote.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

Over here it is already illegal to smoke inside public buildings, restaurants and bars. I like it, I never come back from a concert smelling of smoke and with a sore throat anymore.

I like this. I hate being surrounded by smokers, especially when I'm not really given a choice to avoid it (concerts, primarily).

And, I know what you're thinking: you could just not GO to the concert. Well, I'm going. And I shouldn't have to be surrounded by acrid smoke. Damn libertarians

[William Wallace]

Over here it is already illegal to smoke inside public buildings, restaurants and bars. I like it, I never come back from a concert smelling of smoke and with a sore throat anymore.

I like this. I hate being surrounded by smokers, especially when I'm not really given a choice to avoid it (concerts, primarily).

And, I know what you're thinking: you could just not GO to the concert. Well, I'm going. And I shouldn't have to be surrounded by acrid smoke. Damn libertarians

Well, then suck it up. If the venue doesn't feel it's necessary to restrict smoking at the show, why should anybody have to cater to you? Besides, it's not hard to avoid smoke at concerts, especially if they're outside, like Ozzfest.

[TheVoxyn]

Over here it is already illegal to smoke inside public buildings, restaurants and bars. I like it, I never come back from a concert smelling of smoke and with a sore throat anymore.

I like this. I hate being surrounded by smokers, especially when I'm not really given a choice to avoid it (concerts, primarily).

And, I know what you're thinking: you could just not GO to the concert. Well, I'm going. And I shouldn't have to be surrounded by acrid smoke. Damn libertarians

Well, then suck it up. If the venue doesn't feel it's necessary to restrict smoking at the show, why should anybody have to cater to you? Besides, it's not hard to avoid smoke at concerts, especially if they're outside, like Ozzfest.

The problem is that smoking is unhealthy for the people around you. I couldn't care less if they decided to use heroin at concerts, just don't bother me with it. Why should I miss out on a fun event just because some bastards think it's fine to pollute the air with their lung-cancer inducing addiction? I think they should be the ones that should take the effort to step outside to smoke.

If I take stink bombs with me to each venue, should the rest of the people be fine with that? They can stop going if they don't like it.

[rumborak]

WW, sometimes I don't understand you. I mean, your philosophy is the maximization of personal liberty. But, isn't it obvious that in many cases one's exercise of a liberty entails the curtailing of other people's liberty?
One guy is exercising his liberty to smoke, but 10 guys around, because they can't move in the confined area, have their liberty of clear air curtailed.
I mean, you have to look at the *sum* of the liberties.

I have no problems with smoking in open areas. people can just step to the side and that's it. That's not possible in confined spaces.

rumborak

[ReaPsTA]

WW, sometimes I don't understand you. I mean, your philosophy is the maximization of personal liberty. But, isn't it obvious that in many cases one's exercise of a liberty entails the curtailing of other people's liberty?
One guy is exercising his liberty to smoke, but 10 guys around, because they can't move in the confined area, have their liberty of clear air curtailed.
I mean, you have to look at the *sum* of the liberties.

I have no problems with smoking in open areas. people can just step to the side and that's it. That's not possible in confined spaces.

rumborak

I think what he's saying is the person who owns the building should be able to make the decision, which I can understand.  If you own the building maybe not letting people smoke is the right choice (especially in, say, elevators), but should it be the government's choice?

[Chino]

Every outdoor venue I have ever been to has a designated section of the lawn where you can smoke.