Conquer Club

BigBallinStalin wrote: If the government really cares, why don't they do the same for alcohol?

The government really cares only about them get re-elected... From now onI will buy my fags in free countries like Russia, Cuba or United Emirates!!!

I am dead serious about this threat as I don't smoke anyway

BigBallinStalin wrote:

keiths31 wrote:I think the difference between alcohol and cigarettes are that alcohol can be "enjoyed responsibly", whereas cigarettes there is no such distinction. The graphic images and warning on cigarette packs in Canada started small, but have grown steadily over the years. I don't know the stats, but a kid having beer in high school statistically isn't going to become an alcoholic, but a high school kid trying smoking is quite likely to be become addicted to smoking. There are many studies showing that consumption of alcohol is not detrimental your health...but any amount of smoking is bad.
Now obviously from my screen name and avatar I am slightly biased on the alcohol side. But I also second handed smoked for twenty years and suffer health problems from that, so I am a bit biased on that issue as well.

So, the addiction rate matters more than the direct consequences of either? What kills more people? Alcohol or cigarettes? And which indirectly kills more people? I think the overall kill count is much higher for alcohol, so since it causes more harm, and since young people are so impressionable at that age, then alcohol advertisements should be banned (using the logic that justifies banning cigarette advertising).

Honestly, it's rubbish. The government has banned cigarette campaigns because of the peoples' big hoopla over the "recent" discovery that smoking causes cancer (to what degree and how many cigarettes is not certain and it depends for each person). Why not ban the advertising of alcohol? Currently, it's not politically advantageous to do so. There is no sensible reason for the argument that the ban on cigarettes is really for one's well-being because then it faces the double standard issue when applied to banning alcohol adverts.

Politically, it was savvy to advocate for banning cigarette commercials because a bunch of idiots got burned about cigarettes causing cancer, so they wanted retribution through the courts and through politics. What we have now is the indirect consequence of an issue that is now politically suicidal if it were to be corrected.

It's another story of unnecessary government intervention. It's another story about how certain organizations can use the state in order to impose on other people their ideal vision of society.

I am pretty sure smoking causes more deaths in Canada than alcohol does (if I wasn't at work I would try and find the stats). That being said, I don't disagree with the alcohol advertising. It is all aimed at young adults and teens. In Canada beer commercials can only be on TV after a certain time at night (I think it is 8:00 pm...though don't quote me). I remember buying Molson Export as a teenager because I liked the commercial. I'm not defending the current standard of yes to alcohol advertising, but no to tobacco...just trying to rationalize it.
And the government in Canada taxes both tobacco and alcohol to the nth degree (way more so than in the USA) that they are making a killing (no pun intended) off the vices of the citizens.

The pictures and warnings on cigarette packs in Canada are currently legislated to be 50% of the packaging. Initially they were smaller, but I think the intent is to go near 100% other than the makers identification on the side, or something like that.

The pictures are a little less graphic than the Australian pictures in this thread.

I have heard of people in the corner store specifically requesting certain images or requesting they not get certain images, such as the "limp dick" one or the rotten teeth one.

I think this is cool. Not smoking and not the content of the images, but the fact that the government is finally trying to utiliza the media to ware into the citizens' subcnsciousnesses so that they stop smoking. If society disapproves of smoking, then it will probably die out. This is a great way to "outlaw" smoking without outlawing it. Sometimes unwritten societal laws have a bigger impact on a person's actions than written legal laws. The strategy will help people realize smoking is dangerous and will help stop deaths due to smoking. +1 for the government.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

keiths31 wrote:I think the difference between alcohol and cigarettes are that alcohol can be "enjoyed responsibly", whereas cigarettes there is no such distinction. The graphic images and warning on cigarette packs in Canada started small, but have grown steadily over the years. I don't know the stats, but a kid having beer in high school statistically isn't going to become an alcoholic, but a high school kid trying smoking is quite likely to be become addicted to smoking. There are many studies showing that consumption of alcohol is not detrimental your health...but any amount of smoking is bad.
Now obviously from my screen name and avatar I am slightly biased on the alcohol side. But I also second handed smoked for twenty years and suffer health problems from that, so I am a bit biased on that issue as well.

So, the addiction rate matters more than the direct consequences of either? What kills more people? Alcohol or cigarettes? And which indirectly kills more people? I think the overall kill count is much higher for alcohol, so since it causes more harm, and since young people are so impressionable at that age, then alcohol advertisements should be banned (using the logic that justifies banning cigarette advertising).

Honestly, it's rubbish. The government has banned cigarette campaigns because of the peoples' big hoopla over the "recent" discovery that smoking causes cancer (to what degree and how many cigarettes is not certain and it depends for each person). Why not ban the advertising of alcohol? Currently, it's not politically advantageous to do so. There is no sensible reason for the argument that the ban on cigarettes is really for one's well-being because then it faces the double standard issue when applied to banning alcohol adverts.

Politically, it was savvy to advocate for banning cigarette commercials because a bunch of idiots got burned about cigarettes causing cancer, so they wanted retribution through the courts and through politics. What we have now is the indirect consequence of an issue that is now politically suicidal if it were to be corrected.

It's another story of unnecessary government intervention. It's another story about how certain organizations can use the state in order to impose on other people their ideal vision of society.

in Australia smoking kills almost 6 times as many people a year as alcohol.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

keiths31 wrote:I think the difference between alcohol and cigarettes are that alcohol can be "enjoyed responsibly", whereas cigarettes there is no such distinction. The graphic images and warning on cigarette packs in Canada started small, but have grown steadily over the years. I don't know the stats, but a kid having beer in high school statistically isn't going to become an alcoholic, but a high school kid trying smoking is quite likely to be become addicted to smoking. There are many studies showing that consumption of alcohol is not detrimental your health...but any amount of smoking is bad.
Now obviously from my screen name and avatar I am slightly biased on the alcohol side. But I also second handed smoked for twenty years and suffer health problems from that, so I am a bit biased on that issue as well.

So, the addiction rate matters more than the direct consequences of either? What kills more people? Alcohol or cigarettes? And which indirectly kills more people? I think the overall kill count is much higher for alcohol, so since it causes more harm, and since young people are so impressionable at that age, then alcohol advertisements should be banned (using the logic that justifies banning cigarette advertising).

Honestly, it's rubbish. The government has banned cigarette campaigns because of the peoples' big hoopla over the "recent" discovery that smoking causes cancer (to what degree and how many cigarettes is not certain and it depends for each person). Why not ban the advertising of alcohol? Currently, it's not politically advantageous to do so. There is no sensible reason for the argument that the ban on cigarettes is really for one's well-being because then it faces the double standard issue when applied to banning alcohol adverts.

Politically, it was savvy to advocate for banning cigarette commercials because a bunch of idiots got burned about cigarettes causing cancer, so they wanted retribution through the courts and through politics. What we have now is the indirect consequence of an issue that is now politically suicidal if it were to be corrected.

It's another story of unnecessary government intervention. It's another story about how certain organizations can use the state in order to impose on other people their ideal vision of society.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353/ns/ ... aths-year/

Apparently, smoking does kill more people each year. Also, there is no plus to smoking whatsoever unless you're addicted and need it to not light things on fire. There is no amount of smoking that doesn't do bad things for your health.

Alcohol, on the other hand, can be ok if you drink responsibly. Obviously, it can be dangerous if you sit and drink all day, or very frequently, but so can Big Macs. Smoking is worse than drinking. More info about alcohol advertising: http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Advertising.html

Take it as you wish.

-rd

BigBallinStalin wrote:

rdsrds2120 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:People tend to stop smoking as they become more aware of the consequences of smoking, so how much do regulations on cigarette advertisements really prevent smoking?

They don't reduce it necessarily, but by not having the ads, the demand isn't heightened. Besides, ads are usually meant to leave little subconscious traces that end up influencing us without us knowing it, or at least the good ones do.

-rd

If the government really cares, why don't they do the same for alcohol?

They do.
Moderate alchohol, alone, though, does not usually kill adults. It is when you either allow yourself to be addicted (fail to recognize it and get help) or drink and then drive/operate machinery of any kind that the the problems happen.

To contrast, there is no true safe threshold for smoking. Also, it does not seem that alchoholic beverage sellers have been intentionally hiding evidence of product harm, while tobacco companies did exactly that in the past.

(oops, see rds beat me to this)

greenoaks wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

keiths31 wrote:I think the difference between alcohol and cigarettes are that alcohol can be "enjoyed responsibly", whereas cigarettes there is no such distinction. The graphic images and warning on cigarette packs in Canada started small, but have grown steadily over the years. I don't know the stats, but a kid having beer in high school statistically isn't going to become an alcoholic, but a high school kid trying smoking is quite likely to be become addicted to smoking. There are many studies showing that consumption of alcohol is not detrimental your health...but any amount of smoking is bad.
Now obviously from my screen name and avatar I am slightly biased on the alcohol side. But I also second handed smoked for twenty years and suffer health problems from that, so I am a bit biased on that issue as well.

So, the addiction rate matters more than the direct consequences of either? What kills more people? Alcohol or cigarettes? And which indirectly kills more people? I think the overall kill count is much higher for alcohol, so since it causes more harm, and since young people are so impressionable at that age, then alcohol advertisements should be banned (using the logic that justifies banning cigarette advertising).

Honestly, it's rubbish. The government has banned cigarette campaigns because of the peoples' big hoopla over the "recent" discovery that smoking causes cancer (to what degree and how many cigarettes is not certain and it depends for each person). Why not ban the advertising of alcohol? Currently, it's not politically advantageous to do so. There is no sensible reason for the argument that the ban on cigarettes is really for one's well-being because then it faces the double standard issue when applied to banning alcohol adverts.

Politically, it was savvy to advocate for banning cigarette commercials because a bunch of idiots got burned about cigarettes causing cancer, so they wanted retribution through the courts and through politics. What we have now is the indirect consequence of an issue that is now politically suicidal if it were to be corrected.

It's another story of unnecessary government intervention. It's another story about how certain organizations can use the state in order to impose on other people their ideal vision of society.

in Australia smoking kills almost 6 times as many people a year as alcohol.

Are you counting homicides involving alcohol? Or are you counting only people drinking until their liver fails?

Drunks killing themselves from behind the wheel, and perhaps taking others with them?

rdsrds2120 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

keiths31 wrote:I think the difference between alcohol and cigarettes are that alcohol can be "enjoyed responsibly", whereas cigarettes there is no such distinction. The graphic images and warning on cigarette packs in Canada started small, but have grown steadily over the years. I don't know the stats, but a kid having beer in high school statistically isn't going to become an alcoholic, but a high school kid trying smoking is quite likely to be become addicted to smoking. There are many studies showing that consumption of alcohol is not detrimental your health...but any amount of smoking is bad.
Now obviously from my screen name and avatar I am slightly biased on the alcohol side. But I also second handed smoked for twenty years and suffer health problems from that, so I am a bit biased on that issue as well.

So, the addiction rate matters more than the direct consequences of either? What kills more people? Alcohol or cigarettes? And which indirectly kills more people? I think the overall kill count is much higher for alcohol, so since it causes more harm, and since young people are so impressionable at that age, then alcohol advertisements should be banned (using the logic that justifies banning cigarette advertising).

Honestly, it's rubbish. The government has banned cigarette campaigns because of the peoples' big hoopla over the "recent" discovery that smoking causes cancer (to what degree and how many cigarettes is not certain and it depends for each person). Why not ban the advertising of alcohol? Currently, it's not politically advantageous to do so. There is no sensible reason for the argument that the ban on cigarettes is really for one's well-being because then it faces the double standard issue when applied to banning alcohol adverts.

Politically, it was savvy to advocate for banning cigarette commercials because a bunch of idiots got burned about cigarettes causing cancer, so they wanted retribution through the courts and through politics. What we have now is the indirect consequence of an issue that is now politically suicidal if it were to be corrected.

It's another story of unnecessary government intervention. It's another story about how certain organizations can use the state in order to impose on other people their ideal vision of society.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353/ns/ ... aths-year/

Apparently, smoking does kill more people each year. Also, there is no plus to smoking whatsoever unless you're addicted and need it to not light things on fire. There is no amount of smoking that doesn't do bad things for your health.

Alcohol, on the other hand, can be ok if you drink responsibly. Obviously, it can be dangerous if you sit and drink all day, or very frequently, but so can Big Macs. Smoking is worse than drinking. More info about alcohol advertising: http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Advertising.html

Take it as you wish.

-rd

...

Did you read that article from your first link?

Alcohol linked to 75,000 U.S. deaths a year

Alcohol abuse kills some 75,000 Americans each year and shortens the lives of these people by an average of 30 years, a U.S. government study suggested Thursday.

Excessive alcohol consumption is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States after tobacco use and poor eating and exercise habits.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which published the study, estimated that 34,833 people in 2001 died from cirrhosis of the liver, cancer and other diseases linked to drinking too much beer, wine and spirits.

Another 40,933 died from car crashes and other mishaps caused by excessive alcohol use.

Your second link already tells me what I know about the effects of advertising. That studies are inconclusive on whether or not advertising increases demand for a good. Therefore, banning cigarette advertising shouldn't be done either (using that article's logic).

Thanks for making my case stronger.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

rdsrds2120 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:People tend to stop smoking as they become more aware of the consequences of smoking, so how much do regulations on cigarette advertisements really prevent smoking?

They don't reduce it necessarily, but by not having the ads, the demand isn't heightened. Besides, ads are usually meant to leave little subconscious traces that end up influencing us without us knowing it, or at least the good ones do.

-rd

If the government really cares, why don't they do the same for alcohol?

They do.

Haha, here comes the statist.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Moderate alchohol, alone, though, does not usually kill adults. It is when you either allow yourself to be addicted (fail to recognize it and get help) or drink and then drive/operate machinery of any kind that the the problems happen.

How much is "moderate"?

Would smoking one cigarette a week be worse than drinking one beer a week? What's really the rate that causes the harm? (I don't think anyone exactly knows).

Since alcohol can bring much harm to society, and if banning advertisements for cigarettes must be done in the name of protecting our young ones (etc.), then why not ban adverts for alcohol?

PLAYER57832 wrote:To contrast, there is no true safe threshold for smoking.

How do you know?

PLAYER57832 wrote: Also, it does not seem that alchoholic beverage sellers have been intentionally hiding evidence of product harm, while tobacco companies did exactly that in the past.

(oops, see rds beat me to this)

How does that justify prohibiting cigarette advertisements?

BigBallinStalin wrote:...Why not ban the advertising of alcohol? Currently, it's not politically advantageous to do so. There is no sensible reason for the argument that the ban on cigarettes is really for one's well-being because then it faces the double standard issue when applied to banning alcohol adverts.

Politically, it was savvy to advocate for banning cigarette commercials because a bunch of idiots got burned about cigarettes causing cancer, so they wanted retribution through the courts and through politics. What we have now is the indirect consequence of an issue that is now politically suicidal if it were to be corrected.

It's another story of unnecessary government intervention. It's another story about how certain organizations can use the state in order to impose on other people their ideal vision of society.

Another way that it's politically motivated is that much of the tobacco industry is located in North Carolina, which has always been a conservative stronghold. The tobacco companies and their many employees are a large part of the constituency of any senator or congressman from there. Back when Jessie Helms was Senator, very powerful and notoriously conservative, the Democrats used the whole tobacco industry thing to attack him frequently. The alcohol industry is more geographically diverse.

Theoretically, I'd be for anything that actually reduced the number of kids starting smoking, but as I look around, subjectively it doesn't look like the measures taken so far are working: it seems to me that just as many teens and other people are smoking as ever. Then again, as I said that's just my subjective impression; maybe the stats tell another story.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

rdsrds2120 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:People tend to stop smoking as they become more aware of the consequences of smoking, so how much do regulations on cigarette advertisements really prevent smoking?

They don't reduce it necessarily, but by not having the ads, the demand isn't heightened. Besides, ads are usually meant to leave little subconscious traces that end up influencing us without us knowing it, or at least the good ones do.

-rd

If the government really cares, why don't they do the same for alcohol?

What the hell are you talking about???

The government has been showing half hour segments on the dangers of alcohol abuse for years now.

Have you not seen Cops???


There is a very real difference, and alcohol is used by a great number of people, and many studies show that in moderate doses it may even be helpful, while in any dose, cigarette smoking can be harmful and possibly carcinogenic.

By all means increase awareness of alcohol abuse as well though. More info the better.

I for one would certainly think twice about buying a bottle of Scotch if there was a picture of a guy pissing on an electrical box and frying his penis off....unless maybe it was me, and only then would I buy it for nostalgic purposes...and maybe its pain killing properties as well.

Smoking may kill more than alcohol, but alcohol is much worse considering the amount of emotional/psychological damage it can do to families/etc. Think about all of the rape/domestic violence cases caused by alcohol? They might not lead to death but cigarettes don't nearly cause as much familial damage.

Here is warning label that would be effective.

I find it wonderful that there are people in the government who have nothing better to do:

There are currently a lot of very graphic anti-smoking ads on television.
The anti-drunk driving ads that have been aired on TV for many years
haven't had as big an impact as people might hope. At least not in Texas,
where there are still way too many DUIs (DWIs) and fatalities.

DWI = Driving While Intoxicated
DUI = Driving Under the Influence

daddy1gringo wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:...Why not ban the advertising of alcohol? Currently, it's not politically advantageous to do so. There is no sensible reason for the argument that the ban on cigarettes is really for one's well-being because then it faces the double standard issue when applied to banning alcohol adverts.

Politically, it was savvy to advocate for banning cigarette commercials because a bunch of idiots got burned about cigarettes causing cancer, so they wanted retribution through the courts and through politics. What we have now is the indirect consequence of an issue that is now politically suicidal if it were to be corrected.

It's another story of unnecessary government intervention. It's another story about how certain organizations can use the state in order to impose on other people their ideal vision of society.

Another way that it's politically motivated is that much of the tobacco industry is located in North Carolina, which has always been a conservative stronghold. The tobacco companies and their many employees are a large part of the constituency of any senator or congressman from there. Back when Jessie Helms was Senator, very powerful and notoriously conservative, the Democrats used the whole tobacco industry thing to attack him frequently. The alcohol industry is more geographically diverse.

daddy1gringo wrote:Theoretically, I'd be for anything that actually reduced the number of kids starting smoking, but as I look around, subjectively it doesn't look like the measures taken so far are working: it seems to me that just as many teens and other people are smoking as ever. Then again, as I said that's just my subjective impression; maybe the stats tell another story.

That's interesting.



@everyone,




1)

According to the CDC, cigarette consumption per capita (US adult population) has dropping steadily since the 1970s. Year 2006 per capita consumption is roughly 40% of the late 1970s.

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/economics/consumption/ .


I suspect that the decrease is mostly due to awareness of the long-term consequences of smoking ("Cigarettes cause cancer. Ain't that some shit?"). First, if someone smokes and knows that (and I assume almost every American does know the negative effects of cancer), then those smokers value the benefits of smoking more than their assessed risk of living a lesser time. This explains why some people continue to smoke. Second, other people encourage others, whom they care about, to not smoke cigarettes because they know of its harmful effects.

In short, my contention is that prohibiting the advertising of cigarettes has a minimal impact on people's behavior, which is more effectively influenced by awareness through education programs and from one another; therefore, the prohibition is unnecessary.


_______________________________________________________________


2)

As for alcohol, I am merely applying the same justifications used for banning the advertisement of cigarettes.

Alochol-related deaths:

from alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes are about 17,000 per year with over 300,000 injuries;
Motor vehicles alcohol-related deaths (http://www.cdc.gov/injury/pdfs/cost-MV-a.pdf)

Motor vehicles alcohol-related injuries (http://www.thecommunityguide.org/mvoi/mvoi-AJPM-recs-mass-media.pdf)

Alcohol-attributable deaths are about 79,000 per year (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5823a1.htm. (Maybe it includes motor vehicle crashes but it wasn't clear).


Deaths related to cigarettes :

(with various categories not 100% and sometimes 80% attributable to cigarettes, i.e. they over-count), are roughly 100,000 per year since 1996-2004.
(http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5745a3.htm, see the article that refers to that data).




Alcohol accounts for at least 80,000-96,000 deaths +300,000 injuries (from car crashes alone) per year compared to cigarettes' 100,000 death per years (couldn't find "cigarette smoking-related injuries"). Alcohol and cigarettes both cause much harm, yet one is prohibited from advertising while another isn't. People disregard the numbers and say, "Well, cigarettes are addictive and more harmful, or smoking cigarettes is a more certain way of dying, or a moderate amount of drinking doesn't kill as many people as does smoking moderately." Those points don't matter because both alcohol and cigarettes still cause comparable amounts of harm.




3)
No one has shown that prohibiting the advertisement of cigarettes effectively reduces consumption of cigarettes. My assertion is that this prohibition is ineffective in curbing consumption. And it's probably prohibited to benefit certain cigarette industries through the use of the politicians in the name of helping the people.


In fact, rdsds' previously posted link shows how advertising for alcohol itself is ineffective at boosting demand (http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Advertising.html). Which isn't surprising, and it's the same with cigarettes:

According to "The FTC and the Effectiveness of Cigarette Advertising" (see the part titled "Conclusions"), * prohibiting cigarette advertising didn't decrease demand, and instead it decreased competition since new cigarette firms couldn't introduce their products while increasing the market share of the dominant firms of the cigarette industry.

* http://rashaahmed.com/Documents/Tobacco%20ad.pdf
. (Ask yourself, "Why do cigarettes still sell even though advertising for cigarettes has been banned?").



[thanks, daddy1gringo, for the post which led me to type all this out]

AAFitz wrote:There is a very real difference, and alcohol is used by a great number of people, and many studies showthat in moderate doses it may even be helpful, while in any dose, cigarette smoking can be harmful and possibly carcinogenic.

I've highlighted the appropriate terms for purposes of making my point.

While I have no problem with an independent entity warning the general public of the dangers of doing a particular type of thing (drinking, smoking, fatty foods, as examples), I do have a problem with the things they choose to concentrate on. For example, driving can be harmful. Working 14 hours a day can be harmful. Working 14 hours a day in a coal mine or with asbestos can be harmful and possibly carcinogenic.

Furthermore, the federal government understands that placing these types of labels on cigarettes and the like won't slow down or stop consumption. If it did slow down or stop consumption, the federal government would stop requiring these types of labels. The federal and state governments generate a significant amount of revenue from taxes generated from income and receipts associated with the sale of tobacco products.

So I would rather have a disinterested third party tell me that cigarettes are bad for me so that I can make my own decision. I would rather not have the federal government, hardly a disinterested third party, tell me what is good or bad for me and not let me make my own decision (I know they don't do this with cigarettes, but they do this with alcohol and other drugs).

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

rdsrds2120 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:People tend to stop smoking as they become more aware of the consequences of smoking, so how much do regulations on cigarette advertisements really prevent smoking?

They don't reduce it necessarily, but by not having the ads, the demand isn't heightened. Besides, ads are usually meant to leave little subconscious traces that end up influencing us without us knowing it, or at least the good ones do.

-rd

If the government really cares, why don't they do the same for alcohol?

They do.

Haha, here comes the statist.

Uh-- try facts. The US government does make drinking and driving/operating machinery, serving it to minors illegal. Those are facts. How I view that is another issue.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Moderate alchohol, alone, though, does not usually kill adults. It is when you either allow yourself to be addicted (fail to recognize it and get help) or drink and then drive/operate machinery of any kind that the the problems happen.

How much is "moderate"?

That which does not cause you to lose control, act irresponsibly (including getting behind the wheel when impaired), etc. Differs for everyone.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Would smoking one cigarette a week be worse than drinking one beer a week? What's really the rate that causes the harm? (I don't think anyone exactly knows).

LOL "exactly"... we don't know the exact harm of much of anything, including eating carrots. However, many studies have shown that light drinking -- a glass of wine, a beer a week (some studies say daily) is not harmful and may even have health benefits.

Tobacco, when smoked or chewed, has no such benefits (though there are some reported medicinal uses for other types of preparations... extracts, etc. ) and does cause harm.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Since alcohol can bring much harm to society, and if banning advertisements for cigarettes must be done in the name of protecting our young ones (etc.), then why not ban adverts for alcohol?

Advertising for alchohol IS prohibited in many venues. Tobacco is now more heavily controlled, but as noted, the risk of tobacco itself is much higher. By contrast, you DO see a LOT of advertisements on "don't drink and drive". Since it is that behavior, not the alchohol consumption itself that causes the problems, it is a reasonable comparison of regulation.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:To contrast, there is no true safe threshold for smoking.

How do you know?

LOL science.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote: Also, it does not seem that alchoholic beverage sellers have been intentionally hiding evidence of product harm, while tobacco companies did exactly that in the past.

(oops, see rds beat me to this)

How does that justify prohibiting cigarette advertisements?

Proven liars don't get the same benefit of the doubt as everyone else. Tobacco companies gained heavily for their fraud in the past, therefore they have a responsibility to help correct, ensure it does not happen again.

thegreekdog wrote:
So I would rather have a disinterested third party tell me that cigarettes are bad for me so that I can make my own decision. I would rather not have the federal government, hardly a disinterested third party, tell me what is good or bad for me and not let me make my own decision (I know they don't do this with cigarettes, but they do this with alcohol and other drugs).

I agree, but in truth, they do not simply "let you do this" for alchohol. Alchohol has warnings on its labels, too. Also, Alchoholic beverages cannot be advertised in many places, venues.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Proven liars don't get the same benefit of the doubt as everyone else.

Unless you're the federal government, right Player?

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Proven liars don't get the same benefit of the doubt as everyone else.

Unless you're the federal government, right Player?

Context?
Not sure what you are talking about there.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Proven liars don't get the same benefit of the doubt as everyone else.

Unless you're the federal government, right Player?

Context?
Not sure what you are talking about there.

Well, let's see. You accuse the tobacco companies of being proven liars, which arguably they are. And you say they don't get the benefit of the doubt because they are proven liars. Okay, that sounds reasonable.

On the other than, federal government representatives and employees have been regularly shown to be proven liars. And yet you seem to give them the benefit of the doubt on this issue and most others. As I stated in my post on the last page, the government (federal and state) have a vested interest in keeping tobacco companies around and making loot. And that, at least with respect to this particular issue, gives me pause.

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Proven liars don't get the same benefit of the doubt as everyone else.

Unless you're the federal government, right Player?

Context?
Not sure what you are talking about there.

Well, let's see. You accuse the tobacco companies of being proven liars, which arguably they are. And you say they don't get the benefit of the doubt because they are proven liars. Okay, that sounds reasonable.

On the other than, federal government representatives and employees have been regularly shown to be proven liars. And yet you seem to give them the benefit of the doubt on this issue and most others.

You have to be specific. I don't recall excusing government employees who lie. Are they lying about something in their private lives unrelated to their jobs or lying about their duties? Are they faking data?
As a scientist, I consider faking data to be among the highest of crimes. (not up with murder, of course, but up).

thegreekdog wrote: As I stated in my post on the last page, the government (federal and state) have a vested interest in keeping tobacco companies around and making loot. And that, at least with respect to this particular issue, gives me pause.

Except "the government" is one one mind, it is many minds that compete with each other, even internally. Tobacco companies, to contrast have one basic goal.. to promote tobacco and make money.