Opinion of Tobacco company executives

[they don't love you like i love you]

Horrible horrible horrible horrible people.

These pieces of sh!t are just filthy murderers. All disgusting people. This is one of those jobs where I automatically consider anyone who has to to be a terrible excuse for a human being.

[afleitch]

I couldn't say unless I met them Just because they have a bad (and perhaps rightfully so) reputation doesn't mean they are automatically bad private individuals.

[Akno21]

Horrible horrible horrible horrible people.

These pieces of sh!t are just filthy murderers. All disgusting people. This is one of those jobs where I automatically consider anyone who has to to be a terrible excuse for a human being.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Jake]

Capitalists (Freedom Fighters)

[David S]

Horrible horrible horrible horrible people.

These pieces of sh!t are just filthy murderers. All disgusting people. This is one of those jobs where I automatically consider anyone who has to to be a terrible excuse for a human being.

What would you call the working people who earn their living by growing tobacco or manufacturing cigarettes, or cigars, etc?

[MaC]

looks like someone's fallen for thetruth.com's propaganda

[PBrunsel]

They don't tell people to smoke, they simply want to do their job. There are so many restrictions on where smoking ads can be run that they are really not a threat anymore. The real threat is alcohol and always will be.

[WalterMitty]

they are no different than most other executives.  they lie, cheat and manipulate.  that is the capitalist system (im not saying it's a bad thing)

my mother actually worked for a tobacco company.

[Speed of Sound]

Using Mitty's generic executive, i would say, at least while at work, HP. Proof of why the capitalist system screws people over. *preps for barrage of capitalist attacks*

[© tweed]

Obviously the libertarians will like them.  They like capitalism no matter what, even if it means lung cancer.

"Tobacco company executives" are horrible people.  That doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to exist, but they're horrible people.

[John Dibble]

It says that tobacco use causes cancer on the package in plain English, yet people still smoke anyways. I can hardly blame the tobacco company execs for trying to make money off of something people demand even if that demand defies common sense logic.

By the way, BRTD - are alcohol company execs murderers? Their products can cause liver failure you know.

[Akno21]

It says that tobacco use causes cancer on the package in plain English, yet people still smoke anyways.

Do you honestly think the executives didn't do everything they possibly could to make cigarettes seem appealing? They didn't exactly go out of their way to educate the consumer about the cancer thing; in fact, they did everything they legally could to hide it.

[The Dowager Mod]

Death Merchants.

[Democratic Hawk]

By the way, BRTD - are alcohol company execs murderers? Their products can cause liver failure you know.

Fair comment

Dave

[they don't love you like i love you]

It says that tobacco use causes cancer on the package in plain English, yet people still smoke anyways. I can hardly blame the tobacco company execs for trying to make money off of something people demand even if that demand defies common sense logic.

I'll blame them. They market their product. They try to hook and addict new customers. Do you really think tobacco execs would not be sad if everyone turned smart and quit smoking? Of course not. They keep making money off death.

By the way, BRTD - are alcohol company execs murderers? Their products can cause liver failure you know.

No more than automobile or gun manufacturers. The difference is that tobaco is the only product that will kill you when used as intended. There is no "safe" way to smoke. You can be safe driving, owning a gun, and drinking if you do it in moderation.

[John Dibble]

It says that tobacco use causes cancer on the package in plain English, yet people still smoke anyways.

Do you honestly think the executives didn't do everything they possibly could to make cigarettes seem appealing? They didn't exactly go out of their way to educate the consumer about the cancer thing; in fact, they did everything they legally could to hide it.

Is it their job to make their product look bad? No, their job is to sell the product. And about this:



If people ignore this, how is it the fault of the tobacco company executives? I don't know why you can't hold people personally responsible for not being able to use common sense in determining what that means, but I certainly am. At the point you pick up a pack of cigarettes, read this warning, and choose to ignore it I would cease putting any blame on those that sell it to you.

[they don't love you like i love you]

The only reason those warnings are there is because the law requires it. They sure as hell wouldn't put it there out of their own will. That means they have no problems misleading people. Nor do they have any problems advertising to minors, with the goals of hooking them for life.

[John Dibble]

It says that tobacco use causes cancer on the package in plain English, yet people still smoke anyways. I can hardly blame the tobacco company execs for trying to make money off of something people demand even if that demand defies common sense logic.

I'll blame them. They market their product. They try to hook and addict new customers. Do you really think tobacco execs would not be sad if everyone turned smart and quit smoking? Of course not. They keep making money off death.

The only reason those warnings are there is because the law requires it. They sure as hell wouldn't put it there out of their own will. That means they have no problems misleading people. Nor do they have any problems advertising to minors, with the goals of hooking them for life.

Does that take away the consequences of reading the label and ignoring it? Isn't the smoker, and not the company, responsible for ignoring the label? If it was a choice to put on the label, and they did put it on, would the consumer magically stop ignoring it? You can blame the executives all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that the label exists and that people ignore it - don't blame the execs if people aren't willing to use a little common sense and heed the warning.

Why should the execs be blamed if someone ignores a label that basically says "Warning: THIS PRODUCT WILL KILL YOU"? Do you not believe in personal responsibility or something?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No more than automobile or gun manufacturers. The difference is that tobaco is the only product that will kill you when used as intended. There is no "safe" way to smoke. You can be safe driving, owning a gun, and drinking if you do it in moderation.
[/quote]

There's no safe way to smoke? Well, then the risk of cancer when smoking only one or two cigarettes a day is exactly the same as the risk of smoking three packs a day? Wow. And alcohol will never have ANY negative effect if you were to drink only one a day? As far as I know, there's still a chance that you'll get the negative effects. The chance is always lower with lower consumption.

And exactly how are alchol company executives different? They do their best to make their product look cool, and you can damn well be sure they don't willingly put on warning labels, and their products can damage health just as cigarettes can. They want you hooked just as much as the tobacco execs do. You think they give a sh**t if someone drinks themselves to death? They would more than like it if you'd drink every day. Liver and other organ failure, killing off brain cells, mental retardation and potential physical abnormalities to kids whose mothers drank while pregnant, and a number of possible cancers when consumed in larger amounts - all effects that long term consumption of alcohol can have on the body. Not to mention the fact that it can also be very addictive and difficult to quit, just as tobacco is. Annually tens of thousands of deaths are attributed to aclohol. How are alcohol company execs not murderers with the logic you are applying to tobacco execs? Or do you only attribute 'murder' to the deadly vices that you don't partake in?

[David S]

It says that tobacco use causes cancer on the package in plain English, yet people still smoke anyways. I can hardly blame the tobacco company execs for trying to make money off of something people demand even if that demand defies common sense logic.

I'll blame them. They market their product. They try to hook and addict new customers. Do you really think tobacco execs would not be sad if everyone turned smart and quit smoking? Of course not. They keep making money off death.

By the way, BRTD - are alcohol company execs murderers? Their products can cause liver failure you know.

No more than automobile or gun manufacturers. The difference is that tobaco is the only product that will kill you when used as intended. There is no "safe" way to smoke. You can be safe driving, owning a gun, and drinking if you do it in moderation.

According to NHTSA in 2004 about 14,000 traffic fatalities involved alcohol. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/RNotes/2005/809904.pdf

As far as I know there weren't any smoking related traffic fatalities.

BTW you still haven't said what you think of working people who make their living in the tobacco business. Are they horrible people too?

[they don't love you like i love you]

They're not neccesarily horrible as much as they are the victims too in a way, much like Wal-Mart employees.

Alcohol-related traffic deaths is because of misuse of the product. You can just as easily blame the car manufacturers. And smoking only a few cigarettes a day won't hurt you as much as smoking three packs of course, but it will hurt you still, and eventually down the road your chances of getting lung cancer go way up. Plus no one is going to smoke only a few cigarettes a day before getting addicted and going to a pack or two a day. Alcohol however, when not overdone, can actually be healthy (such as a glass of wine a day has health benefits). The bottom line is there are healthy ways to drink, there is no healthy way to smoke.

[David S]

They're not neccesarily horrible as much as they are the victims too in a way, much like Wal-Mart employees.

Alcohol-related traffic deaths is because of misuse of the product. You can just as easily blame the car manufacturers. And smoking only a few cigarettes a day won't hurt you as much as smoking three packs of course, but it will hurt you still, and eventually down the road your chances of getting lung cancer go way up. Plus no one is going to smoke only a few cigarettes a day before getting addicted and going to a pack or two a day. Alcohol however, when not overdone, can actually be healthy (such as a glass of wine a day has health benefits). The bottom line is there are healthy ways to drink, there is no healthy way to smoke.

Alcohol can certainly be addictive too. And in addition to alcohol related traffic accidents and liver disease it has destroyed countless families when one of the parents turned into a mean old drunk.

Several years ago my daughter was in a car accident involving a drunk driver. He was so sloshed the cops took him straight to jail while the ambulance took my daughter to the hospital. Fortunately she was not seriously hurt. Her car was totalled though.

[John Dibble]

BRTD, how come you hold that people who misuse alcohol should be held personally responsible but people who ignore a plain English warning that smoking can kill you shouldn't be? Aren't both personal decisions?

[they don't love you like i love you]

Of course smokers are also to blame themselves, but so are the people whose job is to get them to start. What you're saying is like saying that con artists and those who commit fraud aren't doing anything wrong, because the people shoudn't be dumb enough to fall for their scams. They shouldn't, but the scammers are still to blame.

[© tweed]

Marijuana is far, far healthier than corporate-produced cigarettes (not that cigarettes should be banned, of course)

[they don't love you like i love you]

When did I ever say that cigarettes should be banned? Nice strawman.