Is the tobacco industry unfairly demonized?

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

No. They deserve every single negative thing said about them.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

No. They deserve every single negative thing said about them.

[opebo]

Yes, in the sense that many other industries are equally or more demonic than they.

[dead0man]

Yes, in the sense that many other industries are equally or more demonic than they.

One of those times me and opebo agree.

[k-onmmunist]

Yes. They are only the ones selling things. It's people who buy them.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Yes, in the sense that many other industries are equally or more demonic than they.

One of those times me and opebo agree.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

No. They deserve every single negative thing said about them.

But do you realize how much in taxes is brought in because of them.

If they all shut down today, the federal and state governments would be in a sh**t.

And, it's a legal product.

[John Dibble]

Yes. There is an extent to which they have behaved unethically, but the degree to which they have been demonized goes far beyond that.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

No. They deserve every single negative thing said about them.

[ag]

They produce a legal product and pay taxes. Perfect corporate citizens in my book.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Yes, in the sense that many other industries are equally or more demonic than they.

One of those times me and opebo agree.

[phk]

They produce a legal product and pay taxes. Perfect corporate citizens in my book.

[useful idiot]

Yes. Like others have said, they sell a legal product and are treated like criminals for it. If we're talking about the entire industry then we also have to look at tobacco farmers, people who are doing nothing but trying to earn a living and are in constant fear of being driven out of business by moral crusaders who want to ban or excessively regulate their livelihood.

[titaniumtux]

I love smokers, seeing as they subsidize my lifestyle (they pay so much in taxes, and then they die before they collect most of their pension). Second hand smoke, however, I don't appreciate. My right to smoke-free air ought to override smokers' right to convenience of smoking in public places (as it does, which I endorse). I'm still Libertarian, in this case I value the greater freedom (others can do what they want as long as it doesn't affect me). I'm partial on the Ontarian law stating it is illegal to smoke in your car if at least one of your passengers is a minor (under 16 for that law I think?)...the intentions are good (to protect the kid), but what if the kid is smoking, too? I think it's fair to heavily limit the advertising of the tobacco industry, but I also think there are other factors involved than advertising to convince someone to smoke. For instance in the USofA, relatively few people smoke (some 15%, AFAIK). This is a low percentage, and I would say if less than 18% of your population smokes, I am fine with the status quo on ad limitations (or the lack of ad limitations) regarding tobacco. Before regulating tobacco companies' advertising options, I'd make some other changes first.

I think public medicare is a huge factor. In Canada, 17-19% are smokers (AFAIK), and in many parts of Europe (especially Southern Europe, France and Germany) it's easily 25+% (AFAIK). If only we'd abolish public medicare, I would love smokers even more, because that way I'd have the peace of mind that they aren't costing tax dollars. The lack of public medicare surely keeps smokers rates low in the US.

I also don't think government money should be spent on helping people quit smoking. I don't object to slavery (in this case nicotine addiction), so if a smoker wants to quit, it should be their responsibility to get the proper assistance/treatment/information at their own expense.

[pogo stick]

No. They deserve every single negative thing said about them.

Oh.. God we agree on something!

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

No. The fact that tobacco enables the government to fleece more people for lots of their hard-earned money is not praiseworthy.

The fact that the tobacco industry itself then throws even more money at the government to lobby for subsidies and to keep potential competition on Schedule I is all the more detestable.

[Deldem]

They deliberately sell something that if used exactly as intended will kill you. How can that NOT be a crime against humanity? Remember, these are the monsters that brought you Joe Camel.

[Mechaman]

No. The fact that tobacco enables the government to fleece more people for lots of their hard-earned money is not praiseworthy.

The fact that the tobacco industry itself then throws even more money at the government to lobby for subsidies and to keep potential competition on Schedule I is all the more detestable.

Don't forget about how the menthol industry got the government to ban fruit flavored cigarettes like cloves. Talk about an anti-competitive industry.

[Mechaman]

Let me clarify why I don't think the tobacco industry is unfairly demonized........

it has to do with the fact that the tobacco industry, acting as a special interest group, gets the government involved in their market to eliminate competition (see previous post on the menthol lobby), thus making the tobacco industry anything but an exercise in free market principles.

Let me also say though that I heartily disagree with the self righteous moralf****try on display here:

They deliberately sell something that if used exactly as intended will kill you. How can that NOT be a crime against humanity? Remember, these are the monsters that brought you Joe Camel.

Yet neglect the fact that in the end it is a conscious decision of the individual to smoke in the first place. Tell me now: WHO'S THE REAL MONSTER?! THE PEOPLE WHO MADE THIS PRODUCT OR YOU FOR BUYING IT EVEN WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THAT SOMEDAY IT COULD KILL YOU? So don't give me any more self-righteous douchebaggery about how the tobacco industry is committing crimes against humanty by selling a product that people have the choice, that's right I said it, THE CHOICE, to use with the knowledge that it could kill them.

Angry rant over.
This is why I hate the nanny-state mentality.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Don't forget about how the menthol industry got the government to ban fruit flavored cigarettes like cloves. Talk about an anti-competitive industry.

Yep, and yet the big government types continue to get away with associating large heavily-government-connected corporations with free market capitalism.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Yet neglect the fact that in the end it is a conscious decision of the individual to smoke in the first place. Tell me now: WHO'S THE REAL MONSTER?! THE PEOPLE WHO MADE THIS PRODUCT OR YOU FOR BUYING IT EVEN WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THAT SOMEDAY IT COULD KILL YOU? So don't give me any more self-righteous douchebaggery about how the tobacco industry is committing crimes against humanty by selling a product that people have the choice, that's right I said it, THE CHOICE, to use with the knowledge that it could kill them.

Angry rant over.
This is why I hate the nanny-state mentality.

The worst monsters I think are the lovely politicians who banned a whole laundry list of safer alternatives in exchange for big tobacco money, thus forcing the average Mr. Goody-Two-Shoes to kill himself with the only 'legal' smoking.

[ag]

They deliberately sell something that if used exactly as intended will kill you. How can that NOT be a crime against humanity?

This is true of, pretty much, every private company or public entity. Haven't you noticed, what is the usual end of it all?

And what the hell do you have against Joe Camel?