Why are the cigarette companies still in business?

[jabo]

Originally Posted by Gloria1

cigarette companies are still operating because we are still smoking. maybe when we all see the dangerous effects of smoking and stop going in for more packets then the companies might have no other option than to close down. do you think Obama will ban these cigarette companies when he becomes President? i think no because Obama and many important personalities up there smoke.

I am a smoker and I am aware of all the things/effects that smoking could give me. I have known people who have had cancer because of smoking. Of course I wouldn't want to have any of those but I wouldn't want to stop enjoying smoking cigars

[xceedbd]

in a third world country cigarrete company make innovative & tricky policies to grab market. they also success on their target to expand market rapidly. if producers country take step properly then it should be go down , otherwise it is difficult to stop them !

[adamk1]

Can you imagine the up roar on the government saying nobody can smoke anymore, all the addicted people would go made and then there would be a massive black market

[bauger]

Until the just out right ban smokig these companies witll always fid away to make money even if its not as muvch as in the past. As long as its profit

[adamk1]

Well they are doing the right thing in increasing tax all the time, although they are an inelastic products, the price does act as a deterrent for young people to take up the habbit and forces many out of being able to afford it an out right ban would not work until the proportion of population who dont smoke was 90-95%, they are making it less socialable with smoking bans within buildings and will slowly get the numbers down.

[thegamerslink]

The simple fact of the matter is this, it's for a government to inform if it feels it necessary, not to enforce. It prohibits and cripples free market. The free market system will control itself.

In the instance of the Tobacco companies they were found by a jury and court to have been practicing false and unethical advertising practices and sending out false information so they were as part of the judgment to stop the practices, make restitution and spend a percentage of profits on informing and advertising against their own business.

Taxing a business out of existence, not referencing just tobacco but any business type, just because you don't agree with it or you personally think it's bad is wrong and takes away from a persons right to choose. You are informed, and as an adult have the right to choose whether you are going to smoke cigarettes or if you want to enjoy a cigar once in a while without being penalized for it. Because if the government is trying to tax the business out of business who is it ultimately that is paying for it? A hint, it's not the business.

[jabo]

In the instance of the Tobacco companies they were found by a jury and court to have been practicing false and unethical advertising practices and sending out false information so they were as part of the judgment to stop the practices, make restitution and spend a percentage of profits on informing and advertising against their own business.

How actually were they practicing false and unethical advertising practices? I mean they advertise their products and send out warnings for them something like :
Government warning: Cigarette smoking is dangerous to your health.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by StrongInTheArm

This freedom argument bothers me! Sure I agree everybody is free to smoke themselves to death if they want to. (There is the passive smoking angle to this but we'll ignore that for now). The question in my mind is should somebody or some company be allowed to manufacture the method of suicide and profit from its sale?

Think of this way; there are a lot of people in the world wanting to kill themselves, what if I invented a machine that would do it for them. All they do is step into my little chamber and painlessly, quickly and efficiently they are dispatched. Of course they have to pay for the privilege, nothing in life is free after all!

Would you condone my freedom to make my little Death Chamber? Would you be comfortable with my machine's existence?

If the answer is no, then what is the difference between my Death Chamber and cigarettes, apart from my machine being more efficient?

A person should be free to make cigarettes. What right do you have to tell them not to make cigarettes? What is this perverse need to impinge upon the freedom of others when it doesn't concern you?

[thegamerslink]

Originally Posted by jabo

How actually were they practicing false and unethical advertising practices? I mean they advertise their products and send out warnings for them something like :
Government warning: Cigarette smoking is dangerous to your health.

The actual cases if I'm not mistaken were from practices they used back in the 50's, 60's and 70's as well as targeting the youth with advertising.

[Luckyman]

In a democratic country, we have the freedom to choose and it is the duty and responsibility of the consumer to know about the ill effects of cigarettes and avoid them. I have seen many physicians being addicted to smoking.

[Harveyj]

Originally Posted by thegamerslink

The actual cases if I'm not mistaken were from practices they used back in the 50's, 60's and 70's as well as targeting the youth with advertising.

You can check out some of the ads here: http://www.lifelounge.com/content/vi...d=5588&page=15
(I've pre loaded it to my favourite of the lot)
There's a little scroll bar down the bottom where you can select other ads.
Some of the mention how the filter's are good for you, smoking makes you cool, etc etc.

[EmilyJames]

I agree with you but what would be next. It will always be some big company taking advantage of people.It how the world goes round...crabs in a bucket

[krahmaan]

I thought that disease developed in the mind? You know, someone who smokes and then people keep telling him "This is bad for you, one day you are going to die!" And they keep banging this notion in the person's head until one day he starts to believe it. Then depression sets in. All the sudden the person doesn't want to go out much, doesn't want to exercise anymore because he's now depressed.

But only because of what he now believes. Now he feels weak. Not from the cigarettes, but fatigue from depression and no exercise. He even starts to drink and doesn't eat good meals any more. He only wants to drown his implanted thoughts of "You're gonna die from these cigarettes" in junk food, beer and laziness.

Then one day the guy dies, and everyone says it was because of the cigarettes! When clearly it was because of the depression from believing what the people said.

The body can heal itself naturally. And of course exercise and good eating will help keep it strong too. But one's mind state can bring about the worse of illnesses.

[StrongInTheArm]

Originally Posted by John Scott

A person should be free to make cigarettes. What right do you have to tell them not to make cigarettes? What is this perverse need to impinge upon the freedom of others when it doesn't concern you?

I guess you wouldn't object to people making arsenic flavoured gummy bears either then? How about us all making our own ICBMs? Or is there somewhere even you would draw the line?

There has to balance between individual freedom and responsibility to others. The question set by this thread is where the pivot point should be.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by StrongInTheArm

I guess you wouldn't object to people making arsenic flavoured gummy bears either then?

Of course not. What right do you have to tell people they can't make arsenic flavoured gummy bears?

Please, inform me, where do you acquire the right to determine what others do when they aren't infringing upon your freedom?

Originally Posted by StrongInTheArm

How about us all making our own ICBMs?

I don't know of any individualist or libertarian that believes that plotting to kill others doesn't infringe upon the freedom of others. Do you? If you don't, then the argument you just offered is just a straw man.

Originally Posted by StrongInTheArm

There has to balance between individual freedom and responsibility to others.

Responsibility to others? The only responsibility I have to others, according to the social contract, is to refrain from impinging upon their freedoms, and to defend them against people like you who would impinge upon their freedoms.

Where do you come up with a responsibility to stop people from smoking? It's crazy totalitarianism like that which leads to Liberals banning fast food restaurants. Totalitarianism, plain and simple.

[StrongInTheArm]

Read your post again! Do you really not see IT? (IT being my point)

Originally Posted by John Scott

I don't know of any individualist or libertarian that believes that plotting to kill others doesn't infringe upon the freedom of others. ...

Plotting to kill others? How long have the cigarette companies known about the carcinogenic properties of the product they make? Every new advertising campaign is a new plot, is it not?

Originally Posted by John Scott

... What right do you have to tell people they can't make arsenic flavoured gummy bears?

Please, inform me, where do you acquire the right to determine what others do when they aren't infringing upon your freedom?
...

Responsibility to others? The only responsibility I have to others, according to the social contract, is to refrain from impinging upon their freedoms, and to defend them against people like you who would impinge upon their freedoms.

What right? The one you pointed out yourself. The infringement upon the freedom of others to live to a possibly ripe old age. How many people have died from a smoking related illness since cigarettes were discovered to be an addictive carcinogenic product? When will the death rate be high enough to persuade you cigarettes are just another form of ballistic missile? An indiscriminate means of destruction has been unleashed upon the masses with virtually no reprisals. What about defending the vast numbers of addicted smokers from the manufacturers of their possible deaths?

Originally Posted by John Scott

...

Where do you come up with a responsibility to stop people from smoking? It's crazy totalitarianism like that which leads to Liberals banning fast food restaurants. Totalitarianism, plain and simple.

Take the time to read this thread again and you will see I have stated clearly I have nothing against people smoking themselves to death if they so wish. I have nothing against people eating fast food either. My gripe is with the cigarette companies selling death.

[John Scott]

Plotting to kill others? How long have the cigarette companies known about the carcinogenic properties of the product they make? Every new advertising campaign is a new plot, is it not?

Making cigarettes doesn't kill anybody. I could make one billion cigarettes and nobody would even smell the tobacco if nobody lighted up.

And a lot of things have carcinogenic properties. Potato chips, french fries, BBQ ribs. It's the consumer's choice to consume or not.

The infringement upon the freedom of others to live to a possibly ripe old age.

Or, so you were talking about those people who were forced at gun point to smoke cigarettes? Well, yes, that should be illegal. But wait, that never happened.

My gripe is with the cigarette companies selling death.

They don't sell death. They sell cigarettes, and force nobody to buy them. I'd rather have lung cancer than live in your totalitarian society. It's not up to you to force your morality on others.

What do the abortionists say? If you don't like abortion, don't have one? Interesting when it comes to cigarettes, their totalitarianism rears its ugly head.

[StrongInTheArm]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Making cigarettes doesn't kill anybody. I could make one billion cigarettes and nobody would even smell the tobacco if nobody lighted up....

Or, so you were talking about those people who were forced at gun point to smoke cigarettes? Well, yes, that should be illegal. But wait, that never happened.


They don't sell death. They sell cigarettes, and force nobody to buy them. I'd rather have lung cancer than live in your totalitarian society. It's not up to you to force your morality on others.

What do the abortionists say? If you don't like abortion, don't have one? Interesting when it comes to cigarettes, their totalitarianism rears its ugly head.

What kind of cock-eyed logic is that? Manufacturers make cigarettes to sell and make profit. They know it kills. They continue to do it. They don't make cigarettes for any other reason than to make money.

Do you think they could have removed the addictive properties out of cigarettes if they had wanted to? Why have they not tried? Because its the addictiveness that brings people and their wallets back for more. They know it, you know it and governments know it, yet it still exists.

If the addictiveness was not a part of the equation I might agree with you, you have failed to factor that into your thinking. People want to smoke fine, they can grow their own, roll their own, smoke their own and die in good conscience knowing they stuck it to the totalitarian society you cannot live within.

Are you promoting your new forum already? Real life isn't black or white, it is more often shades of grey. Simple minds want simple answers.

[John Scott]

What kind of cock-eyed logic is that?

Specifically which argument are you referring to?

Manufacturers make cigarettes to sell and make profit.

Who says they don't? More power to them.

They know it kills.

Making cigarettes kills? No, it doesn't. Even if they were making arsenic tablets, simply making them doesn't kill.

This is where the Liberals are the weakest. They adamantly refuse to recognize who is responsible for the smoking of the cigarettes. The person who chooses to smoke cigarettes is responsible for the smoking of the cigarettes.

Same with fast food. Making fast food doesn't make anybody fat. It doesn't give anybody clogged arteries. When somebody decides of their own free will to consume fast food, they are then responsible for the results of that.

They don't make cigarettes for any other reason than to make money.

What kind of innuendo is that? Are you so socialist that you think that companies should not be allowed to operate for the sole purpose of making money? Of course their sole purpose is to make money. I would hope that the majority of companies are in business to make money.

If you want to ban cigarette makers from making cigarettes, show us how that making of cigarettes impinges upon the freedom of the individual.

If the addictiveness was not a part of the equation I might agree with you, you have failed to factor that into your thinking.

No, I have factored that in. Cigarettes aren't addictive unless I choose to smoke them. Same with pain killers. If I choose to take pain killers, I'm responsible for the results - addiction being one of those.

[JamesF]

It's easy, as soon as you start to contemplate what to ban next, just say no.

Ha, brilliant.

I think the short answer to this question is money. Governments make loads of money on tobacco...