why smoking is more deadly and addictive than it was 50 years ago

[jts]

Here is a dirty hit piece on the tobacco industry. This article would have you believe that the tobacco industry does not give a rat's ass about your health.

Is it possible for a company to be in the business of selling something that they know is both addictive and deadly? No way. Anyone who believes that is a conspiracy theory kook.

why smoking is more deadly and addictive than it was 50 years ago

[Wolf DeVoon]

I miss the 70s chicks.

[BaalChatzaf]

Here is a dirty hit piece on the tobacco industry. This article would have you believe that the tobacco industry does not give a rat's ass about your health.

Is it possible for a company to be in the business of selling something that they know is both addictive and deadly? No way. Anyone who believes that is a conspiracy theory kook.

why smoking is more deadly and addictive than it was 50 years ago

Fire, at the fingertips of Man. Ayn Rand might have approved.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Reidy]

Do you know where that ad ran?

[Wolf DeVoon]

Do you know where that ad ran?

from the Stanford U tobacco advertising archive:

Date: 1968

Brand: Tiparillo

Manufacturer: T.M.G.C., Inc, Robert Burns

Campaign: Dentists

Theme: Doctors Smoking

Keywords: Female, Dentist, Seductive

Quote: "The doctor is a little late, sir. Will you have a seat?"

Stanford Comment: Tiparillo ran this campaign - "Should a gentleman offer." from 1967 to 1969. The ads in the campaign all portrayed an intelligent female with a budding career, and turned her into a sex object. These ads refused to give credit to women for their hard-earned careers. Instead, the ads portrayed these women, who would normally be seen as independent, as loose women who would be easily swayed by the offer of a Tiparillo.

Wolf Comment: Obviously airbrushed cleavage and the flat-chested photography model never worked a day as a dental hygienist.

[Reidy]

Still curious as to which publications carried it. Probably not the Saturday Evening Post. Norman Rockwell would just die.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Norman Rockwell would just die.

Well, as a matter of fact, he did die -- in 1978. He stopped painting for "the slicks" in the late 60s.

[moralist]

Here is a dirty hit piece This article would have you believe that the tobacco industry does not give a rat's ass about your health.

They don't,.. and I would never expect them to, because it's my job to give a rats ass about my own health.

Big business is amoral. It only seeks to continue its existence by doing anything that makes a profit... even if it means lying.

Lying always has two sides:

1. Lying

2. Believing lies

If someone lies to you and you choose to see they are lying... you get what you deserve. The lie dies with you and you live.

If someone lies to you and you choose to believe their lie... you get what you deserve. The lie lives in you and you die.

The whole world can lie to me and as long as I see that it is lying, it is a nonevent.

Is it possible for a company to be in the business of selling something that they know is both addictive and deadly?

Sure. Happens all the time. A company can only sell something that they know is both addictive and deadly as long as people are willing to buy it.

People look stupid smoking, and that includes Ayn Rand. People can choose to do stupid things, and they can also choose not to do stupid things. It's their choice.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Here is a dirty hit piece on the tobacco industry. This article would have you believe that the tobacco industry does not give a rat's ass about your health.

As a practical matter they don't for they can't advertise a safer cigarette which would be a health claim. Nor could they advertise that smoking could be a delivery mechanism for medicine to alleviate a hard to treat condition. Etc. It's the government standing between the provider and consumer of a product killing information delivery.

--Brant

live hard, die fast, leave behind many brats