Anti-Smoking Money

[vicki2]

The large tobacco companies now have to spend a certain number of dollars (big bucks too) on anti-smoking advertising campaigns. I understand the point of this, but at the same time, I have to wonder if it doesn't just all cancel each other out since the tobacco companies are still making money selling their products.

Tobacco growing and manufacturing is still big business, and does making them spend a portion of profit to advertise against themselves do any good?

Is this just a bandaid for banning tobacco products all together?

 

[daria564]

I really think this whole thing is stupid. If smoking is legal, tobacco companies ought to be allowed to market their products without being hassled for it. They're businesses - why do we think it's reasonable to force them to work against their own interests? Anti-smoking campaigns are all very well and good, but why do the companies who sell tobacco have to be involved? It's counter-intuitive.

 

[Word2Action]

I am totally for anything killing all smoking whatsoever. It kills so many people and you don't really know the effect until you lose someone you love to smoking.

 

[Brandon]

I can understand both sides of the argument. Anti-smokers don't want to be subjugated to the smoke. Smokers think it is not the governments business to tell people they can or cant smoke.

I think the recent laws banning smoking in public places is unfair. A decade ago businesses in some states were told to pay large sums of money to update their establishments to accommodate smokers and non-smokers. After restaurants and bars did this, states said no more smoking. Businesses have spent large sums of money without reason and do not have a chance to recoup the money spent.

 

[vicki2]

I guess the real question I always come up with on the tobacco subject is this ....why continue to sell something which costs so much to sustain as an industry?

By this I'm asking why, if we feel the need to ban a product in so many places and spend so much preventing its use, that we just don't ban it altogether.

I know the tobacco lobby is big, but people can go buy a pack of cigarettes legally. Where they can smoke them is getting to be tough ...even at home.
I read about one company who fires any employee who shows nicotine through random testing. If it's legal to buy, it should be legal to use, right?

 

[capitalist_junkie]

As a non-smoker, I appreciate that smoking has been banned in many places in my state. It's a hard line to draw. On the one hand, I don't want to prevent people from doing what they want with their bodies. On the other hand, secondhand smoke really bothers me. But forcing tobbacco companies to give money to anti-smoking campaigns is utterly ridiculous.

 

[Brandon]

If it's legal to buy, it should be legal to use, right?

Definitely! It's like buying a car and not being able to drive it. And for all you naysayers, I give you this :banana:!!! Does this change your mind!

 

[daria564]

I am totally for anything killing all smoking whatsoever. It kills so many people and you don't really know the effect until you lose someone you love to smoking.

great, if you're referring to government action. (actually, not great. i did lose someone i loved to smoking, and yes, it was horrible - but i just don't believe in laws that regulate what we can and can't do for our own safety. it's up to me to decide whether i will or won't smoke - and if smoking became illegal, tobacco would still be readily available on the black market and we all know it.) but forcing companies to attempt to put themselves out of business when they sell a legal product is unfair.

 

[daria564]

I think the recent laws banning smoking in public places is unfair. A decade ago businesses in some states were told to pay large sums of money to update their establishments to accommodate smokers and non-smokers. After restaurants and bars did this, states said no more smoking. Businesses have spent large sums of money without reason and do not have a chance to recoup the money spent.

i can see your point; this is really unfortunate for business owners, and it's a shame the government didn't just go the whole way at first. they were probably trying to make the ban easier to get through by not enacting it all at once. that said, i'm glad i don't have to be exposed to secondhand smoke - but the impact upon businesses is unfortunate.

 

[daria564]

By this I'm asking why, if we feel the need to ban a product in so many places and spend so much preventing its use, that we just don't ban it altogether.

I know the tobacco lobby is big, but people can go buy a pack of cigarettes legally. Where they can smoke them is getting to be tough ...even at home.
I read about one company who fires any employee who shows nicotine through random testing. If it's legal to buy, it should be legal to use, right?

well, laws regulating its use are in place to prevent non-smokers from breathing secondhand smoke. it's possible they're too restrictive in some states, but they are attempts to protect people from being exposed to smoke against their will. but i don't agree that banning smoking in public ought to go hand-in-hand with making tobacco illegal, as that would be depriving a person of their right to smoke. the line between protecting the autonomy of smokers and protecting the rights of non-smokers is a fine one to walk.

and that company is discriminating and should be sued. that's not right.

 

[OneofaKind]

The large tobacco companies now have to spend a certain number of dollars (big bucks too) on anti-smoking advertising campaigns. I understand the point of this, but at the same time, I have to wonder if it doesn't just all cancel each other out since the tobacco companies are still making money selling their products.

Tobacco growing and manufacturing is still big business, and does making them spend a portion of profit to advertise against themselves do any good?

Is this just a bandaid for banning tobacco products all together?

I'm glad you have an understanding of the Vicki because I just don't get it.

How do you campaign against yourself? If you don't believe what you are selling is right, don't sell it.

 

[sushimonster]

Being against smoking laws is extremely politically correct. Even the most tolerant liberals feel it is OK to look down at smokers.

 

[vicki2]

What I was thinking of was a fairly recent case where a corporation started a rule which forbids employees to smoke period. They had a year head start and offered programs for quitting, but after that, they do random nicotine testing on employees. If you're positive, you're fired. Such was the case with two employees so far who are suing.

Since this does not involve second hand smoke, but the corporation's worry over insurance claims, it's yet a new puzzle.

 

[Brandon]

I think the company's name was Weyco. They banned smoking for their employees. On the job and off.

 

[vicki2]

Yes, it was Weyco. Much the same policy that one of the beer companies has toward employees who drink a brand other than theirs ...during off hours.

I, who loathe insurance companies to begin with, find the Weyco situation yet another reason.