1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to remove most ads, post topics, make friends, earn reward points at our store, and more!  
    TalkBass.com has been uniting the low end since 1998.  Join us! :)

Do you think tobacco users/companies are oppressed?

Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by RyRob813, Apr 27, 2009.

  1. RyRob813


    Jun 7, 2007
    St. Paul, MN
    Quit smoking myself years ago, but I can't help but notice every time I go the grocery store...

    Tobacco is sold right next to nicotine patches. Why not put advertisements for nutri-system in the Burger King?

    We all know smoking/chewing is bad for your health, but it's no one's business/responsibly what you're putting into your body but you.

    Smoking bans in public places make sense, can't argue that one.

    When thinking about this the other day, I did a little research, and went on the site of some of the bigger tobacco companies. Not only did I already know that the "quitting smoking greatly reduces risks to your health," but they're apparently required to put it on their websites too!

    I mean honestly, people already know this, but what can be worse for marketing and advertising than literally saying, "hi, please don't use my product"?

    If that's what we're doing, why not put warnings on anything that's bad for you. "May cause weight gain" on fast food wrappers. "May damage hearing" on c.d. cases. It's a slippery slope of a nanny state, and I'm not a fan.

    Just think we should let smokers smoke, and not criminalize them for it!
  2. Stigs


    Sep 29, 2007
    Richmond, Virginia
    I think part of the reason is due to the fact that while fast food and CDs played too loudly can be bad for your health, they don't have a chemical in them that is extremely addicting.
  3. Kinda. People should take more responsibility for their actions and understand the basic principle that inhaling anything else besides air probably isn't good for you.
  4. The fact that despite all the laws, bans and warnings, people continue to smoke should just show you HOW addictive smoking is. And let's face it, people who are smokers smoke every day. People who eat cheezburgers dont eat burgs multiple times daily. Well okay, some do, but that's just natures way of thinning the bad genes out.
  5. Steveaux

    Steveaux Supporting Member

    Jul 1, 2008
    The Wilds of NW Pa.
    Great ... now I'm not only socially oppressed, but I'm genetically deficient too.

  6. Ericman197


    Feb 23, 2004
    Some of the commercials and advertisements against smoking are really strong, but I don't see a problem with it. If it makes you uncomfortable, the ads have succeeded. Unfortunately, no 15 - 20 year old is going to stop smoking on the advice of their doctor, a commercial, a study, or poster. They smoke because their friends are doing it, and they want to be cool. It's dumb, but even today, kids are picking up the habit.

    On the topic of Burger King, fast food places do indeed now carry nutrition facts posters, and information on some of the wrappers. The sodium content is outrageous, let alone some of the other problems (sugar, fat, cholesterol, etc). But if, out of fairness, you want to campaign for workers at Burger King to coyly insist that obese customers order the salad, that's fine by me.
  7. Korladis

    Korladis Banned Supporting Member

    Kids still start smoking, unfortunately. I don't understand it, myself.

    No, I don't think they're oppressed. They're selling a product that they know is extremely addicting and incredibly harmful. Screw them. There's still enough kids being stupid that they're doing just fine.
  8. Lazylion

    Lazylion Goin ahead on wit my bad self!

    Jan 25, 2006
    Frederick MD USA
    A guy I knew for 48 years just died a couple of weeks ago. He was a lifelong smoker, didn't quit even during his 7 1/2 year battle against cancer, even while he was on an oxy tank.
    Guess who was smoking outside the memorial service? His teenage son and friends.

    At least his teenage daughter doesn't smoke. As far as I know.


    Tobacco is poison, pure and simple. If the government were actually public servants, they would make tobacco illegal. But the money is just as addictive as the nicotine, if not more so.

    Tobacco companies are not nearly opressed enough.
  9. jokn388


    Apr 11, 2007
    Absolutely. We live in a free society, and if someone wants to kill themselves with cigarettes, then let them. Whenever I smoke (very rarely now) I do it knowing what it does to my body. Some of what is said makes it sounds like no one actually enjoys smoking...which is not true at all.

    I see it no different than being overweight. Obese people are slowly killing themselves, but the government doesn't tax them for finishing off the last bag of potato chips.

    Do taxes actually stop people from smoking? I feel its just an excuse for the gov to legally steal money from its citizens.
  10. Ericman197


    Feb 23, 2004
    I just don't get why people do it in the first place, other than for aesthetic or social reasons. As a bit of an experimenter myself, I eventually decided that I had to see what all the buzz was about. After all, I 'get' why people would do other really addictive and unhealthy drugs like cocaine, alcohol, heroin, etc. - before you're totally hooked and dependent, they're probably a lot of fun. But cigarettes really don't seem to do much. I felt lightheaded, and briefly had difficulty walking. If there were no health risks, I could see smoking as a cool excuse to go outside for a few minutes every hour or so, and catch a buzz. I suppose the exception to my rule is caffeine. Many people spend just as much money on caffeine as on cigarettes, and once you've built up a tolerance to it, you depend on it rather than benefit from the effects. But at least it isn't quite so unhealthy.
  11. Korladis

    Korladis Banned Supporting Member

    No, that would never work. It would just cause a black market. Look at prohibition or the war on drugs.

    People have a right to harm their own bodies if they want. That doesn't mean that it has to be easy for them.
  12. ironrat


    Sep 24, 2008
    I hate, despise and strongly reject tobacco (except on a tobacco burst). The smoke make me gasp for air and the thought of chewing it...:spit:

    on the other way....were I left the pitorro bottle?* :D

    * moonshine made in the mountains of Puerto Rico, cured with fruits:hyper:
  13. Unrepresented

    Unrepresented Something Borderline Offensive

    Jul 1, 2006
    San Diego, CA
    I would argue that smokers would be much more oppressed if they weren't warned and reminded frequently of the dangers of their habit.

    As for tobacco companies being oppressed, I find it hard to appreciate that a company that legally produces an addictive, cancer producing product for heavy profits can feel oppressed. That's not oppression, that's excessive freedom.
  14. popinfresh


    Dec 23, 2004
    Melbourne, Aus
    You don't get headspins or anything like that after your first couple smokes unless you take a break for a while. It's not like everyone who smokes cigs is stumbling around the streets light headed.

    I love a beer or coffee and a smoke, and it's about the only time I do it now. Ever since coming to Canada i've been smoking tailors though which isn't as enjoyable, going to find myself some good shag and have some rollies. You can definitely tell the difference there.

    As for the companies, I do think it's a bit over the top, but whatever. You guys in the states are lucky to just have writing on the packs, and Canadian pictures aren't that bad. We've got some strong images on our packs back home.
  15. Hi.

    "Tobacco kills", that's what is printed on some packs over here. And not with some scrawny letters that can only be read with a magnifying glass, but a white patch, half the size of the pack and bold black letters.

    People usually start smoking for the social pressure. You're cool if you do, a pussy if you don't. Hell, just a few years back a "bro" called me a pussy for not toking with him. Our little campfire circle on a MC meet got really quiet for a while and I told him that if I was a pussy for that, then be it, but adviced him not to repeat it or the smoke wouldn't be the only thing causing a buzz in his head.

    He was a fellow countryman too, which made it even worse. The Swedes usually offered a fresh one first and when I said "no thanks I don't smoke", they asked if it was all right for them to smoke, which was naturally totally ok by me. No name calling or questions. That's respect and politeness.

    And Yes, I categorise weed, tobacco, hash, large amounts of alcohol, whatever, in the same category: drugs= not for me. If someone else wants them, that's fine by me, who am I to judge?



    Feb 1, 2009
    Chico, CA
    all this talk...I need a cigarette
  17. RedCoatMonster


    Aug 14, 2007
    Thomas, OK
    Smokers oppressed? I could definately argue that they are. But the producers? No.

    For years the tobacco industry knew what their products were capable of doing so I believe they deserve what they get. However, the same could be said for alcoholic drinks, which are far more dangerous than ciggarettes dream of being. Despite that fact, drinking is still gravy with everyone as long as you are of age.
  18. popinfresh


    Dec 23, 2004
    Melbourne, Aus
    I'm not meaning to derail or anything but are there any statistics on alcohol related deaths and violence across the board? I've had 2 friends pass away because of drink driving related accidents, and know of several other kids throughout my old community that had as well.
    Someone in my family has severe brain damage from an issue caused by alcohol abuse and still cannot walk or talk.
    Not to mention just physical and mental abuse or damage stemming from excessive alcohol use on ones self or others.
    Just interested.
  19. Pacman

    Pacman Layin' Down Time Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Apr 1, 2000
    Omaha, Nebraska
    Endorsing Artist: Roscoe Guitars, DR Strings, Aguilar Amplification

    I'm ok with that. As long as it is legal for insurance companies to deny coverage for any smoking related illness. Lung cancer? Sorry, pay for chemo yourself. Emphysema? There's the door.

    Otherwise, if insurance companies have to pay for smoking related problems (consequently raising rates for non-smoking policy holders), then regulation is necessary.
  20. PSPookie


    Aug 13, 2006
    Ocoee, TN
    Or the insurance companies could just charge higher premiums for smokers -- oh, wait, they already do. Your rates aren't goign up because of smokers; they are going up because of our litigious society.

    Lets let the actuaries figure this one out.

Share This Page