It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Big Tobacco Makes Secret Plea To Avoid Payout

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by The Blind Eye
 


I have a simple question or set of questions.

Should we outlaw alcohol because drunk driving kills more Americans thatn the Iraq ar every year? Should we outlaw alcohol because it can lead to domestic abuse? How about outlawing it because it can lead to health issues, addiction, homelessness, and suicide? How about the fact that babies are born with mental and physical defects because pregnant women drink?

Should we try repeal again?




posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   
From the article




The companies have agreed to pay $246 billion over 25 years to settle suits states brought to recover their costs of treating smoking-related illnesses in the Medicaid program, which serves the poor and disabled.


They aren't trying to deny money they have previously been ordered to pay. They are trying to avoid an extortion attempt.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


I am in full agreement, the only exception i make is on personal responsibility. As you put it, the corporations have only one obligation and that is to make a profit... but at who's expense? Do we just draw the line at the board of directors and lobbyists? ... aren't the shareholders just as much to blame, after all they are only doing what the shareholders want... to make a profit at any cost... and can we blame the shareholders?... people who play the market are purely in it for the money, very few care about what a product's negative impact might be on it's customers and/or the environment. So what's the government's hand in this? ...we can't blame our politicians, can we?... it's part of the game to make deals with any company that has the financial leverage to make your campaign a success. So do we blame the system? ...it has slowly morphed over time to what it is today and is much bigger then any one individual or group to change... so then what aspect of this equation do we have control over...? easy answer... ourselves, so if we stop defending and supporting such an industry, they'll dry up and go away... but you say, no we can't blame the smoker. right? ... for it's not our business what they do with their lives, even if it infringes on ours? I say it's the only part we actually have any control over.

As for this argument that there are other industries just as, if not more, immoral and toxic, this is obvious... and is even more reason to do everything within our power to crush the tobacco cartel, once and for all. Such would send a powerful message to every industry in kin, that if you intend to screw-over the public and expect to get away with it... then think again.

You bring up tradition as a reason to back off and be tolerant of those who smoke? This is dogma at it's worst... if you give it some thought to our short history as a nation, there were many traditions of our past that were cancers on our society... should we have justified racism, sexism and homophobia in the same light?

What we need to stop coming up with excuses for everyone involved and collectively hit these blood and butt suckers with everything we've got, and the most direct means in doing so... is at the counter/store.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Well taxing me is going to solve all the problems. Not.

Let me see, the government in the US has already collected from the tobacco companies over a Trillion bucks in settlements. They are now collecting per pack-$4.90. The tobacco companies get $1.90.

This current thingy in the courts is just another excuse to raise the taxes AGAIN!

This year I am purchasing tobacco seeds and the GOV can kiss my lilly white #!

It is my life, stay the frell out of it.

Or would you like the government to tax your coffee at $5 per 2 cups of coffee?

Jeez, frelling nazi's!

Stay the frell out of my life!



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeNice81

They aren't trying to deny money they have previously been ordered to pay. They are trying to avoid an extortion attempt.


Sorry, but WHO THE HELL CARES if Phillip Morris and the rest of the cigarette manufacturers are being extorted??? These are companies that knew smoking straight tobacco was bad, but they engineered their cigarettes to be ultra-addictive with all of these other chemicals which also happen to be poisons.

It doesn't matter to them who they kill. Smoking deaths aren't immediate. Smoking isn't like drunk driving - you can get wasted in one night on alcohol, go out and kill yourself and others. When you smoke, it can take decades for cancer to form. Cigarette companies have gotten plenty of your money in that time because you're addicted.

These companies and those who work for them represent the crap under the crap at the bottom of the last level of hell. They are all just as evil as a man or woman can possibly be. So I say let them be extorted. The companies will pass the costs onto their smokers and start charging $40 for a single pack of cigarettes. And most likely some people will still be smoking because they can't break the addiction.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by sos37]



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


You probably think fat people should sue McDonalds too for not disclosing the fact that fast food is bad for you and for luring little kids in with toys in the Happy Meals.

Even if they hid the fact that smoking is bad for you, one would have to be a complete moron not to realize it. But then again, morons are the reason everyone now has lids for coffee cups saying contents maybe hot.

Got to take a call. I got into a wreck the other day and am now in the process of suing Ford because my vehicle doesn't have a warning on it saying that operating this machine may be hazardous to my health.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Berserker01
reply to post by sos37
 


You probably think fat people should sue McDonalds too for not disclosing the fact that fast food is bad for you and for luring little kids in with toys in the Happy Meals.

Even if they hid the fact that smoking is bad for you, one would have to be a complete moron not to realize it. But then again, morons are the reason everyone now has lids for coffee cups saying contents maybe hot.

Got to take a call. I got into a wreck the other day and am now in the process of suing Ford because my vehicle doesn't have a warning on it saying that operating this machine may be hazardous to my health.


Way not to use your brain with reading comprehension, moron, so I'm going to 'Romper Room' this response in simple words that even a chimp like you can understand - please try to pay attention because there's only one banana left:

The Cigarettes are chemically engineered to be addictive

Simpler?

They put BAD things in the smokes to make you want more of them

Has it been proven that McDonalds does the same thing with their food or by handling hot cups of coffee? Has it been proven that Ford engineers a way for people to only buy Ford vehicles and then crash them on a regular basis so they will have to go buy more and more?

Didn't think so. Now you should see why your parallels aren't so parallel to the subject matter after all. If you can't see that then I can't help you any further. Go back to playing with your blocks.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


I already see where you are coming from no need to continue with you. Hopefully you will get your big payout and you will no longer feel the need to be a sue happy parasite.

Good hunting.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Berserker01
reply to post by sos37
 


I already see where you are coming from no need to continue with you. Hopefully you will get your big payout and you will no longer feel the need to be a sue happy parasite.

Good hunting.


Again, no brain in that response. I don't smoke. I tried a cigarette once and it made me sick to my stomach and I haven't touched them since.

The fact that you have the nerve to defend the most evil and vile corporations in existence is mind boggling and disgusting. There are no shades of gray on this matter - you either oppose cigarette manufacturers or you don't.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   
I would like to make a general comment here:

Don't comment on each other. Speak of the OP only.

Everything else is not necessary.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Duly noted max...

It is interesting to note, how the defense is weak, desperate and paranoid on this topic. There is a reason why people like Ralph Nader are feared by every CEO in this country, he would put an end to the 'profit before people' values that corporations have used since the days of tycoons, every angle and twisted every means available to con and rob the american people, all under the guise of creating jobs and personifying the capitalist ideal.

Two quotes from our founding fathers come to me...


When the government fears the people, there is liberty.
When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.
~ Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

If Jefferson were alive to day i'm sure he would have added 'government/corporations'.



"It does not require a majority to prevail,
but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds"
~ Samuel Adams (1722–1803)

To my surprise and disgust, what i have witness here in this thread is an attempt to put out the brush fires.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


I am almost thirty years old. I cannot remember a time that cigarette packs didn't warn about health risks. Any cigarette I pick up is with full knowledge of the health risks. My brother is eight years older than I am. He says he new they were dangerous when he started smoking. So, for people pushing forty it was known that smoking was dangerous. The fact that smoking was dangerous was no secret.

If we are going to go back forty years to prosecute companies we can go ahead and wipe out business in general. Cigarette companies did what all other companies do to an extent. When they got caught they agreed to pay for medical treatment and reimbursement. What is the statute of limitations on punishment?

The companies have agreed to a multitude of advertising restrictions. They've agreed to pay billions in restitution, then agreed to pay in perpetuity for health cost, they agreed to stop lobbying, they agreed to end a massive number of sponsorships, they can no longer create or participate in trade associations, they created the National Public Education Foundation to stop youth smoking, and they warning label every package. Plus they had to release the papers found in the discovery process. The companies agreed to some of the most restrictive regulations ever. They even agreed to make every document uncovered during discovery public.

Not only have they given money they have agreed to act against their own self interest by telling customers not to use their products. Anything else at this point is pointless. No one that has started smoking in the last 15 years can claim they didn't know better.

As for alcohol 11,773 people were killed in drunk driving accidents. In 2001 more than a half million people were injured in drunk driving accidents. source



The statistics are particularly gruesome for our young people. In the report by Loyola University, Illinois, drivers between the ages of 16-24 comprising only 15% of the State’s licensed drivers, account for 29% of alcohol related accidents.

source

It can take a while for the effects to show up.



High levels of alcohol consumption are correlated with an increased risk of developing alcoholism, cardiovascular disease, malabsorption, chronic pancreatitis, alcoholic liver disease, and cancer. Damage to the central nervous system and peripheral nervous system can occur from sustained alcohol consumption.[2][3] Long-term use of alcohol in excessive quantities is capable of damaging nearly every organ and system in the body.[4]


The current available medical evidence suggests that any health benefits from alcohol are at best debatable. Concerns have been raised that similar to the pharmaceutical industry the alcohol industry has been involved in exaggerating the health benefits of alcohol. Alcohol should be regarded as a recreational drug with potentially serious adverse effects on health and should not be promoted for cardio-protection

source

One more bit of info for the road



From 2001–2005, there were approximately 79,000 deaths annually attributable to excessive alcohol use. In fact, excessive alcohol use is the 3rd leading lifestyle-related cause of death for people in the United States each year.

source

Yet these companies advertise on TV. They advertise in nearly every popular magazine in America, they sponsor race teams and series, they don't make annual payments to Medicare in each state, and they don't have to agree to avoid marketing to minors.

Why do they get a free ride again? If cigarette manufacturers are evil what are these guys? They not only don't speak about the risk, they market their products as the epitome of sexy and cool. They target youth markets in the same way that cigarettes did. Still we rarely hear anti-smoking advocates addressing these things. At best they usually try to write it off as not being a serious problem.

By the way I quit smoking. So I have no dog in this fight. Well I do have two, common sense and a lack of hypocrisy.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by sos37
 


I am almost thirty years old. I cannot remember a time that cigarette packs didn't warn about health risks. Any cigarette I pick up is with full knowledge of the health risks. My brother is eight years older than I am. He says he new they were dangerous when he started smoking. So, for people pushing forty it was known that smoking was dangerous. The fact that smoking was dangerous was no secret.



I'm not arguing a lack of information on the part of cigarette manufacturers as far as informing people of the health risks. I AM arguing that cigarette manufacturers are not disclosing that in addition to nicotine, they add other poisonous chemicals to cigarettes to make them more addictive.

You may have known about the health risks when you started smoking, but did you or your brother know that cigarettes were purposefully engineered to be addictive? Would you have started smoking if there was a list of ingredients on the pack of cigarettes that listed all 300+ chemicals that go into these things, just like the ingredients on a bottle of medicine?

And when you started, did you know that the way cigarettes are engineered, when you are addicted it is a lot harder to break a smoking addiction than other addictions?

Right now get "Cigarettes are a known cause of cancer". So are artificial sweeteners when injected into mice at 1,000 times the usual amount.

That's my argument. If cigarette companies had to publish, on each pack, the fact that they DO add chemicals to make cigarettes more addictive and then publish ALL ingredients in those things (no matter how many there are) how many people would actually think twice about smoking?



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeNice81
By the way I quit smoking. So I have no dog in this fight. Well I do have two, common sense and a lack of hypocrisy.


Kudos Mke, your whole post was very well written with great care and accuracy, and i thoroughly understand your point, though i can't agree with the 'hypocrisy' you see. This thread has a focus dictated/initiated by the news piece, if this were a broader topic that would include an analysis of every industry in kind... then be rest assured you wouldn't see any bias... i'd be taking a swing at all of them.

When you bring up the statistic on alcohol related injury and deaths... then i immediately want to bring up marijuana use in comparison, which in a way brings us back to tobacco but technically a different beast altogether but one with many more positives then negatives, especially when you factor in it's medicinal uses and the agricultural/environmental/economic benefits of hemp... for the production of fabric, paper, fuel etc.

There are also many health issues with the way the cattle industry conducts their operations and processing which we all pay for with the environment and our health, as well as the lives of the cattle.

These industries are all related, in that 'absolute power absolutely corrupts. Our government has a very llaissez faire approach to them all and we are all paying the price, in one way shape or form, as a result of it.

It is awfully presumptuous to say that we have a double standard when the thread is focused on one industry's ills. I would love to cover them all, but then we'd have to change the OP to reflect this... and would also merit moving this thread elsewhere.

... but for the record, since you so eloquently brought up alcohol, much more should be done to insure that they are doing everything possible to bring down these statistics. It's irresponsible and borderline criminal to deny accountability when you are sending out into the public such a potentially dangerous substance.

...and btw, congrats on quiting smoking


[edit on 1-2-2010 by The Blind Eye]



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by The Blind Eye
 


I argued off topic and wish to apologize. I always get anoyed when people do that to me. It was a knee jerk reaction to the, get them for what they did to my family response.

I understand your initial reaction, but still say that the pound of flesh has been reaped. Liquidating these companies and taking their assets would do nothing in the long run. Repeal did not work against alcohol, marijuana, or coc aine. It would not work against cigarettes. When you try to outlaw and destroy something you create a black market for that thing. This is how the mafia got in to porn and casinos. It is how gangs like MS13 get in to selling marijuana. It is how the Hells Angles get in to prostitution and guns.

I smoked, my grand parents and parents smoked. My maternal grandmother and paternal grandfather died from cancer that started in their lungs. Yet I wouldn't outlaw it. The companies do disclose what is in the cigarettes, the do warn about the health effects, and they do pay in to the Medicaid system. People at this point smoke because they make the choice to do it for a number of reasons.Outlawing it will only create a more dangerous black market situation. A situation that puts people at risk, criminalizes millions, and deprives the economy of tax dollars.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


Actually big tobaco has been telling people all about the extra stuff in their cigarettes. Ever see one of those comercials from an organization known as "Truth?" The ones where they read directly from cigarette industry documents. The one where teenagers try to ship a cyanide distribution device and get denied. Then they open a box and it is a cigarette.

Those were all paid for by money given by tobaco companies. Tobaco companies have been doing exactly what you say they haven't.

Would I have started if I had known everything in the cigarettes? I would and I did. My maternal grandmother worked for American Tobaco and Ligette Myers. I was well aware of what I was doing.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by MikeNice81]



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Dude, it's 2010. If you don't know smoking is bad for you, then you my friend are a moron. People know smoking is bad, the problem is they don't care.

No government will put the tobacco companies out of business unless the people themselves do it by not buying their products.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


Believe me, i understand what the 'war on drugs' has cost us, and i think the best approach would be to tax and regulate the hell out of all the 'vices'. Call it the Amsterdam Approach, way of doing things... and those industries that have been found guilt of sidestepping their responsibility to their customers and the public at large and government, they deserve to have their backs up against the wall.

The point i was trying to make about confiscating their assets, was my attempt to put the situation in proper perspective. As far as i'm concerned they got off fairly easy... considering the size of the crime... and now they want to avoid further payment, the collective punishment wasn't nearly big enough. Business as usual needs to change, the amoral business ethic must change... for if it does not it will be the end of us i.e. big banks bailout etc.

Big tobacco needs to be made an example of, to such a harsh degree that it changes the laws that govern them and all the rest of the industries that have our country by the balls. This is an opportunity like no other, all we needed was an excuse with huge awareness and support among the populous to shift the value system from 'profits before people' to 'people before profits'.



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeNice81
Outlawing it will only create a more dangerous black market situation. A situation that puts people at risk, criminalizes millions, and deprives the economy of tax dollars.


Wrong. Outlawing smoking, shutting down the companies would severely limit cigarette distribution in this country. You say it would deprive the economy of tax dollars - and how much is paid annually in health care costs because people without health insurance ignore the risks of smoking and do it anyway? So you get yourself all sick and your little addiction becomes a long-term medical condition. Suddenly you're in the hospital requiring long-term care and machines that can help you breathe. And that ends up putting this country in the hole financially way more than taking away smokes ever would.

And if your family worked for a tobacco company, then they were accesorries to mass murder, in my opinion - fully complicit in poisoning people - some with and some without their knowledge. Fast food may be bad for you, too, but geez, at least a McDonald's is fulfilling a body's need to eat. Cigarettes fulfill absolutely no need, whatsoever.

I'll say it again and a thousand times over - your support of this evil industry just shows how immoral some in American society has become. Fortunately, some of us still give a damn.



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 01:25 AM
link   
I think we should outlaw sex, it spreads STD's.
.............cars, it causes accidents.
.............alcohol
doctors
prescription drugs
guns
dogs
lightening
nuclear weapons
swords

VERY BIG ROCKS.


Go live in your padded room wearing a helmet and with oven gloves on, chanting hallelujah.

Nice life.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join