[Ninong]

Yep! Phillip Morris (now called Altria Group, Inc.) is still paying doctors to write misleading "scientific" articles designed to downplay the risks of secondhand smoke. In this latest expose we learn that as recently as 2001 (three years after they promised to stop this crap) Phillip Morris paid a doctor to research the link between secondhand smoke and SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome). He submitted his article to Phillip Morris for review prior to submitting it to any scientific journal for publication and they made "suggestions" which he incorporated in rewriting the article.

They suggested that he shift the emphasis from secondhand smoke to smoking during pregnancy as the primary link to SIDS. He accepted their suggestion (along with their $100,000 for the article) and rewrote the article to downplay the importance of secondhand smoke as a contributing factor in SIDS. His article was published in a respected medical journal and has been quoted no less than 19 times as confirmation that secondhand smoke is not as serious a problem with infants as other doctors had suggested.

Why we continue to tolerate the criminal actions of tobacco executives is beyond my comprehension: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGOTBLIJ31.DTL

[Poseidon]

What gets me is not the tobacco companies spending their cash to protect themselves, it is the PEOPLE that continue to POISON themselves and their families! I mean really would you drink a bottle of CYANIDE and then add it to the humidifier so it sprays all over the house? Of course not! So then why light up???

[Reefland]

Well I am a smoker. I am fully aware of the health implications that come from the habit and from second hand smoke. I respect everyones health by not smoking in public places that do not permit it. I light up because I enjoy to have a cigarette after I eat a meal or when I am having an alcholic beverage.

[Ninong]

I was actually more interested in pointing out the continued irresponsible actions of the big tobacco companies in funding tainted "research" than in fostering a discussion of the health risks associated with secondhand smoke but that seems to be the direction my thread on that other board has taken. It's now closed there even though my post was cleared in advance by a member of their staff. It seems they have a low tolerance for discussions that they deem "political." http://reefcentral.com/forums/showth...hreadid=544363

If unethical behavior by tobacco companies is "political," then everything is political. You would have to accept the broadest definition of the term and have it apply to all human social interactions instead of just those involving government and the pursuit of governmental office.

[Reefland]

That didn't take long.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Reefland

That didn't take long.

No, it sure didn't.

I received an email from the RC staff person who OK'd my post in advance telling me that they had to close the thread because the members were "sniping at each other" with personal attacks. That's unfortunate.

At least I was able to make my point and that is that big tobacco companies are continuing to fund tainted "research."

[Reefland]

Which I don't agree with either. I mean if they have to falsify information in order to make a profit then they need to refine their business methods. Each smoker should understand the implications of smoking and make an informed decision to smoke or not smoke. The cigarette makers shouldn't lie to the public to gain support from either smokers or non-smokers.

[zhenya]

Originally Posted by Reefland

Which I don't agree with either. I mean if they have to falsify information in order to make a profit then they need to refine their business methods. Each smoker should understand the implications of smoking and make an informed decision to smoke or not smoke. The cigarette makers shouldn't lie to the public to gain support from either smokers or non-smokers.

I agree with you on that,Scott. Why we tolerate it? We tolerate a lot of things in this Country... I don't even want to bring something like Enron into this but it would probably fall in the same category.

I suppose the RC staff removed all the "sniping" posts so I couldn't read them when I went to see that thread ?

Originally Posted by Ninong

If unethical behavior by tobacco companies is "political," then everything is political. You would have to accept the broadest definition of the term and have it apply to all human social interactions instead of just those involving government and the pursuit of governmental office.

You are right about that,George. It is all political when it is used as such. Me telling my wife that I like her eyes is not political, I think...

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by zhenya

I suppose the RC staff removed all the "sniping" posts so I couldn't read them when I went to see that thread ?

Nothing was deleted. They have a VERY low tolerance for what they consider to be "sniping at each other." The offensive posts are all still there.

I believe they may have been upset by a post that used the word cyanide in it and by a disagreement between two other members over whether the doctor or the tobacco company was most at fault.

Unless your topic is "Help me name my new puppy," you are likely to generate discussion that is unacceptable by their standards. Which reminds me, there was a thread once on Reef Central a little over four years ago where one of the moderators asked for suggestions for naming his new tang and another moderator offered a hilarious, if somewhat racy, suggestion. Perhaps we should post a new suggestion to that thread to see if it survives long under their new guidelines?

[Biomanjcs72]

Since the big companies have the most money to pay the lobbyists (sic?) in Washington and in our own state capitals; it's the big companies that end up making the Rules (i.e. laws.)

THe cigarette companies continue to target younger people to get them addicted to smoking.. (Joe camel anyone?)

I am a recoving cigarette smoker (been 3 years since my last cigarette) and i still want one occasionally.

they even put their own "chemical cocktail" in the cigarettes to addict you to their specific brand..

Long story - I had stopped for 6+ years; then when I got divorced I made the mistake of thinking i could have an occasional cigarette (i.e. 2:00 am in a bar) Over the course of the next few months Joe camel re-permeated my everyday life. But I found myself not just wanting a cigarette - but wanting a particular kind of cigarette - then I remembered the chemical cocktail they stick in there.

I switched to an all natural brand of cigarettes and when i stopped 6 onths later It was much easier to stop.. and stay stopped. It's been 3 years now.

To quit and become a (non-smoker) you have to want to be a non-smoker. No amount of cajoling by your family or friends will make you become one unless you yourself want to make the transition.

[zhenya]

Originally Posted by Ninong

Nothing was deleted. They have a VERY low tolerance for what they consider to be "sniping at each other." The offensive posts are all still there.

I believe they may have been upset by a post that used the word cyanide in it and by a disagreement between two other members over whether the doctor or the tobacco company was most at fault.

Unless your topic is "Help me name my new puppy," you are likely to generate discussion that is unacceptable by their standards. Which reminds me, there was a thread once on Reef Central a little over four years ago where one of the moderators asked for suggestions for naming his new tang and another moderator offered a hilarious, if somewhat racy, suggestion. Perhaps we should post a new suggestion to that thread to see if it survives long under their new guidelines?

Well, I didn't see anything that would warrant closing that thread right of the bat, so to speak. But, knowing where it was leading I guess made them head it off and be done with it. I've seen much more sniping in some other threads related to zeovit untill it all ended up in a crash.

[Poseidon]

Isn't Cyanide an ingredient in second hand smoke... Oh wait that Carbon Monoxide. OOps my bad! I didn't mean to spoil your fun George, I won't fuel the flames like that again!

[NoSump]

My biggest point of contention with the organized campaign of tobacco litigation is that the primary benefactors of the settlements are state governments and not effected individuals and families.

The NAAGs (National Association of Attorney Generals - and they really are nags) talk a good story about defending the public interest. In reality it is simply a state "revenue enhancement". Tobacco companies are engaging in the free market, by providing a legal product. If the public interest is served by stopping the sale of tobacco, then state legislatures could simply vote to outlaw the sale of tobacco within their juristiction.

I Personally believe that the prohibiition of tobacco would be a more honest approach then allowing the companies to continue to do business and then sueing them for a share of the profits. By the way, I don't smoke and never have. My sister who did smoke regularly died of lung cancer over two years ago. I am not a great fan of tobacco companies, but I am a fan of free enterprise and personal accountability.

Chuck

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by NoSump

My biggest point of contention with the organized campaign of tobacco litigation is that the primary benefactors of the settlements are state governments and not effected individuals and families.

The tobacco litigation issue is really separate from the continuing unethical, even criminal, conduct of tobacco company executives. It is true that many, but not all, of the states are treating the windfall money from their tobacco settlements the same way they treat the funds from their lotteries: Revenue replacement. Instead of the money being used for anti-smoking campaigns, it is being used in the general fund as replacement for falling tax revenues.

The tobacco litigation is similar to the asbestos litigation in that the attorneys seem to be the class that benefits most from the class action settlements.

Tobacco companies are engaging in the free market, by providing a legal product. If the public interest is served by stopping the sale of tobacco, then state legislatures could simply vote to outlaw the sale of tobacco within their juristiction.

I see no problem with the tobacco companies engaging in legal conduct. I do have a problem with the tobacco companies engaging in criminal conduct, starting with the perjury committed by the heads of all the major tobacco companies when they testified before Congress that cigarette smoking is not addictive. Every single one of them knew better from their own research. Every one of them was careful to say "In my opinion cigarette smoking is not addictive..." or "I believe that cigarette smoking is not addictive." Yes, they knew better but they were well coached by their tobacco company attorneys. Some people would call that subornation of perjury.

I also think it is despicable that they would conduct focus groups with 5-yr-olds to measure brand recognition and target their advertising campaigns at 14-yr-olds. Of course, they will tell you that all of that was in the past. Yet we know that they are continuing to fund research designed to mislead the scientific community and the public at large just as they did even more blatantly for decades.

I Personally believe that the prohibiition of tobacco would be a more honest approach then allowing the companies to continue to do business and then sueing them for a share of the profits. I am not a great fan of tobacco companies, but I am a fan of free enterprise and personal accountability.

I don't agree with any of the lawsuits by individuals who claim that they had no idea smoking was a health hazard. I could have smoked when I was a teenager if I had been dumb enough but I wasn't. And that was a time when we were bombarded with advertising telling us how relaxing smoking could be, to say nothing of its proven ability to make you instantly cool and attractive to the opposite sex. Anyone who would set rolled up leaves on fire, stick them in their mouths and inhale the smoke can't come back forty or fifty years later and claim they didn't realize that might have been a really dumb idea. They did it because they wanted to do it. That's their right.

Suing the tobacco companies for a share of the profits is exactly what happened with the asbestos companies. Virtually all of them have since filed bankruptcy. In my opinion, the tobacco companies were more culpable than most of the asbestos companies. When I say most asbestos companies, I'm talking about the end product vendors and users and NOT the major mining company and predominant manufacturer. They knew exactly what was going on and hid it for decades. They had a permanent R.N. on duty at every plant taking annual chest x-rays and performing regular health exams. Their attitude was that it was no more hazardous than coal mining and just goes with the territory. They were the first company to file bankruptcy. If you get an award against their asbestos liability fund you get paid 10% until such time as you can prove with a biopsy that you have cancer cause by asbestosis. By the time the remaining 90% of your award is paid, it goes to your estate. That's because the fund is insufficient to pay out the measly awards that are granted.

Prohibition didn't work and I don't see how making smoking illegal would solve anything. I wouldn't mind seeing some method for the tobacco companies or their customers to fund their future health care costs themselves. The only problem with that is that any additional taxes would be misused by the local governments just as they violated the terms of the previous settlements.

I think the best approach is education. It obviously works. The states, such as California, that have robust anti-smoking campaigns and restrictions on secondhand smoke have dramatically lowered the percentage of adults that continue to smoke.