Bluegrime on 26/8/2006 at 02:45

---

Hrm.. I'm sure that other people may have taken certain.. Objections to the 'Truth' ad campaigns, but I may be wrong. So far, i've seen quite a few things that are questionable at best.


Natrually, theres the fact that theres no real way for the 'Evil tobacco nazis' to refute these claims. Truth isn't subject to the restrictions placed on Tobacco Companies when it comes to advertising and soforth. In short, Truth is poking a cage animal with a stick. Following this is the 'SECRET TOBACCO DOCUMENTS! OOOOOOOH SCAAARY!!!'. They have never actually shown the entire document for examination on they're commercials when they are using it to say that tobacco companies are hiding the 'truth'. Most recently is the 'Zephyr' document, which describes lung cancer as that. Now, this might well be an internal memo, which is meant to be passed around.. You know.. Internally. If this was infact an internal memo, then it's probably 'true' that the people giving and recieving these are well aware of what this means. Further more, why exactly would they publsih something with a code word in the first place? If they are allowed to completly code every bad thing ever on these documents, why would they even use these as PR reports? (Hint: No.)

Continuing, look at the most half assed attempt to make someone look bad i've seen them try. In short, they were trying to bag a tobacco company for donating X-,000$ in food to charity (Exact number escapes me). Now, the reason they decided to attack them is that the company spent a bit over the donated amount on they're own counter campaign pointing this out. In short, Truth does the same thing, only without the whole.. Donating money to help people. Lets not forget strolling around and saying things like 'WHY NOT BAN SLEEP? THEY SAID TO! HURKA-FUCKITY-DURK!'. (Most people actually do die in they're sleep, and they didnt MEAN IT LITERALLY.) Then theres the documents from the 1950-ish era that compare the addictive qualities of cigarettes to things like jogging, etc. For the record, kids followed around the bug spray trucks one bikes, playgrounds werent padded, asbestos was in and diabetes could be cured in insane asylums. Needless to say, we've made a tad bit of progress since those days, and I dont see them going after the WHO for beliving that one could cure diabetes by locking someone into a cell and giving them the best of wishes.

That's all I care to say at the moment, but theres bound to be more on its way as I think about this.

Vernon on 26/8/2006 at 04:02

---

fixed?

Bluegrime on 26/8/2006 at 04:44

---

I wouldnt have this problem if there was an equal footing here in terms of air time, and they would actually engage in some form of whatever the proper term is for what they do when theres actaully someone to argue with them. (As opposed to walking into rehab clinics and wanting to be admitted for jogging.)

Jonesy on 26/8/2006 at 14:20

---

Cigarette companies have not been allowed to advertise on television (in the United States) since January 2nd, 1971.

RavynousHunter on 26/8/2006 at 22:59

---

the "Truth" thing is kinda stupid, and annoying. sides that, they mostly cite out-dated info (like from the 50's to the 80's), and as any debater can tell you, that just doesnt fucking cut it. if youre in a debate round, and you cite a peice of evidence from the 50's, youd get kicked in the nuts then thrown out of the tourny and debate team. but i do agree that cigs are just plain wrong, i mean, they make the shit with formaldehyde (i think thats how its spelled), thats for preserving corpses people. i dont see why the governtment just doesnt simply outlaw cigarettes, and legalize weed. IMO, weed is a lot more addictave than a cig, and weed doesnt have nearly the cancerous effects of a cig. if youre going to inhale smoke, why not get real fuckin high while youre at it? :confused: replace cigs with reefers, is all im sayin.