Tobacco firms sue US over graphic cigarette labels

Four tobacco companies filed a lawsuit against the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Tuesday over what they say are unconstitutional requirements for warning labels on US cigarette packaging.

The third largest cigarette manufacturer in the , Lorillard, Inc., said they were "challenging nine new cigarette warnings as an unconstitutional way of forcing tobacco manufacturers to disseminate the government's anti-smoking message," in a statement Tuesday.

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Commonwealth Brands, Inc., and Liggett Group LLC joined Lorillard in the suit, which was filed in a federal court in Washington.

Under recently announced FDA regulations, cigarette packs, cartons and all cigarette advertising must display graphic warnings by September 22, 2012.

"The regulations violate the First Amendment," said Floyd Abrams, a partner at Cahill Gordon & Reindel, the law firm representing Lorillard.

The FDA, which routinely declines discussing pending litigation, could not be reached for comment.

In June the FDA unveiled the graphic images -- including a lifeless body, a scarred mouth and a blackened lung -- that will occupy the top 50 percent of the front and rear panels of sold in the United States and the top 20 percent of cigarette advertisements.

One of the images, which shows a man with his chest sewn up, bears the caption "Warning: Smoking can kill you."

According to the FDA, smoking kills 1,200 people a day in the United States alone.

The label changes came about following a June 2009 law, signed by President Barack Obama about five months after he took office, that gave the FDA the power to regulate manufacturing, marketing and sale of products.

The nine images were picked from a group of 36 proposals issued several months ago, after health authorities analyzed results on their effectiveness from an 18,000-person study and took into account about 1,700 public comments, the FDA said.

Each warning label also contains a phone number to call for help in quitting.

Anti-smoking groups such as the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids said earlier this year that the move was "the most significant change in US cigarette warnings since they were first required in 1965."

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

FDA ban on flavored cigs takes effect

Sep 22, 2009

(AP) -- The new federal ban on flavored cigarettes took effect on Tuesday, marking one of the first visible signs of the Food and Drug Administration's new authority to regulate tobacco.

Recommended for you

Report highlights progress, challenges in health IT

14 hours ago

(HealthDay)—Progress has been made toward widespread adoption of electronic health records (EHRs), although there are still barriers to adoption of advanced use of EHRs, according to a report published ...

Training your brain to prefer healthy foods

14 hours ago

It may be possible to train the brain to prefer healthy low-calorie foods over unhealthy higher-calorie foods, according to new research by scientists at the Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center ...

Outdoor enthusiasts need a lightning plan

14 hours ago

(HealthDay)—Those partaking in outdoor sports and activities need to be aware of the threat posed by lightning and take appropriate safety measures, experts say.

User comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Squirrel
3 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2011
Why not just require tobacco to be evaluated in regard to safety and health like any the manufactures of any other commercial product? Reynolds, Commonwealth Brands and Liggett need to be treated fairly.
dogbert
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 17, 2011
It seems reasonable to require warnings on tobacco products. The FDA requires warnings on other drugs and can specifically require what is called a "black box warning" in a package insert to warn of adverse effects.

The requirement under question for tobacco exceeds anything imagined for any other product. Suppose the outcry if half the label on any drug containing acetaminophen (Tylenol) were required to show a jaundiced person, a necrotic liver or a dead person.

Tobacco is a legal product. It should be treated as a legal product.
Techno1
3 / 5 (4) Aug 17, 2011
Tobacco is a legal product. It should be treated as a legal product.


Tobacco sales should be banned.

Tobacco should only be used for biology research, since it makes a good test subject for genetic experimentation.

Sale of cigarettes and chewing tobacco should be illegal.

The long-term benefits to the healthcare system AND the economy would be astronomical.
dogbert
3.2 / 5 (6) Aug 17, 2011
Techno1,
Your comment really doesn't address the issue about labeling requirements.

Do you realize that if we banned tobacco, we will have created just another illegal drug to support the drug cartels?

Just curious. Are you also against the decriminalization of pot?
emsquared
3 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2011
The long-term benefits to the healthcare system AND the economy would be astronomical.

Are you going to ban high-sodium fast-food, high-fructose corn syrup, alcohol, SUVs/trucks, etc. etc. etc. too while you're at it?

I'm not disputing that banning things that are "bad for us" wouldn't be good for health care costs, however it's not up to you or anyone else to tell people they can't do something that's bad for them (until of course it infringes upon another's rights).

If they could, you wouldn't be able to make 1/10th of the posts you do, because you sitting on your ass, staring at that screen, typing away at that keyboard for too long is bad for you.

Hmmm, maybe you're on to something after all.
Nanobanano
3 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2011
Techno has a point.

Smoking is bad for you.

It's also very bad for people around you. Second hand smoke often causes just as much problems as first hand smoke, including cancers.

Other people's smoking infringes upon my basic human right to life, because it unnecessarily exposes me to their carcinogenic habit.

Other people's drinking infringes upon my basic human right to life, because it increases the likelihood that they will "accidentally" kill me or someone else in an automobile crash or some similar situation.

Both infringe upon my right to liberty and pursuit of hapiness, because they inflate insurance costs and healthcare costs and other costs in ways that would otherwise not exist.
Ethelred
2.2 / 5 (5) Aug 18, 2011
Tobacco is a legal product. It should be treated as a legal product.
It is only legal because there are so many addicts. If it was treated like the drug it is it would be illegal. I see no reason that a drug that should be illegal but is sold to placate the large base of addicts shouldn't be treated this way.

Should heroin ever be legalized it too should be this way.

Are you also against the decriminalization of pot?
I am. And if it is found to be as dangerous as tobacco it should get similar warnings. At present there is no reliable evidence that marijuana is even remotely as dangerous as tobacco.

Maybe we should have crashed cars on alcohol. How about a crashed SUV for beer?

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Aug 18, 2011
Oops
Are you also against the decriminalization of pot?

I read that wrong. I for the legalization of marijuana. Not decriminalization LEGALIZATION.

And no I don't do pot. Got through the sixties to point of actually being sixty without using recreational drugs.

Ethelred
dogbert
1 / 5 (2) Aug 18, 2011
Ethelred,
I asked the question of Techno1 but since you answered ...

You show a considerable inconsistency in wanting to ban tobacco while promoting the legalization of marijuana.

Why should you or anyone else decide what weed someone can smoke/consume and what weed people cannot smoke/consume?

It really boils down to "I like this weed" versus "I don't like that weed", doesn't it?
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Aug 18, 2011
You show a considerable inconsistency in wanting to ban tobacco while promoting the legalization of marijuana.
Please do, some day, learn how to read. Nowhere did I say I wanted to ban it. I said if it was treated as a drug, which it is, it would be ilegal. That is not saying I agree with that. Despite the fact it killed my mother and my grandmother and certainly contributed to my father's death.

Try and find some evidence to show marijuana being anywhere near as bad as tobacco.

It really boils down to "I like this weed" versus "I don't like that weed", doesn't it?
No. It comes down to

You not being able to read.

And which drug is a killer. Tobacco and alchohol kill. There is little or no evidence that marijuana is even close to them.

Now go buy See Spot Run. I promise it doesn't have any evil warning labels on it.

Ethelred
dogbert
1 / 5 (2) Aug 18, 2011
Ethelred,
No. It comes down to

You not being able to read.


You answered the question I asked Techno1. Therefore, I responded to Techno1's assertion that he wanted to ban tobacco when you took up his argument.

Perhaps you need remedial reading -- or perhaps a course in rational discourse?

And it does come down to your desire to determine what others can and cannot do.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Aug 18, 2011
You answered the question I asked Techno1.
And that has meaning how? This is a public forum. Anyone can reply to anything.

Perhaps you need remedial reading -- or perhaps a course in rational discourse?
I can not help it if you failed read what I wrote. I am only responsible for my own errors. I am not responsible for techno or you. Nor do I wish to be.

And it does come down to your desire to determine what others can and cannot do.
As long as you try to invent my position based on your reading error you will remain unable to engage in rational discourse.

Any time you want to discuss what I wrote feel free. Anytime you insist on pretending I said something else I will point it out. I do not defend positions that the unskilled or disingenuous invent for me.

Oh and only the most seriously foolish do desire that there are at least some controls on what people can do. Murder for instance tends to be frowned by all but the most seriously reality challenged.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Aug 18, 2011
Speaking of errors that I am responsible for:
Oh and only the most seriously foolish do
Is seriously missing a DON'T. I tend drop the most unfortunate words like

No
not
never
don't
doesn't

and other such words. This site really needs at least a preview and a longer edit window. Especially in my case.

Ethelred
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 19, 2011
Are you going to ban high-sodium fast-food, high-fructose corn syrup, alcohol, SUVs/trucks, etc. etc. etc. too while you're at it?
No just tobacco.
I'm not disputing that banning things that are "bad for us" wouldn't be good for health care costs, however it's not up to you or anyone else to tell people they can't do something that's bad for them (until of course it infringes upon another's rights).
Tobacco damages fetuses and causes crib death. Secondhand smoke further damages children. For these reasons it should be criminalized. Dont you agree? Parents DO NOT have the right to ruin their childrens lives. Children should not have to be born into withdrawal.

Any pregnant woman found smoking should immediately be placed in a lockdown clinic until she gives birth. We will soon have the tech to monitor pregnant women in realtime for just such abuse.

Fetal damage is the most insidious form of abuse.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 19, 2011
And it does come down to your desire to determine what others can and cannot do.
Thats right. And where dirt breathers have the potential to damage and sicken and cost others, their disease WILL be restricted.
emsquared
not rated yet Aug 19, 2011
No just tobacco.
...
Secondhand smoke further damages children. For these reasons it should be criminalized. Dont you agree? Parents DO NOT have the right to ruin their childrens lives.

No they don't. But they do have the right to consume whatever product they chose if it is legally sold under the law.

HFCS (in pop especially but everything else too) and parents allowing their spawn to vegetate in front of a TV cause childhood obesity up to diabetes, which lead to the obvious health detriments now and later in life AND the kids possibly being bullied and teased by peers, "ruining their lives" even more.

These products are just as insidious and harmful as tobacco and have arguably greater societal costs yet they're not on your list, why the inconsistency?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 19, 2011
No they don't. But they do have the right to consume whatever product they chose if it is legally sold under the law.
Not if that consumption has the potential to damage property or injure others, as in drunk driving.

There are all sorts of restrictions on tobacco addicts and they are increasing.
These products are just as insidious and harmful as tobacco and have arguably greater societal costs yet they're not on your list, why the inconsistency?
Because it has killed people close to me and it makes me personally sick.
HFCS (in pop especially but everything else too) and parents allowing their spawn to vegetate in front of a TV cause childhood obesity up to diabetes, which lead to the obvious health detriments now and later in life AND the kids possibly being bullied and teased by peers, "ruining their lives" even more.
Thats ok. We'll start with your idiot disease first. Suck that dirt down deep smoker, you soon wont be able to afford it. Kaff kaff. Puke. Wheeze.
Callippo
not rated yet Aug 19, 2011
Tobacco is a legal product. It should be treated as a legal product.
It's not legal product just because it's not currently handled so. It's just government, which defines, under which circumstances some particular product will be considered legal. Unlabeled tobacco products are considered non-legal product by not.
emsquared
3 / 5 (2) Aug 19, 2011
Not if that consumption has the potential to damage property or injure others, as in drunk driving.

Sorry, it's still not the consumption that is the illegal act here. It's the choices after that consumption that violate the law. Just with cigarettes or HFCS or TV, there are safe levels of consumption and choices you can make post consumption that negate any deleterious effects those products may have. And you want to deprive people of the freedom to make a choice.
Thats ok. We'll start with your idiot disease first. Suck that dirt down deep smoker, you soon wont be able to afford it. Kaff kaff. Puke. Wheeze.

LOL, Interesting that you assume I'm a smoker.

I'm not. But I'm also not a hypocrite.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Aug 21, 2011
Sorry, it's still not the consumption that is the illegal act here. It's the choices after that consumption that violate the law...there are safe levels of consumption and choices you can make post consumption that negate any deleterious effects those products may have.
And how do pregnant mothers who consume drugs, alcohol, and TOBACCO going to make CHOICES which negate the damage they have already done to their fetuses?

How do smokers decide afterward to negate the effects of their disease on their bodies? How does a drunk decide AFTER he has gotten blind drunk, not to get behind the wheel?
LOL, Interesting that you assume I'm a smoker.

I'm not. But I'm also not a hypocrite.
Sure you are. Why are you defending this disease unless you or someone you know suffers from it? I am assuming it is YOU. Addicts HAVE no 'choice'.

Like any addict your attempts at reason are inevitably colored by the need to maintain your addiction. This is what addiction DOES.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2011
'Safe' levels??

Alcohol:
"Animal research shows that on the cellular level, as little as one dose of alcohol can reduce brain cell adhesion and cause neurological deficits. Human research has been limited, for ethical/legal reasons...the only safe level of alcohol during pregnancy is ZERO.

National Organization on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome:
"No safe time. No safe amount. No safe alcohol. Period."

Tobacco:
-Lower the amount of oxygen available to you and your growing baby.
-Increase your baby's heart rate.
-Increase the chances of miscarriage and stillbirth.
-Increase the risk that your baby is born prematurely and/or born with low birth weight...respiratory (lung) problems.
-Baby born with nicotine WITHDRAWAL.

There is no "safe" level of smoking while pregnant.

Babies exposed to secondhand smoke may also develop reduced lung capacity and are at higher risk for sudden infant death syndrome.

So em, where do you get your dangerous opinions and why?? You make money off tobacco?
dogbert
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 21, 2011
TheGhostofOtto1923,

I suppose you are against all legal drugs, for whatever purpose, since all drugs may have adverse effects?

If not, how do you determine what drugs are OK and what drugs are not OK?

The larger question of why you want to direct other people is rather rhetorical.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Aug 21, 2011
Tobacco is not ok. Is that rhetorical enough for you? It is not ok for pregnant women. It is not ok for half of all smokers that it kills. It is not ok for ME because it has killed people I care about and it makes me SICK.

Versteht? Read my comments AGAIN for further info.
dogbert
1 / 5 (2) Aug 21, 2011
TheGhostofOtto1923,
Yes, you have made it clear you do not like tobacco and that you do not like alcohol.

How do you determine what drugs are OK and what drugs are not OK? Are there any legal drugs which you find to be OK despite their possible adverse effects?

I am not asking you why you want to tell other people what to do. I am asking you how you decide what drugs are good drugs and what drugs are bad drugs.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Aug 21, 2011
"Why not just require tobacco to be evaluated in regard to safety and health like any the manufactures of any other commercial product?" - Whomever

Republicans have constantly opposed such things.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2011
"Tobacco is a legal product. It should be treated as a legal product." - Dogbert

Tobacco is a legal product. It should be reclassified as an illegal product.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2011
Criminalize the production and sale. Keep consumption and personal production legal.

Shut down Big Tobacco.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2011
Perhaps you don't recall your country being used as source for illegal alcohol for the bootleggers during the US experiment with Prohibition. That fiasco and the vast number of tobacco addicts is the reason that neither the US nor Canada are likely to make tobacco illegal no matter how vile the stuff is.

However that does NOT mean that we have to idiots about it as Dogbert seems to want. If someone wants to make a fortune by killing people they can fund the bloody campaign against the poison. If RJ. Reynolds and the rest of the murderers want to keep getting paid to kill their own customers they will have to do so according the laws of the land.

And yes they are murderers. They lied about the addiction and even researched how to enhance it. And then acted on the research. The bastards should have been locked up for Contempt of Congress when they perjured themselves.

Ethelred
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Aug 22, 2011
How do you determine what drugs are OK and what drugs are not OK? Are there any legal drugs which you find to be OK despite their possible adverse effects?
Dogbreath has his causes, one of which is apparently maintaining his dirt-breathing affliction.

Otto has his causes. I know statistics do not impress addicts but I like them.

"Smoking causes death.

"The adverse health effects from cigarette smoking account for an estimated 443,000 deaths, or nearly one of every five deaths, each year in the United States.

"More deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus, illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined.

"Smoking causes an estimated 90% of all lung cancer deaths in men and 80% of all lung cancer deaths in women.
An estimated 90% of all deaths from chronic obstructive lung disease are caused by smoking."

Pregnant smokers:
http://www.cdc.go...egnancy/
emsquared
5 / 5 (1) Aug 22, 2011
Why are you defending this disease unless you or someone you know suffers from it?

Defending a disease? Can you "hear" yourself? I'm defending principles. Your problem is not with me or even my views. Your problem is with whomever it was in your life that CHOSE to kill themselves with tobacco.
There is no "safe" level of smoking while pregnant.

I wasn't talking about while pregnant, indeed I agreed with the pregnant portion. I was talking about the consumption of any legal product in general that has negative effects when taken in excess.
So em, where do you get your dangerous opinions and why?? You make money off tobacco?

No opinions. Just facts. Any other ad hominems you'd like to throw out there to prove how you have no actual valid argument?

I'm making no statement as to whether tobacco should or should not be legal; it is, period. I am arguing in that context. I'm not gonna consume it either way, I have a brain in my head.
dogbert
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2011
Ghosty,
Dogbreath has his causes, one of which is apparently maintaining his dirt-breathing affliction.


I don't use tobacco. Personal attacks are an indication that you believe you cannot support your own position.

Lets try again. Instead of spouting questionable statistics about tobacco and making personal attacks, why not actually engage in discourse and respond to the questions I have asked you several times: "How do you determine what drugs are OK and what drugs are not OK? Are there any legal drugs which you find to be OK despite their possible adverse effects?"

Do you just want to ban what you don't like? How do you select what drugs you want to ban and what drugs you like (if you like any drugs)?

Why do you only list only the adverse outcomes which have an association with tobacco use, fail to mention the only disease which is known to be caused by tobacco use and never mention the beneficial effects of tobacco?
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2011
I was talking about the consumption of any legal product in general that has negative effects when taken in excess.
This is wrong. Tobacco is illegal but it was and still is often aimed at those who not old enough to buy. Pushing addictive substances on the young is rather different from general products with or without negative effects.

fail to mention the only disease which is known to be caused by tobacco use
Cancer and heart disease ARE caused by tobacco. That tobacco is not the only cause does not change that.

I'm not gonna consume it either way, I have a brain in my head.
Some people don't. Most people when they are young.

never mention the beneficial effects of tobacco?
It could be because there really aren't any. Certainly nothing that is enough to actually allow it to be sold if it was a new product. There is no doubt that if it was a new drug it would not be legal. The only reason it is legal is the large base of addicts.

Ethelred
emsquared
2.8 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2011
This is wrong. Tobacco is illegal...

I'm assuming you meant legal, no il-.
Pushing addictive substances on the young is rather different from general products with or without negative effects.

You telling me that sugar isn't addictive, caffeine isn't addictive, TV isn't addictive?

The ENTIRETY of our economic system is based on trying to get the consumer, especially children, addicted to your product.

To get them to feel as though they cannot live without it. It may not be a chemical addiction in all cases but, that. is. what. we. do.

Some people don't. Most people when they are young.

As the sage Eddie Vedder once said in song and verse;
It's evolution, baby!

Seriously, you cannot expect the market to regulate itself. The consumer determines what sells by buying it, and the consumer must regulate themselves (or their kids). That's how market economics works. Individuals overcome addiction everyday, to blame those who won't/can't on the market is not valid.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2011
You telling me that sugar isn't addictive, caffeine isn't addictive, TV isn't addictive?
No. But I will now. None of those cause withdrawal symptoms after quiting. Well you produce sugars so that would kill you if you didn't get glucose in some way. Are you going to claim that people can just stop smoking easy?

The ENTIRETY of our economic system is based on trying to get the consumer, especially children, addicted to your product.
Lie. USE not get addicted. Changing the word to mean something else is what the tobacconists were doing in front of Congress. Its also a sign that the POSTER has nothing of substance to back them.

As the sage Eddie Vedder once said in song and verse;
It's evolution, baby!
So you want to kill children with tobacco? Lovely. And half the idiots on this thread backing tobacco sales don't believe in evolution.

Seriously, you cannot expect the market to regulate itself.
Obviously I don't. That is Dogbert.>>
Ethelred
3.8 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2011
and the consumer must regulate themselves (or their kids).
That is asking the market to regulate itself. Do try using actual English.

That's how market economics works.
That is how it fails to function for society.

to blame those who won't/can't on the market is not valid.
Blaming the 'market' for the addictive properties of the drug is not valid.

Ethelred
emsquared
1 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2011
No. But I will now. None of those cause withdrawal symptoms after quiting.

Sorry, you're wrong. Try educating yourself. All of those things I mentioned (and more, including SHOPPING, sex and digital technology) have been clinically diagnosed as addiction disorders, which means they all have a withdrawal symptom, like anxiety or depression, or physical like your tobacco.
Are you going to claim that people can just stop smoking easy?

If the person truly wants to and isn't a weak-minded-fool, yes.
USE, not get addicted.

Wrong again. Sorry you are clueless about advertising and marketing goals.
That is asking the market to regulate itself.

Taking a statement out of context is not a valid debate tactic.

You are arguing why tobacco shouldn't be sold but other identical product-types should. You are saying, either "because I choose it" or "the supplier should be obligated not to", I'm saying those are both baseless in principle. Unfortunately for you, I'm right.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2011
Defending a disease? Can you "hear" yourself? I'm defending principles.
No youre not. Addiction is a disease. Addicts have no choice but to smoke. Youre defending your lack of principles.
Your problem is with whomever it was in your life that CHOSE to kill themselves with tobacco.
They didnt choose to kill themselves. My mom watched her favorite stars on tv, sports heros, commercials, all telling her it was harmless. I couldnt stand her smelling like a trashbin.

Mothers are NOT supposed to smell like that. Parental bonds depend a lot on sense of smell. This is true throughout the animal world. I had a mom who I couldnt get close to, who died in a horrible manner. Neither of us chose this situation.

But I can certainly choose to speak out about it now. I repeat - WHY do you defend this sickness? Whats your motive?
"How do you determine what drugs are OK and what drugs are not OK?
Read this post. TOBACCO IS NOT OK. You ask again, you get the same answer.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2011
Instead of spouting questionable statistics
What statistics are those? The ones I got from the CDC?
Do you just want to ban what you don't like?
Well sure. Just call me the Jerry Lewis of physorg. Why doesnt Jerry hold an 'Every Cause You Can Think Of' telethon? He was moved to fight MS.

Otto is moved to fight stink addicts. And idiot religionists. And other similar causes as HE sees FIT. Kapiert?
All of those things I mentioned (and more, including SHOPPING, sex and digital technology) have been clinically diagnosed as addiction disorders
Try to list addictions that ruin families, cause 90% of lung cancers. injures and KILLS babies...

Pregnant non-smokers:
"The study, published in the April edition of the journal Pediatrics, found passive smoking increased the risk of still birth by almost one-quarter (23 per cent) and was linked to a 13 per cent increased risk of CONGENITAL BIRTH DEFECTS."

-Is this against your principles or not?
emsquared
1 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2011
No youre not. Addiction is a disease. Addicts have no choice but to smoke.

LOL, yes, I am.

1st, addicts overcome addiction every day. They DO have a choice. Every-single-one. I'm here to tell you, I know many addicts, personal friends, who have overcame because they were smart and strong and willed themselves to quit (cigarettes, alcohol, hard-drugs). I'm not denying biology plays a large part, there are no alcoholics or drug-addicts in my family and it's not because of abstinence :P

But what I am defending is that; you cannot say this one product is bad for you when "consumed inappropriately" so you can't sell it, but then ignore all these other products that are also bad for you when "consumed inappropriately". THAT is what I am defending, and what you are ignoring.
Whats your motive?

Principle. Put a petition in front of me for backers to ban tobacco and I'd sign it. But only because I'm selfish, not because there's any fair, lawful basis for it.
emsquared
1 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2011
Try to list addictions that ruin families, cause 90% of lung cancers. injures and KILLS babies...

You're telling me gambling AND shopping addiction hasn't ruined families? That sex addiction has ruined families? That HFCS doesn't cause obesity (especially in kids) which causes heart disease and all kinds of horrible things hasn't ruined 50% of American families? That alcohol doesn't cause cancer, and kill people, including babies? You know you're wrong, thank you for finally admitting it.
Do you just want to ban what you don't like?

Well sure.

Is this against your principles or not?

I think it's a shame some people CHOOSE to do these things to their babies. Do I think their should be legal repercussions for individuals who make this choice? Yes.

But, it is not justification to outlaw tobacco.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2011
1st, addicts overcome addiction every day. They DO have a choice.
When I was a kid smoking was not an addiction, was it? This is what we watched on tv:

http://www.youtub...qnQfBIlk
I'm here to tell you, I know many addicts, personal friends
Hey good for you. Why dont you get them together and have a telethon?

You know, I'm here to tell you that some of my best friends are religionists. No, really.
But what I am defending is that; you cannot say this one product is bad for you when "consumed inappropriately" so you can't sell it, but then ignore all these other products that are also bad for you when "consumed inappropriately". THAT is what I am defending, and what you are ignoring.
Blah? Dont strain so hard youll get hemorrhoids.

Hey I hear drinking draino causes death. But its not illegal is it?
http://www.surviv...coronor/

-Didnt even arrest her.
dogbert
1.3 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2011
TheGhostofOtto1923,
Do you just want to ban what you don't like?


Well sure.


That is all I was asking. You want to tell others what to do and what not to do based on your own prejudices.

I'm glad you lack the means to dictate to others.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2011
I think it's a shame some people CHOOSE to do these things to their babies. Do I think their should be legal repercussions for individuals who make this choice? Yes.

But, it is not justification to outlaw tobacco.
Right. So we should wait until they irreparably damage their babies, and then punish them for it.

It will soon be possible to monitor a pregnant womans blood chemistry remotely, in real time. As soon as this unborn person is found to be in danger, the mother should be arrested and held until she gives birth.

We cannot allow women to cause the type of injury to their unborn children which would get them convicted of reckless endangerment and attempted murder if they were committed after the child was born.

This, in conjunction with genetic profiling and prenatal treatment, will begin to prevent the kinds of damage and defect which are the reason for most of the crime, mental illness, and misery existing in society today.

Dont you agree? In principle that is?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2011
TheGhostofOtto1923,
Do you just want to ban what you don't like?


Well sure.


That is all I was asking. You want to tell others what to do and what not to do based on your own prejudices.

I'm glad you lack the means to dictate to others.
...Arf?? You sir are delusional on SO many levels. Perhaps your mom damaged you in the womb. Too much communion wine -? How many times can you get commuted during one service I wonder?
dogbert
1 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2011
Perhaps your mom damaged you in the womb.


No. And I didn't reject her just because she smoked.
dogbert
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2011
I apologise, Otto. That last comment was insensitive.

I should not have said that.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2011
Sex addiction is purest bullshit.

have been clinically diagnosed as addiction disorders
Again utter nonsense.

like anxiety or depression, or physical like your tobacco.
The LAST is addiction. The rest is mere habit. I can't help it if some psychiatrist is trying to justify an insurance charge. Tobacco addiction is real. The rest is just a bad habit. Or a good habit in the case of my habit of pointing out crappy posts like yours.

If the person truly wants to and isn't a weak-minded-fool, yes.
Bullshit. I have seen people fail time and again. They weren't weak minded nor fools. Just savagely addicted. Only a small percentage of the population can quit easily.

Sorry you are clueless about advertising and marketing goals.
No. I am quite correct. You are glue and I am rubber. No I am not impressed by your automatic gainsaying of whatever I say.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2011
Taking a statement out of context is not a valid debate tactic.
Then you need to explain yourself rather a bit better as I was completely correct in the context that existed. The full post is right there for everyone to see.

You are arguing why tobacco shouldn't be sold but other identical product-types should.
That is bullshit. I did not make that argument. And this is just as inaccurate as the rest of that crap. Not one single time have I said tobacco shouldn't be sold. If you read my posts so badly you must have made a lot more mistakes in your reading. Must be why you are a RightWingNut. Can't read.

Unfortunately for you, I'm right.
More like you tried to change what I wrote to mean something else. Which is not right.

Ethelred
emsquared
1 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2011
Blah?

I accept your concession.
The rest is mere habit. I can't help it if some psychiatrist is trying to justify an insurance charge.

You can take that up with APA. Nice to know you're a conspiracy theorist though. How many times have you tried to shout down an AGW opponent for the very argument you are making here. Congratulations on being a hypocrite as well as wrong.
Bullshit. I have seen people fail time and again.

Woah, you got me there. All you have seen is that a large percentage of the population are weak-minded-fools (including those you watched fail). This should be no surprise.
Then you need to explain yourself rather a bit better...

Before you jumped in, Otto and I were debating the responsibilities of the consumer vs. supplier, perhaps more exactly I should have said "you can't expect the supplier to regulate themselves".
That is bullshit. I did not make that argument.

You jumped in on two analogous discussions with counterpoint.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2011
I apologise, Otto. That last comment was insensitive.

I should not have said that.
Only dogs feel guilty for peeing on somebodys leg. 8O
You're telling me gambling AND shopping addiction hasn't ruined families? That sex addiction has ruined families? That HFCS doesn't cause obesity (especially in kids) which causes heart disease and all kinds of horrible things hasn't ruined 50% of American families? That alcohol doesn't cause cancer, and kill people, including babies? You know you're wrong, thank you for finally admitting it.
Well, I didnt actually READ your list. But tobacco is worst.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2011
I accept your concession
THAT was a concession as I didn't concede anything nor did you actually reply to anything.

You can take that up with APA
I am taking up right here.

Nice to know you're a conspiracy theorist though
Nice that I already knew you like to lie. That was not a conspiracy theory.

How many times have you tried to shout down an AGW opponent
Zero. I mostly discuss the ice and the CO2 and bogus claims of conspiracy.

Congratulations on being a hypocrite as well as wrong
Congratulations on not actually dealing with anything I said.

Woah, you got me there
And everywhere else so far.

All you have seen is that a large percentage of the population are weak-minded-fools
Only if you define it that way. However a lot of people that have difficulty in getting of tobacco are neither weak minded nor fools. They don't become that simply you lie about them.

should be no surprise
It is no surprise that you would lie about people.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2011
Before you jumped in, Otto and I were debating the responsibilities of the consumer vs. supplier
Its an open forum. Anyone can jump in. And Otto wasn't doing that. You were engaging in monologuing.

I should have said "you can't expect the supplier to regulate themselves".
Gosh you actually dealt with something I said in a reasonable manner. Congratulations. And I most certainly can and do expect the GOVERNMENT to do it's job of regulating suppliers packaging and advertising. The tobacco industry used to lie up down left right and in several other dimensions as well. Rather a lot of people got hooked on the shit back when they pushed the idea that it was good for you. Of course so many of them are dead now.

You jumped in on two analogous discussions with counterpoint.
Which has nothing to do with YOU LYING like you did. Stick to what I say. This is an OPEN FORUM. If you can't handle that you shouldn't be here.

Ethelred
emsquared
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 25, 2011
THAT was a concession...
I am taking up right here...

Yeah. I'M the one with the english problems.
I didn't concede anything nor did you actually reply to anything.

LOL, so either you or Otto are a sock puppet of the other or you have the reading comprehension of a 1st grader. Actually reviewing everything, it's both.

That was in response to something Otto said ("Blah?"), just like everything else you jump in on but then deny responsibility for doing. Good job Ethel/Otto/Nano/Techno/WMF.
Congratulations on not actually dealing with anything I said.

You're mimicry is so cute (by which I mean juvenile). I don't have to "deal" with anything you said as your baseless denials don't warrant it. Just as you being wrong in principle and in general doesn't either. So, yeah, you're a waste of time, but it is so fun watching you squirm.
emsquared
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 25, 2011
However a lot of people that have difficulty in getting of tobacco are neither weak minded nor fools.

Actually that's how a WMF is defined, they can't overcome their most basic urges through rationale and discipline and will. Sorry, your addict society, friends and family who have to suck their poison, knowing full well it's poison, are a majority pathetic WMFs.
And I most certainly can and do expect the GOVERNMENT to do it's job of regulating suppliers packaging and advertising.

So do I. Again, you completely fail to comprehend the argument. Talk to me when you have something meaningful and relevant to say.
Its an open forum. Anyone can jump in.

Anyone can also have as many accounts as they want and be so dull as to not keep straight which one they're using at any given time.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Aug 26, 2011
Yeah. I'M the one with the english problems.
Glad we can agree on that.

LOL, so either you or Otto are a sock puppet of the other
Or you are incompetent. Which fits your writing on this thread.

That was in response to something Otto said ("Blah?"),
Yep incompetent is what you are.

, just like everything else you jump in on
The post was aimed at me. AND it is an open thread. You seem to be unable comprehend that.

but then deny responsibility for doing. Good job Ethel/Otto/Nano/Techno/WMF.
I take responsibility for what I write not for your errors in comprehension. And I am only Ethelred. Been that since 2000 online and before elsewhere. Just to waste time explaining things you probably can't compehend

Otto = Otto most of the time. There is someone pretending to be Otto.

Nano is new. Like you. Ignorant of who is who.

Techo = Quantum Conundrum and has been banned more than once.

WMF is your fantasy. Mostly likely based on yourself.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Aug 26, 2011
You're mimicry is so cute (by which I mean juvenile)
You are welcome to your delusions. Not learning from those more skilled is only one of your problems.

you said as your baseless denials don't warrant it.
I see. It is baseless to deny saying things I didn't say. Speaking of fools.

Just as you being wrong in principle and in general doesn't either.
Can't tell if I am based on your posts. You haven't dealt with anything I actually said.

So, yeah, you're a waste of time, but it is so fun watching you squirm.
More delusions. I eat trolls for breakfast.

I have this suspicion that you are actually foolish enough to think that lying about me is going to upset me. I think its fun tweaking trolls.

Anyone can also have as many accounts as they want
Yes. I know. Since you feel you have to tell me that you have just admitted that you know I am not using multiple accounts. Thank you for accidental admission.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Aug 26, 2011
be so dull as to not keep straight which one they're using at any given time.
Yes Marjon and Zephyr have had that problem.

So do I. Again, you completely fail to comprehend the argument.
Perhaps if you had actually said what you had intended to say there wouldn't be a problem. I am not taking responsbility for your inability to communicate. Then again creating confusion on what is your real position is exactly what a troll would do.

Since you are SO special this link is just for you.
http://en.wikiped...r_effect

It covers your problem quite well UNLESS you are just a troll. Hard to tell if a person is just grossly incompetent or a troll with delusions that he is bothering victims. You could be either.

Ethelred
emsquared
1 / 5 (1) Aug 26, 2011
Yes, and your feigning to not comprehend sarcasm makes you seem like an idiot and shows that you have no defense. Winning!
You haven't dealt with anything I actually said.

I don't argue with people who argue like a child.

Here's how it's been going, since you can't follow.

I make an assertion with supporting statements, you say the intellectual equivalent of, "Nuh,uh!". Care to actually posit a response worth responding to?
The post was aimed at me. AND it is an open thread. You seem to be unable comprehend that.

Nope, you respond to posts that are not obviously not directed at you, demonstrating you are both insecure in yourself and argument and unable to follow a basic conversation, then after having limped into an argument, deny the part you have played in it. Sad, intellectual cowardice.
Since you feel you have to tell me that you have just admitted that you know I am not using multiple accounts.

Or I demonstrated the worthlessness of your prior statement.
emsquared
2 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2011
Yes Ethelred, Marjon and Zephyr have had that problem.

There, fixed that for you. ;)
Perhaps if you had actually said what you had intended to say there wouldn't be a problem.

Look a few threads up and I have stated my stance explicitly a couple times, thanks for demonstrating yet again how you can't follow the simplest of conversations.
Then again creating confusion on what is your real position is exactly what a troll would do.

Yes, and a troll would also respond to stated arguments with personal attacks, shouts of "LIES!" with no supporting argument and generally behave like Ethelred behaves.

Your welcome, happy to finish your willful omissions for you.
Hard to tell if a person is just grossly incompetent or a troll with delusions that he is bothering victims.

You would know.

Unless you want to go back to the discussion, I'm done with watching you piss into the wind.

Enjoy.
emsquared
1 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2011
not obviously not directed at you

Hah, oops.

"obviously not directed at you", there fixed that for me.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Sep 01, 2011
Yes, and your feigning to not comprehend sarcasm
Idiocy is more like it.

idiot and shows that you have no defense. Winning!
Thats what the last troll claimed. He is gone except in my profile.

I don't argue with people who argue like a child.
True. You are the doing it.

I make an assertion with supporting statements
No. You CLAIM to have done so but have not.

intellectual equivalent of, "Nuh,uh!"
I go where is the support and where is the actual assertion or even the reply to anything I actually said?

Care to actually posit a response worth responding to?
That will have to wait till you say something that has meaning.

Nope, you respond to posts that are not obviously not directed at you
What part of OPEN THREAD is beyond your comprehension.

demonstrating you are both insecure in yourself
Secure enough to take on RightWingNutCases.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Sep 01, 2011
and unable to follow a basic conversation
I followed it just fine. It is YOUR fault you made no sense and tried to make up my side instead of actually your own.

then after having limped into an argument, deny the part you have played in it
I never deny MY part. Just the bullshit trolls try to claim I said.

Sad, intellectual cowardice.
Indeed it is that you are that way. When are you going to say anything that has meaning beyond the usual ad homonyms?

Or I demonstrated the worthlessness of your prior statement.
Or failed to do so as in this case.

There, fixed that for you. ;)
Yes you did lie yet another time. Nothing surprising that a Troll would follow up one lie with another.

Look a few threads up
Sorry but in THIS thread which is all the comments and the article you have never made it clear what you point was except to troll Otto and try to troll me.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Sep 01, 2011
hanks for demonstrating yet again how you can't follow the simplest of conversations.
Sorry but you did no such thing so there is nothing follow. At no time have you ever dealt with anything I was talking about. I was talking about the WARNINGS that Dogbert was bitching about. Do try to keep up.

Yes, and a troll would also respond to stated arguments with personal attacks, shouts of "LIES!"
Very good. Now if you would stop with the personal attacks based on the lies you told then I wouldn't have to point out that you lied and you might not feel the need for the ad homonyms you engaged in.

generally behave like Ethelred behaves.
If you did that you would not have tried to attack a straw man of your creation.

Your welcome, happy to finish your willful omissions for you.
Or more accurately LIE about what I said and then attack the lie.

You would know.
Yes. Now. You are a Troll with delusions. Thank you for making it clear.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Sep 01, 2011
Unless you want to go back to the discussion,
Anytime you want to discuss the WARNINGS on the cigarette packages instead trying to attack the straw man you invented please feel free.

I'm done with watching you piss into the wind.
I piss in a toilette. And Abu Hassan is not relevant to the discussion. Perhaps you should look into your digestive problem.

Enjoy.
I always enjoy Trolls. Their arms make good trophies.

Ethelred
emsquared
1 / 5 (3) Sep 01, 2011
the usual ad homonyms?

Yeah, those darn homonyms...

Pro tip: it's 'ad hominem', big guy.

;)

Hilarious how you are compelled to respond to ever single thing I say. You are one massively insecure puppy, aren't you? It completely belies your already transparent internet-tough-guy facade, doesn't it? Yea... you sure are and it sure does.

If I'm a troll why do you waste your time with me? Of course we already know the answer, because you are the troll. Either that or you are so dependent on your internet persona that you can't let a single eternal e-slight go by, can you? You are truly one of the special ones Ethel.

So, tell me; How do you reconcile the fact that every single thing you say about me, de facto applies to you as well by virtue of your identical behavior?

My guess is with willful denial or some justified-dissociation machination.

Good night, sweet prince.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 01, 2011
"The DunningKruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to recognize their mistakes. The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their own abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority. Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. As Kruger and Dunning conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others"

-Blah?

Some idiot smoker wrote this. EM did you write this?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 01, 2011
Also I dont think anyone is pretending to be otto except otto. Unless he is somewhere I havent been to?

Ever see Sybil?
TheRedComet
not rated yet Sep 01, 2011
Illegalization of tobacco would be futile because tobacco can be grown for personal use with limited space.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 01, 2011
Illegalization of tobacco would be futile because tobacco can be grown for personal use with limited space.
Yeah but the stink carries quite a distance dont it?
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Sep 03, 2011
Pro tip: it's 'ad hominem', big guy.
Little things for little minds. Your's must be tiny indeed.

You are one massively insecure puppy, aren't you?
I am very secure. Secure enough to respond to trolls.

If I'm a troll why do you waste your time with me?
Its fun.

Of course we already know the answer, because you are the troll.
Sorry. Think Beowulf.

How do you reconcile the fact that every single thing you say about me, de facto applies to you as well by virtue of your identical behavior?
Don't need to since it isn't true.

My guess is with willful denial or some justified-dissociation machination.
My guess is you just have a terrible need to lie.

Good night, sweet prince.
Hamlet was an idiot. And the story is based on something that occurred to two sons not one and one of the sons owned a Summer hall. That hall is where the Beowulf vs the Troll Grendel story occurred.

Good day Grendel.

Ethelred
emsquared
1 / 5 (2) Sep 08, 2011
Don't need to since it isn't true.

Willful denial FTW!!
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Sep 09, 2011
You and the Joker. Mistaking a mutual difference of any kind from everyone else for a similarity between the two vastly different people.

At least in the Joker's case they were both smart. You have trouble reading.

I have your arm troll.

Ethelred
emsquared
1 / 5 (2) Sep 09, 2011
You and the Joker. Mistaking a mutual difference of any kind from everyone else for a similarity between the two vastly different people.

At least in the Joker's case they were both smart. You have trouble reading.

I have your arm troll.

Ethelred

Whatever helps you sleep at night. Enjoy stuffing the truth deep down and remembering to forget it ever time you see my handle.

PS that arm you have is your own.

;)