POLITICS & COMMUNITY

03/21/96-03/27/96: Is the Tobacco Industry Falling Apart?

Although the tobacco industry maintains that nicotine is not addictive, former cigarette company employees have testified that this is untrue. The Liggett Group's recent out-of-court settlement is the first sign that the industry is giving in to government pressure. Is this crackdown a good thing? Or are we on our way to cigarette prohibition? Do tobacco companies have a debt to pay to society?

Copper: The idea that nictoine addiction through cigarettes is being denied is absurd. Tell any ex-smoker that smoking is not addictive; its almost a guaranteed laugh in your face. In my opinion, the crackdown on tobacco industries is a good thing. The less smokers we have in this country, the less cancers, lung problems, and early deaths we will have in this country. I would theroretically support a complete cigarette/tobacco prohibition, the only thing that could possibly suffer is the economy, the tobacco industry does have a large impact; but I feel that in time, it would work out. Ironic, isn't it, that in today's society, while people are avocating cigarette prohibition, that others are supporting marijuana legalization and the like?

thuxford: Cracking down on tobacco is a way for Washington politicians to evade issues and find scapegoats. Juvenile crime, increased cost of health care, and even the loss of traditional family values in America are being blamed on the tobacco industry. In truth, smoking is harmful for one's health-- as is eating too many twinkies, not exercising, etc. It is only one of a myriad of possible adictive behaviors that people will search out during their lives. I imagine that in another couple of years the tobacco industries will have paid a healthy sum of money in reparations which will be more than aptly compensated by their burgeoning foreign markets and the federal government will be on a new crusade to solve the same problems we are faced with today.

RWood: Cigarette smoking has placed a burden on the health of the U.S., as well as the poor state of physical fitness through non-excercise and bad nutritional habits. This should be taken seriously as a threat to National Security. These factors also send the cost of health care skyrocketing. I, like many, would like to have health insurance but cannot afford it. We owe it to each other to take better care of ourselves when we are able to.

dponder: My thoughts:
1. A tobacco prohibition will be no more effective than the alcohol prohibition of the 20's.
2. I'm more concerned with being killed by a drunk driver than I am by a smoking driver.
3. If the government succeeds in this, then what legal industy will be their next target.
4. The tobacco company is not the first group to lie to Congress. The intelligence and defense people do it all the time. Let them go after them.

ulasjod: I'm a non-smoker but my father and mother are. Because my mom smoker around me when I was growing up I developed breathing problems. I feel smoking should be banned because there are to many other factors that lead to cancer and death related problems. I'm a Biology student and I read about the problems in many of my biology classes specifically Toxicology. In this class I have read about how Congress has an high influence when it comes determing what should be done. Congress always pick economics over public heath. I know this ban would cause a lot of people to loose thier jobs but look at all the people that are dying too.

GeoffA: Smokers have bad breath, they suck!!!

jmd: One of the first things I learned in 5th grade health class was that tobacco contained a chemical called nicotine. We also learned that nicotine was the ingredient that caused physical addiction to cigarettes. If that material was taught in a public elementary school twenty or so years ago, how could these companies get away with denials? It's not clear to me that cigarette prohibition is a bad thing - smoking cigarettes harms not only the health of the smoker, but of others who may or may not want to swim in smoke. And while there should be some significant measure of product liability, not even lawsuits will take down these companies - not while portfolios are diversified (RJR/Nabisco for one) and international markets remain open.

chanticleer: Leave it alone already! A dead horse that couldn't be anymore dead. If people choose to smoke, let 'em. I smoked a pipe (tobacco not hemp) for awhile and enjoyed it. I quit when I got married due to my wife's physical sensitivity to it. I always smoked away from others, and never blew smoke in anyone's face. Typically, I smoked in my library/den alone after dinner. Interestingly enough, smoking was a treasured pleasure of quite a few of this country's founding fathers. Respect an individual's right to choose, and for Pete's sake don't let the government cram another mandate down our throats. We're responsible enough to figure this one out for ourselves, and don't take kindly to others telling us what to do or not do when it comes to our bodies...whew, off the soapbox now. A little tolerance goes a _LONG_ way!

jtb: I am not a smoker, nor never have been, but my mother died from the effects of after effects of smoking for 60 years. Now, I don't think that smoking should be banned, because nicotine is a drug that has been perpetuated on people over the course of many years. It's not the smokers who should be punished, but how do we make the air better for all of us? I wish I had a solution. The tobacco companies have preyed on consumers for so long, and now that we find out definitively that nicotine is addictive (duh), and that they were hiding it all along, I think the tobacco companies should pay in a big way. I don't think their lobbying efforts are going to be as successful now. It may be that they will be punished to the extent that will not be able to afford to produce cigarettes anymore, but that's doubtful. Who knows?

eBrown: I have to say that there is too much arguing going on out there! I think that the cigarette makers are rather rude in the way they're acting to all the hype that the president has been putting on them. Everbody should just keep on what they were doing and forget it!!!

clutter: I just have to say that if a non-smoker has the right to breathe clean air, us smokers have the right to smoke. They can't take away our rights to give them their rights. There has to be a happy medium, we just have to find one. I think they are called smoking sections, and non- smoking sections. And while I do agree that cigarettes are EXTREMELY addictive, the tobacco companies did not force it in your mouth, smokers made that decision very easily by themselves. We are just always looking for someone else to blame for our own stupidness.....

clutter: hey pauen...and if you DON'T smoke, you STILL die.....

CapnDick: The problem is a complicated one. On one hand, the government has no right making laws the proscribe any adult's behavior, if that behavior doesn't hurt anyone else. Here is where it starts to get difficult. Smokers would claim they have a right to smoke, but if they live in a home or are employed in a workplace with non-smokers, or worse yet, children, they affect the health of those people, whether they like that fact or not. Second, by the tobacco company producing this unregulated drug, they are the knowing dealers to hundreds of thousands of adicts. They are ultimately responsible for this, since they have known this for years but spend billions of smokers dollars trying to deny it. The tobacco industry, and smokers, should pay dearly for the right to smoke. Smoking in a home where there are children present is, and should be legally considered just what it is, child abuse. Public smoking is a matter of law, smoking should be outlawed anywhere people must gather just to get through the day; elevators, offices or other places of employment, government buildings, prisons, or any other place non-smokers must congregate with smokers MUST be off limits (it is one thing to kill yourself, another entirely to even make me cough.) If the information exists and a reasonable attempt is made to educate adults to the dangers of any past time, we simply can not just make it illegal (how many got killed in the avalanche this weekend? maybe we should outlaw skiing!?). If an adult chooses to smoke, they should pay the price for their habit, including the increased insurance premiums. But I should not have to pay for other's "right" to smoke. The difference at the moment between tobacco and alcohol is this; if you get caught DUI or are involved in an accident while drinking, you pay. Smokers have not been held accountable for their actions for too long and now they think society must let the continue to destroy other peoples' health. Finally, in the private sector, if a restaurant wants to allow smokers, they should have to advertise that fact prominently. Many times I have stood in long lines only to find out that the restaurant not only permitted smoking, but had inadequite ventilation. In areas where the resaurants have either been forced by law, or have by choice outlawed smoking in the restaurant, they have seen large increases in patronage, most people would simply prefer to eat in a restaurant where smoking is not allowed. Free enterprise will prevail, but we deserve the right to not stand in line, or for that matter not even enter a restaurant where smoking is allowed. Also, there is the problem of non-smokers being forced to work in an unhealthy environment. This should be strictly regulated, as I should not have to pay for any worker becomming ill from a hazard we know about and can avoid. And it is self-serving crap to say the workers simply not apply for jobs where smoking is allowed. Once again, this is smoker infringement on the rights of others.

mgroves: The tobacco companies have known for 40 years that their products posed a real health hazard. They chose to deny the facts, and engaged in lies and subterfuge to sell their products. It is fair that they should be held accountable.

NicholasT: I believe that any product we produce,that causes that much pain and suffering should be anned or controlled. If a company produced an Automobile that was as unsafe as Cigarettes are, the Nat. Gov., Local Gov., and yes the People would rise up as one and put that Company out of Business. Just look at the Health issue alone, the annual cost, in pain and suffering, let alone Medical bills and Insurance cost. I say, if people can't quit on their own, take Cigarettes away from them, for their own good.

joanne: nicotine is a drug, just like heroin, caffeine, alcohol and cocaine. the gov- ernment needs to create a consistent policy about drugs. For example, why should nicotine be marketed and taxed and protected by a huge industry when it is impossible to market hemp paper and clothing? why should miller get to ad- vertise on tv when thousands die in alcohol- related accidents? if freedom of choice is justification for proliferation of cigar- rettes, why can't i destroy myself with heroin if it's my choice? no one should enjoy the protection the cigarette industry does, but is banning a substance the answer? no.

JJ: I am not in favor of laws that intrude into people's personal lives. If an adult knowingly wants to risk cancer, have smoker's breath, and allow their freedom to be infringed on by developing an addiction, so be it, as long as I don't have to breath the nasty air or see degradation to the general environment. Keep the laws protecting my liberty to have fresh air and let the smokers have their liberty to become addicted and perhaps kill themselves. We all have to answer to our own souls.

deidra: As a former smoker and the spose of a smoker, I feel it is a violation of our constitutional right to a free will if smoking is banned by the government. No one forces another to smoke. It is purely a matter of choice, just as drinking is. How many more rights is the government going to take away?

maryellen: I hope the tobacco industry dies (now that I dumped my Phillip Morris stock!); I quit a year age, and it was very difficult, because IT IS A DRUG. Smokers will tell you that they enjoy smoking. Sucking toxic smoke, not to mention gasses like carbon monoxide, into their lungs is pleasurable. That is why they do it, right? WRONG. It is only pleasurable because it eliminates the cravings they have for nicotine. Tobacco companies are digging themselves into a hole by denying this fact. Everyone knows it's true. GET REAL.

fanzo: We seem to have forgotten something very fundemental in this society. Tobacco use and abuse in a behavioral problem. Stop bashing the government. How do cigarettes get into the hads of Adults and kids? the government allows for it to be sold, and Citizens who may or may not be working for the government bring them into their home. I think that if an adult wants to smoke cigarettes and kill themseves that that's on them. It has nothing to do with addiction, or any other excuse that humans use regarding Tobacco use/abuse. It is about choice. It would make more sense to fine the parents, adults, store owners etc, who role model that somking is ok and fun. Oh and by the way, I have never seen a cigarette jump up from a packet, light itself and force a human to inhale it's smoke. Let's get real and look at the problem right where it starts.

JKushner: As a heavy smoker, I can attest to the addictive nature of nicotine. However, in the nation's zeal to reform the tobacco industry and all tobacco users, they should keep in mind that very nearly the same standards should be applied to alcohol!! And are they really willing to do that? I think not!

zimme: Nobody forces people to smoke cigarettes. It's silly to hold tobacco companies responsible for anything. The government should be concerned about the real problems this country faces, and the extremist individuals (non-smokers) should mind their own business.

Dickj: It comes when you least expect it - you are never prepared - and the consequences of that heart attack stays with you every minute for what is left of your life. Something as precious as life must be protected. Protect yourself - as you would from any predator.

Lakean: Make them pay. Cigarettes are BAD and only cause sickness. When was the last time you heard of cigarettes doing some- thing good for someone's health???!!1 Never so who cares if they ban them.

rose12: Why are the tobacco industry do all those colorfull advertising-it's luring healthy people in to smoke and die!!

richard_: My view on smoking?First let me tell you I am a smoker and I have the right to smoke. Yes second hand smoke may be harmful to others but not as harmful as second drinking. Never heard of second drinking? How about drunk drivers how many lives have they claimed? How about child abuse? Most of the cases of child and wife battery involves drinking. How about many other crimes.How many are drinking related? I will take my chances with first or second hand smoke any day rather than face a drunk driver or any drunk.

FooFyter: Tobacco companies have always been a part of society. Banning them won't stop people from smoking, it will clog the prisons. If it stays legal, help programs are easier to contact and use is easier to control. This is the same argument NORML is using for marijuana legalization.

mightor: Smoking is addictive, i won't deny this. I'm a smoker and I know I'm addicted. I disagree with making smoking illegal everywhere, if I wish to have a smoke in my own appartment, that is my right. I don't disagree with a ban on smoking in public places, such as restaurants, bus station, but smoking out on the street should not be illegal. Everyone knows that a prohibition does not work, just like the CDA will never work, it's unconstitutional and people will rebel against it.

earthcrone: This is rather a sensitive issue for me, because I have smoked for over 40 years. Over the past five years I have tried to quit, using willpower, various groups (some of which were quite costly), hypnosis, and the patches and gum. I am still smoking. On one hand, it sort of relieves my guilt to hear that the tobacco companies have been manipulating nicotine levels in the tabacco. On the other hand, I applaud the cojones of states like Florida, who have sued tobacco companies for damages. I have pretty much given up on quitting (I've quit quitting!), and I am fortunate that all these years of smoking have not affected my lungs significantly. I do whatever I can to be cosiderate to others who do not smoke: I honor No Smoking signs, smoke only outside when non-smokers are at my home or when I am at theirs, I keep electrostatic air cleaners going all the time, both in our family room and in the furnace, to pick up any residual smoke. I have noticed a great trend towards diversification on the part of the major tobacco companies. I believe they know that their days of selling cigarettes are numbered, and they have many other fields in which to work and profit.

CrocX: Anything good about cigarettes?

Jon_G2: Nicotine IS addictive...they are filthy liars. They just want to get you to buy their brand and try it out, period.

truff: The problem is is that the tobacco companies are not sitting quietly waiting for people to come buy cigarettes. They are actively marketing a product that is carcinogenic and addictive. While one might say that no one forces an adult down and puts a cigerette in thier mouths, still, we all know that marketing and advertising works. On another note, I'm a non-smoker and appreciate all of the laws passed lately to allow me a smoke free environment.

Inferno1: The tobacco industry is falling apart in America. So they are expanding their market. They sell cigarettes all over the world now. The cigarette industry will never die as long as there are people that are willing to get hooked on nicotine, and as long as cigarette companies have the money to buy off politicans and the people who know the truth about the industry.

xarah: Of course the government should crack down on the tabacco industry. In fact, the governmaent should close them down completely. This issue is not about people's right to smoke or an industry's right to make money; this is about the fact that cigarettes, when used correctly for their one, specified purpose, maim and kill. It has gone beyond an individual's right to kill himself, (which is illeagal in many states), to a question of, "Does the government have a responsability to stop companies whose sole function is profitting from the misery that they knowingly inflict?". The only possible answer to this question is, "Yes.". Despite the rampant disgust of governmant, one of the few remaining uses to which they may be put, is that of weeding out corruption in industry giants. Even if we all agree that the government shouldn't monitor smoking; we must, en mass, conclude that for the government to stand silent while millions of its citizens are killed is not only ludicrous, but criminal.

CyboWolf: I'm a smoker, and I plan on staying this way, despite prejudice against smokers. A smoker's only support is from Tobbacco companies, and I hope they stay O.K. Tobacco prohibition would be a crock.

pauen: Everybody knows that smoking is a health problem. Still people choose to smoke. This is their choice and if they want to intentionally destroy their life and the lives of those they smoke around (i.e. family and children), let them. But I don't want to hear that it's the tobacco industry's fault. The truth is well known -- YOU SMOKE, YOU DIE.

sodo11: The recent hoopla about the tobacco companies doing this or that crime against humanity is very confusing to me. There are thousands of similar business organizations who are fouling up our air, dump all sorts of pollutants including nuclear and industrial waste in our own back yard and yet we continue to be silent about them. Can someone explain to me why & how we think the tobacco industries are worse than those mentioned? Don't the others commit worse crime to society than the tobacco industries? Desperately waiting for some one to enlighten me!! away with murder? Are we to punish only those who are visible and not others who we don't see but do harm to society several times more? see them do that? materials.

graben: Many tobacco products are portrayed in advertisements as part of a healthy lifestyle. Most people would agree that this is deceptive on the part of the tobacco companies. Tobacco is bad for you but we won't be seeing the "Marlboro Emphysema Adventure Team" anytime soon! The product itself has very prominent and simple warning labels on it: Cigarettes are bad for you! I think we need to clean up cigarette advertising and make it consistant with the warning labels. Unfortunately, an out and out ban on tobacco is not feasible or possible. Tobacco, if discovered today, would be illegal. Tobacco use has been grand-fathered into society and I hope that people will realise the dangers and either quit or not start smoking.

Sapphire: In the United States of America, we were given freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, etc.... Now, the government, in saying "no smoking anywhere" is denying us the right to freedom. I am a smoker. Yes, at times I wish that I had never started, but I did, and it has been really hard to try to quit. But that's my choice, and no one has the right to deny me that choice. I would be fine with not being allowed to smoke in enclosed public places, but I should be allowed to smoke out in the open air. I am a considerate person, and if it is going to bother someone I'm with then I won't smoke, or if it is going to blow into someone's face because of the wind then I will move to where they will be more comfortable. Unfortunately, not all people are like that. The point is, if I want to develop lung cancer by the time I'm 40, then I'll be damned if the government is going to stop me. Freedom is the key word.

Mariner: Cigarette smoke is harmful to a person's body... that's the bottom line. I think that if the tobacco industry is falling apart, the hell with them. The only reason they ever went into business was to steal everybody's money, and assure that their marketing technique would bring customers back for more. For the sake of the people today, and the ones to come in the future, we should crackdown even more than we are now...

Pimento: I think that the harmful effects that cigarette smoking should be available to the public, and then let the people decide if they want to take the risks. It is unfair for a corporation to withhold info that could save people's lives, however.

Sir_Thorn: Smoking is dangerous to your health. But I feel that the claims regarding second-hand smoke have been blown out of proportion. But I don't feel that prohibition would solve anything; in fact, it would only create a much larger problem with smuggling across borders, etc. And that's the last thing we need. This is America, and is built upon freedom. I should have the freedom to make my own decisions, even if that decision is to destroy my life and lungs. All this non-smoking legislation needs to stop as well. It's another freedom taken away. Smokers need to be courteous to non-smokers, and there should be smoking sections, etc. But to say "no smoking" everywhere (like in California) is wrong. Give businesses and people the freedom to choose what they want.