"Tobacco industry "unpunished,unrepentant criminals"

Brothers of Briar

Help Support Brothers of Briar:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
where is a terrorist bomb when you really need it?
 
So, we are victims of societal restraints issued based on the new, modern world design of "the bottom line".

All of which is predicated upon the fact the the new modern world is owned by those desiring to maximize profitability while reducing liability (breaking of unions, dissolution of pensions, refusing to share the wealth with those on the bottom line who make the wealth possible, raping for medicines..).

I say, when I'm dying on a fast or slow ride out, why am I to blame or force to pay, another? I will not. Therefor, I will do what I will and die as I must...your bullshit rules are for the cattle. I accept my path chosen in this life; I hold no one responsible but I.

Ah, but this is not the rule of man today. For man is no longer spelled, M-A-N.



So, balance the crap that is the modern world design of "bottom line" against the modern confluence of "I am owed", and cry. For the real number of MEN is surely limited.





Sorry, I wax philosophical :confused: :sleep: :affraid: today....

 
As much as I despise the noose of regulation and governance tightening around my throat, I have not studied tobacco use through the many research and statistical models available; the attendees at the conference are said to be the major world players; I hope they have.
 
I'd been thinking of antis as unorganized, passionate citizens pushing their agenda. They exist, I would suppose, but in this article we see that there are organized, educated and financed anti-tobacco strategists who methodically battle to end tobacco. They: make its use a steep cost; take the tax money generated and use it to fight their battle. Squeeze the user and take the massive drippings to squeeze harder. This reminds me a lot of what happened with cigarettes in the US. The only difference was that they also squeezed big tobacco and used the damages along with stiff taxes to cast tobacco in a negative light.

I work with the working poor and most smoke. But take a job in the professions and you only hear derogatory views of tobacco. Look at the younger generation. They are believers in non-use of tobacco. All the advertising and the push by elementary and secondary schools about the deadly outcomes of smoking worked. I'd say that smoking has been reduced in those populations by some 70%.

I know this is not a popular view on a pipe forum, but I do believe statistics and health studies finally prevailed after studying the maladies and causes of death for smokers from the last two or three generations, everywhere.

The Europeans and third-world populations still love their tobacco. Governance, regulation and advertising don't seem to have dented their tobacco use.
 
alfredo_buscatti":9xmjn412 said:
I know this is not a popular view on a pipe forum, but I do believe statistics and health studies finally prevailed after studying the maladies and causes of death for smokers from the last two or three generations, everywhere.
Yeah, the problem with something like the Harvard symposium is the conflation of Big Tobacco with All Tobacco, and the assumption that anyone who would smoke the demon weed in this enlightened century is a dupe of nefarious tobacco lobbyists. Is it highly problematic that massive cigarette companies are peddling their product in the third world and not informing their consumers of the obvious and universally recognized danger? Absolutely. But this is a problem of unfettered corporations, not a plant which, without the aid of expensive advertising campaigns, production factories, and massive exportation, would never find its way into the lungs of people halfway around the world.

To me this is a problem of giant corporations exploiting the ignorance of their consumers...whereas many--if not most--of the pipe tobacco blenders most popular with myself and hereon the BoB are not subsidiaries of Phillip Morris or whoever, they're (comparatively) small businesses in North America, the UK, or the EU. Who do these blenders sell to? Again, North America, the UK, and the EU...Look at Sam Gawaith, just to pull a name out of my cellar--an outfit that's been around for over two hundred years yet has a tiny staff and still uses the same machinery they did generations previous. These are not the people with multi-million dollar ad campaigns directed to the third world, but by the same coin, they aren't the sort of outfit to be able to afford to pay off lobbyists to support their cause...(and yeah yeah yeah, SG is British, vs my example refers to US lobbyists, but hopefully you get the point...and if not, sub in Pease or whatever small US blender you please.)

So yes, to me it's pretty straightforward: as an educated individual fully aware of the risks of tobacco, however it's consumed, I wish the crusaders would focus their attention on those conglomerates who are actually exploiting loopholes, instead of lumping everything under the same Jolly Roger flag. Red meat is bad for us, too, but even the most ardent experts talk about reducing the amount we intake and trying to source it from small, scrupulous farms which we can hold accountable, rather than outright cessation. But as plenty others on here have already remarked, right now tobacco is an easy target because it's not consumed by the majority, vs red meat or whatever. Think about it: we have to pay extra for health insurance if we're smokers, but not if we're morbidly obese, despise the latter being an equal-if-not-worse factor in health costs...how does that make any sense? Because far more people are obese, and it's hard for the political creatures to gain traction when you're talking about a harmful indulgence that a majority favors, vs. a minority.

And meanwhile the lobbyists and giant corporations laugh all the way to the bank. They won't go out of business if Black and Milds are taxed more heavily, whereas many legit, smaller blenders might...and then the big companies get to fill the vacuum, recouping any losses the increased taxes cost them. A well-meaning but ultimately misguided and futile quest--the issue isn't black and white. None of them are.

...

Anyone else want this soapbox? My throat's gettin soar...
 
I like your arguments about obesity and red meat not also being regulated; also that the health risks from smoking more responsibly do not equate to the miserable statistics regarding cigarette smoking.
 
I've been trying to lay off on this topic. We are dealing with statistics. You can take a given statistic, ignore what you don't want to find as a 'statistical anomaly', another 'statistical anomaly" that you do want you can amplify the importance of. Then yell loudly enough and people will believe you. Publish the findings that support your bias and surpress the findings that don't support you.
Givens:
1. Smoking is probably not good for you.
2. Use of tobacco in any form is probably not good for you.
3. Intake of alcohol is not good for you.
4. Intake of red meat as an adult is not good for you.
5. Excess calories are not good for you.
6. Loud noise is not good for you.
7. Repetitive work is not good for you.
8. Burning of fossil fuels is not good for you.
9. Etcetera.
If you are anti-tobacco and you are not winning the fight against the evil weed, get an ad campaign going to get the people who are "live and let live" onto your side. Second hand smoke. "If you see someone smoking they are killing you". Great ad campaign. Better than WW2 propaganda!
We are losing. The only thing on our side is the greediness of the taxing authorities if you think about it. When one of these anti-cancer/tobacco orgs spends more than half of its contributions on raising more contributions, a majority of the remaining funds on salaries, and a small amount on anti-cancer research then you can see their business model!
 
The number of people who love to dress up, go to meetings, speak in hyperbole accompanied by affected mannerisms, and enjoy basking in the adulation of their peers -- "the right people" in the article's parlance -- seems to be growing steadily.

Most of the things people enjoy doing carry some degree of risk. When you roll up all the idividual risks and treat them statistically, the numbers can be impressive. Nevertheless, the likelihood of mortality for each and every one of us is 1.00, with or without whatever precautions we may choose to employ individually or collectively.

The key managing risk is moderation. Pipe smoking carries a different risk than the habit of a three-pack-a-day cigarette user. Attendees at Harvard conferences don't recognize the differences and, in any event, believe that the world would be better if it were governed by properly credentialed people such as themselves. Certainly they do not believe that "the masses" should be permitted to use their own common sense and make their own judgments.

Wonder who paid for this conference?
 
Brewdude":v3qow8jc said:
First off, thanks for posting the link, it was certainly worth reading. Although the article lays out a fairly frightening future. I do agree that cigarettes needed regulation in the US. With better warnings and restrictions on advertising. It sounds like the same types of regulations are needed in all the emerging markets Big Tobacco is currently exploiting. Cigarette smoking should be heavily regulated and to a lesser degree the use of smokeless tobacco.

But taxing it isn't a very good solution, it has been shown over and over again that "sin" taxes don't do anything but raise revenue. And usually these types of taxes have unexpected collateral consequences. People will smoke and if money is tight another area of their life will ultimately suffer.

As correctly stated by many, what will happen also is that small independent companies will go out of business and the void will be filled with large corporations who will probably sell an inferior product. And we'll buy it because there will be no alternatives available.

Its unfortunate that we as a society have drifted away from the concept of "personal responsibility" and want and expect the government to tell us what is or is not, good for us. Riding a motorcycle without a helmet (IMO only) is stupid, but support the right for the individual rider to make their own choice. Soft drinks are bad, alcohol can kill you almost as quickly as tobacco, being inactive and/or over weight is bad and potentially leads to as many health related expenses as smoking can.

Sadly at some point in the not too distant future tobacco will probably be so heavily taxed and regulated that no one will be able to enjoy it in any form.

Ed



 
As of 4/12, this was the news:

As manufacturers of cigarettes,
roll-your-own tobacco and smokeless
tobacco can already attest, FDA authority
has added significant regulatory burdens
in an already heavily-regulated industry.
Manufacturers of cigars, pipe tobacco
and electronic cigarettes will soon see
those same regulatory burdens.

http://www.troutmansanders.com/files/Publication/0b625ad3-c658-43d8-bd39-84be8d784967/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/1ea4b931-ea27-4c24-b1ea-854594be1a74/ssAPR12_Troutman.pdf
 
Top