Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

`Truth' Ads Should Keep Big Tobacco In Doghouse
Hartford Courant ^ | Feb 13 2002 | inside pitch

Posted on 02/13/2002 1:24:46 AM PST by 2Trievers

Edited on 09/03/2002 4:49:59 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

It's tough to argue with the Lorillard Tobacco Co.'s explanation of the current dust-up over those in-your-face anti-smoking ads.

After all, says Lorillard spokesman Steve Watson, "What manufacturer of a legal consumer product in this country would remain silent when accused of adding dog urine to its product?"

Good question. I'm stumped.

So now, the combatants in the Tobacco Wars are poised for yet another court battle, and this one stands a good chance of watering down those aggressive - and apparently effective - smoking-prevention ads.

All because of that bit with the dog urine.


(Excerpt) Read more at ctnow.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: pufflist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 next last
To: Rain-maker
Just about all of those additives are found in most pre-prepared foods and commonly used hygeine products. Check the labels.

I don't smoke, but I sure as heck enjoy a nice ciger every 3 or four months. Let nothing stand in the way of this simple pleasure.

41 posted on 02/14/2002 11:05:36 AM PST by Caipirabob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Rain-maker;Max McGarrity
When Winston tried it, they were thoroughly slammed for "trying to say their cigarettes were 'healthier' than others,"

Max is correct. It's a learning curve. American Spirit learned not to step on the same liberal-planted land mine Winston did

Sommers stops short of claiming his American Spirit cigarettes are healthy

42 posted on 02/14/2002 11:09:00 AM PST by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Max McGarrity
Let's blame it on Waterworld! They started this whole concept of smokers being an evil empire...LOL.


43 posted on 02/14/2002 11:29:04 AM PST by Rain-maker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: billbears
everything a growing boy needs

Yep, and if that growing boy doesn't have these, he's in real trouble:

Acetone, Isoprene, Acetonitrile, pTolualdehyde, Toluene, P,SDimethylhexane, Ethyl Alcohol, Acetaldehyde, Dichloronitromethane, 2,2,4-Trimethyl-l-pentanol, n-Propyl acetate, 2,2-Dimethyl-l-pentanol, Cyclohexane, Hexane, Thiolacetic acid, I-Heptanol, Cyclohexyl alcohol, Benzene, 2-Ethyl-l-hexanone, 2,3,5 Trimethylhexane, Ethyl Imercaptopropionate, Cycloheptatriene, p-Xylene, n-Butyl alcohol, 3,4 Dimethylhexane, Limonene, Isooctyl alcohol, Methyl-n-propyl sulfide, Ethyl-4-methyl-1-pentanol, Neopentyl acetate, Trans4nonenal, n-Heptane, Ethylbenzene, 5-Methyl4heptanone, Dimethylsulfide, P-Methyl-l-pentanol, pl)ichlorobenzene, Trans-3-hexen-l-ol, Capryl alcohol, Mesitylene, n-Hexylmercaptan, 3,4-Dimethylheptane, 2,3,3,4-Tetramethylpentane, 1Chlorohexane, Dichloroacetylene, 2,P-Dimethyl-l-octanol, 2,2,3,3 - Tetramethylhexane, o-Xylene, 2,3,3 - Trimethylhexane, Isopropylalcohol, 2,2-Dimethyl-l-hexanol, 5-Ethyl-l-butanol, Z,P-Dimethylheptane, Furan, Naphthalene, Thiocyclopentane, Cyclopentylalcohol, n-l\lonane, Ethyl phenyl acetate, n-Amyl alcohol, Z,CDimethylheptane, 5-Nitropropane, 2,6 - Di-tert-butyl-4-methyl-phenol, Methyl-tert-butyl-ketone, Di-Tert-butyldisulfide, 2,2-Dimethyl-Shexanone, 1,2-Diethylbenzene, 2,5-Dimethylheptane, 2-Methyl-3-heptanone, Isobutyl alcohol, m-Xylene, 2,2,5,5Tetramethylhexane, n-Decanal, SMethyl-2-butanol, Propiophenone, Ethylacetate, n-Decane, Isopropylbenzene, IEthylpentane, Di-n-Butylamine, N-Dodecane, o-Dichlorobenzene, Allylacetate, S,SDiethylpentane, n-Butyl acetoacetate, Benzylamine, Indene, Methylnaphthalene, 'L-Methyl-Spentanone, Coumarin, Phenylacetic acid, Ethyl valerate, 5-Methyl-3-heptanone, n-Octane, Cumic alcohol, Methanol, 2,4-Dimethyl-Shexanone, Octylacetate, Cycloheptadiene, 2-Methyl-1-octene, Ethyl Lmethylvalerate, o-Nitrotoluene

They are all commonly found in human exhalations, in other words, normal human breath. Natural stuff. Just goes to show that a "little bit of knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing."

44 posted on 02/14/2002 12:03:21 PM PST by Max McGarrity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: 2Trievers
I'm not a smoker and never have been, but I find those "Truth" commercials more than a little annoying -- and preachy. And, I'm sure at least one of them was filmed in some foreign country (the one where the kid with the strange accent is reading the placard to his friends).
45 posted on 02/14/2002 12:20:32 PM PST by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Max McGarrity
Max, that's great! Got a link?
46 posted on 02/14/2002 1:30:43 PM PST by metesky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: metesky
Sure, metesky, and another interesting one as well.

CHEMICALS IN HUMAN EXHALATIONS

CHEMICALS IN FOODS AND OTHER THINGS

47 posted on 02/14/2002 1:42:25 PM PST by Max McGarrity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Since I don't watch TV, I can't comment. But if it was filmed abraod, it was no doubt like the "spaghetti" westerns of old ... an economy move, to be sure.
48 posted on 02/14/2002 1:55:11 PM PST by 2Trievers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Max McGarrity
You da man! T'anks.
49 posted on 02/14/2002 1:57:06 PM PST by metesky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: 2Trievers
Big Chocolate is next!
50 posted on 02/14/2002 2:05:23 PM PST by gwynapnudd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #51 Removed by Moderator

To: WyldKard
Big Tobacco is paying the price of their folly back in the mid 1990's when they lied under oath about not knowing nicotine being addictive, only to have ALL those embarassing memos from the 60's and 70's pop up. I can't believe no one shredded those...

OK. In the first place, what would you have expected them to say?

In the second place, "addiction" is a very individual thing. The number of frequent smokers has dropped from about 50 percent to about 25 percent since I was a boy in the 60's, due almost entirely to education. Half the smokers in the country gave up the habit and walked away on information alone. Getting the rest to quit will not happen short of Carrie Nation prohibitionist tactics.

In the third place, now that smokers have effectively been banned from confined office spaces, most restaurants, all common carriers and -- in certain liberal-crazy counties -- even in their own homes, the smoking-prohibitionists have now run out of facades to mask what they've wanted all along...total prohibition.

Ah, but NOW the matter falls to government, which has been totally two-faced about the whole issue for at least 30 years. Smokers are damn lucrative, and governments salivate over the sin tax they generate. They also die sooner (statistically,) reducing the amount that must be spent on them toward the last. (Leaving money, of course, for million-dollar heart transplants for convicted felons in prison.)

Gubmint will wag its politically-correct finger at you for doing "that awful thing," while, with its other hand, "politically collect" the tax money you generate, because, when it comes down to it, THEY NEED YOU.

My home state of Tennessee funded half its budget last year on its share of the tobacco settlement. Stupid move, using one-time funds to pay for ongoing expenses, but this was the same legislature that adopted socialized medicine in a state that runs on a sales tax. Of course, that was calculated, too, with a RINO governor who now says a state income tax is the only way out.

Well, maybe it'll come to that in Tennessee. But until then, those who have so far bypassed confiscatory state taxes can thank -- at least in their own self-absorbed minds -- every working-stiff who manages to step outside the factory and light up a Marlboro during his five-minute break.

Even if you're reading this from one of the "blue spots" on the map, people like him are helping to pay your way.

52 posted on 02/14/2002 2:24:05 PM PST by ihatemyalarmclock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: WyldKard
What they did was lie under oath, and then have documents released showing that not only did they KNOW it was addictive, they were looking at how to hook six graders onto the product.

You're wrong - they did not "lie under oath." the question posed to them was:"Do YOU BELIEVE.......?" If anyone is at fault it was the congresscritters who posed the question that way. no one can be said to be lying when expressing a personal belief.

For some people, nicotine is probably addictive, just as alcohol is addictive to some people - I don't believe either to be addictive to me. I'm not lying, I'm expressing my belief based upon my personal experience.

Instead of focusing on the supposed lies under oath made by TC execs I think people to should remember that both Koop and Kessler refused to testify before the congressional committee when informed they would be under oath. They are the 2 former Surgeons General that got the war on smokers rolling, and that declared cigarettes to be more addictive than heroin or cocaine. Why do you suppose they wouldn't testify, yet are willing to criticize the Execs who did????

53 posted on 02/15/2002 10:31:13 AM PST by Gabz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: 2Trievers
Somebody should have taken a big swig of that ammonia drink then sued the stupid kids when they almost died. The kids argument would have been: "You didn't have to drink it." and the sick idiots response would be: "But you made it available." The same arguments that people use against tobacco companies in court. I hate cigarettes, my Dad smokes and my Grandmother has Emphysema from smoking, but I know it's their own bad decisions, and not some tobacco executive that has them smoking.
54 posted on 02/15/2002 10:38:05 AM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abwehr

The Tobacco industry is probably smirking at these roundabout ads for their product. They prove the adage there is no such thing as bad publicity.

Exactly. I hate smoking, but these little pri*ks make me want to light up, with their sanctimonious crap.

55 posted on 02/15/2002 10:38:45 AM PST by Zviadist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: WyldKard
I read an article two weeks ago that said that some lawyers are already doing the research for an eventual class action lawsuit against the "Junk Food Cartel" for "making people dangerously obese".

You're correct. and the leader in it is one James Repace, who started on the tobacco industry - apparently he didn't make enough money with that endeavor and so now is going after Junk Food. He apparently missed out with the lawsuits against the gun manufacturers, which is being funded in part by the huge sums won in the tobacco suits - this was admitted by Angelos, the Maryland sports team owner among others.

56 posted on 02/15/2002 10:40:01 AM PST by Gabz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Rain-maker
Dude: Chill. Grow your own.
57 posted on 02/15/2002 10:41:14 AM PST by Zviadist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Max McGarrity
OH chit!!! I blamed repace not Banzhaf - my bad----------but on the other hand - they are both equally as evil.
58 posted on 02/15/2002 10:43:39 AM PST by Gabz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: 2Trievers
But in the weird world of tobacco, it's not that simple. The truth campaign is especially galling to Lorillard officials because the ads they so despise are being paid for in part out of Lorillard's own coffers.

Tobacco signed this deal to keep selling a product they knows days are numbers, stop the whining. Urea is a naturally occurring chemical, which most animals including humans excrete as waste. Now TRUTH crossed the line by saying tobacco ads it to tobacco, this is not true, but honestly I have never heard this ad, I have seen many that reference tobacco has urea, but none that alledge the companies add it after the fact.

59 posted on 02/15/2002 10:48:50 AM PST by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay
The head of the American Legacy foundation, her last name is Healy, appeared on FNC a couple of months ago with someone from Lorrilard about this particular issue.

During the segment she specifically said that the ad claims that lorilard adds urea to their products.

As galling as that is - what I found worse about the ad, and the actions of ALF, was they had a teenager (or someone that sounded like one) call the company and record the conversation with a switchboard operator and that is what they used in the ad.

60 posted on 02/15/2002 11:01:47 AM PST by Gabz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson