FDA and Tobacco Advertising - Because I don't want the last word.

I will give you the OP's original statement was too broad and one that is very similar to one I've made too many times. However, it's a generalization about a certain kind of regulation. There are the regulations that make business fair for all, anti-trust, the ones that enforce business ethics, then there are those other ones. The "special interest" and we can't get the support to kill this all together so we'll make ridiculous regulations that serve no purpose other than to stifle the industry.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

clearlysuspect

Gray4lines:
Clearlys.., you are right, we have a little confusion of the terms we are dealing with.

My above bolded definition is a very fundamental, basic definition which can apply to a "market" for anything. It, however, is not a definition of a "free market economic system." I think we may have confused the two.

As Maduro pointed out, you can have a free market system, even if some specific markets are illegal.

Free market forces are still allowed to act in the markets of our economy. The free market purist might argue that the overall system is "less free" because some specific product markets are banned or regulated, but even people like Milton Friedman (a chicago economist) agreed that the government's job is to maintain the "rules of the game."

Drugs being illegal (or having any consumer/product laws at all) does not in itself undermine the free market basis of our economy.

I believe we agree here. But if we agree, why complain about government regulations. Governments has always picked winners and losers.

Gray4lines

clearlysuspect:
Gray4lines:
Clearlys.., you are right, we have a little confusion of the terms we are dealing with.

My above bolded definition is a very fundamental, basic definition which can apply to a "market" for anything. It, however, is not a definition of a "free market economic system." I think we may have confused the two.

As Maduro pointed out, you can have a free market system, even if some specific markets are illegal.

Free market forces are still allowed to act in the markets of our economy. The free market purist might argue that the overall system is "less free" because some specific product markets are banned or regulated, but even people like Milton Friedman (a chicago economist) agreed that the government's job is to maintain the "rules of the game."

Drugs being illegal (or having any consumer/product laws at all) does not in itself undermine the free market basis of our economy.
I believe we agree here. But if we agree, why complain about government regulations. Governments has always picked winners and losers.

Because some regs go too far. They cease to protect rights and only take them away. It‘s a slippery slope. I think that ugly pics on tobacco products goes far beyond truthful advertising and protecting consumer rights.

clearlysuspect

Gray4lines:
clearlysuspect:
Gray4lines:
Clearlys.., you are right, we have a little confusion of the terms we are dealing with.

My above bolded definition is a very fundamental, basic definition which can apply to a "market" for anything. It, however, is not a definition of a "free market economic system." I think we may have confused the two.

As Maduro pointed out, you can have a free market system, even if some specific markets are illegal.

Free market forces are still allowed to act in the markets of our economy. The free market purist might argue that the overall system is "less free" because some specific product markets are banned or regulated, but even people like Milton Friedman (a chicago economist) agreed that the government's job is to maintain the "rules of the game."

Drugs being illegal (or having any consumer/product laws at all) does not in itself undermine the free market basis of our economy.
I believe we agree here. But if we agree, why complain about government regulations. Governments has always picked winners and losers.
Because some regs go too far. They cease to protect rights and only take them away. It‘s a slippery slope. I think that ugly pics on tobacco products goes far beyond truthful advertising and protecting consumer rights.

I guess. I understand your point. I think the pics would be stupid if there was no truth to it. Somehow, it being a pretty accurate depiction of what to expect if you smoke makes it fine for me. But I'm also very big on honesty above all else. My wife knows better than to ask me if the dress makes her look fat or of this outfit looks stupid. My philosophy has always been that if people pointing out the truth in what you're doing or saying causes problems for you, then perhaps you shouldn't be doing it.

Gray4lines

clearlysuspect:
Gray4lines:
clearlysuspect:
Gray4lines:
Clearlys.., you are right, we have a little confusion of the terms we are dealing with.

My above bolded definition is a very fundamental, basic definition which can apply to a "market" for anything. It, however, is not a definition of a "free market economic system." I think we may have confused the two.

As Maduro pointed out, you can have a free market system, even if some specific markets are illegal.

Free market forces are still allowed to act in the markets of our economy. The free market purist might argue that the overall system is "less free" because some specific product markets are banned or regulated, but even people like Milton Friedman (a chicago economist) agreed that the government's job is to maintain the "rules of the game."

Drugs being illegal (or having any consumer/product laws at all) does not in itself undermine the free market basis of our economy.
I believe we agree here. But if we agree, why complain about government regulations. Governments has always picked winners and losers.
Because some regs go too far. They cease to protect rights and only take them away. It‘s a slippery slope. I think that ugly pics on tobacco products goes far beyond truthful advertising and protecting consumer rights.
I guess. I understand your point. I think the pics would be stupid if there was no truth to it. Somehow, it being a pretty accurate depiction of what to expect if you smoke makes it fine for me. But I'm also very big on honesty above all else. My wife knows better than to ask me if the dress makes her look fat or of this outfit looks stupid. My philosophy has always been that if people pointing out the truth in what you're doing or saying causes problems for you, then perhaps you shouldn't be doing it.

I certainly will not argure that tobacco in any form, cigarettes especially, are good for you. However, those pics aren't the "truth" and they do not stop at cigarette packs... Other countries have the same labels on pipe tobacco and boxes of cigars. Does smoking a pipe do that to your lungs when the typical practice is not even to inhale? I think not. Having "Smoking Kills" on premium tobacco products is a big stretch too.

Those pictures are a far greater exaggeration than the typical smoker, especially for cigars and pipes, and forcing tobacco manufacturers to comply at their own cost and cover up any of their own packaging and branding is just another kick.

clearlysuspect

Gray4lines:
I certainly will not argure that tobacco in any form, cigarettes especially, are good for you. However, those pics aren't the "truth" and they do not stop at cigarette packs... Other countries have the same labels on pipe tobacco and boxes of cigars. Does smoking a pipe do that to your lungs when the typical practice is not even to inhale? I think not. Having "Smoking Kills" on premium tobacco products is a big stretch too.

Those pictures are a far greater exaggeration than the typical smoker, especially for cigars and pipes, and forcing tobacco manufacturers to comply at their own cost and cover up any of their own packaging and branding is just another kick.

I certainly agree on cigars and pipe tobacco. And not just because these are the forms of tobacco that I enjoy. I've done my research on the affects back when I first started this hobby. But I think the results of smoking cigarettes are pretty clear and well documented. If you have a problem with the results of your product being very adequately displayed on the front of your product, then perhaps you're not being very honest.

Gray4lines

If I smoked cigarettes, I'd find it kind of insulting that I'm apparently too stupid to realize what inhaling tobacco smoke and chemicals does to my lungs, and I need to be reminded on every pack. You're right, the effects are well documented. So why do we need an ugly picture on every pack? It's a scare-tactic, not an information-tactic. I still wouldn't call it being honest.

But even if EVERY single cig smoker ended up like those pictures portray, why demand that it be placed on every pack of cigarettes? The gov't runs anti-smoking campaigns on it's own, and so do other groups, why not just make posters? Or a tv commercial?

It's scary to me that the gov't thinks it has that level of control even on brand image and marketing (again I'm not talking ingredients and text warnings). These pics cover literally the entire product. What kind of competition can you have when every single pack looks the same? Brand image and recognition is pretty important (ask Coke or Pepsi). That level of gov't intrusion on labeling does away with any of that

beatnic

Perhaps they should put pictures of fat people on Coke bottles. Or how about a cirrhotic liver on a bottle of Bud Lite? Idiots, all of them.

clearlysuspect

Gray4lines:
If I smoked cigarettes, I'd find it kind of insulting that I'm apparently too stupid to realize what inhaling tobacco smoke and chemicals does to my lungs, and I need to be reminded on every pack.

If you smoke cigarettes knowing that it has all that in it and does all that to your body then, yes, you probably are too stupid.

ps.... not preaching here. I smoked for many years and didn't quit until a year ago. And, yes, I consider myself incredibly stupid for doing so!

Gray4lines

clearlysuspect:
Gray4lines:
If I smoked cigarettes, I'd find it kind of insulting that I'm apparently too stupid to realize what inhaling tobacco smoke and chemicals does to my lungs, and I need to be reminded on every pack.
If you smoke cigarettes knowing that it has all that in it and does all that to your body then, yes, you probably are too stupid.

ps.... not preaching here. I smoked for many years and didn't quit until a year ago. And, yes, I consider myself incredibly stupid for doing so!

I would agree, that's stupidity on one level, but if that's your choice....

I'm glad you quit! Hope you're healthy and well. I really enjoy 'gars, but won't touch cigarettes. I wish both gov't and health ins wouldn't push so hard to lump them together. I guess it kind of goes against their "no safe tobacco" slogan, but the truth is the truth, and you can responsibly enjoy pipes and cigars with much less consequence on your health.

clearlysuspect

Gray4lines:
clearlysuspect:
Gray4lines:
If I smoked cigarettes, I'd find it kind of insulting that I'm apparently too stupid to realize what inhaling tobacco smoke and chemicals does to my lungs, and I need to be reminded on every pack.
If you smoke cigarettes knowing that it has all that in it and does all that to your body then, yes, you probably are too stupid.

ps.... not preaching here. I smoked for many years and didn't quit until a year ago. And, yes, I consider myself incredibly stupid for doing so!
I would agree, that's stupidity on one level, but if that's your choice....

I'm glad you quit! Hope you're healthy and well. I really enjoy 'gars, but won't touch cigarettes. I wish both gov't and health ins wouldn't push so hard to lump them together. I guess it kind of goes against their "no safe tobacco" slogan, but the truth is the truth, and you can responsibly enjoy pipes and cigars with much less consequence on your health.

I can tell you why they lump them together. Back when I first started buying cigars I read the National Cancer Institute's findings on their studies and experiments. In most scientific case studies the, the scope of the investigation is typical drawn out first and then the findings given. They however, delivered a 15 page report the told you how horrible cigars were first, then in the last paragraph explained that the scope of the investigation was in all men, ages 45-65, averaging 5 "FIVE CIGARS PER DAY."

Most voting politicians aren't going to read that far. They'll read the first couple pages, they'll find that it's horrible for your health, it must be so, the trusted National Cancer Institute said so, and they'll cast their votes accordingly.

Now you guys talk about some shady stuff. That right there is shady!!!!

Gray4lines

@ Clearly, you are absolutely correct! Many studies do not hold constant other life-activities, or smoking habits (like inhaling). To compare someone who inhales 5-10 cigars a day, with someone who smokes even 2 a day with no inhalation is apples and oranges. Some of these so-called "findings" are barely statistically significant, even with these serious study flaws.

I am of course preaching to the choir!