What are the defenses being argued by the tobacco industry?
396405
At this point anyone who chooses to smoke is aware of what the results are, since the warnings are on the boxes. Is it their fault that people choose to smoke anyways? (Not my argument, theirs.)
203771
It is no difference than like the war on drugs, big money. The government can and trying to stop the flow of drugs in this country but do they want it to stop, no. If did they would lose 3/4 of their police force. Within the borders of this great nation they wouldn't be able to seize land and vehicles, hire more personnel, court systems have to layoff 1/2 of their judges, layoff prison guards, quit building more prisons and lawyers will become homeless. It is always about money. Back to the question, for the last 10 years the courts have managed to get lawsuits pass on major cigarette companies for persons dying from cancer. They can no longer sponsor a race car or advertise on TV. But does this really hurt the tobacco industry, no. The government doesn't want to outlaw tobacco, they will no longer collect taxes for them. "Money". I did read somewhere last year of a national report that the young American people now days are less likely to start smoking than like 20 years ago. So if there become less smokers in this country don't worry, taxes always get higher and the sale overseas is still increasing every year.
1123063
There is a $34 million subsidy if the crops do not do well:\n\n"Tobacco farmers also benefit from a $34 million crop-insurance program intended to protect growers from risks such as seasonal and cyclical price changes in the face of weather, production, and use variations."
137103
Just another Nanny Culture scam!  The beaurocrats have decreed that we should be told, through advertisements that are costing someone, probably taxpayers, that alcohol and tobacco are bad for us.  I believe it is done through the taxes on the alcohol and tobacco.  Anyway, a bunch of advertising execs have gotten a lot of money, some models and photographers, and what have you got?  In-your-face ads that things you already know are hazardous and must be used in moderation are bad for you.  I don't smoke tobacco and I seldom drink alcohol, but do you believe any of this has been influenced by those idiot ads?
626311
Well, I could say to start with all of the problems that arise from the use of either.   MADD ( Mother's Against Drunk Driving) is also a gret place to get information on alcahol abuse.  As for tobacco, can you spell CANCER!  Not to mention the scaring to the throat of the smoker and you have heard of 2nd hand smoke!  This will be an easy subject to create speeches on.  The youth of today is the hope of all our tomorrows,  Sadly many are influenced by the temptation of one or both of these.  Society as a whole is realizing the bad effect that tobacco has on us and currently there are fewer and fewer places on can smoke in public.  These vices can damage brain cells and have killed many.  Use the satistics to prove that statement.  Best of luck.....
1024975
1. As a form of peaceful protest, collect butts from ashtrays and sweep them up around your workplace or home.  When you've got a significant amount (say, a cubic foot) deliver them to city hall or personally to the mayor (or anonymously if you want), and say, "You are making this pollution and garbage legal.  Do something about it."  (Or words to that effect.)\n\n2. If you're inclined to and you are sure that the asshol^H^H^H^H^H^H smoker is not violent, carry a non-flammable (no aerosols) and non-irritating air freshening spray.  Spray it in the direction of the smoke but DO NOT spray it on the cun^H^H^H smoker.  That would be assault.  If they ask you to stop, tell them you wouldn't spray if they weren't smoking.\n\nI'm a little more aggressive than that and often pour water on ashtrays when the dimwit puts down the cigarette for a moment, or do other things (eg. "accidentally" knocking them out of their hands with umbrellas).  I'm willing to back it up, but I would advise you not to do such things.
515934
It hasn't gotten to the Supreme Court yet.  Read the Fouth Amendment and case law surrounding it if you want an understanding of it.  I had to use it several years ago and convinced equal employment officials that my employer couldn't divulge the fact that I was scheduled for a standard drug test to anyone else in my workplace.  So, sometimes it can be interpreted fairly liberally although it isn't worded specifically to support such a claim.  It depends on who you have to convince.  I doubt my case would have stood up in court even though it would have stood up in the eyes of the media.  Research the topic for yourself before you believe what anyone (government or media) has to say about the issue.
863560
I almost didn't take the time to answer this question after seeing the answers that have already been given. Whether or not this question was asked with genuine intentions of meaningful discussion or not, a forum like this is not the place to ask it, unless one is either looking for support of their own opinion, or unless they are looking for volumes of uninformed, poorly-thought out answers.  \n\nBut, since there is a great deal of misinformation on both sides of this issue, I felt compelled to answer.\n\n\n1. No, advertising tobacco should not be banned, unless alcohol, automobiles, guns, knives, and any other consumer products than can and do harm people are banned from being advertised.\n\n2. It doesn't matter whether or not it's bad for you. If you don't smoke or are not interested, chances are, the ads aren't aimed at you. Most tobacco ads are aimed at people who not only do smoke, but are also smokers of a different brand, or smoke whatever they can afford. If you don't smoke and/or don't like seeing the ads, ignore them. The ads are intended to either entice brand-loyal customers away from their brand of choice, to solidify the brand loyalty of addicts who smoke whatever they can afford, or to inform smoking customers of new products.\n\n3. Guns kill more people every year than tobacco. Alcohol, whether by means of alcohol-induced disease and poisoning, or by drunk driving, or both, kills more people every year than tobacco. Heart disease kills more people every year. Breast cancer kills more women every day than tobacco. Overweight/Obesity kills more every year. While tobacco use is a contributing factor to many diseases, it is just that. A contributing factor. Not a cause. In some states, just walking outside and breathing the unfiltered air is a major contributing factor to disease.  One average-emission-producing car with average use and mileage emits more carcinogens per week than a pack a day smoker does in a year.\n\n4. Ignore the statistics you hear from anti-tobacco agencies as to how many people tobacco kills. Any statistic you hear about "Second hand smoking related deaths" is questionable, if for no reason other than the fact that every death caused by a respiratory-based ailment that has no clear cause, which number in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, is cited by anti-tobacco organizations as a "second-hand smoking related death".  Hell, my grandfather was listed as a "Second-hand smoking related death". Why? Because his youngest son, who after turning 18 he saw rarely, and only saw once a year in the last 10 years of his life, smoked.  The actual reason behind his death? The skin cancer that started behind his ear didn't kill him until it hit his lymph node, spread throughout his entire body, and then destroyed his lungs. In his last hours, his breathing shallowed and slowed until he fell asleep and stopped breathing altogether.\n\n\nSo, in short, No, there shouldn't be a ban on any perfectly legal consumer product. This is a capitalist nation. While I am not the biggest supporter of capitalism, what you are suggesting borders on communism/socialism. Besides, the majority of tobacco ads are through mediums that aren't intended for minors. While those mediums can be and often are seen by minors, it isn't the job of the owners/publishers of them to make sure minors don't see tobacco ads.\n\nLots of people smoke heavily and end up dying for it. Lots more people eat fast food and don't exercise and die for it. \n\nOh, and just to put it out there, the biggest anti-tobacco organization known today, Truth, is funded entirely by Philip Morris, the makers of Marlboro and the largest tobacco company in the nation, just beating out RJ Reynolds, the makers of Salem and Camel.\n\nBut, Altria, the new corporate name of Philip-Morris, also owns Kraft Foods Company. I wonder when they're going to start an organization like T
933189
Tobacco taxation raises revenue of £9.5bn compared with the £1.7bn needed to treat smoking-related illness. There you go, so next time an anti smoker needs hospital treatment you may find that it is that smoker you so dislike that is actually paying for that life saving operation you need! (When you are hit by a car for example!!)\nHere's an interesting read for you!!!! Evidence???\nhttp://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/road_air_pollution_health.pdf#search='evidence%20of%20car%20pollution%20causing%20illness'
774468
money it's all about the money if we can make it so the tobacco industry makes no money then we can put the cabosh on tobacco.  However it is such a cash cow for the government they will not.
174581
Generally I feel this question deals with advertising/marketing and motivational factors\n\nIn general, one theory esposes that by targeting a specific group of user, they (group) have a higher propensity to switch buy/use a product.\n\nAnother theory contends advertising has greater strength in its ability to motivate brand swiching rather than promote product usage.\n\nThe controversy lies in the question of message communication to create a "call to action" for the consumer to use any product within its cagegory  verses a "call to action" which motovates a current user of one brand to simply swich brands.\n\nThe tobacco industry has tried to say advertising tobacco products do not motivate the consumer to smoke but rather advertising simply helps with brand switching among current users.\n\n\nI'll let the original person decide which it might do!\nI hope this give some clarification of product using verses brand switching.
1018584
Here is a quote from expert testimony regarding tobacco products:\n\n"Let me begin by emphasizing three fundamental facts: (1) all tobacco products are hazardous, (2) there is no safe level of tobacco use, and (3) the only proven way to reduce the enormous burden of disease and death due to tobacco use is to prevent its use and to help users quit."\n\nMy personal testimony as an ex-smoker is that although I am now obese (not from quitting smoking), I can breathe better, and have better endurance than 20 years ago, when I was not overweight and smoking.  The improvement in the way I feel was worth the agony of quitting, and I quit many times.  I am not even talking about health risks, but just the improvement in my day to day functioning.
385913
the tobacco industry's websites!!!
158117
on The resturant side of it:\nA March 1 deadline looms for Oklahoma restaurants to prohibit smoking or have enclosed, separately ventilated smoking rooms.
641580
My theory is: Only because politicians have not yet found a way to regulate it and tax it to their greatest profit. If ever they're able to market and tax it like cigarettes, they'll leagalise and sell it.
962542
The link below will give you ingredients on any brand cigarettes. The second link will give you in depth of things that are not good about smoking. \n\n\nSmoking & Health Issues\nIn this section of our website, you will find our positions on health issues related to smoking and secondhand smoke as well as links to government and public health authorities, including the U.S. Surgeon General’s reports related to tobacco. Philip Morris USA supports a single, consistent public health message on the role of cigarette smoking in the development of disease in smokers. \n Cigarette Smoking and Disease in Smokers\nPhilip Morris USA agrees with the overwhelming medical and scientific consensus that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema and other serious diseases in smokers. Smokers are far more likely to develop serious diseases, like lung cancer, than non-smokers. There is no safe cigarette.\n\nAddiction\nPhilip Morris USA agrees with the overwhelming medical and scientific consensus that cigarette smoking is addictive. It can be very difficult to quit smoking, but this should not deter smokers who want to quit from trying to do so.\n\nQuitting Smoking\nTo reduce the health effects of smoking, the best thing to do is to quit; public health authorities do not endorse either smoking fewer cigarettes or switching to lower-yield brands as a satisfactory way of reducing risk.\n\n\nLow Tar Cigarettes\nSmokers should not assume that lower-yielding brands are safe or safer than full-flavor brands. There is no safe cigarette.\n\n\nSmoking and Pregnancy\nWomen who quit smoking before or during pregnancy reduce the risk of adverse reproductive outcomes.\n  Secondhand Smoke\nPublic health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from cigarettes causes disease, including lung cancer and heart disease, in non-smoking adults, as well as causes conditions in children such as asthma, respiratory infections, cough, wheeze, otitis media (middle ear infection) and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.\n\n\nSurgeon General Reports\nThe Surgeon General of the United States has been the nation's leading spokesperson on matters of public health since 1871. Beginning in 1962, at the request of President John F. Kennedy, the Surgeon General's Office took on the task of reviewing literature on smoking and health and began issuing periodic reports. The first report was published in 1964.\n\nIn this section we provide links to the Office of the U.S. Surgeon General, plus links to the complete reports.\n\n \n  Related Topics • Youth Smoking Prevention \n• Parent Resource Center \n• QuitAssist™ \n• New Smokeless Tobacco Product Information \n  \n \n LL.
822628
I'll guess and say Tobacco.