NationStates Jolt Archive

Americans, I know you've seen the "seek truth" commercials and those "never forget the ones you hurt when you got high," commercials. Now I ask you, what do you think of them? Annoying? Exaggerated? Got their facts wrong? Deceitful? True? Good?

Americans, I know you've seen the "seek truth" commercials and those "never forget the ones you hurt when you got high," commercials. Now I ask you, what do you think of them? Annoying? Exaggerated? Got their facts wrong? Deceitful? True? Good?

I think they were high on something when they made them.

j/k They're a bit cheesy, but otherwise well done.

Weed causes teenage pregnancies! And if you do drugs, you support terrorists!

Which means...

Teenage mothers support terrorists!

Meh.

That pretty much sums up my feelings on it.

Drugs are bad, m'kay.

That does too.

I dunno, some of those anti-smoking comercials are kinda good.

The anti drug ones are retarded though. Bill Hicks did a whole thing on them, it was pretty hillarious.

If you haven't learned that smoking tobacco is unhealthy or that marijuana harms your judgement by now, no commercial is going to help you.

I would like to say that I was high when I first saw the commercial where the guys ran over the kid on the bike, and I laughed my ass off. :thumbsup:

If you haven't learned that smoking tobacco is unhealthy or that marijuana harms your judgement by now, no commercial is going to help you.

I would like to say that I was high when I first saw the commercial where the guys ran over the kid on the bike, and I laughed my ass off. :thumbsup:

Yeah. Let me tell you, a kid getting run over is real funny. Asshole.

I like the anti-smoking ones where they go out in front of a big smoking company and take a megaphone and ask the company a queston. Then at the end they show an empty pedestal with a big "A:" on it.

I think on of the anti-drug commercials that isn't cheesy is the one where they show the little toddler girl push a floating device into the pool in the backyard (and no one is around to watch her).

Yeah. Let me tell you, a kid getting run over is real funny. Asshole.

It's funny because the whole premise is so stupid.

It's funny because the whole premise is so stupid.

Agreed, but he should've pointed this out. I had an uncle that was run over by a drunk driver when he was like 5,

Remember, if you let your friend get high, it's the equivalent of letting him be mercilessly run over by an 18-wheeler. You cold-blooded bastard. Therefore, if you let your friends get high, you're a cold-blooded bastard murderer.

If you smoke cigarettes, it isn't your fault you got cancer. It's the tobacco company's fault because they put the Surgeon General's warning and they can't advertize on TV, but they ARE corrupting you. It wasnt your decision to smoke! It was Big Tobacco's and we must end their drive to advertize in order to secure freedom of speech an the rights of Americans today to live their lives without interference.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v211/alman9898/random/cig_nazi.jpg

oi...they're unbelievably annoying and unreasonably cheesy....

By and large ineffectual. The people that want drugs will get them, the people that don't, won't. I smoke and understand the health problems but do it anyway. I've also been stoned several times and had a hell of a good time. I've also driven during those times. That commercial with the teenagers running over the little kid on the bike: exaggerated. When you're stoned, you still have your basic reaction time. You just think a lot of things are funnier than they should be.

I find it humorous that the "Truth" ads never really point out that the customers who are dying from Big Tobacco, chose that lifestyle. Or how without tobacco tax money, the country would be worse off.

Yeah. Let me tell you, a kid getting run over is real funny. Asshole.

Sorry if I offended you, it isn't a laughing matter, but that commercial was absurd.

I assure you if it had been a news report I would not have laughed.

I find it humorous that the "Truth" ads never really point out that the customers who are dying from Big Tobacco, chose that lifestyle. Or how without tobacco tax money, the country would be worse off.

But Big Tobacco is corrupting them somehow! Even though there are zero ads on TV, zero ads on computers, and a few in magazines. All you hear about is anti-smoking, but Big Tobacco still corrupts our fragile little minds! People didn't make that choice, Big Tobacco did! /sarcasm

Sorry if I offended you, it isn't a laughing matter, but that commercial was absurd.

I assure you if it had been a news report I would not have laughed.

It's all good. I probably shouldn't have called you an asshole either. Sorry.

It's all good. I probably shouldn't have called you an asshole either. Sorry.

All in the past. :)

It's all good. I probably shouldn't have called you an asshole either. Sorry.


See it's all better when everyone gets along!!!

If only the world could be like NS, then maybe, just maybe we could experience peace. ;)

Ive always wanted to make a commercial to refute one of those 'truth' commercials, anyone know Flash? :D

If only the world could be like NS, then maybe, just maybe we could experience peace. ;)
Not likely. International Incidents is where we take out our hatred on each other.

I don't mind the anti-smoking and anti-drug commercials, but I have to question why there aren't anti-alcohol commercials.

But Big Tobacco is corrupting them somehow! Even though there are zero ads on TV, zero ads on computers, and a few in magazines. All you hear about is anti-smoking, but Big Tobacco still corrupts our fragile little minds! People didn't make that choice, Big Tobacco did! /sarcasm

You seem to forget the fact that the tobacco industry has been LYING about the effects and addictiveness of tobacco for over fifty years. And they've done so with the complicity of high ranking politicians. Senator Bob Dole said that tobacco was no more additive than a carrot!

So if a company knowingly sells a harmful product (which the tobacco industry did) and tells the consumer that the product isn't harmful (which the tobacco companies did) then the company is absolutely liable for the injuries inflicted on the consumer. That would be true of any other industry, so why should the tobacco industry be somehow magically immune?

No other industry would be able to get away with such deceitful fraud, let alone with the kind of health ramifications that tobacco has. But for some reason, big tobacco can always count on bozos out there (usually Republicans or conservatives) rushing to defend a multi-billion dollar misinformation campaign that has resulted in the deaths on thousands of people. And they say there are no more heroes.

I don't mind the anti-smoking and anti-drug commercials, but I have to question why there aren't anti-alcohol commercials.
They sortof are in Britain. But it isn't alcohol really, but drunk driving.

You seem to forget the fact that the tobacco industry has been LYING about the effects and addictiveness of tobacco for over fifty years. And they've done so with the complicity of high ranking politicians. Senator Bob Dole said that tobacco was no more additive than a carrot!

No other industry would be able to get away with such deceitful fraud, let alone with the kind of health ramifications that tobacco has. But for some reason, big tobacco can always count on bozos out there (usually Republicans or conservatives) rushing to defend a multi-billion dollar misinformation campaign that has resulted in the deaths on thousands of people. And they say there are no more heroes.


Hmm, haven't you heard that there have been warnings on cigarettes for quite a few years? What part of "may cause cancer" or "Cigarettes are addictive" don't you understand? Besides, it's not like "Big Tobacco" twists the arms of people in order to get them smoking. It's free will. Those silly multi-billion lawsuits (which the states misspend anyway) must be supported by those bozos out there (usually Democrats or liberals, and Trial Lawyers). One question...Is one man's life worth a billion dollars? No. Yes I'm a conservative, but I also follow common sense and personal responsibility. Let's have more common sense and less stupid lawsuits.

BTW in regards to them lying for the past 50 years: They may have lied about the effects of smoking, but the effects of smoking have always had conflicting reports until recently. Besides the SG warnings have been on cigarettes for over 30 years, plus there is a total ban on TV ads, radio ads, limited print ads, hell Winston stopped supporting Nascar. What more do you want? Ban on cigarettes all together? Don't you like those benefits that come from all of that tax money gathered from stupid smokers?

Hmm, haven't you heard that there have been warnings on cigarettes for quite a few years? What part of "may cause cancer" or "Cigarettes are addictive" don't you understand? Besides, it's not like "Big Tobacco" twists the arms of people in order to get them smoking. It's free will. Those silly multi-billion lawsuits (which the states misspend anyway) must be supported by those bozos out there (usually Democrats or liberals, and Trial Lawyers). One question...Is one man's life worth a billion dollars? No. Yes I'm a conservative, but I also follow common sense and personal responsibility. Let's have more common sense and less stupid lawsuits.

BTW in regards to them lying for the past 50 years: They may have lied about the effects of smoking, but the effects of smoking have always had conflicting reports until recently. Besides the SG warnings have been on cigarettes for over 30 years, plus there is a total ban on TV ads, radio ads, limited print ads, hell Winston stopped supporting Nascar. What more do you want? Ban on cigarettes all together? Don't you like those benefits that come from all of that tax money gathered from stupid smokers?

I haven't ever bought a pack of cigs, but I'm pretty sure it isn't labeled as "addictive" anywhere on the package, considering the tobacco companies *still* refuse to admit it is. However, I could be wrong about this.

This would be my biggest qualm with the tobacco companies. If smoking was something you could simply do off and on as you please, then I'd say the lawsuits would be unmerited. However, it is clear this is not the case. The tobacco companies knowingly lied to everyone (and still are) about cigs. It would be in their best interest to make cigs as addictive as possible (which they have), however since this is the case, addiction can override someone free will, therefor, making smoking you can't simply "shut off" when (later) you find out they're even worse for you than it was believed previously. This is why the tobacco companies deserve to pay. They lied to people to make huge amounts of money, (which is bad enough), but to compound it, they didn't even care that the said lies would kill thousands of people.

EDIT:

However, I do believe if someone knows full well the consequences of smoking (and assuming no information is being withheld by big tobacoo :rolleyes: ) then I would say that person would not have the grounds to sue.

It's all shit. The anti-pot ads are totaly ridiculous. The 'truth' ads are horrible. These people should get real jobs.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcelroy/mcelroy26.html

I haven't ever bought a pack of cigs, but I'm pretty sure it isn't labeled as "addictive" anywhere on the package, considering the tobacco companies *still* refuse to admit it is. However, I could be wrong about this.


However, I do believe if someone knows full well the consequences of smoking (and assuming no information is being withheld by big tobacoo :rolleyes: ) then I would say that person would not have the grounds to sue.

Yes one of the SG warnings does say "Cigarettes may be addictive". Tobacco companies may not want to say that, but the SG says it for them.

There is enough information out there that no one can honestly say they knew nothing of the dangers.

So like "Big Tobacco", lets sue "Big Alcohol" for billions, "Big Auto" for billions, "Big Oil" for billions, "Big Airplane Model Glue" for billions, "Big Sugar" for billions as all of these companies have been not telling the people about how harmful their products can be. Would you want to sue a legal company to ruin (causing untold unemployment) just because some stupid people are dying of cancer from something that they started doing to themselves? Now if these people started smoking before the ban on advertising and SG warnings, they may have a case for a few million, not a BILLION (that is a stupid settlement amount), anyone who started smoking after all of the warnings were out there have no one to blame but themselves. Personal Responsibility!

I do agree that the anti-pot ads are laughable and misleading. Every time I see one I get mixed emotions, on one hand I'm laughing my ass off, on the other, I'm mad because I hate it when people are being fed dishonesty.

Yes one of the SG warnings does say "Cigarettes may be addictive". Tobacco companies may not want to say that, but the SG says it for them.

There is enough information out there that no one can honestly say they knew nothing of the dangers.

So like "Big Tobacco", lets sue "Big Alcohol" for billions, "Big Auto" for billions, "Big Oil" for billions, "Big Airplane Model Glue" for billions, "Big Sugar" for billions as all of these companies have been not telling the people about how harmful their products can be. Would you want to sue a legal company to ruin (causing untold unemployment) just because some stupid people are dying of cancer from something that they started doing to themselves? Now if these people started smoking before the ban on advertising and SG warnings, they may have a case for a few million, not a BILLION (that is a stupid settlement amount), anyone who started smoking after all of the warnings were out there have no one to blame but themselves. Personal Responsibility!

It seems to me you want everyone to take responsibility but the companies themselves. Its time for THEM to step up. If "big oil" or "big alcohol" lied to the public about its products, then yes I think their butts should be sued. Furthermore, would say if anything, any companies that lied as such should be completely liquidated. Yes, people would become unemployed, but how about that personal responsibility you were talking about? They should have been prepared. ;)

It seems to me you want everyone to take responsibility but the companies themselves. Its time for THEM to step up. If "big oil" or "big alcohol" lied to the public about its products, then yes I think their butts should be sued. Furthermore, would say if anything, any companies that lied as such should be completely liquidated. Yes, people would become unemployed, but how about that personal responsibility you were talking about? They should have been prepared. ;)

I didn't know corporations were people. It's up to the consumers to be the responsible ones. Let's ban knives as well. When I bought my wife some new German cutlery, there was no warning on the package. She could have stabbed me or herself to death with them. If she would have killed herself, could I have sued "Big Cutlery" for not telling us the dangers of their products?

Sure liquidate all of "Big Tobacco", see what happens to the governments tax money. They'll be coming for more of your money.

Psst a little secret for you...The government wants people to keep smoking as they make a HUGE amount of money from them.

I didn't know corporations were people. It's up to the consumers to be the responsible ones. Let's ban knives as well. When I bought my wife some new German cutlery, there was no warning on the package. She could have stabbed me or herself to death with them. If she would have killed herself, could I have sued "Big Cutlery" for not telling us the dangers of their products?

Sure liquidate all of "Big Tobacco", see what happens to the governments tax money. They'll be coming for more of your money.

Psst a little secret for you...The government wants people to keep smoking as they make a HUGE amount of money from them.

However, a knife is a knife. The knife industry has never lied about its product. Your comparisons are not sound. IF the knife industry secretly poisoned the knives they sold, because it was somehow cheaper to make, and didn't tell anyone about it... then yes, they are responsible and should be held accountable.

Obviously the knife industry does not poison its knives, or whatnot. They haven't "hid" anything, unlike the tobacco industry. This is the reason why your argument is not sound, or even rational.

However, a knife is a knife. The knife industry has never lied about its product. Your comparisons are not sound. IF the knife industry secretly poisoned the knives they sold, because it was somehow cheaper to make, and didn't tell anyone about it... then yes, they are responsible and should be held accountable.

Obviously the knife industry does not poison its knives, or whatnot. They haven't "hid" anything, unlike the tobacco industry. This is the reason why your argument is not sound, or even rational.

The "Big Cutlery" (I love the term "Big", I want to be called "Big Harry", wait I am called that) industry has never told it's consumers not to stab each other with it's products. They should put warnings on all of their products. For ex: The Surgeon General has determined that misuse of this product may cause extreme pain, blood loss, dismemberment, and or death.

It is rational as you should know that like cutlery, tobacco is dangerous. It's not like there hasn't been huge amounts of anti-smoking stuff in the news and warnings on the packages of tobacco products.

You are just blinded by your hatred of "Big Corporations". Isn't a $200 billion plus lawsuit enough for you?

It is rational as you should know that like cutlery, tobacco is dangerous. It's not like there hasn't been huge amounts of anti-smoking stuff in the news and warnings on the packages of tobacco products.

You are just blinded by your hatred of "Big Corporations". Isn't a $200 billion plus lawsuit enough for you?

I never said what settlements I've supported, I simply said they deserve to be sued because they lied. How do you say I have a hate of big corporations, when I clearly gave rational conditions in which one should be sued, and then backed it up with situations in which suing would not be appropriate. You're making sweeping assumptions that aren't even reinforced with fact.

What I said (which I thought was pretty clear is).... lying is bad, corporations need to be honest. Honest corporations are fine. Lying ones are not.