NationStates Jolt Archive

These "Truth" ads have been around for a while, (which is being paid by Phillip Morris BTW) and I just got to say, I am tired of seeing them. I mean how retarded do the producers of these ads think the general population is? Yes we know smoking is dangerous, we know that it's harmful etc. Yet, we still choose to do it, why, because we damn well want to! (Well I don't, but you get my point.) Also, the people who sue these cigarette companies because they didn't know that cigarette was a health risk, are retarded. Hell they should learn how to read!

http://www.muschealth.com/bin/n/z/smoking_warning.jpg

Anyone who was smoking after they started putting this on the cigarette cartons have no grounds for a lawsuit. Now, back to the ads, the latest one is where they discuss Zephyr, which apparently is "code" word for cancer. Please, give me a break! You know, I actually googled Zephyr, and all I could come up with is a band, some weird website, and I dunno what else. See the search here!

http://www.google.com/search?q=Zephyr&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

In this ad, they have a doctor who apparently knows what Zephyr is, and I wonder how much he was paid to say this crap.

Let's be honest, people in general, the general population is smart, they can make their own decision, and they don't need Gov. Co. or anyone else looking out for them. The thing that irritates me most about these Truth Ads is that they treat us like idiots, and how we're idiots for smoking. We're not idiots, and for a while now we know the danger of smoking, and we really don't care. The Surgeon General Warning on the package itself is good enough, we don't need these Truth Ads shoving their made up crap down our throats.

Zephyr is a lot of things. Cancer is not one of them

Zephyr is a lot of things. Cancer is not one of them

Wasn't Zephyr a band?

They have a right to express their views. No one forces you to watch it, and if they help prevent more people from taking up that unhealthy, and in my opinion disgusting, habit then it is for the better. If anything, we need more of these types of ads to drill in to people that this stuff is bad for you.

However, I feel that some lawsuits against cigarette companies are unnecessary; nevertheless, there were cases when these companies intentionally mislead consumers about the safety of their product as well as its addictive properties and the companies deserve to pay for the violation of the public trust. In cases where the person had full, disclosed knowledge of the risks of smoking they have no grounds to sue.

They have a right to express their views. No one forces you to watch it, and if they help prevent more people from taking up that unhealthy, and in my opinion disgusting, habit then it is for the better. If anything, we need more of these types of ads to drill in to people that this stuff is bad for you.

Good for them, but let them pay it on their own money, not from the money of Phillip Morris. I find that ironic really, they hate the tobacco company, but have nooo problem using their money to produce the ads. Can we say hypocrite boys and girls?


However, I feel that some lawsuits against cigarette companies are unnecessary; nevertheless, there were cases when these companies intentionally mislead consumers about the safety of their product as well as its addictive properties and the companies deserve to pay for the violation of the public trust. In cases where the person had full, disclosed knowledge of the risks of smoking they have no grounds to sue.

Well, today, we have the Surgeon General Warning, like I said, anyone who smokes after they started putting that on the pack have no grounds for a lawsuit. Hell no one today has any ground for a lawsuit.

Wasn't Zephyr a band?
And a motorcycle. And the west wind. RCHP had a Zephyr song too.

And a motorcycle. And the west wind. RCHP had a Zephyr song too.

Cool.

They have a right to express their views. No one forces you to watch it, and if they help prevent more people from taking up that unhealthy, and in my opinion disgusting, habit then it is for the better. If anything, we need more of these types of ads to drill in to people that this stuff is bad for you.

However, I feel that some lawsuits against cigarette companies are unnecessary; nevertheless, there were cases when these companies intentionally mislead consumers about the safety of their product as well as its addictive properties and the companies deserve to pay for the violation of the public trust. In cases where the person had full, disclosed knowledge of the risks of smoking they have no grounds to sue.

Meh! Mixed feelings.

It's true that people who started smoking before 1950 has the right to sue the living crap out of them. Seen ads where smoking cures ailments and increases intelligence.

Ever been to the PI? There you can find kids selling cigs on the street.

The tar count is SO damned high that with one pack you are majorily hooked. The maker? Philip Morris.

I don't feel sorry seeing them getting sued all the time.

Meh! Mixed feelings.

It's true that people who started smoking before 1950 has the right to sue the living crap out of them. Seen ads where smoking cures ailments and increases intelligence.

You are right, the people who were born before they started the SGW, do have a right to sue them.


Ever been to the PI? There you can find kids selling cigs on the street.

The tar count is SO damned high that with one pack you are majorily hooked. The maker? Philip Morris.

I don't feel sorry seeing them getting sued all the time.

Anndd what about personal responsibility? When does that come into play?

You are right, the people who were born before they started the SGW, do have a right to sue them.
Even if they never smoked a single cigarette before the SGW?

As others have noted, you have an "off" button on the remote. But just a couple of points otherwise...

I mean how retarded do the producers of these ads think the general population is? Yes we know smoking is dangerous, we know that it's harmful etc. Yet, we still choose to do it, why, because we damn well want to!It has been postulated that the "quit smoking" campaigns that the tobacco industry was forced to fund (as part of the multi-state settlement) are calculated specifically to get that reaction. Anything funded by Phillip Morris doesn't have a decrease in smoking as a goal.
Also, the people who sue these cigarette companies because they didn't know that cigarette was a health risk, are retarded. Hell they should learn how to read!

http://www.muschealth.com/bin/n/z/smoking_warning.jpg

Anyone who was smoking after they started putting this on the cigarette cartons have no grounds for a lawsuit. Let's put the tobacco lawsuits in perspective.
1) More often than not, the plaintiffs involved began smoking before there were warnings on tobacco products
2) nicotine is addictive for most people, and thus the plaintiff (or heirs) was already addicted (and in many cases can't quit--nicotine being one of the most addictive drugs) when the tobacco industry was forced to place the warnings on products
3) during the time these plaintiffs were becoming addicted to the product, the tobacco companies were artificially increasing the amount of nicotine in the cigarrettes and denying that there was any harm done to smokers
and
4) the original Surgeon General's warning is quite blase (at the behest of big tobacco) about the ill effects, to wit, "smoking may cause ..."

Additionally, some of the lawsuits deal with the damage caused by second-hand smoke--those people certainly didn't choose tobacco exposure for themselves.

You know what I hate?

Lung Cancer.

And yes, I consider people who smoke idiots to some degree.

Even if they never smoked a single cigarette before the SGW?

Let me rephrase, any smoker that smoked before SGW, has the right to sue.

You know what I hate?

Lung Cancer.

And yes, I consider people who smoke idiots to some degree.

What I hate is when people who create these truth ads think it's there responsibility to hold the population's hand like a mother holds a child's hand.

Anndd what about personal responsibility? When does that come into play?

Ahhhh there is that beautiful condescending phrase. Very conservative of you.

Personal responsibility means dick when you don't have access to information to make "responsible" decisions.

Is tobacco taking personal responsibility by significantly increasing the tar count? Taking advantage of government corruption to ensure sales?

What I hate is when people who create these truth ads think it's there responsibility to hold the population's hand like a mother holds a child's hand.

You'd be suprised how stupid the general population actually is, my friend. How would you like it if they neglected to put warnings on dangerous household chemicals?

Common sense isn't as common as you might think.

The tar count is SO damned high that with one pack you are majorily hooked. The maker? Philip Morris.

I don't feel sorry seeing them getting sued all the time.

My ass! The addiction of tobacco is highly overrated, thanks in no small part to the kinds of propaganda infusion Wilgrove is talking about. Since psychology plays an important role in why anyone does anything, tobacco being no excuse, it's important to realize that if you propagandize that something is unbeatably addictive, you are not doing a warning. You're doing MARKETING!

Think Pringles: "Once you pop, you can't stop." It increases the allure. And besides that, makes the user feel like a helpless victim if perchance he gets addicted. Someone who thinks they're a helpless victim will not have the simple motivation or confidence required to avoid or reverse addiction.

This process actually increases the amount of "addicts" since it's the same as if you asked a roomfull of lazy people who could do hard manual labor today, and who had back trouble. Everyone would have mysterious and convinient back pain. Same with cigarettes. "Eh, I'm addicted. Cigarettes are more addicting than heroin, man! I can't stop. 2 packs, please. Thanks."

Frankly, the only way the "TRUTH" and anti-tobacco lobbyists could increase the amount of cigarette smoking more than they already do is if they managed to ban cigarettes. Then we'd see a huge black market industry overnight and all the fun that entails.

I always prefered the UK's method of detering smoking.
Instead of a little 'surgeon generals warning', they have these huge freaking signs that say "SMOKE KILLS".
Subtle British sense of humour strikes again!

.. quit your bitchin.

It's not a choice, it's a chemical called nicotine that makes people by the next pack. Why do you think it is so hard to quit?

My ass! The addiction of tobacco is highly overrated, thanks in no small part to the kinds of propaganda infusion Wilgrove is talking about.Uhm, no. In February 2000, the Royal College of Physicians published a report on nicotine addiction which concluded that “Cigarettes are highly efficient nicotine delivery devices and are as addictive as drugs such as heroin or cocaine.” --From...Nicotine Addiction in Britain. A report of the Tobacco Advisory Group of the Royal College of Physicians, February 2000. [One of many such] There are people who are not susceptible to the addictive properties of nicotine (tobacco habits for them are psychological or social based for them) just as there are people who are capable of using opioids without developing a full-blown addition.

And just a sidenote... it's nicotine, not tar that is the addictive element. Tar is "just" a carcinogen.

Uhm, no.

Big deal. So some guy thinks one is addicting as the other. But I've known heroin addicts and tobacco users and addicts and that tells me a bit more than some appeal to authority does.

I hate those "Truth" ads because they are f**king ridiculous! To put my opinion into perspective, I'm strongly against smoking and the only reason I don't want cigarettes outlawed is fear of a "Prohibition" backlash. If an anti-smoking commercial is so bad that I can't stand it, then there's something terribly wrong with that commercial! Frankly, I think Phillip Morris is making them so bad on purpose!

Big deal. So some guy thinks one is addicting as the other. But I've known heroin addicts and tobacco users and addicts and that tells me a bit more than some appeal to authority does.The plural of anecdote is not data. Citing a research report isn't an appeal to authority. You could know a hundred addicts and you still wouldn't have a logical leg to support your statement.

Big deal. So some guy thinks one is addicting as the other. But I've known heroin addicts and tobacco users and addicts and that tells me a bit more than some appeal to authority does.
Like "I can quite any time I want *puff*"? Then they smoke a carton a day.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

Citing a research report isn't an appeal to authority.

Yeah, but when 'research' consists of a single man saying a single comment, it doesn't have much weight in the face of experience and reality as I know it. I'm sure for you the exact opposite is true and you doubt your everyday reality unless confirmed by a government or lobbyist funded science report.

And yes it does smack of appealing to authority to discredit what addicts think and say about their addiction(s), yet insist that some guy in a white coat is correct and true.

You could know a hundred addicts and you still wouldn't have a logical leg to support your statement.

There are more things than logic in politics and society. For example, to be logically consistent with banning things for health, tobacco would be banned and marijuana legalized - the latter is far less dangerous. Yet this consistency is nowhere to be found in the USA. And let's not even get into alcohol.

Like "I can quite any time I want *puff*"? Then they smoke a carton a day.

Yeah, exactly. They've been programmed to talk the anti-tobacco rhetoric, even if they don't react as non-smokers do to the same propaganda. So they say things like that just to be socially acceptable, and to dismiss any complaints they may get about their cigarettes (hey if I'm an addict, I'm not responsible!).

But what they say is true. They CAN quit any time they want. It's just they do not want to. (They may actually lie about that to other people, say they want to stop. That's a lie and I know it cuz I've told it myself.) Any more than I want to stop going downtown - even though there's a higher concentration of automobiles there, and therefore higher pollution and higher health hazard - not because I'm "addicted" to going downtown, just because I want to.

But what they say is true. They CAN quit any time they want. It's just they do not want to.
Why not? It's not good for them, cigarettes taste like burning and what is nicotine anyway? A mild stimulant?

Oh yeah, they don't because it's fucking addictive.

Ahhhh there is that beautiful condescending phrase. Very conservative of you.

Thank you, I don't know about you but I don't live in La La Land, where everyone must have their hand held by Gov. Co. or whomever, and to tell them that this, this, and this is bad.


Personal responsibility means dick when you don't have access to information to make "responsible" decisions.

Bullshit, in the days of modern technology, and the days of the Internet, we have unlimited information. I'll prove my point right now.

http://www.google.com/search?q=cigarette+addictions&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

http://www.google.com/search?hs=AXR&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=Nicotine+Addiction&btnG=Search

http://www.google.com/search?hs=iCm&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=Cigarette+chemicals&btnG=Search

http://www.google.com/search?hs=dXR&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=Cigarette+ingredients&btnG=Search

So, as you can see, there are wealth of information out there regarding to ingredients in cigarette, cigarette addictions, and Nicotine Addiction.

Is tobacco taking personal responsibility by significantly increasing the tar count? Taking advantage of government corruption to ensure sales?

Please back this up.

Why not? It's not good for them, cigarettes taste like burning and what is nicotine anyway? A mild stimulant?


For the same reason anyone would START smoking cigarettes. Because they feel like it. So what if it's not healthful? Neither is traffic, neither is stress, neither are many risks that we accept each and every day. Why do people bungee jump? I can never understand that.

Oh yeah, they don't because it's fucking addictive.

Doing something doesn't mean that the thing being done is addictive.

Yeah, but when 'research' consists of a single man saying a single comment,The Royal College of Physicians is hardly "one man". The research team involved in the study included neuroscientists, pulmonologists, pharmacologists, psychologists and psychiatrists. Nor is it the only research that has found evidence of nicotine being physically addictive.
and it doesn't have much weight in the face of experience and reality as I know it. Your interpretation of reality doesn't change objective fact.
I'm sure for you the exact opposite is true and you doubt your everyday reality unless confirmed by a government or lobbyist funded science report.And you're the one upset for being called "pinko"? You may be sure about my interaction with everyday reality, but you would be wrong.
And yes it does smack of appealing to authority to discredit what addicts think and say about their addiction(s), yet insist that some guy in a white coat is correct and true. An appeal to authority is a very specific logical argument. In fact, your "cigarettes aren't addicting, my addict acquaintenances say so" is very much an appeal to authority. It is false because your addict acquaintenances can only discuss their individual experiences. My citation to a research report would be an appeal to authority if I had said 'nicotine is addictive because these guys say so'. Instead what I said was, this research provides evidence of addictive properties of nicotine.
There are more things than logic in politics and society. There are indeed. However, applying logic consistently tends to lead to clear thought rather than the pulling-out-of-assness that masquerades for thought so often.

Let's be honest, people in general, the general population is smart, they can make their own decision, and they don't need Gov. Co. or anyone else looking out for them. The thing that irritates me most about these Truth Ads is that they treat us like idiots, and how we're idiots for smoking. We're not idiots, and for a while now we know the danger of smoking, and we really don't care. The Surgeon General Warning on the package itself is good enough, we don't need these Truth Ads shoving their made up crap down our throats.

Are we talking about the same human race? People can be mind-bogglingly stupid. The ability to operate tools does not signify intelligence, you can teach monkeys to do that.
And yes, people that smoke are idiots, they are willingly choosing to ravage their immune system, heart and lungs for absolutely no gain.
Smoking doesn't actually help you relax more than a normal person, because once you are addicted you are unable to relax without a cigarette. Meaning that you are agreeing to pay huge sums of money just to reach the same level of relaxation that everyone else is at anyway.

The anti-smoking campaign by the goverment has had a distinct impact on the level of people who are now trying to quit smoking, and on public opinion regarding smoking, so how is it a bad thing?

The only real reason smokers don't like it is because it is reminding them how idiotic they are

Bullshit, in the days of modern technology, and the days of the Internet, we have unlimited information. I'll prove my point right now.

http://www.google.com/search?q=cigarette+addictions&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

http://www.google.com/search?hs=AXR&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=Nicotine+Addiction&btnG=Search

http://www.google.com/search?hs=iCm&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=Cigarette+chemicals&btnG=Search

http://www.google.com/search?hs=dXR&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=Cigarette+ingredients&btnG=Search

So, as you can see, there are wealth of information out there regarding to ingredients in cigarette, cigarette addictions, and Nicotine Addiction.
Can they be arsed to google it? Nah.

It's a commercial, get over it.

And just a sidenote... it's nicotine, not tar that is the addictive element. Tar is "just" a carcinogen.

Ahhh thanks for the correction! It's the nicotine amount then! :)

Are we talking about the same human race? People can be mind-bogglingly stupid. The ability to operate tools does not signify intelligence, you can teach monkeys to do that.
And yes, people that smoke are idiots, they are willingly choosing to ravage their immune system, heart and lungs for absolutely no gain.
Smoking doesn't actually help you relax more than a normal person, because once you are addicted you are unable to relax without a cigarette. Meaning that you are agreeing to pay huge sums of money just to reach the same level of relaxation that everyone else is at anyway.

The anti-smoking campaign by the goverment has had a distinct impact on the level of people who are now trying to quit smoking, and on public opinion regarding smoking, so how is it a bad thing?

The only real reason smokers don't like it is because it is reminding them how idiotic they are

Actually the Truth Ads are funded by Phillip Morris, not the government.

You know, if these Truth people really want to impress me, they should stop taking Phillip Morris money and take money out of their own pockets.

Can they be arsed to google it? Nah.

It's a commercial, get over it.

It's an annoying inaccurate and lying commerical.

The Royal College of Physicians is hardly "one man". The research team involved in the study included neuroscientists, pulmonologists, pharmacologists, psychologists and psychiatrists.

The quotation equating nicotine's addictiveness with that of cocaine and heroin was made by one man. And it's not clear from the context whether that quote was the conclusion or study at all, or whether he just felt like making a simile.


Your interpretation of reality doesn't change objective fact.

What you call objective facts are just based on someone else's interpretations of reality, if you want to get philosophical...


And you're the one upset for being called "pinko"? You may be sure about my interaction with everyday reality, but you would be wrong.

Hey, I'm being rhetorical. I know you don't behave like that. No one does, that's the thing. It's hardly the same as an insult. It made a decent point about the relevance of statistical studies to human behaviour.


An appeal to authority is a very specific logical argument. In fact, your "cigarettes aren't addicting, my addict acquaintenances say so" is very much an appeal to authority.

You've clearly misinterpreted my argument. My argument is that the addictiveness is overrated culturally AND more prevalent because of the psychological nature of addiction.

My 'addict' aquaintenances tend to buy into that overrated nature - hence it excuses and justifies their behavior. But my heroin addict friends experience shows that no, smoking is not the same in terms of addictiveness, it is much less potent and dangerous and hard to overcome.

It is false because your addict acquaintenances can only discuss their individual experiences.

Well, if those individual experiences concern addictiveness, heroin, tobacco, it would kinda seem to be relevant no? That's kind of the subject at hand, no? It is unfair to say "smoking is addictive as heroin!!!" and then when I point out examples that show this statement not so true, to dismiss such examples as "only individual experiences."

Thank you, I don't know about you but I don't live in La La Land, where everyone must have their hand held by Gov. Co. or whomever, and to tell them that this, this, and this is bad.


Ahh liberterian talk. Sorry that only registers as static....



Bullshit, in the days of modern technology, and the days of the Internet, we have unlimited information. I'll prove my point right now.

So, as you can see, there are wealth of information out there regarding to ingredients in cigarette, cigarette addictions, and Nicotine Addiction.


Ahh every country has net access everywhere? Wow didn't know it.

Please back this up.


It's called the Phillipenes. Google it up....

Ahh liberterian talk. Sorry that only registers as static....

So, you got nothing, ok.


Ahh every country has net access everywhere? Wow didn't know it.

Eh getting pretty damn close. There's still the Amish but meh.


It's called the Phillipenes. Google it up....

I know it's called the Phillipines, I've been to the Phillipines, it's a nice country, lots of beautiful Filipina, mmmm Filipinas. Anyways, still waiting for you to back up your claims.

Oh and FYI, I wanted you to back this up.

Is tobacco taking personal responsibility by significantly increasing the tar count? Taking advantage of government corruption to ensure sales?

Doing something doesn't mean that the thing being done is addictive.
Just because you are in denial does not automatically mean you are correct.

Just because you are in denial does not automatically mean you are correct.

:rolleyes:

That old ad hominem again.

Eh getting pretty damn close. There's still the Amish but meh.


...are you kidding? Or is this the universe where "the world" means "the US"? Internet access is a lot more common now than it was ten years ago, for obvious reasons, but there's still an awful lot of places where the idea of a "personal computer" is still a daydream at best.

...are you kidding? Or is this the universe where "the world" means "the US"? Internet access is a lot more common now than it was ten years ago, for obvious reasons, but there's still an awful lot of places where the idea of a "personal computer" is still a daydream at best.

and yet, there are many organization that are putting computers in classrooms, and libaries in these places, and they have internet access.

:rolleyes:

That old ad hominem again.
Oh please, you are sitting there making up the most ridiculous reasons I have seen to oppose a scientific study.

Hey, I'm being rhetorical. I know you don't behave like that. No one does, that's the thing. It's hardly the same as an insult. It made a decent point about the relevance of statistical studies to human behaviour.
This isn't no poll or lab rat observation. You can scientifically prove the effects of addiction. Let me introduce you to my friend technology.
More specifically, my good buddy the PET scan.

and yet, there are many organization that are putting computers in classrooms, and libaries in these places, and they have internet access.

Indeed, there are organizations that are putting computers in those places. In other words, it's an ongoing process which is still far from complete. To glibly assume that everyone uses computers except for the Amish is absurd.

Anyway, on the original topic, regardless of one's opinions on smoking, I can't see how one could find the Truth ads more annoying than the endless stream of erectile dysfunction drug ads. Between the over-the-top Freudian symbolism ("I took Levitra, so now I can throw a football through a tire!") and the massively TMI-ful warnings ("Erections lasting longer than four hours are...something about which no one but you and your doctor need to hear! Really!"), they've got to trump anti-tobacco warnings any day. ;)

Indeed, there are organizations that are putting computers in those places. In other words, it's an ongoing process which is still far from complete. To glibly assume that everyone uses computers except for the Amish is absurd.

Anyway, on the original topic, regardless of one's opinions on smoking, I can't see how one could find the Truth ads more annoying than the endless stream of erectile dysfunction drug ads. Between the over-the-top Freudian symbolism ("I took Levitra, so now I can throw a football through a tire!") and the massively TMI-ful warnings ("Erections lasting longer than four hours are...something about which no one but you and your doctor need to hear! Really!"), they've got to trump anti-tobacco warnings any day. ;)

Well, it was ment to be a joke, and I said it was getting pretty close, so in no way did I imply everyone had access to the internet.

I dunno, I actually find some of those ED commericals funny, espically the one with Smiling Bob. Ahh the endless sexual innudenos in that commerical. At least with the ED commerical, they try to be funny and entertaining.

Omg, Enzyte. Can anyone get that image out of their head?

Here's an Enzyte commerical, and jeez, I am just laughing my ass off!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS9xwV2qaBg&search=Enzyte

So, you got nothing, ok.

Yup. Libert talk. Sooo much static.


Eh getting pretty damn close. There's still the Amish but meh.

Actually no it's not. Many parts of the world, it's not readily available.


I know it's called the Phillipines, I've been to the Phillipines, it's a nice country, lots of beautiful Filipina, mmmm Filipinas. Anyways, still waiting for you to back up your claims.

Oh and FYI, I wanted you to back this up.

If you have been there especially around Subic and Clark, you already saw it.

Omg, Enzyte. Can anyone get that image out of their head?

Oh, ye gods, I wasn't even thinking of the Enzyte commercials. Those things are beyond belief.

Omg, Enzyte. Can anyone get that image out of their head?

Hmmmm it's a medical emergency if it's four hours?

Wouldn't there be a problem with the women letting him go? :D

Hmmmm it's a medical emergency if it's four hours?

Wouldn't there be a problem with the women letting him go? :D

Hey the blood has to come some where, and after 4 hours, the brain is about to die. :p

Hey the blood has to come some where, and after 4 hours, the brain is about to die. :p

But don't we have two? :p

Actually no it's not. Many parts of the world, it's not readily available.

Yea, but thanks to many charitable organization, many parts of the world now have libaries and schools that have Internet access. I would have to say about 95 to 99% of the world is wired now.

If you have been there especially around Subic and Clark, you already saw it.

Too busy with the Filipinas on the beach, and I never been to Subic and Clark.

oh and FYI, still waiting for you to back this up.

Is tobacco taking personal responsibility by significantly increasing the tar count? Taking advantage of government corruption to ensure sales?

Heres the some images of the front and back of a packet of tobacco in the UK.

Front:
http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i60/dr_twiddle/stuff/DSC00221.jpg

Back:
http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i60/dr_twiddle/stuff/DSC00222.jpg

'Smoking Kills!', hey legal suicide! Sounds good lets start! :)

Heres the some images of the front and back of a packet of tobacco in the UK.

Front:
http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i60/dr_twiddle/stuff/DSC00221.jpg

Back:
http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i60/dr_twiddle/stuff/DSC00222.jpg

'Smoking Kills!', hey legal suicide! Sounds good lets start! :)

and that should be enough.

Now try an "this is the actual size" picture because that is fucking huge.

Yea, but thanks to many charitable organization, many parts of the world now have libaries and schools that have Internet access. I would have to say about 95 to 99% of the world is wired now.


95 to 99%?! The most optimistic estimate I've seen of the percentage of the global population with internet access was about 16%, as of a few weeks ago.

Gah I hate these "Truth" ads

Son, You can't handle the truth!

In the immortal words of Rob Reiner: "You kids need to understand something, okay? Sometimes lying is okay. Like, when you know what's good for people more than they do."

I'm all for freedom of speech and tolerance and all that gay crap but when it comes to facism I draw the line.

In the immortal words of Rob Reiner: "You kids need to understand something, okay? Sometimes lying is okay. Like, when you know what's good for people more than they do."

I'm all for freedom of speech and tolerance and all that gay crap but when it comes to facism I draw the line.

So far you for, or against the Truth Ads?

I'm annoyed by them. If they want to put up a poster that's fine but I don't need to listen to it on the radio or watch it on TV. I know smoking'll kill me. I don't smoke but I don't care if others do. They know what it'll do and should be able to do it anyway.

On all those commercials, I just wish they'd tell us just what those "secret tobacco documents" are. Or where they got them from. Or a fuckin' link to a website that has posted those documents. What company used them? Who made them?

I haven't, at the moment, seen them do any of those.

They simply say, "We've found secret tobacco documents that (insert claim here)", without the slightest bit of evidence for them.