Fisrt off:
I support accountability and responsibility. People need to suffer and
sometimes die for bad actions - or take pleasure and success from good ones.
Smoking is a choice, pure and simple. It may be a bad choice, but there are lots
of those to go around. I do not think it is the governments job to protect us
from ourselves.
It is also a violation of the 1st ammendment for sure - I am disgusted by
the governments willingness to censor everything they can. (I also believe
people should be able to go about naked, have sex in public, get high without
going to jail etc....)
I also believe that a company needs to be accountable and responsible. If
your product hurts someone, then you need to pay that person an appropiate
ammount. In cases where there are warnings, and the damage potential can be
accurately accessed, before use or addiction, then I think the consumer is
responsible for their prediciment.
Any young person who picks up smoking should be executed before their
"stupid" genes can get back into the pool!!!
Bill Roh
Gifford, Nathan F wrote:
> Below are a friend's thoughts on limiting Tobacco advertising: Personnally
> I agree with the person below that limit's to advertising are against the
> constitution and thus illegal. Anyone care to answer the following
> arguement?:
>
> Note the arguement tends toward the ad hominem after the first paragraph,
> but contains some valid points and so I left it pretty much as it was.
>
> I could have deleted the third paragraph without substantial loss to the
> gist of the arguement - but the pun was funny enough that I left it in. I'd
> be particularly interested in what any non-american's might have to say
> about the following.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nate
>
> > Commercial speech should be objectively truthful (Buick has the
> > best results in the XYZ owner satisfaction poll) or so subjective as to
> > be impossible to determine the veracity thereof (New Smego's
> > minty taste is even MORE refreshing). Most recent cigarette ads
> > seem simply to announce that the maker has a particular brand
> > for sale. There might be some imagery attempting to suggest that
> > buying this brand will make one pretty or macho or surrounded by
> > pretty and macho fun-loving friends, but few...if any...claims are
> > made. If an ad is truthful (or non-objective) and doesn't contain
> > obscene images or language, then the government has no business
> > butting in (the matter of obscenity is very venue-sensitive. What is
> > appropriate for a print ad in HUSTLER may not be appropriate for
> > a public billboard).
> >
> > This Brodie fellow seems to think that he alone can save us from
> > the undue influence of advertising. What a pitiful messiah-wannabee
> > this guy must be. He even comes up with a new vocabulary to attempt
> > to give unwarranted credibility to his vacant notions..."meme" indeed.
> > Then, [Brodie] wants to run to mommy-government to protect
> > us from ourselves. No thanks. As to the notion of government's effort
> > to repress what egghead-Brodie terms "harmful meme-spreading" and
> > his empty-headed "It deserves to be tried" endorsement of same; he
> > thus betrays his freedom-hating nature. No, it DOESN'T "deserve to be
> > tried". Doing so is in clear violation of our First Amendment protections.
> > These limits on government, as unfashionable as they've become for
> > the would-be social engineers, were formulated by men whose intellects
> > were superior to Brodie and his ilk and who had the benefit of recent
> > experience living under a repressive totalitarian state.
> >
> > Brodie seems willing to discard vital freedoms because of alleged misuse
> > by some and impose some restrictive laws based on the notion of
> > "it deserves to be tried". Bullshit. If anything "deserves to be tried"
> > here,
> > it is Brodie and his ilk. Tried, convicted, and punished for repudiating
> > the
> > freedom that is their birthright as Americans.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gifford, Nathan F
> > Sent: Friday, October 09, 1998 4:02 PM
> > Any thoughts on limiting commercial speech as recommended below?
> >
> > Seems similar to local anti-gun legislation .... and the arguements are
> > the same.
> > Since people are stupid and susceptible to hurting themselves SOCIETY
> > should
> > protect them.
> >
> > I wouldn't mind posting well reasoned arguements to the memetics list ...
> > particularly
> > since you two are the ones who infected me with the "Get Smart ... for the
> > children's sake"
> > meme.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Richard Brodie [SMTP:richard@brodietech.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 08, 1998 1:37 PM
> > To: Meme Update Subscribers
> > Subject: virus: Meme Update #23: Tobacco Advertising Update
> >
> > Meme Update #23
> >
> > In this issue:
> > Tobacco Advertising Update
> > Memetics Data
> > State of the World Forum
> >
> > Tobacco Advertising Update
> >
> > The political fight continues over banning tobacco advertising. On
> > September
> > 18, 1998, The Board of Health in King County, Washington -- Seattle and
> > environs -- voted 10-3 to allow only black and white text on all publicly
> > visible tobacco advertisements. They completely banned any tobacco
> > advertising within 1000 feet of a school or playground.
> >
> > A similar measure in neighboring Pierce County awaits an appeal to the 9th
> > US Circuit Court of Appeals after being upheld by a federal district judge
> > last November.
> >
> > Pleasantly, only one member of the board parroted the inane belief that
> > tobacco advertising doesn't do much to influence minors to smoke. I guess
> > she thinks that either minors are less susceptible to advertising than
> > adults, or that American companies are run by the world's stupidest people
> > who pour billions and billions annually into a marketing mechanism that
> > "doesn't do much." THINK!
> >
> > Advertising is a way for commercial interests to plant their memes in
> > people
> > with varying degrees of penetration. The techniques used are subtle or
> > obvious (see Key's book "The Age of Manipulation," available from the
> > Amazon.com Memetics Bookstore http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/books.htm
> > )
> > but they are effective. Since our economy is based on commerce, we tend to
> > let businesses use any means they want short of outright fraud to promote
> > their wares. But government prohibition of meme-spreading of harmful
> > products is far less intrusive than laws against self-destructive behavior
> > itself. It deserves to be tried.
> >
> > The Supreme Court has ruled in the past (44 Liquormart) that for
> > government
> > to regulate commercial speech, it must prove that such regulation will
> > achieve the government's stated purpose. Since it let stand a similar
> > ordinance in Baltimore last year and recently denied the Food and Drug
> > Administration (FDA) authority to regulate tobacco advertising, the Court
> > seems happy with this kind of local regulation for now. Meanwhile, for
> > some
> > anti-tobacco ads and other resources, see http://world.std.com/~batteryb/
> >