Quantcast

Marketing of Tobacco

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
As much as I hate cigarettes, I think im inclined to let people sell the things how they want. This latest news kind of annoyed me. Of course, they shouldnt be marketing to kids, thats a given, but after that....I say anything's fair game.

Tobacco firm offers celebs cigarettes for life


LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- A tobacco company is offering a free lifetime supply of cigarettes to celebrity smokers as part of a guerrilla marketing campaign to raise the public profile of its recently launched brand.

In a tersely worded pitch, Freedom Tobacco International Inc. said it was seeking to "seed" its cigarettes with adult celebrities. The appeal was made Tuesday to publicists through a Web-based network subscribed to by hundreds of public relations agencies.

"To be honest, celebrities make or break your brands. If you look at who drinks what or that sort of thing, celebrity endorsements have always meant a lot," said Patrick Carroll, founder and chief executive of the New York-based company.

But the marketing ploy quickly drew fire from anti-smoking activists.

"Blatant tobacco industry marketing tactics like this one are very disturbing, yet they aren't very surprising to us," said Gwendolyn Young, a board member of the American Lung Association of California. "What it really shows is the tobacco industry is continuing to use these deceptive strategies to lure people of all ages into a deadly addiction."

Freedom launched its first line of cigarettes in March. Called Legal (pronounced "lay-GAHL"), sales of the Colombian-made cigarettes have totaled about $500,000.

Freedom paid covert actresses, called "leaners," to smoke the cigarettes in Manhattan bars and nightclubs for several weeks this spring in a New York effort to promote the fledgling brand, company spokeswoman Nancy Tamosaitis said.

The company is also behind the Right to Smoke Coalition, a group organized to fight bans against public smoking, like the one recently enacted in New York City.

As of Wednesday, no celebrities, other than a group of clothing designers, had accepted Freedom's offer, Carroll said. He stressed the company was not seeking celebrities who appealed to children.

"We're not looking for Barney to be our celebrity and start smoking," Carroll said.

The marketing tactic harkens back to the days when celebrities regularly endorsed cigarettes. Ronald Reagan and Lucille Ball, for example, both appeared in advertisements for Chesterfield in the late 1940s.

Actor Esai Morales, who plays Lt. Tony Rodriguez on ABC's "NYPD Blue," said Freedom is putting "the greater greed before the greater good."

"The fact that they are willing to supply someone for life is kind of scary. It's addictive. It may be legal, but it's immoral," said Morales, who made a 2001 anti-smoking ad for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Carroll said the company does not intend to run advertisements featuring any celebrities who might take the company up on its offer. Instead, they might be asked to appear at company-sponsored events for adult smokers.

Dr. James Sargent, a Dartmouth Medical School pediatrician who studies the effects of on-screen smoking on youth, said a celebrity who smokes a particular brand can be a powerful marketing tool.

"If I put myself in the place of an executive, I would be doing this because this is probably the most powerful way to launch a brand. If he can get several major figures to use the brand, and especially use it in a movie or two, that is the best advertisement he can buy," said Sargent.

The celebrity campaign could backfire for Freedom, said Paul Bloom, a professor of marketing at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's Kenan-Flagler Business School.

"My reaction is that it is completely contrary to how all the other members of the industry are behaving right now," Bloom said.
 

LordOpie

MOTHER HEN
Oct 17, 2002
21,022
3
Denver
I think the whole "free cigs for life" thing is rather amusing... now just how long are we talking here? Sounds like a profitable marketing idea to me since they'll be dead shortly after the fame has died.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
26
SF, CA
I'm fine with it, as long as the celebrity doesn't specialize in youth entertainment.

Philip Seymour Hoffman - okay
Tara Reid - not okay.

How do they decide who's who? If you've ever appeared in Teen magazine, you're off limits.



I personally think it's a genius marketing plan. If my industry was dying (and I didn't care that my customers were too) I'd do the same thing.
 

laura

DH_Laura
Jul 16, 2002
6,259
15
Glitter Gulch
Originally posted by BurlySurly
As much as I hate cigarettes, I think im inclined to let people sell the things how they want. This latest news kind of annoyed me. Of course, they shouldnt be marketing to kids, thats a given, but after that....I say anything's fair game.



i'm going to have to agree with you on this one. that being said, i started smoking when i was 13, regularly when i was 15. i didnt quit until i was 20. you could have showed me pictures of blackened lungs and diseased people all day long and i would not have quit smoking. everyone knows what smoking will do to you now. its no secret that people who smoke are killing themselves. most pre/teenagers don't care about stuff like that. my attitude was i like to smoke and i'll quit before i get sick. all of my friends smoked too and they had the same attitude. unfortunately they all still smoke. luckily, i don't. marketing had nothing to do with it.
 

llkoolkeg

Ranger LL
Sep 5, 2001
4,335
15
in da shed, mon, in da shed
...years of high school. Two things made me quit:

1) my parents' constant annoying concern
2) Seeing an old woman in a wheelchair with an IV pole smoking a cigarette through her tracheal tube
 

sub6

Monkey
Oct 17, 2001
508
0
williamsburg, va
I read an article that pointed out that you must be either one HELL of a washed-up "celebrity" or just plain stupid to take a deal like that (free ciggies, no other compensation), when you're making millions upon millions just doing what you do, not to mention that it would make you look like a big fat idiot in the public eye (see what happened to j-lo and ben). I don't see this going very far at all.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
26
SF, CA
Originally posted by laura
marketing had nothing to do with it.
ummm... why do you think you started when you were 13? if you say because of your friends, then I ask why do you think THEY started when they were 13?


Tobacco advertising was VERY VERY effective at targetting youth. No one likes to think they are susceptible to advertising influence, but tobacco did a damn good job of creating a culture of cool that convinced youths to start smoking.

I worked on some tobacco cases about 2 years ago... from their docs, one of the cover sheets on a marketing report had in big bold letters "YOUTH" with the "O" shaped like a bullseye, with an arrow going through the middle of it.

Anyway, I don't think this campaign will do anything similar, and I don't see it having the same effect on minors... nothing illegal in my mind.
 

zod

Turbo Monkey
Jul 17, 2003
1,376
0
G-County, NC
It's amazingly stupid that something is legal to sell and buy yet illegal to market.
Either make tobacco illegal or get the hell off the tobacco industry's back.

<=== living in Tobacco Row
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
Originally posted by zod
It's amazingly stupid that something is legal to sell and buy yet illegal to market.
Either make tobacco illegal or get the hell off the tobacco industry's back.

<=== living in Tobacco Row
I agree.

Smoke makes me cough, and i hate the way they smell, but cigarettes dont lead to harder drugs. Addicts dont lose their jobs and hurt their families over them. Its essentially like chewing gum. The health hazards are real, but thats for the smokers to worry about. There are warning labels right on the packages...in case they missed the mind numbing anti-smoking ads (paid for by cig companies no less) all over the TV. Some kids smoke, somed dont. I tried it, coughed, never did it again. Some people will kids will do whatever simply because older people do it, and its illegal. Marketing does little in my mind. Let it be.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
Originally posted by BurlySurly
I agree.

Smoke makes me cough, and i hate the way they smell, but cigarettes dont lead to harder drugs. Addicts dont lose their jobs and hurt their families over them. Its essentially like chewing gum. The health hazards are real, but thats for the smokers to worry about. There are warning labels right on the packages...in case they missed the mind numbing anti-smoking ads (paid for by cig companies no less) all over the TV. Some kids smoke, somed dont. I tried it, coughed, never did it again. Some people will kids will do whatever simply because older people do it, and its illegal. Marketing does little in my mind. Let it be.
Dude, you are amazingly inconsistent. You're cool with tobacco advertisements, but you want mandatory helmet laws? I just don't get it man. In the helmet thread you're arguing that not wearing a helmet affects others, which is a bit of a stretch in my opinion. Cigarettes definitely have an effect on others.

You also equate chewing gum and smoking? Maybe if you're chewing on nicotine gum all day, I could see that one. If you argue that marijuna is a "gateway" drug, I've got bad news for you. How many people doing illegal drugs of any kind tried cigarettes before they started on marijuna, coke, speed or whatever? I'm betting it is close to 100%. That would make tobacco the biggest gateway drug in the world, by your reasoning.

You're probably underestimating the power of marketing as well. Some very smart people get paid a lot of money to do that kind of stuff, and companies wouldn't be throwing that around if it wasn't worth it.
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
Originally posted by Silver
Dude, you are amazingly inconsistent. You're cool with tobacco advertisements, but you want mandatory helmet laws? I just don't get it man. In the helmet thread you're arguing that not wearing a helmet affects others, which is a bit of a stretch in my opinion. Cigarettes definitely have an effect on others.

You also equate chewing gum and smoking? Maybe if you're chewing on nicotine gum all day, I could see that one. If you argue that marijuna is a "gateway" drug, I've got bad news for you. How many people doing illegal drugs of any kind tried cigarettes before they started on marijuna, coke, speed or whatever? I'm betting it is close to 100%. That would make tobacco the biggest gateway drug in the world, by your reasoning.

You're probably underestimating the power of marketing as well. Some very smart people get paid a lot of money to do that kind of stuff, and companies wouldn't be throwing that around if it wasn't worth it.

Well,
I defintelely saw this post coming.

Ive got all my bases covered though. MJ and cigarettes arent nearly the same. Good try though, also I work in marketing. Thanks for the tip.
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
Originally posted by ohio
Then how can you claim it "does little."

Are you declaring your own insignificance? Wierd.
I was speaking specifically about this case, but FYI,Yes, the small bit of marketing i do is rather insignificant as well.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
Originally posted by BurlySurly
Well,
I defintelely saw this post coming.

Ive got all my bases covered though. MJ and cigarettes arent nearly the same. Good try though, also I work in marketing. Thanks for the tip.
You should have seen it coming. You take very surprising positions on some subjects , and this is definitely one of them. I can never guess ahead of time if you're going to take a personal freedom and responsibility tack on an issue or a benevolent nanny state stance. It's confusing me :D

Marijuana and cigarettes aren't the same, you're absolutely right. Only one of those two substances is addictive. My bad.

Back to the point though, tobacco company marketers have things very figured out. Hell, they are marketing a product that is lethal for you, and new smokers seem to start all the time. I'm not sure this is a good way to do it, but it's a way for a niche company to break into a market without putting ads on F1 cars, I guess.
 

LordOpie

MOTHER HEN
Oct 17, 2002
21,022
3
Denver
Originally posted by BurlySurly
I was speaking specifically about this case, but FYI,Yes, the small bit of marketing i do is rather insignificant as well.
I'll get your back bro and vouche for ya! He's absolutely right... nothing he's written has ever influenced me ;) :devil:

Originally posted by Silver
Marijuana and cigarettes aren't the same, you're absolutely right. Only one of those two substances is addictive. My bad.
:eek: :devil:
 

laura

DH_Laura
Jul 16, 2002
6,259
15
Glitter Gulch
Originally posted by ohio
ummm... why do you think you started when you were 13? if you say because of your friends, then I ask why do you think THEY started when they were 13?


Tobacco advertising was VERY VERY effective at targetting youth. No one likes to think they are susceptible to advertising influence, but tobacco did a damn good job of creating a culture of cool that convinced youths to start smoking.

I worked on some tobacco cases about 2 years ago... from their docs, one of the cover sheets on a marketing report had in big bold letters "YOUTH" with the "O" shaped like a bullseye, with an arrow going through the middle of it.

Anyway, I don't think this campaign will do anything similar, and I don't see it having the same effect on minors... nothing illegal in my mind.

i started smoking because my parents told me not to. it was stage one in my rebelion. my picking of marlboro reds as my first brand had nothing to do with the cowboy in the ads. it was the first cig i ever tried. i found a box that fell off the back of someones truck and they kind of grew on me.
 

manimal

Ociffer Tackleberry
Feb 27, 2002
7,213
22
Blindly running into cactus
if tobacco companies want to throw free cigs at celebs that's fine with me...as long as their roles are not related to kids or even teens.

-----begin tangent thought---
i too live in "tobacco row" and unfortunately have to put up with losers smoking indoors everywhere i go. had to go to the courthouse yesterday and there were about 10 people smoking in an enclosed hallway; i had my family with me and was holding my infant daughter. the fact that i had to walk through and wait in the cloud of their smoke REALLY pissed me off so i firmly asked them all to extinguish their cigs and all but one did until i started coughing loudly right next to him just to be an annoyance. yes, i'm a prick sometimes but the moment that someone elses smoke enters my lungs it is no longer their right to smoke, it now involves me.


---end tangent thought---

the only good thing about smoking is that it's an excellent form of population control :D ----hey..i think i found a new sticker to make for my truck!! :thumb:
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
Originally posted by Silver
You should have seen it coming. You take very surprising positions on some subjects , and this is definitely one of them. I can never guess ahead of time if you're going to take a personal freedom and responsibility tack on an issue or a benevolent nanny state stance. It's confusing me :D
I'll take that as a compliment.

I think anyone who adheres to a strict way of thinking, be it conservative or liberal truly does not examine the full reality of the situation before making an opinion.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
Originally posted by BurlySurly
I'll take that as a compliment.

I think anyone who adheres to a strict way of thinking, be it conservative or liberal truly does not examine the full reality of the situation before making an opinion.
I agree with that. But that also means you can't say marketing tobacco is cool and then turn around and refuse to even read anything that may be marginally pro-marijuana. That's just hypocritical.

Fvck it, let's go bowling...:D
 

Skookum

bikey's is cool
Jul 26, 2002
10,184
0
in a bear cave
Cigarrettes is worse than Marijuana since both physically damage you but at least with "bud" you get a better high.:monkey:

a drug is a drug is a drug, that's why i get a kick on the rare occasion i pop into an AA meeting seeing more than half the people rushing outside to smoke a cancer stick during a break.

Burly Surly looks like Silver's got your number man, he's got the memory to recount your inconsistincies, but fret not, nobody else cares.:D
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
Originally posted by Skookum
Cigarrettes is worse than Marijuana since both physically damage you but at least with "bud" you get a better high.:monkey:

a drug is a drug is a drug, that's why i get a kick on the rare occasion i pop into an AA meeting seeing more than half the people rushing outside to smoke a cancer stick during a break.

Burly Surly looks like Silver's got your number man, he's got the memory to recount your inconsistincies, but fret not, nobody else cares.:D
No. I dont think so.

The high is actually what makes it worse. Of course, people will always argue that logic, but then again people argue just about everything, so where's the real surprise. The pot thing has been beaten to death here. You already know my opinion, so there's not alot to say on it. People love their drugs.:rolleyes:
 

llkoolkeg

Ranger LL
Sep 5, 2001
4,335
15
in da shed, mon, in da shed
Originally posted by BurlySurly
No. I dont think so. The high is actually what makes it worse.
The high is what makes it BETTER, along with the lack of adulterants, burning agents, manipulated Nicotine concentrations, physical addictiveness, disgusting butts littered everwhere, breezeway congregations, top-of-the-hour loafing(cigarette breaks), ... et cetera ad nauseum.
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
Originally posted by llkoolkeg
The high is what makes it BETTER, along with the lack of adulterants, burning agents, manipulated Nicotine concentrations, physical addictiveness, disgusting butts littered everwhere, breezeway congregations, top-of-the-hour loafing(cigarette breaks), ... et cetera ad nauseum.
Dude, you know what's gunna happen.

Im gunna say, "Yeah, but pot leads to crime and violence, plus its well known that pot is actually worse for your health than cigarettes"

and you'll say, "no it wont, not if you make it legal, and so what, its my body anyway"

and ill say, "yes it will because pot will lead to harder drugs, braindead morons and ..............."

you get the point. this really doesnt need to go there.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
56,392
22,468
Sleazattle
Damn, I misread the title of this thread. I thougt it was about the marketing of Tobasco.

That would have been much more interesting.
 

llkoolkeg

Ranger LL
Sep 5, 2001
4,335
15
in da shed, mon, in da shed
Originally posted by BurlySurly
Dude, you know what's gunna happen.

Im gunna say, "Yeah, but pot leads to crime and violence, plus its well known that pot is actually worse for your health than cigarettes"

and you'll say, "Logical flaw- prohibition leads to crime and to the contrary, it is well known that cigarettes are far worse for your health than cannabis. Millions of deaths have been directly attributed to cigarette smoking while nothing of the sort can be said of cannabis."

and ill say, "yes it will because pot will lead to harder drugs, braindead morons and ..............."

and you'll say, "Actually, cigarettes lead to alcohol, which leads to pot and so forth(a logical extrapolation of your original flawed argument). I don't know any tokers who didn't drink a beer first. If pot leads to harder drugs and braindead moronhood, why am I not sitting on a stoop in Baltimore right now rocking in my own feces while waiting for the methadone clinic to open?"

you get the point. this really doesnt need to go there. [/B]
For the life of me, I can't comprehend why you and True are on a mission to scapegoat marijuana for all society's ills. Making gratuitous assertions about that which you do not understand keeps the rhetoric at a fever pitch and the opportunity for understanding next to nil. So long as BS post BS about cannabis, LL will call him out on it. If you don't want the dog's mouth to drool, stop ringing that fvcking bell!
 
Sep 17, 2002
26
0
Bezerkley, CA
I read a great book about Marijuana prohibition a while back called "The Emperor's New Clothes". Among other things, it analyzed the studies which claimed marijuana to be a "gateway drug" and pointed out how they were all pretty flawed and biased.

The best part was the much-touted study which determined Marijuana killed brain cells - the test was done on Monkeys who were strapped to a continuous stream of pot smoke - no air. Of course brain cells were killed, but it was not due to marijuana but from the lack of oxygen to their brains! In fact a US Court Judge has ruled marijuana to be completely harmless to the human body.

It also had some great statistics about alchohol, like the percentage of highway death, spousal abuse, murder, violence, etc. which involved alcohol, the percentage is even higher than you'd think. If there's any substance to get up on a soapbox and preach against, I'd say it's alcohol. When's the last time you got hit by a "stoned" driver or heard of a stoner beating his wife to a pulp?

Anyway, what is your guy's problem with pot besides the supposed gateway drug influence? Also, give some links to some unbiased reports and studies which prove this effect. Does your personal experience also show this effect? Almost everyone I know has tried pot at least once and I'd say less than 1% have gone on to try heavier drugs.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
26
SF, CA
Originally posted by laura
i started smoking because my parents told me not to. it was stage one in my rebelion. my picking of marlboro reds as my first brand had nothing to do with the cowboy in the ads. it was the first cig i ever tried. i found a box that fell off the back of someones truck and they kind of grew on me.
You may be the exception to the rule, but it's nearly impossible to introspectively see the influence on advertisement on one's self. Additionally, you're already generations down the line from the initial effect of those advertisements... why do you think it is that you found Marlboro's? The overwhelming odd are you would have found either Marlboros or Camels, since they are the most popular cigarettes. Where do you think that popularity comes from? From the their previous (successful) efforts to market to teens and preteens.

Why do you think you so strongly associated cigarettes with rebellion? I'm sure your parents would have disapproved just as strongly of cigars or dip. They may have even disapproved just as strongly of gluttony, but I'm guessing you didn't start drinking bacon fat every morning, even though the health consequences wouldn't have been much worse.

Marketing to children works. It's a fact. We've all been influenced by it, whether we notice or not... in fact if we had noticed it, it wouldn't have been as effective. Fast Food, Film Studios, and Tobacco Companies were the pioneers in the area, but these days almost every product is marketed to children... even ones intended for adults, as companies sow the seeds for tomorrows customers.
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
Originally posted by BobTheEngineer

Anyway, what is your guy's problem with pot besides the supposed gateway drug influence? Also, give some links to some unbiased reports and studies which prove this effect. Does your personal experience also show this effect? Almost everyone I know has tried pot at least once and I'd say less than 1% have gone on to try heavier drugs.
My problems with it are:

1. It does nothing good for you. (please no medicinal marijuana references here.)
2. It leads to harder drugs. (Ive seen it, i dont care what you say)
3. I dont want the government saying "Its OK" because that sends a message to our kids.
4. Legalizing would make things like coke seem less bad. So, for kids to really rebel, they'd need to snort lines instead of just toking up.
5. I hate hippies. I dont want them to get their way under any circumstances unless they unconditionally give up the use of patchouli oil.


I dont want to get into this debate AGAIN, but to KoolKegg, if the best way for you to justify it, is to tell yourself that everyone who doesnt agree with it must know nothing about it, than so be it. But you are living in ignorance.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
Originally posted by BurlySurly
But you are living in ignorance.
Dear lord, do I really need to pull up the debate from 6 months ago where you refused to read a study done by the Canadian Senate and denounced it as the work of dirty hippies? :rolleyes:
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
Originally posted by Silver
Dear lord, do I really need to pull up the debate from 6 months ago where you refused to read a study done by the Canadian Senate and denounced it as the work of dirty hippies? :rolleyes:
you can if you'd like, but that would have absolutely no relevance to the statement you just quoted.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
Being presented with a study (one that wasn't commissioned by High Times either) and then dismissing it out of hand and refusing to read it?

That's willful ignorance in my book.
 

LordOpie

MOTHER HEN
Oct 17, 2002
21,022
3
Denver
Originally posted by BurlySurly
5. I hate hippies. I dont want them to get their way under any circumstances unless they unconditionally give up the use of patchouli oil.
amen brotha! Preach on! Hallelulah! Happy Channukah!
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,673
2
Feeling the lag
Originally posted by BurlySurly
My problems with it are:

1. It does nothing good for you. (please no medicinal marijuana references here.)
2. It leads to harder drugs. (Ive seen it, i dont care what you say)
3. I dont want the government saying "Its OK" because that sends a message to our kids.
4. Legalizing would make things like coke seem less bad. So, for kids to really rebel, they'd need to snort lines instead of just toking up.
5. I hate hippies. I dont want them to get their way under any circumstances unless they unconditionally give up the use of patchouli oil.
I must be bored...

1. Does everything have to do you good? The fact that it doesn't do you good is no reason to assume it does harm..
2. Not true. I smoke pot but partake in no other drugs (apart from alcohol which I feel is much more dangerous).
3. But alcohol is fine? A consistent and honest message would be beneficial for all, why not allow it to be legal for adults who can make an informed choice???
4. Why? Again your logic is flawed.
5. Bigot.
 

llkoolkeg

Ranger LL
Sep 5, 2001
4,335
15
in da shed, mon, in da shed
Originally posted by BurlySurly
I dont want to get into this debate AGAIN, but to KoolKegg, if the best way for you to justify it, is to tell yourself that everyone who doesnt agree with it must know nothing about it, than so be it. But you are living in ignorance.
I don't feel the need to justify myself to anyone but my immediate family and my God. On any topic of your choosing, there will be many people that disagree with me...big deal. When I say you know nothing about it, it isn't to say you've never seen people smoke it or perhaps even smoked it yourself. It is a comparative judgement. Having experienced almost all facets of the plant for 20+ years gives me- compared to you- a greater level of knowledge about it and its effects under many different conditions. As far as the living in ignorance comment, I think we're both probably capable of seeing how ridiculous an observation that was. The reason that debates with prohibitionists go nowhere is because they cannot rationally justify the hypocritical legality of alcohol and tobacco over a plant that has seen safe human consumption for thousands of years of recorded human history. Neither racist laws, draconian punishments, governmental persecution or invincible ignorance can unseat that basic truth, and as such, otherwise law-abiding citizens will continue to smoke it.
 
Sep 17, 2002
26
0
Bezerkley, CA
Originally posted by BurlySurly
My problems with it are:

1. It does nothing good for you. (please no medicinal marijuana references here.)
2. It leads to harder drugs. (Ive seen it, i dont care what you say)
3. I dont want the government saying "Its OK" because that sends a message to our kids.
4. Legalizing would make things like coke seem less bad. So, for kids to really rebel, they'd need to snort lines instead of just toking up.
5. I hate hippies. I dont want them to get their way under any circumstances unless they unconditionally give up the use of patchouli oil.
You claim to be someone to "examine the full reality of the situation" so here are some facts maybe you weren't aware of.

1. So what? Plenty of things do nothing good for you. 99% time it doesn't do harm either. Should we waste billions and ruin countless people's lives for something this harmless?

US DEA Court judge has ruled it to be "less harmful than many foods we eat":

After 15 days of taking testimony and more than a year's legal deliberation, DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis L. Young formally urged the DEA to allow doctors to prescribe marijuana. In a September 1988 judgement, he ruled: "The evidence in this record clearly shows that marijuana has been accepted as capable of relieving the distress of great numbers of very ill people, and doing so with safety under medical supervision . . . It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for the DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance in light of the evidence in this record. In strict medical terms, marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man."
OK, so there is some lung damage in recreational smoking usage but this is also less than tobacco and not physically addictive either

2. Sure there will always be people who do go on to harder drugs but in the vast majority of users this isn't the case. Mayor LaGuardia's study in NYC in 1944 found:

The use of marijuana does not lead to morphine or heroin or cocaine addiction and no effort is made to create a market for these narcotics by stimulating the practice of marijuana smoking
After this was published Harry Anslinger, the head of the FBN, denounced Mayor LaGuardia and made it a crime to take Marijuana studies without the government's permission, so the only studies were goverment-authorized and hence biased

3. Do you want your kids to get all their information only from the goverment? Alcohol is legal and widely promoted, would you let them just see beer and liquor ads and think it's all fun and partying or would you also educate them to the dangers and the dark side of it? The same principle applies here

4. How does one thing possibly effect the other, I need help seeing your logic behind this statement. Are you saying something can't be considered rebellion unless it's illegal?

5. I guess you're joking, but PLENTY of people toke up besides hippies, trust me! Personally I know doctors, lawyers, CEOs and many other professionals. It comprises about a third of the black market in this country, last I looked there just weren't that many hippies out there. I agree on the patchouli though

I think it's ironic how this ties into tobacco marketing, in a sense the US goverment for the past 75 years has been marketing marijuana as an evil substance and having a lot of success. If you really look past all the hype and propoganda though, it's just not the case, as more and more open minded people are coming to realize
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
Ive already explained all of this in about 17 other threads people, which is why i said i didnt want to do it all again. Do a search.

You guys are bringing nothing new to the table, and i leave for australia in a couple hours.


Stay high.