Seeking Alpha

Judge Gladys Kessler yesterday approved the wording of "corrective statements" that tobacco...

Judge Gladys Kessler yesterday approved the wording of "corrective statements" that tobacco companies must use in a two-year public advertising campaign in which they have to admit that they lied about the dangers of cigarettes going as far back as 1964. The firms, which are expected to appeal, have argued that such a move violates their free speech rights.
Comments (3)
  • jersduke
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    Judge Kessler’s ruling against the tobacco companies is curious, to say the least. I was struck particularly by one statement that she wishes the tobacco companies to affirm: “When you smoke, the nicotine actually changes the brain—that's why quitting is so hard.” I see, so any experience that “changes the brain” makes quitting hard? This is scientific nonsense. In the first place, any memorable experience “changes the brain.” Does Judge K imagine there are experiences, good or bad, that don’t “change the brain”? If I meet a new friend and remember her, is my brain changed? Yes. I am therefore addicted to her? Of course not. If I meet someone and my brain isn’t changed, will I remember them? How? Astral communication?

     

    Judge K also ordered the companies to say “Cigarette companies intentionally designed cigarettes with enough nicotine to create and sustain addiction". Again, this is scientifically dubious: (a) “Addiction” is not a clinically definable state; it is something that you desire that, for other reasons, you wish you didn’t. Addiction is not like an identifiable disease. Are we addicted to food? Well, yes, but in a good way! (b) Maybe the cigarette companies manipulated the taste of cigarettes to make them more attractive, just as Frito-Lay manipulates the ingredients of Doritos or Nestlé manipulates the ingredients of Kit Kat to make them more attractive. Why is this a bad thing? What else are they supposed to do?

     

    This ruling is not law but ill-informed prejudice.

     

    JS
    28 Nov 2012, 12:21 PM Reply Like
  • thomas j. flaherty
    , contributor
    Comments (117) | Send Message
     
    Jersduke- I like your first paragraph. Addiction is a sad reality however. It is as serious as cancer if you happen to get yourself addicted to cigarettes. Please dont defend tobacco companies.
    They peddle poison to our kids.
    29 Nov 2012, 10:20 PM Reply Like
  • stfual
    , contributor
    Comments (9) | Send Message
     
    Tobacco it makes you stink and then it makes you sick and then it kills you.

     

    The tobacco and alcohol industries both like to intimate that only the weak and the stupid have problems with their products and that Adults like you and me should have the right to choose.

     

    The facts are that anyone who consumes either product will eventually have heath and or social problems related to that consumption.

     

    The Australians have the right idea. You don't ban them but you remove the right to promote them in anyway.
    3 Dec 2012, 09:57 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|