After 9/11 the Salvation Army could be seen giving out free cigarettes to people in need at the WTC site.

For many people that was the worst day of their life. For many people cigarettes help to calm and destress them.

Do you think this was wrong? Does this affect your view of the Salvation Army?

I'm curious as to what ya'll think.

Has anyone heard about the new "vaccination" so that smokers won't get the nicotine "buzz"?

Well in my personal opinion i think that we should be trying to put a stop to all the cigarette smoking . i do not think passing out cancer sticks will help anything. but at the same time everybody have rights and i guess it's there perogative to smoke

quote:

Both cigarrette and gun companies make a dangerous product that people have the ability to not use or use responsibly.

Responsibly? While a person waving around a knife or gun in public is almost immediately taken down, a person with a cigarette, nor the company providing them, is attacked. And whether you agree or not, gun manufacturers have been in the frying pan for quite some time.

quote:

Ah but EG that is an even worse analogy - guns and knives have alternative purposes than killing people.

It seems relevant to me. Both cigarrette and gun companies make a dangerous product that people have the ability to not use or use responsibly.

quote:

And what about those who are already addicted and have been for some time, and they cannot successfully quit?

That's their fault.

Ah but EG that is an even worse analogy - guns and knives have alternative purposes than killing people. Also, this is more like the argument of second-hand smoke.

And what about those who are already addicted and have been for some time, and they cannot successfully quit?

quote:

That's why I said "to an extent". Their advertising campaigns have been almost as harmful as big tobacco though through their targets.

By that logic we should go after Hollywood for making kids dumb, fat, and violent. Actually, a vastly stronger case can be made for that than either McDonald's or tobacco, and they have far deeper pockets as well.

quote:

However, my argument was that cigarettes are made to be physically addictive (though they are also a mental addiction) while fast food is by no definition physically addictive.

Again, people know that cigarettes are addictive. They can always choose not to smoke them in the first place. A company can not be held responsible for the bad choices people make.

If you don't like the fast food analogy here's a better one. Punishing cigarette companies for the irresponsible actions of it's customers is like punishing gun and knife manufacturers for murder.

Killing people is different than making them fat. (And by fat, I mean adding a few pounds.) Hell, cigarettes, from my experience, make people thin. However, my argument was that cigarettes are made to be physically addictive (though they are also a mental addiction) while fast food is by no definition physically addictive. Maybe I haven't made this too clear, but I would much rather not get involved with fast food, because that is on a different level.

quote:

Originally posted by freedomordeath:
I just called four of my smoking friends and none of them had a clue about low additive cigarettes. It's not popular probably because it's not well known. That's the issue I was referring to.

The common guy isn't aware of all the trans-fat and random crap that's in a fast food burger either, since we keep using that analogy.

At least in my experiance, they're not popular because, one, they might be more inconvienent, and two, they're harsher to smoke. That's why menthol cigarettes ARE so popular.

The point is, nobody who's got half a brain assumes there's only tobacco in a Marlboro. They just don't think about it. People who demand something be done about additives are in the same mindset of those who support suing fast food for making people fat.

I just called four of my smoking friends and none of them had a clue about low additive cigarettes. It's not popular probably because it's not well known. That's the issue I was referring to.

quote:

Originally posted by freedomordeath:
But do you have to research the issue when you step into a McD's? No.

Cigarettes? I believe so

What the hell are you talking about? You can find that stuff at pharmacies, convience stores, and a whole bunch of places. Hell they even sell rolling papers and loose tobacco in a cigarette box for convienence.

But do you have to research the issue when you step into a McD's? No.

Cigarettes? I believe so

quote:

Originally posted by freedomordeath:
As for the tobacco industry, they have only offered patches and pills, not ridding the cigarettes of the addtives or trying the "decaf" method.

What? There a large number of low additive tobacco products out there. Just not Marlboro or the POPULAR cigarettes. The cheapest stuff out there is pure tobacco that you can roll yourself. I'm not saying it's popular, but the options ARE out there for the consumer. Again it's an issue of what people are willing to buy, not what the companies are willing to sell.

quote:

Last time I checked, McDonald's didn't hold a gun to your head and force you to down a Big Mac.

That's why I said "to an extent". Their advertising campaigns have been almost as harmful as big tobacco though through their targets.

quote:

I don't know if you've been to McDonald's lately, but they have nutritional facts on their food containers and wrappers. Plus, it's common sense that eating too many burgers, no matter where they're from or what is put in them, is bad for you.

Well EG, I'm sorry that I haven't made such a choice lately.

And doc, I am all for individual rights, but there should be consequences for the additives. That is not a right, that's ethics. I am not trying to bring up old debates. McDonald's social responsibility is a little different, but it was part of the refute. Still, though it has tried alternatives, some of them just don't work. To that end, amp has a point - right now, Wendy's IS kicking McD's ass for alternatives. Still allows many choices, but also has different side options, something I have not seen on (at least) the adult menus. As for the tobacco industry, they have only offered patches and pills, not ridding the cigarettes of the addtives or trying the "decaf" method.

quote:

To an extent, yes, McDonald's should be punished as well

Last time I checked, McDonald's didn't hold a gun to your head and force you to down a Big Mac.

Wendy's so kicks MCDonald's ass

but I still don't eat it every day, hell I don't even have it every month. The moral there has been pointed out several times by the doctor you can eat/drink/smoke almost anything with no ill affects if you practice moderation

quote:

And just because you have one cigarette, or six, does not make you a lifetime smoker.

It only takes 5 cigarrettes to become addicted. But one or two isn't going to ruin your life or anyone else's.

I would. I KNOW that a double quarter pounder with cheese is terribly unhealthy but it TASTES SO GODDAMN GOOD. You just don't eat them every day.

Just like someone can enjoy a cigarette or a cigar and not totally ruin themselves.

Oh, and about McDonald's social repsonsibility. They recently had to discontinue many of thier healthy items because nobody was buying them. For all the suspicion I have of coporations, you can't force them to sell a product no one wants to buy.