Yes, this and that has happened in the past, but I am talking about here and now. Here's the deal: Cigarette advertising is by and far difficult to come by, and is heavily restricted and monitored in both content and medium. Cigarettes are also unavailable for purchase to minors, meaning that any involvement of minors with cigarettes is [i]entirely[/i] the fault of vendors (or irresponsible adults/lawbreaking minors - neither of which are within the realm of a cigarette company's responsibility). A firm has the responsibility to follow the law - and legislators have the responsibility to make proper laws (for advertising, legal age, availability, etc.). So unless cigarette companies are currently engaged in illegal practices, they should not be wrongly vilified.

I'll try not to derail the discussion into general advertising, but as you may know, I am largely a proponent of personal responsibility. Anyway, if you can point out where anti-tobacco campaigns are showing real ([b]and current[/b]) examples of immoral practices by tobacco companies, aside from "OMG! YOU ARE MURDERERS!" I would be interested in knowing.

Personally, I can't see any valid reason why we might consider the work of tobacco companies even remotely worth defending. Campaigns against smoking might (sometimes) make the (much smaller) mistake of branding the people who work for such companies "evil," but that seems to be mostly just hyperbole and the result of overzealousness towards an actual worthy cause.

As for Mr. Spurlock, I think [i]his[/i] work [i]is[/i] worth defending. Recounting important information and expanding upon it with crucial experiential detail is always helpful, both as a reminder and as an introduction to those of us who might have slipped past unaware, under-informed, or lacking in differing perspectives (which doesn't require being an idiot, by the way).

Blank, thanks for the link to this show's episodes. I had nearly forgotten about it while not having cable for the past few months.

It's easy to defend tobacco companies...since they don't inherently do anything wrong, immoral, or improper. Smoking is a choice, and the ramifications of smoking are the fault of no one except the smoker. Each person has the right to weigh the pros and cons of smoking and make a decision based on their personal values. In fact, tobacco companies are merely supplying a product that many people value. There is nothing worthy about vilifying tobacco companies, nor is it just or right. The only worthy cause is [b]educating people on the effects of tobacco use.[/b] THE END.

I have no problems with Spurlock's dissemination of information on the health risks of an unhealthy eating lifestyle. Obviously, there is no one who would eat at McDonald's as much as he did (except, perhaps, for the Big Mac fanatic who was ironically skinny), so it was a tad flawed and misrepresentative...but overall, I find the message to be acceptable. My gripe is that he vilifies a specific company (let alone the entire fast food industry), rather than the people who choose to eat unhealthy. In fact, it should be acceptable for a person to eat unhealthy, since that person obviously values the food more than he values his health (much like cigarette smokers).

Anyway, for the record, if you never knew fast food was unhealthy, there is an enormous chance that you are, in fact, an idiot.

The tobacco industry was successfully and justly sued in the 90s, but 40 prior years of deception and bought-and-paid-for escape from lawsuits isn't going to be forgotten so easily in the public consciousness. Furthermore, the only people who at first were educating people on tobacco use were the advocates of that cause. There is no thanks to be given to the companies for being coerced by more concerned people into putting labels on their packaging.

I also don't see Spurlock vilifying a specific company to any large extent. He picked the one with the most name recognition, but he mostly shows the effects of eating there, not about how they strangled his children.

[quote="Ryan"]The tobacco industry was successfully and justly sued in the 90s, but 40 prior years of deception and bought-and-paid-for escape from lawsuits isn't going to be forgotten so easily in the public consciousness. Furthermore, the only people who at first were educating people on tobacco use were the advocates of that cause. There is no thanks to be given to the companies for being coerced by more concerned people into putting labels on their packaging.

I also don't see Spurlock vilifying a specific company to any large extent. He picked the one with the most name recognition, but he mostly shows the effects of eating there, not about how they strangled his children.[/quote]

That's a great history lesson, but there really is no longer a reason to vilify the tobacco industry, which merely provides a product that is valued by its customers.

You don't see Spurlock vilifying McDonald's in that movie, huh? I haven't seen it in a while, but re-watching the intro alone, I see him calling McDonald's "bastards," as well as defending a frivolous lawsuit while dismissing personal responsibility (despite pretending to question its role).

didn't spurlock do the where in the world is osama thing? I thought that looked interesting.

[quote="clouds"]didn't spurlock do the where in the world is osama thing? I thought that looked interesting.[/quote]

He did. Saw it in the conan o'brian show while back.

As said before by me

The show isn't good.

The super size me movie was dumb. If you eat pizza loca. For one month of course your going to get fat. It's common sence. Yet he exploited on how BAD it really is. Fast food places are like places you would go after doing something GREAT. I wouldn't go to one though. Haven't had a burger in about 2 years. Or haven't been to a fast food place in years.

[quote="sheerheartattack"][quote="Ryan"]The tobacco industry was successfully and justly sued in the 90s, but 40 prior years of deception and bought-and-paid-for escape from lawsuits isn't going to be forgotten so easily in the public consciousness. Furthermore, the only people who at first were educating people on tobacco use were the advocates of that cause. There is no thanks to be given to the companies for being coerced by more concerned people into putting labels on their packaging.

I also don't see Spurlock vilifying a specific company to any large extent. He picked the one with the most name recognition, but he mostly shows the effects of eating there, not about how they strangled his children.[/quote]

That's a great history lesson, but there really is no longer a reason to vilify the tobacco industry, which merely provides a product that is valued by its customers.

You don't see Spurlock vilifying McDonald's in that movie, huh? I haven't seen it in a while, but re-watching the intro alone, I see him calling McDonald's "bastards," as well as defending a frivolous lawsuit while dismissing personal responsibility (despite pretending to question its role).[/quote]

You keep going on about the "value" of tobacco products, but you do realize that nicotine is [i]addictive[/i], right? Most people who experiment with tobacco use develop both mental and physical dependence on the drug. Which is the biggest reason they keep buying, not because they're all happy customers. This personal responsibility rhetoric seems like just as much of a looking-for-someone-to-blame cop-out as painting tobacco execs as cartoon villains.

I haven't seen the movie in a long time, either, so I guess I might as well take your word that he thoroughly demonizes McDonald's and erects a cult around its demolition as a main event or somethin', but while I know that Spurlock isn't perfect, if I actually believed that [i]name-calling[/i] was such an offensive crime and not just an unnecessarily grumpy way of voicing highly opinionated idealisms, I would've called [i]you[/i] out on it several times already.

[quote]Most people who experiment with tobacco use develop both mental and physical dependence on the drug.[/quote]

Really now? I figure what you mean by this is "Most people who experiment with tabbacco WHO LIKE THE FEELINGS THAT RESULT FROM USING IT, SO THEY CONTINUE TO USE IT EVENTUALLY develop both mental and physical dependencies on the drug IF THEY CONTINUE USING IT FOR A LONG ENOUGH PERIOD OF TIME, DEPENDING UPON THE FREQUENCY OF USAGE.

You're severely oversimplifying things, and blaming it on addiction, saying that the people can't control if they get addicted or not. It's no different from becoming addicted to anything else addictive: if you don't want to become addicted, don't use it. If the pleasurable feelings that result from using it outweigh the risk of addiction in the user's eyes, then good for them. You should tell people that it's addictive and what sort of health problems can occur from the use of it, and then if they want to use it, the blame for any addiction, health issue, or whatever else that occurs as a result of use is all on their own shoulders.

Yeah, what he said.

God knows there's plenty of information jammed into our face about the problems with ciggarettes. If it doesn't change anyone's minds about it or prevent people from starting, we certainly can't blame it on lack of education on the subject.

Tobacco doesn't kill people. Since the tobacco company puts big warning signs. I got a coupon for a free pack of tobacco ciggartes. And all through the letter and coupon it had a big warning sign of what it can cause. Yet fast food places don't have signs "warning eating to much of our burgers will cause you to get overweight."

They have the nutrition facts, which, if you're not a moron, amount to the same thing.

It's way too hot and humid for me to join in this essay war, but I just want to chime in to let Ryan know I see this from a similar point of view.

[quote="Marekenshin"]They have the nutrition facts, which, if you're not a moron, amount to the same thing.[/quote]

My 90 year old grandma just died of lung cancer thanks to cigars. So my family ends up suing the company for making them to addicting. Yet my 5 year old brother keeps visiting the mc donalds every day after school and will eventually get to fat to even move, which will cost him to have a heart attack. (sheer ) So since he will die of being to fat thanks to mc donalds burgers yet it doesn't matter it's just food. Even if they have nutirtion facts. There are alot of people who don't even bother reading them. Some of those are in the rappers. Which are hard to read as is. While the cigars have big labels in them. So, it's just dumb how one sees the other one. Both kill if you have to much .Yet one yets sue while the other gets ignored, until some guy decides ot have it every day for 30days. Oh he gets everything "super sized"

Those examples sucked! None of the grandma nor the brother is true <.<