December 6, 2000
5:40 PM   Subscribe

I know it's all about anti-tobacco, but I still don't get their television commercials. Their website is hella phat, though.
posted by SilentSalamander (43 comments total)
 
And they can be found here. Adcritic is the greatest thing.
posted by eschewed at 5:55 PM on December 6, 2000


TheTruth.com, huh?
Methinks it's been covered, friend.
More than double post!

http://www.metafilter.com/searched.mefi?search=thetruth.com
posted by DoublePostGuy at 6:13 PM on December 6, 2000


what's not to get about the commercials? They try to show just how many bodies make up the annual death toll from smoking. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
posted by mathowie at 6:34 PM on December 6, 2000


They had some commercials that really bugged me, where they claimed to answer questions or address issues submitted by people to their Web site. One I remember was basically "Hey, why are you so down on companies that are after all just filling a consumer demand?" Rather than refuting that with something like "Do you really think people would demand something that has a good chance of killing them if they weren't seduced by advertising and addicted by nicotine?" they came off with another lame statistic about how many people die from smoking, or something. I mean, the statistic wasn't lame in and of itself, but it didn't address the issue at hand, which was basically asking how free people should be to buy products that can kill them, and deserved a more useful answer. I doubt the guy who submitted the question felt like it had been answered. Left a bad taste in my mouth for "thetruth.com."
posted by kindall at 7:17 PM on December 6, 2000


All you really need to know is that this is funded under the 40-state tobacco settlement, in return for stopping other forms of advertising.

It's interesting to note, however, that psychological studies have found that the threat of death doesn't seem to deter smokers. Maybe making non-smokers seem hella phat might ...
posted by dhartung at 11:25 PM on December 6, 2000


I don't think there should be laws against cigarette advertisments unless they also ban anti-cigarette advertisements. Seems entirely unfair to me. Think about it.
posted by howa2396 at 12:29 AM on December 7, 2000


The entire thetruth.com site ignores the issue of smoker culpability. The responsibility of those who choose to take a carcinogenic product, stick it in their mouth, light it afire and inhale the resultant toxic smoke continues to be ignored in favour of screeds about misleading advertisements and big bad evil tobacco. Whatevah.
posted by Dreama at 6:09 AM on December 7, 2000


It does seem a little disingenuous to claim that the companies who manufacture the product are solely and totally to blame for the health problems and deaths of people who continue to use the products... Where is personal responsibility in all of this? Only someone who was deaf, blind and dumb - and been that way since 1965 - could possibly claim that they didn't know smoking tobacco was a potentially lethal habit.
posted by m.polo at 6:32 AM on December 7, 2000


Where is personal responsibility in all of this?

Gone, with the 90's. Where've ya been? :-\
posted by ethmar at 6:54 AM on December 7, 2000


There was personal responsibility in the 90's?
posted by solistrato at 7:06 AM on December 7, 2000


Gone, with the 90's. Where've ya been?

The nineties weren't really about personal responsibility, either, were they?
posted by dcehr at 7:07 AM on December 7, 2000


Screw that. It's a drug and people are addicts. Of course smokers are responsible for themselves, just as the junkie of the cokehead are responsible for themselves. But that doesn't absolve the pusher does it?

I often wonder if people have the faintest idea what addiction means. You don't choose to be an addict. It's a biochemical reaction to a substance - your actual physiology is changed such that it only feels normal once the substance has been added. A lack of the substance means that your body feels something is physically wrong with it - hence the symptoms that go along with withdrawal.

That doesn't absolve the person of responsibility in the least. But addiction isn't just "really wanting something" - it's not a conscious desire at all - and to mistake that for addiction comes off as smug and silly.
posted by mikel at 7:08 AM on December 7, 2000


How long before someone sues McDonald's because they had a quadruple bypass after 10 years of the SUPER SIZE Big Mac meals?

ethmar is indeed correct: personal responsibility is gone with the 90's
posted by chiXy at 7:09 AM on December 7, 2000


We had personal responsibility in the 90's? Hmm, I don't think Bill Clinton saw the memo that announced that...

For the record, I know personally and very well what the word "addiction" means and I did not mean to imply that the tobacco companies were without any culpability in this matter. But in all the "talk" on this subject, I rarely see any discussion of what part the consumers of the products play. To place the burden of the remedy on the tobacco companies is, in my opinion, to relieve the party who should bear the majority of the burden: the individual who, knowing the toxicity of the product, knowing the addictive nature of the product, elected to begin using it anyway...
posted by m.polo at 7:36 AM on December 7, 2000


We had personal responsibility in the 90's?

NO.

And I didn't say we did. I'm saying that the 90's came along, and the last vestiges of personal responsibility were swept away.

My motto: blame me
posted by ethmar at 7:54 AM on December 7, 2000


Do you believe that advertising works, mpolo? If not, why are trillions of dollars spent on it every year? If it doesn't work, then that's all wasted, right, and any company that buys it is being irresponsible with their investors money?

Do you believe that cigarette companies target kids? There's plenty of evidence that they do.

That seems harsh. Let me come back a bit and say that I do agree with you, for sure - it's just that the cigarette companies would place the blame entirely on individuals, and have done a great job over 30+ years doing just that - the idea of solely personal responsiblity in this thing is the norm, contrary to a lot of the comments here. If things balance over the other way for a while, I don't see what's so wrong with that.

Particularly when the cig companies alter the chemical profiles of their products to make them more addictive, and explicitly aim towards getting kids to buy in and get addicted before they have the judgement of an adult.
posted by mikel at 8:13 AM on December 7, 2000


The national Truth campaign seems to be based on a Florida anti-smoking campaign (with a flashturbation-heavy site). The Florida campaign was pretty successful; so successful, in fact, that there was an ugly legislative fight when Florida Republicans tried to shut it down.
posted by harmful at 9:26 AM on December 7, 2000


Most people addicted to tobacco started smoking before they were 18. I know we all have to live with some of the stupid decisions we made when we were kids, but I'm sure glad I'm not addicted to tobacco because I was an idiot when I was 15. Yes, I know some people can quit, but it's a big pain and I'm glad I never had to deal with it. And I don't think it's unreasonable for us to try to influence youth culture and use propoganda and restrict tobacco ads to provide that same opportunity to the next generation.

When you're an adult, if you decide you'd like to try smoking and don't give a damn about the health risks or the smell or what it does to your teeth or making other people uncomfortable in your presence, then the lack of Winston ads on TV isn't going to be a big impediment to finding yourself a pack of cigarrettes.
posted by straight at 10:07 AM on December 7, 2000


All of this "personal responsibility" talk is just a dodge to avoid corporate responsibility. Heaven forbid we actually put any blame for marketing nicotine on tobacco companies.

Smokers do bear the majority of the burden here, folks. They cut years off their life expectancy. Isn't that enough of a price to pay for being personally stupid?
posted by rcade at 10:28 AM on December 7, 2000


I agree - certainly there's personal responsibility associated with all this. But there's also social responsibility - we have a responsibility to help others lead healthier lives as well. If somebody wants to smoke, that's their choice. But if propaganda against it helps cut that back, society's a little better for it as far as I'm concerned. I don't like seeing anybody die young, even if its from their own decisions.
posted by DiplomaticImmunity at 10:50 AM on December 7, 2000


The war against tobacco is political correctness run amok.How come no one is doing anything about alcohol consumption?How come no one is suing Seagrams or Coors?Why? Because drinking alcohol is socially acceptable, even though it kills just as many people as tobacco. Having had fist hand experience (this is not a typo) with raging alcoholics, I'd say the social cost is even greater.God, Americans are such pathetic hypocrites!
posted by Mr. skullhead at 12:25 PM on December 7, 2000


Amen Skullhead, even though I am one of those pathetic hypocrites!
posted by tj at 12:32 PM on December 7, 2000


Thanks for sticking all Americans into one big pile skullhead! It shows how mature and intelligent you are!
posted by FAB4GIRL at 12:32 PM on December 7, 2000


I just loooove these anti-smoking topics... I am a soon to be ex-smoker (had my last one today, I have my reasons, and I guarantee it's not what most you think - before you say good luck), and I for one do not blame anyone else for my decision to start smoking. Why do so many of you feel that it is neccessary to squawk on and on about this?

Especially when so many of you non/ex smokers are making these massive statements of disgust and repulsion, as I've said in previous posts- we all have our flaws.

If anyone ever sees me post one of these long-winded "smoking is stupid and smokers are bad, dumb people who will break your grandmother's hip while pouring sugar in your gastank" posts, please find me and beat me senseless.
posted by tj at 12:45 PM on December 7, 2000


tj, even if you don't blame anybody, have you ever wished that someone had successfully convinced you not to start in the first place?
posted by harmful at 1:16 PM on December 7, 2000


no, I don't... I wouldn't have listened to them in the first place. It was my decision to make.
posted by tj at 1:23 PM on December 7, 2000


One of the reasons smoking's as reviled as it is is because you can drink alcohol and not affect the people around you. Smokers (like myself) tend to smell like smoke, which a lot of people find really disgusting.

Also, someone who's allergic to alcohol can reasonably easy control their alcohol intake, whereas people who are allergic to smoke get it inflicted upon them whenever they walk near someone smoking, or (if sensitive enough, which an unfortunate amount of people are) near someone who recently had a cigarette.

Sure, there are exceptions, drunken louts are drunken louts and annoy the people around them, but then being a drunken lout isn't socially acceptable unless you're surrounded by other drunken louts.
posted by cCranium at 1:38 PM on December 7, 2000


Smokers (like myself) tend to smell like smoke, which a lot of people find really disgusting.

And we know this... we don't need to be reminded of it constantly
posted by tj at 1:45 PM on December 7, 2000


I don't see why personal responsibility and corporate responsibility are necessarily mutually exclusive. Why can't there be both?
posted by donkeymon at 2:12 PM on December 7, 2000


One of the reasons smoking's as reviled as it is is because you can drink alcohol and not affect the people around you

Well, you beat me to the (obvious) punch when you made the comment about drunken louts, but have you smelt the stink reeking off of an alcoholic? Second-hand smoke hospitalized me for THREE days, but smoke doesn't make me want to heave my guts out when I come into contact with it.

But I'm one of "those people" who wouldn't mind seeing all of the world's tobacco (and related products) banished to the planet Q-13. I want my lungs back the way they were, and unlike smokers who smoke for awhile then quit, reportedly repairing their lungs by doing so, for me that ain't ever gonna happen.

Any questions why I'm not jumping up and down shouting "legalize it" and wondering why smokers can't "just" do as they please? My interest is to see smoke of all kinds drastically reduced or flat-out eliminated. And NO, I'm not nice about it.

But there was nothing nice about being hospitalized for three days and never being able to run cross-country, play "physical" sports, and so forth ever again either.
posted by ethmar at 2:54 PM on December 7, 2000


Alright, the nauseating smell is another facet, but that's taking alcohol to the extreme, again something that isn't considered socially acceptable, whereas a martini before dinner is.

One smoke makes bad smells, one drink doesn't.

Also, me having a drink won't hurt you if you're standing next to me. Me having one smoke will likely make a non-smoker cough.
posted by cCranium at 5:41 PM on December 7, 2000


One of the reasons smoking's as reviled as it is is because you can drink alcohol and not affect the people around you.

I think having a few martinis at lunch and then mowing down a school bus full of first graders on a field trip to the zoo would effect people around you.

If you only had a cigarette at lunch, you'd just stink.

I can't think of any situation where you can have a pack of camels and then injure other people. A few glasses of Crown and coke... lets see them drag those body bags out and count them up!
posted by chiXy at 8:22 PM on December 7, 2000


I can't think of any situation where you can have a pack of camels and then injure other people.

Ever heard of second-hand smoke?
posted by rcade at 1:21 AM on December 8, 2000


I can't think of any situation where you can have a pack of camels and then injure other people.

Ever heard of second-hand smoke?
posted by rcade at 1:21 AM on December 8, 2000


No. What's that?
No. What's that?

Seriously, there is hardly a comparison-- you can LEAVE the area of the smoke-- It's hard to dodge oncoming drunk drivers... even IF you could tell which one was about to splatter your ass against the guard rail. I'll sit next to the smoker any day. [As long as it's not a cheap cigar]
posted by chiXy at 6:53 AM on December 8, 2000


The war against tobacco amd alcohol is political correctness run amok.

How come no one is doing anything about automobile usage?

How come no one is suing Ford or DaimlerChrysler?

Why? Because driving cars is socially acceptable, even though it kills just as many people as tobacco and alcohol. Having had first hand experience with road-raging drivers, I'd say the social cost is even greater.

God, Americans are such pathetic hypocrites!

posted by daveadams at 9:38 AM on December 8, 2000


The war against tobacco amd alcohol is political correctness run amok.

How come no one is doing anything about hamburger consumption?

How come no one is suing McDonalds or Burger King?

Why? Because eating hamburgers is socially acceptable, even though it kills just as many people as lightning and meteors. Having had first hand experience with a group of toddlers running amok in the McDonalds playground, I'd say the social cost is even greater.

God, Americans are such pathetic hypocrites!
posted by straight at 9:55 AM on December 8, 2000


chiXy, I'd like you to tell the children stuck in homes of smoking parents that they can just "leave" the area with the smoke. Children of smokers have considerably higher incidence of asthma and other respiratory diseases -- coincidence? I doubt it.

But that's still not solely the tobacco industry's fault, even if thetruth.com would like us to think so.
posted by Dreama at 11:38 AM on December 8, 2000


dave and chixy: huzzah!
posted by tj at 12:23 PM on December 8, 2000


chiXy, I'd like you to tell the children stuck in homes of smoking parents that they can just "leave" the area with the smoke. Children of smokers have considerably higher incidence of asthma and other respiratory diseases -- coincidence? I doubt it.

Thank you.

And my case was somewhat unusual. My parents don't smoke, but my chain-smoking Grandmother was visiting for 2 weeks, and fogged up the house, during the hottest 2 weeks of the year, which meant our windows were closed so we could run the AC. So fine, I could go out during the day, but you gotta sleep sometime.
posted by ethmar at 12:32 PM on December 8, 2000


I'd like you to tell the children stuck in homes of drinking parents that they can just "leave" the area with the alcohol. Children of smokers have considerably higher incidence of illiteracy and poverty -- coincidence? I doubt it.

Excellent idea straight.
posted by Dr_Moreese at 1:20 PM on December 8, 2000


I'd appreciate not having my words twisted.

Having a drink with dinner is nothing like sucking back a few Crowns and cokes before hopping behind the wheel of a school bus and colliding into a McDonald's PlayLand.

TM.

Having a drink with dinner is a socially acceptable form of narcotic consumption because while it kills off a few brain cells, it doesn't have any kind of negative impact on the people around you.

Having a cigarette with dinner, on the other hand, is generally not an acceptable form of narcotic consumption because unless you exhale into an air filter attached to the end of your cigarette, the people around you are going to smell your smoke.

Please. Read what I write, I can't see how that's a difficult thing to do. I enjoy debating as much as (probably more) the next person, but when you pull an abstract point that I never made or intimated, you waste both our time.
posted by cCranium at 5:37 PM on December 8, 2000


I'd appreciate not having my words twisted.

Ditto.
posted by chiXy at 12:52 PM on December 9, 2000


« Older Drug Tampering Movie Halted   |   Mom, can I get a scooter? Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments