"To destroy the tobacco industry" is a quote from a long article in the NY Times. It's from Mr. (No competing interests) Stanton Glantz. Or is it Dr.? Who cares.

A couple excerpts from the article. This is from the guy who wrote the story:

"It is easy to hate Altria, and many people do. It is still, above all else, a company that makes its money from cigarettes. It still has all that history to live down. But nearly a decade after the failure to get F.D.A. regulation, hate may no longer be an emotion we can afford."

That's to give you an idea of how the story slants. It's a good read though.

Back to excerpts:

"Nobody hates the tobacco companies more than Stanton Glantz, for instance. He has been fighting them for more than two decades, leading the charge to pass smoking bans and engaging in grass-roots guerrilla warfare. He says that the way to beat the tobacco companies is through local efforts, and he has utter disdain for federal regulation, which he assumes the tobacco companies would instantly subvert. His office is the repository for the millions of tobacco documents that have been collected over the years, and he takes pride, as he should, in the role those documents played in turning the country against the cigarette companies. He has done truly heroic work. But when I asked him what his ultimate goal was, he didn't say, "to have fewer people get sick and die from smoking." The first words out of his mouth were, 'To destroy the tobacco industry'."

And:

"[Matthew] Myers claims that the fractures that were evident in the public-health community a decade ago have largely healed. But that's not quite true. In 2004, Myers had to spend a lot of time persuading others in his camp that the bill was worth supporting. Many felt as Kessler did: that if a tobacco company was in favor of it, then there had to be something wrong with it. One anti-tobacco blogger went so far as to post an angry demand that Myers apologize for supporting something Altria also supported. To this day, Myers cannot admit that he and Steve Parrish have occasional contact and that they are both working toward a common goal: F.D.A. regulation. Such an admission would lead to accusations that Myers was consorting with the enemy rather than trying to fix a terrible problem."

link

Regardless of what might happen to the tobacco industry, the product will continue to be available, because people want it. The war on drugs has not eliminated the availabilty of any drug the people want.

Although, tobacco companies sell the product direct to consumers, they also sell it to the drug companies.

The editorializing in this article by the NYT is just so typical of the lamestream media ........how disgusting.

Glantz - heroic?????????

The NYT needs to get out of the advocacy business and back into the true business of journalism.

quote:

Originally posted by Gabz:
Glantz - heroic?????????

Did you read what some person on Siegel's blog called him? A patriot.

quote:

have been collected over the years, and he takes pride, as he should, in the role those documents played in turning the country against the cigarette companies.

Bullshit. He didn't turn the country against the tobacco companies, he turned the country against SMOKERS.

quote:

The NYT needs to get out of the advocacy business and back into the true business of journalism.

That statement should be broadened to include ALL media (including FOX).

I totally agree with you, Dave.

Here in Indiana each media outlet is graded by the anti smokers as to how often they and their message appears. The implication is if these outlets do not keep up with their peers then action will be taken. It is pure intimidation or extortion and effective. Results are included in the anti smoking annual report published by the MSA funded state agency.

Not to mention the fact that all major media sells a LOT of agvertising space to the Anti smoking groups. Since it became illegal to advertise tobacco, which was a major share of advert dollars for media outlets, the Anti's have stepped in with their advertising and will not hesitate to threaten to pull those same advertising dollars if any particular outlet prints anything which goes against their statements. This is a powerful censorship tool, as these media outlets rely heavily on the flow of advertising dollars, they usually will not print anything that would risk the loss of those revenues.
See Dave, we can agree on some things. and for your information, I am not a current user myself, haven't been for years, but I do know many who do, and at least they have the decency to assess each person on their own merits, not stoop to the Anti's methods of accusing ALL in any group of being the enemy.

Bruce, I agree with you on the intimidation tactic.

Jerry, one point of clarification........the illegal banning of tobacco advertising only pertains to broadcast media, not print. Tobacco companies are permitted to use print advertising, only the antis are permitted to use both print and broadcast.

Other than that, I totally agree with you, and would go one step further.....children today are getting more tobacco advertising from the antis than ever they got from the tobacco industry.