Comments on: Bad Hominem

By: walt

walt — Tue, 17 Aug 2004 06:04:13 +0000

You’re missing my point, Jenny. I was comparing what happens within a a “test” situation (with a limited population) v what happens in real life with a broad population. New Coke tested well, VERY well in fact; and bombed in reality.
As for your “why haven’t we heard a huge outcry from new york dwellers?”– who’s “we”? where do you live? and do you actually know any smokers? Finally, the dislike of these new cigarettes (many of which didn’t start shipping till this month) won’t become a “story” unless or until sales statewide decline even further and to a notable degree. And even then you might bet that the state won’t want to release those numbers.

By: Brenda Perks

Brenda Perks — Fri, 13 Aug 2004 15:17:55 +0000

Well I smoke and the cigarettes that have that ring on them to put them out quite frankly sucks. The ashes and cherry of the cig. falls off anytime and anywhere before you know it. And the smoke ban in New York State sucks too.

By: jenny

jenny — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:25:40 +0000

walt — the comparison with new coke is fallacious. in that case, they were testing a different taste, not trying to see if people could distinguish between the old formula and the new.

if firesafe cigs taste so awful, why haven’t we heard a huge outcry from new york dwellers?

By: walt

walt — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 05:48:32 +0000

Operative words there, Jenny, are “in tests” “experimental cigarettes” and “on average.” We’re now talking about “in reality” “actual mass-produced, branded cigarettes” and the full (population-wide) range of opinion.Most smokers I’ve spoken to share my experience tho I can’t swear most of my friends are “average.”

Clearly, you’re not a smoker and don’t quite get the folly of trying to measure pleasure.

Then,too, if I recall, “New” Coke tested well.

By: jenny

jenny — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 00:02:12 +0000

walt — fascinating. according to the american burn association, “In all known tests comparing traditional cigarettes with experimental cigarettes designed to be more fire safe, smokers on average have experienced no difference in taste and have expressed no objections to any other sensations even though such experimental cigarettes may be slimmer, less densely packed, or made with more porous paper.”

p-dawg: ever heard of thalidomide?

By: p-dawg

p-dawg — Tue, 10 Aug 2004 16:57:01 +0000

Why don’t we let the FDA regulate air too? Then we would all be assured that we’d get either prefectly clean, safe air…or none at all. After all, this is the same FDA that prevents dying people from trying “experimental” (read: available anywhere else in the world but the US, though they were developed here) drugs. This is because they have not cleared the multi-year FDA trials and so are not “safe.” Of course, should you expire *before* the clinical trials and approval processes are completed….too bad. We want you to be safe, well, either that or dead.

*Note:* If you are wealthy, you may go to another country to receive these treatments. As usual, money gets you around the law. However, if you are poor, as usual, you’re SOL. Nice to know how much those wealthy politicians really care about us poor people. Remember folks: actions tell the story, not campaign promises.

By: Walt

Walt — Tue, 10 Aug 2004 09:15:47 +0000

Well, Jenny, I’ll tell you what’s silly about them. First, they taste lousy; second tho some of them do annoyingly go out after the first drag, beyond that, they burn themselves out just like their better-tasting version, meaning they don’t even work for their intended purpose. But then, how could they? Even if a cigarette “put itself out” after it had fallen on, say, the sofa, the sofa itself is already on fire and it’s THAT fire that spreads. And finally, it’s not cigarettes that cause fires; it’s smokers that do, and usually drunk ones. So I suggest we outlaw liquor — and sofas.

By: jenny

jenny — Sun, 08 Aug 2004 03:24:44 +0000

PM supports FDA regulation because it will pretty much guarantee their market share for the forseeable future. no more worries about competition.

cyclopatra: what’s so silly about self-extinguishing cigarettes? cigarettes are the number one cause of fatal fires in residences in the U.S.

By: J.I.

J.I. — Sat, 07 Aug 2004 20:14:25 +0000

The Justice Department has recently been arguing in civil suits against pharmaceutical manufacturers that FDA approval bascially grants immunity from civil suits. The reasoning behind this is that if the FDA approves a product as safe, but that product can still be sued as being unsafe, FDA approval is basically devoid of any meaning, and the FDA’s legitimacy gets questioned. If the requirement of FDA approval is extended to tobacco products, that would presumably be a big help for the tobacco companies defending civil suits. Which explains why the tobacco companies would be in favor of such a move. However, this raises questions as to why the ACS would support this move that would curtail the tobacco-suing industry - they’re should be in favor of huge anti-tobacco verdicts.

By: The Volokh Conspiracy

The Volokh Conspiracy — Sat, 07 Aug 2004 18:13:20 +0000

American Cancer Sociey Ad-Hominem:

Radley Balko nails American Cancer Society board member David Seaman for an erroneous ad hom...

By: matthew hogan

matthew hogan — Sat, 07 Aug 2004 18:00:22 +0000

Kate:

“…Altria’s MO…”

Is that a good pun too? Altria’s stock exchange code is MO, from Phillip Morris.

By: Mark D. Fulwiler

Mark D. Fulwiler — Sat, 07 Aug 2004 05:59:30 +0000

Leftist Gabriel Kolko, in his masterful book “The Triumph of Conservatism” conclusively proved 40 years ago that most of the Progrssive Era regulation was supported by big businesses who realized the hazards a truly free market posed to their bottom line. Nothing has changed since then.

By: Kate

Kate — Fri, 06 Aug 2004 14:22:42 +0000

In some ways, I’m actually kind of amused that businesses are figuring out how to use the regulatory state to their advantage. It makes a pretty great joke out of all of this anti-business political rhetoric.

Amusement is a short-term emotion, however, and will soon be overtaken by my familiar despair. Not only does competition get clobbered intentionally by the government, but now it’s easy to get the government to do it without meaning to. Market distortion at its finest.

By: cyclopatra

cyclopatra — Fri, 06 Aug 2004 01:33:33 +0000

Mekav: IIRC, the proposed legislation specifically prohibits the FDA from banning tobacco. However, expect plenty of silliness along the lines of NY’s self-extinguishing rules.

By: Mekav

Mekav — Fri, 06 Aug 2004 00:03:20 +0000

Isn’t it a mandate that the FDA certify that products are safe for consumption and use? It seems that giving the FDA control of tobacco would certainly eventually result in abolition .

By: T.J. Brown

T.J. Brown — Thu, 05 Aug 2004 23:26:15 +0000

Kate hit the nail squarely on the head, and it’s too bad too many people are too stupid to understand it.

More regulation = More expenses to comply with regulation and more legal expenses.

The larger a company is, the larger the volume of business it does, the smaller impact such expenses have on profits.

Those of us little guys struggle to figure out if we’re in compliance or not, struggle to remain competitive, and ultimately may die.

I see it first-hand every goddamn day.

By: VJ

VJ — Thu, 05 Aug 2004 23:21:49 +0000

Isn’t there a legislation floating around somewhere that would grant immunity from civil law suits for prducts that have been approved/regulated by FDA? And remind me, which product has been sued up the wazoo? IMHO, any argument against FDA regulation of tobacco is basically an argument against any kind of regulation by FDA. And that is a completely different question.

By: Kate

Kate — Thu, 05 Aug 2004 21:26:54 +0000

This is actually right in line with Altria’s MO: please punish the whole industry–we can take it.

This kind of voluntary regulation may appear insane, but it’s really just a clever business tactic. Hey, if small competitors can use the government’s antitrust guys to harass you, why not find a regulatory area that allows you to retaliate?

When confronted with oncoming laws, the big boys make a calculated assessment, and jump in when the deal has the maximum potential to kill small competitors. See the Master Settlement Agreement, those mysterious voluntary online sales tax collections (Wal-Mart, Target, Toys R Us), etc.

Trust me, they want that bill to pass.

By: Ben

Ben — Thu, 05 Aug 2004 19:32:09 +0000

Those tobacco companies support Cato because of Cato’s position, not the other way around.

By: Joe Sims

Joe Sims — Thu, 05 Aug 2004 19:26:21 +0000

Wait a minute, let me adjust my tinfoil hat…

…

There, that’s better; The American Cancer Society is right!!! I can see the nefarious plot you folks at Cato are trying to hatch on an unsuspecting public, and frankly I am outraged. To think that ADULTS should be able to make their own decisions without government intervention is IRRESPONSIBLE. One can see that you are merely pawns for Big Tobacco. For shame, Cato, for shame!!! We’re onto you and your nefarious, personal responsibility schemes!!!