‘Truth’ ads don’t live up to name

You may have recently seen advertisements on your television for “The Truth,” a smear campaign aimed at large tobacco companies. These commercials usually begin with a tobacco executive interviewing a possible employee. He proceeds to test the employee by providing a hypothetical situation in which an unsatisfied customer calls to complain that the product caused him or her to have half their jaw removed. The employee then pretends to act shocked and regrettably tells the executive that the job is not for them.

The irony is that, although the employee acts surprised at the customer’s complaint, she knew she was walking into an interview at a tobacco company. Just as the customer calling to complain acts angry that his personal choice to smoke cigarettes resulted in the deterioration of his health.

I like to compare people who try to sue tobacco companies after getting lung cancer or some other cigarette-related illness to the “McDonald’s made me fat” people. No, McDonald’s did not make you fat. Your personal decision that you acted upon, given your own free will, to eat a supersized meal every day instead of using self-control made you fat. This goes for cigarettes too.

Of course tobacco companies are going to try to promote and sell their product. They are businesses. Marlboro is no different from Burger King, Nike, or any other franchise that has a national following. Yes, cigarette companies advertise their product and make it look good — what company doesn’t?

If you visit TheTruth.com, you will be asked to take a quiz . One of the questions asks what you would say to someone who called sarcastically thanking you for the cigarette coupons because she is now dying of lung cancer. My response would simply be, “Oh, I’m sorry. Was someone holding a gun to your head, making you use those coupons and smoke those cigarettes?”

So here is an idea: maybe if people would stop smoking cigarettes instead of trying to sue a company for a personal decision, cigarette companies would go out of business all together and there would not even be a need for such a misguided ad campaign.

8 comments

Your name

Tue Nov 10 2009 15:25

As early as tobacco is and as much of a issue for people to use as a "crutch" to feed an addiction I cannot see the point of suing a tobacco company for providing a product that will and does lead to a wide range of health issues. The true question should be " can you survive without placing a carcinogenic object into your body?" As posted before with this article, does someone hold a gun to the individuals head and force the person to partake in smoking tobacco?? I think not.

John B.

Tue Nov 10 2009 11:31

I think Cody is missing the point of the article. The bottom line is that we as Americans have the freedom to decide what is best for their health. Dont act shocked and try to blame cigarette companies for your own bad decision to smoke. Cody, what does gun ownership have to do with this? Again, common sense to keep a gun in a safe place would go along with common sense to not smoke something that will give you cancer.

Cody S

Tue Nov 10 2009 10:18

First, that's not ironic, acting shocked is would not be ironic. Ironic would be if they came in for a job as a janitor at Altria (Marlboro is not a company, it's a brand that is made by Philip-Morris who is actually owned by Altria) and they asked him how many years he was a janitor and then said person got offended and left. If you walked into a job interview for Browning or another gun manufacturer and they said how would you react to a customer that called saying that they want a a reimbursement for a cleaning service because their child found that person's gun and now the insides of his head are on their walls, I would be very shocked and leave as well, plus that wouldn't be ironic. I suppose you're also against campaigns against keeping guns in safe places because if a child chooses to find your gun and you choose not to lock the trigger then, oh well, it's your consequences. Quick aside: I'm not against gun ownership, I fully support the 2nd amendment so don't get started on that.
Also, "Free Will" is something that not even philosophers can agree that we, but that's not my point. If you are correct and we have Free Will then literally everything is a choice. It can all be boiled down to: well leave the country then. This would make everything permissible and allow people and companies to do what they please, according to your logic.

Response to Jeff

Tue Nov 10 2009 09:15

Jeff, you are a perect example of the type of people the author is talking about in this article. The tobacco companies are a business trying to sell their product just like any other business out there. They market their product the best way they see fit. It is up to the consumer's common sense and personal judgement whether or not to participate or consume the product. Are you going to drink until you get alcohol poisoning and then blame the alcohol company because they "overcame your common sense" and brainwashed you and made you drink? Your argument has no standing.

Mary

Tue Nov 10 2009 08:17

Jeff, So now you are attacking the free speech of advertisers hired to sell a product! Should the products be approved by you first before they get any air time or print? I don't smoke because I understand how unhealthy it is. If I can understand that, I assume millions can understand that. I don't own a trampoline, or a unicycle , or a motorcycle, but I do own a gun. All of these can in some way be considered haszardous to my health. I guess I should have phoned you first!! I am not defending the tobacco company's targeting of young people, but I am defending their right to advertise. They have complied with every piece of legislation that has come down the pike. I think abortion and euthenasia are far more hazardous to our health. Abortion stops a beating heart, and that's a fact!! The world did not form my view.

personal responsibility

Tue Nov 10 2009 08:02

A and especially Jeff: All companies print warnings to reduce their liability. Who would have thought McDonald's or any other company serving coffee would have to state the obvious over and over on their coffee cups-CAUTION HOT! ? Bicycles, chewing gum, hair dryers, they all have precautionary statements on their products. It was all born out of people not wanting to take responsibility for their own decisions and actions. The politicians are at the summit of this hypocrasy. They want restriction after restriction and warning upon warning placed on tobacco companies, yet they have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM accepting millions and SPENDING those millions. What a joke they are. They wouldn't know how to reconfigure a budget without it. If people weren't so 'sue happy' , greedy, unwilling to accept natural consequences, and voted for people who were NOT absolute hypocrits, we wouldn't have to endure any of this crap!

Jeff

Tue Nov 10 2009 07:58

Wow.

Pray, Ms. Seidel, how is a presentation of *fact* in any way a "smear"? The truth campaign has been a solid resource of no-holds-barred *factual* information about the cigarette-pushers for years now, and it's pretty simple for an interested, serious observer to verify their information.

It's not just about lawsuits, or personal responsibility, either; it's about advertising and other forms of propaganda, such as that which has obviously informed your worldview.

Yes, everyone knows smoking is bad for you and, yes, everyone can make a "choice"; it's the specific task of those in the marketing industry to overcome a person's "common sense," however, and they're pretty darned good at it.

Jeff Goff, Bartow, FL

A

Tue Nov 10 2009 03:01

The fact you're missing in this article is that tobacco companies fund this campaign to reduce their liability when young people smoke. It is similar to when alcohol companies run "drink responsibly" ads. Do they want you to drink less? Of course not, but saying that they do takes a legal burden off of them. That's why this campaign so stupid. Of course they don't want a perfectly airtight argument presented against their product. While it has been marginally effective towards children and teens, it is ridiculous enough that responsible adults understand that the premise is totally unrealistic, and that people are responsible for their own decisions. It does what it's supposed to do, reduce their liability while not actually reducing the number of 18+ year-olds who buy their product.

Add comment


I am not posting spam. I understand posting spam or other comments that are unrelated to this article will cause my comment to be flagged for deletion and possibly cause my IP address to be permanently banned from this server.

Enter the characters in the image above:

log out