WI: Big Tobacco wasn't so shady

What if the tobacco companies didn't advertise with things like Joe Camel? What if they admitted that nicotine is addictive from the beginning?
 
So what if humans weren't greedy and motivated by money? I believe this would be ASB, to remove such feeling humans have.
The two things I mentioned aren't ASB. The tobacco executives could decide that nicotine's addictiveness and Joe Camel's appeal to kids is so obvious that it's not worth it to run a denial campaign. I don't think beer companies ever claimed that drunk driving is safe.
 
Last edited:
The two things I mentioned aren't ASB. The tobacco executives could decide that nicotine's addictiveness and Joe Camel's appewl to kids is so obvious that it's not worth it to run a denial campaign.

That's still requiring businesses to be completely honest about their deals. When ever in history, has there ever been a big business, completely free of shady deals?

Not trying to be rude, but asking what if tobacco companies were honest about such details, is really a complete reversal on general human activity.

The truth is humans are shady people and will do anything to extend that shade for as long as possible.
 
That's still requiring businesses to be completely honest about their deals. When ever in history, has there ever been a big business, completely free of shady deals?

Not trying to be rude, but asking what if tobacco companies were honest about such details, is really a complete reversal on general human activity.

The truth is humans are shady people and will do anything to extend that shade for as long as possible.
After you quoted me, I added an example: Beer companies never denied the dangers of drunk driving. My point is that the one time businesses are honest is when the truth is so obvious that lying would only result in lawsuits and boycotts.
 
After you quoted me, I added an example: Beer companies never denied the dangers of drunk driving. My point is that the one time businesses are honest is when the truth is so obvious that lying would only result in lawsuits and boycotts.

Such effects alcohol has on you are only hours are consuming, meanwhile the damage from tobacco can take years to develop, not making it so obvious at first, so it is a completely different measure of comparison.
 
The two things I mentioned aren't ASB. The tobacco executives could decide that nicotine's addictiveness and Joe Camel's appewl to kids is so obvious that it's not worth it to run a denial campaign. I don't think beer companies ever claimed that drunk driving is safe.
No, for many years the community tolerated and accepted drink driving as a part of life (certainly many elements still do), but calls for increased safety, introduction of random breath tests etc. so that’s eroded away to a current acceptable ‘safe’ level of alcohol consumption and driving.

Alcohol companies simple say don’t drink and drive, that’s your choice to do that, nothing to do with us! Completely different kettle of fish.
 
But even beer companies didn't advertise alcohol effect to liver or other health effects. And Alcohol Addiction is not mentioned either.
 
But even beer companies didn't advertise alcohol effect to liver or other health effects. And Alcohol Addiction is not mentioned either.
And Coke and Maccas never advertised how fat they are making everyone, how outrageous! ... under the current logic.

Most modern items and produce have things like warning labels (e.g. don’t drink whilst pregnant etc), nutritional information on food, may contain carcinogenic elements etc. either optional or government mandated in order to be sold.

So if it’s about early consumer awareness and information, that’s a very different story, or implementing tougher regulations by the authorities for labeling or quality control.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
When you are selling something that, when used exactly according to directions, will KILL the user either directly or through secondary effect, it is just about impossible to NOT be shady. When you are selling something that is insanely addictive, remarkably difficult to wean yourself off, and your companies survival is entirely dependent on getting as many new users hooked as early as possible to maximize sales before they die, being shady is arguably a business requirement.

If tobacco companies were actually NOT shady they would have to shut down and most of their leadership would need to shave their heads, become monks and spend their lives in penitence.
 
re: Joe Camel and booze companies possibly using simiilar tactics.

This ad, for Canadian brewer Labatt, ran for a bit in the early 90s. It was pulled after complaints that it seemed to be targeting minors. Judging from the script and overall aesthetic, I'd say it would be most appealing to young males a few years below the drinking age.
 
When you are literally selling poison for consumption being shady is required.
How much of the blame belongs to Uncle Sam? Up until World War 1 cigarettes were considered feminine and it was only women who smoke them for the most part. Uncle Sam then started giving them to troops . I would say that would have been the biggest Factor in making big tobacco what it is today.
 
The two things I mentioned aren't ASB. The tobacco executives could decide that nicotine's addictiveness and Joe Camel's appewl to kids is so obvious that it's not worth it to run a denial campaign. I don't think beer companies ever claimed that drunk driving is safe.

I think the slight difference with alcohol is that, in theory, it can be used responsibly, whereas nicotine in cigarettes is ALWAYS going to be harmful to the user. They're merchants of death, no if's and's or but's, they're already on tenuous moral grounds because the product they sell will only hurt their customers slowly. Shady is the name of the game.
 
How much of the blame belongs to Uncle Sam? Up until World War 1 cigarettes were considered feminine and it was only women who smoke them for the most part. Uncle Sam then started giving them to troops . I would say that would have been the biggest Factor in making big tobacco what it is today.
Loose tobacco and pipe were issued to the soldiers as WWI was underway, but by the end, cigarettes had been found to be far more convenient form to be issued
 
I think the slight difference with alcohol is that, in theory, it can be used responsibly, whereas nicotine in cigarettes is ALWAYS going to be harmful to the user. They're merchants of death, no if's and's or but's, they're already on tenuous moral grounds because the product they sell will only hurt their customers slowly. Shady is the name of the game.
Couldn't they have just said, "You knew what you were getting into when you started"?
 
Couldn't they have just said, "You knew what you were getting into when you started"?

I guess from a marketing perspective, its probably best to say nothing rather than launch a campaign that bashes your own product.

Loose tobacco and pipe were issued to the soldiers as WWI was underway, but by the end, cigarettes had been found to be far more convenient form to be issued

To be fair, I'd smoke like a chimney if I was in a warzone even now. :S
 
I think one of the issues here thats not been addressed (aside from the excellent points made by @CalBear ) is that smoking was an accepted 'social norm' until relatively recently - even by the start of the 1990s 32% of men smoked regularly.^ This had dropped from 45% in 1977. Despite the combination of official warnings, price increases, and the activities of the anti- smoking lobby, a national survey in 1985 found that 31% of people thought that tobacco was either ‘not dangerous at all’ or ‘OK if you know how to use it’. In addition to this, the reductions in the prevalence of smoking between 1977 and 1995 (down to 27%) resulted mainly from people quitting smoking rather than from fewer people taking it up.

So just because the companies "are upfront earlier", doesn't mean its going to automatically change prevailing social trends. So anyhow, have a Winfield.

^Australian figures.
 
Top