Originally written 03.14.2002

Came across this article which describes how

From the article:

THE head of Britain's biggest cigarette company has made an unprecedented admission that smoking is bad for you and that people are "better off" avoiding tobacco.

The comment by Martin Broughton, the executive chairman of British American Tobacco, the second biggest cigarette-maker in the world, is the clearest warning yet wrung from a tobacco chief.

Here is my response:

This is a good example of the sort of argument that many anti-tobacco-insdustry-regulation types make. The argument is that, granted, tobacco poses some serious health risks, but that people are aware of these risks and should be allowed to make a choice to assume those risks.

This argument is flawed for a number of reasons and these reasons make Mr. Broughton, who aknowledges the danger of the products his company produces, yet still continues to make them available to the public, a hypocrite. The problem with what I'll call the "live and let die" argument is that in some cases, people affected by tobacco use don't have any choice in the matter. Second-hand smoke has been shown to be very harmful (if I'm not mistaken, more harmful than primary smoke), particularly for young children. In particular, the dangers of pre-natal smoking are well documented. While I would argree that individuals are ultimately responsible for actions which affect themselves, the tobacco industry, including Mr. Broughton are in some part (and I would argue a large part) responsible for the overall social cost of tobacco use.

The second flaw with the "live and let die" argument is that while it is true that in these times, most people are aware of the health risks of tobacco use, most people do not fully grasp how addictive products with nicotine can be. I would argue that many first time smokers, while acknowledging the health risks of their new found habit, think that they will be able to quit easily in the future and avoid the health risks. As one soon finds after speaking with a hardcore smoker, quitting is typically very difficult, and for some individuals, nearly impossible. So, while the weight of medical knowledge has made it impossible for the tobacco industry to under state the harm of tobacco use, I feel strongly that the industry still deceives consumers by understating the addictive properties of nicotine.

Still, despite the hypocrisy of the statements described above, I think that such statements are positive in the sense that they are a first step in aknowledging the danger that the tobacco industry poses to the public. One can only hope that, in the future, tobacco industry executives will not only make statements about tobacco and health, but will instead make the genuinely ethical decision to steer their companies away from the business of dealing death.

A quick note. I find it somewhat interesting that the statement was made by an exec. from a Brittish tobacco company. I'm studying in Scotland right now, and the smoking culture is so different here (and I imagine the rest of Brittain) than it is in the states. I don't have any hard stats, but from observation, the number of smokers seems far higher, and the moratorium against smoking in public areas that exists in the US is unheard of here. Furthermore, the age to purchase tobacco in Scotland is 16 instead of 18. I suspect that even as anti-tobacco sentiment continues to grow in the US, rather than make the ethical choice to cease producing such dangerous products, tobacco companies will simply shift their efforts to other markets such as Europe and Asia where it seems the health risks associated with smoking are ignored.

Originally written 03.14.2002

"With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."

--
Steven Weinberg, Nobel laureate in physics (in a recent speech to the members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science)

Originally written 03.13.2002

This press release came through my inbox today. It seems that the Lorrilard tobacco company is suing the American Legacy Foundation. The tobacco company alleges that the ALF's Truth campaing engages in villification which violates a clause of the Master Settlement Agreement.

I guess this would happen sooner or later. I think it's ridiculous. I think it's great that their is a media campaign suggesting that maybe, just maybe, youth should be aware of how big tobacco is manipulating them and take action against this deception. I reckon people get nervous any time young people start gaining too much power. In the end, this development is somewhat positive because it suggests that the Truth campaign is making a big enough impact to seriously worry the tobacco companies. It's stuff like this that makes me reconsider law school. Anyway, here's the press release:

There has been a flurry of activity recently in connection with the
Lorillard Tobacco Company’s action against the truth campaign.

Legacy learned on January 18 that the Lorillard Tobacco Company intended to initiate a proceeding against the foundation. The company alleged that Legacy had used funding provided through the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) to conduct, according to Lorillard’s lawyers, “personal attacks” against or “vilification,” of the company or its employees through its truthsm youth-oriented advertising campaign.

Legacy condemned Lorillard’s attempt to undermine the acclaimed truth campaign, the largest advertising and grassroots effort ever launched to prevent youth smoking. Dr. Cheryl Healton, president and CEO of the foundation, called the attacks “outrageous” and “unwarranted.”

Healton said that “the truth campaign has not engaged in personal attacks or vilification of Lorillard or anyone else. Anyone who has seen truth ads knows they educate young people about the addictiveness, health effects, and social costs of tobacco, which is exactly what the MSA says they must do.” The truth campaign is also culturally and linguistically appropriate, as required by the MSA.

On February 13, Legacy filed suit in Delaware asking the court to find that Lorillard does not have the authority to sue the foundation for an alleged breach of the MSA or in the alternative to find that truth is in full compliance with the MSA and has not engaged in vilification or personal attacks.

“The truth campaign is saving America’s children from tobaco-related death and disease, and Legacy will not allow a tobacco company to silence it,” Healton said. “We are confident of our legal claims, and we are moving aggressively to protect truth. The issue is simple. Legacy and the truth campaign want to save lives. Lorillard wants to sell cigarettes. We think the American people agree with us that kids’ lives are more important.”

On February 19, Lorillard filed suit in North Carolina, alleging Legacy had violated the MSA and lodging new, previously undisclosed charges about the truth Web site, thetruth.com.

Healton said, “In its MSA suit, Lorillard contends that the truth
campaign violates a provision of the MSA that states that one of
Legacy’s funds, the National Public Education Fund, shall be used for
education about the harms of tobacco products and not for personal
attacks or vilification. In fact, the American Legacy Foundation and its
truth ads have not vilified or personally attacked any person or any
tobacco company. We have educated young people about the addictive and deadly consequences of tobacco use. And we will continue to do so.”

“We will vigorously defend this lawsuit and pursue our efforts to assure that the truth campaign remains hard-hitting and effective in preventing young people from taking up the addictive and deadly habit of smoking,” Healton said.

Originally written 03.13.2002

Dana sent this e-mail to my mailing list which describes problems at a local Yellow Springs, OH public radio station. What's happening is that they're following a trend of many public radio stations and axing locally generated programming for the syndicated NPR shows. What follows is her orignal message and my response.

I'm not big on passing forwarded emails to join efforts, but WYSO yellow-springs/dayton NPR is once again in trouble. The low down is that all of the local shows (that are volunteer efforts) are being cancelled and being replaced with the "canned" shows... except for Vic's show in the morning. Some shows, like women in music, have had 26 years running and are now looking at their last days. ... Anyone say yummy McDonalds radio?

A meeting was held last night in yellow springs, and a campaign to threaten the station's pocketbook if they take away the local shows was formulated. In short, they are asking that people fill out the attached form for pledges, saying that they will donate a pledge to NPR if, and only if, the local shows stay around. It's a bribe to the station to keep the shows around, pretty much. So, if you're an annual doner (you know you should be), fill out the attached form and mail it. This effort is also being spread by the Voice, Canal Street, the Winds, and other people. Oh, ya, and there's a reason that address looks like my home one... because it is. At the 50+ person meeting my mom address got nominated b/c she has a dayton zipcode (outside of the yellow spring supporter cliche I guess). Crazy mama trying to get our home bombed (j/k)

Thanks for your time!

dana

I think this issue is pretty important, at least to keep track of, even though I'd guess most college kids don't have a whole lot of cash to donate to public radio in the first place.

Anyone who paid attention to the low-power FM debate a few years ago will find some haunting similarities between the problems in comercial radio and the situation at WYSO. A few years ago, the FCC was ready to allow some small community broadcasters to run low-power FM radio stations.

Proponents of this plan argued that this would help combat an alarming trend towards consolidation in the commercial radio industry. In many urban markets, the vast majority of stations are owned be only a handful of giant media conglomerates, such as Clear Channel communications. What this means is that rather than having stations and programming that are locally generated, most of the programming is piped in from elsewhere. This is alarming because the airwaves are essentially a public resource, and homoginized programming, that neglects community issues and culture violates the purpose of allowing access to the public airwaves. That is, serving the citizenry of the nation.

Unfortunately, the low-power FM licensing program was effectively squashed by heavy lobbying by big-media industry groups such as the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB). So, further media consolidation continues unchecked in the status quo.

During the whole low-power FM debate, NPR actually opposed low-power licensing. Therefore, it is not entirely surprising that the homoginization that has been seen in commercial radio is being mirrored in public broadcasting. In what seems to be a national trend, public radio stations, once the last bastian of local community-oriented and cultural programming, are starting to abandon. such programming for the syndicated programming of NPR or PRI. I think such homoginization, either in the commercial market, or in public radio is folly.

Don't get me wrong. I like NPR programming. When in the states I listen to All Things Considered and Morning Edition on a daily basis. Last year, I jumped at the opportunity to attend a luncheon discussion with Fresh Air's Terry Gross. Finally, I am the biggest This American Life addict you will ever meet. Still, I think that it is essential that locally generated programming which addresses community issues and displays the talent of local artists or programming which offers a voice to otherwise media-marginalized groups is a resource that must be preserved.

Some free-market types will argue that media consolidation is just another example of markets giving consumers what they want. People, they argue, like their top 40 radio and their "Car Talk". However, when examining this argument, one needs to consider another economic principle, the law of diminishing returns. With a medium that is already saturated with scores of identical outlets and where an additional consumer can be supported by the existing outlets at no additional cost and with no need to expand resources, the marginal benefit of another identical station is much less than that offered by a station which provides community oriented programming, even though the number of people served by the latter is considerably smaller.

Radio has always been a very American medium. In many ways, the trends in the radio industry reflect the changes in American society as a whole. At one time, up-and-coming performing artists gathered a following by appearing on regional radio shows rather than being fabricated and pimped nationwide by giant record companies. In the past, radio, being a medium accessible accessible to so many people, served as a sounding board to reflect community concerns and to distribute information relevent to a community. Now, the demise of such programming is a harbringer of the death of the most American of American values. Diversity.

Originally written 03.13.2002

Today was a good day. It started out by heading off to my (optional) computer architecture lectures. Lectures are so much better when you aren't obligated to go to them. Only three other students showed up, but we were treated to a fairly interesting lecture about multiprocessors. It was pretty introductory, but at least I can sort through some of the terminology that is thrown around in the computer industry. After that, I walked back to the flat and met Iain and together we headed to Boardwise, Edinburgh's premier skate shop. Yesterday, I realized that my board, which I had bought in Austin over the summer, was on its last legs. The board fealt mushy, had big chips coming out of the tail, and was starting to delaminate in a number of places. So, I resolved to buy a new board. The selection was pretty limited, so I ended up buying a Real board, the Nate Jones model with a flashy neon graphic that is an allusion to the Mark Gonzales that was on his (I want to say Vision) pro model from back in the day. In addition to having a rad graphic, the board is really nice. It's wide, but also has a ton of concave which makes it strong and poppy. After I scored the board, Iain got some KFC and I made fun of him. I then headed out to Bristo square to skate. Skating on a new deck is always the best feeling. I didn't learn the ellusive f/s tailslide, but I still had a really good time. I came home, watched the Simpsons, made some Miso soup, and finished my computer architecture assignment, three days before it is due! Oh yeah. I also got a really long e-mail from Dana that was real cool.

Originally written 03.09.2002

I should really be doing my computer architecture assignment right now, but I really can't be asked. I just really feel like writing something. I guess I should write about something that happened to me, like the Icarus Line/Aereogramme show the other week, or something like that, but I guess I'd rather just write about some things I've been thinking about.

posted by geoff on 3/11/2002 08:36:05 AM
[top | permanent | atom feed]

posted by geoff on 3/11/2002 08:35:50 AM
[top | permanent | atom feed]

posted by geoff on 3/11/2002 08:35:33 AM
[top | permanent | atom feed]

Originally written 03.09.2002

For all the computer-inclined skate kids, Emerica's website, http://www.emericaskate.com, has some really beautiful desktop wallpaper images. I have Jim Greco b/s lipsliding on my desktop. It's ace.