Quote:
Quote by: Chancellor  Couldn't it be argued that they advertised such things as "low tar" because it was assumed people knew some of the risks of smoking and that "low tar" was being portrayed as a reduced risk?
Just like the fast food joint that lost a lawsuit filed against it because some broad was stupid enough to try to start driving with a hot cup of coffee in her lap - after all, the cup wasn't labled (ever since then, the cups in all the fast food joints seem to be conspicuously labeled). |
When the name tar was used the cig companies needed to off-set the impression that it was the same kind of tar used to pave a road with.
Tar would be the collective chemicals produced by burning tobacco, pot, and other plants. And is visible as a yellow stain in a filter.
In large doses that would be dangerous to inhale. But can be controlled by the makers of cigarettes. Some countries allow only as much as 10mg of tar per cigarette. Which would reduce the risk that high tar levels might pose to the health of the smoker. There-by making the cigarette a risk free product because the 10mg was below what the scentific and governmental standards concidered as being safe enough. Like with your car, the cigarettes must pass the "smog test". Each country or state might set different standards depending on poltical influence.
The ad was designed to let consumers know that they have conformed to the amount of tar so allowed by those reports that set the standards.
Now let me ad something to that.
Each car passes the smog test. But if you live in a city and one million cars are in a area the collective amount of fumes would be above the standards allowed for toxic air in a city. Follow that? In fact L.A. city in California should post a sign "warning - being in this city might be unhealthy". But of course, they do not. Because you cannot sue a city if you get cancer.
Using that concept, if 1000 people lit up cigarettes all at once in an office building then that collective dose might be unhealthy because you are getting more then just 10mg of tar.
That possible fact, is not good for my side of this debate.
But here is an idea. We have the technology to measure the levels of toxic polution, to see if we are at a safe level or not. So why not have a monitor for home use, or for use in a business building? Then have a fine or sin tax for those make the meter rise above the allowed dosage over a certain amont of time. Where action is not taken to reduce the total amount produced or where people do not open a window or whatever to remove the polution?
That is the only fair way to deal with the situation. The meter would measure all toxic fumes - etc. that are present, not just cigarette smoke. To insure total safty.