> Ok heres another idea. Perhaps a tabacco co should start selling
> extra expensive cigarettes which include a donation towards a media
> campagn to inform that the tabacco co's are a bunch of murdering
> fuckwits. In britain there is a brand of ciggys called DEATH and they
> are expensive but I dont think they fuel any media campagn.
Have you seen DEATH LIGHTS? The slogan is: "To kill you more slowly".
> >Does anyone care to address the issue of government's responsibility for
> >controlling access to the media? I think it is government's responsibility
> >to educate.
>
> My own position on this is full of contradictions. I hate
> censorship but I think the Tabacco co's should be 100 percent censored.
> I suppose its the mechanism of paying for access to people's attention
> that is ultimately so pernicious.
I hope no one minds if I step in and throw my tuppence worth in.
I don't believe in censorship of tobacco companies. As a smoker, I
would say that tobacco advertising does /not/ make people start
smoking. Peer pressure does. I think that tobacco advertising only
becomes effective once someone is a smoker. It might then influence
what cigarettes they smoke.
> > What I want is
> >an optimized nicotine delivery system ... one that minimizes the delivery
> >of harmful compounds EXCEPT nicotine. Nicotine gum comes close ...
> >although for some reason it tastes like condensed piss.<a flavor I've
> >imagined, not tried>
>
> Try fosters lager.
Don't take the piss out of lager.
It needs all the flavour it can get.
--
Drakir
--------------------------------------------
"We are the New Breed ... We are the Future"
http://members.tripod.com/~Drahcir/
--------------------------------------------