"Now, I don't want to get off on a rant here....."
...but what the hell is the government doing telling people what we
can
and cannot see at sporting events? Does the governtment really have
so little to do anymore, that they have to turn they're attention to
trying to regulate what's on billboards? Just what the hell is going
on here?
When did the government take care of the drug problem? When did it
solve
the high crime rate? When were all the homeless people given homes,
and all the starving children fed? When did the government take care
of the problems of the country, educate the children, and become a
leader
in world peace? I must've missed it, because now they've moved on to
the petty bullshit things like cigarette advertising at sporting
events?
The hard, simple truth of the matter is, there's a bunch of dumb ass
politicians in office who want to STAY in office, so they're going to
service a group who promises their votes if they'll carry out their
vested intrests, and the politicians will go whichever way the wind
plows so they can continue to follow a useless lifestyle, soaking up
the money of the taxpayers while sitting on their fat asses.
The political "***busters" claim they're doing this "for the
children".
Hey, I've been following NASCAR Winston Cup racing for all of my life.
I'm 23 years old, and I've never had the urge to smoke a Winston. By
the same token, I've watched the Spam car race for the last three or
so years, and it's never inspired me to eat a goddamn can of Spam. Do
you see where I'm going with this?
Where did our goverenment take the wrong turn off of the "good of the
people" yellow brick road and go carening down the highway to hell?
Well, a while back.......okay, so I got off track.
The point of the matter is, there is no larger a warning light to have
gone off since Tipper***and the Washington Housewives fought Frank
Zappa over putting warning labels on records. The government has NO
BUSINESS WHATSOEVER telling the tobacco industry wheather they can
sponser race cars or not. It is a direct violation of the
constitution,
and, more to the point, it's STUPID!!!!!! Just what the hell are our
tax dollars doing being spent on running "The Marlboro man out of town
riding Joe Camel"? Who the hell voted for this, and why haven't they
taken their medication?
Here's the deal, folks. When the government has solved all the
financial,
educational, housing and employment problems, moved the world
towards universal peace, and made a college education finanacially
available to every person in this county, THEN we'll sit down and talk
about this situation.
Even thinking of dealing with it beforehand is nothing but ludicrus,
and a slap in the face of every american who voted in the last
election.
Bill Clinton, get your hands out of NASCAR, and back into your
pants.
"Of course, that's just my opinon. I could be wrong."
Brandon Reed
--
Number 6
Every Other Man Productions
Reed Racing & Enginering
http://www.***highway.net/~blreed/
"Save the Texas Prarie Chicken!"
Tobacco settlement threatens Winston's NASCAR sponsorship
A rant against government plans to restrict tobacco advertising in sport led to a long debate about RJR's support of NASCAR, personal responsibility and health costs. Jim Sokoloff argued that legal products should be allowed to advertise. He also noted that California law means Papyrus games carry no alcohol or tobacco sponsors, so NASCAR Racing Online would be unaffected.
With Jim Sokoloff
real motorsportoff-topic
Automated summary.
Racing will survive this very well. We don't need RJR.
The tobacco industry just admitted:
1. That cigarettes are ***ive.
2. That they have caused the public _billions_ of dollars in health care
costs.
3. That too many children smoke.
Why would we want our beloved sport identified with this product?
I'm an avid race fan, former road racer, NASCAR2 fanatic. Racing will
survive this very well. The fans are there, the sponsors will come. We
don't need RJR.
bob
Because it's been paying a pretty fair chunk of change to support our
beloved sport for over 25 years now.
Cigarettes are a legal product, that can be sold without a
prescription to the vast majority of viewers of NASCAR. The government
shouldn't proscribe the advertising of a legal product merely because
SOME viewers are not old enough to buy and use it. Should we ban
automobile ads for the same reason? After all, SOME of the audience
won't be legally allowed to buy and use the cars being advertised, AND
cars kill lots of people every year... And the auto-makers have worked
for years to make cars ***ive... :-) <-- NB
---Jim Sokoloff
Quoted text (16 lines)
> Racing will survive this very well. We don't need RJR. > The tobacco industry just admitted: > 1. That cigarettes are ***ive. > 2. That they have caused the public _billions_ of dollars in health care > costs. > 3. That too many children smoke. > Why would we want our beloved sport identified with this product? > I'm an avid race fan, former road racer, NASCAR2 fanatic. Racing will > survive this very well. The fans are there, the sponsors will come. We > don't need RJR. > bob>"Now, I don't want to get off on a rant here....."
>...but what the hell is the government doing telling people what we
>can
>and cannot see at sporting events?
<many lines of well spoken truth snipped>
Tell ya what. When I drive my car home late at night, I had
rather meet a cigarette smoker who had just smoked one too
many that the Bud-Man who had gone one drink over the line.
I think we should outlaw ALL non-politically correct things
as sponsors in our sporting events. If we could just get
Opra, Seinfeld, Married with Children, AOL, and the Gun Cantrol
Lobby to hook up with a car owner or two, now THAT would be
some great racing.
** Please remove NOSPAM from my address to mail me **
** CARMAGEDDON ( the best game ever created )
** See for yourself: http://www.interplay.com/carma/
that?.....just smoke and you KNOW!..it's that simple
What's this?..who caused the public billions of dollars?...what's going to
happen if and when they make cigarrettes illegal...people will find a way
to smoke...it's ***ive remember?....Don't try to tell me a lifetime
smoker is going to jump up and shout "WOW this stuff is ***ive , and I
only know this because it's just been announced!!...whewwhew...I'm just a
lamb led to slaughter!!"
Obviously some jerks are going to take advantage of the inevitable "class
actions" that are to come.
Talk to them ,ground 'em ,spank their ass,BE a PARENT DAMN IT!!!
Whatever...I feel no particular way about it , If I dont' blame them then
why SHOULD I care who the sponsor is.
You'll pardon the tone of my reply , as I feel passionately about placing
blame where it belongs in a world where nothing is ever the individual's
fault or responsibility , and an idiot with a good lawer can leach off a
good hard working person's life earnings and literally change the direction
of that life and family for the worse becuse they don't FEEL like working
for their own keep!!!
Example....remember the woman who burned her dumbass self with hot coffee
bought at McDonalds?....$22,000,000.00.........that's no typo....I could go
on for an hour with examples of non-responsibe idiots who feel the world
owe's them early retirement.
I am a former smoker and I don't want to increase my odds of death so I
quit....If I do someday croak early as a result of my former years of
smoking ,well....that's the breaks is'nt it...it's my own damn fault since
I knew the risks going in 13 YEARS ago.
And , no, I've never been sued but we all live with the threat of it, if
you don't make a concious effort to be aware of it and try to prepare for
it.
RaiderMac
> Should we ban
>automobile ads for the same reason? After all, SOME of the audience
>won't be legally allowed to buy and use the cars being advertised, AND
>cars kill lots of people every year...
Sorry Jim, but I've never seen or heard of a car killing anyone. Lots of
people kill other people (or preferably themselves) with cars but it's
not the cars' fault!
I'm not arguing against your point as I happen to agree with it, but I
hate it when inanimate objects get blamed when it is the people operating
them who need to take the responsibility. And whilst we're at it, yes it
is the people who smoke who are at fault, not the tobacco adverts.
Cheers,
Richard
Quoted text (8 lines)
>> Should we ban >>automobile ads for the same reason? After all, SOME of the audience >>won't be legally allowed to buy and use the cars being advertised, AND >>cars kill lots of people every year... >Sorry Jim, but I've never seen or heard of a car killing anyone. Lots of >people kill other people (or preferably themselves) with cars but it's >not the cars' fault!> By the same argument then (which I agree with, BTW), cigarettes have
> never killed anyone.
> ---Jim
Difference being, cars properly maintained and lawfully operated will not
harm anyone. (Emissions excepted, maybe? <g> ) Is there any way to
operate cigarettes so that they will not harm anyone? I think not, unless
you don't light them. (But then they're not being operated, are they?)
Jerry Morelock
--------------0071EA8C3F0F019337E9B8CC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
That was in the past and of course still the case today, but NASCAR
doesn't need support from an industry that has knowingly, increased the
***iveness of their cigarettes, used additives that were harmful to
users and withheld research information about the harmful effects of
cigarettes. For years the tobacco industry has denied that their
products were harmful to the American people and even to Congress, until
recently when they had to admit to the contrary.
Cars or cigarettes, as inanimate objects, will not kill anyone. If
someone were to operate a car properly, it wouldn't hurt anyone. If
someone were to use a cigarette properly, they would almost be
guaranteed to become ***ive to a product that causes cancer,
emphezyma and other respiratory problems, unless of course you're Bill
Clinton and don't inhale.My point here is about deception and how the
tobacco industry has deceived the public about the harmful effects of
cigarettes while making millions. If they had published their findings
about the harmful effects and it's ***iveness 30 years ago when
they(tabacco companies) did their studies and people still chose to
smoke in spite of the findings, then I would agree that it's the smokers
fault. But when the industry knowingly lied about and concealed their
findings, then these companies must be held accountable. The recent
court decision is not only about direct advertising towards kids but
also about making the industry responsible for the harm they have
inflicted on the public by withholding information and lying to them.
Steve
--------------0071EA8C3F0F019337E9B8CC
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<P>>Why would we want our beloved sport identified with this product?
<P>Because it's been paying a pretty fair chunk of change to support our
<BR>beloved sport for over 25 years now.</BLOCKQUOTE>
That was in the past and of course still the case today, but NASCAR doesn't
need support from an industry that has knowingly, increased the ***iveness
of their cigarettes, used additives that were harmful to users and withheld
research information about the harmful effects of cigarettes. For years
the tobacco industry has denied that their products were harmful to the
American people and even to Congress, until recently when they had to admit
to the contrary.
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<P>Cigarettes are a legal product, that can be sold without a
<BR>prescription to the vast majority of viewers of NASCAR. The government
<BR>shouldn't proscribe the advertising of a legal product merely because
<BR>SOME viewers are not old enough to buy and use it. Should we ban
<BR>automobile ads for the same reason? After all, SOME of the audience
<BR>won't be legally allowed to buy and use the cars being advertised,
AND
<BR>cars kill lots of people every year... And the auto-makers have worked
<BR>for years to make cars ***ive... :-) <-- NB
<P>---Jim Sokoloff</BLOCKQUOTE>
Cars or cigarettes, as inanimate objects, will not kill anyone.
If someone were to operate a car properly, it wouldn't hurt anyone. If
someone were to use a cigarette properly, they would almost be guaranteed
to become ***ive to a product that causes cancer, emphezyma and other
respiratory problems, unless of course you're Bill Clinton and don't inhale.My
point here is about deception and how the tobacco industry has deceived
the public about the harmful effects of cigarettes while making millions.
<U>If they had published their findings about the harmful effects and it's
***iveness 30 years ago when they(tabacco companies) did their studies
and people still chose to smoke in spite of the findings,</U> <I>then</I>
I would agree that it's the smokers fault. But when the industry knowingly
lied about and concealed their findings, then these companies must be held
accountable. The recent court decision is not only about direct advertising
towards kids but also about making the industry responsible for the harm
they have inflicted on the public by withholding information and lying
to them.
<P>Steve</HTML>
--------------0071EA8C3F0F019337E9B8CC--
<HTML>
<BR>Keep the Government out of private business or we'll all be in deep
S#$t!!
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>>Why would we want our beloved sport identified with
this product?
<P>Because it's been paying a pretty fair chunk of change to support our
<BR>beloved sport for over 25 years now.</BLOCKQUOTE>
That was in the past and of course still the case today, but NASCAR doesn't
need support from an industry that has knowingly, increased the ***iveness
of their cigarettes, used additives that were harmful to users and withheld
research information about the harmful effects of cigarettes. For years
the tobacco industry has denied that their products were harmful to the
American people and even to Congress, until recently when they had to admit
to the contrary.
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>Cigarettes are a legal product, that can be sold
without a
<BR>prescription to the vast majority of viewers of NASCAR. The government
<BR>shouldn't proscribe the advertising of a legal product merely because
<BR>SOME viewers are not old enough to buy and use it. Should we ban
<BR>automobile ads for the same reason? After all, SOME of the audience
<BR>won't be legally allowed to buy and use the cars being advertised,
AND
<BR>cars kill lots of people every year... And the auto-makers have worked
<BR>for years to make cars ***ive... :-) <-- NB
<P>---Jim Sokoloff</BLOCKQUOTE>
Cars or cigarettes, as inanimate objects, will not kill anyone.
If someone were to operate a car properly, it wouldn't hurt anyone. If
someone were to use a cigarette properly, they would almost be guaranteed
to become ***ive to a product that causes cancer, emphezyma and other
respiratory problems, unless of course you're Bill Clinton and don't inhale.My
point here is about deception and how the tobacco industry has deceived
the public about the harmful effects of cigarettes while making millions.
<U>If they had published their findings about the harmful effects and it's
***iveness 30 years ago when they(tabacco companies) did their studies
and people still chose to smoke in spite of the findings,</U> <I>then</I>
I would agree that it's the smokers fault. But when the industry knowingly
lied about and concealed their findings, then these companies must be held
accountable. The recent court decision is not only about direct advertising
towards kids but also about making the industry responsible for the harm
they have inflicted on the public by withholding information and lying
to them.
<P>Steve</BLOCKQUOTE>
</HTML>
> Sorry Jim, but I've never seen or heard of a car killing anyone. Lots of
> people kill other people (or preferably themselves) with cars but it's
> not the cars' fault!
I guess you've never heard of an Audi.
They had a problem with sudden acceleration.
One example was while the car was in park, the person went to open the
garage door, the car suddenly accelerated thru the person, the garage
door,
the back of the garage, and finally stopped in a swimming pool.
It was found but happened rarely. Audi bought back this model and
resold
them in some third world country. (I guess that country didn't have
lawyers)
So yes, cars kill people. (or would you say engineers kill people?)
mykey
actually the cigarete companies could stop adding niccatine and tarr to
thier products to give them a tune up.
unless
> you don't light them. (But then they're not being operated, are they?)
> Jerry Morelock
Quoted text (8 lines)
> > By the same argument then (which I agree with, BTW), cigarettes have > > never killed anyone. > > ---Jim > Difference being, cars properly maintained and lawfully operated will not > harm anyone. (Emissions excepted, maybe? <g> ) Is there any way to > operate cigarettes so that they will not harm anyone? I think not,From your statement, I could conclude that every single instance of
car-to-car or car-to-pedestrian collision must then be the fault of
improper maintainence or unlawful operation. Clearly, that's not true.
Anyway, it's the emissions from the cigarettes that are harmful...
I understand your point, and I'm about as anti-smoking as a sensible
person can be. However, I don't mind at all seeing the Smokin' Joes
Camel-Powered and the Skoal car chasing after the millions of dollars
that RJR puts up every year for Winston Cup Racing. The government
jamming its nose into motorsports advertising of a legal product seems
ridiculous. If cigarettes are so damn bad, make them illegal. (And
then, I'd stand up for banning the ads...)
---Jim
I understand the intellectual problems people have here with the
government.
My major point is that this will not be a big deal for racing. It's
gotten too big for the loss of tobacco sponsorship to cause major
problems.
bob
I can't resist putting my 2 cent's in on this subject, although
I'm probably contributing to something that shouldn't be in this
newsgroup to begin with.
We've got all of these people and groups that decide what
we should see, do, have, etc. Where does it stop? Today it's
the tobacco and *** advertising in sports. Tomorrow it might
be the sports themselves. I mean, lets face it. It's already been
tried and accomplished for some sports. What are you all going
to say when it's deemed by some group that auto racing should
be banned because it causes injury and sometimes death to
drivers and fans alike? "Well, the fan was killed because he
was attracted to be in a dangerous situation, if the temptation
wouldn't have been there, he/she would still be alive." Far
fetched? You better wake up! These groups talk about the
risks of smoking, and that people are unaware.....PLEASE!
Children are unaware, and as parents we should teach them
of these hazards. Now, a tobacco or *** company that
camps outside of a concert, high school, or festival of some
kind, and gives away samples to minors, let's prosecute and
do something about it.
Today I'm forced by law to conform to all kinds of laws that
affect only my own life or health, like wear a seatbelt when I drive
or ride in a motor vehicle, wear a helmet on a motorcycle, etc, etc.
These are the kinds of laws that in my opinion have no place.
I'm not saying that their reasoning behind them are without merit,
just that it should be my choice. Now, a law that requires a parent
to strap his/her child in a carseat or seatbelt. This has some merit.
The child doesn't know these things, and unfortunately there are
parents that ignore these types of things.
Cigarettes and *** are legal substances. These companies
should have the same right as any other business to advertise their
product. We as a society are slowly but surely hacking away at
our rights that built this country. If a business or company breaks
the laws by using fraudulent or misleading advertising, prosecute
them for it.
Anyway, sorry for the long post. I didn't intend to ramble on
about this. And no, I'm not part of a militant group out dwelling
on government intervention. I'm just a little tired of some of the
piddly laws imposed on this society for "our own good".
Take care,
Shawn Wise
Midwest Motorsports
ProHCS3,HGNS3,
& HTS2 on Hawaii
Quoted text (24 lines)
> >Racing will survive this very well. We don't need RJR. > >The tobacco industry just admitted: > >1. That cigarettes are ***ive. > >2. That they have caused the public _billions_ of dollars in health care > >costs. > >3. That too many children smoke. > >Why would we want our beloved sport identified with this product? > Because it's been paying a pretty fair chunk of change to support our > beloved sport for over 25 years now. > Cigarettes are a legal product, that can be sold without a > prescription to the vast majority of viewers of NASCAR. The government > shouldn't proscribe the advertising of a legal product merely because > SOME viewers are not old enough to buy and use it. Should we ban > automobile ads for the same reason? After all, SOME of the audience > won't be legally allowed to buy and use the cars being advertised, AND > cars kill lots of people every year... And the auto-makers have worked > for years to make cars ***ive... :-) <-- NB > ---Jim SokoloffQuoted text (24 lines)
> >Racing will survive this very well. We don't need RJR. > >The tobacco industry just admitted: > >1. That cigarettes are ***ive. > >2. That they have caused the public _billions_ of dollars in health care > >costs. > >3. That too many children smoke. > >Why would we want our beloved sport identified with this product? > Because it's been paying a pretty fair chunk of change to support our > beloved sport for over 25 years now. > Cigarettes are a legal product, that can be sold without a > prescription to the vast majority of viewers of NASCAR. The government > shouldn't proscribe the advertising of a legal product merely because > SOME viewers are not old enough to buy and use it. Should we ban > automobile ads for the same reason? After all, SOME of the audience > won't be legally allowed to buy and use the cars being advertised, AND > cars kill lots of people every year... And the auto-makers have worked > for years to make cars ***ive... :-) <-- NB > ---Jim SokoloffJim what they are saying is that, if a car is operated properly no one is
going to die, but no matter how you smoke, it will kill you.
> By the same argument then (which I agree with, BTW), cigarettes have
> never killed anyone.
> ---Jim
Cigarettes are the only legal product that when use as directed can kill.
--
John
> >> Should we ban
> >>automobile ads for the same reason? After all, SOME of the audience
> >>won't be legally allowed to buy and use the cars being advertised, AND
> >>cars kill lots of people every year...
> >Sorry Jim, but I've never seen or heard of a car killing anyone. Lots of
> >people kill other people (or preferably themselves) with cars but it's
> >not the cars' fault!
> By the same argument then (which I agree with, BTW), cigarettes have
> never killed anyone.
> ---Jim
This raises an interesting question in regards to the NROS. How is this
situation going to affect the NROS as far as sponsorship that may have
been decided prior to this ruling. I know it may not be that relevant at
this point but I'm more curious how this affects the administrators of
the NROS as far as the sponsorship itself goes. Do they have to find new
sponsors and remname some of the divisions like I'm sure they will have
to in the real series.
Quoted text (46 lines)
> I can't resist putting my 2 cent's in on this subject, although > I'm probably contributing to something that shouldn't be in this > newsgroup to begin with. > We've got all of these people and groups that decide what > we should see, do, have, etc. Where does it stop? Today it's > the tobacco and *** advertising in sports. Tomorrow it might > be the sports themselves. I mean, lets face it. It's already been > tried and accomplished for some sports. What are you all going > to say when it's deemed by some group that auto racing should > be banned because it causes injury and sometimes death to > drivers and fans alike? "Well, the fan was killed because he > was attracted to be in a dangerous situation, if the temptation > wouldn't have been there, he/she would still be alive." Far > fetched? You better wake up! These groups talk about the > risks of smoking, and that people are unaware.....PLEASE! > Children are unaware, and as parents we should teach them > of these hazards. Now, a tobacco or *** company that > camps outside of a concert, high school, or festival of some > kind, and gives away samples to minors, let's prosecute and > do something about it. > Today I'm forced by law to conform to all kinds of laws that > affect only my own life or health, like wear a seatbelt when I drive > or ride in a motor vehicle, wear a helmet on a motorcycle, etc, etc. > These are the kinds of laws that in my opinion have no place. > I'm not saying that their reasoning behind them are without merit, > just that it should be my choice. Now, a law that requires a parent > to strap his/her child in a carseat or seatbelt. This has some merit. > The child doesn't know these things, and unfortunately there are > parents that ignore these types of things. > Cigarettes and *** are legal substances. These companies > should have the same right as any other business to advertise their > product. We as a society are slowly but surely hacking away at > our rights that built this country. If a business or company breaks > the laws by using fraudulent or misleading advertising, prosecute > them for it. > Anyway, sorry for the long post. I didn't intend to ramble on > about this. And no, I'm not part of a militant group out dwelling > on government intervention. I'm just a little tired of some of the > piddly laws imposed on this society for "our own good". > Take care, > Shawn Wise > Midwest Motorsports > ProHCS3,HGNS3, > & HTS2 on HawaiiQuoted text (7 lines)
> This raises an interesting question in regards to the NROS. How is this > situation going to affect the NROS as far as sponsorship that may have > been decided prior to this ruling. I know it may not be that relevant at > this point but I'm more curious how this affects the administrators of > the NROS as far as the sponsorship itself goes. Do they have to find new > sponsors and remname some of the divisions like I'm sure they will have > to in the real series.Quoted text (16 lines)
> Racing will survive this very well. We don't need RJR. > The tobacco industry just admitted: > 1. That cigarettes are ***ive. > 2. That they have caused the public _billions_ of dollars in health care > costs. > 3. That too many children smoke. > Why would we want our beloved sport identified with this product? > I'm an avid race fan, former road racer, NASCAR2 fanatic. Racing will > survive this very well. The fans are there, the sponsors will come. We > don't need RJR. > bobThere won't be any tobacco or alchohol ads.
says...
Damn Shawn,
Great post, only problem I have with it is I didn't post it myself.
SG
::::For those who have died for our freedom, must they die again?::::
>Largely thanks to California (which prohibits in-state sales of computer
>game products which include *** and tobacco), Papyrus games do not
>include *** or tobacco sponsors. Thus, I don't think NROS will be
>affected at all.
>---Jim
Does this mean that people in California are not allowed to play
"Redneck Rampage"? Damn....
CR
>Cigarettes are the only legal product that when use as directed can kill.
>--
>John
Well, OK,
a cigarette and a handgun...
Oh, and RAID Ant & Roach Spray...
and a mousetrap...
<Rant mode ON>
Here's the deal.
Removing liquor advertising from Radio & Television in the seventies
(or sixties, whenever it was) did not stop people from buying Tequila,
Rum, Whiskey or Vodka.
Removing cigarette advertising from Radio & Television in the nineties
will not stop people from buying Marlboro's, Winston's, Benson &
Hedges, etc.
The threat of having a "WARNING LABEL" on records/tapes/CD's did not
suddenly cause the return of "The Osmonds" or "The Archies" to the top
of the record sales charts.
"Wage Controls" during the Nixon Administration did not stop inflation
in the 70's. If anything, it helped to increase the gap between the
"have more than enoughs" and the "ain't got enoughs".
The hormones of a 13 year old boy don't "settle down" just because he
can't see the cover of Playboy at the 7-11.
The "War on ***" doesn't seem to have gotten off the ground in
Southern California.
..."if only Uncle Sam had more money to work with"...he could still
find a way to put more in his pocket and accomplish less per dollar.
----
Unfortunately, there is a large (enough) percentage of the population
that really believes everything that the TV tells them without taking
a moment to actually think about the hidden costs behind the agenda
being praised on the TV.
Corporate sponsorship of major events is a "private sector" subsidy.
Winston Cup is just one example. The Playboy Jazz Festival is another.
Non-smokers and non-drinkers benefit from the competition for the
bigger purses, larger team budgets to develop better/faster machines
and crews, lower ticket prices and cleaner facilities enabled by the
corporate sponsorship of the cigarette and *** producing sponsors
as much as those who hold a Winston in one hand, and a Coors Light in
the other hand. The last time I went to the Playboy Jazz Festival, it
did not resemble "Poker Night with the Boys".
I am a fan of Winston Cup Racing, although I would prefer that my 6-
and 3-year old nieces not smoke, and I prefer Dunhills. I go to the
Playboy Jazz Festival for the music, and I think the last time I
purchased a Playboy was the issue with the interview with Frank Zappa.
I go to other concerts at a Coors Light sponsored venue, but I would
rather have a Sapporo with my sushi...it just tastes better to me. I
enjoyed the Budweiser lizard spots during the Cal 500, but I was
drinking Pepsi. (Oh, no, Gordon drank Pepsi in Victory Circle) <g>
Vote with your conscience. Vote with your dollars. No sponsor has ever
held a gun to your head and forced you to buy their product.
Education is the key, not Government Regulation. Take responsibility
for the education you provide your children, or fail to provide them
as the case may be. The Government will not keep your kids from
smoking cigarettes, and will not help your kids do their homework.
That's your job.
<Rant mode OFF>
Key Largo
Nascar2 Rookie
(who refuses to send his money to any evangelist who can afford to buy
time on a Television station, ESPECIALLY those who can afford to buy
the entire Television station).
Man, this subject always gets me going <G>. I don't smoke, hate smoking,
and I don't live in NC so smoking is not part of my economy. However, as
it stands right now, smoking and tobacco are legal, and as such, should
be allowed to do business in a reasonable manner. I don't think they
should be using cartoon camels, and I don't think Smoking Joe has often
started a kid smoking that wouldn't have started either way. As we all
know, most beer and smoking ads are more effective as brand switching,
than recruitment(sp?). This is a political smoke screen (if you'll
excuse the pun). It it's legal, let them run their business with
reasonable restrictions. If you really want to help stamp out smoking
then tax the hell out of it and at least raise some revenue to offset
the cost of smoking for the rest of us. Ban it in public places, it
infringes on non-smokers rights, and remember, your rights end where
another's begins. But advertising isn't the problem. These advertising
restrictions just look good on the democrats (I am one) resumes, but
they totally miss the point.
Lou B.
Quoted text (27 lines)
> > Racing will survive this very well. We don't need RJR. > > The tobacco industry just admitted: > > 1. That cigarettes are ***ive. > > 2. That they have caused the public _billions_ of dollars in health care > > costs. > > 3. That too many children smoke. > > Why would we want our beloved sport identified with this product? > > I'm an avid race fan, former road racer, NASCAR2 fanatic. Racing will > > survive this very well. The fans are there, the sponsors will come. We > > don't need RJR. > > bob > These things may all be true, but it isn't like we were all ignorantly > duped. You make it sound like millions of Americans were smoking for > years believing it to be completely harmless, and then lo and behold we > all of the sudden discovered in just the last five years that these > little things are harmful to us. "Why those dirty little...we're going > get them. They sure pulled the wool over our eyes." Comeone it has > been well documented for decades and decades that smoking is harmful. > Shoot my grandfather told me the reason he didn't take of smoking in > WWII like so many GIs did was that he knew it was bad for his health. > They called them cancer sticks back then.: Cigarettes are the only legal product that when use as directed can kill.
Many families of people killed by firearms don't agree with you on this
one.
--
**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
HMMMM.......How about "The Microsoft Cup" ? :-)
---------------------------------
"Hell, what they ought to do is just give everybody a
drank o' likker and drop the green flag"---Buck Baker
Once again you continue to amaze! Just for you non-Canadians,
it is against the law to post signs in English in Quebec! They have
recently backed-off a little of late to try and swing the Anglo's to
their alien view! So if to ymenard the Canadian government is so
terrible for banning cigarette ads, what does this say about his
beloved Quebec government about trying to ban the English language!
Pot calling the kettle black!
Sorry for non sim related post but his logic is just too much!
I only hope that we, quebecers, will one day get
Quoted text (15 lines)
> seperated... (Only canadians can catch this) > With great respect, > Good race at the Brickyard, (-o-) > SPEED- Co-director > SPEED- Cars, WC, BGN, Trucks, IROC, utilities and more... > SPEED- http://www.sim-speed.com/ > Lieutenant Nien Numb, Gold squadron NSWL > http://www.dpliv.com/dragon/Gold/index.html > May the force be with you, always!! > - *Excuse me for my poor English(I'm French speaking) * -Not necessarily. I know of many, many people who smoked all their
lives, and never had any related health problems. To sum it up in two
words: George Burns.
>Jim what they are saying is that, if a car is operated properly no one is
>going to die, but no matter how you smoke, it will kill you.
>> By the same argument then (which I agree with, BTW), cigarettes have
>> never killed anyone.
>> ---Jim
--
Number 6
Every Other Man Productions
Reed Racing & Enginering
http://www.***highway.net/~blreed/
"Save the Texas Prarie Chicken!"
<snip>
And there are those who are trying to legalize narcotics. Make
cigarettes illegal, and get rid of the Smokin' Joes Camel car. Make dope
legal, and have the Columbian Gold car. Or the High on *** car. Or
the Ounce of Crack car. Or....
Does this make any sense to you?
Quoted text (9 lines)
> I understand your point, and I'm about as anti-smoking as a sensible > person can be. However, I don't mind at all seeing the Smokin' Joes > Camel-Powered and the Skoal car chasing after the millions of dollars > that RJR puts up every year for Winston Cup Racing. The government > jamming its nose into motorsports advertising of a legal product seems > ridiculous. If cigarettes are so damn bad, make them illegal. (And > then, I'd stand up for banning the ads...) > ---JimI hate to do this because I can't remember the source (not a racing
trade mag, but a financial mag), but I read where McDonalds is simply
drooling over the prospect of a "McDonalds Cup"
Lou B
Quoted text (7 lines)
> > > >Racing will survive this very well. We don't need RJR. > HMMMM.......How about "The Microsoft Cup" ? :-) > --------------------------------- > "Hell, what they ought to do is just give everybody a > drank o' likker and drop the green flag"---Buck BakerIf used properly guns shoulden't kill anyone, unless in self defense. I
don't really think this relates to the cigarettes issue.
> >Cigarettes are the only legal product that when used as directed can kill.
The key words here were "when used as directed"
"Much sniped"
Quoted text (10 lines)
> >-- > >John > Well, OK, > a cigarette and a handgun... > Oh, and RAID Ant & Roach Spray... > and a mousetrap...Nascar will never be the same.
FDA regulation is not about protecting your health.
It's about that green stuff.
It's about POWER, and slowly our government is taking control of our
lives. WAKE UP PEOPLE
> Nascar will never be the same.
> FDA regulation is not about protecting your health.
> It's about that green stuff.
Something I think most people are missing here is:
This isn't something forced on the cigarette companies,
this is something that they have agreed with.
It seems that they choose this rather than what may
have been forced upon them in court.
Also it's not in stone yet. Patience...
Think of Nascar as a billboard. If someone takes down
thier ad, someone else would put one up there.
Have you ever seen a 30 second spot left blank on your
favorite TV show? It's not hard to fill if people watch.
Would the General Mills Cup be any worse than the
Winston Cup?
mykey
> I hate to do this because I can't remember the source (not a racing
> trade mag, but a financial mag), but I read where McDonalds is simply
> drooling over the prospect of a "McDonalds Cup"
Gosh, I'm not sure which would "do you in" first...Cancer Sticks or
Grease Bombs!
God Bless,
Steve
Let me try this again. If you use a gun correctly, you would only shoot at
targets or game animals or game birds. If you use the same gun and point it
at someone and pull the trigger, my guess would be that you were using the
gun incorrectly. I don't own or use guns myself. If you light up a
cigarette and inhale, that would be using that product correctly. I quit
smoking myself five years ago.
off topic
I have enjoyed your Indycar carsets for some time. Great work Michael.
see ya
--
John
> : Cigarettes are the only legal product that when used as directed can
kill.
> Many families of people killed by firearms don't agree with you on this
> one.
> --
> **************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
> Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>> > >Racing will survive this very well. We don't need RJR.
>HMMMM.......How about "The Microsoft Cup" ? :-)
It makes me gag, but if it means racing, what the heck. I
don't smoke either :-)
--
Steve Martin
"Do or do not, there is no try." - Yoda, "Empire Strikes Back"
Quoted text (11 lines)
>> >Cigarettes are the only legal product that when used as directed can >kill. >> Well, OK, >> a cigarette and a handgun... >> Oh, and RAID Ant & Roach Spray... >> and a mousetrap... >The key words here were "when used as directed">Jim what they are saying is that, if a car is operated properly no one is
>going to die, but no matter how you smoke, it will kill you.
Preposterous! There are many examples of people who lived well beyond the
average age for their generation while smoking heavily. George Burns, Samuel
Clemens (Mark Twain), and Winston Churchill just to name some of the most
famous.
In fact, doctors will tell you that they still don't know why some people are
effected by smoking, while others are not. Chemistry, genes, who knows? Point
is that they will tell you that smoking 'increases' the liklihood of certain
forms of cancer and heart disease. But you can live a long time as a smoker,
or conversely die young in a car accident.
To say 'it WILL kill you' is simply not true.
--
Steve Martin
"Do or do not, there is no try." - Yoda, "Empire Strikes Back"
I wonder what killed Mickey Mantle?
r.a.s pardon these off topic posts, please.
If not for RJR you would not have Nascar1 and Nascar2 today.
They are better corporate citizens than many people are aware of.
The only thing they are guilty of is protecting their livelyhood.
How do you explain someone who has smoked for 50 years and
is healthier than many others who don't smoke that are 30 years younger?
There are many other factors involved which determine a person's
succeptability
to cancer, emphysema, heart problems.
There is a certain amount of risk involved in a lot of products.
Should these other manufacturers recieve the same treatment as the tobacco
industry? How do you say vendetta?
I said before and I'll say again, it's not about cancer, emphysema, heart
problems. It's about POWER, just one more step for our government to run
our lives..........PERIOD...............
SG
I have _no problem_ with the control of cigarettes/nicotine. I
actually am in favor of cracking down on sales to minors. I even
believe that cigarettes/nicotine will become a "controlled substance"
in my lifetime.
What bothers me is all of those who seem to believe that removing
tobacco related sponsorship of sporting events will magically stop a
non-smoker from smoking their first cigarette.
There have been several attempts in the US to eliminate (insert trendy
vice here) in the past, and my point is simply that government
intervention in this manner will prove more costly than effective.
I also wanted to remind those who think they have never received any
benefit from those dirty, *** Tobacco Companies of some benefit they
may have overlooked.
Perhaps I should also invite anyone with an IRA, 401(k), or pension
that they quite probably are about 10-20% invested in RJR and Phillip
Morris. One of the main motivations behind the current "agreement"
being negotiated is a release from future liability claims in exchange
for the dollars being tendered to the government for "anti-smoking
education".
What this _really_ comes down to is the purchase of an Insurance
Policy, with RJR and PM believing that by "investing" in a government
sponsored program (that may be much less effective in practice than on
paper) they can reduce long-term risk. When Wall Street has determined
that RJR and PM have effectively eliminated the risk of future
liability claims, watch their Price-to-Earnings ratios rise from their
current 14 times Earnings multiples to something possibly approaching
Coca-Colas 44 time Earnings. (Please don't flame me if the multiples
are a point or two off...I didn't look it up in the Journal, but I
believe I should be close enough for the purpose of illustrating the
point).
Also, look at all of that money they will no longer be pouring into
Advertising and Sponsorships.
I just wish I had a few extra thou to invest in those stocks...
Key Largo
Nascar2 Rookie
(who _still_ refuses to send his money to any evangelist who can
afford to buy time on a Television station, ESPECIALLY those who can
afford to buy the entire Television station).
On Tue, 24 Jun 1997 20:06:20 -0400, Tom & Deb Sosnowski
Sure, if those were legal products, and the terms of their
legalization permitted advertising, then those sponsors should be
permitted to run those cars. Seeing a High on *** car lapping at
Daytona won't make me try *** if I didn't want to try it otherwise,
anymore than watching a Cup race makes me go out and buy a carton of
Camel cigarettes.
These claims seem to fall into the making everyone a victim category.
Oh, it's not Johnny's fault that he smokes, it was the bad man driving
the #23 Cup car that MADE him smoke. Bullshit! Johnny picks up the
smoking habit, it's predominately HIS OWN DAMN FAULT.
---Jim
Quoted text (13 lines)
>> I understand your point, and I'm about as anti-smoking as a sensible >> person can be. However, I don't mind at all seeing the Smokin' Joes >> Camel-Powered and the Skoal car chasing after the millions of dollars >> that RJR puts up every year for Winston Cup Racing. The government >> jamming its nose into motorsports advertising of a legal product seems >> ridiculous. If cigarettes are so damn bad, make them illegal. (And >> then, I'd stand up for banning the ads...) >And there are those who are trying to legalize narcotics. Make >cigarettes illegal, and get rid of the Smokin' Joes Camel car. Make dope >legal, and have the Columbian Gold car. Or the High on *** car. Or >the Ounce of Crack car. Or.... >Does this make any sense to you?>>Largely thanks to California (which prohibits in-state sales of computer
>>game products which include *** and tobacco), Papyrus games do not
>>include *** or tobacco sponsors. Thus, I don't think NROS will be
>>affected at all.
>Does this mean that people in California are not allowed to play
>"Redneck Rampage"? Damn....
The demo I saw didn't include specific brands of ***, thus I don't
think *** "sponsorship" is involved.
---Jim
[big snip]
This argument is a big crock of crap. So during all the years that the
cigarette companies were saying that their products weren't harmful, what was
the FDA doing? (an organization that I pay taxes for to protect my health)
They were doing their own studies and found out that smoking was bad for you but
did nothing to get butts and nicotine regulated. The FDA had the same info as
the cigarette companies and all they had to do was get off their butts and get
it done.
Coca-Cola once said that cola syrup and *** was good for you and the FDA got
it together and banned *** regardless of what Coke thought. The way that I
see it is the cigarette companies lied but the government didn't do anything to
get off of their dead asses to get the product or nicotine regulated. If the
FDA couldn't to get it to happen because of politics, then apparently the US
people and their representatives felt that they could live with the
consequences.
Now, let's put it this way. The hazards of smoking have been known and the
scientific data in the government hands for over 30 years. In fact, I remember
seeing film strip projector films in school in the 60's describing the hazards
of smoking. Remember the pictures of black lungs that they used to show? If
everyone thought they were so damn hazardous or health care costs too high, they
would have demanded that they be banned immediately in the 60's when the first
real data was being produced by the government.
So to say that the cigarette companies are 100% liable is crap. It has been and
still is, a legal product regardless of the lie by the companies. It's my
opinion that us taxpayers should hammering the FDA for not doing their job since
EVERY American taxpayer pays those morons salaries.
To further extend the argument, I feel that the federal and state governments
are a bunch of hypocrites. I mean, what the hell has all the tax money
collected on cigarettes for the last 80 years been used for? If the governments
were so damned concerned for smokers health then why weren't they using THAT
money to pay for the health care bills of dying smokers and fund anti-smoking
campaigns instead of building bridges and highways with it? But let's see...
The cigarette tax money went into the General Fund which then went into Social
Security. From there it paid for the medical services of smokers. Hmm, this
means that it didn't cost the government squat out of their own pockets for
smokers health care costs. That means that all this money that the government
is talking about as being owed to them is crap.
And remember, smokers die younger, therefore they pay into Social Security
during their working years but usually never get to collect retirement (because
they're dead). This means that the government is making even more money off of
the smoker. Hmm, the way I see it all the non-smokers should be thanking the
smokers for all the extra money they contribute. Hell, they pay more taxes than
a non-smoker, they pay Social Security but never collect it and they keep
thousands employed which results in a vibrant economy in the South It also
indirectly keeps health care people employed, if you get my drift.
The bottom line is that both the State and Federal governments are just using
this as an excuse to get money back in their budgets that have been seriously
wacked with balanced budget amendments and the like. It's a great way to get
easy money in the coffers. I guess that means that the politicians will have
to do less begging with foreign dignitaries in order to obtain campaign
contributions. Cigarettes have helped the American economy more than hurted it
regardless of what all the government officials are saying. Be it jobs,
investments (most states invest in cigarette companies) or people dying young,
the government has benefitted greatly from butts.
As to whether the government can do an outright ban on advertising for a legal
product, I have serious doubts. I think that would be worthy of a First
Amendment fight in the Supreme Court. Then again, that's an argument for
another message...
And you may ask whether I'm a smoker or not. No, but I used to be.
--- Frank ---
I agree whole-heartedly with the observation that thr tobacco industry has
perpetuated an ***ive drug on the population for 30 years. Further
observations:
isn't it ironic that the conservatives who have the tobacco industry in
their constituancy are howling ***y *** about government infringement
on the
right to smoke when these same conservatives would love to pass laws
censoring
what movies I can see; what I can access on the internet; what liturature
I can
read; whether a woman has the right to an ***; and whether terminally
ill people have the right to die with some dignity? By the way, some of
the zeal that
conservatives use to protect the rights of the unborn might be better
applied to
keeping children and young ***s from starting the use of a deadly
***ive
drug like nicotine. Maybe an equal emphasis should be placed upon
preserving lives that are not yet ruined by using this dangerous drug.
AMen brother!
TrenT
--
Driver of the #15 Cincinnati Bengals Pontiac
N2STRS
NSRA-S Division
CatchMeIfU.........................Can
> I wonder what killed Mickey Mantle?
His own stupidity for smoking in the first place?
Just my opinion...*smirk*
TrenT
--
Driver of the #15 Cincinnati Bengals Pontiac
N2STRS
NSRA-S Division
CatchMeIfU.........................Can
Very Well Stated.
TrenT
--
Driver of the #15 Cincinnati Bengals Pontiac
N2STRS
NSRA-S Division
CatchMeIfU.........................Can
> > > >Racing will survive this very well. We don't need RJR.
> HMMMM.......How about "The Microsoft Cup" ? :-)
Bill gates is too stupid and FAR too cheap to flip the bill like RJR.
Keep Racing's roots alive, DaMn The MAn!! Save The Winston!!!!!
TrenT
--
Driver of the #15 Cincinnati Bengals Pontiac
N2STRS
NSRA-S Division
CatchMeIfU.........................Can
> I wonder what killed Mickey Mantle?
Mickey Mantle died as a result on self abuse. Drank enough hard booze
to kill an elephant. Smoked a carton of cigs every other day. *** as a
chaser.
Thats what killed Mickey Mantle.
--
\ooo/><>\ooo/><>\ooo/><>\ooo/><>\ooo/
Glenn Brown Kihei, Maui, Hawaii
*** Services
[link lost in import]
Maui Sunshine Raceing
[link lost in import]
\ooo/><>\ooo/><>\ooo/><>\ooo/><>\ooo/
Now that we've brought that to light, how much regulation is on ***?
Should Budweiser be allowed to advertise at Nascar events, etc?
