Ex-tobacco insider says companies target blacks

[discusseded]

Local Girl wrote:

I would like for everyone who has read this dribble and commented here, to go to this link and read just what this is all about, and who these people really are. You will be amazed at what you find there. Read where the funding is coming from and the people behind it. The site is called "The Black House."
http://bhonline.org/blog/...

I'm sorry, but I don't see anything about funding (in the related content, anyway) except for references to congressmen accepting funding from Philip Morris. Philip Morris (Altria) and other tobacco companies have been throwing money at ALL congressmen for a very long time.

The "Why not menthol too?" issue has been beaten to death in other threads, but the short version is that menthol makes up so large a portion of the market that proscribing it in the bill itself (as opposed to suggesting that the FDA do something about it) would have been a deal-breaker.

News said that, among other things, Philip Morris would not have supported the bill with a no-menthol clause in it, and without their support nothing would have been done.

Is this anywhere in the territory of what you expected people to find on this site?

[discusseded]

Local Girl wrote:

<quoted text>
I personally don't see the black communities doing anything to stop smoking, and that is THEIR choice.

Don't be ridiculous. That is EXACTLY the effort this article is about.

Local Girl wrote:

And why are you only concerned for the black community on this?

LOOK AT THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD for crying out loud. If that ISN'T what you opened the link to discuss, then WHY ARE YOU HERE?

Local Girl wrote:

In my opinion it would be of far better service to EVERYONE if you tried to stop all the ad campaigns in the media for all the big drug companies who constantly push their advertising for everyone to go to their dr's and ask for their drugs. I mean that's all you see on TV, and it makes me sick. Tobacco industry is not allowed to advertise, but alcohol and drugs are allowed to be pushed down people's throats every time they turn on the TV. Now that would be a better topic to address.

If you want to discuss issues with alcohol, the folks who set up this system have very kindly created a forum for THAT discussion as well. It is not, of course, a part of the SMOKING forum, but it is there.

http://www.topix.net/forum/health/alcoholism

Do you go into music stores and rant at the proprietor for not having enough varieties of bubblegum for sale? What sort of sad excuse for rationality guides your behavior, anyway?

[Local Girl]

"Discusseded"
Ever hear of "NOI" (Nation of Islam)or George Soros the hedge fund billionaire. Or maybe Louis Farrakhan, Elijah Muhammad, Malcolm X----should I go on? You people are very dangerous, and you have Barrack Obama's backing.

[Local Girl]

Let me just insert here, that when I said you have Barrack Obams's support, I meant that in my opinion he must support your views, since all of this has been fast tracked since he took office. And after all, I'm sure everyone has read or heard about his background in the Islam world. If they haven't then they must have had their heads in the sand. And this will be my last post on this subject because you can't make sense to someone who has been brainwashed into a cult.

[discusseded]

Local Girl wrote:

"Discusseded"
Ever hear of "NOI" (Nation of Islam)or George Soros the hedge fund billionaire. Or maybe Louis Farrakhan, Elijah Muhammad, Malcolm X----should I go on? You people are very dangerous, and you have Barrack Obama's backing.

You offer no connection whatsoever. You are either completely bonkers or simply refusing to make sense.
Malcolm X? Yeah, as I recall there was a very short-lived effort to use HIM as a hook to get black kids smoking, right after the biographical movie came out. A cigarette brand named "X". The black community became furious over it, and the brand was pulled. They tried to claim it wa just "coincidence" that the name was so similar. Right.

If you check your history, you will find that the Clinton administration gave the FDA authority to regulate cigarettes as a drug-delivery device, but was over-ruled. The Bush administration did all it could to keep focus away from anything but the need to prosecute wars and destroy the individual's right to privacy. The tobacco industry's money so enamored him that he went berserk at the idea of a Surgeon General who wanted to address tobacco issues at all.

The approach to tobacco is NOT something that has been particularly "fast-tracked" since we got out from under Bush. It just looks that way by comparison because Bush pushed so many things into reverse for eight years--including the economy.

[discusseded]

Here's another shining example of the tobacco industry targeting adults.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[PreachingToTheGa rbage]

discusseded wrote:

Here's another shining example of the tobacco industry targeting adults.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Way back in the early 60's ? You call that evidence ??? That was the just one of many.
So once they target the obese, I guess fast food commericals around dinner time will be targeting adults and kids ?

[discusseded]

PreachingToTheGarbage wrote:

<quoted text>Way back in the early 60's ? You call that evidence ??? That was the just one of many.

I call it nothing but what I call it, your spinning aside. The fact that they did a lot of it isn't exactly rebuttal, you know.

At the root of it, I regard it as something so bizarre in modern context that some folks here might be head-shakingly amused.

[wrong arena]

discusseded wrote:

<quoted text>
I call it nothing but what I call it, your spinning aside. The fact that they did a lot of it isn't exactly rebuttal, you know.
At the root of it, I regard it as something so bizarre in modern context that some folks here might be head-shakingly amused.

I have sat back and read your rhetoric on here, and I have to wonder. What is this really all about? Your La Tanisha Wright is connected to "The Black House", which has a lot on there about the Nation of Islam, and converting blacks to Islam. And some black Dr. who says that blacks are afraid to donate their organs like white people do, because they are afraid they might end up being put into white people. But that 70% of all organ transplants given to blacks in the past have come from white donors. And then you have the nerve to say that the white people discriminate. What is wrong with this picture? I know this has nothing to do with tobacco so far here, but you are posting on a forum that is predominately white, and you are wanting them to care about black smokers? I don't see anywhere on any of your sites where this black organization cares one iota about white people. You don't care how many white kids get started smoking, how is this not discriminatory on your part?

[Lil Ticked]

discusseded wrote:

Here's another shining example of the tobacco industry targeting adults.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Another example of products exploiting minorities.
http://www.pantene.com/en-US/african_american...
http://www.ebenenaturals.com/
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/index.c...
the bastards...

[Freedom]

PreachingToTheGarbage wrote:

<quoted text>Way back in the early 60's ? You call that evidence ??? That was the just one of many.
So once they target the obese, I guess fast food commericals around dinner time will be targeting adults and kids ?

Of course...and booze as well.

Imagine all the children who watch beer commercials.

How about the friendly clown that sells chopped lung and colon cancer...to the CHILDREN?

Why captain jack is even a pirate...and we all know kids like pirates!

Oh the humanity!

First they came for the smokers...

[discusseded]

wrong arena wrote:

<quoted text>
I have sat back and read your rhetoric on here, and I have to wonder. What is this really all about? Your La Tanisha Wright is connected to "The Black House"

In what way beyond the fact that they put in an article on the NAATPN that included coverage of her?

In what way would that affect the validity or otherwise of her content regarding the things she learned while working as a tobacco exec? I mean, hey, I assume you eat from time to time. Does that mean anything you type should be disregarded because you are obviously just loading up for a big crap?

That content of hers (and the context/spin given by the article starting this thread) is mostly what it is about for me. Both clearly concern tobacco and targeted marketing in the context of the black community. Her presence in this thread is predicated on her involvement in NAATPN.

I have to wonder exactly what YOU want to make this all about.

[discusseded]

Lil Ticked wrote:

<quoted text>
Another example of products exploiting minorities.
http://www.pantene.com/en-US/african_american...
http://www.ebenenaturals.com/
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/index.c...
the bastards...

Yes, certainly Microsoft is getting its hooks into black and Latino youth here. Their products tend to define parameters for those who learn to think "Windows" automatically when they think "computer". A shift to Open Office, Opera, whatever they call what replaced "Lindows", Linux, or Mac products is doable, but takes some adjusting.

As to the hygiene items tailored to the black community, I have some issues. As someone pointed to Frederick Vom Saal's work with hormone mimics a while back, there are similar problems with some products in this arena.

Hair straightening products (marketed to blacks who didn't like their kinky naturals) contained enough estrogen mimics to cause an epidemic of black girls beginning to menstruate at the age of 8 or 9 years old.

I ran into word of that back around '96 or so, and have no link to related info any more.

In none of these examples, though, is there a clear effort to bring about a life-long dependence on a product that kills when "properly" used. The objection raised here is as much to the disregard for the customers as to the selective effort to ensnare particularly vulnerable customers or to find ways to make a particular subset of customers uniquely vulnerable.

In the case I cited, they are clearly trying to catch the unsophisticated Neanderthal market, right?

[discusseded]

wrong arena wrote:

I know this has nothing to do with tobacco so far here, but you are posting on a forum that is predominately white, and you are wanting them to care about black smokers? I don't see anywhere on any of your sites where this black organization cares one iota about white people. You don't care how many white kids get started smoking, how is this not discriminatory on your part?

Are you saying that Fred and Barney are black?

Once again, there is a DIFFERENCE between the forum and the thread. The FORUM is about smoking. The THREAD is about the tobacco industry's designing marketing campaigns specifically to pull in young black customers. Part of my content in the thread has involved children in general, but most of it has related to the black community. The latter is far more in line with the topic of the thread.

I'm sorry that you believe the black community consists of throw-away people. You are clearly part of the culture that spawned the problem leading to the need for a thread such as this one.

[Lil Ticked]

discusseded wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, certainly Microsoft is getting its hooks into black and Latino youth here. Their products tend to define parameters for those who learn to think "Windows" automatically when they think "computer". A shift to Open Office, Opera, whatever they call what replaced "Lindows", Linux, or Mac products is doable, but takes some adjusting.
As to the hygiene items tailored to the black community, I have some issues. As someone pointed to Frederick Vom Saal's work with hormone mimics a while back, there are similar problems with some products in this arena.
Hair straightening products (marketed to blacks who didn't like their kinky naturals) contained enough estrogen mimics to cause an epidemic of black girls beginning to menstruate at the age of 8 or 9 years old.
I ran into word of that back around '96 or so, and have no link to related info any more.
In none of these examples, though, is there a clear effort to bring about a life-long dependence on a product that kills when "properly" used. The objection raised here is as much to the disregard for the customers as to the selective effort to ensnare particularly vulnerable customers or to find ways to make a particular subset of customers uniquely vulnerable.
In the case I cited, they are clearly trying to catch the unsophisticated Neanderthal market, right?

So in other words you don't agree with the free market system and people's right to choose when they are products that you don't like.
What about this from the "Microsoft" campaign? " a program it's calling the Ultimate Steal Promotion. "
The ultimate STEAL for a program directed at minorities? Pretty negative stereotype being placed on them isn't it?
Maybe they should call it the "Smash and Grab" promotion?

[PreachingToTheGa rbage]

discusseded wrote:

<quoted text>
I call it nothing but what I call it, your spinning aside. The fact that they did a lot of it isn't exactly rebuttal, you know.
At the root of it, I regard it as something so bizarre in modern context that some folks here might be head-shakingly amused.

Oh how silly of me not to spin it in the direction you wanted it to go..damn.

[PreachingToTheGa rbage]

discusseded wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you saying that Fred and Barney are black?
Once again, there is a DIFFERENCE between the forum and the thread. The FORUM is about smoking. The THREAD is about the tobacco industry's designing marketing campaigns specifically to pull in young black customers. Part of my content in the thread has involved children in general, but most of it has related to the black community. The latter is far more in line with the topic of the thread.
I'm sorry that you believe the black community consists of throw-away people. You are clearly part of the culture that spawned the problem leading to the need for a thread such as this one.

I call it nothing but what I call it, your spinning aside. The fact that they did a lot of it isn't exactly rebuttal, you know.

At the root of it, I regard it as something so bizarre in modern context that some folks here might be head-shakingly amused.

[discusseded]

Lil Ticked wrote:

<quoted text>So in other words you don't agree with the free market system and people's right to choose when they are products that you don't like.
What about this from the "Microsoft" campaign? " a program it's calling the Ultimate Steal Promotion. "
The ultimate STEAL for a program directed at minorities? Pretty negative stereotype being placed on them isn't it?
Maybe they should call it the "Smash and Grab" promotion?

"Wow, what a steal!" is and has been for generations a common reference to a very good deal. The premise of stereotyping is your spin, if you are asserting anything but that black or Hispanic youth are likely to relate to that piece of vernacular.

As I pointed out above, there IS room for the cynical interpretation that MS is "hooking" these students on MS products, to maintain/increase market share down the road. Nevertheless, this promotion is aimed at making it significantly easier for those in these subpopulations to gain facility in marketable skills that could help them become valuable to their communities--and I mean that to extend to the global community as well.

A clear underlying assumption in the MS promotion is that youth from these communities have the capacity and the urge to develop their minds.

Another is that some efforts to neutralize the disproportional financial difficulties (not to mention the social barriers) they face are justified.

Tobacco company marketing has no such positive purpose or underlying assumption. Even the effort to "neutralize the disproportional financial difficulties" faced in those communities is a clear effort to make them dependent on the product. The underlying message in the marketing approach is that "these are NOT people who care about anything intellectual." Put flashy signs outside because these folks don't read?

With more and more employers adding "nonsmoking" to their list of desirable/mandatory attributes for job candidates, the industry is directly limiting the upward mobility of these people.

I don't see the two marketing schemes as remotely close in level of loathsomeness.

[discusseded]

PreachingToTheGarbage wrote:

<quoted text>I call it nothing but what I call it, your spinning aside. The fact that they did a lot of it isn't exactly rebuttal, you know.
At the root of it, I regard it as something so bizarre in modern context that some folks here might be head-shakingly amused.

I would have been if you had shown some comprehension by waiting for a post that made parroting me even remotely close to plausibly applicable. As it is, I simply find you tiresome again.

[PreachingToTheGa rbage]

discusseded wrote:

<quoted text>
I would have been if you had shown some comprehension by waiting for a post that made parroting me even remotely close to plausibly applicable. As it is, I simply find you tiresome again.

As I do you. At least you figured it out.