Hey Bruce,

>>And why are the tobacco companies producing any anti-smoking ads at all? If you can believe what you read, PM is actually increasing the the likelyhood of teen smoking (12-17). Maybe there should have been a clause against any advertising whatsoever, since their public service ads don't seem to have the desired result. It seems the lawyers let that slip through the cracks.
>
>I've heard that argument, like it's to attract attention and make the behavior seem anti-social (which teens always seem to like, I know I did), and there may be some truth to it. And perhaps they are also trying to actually be construed as being *honest* after all the news of cover-ups and lies. I would buy into that argument, too. But I still maintain, from everything I've read or seen, that the *real* target for tobacco now is overseas, not US anymore. IMO, they've given it up as a long term loss here.

I was originally going to cite where the tobacco industry was directed to do those ads as part of their restitution, but darned if I could find one. Might have been another "Internet" fact(rumor). Payments to the states were to be used as payment against prior health related costs and to fund antismoking campaigns. All this "hick in the sticks" knows for sure is that the initial payment to my county went most definitely to whatever the Legislature deemed necessary. I know for a fact not a penny went for anything related to smoking. It got stuffed in the General Fund and that was that. Letters to all my Legislators, Assemblymen, the State Attorney General, Comptroller, and Governor questioning this distribution of funds went unanswered. I had my answer. Talk about coverups and lies....

>>Enough thread drift...
>
>I don't know, I don't think we're being off-topic as long as we stick to "overseas" and "corporate greed" as in the above - but you're right about the "bans," I agree, that's for a different thread.

Yep, and now I drifted it further :-) Sorry.