Why do we require companies to encourage us NOT to use their products? Isn't this a tad retarded? I know I harp on personal responsibility all the time, but let's ignore that and just focus on logic. When the AMA and the Surgeon General both told America that smoking is bad, why the hell did people still feel that suing the tobacco companies for smoking related illness was acceptable behaviour? Why is it ok that these companies now have to fund advertisiments that, in fact, are designed to attack them?

Case in point: Phillip Morris USA has a link to a cancer/smoking-related-illness section on their web page, as well as links to organizations that help you quit. This seems mad to me. Who the fuck would go to a cigarette manufacturer to find out how to quit? Isn't that like going to a nazi to learn about the African experience?

And is singling out one product fair? I noticed that liquor and beer manufacturers don't have to link to AA centers. McDonalds has no links to Weight Watchers or Bally Fitness. Starbucks doesn't post caffeine related nervous system damage reports. Nokia and General Electric don't have links to cell phone and power line cancer sites. And Annheiser-Busch doesn't have to fund commercials with rambunctious teens preaching about liver damage. Seems a tad hypocritical to me...

We are nearing the point of absolute ridiculousness in our blatant disregard for responsibility, our overly litigous nature, and our shher lack of consideration or even thought in this country. The news on the evolutionary front is not all bad, however: as much as I would love to see the golden arches fall, I was happy to see the courts rule that we cannot sue McDonald's for making us fat; a nice blow for the cause of logic and rational thought. Hopefully we can keep moving in the direction of this trend, toward rational personal and social thought.

Personal responsibility? That's great! I agree wholeheartedly that there needs to be personal responsibility, and I love that Charles Darwin gave us a great foundation upon which to judge people based on how much personal responsibility they employ. But what about corporate responsibility?

If you ask me, Phillip Morris having a section of its website dedicated to smoking related illnesses and smoking cessation programs is a small price to pay for their decades of telling gullible americans that their product is healthy. A link if I may: http://www.chickenhead.com/truth/.

That's not "truth" as in that horrible organization that shoves smoking cessation down my throat. That's a whole 'nother column. The ads are genuine. So, uh, yeah, for the playing field to be level, Phillip Morris has some ground to make up. As do the rest of them.

We're starting to see some actual responsibility being taken on the part of large corporations to make up for their preying on the ignorance and complacency of the buying public, and I'm glad to see it. A minority of Americans see the links between fast food binging and obesity and heart disease. Actually, it's either ignorance OR apaty, but either way, corporations have been cashing in on it, and as a result, the sheep have been suffering.

Beer brewers don't have links to AA centers, but they do urge you to drink responsibly. McDonalds doesn't have links to Weight Watchers, but they are eliminating their super-sized meals. This is a bad thing?

The important thing to remember is that this is voluntary. Widespread smoking places a huge burden on everyone, from our subsidizing certain healthcare programs to our lungs taking in second hand smoke, not to mention my having to wash any clothes I wear out because I inevitably come home smelling like ass. That's a lot of water! But I would expect no less than this from any company who wants consumers to see them as being tied to communities. But I couldn't explain it better than they do themselves:

"Because cigarettes cause serious diseases in smokers, including lung cancer, heart disease and emphysema, smoking has been a source of public controversy for a number of years. PM USA recognizes that public concern about smoking is legitimate and that calls for additional regulation are well-founded. Visit this section to learn why we support FDA regulation of the tobacco industry, national standards for cigarettes that are less likely to start fires and legislation to strengthen existing state laws prohibiting the sale of tobacco products to minors. " (http://www.pmusa.com/policies_practices/default.asp)

In other words, this is as much a marketing tool as Joe Camel.

Bottom line: we as a society have to come to terms with the fact that most people are, well, either stupid or just don't care a lick about what they put in their bodies as long as it's legal. But as we learn more about health care issues, we're realizing that our two biggest health concerns revolve around smoking and bad diets. I agree that we need to make more of an effort to educate the masses about these health concerns, but I don't think it's a bad sign for our society that the people who deal in these unhealthy products are beginning to take a proactive role. You can start being worried when they stop selling these products for any reason other than there not being a market for them.