Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Research Suggests Tobacco Companies Add Weight Loss Drugs

Comments Filter:
  • by snowraver1 (1052510) on Friday June 10, 2011 @05:46PM (#36406180)
    Not only is it cool and fun, it will turn your fat ass into a prom queen!
    • by sunfly (1248694)
      You joke, but hope also realize this is why so many girls smoke?
      • by tripleevenfall (1990004) on Friday June 10, 2011 @06:57PM (#36406856)

        Perhaps, but when I walk past the smoke corral at work, there are only two kinds of smokers. There are the ones who clearly have not been missing any meals, and the ones who are rail-thin but also look like 50 year old baseball gloves.

        I don't think either idea appeals to prospective prom queens...

      • No, girls smoke because it (subtly) signals they put out, with sufficient plausible deniability, and so the non-virgin (read: with game) guys will pursue them.

        • Trust me son, you're overthinking this.

          Just get out, have fun and make friends. That'll get you into their pants a lot more surely than trying to get in through their heads.

          • by nospam007 (722110) *

            "Just get out, have fun and make friends. That'll get you into their pants a lot more surely than trying to get in through their heads."

            Exactly.
            And stay away from the smokers.
            They stink.
            Literally.

    • Flavor Country High School
  • by geekmux (1040042) on Friday June 10, 2011 @05:53PM (#36406256)

    Who cares what tobacco companies do?

    And no, I don't mean "who cares" as in I'm some cruel bastard who could care less what tobacco companies are doing to hook their users even more to their product. I mean who out there really cares what tobacco companies do anymore? Care to tell me exactly what anyone has done to step in and stop them from doing ANYTHING with their product?

    Radioactive pesticides. Hundreds of chemicals that are far from "natural". Big Tobacco has become untouchable. Doesn't matter how many evil things they do to their product, so what's the point in publicizing it until someone out there actually starts giving a shit and does something about it. Unfortunately, those who SHOULD give a shit are far too busy getting paid off by tobacco lobbyists and raking in tax dollars. They look past the fact that other than a military grade weapons manufacturer, no other corporation on the planet is legally allowed to kill thousands of people every day by doing nothing more than using their product as intended.

    • by robot256 (1635039)

      Unfortunately, those who SHOULD give a shit are far too busy slowly killing themselves with addictive carcinogenic substances.

      FTFY.

      • by robot256 (1635039)
        Ah, sorry, I misread, and I completely agree with your post. There's more than one group that should care about this, and politicians are definitely one of them.
    • Car makers? Coal power plants? Gun manufacturers?
    • Re:Who cares (Score:4, Insightful)

      by TaoPhoenix (980487) <TaoPhoenix@yahoo.com> on Friday June 10, 2011 @06:03PM (#36406374) Journal

      It's also who cares in that they aren't making exciting news anymore. It's really "They're evil, oh well. Oh look! Someone downloaded a copy of the Beatles! Arrest him!!"

    • by Jason Earl (1894) on Friday June 10, 2011 @06:27PM (#36406596) Homepage Journal

      What do you suggest?

      Perhaps a little background is in order. I am a Mormon. For religious reasons, my family has been telling their children (and anyone else that would listen) not to use tobacco since the mid 1800s. I personally served as a missionary in Chile where a fair portion of my time was spent trying to help people quit smoking. Sometimes I was successful, sometimes not. Apparently giving up smoking is very difficult. I never met a smoker that didn't want to quit, and yet few people actually are successful.

      That's the problem. Smokers know that smoking is killing them, but they are addicted. We already have huge taxes on cigarettes. We control their sale to minors, and we control how they can be advertised. Heck, we even run advertisements extolling the many problems caused by smoking, and we force smokers to go to special designated areas to smoke. At this point about the only thing that we could do that we haven't tried is to make tobacco illegal. To be honest, I would not be surprised if that actually *increased* tobacco use. Marijuana manages to be quite popular while still being illegal.

      Unfortunately, some people are just stupid. They don't see the harm in trying tobacco until it is too late and they are addicted. It is easy (and comfortable) to blame the politicians, but for the most part politicians have gone out of their way to cast a stigma on tobacco use. It is even easier to blame the tobacco industry, and just about anyone would be forced to admit that those guys are slimy. However, tobacco has a long history of use in the U.S. and I think that it would be counterproductive to try and curtail the rights of individuals in this regard. Our society has done everything it can to curtail the use of tobacco short of throwing people in prison for growing it or using it.

      • Yet, the government still pays out huge amounts of tax money as tobacco subsidy to grow the stuff every year, then heavily taxes the users. The government gets much more in taxes on each cigarette sold than the tobacco company gets as earnings. They really don't want to end smoking, and lose this huge revenue stream.

        • by schnikies79 (788746) on Friday June 10, 2011 @07:04PM (#36406932)

          My family got paid a huge amount (by the government) to sell the rights to our tobacco base. Since it's sold, no one else can lease or use the base. In case anyone isn't aware of what tobacco base is, you can only grow tobacco on a small percentage of your farmable land. If you don't wish to grow any, you can lease your base to another farmer. They grow it on their own land but pay you a percentage for allowing them the use of your base. They lease a lot of base so they can have a sizable crop.

          Even we we did grow tobacco, we never got any subsidies, at least directly. It was damn profitable on its own.

      • Thank you, Jason. You come across with a mild sense of self rightousness, and you sound a little bit of a prick - but you're honest, and you're right. So, you're tolerable, and your opinion is appreciated.

        I hate the ultra self-rightous pricks who feel it is their mission in life to save me, and other smokers, from our own stupidity. If the rest of the anti-smokers had your sense of proportion, they'd be a lot easier to live with!

        Enough taxes, enough penalties, enough stigmatism attached to smoking. More

        • by Jason Earl (1894)

          Re-reading my post I think that the self-righteousness is more than mild, and for that I am truly sorry. I simply think blaming the *government* for the smoking problem is ridiculous, and I was trying to show that I am not the sort of person that anyone in their right mind could consider pro-tobacco.

          Like I said, I have helped more than my fair share of people quit smoking, and tried to help many others. My experience tells me that if you attempt to help people quit smoking you have a good chance of endi

        • Growing up, I was the only one if my family besides the dog that didn't smoke, and I'm a runner so I hate that shit, but I'd rather spend all day in a smoke filled bar, then spend one minute listening to one self righteous anti smoking jack off , if you haven't already check out the south park on those anti smoking dicks
      • by Lehk228 (705449)
        what would be needed is to require health insurance to cover inpatient addiction treatment like we do with other drug treatment.

        the harm is clear and the tobacco companies do everything they can to make it harder to quit.
        • by Pharmboy (216950)

          what would be needed is to require health insurance to cover inpatient addiction treatment like we do with other drug treatment.

          I don't think anyone has ever shown (or even suggested) that in-patient addiction treatment for tobacco addiction is better than anything else. Does anyone even OFFER an in-patient program?

          I used snus to stop smoking. And now I've cut my snus use down by about half, and working toward being tobacco free in a year or two. Snus isn't nearly as dangerous as cigarettes or snuff, buy

      • by PopeRatzo (965947) *

        Our society has done everything it can to curtail the use of tobacco short of throwing people in prison for growing it or using it.

        You say "throwing people in prison for growing or using it" like it's unthinkable.

        There are a lot of people sitting in prison right now "for growing or using" another leafy plant.

        How different one plant is treated just because a certain group of wealthy white men got here centuries ago and made a bundle selling it.

        • by khallow (566160)

          How different one plant is treated just because a certain group of wealthy white men got here centuries ago and made a bundle selling it.

          Those same wealthy white men made a fortune selling hemp as well. Hemp rope was an integral part of the sea trade networks prior to the end of the sail era.

          While there's some racism involved in prohibition of marijuana, it's worth noting that the US even went as far as to ban all alcoholic beverages for a period of time, which as I understand it, is one of the main drugs of choice for rich, white men and has remained so for millennia.

          So maybe things happen for reasons other than wealthy, white people

        • by Jason Earl (1894)

          I am not of the opinion that making marijuana illegal is good for our society. I think that people that use marijuana are making a very poor choice, but that's true for a lot of things.

          On the other hand, we have historical precedents for what happens when drugs like cocaine (or worse heroine) are legalized. That was not a good idea. Marijuana, on the other hand, probably belongs in the same group as alcohol and tobacco. We'd probably be better off simply trying to control it, and not ban it outright.

          • by Onymous Coward (97719) on Friday June 10, 2011 @08:57PM (#36407718) Homepage

            I would argue that drugs can be used to good effect or bad effect. The same drug. It often depends on dose.

            Take an aspirin for a headache? Sure. Take a dozen? Not so much, as it were.

            Just how harmful a drug tends to be is still relevant:
            drug danger [wikimedia.org].

          • by Joce640k (829181)

            On the other hand, we have historical precedents for what happens when drugs like cocaine (or worse heroine) are legalized. That was not a good idea.

            It may not be a good idea but is it a worse idea than:
            a) Spending billions on enforcement which only stops 1% of the drugs reaching the streets.
            b) Watching billions of dollars go overseas to be stacked in huge mansions in Columbia.
            c) Making mafia bosses very rich/powerful.
            d) Funding gang warfare.
            e) Funding all the police/medical care which goes hand in hand with (d)
            f) Having to build mega prisons because you're locking up so many people for victimless crimes.

      • by drgould (24404)

        At this point about the only thing that we could do that we haven't tried is to make tobacco illegal.

        Take this as anecdotal, but quite a while ago here in Massachusetts they set a aside a portion of the state cigarette tax to fund a series of anti-smoking PSAs.

        If I recall, some were pretty graphic; i.e., pictures of smoke damaged lungs. Some were interviews with survivors of lung cancer and various cigarette related disorders. All were uniformly depressing.

        I heard they had a significant negative impact on

        • by Atryn (528846)

          Then they stopped.

          It was my understanding that those PSA's (which were in many states) were funded out of the original big tobacco lawsuit settlement the states reached with the companies a decade or so ago. Eventually the settlement money ran out. I'm not sure that in most states the PSA's were ever funded with the taxes (though yours might have been)...

          More info on it Here [wikipedia.org]... Check out the Public Education Fund which apparently only lasted 3 years (2000-2003).

      • by pclminion (145572)

        Unfortunately, some people are just stupid. They don't see the harm in trying tobacco until it is too late and they are addicted.

        Get real. Everyone I know who smokes (including me) started when they were 14, 15, or 16 years old. At that age it's not about being stupid, it's about doing what your friends are doing because you don't want to look like a pussy or a killjoy or a doofus. Damn you, the first time I took a drag off a cigarette I knew it was stupid and I didn't want to be doing it at all, but the

        • by Jason Earl (1894)

          Stupid was the wrong thing to say, and I am sorry for that. People make poor choices all of the time. The difference is that with smoking once you are addicted it becomes very difficult to stop. My sincere apologies.

          By the way, congratulations on your success giving up cigarettes. That's a big deal, and I have seen enough people try and fail to have a fair appreciation as to how difficult it is to quit.

        • Get real. Everyone I know who smokes (including me) started when they were 14, 15, or 16 years old. At that age it's not about being stupid, it's about doing what your friends are doing because you don't want to look like a pussy or a killjoy or a doofus. Damn you, the first time I took a drag off a cigarette I knew it was stupid and I didn't want to be doing it at all, but the fear of being laughed at or pushed around outweighed the logic. I was not stupid, and I did know about the dangers

          Agreed - except for the knowing the dangers - I didn't know it was addictive or deadly (40 years ago). And I was stupid. It made me sick - yet, like every other (juvenile) smoker I persevered due to peer group pressure. When had my first cigarettes I was in primary school - the only teacher who did not smoke was the drama teacher. Every single role model I had - smoked. Good children played sport - sponsored by tobacco. Rebellious children admired movie and rock stars - who all smoked. The local shops sold

      • Some people are just stupid? Kind of like people who believe some money hungry dick in the 1800's actually found some gold plates with writing on them? (of course you needed special optics to read them). Or people who have magic underwear? or Pretend like Polygamy isn't embraced by their "holy text" (hey I'm all for polygamy, embrace who you are) Mormons & Scientologists are among the last people who can call anyone stupid
    • "Care to tell me exactly what anyone has done to step in and stop them from doing ANYTHING with their product?"

      Really? Would you like to step back from the hysterics or are you planning on going full retard?

      Don't get the impression that I care, I just need to know whether I should go get some popcorn or not.

    • by Toonol (1057698)
      Who cares? Everybody who smokes knows it's a mistake, and self-destructive. They've known that for decades. Nobody under the age of fifty became a smoker innocently, without knowing it was a bad decision. Sure, the cigarette manufactures are sleazy. Everybody knows that. If you go and get hooked on their product, you deserve the bulk of the blame.
    • by sdguero (1112795)
      I agree, and personally I don't care what the tobacco companies do. If you think cigarettes are bad, don't smoke. If your worried about second hand smoke, stay away from smokers. If you are righteous you can even go tell people not to smoke, its a free country after all. Just don't be surprised if you get some puffs blown in your face.

      Anyone can quit smoking cigarettes. Blaming a company or industry for making an addictive product is a cop out. Being unhealthy isn't enough reason to outlaw it (that goes
    • I too do not care what these companies do, they only can do so because our governments permit it. Not only do they permit it they profit off of it, if not in more than one way. First by taxes, embedded so that they actually are charging those who use the product twice - first with direct taxes then the embedded taxes from penalties and such assessed by courts.

      All our governments are quite happy with the situation, that is what is really wrong here. An addicted person is a customer of the government, a sick

    • millions of acres of prime farm land is being used to grow a poisonous weed that people burn. Also that farm land is ruined for decades (due to nicotine contamination plus the heavy toll growing tobacco takes on soil). Smokers drive up the cost of food for me. Plus, smart doctors are busy researching a type of cancer that doesn't need to exists (smoking induced lung cancer), when they could be researching things I (a non-smoker) are likely to die of.

      Smokers actions don't take place in a vacuum.
  • by houstonbofh (602064) on Friday June 10, 2011 @05:54PM (#36406270)
    Scary. That could make cigarettes unsafe!
  • Better summary (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 10, 2011 @05:55PM (#36406292)

    More accurately, research finds that Nicotine is an appetite suppressant. And that tobacco companies have looked at adding other appetite suppressors in the past.

  • As someone who has needed to shed a few kilos every now and then I know that if I am busy I tend not to snack. In fact sometimes if I am really engrossed in something midnight and bed time rolls around and I haven't eaten any dinner. I also know what when I feel crappy it is easy to comfort eat.

    Cigarettes help with both these things. Instead of eating you smoke, so they do encourage weight loss for some people. Personally I have never smoked and try to substitute liquid and high-protean cereals (protean mak

  • don't just cut to the chase and dope their deathsticks with methamphetamine and cocaine. It's hard to beat the brand loyalty engendered by those fabulous and time-tested products. Not even Apple electronic products can directly induce physiological withdrawal symptoms like that!
  • Don't get worked up over this. You know they only have their customers' best interests in mind.

  • They tried to market them as a health drink! Only makes sense. I hear chemo is good for weight loss, too.

  • Surely they would find the market for a reliable weight loss product to be as profitable as the market for tobacco.
  • And doing it in a very, very unpleasant way. Recently lost a neighbor to lung cancer at 52. The only sane thing would be to shut them down and and put them all in jail for life.

    • Unfortunate to hear about your neighbor, but there are a lot of substances available to people that can do harm in quantity. Can we jail food producers? Alcohol producers? Can't we hurt or kill ourselves with almost anything, given enough of it?

      At some point, don't we have to take responsibility for what we choose to consume? It's not like a lot of these products don't come covered in warnings anymore.

    • by rahvin112 (446269)

      That's been so successful on the war on drugs it's sure to work! It's not like it would increase consumption and incarcerate several million people for doing nothing more than harming themselves.

      Making a product illegal does two things. It makes the product sexy and desirable for those wishing to rebel and it increases the incarceration rate, and the US already has the highest. You don't solve medical problems by putting people in jail.

      • by Carnildo (712617)

        Actually, it does a third thing as well: if it's illegal, the government can't tax it.

  • by freedumb2000 (966222) on Friday June 10, 2011 @07:15PM (#36407038)
    What really blows my mind is that there is no requirement to list ingredients on tobacco products. Labels are required on food items so why not on cigarets? One could argue that it is even more relevant since anything you smoke goes directly into your blood stream as opposed to the multiple processing stages food takes when you ingest it. This is unbelievable and the only reason I can think of is strong lobbyism by tobacco companies.
    • Labels are required on food items so why not on cigarets?

      Because you don't eat cigarettes?

      • by Pharmboy (216950)

        You do consume cigarettes, they enter your body, much of it stays. This is one of the reasons I get my snus from Sweden, where it is considered a "food" product and they have to use only food grade ingredients, and list them. They don't in the US, so I don't buy here. Oh, and the fact that American snus tastes like ass crack sprinkled with sugar.

        They list the ingredients on sunblock (finally) and the FDA (finally) now regulates what goes in them. Since your skin absorbs the ingredients and is your large

  • Oh yea I forgot its not really about getting people to quit smoking (negligible sales drops = success) its more about tax revenue...cant really be serious about getting people to quit.

    • Oh yea I forgot its not really about getting people to quit smoking (negligible sales drops = success) its more about tax revenue...cant really be serious about getting people to quit.

      This is pretty much the core of the issue. The governments in question don't want to cut into their own tax base by banning tobacco, or effectively convincing people not to use the product.

      And the tobacco lawsuits weren't about stopping those evil tobacco companies either. They were about extorting billions more in revenues

  • Perhaps they could add these weight loss drugs to cannabis cigarettes, as a counter-agent to the THC side effects rather than as a co-agent to nicotine's.

  • We are about to enacta law that enforces Tabacco companies to sell in non descript plain paper packets that look all the same except for the brand name in the same font and the warnings. I would argue take the warnings away as well :-)

    They are coming all over the world to fight it but it is looking good to go through, and this revelation should take some steam out of their lobby.

Little known fact about Middle Earth: The Hobbits had a very sophisticated computer network! It was a Tolkien Ring...

Working...