The arguments against tobacco companies are hard to refute.
Not exact matches
The
tobacco industry is using the same tired
arguments against plain packaging as with smokefree law — namely that it would have a major impact on small businesses like me.
While shark - like lawyers and a befuddled mad - scientist play fast and loose with the finer points of facts, Nick is tasked with not so much refining
tobacco's image, as changing the premise of the
argument against smoking.
In one memo to Philip Morris CEO Michael A. Miles, vice president Craig L. Fuller noted that he was «working with many third party allies to develop position papers, op - eds and letters to the editor detailing how
tobacco is already one of the most heavily regulated products in the marketplace, and derailing
arguments against proposed bans on
tobacco advertising.»
I'm not arguing
against the science, I'm cautioning that the enthusiasts sound like they're making the same
argument still currently being made for sidestream
tobacco, and methylmercury, and CO2 emission from fossil fuel.
Hank (216), No, I'm simply saying that the
argument that the supporters of AGW are just like the good guys from the
tobacco studies, or that the skeptics are just like the folks that didn't buy off on the
tobacco studies is not a compelling
argument for or
against, though for some reason it is viewed by some as a absolute proof of the validity of climate change studies.