However, this club ad, and corresponding thread title, are nothing more than soulstrut catnip. More people have now seen this flyer because of this thread than would have as it was passed around Vegas. Soulstrut should receive a royalty check from Camel.
Drunk Driving is a bigger problem than Lung Cancer.
wrong
Alcoholism is a bigger problem than Emphysema
There are more alcoholics than there are people suffering from emphysema but there are more people who DIE from the latter than the former.
Are both of you being sarcastic? I hope so.
Tobacco related illnesses are the number one cause of preventable deaths in the USA. More than AIDS, car accidents, drugs and rap combined.
Fatback - you need to read mang!
I was responding to a very specific question of "alcoholism vs. emphysema" and in terms people who suffer from the two, there are more alcoholics out there but if we're talking about morbidity, emphysema kills more people.
Drunk Driving is a bigger problem than Lung Cancer.
Not remotely true. Other way around mang, almost by a 10 : 1 ratio (if you're counting deaths related to each).
If all count are number of deaths cigs win. If you call that winning.
Cigarettes do not destroy families the way alcohol does. Cigarettes do not kill young people the way alcohol does. Cigarettes do not kill random innocent people the way drunk driving does.
So for many reasons alcohol can be seen as a bigger problem.
Cigs cost society lots more money in medical costs. alcohol cost more in costs of productive young people.
Cigs are addictive to almost every one who uses them regularly. Alcohol is addictive to a small number of users. Alcohol addiction destroys your life and the lives of those around you. Cigarette addiction destroys your health and the health of those around you.
As for the idea that it is the additives in cigs that kill, WRONG. Nicotine and other natural components of tobacco cause cancer and lung diseases. Nor is alcohol free of artificial additives.
Drunk Driving is a bigger problem than Lung Cancer.
Not remotely true. Other way around mang, almost by a 10 : 1 ratio (if you're counting deaths related to each).
If all count are number of deaths cigs win. If you call that winning.
Cigarettes do not destroy families the way alcohol does. Cigarettes do not kill young people the way alcohol does. Cigarettes do not kill random innocent people the way drunk driving does.
So for many reasons alcohol can be seen as a bigger problem.
Cigs cost society lots more money in medical costs. alcohol cost more in costs of productive young people.
Cigs are addictive to almost every one who uses them regularly. Alcohol is addictive to a small number of users. Alcohol addiction destroys your life and the lives of those around you. Cigarette addiction destroys your health and the health of those around you.
As for the idea that it is the additives in cigs that kill, WRONG. Nicotine and other natural components of tobacco cause cancer and lung diseases. Nor is alcohol free of artificial additives.
Drunk Driving is a bigger problem than Lung Cancer.
wrong
Alcoholism is a bigger problem than Emphysema
There are more alcoholics than there are people suffering from emphysema but there are more people who DIE from the latter than the former.
Are both of you being sarcastic? I hope so.
Tobacco related illnesses are the number one cause of preventable deaths in the USA. More than AIDS, car accidents, drugs and rap combined.
Fatback - you need to read mang!
I was responding to a very specific question of "alcoholism vs. emphysema" and in terms people who suffer from the two, there are more alcoholics out there but if we're talking about morbidity, emphysema kills more people.
OK, but isn't death a pretty benchmark for something being a problem? I think so.
The premise that Dr. Powers set out was problematic to begin with...
drunk driving is not comparable to lung cancer...
the proper comparison would be between tobacco use and driving under the influence.
Broken ankles are a bigger problem than Styx/MJG mash-ups.
I guess at the end of the day Camel's biggest crime is that they are promoting terrible music. And music that doesn't put money in musician's pockets. And drunk driving, since Mompants and Aoki are Paris and Lindsay's favorite DJs. And a cartoon character with a cocknballs for a face.
I imagine that folks would draw the line somewhere in terms of endorsements...it's subjective, right? Personally, I've turned down gigs that involved tobacco money (but I'm also not a working DJ so it's not like my rent depends on shit like this) but I can't say that EVERYTHING I do in life doesn't have negative consequences somewhere down the line.
That said, I've never trusted the kind of relativism that goes, "well, if you won't do A but you do B, isn't that hypocritical?" since really, what people are trying to do is backdoor a clause that allows them to do ANYTHING without fear of critique.
If DJs want to take tobacco money for a gig, it's not an innocent choice. Doesn't mean you shouldn't cash the check but own it, at least.
to me letting yrself get put onto advertisements is a whole nother level of the MORALLY AMBIGUOUS SELLOUT because when you do a 21+ show, its a 21+ show (still suspect cause these companies are basically evil but you can make the 'adults' argument) but when yr talking about advertisements in a magazine you are actually appearing to sell this lifestyle and to me thats just a bad look all the way around. If you don't think teenagers don't look at shit like that yr kidding yrself (not you odub but 'you' generally).
the cigarette industry sucks. endorsing alcohol doesnt bother me but i dont see how people can still defend cigarette companies after all these years and revelations and the huge number of people they've killed
I'm shocked that this is an actual debate.
Alcohol + cigarettes go hand-in-hand with the clurb[/b]--I just can't believe anybody would object to DJs getting some of that cigarette money.
lol busted...you're in new york right?
when's the last time you went to a club homey
Very funny, deej--the world's a lot bigger than New York.
I imagine that folks would draw the line somewhere in terms of endorsements...it's subjective, right? Personally, I've turned down gigs that involved tobacco money (but I'm also not a working DJ so it's not like my rent depends on shit like this) but I can't say that EVERYTHING I do in life doesn't have negative consequences somewhere down the line.
That said, I've never trusted the kind of relativism that goes, "well, if you won't do A but you do B, isn't that hypocritical?" since really, what people are trying to do is backdoor a clause that allows them to do ANYTHING without fear of critique.
If DJs want to take tobacco money for a gig, it's not an innocent choice. Doesn't mean you shouldn't cash the check but own it, at least.
to me letting yrself get put onto advertisements is a whole nother level of the MORALLY AMBIGUOUS SELLOUT because when you do a 21+ show, its a 21+ show (still suspect cause these companies are basically evil but you can make the 'adults' argument) but when yr talking about advertisements in a magazine you are actually appearing to sell this lifestyle and to me thats just a bad look all the way around. If you don't think teenagers don't look at shit like that yr kidding yrself (not you odub but 'you' generally).
the cigarette industry sucks. endorsing alcohol doesnt bother me but i dont see how people can still defend cigarette companies after all these years and revelations and the huge number of people they've killed
I'm shocked that this is an actual debate.
Alcohol + cigarettes go hand-in-hand with the clurb[/b]--I just can't believe anybody would object to DJs getting some of that cigarette money.
lol busted...you're in new york right?
when's the last time you went to a club homey
Very funny, deej--the world's a lot bigger than New York.
I imagine that folks would draw the line somewhere in terms of endorsements...it's subjective, right? Personally, I've turned down gigs that involved tobacco money (but I'm also not a working DJ so it's not like my rent depends on shit like this) but I can't say that EVERYTHING I do in life doesn't have negative consequences somewhere down the line.
That said, I've never trusted the kind of relativism that goes, "well, if you won't do A but you do B, isn't that hypocritical?" since really, what people are trying to do is backdoor a clause that allows them to do ANYTHING without fear of critique.
If DJs want to take tobacco money for a gig, it's not an innocent choice. Doesn't mean you shouldn't cash the check but own it, at least.
to me letting yrself get put onto advertisements is a whole nother level of the MORALLY AMBIGUOUS SELLOUT because when you do a 21+ show, its a 21+ show (still suspect cause these companies are basically evil but you can make the 'adults' argument) but when yr talking about advertisements in a magazine you are actually appearing to sell this lifestyle and to me thats just a bad look all the way around. If you don't think teenagers don't look at shit like that yr kidding yrself (not you odub but 'you' generally).
the cigarette industry sucks. endorsing alcohol doesnt bother me but i dont see how people can still defend cigarette companies after all these years and revelations and the huge number of people they've killed
I'm shocked that this is an actual debate.
Alcohol + cigarettes go hand-in-hand with the clurb[/b]--I just can't believe anybody would object to DJs getting some of that cigarette money.
lol busted...you're in new york right?
when's the last time you went to a club homey
Very funny, deej--the world's a lot bigger than New York.
Not to mention the fact that the smoking ban in New York did not suddenly make people non-smokers. I know plenty of people in New York who smoke and the smoking ban certainly did not change that. Now they just smoke outside of the club instead of in it.
The fact of the matter here is this: this post would not exist if the DJs doing it weren't "celebrity DJs." People here don't so much have a problem with the fact that these DJs are DJing for a cigarette company, they resent the fact that they're celebrity DJs DJing for a cigarette company.
And, working DJs, how many times have you DJed at a bar and/or club where there was a cigarette promotion going on where they were handing out free cigarettes? Did you walk out of your gig in protest?
Comments
Fatback - you need to read mang!
I was responding to a very specific question of "alcoholism vs. emphysema" and in terms people who suffer from the two, there are more alcoholics out there but if we're talking about morbidity, emphysema kills more people.
If all count are number of deaths cigs win. If you call that winning.
Cigarettes do not destroy families the way alcohol does. Cigarettes do not kill young people the way alcohol does. Cigarettes do not kill random innocent people the way drunk driving does.
So for many reasons alcohol can be seen as a bigger problem.
Cigs cost society lots more money in medical costs. alcohol cost more in costs of productive young people.
Cigs are addictive to almost every one who uses them regularly. Alcohol is addictive to a small number of users. Alcohol addiction destroys your life and the lives of those around you. Cigarette addiction destroys your health and the health of those around you.
As for the idea that it is the additives in cigs that kill, WRONG. Nicotine and other natural components of tobacco cause cancer and lung diseases. Nor is alcohol free of artificial additives.
2nd hand smoke doesn't count?
Broken ankles are a bigger problem than Styx/MJG mash-ups.
Alcohol is a way bigger problem IMO.
OK, but isn't death a pretty benchmark for something being a problem? I think so.
The premise that Dr. Powers set out was problematic to begin with...
drunk driving is not comparable to lung cancer...
the proper comparison would be between tobacco use and driving under the influence.
Y** So*nd W*it*
Yeah, and?
You might recover from alcoholism, but you are unlikely to recover from dying.
YOUR BECKY TEPID ASSHURT, SON.
Sorry to nitpick, but technically you are always recovering, not recovered. As you were.
I'LL RECOVER WHEN I'M DEAD, BITCHES!!!
I guess at the end of the day Camel's biggest crime is that they are promoting terrible music. And music that doesn't put money in musician's pockets. And drunk driving, since Mompants and Aoki are Paris and Lindsay's favorite DJs. And a cartoon character with a cocknballs for a face.
The smoking is way down the list of greivances.
I italized random for a reason.
YOU SOUND BORN AGAIN
you beat me to it.
I was gonna say YOU SOUND DRUNK though.
Falwell is my homeboy.
Very funny, deej--the world's a lot bigger than New York.
was
Yeah, don't forget the Poconos.
Thats your argument?
"Yeh they suck but hey they make alot of money so its ok." GTFOHWTBS
The amount of money they make does not change the fact taht they still suck at what they do.
Oh, you haven't heard? He was born again
I never said that they don't suck or that it was ok. I implied that you sound asshurt....
ha I call em as I see/hear em. if that makes me asshurt then so be it.
Not to mention the fact that the smoking ban in New York did not suddenly make people non-smokers. I know plenty of people in New York who smoke and the smoking ban certainly did not change that. Now they just smoke outside of the club instead of in it.
The fact of the matter here is this: this post would not exist if the DJs doing it weren't "celebrity DJs." People here don't so much have a problem with the fact that these DJs are DJing for a cigarette company, they resent the fact that they're celebrity DJs DJing for a cigarette company.
And, working DJs, how many times have you DJed at a bar and/or club where there was a cigarette promotion going on where they were handing out free cigarettes? Did you walk out of your gig in protest?
This is such a non-issue.
-e