He really, really wanted that Joe Camel bomber.
A quick SAT analogy. Putty is to a sculptor as _______ is to a trial lawyer.
If you answered logic, congratulations.You may be as enraged by this latest bit of litigation as we are.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court split 5-4 in favor of three smokers from Maine, allowing them the right to sue tobacco companies for fraud. Because cancer sticks made them sick? No, that grounds been fairly well trampled. The trio, with what we can imagine is a healthy dose of guidance from a man in an expensively tailored suit, are suing Big Tobacco because they overcharged them for light cigarettes.
The logic goes like this: a pack of Marlboro Lights is advertised as being safer because it registers lower levels of tar. But the poor saps who buy a pack don't want to nibble on arugula. They want to be transported to Flavor Country. And that forces them to, no lie, puff harder, inhale deeper and smoke more.
Maybe I'm the wrong person to make this argument. Not being a smoker, I can't tell you the difference between light and hard packs. But I'd like to think my abstinence doesn't preclude me from having an informed opinion about what, from the outside looking in, seems like a whole bunch of hot air...
Advertising is deceptive by nature. Look at GM. If they admitted the truth--that they're an aging dinosaur on the brink of extinction--no one would take a test drive. But by coyly alluding that their new Cadillac CTS has enough torque to get you off, they just might sell a few sedans.
Tobacco companies are the masters of this shell game. They've been doing it for so long there's an entire catalogue of old cigarette ads on YouTube that have reached epic levels of unintentional self-parody. A popular kids cartoon hawking Winstons? Yabba-dabba-doo!