It’s been 15 years since tobacco-maker R.J. Reynolds launched Project SCUM in an effort to market to gay youths in San Francisco’s Castro district.  Despite a noble effort from TheTruth.com to reveal this nefarious plan to the American public, it appears tobacco companies have done little to change their ways.

In a new report released by the American Lung Association, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people are more likely to use tobacco more than their heterosexual counterparts due largely to tobacco-makers’ aggressive marketing campaigns to the GLBT community.  Specifically, gay men are nearly two and a half times more likely to develop a smoking habit than straight men. Lesbians are twice as likely compared to straight women, and people who are bisexual appear to have the highest risk of all.

The tobacco industry has been a prevalent advertiser in the GLBT community for decades, with a heavy presence in gay bars, clubs, and newspapers. While tobacco advertisements have nearly disappeared from most mainstream publications, the American Lung Association says that’s not the case for gay newspapers and magazines. They also argue that direct marketing of tobacco products seems to happen more frequently within LGBT bars and clubs.

To be clear, GLBT persons are not genetically predisposed to picking up the habit – environmental factors are the cause.  Furthermore, aggressive marketing tactics are not the only cause.  The report also cites the unique stress that gays face as a contributing factor.

Orbs have been test marketed in select states for a few months, but now they have caught the attention of the FDA. In a Feb. 1 letter to R.J. Reynolds, the director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) expressed concern “that children and adolescents may find dissolvable tobacco products particularly appealing, given the brightly colored packaging, candy-like appearance and easily concealable size of many of these products.” (reported here)

The FDA’s worry has two parts: one, that tobacco packaged as candy encourages young people to take up smoking. And two, that the candy-like appearance of products like Orbs might appeal to children and endanger them if they think it is actually candy. It’s that second idea that has pitched Orbs into the newspapers this past week. Pediatrics, a medical journal, published a study on April 19, 2010 detailing the risks of nicotine poisoning to children who accidentally eat Orbs and similar candy-like tobacco products. Since then, the news media has been abuzz with news and debate about this latest salvo in the tobacco wars. (msnbc.com coverage here; New York Times article here; Q&A from The Week here).

Despite everything we know about the dangers of tobacco, smoking is legal, and other tobacco products are legal, but only if you’re over 18. We’ve decided as a society that nicotine use and addiction is tolerable for adults, but not for children. Like alcohol, nicotine is a recreational drug that our society tolerates within certain limits. But while adults are deemed competent to choose drug use, children generally are not. So the concern that children will confuse candy, which they can have, with nicotine, which they cannot have, is understandable.

The worries about Orbs, though, seem uniquely contradictory. On the one hand, there is the worry that children will accidentally ingest a dangerous drug disguised as candy.  On the other hand, there is the worry that children will conceal their drug abuse by hiding these little candy-like packages and discretely popping nicotine pills under the guise of enjoying a breath freshener.

So are children innocent victims, or pathological drug-abusers? Somehow, when it comes to candy, they are both.

The combination of candy and children has always carried with it an intertwined idea of innocence and corruption. Candy and children seem to go together naturally: children find candy irresistible, and candy, especially simple sugar candy, is for the kids. But if children can’t resist candy, there is something disturbing about that desire. Candy is a lure, a trap, that draws children in. And hidden behind candy’s sweet surface is something potentially harmful, something perhaps deadly. In the 1890s, it was “adulterants” like glue and clay that would harm candy eating children. In the 1970s, it was razor blades hiding in the Halloween candy. In every decade, there have been stories of children “poisoned” by something in the candy they eat.

Candy, it seems, is always concealing something dangerous, let’s call it “factor X.”  Every era has its own “factor X,” but the historical continuity of candy danger tells us that alarms about candy poisonings, whether due to artificial colors or nicotine, are not entirely connected to the actual, measured danger. The image of poison candy is a powerful one: candy is innocence, and the hidden poison, whatever it is, is the seed of corruption.

The latest “factor X” is tobacco, or nicotine. As the tobacco industry defenders have insisted, the actual danger posed by Orbs in the household is pretty minor compared with all the other hazards to the unsupervised child, cleansers, medicines, and the like. The packaging for Orbs and related products is claimed to be child-proof, and the product is sold with warnings, just like aspirin or cold medicine. The latest report suggests something like 600 children a year experience “mild nicotine poisoning.” Hypothetically, if a very young child were to eat a lot of these candies, it could be lethal. But we could say that about a lot of ordinary substances, starting with aspirin. This too is part of the historical pattern: in every era, the intensity of coverage of alleged candy poisoning is far in excess of the actual incidence of real harm.

The other charge critics make is that R.J. Reynolds is involved in a deliberate attempt to appeal to children and hook them on tobacco at a young age. The implication seems to be, if it’ s candy, it must be for children. Although the form of this tobacco candy is  more like Tic Tacs, which kids don’t particularly go for, and not like, say, Sour Warhead Gummis.

R.J. Reynolds knows very well that tobacco is only allowed for adults. If they make a tobacco candy, it is not because they expect to profit from illegal or accidental sales to children. They expect to profit from legal and successful marketing and sales to adults. It is adults who are seen as wanting a “candy” drug, a drug made to seem innocuous because it takes the form of a candy. In today’s youth obsessed culture, the marketing of this product as hip and cool and fun seems aimed at 20 and 30-somethings (it reminds me of the new Wonka campaign). When we have generations of “kiddults” still acting and living like teens, I’m not sure that such marketing indicates a sinister plot to capture kids, as critics have charged, so much as it points out how confused we have become about the differences between adults and children.

I suspect that a lot of the clamor against the idea of tobacco candy has quite a lot to do with our deep Puritan moralism when it comes to drugs and pleasure. If people are going to be addicted to tobacco, they should suffer for it. The idea that there is a benign, pleasant, socially acceptable way to get your tobacco fix seems just wrong.

Transforming a cigarette into a breath mint seems a brilliant solution for a tobacco industry threatened by changing perceptions of their key product. Cigarette smoking has become almost intolerable in many places in our society, and cigarette smokers the new pariahs. Smoking causes premature aging, wrinkles, death. But candy? Candy is about fun, and innocence, and youth. If you could trade in the reviled cigarette for an innocent candy, wouldn’t you?

These days, a lot of smokers would rather not be “smokers.” Everybody, smokers especially, knows how cigarettes damage your body and your health, as well as, in many cases, your career and your social life.  Tobacco candy seems the ideal solution: pleasant tasting, no body is bothered, no embarrassing scene of sucking on a “cancer stick” outside the office building. And as candy, that most innocuous of substances, alternatives like Orbs seem perfectly safe. It’s easy to forget that it’s still tobacco, and still carries significant risks of gum cancer, mouth cancer, and heart disease.

Tobacco candy is just the latest entry in the race to turn everything into candy. When it’s calcium candy or fiber candy or xylitol candy, everybody seems pretty happy. But when it’s tobacco candy, we can begin to discern the problems of making candy something other than candy. Tobacco candy is potentially harmful in a way that calcium candy probably is not, to be sure. But tobacco candy is really just the dark cousin of those more benign drug-candies. Drugs and poisons get mixed in a confusing stew with pleasures and the appearance of innocence.

So far, the test marketing of Orbs hasn’t been very successful. Anecdotal reports from test markets suggest slow sales, and there are no current plans for a national roll-out. It may just be the case that most tobacco users prefer to keep tobacco a little less pleasant, a little less candy like. It may not be as good as quitting, but at least it’ s honest.

Daily people are dying throughout the world of diseases caused by smoking. This package concept shows how close this problem is to us. As every day each smoker carries this problem in his/her pocket. They carry death.

Packaging by R.J. Reynolds

OOOOOOOOHHHH BURN! This ‘Antismoke Pack’ cigarette pack design by R.J. Reynolds turns the cardboard carton into a mini-casket. This subversive packaging creation reminds smokers of the dangers associated with cigarettes each time they reach for one to light up. R.J. Reynolds would also like to mention that they make tons of cash from the cigarettes in the coffin.

Please be advised that the ARG Assets are being offered for sale pursuant to Section 9-610 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Purchasers of the ARG Assets will receive all of ARG’s right, title, and interest in the purchased portion of Hercules’ collateral, which consists of substantially all of ARG’s assets, as provided in the Uniform Commercial Code.

The sale is being conducted with the cooperation of Hercules and ARG. ARG has advised Hercules that it will use its best efforts to make its employees available to assist purchasers with due diligence and assist with a prompt and efficient transition at mutually convenient time.

IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE:

The information in this memorandum does not constitute the whole or any part of an offer or a contract.

The information contained in this memorandum relating to the ARG Assets has been supplied by third parties and obtained from a variety of sources. It has not been independently investigated or verified by Hercules or Gerbsman Partners or their respective agents.

Potential purchasers should not rely on any information contained in this memorandum or provided by Hercules or Gerbsman Partners (or their respective staff, agents, and attorneys) in connection herewith, whether transmitted orally or in writing (the “information”), as a statement, opinion, or representation of fact. Please further note that all information provided herein relating to the operations of ARG’s business and its market positions relates to periods on or prior to March 31, 2009. Interested parties should satisfy themselves through independent investigations as they or their legal and financial advisors see fit.

Hercules and Gerbsman Partners, and their respective staff, agents, and attorneys, (i) disclaim any and all implied warranties concerning the truth, accuracy, and completeness of any information provided in connection herewith and (ii) do not accept liability for the information, including that contained in this memorandum, whether that liability arises by reasons of Hercules’s or Gerbsman Partners’ negligence or otherwise.

Any sale of the ARG Assets will be made on an “as-is,” “where-is,” and “with all faults” basis, without any warranties, representations, or guarantees, either express or implied, of any kind, nature, or type whatsoever from, or on behalf of, Hercules and Gerbsman Partners. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Hercules and Gerbsman Partners, and their respective staff, agents, and attorneys, hereby expressly disclaim any and all implied warranties concerning the condition of the ARG Assets and any portions thereof, including, but not limited to, environmental conditions, compliance with any government regulations or requirements, the implied warranties of habitability, merchantability, or fitness for a particular purpose.

This memorandum contains confidential information and is not to be supplied to any person without Hercules or Gerbsman Partners’ prior consent.

SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL INFORMATION[1]

ARG is an online marketing solutions company specializing in lead generation and customer acquisition. ARG leverages deep vertical knowledge, a database of 20 million consumer records and a proprietary technology platform to deliver qualified leads and closed transactions to advertisers on a pay for performance basis. ARG employs a ‘wide-net’, promotional approach to generate consumer registrations from over 400 proprietary websites. These registrations are converted into qualified leads and sales. At its apex, the company generated over 1.5 million consumer registrations each month.

The company is well-positioned to capitalize on several industry trends – the migration of direct marketers from offline to online; the increased emphasis on accountability and ROI which has fueled the growth of the pay for performance space; and the increased focus on targeting and segmentation.

ARG is a privately held company. ARG (founded in 2000 as eWOMP, Inc.) is headquartered in New York, New York, with Technology offices in Boulder Colorado. To date, ARG has secured over $5 million in equity financing. $2.6 in a Series A secured by eWOMP with the remainder funded by the Company’s CEO, CFO, Board of Directors and a group of sophisticated private investors. The company also raised over $10MM in venture debt financing from Hercules Technology Growth Capital.

Target Market:
Per the IAB, lead generation is the fastest growing segment of the online advertising industry. Lead generation is estimated to grow to $3.7 billion by 2011, up from $1.8 billion in 2007.

Customers:
ARG’s clients range across a broad set of industries, covering over 80 distinct product and service categories. ARG operates a performance driven marketplace and its customer base is vertically agnostic, which allows it to maximize revenue across its strong client base of direct clients, agencies and networks, such as ValueClick, AOL, Q Interactive, IAC, Pfizer, Glaxo Smith Kline, R.J. Reynolds, and Netflix. The accounts receivable base of ARG is diverse, as no client represents over 10% of its accounts receivable balance.

Proprietary Lead Generation Technology – Intellectual Property
ARG’s internally developed software platform, Active Marketing Platform (“AMP”) is a scalable technology solution that enables the company to execute its business model with tremendous efficiency. ARG’s technology dynamically optimizes ROI by measuring the difference between attracting customers to ARG’s sites and the revenue generated from media sources – at a granular level – enabling real time media decisions. The company’s technology is customizable for individual clients to meet specific needs in order strike the optimal balance between quantity and quality. The company’s platform was designed with an open architecture to be both flexible and expandable. An example of the expandability of the platform is a recent development of a module that powers call centers. This enables ARG to utilize an outsourced call center, but maintain operational visibility and manage risk.

ARG technology platform is differentiated from its competitors such as Web Clients, World Avenue, Q Interactive in that AMP takes a consumer centric approach focused on maximizing the value of every customer interaction by serving the optimal ‘basket of offers’ to a distinct consumer based on user-generated, behavioral and attributed data. This data fuels a genetic algorithm that gets smarter over time to maximize the number of times a registrant opts in to an offer.

ARG is further differentiated by its ability to quickly deploy multiple lead generation websites with different and unique branding elements, extend into a call center environment and maximize media dollars spent/minimize risk based on performance at a granular level. ARG has developed several proprietary tools that enables dialing-up or dialing down media sources based on quality and ROI metrics. This ability to ‘feed the winners and starve the losers’ on the fly, yields higher revenue per registrant, produces higher quality for advertisers and results in lower fraud.

THE FOLLOWING FINANCIAL DATA IS PRESENTED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. PAST PERFORMANCE MAY NOT BE INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS. THIS INFORMATION SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON TO MAKE FUTURE PERFORMANCE PROJECTIONS OF ANY KIND.

Summary

· Strong Historical Growth

· Attractive Industry – Fastest growing segment of the online advertising market, well-positioned to capitalize on major shifts in marketing strategies and media budgets

· Best in Class Technology – AMP platform provides a turn key lead generation and transactional marketing solution, which can also be extended to power call center operations

· Proprietary Data Base of over 20 million fully profiled consumers with over 2 billion data points

· Diversified Client Base with Low Concentration

· Excellent Relationships with Media Publishers and Advertisers – long-standing relationships with key players such as Value Click, Advertising.com, Q Interactive and other leading companies

· Opportunity for Future Growth and Margin Improvement – company has made moves to reduce fixed costs and improve marginal profitability making the company poised to scale.

The reasons why the ARG’s assets are attractive are:

ARG has historically experienced strong growth and has been among the leaders in the lead generation space. However, recent working capital constraints and an overly leveraged balance sheet have created the opportunity for all or a portion of ARG’s assets to be sold. The acquisition of these assets can enable the purchaser to realize significant short and long term value from the ARG assets as ARG maintains the ability to quickly scale within the context of sufficient working capital and a stronger balance sheet.

Robust Growth: Since inception, the Company has grown very impressively, with revenues increasing from $1 million to $32 million between 2004 and 2008.

Market Position: The Company is one of the five major players in the online lead generation space in terms of market size and presence. While ARG is the youngest of the five, it has the critical mass, superior technology and operational expertise to be highly successful in the marketplace, which is not true of its smaller competitors.

Proprietary Technology Platform That Can Be Bolted On or Run On a Standalone Basis: The Company’s proprietary technology platform (AMP) provides superior functionality relative to competitive solutions. The platform’s robustness handles extreme traffic loads, offer volatility, and “tech stress” created by many high-volume clients with many different consumer registration profiles simultaneously. Employing sophisticated advertising targeting and dynamic registration path optimization, the AMP possesses integrated additional functionality and analytical tools that support e-commerce, market research and affiliate marketing activities. Furthermore, the platform is capable of accommodating new non-Web communication devices (such as cell phone messaging) as consumer penetration and acceptance of added mobile functionality increases.

Extensive and Diversified Creative Library: To date ARG has developed thousands of websites and customer acquisition creative assets. AMP’s flexible architecture allows for rapid implementation or augmentation of brand and creative design allowing ARG’s creative inventory to be rapidly transplanted to complement existing or newly developed brands or lead generation properties and initiatives.

Diversified Client Base: The Company has over 400 clients engaged in a wide variety of consumer-oriented industries. This allows the Company to maximize the revenue and profitability of the leads it generates by delivering them to the most appropriate client based on expected yield as determined by AMP. In addition, by establishing a diverse customer base, the Company can avoid fluctuation in its revenues caused by adverse changes effecting any particular client industry category.

Agency Approvals: The Company is in compliance with the Interactive Advertising Bureau’s (IAB) newly established standards, which defines online lead generation best practices for US-based advertisers and publishers. The Company is a member of the IAB and sits on its lead generation committee, and it is also a member of the Online Lead Generation Association (OLGA) and the Direct Marketing Association (DMA).

Strong Regulatory Positioning: The Company invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in 2007 to completely overhaul its privacy policies and consumer disclosures to be ahead of the regulatory curve. Since the lead generation space continues to attract regulatory scrutiny, the Company is well-positioned to be operationally unaffected and to benefit, from a competitive standpoint, if any new regulations are initiated with respect to the lead generation business.

Hercules is seeking a buyer of the ARG’s Assets, in whole or in part. Interested parties may bid on all or any part of ARG’s core technology, creative library and customer contracts, enabling the purchaser to leverage ARG’s core technology, creative library, client and vendor relationships and to obtain new sales, enhance revenue streams or accentuate or augment lead generation and performance marketing business unit.

The Bidding Process for interested buyers:

Interested and qualified parties will be expected to sign a nondisclosure agreement (attached hereto as Exhibit A) to have access to key members of the management and intellectual capital teams and the due diligence “war room” documentation (the “Due Diligence Access”). Each interested party, as a consequence of the Due Diligence Access granted to it, shall be deemed to acknowledge and represent (i) that it is bound by the bidding procedures described herein; (ii) that it has an opportunity to inspect and examine the ARG Assets and to review all pertinent documents and information with respect thereto; (iii) that it is not relying upon any written or oral statements, representations, or warranties of Hercules, Gerbsman Partners, or ARG, or their respective staff, agents, or attorneys; and (iv) all such documents and reports have been provided solely for the convenience of the interested party, and Hercules, ARG, and Gerbsman Partners (and their respective, staff, agents, or attorneys) do not make any representations as to the accuracy or completeness of the same.

Following an initial round of due diligence, interested parties will be invited to participate with a sealed bid, for the acquisition of ARG’s Assets. Sealed bids must be submitted so that it is actually received by Gerbsman Partners no later than July 23, 2009 at 3:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) (the “Bid Deadline”) at ARG’s office, located at 104 W 27th St, 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10011. Please email all bids to steve@gerbsmanpartners.com and sharvey@herculestech.com

Bids should identify those assets being tendered for in a specific and identifiable way.

Any person or other entity making a bid must be prepared to provide independent confirmation that they possess the financial resources to complete the purchase where applicable. All bids must be accompanied by a refundable deposit check in the amount of $200,000 (payable to Hercules Technology Growth Capital, Inc.). The winning bidder will be notified within 48 hours of the Bid Deadline. Non-successful bidders will have their deposit returned to them. Hercules reserves the right to, in its sole discretion, accept or reject any bid, or withdraw any or all assets from sale.

Hercules will require the successful bidder to close within a 7-day period. Any or all of the assets of ARG will be sold on an “as is,” “where is” basis, with no representation or warranties whatsoever.

All sales, transfer, and recording taxes, stamp taxes, or similar taxes, if any, relating to the sale of the ARG Assets shall be the sole responsibility of the successful bidder and shall be paid to Hercules at the closing of each transaction.

For additional information, please see below and/or contact:

Steven R. Gerbsman
Gerbsman Partners
415 456 –0628
steve@gerbsmanpartners.com

[1] All information provided herein relating to the operations of ARG’s business and the market positions relates to periods on or prior to March 31, 2009. Interested parties should satisfy themselves through independent investigations as they or their legal and financial advisors see fit.

[2] The biographical information concerning the current management of ARG is included for information purposes only. Although this sale is being conducted with ARG’s cooperation, this sale is strictly an asset sale offered by Hercules as ARG’s senior lender pursuant to Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. HERCULES HAS NO ARRANGEMENT PURSUANT TO WHICH BUYER OF THE ARG ASSETS COULD BE ASSURED OF THE FUTURE SERVICES OF ANY ARG OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES.

http://www.paulsolomon.blogspot.com

Fortunately, leading tobacco manufacturer and evil genius, R.J. Reynolds, has devised a brilliant solution that will benefit both smokers and non.

Dun-duh-duh-duuunnn!

Introducing…tobacco products that conveniently dissolve in the mouth!

Camel Sticks come in the form of a stick, hence the clever name “Stick.”  Camel Orbs are fun little pellets of poison.  Camel Strips bear a resemblance to those Listerine breath strip thing-a-ma-fucks.

Each one of these dissolvable treats melts in your mouth within 30 minutes, the pellet sized Orbs lasting the longest, making them economically, the bestest best choice.  By comparison, these little trips to flavor country far surpass those of a cigarette, not only in longevity, but in strength, too! Typically, a smoker intakes 1 milligram of nicotine.  Camel Sticks, Orbs and Strips deliver up to 3.1 milligrams of nicotine!  Woohoo!  And as an added incentive, these particular smokeless tobacco products are spit free.  POW!  Put that in your pipe and smoke it, you nasty ass chewers!

Thanks to the forward thinking of R.J. Reynolds and the fucked up ethics of our government and it’s factions, i.e. the FDA, millions of people will soon be able to kill themselves more quickly than slowly without slowly killing those around them.

Orbs is a dissolvable tobacco product

Updated: Thursday, 21 May 2009, 6:34 PM EDT
Published : Thursday, 21 May 2009, 5:31 PM EDT

• Leslie Olsen
• Edited by Hyacinth Williams

A famous phrase frequented by President Barack H. Obama has already proved him a liar…or at least a misleader.

The president’s oft said statement of no tax increases for families making less than $200,000 has a loophole…for smokers.

The federal cigarette tax was raised from 39 cents to $1.01 per pack and will go into full effect on April 1. The nearly triple-sized tax comes as a result of the passing of the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorazation Act and funds an expansion of  health care for children of low-income families, according to the Kansas City Business Journal.

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., based in Winston-Salem, has already increased their prices which include the federal increase.

Other tobacco products are under attack from higher taxation including cigars, chewing tobacco and loose tobacco (pipe/roll your own).

In addition to the federal tax, many states are proposing higher cigarette taxes…including North Carolina. Gov. Bev Perdue has announced a plan to raise the state tax by $1 , bringing it to $1.35 per pack.

Many smokers, and Libertarians, believe the smoking tax and other sin taxes should be abolished. Sin taxes on alcohol, tobacco, etc. are used to “punish” the percentage of people who choose to use those products. In most cases, smokers and drinkers are in a lower class than those making the tax laws, which puts an increased burden on them.

The increased tax not only affects smokers, but also has a strong impact on vendors. Small busisnesses such as gas stations rely on cigarette sales. If people stop smoking because of the higher prices, the businesses are stuck with inventory. If less people smoke, then the tobacco companies will have to layoff workers.

Smokers are facing another assualt from the Nanny State by way of smoking bans. Many states, again including North Carolina, are proposing state-wide smoking bans in most public areas. These draconian laws overrule private businesses, open areas and are even seeping into smokers’ personal lives…all for the children.

But aren’t the taxes going to help the children?

In response to the proposed ban in North Carolina, that used to proudy proclaim it was built by tobacco, cigarette giant R. J. Reynolds relased this statement:

“R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, the nation’s second-largest tobacco-products manufacturer, supports smoking restrictions in most public places, but urges the N.C. legislature to exempt adult-only venues like bars and nightclubs from a statewide smoking ban.”

As a smoker, I join radio talk show host Jerry Doyle in lighting one up…for the children.

Garner earned 23 Win Shares in 1979. I�m figuring he won 15 as a second baseman since he spent the first part of the year playing third base before the Pirates traded for Bill Madlock. No scientific method for coming up with that number.
Clearly in the 1970s and early 1980s, Randolph would�ve been a better option at second than either Stennett or Garner. By the mid-80s, Ray�s was nearly the equal of Randolph. But, having Randolph instead of Ray at second (and it pains me to say this because I�m a J-Ray fan) would�ve been an upgrade. I don�t think Randolph was the impact type of player that could make a stinky team a contender. If the Pirates had other, bigger pieces then Randolph could�ve bee a difference maker in the mid-80s.
Jerry Reuss
The Pirates swindled the Astros back in 1973 by trading them Milt May even up for Reuss. May was highly touted by never developed into the standout catcher that he was supposed to become. He did play for a number of years and wound up back in Pittsburgh in the 1980s. Reuss developed into an All-Star. He won 19 games in 1975.
In early April 1979, the Pirates shipped him to the Dodgers for promising youngster Rick Rhoden. Rhoden spent the vast majority of 1979 on the DL with shoulder issues. He rebounded to become a mainstay on the Pirates staff in the 1980s. He was traded to the Yanks after the 1986 season to acquire Doug Drabek and some other players.
Reuss continued to be effective, helping LA win the World Series in 1981. Perhaps he could’ve helped the Pirates in their quest to repeat as NL East champs in 1980. But, by the mid-80s, Rhoden was clearly a better pitcher. Win Shares follow

John Stuper
The Pirates sent Stuper, a Point Park College guy, to the Cardinals in exchange for Tommy Sandt in January 1979. Sandt is best remembered as being a member of Jim Leyland�s coaching staff. Stuper was primarily a starter in St. Louis and tossed a complete game in the 1982 World Series against the Brewers. He wasn’t particularly effective overall and the Cards traded him to Cincy for Paul Householder toward the end of 1984. Stuper was a swingman for the Reds and was traded to Montreal in the package that brought Bill Gullickson to the Queen City in 1986. Stuper never pitched for the Expos. If you mention either Householder, a mainstay on the terrible Reds clubs in 1982 or 1983, or Stuper to my dad, his blood pressure rises 10 points instantly.
Stuper was not an impact pitcher. Not the kind of guy who was going to carry a staff and shut down opposing hitters. Not by any stretch. He didn’t pitch at all in the Show 1986 and had an ERA of 4.83 combined between 1984 and 1985.
Free agents the Pirates missed out on before 1979
Terry Forster
With a full compliment of talented outfielders, the Pirates traded lumbering, but heavy hitting Richie Zisk to the White Sox for Forster and Goose Gossage. Forster spent a rather underwhelming season in the Steel City and left via free agency for LA, where he revived his career. By the mid-80s Forster was a very effective one inning reliever for the Braves and then for the Angels. During this time, he got into a comic war of words with David Letterman who referred to the rotund Forster as a “fat tub of goo”.
Goose Gossage
Gossage, like Forster, spent one year in Pittsburgh. After being used ineffectively as a starter for the ChiSox in 1976, Gossage made the All-Star team as the Pirates closer in 1977 and then bolted for George Steinbrenner’s money. See Sparky Lyle’s legendary book The Bronx Zoo for more on the 1977 season in NYC. Gossage saves 72 games between 1984 and 1986 with the Padres. Both Forster and Gossage would’ve been a big help to the Pirates in the mid-80s if management had been willing to shell out the dough to retain them.
Richie Hebner
The Pirates lost their long time third baseman to cross-state rival Philly after the 1976 season. Four days later the Pirates acquired Chuck Tanner from the A’s and he acquired Phil Garner from his old team in Spring Training in 1977 to man third base. The top player given up in the Garner deal was Tony Armas. By 1984 Hebner was a pinch hitter almost exclusively, appearing in fewer than 50 games in the field combined between 1984 and 1985.
Pete Rose
The top free agent following the 1978 season was Peter Edward Rose. The Pirates were in the running for his services, but ultimately lost out to the Phillies, where he bumped Hebner off the team, forcing the Phils to trade him to the Mets. The Galbreath family, who owned the Bucs at the time, was into thoroughbred race horses. I think I read somewhere once that Rose liked to play the ponies. Maybe I’m wrong about that. Anyway, part of the proposed contract would’ve been a couple of horses for Rose. It didn’t work out. By the mid-80s, Rose was a shadow of himself as a player. He returned to his hometown to chase the career hits record and took playing time from Nick Esasky in the process.
The Theoretical Mid-80s Pirates
Here’s an alphabetical list of players who were active in 1984, 1985 and/or 1986 and were once on the Pirates roster that were either traded or lost via free agency prior to 1979. The players I think that would’ve been an improvement to the club in the mid-80s are in bold.
Tony Armas
Doug Bair
Kurt Bevacqua
Bryan Clark
Miguel Dilone
Terry Forster
Gene Garber
Goose Gossage
Richie Hebner
Rick Honeycutt
Art Howe
Odell Jones
Al Oliver
Willie Randolph
Jerry Reuss
Craig Reynolds
John Stuper
Ed Whitson
If the Pirates
1. prior to 1979 made every good trade and did not make any bad trades or let anybody go via free agency that was going to be valuable in the mid-80s and
2. after 1979 made all the bad moves that happened
you’d have a team that looked like this over the three year span of 1984, 1985 and 1986:
C Tony Pena
1B Jason Thompson/Sid Bream
2B Willie Randolph
SS Craig Reynolds
3B Bill Madlock/Jim Morrison
OF Tony Armas
OF Marvell Wynne/Barry Bonds
OF Lee Lacy/Joe Orsulak/R.J. Reynolds
SP John Candelaria
SP Rick Honeycutt
SP Rick Rhoden
SP John Tudor/Rick Reuschel
SP Larry McWilliams/Jose DeLeon
RP Gene Garber
RP Goose Gossage
RP Cecilio Guante
RP Don Robinson
RP Rod Scurry
RP Kent Tekulve
I think a club like that would’ve been okay. That would’ve been a stellar bullpen and a pretty tough rotation. The offense would’ve struggled still, but been better with Armas and Randolph around. Most likely they wouldn’t have been in last three years running, but they would’ve struggled to win the division in any of the three years in question as both the 1985 Cards and 1986 Mets won better than 100 games.
However, this is a lot of ifs. No front office, not even with the best staff, scouting and player development people, can make nothing but lopsided deals in their favor. With two exceptions, the trades that were made in the 1970s were good ones. The only clearly bad trades were the Randolph trade and the Honeycutt trade. I argued that swapping Garber for Jim Rooker was a bad move, but that wasn’t terribly one sided. It could be said that the Pirates gave up too much for Phil Garner. But the acquisition of Bert Blyleven, Mike Easler, Tim Foli, Grant Jackson, Bill Madlock, Bill Robinson and Enrique Romo were all trades that worked out well for the Pirates.
In the remainder of this (never ending) series, I’ll look at the trades that followed 1979 and the Pirates draft history to uncover why the mid-1980s Pirates really were terrible.

But Kimberly-Clark stuck with both, and eventually, the products found a market. Persistence is often touted as the universal solution to overcome failure, as dictated by all those locker room edicts. Sometimes it works — yogurt was a niche foodstuff for infants and invalids until the dairy industry, finally, after years of trying, found a way to sell it.

Sometimes, though, perseverance only worsens failure–call it the Vietnam Syndrome. DuPont spent a quarter billion dollars in 1960s cash before it admitted that Corfam, its synthetic leather substance, was not the right material to use in shoes. R.J. Reynolds lost even more on its “smokeless” Premiere cigarette, relentlessly pouring resources into the doomed product, despite obvious drawbacks: The cigarettes were expensive to make, impossible to light with a match, difficult to keep lit and tasted like “burning plastic.”

More later…

brian patrick cork

La 2003/33/CE è la più importante legislazione in materia di lotta al fumo e tutela della salute pubblica e la Costituzione italiana al primo comma dell’articolo 32 sancisce: “La Repubblica tutela la salute come fondamentale diritto dell’individuo e interesse della collettività”. Per non dire dell’adesione italiana alla Convenzione quadro dell’OMS sul controllo del tabacco particolarmente sensibile alle conseguenze sui giovani della sponsorizzazione di eventi sportivi da parte di produttori di sigarette. A tale proposito non manca chi, come il Codacons, l’ex ministro della salute Girolamo Sirchia e l’Assotabaccai, fa notare da tempo che l’inerzia del governo è sintomo di forti pressioni delle lobby del tabacco composte dalle grandi multinazionali produttrici e distributrici di sigarette oltre che da giornalisti, uomini politici e dirigenti di amministrazioni pubbliche. Non è un caso, hanno sottolineato più volte al VELINO dal Codacons, che la Formula 1 e il motomondiale, particolarmente seguiti dal pubblico italiano (si parla di una media di 28 milioni ad evento), siano sponsorizzati dai maggiori produttori di tabacco e che la rassegna stampa sportiva del lunedì mattina si trasformi in un plateale spot per le più famose marche di bionde senza che l’Amministrazione autonoma dei monopoli di Stato commini le multe previste per legge. Basta sfogliare, ad esempio, la Repubblica, Il Corriere della Sera, Il Messaggero, per rendersi conto di quali siano gli interessi in ballo per la Philip Morris o la RJ Reynolds (che producono rispettivamente Marlboro e Camel), ha denunciato ripetutamente il presidente del Codacons, Marco Ramadori: “Certi eventi sportivi sono emanazione diretta delle multinazionali del tabacco e stanno ancora in piedi solo per pubblicizzare sigarette”. E questo succede, pare di capire, con l’avallo dello Stato.

(Il Velino agenzia stampa quotidiana nazionale) Federico Tulli

A sua volta, il vice presidente di Assotabaccai, Lamberto Lasagni, nella sua intervista del 19 settembre scorso aveva dichiarato al VELINO: “La presenza sui giornali di tutte queste foto a marchi di sigarette, come Fortuna, Camel, Marlboro, stampati sulle tute o sulle moto dei corridori motociclistici, quando a noi lo Stato proibisce di regalare ai clienti un accendino per ogni stecca di sigarette perché invoglia a fumare, la dice lunga sul potere dei soggetti privati che gestiscono il mercato del tabacco in Italia”. Oggetto dell’accusa del vicepresidente di Assotabaccai Lamberto Lasagni sono i grandi produttori di sigarette e Logista, la società spagnola che gestisce da monopolista privato la distribuzione dei lavorati al tabacco in virtù dei contratti stipulati con le aziende produttrici (Philip Morris, British American Tobacco, RJ Reynolds, Japan Tobacco, etc) che operano in Italia. Quello della pubblicità indiretta alle marche da fumo attraverso i media, di cui si trova continuamente traccia sui giornali non è, racconta Lasagni al VELINO, “l’unico esempio di strapotere delle multinazionali: un discorso analogo va fatto sul costo dei pacchetti di sigarette. Può sembrare un paradosso, ma se fosse troppo alto i produttori e quindi Logista, guadagnerebbero di meno perché venderebbero di meno. E allora, visto che il costo del pacchetto in Italia è tra i più bassi del mondo, in pratica si può dire che, fatto salvo il prezzo minimo a 3,20 euro, l’Amministrazione Autonoma dei Monopoli di Stato non decide nulla che non sia di gradimento di Logista. E questo accade col benestare dei produttori, ma anche dell’altra associazione, la Federazione italiana tabaccai, visto che è azionista per il cinque per cento proprio della società spagnola”. Dunque, ricapitolando, il mercato italiano del tabacco è composto da BAT e PM, che vendono oltre il 90 per cento dei circa 93 miliardi di sigarette fumate in Italia, da poche altre aziende che si dividono il restante dieci per cento, da un unico distributore che gestisce tutti i depositi fiscali, e da due associazioni che rappresentano i tabaccai, di cui una è azionista del monopolista privato che rifornisce le 55 mila rivendite di sigarette. Alla luce di questo, considerando lo smisurato potere economico dei soggetti in campo – aziende che fatturano decine di miliardi di euro l’anno – si spiega come mai trovi enormi difficoltà nel raggiungere gli obiettivi sperati ogni campagna pubblica di disincentivo al fumo. Come quella che si tradusse nel 2004 nella decisione del governo di fissare i prezzi minimi sui pacchetti di sigarette. Una conferma di insuccesso che arriva anche dalle parole di Lasagni.

“Ovviamente – precisa il vice presidente di Assotabaccai al VELINO – noi pensiamo che ognuno debba essere libero di fumare ma, a parte quel sei per cento che ha smesso per via della legge Sirchia, non abbiamo notato particolari rinunce dei fumatori di fronte all’imposizione di un prezzo del pacchetto che parte da 3,20 euro”. Una mossa, questa del governo che, favorendo il consumo di sigarette di qualità, oramai poco più costose di quelle scadenti, da una parte ha fatto scattare una procedura dell’Unione europea contro l’Italia per aver infranto la direttiva che regola la concorrenza, dall’altra risulta inefficace anche di fronte agli studi pubblicati tra il 1999 e il 2006 da Banca mondiale, Organizzazione mondiale della sanità e Istituto superiore di sanità. Ognuna di queste analisi è giunta alla conclusione che i fumatori diminuiscono in proporzione di un forte aumento del prezzo del pacchetto, e che a permettere il successo dell’operazione è l’inasprimento delle accise e non l’imposizione di prezzi minimi seppur alti. “È una tesi – conclude Lasagni – che in parte condivido. Sono dell’idea che chi fuma pagherebbe anche dieci euro, ma certo non si disincentiva il fumo fissando prezzi che portano il costo delle marche minori ad un solo euro di differenza da quello delle più famose”.

(Il Velino agenzia stampa quotidiana nazionale) Federico Tulli