Tobacco Advertising & Govt Meddling

[hroark]

I posted this at F1-Live and afterwards decided it came out quite coherent and well-thought out (unlike most of my ramblings) and decided to share it with you...
__________________________

I am not a smoker now and never have been. Ever since I was a teenager I have hated second-hand smoke. I have to tell you that I resent this socialist trend where governments meddle and try to tell their citizens how to run their lives.

If the people want to kill themselves slowly by being smokers, "let them", I say. The world already has too many idiots.

Some say its about the teens. If someone actually believes that banning tobacco adv on F1 cars is going to keep teens from smoking, they dont have a clear understanding of how the teen mind works.

Futhermore, there is plenty of anti-tobacco advertising out there informing the ignorant what should appear obvious etcept to the very stupid: inhaling smoke (of any kind) is not natural and your lungs were not designed for it. In other words, its bad for you.

In my view, the real greedy MF's are the ones suing the tobacco companies. The only ones entitled to any money from these suits are the ones that started smoking before the health warnings were printed on the cartons. If you started smoking afterwards, its your own damn fault and you have no one to blame.

These greedy MF's fall under the same category of those bastards suing McDonalds for making them fat.

[Henrik]

I'm a smoker, but I agree with you entirely.

Actually I would probably take it all even further. If governments are so determined to remove all tobacco advertisement and sponsorship, and are also making it illegal to smoke at more and more places, why don't they just make tobacco illegal completely. At least the situation would be clear then.

The only problem then is that a black market would be created, and the governments would no longer be making their big bucks from the tobacco taxes.

Something that has always bothered me is how in airports smoking is now totally banned. Okay, there are still some that have tiny smoke rooms, but still. Yet they all have shops selling huge quantities of cigarettes. Why? Because they make money out of it. Again, either they allow for smoking and continue selling cigarettes, or they ban smoking and also stop selling cigarettes.

As for the idiots suing tobacco companies, they should actually be counter-sued for extorsion attempts.

Now where is my lighter....

[glendo]

just like the fat arses in the world suing Mcdonalds etc. for making them fat:



im sure mcdonalds dint tie you down, and force you to eat those triple pattie buns every week. i am sure sure you did it on your own.


then they say the manipulate the customer by making it taste good, or coherse people into buying their products....


LOSER

trying to blame someone else when the shit hits the fan.....

[Senninha]

Ok, I wrote the following elsewhere on the topic a while ago, and I think it sums up my feelings mainly on the subject of tobacco sponsorship.

I will add though, on the government part (as below is, as ever, concentrated on the motorsport issue!) - that the government seems only interested in makign people believe that they do not want people to smoke. Then they go and up the tax on cigarettes to get more money - which they like very mcuh so, therefore, want them to smoke. Doh! Alwyas the case, they are more interested in votes than values... grrr!

A few things. To be honest I think non-tobacco sponsorship attracts more attention than tobacco sponsorship. Eg. I wait every year for the non-tobacco F1 events to see what Jordan can come up with. I remember Hockenheim 1997, when I first saw "Fissssssi" and I thought it was brilliant. Because there is no clear line, and one week we have it, the next we don't, it attracts more attention. From the PC side, would it not be better to either have full tobacco sponsorship evrywehre, or none anywhere - having a bit of both, just 'increases' the expsosure.

Secondly. Tobacco sponsorship doesn't make you go out and buy cigarettes. I 'support' Marlboro as a company, simply because I feel that they have put a lot of money into motor sport over the years, and I applaud them for that (even if their reasons aren't equal with mine) but I don't smoke, and it doesn't make me want to smoke! But, they could maybe have tempted me to buy their goods over other ones should I have chosen to smoke.

Thirdly. I don't think people should try to stop people from smoking. In public places, perhaps, try and discourage those to stop smoking around non-smokers. But as far as it goes, so long as people are AWARE of what it can do to them, let them do what they like. If they are intelligent enough to make that decision, good luck to them (ok, that doesn't apply so much to kids but...)

Fourthly. When I was a kid, I thought Marlboro McLaren was just a name. I didn't know what Marlboro was - I thought it was like, say, Escort in Ford Escort. McLaren made the car, Marlboro was it's name. Now maybe if they'd changed to bigger sponsorship of another team I might have realised they were something else, but I swear I never knew what they were!!

Finally, at the British GP this year, I was surprised that the MarlboroF1 signs (sorry, I'm not trying to sell them here, but they seem to be very good for examples!! - guess it shows how much money goes in!!) were still present on a few corners. So, let me get this straight - we weren't allowed to read the names on the cars (but could buy magazines with pictures of them with tobacco sponsorship on, in!!) but we could also read the lovely signs with tobacco sponsorship on. I always found it ironic as well, that F1 cars could run tobacco logos at testing at Silverstone, but not in the grand prix....

Inconsistent sponsorship... Advertising works though I think, but only to sell your product. A non-smoker isn't going to buy cigs if they aren't gonna smoke them. And kids, IMO, are more likely to try and be like Michael Schumacher, than some logo on the side of his car...

[who won]

I'm 50 - 50 on the topic. Sure people should be more resposnible for their own actions, we're not all victims, we have the right to choose, however young teens, are extremely susceptible to suggestion and image and have the desire to fit in. I remember as a young teen finding the marlboro brand cool.

the only reason people begin smoking is for image. I challenge anyone to tell me that they enjoyed their first cigarette. Never. Its disgusting. They probably coughed up a lung when they first inhaled.
So why did they have a second cigarette the following week? Not enjoyment, they weren't addicted already, it was the image they liked. I cant think of another good reason that they would have another cigarrette at that point. They are aware of the dangers, but also the dislike of the product, probably assured them in their own minds that they would not get themselves addicted to smoking, they dont like it enough. Little did they know, very rapidly, they were getting addicted beyond their control. before they were smart enough to know better.

A couple more cigarettes later and and they're addicted.
At that point, (for the majority of people) I separate smoking from fast food. Smoking contains one of the most addictive drugs in the world and that makes it extremely difficult for anyone to give up. Its is beyond many peoples will power to kick the habit despite most peoples countless attempts.

Perhaps it isnt the case for you Henrik, but I'm guessing you've attempted several times to give up but possibly resigned yourself to the fact that its not going to happen any time soon.


Taxing cigarrettes is a good revenue stream for governmets, but regardless of their motives, it is a factor that does help encourage people to make an increased effort to give up. Its not something to be sneered at.

My opinion is that smoking is a disgusting habit and, personally, I would rather it were banned entirely. The world and many people would be far better off without it
Going to bars in New York has never been more pleasant since the bar ban and i'm sure less people smoke as a result.

Smoking is addictive, but it is mental addiction rather than physical. It is based upon association, and so take away that association, ie drinking, and you forget about smoking.

[daSilva]

Hello Beef (who won).

I would agree with Hroark completely on this topic. I honestly don't see how event sponsorship or branding a car affects the general public other than name recognition. It is up to the individual to smoke and it is up to the individual to quit.

The government should have controlled the purity and additives of cigarettes a long time ago, but they didn't. Banning smoking or prohibition will not work either, that has been proven in many instances. Frankly and what most people fail to realise is that tobacco taxes generate far more income than is used by health care systems, so claiming the financial burden on the medical system as a reason to ban smoking is really not valid.

As far as lawsuits go I really don't believe ignorance is a valid reason to sue, consumer beware, anyone who thinks inhaling smoke down into their lungs is going to be ok is an idiot and deserves nothing!

[Henrik]

I agree that smoking as a disgusting habit, and although I have not attempted to completely stop smoking, I have attempted to radically reduce the number of cigarettes per day. Nevertheless, it is beside the point. Cigarettes are highly addictive and bad for you. The fact that I fell for them all those years back is not something I am proud for, and that is indeed one of the few things I would have done differently in my life. Yet I still very much enjoy lighting up, especially after a good meal or together with a nice espresso.

Now, since it is such a bad thing, and the governments all want to reduce the consumption, especially when it comes to kids, then I say outlaw tobacco. It will not erradicate it, but it will considerably reduce it. Problem is, I don't think there is one government today ready to live without the tax income they get today from tobacco sales.

[daSilva]

In my above post I was not refering to smokers as idiots but only those that attempt to sue.

[Wycco]

Just to add my voice to the consensus:

Don't smoke, never smoked, think smoking isn't smart- considering the health risks.

HOWEVER: It is my fundamental belief that all people have the right to choose what they believe, what they think, and what they choose to do- in and so long as, they don't harm others in the process. (case could be made for banning smoking in public places- however, due to 2nd hand smoke)

I don't think the government should interfere with one industry by taxing it higher/ banning advertisements...etc...etc...etc...

There is nothing wrong with the government having "educate the public about the risk" campaigns- but banning advertisements crosses the line with me.

[Topcontender]

Same here, I have never smoked and I think the Tobacco Legislation is a joke. We are now seeing the repercusions in the USA of the tobacco settlements. To start the States all had lawsuits against "big tobacco" and some held out to collect billions to pay for tobacco destruction, medical problems, and to educate teens not to smoke. What really happened was that less than 5% of that money actaully went to the places it was suppose to go. The states basically extorted money from the Tobacco companies, to get some free money. NOw since the states pissed all that money away to fund thier pet projects, many are in real debt becuase they have to fund those programs. NOw the states want to sue Microsoft in the same manner. I am no fan of Gates, but the states are screwing him just like the big tobacco companies.

NOw we got a situation where states are passing laws telling businesses that they can't allow smoking. Florida, Cali, and NY have these laws. However, thank god for Florida, they basically ignore the law.

Ads on cars- Whoever thinks that putting a few stickers on a car is gonna kill people, needs to be slapped back to reality. Canada is going to loose $40-50mil becuase of a few stickers pissed a few guys off in the parliament. That is like $2 or $3 dollars for every person in canada! These commies in office need to look at the economic situation first.

[hroark]

My problem with it is the idea or rather the principle of a government, mind you, a "Big Brother" considering itself to be "all knowing" and telling its citizens how to live their lives, down to the most miniscule of details.

With the etception of speed limits, Im a law abiding person. Im no anarchist, mind you, but I have always been in favour of having less government. Less government employees, and less interference of them in our lives.

I dont trust any politician as far as I could throw him/her. I believe them to be mostly evil, two-faced, power-hungry, mooches with a bit too much time on their hands.

Whats next? How many things out there are positively not good for us but we enjoy anyway?

Forget the really obvious one: alcohol. Just about everything in excess is bad for us.

Hagen Dasz Ice Cream? I bet if any one of us went on an only Hagen Dazs Ice Cream diet we'd have a heart attack in a matter of months.

They are going to outlaw red meat? Dairy products? Cheesecake? Tight jeans and underwear? Porn? Really short skirts (may cause traffic accidents)?

Less is more.

[Wycco]

hroark said:

They are going to outlaw red meat? Dairy products? Cheesecake? Tight jeans and underwear?

I always try to warn my wife about the dangers of wearing underwear- but does she listen...

Oh nooooooo!

[who won]

They are going to outlaw red meat? Dairy products? Cheesecake? Tight jeans and underwear? Porn? Really short skirts (may cause traffic accidents)?

Well, they havent outlawed smoking, but nevertheless, I dont think you can find any reports that could claim smoking has any benefits for you and no one disagrees with any of the reports that have proven their obvious destructive effects. There is a direct link between smoking and countless terminal and several lesser diseases, including impotence, - that should be reason enough for anyone to quit.

Red meat on the other hand is hardly in the same league as smoking, it can actually do you good in moderation, though there is some suggested link to cancer and other diseases.

Should they ban it? No, not yet anyway, perhaps they can do that in 100 years or so as attitudes continue to evlove but first they should consider banning cigarettes.

Back to the topic, I do think that people at impressionable ages should be protected from certain bad influences. You cannot put everything down to personal choice. Mistakes are made and at a young age we should be helped in avoiding making those mistakes. It is usually the job of the parents to do that job but many parents do not do that, and even the best sometimes cant.
The glamourising of cigarettes is one area that some politicians/experts/whoever believe leaves children/ impressionable young people, at risk of becoming a smoker.

They might well be wrong, perhaps the bill boards do nothing, but thats the general argument.

F1 is glamorous
children are impressionable
we, as a society surely have an obligation to protect children from making mistakes that are so damaging to their health and are known to be so addictive that it is likely that a mistkae made early in life is likely to continue late into life too.

Smoking isnt something you just do, it is someone you become thanks to some early mistake.

Is F1 advertising to blame? I dont know

[Henrik]

It is usually the job of the parents to do that job but many parents do not do that, and even the best sometimes cant.

Perhaps people wishing to have children should be scrutanized in the same way those who wish to adopt are prior to actually having children. It may be extreme, but it would certainly help to improve the life of many kids....

[daSilva]

Henrik said:

Perhaps people wishing to have children should be scrutanized in the same way those who wish to adopt are prior to actually having children. It may be extreme, but it would certainly help to improve the life of many kids....

The most important job in the world and any moron can do it. Perhaps the Catholic church isn't so wrong after all. LMAO.