Should cigarette advertising be allowed?

gaffer91

Was having an interesting discussion the other day with a chap who believed banning cigarette advertising was a bad policy move. Basically his argument was, among other things, that it would be a big income generator, that cigarettes do not cost the economy between taxes and money saved on welfare, that just because something is incredibly harmful does not mean advertising of such a thing should be illegal and that it would be feasible enough to prevent children being exposed to the advertising (e.g by only allowing advertising in 18's films for instance or the likes).

Having been brought up in an era where cigarettes advertising has been banned I obviously was conditioned to take the opposing view. My main arguments were that cigarette smoke harms third parties and that while banning cigarettes would be an immoral infringement on liberty banning while banning advertising is not really in the same league.

Having said that I did find some of his views compelling so I'm open to persuasion here. I'm still marginally on the side that it should be banned.

So what do you think?

Matt_Trakker

fags are cool

4zn76tysfajdxp

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

fags are cool

Reported for shilling.

krudler

Well people who smoke aren't to suddenly stop because there are no ads, and people who don't smoke don't suddenly take it up because of an advert so its kinda pointless. they should make them like they were in the 50's for comedic effect. "cigarettes prevent cancer! ask your doctor"

foxyboxer

It's an interesting viewpoint in terms of revenue generation.

By law, all packets need to display warnings "Smoking is addictive", "Smoking causes lung cancer" etc, then if people, young people, choose to still smoke (assuming they can read), get addicted as a result then that's their own fault.

Assuming that any advertising carries such warnings then I don't see the problem with advertising them at all.

DrumSteve

if they can advertise beer they should be allowed advertise smokes... plus everyone remembers how cool F1 and snooker were when they sponsored them.

non smoker btw.

Brendan Flowers

http://formularacingminiatures.com/sblog/images/jordan_j199.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2514/3699925947_0723471184.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2065/2151135863_e26228aa34.jpg

I'm totally against smoking but here's a few perfect examples of why cigarette advertising should definitely be allowed

Jason Todd

I want to say no, it shouldn't be allowed but I can't back it up with any certainty, part of me would be interested in seeing what kind of marketing campaigns would come about. I'm sure if it were to happen then it would be obliged to meet certain conditions like "not making it cool", or featuring 'social situations' like alcohol advertising does.

Either way, I'm off the damn things 2 months today and don't ever want to go back on them! **** you nicotine! You sweet sweet bastard!

Shryke

Probably tbh. False advertising or advertising that gives no real detail of a product is what annoys me. So this car... It turns into a dancing robot.... Correct?

foxyboxer

This year, Laramie is sponsoring the Little Miss Springfield Pageant.You see, government regulations prohibit us from advertising on TV.

[takes a puff on a cigarette and holds up the box]

Ah, that sweet Carolina smoke!

gaffer91

foxyboxer wrote: »

It's an interesting viewpoint in terms of revenue generation.

Yeah, cigarette companies would presumably be very keen to advertise alright, the government could easily slap a 20% extra charge on all their ads and make some easy money.

Matt_Trakker

Terry Elegant Sock wrote: »

Reported for shilling.

what's shilling?
couldn't find an appropriate definition here

beertons

gaffer91 wrote: »

Yeah, cigarette companies would presumably be very keen to advertise alright, the government could easily slap a 20% extra charge on all their ads and make some easy money.

The government isn't that clever though.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Professional snooker certainly took a hit when the advertising was outlawed. It hasn't really recovered at all since.

Did it have the same impact on F1? I know that Ferrari continued to be subtlety sponsored by Marlboro by removing the font and keeping the iconic brand design on their cars.

crazy cabbage

Anyone i know who took up smoking did so becouse it is easier to chat up the women in the smoking area. Ya can ask them for a light... and take from there

Ya cant really go out to a smoking area and just stand there.

Having said that i wouldn't touch the stuff. I dont need the cigs

Bob the Seducer

Well, when there was cigarette advertising you had the Irish Masters snooker on tv every year and an Irish Formula 1 team, they banned cigarette advertising and now we have neither.

Dangerous Man

Bob the Seducer wrote: »

Well, when there was cigarette advertising you had the Irish Masters snooker on tv every year and an Irish Formula 1 team, they banned cigarette advertising and now we have neither.

This rock keeps away bears.

Samich

They make money for the government. If it was illegal to buy fags now, they would be looked at like cannabis.

wilkie2006

I think a ban on tobacco advertising is absolutely correct. If ads were legal there'd be a hell of a lot more smokers (and before anyone disputes that, consider why a cigarette company would even want to advertise, given that their current customers don't require advertisements).

Also, I don't think that it makes sense to say "if alcohol can be advertised then cigarette ads should be legal too". They're both massively dangerous substances and actually booze companies probably shouldn't be allowed to market themselves through the media either.

Bob the Seducer

Dangerous Man wrote: »

This rock keeps away bears.

But does it subsidise prize money or provide a key funding stream?

foxyboxer

wilkie2006 wrote: »

I think a ban on tobacco advertising is absolutely correct. If ads were legal there'd be a hell of a lot more smokers (and before anyone disputes that, consider why a cigarette company would even want to advertise, given that their current customers don't require advertisements).

Also, I don't think that it makes sense to say "if alcohol can be advertised then cigarette ads should be legal too". They're both massively dangerous substances and actually booze companies probably shouldn't be allowed to market themselves through the media either.

But if John Player Blue called and asked if you would put a sticker on the side of your car (like a taxi), and said they'd pay you 750 euro a month would you accept it?

I know I would.

Turpentine

wilkie2006 wrote: »

I think a ban on tobacco advertising is absolutely correct. If ads were legal there'd be a hell of a lot more smokers (and before anyone disputes that, consider why a cigarette company would even want to advertise, given that their current customers don't require advertisements).

Also, I don't think that it makes sense to say "if alcohol can be advertised then cigarette ads should be legal too". They're both massively dangerous substances and actually booze companies probably shouldn't be allowed to market themselves through the media either.

Because each company wants existing smokers to smoke their brand, not the competitions.

Has there actually been much of a reduction in the percentage of the population who smoke since the ban on advertising?

Chuck Stone

NO.

It's a terrible idea. By all means allow people to smoke but lets not allow the advertising industry to present it as a desirable thing to do - it isn't - it's a nasty addiction that reduces the quality of your life hugely.

gaffer91 wrote: »

it would be a big income generator, that cigarettes do not cost the economy between taxes and money saved on welfare

There is no proof of this claim. Even if it were true (which it isn't) it would still be an immoral way of generating revenue for the state.

foxyboxer

Let the cigarette companies advertise! I want to see really fast cars driving around in circles!

girl in the striped socks

I don't see what difference it would make tbh.
However I would encourage putting photos of withered lungs & other nasty things on the pack to deter people.
That guy who died of lung cancer aged 34(not sure of age) would be ideal. One photo of him on the front looking in good health & happy. The other photo on the back of him lying literally in his death bed looking like a skeleton. Photo was taken 10 weeks apart or something.

wendell borton

Yes. The best race car liveries are all fag company ones. Personal faves being the john player Lotus and Rothmans rally.

gaffer91

Chuck Stone wrote: »

NO.

It's a terrible idea. By all means allow people to smoke but lets not allow the advertising industry to present it as a desirable thing to do - it isn't - it's a nasty addiction that reduces the quality of your life hugely.

I did draw a distinction in my OP between advertising and consumption of cigarettes in terms of liberty. But you can't deny some of the arguments are compelling.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

NO.

There is no proof of this claim. Even if it were true (which it isn't) it would still be an immoral way of generating revenue for the state.

Here. It is common policy for people who dislike "vice" activities such as smoking, drug taking, alcohol use or consumption of fatty foods to only cite what such activities cost the state, with no mention of how much they would or could generate.

As for "immoral"- surely as a man in favour of drug legalisation, like me, you realise that legislating your personal morals on others is nearly always a bad thing? I don't see how morals come into it. Would you be in favour of not allowing McDonalds or Burger King advertise for instance?

marcsignal

gaffer91 wrote: »

So what do you think?

NO, and i say that as a smoker.

I do think pubs should have completely separate comfortable smoking areas tho, properly ventilated, with no floor service. Smoking will eventually disappear, why advertise it ??

For the health of future generations, imo, we should ban fast food advertising, and raise the price of your average fast food meal to 15 or 20 Euro. We're facing a diabetes time bomb that will dwarf smoking related illnesses in the next 20 years. The time to take action on that is now.

Chuck Stone

gaffer91 wrote: »

As for "immoral"- surely as a man in favour of drug legalisation, like me, you realise that legislating your personal morals on others is nearly always a bad thing? I don't see how morals come into it. Would you be in favour of not allowing McDonalds or Burger King advertise for instance?

I'm all for legalisation of drugs but I'm not for a free for all though (that's where people get me wrong). Also, the corporations and the advertising industry aren't interested in telling the truth - all they're interested in is making money and if that means lying, selling unattainable dreams, and trying to frighten people into buying shit they don't need they don't care so **** 'em.

Fwiw I don't think fast food places should be allowed to target children on children's TV. Kids are impressionable and should be protected from mind manipulation (which is essentially what advertising is).


Eidt: I discussed the economic 'benefit' of smokers dying slow deaths from horrible diseases here.

nlgbbbblth

I still refer to sporting events by their sponsors' prefix.

Embassy (World Snooker), Carrolls (Irish Open), Benson and Hedges (Irish Masters).

As an ex-smoker I'd have no issue with the companies being permitted to advertise.

wilkie2006

Turpentine wrote: »

Because each company wants existing smokers to smoke their brand, not the competitions.

That's quite clever, actually.

While I see the point you're making, I wonder would smokers move between varieties so easily? I mean, all the smokers I've known - me included - have been very, very brand loyal; if a pub didn't sell your brand then you'd walk over to the nearest shop, even in the rain.

mcmoustache

Has the ban on advertising had a significant effect on consumption?

the bolt

wilkie2006 wrote: »

I think a ban on tobacco advertising is absolutely correct. If ads were legal there'd be a hell of a lot more smokers (and before anyone disputes that, consider why a cigarette company would even want to advertise, given that their current customers don't require advertisements).

Also, I don't think that it makes sense to say "if alcohol can be advertised then cigarette ads should be legal too". They're both massively dangerous substances and actually booze companies probably shouldn't be allowed to market themselves through the media either.

i have never met anyone who took up smoking because the saw an advert for a paticular brand of cigerette,and as a smoker i have never seen an advert that would make me switch brands.

wilkie2006

the bolt wrote: »

i have never met anyone who took up smoking because the saw an advert for a paticular brand of cigerette,and as a smoker i have never seen an advert that would make me switch brands.

But when was the last time you saw an ad for cigarettes? All current smokers started for other reasons. Advertising would definitely have an impact on those who haven't already started.

the bolt

wilkie2006 wrote: »

But when was the last time you saw an ad for cigarettes? All current smokers started for other reasons. Advertising would definitely have an impact on those who haven't already started.

there was advertising when i was younger but it didnt make me take up the weed(peer presure maybe)so why not advertise.

Richard Hillman

I believe whilst the country is in the **** financially that we should allow it. Possibly for a period of 5 years or so. It will create much needed revenue for both businesses and tax income.

wilkie2006

the bolt wrote: »

there was advertising when i was younger but it didnt make me take up the weed(peer presure maybe)so why not advertise.

Yes, but the point of advertising is to increase sales. If it didn't work companies wouldn't do it.

EDIT: I don't think it would make all non-smokers smoke - there will always be people like yourself who have no interest - but I suspect it would influence a lot of people who would otherwise have given tobacco a wide berth.

SocSocPol

The ban should stay, and it should be extended to other dangerous substances such as alcohol.
Banning advertising does have an effect on future consumption, advertising unhealthy and dangerous activities such as smoking as cool, hip or stylish is pure stupid.

Cú Giobach

It's quite simple, advertising works, otherwise companies wouldn't spend millions on it, therefore if people want to increase the amount of smokers advertise, if not don't.
Though I'm a smoker and HATE people who pontificate to me or use expressions like "I'm against smoking" (mind your own fucking business), it would seem stupid deliberately trying to increase the number of people who smoke because it is very unhealthy.

up for anything

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

what's shilling?
couldn't find an appropriate definition here

shill/SHil/
Noun: An accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others.
Verb: Act or work as such a person: "your husband in the crowd could shill for you".

I guess that Frada was using shilling in this context.

As a smoker I see less adults smoking but the teenagers are still taking to it like ducks to water. In fact, I would say that there are a lot more 13-16 year olds smoking than there were when I was that age. I don't base that on any survey or official figures but on what I see on a daily basis.

CruelCoin

Not going to dig up the figures, but it was shown somewhere that in order to pay for the health effects of each pack of fags, tax would have to be increased untill they hit €10 per pack. At that point they start paying for themselves, and i stop subsidising someone elses cancer.

So, below €10 per pack i'm against ads, above €10 i'm all for it, knock yourself out.

Cú Giobach

CruelCoin wrote: »

Not going to dig up the figures, but it was shown somewhere that in order to pay for the health effects of each pack of fags, tax would have to be increased untill they hit €10 per pack. At that point they start paying for themselves, and i stop subsidising someone elses cancer.

So, below €10 per pack i'm against ads, above €10 i'm all for it, knock yourself out.

Tell me do you have this attitude to all injuries or illness caused by other peoples lifestyles, from those who are involved in adventure sports, drive motorbikes, eat too much, or even women who hurt themselves wearing high heeled shoes or is it something you irrationally only hold for smoking??
I hope you don't do anything that might hurt you and live in a sterile bubble so others don't have to "subsidise" any injury or illness you encounter during your life, otherwise that would be a tad hypocritical, wouldn't it??

gaffer91

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'm all for legalisation of drugs but I'm not for a free for all though (that's where people get me wrong). Also, the corporations and the advertising industry aren't interested in telling the truth - all they're interested in is making money and if that means lying, selling unattainable dreams, and trying to frighten people into buying shit they don't need they don't care so **** 'em.

Fwiw I don't think fast food places should be allowed to target children on children's TV. Kids are impressionable and should be protected from mind manipulation (which is essentially what advertising is).

I do actually agree that it is necessary to shield children from advertising. But you could advertise before 18's movies, put posters up behind the bar in nightclubs and strip clubs and so on. i.e only expose legal adults to the advertising. I don't see how that constitutes a free for all.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Eidt: I discussed the economic 'benefit' of smokers dying slow deaths from horrible diseases here.

I do think there is an economic benefit to the state from people smoking. The article link suggested the same. Whether people believe the associated illness and mortality is worth the benefit is another matter, one which I am 50/50 on.

SocSocPol wrote: »

The ban should stay, and it should be extended to other dangerous substances such as alcohol.
Banning advertising does have an effect on future consumption, advertising unhealthy and dangerous activities such as smoking as cool, hip or stylish is pure stupid.

It would be stupid if the government did it I agree, but for a private company to plug their wares in a controlled environment with stipulated warnings I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it. I'm still iffy though, I can see both sides of the argument.

CruelCoin wrote: »

Not going to dig up the figures, but it was shown somewhere that in order to pay for the health effects of each pack of fags, tax would have to be increased untill they hit €10 per pack. At that point they start paying for themselves, and i stop subsidising someone elses cancer.

So, below €10 per pack i'm against ads, above €10 i'm all for it, knock yourself out.

Sounds incorrect. See post #27

Hococop

im guessing the ads may be like this :P

bluecode

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Tell me do you have this attitude to all injuries or illness caused by other peoples lifestyles, from those who are involved in adventure sports, drive motorbikes, eat too much, or even women who hurt themselves wearing high heeled shoes or is it something you irrationally only hold for smoking??
I hope you don't do anything that might hurt you and live in a sterile bubble so others don't have to "subsidise" any injury or illness you encounter during your life, otherwise that would be a tad hypocritical, wouldn't it??

Most of the other things you mention probably won't neccessarilly kill you or cause you bad health and for many you can get insurance. On the other had you want the rest of us to subsidise people who recklessly take up a habit that almost always causes serious health problems, cancer, heart disease all of which are expensive and complicated to treat. Not to mention all the grief and suffering their illnesses and untimely deaths cause to their relatives.

There is nothing irrational about hating smoking. Comparisions to drink and sports are completely invalid. The only thing smoking does for you is to remove your craving for nicotine for a short time. Until it kicks in again. For heaven sake even Heroin makes you feel good for a while. Which is more than can be said for cigarettes.

No the higher the price the better. There are zero benefits to smoking.

wilkie2006

girl in the striped socks wrote: »

I don't see what difference it would make tbh.
However I would encourage putting photos of withered lungs & other nasty things on the pack to deter people.
That guy who died of lung cancer aged 34(not sure of age) would be ideal. One photo of him on the front looking in good health & happy. The other photo on the back of him lying literally in his death bed looking like a skeleton. Photo was taken 10 weeks apart or something.

Not sure about Ireland but they already have images of filthy lungs and teeth on packets in the UK. Doesn't really make much of an impact on me, to be honest. Certainly, it's shocking at first but one soon stops noticing it.

ejmaztec

Brendan Flowers wrote: »

http://formularacingminiatures.com/sblog/images/jordan_j199.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2514/3699925947_0723471184.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2065/2151135863_e26228aa34.jpg

I'm totally against smoking but here's a few perfect examples of why cigarette advertising should definitely be allowed

There's nothing like the throaty throbbing and the smell of burning rubber to get the juices flowing

Cú Giobach

bluecode wrote: »

Most of the other things you mention probably won't neccessarilly kill you or cause you bad health and for many you can get insurance. On the other had you want the rest of us to subsidise people who recklessly take up a habit that almost always causes serious health problems, cancer, heart disease all of which are expensive and complicated to treat. Not to mention all the grief and suffering their illnesses and untimely deaths cause to their relatives.

<< sits back rolls up and takes in nice delicious drag of freshly opened Drum....ahh lovely>>
Now to business.

Thanks for subsidising my treatments for 2 motorbike accidents, and one skydiving one, also for the ongoing lifelong issues surrounding one mountain climbing one , thanks in advance for subsidising my future smoking illness and possible effects of (so far) 30 years drinking and drug abuse, also (if you live in a city) for my country life. There I said thank you, is that better?
PS everyone dies.

There is nothing irrational about hating smoking. Comparisions to drink and sports are completely invalid. The only thing smoking does for you is to remove your craving for nicotine for a short time. Until it kicks in again. For heaven sake even Heroin makes you feel good for a while. Which is more than can be said for cigarettes.

No the higher the price the better. There are zero benefits to smoking.

Is that right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine
Here have a read of the Wiki page, concentrating on the Pharmacodynamics and Psychoactive effects sections then get back to me.

rgmmg

bluecode wrote: »

There are zero benefits to smoking.

It does suppress appetite which, for some, would be a good thing. :pac:

gobnaitolunacy

The John Player Tip Tops wouldve put anyone off smoking - a fag company sponsored pre-historic X factor on RTE of yore.

Chuck Stone

gaffer91 wrote: »

I do actually agree that it is necessary to shield children from advertising. But you could advertise before 18's movies, put posters up behind the bar in nightclubs and strip clubs and so on. i.e only expose legal adults to the advertising. I don't see how that constitutes a free for all.

It seems impractical to create loopholes in the law. I'm not big on banning stuff but I really think it would be silly of us to allow corporations push the 'virtues' of smoking or using any potentially harmful substance.

I do think there is an economic benefit to the state from people smoking. The article link suggested the same. Whether people believe the associated illness and mortality is worth the benefit is another matter, one which I am 50/50 on.

It's a horribly reductive way of framing the issue. It would also save the state a fortune if we euthanized old people or disabled children.