Should cigarette advertising be allowed?

CruelCoin

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??

I tend to drink too much, and would be quite ok with the government raising tax to offset the ill-health effects.

ANYTHING you do, should be taxed in such a way that if it all goes pete tong, that it doesn't financially effect someone else.

I am a bit of a scuba nut and i pay for full whack insurance that will mean the taxpayer never paying a cent towards my recovery should it all go wrong.

Provided you pay your own way, i have no problem with anything you do.

Dravokivich

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).

Why should any company market themselves if they have customers so?

wilkie2006 wrote: »

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.

So are cleaning products if used excessively. Should we ban Mr Muscle and Cilit Bang ads?

Cú Giobach

CruelCoin wrote: »

I tend to drink too much, and would be quite ok with the government raising tax to offset the ill-health effects.

ANYTHING you do, should be taxed in such a way that if it all goes pete tong, that it doesn't financially effect someone else.

I am a bit of a scuba nut and i pay for full whack insurance that will mean the taxpayer never paying a cent towards my recovery should it all go wrong.

Provided you pay your own way, i have no problem with anything you do.

Keep dreaming, but I live in the real world.

This thread springs to mind.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056695812

Just out of curiosity how do you tax someone going for a swim, having an accident and needing lifelong treatment on a medical card for injuries sustained.

CruelCoin

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Keep dreaming, but I live in the real world.

This thread springs to mind.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056695812

Just out of curiosity how do you tax someone going for a swim, having an accident and needing lifelong treatment on a medical card for injuries sustained.

And i'm an internet hypocrite how?

I say i don't want others to pay for what happens to me, and by giving you an example from my life (paying for over the top scuba insurance) i show that i practice what i preach.

Putting words in my mouth, and then using those fallacies to back up your claim is bogus at the least.

Cú Giobach

CruelCoin wrote: »

And i'm an internet hypocrite how?

I say i don't want others to pay for what happens to me, and by giving you an example from my life (paying for over the top scuba insurance) i show that i practice what i preach.

Putting words in my mouth, and then using those fallacies to back up your claim is bogus at the least.

I didn't say you were a hypocrite, I just thought of that thread in relation to you saying "ANYTHING you do, should be taxed in such a way that if it all goes pete tong, that it doesn't financially effect someone else." (Your bold).
The swimming question had nothing to with your hobby but the time of year and because I live on the coast.

Look at it this way, you go out pay your insurance and go diving, Jonny Schoolholidays buys a snorkel in the local shop and goes swimming with his mates, you both get into trouble and need medical intervention, now unless you start putting some sort of danger tax on snorkels how will Jonny pay a tax to offset the cost of his miss-adventure, surely you don't advocate a pathetic health system like they have in the US.
Your stance doesn't stand up to real world examination.

Also if a tax was put on say drink to offset future problems, then people who don't abuse it, get ill, or hurt themselves are then subsidising those who do by virtue of them paying this tax. Once again this doesn't stand up to examination.

That's why I mentioned that thread, Internet comments that have nothing to with reality or how people actually behave.

Another thing (and I'm only surmising here) people who are in a position to pay insurance, tax etc (like you diving or someone mountain climbing with an insured club) are less likely to get hurt due to a professional, safety concious environment than someone just out for a swim or a hike into The Reeks.

dttq

Let's just do to fags and booze what we've done to nearly every other substance people dare enjoy in their spare time - ban advertisement, put up prices through taxes etc etc. and drive users into buying cheaper produce on the black market, funding criminals and their lifestyles as opposed to pumping the money back into the economy and providing revenue for hospitals, schools etc. This approach works perfectly of course with drugs now illegal in our society.

Chuck Stone

dttq wrote: »

Let's just do to fags and booze what we've done to nearly every other substance people dare enjoy in their spare time - ban advertisement, put up prices through taxes etc etc.

One need not follow the other.

I'm for complete legalisation of drugs but I'm totally against allowing corporations push drug consumption as something that's a great lifestyle choice. I'm also against the government being so dumb as to tax stuff until a black market emerges.

Also, a lot of ads are simply lies. If you forced the alcohol and tobacco companies to provide factual information in their ads about the risks (none of this, look at us lads being totally excellent, bull****) would they bother making them?

Fuck no.

mikemac1

I see the snooker on TV and still think of Players

Advertising works

Probably over a decade since Players were forced to leave but the name recognition is still there

DEFTLEFTHAND

mikemac1 wrote: »

I see the snooker on TV and still think of Players

Advertising works

Probably over a decade since Players were forced to leave but the name recognition is still there

I still think of the worlds as being the 'Embassy' World Championship. Growing up I thought that was its actual name, I wasn't even aware that Embassy was a cigarette brand. :pac:

CodyJarrett

Ah, honest advertising:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbHMZ6WSzlc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1a86AdMdUo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBCyPdEIdOA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKMn-_aQoPk