Smoking, some questions

[TehChahlesh]

I have some questions about smoking, this is mostly aimed at Americans, but feel free to answer no matter where you're coming from.

1. Why is it that in a free-market system, cigarette companies have limits to how they can advertise?(even though there are warnings clearly stated on all cigarette adds and boxes)

2. What makes cigarette adds so convincing? Any dipshit teen-smoker says he/she did it because the cigarette adds told him/her that smoking was "cool". Why do people have the will-power to resist other advertisements, but can't say no to a phallic-nosed camel playing the saxophone on a beach?

3. If you support the legalization of marijuana, would you also support the repeal of limits on tobacco companies?

Answers please.

Well as an average american I dont give a rats ass if someone is smoking.

[SenorPresidente]

At 11/8/06 07:05 PM, TehChahlesh wrote: 1. Why is it that in a free-market system, cigarette companies have limits to how they can advertise?(even though there are warnings clearly stated on all cigarette adds and boxes)

There are a lot of stupid people who cant tell when they are been told that something is bad for them.

2. What makes cigarette adds so convincing? Any dipshit teen-smoker says he/she did it because the cigarette adds told him/her that smoking was "cool". Why do people have the will-power to resist other advertisements, but can't say no to a phallic-nosed camel playing the saxophone on a beach?

I think most teens use it as an excuse. It has actually become quite trendy to hate smokers and smoking. But overall i think its curiosity.

3. If you support the legalization of marijuana, would you also support the repeal of limits on tobacco companies?

i dont support legalization of marijuana or do i smoke it but it is blown out of porportion.

Answers please.

Question

[SolInvictus]

At 11/8/06 07:05 PM, TehChahlesh wrote: 3. If you support the legalization of marijuana, would you also support the repeal of limits on tobacco companies?

no, i would approve that the laws governing tobacco products be applied to mirijuanna, as well as other laws in relation to its intoxicating effects like those for alcohol.

[cellardoor6]

At 11/8/06 07:05 PM, TehChahlesh wrote: I have some questions about smoking, this is mostly aimed at Americans, but feel free to answer no matter where you're coming from.

1. Why is it that in a free-market system, cigarette companies have limits to how they can advertise?(even though there are warnings clearly stated on all cigarette adds and boxes)

Because sometimes when certain people in the government take power, they impose laws like that compromise our free-market system. For instance, every anti-smoking, anti-cigarette law in the US has been passed by democrats. They also continue to implement tobacco taxes even though it doesn't deter smokers from buying tobacco like it is supposed to.

2. What makes cigarette adds so convincing? Any dipshit teen-smoker says he/she did it because the cigarette adds told him/her that smoking was "cool". Why do people have the will-power to resist other advertisements, but can't say no to a phallic-nosed camel playing the saxophone on a beach?

Cigarette adds were kind of bad though I must admit that. They did target children with flashy cartoon characters and commercials during. But the reason cigarette adds were more successful was because cigarettes are a 'cool' part of American culture for young kids. It is taboo, yet very American at the same time.

I remember that even though I hated the smell of cigarettes my entire childhood, I would just want to smoke after seeing someone smoked in a cool way on TV and so forth.

3. If you support the legalization of marijuana, would you also support the repeal of limits on tobacco companies?

First of all, I think that legalizing weed would be a big mistake. But I think that some of the penalties to the tobacco companies were somewhat reasonable. I am personally a smoker, but I don't think it is necessary to have adds that target children.

Capitalism within reason. But Democrats basically want cigarettes to be $50 a pack, and for there to be a picture of a black lung on every street corner.

[zzzzd]

At 11/8/06 07:30 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Was it Democrats or Rebublicans who passed the smoking and Drinking laws, Because i've been to america and hardly anyone smokes or even drinks compared to Britain.

[Begoner]

While smoking is a practice which is terrible for one's health, everybody should have the right to smoke. However, the right to advertise for cigarettes should not extend to tricking impressionable young children into the delusion that smoking is "cool" and such. If you constantly subject small children to commercials reinforcing the idea that there's nothing wrong with smoking, you'll be breeding a future generation of smokers. If the marketing was only directed at those over 18, I would have no problem with it. The problem is that many kids think that cigarette commercials are truthful and are more likely to smoke. In short, cigarette commercials are potentially deadly and should be banned.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 11/8/06 08:06 PM, Begoner wrote: The problem is that many kids think that cigarette commercials are truthful and are more likely to smoke. In short, cigarette commercials are potentially deadly and should be banned.

But thats the hypocrisy in the system.

We try to stop commercials of ciggarettes, and in thier place comes commercials that are just as worse.

Soda commericials, candy commericails, sweetened cercials, fryed food ect ect.

What were mearly doing is subverting one vice for another.

Yes, smoking among teens is way down, but obesity among children is going up.

[cellardoor6]

At 11/8/06 07:56 PM, zzzzd wrote:

At 11/8/06 07:30 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Was it Democrats or Rebublicans who passed the smoking and Drinking laws, Because i've been to america and hardly anyone smokes or even drinks compared to Britain.

Democrats passed most of them. But it depends on which state you go to. When Republicans had the majority, they allowed individual states and cities to decide for themselves what smoking and drinking laws they would implement. I'm pretty sure that when you went to the US, if there weren't people smoking in bars and such it was probably a democratic city or state.

But those days are over. Democrats won the majority in Congress and states will no longer be able to decide which of these laws they choose to follow. Democrats love to shove their idealogy and beliefs down the throats of all Americans, they hate the founding principle of individual responsibility. Democrats desire socialism, and therefore bigger government, higher taxes, and less state, local, and individual rights, they love to decide what Americans do for themselves because they think the government knows best.

In all the laws they pass they will attach a federal authority initiative which prevents States from choosing for themselves which laws to implement.

So the lack of smoking and drinking in wherever you visited, which was a result of local Democrat laws, will now be FORCED onto the entire US.

I'm slowly watching my country turn to shit and its pissing me off. If the Republicans don't win back the Congress in 08 and a Democrat becomes President, I am moving to Israel and I am dead serious about that.

[Begoner]

Yes, smoking among teens is way down, but obesity among children is going up.

That's a problem, too, but I don't think eating too much junk food is as severely detrimental to one's health as being addicted to cigarettes. There needs to be a big court case where companies which produce such deleterious snacks are forced to admit that their products are indeed harmful before any action can be taken.

[cellardoor6]

At 11/8/06 08:25 PM, Begoner wrote:

Yes, smoking among teens is way down, but obesity among children is going up.

That's a problem, too, but I don't think eating too much junk food is as severely detrimental to one's health as being addicted to cigarettes.

Um actually there are more deaths in the US that are attributed to obesity and such due to unhealthy eating habits than there are deaths due to tobacco-related illness.

[Begoner]

Um actually there are more deaths in the US that are attributed to obesity and such due to unhealthy eating habits than there are deaths due to tobacco-related illness.

I have a scientific article which begs to differ. Do you have a source?

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract /291/10/1238

[Joodah]

to quote the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy:
people are a problem.

[overdrive6]

Pot is too expensive - legalize it.

[Jose]

At 11/8/06 07:30 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 11/8/06 07:05 PM, TehChahlesh wrote: I have some questions about smoking, this is mostly aimed at Americans, but feel free to answer no matter where you're coming from.

1. Why is it that in a free-market system, cigarette companies have limits to how they can advertise?(even though there are warnings clearly stated on all cigarette adds and boxes)

Because sometimes when certain people in the government take power, they impose laws like that compromise our free-market system. For instance, every anti-smoking, anti-cigarette law in the US has been passed by democrats. They also continue to implement tobacco taxes even though it doesn't deter smokers from buying tobacco like it is supposed to.

Thats funny. Tim Pawlenty (Republican) raised the ciggarette tax by $1.25. The only difference between him and liberals, is that he called it a "user fee" and tried to hide the fact that it was in fact a tax from the Minnesota voter.

PFFT, Liberals aren't the only ones to raise taxes.

Capitalism within reason. But Democrats basically want cigarettes to be $50 a pack, and for there to be a picture of a black lung on every street corner.

Attack the straw man. Show me the article that says all liberals want ciggarettes to be $50 a pack.

[cellardoor6]

At 11/9/06 03:38 AM, Jose wrote:

At 11/8/06 07:30 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Because sometimes when certain people in the government take power, they impose laws like that compromise our free-market system. For instance, every anti-smoking, anti-cigarette law in the US has been passed by democrats. They also continue to implement tobacco taxes even though it doesn't deter smokers from buying tobacco like it is supposed to.

Thats funny. Tim Pawlenty (Republican) raised the ciggarette tax by $1.25. The only difference between him and liberals, is that he called it a "user fee" and tried to hide the fact that it was in fact a tax from the Minnesota voter.

Man you're dumb. That was only a statewide action by a Republican GOVERNOR. I'm talking about federal-wide laws that Democrats have attempted to pass that penalizes tobacco companies.

PFFT, Liberals aren't the only ones to raise taxes.

Liberals are the only ones to raise FEDERAL taxes and impose these taxes on states without the state holding an initiative or state officials deciding whether or not to ratify such a tax. A state tax is perfectly legitimate, thats how it should be. But when Democrats get in office federal office in Congress which is the legistlative branch in case you didn't know, they get tax-happy. They need money to fuel their government expansion and to support their far-reaching control over the country.

You brought up what a Republican did as governor to raise domestic tobacco prices, that is a perfectly legitimate state-wide action. What I dislike are the ridiculous tax increases and the creation of brand new taxes that Democrats ALWAYS put through when they have the majority, or ATTEMPT to atleast.

[Nylo]

3) I do support legalization of marijuana, and I see no reason why tobacco advertising laws should have their limits repealed. Though I'm for legalization, I wouldn't want to see ads for it, just replacing the trashi-ness of the old cigarette ads.

[qygibo]

At 11/8/06 07:05 PM, TehChahlesh wrote:

1. Why is it that in a free-market system, cigarette companies have limits to how they can advertise?(even though there are warnings clearly stated on all cigarette adds and boxes)

They're not the only companies to have limits on where they can advertise. Alcohol companies are also starting to be limited in where they can advertise (I hear that sporting tournaments are going to start disallowing alcohol ads in their stadiums, for one), and I think there's also been talk about alcohol ads not being allowed to be shown during certain times on television.

2. What makes cigarette adds so convincing? Any dipshit teen-smoker says he/she did it because the cigarette adds told him/her that smoking was "cool". Why do people have the will-power to resist other advertisements, but can't say no to a phallic-nosed camel playing the saxophone on a beach?

That's because teenagers are dipshits who will try to make up any excuse to compensate for the fact that they were stupid enough to start smoking. At my job, almost every single teenager smokes, apparently because there is a law that allows them to smoke if they have parental permission. Of course, some are occasional smokers, but get them in a group together and they will all be smoking.

This makes me particularly sad because i think of my mother. At 13 she started stealing cigarettes from her father and grandmother and now today, at 46, she's riddled with tobacco-related diseases. She has emphesema (which doctors say is a disease you RARELY see in non-smokers), and it's gotten progressively worse. And it's made her health so weak that when she was flying home from my graduation from college, her lung collapsed on the plane due to the cabin pressure, and so she can never go on a plane again.

I have no doubt that cartoon ads are seductive to a little kid who probably would see that cigarette as a toy or something. Hell, even their non-animated ads can be seductive, since they always make smokers look so happy and hip and better-than-thou.

3. If you support the legalization of marijuana, would you also support the repeal of limits on tobacco companies?

I don't support legalization of weed, and it's even slightly worse than tobacco, since it usually contains more tar than the average regular cigarette.

[PsychobillyClock]

As an American citizen I'll tell you 1) it's because the government told them to, there's not much the tobacco industry can do against the laws of the United States. Politicans need to keep their constituents happy, and demonizing the tobacco industry for brainwashing the youth is a good way to score some points. 2) Consider that parents who are smokers usually raise smokers. The same thing with non-smokers and smoker-haters. A kid's environment is more or less the determining factor in whether they smoke or not. 3) I want mary jane to be legal (and that day can't come soon enough), and I don't care how the tobacco industry is treated. If all tobacco companies were abolished and the sale and trade of tobacco had to be controlled by lots of independent factions, I wouldn't give a shit. However I would give a shit if tobacco were outlawed, because I enjoy a good cigar.

Does that answer everything?

[EternalRabbit]

where i was born, (calgary, alberta, canada), i have heard that as of Jan 01, 2007, smoking will be illegal in all public places... in europe, where i lived for a couple years, smoking is pretty much everywhere... in fact, if a place is designated as non-smoking, there will be more smokers there than in a place where you're allowed to smoke... now, living in australia, i couldn't really care whether you were smoking tobacco, hemp, crack, or meth

[EternalRabbit]

phallic-nosed camel! lol... i think it's just because people say so much that it's bad for you, that we get desensitized to the concept and try it any way, just for kicks and giggles... another thing, tobacco is in the same class as petrol... (or gasoline as you call it in the states, am i right?) the government charges tax on it the same way they do for tobacco... you don't see billboards up advertising to get gas at an esso @ so-much per litre, do you?

[Neoptolemus]

At 11/9/06 02:15 PM, EternalRabbit wrote: another thing, tobacco is in the same class as petrol... (or gasoline as you call it in the states, am i right?) the government charges tax on it the same way they do for tobacco...

I wouldn't say it's in the same class as petrol (well here in Britain anyway). Tobacco is heavily taxed over here and the tax on it goes directly to the NHS so ultimately it's more than balancing out the health issues of the country..

you don't see billboards up advertising to get gas at an esso @ so-much per litre, do you?

I see advertisements on TV for certain petrolium companies such as BP.