Tobacco Adverts to be banned?

[Pontifex Maximus]

The World Haelth organization has called on countries to make advertising tobacco advertisements. I am personally in favor of this, I think smoking is a vile habit and there are of course the obvious health risks involved with smoking. Is is mentioned that tobacco copanies are using techniques to lure young women into smoking (undoubtedly because it curbs hunger, the whole weightloss incentive). On the flip side to this, it seems like a violation of rights.

Obviously there have been limits implemented on the time of day and where a tobacco company can place advertisements on TV (in the USA at least), and this seems reasonable. A ban on tobacco advertising in general seems a bit fishy to me. After all, if people do choose to smoke, that's their choice. You do eventually get addicted to it, yes, but the first cig is a personal choice, not a dependance.

To sum it up, smoking is bad, but banning advertisements for tobacco products seems like a rights violation to me.

Douglas Bettcher, director of the WHO's Tobacco Free Initiative, said a full ban was necessary to ensure young people were shielded from dangerous messages

Sorry Doug, you can't protect the kids from the world all the time and for eternity.

Comment.

Story

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has called on governments to ban all tobacco advertising to help prevent young people taking up the habit.
It accused manufacturers of using increasingly sophisticated marketing techniques to ensare young people, particularly girls in poorer countries.
The UN agency says the more they are exposed to tobacco advertising, the more likely people will start smoking.
The appeal was issued to mark the WHO's World No Tobacco Day.
The organisation said only 5% of the world's population was covered by comprehensive bans on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship.
It says current restrictions are not enough to protect the world's 1.8bn young people, who are targeted through the intenet, magazines, films, concerts and sporting events.
'Dangerous messages'
In Russia, which has few anti-smoking laws, the number of female and adolescent smokers has tripled in the last decade.
However, in Canada, where smoking and cigarette advertising has been severely restricted, numbers of smokers are at their lowest in 40 years.
The UK has recently announced plans to outlaw cigarette vending machines and packets of 10 to prevent children and young people smoking.
The WHO also accused manufacturers of continuing to attract young people by "falsely" associating cigarettes with "glamour, energy and sex appeal".
Most smokers take up the habit before the age of 18, with almost a quarter of those before the age of 10, according to the organisation.
In a WHO worldwide survey of 13 to 15 year olds, 55% reported seeing billboard advertisements for tobacco, while 20% owned an item with a cigarette brand logo.
Douglas Bettcher, director of the WHO's Tobacco Free Initiative, said a full ban was necessary to ensure young people were shielded from dangerous messages.
"Half measures are not enough," he said. "When one form of advertising is banned, the tobacco industry simply shifts its vast resources to another channel. We urge governments to impose a complete ban to break the tobacco marketing net."

[danzig]

No they shouldnt be banned even though they are pretty much banned politically here in the US. What next Mcdonalds? Pepsi and Coke? Hell tv itself since all these things lead to bad things if done excessively. Yes its bad for you, yes its harmful to your health but so are many things in modern life.

[kev-o]

I'm with Pontifex. I agree that smoking is a vile habit and contributes to nothing but bad health but the Tobacco companies are already on a tight leash. They aren't allowed to advertise on TV and they are under the vice tax. The WHO can say whatever they want to other countries and they can choose to follow them or not, but I think education is required so people can understand the effects tobacco has on people. After that its the right of the individual to decided if he/she wants to smoke/chew it.

[CDMan477]

No they shouldnt be banned even though they are pretty much banned politically here in the US. What next Mcdonalds? Pepsi and Coke? Hell tv itself since all these things lead to bad things if done excessively. Yes its bad for you, yes its harmful to your health but so are many things in modern life.

I'm with Pontifex. I agree that smoking is a vile habit and contributes to nothing but bad health but the Tobacco companies are already on a tight leash. They aren't allowed to advertise on TV and they are under the vice tax. The WHO can say whatever they want to other countries and they can choose to follow them or not, but I think education is required so people can understand the effects tobacco has on people. After that its the right of the individual to decided if he/she wants to smoke/chew it.

Normally I would agree with these sentiments entirely. Considering that tobacco is prohibited from advertising in multiple platforms, and is relegated to back page magazine adds, what does it matter at this point. I would prefer an all or nothing approach. Either they should be allowed to advertise like any other company selling any other consumer product, or the product is so horrible that it shouldn't be advertised anywhere. Letting them advertise their products in certain places comes off as hypocritical and ineffectual to me.

[Dunecat]

HAY GUISE, I'm looking to have a petition for the insertion of heroin into cigarettes, can you just sign right here and you'll get a free restaurant coupon... Right... Thanks!

*lights up*

...

*exhales*

...

Seriously though this stuff sucks. Regulate it heavily as we do no, cut the add's, if people want it they can reasonably get it.

[Confederate Jeb]

I don't approve of smoking, my grandfather died from the effects of it, but banning advertisements sounds kinda....extreme. Maybe extreme isn't the best word, but you get the picture.

Voted No.

[gambit]

I said no. People choose to smoke whoever they may be. It is fully and completely their choice and as a business, tobacco industries have every right to get people to buy their product.

They can't just ban them because some kids may see them and not realize cigarettes are bad. (even though theres more adverts against tobacco then there are for it)

[Pontifex Maximus]

Just playing devil's advocate, but a major arguement of the pro is that tobacco products are addictive, and force more sales based on the addiction.

This is the only hole in the plan, but at the end of the day, it was the peoples' choice in the first place to start the habit, so it really doesn't even apply. Unless you were forced to smoke/chew it, which is doubtful.

Still, not being able to run your business in a fair way is not very...well...fair. If we Americans consider ourselves to be capitalists and believers in the free enterprise system, how can we ban them?

[kev-o]

Can the same be said about porn? It can only be advertised at certain places and is addicting.

[Garbarsardar]

Can the same be said about porn? It can only be advertised at certain places and is addicting.

Not the same thing. You need (as the law does-or does not in case of tobacco and alcohol) to make a distinction between primary (biochemical) and secondary (psychological) addiction. While many things in life are addictive in the second sense, much fewer things bind to receptor sites in your neurons, thus physically removing the ability to make a choice.

While the science of the matter is pretty straightforward, the sociological aspects are not. Many cultures (khat in Africa-binlan in South East Asia-coca leaves in South America) have accepted the use of addictive substances as part of daily life and social practice. We (the West) have accepted that alcohol and tobacco are permissible and legal addictions. What we have yet to come to terms with, is that prohibition never succeeds at any level; when we do, then the problem of addiction could be addressed as the financial issue it primarily is.

Or in the words of Milton Friedman:

You are not mistaken in believing that drugs are a scourge that is devastating our society. You are not mistaken in believing that drugs are tearing asunder our social fabric, ruining the lives of many young people, and imposing heavy costs on some of the most disadvantaged among us. You are not mistaken in believing that the majority of the public share your concerns. In short, you are not mistaken in the end you seek to achieve.

Your mistake is failing to recognize that the very measures you favor are a major source of the evils you deplore. Of course the problem is demand, but it is not only demand, it is demand that must operate through repressed and illegal channels. Illegality creates obscene profits that finance the murderous tactics of the drug lords; illegality leads to the corruption of law enforcement officials; illegality monopolizes the efforts of honest law forces so that they are starved for resources to fight the simpler crimes of robbery, theft and assault.

Drugs are a tragedy for addicts. But criminalizing their use converts that tragedy into a disaster for society, for users and non-users alike. Our experience with the prohibition of drugs is a replay of our experience with the prohibition of alcoholic beverages.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0490e.asp

And if you are interested you may want to read this interview.

[Pontifex Maximus]

My take on it is that tobacco should be treated as anyother 'adult' product and follow those same regulations. One has to be what, 18 I think it is to purchase tobacco products? Tobacco should be treated like any other adult product like pornography or products that only adults would generally have acess to. Late night commercial and advertisements and promotionals. The next step to this is smoking cigs or cigars, whatever will be banned from being used in movies and TV shows. We don't want to make these products appear 'cool' even though John Wayne always smokes in his awesome westerns. It's a slippery slope.

EDIT: didn't see this but I would like to comment,

Can the same be said about porn? It can only be advertised at certain places and is addicting.

Maybe but not to the same extent because addiction to tobacco is a physical addiction to nicotine. Porn could be more of a psycholigical craving rather than a physical dependance.

[CDMan477]

Can the same be said about porn? It can only be advertised at certain places and is addicting.

My take on it is that tobacco should be treated as anyother 'adult' product and follow those same regulations. One has to be what, 18 I think it is to purchase tobacco products? Tobacco should be treated like any other adult product like pornography or products that only adults would generally have acess to. Late night commercial and advertisements and promotionals.

Then under this logic I want advertising for alcohol, military service, anything related to sexual activities, and driving for that matter removed from the airwaves. Young children everywhere might start thinking that sex, alcohol, and driving are "cool". Come on guys think about the children!

[Pontifex Maximus]

'Supersize it'?

*Me

Great movie. Haven't had Mcdonalds in six years I'm happy to report.

Then under this logic I want advertising for alcohol, military service, anything related to sexual activities, and driving for that matter removed from the airwaves. Young children everywhere might start thinking that sex, alcohol, and driving are "cool". Come on guys think about the children!

Exactly. We can't protect the kiddies forever. Not to say they shouldn't be somewhat protected, but I don't think kids will want to try smoking a cigarette based on an ad. First of all they would have to obtain one, then they would have to smoke it. then they would have to smoke it again until finally they are addicted.

[Dunecat]

While the laws are sometimes exactly that, arbitrary, it is certain that in this case adolescents cannot make the right decision.

If you have ever tried to teach teens you know what I'm talking about.

*hands out tests*

*student flips test immediatly over*

"You don't want to take it?"

"Nope."

"You know that you could very well fail this class this quarter."

"Yep"

"You need this class. If you flunk out you can only get jobs."

"Don't care."








*sigh*

*lights up*

[Rapax]

Then under this logic I want advertising for alcohol, military service, anything related to sexual activities, and driving for that matter removed from the airwaves. Young children everywhere might start thinking that sex, alcohol, and driving are "cool". Come on guys think about the children!

There are advertisements for driving and sex? And since when is that "not cool" ?:hmmm:

[CDMan477]

There are advertisements for driving and sex? And since when is that "not cool" ?:hmmm:

Not directly of course. But if these examples are as potentially dangerous as tobacco, than any sitcom, sporting event, etc. that contains these or uses them for advertisement should not be permitted based off the earlier logic presented in the posts by _Pontifex_ and kev-o. As far as being "not cool" my post was an attempt at sarcasm. Ha, it appears I failed. Sorry about that.

[gambit]

There are worse things that can kill you faster anyway. Imagine people who eat McDonalds 2-3 times a day, ever seen the movie 'Supersize it'?

[Nuclear]

I, personally, don't like it when people smoke, I'm 13 and hat being a passive smoker, my parents smoke, it annoys me.

Despite my feelings, I HAVE to vote no on this poll, it's violating peoples right, they are allowed to choose whether they want to smoke, and being informed of new ciggarette and tabacco brands seems like they're trying to take away that right.

The best they can do is keep people informed about what they're doing to themselves if they smoke.

[gambit]

That's more of rebelling against the teacher, and probably trying to look 'cool' in front of the class. Not just making a dumb decision for 's sake.

[Dunecat]

That's more of rebelling against the teacher, and probably trying to look 'cool' in front of the class. Not just making a dumb decision for 's sake.

Try teaching.