WARNING: Thread about smoking and sponsorship.

[Mike W]

The funny thing is this.

Why isn't the same debate brought up about alcohol? Smokers don't tend to run around beating people up, killing kids in cars, or causing strife and mayhem in the streets and housing estates of the UK when they've had one cig too many do they?

It's because too many of the lawmakers like their tipple, and, knowing that a large part of the population like their tipple too, know it's not a vote winner.

Wait until the drinkers are a minority (not that I can see that happening), then watch 'em go!

We've created a society of sanctimonious kn*bs who think it's ok judge and criticise all around them and to kill the pleasure of others even if it has nothing to do with and no effect on them.

 

[internetspaceships]

It's because too many of the lawmakers like their tipple, and, knowing that a large part of the population like their tipple too, know it's not a vote winner.

Wait until the drinkers are a minority (not that I can see that happening), then watch 'em go!

We've created a society of sanctimonious kn*bs who think it's ok judge and criticise all around them and to kill the pleasure of others even if it has nothing to do with and no effect on them.

Haha I'm liking your style Sir.

By the way two things. Firstly, I hear but only third hand that MPs can smoke in places within Westminster, and secondly it's actually a unreportedly high percentage of people of smoking age, who smoke.

Again we're in a situation where the vocal minority of people who are offended by smoking scream loud and long, and get changes.

I know many many many non smokers who really don't give a stuff. As I'm sure we all do.

 

[Psl]

Haha I'm liking your style Sir.

By the way two things. Firstly, I hear but only third hand that MPs can smoke in places within Westminster, and secondly it's actually a unreportedly high percentage of people of smoking age, who smoke.

Again we're in a situation where the vocal minority of people who are offended by smoking scream loud and long, and get changes.

I know many many many non smokers who really don't give a stuff. As I'm sure we all do.

I can't get to the bottom of whether MP's can smoke in certain places in Westmisnter but this is interesting;
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/parliamentary-archives/archives-highlights/smoking/

I am sure the MP's are exempt from the smoking ban, and have smoking rooms, and I think the bar(s) is (are) smoking area(s) as well. Strangely enough prisoners are allowed to smoke in side you couldn't have them nipping outside for a smoke could you?

The vocal minority

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

No. It's down to two main reasons:

1). It's money made purely from an addiction which harms their health, so to increase revenue, they have to persuade more people to try smoking so they become addicted and have to buy their products.

2). Considering that the vast majority of adults will have decided whether they want to smoke by now (very few start smoking in their 30's or 40's if they've never done it before), any tobacco advertising basically only works on kids.

Companies will say that tobacco advertisements are there to persuade current smokers to try different brands, but how often does this happen in reality? Even if it does happen to a degree, it's not worth the resulting exposure to young non-smokers who may be tempted to try smoking in general.

I'd only ever condone tobacco advertising if there was a way to do it in front of existing smokers only and no one else. That way, it becomes a promotional activity purely there to persuade existing smokers to try other brands.

 

[internetspaceships]

No. It's down to two main reasons:

1). It's money made purely from an addiction which harms their health, so to increase revenue, they have to persuade more people to try drinking so they become addicted and have to buy their products.

2). Considering that the vast majority of adults will have decided whether they want to drink by now (very few start drinking in their 30's or 40's if they've never done it before), any alcohol advertising basically only works on kids.

Companies will say that alcohol advertisements are there to persuade current drinkers to try different brands, but how often does this happen in reality? Even if it does happen to a degree, it's not worth the resulting exposure to young non-drinkers who may be tempted to try drinking in general.

I'd only ever condone alcohol advertising if there was a way to do it in front of existing drinkers only and no one else. That way, it becomes a promotional activity purely there to persuade existing drinkers to try other brands.

Firstly my apologies for altering your post. However would you not agree with the altered post as well?

Reads terribly smoothly doesnt it?

 

[Jet Virtual]

Internetspaceships is that a cigarette in your mouth?!?!

(watch him come back and say no it's a cigar you plonka)

 

[internetspaceships]

Internetspaceships is that a cigarette in your mouth?!?!

(watch him come back and say no it's a cigar you plonka)

Do go onto your own thread and play. Adults are talking.

 

[Jet Virtual]

Do go onto your own thread and play. Adults are talking.

LOL! Wow that hurts :redface:

Anyways on a more serious note (and relevant to the thread) my father smoked 40 cigs a day for 30 years until he got a heart attack.

Now he smokes E-cigs and is on pills for the rest of his life.

Smoking is a terrible addiction and the best way to quit is to just stop cold turkey.

 

[Mike W]

Anyways on a more serious note (and relevant to the thread) my father smoked 40 cigs a day for 30 years until he got a heart attack.

Now he smokes E-cigs and is on pills for the rest of his life.

Smoking is a terrible addiction and the best way to quit is to just stop cold turkey.

How on the one hand can you talk about your father being on e-cigs and on the other say that the best way to quit is to go cold turkey? I take it you're a non-smoker...?

Try reading my thread about how I gave up/am giving up - http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=284271

 

[Hogrill]

I can't get to the bottom of whether MP's can smoke in certain places in Westmisnter but this is interesting;

When the Bill outlawing smoking in public buildings was introduced "Palaces" were exempt and by coincidence Westminster is classed as one.

 

[Claire Dymond]

The funny thing is this.

Why isn't the same debate brought up about alcohol? Smokers don't tend to run around beating people up, killing kids in cars, or causing strife and mayhem in the streets and housing estates of the UK when they've had one cig too many do they?

I agree and they do us all a great service in paying more tax and dying early saving more public money. Lung cancer is a quick killer and must cost less than a decade in a nursing home with dementia.

My Dad died of smoking and cooked breakfasts, his choice and very quickly too but he enjoyed his life and always went outside to smoke.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Firstly my apologies for altering your post. However would you not agree with the altered post as well?

Reads terribly smoothly doesnt it?

Alcohol is entirely different, really.

People only buy cigarettes because they ARE addicted to them on a physiological level. Their body needs to satisfy this addiction despite it being wholly damaging to their health.

Once this addiction begins, it's psychological torture to get out of it, and the tobacco industry relies on this to continue to sell their products.

When it comes to alcohol, the vast majority of people don't do it because of an addiction. They do it out of a free choice. Plus, providing intake levels stay reasonably low, there are no lasting health problems. In fact, studies show that small intakes of alcohol can actually be good for you.

Alcohol is something which can cause harm in a small minority but generally causes no harm in the vast majority of people, so if you were to ban alcohol advertising, you would have to ban everything else which fits into that description:

- Cars can kill people, so ban car advertising
- Food can make people obese, so ban food advertising
- Computers and consoles can make children lazy and unfit, so ban game advertising

The funny thing is this.

Why isn't the same debate brought up about alcohol? Smokers don't tend to run around beating people up, killing kids in cars, or causing strife and mayhem in the streets and housing estates of the UK when they've had one cig too many do they?

Ridiculous argument. The overall percentage of people who actually cause disruption after drinking any quantity of alcohol is very, very small.

 

[owas]

A little of topic, it seems to us there is a lot of advertising restrictions imposed on tabacoo products, and personally I hate smoking and everything about it after seeing the damage it can cause. But saying that I feel the restrictions are completely wrong. Due to these bans they make up for it other ways, such as sponsoring music concerts, with the likes of westlife, lady gaga, and kelly clarkson, they also have videos on youtube and the likes of facebook etc and that crafty fag you see on tv in the movies. You couldn't get your brand across to teenagers any better than this.
If the companies were allowed to market in other areas, maybe F1, or adult tv channels and mags, and websites or even after watersehd hours it could make a diffrence. I also dont agree with the images on packets of cigerattes. Consumers are educated enough off the dangers of smoking.

 

[Doodle-Noodle]

Haha I'm liking your style Sir.

By the way two things. Firstly, I hear but only third hand that MPs can smoke in places within Westminster, and secondly it's actually a unreportedly high percentage of people of smoking age, who smoke.

Again we're in a situation where the vocal minority of people who are offended by smoking scream loud and long, and get changes.

I know many many many non smokers who really don't give a stuff. As I'm sure we all do.

I believe that IS still true - they also have a duty free bar so their alcoholic beverages are exempt from tax. A friend of mine used to be PA to a very well known MP and says she think it is still the case, it certainly used to be.

 

[MrCloser]

Ridiculous argument. The overall percentage of people who actually cause disruption after drinking any quantity of alcohol is very, very small.

Ever been out to a town centre taxi rank, kebab shop or a A&E on a weekend? no, though not.



Personally, I'm sick to death at looking at deseased lungs and corpses on motuary slabs every time I have a puff, to the extent I don't really notice the
graphic shock value pics and health warnings on the pack.

The Industry's argument being that advertising doesn't encourage smoking, just smoker's changing brands. With the video nasty style pictures on all packs as it seems that brand identity is diluted.

Here is a strong brand that didn't make it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_(cigarette)

their strap line was: if you don't smoke, don't start. if you smoke, give up. if you must smoke, smoke these.

That is the sort of alternative branding that appeals to me.

 

[Lynne Baker]

Non smoker here but as I did a lot of filming work for tobacco companies I would be a hypocrite to say no.

I would also be OK with the adult industry but would say no to pay day loans, gold buyers and ambulance chasers.

I also believe that there should be smoking clubs run by members as we should be able to consent to harm ourselves or take risks.

Ooo, did you ever know a chap called Martin Oldman?
He's my ex brother in law!

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Ridiculous argument. The overall percentage of people who actually cause disruption after drinking any quantity of alcohol is very, very small.

Ever been out to a town centre taxi rank, kebab shop or a A&E on a weekend? no, though not.

Yes I have. Use some common sense. On a night out you may well see a few fights and a few people being rowdy, but how many people are actually out on that night total in the town? Thousands upon thousands.

Once again, if you take the number of people who are drinking any quantity of alcohol in the UK in one night, then compare it to the number of people having fights or causing disruption under the influence of alcohol, the overall percentage will be absolutely tiny.

 

[Mike W]

Once again, if you take the number of people who are drinking any quantity of alcohol in the UK in one night, then compare it to the number of people having fights or causing disruption under the influence of alcohol, the overall percentage will be absolutely tiny.

What has the percentage got to do with anything? The fact is that in the vast majority of town centres, right across the country, on very many nights, you will find drunken, loutish behaviour, with consequential damage to property or person. How many smokers cause that kind of trouble? Almost nil. (I'd have said nil but no doubt you'd talk butt ends etc).

So playing your game with stats, alcohol, in this guise, is infinitely worse than smoking. Or as Buzz Lightyear would say....

Joking aside, I think the depth of society's problems with alcohol are far far worse than that. And so bad that anyone who likes it chooses not to care to dig deep enough to look into the problem.

Alcoholism, to raise but one issue, is simply horrendous; not to the alcoholic but to all those touched by him or her. And I talk from experience.

 

[CKG]

This thread reminded me of a project we were given in school once.

We had to bring in cig ads cut from magazines, critique them and then come up with our own brand of cigs and create an ad for that brand. I think it was the in late 80s from memory.

Imagine a school getting caught doing that now! Heads would roll.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

What has the percentage got to do with anything? The fact is that in the vast majority of town centres, right across the country, on very many nights, you will find drunken, loutish behaviour, with consequential damage to property or person. How many smokers cause that kind of trouble? Almost nil. (I'd have said nil but no doubt you'd talk butt ends etc).

Because people are putting forth the argument that alcohol advertising should be banned like tobacco advertising due to the trouble some people cause when drunk, even though the percentage of drunk people causing trouble in relation to the overall number of alcohol drinkers on any given night (in clubs, pubs, bars and at home) will certainly be a tiny fraction.

If alcohol advertising was banned based on that, then you would have to ban advertising anything which causes death or harm in a tiny fraction of users, so advertising cars, power tools, holidays, food and many other things would all have to go.