F1-Tobacco Ads=?

[Suka]

Yeah I can't wait for that to happen here as well. Smokers really are the worst junkies around: it is still socially acceptable, but it bothers me a lot more than someone doing a line of coke.

Yeah, you can laugh at them wasting away their life, if you laugh at a smoker, chances are you would have a coughing fit after inhailing all the smoke.
There is a lesson to be learned here, if you wish to laugh at smokers, do it from a distance to avoid the smoke.

[henk4]

The stir caused by the Surtees F1 team when it appeared with Durex sponsering is something that I would like to see happen again. At that time the BBC drastically reduced F1 coverage.

The words that say it all about tobacco sponsering came from old Enzo himself: "My cars don't smoke"
and that is the way it should be.

[Matra et Alpine]

I can't wait till i go to Ireland next week, i can go down the local pub, and there will be no smokers! YEAH! Go smoking ban.

Come to Scotland in Spring
It's already been suggested that there will be LOTS of customers in pubs just South of the border as the Scots will drive miles to go to a pub to have a drink and a smoke !!! Sounds liek we'll ahve a few doing it the other way too

[Wouter Melissen]

the Scots will drive miles to go to a pub to have a drink and a smoke !!! o

I foresee a problem there.

[Matra et Alpine]

I love the seventies:

Minardi's first outing was in a BORROWED Ferrari 312 and sponsired by Everest - another condom manufacturer.

Slightly more "discreet" advertising, but the team was called Scuderia EVEREST

[Matra et Alpine]

I foresee a problem there.

Not in the borders. Just as with the highlands a "blind eye" is often turned on the activity. Occasionally the local police will even drop in to a pub "lock in" for one with their friends whilst on 'patrol'

[Matra et Alpine]

And it seems that mobile phone giants Vodafone have been waiting in the wings for the last couple of years with their ready-made red & white logo, I wouldn't be suprised if it is they who fill the void left by Marlboro.

Nobody is willing or able to pay as high as the tobacco manufacturers

BAR may soon become obsolete.

The original intent by BAR in setting up the company was to prepare themselves for when they woudl not be permitted to ADVERTISE on the cars.
The laws say you can't ADVERTISE, but BAR in their team name will always have the advertising and whilst THEY own and operate the team there is little the legislators can do abotu it. So for example Jordan Benson and Hedges have forever played with the tobacco name to skirt the laws. BUT wont' be allowed to ( if they'd continued ) to have B&H in the name as they're really only a sponsor not the team principal.
The justification put forward years back by BAT was that British American Racing would retain "brand image"

[Wouter Melissen]

Not in the borders. Just as with the highlands a "blind eye" is often turned on the activity. Occasionally the local police will even drop in to a pub "lock in" for one with their friends whilst on 'patrol'

They do sound like junkies; getting their fix by breaking the law.

[2ndclasscitizen]

tobacco advertising has been banned for years in australia, the national rugby league comp in australia had to be renamed because of it, but its for the best

[scubasteve87]

For whoever asked, I voted bad idea because teams should be free to pursue the sponsors of their choosing, and with the strain on sponsorships on motorsports, taking away a big source of cash seems dumb to me.

[Matra et Alpine]

For whoever asked, I voted bad idea because teams should be free to pursue the sponsors of their choosing, and with the strain on sponsorships on motorsports, taking away a big source of cash seems dumb to me.

Well it would have meant that the only races you'd have seen on the F1 calendar would have been China, Dubai and any new tracks Bernie could find in Asia

Most western countries have chosen to save the costs in the health service looking after those who succumb to cancers proven to come from smoking and second-hand smoke.

F1 racing was excelletn in the days BEFORE the vast sums into the sport from tobacco and will do so again. Arguably it will be BETTER off without the silly money one team coudl occasionally come up with for a couple of seasons.

[CaesarLeo]

Banning smoking from any outdoor or indoor places is not going to solve any problems as is evident in campagin agaisnt marijuana where an estimated 20 million people still use the drug regardless of the laws. Teams should be allowed to be sponorsed by who they choose. It is not as if Michael Schumacher is making commercials about how cool it is to smoke Marlboros. It is merely Marlboro showing that they have an interest in Formula 1 and support Ferrari in their participation of the sport. Responsibility for smoking habbits should be blamed on the people who decided to pick it up and not on the companies producing the product.

[Matra et Alpine]

Banning smoking from any outdoor or indoor places is not going to solve any problems

odd that the scientific evidence for the last 40 years refutes that

Teams should be allowed to be sponorsed by who they choose. It is not as if Michael Schumacher is making commercials about how cool it is to smoke Marlboros. It is merely Marlboro showing that they have an interest in Formula 1 and support Ferrari in their participation of the sport. Responsibility for smoking habbits should be blamed on the people who decided to pick it up and not on the companies producing the product.

The problem is you cannot as you said FORCE anyoen to stop so you ahve to "influence". So schools may spend a few thousand dollars a year trying to get over the message about how BAD it is and government may even spend a few milion doing the same with TV etc. It's a drop in the ocean to the spending by the cigarette manufacturers. So governments the world over have deciced that the only way to control the uptake is to prevent the advertising of them. Thus F1 can't advertise on TV.
It might take 10 years for it to have an impact for sure

[CaesarLeo]

I completely agree that we should try to reduce the usage of cigarettes. I'm not here to side with the tobacco companies. But at the same time I respect the right of a company to fairly advertise their product. I may not agree with the product that they are trying to sell, but it is still their right to do so. Running ads and commercials and funding education to help prevent smoking is one thing, but denying a company the right to advertise its product seems like crossing a line.

[Rockefella]

I completely agree that we should try to reduce the usage of cigarettes. I'm not here to side with the tobacco companies. But at the same time I respect the right of a company to fairly advertise their product. I may not agree with the product that they are trying to sell, but it is still their right to do so. Running ads and commercials and funding education to help prevent smoking is one thing, but denying a company the right to advertise its product seems like crossing a line.

Good point, companies should have the right to advertise their product, the same way someone said alcohol companies advertise in NASCAR and other racing.

BTW, I smoke cigarrettes, but only when I drink, which comes out to maybe a few cig's a week.