F1-Tobacco Ads=?

[Matra et Alpine]

"Rights" are defiend by the acceptability of the community.

So murder is wrong.
Nobody has the "right" to sell their services as a murderer to the highest bidder.
Narcotic drugs are wrong.
Nobody has the "right" to sell ClassA drugs.

Same with tobacco now !

Even more extreme, should a paedophiliac be able to advertise in the school magazine ?? Dont' they have "rights" ???

[CaesarLeo]

Sorry I couldn't respond sooner but I was away for the weekend. Certainly you are not equating the sale of tobacco with murder. The difference is that the decision to take a life is made by the murderer and not the person being murdered. The choice to consume tobacco products is made by the person using them and not by someone else. In one case, the right to life is taken away from someone against their will. In the case of using tobacco products, the choice is made by the individual. The same is true with narcotic drugs and I would be careful how you throw around the word "wrong." If a person wants to consume a substance such as cigarettes or narcotic drugs or alcohol, they should have the right to do so because what they are doing has an impact on their body alone and does not infringe on the rights of others.

[Wouter Melissen]

Smoking is a rare form of substance abuse that actually does infringe the rights of others.

[Matra et Alpine]

Sorry I couldn't respond sooner but I was away for the weekend. Certainly you are not equating the sale of tobacco with murder. The difference is that the decision to take a life is made by the murderer and not the person being murdered.

I only brought the murder analagoy in to show the extremes of how "rights" have to be observed when they impact others.

The choice to consume tobacco products is made by the person using them and not by someone else.

yes, but smoking in public in family situations etc DOES damage others.
Some would consider it GBH if not 'murder'
The other aspect is that the consumption puts a large burden on the healthcare system and the wider "rights" of most communities are now chosing to try to stop smoking to avoid those later huge costs.

In one case, the right to life is taken away from someone against their will. In the case of using tobacco products, the choice is made by the individual. The same is true with narcotic drugs and I would be careful how you throw around the word "wrong." If a person wants to consume a substance such as cigarettes or narcotic drugs or alcohol, they should have the right to do so because what they are doing has an impact on their body alone and does not infringe on the rights of others.

So you are sayign you shodul be able to consume as much alcohol as you like whilst driving a car along a freeway ??
After all until the point where the person ploughs into another car killing the kids in the back seat etc etc they wern't doing anything "wrong" were they ??

[CaesarLeo]

That is not what I am saying at all. In fact you just proved my point. Drinking and driving does impact the rights of others because it causes auto accidents. But that doesn't mean that the way to prevent these sort of accidents is by abolishing alcohol. Certain regulations have been established to help ensure that consuming alcohol does not infringe on the rights of others. Abolishing tobacco products is not the solution to the problem. Having designated smoking areas as we do now is a perfectly good example of how the use of tobacco products can be tolerated without harming others. Second hand smoke can be a danger but only if one is exposed to it for a number of years. This brings me back to my original point. You may not agree with someones decision to smoke, but you have to realize that it is not your decision weather or not they do so. We should absolutely try to decrease the use of cigarettes, but you can't seriously think that telling people what they can and cannot do with their bodies is the way to go about it.

[scottie300z]

I think that by now the vast majority of people in the world, (at least from what i can tell from my point of view) all know the negative effects of tobacco and drinking for that matter. That being said, I think that if cigerettes themselves are legal then so should the advertising of them. I think that for the most part the adverse effects and nagativity of them are being well known enough therefore its not like any one is really being "fooled" or anything. Even if it was illegal to smoke in public places, just as long as it is a legal product advertising of it should be legal as well, just as long as the dangers are being well known.

[Matra et Alpine]

That is not what I am saying at all.

hold that thought

In fact you just proved my point. Drinking and driving does impact the rights of others because it causes auto accidents. But that doesn't mean that the way to prevent these sort of accidents is by abolishing alcohol. Certain regulations have been established to help ensure that consuming alcohol does not infringe on the rights of others. Abolishing tobacco products is not the solution to the problem. Having designated smoking areas as we do now is a perfectly good example of how the use of tobacco products can be tolerated without harming others. Second hand smoke can be a danger but only if one is exposed to it for a number of years.

erm, NO statistically it takes exposure BUT it can be triggered on the FIRST exposure. That's the way statistics works. It's the RISK that gets higher as time goes on not the actual impact

And as you've just pointed out smoking DOES impact the rights of others !
The right to "fresh air", the right to "lower insurance costs", the right to "more avalaibel helathcare beds". The list is actually VERY large

This brings me back to my original point. You may not agree with someones decision to smoke, but you have to realize that it is not your decision weather or not they do so. We should absolutely try to decrease the use of cigarettes, but you can't seriously think that telling people what they can and cannot do with their bodies is the way to go about it.

Corret.
BUT you are ignoring the point made about murder.
Murder in the name of the church was perfectly accepted 300 years ago and now isn't.
Smoking 100 years ago was fine and now isn't.
There aren't cast in concrete rules for society. They change and evolve as socities needs and understanding changes.
Sadly - for those who smoke - this is one where it is become unacceptable in public. WHAT anyone choses to do in their own space on their own isn't a major issue for most folks.
But given the much wider issues re tobacco advertising budgets - wow trygin to get back on topic - then the desire to reduce sales of tobacco is behidn the only control in a "free capitalism" and that is to prevent the ADVERTISING. Hence not affecting those who currently partake but attempting to reduce the appeal to "newbies".

[Matra et Alpine]

I think that by now the vast majority of people in the world, (at least from what i can tell from my point of view) all know the negative effects of tobacco and drinking for that matter. That being said, I think that if cigerettes themselves are legal then so should the advertising of them.

Well partly that's because multi-nationals are more powerful then governments and nobody is going to ban them !
As is oft quoted. IF cigarettes were invented NOW then they woudl instanaly be clasified as a dangerous drug and their sale and producion made illegal !!!!

I think that for the most part the adverse effects and nagativity of them are being well known enough therefore its not like any one is really being "fooled" or anything. Even if it was illegal to smoke in public places, just as long as it is a legal product advertising of it should be legal as well, just as long as the dangers are being well known.

I agree when you take the view of ONE individual who smokes.
I suggest that when you view "society" that the person is in and the impact smoking has in many aspects of the group then those "dangers" become significant.
Equally, how WOULD you try to prevent the uptake of a dangerous substance in youngsters ? Removing advertising is about the only way you can manage it without ending up in a law court !!!
As stated, tobacco is an odd substance which only survives because of the addiction of those who use it and the power of those who produce it.
The reality is governments don't want the health costs and are banning advertising to prevent/reduce the uptake.

PS: Strangely, the British scientist who first proved the link with tobacco and cancer died this week.

[CaesarLeo]

As I said before, second hand smoke can be a danger to people but only after a long exposure. But the supposition that walking down the street and passing someone smoking a cigarette is going to give you lung cancer is simply not true. If you sit in the smoking section of a restaurant pretty regularly, that will greatly increase your risk of lung cancer. However, if you are sitting in that section, chances are you are a smoker yourself. In terms of health costs, there are plenty of other things that are serious public health issues. One solution might be to take all of the overweight people who eat too much fast food and don't exercise and send them to fat camp so we don't have to pay taxes for all of the people who get heart disease and diabetes and the other illnesses associated with being overweight. But of course that is not a very good solution. In the same way that abolishing tobacco products is not a very good solution. I understand your point about the values of society changing overtime, but please stop equating cigarettes and murder. And if we are going to start abolishing substances that are bad for people, then alcohol should be the first on that list. Ofcourse in the US we already tried prohibition. It didn't work then, and it is not going to work now with tobacco or any substance.

[scottie300z]

Well i agree with many many points, i just dont want to get in on the should tobacco be legal thing. I just think that the hypocracy should be kept down and if the product is legal then so should the advertising, if one is illegal than so should the other. I understand why tobacco isnt illegal, there are a vast number of people who smoke, and what smoker would vote for people who are going to outlaw it (in democratic countries) and the tobacco buisiness is a big business and alot of money is to be had with it being legal.

And i understand the whole argument on the impression that it may have on kids, and you dont want to make it appealing to people before they can make an educated decision on it. But if a kid sees a cigerrette ad on a race car and associates that w/ cool, i dont think it is up to the law to parent the kids and outlaw those ads.

[Matra et Alpine]

As I said before, second hand smoke can be a danger to people but only after a long exposure. But the supposition that walking down the street and passing someone smoking a cigarette is going to give you lung cancer is simply not true.

Wrong.
Statistics tell you otherwise.
Just because the odds of soemthgin is say 1 in 100,000 doenst' mean you have to try it 100,000 times for it to happen. It can equally happen the FIRST time

In terms of health costs, there are plenty of other things that are serious public health issues. One solution might be to take all of the overweight people who eat too much fast food and don't exercise and send them to fat camp so we don't have to pay taxes for all of the people who get heart disease and diabetes and the other illnesses associated with being overweight.

Or the alternative woudl be to support healthy eatign programmes and to request food manufacturters to publish the nutrional facts - BY LAW - and request them to reduce them.
All things most nations have undertaken already

But of course that is not a very good solution. In the same way that abolishing tobacco products is not a very good solution. I understand your point about the values of society changing overtime, but please stop equating cigarettes and murder. And if we are going to start abolishing substances that are bad for people, then alcohol should be the first on that list. Ofcourse in the US we already tried prohibition. It didn't work then, and it is not going to work now with tobacco or any substance.

You are 100% and THAT is why drink DRIVING is illegal.
It's the CONSEQUENCES of the act that are the problem for society.
So DUI is already made illegal AND you dont' find ANY advertising for alcohol showing/involving kids anymore ( you used to ) The alcohol industry took it on as a request rather than having to await law !! ( well in the UK anyway, not sure abotu others ).
As I said when viewed as an individual and a smoker it's all skewed. Taking the wider picture and viewing it from other angles the issues being addressed by these programs is fairly plain.

[CaesarLeo]

Well it appears that we aren't going to change each others minds so maybe it is better to end this discussion. I have thoroughly enjoyed talking about this with you though. This is the first thread that I have posted on here and it is nice to meet people who are able to have a reasonable and civilized discussion. Take care.

P.S. I would be interested to hear about a lung cancer case that was undeniable linked to a single exposure of second hand smoke.

[cuntukimushroom]

I Partly Care and Don't care, It might be incouraging other people to smoke, Otherwise It's Their Health not mine, you see?

[Matra et Alpine]

P.S. I would be interested to hear about a lung cancer case that was undeniable linked to a single exposure of second hand smoke.

Well again that's not how statistics are collected

In 1991/2 the Envornmentl Protection Agency first went public in a major way on it

"I. Lung cancer
Second-hand smoke is the third-ranking known cause of lung cancer after active smoking and indoor radon. Exposure to second-hand smoke during adult life increases the risk of lung cancer in non-smokers. Lung cancer now kills more women than breast cancer, and is the second leading cause of premature death for men. The 1992 EPA report confirms that second-hand smoke is a human lung carcinogen, and is linked to 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually in the U.S.8 Since in this case geographic and cultural differences are probably not significant, it can be assumed that the numbers are proportionately similar in Canada and Ontario. The cancer mortality from second-hand smoke alone is greater than the combined mortality from all regulated environmental carcinogens. "

As a "carcinogen" it may taek only one exposure to triger a cancerous cell. YES, more exposre measn better chance - because most of the time damaged cells die and dont' go cancerous. BUT I raised thet to explain that a 1 in 1,000,000 chance doens't mean you have to be exposed 1,000,000 times. It could happen on the first, the 500,00th or the 1,000,000th That's the way "risk" is

[R34GTR]

I'm agreeing with Matra on this one, I hate "second-hand smoke" I don't want it yet when people smoke around it happens on some way or another I think smoking is selfish but on the other hand if you were to ban cigarettes and other smoking products it wouldn't be good for the economy , but that said the money marlboro and other company's have left if it were to happen could be invested in new products and money saved by consumers could be spent on other products.