Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!rbutterworth
From: rbutterworth@watmath.waterloo.edu (Ray Butterworth)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: tobacco advertising ban
Message-ID: <16537@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Date: 27 Jan 88 16:38:56 GMT
References: <5929@utcsri.UUCP> <1351@looking.UUCP>
Distribution: can
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 100

In article <1351@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes:

> What would be more reasonable would be "truth-in-advertising" laws
> on dangerous, addictive products like tobacco.  The small warning stickers
> in the ads aren't enough.  Perhaps they could require all cigarette ads to
> picture diseased lungs, cancer death statistics or other such things
> in proportion to these effects.
> Smoking is dangerous and offensive.  Make the ads say that.  But don't ban
> them.

I really don't think that warnings make one bit of difference as far
as sales are concerned.  Their main function seems to be to provide
a defence for the tobacco industry whenever someone gets ill and
decides to sue them.  They did warn him that smoking was dangerous
to his health.  And he probably didn't follow their advice to avoid
inhaling.  Remember, in Canada those warnings are voluntary; they
were not legislated.

Anyone who starts smoking now does so under the full knowledge of
the dangers.  For most people, smoking is a symptom of something else,
not a basic thing by itself.  Consider the case of other kinds of
drugs.  In the core of large US cities, many people get into heavy
use of heroin and eventually destroy themselves with it.  Those
same people in small midwestern cities don't have the same access
to the illegal drugs, so they do the same thing with alcohol.  The
particular drug in each case doesn't really matter; they are only
symptoms of the original cause (whatever that may be).  Not many
people are going to stop becoming drug abusers simply because
someone tells them that it is dangerous.  Whether they admit it
to themselves or not, that danger is one of the reasons they do
it.  Pointing it out isn't going to make much difference except
to those people that don't need the destructive outlet.

Some people find it easy to quit, others find it impossible.
Those that find it easy probably only started smoking because it
was the socially acceptable thing to do, not because they had a
fundamental psycological need to smoke.  When that social need
is removed (e.g. they notice that very few of their friends or
work associates smoke), so is their desire to smoke.

If you stop someone that has a deep need to smoke from smoking,
he is only going to find some other outlet for this need, whether
it be excess food or the abuse of other drugs.  Personally I'd
rather have him killing himself with heroin than with tobacco
because at least then I wouldn't have to inhale his excess smoke.
Unfortunately I'd have to put up with having my house looted,
my car stripped, or myself mugged in order to support his habit.
Even more unfortunately, almost none of the tobacco, alcohol,
or drug programs that try to get people off their drug do much
to treat the real causes of the addiction, so for the most part
their success is largely temporary.

> While I'm a strong anti-smoker, and firmly against smoking in public
> places, I'm also very much against any such ban.
> To ban people from promoting their product or viewpoint scares me.

Me too.
On the other hand, I think that the government (or whoever wants
to play Big Brother) should try to make smoking appear as socially
unacceptable as possible.  That would greatly reduce the numbers
of new smokers, and force the rest into the city's inner core
ghettos (or to Lulu's), where they wouldn't bother the rest of us.
Steps, such as the University has recently taken to ban smoking
in most buildings, are probably the most effective weapon now.
It forces those that smoke to consider their reasons for smoking.
Is the pleasure of smoking so great that it is worth standing
outside freezing?  Their alternative is illicitly sneaking a
puff and hoping no one notices.  That too should make them see
that there is something wrong with their actions.

It's nice too when the news reports things with the "right" slant.
e.g. do they say it will cost $500,000 to intall a separate
ventilation system to provide clean air for non-smokers, or do
they say it is to exhaust the dirty air created by smokers?

Have you noticed the way tobacco advertising is going these days?
Take a look at the back cover of the January 4 issue of Maclean's:
"Benson & Hedges 100's, because quality matters".  There is a large
picture of a restaurant.  At the left is a man by himself.  He is
smoking (with no visible smoke of course) and reading a book.  To
the right at another table are two women.  They are smiling and
looking at the man.  One of them is smoking, one isn't.  Now look
at the smaller "after" picture.  The man has now turned around
and is looking at the smoking woman.  She has turned towards him
and has an even bigger smile.  Both are holding their cigarettes
at mouth level and to the side facing the non-smoker.  Whatever
they are saying is intimate between the two of them; the other
woman is excluded.  Not only that, we can now only see the edge
of her hand and knee, the rest of her is literally cut out of the
picture.  And the caption reads "for people who like to smoke".

So there's the message:  if you like to smoke you are going to
have a good time, you'll meet new people, life will be wonderful;
if you don't like to smoke, forget it, you'll be cut out of the
picture.  All you people out there that are insecure, socially
inept, or just plain lonely, all you have to do is smoke B&H
and all your problems will be solved.

And they say these adds are only intended to promote brand
preference and not to solicit new customers.