h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

But a larger minority than most of the commercial channels.

I too wish to live as long as possible - but I'm not the problem - its all those other people!

I do *not* want to stop you driving. I *do* want to stop the automobile companies from spending millions trying to persuade my children to drive. And I *do* want to breathe combustion exhaust-free air wherever I go.

Think of it as a sort of affirmative action for the oppressed: we have had vehicle exhaust forced on us for long enough, now we're going to force a little clean air on you


;^)#

Fine. So instigate a campaign to ban car advertising. AT least cars get you from A to B. I suppose cigarettes do, as well, but you can't change B: it's always the mortuary

I can't, in good conscience, instigate a campaign to ban car adverts because they are legal to sell & therefore must be legal to advertise. In exactly the same way that, whilst I dont agree with certain religious or political organisations, I respect their right to exist & advertise or evangelise seeking support - its called democratic freedom of expression.

;^)#

I couldn't put it better:- If something is legal to sell, it MUST be legal to advertise. Controls are in place to stop advertisers from deliberately or recklessly offending people, and these controls tend to reflect the views and tastes of the majority of the population. In other words, Society decides what can and cannot be aired in public, and this is quite democratic. There is a difference between saying "You may not advertise tobacco to children", and saying "You may not advertise tobacco". The former is a legitimate control on promoting illegality, while the latter is a breach of Human Rights. It is within the purview of elected governments to outlaw tobacco completely on health grounds, and then ban advertising. I would have no problem with that, apart from the side effects. Just imagine, ciggie pushers on street corners, Gang wars over the Rizla trade...... Prohibition, anyone?

WHAT YOU MEAN LIKE THEY DO WITH CANNABIS?

DID ANYONE SEE THAT PROGRAMME 'LIVING WITH THE ENEMY' ON BBC 2 LAST NIGHT.
WHAT PLANET WAS THAT PRATT JAMES HELLYER FROM THEN???

AND HOW DID THOSE HOLES GET INTO THE UPHOLSTERY IN THE FIRST PLACE THEN HUH???

Belonging to an organised religion increases your average life expectancy by around ten years, smoking, coincidentally, decreases it by the same amount!

Politicians:
A two legged creature with its head stuck up its own a***

The point is, all tobacco adverts (all adverts full stop) are designed to appeal to the group the advertisers most wish to attract. With tobacco, this is children aged around 17. And naturally anything designed to appeal to 17-year-olds appeals to 15-year-olds as well.

The tobacco companies ultimately lost the argument over advertising because cigarettes are demonstrably harmful.

Interesting fact: tobacco firms agreed unanimously, and voluntarily (although now legislation is also in effect), to withdraw TV advertising in the UK, because they were faced with the choice of either withdrawing the ads, or having equal airtime given over to publicity of the adverse health effects of smoking. They didn't particularly like the idea of that Did you ever see the "Joe Chemo" advert? That went down like a cup of cold sick with the manufacturers.

With alcohol, there is a fair body of research to suggest that moderate consumption of alcohol is healthy. Other research indicates that consumption of alcohol at normal social levels is essentially health-neutral. And some research contradicts this. Against this, governments would have a hard time justifying an advertising ban. With smoking, the only research which has ever demonstrated anything other than damage to health has been some questionable science form the manufacturers which purported to show no significant net disbenefit. This was not subjected to peer review, and is consequently given no credence.

Smoking also harms those who choose not to smoke, be it children in a house where the parents smoke, or non-smokers using a public facility in which people smoke. Just ask Sir Roy Castle. Oh, you can't. He died of lung cancer as a result of inhaling other people's smoke when performing in clubs. Sure, drink-driving is harmful. And there are extensive adverts to stop it. But social drinking, in a restaurant, for example, has no discernible effect on others.

Remember: smoking is the single biggest cause of premature death in the UK. Not drinking, not driving, not even drink-driving. Nobody is stopping tobacco firms from promoting their products to adult smokers through other means: there are mailshots and promotional activities galore. Tobacconists can still show the products. It is not necessary to approach some shady "dealer" unless you want black-market fags from the Continent. BUT cigarette adverts, which promote a product which offends the majority of the population (most adults do not smoke, and very few children do either), are banned.

Big Tobacco lost the argument. Their best lawyers could not come up with a compelling reason why the government should not ban advertising.

I don't think any one is suggesting that smoking is anything but bad for you or anyone else who breaths the smoke. However, there has been no research to establish a causal relationship between smoking & cancer - only a statistical likely hood. The same cant be said for the victims of drink drivers or gunshots (ie 100% of the people on the wrong end of a gun or a drink driver suffer an immediate & identifiable injury). Whereas, there are a number of cases of people smoking for years without suffering cancer.

>Interesting fact: tobacco firms agreed unanimously, and voluntarily > (although now legislation is also in effect), to withdraw TV >advertising in the UK, because they were faced with the choice of >either withdrawing the ads, or having equal airtime given over to >publicity of the adverse health effects of smoking. They didn't >particularly like the idea of that.

I dont know about in the UK, but here in Australia the tobacco companies were presented with the option of paying for the anti smoking adverts which were to be designed by the anti smoking lobby. I wouldnt particularly like the idea of that - the same as you wouldn't like the idea of funding me to argue with you.

> Just ask Sir Roy Castle. Oh, you can't. He died of lung cancer as a > result of inhaling other people's smoke when performing in clubs.

So smoke inhalation was the cause of death listed on his death certificate? And he was never exposed to any other carcenogens like those contained in free range air? There was a direct & demonstrable link between his death & 2nd hand smoke in clubs?

> Sure, drink-driving is harmful. And there are extensive adverts to > stop it. But social drinking, in a restaurant, for example, has no > discernible effect on others.

So, advertising should be banned for a product that increases the statistical likelihood of a fatal disease whilst warning adverts (funded by the taxpayer here) are enough to discourage the misuse of products that have a direct, demonstrable & immediate effect on innocent bystanders.

Interestingly, whilst there has been no tobacco advertising here for about 10years there has been a constant stream of (taxpayer funded) anti smoking ads on TV & in print. There has also been a steady increase in the number of new smokers - there is now a school of thought that the anti smoking ads are a significant factor in this market growth as they establish smoking as an option.


;^)#

A planet that knows how the Caps-Lock key works?

Smoking causes cancer and heart disease. Alcohol causes stuipidity.
And life inevitably causes death.

Now that I can't disagree with!

Yeah, just what we needed a spoilsport


;^)#

The relationship between cancer and smoking has been established through epidemiological studies over a number of years - the same techniques, I believe, which established the link between asbestos and mesothelioma. (Note to the curious: the woman who campaigned for compensation from Turner and Newell for the cancers caused in those living around their factories was awarded the OBE. In the same honours list, the chairman of T&N was awarded a knighthood. Go figure).

In the UK I don't know who would have had to pay for the ads, but the content was to have been designed by the Deprtment of Health.

>There was a direct & demonstrable link between his death & 2nd hand smoke in clubs? <

Yes. He was a lifelong non-smoker who worked extensively in very smoky working men's clubs, and it was stated publicly that this was the direct cause of his cancer. A large campaign for smoke-free public places resulted. No other credible cause was put forward.

As to >>advertising should be banned ...<<, put it this way: advertising should be banned for a product which is guaranteed to have adverse affects on your health almost immediately, and which will has a high probablility of ultimately causing a fatal disease, and whose promotion is primarily designed to ensure a steady stream of new recruits to replace those it kills.

Advertising should not necessarily be banned for a product which may or may not have beneficial effects, which could under certain circumstances if used irresponsibly cause death or serious injury. The same could be said of most domestic power tools. There should, however, be a vigorous casmpaign to warn about the safe use of these products. Which campaign exists. There is no known risk-free way to smoke tobacco.

As to the effect of anti-smoking ads in increasing smoking, there is an adage in the PR industry that there is no such thing as bad publicity.

There was a recent death here of someone who died, after taking Ecstasy at a dance party, due to brain swelling - there was a large campaign to ban dance parties/raves etc.

I dont think 'large campaigns' necessarily mean they have the right end of the stick nor do they necessarily add credence to an argument.


;^)#

That would be like banning houses because most accidents happen there. But banning Ecstacy would be a good idea - oh, wait. It's already an class-A controlled substance. No parallels with smoking there, then.

The evidence is -not- incontrovertible, and has, in fact, been controverted (hey, it's my word, I'll spell it any way I want! out the ying-yang. In fact, when a NON-BIASED institution got hold of the surgeon general's (and other smoke-banning advocates) 'evidence' about second hand smoke it was found to be heavily weighted an not reliable at all.. Independent studies found that if a person were to live with a heavy smoker (minimum of two packs per day) for twenty years, they would have ingested as much smoke in that time as if they themselves had smoked *gasp* one cigarette.

Having worked in a restaurant that catered to the 'after hours' crowd (locally known as 'bar rush' ), I saw more vomit being spewed from beer drinkers and other imbibers who -drove- in than I ever spewed in my lifetime. And I suffered the obnoxiousness, cruelty, and other side-effects of 'second hand drinking' as well.. So don't tell me I can't smoke in a public place IF I CHOOSE.

There is a think called tolerance. If someone politely asks me to try to keep my smoke away from their face because it bothers them, I will. If someone -demands- that I take my smoke elsewhere, I'm more likely to blow it in their face. Most restaurants here already have large
'non-smoking sections' which are empty while the majority of their customers crowd into a tight little sealed and supposedly ventilated room so they can enjoy a -legal- ciggy.

I'm sure with a little effort, those who choose to continue and those who choose not to can get along.

*whistle* ... Hey Mable! Black Label!