I’m a strong anti-smoking advocate. Still, I believe the 30 year old ban on television cigarette ads should be repealed. They are legal products for adults over 18. We allow prescription drug ads as well as alcohol ads. Perhaps allowing cigarette ads would demystify their appeal to young people. It is still a silly policy in the United States to not allow this form of advertising.
How do you figure, if the ads are going to show happy people enjoying a product?
It takes away the “danger” and “rebel” aspect of smoking.
I agree with the OP: the ads should be allowed on TV, though purely from the perspective of freedom of speech. I see no reason to ban these commercials from television (especially non-broadcast), even when other ads such as those in the OP are allowed (in addition to ads for casinos and the local adult shops that I’m fairly certain I’ve seen on network tv).
Although I doubt ads will demystify cigarettes for young people. I don’t think similar ads for alcohol have had this effect at all.
Do you think that removing that aspect would decrease the number of smokers? Is more that than the number that would take it up as a result of advertising? If so, you seem to be arguing that advertising would decrease the number of smokers, which would come as a bit of a surprise to the advertisers who are willing to spend millions of dollars to broadcast commercials.
If danger and rebelliousness are major incentives to smoke, don’t you think the ads will reflect that, showing a handsome bad-boy smoking while women fawn over him and he treats them indifferently, like all cool guys should, as he climbs into his tricked out rice burner to beat yet another opponent on the quarter-mile while the cops look on helplessly in their futile attempts to rein in young energy? Further, wouldn’t you expect new brands like “Firestorm: the brand for you, not your parents!” to appear? What kind of advertising did you have in mind, and what possible motivation could tobacco companies have to present ads that make their product less desirable?
If cigarettes were advertised on tv, they’d be just another product that corporate America wants to sell you.
But would more people smoke, or less?
The only thing I don’t get is why are cigarette ads illegal, but not alcohol ads? This is just not logical.
Logic has very little to do with it. But money has. I suspect that if they tried to put cigarette ads back on TV there would be a backlash against shows that were sponsored by them. Thirty years and anti smoking laws practically everywhere except your own bathroom have stiffened the resistance to tobacco ads. These days a healthy (heh) majority of Americans are non smokers. Law or no law, I don’t think they would tolerate the ads now as they once did. At any rate, I wouldn’t accept them without complaint.
I don’t much care for liquor or prescription medicine ads either, but there is no particular ground swell against them.
Not as strong as I am (and just quit seven months ago). I don’t see why the damn things are still sold like they are. Any other product that was known to kill a statistically significant percentage of its users when used as directed would have long been legislated out of existence.
Advertising would encourage more people to smoke, particularly young people. If it is restricted to running only at night, only the most susceptible children would see the ads: those without adequate supervision. Poor parental influences are the biggest reason for adolescent drinking and smoking today. Advertising won’t help with that.
I expect corporate America would be very very good at selling cigarettes, as it has been at selling numerous other products. I don’t understand the logic that suggests this would reduce teen smoking.
dalej, you and I would think this, and most of the other people on this message board would think this, but unfortunately we would all be part of a very very small minority in this country. Advertising is the engine on which our economy runs, and it only works because the vast majority of people buy into it (literally). Most people don’t think enough about advertising to realize they’re being manipulated. The same would hold true for cigarettes.
I don’t think your analogy with prescription drugs is apt. Prescriptions drugs have legitimate uses, and in most cases are not dangerous if used as directed. There is no need for cigarettes; they are a purely recreational drug and are harmful to your health even when used as designed.
The analogy to alchohol makes a little more sense. If you object to the inconsistency of allowing one and not the other, perhaps alcohol commercials should also be banned.
Ads for hard liquor are illegal, aren’t they? It’s only beer and wine that can be advertised on TV.
Are there any other products that are legal to buy/use but illegal to advertise on TV? Firearms maybe?
More people would probably smoke, and that may be a good thing for society as a whole. I say this for three good reasons. One, smokers aren’t victims who don’t understand the risks of smoking. Harvard University economist, W. Kip Viscusi, discusses this in his book, Smoke Filled Rooms. People actually overestimate the risks of smoking, and decide to engage in the behavior anyway. It may be a stupid choice in the eyes of many, but it one everyone should have the right to make. If other businesses can advertise, then tobacco companies should be able to as well.
Two, most people who have smoked don’t become addicts, In addition, 1/5 of the people labeled as smokers, don’t smoke everyday (according to University of Pittsburgh Psychologist Saul Shiffman). These people (called chippers) are often social smokers who often do not suffer from the same health problems regular smokers do. That means more tax money, and less stress on the system.
Three, smokers (especially heavy smokers) don’t put a burden on the system. In fact, they often contribute more financially than they take out. Or, to quote Mr. Viscusi:
Overall, I see nothing wrong with someone making the decision to smoke and expose themselves to a greater risk of getting a number of diseases. If you want to die 7 years earlier, that should be your choice. Companies should also be able to advertise their products as long as they are presented factually.
I think the logic behind this (at least so I’ve heard) is that the alcohol companies said from the word go that: “Hey this shit will kill ya!”
Where as the tobaco companies didn’t, nor did they say anything about it being addictive. Which led to the lawsuits, yadda yadda yadda…
So in short, the tobaco companies screwed themselves. Had they been honest in the first place like the alocohol companies, We’d still be seeing the Marlboro man ridding around on his horse on TV.
Ads for hard liquor are perfectly legal. They’re pretty rare on broadcast TV, but I see them all the time on cable. I remeber a while ago their was a big controversy when NBC ran an ad for hard liquor during SNL. Supposedly it was the first spirits ad on network TV in 50 years. I’ve never seen an ad for firearms on TV, but I’m not sure if they’re actually illegal.
Not really. Kids smoking was just a big a problem in the early 70s when cigarette advertising was shown on TV.
Liquor ads have never been illegal, but there was a voluntary ban respected by broadcasters and cable networks until 1996. Since then, liquor ads have become more common, to the consternation of alcohol abuse control groups.