I saw a commercial on network TV last night that I found disturbing. Let’s see what you guys think.
It was an ad against “Big Tobacco”, which showed a board meeting with one man speaking. Throughout the commercial, he was finding it harder and harder to speak, in the end, losing his voice entirely. This scene was alternated with a scene of a young man reading a magazine. The voice over talked about the evils of big tobacco and it’s advertising, finishing up with the suggestion that one should, “rip out all tobacco ads you see [in magazines]”. The slogan was, “Silence Big Tobacco”. It did say, in very small print across the bottom of the screen that one should only do this to one’s own magazines, which seems to me a completely stupid idea, but better than ripping the ads out of magazines that don’t belong to you.
In any case, it seemed to me that the clear message was that one should go around ripping out all tobacoo ads one’s sees, and that the very small “only do this to your own property” was squished into as small and unnoticeale a place as possilbe to satisfy the legal requirement, without and sincerity behind it.
What do you guys think of this? I think it sucks. Why do these people it’s OK to encourage this kind of behaviour? Because they think “Big Tobacco” is evil?
If I was big tobacco, I would be dancing a jig about this. It’s enemy is telling teenagers to specifically go through all their magazines and actively seek out all the tobacco ads and look at them.
In fact, the “Truth” ads made me want to START smoking again…
Nice to see you again, Lucky! How ya been?
Yer pal,
Satan
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Three months, two weeks, five days, 15 hours, 50 minutes and 48 seconds.
4426 cigarettes not smoked, saving $553.30.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 1 day, 8 hours, 50 minutes.
If I gotta do tobacco, I do the chew. Haven’t now in quite some time. In fact, not since I was enlisted in the Army. But most anti-tobacco ads discuss “smoking” tobacco. It’s rare to see anything about chew/snuff/dip. I agree that it gives the tobacco industry an edge as well, but have you also noticed that the ads against tobacco are usually paid for by big tobacco companies?
Good point about kids having to specifically search out the tobacco ads!
I guess what really bothered me about this was the notion that it’s OK to deface other people’s property as long as you’re doing it for a reason which you deem to be for the common good. Yes, I know they put the teeny weeny little disclaimer in saying to only rip apart your own mags, but the blatant suggestion was to do it to all mags you could get your hands on.
Isn’t this the same mentality that suggests bombing abortion clinics is OK? Since when does holding an opinion entitle one to destroy other’s property?
[sidenote]Good to be back, Satan. All’s well here. Hubby is home and settling in. Glad to see you and Drain are still together and happy. I sympathize with you about the long-distance thing though![/sidenote]
The justification for attacking tobacco companies seems to be that they have “lied about tobacco being addictive and dangerous. And that they still continue to lie/deny it”.
It may be true that “Big Tobacco” says this (or rather said that in some hearings). But until recently this is the first I’ve heard of it. I’ve never seen any ads by tobacco companies purporting it to be a health food or that it wasn’t bad for you. In fact my whole life I’ve been told by the Surgeon General and EVERYONE else that tobacco is addictive and causes a myriad of diseases. I’ve never heard anyone state that tobacco is not bad for you. In fact the tobacco co’s don’t deny it, they just say that the jury is still out on it and they aren’t 100% sure. They’re entitled to their opinion, no matter how idiotic it may sound. My grandfather died at the age of 87. And he smoked Chesterfields since he was a kid. His cause of death was listed as natural causes. He never had any illness related to smoking and in fact hand farmed a 10 acre plot of land every year! Even the year he died! With a hand tiller! (if that’s what you call them. the ones that you have to manually push.) Damn I miss that man! I loved to raid his garden and pick stuff… but i digress…
What gets me is why tobacco was first and alcohol doesn’t even seem to be on the horizon. Apparently the gun manufacurers are next. Yet alcohol is addictive and can cause death from overdose quite easily. Not to mention the countless lives that have been lost on our roads due to drunk driving. AND I’VE NEVER SEEN A BOTTLE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LABELED: DANGEROUS! MAY CAUSE DEATH IF INGESTED! (not to mention the myriad of other diseases associated with it. how’s your liver?)
Admittedly though they are about being pregnant and drinking (the ones I’ve seen) and not talking about getting drunk and wrapping your car around a telephone pole.
Yer pal,
Satan
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Three months, two weeks, five days, 20 hours, 54 minutes and 51 seconds.
4434 cigarettes not smoked, saving $554.35.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 1 day, 9 hours, 30 minutes.
I don’t smoke and never have, but I swear to gods, nothing makes me want to go out and start like these whiny, preachy ads. I get so tired of the goverment playing mom and trying to keep me from doing anything that might get me hurt, removing my personal responsibility. And why anyone would think that this is the way to get teens to stop smoking is beyond me. I don’t think I would have ever had a drink as a teenager if it had not been forbidden.
Hey, I think that “big tobacco” should finance these ads, but play up the “only tear them out of your magazines” aspect. That way they can get self-righteous but not too bright people to buy up extra copies, increasing circulation and the value of the ad space.
i don’t think that particular ad is sponsered by a tobacco company. it’s “the truth.” i hate those frickin’ people. their commericals are stupid and their site is a joke. worst of all, they make moderate “anti-smokers” (people like me who just don’t want a lot of smoking around us) look really bad.
“Hey, don’t blame the cigarette makers. Tobacco companies are being sued way too much. I admit they’re evil poison-mongers who give other evil poison-mongers a bad name. Yes, they lie about the addictive nature of their products and get rich doing it. But come on, tell the truth, we knew they were lying all along. If you’re saying you didn’t know cigarettes were bad for you, you’re lying through that hole in your trachea. Of course it causes lung cancer. Of course it causes emphysema. It’s fucking smoke. Would you build a campfire and every hour stand real close and take deep breaths? How could you not know smoking is bad for you? Is having teeth the color of caramel corn normal? Is coughing up your lungs one smoldering loogie at a time normal? God gave you two lungs, so don’t be an asshole. Think. Use one lung for smoking and the other one for breathing.”
Well, on the issue of the companies themselves, I’ve already posted my opinion in the “Logically Defending Big Tobacco” GD thread–which I am waayyy too tired to link to right now.
On these ads, though:
It has actually been suggested–and seems reasonable–that these ads (along with the anti-marajuana ads) actually help promote drug use. The reasoning goes like this:
Kid A is tol all through life the cigs and pot are bad for you, and you shouldn’t smoke them…etc.
Kid A, of course, tries one or both of these products.
Said product does not kill Kid A, or even appear to damage him in any way, since they don’t kill quickly.
Kid A reasons, “hey, they lied to me about this stuff–I feel pretty good–maybe they lied to me about crack as well”.
Obviously this is exagerated and over-simplified, but the general principle is kinda interesting…
Only slightly OT:
Why have the Partnership For a Drug-Free America ads gotten so frickin weird lately? It used to be: “don’t do drugs, they screw you up”. Then it moved to, “we can’t do anything, but hang in there, all you kids who are trying to say no to the aggressive pushers”…so far, not overly weird or irrelevant.
But now we have the “Opportunity: the anti-drug” ads.
What were they thinking? First off, what does this have to do with women in sports? The first time I saw the commercial, I thought it was just a “promote athleticism in women” ad…until the very end. Moreover, since when is opportunity an anti-drug? * How * many rich and sucessful people are busted each year for drug possession?
I think the person behind these ads was indulging in a little “opportunity-killer” themself at the time…