41 replies to this topic

[Ross Stonefeld]

Im beginning to think something is amiss.

Why is tobacco such a big issue for the race venues? Its just one sponsor. Granted its the largest sponsor, but at the same time its the smallest. Tobacco is currently only on 3(?) cars. Ferrari will find money no matter what, Mclaren are doing healthy and Jordan are just Jordan. So why the need to acomodate, or even worry about, tobacco? No one cares about the French ban on alcohol.

Now in principal I agree, the tobacco bans are stupid. But they are there and you have to deal with them. Why not just accept its going to be phased out and find new sponsors? Wouldnt the best way to help cut costs be to eliminate a sponsor that can only use sports as a way to get their product on TV? Following the tobacco ban suddenly cuts of a ton of 'free money'. Now those teams will get it all back from othre places so its not an effective cost cutting device, but it should be enough to make the management types think they are happy.

Why move out of Europe? On one hand F1's value is derived from TV figures and not on track attendance so it doesnt matter where you race as long as you have a TV deal, but will giving up Euro races in exchange for other venues hurt the TV situation? And is it about tobacco at all? France and Britain havent been under threat because of their tobacco ban so why should other countries?


Im just wondering if somewhere someone is getting their pockets lined to move out of Europe.

[graeme]

The tobacco industry is the major sponsor of teams and circuits (notics the Malboro logos everywhere). The teams have contracts to 2006 and there was to be a worldwide ban in motor racing in 2006.

The reason why there will be a loss of GPs in Europe is that the tobacco industry insist on full sinage for 75% (I think) of the GPs. Only 2 GPs don't have bans (GB and France). Any more and the teams will find themselves not getting the money from the sponsors.

[Ross Stonefeld]

And they'll find other sponsors when the tobacco ban is in place. Ferrari and Mclaren wont have any more trouble than Williams did. Likewise track signage.

[Ghostrider]

You forgot Mild Seven on Renault.

[david_martin]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
Tobacco is currently only on 3(?) cars.

Five by my reckoning - McLaren, Renault, Ferrari, Jordan and BAR all have big tobacco sponsorship.

[tony]

Because they know that racing fans are robots....If it has something to do with F1...F1 fans want to buy it or Tshirts with the logo, etc....

Proof of this are those people who at races wear the shirts and full uniforms as if they are part of the pit crew of one of the teams...What a joke.

Of course I am joking...but I too wonder about this for any sponsor. Is there really an increase in sales? ARe you gonna start smoking because Ferrari has Marlboro stickers on their car? Most would say, of course not, but somewhere this breaks down...somebody does decide to smoke, and/or switch brands, otherwise it would not be worth it for Marlboro.

[Ghostrider]

How about this from grandprix.com?
--------------------------------------------------------------
There have been some rather silly stories in the last 24 hours suggesting that Formula 1 can go on with its relationship with tobacco companies until beyond the planned global ban on tobacco advertising in motor racing in 2006. These seem to have arisen because of comments made by FIA President Max Mosley about the controversial European Union decision to bring forward its tobacco sponsorship ban until 2005. Mosley says that this could affect the imposition of a World Health Organisation ban in 2006.

Calling the European decision "an incredible piece of stupidity" Mosley said that it was now "virtually certain" that tobacco sponsorship will go on. This however does not take into account the International Tobacco Products Marketing Standards agreement of September 11 2001 in which the major tobacco companies agreed to stop all sports sponsorships by December 1 2006. The agreement defined the minimum restrictions which the companies agreed to place on themselves worldwide and created a common code of advertising and sponsorship standards which included an agreement to end sports sponsorships if the sport involved required "above-average physical fitness for someone of the age group of those taking part".

This is clearly the case in motor racing.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[thornwell]

I'm wondering the same thing you did at the start of this post, Ross. I mean, Mosley is more or less acting like the FIA is a ruling body equivalent to the European Health Commission or the ruling government of any Euro country.

I have no sympathy for the FIA on this one--the writing has been on the wall for nearly a decade. They are acting like big crybabies and faux-power holders on this matter, when really, what they should and could have done was to self-regulate and be ahead of the curve so the sport wouldn't suffer in the time of transition during international law.

Instead, they are engaging in what I would suspect is a futile power struggle (they are pretending to be able to struggle over this power, when really, they are more or less subject to what these countires or Euro-unions have already decided). I understand lobbying for a cause before the decision has been handed down. . . but that's a different story.

[stuck-in-first-gear]

I find it a bit silly that the EU intends to push through this ban for 2005 which would mean that more European races are to be cancelled in order to move to countries where tobacco ads are still legal. As a consequence millions of European viewers will be exposed to the tobacco advertising via their TVs.

There is no logic in all this

[Ross Stonefeld]

Yeah but it would have happened only a year later under other circumstances, so why the big flap? I dont see a need to change the entire sport for the sake of a single company's interest. Why arent the non-tobacco companies lobbying against lack of European presense?

[Hotwheels]

Although I am not a smoker , I dont quite understand what the fuss is about advertising for tobacco. Will it really stop new entrants ? Will it really diminish - I wonder.
If advertising was so easy to influence , we would have a lot ore products doing better business.

Also where does this stop - Will they replace Marlboro with McDonalds ? Or Coke ? Well guess what - both of these are subjects of lawsuits in America for causing obese children - check out the latest Fortune magazine - the same lawyer who took billions from the tobacco industry is now suing the Fast food one.

Finally - if F1 goes global (and it should) they will be other issues - Alcohol is more taboo in more countries than tobacco - Malayasia / Bahrain / even India - does not allow alcohol advertising or say pit babes (scantily dressed) etc. Hence where does this stop ?

[Scoots]

The loss of Tobacco sponsorship will hurt the smallest teams the most. They may not have tobacco sponsorship now, but several of the non-tobacco sponsors will be looking to move up to the major teams, thus creating yet another money void with the smaller teams.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Yeah all those big name sponsors on the Mnardi and Sauber are gonna bolt

[Manson]

The governments are the biggest hypocrites going. The "real" reason for the ban on advertising is all down to $$$. The governments know that eliminating tabacco sponsorship won't have an adverse affect on tabacco sales. Hell, if they really wanted people to stop smoking, they'd ban it outright. The bonus to the governments is in increased tax revenue from the tobacco companies. No more advertising write-offs leads to more taxable revenue. Therefore, to make up for this loss of dollars going to sports and other cultural events, the governments should use some, if not all of this bonus revenue to prop-up what has been adversely affected by their advertising bans. Not bloody likely!

[tifosi]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
And they'll find other sponsors when the tobacco ban is in place. Ferrari and Mclaren wont have any more trouble than Williams did. Likewise track signage.

Are you aware of what a "contract" is Ross. You've always been real sensible in your posts, I'm not sure if your SN has been hijacked or not. The teams that have tobacco sponsorship have signed contracts with there sponsoprs. Part of the contract stipulates how many Grands Prix they can have no sponsorship on the car. Because some European companies have now decided to accelerate there tobacco bans ahead of an already agreed to formula is what is causeing the problem.

While there is no doubt Ferrari and McLaren will find sponsorship, it's not like they are going to start getting the checks tomorrow. It is doubtful if, for example, Coke is going to start writing checks to Ferrari while Marlboro still has a signed contract with them to place THERE logo on the car. Ferrari (or anyone else) cannot simply say hey Marlboro see ya later we got Coke money for this weekend. They'd be in lawsuits up to there ass.


Your first sentence says it all. Yes they will have sponsorship when the ban is in place. IAW both Ferrari and Marlboro have specific business strategies based on that ban. You cannot sign contracts based on certain agreed to information, then have a party suddenly change that agreement and not expect serious repercussions.

[BRG]

Interestingly, from today all press and billboard advertising for cigarettes is banned in the UK (TV advertising was banned ages ago). The tide is flowing against the tobacco industry and I think that Ross's original question is very well-made. Why DOES the FIA set itself up as the protector of tobacco sponsorship?

It is fair enough to complain if contracts or agreements are breached, but the FIA seem to be ready to make a crusade out of protecting the tobacco companies. It does indeed make you wonder whether Max and Bernie are in the pockets of the tobacco industry. But in contrast, they seem remarkably uninterested in protecting the interests of the other F1 sponsors and participants. How many Renaults do they sell in Bahrain for instance, as compared to Belgium? Yet that seems not to have worried Bernie a jot when he canned Spa....

[tifosi]

Originally posted by Manson
The governments are the biggest hypocrites going. The "real" reason for the ban on advertising is all down to $$$. The governments know that eliminating tabacco sponsorship won't have an adverse affect on tabacco sales. Hell, if they really wanted people to stop smoking, they'd ban it outright. The bonus to the governments is in increased tax revenue from the tobacco companies. No more advertising write-offs leads to more taxable revenue. Therefore, to make up for this loss of dollars going to sports and other cultural events, the governments should use some, if not all of this bonus revenue to prop-up what has been adversely affected by their advertising bans. Not bloody likely!

Not exactly on topic but yes you are correct No country in the world wants anybody to quit smoking.

[tifosi]

Originally posted by BRG
Interestingly, from today all press and billboard advertising for cigarettes is banned in the UK (TV advertising was banned ages ago). The tide is flowing against the tobacco industry and I think that Ross's original question is very well-made. Why DOES the FIA set itself up as the protector of tobacco sponsorship?

It is fair enough to complain if contracts or agreements are breached, but the FIA seem to be ready to make a crusade out of protecting the tobacco companies. It does indeed make you wonder whether Max and Bernie are in the pockets of the tobacco industry. But in contrast, they seem remarkably uninterested in protecting the interests of the other F1 sponsors and participants. How many Renaults do they sell in Bahrain for instance, as compared to Belgium? Yet that seems not to have worried Bernie a jot when he canned Spa....

Again peoples ignorance makes the discussion worthless. Bernie did not can Spa. Both he and Max Mosely lobbied very hard to keep Spa on the calender. The teams voted Spa out and it was 10-0 against Spa. i.e. even teams with no tobacco sponsorship voted out Spa. Why? you mnight ask. Because they no full well what breaching contracts with the sponsors means. Hotwheels is absolutely correct. Where will it stop. American lawyers, who started the war against tobacco, are now attacking fast foods and the medical industry. In our current lagal system, just about any product sold can be proven harmful. I'm sure there is a lawyer somewhere that can prove how HP has harmed millions of innocent unsuspecting computer users.

[KenC]

Originally posted by tifosi

Are you aware of what a "contract" is Ross. You've always been real sensible in your posts, I'm not sure if your SN has been hijacked or not. The teams that have tobacco sponsorship have signed contracts with there sponsoprs. Part of the contract stipulates how many Grands Prix they can have no sponsorship on the car. Because some European companies have now decided to accelerate there tobacco bans ahead of an already agreed to formula is what is causeing the problem.

While there is no doubt Ferrari and McLaren will find sponsorship, it's not like they are going to start getting the checks tomorrow. It is doubtful if, for example, Coke is going to start writing checks to Ferrari while Marlboro still has a signed contract with them to place THERE logo on the car. Ferrari (or anyone else) cannot simply say hey Marlboro see ya later we got Coke money for this weekend. They'd be in lawsuits up to there ass.

Your first sentence says it all. Yes they will have sponsorship when the ban is in place. IAW both Ferrari and Marlboro have specific business strategies based on that ban. You cannot sign contracts based on certain agreed to information, then have a party suddenly change that agreement and not expect serious repercussions.

This is silly, what Max and you have assumed is there are no contingencies in these so-called "contract"s. I'm sure that Marlboro and BAT and West and Mild Seven and B&H have clauses in place for an agreed settlement in case of early termination for reasons such as the new date on the advert ban. What do you think they pay those lawyers for?

Second, I don't think anyone but BAT and maybe Ferrari have contracts that extend up thru 2006. Mild Seven only recently renewed with Renault, and presumably has annual options. B&H is always on annual renewal. West has been rumored, in the off-season, to not be looking for renewal. That leaves only Marlboro and BAT. Obviously BAT owns BAR, and Marlboro is sensitive to lawsuits and would likely acquiesce to an early termination of advertising in europe. When Marlboro wanted to advertise their victory in the Indy500 a couple years ago, they didn't, because they were advised that it might conflict with the US tobacco settlement. Rather than challenge the issue, Marlboro backed off, and didn't advertise Penske's win. Anyway, Marlboro probably have a renewal coming between now and 2006, anyway, and they can incorporate the new date in their new contract. I'm sure they're more interested in Schumi's retirement date.

[chester316]

Originally posted by Scoots
The loss of Tobacco sponsorship will hurt the smallest teams the most. They may not have tobacco sponsorship now, but several of the non-tobacco sponsors will be looking to move up to the major teams, thus creating yet another money void with the smaller teams.

Good point

[Scoots]

When did people lose the ability (not the right, that was lost long ago) to decide for themselves?

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by tifosi
.....No country in the world wants anybody to quit smoking.

I wouldn't bet on that... I've been told that health care costs relating to smoking cost more than any taxes derived from the weed. But the effect is there and the taxation is a subsidy, so they can't ban it overnight due to the loss of tax while they still face the cost problem.

Against this, consider the Victoria Government's decision taken in the early nineties... sporting groups and cultural groups which had sponsorships from tobacco interests were offered (and mostly took) comparable packages from the Government's 'Quit' campaign funds.

Sandown Park ran on this money for a long time, replacing (I think) Marlboro funding.

It wasn't lawyers, by the way tifosi, who started the campaign against tobacco. It was doctors and medical workers who saw the correlation.

They were hampered for well over a decade by a smokescreen thrown up by the industry in which the tobacco companies supposedly joined together and funded enquiries. They buried any negative results.

You need to read Larry C White's book, The Smoking Business... very revealing.

The immorality of the industry was shown in a very obvious way when RJR took over Nabisco, a strong workplace smoking ban within Nabisco was shelved... in another case a town which depended on a food manufacturing plant for the vast majority of its inhabitant's livelihood was similarly trying to institute a healthier society and had, with, IIRC, a mandate from the population, sought to introduce a non-smoking law for public places within the town.

The plant was owned by a tobacco company, however, which promptly threatened to pull the plant out of the town if the law was passed...

It's apparently very hard for smokers to accept these things, but the evidence against smoking and the tobacco interests are overwhelming. That motor racing got into bed with these people in the first place (a move which began when TV advertising was being lost to them...) reflects on the integrity of the people involved. That it gained such a strong foothold reflects on the highest levels in the sport.

[mp4]

Originally posted by Manson
The governments are the biggest hypocrites going. The "real" reason for the ban on advertising is all down to $$$. The governments know that eliminating tabacco sponsorship won't have an adverse affect on tabacco sales. Hell, if they really wanted people to stop smoking, they'd ban it outright. The bonus to the governments is in increased tax revenue from the tobacco companies. No more advertising write-offs leads to more taxable revenue. Therefore, to make up for this loss of dollars going to sports and other cultural events, the governments should use some, if not all of this bonus revenue to prop-up what has been adversely affected by their advertising bans. Not bloody likely!

I have to agree. Government is evil, most days. They say one thing and mean another.
Here in Canada, The government makes TV commercials about the evils of smoking but there is nothing in the cards about making a positve change like, for instance, banning it outright.
This will never happen because they are too happy to take the tax revenue and spend it on heaven knows what...
Currently, in parliament, there is a debate about decriminalizing pot. If this goes through, there is no way, in Hell, they can have ads about the nastiness of smoking. Not if they want to keep a straight face, that is...
I think the tobacco companies signed up, in the old days, because no one else was willing to take a risk. For that, I have no problem. They saw an opportunity and ran with it.
In the real world, however, it is a bad thing that something so, potentially, damaging can have such a high profile.
As an aside, I DO have a really cool team shirt from the days of Rothman Williams, as well as a neat Marlboro McLaren ditty. I wear them with pride. Not because I want people to smoke but merely for the fact they look nice...
I'm just as bad as the rest, I guess...

[Ricardo F1]

Originally posted by Ray Bell


I wouldn't bet on that... I've been told that health care costs relating to smoking cost more than any taxes derived from the weed. But the effect is there and the taxation is a subsidy, so they can't ban it overnight due to the loss of tax while they still face the cost problem.

Spin. The pro-tobacco lobby will show you numbers that taxes far outweigh the cost of health care related issues, similarly the anti-tobacco lobby will throw in any possible connection to tobacco in order to show that health care costs more. Which is correct? Ultimately I don't think anyone knows that answer but the government sure ain't gonna say "stop paying me taxes on cigarettes" any time soon.

[random]

I've read that Philip Morris pays more tax than any other company in the US. I think this includes all the individual state taxes but doesn't include the massive MSA payments to the states (as the MSA payments are not really a tax). But if you include the billions of dollars in MSA payments, I wouldn't be surprised if PM paid more to the government than most of the Fortune 10 combined.

Is it more than the health care costs of tobacco? Who can say. A true accounting of the heath care costs of tobacco would be exceedingly difficult to judge. Mainly because tobacco is a "causative factor" in a lot of illnesses, but not the only causative factor. For instance, people that live in areas heavy with air pollution (heavy industry, bus terminal etc..) tend to have more lung disease whether they smoke or not. Smoking can cause arterial damage, but so can a bad diet. So figuring out if smoking caused these illnesses is somewhat difficult.

[tifosi]

Originally posted by KenC

What do you think they pay those lawyers for?

To write iron-clad contracts that, if broken, will result in a LOT of litigation.

Look I am not defending tobacco. I'm just as upset as anyone about the loss of Spa, but it was the Formula One TEAMS that voted Spa off the calendar. I'm sure if it was as simple as everyone seems to think to simply dump a sponsor/partner with no consequences, when these companies based multi million or even billion dollar decisions on an agreement with the EU, then it would be done. Point is, it is NOT That simple, and the fact of the matter is that there was already an agreement in 0place to terminate tobacco sponsorship after 2006, yet several countries have now decided to break from the EU and move the ban up for purely political reasons. Okay fine, that's there rights as soverign nations, but there ARE consequences to decisions, especially when those decisions essentially "break" and agreement.

[tifosi]

Originally posted by Ray Bell


I wouldn't bet on that... I've been told that health care costs relating to smoking cost more than any taxes derived from the weed. But the effect is there and the taxation is a subsidy, so they can't ban it overnight due to the loss of tax while they still face the cost problem.



It wasn't lawyers, by the way tifosi, who started the campaign against tobacco. It was doctors and medical workers who saw the correlation.


You need to read Larry C White's book, The Smoking Business... very revealing.

Health care costs for treating the effects of smooking are relatively cheap when you compare them to the very intensive end-of-life care given to people living into their 80s and 90s, plus at least in the US the Social and Retirement costs. (No I'm not saying this is a good trade-off) Smokers die relatively young and quickly compared to many other diseases that affect humans as the age. Again I'm not in any way defending tobacco, I used to smoke and gave it up cause it is esentially one of the dumbest things you can do to yourself.

Yes, the medical community waged a war against tobacco because it is bad for your health. I have no problem with that. I'm talking about the war that eventually led to all these ban advertising agreements. It was mainly a vast welfare-for-lawyers program in the US. These lawyers are raking in billions of dollars while the victims and states pretty much get squat..

As far as the book, I may well read it, but one book does not mean much of anything, no matter how good is.

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by tifosi
.....As far as the book, I may well read it, but one book does not mean much of anything, no matter how good is.

I certainly hope you can find a copy...

What it does is reveal the immorality of the tobacco companies, how they have defrauded people of lifesaving information for decades, how they pursue their marketing goals and cheat on government-instituted tests for nicotine levels.

This might have been acceptable in the forties, when knowledge of the ill-effects of the stuff was fairly limited, but sixty years later it's a travesty to allow any multi-billion dollar company to shroud the truth and get away with it year after year.

Dealing with them with a view to helping them promote their product, no matter how legal it is, is scandalous.

[random]

Originally posted by Ray Bell
Dealing with them with a view to helping them promote their product, no matter how legal it is, is scandalous.

Governments in most parts of the first world take in more revenue (taxes) from tobacco sales than the tobacco companies themselves. It's a huge source of income that these governments are loathe to loose.

The MSA in the US was designed to cover health care costs related to tobacco, but in most states the billions of dollars are simply dumped into the general fund. Even the few states that were putting some of the MSA money towards smoking prevention have largely stopped due to budget shortfalls. So even when tobacco companies attempt to pay the health related costs, governments squander the money on other things. Making it just another sin-tax with no benefit to the public.

F1 teams are a minor villian in all this. It's the government's I have a problem with. With one hand they try to ban's advertising of the product while with the other hand they are outright merchants of death.

[Ray Bell]

I have not reason to side with the governments, but I don't understand why you call them the merchants of death...

[KenC]

Originally posted by random
Governments in most parts of the first world take in more revenue (taxes) from tobacco sales than the tobacco companies themselves. It's a huge source of income that these governments are loathe to loose.

Really? What you are saying is that more than half the price of a pack of cigarettes is in the form of taxes, either sales, sin taxes, or corporate taxes. That's an interesting stat to think over. Never knew it was so high, then again, being a non-smoker, I don't pay much attention to cig prices.

Originally posted by random
The MSA in the US was designed to cover health care costs related to tobacco, but in most states the billions of dollars are simply dumped into the general fund. Even the few states that were putting some of the MSA money towards smoking prevention have largely stopped due to budget shortfalls. So even when tobacco companies attempt to pay the health related costs, governments squander the money on other things. Making it just another sin-tax with no benefit to the public.

What does not spending money on preventative programs have to do with post-illness healthcare? If the money is being "dumped into the general fund", doesn't that still include the expense of a state's healthcare costs? How is there "no benefit to the public"? Wouldn't that sin tax money replace other money that the state would have otherwise spent? Not having to raise state income taxes is a benefit, isn't it?

Originally posted by random
F1 teams are a minor villian in all this. It's the government's I have a problem with. With one hand they try to ban's advertising of the product while with the other hand they are outright merchants of death.

F1 teams aren't a "villian" at all. Why would they be? They aren't doing anything illegal, are they?

[KenC]

Originally posted by tifosi

To write iron-clad contracts that, if broken, will result in a LOT of litigation.

Look I am not defending tobacco. I'm just as upset as anyone about the loss of Spa, but it was the Formula One TEAMS that voted Spa off the calendar. I'm sure if it was as simple as everyone seems to think to simply dump a sponsor/partner with no consequences, when these companies based multi million or even billion dollar decisions on an agreement with the EU, then it would be done. Point is, it is NOT That simple, and the fact of the matter is that there was already an agreement in 0place to terminate tobacco sponsorship after 2006, yet several countries have now decided to break from the EU and move the ban up for purely political reasons. Okay fine, that's there rights as soverign nations, but there ARE consequences to decisions, especially when those decisions essentially "break" and agreement.

Did you even read my post? Those lawyers if they know their business will write "iron-clad" contingency clauses, anticipating a legislative landscape that is KNOWN to be ever-changing. It would be silly to think that any of these teams have contracts with tobacco sponsors that would result in them getting sued over legislation out of their control. Max is a barrister and should know better. Also, most of these teams are small companies, and would not be worth litigating given the bad press engendered. Jordan isn't worth suing as that would lead to bankruptcy. BAT isn't going to sue BAR! The only teams slightly worth suing would be Renault, Ferrari/Fiat, and McLaren/Daimler. And, back to my original post, I doubt any of these teams have current contracts that run thru 2006. Most are known to have renewals. How could they sue based upon these "iron-clad contracts", if those contracts don't even run thru 2006?

[KenC]

Originally posted by random
...Is it more than the health care costs of tobacco? Who can say. A true accounting of the heath care costs of tobacco would be exceedingly difficult to judge. Mainly because tobacco is a "causative factor" in a lot of illnesses, but not the only causative factor. For instance, people that live in areas heavy with air pollution (heavy industry, bus terminal etc..) tend to have more lung disease whether they smoke or not. Smoking can cause arterial damage, but so can a bad diet. So figuring out if smoking caused these illnesses is somewhat difficult.

Presumably the settlement was based upon a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis. One would compare the long-term healthcare costs of a non-smoking group vs a smoking group. Lawyers do this all the time.

As you point out, INDIVIDUAL causation is very difficult to determine, but in large samples, you would easily be able to factor out environmental factors, such as air pollution, diet, etc.

[random]

Originally posted by KenC
Not having to raise state income taxes is a benefit, isn't it?

F1 teams aren't a "villian" at all. Why would they be? They aren't doing anything illegal, are they?

I don't see it as a benefit, I see it as another regressive tax that is focused on the lower class. I'd rather they raise income taxes than pass more sin taxes. When sin taxes get too high, the market responds. Typically, by going around the government and the taxes. It happened in Canada and it's happening in NYC right now.

At the time the MSA was agreed upon, the entire reasoning was to settle the many lawsuits the states had brought against the tobacco companies for health related costs. So there's no question that these payments were designed to defer the tobacco related health costs. But in fact, little of the money paid to the states under the MSA has gone towards either smoking prevention or tobacco health costs, in most states it's just dumped into the general fund. In some states I believe it goes towards education, still no better as those states just take the money that used to go towards education and put it elsewhere.

One could argue that the states have been paying tobacco health costs for years out of the general fund, so it's only fair to pay the MSA funds back into the GF. Even being the case, I feel a significant percentage of the MSA should have been set aside to deal directly with tobacco costs. I'm not aware of any of the states that have done this to a significant degree.

I don't personally see the F1 teams as a villain in this either, many do however. I was just pointing out that if they are villains in this, they are very minor ones indeed. Especially compared to the governments, the same ones who are out to ban F1 tobacco advertising.

[LeD]

Governments are hypocrites, for taking the tax money rather than outright banning the product if they deem it so harmful to public health.

Tobacco companies are evil, for the practices they have indulged in, in the past - including genetically modifying the leaf back in the 70s to double its nicotine (and hence addictive) content.

The FIA is cynical, in that it is encouraging poor deluded entrepreneurs in out of the way parts of the world to build race tracks which will be used for maybe a couple of seasons until the teams' tobacco sponsorship contracts run out, and the ban on advertising becomes worldwide - and then dump them.

Max Mosley and Bernie Ecclestone are venal, because I am morally certain - as implied by Ross Stonefeld - that their pockets will be lined, directly or indirectly, from the entire process of moving F1 out of Europe.

The teams - some of them - are shortsighted, in that they really had the writing on the wall for well over a decade, and should have made alternative arrangements long ago. The contractual difference between 2005 and 2006 is not so great as for them to start whining about politicians not keeping their word on timing: politicians never do, and a far-sighted team owner would have borne this in mind when writing sponsorship contracts. (In my day, one of the force majeure definitions was "acts of princes")

And finally, the fans...us...we are just cannon fodder. They treat us with contempt, and take our money. I have written before about Max Mosley's undoubted brilliance as well as his undoubted and overbearing arrogance: and when he postures by awarding himself the language and manner of the head of a sovereign state, and making threats to the EU Commission to take "his" toys and playing elsewhere, he is actually playing everyone for a fool - and he is doing so in our name.

[Ray Bell]

Seriously, how could a democratically elected government ban smoking?

They have to consider the votes they'd lose, for a start... or more to the point, the votes they'd be sure not to get. Then how do you take the tobacco out of the system?

I know that many people in Australia smoke untaxed weed. Tobacco grown on farms and privately harvested and processed for roll-your-own usage. Those people who smoke it all tell me the same thing... they don't have any addiction to it any more. They can wait a week or two till their supplier shows up again and not have any problem not smoking.

Why they don't just give it up at that point defeats me, but nevertheless, you can grow tobacco and harvest it and process it and smoke it without interference from the Guv.

Now, should they ban it, that would put a lot of people into a lawbreaking class... again a vote loser, and a means of spending public moneys fruitlessly pursuing this while folks might be seeing other forms of crime going on unhindered.

They are in a bind over smoking. Damned if they do, damned if they don't allow it.

Motor racing was never in that bind.

[masterhit]

*Sings Abba's "Money Money Money" * Where there is demand, there is supply. Where you want more demand, and everyone does, and you can afford it, and boy can't they afford it,there is advertising!

Personally I'm with Max and Bernie on this one - it's always down to the free will choice of the individual to decide if they want a cigarette or not. Nobody can force you to smoke, if you want to it's still because you want to.

[LeD]

....is that Bernie and Max's message?

[Nasty McBastard]

Originally posted by tony
Because they know that racing fans are robots....If it has something to do with F1...F1 fans want to buy it or Tshirts with the logo, etc....

Proof of this are those people who at races wear the shirts and full uniforms as if they are part of the pit crew of one of the teams...What a joke.

Of course I am joking...but I too wonder about this for any sponsor. Is there really an increase in sales? ARe you gonna start smoking because Ferrari has Marlboro stickers on their car? Most would say, of course not, but somewhere this breaks down...somebody does decide to smoke, and/or switch brands, otherwise it would not be worth it for Marlboro.

i realise youre joking, and id just like to further the point...

people arent really that stupid. people arent any more likely to take up smoking coz they see a ferrari f1, than they are likely to suddenyl go shopping at home depot coz they see tony stewart in nascar.

it comes down to 'switching alliences' or being in a shoppers mind when it comes to that first purchase.

youre either the type who wants to smoke, or you arent. if you arent, then watching f1 wont change that, if you are, then in the majority of cases it probably has more to do with "my parents/friends/favourite tv or movie stars do it", as to the initial reason to take up the habit.

if you dont need to buy a hammer, then you dont really give a **** if jimmy johnson beats tony stewart....

if you do need to buy a hammer, then youre in the market place to start with, and then its a matter of are you easily swayed by advertising.

theres no way to know i guess, but id imagine any extra money marlboro make due to ferrari sponsorship, has alot less to do with "converting non smokers" , than it does with "converting smokers, or people who have already decided to smoke" to smoke boro.

cigarette advertising used to be all over the place..tv, newspapers etc etc. these days, about the only place you do see it is in motorsport.... yet smoking is still being taken up by kiddies, even considering these days theres also anti-smoking advertising in alot more media than tobacco ads are allowed, including motorsport.

it cant all be put down to f1...otherwise f1 would be THE worlds greatest forum for sponsorship.

and at the end of it all, the whole situation is quite hipocritical, considering the whole "drink driving is wrong" thing, and yet alot of races world wide have title sponsors, or team sponsors that are beer co's.

worst case scenario..... advertising really does have a huge impact.....but at the end of the day every single person on the planet knows smoking kills, if people (myself included) still decide to smoke, then good luck to them... if they drop dead form cancer its most likely a darwinian thing.... those of us unable to take notice of serious health warnings etc, probably deserve to be weeded from the gene pool.

[LeD]

I truly think that the debate on whether smoking is good or bad for you is a separate debate (personally, I know that it is bad for one, through rather painful experience).

I believe that this debate where F1 is concerned, lies elsewhere. The fact is that the more or less self-appointed fuehrers of the sport have taken it upon themselves to go head to head with sovereign states. They are bound to lose, but the paradox is that they personally are likely to benefit financially or otherwise from the loss - but the fans and the sport itself will almost certainly be bereft.

One has to stress again and again that governments' positions on smoking and tobacco advertising in particular - however hypocritical one might find them - have been clearly signalled to us all for a very long time. To claim that the politicians have betrayed Formula 1 and the tobacco sponsors by advancing an advertising ban by one whole year, and to use that "betrayal" to justify cutting out big chunks of F1's grass roots and go plant them in desert sands or muscovite snows, is disingenuous. And that is putting it very politely.

Max Mosley's letter to the EU commissioner was impudent in tone, and certainly intended to provoke the very thing that we all feared - the loss of fine European race tracks from the F1 calendar. And those poor sods building race tracks in the desert sands will be betrayed by Max and Bernie when some time later on the tobacco debacle is smoothed over, and come home Spa all is forgiven......

A final note on unpopular legislation: you smokers can voice your feelings concerning the actions of politicians through the ballot box. But where is Bernie's ballot box? We know where Max's is, but is it available to the F1 "taxpayer"?

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by LeD
I truly think that the debate on whether smoking is good or bad for you is a separate debate (personally, I know that it is bad for one, through rather painful experience)......

It may well be, but it's continually drawn into it by assertions that 'smoking is legal so you should be allowed to advertise it'...

Naturally, to counter this the moral implications have to come into the debate. After all, had the risks involved in smoking been known three hundred years ago, would it have been allowed to spread as it has done?

Various other drugs of addiction have been kept under some control and kept out of the public marketplace... would not this have been possible if cigarettes had not been allowed to get the foothold they have?

I remember well, too, that cigarette companies often employed good looking girls in thin lycra outfits to hand out free smokes at race meetings... I'm sure this happened all around the world.

Would this not have been introducing non-smokers to smoking via motor racing?

[Rob29]

The argument that 'its legal so you must be able to advertise it' is one that needs to be nailed. My view is that nothing that adults do of their own free will,and does not harm anyone else should be illegal. However lots of things need to be discoraged.I hate to see anyone profit from killing their fellow man.One solution might be for the state to take over all tobacco firms. Only one brand would be marketed-DEATH-in white packet with black skull & crossbow logo.