96 replies to this topic

[Gilles4Ever]

"Alcohol is the biggest killer of young men across Europe, according to research published by the World Health Organisation." from CNN.com. More than cigarettes?

And we wont even mention the cost to a country of drunken driving.

I am no saint, smoked 20 a day until two months ago, drink regularly although not daily, lets say sociably.

I have always been totally against the banning of cigarette advertising because I am of the belief that making something undesirable/illegal/anti-social/morally,socially or spiritually unacceptable just makes it more attractive because it appeals to the rebel in everybody. Dont make a big deal about it, if there is no fuss nobody notices. That is my view but it is not what I wish to really discuss, rather the fact that it appears to be acceptable for Alcohol companies to be sponsors of motor sport.

Quite simply why is tobacco advertising unacceptable while the advertising of alcohol in motorsport is.

I think the McLaren in Johnnie Walker Black Label livery is a mouth watering image. That must rank up there with JPS Lotus.

[MortenF1]

I look very much forward to seeing the Johnnie Walker sponsored McLaren! Hope it's like F1 Racing's (the mag, NOT the website) photoshopped image, from earlier this winther.
I think it's easier to accept Alcohol ads, as its only misuse that's dangerous. Smoking will I believe to have read, 'casue you bigger problems even if you just smoke occasionally. There's "always" a chance you'll get cancer.
I'm not sure how their reasoning is, but it seems alcohol ads are very much OK. And I don't mind.

[jcbc3]

I'm against banning advertising of a legal product too.

If it's too dangerous, make it illegal. Period. If it is accepted to be consumed legally it should also be legal to advertise it. If government find it acceptable but at the same time undesireable, tax it to the hilt. And then a bit more (and stop subsidising tobacco farmers, as is the case in both Europe and the US).

That'll be USD 0.02

[MortenF1]

Yeah, it is a bit strange how tobacco producers can't position themselves in the market, in the same way other makers/sellers of legal products can.

[Deeq]

Originally posted by jcbc3
I'm against banning advertising of a legal product too.

If it's too dangerous, make it illegal. Period. If it is accepted to be consumed legally it should also be legal to advertise it. If government find it acceptable but at the same time undesireable, tax it to the hilt. And then a bit more (and stop subsidising tobacco farmers, as is the case in both Europe and the US).

That'll be USD 0.02

Could not have said better thank you sir

I will add there is great deal of irony involved in this "dilema"...No one got killed while driving and smoking but blenty do while DUI...yet the powers that be in their infinite wisdom banned cigarete advertising in a primarily driving sport and replaced it with alcohol advertising. I tell you what, the end is nigh when commonsense is no more...

[MortenF1]

It's also laughable, and very ironic how they denied Ecclestone to put up signs that said "smoking kills", or "smoking can seriously damage your health", etc etc, next to the Marlboro/West/Mild Seven/B&H signs. 'Cause as Ecclestone said, if those fag-ads are powerful, then surely those warning ads would be equally powerful or persuasive?!

[fumes]

Well, you have to get pretty damn close to someone to be affected by second-hand alcohol. I think that's the main difference. Although it's probably just a question of timing.

[Gilles4Ever]

Originally posted by race addicted
It's also laughable, and very ironic how they denied Ecclestone to put up signs that said "smoking kills", or "smoking can seriously damage your health", etc etc, next to the Marlboro/West/Mild Seven/B&H signs. 'Cause as Ecclestone said, if those fag-ads are powerful, then surely those warning ads would be equally powerful or persuasive?!

Note how they add that there is $2 million being spent on resposible drinking campaign (out of a $28.6 million deal - talk about token). Give me a case of Black Label a month and I will drink responsibly, I promise.

Also they hint at the difference being choice? Hell I chose to smoke, no one forced me in fact I started smoking because I wasn't allowed to.

I am not anti alcohol advertising. Think of team Smirnoff Red Bull. I dont see why ALcohol is OK when tobacco isn't.

Me, my car and my cigarette couldn't hurt anyone, but me, my car and a bottle of Johnnie Walker, now thats a different story.

[wagner]

Originally posted by race addicted
Yeah, it is a bit strange how tobacco producers can't position themselves in the market, in the same way other makers/sellers of legal products can.

So it's ok to make a tobaccoo adds which for example sends message tobacco gives you good feeling and contents for life? I don't think that's ok but I think all that kind of advertisement should be banned. Not only when related to harmfull products. Missleading advertisement is harmfull itself ...

[BRG]

Originally posted by race addicted
It's also laughable, and very ironic how they denied Ecclestone to put up signs that said "smoking kills", or "smoking can seriously damage your health", etc etc

Nothing laughable or ironic about that at all. For once, someone saw through one of Bernie's scams and told him to stick it up his a**e.

I am counting the days until F1 gets clean. Tobacco sponsorship has been as damaging to this sport as it has been to all the poor saps globally who have become addiicted to the filthy muck that Big Tobacco peddles. All the cash and budget related ills of modern F1 can be traced directly to tobacco sponsorship and the massive sums they have poured into F1, which have so severely distorted the financial base of the series. What a terrible mistake Colin Chapman made when he signed on the dotted line with Players Gold Leaf all those years ago.

Is alcohol advertising acceptable? Well, that is a perfectly fair question to ask, but it is NOTHING to do with whether tobacco advertising is acceptable. It isn't an either/or equation, nor do two wrongs make a right.

[xype]

Originally posted by fumes
Well, you have to get pretty damn close to someone to be affected by second-hand alcohol. I think that's the main difference. Although it's probably just a question of timing.

I'm sure plenty of kids and wives of alcoholics would disagree with you here.

[Garagiste]

Alcohol advertising will be next to go, you can count on it. It wouldn't surprise if the first place it is banned from is anything remotely car related. :

[jonovision_man]

Originally posted by jcbc3

If it's too dangerous, make it illegal. Period.

Someone didn't learn from Prohibition...

jono

[MortenF1]

Originally posted by BRG
Nothing laughable or ironic about that at all. For once, someone saw through one of Bernie's scams and told him to stick it up his a**e.

I am counting the days until F1 gets clean. Tobacco sponsorship has been as damaging to this sport as it has been to all the poor saps globally who have become addiicted to the filthy muck that Big Tobacco peddles. All the cash and budget related ills of modern F1 can be traced directly to tobacco sponsorship and the massive sums they have poured into F1, which have so severely distorted the financial base of the series. What a terrible mistake Colin Chapman made when he signed on the dotted line with Players Gold Leaf all those years ago.

Is alcohol advertising acceptable? Well, that is a perfectly fair question to ask, but it is NOTHING to do with whether tobacco advertising is acceptable. It isn't an either/or equation, nor do two wrongs make a right.

I see your point, but in a way, when denying Ecclestone those warning ads, you could say they threw their own reasoning about the effect of the ads, out the window.

I think it's a bit naive to think that so many take up smoking because they recognise a Marlboro logo. And it's over protective, and it's placing yourself on a high pedestal when you wont allow people to make their own decisions.

[xflow7]

I find it pretty funny that the first race with the new sponsorship will be in Turkey; 99% Muslim.

[jcbc3]

Originally posted by jonovision_man


Someone didn't learn from Prohibition...

jono

By that logic, we should also:

allow heroin, etc
free speed on all roads, regardless of conditions
you make up the list

Just curious.

[eoin]

The problem with alcohol is that people drink too much of it in a short. In small doses it won't do any harm permanent. However every cig is suppose to do you, and the people around you harm.

So perhaps the EU views the problem with drink a social problem, but cigs a produce induced problem. Just like eating fast food once a month won't kill you, but if you go to mikey D's for breakfast and lunch every day it just might catch up with you.

[MortenF1]

Originally posted by xflow7
I find it pretty funny that the first race with the new sponsorship will be in Turkey; 99% Muslim.

I know a practising muslim who can even drink Norwegians and Finns under the table.

[WACKO]

I think it is very much a question of perception. Smoking is currently very 'not done' through the European pressures on tobacco legislation. In my view the alcohol association with F1 is more harmful than smoking. Smoking is a habit that can become addictive. It is widely known that it primarily harms your own health. Smoking has been banned in most public places already, so IMO the anti-tobacco crusade has been blown out of proportion. Alcohol on the other hand has a much greater potential to harm others. Especially the link with car driving should not be promoted in my view.

The reason why alcohol is a bit subordinated following the smoking issue is that the quest for anti-tobacco campaigns are high on the agenda of health care depts and it directly involves a large part of governmental spending on medical care. Traffic victimns of alcohol abuse are only registered by traffic depts. and only get attention when the annual numbers of casualties are issued.

[eoin]

Originally posted by race addicted


I know a practising muslim who can even drink Norwegians and Finns under the table.

Send him to Ireland- see how many gallons he can handle

[MortenF1]

No worries eoin, if you can handle Scandinavians, Eire's will be easy!

[siggers]

Originally posted by Gilles4Ever

Quite simply why is tobacco advertising unacceptable while the advertising of alcohol in motorsport is.

The point is not whether tobacco advertising is "unacceptable", it is whether it is illegal in enough places to make it an unattractive option for tobacco producers to advertise via an international sport like F1. I do not believe that anybody in F1 is taking a moral stance like tobacco bad, alcohol good. Just business decisions.

[ivanalesi]

Yeah, I think too that smoking is much more dangerous than alcohol, because you may go 2 days per week to a bar with a couple of friends and from Monday to Friday you may never drink any booze, but if you smoke for 2 days - no way, welcome to the hell! Anyway, Alcohol advertising should be banned because of the ever increasing usage by young underage boys and girls.

[AdrianM]

IMO banning advertising of a legal product is stupid. But governments and health bodies have deemed it to be wrong and f1 must live with it. The sport cannot continue to detach itself from the rest of society.
But I do see problems down the track with alcohol.
Wasn't there rumoured to be a problem with Red Bull advertising in France?

[eoin]

Originally posted by race addicted
No worries eoin, if you can handle Scandinavians, Eire's will be easy!

Ireland drinks more units than any other country- it is about the only thing we are good at!!!!

[MortenF1]

That may be right eoin, I dunno, but that's not necessarily the point. I could say "yeah, you can drink a lot, but you never manage to stay awake, and those who do, vomit their inside out!"

[Gilles4Ever]

Originally posted by AdrianM
IMO banning advertising of a legal product is stupid. But governments and health bodies have deemed it to be wrong and f1 must live with it. The sport cannot continue to detach itself from the rest of society.
But I do see problems down the track with alcohol.
Wasn't there rumoured to be a problem with Red Bull advertising in France?

The problem with Red Bull is not alcohol it is, . . . wait for it, . . . are you sitting down? Caffine?????

Alcohol is next, just as soon as Tobacco is snuffed

But then what, caffine? Sugar? Tartrazine, I suppose all politicians need some crusade, the important ones always seem to be forgotten like starvation, aids, malaria, cholera, oh wait they aren't soft targets

[jcbc3]

It's also illegal to sell Red Bull in Denmark. The levels of added vitamins make it a farmaceutical under Danish laws.

There is a roaring trade over the Swedish and German borders.

[jonovision_man]

Originally posted by jcbc3


By that logic, we should also:

allow heroin, etc
free speed on all roads, regardless of conditions
you make up the list

Just curious.

No. The lesson of prohibition was that government should not criminialize actions which are socially acceptable among a significant number of people. Inevitably, normally law-abiding citizens will turn to crime to continue what they feel is acceptable behaviour, and crime will run rampant.

See the "War on Drugs" for more details.

That being said, government has a duty to protect kids from cigarettes, and as illegal as you make it to sell to them they seem to get them anyway. Curbing advertising is a reasonable action to keep companies from targetting kids, either intentionally or not.

jono

[green-blood]

yeah, lets ban champagne as a celebration.....

the big difference is you can drink responsibly, and without harming your health - alcohol is addictive, yes, but niccatine is a deadly drug.... and whereas too much alcohol will lay you low for a day, too much tar will kill you...

great day (although johny walker is rotten stuff altogether, you need some proper Irish Whiskey)

[jonovision_man]

Originally posted by green-blood

the big difference is you can drink responsibly, and without harming your health - alcohol is addictive, yes, but niccatine is a deadly drug.... and whereas too much alcohol will lay you low for a day, too much tar will kill you...

great day (although johny walker is rotten stuff altogether, you need some proper Irish Whiskey)

If you believe some studies, alcohol can actually be good for you. Especially red wine.

jono

[Dudley]

Originally posted by Gilles4Ever

Quite simply why is tobacco advertising unacceptable while the advertising of alcohol in motorsport is.

There's no such thing as passive drinking,

[HP]

Originally posted by Gilles4Ever

But then what, caffine? Sugar? Tartrazine, I suppose all politicians need some crusade, the important ones always seem to be forgotten like starvation, aids, malaria, cholera, oh wait they aren't soft targets

It's a political issue for sure. They need to have something on their agenda, to which the public somewhat agrees. There are an estimated 60 Millions abortions per year worldwide. Since the public opinion is very divided on the issue, there aren't that many politicians that throw their weight in wholeheartedly on either side. Even less when it comes to the area of prevention. No matter on which side a politican stands, there will be always enough who disagree to make it an issue best threated on the sidelines.

But for alcohol a similar case can be made for drinking like it was made for smoking. Most traffic accidents are related to alcohol, at least in 2 countries I'm very familiar with (Switzerland and Taiwan). Since it's about restricting the advertising its not really outlawing alcohol. Thus it may gain widespread support. However, a wine glass a day for example is actually good for people that have certain stomach problems. Alcohol has positive effects on the body systems when taken in small amounts, so it should be treated somewhat different than tobacco.

Still IMO if they outlaw tobacco ads, then they should also outlaw adds for alcoholic products.

But don't leverage the same high amount of taxes that some governments put upon tobacco products. That taxes are used to subvention health care systems. And then lets not be fooled, the tobacco or alcohol addiction started not with seeing adds, but stuff being readily avaliable where young people gather. Softpops just to use one name.

As for F1, by far the best solutions would be to ban any sponsorship advertising or any other value-added services, like Bridgestone actually paying Ferrari, give every team the same amount of TV money, and we might even see racing because budgets are not big enough to develop every detail on a car. Sure guidelines need to be set, for teams like Red Bull Racing, but that shouldn't be too hard to do, provided there is the motivation to change regulations. Which unfortunately isn't there I guess.

[Racer Joe]

Originally posted by Dudley


There's no such thing as passive drinking,

How would you categorise thousands innocent dying from accidents perpetrated by drink driving then?

Not that I think alcohol is necessarily similar to tobacco as a vice.

[wegmann]

Don't worry, everybody, the government is here to help. You'll be receiving your certified standard-issue ration in the mail starting next week.

[Bob Newhart]

A pointless ethical discussion.

[Jodum5]

Originally posted by jonovision_man


No. The lesson of prohibition was that government should not criminialize actions which are socially acceptable among a significant number of people. Inevitably, normally law-abiding citizens will turn to crime to continue what they feel is acceptable behaviour, and crime will run rampant.

See the "War on Drugs" for more details.

That being said, government has a duty to protect kids from cigarettes, and as illegal as you make it to sell to them they seem to get them anyway. Curbing advertising is a reasonable action to keep companies from targetting kids, either intentionally or not.

jono

Valid point

but I wouldnt include the war on drugs in that argument since a large percentage of the people on those drugs are hooked on them and would probably get off of them if they had the ability (barring Marijuana)

[simpson]

100% of all smokers are addicted for life, whether they manage to quit or not. A very large number of them will die prematurely from the effects of smoking. Advertising as well as peer pressure contributes greatly to youngsters starting smoking and banning advertising is long overdue. Of course, it won't help the poor souls who are already unable to kick the habit.

In the US, there are about 16,000 alcohol related driving deaths per year and 418,000 premature deaths due to tobacco use.

I'm sure that people also die in commercial airline crashes. Do you really think that that's a cause to ban them from advertising?

[ensign14]

They have taken Worcester sauce flavoured crisps off the shelves here because of alleged carcinogenic elements in the flavouring.

Yet if they were crunched up, sealed inside a small tube of paper and called Marlboros you'd be allowed to sell them.

[random]

As was pointed out above, alcohol abuse kills as many people around the world as tobacco. Report

There is no valid reason to prohibit ads of one, while allow ads of the other. The winds of political correctness are blowing against tobacco today, they'll eventually blow against alcohol and fatty foods.

Smoking of course, is horrible for the health of smokers. But I think a lot of the reason these smoking bans have been able to take hold is that the anti smoking forces have convinced the average consumer that second hand smoke is killing them, the non-smoker. While in truth, recent peer reviewed studies have shown the health effects of STS to non-smokers to be nearly non existent. It would seem counter-intuitive, but I gather the initial smoker's lungs filter out most of the really bad stuff.

I fully agree with the other posters who felllegal items should be able to be legally advertised. Here in the US, if the tobacco companies wanted to push it, they could certainly keep advertising tobacco.

The US constitution prohibits these sort of advertising restrictions (at least that is how the courts have most recently interpreted it). So no matter what sort of world treaties the US were to sign, the US tobacco companies could keep advertising. But they made a financial decision to willingly forgo some forms of advertising to stave off some of pending litigation. I expect they would agree to stop all advertising if the Federal government were offer them a settlement agreement that would stop all the lawsuits. And after the feds lost their recent round in court, this looks all the more likely.

[MrSlow]

Originally posted by jcbc3


By that logic, we should also:

allow heroin, etc
free speed on all roads, regardless of conditions
you make up the list

Just curious.

I am sure that if 25% of the population in a certain country was addicted to heroin, it would be legal. Or had just been legal.
It is not possible to make tobacco illegal immediately, just as jonovision_man says. First step is to reduce the number of new addicts. If they succeed to reduce the amount of smokers to approximately the same amount as heroinists, they can, maybe, make it illegal. All else will just open up for very high profit/low risk smuggling that only organized crime will benefit from.

Alcohol is NOT tobacco. Alcohol can be dangerous when abused but with normal consumption it is not. Cigarettes are always dangerous. No reason to treat both substances equal.

[Garagiste]

Originally posted by MrSlow
(snip) First step is to reduce the number of new addicts. (snip)

Why? Because they might harm themselves?
Where does it end? Ban fast food to stop them eating chips to death? Oh, but they can be made at home so we'd best ban potatoes and vegetable oil, too.

We had better do something about these loonies racing cars in close proximity at 200mph every other Sunday too - they might hurt themselves! (that might be racing related enough to keep the thread in RC! ).

Laws to prevent direct harm to others I have no problem with, what people choose to inflict upon themselves should be their own business - offer help, fine, but if people don't want that help it's their call.

[MrSlow]

Originally posted by Garagiste


Why? Because they might harm themselves?
Where does it end? Ban fast food to stop them eating chips to death? Oh, but they can be made at home so we'd best ban potatoes and vegetable oil, too.

We had better do something about these loonies racing cars in close proximity at 200mph every other Sunday too - they might hurt themselves! (that might be racing related enough to keep the thread in RC! ).

Laws to prevent direct harm to others I have no problem with, what people choose to inflict upon themselves should be their own business - offer help, fine, but if people don't want that help it's their call.

Garagiste, I think it is safe to say that the people that are trying to reduce the consumption of tobacco an reduce the number if new customers for the tobacco companies have more knowledge about these issues than you have. Rest assure that there is also people trying to ban book reading, Formula One and hamburgers, but those are separate issues. You can not compare smoking to potatoes. I suggest you do a bit more reading about tobacco and the tobacco industry before debating this issue any further.

[fuzzybunny]

Originally posted by Bob Newhart
A pointless ethical discussion.

and thus a step up from the usual "just a pointless discussion" we perpetrate.

If this board had to have a point, be logical and add value to the lives of thousands, it would be a quiet quiet place.
Me I like pointless discussion, ethical or otherwise.

[tifosi]

Originally posted by Gilles4Ever

But then what, caffine? Sugar? Tartrazine, I suppose all politicians need some crusade, the important ones always seem to be forgotten like starvation, aids, malaria, cholera, oh wait they aren't soft targets

You really can't sue god for causeing a draught and making Africans starve. Or sue a bunch of stupid msoquitos for causeing malaria. Politicians only do what their benefactors tell them to do. And right now it's tobacco. As soon as the lawyers suck the tobacco companies dry thhey'll target someone else and that will be the new evil substance. All this health care **** is just a bunch of crap, it's all about $$$s.

[jonovision_man]

Originally posted by Jodum5


Valid point

but I wouldnt include the war on drugs in that argument since a large percentage of the people on those drugs are hooked on them and would probably get off of them if they had the ability (barring Marijuana)

I can accept that, and as much as I'd like to continue this discussion I'd imagine that's a discussion for a different thread on a different board.

jono

[simpson]

Originally posted by random
As was pointed out above, alcohol abuse kills as many people around the world as tobacco. Report

Thanks for pointing that site out. Here they say "CDC alcohol researcher Robert Brewer, MD, says binge drinking was responsible for more than half of the 75,000 deaths due to excessive drinking in the United States in 2001."

And yet at the same site it's stated that "Well over 400,000 premature deaths in the United States each year are attributable to cigarette smoking."

I'm not sure why there'd be a discrepancy between World and US numbers.

[Garagiste]

Originally posted by MrSlow

Garagiste, I think it is safe to say that the people that are trying to reduce the consumption of tobacco an reduce the number if new customers for the tobacco companies have more knowledge about these issues than you have. Rest assure that there is also people trying to ban book reading, Formula One and hamburgers, but those are separate issues. You can not compare smoking to potatoes. I suggest you do a bit more reading about tobacco and the tobacco industry before debating this issue any further.

You may be correct that I am not an expert on the tobacco industry, but that has no bearing whatsoever on my opinion that people should be allowed to consume what they choose, so long as they don't harm others by their actions. I suggest you adopt a less condecending tone to entirely valid opinions.

[wegmann]

Originally posted by MrSlow
Garagiste, I think it is safe to say that the people that are trying to reduce the consumption of tobacco an reduce the number if new customers for the tobacco companies have more knowledge about these issues than you have.

It does *NOT* matter how much those people know or think they know. It's a matter of civil liberties. As long as I don't hurt anyone else (which includes forcing others to pay my medical expenses, or breathing my second-hand smoke, or risk being hit by my car because I'm inebriated, etc.), I should be able to do what I want as a competent adult.

[JPM]

[edited to remove posting that was duplicated by numerous other before I hit submit]