r - random

Posting mode: Reply [Return]
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Password	(For file deletion.)

File: 1448788931215.jpg (16.11 KB, 320x240, AntiSmokingAd_139156787004….jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

Anonymous 2015-11-29 09:22:11 ID: c7c483 No.18560

I don't know how many Americans here have seen the "Real Cost of Tobacco" ads they keep playing on some networks, but one thing bothers me about some of them. I'm not talking about the ones that more directly address the health risks. I'm talking about the other ones that are all "Big tobacco be like..."

If people are buying tobacco still, they're buying it because they like it and either ignore the risks willingly or accept them. But some of these ads really emphasize the fact "HEY, THEY'RE MAKING MONEY!" But if people want to give up their money to smoke tobacco and each tobacco product has that surgeon general's warnings and all these ads about the health risks of tobacco warn people and yet they still want to smoke, the fault is strictly the consumers', isn't it? Why should the tobacco company be vilified just for meeting the consumer's own demands and getting compensation for it? People might say "they're making money off a product that kills people," but, again, their customers aren't being forced to buy it, especially when tobacco companies don't even run television ads anymore.

Anonymous 2015-11-29 10:43:14 ID: 586203 No.18561

Congratulations, you are a logically capable human being. Not being sarcastic.
The only wrong thing about the tobacco industry is the complete lack of transparency. How they denied all health issues with their products. Lobbied against everyone proving health issues and how they have abused their farmers.
There is nothing wrong with selling cigarettes though.

Anonymous 2015-11-29 12:03:07 ID: 439b19 No.18564

Tobacco can be very addictive, and most of people were under-age when they started smoking.
Second-hand smoking is a big problem in places where there are not laws controlling it.

Anonymous 2015-11-29 12:57:51 ID: 9d896a No.18569

>>18564
Indeed. However it's not the manufacturer who walks up these underage people and offers them cigarettes. It's their peers.

Anonymous 2015-11-29 13:26:11 ID: 978941 No.18571

>>18564
I take a fair bit of nicotene on a regular basis, but I can go for weeks without with basically no ill effects. I know they say it varies between people but I have a hard time thinking of it as the horribly addictive drug the media says it is. If it's really more addictive than crack I need to find me some crack.

I will say that much like caffeine it keeps you awake and alert so I can see how people with tough jobs would have a hard time quitting.

Anonymous 2015-11-29 14:57:59 ID: c7c483 No.18572

>>18569

Like I said, when was the last time you actually saw a cigarette commercial in America? Tobacco companies are not really pressuring anyone anymore.

Anonymous 2015-11-29 17:27:42 ID: 439b19 No.18576

>>18572
I was being general, not country specific. And the ads target the "cool, rebel" image teens want so much.

Anonymous 2015-11-29 19:39:58 ID: b0e699 No.18584

>>18560
>when tobacco companies don't even run television ads anymore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4srWvLXZRw

Anonymous 2015-11-29 20:07:44 ID: 966598 No.18590

>>18584
The anti tobacco commercials are so cringey and lame they make me want to start smoking again just to distance myself from these people. They makers of these ads are probably paid off by cigarette manufacturers to make them like that.

Anonymous 2015-11-29 20:32:37 ID: 1aa7f0 No.18595

>>18590
>The anti tobacco commercials are so cringey and lame they make me want to start smoking again just to distance myself from these people.
I also felt like smoking just because the commercials are so bad. You don't see any other industry getting attacked like this.
Fast food and carcinogens and antibiotics in our food and water supplies is a far worse issue, but you rarely hear anything about that.

It's meaningless, since everyone who smokes knows about the health issues now. It's also so preachy.
>smoking among teens used to be %9
>we got it down to %8
That's probably due to deaths or something else not actually related to their stupid campaign.

>They makers of these ads are probably paid off by cigarette manufacturers to make them like that.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.

Anonymous 2015-11-29 20:57:21 ID: 1a134a No.18597

>>18595
>Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.
There is a limit to this, though.
I don't want to believe people are this incompetent.

Anonymous 2015-11-29 21:51:49 ID: 684acb No.18605

honestly I've only seen one of those ads but I thought it was pretty neat what they're saying. the message shifted from "don't be an addict because that's bad!" and if you wind up buying cigs I guess that makes you a fuarrrkup with no hope left. The new message is more like "you are getting scammed!"
I also think taking a jab at tobacco companies is ethically justifiable if it gets people to quit smoking.

Anonymous 2015-11-29 22:07:01 ID: 1aa7f0 No.18608

>>18605
>The new message is more like "you are getting scammed!"
That's not true though. They're selling a product.
>I also think taking a jab at tobacco companies is ethically justifiable if it gets people to quit smoking.
It just seems somewhat unfair when you consider that this doesn't happen to any other industry or business in such a blatant way.

Anonymous 2015-11-29 22:20:36 ID: 966598 No.18610

>>18608
>That's not true though. They're selling a product.

It's an idiotic message. Someone has made money from everything you own, what's so special about profiting from cigs?

Anonymous 2015-11-29 22:22:44 ID: 9d896a No.18611

>>18572
we have IDs. please look at them.

Anonymous 2015-11-29 22:28:16 ID: 1a134a No.18612

>>18605
>you are getting scammed
How so?
You give the company money and receive a product in return.
If you don't like the product there is nothing stopping you from not buying it.

Anonymous 2015-11-29 22:53:24 ID: 966598 No.18614

>>18605
Why is getting people to quit smoking good/important?

Anonymous 2015-11-29 23:03:23 ID: 7efd8e No.18615

>>18560
>watching tv
TV is centralized information sharing medium that allows and enables sensationalism and propaganda.

Anonymous 2015-11-30 07:48:56 ID: c9c3c2 No.18622

I don't like anti-smoking ads simply because it seems they're not all that altruistic.

Okay, eliminate smoking but not drinking? What about fast food?

If people can't be allowed to give second hand smoke why are they allowed the possibility of drunk driving or unnecessary medical costs that are passed to everyone else?

Anonymous 2015-11-30 08:12:20 ID: 684acb No.18624

>>18612
>>18608
>it's not a scam since they're selling a product
if I sold you a fake gold ring, it would be a scam, even though I am selling you a product. And I wasn't even saying whether it was correct or not, just that was the message and I liked it.

I liked the message because it doesn't tell smokers they fuarrrked up and have no hope for recovery.
>>18608
>>18610
>it's so unfair
who gives a shit? a nonprofit can air whatever ads they want. welcome to capitalism.
>but they're funded by the government
which also gave $1,518,567,410 in subsidies to the tobacco industry over a course of twelve years between 2000 and 2012. That program didn't end until 2014.
http://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=tobacco
http://www.npr.org/2014/10/24/357947259/tobacco-farmers-lose-longtime-safety-net

>>18614
>why should people quit smoking?
maybe because it kills them?

Anonymous 2015-11-30 09:34:00 ID: c7c483 No.18628

>>18595
>It's meaningless, since everyone who smokes knows about the health issues now. It's also so preachy.

There's been a crusade against tobacco even since before people were really aware of the health risks, especially among American Christians.

Anonymous 2015-11-30 09:36:08 ID: 586203 No.18629

>>18624
>if I sold you a fake gold ring, it would be a scam, even though I am selling you a product.
>fake gold

Now there is the real problem. The issue was that tobacco companies were lying about the effects of their products. Not the fact that their products had the effects. If I sell you a fake gold ring and you buy it knowing it is a fake there is no scam.

Anonymous 2015-11-30 09:36:20 ID: c7c483 No.18630

>>18624
>if I sold you a fake gold ring, it would be a scam, even though I am selling you a product.

It would be a scam if you told me it was real.

>which also gave $1,518,567,410 in subsidies to the tobacco industry over a course of twelve years between 2000 and 2012.

It also bailed out the banks

Anonymous 2015-11-30 09:48:00 ID: c7c483 No.18632

>>18629
>The issue was that tobacco companies were lying about the effects of their products.

Not really. I mean, they lied about all the soykaf that went into their products, but they didn't really lie about the effects as much as deny them. Tobacco was smoked around the world hundreds of years and among the native americans for much longer. Nobody thought there was anything really that bad with it. Most of the objections to tobacco came from the extremely religious segments of American society whose objections to "the devil's weed" was mostly moral.

And people act like tobacco companies aren't constantly being punished for their past dishonesty when they're being punished far more than alcohol companies and brewers whose business is still treated like a happy trade. I see plenty of beer commercials, but if Marlboro wanted to air an ad, fat chance.

Anonymous 2015-11-30 11:17:48 ID: 1a134a No.18635

>>18624
>maybe because it kills them?
How is that bad?
Doesn't everyone have the right to a slow and agonizing death, if they want one?

>if I sold you a fake gold ring, it would be a scam, even though I am selling you a product
How so?
I wanted a fake gold ring, I got one.

>>18629
>The issue was that tobacco companies were lying about the effects of their products
There was one thing mentioned earlier this thread already:

>Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.

Back in the days when everyone was smoking, people genuinely did not know about the adverse effects.
And that probably was no different for the people in charge of selling the product.

Anonymous 2015-11-30 13:14:57 ID: dcfeee No.18637

I feel like there's real arguments to made against using tobacco, although it doesn't apply to everyone.

Why take a drug that releases your feel good chemicals all at once for a price, when you can get all of those chemicals naturally over time with no detriment to your health? The cravings associated with tobacco are very enjoyable. I prefer my happiness to be free and constant, rather than a time consuming bill that leaves me drained until I can get more.

Anonymous 2015-11-30 13:26:41 ID: 21ece4 No.18638

>>18637
>I feel like there's real arguments to made against using tobacco
Thank you, captain obvious. Everybody knows smoking costs money and slowly kills you. So does bacon but we don't run smear campaigns against it on TV.

Anonymous 2015-11-30 15:06:49 ID: dcfeee No.18645

>>18638
I don't see anything wrong with running smear campaigns against bacon or tobacco.

There's nothing wrong with criticism. Not everyone knows all of the dangers of smoking in the detail those commercials provide.

Anonymous 2015-11-30 16:53:35 ID: 684acb No.18648

>>18635
tell me again how telling you why something is bad for you is oppressive and crushing your rights. I can't tell you why you're wrong, since that would be oppression right?

>people didn't know the harmful effects of cigarettes
tobacco has been around for centuries and people have been critical of tobacco for centuries. Why do you think most people didn't know? here's a hint: cigarette companies are not incompetent.

>>18629
>>18635
>if I sell you a fake gold ring and you buy knowing it is fake there is no scam
actually from a legal perspective it's still a scam if you advertised it as real. but my point was just that "selling a product" and scamming people were not mutually exclusive.
see also: welcome to capitalism.
>>18632
and denying the truth is just a shittier way of lying about it

Anonymous 2015-11-30 16:59:40 ID: 684acb No.18649

>>18638
>>18632
>>18622
>drinking
in the united states there are anti drunk driving ads all the time
>fast food
obviously you haven't been paying attention to michelle obama
>>18632
oh also cigarettes are a lot worse for you than beer is, they're not really comparable

Anonymous 2015-11-30 18:30:56 ID: 9a55c6 No.18650

>>18624
>why should people quit smoking?
>maybe because it kills them?

A. You did not answer the question I asked. My question was "Why is getting people to quit smoking good/important?".

B. So what if smoking "kills"? Must we all live like bubble boy? Do I have to give up life's few pleasures in exchange for a few more years in a retirement home?

Anonymous 2015-12-01 01:59:18 ID: 16fc15 No.18654

>>18650
semantics. An ad campaign isn't forcing you to do anything

Anonymous 2015-12-01 02:56:44 ID: f24632 No.18656

>>18648
>denying the truth is just a shittier way of lying about it

no it's not. if you deny the earth is round you aren't lying about anything, you just are retarded.

Anonymous 2015-12-01 02:59:38 ID: 9a55c6 No.18657

>>18654
It's not semantics. The reason why an individual might do or not do something is a different animal from the reasons that shape government policy, in this case a propaganda campaign against smoking.

Anonymous 2015-12-01 03:58:01 ID: c6777e No.18659

>>18560

Cable is dead. Advertising is cancer. Protip: Stop watching ads and stick to torrents.

Anonymous 2015-12-01 04:13:45 ID: c7c483 No.18660

>>18649
>in the united states there are anti drunk driving ads all the time

Yes, but these ads are usually not against drinking but "drinking irresponsibly" and alcohol brewers are still allowed to air commercials where you see the happy dude talkin' about how great it is to work at the Sam Adams brewery and have a cold pint watching the Sunday game of the beer he helps make.

It's not like cigarette ads are allowed to air commercials anymore. I don't think there's any law that says they can't, but it's probably because networks just know they can't/shouldn't do that.

>oh also cigarettes are a lot worse for you than beer is, they're not really comparable

In terms of health? Maybe. There might some study for all I know that challenges that claim for all I know. But smokers' have never intentionally killed anyone except themselves, but even there only like 10% of all smokers will ever contract anything like lung cancer.

The thing with the anti-smoking ads though is that they are directed a lot at teenagers and college students, and I doubt such ads really convince many people to stop smoking. If anything, they probably often have this effect on young people

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HC-4lfSTMZ4

But even so, most smokers who are still smoking are adults who accept most of the risks and even if they hold on to some things these ads say are myths, chances are those myths aren't so believed that it is the essential reason for their smoking and they will continue smoking even after "realizing" they are myths. Not only that, but I think a lot of the money tobacco companies get nowadays is coming more from a niche market anyway who may even buy more tobacco just to make sure it doesn't disappear now that less people are purchasing it.

Anonymous 2015-12-01 11:39:51 ID: 684acb No.18662

>>18657
>the reasons that shape government policy
gee I wonder what those could be
oh right making sure people don't kill themselves
you don't even know it's the government running these ads. and so what if it is? you're just making soykaf up at this point

I said it before and I said it again: nobody is being oppressed because the TV said cigarette companies are taking advantage of people

>>18660
>know they can't/shouldn't do that
it's simple, they don't air the ads because they don't have to. Nicotine has a ridiculously high addiction rate, and social interaction accomplishes more than TV ads ever could

What's really scary about the lack of TV ads is the amount of money they spend on advertising. Makes you is wonder where the money is going. especially when threads like this pop up.

Anonymous 2015-12-01 13:27:01 ID: 21ece4 No.18663

>>18660
>It's not like cigarette ads are allowed to air commercials anymore.
I'm pretty sure they aren't. Or at least the kinds of ads they can make are highly restricted by law.
>>18662
>it's simple, they don't air the ads because they don't have to.
They would if they could. Smoking has gone down a huge amount. Maybe I'm just old enough to remember back when tons of people smoked and before joe camel got derezzed .

Anonymous 2015-12-01 15:58:19 ID: dcfeee No.18666

>>18659
Well thing is I work in a call center and I'm only allowed to listen to Pandora for entertainment. Pandora has ads that can't be turned all the way down, even if you mute your computer and the program. I can't take of the head-set because it's my job. It's just like 1984 where the telescreens can't be turned off. Either I don't get any media at all, or I have to deal with advertisements. If I turn off Pandora when the ad shows up, it's right back when I turn it back on. They don't allow me administrator status so I'm very limited as to what I can do with the computers.

What would you do in my situation?

Anonymous 2015-12-01 15:59:39 ID: dcfeee No.18667

>>18666
Another scary thing about this is the smoking ads used to bother me too. But now after seeing so many my opinion has changed. I don't know if it's due to independent thought or not.

Anonymous 2015-12-01 21:06:13 ID: e0af51 No.18674

>>18662
>oh right making sure people don't kill themselves

Why is this desirable?

Anonymous 2015-12-01 22:51:58 ID: c7c483 No.18677

>>18662

>What's really scary about the lack of TV ads is the amount of money they spend on advertising. Makes you is wonder where the money is going. especially when threads like this pop up.

Maybe they shoot some of that advertising money to the anti-smoking ads? Wouldn't be surprised, given how much tobacco companies have donate to things like cancer research.

But also, it may be that a lot of other countries just aren't as strict about the amount of open advertising done by tobacco companies. Likewise, even if tobacco is becoming more of a niche thing, there's definitely still areas where advertising to that niche market is needed. There's plenty of smoker's magazines and posters for smoking products which are put up in liquor stores and smoke shops.

>>18663

>I'm pretty sure they aren't. Or at least the kinds of ads they can make are highly restricted by law.

I just think it's a bit unfair. I could understand tobacco commercials not being allowed to air when children may be watching, but I think the restriction or stigma is becoming just a little too extreme.