Cigarette advertising censorship

[Miss Zippy]

Anyone else a bit miffed at our nanny state's latest initiative? Tobacco is a legal product, so why should promotion of its legal sale be illegal? We all know the risks, so what is the ban on advertising really going to achieve? (P.S. I'm a non-smoker, so I'm not on a pro-nicotine campaign here).

[andy hughes]

I think the government is worried about the power of advertising on young potential smokers - the argument has to be valid, no-one would advertise if it wasn't producing revenue - and health has to be an issue, given the NHS spend on smoking diseases. Tobacco is legal, so are guns, but a degree of restraint has to be exercised, and sometimes that has to be undertaken by the powers-that-be. Remember, cigarettes are the only legally available product that will kill you if used for its intended purpose - surely increasing the number of people who indulge is not a good idea.

[The Rut]

An interesting quote came from someone high up at British American Tobacco who said that a similar ban in France had no affect on cigarette sales if that is the case why do they bother to advertise in the first place.

[Miss Zippy]

Whilst I totally agree with what has been said, I'm just not convinced that a ban on advertising it going to prevent or stop people smoking. I'm from a family of smokers and I'm always pestering my parents to give up and I hate the thought of anything happening to them that could have so easily been avoided (i.e. by not smoking/giving up). Out of all my family, friends and colleagues I know who smoke, not one of them say advertising had any influence on them one way or the other.

[darth vader]

I think one of the problems that the government faced was the hypocrasy of tobacco companies sponsoring sporting events

[sft42]

Tobacco may well be a legal product but so is alcohol and how many people have died after years of abuse of that substance and we see now legislation of this product......you have to balance a need to allow free commerce and fair trade and the public good....I suppose it comes down to two things....just how gullible do you believe the hoi polloi are?? do we believe everything we see in adverts? Does smoking brand X make us appear cooler?? and secondly should we ban any product (legal) from being advertised as this could possible constitute a block of these companies legal right to trade and damages their business and profits and as they would be only to forthright in pointing out everyone does know the risks..........the only thing i can say in arguement to my own point there is that the people most influenced by advertising are teenagers, who along with peer pressure, are coerced into becoming smokers so maybe they do need protecting with bans on adverts............as an after thought smoking isn't totally banned it will still be allowed at F1 events for a few years to come.

[xyzzyplugh]

Well, are we going to get 'Buzzing Hornet' billboard ads now from B&H like they do at the racetrack?

[WaldoMcFroog]

I'm in too minds about it really. I stopped smoking last may after ten years or so, junst because I felt like it really. On the one hand, I don't feel that it is any of the government's business what I do to my body as long as I do not hurt another living being. (I am in favour of total legalisation of drugs for one thing - I believe it would actually lead to a decrease in total drug use, apart from anything else).

-

on the other hand, I think the tobacco companies are taking the mickey - they profiteer and they have hidden the harmful side effects of smoking for many years and for that they should be sued into oblivion. It's one thing to smoke in the knowledge that it's harmful, but another to suffer effects that known to be likely to occur but which were kept hidden from you.

-

On my... er... third hand... I think successive governments have been highly hypocritical about the tax raised from smoking. I believe the tax from smoking should be set aside to pay for the health care of people who choose to smoke - 'You smoke, you pay for what your healthcare will cost the state'. That seems fair to me. But the money is used to subsidise other things, such as roads or education or whatever - it's money that is freely available to the government to spend. If everyone stopped smoking, the gov would have to implement additional taxes to cover the shortfall. Something about that stinks, and not of tobacco!

[Miss Zippy]

I would far rather see an 'all-or-nothing' approach, like Einstein, and see the sale of tobacco banned. The govt have surely done their research and know that banning advertising will probably have a negligible affect on sales. It's a win-win situation for the govt as they win the confidence and votes of the anti-smoking lobby, whilst knowing that tobacco sales will not be adversely affected and, hence, the billions paid each year in duty will continue to line the Chancellor's pockets.

[DavidUK]

I detest smoking (it killed my father) but making it illegal would drive it underground and provide an extra income for criminals. As the authorities are losing the battle against existing illegal drugs, I would make all drugs legal for adults and spend the money on education against the dangers. Hopefully, this would eliminate a large amount of drug-related crime.

[Jonathan R]

A few points: Does anyone else see the cigarette stands at the supermarkets and other shops a form of advertising. They normally have a giant sign above them with the name of a particular brand so I can't see the difference. Just the sight of hundreds of packs must at least remind people (including kids) of smoking which is a bad thing. I think ensuring that they are just sold in tobacconists may help reduce consumption, although I'm not sure. Of course, reducing numbers of smokers is not the point of this legislation as has already been pointed out. It's also laughable when the government put up taxes on cigarettes and alcohol and then pretend it's done for altruistc reasons! BTW, I also agree with the legalisation of all drugs and therefore taking them out of the hands of criminals.