Alcohol Sponsoring Vs Tobacco Sponsoring...

[Mackmot]

Originally Posted by zonda

I think the major difference is that Alcohol only directly effects those who use it whilst Second Hand Smoke effects me and others who don't smoke. Whilst there is the argument that alcohol can be a contributing factor in family break ups and so forth, when taken in moderation it has very few side effects socially and health wise.

Off course alcohol affects others, are you saying that when you go to a pub and people are smoking and drinking, the smokers affect you and the drunks dont. You have never been in a fight, been thrown up on, had your feet stick to the carpet or had people come up to you talking ******** and stinking.

When smokers smoke moderately and do it in places that dont affect others they are no problem to anyone.

The way I see it, people shouldnt be banned from doing things they want to do. Advertising should be allowed to give people the chance to decide on their favourite brands or learn about new ones. If a product has harmful side effects though it should be the responsibility of the manufacturers to teach people this. They should be forced to pay for the quiting smoking adverts and pay for the dont drink and drive adverts.

Also is it not sensible for alcoholic drinks manufacturers to use motorsport to advise against drink driving. Afterall a racing driver wouldnt do a race drunk, he would drink responsibly.

[zonda]

Re smoking, well long term health wise yes it does cause issues. Re drunks, no i don't end up in fights and being thrown up everytime i go to a bar and even if i did it is a relatively minor issue compared to lung cancer i would think. I agree that people should be able to make their own choices on what they do and not do, long as it does not always adversly affect others long term health.
The argument that others should be able to smoke because they choose to is valid, long as it does not affect others whilst they are doing it. Not everyone who drinks goes and throws up on someone or starts a fight, whilst anyone who smokes around others will be causing long term health problems for those around them.

Thats my two cents, and im sure those who smoke will see it otherwise.

cheers,

dave

[climb]

The problem is that most existing things have dark sides with negative effects.
Undoubtedly nothing has been more dangerous than men themselves: what about banning human beings then?

[krt917]

Originally Posted by climb

The problem is that most existing things have dark sides with negative effects.
Undoubtedly nothing has been more dangerous than men themselves: what about banning human beings then?

True, though I don't know how you'd enforce it!

I think Ralf fan has raised an important issue. Whatever we think, it makes logical sense that alcohol advertising follows tobacco as the next target. I think that, although I would consider smoking as more anti-social/harmful, the association of alcohol and driving fast is an uncomfortable one for motor racing to make. I think that it's strange that F1 cars have been plastered with tobacco sponsorship whilst driven by drivers who wouldn't touch the stuff (most of the time). Alcohol sponsorship raises similar issues.

It is a shame, because some of my favourite liveries have been tobacco and alcohol-sponsored cars (Martini, anyone), but it would make sense if we see both banned in F1 eventually.

We shouldn't be too unhappy - the fewer big sponsors there are, the less money there will be and the cheaper F1 will HAVE to be. As we have seen from the 'Who killed F1?' thread, that might not be such a bad thing...

[Kicking-back]

Tobacco sponsorship has been banned - we have to accept that and move on.

Alcohol sponsorship is less likely to be banned, precisely because alchohol used sensibly does not cause problems, whereas smoking does.

[Super Tourer]

The only thing I would add is that the drinks industry is gradually being taken down a similar path to that which tobacco brands went down years ago.

The drinks brands advertising on TV on the run up to Christmas are carrying a 'drink aware' message and link to a website where you can gain extra info on the strength of drinks, etc. There are also moves to improve labelling on bottles, many now carry this, to show drink strengths in units.

Although a fair way off, we can see that it is a similar route to tobacco. It may well be that in the end all drinks branding and advertising has to carry a warning or advice and those that link with driving will have to push a drink/drive message.

IIRC, Labatts carried a drink/drive message when they sponsored cars in the BTCC a long time ago.

[ralf fan]

mm.. my point wasnt that alcohol is good or bad or whatever...
im simply saying that since tobacco adverts have been banned in order to discourage UNDERAGE (a word forgotten to be used by most posters in this thread) smoking because of the health risks it poses...
dont you think in F1 alcohol could be next because UNDERAGE people and teens dont know any better and are responsible for a majority of the alcohol abuse..

[Mackmot]

but it shouldnt be like that, they should be using F1 to educate underage drinkers rather than tabooing the subject and making kids want to do it more.

[ralf fan]

Hmm... good suggestion Mack...

[Steve Wilkinson]

I bet Colin Chapman had no idea that the simple deal he signed up to in 1968 would lead to such world wide condemnation of motor sport.

After all he just did it for the money.

As for the rights and wrongs: I don't smoke so am probably biased. However I do drink from time to time to time to time to time......

In another ten years or so some prissy mealy mouthed liberal (with a small L) will start a campaign to get alcohol banned because they know best.

Well as a none smoker I am against the blanket smoking ban as it infringes the human rights of the mindless morons who smoke!

I'd also be against a blanket ban on alcohol as I couldn't afford the increase in TAX!

[mattmarvell]

I would take issue with drink driving by irriesponable teens is probably the cause of most traffic deaths as I don’t believe it to be the case – I see where you are coming from but don’t think alcohol advertising should be banned nor do I think tobacco advertising should have been banned for that matter ..

Think of the silk cut adverts from magazines before that ban they worked brilliant at getting around the restrictions didn’t make me want to smoke silk cut –

Hamlet cigar adverts on TV until just over 14 years ago and on radio until a couple of years ago – very funny adverts but as a 12 year old I didn’t start smoking cigars.

Many drinks adverts are funny to watch but don’t mean I’m going go and buy a bottle – advertising works but I don’t think it encoruges people to start doing anything they don’t want to do
I’m not going to rush out and buy a McDonalds Salad because they are showing me what leaf looks like at every opportunity.
It just makes you remember a brand name – I believe this country on the whole is quite media savvy and doesn’t believe everything that they read or see

If parents don’t want there children to be **** heads then expose them to alcohol at a earlier age to make it look no big deal - keep adverts don’t hide these things away and make them taboo as it this that creates the problem

I also believe that adverts are in same ways part of our culture and as I see quoted in the press every now and again JPS stopped advertising in F1 years ago but ask many people who are not that interested in Motor Racing (which is the majority of the country ) and many still believe they are still sponsoring a team – In which case it’s going to take about 50 years to erase MS winning so many titles in a Marlboro colours

[sonic]

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

Tobacco sponsorship has been banned - we have to accept that and move on.

Alcohol sponsorship is less likely to be banned, precisely because alchohol used sensibly does not cause problems, whereas smoking does.

quite right.

the issue drinks manufacturers currently have is less to do with being able to advertise and more to do with the content of the adverts.

In the UK today they all have to be seen to explicitly encourage 'responsible' drinking - so no shots of people having fun, getting laid anymore.

The idea is that we should be able to move Britain away from binge culture - and toward a more responsible Eurpean model of alcohol consumption.

sponsoring an F1 team (the obviously bizarre association with drink driving notwithstanding) is actually a far safer bet than producicing an expensive ATL ad that may get banned. so we may see lots more sponsorship.

And those guys have got serious cash to spend.

[climb]

Well, alcohol sponsoring in a series with an increasing number of races held in muslim countries, well there could be some problem IMO.

[Kicking-back]

Bahrain showed us there's only a problem with public displays of drinking - hence the juice on the podium, rather than the actual sponsor names.

[climb]

Actually I'm not sure they'll be so tolerant about a team prime sponsor, whose brand is extremely visible.

[manwell]

Whats the fuss.
Alcohol sponsorship is already in Motorsport.
Over here in Australia in our V8 Supercar Series we have cars with VB (beer) sponsorship.
Our Bathurst 1000 race used to be called the Tooheys 1000 (beer)
The Aussie GP and many around the world have Fosters sponsorship around the track.
Team Green in CART used to have Jim Beam sponsorship and now Andretti/Green racing in the IRL has Dan Wheldon driving a Jim Beam sponsored Car.

Sure smoking kills
So does drinking alcohol to excess.
But out governments also say, when driving, that speed kills, and thats what motor racing is all about, but nobody whinges about that.
I dont need to be wrapped up in cotton. I know what the risks in life are and if i take them thats my choice.

........ just dont drink the water

[manwell]

Sorry for the double post, but apparently i can only edit my last post up to 10mins after i posted, and i took a little longer.

Originally Posted by climb

Well, alcohol sponsoring in a series with an increasing number of races held in muslim countries, well there could be some problem IMO.

Well thats their problem isnt it?
If they hold a GP thay should know there is a tradition of celebrating with Champagne on the podium, and there might be a chance that some cars have alcohol sponsorship. Accept it.
If i watched a race held in a Muslim country i would think that because of their religion, that i may see women in the crowd covered up from head to toe.
I dont agree with that, but im not going to force my opinions on others. If im watching an event in that country, thats what i should expect.
Just like if they hold a round of the F1 GP, expect that there could be alcohol involved in some way.

[foreversideways]

Nanny, Nanny,Nanny,Nanny.

[DougK]

mmmmmm.

Mcdonalds are not exactly healthy for you
Choclates rot your teeth and make you fat
Oil tankers leak and pollute the oceans
Cars are dangerous if driven badly

at this rate the only thing that will be allowed to sponsor F1 will be spring water companies....though are they really that environmentally friendly?

Oh well guess there will be no sponsorship in the future!

[Mathias]

Which is precisely the point.

I agree with the tobacco ad ban because, as I've said in other posts, I don't see the point in smoking. Fag-makers are selling an addiction and nothing else, and, as pointed out above, lung cancer, heart disease, blocked arteries, bronchitis etc are the results of simply smoking as per the manufacturer's recommendations, whereas alcohol in moderation is proven to be beneficial to health.

But where that leaves us for sponsorship of *all* sports is very difficult. The great thing about fags is that a vast number of people pay a relatively small amount on a regular basis for the product. You raise the price of a pack of 20 by a penny, which no-one will notice, and you easily make the millions of pounds that you need to sponsor a F1 team (and probably buy a small to medium sized country too).

There are very few things that you can pull this off with. Booze and over-priced sticky energy fizz are naturally good candidates, as are mobile phone calls. What I'm looking forward to is sponsorship by Lotto and the Royal Mail. Especially the latter - a nice red car with the Royal Mail logo on it... that's gotta slow Ferrari down.

[Mathias]

By the way, studies show that advertising tobacco products per se doesn't make young people smoke (and it's not just "underage" people we're concerned about here, it's anyone who's vulnerable to taking up an addiction). What makes people smoke is that they think that cigarettes are grown-up, cool and glamorous. Given that F1 is one of the coolest and most glamorous things on the planet - despite the best efforts of the circus to make itself look completely carp - it follows that many kids could think that smoking would make them cool, when as we know, all it does is make you cough and smell bad.

So it follows that tobacco sponsorship of F1 is probably the worst (or best, depending on your point of view!) possible kind of advertising (in terms of making more people take up the habit) - and it doesn't carry a government health warning either.

That said, I always assumed that West (as in Mclaren) was an IT company, which just goes to show that advertising doesn't always work out the way you plan.

[foreversideways]

Tobacco is a perfect product from a marketing standpoint. You intice children / young adults to take it up when they believe they are imortal or at least the future looks so far away that they don't consider it. By the time the penny drops and they find out it causes all sorts of health problems (to put it mildly). They are hooked. The price of a packet has no influence on consumtion as demand is inelastic. A licence to print money, both for the Toacco companies and Governments.

[Armco Bender]

McLaren in the '70s also had tobacco and alcohol sponsorship,when they went to countries where they couldn't run Marlboro colours they ran in the blue colours of the beer company owned by Marlboro,Lowenbrew ?,if my failing memory serves me correctly.
Been plenty of alcohol sponsors in F1,Martini,Warstiener,Courage,Rob Walkers money was from whisky,Williams ran a March in Belle-Vue beer colours.

[Tony Clifton]

Is tobacco a legal product or not? Is alcohol a legal product or not?

Funny, the government bans the advertisement of a legal product but then again collects a huge amount of tax on the very sale of that very legal product.

Do you want your government to be your nanny your whole life or do you want to be a free man (or woman) and make choices on what you do or put in your body.

Quit asking your government to make your choices and "save" you from yourself.

I don't smoke.

[RTH]

A couple of weeks ago 'Autosport' reported the WEST identification on the Mclarens was to be replaced by JOHNNIE WALKER WHISKEY decals by mid season 2005