Marlboro

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by davyboy

The JPS Lotus were uber cool. The dayglo Marlboro McLarens iconic. The yellow Benson and Hedges Jordans were fan-magnets.

Yes they were,but it didn't make me (non-smoker) or anyone else I know suddenly decide to either start smoking or change to a different brand of cigarettes.It may have calmed their fears that all this fuss about smoking leading to lung cancer was just a scare story because why would someone sell them something that was potentially fatal be involved in a high profile sport like F1.

And as for trying to make out that one brand is "cooler" than another,well it's really like trying to decide whether you'd rather be shot with an AK 45 or a 12 bore shot gun!

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by martyn bott

And as for trying to make out that one brand is "cooler" than another,well it's really like trying to decide whether you'd rather be shot with an AK 45 or a 12 bore shot gun!

The people who take up smoking, or who have started smoking not so long ago don't look at things that way. They're generally kids who do not factor in what their life will be life after 40 years hooked to a very addictive and dangerous drug. It is odd, it always has been odd, but its true.

Cigarette brands get their addicts [customers is the wrong word in this context] through the value of their brand. The value of the brand is attained through very clever marketing. Its unlikely to be the reason why people start smoking, but it plays a significant factor in which brand they choose. Naturally cigarette brands don't need to do very much marketing to retain their 'users' as being a highly addictive drug, the product does the job itself.

I'm very glad F1 has kicked its filthy habit, but if there are people out there who think the sport can rest with a clear conscience that it played no involvement in peoples' take up of cigarette smoking... and/or their subsequent deaths... its very much mistaken.

[Knowlesy]

I know the world is unbelievably PC and sensitive, but for gods sake. People have a choice in life. If someone chooses to smoke, at whatever age, then they should be able to do so.

If they regret it late in life then they have their own willpower to blame. Not Formula 1.

[Tony Clifton]

Originally Posted by davyboy

The people who take up smoking, or who have started smoking not so long ago don't look at things that way. They're generally kids who do not factor in what their life will be life after 40 years hooked to a very addictive and dangerous drug. It is odd, it always has been odd, but its true.

Cigarette brands get their addicts [customers is the wrong word in this context] through the value of their brand. The value of the brand is attained through very clever marketing. Its unlikely to be the reason why people start smoking, but it plays a significant factor in which brand they choose. Naturally cigarette brands don't need to do very much marketing to retain their 'users' as being a highly addictive drug, the product does the job itself.

I'm very glad F1 has kicked its filthy habit, but if there are people out there who think the sport can rest with a clear conscience that it played no involvement in peoples' take up of cigarette smoking... and/or their subsequent deaths... its very much mistaken.

Really I am so glad you see the common man as nothing more than a pawn of the big corporate machine!

Man has free will and the ability to make choices, both good and bad choices. Cigarette smoking and alcohol consumption are some of those bad choices. So are over eating and drinking too many soft drinks, driving too fast is not good for you either amoung other things that life offers as choices.

Doesn't motor sport promote dangerous high speed driving by using your logic? Let's not talk about the damage high decibel race cars do to spectators hearing or the pollution race cars produce and those horrible green house gases that are going to cause all the polar bears to have no icebergs to float around on.

The sport can very well have a clear conscious for the years that it had cigarette advertising on the cars. It was and continues to be a very legal product.

If cigarettes are so horrible and product liability so great why didn't your government ban the sale of cigarettes and deny NHS coverage to people who have smoking realted diseases?

Quit babysitting your neighbors life and the choices they make for the very laws and regulations you ask your government to make to control THEM one day will be turned against YOU and the activities you find enjoyable.

I see speed cameras are very popular with the locals in the UK, don't forget, big brother is watching!

[chillibowl]

the legislation which limits the advertising of cigs is aimed at preventing children from taking up smoking. it has nothing to do with adults other than preventing children from taking up smoking and naturally growing up to become adult smokers.

it has nothing to do with personal freedom or watching your neighbors, its about promoting better health, particularly the health of the next generation. its about protecting a universal health care system which cannot afford to pay for another generation of cig related illnesses.

personally i like Davyboy's point about how this relates to F1. corporate responsibility is an important issues and F1 teams need to realize this. F1 takes huge sums of public money every year for race fees, cities spend millions each year just to provide the services needed to host a race, and teams take advantage of all manner of tax breaks to operate in their respective countries, if they are willing to take peoples tax dollars then at the very least they should respect the laws of the countries they both race in and broadcast too. to do otherwise is seriously hypocritical and irresponsible.

[Rockmunky]

So.. can the families of the next person who dies of a smoking related illness sue F1?


Oops.. i'm planting ideas again

[Tony Clifton]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

the legislation which limits the advertising of cigs is aimed at preventing children from taking up smoking. it has nothing to do with adults other than preventing children from taking up smoking and naturally growing up to become adult smokers.

it has nothing to do with personal freedom or watching your neighbors, its about promoting better health, particularly the health of the next generation. its about protecting a universal health care system which cannot afford to pay for another generation of cig related illnesses.

personally i like Davyboy's point about how this relates to F1. corporate responsibility is an important issues and F1 teams need to realize this. F1 takes huge sums of public money every year for race fees, cities spend millions each year just to provide the services needed to host a race, and teams take advantage of all manner of tax breaks to operate in their respective countries, if they are willing to take peoples tax dollars then at the very least they should respect the laws of the countries they both race in and broadcast too. to do otherwise is seriously hypocritical and irresponsible.

Well guess what? Children cannot by law, purchase cigarettes (at least in the USA). They can purchase booze either.

How about this? Parental control of your child and when you become an adult (age 18) personal responsibility?

If stopping cigarette advertising was about preventing the imaginary child from smoking then you must REALLY love all the alcohol advertising on the F1 cars.
What about all the "adult only" advertising such as the Penthouse magazine cars of the 1970/80's?
If this is about "corporate responsibility" and "respecting the laws of the countries they broadcast into" then how do you feel about all the alcohol adverts over the cars when they race in the Middle East where alcohol is not a social custom (not sure if ME countries have "Laws" against alcohol possession and consumption, all I know is that my soldier friends fighting in the sandbox do have to bribe the proper local people to get their booze, no liquor stores).

What about all the scantily clad "grid girls" that get broadcast? Is it "corporate irresponsibility" to broadcast those scantily clad women into countries where modestly clothed women are the norm? What about respecting the rules and customs of THOSE countries that find women in minimal clothing to be offensive and against their religion?

Face it, no matter how you want to mask it, cigarette advertising bans are about government control and taxation.
Government paid health care will either lead to rationing of health care dollars spent or bankruptcy of the populace paying the taxes to support the program.


If you want your government to control cigarette advertising today, tomorrow the activities you like may very well get on the government radar of "hey let's control THAT".