pkern@utcsri.UUCP (pkern) (01/26/88)
Shouldn't one be allowed to advertise a product so long as the product is legal? Wouldn't it be more useful to put another tax on tobacco products and use the generated revenue to help tobacco farmers switch to other crops?
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (01/27/88)
In article <5929@utcsri.UUCP> pkern@utcsri.UUCP (pkern) writes: > >Shouldn't one be allowed to advertise a product so long as the product is legal? >Wouldn't it be more useful to put another tax on tobacco products and >use the generated revenue to help tobacco farmers switch to other crops? While I'm a strong anti-smoker, and firmly against smoking in public places, I'm also very much against any such ban. To ban people from promoting their product or viewpoint scares me. What would be more reasonable would be "truth-in-advertising" laws on dangerous, addictive products like tobacco. The small warning stickers in the ads aren't enough. Perhaps they could require all cigarette ads to picture diseased lungs, cancer death statistics or other such things in proportion to these effects. Smoking is dangerous and offensive. Make the ads say that. But don't ban them. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
rbutterworth@watmath.waterloo.edu (Ray Butterworth) (01/28/88)
In article <1351@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > What would be more reasonable would be "truth-in-advertising" laws > on dangerous, addictive products like tobacco. The small warning stickers > in the ads aren't enough. Perhaps they could require all cigarette ads to > picture diseased lungs, cancer death statistics or other such things > in proportion to these effects. > Smoking is dangerous and offensive. Make the ads say that. But don't ban > them. I really don't think that warnings make one bit of difference as far as sales are concerned. Their main function seems to be to provide a defence for the tobacco industry whenever someone gets ill and decides to sue them. They did warn him that smoking was dangerous to his health. And he probably didn't follow their advice to avoid inhaling. Remember, in Canada those warnings are voluntary; they were not legislated. Anyone who starts smoking now does so under the full knowledge of the dangers. For most people, smoking is a symptom of something else, not a basic thing by itself. Consider the case of other kinds of drugs. In the core of large US cities, many people get into heavy use of heroin and eventually destroy themselves with it. Those same people in small midwestern cities don't have the same access to the illegal drugs, so they do the same thing with alcohol. The particular drug in each case doesn't really matter; they are only symptoms of the original cause (whatever that may be). Not many people are going to stop becoming drug abusers simply because someone tells them that it is dangerous. Whether they admit it to themselves or not, that danger is one of the reasons they do it. Pointing it out isn't going to make much difference except to those people that don't need the destructive outlet. Some people find it easy to quit, others find it impossible. Those that find it easy probably only started smoking because it was the socially acceptable thing to do, not because they had a fundamental psycological need to smoke. When that social need is removed (e.g. they notice that very few of their friends or work associates smoke), so is their desire to smoke. If you stop someone that has a deep need to smoke from smoking, he is only going to find some other outlet for this need, whether it be excess food or the abuse of other drugs. Personally I'd rather have him killing himself with heroin than with tobacco because at least then I wouldn't have to inhale his excess smoke. Unfortunately I'd have to put up with having my house looted, my car stripped, or myself mugged in order to support his habit. Even more unfortunately, almost none of the tobacco, alcohol, or drug programs that try to get people off their drug do much to treat the real causes of the addiction, so for the most part their success is largely temporary. > While I'm a strong anti-smoker, and firmly against smoking in public > places, I'm also very much against any such ban. > To ban people from promoting their product or viewpoint scares me. Me too. On the other hand, I think that the government (or whoever wants to play Big Brother) should try to make smoking appear as socially unacceptable as possible. That would greatly reduce the numbers of new smokers, and force the rest into the city's inner core ghettos (or to Lulu's), where they wouldn't bother the rest of us. Steps, such as the University has recently taken to ban smoking in most buildings, are probably the most effective weapon now. It forces those that smoke to consider their reasons for smoking. Is the pleasure of smoking so great that it is worth standing outside freezing? Their alternative is illicitly sneaking a puff and hoping no one notices. That too should make them see that there is something wrong with their actions. It's nice too when the news reports things with the "right" slant. e.g. do they say it will cost $500,000 to intall a separate ventilation system to provide clean air for non-smokers, or do they say it is to exhaust the dirty air created by smokers? Have you noticed the way tobacco advertising is going these days? Take a look at the back cover of the January 4 issue of Maclean's: "Benson & Hedges 100's, because quality matters". There is a large picture of a restaurant. At the left is a man by himself. He is smoking (with no visible smoke of course) and reading a book. To the right at another table are two women. They are smiling and looking at the man. One of them is smoking, one isn't. Now look at the smaller "after" picture. The man has now turned around and is looking at the smoking woman. She has turned towards him and has an even bigger smile. Both are holding their cigarettes at mouth level and to the side facing the non-smoker. Whatever they are saying is intimate between the two of them; the other woman is excluded. Not only that, we can now only see the edge of her hand and knee, the rest of her is literally cut out of the picture. And the caption reads "for people who like to smoke". So there's the message: if you like to smoke you are going to have a good time, you'll meet new people, life will be wonderful; if you don't like to smoke, forget it, you'll be cut out of the picture. All you people out there that are insecure, socially inept, or just plain lonely, all you have to do is smoke B&H and all your problems will be solved. And they say these adds are only intended to promote brand preference and not to solicit new customers.
majka@ubc-csgrads.uucp (Marc Majka) (01/28/88)
In article <5929@utcsri.UUCP> pkern@utcsri.UUCP (pkern) writes: >Shouldn't one be allowed to advertise a >product so long as the product is legal? Easy solution then: make tobacco illegal. --- Marc Majka
clewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris R. Lewis) (01/28/88)
In article <5929@utcsri.UUCP> pkern@utcsri.UUCP (pkern) writes: > >Shouldn't one be allowed to advertise a product so long as the product is legal? First let me preface with the fact that I am a smoker, but I have tried (and failed miserably) to quit. Even so, an advertising ban doesn't bother *me* any - I'm already stuck on a brand. But, it might have some effect in reducing the number of people that start smoking. Which is a good thing. I don't want to get into an argument about whether tobacco advertising may influence some people to start smoking. It might even do so. But, if you start smoking, it's your own damn fault - you hold complete responsibility. However, this does make me a little mad: >Wouldn't it be more useful to put another tax on tobacco products and >use the generated revenue to help tobacco farmers switch to other crops? Where in hell does the billions of dollars the government already takes in tobacco taxes go? Mostly general revenues. How tacky can you get: the government profitting and blackmailing thru an individual's addictions. I know that there's an argument that tobacco taxes help offset increased health costs due to smoking, but I suspect it more than offsets it (depends I guess on which figures you believe). Wouldn't it make more sense to use some substantial piece of that which the government *already* takes in tobacco taxes to help tobacco farmers to switch? Would save money in the long run ... If they increase taxes again, as they do almost every budget, the vast majority will still go into general revenues, and little of it will be available to solve the problem. If they raise it high enough to be an effective deterrent, the total revenues will fall off, and there still won't be anything left to help the farmers. -- Chris Lewis, Spectrix Microsystems Inc, UUCP: {uunet!mnetor, utcsri!utzoo, lsuc, yunexus}!spectrix!clewis Phone: (416)-474-1955
cdshaw@alberta.UUCP (Chris Shaw) (01/28/88)
In article <1351@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >To ban people from promoting their product or viewpoint scares me. >What would be more reasonable would be "truth-in-advertising" laws >on dangerous, addictive products like tobacco. The small warning stickers >in the ads aren't enough. Perhaps they could require all cigarette ads to >picture diseased lungs, cancer death statistics or other such things >in proportion to these effects. > >Smoking is dangerous and offensive. Make the ads say that. But don't ban >them. >-- >Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 I have difficulty seeing the difference. On one hand, we have the removal of the right for tobacco companies to say anything about their product. On the other hand, Brad wants to TELL them what to say about their product. Which is worse? It's one of those knotty facts that the truth-in-advertising laws simply can't be enforced to the desireable level. Tobacco companies deny that smoking causes cancer. If pressed, one could imagine tobacco companies citing examples of people who smoke who have lived to a ripe old age, thereby refuting the smoking=death conclusion. The problem is, of course, that smoking != death. Smoking simply leads to poorer health, and in some/most cases causes cancer. So then we come to the concept of banning advertising. No tobacco company can equivocate over the meaning of such legislation, so there's no legitimate grounds for lawbreaking on this point. But then Brad says "..product or viewpoint..". Sorry Brad, products are not viewpoints. Products are not ideas, and products are not policies. Products are products. The reason why this particular product can't be banned outright is that there are too many voters who make their living on it. These voters have a very powerful lobby. The strategy here is clear. Squeeze the tobacco lobby dry. Kill them slowly. It seems only fitting. Someone else said: "pay the farmers to change over". It won't work. Tobacco is an extremely profitable cash crop. Would you take money to go to secretarial school? Not likely. These people have been living of the avails of a product that kills long enough. Let them suffer. -- Chris Shaw cdshaw@alberta.UUCP (via watmath, ihnp4 or ubc-vision) University of Alberta CatchPhrase: Bogus as HELL !
acton@ubc-csgrads.uucp (Donald Acton) (01/28/88)
The original question concerned whether or not tobacco advertising should be banned given that the sale of tobacco products is legal. My opinion on this is that it doesn't matter if the product is legal or not they should still be allowed to advertise. As far as I am concerned if you want to promote your own illegal activities then go ahead, advertise and be stupid enough to invite the police to be one of your customers. Maybe it will help reduce policing costs if you announce when and where you are going to commit a crime. In article <411@spectrix.UUCP> clewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris R. Lewis) writes: }However, this does make me a little mad: }>Wouldn't it be more useful to put another tax on tobacco products and }>use the generated revenue to help tobacco farmers switch to other crops? }... I know that there's an argument that }tobacco taxes help offset increased health costs due to smoking, but }I suspect it more than offsets it (depends I guess on which figures }you believe). } }Wouldn't it make more sense to use some substantial piece of that which }the government *already* takes in tobacco taxes to help tobacco farmers }to switch? Would save money in the long run ... I see that Chris gets a little upset at the excess taxes on tobacco and with me it is the tax gouging on gasoline that makes me hot under the collar :-) In tonight's Vancouver Sun there is a report of a call to increase the taxes on a carton of cigarettes by three dollars. It claims that such an increase would generate 800 million dollars in revenue and decrease consumption by 6%. In the past I have seen claims that the extra burden placed on our medical programs due to use of tobacco products costs 8 billion dollars a year yet the taxes raised amount to only 2 billion. (I think the 8 billion is a little high but the 2 billion seems reasonable and I heard that number while watching the proceedings of the House of Commons.) As for helping the tobacco farmers I say forget it. These farmers know that the demand for their product is going to decrease and on a year by year basis it isn't that much. They should be starting to convert to other crops now and not ten or fifteen years from now when they might not be able to sell their crop. But, like most people they are more interested in the larger profit next year and aren't too concerned about no profit ten years from now. Sure they might not make as much money next year but they will make a lot more money in the longer term and they will save us some tax dollars too. As long as there is the possibility that the government will bail them out they are going to continue to grow tobacco. Once they realize there is going to be no bail out then maybe they will start to switch. Donald Acton
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (01/31/88)
>In article <5929@utcsri.UUCP> pkern@utcsri.UUCP (pkern) writes: >>Shouldn't one be allowed to advertise a >>product so long as the product is legal? > >Easy solution then: make tobacco illegal. > >--- >Marc Majka Oh great.. you want to give the Mafia another licence to print money, like they got with alcohol in the 20's and they have now with heroin, cocaine and so forth. It's much better to (a) make it unprofitable for people to create a customer base of addicts and (b) make it hard for people to get convinced that it is a good thing to become addicted. Legalizing the product and prohibiting the advertizing seems like the best combination to do this. Should be done with drugs, too. Then we might have less crime in the streets and the Government of Columbia might have a chance of recovering some stability. Take the money away from the sellers of these things, and the problem will be much less. As for freedom of speech--it can never be absolute, and where you draw the line is always going to be a difficult problem of balancing the interests of individuals, state, and special-interest groups. Since individuals are the weakest, their interests should be given most protection. I don't think the proposed ban on tobacco advertizing applies to weak individuals, and it is strongly in the interests of most of us. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt mmt@zorac.arpa Magic is just advanced technology ... so is intelligence. Before computers, the ability to do arithmetic was proof of intelligence. What proves intelligence now?
clewis@lsuc.uucp (Chris Lewis) (02/01/88)
In article <1804@ubc-cs.UUCP> acton@ubc-csgrads.UUCP (Donald Acton) writes: >The original question concerned whether or not tobacco advertising >should be banned given that the sale of tobacco products is legal. My >opinion on this is that it doesn't matter if the product is legal or >not they should still be allowed to advertise. As far as I am >concerned if you want to promote your own illegal activities then go >ahead, advertise and be stupid enough to invite the police to be one >of your customers. Maybe it will help reduce policing costs if you >announce when and where you are going to commit a crime. Sounds like a great idea. Doesn't work here though... >In article <411@spectrix.UUCP> clewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris R. Lewis) writes: >I see that Chris gets a little upset at the excess taxes on tobacco >and with me it is the tax gouging on gasoline that makes me hot under >the collar .... Speaking of gasoline, you're right. Tobacco taxes are a mere pin-prick compared to the gas taxes. > ... I've seen claims >that the extra burden placed on our medical programs due to use of >tobacco products costs 8 billion dollars a year yet the taxes raised >amount to only 2 billion. Like I said, depends upon what figures you believe. I've also seen claims that coal-burning emissions causes 30,000 deaths in North America annually due to emphysema and lung cancer. I tend to be somewhat neutral on most of these claims because they seem to conflict so much. Depends which special interest group you're onside with I guess. Though, I don't doubt the costs are very substantial. >As for helping the tobacco farmers I say forget it. These farmers know >that the demand for their product is going to decrease and on a year >by year basis it isn't that much. They should be starting to convert >to other crops now and not ten or fifteen years from now when they >might not be able to sell their crop. But, like most people they are >more interested in the larger profit next year and aren't too >concerned about no profit ten years from now. Sure they might not make >as much money next year but they will make a lot more money in the >longer term and they will save us some tax dollars too. As long as >there is the possibility that the government will bail them out they >are going to continue to grow tobacco. Once they realize there is >going to be no bail out then maybe they will start to switch. You certainly haven't been following too much of the news on this point. The tobacco farmers are being burned (unintentional pun) really badly already. Many of them have gone bankrupt. Tobacco farming hasn't been lucrative for a number of years, nor do any of the farmers expect it to get any better. Many of them are stuck with the remainders of large loans for specialized tobacco-growing equipment bought many years ago. For most the demand has fallen off so much that they can't continue farming as they are, nor can they afford to switch. The federal government has been trying to help for quite a few years with new crops, but many of the new crops aren't working out (the govt. tries to get them into "new" crops to avoid disturbing the established base in other "standard" crops). As I recall, these do not take the form of "bail-outs", but more along the lines of technical assistance and some low-interest loans. Apparently tobacco farming is so specialized (equipment, smoking sheds etc.) that virtually none of it is useable with other crops. It's sort of like spending years learning enough to enter a profession, and by the time you've finally borrowed enough money to actually make a go of it, you find yourself obsolete. Not quickly. A slow frying. Many tobacco farmers have committed suicide over the last 3 or 4 years. From what I've heard, one of the only successful conversions were the peanut farms that have started up over the last couple of years. Unfortunately for them, the demand isn't particularly high, nor is it likely to improve (I can't stand Ontario peanuts.) So these things will work in a small fashion, but not enough to help the majority. I feel very sorry for most of these farmers - particularly those who started in the last couple boom years in tobacco farming. Bail-outs aren't the answer. I just wish someone could find a better one. -- Chris Lewis, Non-resident C-news Hacker, Real: {uunet!mnetor,utcsri!utzoo,ihnp4!utzoo,utcsri!utzoo}!spectrix!clewis Virtual: {same as above}!lsuc!clewis
stewartw@neptune.UUCP (Stewart Winter ) (02/01/88)
In article <411@spectrix.UUCP> you write: >Where in hell does the billions of dollars the government already takes >in tobacco taxes go? > Into the health care industry to pay for cancer care, etc. Also, things like replacing government furniture ruined by smoke or ash. How about time off for sick government employees caused by smoking. This list could go on and on. They aren't profitting from tobacco. >Chris Lewis, Spectrix Microsystems Inc, >UUCP: {uunet!mnetor, utcsri!utzoo, lsuc, yunexus}!spectrix!clewis >Phone: (416)-474-1955 ---------------- ------------------- Stewart Winter P.O. Box 9707 Cognos Incorporated 3755 Riverside Dr. VOICE: (613) 738-1440 FAX: (613) 738-0002 Ottawa, Ontario UUCP: decvax!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!neptune!stewartw CANADA K1G 3Z4
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (02/02/88)
In article <1988Jan31.214107.25204@lsuc.uucp> clewis@lsuc.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: >I feel very sorry for most of these farmers - particularly those >who started in the last couple boom years in tobacco farming. >Bail-outs aren't the answer. I just wish someone could find a better one. You feel sorry? Even at the business level it's hard to feel sorry for people who took long term debt to farm something that most people could see was going to eventually decline here. But the recent farmers, and that means anybody who started in the last 30 years, knew that they were hoping to make profits off an addictive, poisonous drug that wrecks people's lives and pollutes public spaces. No innocence is involved. They had the legal right to invest in the stuff, but there were risks, like any investment, and they must take the consequences. It's often said that a free socieity itself isn't good or bad, it's the things that the free people within it do that are good or bad. This is one of the bad ones folks, and there isn't a lot of sympathy here. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
gh@ai.toronto.edu (Graeme Hirst) (02/05/88)
In article <5929@utcsri.UUCP> pkern@utcsri.UUCP (pkern) writes: >Shouldn't one be allowed to advertise a product so long as the product is >legal? This doesn't follow at all. There are already lots of advertising controls on legal products. -- Prescription drugs may be advertised only in medical journals. (Maybe tobacco should be a prescription drug!) -- Prostitution is still legal (sort of), but soliciting is a no-no in any manner, let alone advertising. -- In most jurisdictions (including Canada?) it is legal to kill yourself (i.e. survivors of suicide atempts are no longer charged with an offence!), but it's still illegal to incite someone to do it. ("Fed up with life? Use Drano for fast relief.") But of course, the real point is that tobacco is a legal product only under suffrance -- if it were practical to make it illegal, it would be. (Epp said that his Department quite seriously considered such possibilities!) Clearly the intent of the current policy moves is to make it "as barely legal as possible". -- \\\\ Graeme Hirst University of Toronto Computer Science Department //// utcsri!utai!gh / gh@ai.toronto.edu / 416-978-8747
nixon@ai.toronto.edu (Brian Nixon) (02/07/88)
Attempting suicide and counselling others to commit suicide are offences in the Criminal Code of Canada (R.S.C. 1970).
nixon@ai.toronto.edu (Brian Nixon) (02/07/88)
Attempting suicide, and counselling others to commit suicide is an offence under Canada's Criminal Code (R.S.C. 1970).
sean@mult.UUCP (Quadratron system) (02/25/88)
In article <2615@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes: > >As for freedom of speech--it can never be absolute, and where you >draw the line is always going to be a difficult problem of balancing >the interests of individuals, state, and special-interest groups. WHAT A CROCK!!! The very idea of trying to "balance" freedom of speech is foolish. The job of society is to assume that its citizens are responsible (they can vote, can't they?). "Drawing a line" for freedom of speech is absolutely abhorrent to me. Our free society should permit ANYONE to say ANYTHING ANYWHERE at ANY TIME. If you want to try to sell an idea to the society at large, it is the responsibility and right of that population to listen or not. Government has no place legislating morality.
jdd@db.toronto.edu ("John D. DiMarco") (03/02/88)
In article <272@mult.UUCP> sean@mult.UUCP (Quadratron system) writes: >In article <2615@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes: >> >>As for freedom of speech--it can never be absolute, and where you >>draw the line is always going to be a difficult problem of balancing >>the interests of individuals, state, and special-interest groups. > >WHAT A CROCK!!! ... >Our free society should permit ANYONE to say ANYTHING ANYWHERE at ANY TIME. >If you want to try to sell an idea to the society at large, it is the >responsibility and right of that population to listen or not. Government >has no place legislating morality. Thank God you're not our government. Then any moral offence (including murder, rape, assult, theft) would be legal, because "government has no place legislating morality"! Regarding freedom of speech - if anyone could say anything anywhere at any time, then we'd have anarchy. Have you ever been libelled? Have you ever been the target of hate literature? Have you ever been the object of cruel gossip? Have you ever received an obscene letter or phone call? If such things were acceptable, could you imagine the chaos and anger produced? No society allows any of its members that kind of freedom, otherwise it would disintegrate. John -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John DiMarco Hard work never killed a man ... jdd@csri.toronto.edu ... but it sure has scared lots of them! {uunet!utai,watmath!utai,decvax,decwrl,ihnp4}!utcsri!jdd jdd@utcsri.UUCP --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (03/02/88)
In article <1988Mar1.175539.23134@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> jdd@db.toronto.edu ("John D. DiMarco") writes: >Thank God you're not our government. Then any moral offence (including >murder, rape, assult, theft) would be legal, because "government has >no place legislating morality"! Government does have no place legislating morality. In spite of what you may believe yourself, many people feel that murder, rape, assault and theft are not illegal because they are "moral offenses." They are illegal because just about everybody agrees that they want protection against these things. Morality needn't enter into it. "I don't want to be killed" is quite enough. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473