planetf1.com

Chaincase will be here soon.

On the barcode, it originated from a similar design on a BRM in 1972 and evolved from there. McLaren used a barcode in place of where Marlboro was usually in 1988 and Silverstone 1991, Ferrari in Germany 1993 as well.

It wasn't so much subliminal advertising but more brand association because of the use of the barcode design previously so was removed by Ferrari when pressure started to grow about it contravening the EU directive.


http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/e ... 011.043448


http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4110/503 ... 8cc95a.jpg

This pic surprised me a bit as it was during a GP event (Monza last weekend)...

F1 MERCENARY wrote:No it isn't. It's about the Marlboro contract being extended.

Well I could have fooled me!

Fiki wrote:So... how do they gain exposure, if not by subliminal advertising?

People aren't using subliminal correctly.

Marlboro weren't subliminally advertising with the barcode. The barcode was a Marlboro logo in an attempt to circumvent the anti-tobacco rules. The barcode probably won't mean much to the average man on the street, but it wasn't aimed at him, it was aimed at F1 viewers who knew exactly what the logo was replacing.

It's similar to the 'Scuderia' logo that appears on the Ferrari now. It's not a coincidence that the logo is designed as it is given who the team's main backer is.

Fiki wrote:So... how do they gain exposure, if not by subliminal advertising?

I don't think being a Ferrari sponsor is about exposure; it's about prestige. You look at UPS or Shell - do you really think there's anyone out there who'd never heard of those companies before watching F1? Not likely. But there are people who will - consciously or subconsciously - consider them more premium because of their association with a super-premium brand like Ferrari. That's where the advertising makes a difference. Companies at that level are well beyond brand awareness and exposure; they've reached a cliff on both of those long ago, and they'll happily pay for image at this point.

Exediron wrote:

Fiki wrote:So... how do they gain exposure, if not by subliminal advertising?

I don't think being a Ferrari sponsor is about exposure; it's about prestige. You look at UPS or Shell - do you really think there's anyone out there who'd never heard of those companies before watching F1? Not likely. But there are people who will - consciously or subconsciously - consider them more premium because of their association with a super-premium brand like Ferrari. That's where the advertising makes a difference. Companies at that level are well beyond brand awareness and exposure; they've reached a cliff on both of those long ago, and they'll happily pay for image at this point.

But if that were true, then the Ferraris would be running around in only their red bodywork. Instead, every sponsor can be seen on the livery. Except, at least to the casual observer, Marlboro.

A further reason why I don't really believe it is enough for a company to be merely known to be associated with the team, is the fact that, ostensibly, Ferrari themselves seem to be so eager to be known to be in F1, they see a need to advertise the fact with a very great team logo!

I could almost follow your reasoning if we were only aware of Ducati trying to create a greater awareness about its MotoGP team. But the similarity between its and Ferrari's logos argues against that being the grounds for their presence.

GingerFurball, could you propose a better word than subiliminal? Part of the reason I use it, is that this is the term that was used on Autosport, at the time when Ferrari went from a plane white square to a red square outlined in white, trying hard to reconcile the need to advertise and the need not to be seen to advertise.

I don't normally get to watch the interviews post-qualifying, but in one of the shots I saw the "Ferrari logo" displayed on their steering wheel screen. They really don't waste any opportunity to advertise! If not subliminal, it definitely verges on the sublime.

Oh no! A Ferrari logo on the steering wheel screen.

Exediron wrote:If so, I'd say they're wasting their money. Everybody still associates them with a car that hasn't carried their livery for two decades, not Ferrari.

I don't. As someone who started watching F1 in 1996 Marlboro will always be associated with Ferrari for me. I speculate that I'm not the only one

Blake wrote:Oh no! A Ferrari logo on the steering wheel screen.

I think you forgot another exclamation mark after screen.

The reason it struck me, Blake, is that I had never seen that before. Of course I remember the old type of steering wheels with their logo on it. That would be there all the time. This one isn't.
Would you mind telling me why you think the 'proper' Ferrari logo is now incorporated in a red and white large one?

With Ferrari removing the 'Mission Winnow' branding from their cars, uniforms and garage panels for the Australian Grand Prix, am I still a conspiracy theorist for believing their 'Team Ferrari'-logos were subliminal advertising? Interestingly, Ducati are in a bit of a spot too, in Italy no less! Remember that when I contacted the EU about possible subliminal advertising for tobacco, they replied it was up to Italy to take action in the matter, if they deemed it necessary, not the EU.

Since both Ferrari and Ducati first had Marlboro branding on their bodywork, then the 'team logos' and now the 'Mission Winnow', I believe the link is clear for all to see. And perhaps Australians simply are more level-headed about health matters than we europeans.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/14190 ... IkFOm97iZo

Am I the only person who thinks it's totally backward that you can't advertise a product to people who can legally purchase it?

mikeyg123 wrote:Am I the only person who thinks it's totally backward that you can't advertise a product to people who can legally purchase it?

Sticking it on the side of an F1 car is advertising it to kids who can't. Alcohol also falls under this parameter, it's probably about time it got the same treatment just for consistency.

As for the Mission Winnow stuff disappearing, not exactly surprised. I don't actually really care if Ferrari have a whacking great Marlboro sign on the car as long as it looks good, just the years and years of pretending the logos and liveries were anything other than less than subtle nods to it used to grate.

Closely watching McLaren and what they start putting on their car for BAT too.

I am surprised people are still wondering about need of Ferrari to have these logos. They dont. Thats not the point at all. They could have multiple high profile sponsors if it comes to that.

Its the other way around. I thought as soon as Louis Camilleri who was chairman of Philip Morris was made CEO of Ferrari, it would have been very clear for people who were wondering why Ferrari associate themselves with Philip Morris. ITs the other way around. The Philip Morris themselves have controlling interests inside Fiat and Ferrari. They are the one in a position to pull this off. If tomorrow FOM and FIA come down hard and say no to any direct or indirect funding from any company associated with tobaco and alcohol, I am sure Ferrari can find another way. But right now Philip Morris is in a position to leverage Ferrari brand indirectly and they are doing it. Its not up to Ferrari really to get rid of it. Its not that easy. It has to come from the governing body and owners of F1. And I am 100% sure they dont care.
As a Ferrari supporter, I do find it unsettling to see this happen for as long as it has been going on. But we live in the weird capitalistic world were we allow people to make and sell poison in open market.

funkymonkey wrote:I am surprised people are still wondering about need of Ferrari to have these logos. They dont. Thats not the point at all. They could have multiple high profile sponsors if it comes to that.

Its the other way around. I thought as soon as Louis Camilleri who was chairman of Philip Morris was made CEO of Ferrari, it would have been very clear for people who were wondering why Ferrari associate themselves with Philip Morris. ITs the other way around. The Philip Morris themselves have controlling interests inside Fiat and Ferrari. They are the one in a position to pull this off. If tomorrow FOM and FIA come down hard and say no to any direct or indirect funding from any company associated with tobaco and alcohol, I am sure Ferrari can find another way. But right now Philip Morris is in a position to leverage Ferrari brand indirectly and they are doing it. Its not up to Ferrari really to get rid of it. Its not that easy. It has to come from the governing body and owners of F1. And I am 100% sure they dont care.
As a Ferrari supporter, I do find it unsettling to see this happen for as long as it has been going on. But we live in the weird capitalistic world were we allow people to make and sell poison in open market.

Yep people look through this prism upside down.

Have to say with your last sentence if people want to buy poison why should they not be able to? As an adult I don't think it should be up to anyone else to decide what's good for me.

mikeyg123 wrote:As an adult I don't think it should be up to anyone else to decide what's good for me.

Simply for the sake of argument, could you tell me one thing that is good about smoking? I'm not dogmatically opposed to tobacco advertising, but I know a few too many people who cannot, or can no longer, exercise their free will when it comes to cigarettes.

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:As an adult I don't think it should be up to anyone else to decide what's good for me.

Simply for the sake of argument, could you tell me one thing that is good about smoking? I'm not dogmatically opposed to tobacco advertising, but I know a few too many people who cannot, or can no longer, exercise their free will when it comes to cigarettes.

I don't smoke so I do not know. But that's not really relevant. If an adult wants to smoke then that's there business.

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:As an adult I don't think it should be up to anyone else to decide what's good for me.

Simply for the sake of argument, could you tell me one thing that is good about smoking? I'm not dogmatically opposed to tobacco advertising, but I know a few too many people who cannot, or can no longer, exercise their free will when it comes to cigarettes.

As an ex smoker, i'll tell you one thing smoking was good for. Relieving stress.

Yes smoking is horrible but at the end of the day it's a legal product available from legal, tax paying entities & on that basis alone the tobacco industry should be allowed to advertise it's wares.

If it's such an insidious product, which it is, then it should be banned.

I look at alcohol & I see the impact it has on society from people affected by excessive consumption & dependence, & wonder which is really the more evil of the two. If you consider innocent people killed by drunk drivers, alcohol fuelled violence, people losing jobs, houses, families due to alcoholism, family members suffering abuse at the hands of an alcoholic, people killing themselves doing stupid things while drunk. You don't get these issues with cigarettes & there are just as many alcohol related illnesses as there are tobacco.

To use the defence that all this only happens when alcohol is abused is, to me, the same as the "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" defence. It's only the irresponsible alcohol consumer that causes problems, just like the irresponsible gun user, yet most western countries have, quite rightly IMO, very restrictive gun ownership laws, whereas it's perfectly legal to make your own alcohol. In fact there's an entire industry built around the practice.

What's one thing that alcohol's good for ? Apparently there's suppose to be some minor health benefits associated with wine, but even if there is, do those benefits outweigh the negatives mentioned above?

mikeyg123 wrote:I don't smoke so I do not know. But that's not really relevant. If an adult wants to smoke then that's there business.

That's certainly the libertarian side of that particular philosophical discussion.

I have a friend IRL I've discussed this with a few times, similar to gun control. Over time I've come to see the merit in his position, which is similar to Jezza's - if smoking (or guns) are legal at all, they should be available and not arbitrarily controlled.

Of course, the answer from my point of view is to ban both... But as long as tobacco is legal, I question the right of any government to make its advertising illegal when the product itself is not.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:As an adult I don't think it should be up to anyone else to decide what's good for me.

Simply for the sake of argument, could you tell me one thing that is good about smoking? I'm not dogmatically opposed to tobacco advertising, but I know a few too many people who cannot, or can no longer, exercise their free will when it comes to cigarettes.

I don't smoke so I do not know. But that's not really relevant. If an adult wants to smoke then that's there business.

I think the problem is more that they are not legal for children and the advertising is restricted with that in mind, especially given smoking's addictive nature.

Generally I'd agree that as long as something is legal then it should be allowed to be advertised. But I sometimes wonder why smoking is legal, given the known health issues it presents. Another discussion I guess!

Jezza13 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:As an adult I don't think it should be up to anyone else to decide what's good for me.

Simply for the sake of argument, could you tell me one thing that is good about smoking? I'm not dogmatically opposed to tobacco advertising, but I know a few too many people who cannot, or can no longer, exercise their free will when it comes to cigarettes.

As an ex smoker, i'll tell you one thing smoking was good for. Relieving stress.

Yes smoking is horrible but at the end of the day it's a legal product available from legal, tax paying entities & on that basis alone the tobacco industry should be allowed to advertise it's wares.

If it's such an insidious product, which it is, then it should be banned.

Your answer about relieving stress is more or less the same one my father gave me long ago. But isn't the stress caused by the fact the smoker is addicted and wants the next dose?
I used to ask young people why they started smoking, but relieving stress was never among the answers of those honest enough to think about their reply.

Many would support an outright ban, but perhaps the product is still legal for the sake of free choice? Which no longer is free choice once/if addiction gets a hold. But there is free choice involved in the decision to smoke in the first place.

I don't think we need to ask whether tobacco is an insidious product, do we? The only 'if' in the whole matter is why some people become so easily addicted, while others don't.

It would be interesting to know the rationale for a ban on tobacco advertising, but the fact that there is still advertising on F1 cars all these years after the EU ban on it, illustrates the power of the advertising.

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:I don't smoke so I do not know. But that's not really relevant. If an adult wants to smoke then that's there business.

That's certainly the libertarian side of that particular philosophical discussion.

I have a friend IRL I've discussed this with a few times, similar to gun control. Over time I've come to see the merit in his position, which is similar to Jezza's - if smoking (or guns) are legal at all, they should be available and not arbitrarily controlled.

Of course, the answer from my point of view is to ban both... But as long as tobacco is legal, I question the right of any government to make its advertising illegal when the product itself is not.

I think there is a subtle difference between tobacco and gun restriction.

Guns are controlled for the safety of others whilst tobacco by and large is only going to kill the user. I don't see why anyone would have the right to stop someone with an equal capacity to make decisions from doing anything that will only harm themselves.

mikeyg123 wrote:Guns are controlled for the safety of others whilst tobacco by and large is only going to kill the user. I don't see why anyone would have the right to stop someone with an equal capacity to make decisions from doing anything that will only harm themselves.

That's looking at it from the wrong angle, in my opinion. We're not talking about restricting the right of people to do something that harms themselves; we're talking about restricting the right of corporations to make and profit from something they know harms everyone who uses it. The right being targeted is not the right of the user. If they can make themselves some tobacco product and smoke it, fair enough. I oppose the right of anyone to profit - and profit obscenely - from killing people in a nasty, smelly way.

Fiki wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:As an adult I don't think it should be up to anyone else to decide what's good for me.

Simply for the sake of argument, could you tell me one thing that is good about smoking? I'm not dogmatically opposed to tobacco advertising, but I know a few too many people who cannot, or can no longer, exercise their free will when it comes to cigarettes.

As an ex smoker, i'll tell you one thing smoking was good for. Relieving stress.

Yes smoking is horrible but at the end of the day it's a legal product available from legal, tax paying entities & on that basis alone the tobacco industry should be allowed to advertise it's wares.

If it's such an insidious product, which it is, then it should be banned.

Your answer about relieving stress is more or less the same one my father gave me long ago. But isn't the stress caused by the fact the smoker is addicted and wants the next dose?
I used to ask young people why they started smoking, but relieving stress was never among the answers of those honest enough to think about their reply.

Many would support an outright ban, but perhaps the product is still legal for the sake of free choice? Which no longer is free choice once/if addiction gets a hold. But there is free choice involved in the decision to smoke in the first place.

I don't think we need to ask whether tobacco is an insidious product, do we? The only 'if' in the whole matter is why some people become so easily addicted, while others don't.

It would be interesting to know the rationale for a ban on tobacco advertising, but the fact that there is still advertising on F1 cars all these years after the EU ban on it, illustrates the power of the advertising.

Sugar is addictive. Do more people in the EU or the States die from chronic disease relatedto obesity or smoking products?

Pretty much all the arguments used against tobacco could be used against sugar so anyone who likes a bar of chocolate or a bowl of tomato soup should be very careful about saying tobacco should be banned.

mikeyg123 wrote:Sugar is addictive. Do more people in the EU or the States die from chronic disease relatedto obesity or smoking products?

Pretty much all the arguments used against tobacco could be used against sugar so anyone who likes a bar of chocolate or a bowl of tomato soup should be very careful about saying tobacco should be banned.

Just because an argument could be made doesn't make it a reasonable one. You can also argue that cars kill more people than guns (they do).

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Sugar is addictive. Do more people in the EU or the States die from chronic disease relatedto obesity or smoking products?

Pretty much all the arguments used against tobacco could be used against sugar so anyone who likes a bar of chocolate or a bowl of tomato soup should be very careful about saying tobacco should be banned.

Just because an argument could be made doesn't make it a reasonable one. You can also argue that cars kill more people than guns (they do).

Yep and there's a lot of restrictions around both.

Basically my point is if you think banning tobacco is reasonable then you pretty much have to think banning sugar would also be reasonable. The argument for banning either is the same argument.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:I don't smoke so I do not know. But that's not really relevant. If an adult wants to smoke then that's there business.

That's certainly the libertarian side of that particular philosophical discussion.

I have a friend IRL I've discussed this with a few times, similar to gun control. Over time I've come to see the merit in his position, which is similar to Jezza's - if smoking (or guns) are legal at all, they should be available and not arbitrarily controlled.

Of course, the answer from my point of view is to ban both... But as long as tobacco is legal, I question the right of any government to make its advertising illegal when the product itself is not.

I think there is a subtle difference between tobacco and gun restriction.

Guns are controlled for the safety of others whilst tobacco by and large is only going to kill the user. I don't see why anyone would have the right to stop someone with an equal capacity to make decisions from doing anything that will only harm themselves.

I think that's quite debatable. Secondary smoke is both a health risk and extremely unpleasant for those non-smokers who are confronted with it. I would say that smoking is something that is definitely not confined to the user alone

Jezza13 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:As an adult I don't think it should be up to anyone else to decide what's good for me.

Simply for the sake of argument, could you tell me one thing that is good about smoking? I'm not dogmatically opposed to tobacco advertising, but I know a few too many people who cannot, or can no longer, exercise their free will when it comes to cigarettes.

As an ex smoker, i'll tell you one thing smoking was good for. Relieving stress.

Yes smoking is horrible but at the end of the day it's a legal product available from legal, tax paying entities & on that basis alone the tobacco industry should be allowed to advertise it's wares.

If it's such an insidious product, which it is, then it should be banned.

I look at alcohol & I see the impact it has on society from people affected by excessive consumption & dependence, & wonder which is really the more evil of the two. If you consider innocent people killed by drunk drivers, alcohol fuelled violence, people losing jobs, houses, families due to alcoholism, family members suffering abuse at the hands of an alcoholic, people killing themselves doing stupid things while drunk. You don't get these issues with cigarettes & there are just as many alcohol related illnesses as there are tobacco.

To use the defence that all this only happens when alcohol is abused is, to me, the same as the "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" defence. It's only the irresponsible alcohol consumer that causes problems, just like the irresponsible gun user, yet most western countries have, quite rightly IMO, very restrictive gun ownership laws, whereas it's perfectly legal to make your own alcohol. In fact there's an entire industry built around the practice.

What's one thing that alcohol's good for ? Apparently there's suppose to be some minor health benefits associated with wine, but even if there is, do those benefits outweigh the negatives mentioned above?

I agree with everything here. In the UK the whole thing started back in 2006 I think, when they introduced the first ban of smoking in public places and buildings. All nicely painted as taking into account the people's health, which is of course a valid reason and everyone supports it.

However I used these words above because...

There were talks at the time that in reality the costs of treating cancer related patients cost the NHS (National Health System) more than what they were making from the taxes and that was a big drive, if not the only drive for the ban. Saving the second hand smoking sufferers was a welcome side effect. I am not sure how true this is, but it points out to the most basic thing; that, shockingly, everything is down to money. In the mean time, the tax on cigarettes in the UK has skyrocketed between 2006 and now, to almost double the price. In fairness, two birds with one stone, win win for the Government.

The real issue is where do they draw the line. The alcohol is one thing as mentioned above. There are many more similar issues. As en example, my wife is a pharmacist and she has many many customers with prescriptions for diabetes drugs. The type of diabetes that is not hereditary, but purely down to lifestyle, eating junk food and expecting the tax payers to foot the drug bill.

So do you want, as a taxpayer, to know that your money is used for someone else's dodgy life choices? Are you happy to know that your money is being spent on claims for absolutely everything you can imagine? The rabbit hole is quite deep and as I said it depends to where do you draw the line really. I find it very hypocritical that he governments hit on cigarettes and the smokers while examples like alcohol in the post above are fine and dandy with them.

And let's not even start talking about human rights violations by posing a ban on someone's choices.

So what can be done? Let everything go wild or ban everything even remotely harmful and then, well, what's the point really?

Fiki wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:As an adult I don't think it should be up to anyone else to decide what's good for me.

Simply for the sake of argument, could you tell me one thing that is good about smoking? I'm not dogmatically opposed to tobacco advertising, but I know a few too many people who cannot, or can no longer, exercise their free will when it comes to cigarettes.

As an ex smoker, i'll tell you one thing smoking was good for. Relieving stress.

Yes smoking is horrible but at the end of the day it's a legal product available from legal, tax paying entities & on that basis alone the tobacco industry should be allowed to advertise it's wares.

If it's such an insidious product, which it is, then it should be banned.

Your answer about relieving stress is more or less the same one my father gave me long ago. But isn't the stress caused by the fact the smoker is addicted and wants the next dose?
I used to ask young people why they started smoking, but relieving stress was never among the answers of those honest enough to think about their reply.

Many would support an outright ban, but perhaps the product is still legal for the sake of free choice? Which no longer is free choice once/if addiction gets a hold. But there is free choice involved in the decision to smoke in the first place.

I don't think we need to ask whether tobacco is an insidious product, do we? The only 'if' in the whole matter is why some people become so easily addicted, while others don't.

It would be interesting to know the rationale for a ban on tobacco advertising, but the fact that there is still advertising on F1 cars all these years after the EU ban on it, illustrates the power of the advertising.

That's because I guess most kids that started smoking in their teens was to make them "look cool"... The "Marlborough man" looking cool effect

mikeyg123 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:As an adult I don't think it should be up to anyone else to decide what's good for me.

Simply for the sake of argument, could you tell me one thing that is good about smoking? I'm not dogmatically opposed to tobacco advertising, but I know a few too many people who cannot, or can no longer, exercise their free will when it comes to cigarettes.

As an ex smoker, i'll tell you one thing smoking was good for. Relieving stress.

Yes smoking is horrible but at the end of the day it's a legal product available from legal, tax paying entities & on that basis alone the tobacco industry should be allowed to advertise it's wares.

If it's such an insidious product, which it is, then it should be banned.

Your answer about relieving stress is more or less the same one my father gave me long ago. But isn't the stress caused by the fact the smoker is addicted and wants the next dose?
I used to ask young people why they started smoking, but relieving stress was never among the answers of those honest enough to think about their reply.

Many would support an outright ban, but perhaps the product is still legal for the sake of free choice? Which no longer is free choice once/if addiction gets a hold. But there is free choice involved in the decision to smoke in the first place.

I don't think we need to ask whether tobacco is an insidious product, do we? The only 'if' in the whole matter is why some people become so easily addicted, while others don't.

It would be interesting to know the rationale for a ban on tobacco advertising, but the fact that there is still advertising on F1 cars all these years after the EU ban on it, illustrates the power of the advertising.

Sugar is addictive. Do more people in the EU or the States die from chronic disease relatedto obesity or smoking products?

Pretty much all the arguments used against tobacco could be used against sugar so anyone who likes a bar of chocolate or a bowl of tomato soup should be very careful about saying tobacco should be banned.

I don't think that's true at all. It takes a lot higher dose of sugar to be harmful than it does cigarettes and there are a number of causes of obesity that aren't all down to sugar intake. And you can offset the effects of your sugar intake both by the balance of foods you eat and exercise. Going down to the gym won't have any impact on the harmful effects of smoking. I don't think that's a reasonable comparision

Siao7 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:As an adult I don't think it should be up to anyone else to decide what's good for me.

Simply for the sake of argument, could you tell me one thing that is good about smoking? I'm not dogmatically opposed to tobacco advertising, but I know a few too many people who cannot, or can no longer, exercise their free will when it comes to cigarettes.

As an ex smoker, i'll tell you one thing smoking was good for. Relieving stress.

Yes smoking is horrible but at the end of the day it's a legal product available from legal, tax paying entities & on that basis alone the tobacco industry should be allowed to advertise it's wares.

If it's such an insidious product, which it is, then it should be banned.

Your answer about relieving stress is more or less the same one my father gave me long ago. But isn't the stress caused by the fact the smoker is addicted and wants the next dose?
I used to ask young people why they started smoking, but relieving stress was never among the answers of those honest enough to think about their reply.

Many would support an outright ban, but perhaps the product is still legal for the sake of free choice? Which no longer is free choice once/if addiction gets a hold. But there is free choice involved in the decision to smoke in the first place.

I don't think we need to ask whether tobacco is an insidious product, do we? The only 'if' in the whole matter is why some people become so easily addicted, while others don't.

It would be interesting to know the rationale for a ban on tobacco advertising, but the fact that there is still advertising on F1 cars all these years after the EU ban on it, illustrates the power of the advertising.

That's because I guess most kids that started smoking in their teens was to make them "look cool"... The "Marlborough man" looking cool effect

That was the reason most honest youngsters gave me also. Which is puzzling, at least where a lovely young girl is concerned. Why wear expensive perfume, when you're going to ruin everything with cigarette smoke?

And there are people who get lung cancer or COPD who don't smoke.

Both products are relatively safe in small dosses. I would say sugar is "abused" at least as much as tobacco in the western word.

Fiki wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:

Fiki wrote:
As an ex smoker, i'll tell you one thing smoking was good for. Relieving stress.

Yes smoking is horrible but at the end of the day it's a legal product available from legal, tax paying entities & on that basis alone the tobacco industry should be allowed to advertise it's wares.

If it's such an insidious product, which it is, then it should be banned.

Your answer about relieving stress is more or less the same one my father gave me long ago. But isn't the stress caused by the fact the smoker is addicted and wants the next dose?
I used to ask young people why they started smoking, but relieving stress was never among the answers of those honest enough to think about their reply.

Many would support an outright ban, but perhaps the product is still legal for the sake of free choice? Which no longer is free choice once/if addiction gets a hold. But there is free choice involved in the decision to smoke in the first place.

I don't think we need to ask whether tobacco is an insidious product, do we? The only 'if' in the whole matter is why some people become so easily addicted, while others don't.

It would be interesting to know the rationale for a ban on tobacco advertising, but the fact that there is still advertising on F1 cars all these years after the EU ban on it, illustrates the power of the advertising.

That's because I guess most kids that started smoking in their teens was to make them "look cool"... The "Marlborough man" looking cool effect

That was the reason most honest youngsters gave me also. Which is puzzling, at least where a lovely young girl is concerned. Why wear expensive perfume, when you're going to ruin everything with cigarette smoke?

The perfume is to cover the smell from the parents. Honestly Fiki, I thought you'd know all these tricks!

The funny bit is that I work in an office sharing the premises with BUPA, one of the biggest healthcare companies here. All the smokers downstairs are working for BUPA. Paints such a bad picture for the company that they changed the lanyards from carrying the BUPA logo to a purple without any logo on them, so that is not associated with them!

All of these people get into the lift to go to their offices and if you use the lift afterwards it stinks of cigarettes and cheap perfume. They think that they take the smell away, but the mixing of the two makes it so much worse...

Zoue wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:I don't smoke so I do not know. But that's not really relevant. If an adult wants to smoke then that's there business.

That's certainly the libertarian side of that particular philosophical discussion.

I have a friend IRL I've discussed this with a few times, similar to gun control. Over time I've come to see the merit in his position, which is similar to Jezza's - if smoking (or guns) are legal at all, they should be available and not arbitrarily controlled.

Of course, the answer from my point of view is to ban both... But as long as tobacco is legal, I question the right of any government to make its advertising illegal when the product itself is not.

I think there is a subtle difference between tobacco and gun restriction.

Guns are controlled for the safety of others whilst tobacco by and large is only going to kill the user. I don't see why anyone would have the right to stop someone with an equal capacity to make decisions from doing anything that will only harm themselves.

I think that's quite debatable. Secondary smoke is both a health risk and extremely unpleasant for those non-smokers who are confronted with it. I would say that smoking is something that is definitely not confined to the user alone

Before the ban on smoking in public places I think you would have had a good point.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:I don't smoke so I do not know. But that's not really relevant. If an adult wants to smoke then that's there business.

That's certainly the libertarian side of that particular philosophical discussion.

I have a friend IRL I've discussed this with a few times, similar to gun control. Over time I've come to see the merit in his position, which is similar to Jezza's - if smoking (or guns) are legal at all, they should be available and not arbitrarily controlled.

Of course, the answer from my point of view is to ban both... But as long as tobacco is legal, I question the right of any government to make its advertising illegal when the product itself is not.

I think there is a subtle difference between tobacco and gun restriction.

Guns are controlled for the safety of others whilst tobacco by and large is only going to kill the user. I don't see why anyone would have the right to stop someone with an equal capacity to make decisions from doing anything that will only harm themselves.

I think that's quite debatable. Secondary smoke is both a health risk and extremely unpleasant for those non-smokers who are confronted with it. I would say that smoking is something that is definitely not confined to the user alone

Before the ban on smoking in public places I think you would have had a good point.

He still has a good point. The effects of secondary smoke are probably worst felt at home, where young people may not have a choice if their parents smoke.

Herb wrote: He still has a good point. The effects of secondary smoke are probably worst felt at home, where young people may not have a choice if their parents smoke.

Bottom line the restrictions around the purchase fags are in place by and large to protect the user. The restrictions around the purchase of guns are by and large to protect others.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:I don't smoke so I do not know. But that's not really relevant. If an adult wants to smoke then that's there business.

That's certainly the libertarian side of that particular philosophical discussion.

I have a friend IRL I've discussed this with a few times, similar to gun control. Over time I've come to see the merit in his position, which is similar to Jezza's - if smoking (or guns) are legal at all, they should be available and not arbitrarily controlled.

Of course, the answer from my point of view is to ban both... But as long as tobacco is legal, I question the right of any government to make its advertising illegal when the product itself is not.

I think there is a subtle difference between tobacco and gun restriction.

Guns are controlled for the safety of others whilst tobacco by and large is only going to kill the user. I don't see why anyone would have the right to stop someone with an equal capacity to make decisions from doing anything that will only harm themselves.

I think that's quite debatable. Secondary smoke is both a health risk and extremely unpleasant for those non-smokers who are confronted with it. I would say that smoking is something that is definitely not confined to the user alone

Before the ban on smoking in public places I think you would have had a good point.

Well I still have to fight past smokers blocking the way into/out of buildings and get second hand smoke unless I hold my breath. The smoking shelter at work is in the path to/from the building so again second hand smoke unless I go on the road.
The ban has drastically reduced the problem, it does however still exist.

Siao7 wrote:

Fiki wrote:That was the reason most honest youngsters gave me also. Which is puzzling, at least where a lovely young girl is concerned. Why wear expensive perfume, when you're going to ruin everything with cigarette smoke?

The perfume is to cover the smell from the parents. Honestly Fiki, I thought you'd know all these tricks!

I never smoked, and I'm a bit too old (or level-headed?) to go along with this new male perfume nonsense. So perhaps there's something about aromatic camouflage that passes me by. But it is rather nice to see that youngsters believe their parents have lost their sense of smell and forgotten all about their own youthful silliness! (Or tricks!)


I've been thinking about the parallel with guns, gun control and cigarettes and control on their availability, but I struggle to see whether legality alone is sufficient to condone young people to start ruining their health before they are old enough to make a reasoned decision in the matter. The current situation with knife crime in the UK is surely enough to set us thinking about control?

Admittedly cigarette control is not the same as advertising control, but I believe the companies concerned know the "value" of advertising better than we do. The advertising on the cars, whether direct or subliminal, is there for a reason. I thought the inventiveness of the advertisers with the bar codes and especially the Team Ferrari/Ducati badges was impressive. But their message much the contrary.

Personally don't understand why cigarette advertising is banned anyway, it's pretty stupid in my opinion