Should All Cigarette Ads Be Banned?

by SodaHead Living Posted 2011/01/18 22:25:01

Related Topics: smoking, Movie, Judge, German

309 votes
Read all 381 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	134 votes	43%
	No	141 votes	46%
	Undecided	34 votes	11%

Here's another reason to hate the tobacco industry: A new study shows that cigarette ads have a powerful effect on impressionable teenagers.

Tell us something we didn't know.

Cigarette advertising significantly increases the chances that young people who see the ads will start smoking, according to a study published in the Jan. 17 issue of Pediatrics, WebMD reports.

Researchers showed six cigarette ads to 2,102 German teens who had never smoked. The teens were asked how often they had seen the ads and if they could recall the brand name, which was hidden. Nineteen percent of teens in the high recall group started smoking, compared to 10 percent in the low recall group.

So why do cigarette ads -- which are often cheesy and obvious -- work so well? The researchers say they're effective because they target people in their formative years. For example, hints that smoking is tied to masculinity may compel a 14-year-old boy to smoke, while implications that it will make you thin, sexy and independent may lure girls.

The authors say the study supports calls for a comprehensive ban on tobacco advertising around the world, particularly in the U.S. We all know cigarettes are deadly, but should government interfere in the business to that degree? What do you think?

Add a comment above

Sherry 2011/01/20 13:02:59

No

+4
Do some responsible parenting and cigarette adds won't make a difference.
>> See Replies

More polls by SodaHead Living

soffieblossom 2012/09/12 16:46:51

Yes

i basically think that it all depends, on how u have rasied your children the morals u have taught them, and values in life... if someone would start smoking because of the advertisments they see, then i would say it is the person who has the problem and not the advertisement..... if i saw the same ad as u did and didnt start smokin.....it doesnt mean tht i am better it only means that either you have some issues with yourself or u just dont know the art of controlling yourself

reply
FredMuller 2011/01/28 14:47:42

No

Driving a car is risky and that's why the goverment has taken the step in avoiding unnessasry death by making it illigal to wear your safty belt. and having speed limits involved. Yes cutting out cigerette ads may not stop everyone from smoking, but it's a small step towards getting rid of the threat or risk.

reply
Chris - The Rowdy One! #187 2011/01/20 15:10:14

No

+1
As much as I hate cigarettes, I support their right to advertise. You see, I am not into the whole tyranny thing. I'd much rather make my own decisions rather than have a government agency make that decision for me.

reply
obeyyluvless 2011/01/20 14:36:21

Yes

yes

reply
David (oYo) 2011/01/20 14:19:07

Undecided

In the UK smoking adverts have been totally banned for years. About 5 years ago smoking was banned in all areas used by the public, malls, shops, football stadia, halls, railway stations, air ports etc.

reply
CrystalRain 2011/01/20 14:04:11

Yes

+1
Yes I don't there should be any cigarette ads. It's like saying come get your Carcinogens!!!! Why they are not outlawed, I haven't a clue. I am a smoker and wish I had never smelled one. I hate it. Send me to rehab for it! I will come back better than before.

reply
RU Mad 2011/01/20 13:54:26

No

+2
Here is another idea! We should just mass produce plastic bubbles!

That way all these crying ass babies can live their lives inside it without worry from contaminates or outside influence!

reply
vannuck 2011/01/20 13:48:06

Yes

+1
I'm a smoker myself and yes all tobacco ads should be banned...because I'll tell you right now their is nothing cool or rebellious about being 22 and amited to the hospatail for lung problems...that F-ing sucked...

reply
Sherry 2011/01/20 13:02:59

No

+4
Do some responsible parenting and cigarette adds won't make a difference.

reply
Coach Dale 2011/01/20 11:10:52

No

+1
Actually, they should be permitted to advertise on television again. Our government (in it's devine wisdom) decided that cigarettes could only advertise in print (magazine/newspaper). I'd say put them back on the radio and television, put people back to work making commercials for tv, radio. That would help reduice the unemployment rate. PRINT ADS do not make kids pick up a cigarette. They do it due to either peer pressure or curiousity of seeing relative smoking and being happy.

reply
Mark 2011/01/20 10:53:15

Undecided

Aren't they already? I haven't seen a cigarette ad in years.

reply
vannuck to Mark 2011/01/20 13:51:10

Their banned from T.V and radio not Magizines

reply
Mark to vannuck 2011/01/20 20:07:58

Ah, I don't read many magazines, because most are pointless.

reply
Brian ☮ R P ☮ 2012 ☮ 2011/01/20 10:44:56

No

+2
No type of media, not involving minors, should be banned. Everybody in this world makes choices throughout their life, some good, some bad, and those choices, along with the values instilled by your elders and the people you choose to associate with, define your character. If you make choices that are primarily based on what you observe in the media, you're a weak willed idiot, and not worthy of my time, my consideration, or my pity. Cigarette smoking, drug and alcohol use, gambling, promiscuous sexual activity, and any number of other "addictive" predilections, all start out as choices, and in a free society, should be allowed. But if you buy into the hype that these things are somehow "cool", don't expect me to foot the bill for your foolishness.

reply
DebraJMSmith 2011/01/20 10:15:47

Yes

This is a no-brainer!

reply
BigBear to DebraJM... 2011/01/25 18:27:31

Then so should beer ads you moron!!!

reply
DebraJM... to BigBear 2011/01/25 23:05:59 (edited)

Oh, I agree that beer ads should be banned, as well.

As for your having called me a "moron," for my "yes" answer: The question was whether all cigarette ads should be banned. The "moron" would be the person who cannot handle someone answering "yes."

Have a nice day,
Debra...

reply
BigBear to DebraJM... 2011/01/28 00:03:52

I'm sorry......

reply
DebraJM... to BigBear 2011/01/28 12:50:39

Thank you..

reply
Philbo 2011/01/20 09:15:35

Yes

You say no yet 1. do you smoke, and 2. do you care that you possibly killed someone because of smoking, 3. do you care that people are dying of 2nd hand smoke, or even 1st hand.???
I say yes ban them, it's become so famous or infamous that they don't need to be advertised inorder for people to know they exsist, people tend to know, because they either know 1 of three things, 1 someone in their family or themselves smoke. 2 someone they know smokes. 3 that they have seen them know they are real and probably know that sientists have justified that it helps with killing people. And lets chuck a 4th in::::: Someone they know family or not has died from it. If your pro killing people subtly with cigerettes then I understand why you chose No yet if you opose that yet say no, why do you back the very thing that supports a slow crappy death. Death aint cool, neither is smoking.

reply
Coach Dale to Philbo 2011/01/20 11:23:57

+3
Yes I do, and no - I've never killed someone by smoking. I've never met anyone or known anyone to die because someone else smoked. I met 15-20 people who have cancer, yet do not smoke and were not around people who did. Cancer is in the genes of a persons body make-up, not due to tobacco usage. My great-grandmother died @ 95 yrs, she used tobacco from age of 13 to 95 (smoking and/or dipping snuff). She died of old age. My grandmother is now 88 years old, Smokes 1-2 packs daily and has since she was in her 20's... My mother quit about 10 years ago and my father quit 2 years ago (3 packs/day) cold turkey because of coughing. Neither one have cancer and both retired last year. The both started smoking in the late '50's. And based on your analogy of "being so famous or infamous" - shouldn't cars, food, appliances, clothes, personal care products, etc.. (EVERYTHING ADVERTISED DAILY) be banned, because everyone knows it's there?

reply
Philbo to Coach Dale 2011/01/21 05:44:31

yeah that's a good point, but tobacco doesn't come out with new models like cars do, so that's why they advertise them, clothes sure, why not ban them I'm a guy so I didn’t care about that to much, food well normally it's either sales they have or snacks in which they do it hoping to get more people to buy it, but rather advertise healthy snacks that'll be good yeah. as for appliances depends, some yes others no, some products aren’t as well known as others. Yet smokes, yes their very much nothing new and most people know something about them. As for your family history, the cancers, are they any lung cancers, did smoking help the cancer grow or go? Did it help their lungs much after years of smoking, could they do same exercise as any other non-smoker? Is it healthy, statistic's may say this or that many die every so many people. The fact is that it kills or helps to kill; people who smoke tend not to want to think about how they possibly killed someone. It's like shooting with a Ak in the air, you could of killed someone or help in doing it yet you don't care, or otherwise why would you of done it?? Right. I can't guarantee someone is to die from cigarettes, because some people simply live longer than others. But just because some people you know didn't die directly from smoking or perhaps even not indirectly, doesn’t take away the evidence found against smoking and what it does.

reply
Coach Dale to Philbo 2011/01/23 13:40:20

ne brands of cigarettes are introduced yearly. whether ultra-light, light, full flavor, or menthol. alcohol is alcohol, nothing different. It's about advertising, if a kid wants to smoke it's going to happen. Banning advertising by the government is to much government involvement on our lives, same as wearing seat belts. Alocohol kills people directly and indirectly, riding in a car, flying in a plane, walking don the road - all carry risks of death, same as lighting a grill (charcoal or gas). Cutting grass, trimming tree branches, etc... carry risks of death, but they still advertise alcohol, flying, grills, cooking out, yard equipment, etc...

reply
Philbo to Coach Dale 2011/01/23 23:52:46

Yes but it's stupid to try put them all as examples of being the same, yes same as in they all carry risks, but some are more risky than others, currting grass could cut your skin but rarely kills someone, as for alchole it has a higher risk than some stupid cut on the wrist or arm. Driving a car is risky and that's why the goverment has taken the step in avoiding unnessasry death by making it illigal to wear your safty belt. and having speed limits involved. Yes cutting out cigerette ads may not stop everyone from smoking, but it's a small step towards getting rid of the threat or risk. Many things have risks, and there's always a reward of some sort in doing those risks, but smoking is mostly negetive. Grills are a danger but that's why you mind instructions on how not to do the wrong thing and how to do it the right way. Cigerettes are simply bad for you and if there were instructions it would probably say, don't suck on the side of where it's been ignited and for best safty don't smoke. As for walking down the road, there is little to no risk in doing that, it's normally things included that make it a risk, like cars, natraul disasters, driveby shootings, stuff that isn't the simple action of walking down the street. So the risk in simply walking down the street is l...

Yes but it's stupid to try put them all as examples of being the same, yes same as in they all carry risks, but some are more risky than others, currting grass could cut your skin but rarely kills someone, as for alchole it has a higher risk than some stupid cut on the wrist or arm. Driving a car is risky and that's why the goverment has taken the step in avoiding unnessasry death by making it illigal to wear your safty belt. and having speed limits involved. Yes cutting out cigerette ads may not stop everyone from smoking, but it's a small step towards getting rid of the threat or risk. Many things have risks, and there's always a reward of some sort in doing those risks, but smoking is mostly negetive. Grills are a danger but that's why you mind instructions on how not to do the wrong thing and how to do it the right way. Cigerettes are simply bad for you and if there were instructions it would probably say, don't suck on the side of where it's been ignited and for best safty don't smoke. As for walking down the road, there is little to no risk in doing that, it's normally things included that make it a risk, like cars, natraul disasters, driveby shootings, stuff that isn't the simple action of walking down the street. So the risk in simply walking down the street is little to none. And to say that if a kid wants tosmoke it's going to happen is simply stupid, just because you want something doesn't mean your gonna get it. I would love to have $10,000,000, but doesn't mean I'm gonna get it does it.
(more)

reply
Coach Dale to Philbo 2011/01/29 17:20:18

You still do not get the point of my response. We have to much government involvement in our lives, we simply do not need more government involvemet in our lives, I know I do not want them. They are involved way to much already! Yes, everything we do in life has risks (positive/negative). I see alcohol ads all day long on television, but I do not drink (retired 25+ yrs). I see ads for feminine products but I don't get up and go buy any! The same can be said for cars, trucks, chia pets, flying, anad going to Mexico. It is called will or self-control. As far as having $10,000,000, most people would like to have this as well. But my father taught me something when I was a teen-ager that I have not forgotten - "HOLD OUT BOTH HANDS WISH IN ONE HAND & SH!T IN THE OTHER - THEN SEE WHICH ONE FILLS UP FASTEST"

reply
DEMONN NINNJA 2011/01/20 09:13:52

Undecided

I haven't seen any ads on T.v.

reply
Coach Dale to DEMONN ... 2011/01/23 13:40:43

You must be a young 'un

reply
DEMONN ... to Coach Dale 2011/01/24 05:54:27

I guese, I'm only 18.

reply
Xx ☠Shadow's Darkness xX 2011/01/20 07:06:33

Yes

yes!

reply
Myrle Hulme 2011/01/20 06:57:00

No

+2
As much as I don't like smoke in my eyes it is an industry that gives millions work and for others it is a addiction that is allowed

reply
Philbo to Myrle H... 2011/01/20 09:24:17 (edited)

So because it's been made allowed, does that make it ok? or right?
So you'd give cigerretes to your children or any children and won't mind if they get addicted if they gave the cash you'd be happy to support the addiction??
So since it's a industry it's ok. Now does that mean that every industry is ok and right? because since you say no it tells me you support keeping a filthy habbit such as smoking.
Don't mind if people die of it.

reply
Coach Dale to Philbo 2011/01/23 13:47:47

Same goes for alcohol - because its legal doesn't necessarily make it right for all. Would you give it to your kids? Allow them to get drunk, go out driving and KILL someone? Everything we do carries a RISK of death, whether you or I like it. Parents, freinds, television, newspaper, radio, etc.. all INFLUENCE how we as people act, or have direct inclusion into our decisions of what we do or don't do in and with our lives. If you've bene to an AMERICAN history class, you know they tried PROHIBITING sales of alcohol in America by government interference. That didn't work to well. Bootleggers come out, the mob got into alcohol & gambling etc... The same thing would happen w/ tobacco.

reply
CyanWhispers 2011/01/20 06:31:42

No

Bottomline, we all make our choices and in the end our choices make us!! If a child will start smoking because they see an ad, well then what does that say about how much they respect the influance of thier parents... or rather, what does that say about the parents being worthy parents period...

reply
Philbo to CyanWhi... 2011/01/20 09:32:46

I see your point, yet even that it doesn't all boil down to the parents, the world or media influences us all and children are being bombarded by negitive things, smoking adds are not the only thing but it is something, and it's a filthy habbit, it kills and robs people. it screws around with your head, giving a urge for a need of it, when you don't actaully need it.
I wouldn't support smoking adds, now yes it's up to the parents to teach their children, but it doesn't make it right for the media to keep saying the wrong message to simply contradicte what's right. We all know it's very unhealthy, and rather say yes and support the parents and in teaching why smoking is bad. If we don't have adds saying it's good to smoke and we have parents teaching that it isn't good, it may not stop everyone, but it sure would help. (sory about long replyy)..

reply
CyanWhi... to Philbo 2011/01/20 15:29:02

No sorry needed, I understand what your saying.... But the thing is, just as you said... Negative things are bombarding our kids from all sides... Still it goes back to the core issue... It is a Choice and we all make our choices based on what we are taught and shown by those we love and respect. Typically that should be their parents... If the media or other infulances are more valuable sources then the parents are failing... To be honest in all that you said I feel you made my point very very well actually... It's personal responsibility or finger pointing demonstartion you laid out there.... Straight up, no one can control the things that are around, good or bad, but we can teach our children cause and effect (a 2nd grade principal) and right and wrong... To attempt to "ban" this thing, then ban that thing, is just wasted effort, legisaltion, regulation, taxpayer dollers for the lot of it all... Being "real" parents is the key to it all... Does your child view smoking as cool or as a filthy habit that could kill you... What was he taught... was he taught to "make his own choices and accept what comes from them" but as your mom I'm telling "uncle joe died because of them, they smell, they are a bad nasty habit"... Thing is Intellegence and morality cannot and should not be l...

No sorry needed, I understand what your saying.... But the thing is, just as you said... Negative things are bombarding our kids from all sides... Still it goes back to the core issue... It is a Choice and we all make our choices based on what we are taught and shown by those we love and respect. Typically that should be their parents... If the media or other infulances are more valuable sources then the parents are failing... To be honest in all that you said I feel you made my point very very well actually... It's personal responsibility or finger pointing demonstartion you laid out there.... Straight up, no one can control the things that are around, good or bad, but we can teach our children cause and effect (a 2nd grade principal) and right and wrong... To attempt to "ban" this thing, then ban that thing, is just wasted effort, legisaltion, regulation, taxpayer dollers for the lot of it all... Being "real" parents is the key to it all... Does your child view smoking as cool or as a filthy habit that could kill you... What was he taught... was he taught to "make his own choices and accept what comes from them" but as your mom I'm telling "uncle joe died because of them, they smell, they are a bad nasty habit"... Thing is Intellegence and morality cannot and should not be legislated... Oh, my what an all encompassing fruitless venture that is... All that can be done in those area's is letting the fools that make the wrong choices fall on their face... I don't associate with nor tolerate ignorant racist individuals, won't work for them (I refuse to be part of any assistance to their betterment) I don't need legislation to tell me how many of every ethnic person should be on the payroll... I need to know that the person of whatever decent standing next to me is the right person for the job and can do the job well... Just an example in the differences of perspective... One is a needy perspective the other a more cause and effect, personal responsibilty, personal choice perspective... No matter what side of the fence an individual is on it all boils down to Choice reguardless of it being liked or not... There is no escape from that... We all make our choices, but in the end, our choices make us....
(more)

reply
Philbo to CyanWhi... 2011/01/21 05:59:03 (edited)

Very well put, I know the argument/discussion had that point given and as much as I would of loved to take it away it was a very good point raised and I myself do say it's a worthy point, it's free-will God given and thus it boils down to our responsibility.
As nice as it would be to have it banned, if it was going to go or not it doesn't excuse people from being parents or role models. It's our aim to give the next generation the best and smoking doesn't help yet ads are only 1 piece of the whole puzzle and banning these type will not mean that we have now solved the problem, if it stays we Got the same thing going on what we did before, if it were to go we still got the current problem still at hand, if what we choose next that will help determine the future. I agree allot comes down to parenting, I sadly know that even though no earthly parent is perfect some arn't as good as others, some can steep really low.
I would ban these adds for their children that don't have need more bad influences than what they already get from their parents, if there is a hope in making them turn out better and banning it will help them make the right 'choice' and won't provoke things to go worst then why not. yes free will, yes choice, but yet if it's banned will it help, anyone, if so then why not (other than the obvoius reasons such as the industry for smoking is filthy rich).

reply
CyanWhi... to Philbo 2011/01/21 06:34:07

Thanks Phil, excellent thoughts for consideration.. The next core issue to that which would need to be considered is the right to free speach, etc... How does the government or anyone for that matter have to tell anyone what they can say/advertise where... So long as doing so doesn't violate another constitutional right... Don't get me wrong, I am not "for" having cigarette ads plastered everywhere... I am all for assisting any child in need of it / guiding, etc... But I do believe in the right to speak/advertise the same as any other company is permitted to... Should it go so far as to ban the industry? Should all industries be treated fairly/equally? I certainly won't go into my feelings on Marketing/Advertising as a whole, lets suffice to say it is not even slightly pretty... But as much as I detest it, it is an afforded option or right... I would say that to ban it would send things in a worse direction due to it opening the door to so many things on that classic "slippery slope"..

reply
Philbo to CyanWhi... 2011/01/21 22:46:58 (edited)

Fair point, I'm not a lawyer but I think it would easily come down to free speech being the issue, eventually that will compromise somewhere down the track, but currently I guess it won't which is good. I think that in order to better deal with this is to simply change regulations allowed for broadcasting so that adds that support things like this is banned, without freedom of speech being compromised. it's like if freedom of speech is broken if you say a ban to smoking adds, then why don't we see blatant nudity in the morning on TV and adds where women are fully naked selling perfume and stuff, it's freedom of speech right. or hear people blatantly swear and use vulgar language, isn't that freedom of speech, or see horrific scenes of blood and gore, Nazi symbols and things just offensive shown to children in the morning, heck I'm not for the Nazi movement, but it is a historic thing, so why not include it in cartoons or adds or so forth?, it's a violation to the terms and conditions or regulations put into place or for under certain times like mornings where children watch TV. If they can ban those nasties off TV at those times by refusing to put it on air, then certainly they can do the same for cigarettes?

reply
CyanWhi... to Philbo 2011/01/21 23:23:45

Excellent point!! A pleasure having a discussion with you...

Thing is technically doing all those restrictions that you mention is a violation of that free speech... No one kicks about that because it is majority concensus that doing these things/limiting or resricting time frames... Putting R ratings and age restrictions on nudity and graphic violence is best seperated from the childeren... Removing potentially harmful things from the view of children, but allowing them in an adult arena... Restricted things, they have done, but these things are not BANNED... So in the restrictions they are flirting the fringes, for a lack of better term... but they are not blatently violating

My understanding about this question and I may be incorrect, that it is to BAN all ads for Cigarrettes... They have already placed the "flirty" restrictions on cigarette ads... They are resricted from being appealing to children (Camel can't use their trademarked Joe Camel) they are already restricted as to when and where they can be advertised... So they are already doing just that which you asked... But to Ban them entirely, they can't do that without blatently violating the amendement... If they do, what will be banned next...

reply
Philbo to CyanWhi... 2011/01/24 00:02:51

Good point, in a perfect society we would have these things banned, yet stricting these ads for only past 9 or 10:30 pm or something is already a step ahead I'd say, though it's not what I'd prefer it's still better than having it around the 6pm where family tends to bond watching Tv.

reply