Latest resources
Baker Curb losing sponsorship due to Obama...
- Thread starter Fisha695
- Start date
- Status
Are you gonna be saying the same thing when the Government bans that Bud sponsorship that you have in your Sig? Or what about when they ban the Pepsi sponsorship that the driver in your Avy has...? Afterall Pepsi has Sugar, Caffeine, Calories, coloring, water... you know all things that the Government is slowly trying to ban advertising for.
- Messages
- 2,534
- Reaction score
- 405
- Messages
- 11,123
- Reaction score
- 2,868
I just removed those questionable and offensive posts that were in this thread (if you saw them or participated with them, you know what I'm talking about, if not, then don't worry about it and don't ask.)
I'm only going to say this once for the lot of you involved with that, either way. That was all out of line, and the topic that those posts breached ends now. And Brett Bulter. You're running on VERY thin ice. I believe Matt has already warned you about your posting, so consider this to be your final warning.
I'm only going to say this once for the lot of you involved with that, either way. That was all out of line, and the topic that those posts breached ends now. And Brett Bulter. You're running on VERY thin ice. I believe Matt has already warned you about your posting, so consider this to be your final warning.
- Messages
- 7,508
- Reaction score
- 3,280
Of course the FDA...its not like Obama woke up and said..."hmm lets ban tobacco advertising today"
No but he can wake up and say "I want all advertising bans on Tobacco products to end today".
Plus if you think about it our current Big Government system depends on the taxes collected from Tobacco sales to pretty much sustain it, so..... you would think they'd want it to be advertised everywhere and sold to everyone so that they (Gov) could make more money.
- Messages
- 3,269
- Reaction score
- 483
I don't like it one bit
People have a choice to start smoking, and show me proof that irrefuteably links advertising to a rise in rates?
People have a choice to start smoking, and show me proof that irrefuteably links advertising to a rise in rates?
- Messages
- 6,416
- Reaction score
- 4,987
Really? You really need a study to tell you that advertising of a product increases the use of a product? If advertising didn't have that kind of effect, there'd be absolutely no reason to conduct advertising of any sort. Any & all monies spent on marketing, including Nascar sponsorships, would all be a complete waste.
These kinds of bans isn't the government trying to control everything. This is the government trying to take measures to protect the public from one of the leading causes of death. Any argument about the government overreaching its grasp falters with the fact that these bans do absolutely nothing to stem the availability of cigarettes to adults. Any adult can still buy cigarettes. No government official is going to stop that. People can buy & smoke as they please. However, the government has every right to restrict where people can smoke, such as not inside public workplaces, and how tobacco companies can market their products.
- Messages
- 6,580
- Reaction score
- 2,239
By doing that, tho, you're starting to create a domino effect. Eating fast food causes obesity in the US, so let's ban that, too. Oh, Halo is the cause of Virginia Tech shootings, so let's ban all video games since they're all evil.
You gotta know where to draw the line, and who decides to draw the line (the FDA, apparently).
Why I say that? I've been exposed to tobacco advertising as a kid, too. I personally hate smoking and tobacco chew because of the health impairments. But generally, the tobacco users CHOSE to smoke or chew tobacco. If those help the economy, like everything else in a capitalist government, so be it. Maybe we should just impose a high tax on such a product.
That goes to hard liquor and drugs as well (except the classless ones).
You gotta know where to draw the line, and who decides to draw the line (the FDA, apparently).
Why I say that? I've been exposed to tobacco advertising as a kid, too. I personally hate smoking and tobacco chew because of the health impairments. But generally, the tobacco users CHOSE to smoke or chew tobacco. If those help the economy, like everything else in a capitalist government, so be it. Maybe we should just impose a high tax on such a product.
That goes to hard liquor and drugs as well (except the classless ones).
- Messages
- 1,555
- Reaction score
- 322
So True and they are attacking Fast Food now so its only a matter of time. :frown:
- Messages
- 3,269
- Reaction score
- 483
People start smoking regardless, however as I say below, it is a choice
No they are not at all. They are selectively trying to take measures. Notice how they are not banning alcohol despite restricting advertising, which is both more socially acceptable and just as damaging. When was the last time you saw a driver smoking and dying in a crash, compared to DUI?
And yes. Smoking is a lifestyle choice. It's not like anyone has a gun to your head and making you smoke now is it? You can choose to start smoking or not. As an adult you can choose to buy smokes or not. It's all about choice and the freedom to choose.
I do agree though that they can choose to restrict where people can smoke, but only to a point, for instance enforcing a ban in homes is both pointless and unenforcable.
The ban reminds me of the Puritans in part. Over here they banned smoking in public places, the sex rate skyrocketed and people took to smoking in back rooms to get around it
Last edited:
Why are people saying Tobacco is a cause of death? It's not.... Never has been never will be. Matter of fact there is only one cause of death ever. And that is Your Heart Stopping, yes that's right folks despite what people tell you the only way you can die is if your heart stops. Tobacco, Alcohol, drugs, Cancer, STD's, etc.... none of that makes you die the only thing that makes you die is your heart deciding it doesn't wanna pump blood anymore.
Now I know some smart-alic is gonna say "Well there are studies that show this and that and the other thing..."... Uhh so. Those studies are done what in the last hundred years (well the "accurate" versions) on a small sample of people which breaks down to about the size of this period ( . ) when compared to the overall history of humans. Those studies are not proof at all, the only people that believe those studies are people that are too stupid or too ignorant to realize that the existence of human life goes way way way past the time-period when your great grandparents were alive.
Now I know some smart-alic is gonna say "Well there are studies that show this and that and the other thing..."... Uhh so. Those studies are done what in the last hundred years (well the "accurate" versions) on a small sample of people which breaks down to about the size of this period ( . ) when compared to the overall history of humans. Those studies are not proof at all, the only people that believe those studies are people that are too stupid or too ignorant to realize that the existence of human life goes way way way past the time-period when your great grandparents were alive.
- Messages
- 7,508
- Reaction score
- 3,280
There's always one isnt there...
Allegedly.
But then again allegedly so does Radon a naturally occurring gas in our Atmosphere, and since it's a heavy gas it lingers down in the "parts" that we breath.... but yet you don't see anybody trying to ban breather do ya?
- Messages
- 3,269
- Reaction score
- 483
Don't give them ideas.
And my point re: alcohol, look how much of a fail prohibition was
And my point re: alcohol, look how much of a fail prohibition was
- Messages
- 10,696
- Reaction score
- 4,870
It's not "allegedly" you can see it. Observation of a smoker's lungs at the same age 5 years after he started smoking reveals a lot of damage to the lungs. Observation of a non-smokers lungs at the same age shows much healthier lungs.
Time to get abstract here for Red Man/Longhorn. Can anyone think of an anagram of Red Man Moist Snuff/Longhorn?
Keeping the head/bull may be fine as it doesn't mention the name of the product (a la Marlboro) or using the head/bull as part of a bigger picture. Maybe using the Silk Cut method of taking the name literally (old billboards in the UK advertising Silk Cut showed purple silk being cut by various instruments) could be acceptable
Keeping the head/bull may be fine as it doesn't mention the name of the product (a la Marlboro) or using the head/bull as part of a bigger picture. Maybe using the Silk Cut method of taking the name literally (old billboards in the UK advertising Silk Cut showed purple silk being cut by various instruments) could be acceptable
- Messages
- 10,696
- Reaction score
- 4,870
Same thing with marijuana.
- Status