Cigarette ads SHOULD NOT be banned

[juvaan]

hi, im currently in high school. im in this inter school debate competition. we (my teammates and i) are facing difficulties with the given topic.

the title given is : Cigarette ads should be banned

unfortunately, we were drawn as the opposing side....
obviously the proposing side has the upper-hand.

and so we should be supporting the title : Cigarette ads SHOULD NOT be banned.

i really hope anyone out there could give a point or two to help us.
we will be glad to accept any points supporting the title above.

please help us and thanks. we are DESPERATE.
deadline is tuesday.:eek:

[Kamehameha34]

• Banning cigarette ads imposes on freedom of speech.
• The responsibility of mentoring kids away from smoking should fall on the parents.
• Discriminating about which products are suitable for advertisement conflicts with free trade.

Welcome to volconvo, by the way. Feel free to message me if you have any questions or concerns.

[Jack]

Too bad you haven't read "Thanks for Smoking" by Christopher Buckley. You'd have plenty of inspiration.
"Christopher Buckley's satirical gift shines in this hilarious look at the ironies of "personal freedom" and the unbearable smugness of political correctness." (Amazon review)
Nick Naylor, chief spokesman for the Academy of Tobacco Studies and the novel's anti-hero, might argue that the anti-smoking (and by extension the anti-smoking-ads) lobby is also anti-American, anti-freedom and anti-free choice. Smoking, like drinking booze, is a self-destructive behavior that the government can't effectively prohibit. The people have spoken and they demand the right to do with their bodies as they wish. Those who want to protect us from ourselves, those who attempt to legislate a moral belief by banning cigarette ads, are the true enemies of personal freedom and individual rights. The tobacco companies are selling a legal product that kills no more people than cars, and car ads are targeted toward only those old enough to drive. Has anyone suggested banning car ads? In America, anyone who produces a legal product has the right to advertise that product in order to increase sales and ensure a profit. Since the medical community has failed to draw an absolute correlation between smoking and cancer, there's no reason we shouldn't consider cancer warnings as over-reactions and unsupportable suppositions.
I'll drop the Nick Naylor impersonation now and see what others have to say.

[CoffeeSaint]

What's the argument FOR banning them? Like any good debate, you should promote your side, and also take apart theirs; as far as I know, the argument for banning cigarette ads is that they promote smoking and smoking is bad.

So is there any evidence that cigarette ads promote smoking? Does anyone have any research that shows that modern day smokers started smoking because of cigarette advertising? I would think that in the past advertising made smoking look cool and that might have had an influence, but with the advent of surgeon general's warnings and so forth, I can't believe that a simple ad campaign really pushes people to smoke.

I smoked for 17 years, and only quit a few months ago; since this is the second time I quit, I may go back to smoking again. And I can tell you absolutely that smoking ads never had any influence on me. I started smoking because a girl I liked smoked, and I bummed cigarettes off of her so I could talk to her. I gained it as a habit because my friends smoked. I chose the brand I smoked because that's what my friends smoked. Advertising never did anything for or against my habit.

That being the case, why should we limit the freedom of speech that Kamehameha mentioned? Why set a precedent in which the government limits commerce in order to tell people what to do, when it doesn't even help people not to smoke?

[atheist]

isn't one point to this whole debate competition to come up with your own ideas and do your own critical thinking/research? (sure help is good, but this type of asking around will deprive you of a learning experience).

[The Bacon Guy]

All good points so far.

I also want to add that the only argument for banning smoking ads, that is that they supposedly increase the incidence of smoking and therefore damage people’s health, is on pretty shaky ground to begin with. Apart from Coffee's point that this itself cannot even be poven, there is the issue of personal freedom. An individual’s body is owned solely by the person themselves; not by society and not by the state. As such, they should have the right to damage it in whatever way they wish, just as they would be allowed to with any other item of their property. To deny someone their most basic and personal property rights based on nothing more than a subjective and arbitrary dislike of their habit is a gross and unacceptable infringement on personal freedom.

One argument your opponents will probably try to use is that smoking puts a strain on public healthcare. Don’t let them; this is a red herring. While smoking will indeed cause health problems which will be paid for by the taxpayer, one must also take into account the economic benefits of smoking. The small drain smokers have on healthcare is far outweighed by the extra tax paid on a packet of cigarettes, the revenue generated by tobacco companies, the fact that smokers won’t live as long as non-smokers and therefore won’t be a drain on the taxpayer in pensions and in the medical care needed by an elderly person, and the jobs provided in the tobacco industry. As far as protecting the economy and the taxpayer is concerned, the debate falls firmly in your favour.

One last thing you need to remember is that smoking is entirely a social issue. Smokers do not infringe upon anyone's rights. Nobody other than the smoker is harmed either physically or financially by their habit. As such, the government shouldn’t be concerning themselves with so trivial an issue. If people have a moral issue with smoking, they should deal with it personally or socially; not legislatively. To involve the government is to surrender even more of the people’s power and freedom to the state.

Take these points with the arguments from Kame, Ish and Coffee and your opponents won’t have a leg to stand on.

[Matt W]

There's a couple of old smoking threads around with some fairly hefty pro & anti arguments - not necessarily regarding advertising, but they're worth a browse:

Smoking Rocks!

Smoke-free living idea gains steam:

http://www.volconvo.com/forums/enter...es-debate.html

2nd Hand Smoke, the Myth

Public Smoking Bans

That should keep you going for a while....

[Jack]

but this type of asking around will deprive you of a learning experience

Volconvo is a learning experience. It has been for me, anyway.

[Alive]

If cigarette ads didn't increase incidence of smoking, they wouldn't exist.

[I suppose you could argue that the purpose of cigarette ads is to take smokers away from competitors, but that clearly isn't the only purpose]

You could take a sort of radical approach and argue that smoking is good for society. Kills people off early, and it's enjoyable.

[gw120]

Illegalizing them could be seen as an infringement on free speech. Also, if more people smoked than the gov't would be making more money on taxes.

[atheist]

Quote by: Isherwood Volconvo is a learning experience. It has been for me, anyway.

yeah...but you know.....this is a school project and all (and juvaan has other brains to...um...brainstorm things, being a group project). Okay maybe you're right (I really hope that juvaan learns something from his project though). I'm gonna be a hypocrite and say this:


Anyway, there was something The Bacon Guy said that was kind of alarming (btw, bacon is soo great!!! yumm!!!!). It's this:

"One last thing you need to remember is that smoking is entirely a social issue. Smokers do not infringe upon anyone's rights. Nobody other than the smoker is harmed either physically or financially by their habit."- The bacon guy

What about parents who smoke, and their children who suffer for it? What about second hand smoking? For example, some waitresses have it so bad that they themselves develop respiratory problems via customers' smoking habits.

The thing about smoke is that it doesn't stay in one area. Other people can smell it, inhale it, choke on it...uh, yeah. That's why people can see smoking as a public issue (and why people smoking are banned from standing x feet away from x public building).


"I also want to add that the only argument for banning smoking ads, that is that they supposedly increase the incidence of smoking and therefore damage people’s health, is on pretty shaky ground to begin with."

-Acutally it's not on shakey ground really. A lot of research goes into the influential-ality of ads, how images of things trigger behavior in humans, a lot of psychological stuff. Psyhological is such a cool word. There are many many many studies out there about adolescents and ads and smoking, and a majority of them support that smoking ads influence the way teens view smoking (ads ARE a part of the media...and little kids are really like putty, moldable).

All in all, if juvaan wants to make a convincive argument, I suggest he find reseach studies and get some statistics, and integrate these into the debate, in terms of addressing the other factors that lead teens to smoke (i.e. how many kids who smoke have parents that smoke? you could argue that smoking ads, in comparison to other influences, play a very little role in this whole smoking-implusion thing....and that the blame should not be directed towards ads).

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: atheist What about parents who smoke, and their children who suffer for it?

If it really is harmful, it should be declared child abuse and made illegal to smoke in a home with children without suitable ventilation. No need for generalised legislation; particularly legislation which violates the First Amendment.

Quote by: atheist What about second hand smoking? For example, some waitresses have it so bad that they themselves develop respiratory problems via customers' smoking habits.

Nobody is forcing them to work there. They consent to the risks upon applying for the job.

Quote by: atheist The thing about smoke is that it doesn't stay in one area. Other people can smell it, inhale it, choke on it...uh, yeah. That's why people can see smoking as a public issue

Then they should use their consumer power and not patronise establishments which permit smoking. There really is no need to grant more power to an already controlling government.

Quote by: atheist -Acutally it's not on shakey ground really. A lot of research goes into the influential-ality of ads, how images of things trigger behavior in humans, a lot of psychological stuff. Psyhological is such a cool word. There are many many many studies out there about adolescents and ads and smoking, and a majority of them support that smoking ads influence the way teens view smoking (ads ARE a part of the media...and little kids are really like putty, moldable).

That wasn’t what I was talking about. I meant that the idea of preventing people from smoking is based on the shaky idea of society dictating how one should treat one’s most personal property.

Quote by: atheist All in all, if juvaan wants to make a convincive argument, I suggest he find reseach studies and get some statistics, and integrate these into the debate, in terms of addressing the other factors that lead teens to smoke (i.e. how many kids who smoke have parents that smoke? you could argue that smoking ads, in comparison to other influences, play a very little role in this whole smoking-implusion thing....and that the blame should not be directed towards ads).

That could work equally well. I’m just saying that one need not necessarily accept the idea that smoking needs to be curbed in the first place.

[juvaan]

thnx for all who've shared their views, some of which are really goood points.

i've already got some information eg. statistics and so on.
i got to know millions of jobs worldwide depends on the tobacco industry.
which in turn makes it one of the points to be included.

will be glad to hear more. thnx again to all who've shared their thoughts.i'll log in at 11pm tonight for the last time to chek this particular thread. Need all of you to hope for our team's victory.

[juvaan]

Quote by: Isherwood The tobacco companies are selling a legal product that kills no more people than cars, and car ads are targeted toward only those old enough to drive. Has anyone suggested banning car ads?

i love this....i guess by far, this is the strongest statement of all....would love to see the expression on the opposing team's faces.....

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: juvaan i love this....i guess by far, this is the strongest statement of all....would love to see the expression on the opposing team's faces.....

Really?


I thought the Ludwig Von Mises quote in Matts link is far more eloquent, and to the point.

Once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual from his own foolishness, no serious objections can be raised against further encroachments. A good case could be made out in favor of the prohibition of alcohol and nicotine. And why limit the government's benevolent providence to the protection of the individual's body only? Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily evils? Why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music? The mischief done by bad ideologies, surely, is much more pernicious, both for the individual and for the whole society, than that done by narcotic drugs. These fears are not merely imaginary specters terrifying secluded doctrinaires. It is a fact that no paternal government, whether ancient or modern, ever shrank from regimenting its subjects' minds, beliefs, and opinions. If one abolishes man's freedom to determine his own consumption, one takes all freedoms away. The naive advocates of government interference with consumption delude themselves when they neglect what they disdainfully call the philosophical aspect of the problem. They unwittingly support the cause of censorship, inquisition, intolerance, and the persecution of dissenters. -Ludwig von Mises, Austrian-born NYU Professor and free market advocate, 1949

Personally, I can't imagine anybody being able to refute Professor Von Mises' assertions, because he is writing from the historical perspective.

[juvaan]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Really? I thought the Ludwig Von Mises quote in Matts link is far more eloquent, and to the point. Personally, I can't imagine anybody being able to refute Professor Von Mises' assertions, because he is writing from the historical perspective.

thnx milton for highlighting this......i havent gone thru all of matt's links yet...thnx again...

[5010]

Quote by: Alive If cigarette ads didn't increase incidence of smoking, they wouldn't exist.

That is easily refuted. Without any change in rate of smoking, every smoker who switches brands benefits the manufacturer of the new choice with their business.

Or consider this: Does any ad for a tampon increase the incidence of periods? No. But they still exist!

[pikatore]

Apparently second-hand smoke is very dangerous. I'd be glad to see smoking ads banned... I'm sure it won't have too much of an impact on amount of people smoking itself.

Short of stopping people from buying smokes altogether, there is nothing wrong with alerting people to what they are doing to themselves, and encourage them to stop doing it.

By the way, cars are dangerous because the drivers are human. Smokes are ALWAYS detrimental to ones health, and the people around him or her.

[brien]

I smoked for 17 years, and only quit a few months ago; since this is the second time I quit, I may go back to smoking again.

CS, Best of luck with your battle. Keep in mind for everyday you are off cigarettes, is another day that the distance increases where you have left that habit in the past. Perhaps, if you find yourself wavering, try doing some volunteer work with a local Hospice, if you can. That should help. Best of luck.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Isherwood Smoking, like drinking booze, is a self-destructive behavior that the government can't effectively prohibit. The people have spoken and they demand the right to do with their bodies as they wish. Those who want to protect us from ourselves, those who attempt to legislate a moral belief by banning cigarette ads, are the true enemies of personal freedom and individual rights. The tobacco companies are selling a legal product that kills no more people than cars, and car ads are targeted toward only those old enough to drive. Has anyone suggested banning car ads? In America, anyone who produces a legal product has the right to advertise that product in order to increase sales and ensure a profit. Since the medical community has failed to draw an absolute correlation between smoking and cancer, there's no reason we shouldn't consider cancer warnings as over-reactions and unsupportable suppositions.

If your opponents are smart, the car argument won't work. The reason is that smoking is a luxury good; people don't need it: it is a pleasure commodity. Cars, on the other hand, have become so integrated into the economy and the modern world that they are basically a necessity - they've gone far past simply being a convenience machine for the average person into something that allows them to keep pace with others, to go to work in the cities, and automobiles have greatly expanded cities and suburbs past the time before they were introduced.
This is important because when a smoking advertisement is shown, it not only promotes a brand of cigarettes but also smoking cigarettes at all. Car advertisements, on the other hand, do not have such an effect as to simply promote the purchase of cars in general. They instead focus on a particular brand of car. People already want cars in our society; they don't already want cigarettes. That is the primary flaw with the car advertisement argument.

Additionally, your opponents will obviously bring up the general obligation for the government to promote the welfare of society, and they'll have plenty of statistics backing up statements of how bad cigarettes are for society, and how effective advertising is, etc. If you attack the government's capability or perogative of banning the ads, they may swing the debate out of your grasp with declarations that you don't think a government should care about its people. Just a thought.


On the other side of the fence, an argument that you can run (and which has been mentioned already) is the freedom of speech issue. Here, you can basically go by the principle that the government cannot regulate or discriminate speech based on content. You know, like being biased toward certain political ideas, or even advertisements here. This principle even protects pornography and obscene music. What you can do is say that if the government allows anti-smoking ads (which it does, you see them all the time on TV), it should also allow pro-smoking ads, because the government cannot discriminate speech based on content. Otherwise, our right to freedom of speech would be violated. That's your impact.
So basically, allowing the government to ban smoking ads leads to the complete destruction of our first amendment rights.