Should tobacco companies be allowed to give free cigarettes to children?

[sdbest]

A number of Volconvoites took exception to me asking if movies that portrayed smoking should be given an NC-17 rating to protect young people from the influence that movies have on encouraging young people to take up smoking. An influence that is well-documented and well-researched.

The vitriol was not unexpected and based on the notion that kids shouldn't receive any special protections but that they should learn from their mistakes, or their parents should protect them, or words and notions to that effect. At any rate, neither the government nor any organization of liberals should have any say in the matter.

So let's try another tack. In the interests of freedom, liberty, free markets, personal responsibility, capitalism, yada, yada, yada, should tobacco companies be allowed to give kids--say 5 or 6 year olds--free cigarettes in order to addict them to nicotine at an early age, so that they will become lifelong (albeit short lived) customers?

If not, why not? And if so, why?

Regards
S.

[SleepingOwl]

I honestly hope this is a joke, but I'll give it a go.

Firstly, its illegal. Kids are not allowed to posess/use tobacco products. Its also illegal for adults to give tobacco to minors. Secondly, I would say it would be a serious degradation of ethics. I suppose the only good thing that would result would be that cigarette companies would not last long with such a practice.

[Netopalis]

The reason for the disconnect between this opinion and the NC-17 thread is quite simple - the motivation behind making all movies with smoking NC-17 movies is the idea that children will do anything which they see on film. You say that this is well-documented; I would like to review your documentation if possible. I have seen numerous movies involving smoking - yet I have never felt the urge to smoke; indeed, I find the habit to be rather disgusting.

However, actually giving the cigarettes to children in real life causes a bit of a different situation - they can smoke without their parents finding out much more easily than they could otherwise, and most children at younger ages do not have the required mental fortitude to resist, especially when friends are nearby and egging them on.

[Alive]

Quote by: Netopalis The reason for the disconnect between this opinion and the NC-17 thread is quite simple - the motivation behind making all movies with smoking NC-17 movies is the idea that children will do anything which they see on film.

Actually, the motive is only that the number of children smoking will increase due to children watching the movie. This is almost self-evidently true; if 30 second ads influence people, obviously 120 minute movies with vastly more emotional power and interest will influence people. That doesn't mean everyone who watches a movie will smoke; as spammers well know, you don't need anything near 100% success to make a huge profit.

Even if you gave cigarettes to children not all would smoke them! The difference between giving cigarettes and advertising them through movies (and that is what it is) is only that one is more direct. If we are looking from the perspective of public health there is no inherent difference.

[sdbest]

Quote by: Netopalis You say that this is well-documented; I would like to review your documentation if possible. .

As with all my posts that have a factual rather than opinion base I provide sources. In my original NC-17 post I provided a link to the information you're requesting.

Regards
S.

[sdbest]

Quote by: SleepingOwl I honestly hope this is a joke, but I'll give it a go.

It's not a joke. In an earlier post about the effects of smoking in movies on young people taking up smoking, a number of responders, without reading the research I provided, objected to the premises being offered. Moreover they made various comments about child protection. Disparaging attempts by the "nanny state" to protect them or organizations, influenced by government, like the MPAA doing the same.

The purpose of this thread was to see how far these libertarians and smokers are willing to go in forgoing protection for children. It is well documented that tobacco companies target children in their advertising and they encourage, even pay for, the use of tobacco in films. If it's not appropriate to control that corporate behavior, where's the line, or is there any line?

So far, it seems few of my smoking detractors in the previous thread have cared to respond. They don't want an NC-17 rating on films that depict smoking, but can't tell me if giving free cigarettes to 6 years olds is a problem, and if it is why is it. And, if it is a problem, where's the line for the state or trade organizations between protecting kids from smoking and leaving them to their own misadventures.

Regards
S.

[Autolykos]

Although I was not really opposed to the NC-17 issue (due to movie ratings being voluntary), I'd like to take a stab at this.

Legality does not matter to me here, as I am opposed to laws prohibiting "minors" from possessing tobacco products. While I would prefer that children not smoke, I realize that I cannot keep them from smoking, if they so wish. That being said, my answer is yes -- tobacco companies should be allowed (in a legal sense) to give free cigarettes to children. Of course, if there were no government, the question of legal permit would be irrelevant entirely.

- Rob

[Chancellor]

Quote by: sdbest A number of Volconvoites took exception to me asking if movies that portrayed smoking should be given an NC-17 rating to protect young people from the influence that movies have on encouraging young people to take up smoking. An influence that is well-documented and well-researched. The vitriol was not unexpected and based on the notion that kids shouldn't receive any special protections but that they should learn from their mistakes, or their parents should protect them, or words and notions to that effect. At any rate, neither the government nor any organization of liberals should have any say in the matter. So let's try another tack. In the interests of freedom, liberty, free markets, personal responsibility, capitalism, yada, yada, yada, should tobacco companies be allowed to give kids--say 5 or 6 year olds--free cigarettes in order to addict them to nicotine at an early age, so that they will become lifelong (albeit short lived) customers? If not, why not? And if so, why? Regards S.

Wow, imagine that! Parents actually having responsibility for teaching and protecting their children. What an amazing concept! Of course, that was what American society actually believed in until socialists and leftists like you (but here in the States instead of Canada) started trying to take parental responsibility away from the parents and place it in the hands of government bureaucrats.

Threads like this one border on trolling. You falsely assume that just because we don't want the government regulating every aspect of our lives and don't want the government taking our parental responsibilities and authority that we automatically support tobacco companies (or breweries or distilleries) giving free samples of their products to young children. If a parent wants to do that sort of thing, that's up to the parent.

[Praxius]

Do we hand out free prostitues to children to have sex?

Do we hand out free booze to children to get them to drink?

Do we hand out free firearms to children because it's their constitutional right? (Depending where you live)

The only logical thing I see that would relate to your argument is that if we change the ratings of movies with smoking because they have smoking and kids might become impressionable.... then we change all the movies with anything that could be deemed impressionable to the youth.

Here's a logical test to at least see if your reports are somewhat accurate:

Anybody...... this is a call out to anybody in these forums to please answer honestly..... "HAVE ANY OF YOU EVER STARTED SMOKING BECAUSE OF A MOVIE?"

Please raise your hands or better yet, please post a reply saying if you have or not.

If there is even one..... 1 (ONE) Person in these forums alone who can admit honestly that they picked up smoking based on a TV show or a Movie, I'll considder that well documented report as having some truth.

And before someone comes and defends these reports, saying that if nobody here admits to the above, that it doesn't relate because of a small % here compared to the stat..... my reply is this;

Statistics if accurate and true, should hold relatively accurate to real life examples, and if not one single person here out of a random picking has never had an urge to smoke based on what a movie showed..... then one has to question the stats.

[Jimmy the Pro]

Understand that there is a wall between kids and the characters on the screen. As to how impressionable that influence will be to the children depends on the type of children watching.

I find that parenting is very important in this circumstance. When parents do not take a stand to smoking or do not educate kids of the danger or at least even give them a talk about smoking in general, then the kids are more likely to be influenced by what they see on the screen. Information is more than half the battle and if you want to make sure kids are not influenced by what they see on the screen I would urge for more authoratative (not authoritarain) style parenting rather than the lax parenting styles as of late.

Now as for giving a child cigs on the street. If a child cannot reason for themselves (think about the consequences) of such an action why would we do that to them? We might as well just give them guns in case they need protection because they will do the same thing with the guns as the smokes, namely damage.

Smoking laws exist for a reason and are inforced because there is a time and place for everything. Until maturation has set in and these children can think for themselves, I don't think offering them smokes is a good idea.

Then again I suppose tobacco companies would also have no trouble offering the mentally handicapped smokes...

[grandpa]

Quote by: Jimmy the Pro Understand that there is a wall between kids and the characters on the screen. As to how impressionable that influence will be to the children depends on the type of children watching.

And teh type pf upbringing.

Grandpa h.

[5010]

Quote by: sdbest should tobacco companies be allowed to give kids--say 5 or 6 year olds--free cigarettes in order to addict them to nicotine at an early age, so that they will become lifelong (albeit short lived) customers?

You could ask the same question about sugar. The answer is the same: Not without parental permission.

[Jimmy the Pro]

Sugar and Cigs, hardly the same thing. Which I suppose is why laws are different for the two.

[Alive]

Quote by: Praxius Anybody...... this is a call out to anybody in these forums to please answer honestly..... "HAVE ANY OF YOU EVER STARTED SMOKING BECAUSE OF A MOVIE?"

People think they can resist advertising too! As I explained in my post above, it is absolutely absurd to think that smoking in movies does not influence kids in regards to smoking. This whole idea that one's culture has no bearing on one's actions is utterly devoid of real life support; culture seems the #1 factor in the differences between people's actions, and myth and media is a huge aspect of culture.

Of course people do not know how they are affected! And if you ask a devote Muslim if he would be Christian if he was born in the US then he'll probably say no too. They are wrong. People are not good at determining the obvious causes of their own actions.

[Alive]

Quote by: Chancellor If a parent wants to do that sort of thing, that's up to the parent.

Right, so sucks to be a kid born to the wrong parents? No second chances there! Get unlucky in the who-you-are-born-to game and messed up for life, no possibility of outside intervention!

This is such a weird strain of American libertarianism, this concept that parents deserve complete control over their children. Bullshit! Every child deserves a good upbringing. And if the parents are the barrier to that good upbringing, I say, my concern is for the children. Get the bad parents out of the picture as much as possible.

[Captain Cardio]

Anybody...... this is a call out to anybody in these forums to please answer honestly..... "HAVE ANY OF YOU EVER STARTED SMOKING BECAUSE OF A MOVIE?"

You're question necessitates it being a conscious realization of the influence of the movie. I think most people would agree that it would have a mostly subconscious impact.

One example: Kid's might get the feeling that smoking can't be 'that bad', and that their teachers or parents are just being control freaks (as kids often think their parents are, when parents are really just trying to protect their kids) - if they see characters they aspire to or admire, smoking.

Of the people who started smoking because of a movie, probably only a very tiny portion of them knew that it was because of the film. They probably attributed it to other factors such as a combination of peer pressure and teen angst - that influence may not have been as effective if it wasn't for the movie creating an unconscious feeling of smoking being 'cool'.

In alot of cases, the people influenced would be completely clueless about the movie's effect.


Do we agree that cigarette companies pay to have smoking in movies?

Do we agree that cigarette companies wouldn't repeatedly spend millions (billions?) of dollars like that if they couldn't witness an effect on some people - that increased their sales?

Statistics if accurate and true, should hold relatively accurate to real life examples, and if not one single person here out of a random picking has never had an urge to smoke based on what a movie showed..... then one has to question the stats.

Very true, if enough evidence in real-life is present to the contrary, the stat may be false - however, tiny sample sizes are not proof either, all we do by making this assertion, is create ambiguity.

No volconvo member being able to say that they consciously decided to start smoking because they saw it in a movie - is not at all proof, that in a population 5,000,000* times as big as the aprox. 100** reading this thread on volconvo, there aren't people who started smoking because of it.

*(Include Europe and Canada, they watch US movies to)*
**(generous if you look at the number of views of this thread, that credit single users with multiple views) **

Also people might be embarassed about admitting such a thing. "Why did you start smoking?" "I saw Brad Pitt do it in my favorite movie", doesn't sound all that intelligent.

Also consider this, the average person isn't as smart as the crowd volconvo attracts. Smarter people are less likely to do something as stupid as consciously start smoking because of the specific reason they saw an actor/actress do it in a movie.

So even if the sample on volconvo doesn't have a member who can admit to having consciously decided that 'because a movie character smoked, they will to', this sample is in the wrong place, because the people who would be affected by it would have been much dumber.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Alive Right, so sucks to be a kid born to the wrong parents? No second chances there! Get unlucky in the who-you-are-born-to game and messed up for life, no possibility of outside intervention!

You falsely assume that the kid can't grow up and overcome his messed-up childhood!

This is such a weird strain of American libertarianism, this concept that parents deserve complete control over their children.

They do.

Bullshit! Every child deserves a good upbringing.

Why?

And if the parents are the barrier to that good upbringing, I say, my concern is for the children. Get the bad parents out of the picture as much as possible.

Get the bad leftists and socialists that are trying to take over out of America! The children are the offspring of the parents and how they are raised is the responsibility of the parents (with influence from the extended family). It is not the government's responsibility.

[Alive]

Quote by: Chancellor You falsely assume that the kid can't grow up and overcome his messed-up childhood!

No. I assume only that children deserve a happy and healthy childhood. Honestly, if you don't want children to have a happy and healthy childhood I don't think the state should let you have children. What do you think of that?

I'm the least socialist or leftist person on this forums. In fact, you are the socialist! You think families should be run in communal fashion rather than by rule of liberty! I say free the children, you say keep them under government control--it's just that government in your case are the parents themselves.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Alive People think they can resist advertising too! As I explained in my post above, it is absolutely absurd to think that smoking in movies does not influence kids in regards to smoking. This whole idea that one's culture has no bearing on one's actions is utterly devoid of real life support; culture seems the #1 factor in the differences between people's actions, and myth and media is a huge aspect of culture.

You quoted my question, and yet to answer the question...... did you pick up smoking in your youth from watching movies? Yes or No?

If you have no answer, then don't quote my question.

If you never picked up smoking as a kid from a movie, I guess that kinda proves one case of "Resisting Advertisement" as you put it.... canceling out your comment above.

Of course people do not know how they are affected! And if you ask a devote Muslim if he would be Christian if he was born in the US then he'll probably say no too. They are wrong. People are not good at determining the obvious causes of their own actions.

He is wrong because he said no? That's one of the most ignorant things I read today..... as there can be multiple reasons why they wouldn't want to change faiths..... one of which is why waste more of your lifetime to study and learn another religion all over again?

Another perfect example of undermining humanity's abilities as incompetant.

People don't know how they are affected by something? *snickers*

Ask me anything and I will give you my best explination as to why I do the thing in my life..... everything I have done in my life I can almost always track back to one or two decisions in my life.

Influence exists.... it's exists everywhere, but censoring and restricting one's access to some kinds of knowlege or lifestyle, be that healthy or unhealthy, just shows fear of the unknown, and the in-ability to make your own sound decisions in life based on your fear of the unknown.

Even if you do know the pros and cons.... not allowing younger generations the same knowlege and education on something as you may have had in your upbrining isn't going to make anything better.

Everybody on this planet has to make their own choices in life and how they plan on living it....... if you think sheltering your child from reality and what goes on in this world is the best thing to do, then that's your perogative..... I'll teach my children the way I see fit.... I don't need you or anybody else nannying my kids because you think it's morally correct.

[5010]

Alive,
So, tell us what should companies be allowed to give to 5 year old even against parental permission.

Would it be okay if the government mandated that companies have the right to give 5 year olds free crayons even against the will of their parents?