Cigarette Advertising

[Zero Fries]

In many countries around the world cigarette companies are banned from advertising their product.

Their arguements are that:

a) tobacco hasn't been proven to cause cancer - we'll discount this and assume that it does indeed cause cancer for the sake of arguement (also backed by a pile of evidence which I don't care to list)

b) the public should be allowed to make their own decision in free and democratic countries

What is your opinion on the matter? Should cigarette companies have the freedom to advertise their product - why or why not? Should the advertisement of all substances which cause bodily harm be banned?

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Zero b) the public should be allowed to make their own decision

That's what it boils down to.

Everybody has their priorities. Some people wish to cling to life for as long as possible, and some wish to live a shorter life while enjoying the pleasure of smoking. Since priorities are subjective, no one other than the individual in question is qualified to make this decision.

[cassie]

Yes, the should be allowed to advertise their products, because it is a person's choice whether or not they wish to use it. And, if Alcohol can be advertised, when it does bodily harm, then it is only fair that cigarettes can as well.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Zero Fries the public should be allowed to make their own decision in free and democratic countries

Some proponents for drug control such as Wilson want to ban some drugs because they debase human life. That is, those drugs minimize the autonomy that Kant would say defines us as human beings. This autonomy could even be at threat when we become addicted to the drugs, and thus, addictive agents such as cigarettes should be banned because people who use them lose their ability to choose to continue as they are addicted and thereby lose their autonomy to some extent.

However, many authors only go so far as to say drugs like crack cocaine, which causes users to go into violent states, should be banned, because they cause harm to not only the user but also the rest of society. Even normal people who use crack can go into homicidal fits. These authors are along the lines of Mill when it comes to freedom; he says that we should only stop someone from doing something when it will harm others. Along these lines, crack, should be banned.

But what about cigarettes? We would have to find that secondhand smoke, for instance, causes significant, uncontrollable harm to society. While it may kill a lot of people, it may be reasonable to suggest that instead of banning cigarettes, we could simply regulate them. We could, for instance, make closed rooms designed just for cigarette smokers, whereas they may not smoke anywhere else. We must ask the question if attempting to regulate smoking will be effective though.

But alas, there is also the mentioned concern for the loss of autonomy and the debasement of human life. The debasement of human life is harm at a different level than some bad consequences documented by statistics. If we could say that cigarette smoking debases human life, then surely, I would say ban it.

EDIT: Oops this was about cigarette advertising. Well, we can say that people's freedom to smoke is linked to the freedom to advertising. That's all I'll say for now, and don't pay attention to the above stuff as it is off topic.

[brien]

It is a legal product and therefore should not be subject to censorship.

[Osborn F Enready]

I support any legal products and their producers right to advertising.

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

Smoking kills and the industry is penalised

Guns kill and in in some parts of the world the industry is penalised

Cars and Trucks kill as does candy and junk foodstuffs yet they sustain most of the large advertising industries

somethings just don't add up to fair

governments are over sensative to their populations, forever needing to nurture them rather than allowing the people to decide

It's time to say NO to interference

[Zero Fries]

Unfortunetly this is one of those circumstances where people filing law suites ruins it for everyone.

Usually this type of thing happens when the majority forces its opinions and morals on the minority, but I think (hope) the majority of people would see this is a clash against freedom and oppose it.

Edit: I also believe not many people would do anything about it, because no one cares about loss of freedom until it affects them, it seems.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Zero Fries In many countries around the world cigarette companies are banned from advertising their product. Their arguements are that: a) tobacco hasn't been proven to cause cancer - we'll discount this and assume that it does indeed cause cancer for the sake of arguement (also backed by a pile of evidence which I don't care to list) b) the public should be allowed to make their own decision in free and democratic countries What is your opinion on the matter? Should cigarette companies have the freedom to advertise their product - why or why not? Should the advertisement of all substances which cause bodily harm be banned?

Life is a terminal illness: it leads to death 100 percent of the time: perhaps there should be a ban on advertising life.

Yes, tobacco companies (why you stupidly choose to limit it to cigarettes I don't know) should be free to advertise their products just as the junk food companies should be free to advertise their deadly products (junk food causes a number of health problems).