The Surgeon General has recently stated that there is evidence to
support the notion that cigarette companies routinly vary the amount of
nicotine in thier product to keep the smoking public hooked on thier
product. In that vein, she is suggesting that nicotine become a regulated
drug, and that all cigarette advertising be banned. (This is being discussed
on Prodigy). 

   We all know that bans don't work. It just drives up the demand and 
the price and usually motivates the mob to bootleg it. If cigarettes
could be banned, do you support it or not?

17 responses total.

Don't ban them, just tax the hell out of them (like the gummint already
does and wants do more).

Bans vary in effectiveness: I dispute the casual comment that "we all
know that bans don't work."

Whereas a ban on tobacco, a widely used addictive substance, would have a
lot in common with some other bans which have (at least arguably) not
worked, the only ban you mention is a ban on cigarette *advertising*.  Are
you saying that a ban on cigarette advertising wouldn't "work"?  How would
that happen?  Newspapers and magazines would run full-page ads in defiance
of the law?  I really can't see it. 

We have had a ban on cigarette advertising on television for more than 20
years.  This ban may not have eliminated cigarette smoking, but it surely
appears to have eliminated cigarette advertising on television.  In at
least the limited sense of ending the prohibited behavior (broadcast of
television commercials promoting brands of cigarettes), this particular
ban has been undeniably effective.

I agree polygon, but I thought Jim was referring to the change in posture
of the FDA. The FDA has historically never claimed it had any regulatory
authority over tobacco products. Now that this evidence of nicotine
tampering is coming to light, they are posturing that this would absolutely
qualify such tampered products as drugs and give them the authority
to regulate them.

I doubt the FDA is serious, but there are some good points being
made. Also note that this potentially moves the question of control
of cigarette products away from congress where it can be lobbied
over to a venue that isn't subject to lobbying. It will be
interesting to see where this leads.

On the question of taxing cigarettes I have two worries:  (1) we are
already dangerously close to creating a contraband market which
invites organized crime into cigarette distribution. (2) It's not
clear to me that more taxation will increase revenues. Well, it will
*some*, but it's going to max out and drop off as demand drops and
what's left shifts to untaxed (illegal) cigarettes.

  Larry, I really don't think bans really work. Despite the lack of c
cigarette commercials on television, there still are plenty of sporting
events that are sponsered by the tobacco companies and more often than
not there is a quick pan across a huge billboard that is placed strategically
so that it is seen during the action. How about the Doral Open? the Winston
Cup? How many people see these events and are influeed by them? No, 
there is not a total ban on cigarette advertising on TV. we only think there oi
is. 
      The intent of a ban is to totally remove the offending product from
the marketplace. But, it only works in theory because bans produce demand
and demand can and does produce criminal activity. I am worried, that if there
is a prohibition style ban on cigarettes, we can only wait for the violence
and the bloodshed to begin. Cigarettes are too ingrained into the American
way of life to ever place a ban on. No one can police the situation 100%
of the time and people are not as trustworthy as they are expected to be.

I heard Ms. Elders' statement on the radio where she called for a ban on
cigarette advertising.  She talked about how we shouldn't be promoting 
a product that kills people.  I can't specifically quote her, but she
seemed to be saying that if any product such as cars or sleeping pills can
kill people, it should not be advertised.  I guess it was just careless
use of language on her part, but it came across to me sounding really dumb.

She also didn't say what she meant by advertising.  I'd think the next
step would be to ban cigarette billboards bigger than some size or ads in
newspapers and magazines or something like that.  I don't see how the
government could suddenly prevent cigarette brands from sponsoring
sporting events and the like.  The events would at least need time to look
for new sponsorship.  How could you ban all ads?  What about the ads on
t-shirts?  store windows and displays? cigarette packs? 

Such a ban may or may not reduce demand for the product in the long run,
but in the short run, it seems to me that there would be a large decline
in advertising expenditures and a small decline in revenues.  What does
she think the companies should do with the additional short run profit? 
I'm sure they'd find ways to promote their products here or overseas. 

I have a better plan.  Instead of banning cigarette advertising, hit it
with a special tax.  If they want to spend $1 on advertising that's fine,
but they'd have to turn another $1 over to an anti-smoking organization so
that we'd see a "smoking is bad for you" sign right across I-94 from the
Marlboro man.

But no, Jim, she was not saying that cigarettes should be banned.  She
apparently thinks that it's OK to sell cigarettes as long as you don't
advertise them.

Re 4.  A quick glimpse of a billboard on TV does not constitute cigarette
commercials in the sense that we all used to know them.  Obviously, brand
names of cigarettes are going to be mentioned in business news, and so on.
This is NOT what was contemplated by the ban.

Maybe you need to review one of the old 60-second commercials devoted to
intense propaganda for the social and health benefits of smoking to see
what I'm talking about.  Fortunately, they're an extinct species today.

I fully support, and have claimed so for years, a ban on the advertising of
tobacco products.
I absolutely oppose, and have for years, any ban of thos tobacco products
themselves.

        The rationale is simple.  The advertising exists solely for the purpose
of getting people to use the product.  It is under no obligation to tell us
anything about the product or it's effects except for the little blurb of
"Surgeon General's Warning."  And, there is a lot more money going into hooking
us on tobacco than there is going into education about it's dangers.  If we are
adults, and we expect our government to treat as adults, then let us decide
whether or not we will use the product, and let us also make sure that the bulk
of the information being disseminated about the product is the real, truthful,
information which will allow us to make educated decisions.

        If we ban the product, we are simply saying that we do not believe that
the other members of our society are capable of deciding for themselves what 
they want to do to themselves.  This is an abhorrent attitude to be expressed
in a nation of supposedly "free" individuals!!!  Yet this is exactly the
attitude we express with every single piece of anti-drug legislation we allow
to  pass through congress and become law.
        We are obligated as members of this society to make our own decisions,
and to let others make their own decisions.  We are obligated as members of
a community to educate ourselves, and to educate our fellows, so that we can
*all* make educated decisions, especially if those decisions affect the future
of our society, and the lives of our children!

        If we ban advertising on tobacco, we can then allow the voice of reason
to be heard, and possibly we may be more effective in educating about the real
dangers of this drug.  Let those who still wish to use it, knowing what it is,
have all the access to it that they wish to have.  We have no right to deny it
to them!!

When the government interfears in markets as with a ban as Other supports,
bad things tend to happen.  If I were the marketing chief of a tobacco
company and cigarette advertising were banned, the first thing I'd do is
set people to work inventing an addictive tobacco product that does not
fit the government's definition of cigarette.  I would be able to
advertise the hell out of my new product until the loop hole is closed,
and I'd hope to have a nice big bunch of new tobacco addicts before the
government can react.  The second thing I would do is find ways to spend
my promotion budget other than banned advertising.  I'd give out free or
heavily discounted products especially to people who are not yet addicted. 
You think Joe Camel is cool?  Great.  Here's a free T-shirt and free
posters for you to share with your friends. 

There appear to be two threads here. Some (#5) are talking about the
Surgeon General and the banning of advertising. This is an interesting
discussion, but I don't understand the urgency of this discussion when
compared to the other thread. This is regarding the regulation as a drug
of those cigarettes whose nicotine levels were doctored (boosted). This
issue has cropped up only since Friday when it was first reported. This is
an FDA issue. I think I heard that there was some heavy selling of tobacco
stocks on the Stock Market today.

  I saw the Day One report tonight and the report seemed to put the full
blame for nicotine content on reconstituted tobacco.Reconstituted tobacco
is the stems, leaves and other parts of the palnt that were once thrown
away in the past. The cig makers use up to 44% of this product in addition
to the natural leaf tobacco in some brands. As you might have guessed, 
the cheaper brands (generic) have the highest content of the reconstituted
tobacco in them. The nicotine is added to the reconstituted tobacco as a
flavoring. 
   There was a no nicotine cigarette that was marketed by Phillip Morris
and guess what? It didn't sell. So from th bit of wisdom, we can assume
that the cig companies are adding this stuff, and varying the levels
so that the users stay hooked.
   One more thing. Nicotine is classified as a prescription drug. However,
it is exempted in cigarettes. In every other case, nicotine is regulated
except in cigarettes, where it can be found in varying levels.

I don't think that you can really say that the tobacco companies are
deliberately trying to keep people hooked, or get them hooked by varying
the nicotine levels.  What probably happens is that they develop a brand
of cigarette, or vary the level in a current brand, to adjust their profit
margin (after all, if they can use some technically unusable parts, they
make more profit), and then when the market of addicted users flocks away
from it (in the case of no-nicotine types) or towards it, it the case of
whatever happens to be popular, the marketing types report an upward
or downward swing.  They're just trying to do the same thing that COke
did when it messed with it's formula, or Burger King when they switched
pop products.  Eye on the bottom line.

I had a wierd thought today.  Imagine the irony if the tobacco companies were
investing lots of money in developing non-cancer causing cigarettes, and ended
up finding a cure for lung cancer in the process...<shiver>

  It will be an interesting investigation.

I'm not sure I'm willing to swallow as benign a view of the Tobacco
companies as you have pictured in #11, ecy. How do you know that
the tobacco companies weren't deliberately trying to maintain a 
nicotine level that would ensure addiction. I don't know for certain
that they were, but I find it awfully believable now that I know that 
they were actually adjusting nicotine levels.

I guess I have an unshakable faith in human nature.  For years the
tobacco people have been winning lawsuits accusing them of killing
people through all the smoking related diseases.  If there was
hard physical proof of deliberate tampering, or planning to cause
addiction, whoever came forward would make a mint.  Books, T.V.
minseries of the hottest conspiracy, the fees that could be 
collected from appearances, etc.  Further, if it was a plan
of a darkly shrouded cabal of all the companies together, the
minute one of the firms found an advantage to 'leaking' the
news, to drive the sales of their own 'non-doctored' brands,
they'd do it.  Gotta make that extra billion or two.
Like I said, I can see them trying to figure out how to make
their profits stretch by using more stems and seeds, err, whatever.
ANd if those parts actually happen to contain more nicotine, well,
so what?  After all, nicotine is what these people want out of 
cigarrettes, and the companies that provide that service are then
simply providing more of it.  Right?

Ahh!  The essence of capitalism.  Observe the need, and fill it...for the
right price...

 I am just referring the #12 wierd thought. Cig companies going for 
the investigation of Non-Cancerous cig .  Such companies first of all
will have a conflicting objective . There last objective is to make
business but top priority is to provide less harmful material or not all 
harmful material , till now which has been proved harmful and people addicted 
cannot live without that. This appears as charity trust's objective and no
business company who is in the market to make money/profit will be doing t
It is like a company going for sleeping pill with no effect on sleeping.

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss