Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Target Market needs to slim the fat

By Fon2d2 in Op-Ed
Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:59:12 PM EST
Tags: Culture (all tags)
Culture

For those of you who live in Minnesota, unless you've been living in a hole, you've probably noticed the series of aggressive anti-tobacco ads being proffered by a group of teenagers that call themselves Target Market (TM). Now normally I'd just thought of them as public service announcements and they never bothered me that much. But then I saw their latest TV spot and it got me thinking what a waste it all is.


Now pay attention to this commercial (the "Amnesty Day" ad). The commercial depicts a rally that took place in front of the Minnesota state capitol. They have mics, sound equipment, and three rear-projection big-screen TVs. The TVs were there to transmit live feed from TM members in front of the headquarters of three tobacco companies during the rally. This all seems incredibly expensive to me, what with the travel expenses, the big-screen TVs, and the paid advertisement spots so I went to TM's website to see if I could get any details on their funding. Unfortunately, I was unable to find that information there. That's interesting considering they have a constantly growing figure for "US tobacco spending" at the top of their website. In my searching I did find this however:
Our TM Cruiser-a 16-foot panel truck that comes complete with a retro teen lounge, stereo, Playstation2, interactive kiosks and TV-is everywhere teens are hanging out and having fun.
Wow, they just love to spend.

So where does the money come from? A non-profit organization known as the Minnesota Partnership for Action Against Tobacco (MPAAT) was formed in the fall of 1998 to distribute roughly $200 million in funds awarded to the state of Minnesota as part of the big tobacco settlement. Their job is that of prevention, cessation, and research. Note that this is a fraction of the $6.1 billion awarded the state and is for use solely by the MPAAT. TM is a partner of the MPAAT in the field of prevention.

Now I'm not saying that TM has not been effective (see the chart at the bottom of this page). I'm simply saying that it could be more cost effective. The MN House has even proposed a bill that would transfer a lot of that funding to the university. I was at the lobby day last February where hundreds of students gathered at the state capitol to try and prevent a massive cut in the U's budget. I do recall writing letters and meeting with legislators. I do not however remember megaphones and big-screen TVs.

Target Market needs to get real. They are an organization meant to spread awareness about youth smoking and help prevent it. They don't need such elaborate equipment to do that. TM should reevaluate its finances and slim the fat. I see no reason why they couldn't remain just as effective after doing so. Minnesota is, after all, in a budget shortfall right now and that money could really help the state. Or, barring that, the money could be more effectively redistributed into cessation and research programs.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Target Market
o commercial
o three
o tobacco
o companies
o Minnesota Partnership for Action Against Tobacco
o page
o proposed a bill
o Also by Fon2d2


Display: Sort:
Target Market needs to slim the fat | 93 comments (78 topical, 15 editorial, 0 hidden)
How would research be more effective? (4.25 / 4) (#9)
by snowlion on Tue Apr 23, 2002 at 06:13:47 PM EST

I question that; This sounds like a pretty good idea, as far as "build better propaganda" goes. My girlfriend's health clinic regularly accepts money for anti-smoking propaganda, and they have to figure out what to do. Buy posters? Print pamphlets? Get radio time?

I think that a program like this would be far more effective.

Research? What do you mean- research like, "Yes, smoking actually does harm you."..?

Unless you can show me why research is more important, and what it can tell us, this seems like the better use of money..!


--
Map Your Thoughts
I don't think thats what they meant by research. (4.60 / 5) (#11)
by pschap on Tue Apr 23, 2002 at 06:33:19 PM EST

When they say research, I think they are referring to medical research.

Presumably any sort of research into treatments for cancer, emphysema, and the whole host of other smoking related illness would be a decent (and legal) use for tobacco money. It would be research towards undoing, or minimizing the damage already done by smoking.


--
"I have always believed that the true mark of success is when you make it into some complete loser's sig." -- Parent ]
Yes, that's what they mean [n/t] (3.00 / 1) (#12)
by Fon2d2 on Tue Apr 23, 2002 at 06:37:36 PM EST



[ Parent ]
-1 too minisota centric (1.20 / 10) (#16)
by nodsmasher on Tue Apr 23, 2002 at 07:38:50 PM EST

just kidding i gave it +1 it begs the question what to do with the billions we get from some of the these setelments
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Most people don't realise just how funny cannibalism can actually be.
-Tatarigami
My theory: (4.70 / 10) (#17)
by leviramsey on Tue Apr 23, 2002 at 07:43:06 PM EST

I remember hearing recently that smoking among people 18-25 is up over the past few years. The only explanation I can think of is that all this anti-smoking advertising is making smoking into a rebel-cool type of thing. The tobacco industry has figured out how to advertise tobacco in general (knowing that the companies are going to get shares of the market).

Of course, I think that the anti-tobacco campaigns focus on health is not the way to stop the young from smoking. If you're under 30, you're invincible, and will be forever.



Hmm... (none / 0) (#71)
by DonQuote on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 04:46:20 PM EST

I don't know about that. My highly un-scientific observations from personal experience show that there has been a significant decrease in smoking. I once went with about 25 of my friends to a restaurant and the waitress asked if anyone needed an ashtray - no one did. I thought that was pretty neat.

Of course, this is highly dependent on other factors. For example, if I go across the river to Hull, in the province of Quebec, nearly everybody, young and old, smokes. It's quite an interesting phenomenon.

As for the "health" thing... it worked for me. :) That and the whole cost factor, nasty smell, etc., etc... but then, I've always been pretty conservative.



-DQ
... Use tasteful words. You may have to eat them.
[ Parent ]
Priorities (4.60 / 10) (#18)
by quasipalm on Tue Apr 23, 2002 at 07:59:21 PM EST

I'm frustrated in a similar way here in Washington State. I see the state spending mountains of cash on shit trying to "educate" people about drugs and tobacco and "educate" people about salmon and recycling and on and on. Sorry to be frank, but when the fuck did advertising become education???

I, on the other hand, am trying to get a real education at the UW and I'm finding it difficult due to the ~$1000 tuition hike just up the road.

What the states should be doing is keeping their real educational facilities affordable to all people. Seriously, educated people smoke less (and vote more, and recycle, and on and on).

(hi)
They might get their funding from tobacco companis (3.33 / 3) (#19)
by theboz on Tue Apr 23, 2002 at 08:00:39 PM EST

I would have put an e in the 2nd to last position of the title but it wouldn't fit.

Anyway, I read somewhere that as part of settlements the tobacco comapnies have to pay for some of the advertising like this. One such group is the one that makes all the Tom Green-esque commercials on TV.

Stuff.

Should... (4.00 / 2) (#20)
by yicky yacky on Tue Apr 23, 2002 at 08:16:24 PM EST

...have used 'may' instead of 'might' in the title then, shouldn't you?


Yicky Yacky
***********
"You f*cking newbie. Shut up and sit in the corner!" - JCB
[ Parent ]
Why? (4.33 / 3) (#23)
by theboz on Tue Apr 23, 2002 at 08:24:36 PM EST

I shouldn't have to modify my expressions just to fit the confines of technological and linguistic means.

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

Errr (4.00 / 2) (#25)
by yicky yacky on Tue Apr 23, 2002 at 08:41:55 PM EST

Why? I shouldn't have to modify my expressions just to fit the confines of technological and linguistic means.
To save having to write a sentence justifying your ouput's restriction by the aforesaid confines, perchance?

Ignore me; I'm irascible this evening...


Yicky Yacky
***********
"You f*cking newbie. Shut up and sit in the corner!" - JCB
[ Parent ]
Tradeoffs (4.00 / 1) (#29)
by bobpence on Tue Apr 23, 2002 at 09:48:57 PM EST

You have to make just such sacrifices all of the time. All resources are finite. Plus, "their" is implied so that you might have used:

They might get funding from tobacco companies
"Interesting. No wait, the other thing: tedious." - Bender
[ Parent ]

The Truth (4.00 / 1) (#28)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Tue Apr 23, 2002 at 09:37:34 PM EST

That group is called The Truth.. it is another propaganda group funded by the tobacco settlement. They're known for their 'guerilla' tactics such as putting hundreds of mock bodybags in front of the headquarters of a tobacco company. They bought ads during the Super Bowl, at least near me. They also try to have a 'hip' feel to their ads and web site.. they use a lot of young people in ads, and their website is peppered with phrases like "no doubt" and "totally."

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]
Rampant waste (4.33 / 6) (#21)
by onyxruby on Tue Apr 23, 2002 at 08:19:11 PM EST

I live here in Minnesota, and have seen these TM billboards all over the place. The chief problem I have with them is that they all suck. The point of an ad is to convey a message to an audience, and most of their ad's leave the audience thinking, hunh? Unless the ad quality can be drastically improved, the money should be spent elsewhere, as it is, it's being wasted. The people behind the ads need to attend a marketing 101 course and learn the basics before they are allowed to waste anymore money. At the very least they should have to have their ad's approved by a professional ad house.

The moon is covered with the results of astronomical odds.

Exactly the point (none / 0) (#39)
by Fon2d2 on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 09:30:09 AM EST

Did you even realize they'd sent reps out to different states the first time you saw the "Amnesty" commercial? I sure as hell didn't.

[ Parent ]
Spending Money! (3.50 / 4) (#24)
by gnovos on Tue Apr 23, 2002 at 08:29:27 PM EST

As long as they are spending money, why not just pay cold hard cash to each and every teen willing to sign some legal document saying they won't ever smoke. If they break it, they have to pay the money back.

A Haiku: "fuck you fuck you fuck/you fuck you fuck you fuck you/fuck you fuck you snow" - JChen
Good luck enforcing that... (4.00 / 2) (#32)
by pschap on Tue Apr 23, 2002 at 10:37:08 PM EST

...parents, who live in the same house as their kids can't do that, how do you think the state is going to do any better?

Besides something similar already happens naturally... have you looked at health insurance and life insurance rates for smokers vs. non-smoker recently?

--
"I have always believed that the true mark of success is when you make it into some complete loser's sig." -- Parent ]
Anti-smoking ads suck (2.80 / 5) (#26)
by delmoi on Tue Apr 23, 2002 at 08:55:31 PM EST

We have something like that here in IA, it's called "Jel, just elimiate lies." I saw a bilboard the other day that said "Download, upchuck. -- see what we couldn't show you here jeliowa.org" And I'm just like... no.

Also the "truth" advertizements recently have been really obnoxious, listing elements found in ciggaret smoke and saying that they are in bad things... who cares?

Idiocy all around.
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
Ingredients in cigarettes (none / 0) (#40)
by Fon2d2 on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 09:35:46 AM EST

Read to your heart's content. Honestly, who really cares?

[ Parent ]
uhhh... (none / 0) (#60)
by krek on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:36:54 PM EST

I read the first several entries, then skimmed the rest. I can honestly say that I did not see a single item on that list that I would consider rolling up and smoking. In fact, I am pretty sure that an ice cream cigarette would be very difficult to light.

[ Parent ]
Really, what do they want? (4.81 / 11) (#27)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Tue Apr 23, 2002 at 09:28:15 PM EST

Do they want big tobacco to just stop selling cigarettes? You know that won't stop people from smoking.. people will move to South Carolina and farm their own tobacco if they have to.

So fine, let's say Philip Morris comes out and apologizes for all the evil things they've done, and the teens of the state of Minnesota forgive them. Now what? They are still making cigarettes.. they are still putting in ammonia and formaldehyde, because that's what people want. If they started making a less appealing cigarette, people would start smoking a different brand. Really, we can't blame big tobacco for selling a product that people want to buy. We CAN blame them for marketing to kids and hiding the fact that they're harmful, but they already settled that lawsuit..

This is a free country. If you want to put a stick of feces in your mouth and light it on fire, it's not my business to tell you otherwise. And if there is enough of a market for these death sticks, I should be allowed to sell it to you with any chemicals I choose to include.

I'm not sure exactly what these teens want, I hope they are not calling for some kind of ban on smoking or illegal restrictions on tobacco companies. I wonder, though.. what happens when they move on to a new enemy? Do they start protesting outside of Smith & Wesson demanding an apology for all gun deaths?

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.

Free country my ass (4.33 / 12) (#30)
by marx on Tue Apr 23, 2002 at 09:53:34 PM EST

This is a free country. If you want to put a stick of feces in your mouth and light it on fire, it's not my business to tell you otherwise.

Bullshit. Exchange "feces" with "marijuana", and then it's suddenly your business?

There is a simple solution to this problem, and that is to outlaw the sale and farming of tobacco. Alternatively, you can legalize marijuana and other similar drugs. But don't babble about the inevitability of the will of a Free People (tm).

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
[ Parent ]

Substitute (5.00 / 2) (#43)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 09:54:48 AM EST

You're right, it's not a free country. It should be. Exchange "can" for "should be able to" if you'd like. I said nothing about the inevitability of the will of free people - we have already seen how a little consumerism destroys what little will the people had in the first place. Complete personal freedom, including the freedom to destroy yourself in whatever way you like, is my goal. If more people cared about it rather than saying "ban this, ban that" we'd be there already.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]
Solution? (none / 0) (#56)
by daedal on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 12:50:20 PM EST

"There is a simple solution to this problem, and that is to outlaw the sale and farming of tobacco."

This would be very difficult for any government to do and would not actually do anything to help. Sales would be done on the black market and the money would go to criminals.

[ Parent ]

Same (none / 0) (#75)
by marx on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 06:15:32 PM EST

This would be very difficult for any government to do
Just as difficult as for marijuana or any other popular drug.

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
[ Parent ]

"Popular" (none / 0) (#91)
by daedal on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 11:18:33 AM EST

Marijuana is *no where near* as popular as smoking tobacco, especially among the people voting. Can you even imagine a government banning smoking?

[ Parent ]
Why not? (1.50 / 2) (#38)
by fn0rd on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 09:23:29 AM EST

Really, we can't blame big tobacco for selling a product that people want to buy

Why not? I have never understood this line of reasoning, though I see it all the time. Tobacco companies are parasitic scum. I'm not advocating the criminalization of tobacco, just the incessant mocking, needling, insulting, and legal harrasment of tobacco company executives. If I owned a restaurant, for example, I wouldn't serve them. These corporations and the people behind them need to be marginalized to the point where they find some other way to make money, like gassing kittens at the animal shelter.

What do the kids want? They want people to stop smoking. Why is this so hard to understand? Why set up "ban smoking" straw men? Though you may not appreciate their message, unless you are a teenager (the age at which the majority of lifetime smokers pick up the habit) they aren't talking to you anyway.



--------------------------------------------------------------
This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
Death to the fidels!

[ Parent ]
I agree (5.00 / 2) (#44)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 10:04:37 AM EST

I agree that cigarette companies aren't nice people. They make an extremely dangerous, addictive, product. But if they didn't do it then someone else would. Until tobacco ceases to be a part of our culture, there will be demand for it. And where there is demand, there is a market. There will always be a market for tobacco until every last person quits smoking. There's nothing wrong with you telling the companies how you feel, after all, nobody forced them to go into business selling poison to kids.

We should never make the leap from "tobacco is bad," to "tobacco should be restricted." In the US, exorbitant taxes and the state lawsuit settlement have more than doubled prices - yet people still buy cigarettes. Restricting the market is no way to convince people not to smoke. In addition, heavy-handed public smoking bans restrict people's civil liberties. I'm all for people speaking out against tobacco, I'm just concerned that it will probably lead to more violations of smokers' rights.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]

Thorny issue... (4.66 / 3) (#45)
by fn0rd on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 10:14:03 AM EST

heavy-handed public smoking bans restrict people's civil liberties

The problem is, I think I have a right to breathe uncontaminated air in a restaurant or bar. Who's rights take precedence? Since there can be no claim on the part of the smoker that being prohibited from smoking near me causes the smoker any quantifiable damage, while I could claim them reverse, I'd say my rights trump the smoker's. Now, in the case of San Francisco, where people can be prohibited from smoking in their own apartments, I think that's going a bit too far.

--------------------------------------------------------------
This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
Death to the fidels!

[ Parent ]

No (4.00 / 1) (#46)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 10:28:42 AM EST

Secondhand smoke bans have gone too far - such as all-out bans of smoking in restaurants and bars. In my town there is a total smoking ban - meaning you can't smoke at all in a restaurant or bar. You can't drink a beer, smoke a cigarette, and listen to some good music! When you are restricting part of the culture, I think it ceases to be a public health issue and it becomes a civil liberty issue. If enough patrons were in favor of smoking bans, we wouldn't need misguided laws like this one. Bars are under no obligation to allow smoking - if people actually wanted a smoking ban, there would be voluntarily smoke-free bars.

However, I wasn't really talking about secondhand smoke related bans.. I was more referring to broad public-smoking bans, such as outdoor smoking bans or bans of smoking in privately owned businesses. The government should never dictate what you can or can't do in a privately owned area, as long as it hurts nobody but yourself. Yes, smoke in a private business could harm other workers or patrons.. but your freedom is more important. They can always take their business elsewhere. Outdoor smoking bans are just absurd - it's social engineering, plain and simple. I view these bans as unconstitutional restrictions on our essential freedoms.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]

Well, if that's how you define freedom... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by fn0rd on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 10:44:47 AM EST

Yes, smoke in a private business could harm other workers or patrons.. but your freedom is more important. They can always take their business elsewhere

What's wrong with this statement? Try looking at it this way: "Yes, firing pistols in a private business could harm other workers or patrons.. but your freedom is more important. They can always take their business elsewhere"

If I have to take my business elsewhere to avoid toxic smoke, my freedoms have been restricted. As far as I know, all the statewide public smoking bans have been referendums, like the one in CA, and the one being proposed in RI right now. If the majority of voters considers public smoking to be a nuisance, then they do have a right to ban it. If not, then I have a right to go to the club where your favorite bad is playing and shout into your ear continually while they are on stage. I've been to lots of shows in LA where the no smoking law was in effect, and people really didn't seem to mind. Now, I will agree that smoking outside should be protected, though not right at the entrance of a public building.



--------------------------------------------------------------
This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
Death to the fidels!

[ Parent ]
You don't have a right to buy from a business... (2.33 / 3) (#48)
by ragabr on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 10:54:25 AM EST

anyway, so having the choice to go there or not depending on whether they allow smoking isn't violating your rights, fuckwit.

-------
And my tongue would be made of chocolate. Mmmmm. Chocolate.
-rusty
[ Parent ]
Who said anything about rights? (none / 0) (#49)
by fn0rd on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 10:58:22 AM EST

I said my freedoms would be restricted. And why call me a fuckwit? If you can't make a cogent argument without resorting to insults and straw men, perhaps you should hang out here.

--------------------------------------------------------------
This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
Death to the fidels!

[ Parent ]
Right. (4.00 / 1) (#55)
by DarkZero on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 12:35:48 PM EST

And I suppose you don't consider equating exposing people to second hand smoke and shooting them with a pistol a "straw man"?

Also, "rights" and "freedoms" are synonymous. While you're there, you might want to switch over to the dictionary and look up that term that you're overusing. Replacing a word with its direct synonym is not a "straw man".

[ Parent ]
No, I call it an analogy. (none / 0) (#59)
by fn0rd on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:35:51 PM EST

And, while "rights" and "freedoms" can be synonomous, their meanings do not totally overlap each other. I did as you suggested, and here's what I came up with:

right n.

...



6.
  • a.Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature.
  • b.Something, especially humane treatment, claimed to be due to animals by moral principle.
  • freedom n.

    ...



    1. The condition of being free of restraints.

    2. Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.

    3.
  • a. Political independence.
  • b. Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty: freedom of assembly.


  • 4. Exemption from an unpleasant or onerous condition: freedom from want.

    5. The capacity to exercise choice; free will: We have the freedom to do as we please all afternoon.

    6. Ease or facility of movement: loose sports clothing, giving the wearer freedom.

    7. Frankness or boldness; lack of modesty or reserve: the new freedom in movies and novels.

    8.
  • a. The right to unrestricted use; full access: was given the freedom of their research facilities.
  • b. The right of enjoying all of the privileges of membership or citizenship: the freedom of the city.
  • So there we have it. In my post, I was using the word "freedom" in a way that connotes both sense 1. and sense 4. (and maybe a smidgen of sense 5.) in the definition given above. Clearly, I did not mean sense 8. (which refers to rights), since it would be absurd to say that I have a reasonable expectation of being legally denied access to a bar or restaurant on the basis of my status as a non-smoker. I have never been restricted by law of going anywhere because I don't smoke, and don't like to be exposed to cigarette smoke. While one cannot refer to one's rights without meaning one's freedoms, one can certainly refer to one's freedoms without meaning one's rights. Telling me I don't have a right to patronize a business is entirely correct, but misses the point. Telling me I still have the freedom to patronize a business when the atmosphere contained therein is poisonous to me is ridiculous. I also have the freedom to walk on the surface of the moon without a space suit by that logic.

    --------------------------------------------------------------
    This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
    Death to the fidels!

    [ Parent ]

    And tell me... (none / 0) (#92)
    by ragabr on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 04:31:32 PM EST

    why I should get a shit about your "freedoms" if they're not a right?

    -------
    And my tongue would be made of chocolate. Mmmmm. Chocolate.
    -rusty
    [ Parent ]
    Perhaps (none / 0) (#51)
    by CaptainSuperBoy on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 11:43:52 AM EST

    If the majority of voters considers public smoking to be a nuisance, then they do have a right to ban it.

    I'm not sure about this. I have faith in the democratic process, but all this means to me is that we don't respect our freedoms enough. It saddens me how willingly people will give up freedoms in the name of public health or national security.

    I can tell you how it is in my town (Amherst, MA) though. The two big populations here are the college kids, and the 50+ crowd. Now, you can guess which crowd voices its opinion at the town meetings. Extra points if you guess that the bars cater mostly to the other crowd. So, we have a situation where the old people (in constant resentment of the college kids) make the rules due to apathy on the part of students. I actually don't remember whether the smoking ban was a referendum or a town meeting vote, but it was basically imposed by one group onto another group.

    It's sad, because they did go about it in the right way - this is an issue that should be handled at the lowest possible level (town ordinance). There is absolutely no need for a state or (gasp) federal law dictating smoking rules. What failed here was the democratic process - I think if there was more opposition from the college crowd, the ban wouldn't have passed.

    If not, then I have a right to go to the club where your favorite bad is playing and shout into your ear continually while they are on stage.

    You made a jump there, from government-imposed restrictions to business-imposed restrictions. I am against one and in favor of the other. If you shouted at me enough, I would ask the bouncers to remove you. If you continued, it would probably be harassment - which I believe should stay a crime. If the bar wanted to ban smoking, that would be fine with me - it's only when government sticks its face where it doesn't belong that I object. I can't see smoking as constituting harassment, or assault, or any other act that causes harm to others. I am actually torn on the civil rights act, which says that businesses can't discriminate based on race.. I don't know how I feel about that one.

    What I've said is basically the standard platform for Libertarians arguing civil liberties.. you'll hear it echoed in many other arguments. While Libertarians may disagree on other points, personal freedom is the most central and universally agreed on aspect of the party platform.

    I've been to lots of shows in LA where the no smoking law was in effect, and people really didn't seem to mind.

    Which is a shame. If more people cared about their own rights, we might not be in this corporate-run police state. I think those people may have cared at some point, they have just given up due to an overwhelming feeling that the system cannot be changed.

    --
    jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
    [ Parent ]

    That's where we disagree, really.... (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by fn0rd on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:21:55 PM EST

    I can't see smoking as constituting harassment, or assault, or any other act that causes harm to others.

    And I can. Second hand smoke is an assault, to my mind. If I start burning some other toxic, foul smelling substance in proximity to you at a bar, in a restaurant, or whatever, then I am assaulting you. As far as me shouting in your ear being harrasment after a certain point (given that the intervention of the bouncers never occurs, perhaps they don't care?), I'd have to agree with you. Your befouling the only air that I have available to breathe in a public space is equally harrasment. If cigarettes were just coming on the market today, rather than being an entreched part of our culture, you'd probably agree with me.

    --------------------------------------------------------------
    This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
    Death to the fidels!

    [ Parent ]

    I think we agree (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by CaptainSuperBoy on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 02:49:44 PM EST

    I think we agree on this.. we both agree that you should be able to go to a bar without being exposed to smoke. I just say that this shouldn't be dictated by law, but by the bar - after all, you said that people don't mind smoking bans, so there should be a market for smoke-free hangouts. Right? We don't need a law.

    If cigarettes were just coming on the market today, rather than being an entreched part of our culture, you'd probably agree with me

    Well, there's an example that really lends itself to this discussion: cellphones. I think it's very obnoxious when people blab away on their phone while they're at a bar or a restaurant. It is distracting and rude to other patrons, ruining their experience. Cellphones are also very new, so I think they fit your point. I totally support restaurants that ban their use - there are even places that scramble radio waves so people won't get a signal. But like cigarettes, I feel that if I wanted to start a restaurant or bar exclusively for people who would blab on their phone all night, no law should prevent me from doing so.

    --
    jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
    [ Parent ]

    Cellphones aren't poisonous, just obnoxious... (none / 0) (#82)
    by fn0rd on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 08:39:31 AM EST

    ...and as far as I know you don't have a right to be annoyed. Since you're coming from a Libertarian angle, maybe this old saw will help explain what I'm getting at:

    $saw = "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose."

    $saw=~ s/swing/blow/g;
    $saw=~ s/fist/smoke/g;
    $saw=~ s/nose/lungs/g;

    I'm sure you wouldn't argue that nose punching is legal in a bar, just because it's ok with the owner.



    --------------------------------------------------------------
    This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
    Death to the fidels!

    [ Parent ]
    Majority (none / 0) (#87)
    by CaptainSuperBoy on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 09:50:09 AM EST

    I'm sure you wouldn't argue that nose punching is legal in a bar, just because it's ok with the owner.

    What if the majority of patrons didn't mind getting punched in the nose, yet it was made illegal anyway? What about a bar that catered exclusively to nose-punchers, with the expectation that if you went there you'd get punched in the nose sooner or later? Would that still be illegal?

    --
    jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
    [ Parent ]

    Yup. (none / 0) (#88)
    by fn0rd on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 10:34:13 AM EST

    Assault is assault. Whether or not you could sue for damages is another question. If you make it a private club (membership required, signature on a contract, etc.), then perhaps you have an out, but I'm not really sure about that, either. I hate slippery slope arguments, but it's easy to see that this line of reasoning allows for killing or raping in a club because the majority patrons don't mind being killed or raped. What if I walk into your bar (the purpose of which is to sell drinks, after all, not provide opportunities for nose punchers to practice their hobby), and I make the reasonable assumption that laws of assault apply within. If I get punched in the nose, do I have legal recourse to have the puncher arrested? I'd say I sure as hell do.

    --------------------------------------------------------------
    This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
    Death to the fidels!

    [ Parent ]
    Agree to disagree? (none / 0) (#89)
    by CaptainSuperBoy on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 10:57:36 AM EST

    I've enjoyed the argument but I think it's time to take this horse to the glue factory.. agree to disagree. Thanks for being civil. Let's see.. we have a hypothetical bar, where the bouncers don't care, smoking may or may not be allowed, and people go there to punch each other in the face. What was this article about again? :)

    --
    jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
    [ Parent ]
    Hell I did that a while ago ;)[nt] (none / 0) (#90)
    by fn0rd on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 11:17:57 AM EST



    --------------------------------------------------------------
    This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
    Death to the fidels!

    [ Parent ]
    Amherst (none / 0) (#69)
    by Woundweavr on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 04:15:04 PM EST

    Yeah, but I was one of the people living in Amherst, I'd be doing everything in my power to reduce how much the Zoo students (and to a lesser extend the Amherst students) disrupted my life. I can remember feeling sorry for the locals whenever I walked between Orchard Hill and the center. A disproportinate amount of ppl at UM-A are out of control with alcohol and such, and even moreso I'm sure in the bars than in the rest of the town (but not as much as the dorms). From my experience I couldn't blame them if they built a 40 foot wall between the campus and the rest of town.

    Plus if theoretically students all (or a similar %) did vote or attended meetings the students would own that town. There might be a smoking ban but the students also managed to pass that pot referendum two years back. There's like 20k students at UMass who only live there 7 or 8 months a year for 4 or 5 years that as a group would control the laws of the town over the ~15-20k who live there year round as their real homes.

    [ Parent ]

    In between (none / 0) (#72)
    by CaptainSuperBoy on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 04:55:27 PM EST

    I'd say I'm in between college student and real town resident.. I dropped out of UMass and I still live here, but I basically hang out with the college crowd. I do understand the townies' problems with students - noise violations, vandalism, drinking.. but I think any population deserves representation. Repressing the college students is just catering to the townies' wishes.. that's as bad as allowing the students to run rampant all across town, affecting the townies' lives.

    People get a little crazy on weekends, that's to be expected. It's not such a bad thing, typical of any college town. I definitely disagree that there are more alcoholics here and I have no idea what that has to do with smoking in bars either. I thought the pot thing was great, even though it didn't change any laws. The UMass Cannabis Reform Coalition really worked hard on that one. I am glad to be living in such a progressive area, even with the contention between town people and students.

    --
    jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
    [ Parent ]

    firing pistols in a place of business.... (none / 0) (#77)
    by rantweasel on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 08:01:25 PM EST

    Well, they've got a nifty tour of the firing range at the J Edgar Hoover Building in DC, forensic examiners test fire guns with some regularity, and I'm sure that there's an indoor range in a city near you... Why should there be a law against firing guns in a place of business? There are laws against murder, assault, property damage, etc. If you commit a crime with a gun, you should be arrested. By why criminalize firing a gun in a place of business when some businesses legitimately need to fire guns in the workplace and there are already laws against misbehaving with a gun?

    mathias

    [ Parent ]
    cute (none / 0) (#83)
    by fn0rd on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 08:41:06 AM EST

    Firing guns at the firing range is good. Firing guns at the bar is bad. :)

    --------------------------------------------------------------
    This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
    Death to the fidels!

    [ Parent ]
    That's why they call me Captain Pedantic (nt) (none / 0) (#93)
    by rantweasel on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 06:12:40 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Freedom of Movement vs. Freedom of Property. (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Count Zero on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 01:48:15 AM EST

    Wow, I'm going to sound like such a libertarian here, but this is one place where I agree with them.

    If I have to take my business elsewhere to avoid toxic smoke, my freedoms have been restricted.

    Your freedoms are restricted every day by private property rights. You don't have the freedom to come into my house without my permission, or my place of buisness without my permission. This is definitly a restriction on your freedom but (I believe) a necessary one for society to function.

    Say I own a house. In my house, I choose to smoke. If you enter my house, you have no right to make me stop smoking because you are here. It is my private property, and if I want to allow smoking within its confines, I am allowed.

    Now, say I own a business. Just like my house, it is my private property. Any law which says I cannot allow smoking within my property is restricting my property rights. Yes, the fact that smoking occurs there is a restriction on your freedom of movement into my business, but the very nature of private property is already restricting you. You can't shop at my business when it is closed, you can't even enter if I don't want you to. If I decide I don't like you and tell you to leave, you better, or I can have you arrested for tresspassing. Your Freedom of movement is superceeded by my private property rights.

    Note that public smoking bans are another arguement. You can make a much better case for them than for bans that affect buisnesses, which are private property.

    I know of no rights system which presupposes absolute freedom of movement. It is (I hope) obvious why such a system would lead to an unworkable society.

    Besides, free market solutions *do* work here. My city has no public smoking bans. Yet, there are restaurants where there are no "smoking sections", and a pool hall I know of which does not allow smoking either. Smokers don't patronize these places, but non-smokers do, and these buisnesses are able to make good money catering to this market.




    [ Parent ]
    freedoms vs. rights again... (none / 0) (#84)
    by fn0rd on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 08:54:24 AM EST

    You don't have the freedom to come into my house without my permission, or my place of buisness without my permission

    This is silly. Of course I do! I don't have the right to, but I certainly have the freedom to, that is if it is physically possible to do so. And though I see what you're getting at, you can't equivalize the two cases. When was the last time you got the owner's permission to go to the supermarket before stepping inside? I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and say never. If you're open for business to the public, the public has permission to go on your property. It is up to you to revoke your permission from someone if you see fit.

    Now, say I own a business. Just like my house, it is my private property. Any law which says I cannot allow smoking within my property is restricting my property rights.

    Perhaps you'd like to come to my murder club, where patrons can, for a modest fee, get together and murder each other. Any law which says I cannot allow murder within my property is restricting my property rights, you see. Yes I'm being hyperbolic, but the fact is exposing people in a place of business to second hand smoke is poisoning them. A place of business is not like a home, it is quasi-public if it is a store, restaurant, bar, or the like, in other words a private institution which does not require a membership. If you want to open a private smoker's club, I'd say go for it. It's much easier to obtain liquor licenses in most municipalities for a private club.

    --------------------------------------------------------------
    This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
    Death to the fidels!

    [ Parent ]

    I have said this before (3.50 / 2) (#57)
    by krek on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:18:27 PM EST

    If you agree to stop driving your car everywhere, then maybe I will stop smoking my cigs. Automobile Exhaust probably has smore nasties in it than cigarette smoke too (I do not know for sure), and they seriously pollute the air and my lungs. Plus, I do not believe that cigarettes contribute in any way to skin cancer, cars do.

    [ Parent ]
    No (4.50 / 2) (#67)
    by vectro on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 04:07:38 PM EST

    Cigarette smoke contains tar and, well, smoke -- not to mention a variety of other pleasant toxins. These chemicals accumulate in your lungs over time, slowly impeding your ability to breathe and eventually stimulating cancer.

    The exhaust from modern internal combustion engines, on the other hand, has as its most dangerous chemical carbon monoxide. Your body treats carbon monoxide as oxygen, but can't use it in respiration -- thus the carbon monoxide drives out the oxygen and you suffocate. Carbon monoxide has no cumulative effects and no severe effects even at relatively high dosages, especially in comparison to cigarette smoke.

    “The problem with that definition is just that it's bullshit.” -- localroger
    [ Parent ]
    Carbon monoxide (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by katie on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 06:21:44 AM EST

    Actually, CO binds to haemoglobin in the same way that O2 does in your lungs but then can't be unbound - so breathing in CO removes functionality from your oxygen transport system. Since red blood cells are replaced after a few weeks anyway, this gets fixed over time. It's only high doses that are harmful: people who kill themselves with car exhaust die from CO poisoning.

    Cigarette smoke contains very high concentrations of CO as well.

    Car exhausts also nitrous oxides - caused by O2 and N2 in the air reacting on hot surfaces. These produce acids when dissolved: in rainwater or the fluids in your lungs. These are largely removed by cat converters nowadays. The most hazardous components of car exhausts are hydrocarbons - these result when the engine isn't burning all it's fuel properly. As EMUs get better, this happens less. Hydrocarbons are carcingenic.

    It's estimated (by one of the clean air campaigns) that around 100,000 people die in the UK from either primary or secondary air pollution illnesses. That's about half the number killed by smoking.


    [ Parent ]
    market (none / 0) (#74)
    by majubma on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 05:39:59 PM EST

    The problem is, I think I have a right to breathe uncontaminated air in a restaurant or bar.

    So don't patronize bars and restaraunts that allow smoking.


    --Thaddeus Q. Thaddelonium, the most crookedest octopus lawyer in the West.
    [ Parent ]

    There aren't any (bars that is)... (none / 0) (#85)
    by fn0rd on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 08:59:35 AM EST

    ...that don't allow smoking. I have to subject myself to unwarranted assault to step into a bar in my state and watch a band. Say I go to a bar and some skinheads attack me, but the management refuses to do anything about it (it's happened). Are they on the side of the law, now, just because some bar owner thinks it's ok? I have a reasonable assumption that going to a bar or a restaurant does not require that I be assaulted.

    --------------------------------------------------------------
    This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
    Death to the fidels!

    [ Parent ]
    What they want (4.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Fon2d2 on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 09:38:40 AM EST

    is something to rebel against. And that's really about the crux of it as far as I can tell. And that's why it annoys the shit out of me especially considering how awful their ads are and how much money they're getting for all of this.

    [ Parent ]
    What, are you nuts? (4.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Jman1 on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 11:56:11 AM EST

    "Really, we can't blame big tobacco for selling a product that people want to buy."

    Why the hell not?? They're knowingly selling a product that actually KILLS people, with very little upside. Now, I don't think selling cigarettes should be illegal, but I do think that anyone who does sell and market them is a terrible human being. (Okay, maybe they have other good qualities, but that aspect of their lives is evil.)

    Would you want to make your living by killing people? Think about that mindset.

    [ Parent ]
    Put in in perspective (4.66 / 3) (#53)
    by dark on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 12:15:03 PM EST

    I bet that french fries and hamburgers kill more people than cigarettes do. Are burger flippers evil? (for other than the obvious reasons). What about people who sell coffee? Or chocolate? Chocolate is addictive (caffeine) and harmful (fats & sugars).

    [ Parent ]
    Good point... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by defeated on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 03:33:07 PM EST

    Obesity is the second cause of death among Americans, and NO ONE has a problem with fast food chains selling superwhatahumungabiggiesized meals o' grease. The fiends even market this stuff for KIDS in the form of Happy Meals and Kids Meals, etc. Fast food tv commercials are squarely aimed at kids; I'm told they even get advertising in public schools, which is downright sickening.

    [ Parent ]
    Not true... (none / 0) (#86)
    by fn0rd on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 09:16:59 AM EST

    I have a problem with it. :-)

    --------------------------------------------------------------
    This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
    Death to the fidels!

    [ Parent ]
    Misconception (4.33 / 3) (#54)
    by DarkZero on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 12:26:31 PM EST

    They don't want smoking to be made illegal. They just want to "educate" teenagers about smoking because they have such a low opinion of them that they actually think that teenagers don't understand the very explicit health warning on the side of every package of cigarettes. These people are actually stupid enough to think that people smoke because they don't know that cigarettes are lethal drugs, instead of because they want to.

    I can see why you would leap to the conclusion that they want to ban cigarettes. The only other alternative explanation is so unbelievably stupid that it's hard to imagine that such people exist. Just remind yourself that these are people that regularly appear on television and have an eight million dollar budget funded by their state government. It gets a little more believable when you take that into account.

    [ Parent ]
    Because they want to... (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by fn0rd on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 02:01:38 PM EST

    Of course people smoke because they want to. Have any other pearls of wisdon to share with us, like "People don't squeeze their nuts in a vice not because they know it will prevent them from having children, but because it hurts"? Thank you Dr. Obvious.

    "Because they want to" begs the question "Why?". Why do kids start smoking? What's the attraction? There is no benefit from the activity that I can determine, so they are probably doing it because of social pressures, which have been demonstrated time and time again to induce irrational behavior in people. How do you fight this social pressure? Make as many people as you can as anti-smoking as you can make them, especially of that age group. If enough of your peers have the attitude that only a grade-A dumbass smokes cigarettes, you're going to be much less likely to start, I would guess. Little warnings on the packs don't make teenagers think about how stupid smoking is, and they certainly don't start conversations about it. These commercials just might.

    --------------------------------------------------------------
    This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
    Death to the fidels!

    [ Parent ]

    Health Warnings (4.66 / 3) (#68)
    by DarkZero on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 04:09:39 PM EST

    I haven't seen Target Market's commercials specifically, but I have seen the national ones, such as TheTruth.com's. What you're describing is a decent idea, but no one that I've seen is using it. The two most prominent commercials from TheTruth.com are a man dressed as a rat holding up a sign about the contents of cigarettes and a bunch of planes flying over a beach with streamers listing the contents of cigarettes attached to them. At least half of the others don't even mention cigarettes at all, but instead just their website, which is a very old marketing trick that I doubt has any effectiveness any more.

    So really, these people aren't even trying to make cigarettes look "uncool". They're just listing the ingredients of cigarettes, which are, as far as I know, listed right there on the package like they are in every other food/drink/drug/etc. And, of course, they're lethal when taken over a period of years... but that's common knowledge. It's probably the most common knowledge in the United States today. Airing anti-smoking commercials that do nothing but list the contents of cigarettes on (I shit you not...) every commercial break during any prime time or syndicated show that teenagers might be watching is nothing but a waste of federal money. Money which could be used for cancer research, helping smoking addicts quit, or just on more effective advertising.

    Anti-smoking public service announcements are fine, as long as they actually get a message, ANY message, across to the viewer. These commercials certainly aren't doing that, and from the looks of it, Target Market isn't doing any better.

    [ Parent ]
    Then you don't know much. (none / 0) (#81)
    by fn0rd on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 08:25:28 AM EST

    They're just listing the ingredients of cigarettes, which are, as far as I know, listed right there on the package like they are in every other food/drink/drug/etc

    Well, this would be nice, but it's just not the case. While you can assume there's tobacco in there, there isn't even any indication that tobacco is present in cigarettes on the boxes most cigarettes come in. There is no ingredient list because tobacco isn't classified as a food or drug, so ingredient disclosure laws don't apply. Alcoholic drinks for whatever reason are also not required to disclose their ingredients. Honestly, I had no idea there was arsenic in cigarette smoke before I saw the 'rat' commercial. And I don't even rememeber all the crap there was in the airplane banner commerical, but I know none of it has ever been labeled on a pack of smokes, and none of it is stuff I want to breathe. Besides, the idea isn't to make smoking uncool (have you ever seen an ad campaign that was really trying to be 'cool' not fail miserably?), it's to encourage discussion. It seems to be working here, doesn't it?

    --------------------------------------------------------------
    This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
    Death to the fidels!

    [ Parent ]

    The Tobacco Settlement Scam (4.00 / 6) (#31)
    by Bad Harmony on Tue Apr 23, 2002 at 10:09:58 PM EST

    The lawyers got rich, very rich. State politicians got a new slush fund. The tobacco companies jacked up the price of cigarettes to pay for the settlement. Cigarette smokers, who are more likely to be low-income and a member of a minority group, are the ones who are footing the bill for this travesty. How much of this money is going to be spent on projects beneficial to the health and welfare of smokers?

    5440' or Fight!

    okay... (2.00 / 3) (#33)
    by MMcP on Tue Apr 23, 2002 at 11:38:51 PM EST

    Cigarette smokers, who are more likely to be low-income and a member of a minority group, are the ones who are footing the bill for this travesty.


    Forgive me if I doubt this statement.

    [ Parent ]
    Settlement (4.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Bad Harmony on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 12:50:37 AM EST

    Where do you think the money comes from?

    5440' or Fight!
    [ Parent ]

    Low income (none / 0) (#63)
    by CaptainSuperBoy on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 02:59:28 PM EST

    I think she/he meant, that you didn't back up your claim that people with low income/minorities are disproportionate cigarette smokers.

    This all depends on HOW you think cigarettes should be taxed. If you think that smokers should foot the bill for education and health care themselves, it makes sense to put tax on each pack. But never forget that it IS a regressive tax - that is, it takes more of a percentage of poor people's income than rich people's. This is because people don't usually smoke proportionally to their income. If I make $15,000/year and smoke 2 packs a day, that doesn't mean that someone making $150,000 smokes 20 packs a day.. regressive taxation is inherent in excise and consumption based taxes. We all use (more or less) the same amount of gasoline, so gasoline taxes are regressive in nature.

    In contrast, another way to repair the economic damage of cigarettes would be to tax people in a non-regressive manner. This means rich people, possibly non-smokers, would still be paying for these education campaigns. But, the price for a pack would be lower and poor people would be losing a less disproportionate percentage of their income to excise taxes.

    As for whether low income and minorities actually smoke more cigarettes? Well, you really should back that claim up. I tend to guess that they do, but I don't have any research behind that guess.

    --
    jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
    [ Parent ]

    Smoking Statistics (none / 0) (#73)
    by Bad Harmony on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 05:31:21 PM EST

    See the CDC's Tobacco Information and Prevention Source for information and statistics. I couldn't find a single document that summarized all of demographics of smoking. There was a Surgeon General's report on smoking and minorities in 1998. Smoking rates are inversely correlated with income and education. Some minorities, (American Indians, Alaska Natives, African Americans) smoke more, some (Hispanics, Asians, Pacific Islanders) smoke less.

    5440' or Fight!
    [ Parent ]

    You should do a story (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Fon2d2 on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 09:43:03 AM EST

    And not just a local politiking one. After all several states were involved in the settlement. Minnesota is just one example. I know other commercials (I think the TheTruth.com) are shown everywhere. By the way I hate those Truth commercials just as much. Renting planes to fly banners showing the ingredients of cigarettes. And weren't they throwing computers into some big tree grinder at one point? Yup, just as bad.

    [ Parent ]
    Health of smokers (1.50 / 2) (#76)
    by czth on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 07:51:21 PM EST

    How much of this money is going to be spent on projects beneficial to the health and welfare of smokers?

    The less the better. Let the dead bury their dead, and let the money be spent on saving those that yet live.

    Smoking is an individual choice - not random chance, not influenced by others (peer pressure really doesn't count, the final decision is individual). If you want to poison yourself, don't expect me to pay to make you well. Let smokers help themselves first.

    czth

    [ Parent ]

    Convince me... (4.00 / 1) (#36)
    by ti dave on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 03:47:51 AM EST

    Convince me that the items purchased are in fact, not suitable for the mission of Target Market.

    Seriously, you're making an assumption that we all should agree with you that money is being wasted, and you haven't addressed why you believe it's wasteful.


    "If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

    Thank-you for some light (4.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Zara2 on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 11:34:06 AM EST

    A lot of people are complaining that this is a local issue only. However, all of us have these same kind of organizations in thier local town all wasting the same amount of taxpayers (ciggerette tax or not) money. Here in Texas we have the Truth campain which is, quite frankly, bullox. They use bad propagandic advertisements on prime-time tv that are effectively paid for by people who smoke in the first place. Now I am all for the education of smokers on the bad effects of thier habit (I quit smoking in the last year and can give you a personal account thereof) but this is just pissing money down the drain and needs to be adressed. I would so rather see this money go directly to schools to pay for a nicotine education class. Hell, any school that I know would just adore to get the money that it takes to air just one of these ads during prime-time TV, even with thier "public service discount"

    Truth campaign (none / 0) (#64)
    by afree87 on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 03:26:45 PM EST

    I believe that's nationwide. I personally like it; they're probably wasting a good percent of their money, but their magazine ads are so widespread that they serve as a constant reminder to smokers and prospective smokers everywhere.
    --
    Ha... yeah.
    [ Parent ]
    Heh heh. "Reminder". (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by DarkZero on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 03:46:54 PM EST

    As TheTruth.com's target audience, I can tell you that I've learned only two things from their ad campaign:

    1) Whoever does the marketing for TheTruth.com thinks that teenagers are so stupid that they aren't aware of the fact that smoking kills people, despite this fact's media saturation and the presence of a very clear warning on every package of cigarettes.

    2) Phillip Morris and virtually every corporation on the Earth are actually less insulting and condescending than federally funded pseudo-activists.

    Oh, and by the way, they're not wasting THEIR money. They're wasting OUR money.



    [ Parent ]
    Why so many tobacco postings today? (none / 0) (#70)
    by opendna on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 04:41:24 PM EST

    I'm just curious, you understand, but why are there so many tobacco postings today?

    Did some consumer choice group announce a new campaign or something?


    This was the first (none / 0) (#79)
    by DarkZero on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 04:30:18 AM EST

    It started with this article. Then, much like what happened with the personal finance articles, someone decided that they would rather have their views posted in an article on the front page than in a comment among sixty other comments. From there, it started getting REALLY asinine when someone else decided that they would rather write an article in response to the new article rather than just write a comment, which is what they're supposed to do.

    How those other two pieces of crap got voted up, I have no idea.

    [ Parent ]
    Target Market needs to slim the fat | 93 comments (78 topical, 15 editorial, 0 hidden)
    Display: Sort:

    kuro5hin.org

    [XML]
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
    See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
    Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
    Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
    My heart's the long stairs.

    Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!