One of the big stories in this part of the world today is the big tobacco companies' desire to revisit the ban on the advertising of cigarettes.
On the surface, this seems like a no-brainer: How can you advertise something that has been so clearly proven to be deadly? One of the problems that arises is the hypocrisy of the government for enforcing this ban on the one hand and then raking in all the cigarette tax revenue on the other. If they really wanted to put an end to smoking they would ban cigarettes altogether.
But beyond the apparent simplicity (and possible naivete) of that argument lies a bigger question. While the tobacco companies claim they don't want to market to young people, isn't it the young who would be most influenced by such campaigns? Clearly seasoned smokers have no need for conversion and it's probably unlikely that older non-smokers will suddenly change their weedless ways.
An even bigger question is that of the need for cigarette advertising in the first place. Is there anyone out there who doesn't know about cigarettes? And would any potential customer believe advertising claims that one cigarette is smoother or milder or sexier than another? As a life-long non-smoker I must confess my ignorance on this matter but I would assume that cigarette preference was just spread by word of mouth (literally), or in the case of the budding smoker, defined by availability.
While I feel for people who are addicted to tobacco (I have no experience with an addiction so powerful), I would welcome the day when smoking was no longer a factor in our daily lives. The reality is that this day will be a long time coming. But in the mean time, do we really need to foster the promotion of an already powerfully seductive habit...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Thank you Monkey for your wise words. Monkys and Kitties are so much wiser than people because they don't smoke.
Post a Comment