The Shotgun Blog
« David Pretlove story continues to develop | Main | Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don't »
Friday, July 20, 2007
Anti-smoking ads backfire
A U.S. study shows that anti-smoking ads actually make teens more likely to smoke, as a backlash against being told what to do by the government.
When so much of society goes along robotically with the anti-smoking, anti-energy, anti-fun agenda, it's refreshing to be reminded that young people are wired to criticize the pap that many of the rest of us have begun to accept as conventional wisdom.
Posted by Ezra Levant on July 20, 2007 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22305/20214560
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Anti-smoking ads backfire:
Comments
I disagree. Smokers are addicts not freedom fighters. I began to smoke because of peer pressure when I joined the RCAF in 1961. Out of 95 recruits on my course, only two did not smoke and everybody made fun of us. I quit 25 years ago not because of government pressure but because I was scared for my health.
I support any anti-smoking campaign, from the government or from private groups.
Posted by: andré | 20-Jul-07 12:16:03 PM
Similar to how the youth rebel against abstinence-only sex ed by having sex, but because of the abstinence-only education do so without the tools to mitigate harm as much as possible?
Posted by: Voice of Reason | 20-Jul-07 12:25:20 PM
I think that the ads, such as the pictures of disgusting diseases on the outside of cigarette packages is like the drip drip drip of reason, that eventually wears through the stone of pig-headedness and addiction, eventually helping people who smoke to make the decision to quit.
Posted by: DCM | 20-Jul-07 1:25:09 PM
...well tell a teen "no" and guess what happens.
As for RCAF andre', I was stationed up at Cold Lake, in HQ and remember walking through literal cloud banks at the 6' level with every desk having a funnel coming up from it joining this gross thing.
And no one thought it was dirty or unhealthy. Me I just hated going home everyday and smelling like a smokestack.
Posted by: tomax7 | 20-Jul-07 2:33:48 PM
Back in 1961 and for quite a few years after that, the federal government encouraged people, including young people to smoke. I remember that at Christmas, all members of the Armed Forces received a carton of Rothmans cigarettes.
I think that the government anti-smoking campaign is not conceived to appeal to youngsters. That is part of the problem. The other part, and I think much greater, is the influence of rockers and other "stars" who smoke their brains out in front of audiences full of adoring fans: teenagers. Another factor, probably the greatest: peer pressure.
Smoking has nothing to do with the government.... it is too easy to blame the government for all the ills of our society.
Posted by: andré | 20-Jul-07 2:44:08 PM
"it is too easy to blame the government for all the ills of our society."
Well, they are the cause of most of them, aren't they? Who else should we blame - the homeless?
Posted by: obc | 20-Jul-07 2:46:54 PM
shit happens....
Posted by: andré | 20-Jul-07 2:48:48 PM
Well, clearly, the solution is for the cigarette companies to advertise and promote smoking.
And teenagers, being teenagers, will quit smoking.
Ya, right.
There is some serious leg-pulling going on here.
Posted by: rockyt | 20-Jul-07 2:56:36 PM
Think of how much money the government rakes in from cigarette taxes. Estimating conservatively let's say 5 million packs of smokes are bought in Canada every day (15% of Canadians buy one pack a day, say). Let's say each pack is taxed 5 bucks, probably a lowball number...
That's $25 million a day, almost $10 billion a year, minimum. If the government ever banned smoking or drove it underground and lost the tax revenue, every non-smoking person in Canada would pay at least $300 bucks a year extra in taxes to make up the difference.
Add tobacco taxes to alcohol and gambling taxes and you get a government-monopolized trinity-of-vice hauling in close to 100 billion a year (I'm guessing). All in VOLUNTARY taxes.
Taxpayers tip: Quit smoking, drinking and gambling while encouraging others to smoke, drink and gamble.
Posted by: JP | 20-Jul-07 3:35:44 PM
It makes sense that "advertising" anything will tend to promote it. Think how much it would cost you if you wanted to purchase the media exposure for your product or service that these stupid "public service ads" cost!
Down here we have an incredibly stupid and very expensive and wasteful and counterproductive anti-drug "public service campaign" called the D.A.R.E. Program. I don't recall what the acronym DARE stands for, but the idea of getting children to avoid using drugs by DARING them, is just so incredibly stupid that only government could finance it. The slogan is: "DARE not to use drugs."
DARE came in with Bill Clinton.
Prior to that, Nancy Reagan was the spokeman for the analogous program which was: JUST SAY NO !
"JUST SAY NO" to drugs.
That was Reagan. Nearly perfect in every respect.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 20-Jul-07 3:44:36 PM
It doesn't really matter if teenagers decide to smoke. It's no one's business. It's their choice, their health. It also doesn't matter if they wind up in a waiting line for health care. Waiting in a line isn't costing anything, so what's the problem.
Remember now, it's no one else's business if someone decides to smoke. This is a non issue.
Posted by: John | 20-Jul-07 4:32:54 PM
What ever happened to live and let live? I always think of the Woody Allen movie when he goes to the future and everyone smokes and drinks because they found out the people in the present time were all wrong about it. A little tobacco smoke won't hurt you. Friggin nanny state, won't be long till we have summary executions for non-compliance with authorities. You! No seatbelt! Up against das wall!
Posted by: David | 20-Jul-07 4:59:37 PM
Well actually for those who wish total freedom, that comes with total responsibility. Smoke and bear the costs associated with that choice, avoid helmets while biking, and again, bear the costs of that choice on your own.
As long as the free person chooses to accept govt funded health care, then govt has a vested interest in preventing unhealthy choices simply to save costs.
When a smoker or a helmetless biker truly desires freedom, they are welcome to it, as long as they get private insurance riders to cover their costs if it ends up being an expensive health care problem.
The taxpayers ultimately get to say who does what with their dollars, or so it should be.
Posted by: canadian freedoms fan | 20-Jul-07 5:33:40 PM
JP wrote: Think of how much money the government rakes in from cigarette taxes. Estimating conservatively let's say 5 million packs of smokes are bought in Canada every day (15% of Canadians buy one pack a day, say). Let's say each pack is taxed 5 bucks, probably a lowball number...
I don't know what the Canadian numbers are but in the US 400 Billion cigarettes are sold each year. Are the smoking rates the same in Canada and the US?
Posted by: St Albion Parish News | 20-Jul-07 5:47:09 PM
"As long as the free person chooses to accept govt funded health care"
Like we have a choice in Canada!
Posted by: obc | 20-Jul-07 5:47:12 PM
I so wish we did have a choice.
Posted by: canadian freedoms fan | 20-Jul-07 6:02:17 PM
I've never understood the argument that government is the best method of providing health care and then turn around and blame the conservatives (in gov't) for not providing adequate health care.
Duh!
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 20-Jul-07 6:04:11 PM
Try these 2 links, then tell me that government health care is the utopian ideal Leftoids make it out to be!
Posted by: obc | 20-Jul-07 6:10:36 PM
St Albion,
I don't know the actual numbers, I'm just guessing. Non-smokers should be grateful for the huge cash infusion that smokers voluntarily bring to government treasuries. And surely people who die, say, in their sixties cost the health system less than people who die in their eighties.
Posted by: JP | 20-Jul-07 6:56:52 PM
. . . and don't forget the old age pension money that they forego with their deaths, too!
Posted by: obc | 20-Jul-07 7:02:08 PM
With so much burden upon us from government it is easy to get to the point where all we see in our fellow man is his "maintenance cost."
My relatives who lived fairly long, my Dad to age 81, a favorite uncle to 92, and even more favorite uncle to 84, each of these guys was terrific and valuable right until they died, and I wish they were all still alive.
Government is bad in every respect, but it even gets us to turn against one another.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 20-Jul-07 8:02:41 PM
In other news...
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/07/20/studentsmoking.html
Students are less likely to smoke if their high schools are near stores that sell high-priced cigarettes, have few in-store cigarette promotions and post health warnings, suggests a University of British Columbia-led study.
Posted by: Voice of Reason | 20-Jul-07 8:13:03 PM
VOR,
I found that this worked well for drug use as well. I noticed we didn't have many marijuana/hashish vending machines in my high school and as such, we never used such products.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 20-Jul-07 8:16:52 PM
And don't you ever make fun of the government or they might act like New Zealand:
"New Zealanders Decry Ban on Political Satire"
The vast majority of people in New Zealand are against a recent rule approved by lawmakers that bans using images captured inside Parliament to satirize, ridicule or denigrate lawmakers on broadcast and print media, according to a poll by TNS released by TV3. 71& of respondents disapprove of this measure.
Labour party leader Helen Clark has acted as New Zealand’s prime minister since December 1999. In the September 2005 ballot, Labour elected 50 lawmakers to the 121-seat House of Representatives, and assembled a coalition government with the Progressives. United Future and New Zealand First agreed to support the administration in confidence and supply votes for three years.
In June, New Zealand’s House of Representatives voted to institute new media rules, which in effect ban the use of images in a way that satirizes, ridicules or denigrates lawmakers. Breaches of these measures can be treated as contempt of Parliament, a charge that can result in imprisonment.
YUP - a charge that can result in imprisonment.
Chretien must be saying: "I shuda taut of dat!"
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/16541
Posted by: obc | 20-Jul-07 8:29:27 PM
"Labour party leader Helen Clark"
"a coalition government with the Progressives"
These are the folks who don't like to criticized just like Fidel Castro and many others in counties that enslave their people.
What they are doing is taking a giant step toward totalitarianism under the guise of a progressive and most sensitive caring government. Let no one's feelings be hurt again.
Good item OBC
Posted by: John | 20-Jul-07 9:42:13 PM
Thanks, John. Of course, CBC & CTV did not report this on their nightly news. LEFTOID media!
Posted by: obc | 20-Jul-07 9:47:08 PM
Anyone who thinks the government or their hired goons give a rats ass about anyones health is either a deluded fool or an idiot. Canada spends 120 billion a year on health care and all they can do is guarantee quality care or the autopsy is free. Does anyone realize how much money that is and where it actually goes?
Posted by: David | 20-Jul-07 11:09:48 PM
Socialists without a sense of humour. Who would'a thunk it.
Posted by: DML | 20-Jul-07 11:20:04 PM
Erza Levant: When so much of society goes along robotically with the anti-smoking, anti-energy, anti-fun agenda, it's refreshing to be reminded that young people are wired to criticize the pap that many of the rest of us have begun to accept as conventional wisdom.
Well Mr. Levant, last night CTV news gave us another revolting example of the anti-fun agenda of various levels of governments in Canada:
"The city of Ottawa recently voted to axe a program that distributes crack kits to addicts, a move some critics are calling "short-sighted" and "irresponsible" for fear other councils will follow suit. The "crack kits" include heat-resistant glass pipes, filters, condoms and other accessories to reduce the spread of disease.
Cities such as Vancouver, Victoria, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Guelph, Montreal and until recently, Ottawa, distribute the crack kits. But last week, Ottawa city council voted by a motion of 15 to 7 to cut the program, which will happen by the end of July.
Newly elected Ottawa Mayor Larry O'Brien had campaigned to end the program, which was introduced in April 2005. "I don't mind being the mayor of a city (that) draws a line in the sand -- this has got to stop," he said.
"Even the crack addicts themselves are laughing us. They're saying this does nothing to solve the health issues."
It's a move health activists are warning could repeat itself in other jurisdictions as city councils move away from harm-reduction philosophies toward a more American-style law-and-order justice. "That's even more scary to me,'' Diane Bailey, program director for the Mainline Needle Exchange in Halifax, told The Canadian Press. In June, a crack-kit initiative was cancelled in Nanaimo, B.C., and Winnipeg's program is also about to be axed.
The AIDS Committee of Ottawa and other health professionals say handing out free crack pipes may be controversial, but it's working.
"When we hand out crack pipes people are less likely to use any injection drugs with needles and needles are the most efficient way to transmit blood born disease because they go from one vein to another vein," said Michelle Ball of the AIDS Committee of Ottawa.
They say fewer needles are going out and fewer addicts on Ottawa streets are shooting drugs, even if more of them are smoking.
But Ottawa scrapped the issue after it became a municipal election issue. Coun. Rick Chiarelli, who brought forward the motion to mothball the program, has said the crack-kit program was sending the wrong message.
"It's one of the most ironic mixed messages a municipal government could send,'' he said last week. "It's just stupid. It's not the way you spend tax dollars.''
Still, health activists such as Greg MacLeod disagree. MacLeod has raised several hundred dollars on his own so volunteers can keep handing out the kits to addicts.
"I am not going to let it fail. If I have to personally stand on the street corner in downtown Ottawa and hand out safer inhalation kits, I am going to do it," he said.
The Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network said last week that the cancellation was a short-sighted and irresponsible move.
"The perception that this program somehow condoned or encouraged drug use is completely false," Deputy Director Richard Elliott said in a statement last week.
"When the city started this program, it was aiming to prevent the spread of infectious diseases. (Last week's) decision is a huge step backwards in terms of public health and human rights."
Well, as a small 'C'conservative, I absolutely agree with the mayor of Ottawa on this issue and I apply the same reasoning to this other "fun" activity: smoking. Our various levels of governments have a duty to warn citizens of the dangers of various activities, and I suspect that most Canadians expect them to do so.
Distributing crack pipes is a form of encouragement to drug use. Why not supply free samples of crack as well?
I am constantly amazed at the similarity between ultra-left and ultra-right types of tend to blame the government for everything. The end result, when these people get to impose the type of society they want on the rest of us is concentration/re-education camps.
Posted by: andré | 21-Jul-07 5:42:21 AM
Government has absolutely no business telling citizens whether or not to smoke, or how best to keep their kids from smoking.
Posted by: Joel K. | 23-Jul-07 2:52:33 AM
. . . nor should they be in the business of predicting Globull Warming:
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The 2007 hurricane season may be less severe than forecast due to cooler-than-expected water temperatures in the tropical Atlantic, private forecaster WSI Corp said on Tuesday.
The season will bring 14 named storms, of which six will become hurricanes and three will become major hurricanes, WSI said in its revised outlook. WSI had previously expected 15 named storms of which eight would become hurricanes and four would become major hurricanes.
Posted by: obc | 24-Jul-07 6:59:33 PM
The trouble with overblown expectations is that they rarely come true.
Posted by: set you free | 24-Jul-07 8:12:02 PM
I imagine that some of the ads against smoking go not work, because there are images of youth smoking--which is role-modelling.
What they need to see are images of very old people, smoking away, and then their bodies being carried away, or something like that--and then the images would not be role modelling youth smoking.
Posted by: Lady | 24-Jul-07 10:32:53 PM
Hello All,
I was reading around some of the posts here and I found interesting things that you guys talk about, I just made a blog about quitting smoking resources and ideas that you might want to check out.
If someone is interested in this topic just go to; http://endthehabitnow.blogspot.com and let me know what you think.
Thanks in advance.
Posted by: exsmoker | 26-Sep-07 12:45:33 AM
Post a comment