Tobacco Sponsorship Back In F1

[adrianjordan]

Obviously Philip Morris never stopped sponsorship of Ferrari and the red car's livery has reflected this more, or less, at various times and now they have their Mission Winnow logos front and centre on the Ferrari. This year we have BAT returning to the sport as well through Mclaren.

Now when you look at the respective companies' websites, they are full of vague sounding promises to improve tobacco products etc etc.

In a time when the NHS in England is encouraging smokers to move to vaping products as a way of reducing the harm of taking in nicotine, is there actually an argument for promoting these companies and their efforts to diversify?

I am assuming here that PMI and BAT are both spending heavily on products such as vaping and e-cigarettes as a way of retaining market share as habits change.

More to the point, is tobacco sponsorship really that much worse than alcohol or energy drinks full of chemicals?

I'm a paramedic and went to a 12 year old who had given themselves a life threatening cardiac arrhythmia through drinking too much of an energy drink the other day... The risks are very real from these drinks. I blame the parents thiugh for allowing the child to drink them.

Personally I feel that anyone should be allowed to sponsor sports and that society should take more responsibility for their own actions, rather than blaming sponsorship etc.

[wesley123]

More to the point, is tobacco sponsorship really that much worse than alcohol or energy drinks full of chemicals?

I think that in the case of smoking, it is also harmful to people who simply sit next to them. I don't get the negative effects of alcohol in my body by sitting next to someone who drinks alcohol.

I'm a paramedic and went to a 12 year old who had given themselves a life threatening cardiac arrhythmia through drinking too much of an energy drink the other day... The risks are very real from these drinks. I blame the parents thiugh for allowing the child to drink them.

Everything is dangerous if you take it too often, or not often enough. Its not exclusive to energy drinks.

[ScottB]

Either it’s banned, or it isn’t. These rather vague charities / foundations that don’t appear to do anything seem pretty suspect, and pretty much every article about them immediately talks about the cigarette brands behind them.

Philip Morris hasn’t continued to pump money into Ferrari because it feels like it, there is obviously a return from it. Same with BAT coming back. So yeah, either all tobacco companies should be banned in any form, or just let them come back. This nonsensical halfway ‘oh this M logo isn’t hinting at Marlboro, absolutely not’ approach insults intelligence.

[proteus]

More to the point, is tobacco sponsorship really that much worse than alcohol or energy drinks full of chemicals?

I think that in the case of smoking, it is also harmful to people who simply sit next to them. I don't get the negative effects of alcohol in my body by sitting next to someone who drinks alcohol.

I'm a paramedic and went to a 12 year old who had given themselves a life threatening cardiac arrhythmia through drinking too much of an energy drink the other day... The risks are very real from these drinks. I blame the parents thiugh for allowing the child to drink them.

Everything is dangerous if you take it too often, or not often enough. Its not exclusive to energy drinks.

Dont you think the people themself are the problem then?

[the EDGE]

I don’t have a problem with the colour of the money, I’m sure every sponsor up and down the grid has some sort of ethical dilemma attached to it.

Even F1 it’s self, visiting countries that support state sponsored murder, terrorism, torture and totalitarianism

So if you do have a moral objection or a consience I guess you really need to decide if F1 is the sport for you

Oh, and by the way, it’s a technical partnership, that’s all

[Big Tea]

I was sat on a plane infront of 3 kids that had been drinking 'energy drinks' in the lounge, and had taken a large size each on the plane with them.
I will leave out my opinion here, but just mention that if those 3 had been as dosed up in a car while 'mom' was driving, it would no way have been safe as she would not have a fraction of her attention on the road.

Depending on how you consider things, you can put a risk on anything.

Personally, I think tobacco advertising should be banned with no gray area and no work around, but I know others feel the same about Alcohol or gambling, so ... we have what we have

[strad]

I think that in the case of smoking, it is also harmful to people who simply sit next to them. I don't get the negative effects of alcohol in my body by sitting next to someone who drinks alcohol.

That's what the powers that be push but consider this. When toying with the idea of legalizing pot they put a few people in a room with a bunch of people smoking pot. Those test people when tested did not have any amount of THC in their systems afterward.
If the pot didn't transfer to the lungs of the non smokers why would one think that nicotine would?
Just something to think about.

[NathanOlder]

More to the point, is tobacco sponsorship really that much worse than alcohol or energy drinks full of chemicals?

I think that in the case of smoking, it is also harmful to people who simply sit next to them. I don't get the negative effects of alcohol in my body by sitting next to someone who drinks alcohol.

No, but look at the number of drunken offences, the number of people who cause trouble and break the law when drunk. That has a massive effect on other people.
And in the Uk the strain put on the NHS because of alcohol.

Personally I'd ban both(ban the sale of) .I use neither so wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

[Sieper]

I think that in the case of smoking, it is also harmful to people who simply sit next to them. I don't get the negative effects of alcohol in my body by sitting next to someone who drinks alcohol.

That's what the powers that be push but consider this. When toying with the idea of legalizing pot they put a few people in a room with a bunch of people smoking pot. Those test people when tested did not have any amount of THC in their systems afterward.
If the pot didn't transfer to the lungs of the non smokers why would one think that nicotine would?
Just something to think about.

It is not the nicotine that you worry about, it is the lung cancer inducing fumes of burnt tar and whatever crap is in these cancersticks. Advertisement for it is rightfully banned but somehow back now.

I personally also use neither, Luckily I gave my first package away (age 13) as it found it so gross. Occasionaly I do drink a beer, but can be in between months. Just for the atmosphere or If it is really hot after sports, otherwise I don’t enjoy it.

[adrianjordan]

More to the point, is tobacco sponsorship really that much worse than alcohol or energy drinks full of chemicals?

I think that in the case of smoking, it is also harmful to people who simply sit next to them. I don't get the negative effects of alcohol in my body by sitting next to someone who drinks alcohol.

Sorry, but we have a stupidly large number of road traffic accidents caused by alcohol, assaults with alcohol as a contributing factor and families destroyed by the death of a loved one due to alcohol.

I don't have statistics, but it would not surprise me if more peripheral harm is caused by alcohol than tobacco products these days.

[wesley123]

No, but look at the number of drunken offences, the number of people who cause trouble and break the law when drunk. That has a massive effect on other people.
And in the Uk the strain put on the NHS because of alcohol.

Personally I'd ban both(ban the sale of) .I use neither so wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

Sorry, but we have a stupidly large number of road traffic accidents caused by alcohol, assaults with alcohol as a contributing factor and families destroyed by the death of a loved one due to alcohol.

I don't have statistics, but it would not surprise me if more peripheral harm is caused by alcohol than tobacco products these days.

The point is; If I sit next to someone who drinks alcohol, it does not physically effect me. However, if I sit next to someone who smokes, it does physically effect me.

I'm leaving out the drink too much, accidents etc. part because that was not my point. Because by that, we can exclude literally everything.

No one cares what you do to yourself. It's problem is the negative effect it has on people on the outside, who have nothing to do with it. With alcohol the danger is the actions the person decides to take while intoxicated. With tobacco, only using it is enough.

[NathanOlder]

No one cares what you do to yourself. It's problem is the negative effect it has on people on the outside, who have nothing to do with it. With alcohol the danger is the actions the person decides to take while intoxicated. With tobacco, only using it is enough.

I have to disagree on the bold part. When people have alcohol problems the NHS pays for the problem. So its a problem everyone is paying for in the UK, much like smoking. I see your point that smoking effects the people in the same room/house ect but I think the worst of alcohol problems is 100 times worse than the worst smoking problems.

Some people when drunk can be really really nasty, to themself, their partner, parents ,children ect....
anyway before I go on and on, what I am saying is Tobacco sponsoring is banned, and I think alcohol sponsoring should be too. And it wont be long before these energy drinks will be banned. 50yrs ago it was fine to smoke, now its disgusting, so 50yrs from now, I wouldnt be surprised to hear the same about things like these energy drinks that make kids bounce off the wall if their parents are foolish enough to allow it .

[V12-POWER]

I see some strong snowflakery going on here.

With the fitness industry on its peak, healthy habits being pushed more than ever, anti-smoking-in-public rules almost everywhere, why care so much about tobacco advertising?

People who don’t smoke will not start smoking because “Ferrari has marlboro, Lotus has JPS, Renault has Mild Seven, etc”

Don’t forget the glamour F1 had and that the best drivers raced on it when tobacco advertising was present.

Maybe you should reconsider if F1 is the sport for yall. So much concern for everything it has become a joke of sport. Specially when it comes to the sponsorship side of things.

First the grid girls, the “green” engines, the halo, the parking lot tracks, etc.

It’s hard to say “F1 was better back then” because “Muh take your nostalgia glasses off” yet I can watch a 2005 race and enjoy it way more than current races.

As a karting driver nothing motivates me more than climbing the ladder of motorsports. But I see F1 as an event has become so dull it’s crazy, for sure these cars are good in their way and it’s still the pinnacle of motorsports. But as an spectator I get much more “joy” when watching older races when we had tobacco advertising.

[ScottB]

Companies spend money on advertising because it has a business benefit. Come on. To suggest plastering logos on cars couldn’t lead to higher sales would mean no company would sponsor anything, ever.

Hell, companies can’t just sponsor things even if they felt that wasn’t the case. I sponsored an event last year through my own company, couple hundred quid, and I still had to comply with a bunch of HMRC rules and be able to prove it was of benefit to my business to do so.

[adrianjordan]

I see some strong snowflakery going on here.

With the fitness industry on its peak, healthy habits being pushed more than ever, anti-smoking-in-public rules almost everywhere, why care so much about tobacco advertising?

People who don’t smoke will not start smoking because “Ferrari has marlboro, Lotus has JPS, Renault has Mild Seven, etc”

Don’t forget the glamour F1 had and that the best drivers raced on it when tobacco advertising was present.

Maybe you should reconsider if F1 is the sport for yall. So much concern for everything it has become a joke of sport. Specially when it comes to the sponsorship side of things.

First the grid girls, the “green” engines, the halo, the parking lot tracks, etc.

It’s hard to say “F1 was better back then” because “Muh take your nostalgia glasses off” yet I can watch a 2005 race and enjoy it way more than current races.

As a karting driver nothing motivates me more than climbing the ladder of motorsports. But I see F1 as an event has become so dull it’s crazy, for sure these cars are good in their way and it’s still the pinnacle of motorsports. But as an spectator I get much more “joy” when watching older races when we had tobacco advertising.

This!!

I was a teenager and massively into Formula 1 at the time when Tobacco sponsorship was everywhere. I wore West branded Mclaren teamwear and doodled Malboro branded Mclaren cars and Camel Williams cars all the time.

Yet I never even tried smoking.

People need to take responsibility for their own actions.

Smoking in public should be banned, as should smoking around children even in the home. But if we're not banning alcohol, then what right do we have to ban tobacco if people choose to use it within their own home and in line with regulations.

More to the point, the people who are going to see a Ferrari F1 car and go, I wonder what Mission Winnow is, Google it and read the website are probably intelligent enough to make up their own mind about whether or not to smoke.