Tobacco livery/Tobacco statistical discussion

[Manoah2u]

Yeah, I can't even imagine how tobacco liveries would be today.

Oh wait...

https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/R5Pzs2 ... ront.0.jpg

.

In all seriousness, I don't really understand why they had to ban tobacco liveries, especially since alcohol liveries are allowed. Figure how that comes across: "smoking behind the wheel is worse then drinking behind the wheel, kids!".

(As a sidenote, I don't drink alcohol and I do not smoke. Smoking and drinking is correlated towards mentality and culture, not towards advertising. So hell yes, I am also for the return of tobacco advertising!)

its funny how they use the black lines to imitate the black bands under sigarette boxes that warn for inevitable death.

to be honest, though i think smoking really is a bad habit, and i do agree that too much positive advertising will cause more poeple to smoke, i never really fully understood the ban. yes, it's bad for you, and yes it costs a lot of medical and insurance money. then again - there are big taxes on smoking to jump into that problem and there are a lot of 'voluntary donations' that 'cover' that stuff. and indeed, alcohol is allowed but smoking isn't? thats just bias.
not to mention how banks have caused massive problems for people all over the world with [shark] loans.
coca cola is allowed, mcdonalds too, but ever concidered the mass health problems those 'brands' cause?

im not sure about 'return' of cigarette branding. it would solve a lot of financial issues in F1 though.

[ScottB]

The ban is as much a statement of the authorities view of smoking, as much as an attempt to reduce consumption, I would say... Allowing the big tobacco companies to have their logos all over cars and sporting events would have a psychological effect, as any brand would hope for, they are hoping to associate themselves with the public's positive views of the thing they are sponsoring.

Banning them from doing that both denies them this opportunity, but also sends a message about the authorities view of smoking. Hopefully we don't end up with 'E-Cig' sponsored teams, mainly because I hate those stupid things!

[turbof1]

The ban is as much a statement of the authorities view of smoking, as much as an attempt to reduce consumption, I would say... Allowing the big tobacco companies to have their logos all over cars and sporting events would have a psychological effect, as any brand would hope for, they are hoping to associate themselves with the public's positive views of the thing they are sponsoring.

Banning them from doing that both denies them this opportunity, but also sends a message about the authorities view of smoking. Hopefully we don't end up with 'E-Cig' sponsored teams, mainly because I hate those stupid things!

I have a different view on it, although admittingly it could very well be wrong. I really believe if you want to root out smoking, you'll have to change the mentality of your society towards smoking.

Atleast from where I come. The only place you'll find any sort of tobacco advertising, is their logo's in a kiosk or small newspaper cornershops. For the rest every single reference towards tobacco is banned and absent everywhere else. Yet smoking has been fairly stable in Belgium. I feel that for a country like Belgium, introducing neutral prints on the packs isn't going to help since they are pretty much tucked away already. Although one thing I found very surprising from the effects of that law in Australia, is that the people afterwards felt that the cigarettes tasted far worse. That's a very interesting psychological effect, although again I don't think it'll root out smoking.

I'll probably depend from culture to culture too. What works in Australia, might not work out in Belgium, where smoking is passed again and again from people of your peer group.

One last thing:

With alcohol, that is much less the case, you don't get liver damage from sitting next to someone drinking a glass of whiskey.

In Belgium, people in general are that arrogant to believe they can drive while being intoxicated from alcohol. In the last few months we had I believe 6 cases where a driver under influence crashes into pedestrians, run off and leave them for death. You are right about second hand smoking, but it's atleast a more peaceful death then breaking your every bone on someone's windshield and then being left for dead.

I'm also unsure if second hand smoking is as dangerous as one might claim. Now I'm not here to say it's harmless, far from it, as there enough studies to point out the effects. I however also think that air pollution will atleast play a big part too towards very similar casualties, as well as one's fitness and condition. One following a healthy lifestyle will definitely reduce the impact of second hand smoking.

Ughh, what was the topic title again? Sorry for the rant guys . We could find a solution for tobacco livery somewhere in the middle no? If you'd allow a bit more freedom to something like Ferrari does, I think you'd have a good solution.

[wesley123]

With alcohol, that is much less the case, you don't get liver damage from sitting next to someone drinking a glass of whiskey.

In Belgium, people in general are that arrogant to believe they can drive while being intoxicated from alcohol. In the last few months we had I believe 6 cases where a driver under influence crashes into pedestrians, run off and leave them for death. You are right about second hand smoking, but it's atleast a more peaceful death then breaking your every bone on someone's windshield and then being left for dead.

There is an issue with that, because the same can happen with a sober driver. Of course, i do not condone drinking and driving, but ultimately, that is as much of an danger as is a sober person driving 10kmh too fast. It's more of a chance than an actual danger.

Second hand smoke does health damage, and that is the case when you sit next to someone who is smoking. When driving there is a small, probably negligible chance that you get scooped by a drunk driver, it isn't an event that will happen, where second hand smoke is.

[turbof1]

Isn't that actually the same for getting lung cancer? Cancer is due cells creating errors when multiplying, creating an abnormal mutation. There's I believe a one in million probaility this happens when a cell copies itself (however, even then the chance it becoming actual cancer is still very, very low due mechanisms in the body protecting from that). Second hand smoking increases the probability, just like drinking increases the probability accidents happen on the road.

Again, not saying either are a good thing.

EDIT: corrected type errors. I need a bigger smartphone... .

[ScottB]

Let's not assume it's a government aim to stop people smoking altogether, it's to to try and get the numbers low enough where the heavily taxed tobacco is generating more income than costs going out on treating the smokers when the succumb to the many health problems their habits lead to...

[turbof1]

Let's not assume it's a government aim to stop people smoking altogether, it's to to try and get the numbers low enough where the heavily taxed tobacco is generating more income than costs going out on treating the smokers when the succumb to the many health problems their habits lead to...

Exactly. The government is never going to outright ban it. Even if they did, chances are people will continue to smoke illegally.

My opinion is that if cigarette producers are willing to waste on subliminal tobacco advertising through product association, like in the case of Ferrari, I'd say let them. Just don't put the name of the company on it. Somebody who doesn't smoke isn't going to get the subliminal message. Somebody who does will, but what are the odds he's going to quit smoking anyway?

You guess it- I'm starting more from the point "let's prevent it" instead of "let's discourage it". Usually discouraging will lead to little more then annoying your target group, who are simply too settled in their ways.

[Cold Fussion]

In all seriousness, I don't really understand why they had to ban tobacco liveries, especially since alcohol liveries are allowed. Figure how that comes across: "smoking behind the wheel is worse then drinking behind the wheel, kids!".

To get in on that subject, I don't believe that the subject is the person him/herself, but rather the environment around him/her. You know the health risk and chose for those risks, you are free to give yourself all the health issues you want, but others around you are directly affected by that choice.

With alcohol, that is much less the case, you don't get liver damage from sitting next to someone drinking a glass of whiskey.


Also, here in the Netherlands advertisement for alcoholic beverages must contain a reminder to not chug it all down at once, much in a similar fashion as the warning labels on cigarette packages.

This ban mainly exists because of the aggressiveness of advertisement. If it was all nice I'm certain this ban wouldn't actually exist.

2nd hand cigarette smoke has been clearly shown to be more toxic than the stuff smokers inhale so it's not an individual choice with no impact on others.

And then there's birth defects/issues too from pregnant mothers smoking or being exposed to 2nd hand smoke.

As you point out, at least with alcohol most people don't cause secondary harm from enjoying a few drinks. In fact there are some health benefits associated with moderate consumption of wine.

So breathing heavily diluted, in vastly lower quantities of tobacco smoke is as harmful to directly inhaling the lightly filtered smoke in much higher quantities?

[djos]

So breathing heavily diluted, in vastly lower quantities of tobacco smoke is as harmful to directly inhaling the lightly filtered smoke in much higher quantities?

As you mentioned, 1st hand smokers have a filter, 2nd hand smokers don't.

http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/caus ... fact-sheet

Among the more than 7,000 chemicals that have been identified in secondhand tobacco smoke, at least 250 are known to be harmful, for example, hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide, and ammonia.

At least 69 of the toxic chemicals in secondhand tobacco smoke cause cancer (1, 5, 6). These include the following:

Arsenic
Benzene
Beryllium (a toxic metal)
1,3–Butadiene (a hazardous gas)
Cadmium
Chromium (a metallic element)
Ethylene oxide
Nickel (a metallic element)
Polonium-210 (a radioactive chemical element)
Vinyl chloride
Other toxic chemicals in secondhand smoke are suspected to cause cancer, including (1):

Formaldehyde
Benzo[α]pyrene
Toluene

Many factors affect which chemicals are found in secondhand smoke, such as the type of tobacco, the chemicals added to the tobacco, the way the tobacco product is smoked, and, for cigarettes and cigars, the material in which the tobacco is wrapped (1, 3, 4).

[Cold Fussion]

Second hand smokers have this gigantic filter called the atmosphere.

[djos]

Second hand smokers have this gigantic filter called the atmosphere.

I seem to have hit a nerve, I'm guessing you smoke?

[Cold Fussion]

Second hand smokers have this gigantic filter called the atmosphere.

I seem to have hit a nerve, I'm guessing you smoke?

I don't smoke at all but when science turns into ideology I get triggered. Sure pound for pound second hand smoke may be worse than directly inhaling it, but that ignores every other variable involved. The problem is that this ideology is drilled into kids at school, to the point where some people believe that someone smoking 2m away from them outside is going to give them cancer because they were taught second hand smoking is bad.

[turbof1]

Please keep it friendly. Despite things getting a touch personal, so far the discussion is actually still solid. Let's try to keep it that way, gents.

I'll split the topic later today. Although not exactly part of our repertoire as a technical site, a debate about smoking does intrigue me.

IMO, I'm also worried that trying to reduce smoking gets turned into ideology. It should be just that: reducing smoking, without any fanaticism behind it. A year back or so there were voices rising that smoking in the same house as your children is child abuse. Excuse me? Yes I know it's not exactly healthy and unwise, but to name it child abuse is taking it one step too far. It's even quite educative: both my parents smoke; I have grown up watching them coughing up a lung (figurely) each morning. It's the greatest example why you don't want to start smoking.

[ME4ME]

A year back or so there were voices rising that smoking in the same house as your children is child abuse.
Excuse me? Yes I know it's not exactly healthy and unwise, but to name it child abuse is taking it one step too far. It's even quite educative: both my parents smoke; I have grown up watching them coughing up a lung (figurely) each morning. It's the greatest example why you don't want to start smoking.

I would agree to the first statement. Endangering a child's health, yes i'd call that abuse. If parents want or need to smoke, do it outside. It will still set the example you mention.

At many workplaces it's forbidden to smoke inside, you have to leave the premises in order to smoke. Why respect your collages but not your children

[turbof1]

Ehm? Companies usually forbid cigarettes because ashes and the remaining stump can cause harm to the production. They don't do it because they care about the health of their employees.