"Stop smoking" ads promoting smoking?

[Seos]

Certain ads (two that I've noticed) for products to help people quit smoking seem to be promoting smoking.

Here's one from nicotinell:
Nicotinell '24 Hour Patch' TV ad - 30 sec advert

There's another ad (can't remember if it's nicotinell as well or not, couldn't find it on the internet) that says something like: "Got a craving, then smoke (*pause*) unless you're quiting"

So do they have connections to tobacco companies or is it just promoting smoking so they have a bigger market of smokers to sell to?

Is it legal to be promoting smoking in this way or is it only direct advertising that is illegal?

[Twin Towers]

I don't know about them promoting smoking but the products must be very profitable, €26 for a few patches containing an oozy gel.

[Seos]

I don't know about them promoting smoking but the products must be very profitable, €26 for a few patches containing an oozy gel.

What about in the ad I linked to?

[L'Chaim]

I used to smoke and when I gave them up I found the only time I really wanted one was when these nicorette ads came on telly. I'd be doing very well while I wasn't thinking about smoking. But then these ads would come on and smoking would be back on my mind. I also noticed that these ads were broadcast just after dinner/tea time, which was alway the time that people really enjoyed a smoke. It got to the stage where i thought cigarette companies actually owned the aids to stop smoking, and used them as a way of advertising that would actually work at getting people who tried to stop to start smoking again

[20000miles]

The wording in the as you linked to is absolutely *horrible* - "who will you be, what will you do without that cigarette in your hand? *pause*"

All I see is a poor choice of wording.


Fortunately advertising isnt coercive so I dont see a problem anyway. Nor is there anything wrong with smoking either.

[Seos]

The wording in the as you linked to is absolutely *horrible* - "who will you be, what will you do without that cigarette in your hand? *pause*"

All I see is a poor choice of wording.


Fortunately advertising isnt coercive so I dont see a problem anyway. Nor is there anything wrong with smoking either.

Well the state takes a different view since cigarette advertising is long banned so it seems odd that this ad (no matter how terrible an ad it is) is allowed.

Nor is there anything wrong with smoking either.

What do you mean?

[20000miles]

Well the state takes a different view since cigarette advertising is long banned so it seems odd that this ad (no matter how terrible an ad it is) is allowed.

The State's view is incorrect. Advertising is not coercive. As Murray Rothbard wrote in response to "economist" JK Galbraith's book The Affluent Society:

It [advertising] certainly tries to persuade consumers to buy the product; but it cannot create wants or demands, because each person must himself adopt the ideas and values on which he acts—whether these ideas or values are sound or unsound. Galbraith here assumes a naive form of determinism—of advertising upon the consumers, and, like all determinists, he leaves an implicit escape clause from the determination for people like himself, who are, unaccountably, not determined by advertising. If there is determinism by ad­vertising, how can some people be determined to rush out and buy the product, while Professor Galbraith is free to resist the advertisements with indignation and to write a book denouncing the advertising?[COLOR=#0066cc][94][/COLOR]
Secondly, Galbraith gives us no standard to decide which wants are so “created” and which are legitimate. By his stress on pov­erty, one might think that all wants above the subsistence level are false wants created by advertising. Of course, he supplies no evidence for this view.

What do you mean?

I personally think you snuck in a value judgement into the post. Forgive me if I am wrong, but you are against people smoking, yes?

If advertisers persuade people to smoke, and more people choose to do so, so what? It is their choice as adults to persue their own values. I think it is immoral to prevent people from acting according to their value systems, as they have no impact on me.

[Seos]

The State's view is incorrect. Advertising is not coercive. As Murray Rothbard wrote in response to "economist" JK Galbraith's book The Affluent Society:





I personally think you snuck in a value judgement into the post. Forgive me if I am wrong, but you are against people smoking, yes?

If advertisers persuade people to smoke, and more people choose to do so, so what? It is their choice as adults to persue their own values. I think it is immoral to prevent people from acting according to their value systems, as they have no impact on me.

I didn't sneak anything in I am anti-cigarettes, why would I start this thread or even notice the ad if I wasn't. What an odd thing that is to say. This is an internet forum not a scientific study, as such there is no requirement to be value free. As you show yourself by applying your own values like having economist in quotation marks, does your opinion of him make him any less an economist?

Now you haven't answered my question do you genuinely think there is nothing wrong with smoking? Or did you mean there is nothing immoral about smoking which is a less radical position?(but still arguable)

It [advertising] certainly tries to persuade consumers to buy the product; but it cannot create wants or demands, because each person must himself adopt the ideas and values on which he acts—whether these ideas or values are sound or unsound.

This is true however advertising never attempts to create wants or demands, it attaches the product to fulfilling previous want's or demands. People want to be happy so the advertisers make ads suggesting this product will make us happier.

Galbraith here assumes a naive form of determinism—of advertising upon the consumers, and, like all determinists, he leaves an implicit escape clause from the determination for people like himself, who are, unaccountably, not determined by advertising. If there is determinism by ad vertising, how can some people be determined to rush out and buy the product, while Professor Galbraith is free to resist the advertisements with indignation and to write a book denouncing the advertising?[94]
Secondly, Galbraith gives us no standard to decide which wants are so “created” and which are legitimate. By his stress on pov erty, one might think that all wants above the subsistence level are false wants created by advertising. Of course, he supplies no evidence for this view.

I don't really see the implicit escape clause you can be anti- something and still fall victim to it.
Anyway I'm not convinced.

If advertisers persuade people to smoke, and more people choose to do so, so what? It is their choice as adults to persue their own values. I think it is immoral to prevent people from acting according to their value systems, as they have no impact on me

Well you consider it immoral to harm other people of course.
I assume you accept that smoking harms the smoker (still waiting on clarification).

So is convincing someone to do something that will harm themselves not the same as harming them? Especially when you don't give them all the information as would be the case in advertising?

Therefore is advertising cigarettes not immoral?
And that would be the case even if your attempted advertising proved unpersuasive because you knowingly tired to get people to harm themselves and assumed it would work.

[20000miles]

I didn't sneak anything in I am anti-cigarettes, why would I start this thread or even notice the ad if I wasn't.

Ok then, thats fine.

What an odd thing that is to say. This is an internet forum not a scientific study, as such there is no requirement to be value free. As you show yourself by applying your own values like having economist in quotation marks, does your opinion of him make him any less an economist?

Actually as an economist in waiting, I try and keep value-free all the time, as economics is a value free study of human action. Mr. Galbraith has loads of subjective values lumped into his books so no, not a real economist.

Now you haven't answered my question do you genuinely think there is nothing wrong with smoking? Or did you mean there is nothing immoral about smoking which is a less radical position?(but still arguable)

Define 'wrong'. If wrong is 'harmful to the body of the smoker', then sure it is wrong. However people choose to smoke because they believe it will satisfy their subjective need (feeling relaxed or whatever it may be). And cigarettes do provide a positive satisfaction on the consumer.

This is true however advertising never attempts to create wants or demands, it attaches the product to fulfilling previous want's or demands. People want to be happy so the advertisers make ads suggesting this product will make us happier.

True. But the person still needs to act on this want.

I don't really see the implicit escape clause you can be anti- something and still fall victim to it.
Anyway I'm not convinced.

I was. Rothbard is a very good writer.

Well you consider it immoral to harm other people of course.
I assume you accept that smoking harms the smoker (still waiting on clarification).

So is convincing someone to do something that will harm themselves not the same as harming them? Especially when you don't give them all the information as would be the case in advertising?

Therefore is advertising cigarettes not immoral?
And that would be the case even if your attempted advertising proved unpersuasive because you knowingly tired to get people to harm themselves and assumed it would work.

Yes I do believe smoking harms the smoker. But as I said, the smoker chooses to smoke based on the percieved costs and benefits the action will yield. Unfortunately the costs come much later but the benefits are attained now.

So no, cigarette advertising isn't immoral.

[Seos]

Actually as an economist in waiting, I try and keep value-free all the time, as economics is a value free study of human action. Mr. Galbraith has loads of subjective values lumped into his books so no, not a real economist.

That is still an opinion, in order to have been value free you should have left out the word economist altogether. I'm just showing how being effectively value free is very difficult (being truly value-free is impossible) which is why I prefer to just let people know it which way I'm biased and not bother trying too hard to be value free (in casual cases anyway) I also am an economist in waiting as you put it.

Define 'wrong'.

That's what I was hoping you would do! It's why I asked the question...

If wrong is 'harmful to the body of the smoker', then sure it is wrong. However people choose to smoke because they believe it will satisfy their subjective need (feeling relaxed or whatever it may be). And cigarettes do provide a positive satisfaction on the consumer.

The reason I was shocked is because you said:

Nor is there anything wrong with smoking either.

When quite clearly there are downsides and disadvantages and even (in certain situations) moral problems to smoking. So I was wondering what you meant by there being nothing wrong with smoking.

True. But the person still needs to act on this want.

Yes but before they might have acted on this want in a different way with advertising it is possible that they will act in the specific way of buying the product advertised.

I was. Rothbard is a very good writer.

It might have been just because he was responding to specific things Galbraith has said that I found him unconvincing.
I find the very basic argument usually used in this debate hard to get around, that being if it's uneffective why is so much money spent on it.

Yes I do believe smoking harms the smoker. But as I said, the smoker chooses to smoke based on the percieved costs and benefits the action will yield. Unfortunately the costs come much later but the benefits are attained now.

So no, cigarette advertising isn't immoral.

Is it not immoral to knowingly distort someone's perceived costs and benefits from an action in a way that will lead to their harm?

To use a simplistic example if I don't inform you cocaine is addictive but tell you how great you'll feel if you use it and then sell it to you is that not immoral?
Or I don't tell you that the holiday resort in the sun that I'm selling you is next to a dump and a sewage treatment plant.