Tobacco

[Nosuchsoul]

What is going to happen to all of the Tobacco sponsorship, when it leaves Formula 1? I believe that the good ol' U.S. of A allows Tobacco companies to sponsor one sports series, and I do not see the U.S. ever signing on to the worldwide ban. Does that mean they may come on here? I really do not see them ever going to the IRL and NASCAR does not have a large worldwide following. If tobacco does come back, do any of you mind? I know this will make Champ car a strong series again since most of our races are in the U.S. so they can run with full logo's. Or will Bernie figure a way to keep them there? I would not mind seeing a Lucky Strike branded Lola with the Dinger in it.

P.S. All you Li'l Al haters can kiss my..................

[CART T. Katz]

although i am not a smoker nor do i know anyone who currently smokes, i don't think that they will come over here because i don't think that CART gets out to a large enough worldwide audience to make a roi worth the sponsorship dollars.

i also haven't seen any of those brands domestically so i also don't think that it would make any practical domestic sense.

[Steve99]

I wouldn't bet on tobacco advertising surviving in the U.S. either. Tobacco sponsorship is the past, ChampCar needs to look to the future.

[pkvracing12]

I think that tabacco is out considering the major tabacco company marlboro is in the IRL players is no longer aloud to sponsor anything so american brands are soon to follow. if champcar wants a sturdy sponsor it would be with company's like dell verizon anything that is new and cool and willing to bring there names to different event. but in that case were are all the beer sponsors besides corona why doesnt a good beer sponsor from canada sponsor PT AND OR PC like labatte blue or something.

[theunions]

I wouldn't bet on tobacco advertising surviving in the U.S. either. Tobacco sponsorship is the past, ChampCar needs to look to the future.

Yup. Winston Cup racing isn't Winston Cup racing anymore (even though the contract was still good for another 5 years or so) for a reason.

[redmist]

call me old school, but to me racing loses a little something without tobacco sponsorship. i'm not talking about the financial aspect, but more of the romance. the rebellious nature of racing linked to the rebellious undertones of cigarettes. alot of my favorite cars of the past were adorned with cigarette advertising, times change i guess. oh well, i still have boxes of old vhs tapes if i get too nostalgic.

[Insomniac]

call me old school, but to me racing loses a little something without tobacco sponsorship. i'm not talking about the financial aspect, but more of the romance. the rebellious nature of racing linked to the rebellious undertones of cigarettes. alot of my favorite cars of the past were adorned with cigarette advertising, times change i guess. oh well, i still have boxes of old vhs tapes if i get too nostalgic.

They may have been favorites because they were winning/at the front since they are well funded.

[Mike Kellner]

Not wanting to get too far off topic here, but who in the heck gave the government the right to tell us what kind of ads we can see where? Last I checked, tobacco was a legal product. Not only that, but the US government* was raking in huge amounts of cash from the sale of cigarettes. My own opinion is, if ciggies are so evil that we cannot even be allowed to see ads for them on racecars, I don't see how the government could, in good conscience, associate themselves with this evil by collecting taxes on them.

Therefore, I call for all the sanctimonious, do gooder politicians to put their money where their overly active mouths are, and take the pledge to never take another penny of tax money from the evil weed. If it tobacco money is too evil for racing, surely it is too evil for our holier than thou politicians.

mk

*If you are not a US citizen, insert the name of your own country, because they also rake in huge amounts of cash from tobacco sales, and most likely lecture you daily on its evil, while the filling their pockets with tobacco taxes.

[JT265]

Great post Mike. I agree 100%.

[tx-racefan]

I think that tabacco is out considering the major tabacco company marlboro is in the IRL players is no longer aloud to sponsor anything so american brands are soon to follow. if champcar wants a sturdy sponsor it would be with company's like dell verizon anything that is new and cool and willing to bring there names to different event. but in that case were are all the beer sponsors besides corona why doesnt a good beer sponsor from canada sponsor PT AND OR PC like labatte blue or something.


man-o-man,

being a good friend of Ziggy's (I'm not averse to a little name-dropping now and then), I have definitely learned to overlook major misspellings, copious punctuation errors, and the occasional use of a totally incorrect word (sorry zig, but in your behalf, I know where you went to school). But I must point out a few items here pkv:

it's 'tobacco', not tabacco (both occurrences)

marlboro is a brand, not a 'tabacco company' (Philip Morris, I think, although I seem to recall they were changing their name)

I am not 'allowed' to talk 'aloud' while posting on the internet

try the plural form of company: companies (same number of keystrokes as company's, the possesive form)

what's so new AND OR cool about Dell or Verizon?

'their' names are over 'there', next to the 'events'

'where' are all the beer sponsors? you tell me where they were.

and last but not least, commas, periods and question marks can all be extremely helpful to convey meaning and lend readability and both require a minimum of typing exertion.

I have my own posting peccadilloes, but there were just a few too many in this one to overlook. Sorry pkv. And sorry to go off topic as well.

[Steve99]

Not wanting to get too far off topic here, but who in the heck gave the government the right to tell us what kind of ads we can see where? Last I checked, tobacco was a legal product. Not only that, but the US government* was raking in huge amounts of cash from the sale of cigarettes. My own opinion is, if ciggies are so evil that we cannot even be allowed to see ads for them on racecars, I don't see how the government could, in good conscience, associate themselves with this evil by collecting taxes on them.

Therefore, I call for all the sanctimonious, do gooder politicians to put their money where their overly active mouths are, and take the pledge to never take another penny of tax money from the evil weed. If it tobacco money is too evil for racing, surely it is too evil for our holier than thou politicians.

mk

*If you are not a US citizen, insert the name of your own country, because they also rake in huge amounts of cash from tobacco sales, and most likely lecture you daily on its evil, while the filling their pockets with tobacco taxes.

If someone wants to volunteer to pay more taxes by buying cigs, then I'm all for it. I'll take their money.

[Cam]

and last but not least, commas, periods and question marks can all be extremely helpful to convey meaning and lend readability and both require a minimum of typing exertion.

One should, however, never start a sentence with the word "and" and the first word of a sentence should always be capitalized. :p ;)

OOPS! I'm getting pedantic on a pedantic post on the internet.... Sheesh! :D

[Ankf00]

your average 3 year old recognizes the likes of the Pepsi-Cola logo before his or her own name. Recognizing the Pepsi-Cola logo is benign compared to recognizing Marlboro.


fast food bastards (companies) invest HEAVILY in child friendly advertising to influence children, and fast food is at least food... despite how disgusting and unhealthy it is. cig corps do the same, targeting children unfairly as well as dealing intentionally misleading products. as with all major corporations and industries in america's history, they were given much leeway in their business dealings, and they abused that benefit of the doubt, same as every other exploitative industry. thus they're on their way out, same as the sante fe and missouri pacific's preferntial rail rates for big agribiz.

they've shown no desire to advertise in good faith, so why should they be allowed to conduct business in a fair environment, the only reason they're around is b/c they're so key to the US economy, what are you gonna do, ban a huge industry other nations still conduct business in? VA/NC/SC farmers depend on the subsidies, plants depend on the $, etc...

and if ppl wont let you ban substances in the name of the public health, you might as well deter as much as you can, and that involves taxes.

[Insomniac]

Not wanting to get too far off topic here, but who in the heck gave the government the right to tell us what kind of ads we can see where? Last I checked, tobacco was a legal product. Not only that, but the US government* was raking in huge amounts of cash from the sale of cigarettes. My own opinion is, if ciggies are so evil that we cannot even be allowed to see ads for them on racecars, I don't see how the government could, in good conscience, associate themselves with this evil by collecting taxes on them.

Therefore, I call for all the sanctimonious, do gooder politicians to put their money where their overly active mouths are, and take the pledge to never take another penny of tax money from the evil weed. If it tobacco money is too evil for racing, surely it is too evil for our holier than thou politicians.

mk

*If you are not a US citizen, insert the name of your own country, because they also rake in huge amounts of cash from tobacco sales, and most likely lecture you daily on its evil, while the filling their pockets with tobacco taxes.

They might be filling their pockets, but it's not staying there. That is why they were sued. The costs of medical care are going up. So the solution works out for the tobacco companies. Pay now and continue to sell your product.

[Insomniac]

marlboro is a brand, not a 'tabacco company' (Philip Morris, I think, although I seem to recall they were changing their name)

They are now the Altria Group.

[Old3Fan]

Mike Kellner, right again. :thumbup: :gomer:

[gjc2]

The current limits on tobacco sponsorship of motor sports in the United States is part of an agreement between the tobacco industry and the various attorneys general which will eventually lead to the end of all advertising of tobacco products. The tobacco industry agreed to the limitations to avoid legislation banning advertising.

George

[Mike Kellner]

That doesn't sound very voluntary to me. Either tobacco is a legal product or it isn't. The anti smoking goose steppers and the government are both sanctimonious hypocrites. If it is so dangerous that it cannot be advertised, then they should outlaw it. The truth is, they want to have it both ways. They want to play to the grandstand, patting themselves on the back for attacking tobacco , while raking in the profits from tobacco taxes, so they can play santa Claus with the proceeds.

If you don't like tobacco, don't smoke. However, this is a free country, and nobody gave a bunch of busy body, do gooders the right to tell other adults what legal products that can use, and the First Amendment protects the right of legal businesses to advertise their wares.

mk - Who does not smoke, but believes tolerance of those who are different is the foundation of freedom and liberty.

[pinniped]

I have to agree with Kellner here...it is the only legal product which is so restricted. Either it is illegal - due to addictive and harmful qualities, or it should be fully legal. I am certain that what is being done is unconstitutional, although the tobacco companies know they are fighting a losing battle to contest it due to the public opinion problems they now have.

And I don't smoke, other than an occaisional cigar. It just strikes me as problematic their approach...anything that harmful that it is so restricted should be illegal per se. If it isn't, then the other limitations are inconsistent with that.

I have no problem with taxing the ciggies provided that the tax money goes where it should - health care for smokers. So, does that mean though that a long time smoker who gets lung cancer after paying out thousands of dollars in ciggie sin tax doesn't get stuck with the bill when he goes to the E.R.? Hmmm....

Just my opinion.

[Nosuchsoul]

Herer is another question I want to ask about Tobacco. Isn't it cheaper, overall, to die of cancer then to waste away from old age? I mean if you get cancer at fifty and die after a year or two of therapy, how does that cost more than living into your eighties and requiring constant medical attention for years, going back and forth to the hospital, medication , etc? Not a very nice topic to discuss, but I do not understand the need to sue to recoup medical costs since they would have been spent later anyway.

[Jervis Tetch 1]

I agree with Mike 1000% on the tobacco-government thing. Smoking is a freedom of choice like a lot of other things.

I miss the nice color schemes of several tobacco-sponsored cars like Gitanes, Players, Hollywood, Rothmanns and my all-time favorite the elegant black and gold pinstripe of JPS (John Player Special).

If it wasn't for them, Mario would have never won a world title.

And no I don't smoke either.

[Jag_Warrior]

I miss the nice color schemes of several tobacco-sponsored cars like Gitanes, Players, Hollywood, Rothmanns and my all-time favorite the elegant black and gold pinstripe of JPS (John Player Special).


Same here.

This question has come up before, but on the subject of diecasts. It's nothing short of retarded that when you buy a $50-$150 diecast, the decals aren't correct. Why? From what I understand, they're classified as "toys", and they wouldn't want a kiddie playing with a $100 Senna diecast with Marlboro plastered on it. I couldn't agree more. I wouldn't want a kid playing with my Senna diecasts either, but the Marlboro or John Player Special decals haven't a thing to do with it. I didn't notice that the Angelle Savoie "Winston" bike I just got actually said "Wins" until I loaded it in the display case. :shakehead

Maybe the racing teams should enlist the companies that make these fake herbal drugs (that the FDA doesn't mess with) as sponsors. Males can be "enhanced". Females can feel randy. And the overweight can get skinny in no time flat.

In the #27 Team Letterman Hotzone Lola-Ford: Danica Patrick. In the #21 Team Newman Arise Lola-Maserati: Memo Gidley. And in the surprise of the weekend, in the #14 Team Foyt HerbaLife "Fat Boy No Mo" Dallara-Buick: A.J. Foyt!

[Ankf00]

ppl can smoke, just dont blow the smoke in my face, i like living healthy. :p

[fourrunner]

The Rules for smokers have just been reversed, that's all.... Case in point...

Back in the 1970's when I was in my 20's I used to work for a subsidiary of a large Corporation Signal Oil. Back then before PC's and prior to everybody having computer inventory control it was all done by hand on Inventory control cards. I did this as a junior executive trainee.

Well I worked side by side with an addicted Female Smoker. During work hours her cigarette was eternally lit and smoke would either be blown in the small confines, or just left drifting in the air. She burned holes in my shirts twice. When I got contact lenses I couldn't where them at work because my eyes would water constantly. I asked her nicely a few times to reduce her intake, but she said she had every right to amoke wherever she wanted, and at that time she was right.

I went to the boss, and asked if there was a solution. He said yes, I could where cheaper shirts and forego the contact lenses otherwise his hands were tied.

Luckily I got promoted and went on to another department.

I feel everyone has a right to kill themselves in any way they see fit. As long as I'm not effected by it.

Of course She died of lung cancer about 15 years ago. But she died doing what she loved, annoying everyone around her with her stale breath, yellow teeth and nicotine ridden clothes, and her sweet personality !

[Insomniac]

That doesn't sound very voluntary to me. Either tobacco is a legal product or it isn't. The anti smoking goose steppers and the government are both sanctimonious hypocrites. If it is so dangerous that it cannot be advertised, then they should outlaw it. The truth is, they want to have it both ways. They want to play to the grandstand, patting themselves on the back for attacking tobacco , while raking in the profits from tobacco taxes, so they can play santa Claus with the proceeds.

If you don't like tobacco, don't smoke. However, this is a free country, and nobody gave a bunch of busy body, do gooders the right to tell other adults what legal products that can use, and the First Amendment protects the right of legal businesses to advertise their wares.

mk - Who does not smoke, but believes tolerance of those who are different is the foundation of freedom and liberty.

They limit the advertising of hard liquor and it is legal. I know the gov't doesn't do everything the best, but they are supposed to have the public's concerns in mind. Like it or not, advertising was directed at children with the intent of hooking them early. You make the gov't out to be the bad guys here when you have companies that have products that they know to be harmful. Then they pedddle them to children knowing they would get hooked for life. They put things in there to increase the addiction. They were lucky the product wasn't banned out right. Why do you think they settled, paid their fines and continued to do business within their guidelines? They're still making money hand over fist.

People can smoke all they want, they just can't advertise. There are a lot more importnat things than racing.

[Insomniac]

Herer is another question I want to ask about Tobacco. Isn't it cheaper, overall, to die of cancer then to waste away from old age? I mean if you get cancer at fifty and die after a year or two of therapy, how does that cost more than living into your eighties and requiring constant medical attention for years, going back and forth to the hospital, medication , etc? Not a very nice topic to discuss, but I do not understand the need to sue to recoup medical costs since they would have been spent later anyway.

Not everyone who smokes gets cancer. And if you get cancer, it doesn't mean you will die either. Yes, eventually, most people will end up in the hospital or dying of some illness. I wasn't involved in any of the litigation, but I'd bet the average cost of healthcare for a smoker vs. a non-smoker over their life is higher.

[pinniped]

remember, speed kills, racing wastes fuel, etc...what's next on their hit list?

[Mike Kellner]

If someone points a gun at you and demands your money, is that a voluntary contribution? That is about how voluntary Tobacco's advertising agreement is.

As far as liqour and beer restrictions, I don't agree with them either. It is a legal product. Liqour companies should be able to advertise their wares.

We are in danger of losing our free society to a bunch of moralistic doo gooders who would regulate our lives for our own good. Once they get rid of tobacco, alcohol, guns, fast food, meat, candy, motorcycles, fast cars and everything else that is fun will follow.

I politely request that people keep their noses out of my business and hands out of my pockets. Is that too much to ask?

mk

[Jag_Warrior]

I'm amazed they haven't gotten to cars and racing yet. The time is probably coming though.

[Insomniac]

If someone points a gun at you and demands your money, is that a voluntary contribution? That is about how voluntary Tobacco's advertising agreement is.

As far as liqour and beer restrictions, I don't agree with them either. It is a legal product. Liqour companies should be able to advertise their wares.

We are in danger of losing our free society to a bunch of moralistic doo gooders who would regulate our lives for our own good. Once they get rid of tobacco, alcohol, guns, fast food, meat, candy, motorcycles, fast cars and everything else that is fun will follow.

I politely request that people keep their noses out of my business and hands out of my pockets. Is that too much to ask?

mk

Slippery Slope! Slippery Slope! Come on.

Of course the tobacco companies hand was forced by the gov't. What do you expect to happen?

Gov't: Could you stop advertising to kids?
Tobbaco Exceutives: Sure.

They wouldn't even admit their product was dangerous. They all got up in front of Congress and lied.

So you have no problem with cigarette companies advertising during Sesame Street? How about trailers not approved for all audiences? Maybe gun advertising? We wouldn't want you not to be able to know that these products exist. Nevermind that there are age requirements for the stuff. (I suppose that should go to?) Heck, why not just get rid of all laws and you can do what you want. The gov't shouldn't say murder and rape is wrong. Some part of society is cool with it. Why inconvenience them?

If you don't want your cigarettes taxed (even though you don't smoke) you can make your own. There are taxes on almost everything. The money all goes to gov't. If you don't like taxes, I hear Brunei doesn't have any.

[Insomniac]

remember, speed kills, racing wastes fuel, etc...what's next on their hit list?

Pornography it appears.

[Insomniac]

I'm amazed they haven't gotten to cars and racing yet. The time is probably coming though.

As most are saying, that will probably happen if a bunch of fans get killed watching a race. Between insurance comapnies and the government, I'd suspect that may be it.

[Mike Kellner]

So you have no problem with cigarette companies advertising during Sesame Street? How about trailers not approved for all audiences? Maybe gun advertising?

Classic moralistic do gooder BS. People demand their Second Ammendment right to own a gun. Answer by saying, "Well, then I suppose you have no problem selling nukes to pre schoolers."

You have no idea how funny you are.

mk

[Ankf00]

So you have no problem with cigarette companies advertising during Sesame Street? How about trailers not approved for all audiences? Maybe gun advertising?

Classic moralistic do gooder BS. People demand their Second Ammendment right to own a gun. Answer by saying, "Well, then I suppose you have no problem selling nukes to pre schoolers."

You have no idea how funny you are.

mk


tobacco's limited and i'm happy. i dont have to breathe other ppl's smoke blown into my face if i go out.

and i dont feel sorry for tobacco corps, they lied, their problem. their targeted children, their mistake.

ozzy has done the most f'ed up stuff there is to do, and even he says cigarettes were the most addictive thing he ever did. *shrug*

[pinniped]

Yeah, but ozzy's a big whiny tard who used to dress up like the devil and bite bats heads to impress the junior high schoolers. He would get addicted to oregano. I agree it is pleasant to not have smoke blown at you in restaurants and bars, but that isn't the point. If cigarettes are legal, then how can the government fairly limit their distribution - if they're so bad, they should be illegal - right? Their position doesn't make sense.

[Insomniac]

So you have no problem with cigarette companies advertising during Sesame Street? How about trailers not approved for all audiences? Maybe gun advertising?

Classic moralistic do gooder BS. People demand their Second Ammendment right to own a gun. Answer by saying, "Well, then I suppose you have no problem selling nukes to pre schoolers."

You have no idea how funny you are.

mk

I imagine as equally entertaining as your belief that banning tobacco advertising is the beginning of the end of everything. I for one believe that you can ban some things and leave others alone. What you see I have no idea. Not sure how banning cigarette advertising is all "moralistic do gooder BS" is beyiond me. They are not banning the sale or use of it. Only the advertising of it which was aimed at children in the past.

I see no problem with the second ammendmant. You want a gun, go get one. While my examples of advertising on Sesame Street were clearly unrealistic and extreme they did advertise in mediums children as well as adults used. Call it moralistic if you want, but trying to hook chldren on cigarettes is wrong.

[Insomniac]

Yeah, but ozzy's a big whiny tard who used to dress up like the devil and bite bats heads to impress the junior high schoolers. He would get addicted to oregano. I agree it is pleasant to not have smoke blown at you in restaurants and bars, but that isn't the point. If cigarettes are legal, then how can the government fairly limit their distribution - if they're so bad, they should be illegal - right? Their position doesn't make sense.

They aren't limiting their distribution. There are a lot of things that are bad for you, they don't ban all of those either. They are able to draw lines.

[pinniped]

I disagree. :p

[Ankf00]

Yeah, but ozzy's a big whiny tard who used to dress up like the devil and bite bats heads to impress the junior high schoolers. He would get addicted to oregano. I agree it is pleasant to not have smoke blown at you in restaurants and bars, but that isn't the point. If cigarettes are legal, then how can the government fairly limit their distribution - if they're so bad, they should be illegal - right? Their position doesn't make sense.

14 year olds cant drive

perscription drugs are limited

14 year olds can't buy a gun unless they're at a gun show

there's a few examples of how a legal product can be fairly limited.

and its not like these laws are causing cigs companies to go bankrupt, so it really doesn't matter to me

edit: any willing 18 year old who wants to purchase cigs can.

[Mike Kellner]

14 year olds can't buy a gun at a gun show. They cannot even get in without an adult. You have to fill out all the same paperwork you would anywhere else if you buy a gun at a gun show.

I have no problem with restricting what kids can do. I do have a problem when kids are used as an excuse for some adults to tell other adults what they can do with legal poducts.

There are a number of good reasons why whiskey and guns won't be advertised on Sessame Street. One, the market demographic is all wrong. Most toddlers don't buy a whole lot of bourbon or handguns. Two, adults would complain, and the ill will it would generate wouldn't justify the number of additional sales. But please, don't let that stop you guys from using specious examples. I am sure it makes you feel very clever.

mk

[Ankf00]

14 year olds can't buy a gun at a gun show. They cannot even get in without an adult. You have to fill out all the same paperwork you would anywhere else if you buy a gun at a gun show.

I have no problem with restricting what kids can do. I do have a problem when kids are used as an excuse for some adults to tell other adults what they can do with legal poducts.

There are a number of good reasons why whiskey and guns won't be advertised on Sessame Street. One, the market demographic is all wrong. Most toddlers don't buy a whole lot of bourbon or handguns. Two, adults would complain, and the ill will it would generate wouldn't justify the number of additional sales. But please, don't let that stop you guys from using specious examples. I am sure it makes you feel very clever.

mk

nice to know what you really think of the rest of us


anywho, you can believe what you want, but the millions of dollars spent by these companies on psychological studies on children proves all that i need for it to

[Insomniac]

There are a number of good reasons why whiskey and guns won't be advertised on Sessame Street. One, the market demographic is all wrong. Most toddlers don't buy a whole lot of bourbon or handguns. Two, adults would complain, and the ill will it would generate wouldn't justify the number of additional sales. But please, don't let that stop you guys from using specious examples. I am sure it makes you feel very clever.

mk

I already said it was an extreme example. Another reason it would never happen is they won't accept them as an advertiser in the first place. But magazines like Cosmo and Vogue had no problem accepting tobacco advertisments. Which plenty of girls under 18 read. I assume you feel just as clever with your slipery slope defense of tobaccos advertising?


We are in danger of losing our free society to a bunch of moralistic doo gooders who would regulate our lives for our own good. Once they get rid of tobacco, alcohol, guns, fast food, meat, candy, motorcycles, fast cars and everything else that is fun will follow.

[pinniped]

Ank no offense but none of your examples provides a good analogy. No matter what your position, if you don't admit that the degree to which advertisement and sales of cigarettes have been restricted is unique, then you aren't arguing in good faith any longer. So I won't respond further other than to say that I hope you enjoy driving your speed limited Ford Taurus.

[Ankf00]

Ank no offense but none of your examples provides a good analogy. No matter what your position, if you don't admit that the degree to which advertisement and sales of cigarettes have been restricted is unique, then you aren't arguing in good faith any longer. So I won't respond further other than to say that I hope you enjoy driving your speed limited Ford Taurus.

i agree that the advertisement restrictions imposed upon tobacco companies are unique, no question about that

my retarded analogies were just in response to your point that if it's not illegal it should be fully legal, and those are a few things that came to me at first which are restricted in sale, now responding to your post I now believe your point was in regard to their advertising methods and not the age restrictions on the sale, my mistake, and I agree with the point you've made providing I'm interpreting it correctly this time.

[gjc2]

No one is talking about banning the sale or use of tobacco, just the elimination of advertising.

The negative of health effects of smoking are not only cancer. Smoking causes or complicates many other health problems.

George

[RaceGrrl]

Politics. Bleh.

[pinniped]

Politics. Bleh.

Let's talk about soccer!

[Ankf00]

Let's talk about soccer!
lets, a quite more entertaining venture ;)