the cbc reports the coast is running evil cigarette ads in its paper. as far as im concerned go ahead coast. advertise away. i dont go and scarf on big macs or whoppers everytime i see a fast food commercial. i dont buy a truck everytime i see a vehicle ad. imo ads have limited effect on the vast majority anyway.
its time we starting placing the blame for society’s problems where they belong. on society. im tired of everyone always wanting someone else to take the fall. if you smoke its your fault, not the cigarette companies. if youre an alcholic, its your fault not the pirate on the bottle. if you gamble to excess, look in the mirror. thats the person to blame.
—john
This article appears in Mar 19-25, 2009.
It’s sensationalism really, they make a big story about nothing. Then they interview the public, and most of them say idiotic things like “Kids shouldn’t be exposed to cigarette ads.” And “It’s time for the Coast to take some responsibility.”
My question is, where the FUCK is your responsibility? If you’re a parent, then it’s your job to make sure your kids don’t smoke. If you’re an adult, it’s your responsibility to make your own judgments on what you do with your health.
I’m sick and tired of these losers who ‘question morality’ when it comes to stuff like this. The Coast is a company that relies on ads for revenue, the tobacco industry is happy to pay, so what?
John you’re 100% right, people are always looking for a scapegoat for their lake of willpower/common sense. Advertise away !!!!!!!!
When we, as a society, choose not to advertise things we know are generally harmful this IS society doing something about “society’s problems”.
This is right up there with the “There’s probably is no God” ad… or why we don’t allow messages like, “death to the infidels” on the side of public transit buses.
It’s one thing to allow a freedom but quite another to encourage and propagate it’s influence on the general public… and our society says no, no, no.
Cigarette ads – bad, alcohol ads – good. Evil to bring kids into a tobacco shop, good to bring kids into NSLC and bars.
We live in a democracy until a small group of people don’t like something, then we have to bend to the will of the vocal minority.
I say advertise anything you want and say anything you want. I’m a big boy. I can figure out what I want or not or if the person saying “Hitler was a nice guy” is a complete idiot. I don’t need the protection of zealous do gooders.
I agree, although I found it a bit odd when the ad popped up through my weekly journey through the paper version, I was unfazed by it. Everyone’s right… The Coast is 100% ad revenue, so why not open it up to something like this. Ciggy companies are croaking (heh) for advertising space, and the government have pretty well made cigarettes illegal, so they’re doing what they can. I know this bothers the people who think that 100% of all cardiovascular cancers are caused by second-hand smoke, despite current research that shows a large portion is now being caused by pollution (go figure, inhaling CO2 and CO for hours on end while you’re stuck in traffic with the AC on isn’t good for you). I just hate how people react to this kind of stuff; for one, cigarettes are “out of sight, out of mind”, but the government doesn’t want to make them illegal because there’s significant tax revenue from them, which, given my understanding, is supposed to fund the health care system, but given the state of NS’s health care system, it looks like the tax dollars from cigarettes are paving roads in Digby county. In the end, it’s up to the parents to make sure that their kids know that there are health risks in smoking cigarettes, and to make them avoid the product. Oh, and I`d just like to finish this off by stating that this is from a guy who is a non-smoker, who grew up in a household that both parents smoked heavily, and I do not have any indication of any cardiovascular disease… Oh, wait, I get off my fat ass and get exercise… so I guess that`s it.
kay, your opinion is whats wrong with the world. let not the individual decide for themselves but have others decide whats best for them. sad commentary on where we are heading. now, im not saying cigarettes or big macs are good for you. what is good for you is the freedom to choose to gobble a whopper or puff a stoggie. simply because an advertiser displays an item does not mean they are forcing their product on an individual.
the move to ban cigarettes is working, but ask yourself kay, what is next? is alcohol any less of a scourge than tobacco? is it any less harmful to the body or society? will alcohol be the next target? for you not to see the problem with government dictating lifestyles kay, i feel sorry.
Hey Coast
All I have to say about your accepting Cigarette ads is “advertise their products & TAKE THEIR MONEY “
Cigarette smokers are a minority and cigarette companies are hurting for ad space so fuck what’s good for society, what society thinks, wants and has made plain because…”The Coast is 100% ad revenue”? Are you kidding me? Shouldn’t free publications made available to the general public RESPECT what society (readers) thinks, wants and has made plain? Who is it that wants to see these ads? Who in our society are these ads targeting? Who is it that you would like to see start smoking?
Bro Tim… good point EXCEPT not everybody who drinks becomes an alcoholic. Near everybody who smokes cigarettes becomes a nicotine addict. This sort of advertising is irresponsible.
You are free in this country to smoke if you like. If we ban tobacco outright feel free to call us a dictatorship but that’s not what we’re doing. It’s one thing to allow a freedom but quite another to encourage and propagate it’s influence on the general public. Banning the ads is FAR from dictatorship and in society’s best interests because out-of-sight-out-of-mind WORKS.
kay, im sorry but you are wrong. advertising doesnt encourage or propagate. it imforms. simple as that. it lets people kinow what is out there. if i bought into everything i saw advertised, id need one hell of a lot of storage. thats giving the society you speak so highly of very little credit to basically say they have no will to refrain from purchasing advertised products.
of this society you speak, i was not aware that it was unanimous about the evils of smoking. did i miss the memo?
The Coast is full of environmental stories, Global warming, dirty oil, polluted air, clean water, chemicals in food etc so it seems hypocritical to cheerfully accept money from Big Tobacco and at the same time preach about a clean environment. A Faustian bargain methinks.
Kay– you see, that’s where this comes into effect. You have actually said that alcoholism (thereby an addiction) is a disease, then by your reasoning, smoking and being addicted to smoking is a disease, so, as victims of a disease our compassion? Of course they don’t. You need to realize that society WANTS to make decisions. The government feels that out of sight, out of mind works, but it doesn’t. People are still smoking, people will always do something that is bad for them. Society WANTS clean air and water, but that doesn’t mean that we get it. Our government does nothing about that, nor do they block ads for vehicles that pollute our air, or companies that make our rivers filthy, and that effects more people than smoking, drinking and drug abuse combined. What is your response to that?
Couldn’t have said it better, John.
Here’s a thought… What if, cigarettes are being blamed for the health issues also caused by poor eating habits, high food prices, pollution, not exercising, stress, no love, contaminated water, food, and air, etc…
Our science is flawed because our scientists are owned by big business and government, in that order. The truth is almost irrelevant, as far as our media is concerned these days, so why the heck shouldn’t the coast be making some of the money earned from the fools who still smoke mainstream ciggys? Let’s assume that at least some of the folks who read the coast can still think for themselves, and give them that option.
(fwiw, I smoked for >10 years and quit cold turkey that long ago again, it’s not that addictive, the fact that it’s so impossible is just another myth, imho…)
Kay, Kay, Kay, I have been to many vehicle accidents, domestics, and bar fights. And you know what I learned? Not one of them were caused by tobacco and yet in a good many cases alcohol was predominent.
Further Kay, cigarette smokers are not free to smoke in this country. They have to go outside. Wait there’s another good one. No alcohol outside and no tobacco inside. Just exactly is the government doing by forcing impressionable young minds watching people smoking outside. But Hell, the young people are welcome inside to watch people drink. But Heaven forbid if that young person were to go into that den of eniquity, the dreaded gambling room.
And the difference between tobacco ads and alcohol ads is what exactly? Both are targeting the market, especially young people. My God look at all those attractive young people in those beer commercials. Why aren’tthey in the bars I go to? LOL.
BSB– you need to think about what you just said, because by your reasoning, any relevant science in the past 20 years is useless, along with every innovation, medical technology, etc. because it’s either funded by big businesses or government. You can’t find a cure for cancer or AIDS with twigs and berries. Labs cost money. It’s off topic, but just letting you know.
Actually BSB, most research is produced at universities and government labs. These places don’t run for profit, but are funded by tax dollars and charitable donations. Alocation of funding and publication of results are both peer reviewed, which helps to ensure quality and reliability. Big business and even government agendas have very little influence and control over scientific discovery. The main agenda for most researchers is the discovery of truth and the system is set up to protect that goal.
So many points raised in the original post its hard to pick just one.
If manufacturers didn’t think that advertising would encourage people to use their product, why would they spend the money on it?
Uh… Ya, I must need to think more. D’oh… maybe I do!
Par example, there Fever, CANCER, and AIDS are both man made problems. According to our exalted scientists, we need more expensive toxic drugs to fight these things that were unheard of 100 years ago. Don’t just believe me, DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!!! Ask a couple of survivors…
(AZT kills, btw… Ask the people who made you sick to cure you, and see how well you get…)
see here: http://www.declarepeace.org.uk/captain/mur…
Twigs and berries ARE THE ANSWER, BUDDY! Fuck your “double-blind-laboratory-studies” Rats and rabbits aren’t people, and our science uses them as “guinea pigs” LMFAO, so to speak, let’s talk about what works for the folks who actually survive, not the fucking ‘pharm-co pets’…
I am NOT saying that, “any relevant science in the past 20 years is useless”, because I can see many obvious advances from the recent past, I just think that using their media releases as gospel is just plain ignorant.
IF I was a scientist, do you think I’d tell you, as Mr Average citizen, what was REALLY going on? As fucking if. Don’t be so goddamn naive, are you a preteen, or just sheltered?…
Why do you think a scientist wouldn’t tell you the truth? Who do you think these scientists are? What’s their secret agenda? As a scientist I would like to know, because if there is some sort of conspiracy I’m supposed to be a part of…I didn’t get the memo.
Someone really did a number on you BSB…and I fear that someone was you.
Exactly how are cancer and AIDS man-made? In what lab were they produced?
Brainwashed much, sheeple?
(see link on previous post and try to pull yer heads out of yer arses…)
…”At a House Appropriations hearing in 1969, the Defense Department’s Biological Warfare (BW) division requested funds to develop through gene-splicing a new disease that would both resist and break down a victim’s immune system. “Within the next 5 to 10 years it would probably be possible to make a new infective micro-organism which could differ in certain important respects from any known disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is that it might be refractory to the immunological and therapeutic
processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious diseases.” (See – A Higher Form of Killing: The Secret Story of Chemical and Biological Warfare by R. Harris and J. Paxman, p 266, Hill and Wang, pubs.) The funds were approved.
AIDS As Biological And Psychological Warfare”…
Not at all interested in conspiracy theory, simple logic and observation is enough.
BSB– you’ve really gone off the deep end. By the way, my fiancee is a breast cancer survivor, and she would not have beaten the disease without the help of Western medicine, the surgeries, as botched as they were, chemotherapy and everything. Green tea and aromatherapy weren’t going to save her. Cancer and HIV/AIDS are natural. Cancer being mutations of RNA created by free radicals in your body, and HIV/AIDS existed in chimps and apes for many years before the 80’s. Are you going to call my fiancee a “pharm-co” pet? Hm? You really need to get your head out of your ass and smell the chemicals.
BSB– I followed your link… you cite a website that equated HIV/AIDS as being leukemia/lymphoma which are 2 different diseases. Hm… methinks that someone’s got the wool over your eyes. Not to mention too, all the evidence provided is coincidental at best. That was the height of the Cold War. Biological and Chemical warfare weren’t completely shunned at that point… Anyways, I’m gonna shut up now as this is completely off topic.
That’s your “proof”?!?
Here’s an excerpt from an actual peer reviewed scientific journal called “Science” (one of the best and most reputable journals):
“Human immunodeficiency viruses HIV-1 and HIV-2, the causes of AIDS, were introduced to humans during the 20th century and as such are relatively new pathogens. In Africa, many species of indigenous nonhuman primates are naturally infected with related lentiviruses, yet curiously, AIDS is not observed in these hosts. Molecular phylogeny studies reveal that HIV-1 evolved from a strain of simian immunodeficiency virus, SIVcpz, within a particular subspecies of the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes troglodytes) on at least three separate occasions (1). HIV-2 originated in SIVsm of sooty mangabeys (Cercocebus atys), and its even more numerous cross-species transmission events have yielded HIV-2 groups A to H (2, 3). “
Just one of almost 200,000 peer reviewed articles on the subject by scientists that do NOT work for big pharma. Do you just ignore all that research because of some random book and website of questionable reputation? Where’s your logic and observation?
BSB’s opinions are not just ignorant, they are insulting to all the people who donate money to cancer and AIDS research, all the non-profit organizations who distribute that money to researchers and all the researchers who are working tirelessly to improve the lives of cancer and AIDS sufferers. I don’t expect to change BSB’s mind, I just want to provide some reality to balance out BSB’s fiction.
Also, cigarette ADs are bad.
caffeine, nicotine, heroine/opiate, cocaine/amphetamine … the top 4 most addictive substances on the planet and in that order. Each varies in it’s destructive qualities. Of these, so far, caffeine and nicotine are tolerated for unregulated personal use. Why not heroine and cocaine as well? Because of the destructive qualities of these drugs.
Society has only recently recognized the destructive qualities of nicotine addiction. (it wasn’t that long ago we were smoking in hospital waiting rooms.) When the Coast advertises/encourages use of a destructive product what does that say about the Coast’s regard for society, their readers, the individual?
BSB, again with her evil corporation propaganda bullshit. How anyone can take you seriously after posting a conspiracy site as a reference is beyond me.
The Coast advertises products that contain caffeine, and that contain alcohol as well. What does that say about the Coast? Honestly? Does that mean that the Coast condones jittery, hyper people, or men who beat their wives for keeping the beer away? By the way… you need to re-tool that list a bit. The list should read heroin (different opiates are listed differently, they’re not the same) nicotine, cocaine, and caffeine (caffeine is less addictive than alcohol, as a substance).
@ Kay
“When the Coast advertises/encourages use of a destructive product what does that say about the Coast’s regard for society, their readers, the individual?”
It says that they are not condoning censorship, it says they believe the responsibility starts with each individual and it says they hold no bias on the products which exist in this world that are currently legal to sell in a taxed market. It’s not the Coast’s responsibility to safeguard society from the harmful effects of legal products in the market.
Also, they are only advertising, they aren’t encouraging the use of cigarettes. By placing the ad in their paper it shows that they have no preconceived notions of what products are moral or immoral to display.
When a print, television or radio medium begins to filter our potential advertisers, they only diminish the amount of revenue returned. The Coast, being a free publication relies on advertisements to stay afloat.
In this economy, where thousands of people are being laid off each week, where the only other real newspaper in town begins shedding workers, it’s not the time to be selective in the sponsors of the paper.
I’m sure the Coast would rather not advertise cigarettes in their paper, but if it pays the bills… why not?
kay, when you say that the “destructive qualities of nicotine addiction” have only recently been discovered…how recently do you mean? its not like we all just woke up a couple of years ago and figured this out. its been known for some time that cigarettes pose a health hazard. its not new science. what we have realized lately is that the louder you scream the more our government listens.
as for the coast, i believe advertising cigarettes says that they could use the money and that possibly they have respect for their readers in so much that they believe we can make an informed decision on whether to smoke or not to smoke. unlike you who seems to have little regard for people’s decision making ability.
posting a conspiracy site as a reference
HAHAHA