[thechat] new law on smoking over there?

[Elfur Logadóttir]

John Handelaar:
|:.Elfur Logadóttir wrote:
|:.> As if the ban would be the reason for increased smoking. 
|:.
|:.Bzzt.
|:.
|:.Cause ===> effect.  30% jump since the ban among
|:.under-30s, in a country where smoking had been on
|:.the decline for 30 years, and where tobacco advertising
|:.is banned.

Ah, but you see, tobacco advertising being banned doesn't remove the product
placement - which is why that is *the* biggest factor in todays battle with
smokers - in particular towards the first time smokers. 

In most countries I know off, the advertising ban only affects direct and
indirect advertisments of smoking labels (i.e. placing the Marlboro pack in
plain view etc.) but it doesn't affect the placement of *a* cigarette in a
celebrity's hand or a model's hand for fashion shoots or 'mood-shoots'
Although, a cigarette in an advertisment is not allowed - with or without
brand visibility - unless to show smoking as a bad thing.

And the advertising ban doesn't prevent product placements in movies,
television shows, etc.
They even purchase spots in computer games.

As someone who wrote her bachelor thesis on the concept of commercial speech
(and the related legal aspects, like freedom of speech), I know a bit about
the subject and can comfortably object to your asumption :)

|:.
|:.Smokers go outside.  Outside is quieter.  Where's
|:.the best place to meet/chat/pull now?

I object to that as well :)
A group of 5 with one smoker should be equally able to convince that one
person to stay inside rather than the five of them going outside.
As with outside being quieter - that has nothing to do with the smoking
factor, so certain people would go outside anyways, regardless of whether
they smoke or not. (Completely different cause to your effect)

|:.And in order to be out there and not look
|:.like an idiot, you need a cigarette.

Again, I totally disagree with you here.
You can easily stay outside and not look like an idiot without the
cigarette, I've actually done that before, standing outside having a
discussion - without all relations to any cigarettes being lit and I
certainly would not lit a cigarette to justify any placement of mine - but
then again, I'm quite comfortable with me being as I am :)

|:.Of course, *before*, people smoking in pubs were
|:.inside, where people too young to be in pubs could
|:.not see them.

and to same effect - exposure to product placement didn't use to be of as
high a volume as today.
kids used to live in much more protected area in so many different ways.

|:.Now, kids can't walk past a licensed premises without
|:.seeing people smoking.  Adult = pub = smoking.
|:.How's that for advertising?

This of course is not an accurate asumption or derivation. If (Adult = pub =
smoking) then (Adult = pub = drinking) /end if :))
With the same argument drinking should have increased as much, as you're
(generally) not in the pub if you're not drinking (with exeptions of course,
but let's not clinge on that one here).

Although, this argument of children exposure is exactly the reason for
Iceland's approach to this, which is its ban of alchohol consumption (sp?)
outside. That way you can't take your drink outside to have a smoke,
resulting in the fact that *no-one* is willing to go with you ... resulting
in the fact that no-one does go out in the first place :)


Like I said in the other email, the primal cause of increased smoking (which
is happening in other countries as well with that age group) is culture and
product placement and informal marketing strategies being utilised.

This is a scientific fact (although, due to exam studies I don't have the
time to find the resources for you, so just trust me on this one, darlin'
:))

/back to the hut
elfur