[thechat] new law on smoking over there?

[William Anderson]

Elfur Logadóttir wrote:
> 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. 

How can product placement affect anything when it's banned on British
television?

> 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 :)

Can you cite some of these examples you discuss?  I'm especially interested
to hear where video game product placement for cigarettes has been
purchased, as I can't remember seeing a single one feature a real-world cig
brand, ever.

> |:.
> |:.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.

Ha!  You can tell when there's a non-smoker talking aout this stuff :)

> |:.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).

The point John is making is that if you walk past a pub, you often don't see
people standing outside with drinks in hand, so the association adult = pub
= drinking isn't in your face.  Having smokers outside puts *that* specific
association front and centre.

> 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 :)

There's no outdoor drinking areas on licensed premises, i.e. beer gardens,
in the whole of Iceland?  Not one?

-- 
_ __/|  William Anderson      |  Tim: Your cheese game is strong.
\`O_o'  neuro at well dot com | Zane: My cheese game. It's all about the
=(_ _)= http://neuro.me.uk/   |       cheese platter.
   U  - Thhbt! GPG 0xFA5F1100 | -- Tim Westwood, Zane Lowe, R1, Dec 2005