Fairly sure I know your answer, but let's think critically for a moment.

Face value, tax increases on cigarettes make smokers pay more $$ to smoke. No surprise there.

Research given from both sides claim less than 1% of smokers over 30 will quit. But a solid quit rate of 7% (or more) occurs for smokers in their teen years after a hefty price increase- they simply can't afford to smoke! Furthermore, it goes on that higher prices deter kids from first taking up tobacco.

A socially engineered society!

Break everyone that has a habit that we don't like so we can have an overall better society.

Tax those that drink, they too cause problems and kids do buy booze.

Tax those that have multiple sex partners, or hire prostitutes because these individual cause health risks.

Hey, its your slippery slope. Enjoy the ride.

NicoNazi, you really have gotten all your information from the antis.

The fact is that increased cigarette prices (and increased cigarette taxes) show little correlation with youth smoking rates, either historically or in analytical studies. The FACTS are that quite the opposite is true, and youth smoking rates have gone UP when cigarette prices have gone up.

For example, between 1988 and 1996, California raised cigarette taxes by 270% and youth smoking jumped 37% during that same period.

Another example: In Canada between 1990 and 1993, the retail price of cigarettes jumped 55% and youth smoking rates went up 29%.

Studies by non-tobacco funded researchers to support what I say? I've got 'em (including material right out of the journal Tobacco Control.

How can you come here and think you can get away with making such false claims? I told you, we're NOT beginners.

quote:

Originally posted by Wanda Hamilton:

For example, between 1988 and 1996, California raised cigarette taxes by 270% and youth smoking jumped 37% during that same period.

Another example: In Canada between 1990 and 1993, the retail price of cigarettes jumped 55% and youth smoking rates went up 29%.

Can you say that youth smoking increased because of the higher price, or increased because of the marketing geared at the younger audiences by way of magazines, Winston Cup, or promotions offered at local convenience stores around schools.

This type of advertising was legal back in your time study, though it isn't in many places now.

Well, which is it, NicoNazi--the advertising or the price?

In fact, it's neither.

You see, we HAVE read all the anti propaganda, and then we did research to find out for ourselves (with a lot of the data collected right from the CDC and the WHO).

Interesting that you say you don't care about who smokes (which would include kids, I gather) and yet here you are, giving typical (and false) anti talking points about taxes and youth smoking.

Personally, I think it's a parent's job to stop his/her kids from smoking, not Big Government's. Besides, it's illegal for kids to purchase tobacco products in the US, didn't you know?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Wanda Hamilton,

quote:

Originally posted by NicoNazi:
Can you say that youth smoking increased because of the higher price, or increased because of the marketing geared at the younger audiences by way of magazines, Winston Cup, or promotions offered at local convenience stores around schools.

This type of advertising was legal back in your time study, though it isn't in many places now.

Can you tell me how the heck kids are getting the word to smoke pot or try ecstacy? Where's the advertising?

Once kids get past the stage of wanting that SpongeBob doll because they saw it on a commercial between their Saturday morning cartoons, they get to be quite aware of their surroundings and what is or isn't available to them, advertised or not.

quote:

Originally posted by lockjaw02:
Can you tell me how the heck kids are getting the word to smoke pot or try ecstacy? Where's the advertising?

Good point. To me, the obvious answer is peer pressure coupled with most teenagers' unstable and weak self-image.

Of course, I don't need to point out that Pot and ecstacy are illegal.

What if tobacco advertising, in its entirety, was banned? Those using the product are unaffected, yet many fewer will ever start. No one's rights are trampled there (except for perhaps the industry which no one here seems ready to outwardly defend).

Ever hear of commercial free speech?

Why not ban ALL advertising? What about all Big Pharma's advertising? What about the lies in the ads of Big Anti?

Again, why do you care so much about tobacco advertising (which hasn't been on TV since 1971 and which now only appears in some magazines and point of sale venues)? I thought you only cared about not having smoke around you when you go out. Now, it seems, you actually want to increase tobacco taxes and prohibit all tobacco advertising (even though I almost never see such advertising). I gather you really ARE a professional anti, since you care so very much about all the things in their program.

Or is it that you're soooo sensitive to tobacco that even spying an ad in GQ causes you to cough and your eyes to water and your mind to go bonkers?

quote:

Originally posted by NicoNazi:
What if tobacco advertising, in its entirety, was banned? Those using the product are unaffected, yet many fewer will ever start. No one's rights are trampled there (except for perhaps the industry which no one here seems ready to outwardly defend).

Free speech is trampled. That means everybody's rights have been trampled.

BTW, I don't know where you got this: "Research given from both sides claim less than 1% of smokers over 30 will quit."

If you look at smoking rates, the older the population the lower the smoking rate. And it can't be from all the smokers dropping dead in their 30s, 40s, and 50s because there just aren't enough dropping dead at those ages.

I'd think smoking rates would be much higher if this were true.

Simply linking to the same site, over and over and over again ain't debate, it's idiotic.

NicoNazi has lost what little mind he had.....

quote:

Originally posted by NicoNazi:
To me, the obvious answer is peer pressure coupled with most teenagers' unstable and weak self-image.

Peer pressure -- maybe a little, but being a teen isn't synonymous with instability and weak self-image. Those are terms the anti-smokers use specifically to try to indoctrinate people into thinking they cannot guide themselves through life without the hand of wise ol' big daddy government. Hundreds of years ago, teenagers were raising families, and many kids of my grandfather's generation were working after school to help put food on the table. Today's society has attempted to legislate responsibility away from teenagers to try to maintain control.

quote:

Of course, I don't need to point out that Pot and ecstacy are illegal.

And even if you needed to, your point would be? Illegal and not advertised, yet available at an outlet near you practically anywhere and everywhere in the US. I wouldn't doubt that more kids probably try illegal drugs today than cigarettes, yet Glantz et al keep harping about tobacco advertising? You guys don't make sense.

quote:

What if tobacco advertising, in its entirety, was banned? Those using the product are unaffected, yet many fewer will ever start. No one's rights are trampled there (except for perhaps the industry which no one here seems ready to outwardly defend).

Yes, what if? What would happen if all advertising for everything stopped. No more advertisements for toilet paper. Do you think everyone would stop using it?

I despise the actions of the big tobacco cos, but I sure will defend them outwardly if their Constitutional rights are being denied. You cannot pretend to live under the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the rule of law if the law is only to protect the rights of some while denying those same rights to others just because you don't like them or what they have to say.

Right or wrong, the gas station by the public middle school here is just swamped with tobacco advertisting all over the property. They have one of those reallllllly old ad's on the bottom of the entry door; possibly from the 70s based on its picture??

It makes the property look like a dump (actually IS a dump on the inside too).

And it's possible some of those kids can actually read, but what's your point? Kids are seeing ads for Viagra and its clones on TV. And the loonies at CSPI are forever pointing out that the kids are seeing tempting ads for burgers and fries (and their solution is to ban ads for foods they don't approve of). And, of course there are the beer ads (some of which I find actually entertaining) and the car ads with cars driving recklessly....

Commercial free speech is protected, and it should be. The tobacco industry voluntarily agreed not to advertise on TV in 1971, and in the MSA agreed not to advertise in some venues. Had the antis taken them to court to do this, the antis would have lost.

So what is your actual concern with this gas station? The advertising? That it looks like a dump? Or that it's next to a school?

I don't understand what your point is, especially since I can't relate anything you wrote about this place to the context of the previous posts we had going about the effects of advertising or lack thereof on drug use. help me out here.

Do you think the town should condemn the property and sell it to a entrepeneur who likes dabbing in feng shui so he can turn it into something more hip and stylish, like say an internet cafe that sells tofu and bran muffins?

Damn, Wanda, you beat me to it while I was trying to figure out how to use feng shui and tofu in the same sentence.

Didn't BT agree not to have billboards anymore (MSA)?

Knock them off TV, billboards, out of some magazines etc. and what your're going to get is advertising plastered in whatever area is left.

Now you see, Lock, if you were yuppie scum, using those two terms in a sentence would have come naturally, without your even having to think about it!

quote:

Originally posted by lockjaw02:
So what is your actual concern with this gas station? The advertising? That it looks like a dump? Or that it's next to a school?

Gas station is fine with me as a business. A friendly older guy owns and operates the place himself round the clock, no employees. The advertising itself is an eyesore. It is the closest gas station to the middle school here and ironically has the most outdoor advertising.

Didn't tobacco inc. claim they wouldn't place advertising below the 3-foot level (eye level to kids) in a settlement??

quote:

Originally posted by NicoNazi:

quote:

Originally posted by lockjaw02:
So what is your actual concern with this gas station? The advertising? That it looks like a dump? Or that it's next to a school?

Gas station is fine with me as a business. A friendly older guy owns and operates the place himself round the clock, no employees. The advertising itself is an eyesore. It is the closest gas station to the middle school here and ironically has the most outdoor advertising.

Didn't tobacco inc. claim they wouldn't place advertising below the 3-foot level (eye level to kids) in a settlement??

So, is the Service Station owner "tobacco inc."?

You ask such bizaar questions?