Smokers Guilt

[sprint347dave]

i was sitting back looking at some of my 1/18 scale cars and thinking about the sponsorship money from all the cigerete companies that people like moffatt, brock, skafie,jones, seton and johnson recieved ,, and woundered do they feel any guilt or even responsibility for people who have or are suffering or have died due to smoking cigeretes that there cars advertisied.

[Uncle Niceguy]

interesting topic but i don't think many people back then realised how bad smoking is for you so i doubt they'd feel much guilt.

[graham7773]

No. As said^^^, research then was not as clear as it it today. I wonder if smokers have any guilt for family members who contract smoking related diseases by breathing second hand smoke. That is well researched.

[Withnail]

Yeah, these things were a product of their time. They shouldn't feel guilty, in my opinion.

Of course, if they did it now, I might think differently.

I remember playing with my Camel, Marlboro etc branded slot cars! The sponsorship does work!

Smoking is bad for you, kids.

[superfly]

I doubt they would feel guilt. It was the sponsorship money that allowed them to go racing.

And even things like the cricket survived on it. Wasn't it called the Benson & Hedges cup?

[casabonka]

Its the same as alcohol now, Im sure no-one in almost every Aussie sport feels bad for people dying of alcoholism related illnesses/beatings/relationship breakdowns. At the end of the day its providing $$ so they can do what they love regardless of the sport/event.

[AU Mont]

no worse than the current sponsorship & advertising of alcohol

alcohol imo has negatively impacted the lives of 100x more people & their families...

[XR6Naranja]

They wouldn't and they shouldn't...

Back then it was advised healthy to have at least one smoke, something to do with circulation or something of some sort.

There was no scientific evidence of it causing anything else that was classed as harmful.

And in reality TV stars did it, and kids thought it was cool, just like we got into cars, we seen it on TV, our fathers or maybe someone related like them, but do we feel guilty for polluting the earth?

[Polyal]

But we all make our own decisions dont we.

Ive done marketing at uni (so I know it all..LOL..not), and I understand how advertising can work. But I still sit back and think that I can comfortably say that I have never felt compelled to buy anything because someone advertises a on a car (or anything).

Sure it helps the awareness of the brand, but no one is forcing you to buy them. Part of me thinks its a shame companies cant advertise because its somehow dangerous.

[Trevor 57]

One of the cigarette companies currently sponsor the Liberal Party, go figure.

[chamb0]

Originally Posted by TheOrangeSpider

They wouldn't and they shouldn't...

Back then it was advised healthy to have at least one smoke, something to do with circulation or something of some sort.

There was no scientific evidence of it causing anything else that was classed as harmful.

And in reality TV stars did it, and kids thought it was cool, just like we got into cars, we seen it on TV, our fathers or maybe someone related like them, but do we feel guilty for polluting the earth?

There certainly was evidence and increasing public concern from the early 70's onwards about the health and social impact of smoking/passive smoking, but the research was actively undermined by the powerful tobacco industry.

[XR6Naranja]

Originally Posted by chamb0

There was indeed concern from the early 70's onwards about the health and social impact of smoking/passive smoking), but the research was actively undermined by the powerful tobacco industry.

Yeah but now it's solid evidence, there's concern that the earths ice caps will melt the the seas will rise, at the moment most say, yeah right, this has happened before, and we won't know any different until it happens.

[chamb0]

Originally Posted by TheOrangeSpider

Yeah but now it's solid evidence, there's concern that the earths ice caps will melt the the seas will rise, at the moment most say, yeah right, this has happened before, and we won't know any different until it happens.

I don't want to go off topic, but I will say that you can argue from a very solid position that the strong and consistent evidence on climate change is undermined and misrepresented by lobby groups with vested interests, in a similar way that the evidence on smoking effects was manipulated in decades past (and perhaps even continuing today). In both cases the primary tactic is to manufacture doubt in the general public's mind.

[Peter B - CV8]

Originally Posted by Big Trev

One of the cigarette companies currently sponsor the Liberal Party, go figure.

Never knew that - which company ????

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by sprint347dave

woundered do they feel any guilt or even responsibility for people who have or are suffering or have died due to smoking cigeretes that there cars advertisied.

Probably no more than people who saw drunk drivers in accidents crashes after going to the Tooheys 1000 at Bathurst or the Fosters F1 in Melb.

[gtxb67]

the individual chooses to smoke or not
motor racing sponsorship didn't make me smoke. every year from 76-06, at least one of my drivers/riders was sponsored by them. in 93 my 4 boys were sponsored by peter jackson, rothmans, camel and marlboro
people who smoke need to take responsibility - not the cigarette companies, not the advertising, no one but the person who chose to smoke

[2011G6E]

As with saying an official "sorry" to...ahem...certain minority groups in Oz, I find it hard to attribute blame today to people of all that long ago. They took the sponsorship dollars and put signs on their cars...who else was doing big sponsorships back then? The odd bank, maybe a big company or two, perhaps a couple of TV stations...but otherwise the bucks came from alcohol and tobacco companies.

[joolz]

Yes smoking isnt good for you just as alcohol, fatty take away foods, too much sun, driving really fast and a great time. Almost all of the above is associated with motorsports and all now is frowned upon within the minority of society. Unfortunately this monority gets all the attention to make the majority feel its a crime do enjoy most of the above. Dont feel bad for what the past did but feel very worried for what the future will take from us.

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by Peter B - CV8

Never knew that - which company ????

British Tobacco

http://www.fia.org.au/news.php/19/ab...hu-may-26-2011

[JC]

Originally Posted by chamb0

I don't want to go off topic, but I will say that you can argue from a very solid position that the strong and consistent evidence on climate change is undermined and misrepresented by lobby groups with vested interests, in a similar way that the evidence on smoking effects was manipulated in decades past (and perhaps even continuing today). In both cases the primary tactic is to manufacture doubt in the general public's mind.

Smoking sponsorship and smoking related illness is so far from climate change it's not funny. Smoking does cause health issues and so advertising it is banned - but somehow selling them is still legal, because it generates billions in taxes. Climate change is a crock - the earth has cooled and warmed in cycles for centuries, nay, millennia. The latest term is thrown about as a good reason for the generating of new and increasing of old taxes. So perhaps smoking and climate change are not so different????

[aussie muscle]

Originally Posted by Mr.NiceGuy

i don't think many people back then realised how bad smoking is for you .

the cigarette companies sure did. in fact they started gathering evidence in the 1930s.

How many of you took up smoking because Brocky had Marlboro on his car?

[XR6Naranja]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

the individual chooses to smoke or not
motor racing sponsorship didn't make me smoke. every year from 76-06, at least one of my drivers/riders was sponsored by them. in 93 my 4 boys were sponsored by peter jackson, rothmans, camel and marlboro
people who smoke need to take responsibility - not the cigarette companies, not the advertising, no one but the person who chose to smoke

I'd like to think you would be able to blame others for it as advertising for cigarettes in the 1900's was pro-smoking..

Would you honestly only blame yourself if all of a sudden meat and vegetables was actually bad for you (not saying it is, just an example), and you've been eating it for years thinking it was okay, schools taught it was good, tv taught it was good, doctors taught it was good and so on, but it wasn't?

I know I sure wouldn't be blaming just myself.

But maybe you're simply a VERY sincere person and would just blame yourself for that sort of thing. (not taking a dig)

[poppa smurf]

I started smoking back in the sixties......everyone knew it was bad for you.....it was banned at school even though the teachers used to light up and walk around the yard smoking away

I copped a boot in the freckle from my old man when I was caught once but then I was allowed to

when i couldn't afford smokes I'd rip up the nearest cane chair and light up....we were so cool!!

but back then we lived life on the edge LOL!.........

[XR6Naranja]

Originally Posted by poppa smurf

I started smoking back in the sixties......everyone knew it was bad for you.....it was banned at school even though the teachers used to light up and walk around the yard smoking away

I copped a boot in the freckle from my old man when I was caught once but then I was allowed to

when i couldn't afford smokes I'd rip up the nearest cane chair and light up....we were so cool!!

but back then we lived life on the edge LOL!.........

Knew? as in it was proven?

Or assumed? as in the fact that you're inhaling smoke?

Serious question btw =)

[Bearman]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

the individual chooses to smoke or not
motor racing sponsorship didn't make me smoke. every year from 76-06, at least one of my drivers/riders was sponsored by them. in 93 my 4 boys were sponsored by peter jackson, rothmans, camel and marlboro
people who smoke need to take responsibility - not the cigarette companies, not the advertising, no one but the person who chose to smoke

Absolutely right!!

Seeing a Marlboro sponsored McLaren tearing up the track didn't give me the urge to run out and buy a pack!!

I grew up in a family of heavy smokers and big drinkers and it was there for the taking. I don't smoke and I hardly drink. With not taking up the smokes, no idea why, I just did not want to take it on. As for the alcohol, the images of an alcoholic Uncle burned deep into my psyche in my early teens so I knew what that could do to you.

Individual choice. Any sports people who had tobacco sponsorship or who currently have alcohol sponsorship needn't feel any guilt.

The individual chooses whether to use the product or not.

[poppa smurf]

ah! well when you say "proven"..... no.....as in "assumed".....probably not....we didnt think like that

but as in "gut feeling" yep!........coughing the lungs up on the first smoke at the age of 11 was probably a good indication.....we knew

then of course the cough before and after the first morning smoke was a give away in later life......

we all "knew" it was deviant and bad behaviour and definitely unhealthy but as kids of today, we were 10 feet tall and bulletproof......if the parents or other adults didn't like it then it must be good!.......stick it up the establishment at every turn even to our own detriment!

old age and cancer was for woosses and would never happen to us........exactly the same as you young fellers today, we knew everything and could do everything .............just the same as the young blokes do now,....... by hell no-one tells us what to do!!!

and unfortunately, just like us, you will learn this is not the case!

more education out there now than in my day and more "experts" telling us what we can do and what we cant do, probably for our own good but it don't mean we have to like it!

information like this wasn't available in our day!........people died of "natural" causes like cancer and heart failure and blood clots and gangrene......only now do we know they were perhaps not so "natural" and there are those that will still argue that these diseases are not caused by smokes....ah well we all have our dream world

the grim reaper will have his appointed time with all of us

[Geez Louise]

Subliminal Advertising. You see an image or hear a jingle often enough, most people go and buy or try the product.

How many people have been suckered in to trying Smiths chips because of the Goobledock? That stupid, and irritating Coles ad at the moment is so annoying and because of this fact, sales have actually increased for Coles as it is what people remember.

Did seeing cigarette sponsorship on cars make me start smoking? Nope.

Some of the credit for that must be given to that laid back, cool, man of all men, Marlboro Man and his horse!

Cheers
Col

[XR6Naranja]

Originally Posted by poppa smurf

ah! well when you say "proven"..... no.....as in "assumed".....probably not....we didnt think like that

but as in "gut feeling" yep!........coughing the lungs up on the first smoke at the age of 11 was probably a good indication.....we knew

then of course the cough before and after the first morning smoke was a give away in later life......

we all "knew" it was deviant and bad behaviour and definitely unhealthy but as kids of today, we were 10 feet tall and bulletproof......if the parents or other adults didn't like it then it must be good!.......stick it up the establishment at every turn even to our own detriment!

old age and cancer was for woosses and would never happen to us........exactly the same as you young fellers today, we knew everything and could do everything .............just the same as the young blokes do now,....... by hell no-one tells us what to do!!!

and unfortunately, just like us, you will learn this is not the case!

more education out there now than in my day and more "experts" telling us what we can do and what we cant do, probably for our own good but it don't mean we have to like it!

information like this wasn't available in our day!........people died of "natural" causes like cancer and heart failure and blood clots and gangrene......only now do we know they were perhaps not so "natural" and there are those that will still argue that these diseases are not caused by smokes....ah well we all have our dream world

the grim reaper will have his appointed time with all of us

Mate that's a pretty good explanation, I myself do not smoke nor drink, so I suppose I'm one of few, especially in this town.

Only problem with relating smoking to cancer these days if everything else is related to cancer from all sorts of experts.

Then you get the expert that comes in and say cancer is in the body from birth, it's just up to your body when it decides to become harmful, so the idea is all over the place, but it's quite obvious that it affects physical health and such anyway.

Originally Posted by Bearman

Absolutely right!!

Seeing a Marlboro sponsored McLaren tearing up the track didn't give me the urge to run out and buy a pack!!

I grew up in a family of heavy smokers and big drinkers and it was there for the taking. I don't smoke and I hardly drink. With not taking up the smokes, no idea why, I just did not want to take it on. As for the alcohol, the images of an alcoholic Uncle burned deep into my psyche in my early teens so I knew what that could do to you.

Individual choice. Any sports people who had tobacco sponsorship or who currently have alcohol sponsorship needn't feel any guilt.

The individual chooses whether to use the product or not.

I'd say I'm much like you, my 2 brothers (one has since given it up), mother and father smoked, and in all honesty, I hated the smell, it stunk because they smoked inside the house and it caused a build up of tar on the white roof, and the obvious coughing and splatter all the time.

I attempted it once, father caught me, and stupidly bonged tobacco once to see what the hype was about, didn't really have much affect, nor did it excite me in any way, haven't touched it since, to add to that haven't used a bong since then either, only once and never touched any other drugs.

Same with drinking, father drank a lot, he became aggressive, and so many other things, I seen all sides of that path, I would drink occasionally, birthday parties and such, went out clubbing once, got bored, then came my 18th, I had one too many tequila's and then was all over the place, came out decent the next day, but the taste and smell of alcohol actually makes me feel sick now, not so bad for me as I save money and health.

[trippytaka]

I prefice this by saying - I am a non smoker

Very interesting topic! And one that I have also thought of, as one of my mates was the National Marketing director for British American Tobacco at one stage. I learned a lot of the things that the tobacco companies do to get around the advertising bans. It's quite amazing really!

My thoughts are, no. Sponsorship is a business decision... and at the time, it was widely accepted that tobacco was a big dollar supporter of sport, worldwide (F1, rugby league had the windfield Cup etc).

I know it's a long bow to draw, but there could also be parallels drawn between continued sponsorship today by alcohol companies. We all know alcohol is a big killer too. It's a drain on our medical system - diabetes, cancers, liver, heart and kidney issues, obeisity etc. But alcohol is actually celebrated here. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a smoker, but I AM A DRINKER!

I guess I raise these points, not because I want to campaign against alcohol advertising - far from it. I just think it's interesting.

Slightly longer bows can be drawn connecting nyone who is sponsored by BP (since the oil rig disaster in the USA). Or the Parramatta Eels for having James Hardie on their jerseys in the 70s and 80s (asbestos). There are a million and one corporations doing things that have advers affects on people - hell, look at Rio Tinto's shady past with the Ok Tedi mines! Shameful!

Look at Apple and the way its workers are treated, poisoned frommworking conditions etc... if you keep looking, you'll keep looking forever.

I guess what I am saying is that there is a real grey area there. We can't condem the past with the values of today. There were different values and everyone was working to a different society. Will we be asking the same thing about Jack Daniels racing one day? who knows... I just want to see the $$ in sport, but without it costing too much for society.

[chamb0]

Originally Posted by JC

Smoking sponsorship and smoking related illness is so far from climate change it's not funny. Smoking does cause health issues and so advertising it is banned - but somehow selling them is still legal, because it generates billions in taxes. Climate change is a crock - the earth has cooled and warmed in cycles for centuries, nay, millennia. The latest term is thrown about as a good reason for the generating of new and increasing of old taxes. So perhaps smoking and climate change are not so different????

JC - I know they're not the same thing, I wasn't trying to draw a long bow I was responding to another poster who brought up the issue of doubt about climate change. I'm not saying there is a link between smoking sponsorship and illness, and climate change, of course they're separate topics. My point was that for the science behind both smoking and climate change, there were/are similarities in the manner in which that science is opposed by those with vested interests, and in both cases early action that could have been taken to reduce the effects was delayed as a result.

Part of the stalling tactic with climate change is to make an an ideological debate rather than a scientific one (at least in the US and Australia - it seems that in Europe people take it more on its scientific merit). Tobacco companies today try to protect their interests by employing an ideological approach, by arousing indignance over the percieved erosion of free choice (I remember a full page ad was run in The Age newspaper last year, in response to the proposed plain packaging laws, with a big picture of a stern nanny). Their scientific opposition to evidence on adverse health effects definately wouldn't stand up today, but they did give it a good old crack in the past.

Originally Posted by TheOrangeSpider

Only problem with relating smoking to cancer these days if everything else is related to cancer from all sorts of experts.

Then you get the expert that comes in and say cancer is in the body from birth, it's just up to your body when it decides to become harmful, so the idea is all over the place, but it's quite obvious that it affects physical health and such anyway.

I was reading an issue of the New Scientist mag a couple of months back and came across an interesting point (I can't remember which issue sorry). The writer was saying that the message about how to protect yourself from cancer on a personal level is getting confused and clouded by the media's tendency to focus on numerous, small and sometimes controversial causes of cancer, rather than making it clear that the vast majority of cases is caused by the big 4 (being too overweight, too much sun, smoking, and too much alcohol). A lot of coverage goes into discussion about more minor risk factors, whether it's mobile phones, chemicals in food, chocolate etc, but it needs to be communicated more clearly that if the primary 4 risk factors are addressed, we're 95% there.