I had assumed that it was a done deal. It was bad enough having all these smokers befouling the air that I was trying to breathe, but at least I didn't have to worry about the media encouraging them to continue doing so. Or so I thought . . .http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/178/4/384-a
CMAJ • February 12, 2008; 178 (4). doi:10.1503/cmaj.080046.
© 2008 Canadian Medical Association or its licensors
All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Cigarette ads return to Canadian magazines
CMAJ
If Mags and Fags doesn't carry a magazine that interests you, chances are you aren't interested in anything. With somewhere between 6500 and 7000 titles, on subjects ranging from miniature doll houses to elk hunting, the store offers the widest selection in the nation's capital.
The variety of magazines is matched only by the variety of ads within their pages. Every product imaginable — wrist watches, throat lozenges, spark plugs — is promoted somewhere on these shelves. For the past 10 years, however, one product has been absent from Canadian magazine ads: cigarettes. Now, much to the chagrin of anti-smoking advocates, they're back.
The days of the medical profession and the Marlboro Man serving as shills and icons for the tobacco industry are long gone, but tobacco advertising is back. Image by: Stanford University Lane Medical Library / tobacco.stanford.edu
Last summer, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the advertising restrictions listed in the Tobacco Act, which the federal government passed in 1997. The Act states, among other things, that no person or fictional character can be used to promote a tobacco product. That spelled the end of lifestyle advertising campaigns, such as those featuring the über-rugged Marlboro Man or cartoon hipster Joe Camel.
The Canadian tobacco industry's "big 3" — Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., JTI-Macdonald Corp. and Rothmans, Benson and Hedges Inc. — opposed the new restrictions. During the decade-long court battle that ensued, the companies refrained from advertising in mass-market publications, arguing that the restrictions were so limiting as to essentially constitute a ban anyways.
About 5 months after the Supreme Court's June decision, however, JTI-Macdonald launched several new products with accompanying ad campaigns. The ads have appeared in entertainment magazines, such as Montréal's Mirror and Vancouver's Georgia Straight, and in the Canadian edition of Time.
The new cigarettes contain additives to improve their taste or mask the smell of their smoke. One brand, called More International, comes in whisky or liqueur d'orange flavours. Another, called Mirage, emits a vanilla aroma when smoked and is being promoted as the only cigarette in Canada with "unique Less Smoke Smell (LSS) Technology."
Cynthia Callard, director general of Physicians For a Smoke-Free Canada, says the ads violate the Tobacco Act, which forbids promotions that are "likely to create an erroneous impression about the characteristics, health effects or health hazards of the tobacco product or its emissions." In early December, her organization objected to the Mirage ad campaign in a written complaint to federal Health Minister Tony Clement. Health Canada is investigating the complaint.
"People will think that if there is less of a smoke smell, there is less smoke and therefore less harm," said Callard.
JTI-Macdonald defends the Mirage ad campaign, claiming it contains no ambiguous health messages and adheres to the Tobacco Act. It also claims the ads are to promote a new brand to existing smokers, not to recruit new smokers. "In our minds, we have the right to communicate new products to smokers," said André Benoît, vice-president of corporate affairs and communications. "The only way to do that is through advertising."
Callard believes Mirage cigarettes will compromise non-smokers' health. When the smell is masked, people will unknowingly expose themselves to more second-hand smoke. The return of tobacco ads can only harm Canadians' health and by not issuing a comprehensive ban, the government is responsible for allowing it to happen. "I don't entirely blame the tobacco companies. It's their job to sell cigarettes."
As 1 of 168 members of the World Health Organization's (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, Canada is obligated to ban all tobacco product advertising by 2010. But the ban must adhere to each member country's constitution and antismoking advocates say that gives Canadian tobacco companies some wiggle room, which they will be sure to take advantage of. "Nothing short of a complete ban on advertising and sponsorship is effective," said Douglas Bettcher, director of WHO's Tobacco Free Initiative.
Bettcher says many studies have shown partial bans have no effect on reducing tobacco consumption. Restricting one form of advertising merely results in a shift to another form. Complete bans, however, can reduce smoking rates by as much as 6%, according to the World Bank Group's 1999 report "Curbing the Epidemic." About 20 countries have such bans in place.
In addition to implementing advertising bans, Bettcher would like to see countries forbid retailers from displaying cigarettes and require them to keep tobacco products under store counters. "The package itself is the last point of promotion to the customer."
Keeping Canadian tobacco companies out of the ad game won't be easy, says Richard Pollay, a University of British Columbia marketing professor who has followed the advertising practices of tobacco companies for 20 years. The industry is endlessly creative, he says, not only adapting to new legislation or changing public sentiment, but anticipating them: "They're playing chess when everyone else is playing checkers."
Copyright 1995-2008, Canadian Medical Association. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)
All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of
the Canadian Medical Association.
So now we're back to the Bad Old Days. How Wonderful!
Why not relax a bit eh? What of it if people smoke, You drive your car, Your befouling MY air. You use you gas or oil fired furnace, Or fire place, your befouling MY air.
ReplyDeleteDo not use second hand smoke as an excuse. "It causes Cancer" As does the exhaust from your car, and the oil in your motor.
Second hand smoke should be the least of your worries.
Use the small bit of air your breathing to contribute something useful to society. Second-hand smoke is a small pin prick in the millions of stab wounds YOU throw at the world. So Please, Next time you want to rant about something like this, Take the time to analyze all the problems you, and I create with our daily lives. Because the deeper you go into the rabbit hole, you'll realise you are no better a man than I.
have stopped smoking about 6 years ago and now i can't stand the smoke
ReplyDeleteFor the record, I do not drive a car and have never even had a driver's license.
ReplyDeleteWe aren't back to the bad old days; cigarette legislation is here to stay. Advertising bans always seemed rather Draconian to me at worst, useless at best. Removing sponsorship from sporting events? Who suffers? The event, the participants...I am relatively certain that few people were influenced by Imperial Tobacco's sponsorship of a golf tournament.
ReplyDeleteWithout doubt smoking is a dangerous habit but it seems to me that somehow it is being used as a way to garner funds as well as provide a focal point away from some very real problems that greatly increase cancer risk, more so than second hand smoke. Vehicles for sure, the exhaust contains far more deadly chemicals than does tobacco smoke - buses are among the worst.
When there is an air quality warning - it isn't from cigarette smoke. Its from smog - emissions from factories, from vehicles...I don't think we'll see a true decrease in lung diseases, in fact, we are seeing an alarming increase of children with asthma. A deadly disease.
Call me a cynic but I see this whole anti-smoking thing as a, pardon the expression, smoke screen. Focus the great unwashed on one problem so they don't realize where the REAL issues lie. Fossil fuels. Petrochemicals.
How many people die on Canadian roads as the result of vehicles that easily attain extreme speed? Those stupid car commercials - those should be regulated.
Alcohol commercials, there's another product that needs to have advertising regulated. Smoking rates are way down; smokers do their thing out of doors but speeding drivers? Drunk drivers? The rates are way too high.
If someone chooses to smoke - they, at this point in time, are simply placing themselves in harm's way. Drivers of rice burners and speedy little death traps put everyone in harm's way. The yutz who downs 6 or more Coor's Light - envisioning himself as the buff dude on television - jumps into his vehicle and swerves his way home? Puts everyone in jeopardy.
Time to start looking away from smoking - it is passé and start concentrating on the aforementioned problems. Funny how they all relate to the oil industry...
Oh great...more chemicals to inhale... just what we all need.
ReplyDeleteSecond hand smoke DOES cause cancer... it's a fact. Sure, lots of other things do too, but this is one thing we can do something about. There are NO benefits to smoking. Zero.. zilch..nada..
Risk IS everywhere..yes... a plane might fall out of the sky and land on you too. Some risks are simply more easily avoided. Like smoking. I'm not saying it's easy to quit. Hell no, hardest thing in the world. I know.. But again, risk assessment and management..
I don't know that advertising or not, will make one whit of a difference. The Ontario government seems to think so. Having just banned the Cigarette Superwalls (you know the one...the wall behind the cash register piled high with smokes) from all retail outlets. When you walk into any retail outlet that sells cigarettes, you will no longer see any...NONE..not a sign, that they sell cigarettes anymore. The governments theory is "out of sight, out of mind". *rolling my eyes* I doubt it will make a difference in the sale of smokes. Might reduce the amount stolen though..