Smoking and F1 sponsorship

[Small_Fryz]

wonder what would come up if they scanned the barcode..

 

[zed300]

The highest bracket of smokers in Aus, is preached to us as teenage girls. Probably one of the lowest bracket of F1 veiwers. Advertising of cigerettes has been banned here long before that bracket was born. So advertising based on that observation, has very little influence on those that decide to start smoking.

 

[Small_Fryz]

i must say its a struggle to find good liveries without using tabacco or alcohol.

JPS... rothmans... winfield... marlborough.... camel...

I dont really understand why they banned it. Maccas can cause just as much harm as smoking... if you ate maccas every day for a your life i doubt youd last long.

 

[Touring Mars]

wonder what would come up if they scanned the barcode..

About £6.50...

Of course, Sauber are now sponsored by Burger King... it does mean, however that if De La Rosa gets a drive-thru penalty, he can grab a Whopper and a milkshake

 

[Fastas]

About £6.50...

Of course, Sauber are now sponsored by Burger King... it does mean, however that if De La Rosa gets a drive-thru penalty, he can grab a Whopper and a milkshake

 

[Ardius]

The hypocrisy with the Burger King sponsorship says it all really.

 

[Fastas]

The hypocrisy with the Burger King sponsorship says it all really.

I don't see what is hypocritical about a fast-food chain sponsoring an F1 team.

Perhaps mobile phone companies are hypocritical too, after all you shouldn't use your phone when driving, right?

 

[Ardius]

The argument that smoking sponsorship is somehow causing people to smoke or helping to promote its image is very flawed when its ok to have fast food advertising which is arguably just as addictive and as bad for your health (or even worse).
And I agree - its stupid to ban any of it, because where does it stop? There are plenty of products that are bad for you that are regularly advertised, why should there be seperate rules for tobacco companies?

 

[RACECAR]

wonder what would come up if they scanned the barcode..

If you were to purchase some Ferrari gear, would you have to scan the barcode on say the shirt itself or on the inner tag?

Of course, Sauber are now sponsored by Burger King... it does mean, however that if De La Rosa gets a drive-thru penalty, he can grab a Whopper and a milkshake

Hmmm...maybe it could work with the chicken fries(if they still have them). It worked in stock car racing though it took a while to get right:

 

[Fastas]

The argument that smoking sponsorship is somehow causing people to smoke or helping to promote its image is very flawed when its ok to have fast food advertising which is arguably just as addictive and as bad for your health (or even worse).
And I agree - its stupid to ban any of it, because where does it stop? There are plenty of products that are bad for you that are regularly advertised, why should there be seperate rules for tobacco companies?

The issue with tobacco advertising is that it is effectively condoning something that is acknowledged, world wide, to be extremely damaging to yours and other peoples health. There isn't one benefit to smoking, there are sooo many negative factors to it. As a money earner, why would any government seriously consider removing one of the biggest tax generators going if it wasn't proven to be worth it.

As for a burger, or fast-food that is high in fat generally, you can easily take it or leave it. The only craving induced by over eating is hunger and that can be easily suppressed by eating anything.

 

[Ardius]

The issue with tobacco advertising is that it is effectively condoning something that is acknowledged, world wide, to be extremely damaging to yours and other peoples health. There isn't one benefit to smoking, there are sooo many negative factors to it. As a money earner, why would any government seriously consider removing one of the biggest tax generators going if it wasn't proven to be worth it.

As for a burger, or fast-food that is high in fat generally, you can easily take it or leave it. The only craving induced by over eating is hunger and that can be easily suppressed by eating anything.

Fast food is almost as addictive as smoking and it also produces the same problem for health care. You may not want to believe it, but there are people seriously addicted to fast food and obesity is a growing problem.
Alcohol too is still allowed and it also is damaging to health, has an element of addiction and adds further unnecessary strain to the healthcare system.

Tax-generating doesn't come into it, we are talking about banning tobacco companies from advertising and sponsoring motorsport. I have no issue with taxing smokers to kingdom-come. But I do have an issue with my favourite sport being handicapped because of some unproven connection between sponsorship and starting smoking and then ignoring the many other sponsors who have similar or exactly the same issues.
Let me be clear - I am not advocating smoking nor am I saying that we should view smoking in a positive light. I am questioning the thinking behind banning tobacco sponsorship and whether it really is such a bad thing relative to other sponsors and the effects of sponsorship.

 

[Northstar]

Fast food is almost as addictive as smoking and it also produces the same problem for health care. You may not want to believe it, but there are people seriously addicted to fast food and obesity is a growing problem.
Alcohol too is still allowed and it also is damaging to health, has an element of addiction and adds further unnecessary strain to the healthcare system.

The main reason cigarettes are deemed dangerous while fast-food/alcohol aren't is because smoking produces 2nd hand smoke. There is no such thing as second hand fat or second hand alcohol.

Also, there are people that are seriously addicted to everything, does that mean they should be deemed "illegal for advertising" as well?

 

[Ardius]

True, smoking is worse because of 2nd hand smoke. However, this is has no bearing on sponsorship. The point is that sponsorship is not proven to do anything other than increase brand recognition, yet smoking is banned on the grounds of it being unhealthy and sponsorship encouraging it.

There are many unhealthy sponsors, yet none of them are considered to be encouraging any of their particular products' use.
My point is exactly that it is rediculous for everything to be banned because it could be considered addictive or whatever. So where is the reasoning for banning one type of sponsor for those reasons? Why is it different for tobacco but not for fast food? Because using/consuming it is worse? Thats not a result of sponsorship.

 

[Fastas]

True, smoking is worse because of 2nd hand smoke. However, this is has no bearing on sponsorship. The point is that sponsorship is not proven to do anything other than increase brand recognition, yet smoking is banned on the grounds of it being unhealthy and sponsorship encouraging it.

There are many unhealthy sponsors, yet none of them are considered to be encouraging any of their particular products' use.
My point is exactly that it is rediculous for everything to be banned because it could be considered addictive or whatever. So where is the reasoning for banning one type of sponsor for those reasons? Why is it different for tobacco but not for fast food? Because using/consuming it is worse? Thats not a result of sponsorship.

Wiki definition of advertising.

'''Advertising''' is a form of [[communication]] intended to [[persuade]] an audience (viewers, readers or listeners) to take some action. It includes the name of a product or service and how that product or service could benefit the consumer, to persuade potential customers to purchase or to consume that particular [[brand]].

Unlike most products that can be deemed bad for you, in the wrong quantities at least; smoking has irreversible effects on your health and it's carcinogenic properties are a little more serious than a greasy burger with cheese.

 

[Ardius]

This isn't advertising in that definition though, it is sponsorship, which is mainly about brand recognition. There is no "persuasion" involved. And my point is not about the result of smoking, rather the thinking behind banning it in respect to the effects of tobacco sponsorship using the reasoning that the product"is unhealthy". As I have illustrated, this is rather dodgy reasoning considering the other sponsors present.

 

[LSX]

The main reason cigarettes are deemed dangerous while fast-food/alcohol aren't is because smoking produces 2nd hand smoke. There is no such thing as second hand fat or second hand alcohol.

Also, there are people that are seriously addicted to everything, does that mean they should be deemed "illegal for advertising" as well?

What about the drunk person who drives through the side of some sober persons car? That's got to be worse than second hand smoke, not that either are good... I'm sure it happens all too often. The beer wagons keep on rolling though.

 

[RACECAR]

What about the drunk person who drives through the side of some sober persons car? That's got to be worse than second hand smoke, not that either are good... I'm sure it happens all too often. The beer wagons keep on rolling though.

Wouldn't that be the same drunk person that consumed too much or at least enough to be considered over the limit?

 

[LSX]

Wouldn't that be the same drunk person that consumed too much or at least enough to be considered over the limit?

Yes, but it's still their choice if they do or not, just pointing out stuff like that happens all the time, but no one is wanting to push the beer cars out of racing. The person whose car is being ran though had no choice at all, just like walking down the street and someone lights up a smoke ahead of them.

 

[VNAF Ace]

I didn't know what F1 was until I played GT3. By then I was already 17, and not as easily influenced by advertising. However, I grew up watching IndyCar racing, and I rarely smoke. Legally, the U.S. government has no right to ban any type of advertising because doing so prohibits "the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech." And the ban cost a lot of people (drivers, engineers, crewman, mechanics) their jobs when racing teams had to shut down due to the loss of tobacco sponsors.

And finally, as a race fan, I miss the awesome paint jobs.

Team KOOL Green (1997 - 2002). Now Andretti Autosport.

Team Player's (1994 - 2003). Forsythe Championship Racing (2004 - 2008) never regained a real primary sponsor. No longer racing in the IZOD IndyCar Series.

Marlboro Team Penske (1991 - 2006).

Marlboro continued to sponsor Team Penske from 2007 - 2009 without having "Marlboro" on the cars. Marlboro logo and colors remained on the cars.

Team Penske today. Marlboro is no longer a sponsor.

 

[Radracing]

*goes off to buy a virgin.

Make that two, one for you and me.

Here is my next sponsor "Oakland Cannabis Racing" Medical Marijuana. My team drivers Cheeh & Chong.

 

[BlacqueJacques]

I remember Rothman series racing at Mont Tremblant and the smokes available for sale at the track were only Rothman brands.

Labatt (beer) was also a big sponsor of Gilles Villeneuve

But I smoked and drank beer before I started watching racing!

Silly when governments still license tobacco sales and addictively accept the tax revenues!

Here is my next sponsor "Oakland Cannabis Racing" Medical Marijuana. My team drivers Cheeh & Chong.

Ya took my thunder!

I was going to say in 5-10 years there will be cannabis cigarette companies advertising -ganja-better to sedate the populace!

 

[Ardius]

Make that two, one for you and me.

Here is my next sponsor "Oakland Cannabis Racing" Medical Marijuana. My team drivers Cheeh & Chong.

Should have sponsored Stefan with USF1, match made in heaven. 👍

 

[Radracing]

Ya took my thunder!

I was going to say in 5-10 years there will be cannabis cigarette companies advertising -ganja-better to sedate the populace!

Yeah I can see it now F1 drivers driving 25mph in a 200+ mph car. "Sedated drivers" or lots of crashes with the race over at the first turn. haha!