Anti-Tobacco Lobby Stretching the Truth?

[POS Industries]

I've seen these commercials by an organization called "truth®" for a few years now, and this most recent one stuck out at me. I don't have a video, but a here is a summation of the campaign from it's own press release at www.americanlegacy.com, an affiliated anti-tobacco group.

Puppet: “As long ago as 1969, a tobacco company executive agreed to ‘Avoid advertising directed to young people.’ Yet ten years later, they supplied their products to be featured in The Muppet Movie.” In the Puppet spot, Derrick dresses in a puppet costume and hits the streets of New York to test exactly who is interested in G-rated images like puppets. The adults on Wall Street largely ignore him, while children in a park flock to him. Smoking in the movies continues to be an issue to this day: a national study of adolescents in the United States found that 38 percent of youth smoking initiation can be traced to exposure to smoking in movies.

This ad in particular grabbed my attention, as I couldn't for the life of me remember who all was smoking in that film, so I took to my trusty tubal internets and looked it up, finding that it was Orson Welles' character that smoked the single offending cigar in the movie. Further investigation shows that a number of other films were given the same accomodations, including Who Framed Roger Rabbit? and Superman II.

Having watched these movies, my opinion is that the tobacco products in question were already present aspects of the characters as they appeared in the film (as noted, Lois Lane apparently didn't smoke in the comics, but the producers of her film counterpart believed that being a chain smoker was befitting her characterization) and that deals were reached with tobacco companies like Philip-Morris to use receive contributions in funding in exchange for product placement. This is often done in movies when a certain product is going to be used anyway, as it appears here, so the production company might as well get a few bucks for it if they can.

Now, I do agree with the overall goal of anti-tobacco groups such as these, but I find myself agreeing less and less with their methodology. It seems as if they are fighting fire with fire, in a way, stretching facts in order to deceive the public so as to heavy-handedly save the people from themselves. I don't see how this is any better than the tobacco industries own similar methods, despite the idea that the anti-smoking lobby feels they're doing it for the greater good than simply for profit.

[Tendronai]

I'm not really surprised that they'd start lying to get further. I mean, everyone and their brother has been educated about the evils of tobacco by now. Virtually no one picks up a cigarette without being aware of the long term risks, problems, etc. At this point, though, the lobby has reached everyone they're going to. So, to keep the funding coming in and maintain their relevance, they have to start making stretches.

It's not really a great thing to do, but there's not much else that they can do. Their options at this point are to either sit back and let people choose for themselves, or keep pushing until no one smokes at all. People are still willing to buy cigarettes even though they know of the dangers, so it's unsurprising for the lobby to think that their work is actually complete.

In Canada, we have a bunch of commercials comparing ridiculously stupid acts to smoking. One of the more prolific groups. I know smokers who are offended by such acts, but don't make the connection. It's those kind of people who have to be reached, so the lobby has to stretch further and further.

[Mannix]

Those advertisements have always just made me want to go smoke out of spite. And if they're making a relatively reasonable adult want to do that, then I can imagine the effect the ads are having on 'rebellious youngsters.' Kind of like how they found out a few years back that the D.A.R.E. program was creating feelings of negativity/hostility in elementary schools towards the police instead of the positivity they were shooting for.

[Seil]

I smoke - I have my own reasons for it; but I can safely say that nothing that I saw in movies, television or advertisement drove me to do it.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I'm just reminded of the movie "Thank you for smoking". William H. Macey plays a senator against smoking and tells his staff member if he's going to get a kid who has cancer from smoking, make sure the kid is dying and won't recover. Movie painted the battle as rather war-like. Not sure how accurate it was but enjoyable movie all the same.

[Long-Haired Narcissist]

Originally Posted by Poetisch

I smoke - I have my own reasons for it; but I can safely say that nothing that I saw in movies, television or advertisement drove me to do it.

QFT, I smoke because I'm a dumbass who wanted to be like my friends, not because I saw a movie or tv show where someone was smoking.

This propaganda campaign by truth would be akin to saying I smoke pot because Snoop Dogg does.

[Mirai Gen]

I fail to see how using the tobacco companies' own weapons against them would count as anything 'bad.'

They lied about addiction and health risks for years, as well as shoving the collective view of how 'being cool' is more important than avoiding lung cancer. Now a company they fund for anti-smoking is doing more or less the same thing except for a good cause.

Honestly I don't see the harm in lying to the general populous for their own sake. It's not like it's that difficult to check credibility of sources in today's day and age if you're of at least somewhat average intelligence. (like, I suppose, all of NPF).

Note that I'm not knocking smokers, just both the Truth and tobacco companies.

This propaganda campaign by truth would be akin to saying I smoke pot because Snoop Dogg does.

That's an extremely good point, if it weren't for the fact that it actually happens like that. I'm not knocking you or anything, but propaganda is just about as powerful a tool as peer pressure or role models as far as smoking is concerned.

[Mesden]

Originally Posted by Mirai Gen

Honestly I don't see the harm in lying to the general populous for their own sake.

I really, really do. For as much as it's wrong to be lied about on something that'll hurt you, I think it's very discrediting to populous itself to have to lie to try and shock people into not doing something.

Whereas we have every freedom to do what we please with our bodies (Rather, we should, but that's a topic for another time), having the media lie to you and everyone else, no matter the intention, is hardly a good thing. Especially when 'their own sake' is completely subjective.

This --

It's not like it's that difficult to check credibility of sources in today's day and age if you're of at least somewhat average intelligence.

Is not a good excuse to be lying. Average intelligence people is another 'greyish' statement and media affects people differently. The smarter you are, the bigger your mistakes and whatnot.

And, to be blunt, excluding the stupider people of America from the 'solution' to being lied to is hardly fair either.

On anti-tobacco lobbying lies: There's actually little-to-no credibility behind Second hand Smoke causing cancer. I'll see if I can go dig something up.

Edit -- Oh here we go. How about The EPA lying about their studies on Second Hand Smokes' effects on people, on the subsequently most quoted study in the anti Second Hand Smoke Crusade.. That one's almost common knowledge.

I wish I could pull up a link to the Penn and Teller episode too.

[Mannix]

I do not believe the ends justify the means. This belief has become a real problem in our world. If you need me to provide you with examples you haven't been paying attention to the news.

I believe that in a free society individuals should be allowed to make their own choices based on the most complete information possible, ie the truth. Anti-smoking orginzations make their case, state the objective truth, and after that its in the hands of the people. Doing so would have made them better than the tobacco companies that had been lying or misinforming the population for decades. Lying brings them down to the level of the tobacco industry, and it makes them equally credible, which is to say not credible in the least.

These people making up 'scientific reports' on the negative aspects of tobacco use are as bad as the Peta memebers that torture animals on film to shock people into supporting animal ethics. Justify it however you like, but you still lied/misled/did the very thing you're fighting against. I can't seem to find the origion of this quote, but "take care when fighting monsters lest you become one yourself." Or something like that.

[Nique]

If Cancer isn't enough motivation for someone not to smoke, why push the issue by lying?

I don't really think we're getting any out-and-out lies here though. Just perhaps very strongly voiced opinions that are maybe trying to slightly bend the facts in favor of their stance. *shrugs* It seems like it's the popular thing to do now.