Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

monsoon

Smoking with the Flintstones

18 posts in this topic

Most of you have grown up watching the Flintstones as have most kids in post WWII America. So have a look at this clip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I don't mind the characters from a show endorsing products but I do think that this kind of ad should be banned. Cartoon characters that influence millions of children should not be endorsing something as unhealthy as cigarettes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly, at least to most people, regulating certain harmfull items (cigarettes) is a good idea, as it is a massive health issue. I would never say to someone, "you can't smoke," but I would say I don't want your smoking to affect me, and you should be charged what the true cost is not only to yourself, but to society in general. I really like the 2nd hand smoking laws that ban smoking in restaraunts and bars in CA and NY, which get at direct effects. Sin taxes get at the secondary health and financial effects. We should definitely tax something if it has a proven direct link to dangerous diseases. If you don't mind paying $5-6/pack for cigarettes, and want to smoke outside or in your home, be my guest.

I think we should also implement a carbon tax that would place a price on carbon emissions. It's beyond argument that we are addicted to oil, most of which comes from foreign nations. It's also beyond argument that this addiction has led us to make disasterous choices in foreign policy, which have done enormous financial harm to this country over the years (Iraq being formost among them). It's time that we set a course for better energy independence. It's in our interest to do so on almost any level... economically, environmentally, fiscally.

We also need to be clear in what exactly we mean by the "free market." A lot of people would say, building subdivisions in the exurbs is a perfect example of the free market... but what most do not see are the massive regulatory advantages given to this type of auto-based development through federal subsidies of highways, cheap gas, bank loans, auto-friendly development regs, etc. Level the regulatory playing field (higher as tax, equal federal subsidy, cost effectiveness of highways, etc) and you'd see a different result.

So, I would say, in general, the govt should set the high-level strategic policies (carbon tax, health care, free trade) that are the best fit for our nation, and then within that framework, let the free market do the heavy lifting in creating jobs, innovating, and fueling the economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think since we know the negatives of smoking it shouldn't be advertised, and I find it to be a very weird commercial since I am only 21 and never saw anything like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is how Barney hawking cigarrettes is so terrible it's worthy of legislation, yet most people of my generation look back fondly on Barney hawking the patently unhealthy Fruity Pebbles cereal brand.

Take a look at this breakdown of a Pebbles commercial, and then take another look at the cigarrette ad. Not much has changed in 50 years: http://it.stlawu.edu/~advertiz/children/fruity.html

According to the APA, children under 8 are not psychologically capable of watching TV from a critical perspective. If Barney Rubble says it's ok, a child will take that statement as fact. http://www.apa.org/releases/childrenads.html

Now when you consider that nearly 60 percent of ads during children's programming are for food products, and almost all of those products are universally considered unhealthy and a major source of adult health problems, it brings up a simple question: why did we stop at cigarrettes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer to that is pretty simple.

There is no case where smoking a cigarette is good for you. You smoke and you take years off your life and it's accepted that it is highly addictive. In the case of sugary food there is no correlation. Sure eating too much sugar is bad for you, but.... Fruity Peebles are OK if they are part of a balanced diet and eaten in moderation. They often are not as they are usually the only component of a child's breakfast, but if eaten as directed there is no established situation where they will kill you like cigarettes.

I am not making an excuse for sugary children's food, but the difference is between a product that will kill you if used as directed and one that probably won't.

The question for this topic however is what is government's role in making these distinctions and requiring the corporations that put out this crap also put out the information so that people can make informed choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not making an excuse for sugary children's food, but the difference is between a product that will kill you if used as directed and one that probably won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, with all this talk about marketing hamburgers and cancer sticks to kids, dangerous toys and cribs, etc. you'd think it's a miracle any of us survive childhood. And yet, the vast, VAST majority do. Gee, how did I ever manage to stay smoke free when Joe Camel was trying to sell me cigarettes? And it's even more of a miracle I managed not to be a fast food addict. Same goes for 90+% of my friends and other people I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


You know, with all this talk about marketing hamburgers and cancer sticks to kids, dangerous toys and cribs, etc. you'd think it's a miracle any of us survive childhood. And yet, the vast, VAST majority do. Gee, how did I ever manage to stay smoke free when Joe Camel was trying to sell me cigarettes? And it's even more of a miracle I managed not to be a fast food addict. Same goes for 90+% of my friends and other people I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're lucky enough to have been born in a period of MUCH lower obesity rates than what we currently face (assuming you are older than 21).

Take a look at this slideshow for a very sobering graphic that illustrates the tidal wave of health problems that are on the way for the next 70 years. It's seriously chilling to imagine just how many children are being born today who will die early of preventable problems like heart disease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is interesting. Puts into perspective how quickly it's growing.

I ain't much over 21 though, I'm 23 and most of the kids I graduated with are 21-22 this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cigarrettes will not necessarily kill you if used as directed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ No, I'm not. If cigarrettes killed every single person who smoked them, there would hardly be anybody left alive in most countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^That is a bit of a red herring argument because smoking leads to many different diseases that cause death and not everyone smokes. Many countries, though not in the USA, mandate the warning "Smoking Kills". There is no other product that "used as directed" will kill you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^There are many people who smoke their whole adult lives and live into their seventies or later. Smoking can kills, certainly, and in many cases it does. However, to say "If you smoke it will certainly kill you" is an oversimplification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


^That is a bit of a red herring argument because smoking leads to many different diseases that cause death and not everyone smokes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are folks thoughts on food producers using some of the same 'addiction science' developed by the cigarette manufacturers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as a point of reference, The Flinstones was a prime-time cartoon geared to aduts, not a Saturday morning kids show. The orginal episodes were produced between 1960 and 1966. It's doubtful that 60's sex-pot "Ann Margrock" (Ann Margaret) would have shown up in a kiddie show (and Rock Hudson, Elizabeth Montgomery, Cary Grant, Tony Curtis, etc). It was the 1960s version of "Family Guy".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.