Letter to 11 clubs (including Forest) about gambling ads | Page 4 | Vital Football

Letter to 11 clubs (including Forest) about gambling ads

radfordinlondon said:
Less people smoke this is broadly true but young people have taken up smoking despite the ban.
Click to expand...
But far fewer!

Did you see the graph in the link I posted? Numbers have tumbled and not because of tax rises.
Mao is right that, in part, it is because there is greater appreciation of the health damage it does but rejecting the effect of advertising is bizarre.
 
radfordinlondon said:
I think it is slightly different but the themes are broadly similar. The main point being where to draw the line is not straight forward.
Click to expand...
The relevant question is what it is that is on either side of the line.
On the one side, you have the harm caused by problem gambling.
On the other side, you have individual freedom to gamble. Or do you? Actually no.
Its not as contentious as say, gun control in the USA because we aren't talking about stopping people from gambling, only stopping the gambling companies from advertising.
So drawing the line isn't actually that difficult.
The plus side is you will help mitigate problem gambling to some degree.
The downside is less profit for gambling companies.
 
i am a tree said:
https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/15/suppl_3/iii26

Background: In February 2003, a comprehensive ban on tobacco promotion came into effect in the United Kingdom, which prohibited tobacco marketing through print and broadcast media, billboards, the internet, direct mail, product placement, promotions, free gifts, coupons and sponsorships.

Objective: To investigate the impact of the UK’s comprehensive ban on tobacco promotion on adult smokers’ awareness of tobacco marketing in the UK relative to Canada, the United States and Australia.

Design: A total of 6762 adult smokers participated in two waves of a random digit dialled telephone survey across the four countries. Wave 1 was conducted before the UK ban (October–December 2002) and Wave 2 was conducted after the UK ban (May–September 2003).

Key measures: Awareness of a range of forms of tobacco marketing.

Results: Levels of tobacco promotion awareness declined significantly among smokers in the UK after implementation of the advertising ban. Declines in awareness were greater in those channels regulated by the new law and change in awareness of tobacco promotions was much greater in the UK than the other three countries not affected by the ban. At least in the short term, there was no evidence that the law resulted in greater exposure to tobacco promotions in the few media channels not covered by the law. Notwithstanding the apparent success of the UK advertising ban and the controls in other countries, 9–22% of smokers in the four countries still reported noticing things that promoted smoking “often or very often” at Wave 2.

Conclusions: The UK policy to ban tobacco advertising and promotion has significantly reduced exposure to pro-tobacco marketing influences. These findings support the effectiveness of comprehensive bans on advertising and promotion, as included in the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

---------------

I feel like this is a bit pointless though because mao is either consciously ignoring all my posts or he has me on ignore for some reason.
Click to expand...

And for every report you can find to support this misguided theory there will be another one that disputes it.

That's how reports work.

The big changes in how people were discouraged from smoking happened 20 to 30 years prior to the ban on advertising.

Why did people start to smoke in the first place?

Because they were part of a family that promoted smoking or they felt they had to fit in to a particular social circle where everyone smoked.

Peoples attitudes started to change in the 80s after 4 or 5 years of reports on how smoking damaged health started to arrive from America; it took a whole generation to see the effects but you went from a scenario, where it seemed like everyone smoked, like in the 70s, to where smokers where clearly in a minority, like in the 90s.

The ban on advertising was only implemented when the Government was totally convinced which way the wind was blowing; for them to try and take credit for something they had fuck all to do with is not surprising and hugely hypocritical.

If successive Governments had any interests in the health of smokers they would not have been in the back pocket of the Tobacco lobby in the first place; Politicians of all stripes had the chance to let reports on the impact of smoking see the light of day way before the 70s but chose not to do so.
 
Calvin Plummer said:
One strategy doesn't negate another.

If I post research papers will you actually read them? Their conclusions are unequivocal.
Click to expand...

When was the last truly independent Research Paper published?

It must have been a very long time ago because you certainly cannot find any today.

All Research papers are sponsored (funded) by someone which creates a conflict of interest, rendering the reports suspect before they even see light of day.

Universities love Research, they cant get enough of it; and its not because they are shining a light into the dark corners of abuse or malpractice or whatever, its because it brings in coin.

And if there is one thing Universities like more than Research its filthy lucre.

Here's a big bag of cash Mr Oxbridge College, and here's a conclusion; now run along and publish me a Research Paper.
 
mao tse tung said:
And for every report you can find to support this misguided theory there will be another one that disputes it.

That's how reports work.

The big changes in how people were discouraged from smoking happened 20 to 30 years prior to the ban on advertising.

Why did people start to smoke in the first place?

Because they were part of a family that promoted smoking or they felt they had to fit in to a particular social circle where everyone smoked.

Peoples attitudes started to change in the 80s after 4 or 5 years of reports on how smoking damaged health started to arrive from America; it took a whole generation to see the effects but you went from a scenario, where it seemed like everyone smoked, like in the 70s, to where smokers where clearly in a minority, like in the 90s.

The ban on advertising was only implemented when the Government was totally convinced which way the wind was blowing; for them to try and take credit for something they had fuck all to do with is not surprising and hugely hypocritical.

If successive Governments had any interests in the health of smokers they would not have been in the back pocket of the Tobacco lobby in the first place; Politicians of all stripes had the chance to let reports on the impact of smoking see the light of day way before the 70s but chose not to do so.
Click to expand...
You aren't wrong, but I think you are a bit too black and white about this.

You are correct that smoking comes from family and community. Working at a middle class school and then moving to a school in one of the most deprived white working class areas (and the white part was important, as I have never encountered a black student who smokes and very few asian students) you could see a huge jump in the amount of students/expectation of smoking; both tobacco and other substances.

But advertising also conveys an air of social acceptability that smoking has very much lost, especially outside of families and communities where it is common.

So I agree, a child of a family that smokes is vastly more likely to smoke. But not all of them will, and in every generation some of those kids won't. Gradually you see rapidly dropping numbers unless some take it up without parental influence. Without the advertising, and the consequent social acceptability, it is surely far less likely that "new" people will take it up and introduce it into their family.
 
mao tse tung said:
When was the last truly independent Research Paper published?

It must have been a very long time ago because you certainly cannot find any today.

All Research papers are sponsored (funded) by someone which creates a conflict of interest, rendering the reports suspect before they even see light of day.

Universities love Research, they cant get enough of it; and its not because they are shining a light into the dark corners of abuse or malpractice or whatever, its because it brings in coin.

And if there is one thing Universities like more than Research its filthy lucre.

Here's a big bag of cash Mr Oxbridge College, and here's a conclusion; now run along and publish me a Research Paper.
Click to expand...
So because research is funded and people get paid, none of it can be trusted?
 
Pope John XXIII said:
You aren't wrong, but I think you are a bit too black and white about this.

You are correct that smoking comes from family and community. Working at a middle class school and then moving to a school in one of the most deprived white working class areas (and the white part was important, as I have never encountered a black student who smokes and very few asian students) you could see a huge jump in the amount of students/expectation of smoking; both tobacco and other substances.

But advertising also conveys an air of social acceptability that smoking has very much lost, especially outside of families and communities where it is common.

So I agree, a child of a family that smokes is vastly more likely to smoke. But not all of them will, and in every generation some of those kids won't. Gradually you see rapidly dropping numbers unless some take it up without parental influence. Without the advertising, and the consequent social acceptability, it is surely far less likely that "new" people will take it up and introduce it into their family.
Click to expand...
Add to that the inconvenience of smoking now, since it is banned in most public places.
 
While I don't necessarily agree with most of what Mao has said here I do agree with the bit about funded research. The government/establishment can pretty much set the agenda on what they want people to believe by providing the funding for the researchers working to prove the hypothesis they want the public to believe and refusing it for those who set out to prove the opposite.
 
JC21 said:
While I don't necessarily agree with most of what Mao has said here I do agree with the bit about funded research. The government/establishment can pretty much set the agenda on what they want people to believe by providing the funding for the researchers working to prove the hypothesis they want the public to believe and refusing it for those who set out to prove the opposite.
Click to expand...

That's both true and nonsense
 
in_the_top_one said:
But far fewer!

Did you see the graph in the link I posted? Numbers have tumbled and not because of tax rises.
Mao is right that, in part, it is because there is greater appreciation of the health damage it does but rejecting the effect of advertising is bizarre.
Click to expand...

It would be if i did. Smoking is different to gambling but i suggested banning advertising may not be the most effective way of supporting people with gambling issues. I stand by that.
 
in_the_top_one said:
Doll proved the link between smoking and lung cancer in 1950.
Smoking women (not that kind) were on the increase when the ban in advertising came in.
Click to expand...

This true but the research was famously suppressed for decades and huge sums spent on scientists seeking to disprove or reduce the link. By the time compensation was awarded most of the original people were dead. Tobacco and science is not a happy story.
 
radfordinlondon said:
This true but the research was famously suppressed for decades and huge sums spent on scientists seeking to disprove or reduce the link. By the time compensation was awarded most of the original people were dead. Tobacco and science is not a happy story.
Click to expand...
Nor Doll's other work, apparently..
 
Gambling in Australia.

I'm retired now but still find plenty to keep me busy, even so I've slipped into a routine which I enjoy which involves sitting down at 5 PM and watching the news on commercial TV for an hour. Unfortunately the adverts for gambling are numerous, noisy, and downright annoying. At that time of the day I can't believe they're aimed at adults and this makes me even more cranky.
If it was left to me I'd ban them. I don't bet.

Smoking over here.

I'm an ex smoker, started in the Army and moderate at that time, usually 10 a day maximum and stayed that way for aprox 15 years or so. In Oz I ended up with a job which paid well but was mentally exhausting and I was smoking aprox 30 to 40 a day. I stuck it out for 15 years or so and then started working for myself. Within a year I'd stopped smoking.
These days I see quite a bit of my grandchildren aged mainly in their 20s, just a couple in their 30s
often out to a meal with several of them and it's obvious that some of them smoke, just 1 girl and several of the boys. In general discussions it seems obvious that the smoking goes hand in glove with a drink in the pub.
In spite of pointing out that my lungs are no longer in perfect nick, it seems to have no effect and I have no idea how to persuade them to give up what is now a rotten and expensive habit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.