Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.activism.d
Subject: First they came for... (was: Re: TOBACCO ADVERTISEMENTS ON TV?)
From: ivler@mdcbbs.com (J.M. Ivler    ivler@mdcbbs.com)
Date: 10 Oct 92 17:47:37 GMT
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: ivler

In article <1b410lINN6rp@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, an683@cleveland.Freenet.Edu 
(Dean C. Gelston) writes:
> 
> 	Should tobacco manufactures continue to sponsor sports 
> events that are on television and pay movie production 
> companies to display their products in movies that will 
> eventually be on television?

After reading this I stopped and said, "let's do a small study." So, I watched 
NBC for 4 hours (prime-time) for three nights. I counted the following:

1) number of times someone was shown smoking
2) number of times someone was shown drinking alcohol (non-beer/wine)
3) number of commercials for alcoholic products

also...
4) watched ESPN and Cable Sports Channel for "placement"
5) watched 12 movies on cable (HBO,TMC,Show) for "placement"

Here are the results:

1) 12
2) 38
3) 62

4) Placement is very high in sports. This includes products like Marlboro as 
well as Jack Daniels. As these events are not designed for broadcast, but were 
done long before TV decided to broadcast them, I don't see how they can be 
defined as "TV advertising". This is event advertising, and if it happens to be 
broadcast that shouldn't be the manufacturers problem.

5) SCROUGED on HBO. A real peice of garbage movie... One of the angels has an 
unlit stogie in his mouth... The main character sits in his office and pours a 
drink that in 90% alcohol and 10% non-alcohol in order to relax. I can 
continue, but the trend here was obvious... Drinking is okay, smoking was not.

I suggest that you do two things.

1) get a life 
2) understand that there are worse things than product placement of tobacco 
products. I would be more concerned with the acceptable use of drugs like 
alcohol, or the fact that we have sports "heroes" out ther telling us that 
using drugs (alcohol/beer) is okay, and is a good thing to do.

Consider the following: I own a business. It is a retail establishment. I have 
customers that I serve. I choose to allow people in my establishment to smoke 
if they so choose. By what right does the government determine that I, and my 
customers may or may not smoke in my place of business? This is a completly 
legal action that I can do on any sidewalk. Why is the govenment deciding what 
is legal for me to do outside is illegal to be done IN MY ESTABLISHMENT? For 
the "public good"? If it is for the "public good" then shouldn't it be outlawed 
everywhere? And shouldn't the government decide to outlaw everything that is 
not for "the public good"? Like, those magazines over there with the dirty 
pictures, and those books with the sugestive passages, and those firearms, and 
alcohol, and... where does it stop? When the "public good" invades your space?

Governments that press the people to the will of the government under the guise 
of "the public good" are totalierian and in most cases considered "evil". They 
take away your individual freedoms for the higher justice of society. This 
process is the first step of dictators. In this country we currently see this 
mentality when dealing with things like the war on drugs. If the religious 
right had their way we would see it with things like what you can see, read, 
and do.

Just where do you want them to stop when excising freedoms for "the public 
good"? How do you plan on stopping them when they come for your freedoms?

jmi
ivler@mdcbbs.com
Democrat for US Congress - '94
Newsgroups: alt.activism