ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Sep 1 04 10:14 PM
Interact
Sep 23 04 3:09 PM
Sep 23 04 8:05 PM
The U.S. Government is now in the process of trying a case against the tobacco industry. Although debating the merits of either sides arguments is contrary to Our Courtesies the trial itself will generate a wealth of factual information. The complaint filed by the Department of Justice outlined a number of factual allegations associated with youth dependency that would benefit youth around the world to read, understand and appreciate. From childhood dreams of experiencing the adventures of life on the range as a cowboy to dreams of traveling to distant lands such as Egypt and riding a camel, the cowboy and camel are bait that if swollowed will bite for a lifetime. Marketing images of pretty girls and handsome guys, fun, big smiles, and groups getting together to share great times, it's all bait inviting you and your friends to quickly become addicted to one of the most captivating chemicals on earth. In truth, addiction to smoking nicotine will rob you of your complexion, your sweet breath, your lung capacity and endurance to exercise vigerously and enjoy life, your freedom, and a roughly a 50% chance of losing more than 5,000 days of life. Below are the facts that the U.S. Department of Justice is today attempting to prove in open court. The numbers are references to each factual allegation in its complaint. The United States of America vs. the U.S. Tobacco Industry Complaint - Filed: February 28, 2001 G. Targeting the Youth Market 92. For most of this century, it has been illegal to sell cigarettes to children in most states. Currently, it is illegal to sell cigarettes to children under the age of 18 in all states. 93. Defendants used the Tobacco Institute to shield the Cigarette Companies' advertising to minors. In 1964, defendants publicized a voluntary "cigarette advertising code" that had been agreed to by all the major cigarette manufacturers. The code prohibited advertising directed at young people or the use of celebrities or sports figures in advertisements for cigarettes. Over the next thirty years, defendants, primarily through publications of the Tobacco Institute and in congressional testimony, reiterated their pledge to avoid advertising directed at young people, while at the same time individual companies were aggressively marketing cigarettes to young people through advertising. 94. Despite the illegality of sales to children, and despite denying that they do so, the Cigarette Companies have engaged in a campaign to market cigarettes to children. The Cigarette Companies have long known that recruiting new smokers when they are teenagers ensures a stream of profits well into the future because these new smokers will become addicted and continue to smoke for many years, and the young smokers are "replacements" for older smokers who either reduce or cease smoking or die. 95. Recognizing the profits to be had from this illegal market, the Cigarette Companies researched how to target their marketing at children and actively marketed cigarettes to children. As a result of this research -- including research conducted in the 1950's into the smoking habits of 12-year-olds -- defendants have long known that young people tend to begin smoking for reasons unrelated to the presence of nicotine in cigarette smoke, but then become confirmed, long-term smokers because they become addicted to nicotine. Defendants are further aware that although beginning smokers realize that there are some health risks associated with long-term smoking, beginning smokers almost universally fail to appreciate the addictive nature of cigarette smoking, and therefore fail to appreciate the risk that, by engaging in smoking while they are adolescents, they will become long-term smokers because of the development of an addiction to nicotine. Moreover, the earlier a person begins to smoke, the more likely it is that he or she will develop a smoking related disease. 96. The Cigarette Companies have aggressively targeted their advertising campaigns to children. Cigarette Companies' advertising glamorizes smoking and its content is intended to entice young people to smoke, for example, as a rite of passage into adulthood or as a status symbol. Among the techniques used by the Cigarette Companies to attract underage smokers were advertising in stores near high schools, promoting brands heavily during spring and summer breaks, giving cigarettes away at places where young people are likely to be present in large numbers, paying motion picture producers for product placement in motion pictures designed to attract large youth audiences, placing advertisements in magazines commonly read by teenagers, and sponsoring sporting events and other activities likely to appeal to teenagers. 97. Dining the 1970's and 1980's, Reynolds' substantial market research indicated that Philip Morris, and particularly its Marlboro brand, was dominating the youth market. Reynolds recognized that, in order to maintain its profits over the long term, it was critically important to attract its own cadre of teen-age smokers. Internal Reynolds documents specifically cited the need to recruit youths as "replacement smokers." Thus, Reynolds developed the Joe Camel campaign - based on a cartoon character - to appeal to the youngest potential smokers. In 1988, Reynolds began a massive dissemination of products such as matchbooks, signs, clothing, mugs and drink can holders advertising Camel cigarettes. The advertising was effective in attracting adolescents and, as a result of the campaign, the number of teenage smokers who smoked Camel cigarettes rose dramatically. 98. Despite the overwhelming evidence that they have deliberately sought to target young people for the sale of cigarettes, defendants have denied such activities in false and misleading communications to the public, to legislative and regulatory bodies, and in judicial proceedings. For example, in 1981, Brown & Williamson denied that it geared its advertising to young people following criticism in a press report. Others have followed suit: Reynolds ran a series of advertisements in 1984 claiming that "We don't advertise to children." 99. To avoid full disclosure of its practices regarding Joe Camel, in 1991, while the Federal Trade Commission was investigating Reynolds' practices of advertising and marketing to children, Reynolds instructed its advertising agency to destroy documents in the advertising agency's possession related to the Joe Camel campaign. 100. The Cigarette Companies have long maintained that their expenditures on advertising and promotion - more than $68 billion between 1954 and 1997-was directed solely at persuading current smokers to switch brands, not to attracting new smokers and not to attract children. These statements were false and misleading, and were intended to ensure that they could continue to entice young people to smoke and become addicted by defeating potential efforts by parents and governmental entities to stop such marketing efforts. 101. In July 1969, the Chairman of the Tobacco Institute, Joseph F. Cullman, III, testified before a Senate Commerce subcommittee: "It is the intention of the cigarette manufacturers to avoid advertising directed to young persons... to avoid advertising which represents that cigarette smoking is essential to social prominence, success, or sexual attraction; and to refrain from depicting smokers engaged in sports or other activities requiring stamina or conditioning beyond those required in normal recreation." 102. In 1983, the Tobacco Institute published a pamphlet entitled "Voluntary Initiatives of a Responsible Industiy." The pamphlet noted that "in 1964, the industry adopted a cigarette advertising code prohibiting advertising, marketing and sampling directed at young people." The pamphlet made the claim that "all companies continue to observe the principles of this code." 103. The Cigarette Companies actively targeted their marketing to children with full knowledge that sales to children were illegal, that children would not appreciate the dangers of the product or its addictiveness, that most of the children who began to smoke would become addicted, and that a significant percentage would develop smoking-related diseases or suffer premature death as a result. They denied doing so with full knowledge that such denials were false and misleading. U.S. Department of Justice Source Link: http://www.usdoj.gov/civil/cases/tobacco2/DOJ%20Web%20_%20Amended%20Complaint.pdf
G. Targeting the Youth Market
92. For most of this century, it has been illegal to sell cigarettes to children in most states. Currently, it is illegal to sell cigarettes to children under the age of 18 in all states.
93. Defendants used the Tobacco Institute to shield the Cigarette Companies' advertising to minors. In 1964, defendants publicized a voluntary "cigarette advertising code" that had been agreed to by all the major cigarette manufacturers. The code prohibited advertising directed at young people or the use of celebrities or sports figures in advertisements for cigarettes. Over the next thirty years, defendants, primarily through publications of the Tobacco Institute and in congressional testimony, reiterated their pledge to avoid advertising directed at young people, while at the same time individual companies were aggressively marketing cigarettes to young people through advertising.
94. Despite the illegality of sales to children, and despite denying that they do so, the Cigarette Companies have engaged in a campaign to market cigarettes to children. The Cigarette Companies have long known that recruiting new smokers when they are teenagers ensures a stream of profits well into the future because these new smokers will become addicted and continue to smoke for many years, and the young smokers are "replacements" for older smokers who either reduce or cease smoking or die.
95. Recognizing the profits to be had from this illegal market, the Cigarette Companies researched how to target their marketing at children and actively marketed cigarettes to children. As a result of this research -- including research conducted in the 1950's into the smoking habits of 12-year-olds -- defendants have long known that young people tend to begin smoking for reasons unrelated to the presence of nicotine in cigarette smoke, but then become confirmed, long-term smokers because they become addicted to nicotine. Defendants are further aware that although beginning smokers realize that there are some health risks associated with long-term smoking, beginning smokers almost universally fail to appreciate the addictive nature of cigarette smoking, and therefore fail to appreciate the risk that, by engaging in smoking while they are adolescents, they will become long-term smokers because of the development of an addiction to nicotine. Moreover, the earlier a person begins to smoke, the more likely it is that he or she will develop a smoking related disease.
96. The Cigarette Companies have aggressively targeted their advertising campaigns to children. Cigarette Companies' advertising glamorizes smoking and its content is intended to entice young people to smoke, for example, as a rite of passage into adulthood or as a status symbol. Among the techniques used by the Cigarette Companies to attract underage smokers were advertising in stores near high schools, promoting brands heavily during spring and summer breaks, giving cigarettes away at places where young people are likely to be present in large numbers, paying motion picture producers for product placement in motion pictures designed to attract large youth audiences, placing advertisements in magazines commonly read by teenagers, and sponsoring sporting events and other activities likely to appeal to teenagers.
97. Dining the 1970's and 1980's, Reynolds' substantial market research indicated that Philip Morris, and particularly its Marlboro brand, was dominating the youth market. Reynolds recognized that, in order to maintain its profits over the long term, it was critically important to attract its own cadre of teen-age smokers. Internal Reynolds documents specifically cited the need to recruit youths as "replacement smokers." Thus, Reynolds developed the Joe Camel campaign - based on a cartoon character - to appeal to the youngest potential smokers. In 1988, Reynolds began a massive dissemination of products such as matchbooks, signs, clothing, mugs and drink can holders advertising Camel cigarettes. The advertising was effective in attracting adolescents and, as a result of the campaign, the number of teenage smokers who smoked Camel cigarettes rose dramatically.
98. Despite the overwhelming evidence that they have deliberately sought to target young people for the sale of cigarettes, defendants have denied such activities in false and misleading communications to the public, to legislative and regulatory bodies, and in judicial proceedings. For example, in 1981, Brown & Williamson denied that it geared its advertising to young people following criticism in a press report. Others have followed suit: Reynolds ran a series of advertisements in 1984 claiming that "We don't advertise to children."
99. To avoid full disclosure of its practices regarding Joe Camel, in 1991, while the Federal Trade Commission was investigating Reynolds' practices of advertising and marketing to children, Reynolds instructed its advertising agency to destroy documents in the advertising agency's possession related to the Joe Camel campaign.
100. The Cigarette Companies have long maintained that their expenditures on advertising and promotion - more than $68 billion between 1954 and 1997-was directed solely at persuading current smokers to switch brands, not to attracting new smokers and not to attract children. These statements were false and misleading, and were intended to ensure that they could continue to entice young people to smoke and become addicted by defeating potential efforts by parents and governmental entities to stop such marketing efforts.
101. In July 1969, the Chairman of the Tobacco Institute, Joseph F. Cullman, III, testified before a Senate Commerce subcommittee: "It is the intention of the cigarette manufacturers to avoid advertising directed to young persons... to avoid advertising which represents that cigarette smoking is essential to social prominence, success, or sexual attraction; and to refrain from depicting smokers engaged in sports or other activities requiring stamina or conditioning beyond those required in normal recreation."
102. In 1983, the Tobacco Institute published a pamphlet entitled "Voluntary Initiatives of a Responsible Industiy." The pamphlet noted that "in 1964, the industry adopted a cigarette advertising code prohibiting advertising, marketing and sampling directed at young people." The pamphlet made the claim that "all companies continue to observe the principles of this code."
103. The Cigarette Companies actively targeted their marketing to children with full knowledge that sales to children were illegal, that children would not appreciate the dangers of the product or its addictiveness, that most of the children who began to smoke would become addicted, and that a significant percentage would develop smoking-related diseases or suffer premature death as a result. They denied doing so with full knowledge that such denials were false and misleading.
Sep 23 04 9:30 PM
Dec 8 04 2:44 PM
Dec 8 04 5:57 PM
Jan 20 05 5:30 PM
Every month I do a single session seminar at a local health department which is set up for kids who are caught smoking and sentenced by the local court system. More often than not the kids who are sentenced in come to the program seeing it as a punishment and what will likely be a waste of time--another effort by another adult trying to infringe on their freedom of choice to smoke. While this may be the attitude of most of the kids, there are a few who leave the session recognizing that the session was valuable and are in fact grateful that they had the chance to learn about smoking and quitting.
Yesterday's session had two kids sentenced to the program--a fourteen year old boy and a fourteen year old girl. The girl came in with the same attitude as most. She wasn't ever going to be addicted because she doesn't smoke much and besides, she didn't see cigarettes as being that dangerous anyway. I suspect by the time she left she may have at least recognized the dangers really posed by smoking, although I couldn't tell if she really understood or believed the addictive power of nicotine.
The boy was another story. He already understood the addiction--better than most his age. The reason he understood it is because he was already smoking over two packs per day and has tried to quit countless times. He was happy he was sentenced to the program and said he would have come in even if he was not forced to if he had known it existed as an option.
I have high hopes for this boy--you could already see that smoking was physically limiting his endurance and was controlling him in numerous ways. It is tragic enough when you see adults under this kind of grip but to see a fourteen year old who cannot really meet the physical and social demands of adolescence because of smoking is indeed a sad thing to witness.
We also had six adults come to the session. Two had quit within the last few weeks and four others were coming in to learn how to quit now. I really didn't have as much time as I would have liked to deal with the adult quitting issues and hope that they find their way here to Freedom to read and learn materials that I could not get covered.
Bill should get a kick out of this. One of the men who had quit over two weeks ago came in with a printed out version of our Never Take Another Puff pdf book. He brought it in so that I could autograph it. This was a first time request--I found it very entertaining.
I am going to kick up a few posts today addressing things that I could not get covered yesterday in the event any of the participants come here to read. The bottom line message I would give to them is the same message that I give to all who read here too, that quitting smoking is fully within any person's capability and the way to stay free once you have quit is simply to stick to the commitment you made the day you decided to never take another puff!
Joel
Mar 20 05 6:02 PM
Mar 20 05 6:04 PM
Sometimes the kids parents don't get it either.
"Thank goodness it's only cigarette smoking!"
Apr 27 05 8:55 AM
Apr 28 05 8:37 PM
. A systematic review of school-based smoking prevention trials with long-term follow-up.
Journal of Adolescent Health. 2005 March;36(3):pages 162-169 Wiehe SE, Garrison MM, Christakis DA, Ebel BE, Rivara FP. Child Health Services Research, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA. swiehe@iupui.edu BACKGROUND: Several systematic reviews of school-based smoking prevention trials have shown short-term decreases in smoking prevalence but have not examined long-term follow-up evaluation. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review of rigorously evaluated interventions for school-based smoking prevention with long- term follow-up data. METHODS: We searched online bibliographic databases and reference lists from review articles and selected studies. We included all school-based, randomized, controlled trials of smoking prevention with follow-up evaluation to age 18 or 12th grade and at least 1 year after intervention ended, and that had smoking prevalence as a primary outcome. The primary outcome was current smoking prevalence (defined as at least 1 cigarette in the past month). RESULTS: The abstracts or full-text articles of 177 relevant studies were examined, of which 8 met the selection criteria. The 8 articles included studies differing in intervention intensity, presence of booster sessions, follow-up periods, and attrition rates. Only one study showed decreased smoking prevalence in the intervention group. CONCLUSIONS: Few studies have evaluated the long-term impact of school-based smoking prevention programs rigorously. Among the 8 programs that have follow-up data to age 18 or 12th grade, we found little to no evidence of long-term effectiveness. PMID: 15737770 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15737770
Journal of Adolescent Health. 2005 March;36(3):pages 162-169
Wiehe SE, Garrison MM, Christakis DA, Ebel BE, Rivara FP. Child Health Services Research, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA. swiehe@iupui.edu
Apr 28 05 9:16 PM
May 6 05 2:20 AM
From the string Why I don't speak at more sites on how to help people quit smoking.
There were a few kids who were getting it today. I did a seminar to a group of about 150 sixth graders today. I did a pretty big push referring them to WhyQuit.com today, for many of them had parents who were smokers. It is also likely that a number of the students themselves will find their way to WhyQuit.com and possibly to Freedom. I have done seminars at this one particular school 26 years in a row. There is a pretty good chance that I had the parents of some of these kids in the same seminar when they were sixth graders. So as it says above:
Aug 27 05 1:19 AM
Dec 2 05 4:45 PM
Jan 11 06 4:50 PM
Jan 25 06 1:08 AM
Mar 15 06 4:33 AM
Written by Erica in message #8 :
Apr 12 06 11:00 PM
May 27 06 4:43 PM
'One puff' link to future smoking BBC News - May 24, 2006 Children who try just one cigarette are twice as likely to take up smoking as those who have never tried it, a study funded by Cancer Research UK suggests.
Share This