Home > Health > Family Health > Ban Point-of-Sale Tobacco Ads in Retail Outlets, Researchers Urge

Ban Point-of-Sale Tobacco Ads in Retail Outlets, Researchers Urge

Reader Comments
Back to article

It all sounds ridiculous to me. I never even noticed that when I was a young teen... I do smoke. It was my friend's dad's cigarettes.... I guess if HE were banned, I would never have started. Woe is me. Stupid.

Ed of NJ 10:36AM July 21, 2010

As long as the product is legal to manufacture and distribute, and as long as the government derives revenue from taxing it, no real change is going to take place. Period.
The study sounds like a joke to me - Children who went into convenience stores less often also bought less cigarettes? I'll bet they bought less milk there as well. If they weren't in the stores as often, they had less opportunities to purchase. A better study would compare children who went with equal frequency to stores with less advertisements, NOT who went less often. The study as conducted only shows that less opportunities to engage in a behavious means less frequent engagement (which is obvious) - it tells us NOTHING about the impact of advertisements.

Vinny of NC 1:59PM July 20, 2010

It's so refreshing to hear what research scientists have to say after they complete their surveys. And it's so cutting-edge to have publications such as this one available to present such innovative news flashes to us.
What would our country have ever done without such people?

Don of IL 1:50PM July 20, 2010

Kids spend a lot of times inside convenience stores and markets, where they are bombarded with tobacco ads. Research clearly shows that exposure to tobacco ads correlates with youth initiation to smoking. All the conjectures of the above commentors are just that -- conjecture, based on their own ideas, not on the science. People need to look at the research on tobacco, advertising and children. It's not hard to do: Go to Google Scholar are search tobacco, advertising and youth.
We need to stop the marketing of a product that kills half the people who use it as directed. It is insane that we still let this illegitimate industry sell its products to our kids.

Jim of CA 3:30PM July 19, 2010

I'm not a smoker. But the tobacco haters have never found a tobacco ad that's acceptable, nor a venue where a tobacco ad is safe. But let's face it. Tobacco - unlike methamphetamine or heroin - is legal to manufacture and to sell in the United States. In fact we tax it, and use the tax money for all kinds of entitlement spending. So here's my point: either convince the US Congress to outlaw the cultivation and sale of tobacco on public health grounds, or move on to some other cause. There are large numbers of alternative causes for these zealots to choose from: sugary drinks, cars without side air bags, Alar on apples, BPa in baby bottles, electromagnetic radiation from overhead transmission lines and cell phones, cribs that have sides that can be lowered (so that parents don't get herniated disks). They could also move on and try to outlaw alcohol again. Better still volunteer to work at a soup kitchen or a hospice.

Henry of NV 2:55PM July 19, 2010

I have believed since the trials in 1996 that we have overlooked a greater risk to children. Cigarettes don't play a role in the drunk driving deaths we see in our communities. I'm not a doctor, but alcohol poses a more immediate danger. I covered cases in my news days where defendents had been under the influence of alcohol before they took someone's life. How about the guy who gets "liquored up" and becomes violent with his spouse or children. I'm not saying we should be suing the makers of our favorite beverages, but should we have such a high frequency of ads in every genre of advertising? Should our top sports stars be pushing the liquid fire? How is it that in the middle of reducing the tobacco industries ad reach we allow for the return of hard liquor ads. Teens, you are in more danger experimenting with alcohol than with cigarettes. Let's have that conversation.

Ed McNeal of NC 2:34PM July 19, 2010

While it is possible that the ads did have some effect, it is just as likely the children come to the store with parents or other adults (They were not of driving age) to get cigarettes. Which is more likely the case, they saw the ads and began to smoke OR they saw their parents and/or friends smoke and began to smoke?
Looking at this another way. Marijuana is illegal and there are no advertisements yet the usage figures among this age group are stable or rising. So you must ask yourself: " Will this ban on tobacco ads reduce teenage tobacco usage?"
Just for the record, I do not work for the tobacco industry. I was a smoker - 2 packs per day. The reasons - My dad and mom smoked plus peer pressure. I quit over 30 years ago and see no reason to start back. For this reason, I could care less about the ads themselves, but I do care about bogus studies misleading the public into making worthless laws with the usual cadre of unintended consequences.

Jerry of GA 12:52PM July 19, 2010

Other countries have implemented such regulations and the effects are debatable and difficult to extract from other ant-smoking measures.
Regardless, tobacco cos. have a First Amendment right to advertise their products. Any govt that attempts to ban on-site tobacco ads will have to be prepared for a years-long fight likely to end up at the Supreme Court, where they willl probably lose.

M of MN 10:58AM July 19, 2010