Who Smokes and F1

[Kiwiracing]

This was one of the questions in the F1 survey I did yesterday and I thought it would make for an interesting pole, and the fact I haven't done one for so long!

Plus do you smoke? Did you smoke? Is there still a place for Ciggarette sponsorship in motorsports?

Cheers
Kiwiracing

[Andrew]

Originally posted by Kiwiracing
Is there still a place for Ciggarette sponsorship in motorsports?


I would say, no.
Motorsport (or at least F1) seems to be one of the last bastions of tobacco advertising. There is an article on this isseu in the current F1 Racing magazine.

I can't see why tobacco advertising needs to be in F1. Just being part of the landscape for so many years now does not mean it has a right to stay either. Just as people on this forum were appalled at the practicies of James Hardie and the way they treated victims of their work practices, I see cigarette advertising in much the same way. Only in the last half-dozen years have cigarette companies accepted the link between smoking and cancers. They knew, despite resisting the same claims for decades.

I also did the questionairre Kiwiracing did, and answered that I did not see that cigarette advertising had any right to be in F1, or for that matter, any motorsport.

Currently, half the grid are sponsored by tobacco companies:

Ferrari - Marlboro
McLaren - West (although due to end soon, and take up Johnny Walker)
Renault - Mild Seven
B.A.R. - Lucky Strike/BAT
Jordan - Benson and Hedges (on and off)

Doomsayers who claim that if tobacco companies leave F1, the sport will be badly weakened, are kidding themselves. As the F1 Racing article rightly pointed out, seeing tobacco companies leave might even entice new comanies to commit who wouldn't have otherwise done so while the 'grubby' presence of cigarette advertiising was involved. Williams have good sponsorship with electronics partners (and incidentally a nicotine patch company to wean people off smoking!), Toyota attracted massive sponsorship from Panasonic, Red Bull are centred around the energy drink, and Ferrari can always fall back on Vodafone. Coca Cola, Microsoft and Sony are all reportedly interested in F1. There are ample opportunities for further - non tobacco - investment.

[xtreem2001]

This is one topic that could and should create a lot of discussion.
The question on tobacco sponsorship is interesting if you consider
these facts.

1) Smoking is a legal pastime. Governments accept huge taxes from the sale of the product. Why then, shouldn't the tobacco
companies be allowed to sponsor motorsport. In a back door type
of way they are sponsoring government revenue.

2) Alcohol addiction is just as prevalent and often kills innocent people in motor accidents. But, these companies are allowed to
sponsor motor sport teams. Johnie Walker replacing West is a classic example of bias government control.

3) In a democratic society people have the right to choose. Banning one product whilst promoting another is taking away the individuals choices. If smoking remains legal then so should advertising. There is no other logical arguement unless you also
ban the alcohol companies as well.

Yes, I am a smoker but think that is irellevant. I think the worlds
governments need to decide whether smoking is to remain a legal pastime. If that answer is yes, then I dont believe they have the right to ban sponsorships.

[Dingo]

Depends on which side of the debate you're on...

[Kiwiracing]

Another reason that bought this up for me was I noticed in one of the pic's I took at EC that Murph is carrying sponsorship for Quitline:

http://drmphotos.com/gallery/page6.htm

Cheers
Kiwiracing

[Martin Thomas]

Xtreem2001 considering the facts..

1) Just because something is legal, doesn't mean that advertising should be allowed automaticly. It would be stupid to have a goverment advert to quit smoking in the same block as an advert to start smoking a certain brand.. Whether or not the taxes are spent there, a reason for the high taxes is to offset the health costs.. I can have a couple of beers a night and suffer no ill effects.. I don't know anyone who has a couple of cigs a day... It is a killer, it does damage at whatever level you do it, it is addictive, there are additives in it for this purpose alone.

2) Per capita of users there are more people addicted to smoking than alcohol.. Everything can be addictive.... Alcohol does not (as far as I know) have additives in it for the sole purpose of addicting its user. there are people addicted to foods, shopping, sex, model cars.....
Yes, innocents die from drunk driving/ect. Innocent people die because of high powered cars, firearms, safety practises at work...... People suffer from misuse of legal things, How do you missuse cigs (besides burning down forests and houses)???

3) Agree with you there in a way.. My wife smokes, not because she chooses to, but because she is addicted... I think that cigs should be a prescriptive drug.. It cost my mum heaps more to give up smoking than if she just kept on smoking (monetry, that is)...

[arthur]

Originally posted by xtreem2001
This is one topic that could and should create a lot of discussion.
The question on tobacco sponsorship is interesting if you consider
these facts.

1) Smoking is a legal pastime. Governments accept huge taxes from the sale of the product. Why then, shouldn't the tobacco
companies be allowed to sponsor motorsport. In a back door type
of way they are sponsoring government revenue.

2) Alcohol addiction is just as prevalent and often kills innocent people in motor accidents. But, these companies are allowed to
sponsor motor sport teams. Johnie Walker replacing West is a classic example of bias government control.

3) In a democratic society people have the right to choose. Banning one product whilst promoting another is taking away the individuals choices. If smoking remains legal then so should advertising. There is no other logical arguement unless you also
ban the alcohol companies as well.

Yes, I am a smoker but think that is irellevant. I think the worlds
governments need to decide whether smoking is to remain a legal pastime. If that answer is yes, then I dont believe they have the right to ban sponsorships.

I have to agree with everything you have said, if a product can be legally marketed I see no reason why it can't be advertised.

(no i'm not a smoker, never have been) but I don't think its banning would have a detremental effect on F1. I think there are a few companys that would be eager jump in.
The only problem I see is that non tobacco companys may not contribute the vast sums of money that the tobacco companys currently do.

[xtreem2001]

Originally posted by Martin Thomas
Xtreem2001 considering the facts..

1) Just because something is legal, doesn't mean that advertising should be allowed automaticly. It would be stupid to have a goverment advert to quit smoking in the same block as an advert to start smoking a certain brand.. Whether or not the taxes are spent there, a reason for the high taxes is to offset the health costs.. I can have a couple of beers a night and suffer no ill effects.. I don't know anyone who has a couple of cigs a day... It is a killer, it does damage at whatever level you do it, it is addictive, there are additives in it for this purpose alone.

Martin, that is my point. If smoking has been proven to be so harmful, IT SHOULD be banned. No arguement. The reason it is
not, is because it would open another black market and the government would dip out. But, surely you cant have the cake and eat it too. Banning sponsorship is a dreprivation of civil rights.
These tobacco companies are still operating within government approved laws and as such have the legal right to advertise. It is
a sign of guilt that the government promote stop smoking campaigns on the one hand yet pocket millions of dollars in taxes
with the other. They do a similar thing with poker machines and gamblers. Put token amounts into rehabilitation programs whilst
pocketing huge amounts from the tax collected.

I went to the Melbourne GP this year and was saddened to see young men who struggled to stand on their feet still being served
the beer of one of the main sponsors. If that were a pub the publican would be liable. But, it's an outdoor event and who cares
if one of those guys was actually going to attempt to drive home.
Alcohol does continue to be just as much an issue. Why else would the government run adds for young tennage drinkers. They have the statistics, but choose not to act, due in part to the
pressure applied from Australian owned breweries. Tobacco companies are off shore and therefore are not relied upon as heavily for support from our government. Strange how only some
countries see smoking as a big sponsorship issue, whilst those more reliant on the income choose to turn a blind eye.

I own and operate an air conditioning company and as such pay a levy every time we require refrigeration gas. It is a tax. Yet, the
Australian Government has chosen NOT to to join other countries
in speeding up change that would reduce harmful ozone depleting
gases. Why is that. Where is the tax being used ??? You believe
the tax on smokes goes toward health issues. Well at the price
of smokes and the level of tax why is it Australia has one of the
worst levels of health care in the developed world. Why is it that
petrol prices are sky high and again attracts a high level of tax.
Yet, the highways are some of the worst around. The government
needs a better excuse to justify banning sponsorship rights. Like
I said ban sponsorship if they believe smoking is harmful. But, have the B%^LS to ban smoking outright to justify their decision.

[biante1921]

Yes i smoked,but gave it up about 16 yrs ago.
Then thought what can i spend all this money i'm saving on???
Answer = model cars.
I know which HABIT i prefer.
And as far as tobacco sponsorship goes i cannot see a problem with it in motor racing at any level.
Same goes for V8's, a bit extra cash from tobacco would not go astray.
Admit it, tobacco companies have a lot of spare cash to throw around & they will find somehow to advertise.
It may as well be on race cars.
People WILL smoke if they want to.

[paranoid]

Yes, I am a smoker but think that is irellevant

hahaha, sure

continue to smoke, but everyone have the balls to say they choose to, not just 'i cant quit, poor me' oh, and dont you dare use the health system.

cigarette advertising should be banned in F1, and I would also support banning of alcohol adverts as someone said alcohol causes its fair share of problems.

[Martin Thomas]

I agree with you on a few points but disagree on others..
There is improvement needed in our health system for sure, but I doubt it is one of the worst in the developed world..
I think smoking should be banned from people who don't smoke, but those already addicted cant just be cut off as well.
Alcohol is a terrible thing if it's abused, but CAN be used in a safe manner that is enjoyable.
we actually don't pay that much for fuel when you compare us to other countries like England. As for condition of roads, there will always be improvement needed for that, no doubt about it.

I know what you mean about the Kyoto agreement.
Don't get me wrong about how I feel about the government, thats a whole new thread (What cheeses me off, for instance)....

But so far as Ciggy advertising, I support the ban. I see where you are comming from but I don't want my kids seeing thier heros endorsing the same product that is slowly killing their Mum...

[xtreem2001]

Originally posted by paranoid
hahaha, sure

continue to smoke, but everyone have the balls to say they choose to, not just 'i cant quit, poor me' oh, and dont you dare use the health system.

cigarette advertising should be banned in F1, and I would also support banning of alcohol adverts as someone said alcohol causes its fair share of problems.

Paranoid I sure as hell wasnt using the health system as an excuse. Perhaps you need to read the post again. I was highlighting the fact that the government pretends that tax made
on smokes goes to our health system and stop smoking campaigns. I have rung the quit line and sure enough they sent me out a phamphlet. WOW, that really helps all us poor adddicted smokers.

I dont need sympathy from anyone regarding the choices I have made with my life. But, I agree entirely that our youngsters should be encouraged to avoid the trappings off smokes and bulge drinking. I have a 21 year old son who has never even tried a smoke, but his younger sister does smoke. Strange that when they were living at home it was my daughter who complained about the disgusting habit. She now admits to giving
in to peer pressure and taking up the habit. At the end of the day
my anger is directed at the government. If smoking was banned completely I for one would give them up. For all those who would
find it hard to quit, maybe the smoke tax could be used to set up
detox programs. That way the arguement is null and void as you
cant sponsor someone legally if your product is banned.

One last thought. Removing the names of smoke companies wont
stop them promoting their product. Team owners, sports people,
(Shane Warne as an example) and others attached to sport will
always find a way of lining their products with tobacco money no
matter what bans are in place.

[Esses]

Couple of points here.

1/ Yes, Govts rake in Millions of $ in Tobacco taxes, BUT the corresponding amount of money spent on Tobacco-related health-care is WAY higher. Something like 2 or 3 times as much. Hence the "Red-neck" calls to ban smokers from Medicare.

2/ The single biggest "Take-up" demographic in smoking is.......teenage girls. We're talking average age 14 here. Right behind them are teenage boys. You know, the bullet-proof, it'll never happen to me, type. Everyones sons & daughters, in other words. I have 2 sons & a daughter & when they're old enough they'll be well & truly educated about the dangers & evils of tobacco, drugs & even alcohol. That from a 4-drink-a-night man, which apparently makes me a borderline alcoholic!:D

No, I don't think that tobacco should be advertised in any way, shape or form. It's deadly, end of story. Ask ALL of the "Marlboro Men" ad-actors, 4 (so far) I think. Sorry, you can't, they're dead. Guess what they died of...............?

[paranoid]

Paranoid I sure as hell wasnt using the health system as an excuse. Perhaps you need to read the post again. I was highlighting the fact that the government pretends that tax made
on smokes goes to our health system and stop smoking campaigns.

Sorry, I wasnt clear, no, I didn't mean you were using the health system as an excuse, that bit wasn't a response to your post, I can read and indeed I agree with some of it ;)

i meant: people that smoke should not be allowed to use the health system, ie: they have deliberately harmed themselves, why should anyone else have to pay for them to get well. (yes, yes, i know, where do you draw the line - and don't get me started on how the taxpayer pays for 7 IVF treatments)

However: read this, steve you are spot on in everything you have said, which the research supports.

1/ Yes, Govts rake in Millions of $ in Tobacco taxes, BUT the corresponding amount of money spent on Tobacco-related health-care is WAY higher. Something like 2 or 3 times as much. Hence the "Red-neck" calls to ban smokers from Medicare.

exactly, it cost HEAPS, LITERALLY HEAPS more money than what is garnered from taxes. the government would have more money if they collected NO TAXES FROM CIGARETTES AND THERE WAS NONE OF THE ASSOCIATED HEALTHCARE AND SOCIAL COSTS.

WOW, that really helps all us poor adddicted smokers.

WOW, HOW ABOUT YOU HELP YOURSELF, THE EFFECTS OF SMOKING HAVE BEEN KNOWN SINCE THE LATE 1800's.

[Martin Thomas]

So, if you are speeding by 5km and have an accident, you don't expect any help from the government. What about if you are participating in a sport? What about heart disease because of your diet. Or if your kid doesnt listen, falls off his bike and hurts his head maybe you should have to pay for it??

I HATE people saying that smokers should not get any help.. Cigs did not have the additives in the 1800's that do the damage.. It has only been made public recently that youngsters were targeted in the campaigns...

Smokers contribute more to health than most of us in monetry terms, yes, it may cost more to cure them but my son had his eye fixed and he(or me) has not payed any taxes related to eyes..

The day that this sort of thinking is taken seriously will be a sad day indeed.
You sound like the Liberal Party. Send people to war while planning ways to cut back on their dissability pension if they get wounded..:mad:

[paranoid]

So, if you are speeding by 5km and have an accident, you don't expect any help from the government. What about if you are participating in a sport? What about heart disease because of your diet. Or if your kid doesnt listen, falls off his bike and hurts his head maybe you should have to pay for it??

for sure, there is an arbitrary line that has to be drawn somewhere, speeding, sport, and even heart disease are all areas where i would not advocate that attitute at all. there are grey areas and it would be insane to deny any help to people that make mistakes... of course BUT: smoking is one area where it is so obviously bad for you and there is no good side - pretty clean cut

cigs did not have as many additives in the 1800s, but it is pretty obvious that the habit is not healthy, and always has been, would anyone really disagree with that?????

eye taxes, i dont understand the point you are trying to make here... that is the point of health care...but what if you were told your son could not have his eye fixed as there was no more money available...

i know people who are in need of medical care through no fault of their own, only they cannot afford it, and it really sh*ts me to see people who willfully damage their own health clogging up resources. i wont back down from that.

I HATE people saying that smokers should not get any help...The day that this sort of thinking is taken seriously will be a sad day indeed

and I HATE people that have the audacity to walk into a hospital to get help for something they did to themselves - its friggin selfish. i dont care if there was advertising, mcdonalds advertises, but i dont eat there every day or i would be a fat bugger - and with no-one to blame but myself. if people are so weak then they deserve what they get.

the day people start taking responsibility for themselves will be a happy day indeed.

[Martin Thomas]

Okay.. I think I made my view clear and I fully understand what you're saying.
We do agree that there shouldn't be any ciggie advertising though, don't we?;)

[paranoid]

ya ya, 100% ;)

[lukey73]

Ok here's my take on the whole thing. If a product is able to be bought and sold Legally then you should be able to advertise that product.

The law of nature is people will do what they want to do wether a person sitting behind a desk wants them to or not and it doesnt matter how bad it is for them if they want to do it they will. Smokes cause health problems so do some foods alcohol and the even the sun, its upto each individual to decide what they want to do to there body. What i find interesting is when did you last see an F1 driver smoke ? These guys are among the fittest people on earth yet there teams are sponsored by something that reduces your health!

I used to smoke but gave up as i just didnt want to smoke anymore, i occasionally have a Cigar but thats a rare event these days too. A few people have spoken about legalities etc at the end of the day we are ALL individuals and choose to do what we want, if there is product on the market that i may like to try/buy then why shouldnt the maker of that product be able to tell me about it.

The money taken in by all Governments from cigaretts is amazing and if you think they spend more than what they take in to help people with smoking related illnessess then you kidding your self. Dont believe every bit of GovCo propaganda you read. I know what its costs to make a pack of Ciggies and what GovCo get the figures would amaze you.

Luke

[xtreem2001]

Paranoid, I really feel sorry for people that consider themselves above everyone else. Your comments in regards to smokers are
narrow minded and why the government prides itself for being able to brainwash poor innocent individuals like yourself.

Considering the fact that scientists are continually finding new things that are harmful to society you must live a very dull life.
To all those poor builders who used Hardies products you should have known it was going to be harmful. What's that you are now
saying Paranoid. That case is different. How so. My Grandfather
died from a respiratory illness. The docs said smoking killed him.
But, when told he spent years working in the boiler rooms of British Navy ships they have conceeded he could have suffered the same illness if he didn't smoke. Unfortunately, he wasn't aware that either practise would eventually kill him at the time.

I cant see how you could argue that people who partake in a legal pastime should not be entitled to medical support. I would
not want to be the doctor who decided my daughter was not entitled to medical assistance because she is a smoker if the illness she suffered from was proven not to be smoking related.
I would think doctors would quit in droves for fear of being sued
if their judgement call was wrong. And, while on the subject should we ban aids victims as well because they choose to inject
with dirty needles or sleep with the wrong partner. Tough call.

The call to ban smoke sponsorship is a half hearted effort on the part of men who live in ivory towers. The government knows it wont stop teenagers taking up the habit and thus their taxes will
be safe. It satifies the rent a crowd do gooders who hug trees and protest at anything and everything. But, talk to the doctors and specialists and get their opinion. Nothing short of banning smokes will fix the problem. So why do I smoke you ask. Simple,
I watched a fellow workmate who spent the first 26 years of his
life doing all the right things. Didnt drink or smoke but died in a freak accident. We all have a number and when yours goes into the frame thats it. Imagine the grief, if in a few years time the scientists announce that just one big mac a week has shortened
your life by 10 years. You laugh. So did all those smokers who couldn't read or write enough to understand that their favourite
pastime was actually killing them.

It is nice to sit back and condemm those that are weak and continue to smoke despite the dangers. But, cancer is killing as many non smokers as it is smokers. You must live in a glass bubble Paranoid and never walk outdoors. Because skin cancer is a killer too. Surely, you dont justify these people getting health care benefits. They know of the dangers. Stupid arguement ???
Sure is but so is stopping smokers from getting medical help. If you feel that strongly about smoking lobby the government to ban the sale and importation of tobacco products. Good luck, I think you will need it.

[paranoid]

Paranoid, I really feel sorry for people that consider themselves above everyone else. Your comments in regards to smokers are narrow minded and why the government prides itself for being able to brainwash poor innocent individuals like yourself.

Above everyone else? not at all, I am just another person contributing to a discussion, disagree if you like, I am not trying to force it on you, nor do I have a lower opinion of you as a person if you disagree. How is it I am brainwashed, personally, I cannot stand the liberal government, and dont like labour much either. ALSO: Watch the personal attacks mate, it just shows ignorance of the subject matter and an ill formed argument.

my life is not too dull thanks, you cant avoid everything that may or may not do you harm, thats just stupid! but smoking is where i really draw the line - some things are so obviously stupid, well..

My grandfather died of mesothelioma (similar to asbestosis), he was also a smoker. This is true, at one time no-one was aware that asbestos was lethal stuff. But when they found out, they were not forthcoming in alterting those that worked breathing in the fibres day in day out about the dangers. That killed him, but the smoking didnt help. He was however aware of the health risks of smoking.

I would not want to be the doctor who decided my daughter was not entitled to medical assistance because she is a smoker if the illness she suffered from was proven not to be smoking related. I would think doctors would quit in droves for fear of being sued if their judgement call was wrong.

actually, there are surgeons who indeed REFUSE to operate on smokers, and quite within their rights. just like you cannot force a lawyer to represent you, or a painter to paint your house. --> sue? for what? name the cause of action you would pursue, i surely cannot think of one.

So why do I smoke you ask. Simple, I watched a fellow workmate who spent the first 26 years of his life doing all the right things. Didnt drink or smoke but died in a freak accident.

uh, thats a pretty silly reason to do something hey. you smoke because someone died who didn't?? Well i drive like a crazy man because a safe driver had an accident! doesnt make any sense...

you are right, cancer targets everybody, but i would give someone suffering from breast cancer, prostate cancer and even heart disease a hospital bed over yourself, who smokes because 'i can do whatever i want and no-one can stop me'. it is an arbitrary line, and i personally draw it at smoking

prohibition never works, just look at drugs, so banning smoking is not a solution: actually (apart from people grabbing a brain, the best way to stop smoking i think would be to increase tenfold the tar content, nicotine etc of cigarettes, then at least smokers would probably cark it pretty quick!!! (dont stress, just joking!)

anyway, i am always up for the devils advocate role, if nothing else, it helps you to articulate and actually think about your own opinions :D

[Martin Thomas]

Originally posted by paranoid
at one time no-one was aware that asbestos was lethal stuff. But when they found out, they were not forthcoming in alterting those that worked breathing in the fibres day in day out about the dangers.

I'm pretty sure the same can be said about smoking and its ADDICTIVENESS (is that a word) I wonder if people started smoking thinking they could give up while not realising they would become addicted??

Good point about the devils advocate, but.

You're a hard man if you wouldn't offer sympathy to an old digger having a smoke..

[paranoid]

yeah, very good point about the addictive nature (addictivity??) of cigarettes, many people did start thinking they could just quit... the cigarette companies cottoned onto the idea that if they added nicotine people would find it hard to give up. not an excuse for new smokers now but!

You're a hard man if you wouldn't offer sympathy to an old digger having a smoke..
i guess i could make some exceptions haha:cool:

[Andrew]

This thread has positively gone off since I last viewed it. After seeing aso much apathy in the world, I am so pleased to see passionate discussion on something serious that has ramifications not only to our motorsport, but the health of our loved ones.

As I stated in my first reply, I advocate a ban on cigarette advertising. Or, if that can't (or won't be accepted by Bernie, Max, the teams and the FIA), then at least force teams running cigarette advertising to also run an image on their cars of mouth, facial, throat or lung cancers. Just as recent legislation in Australia forces tobacco retailers at point of sale to show posters/dispalys of said cancers, I believe that F1 teams shouold do the same thing if they wish to accept the money from cigarette companies. At least demonstrate the negatives of smoking. I don't mind if people want to go the next step and force images of alcohol related diseases on teams sponsored by alcohol comanies (like McLaren and their Johnny Walker sponsorship).

I believe that even if tobacco sponsorship is banned in F1 and other motorsport, it will not be the end of the debate. Cigarette companies and the teams who want their money will simply devise new ways of employing subtle advertising. Look at Peugeot's Marlboro sponsorship in the WRC, or Mitsubishi's previous spronsorship by the same company: at events banning the word 'Marlboro', the teams simply substituted the drivers' names in the red and white chevron. Ferrari could likely do the same, accepting money from an intermediary company that is not listed as a tobacco company, but is bankrolled by them instead. Then, the same (or similar) colour/image scheme could be employed that still suggested tobacco sponsorship wihout actually showing it. And it would in all probablilty sidestep the tobacco ban on a technicality. In F1, there are always grey areas in the rules being explored - look at B.A.R.'s interpretation of the 'dry weight' rule to redesign their fuel tank and fuel pick-ups...

I have NEVER smoked. My younger brother smokes, my father has given up after smoking for over 20 years (although might be tempted every now and then). He began smoking in the army after smokers got 'smoko' breaks and others didn't. So he took it up, and got addicted. He woke up every morning for 20 years coughing so badly that I genuinly thought he had a smoking-related diesease. Once he quit, the coughing stopped. My mother smoked for at least 15 years, but has now quit. My step mother smokes. My step brother smokes. As a committed non-smoker, I have been around smokers all my life (even since I was a child) and I fear that I have during that period suffered damage as a result of others' actions, and there has been nothing I could have done about it.

As a passive smoker, I no doubt breathed in chemicals that smokers didn't get as they had filters. I hope I do not develop a smoking-related disease later in life as a result of being around others. Nothing makes me more angry than seeing a mother (or a father) smoking in the car with their children in the back seat. The poor children are in an enclosed environment with poisonous chemicals, that an open drivers' window does not fix. I know - I spent my entire childhood in that situation.

I would like to see a complete ban on tobacco advertising. It is an individual's decision to smoke - but I do not wish to see the advertising of a product that is slowly killing my family members every time they inhale.

Some last points:
Has anyone seen Michael Schumacher attend functions and promote Marlboro cigarettes as part of the sponsorship deal with Ferrari?
Has anyone seen Kimi Raikkonen attend functions and promote West cigarettes as part of the sponsorship deal with McLaren?
Has anyone seen Jenson Button attend functions and promote Lucky Strike cigarettes as part of the sponsorship deal with B.A.R.?
Has anyone seen Fernando Alonso attend functions and promote Mild Seven cigarettes as part of the sponsorship of Renault?
These are supreme sportsmen, and it is a complete anathema to align a health-killing product (even if consumed in moderation) with the image of these healthy, fit sportsmen.

The banning of tobacco sponsorship from all forms of motorsport will finally allow a complete collection of model cars to be made as they appeared on track. No more blank sections on model cars - and no need to try and source decals to make them historically accurate. They would then be released from the factory as they raced. And as a collector, I would appreciate that.

*I am not going to write in this thread again, as I have said what I wanted to say. I feel strongly about removing the advertising of cigarettes. I am, however, intensely interested to see where it goes.

[xtreem2001]

Sadly, I doubt any member of the public will ever know if any of the drivers currently sponsored by smoke companies do actually smoke. It is not an image that Bernie or any of the team managers would want for fear of reprisals from the medical authorities. That is what makes the whole sponsorship deal so crazy. When the Arrows team was in full swing back in the early days of the Adelaide GP I was fortunate enough to fix a air conditioner in a rental property. This house was rented by Arrows for their mechanics and technical staff who arrived earlier than the rest of the team. Whilst I was there, one of the test drivers turned up and to my surprise smoked quite heavily. He claimed it made very little difference to his level of fitness. This was in the mid 80's and shows how much opinion has changed in 20 years.

Despite the dangers several top sportsmen DO smoke. Shane Warne is a good example. So dont be surprised to find drivers smoke as well. Maintaining fitness may be a problem but not impossible these days. Would be interesting to actually find out if this is the case.

Moto Gp bikes that are sponsored by smoke companies simply change the brand logo for the riders name. If sponsorship laws do ban smoke companies I wonder whether colour schemes will come under scrutiny as well. If the Camel Honda team was forced to drop their sponsorship but chose to run the same paint scheme it would make very little difference as most fans would still associate the team with Camel and as previously stated the money could be paid through shelf companies on behalf of the tobacco companies. Interesting concept.

[Esses]

........ummmm, I'd say that Shane Warne is a good, if not great, example of many things: athlete, cricketer, spin-bowler etc. But as for his smoking, that's a BAAAAD example. Not to mention his "texting" technique, or should that be "habit"..........:D

[hrt433]

this might have already been said, cause I only skimmed through the other responses...

does any one else think it is a bit wierd that Alcohol sponsorship is still allowed in motorsport....sort of seems to go agains the whole drink and drive arguement...

as for the loss of tobacco sponsorship affecting teams, the larger teams ie Ferrari and Renault would have no problems an alternative sponsor, smaller, less sucessful teams might struggle but I'm sure they would still get a sponsor

[xtreem2001]

Your right hrt433. It is crazy to suggest smoking sponsorship is out but alcohol sponsorship is okay. There are just as many young people abusing alcohol as there is that smoke. Difference is smoking usually only kills the individual whereas a drunk driver can and often does wipe out innocent victims. I have read where people charged with violent offences have claimed the use of alcohol and or drugs as a defence but never have they claimed smoking tobacco made them do it. So I suppose making a personal decision that may ultimately affect your own life is of far more concern than one that could wipe out innocent victims.

As I have stated previously dont think for a second that the powers that be really give a damm about saving lives. This is a stunt to quell the rising tide of opposition to smokers. I dont have a problem with that providing it is a level playing field. Some of the posts on here have shown there is a growing population that believes everything they have been told about smoking is gospel.
Perhaps it is. But, I still question why then isnt there a total ban on smoking. Changing packet descriptions is nothing more than trying to make tobacco companies spend millions on packaging. It will NOT stop young people taking up the habit. Fruit flavoured smokes HAVE NOT been banned in this country. A recent web site recently promoted overseas smokes and had to close down. Not through government pressure but because they couldn't keep up with demand. One would think the laws would be that tight that this simply could never happen. So, again I ask how serious is the government ?

Alcohol sponsorship will not come under fire until the public is made aware of the dangers in the same way they have been hit with the anti smoke campaigns. Sad reality is that many more innocent people will die from the stupidity of drunk hooligans before any action is taken. The politicians enjoy a stiff drink or two and have a totally different mentality toward it's dangers. It must also be remembered that the big Aussie breweries are sponsors of the major political parties. No-one on here has been able to put up a constructive arguement as to why a product that can be purchased legally should not be entitled to advertise that product through legitimate means. That includes all avenues of sport.

[wayno]

The money is worth too much to the government for it to ban tobacco. I personally don't mind if they don't. Can you imagine how much a litre of petrol would be if these clowns didn't have the revenue from tobacco?
Now that's the stuff of nightmares! :eek:

[toad]

I have never smoked and never will. Personally I think its disgusting. My wife does and she smokes outside the house.

However, it is still legal and those making the legal choice to smoke are over 16 (or is it 18?), but whatever, they are at an educated age. I am just please they all have to do it outside.

What is very bad, in my opinion, is the over-use of sugar and sugar related products like fast foods. The advertising and marketing is targeted at kids and this stuff kills you just as fast as smoking. The rates of obesity, heart disease, high colesterol, cancers, etc because of "sugars" are going through the roof.

But if McDonalds were to sponsor F1 it would be put up in lights as a momentus ocassion.

Not even to mention these fast food companies exploiting 3rd world countries etc etc....

Ok, time to get off the high horse.

[bortall]

If someone has a lack of brain cells that they take up smoking because they saw an F1 car driving around, then perhaps taking them from the gene pool wouldn't be such a bad idea. :D

But seriously - cig advertising should be allowed.