Mar. 16, 2009 Gotta put my cranky pants on again….
R.J.Reynolds is lighting the fuses of frustrated parents by offering Camel nicotine laced ‘orbs, strips, and sticks’ coming at kids in the mints and gum portion of the candy aisle right near the checkout.
That’s right, dissolvable nicotine. Cigs are off limits, Joe Camel is kaput, so now we’ve got fresh breath-freshener lookalike melt away strips and Altoid style tins with smokeless tobacco, eh?
Gotta hook ‘em while they’re young SOMEhow, right?
Oh, that’s right, these are supposedly for ‘over 18.’—That’s why Camel ads have the cutie patootie young girl grinning atcha…
But don’t worry, kids, the American Cancer Society has repeatedly reminded that children tend to become addicted more quickly, so we can always blame ‘bad parenting’ on your purchase, or hey, maybe the cashier who doesn’t even look up from the conveyor belt scanning the candy-clever packaging. (here’s how to support stronger FDA legislation)
I’ve written extensively about the deliberate targeting of teen girls with their Camel pink think and Euro Pink Dreams cigs, but a big thank you to marketer Allison Ellis over at Targeting Kids who not only concurred but nailed it when she asked,
“Is there anything about this product that isn’t designed with kids in mind? Let’s see… the candy-like flavor? The youthful colors and packaging? The cute camel silhouette? The highly addictive nature of the product? The fact that it’s technically “off limits?”
Moreover, the nicotine delivery of the products is quite high…A cigarette smoker typically takes in about 1 milligram of nicotine, which matches the exact content of ONE orb. (or pellet, or pill, or tablet or whatever you want to call it) Camel Sticks (resembling toothpicks) have TRIPLE that amount with 3.1 mg of nicotine PER stick and they’re due to be released in Spring 2009, with the Strips (.6 nicotine) to follow in the summer. Just ducky. (video after the jump)
The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids says “They’re likely to appeal to children because they are flavored and packaged like candy, are easy to conceal even in a classroom and carry the Camel brand that is already so popular with underage smokers.”
USA Today quotes Gregory Connolly of Harvard School of Public Health, “This is a wake-up call for the public health community…It’s a total sea change.”
Teens will no doubt tell me to ‘get over myself’ and ‘get a life’ and all those other niceties landing on my tobacco posts from those who think they’re ‘old enough to decide for themselves’ citing the free agency argument.
But I’m always the critic of marketing harm, so need to remind kids about context, age and health ramifications differentials, and of course, how this kind of marketing repeatedly trickles down to ever-younger audiences of 8-12 year old tweens, who follow closely in the footsteps of siblings.
Camel hawking nicotine in the candy aisle and thinking they should get a hallpass for slapping on an age disclaimer and ‘child-resistant packaging’ is bupkiss on the accountability front.
Corporations and agency creatives keep manufacturing this ‘oh so brazenly edgy’ slop to leverage the developmental ‘risk-taking’ age, not to mention being busted time and again with studies that show tobacco companies are CLEARLY targeting kids and worse yet, it’s working.
As I wrote before in this post about ‘Blow’ energy drink and Cocaine in a Can going after the ‘edgy teen scene’ —in ‘how low can you go’ vapid values digression…
“We’ve got cranked up candy bars with caffeine, Hershey’s ‘oopsie’ on the dime pouch of Ice (breakers) mint powder, Go Daddys’ purposeful sleaze to get press by having their Superbowl ads rejected, and Woolworths’ staff ‘baffled by the fuss’ of the ‘naming mistake’ of the “Lolita line” of beds for girls…pushed pink think onto the most vulnerable market segment quite strategically (studies show girls get addicted faster) I’d say, yah, there’s no doubt a smokeless tobacco and nicotine work-around was in the offing…
After all, I just saw an ad for a ‘BK burger shot’ (nothing like normalizing binge drinking and junk food in one tidy hipster marketing messaging)… I’d say we’re reaching the tipping point of toxicity where there’s not much left in the ‘outrageous’ department.
We’re getting so blasé in our ‘edginess’ these days, n’est ce pas?
Hey, maybe that’s an answer in itself…a mass media mindshift toward the positive, based on utter evaporation of the vice du’ jour as we’re running out of types of shock schlock to peddle in ‘been there done that’ mode?
Danny McGoldrick, research director for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, reported in US News and World Report, “For companies that claim not to market to kids anymore, they sure do a good job of getting them to use their product.”
“When you are close to 90 percent market share among these three brands, (Marlboro/Philip Morris, Camel/R.J. Reynolds and Newport/Lorillard Inc.) they are doing something right,” he said.
Yup. And in this case, ‘right’ is wrong.
CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report found that 78 percent of middle school students and 87 percent of high-school students prefer to smoke these three brands.
Toss in the notion that the FDA doesn’t have the authority to regulate tobacco marketing that kills “half the people that use it and 90% of the users start as children” he said.
In 2008 alone, Tobacco Free Kids reports 559,863 kids have become regular smokers and 186,621 will die prematurely from their addiction.
Yowza. Put that in your pocket and smoke it. (or, um, suck on it, or whatever you do with the toxic crud)
Reactions from within the Shaping Youth corridor?
“I think it’s time to storm the nicotine Bastille. This is about as disturbing as any new product offering I’ve seen in a long time,” said Shaping Youth’s podcast pal and thought leader Brad Reddersen of Stranova.
Temple University Media Education Lab PhD student Kelly Mendoza added,
“This is highly disturbing because of the pill/candy form–inconspicuous, easy to take, and speaks to the normalization of our “pill-popping” culture. The girl in that ad looks so young!”
(Part of the NAMLE grad student caucus, Kelly also helped develop, implement, and evaluate the online gaming project Tobacco Education in Media, in 2002 to impart media literacy skills about tobacco representation in film.)
And then a few comments from Shaping Youth tween and teen advisors, offering a broad range:
…“ugh. That’s so lame,” (cue disgusted eyeroll)
…“I don’t see the big deal if they’re not able to sell it to under 18s” (right, I’ll depend on that checkout clerk to make the judgment call)
…“If kids are gonna smoke and do stupid stuff they’re gonna do it anyway, this just makes it easier to hide.” (um, exactly my point).
Gee, thanks Camel, for giving parents another watchdog vigilance role to add to our very full plate.
No worries, you can always blame ‘bad parenting’ for ‘not catching’ it or ‘keeping an eye on’ the kids, or ‘raising them to know better’ or ‘talking to them’ about nicotine, drugs, alcohol, energy drinks, whatever…sigh.
Camel can coast on their handy dandy disclaimer, and maybe some child advocate backlash will relocate the junk from the mints and gum aisle…but I wouldn’t count on any shift in the ethical stream from the tobacco industry.
…Not while that young girl is smiling in the ad in a classic associative marketing ploy…
Besides, there’s historic precedent here, as Stuart Elliot’s New York Times piece, “When Doctors and Even Santa Endorsed Tobacco” conveys. (1951 ad at left and NYT photo gallery of similar spins will give you a jarring wake-up call from days of yore when people ‘didn’t know any better,’ so to speak)
But hey gang, news-flash, we know NOW.
This calls for viral mockery from teens in the same way they created those hilarious HFCS counter-marketing commercials.
Just think of what we could do with that poor girls’ nicotine smile…Let’s get on it, team. I think I’ll call agency guy Rye Clifton, who did the Unilever riff on the Axe/Dove mashup.
Meanwhile, have at it kids…It’s satire sketch time. This is YOUR life they’re toying with here…and your little sisters and brothers, too.
1:22 Video from Good Housekeeping Inc. re: Look-Alikes
Shaping Youth’s Resource Round-Up
Teen Smoking and Tobacco Issues:
FDA Regulation of Tobacco: What YOU Can Do
Kids As Guinea Pigs: Report on Unregulated Tactics of Tobacco
American Cancer Society: Child & Teen Tobacco Use
2009 Cancer Facts & Figures: Year by Year Snapshot
2009 Smoking & Teens Fact Sheet (American Lung Assn)
Key State by State Statistics on Tobacco Data (chart)
CDC Smokeless Tobacco Education Materials
Smoking Teens Quickly Addicted; Long Term Health Issues
CDC Media Campaign Resource Center: FREE ads, posters, videos
Shaping Youth: Pink Dreams Turn to Ashes
Shaping Youth: Joe Camel Meets Pink Think
Shaping Youth: Industry Tactics Clueless About Blowback
Truth Campaign (“Infect the Truth” (new) youth anti-smoking coalition)
NYT: AMA On Cigarette Products in PG13 “He’s Just Not That Into You”
Tobacco.org: Tobacco industry’s helpful, newsy links & updated feeds of all things tobacco, even has a teen smoking/youth category to track articles pertaining to kids: wonder if this Shaping Youth blog post will end up there…
Related Resources on Camel Orbs, Sticks and Dissolvable Strips
- Parents beware: New dissolvable tobacco products coming soon
- New tobacco products tested on Portland market
- Tobacco Industry Update NEW TOBACCO PRODUCT ALERT
- New Tobacco Products Tested on Portland Market
- Word of Mouth Success of dissolvable tobacco rides on consumer buy-in, communicating purpose
- ‘Camel Dissolvables’ head for Portland
- Tobacco orbs Melts in the Mouth
- Reynolds American to sell dissolvable tobacco
- Clearing the Air
- Brandweek Says RJR Will Roll Out Dissolvable Tobacco Alternatives to Cigarettes Next Year
- RJ Reynolds Dissolvable Tobacco
- Reynolds Moves To Be On Top When Smoke Clears
- Snus, Sticks, Orbs and Strips (Oh, My)
Amy,
Thanks for bringing this to my attention! I shouldn’t be astounded and irked, but as usual I am–and this keeps me working for change! I’ve blogged your article as starters.
Cheers,
Julia Barry
No nicotine products or any other drugs should ever be marketed towards children or teenagers. And that included alcohol. The product may well have it’s place as a viable and non-toxic/carcinogenic nicotine replacement product, but that’s for another discussion.
Awareness is key, as is hearty vigilance about ALL of the marketing mishaps and recent endangerment of kids…from energy drink jolt-n-crash surges of caffeine and sugar to this recent mishap at a daycare with a child drinking bright blue windshield washer fluid that looked like a sports drink:
http://ecochildsplay.com/2009/03/17/kids-drink-windsheild-wiper-fluid-at-daycare-another-reason-to-go-for-fruit-juice/#comment-40121
How many kids need to get hurt (or hooked) on products marketed to tantalize them before industry ethics put public health before profit? sigh.
Amy Jussel’s last blog post..Kids Green Science Shenanigans for St. Patrick’s Day
Hold on a sec. 186,621 of the teens who started smoking last year will eventually (perhaps even fifty or more years from now) die from related illnesses? Amy, that’s less than 0.0006% of the U.S. population. Explain again why this is a big deal. After all, everyone eventually dies of something.
A.B.Y.PHD. Good on ya mate! Who should care if some kids die of something we have control over! As long as they are not your kids or are you ok with that too? Perhaps if YOU PHD have two kids you are willing to sacrifice one because they would be a small statistic!
Bill, remind me again of how many children die from smoking? Oh, yeah, that’s right: none.
a.b.y.phd’s last blog post..Is that a cigarette in your pocket?
Hello A.B.Y. PhD
It’s good to bring numbers into the discussion, even though we need to be skeptical about them in both directions — estimates could be too high or too low. Anyone seriously interested in gaining insight about topics as complex as child development, addiction, tobacco marketing, public health, the strengths of informed markets as a means of allocating resources, or the public and private advocacy of alternative possibilities should ask a lot more questions. Here are just a few:
• Before the 186,000 or so new smokers from 2008 who are predicted to die early actually do pass on, will they and we be likely to pay for and suffer the personal and social consequences of the increase in asthma, COPD, missed workdays?
• If the estimate from 2008 does not include the wider availability of smokeless tobacco (in checkout aisle, next to gum, candy) is it reasonable to expect that the number of children who become consumers of nicotine will increase?
• Is the dosing of nicotine in the smokeless mints and sticks higher per unit of time spent consuming than cigarettes? Does this increase the likelihood of addiction?
• Is there an economic and social cost associated with this increased addiction? There are some costs associated with existing addictions which are not worth addressing – long history of acceptance, freedom of adult choice, bad example of prohibition, etc – but should we promoting new addictions to children?
• In addition to laws and regulation, what is the appropriate role of transparency — being able to discover, understand, discuss and critique the actions of corporations — in ensuring that businesses are subject to the market force of informed and not just addicted consumers?
• If you or anyone you know was clever enough to invent the current smokeless tobacco marketing plan, could you honestly tell them that there aren’t better opportunities for them to apply their talents in ways that would be more fulfilling, productive, and that would lead to a better future for themselves as individuals, for their families, and for all of the rest of us? Sure, they should be free to choose, and maybe they have to discover this for themselves. But I’m asking about you A.B.Y. and also any other readers. Would you not encourage the makers and marketers of smokeless tobacco to wake up and smell the forest fire of greater needs and opportunities that are burning a path through our economy? Drill baby drill – not just for oil, for brains, for alternatives. Isn’t there something better to do that needs and rewards such talents? Just asking…
Mr. Phd,
Also remind me how many children are killed in cars if they are not PUT in cars or taught to drive. Tell me now many kids are burned if they are never allowed around fire/heat…NONE. How many kids are poisoned if they are never allowed around poison. NONE! What is your point…that if you are kept in isolation then nothing will happen to you and therefore society needs not protect you or educate you…YOUR BUBBLE WILL?
I would sure hate to have you as a parent. Always looking at statistics and not after me!
Right ON, ScenarioGuy & Bill, and to the young gent/gal (?) under the “abyPHD” tag:
To “blow off” the gravity of tempting kids,young adults, or ANYBODY to get hooked on Nicotine is so naive, it’s pathetic.
I write as an elderly (see MY tag) lung cancer survivor. (Still knocking on wood, but…)
Some of my earliest “little kid” recollections are my fascination with the little packs of penny-candy cigarettes–thin, white, chalky-sweet round sticks with little red colored tips–looking so realistic,-as we imitated the glamour girls/macho heroes in the movies, in the magazine ads (No TV etc. yet) AND, parents even BOUGHT the things for us!!! Don’t tell ME kids aren’t vulnerable!!
Oops – let’s correct the numbers while we’re at it. If Tobacco Free Kids is right and 186,000 of -this year’s new smokers- will suffer ill effects, out of a US population of 300 million, then this is .06 percent each year (abyphd didn’t convert to a percent, which made it look far too small). And this is new smokers each year.
So, if you assumed that they kept smoking, then over 15 years the cumulative number is just under 1% (0.9%) and over say 50 years it’s
3% of the US population who will suffer ill health effects from smoking.
That’s a big number – over 9 million people if you use the 2008 US population as your gauge.
Know anyone with lung cancer or emphysema? It costs a lot to deal with diseases – better to prevent them.
The American Cancer Society reports over 400,000 people will die of smoking-related diseases in the US this year. http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Cigarette_Smoking.asp?sitearea=PED
But anyway, I am wondering more about the nicotine thing than about smoking…why would someone want to get hooked on nicotine?
There’s a lot of factual stuff in this discussion – drop the invective and you’ll see that Amy has a lot of content in her post and people are, I’d guess, just reacting from their own built-in biases.
ABY PhD obviously is not familiar with the literature on the effects of cigarette/tobbacco marketing towards youth. This subset of research is one of the most established and substantiated in the field of media effects/youth marketing research–that kids are indeed influenced by marketing, product placement, celebrity influence, etc. of tobacco/alcohol–and it does lead to a change in attitudes and behavior, and initiating use of these substances. It’s “cradle to grave” marketing.
As for the “parents should be held responsible” argument–this is another indication with the level of unfamiliarity with the research on–and the reality of–parents and media education. I am a parent media educator and researcher. I completely agree that parents should be involved in helping their children understand media influence. But the “it’s parents’ fault” argument shows a lack of understanding of the issue and an easy way to avoid its complexity. Marketing anything to kids is a different situation than marketing toward adults. Should companies be allowed to market however they want to children–and whatever products they want? No. That is why we have standards like CARU and self-regulations.
Anyone who reads the research knows knows at least some literature on the effects of marketing toward youth–or the history of tobacco marketing toward youth–would be concerned about this issue and not take it lightly.
To answer your question, SC, I would encourage those who create and market such products to continue creating and marketing products (a) that yield profit margins that produce the standard of living they desire and (b) to which they have no personal moral objection. It’s called free will. Self-determination. Capitalism. Caveat emptor. Sweet land of liberty. You know, all that stuff liberals don’t believe in anymore.
Living within a free society places responsibility directly at the feet of each individual. Deal. Stop pointing fingers, look after you and yours, and just deal. It really couldn’t be any simpler.
My question: why do so many people insist on calling these products “smokeless tobacco?” Smokeless tobacco includes products like chew, not breath mints and gum. So far as I can see, there is no tobacco even in these products.
a.b.y.phd’s last blog post..Is that a cigarette in your pocket?
I’ve used both Camel Snus and the Orbs. Neither seem to deliver the same amount of nicotine as a cigarette. When I smoked, sometimes that first smoke in the morning would make me a little dizzy. Neither of the smokeless products do that to me. I get more f a rush from drinking a 20 oz coffee from any coffee stand. Children can buy caffeine freely.
Also, the video is wrong. You cannot just buy the orbs out of the candy display. You still have to buy them from the cashier…which is supposed to, under law, card you if you look to young. I think the video is misleading because of that.
I know a lot more people whole suffer chronic illness due to grotesque obesity than from using any tobacco products. I think we’re focusing on the wrong issue with children. More effort should be done to promote good choices and a healthy lifestyle and the tobacco use will likely decrease. Teach them to take care of themselves and tobacco won’t be an issue.
This site says about 300,000 people die from obesity related deaths. I bet if you factor in the impact that obesity has on mental health and its impact on society it quickly balloons to well over the affected number of smokers (adult and children):
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm?headline=659
I personally know people that avoid social situations, going to the theater, airplanes, even Disneyland because of how large they are. How sad is that? McDonald’s markets to children and that’s been OK for decades.
Thanks, Joe, for taking the time to comment, and actually, your point on the obesity front is well taken and part of the FTC and FCC refocus on policy pertaining to children’s health and well being…(from transfats to marketing regs)
You may have noticed the junk food giants now offering ‘healthier fare’ and scaling back on the direct marketing, etc. to kids…There’s a reason for that, just like the Joe Camel focus…It’s killing kids, literally and figuratively on the socio-emotional front.
So while I agree with you that obesity is equally dangerous, my argument would be ditch BOTH smoking AND junk food marketing to kids! Leave ’em alone! Period!
p.s. Re: the video, the operative word there is ‘should’ be behind the cashier…they often are not, and that is the point the video producer was trying to make. (confusion at the checkout line, unchecked carding/exposure to kids universally, etc.)
Finally, the use of the young girl in the ad signifies point blank who they’re marketing to in the audience capture. No mistake there.
Amy Jussel’s last blog post..Where The Wild Things Are! Media, Mamas & More
Quick update here…forgot to add this study from rwjf.org on enforcement, since it’s key that laissez-faire marketing methods that slip by cashiers DO harm dramatically…Policy + regulatory hassle=not worth the cancer sticks.
“Enforcing Bans On Cigarette Sales to Kids Reduces Youth Smoking”
First-ever nationwide study finds that taxes and a national law prohibiting sale of tobacco to minors lower rates of teen smoking
WASHINGTON, DC – A new study finds that enforcing federal and state laws against tobacco sales to minors dramatically decreases underage smoking rates. The results show that laws prohibiting sales of cigarettes to minors and stepped up enforcement of those laws in the United States have led to a 20.8 percent drop in the odds of 10thgraders becoming daily smokers.
The study is the first nationwide review to show that laws prohibiting retailers from selling cigarettes to underage youth are working as intended. “Skeptics argued that prohibiting sales to minors wouldn’t help, because kids would always be able to get cigarettes somewhere,” said Joseph DiFranza, MD, Professor of Family Medicine and Community Health at the University of Massachusetts Medical School.
“Our data suggest that a 25 percent increase in compliance of laws prohibiting cigarette sales to minors has about the same deterrent effect as increasing the price by $2.00 in 2006 dollars,” said DiFranza. But he emphasized that policy makers should not interpret this study as picking between two options. “We need to continue to raise tobacco taxes and improve compliance on laws preventing cigarette sales to minors as a part of a comprehensive approach to reducing smoking rates among youth.”
Some smaller, earlier studies on the effectiveness of laws on cigarette sales to minors were inconclusive, in part because of lax penalties and uneven enforcement. But DiFranza said, “This study clearly demonstrates that enforcing these laws reduces smoking rates among youth.” The study appears in the current issue of the journalBMC Public Health and was funded by the Substance Abuse Research Policy Program (SAPRP) of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
The authors looked at enforcement between 1997 and 2003, after Congress passed the Synar Amendment in 1996, which for the first time required states to pass and enforce laws barring tobacco sales to minors. The law also forced states to monitor compliance by sending underage decoys into stores to try to purchase tobacco. The researchers analyzed this nationwide compliance data, and compared it with smoking rates among a nationally representative sample of 16,244 adolescents from the 2003 Monitoring the Future survey. They concluded that for every 1 percent increase in the rate of merchant compliance with the laws, daily smoking rates among 10th graders fell by 2 percent.
Overall, smoking rates among teens fell by half between 1997 and 2003. While the Synar Amendment was one important factor, rising cigarette prices, bans on smoking in restaurants and anti-tobacco advertising have also discouraged smoking among teens.
This study accounted for these changes and other risk factors and still found a strong correlation between strictly enforced bans on sales to minors and declining daily smoking. “This study is the first to look at the cumulative effects of seven years of enforcement,” said DiFranza.
“Banning sales sets up a virtuous cycle because younger kids see fewer and fewer older role models smoking cigarettes.”
DiFranza’s focus on enforcement grew out of his experience as a family physician. “I would work for a decade to help an adult smoker quit, and the next day a teenager would come in who had just started smoking,” he said.
Even states like Massachusetts, which passed laws against selling to minors, did little or nothing to enforce them.
In 1987, DiFranza sent his 11-year-old daughter into 100 stores in Massachusetts to try and buy cigarettes. “Seventy-five percent of the merchants sold them to her,” he said. “At that time, no one in the country had ever been charged with selling to a minor.”
After the Synar legislation took effect, compliance improved dramatically in 49 states. Compliance is measured by sending out underage decoys to buy tobacco. It is the only effective way to get merchants to take the law seriously, the authors note. A previous study by the same author showed that the revenue generated by a two-cent per pack tax on cigarettes would be sufficient to fully fund a comprehensive compliance and enforcement program.
These findings could have a global impact on health policy and smoking rates. The World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control recommends restricting the availability of tobacco to teens.
Currently, though, only three countries—Canada, Australia and the US—have prohibited sales to minors and given these laws teeth. All three countries have seen teen smoking rates fall. “By demonstrating the direct link between tougher laws, enforcement and declines in daily adolescent smoking, this study may convince more countries to crack down on tobacco sales to teens,” said DiFranza.
The Substance Abuse Policy Research Program (www.saprp.org) of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation funds research into policies related to alcohol, tobacco and illegal drugs.
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation focuses on the pressing health and health care issues facing our country. As the nation’s largest philanthropy devoted exclusively to improving the health and health care of all Americans, the Foundation works with a diverse group of organizations and individuals to identify solutions and achieve comprehensive, meaningful and timely change. For more than 30 years the Foundation has brought experience, commitment, and a rigorous, balanced approach to the problems that affect the health and health care of those it serves. Helping Americans lead healthier lives and get the care they need—the Foundation expects to make a difference in our lifetime. For more information, visit http://www.rwjf.org.
Amy Jussel’s last blog post..Teen Webby Winners Talk About Old vs. New Media
I love the new camel sticks 3.1 mgs of nicotine pet stick means I can stop smokeing 3 packs a day I would like to let parents know that even if a child finds one of these packages of orbs or stick they are very hard 2 open there not only child proof but idiot proof I like to open my pack of sticks with a hammer or my 12 gauge
Well, Billy, I won’t take the troll bait, (and I’ve unlinked your URL) but rather than spending time with nicotine and a 12-gauge, spelling lessons might be a nice investment, if you’re not just bored and blowin’ smoke on various blogs. A thought, anyway.
Nope I not blowing smoke anymore thanks 2 camel sticks! All I need is my old rusty and my hound dog all is right! And I can keep going 2 church on Sunday
Ahem…well…uh, good for you, Billy 😉 I’d much rather YOU be their target market than the tween girl in the ads. Glad to hear it’s helping you.
Here we go again…check this out…
Really smart article on ‘crossover’ marketing…
http://www.wickedlocal.com/marblehead/news/lifestyle/health/x933817585/Hazard-in-plain-sight-Convenient-store-items-may-help-hook-kids-on-smoking-drugs
.-= Amy Jussel´s last blog ..Flash Animation & Viral KidVid? Give Pause =-.
Would you shut the fup? Not everything is an evil ploy to get your child, have you ever realized that the 18 y.o.s (myself being 19) love the new tobacco products, trust me, big tobacco knows that no matter what they do, kids will want to smoke, the added jazz is for legal smokers, because its no longer cool for us to do it. And quite honesty my opinion doesnt matter, neither does yours, smoking isnt goin anywhere, deal with it and perhaps take a hit yourself, maybe of a bong, might calm ya down a bit, im sure weeds been decriminalized in your area by now, it is in mine, as long as i have less than an ounce (if you dont know thats about 20 medium joints) is a ticket, yes, a ticket, growing it is a misdemeanor, and selling is not a felony as long as you dont have a gun, anyway, original point, you took the time to write all of this down and it didnt do a damn thing, clap clap for you.
Free speech, baby. It’s what entitles you to troll anonymously with your POV & enables me to lift the veil on the tobacco agenda so wiser teens can see the ‘hook ’em while they’re young’ approach to feeding corp. coffers for life.
p.s. I edited your foul mouth, but not your typos. lol
.-= Amy Jussel´s last blog ..Is There a Possibility the FCC Hasn’t Seen The Irony Here? =-.
Hmm.. with smoking bans in nearly every state and huge excise taxes on cigarettes, god forbid those who enjoy tobacco have any recourse.
Hey, let’s go ahead and ban french fries – McDonald’s clearly markets towards kids and fries cause obesity and clogged arteries. And soda, that also makes us fat and destroys our teeth. What about all those “kid-friendly” juices that contain even MORE sugar than soda? Or the colorful, dinosaur molded “fruit snacks” that are little more than jelly beans? Crickets… And all of these things can be easily purchased by any 10 year old going to the convenience store with their friends.
These Camel products are an alternative, no second-hand smoke way for ADULTS to get a nicotine fix, much like many of you need that morning cup of coffee to get a caffeine fix. There is no way you can say they are marketed to kids – this is a very transparent fallback that has been used by anti-smoking groups to get RJR and PM to fund your self-serving campaigns.
Also, we don’t need groups like this taking away American freedoms. If you don’t like tobacco, don’t use it. If you don’t want your kids using it, make your point like you do anything else. You don’t solve problems by taking away freedoms or banning items. Those are, frankly, fascist-style solutions.
And there are no spelling or grammar mistakes here for you to conveniently avoid the point on, either.
Yes, having this product might reduce smokers, which could hurt the economy with all of those smoker tax payer dollars the federal government would lose.
Its terrible when you realize the government depends on your death in the form of trillions of dollars.