Confusion: Are you upset that they're marketing cigarettes to women or that the cigarettes that they are marketing are the stereotypical girly-girl pink?

As someone who works in magazines I can tell you there is no way you can get mainstream mags to stop advertising cigarettes. Ad dollars are simply too precious and necessary.

The only way to solve the smoking ad problem is to get the government to ban cigarette ads completely (like they did in Canada.) Then there is no ad revenue pie for mags to compete over.

The UK also has a ban on cigarette ads. Is it safe to say that US is one of the only first-world countries that does NOT have a ban on cigarette ads? Ah, capitalism.

Is there anyone left (in America, at least) who doesn't know the risks of smoking? Who is going to fall for this marketing?

Sting Bean... except that other countries (the UK as you mentioned, and Canada as Miss May mentioned) that ban cigarette ads are also capitalist, so this one can't simply be chalked up to economics. It's also social attitudes about gov't interference into our lives. This is not to say that I’m opposed to banning cigarette ads because I’m all about that.

Rock Star… people ‘fall’ for marketing all the time. That’s why it exists, to persuade. I’m certain that you ‘fall’ for marketing as well, perhaps just not for cigarette marketing.

Just for the record, I'm a smoker. I didn't "fall for" marketing (I've never seen an ad for my kind of cigarettes). Nor did I get suckered in as a kid (I started smoking at 23). Nor am I ignorant of the risks involved (anymore than I am ignorant of the risks of a red-meat-heavy diet or of drinking liquor).

I smoke because I enjoy the taste of them, because it relaxes me, and because it's not hurting anyone else. Quite frankly, this whole "villifying the cigarettes" thing gets a little old.

Why does marketing have to be something someone is
"falling for". If you like to smoke and the attitude of the ads and packaging match your, how is that being duped? If I need a car and buy a Honda because the commercial says it has head room galore and gets 35 miles to the gallon, and it does, did I "fall" for something? This whole "people are idiots so we must ban messages that they can't resist responding to for their own good" mentality is arrogant and anti-America. Moreover, it's antifeminist. Women need these protestors to "save" them from these cigarettes because their little brains can't resist the sleek packaging and smart namig conventions associated with the brand? Puleez.

"Who is going to fall for this marketing?"

Girly girls who smoke, maybe?

Kimmy, how can you say you aren't hurting anyone else? Do you really not smoke around anyone else, ever? Not to mention that feeding cash into the tobacco industry that goes out of its way to draw in young smokers, especially in developing countries. Not only that but tobacco crops displace food crops in a lot of countries. Look here for more info that if you care http://tobaccofreecenter.org/

Think about the long term consequences of your actions. Harldy anything any of us do only impact us as individuals.

I kinda wanna smoke those. I think I just fell for it... but then I love to smoke. I'm not a smoker, but I have to actively try not to be (and I'm a lung health researcher to boot). Yikes.

According to every good study that I've heard of, the difference between those exposed to second hand smoke and those not is so small as to be statistically irrelevent.

That said, I mostly smoke outside (where the ever-present Oklahoma wind disperses the smoke), in smoking sections (where people have chosen to be exposed to it) and in my own home and car. Don't worry, I don't go around blowing smoke in babies's faces. I am a considerate smoker.

And if you're going to talk about supporting bad industries... I hope you carefully research every single industry you give food to, especially including clothing, food, and alcohol. No industry is free of the taint of potentially causing harm. It's impossible to avoid.

See, I can understand how stupid marketing "pretty" ciggarrettes are but honestly people smoke no matter what the package looks like. The first pack I smoked was white..

Anyway, I agree with Kimmy to some extent. The villifying of people who smoke is stupid to me. I realise that what I'm doing is just awful to my body but when your smoking on your balcony and no ones around, I don't see why anyone should care. After all, with all the crap that goes on in ones life, I prefer the peace of mind I get from smoking even tho it's just addictions.

If you wanna villify ciggarrettes, go right ahead but people should be screaming at the government for letting something so dangerous be available to the general population.

As for feeding the tabacco companies, no one is a perfect saint. I'm charitable. I'm a good person. But I'm also an over-scheduled, too busy to stop and smell the flowers person. I don't think having 3 minutes of peace a couple times a day is such a bad thing.

That being said, it'd be nice to quit. It just ain't happening anytime soon.

Is it wrong that as a graphic design student I find their packaging and advertising elegant, well done, and... pretty? =(

The first thing I thought when seeing the picture of the boxes is "Wow, that's some really spiffy packaging." If I didn't find smoking to be one of the most disgusting habits ever, I might have even bought these. I guess the marketing works. =(

You've come a long way, baby!

That's pretty devious. I just started smoking myself. I know it's a bad thing all around, but I'm in the process of quitting weed (which I totally have a problem with) and cigarettes keep my mind off of getting high quite nicely.

Yes, it's an incredibly unhealthy habit. But hey. If it gets me through the day, I can take responsibility for how it might affect my health in the future.

As far as second hand smoke goes, well... A couple of street magicians on cable television told me that it's bullshit. And that's good enough for me.

"Women need these protestors to "save" them from these cigarettes because their little brains can't resist the sleek packaging and smart namig conventions associated with the brand? Puleez.

Hear, hear. I'm not a smoker and don't plan on being one, but I've never met any smoker who didn't know the risks. Sure tobacco companies hold some responsibility for marketing harmful, addictive chemicals and witholding the information that they are, in fact, harmful and addictive. But by this time, after two decades of tobacco lawsuits, Americans (at least) can't blame the companies anymore. We know the risks.

That said, it might be interesting to see what kind of demographic is buying these particular cigarettes. Are there actually people out there going, "Hey, that package is pretty and sleek! I'm gonna take up smoking!"? Or are most of the customers women who already smoke, anyway?

“According to every good study that I've heard of, the difference between those exposed to second hand smoke and those not is so small as to be statistically irrelevent.�
I would really like to see one of those studies. Even if there were no health effects I detest the smell of cigarettes. It bothers me even outside, waiting in line where the person ahead of me is smoking, having to change my table outside of a café so I don’t have to inhale someone’s smoke and in bars. It immediately gives me a headache and it can trigger an asthma attack.

Daniel Burk: Ha! Those same street magicians convinced me to stop recycling. Seriously.

I'm glad someone's decided to save me from myself on this. Lord knows my vagina renders me incapable of resisting anything in pink.

Look, sojourner, I'm sorry you don't like the smell. But, unfortunately, we in America cannot lay claim to the right not to be irritated. I hate shrieking babies and children, but I don't try to get them banned, even though they give me migraines. Too much perfume or other scents can make me sneeze for ages, but I don't try to get that banned either. Sometimes we just have to put up with things we don't like as part of the price of a free society.

The NY Times has an article today, on a study announced by the HHS Secretary, stating that smoking costs an estimated $52 billion per year in health costs to the nation.

That amount of money, of which we all bear the burden, could insure every child in the U.S. who currently doesn’t have health insurance (in fact you’d have money left over).

Regarding targeted population segments, the article says:

“Four weeks ago, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company halted its plans to test market a cigarette called ''Uptown'', which was designed specifically for blacks, after Dr. Sullivan assailed the company publicly. The company said this week that it will market a new brand called ''Dakota,'' which critics say is aimed at encouraging smoking by young blue-collar women.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C0CE4D61431F932A15751C0A966958260

And being fat costs the country lots of money, too. They have lots of articles about that. And excessive drinking causes all kinds of health problems, not even counting the contribution to abuse and road accidents. Let's legislate all of those out of existence, and then everyone will be healthy!

Or we could live in the real world.

I agree with Kimmy. But I'm also an alcoholic so...

How is a baby shrieking the same thing as smoking and inadvertently causing people to inhale the grossness? I mean, even if I move, I'll still have inhaled the smoke and it'll have gotten into my hair and clothes.

I agree with Malaika924- I am not sure what Jessica is complaining about. These companies have been advertising for gendered cancer sticks for at least 20 years, and I would suspect farther back too (In fact, I know it- it was in Pink Think, a fantastic book). So is the problem that they are gendered or that they have some pink in the design?

As for Penn and Teller, I enjoy Bullshit as much as anyone, but I don't necessarily buy too much of what they are selling. I saw the recycling ep and was not convinced, so I am not certain I would believe them on cigarettes. I withhold judgement till I see them say it though.

As for smoking... I hate the idea that my insurance rates (well, once I get insurance in two months) go up just because other people choose to smoke. I know, the effect on health may be better or worse than poor diet or lack of excercise, but at least with the latter two, you aren't actively going out of your way to get lung cancer. I am not necessarily saying that failing to maintain your diet or or failing to exercise is any better, but that in my mind falls under "things that people might want to do, but can't afford to, because of class issues."

For the record, my mom is a smoker and I think its vile. When I was 10 I got really sick, and my doctor recommended my mother not smoke inside for two weeks. Now, it was the middle of winter outside of Chicago, so this lasted three hours. Though my mother always writes down exactly what the doctor says, she still claims not to remember that the doctor said this.

Rock Star, how is having a slight smell on your clothes worse than a raging migraine? Have you ever had a migraine? They can involve dizziness, sickness, incredibly severe pain, and phantom lights and sounds. Worse than a slight smell, wouldn't you say? And yet I don't complain. I just avoid places with shrieking children. Because I know that, as an adult, I'm responsible for my own comfort and I can't require the rest of society to change in order to suit my personal preferences.

Those same street magicians convinced me to stop recycling. Seriously.

That's...interesting.

Ah, who knew there were fellow smokers (and a fellow boozer!) on feministing? I feel better already.
To add to what's already been said, almost everyone of our generation knows the dangers, can even feel the dangers (lowering of the voice, trying to excercise, etc), and I don't think anyone thinks it's ok to market to kids, but adults should be able to resist the advertising for cigarettes, just like advertising for anything else. If I'm in the market for a certain type of product already, I'll take a look, but if not? No chance.

If it's anything, a friend switched from Marlboro to Camel No. 9 thanks to the "sexy" black and pink. Once opening the box o' ciggys, she then decided she liked the taste better.

I definitely have a pack of Camel No. 9s in my purse right now.

Certainly the packaging didn't convince me to start smoking. I smoke occasionally, I wanted a pack of cigarettes, and I thought the box and the pink lines around the filters on the cigarettes were cute. I was and am fully aware that I was buying a product that was specifically trying to sucker women into purchasing it because of a color scheme on the package. But if I'm going to smoke anyway, I may as well be aesthetically pleased while I do so, right?

I also agree with Kimmy.

I'm not a smoker, and I don't even like to be around people who do smoke. But it's really none of my damn business.

Besides, if you restrict access to one vice, where should it end? Alcohol? Sex aids? (We all know what the [snark] enlightened [/snark] people of the abstinence moving have been telling us.) Sugar?

Also, most large corporations have their hands in a little bit of everything. The same company that makes the shirt of your back may make those pretty little "cancer sticks", too.

I find this rather amusing, because a few of the men I worked with this summer discovered how much they liked Camel No.9s; I never knew they were intended to attract women. These guys were Finnish though... Maybe they appreciate nice packaging.

I'm happy that anti-smoking education has alerted people of the dangers smoking poses to their health. But I just want to add something. My grandfather had several strokes that probably occurred because he was basically a lifelong smoker (if he could have smoked coming out of the womb he would have). He survived these strokes and lived for 15 more years with increasingly diminished health (the strokes effected his short term memory, his ability to walk, and completely changed his personality). All of these changes in my grandfather's life meant a severely diminished quality of life for my grandmother and actually for his children to, all of whom had to care for him. Had my grandfather not been a smoker, the last 15 years of his life would have been better. And the previous 15 years would have been a hell of a lot easier for my grandmother.

I care when people I care about smoke (in spite of my live and let live attitude), because smoking can change the lives of your loved ones as well.

Daniel Burk: "I'm in the process of quitting weed (which I totally have a problem with) and cigarettes keep my mind off of getting high quite nicely."

That's so funny because I'm totally using weed to stop smoking cigarettes (which I totally have a problem with.)

Also, I have to add (on the topic of banning cigarette ads) that Canada and the UK are a little less Capitalist. I don't think it's a coincidence that they both have socialized health care and therefore think the health of every citizen is everyone's business.

But, but...some of my best friends are smokers!

Seriously, though--I'm not trying to vilify anyone who smokes. Those of you who smoke and know the risks, whatevs--do what you will.

But you can't tell me that cigarette companies marketing cigs as cool and sexy is just fine. Making them pink and all sex and-the-city-fied is gross and frankly, seems like it would appeal to younger women. (ie, teens)

The point is, secondhandsally (and I'm not trying to diminish your story here at all) that you can say that about a lot of behaviors and things that are legal. I hate to bring up drinking for the five thousandth time, but given the medical conditions it can cause and worsen (not to mention societal problems), it's a good comparison. But you don't hear this much uproar about alcohol.

On an unrelated note, here's something interesting. This cigarette is being marketed to women, so people are up in arms. But there are (and always have been) tons of cigarettes market to men. And nobody cared. So does this mean that even the women's groups think that women need special protection from themselves? If so, that's just depressing.

And just to clarify, I don't think government legislation is the answer. I don't understand why everyone seems to think that commenting on a brand of cigarettes that advertises to women and saying that I don't like it because I think smoking is bad and I don't want more women to smoke is the same as saying the government should step in and ban smoking.

I think one can simultaneously believe that smoking effects more people than the smoker negatively and also, that smoking is a personal (but selfish, in my opinion)choice.

Okay, but I can't avoid taking the bus as I have no car. I can't avoid the people smoking at the bus stop if I want to actually be able to catch the bus.

Stand upwind, Rock Star.

I'm sorry, but your personal comfort (or mine, or anyone else's) is simply not the marker for acceptable behavior in a free society. We don't get to make people stop doing things just because they annoy us.

“I hate shrieking babies and children, but I don't try to get them banned, even though they give me migraines.�
Right Kimmy, but how often do you get subject to shrieking babies, unless you work at a daycare center? And for how long at a time?
Where I live, if you want to have any kind of social life, get a drink, play pool, listen to live music, you have to constantly inhale second-hand smoke.
In any case, it’s not just a matter of being annoyed, like I said for people with asthma it can trigger an attack.
As for “According to every good study�, I think by “good� you mean studies you can agree with (and where are they anyways?) , because I did a search in Google Scholar for second-hand smoke, and these are some of the titles that came up:

1- Passive smoking and heart disease. Mechanisms and risk (The journal of American Medical Association)
A little excerpt:
“Passive smoking reduces the blood's ability to deliver oxygen to the heart and compromises the myocardium's ability to use oxygen to create adenosine triphosphate. These effects are manifest as reduced exercise capability in people breathing secondhand smoke. Secondhand smoke increases platelet activity, accelerates atherosclerotic lesions, and increases tissue damage following ischemia or myocardial infarction.�
2- Passive smoking as a cause of heart disease(Journal of the American College of Cardiology)

“Short-term exposures of 20 min to 8 h result in increased platelet sensitivity and decreased ability of the heart to receive and process oxygen. Longer term exposure results in plaque buildup and adverse effects on blood cholesterol.�

3- Even a Little Secondhand Smoke Is Dangerous (The journal of American Medical Association)

And there’s plenty more. Search for yourself.

I'm sorry about the selfish thing. It was unnecessary. And...now I'm done posting...

In other words, for people like sojourner and Rock Star, the only discomfort and unhappiness that matters is their own. Everyone else has to suffer whatever comes with living in a free society, but the things they don't like are a different matter.

And I'm sorry if you get asthma attacks. How do they compare to migraines? I'm just curious. And, for the record, there are shrieking children everywhere. The grocery store, the mall, the movies, the bank, and multiple other public places where I have to be to conduct day-to-day business.

RockStar: I know what you mean about the smokers at the bus stop. Sometimes it gets so bad that it burns my throat!

But think what I'll do next time is wear a face mask.

Ooh! Craft idea! A little glue...some ribbon...a few sequins...

I'll start a trend! =D

Kimmy-
How is that saying the only discomfort that matters is my own? Babies can't help crying, and usually parents give them pacifiers or try to silence them in some other way. I'm not saying I enjoy hearing them cry. But no one is saying you can't smoke. You can smoke at home. I'm not quite sure what the problem is.

The problem is that I get migraines, you get other problems. The difference is that I make myself responsible for my own comfort, and you want someone else to be responsible for yours.

Whether a baby can help crying or not doesn't diminish my physical distress, does it? So that's irrelevent.

My point is that you have to be responsible for yourself. You can't ask other people to be responsible for your comfort. It's your issue, you're an adult, you deal with it yourself instead of passing the buck.

How do migraines compare to asthma attacks? Since I've had both, I'll bite. Migraines, at their worst, can be debilitating. Asthma attacks, at their worst, can be fatal.

By the way, nothing I have read ever suggested that noise can trigger a migraine, so I'm not sure I can agree that noisy children are as bad for one's physical health as smoking.

I don't really care what you've read. You're welcome to live in my head for awhile and deal with all that shit yourself, manda. I can speak from experience and tell you that, under the right conditions, the right noises can in fact bring on a migraine. Believe or don't believe, I don't really care.

From another Migraine sufferer (emphasis mine):

Migraine is disease, a headache is only a symptom...the Migraine disease has many symptoms, including nausea, vomiting, auras (light spots), sensitivity to light and sound, numbness, difficulty in speech, and severe semihemispherical head pain. One Migraine attack alone can last for eight hours, several days, or even weeks.

http://www.migraines.org/myth/mythreal.htm

Crap...I was hoping to catch the "cancel" button.

What I meant was that I also have migraines. But enough of my thread-jacking.

I don't smoke (cigarettes). I don't know why anyone would - it's like paying somebody to give you cancer and bad skin.

That being said, I LOVE the smell of cig smoke. I love the smell of a house or room that people have smoked in for years. I love it on people's breath. I love it in my clothes and in my hair. I love the smell of bowling alleys. I realize this is odd, but...well, I guess Kimmy can stand near me at the bus stop!

Being an anarchist (and a pothead), I'm obviously not too keen on the banning of any and everything by the government. However, in the case of cigs, this seems like the most reasonable solution, since they are the only product that, when used as recommended, usually wind up killing or disabling the consumer. It will solve all these pesky who can they target/how can they advertise questions because the point will be moot. Let it be known that I don't like this idea, it just makes the most sense.

And regarding the packaging: cheap shot, yes. But so is the Marlboro man (and before him, Marlboros were marketed towards women in some hilariously sexist ads in the 50s). I'm with Jessica though that this packaging seems like one of those "marketed 'toward adults' but the users are really teenage girls" type deals - like Cosmopolitan (I stopped reading that magazine when I hit adulthood).

And to anybody that says they're unaffected by advertising: bull fucking shit. Every single one of us is, in some way, influenced by the media and advertising. Period. Besides that, have you SEEN those Camel ads, lately? Hell, I almost started smoking. Those bastards know what they're doing.

"Who is going to fall for this marketing?"

The type of person who thinks she's too sophisticated to fall for any type of marketing. Look, I'm not into infantilizing women, or any other non-infants, for that matter, but the argument that advertising has no effect on educated consumers is naive. Effective advertising creates a psychological climate that normalizes and glamorizes use of a product. Certain industries (tobacco, alcohol) work especially hard to achieve this effect, b/c their products have well-documented health hazards.

Cigarettes have traditionally been marketed as the hallmark of sophisticates (Marlene Dietrich, e.g.) and iconoclasts (James Dean) -- they're meant to appeal to people who aspire to or pride themselves on glamour/free thinking. Frankly, I think the smoker whose identity is wrapped up in her/his intelligence can be the most self-destructive, b/c s/he's the one most incented to assuage the cognitive dissonance caused by deliberately engaging in a habit proven to be unhealthy not just to the smoker, but to bystanders. This need, in my opinion, is what results in a) denying one's vulnerability to advertising, and b) certain ridiculous assertions (e.g. that second-hand smoke is not actually that bad for people, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and c) bringing up unrelated topics, like overeating or loud children, as though the detrimental effects of such somehow negate the hazards of smoking.

The fact that cigarettes are addictive work in their marketers' favor. It's ironic to me that so many smokers, when confronted with the manipulativeness of the tobacco industry, tend to fall back on defensive assertions that they're making their own free choices, when in fact they're in thrall to their addiction. When I smoked (for 3 years in my early 20s), I didn't especially enjoy being vilified, and I don't think smokers should be, but I didn't try to delude myself into thinking that I wasn't hurting myself or anyone else. I was smoking because I was addicted and enjoyed it, and I hadn't yet been either motivated to quit or successful in doing so. Oh, and I smoked Camels b/c there was cachet attached to the brand at the time. I could have smoked Parliaments, and it would have been cheaper, but Camels fit my "image."

I guess my point is that you can pick your vice, but you have to own that it's called a vice for a reason, and acknowledge that the gajillions of advertising dollars spent to encourage you to maintain said vice are not in fact spent in vain. Those ad campaigns are working as long as you're still using that brand, no matter how self-aware you think you are (says Ankathry, devotee of all things Sephora).

Oh, I almost forgot: there's an awesome book by Jean Kilbourne that gets into the effects on women of advertising in the tobacco, alcohol, and fashion industries. I read it years ago, and have never seen an ad or commercial the same way since. It's called Can't Buy My Love: How Advertising Changes the Way We Think and Feel.

Kimmy, as a nonsmoker I have sympathy for where you're coming from. I had a close friend who burned up more than two packs a day. As far as I was concerned, he could (and did) smoke in my house and my car, even on long drives.

That said, the analogy to overdrinking/overeating/eating much red meat etc. is exaggerated because these other activities though bad aren't AS bad for you. Smoking-induced deaths are exceptionally nasty. No other mainstream activity carries this much risk.

I'm with secondhandsally: My friend always said he was willing to take his chances re lung cancer (most smokers don't get it, although cardiac harm is likely) but when it arrived, he was pretty horrifed. He died a painful, undignified, and--I'll say it, even on this site--emasculating death, almost certainly worse than the death he would have met without smoking. I now wonder whether my acceptance was the right attitude to take. You might be underestimating the odds of a terrible end.

Holy balls, ankathry. Ditto and ditto! Can't Buy My Love changed my fucking life!

That just reminded me of times where I was modeling for my burlesque group/photographer friend, and a cigarette, flask, or both was usually a requisite prop (especially when doing arty, hipstery, or pin up scene). Nobody can really articulate why, but it just goes to show how decades of brilliant marketing can manage to make a product a necessary part of a coveted persona or attitude.

Sucks, man.

Oh Kimmy, please forget about the headaches and asthma attacks! Ok, ok, your migraine headaches are much worse than my asthma attacks. Why do you seem not to see the second longer part of my comment? I just cited three journal papers for you that say passive smoking is in fact quite dangerous, there were many many more. Please use google scholar to look them up. Where are these studies that say second-hand smoke is just dandy?

I'd also like to note, without further hijacking the thread into migraines, that there is some material on the ever-reliable interwebs suggesting that smoking and secondhand smoke can *trigger* them. Can anyone with more time and medical expertise speak to this?

Um, I know I said I was done posting, but on my way home from work I thought of something else.

Although I still don't think that legislation regarding cig smoking is the answer (I think better and more education beyond childhood might be), I just wanted to add that there's another reason the comparison to drinking alcohol legally as a justification for no legislation around smoking doesn't hold up. And that's that we do legislate drinking in public: One can be arrested for public drunkness and one can be arrested for drunk driving. And the reason one can be arrested for these things is because they put others at risk.

I believe that second hand smoke puts others at risk, but because that risk is a longterm risk rather than one with immediate consequences, I can see how it would be much harder to legislate. Also, either we have to ban it completely or allow it to avoid the harm; whereas with drinking it's not such an either or situation.

So yeah, I don't know if I just said why the comparison doesn't work or why it does.

And let's not forget who suffers in bars and restauraunts- the workers, who include the wait staff, the host(ess), the bus people, the cooks. The cooks probably aren't getting much, but the wait staff and the bus people are getting it for eight hours straight. Now, some restauraunts might have the smokers in an entirely different section and perhaps manage to make it so the non-smoking side aren't getting even a whiff, but most restaurants I have been in this is not the case. So who is suffering? I might be second-hand smoking for the hour I stop in, but the wait staff and bus people are getting it straight for eight hours. The people who work in restaurants don't necessarily have the resources to get a different job, so they can be in for a LOT of second hand smoke in their lives, and not the resources to stop it. That can't be good for them.

"Women need these protestors to "save" them from these cigarettes because their little brains can't resist the sleek packaging and smart naming conventions associated with the brand? Puleez."

Well, by that logic, women should know the health risks of trying to be too thin - we're constantly hearing horror stories about anorexia - so why do we bother campaigning against super-thin models in magazines or diet pills with awful side-effects? After all, women are smart enough to make up their own minds about their bodies, right? And they'd never fall for the manipulation of those sleek and glossy magazines.

The fact is that even the smartest person can be pressured/manipulated into doing something that's unhealthy for them if they're told or encouraged to believe that it will somehow make them more appealing, especially in this superficial society.

I have to admit, the "sexy" and glamourous element did play a part in me starting smoking, and many women I know use cigarettes as a way to remain thin (i.e. "attractive"). The marketing of the long slim cigarette and the sleek packaging seems to be playing into the insecurities that most young women feel, and is particularly insidious. That's not to say that cigarette marketing targeted at men isn't bad (and I'd be just as outraged), but most new smokers are young women (often teenage), and a lot of marketing these days seems to be emphasising the sexy, edgy aspect of smoking, and I do feel that women are more susceptible to this type of promotion.

In Australia, all cigarette packets have to have graphic images of the awful health effects of smoking - gangrenous limbs and tar-filled lungs - not very glamourous. Not only that, but smoking advertising is banned, and you can no longer smoke in enclosed areas or near food. You also can't smoke at bus stops and beaches. As a former smoker, I can tell you, that helped me to quit, and I have no problem with the government intervening to stop me from making a "choice" to ruin my body, diminish my finances, ruin the environment with cigarette butts, and support unethical business interests, not to mention impacting the health and comfort of others (and yes, Kimmy, I believe that should be a consideration). It doesn't mean that other businesses aren't unethical or that other things aren't bad for your health, but that's kind of beside the point.

I'm all for government intervention when it's genuinely protecting public health at the expense of big business... that's what governments SHOULD be doing!

Well, more and more cities are banning smoking in bars and restaurants. So people who work in those establishments and people patronizing those establishments are no longer subjected to second-hand smoke if they don't want to be.
DC recently outlawed it, I believe Baltimore either will or already has, and Boston has been smoke-free for years. Hell, even my hometown of Scranton PA is smoke-free now.
Many other cities will follow.

"And I'm sorry if you get asthma attacks. How do they compare to migraines?"

I have migraines, yes, they suck, but my son has asthma, secondhand smoke is one of his triggers, and seeing someone not being able to breathe is scary, especially when it is someone you love. Seeing that same someone having to stay in the hospital for five days, on oxygen so that he can get over it, is worse.

I can't stand the smell of smoke, it makes me sick. I try not fart in public, even if it is a silent one ;), because I don't want to sicken anyone with a gross odor, I just want the same kind of consideration. Oh and whenever my children have screamed and/or thrown fits in public I have taken them out until they have stopped. As for the advertising to women, I tried smoking when I was 15 because I had thought that those tiny little Capri cigarettes were "sooooo cute!" I can totally see some insecure teenaged girl see these elegant "pink" cigarettes and give them a try, just because of how they look. I don't believe in any marketing of cigarettes to anyone, ya know, the Marlboro man either died of or has lung cancer.

I for one can't believe that there are people out there who are totally willing to dismiss the danger that secondhand smoke causes other people. I just moved to a new state from CA, and let me just say that I personally can't wait until smoking in public places is illegal here too. Seriously, smokers can just keep their cancer to themselves and enjoy in the privacy of their own homes.

Here's a nice little tidbit from the University of Minnesota, "For every eight smokers who die from smoking, one innocent bystander dies from secondhand smoke."
(http://www1.umn.edu/perio/tobacco/secondhandsmoke.html)

And Kimmy, I'm sure you'll be apathetic to note that while you're getting migraines... secondhand smoke is a leading risk factor for SIDS. Hell, if I was a baby, I'd scream at you too.

funny, everyone i've seen smoke the new no.9s are guy friends of mine.

“According to every good study that I've heard of, the difference between those exposed to second hand smoke and those not is so small as to be statistically irrelevent.�

Can you please post a link to these “good� studies?

Here are links to the Mayo Clinic and the Heart Association which say the complete opposite of “statistically irrelevant�. Mayo Clinic says secondhand smoke is almost as bad as smoking. Heart Assn. says secondhand smoke is linked to heart attacks:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/secondhand-smoke/CC00023

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3020445

I consider the Mayo Clinic fairly reliable. In fact, I’m eager to see the “good studies� that trump the Mayo Clinic and the Heart Association.

I posted the NYT link earlier, to the study which put a $52 billion figure to the societal cost of smoking, and the point of posting that was simply to dispel any delusion that someone’s smoking doesn’t affect everyone else. It affects *everyone’s* wallet.

If an additional $52 billion is needed every year to provide health care to smokers, that is being paid for by a combination Medicaid (the largest single provider of healthcare in the U.S.), the V.A. health system, and of course a wide variety of private insurers, which pass the costs directly on to the public.

It may seem so monolithic and diffused that the connection between one person’s health problem and somebody else’s tax or insurance bill is lost, but make no mistake, the connection is there and it is very real.

“And being fat costs the country lots of money, too. They have lots of articles about that.�

Trying to draw parallels between obesity and smoking is weak. Obesity is a bad health problem (second only to smoking in terms of deaths caused per year), but obesity is a condition, not an activity, and it is caused by a variety of reasons and a myriad of products. Smoking is caused by one single product - tobacco.

I don’t hassle people who smoke, but if someone thinks that smoking doesn’t affect non-smokers, they are simply not in possession of all the facts.

And closer to the point of Jessica’s original post, glamorizing smoking has an appeal to teens which is irresponsible. So many 15 year-olds want desperately to appear older and more sophisticated, and when they see ads showing that all they need is a pack of smokes, society is not doing them any favors.

So many 15 year-olds want desperately to appear older and more sophisticated, and when they see ads showing that all they need is a pack of smokes, society is not doing them any favors.

That's true, but I do remember hearing a study that said that trying to appear cool is no longer a reason that kids smoke, since smoking is so mainstream that doing it doesn't do anything to make you seem different from anyone else.

"Who is going to fall for this marketing?"

The type of person who thinks she's too sophisticated to fall for any type of marketing.
I don't know if this was directed towards me, but I'm not gonna go out and buy something that is disgusting and I know has a really good chance of killing me and people around me just because it's in a fucking pink package.

How about if I get a foghorn b/c the noise is soothing for me? I mean, no one should hold me accountable for their discomfort.
Everyone else can make themselves responsible for their own comfort, and I'll be responsible for mine.

They can't ask me to be responsible for their comfort. It's their issue, they're adults, they can deal with it themselves instead of passing the buck.

I'm not getting into the debate at hand, I'll acknowledge it but I'm just going to say that I find this kind of advertising funny. Unless it's white men then all other groups seem to need a special "package" in order for companies to lure them to their products. As recently as last year Coke brought out Blak, which was marketed to the black community with its dark can and in the print/commercial ads the image/sound of jazz. It was totally stupid and it didn't make me want to do Coke. Wait. Buy Coke. Buy it!;). The same thing happened with Kool cigarettes back in the day, and low and behold they are quite popular among the black community (as far as I've seen).

It just seems like with this kind of marketing we're being pandered to. As if advertisers were waiving something shiny in front of our faces instead of coming up with something original in and intelligent and it seems to believe that this will work for all women, cause we know all women like pink and our wittle fingers can't handle the regular sized cigarettes so they have to make them thinner. That's my problem with it. But then again, guys have the "you'll get laid if you smoke/drink/buy this," so I guess it evens out.

"Smoking is caused by one single product - tobacco."

What about marijuana and cloves?

I work at a co-op where we sell cigarettes and believe it or not more guys purchase the camel No. 9's than girls.

As far as appealing teen girls, I happen to have teen girlfriends who are minors and don't smoke Camel No. 9's but Marlboro 27's instead.
They told me they tried them but they didn't like them.
So in my experience, the fact that No 9's are luring women or teenage girls into buying them are completely false.

My crazy teenage friends would smoke whether they had pink cigs or blue cigs or white cigs or whatever, hell kids are so crazy nowaways the other day i was hanging out with them they were talking about the time they did coke at some party which pretty much left me amused since when I was their age I hadn't even comsumed alcohol nor cigs...

crazy little kids these days, we can't blame it on pink packaged cigarettes

I'm not getting into the smoker debate, but I will say that the marketing is effective. I'm a former smoker (quitting was the best thing I ever did for myself!) and I'll admit that I smoked because smoking was cool. I still think it looks cools. Sorry, but when I see a cool person puffing away on a cigarette I think it enhances their coolness.

With that said, these cigarettes would definetly appeal to me, were I still a smoker. In fact, I'm in Japan at the moment and there are cigarette vending machines everywhere. Looking at one I saw two packs that had a sample of their cigarettes on the outside. One was pink, one was black. It really made me want to buy a pack and smoke it.

But did I buy a pack and smoke it? Am I, because I'm a female, controlled by a pink-loving-vag that eats up everything pink? No and no.

I'm not a smoker (anymore), and even though I acknowledge that I think smoking makes me look cool and smoking a pink or black cigarette would make me look really cool, I didn't buy it.

(Feel free to patronize my smoking=cool deal, I know it's ridiculous, but I guess cigarettes were just marketed too well to me in my youth. Or, more likely, when I was younger all the cool and sexy people I knew were smokers).

"As recently as last year Coke brought out Blak, which was marketed to the black community with its dark can and in the print/commercial ads the image/sound of jazz.'

actually, tho the marketing may have targeted the black community (i never saw or heard any ads), coke blak is called that becos its a combination of coca cola and coffee, so the blak is in reference to coffee w/out cream. i assumed the bottle was darker and in richer tones to appear more sophisticated.

and it tastes just as nasty as it sounds.

RockStar, sorry, my point was that advertising, especially for cigarettes, isn't meant to address the hazards of the product. It's meant to appeal to consumers on an emotional level, and everybody is vulnerable to that approach. The equation of cigarettes with glamour & sassiness might not work for you specifically, but that doesn't mean that another woman or girl who is just as educated about the health risks wouldn't be drawn in. God help me, I used to read Cosmo and watch SATC, and I valued edgy-dorableness (yeah, I made that up) more than my health back then; I'm thinking the Camel No. 9 packaging would have worked for me. I quit about 5 years ago (to go on the Pill -- good motivation, sex for smokes!), so cigarette packaging won't do it for me now. However, I am currently a sucker for skin products. Even stuff I've used before, stuff I know makes me break out, if it's packaged and marketed the right way -- I really have to fight with myself not to buy it. Advertising deliberately bypasses logic to tap into magical thinking and desire. Even smart, super-informed people can get suckered by the right campaign.

Perhaps it would be more possible to get tobacco advertising to be limited to plain, black and white text?

I want nicotine to only be available by prescription. :(

For all you smokers out there, go ask your doctor about high-dose nicotine inhalers and long-term nicotine replacement therapy. You can get your fix without breathing in most of the other harmful components of tobacco smoke. Really!

Provided that I could afford to have a doctor, I just might. It wouldn't be the first time, either.

Seriously, Doug S. that comes across as really patronizing.

Naive, too. Besides the whole availability-of-healthcare thing, there's the fact that several viable, potentially-widely-available, affordable alternative delivery methods for nicotine have been systematically shot down over the years by, sadly, the FDA and the Lung Assn.

As for all of the demonization of smokers that is going on, seriously, people, I realize that it is chic right now, but it is rude and pointless. Instead of casting the skunk-eye next time a smoker offends you, I invite you to have a conversation with him or her in which you make a request relevant to your relative comfort and his or hers. If it were me, you'd find me quite reasonable, as long as you were behaving otherwise than as a sanctimonious ass.

Can I just say that I find the notion of equating screaming children to smoking to be amazingly ignorant and offensive? I neither have kids nor smoke, so I feel fairly unbiased here. Smoking is a choice, something you choose to do. Being a child, well, I mean, come on. Are you really going to pull the argument that childen shouldn't be taken anywhere? Shouldn't have any rights? Just because you don't like them? That sounds suspiciously like the arguments I hear against breastfeeding in public. It's just a really bad comparison.

In regards to the advertising, I don't think women need any protection from that any more than they need protection from fast food advertising. Most of us have the common sense to make that decision for ourselves.
However though, if we're going to take issue with the media constantly selling us negative body images, and assume that women are impacted by that. Why shouldn't we assume the some women will be impacted in the same by the media message that smoking=glamour?

I agree with Lucretia. All the talk about screaming babies is so annoying. I'm putting myself through college by nannying, and after three years, I'm still alive. So Kimmy, I really have no sympathy for you occasionally having to hear a baby cry for eight seconds.

As for people living in places that are filled with smoke: there are places you can go where smoking is banned. A lot of places, actually: I live in NYC and smoking is banned in all five boroughs. The restaurants and bars don't smell like smoke, and you can avoid people smoking on the street, for the most part. There are many major cities with their own smoking bans in place. I understand moving sucks, blah, blah, blah but there are options. There's not a giant smokers' conspiracy to ruffle nonsmoker's feathers with smokey smoke.

To the SoyMilkConspiracy, regarding your post about halfway through: I freaked out when I read it, because you sound exactly like me in terms of anarchism and pothead...ism. Yet I think getting rid of cigarettes is brilliant, and have for a while. If they didn't exist we wouldn't have any of these debates and guilt trips and health care costs or any of that fun stuff. It would be great.

And it would help me quit. I have been a smoker for five years and think it is stupid, disgusting, and harmful. But it's oh so delicious. I'm ok with villifying smokers, it's a dumbass habit. I wish I could (would) quit.

Actually, my whole point on the infant/child thing was that it would stupid and horrible of me to ask that I not be made to deal with them just because the noise causes me physical discomfort. Not that I thought there shouldn't be children in public. I stated repeatedly that, since I do not like it, it is my own responsibility to avoid the circumstance.

Thanks for paying attention.

I'll keep that in mind next time I'm around my friends with asthma who should really avoid smoke since they don't like it.

Smoking is a choice, you can choose to not light up around other people. Little kids not so much a choice.

*sigh* Would everyone feel better if I just said, "You're right, smokers are evil and we should all be shot and nothing else in the world is as uncomfortable or in any way compares to the terrors that are encountering a stray puff of smoke or the scent of tobacco in the air"?

Children are a choice. Taking them into public places which are not child oriented is a choice. Remaining with them in public while they shriek and scream is a choice (one parent above has already stated she doesn't do that, and I know my mother never did).

However, I do not judge others for these choices. I adjust my own life accordingly to suit my own preferences and needs, without asking others to make those adjustments for me. If I am in a situation (such as the grocery store line or whatever) where I cannot avoid a problem which causes me discomfort, I simply grit my teeth and bear it until the situation ends.

All I ask is that other people cut me the same slack that I cut them. I hate the smell of cigars. I would never ask someone else to stop smoking them. The particular pitch of children's screams triggers immense pain for me. I would never tell people to keep their kids at home all the time. Most strong perfumes and scents aggravate my sinuses and cause sneezing fits or lengthy sinus troubles. I don't ask that people not wear their preferred scents.

It's part of living in a free society. You do your thing, other people do theirs. We all do our best to stay out of each other's way, even though it's not always 100% possible to do so. It's just part of what you expect when you live in a world with other people in it.

And I'm really not going to say anything else about this, because it's obvious that some of you will never be happy until no one can smoke anywhere on the planet. If you're going to be so unreasonable about (and so determined that absolutely nothing in the world is as bad as a puff of smoke), then there's no point in talking to you.

I'm talking about accepting that other people may live their lives in ways you don't approve of or like. Y'all are talking about controlling other people's choices. Seems like a funny sort of stand to take, in my view.

“"Smoking is caused by one single product - tobacco."
What about marijuana and cloves?�

Cloves are an additive, not the main ingredient of “clove� cigarettes (70/30 tobacco/clove, on average).
Marijuana is illegal in the U.S. without a prescription, and since the thread is about the danger of advertising legal products that are unsafe, marijuana is irrelevant. You could make the same time-wasting observation that meth, cocaine, heroin, and hashish are smoked.

Malaika924: Note that what you posted about migraines ("the Migraine disease has many symptoms, including . . . sensitivity to light and sound") is saying that when you have a migraine, you may be sensitive to light and sound (i.e., so you are in greater pain than without the light and sound). It is not saying that light and sound CAUSE the migraine. That may be true for some people, but it's not supported by what you posted.

Smokers made the decision to take up a destructive habit that turns into an addiction. They sometimes describe smoking as relaxing, and the reason they find it relaxing is that they need the nicotine. (See “Smoking Is a Women’s Health Issue� at http://www.center4research.org/ibrief-05-04smoking.html.) To get their fix, and continue what they know is an inherently unhealthy habit, many smokers will disregard the comfort and health of others. (In contrast, drinkers do not force others to ingest their drinks.) Kimmy says it's a matter of "accepting that other people may live their lives in ways you don't approve of or like." If they do it in their own homes, I don't care. But by doing it in public, they are reducing MY quality of life for a downright stupid and self-imposed behavior.

I’m lucky enough to live in New York City, where smoking is no longer permitted inside bars and restaurants, but if I want to enjoy the fresh air and eat al fresco I have to deal with smokers’ fumes (as well as too much perfume, BO, etc.). I'm waiting for the self-contained smoking apparatus (a plastic bubble?) to be invented that allows smokers to keep the stench to themselves. THEN we can all enjoy our "free society."

From an old Steve Martin routine:
Smoker: "Mind if I smoke?"
Steve: "No, do you mind if I fart?"

Provided that I could afford to have a doctor, I just might. It wouldn't be the first time, either.

Seriously, Doug S. that comes across as really patronizing.

I apologize for my lack of tact; I should have been able to find a better way to express myself.

Naive, too. Besides the whole availability-of-healthcare thing, there's the fact that several viable, potentially-widely-available, affordable alternative delivery methods for nicotine have been systematically shot down over the years by, sadly, the FDA and the Lung Assn.

I first learned about this possibility from a New York Times article written by a doctor. http://tinyurl.com/2spmer is a link to that article, but it might require a subscription to access. I'll quote a few paragraphs here.

I decided to give him high-dose nicotine replacement, trying to outfox his smoking addiction. Only one form of nicotine replacement can approach the delivery system of a cigarette - nasal nicotine spray. Because it is absorbed rapidly into the bloodstream through the nasal mucosa, it produces a spike of nicotine in the brain, just as inhaled nicotine in tobacco smoke does.

Using more sprays than cigarettes, he was finally able to quit smoking. It has been more than a year since his last cigarette, but each month he calls me to renew his nicotine spray.

In the end, I simply switched Larry's nicotine system from lethal tobacco to a plastic spray bottle, but left his nicotine addiction untouched.

It probably is hard to get one's hands on a regular supply of rapidly absorbed medical nicotine (I've never tried) but it seems to be at least possible and, if achieved, would be a less harmful alternative to cigarettes.

You know what? I have friends who smoke. And just as some of them love their sleek pink cell phones and sleek pink purses and slinky black heels...some of them would probably love smoking a sleek, slinky cigarette from a cute package. If people are willing to buy it, then the company has every right to produce that item and advertise it to the public. Women aren't babies who need society to protect them from evil things like cigarettes - there are plenty of us out there who haven't fallen for cigarette ads and aren't about to start smoking just because they come in pink packaging.

I smoke because I enjoy the taste of them, because it relaxes me, and because it's not hurting anyone else.

Um, you have heard of secondhand smoke, right? Your smoking is actually worse for others than it is for you. So any "it's not hurting anyone else" is complete bullshit and if you really are fully aware of the consequences you should be well aware of that fact.

So I'll vilify your addiction all I want, thank you.

I think smokers are terrible, terrible people. I completely agree with the other posters when they express their outrage at these hopelessly addicted, carcinogenic bastards.

I don't meant to be overly harsh, but when these people are roaming OUR streets, polluting our air and poisoning our babies with their foul lung-blackening smoke, I think it's time to take serious action.

If these people want to keep killing themselves with their disgusting addiction, I think the government ought to be made to do something about it. Remember, even if they're only smoking on their own back porches or alone on the street out of range of any non-smokers, their smoke is still polluting the atmosphere. This can not be allowed.

It's my humble opinion that any smokers who refuse to give up their deplorable habit be forcibly moved into government run smoking compounds far, far away from the decent civilized people like ourselves.

In these "fumigation camps", so to speak, the smokers will be forced to undergo a strict regimen in diet, exercise, and all other aspects of daily life for an indefinite amount of time.

If they want to smoke, they can smoke, but they'll be forced to "light up" only in specially constructed communal "smoke chambers", where they can congregate periodically and indulge in their deadly vice.

It may seem harsh, but any good non-smoking American will realize that it's the only way to deal the smoker problem.

Oh god, those are some pretty pretty boxes. But really, if I want something black with pink edges I can just go look at my umbrella.

My main issue here isn't really a feminist one, but more of a human being one. How tobacco companies can actually sell that shit to people, knowing full well that they're probably going to die from it, is beyond me. There are ads targeting men as well as women, and cigarettes obviously intended for children as well (grape-flavored cancer sticks, anyone?).

My point is that tobacco companies don't only target women, they target everyone. Smoking isn't really a gender-specific thing anymore, so they're looking to draw everyone in. My solution would be not to get rid of cigarette ads directed at women, but to get rid of cigarette ads altogether.

And mad props to my mom, who did just that at a grocery store in New Jersey one time. I love my mom.

Nice parody, Daniel Burk.

“"Smoking is caused by one single product - tobacco."
What about marijuana and cloves?�

"Cloves are an additive, not the main ingredient of 'clove' cigarettes (70/30 tobacco/clove, on average)."

I didn't know that before. Thanks for the info. :)

"Marijuana is illegal in the U.S. without a prescription, and since the thread is about the danger of advertising..."

The "Smoking is caused by one single product - tobacco" statement to which I replied sure seemed to be about which product causes smoking, not just about the danger of advertising. My point was simply that it's an inaccurate statement since tobacco isn't the only product which causes smoking.

Meanwhile, I wonder what the debates about secondhand smoke would be like if marijuana was legal too...

Doug S. — Interesting article; thanks for the link.

There definitely seems to be a demand for long-term NRT. As the author noted, though, there's little info. on the long-term effects of various nicotine delivery. (I actually ruined part of my gums by using lozenges until my dentist told me to cut that crap out. Gross, huh? Too bad there's no warning on them.)

Regarding the repeated argument that, unlike smoking, drinking harms nobody but the drinker, I have to call bullshit. People who become addicted to alcohol behave in ways that systematically and predictably undermine the mental health of their intimates. Under most circumstances, they don't annoy strangers much. That's where the strength of that argument begins and ends. The people who live with them often wind up with psychological symptoms.

Meanwhile, I wonder what the debates about secondhand smoke would be like if marijuana was legal too...
I can assure you I'd be giggling about them a lot more.

"(I actually ruined part of my gums by using lozenges until my dentist told me to cut that crap out. Gross, huh? Too bad there's no warning on them.)"

I remember my 7th grade science teacher warning us about chewing tobacco during the drugs unit of the course, but she said nothing about lozenges.

Thanks peepers.

I smoke because I enjoy the taste of them, because it relaxes me, and because it's not hurting anyone else.

Well, I don't have a problem with individuals who smoke, per se, but I have a big problem with breathing in other people's smoke.

It makes me asthmatic, and since I'm kinda delicate in the mornings it makes me want to vomit quite violently if I have to breathe it then

So I'm pretty damn resentful when people smoke around me without asking

Also... I'm not really offended by this. I mean, really? I hate that all "womens" marketing is pink, but as far as it goes this is nice.

It's pretty patronising to try and remove it because it's shiney packaging might trick women into addiction!

What about the history of marketing cigarettes to women as an alternative "treat" to replace those fattening, no-no sweets?

Or, more directly, as a way to manage weight? (Nicotine is grand for appetite suppression, if you don't mind the heart disease risk and all that.)

Don't those packages look uncannily like a fancy box of candy? With the pink foil? They look more like they came from Godiva than from R.J. Reynolds.

The tag line for marketing the No. 9s is "Light & Luscious."

Hmmm...they must be like bonbons, except with out all of the fat-shame.

Am I alone on this one?

Jessica, thanks linking to this article. The marketing and advertising of Camel No. 9 is a very real threat for teen girls and women. It's great to see bloggers picking it up for discussion.

Please visit www.whatareyousmoking.org for more information on women and smoking or to take action on this.

Thanks,
Adrienne
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids

Advertisers brand in order to keep existing customers, but are also constantly seeking new markets. These cigarettes are clearly being marketed to image-conscious young girls and women. To me it's not patronising to fear that girls will be influenced by the look of this product. Teenagers don't view the long-term risks of smoking the way older women do (or don't...), and as another poster said, if it matches the phone, the bag, or the outfit, so much the better. Teachers see this first-hand every day. Thanks Adrienne for the link.