Posted on 03/20/2005 12:58:25 PM PST by SheLion
. Impact of Advertising
FDA relied heavily on two reports that summarized the evidence concerning the effect of advertising on young people's tobacco use. One came from the Institute of Medicine, and the other was the 1994 Surgeon General's Report. Both reports concluded that advertising was an important factor in young people's tobacco use, and that restrictions on advertising must be part of any meaningful approach to reducing smoking and smokeless tobacco use among young people.
In reviewing the literature, FDA found hundreds of studies examining psychological and social factors affecting tobacco use. These studies were conducted by noted researchers in the fields of medicine, psychology, marketing, public health, and other disciplines, and were published in respected, peer-reviewed scientific journals. Overall, the research provides strong evidence that restrictions on the advertising of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco will serve to protect the health of children and adolescents.
Collectively, the studies show that children and adolescents are widely exposed to, aware of, respond favorably to, and are influenced by cigarette advertising. One study found that 30 percent of 3 year olds and 91 percent of 6 year olds identified Joe Camel as a symbol for smoking.32 Other studies have shown that young people's exposure to cigarette advertising is positively related to smoking behavior and their intention to smoke. Still others have suggested that cigarette advertising helps young people to decide what is normal or socially acceptable behavior, and that those who overestimate the prevalence of smoking seem to be more likely to begin smoking and progress to regular smoking. Finally, brand advertising appears to be particularly effective with children and adolescents. The three most heavily advertised brands are smoked by 86 percent of young people who smoke; by contrast, adults are far more likely to choose one of the "generic" brands, which are advertised less.33
The tobacco and advertising industries were critical of FDA's proposed regulation, focusing their criticism on the failure of the evidence to establish empirically that advertising causes young people to use tobacco, or on whether each proposed restriction would substantially reduce young people's smoking and use of smokeless tobacco. Moreover, they argued that FDA should not eliminate imagery and color since these are essential elements of effective advertising to adults.
In contrast, a comment from the nation's largest psychological association contended imagery and color in advertisements should be eliminated because of their effectiveness in appealing to children. The comment maintained that children generally have less information-processing ability than adults, are less able or less willing to heed the factual information in advertisements, and are less motivated to carefully consider information such as tar and nicotine content or the Surgeon General's warnings in cigarette and smokeless tobacco advertising.
In the final regulation, FDA narrowed the advertising restrictions as much as possible to retain the informational value that advertising has for adults. Information regarding price, tar and nicotine levels, and taste, information typically important to adults who smoke, can be communicated effectively to adults through words alone.
http://www.lawpublish.com/fdarule.html
You don't want your kids to smoke? Then YOU brainwash them into not smoking. Don't you tell them that commercials are there just to get them to buy a product anyway?
Nighty night............
Typical. When faced with facts, run.
I'll bet you were just an "innocent participant" in one of those idiotic "critical mass" rides when the above allegedly occurred, too.
Stupid is.......arguing "right of way" with 3 tons of steel while on 18 lbs of carbon fiber.
Here's a hint: your 165lbs plus your bike is a WHOLE LOT more maneuverable than my 200 lbs inside 3000lbs of steel and glass. You can stop a whole lot faster, you can turn a whole lot sharper (below 45MPH, anyway) and it's up to YOU to keep from being a hazard on the road.
In my bus or my 4x4, I probably wouldn't even know you'd put yourself under my wheels, so please be careful.
Ohh, one I actually have an answer for!
The only legitimate role of government is the protection of the public from fraud, violence and coersion.
Anything else the government attempts to control or regulate is a usurpation of individual rights and the abrogation of its compact with a free people.
Actually no, no critical mass. The only critical mass around here is all the people with legs wider than their torsos at WalMart. Usually I ride solo. Your statement about the Critical Mass and my alleged participation is reflective of those that speak before they think.
I've found most "professional" drivers to be safer at any speed. While I won't "argue" with "3 tons of steel", I would argue with the driver that purposely interferes with my right to our public roads. Unfortunately these drivers never stop; little glory in getting their ass kicked by someone in lycra.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.