Swiss back further restrictions on tobacco advertising
swissinfo.ch
swissinfo.ch
I realize this is poor timing to express this opinion since most of America is going to intentionally watch high-production-value advertisements glorifying alcohol in a few hours from now...
The necessary "institution" is called science. And even with bought/fake science science does have quite a good track record regarding things like these.
But I am actually not advocating bans on these things. Every grown up should be allowed to be irrationally dumb and destroy themselves.
But, why not tax them. Tax them so that externalities are being compensated. Make these things unattractive. Also work on changing the culture of it being cool to drink till you pass out or even the obligatory social drinking. It doesn't have to be cool.
And if anyone wants to kill themselves with substances that is OK. I don't have to like it, but I think it is their right.
But don't make me pay for their medical bills (an example) by covering it from their insurance (that becomes more expensive for me).
Disclosure: I say that as a person who lost his father prematurely because he drank too much. Way too much. My appetite for alcohol wasn't too high before, but is not existing any more since then. Still I wouldn't want to forbid it for others.
(It already kind of happens in the more liberal states of the USA, where Californians are much better fit than Texans).
However I was allowed to serve in a different service: civil protection [1]. In case of war I would have gone outside and done measurements for radioactivity, chemical and biological warfare agents. My departement was called ABC (atomic, biological and chemical). I am happy and lucky that the war-games never got real.
Later people with disabilities were exempt from the tax. But then I was thirty and already discharged.
Links are to French text, sorry, no English text available.
[0]: https://www.vtg.admin.ch/fr/mon-service-militaire/generalite...
I don't think "science" can really help all that much here, because a lot aspects surrounding this aren't really scientific questions. Yes, you can be informed by science to answer questions like "how addictive is this?" and "how harmful is this in what dosages?", but that doesn't really answer the question of who should pay for what, what is "fair", or what should or should not be allowed.
(and the answers to these questions aren't always clear either: is cycling a net-negative or net-positive? Health benefits from exercise, but higher risk of injuries – and why should we tax alcohol to account for all external costs but not cycling or other activities where risk is higher than some others?)
> Also work on changing the culture of it being cool to drink till you pass out or even the obligatory social drinking.
Definitely agree with this. If I say "no" then I mean "no", and trying to "oh come, just have a drink"-me is a very quick way to end up on my shit list. I've seen people do this even with people who never drink alcohol even when they know this.
They're basically the equivalent to getting a lower health insurance premium if you keep your blood pressure low or sign up for a gym for example.
"On a yearly basis smokers have higher health care costs (€3.5 billion) and use more caregivers. Over the complete life-span non-smokers use more health care, especially elderly care (€8.6 billion) and care givers (€1.4 billion). This is because life expectancy is longer. In a smoke-free society health care costs will be higher per capita"
The overall gist of the article is still that smoking is bad and that a smoke-free society would be good (I agree), but health care costs don't actually seem a strong argument, in the Netherlands at least. And aside from lower health care costs, there are also less pensions to give, which saves money.
The costs of alcohol were estimated to be "€2.3 tot 4.2 billion"/year[2] (2013), which also includes police, damage, loss of productivity, etc. Health care specifically is about €450 million. The income from alcohol tax was about €1 billion, which certainly covers the health care costs, though not all of them. I'm not sure if they should: that a small group of people destroy things when drinking doesn't really need to be paid by other alcohol consumers, IMHO.
Anyway, turns out it's not as simple as "smoking = costs society money". Details may differ per country; I just looked at the Netherlands because that's where I'm from.
> They're basically the equivalent to getting a lower health insurance premium if you keep your blood pressure low or sign up for a gym for example.
I'm not sure we have this kind of thing here. Besides, what if I stay healthy by running or cycling? What if you're genetically pre-disposed to high blood pressure? You can market it as a "discount", but it's really a "premium" for people who don't do this IMHO (reminds me of getting a "discount" at some camping sites if you arrive by foot, which isn't really a "discount" but just a way of packaging "you pay for parking").
[1]: https://www.ntvg.nl/artikelen/de-rekening-van-roken#lb-3
[2]: https://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/2018-0146.pdf
I could not agree more.
"I've seen people do this even with people who never drink alcohol even when they know this."
I habe been on the receiving side of this more often than I like.
But at least the scientists I know would wait for the level of evidence to be high.
But as policies would be made by politicians I doubt it would work without populistic influences.
How would a government pay for protection, infrastructure, education, and a lot of other things governments provide to their citizens?
Libertarians are funny people. It boggles my mind how anyone can be clueless or compassionless enough to be one.
And yes, I believe everyone will be better off with free markets, otherwise i’d be a commie too. It’s not that I don’t care about others. I care more than most do. I see they working jobs that are not necessary, or governments destroying their purchasing power.
Fortunately I am doing pretty well, even with after the money government takes, and if I was evil or not compassionate I wouldn’t advocate for change, but rather take advantage of current system and move to the side that benefits from peoples diminished value of work. It would be way easier for me.
That's a very wild claim, unsubstantiated by anything. The history of industrial revolution shows otherwise ( regular people are exploited to death until some regulations come to stop the most rampant abuses). Do you have anything to support your case?
> And yes, I believe everyone will be better off with free markets, otherwise i’d be a commie too.
So for you there's only communism and absolute free markets? So you're in the clueless libertarian case. Considering the freeish markets available today fail miserably at correcting for externalities such as pollution and climate change, how do you imagine absolutely free ones would do so?
I kinda feel this is the kind of escalation that also paralyses discourse when dealing with corporate behavior that affects society as a whole. We would really benefit a from "nudge"/"don't promote" approach to first limit impacts, without bringing all the ban and censorship drama in it as long as the option is not on the table.
PS we should ban the Wikipedia article on market failures though, can't have people reading that.
I don't think cigarette advertising is worse than either cigarette selling or cigarette smoking. Under the rubric of "this is currently a bad thing, lets address it now" there's actually no escaping a slippery slope.
And "We cannot ban anything because someone people might eventually ban the wrong thing" is a strawman. The people doing the banning will think it's the right thing.
I'll use this conversation as an example to demonstrate the absurdity. If you accept someone's argument on one topic then you may find yourself agreeing with other things they say including some terrible conclusions. Therefore, it's better to never accept anyone's argument. There are much better ways to discern whether to accept or reject an argument.
Even if the "wrong thing" is banned, this is a ban on certain types of advertising, not something that restricts your ability to buy (or sell) these things.
Say someone bans advertisements for social media sites - how is that detrimental to society? People who don’t believe social media sites are a problem can still find and use them.
If you cannot get the majority to support your censorship, and still believe it is good for a lot of people, you have to create standards and create programs that adhere to such standards that people can subscribe to voluntarily.
As far as controlling sales, i think a regulated market for drugs is required. So am happy to see both the Swiss initiative and also the German initiative for legalising Cannabis:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_Germany
As for Superbowl, there really hasn't been that many iconic ads for alcohol, but I'm sure Budweiser will be represented this year.
https://www.vogue.com/article/best-super-bowl-ads-of-all-tim...
Depending on what you mean by addiction that would include a lot of normal food as well. High sugar, sugar + fat, MSG, etc.
So which is the tail and which the dog?
I agree packaging should be wayyyy more standardised (and more ecological). But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be only 2 types of yogurt.
FWIW I have a feeling when you buy food manufacturing and transport is the smallest parts of cost. Packaging and shelving are major ones. Kinda why you don't see large packaging, especially in Europe. Why does all toothpaste runs out in a month? I don't change my favourite brand for years..?
Also arguably what some people see as a sugar crisis has more to do with the food industry landscape than the food components themselves. TBF finding a scapegoat is easier than dealing with complex root problems.
The "no" campaign said "Next they will come for your cervelas" (cervela = the Swiss version of a hot dog, highly processed meat which is considered a sacred cultural icon).
After the vote, the Young Greens were all like, "ok, next we will go for the cervela advertising!!1!"
Trolling boomers never gets old. :)
> marijuana > addictive chemicals
is one claim I am not familiar with (usually I hear “psychologically addictive”, like any pleasurable activity), but maybe I am out of date on the latest research. Anyways, swap coffee/caffeine for marijuana and this makes a bit more sense to me.
That's because there is a lot of misinformation spread by stoner types that try to rationalize cannabis usage as "non-addictive". Speaking as a former stoner myself (with nothing against smoking, I just don't partake anymore).
Cannabis use can absolutely cause physical dependence. It can absolutely "cause" (be part of) psychological dependence. It can absolutely be part of a pattern of addiction. The idea that weed is "not addictive" is simply propaganda.
Now, it is true that when compared to drugs like benzodiazapenes, alcohol, and opioids, that cessation of long-term cannabis consumption causes much less severe side effects. You don't get seizures from stopping weed abruptly. But there are absolutely still withdrawal symptoms.
TL;DR: It's a myth that cannabis is a magic plant that one can't get addicted to. It's basically a cope put forward primarily by internet stoners.
For instance mobile game gambling could have been way more rampant and destructive, but we have a decent set of rules and laws to limit the impact.
I can't imagine our society with 0 gambling happening, so if people will find a way anyway, I'd personally prefer it to be on the open, in a mainstream way. Blocking marketing wouldn't work when there are so many different forms of gambling, and obviously it also plays a social stabilizer role so I don't see any serious move to effectively stop people from gambling succeeding.
Gambling can ruin people's lives. The government shouldn't support it being easily accessible. It should be reserved for a desert city almost no one lives in on vacation.
The arguments used by the "No" lobby are: * slippery slope of meat and alcohol being banned in advertizing; when meat is not even a drug (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope). * free market disruption; when smoking is obviously a harmful substance and this law applies to all of the competing tobacco companies. * little events like festivals, bars, and shops get less money; this is probably true but festivals can simply raise their prices a bit. For small owner-led shops, yes, less tobacco consumption => less sales and tobacco is a high-margin product.
It's a great example of direct democracy sometimes leading to better political decisions. It's easier for big tobacco to buy off just the legislators (whom actually made an extremely toned down counterproposal) than all of the public.
Like redbull aka sugar?
Additionally for the given example: orange juice contains as much sugar as redbull, a cup of coffee as much (or even more, depending on the type) caffeine and the rest (Taurin, etc...) probably has no effect on the body at all.
No one said that, but you don't have pictures of destroyed livers on wine-bottles, of a rotten feet on sweets, strong alcohol is getting cheaper and cheaper, a bottle of vodka was 25sFr around 2000, now you can get it for 7-8sFr..but no one talks about that.
>a cup of coffee as much (or even more, depending on the type) caffeine
I quote yourself:
>In general, two wrongs don't make a right.
>the rest (Taurin, etc...) probably has no effect on the body at all
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citric_acid
and Sugar a dentist wet dream ;)
Protecting kids from alcohol is a no-brainer.
Providing kids with a complete diet that does not involve the exploitation of animals is way more complicated.
Same with tobacco although the age for buying tobacco is not regulated federally but on a state level (So it different in each Kanton (state) either 16 or 18.)
>Protecting kids from alcohol is a no-brainer.
That is true and mostly anyone would agree but "kids" is undefined in this statement. Clearly the law in Switzerland does not think 16 year olds are kids but many people would disagree with that.
It is certainly hypercritical to praise alcoholic drinks and demonize other drugs, but alcohol is quite a big part of Swiss culture. Not just getting wasted, but having a beer or glass of wine with a meal or at social gatherings to specific things like the cherry brandy with Fondue. It's a fringe view in the country, that a 16 year old is not adult enough to have any alcohol. I reckon you'd find more people agreeing with lowering that age rather than increasing.
Personally, I think it is good, that one can have experiences with alcohol, before reaching full adulthood rights and responsibilities. E.g. being allowed to drive a car.
My point was that any reasonable person agrees on the "protect the kids" statement. The common ground is obvious but the "how" is not.
There are valid medical arguments why a 16 year old should not drink alcohol (brain development). But there are also valid arguments why they should be allowed anyway. For example 16 matched the age where most western teens with the desire to drink alcohol make their first experience with alcohol anyway and it clearly is in no ones interest if they would have to break the law to do so. Possibly even push an already 18 year old friend to break the law by buying it for them. Also letting them make their first experience with alcohol with stuff that is unlikely to kill them is probably a good thing too. And yes, drinking before being allowed to drive a car seems to be commonly acknowledged as positive.
So no matter which stance someone has on this, the goal is to protect young people we just dont all agree on the "how".
Very often you also see which municipalities correspond to big cities and which are more rural areas: https://abstimmungen.tagesanzeiger.ch/2022-02-13/4/m (Bern, Zurich, Winterthur, Luzern voted differently than all other municipalities in their respective cantons).
And on this map you kindof see where the rich people live (Zürcher Goldküste, Zug): https://abstimmungen.tagesanzeiger.ch/2022-02-13/3/m. They voted against this proposal because it would have negatively affected them.
Or - maybe there are still folks who believe freedom actually matters and a citizen's duty is to keep government interference in people's lives at a healthy minimum.
We're talking about regulating ads.
less smoking ads -> less smoking
Assuming you accept this premise, this legislation leads to a reduction in smoking which leads to a reduction in second-hand smoke. It follows that this legislation prevents the harm of other third-parties.
Note: I am implicitly assuming that:
less people smoking -> less harm to bystanders
is true (which it obviously is).
Maybe, and so what? Let other people do what they want, as long as it doesn't affect you.
Unless of course you're the standard do-gooder who can't bear to see others do things you have decided is wrong for them. If that's the way your brain is wired, there nothing left to say.
>less people smoking -> less harm to bystanders is true (which it obviously is).
It don't think it's obvious at all.
A smoker polluting other people with their second hand smoke is a smoker infringing on other people's freedom and right not to be poisoned.
And this is one rare area where government are actually supposed to be useful: defending your freedom not to be subjected to other people's stupidity.
That can perfectly happen without preventing people to poison themselves should they decide to.
Less people smoking means less second-hand smoke. Also just fyi smoke residue clings to interiors so when things get sold the new owner inherits a gross smell and some carcinogenic exposure :)
It's not just people blowing smoke in your face outdoors
So we probably have to rely on smoker's good will to not smoke near others instead of on the law.
Every population consists of nice people and inconsiderate people, with something like a normal distribution of niceness. Assuming that smokers follow this distribution, there will always be inconsiderate smokers which don't care and stand in front of doors blowing clouds of tar into other people's faces. The amount of such people will be governed by the rate of smokers. Hence, the best way to reduce second hand smoke is to reduce the count of smokers. Note that this even applies if we assume that smokers are much more considerate than the regular population.
Can you proof that or is that the same hoax like "same salary for men and women"
Hint..have a look at France.
They can still smoke when they reach legal age. But I guess you're right, freedom to do anything without consequences is the only standard. We should let people sell and market heroin to 7 year olds if it turns a profit, even if they choose to do things that harm themselves they fully came to that decision alone and 100% understand all of the consequences without a developed prefrontal cortex
Or maybe some choices should carry consequences? You can't have both
As soon as freedom stops meaning "freedom of consequences for corporations and our military industrial complex" maybe it'll get some broader buy-in
Close to 100% of people would agree with that as a guiding principle and would quibble rather about the specifics.
https://www.santepubliquefrance.fr/determinants-de-sante/tab... in french
We also ban all display of tobacco, so stores have to keep tobacco products inside opaque cabinets.
The downside is there is a growing blackmarket trade and increase in armed robbery.
9.4% of our adult population (15+) smkoke regularly.
This won't classify as advertising, most like information for safety, we have similar stuff in our country like
- you should drink 2L of water
- passive smoking is bad for children
- use table salt with Iodium to prevent ...
- don't use improvised heating devices
- excessive alcohol drinking is very bad for health
It's toothpaste's signature flavor. The flavor you were told not to object to in childhood when you brushed, guess what, your senses know what it is, sodium flouride wasn't discovered in a lab, many places have it in their groundwater. It's gross because it's supposed to be gross, you aren't supposed to drink that water if you have a better choice.
>You should drink when thirsty.
is that an expert advice?
>Too much water is in fact bad for you.
If you link me something that proves that 2L daily is bad then please do, I drink that much and I don't want to get poisoned with water.
It depends on what you consider poisoning means. Water boarding, for instance, is water poisoning, like literally veterans water boarded by Japanese interrogators in WWII spent about a week in the hospital so their kidneys could recover from the effects of the water intake. More than 2L, true. I don't know what water you're drinking, but you should, maybe you can find your water treatment's facility's chemical analysis of the water they provide? And test the water you're drinking from the faucet, the pipes might be lead, and the water company wouldn't report that. Or if you don't want to bother with that, use your sense of taste, which is designed specifically for chemical analysis. Ask yourself as you drink water, "is this good water?".
Most of the people I know started smoking because. 1. Their parents are smokers 2. Their close friends are smokers
I haven't met anyone who started smoking because of ads. Any ad and cigarette packet has to state "smoking is deadly" or something similar already in any case.
The people who work for NGOs make their entire living from pushing initiatives like this of dubious value but that look good on a flier or a picket sign; they're just as guilty. In the US, they're so paycheck- and opportunity-guided that their attacks on vaping have pushed people back into smoking (multiple orders of magnitude more dangerous.) That's not actually a flaw - if smoking rises they can just fundraise off that again.
EDIT: to be clear since there seems to be some confusion, I agree with this. The tobacco industry is quite literally cancer. I'm objecting to the ability for companies to sue governments about it.
[1]: https://theconversation.com/when-even-winning-is-losing-the-...
And I wasn't clear: I don't oppose the Swiss government's action. Not in the slightest.
Health insurance in Switzerland is mandatory, its NOT paid b the gov.
Beside that even if it would be paid by the gov, where do you think does the money comes from? Its still paid by the people.
Wow haha, that's some massive false information you have.
I don’t think I have breathed as much secondhand smoke in the developed world as I have since moving to Switzerland.
People smoke everywhere. Basically if you can somehow see the outside, you’re outside and can smoke. That includes parkings, covered areas, train stations (I know it became illegal to smoke there not too long ago but no one seems to care). Not to mention smoking in doorways, under public or office buildings open windows, children playgrounds… hell, I see people multiple times every day smoking with a baby in one arm and a cigarette in the other hand, or dragging children along with them while smoking and have the cigarette burn in the child’s face.
Oh, and that festival in Appenzell where children (as in 7–14 years old) are encouraged to smoke. Really. Look it up, it’s a thing.
It’s really going to be tough to change it, will probably take a generation at least.