Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A task force of the American Psychological Association (APA) has recommended restrictions on advertising that targets children under the age of eight, based on research showing that children under this age are unable to critically comprehend televised advertising messages and are prone to accept advertiser messages as truthful, accurate and unbiased.Kids & Commercialism |
Not sure if you're aware but the job of a parent is to use their parenting skills and teach the child what is appropriate, thruthful, accurate, etc.
So government regulation does trump parental influence.
Nice try there, squirmy. Removal of the machines was a common sense approach, not a regulatory one.
There's a big difference between going "Well, parents can't watch their kids EVERY minute of EVERY day when they turn 13, so we should probably remove machines that SHOULD be buried in the BACK of bars where kids can't get them, but are notoriously placed in the front by the bar owners so that they get more foot traffic" and going "We need to control what goes on TV so little Johnny doesn't say "I want I want I want! until the parent gives up and gives it to them because they're spineless".
The extreme lefty loons can point to the removal of the Camel as the reason underage smoking is down all they like, but anyone with an IQ higher than that of a pair of shoelaces knows that's not it. It's the culmination of the removal of the automated access to the cigs, the taxes on the cigs as governments turn smokers into pariahs, as well as the fact that since there are less ADULTS smoking these days, that means that the kids are having less exposure to seeing smoking by their parents and trying to emulate them.
Note that last point: It's parental influence. It's no secret that if parents smoke, a kid is more likely to grow up smoking. Why? Because growing up, they saw mom and dad do it, and they want to be like mom and dad. If mom and dad don't smoke, the kid is less likely to. That's not government regulation causing that. It's common flippin' sense.
And remember race fans, especially all you liberals: Your tax dollar is going for this. The courts are run by our tax dollars. The judges, clerks, et al involved in these lawsuits are paid by our tax dollars. Of course, you liberals don't care about that. All you focus on is corporate welfare.
Nice try there, squirmy. Removal of the machines was a common sense approach, not a regulatory one.
There's a big difference between going "Well, parents can't watch their kids EVERY minute of EVERY day when they turn 13, so we should probably remove machines that SHOULD be buried in the BACK of bars where kids can't get them, but are notoriously placed in the front by the bar owners so that they get more foot traffic" and going "We need to control what goes on TV so little Johnny doesn't say "I want I want I want! until the parent gives up and gives it to them because they're spineless".
The extreme lefty loons can point to the removal of the Camel as the reason underage smoking is down all they like, but anyone with an IQ higher than that of a pair of shoelaces knows that's not it. It's the culmination of the removal of the automated access to the cigs, the taxes on the cigs as governments turn smokers into pariahs, as well as the fact that since there are less ADULTS smoking these days, that means that the kids are having less exposure to seeing smoking by their parents and trying to emulate them.
State laws do regulate the sale of cigarettes to minors and placement of cigarette machines.
http://slati.lungusa.org/states.asp (broken link)
The issue is that advertisement can and does affect behavior of our children. It is a form of brainwashing. We can enforce controls on our children when they are in our presence but when they become teens, it is very difficult to "control" what they do. Your post is a clear example of this. You snuck into bars to purchase cigarettes as a minor. What made you think smoking was a good idea at such a young age?
State laws do regulate the sale of cigarettes to minors and placement of cigarette machines.
Individual State Smoking Laws & Tobacco Control Efforts -- American Lung Association SLATI (http://slati.lungusa.org/states.asp - broken link)
The issue is that advertisement can and does affect behavior of our children. It is a form of brainwashing. We can enforce controls on our children when they are in our presence but when they become teens, it is very difficult to "control" what they do. Your post is a clear example of this. You snuck into bars to purchase cigarettes as a minor. What made you think smoking was a good idea at such a young age?
Well of course advertising shapes opinion and behavior. Look at the millions of idiots who line up every time Apple releases another product based on 10 year old technology. They do so because they've been convinced via marketing that having something with a "cool" Apple logo will somehow make them more interesting as people. And these are adults doing it.
You live your entire life being bombarded by advertising. It's the way of life. If you can't control yourself in that situation (or your child), then the problem is with you, not with the advertisements.
She has a point. It's nearly impossible for parents to fight back against a corporation that literally spends billions in marketing to children. McD's and other companies have perfected The Nag Factor. McD's marketing is a massive interference that makes the parent's job of raising their children even more stressful and difficult when it shouldn't be.
Parents need to keep the TV away from their children until a later age. TV does nothing but market junk to your child, turn their brain to mush before it fully develops, and prepares them for a life of hyper-consumerism (e.g. living beyond their means because they have to buy something every day).
On the other hand, if we can ban the sale of cigarettes to children because of its inherent health problems why not McDonald's for the same reason? At least get advertisers to curb their aggressive marketing toward kids, some countries are already doing this.
Commercials for junk food are being banned on children's television. For campaigners, this is just the first victory in a war against advertising to youngsters. But those whose job it is to sell sweets, toys and fizzy drinks will not give up without a fight. Helen Pidd joins them as they move into a new battlefield - the internet.
Consuming Kids: The Comercialisation of Children (7 Parts)
You know what? I bet that my grown children could makes lists several pages long of all the things they begged me to get them when they were children .....and that they never got. I didn't need a law to teach me to shape my lips into the word "NO." It's called being a parent. If more people would choose to be parents rather than buddies to their kids then they wouldn't feel the need of legislation or lawsuits to prevent their children from having things they don't think they should have.
Advertising affects behavior. A good example is the decrease in smoking rates since this advertisement has been banned. Fewer of our youth are getting sucked into the persuasion of smoking due to commercials/billboards.
Smoking has decreased because of the horrendous increase in taxation. When lawsuits and public opinion fail to "correct" bad behavior, the tax codes can be used to create the hoped for outcome.
McDonald's and othe purveyors of "unhealthy" foods are next on the list for that.
I hope all of you who supported the raping of smokers will be happy in the new world you've helped create.
She may have a point, but she doesn't have a case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by renault
She has a point. It's nearly impossible for parents to fight back against a corporation that literally spends billions in marketing to children. McD's and other companies have perfected The Nag Factor. McD's marketing is a massive interference that makes the parent's job of raising their children even more stressful and difficult when it shouldn't be.
Parents need to keep the TV away from their children until a later age. TV does nothing but market junk to your child, turn their brain to mush before it fully develops, and prepares them for a life of hyper-consumerism (e.g. living beyond their means because they have to buy something every day).
On the other hand, if we can ban the sale of cigarettes to children because of its inherent health problems why not McDonald's for the same reason? At least get advertisers to curb their aggressive marketing toward kids, some countries are already doing this.
Commercials for junk food are being banned on children's television. For campaigners, this is just the first victory in a war against advertising to youngsters. But those whose job it is to sell sweets, toys and fizzy drinks will not give up without a fight. Helen Pidd joins them as they move into a new battlefield - the internet.
Consuming Kids: The Comercialisation of Children (7 Parts)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
