Originally Posted by Mackmaven
I'm not gonna bother reading the rest of that mess, check your editing. I will however comment on the Philip Morris ads, because my field is marketing strategy and advertising, and I'll say this: Through the anti-smoking ads Philip Morris has found the revival of its TV mass media advertising campaign and it's at the people's behest. If you've followed the evolution of these campaigns you may understand what I'm talking about.
So, that’s it? A complaint about a few typos and the untenable claim that being forced by the government to pay for anti-tobacco adds is somehow good marketing for Phillip-Morris? That is, how to put this politely, an unsound approach to marketing. Still, you’ve got nothing else when it comes my point about the anti-tobacco media climate so....
You said nothing of substance what so ever about the stunning success of the anti-tobacco legislative agenda, public hostility to tobacco, the support for said agenda in the U.S. government or that previous anti-tobacco legislative successes are a decent predictor of future legislative success given that political environment is more hostile to smokers then was a few years ago. I guess you used what you’ve got.
Bottom line here people is that a legal president to ban various forms of tobacco on a national scale with interpretation of what exactly should be banned (menthol cigarettes are specifically excluded) to government officials openly hostile of hookahs is a very bad thing. A lot you guys prefer to believe thinking that somehow it won’t happen. I heard the same thing about SCHIP and every single tax increase before it, I heard the same thing about smoking bans, add bans, smokers losing kids because of “second hand smoke endangerment” and a bunch of other stuff so I am not to hopeful and smokers are too complacent.