What I did wrong

The face does look like the real McKayla Marioney, who is 20.

That said, many people in their early 20s look much younger. Probably that's why in tobacco commercials the actors have to be over 25.
 
You still have tobacco commercials in the US?

That genuinely surprised me. TV ads for cigarettes were banned in the 60s here.

You're correct. I shouldn't have used the term commercials. They can't advertise on TV or on radio, but POS (point of sale) advertising and print ads are still allowed, albeit strictly regulated.
 
Ah, I see. Those are now banned here, too, but pretty recently. It strikes me as hypocritical of the government to take billions of taxes from tobacco but restrict them so much, but then I don't have the fluid moral code of a politician.

Taxes on tobacco and alcohol are known as "sin taxes." Both are seen as voluntary use of expendable income, so there's little objection to them from the general population.

On the other side of the question, the taxes collected on alcohol and tobacco probably don't come close to covering the money spent by government to deal with the social ills directly related to consumption of alcohol and tobacco.

The economic effect of the advertising ban is an interesting case study. It's made it practically impossible for a new cigarette company to enter the market and relieved the established tobacco companies of their advertising budget.
 
Ah, I see. Those are now banned here, too, but pretty recently. It strikes me as hypocritical of the government to take billions of taxes from tobacco but restrict them so much, but then I don't have the fluid moral code of a politician.

In general I don't like big brother being over protective and this does come across that way. There are just too many people who believe everything they see in ads and marketers very rarely keep themselves to a socially acceptable moral code.

As for the high taxes, I believe some of the logic behind it was that
1, if it's more expensive, people will buy less and smoke less
2, government coffers need more income and it's better to take it from companies selling unhealthy products
3, part of the revenue can be used to educate people about the harms of tobacco use as well as offset some of the medical costs put on the government.

At the end of the day, most politicians will do what benefits them and their associates. At the risk of sounding naïve I said most, because I'd like to think not all are that way.

Taxes on tobacco and alcohol are known as "sin taxes." Both are seen as voluntary use of expendable income, so there's little objection to them from the general population.

On the other side of the question, the taxes collected on alcohol and tobacco probably don't come close to covering the money spent by government to deal with the social ills directly related to consumption of alcohol and tobacco.

The economic effect of the advertising ban is an interesting case study. It's made it practically impossible for a new cigarette company to enter the market and relieved the established tobacco companies of their advertising budget.

That's a very good point. Of course, I would think that budget now is redirected toward lobbying.
 
Sigh...

The GB just doesnt have the same magic when outing men who pretend to be 18 year old girls.
 
The GB is really the best place to create threads looking for sympathy and compassion.
 
Back
Top