Would you hand your kid a cigarette?

Parents are very influencial on their children (Green et al, 1991, p.745). From personal experiences I can somewhat relate this to smoking - As a little girl I use to pretend my lollypop-stick was a cigarette when acting as a lady, as my Mum. Some of the people interviewed also agreed that their parents did contribute to their starting of smoking, especially mothers. Graham states that mothers' play a powerful influence on childrens' smoking behaviour (1987, p.47). If smoking is so bad on health, why would a mother want their child smoking? They don't, as mentioned by smoking mothers who participated in interviews. Then if a parent smoking influences a child to smoke, does it not make sense to quit? Although irrelevant to smoking, I find that the concept of the advertisement below would be useful if applied in a anti-smoking campaign. Here ads could better demonstrate the impact smoking has on their children.




Another issue is passive smoking. Passive smoking dramatically impacts childrens' health (Knight et al, 1996, p.446). Quitline has started focussing on this issue (see image below). By focussing on the children and family, rather than on the smoker, anti-smoking commercials could better reach parent smokers.

                                           

Image: http://www.who.int/tobacco/healthwarningsdatabase/tobacco_medium_australia_children_02_b_en/en/index.html
References:
- Graham, H. 1987, 'Women's smoking and family health' in Social Science & Medicine, Vol.25, No., pp.47-56, Accessed 30/09/2010, http://www.sciencedirect.com/
- Green, G., Macintyre, S., West, P. & Ecob, R. 1991, 'Like parent like child? Associations between drinking and smoking behaviour of parents and their children' in British Journal of Addiction, Vol.86, No.6, pp.745-758, Accessed 30/09/2010, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/
- Knight, J.M., Eliopoulos, C., Klein, J., Greenwald, M. & Koren, G. 1996,'Passive Smoking in Children' in Chest, Vol.109, No.2, pp.446-450, Accessed 30/09/2010, http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/

Butts Everywhere!

Once one finishes their smoke, where does the butt go? If there is no ashtray, the common answer is on the ground. This is littering. But why would you care? What I find ironic is that many smokers do 'care' for the environment (Taylor-Cassan, 2007). Yet I find so many cigarette buds lying around - with many not even realising the effects this has to our earth (Taylor-Cassan, 2007).


Image: http://righthandmarketingmanagement.com/righthandmarketingandmanagement1.aspx

Having said this, it does not mean that ALL smokers do this. Someone I know, for example, has bought a portable ash tray, similar to the one pictured below, which she empties when she finds a bin.


Image: http://www.chinatraderonline.com/Lighters-Smoking-Accessories/Ashtrays/Handy-Ashtray/Portable-Ashtray-075430312/

So what damage do these butts cause? Not only to they damage the appearance of the environment, but the chemicals used in cigarettes can dramatically harm wildlife (Polito, 2010). Cigarettes are not biodegradable and so are left lying around damaging the environment for as much as fifteen years (Polito, 2010).

So maybe anti-smoking campaigns should raise awareness about the effects smoking has to the environment?



References:

- Polito, J.R. 2010, Cigarette Butts, Accessed 15/09/2010, http://whyquit.com/whyquit/a_butts.html
- Taylor-Cassan, J. 2007, How Smoking Affects our Environment, Accessed 25/09/2010, http://www.aboutmyplanet.com/environment/smoking-affects/

Smoking is Sexy

Smoking in films has dramatically changed over the years (O’Shaughnessy & Stadler, 2005, p.51). During the 1950s, cigarette product placement in films worked as an extra marketing technique to encourage smoking. Actresses such as Audrey Hepburn (see image below) were commonly found smoking in films. Infact, when I was searching for images of her, there were many with her holding a cigarette. This implies that smoking is sexy. Average people look up to celebrities and follow their actions in hope to be more like them (Fraser & Brown, 2002, p.183). This means that when people see actors/actresses smoking in films, they want to smoke too. When the harmful effects were learned, such marketing techniques were removed from the film industry, with actors and actresses only smoking in films if it is part of their character.

Image: Aydrey Hepburn http://cache2.artprintimages.com/p/LRG/16/1654/5KJGD00Z/audrey-hepburn.jpg

Although product placement has decreased, actors/actesses smoking in films still influence viewers, especially young adolescence (Distefan et al, 2004, p.1239). I interviewed a couple of teenage smokers and they agreed that movie stars may have had an impact on them smoking.

Maybe smoking should be stripped from the media?

References:

- Distefan, J.M., Pierce, J.P. & Gilpin, E.A. 2004, 'Do Favourite Movie Stars Influence Adolescent Smoking Initiation?' in American Journal of Public Health, Vol.94, No.7, pp.1239-1244, Accessed 19/09/2010, http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/7/1239 

- Fraser, B.P. & Brown, W.J. 2002, 'Media, celebrities, and social influece: Identification with Elvis Presley' in Mass Communication and Society, Vol.5, No.2, pp.183-206, Accessed 19/09/2010, informaworld.com 

- O’Shaughnessy, M. & Stadler, J. 2005, ‘Defining the Media’ in Media and Society: An Introduction, Vol. 3, pp. 51-54

'Ads Don't Phase Me'

Due to the commercial world we live in, advertising has become a less effective source. The audience is 'active', being more aware of the motives behind advertising (Livingstone, 1999, p.64).

Having interviewed a current smoker regarding the Everybody Knows campaign (see previous post), I came to realise that the commercial nature of anti-smoking campaigns can damage perceptions of companies such as Quit Victoria. Instead of being seen as helpful, such companies may be considered as profit-focussed or un-caring.

Another issue facing anti-smoking campaigns is that the audience is in control. By this I mean that the viewer can change the channel during the ad break. The interviewee said that the images of the campaign didn't phase them because they chose not to watch.

This means that there is a portion of the smoking population that the anti-smoking campaigns don't even reach!



References:
- Livingstone, S. 1999, 'New Media, New Audiences?' in New Media & Society, Vol.1, No.59, pp.59-66, Accessed 05/09/2010, http://nms.sagepub.com/