Confusion: Are you upset that they're marketing cigarettes to women or that the cigarettes that they are marketing are the stereotypical girly-girl pink?

As someone who works in magazines I can tell you there is no way you can get mainstream mags to stop advertising cigarettes. Ad dollars are simply too precious and necessary.

The only way to solve the smoking ad problem is to get the government to ban cigarette ads completely (like they did in Canada.) Then there is no ad revenue pie for mags to compete over.

The UK also has a ban on cigarette ads. Is it safe to say that US is one of the only first-world countries that does NOT have a ban on cigarette ads? Ah, capitalism.

Is there anyone left (in America, at least) who doesn't know the risks of smoking? Who is going to fall for this marketing?

Sting Bean... except that other countries (the UK as you mentioned, and Canada as Miss May mentioned) that ban cigarette ads are also capitalist, so this one can't simply be chalked up to economics. It's also social attitudes about gov't interference into our lives. This is not to say that I’m opposed to banning cigarette ads because I’m all about that.

Rock Star… people ‘fall’ for marketing all the time. That’s why it exists, to persuade. I’m certain that you ‘fall’ for marketing as well, perhaps just not for cigarette marketing.

Just for the record, I'm a smoker. I didn't "fall for" marketing (I've never seen an ad for my kind of cigarettes). Nor did I get suckered in as a kid (I started smoking at 23). Nor am I ignorant of the risks involved (anymore than I am ignorant of the risks of a red-meat-heavy diet or of drinking liquor).

I smoke because I enjoy the taste of them, because it relaxes me, and because it's not hurting anyone else. Quite frankly, this whole "villifying the cigarettes" thing gets a little old.

Why does marketing have to be something someone is
"falling for". If you like to smoke and the attitude of the ads and packaging match your, how is that being duped? If I need a car and buy a Honda because the commercial says it has head room galore and gets 35 miles to the gallon, and it does, did I "fall" for something? This whole "people are idiots so we must ban messages that they can't resist responding to for their own good" mentality is arrogant and anti-America. Moreover, it's antifeminist. Women need these protestors to "save" them from these cigarettes because their little brains can't resist the sleek packaging and smart namig conventions associated with the brand? Puleez.

"Who is going to fall for this marketing?"

Girly girls who smoke, maybe?

Kimmy, how can you say you aren't hurting anyone else? Do you really not smoke around anyone else, ever? Not to mention that feeding cash into the tobacco industry that goes out of its way to draw in young smokers, especially in developing countries. Not only that but tobacco crops displace food crops in a lot of countries. Look here for more info that if you care http://tobaccofreecenter.org/

Think about the long term consequences of your actions. Harldy anything any of us do only impact us as individuals.

I kinda wanna smoke those. I think I just fell for it... but then I love to smoke. I'm not a smoker, but I have to actively try not to be (and I'm a lung health researcher to boot). Yikes.

According to every good study that I've heard of, the difference between those exposed to second hand smoke and those not is so small as to be statistically irrelevent.

That said, I mostly smoke outside (where the ever-present Oklahoma wind disperses the smoke), in smoking sections (where people have chosen to be exposed to it) and in my own home and car. Don't worry, I don't go around blowing smoke in babies's faces. I am a considerate smoker.

And if you're going to talk about supporting bad industries... I hope you carefully research every single industry you give food to, especially including clothing, food, and alcohol. No industry is free of the taint of potentially causing harm. It's impossible to avoid.

See, I can understand how stupid marketing "pretty" ciggarrettes are but honestly people smoke no matter what the package looks like. The first pack I smoked was white..

Anyway, I agree with Kimmy to some extent. The villifying of people who smoke is stupid to me. I realise that what I'm doing is just awful to my body but when your smoking on your balcony and no ones around, I don't see why anyone should care. After all, with all the crap that goes on in ones life, I prefer the peace of mind I get from smoking even tho it's just addictions.

If you wanna villify ciggarrettes, go right ahead but people should be screaming at the government for letting something so dangerous be available to the general population.

As for feeding the tabacco companies, no one is a perfect saint. I'm charitable. I'm a good person. But I'm also an over-scheduled, too busy to stop and smell the flowers person. I don't think having 3 minutes of peace a couple times a day is such a bad thing.

That being said, it'd be nice to quit. It just ain't happening anytime soon.

Is it wrong that as a graphic design student I find their packaging and advertising elegant, well done, and... pretty? =(

The first thing I thought when seeing the picture of the boxes is "Wow, that's some really spiffy packaging." If I didn't find smoking to be one of the most disgusting habits ever, I might have even bought these. I guess the marketing works. =(

You've come a long way, baby!

That's pretty devious. I just started smoking myself. I know it's a bad thing all around, but I'm in the process of quitting weed (which I totally have a problem with) and cigarettes keep my mind off of getting high quite nicely.

Yes, it's an incredibly unhealthy habit. But hey. If it gets me through the day, I can take responsibility for how it might affect my health in the future.

As far as second hand smoke goes, well... A couple of street magicians on cable television told me that it's bullshit. And that's good enough for me.

"Women need these protestors to "save" them from these cigarettes because their little brains can't resist the sleek packaging and smart namig conventions associated with the brand? Puleez.

Hear, hear. I'm not a smoker and don't plan on being one, but I've never met any smoker who didn't know the risks. Sure tobacco companies hold some responsibility for marketing harmful, addictive chemicals and witholding the information that they are, in fact, harmful and addictive. But by this time, after two decades of tobacco lawsuits, Americans (at least) can't blame the companies anymore. We know the risks.

That said, it might be interesting to see what kind of demographic is buying these particular cigarettes. Are there actually people out there going, "Hey, that package is pretty and sleek! I'm gonna take up smoking!"? Or are most of the customers women who already smoke, anyway?

“According to every good study that I've heard of, the difference between those exposed to second hand smoke and those not is so small as to be statistically irrelevent.�
I would really like to see one of those studies. Even if there were no health effects I detest the smell of cigarettes. It bothers me even outside, waiting in line where the person ahead of me is smoking, having to change my table outside of a café so I don’t have to inhale someone’s smoke and in bars. It immediately gives me a headache and it can trigger an asthma attack.

Daniel Burk: Ha! Those same street magicians convinced me to stop recycling. Seriously.

I'm glad someone's decided to save me from myself on this. Lord knows my vagina renders me incapable of resisting anything in pink.

Look, sojourner, I'm sorry you don't like the smell. But, unfortunately, we in America cannot lay claim to the right not to be irritated. I hate shrieking babies and children, but I don't try to get them banned, even though they give me migraines. Too much perfume or other scents can make me sneeze for ages, but I don't try to get that banned either. Sometimes we just have to put up with things we don't like as part of the price of a free society.

The NY Times has an article today, on a study announced by the HHS Secretary, stating that smoking costs an estimated $52 billion per year in health costs to the nation.

That amount of money, of which we all bear the burden, could insure every child in the U.S. who currently doesn’t have health insurance (in fact you’d have money left over).

Regarding targeted population segments, the article says:

“Four weeks ago, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company halted its plans to test market a cigarette called ''Uptown'', which was designed specifically for blacks, after Dr. Sullivan assailed the company publicly. The company said this week that it will market a new brand called ''Dakota,'' which critics say is aimed at encouraging smoking by young blue-collar women.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C0CE4D61431F932A15751C0A966958260

And being fat costs the country lots of money, too. They have lots of articles about that. And excessive drinking causes all kinds of health problems, not even counting the contribution to abuse and road accidents. Let's legislate all of those out of existence, and then everyone will be healthy!

Or we could live in the real world.

I agree with Kimmy. But I'm also an alcoholic so...

How is a baby shrieking the same thing as smoking and inadvertently causing people to inhale the grossness? I mean, even if I move, I'll still have inhaled the smoke and it'll have gotten into my hair and clothes.

I agree with Malaika924- I am not sure what Jessica is complaining about. These companies have been advertising for gendered cancer sticks for at least 20 years, and I would suspect farther back too (In fact, I know it- it was in Pink Think, a fantastic book). So is the problem that they are gendered or that they have some pink in the design?

As for Penn and Teller, I enjoy Bullshit as much as anyone, but I don't necessarily buy too much of what they are selling. I saw the recycling ep and was not convinced, so I am not certain I would believe them on cigarettes. I withhold judgement till I see them say it though.

As for smoking... I hate the idea that my insurance rates (well, once I get insurance in two months) go up just because other people choose to smoke. I know, the effect on health may be better or worse than poor diet or lack of excercise, but at least with the latter two, you aren't actively going out of your way to get lung cancer. I am not necessarily saying that failing to maintain your diet or or failing to exercise is any better, but that in my mind falls under "things that people might want to do, but can't afford to, because of class issues."

For the record, my mom is a smoker and I think its vile. When I was 10 I got really sick, and my doctor recommended my mother not smoke inside for two weeks. Now, it was the middle of winter outside of Chicago, so this lasted three hours. Though my mother always writes down exactly what the doctor says, she still claims not to remember that the doctor said this.

Rock Star, how is having a slight smell on your clothes worse than a raging migraine? Have you ever had a migraine? They can involve dizziness, sickness, incredibly severe pain, and phantom lights and sounds. Worse than a slight smell, wouldn't you say? And yet I don't complain. I just avoid places with shrieking children. Because I know that, as an adult, I'm responsible for my own comfort and I can't require the rest of society to change in order to suit my personal preferences.

Those same street magicians convinced me to stop recycling. Seriously.

That's...interesting.

Ah, who knew there were fellow smokers (and a fellow boozer!) on feministing? I feel better already.
To add to what's already been said, almost everyone of our generation knows the dangers, can even feel the dangers (lowering of the voice, trying to excercise, etc), and I don't think anyone thinks it's ok to market to kids, but adults should be able to resist the advertising for cigarettes, just like advertising for anything else. If I'm in the market for a certain type of product already, I'll take a look, but if not? No chance.

If it's anything, a friend switched from Marlboro to Camel No. 9 thanks to the "sexy" black and pink. Once opening the box o' ciggys, she then decided she liked the taste better.

I definitely have a pack of Camel No. 9s in my purse right now.

Certainly the packaging didn't convince me to start smoking. I smoke occasionally, I wanted a pack of cigarettes, and I thought the box and the pink lines around the filters on the cigarettes were cute. I was and am fully aware that I was buying a product that was specifically trying to sucker women into purchasing it because of a color scheme on the package. But if I'm going to smoke anyway, I may as well be aesthetically pleased while I do so, right?

I also agree with Kimmy.

I'm not a smoker, and I don't even like to be around people who do smoke. But it's really none of my damn business.

Besides, if you restrict access to one vice, where should it end? Alcohol? Sex aids? (We all know what the [snark] enlightened [/snark] people of the abstinence moving have been telling us.) Sugar?

Also, most large corporations have their hands in a little bit of everything. The same company that makes the shirt of your back may make those pretty little "cancer sticks", too.

I find this rather amusing, because a few of the men I worked with this summer discovered how much they liked Camel No.9s; I never knew they were intended to attract women. These guys were Finnish though... Maybe they appreciate nice packaging.

I'm happy that anti-smoking education has alerted people of the dangers smoking poses to their health. But I just want to add something. My grandfather had several strokes that probably occurred because he was basically a lifelong smoker (if he could have smoked coming out of the womb he would have). He survived these strokes and lived for 15 more years with increasingly diminished health (the strokes effected his short term memory, his ability to walk, and completely changed his personality). All of these changes in my grandfather's life meant a severely diminished quality of life for my grandmother and actually for his children to, all of whom had to care for him. Had my grandfather not been a smoker, the last 15 years of his life would have been better. And the previous 15 years would have been a hell of a lot easier for my grandmother.

I care when people I care about smoke (in spite of my live and let live attitude), because smoking can change the lives of your loved ones as well.

Daniel Burk: "I'm in the process of quitting weed (which I totally have a problem with) and cigarettes keep my mind off of getting high quite nicely."

That's so funny because I'm totally using weed to stop smoking cigarettes (which I totally have a problem with.)

Also, I have to add (on the topic of banning cigarette ads) that Canada and the UK are a little less Capitalist. I don't think it's a coincidence that they both have socialized health care and therefore think the health of every citizen is everyone's business.

But, but...some of my best friends are smokers!

Seriously, though--I'm not trying to vilify anyone who smokes. Those of you who smoke and know the risks, whatevs--do what you will.

But you can't tell me that cigarette companies marketing cigs as cool and sexy is just fine. Making them pink and all sex and-the-city-fied is gross and frankly, seems like it would appeal to younger women. (ie, teens)

The point is, secondhandsally (and I'm not trying to diminish your story here at all) that you can say that about a lot of behaviors and things that are legal. I hate to bring up drinking for the five thousandth time, but given the medical conditions it can cause and worsen (not to mention societal problems), it's a good comparison. But you don't hear this much uproar about alcohol.

On an unrelated note, here's something interesting. This cigarette is being marketed to women, so people are up in arms. But there are (and always have been) tons of cigarettes market to men. And nobody cared. So does this mean that even the women's groups think that women need special protection from themselves? If so, that's just depressing.

And just to clarify, I don't think government legislation is the answer. I don't understand why everyone seems to think that commenting on a brand of cigarettes that advertises to women and saying that I don't like it because I think smoking is bad and I don't want more women to smoke is the same as saying the government should step in and ban smoking.

I think one can simultaneously believe that smoking effects more people than the smoker negatively and also, that smoking is a personal (but selfish, in my opinion)choice.

Okay, but I can't avoid taking the bus as I have no car. I can't avoid the people smoking at the bus stop if I want to actually be able to catch the bus.

Stand upwind, Rock Star.

I'm sorry, but your personal comfort (or mine, or anyone else's) is simply not the marker for acceptable behavior in a free society. We don't get to make people stop doing things just because they annoy us.

“I hate shrieking babies and children, but I don't try to get them banned, even though they give me migraines.�
Right Kimmy, but how often do you get subject to shrieking babies, unless you work at a daycare center? And for how long at a time?
Where I live, if you want to have any kind of social life, get a drink, play pool, listen to live music, you have to constantly inhale second-hand smoke.
In any case, it’s not just a matter of being annoyed, like I said for people with asthma it can trigger an attack.
As for “According to every good study�, I think by “good� you mean studies you can agree with (and where are they anyways?) , because I did a search in Google Scholar for second-hand smoke, and these are some of the titles that came up:

1- Passive smoking and heart disease. Mechanisms and risk (The journal of American Medical Association)
A little excerpt:
“Passive smoking reduces the blood's ability to deliver oxygen to the heart and compromises the myocardium's ability to use oxygen to create adenosine triphosphate. These effects are manifest as reduced exercise capability in people breathing secondhand smoke. Secondhand smoke increases platelet activity, accelerates atherosclerotic lesions, and increases tissue damage following ischemia or myocardial infarction.�
2- Passive smoking as a cause of heart disease(Journal of the American College of Cardiology)

“Short-term exposures of 20 min to 8 h result in increased platelet sensitivity and decreased ability of the heart to receive and process oxygen. Longer term exposure results in plaque buildup and adverse effects on blood cholesterol.�

3- Even a Little Secondhand Smoke Is Dangerous (The journal of American Medical Association)

And there’s plenty more. Search for yourself.

I'm sorry about the selfish thing. It was unnecessary. And...now I'm done posting...

In other words, for people like sojourner and Rock Star, the only discomfort and unhappiness that matters is their own. Everyone else has to suffer whatever comes with living in a free society, but the things they don't like are a different matter.

And I'm sorry if you get asthma attacks. How do they compare to migraines? I'm just curious. And, for the record, there are shrieking children everywhere. The grocery store, the mall, the movies, the bank, and multiple other public places where I have to be to conduct day-to-day business.

RockStar: I know what you mean about the smokers at the bus stop. Sometimes it gets so bad that it burns my throat!

But think what I'll do next time is wear a face mask.

Ooh! Craft idea! A little glue...some ribbon...a few sequins...

I'll start a trend! =D