To be angry at the "I 'm scared my dad will did" smoking advert was shown at the cinema yesterday during a PG film?

[Notalone]

I fully understand the purpose of the advert, I really do, but I also feel it is installing fear that wasn't there before into children.

I took DS to the cinema yesterday to see a PG and there were lots of children there. This advert came on and it really scared DS as DP smokes. I gave up smoking a while ago and I am aware that smoking is stupid, dangerous etc but I cannot force DP to give up until he is ready. However DS is now convinced his dad is going to die soon. I feel these adverts may well have kids all over the country terrified and tbh this makes me angry as it is not fair on them. What do you think?

I'm not sure I'm in favour of the ad as such; the message is very hard hitting and has caused my DS who is 7 to ask questions about it and ask whether his dad, who is an occasional smoker, will die. I have had to respond to his questions as best I can, given that DS's gran (an ex smoker of 15 years standing) died of lung cancer last year.

I answered purely in terms of the OP. I think it is unreasonable to be upset about it being shown before a film that has a parental guidance rating as the ad is no doubt being shown within the censorial guidelines for a PG film.

And I am an ex smoker who is the child of an ex smoker who died a long painful drawn out death.

Another example.

My FIL has type 2 diabetes. The one you get because you are too fat.

I know he still has sugary things more than he is supposed to.

By this logic I should say to my DH "your dad is going to die". As his dad is 60 and has a few other problems related to his diabetes this is patently true. On the basis that DH would then pester his dad to lay off the sweeties and thus extend his life.

I would feel very cruel saying that and DH is a grown man, not a child.

I don't say it because I know FIL knows he shouldn't do it, and what the consequences are, MIL knows he shouldn't do it, everyone knows, people say stuff to him from time to time but it does no good, what's the point of rubbing DHs nose in it?

Piscesmoon, even if I conceded that it was abusive of the parents to smoke I'd still disapprove. If a child is abused by a parent in some other way does that mean anyone else can do anything to that child. 'Do what you want to them because their dad/mum started it'?

Most people who smoke want to stop. Abusing their children is not helping.

Nooka, it's not simply suggesting the children will die, but that their parents will. Saying they will get the message anyway is beside the point since someone is deliberately upsetting them to get at someone else.

Also do these adverts include the effects of alcohol? How about if I come up to you in the supermarket wine section and start telling your kids what might happen if you drink?

Like I said punishing the kids in school would also be an incentive. Hands up who approves of that idea?

If they want to get at smokers let them do that. Leave the kids out of it.

OK, so on the evidence front, adverts with a higher "emotional hit" have been found to be the most effective, and getting parents to stop smoking before their children are nine increases the chances that their children will not start to smoke (statistically having a parent smoke is strongly associated with starting smoking as a child). When I see such adverts I feel very angry. But not at the government/public health service. At my stupid stupid addicted dh.

Has he tried zyban nooka?

Honestly it is a miracle drug as far as I am concerned.

Smoking is a proved killer. It tells you quite plainly on the packet that they kill, a child can read the message before they have a very advanced reading age. I don't think that children should be frightened by adverts when they have no control, however the smoking parent has the answer-instead of complaining about the advert, give up smoking.

Sorry onager you are missing the point. The adverts are aimed at the parents. To make them think about the effect they are having on their children. And in my opinion they bloody well should think about that. On the age appropriateness of the advert to a PG film I guess that's more to do with the wide range of children that parents take to such films. My children are now eight and nine, but I can't remember taking them to PGs when they were three or four. Isn't it the parent's decision/responsibility whether to risk them seeing things that perhaps are a bit tricky for them to understand or might give them nightmares?

I think who the ads are aimed at is open to interpretation as well.

The ones I have seen on TV were aimed squarely at children - that was the impression I got after seeing them.

I still wonder if we're all talking about the same ads?!

I agree piscesmoon. I find it hard to believe that any child old enough to go to a PG film would really have no idea that smoking is very harmful.

The arguments that keep being put forward about 'going up to a 4 year old and saying Your mum is going to die!' are a total red herring. No one is saying that would be acceptable. Or to say it to the child of obese parents. An advertising campaign is totally different - it is not personally attacking an individual child, it is designed to present information powerfully to the masses, in order to produce an overall positive outcome. If the ads help some parents to give up smoking, and prevent some youngsters from starting smoking, then that outweighs the possible upset to others.

At the end of the day, as piscesmoon says, if you think the adverts are abusive, then continuing to smoke when you have children is sure as hell abusive!

"Small children rarely smoke, it's fairly unusual before the age of 12 or so. At that age being told you are going to die is fairly irrelevant anyway because most children think they are invincible, and in any case when you are young you really don't care what might happen to you when you are 30" (From Nooka)

This is exactly why these adverts are so wrongly targetted. They scare children and won't put them off smoking themselves necessarily because they will think they are invincible. I did when I first started smoking. I don't now which is why I gave up. These adverts should be aimed at adults and not shown to kids who may well develop fears they never had before they saw these adverts

Jazzhands unfortunately he hasn't tried to give up for a few years, and he has this irritating idea that he can do it on his own (patently untrue). If anything giving up seems to be getting harder and harder for him, even though he is now in the age group when he could well be suffering from the effects (early heart attacks etc). He has smoked for almost half his life

I used to work in public health, so regularly brought home stuff on smoking cessation aids, groups, telephone numbers, research etc. The treatment that stands out for me is Champix plus counseling. I have had a few friends and colleagues that have used this route very successfully (still smoke free a year or so later). Of course it does also have some scary side effects for some, and shouldn't be used if you have depression or without supervision.

Can anyone link to the specific advert? Advertising to young people is usually done (most effective) using another young person, so if these were adverts targeting children they would use a child of the same age (ie 12-14) that they were targeting. For TV advertising many adverts targeting parents are put on kids TV not because the child is going to influence the adult to buy the debt or insurance product, but because the adult is going to be watching too.

nooka I feel for you. Unfortunately it's got to be his decision or attempts won't work. I suspect that by saying he can do it by himself he is really setting himself up to fail ie it is not a serious attempt. Champix sounds very similar to zyban which i thought was amazing - gave up 3 years ago and I genuinely don't miss it or ever fancy one. I found that the whole thing of not having any cravings was the same thing.

violethill I keep putting forward those arguments and your response really makes me wonder if we are talking about the same ads. The ones I'm thinking of have a dad and a boy sitting by a canal (I think) fishing does that sound familiar. Any child watching that who had a smoking father would certainly think that it was speaking directly to them. And officially too.

Jazzhands - this was the advert I am talking about.

Just reread that doesn't make sense!

I found that the whole thing of not having any cravings was the main* thing.

When your DH next decides to quit hopefully you can point him in that direction - using the drugs makes the whole thing a doddle rather than a terrible trial

Champix is quite interesting in that you take it before you stop smoking and it blocks the parts of your brain that take up the nicotine (I think, this is from memory). One of the effects is that your last few days of smoking cease to be pleasurable. Can also give you strange dreams.

dh has never taken ds (or dd) fishing in his life so I don't know that the children would think it was about them! However these sort of ads aren't exactly new. There used to be the series that were all about funerals not that long ago.

I've seen and heard quite a few different ads in the campaign - ones with children and ones with teenagers.

Why do you assume we're not talking about the same adverts? Because I have a different opinion from you?!

I can see that you would prefer the adverts not to be shown, but my view is that if children are old enough to attend a PG film, they are old enough to see the adverts. And I think the importance of having an effective ad campaign against smoking outweighs any possible upset tbh.

FGS get a life

nooka the ad is with the child(ren) talking direct to the camera with the parent in the background oblivious - it is from the child's POV and to me every time I see it I have read it as aimed at children.

violethill I keep saying it because I think the majority of people would see the advert as aimed squarely at the child, not at the family, as you keep saying. Which is why I wonder if it's the same ad.

I wish I could find a link to it...

Now I assumed from the way that people were talking that the advert was made so that it would appear the child was talking to any parent. ie that the parents watching to think that could be my child. Not so the children watching would think that could be me. But I haven't seen this particular advert

Notanotter - who was that directed at?

It is the latter nooka, the way I have always interpreted it and the OP too by the sound of it. Definitely to make children think "that could be me".

I will have another google.

For what its worth I do think this advert is aimed at adults predominantly. However, it is being screened when they know many of the audience will be children which is why it is wrong imo

Here is one of them - not the canal one I was thinking of but to me this is aimed at the child as well.

Yes of course it's not nice for the parent to see but the way it's in the child's voice to me says it is speaking directly to the child. I have always interpreted it like that.

here

That one is definitely aimed directly at the heartstrings of mothers.