not necesarly the content but the quality.

If I am any sort of example, some members of this BBS can not always be relied upon to stay on topic -- tend to wander off on our own agendal tangents. In fairness, I'll try to indicate that so that you can skip those parts if you like....

Quality? Well, I'm not much of an expert on visuals, so I don't think I have much to say on that score.

[RANTANGENT]

Man, the content, though. Eeeeeewe!

Many of the original Marlboro Men -- those Stetson-wearing, horse-riding studs -- have died from emphysema and lung cancer. It is amazing, though, just how persistent a grip the brand they built has on the collective tobacco psyche. I mean, Marlboro was a low-selling girlie PM brand until those cowboys came along. Now, look at them. Formula One, logo clothing and ballcaps! They is everywhere! Oh, and there are reports that while the original cowboys died clutching their oxygen cannulas in the West, PM hired some new cowboys to ride the herd into the East.

I'm sorry that Belgium is missing a Grand Prix this year, but I salute their decision. Just think, if FIA sticks to its EU-driven decision, there will be no tobacco advertising starting in 2006 and it will be a level playing field (that is, of course, if the tobacco industry fails to get the FIA to overturn that ban).

Man, I was heartbroken to see Peugeot strike a deal with Marlboro in WRC for 2003. How can I root for them? The logo pollutes what *was* a beautiful car. Like they weren't competitive and needed the money!! They did it just to keep Marlboro money out of a lesser team's hands (Corrado Provera, if you are reading this then let me tell you that you are a souless creep!).

But I digress from my digression. I smoked a pack and a half a day of Marlboros for 14 years starting at age 13. Until I die I will remember the precise date, time, and location where I smoked my last one 23 years ago. To Lectric's point, did advertising have anything to do with me starting? Well, I don't rightly remember (Hey, I was 13!).

I did smoke that brand faithfully, but it wasn't too long before I really wanted to quit, but couldn't find a way (this was a particular bitch when the Army PX would sell me a carton for $1.50!), and I only quit after a long, long struggle. OK, I was faithful insofar as I was really, really hooked, but would I have ever thought of wearing a Marlboro ballcap? This is what I don't get. Most folks who smoke really want to quit, yet some are willing to provide free advertising for their oppressor?

The absolute effect of advertising bans may not yet be very well understood. As compared to things like raising prices (which in a recent study here in Washinton State seem to have a definite effect), maybe advertising bans don't accomplish as much. I don't have a problems with them, though. I *do* have a problem with a 12 year-old standing on a stage watching the New Marlboro Men -- Richard Burns, Marcus Gronholm, Gilles Pannizzi, or Harri Rovanpera -- ride their steeds by and perhaps be seduced into the conclusion that Marlboro just *might* be cool.

[/RANTANGENT]