Are Alcohol Commercials Required To Have A Surgeon Generals Warning

How long will it be before sugar is regulated like alcohol or tobacco?

For 30 years I have been going into every grocery store in La Jolla and insisting they create a special section for sugar free products.The only positive response came from Costco, which for about 5 years created a special section for all the sugar-free drinks. What set this off was Lipton having a green tea product in which the labeling was the same for the sugar or the sugar-free version. I convinced them to drop Lipton and create their own sugar-free imitation, which is called Kirkland Diet Green Tea.An idea of how clueless the food industry has been in this area comes from 3 episodes of Donald Trump’s The Apprentice. Each episode normally is financed by a different sponsor. The makers of Diet Snapple had 3 consecutive shows, 3 hours in which neither they nor Trump nor Amarosa thought to mention that they had gone from a low-sugar to a no-sugar product, with no change in the labeling.I do not know if the sugar-free version of Coke and Pepsi is deliberately made to be as toxic as the sugar version but the result is : phosphoric acid, citric acid, caffeine, and 3 different forms of potassium.This could be the 20th time that I mention the documentary on French TV5 that showed the sugar industry spending over 1 billion Euros in 1 year just to influence 1 vote in 1 committee of the European Parliament.To me this was like reading Phil Agee’s Inside the Company, A CIA Diary. It forced one to change ones mind in several areas.If Pepsi, Coke and Nestle are prepared to spend that kind of money in order to fund fake science (to the effect that there was no relation sugar sodas to child obesity) what else have they been up to for the last 50 years?The ability of the soda industry to tap into the American independent streak was demonstrated when Bloomberg tried to regulate soda drink size in new York.The recently discovered fake studies by the sugar industry could be used as cleverly as the Nixon Watergate tapes.I think it is easier to create class-action lawsuits and changes in legislation under the banner of protecting children’s health, which is an obvious observable phenomenon, that on new facts surrounding Alzheimer’s.

Why were 60s cigarette commercials banned?

In 1970, Congress took their anti-smoking initiative one step further and passed the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act, banning the advertising of cigarettes on television and radio starting on January 2, 1971. After the television ban, most cigarette advertising took place in magazines, newspapers, and on billboards. However, in 1999 all cigarette billboard advertisements were replaced with anti-smoking messages, with some of these anti-smoking messages playing parodies of cigarette companies advertising figures and slogans. Since 1984, cigarette companies have also been forced to place Surgeon's General warnings on all cigarette packs and advertisements because of the passing of the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act

What happens if you get caught smoking on a commercial airplane?

More often than not, nothing bad will happen to you.He is what will probably happen first, in a nut shell. Everyone will know and you’ll be asked to stop. It’ll either end there, or the crew will decide they need to divert the plane and have you removed. Either way, when the plane lands (unless you’re at a small airport that doesn’t have its own police/security) you’ll be removed. There will probably be some yelling and stern warnings. After that, you’re free to go.Smoking on a plane is a federal offense. So when the local PD shows up, all they can really do is take you off the plane and lecture you. If you make a fuss at that point, then you’re their problem. If you don’t, suck it up and you’ll be on your way. If the FBI shows up, well, now you’re in trouble.This problem has several complications. First, you’re violating a federal regulation, not a state or local ordinance so jurisdiction becomes an issue. Secondly, “air law” (for lack of a better term) works in a weird way. Basically, when an offense happens on a flight, at least 3 entities can claim jurisdiction. The state/country of registry for the aircraft, the state/country over which the offense happened, or the state/country where the plane ends up. Most everything is minor and in the end, governments don’t care. Unless you murder someone, there’s no prestige in capturing a “cart pooper” or naked passenger. So, you’ll probably get off with a stern talking to.Federal stuff though is another matter. Local PD can only hold you so long, so depending on what you did on the plane, if the FBI can’t be bothered to get to the airport too quickly, again, you’ll probably be released with a stern warning. Smoking is a hot button topic. You could literally kill everyone on the plane by smoking a lit substance. Ecig, probably not. It’ll depend on how far the crew wants to push it.NOTE: I’m not a lawyer and this should not be considered legal advice. Also, just don’t try it. I would suspect that many passengers today would beat you senseless for trying to smoke on a plane. All it will take is for one person to claim you’re trying to light a bomb and you will get mobbed.

Why did they outlaw cigarette commercials but still have alcohol commercials?

In the US, while beer and wine commercials have been allowed on TV for years. But it’s only recently that liquor ads have come back to TV. The industry had a “self imposed ban from 1948 to 1996”.In other words, they didn’t outlaw them but the industry made one of those self-policing choices to stay off the air.Why did they start the ban in the first place? In part, the US was still close enough to prohibition and the highly negative attitude toward liquor that any ads on TV cast a bad light on the entire business. For years, too, there was fear that ads on TV would draw in underage individuals (the “don’t give our kids bad morals” approach).Interestingly, the reason the ban ended is, in part, because advertisers felt they were losing power to other consumable options who WERE using TV. You can read more in depth in this NY Times article.This is a pretty typical cycle in advertising. At some point, marketers fear the public outcry and self-police to avoid having overt government rules put in place. Over time, though, markets change and the damage done by the self-policing outweighs the good. And eventually they step back from it.So… Why are cigarette commercials outlawed despite these liquor changes? Public opinion drove the change. It has become easy to pass nearly any law to limit smoking. (It’s become quite silly in my opinion.) And what politician or public servant can resist passing new laws or rules for something seen as ubiquitously bad (even if their new laws/rules are silly)?As with the early liquor ban, concern for children was used (as it always is) to justify the new rules.Heres’ the current status: In 2010, the Tobacco Control Act became active and placed new restrictions on tobacco marketing, including extensive constraints concerning the circulation of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco to minors. Newly effective with this act, "audio advertisements are not permitted to contain any music or sound effects, while video advertisements are limited to static black text on a white background. Any audio soundtrack accompanying a video advertisement is limited to words only, with no music or sound effects."Interestingly, they aren’t banned. But the limitations are so heinous marketers aren’t going to want to waste their money. Video ads are limited to “black text on a white background”? Really?