2006 F1 Entry List **Offical**

what's with the crazy amount of tobacco sponsorship there? makes me sick, stops loads of other non-homicidal companies from entering f1. williams have done it for a few years, mclaren have taken west completely away from their cars. shame on renault ferrari and honda.

and ralf was so close to having a number higher than michael this year

---

I think it's because the tobacco companies are milking the sponsorship time they have left for all it is worth.

nothing wrong with tobacco sponsorship. surely promoting drinking on a car is worse?

so what about the rumors of new titleship partner of mclaren mercedes? will they reveal it later or will there be no title partner?

either ban both, or allow both.

just because a vehicle has 'Vodka' written all over it, it doesn't mean they're telling you to drink it and then drive, they're only telling you if you drink Vodka, to drink their brand.

they should also ban Nescafe on the McLaren drivers visors, as that could be seen to encourage drinking coffee while driving.

or ban Wella from Toyota, as that could encourage you to style your hair while driving.

ban Vodafone and Telefonica as that may be seen to encourage using a telephone while driving.

IMO, the fact that these adverts appear on vehicles has no effect whatsoever on promoting or encouraging the use of that product while driving. so alcohol should not be seen as any different.

---

RIP Jules, never to be forgotten. #KeepFightingMichael

the thing with tobacco is that in the olden days they found out it was bad for you, but they buried that and told people it was good for you.
so all the smokers today started when it was 'good' for you.


____
Tony

no

---

yeah. anything that harms your body should just be illegal to promote anywhere. crazy.

now someone's going to say you can't advertise food because eating too much of it will make you fat and unhealthy, but i just mean alcohol and tobacco.

now someone else is going to tell me that drinking and smoking in small quantities is fine. but i'm sure you all see my point.

---

@Tony: Smoke tobacco, and help promote a healthy cough!

I just don´t get it , why people write Monterio ... it´s Monteiro for @#$%& sake

Lemming Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> yeah. anything that harms your body should just
> be illegal to promote anywhere. crazy.
>
> now someone's going to say you can't advertise
> food because eating too much of it will make you
> fat and unhealthy, but i just mean alcohol and
> tobacco.
>
> now someone else is going to tell me that drinking
> and smoking in small quantities is fine. but i'm
> sure you all see my point.
>
>
> (ha, bet nobody else is)
>
>


That means that all the cars would be blank, cant premote cigs as they are bad for you, coffee is bad for you, mobile phones are bad for you, sweets are bad for you, infact EVERYTHING is bad for you.

Forgotten Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just don´t get it , why people write Monterio
> ... it´s Monteiro for @#$%& sake


who gives a dam, we still know who he is



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/02/2005 12:13AM by Mini Maestro.

if it was not for tabaco money f1 would not be where it is now and classic cars like jps lotus camel lotus etc would not have been.

The primary objection to alcohol sponsorship on cars is the association with the car. They're spending millions here on advertising campaigns to disassociate alcohol with the action of driving a motor vehicle, so to bring the two together just seems wrong.

IMO, they're both as bad as each other. But I'd rather see cigarette companies sponsoring F1 teams than alcohol companies.

Seeing tobacco sponsorship on a car will not persuade non-smokers to start smoking, it will only encourage existing smokers to switch brands. There's nothing wrong with that IMHO.

Also, anyone who sees alcohol sponsorship on a racing car, and thus decides it'd be cool to drink and drive, is so brainless that it's best if they're removed from the gene pool anyhow.

---

K*bots UK, specialist providers of 'fun science' Curriculum Enhancement days for Primary and Secondary schools in Britain.
Please find us on [en.wikipedia.org] for more information.

madotter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> That means that all the cars would be blank, cant
> premote cigs as they are bad for you, coffee is
> bad for you, mobile phones are bad for you, sweets
> are bad for you, infact EVERYTHING is bad for you.
>

you wrote exactly what i said someone would write in that very post you quoted. and my argument is in the post above too.

---

Locke Cole Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Seeing tobacco sponsorship on a car will not
> persuade non-smokers to start smoking, it will
> only encourage existing smokers to switch brands.
> There's nothing wrong with that IMHO.

I can see your point, but why do the French totally ban any sort of alcohol or cigarette advertising? Even in the UK, cigarette advertising was banned from TV in 1965. Why is this?

The Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002 has cut down on UK advertising of tobacco. Since the 21st of December 2004, the total advertising space for all tobacco companies is limited to an A5-sized area in shops, pubs and clubs.

If all you're doing is persuading other smokers to change their brand, why ban all the adverts? Why the uproar?

Locke Cole Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also, anyone who sees alcohol sponsorship on a
> racing car, and thus decides it'd be cool to drink
> and drive, is so brainless that it's best if
> they're removed from the gene pool anyhow.
>


The problem is people are stupid :p

Zcott Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Locke Cole Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Seeing tobacco sponsorship on a car will not
> > persuade non-smokers to start smoking, it
> will
> > only encourage existing smokers to switch
> brands.
> > There's nothing wrong with that IMHO.
>
> I can see your point, but why do the French
> totally ban any sort of alcohol or cigarette
> advertising? Even in the UK, cigarette advertising
> was banned from TV in 1965. Why is this?
>
> The Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002 has
> cut down on UK advertising of tobacco. Since the
> 21st of December 2004, the total advertising space
> for all tobacco companies is limited to an
> A5-sized area in shops, pubs and clubs.
>
> If all you're doing is persuading other smokers to
> change their brand, why ban all the adverts? Why
> the uproar?

because people take the 2 activities (smoking/drinking and driving) and link them together, which makes no sense at all.

just because an f1 car has Marlboro on it, it doesn't mean you should smoke while driving, it only tries to encourage you if you already smoke, to smoke that particular brand.

so in the same way, why does alcohol sponsorship on a car get linked with drink-driving? they're not telling you to drink while driving.

i really don't understand how alcohol logos can be blamed for drink-driving, simply because of the fact that the logos appear on a car. it makes no sense to me.

at football grounds, you might see logos for Ford motorcars. they're not telling you to drive a Ford while playing football, so how does alcohol logos on an f1 car make the person drink while driving?

the sponsorship logo should not be connected to the sport/activity it is being advertised on.

but i guess it come down to peoples stupidity, and the PC brigade going over the top.

---

RIP Jules, never to be forgotten. #KeepFightingMichael