Play along ....

[Tiassa]

Okay, call it an interesting experiment.

Click Here.

What you'll find is an entry at Slog from Dominic Holden. It shows four advertisements:

• Photo advert: Marlboro man. (Caption: "Phillip Morris runs this ad to promote smoking.")

• Photo advert: "Don't Wipe Out" snowboard cartoon (Caption: "And distributes this ad 'to prevent smoking'.")

• Video advert: 911 call, woman beating the hell out of someone for a lottery ticket (Caption: "Washington State aired this violent commercial to promote the Lottery.")

• Photo advert: "Youth gambling is not a game". Cards featuring marijuana, syringe, whiskey, cigarette, handcuffs, handgun; three kids play poker. (Caption: "And runs this ad to stop gambling."​

Holden then wonders, "Is the state trying to be insidious, like Phillip Morris, or is it working at cross purposes?"

It's the Lottery commercial that moved me to post. It's about as funny as it is stupid.

But does Holden point to any reasonable ethical conflict here?
___________________

Notes:

Holden, Dominic. "It's Good to Play". Slog. October 24, 2007. See http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/10/its_good_to_play​

 

[Baron Max]

But does Holden point to any reasonable ethical conflict here?

Nope. It's advertising directed to different groups, that's all. It's no different than seeing different car ads on tv back-to-back, each telling us that their car is better in xyz tests than the other.

I think, Tiassa, you just love controvrsy, and if you can't find it somewhere, you invent it! I call that sensationalism, you call it .....ahh, what ...social responsibility?

Baron Max

 

[milkweed]

OMG! That lottery commercial is hysterical!

 

[Tiassa]

Milkweed

Yeah, but it's kind of a "B-Sharp" hysterical; it gets less funny the more you see it.

 

[milkweed]

OK. Now to get back on topic.

No, I dont think its insidious. I think its ineffective.

I think the smoking part is just a piece of the tobacco settlement and is what the tobacco companies are doing to maintain their part of the settlement. Its not about ethics, its about court orders. Given a choice, I bet the tobacco companies would invest those advertising dollars elsewhere.

The casinos here have posters in the restrooms giving you information on how to contact gambling help orgs/gov/com/info/net..... places to appease the do-gooder gotta keep ya from hurting yourself crowd that hates the idea that some people enjoy gambling. And these are native american casinos who have no obligation to the voters, but were asked to do so by the state. I remember when this push for balance occurred. It was agreed to because it was voters leaving these places broke and looking for some way to alleviate their own guilt over their mistakes, or family members trying to feel like they did something to change their world.

Politicians who see the benefit of unearned income voluntarily handed over to the state (lottery) have to address the issues other voters bring up regarding 'we gotta save the kids/growups from themselves'.

It cant be bad when government offers people a choice/resources.

 

[milkweed]

Milkweed

Yeah, but it's kind of a "B-Sharp" hysterical; it gets less funny the more you see it.

OK fair enough. I can shut off youtube when I want. I bet they played it during football. Over and Over...

 

[Tiassa]

OK fair enough. I can shut off youtube when I want. I bet they played it during football. Over and Over...

I've been missing the games; this season just hasn't matched up well with the parental two-step (we trade custody on Sundays). Life goes on.

OK. Now to get back on topic.

I'll raise this one, since it's one of the points I don't have a firm opinion on: Should the state be in the gambling business through lotteries in the first place?

And, I suppose: Is that even relevant to the question at hand? (e.g., Does the state/gambling issue inevitably lead to such appearances of contradiction? Does the state have an obligation to avoid such appearances?)

 

[maxg]

I can't comment on the gamling ads but evaluations of tobacco company's anti-smoking ads have repeatedly found that they are at best completely ineffective in some cases actually encourage smoking. The tobacco companies are not really trying to get people to quit (as milkweed mentioned they're simply required to air a certain amount of anti-tobacco ads).

 

[iceaura]

I'll raise this one, since it's one of the points I don't have a firm opinion on: Should the state be in the gambling business through lotteries in the first place?

I vote no. It's a corrupt and corrupting business.

Not too long ago, running numbers was a crime.

 

[milkweed]

I'll raise this one, since it's one of the points I don't have a firm opinion on: Should the state be in the gambling business through lotteries in the first place?

It was a ballot measure here that passed with around 80% voter approval, after many measures were nixed in legislative efforts to give the people what they wanted. The motivation? A two parter. All the money being flown out of the state on Las Vegas junkets. It was obvious to some that it was something a LOT of people enjoyed doing. Besides, Native Americans were bringing gambling to the state regardless of political grandstanding.

I am not sure if I would rather a private company was responsible for running a lottery. I am kinda glad vegas style marketing has to stay in vegas (lottery type). I can still fly to vegas and get in on various games not available here. And I do buy lottery tickets and enjoy the dreaming that goes on as I wait for the winning numbers to come up, the bigger the pot, the bigger my plans.

And, I suppose: Is that even relevant to the question at hand? (e.g., Does the state/gambling issue inevitably lead to such appearances of contradiction? Does the state have an obligation to avoid such appearances?)

The state only has an obligation to avoid such appearances when laws are being broken. I dont think its contradiction to offer both sides of an issue and promoting a game (the lottery) is one side and posters about its down side is the other side of an issue that has no clear and absolute outcome.

 

[maxg]

I vote no. It's a corrupt and corrupting business.

Not too long ago, running numbers was a crime.

The State does plenty of things that would be a crime if they were done by individuals. AS for the corruption, the idea at least is that the State will run a less corrupt game (not sure if that's true though).

I don't see much difference from the State running lotteries or taxing others who run the gambling and I don't think making gambling illegal has worked all that well. And with State-run gambling the profits generally get funneled into social services that will benefit some of the people who are losing their money on the lottery anyway rather than wealthy shareholders in some corporation or organized crime. So I'm fine with it.