You aren't signed in     Sign In    Help

You can smoke fewer cigarettes by smoking longer ones

This is such a weird, bad photoshop.
they didn't have Photoshop back then
Photoshop was a pair of scissors and a pot of glue!
You can smoke fewer cigarettes by smoking longer ones by SA_Steve.
All, thanks for coming, since your here, check out the rest of my photostream .

Or just check out my 50 most popular shots.

All of my vintage ads can be seen here

Thanks,
SA_Steve

P.S. Also check out my ads from the seventies, targeting African American Consumers 
This photo has notes. Move your mouse over the photo to see them.

Comments

view profile

apapaleo says:

Yeah, but . . . doing the math . . .oh never mind.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

cestlaguerre39 says:

Nope. Can't argue with that logic
Posted 15 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

ckilgore  Pro User  says:

They were going to call these "Rationalizations" but it wouldn't fit on that skinny box.
Posted 15 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

coondini says:

At least the woman looks good though.
Posted 13 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

bikingbettie  Pro User  says:

yes, but what does she look like NOW after smoking those cigarettes?
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

mindy1215  Pro User  says:

Oh my god! My mom used to smoke those!
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

James Foley says:

Does no one else think her hand looks scary? It's creepy
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

ro2182 says:

and drink less beers by drinking 40 ozs
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

ravynx says:

It's not her hand that looks creepy, it's her big fake smile. It's similar to the big gaping chasm of Kyra Sedgwick's mouth; I can't stand looking at her, it's really creepy.
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

jgarland79 says:

Sounds logical to me.

Jason
www.tollfreetollfree.com
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

miller.emanuel  Pro User  says:

@ablebobby Sure, cigs kill people.. but so do numerous other things that are legal (alchohol is a number one killer for many reasons). Let people make their own decisions.
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

real_madpuppy says:

@miller.emanuel

you are right, prople can do whatever they want,
as long as they don't infringe on my right to breath air that hasn't been filled with their smoke.
so engage in your smoking habit away from people who don't want to share.
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

devrdander says:

@James
Oh its messed up, looks like they took a stock photo of a woman and added the 2 fingers holding the Cig, thats why she has 4 fingers in her hair and 2 in the air....
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

mr.blak says:

@real_madpuppy

you are right, people can do whatever they want,
as long as they don't infringe on my right to breath air that hasn't been filled with their car exhaust.
so stop driving your car.
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

shakenbrain says:

@real_madpuppy
and as long as I don't have to pay taxes to cover your protracted health-care costs when you're being treated for cancer, a stroke, emphysema, peripheral arterial disease, or any one of many other diseases brought on by smoking.
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

gingerchris says:

They're like drinking straws!

www.medialook.co.uk
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

quanza  Pro User  says:

This doesn't look like Don Draper's work. Must have been Pete Campbell's.
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

kristyread  Pro User  says:

@James Foley - looks like the photo was ripped and they cloned in the missing part of her hand.

you would DEFINITELY smoke less of these. the amount of energy required to suck one of those back would also probably burn half a days calories. there is also the added benefit of looking thinner, or skeletal... like you're going to suck yourself inside out.
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

robertchute says:

Say what you want about the cigarette industry, but they have some of the most iconic ads from the last century.
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

ciaran.sainty says:

"Halve your portions, eat twice as much!"
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

the_munificent_sasquatch says:

It looks like she's smoking a conductor's baton.
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

malau says:

1. kill the lady
2. do her
3. smoke cigarettes
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

jetgirlart  Pro User  says:

sucks to be the guy who sits on a pack of those and breaks em all...
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Rockfinch says:

Pot smokers have been using this method for years. I think it's how Bob Marley cut down, smoking those big fat dutchies.
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

darrig209 says:

Swimming pools kill more kids than guns = ban swimming pools

cars kill more people than cigarrettes = ban cars

We are no longer able to be free in the land of the free. Get a life you softheads and leave my life alone. Stop outlawing things because you dont like/understand them.

How sad.
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

elevenclothingco says:

@ Miller
Alcohol is not the number one killer...Obesity is. Tobacco is second.
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

SearchRank says:

Why not just smoke cigars? You don't inhale and a good cigar can last up to 2 hours. ;)
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

d0x360  Pro User  says:

Give me a break people, ban smoking? If you do that you will screw any free health care currently in the USA. Do you know how much money smokers generate for free health care programs in this country? The Gov doesnt want people to quit because they are cash cows from taxes.

That aside if you dont like smelling smoke then dont stand next to a smoker. They cant smoke inside anywhere anymore, they were forced outside so now the non smokers piss and moan about that too.

You walk by a smoker you might get a half second wiff of smoke which will do zero damage to your body. In order for second hand smoke to really have any effect on you, you would need to be in a small room with no ventilation with a smoker every single day so get over yourselves.

Your lungs are being more damaged sitting in traffic from all the car exhaust. Your lungs are getting more damaged from all the dust and particulate matter in your homes.

Ahh who cares people just like to complain but if you are going to ban smoking just because it kills people we might as well ban fast food, alcohol and a million other things too like ice cream and hot dogs. If someone wants to smoke let them.

Me? I'm a former smoker. Just quit 2 weeks ago. Quit to save money and nothing more. Damn you bad economy.
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Newberger says:

Mind you, I'm not a smoker: But isn't she using it wrong?

Perhaps it's her first time; of course, if she actually inhaled the smoke, it would certainly wipe the smile off of her face.

Then again, maybe she's using a new technique that ensures she doesn't breath too much in!
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

vincentvolker says:

@ablebobby because Tobacco built America, and it contributes to the National economy. The Tobacco tax is a big deal. Think about it. And, on a last note, it's not your body, it's not your money. So pretty much stay out of it.
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Caveman Bowl  Pro User  says:

Hey... it's wacky but it works.
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

crowquill says:

Long, lean, and delicious.
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

donto says:

Hands or smile mean nothing compared to the color of her lungs after about ten years. YUCH !!!!!
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

rebelpete says:

@ dox360
NYC and the State of California have already banned trans fats, and it looks like New York State will too in the near future. Smoking has been banned in all indoor public places in several countries in Europe including Spain and France, and will soon be similarly banned in the US.

There's also evidence (search the internet for an article about thirdhand smoke) that those little wiffs of smoke and bad odor that smokers have are actually bad for your health. Don't believe me? Read the article.

If something kills people you don't want to ban it? I disagree. Of course we can't ban things like hot dogs and ice cream because eating them in moderation doesn't hurt your health (and is delicious), but even one cigarette is bad for your health. Sure, do what you want, but when a smoker ends up in the hospital and needs a lung transplant, I don't want to pay for it with my tax dollars. I don't even want to pay for the cold medicine that the smoker who didn't get lung cancer needs either.

What's the solution? Ban it. You'll get over it.
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

wnywaterfallers  Pro User  says:

mmm long, lean, DELICIOUS

There are strong feelings on either side of this debate. I just read an interesting article about the chemicals left behind from smoking being called "third hand smoke".

www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/health/research/03 smoke.html?em

I'd say everyone is a bit right on this. Go ahead and smoke as long as you *know* you are not harming anyone else and you *know* the net financial effect of your smoking is either neutral or benefits society.

However I personally think that it would be hard to prove that if all smoking went away that our healthcare system would somehow be worse off financially...
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

SA_Steve  Pro User  says:

All, thanks for coming, since your here, check out the rest of my photostream .

Or just check out my 50 most popular shots.

All of my vintage ads can be seen here

Thanks,
SA_Steve

P.S. Also check out my ads from the seventies, targeting African American Consumers
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

pixelwhip  Pro User  says:

It's all about empowerment!
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

randylf says:

Wow haha!

What a joke.


Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

guyincanada2000 says:

since you're****** here
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

wikiHowl says:

This is wild! Anyway, now it appears you can actually smoke without risk, LOL.
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

greggoodwin says:

Since when can you smoke out of the top of your head?
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

ewan.blackledge says:

I think everyone commenting about their tax dollars supposedly going to smoking related illnesses should read a little basic economics or a couple studies on the matter and find that in the UK with the National Health Service the indirect tax on cigarettes is actually more than enough to cover smokers medical expenses, so they are actually contributing to *your* medicine. That cough syrup you're drinking? Almost certainly paid for by a smoker if you have universal healthcare.

Don't comment when you have no idea what you are talking about.
Go comment about your tax dollars going to endless wars if you want to complain about something. Or the constant "economic support funding" to Israel. But your tax dollars are not, and will not, ever, go to smokers.
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

rebelpete says:

@ewan.blackledge

Well obviously you're a smoker. Don't know what I'm talking about? Let's talk about the NHS in England. Do you realize that the doctors are basically paid government workers in England, and that it is impossible for you to see a specialist without first seeing a GP for a referral? How about the fact that half of the elective procedures that patients get here in the US would never be covered by the NHS, which mandates complete nationwide decisions about which procedures are covered and which aren't - something that would never fly in the US (in fact, this has been tried in Oregon and Massachusetts, and while it sounded good in theory, the program lost money within just a few years and had to shut down - MA's is still running).

Sure, the US is chock full of problems in it's health care system, but it's no day in the sun in England, either. One of the best parts about the US health care system is that we have freedom to choose the doctors we want, assuming you're not in an HMO (in which case you have very limited options). Guess which system HMOs most closely resemble? The UK's NHS.

Now you're trying to tell me that an indirect tax from cigarettes is enough to cover all the lung transplants and medical procedures from emphysema and COPD? Please.

How about taking some of those basic economics that you mentioned so you can actually do that math right?
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

ewan.blackledge says:

Yes, I do know doctors are paid government workers. See, I live in England, so I do have a bit of experience. I've also lived in the US with private health coverage. I admit it takes slightly longer here but I am perfectly willing to put up with that and the slight extra tax burden in the knowledge that it will save more lives of those who wouldn't be able to afford private coverage, as it will lose them to lack of speed, and in the knowledge that if I needed quicker coverage or something outside the bounds of the NHS, I could pay for private.
Anyone capable of affording private healthcare in the US is just as capable of affording it here, and could quite easily receive those same elective procedures. However those who couldn't afford more basic, NECESSARY procedures in the US can here.

Well my economics lecturer was only part of the managerial staff at the LSE and a former smoker herself, who has researched it thoroughly. But let me quote a few facts for you, if you don't believe me.
Firstly let me just state that cigarettes are slightly (not much) more heavily taxed in the UK than in most of the States, so there IS more revenue to the Treasury here. However cigarettes are highly price inelastic so a similar tax rate could be implemented in the US and not make much difference to demand. But here we are.


'Consumer spending on tobacco products in 2007 amounted to £12.6 billion, 91% of this on cigarettes.
Tax revenue raised on these sales amounted to £9.9 billion - £8.0 billion in excise duty plus £1.9 billion in VAT.'
Source: www.the-tma.org.uk/tobacco-tax-revenue.aspx

'Treating smokers costs the NHS in England £2.7bn a year'
Source: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7654153.stm

Google it if you don't believe those sources. So yes. I am trying to tell you exactly that.
I'm all for indoor smoking bans, it's actually been quite enjoyable sitting in a pub without being surrounded by smoke in the last few months, and personally I rarely smoked inside anyways because I do feel guilty about it (definitely never if children are about) but banning it altogether or refusing treatment to smokers is just not viable economically or morally. Banning it altogether would destroy a major source of tax revenue and you know that that revenue is then going to have to come out of your pocket as a regular taxpayer. Not to mention the huge source of finance for prohibition-style gangs and potentially terrorists (I apologise for bringing that in, but it is true). Refusing treatment to smokers doesn't make sense morally as they have already paid for that treatment (at least here in the UK and anywhere else with universal healthcare). I would agree with putting them behind non-smokers in lung transplant lists etc.
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

*gemmifer* says:

No such thing as Photoshop in the 70s!
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

rebelpete says:

@ewan.blackledge

Unfortunately, when it comes to very controversial topics, people tend to manipulate science to make it serve their own means. I don't know the source of the BBC News estimate you've linked to, but if you look at the CDC's estimate of costs of lost productivity due to smoking-related disease, it makes the revenue from the cigarette tax look like pocket change.

www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5745a3.ht m

When you look at that almost $100 billion estimate, it should make you reconsider. Even if it's an overestimate, it's still a whole order of magnitude larger than any revenue from a cigarette tax.

More importantly, economic concerns aside, smoking is a leading cause of death in the world, and you and other smokers want to keep doing it because you've learned to enjoy it. I don't know a single person, though, that ever enjoyed their first cigarette - I mean come on, it tastes like absolute hell. If people never started smoking, they wouldn't want to keep doing it - hence the smoking ban.

Sound liberal? Sure. Overly paternalistic? Maybe. But sure makes a lot of sense any way you look at it. We'd save a lot of lives (80,000 deaths a year in the UK due to smoking-related illness) and a hell of a lot of money ($97 billion in the US due to lost productivity).
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

ewan.blackledge says:

Well I can't argue against the case for saving lives, that is true. And once it stops being about finance and starts being about deaths then maybe the government will act.
But in terms of saving money, and productivity, do you really think the government can do that better than the private sector?

If a business owner doesn't want to suffer the productivity loss from smokers they can ban smoke-breaks or try what some companies here in the UK are doing, and give smokers only 30 minutes for lunch instead of an hour. Yes it would probably cause annoyance amongst smokers, in the long run however it would make a difference.
Possibly a better idea is to ensure that discrimination laws do not prevent the refusal to hire smokers, make productivity statistics more readily available--get the media talking about them more--and then let market forces do the work. Who will hire smokers who are costing them money? Maybe it won't be quick but it will be less nanny-state, and it will prevent the springing up of a prohibition-esque black market for cigarettes.
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

rebelpete says:

As for whether the government or the private sector does better, I suppose it depends on your political leanings and biases - there's evidence supporting both sides, with different situations requiring different approaches. Your suggestion for having short lunch breaks for smokers is a start - however, people will still smoke at home, and hence still suffer more lost productivity as a whole than the non-smokers. You have to start somewhere, though, and this might just be enough of a bump to encourage people to quit.

Insurance companies in the US already charge higher premiums for smokers, and I've definitely heard of corporations not hiring smokers (large companies such as Google, etc.). In the end, it will probably take both an economic approach (cigarette taxes, hiring restrictions, insurance hikes) and a public health approach (smoking bans) to combat this problem.

I think the main problem with the saving lives approach is that people are used to hearing these large numbers every day, and become desensitized to it. It happens all the time in the news (thousands killed in Iraq, hundreds killed in Gaza and Israel, 80,000 killed by smoking-related illness in the US). People simply don't understand the magnitude of these numbers.

I think the best approach (besides making economic incentives) is to attempt to change the cultural beliefs. Having actors and actresses in movies smoke makes it look very cool to do, and young people who are influenced by these images are more likely to it (they've done studies on this, and evidence shows this is true). I admit that it does look very cool and artsy when a movie or TV actor is surrounded by that white aura of smoke. But the only way to really end smoking in our modern world is to get at these beliefs and change them.
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

ewan.blackledge says:

Well I don't know about the US but here in the UK smoking is not allowed to be shown on TV. It can be 'suggested' but not shown.
I for one began seriously after seeing pictures of a personal idol of mine (Albert Camus) smoking, so I know these images can be a factor. However, bans on images such as these, while succeeding in stopping some people seeing their idols smoking and thinking its a good idea, also create a new aspect to it, a 'rebel culture' or counterculture image which can be more tempting for many young people than seeing it in the mainstream. So I don't know if it's such a good idea to ban these images. In time with the health evidence smoking will go 'out of style' and less and less something young people want to do. But banning images of smoking will give smoking an image of being outlaw culture which alot of young people will like the idea of, and will likely extend how long it takes before smoking goes completely out of style.
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Scottish Hoosier  Pro User  says:

I followed a link for the Innocent Smoothie e-newsletter. Thanks for sharing.
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

SA_Steve  Pro User  says:

Another ad from the same series:

You Can Smoke Fewer Cigarettes By Smoking Longer Ones
Posted 9 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

SA_Steve  Pro User  says:

All, thanks for coming, since your here, check out the rest of my photostream .

Or just check out my 50 most popular shots.

All of my vintage ads can be seen here

Thanks,
SA_Steve

P.S. Also check out my ads from the seventies, targeting African American Consumers
Posted 9 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

letslookupandsmile  Pro User  says:

Hi, I'm an admin for a group called Stop dreaming and face facts - advice in advertising, and we'd love to have this added to the group!
Posted 7 months ago. ( permalink )

Would you like to comment?

Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
[?]
view photos Uploaded on July 29, 2008
by SA_Steve

SA_Steve's photostream

Vintage Ads (Set)

2,546
items
Part of: Vintage

This photo also belongs to:

Vintage Tobacco Advertising (Set)

Funny Ha Ha! (Pool)

Humor (Pool)

advertisements (Pool)

W.T.F? (Pool)

Consumerism (Pool)

Vintage Cigarette Ads (Pool)

Who Approved THAT? (Pool)

Advertising Sillyness from the Seventies (Pool)

Vintage Advertising (Pool)

This Is Getting Ridiculous (Pool)

Smooth Smoke Slogans that "Satisfy" [VINTAGE Advertising] (Pool)

Ridiculous Marketing Nonsense (Pool)

Strange Things (No Photoshopping!) (Pool)

That's Funny! (Pool)

Consumerist.com (Pool)

Golden Age of Advertising: 1950s - 1970s (Pool)

National Trust for Hysteric Preservation (Pool)

Print Ad Tobacco (Pool)

Retro Cigarette Advertisments (Pool)

space in the family yurt (Pool)

Tripe (Pool)

Insanely Funny Ugly things and stuff (Pool)

The Biggest Group! - Playground For Psychotics (Pool)

Tobacco Advertising (Pool)

Stop dreaming and face facts - advice in advertising (Pool)

  • 83 people call this photo a favorite

Tags

Click this icon to see all public photos and videos tagged with old old
Click this icon to see all public photos and videos tagged with ads ads
Click this icon to see all public photos and videos tagged with Max Max
Click this icon to see all public photos and videos tagged with mpa mpa

Additional Information

All rights reserved Anyone can see this photo

Add to your map
...

You Sign in | Create Your Free Account
Explore Places | Last 7 Days | This Month | Popular Tags | The Commons | Creative Commons | Search
Help Community Guidelines | The Help Forum | FAQ | Sitemap | Get Help
 Bookmark on Delicious

Flickr Blog | About Flickr | Terms of Use | Your Privacy | Copyright/IP Policy | Report Abuse

繁體中文 | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | 한글 | Italiano | Português Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.