Imagine complaining that teenagers are drinking soda.
“PepsiCo has decided to do something about that, and has designed its “Live for Now” campaign in an effort to reverse the decline in teenage soda consumption. The campaign takes advantage of known adolescent vulnerabilities which result from the facts that the inhibitory structures of their brains are not fully developed, hormonal changes further reduce inhibitions while lowering self-esteem, and their psychosocial development focuses on identity formation and social acceptance.3 As a result they tend to be impulsive, thrill-seeking, and “now”-oriented. While they may rationally balance perceived risks and benefits, doing so does not necessarily inure to their best long-term interests.” [Public Health Advocacy Institute]
I never cease to amazed at how alarmed and radical they can get over a child drinking a soda pop, while they conveniently ignore a raging drug abuse problem with young people, cocaine, meth, bath salts, PCP. Hey no problem with any of this, just ban the soft drinks.
People are subject to persuasion and less mature people are more subject to persuasion. This is hardly news. It’s the basis for education, cultural values, parental influence, cartoons, commercials, political campaigning, etc.
There’s no way to legislate advertising that works on adults without influencing younger people. But nanny-bullies would rather eliminate advertising as we know it and substitute their own version of “virtue”.
Very Big-Brother-esque.
So what’s worse? Joe Camel, or Obama non reality kool-aid?
Joe Camel, for all his tattoos and leather jackets, doesn’t promote freebie welfare for everybody
All these characteristics can be used to justify not having political ads aimed at young voters or, even better, raising the voting age to say 35. Do you think that I can sue the Democrats?