The "good old days" when Santa sold smokes

The Guardian reported last October that a new edition of Clement C Moore's 1823 poem A Visit from St. Nicholas, which is widely attributed with popularizing the modern image of Santa Claus, has censored all references to the visitor's pipe:

"The stump of a pipe he held tight in his teeth, 

And the smoke, it encircled his head like a wreath"

Canadian publisher Pamela McColl released the bowdlerized poem through her own company, Grafton and Scratch.

Ms. McColl explains:

"I have edited out a few words and lines that reference Santa smoking and removed the cover illustration of his pipe. The omission of these few words do not change the material intent of the author nor do they infringe on the reader's understanding or enjoyment of this historically-rich story, but by removing these words we may save lives and avoid influencing new smokers," she says. "I think these edits outweigh other considerations. If this text is to survive another 200 years it needs to modernise and reflect today's realities. I want children to celebrate the spirit of giving and to reflect proudly on the holiday traditions that shape their childhood, and the best way to honour Santa and this story is to make him smoke-free."

When my parents were kids, Santa didn't just smoke a pipe. Through the magic of big tobacco advertising, he also enjoyed promoting several brands of cigarettes:

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

I'd just like to add that I totally disagree with what Pamela McColl did to the old poem. 

I am also very much anti-smoking, but I am also anti-censorship. Old works are expressions of their time, and they provide an opportunity to talk with kids about why certain things were considered okay in the past, and why they are not now. In my opinion, this helps prepare kids for a world in which "normal" is a constantly moving target. By sheltering them, you only make them believe that the world was always as it is now. And how are they supposed to cope with change then?

This Halloween campaign could scare you to death

Via

What the holy hell?!? You would be justified in asking.

According to Stanford School of Medicine, these 1951 ads are — ironically — making fun of other brands' empty marketing promises of being "better for you" rather than fighting against the real medical science that would force ads to start to be more honest about the deadliness of their products a decade later.

Towards the end of the era in which false medical claims were endemic (early 1950s) the Old Gold brand had a prolonged campaign - with more than 50 variations on this theme - in which they touted: "We Don't Try to Scare You with Medical Claims." Ironically, many of these ads in their fine print make outlandish statements that Old Golds were less irritating and thus safer than the competition. Somehow they calculated that the public would not see this obvious hypocrisy. Note the white box strangely reminiscent of the Surgeon General's warning introduced years later. In what can only be characterized as rank hypocrisy, they claim Old Gold's are less irritating and easier on the throat.

Via 

Boo! **cough cough cough**

NYC supersize softdrink ban upsets the tobacco-fast food complex

AdFreak shared this horror-show depiction of NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg in a matronly dress. He's a "nanny", you see. Get it? "Nanny state". All unAmerican and unmanly-like.

Mayor Bloomberg recently announced a plan to ban the sale of any cup or bottle of sweetened drink larger than 16 fluid ounces. That's an American pint, about 475 ml.

This plan is an attempt to fight the obesity epidemic, of which New Yorkers are some of the least contributors. Yet, the super-sized trend really is out of control. When I was my son's age, the small glass bottles of pop I got to buy with my allowance were 10 ounces. McDonald's soft drinks were even smaller (especially considering they were mostly ice). Now, the average Canadian consumes almost 120 litres of soft drinks per year, and our American cousins a whopping 216!

Via 7-Eleven

Something has clearly gone out of control. For one thing, pop is relatively cheaper, I guess because most of it is sweetened with heavy-subsidized corn. And consumer demand and portion sizes have been increasing in lockstep since the '80s. But is regulation the answer?

It's part of it. Not that it can stop people from over-indulging in sugary drinks. More because controversial legislation like this forces people to think about the issue.

And that's why this anti-ban ad is interesting. It's not really about people's freedom to drink themselves diabetic on Big Gulps. Can you guess who these brave defenders of consumer freedom really are?

Consumer Freedom formed in 1995 with the financial backing of Philip Morris. Besides lobbying against municipal smoking bans in restaurants, it fights government efforts to restrict food and beverage choices.

That's right, brought to you by the people against smoking bans. You know, the bans that actually work.

You may be opposed to the exxxtra large pop ban for your own beliefs about personal liberty, about the role of the state in a free market, or even about the efficacy or enforceability of such a law. Those are fair points. But when big tobacco is putting money behind a campaign, you can bet it's because business interests — as opposed to public interest — are what's at stake. Because the more politicians regulate harmful consumer overindulgences, the less of a future they have. According to Wikipedia, other "Consumer Freedom" supporters include Brinker International (Chili's), RTM Restaurant Group (the owner of Arby's), Tyson Foods, HMSHost Corp (owners of airport and service station restaurants), and Wendy's.

Did I mention that, unlike hamburgers and other entrees that have super-thin profit margins, super-sized beverages make fast food restaurants tons of extra profit? (Knowing this, when I used to eat fast food regularly, I made a habit of just getting the burger. It not only kept me a little healthier, but also felt good to screw with the business model.)

We all do things we know are bad for us. But in my opinion, Mayor Bloomberg's ban is not as much social engineering as social marketing. It gets all of us (not just New Yorkers) talking about why portion sizes are so out of control. It makes us aware that we're being used. And with awareness comes change. Slowly, perhaps. But it can happen.

And that, I believe, is how Mayor Bloomberg rolls. He started a WHO-sponsored breastfeeding initiative, to try to get formula samples out of hospitals. He is on record saying “governments at all levels must make healthy solutions the default social option." And he went after secondhand smoke.

He is a nanny. But he's a democratically-elected one. And the changes he is starting will probably stick, once people get used to them.

Speaking of change, I'd really love it if advertisers and public figures — especially ones representing major consumer brands — would stop using femininity as an insult to men.

I have a message for Consumer Freedom from Iggy Pop:

Via

And now a Corporate Social Responsibility message from Big Tobacco

(Via 22 Words. Thanks to Jackie Di C for sharing.)

The killing probably has a bigger impact than the greening, though, because the locked-up carbon gets released into the atmosphere (and people's lungs) pretty damn quickly.