Why makes money from all those anti-smoking ads on TV? And why

>>37697063

i'd imagine they're funded by charities

there aren't any for obesity because we're all still pretending that it's not a public health problem.

>>37697063
The advertising agencies that are paid to make them, ultimately by the high taxes on cigarettes and tobacco products. Good luck imposing a similar tax on junk food.

Cuz fast food/junk food makes more money than tobacco.

>>37697271
>tfw tobacco companies are paying anti tobacco ads.
Literally pay meless and i will make a better ad where do i tell them about this

Pharmaceutical and agricultural companies are known for their integrity, people before profits, and overall likeability

>>37697063
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the-extraordinary-science-of-junk-food.html

>>37697271
The anti-tobacco ads are bad on purpose, anon. If they were too successful the tobacco companies would be out of business.

>>37697413
Sorry meant to reply to >>37697337

that was not original so fuck the niggers and kikes

anti smoking ads are paid for by the tobacco companies. why do they do it? because it's the only way they can advertise on television. the jews are quite clever, aren't they?

>>37697413
https://youtu.be/HjsSVCLxcZ4

File: 1328121771850.jpg (46KB, 512x699px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 512x699px

>>37697309

it does now, smoking isn't as prevalent as it used to be.

i think the real difference is that smoking got attacked as a carcinogen during the 60s, when corporations had less control over government and society in general. food health has become a noticeable issue only in recent decades once corporate control of government was more secure, which means regulating them as heavily as tobacco is going to be basically impossible within the current system; the lobbying dollars and propaganda campaigns are just too powerful.

>>37697372

*raughs*