The ad depicts young people shaving their heads to represent lung cancer patients.

Why is that offensive? If it was the patients themselves, or their diseased lungs, I could see being offended.

I wanna cigarette after seeing most of their ads.

Offensive, very offensive.

If you want to really get ill, follow the money for this heavy-handed ad campaign, it's meted out by the government, and taken from the sin tax.

The $ being squandered by these smirky agencies is astounding. Truth indeed.

This site "the truth" adds almost always offend me in some way because I see them as representing a radical agenda. As far as the head shaving am not so much offended as I am hurt since my father passed away of cancer and had lost his hair during the "treatments."

I just find all their ads smarmy and condescending.

I guess when the government extorts your entire budget from taxpayers under threat of imprisonment for non-compliance, you feel like you can talk down to them like idiots.

The government has officially annointed you as better and more informed than the masses.

Their ads are pretty lame. "I thought smoking light cigarettes would be ok. I was wrong." Sorry but I LOL every time I see that commercial.

Thankfully, I've not really wanted a cigarette for about 5 years. I quit almost 10 years ago.

I'm unaccustomed to seeing such pro-choice posts on FreeRepublic. Imagine how offended the poster must be when the pro-life folks show images of aborted fetuses. I mean, if the sight of a shaved head offends...

"I just find all their ads smarmy and condescending"

Not to mention the lies and distortions.

I think the ads are fine. They are protected speech, and are not all that shocking. If they give people pause to consider the merits of smoking, I see that as a good thing.

Here and at other places we have all seen the revised or explained Bill of Rights that includes the line "you don't have the right not to be offended". The prissy libs get offended at all sort of trivial stuff, and we mock them for it. We should not take offense at similar things.

Normally, I would agree with you. But not when their "ad campaign" of lies and half truths is funded with our tax dollars.

We get enough of that Bravo Sierra during campaign speeches.

I don't find them shocking either, anyone can see through the faulty reasoning they use. It is typical of liberal organizations to advocate lack of responsibility.
My buddy did an ad for them. He is hardly an activist, he just hates cigarettes (he can't quit).

I want to recall a long time ago Larry Flynt (yeah, that guy) put pictures of diseased and healthy lungs on the back cover of his magazines in an extreme anti smoking campaign. A colleague of mine years ago had it framed and hanging in his office. Sure did make a statement. Graphic, annoying, insulting, and effective.

As someone who shaves his head (finishing what nature started in my case), I find it offensive that this gang of pompous self-absorbed little twits uses my lifestyle choice to attempt to make a point. >:)

-Eric

You know, it is for that reason in particular that I suspect they are funded by cigarette companies.

Negative publicity is better than no publicity.

Yeah, but it's "hip" and "edgy" and "Gen-Y" to be careless with the facts. Young people are too stupid to tell, you see.

I suspect they are funded by cigarette companies.

They are funded entirely by cigarette smokers, who will be prosecuted if they try to buy cigarettes without "coughing up" the cash.

Even if they take money out of my pockets to show it to me?

"...ad campaign" of lies and half truths"

I'm not that familiar with all of their ads but I am also not sure which lies and half-truths you are referring to. The Marlboro man did indeed smoke and die of lung cancer. Smoking, while clearly a free choice for an adult to make, does indeed sicken and kill.

As I said you do have the freedom to choose to smoke but how many who smoke would want their children to smoke?