Looknsee Photography wrote:
Sorry, I've seen more than my fill of tattoos, and they have several things in common:
   >>>  The details are often not razor sharp.
   >>>  They fade over time.
   >>>  The color palate is limited.
   >>>  Most are poorly executed.
   >>>  They warp as the wearer's body changes.
   >>>  Their style & subject matter often are cliche'.
   >>>  They eventually go out of style.
   >>>  They distract the eye from the pure human form.
   >>>  They are often worn by people who can't settle on a hair color.

John, this is absolutely the most well articulated response I believe I've ever read on MM.  Cheers, Tim

Madalyn wrote:
I have gotten the hint Photographers dont favor tattoos, but with watching Miami Ink last night, there was a girl who got a Star Tattoo on the back of her neck so she can use that in her picture as "her signature"...I just dont get it, is that kind of Tattoo Okay? and Why?

photoshop does wonders

star tattoo everyones getting it ..lot of porn chicks are getting also ...
so how is it going to make it her trademark...lol

The Don Mon wrote:
photoshop does wonders

star tattoo everyones getting it ..lot of porn chicks are getting also ...
so how is it going to make it her trademark...lol

I got told that Photoshop doesnt...hmm Guess I gotta try it myself ;-)   I got told I should do porn bc of my tatts....but ummm no I found a photographer who wants to take pics of my tatts alone hee hee!

Looknsee Photography wrote:
The dictionary defines "Fad" as follows:
a temporary fashion, notion, manner of conduct, etc., esp. one followed enthusiastically by a group.

A fashion that is taken up with great enthusiasm for a brief period of time; a craze.

So, until tattooing survives a generation or two, it is by definition a fad.  Sorry.  Like I said, tattoos were rare a few decades ago, and unless it remains popular a few decades from now, it will be a fad.  Do you disagree?  Do you believe that tattoos were as popular 20-30 years agao as they are today? 

I will also observe that this "fad" doesn't span all ages & social groups.  Tattoos are a prevalent component of the so-called "youth culture".  Similar things can be said for the current "fad" of body piercings -- while ear rings have been around for a long time, piercing other body parts (e.g. navel, nipple, eyebrow, lip, nose, etc.) is still a fad.  These will evolve beyond "fad" state when our grandchildren are as enthusiastic about it as we are.

Tatooing has survived many generations so by your own description, it is NOT a fad...! I also dont know where temporary came into it, only an idiot would get tattooed and think that maybe one day they can get rid of it...........!!!


Then you go on to say it was rare to be tattooed a few decades ago, I think you will find you are wrong there too. Maybe you should get some facts straight, it just was not as socially acceptable as it seems to be now. it still went on with quite a lot of prevalance, NAVY ARMY ETC...... like I said, it was a more defined group then, you will find now that lesss Army and navy people sport tattoos and mroe of the general public, so not so much rare as a shift in balance maybe...........

Im not so much defensive of my tattoos as defensive of the fact that you seem to think you know so much about tattoos when it is obvious you know not much at all. All you really know about tattoos is that you hate them and they dont fit in with your ideal of a model and well, thats about it.

I am going to take a photo now and call myself a photogrpaher, its not right for me to say that is it, just like its not right for you to lump everyone with a tattoo in the same basket,some people get tattooed as a 'look at me, im so cool" attitude as opposed to those of us who have a vested interest in adorning our bodies with tatoos.

I may sound defensive to you but you posts seem more to be about your hatred of tattoos than much else! Disguised under a play of trying to be knowledgable about tattoos because you have got a friend with a tattoo or whatever! I am really sorry but your knowledge of tattoos so far seems to be A) a personal hatred of them, and not much else!

Maybe you should stick to what you know and leave it at that? You seem to have such a bitter taste in your mouth about tattoos, you call them "skin stains" I think you will find you cannot be impartial to this argument........

And as I said, your distaste for tattoos and models with tattoos is balanced out by many MANY phographers who see it as an addition to their own art and portfolio so maybe you should consider them too!

Looknsee Photography wrote:
So, until tattooing survives a generation or two, it is by definition a fad.  Sorry.  Like I said, tattoos were rare a few decades ago, and unless it remains popular a few decades from now, it will be a fad.  Do you disagree?  Do you believe that tattoos were as popular 20-30 years agao as they are today? 

I will also observe that this "fad" doesn't span all ages & social groups.  Tattoos are a prevalent component of the so-called "youth culture".  Similar things can be said for the current "fad" of body piercings -- while ear rings have been around for a long time, piercing other body parts (e.g. navel, nipple, eyebrow, lip, nose, etc.) is still a fad.  These will evolve beyond "fad" state when our grandchildren are as enthusiastic about it as we are.

I'm just so shocked that with all of the obvious facts evident in our world, you ACTUALLY posted this.

A fad? You even said that smoking was a fad. How long has humanity been smoking? Yes the way in which products are smoked has changed over time but human kind has been smoking longer than a few decades. And the same goes for tattooing. Tattoos have been inked on bodies for thousands of years. That's a fad? No that's a permanent fixture in human culture. Leg warmers: that's a fad (a fad that seems to be coming back by the way, yikes).

Looknsee Photography wrote:
We are drifting from the main point -- having a tattoo will impact a model's appeal, and the model is likely not to hear about jobs that she won't get because of her skin stains.

we wouldn't have drifted from the main point if you had not started attacking tattoos. The original post was this:

Madalyn wrote:
I have gotten the hint Photographers dont favor tattoos, but with watching Miami Ink last night, there was a girl who got a Star Tattoo on the back of her neck so she can use that in her picture as "her signature"...I just dont get it, is that kind of Tattoo Okay? and Why?

the simple answer to that would have been "well personally I would not photograph a tattoo so no that kind of tattoo is not ok"

by throwing in obscene comments about our life choices, you turned this thread into what it is. don't expect to trash on other people and them not defend themselves.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Sorry, I've seen more than my fill of tattoos, and they have several things in common:

DigitalSwede wrote:
This is a GENERALIZATION look up the word....

... and your point is?

Looknsee Photography wrote:
>>>  Most are poorly executed.

DigitalSwede wrote:
Also, I think in order for one to make a valid  point on the skill level of tattoos needs to have some knowledge of the craft. I mean on a technical level I dont think you can define the "execution" of a field you know nothing about. Lots of people can say things like " Thats an awesome picture." , but does that mean they know a damn thing about the technical craft? I think everyone here can agree they have seen some very non-technical images that were bad as well as a few that worked. So, once again I think you do not have any valid point in saying they are "commonly poorly executed."

Ah!  A classic "fallacy" in regards to a logical argument -- you presume that I lack sufficient "education" in order to form a valid opinion.  You have no knowledge on my "qualifications" -- you just assume that I don't have qualifications because I hold an opinion that differs from yours.  For more on fallacies, try this useful link:  http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie … html#index

I can see when a line that is meant to be straight is crooked.  I can see when a detail that is meant to be sharp is in fact fuzzy.  I can see when the characters in words vary unintentionally in size & consistency.  I can see when colors run.  Do I need to be an expert in tattoos to make these observations?  I say, no.

Take photography as a parallel example -- do you need to be an expert photographer to recognize images that are out of focus, poorly exposed/printed, etc.  I think not.

Finally, I didn't say "they are commonly poorly executed" -- I said "most" are poorly executed, meaning that some are well executed.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
>>>  They eventually go out of style..

DigitalSwede wrote:
Look up the history of tattooing it spreads many, many, many generations ( hundreds and hundreds of years). Another interesting fact is this... every generation they have become more and more popular as well. This is something that I dont think would go along the terms of a "fad" as those usually have very short life spans and tattoos have been around and growing more popular way too strongly.

Okay.  Name a famous 19th century American who had a tattoo.  Can't?  Okay, name a famous tattooed American or European from before, say, 1960.  (I can name Popeye the Sailor Man).  How about a famous person sporting visible, in-your-face tattoos from 1970s or 1980s.  We live in Western civilization, and here tattooing has still relatively new.  While tattooing has been popular in, say, South Pacific island cultures for generations, it is still relatively new here.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
>>>  Again, there is no point to this direction.  Since I haven't made any generalizations, they can't be rash (or valid, for that matter).  When I say that tattoos are ugly, vain, poorly executed, etc. -- those are opinions, not generalizations, and I don't need a resume for that, do I?

DigitalSwede wrote:
Once again when you state that THEY ALL HAVE SOMETHINGS IN COMMON.... ( insert lines of opinion here) that is a generalization. My you are the clever one

You are hearing only what you want to hear.  I've said that all the tattoos I've seen (and I've seen a lot) are ugly, vain, poorly executed, etc.  I've never claimed that such is true for the tattoos that I haven't seen.

BrodieB wrote:
Tatooing has survived many generations so by your own description, it is NOT a fad...! I also dont know where temporary came into it, only an idiot would get tattooed and think that maybe one day they can get rid of it...........!!!

I disagree -- in our culture, tattooing has not been around for many generations.  Did any of our founding fathers have tattoos?  Can you name a 19th century American or European how had prominent tattoos?  Can you name someone from the first half of the 20th century have tattoos?  How about a famous person from the 1960s or 1970s?  While tattooing has been popular in foreign & exotic cultures for centuries, it has only become "mainstream" in the past couple of decades.

BrodieB wrote:
Then you go on to say it was rare to be tattooed a few decades ago, I think you will find you are wrong there too. Maybe you should get some facts straight, it just was not as socially acceptable as it seems to be now. it still went on with quite a lot of prevalance, NAVY ARMY ETC...... like I said, it was a more defined group then, you will find now that lesss Army and navy people sport tattoos and mroe of the general public, so not so much rare as a shift in balance maybe.

Okay -- armed forces -- I'll concede that point.  However, those boys in the armed forces got tattoos as a symbol of their being part of a group, and not as an individual expression.  I would still be interested in hearing examples of famous mainstream trend setting examples of people with prominent tattoos from "generations" ago.  Just give me the name of a famous person.  I would guess that were he alive today, Edgar Allen Poe might have tattoos, but he didn't, did he?

BrodieB wrote:
Im not so much defensive of my tattoos as defensive of the fact that you seem to think you know so much about tattoos when it is obvious you know not much at all. All you really know about tattoos is that you hate them and they dont fit in with your ideal of a model and well, thats about it.

First of all, I never represented anything other than my opinion that tattoos are repellant to me.  If people want to stain their skin, that's fine by me, but I won't waste my time photographing a tattoo, and I reserve the right to formulate an opinion about the person.  Second of all, just because you disagree with my stance, that doesn't mean that I am unqualified to have my opinion, does it?

BrodieB wrote:
I am going to take a photo now and call myself a photogrpaher, its not right for me to say that is it, just like its not right for you to lump everyone with a tattoo in the same basket,some people get tattooed as a 'look at me, im so cool" attitude as opposed to those of us who have a vested interest in adorning our bodies with tatoos.

Again, I disagree.  You can call yourself a photographer if you wish.  You can even formulate opinions about what photographic style you like & don't like.  You don't need a college degree to develop your individual tastes. 

BrodieB wrote:
I may sound defensive to you but you posts seem more to be about your hatred of tattoos than much else! Disguised under a play of trying to be knowledgable about tattoos because you have got a friend with a tattoo or whatever! I am really sorry but your knowledge of tattoos so far seems to be A) a personal hatred of them, and not much else!

I really don't know where people get the concept of me trying to pose as an expert on tattoos.  All I've said is that every tattoo I've seen is ugly & repellant, and that I won't waste my time photographing tattoos.

BrodieB wrote:
Maybe you should stick to what you know and leave it at that? You seem to have such a bitter taste in your mouth about tattoos, you call them "skin stains" I think you will find you cannot be impartial to this argument........

I am sticking to what I know.  I know that all the tattoos I've seen are ugly, and those few images I've made of tattooed models are negatively impacted if the tattoo is visible. 

Look -- don't confuse opinion & facts.  I am offering my opinion.  We are all adults, and if you want to stain your skin, go for it, and if I choose to decide that they are ugly, that's my right.  It's not like I'm proposing legislation to make tattoos illegal.

And just because I disagree with you, that doesn't mean that I am ignorant.

BrodieB wrote:
And as I said, your distaste for tattoos and models with tattoos is balanced out by many MANY phographers who see it as an addition to their own art and portfolio so maybe you should consider them too!

Why should I consider them?  I'm not saying that one way is right and the other way is wrong.  I'm not saying that everyone should share in my personal tastes.  You see, that's the kind of statement that makes me feel that you are being defensive.

And I've not talked at all about having a distaste for models with tattoos -- I just said that I won't photograph tattoos because they have no place in my artistic vision and they are a waste of my time.  It is offensive to me when people attribute words to me that I haven't said.

Are you saying that I should be forced to photograph tattoos?

Jessalyn_54 wrote:
I'm just so shocked that with all of the obvious facts evident in our world, you ACTUALLY posted this.

A fad? You even said that smoking was a fad. How long has humanity been smoking? Yes the way in which products are smoked has changed over time but human kind has been smoking longer than a few decades. And the same goes for tattooing. Tattoos have been inked on bodies for thousands of years. That's a fad? No that's a permanent fixture in human culture. Leg warmers: that's a fad (a fad that seems to be coming back by the way, yikes).

See other posts -- name me a famous trendsetter person from the 19th or first half of the 20th century who had tattoos.

You are young.  In the 1950s, 60s, 70s, even the 80s, EVERYONE smoked.  Heck, doctors even recommended smoking as a way to relax.  Then, health implications became known, restaurants grew non-smoking sections and now it is pretty much banned in restaurants, etc.  My point:  what was once wildly popular now no longer is.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
See other posts -- name me a famous trendsetter person from the 19th or first half of the 20th century who had tattoos.

You are young.  In the 1950s, 60s, 70s, even the 80s, EVERYONE smoked.  Heck, doctors even recommended smoking as a way to relax.  Then, health implications became known, restaurants grew non-smoking sections and now it is pretty much banned in restaurants, etc.  My point:  what was once wildly popular now no longer is.

just because a "famous person" of the 19th century didn't have tattoos doesn't mean squat. what does that prove? and how do we know that they did or didn't have tattoos? they weren't as socially acceptable in their society so if they did have one they wouldn't have told anyone.

and the point about smoking is that it is not a fad. it will not stop. it's been going on for thousands of years. these things are not fads.

and by pointing out that I am young is a moot point. you don't even need to bring that up. my age has nothing to do with this. I'm not talking about personal experiences, I am talking about history.

Looknsee Photography wrote:

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Sorry, I've seen more than my fill of tattoos, and they have several things in common:

DigitalSwede wrote:
This is a GENERALIZATION look up the word....

... and your point is?



My point is that you said you werent generalizing before now it seems as it you are implying you were. Thats contradicting yourself. Also, tattoos arent limited to the Western world, infact it started in the East. Read up a little bit and Im sure you would be able to find examples of each of the eras you were speaking of, you are HEARING only what you want to.

Jessalyn_54 wrote:
just because a "famous person" of the 19th century didn't have tattoos doesn't mean squat. what does that prove? and how do we know that they did or didn't have tattoos? they weren't as socially acceptable in their society so if they did have one they wouldn't have told anyone.

Ummm, sorry.  The fact that you can't name such a person lends credence to my claim that tattoos are a relatively recent fad in our culture.  Even if they had hidden tattoos, it still points out that visible tattoos are a recent fad.

Jessalyn_54 wrote:
and the point about smoking is that it is not a fad. it will not stop. it's been going on for thousands of years. these things are not fads.

Yet, today you can't smoke in restaurants, but 20 years ago, you could.  Today, you can't smoke on flights, but 10-20 years ago you could.  In fact, in many states, you can't even smoke in bars anymore.  Cigarette & tobacco sales are miniscule fractions of what they were a few decades ago.  Wouldn't you agree that this is a trend?

Depends on your viewpoint -- things are changing, decade by decade, and sometimes they change quickly; other times, they change slowly.

I would say that cell phones are here to stay.  I wouldn't call cell phones a fad.  (It's funny -- take a look at the reruns of Dark Angel, a TV show from 2000 but set in 2012:  on it, people communicated with beepers & not cell phones -- funny).  While I can't imagine a future without cell phones or some other form of personal communication that can be carried everywhere, I think it is quite possible that future generations will consider tattoos to be old fashioned, dated, and otherwise unacceptable or "uncool".

Jessalyn_54 wrote:
and by pointing out that I am young is a moot point. you don't even need to bring that up. my age has nothing to do with this. I'm not talking about personal experiences, I am talking about history.

I'm talking about perspective -- your viewpoint appears to be too short to be able to distinguish trends from the fashions of the moment.  I meant no disrespect.

BrodieB wrote:
Quoting Look and see:

You were not quoting me.  You were attempting to put words in my mouth, words I never said, and you were inaccurate in your representation of my point of view.  That is an offensive debate tactic, and it is inappropriate.  Further, your mode of expression was mostly incomprehensible to me -- my understanding of your post is not complete.

Regarding my alleged "expertise" on tattoos & it's supposed relevance to this discussion:  by the same logic, are you saying that...

   ... only film directors are qualified to determine what kind of movies you like,
   ... only classically trained chefs are qualfied to say what kind of food you like,
   ... only certified archtiects are qualified to determine where you should live, and
   ... only investment bankers are qualified to determine how you spend your money?

Are you assuming that if I was better trained in tattoos that somehow I would find them more welcome in my photography?  Or are you just assuming that because I don't like tattoos that I must be ignorant and that if I was better "educated", I would change my mind?

Please explain why my presumed lack of expertise in tattoos is relevant to this discussion.

Show me a man with a tattoo and I'll show you a man with an interesting past. Jack London - 1883

"The universality of tattooing is a curious subject for speculation"
Captain James Cook - 1779

There's something really the matter with most people who wear tattoos, he says. I know from experience there's something terribly flawed about people who are tattooed above the little something Johnny had done in the Navy, even though that's also a bad sign. (Truman Capote, author of In Cold Blood, interviewed more than one hundred killers over a period of ten years and says eighty percent of them have one thing in common: Tattoos)

In the 19th century, Field Marshal Earl Roberts said that "every officer in the British army should be tattooed with his regimental crest. Not only does this encourage esprit de corps but also assists in the identification of casualties."

And finally, the most interesting quote of all:

In 19th Century England, tattooing flourished as nowhere else in Europe, largely thanks to traveling seamen who would come back with permanent souvenirs of their travels on their arms. In 1862, it gained Royal sanction and members of the Royal family, from the Prince of Wales to King Edward VII, acquired tattoos. By 1890 the fad had spread to the US and tattoos were seen on members of the exclusive New York Racquet Club. - It is certainly the most vulgar and barbarous habit the eccentric mind of fashion ever invented. It may do for an illiterate seaman, but hardly for an aristocrat. Society men in England were the victims of circumstance when the Prince of Wales had his body tattooed. Like a flock of sheep driven by their master they had to follow suit. (Socialite of the day Ward McAllister who complained to the press about the fad) - Strange how this attitude has endured to the 21st century...

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Ummm, sorry.  The fact that you can't name such a person lends credence to my claim that tattoos are a relatively recent fad in our culture.

John Wilkes Booth - His initials on the back of his left hand
Jennie Churchill (Sir Winston's Mother) - snake encircling her wrist
Sir Winston Churchill - an anchor tattooed on his arm
Czar Nicolas II - a star tattooed in unknown location
Thomas Edison - Five dots on left forearm in dice like design
Franklin D. Roosevelt - family crest tattooed in an  unknown location
Barry Goldwater - crescent shaped tattoo with four dots in shape of a snake bite
Peter the Great - Russian leader from the late 1600's had a tattoo in an unknown location
Queen Olga (Greece) - (1851-1926) Tattooed in unknown location
Queen Victoria - (1819-1901) Tattooed in unknown intimate location
Richard the Lion Hearted - King of England (1189-99 AD) had Jerusalem Cross tattoo to signify his participation in the Crusades
Sailor Jerry - World famous early American tattoo artist Norman Keith "Sailor Jerry" Collins obviously had many tattoos
Josef Stalin - Russian leader had a Death's head tattooed on his chest

I'm sure there are others.

Glasslips wrote:
If you have a good make up  artist  the fact that you have tatoos or don't have any is not an issue.

Not true.  I also shoot video and the model's movements can easily brush off any sort of cover.

Looknsee Photography wrote:

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Umm, chances are, the photographers who won't work with you because of your tattoos won't even enter into negotiations with you -- i.e. you'll never hear from them in the first place.

I won't photograph a tattoo.  I find them ugly (all of them), distracting, vain, & stupid.

So, why must you inform everyone who sees you that your mother is a survivor?

So, every photograph of you must, by definition, therefore commemorate your mother's survival, regardless of the photographer's vision for the image?

Did she survive breast cancer?  If so, why not lop of your own breasts to commomorate her survival?  As far as I'm concerned, tattoos are self-multilation.

Look -- I didn't say that people should not get tattoos -- people can do whatever they want to their own bodies.  I'm just saying that I won't photograph them.  I find them ugly and distracting.  They have no place in my photography.  Stain your skin from head to toe, for all I care; just don't expect every photographer in the world to line up for the opportunity to copy your tattoo artist's work.

I am informing everyone that my mom survived a form of cancer twice that most people don't survive their first time. I'm my mothers only child and it's been just my mother and I since I was born. She is my rock and my inspritation. Yes, I want the world to know it. I'm very proud of my mother and all that she has accomplished. But, my tattoo is also easily concealable because I do model, I'm not covered head to toe. I think it's closed-minded people like you that make this world a hateful place.

jayedwards wrote:

Not true.  I also shoot video and the model's movements can easily brush off any sort of cover.

You obviously have never tried Dermablend... that stuff never rubs off

Lamonica wrote:

You obviously have never tried Dermablend... that stuff never rubs off

Kudos to you , for knowing dermablend ,, ben nye has one on the market as well as good if not better than dermablend made specifically for theatre film and video...

Thanks to all for the great lists and quotes

Funny thing is , with clothes you cannot see , so you never know who is tattooed ... people you might not even think would be are.

Lamonica wrote:

You obviously have never tried Dermablend... that stuff never rubs off

I have used Dermablend and it does rub off.  Sorry.

CareLyn Anita wrote:

Kudos to you , for knowing dermablend ,, ben nye has one on the market as well as good if not better than dermablend made specifically for theatre film and video...

Thanks to all for the great lists and quotes

Funny thing is , with clothes you cannot see , so you never know who is tattooed ... people you might not even think would be are.

Before I started modeling,  I was a dancer since the age of three, so I know all about stage makeup and body makeup... It's definitely a godsend...Also, to the person who said it does rub off, there is a sort of "topcoat" that helps to seal the Dermablend so that it' rub proof and waterproof...

Lamonica wrote:

Before I started modeling,  I was a dancer since the age of three, so I know all about stage makeup and body makeup... It's definitely a godsend...Also, to the person who said it does rub off, there is a sort of "topcoat" that helps to seal the Dermablend so that it' rub proof and waterproof...

Thanks for the info.  I shoot bondage content and when ropes are placed over a tattoo and the model moves....well, the ropes rub the cover-up right off.  Granted, this problem is not encountered by most photographers but it does affect me.  So, as I said, Dermablend does indeed rub off and I must doubt that a ''topcoat'' will hold up against the rope.  If it did then it would be a heckuva time trying to get it off the skin later...  ;-)

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Depends on your viewpoint -- things are changing, decade by decade, and sometimes they change quickly; other times, they change slowly.

you just went against what you've been saying. because what you're defining here is evolution. not a fad.

Patrick Alt wrote:
Think of when you are 50 and they are all faded and sagging. And for what?

when I'm 50 years old I'm gonna be saggy and gross anyway so what's it matter if there is ink on it? Either way I won't wanna see my self in my underoos and neither will anyone else. would it be better for me to spend my whole life in the sun and then when I'm 50 be all leathery and have sun spots everywhere? or that I worked construction for many years and have "battle wounds" (scars) all over my arms and hands? no matter what, the aged body is not something that anyone enjoys looking at (of course there are exceptions just flow with me here) so what's it matter if there is ink on it? doesn't change that fact

Looknsee Photography wrote:
I'm talking about perspective -- your viewpoint appears to be too short to be able to distinguish trends from the fashions of the moment.  I meant no disrespect.

then age is still a moot point because your older than me but your viewpoint appears to be too short to be able to distinguish fads from permanent fixtures of culture that evolve over time.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
In the 1950s, 60s, 70s, even the 80s, EVERYONE smoked.  Heck, doctors even recommended smoking as a way to relax. Then, health implications became known, restaurants grew non-smoking sections and now it is pretty much banned in restaurants, etc.  My point:  what was once wildly popular now no longer is.

one other thing before I go do homework, I wanted to point out that this is an example of a formal negative sanction (a law being imposed on people who smoke) not a fad.