New Cigarette Warning Labels

[spade2you]

Of course, but how do you separate the 2? Isn't it just as likely that the fat is killing them as much as the coffin nails?

You often can't separate them. Smokers more or less don't give a **** about their health, which is why some of them are also obese. Keep in mind that just because someone isn't obese doesn't mean that they are safe from high cholesterol, which puts a lot of smokers skinny or obese at high risk for some sort of heart attack.

Not all obese people have diebetes.

More food for thought.

 

[Soverntear]

We have had similar while not quite as gory ads on our packs for years. did a cancerous lung staring at me everyday when I light up change anything? Not a thing, I would like to quit smoking but i assure you it has nothing to do with warning labels. only a idiot can't tell smoking is bad for you.

 

[BioDriver]

One of the other forums I go to has a very British userbase and when those same warnings were used in the UK it did absolutely nothing to deter smoking. Smokers gonna smoke until you tax the piss out of cigarettes.

 

[jp58]

One of the other forums I go to has a very British userbase and when those same warnings were used in the UK it did absolutely nothing to deter smoking. Smokers gonna smoke until you tax the piss out of cigarettes.

Personally, I don't think that is the answer either. Here, we raised the taxes on cigs until they became almost $6 a pack and smokers still light up. They've even released more "value" cigs so pack a day-ers can afford to keep up their habit.

If you want to change people's minds about smoking, the only way to do so is with propaganda in the schools. Pictures and taxes haven't done it.

 

[Soverntear]

Personally, I don't think that is the answer either. Here, we raised the taxes on cigs until they became almost $6 a pack and smokers still light up. They've even released more "value" cigs so pack a day-ers can afford to keep up their habit.

If you want to change people's minds about smoking, the only way to do so is with propaganda in the schools. Pictures and taxes haven't done it.

yeah raising prices does nothing. In ontario my band (belmonts) are $11 for a 25 pack. Out west in BC the lowest i have heard for them is 17 a pack!

 

[spade2you]

I have a fairly wealthy relative who owns a few convenience stores. His customers would spend their last dime on tobacco and alcohol. Tax them more and they'll do whatever it takes to obtain them eventually.

 

[Fassa Albrecht]

The UK has had graphic cigarette cartons for a long time and TBH it doesn't seem to make too much of a difference. The UK has also increased the price of cigarettes and now people simply buy 'snides' (smuggled cigarettes) which are cheaper.

 

[Ayce]

The only way to stop people from smoking is to completely destroy and ban tobbaco crops. This would eliminate the "Big tobbaco" companies, and prevent native smokes (contraband) from getting into the hands of smokers.
Of course, this could never happen, as the govt. would lose tax revenues, (and ruin any plans to get rid of the native peoples by killing them with cancer.)
I am a smoker, btw, trying to cut back and quit. Finding it difficult.

 

[guy n. cognito]

The only way to stop people from smoking is to completely destroy and ban tobbaco crops. This would eliminate the "Big tobbaco" companies, and prevent native smokes (contraband) from getting into the hands of smokers.
Of course, this could never happen, as the govt. would lose tax revenues, (and ruin any plans to get rid of the native peoples by killing them with cancer.)
I am a smoker, btw, trying to cut back and quit. Finding it difficult.

Prohibition never, ever works. Eliminating legal crops causes a dramatic rise in illegal crops, people get their smokes (at a greatly increased price.) Jails fill with addicts and resources are wasted on convicting users.

 

[Fassa Albrecht]

The only way to stop people from smoking is to completely destroy and ban tobbaco crops. This would eliminate the "Big tobbaco" companies, and prevent native smokes (contraband) from getting into the hands of smokers.
Of course, this could never happen, as the govt. would lose tax revenues, (and ruin any plans to get rid of the native peoples by killing them with cancer.)
I am a smoker, btw, trying to cut back and quit. Finding it difficult.

Banning something doesn't solve the problem. Drugs are illegal, so people go to backstreet dealers. Alcohol used to be illegal in the US, and the number of illegal breweries and speakeasies meant people could still buy alcohol.

 

[Ayce]

Yeah, I sorta knew that. Too bad we don't have a "tounge in cheek" smiley.
In my area, native smokes run about $25/200, a bit cheaper than cranking your own, and a lot cheaper than tailor mades. They are, however, illegal. The govt says they are illegal because they can't verify the "safety" of the ingredients, but we all know it's because they are supposed to be for native use only, and can't tax them as heavily.
I will agree that early intervention at schools, and trying to get the "cool" factor removed may help, but I think as long as the product is freely available, no amount of taxation or oversize graphics will stop it's use.

The one I really have to lol about is the graphic that shows a limp smoke saying tobbaco use causes impotence. I've been smoking fr 30+ years, and at 55, nothing's wrong with my libido. Wife and I had our first daughter 6 years ago, and our second almost 3 years ago. Looks like everything still works.

 

[jp58]

Prohibition never, ever works. Eliminating legal crops causes a dramatic rise in illegal crops, people get their smokes (at a greatly increased price.) Jails fill with addicts and resources are wasted on convicting users.

+1, not to mention policing the newly created tobacco smugglers that now need guns to protect themselves and their investments.

If people want to smoke, let them smoke.

 

[cassanova]

You can put a skull and crossbones on them above a cancerous lung, and name them tumors, and people will still smoke.

 

[outbackyak]

There's actually quite a lot of evidence that increasing prices does reduce the both the incidence of smoking and the amount that individual smokers consume, and also that it reduces the likelihood of people becoming smokers in the first place. The effect is strongest amongst teenagers - unsurprising since young people generally have less money than older people - but even for adults it's estimated that a 10% price increase results in ~3-4% reduction in consumption.

Lots more information here: Invalid Link Removed

 

[MatticusMania]

Hmm... This is quite the situation... I just assumed no one would admit to this

Do you watch it because your wife watches it?

Mostly. I find minor entertainment in watching a bunch of idiots on TV makes asses of themselves, though.