• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

New warning labels for cigs

#21
Remember, the government doesn't want you to quit. With all the taxes they heap on tobacco, it's a cash cow for them. They'll put warning labels on cigs just to keep the American Cancer Society happy, but the reality is that kids continue to take up smoking, they get addicted, and they become another source of revenue for the government as well as the health care community. The only really effective way you'll get people to stop smoking in droves is to make it prohibitively expensive ($20/pack) coupled with a public smoking-cessation campaign emphasizing free nicotine gum and/or patches, along with counseling. But with all the millions government rakes in from taxes you'll probably never see this.

Sorry if any of this sounds a bit cynical, but I'm a former pack-a day smoker who smoked for 33 years, and I quit four years ago. Best thing I ever did, by far. I've thought long and hard about it, and these are the conclusions I've come up with.
 
#22
stratovani said:
Remember, the government doesn't want you to quit. With all the taxes they heap on tobacco, it's a cash cow for them. They'll put warning labels on cigs just to keep the American Cancer Society happy, but the reality is that kids continue to take up smoking, they get addicted, and they become another source of revenue for the government as well as the health care community. The only really effective way you'll get people to stop smoking in droves is to make it prohibitively expensive ($20/pack) coupled with a public smoking-cessation campaign emphasizing free nicotine gum and/or patches, along with counseling. But with all the millions government rakes in from taxes you'll probably never see this.

Sorry if any of this sounds a bit cynical, but I'm a former pack-a day smoker who smoked for 33 years, and I quit four years ago. Best thing I ever did, by far. I've thought long and hard about it, and these are the conclusions I've come up with.
Click to expand...

FWIW all the statistics I have seen point to the public expenditure on smoknig related diseases far exceeding the tax revenue generated by Governments from smoking (the same applies for alcohol too). Of course, there are arguments around which "diseases" are incuded in the stats etc, but my recollection is that its fairly well known that the tax revenue doesn't cover the expenditure - ie the Government would be in a net better position if no one smoked than by keeping the revenue from smoking going. That said, my recollection is somewhat hazy today!

Edit: here's an example of the kind of statistics: [Invalid or Expired Link Removed] (basically smoking revenue covers about 25% of smoking related costs incurred by the government.
 
#24
For those that think that it will be ineffective, what do you think about the millions of dollars that the tobacco companies have spent over the decades on advertising to promote smoking?

Clearly it worked or they wouldn't have continued to do it. Why do you think negative images won't act as a deterrent?
 
#26
Mark Latimour said:
FWIW all the statistics I have seen point to the public expenditure on smoknig related diseases far exceeding the tax revenue generated by Governments from smoking (the same applies for alcohol too). Of course, there are arguments around which "diseases" are incuded in the stats etc, but my recollection is that its fairly well known that the tax revenue doesn't cover the expenditure - ie the Government would be in a net better position if no one smoked than by keeping the revenue from smoking going. That said, my recollection is somewhat hazy today!
Click to expand...

Mark, these are just my observations, and I admit my knowledge of the UK's National Health Service is quite limited, but I seem to remember reading here on TBOT a couple of years ago that the price of a pack of cigs in England was in the $11-13 range (don't know what that is in £), so the British government must be raking in a fair amount of money. I've also read that the NHS is strapping for cash these days. So it's probably true when you say that tax revenues don't cover care expenditures, they probably figure every little bit helps! Again, I'm certainly no expert, it's what I remember reading, and like you my recollection is certainly hazy!
 
#27
emor said:
For those that think that it will be ineffective, what do you think about the millions of dollars that the tobacco companies have spent over the decades on advertising to promote smoking?

Clearly it worked or they wouldn't have continued to do it. Why do you think negative images won't act as a deterrent?
Click to expand...

1) Because people are going to continue to smoke.
2) Because people will continue to start smoking.
3) Millions and Millions of dollars have been pumped into things like Truth and other non-smoking campaigns.
4) Smoking has been banned pretty much everywhere except for bars, and even then in some states it's banned, and people still do it.
5) People like their vice.
6) There has been such a concentrated anti-smoking campaign that I find it hard to believe that anyone in the US does NOT know the risks involved with smoking. When I was in HS we watched a video on the dangers of smoking. Guess what, I still have about a pack a week.

All this isn't going to stop smokers from smoking, and I doubt highly that this is going to stop new smokers from picking up the pack. Getting some one to start an addictive habit is much easier than getting some one to stop one. Any amount of common sense should tell you that.
 
#29
emor said:
For those that think that it will be ineffective, what do you think about the millions of dollars that the tobacco companies have spent over the decades on advertising to promote smoking?

Clearly it worked or they wouldn't have continued to do it. Why do you think negative images won't act as a deterrent?
Click to expand...

I personally think it will deter some, but you have to understand the nature of cigarette addiction (assuming you're not a smoker). When I was a smoker they could have had any number of warning pictures on a pack and made them as graphic as they wanted, and I would have ignored them and kept on smoking. I remember the times I would try to quit - I would scour ashtrays for partially-smoked butts, dig them out and smoke them just to reduce the cravings (I called it "ashtray-diving"!). They say only a full-blown cocaine addiction is as intense as a nicotine addiction. So a hard-core smoker might be grossed out by the pictures but will most likely keep smoking anyways. Smokers know the dangers of their habit, but they continue on because they know the cravings are pure hell.
 
#34
C.Linton said:
Apologies. Didn't mean to came across as picking on you in particular. That was directed at everyone who says that it would be ineffective.
Click to expand...

That's where the issue lies. This may stop some people from picking up the pack, but not enough given how much money I'm wagering it's going to cost. If one's idea of effective is stops one person then yea, it'll probably be effective, but in my estimation, that's not effective.
 
#37
Everybody knows what cigarettes do to you, printing it on the package has changed nothing.

What worked for me quitting smoking a bit over 3 years ago was a self-help book by Allen Carr (RIP) where he does not use scare tactics but instead, reminds you how good it was to be a non-smoker; a feeling you have long forgotten.

I highly suggest his book to you or your family and friends who are smokers. :)
 
#38
Skitch it! said:
Smoking is becoming a burden to the National Health Service here too, I think it's a little 'you have been warned' message, price will not really affect a smokers decision whether to buy, averages take that as a given, more addictive than Heroin.

The ad's on the packs won't really work though I feel, the truth hurt's.
Click to expand...

Given the modest taxation, it has been a financial burden in the US for a very long time. I really don't care about smokers, but I hate picking up the tab.
 
#40
More Nanny state/government intrusions into people's personal business by groups who think they know better than you. The intent behind these labels is NOT to make people notice the warnings. The ultimate intent is to make smoking, through ever increasing manufacturing costs, so expensive to pursue which effectively "bans" it for the common folk.

Yes it is easy to roll over and allow the government to deny something as unpopular as smoking. But then they come for other things.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back