• 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

#41
stratovani said:
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.
Click to expand...
it's a long process....we've had cigarette pack warnings here for decades,and the pictures of blackened lungs on them for a while too........bar,clubs,and every public place has been banned...even your own car if there are minors in it,and there is talk about child abuse laws kicking in if you smoke in your home with kids present....

tobacco taxes are so high that there is significant black market activity,and even the tobacco companies have been complicit in exporting tax exempt butts to the u.s. that they knew would be smuggled back here.....american smokers generally don't care for canadian cigarettes...

you see a lot of folks with filter tubes and machines to make their own,and indian reservations do a brisk business in cigarette sales..... cigarettes are not even permitted to be displayed in retail outlets and are kept out of sight....but everyone knows where they are kept and there are alarming numbers of robberies for cigarettes... i wouldn't have to go very far from here to sell stolen cigarettes by the boatload.....
 
#42
syciprider said:
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.
Click to expand...

If smoking, as you seem to imply, is people's personal business, then you must think they should bear the medical and financial consequences of their actions. Bear in mind, though, that financially you're looking at tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical treatment. You'd be essentially condemning people to death for what is admittedly their poor choice. Is this the kind of society we want?

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.
Click to expand...

Such as? :confused:
 
#43
stratovani said:
If smoking, as you seem to imply, is people's personal business, then you must think they should bear the medical and financial consequences of their actions. Bear in mind, though, that financially you're looking at tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical treatment. You'd be essentially condemning people to death for what is admittedly their poor choice. Is this the kind of society we want?
Click to expand...

I'm ok with that.

stratovani said:
Such as? :confused:
Click to expand...

Soda and fast food are the two that immediately jump out at me.
 
#44
Stanley Design said:
In Canada those ads have to cover at least 51% of the packages, these are the Canadian ones.

cigarette.jpg
Click to expand...

I don't think they're very effective. I know a few smokers and they hang out with smokers and people who hang around smokers are likely to start smoking. They look at each other and none of them looks like the people on those packages. It's not a reality to them until what is depicted on the boxes actually happen to someone they know.
 
#46
stratovani said:
If smoking, as you seem to imply, is people's personal business, then you must think they should bear the medical and financial consequences of their actions. ... You'd be essentially condemning people to death for what is admittedly their poor choice. Is this the kind of society we want?
Click to expand...

That's exactly the society I want, and I'd venture to say that is the society this country was founded on pusuing. Equality of choice, not of condition.
 
#48
stratovani said:
If smoking, as you seem to imply, is people's personal business, then you must think they should bear the medical and financial consequences of their actions. Bear in mind, though, that financially you're looking at tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical treatment. You'd be essentially condemning people to death for what is admittedly their poor choice. Is this the kind of society we want?
Click to expand...

Yes. Are you saying that I, who have never smoked, should be the one paying for their poor choices? Because that's what's happening right now. They make a choice that leads to their death, it's all fine with me, but no, I don't want to pay for it. They can pay and/or die. They're condemning themselves to death.
 
#49
Munjibunga said:
ROFLMAO! The "majesty" ...
Click to expand...

Yeah. Good one.

Munjibunga said:
Yes. Are you saying that I, who have never smoked, should be the one paying for their poor choices? Because that's what's happening right now. They make a choice that leads to their death, it's all fine with me, but no, I don't want to pay for it. They can pay and/or die. They're condemning themselves to death.
Click to expand...

Given that most smokers don't give a @$^# about their health, they tend to have other problems and a lot don't have insurance. The $ paid on cigarettes is typically more than they would have spend on health insurance. Sometimes the hospitals eat the bill when smokers don't qualify for medicaid.
 
#50
Munjibunga said:
Yes. Are you saying that I, who have never smoked, should be the one paying for their poor choices? Because that's what's happening right now. They make a choice that leads to their death, it's all fine with me, but no, I don't want to pay for it. They can pay and/or die. They're condemning themselves to death.
Click to expand...

This, exactly. And this is coming from some one who smokes. It's my choice to smoke, I know the risks involved, and I still do it, if I wind up having to pay the consequences, I will pay the consequences if I don't decide to quit.
 
#52
sloasdaylight said:
This, exactly. And this is coming from some one who smokes. It's my choice to smoke, I know the risks involved, and I still do it, if I wind up having to pay the consequences, I will pay the consequences if I don't decide to quit.
Click to expand...

I think the main problem is that most don't intend on picking up the tab, which is where we're at right now. Given the economy, tight budgets all around, I'm very surprised the price of cigarettes hasn't gone up to an amount closer to a theoretical break even point.
 
#54
Then millions will die for all the bad choices they make, such as smoking, drinking, speeding, going to unsafe parts of a city, whatever. We all make bad choices, you've made them, I've made them. But if you want to live in a society that doesn't give a damn about its fellow man, choice or no choice, then go ahead. I wouldn't want to live in a society that lives like it was the Dark Ages.
 
#55
electracoyote said:
Wow, I've never seen these, especially the ones from outside the U.S. Very graphic and disturbing. We can speculate on motives and government influence all we want, but I'm pretty sure if I was in that young age bracket that first forms the cigarette addiction, I would be thinking twice.
Click to expand...

Noble idea with the graphic pictures, but I highly doubt it will change anything in the US. The health risks of smoking are well known and have been for a generation or two. They still sell.
 
#56
stratovani said:
Then millions will die for all the bad choices they make, such as smoking, drinking, speeding, going to unsafe parts of a city, whatever. We all make bad choices, you've made them, I've made them. But if you want to live in a society that doesn't give a damn about its fellow man, choice or no choice, then go ahead. I wouldn't want to live in a society that lives like it was the Dark Ages.
Click to expand...

Personal responsibility has to come into account at some point. If more people had to answer for the poor choices they made in their life, not as many people would make them. Stupid should hurt, and poverty should suck. We can keep making life pleasant for people who make bad choices, or we can hold them accountable for those choices and watch as the number of people who make those choices shrinks, because that safety net isn't there for them.
 
#59
They'll never jack the prices up to the point that would actually prohibit people from smoking, and it's silly to think that there is such a point in the first place. That's not how addiction works.

If you want to discourage people from starting, you should probably do your best to turn smokers into second-class citizens...


Oh.
 
#60
I'm as anti-smoking as the next guy, but to have the government force companies to put ads on their own product demonizing that very product just seems to be overstepping some boundaries. Cigarette companies are in fact a business and as such are entitled to a fair environment to sell their product. I don't think anybody is oblivious to the negative health effects of cigarettes, especially those who are going to buy cigarettes in the first place. Since you're appealing to a market that is well aware of the adverse health effects of the product, why bother to stifle the sale of that product with obscene adverts?
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back