New warning labels for cigs

[emor]

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?

stifle 1 |ˈstīfəl|
verb [ trans. ]
1 make (someone) unable to breathe properly; suffocate : those in the streets were stifled by the fumes | [as adj. ] ( stifling) stifling heat.


Nice.

 

[Brad Johnson]

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.

So you consider poverty to be a choice?


This thread is playing out predictably. I'm a former smoker and if the messge had been stronger early on I probably wouldn't have started. It was still glamourous when I started, the Marlboro Man was in full swing, people smoked on TV, etc.

 

[Darkstrike]

Meh, they practically helped sales here, as people started collecting them like trading cards.

 

[MatticusMania]

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?

No one can really say that the tobaccos companies advertising is what turns smokers on. I think the tobacco companies biggest advertisement is other, real life smokers. Nothing will get a young guy to smoke quicker than a hot chick asking if he has a light.

 

[macaroni tony]

If I were considering smoking, the packaging would be a deterrent.


Just like everyone else, all I can speak for is myself

 

[emor]

 

[Jim Campbell]

So you consider poverty to be a choice?

i see that all the time here from well meaning folks that think jed clampet is representative of the po' but proud folks...that is a relic of the great depression where proud men sought work where there was none...i've talked to a lot of guys that lived through that and it's a different animal than what they call poverty now.......poverty is a choice here for many....you can live better than most minimum wage jobs without having to get out of bed in the morning....there are a lot of avenues for people to sit back and get their bills paid while they hustle up drug money by selling,hooking,stealing,and lots have been at it for generations.....certainly it's not the ritz but a lot of people are doing it.....the downtown is chock full of young moms,resplendent in thousands of dollars worth of tats,pushing babies in carriages,shopping on the public hooter....the other day some lint head charity was decrying the lack of diapers available these poor souls and are urging the public to donate....

people here think that you have a right to a home,food,medical,education,on the taxpayers dime...instead of the right to earn those things..... the "it's not their fault" crowd perpetuates the cycle of poverty with endless rounds of programs that don't work,except to create jobs for those soft hearted folks who will administer them.....i ask why i should pay for a new set of lungs for some gang creep who decides to smoke the butts that he steals instead of selling them

i don't mind paying my share for roads that are maintained,and what not but it's time people start taking some responsibility for the harm they do to themselves.....

 

[MatticusMania]

Those ads do nothing for me. Now, if that woman and her clothesline were real, and she were to say to me "why don't you come over here and share this smoke" I'd gladly oblige.

 

[spade2you]

Those ads do nothing for me. Now, if that woman and her clothesline were real, and she were to say to me "why don't you come over here and share this smoke" I'd gladly oblige.

She's real, but I can't imagine she has aged well........

 

[MatticusMania]

Lol, Im sure she was/is real. Obviously, I meant I would be more inclined, as an ex-smoker, to pick up the habit again because a beautiful woman offered me a smoke, not by advertisement. In fact, thats how I started back up the second time. Damn boobies!

 

[Brad Johnson]

i see that all the time here from well meaning folks that think jed clampet is representative of the po' but proud folks...that is a relic of the great depression where proud men sought work where there was none...i've talked to a lot of guys that lived through that and it's a different animal than what they call poverty now.......poverty is a choice here for many....you can live better than most minimum wage jobs without having to get out of bed in the morning....there are a lot of avenues for people to sit back and get their bills paid while they hustle up drug money by selling,hooking,stealing,and lots have been at it for generations.....certainly it's not the ritz but a lot of people are doing it.....the downtown is chock full of young moms,resplendent in thousands of dollars worth of tats,pushing babies in carriages,shopping on the public hooter....the other day some lint head charity was decrying the lack of diapers available these poor souls and are urging the public to donate....

people here think that you have a right to a home,food,medical,education,on the taxpayers dime...instead of the right to earn those things..... the "it's not their fault" crowd perpetuates the cycle of poverty with endless rounds of programs that don't work,except to create jobs for those soft hearted folks who will administer them.....i ask why i should pay for a new set of lungs for some gang creep who decides to smoke the butts that he steals instead of selling them

i don't mind paying my share for roads that are maintained,and what not but it's time people start taking some responsibility for the harm they do to themselves.....

Nice brush. Do you think this covers MOST of the people considered below the poverty line?


BTW Where is the "here" you're referring to? I was talking about the US.

 

[Brad Johnson]

No one can really say that the tobaccos companies advertising is what turns smokers on. I think the tobacco companies biggest advertisement is other, real life smokers. Nothing will get a young guy to smoke quicker than a hot chick asking if he has a light.

By the same token, can one really say that the new packaging won't turn people off. Yet they say it.

Big tobacco spent a ton of money advertising in the media over the decades. They didn't do it because it was ineffective.

 

[electracoyote]

I showed this to my kids (ages 15, 16, 18), non-smokers all. They were repulsed, even horrified. I think it reinforced all the negative consequences they've been seeing and hearing about. Probably as a further deterrent in the modern information age in which young people can easily seek and observe the graphic consequences of bad choices (one good thing about the internet I guess).

But I'm inclined to agree with the smokers and ex-smokers out there, it may take more than a scary picture to beat that monkey off your back.

To any smokers on the fence and looking for incentive, I can only hope this would help with the effort of quitting.

 

[Brad Johnson]

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?

I used to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume that there was at least a modicum of common sense in our society. After repeatedly being proven wrong, my POV changed.


You apparently think people are aware of the dangers/repercussions and no doubt can cite where people should've become informed about them. The basic problem with that is it assumes people actually pay attention. Bad move.


Cigarette companies sell a product that sickens and kills people. They've bought a lot of influence to be able to keep doing it. In the meantime we as taxpayers foot much of the bill for taking care of many of those people when they do fall ill. If education, particularly tough education like this is wrong, what's a better way to address this?

 

[Munjibunga]

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?

This is about as ridiculous an argument as I could imagine. The "product" is an addictive, lethal poison. Should they remove the warning labels from all poisons, then? ... demonizing ... sheesh

 

[syciprider]

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?

Don't be naive. .gov (at least in the US) gives away billions to national and overseas parties in grants, endowments, welfare and assistance which when combined most certainly will dwarf the cost of healthcare for smokers. I (and no doubt you) provided tax dollars involuntarily at federal, state and local level to fund these things.

Such as?

Oh I don't know. A ban on Happy meals? Sodas? Regulate the internet perhaps?

 

[Munjibunga]

So you consider poverty to be a choice?

Not always, but poverty is often the result of choices made by those who end up there. The lack of poverty can also be the result of choices. I grew up below the poverty line, but chose to find a way to get educated. For me, it meant joining the Marines to get the GI Bill educational benefits. After I got out, I made leather goods for hippies and drew architectural plans for a builder to make ends meet while I went to school. Then I got a part-time job as a draftsman and laboratory technician (in 1975) at the company where I retired as CEO last year.

There are ways to escape poverty. One must first reject it as an inescapable way of life. Often, this means overcoming family pressures to be like your parents and not become "better" than them. I concede that growing up in a culture of poverty makes it harder to escape, but that's where individual determination comes in.

I'm with Jim on this one ... there are too many people out there who feel entitled without putting out any effort to move out and up. And there are too many of us taxpayers who are funding that entitlement. By the way, that includes all those folks about whom someone lamented that their health-care costs related to smoking could bankrupt them.

 

[spade2you]

I showed this to my kids (ages 15, 16, 18), non-smokers all. They were repulsed, even horrified. I think it reinforced all the negative consequences they've been seeing and hearing about. Probably as a further deterrent in the modern information age in which young people can easily seek and observe the graphic consequences of bad choices (one good thing about the internet I guess).

But I'm inclined to agree with the smokers and ex-smokers out there, it may take more than a scary picture to beat that monkey off your back.

To any smokers on the fence and looking for incentive, I can only hope this would help with the effort of quitting.

I think by the time most of us turn 18, there has been some direct exposure of some sort of person who has been adversely been affected by smoking. People still aren't quitting and new smokers are starting up all the time.

Not always, but poverty is often the result of choices made by those who end up there.

Oddly enough, if there's a poor area, what kind of shops are prevalent? Discount tobacco, liquor stores, check cashers, and tattoo parlors.

 

[Jim Campbell]

Nice brush. Do you think this covers MOST of the people considered below the poverty line?


BTW Where is the "here" you're referring to? I was talking about the US.

soviet canuckistan....i realize it's a wide brush,but it's a huge problem.....it's difficult to grasp until you've seen it first hand...it's total nanny state gone nuts.....depends on your definition of poverty.....despite the bs you see on tv from the bleeding hearts people are not dying in the streets......jeez,you don't even have to pay to get on a bus here if you don't feel like it...what poverty is and how people view it is two different things....

 

[Cabazon]

I think these would be better if they didn't include cheesy photoshop smoke.


At least it will make buying cigarettes more fun, being able to ask for specific pictures. Collect them all!