New warning labels for cigs

[spade2you]

In modern America, there are more than enough opportunities for people to get out if they're trying hard enough to do it.

or they're working against that "goal". I put that in quotes mostly because I don't think most care any more.

Regardless, instant gratification trumps frugality more often than not, which is why we're all in this current mess.

There was a TB dad quote thread and the one that stuck with me was a guy whose dad was talking about his brother and said, "he couldn't finance a Coke."

 

[Brad Johnson]

There's a saying - "Broke is temporary. Poor is eternal."


Some people are born into horrible circumstances. And for those, breaking the poverty line can be a very uphill battle. But, like Munji's story attributes - those with the strong enough of a desire to break it, will.

There are alot more broke people out there than usual. And I can't see painting them with a broad brush either, many were doing what they've been encouraged to do and had it bite them in the ass.

Substitute "might" for "will" and I'd agree with you. As it is, strong enough desire is not enough to overcome everything life throws at you. And before we get too deep into that, I'll leave it there.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Banning smoking if it's really that big of a deal.

That IMO is overly simplistic. Can't do it. Look at the precendents.

I fail to see how anyone can think that breathing smoke is good for them. That's instinctual. If something is burning, you usually don't breathe the smoke coming from it.

That too is overly simplisitic. It ignores the mood altering effects for one. Does a first beer seeem any more appealing or first shot of liquor or first hit of marijuana?

Smokers know this, yet continue to smoke because of other perceived or actual benefits. People are going to smoke regardless of what you put on the packaging. Clearly they do. Why bother?

Because you could quite easily be wrong.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Warning labels are one thing. Obscene images of effects of prolonged use are another. Most people know not to drink bleach, yet some idiot out there may not. Sure, companies put warning labels on the packing, but do they put a picture of a burned and bloated corpse on the bottle? No.

Of course not... the number of bleach drinkers pales in comparison. And why would they be burned?

 

[Brad Johnson]

All the motivation I need.

It never crossed my mind to do heroin and if it did, just looking at people who did would be a deterrent for me.

 

[sloasdaylight]

That IMO is overly simplistic. Can't do it. Look at the precendents.



That too is overly simplisitic. It ignores the mood altering effects for one. Does a first beer seeem any more appealing or first shot of liquor or first hit of marijuana?



Because you could quite easily be wrong.

First two I agree with you on, the last one I don't though. As I mentioned earlier, it's infinitely easier to get some one started on an addiction than it is to break one from it, and despite the millions and millions of dollars invested in various anti-smoking campaigns (financed by the Tobacco companies, which I find amusing), people still do it, and people still pick up a pack.

 

[Gopherbassist]

I've often wondered whether the real purpose of these mandatory requirements is not to warn people of the dangers of smoking, but to make it more expensive for the producers to deliver the product to the market. The more prohibitive / cost ineffective you make the product to produce, deliver and sell, the higher the cost of the product to the consumer. In a item like cigarettes cost is probably a huge factor in purchasing decision and availability (especially if you look at the demographics of smokers). Basically, its a backdoor way of increase the cost of the product and its the cost of the product that is used as the "stop smoking" device rather than the warning itself. I imagine that same point probably runs true about the ban on advertising. Make the product less visible and the cost of the product increases as the sales figures drop. Cost goes up, purchasers go down.

Price alone won't break an addiction. When you add in inconvenience, that will help quite a bit. While I lived in California, laws were passed that made it ilegal to smoke in quite a lot of places. Then California started putting huge taxes on tobacco.

Then, at some point, there was a campaign by some group or other to get people to not let other people smoke in their houses if they came over. A bunch of land lords jumped on that, because it would make cleaning the houses during a change of residents cheaper.

It got so that you couldn't smoke in your own home if you rented, couldn't smoke in parks, in buildings, or even near buildings. In some places, you'd even get a ticket for smoking while driving because it was a distraction. When it got to be that smoking was a chore, that's when people quit.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Actually yea I do in most circumstances. There are of course always those folks who hit on hard times, I'm pretty sure most of us here have at some point in our lives, but generational poverty is the result of people accepting that they're just going to be poor. I cannot, and do not, accept that as a legitimate outlook. In modern America, there are more than enough opportunities for people to get out if they're trying hard enough to do it.

That would definitely explain the unemployment figures.


That's about as skewed a mindset as I've come across. Maybe it does reflect your reality, certainly not mine. Most people I know work full time. Most didn't go crazy during the recent mortgage debacle. Most aren't in public housing. Most aren't living extravagantly. Most aren't looking for handouts. Most have no control over whether or not the company they work for remains viable or where it's located. And so on. When I say "most" I mean the vast majority. But for some strange reason many don't see them. Likely by choice.


We'll agree to disagree.

 

[Brad Johnson]

First two I agree with you on, the last one I don't though. As I mentioned earlier, it's infinitely easier to get some one started on an addiction than it is to break one from it, and despite the millions and millions of dollars invested in various anti-smoking campaigns (financed by the Tobacco companies, which I find amusing), people still do it, and people still pick up a pack.

Not sure why it's amusing, they don't finance them by choice. And they don't finance all of them.

This is doing something vs. doing nothing more than is already being done. I'm not sure what the defeatist attitude is about this, I don't see a problem with making the results more visible from the offset. It'll at least get more people thinking about it.

You're saying you agree with this: "People are going to smoke regardless of what you put on the packaging".

I don't. Some will, some won't. It could help those that won't.

 

[sloasdaylight]

That would definitely explain the unemployment figures.


That's about as skewed a mindset as I've come across. Maybe it does reflect your reality, certainly not mine. Most people I know work full time. Most didn't go crazy during the recent mortgage debacle. Most aren't in public housing. Most aren't living extravagantly. Most aren't looking for handouts. Most have no control over whether or not the company they work for remains viable or where it's located. And so on. When I say "most" I mean the vast majority. But for some strange reason many don't see them. Likely by choice.


We'll agree to disagree.

Right, when I said generational poverty, I was obviously talking about the current economic situation. When I said earlier that everyone falls on hard times from time to time, but being generationally poor is by large margin a choice that's made and then perpetuated, I was obviously oblivious to the current economic situation.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Right, when I said generational poverty, I was obviously talking about the current economic situation. When I said earlier that everyone falls on hard times from time to time, but being generationally poor is by large margin a choice that's made and then perpetuated, I was obviously oblivious to the current economic situation.

Forget the post I was initially responding to?

You added generational later on in the tangent. This started out with poverty, period. Not limited to generational.


And generational poverty is about choice?

In that light I'd agree with the above post, minus the sarcasm of course.

 

[sloasdaylight]

Forget the post I was initially responding to?

You added generational later on in the tangent. This started out with poverty, period. Not limited to generational.


And generational poverty is about choice?

In that light I'd agree with the above post, minus the sarcasm of course.

I guess I don't consider people who are hit on hard times (i.e. the unemployment figures) to really be in poverty, just having a rough time making ends meet. Obviously not everyone falls into this category, however.

 

[Brad Johnson]

I guess I don't consider people who are hit on hard times to really be in poverty, just having a rough time making ends meet.

Interesting twist on that. How do you determine the difference?

Poor is poor last I heard. If you have the same housing situation, the same finances/buying power, the same bleak employment outlook, etc. which guy is poor and what is the other guy in your opinion? Just having a rough time does not equal poor?

What you appear to be saying is that you only consider generationally poor people to be poor. And most of them chose/choose to be that way. Like I said, skewed as heck IMO. If they're both currently in the same boat (or under a bridge or whatever) they're poor IME IMO.

 

[sloasdaylight]

Interesting twist on that. How do you determine the difference?

Poor is poor last I heard. If you have the same housing situation, the same finances/buying power, the same bleak employment outlook, etc. which guy is poor and what is the other guy in your opinion? Just having a rough time does not equal poor?

What you appear to be saying is that you only consider generationally poor people to be poor. And most of them chose/choose to be that way. Like I said, skewed as heck IMO. If they're both currently in the same boat (or under a bridge or whatever) they're poor IME IMO.

I determine the difference I guess by seeing what they're doing about it. If you're making minimum wage and just sitting on your ass despite having bills you can't really pay and continually have a little more than gas money in the bank, then you're poor.

If on the other hand you're making minimum wage but you're trying to better your situation by going to school, learning a trade, etc, and still have bills and little more than gas money in the bank, then you're having hard times.

Like I said, everyone's broke from time to time, and poor is poor, but no one gets un-poor by doing nothing. (well except for the very rare occasions)

edit: I wasn't trying to make a point about poverty with the first of my posts you quoted btw.

 

[spade2you]

That would definitely explain the unemployment figures.

Employment and income is something we often can't control. I about got canned last year and couldn't get a job interview with about 1/2 of my applications and the other half did't see me as a valuable potential employee.

What you do WITH the income is what can work for or against you. What the US calls poor is a cruel injustice to the people suffering in the real world, but my broke friends tend to continuously waste $ and will probably never dig out of their hole. Most keep digging deeper.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Employment and income is something we often can't control. I about got canned last year and couldn't get a job interview with about 1/2 of my applications and the other half did't see me as a valuable potential employee.

What you do WITH the income is what can work for or against you. What the US calls poor is a cruel injustice to the people suffering in the real world, but my broke friends tend to continuously waste $ and will probably never dig out of their hole. Most keep digging deeper.

So you're talking about your friends specifically? I have no comment on that. I don't know them, you do. I've been speaking generally.

 

[spade2you]

So you're talking about your friends specifically? I have no comment on that. I don't know them, you do. I've been speaking generally.

What my friends do is hardly unique, statistically speaking.

 

[Brad Johnson]

I determine the difference I guess by seeing what they're doing about it. If you're making minimum wage and just sitting on your ass despite having bills you can't really pay and continually have a little more than gas money in the bank, then you're poor.

And how do you know what everyone in this situation is doing to better themselves or not? See the problem yet?

If on the other hand you're making minimum wage but you're trying to better your situation by going to school, learning a trade, etc, and still have bills and little more than gas money in the bank, then you're having hard times.

And if things don't get better despite your best efforts (which AFAIK can and does still happen) do you remain simply having hard times in perpetuity?

Like I said, everyone's broke from time to time, and poor is poor, but no one gets un-poor by doing nothing. (well except for the very rare occasions)

Everyone is not broke from time to time but that'll probably be seen as nitpicking vs. a poor way to try and make a point.

edit: I wasn't trying to make a point about poverty with the first of my posts you quoted btw.

Cool... but that's what you appeared to have done and why I responded as I did. I guess you could've mentioned that on my first post.

 

[Brad Johnson]

What my friends do is hardly unique, statistically speaking.

Didn't say anything about unique... are you saying they're prevalent?

 

[spade2you]

Didn't say anything about unique... are you saying they're prevalent?

In the non-frugal sense, I'd be more than willing to make that claim.