Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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
- Thread starter emor
- Start date
I derive some sort of pleasure from looking at a many different forms of design, considering its my job, and how I learn to do it better.
Like I said, it is quite clearly the point of the warnings, to make cigarette packages un-attractive, however it is also a shame. That packaging design is someones artwork, and is covered up by a picture of a rotting foot. The fact that the artwork is designed to make people pay someone to slowly kill them is entirely irrelevant from a purely aesthetical point of view.
Not saying that the labels are a bad idea because I won't be able to see the shiny gold labels anymore, however I do think its a little bit dissapointing. If I were to design a label for a product which was covered up by warning labels, it be a little annoyed that people can't see my artwork in its full. Of course, I wouldn't really care all that much providing I got paid
I didn't say "Stop the presses! I can't see the designs anymore and this has to stop!". I just said it was a little bit of a shame.
Why, do you think I don't agree with what I'm saying? I'd say my position is both clear and consistent. And as a former longtime smoker I have experience. So how is that playing Devil's advocate?
I derive some sort of pleasure from looking at a many different forms of design, considering its my job, and how I learn to do it better.
Like I said, it is quite clearly the point of the warnings, to make cigarette packages un-attractive, however it is also a shame. That packaging design is someones artwork, and is covered up by a picture of a rotting foot. The fact that the artwork is designed to make people pay someone to slowly kill them is entirely irrelevant from a purely aesthetical point of view.
Not saying that the labels are a bad idea because I won't be able to see the shiny gold labels anymore, however I do think its a little bit dissapointing. If I were to design a label for a product which was covered up by warning labels, it be a little annoyed that people can't see my artwork in its full. Of course, I wouldn't really care all that much providing I got paid
I didn't say "Stop the presses! I can't see the designs anymore and this has to stop!". I just said it was a little bit of a shame.
Couldn't agree less. I think the idea is to make smoking, not the package, less attractive. If it were just the package they could make them all Barney colored.
Couldn't agree less. I think the idea is to make smoking, not the package, less attractive. If it were just the package they could make them all Barney colored.
Doesn't seem 100% that way to me. I see it as essentially going one step further from banning cigarette advertising in magazines/on tv etc. and putting a damper on the effect of the advertising you see on the packet.
When I think of smoking, I think "That ****'s bad for you" due to education and other government propaganda.
However, when I look at a packet of well branded and marketed cigarettes with no warning label I think "Man, those look cool". With the label its more like "Man, that looks nasty".
Its not really making smoking less attractive. I haven't met a smoker who doesn't know its bad for them. I'm sure it has some effect on the smokers own opinion of smoking, but like I said, I expect they already know how bad it is for them. What it does do it make the actual product less appealing, though im sure there is a bit of both.
It depends on what you use to gauge effectiveness.
Stopping people from smoking? not gonna happen.
Getting people to think that something they enjoy, do, and indentify themselves as is wrong, immoral, and illogical? entirely efficient
Social programming at its best.
Too bad the government doesn't focus on what it is supposed to do and not on what it tends to do...waste resources and make underhanded ineffective commentary on what it thinks people should be doing and thinking.
Stopping people from smoking? not gonna happen.
Getting people to think that something they enjoy, do, and indentify themselves as is wrong, immoral, and illogical? entirely efficient
Social programming at its best.
Too bad the government doesn't focus on what it is supposed to do and not on what it tends to do...waste resources and make underhanded ineffective commentary on what it thinks people should be doing and thinking.
You seem conflicted with the rest of your paragraph. You smoke the product. If the product is less appealing how is the act not affected?
As it should be IMO. You can't really do much here for "pennies a day".
I don't take poverty to necessarily mean starvation or something close. I'm sure there are people elsewhere who are considered poor but not to the point of starvation or something else. They're still poor.
Common sense has been an oxymoron regardless of income here for a long time. Yet the people who aren't broke aren't typically the ones who are villified.
I live near a high school. I hear this often enough... in later model cars their parents bought them. So I'm missing the poverty angle.
Can they afford not to? Have they foregone something else in order to do this? These are obvious questions that come to me.
The trick being getting the other person home to give them the beer that cost you less.
If you're broke you probably don't have a bank account. If you got paid by check in that predicament, where would you cash it?
Yes, those are examples for people with options. I'm simply saying that for many, those options aren't as prevalent. Not an excuse, it is what it is. As such I choose not to attempt to paint an entire group with a pretty dry brush.
To respond to some, rich people can afford to be extravagant and make bad decisions. Nobody ever said life was fair.
As for the bank statement, credit unions!!! Those check cashing places are fairly close to legalized loan sharks.
I'm all for it, but by the time it kills them, they've already had offspring.
Its really dumb , nonsmoker why should i see gross images on discarded packs. Its just nasty looking some of them , rather disturbing . Let the smokers smoke.
They better not print that crap on alcohol because thats a substance i enjoy
They better not print that crap on alcohol because thats a substance i enjoy
Like ending up with ugly chicks, barfing your brains out, barfing your brains out after the ugly chicks?
just today the local tab had a blurb about the cig packs themselves being illegal as the slogans on them could be considered advertising,which is not allowed....I derive some sort of pleasure from looking at a many different forms of design, considering its my job, and how I learn to do it better.
Like I said, it is quite clearly the point of the warnings, to make cigarette packages un-attractive, however it is also a shame. That packaging design is someones artwork, and is covered up by a picture of a rotting foot. The fact that the artwork is designed to make people pay someone to slowly kill them is entirely irrelevant from a purely aesthetical point of view.
Not saying that the labels are a bad idea because I won't be able to see the shiny gold labels anymore, however I do think its a little bit dissapointing. If I were to design a label for a product which was covered up by warning labels, it be a little annoyed that people can't see my artwork in its full. Of course, I wouldn't really care all that much providing I got paid
I didn't say "Stop the presses! I can't see the designs anymore and this has to stop!". I just said it was a little bit of a shame.
I, as much as you, hope the grammar police are not involved in this selection ; )
