New Anti-Smoking Ads

[The White Hunter]

It was over 70 years ago we learned that smoking was more than just bad for your health, it was the SINGLE most damaging thing you could do (legally) to your body that would shorten your life. But for the next decades since scientists quietly insisted on this risk they were more than ignored, smoking rates went UP! You can see why such measured had to be resorted to.

People should have the right to make their own choice but they have a responsibility to make an INFORMED choice! If they are irresponsible and don't seek out the risks then they will be told.

I think for most people if they really knew the risks and realities of smoking they would never even start.

This is valid, though I'd like to point out that you can legally drink petrol if you so desire and that will likely fuck you up alot more than smoking and alot faster.

But then it's exaggeration, and we all do it. =]

To briefly be serious, I think alot of why people start smoking has very little to do with ignorance of the facts, I know a lot of people who smoke in spite of it and started merely because they thought it was rebellious and cool to do so, I'm not talking about in the 70's or 80's either, I'm talking 4, 5, 6 years ago.

Peer pressure and representation in entertainment media are obvious factors, along with the desire to rebel against authority as an adolescent.

But anyway, I'll just ramble on and on on this with no real purpose since I agree: smoking is bad.

 

[Treblaine]

Yes, and they do. In the UK at least and I've seen what appear to be American versions as well warning of the dangers with car driving. I CANNOT be in a moving car without a seatbelt on which will HUGELY protect me in almost every kind of accident.

I'm not talking about seatbelts, I'm talking about the inherent dangers of driving. Now, if you're saying that just telling drivers to wear a seatbealt is enough then smoking filtered cigarettes should be enough for smokers.

Well filtering cigarette smoke does very little to reduce its cancerous and pulmonary damaging properties. A seatbelt does hugely protect you from the dangers associated with driving. Also not driving while intoxicated, sleepy or otherwise cognitively compromised.

The inherent dangers of cars are WELL emphasises with the rigorous process that must be completed to get a licence and how with road laws as they are it can easily be taken away. Also, the dangers with cars comes from the fundamental knowledge of the physical world that all adults of non-disabled intelligence comprehend.

But the biology of Cancer is beyond the scope of most people, it is obscure and easy to get lead along a blind bath of the risks. People are deceived into thinking it means they only get a small risk of dying from cancer in their 70's, when the reality is smoking you are most likely to dies before your children have even finished education. And life-insurance policies know this, life-insurance for smokers is very high if possible to get at all.

Very few smokers live to retirement. I worked as a medical technician and saw what people had to go through to not die. The treatment is tough, real real tough, their body is already compromised by the smoking itself and with the chemo, radiation and surgery they are a wreak but they go through with if because they do NOT want to die. I was assisting a doctor as he examined a man who could never eat again from the treatment of his throat cancer, he was a smoker and was only 50 years old. He can't taste anything. If he ever eat 50% chance it'll go the wrong way go directly into his lungs.

If anyone did this to another person against their will it would be an unforgivable crime, but he did it to himself.

I KNOW he'd never have smoked - NEVER - if he truly knew this could happen to him.

This is not like being blind sided by a drunk driver or street-racer, that is their fault.

The only way you can protect yourself from these horrible diseases of smoking is not to inhale smoke. Not directly, not sharing an enclosed space with smokers. I'd rather have a head on high speed collision in a car (with seatbelt and airbags) than go through what that poor man went through with his smoking related condition.

You can drive a car on the roads safely all your life with a very low chance of being killed or severely disabled at a relatively young age, but you cannot safely smoke.

 

[mrF00bar]

Here in England the adverts you see on TV are usually about government funded organisations 'helping' you quit or products that help you quit instead of that shock/fear video you have there.

What I don't like about them is the way they belittle the people they advertise to, the ad always starts of by reminding the person how hard it is to give up and that you need to buy our product to be able to give up as if to say I don't have the willpower to.

I've given up smoking in 2 weeks cold turkey without the aid of any chewing gum or that patch/plaster thingy. I've never understood why people have such trouble stopping.

 

[MasterOfHisOwnDomain]

Makes sense. Cannabis has very little negative effect on you anyway so just smoke that instead?

OT: All things in moderation, I don't habitually smoke but the occasional fine cuban cigar with some good scotch is a very nice thing indeed. Only 1 or 2 a year, maybe, do I smoke. Otherwise drink is what's slowly killing me.

Indeed. But people tend to pack spliffs with tobacco anyway to fill it out, especially if they already smoke it without weed. Which is stupid. As you say, just smoke weed instead.

I also have the occasional cigar, and also with a drink, so high-five to that. I always laugh at the warnings on the packets when I do though - "You can give up" ... one pack of cigars a year? Hah.

 

[The White Hunter]

Makes sense. Cannabis has very little negative effect on you anyway so just smoke that instead?

OT: All things in moderation, I don't habitually smoke but the occasional fine cuban cigar with some good scotch is a very nice thing indeed. Only 1 or 2 a year, maybe, do I smoke. Otherwise drink is what's slowly killing me.

Indeed. But people tend to pack spliffs with tobacco anyway to fill it out, especially if they already smoke it without weed. Which is stupid. As you say, just smoke weed instead.

I also have the occasional cigar, and also with a drink, so high-five to that. I always laugh at the warnings on the packets when I do though - "You can give up" ... one pack of cigars a year? Hah.

High-five is returned!

I know we have loads here in the UK, grisly pictures too, and I have only a few a year > >

Yeah everyone I know packs out their weed with tobacco, says weed doesnt burn well and shit. They're just cheap and lazy. That said I haven't had weed in years and really shouldn't, could lose me a career xD

 

[Smeatza]

It's like they think we don't know the consequences of smoking by now.
Where are the adverts for healthy eating? Heart disease is a much bigger problem.

 

[DANEgerous]

sadly they are going to work far better than statistics for most people, it is defiantly purely appeal to emotion for almost every one here but you have to realize a lot of people are idiots.

Likely most people on this forum would see that person and know what caused it, but then you have the rest of America if you cut out the text and sound and said "what is this raising awareness for?" you may get "assault the person was stabbed in the neck!".

 

[Treblaine]

It was over 70 years ago we learned that smoking was more than just bad for your health, it was the SINGLE most damaging thing you could do (legally) to your body that would shorten your life. But for the next decades since scientists quietly insisted on this risk they were more than ignored, smoking rates went UP! You can see why such measured had to be resorted to.

People should have the right to make their own choice but they have a responsibility to make an INFORMED choice! If they are irresponsible and don't seek out the risks then they will be told.

I think for most people if they really knew the risks and realities of smoking they would never even start.

This is valid, though I'd like to point out that you can legally drink petrol if you so desire and that will likely fuck you up alot more than smoking and alot faster.

But then it's exaggeration, and we all do it. =]

To briefly be serious, I think alot of why people start smoking has very little to do with ignorance of the facts, I know a lot of people who smoke in spite of it and started merely because they thought it was rebellious and cool to do so, I'm not talking about in the 70's or 80's either, I'm talking 4, 5, 6 years ago.

Peer pressure and representation in entertainment media are obvious factors, along with the desire to rebel against authority as an adolescent.

But anyway, I'll just ramble on and on on this with no real purpose since I agree: smoking is bad.

Maybe I should have rephrased that to "Without the law stopping you".

If you drink petrol, that is grounds for the law to force you to stop like being forced to attend a rehab clinic or even committed to a mental asylum. But I don't know in the UK or US of anyone being forced by the threat of some aspect of active imprisonment if they don't stop smoking. Same with self-harming with cutting or attempting to commit suicide, the authorities will actively stop you doing that with the power of the law.

I think even on balance, they know it wouldn't be very rebellious if they shorten their lives so they can never collect their pension or be disabled by the diseases of smoking.

You can drive a car on the roads safely all your life with a very low chance of being killed or severely disabled at a relatively young age, but you cannot safely smoke.

That's simply not true. There are numerous accidents happening every single day. Even with your seatbelt colliding with another car usually means you're either dead or permanently disabled. There should be ads on TV showing in extreme detail what might happen if such a collision were to occur. Visceral ads, might I add.

It's the same with alcohol. Alcoholism, liver disease? All of these are caused by alcohol. Therefore, we should have ads showing in extreme detail what drinking will do to you.

If you care about people's well being and health you would raise awareness of these dangers as well. Otherwise, you're just hypocrites.

No. It is true. Read up on actual car safety and how important seatbelts and airbags, when you go below the speed limit or the speed appropriate to the road conditions sever accidents are very unlikely. Like even on a highway at 70mph limit, what can you crash into to have instant decelleration? all the cars are going the same direction and speed as you with barriers separating you from going off the road into a tree or into the opposite direction of traffic. The roads are straight enough that you can see if a car well ahead has stopped or there is an obstruction in the road.

Remember a head on collision of both cars going 50mph is NOT the same as hitting an unbreakable/unmovable wall at 100 miles per hour. This is where science of physics contradicts "common sense" because "common sense" is for medieval commoners who think the earth is flat.

Look at the statistics. Look at what the experts conclude. Life Insurance companies don't double premiums for driving a car, they do for smoking even a small amount as even smoking to a small extent is a huge risk to your life that driving within the law is not.

There ARE adverts showing what happens should such an impact occur:


And I don't think such PSA should be limited to their countries, they apply just as well in the USA. By the way, 5kph is only about 3 miles per hour, 60kph is about 37 miles per hour.

There are also adverts for the dangers of excessive drinking, from the biological health risks of its toxic nature to how it affects your judgement.

When did I EVER say I opposed PSA videos about other common risks? How could you confer that from:

"I think for most people if they really knew the risks and realities of smoking they would never even start."

To ONLY applying to smoking. People SHOULD be warned of risks and warned of them in a human way that they can accept them and not by human weakness ignore or falsely dismiss them.

 

[EtherealBeaver]

We've had these ads for years.
Our packets have to be hidden from view in shops and soon we're going plain packaging (blank cardboard so no fonts or pictures).
This is after massive tax increases so a pack costs about $20.

Our government is pretty retarded.
People know smoking is bad. THEY DON'T GIVE A SHIT.

So maybe the government needs to fuck off. If i want to drink acid i should be allowed to, just the same as if someone wants to inhale a bunch of bad shit they should be able to.

But no, go ahead idiots, ban everything bad for peoples health so our population does nothing but grow and become old. It doesn't cost anything to keep 5 billion 100year olds alive or anything.

I dont mean to be rude but if you end up getting Cancer from smoking, I honestly just see it as Darwin at work

My problem though is that somehow you feel that your choice to violate your own body is okay to force on others. If you have ever lighted up a smoke by the bus stop, the train station, the pedestrian road crossing or any other place where anyone was near you, you did not give them a choice if they wanted to participate.

But what about their freedom to choose for themselves? Is your personal freedom to mutilate your own body really so important that others freedom to choose not to violate their body needs to be ignored?

And before you say that they can just go away if they dont like it:
1: That means you force them to endure your choice to poison yourself and thus them - or you actively prevent them from going where they wish to go.
2: If they can just "not go where you go", then please explain to me how they would be able to use public transports, buy food, go to college or go to the hospital without having to wait/go through a cloud of smoke. The doors of institutions are almost always surrounded by smokers who went outside to have a smoking break and people smoking by bus stops or train stations actively force you to leave the premise and thus may cause you to not reach their bus/train if they want to avoid smoke.

You may think that just walking through where people smoke is not a big deal but for those of us with asthma and allergies, walking 4 meters through smoke means not being able to breathe properly for the next few hours.

 

[DANEgerous]

It's like they think we don't know the consequences of smoking by now.
Where are the adverts for healthy eating? Heart disease is a much bigger problem.

I have actually seen a few, they tend to be more positive a positive focus on sports but they do exist. I do not watch much TV so i rarely see ads and can not say how common they are but i know they exist.

 

[The White Hunter]

Maybe I should have rephrased that to "Without the law stopping you".

If you drink petrol, that is grounds for the law to force you to stop like being forced to attend a rehab clinic or even committed to a mental asylum. But I don't know in the UK or US of anyone being forced by the threat of some aspect of active imprisonment if they don't stop smoking. Same with self-harming with cutting or attempting to commit suicide, the authorities will actively stop you doing that with the power of the law.

I think even on balance, they know it wouldn't be very rebellious if they shorten their lives so they can never collect their pension or be disabled by the diseases of smoking.

Snippity snip.

I think they don't consider the long term consequences when they're 15, I know I never did, you tend to still think you're farily untouchable at that age and not really concern yourself with what may happen in 30, 40, 50 years. Though I far from endorse smoking from that age or indeed habitual smoking at all.

I think imprisonment for smoking would be a nice bit of freedom infringement, besides the government in the UK, at least, makes a huge amount of money on tobacco taxes so it's never going away.

Commiting suicide should be easy if you actually want to do it, and don't simply do it as a cry for help. Getting a bit close to home on this one. As for self-harm, I used to, very rarely I breakdown a bit and still do, no authority has ever intervened and to my knowledge there are no laws prohibiting it, and it's a very complicated issue best left for another time.

People should be free to make their own decisions about smoking, or drinking, or taking their own life. But thats just my insignificant opinion.

 

[Treblaine]

Makes sense. Cannabis has very little negative effect on you anyway so just smoke that instead?

OT: All things in moderation, I don't habitually smoke but the occasional fine cuban cigar with some good scotch is a very nice thing indeed. Only 1 or 2 a year, maybe, do I smoke. Otherwise drink is what's slowly killing me.

Indeed. But people tend to pack spliffs with tobacco anyway to fill it out, especially if they already smoke it without weed. Which is stupid. As you say, just smoke weed instead.

I also have the occasional cigar, and also with a drink, so high-five to that. I always laugh at the warnings on the packets when I do though - "You can give up" ... one pack of cigars a year? Hah.

High-five is returned!

I know we have loads here in the UK, grisly pictures too, and I have only a few a year > >

Yeah everyone I know packs out their weed with tobacco, says weed doesnt burn well and shit. They're just cheap and lazy. That said I haven't had weed in years and really shouldn't, could lose me a career xD

There isn't much special about tobacco in causing cancer. Burning almost anything and inhaling the smoke is going to contribute to cancer and damaging your airways, largely to an immediate and permanent extent. Weed is only limited by how it inebriates you too much to smoke 20 cigarettes a day like smokers can. I don't know many who can smoke even 5 joints a day. But weed encourages you to hold in the smoke and really even smoking one or two cigarettes (either tobacco or cannabis cigarettes) hugely increases your risk of an early death.

If there wasn't any chemical high associated with the inhalation of such smoke every smoker would consider it cruel torture to have to inhale and hold in such volumes of smoke. Pleasure association is amazing at tricking our mind into accepting damage being done to our bodies.

And there is not reason to smoke cannabis for any medical condition, they are available in pill form or even an aerosol spray like an asthma inhaler. At the very least, use a vapouriser.

It should be fundamental inescapable logic that inhaling smoke is bad for your health.

 

[Treblaine]

Maybe I should have rephrased that to "Without the law stopping you".

If you drink petrol, that is grounds for the law to force you to stop like being forced to attend a rehab clinic or even committed to a mental asylum. But I don't know in the UK or US of anyone being forced by the threat of some aspect of active imprisonment if they don't stop smoking. Same with self-harming with cutting or attempting to commit suicide, the authorities will actively stop you doing that with the power of the law.

I think even on balance, they know it wouldn't be very rebellious if they shorten their lives so they can never collect their pension or be disabled by the diseases of smoking.

Snippity snip.

I think they don't consider the long term consequences when they're 15, I know I never did, you tend to still think you're farily untouchable at that age and not really concern yourself with what may happen in 30, 40, 50 years. Though I far from endorse smoking from that age or indeed habitual smoking at all.

I think imprisonment for smoking would be a nice bit of freedom infringement, besides the government in the UK, at least, makes a huge amount of money on tobacco taxes so it's never going away.

Commiting suicide should be easy if you actually want to do it, and don't simply do it as a cry for help. Getting a bit close to home on this one. As for self-harm, I used to, very rarely I breakdown a bit and still do, no authority has ever intervened and to my knowledge there are no laws prohibiting it, and it's a very complicated issue best left for another time.

People should be free to make their own decisions about smoking, or drinking, or taking their own life. But thats just my insignificant opinion.

It's illegal to sell or even give cigarettes to under 18-year olds in most places precisely because of that. Many areas you can be put on probation and severely fined for being caught smoking even tobacco under the age of 18. Precisely because they are underage, below the age of majority, it's accepted that children are hugely limited in their freedoms due to their immaturity and ignorance.

Just because the law doesn't know, doesn't mean they wouldn't try to stop if they did know.

I don't want to get into a discussion of euthanasia or mercy-killing but I definitely oppose an unlimited right to commit suicide, think about all the religious cults who tell lies of a wonderful afterlife if they kill themselves. Think about the Jim Jones cult, HUNDREDS of people killing themselves in a mass suicide to get to heaven. The law cannot simply allow that. A right to suicide will be abused by cults. It will be abused by bullies. Life is too precious to allow such a thing that could so quickly end lives.

It's a matter of degrees. See there is some time to persuade a smoker to stop smoking. But trying to convince a death cult to not drink the cyanide-cool-aid is just not enough time.

 

[The White Hunter]

There isn't much special about tobacco in causing cancer. Burning almost anything and inhaling the smoke is going to contribute to cancer and damaging your airways, largely to an immediate and permanent extent. Weed is only limited by how it inebriates you too much to smoke 20 cigarettes a day like smokers can. I don't know many who can smoke even 5 joints a day. But weed encourages you to hold in the smoke and really even smoking one or two cigarettes (either tobacco or cannabis cigarettes) hugely increases your risk of an early death.

If there wasn't any chemical high associated with the inhalation of such smoke every smoker would consider it cruel torture to have to inhale and hold in such volumes of smoke. Pleasure association is amazing at tricking our mind into accepting damage being done to our bodies.

And there is not reason to smoke cannabis for any medical condition, they are available in pill form or even an aerosol spray like an asthma inhaler. At the very least, use a vapouriser.

It should be fundamental inescapable logic that inhaling smoke is bad for your health.

Okay. If you smoke just the cannabis there's significantl;y less tar and a hell of alot less nicotine. Tar destroys your lungs gradually and reduces the capacity whilst nicotine is highly toxic and highly addictive, the combination of these two properties results in a chemical dependance on tobacco which causes substantial progressive damage to the lungs. It may not be a good idea to smoke anyway, but the components that cause the damage to cells and lead to cancer over prolonged use are much less common in cannabis than they are in tobacco.

Conversely it's actually quite difficult to become chemically dependant on cannabis, if you smoke cannabis with tobacco, as most people do, you associate the nicotine delivery from the tobacco with the cannabis and as a resdult develop a proxy dependency on cannabis. Which can be also be damaging.

Moderation is key.

Cannabis is a pretty good painkiller in my experience, but it's got nothing on my friends whisky and wine for dulling pain.

I should also point out that logic is typically flawed as a justification. Logically the Earth is orbited by the sun, because we can observe it travelling across the sky from the Earth's surface. However we know that not to be true due to scientific enquiry into the nature of our solar system. Logic is a self evident thing that can be very flawed upon inspection and examination of the face value.

Also, people are not logical or rational things.

 

[The White Hunter]

Just because the law doesn't know, doesn't mean they wouldn't try to stop if they did know.

I don't want to get into a discussion of euthanasia or mercy-killing but I definitely oppose an unlimited right to commit suicide, think about all the religious cults who tell lies of a wonderful afterlife if they kill themselves. Think about the Jim Jones cult, HUNDREDS of people killing themselves in a mass suicide to get to heaven. The law cannot simply allow that. A right to suicide will be abused by cults. It will be abused by bullies. Life is too precious to allow such a thing that could so quickly end lives.

It's a matter of degrees. See there is some time to persuade a smoker to stop smoking. But trying to convince a death cult to not drink the cyanide-cool-aid is just not enough time.

Okay seriously, don't warp my point, your words in my mouth taste like the vilest of ash. A personal right to end your life if you see fit is not the same as a large group of religious nutcases committing mass suicide.

No, lunatics should not be allowed to whip hundreds of people into ritual suicide to get into some promised false-heaven.

But if I personally reach the point where I have nothing to live for then that's my own choice.

Simple.

 

[omega 616]

How old do you have to be to smoke these days? 16? 18? Anyway, by that kind of age if you don't know smoking has a high chance of causing you problems then you're a moron.

So everybody who smokes knows the facts about smoking and what it can lead to, so why do they need to be educated? It's like trying to convert Christians to Atheism.

Why not just start releasing adverts about the damages of drinking or stabbing plug sockets with a knife? Talk about trying to teach the bleeding obvious.

Um there are adverts about the dangers of drinking and also the dangers of electricity.

And yeah, it does take just a bit more than "you should know for yourself" about smoking. So many are just not getting the quiet restrained message, they don't want to hear about how their favourite habit is going to causes anything hugely bad to happen.

Well in my entire life, most of which was sat in front of a tv (up until a year ago anyway) and I have never seen an anti drinking or anti electric advert in my life!

I have seen plenty of "don't drink and drive" but no "drinking damages your liver etc" ones. Oh sorry, on alcohol adverts you always see, in size 5 font and usually in the bottom corner, "drink responsibly" on the very last screen of the advert ....

No, everybody knows inhaling smoke is bad for you, even as a little kid I would nag my mum to stop smoking. There should be no adverts to stop you smoking, there should be no "smoking kills" or pictures of fucked up lungs on packets ... if you know smoking is bad but continue to do it you will get no sympathy from me.

Same goes to alcoholics and drug users.

 

[Treblaine]

There ARE adverts showing what happens should such an impact occur:

No, that's not enough. They need to show the worst case scenario, just like in the case of smoking.

There are also adverts for the dangers of excessive drinking, from the biological health risks of its toxic nature to how it affects your judgement.

Are they as shocking as the smoking ads?

When did I EVER say I opposed PSA videos about other common risks? How could you confer that from:

Strawman, I never said that. My opposition was towards shock ads like the ones used against smoking. It's perfectly acceptable to use non-shock ads for every single other issue but for smoking it's a "requirement" because people are too stupid to make their own decisions?

"I think for most people if they really knew the risks and realities of smoking they would never even start."

No, that is not the reality of smoking just like a car crash that destroys your legs is not the reality of driving a car. Those are WORST CASE SCENARIOS and they are always gruesome. However, the point of these ads, at least supposedly, is to teach people about the potential risks of certain actions, not to scare them into submission.

People SHOULD be warned of risks and warned of them in a human way that they can accept them and not by human weakness ignore or falsely dismiss them.

And that's a "human way" to inform people of the dangers of smoking? By showing the most gruesome worst case scenarios? Why is the CDC or any other medical organization not doing the same for driving cars or drinking?

They did show the worst case scenario. They freaking died. They showed his lungs being crushed. How is this for shocking:


Also for the risks of cooking even.

"If you care about people's well being and health you would raise awareness of these dangers as well. Otherwise, you're just hypocrites."

There was a definite implication. Why would you even suggest I didn't propose awareness for other dangers?

Cancer is not even the "worst case scenario" of smoking IT IS A HUGELY LIKELY SCENARIO! The treatment that left her in that condition is NOT EXCEPTIONAL. Take it from me who has assisted in the treatment of so many smoking conditions and lost several relatives to smoking related diseases, cancer is not the exception and disability from the treatment is likely. And when a smoker gets cancer, that is how aggressive they smut be and because their body is so damaged by the smoking itself the treatment is much tougher. Smoking is a bane of medicine, it's hard to even perform surgery as their smoke exposure leaves them with reduced ability to heal.

That shocking video the OP posted is not exceptional of smoking, it is typical of smoking. Not seen so common as such cancers were normally fatal, now they are just hugely disabling with treatment. This doesn't seek to scare, there is no eerie eerie lighting, weird sound effect or dramatic angles, it just frankly shows them. If that is scary then the advert did not make it scary, the SMOKING DID THAT! If this scares smokers then they should be afraid of Smoking PSA adverts, they should be afraid of smoking ITSELF. Don't shoot the messenger.

By a human way I mean SHOW it. If we were computers you could just write down in a twitter message: "Smoking can lead to your trachea being surgically removed and extensive radiation treatment that causes hair lost and wasting" does not get through at the human level. It's easy to file under a lower priority than it actually is.

Smoking is no exception and even if it was, so what? Just because the public aren't being informed of one danger doesn't make it acceptable to not inform them of another danger. Two wrongs don't make a right. I think more needs to be done to teach of the dangers of alcoholism and obesity but those are tricky. Any level of smoking is bad, but we have been exposed to fat and alcohol all of human existence, we can healthily consume moderate amounts and any PSA must be careful not to resort to hyperbole like the "this is your brain in drugs" that devalue ALL PSA announcements.

Anti-obesity ads have to tread a fine line of not promoting anorexia. Anti-alcoholism ads mainly focus on the dangers of drunkenness as it is the leading cause of death with alcohol, how it causes accidents and is a contributory factor in violence though some focus on the biological toxicity.