jump to last post 1-16 of 16 discussions (32 posts)

Newsflash: This waste of money won't end smoking!!

  1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    Recently, images are being added to cigarette packaging.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-204_162-100 … =page;next

    It won't work.

    Just thought I'd point out this complete waste of taxpayer money.

    1. OutWest profile image60
      OutWestposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Is the taxpayer even paying for this or is it the cigarette companies?

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Even if the companies pay for it - how much money did the FDA blow trying to get the labels put on / designing them?

        1. OutWest profile image60
          OutWestposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I don't know...how much?  Any?

      2. Richard Sirota profile image61
        Richard Sirotaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I agree with Evan. If the tobacco companies paid for this the cost will be passed on to the consumer.

    2. KyleBear profile image60
      KyleBearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It might work. Since the frequency of smoking is already going down steadily, who knows, it might give it an extra boost wink

    3. deblipp profile image61
      deblippposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      This is very similar to the packaging in Australia, so I imagine there are statistics on its effectiveness Down Under. I wonder what the results are?

    4. prettydarkhorse profile image65
      prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Even if you put an image of a dead person bec of smoking  or one dying of cancer in the cigarette pack, it wont deter some to smoke, it is an addiction. The reason they are able to look at the image/photo is they are holding the cigarette pack already, LOL

  2. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    You will never see the ad: War is addictive.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Ha!

      I love that idea!

      "Warning - war leads to death and hatred!"

  3. psycheskinner profile image79
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    Smoking is dropping in most demographics (both percentage and frequency), so something is working.

  4. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    I am a smoker, five a day for thirty years.
    I consider it a relaxant and health aid.

  5. Edwin Clark profile image83
    Edwin Clarkposted 5 years ago

    I don't think it's coming out of taxpayers pockets. But it will come out of smokers' wallets since I'm sure the cigarette companies will past the cost on to them.

    Plus I don't think the new packaging will inspire smokers to quit. Parts of Asia has had these types of cigarette packages for ages and it has not changed the minds of smokers.

    http://s3.hubimg.com/u/5182058_f248.jpg

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The FDA did have to design and agree to put these on the packaging - the taxpayers DID pay for some of it.

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Shucks yeah, that dirty ole government interfering with big businesses right to kill people!

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          By this point, everyone knows that cigs are bad for you.

          And if they don't, it's because they can't.

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            But if you are addicted it is easy to "forget" a constant reminder does work.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              got stats to back that claim up?

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Better than that, experience, I smoke.

  6. profile image0
    Home Girlposted 5 years ago

    People do not care until it hits hard. My husband could not quit until he got really ill, and I mean it - seriously ill.

  7. psycheskinner profile image79
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    Hardly a huge amount I suspect.  More like a bit of time from a person already on salary.

  8. Hendrika profile image73
    Hendrikaposted 5 years ago

    It does not matter what anyone does, if someone wants to smoke, they are going to smoke.

  9. profile image0
    Home Girlposted 5 years ago

    There is certain amount of stupidity in most of us, I cannot find a better world for that,that ability to ignore facts, to ignore danger, disaster in our life and just continue that   "I-am-going-to-do-it-because-I-like-it-and-do-not-give-a-damn attitude that allows even very smart people ruin their lives over stupid things like smoking,drinking and drugs.

    1. HattieMattieMae profile image69
      HattieMattieMaeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Well I was thinking yesterday, they like people smoking because they are getting your tax money. Only marijuana is illegal, yet smoking is and our government is literally making money off of us killing us by legalizing smoking! lol I am a smoker, but so nice to know my government has my health in mind, when they illegalize other substances, but than the biggest addictions they make money off of is Alcohol, and tobacco. They like their money, and don't mind killing people in the process!

  10. sunforged profile image63
    sunforgedposted 5 years ago

    In the book Brandology this specific example (images as a deterrent on cigarettes) was studied. Their findings were that the images had no negative effect on buying impulse and in fact spurred the danger seeking/rebel impulse.

    I lived in Buffalo for quite awhile, Canada has had these images for years, my canadian friends would order their cigarettes and the clerk would ask if they had a preference...

    "you want the Players with the fetus or the lungs?'

  11. psycheskinner profile image79
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    I think the whole point is that the total cost of smoking *should* be passed to the consumer rather than partially carried by the general taxpayer. That is why tobacco tax goes mainly into healthcare.

    1. Moderndayslave profile image59
      Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      May I ask where the tax actually goes? In NYC the tax is about $8.00 a pack

  12. psycheskinner profile image79
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    Despite the assertion made here, packaging does sometime effect what smokers know, and reduce population wide smoking rates. 

    http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/1 … ii19.short
    http://journals.lww.com/jphmp/Abstract/ … ng.11.aspx
    http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/1 … /i32.short

  13. sunforged profile image63
    sunforgedposted 5 years ago

    Link1: Study is about awareness of health risks in relation to smoking and has no bearing on whether health risks illustrated effects buying.

    Link2: Requires subscription - but from abstract" "Of those policies, substantial evidence indicates that higher taxes and clean air laws can have a large impact on smoking rates."

    again, nothing about packaging.

    Link3: Joe Camels influence on Youth smokers  (again, no correlation to negative buying influence)

    Your links in no way support your statement - what were they the top 3 returns in a google search? Did you even read them?

  14. sunforged profile image63
    sunforgedposted 5 years ago

    I dont think neuroscience is necessarily considered authoritative yet.

    But, here is a link of interest in relation to the study I referenced
    http://www.neurosciencemarketing.com/bl … rnings.htm

  15. psycheskinner profile image79
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    The abstract is a review paper covering dozena of studies some of which show decreases in population wide decreases and some don't--suggesting that how you do it is important.

    And yes, I googled it, which is one step more than just making it up.  I couldn't be bothered digging out my lecture notes from industrial psychology which suggested cost is most effective, no smoking zones second and packaging third.

    The other examples were to show that packing in general changes what people know about tobacco and it can make them smoke more (so why not less). 

    Something is a waste of money of it doesn't work.  It is lazy to just assume this is true unquestioningly because you like to bitch about how stupid people are--quite the self-fulfilling prophecy.

  16. prettydarkhorse profile image65
    prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago

    Perhaps a study about those who stopped smoking can be conducted. This is just my hypothesis : for those who stopped smoking, a big factor in the decision to stop is a real life close experience, like a death of a loved one from smoking related diseases.

    As a sidenote, I read that this risk behavior is transferred, a youth who grow up in a home with a smoking adult will likely develop the habit, so a more solid campaign for a value transformation is needed, strengthening of family values, which is difficult.

 
working