Can plain packaging prevent people from taking up smoking?

Can plain packaging prevent people from taking up smoking?

Today I saw a new billboard campaigning for plain cigarette packaging in the UK. If you are interested, here is the website: http://www.plainpacksprotects.co.uk/default.aspx

Copied from my essay for school about cigarette:

One possible solution to tackle the smoking crisis is plain logo-free cigarette packaging. Andrew Lansley, the health secretary of the United Kingdom, said, “The evidence is clear that packaging helps to recruit smokers, so it makes sense to consider having less attractive packaging. It's wrong that children are being attracted to smoke by glitzy designs on packets. We would prefer it if people did not smoke and adults will still be able to buy cigarettes, but children should be protected from the start” (qtd in “Make cigarette packaging plain, government urges”). Brand advertising on the packet should be replaced by a standardized logo-free plain drab dark brown packaging with the brand name and variety of the cigarette printed in small white typeface. To further deter smokers, over half of the packet should be covered with large prominent health warnings with grotesque pictures illustrating that particular warning. For example, the warning “Cigarettes cause lung cancer” can be accompanied by a picture of a human lung detailing the cancerous growth. However, such measures could incite backlashes from the cigarette industry and smokers. Australia, which has proposed a legislature to introduce plain, brand less cigarette packaging, is threatened by a multimillion-dollar lawsuit by Philip Morris International, the world's largest tobacco company. Philip Morris Asia representative Anne Edwards said, “… we aim to go ahead with a compensation claim for the loss to our business in Australia that would result from plain packaging” (qtd in “Philip Morris battles Australia on cigarette packaging”). Ms Edwards went on further to state, “We estimate [the lawsuit] may be in the billions (of dollars) but ultimately it will be up to this panel to decide” (qtd in “Philip Morris battles Australia on cigarette packaging”). In addition to Philip Morgan, the rest of the tobacco industry, trying to save their own skins rather than care about the health of the people, is fighting tooth and claw against the proposed changes in Australia, which is to be implemented from January 2012. The tobacco industry has been running TV propagandas stating that the proposed plain cigarette packaging laws are turning Australia into a “nanny state.” Cathie Keogh of Imperial Tobacco Australia told Australian broadcaster ABC, “Introducing plain packaging just takes away the ability of a consumer to identify our brand from another brand and that's of value to us” (qtd in “Australia plans plain-packaging rule for cigarettes”). British American Tobacco agrees that the government's plans will infringe upon international trademark and intellectual property laws. In summary, implementation of a law mandating standardized logo-less plain cigarette packaging, although it can deter people from starting smoking, can be costly as greedy and selfish tobacco companies try to seek lawsuits against governments trying to apply the laws.

To eradicate the world of the smoking habit, governments must remove all logos and mandate tobacco products be packed in plain boxes, ban smoking in public places, and offering stop smoking support for smokers that want to give up smoking.

Works cited

“Australia plans plain-packaging rule for cigarettes.” BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation, 29 April 2010. Web. 13 Oct 2011.
Casey, Linda. “Philip Morris threatens to sue Australia over plain packaging plan.” Packaging digest. UBM Canon, 28 July 2011. Web. 13 Oct 2011.
“Fact Sheet - Tobacco-Related Mortality - Smoking & Tobacco Use.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 21 March 2011. Web. 13 Oct 2011.
“Guide to Quitting Smoking.” American Cancer Society, Inc. American Cancer Society, Inc, 27 July 2011. Web. 13 Oct 2011.
Head, Tom. “Should Cigarettes Be Illegal?” About.com: Civil liberties. The New York Times Company, n.d. Web. 13 Oct 2011.
“Health Effects of Cigarette Smoking.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 21 March 2011. Web. 13 Oct 2011.
James I (King of England), First. A Counterblaste to Tobacco. Harvard University, 1604. 27. Print.
“List of smoking bans.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 10 Oct. 2011. Web. 13 Oct. 2011.
Macnair, Trisha. “How does smoking affect health?” BBC News Health. British Broadcasting Corporation, May 2011. Web. 13 Oct 2011.
“Make cigarette packaging plain, government urges.” BBC News Health. British Broadcasting Corporation, 21 November 2010. Web. 13 Oct 2011.
Newman, Tony. “Should We Ban Tobacco?” AlterNet. N.p., 2 August 2009. Web. 13 Oct 2011.
“Passive smoking.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 8 Oct. 2011. Web. 13 Oct. 2011.
“Philip Morris battles Australia on cigarette packaging.” BBC News Business. British Broadcasting Corporation, 27 June 2011. Web. 13 Oct 2011.
Thompson, Jeremy. “Cigarette rethink: Logos out, death and disease in.” ABC News. Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 07 April 2011. Web. 13 Oct 2011.
“Tobacco Free Initiative (TFI).” World Health Organization. World Health Organization, n.d. Web. 13 Oct 2011.
United Kingdom. National Health Service. Statistics on NHS Stop Smoking Services: England, April 2010 – March 2011. The Health and Social Care Information Centre, 2011. Web.
Yap, Abbey Grace. “Harmful Effects of Smoking.” Stop Smoking Advice. SmokingAdvice.info, n.d. Web. 13 Oct 2011.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

What's your view on gay marriage? Should that be allowed because of people's personal preference? How about drug use? Ultra-violent video games?

Since you ask: Read your bible. It's all there. However, since we live in this world I have sense enough to know that trying to inflict the biblical view on the unwilling goes nowhere fast. Once God's Kingdom gets set up on Earth as it is in Heaven, things will be different. Until then, though, I can only point the way-- I can't get legislation passed to even make life unpleasant for people who refuse to walk in the way.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Since you ask: Read your bible. It's all there.

So, it's bad to act like a mother, but fine to act as a Father.

After German doctors became the first to identify the link between smoking and lung cancer,[1] Nazi Germany initiated a strong anti-tobacco movement[2] and led the first public anti-smoking campaign in modern history.

source

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

So, it's bad to act like a mother, but fine to act as a Father.

If mjmsprt40 is acting in the name of the Father, you are acting in the name of the Fuhrer...

I call Godwin. Thread over.

Wait, wait, don't go yet, I didn't explained what smoking is about. If you want to ban it, at least know what are you banning.

Smoking is about punctuating life.
The same way a writer uses points, comas, paragraphs, reticences, etc to structure and realm his text, also a smoker uses cigarretes for the same reason.
When he finishes doing something, he lights a cigarette before start doing a different thing, he's using that cigarette as a point and paragraph.
When saying something intended to make people reflect for a moment about it, he lights a cigarette, using it as reticences...
And so on.

Therefore, smoking is a civilizational act.
Many people don't know how to write, many people don't know how to live.
Now you can ban me. (lighting a cigarette at this very moment )

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Smoking is about punctuating life. The same way a writer uses points, comas, paragraphs, reticences, etc to structure and realm his text, also a smoker uses cigarretes for the same reason.When he finishes doing something, he lights a cigarette before start doing a different thing, he's using that cigarette as a point and paragraph.When saying something intended to make people reflect for a moment about it, he lights a cigarette, using it as reticences...And so on.

I like to relax and take a break by punching small children. If I can't do mine, you can't do yours.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Smoking is about punctuating life. The same way a writer uses points, comas, paragraphs, reticences, etc to structure and realm his text, also a smoker uses cigarretes for the same reason.When he finishes doing something, he lights a cigarette before start doing a different thing, he's using that cigarette as a point and paragraph.When saying something intended to make people reflect for a moment about it, he lights a cigarette, using it as reticences...And so on.

I like to relax and take a break by punching small children. If I can't do mine, you can't do yours.

I'm letting you off easy this time. Never give me an opening like that, I'll take it and run with it. Ask beiren.

Wo-ho, you had better watch what you're doing Belfrager. Just think of the strain of a Chicagoan lorry driver on the run after a day behind the wheel. Phew, you are taking a responsibility there?!

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Wo-ho, you had better watch what you're doing Belfrager. Just think of the strain of a Chicagoan lorry driver on the run after a day behind the wheel. Phew, you are taking a responsibility there?!

Y'all had better re-read that. I was responding to JSP, not Bel.

I smoked during ~15 years and then stopped smoking. I don't smoke for ~2.5 years already.

I can say that everything made against selling cigarettes is good. So, don't use nice bright cigarette boxes, use plain packaging instead - few more people will stop smoking or will not start. Don't show ads with sexy girl smoking, show gas cameras instead - few more people will stop smoking or will not start. Don't show cool cowboys smoking, make smoking anti-social instead - few more people will stop smoking or will not start. Etc, etc, etc.

Final result will be good for everybody including those who defends smoking now.

Johnnysaucep'n, I think that the question of stinky smoke in public places should be about being considerate of others. Socially. It should not be law. When I smoke in public open-air areas I test the wind and choose to smoke downwind so that nobody else might be bothered by my smoke. Everyone should do that. But it should not be law.

Laws about where one can drink one's pint - I don't see how they are good.

However, I do agree that private clubs and such have the right to say whether smoking or drinking or whatever is allowed on their premises. That is a local regulation. Local regulation is different from law. Law is universal. Some places should be allowed to invite smokers. Some places should be allowed to invite drinkers. Any private place should be allowed to forbid one or the other or whatnot. The law should be there for the purpose of making sure that no group is completely screwed over.

Smoking outside near a door: if it were the case that smoking outside near a door increased the chances of various particulate-related diseases for those who went thru the door then it would be reasonable to make a law about it. The fact is that inhaling one whiff of smoke whilst going thru a door has no effect on one's health. Therefore, the question is about politeness as to who likes or dislikes what environment. It isn't a law thing, it's a social politeness thing.

Originally posted by sergey-pypyrev:

don't use nice bright cigarette boxes, use plain packaging instead - few more people will stop smoking or will not start.

Hmmm... Would that really make a difference? Have there been studies showing that? Even in the absence of such studies, what logical arguments support that?

Sure, it might be that if packaging were not regulated there could be all sorts of ridiculously attractive advertisements. But going to the extreme of limiting informational statements or simple colors on packaging is lame - asinine - retarded.

Around my neck of the woods we have stuff for sale in plain packaging. Flour, soda pop, sugar, canned goods, paper towels and toilet paper just to name a few things. It comes in plain white paper with black letters stating the generic name of the product. It's cheaper than the name-brand stuff and some of it is just as good, so it sells. I have a sneaking suspicion that cigarettes would sell this way too. Maybe more, if they get the street rep that they're just as good and cheaper than name brand.

Originally posted by aefields:

Originally posted by sergey-pypyrev:

don't use nice bright cigarette boxes, use plain packaging instead - few more people will stop smoking or will not start.

Hmmm... Would that really make a difference? Have there been studies showing that? Even in the absence of such studies, what logical arguments support that?

Logic is pretty simple here. People like shiny things. Corporations spend billions dollars to make their products look better. Why? Because shiny things sell better. So, if we want to decrease sales - we shouldn't allow corporations to improve appearance of their products.

About studies - read this thread. It looks like there were indeed studies on this.

Originally posted by sergey-pypyrev:

Logic is pretty simple here. People like shiny things. Corporations spend billions dollars to make their products look better. Why? Because shiny things sell better.

They do? Cigarette packaging has looked exactly the same as long as I can remember, and a couple of packages my dad's got lying around from back in the '70s when he smoked are no different either — except for those "smoking kills, blablalba" texts, of course.

Originally posted by sergey-pypyrev:

Originally posted by aefields:

Originally posted by sergey-pypyrev:

don't use nice bright cigarette boxes, use plain packaging instead - few more people will stop smoking or will not start.

Hmmm... Would that really make a difference? Have there been studies showing that? Even in the absence of such studies, what logical arguments support that?

Logic is pretty simple here. People like shiny things. Corporations spend billions dollars to make their products look better. Why? Because shiny things sell better. So, if we want to decrease sales - we shouldn't allow corporations to improve appearance of their products.

I have my doubts. First because, as I just mentioned, generic products do, in fact, sell. People buy it. So, if you package cigarettes in plain white packaging with the word "Cigarettes" on it, they will sell. If people think they're saving money on generic packaging, they may even buy more.

Second, around here at least there's brand loyalty. I know people who smoke Newports and nothing else. So, as long as the package says "Newports", they'll buy it. I note that among the brands sold around here, Newport has one of the plainer labels, white with green borders if I remember right. Others won't touch anything that's not "Marlboro", others want "Lucky Strike" and so on. So long as the package contains the company name, it'll sell even if it is in a plain white wrapper.

Howsomever, now I know how to sell you something. You like shiny things, so if I make it flash in the sunlight I can sell you anything and you'll buy it. Man, I know where a goldmine is, all I have to do is figure out how to make a bag of railroad gravel sparkle in the sun and you'll buy as much as I can sell you.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Originally posted by sergey-pypyrev:

Logic is pretty simple here. People like shiny things. Corporations spend billions dollars to make their products look better. Why? Because shiny things sell better.

They do? Cigarette packaging has looked exactly the same as long as I can remember, and a couple of packages my dad's got lying around from back in the '70s when he smoked are no different either — except for those "smoking kills, blablalba" texts, of course.

May of confused people with cats.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Around my neck of the woods we have stuff for sale in plain packaging. Flour, soda pop, sugar, canned goods, paper towels and toilet paper just to name a few things. It comes in plain white paper with black letters stating the generic name of the product. It's cheaper than the name-brand stuff and some of it is just as good, so it sells. I have a sneaking suspicion that cigarettes would sell this way too. Maybe more, if they get the street rep that they're just as good and cheaper than name brand.

You are an adult person who has luxury not to care much about opinions of other people.

But now imagine teenager who wants to look like Arnold with cigar:



This teenager looks at box of Parliament:



What does this teenager think now? Stylish design, hard pack, expensive, cool. In this context high price of product will be an additional benefit.

What will he think if he will see plain packaging? Ant-social habit.

Originally posted by sergey-pypyrev:

But now imagine teenager who wants to look like Arnold with cigar:

That'd be better than cigarettes, seeing how you don't inhale them and all that.

I like a good cigar every once in awhile.

I don't want my posts to promote smoking. So, I add a pic that causes aversion for me:



What if cigarettes will have this packaging? Will it cause few more people to stop smoking?

BTW, as a former smoker I know that even with this packaging many people will continue to smoke. But few more will stop, few more will not start.

Is there anybody here who don't see difference between this packaging and Parliament box above?

Originally posted by sergey-pypyrev:

What if cigarettes will have this packaging?

Most of those butts are only half smoked. I'd say they're wasting smokes.

Originally posted by sergey-pypyrev:

I don't want my posts to promote smoking. So, I add a pic that causes aversion for me:

I think fresh they look about equally disgusting — that unappetizing filter plays some part too.

Originally posted by sergey-pypyrev:

What if cigarettes will have this packaging? Will it cause few more people to stop smoking?

I have already agreed with that: what I said is that plain packaging, meaning actually plain packaging, like Davidoff, is significantly more attractive than Marlboro, Parliament, Lucky Strike and what not.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

I have my doubts. First because, as I just mentioned, generic products do, in fact, sell. People buy it. So, if you package cigarettes in plain white packaging with the word "Cigarettes" on it, they will sell. If people think they're saving money on generic packaging, they may even buy more.

If the manufacturers want to lower their prices to encourage sales, that's up to them.

The point here is not to make it difficult to continue smoking, but to limit the appeal to new smokers. It may seem ridiculous to think that kids might be attracted to smoking because of the cool pack designs, but it appears to be true.

Originally posted by aefields:

Johnnysaucep'n, I think that the question of stinky smoke in public places should be about being considerate of others. Socially. It should not be law. When I smoke in public open-air areas I test the wind and choose to smoke downwind so that nobody else might be bothered by my smoke. Everyone should do that. But it should not be law.

If it were a social thing - if people recognised that smoking indoors, in a place where lots of people have to work - then it would already have died out. Information on the potential dangers of second-hand smoke has been available for decades. But people didn't opt to voluntarily go outside. In other words, they chose to be anti-social. If you're already thoughtful, then great, such laws won't affect you in any way.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

but to limit the appeal to new smokers.

But Arnold looks so damn cool burnin' that stogie.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

cool pack designs,

Word.


This rockin' pack practically jumps off the shelf at you.









Perhaps if the pack could taze you when you open it...

Originally posted by ensbb3:

Word.

This rockin' pack practically jumps off the shelf at you.

Believe it or not, many people have put years of work into that packaging to make it appealing.

Originally posted by ensbb3:

Perhaps if the pack could taze you when you open it...

Too expensive. Nice idea, though.

Forget packaging, a much more simple way to make me stop smoking would be paying me one million euros ( sorry, I don't accept dollars) for stop smoking. Considering the quantity of billions of unfortunate passive smokers that are going to die due to my smoke, I think that's a very inexpensive solution for each nonsmoker's live saved.

Packaging is part of it, purpose can be another. Kids do it to look cool in front of other kids, and the packaging really makes no difference. I used to work in a hammershop, and smoking or not would have made no difference because of all the stuff you breathed in every day anyway.

Then, there are people who smoke to disappear. Not so much anymore because these days modern electronics defeats it, but there was a day when if you wanted to disappear, smoking heavily was the way to do it.

Now, that's my kind of smoking.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Packaging is part of it, purpose can be another. Kids do it to look cool in front of other kids, and the packaging really makes no difference.

Packaging does make difference. Appearance sells a product. This is a fact known to corporations, but not to some people.

Let's say a boy has first dating with a girl. In our days when he smokes he can think: "I am cool. I look like Arnold. My nice box of cigarettes is a great addition to my image."

What if his packaging will be like this:



He is likely to think something like: "She shouldn't see what is drawn on my box of cigarettes."

Originally posted by sergey-pypyrev:

Let's say a boy has first dating with a girl. In our days when he smokes he can think: "I am cool. I look like Arnold. My nice box of cigarettes is a great addition to my image."

Methinks I may understand now. Whimsical notions, really.

Second thing I noticed; you get five extra smokes in that pack.

The problem here is studies aren't going to change human nature outside controlled conditions. We seek stimulus. If you like, you'll seek and the youngsters may just turn your pretty packaging efforts into a joke when cigarettes develop nicknames based on the picture on the box and little else changes. Time could be spent on much more serious issues. With all the tax breaks and pay raise add-ons it'll take to pass legislation like this, it's not worth it.

Originally posted by ensbb3:

Methinks I may understand now. Whimsical notions, really.

They are not so whimsical really. Even you wrote earlier that Arnold looks so cool, and you are not teenager. So, tv, art, pack itself worked during dozens years to say us: smoking is cool. And people began to think that smoking is at least normal (if not cool).

Now if tv, art, and even pack will say that smoking is bad idea - then in some time from now people will begin to think that it is really bad idea.

This is reality in which we live - our minds are manipulated by governments, corporations, media, etc.

Originally posted by ensbb3:

The problem here is studies aren't going to change human nature outside controlled conditions.

Au contraire. There are a range of tools and techniques used to offset such experimental error.

Did you know that painkillers in colourful packaging (or a known brand name) are actually better at blocking pain than exactly the same painkillers in plain packaging? Or that green pills are better at pain relief than red ones?

Originally posted by sergey-pypyrev:

Even you wrote earlier that Arnold looks so cool, and you are not teenager

Yeah, I have a bad sense of humor tho.

Originally posted by sergey-pypyrev:

Now if tv, art, and even pack will say that smoking is bad idea - then in some time from now people will begin to think that it is really bad idea.This is reality in which we live - our minds are manipulated by governments, corporations, media, etc.

Free enterprise? Anyone? Let's take a ride on the perspective train here...

Cigarettes already contain a larger warning than the food you eat or medicine you take has on it... Only they aren't required to openly advertise the consequences of not paying attention to warnings. Drug commercials are the worst, in fact. The "symptoms may include: bla, bla, blah" is lost in the whimsical world the commercial creates. You can experience lost of muscle control, heart attack or respiratory failure but your bladder control issues will be solved? I'll just go pee more, thx. Nevermind, a doctor will prescribe this drug that will likely be recalled in a few years, only they are being hailed as a 'treatment' just bad side effects. Smoking is known to be bad for you, same as alcohol, but there are far less restrictions on it's advertising and only slightly more there than prescription drugs. Do we not have bigger fish to fry without stepping all over pandora's box? Once you start controlling who can and can't advertise and how you risk it being misused. Educate people and stop making the decisions for them... That's how you live free.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Did you know that painkillers in colourful packaging (or a known brand name) are actually better at blocking pain than exactly the same painkillers in plain packaging? Or that green pills are better at pain relief than red ones?

placebo effect Did you know you don't need painkillers to stop pain...? You can even will it away. It's a mind trick I taught my son for scrapes but he can effectively block pains I couldn't of because he has no doubt. He's always been told it works by someone he trusts therefore it works much better for him. "Mind games" it's what this thread is all about, isn't it? Only some backfire...

Just out of curiosity: How long have cigarettes been called "cancer sticks", "coffin nails" and so on-- street slang names given to them by the people who smoke them, continue to do so or start smoking? It's been a while.

Cowboy killers

The law of unintended effects:



Yes, folks, in some people the desire to look strong and tough to your friends can have this effect. Around here, the law has required a "Surgeon General's Warning" on every pack of cigarettes sold since about 1968. Lately, the warnings have gotten more graphic-- not unlike the stuff we've seen displayed on this thread. They still sell cigarettes.

You have to pull a warning out of the pack first thing that can resemble this so called "plain packaging" Marlboro uses most of it for advertising with a surgeons general's warring equal to the boxes, but I've seen worse... or better, depending on your side of this.

Originally posted by sergey-pypyrev:

. People like shiny things...

Wheee! Some birds like shiny things. People? So, are you saying that there are some humans who react to shiny stuff as if they were birds? Hmmm... if so, how shoud we relate to these bird people?

I think that we should answer only one question: whether or not appearance of product affects it sales.

If answer is yes - then we should agree that plain packaging will reduce number of smokers. Of course, there could be some strange exceptions like start smoking because it became cheaper or because this way I will show my protest against government or whatever else reason can be to buy product that does not look attractive (please note: I talk about new potential smokers here).

But net effect is clear: if appearance of product affects sales, then plain packaging will reduce number of smokers. Please note: I say REDUCE, not completely ELIMINATE.

So, here is a small simple question: does appearance of product affect sales?

Originally posted by aefields:

Wheee! Some birds like shiny things. People? So, are you saying that there are some humans who react to shiny stuff as if they were birds? Hmmm... if so, how shoud we relate to these bird people?

Of course, I used word "shiny" as metaphor meaning "attractive", "nice looking", "standing out of crowd", "catching attention", etc. I'm sorry that some people can not understand metaphors.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by aefields:

Johnnysaucep'n, I think that the question of stinky smoke in public places should be about being considerate of others. Socially. It should not be law. When I smoke in public open-air areas I test the wind and choose to smoke downwind so that nobody else might be bothered by my smoke. Everyone should do that. But it should not be law.

If it were a social thing - if people recognised that smoking indoors, in a place where lots of people have to work -

Mmmh, that is absolutely not what I was talking about. Outdoors.
A pile-up of smoke indoors should be subject to law: we agree, yes? I was railing against laws about where people can smoke outside. By "open-air areas" I mean places like sidewalks, parks... places in the open air. Open air? Comprende?

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Just out of curiosity: How long have cigarettes been called "cancer sticks", "coffin nails" and so on-- street slang names given to them by the people who smoke them, continue to do so or start smoking? It's been a while.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Lately, the warnings have gotten more graphic-- not unlike the stuff we've seen displayed on this thread. They still sell cigarettes.

You still seem to think that the purpose of this plan is to make people who already smoke give up. That's not the case. It would be nice if it worked that way, but it's not the aim. From the OP:

“The evidence is clear that packaging helps to recruit smokers, so it makes sense to consider having less attractive packaging. It's wrong that children are being attracted to smoke by glitzy designs on packets. We would prefer it if people did not smoke and adults will still be able to buy cigarettes, but children should be protected from the start”

The aim is to put people off starting.

Originally posted by sergey-pypyrev:

Originally posted by aefields:

Wheee! Some birds like shiny things. People? So, are you saying that there are some humans who react to shiny stuff as if they were birds? Hmmm... if so, how shoud we relate to these bird people?

Of course, I used word "shiny" as metaphor meaning "attractive", "nice looking", "standing out of crowd", "catching attention", etc. I'm sorry that some people can not understand metaphors.

Oh, but we DO understand what you wrote. If I polish up some railroad gravel so it sparkles in the sun, you'll buy it because it's shiny. Seems simple enough, and there are a couple of railroad lines within walking distance of where I live. What a gold mine!!!!

Originally posted by sergey-pypyrev:

Originally posted by aefields:

Wheee! Some birds like shiny things. People? So, are you saying that there are some humans who react to shiny stuff as if they were birds? Hmmm... if so, how shoud we relate to these bird people?

Of course, I used word "shiny" as metaphor meaning "attractive", "nice looking", "standing out of crowd", "catching attention", etc. I'm sorry that some people can not understand metaphors.

Well, yes, "shiny" is a nice universal term for those. (It is a good metaphor)
To be honest: I say that those humans who react to "shiny" suff are like birds. Don't you agree? It sounds like you do. They are like animals with the brain the size of a pea. How should we relate to them?

Originally posted by aefields:

Well, yes, "shiny" is a nice universal term for those. (It is a good metaphor)
To be honest: I say that those humans who react to "shiny" suff are like birds. Don't you agree? It sounds like you do. They are like animals with the brain the size of a pea. How should we relate to them?

I don't agree. All people (including you) react to "shiny" stuff. Look at Arnold pic above - doesn't he look "shiny"? Even if he is not "shiny" for you, most of people will agree that he is indeed "shiny". This does not make them half-brained.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Oh, but we DO understand what you wrote. If I polish up some railroad gravel so it sparkles in the sun, you'll buy it because it's shiny. Seems simple enough, and there are a couple of railroad lines within walking distance of where I live. What a gold mine!!!!

Originally posted by aefields:

To be honest: I say that those humans who react to "shiny" suff are like birds. Don't you agree? It sounds like you do. They are like animals with the brain the size of a pea. How should we relate to them?

He said "people like shiny things", not "being shiny is enough for people to like things".

Originally posted by aefields:

A pile-up of smoke indoors should be subject to law: we agree, yes? I was railing against laws about where people can smoke outside. By "open-air areas" I mean places like sidewalks, parks... places in the open air. Open air? Comprende?

Yes. What's your point? Smoke doesn't have to be indoors to be a problem. Littering, smell and fires are still problems. I don't know of many places that have banned outdoor smoking.

Meh. Shiny? Not me.
In my opinion, that does make them half-brained. Perhaps less than half. Hind-brained. Pitiable, but not worth pity.

Originally posted by sergey-pypyrev:

Originally posted by aefields:

Well, yes, "shiny" is a nice universal term for those. (It is a good metaphor)
To be honest: I say that those humans who react to "shiny" suff are like birds. Don't you agree? It sounds like you do. They are like animals with the brain the size of a pea. How should we relate to them?

I don't agree. All people (including you) react to "shiny" stuff. Look at Arnold pic above - doesn't he look "shiny"? Even if he is not "shiny" for you, most of people will agree that he is indeed "shiny". This does not make them half-brained.

I'm trying to remember the last time I bought something because it was shiny. The idea does appear to work with diamonds, but apart from that I don't know of anything in common use which is bought because it is shiny. Cigarettes aren't sold in shiny packs, but if you want one I think you can buy a shiny stainless steel cigarette box to put your favorite cancer sticks in. High-end lighters tend to be shiny, so maybe I'll give you that one. Beyond that-- not so much. The people I know who smoke buy one brand instead of another because they believe their choice of cigarette tastes better than the others do, not because the package is glitzier.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Yes. What's your point? Smoke doesn't have to be indoors to be a problem. Littering, smell and fires are still problems. I don't know of many places that have banned outdoor smoking.

Littering and smell are problems. Problems that should be adressed socially, not thru law.
Oregon now has a law that one must not smoke within ten feet of a door. Outside. It is asinine.

Good thing that you don't know of many places that have banned outdoor smoking. It is a bad thing and the fewer places that do it the better.