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.

Smoking was once considered healthy based on research and studies. What makes this new study so unquestionably right besides it states what you wanna believe? (nothing)

Originally posted by ensbb3:

I'm gonna die someday, fact.

That never occurred to me. Thanks.

Anybody else want to share personal info?

Originally posted by ensbb3:

I was supposed to have a flying car by now too.

It's called Pan Am.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Captain Sisko is still waiting in the 24th century for his flying car. I reckon we have a way to go before we get one.

That's a good thing, too. People like to play bumpercars on the freeway as it is, without having to worry about going up and down...

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Originally posted by ensbb3:

I'm gonna die someday, fact.

That never occurred to me. Thanks.

Anybody else want to share personal info?

Aw crap! Did I TMI again?
poop, now everyone knows.

Originally posted by ensbb3:

Yet based on some crazy research where kids didn't pick the (lol) 'plain' packs some nonsmokers seem to think that they have the answer.

Should former smoker (me) counted as "smoker" or "nonsmoker"?

Originally posted by ensbb3:

Smoking was once considered healthy based on research and studies.

It looks like this research was funded by tobacco industry. Based on personal experience I can say that there is nothing healthy in smoking.

so you wanna tell me the pretty pack attracted you to smoking?

Of course... he who funds determines the results, more or less.

Originally posted by ensbb3:

so you wanna tell me the pretty pack attracted you to smoking?

I can't say why exactly I started to smoke. I first tried it, then liked it, then there was a long period (few years) when I smoked occasionally. Finally I started to smoke every day. It was beginning of 90's, at that time smoking was considered as normal, and in my country even ads on TV were allowed.

So, question is: if I will be 20 years younger, will I start to smoke in beginning of 10's? Current situation is very different from 90's. Smoking is considered to be anti-social, ads are denied, most of people around me do not smoke, government discusses new anti-smoking laws. Definitely, this environment is less friendly for smokers. Now add ugly pack...

yeah, I don't think I really have to reply. Thanks for being honest.

Originally posted by ensbb3:

hypocrisy? Doubtful. Unless you add meaning I didn't. I'm suggesting it people's right to do things "unhealthy" for them. It's their decision not yours or mine. I raged against the continuous posting of antismoking propaganda based on some yet undefined research that goes against what every smoker has said. The packaging had no sway in my decision to smoke, or anyone else's that's cared to comment. Yet based on some crazy research where kids didn't pick the (lol) 'plain' packs some nonsmokers seem to think that they have the answer.

The improper use of government controlled advertising, where it's mandatory to put out negative ads for your product even tho other products with similar effects aren't required to, is a far greater risk to society as a whole than smokers. When you let how well lobbyists do their job determine who gets more favorable advertising you're screwing everyone... And that's where this could easily lead.

I'm confused. First, you say that packaging and advertising held no sway in your decision to smoke, or to anyone else's. And then you say that you're upset at the government for putting what you consider to be advertising on cigarette packaging.

Surely, if advertising doesn't affect your choice in cigarettes, then this measure would make precisely no difference to smokers at all.

I don't see how you can consider cigarette health warnings to be a shocking abuse, when we also have packaging of other products bristling with traffic-light warnings over fat and sugar content, warnings that products may contain nuts, and all the rest. The government needs to regulate advertising - it's one thing to make your product sound as good as it can, but the public still needs to be informed about what they're buying.

covering the box with negative ads is different than warning labels. At this point you're just trying to be difficult.

should skydiving instructors be required to pass out pamphlets showing failed attempts pre-flight? Or maybe car salesmen should show crash footage to potential customers to be sure they really want a car? Should airlines be required to brief passengers on the planes that their airline has lost when a customer wants a ticket?

silly questions to you?

How about prescription drugs? I actually know people who have took the prescriptions that are supposed to help you quit smoking... they come with a massive warning in (not on) the box, all fine print nothing you look at and wanna read (they didn't BTW) and the jist of it is smoking is safer than that stuff... But a doctor gave them that crap.

Double standards. That's what my arguments have revolved around. It's not worth the risk when some companies can have better ties to government than others. Smoking is, has been and foreseeablely will continue to decline. There's no need to take steps that have the potential to open the door on such bad possibilities. Limiting advertising is one thing. Forcing them to put out only negative propaganda for their product is another.

You just wanna ban it. Progress isn't enough?

Given the nature of this discussion, just banning tobacco would at least be the honest approach. This "plain pack propaganda" stuff is nonsense, it shows that the government isn't yet willing to wean itself off of the tax gravytrain that tobacco represents (half or more of the price of a pack of cigarettes in the Chicago area is taxes, it's more or less depending on where you buy your smokes). Ban tobacco, and the tax gravytrain screeches to a halt.

Because we've seen what banning of a popular but unhealthy product have done. The prohibition is an example.

Originally posted by ensbb3:

should skydiving instructors be required to pass out pamphlets showing failed attempts pre-flight? Or maybe car salesmen should show crash footage to potential customers to be sure they really want a car? Should airlines be required to brief passengers on the planes that their airline has lost when a customer wants a ticket? silly questions to you?

Yes. Completely absurd. For one, safety warnings are already an inherent part of skydiving lessons, and airline take-off procedures. Cars are not chemically addictive - Cars cause death through driving conditions, driver error, or poor maintenance - all of which are already regulated and tested via government intervention. If someone outside gets lung cancer from a car, it's because of pollution emissions, which are also regulated by the government.

Originally posted by ensbb3:

You just wanna ban it. Progress isn't enough?

Do I? *blinks* New to me.

Semantics really. You want the results of a ban without the terminology.

Lol, safety procedure before takeoff. So ignoring what you're doing could kill you is okay if it will outright kill you? Those saftey procedures are gonna help you so much as you fall out of the sky, in both cases. This is prolly why experienced skydivers and pilots never crash.

You can smoke and never get cancer, y'all know that right? You can also never smoke and get it... So again, who are you to decide what's best? I'm not, nor ever claimed to know what's best, that's on you guys.

Maybe birth certificates should have warnings and graphics of illnesses... After all it clear living is the leading cause of illness.

That's why doctor said smoking can increase the risk of cancer. Also, it has been proven that smoking can cause cancer... eventually. Are you trying to dispute that fact?

Learn to read.

By your logic:

Smoking can increase the chance of death (not disputing that). So it should be removed/discouraged.

The more you fly the greater the chances of death in a plane crash... so flying should be frowned on and discouraged.

Do try to think about that before you respond. The world can't be child proofed. If you wanna get rid of one thing that increases the chances of dying we may as well look at them all...

Love how you both are skipping over the part I'm actually saying for the silly side points I'm comparIng your mindset to, btw.

Do I have to rationalize in saying tobacco is bad for you. Yes flying can increase the risk of death. But every effort is done to minimize this. But unlike flying you don't need to smoke. You won't die if you did.

surprise face. You missed the point again.

The comparison is meant to be silly to you. And none of your last few posts or mine have jack to do with any point I am really making.

You can't idiot proof the world because idiots are so darned ingenious.

OK, quickie point: Smoking is dangerous. So are a lot of other things. It might kill you. So might a long list of other things. Life on this planet comes with a guarantee that you're going to die of something, sooner or later, and nobody guarantees you your next breathe-- except maybe God, who most of you posting here claim not to believe in anyway.

So, where does that leave us? It leaves us with a bunch of people who believe they have the right to be everybody else's mommy, whether or not full grown adults need a mommy or have asked for one.

What, do you think people don't know smoking is dangerous and can cause cancer? Here in the states, every pack sold has had the surgeon general's warning posted on the side of the pack since 1968 or thereabouts. The warnings have gotten more stringent over the years. Recently, about the only thing we haven't got is the entire pack covered with photos of cancer like you want, but the label on the side of the pack makes it clear that's what you're risking all the same. They have anti-smoking ads on TV. The latest one tells you how to live with a stoma, and ends with the idea that you can quit smoking so you don't have to get a stoma.

So, what more can be done? "Plain Packaging" is really likely to be laughed at, in truth I don't expect it to work.

But ensbb doesn't believe cigarette is harmful...

Originally posted by wikipedian:

But ensbb doesn't believe cigarette is harmful...

Whether he believes it or not, you're still not his appointed mommy. He buys the pack, may read the warning on the side of the pack, and decides to light up anyway. That's his choice. Besides, I haven't seen anything he's posted that says he doesn't believe it's harmful. He's accepted the risk and chosen to do it anyway.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

First, you say that packaging and advertising held no sway in your decision to smoke, or to anyone else's. And then you say that you're upset at the government for putting what you consider to be advertising on cigarette packaging.

Surely, if advertising doesn't affect your choice in cigarettes, then this measure would make precisely no difference to smokers

"to smokers"
Well, no, not to smokers as such. It makes a difference to people who are for freedom. It is necessary for government to require health information to be put on packages. It is wrong, and asinine, for government to require propaganda on packaging. That's the difference. See? Get it?

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by ensbb3:

should skydiving instructors be required to pass out pamphlets showing failed attempts pre-flight? Or maybe car salesmen should show crash footage to potential customers to be sure they really want a car? Should airlines be required to brief passengers on the planes that their airline has lost when a customer wants a ticket? silly questions to you?

Yes. Completely absurd. For one, safety warnings are already an inherent part of skydiving lessons, and airline take-off procedures.

Fail. The safety warnings do not show dead people. That's the difference. The (non)plain packaging with sick people on it.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Do I have to rationalize in saying tobacco is bad for you. Yes flying can increase the risk of death. But every effort is done to minimize this. But unlike flying you don't need to smoke. You won't die if you did.

You don't need to fly. Nobody does. You don't need to drive a car. Nobody does. Driving kills four thousand people every year in the U.S. alone. People want to fly and want to drive. It is good that they are allowed to. It would be bad to take away their rights to participate in these dangerous activities.

Originally posted by aefields:

People want to fly and want to drive.

Flying and driving have positive effects. Can you tell about any positive effect of smoking?

Originally posted by ensbb3:

Semantics really. You want the results of a ban without the terminology.

I'm sorry, but that's the argument you want to have, not the one that's actually going on. Do you actually want more smokers? Do you want your (hypothetical) children taking up smoking? Do you think it would probably be better for society if fewer people decided to take up smoking, or took the choice to give up? If so, then we're on the same side. I assume you would like to see fewer people dying of lung disease just as much as I would. Then we're both in favour of the results of a ban, but neither of us wants it to go that far. We would both like people to give up voluntarily.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Whether he believes it or not, you're still not his appointed mommy. He buys the pack, may read the warning on the side of the pack, and decides to light up anyway. That's his choice.

Yes, and he will continue to do so. So surely, everyone's happy.

Originally posted by aefields:

That's the difference. See? Get it?

Yes, I get what you're saying. You're wrong. Your argument hinges on one type of warning being "health information" and a second type being "propaganda". That's a false dichotomy.

You would be up in arms if they tried to ban cigarettes, and yet you complain when they try to do something other than a ban, that it's as good as a ban. You can't have it both ways. This measure is a compromise that doesn't affect your ability to buy cigarettes. I don't want to ban cigarettes, my closest friends are smokers and I've never once judged them for it. But since some people here think I'm adopting a position of wanting to ban them, I'm willing to play Devil's Advocate for you.

Cars kill people. Absolutely no doubt about it. There is much government propaganda each year, particularly around Xmas, that confirm it. And yes, they feature dead people. Planes kill people, although not as many. Guns kill people. Cigarettes kill people - I don't think even you can argue against that.

But cars also take people to hospital. They save lives. They take people to work, which keeps the economy turning. Planes take people on holiday, to conferences, to meetings, to visit family. It could be argued (and has been, on other threads) that guns serve a practical purpose.

What is the point of cigarettes? You seem to have latched onto cigarettes as some kind of symbol of freedom, but put that question aside and tell me: why do cigarettes matter? What do cigarettes actually do that's worth saving? They're highly addictive (one of the hardest to break, apparently), provide only minor relaxant and stimulant properties, and, well, that's it. People smoke them because they smoke them, that's all.

The CDC calls tobacco addiction, "the single most important preventable risk to human health in developed countries and an important cause of premature death worldwide." The rest of us have to deal with this stuff.

To take another comparison - alcohol does ruin lives. Some people are addicted to alcohol, and it is a terrible thing. But equally, many, many more people enjoy alcohol without any destructive aftereffects. There are many people out there calling for a ban on alcohol. But I'm not one of them, partly because it hasn't worked in the past, but mostly because I don't believe the risk/value ratio has reached a tipping point.

All this talk of freedom is self-righteous nonsense. Lots of things are banned because of their health risks - give me a good reason why cigarettes should be an exception.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Do you want your (hypothetical) children taking up smoking?

Why hypothetical children? I think that ensbb3 has one real kid.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

But cars also take people to hospital. They save lives. They take people to work, which keeps the economy turning. Planes take people on holiday, to conferences, to meetings, to visit family. It could be argued (and has been, on other threads) that guns serve a practical purpose.

What is the point of cigarettes? You seem to have latched onto cigarettes as some kind of symbol of freedom, but put that question aside and tell me: why do cigarettes matter? What do cigarettes actually do that's worth saving?

Yes, yes, yes. I also want to hear answer to these questions.

Originally posted by sergey-pypyrev:

Why hypothetical children? I think that ensbb3 has one real kid.

Yeah, but let's not get personal about it! For the sake of the discussion, it shouldn't matter whether he has one kid, no kids, or lots of kids.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

The CDC calls tobacco addiction, "the single most important preventable risk to human health in developed countries and an important cause of premature death worldwide." The rest of us have to deal with this stuff.

Maybe it's because they're American and if anything's a symbol of American freedom it's the car, certainly not the cigarette, but aren't small dust particles as created by cars a much bigger preventable risk? Besides that I probably agree with all you said.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Maybe it's because they're American and if anything's a symbol of American freedom it's the car, certainly not the cigarette, but aren't small dust particles as created by cars a much bigger preventable risk? Besides that I probably agree with all you said.

Funnily enough, the CDC has plenty to say on that subject too.

I can't speak for the US government, but I assume it's much the same as ours - the do all seem to have regulations on emissions and pollutions, and measures that they must implement in order to achieve them, that are enforced on the manufacturers. Much the same as manufacturing standards being enforced on cigarettes. But given that the measures are not visible to the consumer, people are less likely to be up in arms about that.

You get emissions tested once a year (here). Very visible to the customer and people don't like it much when new requirements come around either. I actually failed due to a newer one last year, gas cap didn't hold proper seal. Nothing $15 at the parts house and $10 (more) for retesting didn't solve.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by sergey-pypyrev:

Why hypothetical children? I think that ensbb3 has one real kid.

Yeah, but let's not get personal about it! For the sake of the discussion, it shouldn't matter whether he has one kid, no kids, or lots of kids.

To answer the question. No, I would not be happy if he started smoking. He pressures me to quit tho (truth is it's working). I would prolly accept it if he did when he's old enough... not before.

I'm not a heavy smoker, really. I do burn full flavors, but out of a pack I prolly let half just burn away or toss 'em partially smoked. It's more a habit of something to do. Usually while driving or drinking. About the only time I fully smoke one is after I eat a big meal... Ah, now there's the 'benefit' for me, completely satisfied feeling.

the government will pay any committee with either favors or cash to say any thing. the only 2 things that statistically are true and can't be altered by human dumbassery:
1: everyone lies.
2: Everyone mortal dies.

anything else should regards with stern discord.

Originally posted by sergey-pypyrev:

Originally posted by aefields:

People want to fly and want to drive.

Flying and driving have positive effects. Can you tell about any positive effect of smoking?

Yes.
It is enjoyable. So are flying and driving.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by aefields:

That's the difference. See? Get it?

Yes, I get what you're saying. You're wrong. Your argument hinges on one type of warning being "health information" and a second type being "propaganda". That's a false dichotomy.

The real dichotomy is between a)giving information and b)putting out nasty images. a) giving facts b) provoking an emotional response.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Lots of things are banned because of their health risks - give me a good reason why cigarettes should be an exception.

Well, actually, I don't think they should be an exception. Really.

Give me a list of a thousand banned things and I'll say which ones should and which ones should not be banned. Cigarettes won't be an exception in such a list.

There are lots of things that are illegal which should be legal - should be IF everyone knows all about them. Filling the workplace with tobacco smoke... nobody should be forced to work indoors with tobacco smoke being spewed willy nilly. Everyone should know all about inhaling smoke and then be left to themselves whether to inhale or not. heh ;-)

Hmmm.... I'll put it thusly:
Government should inform, but not impose. [IN SUCH CASES]

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

regulations on emissions and pollutions, and measures that they must implement in order to achieve them, that are enforced on the manufacturers.

That is a reason I advocate taxes on tobacco. Where I live, the state of Oregon, the taxes are absurdly high. There should be taxes. But the taxes have gone WAY beyond reason here and in lots of other places. There should be informing of the public by the government: there should not be grossing out of the public by the government.

Originally posted by aefields:

The real dichotomy is between a)giving information and b)putting out nasty images. a) giving facts b) provoking an emotional response.

That's not a dichotomy though, is it? They're not putting unpleasant pictures on packets for the sake of it, it is a means of providing information and facts. The advertisers use methods to provoke an emotional response too. Like it or not, people are manipulating you into buying their product. Fine when the corporations do it, but not the government?

Should we require that skis show pictures of people who died skiing? I say no. Should government forbid any cool logos on snowboards or skis? I say no.
Should it be required that all skateboards display a picture of someone who was hurt skateboarding? I say no.
Should there be a "death tax" on carabiners, chocks, and ropes? I say no.
Should anyone who operates a kiln have to pay a massive tax? I say no. Even tho one can lose one's eye. See Chihuly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Chihuly

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by aefields:

The real dichotomy is between a)giving information and b)putting out nasty images. a) giving facts b) provoking an emotional response.

That's not a dichotomy though, is it? They're not putting unpleasant pictures on packets for the sake of it, it is a means of providing information and facts. The advertisers use methods to provoke an emotional response too. Like it or not, people are manipulating you into buying their product. Fine when the corporations do it, but not the government?

Mmmmh. Somehow it seems different when it's tv ads or prints on packaging. Requirements or restrictions. I mean, restricting packages from displaying pics of kids smoking with text like "Hey, kids, our brand is the most awesome and delicious" is one thing... it is a good thing. Requiring active discouragement (negative advertisement) is another thing; that is too far.

There is a serious difference between informing and pursuading. No?

Originally posted by aefields:

Should we require that skis show pictures of people who died skiing? I say no. Should government forbid any cool logos on snowboards or skis? I say no.
Should it be required that all skateboards display a picture of someone who was hurt skateboarding? I say no.
Should there be a "death tax" on carabiners, chocks, and ropes? I say no.
Should anyone who operates a kiln have to pay a massive tax? I say no. Even tho one can lose one's eye. See Chihuly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Chihuly

No. You're absolutely correct. That all seems perfectly reasonable.

But things aren't black and white. Snowboarding is not one of the leading national causes of death, and is not psychoactively addictive. The dangers of snowboarding are immediately apparent when you first get on a board. You will not have fun snowboarding for years, and then suddenly break your spine while walking home from work. People are really bad at estimating long-term risks.
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/11/perceived_risk_2.html
Sometimes it takes more to make people aware of the risks that they're under-reacting to.

There's more to this than, "Some things have risks and don't have huge warning labels, so nothing should have huge warning labels". These things are not black and white, they're not even sitting on a continuum, they have all sorts of dimensions.

Originally posted by aefields:

There is a serious difference between informing and pursuading. No?

No.

Maybe that's a very morally relative view to take, but I can't see where the dividing line is.

Mh. Well, I suppose I should admit that I really want my cigarettes to shorten my sucky life. And why the f#$& would anyone think they are on the side of justice when they f#$* me over for my decision?

The dividing line? I know all the science. I choose. Me. Not you. Me. Choosing.

Originally posted by aefields:

Mh. Well, I suppose I should admit that I really want my cigarettes to shorten my sucky life. And why the f#$& would anyone think they are on the side of justice when they f#$* me over for my decision?
The dividing line? I know all the science. I choose. Me. Not you. Me. Choosing.

Yes. And no-one's stopping you. Good for you. Carry on.

This isn't about you. It's about people who don't know the science, don't know enough to be able to realistically assess long-term risks. Particularly to those who are only just embarking on life. Sometimes it takes an emotional message to get the facts through. That's why we have brutal public-service announcements about the dangers of drink, or careless driving, or the consequences of drug abuse. In the other direction, that's why we have the It Gets Better campaign. Hell, for that matter, that's why we have schools - a simple list of facts is not the same as teaching.

I wish you a non-sucky life, and I wish them that too.

Hypocrisy, thy name is: department.

It's the strangest thing I've seen in quite some time. It's a great idea if the government forces tobacco companies to take brand recognition off of their product and instead plaster the packs with photos of cancer, and call this "plain packaging".

Let some pro-life people stand outside an abortion clinic with large pictures of aborted babies, and that's a big offense and can't be tolerated.

Try to say the two things are not the same all you want, they are exactly the same and you know it. Both tobacco and abortion cause fatalities, in fact abortion by design has a 50% fatality rate. But, have protesters show this and that can't be allowed. Those right-wing busybodies, how dare they! Tobacco companies will be forced, by law, to post graphic photos of people dying from cancer right on the package. That gets championed.

Well, those who don't know the science are willfully ignorant. That applies to most of reality. The facts are there - easily accessible - even shoved in one's face (which is not a bad thing) The facts are given (as they should be) and those who choose whatever in spite of whatever fact, well, do not hate them. Do not impede them. Do not condescend to control them for their own good. Inform for their own good Control for their own good

mjmsprt40:

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

It's the strangest thing I've seen in quite some time. It's a great idea if the government forces tobacco companies to take brand recognition off of their product and instead plaster the packs with photos of cancer, and call this "plain packaging".

Let some pro-life people stand outside an abortion clinic with large pictures of aborted babies, and that's a big offense and can't be tolerated.

Who or what exactly are you referring to? wikipedian?

Originally posted by aefields:

Inform for their own good Control for their own good

It's. Not. Control.

The only people being imposed on here is the tobacco companies.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Try to say the two things are not the same all you want, they are exactly the same and you know it.

Try to say the two things are the same all you want, there are not the same and you know it.

See how well that works?

You're comparing smoking with a abortion, and your only point of comparison is that they both sometimes cause death? That's absurd. Your analogy didn't work before, and it doesn't work now.
To summarise: someone standing in your face waving placards is not comparable to a sticker on a package. Walking into a shop and buying cigarettes is now way comparable to a woman walking into an abortion clinic. And it's fairly horrific for you to think that those actions have anything in common.

And there is already millions poured into advertising and regulation and warnings and support and education (especially emotionally-charged education, take note aefields!) dedicated to reducing the number of people requiring, or choosing, abortion.

Originally posted by aefields:

Originally posted by sergey-pypyrev:

Flying and driving have positive effects. Can you tell about any positive effect of smoking?

Yes.
It is enjoyable. So are flying and driving.

Most of smokers do not find smoking enjoyable. Often they even want to stop smoking, but can't do that.

I understand that you can be different from those most smokers, and maybe, you really enjoy smoking. Let me just share my own smoking experience.

Indeed, if somebody never smoked or did not smoke for a long time, smoking creates pleasant feeling for short time (few minutes). But if a person smokes every day - he doesn't receive that pleasant feeling anymore. Instead of this, organism starts to requests that certain concentration of nicotine is supported by smoker. And if concentration of nicotine is not supported - smoker does not feel himself right. So, starting from some moment smoker smokes not because he wants to receive pleasant feeling, but because he wants to avoid bad feeling. Can we use term "enjoyable" for this situation?

My answer is: definitely, no.