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 sergey-pypyrev:

Indeed, if somebody never smoked or did not smoke for a long time, smoking creates pleasant feeling for short time (few minutes).

I've never noticed a pleasant feeling myself. I do find the flavor of decent tobacco nice for a short time, but I don't think that's what you mean by a pleasant feeling. But then that flavor sticks around for the next 10+ hours, making it a rather unpleasant experience on the whole. And just imagine that flavor being around all the time. Ugh.

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".

You are right, it is a great idea. You have no idea how it is difficult to stop smoking, that's why you talk about "choice", "freedom", compare smoking with abortion, etc. I'll open a small secret for you: smokers do not have freedom and do not choose. For this reason comparison of smoking and abortion is not relevant.

Can plain packaging prevent people from taking up smoking?
.....
Could plain packaging of condoms....

Never mind.

Originally posted by sergey-pypyrev:

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".

You are right, it is a great idea. You have no idea how it is difficult to stop smoking, that's why you talk about "choice", "freedom", compare smoking with abortion, etc. I'll open a small secret for you: smokers do not have freedom and do not choose. For this reason comparison of smoking and abortion is not relevant.

Hmmm..... Somehow I missed the articles in the paper where people are being kidnapped off the street and being forced to smoke their first cigarettes. You'd think it would get into the news if folk were being forced to smoke at gunpoint.

Sorry, I can't agree with this. Granted that it's addictive as all get-out, and hard as can be to quit, but you DO choose to smoke, at least the first cigarette. Nobody forces you to smoke against your will, and at least here you do have freedom to quit-- and agencies that will help you quit.

Personal experience: My Dad smoked four packs a day, lighting one cigarette off of the last one, for several years. Then in the summer of 1969 he quit- Cold turkey quit. He never smoked another cigarette and in fact couldn't stand to be around cigarette smoke from then until he died in 2007. Now, of course not everybody can just stop cold like that, but if you want proof that smokers do have some choice--- there it is. Unless you're in a concentration camp and the evil commandant is forcing you to smoke, I would hazard a guess that you DO choose and you DO have some freedom.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Hmmm..... Somehow I missed the articles in the paper where people are being kidnapped off the street and being forced to smoke their first cigarettes. You'd think it would get into the news if folk were being forced to smoke at gunpoint.

Sorry, I can't agree with this. Granted that it's addictive as all get-out, and hard as can be to quit, but you DO choose to smoke, at least the first cigarette. Nobody forces you to smoke against your will, and at least here you do have freedom to quit-- and agencies that will help you quit.

Ah, but then there's choice, and there's choice. The problem isn't that you don't have the choice, but the reasoning might not be your own. Peer pressure and the behaviour you're exposed to are huge drivers, as is marketing.

What reasons do smokers have for taking up smoking? Few people pick up smoking as a way of killing themselves faster. You might take it up because you've heard it's a way to relax, but how many people could say that, and actually rationally decide that getting hooked on an addictive chemical is well worth it? Not many, I'd say.

No - peer pressure and the thought that smoking is exciting, and for grown-ups and the cool kids is a far more common answer these days. Can you think of any others?

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Hmmm..... Somehow I missed the articles in the paper where people are being kidnapped off the street and being forced to smoke their first cigarettes. You'd think it would get into the news if folk were being forced to smoke at gunpoint.

Sorry, I can't agree with this. Granted that it's addictive as all get-out, and hard as can be to quit, but you DO choose to smoke, at least the first cigarette. Nobody forces you to smoke against your will, and at least here you do have freedom to quit-- and agencies that will help you quit.

Ah, but then there's choice, and there's choice. The problem isn't that you don't have the choice, but the reasoning might not be your own. Peer pressure and the behaviour you're exposed to are huge drivers, as is marketing.

What reasons do smokers have for taking up smoking? Few people pick up smoking as a way of killing themselves faster. You might take it up because you've heard it's a way to relax, but how many people could say that, and actually rationally decide that getting hooked on an addictive chemical is well worth it? Not many, I'd say.

No - peer pressure and the thought that smoking is exciting, and for grown-ups and the cool kids is a far more common answer these days. Can you think of any others?

Still, a choice. Even in intense peer pressure, a person can choose not to do what everyone else is doing. Unless and only unless it's being forced on you by either brute force or the threat of being shot if you don't. I hazard a guess that very few people started smoking because they were tied to a chair and somebody forced them to smoke.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

No - peer pressure and the thought that smoking is exciting, and for grown-ups and the cool kids is a far more common answer these days. Can you think of any others?

That's a pretty good list. So how does (not) plain packaging effect that?

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Still, a choice. Even in intense peer pressure, a person can choose not to do what everyone else is doing. Unless and only unless it's being forced on you by either brute force or the threat of being shot if you don't. I hazard a guess that very few people started smoking because they were tied to a chair and somebody forced them to smoke.

While perhaps not quite the same, by similar reasoning you could also say no one's forcing you to work as you could always choose to become a hobo. It's not desirable to be socially ostracized. That said, I've never experienced any peer pressure to smoke (whether tobacco or pot) or even to drink alcohol — well, the latter is perhaps not entirely true, but not in high school anyway.

Originally posted by ensbb3:

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

No - peer pressure and the thought that smoking is exciting, and for grown-ups and the cool kids is a far more common answer these days. Can you think of any others?

That's a pretty good list. So how does (not) plain packaging effect that?

It attempts to make cigarettes as least appealing to teenagers as possible.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Originally posted by ensbb3:

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

No - peer pressure and the thought that smoking is exciting, and for grown-ups and the cool kids is a far more common answer these days. Can you think of any others?

That's a pretty good list. So how does (not) plain packaging effect that?

It attempts to make cigarettes as least appealing to teenagers as possible.

I really wonder if some of you have ever been teenagers. Somehow, I think not. Putting these gory pictures on the packs is just apt to make it even cooler to smoke. Teenagers don't think like 35 year old adults.

I remember something called "Garbage Pail Kids". It was a stick of chewing gum with some cards, and the cards depicted some of the most disgusting cartoon kids imaginable. It sold like crazy, kids loved it as much as or more than their parents hated it. I have a suspicion the placing of disgusting photos on cigarette packs could have a similar effect.

Do you know how often teenagers will do the opposite of what you attempt to make them do?

What if more start smoking just to spite people that wanna tell them what to do?

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Originally posted by ensbb3:

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

No - peer pressure and the thought that smoking is exciting, and for grown-ups and the cool kids is a far more common answer these days. Can you think of any others?

That's a pretty good list. So how does (not) plain packaging effect that?

It attempts to make cigarettes as least appealing to teenagers as possible.

I really wonder if some of you have ever been teenagers. Somehow, I think not. Putting these gory pictures on the packs is just apt to make it even cooler to smoke. Teenagers don't think like 35 year old adults.

I remember something called "Garbage Pail Kids". It was a stick of chewing gum with some cards, and the cards depicted some of the most disgusting cartoon kids imaginable. It sold like crazy, kids loved it as much as or more than their parents hated it. I have a suspicion the placing of disgusting photos on cigarette packs could have a similar effect.

Exactly. The only thing that would probably work is to raise the taxes on them and make them prohibitively expensive ( I bet sales went down in NY - IIRC a pack is $8 or more now. On the other hand, business probably just shifted to the indian reservations ). And even that would only lead to a black market but at least it would raise the barrier of entry.

So making cigarettes more expensive would cut down smoking? Probably.

Also, the gory packaging was suggested after years of research about what puts off teenagers. The olive green color is specifically chosen since it was found to be least appealing to teenagers.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Sorry, I can't agree with this. Granted that it's addictive as all get-out, and hard as can be to quit, but you DO choose to smoke, at least the first cigarette. Nobody forces you to smoke against your will, and at least here you do have freedom to quit-- and agencies that will help you quit.

You don't know what you are talking about. I already wrote why smoker smokes - because organism requests certain concentration of nicotine. Without this smoker does not feel himself right.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Personal experience: My Dad smoked four packs a day, lighting one cigarette off of the last one, for several years. Then in the summer of 1969 he quit- Cold turkey quit. He never smoked another cigarette and in fact couldn't stand to be around cigarette smoke from then until he died in 2007

My son also thinks that I just quit smoking and that's the full story. But full story contains some more details. Before quitting I tried to reduce smoking: for example, smoke only few cigarettes per day, or smoke only every other day, etc. Finally I understood that there is only one way to stop smoking: do it once and forever. Because if a former smoker smokes even 1 cigarette - then he will smoke 2nd, 3rd, 10th, 100th cigarette, etc. I stopped smoking about 2.5 years ago. But I still wake up in horror sometimes because I smoked in a dream. So, I'm still afraid to start smoking.

You wrote that your dad couldn't stand to be around cigarette smoke. I can guess why: because even after 30+ years without smoking he was afraid to start again.

Choice? Freedom? Enjoyment? No. Evil commandant.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Also, the gory packaging was suggested after years of research about what puts off teenagers. The olive green color is specifically chosen since it was found to be least appealing to teenagers.

So first you use this unattractive olive color (ever heard of fashion? it could be attractive tomorrow — it was in the '60s or '70s) and then you mess it up with cool pictures of diseased lungs.

Originally posted by sergey-pypyrev:

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Sorry, I can't agree with this. Granted that it's addictive as all get-out, and hard as can be to quit, but you DO choose to smoke, at least the first cigarette. Nobody forces you to smoke against your will, and at least here you do have freedom to quit-- and agencies that will help you quit.

You don't know what you are talking about. I already wrote why smoker smokes - because organism requests certain concentration of nicotine. Without this smoker does not feel himself right.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Personal experience: My Dad smoked four packs a day, lighting one cigarette off of the last one, for several years. Then in the summer of 1969 he quit- Cold turkey quit. He never smoked another cigarette and in fact couldn't stand to be around cigarette smoke from then until he died in 2007

My son also thinks that I just quit smoking and that's the full story. But full story contains some more details. Before quitting I tried to reduce smoking: for example, smoke only few cigarettes per day, or smoke only every other day, etc. Finally I understood that there is only one way to stop smoking: do it once and forever. Because if a former smoker smokes even 1 cigarette - then he will smoke 2nd, 3rd, 10th, 100th cigarette, etc. I stopped smoking about 2.5 years ago. But I still wake up in horror sometimes because I smoked in a dream. So, I'm still afraid to start smoking.

You wrote that your dad couldn't stand to be around cigarette smoke. I can guess why: because even after 30+ years without smoking he was afraid to start again.

Choice? Freedom? Enjoyment? No. Evil commandant.

Fearless Leader in my parent's living room all those years, forcing my Dad to smoke-- How could I have missed that?



You don't know my Dad.

Originally posted by ensbb3:

Do you know how often teenagers will do the opposite of what you attempt to make them do?

What if more start smoking just to spite people that wanna tell them what to do?

Which is why this campaign is not proposing telling teenagers what to do.

You don't need to change teenager's behaviours, you just need to tap into what they already do.

Clueless. Completely clueless. Kids buy stuff that is disgusting BECAUSE it's disgusting.



This shouldn't have had much of a market, if you are right. It did have a market. It's still got some market amongst collectors, if a Google search is any indication. (When searching for this image, Google's Autocomplete put "garbage pail kids" at the top of the selections even before you finish typing "garbage", if that's an indication.)

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Clueless. Completely clueless. Kids buy stuff that is disgusting BECAUSE it's disgusting.

Yup. I was thinking that earlier. Disgusting packaging will actually attract some demographics.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Fearless Leader in my parent's living room all those years, forcing my Dad to smoke-- How could I have missed that?

It's impossible to explain to a blind man how sunrise looks like.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Clueless. Completely clueless. Kids buy stuff that is disgusting BECAUSE it's disgusting.

Yes. I had a collection myself. Doesn't change the underlying idea.

You can't compare 'Potty Scotty' to a diseased lung. Buy a Garbage Pail Kid card, and it doesn't threaten to turn you into one.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Yes. I had a collection myself. Doesn't change the underlying idea.

You can't compare 'Potty Scotty' to a diseased lung. Buy a Garbage Pail Kid card, and it doesn't threaten to turn you into one.

I actually have (or had, not sure) a collection of anti-smoking ads myself. They range from a woman who has cigarette butts instead of teeth to someone undergoing surgery with garbage bags where their lungs should be. There might be something to mjmsprt40's hypothesis.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

I actually have (or had, not sure) a collection of anti-smoking ads myself. They range from a woman who has cigarette butts instead of teeth to someone undergoing surgery with garbage bags where their lungs should be. There might be something to mjmsprt40's hypothesis.

Sure, you like them. You find them interesting, you may even think they're cool. But do they make you feel like a cigarette?

No, but neither does watching The Maltese Falcon.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by Frenzie:

I actually have (or had, not sure) a collection of anti-smoking ads myself. They range from a woman who has cigarette butts instead of teeth to someone undergoing surgery with garbage bags where their lungs should be. There might be something to mjmsprt40's hypothesis.

Sure, you like them. You find them interesting, you may even think they're cool. But do they make you feel like a cigarette?

The kids will get the "plain pack" cigarette packs because they're "cool" and because it annoys the hell out of their parents. Then, as long as they've got them anyway they'll smoke the cigarettes. "Collect all twenty!" Annoying you is an added bonus in a kid's mind.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

The kids will get the "plain pack" cigarette packs because they're "cool" and because it annoys the hell out of their parents. Then, as long as they've got them anyway they'll smoke the cigarettes. "Collect all twenty!" Annoying you is an added bonus in a kid's mind.

Kids don't need gross packets in order to annoy the hell out of their parents. Smoking cigarettes is enough. Nobody buys cigarettes for the packaging alone, and nobody smokes cigarettes just because they've got them, that's just silly.

Honestly, a lot of work has been put into this sort of research. And it doesn't bear out your idea.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

This shouldn't have had much of a market, if you are right. It did have a market. It's still got some market amongst collectors, if a Google search is any indication. (When searching for this image, Google's Autocomplete put "garbage pail kids" at the top of the selections even before you finish typing "garbage", if that's an indication.)

Important word here is "some". Indeed, some people prefer to buy goods in garbage pail pack. But most of people prefer traditional pack without ugly pics. So, this is how plain packaging for cigarettes should work: pack which is attractive for most of people will be changed to pack which is attractive only for some.

I should also notice that garbage pail does not look realistic. Everybody understands that this is a painted pic, not a photo of real event. Pics on ugly pack of cigarettes look realistic. This makes ugly pack even less attractive.

Let's compare this to horror films. Everybody understands that it is not real, so, some people like horror films. But let's ask people whether they really want to be involved in events shown in horror films - and we will hear "no, no, no".

So, ugly pack will work if it will look like real event, not like horror film.

ensbb3 would love this shop I found in London. It sells nothing but tobacco produce:

Yes, I would. I'd prolly buy some trivial nic-nac, a pipe or cigar cutter, and regale guests with the story of how I found the thing and the details of the shop whenever it's noticed.

Interseting shop. We once had a shop here in this city that sold nothing but coffee........

Tobacco discount stores are common here, tho I took that to be closer to what is called a "Head shop" here (I'm not responsible for other slang uses). Basically a paraphernalia store for *tobacco.

*wacky tobacky to be real about it.

Going over some past posts... these were my latest thoughts:

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.

Well, the difference I see is where one addresses emotion, and one addresses emotionless fact.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

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.

Well, duh. All that is is "being consistent".
(I am up in arms about various bans. And I am also up in arms about things that are equivalent to bans but which are sold as something softer than a ban. But that's just background.
Gov requiring pix on packs is not equivalent to a ban. It is bad, but not as bad as a ban.)

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

What do cigarettes actually do that's worth saving?

Nothing.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

give me a good reason why cigarettes should be an exception.

They should not be an exception. They should be a large, glaring example of the rule.

Hmmm...
Me, I started smoking knowing everything about nicotine. Age 24. I was wondering why anyone would smoke, so I bought a pack and tried a cigarette. I liked it. For several years I smoked less than one cigarette a day. When I decided to smoke more, it was MY decision, and nobody else's.
Mmmmmh...
Ok, I'm trying to have sympathy for someone who started smoking and didn't know anything about nicotine. ... Not there. Seriously. They start smoking and supposedly think what? "I won't get addicted"? Shyah, whatever. "I might not get lung cancer." True. Given the fact that everyone knows all about nicotine, why pity users? Why bother users?

There is a difference between nicotine and illegal drugs such as cocaine(and derivatives) opiates, and others. The difference is societal. Officially, all illegal drugs are mushed into a category called "bad" with few details given, or scitentifically proven facts allowed to be shared. Nicotine is legal, so society allows the facts about it to be publicized.

Oh, I DO have sympathy for my father-in-law. He grew up not knowing that smoking was in any way unhealthy. He got to the point where he was smoking 3 packs a day. He was shocked when he learned that it was unhealthy. And he quit. And never smoked another one. Well, he died of cancer. Maybe it had nothing to do with smoking, since it had been so long, or maybe it did. He is part of the reason I am all for public awareness. But I am still all against prohibition or things which try to prohibit without seeming to.

Originally posted by aefields:

They should not be an exception. They should be a large, glaring example of the rule.

They are. The large, glaring rule is that some things cause huge problems for society in general, and require careful regulation to minimise risks. Cigarettes should not be an exception, neither should building codes or additives in food or deception in advertising.

Like it or not, facts available or not, people think that the problems associated with smoking won't happen to them. In the early days of AIDS paranoia, many people were putting themselves at risk because the health authorities had got information out too well - people knew so much about who was at risk that they didn't consider themselves to be at risk.

I find it interesting that in all this talk of emotive propaganda on packaging that nobody has expressed any concern about emotive propaganda that isn't on packaging. Do you have no problem with TV spots telling about the risks of smoking, and offering help to quit? Poster campaigns? Leaflets in doctor's surgeries? Most of those are ten times more emotive than what is being proposed on packets.

So, is it just the fact that you can't ignore the message when you pick up a packet of cigarettes that causes you a problem?

If you could control cigarettes or guns, which would you choose?

Originally posted by aefields:

When I decided to smoke more, it was MY decision, and nobody else's.

Of course, everybody on this planet makes his/her own decisions. Even if evil commandant with a gun requests a person to do something - that person still has a choice. The question is only whether that person has full control on aftermath of his choice.

I'd like to compare smoking with drinking beer. There was time when I tried beer at first time. Then I liked it. Then I started to drink it occasionally. Then I continued to drink it occasionally. Right now I have full control on drinking beer. I can decide to drink it today or not to drink. I can decide to drink it on this week or not to drink. To drink it this month or not to drink. Etc. So, I have full control on this process. This is what I name freedom, choice, and enjoyment.

Smoking. There was time when I tried to smoke at first time. Then I liked it. Then I started to smoke occasionally. Then I started to smoke every day. At that time smoking was out of my control. I was not able to select: today I will smoke, but tomorrow - no. I was not able to select to smoke on this week and not smoke on next week. I was not able to select to smoke this month, but not smoke next month. Etc. Right now I don't smoke. But this does not mean that I have control on smoking. I have quite limited choice: either don't smoke until end of life or smoke one cigarette and become heavy smoker again. That's why I say that smokers do not have freedom, choice, and enjoyment.

Originally posted by aefields:

"I won't get addicted"?

Yes, I remember this too. I thought: ok, I know that many people are addicted by smoking, but I'm different from them, that's why even if I will smoke occasionally - I will not start to smoke permanently. But... laws of [what science explains effects of smoking] work the same way for everybody.

Originally posted by aefields:

Oh, I DO have sympathy for my father-in-law. He grew up not knowing that smoking was in any way unhealthy. He got to the point where he was smoking 3 packs a day. He was shocked when he learned that it was unhealthy. And he quit. And never smoked another one.

One more story which confirms that smokers do not have freedom. If smokers do have freedom (like some people think) - then why stop smoking forever? Shouldn't it be the same as drinking beer - smoke sometimes, with minimal damage for health? But no. Instead of this in this thread we already found 3 stories about former heavy smokers who understood the same thing: if you want to stop smoking - you should do it once and forever. Why? Because smokers do not control smoking.

Originally posted by sergey-pypyrev:

You don't know what you are talking about. I already wrote why smoker smokes - because organism requests certain concentration of nicotine. Without this smoker does not feel himself right.

another sock puppet, move along.

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

If you could control cigarettes or guns, which would you choose?

cigs, guns aren't addicting, it's the killing that gets you hooked.

Originally posted by Virusboy:

another sock puppet, move along.

I'm not sure if you know what a sock puppet is.

Well V-boy is a good example for existing in reality not meaning you're a part of it anyway.

Sergey, I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Don't let this get out or it could cause an international incident, OK?

OK, here's the secret: Of course cigarettes are addictive. Nobody disputes that, and in fact there's overwhelming evidence that it's so. Not everybody who smokes is addicted, there's some who are and some who can stop, start again, stop and so on.

Now for the fun part: So is alcohol. Same thing you were just mentioning about cigarettes. Some people get hooked on it, it costs them everything, and if they manage to get off of it-- usually with help from organisations like Alcoholics Anonymous or maybe their local church-- once stopped they can't drink again because if they do, they won't be able to stop again. But, there are people who can drink one can of beer, stop and start when they choose, and are not addicted.

Same thing is true of porn. Now, you don't take porn in through your mouth, but if you ask men who have tried to stop looking at it you'll find it's a truly fierce addiction.

I could go through a long list of sins here, and you'd probably find that each and every one of them have people addicted to them, and without help they can't get free-- and once free, you can't do it again because if you do, you'll be trapped again. It's not just cigarettes.

Now, the question-- maybe I should start my own thread for this, who knows--- should we put gory photos on all the products that may be addicting in order to stop people from using the addicting products? If we did, would it cause an uproar as your personal golden idol is targeted for gory photos showing where the abuse of the product could lead?

Thrill seeking can be an addiction too. You can get addicted to chemicals your own body produces just as easily as external ones.

I've been meaning to make that point... Thx for reminding me.

Mj porn not not harmful to the health of the individuals unlike alcohol and smoking. There are already campaigns to reduce alcohol but unlike smoking, small amounts of alcohol is supposedly not harmful to the health (although there are research that suggests that alcohol is harmful even in small amounts) but smoking is harmful from the single puff. Many people, including a British king tried to stop smoking. The British king tried to stop smoking by raising the tax on tobacco products. In addition, it isn't like people yanking a cigarette out of your mouth. Plain packaging is trying to make cigarettes less appealing to young people by removing all the glitz and recognizable name from the tobacco packagings. There is already is an existing law in the uk mandating tobacco products to be placed behind cabinet door to hide them.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

There is already is an existing law in the uk mandating tobacco products to be placed behind cabinet door to hide them.

Lmao. Doesn't this disprove all the shiny packaging talk?

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Now, the question-- maybe I should start my own thread for this, who knows--- should we put gory photos on all the products that may be addicting in order to stop people from using the addicting products? If we did, would it cause an uproar as your personal golden idol is targeted for gory photos showing where the abuse of the product could lead?

You often use irony, but I will answer seriously.

In general - if addicting products are dangerous for people - government should limit their usage. Most of countries have laws that limit usage of addicting products: smoking, alcohol, gambling, drugs, etc.

I don't think that all addicting products should have gory photos on them. But I do support idea of gory photos on cig packs. Why? Because number of smokers significantly exceeds number of alcoholics, gamblers, drug addicts, etc.

I doubt it exceeds the number of caffeine addicts... Gory pics on soda and coffee then?

Edit: I can't just let it go with that...

Look at the effects of alcoholism or drug addiction compared to smoking tho. An alcoholic will destroy their lives and family well before the physical effects get them as with drug addiction. Smokers suffer none of that. How can you just play it off because there are less people? Less people with a bigger problem, if you ask me. My smoking effects me and mostly years from now. Is that worse than someone who can't function in society because of drug or alcohol addiction?

A headline from just a couple of days ago: On the Bishop Ford Freeway, just South of Chicago, a drunk driver drove the wrong way on the freeway and hit another car head on, killing the driver of the other car.

I can't remember ever reading of a smoker causing a collision that killed people because he was smoking, but it happens often enough with alcohol.

ensbb3, mjmsprt40, so, as I understand, you support plain packaging with gory photos for alcohol products, right?

Originally posted by sergey-pypyrev:

ensbb3, mjmsprt40, so, as I understand, you support plain packaging with gory photos for alcohol products, right?

Dear LORD, you gave him eyes but he cannot see.

No, I don't support "Plain packaging" with propaganda photos on anything. Neither does ensbb3, if you've read anything he posts. Unless and only unless the government wants to market the product themselves, in which case they can put anything they like on the product they're selling.

Forcing other people to put together a package without brand identification, but with government-approved propaganda all over it---- nope.

Frankly, I just don't support the nonsense of posting photos of diseased lungs on the package face and calling it "plain packaging" or "generic packaging" or whatever other name the government chooses to call it that is anything other than what it truly is.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Frankly, I just don't support the nonsense of posting photos of diseased lungs on the package face and calling it "plain packaging" or "generic packaging" or whatever other name the government chooses to call it that is anything other than what it truly is.

That's because that's not what is being asked for.

If it makes it easier on you, for "plain packaging" read "unbranded packaging". Because that's exactly what everyone is talking about. When they talk about "plain", they're talking about being minus logos, colour schemes, slogans and the rest.

As for alcohol, yep, no doubt at all that alcohol does harm. It's not even slightly as addictive as tobacco, but definitely is marketed to appeal to young people. It is a problem, and there is a good discussion to be had about implementing similar measures. But that doesn't let you weasel out of this discussion.

Nicotine addiction is a different kind of problem to alcohol, and requires different solutions. Alcohol-related problems cover such a wide range, from personal injuries, to domestic abuse, to public disorder, to driving accidents, that no simple label will cover it.

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/tobacco-addiction/what-are-extent-impact-tobacco-use

Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States. The impact of tobacco use in terms of morbidity and mortality to society is staggering.

Economically, more than $96 billion of total U.S. health care costs each year are attributable directly to smoking. However, this is well below the total cost to society because it does not include burn care from smoking-related fires, perinatal care for low-birthweight infants of mothers who smoke, and medical care costs associated with disease caused by secondhand smoke. In addition to health care costs, the costs of lost productivity due to smoking effects are estimated at $97 billion per year, bringing a conservative estimate of the economic burden of smoking to more than $193 billion per year.

Most smokers use tobacco regularly because they are addicted to nicotine. Addiction is characterized by compulsive drug seeking and abuse, even in the face of negative health consequences. It is well documented that most smokers identify tobacco use as harmful and express a desire to reduce or stop using it, and nearly 35 million of them want to quit each year. Unfortunately, more than 85 percent of those who try to quit on their own relapse, most within a week.