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.

To repeat the cliché that a picture is worth a thousand words: http://www.thevine.com.au/life/news/cigarette-packs-to-become-even-more-unattractive20100502.aspx Interesting concept.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

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.

There's a bit of a lack of subject-verb agreement going on there.

Also saw that Tesco have installed new bay doors in their cigarette counter to cover the cigarette on sale. This in compliance with new UK law mandating that cigarette not be placed in plain sight.

Also regarding the subject verb agreement, that was an old essay and I didn't noticed the error.

Man has been smoking for a long-time.
Launch all the assaults you want on cigarettes, but there will always be smokers.

As for Tesco's move, how very typical. The Nanny State extends itself yet again.

Regarding banning all smoking in public places, not going to happen. Sure, that law may well be enacted, but it will be ignored.
Much like my favorite old pub in Liverpool, we were allowed to smoke in there, although there is a national law banning such.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Man has been smoking for a long-time.
Regarding banning all smoking in public places, not going to happen. Sure, that law may well be enacted, but it will be ignored.
Much like my favorite old pub in Liverpool, we were allowed to smoke in there, although there is a national law banning such.

Well, in most public places (like train stations), smoking in banned. This is especially noticeable in London where all the smokers now smoke in the street to the annoyance of the non-smoking pedestrians since now the pedestrians have to breathe in the smoke!

Also, if you're a non-smoker, how would you if your restaurant look like this:


This looks like a gas chamber:


Would save the Nazis a lot of money if they simply use smokers and stuff them in a chamber with the Jews.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Well, in most public places (like train stations), smoking in banned. This is especially noticeable in London where all the smokers now smoke in the street to the chagrin of the non-smoking pedestrians since now the pedestrians have to breathe in the smoke!

They don't have smoking pillars? Here's a picture of one at a Dutch station.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Well, in most public places (like train stations), smoking in banned. This is especially noticeable in London where all the smokers now smoke in the street to the chagrin of the non-smoking pedestrians since now the pedestrians have to breathe in the smoke!

They don't have smoking pillars? Here's a picture of one at a Dutch station.

What's a smoking pillar?

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

As for Tesco's move, how very typical. The Nanny State extends itself yet again.

Here's an article about the hiding of cigarettes: http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Cigarettes-counter-Tesco-store/story-14078341-detail/story.html

No, it won't. A better idea, make the cigarettes flesh colored.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

What's a smoking pillar?

An ashtray that smokers are supposed to smoke near.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Also, if you're a non-smoker, how would you if your restaurant look like this:

You seem to have confused my stance on the issue.
I'm all for no smoking in restaurants and most everywhere else.

I do, however, take exception with the no smoking rules in pubs and casinos.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

This is especially noticeable in London where all the smokers now smoke in the street to the chagrin of the non-smoking pedestrians since now the pedestrians have to breathe in the smoke!

Yes, I noticed that when I was in London.

I do like the way the French do it though. At train stations (well, Paris anyway ), they have a place marked off about 20 feet from everyone else. That seems to work pretty well.

Also, the law regarding plain packaging was proposed in Australia and was aimed to stop people from STARTING to smoke NOT stopping people from smoking.

Originally posted by xyzoneon:

No, it won't. A better idea, make the cigarettes flesh colored.

Well Australia is using an olive color packaging since, according to research, it is the least appealing color to teenage.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Also, if you're a non-smoker, how would you if your restaurant look like this:

You seem to have confused my stance on the issue.
I'm all for no smoking in restaurants and most everywhere else.

I do, however, take exception with the no smoking rules in pubs and casinos.

How about pub members who don't smoke? Do they have to suffer on the account of the few who smoke?

Originally posted by wikipedian:

How about pub members who don't smoke? Do they have to suffer on the account of the few who smoke?

Absolutely not, which is why you have a section of the pub enclosed especially for smokers. Perhaps a room shut off in itself (preferable) or one of those pics you posted above (not ideal, but gets the job done).

Something the smoking nazis fail to realize is that when smoking has been cut to the lowest levels possible, taxes for the NHS (and in my case Medicare and Medicaid) will drop significantly. Taxes will then be raised on food. People will become irate at this. Are you ready to pay £5.00 for a loaf of bread? £7.00 for a litre of soda? Just something for you all to consider....

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Would save the Nazis a lot of money if they simply use smokers and stuff them in a chamber with the Jews.

Oh please.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

I do, however, take exception with the no smoking rules in pubs and casinos.

Exactly. Here, the owners have a choice if you can smoke or not. Don't like that you can/can't smoke, go someplace else Hell, it would probably hurt our economy in LV if you couldn't smoke in casinos.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

£7.00 for a litre of soda?

They wouldn't go after bread, but the idea of jacking up the taxes on soda has already been circulating.

"remove […] mandate […] ban […], and offering […]" is the likely culprit (for subject-verb quibble).

BTW: I'm a smoker (… only for the last 47 years …) and I'd agree it's a nasty habit and detrimental to one's health; and –perhaps– to others. Not to change the subject, but how's that "Just Say No" campaign working out? STDs rates down? Sex Education has tempered teenaged pregnamcy rates? Has the War on Drugs been any more effective than Prohibition? Or the unintended consenquences been any less calamatious?
I don't mean to make light of the problem, but I do mean to make light of the proposed solution…

Tell you what (all you folk who think government can develop and implement policies that "counter" human nature): Eradicate prostitution, and we'll talk.
(But if you succeed, let's talk about the world's second oldest profession!)

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Sex Education has tempered teenaged pregnamcy rates?

Depends on where you're at.

http://www.livescience.com/18333-sex-education-teen-birthrates.html

Sex education is failing to reduce adolescent birthrates in conservative states, according to a new study.

Perhaps paradoxically, states with a majority conservative population and higher degree of religiosity tend to have higher teen birthrates. The findings suggest that the social structure of the state, such as the degree of conservatism, can undermine the effect of the sex curricula.

Most of your post is right, though.

I'm afraid I remain convinced that statistics is a pseudo-science practiced primarily by those who'd hoodwink the naive by specialized knowledge that is not particularly special not specially particular: That is, they abuse science and common sense; and only get away with it by appeal to mathematical symbolism they themselves don't understand.

The association disappears, however, when the researchers controlled for state characteristics, such as religiosity and abortion policies. The apparent irony is that states with higher religiosity rankings and greater political conservatism had higher adolescent birthrates.

That much was not a total surprise. Researchers at Drexel University reported a similar finding in 2009 in the journal Reproductive Health. The latest findings provide the added twist that a state's level of conservatism might compromise the value or quality of sex education.

The WUSL researchers postulate that girls living in conservative states or counties either get a watered-down version of the sex education curriculum, disregard the lesson, or are less willing or able to have an abortion, all leading to higher statewide teen birthrates.

Do you mean to argue –as the authors of the article you linked to seem to do– that abortion rates account for the difference between teen birthrates?
No wonder you're so pro-Planned Parenthood: Kill 'em as early as you can! That's how you improve human life…!

(Put another way: Do the statistics of teen birthrates + teen abortions vary; state-by-state, socionomically, politallicaly, religiously, racially…? [C'mon, now: You studied sociology…!])

Some people wonder, why parenthood is so abhored. And why —specially, those who claim to believe in evolution – and all that^1.— think the natural order of things is, suddenly, incapable of serving its purpose…

Of course, there is no purpose. And the hubris of those who think there can be a human-imposed one is futile as well as fatuous, however fascinating.
But changes can be made. No?

Indeed, they always are. Some, not for the better… Can we, perhaps, backtrack?

Have you read, Sang, Murray's latest book? You can subtract everything political from it, and still be very scared for the future of our country.

————————————————————
1. I'm one. That is, I believe in evolution – and all that. Where I fall from grace in the modern church of scientism is that I haven't lost my faith in the process; nor ceded my (our!) ability to play our part.

I mean I agree that information and access to condoms is effective against both disease and unwanted pregnancy.

I also agree with this bit of the article.

. "But at the local and school levels, there is plenty of other evidence that implementing particular curriculums can produce improvements in students' risk-taking behaviors."

Conservatives go so far in their religious social engineering that they facilitate the very problems they're trying to prevent.

And you clearly have no concept of Planned Parenthood. Hint: they do more to prevent abortion than all you conservatives put together. They also provide other vital services, such as cancer screening. Again, your social engineering fails miserably.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

I mean I agree that information and access to condoms is effective against both disease and unwanted pregnancy.

Oh. I don't agree with that at all: Information (whatever the hell you think that is) and access to condoms have proven to be ineffective against both disease and unwanted pregnancy…
Unless you meant that they should both increase, as a matter of policy. The policy was what it was. The result was what it was.
Why are the proponents of the same policies looking for excuses, still?

The typical Liberal trope: We mean well! (It makes sense, we have statistics on our side, science supports us — who cares, if we're wrong? )

I have no concept of Planned Parenthood? They cost me –retroactively– $300, to abort my first child. Cheap! Huh? (She told me what she had done, why she'd done it; and how much it cost… I got her the money, and got the hell out.
Sort of.)

I don't know what it takes for you to feel akin to other human beings, Sang. But you long ago convinced me that your political convictions trump your humanity… You are –as someone else called you– a shill… But you aren't complicit (legally); you're a dupe… That is, you don't have the wherewithall to understand the issues. Nor the incentive.
Nah. You just do what you're told.

What? Nobody told you?

Yeah. You just wanna be a wanna-be; and you may yet become — oh, maybe not.

The problem is people telling other people that they must not smoke. Nanny state. Big Mother.

Providing the scientific (medical) facts is good. Suppressing and oppressing is not good.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

and access to condoms have proven to be ineffective against both disease and unwanted pregnancy…

You can't be serious. The human stomach can't hold enough kool-aide to really believe this. No way. However, if you somehow have an extra high capacity stomach to hold all that kool-aide without pissing right back out, do against all evidence that it does both. I'm terribly sorry that your ideology goes against the facts.

http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm

Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Including HIV Infection
Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. In addition, consistent and correct use of latex condoms reduces the risk of other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including diseases transmitted by genital secretions, and to a lesser degree, genital ulcer diseases. Condom use may reduce the risk for genital human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and HPV-associated diseases, e.g., genital warts and cervical cancer.

The article goes into greater detail, including why. It does, however, point that condoms must be used consistently.

You missed the point there. He's not arguing against the effectiveness of condoms when used properly, he's saying that having access and information has not seemed to actually insure that people do use them. Presenting someone with facts is no guarantee that they will change their behavior; until they have to deal with consequences they are likely to continue as they always have.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

I'm afraid I remain convinced that statistics is a pseudo-science...

Statistics is a branch of mathematics. Math is absolute.
Perhaps what you mean is that some people use statistics in a pseudo-scientific way. Perhaps people such as yourself.

Originally posted by sgunhouse:

You missed the point there. He's not arguing against the effectiveness of condoms when used properly, he's saying that having access and information has not seemed to actually insure that people do use them. Presenting someone with facts is no guarantee that they will change their behavior; until they have to deal with consequences they are likely to continue as they always have.

It doesn't insure it, but saying that it does nothing is obviously false. Chlamydia, syphilis, and various other STDs have been in decline since the '70s. But forget about STDs, look at teen pregnancy (p19) — a different side of the same coin.

Originally posted by aefields:

Perhaps what you mean is that some people use statistics in a pseudo-scientific way. Perhaps people such as yourself.

Perhaps.

Originally posted by aefields:

The problem is people telling other people that they must not smoke. Nanny state. Big Mother.

Exactly.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

It doesn't insure it, but saying that it does nothing is obviously false. Chlamydia, syphilis, and various other STDs have been in decline since the '70s. But forget about STDs, look at teen pregnancy (p19) — a different side of the same coin.

Now, at least in the US, there a serious problem of HIV increasing in young gay men. Why? Because they've started to go "bareback", thinking AIDS is over. So yeah, when somebody says something as patently false as condoms are ineffective against STDs, it pisses me off big time. It's putting ideology above people's lives and I won't have it. Yes, there's has been conservative/religious bullshit in the US about condoms being incapable of stopping the HIV virus when clearly it can and does.

About the OP's question: The thread-derail that we're having now kind of answers the question, wouldn't you agree? Human men and women have come in pretty much the same packaging (once the clothes are removed) that we've had since the human race began. It hasn't stopped us yet. Population figures prove it.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Now, at least in the US, there a serious problem of HIV increasing in young gay men. Why? Because they've started to go "bareback", thinking AIDS is over. So yeah, when somebody says something as patently false as condoms are ineffective against STDs, it pisses me off big time. It's putting ideology above people's lives and I won't have it. Yes, there's has been conservative/religious bullshit in the US about condoms being incapable of stopping the HIV virus when clearly it can and does.

The US is an outlier in the Western world for that very reason. I'm sure there's also a big correlation to the bullshit "medical" post-hoc rationalizations given for circumcision. Less chance of AIDS and STD in general is one of those. So if someone doesn't do any research on their own, they'll think that condoms are useless anyway and (their partner) being circumcised greatly lessens the risk of anything happening at all. Yeah, it clearly doesn't work.

Smokers cost the national health expenses a fantastic sum of money each year and anything that controls the smelly habit is fine with me. I must say that thedawgfan's earlier boast about some daft place on Merseyside that breaks the law is pointless. Bbut such are isolated and it just takes one complaint and the pub has a problem. Using the nanny State as an excuse for filling yourself with the right to tobacco related illness and death is negative. Of course many have always smoked (although not for the millenium). But nutters the poor and such have always been with us and we have to face up to such too?!

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Smokers cost the national health expenses a fantastic sum of money each year and anything that controls the smelly habit is fine with me. I must say that thedawgfan's earlier boast about some daft place on Merseyside that breaks the law is pointless. Bbut such are isolated and it just takes one complaint and the pub has a problem. Using the nanny State as an excuse for filling yourself with the right to tobacco related illness and death is negative. Of course many have always smoked (although not for the millenium). But nutters the poor and such have always been with us and we have to face up to such too?!

Non smokers cost the NHS considerably more than smokers. Put that in your pipe and smoke it...

Originally posted by rjhowie:

The US is an outlier in the Western world for that very reason.

Now we do have Teen Birth-Rate Disparities Persist Among States . The Red States in the South tend to be higher and the Blue States tend to be lower. There are some exceptions the article mentions, such as the low population upper middle western states and the other exception is New Mexico (full of socially conservative families that are recent arrivals to the US).

The bottom line is the religious conservatives need to get out the way of progress and stop causing the very problems they're trying to prevent with campaigns of misinformation and religious agendas among conservative school boards.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Bbut such are isolated and it just takes one complaint and the pub has a problem.

That's part of way our fine Vegas solution is the one that works. The owners make a business decision to allow smoking or not, too many people choose to not patronize an establish for smoking and the owners either go out of business or change the policies. Or the reverse might even happen. The state doesn't have to intervene at all. A patron raises a complaint and the response is "If you're that offended by smoking, why did you go their in the first place?"

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Smokers cost the national health expenses a fantastic sum of money each year and anything that controls the smelly habit is fine with me.

Yet at 7 quid a pop for a pack of Marlboro Reds, that money is easily repaid by smokers.
You wait til the great conman Cameron raises the tax on Irn Bru....be prepared.....I will laugh my arse off.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

I must say that thedawgfan's earlier boast about some daft place on Merseyside that breaks the law is pointless.

A bit like this sentence of yours I quote above eh?
I can guarantee you, in the Stone city of yours, I could find at least 4 smokeasys.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Bbut such are isolated and it just takes one complaint and the pub has a problem.

Indeed, run to the arms of the Nanny State. Nevermind that the UK is still in the throes of a financial crisis, I'm sure Cameron will put R. J. Howie's complaint about smoking in pubs in Glasgow at the top of his to-do list.

lulz @ Gary's comment.

We don't have an epidemic about smoking in pubs up here. This isn't Liverpool nor England. As for the financial crisis things are one H of a situation worse over the pond than even here. You are the one thedawgfan who was for a Health system in the ex-Colonies - remember? And I bet you would also find some who would misuse that over there too so no grounds for well the moral high ground at all. I will repeat what I have always said. Being poor in America is a dashed sight worse than here. Not one political lot wants to do away with the Welfare State and we certainly don't need any lessons from what we see across the pond. Tens of millions in poverty, depending on charity and left to rot. Some democracy and some applie pie and family. Dear, oh dear.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

We don't have an epidemic about smoking in pubs up here.

You've said time and time again you only rarely darken a pubs doors, so you'll have to pardon me if I don't believe you.
Perhaps is JSP or one of our other Scots could verify this I'd believe you, but as it is, no dice.

By the way, I did not say there was an "epidemic" of smoking in pubs, I simply mentioned the numerous smokeasys I found throughout the UK.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

This isn't Liverpool nor England.

Never said it was old chap.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

As for the financial crisis things are one H of a situation worse over the pond than even here.

Actually not really. As much as it pains me to say this, most unfortunately, we are able to print money at will.
The UK is tied to Sterling and has overstretched it's boundaries by just printing money out of thin air, first under Brown and recently under Cameron.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

You are the one thedawgfan who was for a Health system in the ex-Colonies - remember?

Still am old chap. A single-payer system. Unfortunately, Obama has screwed the proverbial pooch on that one.
He's included an unconstitutional provision which ultimately will probably be struck down.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

And I bet you would also find some who would misuse that over there too so no grounds for well the moral high ground at all.

In English please?

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Not one political lot wants to do away with the Welfare State and we certainly don't need any lessons from what we see across the pond.

I've never advocated that you copy our system. Time and time again, I have advised you to look at the plank in your own eye on certain issues before you get into typing these long-winded rants damning us to hell. There is a difference ya know?

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Now we do have Teen Birth-Rate Disparities Persist Among States . The Red States in the South tend to be higher and the Blue States tend to be lower. There are some exceptions the article mentions, such as the low population upper middle western states and the other exception is New Mexico (full of socially conservative families that are recent arrivals to the US).

Even 25 per thousand is still high. That's on par with Eastern Europe and the UK — speaking of which, what's up with the UK?

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

The bottom line is the religious conservatives need to get out the way of progress and stop causing the very problems they're trying to prevent with campaigns of misinformation and religious agendas among conservative school boards.

It seems more likely that they want to shame sinful people or something, because clearly whatever they're doing (abstinence-only + bullshit) either has no effect or a negative effect. Those who care about reality and results seem to be switching.

The same goes for the drug wart. Cracking down with military policy makes more addicts. But in reality, it's done for some interests to make money, not to stop addiction. It's probably similar with social restrictivists (conservatives); pushing superstition and anti-intellectualism makes it easy to get dumb-votes and keeps the rabble busy squabbling and out of the way of the ruling class. That's precisely the purpose of organized superstition.

I expect for Her Majesty's Gov't under Cameron to be equally fair to alcohol and junk food.

Kiosks for all!!!! HIP HIP HOORAY FOR THE NANNY STATE!

Originally posted by rjhowie:

As for the financial crisis things are one H of a situation worse over the pond than even here.

No they aren't.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

I expect for Her Majesty's Gov't under Cameron to be equally fair to alcohol and junk food.

Kiosks for all!!!! HIP HIP HOORAY FOR THE NANNY STATE!

At least we can have a drink in the street! Sometimes...

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Those who care about reality and results seem to be switching.

That says a lot when even Texas is starting to admit reality.

Susan Tortolero, director of the University of Texas' Prevention Research Center, says that recently there's been more interest in their abstinence-plus program. Tortolero says, "It's like we're beyond this argument of abstinence, abstinence plus. Districts want something that works."

Ya think?

Originally posted by mexile:

At least we can have a drink in the street! Sometimes...

Oh so can we You just can't be drunk and disorderly on the street, of course.

Oh more on Texas. This article was written last July.

Rick Perry Asked Why More Kids Are Getting Pregnant in Texas

...

Texas lawmakers cut sex ed from two six-month courses to a single unit of "abstinence only" education. But early indications showed that the program wasn't working. In fact, teens in almost all high school grades were having more sex after undergoing the abstinence only program. By 2007, Texas had the highest teen birth rate in the nation.

Nevertheless, the program continued. By 2009, 94 percent of Texas schools, which at the time were educating more than 3.7 million students, were giving no sex ed whatsoever beyond "abstinence only," a curriculum that includes emphasizing that birth control doesn't work.

Instead of providing fact-based information, the programs use fear and Jesus -- over-emphasizing the risks of sexually transmitted diseases leading to cervical cancer, radical hysterectomy and death, together with Christian morality.

One Texas public school district's sex ed handout is entitled "Things to Look for in a Mate:"

I. How they relate to God
A. Is Jesus their first love?
B. Trying to impress people or serve God?

Note all this religious crap and flagrant violations of separation of church and state (yes, few outside the GOP/TP really believe the GOP is interested in preserving the constitution)

any....

The results? Teen pregnancy in Texas went up -- higher than before "abstinence only," and more than 50 percent higher than the national average. Even more troubling was that repeat teen pregnancy went up -- to the point that it, too, led the nation. It turns out that Texas kids thought that "if birth control doesn't work, why use it?"

Once again, Oakdale, condoms do work. No, they're not 100% effective; they can be defective, boys need to know to not carry them in their wallets all the time (the heat weakens the latex), or even applied incorrectly. However, they work a hell of a lot better than suffering the delusion that teens will be virgins until they're married.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Once again, Oakdale, condoms do work. No, they're not 100% effective; they can be defective, boys need to know to not carry them in their wallets all the time (the heat weakens the latex), or even applied incorrectly. However, they work a hell of a lot better than suffering the delusion that teens will be virgins until they're married.

Hedonism being the norm –or, at least, the ideal– responsibility devolves to technology… Perhaps the next iteration of Obamacare should mandate implantation of chermical contraceptives before puberty? Chastity belts? Cock-corks?
Seriously, Sang, most people can't have their cake and eat it too. (Although dogs do.)

Sex education has failed every test it took. It hardly matters, that moral education —as denigrated and opposed by enlightened educators as it is— hasn't fared much better. (Specially among populations of mostly illiterate emigrants…) Specially among teens, whose hormones are –what's the common term? Ah, yes: Raging!

I'm reminded of an old joke:
Three LA gang-bangers sit in an abandoned building's basement. Jose brings out his spoon, BiC and nickel bag… Manuel removes his works from its case… Jorge, seeing this, has the temerity to ask: "We usin' the same needle, man? Ain't we worried about AIDS?!"
"AIDS?," says Jose, "Don't be silly: We wearin' condoms…"

Until and unless you can obviate the Bell Curve, you're not fighting a losing battle — you're conscripting cannon fodder for the sexual revolution, Sang. Intelligent and self-possessed individuals may benefit from instruction; but the dull and profligate won't.

I don't mean that intelligent educated adults can't continue inherently risky sexual behavior, if they take all available precautions; most games of Russian Roulette involve a single chamber of six containing a bullet.
But —aside from the scenario in Deer Hunter— what makes it worth the risk?

You'll explain?

A bit of know-all baloney there rubbishing my view that poor in the US is worse than here. Supercilliousness replacing the actual.

Here's the formula:

Superstitious old farts + belief in knowing the young = fail

Maybe it worked in that (terrible) movie The Village.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Sex education has failed every test it took.

Except in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Italy, South Korea, Japan…

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

I don't mean that intelligent educated adults can't continue inherently risky sexual behavior, if they take all available precautions; most games of Russian Roulette involve a single chamber of six containing a bullet.
But —aside from the scenario in Deer Hunter— what makes it worth the risk?

You'll explain?

How would they even know what "risky sexual behavior" is if you don't want to tell them?