Cigarettes are bullies ads

[Fdzzaigl]

However, this ad I take distinct issue with because as a smoker I know that it is preposterous. It shows this little cigarette man dragging people outside in the middle of various acts, showing them being reluctant but unable to resist. This is not the case. I have never felt the need to leave class for a cigarette, pause a movie for a cigarette, or generally break anything short that I was enjoying just to have a cigarette, and at a pack a day I am in no way only moderately or lightly addicted. It's insulting to portray smokers as people so devoid of basic impulse control and planning skills that they can't possibly complete basic essential and social tasks and plan their cigarette breaks accordingly.

Well, you might not have an issue with it, but I've known plenty of smokers that do lack basic impulse control, and many of them are actually quite honest about the fact that they want to stop but just can't because the urge is too great. Some recent studies have event hinted that smokers, in general, have worse self-control than non-smokers [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/opinion/sunday/why-smokers-still-smoke.html?_r=0], so it doesn't seem surprising that anti-smoking ads would play on this. After all, by this point, the idea that smokers are "ignorant" about the health issues is just ridiculous.

Obviously, the way smoking affects an individual changes depending on who that individual is, but it isn't like the idea those ads are playing on isn't unheard of or even not that common.

Yup, pretty much.

Most smokers I know at work take breaks for smoking while non-smokers are expected to keep going. Besides, by far most of the smokers I know (including my parents, most of my family and some close friends who smoke) couldn't care less when they pollute the air of non-smokers right next to them, or when they make the entire classroom / workplace smell foul (which of course, they don't smell themselves). Those who ask kindly before lighting a cigarette are rare cases indeed.

I'm sorry, but having lived my entire life around smokers and being pretty much the only non-smoker in my family has left me quite disgusted by the habits that come with this ridiculous addiction. It really does border on being "bullied" imo.

 

[NiPah]

Eh Cigarettes effect people in different ways I guess, just because you don't get urges to smoke in common places doesn't mean others don't. Obviously telling you cigs are slowly killing you hasn't worked, but bringing into question your free will made you pissed enough to post online about it.

Does remind me of this Onion video though:

Spoiler

 

[Muspelheim]

They ought to make a reversed one to get bullying to stop. "Bullies are cigarettes."

What, fuckin' lovely after a good dinner? :3

Now I've got a mental image of giant cigarettes that walks like men, following people with asthma around and giving them wedgies.

 

[MysticSlayer]

I'm sorry, but having lived my entire life around smokers and being pretty much the only non-smoker in my family has left me quite disgusted by the habits that come with this ridiculous addiction. It really does border on being "bullied" imo.

Well, I understand the distaste for smokers at times. I don't really have a problem with someone making a decision to destroy their own health. However, they often seem to have absolutely no sympathy for non-smokers, often lighting up right next to them or standing right outside a door as they smoke. And then they act as if having designated smoking areas is "unfair". Yeah, because forcing a non-smoker to inhale your secondhand smoke is totally fair to that non-smoker who is doing their best to not have to deal with the health effects you don't mind bringing on yourself...

Again, I don't mind if someone chooses to smoke. I just don't like it when they throw hissy fits every time we make decisions to try to minimize their effects on non-smokers who have made their own decision to avoid that stuff.

And by the way, this isn't directed at all smokers, just those that fit the description.

 

[Madman123456]

I find these campaigns rather odd; whenever people massively overdo it, any potential target of the campaign will then get into the mndset that whatever is said in the matter is just propaganda and bullshit. We've seen that with anyone that has ever been wrong before, every other argument made will be seen as being wrong, like the other one was.

 

[Steve Waltz]

They're trying to encourage people to prolong their life and not make unhealthy choices.

Yea, but they're doing it in an immoral way by lying about cigarettes. Maybe it's because I'm agnostic that I can view at this from an unbias way, but I think you should tell the truth about cigarettes and let the consumer decide whether they want to smoke or not. Lying about a product you don't like so people won't by it is wrong in my opinion -- No matter how 'evil' the product.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a smoker and I don't support the deadly things, but I do think that this campaign is wrong by lying about cigarettes. Consumers should get the truth, not lies and propaganda.

 

[Fdzzaigl]

I'm sorry, but having lived my entire life around smokers and being pretty much the only non-smoker in my family has left me quite disgusted by the habits that come with this ridiculous addiction. It really does border on being "bullied" imo.

Well, I understand the distaste for smokers at times. I don't really have a problem with someone making a decision to destroy their own health. However, they often seem to have absolutely no sympathy for non-smokers, often lighting up right next to them or standing right outside a door as they smoke. And then they act as if having designated smoking areas is "unfair". Yeah, because forcing a non-smoker to inhale your secondhand smoke is totally fair to that non-smoker who is doing their best to not have to deal with the health effects you don't mind bringing on yourself...

Again, I don't mind if someone chooses to smoke. I just don't like it when they throw hissy fits every time we make decisions to try to minimize their effects on non-smokers who have made their own decision to avoid that stuff.

And by the way, this isn't directed at all smokers, just those that fit the description.

I feel the same way really. If you really enjoy your smoke then sure, you can destroy your own health. I also drink alcohol and that isn't exactly good for my body either.

However, cigarettes are one of the most addicting things out there (and they have become more so over the years, the amount of nicotine in them has increased). I know a few people who like to smoke a big fat cigar or a pipe now and then, they visually enjoy it and I even won't complain when they light it near me.

But them frekking addicts who burn one cigarette after the other all day long and get passive-aggressive when you tell em not to do it in your vicinity piss me off. Heck, most of them even admit that they have very little if any enjoyment at all from smoking between the first and last ones every day.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

Or that I've got to keep my smoking away from children because "No amount of smoke is safe", which is obviously a lie..

In so much as I am positive that these adverts are full of innuendo and exaggeration, could you maybe back that statement up. Because if I caught some smart arse trying to be a rebel and smoking around my children in any kind of confined space, I'd be taking those smokes off them and shoving them up their arse.

 

[Spambot 3000]

They're trying to encourage people to prolong their life and not make unhealthy choices.

Yea, but they're doing it in an immoral way by lying about cigarettes. Maybe it's because I'm agnostic that I can view at this from an unbias way, but I think you should tell the truth about cigarettes and let the consumer decide whether they want to smoke or not. Lying about a product you don't like so people won't by it is wrong in my opinion -- No matter how 'evil' the product.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a smoker and I don't support the deadly things, but I do think that this campaign is wrong by lying about cigarettes. Consumers should get the truth, not lies and propaganda.

Eh, even if they're not telling the whole truth, I find it hard to be too upset with them when they're trying to get people to think 'maybe breathing in poison isn't such a good idea'. Sure if they were claiming that smokers were baby-murderers I'd have an issue but right now I can't say OPs complaints tug my heartstrings.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

I hate how creative they try to get to make the simple point. Is there any idiot on this planet that doesn't know smoking is bad for your health? It's written on the fucking packaging for Christ sakes.

 

[Dogstile]

Oh, they're awful. I've also seen another one where a girl (well, a young woman, I assume) buys a pack of cigarettes, and then the woman at the counter says she needs to pay a little bit more, so she rips some skin off her cheek and puts it on the counter.

Yes, really.

Remember those Scared Straight ads, with the "This is Your Brain on Drugs" and stuff? Apparently, we're back there again.

Oh goody! Those ads are actually fun to watch. I hope I get to see some.

I can't wait, England goes fucking crazy with those. They make no sense, serve only to horrify children, who will then go to others and tell them they're fucking terrified and having nightmares. The other people, wanting them to feel better about it, will offer them a cigarette, to show them exactly how little they affect people.

 

[Zeras]

I think these adverts are pointless. As a smoker I know the risks but I still enjoy a cigarette in the same way I know the risks of binge drinking but it still doesnt stop ne getting hammered on a weekend. These adverts dont put anyone off they are just there to make it look like the government is doing something about it when all they continue to do is tax the hell out of cigarettes. I pay £7 for 20 fags. Most of this £7 is tax, this doesnt solve anything.

Dont get me wrong. Im all for getting people to stop (I personally dont want to but thats my choice). I just think instead of demonising, patronising and taxing the smoking community there should be genuine free help available (out of hours) so that everyone can get help even if you work and cant make the classes which are run on weekdays during the day.

Im getting my tin foil hat on here but I think with all these "cigarettes are bad" campaigns its actually encouraging kids to be rebelious and smoke. The government wants this because of how much tax they make from smokers

Have you looked at what that tax funds? I know in the US the tax money from cigarettes goes to fund children's programs (like CHIP, etc) so I always wonder what will the government do when they finally kill the "golden goose" of cigarettes.

 

[Loonyyy]

Because if I caught some smart arse trying to be a rebel and smoking around my children in any kind of confined space, I'd be taking those smokes off them and shoving them up their arse.

As much as this moronic threat which completely misses the point of anything I've said makes me want to ignore you, I'll reply.

In so much as I am positive that these adverts are full of innuendo and exaggeration, could you maybe back that statement up.

There are dangerous and non dangerous levels of pretty much any poison. I'm highly skeptical of the claim that the smallest possible dosage of cigarette smoke is going to cause ill effects. And I'm certain that a much higher dosage of cigarette smoke, car exhausts, woodsmoke, and all manner of other things tends to be present in the air. That's not to say you should smoke around children. The amount of smoke inhaled is much higher than that if you're smoking around them, or in the house where they live. Cigarettes are not a precise delivery system, and besides that, you shouldn't encourage your children to smoke. But if no amount of cigarette smoke is safe, then we should get some respirators on our kids quicksmart.

Lying about the effects of the smoke, and the danger, is silly. Their little picture of a kid in an oxygen mask doesn't convince anyone. And once people realise that the danger on the packet is exagerated, when a kid breathes some smoke and doesn't end up with bronchitis, the message is much worse off. It's the same principal as the drug PSAs. Once someone you know starts using marijuana or the like, and doesn't end up beating up your grandmother for her jewelry, or blowing strangers for crack, the reliability of the information is questionable. The biggest risk is for parents and carers of children, and prolonged exposure to smoke, and that's really bad. But when Mum's out in the garage having a smoke, and her kid comes in to ask her when dinner is, and he doesn't fall ill, have a coughing fit, or anything of the sort, their message is damaged.

And really, their message is fucking simple, and could be got across a lot more easily. "What are you, a fucking idiot? Don't smoke around your fucking kids. *smack*" Everyone knows cigarette smoke is bad, and telling them to keep it away from kids, in a reasonable way that can't be questioned is much simpler than a couple of political aids mistaking their wikipedia searching for any medical knowledge.

 

[Adam Locking]

Figured I'd save everyone the effort of trying to find the ad getting referenced in the OP


Yeah the advert's dumb, but they're hardly designed to be works of art; their sole purpose is to make smoking look as unattractive as possible.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

Because if I caught some smart arse trying to be a rebel and smoking around my children in any kind of confined space, I'd be taking those smokes off them and shoving them up their arse.

As much as this moronic threat which completely misses the point of anything I've said makes me want to ignore you, I'll reply.

In so much as I am positive that these adverts are full of innuendo and exaggeration, could you maybe back that statement up.

There are dangerous and non dangerous levels of pretty much any poison. I'm highly skeptical of the claim that the smallest possible dosage of cigarette smoke is going to cause ill effects. And I'm certain that a much higher dosage of cigarette smoke, car exhausts, woodsmoke, and all manner of other things tends to be present in the air. That's not to say you should smoke around children. The amount of smoke inhaled is much higher than that if you're smoking around them, or in the house where they live. Cigarettes are not a precise delivery system, and besides that, you shouldn't encourage your children to smoke. But if no amount of cigarette smoke is safe, then we should get some respirators on our kids quicksmart.

Lying about the effects of the smoke, and the danger, is silly. Their little picture of a kid in an oxygen mask doesn't convince anyone. And once people realise that the danger on the packet is exagerated, when a kid breathes some smoke and doesn't end up with bronchitis, the message is much worse off. It's the same principal as the drug PSAs. Once someone you know starts using marijuana or the like, and doesn't end up beating up your grandmother for her jewelry, or blowing strangers for crack, the reliability of the information is questionable. The biggest risk is for parents and carers of children, and prolonged exposure to smoke, and that's really bad. But when Mum's out in the garage having a smoke, and her kid comes in to ask her when dinner is, and he doesn't fall ill, have a coughing fit, or anything of the sort, their message is damaged.

And really, their message is fucking simple, and could be got across a lot more easily. "What are you, a fucking idiot? Don't smoke around your fucking kids. *smack*" Everyone knows cigarette smoke is bad, and telling them to keep it away from kids, in a reasonable way that can't be questioned is much simpler than a couple of political aids mistaking their wikipedia searching for any medical knowledge.

For what it's worth, most PSA's in Australia in recent years have turned to things that we actually have huge problems with like Alcohol (fuck we have a BIG problem there) and methamphetamine related drugs: I haven't seen a PSA for Pot....ever, actually. As for the measures of delivery, when it comes to babies, most of us prefer the ounce of prevention than the pound of cure. No one smokes near my kids; end of story. Now around me alone, no problem, because my lungs are more or less at their peak and can probably take reasonable exposure cigarette smoke.

I agree most PSA's about smoking could do with a bit more science in their making - though most I've seen tend to either look on the social problems or show you an example of the long term effects because as you point out; the effects of such things aren't immediate: they're cumulative but attention spans and ad space being what they are, you gotta get to the point quick.

 

[shootthebandit]

I think these adverts are pointless. As a smoker I know the risks but I still enjoy a cigarette in the same way I know the risks of binge drinking but it still doesnt stop ne getting hammered on a weekend. These adverts dont put anyone off they are just there to make it look like the government is doing something about it when all they continue to do is tax the hell out of cigarettes. I pay £7 for 20 fags. Most of this £7 is tax, this doesnt solve anything.

Dont get me wrong. Im all for getting people to stop (I personally dont want to but thats my choice). I just think instead of demonising, patronising and taxing the smoking community there should be genuine free help available (out of hours) so that everyone can get help even if you work and cant make the classes which are run on weekdays during the day.

Im getting my tin foil hat on here but I think with all these "cigarettes are bad" campaigns its actually encouraging kids to be rebelious and smoke. The government wants this because of how much tax they make from smokers

Have you looked at what that tax funds? I know in the US the tax money from cigarettes goes to fund children's programs (like CHIP, etc)

Its stupid a packet of cigs could be sold for £1 a pack and still generate a good profit. Yet you pay on average £7 because the government believes that making something more expensive is gonna stop people from doing it. Its probably quite a large sum of tax generated but the cost of smokers on the NHS is huge (nowhere near as big as junk food though). Unlike the US the UKs main priority is universal health care and they will still find a way to keep it running

 

[Someone Depressing]

Eh Cigarettes effect people in different ways I guess, just because you don't get urges to smoke in common places doesn't mean others don't. Obviously telling you cigs are slowly killing you hasn't worked, but bringing into question your free will made you pissed enough to post online about it.

Does remind me of this Onion video though:

Spoiler

...Was that real?

Because if that was real, I'm going to flip a table onto a basket of newborn poppies being held by Mother Theresa's perfectly re-assembled body in which her calm, loving spirit is being housed by, while singing a peace treaty between America and Russia.

OP: Really, it's a "scare 'em the right way" ad. It doesn't care if you smoke, and it's probably made by people who've never smoked.

It is grossly exaggarted, though.

 

[Robert Marrs]

I'm a smoker and I have to admit the ads are pretty dumb. The ones in america are just shock value garbage that most kids laugh at. My little brother literally laughs at them. I have to say though I don't know anyone who smokes a pack a day that is not addicted. Prove it to yourself and don't smoke a single cigarette for a week. Then let everyone know how that went. Just because you don't stop whatever you are doing to smoke a cigarette does not mean you are not addicted. If you are smoking a full pack a day you obviously don't need to find time to smoke. Working 5 days a week I would have to force myself to smoke a full pack a day and I have been smoking for almost 9 years.

 

[Something Amyss]

I have never felt the need to leave class for a cigarette, pause a movie for a cigarette, or generally break anything short that I was enjoying just to have a cigarette, and at a pack a day I am in no way only moderately or lightly addicted.

I've known dozens of people who can't make it through a meal for a cigarette, let alone a movie. I mean, it's great that this isn't a problem for you, but it appears to be a problem for a good number of people. Is the issue, then, that it doesn't address you personally, or do you feel that if you don't feel compelled then nobody does?

My grandfather smoked more than a pack a day and lived to be almost 100. Doesn't mean the cancer warnings are lying. Cigarettes impact different people differently.

1. They are anti-smoking ads. As in, their primary goal is to keep people from smoking.

Yeah, but I'd be inclined to agree with him and disagree with you if the ad were stating something that was actually false. As I've mentioned recently talking about both piracy and drugs, lying in these ads appears to have a negative impact rather than a positive one. As it is, these ads aren't exactly lying or even disingenuous: this is a common effect of smoking.

Now, I know we're not actually disagreeing here, but this was a talking point I wanted to bring up, and your response was pretty convenient. I disagree with deceiving people to stop them from smoking/doing drugs/pirating/whatever. In part because I hope we're better than than and in part because it doesn't work.

I hate how creative they try to get to make the simple point. Is there any idiot on this planet that doesn't know smoking is bad for your health? It's written on the fucking packaging for Christ sakes.

I should point out that there are people who have sued the tobacco companies who started smoking AFTER the warnings got put on. So I very much think you're overestimating the awareness (and maybe intelligence or literacy) of the public at large.

 

[Something Amyss]

...Was that real?

Are you not familiar with The Onion? It's a satire site:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/company-president-started-out-as-fertilized-embryo,35484/

Just a random example from a quick Google search.