Cigarettes are bullies ads

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
dylanmc12 said:
...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.
 
Sep 13, 2009
1,589
0
0
I don't have much experience with smokers, aside from being stuck next to someone who reeks of it frequently on the train, but there's a guy in my computer graphics class that seems to give evidence to there being some truth in the ad. I was working on an assignment in the computer lab at the same time as him and he would leave once every half an hour to smoke (in -30 degrees celsius weather) over the course of 5 hours. Not to mention that I have to be on the opposite side of the lab from him for me to not be able to smell him
 

Blow_Pop

Supreme Evil Overlord
Jan 21, 2009
4,865
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
SaneAmongInsane said:
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.
Just like the person who sued McDonald's because their cup of HOT coffee burned them and even though they ordered a HOT coffee they apparently didn't think it would be hot?

OP: As a former smoker who did a pack or two a day and was never addicted to it, was more something to do and when I initially started it fooled my brain into thinking I was less stressed by the time I finished my cigarettes, I can attest that I have seen people who are as addicted as that ad shows. I've worked with people like that. I've also worked with people who were that addicted to pot as well. And fuck everyone who says pot is a non addictive drug because anything and everything is addictive. Let me tell you it's not fun to be swamped, in an office, with 4 phone lines ringing off the hook and people angry that you aren't answering quickly enough because you're by yourself because your co worker HAD to go outside and smoke. It's even more fun when you have asthma and cigarette smoke is a trigger of your asthma and they come in 15-20 minutes and 3 or 4 cigarettes later reeking of smoke and you can't breathe and then get berated by your boss because you had to take yourself off the phones, use your inhaler, and go outside to get air just so you didn't have to be taken to the hospital because your co workers were a bunch of insensitive fucks. OH AND having your supervisors tell you that there is nothing they can do to make people stop smoking right next to the door with it open even though California has a law that explicitly states that you can NOT smoke within 20 feet of the door of a business(IF I'm fully remembering correctly) not to mention we are the state with the strictest smoking laws as well. And not doing anything until you threaten to sue them and make them pay any hospital bills you wind up incurring because the other employees are inconsiderate fucks and keep sending you into asthma attacks while you are sitting at your desk trying to do your job.

Suffice it to say, I am in favour of anti smoking ads when they're not giving misinformation like the DARE program did. Is it misinformation to say that people do get that addicted to smoking? No. Because it has a basis in truth. It is misinformation to say that EVERYONE will get that addicted because everyone's bodies deal with things differently as some people are more prone to addiction than others but as far as the ad in question goes, I have no issues with it. I have more issues with people who feel the need to be inconsiderate assholes in lines (which in California, they are not suppose to be smoking in in the first place) and get pissy when someone asks them to step downwind of them and even offering to hold their spot in line so that they can so that the other person doesn't have a severe asthma attack. I've been yelled at by people for that. And I'm sorry but when I'm in line outside at a place like the DMV to handle something that I can't just handle online and HAVE to be there to handle the issue, I can't just leave and go somewhere else while you finish your cigarette. If all my friends and people I'm not even friends with or even like can respect that if they are going to smoke around me they need to just be downwind from me, some random asshole should be able to do that. I'm not lecturing them on their health mind, I'm merely asking "hey can you please smoke that downwind from me as it's aggravating my asthma and I'm having problems breathing". Because apparently people take serious offense to that like I'm trying to preach to them. I don't understand smokers who have a stick that far up their ass that they can't be courteous to fellow humans. IF I have the option of moving upwind from someone, I do but when I don't have the option for whatever reason....I think I'm going to stop here otherwise I'm just going to do a very excessively long rant.
 

ERaptor

New member
Oct 4, 2010
179
0
0
shootthebandit said:
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
Yeah, thats the "official" reason. I think it would be more accurate to say that its just an easy way to make lots of tax-money, and not the goverment actually caring about a smokers health. ;D


Now, about the ad. I actually found it quite funny, even as an Ex-Smoker. I take more issues with ads and propaganda demonizing smokers than demonizing the cigs themselves, and I dont think the ad is doing that too much. It's simply a fact that the negative aspects of smoking far outweight the positives. And if you want to keep people from starting to smoke, this is probably a good way.
 

Blow_Pop

Supreme Evil Overlord
Jan 21, 2009
4,865
0
0
TheKasp said:
Blow_Pop said:
Just like the person who sued McDonald's because their cup of HOT coffee burned them and even though they ordered a HOT coffee they apparently didn't think it would be hot?
You mean the case where a woman suffered third-degree burns, tried to settle down for just her medical and other expenses that resulted from that injury (skin grafting + 2 years of medical treatment) and McDonalds refused, resulting in them paying way more than she actually wanted?
Actually more referring to the people who still can't grasp the concept that hot coffee will be hot even with the mandatory warnings that the contents will be hot that resulted from that case and still try to sue McDonalds because they got minor (inconsequential ones compared to that particular case) burns from it.
 

QuicklyAcross

New member
Mar 11, 2014
54
0
0
Ads have never been about portraying and presenting fact or a messege with truth.
Ads are just to convince you to think one way or the other so theyre going to be overexaggerated for a reason
 

manic_depressive13

New member
Dec 28, 2008
2,617
0
0
Ha, it all makes sense. Every time I have a cigarette I'm sucking off a short, hairy fat man. So that's why it's so enjoyable!

Anyway, the ad doesn't bother me. I knew when I took up smoking that people don't have a high opinion of smokers. If people want to think I'm a slave to addiction, an asshole and an idiot, they can be my guest. Good on them for being so much better than me.
 

shootthebandit

New member
May 20, 2009
3,867
0
0
ERaptor said:
shootthebandit said:
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
Yeah, thats the "official" reason. I think it would be more accurate to say that its just an easy way to make lots of tax-money, and not the goverment actually caring about a smokers health. ;D


Now, about the ad. I actually found it quite funny, even as an Ex-Smoker. I take more issues with ads and propaganda demonizing smokers than demonizing the cigs themselves, and I dont think the ad is doing that too much. It's simply a fact that the negative aspects of smoking far outweight the positives. And if you want to keep people from starting to smoke, this is probably a good way.
I agree. Smoking is really bad for you and I wouldnt encourage anyone to start (I say this as a smoker). Like you said the adverts shouldnt demonise smokers and I think thats often the case. Also like most public service ads they are incredibly patronsing which already makes them lose some credibility.

On the subject of taxes. Its more a UK thing that the government decides that making things more expensive will put people off when its just a way for them to make money so they can have a vote for themselves to get a 14% payrise. Personally I think they should stop spending money on these stupid adverts and instead open up free out-of-hours (so people who work full-time thus contributing most can actually attend) sessions at GPs to provide free help, support and advice on quiting
 

The Gnome King

New member
Mar 27, 2011
685
0
0
2012 Wont Happen said:
I keep seeing this ad on TV that shows a little bully man yelling at someone to do things that it eventually reveals to be a cigarette. I know why anti-smoking ads are out on tv and even as a smoker I can recognize that smoking isn't societally good, and saying such ads are bad isn't what I'm getting at.
I think it's the HEIGHT of irony to see a government sponsored anti-smoking commercial come on TV and then immediately after see them play a frickin' ad for whiskey or beer or alcohol of whatever type.

Message, kids: Alcohol is currently socially A'OK even though it's as easily as dangerous as smoking - if not much more deadly - in excess... but cigarettes will KILL YOU the FIRST TIME you EVER TOUCH ONE.

It's dumb, like when in the DARE program 20 years ago they said weed was as dangerous as crack.

Full disclosure: I don't smoke cigarettes. (They gross me out.) I do drink alcohol, in moderation. I just think the double standard for TV ads is hilarious. Sure, let your 12 year old see how much fun binge drinking is, or beer, but tell them a cigarette is a one-way ticket to death and destruction. I love it when they show the cancer patients in the cigarette commercials, too. Why not show anti-alcohol commercials with all the damn people on a liver-transplant waiting list because they're career alcoholics?
 

shootthebandit

New member
May 20, 2009
3,867
0
0
The Gnome King said:
2012 Wont Happen said:
I keep seeing this ad on TV that shows a little bully man yelling at someone to do things that it eventually reveals to be a cigarette. I know why anti-smoking ads are out on tv and even as a smoker I can recognize that smoking isn't societally good, and saying such ads are bad isn't what I'm getting at.
I think it's the HEIGHT of irony to see a government sponsored anti-smoking commercial come on TV and then immediately after see them play a frickin' ad for whiskey or beer or alcohol of whatever type.

Message, kids: Alcohol is currently socially A'OK even though it's as easily as dangerous as smoking - if not much more deadly - in excess... but cigarettes will KILL YOU the FIRST TIME you EVER TOUCH ONE.

It's dumb, like when in the DARE program 20 years ago they said weed was as dangerous as crack.

Full disclosure: I don't smoke cigarettes. (They gross me out.) I do drink alcohol, in moderation. I just think the double standard for TV ads is hilarious. Sure, let your 12 year old see how much fun binge drinking is, or beer, but tell them a cigarette is a one-way ticket to death and destruction. I love it when they show the cancer patients in the cigarette commercials, too. Why not show anti-alcohol commercials with all the damn people on a liver-transplant waiting list because they're career alcoholics?
I have to agree, smoking is incredibly addictive whereas alcohol is nowhere near as addictive. The long-term risks of smoking are pretty severe as opposed to the long term risks of booze (obviously there are exceptions).

The physical effects of binge drinking arent all that bad. Considering most people drink on weekends they drink their fill and go home with a hangover, thats as far as the physical effects go (again theres always exceptions). HOWEVER...

The problem with alcohol is how CERTAIN people react to it. I know a few people who I refuse to go drinking with because they become very aggressive. Personally I think everyone should have a drinking ID that is specifically used to buy alcohol and go to clubs. If youve been aggressive or violent or got a DUI they should put a black mark against your name so vendors cannot legally sell you booze and you cant legally enter clubs etc.

In summary alcohol has very limited short term and long term effects (no including severe cases) however its mental effects are VERY dangerous with certain people (unfortunately that number is a lot higher than it should be)

To be honest NONE of these products should be aimed at children because they are dangerous. Smoking poses longterm health risks and drinking can seriously alter your perception

I know the mods arent keen on this stuff and I dont really want to drag this anymore off-topic but sometimes I think a lot of illegal drugs could actually be a better alternative to alcohol (if used correctly and if controlled). Im not encouraging people to take this stuff (seriously avoid illegal drugs and "legal" highs) 9 times out of 10 you dont get what you think youve bought and its cut with all sorts of nasties. However id like to point out that alcohol isnt much better, yes physically its a lot safer than uncontrolled drugs but mentally it can actually have a lot worse effects

N.b. This is coming from someone who smokes, drinks and has used drugs a couple of times
 

The Gnome King

New member
Mar 27, 2011
685
0
0
shootthebandit said:
The problem with alcohol is how CERTAIN people react to it. I know a few people who I refuse to go drinking with because they become very aggressive. Personally I think everyone should have a drinking ID that is specifically used to buy alcohol and go to clubs. If youve been aggressive or violent or got a DUI they should put a black mark against your name so vendors cannot legally sell you booze and you cant legally enter clubs etc.
Whoa... just... whoa. I'm going to focus on this part of your post because I *really* like it. It allows those of us who use booze but have NEVER gotten a DUI or hit their wife (me, for example) - no matter how much I drink - to buy alcohol. At the same time, it keeps the trash who can't handle their alcohol and who start fights in bars or cause car accidents to be treated like the problems to society that they are.

I dig it. ;)

Honestly, I'd support letting people do ANY drug UNTIL they prove to:

1) Become violent on it or
2) Steal to obtain it...

Because otherwise, drug abuse is the very definition of a victimless crime. And please don't "what about the children" me... yes, drug addicts shouldn't have children. Neither should violent schizophrenics or violent bipolar people, and yet they do all the time. Society can't control for every unfit parent; all we can do is minimize problems.

Full disclosure: I've had a LOT worse experienced with bipolar people who go "off their meds" than I've ever had with a drunk, and that includes barfights. I've... had some bad experiences. And not with drunks. Or drugs. Just "sober" people who AREN'T taking what they should.
 

TheIceQueen

New member
Sep 15, 2013
420
0
0
2012 Wont Happen said:
This 'argument is pretty much the exact same one as those who claim that they went through a notoriously buggy game without experiencing any bugs and therefore that discounts everyone else who has gotten quite a few bugs. "It doesn't happen to me" is never a good argument. Hey, that's great. I applaud you for not having to experience that, but anecdotal evidence is anecdotal and you shouldn't be using that as proof of anything. Your story is not someone else's story and it may not even be close to the usual story.