Are you not familiar with The Onion? It's a satire site:dylanmc12 said:...Was that real?
http://www.theonion.com/articles/company-president-started-out-as-fertilized-embryo,35484/
Just a random example from a quick Google search.
Are you not familiar with The Onion? It's a satire site:dylanmc12 said:...Was that real?
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?Zachary Amaranth said: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.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.
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. ;Dshootthebandit 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
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.TheKasp said: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?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?
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.ERaptor said: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. ;Dshootthebandit 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
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 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.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 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 Gnome King said: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.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.
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?
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.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.
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.2012 Wont Happen said:Snip.