New Anti-Smoking Ads

[5ilver]

Could you put a "NOT SAFE FOR CHILDREN" or "MAY SCAR YOU FOR LIFE" warning before the actual video?

 

[Treblaine]

It was over 70 years ago we learned that smoking was more than just bad for your health, it was the SINGLE most damaging thing you could do (legally) to your body that would shorten your life. But for the next decades since scientists quietly insisted on this risk they were more than ignored, smoking rates went UP! You can see why such measured had to be resorted to.

People should have the right to make their own choice but they have a responsibility to make an INFORMED choice! If they are irresponsible and don't seek out the risks then they will be told.

I think for most people if they really knew the risks and realities of smoking they would never even start.

 

[Treblaine]

People should have the right to make their own choice but they have a responsibility to make an INFORMED choice! If they are irresponsible and don't seek out the risks then they will be told.

I think for most people if they really knew the risks and realities of smoking they would never even start.

I'm fairly certain this goes beyond informing people of risks.

Humans are not machines, for a large population to actually get a message it has to be in human terms. They were told of the dangers calmly and quietly yet most did not register the true dangers. Such uncensored visual depictions of the diseases from smoking are needed for people to take in the facts.

I worked as a medical technician in a hospital and I was trained to inform patients of impotent details in very explicite ways as the NHS had actually conducted evidence based research and the general public took in as little as a quarter of the information given to them and even with a small amount. So if told 5 things they will forget 3 of them and mis remember the 4th.

This advert doesn't ever say "don't smoke". It just states emphatically and unflinchingly what the outcome can be.

I've had people try to tell me smoking is dangerous.

Dangerous, y'all? Really? I'd give you the point that it's unhealthy...but dangerous? Not in the grand scheme of things. If you wanna see smoking get dangerous, try hooking your mouth up to a running engine's exhaust pipe. Now that's dangerous, my friend. Not to mention slightly retarded. As someone else has pointed out, drunk driving's a bit dangerous, too. Also retarded, but happens to be more dangerous than smoking. You wanna know what I find to be even more dangerous than that?

Putting nuclear reactors near goddamn fault lines in a place aptly named the "Ring of Fire".

I wonder if many people have discovered vaporizing yet. Much less dangerous than smoking, and it works with tobacco. FYI: on this nice little topic of drug use - I want to make it PERFECTLY CLEAR that I'm not for or against it in any shape or fashion; do whatcha want. That, and this topic been talked about before, so I'm just going to leave this lil' message from the past here...

Spoiler: Enjoy and pay special attention at the three and a half minute mark

That's bill hick right?

Didn't he die from cancer... when he was only 32 years old?

I think he has a lot of insight into the social aspects of various drugs but the tragedy of his young death does not do much to refute the associated health risks.

Yes there are things more dangerous than smoking. But that's a false dichotomy? It's like saying that playing Russian roulette isn't as dangerous as putting a full loaded gun to your head and pulling the trigger. Playing Russian roulette is still a dangerous thing to do. Smoking is still really bad for you... As should be obvious, you are inhaling huge volumes of smoke.

I think all the benefits of medical cannabis should be delivered professionally via prescription in suitable medical delivery so in pill form or vapourising inhaler if pulmonary delivery really is critical (I don't know of any medical reason for such a rapid delivery).

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

[That's bill hick right?

Didn't he die from cancer... when he was only 32 years old?

I think he has a lot of insight into the social aspects of various drugs but the tragedy of his young death does not do much to refute the associated health risks.

Yes there are things more dangerous than smoking. But that's a false dichotomy? It's like saying that playing Russian roulette isn't as dangerous as putting a full loaded gun to your head and pulling the trigger. Playing Russian roulette is still a dangerous thing to do. Smoking is still really bad for you... As should be obvious, you are inhaling huge volumes of smoke.

I think all the benefits of medical cannabis should be delivered professionally via prescription in suitable medical delivery so in pill form or vapourising inhaler if pulmonary delivery really is critical (I don't know of any medical reason for such a rapid delivery).

That is, indeed, one William Melvin "Bill" Hicks. Here's the weird thing, though - he did quit smoking for a brief period of time! Also, Bill Hicks died of pancreatic cancer and some have debated whether or not his smoking habits were influencial on his death. The argument is that his diet ultimately led to his cancer, which has some merit. Regardles, all forms of smoking are ultimately unhealthy for the human anatomy. But then, when the ultimate outcome of life is death, who is to say what humans should or shouldn't do to themselves as long as it doesn't infringe on another person's freedoms?

Spoiler: Bill Hicks on giving up smoking and non-smokers

 

[Treblaine]

snip

Would you find it acceptable if we did the same with cars?

Yes, and they do. In the UK at least and I've seen what appear to be American versions as well warning of the dangers with car driving. I CANNOT be in a moving car without a seatbelt on which will HUGELY protect me in almost every kind of accident.

Also PSA's about the dangers with house fires and of electricity transformers, and a whole load of other things.

[That's bill hick right?

Didn't he die from cancer... when he was only 32 years old?

I think he has a lot of insight into the social aspects of various drugs but the tragedy of his young death does not do much to refute the associated health risks.

Yes there are things more dangerous than smoking. But that's a false dichotomy? It's like saying that playing Russian roulette isn't as dangerous as putting a full loaded gun to your head and pulling the trigger. Playing Russian roulette is still a dangerous thing to do. Smoking is still really bad for you... As should be obvious, you are inhaling huge volumes of smoke.

I think all the benefits of medical cannabis should be delivered professionally via prescription in suitable medical delivery so in pill form or vapourising inhaler if pulmonary delivery really is critical (I don't know of any medical reason for such a rapid delivery).

That is, indeed, one William Melvin "Bill" Hicks. Here's the weird thing, though - he did quit smoking for a brief period of time! Also, Bill Hicks died of pancreatic cancer and some have debated whether or not his smoking habits were influencial on his death. The argument is that his diet ultimately led to his cancer, which has some merit. Regardles, all forms of smoking are ultimately unhealthy for the human anatomy. But then, when the ultimate outcome of life is death, who is to say what humans should or shouldn't do to themselves as long as it doesn't infringe on another person's freedoms?

Spoiler: Bill Hicks on giving up smoking and non-smokers

Some have debated? Have you heard of "weasel words"? Give me at least a name or a reputable doctor who discounted Bill Hicks chain smoking as not contributing in any substantial way to his untimely death.

I'm not saying Bill Hicks should have been arrested or somehow forced to quit smoking, prohibition doesn't work.

I'm saying if you are going to quote him on how to live your life then you must face up to the reality of how his life was cut VERY short by smoking related disease.

Yeah, his "jokes" about non-smokers dying every day become quite unintentionally macabre when you realise he'd be dead only a few years later while people in his audience who didn't smoke could expect to live over twice as long as him. Bill Hicks deserved a longer life, he was no dummy, I'm sure if he really knew and could accept the risks he wouldn't have smoked so much for so long.

But he was cynical, he clearly was lied to about other drugs and is bitter about that and undermines other warning. He is a victim of the media crying wolf, but he didn't differentiate between scientists restrained advice and special-interests groups like Republicans-Against-Drugs exaggerating the risks of other drugs to such an extent.

It's telling that anti-cannabis campaigns have to hire actors telling convolutely cut dramas, but anti-smoking campaigns just film actual patients who just frankly tell their situation as a result of smoking.

 

[omega 616]

How old do you have to be to smoke these days? 16? 18? Anyway, by that kind of age if you don't know smoking has a high chance of causing you problems then you're a moron.

So everybody who smokes knows the facts about smoking and what it can lead to, so why do they need to be educated? It's like trying to convert Christians to Atheism.

Why not just start releasing adverts about the damages of drinking or stabbing plug sockets with a knife? Talk about trying to teach the bleeding obvious.

 

[Treblaine]

How old do you have to be to smoke these days? 16? 18? Anyway, by that kind of age if you don't know smoking has a high chance of causing you problems then you're a moron.

So everybody who smokes knows the facts about smoking and what it can lead to, so why do they need to be educated? It's like trying to convert Christians to Atheism.

Why not just start releasing adverts about the damages of drinking or stabbing plug sockets with a knife? Talk about trying to teach the bleeding obvious.

Um there are adverts about the dangers of drinking and also the dangers of electricity.

And yeah, it does take just a bit more than "you should know for yourself" about smoking. So many are just not getting the quiet restrained message, they don't want to hear about how their favourite habit is going to causes anything hugely bad to happen.

 

[hatseflats]

Apparently, wood smoke is very dangerous as well, having roughly the same effects as smoking...

Linky thingy [http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/952/1/Beware-Your-Fireplace-Or-Wood-Burning-Stove-May-Be-Harming-Your-Health.html]

But you rarely hear anybody about it. Smoking is something done by a small minority, so it's easy to pick on it. There aren't many people with hearths either (far less I'd think) but most people really like wood burning, while most people dislike smoking. I always hear the main cause of dying by non-natural causes is related to people being overweight. However, it's unlikely the governments will tax fast food as heavily as they do smoking because so many people eat unhealthily.*

I smoke, once in a while. I don't smoke on a daily basis but rather smoke a package within a few days once every two weeks or so.
Thing is, I can't actually make a calculated decision about whether or not I should stop. Because I don't know what the effect is. Most studies I've found simply refer to "smokers", and most smokers smoke an awful lot. Other studies differentiated between heavy smokers (>20 fags a day) and light smokers (less than that), in which case the effect on heavy smokers is far higher. However, I still smoke far less than those light smokers. Another study differentiated between those who smoke half a package a day, one package and two or more. Still far more than I smoke.
Also, studies disagree on what the odds really are on getting lung cancer (which is one of the nastiest possible outcomes). One study reported something like 51/100,000 for 0.5 pack a day, compared to 3.4 for non smokers, but another study found it was more in the range of a 20 percent chance for smokers.
If smoking the amount I do results in an increase from 3.4 tot, say, 10/100,000, I am fine with those odds since I really like smoking (I like the taste of it and going outside to enjoy a walk with a cigarette).**

*Also, people who say healthy food is expensive are really pathetic. It's not. It's expensive if you want fast healthy food, but if you'd take the effort to cook for yourself then it's actually ridiculously cheap.
Me and my girlfriend cook meals for about ?1,50 - ?3 per day, which is in the Netherlands where prices are far higher than in the USA (hamburgers at McDonalds start at ?2 here). For about the same money you've got a full meal with more meat (= relatively expensive) than is actually recommended, so if you really want to eat healthily you could cut back on costs even more. And the good thing is that it actually fills your stomach. I could eat three McDonalds hamburgers and still be hungry.

**Apparently, most people do not smoke because of the taste but out of habit or whatever. Which seems like a pointless thing to do. Probably because people start smoking Marlboro (which tastes like ash really) and then get addicted.

 

[The White Hunter]

It doesn't even get you high.

This. It's by some distance the most pointless substance to abuse. Cannot for the life of me see what makes people want to try it in the first place - at least other drugs have side effects that kind of entice you.

Makes sense. Cannabis has very little negative effect on you anyway so just smoke that instead?

OT: All things in moderation, I don't habitually smoke but the occasional fine cuban cigar with some good scotch is a very nice thing indeed. Only 1 or 2 a year, maybe, do I smoke. Otherwise drink is what's slowly killing me.

But then livers can be transplanted. Lungs can't. Though I don't by any means rely on such things, I have started drinking less and such.

So yeah, moderation. If you're on 60 a day eventually it will catch up with you though.

 

[The White Hunter]

It was over 70 years ago we learned that smoking was more than just bad for your health, it was the SINGLE most damaging thing you could do (legally) to your body that would shorten your life. But for the next decades since scientists quietly insisted on this risk they were more than ignored, smoking rates went UP! You can see why such measured had to be resorted to.

People should have the right to make their own choice but they have a responsibility to make an INFORMED choice! If they are irresponsible and don't seek out the risks then they will be told.

I think for most people if they really knew the risks and realities of smoking they would never even start.

This is valid, though I'd like to point out that you can legally drink petrol if you so desire and that will likely fuck you up alot more than smoking and alot faster.

But then it's exaggeration, and we all do it. =]

To briefly be serious, I think alot of why people start smoking has very little to do with ignorance of the facts, I know a lot of people who smoke in spite of it and started merely because they thought it was rebellious and cool to do so, I'm not talking about in the 70's or 80's either, I'm talking 4, 5, 6 years ago.

Peer pressure and representation in entertainment media are obvious factors, along with the desire to rebel against authority as an adolescent.

But anyway, I'll just ramble on and on on this with no real purpose since I agree: smoking is bad.

 

[Treblaine]

Yes, and they do. In the UK at least and I've seen what appear to be American versions as well warning of the dangers with car driving. I CANNOT be in a moving car without a seatbelt on which will HUGELY protect me in almost every kind of accident.

I'm not talking about seatbelts, I'm talking about the inherent dangers of driving. Now, if you're saying that just telling drivers to wear a seatbealt is enough then smoking filtered cigarettes should be enough for smokers.

Well filtering cigarette smoke does very little to reduce its cancerous and pulmonary damaging properties. A seatbelt does hugely protect you from the dangers associated with driving. Also not driving while intoxicated, sleepy or otherwise cognitively compromised.

The inherent dangers of cars are WELL emphasises with the rigorous process that must be completed to get a licence and how with road laws as they are it can easily be taken away. Also, the dangers with cars comes from the fundamental knowledge of the physical world that all adults of non-disabled intelligence comprehend.

But the biology of Cancer is beyond the scope of most people, it is obscure and easy to get lead along a blind bath of the risks. People are deceived into thinking it means they only get a small risk of dying from cancer in their 70's, when the reality is smoking you are most likely to dies before your children have even finished education. And life-insurance policies know this, life-insurance for smokers is very high if possible to get at all.

Very few smokers live to retirement. I worked as a medical technician and saw what people had to go through to not die. The treatment is tough, real real tough, their body is already compromised by the smoking itself and with the chemo, radiation and surgery they are a wreak but they go through with if because they do NOT want to die. I was assisting a doctor as he examined a man who could never eat again from the treatment of his throat cancer, he was a smoker and was only 50 years old. He can't taste anything. If he ever eat 50% chance it'll go the wrong way go directly into his lungs.

If anyone did this to another person against their will it would be an unforgivable crime, but he did it to himself.

I KNOW he'd never have smoked - NEVER - if he truly knew this could happen to him.

This is not like being blind sided by a drunk driver or street-racer, that is their fault.

The only way you can protect yourself from these horrible diseases of smoking is not to inhale smoke. Not directly, not sharing an enclosed space with smokers. I'd rather have a head on high speed collision in a car (with seatbelt and airbags) than go through what that poor man went through with his smoking related condition.

You can drive a car on the roads safely all your life with a very low chance of being killed or severely disabled at a relatively young age, but you cannot safely smoke.

 

[mrF00bar]

Here in England the adverts you see on TV are usually about government funded organisations 'helping' you quit or products that help you quit instead of that shock/fear video you have there.

What I don't like about them is the way they belittle the people they advertise to, the ad always starts of by reminding the person how hard it is to give up and that you need to buy our product to be able to give up as if to say I don't have the willpower to.

I've given up smoking in 2 weeks cold turkey without the aid of any chewing gum or that patch/plaster thingy. I've never understood why people have such trouble stopping.

 

[MasterOfHisOwnDomain]

Makes sense. Cannabis has very little negative effect on you anyway so just smoke that instead?

OT: All things in moderation, I don't habitually smoke but the occasional fine cuban cigar with some good scotch is a very nice thing indeed. Only 1 or 2 a year, maybe, do I smoke. Otherwise drink is what's slowly killing me.

Indeed. But people tend to pack spliffs with tobacco anyway to fill it out, especially if they already smoke it without weed. Which is stupid. As you say, just smoke weed instead.

I also have the occasional cigar, and also with a drink, so high-five to that. I always laugh at the warnings on the packets when I do though - "You can give up" ... one pack of cigars a year? Hah.

 

[The White Hunter]

Makes sense. Cannabis has very little negative effect on you anyway so just smoke that instead?

OT: All things in moderation, I don't habitually smoke but the occasional fine cuban cigar with some good scotch is a very nice thing indeed. Only 1 or 2 a year, maybe, do I smoke. Otherwise drink is what's slowly killing me.

Indeed. But people tend to pack spliffs with tobacco anyway to fill it out, especially if they already smoke it without weed. Which is stupid. As you say, just smoke weed instead.

I also have the occasional cigar, and also with a drink, so high-five to that. I always laugh at the warnings on the packets when I do though - "You can give up" ... one pack of cigars a year? Hah.

High-five is returned!

I know we have loads here in the UK, grisly pictures too, and I have only a few a year > >

Yeah everyone I know packs out their weed with tobacco, says weed doesnt burn well and shit. They're just cheap and lazy. That said I haven't had weed in years and really shouldn't, could lose me a career xD

 

[Smeatza]

It's like they think we don't know the consequences of smoking by now.
Where are the adverts for healthy eating? Heart disease is a much bigger problem.

 

[DANEgerous]

sadly they are going to work far better than statistics for most people, it is defiantly purely appeal to emotion for almost every one here but you have to realize a lot of people are idiots.

Likely most people on this forum would see that person and know what caused it, but then you have the rest of America if you cut out the text and sound and said "what is this raising awareness for?" you may get "assault the person was stabbed in the neck!".

 

[Treblaine]

It was over 70 years ago we learned that smoking was more than just bad for your health, it was the SINGLE most damaging thing you could do (legally) to your body that would shorten your life. But for the next decades since scientists quietly insisted on this risk they were more than ignored, smoking rates went UP! You can see why such measured had to be resorted to.

People should have the right to make their own choice but they have a responsibility to make an INFORMED choice! If they are irresponsible and don't seek out the risks then they will be told.

I think for most people if they really knew the risks and realities of smoking they would never even start.

This is valid, though I'd like to point out that you can legally drink petrol if you so desire and that will likely fuck you up alot more than smoking and alot faster.

But then it's exaggeration, and we all do it. =]

To briefly be serious, I think alot of why people start smoking has very little to do with ignorance of the facts, I know a lot of people who smoke in spite of it and started merely because they thought it was rebellious and cool to do so, I'm not talking about in the 70's or 80's either, I'm talking 4, 5, 6 years ago.

Peer pressure and representation in entertainment media are obvious factors, along with the desire to rebel against authority as an adolescent.

But anyway, I'll just ramble on and on on this with no real purpose since I agree: smoking is bad.

Maybe I should have rephrased that to "Without the law stopping you".

If you drink petrol, that is grounds for the law to force you to stop like being forced to attend a rehab clinic or even committed to a mental asylum. But I don't know in the UK or US of anyone being forced by the threat of some aspect of active imprisonment if they don't stop smoking. Same with self-harming with cutting or attempting to commit suicide, the authorities will actively stop you doing that with the power of the law.

I think even on balance, they know it wouldn't be very rebellious if they shorten their lives so they can never collect their pension or be disabled by the diseases of smoking.

You can drive a car on the roads safely all your life with a very low chance of being killed or severely disabled at a relatively young age, but you cannot safely smoke.

That's simply not true. There are numerous accidents happening every single day. Even with your seatbelt colliding with another car usually means you're either dead or permanently disabled. There should be ads on TV showing in extreme detail what might happen if such a collision were to occur. Visceral ads, might I add.

It's the same with alcohol. Alcoholism, liver disease? All of these are caused by alcohol. Therefore, we should have ads showing in extreme detail what drinking will do to you.

If you care about people's well being and health you would raise awareness of these dangers as well. Otherwise, you're just hypocrites.

No. It is true. Read up on actual car safety and how important seatbelts and airbags, when you go below the speed limit or the speed appropriate to the road conditions sever accidents are very unlikely. Like even on a highway at 70mph limit, what can you crash into to have instant decelleration? all the cars are going the same direction and speed as you with barriers separating you from going off the road into a tree or into the opposite direction of traffic. The roads are straight enough that you can see if a car well ahead has stopped or there is an obstruction in the road.

Remember a head on collision of both cars going 50mph is NOT the same as hitting an unbreakable/unmovable wall at 100 miles per hour. This is where science of physics contradicts "common sense" because "common sense" is for medieval commoners who think the earth is flat.

Look at the statistics. Look at what the experts conclude. Life Insurance companies don't double premiums for driving a car, they do for smoking even a small amount as even smoking to a small extent is a huge risk to your life that driving within the law is not.

There ARE adverts showing what happens should such an impact occur:


And I don't think such PSA should be limited to their countries, they apply just as well in the USA. By the way, 5kph is only about 3 miles per hour, 60kph is about 37 miles per hour.

There are also adverts for the dangers of excessive drinking, from the biological health risks of its toxic nature to how it affects your judgement.

When did I EVER say I opposed PSA videos about other common risks? How could you confer that from:

"I think for most people if they really knew the risks and realities of smoking they would never even start."

To ONLY applying to smoking. People SHOULD be warned of risks and warned of them in a human way that they can accept them and not by human weakness ignore or falsely dismiss them.

 

[EtherealBeaver]

We've had these ads for years.
Our packets have to be hidden from view in shops and soon we're going plain packaging (blank cardboard so no fonts or pictures).
This is after massive tax increases so a pack costs about $20.

Our government is pretty retarded.
People know smoking is bad. THEY DON'T GIVE A SHIT.

So maybe the government needs to fuck off. If i want to drink acid i should be allowed to, just the same as if someone wants to inhale a bunch of bad shit they should be able to.

But no, go ahead idiots, ban everything bad for peoples health so our population does nothing but grow and become old. It doesn't cost anything to keep 5 billion 100year olds alive or anything.

I dont mean to be rude but if you end up getting Cancer from smoking, I honestly just see it as Darwin at work

My problem though is that somehow you feel that your choice to violate your own body is okay to force on others. If you have ever lighted up a smoke by the bus stop, the train station, the pedestrian road crossing or any other place where anyone was near you, you did not give them a choice if they wanted to participate.

But what about their freedom to choose for themselves? Is your personal freedom to mutilate your own body really so important that others freedom to choose not to violate their body needs to be ignored?

And before you say that they can just go away if they dont like it:
1: That means you force them to endure your choice to poison yourself and thus them - or you actively prevent them from going where they wish to go.
2: If they can just "not go where you go", then please explain to me how they would be able to use public transports, buy food, go to college or go to the hospital without having to wait/go through a cloud of smoke. The doors of institutions are almost always surrounded by smokers who went outside to have a smoking break and people smoking by bus stops or train stations actively force you to leave the premise and thus may cause you to not reach their bus/train if they want to avoid smoke.

You may think that just walking through where people smoke is not a big deal but for those of us with asthma and allergies, walking 4 meters through smoke means not being able to breathe properly for the next few hours.

 

[DANEgerous]

It's like they think we don't know the consequences of smoking by now.
Where are the adverts for healthy eating? Heart disease is a much bigger problem.

I have actually seen a few, they tend to be more positive a positive focus on sports but they do exist. I do not watch much TV so i rarely see ads and can not say how common they are but i know they exist.

 

[The White Hunter]

Maybe I should have rephrased that to "Without the law stopping you".

If you drink petrol, that is grounds for the law to force you to stop like being forced to attend a rehab clinic or even committed to a mental asylum. But I don't know in the UK or US of anyone being forced by the threat of some aspect of active imprisonment if they don't stop smoking. Same with self-harming with cutting or attempting to commit suicide, the authorities will actively stop you doing that with the power of the law.

I think even on balance, they know it wouldn't be very rebellious if they shorten their lives so they can never collect their pension or be disabled by the diseases of smoking.

Snippity snip.

I think they don't consider the long term consequences when they're 15, I know I never did, you tend to still think you're farily untouchable at that age and not really concern yourself with what may happen in 30, 40, 50 years. Though I far from endorse smoking from that age or indeed habitual smoking at all.

I think imprisonment for smoking would be a nice bit of freedom infringement, besides the government in the UK, at least, makes a huge amount of money on tobacco taxes so it's never going away.

Commiting suicide should be easy if you actually want to do it, and don't simply do it as a cry for help. Getting a bit close to home on this one. As for self-harm, I used to, very rarely I breakdown a bit and still do, no authority has ever intervened and to my knowledge there are no laws prohibiting it, and it's a very complicated issue best left for another time.

People should be free to make their own decisions about smoking, or drinking, or taking their own life. But thats just my insignificant opinion.