Hey! Wanna ciggie?

[The Hen]

Not really. That just implies that all horror-heads can be horn-bags if you drink enough of it.

You are more likely to increase drinking in that case.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I agree with the garlic stink problem with some people. A shower won't fix that. And perfume or cologne is another stinking problem.
Should they put pictures of smelly corpses on perfume bottles?

Or French whores?

Now Big RR why should a picture of a smelly corpse be put on French whores?

[Big RR]

The reason depends on the location.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Hmmm. you seem to be awfully knowledgeable ???

[Big RR]

Oui, Oui.

[loCAtek]

Well alcohol levels and advice are placed on bottles etc here, but not pictures.

They do that in the US too, plus;



...but taking away the freedom to design the packaging of your product!? That's Orwellian!

[rubato]

Public education is a responsibility of government. Public education on issues of health is a responsibility of government.

If that is not so then the lies of the tobacco companies go unanswered and people suffer needless death, disease and disability as a result.

Anti-smoking ads in California have reduced smoking levels from about 26% (the same as the national average) in 1984 to below 14% today with huge savings in health care &c.

Only a moron whines about an accurate expression of facts to the general public.

yrs,
rubato

Making cigarette pack unattractive" is "an accurate expression of facts to the public"/ I don't think so, it is an attempt to provoke a negative emotional response, not an attempt to provide any facts whatsoever. Indeed, right up front I said i support education, just not this manipulative crap.

It has apparently never occurred to you that cigarette packaging and advertising is also "manipulative crap" which induces people to certain emphysema, heart attacks, and lung cancer.

And it is funded at 10,000 times the same level and proportionately more sophisticated.


This "manipulative crap" tells the truth. But you prefer the lies.

yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

Who says I prefer the lies, or anything at all, for that matter All I'm saying is that the government should not be involved in the creation and use "manipulative crap", even if the cigarettes companies do it. There are a lot of thing private individuals and corporations do that I would not want to see pour government doing. It's not that hard to understand, but I guess you just have a hard time understanding simple ideas. Don't worry, if you try to use your brain it might eventually come to you.

[Gob]

But government has always given out health warnings, and controlled advertising specifications?

[Sue U]

But government has always given out health warnings, and controlled advertising specifications?

In the U.S., generally not. The government can in theory impose greater restrictions on "commercial speech" than on other forms of expression, and the Federal Trade Commission has the power to prohibit false and deceptive advertising, but mandatory "warnings" on tobacco products and alcohol are very recent -- and were subject to a lot of negotiation with industry and litigation in the courts. (Whether such "warnings" are sufficient to deserve the label and actually serve their supposed purpose is another rant for another time.) But there is no general control of advertising specifications, no general ban imposed by law on any particular advertising, and no mechanism for any "prior restraint" of speech whether commercial or otherwise. In fact, the trend over the last 30 years has been toward less and less regulation of advertising.

ETA:

There is actually post hoc review of pharmaceutical products advertising by the Food and Drug Administration, and drug companies have been fined and forced to run corrective advertising to counter improper claims and marketing practices.

[Big RR]

Very recent Sue? I would think the warnings were mandated nearly 40 years ago, and government public service ads describing the dangers of smoking predate that. Indeed, TV advertising of cigarettes was banned in the late 60s/early 70s.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Smoken'!

Two-alarm fire burns at site of future San Jose Toyota dealership Wed Apr 13, 1:06 am ET

San Jose council votes to sharply limit marijuana dispensaries Wed Apr 13, 12:58 am ET

Fastest protest in the west against government don't-doobie so much plan

[Sue U]

Very recent Sue? I would think the warnings were mandated nearly 40 years ago, and government public service ads describing the dangers of smoking predate that. Indeed, TV advertising of cigarettes was banned in the late 60s/early 70s.

A matter of perspective, I guess -- to me, 1966 (cigarette "warnings") is still "very recent," since my day-to-day work involves (lack of) product warnings dating back to the '30s. (Also, I still vividly remember the cigarette commercials on TV: Winston tastes good, you can take Salem out of the country, I'd walk a mile for a Camel, a silly millimeter longer, you've come a long way baby, show us your Larks, etc. etc.; to that extent, advertising certainly works.) But the "mandatory warnings" were actually the product of an agreement between the tobacco industry and the government, rather than a unilateral mandate to actually educate consumers, which is why they were so lame and ineffective. Broadcast advertising of cigarettes wasn't banned until 1971 (and "little cigars" in 1973) -- and that was after three years in which, under the Fairness Doctrine, one anti-smoking PSA was supposed to be run for every three cigarette ads. I don't know that there were any anti-smoking PSAs before that time. In any event, I doubt very much that governmental controls or bans on advertising of any legal product would be upheld today; indeed, there has been a return to mass media advertising of hard liquor (and of course beer and wine never went away). Tobacco itself may be an anomalous case, because it is a product with so little social utility and such great social costs.

[Big RR]

Sue--I remember those ads as well, but I guess we're getting older. As for anti-smoking PSAs, the two earliest I recall were a cartoon ad about a man "coughing his fool head off", and a live ad with an invitation to "join the unhooked generation", which I could swear date back as far as the warnings at the very least.

[Gob]

[The Hen]

Yeah but, lots of crap actors have advertised smokes.

[rubato]

Who says I prefer the lies, or anything at all, for that matter All I'm saying is that the government should not be involved in the creation and use "manipulative crap", even if the cigarettes companies do it. There are a lot of thing private individuals and corporations do that I would not want to see pour government doing. It's not that hard to understand, but I guess you just have a hard time understanding simple ideas. Don't worry, if you try to use your brain it might eventually come to you.

You have said you prefer the lies by objecting only when the truth is presented.

If the government warnings only present an accurate picture of the effects of smoking, and they do, then while you may whine that they are 'manipulative' it is definately true that they manipulate by presenting the facts.

And that is not per se objectionable as the tobacco companies lies are.

yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

rubato--firstly, I have never objected to the presentation of the truth, I have said several times that I support the government's efforts to educate th epublic as to the dangers of smoking. But what I did object to is the government mandating that cigarette packagings be made as unattractive as possible, even to the point f mandating them to be a very unattractive color. Now if you characterize that as presenting the truth or presenting "the facts" and not being manipulative, I guess it's pointless to continue the discussion.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Speaking of truth then. It is not true that "cigarettes cause blindness" as if that were a guaranteed outcome. Many things cause blindness and the majority of smokers (vile breed that they are) do not go blind or have any eye trouble due to smoking. Non-smokers go blind. "Cigarettes MAY cause blindness" or "Some smokers' blindness is caused by smoking".

Shouldn't there be a proportionate number (the majority) of very attractive mandated packets showing perfectly good eyes and the legend "But not in most smokers"? Shouldn't there be a packet showing that the majority of children suffer no ill effects from passive smoking?

"Skiing causes broken legs" is pretty much on the same order of statement.

Meade

[oldr_n_wsr]

I'm on BigRR's side on this one especially on this.

But what I did object to is the government mandating that cigarette packagings be made as unattractive as possible, even to the point f mandating them to be a very unattractive color

.
When will the potatoe chips be seen in bag that shows the insides of a clogged heart?
Alcohol bottles with a cirrosised (sp?) liver labels?
Sweet wrappers with gangreanous legs and feet?

It's just easy to pick on smokers as they have been "taking it" for the last 30-40 years. Might as well keep kicking them while we can. After they are gone, we can turn to alcohol drinker, or cheesburgers or red meat eaters or snack food junkies.