Search forums

Forums

Export thread

More graphic warning on Cigarretts boxes?

Jun 21, 2011#1

Chibibar

http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/health/2011-06-21-fda-cigarette-labels_n.htm?csp=YahooModule_News

I don't think this will work. If people want to smoke, they will. Why not just slap a larger tax on it so it will cost more?

Edit: And now the Tobacco company are fighting back!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44171861/from/RSS/

Jun 21, 2011#2

Vrii

So the continued stance amounts to "Hey, they obviously just don't realize it's unhealthy."

Brilliant.

Jun 21, 2011#3

Chad Sexington

They've been doing this in Canada for years... As long as I can remember. And now no one smokes here, at all, ever.

Oh... wait.

Jun 21, 2011#4

Chibibar

Vrii said:
So the continued stance amounts to "Hey, they obviously just don't realize it's unhealthy."

Brilliant.

That is what I'm thinking. It is not working cause people WANT to smoke. I just say increase the tax on it and reap the reward. Use the extra tax money to PAY for the medical bills that are "rising" in the millions and billions of dollars.

Jun 21, 2011#5

Jiarn

In honor of this move, I'm going outside for a smoke.

Jun 21, 2011#6

Adammon

It's not meant to stop existing smokers, it's meant to prevent new smokers.

Jun 21, 2011#7

Tress

I'm not even a smoker. This is just dumb.

Jun 21, 2011#8

sixpackshaker

As a part time smoker, enough already with taxing the hell out of people with minor vices. All my tobacco products have nearly doubled in the last year.

Jun 21, 2011#9

Adammon

Gotta remember, the people on this forum are (relatively) well educated, intelligent people. Which isn't who the images are targeted at.

A recent analysis of data from the ITC Four Country Survey compared the impact of the introduction of pictorial warnings in Australia in 2005 to that of the introduction of larger text-only warnings in the United Kingdom in 2003. Cognitive and behavioural indicators of label impact that are predictive of quit intentions and quit attempts (e.g. forgoing cigarettes because of the labels; thinking about the health risks of smoking) increased to a greater extent among smokers after the Australian pictorial warnings were introduced than they did in the United Kingdom after enhanced text-only warnings were introduced. Pictorial warnings are also cited by former smokers as an important factor in their attempt to quit and have been associated with increases in the use of effective cessation services, such as toll-free telephone “helplines”. Although all warnings are subject to wear-out over time, pictorial warnings have also been shown to sustain their effects longer than text-only warning labels.
Populations with low literacy rates

Pictorial warnings may be particularly important in communicating health information to populations with lower literacy rates. This is particularly important considering that, in most countries, smokers report lower levels of education than the rest of the population. Preliminary evidence also suggests that countries with pictorial warnings demonstrate fewer disparities in health knowledge across educational levels. It should be noted that particular care should be taken in the selection of pictures for use in low literacy populations: without supporting text, pictures of smoking could inadvertently suggest approval rather than warning of its harms.

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/87/8/09-069575/en/

Jun 21, 2011#10

Chibibar

Personally, if people want to smoke, let them, but if tax dollars are going into this project, might as well get something back from it.

Jun 21, 2011#11

Tress

Okay, I'll go ahead and say it: if you are so stupid that you don't already know smoking is bad for your health, then you deserve whatever smoking-related malady comes your way.

Jun 21, 2011#12

Gryfter

Adammon said:
It's not meant to stop existing smokers, it's meant to prevent new smokers.

Who will need to buy a pack of cigarettes to see said ads. How many do you think will even notice the ad as they crack open a pack and light up?

Jun 21, 2011#13

Chibibar

Gryfter said:
Who will need to buy a pack of cigarettes to see said ads. How many do you think will even notice the ad as they crack open a pack and light up?

Most don't even read the EULA when they crack open the software. They just click ok and load.
Most don't even read the manual for most of the stuff they buy.
I don't see people actually reading the cig. they just open it and smoke.

Jun 21, 2011#14

makare

I thought that tax thing would work too but it doesn't. They raised the tax here in SD. My family spends hundreds a month on cigarettes. It pisses me off to no end. I get chewed out for spending thirty on frivolous things like, oh, food but if they spend 90 a week on cigarettes well THOSE are an essential.

Jun 21, 2011#15

Chibibar

makare said:
I thought that tax thing would work too but it doesn't. They raised the tax here in SD. My family spends hundreds a month on cigarettes. It pisses me off to no end. I get chewed out for spending thirty on frivolous things like, oh, food but if they spend 90 a week on cigarettes well THOSE are an essential.

...... I'm baffled.

Jun 21, 2011#16

Adammon

Gryfter said:
Who will need to buy a pack of cigarettes to see said ads. How many do you think will even notice the ad as they crack open a pack and light up?

Again, actual studies say "More than the written kind".

It works. Studies show that it works (Actual verifiable science as opposed to "Derp derp, that's dumb and won't work." And the tobacco companies have to pay for it themselves (Tax money doesn't go towards it). I'm failing to see how this is a losing proposition.

Jun 21, 2011#17

Chibibar

So Tobacco are require to print material they have to use to reduce sales and lose money.

Jun 21, 2011#18

Vrii

Adammon said:
I'm failing to see how this is a losing proposition.

And that's fine, as far as it goes. There's obviously no harm going to come from it. But if the goal is to "cut the smoking rate among Americans almost in half by 2020" as the article claims, I sure hope they've got more planned.

Jun 21, 2011#19

Adammon

Vrii said:
And that's fine, as far as it goes. There's obviously no harm going to come from it. But if the goal is to "cut the smoking rate among Americans almost in half by 2020" as the article claims, I sure hope they've got more planned.

Well, technically half of the smokers will probably die by then, so, it's totally achievable

Added at: 23:34

Chibibar said:
So Tobacco are require to print material they have to use to reduce sales and lose money.

Yes.

Jun 22, 2011#20

@Li3n

Chibibar said:
I thought that tax thing would work too but it doesn't. They raised the tax here in SD. My family spends hundreds a month on cigarettes. It pisses me off to no end. I get chewed out for spending thirty on frivolous things like, oh, food but if they spend 90 a week on cigarettes well THOSE are an essential.

Click to expand...

...... I'm baffled.

Say hi to my friend, chemical addiction...

Jun 22, 2011#21

blotsfan

Already tried it.

Jun 22, 2011#22

TommiR

Chibibar said:
I thought that tax thing would work too but it doesn't. They raised the tax here in SD. My family spends hundreds a month on cigarettes. It pisses me off to no end. I get chewed out for spending thirty on frivolous things like, oh, food but if they spend 90 a week on cigarettes well THOSE are an essential.

Click to expand...

...... I'm baffled.

I guess conventional wisdom holds that, the higher the price of cigarettes, the less people will buy and smoke them which is a good thing. But the people who do buy them (addicts) will have less money left over for things like food and clothes for their children, which is a bad thing.

This line has occasionally been put forward over here when they discuss raising alcohol taxes; that the overall consumption may perhaps go down (most people drinking in moderation and not having an alcohol problem), but the situation of the problem cases and their families will only get worse.

Jun 22, 2011#23

Tiq

There's a pretty nasty image being used on the packets over here now, of a guy who's neck has essentially exploded, but I can't say the picture has done anything to deter me from enjoying cigarettes.

Jun 22, 2011#24

@Li3n

Tiq said:
There's a pretty nasty image being used on the packets over here now, of a guy who's neck has essentially exploded, but I can't say the picture has done anything to deter me from enjoying cigarettes.

Man, it's almost as if chemicals in your body have more effect then a picture...

Jun 22, 2011#25

Gared

You know, this is really starting to piss me off, so I hope you'll excuse me a bit while I rant some. As a smoker for 14 years, I know that there are people out there who genuinely enjoy smoking, but I also know that there is a large majority of us who are just fucking addicted to the drug nicotine and the extra chemicals that cigarette companies add in order to make it harder for us to stop buying their products. This attitude I've seen all over the place since these new warning labels were announced yesterday (even here, in this thread) that people will continue to smoke no matter what the government does to warn/tax us into quitting is complete and utter bullshit.

I've been smoking for 14 years. I've been wanting to quit for 10 of those 14, and actively trying to quit (cessation drugs like *Welbutrin and Chantix, the patch, the gum, the lozenge, e-Cigs, even therapy) for 4 years. I know what smoking is doing to my lungs, throat, and heart. I know that I'm putting myself and the woman I love at greater risk for cancer and other diseases by smoking. I know that it's harder to see through the windshield of my car because of the film of smoke residue on the inside of the glass. I know that I'm spending an inordinate amount of money every year on these damn things; and you know what? None of that fucking matters. I am addicted to this drug and struggling like a man possessed to get off of it. And what do I get? "If people want to do this, ugly pictures and higher taxes aren't going to make them quit."

You know what's going to make an addict quit? Effective rehab centers. You can go to a rehab center if you drink, if you're addicted to pain killers, or meth, or cocaine, or hell, even if you're addicted to sex. But I'm lucky to get an 800# that I can call if I have a craving (where I wait on hold, and have usually hung up and just had a damn smoke by the time someone answers) and a disgusting picture on a billboard or a cigarette pack. Showing people nasty pics isn't going to magically make the drug less addictive. Oh, and people constantly assuming that I'm smoking because I want to and that I don't care about the negative effects this has on my health.

I started smoking at 17 on a whim. I knew then what smoking can do to your health and body, but I didn't fully grasp the fact that I was starting a habit that I would be unable to just stop whenever I wanted. Now, 14 years later, I'm paying for that whim dearly. Please stop spreading this ~~bullshit~~ completely fucked up opinion that smokers don't want to quit or that taxing the product can make us think about our decision to be a smoker, or that showing us nasty ass pictures is going to change how we feel. Most of us want to quit, we just fucking can't.

/rant.
*It has a different name when it's prescribed for smoking cessation, but it's the same formulary as the anti-depressent.

Jun 22, 2011#26

strawman

Keep in mind that the graphic warnings are probably more effective at preventing new smokers from starting than to stop addicted smokers. I wonder if fewer people would try it "on a whim" if confronted with what they might look like in 30 years before opening it.

Jun 22, 2011#27

@Li3n

Gared said:
You know what's going to make an addict quit? Effective rehab centers.

I don't know, i've seen people give it up for months at a time and then go back to it until health issues forced them to quit...

Jun 22, 2011#28

Wasabi Poptart

stienman said:
Keep in mind that the graphic warnings are probably more effective at preventing new smokers from starting than to stop addicted smokers. I wonder if fewer people would try it "on a whim" if confronted with what they might look like in 30 years before opening it.

I don't know. From my own personal experience I would say no. I saw my great-aunts and great-uncles who smoked a pack or pack and a half a day. They were all on medications for chronic bronchitis, coughed like they should have to stuff their lungs back in when they were done, had really awful wrinkles, yellowed nails, etc. One of my great-aunts who never smoked died of lung cancer. I saw pictures of sliced open lungs and balloons with the insides coated in tobacco tar as part of my health class in school, too. It didn't stop me from picking up a pack of my Aunt Doris's Eve cigarettes and lighting up when I was 12 or so.

Jun 22, 2011#29

Adammon

Wasabi Poptart said:
I don't know. From my own personal experience I would say no. I saw my great-aunts and great-uncles who smoked a pack or pack and a half a day. They were all on medications for chronic bronchitis, coughed like they should have to stuff their lungs back in when they were done, had really awful wrinkles, yellowed nails, etc. One of my great-aunts who never smoked died of lung cancer. I saw pictures of sliced open lungs and balloons with the insides coated in tobacco tar as part of my health class in school, too. It didn't stop me from picking up a pack of my Aunt Doris's Eve cigarettes and lighting up when I was 12 or so.

Would that not have been before the images on the cigarette packs? Immediacy factors a lot into decisions like that. I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a dual lobectomy.

Jun 22, 2011#30

Wasabi Poptart

That was quite a few years before anyone thought of putting pictures on packs of cigarettes. But since I could see the consequences first hand you'd think I would have been dissuaded from trying cigarettes. If we put pictures of car crashes on bottles of alcohol, do you think it would keep anyone from drinking and driving? I doubt it.

Jun 22, 2011#31

Gared

@Li3n said:
I don't know, i've seen people give it up for months at a time and then go back to it until health issues forced them to quit...

Speaking for myself, the reason this happens to me is because, like any true addiction, even after you quit actively smoking you will be addicted to the drug until the day you die. Which means, one cigarette on a stressful day can be the end of a good quit record. I've gone a month or more several times, and I keep getting dragged back down (you know, I tried to finish that sentence without it being a pun, but I couldn't). I always think "One cigarette/pack won't be a problem, I'll just quit again right after," but it never works out that way. It's like they tell recovering alcoholics. Even one drink can completely derail your recovery, because you'll always be addicted to the actual substance.

Jun 22, 2011#32

Cajungal

My aunt tells me that she still gets cravings for cigarettes. She's 50, and she quit when she was around 25. :\

Jun 22, 2011#33

Wasabi Poptart

In November it'll be 9 years since I quit. I still find myself wanting a cigarette when I am stressed out. Like Gared said, I know if I have just one cigarette I'll be out buying a pack in no time. I can't allow myself to do that. Sometimes it's really difficult to see the packs behind the counter at a store and just walk away when part of my brain is screaming like a child having a temper tantrum for just one drag.

Jun 22, 2011#34

Mathias

Am I an odd duck when it comes to cigarettes? I'll smoke a pack like every year or year and a half without any cravings what-so-ever. In college, I went through a pack a week, smoking socially, but it was completely correlated to going out drinking. I never really had a craving for them, it was more of a habitual thing - something to fiddle with while at the bar. I don't need a cigarette to get through the day or get my fix; when I'm offered one, I'll light up. My cigarette count for 2011 so far has been like 10 total and one cigar.

Personally, I prefer to roll my own cigarettes if given the chance. My sister rolls her own tobacco, grown locally. No additives or weird chemicals, just the dried plant. It's actually pretty awesome, similar to a good cigar. She's very much the same way I am about it though. Her and her husband have a 2 oz bag of tobacco a farmer gave her in like 2008.

As far as the scare tactics go. Yeah, it works well with teenagers, which are the group that really should be monitored from getting hooked early on. There are studies that link chain smoking to how early you start.

Jun 22, 2011#35

Shakey

These new labels aren't there to stop everybody, they're there to stop at least a few. Which I'm sure they'll accomplish, so I don't see why anyone should be upset about it. The tobacco companies are paying for it, so who the hell cares.

Personally I like a pipe full of good tobacco maybe once every few months. I never got addicted, and would never be able to smoke full time. I never really got the appeal of cigarettes. They smell like ass compared to pipe tobacco. To each his own I guess.

Jun 22, 2011#36

makare

My sister was on my side trying to get my mom to quit for years. Then she started smoking at 14. People can know the danger and still do it.

Jun 22, 2011#37

Cajungal

Mathias said:
Am I an odd duck when it comes to cigarettes?

I think it does affect people differently. My mom quit when she was young. Dad was going to the store, and he said, "Cigarettes?" She thought for a moment and said, "Nah." I've known people who are hurting after 20 years and people who can smoke one and take it or leave it. I guess you're lucky.

Jun 22, 2011#38

Hailey Knight

Mathias said:
Am I an odd duck when it comes to cigarettes? I'll smoke a pack like every year or year and a half without any cravings what-so-ever. In college, I went through a pack a week, smoking socially, but it was completely correlated to going out drinking. I never really had a craving for them, it was more of a habitual thing - something to fiddle with while at the bar. I don't need a cigarette to get through the day or get my fix; when I'm offered one, I'll light up. My cigarette count for 2011 so far has been like 10 total and one cigar.

Personally, I prefer to roll my own cigarettes if given the chance. My sister rolls her own tobacco, grown locally. No additives or weird chemicals, just the dried plant. It's actually pretty awesome, similar to a good cigar. She's very much the same way I am about it though. Her and her husband have a 2 oz bag of tobacco a farmer gave her in like 2008.

As far as the scare tactics go. Yeah, it works well with teenagers, which are the group that really should be monitored from getting hooked early on. There are studies that link chain smoking to how early you start.

You sound like someone who sometimes enjoys one as opposed to someone who's addicted to them fortunately. It happens, and I suppose plenty of teens think that will be them--until it isn't. Biology's an odd thing.

Jun 23, 2011#39

@Li3n

Cajungal said:
My aunt tells me that she still gets cravings for cigarettes. She's 50, and she quit when she was around 25. :\

I know people that quit who can't stand the smell of a cigarette any more... of course i guess that doesn't mean they don't get a craving.
Added at: 07:12

escushion said:
You sound like someone who sometimes enjoys one as opposed to someone who's addicted to them fortunately. It happens, and I suppose plenty of teens think that will be them--until it isn't. Biology's an odd thing.

Smoke enough and you get addicted, some people probably just have a higher tolerance...

Jun 23, 2011#40

Chibibar

Gared said:
/rant.

If I offended you, I'm sorry. I have quite a bit of friends who either have quit cause they can't afford it (find other stuff to do like video games), health reasons, and some are still addicted to the stuff. I believe that some of my friend who did manage to quit is pretty much the sheer will to quit. It is hard, but it can be done, but it is pure will.

The other method is chemical treatment but those are hard, expensive, and sometimes ineffective.

Also instead of spending millions of dollars on ads, why not spend that money on clinics? to me, I just think it is not as effective (but that is just me)

Jun 23, 2011#41

Espy

Mathias said:
Am I an odd duck when it comes to cigarettes? I'll smoke a pack like every year or year and a half without any cravings what-so-ever. In college, I went through a pack a week, smoking socially, but it was completely correlated to going out drinking. I never really had a craving for them, it was more of a habitual thing - something to fiddle with while at the bar. I don't need a cigarette to get through the day or get my fix; when I'm offered one, I'll light up. My cigarette count for 2011 so far has been like 10 total and one cigar.

I'm exactly the same way.

Jun 23, 2011#42

@Li3n

Espy said:
I'm exactly the same way.

You can quit whenever you want to, you just like always having a cigarette in your mouth, isn't that right, smoking baby...

Jun 23, 2011#43

Espy

Touché

Jun 23, 2011#44

Gared

Chibibar said:
If I offended you, I'm sorry. I have quite a bit of friends who either have quit cause they can't afford it (find other stuff to do like video games), health reasons, and some are still addicted to the stuff. I believe that some of my friend who did manage to quit is pretty much the sheer will to quit. It is hard, but it can be done, but it is pure will.

The other method is chemical treatment but those are hard, expensive, and sometimes ineffective.

Also instead of spending millions of dollars on ads, why not spend that money on clinics? to me, I just think it is not as effective (but that is just me)

It's not that I was offended (so no worries) as much as it seems that when people talk about alcoholism, pain killer addiction, or addiction to hard drugs like meth and coke, they talk about how hard it is to quit, and how horribly addicting these drugs are, and how horrible it must be to be chemically dependent on these substances; but when people talk about smoking cigarettes, they talk about how smokers are choosing to destroy their lives or refusing to quit, and how raising the price of our drug source or showing us nasty pictures is supposed to magically make us less chemically dependent upon it.

Jun 23, 2011#45

Chibibar

Gared said:
It's not that I was offended (so no worries) as much as it seems that when people talk about alcoholism, pain killer addiction, or addiction to hard drugs like meth and coke, they talk about how hard it is to quit, and how horribly addicting these drugs are, and how horrible it must be to be chemically dependent on these substances; but when people talk about smoking cigarettes, they talk about how smokers are choosing to destroy their lives or refusing to quit, and how raising the price of our drug source or showing us nasty pictures is supposed to magically make us less chemically dependent upon it.

I understand. I post on this thread cause I think the whole "nasty picture" isn't going to work. It is not a magic fix.

Jun 24, 2011#46

CrimsonSoul

I should start a tobacco company that harvests only the highest quality tobacco plants farmed by Indians that still follow ancient customs and their medicine man personally blesses each leaf then sell then at 100 bucks a pack. Think I would have any takers?

Jun 24, 2011#47

CrimsonSoul

Mathias said:
something to fiddle with while at the bar.

I always fiddle with something else when I'm at bars... But then again I'm banned from almost every one...

Jun 24, 2011#48

Chibibar

CrimsonSoul said:
I should start a tobacco company that harvests only the highest quality tobacco plants farmed by Indians that still follow ancient customs and their medicine man personally blesses each leaf then sell then at 100 bucks a pack. Think I would have any takers?

In this day and age? I am sure you can actually sell it. There are always people who are eccentric enough to buy that

Jun 24, 2011#49

JCM

Such pictures have been on brazilian cigarette boxes, and it show a significant drop, specially among teenagers, who's rather not have to look at a dying man whenever he reaches for a cigarette.

However, it also has become part of our culture and jokes, for example;

A "mineiro" (guy from the state of Minas Gerais, the equivalent of a blonde in most jokes) asks for a box of cigarettes, looks at the cover and sees a picture of a burned out cigar and the words "SMOKING CAN CAUSE SEXUAL IMPOTENCE".

He then looks at the store owner and says "Can't you just give me the one that causes cancer?"

Jun 25, 2011#50

@Li3n

Now those are better then the ones over here that have a guy's neck bloated and black... looks way too over the top and is easier to dismiss then...

Minas Gerais

Brazil is on Middle-Earth?

Jun 25, 2011#51

Overflight

"Minas" is Portuguese for "mines"

Jun 26, 2011#52

@Li3n

Overflight said:
"Minas" is Portuguese for "mines"

Jun 26, 2011#53

Hailey Knight

Chibibar said:
In this day and age? I am sure you can actually sell it. There are always people who are eccentric enough to buy that

Jun 26, 2011#54

Overflight

Oh God, why did you have to remind me of that.

Aykroyd, dude! What the hell HAPPENED to you?

Jun 26, 2011#55

sixpackshaker

He became eccentric.

Jun 26, 2011#56

Officer_Charon

One could argue he's returning to his roots...

Jun 27, 2011#57

@Li3n

mr_thehun said:
Hard when I get offered cigarettes a couple times a day.

Just remember, those people are trying to kill you...

Jun 27, 2011#58

Jiarn

Jun 27, 2011#59

strawman

Why does that picture remind me of johnny 5?

Aug 17, 2011#60

Chibibar

And now the tobacco company are fighting BACK!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44171861/from/RSS/

Aug 17, 2011#61

Covar

So I wonder how many people that support this are against requiring the viewing of an ultrasound before getting an abortion?

And regarding the effectiveness, remember no one in government actually wants everyone to stop smoking. They get their money from the taxes, plus get an EVIL issue to fight and campaign against.

Aug 17, 2011#62

Chibibar

Covar said:
So I wonder how many people that support this are against requiring the viewing of an ultrasound before getting an abortion?

And regarding the effectiveness, remember no one in government actually wants everyone to stop smoking. They get their money from the taxes, plus get an EVIL issue to fight and campaign against.

personally I think it is a waste of money.

Aug 17, 2011#63

strawman

Chibibar said:
personally I think it is a waste of money.

So is taking care of under and uninsured smoker's end of life medical needs.

Aug 17, 2011#64

Chibibar

stienman said:
So is taking care of under and uninsured smoker's end of life medical needs.

That is where my socialist side come into play. I think everyone should have equal access to medical need as long they are citizens. Not a citizen, sorry bub, you better have insurance then.

Aug 17, 2011#65

strawman

Chibibar said:
I think everyone should have equal access to medical need as long they are citizens.

Spend millions of dollars on a patient's terminal cancer because they thought smoking was cool.

Aug 17, 2011#66

Frankie Williamson

Quotemander Prime said:

Sold!

Aug 17, 2011#67

Chad Sexington

Seriously, I get addiction, and it sucks. And I think society has a role in the health and help of its people, but also you bear most of the personal responsibility for those choices. If you choose to smoke, and I choose to avoid that, or vice versa, why should the non-smoker pay for the smoker's expensive health treatments?

Aug 17, 2011#68

strawman

It's a complex question. It may be easy to decide when you're talking about an obvious poor choice like smoking that has a huge, huge end of life cost, but there are a lot of issues where the balance is much more difficult.

Same question, different line. How do we balance personal freedom vs personal choices incurring a cost on society.

Aug 17, 2011#69

Chibibar

stienman said:
It's a complex question. It may be easy to decide when you're talking about an obvious poor choice like smoking that has a huge, huge end of life cost, but there are a lot of issues where the balance is much more difficult.

Same question, different line. How do we balance personal freedom vs personal choices incurring a cost on society.

It is a good question and got me thinking quite a bit, but alas, I don't have the answers.

The only closest thing I can think of is a draconian method of society. If you are willing to hurt yourself, you are on your own, but that goes against my personal nature. I try to help people when I can, but lately I don't stop for strangers on the road anymore (if they have car issues), or give our change to beggers (illegal in Dallas). I do help random people when they are short on money at a restaurant, but I notice I am more weary of people in the world after reading stories about how some good Samaritan are robbed trying to help people with "car trouble"

Aug 17, 2011#70

PatrThom

So video games and certain websites are a source of gore and violent imagery, but we can put bloody chunks of lung on cigarette packs and make people considering abortion go through coffee table books of foeti?

Hypocracy!

--Patrick
(yes, that's intentional. It's a portmanteau)

Aug 17, 2011#71

strawman

PatrThom said:
violent imagery

That's the key. The images on the cigarette package aren't a depiction of violence.

Aug 17, 2011#72

Vrii

Covar said:
So I wonder how many people that support this are against requiring the viewing of an ultrasound before getting an abortion?

This would suggest that you find an equivalency between smoking and getting an abortion. I'd be interested to hear the justification behind that.

Aug 17, 2011#73

PatrThom

stienman said:
That's the key. The images on the cigarette package aren't a depiction of violence.

Right. They're gore.

--Patrick

Aug 17, 2011#74

Philosopher B.

There's only one kinda cig worth smoking!

@Li3n said:
Just remember, those people are trying to kill you...

Actually, they're trying to get his hard-earned cash. The side effect is death; hopefully a nice slow one (from their perspective), so that he gives them a whole lot more money ...
The levels of sinister are like a goddamn Russian nesting doll.

Aug 18, 2011#75

@Li3n

Philosopher B. said:
Actually, they're trying to get his hard-earned cash. The side effect is death; hopefully a nice slow one (from their perspective), so that he gives them a whole lot more money ...
The levels of sinister are like a goddamn Russian nesting doll.

I was thinking he meant co-workers and other smokers he knows... unless you think they're all working for the tobacco companies... OMG, EVERYONE'S IN ON IT... :aaah:

Forums