quote:Federal health officials Wednesday unveiled plans to require cigarette packs and ads to carry dramatically bigger, much more graphic health warnings, including for the first time images that might depict dead bodies, cancer patients and diseased lungs.
The new warnings, which will mark the first replacement of warnings that cigarette packs began carrying 25 years ago, will cover half the front and back of each pack and 20 percent of the top of each ad.
.../...
The proposed warnings include one containing an image of man smoking with a hole in his throat from a tracheotomy; another depicts a body with a large scar running down the chest, and another shows a man who appears to be suffering a heart attack. Others have images of diseased lungs and stained teeth and mothers blowing smoke into a baby's face.
quote:The Tobacco Control Act requires that the nine graphic health warnings appear on the upper portion of the front and rear panels of each cigarette package and comprise at least the top 50 percent of these panels.
Most of the images are pretty crappy. Some are arguably graphic.
Honestly, I have a question: do these images and warnings of this nature... work?Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk: Honestly, I have a question: do these images and warnings of this nature... work?
Yep, since 2000
quote:Objectives. We assessed the impact of graphic Canadian cigarette warning labels. Methods. We used a longitudinal telephone survey of 616 adult smokers. Results. Approximately one fifth of participants reported smoking less as a result of the labels; only 1% reported smoking more. Although participants reported negative emotional responses to the warnings including fear (44%) and disgust (58%), smokers who reported greater negative emotion were more likely to have quit, attempted to quit, or reduced their smoking 3 months later. Participants who attempted to avoid the warnings (30%) were no less likely to think about the warnings or engage in cessation behavior at follow-up. Conclusions. Policymakers should not be reluctant to introduce vivid or graphic warnings for fear of adverse outcomes. (Am J Public Health. 2004;94:1442–1445)
I remember some kid in my Junior girl scout troop back in the 90s had a matching Marlboro duffel and sleeping bag for camping. Yep.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I quite smoking at the beggining of August and I totally think smoking is bad but I have to say the last picture of the buff man supermanning open his coat to show his "I Quit" T-Shirt made me laugh.
Rest seem good though. Hopefully they will make an impact. Have felt so much healthier since quitting.
Posts: 832 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know... I mean, by now, don't people KNOW smoking is bad for them? Is grossing people out really an acceptable warning method?
Don't get me wrong. I hate smoking. I get extremely mad when people stand in front of doors and smoke. I partied very little even in my younger days, partially because bars were so full of smoke (which, come to think of it, may be a reason to keep smoking in bars...), but I still feel these labels are a little extreme.
I mean, I know that alcohol is bad for me. I don't drink it very often because I grew up seeing exactly how dangerous over indulging can be, I have a pretty healthy respect for the dangers of the stuff. Still, I do enjoy my occasional margarita, cocktail, or glass of wine. I don't really want to look at pictures of diseased livers on my napkin when I'm served a drink. I don't need to have my wine bottle labeled with the decapitated corpse of a drunk driving victim (btw, I have NEVER EVER driven anywhere close to the legal limit). I just don't want to see that stuff, and I am not sure I feel that it's right to subject cigarette smokers to it either. As long as they're keeping their poison to themselves, it's not really my place to judge.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the inclusion of nicotine in cigarettes makes it more difficult to compare smoking to alcohol. Smoking is more addictive than drinking and in my experience, most of my friends/coworkers don't purchase a pack with the intention of maybe having a one or two cigarettes during the weekend. I've dated smokers and have friends who smoke and the only person I know who limits herself to one a day is the girl currently trying to quit. If a person is drinking multiple alcoholic beverages in a single day, every day, we'd be calling it a problem.
However, I would like to see maybe a harder stance taken against drunk driving. Off the top of my head, I think most beer bottles only feature a small warning and I can't remember seeing any warning on the last bottle of wine I opened. I'd be interested to increasing the size of warning labels on alcoholic beverages.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: Why aren't they illegal yet?
Cigarettes? I don't know, but people keep trying to legalize pot.
Pot should be legal, and it's impossible not to act like there isn't a double standard when it comes to weed and cigarettes in this country.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: Is grossing people out really an acceptable warning method?
Why not?
Because, it seems to imply that sensationalism as an attempt to modify public behavior is a GOOD thing. The media does that all the time, and it often is a very BAD thing. Allowing the government to start using it to interfere with specific, otherwise legal, commerce seems like a dangerous trend to me.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree that this is the same thing. And if it works (as Mucus' link indicates it does), I am fine with this method.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
