Cigarette packet warnings and why they're a mistake

Discussion in 'Pandora's Box' started by Brewsterr, Jan 2, 2013.

  1. I'm an ex-smoker and who lives with a current smoker and was just looking at his pack of tobacco and realized something.
    Not sure whether it's only in the UK, but packets of cigarettes over here come with big warnings on the packs, usually with some shocking picture of a burnt out lung or a dead guy. I'm baked and realized they're going about it the wrong way.

    Everyone who smokes already knows that smoking is dangerous, it is a given that inhaling tobacco smoke is bad for you and does cause cancer and lung diseases and whatever. The pictures and the death statistics and the warnings may be shocking and memorable, but why tell smokers what they already know? Would it not be more sensible to replace these warnings with facts about what good can come from quitting smoking, like how much money you could save and how much healthier it is as opposed to how much money you're wasting and how unhealthy it is. For an example, "Smoking causes lung cancer" should be replaced with "Quitting smoking can reduce the risk of lung cancer by ____%" .

  2. Fear motivates. Evryone knows this.

    Positive messages make people think. No govts want citizens who think. Warning labels do nothing, while appearing to do something.

    Politics does nothing while appearing to do something.

    See the correlation?

    ^the way I see it.
  3. Hmm I actually agree with you but it would be very bad for business. I live in Canada and we have those warnings too. You expect them to say "If you smoke 1 pack a day you spend $4,000 a year"...I get your point but very unlikely to happen. Imagine if you owned a cig company i would hate that stuff haha so bad for business. Its like giving warnings on chips, soda, candy that says it gives you cavities or something. Surprised its even allowed people can make their own choices.
  4. Yeah, I'm guessing they have thought about it. They probably don't want the warnings to be *too* effective, because if they were they'd be losing out on their precious money. Cigarettes in the UK have been taxed up the ass. According to the internet they made 12.1bn on cigarettes in the past year. I agree a little with pokesmot, the labels are likely there to LOOK like your health is a concern to them..

  5. And to expand further on money.

    It's in the govts best interest if you are sick, as they are vested in medicine and all of the above.

    It's in their interest to jeep you in jail, because taxes keep you in jail and pay all the people in between.

    I could go on but the reality is nobody cares about your health more than you and if you don't care at all, why should they? They exist to make and spend money. You exist to make money for them. Anything beyond that is an illusion. I know I sound all political, but I don't put that much thought into it. It is what it appears to be and I'm just real with myself, as you appear to be.

    Nice to meet someone along the road who's switched on....:wave:
  6. Billion dollar companies have people who own people who beat people who make ideas to hold other people against their will in a room to make ideas that make them money. They know what they're doing.

  7. Am I the only one who can't fucking understand this? I'm really high but...
  8. why would they say you can save on money if cigarette companies want you to smoke? cigarettes will never be outlawed. it's a huge business
  9. #9 Fëanor, Jan 3, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 3, 2013
    Most anti-smoking folks are misunderstanding the purpose of the warnings.

    The warnings are not there to convince people not to smoke.

    The warnings are there to protect people. You see, people really did used to NOT KNOW that smoking was bad for you. We had no fucking clue. I'm serious. I know you probably can't quite picture it, but we didn't know. The science wasn't there back then.

    Of course, after we found out, you couldn't just expect the cigarette companies to willingly tell people how dangerous the product is. That's where government comes in. They said, "Hey, if you are going to sell something so dangerous, you need to warn people!"

    It's kinda like this:
  10. #10 RavenousDank, Jan 3, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 3, 2013

    or the obvious, so you can't sue their asses when you/we get lung cancer

    edit: oh and LOL @ that warning picture....LOL
  11. I guess only in America they don't do that. Just a little warning saying may cause lung cancer and that's about it.
  12. They're pushing for it though.
  13. [quote name='"pokesmot247"']Fear motivates. Evryone knows this.

    Positive messages make people think. No govts want citizens who think. Warning labels do nothing, while appearing to do something.

    Politics does nothing while appearing to do something.

    See the correlation?

    ^the way I see it.[/quote]

    This is exacty what i was going to say.

    Basically reverse psychology

    They tell you not to drink and drive but everyone does it.

    They tell you not to text and drive and everyone does it.

    They tell you not to do drugs and its an epidemic in our country.

    By being told we shouldnt, we subconsciously want to.

    Brainwashing at its finest
  14. I don't think that it's fair to say that the government as a whole is brainwashing the populace, but rather the 5th branch of government- the lobbies. The tobacco lobby is one of the- if not THE- strongest lobby on K street, and they have enough resources to back literally whatever initiative they decide to pursue. In 2010 alone, the tobacco industry spent over 16 million dollars on lobbyists to testify to congress. How can one blame the government when 16 million dollars worth of lies is all that congress has on record? The tobacco companies themselves, as always, are at fault.

    There is also the slight drawback that decreased cigarette sales would bankrupt many states in the status quo, as their economies are too fragile to give up any revenue (how else are they going to fund the wrong projects?). In 2006, the cumulative revenue gained by taxing cigarettes neared $15,000,000,000, and the number is projected to keep growing. No lawmaker in their right mind would ignore that figure and speak out strongly against cigarettes. Hell, our president smoked them until part way through his first term.

    PS- I firmly believe that think tanks are the fourth branch of government, so lobbies take the 5 spot.

  15. Actually, you're pretty much right....except, well except they thought smoking was GOOD for you. They used cartoons and stuff like this flintstones ad to sell cigs and they were directed primarily at women. Men didn't smoke cigs as they were seen as feminine. Men smoked cigars.

    [ame=]THE FLINTSTONES SMOKE - YouTube[/ame]

    It's odd when you go back and see just how things were marketed back then, much more innocent, to the point, and a helluva lot less psychology. History is fun!

Share This Page