NationStates Jolt Archive

This is an idea of mine for an anti smoking ad. The old ones seem to me not to be as dramatic. Let me know what you think...

Lots of people wearing all grey (urban style) camoflage armed with machine guns. Except the machine guns are made of cigerettes. They are on a brige over a road. Then walking towards them are a massive crowd of people. These people represent the number of people who die from smoking related conditions every year. However they are not pleasnt to look at. While they are all wearing diffrent clothes, all the clothes they are wearing are predominatly black. And their skin is discoulored and unpleasnt to look at (symptoms of the more extreme problems of smoking). The people on the bridge with the cigerete guns (who are also fully dehumanised by ironiclly wearing very offputting gas masks) start firing on these people. It then panns into bullet time and you see that what is being fired are lighted cigeretes. A malestrom of them flies into the crowd and they start falling. Falling like dominos, thousands of people just being shot by these cigeretes. But what they are bleading isnt blood. Its the fatty deposits that build up in your blood veins as a result of smoking (remember the driping fatty deposit add). It splatters everywhere, even briefly on the screen. They all make no attempt though to stop getting towards it. They just keep walking (note, they arnt trying to be shot, they just walk passively. I dont want to suggest that smokers are trying to kill themselves). Then as they are all dead, their bodies degrade ultra rapidly, to reveal their lungs beneath, soaked in tar. And then that image pans out to the fact that actually this was being shown in a lecture hall and a comparison is made between that and a healthy lung. The lecturer then concludes with a message
"There is no such thing as smoking in moderation"

Yeah, and people are totally going to be convinced by such an ad to avoid lighting up. Right.

Yeah, and people are totally going to be convinced by such an ad to avoid lighting up. Right.

Do you have an intellegent reason why?

I would have thought the somewhat horrifiying imagrey of tar covered or cancerous lungs and people bleeding horrible fatty deposits all across a road would put some people off. Care to elaborate your point?

It's not particularly realistic. For an anti-smoking ad it has to be as realistic as possible in order to get the message across as effectively as possible.

There's some poster ads up around where I live at the moment saying something along the lines of:

"Arsenic. Banned from public sale 1971. Available on the street 2006"

along with a picture of a cigarette with green smoke coming off it. Now that's effective.

Tell them cigarettes will give you teh AIDS.

*Smacks a beautiful woman around the head*
Tobbaco is too good to waste on the lower classes.

*Smacks a beautiful woman around the head*
Tobbaco is too good to waste on the lower classes.

You seem to have a particullarly low opinion of the female species today...

It's not particularly realistic. For an anti-smoking ad it has to be as realistic as possible in order to get the message across as effectively as possible.


But those are the sort of adverts we've had in the UK for years and it doesnt seem to be working. I thought a new tact would be good.

But those are the sort of adverts we've had in the UK for years and it doesnt seem to be working. I thought a new tact would be good.
Really? 30 years ago one adult in two smoked regularly. Now it's one in four. I think they're working fine.

Meh - I still enjoy smoking so I'm not going to give it up any time soon.

It's not a bad idea especially if you got Romero to direct it. But as with all things there is one fundamental problem with your ad or any anti this or anti that ad and that is choice. Despite the anti smoking ads, the drunk driving ads, the drug ads, domestic violets ads, people still do it, because the chose to. They may conjure up a million and one reasons why they do what they do. Im addicted, I was abused, I can drink as much as I want and can still drive, Drugs have no effect on me, I’m superman, or the Easter bunny. It all boils down to choice. But it doesn’t hurt to try and persuade people that that choice is not a good or healthy one.
My apologies if I sound harsh in any way.

Yeah, smoking has gone down a hell of alot. I'm just waiting for the progaganda war against alcohol to start now.

You put a lot of thought in the idea, but I think the costs will be too high compared to the effect of a low budget, more direct commercial.

Problem with smoking is you can't really make someone stop. A smoker can only make himself stop. He knows it's unhealthy, (s)he knows the effect a cigarette can have, but they ignore it. Smoking kills too slow to be perceived as something really dangerous.

An exemple of a succesful anti-smoking ad was one targeted to the youth. It showed how they were manipulated by the suits to smoke. So instead of making smoking an act of rebellion, the youth saw it as an act of rebellion to quit.

if we legalize marijuana people will use less tobacco in there cigarettes, eventually we could just get people addicted to pot (because they won’t connect the nicotine goodness to the tobacco) and so if we get baking in full swing we can get rid of actual smoking and scouts can make a fortune exploiting the masses

Plus it would make smoking areas more interesting

How about:

"In 2007 smokers will be shot."

That should work?

I think it sounds like a really good idea for an anti-smoke advert. I think there should be pictures of damaged lungs caused by smoking on every cigaret pack. Just to scare people.

I think there should be pictures of damaged lungs caused by smoking on every cigaret pack. Just to scare people.

what with the hefty ass sign saying if I smoke when pregnant it will hurt my baby (the least of my worries) where would you put this?

and the impotence ads usually work for me

what with the hefty ass sign saying if I smoke when pregnant it will hurt my baby (the least of my worries) where would you put this?

and the impotence ads usually work for me

Put a sign on one side and a picture illustrating the text on the other. So if you put a text where it stands that smoking can injure your baby you just put a picture of a baby damaged by smoking on the other side. Untasteful yes, scary yes.

Watching that would probably work me up enough to need a smoke to calm down. :D

Untasteful yes, scary yes.

the scariest thing being I'm a guy the second being the fact that people really won’t care as has been proven many times

http://www.beerorkid.com/Funny/01-12-05/hurts%20my%20baby.jpg

the scariest thing being I'm a guy the second being the fact that people really won’t care as has been proven many times

http://www.beerorkid.com/Funny/01-12-05/hurts%20my%20baby.jpg

Everythig that makes ciggars look bad is a good thing. Even if people don't care it won't look nice buying a package of cigaretts with ugly pictures on it.

No, Gary, no! No, Gary, no! Noooooo... Gary! :p

Do you have an intellegent reason why?

I would have thought the somewhat horrifiying imagrey of tar covered or cancerous lungs and people bleeding horrible fatty deposits all across a road would put some people off. Care to elaborate your point?

Sure thing.

We've had all sorts of unpleasant images on our cigarette packets for a year or two now. (Examples. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cigarettes_health_warning_australia.jpg)) At first, a minority of people found them so unpleasant that they went out and brought special covers for their packets or put them in cigarette cases, but after a month or so became accustomed to the warnings anyway and now nobody blinks an eyelid. Other, more morbid people saw humour in it and tried to collect all of the different warnings - "I want the gangrene one!". (I know this first hand because I work in retail and sell them to people)

Either way, they've had no discernable effect on the amount of smokers.

Same with this ad. Some people are going to say "ugh, gross" but will eventually become sensitised to it out of repetition, and others are going to find it morbidly humorous.

It's already pretty much common knowledge that smoking is bad for your health. Most smokers actually don't care anymore. A few unpleasant images isn't going to make people all of a sudden end a nicotine addiction. I say it's gotten to the point where if they want to have their vice, let them. There's enough education out there for people to make the reasonable choice on whether or not to take up smoking. As I V Stalin has pointed out, that's reduced the rate of people taking it up in recent times considerably. Shock campaigns don't really have any more of an effect...focus on the facts instead.

(edit - I wrote an article a couple of years ago for a journalism class on the negligible effects of "shock" campaigns on cigarette packets in Canada and Singapore, but i can't seem to find it. I'll keep rummaging around for it)

Everythig that makes ciggars look bad is a good thing. Even if people don't care it won't look nice buying a package of cigaretts with ugly pictures on it.

so your going to waste millions of government money on colour picture that nobody will pay attention too...

If you really want to stop people smoking, then do what the market would do. Expose to them how much their habit costs them financially. Each time they buy a packet of cigarettes it only costs them a couple of quid. So they don't notice all this money stacking up over the year. A rough estimate on my part is that the average smoking habit costs £500+/year.

4 cigarettes a day = 1460
average price per cigarette = 33-50p (help me out here. this is a very rough guess)

-> £500-£750 a year that could be spent else where. Like nice new TV or something.

edit: if that doesn't make people give up then it's their own choice which they're entitled to. Just don't expect to socialise with anyone whilst their smoking.

How about just plain old education? None of this hyped up shit.

We restrict smoking in public places. So, if we make people repulsed by smoking indoors, even if we don't ban it, we can shame smokers into giving up the habit.

Those who smoke, aren't going to give up because of an ad. But, they might give it up because of social and peer pressure.

This is an idea of mine for an anti smoking ad. The old ones seem to me not to be as dramatic. Let me know what you think...

Lots of people wearing all grey (urban style) camoflage armed with machine guns. Except the machine guns are made of cigerettes. They are on a brige over a road. Then walking towards them are a massive crowd of people. These people represent the number of people who die from smoking related conditions every year. However they are not pleasnt to look at. While they are all wearing diffrent clothes, all the clothes they are wearing are predominatly black. And their skin is discoulored and unpleasnt to look at (symptoms of the more extreme problems of smoking). The people on the bridge with the cigerete guns (who are also fully dehumanised by ironiclly wearing very offputting gas masks) start firing on these people. It then panns into bullet time and you see that what is being fired are lighted cigeretes. A malestrom of them flies into the crowd and they start falling. Falling like dominos, thousands of people just being shot by these cigeretes. But what they are bleading isnt blood. Its the fatty deposits that build up in your blood veins as a result of smoking (remember the driping fatty deposit add). It splatters everywhere, even briefly on the screen. They all make no attempt though to stop getting towards it. They just keep walking (note, they arnt trying to be shot, they just walk passively. I dont want to suggest that smokers are trying to kill themselves). Then as they are all dead, their bodies degrade ultra rapidly, to reveal their lungs beneath, soaked in tar. And then that image pans out to the fact that actually this was being shown in a lecture hall and a comparison is made between that and a healthy lung. The lecturer then concludes with a message
"There is no such thing as smoking in moderation"


I've always been a considerate smoker - never smoking near eaters, kids, pregnant ladies, etc..

But your sanctimonious self-righteousness just makes me want to blow smoke in your face :)

Here's my idea: A smoker lights up next to a skyscraper. Suddenly, a piano falls out of the sky and lands squarely on them. Then we cut to a black background with the words "Smoking kills" in white.

How about:

"In 2007 smokers will be shot."

That should work?

:p Don't forget my euthanasia clinics~~they're in every town, and they're full service! Walk-ins are welcome~~ "We'll take care of you!"

pfft

just make an advert with a guy out at night, chain smoking away, chatting up this really attractive women.. show several different scenes, him talking to her, getting closer to her, more sexual each time. Of course smoking all the while, or having one in his hands, etc..

last scene him sitting up in bed, maybe holding his head, her looking disgusted and walking out. Finish with big letters saying "smoking causes impotence".

that'll get few men to stop

pfft

last scene him sitting up in bed, maybe holding his head, her looking disgusted and walking out. Finish with big letters saying "smoking causes impotence".

that'll get few men to stop

So Marlboro should team up with Phizer, and you could smoke your Viagara!

So Marlboro should team up with Phizer, and you could smoke your Viagara!

:p and look cool while doing it!

warning on the side of the pack
"may cause stiff neck"

so your going to waste millions of government money on colour picture that nobody will pay attention too...

No, I would make the cigarette companies waste millions of money on colour pictures nobody will pay attention to. And if they don't they'll get fined. But people will pay attention to them, maybe they won't care but they sure as hell will notice them.

I think pictures will be put on cigarret packs in the future in some countries in Europe. I heard it was a debate over it but I'm not sure if that's going to happend or when it's going to happend.

You seem to have a particullarly low opinion of the female species today...
Opposed to my regularily low opinion of the female species?

Though i wasn't aware that i had made any insulting remarks at females today.
the scariest thing being I'm a guy the second being the fact that people really won’t care as has been proven many times
http://www.beerorkid.com/Funny/01-12-05/hurts%20my%20baby.jpg
I love the irony of that image.

Unless of course this was after 9 o'clock I doubt it would be allowed on television.

To be honest, while I'm all for convincing people not to smoke, I don't think an ad like that is at all the right way to go about it. Smokers aren't toddlers to be scared away from their habit by a little ickiness; the actual facts ought to be frightening enough without turning them into some sort of bad zombie movie.

Just give cigarette manufacturers a minimum amount of toxins in their products. A high minimum that guarantees cancer in all smokers. That might convince some not to smoke any more.

So we should punish smokers because we disagree with their choices. Shoot them, or put toxins in the cigarettes to guarantee cancer, place even more heavy taxes on cigarettes, or make them fell ashamed like they have a disease? What next segregated drinking fountains or public restrooms? Besides who can really say smoking causes what they say it does? You relying on information given to you by the same government that denied involvement in Iran-Contra, testing various chemicals on U.S. Soldiers during Vietnam, and claimed there were WMD's in Iraq. "Warning smoking MAY cause..." you may also wreck you car if you drive, or you may get mugged if you walk home at night. Just because something may happen doesn’t mean it does. “There are only two guarantees in life - death and taxes.” Benjamin Franklin

So we should punish smokers because we disagree with their choices. Shoot them, or put toxins in the cigarettes to guarantee cancer, place even more heavy taxes on cigarettes, or make them fell ashamed like they have a disease? What next segregated drinking fountains or public restrooms? Besides who can really say smoking causes what they say it does? You relying on information given to you by the same government that denied involvement in Iran-Contra, testing various chemicals on U.S. Soldiers during Vietnam, and claimed there were WMD's in Iraq. "Warning smoking MAY cause..." you may also wreck you car if you drive, or you may get mugged if you walk home at night. Just because something may happen doesn’t mean it does. “There are only two guarantees in life - death and taxes.” Benjamin Franklin

Umm, thousands of experiments and the effectively universal consensus of the medical and scientific communities around the world? You can't seriously doubt that smoking is bad for you...that requires a level of denial that not even tobacco companies are capable of sustaining, and they are notorious for spin and lies.

Totally wrong analogy, btw. If I drive a car, I might get hurt due to an accident, but if I drive safely, I won't. If I wear a seat belt, drive defensively, and pay attention, my risk of injury and accident is even lower. There is no such thing as "safe" smoking; there is no way to reduce that risk like you can by wearing a seatbelt. When you smoke, you drive up your risk for all kinds of ailments and it happens every time. Some people are luckier and avoid serious problems, but it doesn't take a genius to notice all of the people who die from smoking related illnesses in the US.

Also, when a smoker lights up next to me, I'm forced to smoke. It's that simple. They have absolutely no right to force me to participate in their disgusting habit, especially considering that they are in the minority and their second-hand smoke can be dangerous to people with breathing problems. Even better, I get to pay for their stupid decision later on when my taxes go to help pay for their medical problems! In fact, we're coddling them for their stupid decision...

If you really want to stop people smoking, then do what the market would do. Expose to them how much their habit costs them financially. Each time they buy a packet of cigarettes it only costs them a couple of quid. So they don't notice all this money stacking up over the year. A rough estimate on my part is that the average smoking habit costs £500+/year.

4 cigarettes a day = 1460
average price per cigarette = 33-50p (help me out here. this is a very rough guess)

-> £500-£750 a year that could be spent else where. Like nice new TV or something.

edit: if that doesn't make people give up then it's their own choice which they're entitled to. Just don't expect to socialise with anyone whilst their smoking.

Forgive me, I'm not good with the pound, so try and bear with me, considering 1 pound equals around 2.2 dollars, if I'm correct. You're saying a british man/woman spends about $1000-1600 dollars a year on cigarettes.

Let me just comment on america. Personally, I go through a carton of cigarettes(200 cigarettes) in two weeks, which quite well coincides with my paychecks. A carton costs $35 dollars. I will spend around $840 a year smoking, probably a little more.

I suppose that is pretty high. And most people probably don't buy as sensibly as me(less than a pack a day, buy in bulk).

Though, really, it doesn't effect me to look at the costs. I'll gladly pay $850 dollars a year, to maintain what I have gained from smoking cigarettes(but this is another discussion for another day).

Lots of people wearing all grey (urban style) camoflage armed with machine guns. Except the machine guns are made of cigerettes.

Stupid and melodramatic. "LOL cigarettes are guns!"

They are on a brige over a road. Then walking towards them are a massive crowd of people. These people represent the number of people who die from smoking related conditions every year. However they are not pleasnt to look at. While they are all wearing diffrent clothes, all the clothes they are wearing are predominatly black. And their skin is discoulored and unpleasnt to look at (symptoms of the more extreme problems of smoking). The people on the bridge with the cigerete guns (who are also fully dehumanised by ironiclly wearing very offputting gas masks) start firing on these people. It then panns into bullet time and you see that what is being fired are lighted cigeretes. A malestrom of them flies into the crowd and they start falling. Falling like dominos, thousands of people just being shot by these cigeretes. But what they are bleading isnt blood. Its the fatty deposits that build up in your blood veins as a result of smoking (remember the driping fatty deposit add). It splatters everywhere, even briefly on the screen. They all make no attempt though to stop getting towards it. They just keep walking (note, they arnt trying to be shot, they just walk passively. I dont want to suggest that smokers are trying to kill themselves). Then as they are all dead, their bodies degrade ultra rapidly, to reveal their lungs beneath, soaked in tar. And then that image pans out to the fact that actually this was being shown in a lecture hall and a comparison is made between that and a healthy lung. The lecturer then concludes with a message
"There is no such thing as smoking in moderation"

I have another idea. See, smoking increases a risk of various diseases. Hence, you are attempting to show that the risk is 100% by the fact that everyone dies in it. Well, why not use this extra special and not at all exagerrated meme to discourage anything and everything that increases the risk of any disease? For example, walking outside in the sun increases the risk of skin cancer. We can use pictures of the Sun God smiting sunbathers and anyone who happens to expose themselves to solar radiation with golden lightning bolts. Also, breathing the air increases the risk of lung cancer, what with all the automobile and air pollution. So, you can show people with gas masks walking along happy as clams, but anyone without dying like lemmings. (Nevermind that lemmings don't walk off the cliff or anything, but we wish to control people, not inform them, so fuck it!) And, since riding in, driving, or even being in the vicinity of automobiles increases the risk of death or injury due to accident, we can use pictures of evil cars (a la Christine) maliciously chasing after people to discourage that. Also, since even condoms don't protect oneself 100% from all STDs, for a condom advertisement we can show people walking around with rotting genitals. That'll discourage sex.

That way everyone can live a lifestyle that is safe, and one that I approve of. No one will breathe, go outside, use modern transportation or have sex. Remember, there is no such thing as breathing, moving or having sex in moderation.

However, they will be afraid. And ya know, studies show excessive fear due to advertising (which operates by creating fear and general anxiety) increase stress; stress is known to increase risk of death to among other things, heart disease (number one killer in the USA). So, maybe instead of showing your advertisement, we can make an advertisement that shows people like you going around stabbing people in the heart.

Because everyone knows risk = certainty = BULLET TIMEZORZ! :)

Umm, thousands of experiments and the effectively universal consensus of the medical and scientific communities around the world? You can't seriously doubt that smoking is bad for you...that requires a level of denial that not even tobacco companies are capable of sustaining, and they are notorious for spin and lies.

Totally wrong analogy, btw. If I drive a car, I might get hurt due to an accident, but if I drive safely, I won't. If I wear a seat belt, drive defensively, and pay attention, my risk of injury and accident is even lower. There is no such thing as "safe" smoking; there is no way to reduce that risk like you can by wearing a seatbelt. When you smoke, you drive up your risk for all kinds of ailments and it happens every time. Some people are luckier and avoid serious problems, but it doesn't take a genius to notice all of the people who die from smoking related illnesses in the US.

Also, when a smoker lights up next to me, I'm forced to smoke. It's that simple. They have absolutely no right to force me to participate in their disgusting habit, especially considering that they are in the minority and their second-hand smoke can be dangerous to people with breathing problems. Even better, I get to pay for their stupid decision later on when my taxes go to help pay for their medical problems! In fact, we're coddling them for their stupid decision...

Paragraph at a time.

There are conflicting studies. I believe smoking is bad for you, but its not fact. Its simply the best guess/theory at the moment. People thought the sun revolved around the earth before. Not saying its the same, but don't act like its fact.

There are ways of reducing risk. Smoking less. Quitting at an early age. I believe it was that if you quit at age 30 or so, average life span is nearly as long as a non-smokers. Light cigarettes, the tobacco is less dense, hence you are basically smoking less. Get often checkups, for signs of cancer, etc starting to come. Obviously, its not a great comparison, but its not "smoke and die".

For starters, I know a lot of smokers. They don't go up to random people, and start smoking right next to them. Maybe five-ten feet away, if they're around their friends or something, and they happen to be there, or something. But generally, smokers try not to hover around non-smokers. Most of us feel some sort of compassion, you know. Furthermore. You aren't forced to be by smokers. I can't think of one place anyone could be forced to be by smokers against their will. Bars? You choose to go there, and/or choose to work there. There are non-smoking bars, so you have places to go.

I can agree with bans on smoking in public buildings. Private businesses should be allowed to choose what they want to allow. In public, outside, I don't really agree with laws banning smoking, because honestly, it would be hell for smokers to find places to regularly smoke. I know, "not your problem", but for fucks sake, most of us stay out of your way. At most, you'll get us walk by you for a second, or maybe half a minute at a crosswalk, whatever. If there's smoke coming for you, you could kindly say "I have breathing problems, could you please try not to blow smoke this way?". Most people, if you're not being an ass, will comply.

God. Non-smokers act like we're evil, and want to kill you guys.

Not only would that do nothing, it's also so fucking disgusting no one would let you get away with it.

The drawback is that smoking is fun and makes people look cool. WHat I never understood hough is that it takes a while to become addicted to anything, (well not crack but certainly cigarettes) so you have to smoke a lot over a long period. Now I can understand an addict smoking 20 a day, like an alcoholic drinking a pint of vodka before lunch. But unlike the drinking, smoking isnt that much fun. MAybe I just dont have the work ethic and commitment, but I dont know how people get addicted.

The drawback is that smoking is fun and makes people look cool. WHat I never understood hough is that it takes a while to become addicted to anything, (well not crack but certainly cigarettes) so you have to smoke a lot over a long period. Now I can understand an addict smoking 20 a day, like an alcoholic drinking a pint of vodka before lunch. But unlike the drinking, smoking isnt that much fun. MAybe I just dont have the work ethic and commitment, but I dont know how people get addicted.

Maybe you don't find it fun. I quite enjoy the act of smoking a cigarette. Thats partially why I smoke more when hanging out with my friends, than at home. Its almost an activity, in my mind.

I think we hit our disgusting cigarette ad threshold with the restaraunt with the cigarettes in all the food.

Maybe you don't find it fun. I quite enjoy the act of smoking a cigarette. Thats partially why I smoke more when hanging out with my friends, than at home. Its almost an activity, in my mind.

It IS an activity!

One reason I think smoking is enjoyable is simply because one focuses on breathing in and exhaling, more than one normally does. This (or any) focus on the rhythm of breathing helps reduce stress. Of course you can focus on breathing without smoking, but a lot of people don't exactly meditate so this is a factor in why smoking is enjoyable.

People definitely overplay the addiction factor when it comes to tobacco. People tend to assume that if you smoke, you are an addict, because being an addict is the only possible reason people could smoke. Same with physical addiction - the old "tobacco is the most addictive substance known to mankind!" meme, which is frankly, horseshit.

I guess my whole outlook is that smoking is a risk. It's just a risk I happen to take, whereas non-smokers don't take it.

They take plenty of other risks, like driving in cars, but they almost never try to make the case that driving is an addiction, that driving a car is murdering people, that cars should be banned. It's because there is a social "ew, thats gross" factor when it comes to smoking that largely has nothing to do with health risks. I judge the latter because of the disproportionate way anti-smokers rage about evil murdering smokers, but completely ignore everything else that people do that incurrs a risk.

Maybe you don't find it fun. I quite enjoy the act of smoking a cigarette. Thats partially why I smoke more when hanging out with my friends, than at home. Its almost an activity, in my mind.

But I do find it fun! But smoking 20 a day is like having a pint of beer every half an hour. The first few hours might be fun, but it gets like work.

First off, let me say that if I had all the money in the world, I would use that money to get rid of any and all anti-smoking Ad. Why, because it's annoying, it's stupid, and no one ever pays attention to them. There are already warning on cigarette packages, and everyone already know that smoking is bad. What more do you people want, I mean honestly, anything more is overkill.

Well, now I know where the mongrel idiots who make stupid TV anti cigarette ads come from... NSG. Whodathunk.

Well, now I know where the mongrel idiots who make stupid TV anti cigarette ads come from... NSG. Whodathunk.

It's time to take out the mongrel idiots. So that finally we can be rid of stupid anti-smoking ads that has no effect at all.

It's time to take out the mongrel idiots. So that finally we can be rid of stupid anti-smoking ads that has no effect at all.

I've honestly thought those ads were stupid since I was six.

I've honestly thought those ads were stupid since I was six.

Hell even my unborn nephew/niece thought it was stupid.

When I went to public college they always had a (ahem, public funded) huge-ass anti-tobacco poster hanging on the bridge and some other places. The poster would change pretty often; I guess they must have like dozens of them. Big, professionally done, laminated;if the school books were any comparison they must have been pretty expensive. Always lame, too, like a picture of someone climbing a mountain and a message saying: "80% of students don't smoke cigarettes. You don't want to be in a minority, do you?" or words to that effect.

I doubt they had any real effect on cigarette smoking. But hey they gave me something to read when having a smoke.

Hell even my unborn nephew/niece thought it was stupid.

The things they can do with ultrasound these days.

The things they can do with ultrasound these days.

Well actually we were watching one of the mind numbing "truth" Ads at my brother's house, and my niece/nephew kicked my brother's wife stomach. Smart kid already.

Well actually we were watching one of the mind numbing "truth" Ads at my brother's house, and my niece/nephew kicked my brother's wife stomach. Smart kid already.

That is so fucking awesome. Has he/she shown any other stupidity-detecting techniques? Have you tried showing it commercials for vodka?

Well actually we were watching one of the mind numbing "truth" Ads at my brother's house, and my niece/nephew kicked my brother's wife stomach. Smart kid already.

Cancer is not fun.

Cancer is not fun.

Neither are the ads that apparently thought that the cancer that is caused by smoking is called Zephar. I wish I was making this up, I really do. Then there was the commerical of how Tobaccos CEO wanted to ban "beds" for some asaine reason. Trust me Ruff, these "Truth" ads does nothing but insult our intelligence by making up bullshit reason why we should quit smoking, instead of telling us REAL reason why we should quit.

Cancer is not fun.
I actually find colon cancer quite amusing.

I actually find colon cancer quite amusing.

I know there's a joke in there somewhere, so I'm going to ask why.

I know there's a joke in there somewhere, so I'm going to ask why.

There isn't.

There isn't.

It really would've worked better if you'd said Rectum Cancer.

Condescending and it won't convince anyone to quit. I quit a year ago ... exactly a year ago, come to think of it ... not because I knew what cigarettes were doing to my lungs but because I was tired of getting winded every time I went upstairs. I knew what the effects were for years. I quit when I wanted to quit, I didn't need some juvenile zombie commercial.

Thank you Chellis you put it much more eloquently than I could have. I do much better talking face to face with someone that trying to put my thoughts to words on a thread, but it is exactly that, conflicting studies just like with everything else. Take coffee for instance some studies suggest moderate coffee drinking may lower the risk of colon cancer, gallstones, cirrhosis of the liver or Parkinson's disease. Other studies suggest it increases your risk for heard disease and some of the aforementioned diseases. You see when they do studies of diseases and such they track a small group of test subjects sometimes its people other times its animals then come up with the statistics with a few calculations. So it's not perfect or that exact, that was my point and it seams to me that if you slap a doctorate onto my name I could say anything and quite a few people would believe it. People need to do one thing to get past this, think for themselves. Find the facts for yourself, it may take a little digging through the hype and bs but you'll be far more informed than most people want you to be. That and quit demonizing smoking and smokers there are far more destructive addictions that are far more dangerous to the public at larg.

Forgive me, I'm not good with the pound, so try and bear with me, considering 1 pound equals around 2.2 dollars, if I'm correct. You're saying a british man/woman spends about $1000-1600 dollars a year on cigarettes.

Let me just comment on america. Personally, I go through a carton of cigarettes(200 cigarettes) in two weeks, which quite well coincides with my paychecks. A carton costs $35 dollars. I will spend around $840 a year smoking, probably a little more.

I suppose that is pretty high. And most people probably don't buy as sensibly as me(less than a pack a day, buy in bulk).

Though, really, it doesn't effect me to look at the costs. I'll gladly pay $850 dollars a year, to maintain what I have gained from smoking cigarettes(but this is another discussion for another day).Tobacco exercise is very high in Western Europe. 80% of the cost of a cigarette is tax in UK. That makes tax on cigarettes in the UK about 400%. If the USA were to have the equivalent tobacco taxes to the UK you would be paying 50% more for your cigarettes ($400 a year). Another bit of infomation I found. Tobacco tax accounts for 3.23% of total tax revenues in the UK, whereas it only accounts for .44% in the USA.

http://www.who.int/tobacco/en/atlas41.pdf
pfft

just make an advert with a guy out at night, chain smoking away, chatting up this really attractive women.. show several different scenes, him talking to her, getting closer to her, more sexual each time. Of course smoking all the while, or having one in his hands, etc..

last scene him sitting up in bed, maybe holding his head, her looking disgusted and walking out. Finish with big letters saying "smoking causes impotence".

that'll get few men to stopAlready had one like that in the UK. It's a picture of the forefinger and middlefinger upside down to represent legs and with a cigarette in the middle to represent a penis. It slowly burns down until a lump of ash falls off. Plus is has appropriate text so people know it's talking about impotence.

If you really want to stop people smoking, then do what the market would do. Expose to them how much their habit costs them financially. Each time they buy a packet of cigarettes it only costs them a couple of quid. So they don't notice all this money stacking up over the year. A rough estimate on my part is that the average smoking habit costs £500+/year.

4 cigarettes a day = 1460
average price per cigarette = 33-50p (help me out here. this is a very rough guess)

-> £500-£750 a year that could be spent else where. Like nice new TV or something.

edit: if that doesn't make people give up then it's their own choice which they're entitled to. Just don't expect to socialise with anyone whilst their smoking.
I'd say that the average smoking habit is more than 4 cigarettes a day. According to Indypedia, 77 billion cigarettes are smoked in the UK each year, and there are about 12 million smokers here. That's about 6500 cigarettes per smoker per year.

A pack of 20 costs between £4 and £5 (so we'll say £4.50). That means the average smoker in this country spends about £1450/year on cigarettes. Of which about £1175 goes to the government in tax.

Though, really, it doesn't effect me to look at the costs. I'll gladly pay $850 dollars a year, to maintain what I have gained from smoking cigarettes(but this is another discussion for another day).

Does it get you laid?

Somebody mentioned the an add about asenic a few pages back. In the UK we've had an entier barage like that; asenic, benzene, Polonium...

As for an add in the UK how about "The NHS will no longer treat those who smoke for smoking related disease"

For all the people saying that anti-smoking adverts have no effect on anyone, keep in mind that it doesnt need people to step back and have a personal revelation to be considered having an effect. Do you think watching a car commerical where a car drives down a closed track makes anyone immediately drop everything and buy that car?

Constant bombardment of anti-smoking adverts do effect the population. I know someone who actually quit smoking because the slow fear put into him by those commericals. They really are not even ment to get people to stop smoking, but to prevent people from starting (as the latter is a lot easier.)

Somebody mentioned the an add about asenic a few pages back. In the UK we've had an entier barage like that; asenic, benzene, Polonium...

As for an add in the UK how about "The NHS will no longer treat those who smoke for smoking related disease"

I guess that would be as cool as "The NHS will no longer treat anyone who has had sex for sexual-transmitted diseases."

I guess that would be as cool as "The NHS will no longer treat anyone who has had sex for sexual-transmitted diseases."

That would make even more sense. Smokers pay more in taxes than they cost the NHS, but screwing doesnt bring in any money, at least not to the government. I suppose they could tax condoms but sex is only potentially harmful without them so that would be stupid.

I know a way to stop people smoking. They have to sign a waiver first though. Every time they light up, just as they take the first drag, you hit them with a taser. At first theyl just get pissed off and think your a dick, but eventually theyl become conditioned and start to sweat and become anxious every time they want to light up. I was gonna do it to one of my friends for my dissertation but someone said it was unethical even if they said I could and promised not to sue.

That would make even more sense. Smokers pay more in taxes than they cost the NHS, but screwing doesnt bring in any money, at least not to the government. I suppose they could tax condoms but sex is only potentially harmful without them so that would be stupid.

They should legalize prostitution, and then tax the brothels. Then we can get one step closer to eliminating sex, which is proven to kill people.

I know a way to stop people smoking. They have to sign a waiver first though. Every time they light up, just as they take the first drag, you hit them with a taser. At first theyl just get pissed off and think your a dick, but eventually theyl become conditioned and start to sweat and become anxious every time they want to light up. I was gonna do it to one of my friends for my dissertation but someone said it was unethical even if they said I could and promised not to sue.

Negative conditioning will stop anyone from doing anything, but yeah, it's probably unethical.

Which is too bad, cuz there are a lot of things I'd like to taser people for.

I'd say that the average smoking habit is more than 4 cigarettes a day. According to Indypedia, 77 billion cigarettes are smoked in the UK each year, and there are about 12 million smokers here. That's about 6500 cigarettes per smoker per year.

A pack of 20 costs between £4 and £5 (so we'll say £4.50). That means the average smoker in this country spends about £1450/year on cigarettes. Of which about £1175 goes to the government in tax.See, it could be a great advert. Your habit costs you £1500 a year. If you quit what would you spend the money on?

Let people decide for themselves, without throwing propaganda down their throats?:confused:

Somebody mentioned the an add about asenic a few pages back. In the UK we've had an entier barage like that; asenic, benzene, Polonium...

As for an add in the UK how about "The NHS will no longer treat those who smoke for smoking related disease"That's grossly unfair. Smoking related diseases were estimated to the NHS £2 billion a year in 1998. Tobacco exercise revenues were £10.5 billion for 1998.

This is why the government never makes any really effort to get people to quit smoking. There's too much money in it for them.

If people want to smoke then I won't stop, unless of course it is right in my face and I can smell the smoke.

You know what'd be better?

Since smoking kills someone every five minutes, why not just have a death certificate flash up on screen every five minutes with "*Person* just died from a smoking related illness" for about ten seconds to let it sink in?

Tada!

That would make even more sense. Smokers pay more in taxes than they cost the NHS, but screwing doesnt bring in any money, at least not to the government. I suppose they could tax condoms but sex is only potentially harmful without them so that would be stupid.
"They" do tax condoms. In the UK, you pay 5% VAT when you buy them - it was cut in last year's budget from 17.5%.

Let people decide for themselves, without throwing propaganda down their throats?:confused:

Its not propoganda, it is a health warning

There is no other side to it, smoking IS a serious health risk, and will very very likly kill you. End of story.

I smoke cigars, (taste much better then cigarettes) but i think people already know that smoking is bad so why do they have to keep trying to make all of us who do smoke feel any more guilty. I mean shit, just leave us alone to die in peace. Most of these commercials now and days remind me of the anit-weed commercials about "sitting on pete's couch". they just seem so stupid, it almost feels like they think we're stupid and to me their attitude almost seems belittling.

Its not propoganda, it is a health warning

There is no other side to it, smoking IS a serious health risk, and will very very likly kill you. End of story.Everyone dies eventually. The facts are out there. If people wish to smoke then that is their right. But I also have the right not to breathe in that smoke as I choose not to smoke (i r tolerant to drugs).

There are very real risks to every action you take every day of your life. All that can really be done is provide infomation in an easily accessible format. If people choose to ignore that then that is their choice. Though if they regret it later on in life it is no one's fault but their own. Personal responsibility is very important. You could argue that cigarettes are addictive, but who doesn't know that cigarettes are addictive? People know what they're getting into when they start smoking. If they don't then that is their own fault at present as their is easily enough infomation available to show the effects of smoking.

If you want to slap warning labels all over packets of cigarettes then why don't you slap warning labels all over packets of Vermont Cheddar Cheese about how it can lead to heart conditions?

There are very real risks to every action you take every day of your life. All that can really be done is provide infomation in an easily accessible format. If people choose to ignore that then that is their choice. Though if they regret it later on in life it is no one's fault but their own. Personal responsibility is very important. You could argue that cigarettes are addictive, but who doesn't know that cigarettes are addictive? People know what they're getting into when they start smoking. If they don't then that is their own fault at present as their is easily enough infomation available to show the effects of smoking.

We think we've come so far. Torture of heretics, burning of witches, it's all ancient history. Then! Before you can blink an eye, suddenly it threatens to start all over again.

If you want to slap warning labels all over packets of cigarettes then why don't you slap warning labels all over packets of Vermont Cheddar Cheese about how it can lead to heart conditions?
Agreed. A warning label on the package that says "This product can cause life-threatening illness" is enough. Taking away the choice to do something dangerous like smoking may seem all well and good now but it won't stop there. What wil be bashed and banned tomorrow? Certain foods? Already happening in some parts of the country. Booze? They tried that a while ago and it made things worse. Soon it could happen again. How many choices must be taken away, how many freedoms must be stripped before we rise up and say "no"? They learned something from the alcohol ban. A quick cut-off gets a lot of backlash but few notice a long, slow slide. No one cares when freedoms are eroded over the long run. It's only when we look back that we see how far we've fallen.

With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on we are all damaged.

Does it get you laid?

I'm not sucking off a guy who runs out of breath.


Or did you mean something else?

Agreed. A warning label on the package that says "This product can cause life-threatening illness" is enough. Taking away the choice to do something dangerous like smoking may seem all well and good now but it won't stop there. What wil be bashed and banned tomorrow? Certain foods? Already happening in some parts of the country. Booze? They tried that a while ago and it made things worse. Soon it could happen again. How many choices must be taken away, how many freedoms must be stripped before we rise up and say "no"? They learned something from the alcohol ban. A quick cut-off gets a lot of backlash but few notice a long, slow slide. No one cares when freedoms are eroded over the long run. It's only when we look back that we see how far we've fallen.

With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on we are all damaged.I thought you were misquoting me for a second. I didn't remember writing about witches and torture. Forget to put the tags in?

But yes, banning stuff is bad. Except maybe guns. I have a real problem with guns. *shudders*

But yes, for those of you who didn't catch the quote. It's from Thank you for Smoking. Very funny film.
"The great state of Vermont will not apologise for its cheese!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhUzN4oHHkU&mode=related&search=

give them an economic estimate of how much money you save each year by quitting (it worked for me)

Since half of smokers die from diseases caused by smoking, it's like playing Russian roulette. It could be scripted like this: the famous Russian roulette-playing scene, but instead of one cartridge, the player puts three cigarettes into the revolver, spins, and shoots at his chest instead of head. It doesn't go bang, just a little "tuff" and a little puff of smoke, and he inhales, wheezing, coughs up blood and goes into that characteristic smoker's coughing fit. This suggests lung cancer, but it shouldn't be mentioned directly. Then, the fact "half of smokers die from smoking" is shown in simple lettering. You have to be careful to not be overt and propagandizing, because it erodes your credibility. The fact is that you cannot know if you die from smoking: you have to show it's not even 100% certain, just a pointless risk.

How about I don't see a rotting lung when I'm trying to watch Charles in Charge and I promise to think about quitting? How about that?

here in Hawaii, a law was passed and put into effect.

basically, all buildings, covered walkways, covered parking lots and partially covered buildings and parking lots are now Non-Smoking areas. including partially covered malls and any area within 20 feet of any window, door or ventaliation of any building.

Added to that the high Cig taxes here...

Its not propoganda, it is a health warning

There is no other side to it, smoking IS a serious health risk, and will very very likly kill you. End of story.

It's propaganda. Propaganda you agree with, but propaganda. Health warnings as issued by and delivered to mature people who do not need "bullet time" and stupid action sequences to deliver information.