New Anti-Smoking Ads Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT | |
I suppose if people are going to be shocked out of smoking through a video, instead of statistics and science, it's doing its job well. I don't particularly like these videos, it gives the message that 'if you smoke you're going to end up like me' which isn't necessarily true. But then again, they're having to resort to these shock tactics because facts and figures won't stop them. Hmm... I suppose they're a necessary 'evil' then. I think. | |
Props to the woman who did the ad. Brave person who wanted to get the message out. But I think some of the ads are going too far. Yes, to make smokers quit you may need to use shock tactics, but it all starts to come across negatively. I know they want it to, but I don't know, they are starting to not sit right with me. Maybe it's because I'm a smoker, but this just doesn't deter me. Yes I'm aware of the health risks and all that, but I smoke because I enjoy the taste (crucify me, go on). It's a decision I have made, and if one day I decide to stop, It's going to be because I felt it was time. It's not going to be because of a confronting advertisement. | |
Yeah I agree. Shock and scare tactics usually don't deter me from anything. There is also the stat that "1 out of every 3 smokers dies of a smoking related illness". The other 2/3 eventually die from something else anyway. If it wasn't smoking related illness then it would just be something else. It isn't like I'm going to drop dead before I hit 30 years old. | |
They work for the purposes of keeping smoking low. To those who are already addicted or just plain don't give a damn, these ads aren't going to work. I know they won't, because they are still smoking despite the previous ads. At the end of the day, you can't force people to stop smoking. But you can prevent them from starting. These ads help with that. They might help a few smokers who have thought about quitting to make a serious attempt to stop, but they usually fail at this as most smokers either switch the channel or blank it from their mind (which is their choice and an understandable one - you don't want to watch things that make you uncomfortable). The ad campaigns should be maintained, because it's only just now that we're starting to see a decline in smoking-related cancers. All those decades of smoking in the 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's was killing people right up till now (quitting doesn't stop all the damage done from smoking in the past). As a medical student, I can tell you that cigarettes were and are one of the worst man-made health hazards in the history of humanity. I've been around hospital wards. I've seen the stats. Cigarettes are evil - not the smokers, but the product and those who make it are evil. Internal documents in the 60's and the 70's PROVE that the manufacturers knew PRECISELY how deadly and addictive and dangerous their product was, and they spent billions trying to snow the public with misinformation to keep the truth from getting out there. I don't hate smokers. But I do hate the companies that make the products - they are some of the sickest, vilest human beings on the planet. Not the worse people, but not too far off from the worst. You know what cigarette companies are doing now that most of the developed world has stopped smoking? It's preying on kids in the third world countries like Indonesia and China. Yeah. That's what they're doing. They're literally getting brown, yellow and black kids addicted to cigarettes, the bastards. And the governments of those nations are too corrupt and make too much money from tobacco to stop them. Cigarette manufacturers - on a moral level, not that much better than murderers. What else do you call a bunch of people who dream about ways to get poor developing nation children addicted to cigarettes? | |
Yeah.... Fuck this, I'm quitting. This is my last pack. I don't want to end up sounding like Donald Duck. Although I was quitting anyway, so this commercial didn't really change much I guess... | |
Yes, we all die from something. But cancer's a pretty bad way to go. That's an understatement. There are "good" ways of dying.... and then there's pretty awful, horrific ways of dying. I've been to see and talk with cancer patients. Terminal ones. The amount of pain they are in, from the bone metastasis alone, is terrifying. Not even morphine can dull the pain. Again, you're right - we all die from something. But there are ways I don't want to die, and I don't want to raise the risk of dying in those ways. You can say you're not scared of lung cancer. But I bet you haven't seen someone, talked to someone, treated someone with terminal cancer. And while I haven't treated them, I have talked to them in the wards. Lung Cancer is pretty goddamn scary. All cancers are pretty scary. You might not fear death - but do you fear agonizing, crippling pain and a slow, slow, slow, death in which you slowly degenerate and lose functions due to the masses of cancer that grow in you Now you can say "Well, I could get cancer anyway even if I don't smoke". Yes - true. But smoking raises the odds of cancer or other fatal respiratory diseases significantly. That's like saying "I could fall down the stairs and die anyday, so I'm not going to bother with being careful when I run down the stairs and break neck speed" or "I could die in a car-crash anyway, so who cares if I'm drunk and wear no seat belt!". And yes - other things do raise the risk of cancer. But cigarettes are one of the biggest, if not the biggest risk factor. | |
Yeah I had considered that. It is one thing to die peacefully in your sleep at 80 years old and a completely other thing to die of cancer at 80 years old when it comes to agony. So I see where you are coming from. I don't fear death itself like mentioned, but I do fear agonizing pain. I actually have thought of the car crash scenario. I would never do something that reckless, especially not repeatedly. The difference is say you do drive drunk that one time you are greatly increasing your risk of dying right then and there. It isn't the same type of death caused gradually over time like smoking. Perhaps that is why a lot of people smoke. They don't consider the long term consequences as much as they would an immediate death or serious injury like driving drunk. There is also the addiction factor. You can be an alcoholic too, but driving while drunk isn't addictive. Like someone mentioned the ads probably would work better at preventing someone to start smoking, rather than inspire people who already do to quit due to the addiction factor. One of the ads has a man talking about how he was smoking a cigarette while he was in the process of having a heart attack. I also read a sad story of a man dying of cancer due to smoking just 8 weeks after he was diagnosed. It mentioned how even after such a tragic event some family members at the funeral lit up right afterward. If there was no addiction I would quit immediately, but it is a tough habit to break. Several reasons as well would be to improve my health. Not just lower cancer risk, but better respiratory health overall. It is also an expensive habit that really adds up over time. | |
That was unpleasant. But I'm not going to start smoking anyway, so it's kind of stupid that I watched it. But if you ask me, these ads should focus more on the many people who want to quit smoking but can't. That's the biggest argument against smoking. | |
Shock tactic's really don't work anymore, | |
Oh yeah, shock tactics. They worked great with pot, heroin, coke and meth, why wouldn't they work with tobacco? | |
That's bullshit. | |
Ooooh, what will it be? Gangrene or cancer? I'm dying to find out. This seems like more of a reason to legalise euthanasia than for me to quit smoking. | |
We've had these ads for years. Our government is pretty retarded. So maybe the government needs to fuck off. If i want to drink acid i should be allowed to, just the same as if someone wants to inhale a bunch of bad shit they should be able to. But no, go ahead idiots, ban everything bad for peoples health so our population does nothing but grow and become old. It doesn't cost anything to keep 5 billion 100year olds alive or anything. | |
That was a great ad. I was at work once when someone with the same condition came in. Except she didn't have one of those voice regulator things- she had to stick her thumb in the hole so she could speak. It was one of the most horrifying things I have ever witnessed. As soon as she left I had to sit down, I felt like I was going to vomit. Oh wow, and the captcha is 'plugged nickel'. | |
Which begs the question... Anyway, in Britain we don't go after the smokers. | |
All this and tobacco is still legal under federal law. You know the funniest part? It doesn't even get you high. If you're gonna let people destroy their bodies, at least give 'em a substance that makes everything better. Unrelated note: OP, I <3 your Citan avatar. | |
This is a slightly different issue in the UK because of the National Health Service. People who smoke and end up with debilitating diseases as a result, but have no private health insurance, cost the British taxpayer money. So the government is trying get people to stop smoking literally in order to cut health costs in the long run. It's for the same reason that we're trying to get people to eat healthily, exercise, drink less, etc... Smoking does get singled out though. Not being a smoker, but having smoked a variety of things throughout my life, I can't see why people do it. It seems to have no discernable benefit to it, unlike eating or drinking. | |
I smoke. I watched the ad. I'm still smoking. While we're on the subject of ad campaigns. Hundreds of people a year die from drink driving. Do you know how many die from drink driving while juggling ... 2, total. If you are going to drink drive, play it safe and juggle. | |
Yeah good point. Tobacco the first few times gives a pretty good euphoria, but eventually you just have to smoke to keep the edge off. So it is not really worth it at all. off topic: Thanks! I love Xenogears. | |
I disagree with that notion, and I think it's highly unjustified. Tobacco shouldn't remain legal simply to keep the age population as young as possible. We can handle that when it comes around (it's also unethical.) It should be banned because it offers nothing. Weed actually stimulates your mind with minimum risk involved. The only thing tabacco does is release the urge, after you're already addicted though. It's also a big killer. I'm a smoker. Despite me wanting to quit and knowing the risks, I can't. I'm too used to doing it (although there is a new pill on the market that actually works.) It's just as much a habbit as it is an addiction. | |
No, it shouldn't be banned because a ban would do nothing. Or are you unfamiliar with the glowing success record of prohibition in all of its forms. Like it or not, people choose to smoke and should be allowed to choose to smoke so long as we live in countries which place any importance on personal freedom and responsibility. | |
I don't really think shock tactics will do much apart from gross out people. | |
Best way to get people off smoking, end government subsides for tobacco.
Good luck. | |
Alright, That video was just Reefer Madness levels of hate for smoking. Unlike Reefer Madness however, it's a real thing. | |
I think the ads are somewhat distasteful, but if they manage to put kids off from smoking (I'm sure someone will do a study at some point), then I can swallow my distaste. I currently don't have an opinion on the effectiveness of these ads, since their effect, if any, would probably be intangible and more of a "cultural awareness" thing rather than spreading actual knowledge (that is, most people already know smoking is bad, but perhaps these ads do more to make people consciously apply that knowledge). | |
Shock tactics don't work on me. I'm sure the reason why they came up with these ads is because the shock tactic warnings they wanted put on packs of smokes got killed. Still, I'm sure they work on some people but no one these days goes into smoking without knowing how terrible it is for you. It's been about a month since my last cigarette. I miss is dearly but am glad to have quit. Not for any health reason though.......I like having that extra cash in my bank account. | |
I was shocked out of eating meat by peta slaughterhouse vids, shock tatics work and i think for products like cigarettes shock tatics are most effective, but lets face it, people wont stop smoking until it become to expensive to continue | |
We have those too. Except the ads are actually kind of adorable. Daaaaw. It's like watching a child put on their parent's shoes. | |
Smoking is bad for you? Holy shit when did they discover this? OT: Almost everything is bad for you. I don't get the hate for smoking. Try and enjoy your life a bit for F sake. A friend of mine died at 29 when she just became a mother a month before that. Congenital heart defect. Never smoked a day in her life. Drink, smoke, fall in love, get your heart broken, get kids, see the world, jump out of an airplane (preferably with a parachute). Live your life because even if you don't smoke you can die any second now. Captcha: dead ringer. Creepy... | |
quoting a post i read before, "i swear the fucking capcha's are becoming sentient" OT: i guess thats the thing, its a non necessity a "pleasure" which has serious health ramifications not to mention costs a fuck ton to maintain i've never really had pleasure smoking, all its ever done is made me extremely dizzy and sick | |
That one was actually good. It was funny (I liked the pun) it didn't show just the worst case scenario as the other one did, just informed people that second hand smoking is a thing. Which people seem to forget sometimes. | |
You should hear my neighbor. She sounds like a shot horse. Or a vacuum cleaner.
Drink, smoke when you are 16, die at 50 from lung cancer or liver failure. Or don't put poison in your body in excessive amounts (smoking is worse, since it's nothing BUT poison, at least wine or small amounts of alcohol have beneficial effects), live to 80 and see your grandchildren. I mean, sure, you can die in a car crash tomorrow. But living every day like it is your last will just hasten your death. edit: Forgot to mention - second hand smoking poisons air and people nearby few times more than the smoker himself. | |
as someone who has just quit smoking over a month ago now, i think people who smoke should have to pay for their own medical care, and if they are stupid enough not to listen to the facts and not provide their own medi-care then i supose they deserve to die. Same goes for obese people. People should take care of themselves, if they dont want to they shouldnt expect the state to look after them at tax payers expense, they should take responsibility for their actions. So yeah, these adverts should be banned, the earth is too poulated anyway. (from uk where the nhs is all ready under massive strain.) | |
This. It's by some distance the most pointless substance to abuse. Cannot for the life of me see what makes people want to try it in the first place - at least other drugs have side effects that kind of entice you. | |
| Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT | |
You have probably seen some of these new anti-smoking ads put out by the CDC. They introduce you to a person that now lives with some of the horrible effects of smoking such as this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zWB4dLYChM
Of course everyone knows how harmful smoking is, but some do it anyway. What are your thoughts on these kind of ads?