Social activism - people power

[MoreCoffee]

In Australia we have laws about cigarette packaging that denies the makers a chance to advertise the brand or make cigarettes attractive. The typical packaging looks like this:

These packages are a direct result of people power together with advice from medical experts.

Other things in society are happening that might benefit from people power.

Wat is cigarette advertising in the USA, Europe, and other western nations like?

 

[Rens]

My brother can't see it. He just doesn't look at it and put a cover over his cigs. I asked him what was on it then and expected something like this, but it was just a warning in text, that it's bad for children or causes death. It doesn't work. When I was addicted I would see it but it's like you don't understand it or something.

 

[Ruth]

There are ads on TV about throat cancer and a woman with no larnyx talking and saying "look what happened to me" and then they say she died. There are lots of ads on tv but they only run a short course. Also on cigarettes there are warnings by the Surgeon General about what smoking does to you. And I guess most smokers don't look at the side of the pack. I smoke and rarely look at the side of the pack.

 

[tango]

The trouble with this "people power" is when people have an unhealthy interest in interfering in other peoples' lives. If I want to smoke in my own home it's nobody else's business, so the concept of "people power" trying to make it illegal is little more than trying to introduce the tyranny of the majority or, more worryingly, the tyranny of people who whine and shout enough that people do what they want to get some peace and quiet.

In many ways this kind of packaging is self-defeating anyway. So many people smoke and don't see any of the problems mentioned and it doesn't take many people who can truthfully say "my Nan smoked 20 a day from when she turned 18 to when she died at 96 and it never did her any harm" before people conclude it's just a bunch of scaremongering. Once that stage is reached (and it's easy to see how a lot of this kind of labelling is scaremongering, especially how many of us know people who smoked for decades and didn't get mouth cancer etc) the state becomes the boy who cried wolf and more serious warnings are more likely to be ignored.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The trouble with this "people power" is when people have an unhealthy interest in interfering in other peoples' lives. If I want to smoke in my own home it's nobody else's business, so the concept of "people power" trying to make it illegal is little more than trying to introduce the tyranny of the majority or, more worryingly, the tyranny of people who whine and shout enough that people do what they want to get some peace and quiet.

In many ways this kind of packaging is self-defeating anyway. So many people smoke and don't see any of the problems mentioned and it doesn't take many people who can truthfully say "my Nan smoked 20 a day from when she turned 18 to when she died at 96 and it never did her any harm" before people conclude it's just a bunch of scaremongering. Once that stage is reached (and it's easy to see how a lot of this kind of labelling is scaremongering, especially how many of us know people who smoked for decades and didn't get mouth cancer etc) the state becomes the boy who cried wolf and more serious warnings are more likely to be ignored.

Smoking rates have declined in Australia. Cost and the packaging contributed to the decline.

 

[tango]

Smoking rates have declined in Australia. Cost and the packaging contributed to the decline.

I'm surprised that packaging actually makes much difference. There were all sorts of schemes in the UK to try and get people to stop smoking. Of course the UK is sufficiently close to continental Europe that when the price of cigarettes rose it played nicely into the hands of bootleggers - it was reckoned that a discount of about 30% was all it took to persuade otherwise law-abiding smokers to buy from bootleggers instead. So every time the price went up in the UK the bootleggers put their price up by 2/3 of the increase and increased their profit margins. I imagine the French Treasury did very well at our expense.

I guess in Australia if you don't like the price you can't take a day trip in your car to another country to take advantage of a cheaper market.

 

[Rens]

I read that they want to make it 23 euro a pack, that makes pot even cheaper. Nuts. Glad I don't smoke anymore.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Canada appears to have similar pictures on the packaging, but there's a push toward the more generic variety such as in the OP. I think there might be some initial 'shock' value to it, but taxes and other costs are what would drive the market down quicker.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I'm surprised that packaging actually makes much difference. There were all sorts of schemes in the UK to try and get people to stop smoking. Of course the UK is sufficiently close to continental Europe that when the price of cigarettes rose it played nicely into the hands of bootleggers - it was reckoned that a discount of about 30% was all it took to persuade otherwise law-abiding smokers to buy from bootleggers instead. So every time the price went up in the UK the bootleggers put their price up by 2/3 of the increase and increased their profit margins. I imagine the French Treasury did very well at our expense.

I guess in Australia if you don't like the price you can't take a day trip in your car to another country to take advantage of a cheaper market.

The packaging has an effect on children especially the children of smokers. Once their children reach an age sufficient to read and to ask questions the pictures and warnings cause many children to ask their smoking parent about it and sometimes to plead with them not to get sick from smoking. Other factors, such a price, play a significant role for those who do not have children as well as those who do.

 

[tango]

The packaging has an effect on children especially the children of smokers. Once their children reach an age sufficient to read and to ask questions the pictures and warnings cause many children to ask their smoking parent about it and sometimes to plead with them not to get sick from smoking. Other factors, such a price, play a significant role for those who do not have children as well as those who do.

Working through children is little more than pulling a child's heartstrings, presenting misleading statistics to someone not old enough to understand them, in order to bend someone else to do your will when it's none of your business anyway.

Adults can understand that an increase in risk from 0.0003% to 0.0009% might technically be a 200% increase but the chances are still vanishingly small. Adults can understand the risks and decide whether to take them or not, pulling at the heartstrings of children to threaten them with little more than "look what will happen to daddy" is pretty low if you ask me. It might work but at what cost?

Fiddling with the price is all well and good but in countries like the UK merely drives more money into the hands of bootleggers. Even then it seems more like government meddling in a way that's little more than setting one group of people against another.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The health warnings are not misleading nor are statistics associated with them.

 

[psalms 91]

I dont agree wirth taxing something to death so that those addicted will go broke, and no I dont smoke but I dont think taxing it to death is right either

 

[Rens]

I dont agree wirth taxing something to death so that those addicted will go broke, and no I dont smoke but I dont think taxing it to death is right either

That's all that happens. When I was addicted I simply bought the cheaper stuff only guys normally smoke without a filter, much worse and I hardly ate, had no money left for that. It's stupid to think that will work. The govt only gets more money.

 

[Lamb]

In Australia we have laws about cigarette packaging that denies the makers a chance to advertise the brand or make cigarettes attractive. The typical packaging looks like this:

These packages are a direct result of people power together with advice from medical experts.

Other things in society are happening that might benefit from people power.

Wat is cigarette advertising in the USA, Europe, and other western nations like?

As part of a huge settlement, big tobacco companies have to pay to advertise about the dangers of tobacco use here in the US. I remember right before the advertising started happening when call for artists was put out and I submitted my portfolio. A questionnaire was sent back with a lot of things but what struck me as odd was that they asked if I would be bothered doing advertising for anti-tobacco FOR a tobacco company?

 

[MoreCoffee]

As part of a huge settlement, big tobacco companies have to pay to advertise about the dangers of tobacco use here in the US. I remember right before the advertising started happening when call for artists was put out and I submitted my portfolio. A questionnaire was sent back with a lot of things but what struck me as odd was that they asked if I would be bothered doing advertising for anti-tobacco FOR a tobacco company?

Tobacco companies would not advertise cigarettes if the advertising didn't have a measurable positive outcome for their profits. Even if they need to fund anti-smoking advertising they must still see a positive outcome for their profits in advertising cigarettes.

I'd like it better if the USA Tobacco companies had to pay money to a third party - something like a health promotion fund - that would manage anti-smoking advertising.

 

[tango]

The health warnings are not misleading nor are statistics associated with them.

My point isn't that the warnings are misleading, my point is that children can't process statistics in the way an adult can and in that regard they mislead children into thinking the risk is much greater than it is.

There's a big difference between "smoking increases the risk of cancer" and "if you smoke you will die horribly". The former is accurate, the latter is the kind of message that children are likely to take away from a lot of this kind of presentation. If you give the child the impression that "if daddy doesn't stop smoking he's going to die" the child's response is likely to be one of panic and endless pressure on daddy to stop smoking, when the reality is much more that if daddy doesn't stop smoking he faces an increased risk of lung cancer but in all likelihood will still be alive and well long after little Jimmy has grown up and left home. This is the sort of thing that doesn't need endless statistics to prove - just look at the number of people with adult children who have smoked their entire adult lives.

Even "smoking increases the risk of cancer" is incomplete because it doesn't quantify the risk, and "smoking causes a 300% increase in the likelihood of lung cancer" is the kind of thing that creates a disproportionate "shock, horror" response if the reality is that smoking increases the chance of getting cancer from 0.0002% to 0.0008% - the 300% increase figure is mathematically correct but is likely to generate a level of concern that is out of proportion to the actual risk.

In many ways another problem is that people grow desensitized to the endless push for ever-more graphic warnings and just tune them out. If people don't want to carry a pack of cigarettes around with them that features an example of the worst outcomes of smoking all they need to do is transfer the cigarettes into a plain box and be done with it.

 

[tango]

That's all that happens. When I was addicted I simply bought the cheaper stuff only guys normally smoke without a filter, much worse and I hardly ate, had no money left for that. It's stupid to think that will work. The govt only gets more money.

Or, in the case of the UK, the bootleggers get more money which ends up funding all sorts of other undesirable activities, and the government still gets the bill to pick up the pieces.

 

[MoreCoffee]

My point isn't that the warnings are misleading, my point is that children can't process statistics in the way an adult can ...

Parents and teachers in schools teach children all sorts of things that they do not have the ability to critically evaluate. It's part of learning as a child. When a child is old enough to recognise the message in the warmings and pictures on the standardised cigarette packaging used in Australia they are old enough to have some critical thinking and old enough to ask their smoking parent about it and ask them not to smoke themselves into sickness and death. My guess is that children probably reach that stage after age 8 and before age 12. I am not worried that the standard packaging with its unpleasant images and stark health warnings is going to mislead children. I am inclined to think that a child who persuades his smoking parent to stop smoking may have saved a life and will probably have a better life him/her self as a result.

 

[tango]

Parents and teachers in schools teach children all sorts of things that they do not have the ability to critically evaluate. It's part of learning as a child. When a child is old enough to recognise the message in the warmings and pictures on the standardised cigarette packaging used in Australia they are old enough to have some critical thinking and old enough to ask their smoking parent about it and ask them not to smoke themselves into sickness and death. My guess is that children probably reach that stage after age 8 and before age 12. I am not worried that the standard packaging with its unpleasant images and stark health warnings is going to mislead children. I am inclined to think that a child who persuades his smoking parent to stop smoking may have saved a life and will probably have a better life him/her self as a result.

It's one thing to encourage children to learn and improve their processing ability. How does it help anyone to force full-on scare tactics at children who can't process the risks and who merely think that daddy is going to die any day now unless he stops smoking? What happens when little Jimmy asks daddy why he smokes when it will make him die, and daddy tells him the risks are overstated and not to worry about it?

In any event trying to manage someone's behaviour, even if it does appear to be in their best interests, by emotionally manipulating their children smacks more of propaganda than a rational presentation. And since whether or not I smoke (I don't, for what it's worth) isn't any of Nanny State's business in the first place it all seems like little more than trying to force change by emotionally manipulating those least able to process the information.

I'm reluctant to use terms like "abuse" but frankly taking active steps to deliberately cause distress to a child as they fear an event that is unlikely to happen, when the primary goal is to change their parents' behaviour, does seem awfully close to emotional abuse.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It's one thing to encourage children to learn and improve their processing ability. How does it help anyone to force full-on scare tactics at children who can't process the risks and who merely think that daddy is going to die any day now unless he stops smoking? What happens when little Jimmy asks daddy why he smokes when it will make him die, and daddy tells him the risks are overstated and not to worry about it?

In any event trying to manage someone's behaviour, even if it does appear to be in their best interests, by emotionally manipulating their children smacks more of propaganda than a rational presentation. And since whether or not I smoke (I don't, for what it's worth) isn't any of Nanny State's business in the first place it all seems like little more than trying to force change by emotionally manipulating those least able to process the information.

I'm reluctant to use terms like "abuse" but frankly taking active steps to deliberately cause distress to a child as they fear an event that is unlikely to happen, when the primary goal is to change their parents' behaviour, does seem awfully close to emotional abuse.

The packing in Australia is neither forced at children nor aimed at reaching them. There is no design to mislead manipulate or otherwise use children for nefarious purposes. The packaging is blatant, direct, even scary and deliberately so. That children - once they learn to read and have developed some reasoning ability - upon seeing them may raise the matter with their smoking parent is part of normal and natural development given the stimulus. I don't quite understand the motive behind your posts characterising it as something manipulative and possibly evil.