Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Fantasy » alt.fan.pratchett » [I] Ads to stop you smoking
[I] Ads to stop you smoking [message #237646] Fr, 17 März 2006 00:13
Random C  
There's something that's bothering me about the ads on UK TV at the
moment encouraging people to give up smoking. I don't mean the
commercial ones for alternate sources of nicotine, I mean the government
ones.
Other than the fact that as soon as one comes on every smoker in the
room immediately lights up, I mean, and sorry to all those who reached
for their Silk Cut when they saw this topic.
The message seems to be Quit Smoking If You Have Kids. Nobody is
represented in these ads *but* parents. The ads are full of upset little
girls who blame their mums for daring to get cancer. Not women upset
that their husbands got lung cancer, or dads upset because their
daughters did - the entire message seems to be fine, you do what you
want, die if you like, we don't care about YOU, but think about how this
will affect your KIDS! And not even the 'stop poisoning the people who
don't have a choice about sharing your home' side of it either, it's the
emotional side of it they're playing up.
It strikes me as rather strange, unless the government really doesn't
care about those of us who are not inclined to reproduce.
Re:[I] Ads to stop you smoking [message #237648 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 00:26
keefers  
Random C wrote:
> There's something that's bothering me about the ads on UK TV at the
> moment encouraging people to give up smoking. I don't mean the
> commercial ones for alternate sources of nicotine, I mean the government
> ones.
> Other than the fact that as soon as one comes on every smoker in the
> room immediately lights up, I mean, and sorry to all those who reached
> for their Silk Cut when they saw this topic.
> The message seems to be Quit Smoking If You Have Kids. Nobody is
> represented in these ads *but* parents. The ads are full of upset little
> girls who blame their mums for daring to get cancer. Not women upset
> that their husbands got lung cancer, or dads upset because their
> daughters did - the entire message seems to be fine, you do what you
> want, die if you like, we don't care about YOU, but think about how this
> will affect your KIDS! And not even the 'stop poisoning the people who
> don't have a choice about sharing your home' side of it either, it's the
> emotional side of it they're playing up.
> It strikes me as rather strange, unless the government really doesn't
> care about those of us who are not inclined to reproduce.


I think it's more about emotional impact - distraught children who
don't understand why their mums are dying are more heart-wrenching than
the distressed husbands. I actually WANT to quit smoking and these ads
have no effect on me, the only one that did was one where a revolting
fatty looking substance was dripping out of the end of cigarettes being
smoked, and it was explained that this stuff was doing its best to
clog my arteries. Those imiges stayed with me until at least the end of
the ad break.

Keith
Re: [I] Ads to stop you smoking [message #237657 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 01:00
Lesley Weston  
in article 1142551599.065217.116720 [at] j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, keefers at
keefus [at] hotmail.co.uk wrote on 16/03/2006 3:26 PM:

>
> Random C wrote:
>> There's something that's bothering me about the ads on UK TV at the
>> moment encouraging people to give up smoking. I don't mean the
>> commercial ones for alternate sources of nicotine, I mean the government
>> ones.
>> Other than the fact that as soon as one comes on every smoker in the
>> room immediately lights up, I mean, and sorry to all those who reached
>> for their Silk Cut when they saw this topic.
>> The message seems to be Quit Smoking If You Have Kids. Nobody is
>> represented in these ads *but* parents. The ads are full of upset little
>> girls who blame their mums for daring to get cancer. Not women upset
>> that their husbands got lung cancer, or dads upset because their
>> daughters did - the entire message seems to be fine, you do what you
>> want, die if you like, we don't care about YOU, but think about how this
>> will affect your KIDS! And not even the 'stop poisoning the people who
>> don't have a choice about sharing your home' side of it either, it's the
>> emotional side of it they're playing up.
>> It strikes me as rather strange, unless the government really doesn't
>> care about those of us who are not inclined to reproduce.
>
>
> I think it's more about emotional impact - distraught children who
> don't understand why their mums are dying are more heart-wrenching than
> the distressed husbands. I actually WANT to quit smoking and these ads
> have no effect on me, the only one that did was one where a revolting
> fatty looking substance was dripping out of the end of cigarettes being
> smoked, and it was explained that this stuff was doing its best to
> clog my arteries. Those imiges stayed with me until at least the end of
> the ad break.

Nothing stopped me smoking, not ads, not coughing, not even pregnancy
(though I did manage to cut down a lot both times) until my doctor told me
that the problem with my stomach was exacerbated by my smoking, even though
it wasn't the whole cause. Admittedly, until then there had been no help of
any kind available, and nicotine gum had first been introduced just before
she told me and prescribed it for me, but I think what worked was the
certainty of something moderately nasty right now, rather than the
possibility of something unthinkably horrifying at some time well in the
future. Nobody was concerned about second-hand smoke at that time, nor what
can happen to pregnant smokers' babies - if they had been I might have found
it possible to stop much earlier, but the studies were still in the future
then.

When the gum was new, medical thinking was that it should be prescribed
for a maximum of four weeks, after which you were on your own - a situation
almost guaranteed to prevent people from quitting - I did manage it, but
with tremendous difficulty. Things are much more sensible now; in Canada you
don't need a prescription for gum or patches (though you do for Zyban) and
you're encouraged to take as long as you need, so it must be much easier for
people now than it was then. But I don't think advertising, good or bad, is
ever going to have an effect - it certainly didn't have any on me then or on
my husband during the following years before he managed to stop.

--
Lesley Weston.

Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
Re: [I] Ads to stop you smoking [message #237670 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 01:28
Random C  
In article <1142551599.065217.116720 [at] j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"keefers" <keefus [at] hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> I think it's more about emotional impact - distraught children who
> don't understand why their mums are dying are more heart-wrenching than
> the distressed husbands. I actually WANT to quit smoking and these ads
> have no effect on me, the only one that did was one where a revolting
> fatty looking substance was dripping out of the end of cigarettes being
> smoked, and it was explained that this stuff was doing its best to
> clog my arteries. Those imiges stayed with me until at least the end of
> the ad break.
>
Perhaps they are but they should change their tune occasionally. It does
rather mean that those of us who *don't* want kids and therefore do not
identify with anything that has kids in (except possibly from the kid
side of things) not only don't get the full desired impact, but do tend
to feel that, well, actually, the government really doesn't care if we
smoke or not.
My main thought on the fatty gunge ads was 'bleuch. They better not
start putting health warnings on the grease on my all-day-breakfast...'
Re: Ads to stop you smoking [message #237676 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 01:51
keefers  
Random C wrote:
> In article <1142551599.065217.116720 [at] j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "keefers" <keefus [at] hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I think it's more about emotional impact - distraught children who
> > don't understand why their mums are dying are more heart-wrenching than
> > the distressed husbands. I actually WANT to quit smoking and these ads
> > have no effect on me, the only one that did was one where a revolting
> > fatty looking substance was dripping out of the end of cigarettes being
> > smoked, and it was explained that this stuff was doing its best to
> > clog my arteries. Those imiges stayed with me until at least the end of
> > the ad break.
> >
> Perhaps they are but they should change their tune occasionally. It does
> rather mean that those of us who *don't* want kids and therefore do not
> identify with anything that has kids in (except possibly from the kid
> side of things) not only don't get the full desired impact, but do tend
> to feel that, well, actually, the government really doesn't care if we
> smoke or not.


>From what I remember of the current ads (I don't pay much attention to
them) the slogan is something like "It's not just /your/ life that is
ruined", so they are appealing to your conscience to help you quit
smoking for the benefit of anyone you may be close to. I think that
they have resigned themselves to the idea that smokers know the risks,
but decide to do it anyway. They can't hit everyone with the same
impact all of the time, so the kids probably hit the highest majority.
I don't think the goverment does care if we smoke or not, but it is not
in the best interest of the public to smoke, and the government have to
be seen to discourage it.
If I am being cynical, I think - Hhmmm, given the amount of duty we pay
on tobacco, what would happen to the treasury if we /all/ stopped? With
this in mind, maybe the adverts being largely ineffective is not such a
concern to them.
Re: Ads to stop you smoking [message #237682 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 02:11
Gid Holyoake  
In article <1142556687.984849.50760 [at] u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,=20
keefers generously decided to share with us..=20

Snippetry..

> If I am being cynical, I think - Hhmmm, given the amount of duty we pay
> on tobacco, what would happen to the treasury if we /all/ stopped? With
> this in mind, maybe the adverts being largely ineffective is not such a
> concern to them.

On the current figures available from (amongst others) Action on=20
Smoking and Health, cost to NHS per annum of smokers <=A32Bn, revenue=20
raised by HMRC per annum >=A39Bn..

The *last* thing they want is for all the smokers to stop right now..

Gid
Re: [I] Ads to stop you smoking [message #237703 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 06:07
Werehatrack  
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 23:13:18 GMT, Random C <youshouldknow [at] by.now>
wrote:

>There's something that's bothering me about the ads on UK TV at the
>moment encouraging people to give up smoking. I don't mean the
>commercial ones for alternate sources of nicotine, I mean the government
>ones.
>Other than the fact that as soon as one comes on every smoker in the
>room immediately lights up, I mean, and sorry to all those who reached
>for their Silk Cut when they saw this topic.
>The message seems to be Quit Smoking If You Have Kids. Nobody is
>represented in these ads *but* parents. The ads are full of upset little
>girls who blame their mums for daring to get cancer. Not women upset
>that their husbands got lung cancer, or dads upset because their
>daughters did - the entire message seems to be fine, you do what you
>want, die if you like, we don't care about YOU, but think about how this
>will affect your KIDS! And not even the 'stop poisoning the people who
>don't have a choice about sharing your home' side of it either, it's the
>emotional side of it they're playing up.
>It strikes me as rather strange, unless the government really doesn't
>care about those of us who are not inclined to reproduce.

Perhaps they are drawing on the experience of the US, where the group
that was easiest to persuade to stop smoking was parents with children
in the house. When successful, this has a long-term added benefit;
the children of people who either never smoked or have successfully
quit prior to the kids' teenage years will tend not to take up the
habit themselves. Your observation about the reaction of the smokers
upon seeing an anti-smoking commercial should give you a clue about
how hard it is to convince the general population to quit; the ads and
warnings have been present in the US market for over 30 years, and
there are still lots of people who light up at the slightest excuse or
provocation.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
Re: Ads to stop you smoking [message #237705 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 06:16
Werehatrack  
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 01:11:29 +0000 (UTC), Gid Holyoake
<abuse [at] brynamman.org.uk> wrote:

>In article <1142556687.984849.50760 [at] u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
>keefers generously decided to share with us..
>
>Snippetry..
>
>> If I am being cynical, I think - Hhmmm, given the amount of duty we pay
>> on tobacco, what would happen to the treasury if we /all/ stopped? With
>> this in mind, maybe the adverts being largely ineffective is not such a
>> concern to them.
>
>On the current figures available from (amongst others) Action on
>Smoking and Health, cost to NHS per annum of smokers <£2Bn, revenue
>raised by HMRC per annum >£9Bn..

It gets worse. When you factor in how many ex-smokers will live
longer, collecting more pension and using more health care resources,
the budgetary impact of getting the majority to quit is quite
chilling. OTOH, is there really any debate that in the long run, the
more conscionable action is to try to get people to quit?
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
Re: [I] Reproduction, Was: Ads to stop you smoking [message #237711 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 07:19
steelcat  
In article <youshouldknow-FD8080.23131716032006 [at] fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Random C <youshouldknow [at] by.now> wrote:

>It strikes me as rather strange, unless the government really doesn't
>care about those of us who are not inclined to reproduce.

I don't think they do. To the government, even if we're in full employment,
we're probably less useful even than a hypothetical chav family with a half
dozen offspring because those sprogs *may* earn taxes for the government
whent they grow up, whereas we are just going to be a burden on the state
in N decades.

There still seems to be this ancient drive among leaders that *our* tribe
must out-produce all others which leads to advantages being given to
"productive" members of society, whether that's being over-protective
towards women (sometimes to the point of misogyny) or simply by giving
monetary handouts to people with children.

While I'd *like* there to be enough taxpayers around in the 2030's to pay
my pension, there's surely a better way to arrange that than overpopulating
the country?

Cat.
--
Jazz-Loving Soul Mate and Tolerable Frog to CCA
See, this is a sign of your tragic space dementia. All paranoid and
grouchy.
Re: [I] Ads to stop you smoking [message #237735 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 09:22
Eric Jarvis  
Random C youshouldknow [at] by.now wrote in <youshouldknow-
A43D47.00285817032006 [at] fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
> In article <1142551599.065217.116720 [at] j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "keefers" <keefus [at] hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I think it's more about emotional impact - distraught children who
> > don't understand why their mums are dying are more heart-wrenching than
> > the distressed husbands. I actually WANT to quit smoking and these ads
> > have no effect on me, the only one that did was one where a revolting
> > fatty looking substance was dripping out of the end of cigarettes being
> > smoked, and it was explained that this stuff was doing its best to
> > clog my arteries. Those imiges stayed with me until at least the end of
> > the ad break.
> >
> Perhaps they are but they should change their tune occasionally. It does
> rather mean that those of us who *don't* want kids and therefore do not
> identify with anything that has kids in (except possibly from the kid
> side of things) not only don't get the full desired impact, but do tend
> to feel that, well, actually, the government really doesn't care if we
> smoke or not.
> My main thought on the fatty gunge ads was 'bleuch. They better not
> start putting health warnings on the grease on my all-day-breakfast...'
>

If they are going about it the right way they are probably specifically
targeting current parents. The most effective way to run that sort of
advertising campaign is to hammer home a very specific message over and
over again. There are a lot of different reasons for not smoking, and an
ad campaign that tried to cover all of them would be too diffuse to be
effective. If I was running it I'd start by targeting teenagers to try and
make a significant reduction in the number of people taking up smoking in
the first place, and then follow that with a campaign aimed at parents.
The combination of the two ought to lead to a situation in which smoking
becomes progressively less common.

So far as I can see that's pretty much what has been happening over the
past few years.

This government may be ignorant about a lot of things, but they know a LOT
about advertising.

--
eric - afprelationships in headers
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"appearances count,
but first impressions are deceptive"
Re: Ads to stop you smoking [message #237737 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 11:12
Orjan Westin  
Werehatrack wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 01:11:29 +0000 (UTC), Gid Holyoake
> <abuse [at] brynamman.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> On the current figures available from (amongst others) Action on
>> Smoking and Health, cost to NHS per annum of smokers <£2Bn, revenue
>> raised by HMRC per annum >£9Bn..
>
> It gets worse. When you factor in how many ex-smokers will live
> longer, collecting more pension and using more health care resources,
> the budgetary impact of getting the majority to quit is quite
> chilling. OTOH, is there really any debate that in the long run, the
> more conscionable action is to try to get people to quit?

Speaking as a smoker, I agree. I'd also encourage people not to start.

Quite often when I'm walking home from work, I come across groups of
youths who ask me for a cigarette. My answer is always no, and they
always ask why, and I reply that only sad gits who want to stink smoke.

Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
Re: [I] Ads to stop you smoking [message #237738 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 11:30
Joe C  
"Random C" <youshouldknow [at] by.now> wrote in message
news:youshouldknow-FD8080.23131716032006 [at] fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> There's something that's bothering me about the ads on UK TV at the
> moment encouraging people to give up smoking. I don't mean the
> commercial ones for alternate sources of nicotine, I mean the government
> ones.
> Other than the fact that as soon as one comes on every smoker in the
> room immediately lights up, I mean, and sorry to all those who reached
> for their Silk Cut when they saw this topic.
> The message seems to be Quit Smoking If You Have Kids. Nobody is
> represented in these ads *but* parents. The ads are full of upset little
> girls who blame their mums for daring to get cancer. Not women upset
> that their husbands got lung cancer, or dads upset because their
> daughters did - the entire message seems to be fine, you do what you
> want, die if you like, we don't care about YOU, but think about how this
> will affect your KIDS! And not even the 'stop poisoning the people who
> don't have a choice about sharing your home' side of it either, it's the
> emotional side of it they're playing up.
> It strikes me as rather strange, unless the government really doesn't
> care about those of us who are not inclined to reproduce.

I think the idea is to counter the the old "it's my life, no one else is
affected" excuse that smokers come up with. and then nothing is more
poignant than bawling children. Although if the "you're killing yourself"
and "you're killing everyone around you" message doesn't get through then I
doubt this will.
Re: [I] Ads to stop you smoking [message #237745 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 12:22
Random C  
In article <MPG.1e8481ff97de21059899ee [at] cenote.gkhs.net>,
Eric Jarvis <web [at] ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote:
>
> If they are going about it the right way they are probably specifically
> targeting current parents. The most effective way to run that sort of
> advertising campaign is to hammer home a very specific message over and
> over again. There are a lot of different reasons for not smoking, and an
> ad campaign that tried to cover all of them would be too diffuse to be
> effective. If I was running it I'd start by targeting teenagers to try and
> make a significant reduction in the number of people taking up smoking in
> the first place, and then follow that with a campaign aimed at parents.
> The combination of the two ought to lead to a situation in which smoking
> becomes progressively less common.
>
> So far as I can see that's pretty much what has been happening over the
> past few years.
>
> This government may be ignorant about a lot of things, but they know a LOT
> about advertising.

Well I remember the 'does it take practice to look that stupid' ad,
which might have had more effect if the lad hadn't been such a pathetic
specimen to start with. I also remember something about superman
crushing cigarettes, which made little four-year-old me do just that to
dad's Superkings. Could I understand what I'd done wrong?
I must have spent years asking my parents to quit, refusing to be in the
same room as them etc. If you're a couple who smoke and having your own
kid scream at you that it'll be your fault if they die horribly, when
three out of four of your parents have died of cancer of one sort or
another, doesn't have any effect on your smoking habits, what good is an
advert going to do?
How will seeing an old bloke insist he will be seeing his daughter at
christmas and following it with a caption that he died a couple of days
later get through the 'bah, won't happen to me I'm fine' or 'sod it,
whole family died of cancer anyway and none of them smoked, so I might
as well smoke and have lung cancer' attitude?
The warnings on the packets certainly don't discourage anyone. Smokers
die younger? Great, I'll not have to live on a state pension! I have
seen games of Warning Top Trumps played in a company smokers' area
despite the warnings being in a variety of languages. Most of the
smokers I know can tell you how to say 'Smoking harms you and others
around you' or 'smoking causes a slow and painful death' in a variety of
european languages but don't know anything else.
Re: Ads to stop you smoking [message #237746 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 12:24
Random C  
In article <47vgviFhitmiU1 [at] individual.net>,
"Orjan Westin" <nospam [at] cunobaros.com> wrote:

> Speaking as a smoker, I agree. I'd also encourage people not to start.
>
> Quite often when I'm walking home from work, I come across groups of
> youths who ask me for a cigarette. My answer is always no, and they
> always ask why, and I reply that only sad gits who want to stink smoke.
>
I've always told them that suicide is legal but assisted suicide not.
Re: [I] Ads to stop you smoking [message #237747 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 12:25
Random C  
In article <dve33g$6mm$1 [at] nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
"kathryn" <nospam [at] here.com> wrote:
>
> I think the idea is to counter the the old "it's my life, no one else is
> affected" excuse that smokers come up with. and then nothing is more
> poignant than bawling children. Although if the "you're killing yourself"
> and "you're killing everyone around you" message doesn't get through then I
> doubt this will.

In a house full of adults where *everyone* smokes, then no, the 'think
of the children!' argument is not going to do anything but annoy.
Re: [I] Ads to stop you smoking [message #237762 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 13:26
Rhiannon S  
"Random C" <youshouldknow [at] by.now> wrote in message
news:youshouldknow-FD8080.23131716032006 [at] fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> There's something that's bothering me about the ads on UK TV at the
> moment encouraging people to give up smoking. I don't mean the
> commercial ones for alternate sources of nicotine, I mean the government
> ones.
> Other than the fact that as soon as one comes on every smoker in the
> room immediately lights up, I mean, and sorry to all those who reached
> for their Silk Cut when they saw this topic.
> The message seems to be Quit Smoking If You Have Kids. Nobody is
> represented in these ads *but* parents. The ads are full of upset little
> girls who blame their mums for daring to get cancer. Not women upset
> that their husbands got lung cancer, or dads upset because their
> daughters did - the entire message seems to be fine, you do what you
> want, die if you like, we don't care about YOU, but think about how this
> will affect your KIDS! And not even the 'stop poisoning the people who
> don't have a choice about sharing your home' side of it either, it's the
> emotional side of it they're playing up.
> It strikes me as rather strange, unless the government really doesn't
> care about those of us who are not inclined to reproduce.

There have been a few campaigns featuring adults too, there was the one a
few months back about passive smoking showing the sidestream smoke as snakes
choking the non-smokers neck (although it did feature kids too) which was
probablly a bit too arty and intellectual for the biggest audience.

There is a particularly scary one airing in Scotland right now in the run up
to the smoking ban on March 26th. A woman sitting in the pub remarks that
other people's smoke is a bit of a nuisance, then a she's sitting in a
hospital waiting room remarking hospital visits are a nuisance too, final
scene with her having a bald head and chemo/cancer ravaged expression saying
"dying that's a nuisance too" and the caption, second hand smoke kills.

The point of the ads is to show smokers that it isn't just themselves they
harm, but everyone around them. There are plenty of commercial ads, for
example the nicotine gums, showing how smokers hurt themselves (and how they
can beat cravings with handy dandy miracle gum). The one showing smokers
how pathetic they look when they creep out into a raging gale and lashing
winds to try and score a fix springs to mind.
--
Rhiannon_s:
Just a scientific experiment gone horribly wrong.
Re: [I] Ads to stop you smoking [message #237765 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 13:50
Random C  
In article <47voqmFhp8hlU1 [at] individual.net>,
"Rhiannon S" <mddestiny [at] hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> The point of the ads is to show smokers that it isn't just themselves they
> harm, but everyone around them. There are plenty of commercial ads, for
> example the nicotine gums, showing how smokers hurt themselves (and how they
> can beat cravings with handy dandy miracle gum). The one showing smokers
> how pathetic they look when they creep out into a raging gale and lashing
> winds to try and score a fix springs to mind.

Oh I'm not saying there's no point to the ads, just that they don't
*work*. The main reaction I've seen to the ad with the guy going out in
the gale is "Well you'd not even get it *lit* in that would you? Yeesh,
you go round the corner under the thingy where it's just *cold* and it's
too damn hot in this office anyway. And hey, what about all the smokers
who wait for it to stop raining before they go out and that guy that
goes out for chocolate no matter what? Hmm?"
As for the nicotine gum, that doesn't work either. Didn't stop me
wanting to smoke but did make me feel sick.
Re: [I] Ads to stop you smoking [message #237769 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 13:13
Eric Jarvis  
Random C youshouldknow [at] by.now wrote in <youshouldknow-
E0B61B.11224317032006 [at] fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
>
> The warnings on the packets certainly don't discourage anyone. Smokers
> die younger?
>

By preference I try to buy the packs with the message that "Smoking
Kills", on the grounds that they are obviously the most powerful
cigarettes and therefore the best value for money.

--
eric - afprelationships in headers
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Re: Ads to stop you smoking [message #237772 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 14:12
Andrew Perry  
Orjan Westin wrote:
>
> Speaking as a smoker, I agree. I'd also encourage people not to start.
>
> Quite often when I'm walking home from work, I come across groups of
> youths who ask me for a cigarette. My answer is always no, and they
> always ask why, and I reply that only sad gits who want to stink smoke.

Heartily agreed. And I won't bore folks by reiterating my description of
a certain experiment back in lab chem, not to mention my old "kill
oneself by installments" spiel. Just remember my description of a
certain experiment back in lab chem, not to mention my old "kill oneself
by installments" spiel.

Cigarettes contain some *really* disgusting stuff.
Re: [I] Ads to stop you smoking [message #237773 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 14:15
Andrew Perry  
Random C wrote:
>
[Smokers]
> The warnings on the packets certainly don't discourage anyone. Smokers
> die younger? Great, I'll not have to live on a state pension! I have
> seen games of Warning Top Trumps played in a company smokers' area
> despite the warnings being in a variety of languages. Most of the
> smokers I know can tell you how to say 'Smoking harms you and others
> around you' or 'smoking causes a slow and painful death' in a variety of
> european languages but don't know anything else.

In Belgium a few years ago, as I recall, they started putting photos on
the packets instead of text. Nothing, I imagine, gets the message across
quite like staring at diseased gums, cancerous lungs, and generally
rotting gubbins every time you light up... :-D
Re: Ads to stop you smoking [message #237775 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 14:15
rja.carnegie  
Werehatrack wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 01:11:29 +0000 (UTC), Gid Holyoake
> <abuse [at] brynamman.org.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <1142556687.984849.50760 [at] u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
> >keefers generously decided to share with us..
> >
> >Snippetry..
> >
> >> If I am being cynical, I think - Hhmmm, given the amount of duty we pay
> >> on tobacco, what would happen to the treasury if we /all/ stopped? With
> >> this in mind, maybe the adverts being largely ineffective is not such a
> >> concern to them.
> >
> >On the current figures available from (amongst others) Action on
> >Smoking and Health, cost to NHS per annum of smokers <=A32Bn, revenue
> >raised by HMRC per annum >=A39Bn..
>
> It gets worse. When you factor in how many ex-smokers will live
> longer, collecting more pension and using more health care resources,
> the budgetary impact of getting the majority to quit is quite
> chilling. OTOH, is there really any debate that in the long run, the
> more conscionable action is to try to get people to quit?

Do figure in the higher economic productivity of non-smokers who don't
go on sick leave and claim an early pension. I don't see this argument
that staying alive a long time makes you a social problem. Now,
staying alive a long time and expecting to be kept by the sweat of the
brows of others for an unreasonable amount of it, that can be a
problem.

As for advertising being effective, there /are/ proportionately fewer
smokers each year in the UK.
Re: Ads to stop you smoking [message #237780 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 14:27
Random C  
In article <1142601331.126423.248450 [at] p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
"Robert Carnegie" <rja.carnegie [at] excite.com> wrote:

> As for advertising being effective, there /are/ proportionately fewer
> smokers each year in the UK.

But in how many cases is it actually because of the adverts - which, as
I said, with most people I know just make them reach for their
cigarettes - and in how many cases is it because smoking is expensive or
because they decide, for whatever reason of their own, that they don't
particularly want to smoke any more?
Re: Ads to stop you smoking [message #237788 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 14:29
Arthur Hagen  
Random C <youshouldknow [at] by.now> wrote:
>
> I've always told them that suicide is legal but assisted suicide not.

It depends on where you are. There're places where suicide is a felony, and
if surviving an attempt, you /can/ be prosecuted and put in jail for it.
The reason apparently being that a suicide had committed one of the
unforgivable sins.
Perhaps reviving those old laws will be how they eventually nail the last
smokers. Then they'll go after chocolate eaters.

Regards,
--
*Art
Re: Ads to stop you smoking [message #237789 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 14:37
Random C  
In article <dvedk1$4om$1 [at] tree.lightning.broomstick.com>,
"Arthur Hagen" <art [at] broomstick.com> wrote:

> Random C <youshouldknow [at] by.now> wrote:
> >
> > I've always told them that suicide is legal but assisted suicide not.
>
> It depends on where you are. There're places where suicide is a felony, and
> if surviving an attempt, you /can/ be prosecuted and put in jail for it.
> The reason apparently being that a suicide had committed one of the
> unforgivable sins.
> Perhaps reviving those old laws will be how they eventually nail the last
> smokers. Then they'll go after chocolate eaters.
>
I was wondering how long before they start putting government health
warnings on sausages and chips.
Re:[I] Ads to stop you smoking [message #237790 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 14:47
keefers  
Random C wrote:
> In article <1142601331.126423.248450 [at] p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
> "Robert Carnegie" <rja.carnegie [at] excite.com> wrote:
>
> > As for advertising being effective, there /are/ proportionately fewer
> > smokers each year in the UK.
>
> But in how many cases is it actually because of the adverts - which, as
> I said, with most people I know just make them reach for their
> cigarettes - and in how many cases is it because smoking is expensive or
> because they decide, for whatever reason of their own, that they don't
> particularly want to smoke any more?

I don't actually know anybody that has managed to give it up for the
sole reason that it is expensive, I know it is a factor in many cases,
but usually a secondary one.
There /are/ proportionately fewer smokers each year in the UK, and I
think that much of that is to do with educating people about what
smoking does, be it encouraging kids not to take it up or giving
smokers the encouragement and support to quit. I am sure that the
adverts can take at least /some/ credit for this.
from what I remember reading on the subject - and sorry, i cannot quote
a source - there are more smokers that die each year than there are
people taking it up.

Keith
Re: [I] Ads to stop you smoking [message #237792 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 14:46
Brian Howlett  
On 17 Mar, Random C wrote:

> In article <1142601331.126423.248450 [at] p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
> "Robert Carnegie" <rja.carnegie [at] excite.com> wrote:
>
>> As for advertising being effective, there /are/ proportionately fewer
>> smokers each year in the UK.
>
> But in how many cases is it actually because of the adverts - which, as
> I said, with most people I know just make them reach for their
> cigarettes - and in how many cases is it because smoking is expensive or
> because they decide, for whatever reason of their own, that they don't
> particularly want to smoke any more?

The cynical among us might venture to suggest that useless
anti-smoking ads are exactly what the PTB commissioned. As stated
else-thread, HMG makes more from tobacco duty than smokers cost the
NHS (I don't have sources for this, but it's true because I say so)...

HMG also needs to be seen to be attacking smoking and, by definition,
smokers, but needs people to carry on smoking until they (HMG) get an
alternative source of income. QED: make the ads crap, people carry on
smoking. HMG is seen to be doing the "right" thing.

This will be the last weekend I can have a smoke in my local, as the
ban takes effect on March 26th. It won't faze me to go outside for a
smoke, however, as I haven't been allowed to smoke at work for years,
so going outside for a smoke is my one concession to taking exercise.
--
Brian Howlett - Email to From: address deleted unseen
------------------------------------------------------------ --
Windows has detected that the mouse has been moved.
You must restart Windows for the new setting to take effect...
Re: Ads to stop you smoking [message #237795 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 15:02
Rob Hamadi  
Eric Jarvis wrote:
> By preference I try to buy the packs with the message that "Smoking
> Kills", on the grounds that they are obviously the most powerful
> cigarettes and therefore the best value for money.

Wheras I favour the ones that say "Smoking while pregnant can harm your
unborn child" 'cos they're clearly harmless to males.
--
Rob
Re: [I] Ads to stop you smoking [message #237796 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 15:03
bbottorff  
> The warnings on the packets certainly don't discourage anyone.

If they really wanted to stop smoking, the warnings would be:

"Caution: smoking increases the odds of erectile dsyfunction"
Re: Ads to stop you smoking [message #237798 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 15:03
bbottorff  
> It gets worse. When you factor in how many ex-smokers will live
> longer, collecting more pension and using more health care resources,
> the budgetary impact of getting the majority to quit is quite
> chilling. OTOH, is there really any debate that in the long run, the
> more conscionable action is to try to get people to quit?

Considering how allergic my wife is to tobacco smoke, YES. However, I
don't know if I like shock campaigns for anything. You just have to
keep upping the shock level, until you've gotten to the point of not
getting any result even from highly grotesque campaigns.
Re: [I] Ads to stop you smoking [message #237800 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 14:54
Rhiannon S  
"Random C" <youshouldknow [at] by.now> wrote in message
news:youshouldknow-416C0C.12505517032006 [at] fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> In article <47voqmFhp8hlU1 [at] individual.net>,
> "Rhiannon S" <mddestiny [at] hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > The point of the ads is to show smokers that it isn't just themselves
they
> > harm, but everyone around them. There are plenty of commercial ads, for
> > example the nicotine gums, showing how smokers hurt themselves (and how
they
> > can beat cravings with handy dandy miracle gum). The one showing
smokers
> > how pathetic they look when they creep out into a raging gale and
lashing
> > winds to try and score a fix springs to mind.
>
> Oh I'm not saying there's no point to the ads, just that they don't
> *work*. The main reaction I've seen to the ad with the guy going out in
> the gale is "Well you'd not even get it *lit* in that would you? Yeesh,
> you go round the corner under the thingy where it's just *cold* and it's
> too damn hot in this office anyway. And hey, what about all the smokers
> who wait for it to stop raining before they go out and that guy that
> goes out for chocolate no matter what? Hmm?"
> As for the nicotine gum, that doesn't work either. Didn't stop me
> wanting to smoke but did make me feel sick.

I dunno about the ads not working, it might not make people stop immediatly,
but people that I work with that smoke are (with some exceptions) feeling a
lot more ashamed than they used to about nipping out in the freezing
scottish weather to smoke. They are certainly being a lot more reticent in
lighting up around others as well. It's a gradual thing, each new ad is a
fresh drop of rain that will one disolve the mountain.

--
Rhiannon_s:
Just a scientific experiment gone horribly wrong.
Re:[I] Ads to stop you smoking [message #237802 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 15:07
keefers  
Rob Hamadi wrote:
> Eric Jarvis wrote:
> > By preference I try to buy the packs with the message that "Smoking
> > Kills", on the grounds that they are obviously the most powerful
> > cigarettes and therefore the best value for money.
>
> Wheras I favour the ones that say "Smoking while pregnant can harm your
> unborn child" 'cos they're clearly harmless to males.
> --
> Rob

I have a pack that states : Smoking can damage the sperm and decreases
fertility.

Which saves me money on contraception.

Keith
Re: [I] Ads to stop you smoking [message #237803 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 15:09
Orjan Westin  
keefers wrote:
>
> I don't actually know anybody that has managed to give it up for the
> sole reason that it is expensive, I know it is a factor in many cases,
> but usually a secondary one.

I know one case where it was a primary one. A friend of mine checked
the costs of her habit and decided she couldn't afford it. She tried to
quit but didn't succeed, then saw an ad for a hypnotherapist who ran a
"You quit or get your money back" campaign.

The cost of the therapy was equal to the cost of her smoking for three
months, so she borrowed money off her mum and enrolled. Two weeks later
she was smoke free. No cravings, no withdrawal problems at all. After
three months, she took the money she had put away instead of spending on
cigarettes and repaid her mum.

Now, four years later, she's still smoke free and has had no desire to
smoke again. She doesn't mind being around smokers (luckily, or she'd
have stopped visiting) apart from the smell, which she notices more now
than she used to do.

Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
Re: [I] Ads to stop you smoking [message #237804 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 15:02
Arthur Hagen  
Random C <youshouldknow [at] by.now> wrote:
>
> As for the nicotine gum, that doesn't work either. Didn't stop me
> wanting to smoke but did make me feel sick.

The most common side effect is that they give you really bad hiccups.
Older people with weaker teeth and 20-30-40+ year old fillings also try to
avoid chewing gum, so I bet it's mostly younger people who aren't as
thoroughly addicted that go for the gum.

Patches give you a rash, plus you don't get nearly enough nicotine in the
blood stream that way. Other patches for important medicine have sharp
fibers on the pad that perforate the skin to let the medication into your
blood stream, but nicotine patches don't.

Also consider the costs -- it's far more expensive to use gum or patches
than it is to smoke, and while the governments seem willing to sponsor any
amount of smoker harassment campaigns, they won't pay for remedies. Perhaps
because they really NEED the import tax, tobacco tax and sales tax on the
other taxes?

Then there's smokeless tobacco, like chewing tobacco, snuff, wet snuff and
tobacco mints. They work all right, but have their own problems.

Finally, there's a real risk that using a nicotine-adding cessation remedy
is only going to get you addicted even more. Some people end up both
smoking AND chewing nicotine gum, where they "only" smoked before. I was
like that, until I managed to replace nicotine gum with swedish snuff (which
saves me a fortune). But the end result is that I'm more nicotinated now
than I ever was. Before I took up the gum, my nicotine level would go down
when in situations where I couldn't smoke. Now, I'm constantly nicotinated
to a high degree -- yes, even when I sleep.

Regards,
--
*Art
Re: [I] Ads to stop you smoking [message #237805 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 15:13
Random C  
In article <768e0b094e.Brian [at] brianhowlett.me.uk>,
Brian Howlett <news-spamtrap [at] brianhowlett.me.uk> wrote:

> The cynical among us might venture to suggest that useless
> anti-smoking ads are exactly what the PTB commissioned. As stated
> else-thread, HMG makes more from tobacco duty than smokers cost the
> NHS (I don't have sources for this, but it's true because I say so)...
>
I think you may be right. I don't think there's actually anything you
can say to a smoker that will make them go 'oh my god! What an *idiot* I
am being! This is bad for me! I must stop!' because, frankly, it's
hardly news. Fewer people taking up the habit must be a good thing, but
I don't think that the adverts are going to have much to do with it.
I don't think I know any smoker who wasn't fully aware, of the effects
when they started. I think most of us have done the sheep lung thing in
biology lessons and you can hardly miss the warnings on the packets.
It's also hardly the only thing people do that's bad for them.
I spent years trying to get my parents to quit smoking. I was rabidly
anti-smoking, and wouldn't stay in the same room as them if I could
avoid it. I have also, after moving out, smoked up to 50g of rolling
tobacco in a day. Maybe I was addicted to the passive smoke and had to
start smoking personally to get my fix, I don't know. But I certainly
knew what I was doing when I bought that first packet of Golden Virginia.
Re: [I] Ads to stop you smoking [message #237806 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 15:17
Random C  
In article <1142604436.735661.143070 [at] p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
"keefers" <keefus [at] hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> Rob Hamadi wrote:
> > Eric Jarvis wrote:
> > > By preference I try to buy the packs with the message that "Smoking
> > > Kills", on the grounds that they are obviously the most powerful
> > > cigarettes and therefore the best value for money.
> >
> > Wheras I favour the ones that say "Smoking while pregnant can harm your
> > unborn child" 'cos they're clearly harmless to males.
> > --
> > Rob
>
> I have a pack that states : Smoking can damage the sperm and decreases
> fertility.
>
> Which saves me money on contraception.
>
And Smokers Die Younger, so you don't need to waste money paying into a
pension! I see it wasn't just my company that played Top Trumps.
We also had a little side game of translate-the-packet.
Bescherm kinderen: laat hen niet uw rook inademen kept us in bird jokes
for ages.
Re: [I] Ads to stop you smoking [message #237807 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 15:22
Random C  
In article <47vu8cFhmquaU1 [at] individual.net>,
"Orjan Westin" <nospam [at] cunobaros.com> wrote:

> Now, four years later, she's still smoke free and has had no desire to
> smoke again. She doesn't mind being around smokers (luckily, or she'd
> have stopped visiting) apart from the smell, which she notices more now
> than she used to do.
>
Ah yes, the smell. One of the main things I can say in favour of *being*
a smoker when living in London is that you don't have to *smell* London.
Re: [I] Ads to stop you smoking [message #237808 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 15:23
Random C  
In article <1hcc6bw.o2dmljt1r4fiN%bbottorff [at] nomail.com>,
bbottorff [at] nomail.com (Boyd Bottorff) wrote:

> > The warnings on the packets certainly don't discourage anyone.
>
> If they really wanted to stop smoking, the warnings would be:
>
> "Caution: smoking increases the odds of erectile dsyfunction"

Actually I think some of them do say something along those lines...
Re: Ads to stop you smoking [message #237811 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 15:27
rja.carnegie  
Random C wrote:
> In article <dvedk1$4om$1 [at] tree.lightning.broomstick.com>,
> "Arthur Hagen" <art [at] broomstick.com> wrote:
>
> > Random C <youshouldknow [at] by.now> wrote:
> > >
> > > I've always told them that suicide is legal but assisted suicide not.
> >
> > It depends on where you are. There're places where suicide is a felony, and
> > if surviving an attempt, you /can/ be prosecuted and put in jail for it.
> > The reason apparently being that a suicide had committed one of the
> > unforgivable sins.
> > Perhaps reviving those old laws will be how they eventually nail the last
> > smokers. Then they'll go after chocolate eaters.
> >
> I was wondering how long before they start putting government health
> warnings on sausages and chips.

http://www.food.gov.uk/foodlabelling/signposting/
Re: Ads to stop you smoking [message #237812 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 15:29
Random C  
In article <1142605663.417213.239330 [at] p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
"Robert Carnegie" <rja.carnegie [at] excite.com> wrote:

> Random C wrote:
> > I was wondering how long before they start putting government health
> > warnings on sausages and chips.
>
> http://www.food.gov.uk/foodlabelling/signposting/

I'm aware of this, I was more meaning little printed labels on the
all-day-breakfast in the local greasy-spoon...
Re: [I] Ads to stop you smoking [message #237814 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 15:30
Jeremy Sharpe  
Random C wrote On 03/17/06 15:23,:
> In article <1hcc6bw.o2dmljt1r4fiN%bbottorff [at] nomail.com>,
> bbottorff [at] nomail.com (Boyd Bottorff) wrote:
>
>
>>>The warnings on the packets certainly don't discourage anyone.
>>
>>If they really wanted to stop smoking, the warnings would be:
>>
>>"Caution: smoking increases the odds of erectile dsyfunction"
>
>
> Actually I think some of them do say something along those lines...

What amuses me is those packets in multilingual countries, e.g. BE and
LU, where these packets and their warnings in German, Dutch and French
will be latter-day Rosetta stones for future historians!

best

j
Vorheriges Thema:[I] There are three lights.
Nächstes Thema:[I] Plea for review
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Fr Mai 25 20:12:37 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,08746 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered