Cigarette Packaging in Europe Vs. United States

@BlueVeins If people see the consequences on a picture and ignore it, then it's ultimately their own fault too. I mean... that argument works just as well for me as it works for you. But when it comes effectiveness! The pictures work better according to studies.

And again... I think everyone should be allowed to smoke. I have a bigger problem, with crusaders that start being dicks to smokers on places where you can actually smoke. But I have no issue with the information being given as a picture instead of just a warning label by text.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow @Kwek00 I mean yeah, yinzers make good points. This is defs one of the issues where i'm very wishy-washy and i vibe with doing the pictures thing too.

@BlueVeins I also think, that when it comes to this. It's better as a society to try to minimize adiction. It might bring a lot in the treasure chest due to taxes, but in certain systems it also costs loads of money on medical bills. And even tough I'm okay with having warnings on cigars and pipe tabacco. I still favor a bunch of recretational users that smoke some good tabacco from time to time even with the risks, then a bunch of people smoking chemically treated tabacco that aims at hooking people up for life.

I also think that the risks of alcohol use and mariuhana shouldn't be downplayed.
But again... no crusades, viscious behavior towards users or a ban. But the possible consequence and what they actually mean in real life are okay to be visualised on the packaging. At the end it's just a form of prevention and people can still make a choice.

I had more issues with your use of the term "overreach".

@TheseGreenEyes That's OK.
My response WAS to YOU!

@FloorGenAdm I guess I’d support a decriminalzation, widely available treatment and counseling, graphic labeling, and heavy taxation for drugs of wide abuse. However, I think an outright ban is the wronge way to go for practical business.

@Amicus At some point it's just plain crazy.

@Amicus This is a WHO condensation of various other studies. The primary conclusion, is that in countries with a less educated population / lower income, graphic labels provided a benefit. These studies are also dated.

I am not arguing against removing warning labels, I'm just saying that with the wide availability of the Internet, and the proliferation of e-cigarettes / vaping, it's probably not as useful as if the year was 2005.

@Northwest Unfortunately you may be correct about the diminishing efficacy of these ads. I have no data on that.

@Amicus The study you pointed to does not have it either. It's probably because there's really no way to create an apples to apples comparison. Comparing Australia in 2005 to England in 2003 is Apples to Potatoes.

I do, however, believe the obvious and intuitive conclusion: the more informed people are, the more likely they will ATTEMPT to quit.

Anecdotally speaking, one of the companies with the highest levels of employees quitting smoking, is Apple. Steve Jobs banned smoking on its main campus and refused to allow special smoking areas. The size of the Apple campus meant that you had to walk 15 minutes to get to a spot where you can smoke.

@whowasthatmaskedman We started doing it when I was in high school in the 90s.

I have no problem with that if it is done in a reasonable manner.@kodiac

@MarmeeMarch Actually all the data from countries that do this show it is very effective. The fact nobody reads warning labels actually supports my argument. lol That is literally why pictures are used and are more effective. But then facts based approaches are not a right wing way of doing things is it?


You were the one who claimed language is not up for interpretation not me.

@MarmeeMarch Sure, compare it to countries that don't even attempt to reduce smoking. 🤦‍♂️