New Warnings On Cigarettes Sold In USA

[Formless]

Thankfully, I still have 10 years or so to consider the question.

In the meantime, you're exposing your kid(s) to second hand smoke. Why take that risk?

[Stark]

In the meantime, you're exposing your kid(s) to second hand smoke. Why take that risk?

Maybe he's such a stupid cowardly cunt he thinks his kid 'only' being exposed to his smoking at their youngest, developmental, most innocent stage of life is OK? Nowhere near as important to just fucking quit, right? RIGHT TO SMOKE FREEDOM TO SMOKE.

[Count Chocula]

formless, see page 2. I don't smoke around my son so secondhand smoke =/ issue. Or is 10 feet of separation in open air too close?

STRAK you're building up a nice little rage-on there. Isn't it time for Gears yet, or AIM chat?

[Stark]

Sorry, I'm still reeling under your spineless, irresponsible stupidity. Remember, only 10 years until you might have to take some responsibility for your child's health! You'll cut down to save a few bucks, but not to reduce your child's chance of being a smoker, because you're go goddamn free!

[Aaron]

formless, see page 2. I don't smoke around my son so secondhand smoke =/ issue. Or is 10 feet of separation in open air too close?

Government buildings around here have signs prohibiting smoking within 9 metres, so yeah 10 feet probably is too close. I also vaguely recall there being a risk from the particles being retained in your clothes and transfered to junior. Maybe that will jog someones memory around here.

[Stark]

Don't give him that much credit; '10 feet' and you think he measures it? It's not like having a smoker around is what increases their odds of smoking or anything... why bother quitting?

4m is the law here, and the crowd of idiots hanging around every building makes it immediately obvious. Hell, non-smokers can tell which ELEVATOR smokers use, and they're not smoking in there.

Nah, who cares, it's only a baby!

[Formless]

I can smell that shit from well over ten feet away, so don't color me impressed.

[bobalot]

bobalot, NONE of your references, many of which were the ones I also saw,....

I love that you claim that you saw my references, claims it has no evidence and then go onto post a source contradicts you (it claims there is a monetary benefit) and another source from a obscure website with no references.

....were able to put a real (not imputed or calculated estimate) figure based on verifiable data that demonstrated graphic images on cig packs prompted people to quite smoking. At best, from an Australian source and not a Canadian source, a 3% reduction in smoking was determined as the effect...a percentage that's within the margin of error for most types of polls. It's a long way from "under likely assumptions" to "there is significant monetary benefit."

From the Australian report, it appears that the graphic images made an impression among some groups of smokers and ex-smokers. Good for them. Did the warnings do anything to reduce the number of Australians who smoke? The link you referenced contained NO data on actual smoking rates. In addition, the study you cited has no data on the numbers of smokers who quit before the picture packs were put out versus those who quit when there were only printed warnings. It cites a higher influence on those who did quit (comparing 2000 to 2008), but again there are no numbers in any study I've seen that actually demonstrate that graphic warnings on packs reduce the percentage of smokers. Unlike, say, linking AIDS awareness campaigns with a reduction in AIDS infection rates, there's no concrete proof the pictures influence smokers to stop.

If you actually read my post (like how you should actually read your own sources), I never claimed that I had smoking gun proof of a direct link between graphic images and the rate of smoking. There have been anti-smoking campaigns for decades, it would be very difficult measure the effect of graphic warnings on already steadily declining smoking rates. Quitting smoking is decision that could involve a number of factors such as peer pressure, graphic warnings, anti-smoking advertising, cost, change in environment (perhaps the birth of a child), laws about smoking in public areas etc. Graphic Warnings are a single factor. We can only gauge from surveying recent quitters how much they felt that the warnings made them want to quit. Which is why I suspect you are narrowing in on it's direct effect on the smoking rate (which you know is difficult to measure) as the sole indicator of the success of the graphic labels.

As Stark has already pointed out, it increases the pool of people wanting to quit. Even if a small number of these people actually went on to quit, these graphic labels would be a net positive.

I claimed:

57% of smokers and 75% of recent quitters agreed that the warnings “have made them think about quitting”. This was confirmed through response to an attitude statement, where 56% of smokers maintained that “seeing the health warnings on packs makes me think about quitting”

This is my justification for graphic warnings. Getting people to think more about quitting is reason enough for these labels. Their cost is negligible and even if only 1% of the people see those graphic warnings and think "Gee, I want to quit" and actually do quit as a result, it is a net positive.

I don't see why people whine about these labels, they either have no effect or a positive effect. There is no net loss to society.

[Darth Wong]

Interesting. See what Stark says:

You're an idiot. It's very conclusive that you smoking MASSIVELY increases the chances your children will smoke. That you're a parent who smokes in the 21st century fucking disgusts me. Your child's health is so irrelevant to you you can't be fucked stopping a disgusting, shameful habit - BUT YOU'LL CUT BACK FOR BUDGET REASONS.

You are a despicable individual with totally broken priorities.

And Chocula responds with:

formless, see page 2. I don't smoke around my son so secondhand smoke =/ issue. Or is 10 feet of separation in open air too close?

STRAK you're building up a nice little rage-on there. Isn't it time for Gears yet, or AIM chat?

Notice how he totally ignores the point about how his kids are far more likely to take up the habit themselves, due to his own decision to be a lousy role model. He just trots out an obviously well-rehearsed talking point which is clearly meant to address second-hand smoke concerns, but isn't even vaguely relevant to the point Stark made. Does he think that children become blind outside of ten feet, so they can't figure out that Daddy (aka the #1 adult male role model in their lives) is a tobacco junkie?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Sorry, I'm still reeling under your spineless, irresponsible stupidity. Remember, only 10 years until you might have to take some responsibility for your child's health! You'll cut down to save a few bucks, but not to reduce your child's chance of being a smoker, because you're go goddamn free!

(remembering stats from a social psych class)

Having a parent who smokes doubles the risk of someone starting. Having friends who smoke increases baseline risk by about a thousand percent.

So yes Chocula, you are doubling the risk that your kid will start smoking.

[Simon_Jester]

I wonder if those effects are cumulative? If I have friends who smoke and a father who smokes, am I 20 times more likely to smoke than someone for whom neither of those applies?

Because I can imagine them not being cumulative; "father smokes" may just be a subset of "people I know who smoke" in terms of the effects.

[Isolder74]

I'm Allergic to Tobacco. I get sick from the smokers next door smoking in their back yard. 10 feet is way to close for me it is too close for the child too. Because I am allergic, being in the same room with a smoker who isn't smoking gives me a headache.

You sound like the type of Moron who'd blow smoke in my face just because I say it makes me sick like you have to make me prove it to you before you'll believe it. Well I don't like taking my Epinephrine and I shouldn't have to!

[Aaron]

I wonder if those effects are cumulative? If I have friends who smoke and a father who smokes, am I 20 times more likely to smoke than someone for whom neither of those applies?

Because I can imagine them not being cumulative; "father smokes" may just be a subset of "people I know who smoke" in terms of the effects.

They may not be cumulative but at a certain stage in life your parents exert more influence over your perceptions then anyone else, once you become a teen it becomes friends. So if you had a father who smoked and then had teen friends I can certainly see why you would be more likely to smoke if just Dad or just your friends did.

[Darth Wong]

Mind you, it's worth pointing out that by the time you reach high school and come into contact with a lot of smokers, your feelings about smokers may influence your choice of friends. A kid is already in his early teens at that point, and much of his personality is already formed.

[Stark]

(remembering stats from a social psych class)

Having a parent who smokes doubles the risk of someone starting. Having friends who smoke increases baseline risk by about a thousand percent.

So yes Chocula, you are doubling the risk that your kid will start smoking.

Thanks; I didn't want to quote numbers because I didn't recall them. I'm actually surprised it's double. But hey, quitting is too hard right?

[Stark]

Ghetto: to extend what Mike has said, I'd suggest that having a smoking father reduces the barrier to smoking. If you never have a smoking family member and your idiot mates start smoking in highschool, you haven't spent a decade being prepped to see this as 'normal' or 'adult'. You can know something is stupid and dangerous but still see it as 'average' or acceptable. Having friends who smoke provides the opportunity.

[Darth Wong]

Also, years of exposure to second-hand smoke will accustom you to the foul stench, even if it is at a very low dosage. It only needs to be strong enough for you to smell it. You may even come to subconsciously associate the stench with home, and feelings of belonging. The mere odour, associated with feelings of parental attachment over a period of your entire fucking childhood, is a powerful conditioning stimulus.

But hey, what's ten years? It's just a child's entire early formative period, that's all.

[Stark]

I believe that's so powerful, that for a long time male fragrances had strong leather and metal scents, because it keys into everyone's father imagery. And you're right - people never around smokers are far more sensitive to it and thus far less likely to tolerate it in those around them. I know people who can smell someone smoking from outside a house, because it's so pervasive.

[Surlethe]

Hell, the other day we were in our apartment and we could smell some fuckheads smoking in their apartment 100 feet or so away. Smoking's against the rules on our campus, by the way - I decided that the next time we smell it, I'm going to take our camera and get some evidence to nail them. I don't want my kid exposed to that shit, and I can't believe Chocula has no problem with glories in it.

[Aaron]

Also, years of exposure to second-hand smoke will accustom you to the foul stench, even if it is at a very low dosage. It only needs to be strong enough for you to smell it. You may even come to subconsciously associate the stench with home, and feelings of belonging. The mere odour, associated with feelings of parental attachment over a period of your entire fucking childhood, is a powerful conditioning stimulus.

But hey, what's ten years? It's just a child's entire early formative period, that's all.

Actually chances are by the time his son is five it'll be too late, ages 0-5 being the time when they are the most impressionable and open to learning, which the reason why it's recommended that you start teaching them a second language before five. I can't recall how old CC's kid is but I suspect the damage is already done.

[Shroom Man 777]

BUT GUYS! CHOCULA WILL JUST SAY TO HIS KID:

"Don't smoke! DO AS I SAY AND NOT AS I DO!"

And the child will totally NOT smoke because Chocula told him NOT to smoke.

Because Chocula set a great example by smoking at least ten feet away from his kiddo or somethings.

Or by being a ninja and not smoking around his kiddo and by being totally invisible whenever he smokes so that his kid will NEVAR EVAR SEE his FILTHY SECRET.

(But what if his child also learned NINJA SKILLS and became a BETTER NINJA, so that when Chocula is being a ninja and smoking in secret, his childrens are actually silently watching him while being indivisible and unseen?! Oho!)


Um, I also think it is stupid to put disgusting pictures or labels on cigarette packs. Especially disgusting pictures or labels of what often happens to unrepentant smokers. Because it reminds me of what an irresponsible lifestyle might lead to for a person, and the effects it may have on his family and loved ones?

I do not like being reminded of how my bad lifestyle choices will do horrible things to me, and how because of other bad choices, those who I love may end up following in my footsteps and end up looking like those things on the cigarette pictures?

am i riteyoes daddyoes?