Tobacco Packets Have to Remove All Branding in Australia

[Dipayan]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

I see you're an advertising professional. Don't you see a contradiction between selling a service and asserting that nobody knows if your service even works?

Apologies if I was unclear about my position. Sometimes I am not as eloquent as I believe myself to be. Advertising works, but nobody knows exactly how it works, or to what extent it works. For example, word of mouth is considered way more powerful than conventional advertising.

There are wonderfully creative ideas that don't sell products, and everyday campaigns that light the markets on fire. Looking back at successful campaigns, we can draw out learnings, and use them as a guide for future work. But then along will come a brand that does everything against the book and get huge success, when the learnings will have to be tweaked and edited to fit this one in.

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

If advertising doesn't work then you're part of a fraud or delusion of literally unprecedented, worldwide scale that's costing the planet ~$400b a year.

Please refer above.

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

However I think it's kind of a bit more likely that it does actually work and that's why people spend so much money doing it. In which case it's hard to resist the suspicion that you are being disingenuous in claiming that nobody even knows if advertising works.

I accept, and take back my 'IF it works' part of the reply. That was hyperbole on my part. You would understand the context if you refer to my post #121 - I meant that there is even debate on how much advertising is effective because of its content, as compared to the fact that it displays the brand name and hence increases brand awareness.

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

That's an advertising sort of argument. It has no intellectual content. Just because a claim is "patronizing" gives you absolutely no reason to think that the claim is false.

I do believe that that part of my reply was additional to my point, and not the base of my argument.

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

It might make a person who isn't sharp enough to see what you are doing emotionally inclined to reject the claim that advertising influences behaviour, because they don't like being patronised and you've just told them they are being patronised.

Hmm. So you are saying that mere statements can make people take irrational decisions? Is that good enough reason to ban free speech? After all, it would help the 'people who aren't as sharp as us'.

This was my point in the original reply to you - advertising does arguably no more or less than multiple other things to influence a person's decision. Blogs do it, PR does it, conversations do it, movies do it, books do it. Everything around us is stimuli - why are we targeting advertising, and tobacco advertising in particular? And why is there so much interest in protecting the 'not that sharp'? They have as much right to take bad decisions as us enlightened ones!

I hope I have managed to make my position clearer.

[arromdee]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

Because sugary drinks aren't a health hazard unless consumed to excess, while cigarettes can still cause cancer and health problems even with occasional use.

But the argument that it really isn't a violation of intellectual property or trademark rights depends on intellectual property and trademark law. I'm very doubtful that intellectual property and trademark law is going to depend on how much of a health hazard the item is (I know that trademarks aren't allowed on illegal items, but cigarettes are not illegal.)

So I don't see how the same legal reasoning (which the court hasn't yet released) could *not* apply to sugary drinks.

Furthermore, we're already starting to see the start of the slippery slope to restricting sugary drinks. They have been restricted in schools, and there's the New York large size sugary drink ban going into effect. The signs are there.

[Dipayan]

Originally Posted by 23_Tauri

I wasn't being sarcastic, Cain. I really hadn't thought of it that way, that less branding = more competition. I wonder what our advertising chap on this thead thinks?

Less branding = less competition for consumer mindspace. Which should foster more competitive brands.

But, newer brands could find it extremely difficult to fight with the big boys. They have large production units, already established distribution channels, and all the profits from past years. Theoretically, they could choose to drop prices or increase retailer margins till the competition just gives up - look at Microsoft and Netscape for a similar situation.

[Dipayan]

Repost

[Manopolus]

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

Holy crap! The world is even smaller yet! I worked as a photographer for Wal-Mart (Well, started out in the deli, then started traveling around doing remodels, then was hired by the photography studio in the Wal-Mart in Lock Haven.) I worked for them while I was a student at Penn State University, earning a Master's in secondary education, with a minor in Digital Media.

I think it's funny talking to people from outside the area at Little League. Was over there today watching some of the games, and struck up a conversation with one of the parents from Nebraska. They were asking what Williamsport is like. I told them: "Oh, it's just a usual boring little town like most other towns."

The parent was in awe. They were like: "Really? With such a great event as the Little League World Series?"

I laughed. Hard. The LLWS occurs over the course of 10 days (6 before the expansion a few years ago) at the very end of summer. Other than that: Nope. Just a boring little town in the middle of Nowhere, PA for 355 days a year.

OK, now it get's real interesting: I am back in college (a vo-tech, actually) to study graphic arts atm... admittedly in a program with a print emphasis, rather than digital. My former bachelor's degree was a BFA in art emphasizing drawing and painting -- but of course, that degree does absolutely nothing for me in terms of employment... even MFA's have a hard time finding a job (generally at museums and colleges, but there's too many of them for the # of jobs out there. The ones that actually "make it" in the fine art world doesn't come close to offsetting it). Anyway, I figured a 1 year tech. certificate in addition to my former background would be enough to give me a leg up in a new occupation. I might even do the associate's degree, since I've already got way more than enough on the gen eds.

I promise it's the last off-topic post, but it's been an interesting correlation

Actually, maybe it's not all that off topic, after all... two graphic artist types arguing against advertising censorship (admittedly, in my case I'm more concerned as a smoker). Go figure.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by bit_pattern

Unrelated but definitely interesting, the real carcinogenic problem with tobacco is the way the phosphate fertilisers we use coat the tobacco leaf with polonium:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articl...13/3451931.htm

I've never heard that before!

Would tobacco that wasn't grown with those fertilizers be much safer?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by Dipayan

Hmm. So you are saying that mere statements can make people take irrational decisions? Is that good enough reason to ban free speech? After all, it would help the 'people who aren't as sharp as us'.

Yes, that's definitely a good enough reason to ban certain kinds of paid advertising speech. We should be careful to avoid equivocating between paid advertising speech and unpaid political or religious speech. Some kinds of free speech are really important, and advertisers try to ride the philosophical coat-tails of that important kinds of free speech by pretending their jingles should count as "free speech" in the sense that matters.

Quote:

This was my point in the original reply to you - advertising does arguably no more or less than multiple other things to influence a person's decision. Blogs do it, PR does it, conversations do it, movies do it, books do it. Everything around us is stimuli - why are we targeting advertising, and tobacco advertising in particular?

This seems like a disingenuous question.

Some things are too hard to regulate effectively, like conversations, but that's not true of advertising. Advertising is a paid-for product which exists solely to, directly or indirectly, sell a product, in some cases a product which leads completely predictably to serious illness or death.

Any time somebody is doing something which leads completely predictably to large-scale serious illness or death we should take a long, hard look at them to see if there is any cost-effective way we can act as a society to make them knock it off. Tobacco and alcohol advertising are the trivially obvious cases of socially harmful behaviour which ought to be regulated - they are the cases which prove immediately that in some cases regulation is justified.

Quote:

And why is there so much interest in protecting the 'not that sharp'? They have as much right to take bad decisions as us enlightened ones!

I hope I have managed to make my position clearer.

Advertising apologists try to spin the conversation in terms of "rights", like their claimed "right" to "free speech" and other people's "right to make their own decisions".

This is because if the conversation is framed in terms of outcomes, it becomes immediately obvious that the outcome of letting advertising ratbags do as they will is a lot of money in the pockets of advertising ratbags, a lot of money in the pockets of tobacco companies, and a lot of citizens who would otherwise have productive lives contributing to overall social wellbeing getting crippled or killed by emphysema, lung cancer, diabetes and so on.

The real question is whether these "rights" exist in the first place, and if they do how these "rights" trump the importance of people's lives. When it's framed that way, it becomes very hard to spin an airy-fairy, philosophical story about "rights" that justifies getting rich from the painful deaths of large numbers of innocent people.

[Nihilianth]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

That's why I added the ETA. It's not the sugar itself, but the sudden rise in blood-glucose levels that products containing concentrated sugars cause. If the sugar is bound up with a lot of fiber, it may slow down the absorption of sugar, resulting in a more stable blood-glucose level.

But yes, I do agree that if you're in a high-risk category for adult-onset diabetes, chugging down large quantities of high-sugar beverages on a regular basis is a pretty risky thing to do.

Ah, I didn't pay attention to that ETA. Sorry bout that.

[Nihilianth]

Originally Posted by arromdee

But the argument that it really isn't a violation of intellectual property or trademark rights depends on intellectual property and trademark law. I'm very doubtful that intellectual property and trademark law is going to depend on how much of a health hazard the item is (I know that trademarks aren't allowed on illegal items, but cigarettes are not illegal.)

So I don't see how the same legal reasoning (which the court hasn't yet released) could *not* apply to sugary drinks.

Furthermore, we're already starting to see the start of the slippery slope to restricting sugary drinks. They have been restricted in schools, and there's the New York large size sugary drink ban going into effect. The signs are there.

That is definitely taking effect!? Jeez! I thought it was just some lame attempt by the mayor of NYC, but wasn;t going to be seriously considered.

How lame. So a person like myself, who is perfectly healthy, has to have my diet curbed because there are a bunch of obese people out there?

I assume you are talking about the ban on bottomless beverages. Gaaahhh!

[Nihilianth]

Originally Posted by Manopolus

OK, now it get's real interesting: I am back in college (a vo-tech, actually) to study graphic arts atm... admittedly in a program with a print emphasis, rather than digital. My former bachelor's degree was a BFA in art emphasizing drawing and painting -- but of course, that degree does absolutely nothing for me in terms of employment... even MFA's have a hard time finding a job (generally at museums and colleges, but there's too many of them for the # of jobs out there. The ones that actually "make it" in the fine art world doesn't come close to offsetting it). Anyway, I figured a 1 year tech. certificate in addition to my former background would be enough to give me a leg up in a new occupation. I might even do the associate's degree, since I've already got way more than enough on the gen eds.

I promise it's the last off-topic post, but it's been an interesting correlation

Actually, maybe it's not all that off topic, after all... two graphic artist types arguing against advertising censorship (admittedly, in my case I'm more concerned as a smoker). Go figure.

Yeah, in my case, I abhor cigarettes.

I will say, if all else fails in finding a good job to launch your career, you could always go into teaching. High schools, and even more so, elementary schools, are desperate for male teachers.

(Of course, as pointed out in another thread, I think that is because most males are scared off. Just look at yet another thread with the whole Penn State thing.)

[Alan]

A related but different plan in Tasmania:

Quote:

The Tasmanian Government is not ruling out banning tobacco sales to people born after 2000, in the wake of a vote in the state's Upper House last night.

Legislative Council member Ivan Dean wants to make it illegal for people born after 2000 to buy tobacco once they turn 18.

The proposal was passed unanimously by the Upper House.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-2...16?section=tas

[Nihilianth]

Originally Posted by Alan

A related but different plan in Tasmania:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-2...16?section=tas

That's....interesting. Hhhmmm....

[bit_pattern]

Originally Posted by Alan

A related but different plan in Tasmania:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-2...16?section=tas

Not a well thought out policy. The thing I really like about plain packaging is the way that it denormalises smoking and seeks to change behaviour. Prohibition has been proved time and again to be a failed policy. If I hand a magic wand and could make the decision and set up an addict registry and ban the sale of cigarettes except by something like a pharmacy where smokers can present a card or something collect no-name cigarettes to meet their daily or weekly regimen. I'd do the same with drugs like heroin too. I have no shadow of a doubt that if your medicalise the addiction and treated it as a medical/health problem then you would dramatically shift young people's perception of the relative drugs and see a massive reduction in both smokers and junkies in the next generation. Over two or three generations you could essentially eradicate addiction and you'd have no need for repressive prohibition measures.

[Dipayan]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Yes, that's definitely a good enough reason to ban certain kinds of paid advertising speech.

What about PR? What about online blogs? What about movies and songs? And which product other than cigarettes would you suggest extending this ban to?

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

We should be careful to avoid equivocating between paid advertising speech and unpaid political or religious speech. Some kinds of free speech are really important, and advertisers try to ride the philosophical coat-tails of that important kinds of free speech by pretending their jingles should count as "free speech" in the sense that matters.

'Unpaid' political speech? Is there such a thing?

Please do let me know the parameters on which one can decide what constitutes 'true free speech'. Only then can we judge all advertising/PR/blogs/movies/songs by those same parameters. Otherwise, the claim is just that tobacco advertising (which is anyways banned) is not free speech simply on the basis of it being tobacco advertising.

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Some things are too hard to regulate effectively, like conversations, but that's not true of advertising.

Newspapers, opinion pieces, movies, blogs. These too can be regulated fairly easily.

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Advertising is a paid-for product which exists solely to, directly or indirectly, sell a product, in some cases a product which leads completely predictably to serious illness or death.

Abortion, if used the way it is meant to be, results in death. But apparently, personal bodily rights have something to do with it, and so the government should not get into it. But advertising for a product that will only sell if people want it is anathema, because, god forbid it, someone could actually want to SMOKE!

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Any time somebody is doing something which leads completely predictably to large-scale serious illness or death we should take a long, hard look at them to see if there is any cost-effective way we can act as a society to make them knock it off.

The best way of making a healthier nation would be to have mandatory exercise hours. Let people eat, drink, do whatever they want. But one hour in the day, they HAVE to exercise. That takes away way fewer rights from people, but I highly doubt anybody would try that.

The War on Tobacco works because there is an Us vs Them. And in that scenario, when rights are limited or taken away, we always have a justification for it that makes us think it's ok.

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Tobacco and alcohol advertising are the trivially obvious cases of socially harmful behaviour which ought to be regulated - they are the cases which prove immediately that in some cases regulation is justified.

This is a circular argument.

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Advertising apologists try to spin the conversation in terms of "rights", like their claimed "right" to "free speech" and other people's "right to make their own decisions".

Is it your contention that these rights do not exist for this particular set? If so, why is that?

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

This is because if the conversation is framed in terms of outcomes, it becomes immediately obvious that the outcome of letting advertising ratbags do as they will is a lot of money in the pockets of advertising ratbags, a lot of money in the pockets of tobacco companies, and a lot of citizens who would otherwise have productive lives contributing to overall social wellbeing getting crippled or killed by emphysema, lung cancer, diabetes and so on.

So let's look at the problems cited.

1) Enterprise
2) Health

I did not think it is a problem in any nation for people to make money. And when it comes to health, I don't think there is any government mandate on that people need to follow. I always thought it was a personal, private decision. I am open to another viewpoint.

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

The real question is whether these "rights" exist in the first place, and if they do how these "rights" trump the importance of people's lives. When it's framed that way, it becomes very hard to spin an airy-fairy, philosophical story about "rights" that justifies getting rich from the painful deaths of large numbers of innocent people.

The importance of a person's life is dependent on that person's opinion, in my view. If a person wants to kill herlself, that is her choice. If this is accepted, then it becomes all the more easier for me to accept that if a person wants to smoke a cigarette, there is no argument you can prepare from it to ban other activities. Her health is her concern and business. Not mine.

Looking forward to your viewpoint!

[arromdee]

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

That is definitely taking effect!? Jeez! I thought it was just some lame attempt by the mayor of NYC, but wasn;t going to be seriously considered.

Honestly, I have no idea if it's going into effect; I couldn't Google anything about that. But it was at least being seriously considered.

[Manopolus]

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

Yeah, in my case, I abhor cigarettes.

I will say, if all else fails in finding a good job to launch your career, you could always go into teaching. High schools, and even more so, elementary schools, are desperate for male teachers.

(Of course, as pointed out in another thread, I think that is because most males are scared off. Just look at yet another thread with the whole Penn State thing.)

Well, with the program I'm in, press operator is the usual entry level position... which is actually in high demand and oddly, they get paid more than the actual graphic designers nowadays. It's a hands on type of school that pretty much teaches the whole process instead of merely the pre-press portion, like you get with many traditional universities. I'm not too worried about finding a job once I'm done... even if I go for a designer job right off the bat, I'll be more qualified than most beginners, I think, and I already have a deeper portfolio just starting than most have when they graduate.

Personally, I'll probably end up in the sales end of the business eventually (ASAP, actually). It's a lot more money and a nice intermediate step to eventually going into business for yourself.

[Nihilianth]

Originally Posted by arromdee

Honestly, I have no idea if it's going into effect; I couldn't Google anything about that. But it was at least being seriously considered.

It ws only being seriously considered by mayor Bloomburg. The state of NY, far as I know, was not taking this proposal seriously.

[Nihilianth]

Originally Posted by Dipayan

Newspapers, opinion pieces, movies, blogs. These too can be regulated fairly easily.

Really? It is "fairly easy" to regulate Newspapers, op-ed peices, movies, and blogs?

Um. No? Heh. No. It isn't. Nor should it be. Abnd to make any arguments that it is or that it should be without demonstrating that those forms of speech somehow violates other rights of people.

So, yeah. It most definitely is NOT "fairly easy to regulate" the things you have described. Particularly not op-eds, blogs, or movies.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Dipayan, you seem to be hoping that if you kick up enough dust that it will look from a distance as if you have a coherent argument.

Originally Posted by Dipayan

What about PR? What about online blogs? What about movies and songs? And which product other than cigarettes would you suggest extending this ban to?

Rhetorical questions are a way of getting out of stating a case, and foisting the burden of evidence on to someone else. If you were trying to engage seriously with the issue you could have made declarative statements like "movies and songs belong in the same category as cigarette advertising" and then tried to defend that position.

I've already stated my case. If you have something substantial to respond with feel free to post it. If you're just asking questions, I'll just refer you to my previous posts.

Quote:

'Unpaid' political speech? Is there such a thing?

Please do let me know the parameters on which one can decide what constitutes 'true free speech'. Only then can we judge all advertising/PR/blogs/movies/songs by those same parameters. Otherwise, the claim is just that tobacco advertising (which is anyways banned) is not free speech simply on the basis of it being tobacco advertising.

Now you're trying to sneak words into my mouth. I never said anything about "true free speech", that's your invention.

Some kinds of speech are best protected against most government interference, such as political and religious speech, but even in those cases there are obvious exceptions. No government should be able to lock someone up for saying the government sucks, but that doesn't mean that no government should be able to lock someone up for inciting racist or sectarian violence on a street corner.

Tobacco advertising is speech, sure, and it's free (if you're allowed to do it, which you aren't and shouldn't be). However so is saying "we should kill all the blacks and Catholics". Not all speech should be allowed. Most speech should be allowed, but blatantly irresponsible or malevolent speech that's likely to get people killed is not that kind of speech.

Quote:

Abortion, if used the way it is meant to be, results in death. But apparently, personal bodily rights have something to do with it, and so the government should not get into it. But advertising for a product that will only sell if people want it is anathema, because, god forbid it, someone could actually want to SMOKE!

A great way to start a flame war and get the focus off the important issues is to bring up abortion. I'm just going to drop that subtopic completely because I'm not going to enable you to play that game.

Quote:

The best way of making a healthier nation would be to have mandatory exercise hours. Let people eat, drink, do whatever they want. But one hour in the day, they HAVE to exercise. That takes away way fewer rights from people, but I highly doubt anybody would try that.

Apart from those pesky anti-torture treaties we've signed, I think the kind of police force needed to enforce this would be a bit unwieldy. Compared to tobacco regulation there's be some pretty serious overheads to worry about.

Quote:

The War on Tobacco works because there is an Us vs Them. And in that scenario, when rights are limited or taken away, we always have a justification for it that makes us think it's ok.

Of course we do, which is as it should be. People should be free to do whatever they like, right up until their actions lead predictably to really bad outcomes.

Quote:

Is it your contention that these rights do not exist for this particular set? If so, why is that?

Demanding that I explicate your airy-fairy philosophical assumptions for you when I just got through making fun of them seems a bit backwards. I think your talk of rights is nothing more than the misuse of simple-minded slogans. If you think you can show it is more than that, feel free to do so.

Quote:

So let's look at the problems cited.

1) Enterprise
2) Health

I did not think it is a problem in any nation for people to make money. And when it comes to health, I don't think there is any government mandate on that people need to follow. I always thought it was a personal, private decision. I am open to another viewpoint.

Your financial business is usually a personal, private decision but that doesn't mean the government will stand by while you defraud your neighbour, or that I should do so. Your political views are usually a personal, private matter but that doesn't mean that the government should stand by while someone advocates racial holy war. Your health is usually a personal, private decision but that doesn't mean we should stand by while people sell quack cures or dangerous drugs.

If the outcomes from people engaging in certain kinds of speech are sufficiently bad, then regulation should definitely be an option.

Quote:

The importance of a person's life is dependent on that person's opinion, in my view. If a person wants to kill herlself, that is her choice. If this is accepted, then it becomes all the more easier for me to accept that if a person wants to smoke a cigarette, there is no argument you can prepare from it to ban other activities. Her health is her concern and business. Not mine.

So as well as trying to drag in abortion you're trying to drag in euthanasia?

I guess if you're terminally ill and you can get a couple of doctors to sign off on it, I don't see any harm if you want to smoke a few before you die. As long as you do it someplace well away from others so they don't have to put up with the smell and the smoke, anyway. So under the conditions in which I'd support legal euthanasia, I guess I do have to support legal smoking.

[Dipayan]

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

Really? It is "fairly easy" to regulate Newspapers, op-ed peices, movies, and blogs?

Um. No? Heh. No. It isn't.

Blogs which have their server in Australia can be easily regulated. Newspapers, movies all function under the umbrella of organizations. What makes you think they cannot be easily regulated?

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

Nor should it be. Abnd to make any arguments that it is or that it should be without demonstrating that those forms of speech somehow violates other rights of people.

Oh, of course. Those pesky rights and freedom of media and expression, and all that!

So how would tobacco advertising violate the rights of other people?

[Dipayan]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Rhetorical questions are a way of getting out of stating a case, and foisting the burden of evidence on to someone else.

I didn't mean them as rhetorical questions - I was looking for a response as to why you separate advertising from other media.

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

If you were trying to engage seriously with the issue you could have made declarative statements like "movies and songs belong in the same category as cigarette advertising" and then tried to defend that position.

Ok, let's try this again. According to your contention, advertising is a key factor for the existence of smokers - which you have phrased as people making irrational decisions. Popular culture - of which movies, music, social commentary, books, print, TV etc are a large part - also play a role in our decision making - rational or irrational. The question I am asking is - on what basis do we judge one medium that might provoke irrational decision making versus another?

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Now you're trying to sneak words into my mouth. I never said anything about "true free speech", that's your invention.

You said -

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Some kinds of free speech are really important...

I phrased it as 'true free speech'. If you wish, I can phrase it as 'important free speech', but really that is just semantics. Free speech is free speech. If advertising is not misleading, it is free speech. The government can choose to then regulate it if it can show that this is required to advance a substantial interest of the government, but it is still free speech. I am wondering which other product you would support such a move for.

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

No government should be able to lock someone up for saying the government sucks, but that doesn't mean that no government should be able to lock someone up for inciting racist or sectarian violence on a street corner.

I am unsure as to how this connects to tobacco advertising.

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Tobacco advertising is speech, sure, and it's free (if you're allowed to do it, which you aren't and shouldn't be). However so is saying "we should kill all the blacks and Catholics".

How is tobacco advertising like hate speech?

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Not all speech should be allowed. Most speech should be allowed, but blatantly irresponsible or malevolent speech that's likely to get people killed is not that kind of speech.

How is tobacco advertising blatantly irresponsible or malevolent?

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

A great way to start a flame war and get the focus off the important issues is to bring up abortion. I'm just going to drop that subtopic completely because I'm not going to enable you to play that game.

Because a lot of false arguments mention abortion does not mean that abortion is only mentioned in false arguments.

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Apart from those pesky anti-torture treaties we've signed,

An hour of exercise is cruel, degrading and inhuman treatment? And taking away copyright and trademark rights is sunshine and rainbows? We live in interesting times

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

I think the kind of police force needed to enforce this would be a bit unwieldy.

When the government wanted to ban tobacco advertising, people said that would be impossible too, from a practical as well as a legal point of view. Where there is a will and all that...

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Of course we do, which is as it should be. People should be free to do whatever they like, right up until their actions lead predictably to really bad outcomes.

And how is 'bad outcome' defined?

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Your health is usually a personal, private decision but that doesn't mean we should stand by while people sell quack cures or dangerous drugs.

Tobacco is not a quack cure. And since it is absolutely legal to sell tobacco, I do not understand the point of calling it a 'dangerous drug' - the government obviously doesn't really seem to believe so.

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

If the outcomes from people engaging in certain kinds of speech are sufficiently bad, then regulation should definitely be an option.

You have still not defined 'bad'. If it is referring to the health of smokers, then regulating advertising is not the answer, regulating cigarettes is. Since the latter is not happening, it does not seem like health is the parameter.

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

So as well as trying to drag in abortion you're trying to drag in euthanasia?

By this line of logic, you 'dragged in' hate speech and quack cures.

You are trying to vilify an industry because of the voluntary consumption of their products by rational, adult individuals. It is disingenuous to infantilize these individuals and turn this voluntary consumption into some sort of an attack by the tobacco industry on these citizens.

Anyways, things are getting too long-winded now. So cheers for the conversation and catch you on another thread!

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by Dipayan

The War on Tobacco works because there is an Us vs Them. And in that scenario, when rights are limited or taken away, we always have a justification for it that makes us think it's ok.

I disagree, I'd say that the 'War on Tobacco' (if you want to put it like that) works because the majority of people, including a significant proportion of smokers, think that the drawbacks of smoking outweigh the benefits, both for the smoker themselves and for other people.





Speaking personally, so far as I am concerned if you want to smoke that's neither my problem nor my business and I would oppose any legislation to force you to quit. I'd be against a ban both from the argument that it's your body to do with as you see fit and because I think it would be counter productive, prohibition, as pointed out several times already, has a poor track record. But I do object when your smoking becomes an issue for other people, even ignoring the possible health issue of second hand smoke being carcinogenic, I'm just about old enough to have worked in an office where smoking was allowed and as a non smoking asthmatic it was horrible, more recently the smoking in enclosed public places ban has allowed me to go to pubs and restaurants without then having a couple of days of wheezing and puffing inhalators so I'm now a regular at my local. If I'm talking to a smoker who wants to go out for one, I'll accompany them but stand upwind.

None of the smokers there seem to mind going outside for their puff by the way, as the recession has bitten we've seen regular faces fall away but it certainly hasn't been noticeable the smokers more than non smokers.

One thing I have noticed since the ban came in though is the notable increase in people I know who go outside to smoke while at home, presumably because they're now more used to a smoke free environment and are starting to notice the stale smoke the way we non smokers do. Unfortunately this also carries across to the car where it seems no-one will use an ashtray any more, believe me, if you've ever had an unextinguished cigarette butt go down the neck of your jacket or into your eye while riding a motorbike at speed, it isn't an experience you forget in a hurry.

I really don't see the downside to this legislation, I really don't think anyone (outside the boardroom of a tobacco company) would seriously suggest that young people taking up smoking is a good thing and the evidence is that this will reduce the number of young people who do while imposing minimal, if any, inconvenience on smokers who don't want to quit.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by Dipayan

I didn't mean them as rhetorical questions - I was looking for a response as to why you separate advertising from other media.

I already gave you that answer - tobacco advertising leads directly to preventable and unnecessary deaths. That's the outcome. That's what makes regulating such advertising ethically necessary.

Now it's up to you to propose some other consideration which is so incredibly important that it outweighs the loss of life and health, the suffering and death, which tobacco advertising is known to cause. Ball's in your court, advertising dude.

Quote:

Ok, let's try this again. According to your contention, advertising is a key factor for the existence of smokers - which you have phrased as people making irrational decisions. Popular culture - of which movies, music, social commentary, books, print, TV etc are a large part - also play a role in our decision making - rational or irrational. The question I am asking is - on what basis do we judge one medium that might provoke irrational decision making versus another?

Asked and answered. It's now your job to explain why it's okay to cause large-scale death to make a buck.

Now I've snipped everything else in your post that seemed to me to be an attempt to get the conversation off this point, because it's the important point we need to resolve.

It didn't leave much.

Quote:

You are trying to vilify an industry because of the voluntary consumption of their products by rational, adult individuals. It is disingenuous to infantilize these individuals and turn this voluntary consumption into some sort of an attack by the tobacco industry on these citizens.

You could try that line, but there's a huge problem in selling the most powerfully addictive drug known to man, and then turning around and trying to pretend that people keep using the product you advertise because they are "rational, adult individuals", and that it's "disingenuous" to "infantilize" people by recognising that the most powerful addictive drug known to man might just be causing people to make irrational decisions.

If we genuinely value freedom, we should no more allow people to addict themselves to nicotine than we should allow them to sell themselves into slavery.

I don't think tobacco advertisers genuinely value freedom, though, or free speech, or life. I think "freedom" and "free speech" are the a facade they hide behind, while they line their pockets with money taken from the pockets of the addicts they are killing.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

This probably needs a new thread since it has little to nothing to do with the Australian law but I'm posting it here for the time being:

Quote:

USA - WASHINGTON—A federal appeals court on Friday struck down requirements for large graphic warning labels on cigarette packages, saying the government didn't provide evidence that the labels would bring down smoking rates.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...156512180.html

ETA: I forgot that Wall Street Journal online doesn't work for some people so here is a Chicago Tribune link:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...nwealth-brands

[Brian-M]

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

This probably needs a new thread since it has little to nothing to do with the Australian law but I'm posting it here for the time being:

Quote:

USA - WASHINGTON—A federal appeals court on Friday struck down requirements for large graphic warning labels on cigarette packages, saying the government didn't provide evidence that the labels would bring down smoking rates.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...156512180.html

ETA: I forgot that Wall Street Journal online doesn't work for some people so here is a Chicago Tribune link:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...nwealth-brands

It's not hard to find evidence for the effectiveness of graphical warning labels.

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/87/8/09-069575/en

Quote:

A recent analysis of data from the ITC Four Country Survey compared the impact of the introduction of pictorial warnings in Australia in 2005 to that of the introduction of larger text-only warnings in the United Kingdom in 2003. Cognitive and behavioural indicators of label impact that are predictive of quit intentions and quit attempts (e.g. forgoing cigarettes because of the labels; thinking about the health risks of smoking) increased to a greater extent among smokers after the Australian pictorial warnings were introduced than they did in the United Kingdom after enhanced text-only warnings were introduced. Pictorial warnings are also cited by former smokers as an important factor in their attempt to quit and have been associated with increases in the use of effective cessation services, such as toll-free telephone “helplines”. Although all warnings are subject to wear-out over time, pictorial warnings have also been shown to sustain their effects longer than text-only warning labels.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

It's not hard to find evidence for the effectiveness of graphical warning labels.

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/87/8/09-069575/en

But there's no proof it works and it might put people off buying their particular brand of tobacco, which would be every brand...

Is that what the (successful) argument was?

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

It's not hard to find evidence for the effectiveness of graphical warning labels.

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/87/8/09-069575/en

Well technically the ruling was that the government didn't provide the evidence, not necessarily that there wasn't any available.

[Nihilianth]

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

I disagree, I'd say that the 'War on Tobacco' (if you want to put it like that) works because the majority of people, including a significant proportion of smokers, think that the drawbacks of smoking outweigh the benefits, both for the smoker themselves and for other people.





Speaking personally, so far as I am concerned if you want to smoke that's neither my problem nor my business and I would oppose any legislation to force you to quit. I'd be against a ban both from the argument that it's your body to do with as you see fit and because I think it would be counter productive, prohibition, as pointed out several times already, has a poor track record. But I do object when your smoking becomes an issue for other people, even ignoring the possible health issue of second hand smoke being carcinogenic, I'm just about old enough to have worked in an office where smoking was allowed and as a non smoking asthmatic it was horrible, more recently the smoking in enclosed public places ban has allowed me to go to pubs and restaurants without then having a couple of days of wheezing and puffing inhalators so I'm now a regular at my local. If I'm talking to a smoker who wants to go out for one, I'll accompany them but stand upwind.

None of the smokers there seem to mind going outside for their puff by the way, as the recession has bitten we've seen regular faces fall away but it certainly hasn't been noticeable the smokers more than non smokers.

One thing I have noticed since the ban came in though is the notable increase in people I know who go outside to smoke while at home, presumably because they're now more used to a smoke free environment and are starting to notice the stale smoke the way we non smokers do. Unfortunately this also carries across to the car where it seems no-one will use an ashtray any more, believe me, if you've ever had an unextinguished cigarette butt go down the neck of your jacket or into your eye while riding a motorbike at speed, it isn't an experience you forget in a hurry.

I really don't see the downside to this legislation, I really don't think anyone (outside the boardroom of a tobacco company) would seriously suggest that young people taking up smoking is a good thing and the evidence is that this will reduce the number of young people who do while imposing minimal, if any, inconvenience on smokers who don't want to quit.

I got a funny story. A couple of my friends and I were kinda walking along the edge of the woods one day, while someone was eating an apple. The person who was eating said apple chucked it into the trees real quick.

As he did so, a cop car came flying out of nowhere. He stopped us, and wanted to know what the kid threw into the woods. He told him he threw an apple core into the trees over there. The cop told him that was littering, and proceeded to write him a $300 fine! for throwing an apple core into the woods. I'm sure some of those trees **** a thousand full apples a day.

Anyway, a few days later, I saw the same cop (I know who he is. He went to my school, and was a few grades above me.) I was climbing out of my car in a paring lot at a grocery store, and saw that cop talking to and laughing with someone smoking. The person he was talking to threw his cigarette out in the street!

I went up to the cop, and asked him: "Aren't you going to do anything about that?" Cop looked at me and said: "What?" I told him the person he was talking to just threw a cigarette out into the parking lot!

The cop said: "Yeah, so? What do you want me to do about it?"

I then told him that he "has an appointment with the magistrate tomorrow about an incident where you wrote out a $300 fine to a friend of mine for throwing an apple core into the trees," and walked away.

The very next day, I went in with my buddy as a witness, and told the magistrate exactly what happened. He said the two incidents are not related, but did agree that an apple core in the woods is not exactly "littering."

Well, I sure as hell hope not!

[bit_pattern]

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

I got a funny story. A couple of my friends and I were kinda walking along the edge of the woods one day, while someone was eating an apple. The person who was eating said apple chucked it into the trees real quick.

As he did so, a cop car came flying out of nowhere. He stopped us, and wanted to know what the kid threw into the woods. He told him he threw an apple core into the trees over there. The cop told him that was littering, and proceeded to write him a $300 fine! for throwing an apple core into the woods. I'm sure some of those trees **** a thousand full apples a day.

Anyway, a few days later, I saw the same cop (I know who he is. He went to my school, and was a few grades above me.) I was climbing out of my car in a paring lot at a grocery store, and saw that cop talking to and laughing with someone smoking. The person he was talking to threw his cigarette out in the street!

I went up to the cop, and asked him: "Aren't you going to do anything about that?" Cop looked at me and said: "What?" I told him the person he was talking to just threw a cigarette out into the parking lot!

The cop said: "Yeah, so? What do you want me to do about it?"

I then told him that he "has an appointment with the magistrate tomorrow about an incident where you wrote out a $300 fine to a friend of mine for throwing an apple core into the trees," and walked away.

The very next day, I went in with my buddy as a witness, and told the magistrate exactly what happened. He said the two incidents are not related, but did agree that an apple core in the woods is not exactly "littering."

Well, I sure as hell hope not!

Thanks. I enjoyed that anecdote

[dafydd]

''Popping out for a fag.'' might be misconstrued in the USA.

[bit_pattern]

Originally Posted by dafydd

''Popping out for a fag.'' might be misconstrued in the USA.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=155

[schplurg]

Originally Posted by Dipayan

Keeping in mind that nobody has a concrete idea HOW advertising works, or even IF it works at all, it's quite a leap to claim that advertising makes people take irrational decisions.

Moreover, I think it's quite patronizing to believe that mere advertising is leading millions of unwilling people to cigarettes, and they need a messiah to save them.

This! I can't believe how many people are willing to let government make all the right decisions for them. Slippery slope indeed.

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by schplurg

This! I can't believe how many people are willing to let government make all the right decisions for them. Slippery slope indeed.

Well we have been on the slope for 111 years, so I am sure things are going to get bad some day

[schplurg]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

If we genuinely value freedom, we should no more allow people to addict themselves to nicotine than we should allow them to sell themselves into slavery.

Freedom = you telling me what to do?

Why cigarettes instead of alcohol? Cigarettes kill the user. You can argue second hand smoke is dangerous (although I haven't seen that mentioned here), but compared to alcohol?

One drunk driver can kill a lot of people. No maybes as with second hand smoke. People die as a direct and immediate result of drunk driving.

Spousal and child abuse, fighting at sporting events (or anywhere else), dozens of health hazards including cancers, liver disease. Bigfoot hoaxers stumbling in the middle of the highway. Is there any drug more harmful to society than alcohol?

Next is fattening food. Fat people are expensive to take care of.

So what are we really saying here - that people are too stupid to make proper decisions for themselves about their own health? A lot of people probably are, and it could get expensive, but freedom isn't free - it costs a buck o' five!

[schplurg]

Originally Posted by MG1962

Well we have been on the slope for 111 years, so I am sure things are going to get bad some day

Get bad? I don't know much about Australia, but that time has come here in the US. Not sure when it did exactly....

That's the thing with slippery slopes, you don't always see them until you're already sliding downward.

In the US, cigarette companies successfully shut down businesses that allowed people to use their own tobacco and roll their own with electric rolling machines.

http://www.lvrj.com/business/roll-yo...161539845.html

Quote:

A tiny amendment buried in the federal transportation bill to be signed today by President Barack Obama will put operators of roll-your-own cigarette operations in Las Vegas and nationwide out of business at midnight.

....

The machines are used by customers who buy loose tobacco and paper tubes from the shop and then turn out a carton of finished cigarettes in as little as 10 minutes, often varying the blend to suit their taste. Savings are substantial - at $23 per carton, half the cost of a name-brand smoke - in part because loose tobacco is taxed at a lower rate.
......

"These cigarettes don't have any of the chemicals in them, and the papers are chemical-free, unlike the cartons people buy from Philip Morris."

I don't smoke and I hate cigarettes.

[schplurg]

Sorry but I couldn't let this one slip by...

Quote:

The move, backed by major tobacco companies, is aimed at boosting tax revenues.

LOL! Thank you big tobacco for helping us out! I should thank Obama too since he's the one who signed it.

For those who want government embedded into their lives, this is what they think of you and your intelligence level.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by schplurg

Freedom = you telling me what to do?

Starting off a post with a silly straw man isn't an ideal opening.

Quote:

Why cigarettes instead of alcohol? Cigarettes kill the user. You can argue second hand smoke is dangerous (although I haven't seen that mentioned here), but compared to alcohol?

One drunk driver can kill a lot of people. No maybes as with second hand smoke. People die as a direct and immediate result of drunk driving.

This isn't an argument against tobacco regulation, it's an argument for alcohol regulation.

I think we could probably do a bit more to regulate alcohol, but there's at least arguably a difference in that most responsible alcohol users consume alcohol at well below the threshold of addiction. So if we're arguing that freedom trumps all other possible moral values (a bizarre and I think mostly USian take on morality), but that addiction actually reduces freedom, that doesn't turn out to be as strong an anti-alcohol argument as it is an anti-tobacco argument.

Quote:

Spousal and child abuse, fighting at sporting events (or anywhere else), dozens of health hazards including cancers, liver disease. Bigfoot hoaxers stumbling in the middle of the highway. Is there any drug more harmful to society than alcohol?

I may have mentioned earlier that rhetorical questions are a lazy way of making someone else do your work for you. Would it really have been that hard to google for the actual figures? Tobacco kills far more people annually than alcohol, but alcohol is also a major killer.

To a significant extent, arguing over which of these megadeath-causing substances is worse is like arguing whether Hitler was worse than Stalin. It might be interesting in an abstract sort of way, but it's not going to work as a way to prove that Hitler wasn't really so bad.

(Think that's a silly comparison? Total up the number of people tobacco kills per year over a couple of decades).

Quote:

Next is fattening food. Fat people are expensive to take care of.

So what are we really saying here - that people are too stupid to make proper decisions for themselves about their own health? A lot of people probably are, and it could get expensive, but freedom isn't free - it costs a buck o' five!

We should have a list of expressions that automatically mean you've made up a straw man and lost the argument. I don't think it will catch on here in SI&CE because there isn't a sufficient level of general commitment to good-faith discussion, but it would be a great improvement if it did.

It would include "So what we are really saying here...", "It seems to me you are really saying...", "To sum up everything you've said...", "Basically what you are saying is..." and every other disguise people use for "I'm going to slip in a straw man here, and pretend that I'm engaging in synthesis or clarification rather than lying about what the other person just said".

[Nihilianth]

Originally Posted by bit_pattern

Thanks. I enjoyed that anecdote

heh, thanks. I think that was the first time I have actually received a complement in here.

Originally Posted by dafydd

''Popping out for a fag.'' might be misconstrued in the USA.

heh, yeah. When I read that, I was like: "You're gonna what, and what does that have to do with this?"

[arromdee]

Originally Posted by arromdee

Honestly, I have no idea if it's going into effect; I couldn't Google anything about that. But it was at least being seriously considered.

Update: it's law now.

I can't post an URL because the system requires 15 posts to do that. Google up "new york" "soda ban".