Home Politics & Debate
At The Mix, we want to make our services as helpful as we can. To do this, we’d love to ask you a few questions about you, your visit to The Mix and its impact. It should take only about 5-10 minutes to complete. Take this survey and get a chance at winning a £200 Amazon voucher​.
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Sign up here

Graphic images on cig packs from next year

MixBotMixBot Posts: 8,656 Automated Account
Starting next year, this could be on the back of cigarette packets.
image2.jpg

If anyone feels offended by me showing this picture, I apologise unreservedly. It is not my intention. The Department for Health are currently looking into the warnings on packets of cigarettes. According to the BBC: "The public are being asked to choose a series of picture warnings to appear on cigarette packets from next year. People can give their opinion on a range of images designed to highlight the dangers of smoking on a website set up by the Department of Health. Evidence shows that images have a greater impact than written health warnings alone, and they have already been introduced in some countries. Images include diseased lungs, a dying smoker and a foetus in the womb." >> Details >>

Interesting suggestion. Let me declare now that I don't smoke. I don't particularly like smoking, but I don't especially mind if those around me choose to do it. However, why is the Government doing this? Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt explains: "We have already made a lot of progress with the stark written warnings on cigarette packs. However, these messages become less effective over time so we now need to refresh our approach by introducing new hard-hitting images. We know that these type of warnings have already been successful in other countries such as Canada, Singapore and Brazil."

Fair enough, but what happens when the latest set of pictures become "less effective over time". What do you replace them with then? Would this put you off smoking? Or is it now time to accept there is a "hardcore" of smokers out there who will never give up?
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
«13

Comments

  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    Jesus.

    Fuck off people tbh. We have freedom of choice, don't we? If I chose to smoke, why am I not allowed? It is MY body. And more to the point... this will just piss me off. Yes, they will become less effective over time. The big writing at the moment is a joke.

    In a way, this is degrading the poor person who is dead. The image of them, dead, will become a joke. It won't put people off. They'll just not look at the fag packet much anymore.

    Will they put people who die of alcohol poisoning on cans of beer? No. So why are fags different? Drinkers die younger too.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think the government should stop trying to tell people what and what not to do.

    It doesn't matter anyway, most of the fags I get are foreign one's, the warnings are all in Polish or some shit.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There is a stubborn hardcore, but there are a lot of people who are affected by the messages. Smoking cessation services are often swamped with people wanting to give up. But clearly there is a social movement away from smoking in public and it isn't being orchestrated by top level politicians. Ordinary people are starting to object to second hand smoke in a way they never have before, and even "social smokers" are finding that they are becoming a minority. The drink driving epidemic didn't stop because the government imposed punitive taxes or harsher punishments, but because it became socially unacceptable.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    turlough wrote:
    I think the government should stop trying to tell people what and what not to do.
    its a 'double sided coin' though.
    they wawnt people to stop for health reasons so feel duty bound to warn them.
    but they love reaping in the taxes they get from evry pack of cigarettes sold.
    tbh i think the uk is too much of a 'nanny state.'
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    In a way, this is degrading the poor person who is dead. The image of them, dead, will become a joke. It won't put people off. They'll just not look at the fag packet much anymore.
    With all due respect, I'm fairly certain that the Department of Health would have obtained permission from the family of the deceased person before using the picture. If they hadn't, rest assured they would be suing the department for every penny it's worth.
    Kentish wrote:
    Ordinary people are starting to object to second hand smoke in a way they never have before, and even "social smokers" are finding that they are becoming a minority. The drink driving epidemic didn't stop because the government imposed punitive taxes or harsher punishments, but because it became socially unacceptable.
    Not entirely sure about comparing drink-driving with smokers, but I see what you're saying.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    With all due respect, I'm fairly certain that the Department of Health would have obtained permission from the family of the deceased person before using the picture. If they hadn't, rest assured they would be suing the department for every penny it's worth.
    Would you recognise him? :confused:
    Not entirely sure about comparing drink-driving with smokers, but I see what you're saying.
    What's not to get?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    When i was in canada they had pictures of removed lungs and stuff on them, having said that, it didnt put me off.

    I smoke because i enjoy it, if it ends up killing me, i cant say noone ever warned me.

    I aint gonna smoke forever tho, i'll have stopped by the time im 30.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    koe_182 wrote:
    I aint gonna smoke forever tho, i'll have stopped by the time im 30.
    We'll remind you of that post seven years from now. :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I do not see the point in all of the imagery and wording on cigarette packets! Either ban smoking or let people make the choice themselves.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    These tactics have been shown to work for some people. Also, if it deters teenagers from starting then that's all good.
    I think most people realise that the most hardcore smokers will not quit, but if some of the others quit as a result then the end may justify the means.
    Of course I do have some reservations about using photos on the packs themselves, but eh... I'm not fussed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Oh no, the govt trying to make society better....

    Damn them to hell the nanny state meddlers.

    Smoking is bad, the govt is rightly trying to discourage it, these tactics have been shown to work, it isn't rocket science is it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    otter wrote:
    its a 'double sided coin' though.
    they wawnt people to stop for health reasons so feel duty bound to warn them.
    but they love reaping in the taxes they get from evry pack of cigarettes sold.
    tbh i think the uk is too much of a 'nanny state.'

    Does the money from the tax pay off the money the NHS spend treating smoking related illness?

    I don't smoke but I'm pretty sure that picture would put me off if I did.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They do this already in Brazil and to be honest I think it is highly appropriate there given the high percentage of illiterate adults who would not be able to understand a written warning.

    Adult illiteracy is actually higher in the UK than most people think so in many ways it would be fairer to give a photo as well or instead of just a written warning.

    These are my favourite fag pack photos I've seen so far:

    Smoking causes sexual impotence:

    fumar.jpg

    222767-1.jpg

    They also have one with a dead foetus on it that says smoking when pregnant increases you risk of miscarriage which is by far the worst image they use.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    who says the guy in the pic is dead, could just be an extra from casualty
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Tbh wouldn't make much difference to me.

    I'm fairly intelligent. I know smokers can die younger. I know it makes your lungs all skanky. I know it increases the risk of getting various diseases.

    I don't need some picture on a packet to tell me that. It's like they think people who smoke, smoke because they don't realise the risks?! Maybe if your like 6 or something.

    And i don't think it'd put much kiddys off smoking. They mainly do it out of curiousity or to fit in with the crowd. Don't think a pic of dead person is gonna make much diff.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    pics of dead people made a lot of difference with drink driving
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MrG wrote:
    pics of dead people made a lot of difference with drink driving

    Yeah but thats hurting other people. If you smoke your mainly hurting yourself.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    LacyMay wrote:
    Yeah but thats hurting other people. If you smoke your mainly hurting yourself.
    Someone's bound to raise the issue of "second-hand smoke" now. The term in itself is a bit of a strange one, and no one knows exactly how much of an effect it actually has.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    stargalaxy wrote:
    Someone's bound to raise the issue of "second-hand smoke" now. The term in itself is a bit of a strange one, and no one knows exactly how much of an effect it actually has.

    Aye. Some studies have said no effect, others say laot.

    Who knows.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    Someone's bound to raise the issue of "second-hand smoke" now. The term in itself is a bit of a strange one, and no one knows exactly how much of an effect it actually has.

    Yeah but second hand smoking is a completely different issue.

    Looking at a dead bloke on a fag packet is not gonna make me think about the fact other people are breathing in my smoke, or the fact i'm hurting myself.

    Looking at someone thats innocently died as a result of drink driving is gonna make me not drink and drive though. I could kill loads of people if i was pissed in my car, theres a world of difference to me.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    LacyMay wrote:
    Looking at a dead bloke on a fag packet is not gonna make me think about the fact other people are breathing in my smoke
    Would this image make you think about the harm smokers cause to others?

    allergy-medium_small.jpg
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This measure will not be affected at all since people already know the dangers of smoking, we don't need the nanny state to tell us what do to. It must be abolished immediately.

    If you want to smoke cancer sticks then that's your choice.

    I fail to understand why the government is so keen to combat smoking when it produces a large revenue for them to waste. I just think there should be public awareness about the dangers of smoking, especially at school and to mmake it seem uncool, which it is.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    luke88 wrote:
    This measure will not be affected at all since people already know the dangers of smoking, we don't need the nanny state to tell us what do to. It must be abolished immediately.
    By that theory, you'd also be in favour of getting rid of the written warnings. Is that right?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    By that theory, you'd also be in favour of getting rid of the written warnings. Is that right?
    Is there any proof it's having an affect?

    If not then I don't see the point in it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Randomgirl wrote:
    Would this image make you think about the harm smokers cause to others?

    allergy-medium_small.jpg
    Quite affective actually... well maybe because I don't smoke.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    luke88 wrote:
    Is there any proof it's having an affect? If not then I don't see the point in it.
    The biggest fall in smoking levels was in the 1970s and 1980s. I doubt we had thousands of smoking cessation officers back then. *waits for Kentish to come along and berate me for saying this* The numbers of young women smoking are rising, however - why?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    My first thought would more rightly be what sort of parent brings their asthmatic child into a smoke filled environment in the first place?

    That said, Id also be curious if that isnt a photo from a house or building fire used as propaganda.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    *waits for Kentish to come along and berate me for saying this*
    :confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    :confused:
    Well, whenver I talk about smoking cessation officers, you usually respond with something about how useful they apparently are on the public payroll, etc, etc...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK maybe, not me. I doubt I've passed judgement on such posts.
Sign In or Register to comment.