11–20 of 38 posts
Nice to see ben goldacre's writings up on here. He is a clinical epistemologist by training but he has rapidly moved into the world of science journalism (or perhaps meta-journalism) due to his popularity as a writer and speaker.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Man, you would think that almost ghoulish imagery in the URL you posted would keep people from buying cigarettes, but I imagine people still buy them in droves nonetheless. I like that at least the Australian government doesn't cave to the Tobacco companies.
I don't smoke, but I don't think that imagery would stop me buying cigarettes if I did. I know how horrific the potential consequences of riding a motorcycle or driving a car look, but I still do that. The insides of even a relatively healthy old person won't look particularly pleasant either. The fact is, people will be aware that not everyone who smokes ends up looking like those images, which will help them ignore…
It's an addiction after all, and I doubt if you wrapped any other drug (cocaine, meth, etc.) in a bag with these images drug-addicts would stop buying. Most likely, the anxiety of seeing something so horrific would make a drug-addict use more substance to escape from yet another worry.
I'm not into conspiracy theories, but in this case, I believe governments make too much money through cigarettes to really want to help people quit. These measures are just to make them look morally correct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The entry point for new smokers is a little older than 10. I think it's more like the early teen years. At that point, I think the "gruesome is cool" phase has abated a bit. Besides, the attraction towards gruesome has to war with young people's preference for sweet tastes. There is nothing sweet about the smell of cigarette smoke. It's incredibly bitter and acrid smelling. The smell was one major reason I never trie…
As someone who used to smoke "Black Death" cigarettes, I'm inclined to disagree. Perhaps they should put Goatse on each pack, and then people wouldn't be inclined to carry the packs around.
[1] http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/10/science/la-sci-e-cig...
[2] www.hsph.harvard.edu/centers-institutes/population-development/files/article.jphp.pdf
The thing I find interesting is the FDA's blatant hostility towards electronic cigarettes despite their demonstrated health benefits over ordinary cigarettes (light or otherwise). [1] [2] Electronic cigarettes simply vaporize nicotine and deliver the nicotine straight to the user with at most trace amounts of tar and carcinogens. A number of studies and at least one meta-study [3] have all found that electronic cigar…
The thing I find interesting is the FDA's blatant hostility towards electronic cigarettes despite their demonstrated health benefits over ordinary cigarettes (light or otherwise). [1] [2] Electronic cigarettes simply vaporize nicotine and deliver the nicotine straight to the user with at most trace amounts of tar and carcinogens. A number of studies and at least one meta-study [3] have all found that electronic cigar…
It is only surprising if you assume that FDA is a consumer-friendly agency, which exists to protect consumers and keep them safe. In reality I think they are heavily lobbied and influenced otherwise (via a revolving personnel door for ex.) by large drug companies, agro-businesses and big tobacco.
If someone's smoking, they've already made the decision to do it, health consequences be damned. I doubt that warning labels, gross pictures or any other kind of package manipulation has a significant effect.
The thing I find interesting is the FDA's blatant hostility towards electronic cigarettes despite their demonstrated health benefits over ordinary cigarettes (light or otherwise). [1] [2] Electronic cigarettes simply vaporize nicotine and deliver the nicotine straight to the user with at most trace amounts of tar and carcinogens. A number of studies and at least one meta-study [3] have all found that electronic cigar…
The article didn't mention either the FDA or electronic cigarettes.
Somehow I doubt that the packaging really influences what someone smokes and how much they smoke of it. People make decisions based on taste, strength and habit more than they do on marketing and especially pack design. If someone's smoking, they've already made the decision to do it, health consequences be damned. I doubt that warning labels, gross pictures or any other kind of package manipulation has a significant…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article didn't mention either the FDA or electronic cigarettes.
It didn't have to for the parent's comment to be worthwhile.