Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

When All Cigarette Packages Look the Same, Fewer People Buy Them

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 71 posts

Re: When All Cigarette Packages Look the Same, Fewer People Buy Them

#51

Post by DanBC »

nrinaudo wrote: post #45
NicoJuicy wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's supposed to do less harm, which actually means nothing as manufacturers are making it addictive.

I don't understand the correlation you seem to be making. Let's take the fact that manufacturers are making e-cigarettes addictive as a given. I'm not entirely sure how that works and suspect you're talking about the juice rather than the actual device, but the distinction is not terribly relevant in that conversation. So, ok, let's assume e-cigarettes are becoming more addictive. How does that correlate to more harm…

Addictive sex or addictive running or addictive programming are all strongly tied to ill-health -- sexually transimited disease or unwanted pregnancy; cardio vascular problems and joint problems; and social isolation and back problems.

Re: When All Cigarette Packages Look the Same, Fewer People Buy Them

#52

Post by chris_wot »

shamney wrote: post #50
chris_wot wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which scientific study that was quoted do you consider problematic? * University of Stirling's study into plain packaging at http://phrc.lshtm.ac.uk/papers/PHRC_006_Final_Report.pdf , or * The British Medical Journal's review of Australian Plain Packaging laws, found here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3710988/ - or... * Perhaps it was the BMJ study into plain packaging, linked here? http://tobaccocontr…

they are articles surveying people's opinions about plain packaging. they don't provide direct evidence for plain packaging > a decline in smoking rates.

You obviously haven't read the studies linked to then!

Re: When All Cigarette Packages Look the Same, Fewer People Buy Them

#53

Post by seren »

chris_wot wrote: post #39
kozhevnikov wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, but those regulations come from somewhere, they come from court cases, from subject matter experts' testimonials, from balanced review of views and facts on both sides. We don't want a random politician with questionable morals and unknown contributors banning products or whole sectors of the market bypassing courts and due process.

Court cases are ultimately decided based on the law which, as you know, is created and enacted on via a parliament or congress of elected politicians. Yes, even case law. Unless you think that a court can rule outside the law?

It might depends if you live in common law or civil law country. In the former case, you could say that sometimes a judge could create a law. Less so in the latter case. GP is very likely coming from the common law perspective.

Re: When All Cigarette Packages Look the Same, Fewer People Buy Them

#55

Post by glomph »

DanBC wrote: post #29
kostja_gee wrote: post #13

My uncle from Russia told me, that they sell cigarettes in natural brown packages. When you want to purchase a package in a supermarket you get list of all the brands they offer. But there are no logos anywhere in the market. It is also forbidden to smoke in any public place. I currently live in Germany. It is strange to see how the government tries to stop people from smoking by only raising a higher tax on tobacco.…

The reasons to ban smoking are i) to prevent harm to the smoker ii) to prevent harm to people around the smoker Banning smoking in all public places may push smokers to smoke more at home or in the car, where their children are. Since children are already severely affected by smoking we need to be careful to avoid anything that increases the amount of smoke around them.

There is no need to speculate. Smoking in public is banned in many countries and it hasn't caused that. It has caused people to give up smoking.

Re: When All Cigarette Packages Look the Same, Fewer People Buy Them

#56

Post by shamney »

chris_wot wrote: post #52
shamney wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they are articles surveying people's opinions about plain packaging. they don't provide direct evidence for plain packaging > a decline in smoking rates.

You obviously haven't read the studies linked to then!

eh?

"Cross-sectional survey during the roll-out phase of the law, analysed by timing of survey."

"How does increasingly plainer cigarette packaging influence adult smokers’ perceptions about brand image?"

Re: When All Cigarette Packages Look the Same, Fewer People Buy Them

#57

Post by shamney »

DanBC wrote: post #51
nrinaudo wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the correlation you seem to be making. Let's take the fact that manufacturers are making e-cigarettes addictive as a given. I'm not entirely sure how that works and suspect you're talking about the juice rather than the actual device, but the distinction is not terribly relevant in that conversation. So, ok, let's assume e-cigarettes are becoming more addictive. How does that correlate to more harm…

Addictive sex or addictive running or addictive programming are all strongly tied to ill-health -- sexually transimited disease or unwanted pregnancy; cardio vascular problems and joint problems; and social isolation and back problems.

running doesn't cause cardiovascular problems.

Re: When All Cigarette Packages Look the Same, Fewer People Buy Them

#58

Post by chris_wot »

shamney wrote: post #56
chris_wot wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You obviously haven't read the studies linked to then!

eh? "Cross-sectional survey during the roll-out phase of the law, analysed by timing of survey." "How does increasingly plainer cigarette packaging influence adult smokers’ perceptions about brand image?"

If you read the articles, you would see that it was about it affected their perceptions, and not necessarily their opinions. And there are three surveys there.

Re: When All Cigarette Packages Look the Same, Fewer People Buy Them

#59

Post by ekianjo »

sqrt17 wrote: post #42
ekianjo wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So, before we get rid of governments and their ludicrously concentrated power, why don't we look at the elephant in the room first: corporations and their even more ludicrously concentrated power? Hey, Marx is back ! Instead of looking at the wrong elephant, i.e. the one actually selling products that people want, I'd say you better attack the one that's 1) taxing you to death for subpar services 2) force-feeding t…

the top 1% of larger corporations (i.e. VP level and CxO level) is more selective (i.e. not composed of normal people like you and me) than governments. For both country governments and the governments of corporations, having some amount of both democratic control (through elections, or through laws that say what corporations can and cannot do - we don't want corporations to poison our kids any more than governments)…

I like how you answer without making any sense.

> taxing you to death for subpar services? Hello, Comcast and AT&T!

you don't have to use their services. Hello, competition ? Well, if you don't have competition where you live, too bad, but then that's probably because of excessive regulation. But if you are in a free country, at least you are free to move around. That's not given in countries with STRONG governments -blink-. Ask North Koreans or even Chinese what they think.

> brainwashing your kids? Disney or Activision would never do that!

You can perfectly live without watching Disney movies or playing Activision games. Living without going to school ? Good luck with that until a gov official knocks on your door.

> can put you into deadly situations? Well, corporations would never do that. No one died in Dow Chemical's (now Monsanto) huge chemical spill in Bhopal. Also, both corporations and governments get rather bad PR when they kill people.

yeah, I'm sure corporations have millions of people's bloods on their hands. World War I ? States. World War II? States. And it's certainly not corporations who killed the dozens of Russians in the Gulags or who killed massively the Chinese during the "Cultural revolution".

Seriously, go grab a book to educate yourself.

Re: When All Cigarette Packages Look the Same, Fewer People Buy Them

#60

Post by ekianjo »

DanBC wrote: post #41
ekianjo wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fact that some people want a product does not create a moral right to that product, Where is the moral right coming from ? That's purely philosophical and I certainly do not want the government (which is no more no less than the dictature of the majority) to tell me what's right or wrong when it comes to what I consume. And if you don't want your children to buy cigarettes, don't give them money, or better, edu…

> And if you don't want your children to buy cigarettes, don't give them money, or better, educate them. It works quite well, but I guess in your reasoning you expect the education to come from the government instead of the parents? No, it doesn't work at all well. Tobacco companies target cigarettes at children. Strict laws, with expensive enforcement, are needed to stop people selling cigarettes to children.

> Tobacco companies target cigarettes at children. Strict laws, with expensive enforcement, are needed to stop people selling cigarettes to children.

Never seen any tobacco ad with children smoking. There are already strict laws regarding the sales and distribution of cigarettes. Honestly, all this "finally the government is doing something" is just massive hypocrisy, because governments have been living on increasing Tobacco taxes for decades. So it's all too convenient to paint the corporations like the Big Bad Wolf when the official distribution of cigarettes was never a free market to start with.

Post reply on HN