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

61–70 of 71 posts

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

#61

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)…

> 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.

1% is one thing and I don't even know if you have any source to back this claim anyway. But look at 50% of the government official vs 50% of company executives, you'll find the companies are way more "democratic" than the officials.

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

#62

Post by shamney »

chris_wot wrote: post #58
shamney wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

an unimportant distinction as it doesn't change the basic point -- none of those papers can be used to support a casual link between the introduction of plain packs and a decline in smoking.

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

#63

Post by DanBC »

shamney wrote: post #57
DanBC wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Excessive running causes cardio vascular problems.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3538475/

> A routine of regular exercise is highly effective for prevention and treatment of many common chronic diseases and improves cardiovascular (CV) health and longevity. However, long-term excessive endurance exercise may induce pathologic structural remodeling of the heart and large arteries.

> Emerging data suggest that chronic training for and competing in extreme endurance events such as marathons, ultramarathons, ironman distance triathlons, and very long distance bicycle races, can cause transient acute volume overload of the atria and right ventricle, with transient reductions in right ventricular ejection fraction and elevations of cardiac biomarkers, all of which return to normal within 1 week. Over months to years of repetitive injury, this process, in some individuals, may lead to patchy myocardial fibrosis, particularly in the atria, interventricular septum, and right ventricle, creating a substrate for atrial and ventricular arrhythmias.

> Additionally, long-term excessive sustained exercise may be associated with coronary artery calcification, diastolic dysfunction, and large-artery wall stiffening. However, this concept is still hypothetical and there is some inconsistency in the reported findings. Furthermore, lifelong vigorous exercisers generally have low mortality rates and excellent functional capacity. Notwithstanding, the hypothesis that long-term excessive endurance exercise may induce adverse CV remodeling warrants further investigation to identify at-risk individuals and formulate physical fitness regimens for conferring optimal CV health and longevity.

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

#64

Post by loup-vaillant »

ekianjo wrote: post #59
sqrt17 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> you don't have to use [comcast and AT&T] services. Hello, competition ?

Bwahahah, that's a good one. Competition in a natural local monopoly setting, are you kidding me? Network infrastructure, especially the last mile, is expensive. Plus, it doesn't make economic sense to duplicate it. What naturally happens in a "free" market, is, some corporation put the first lines, capture almost everyone (because let's be honest, they will have a phone and an internet connection), and have a nifty monopoly. They sometimes lease their lines, but often at higher prices than what they would charge the end customer (it actually happens in France). And don't you try to build a redundant line for yourself: you won't capture half the customers after you do that, switching is just such a hassle.

If you want competition at the last mile, the physical infrastructure must be owned by the state, or the local community. Which will then lease the lines at a reasonable prices without bulk prices that favours the big over the small. Then you will have the condition for a free and efficient market.

Competition is good, but you have to ensure its presence. Free markets are mostly good but you sometimes have to enforce that freedom. (No, that's not an oxymoron. See how static typing sometimes allow you do do things you couldn't reasonably do with dynamic typing.)

> 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.

I have heard of studies showing that a sizeable proportion of kids spend more time in front of the TV than in front of their professor. Couple that with the fact TV is designed to catch your attention without any effort on your part, and I'm not sure which is actually doing most of the brainwashing.

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

#65

Post by loup-vaillant »

ekianjo wrote: post #61
sqrt17 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)…

> 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. 1% is one thing and I don't even know if you have any source to back this claim anyway. But look at 50% of the government official vs 50% of company executives, you'll find the companies are way more "democratic" than the officials.

Depends what you call "company". A 10 person business doesn't concentrate that much power, even if the CEO is a mean psychopathic dictator: that's only 9 employee under his command.

But if you look at big companies (let's say bigger than the equivalent of 1000 full time employees), this is a whole 'nother business.

I don't have the answer either way, but it could be interesting to see where most people are employed. Which masters yield the most labour? States? Companies? Big corporations?

Anyway, how did you came to the conclusion that companies are more democratic than official governments? Most are command economies inside! And while they don't have the legal power to kill you, they do have the power to banish you, and do so much more often than governments do.

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

#66

Post by loup-vaillant »

ekianjo wrote: post #60
DanBC wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 increasin…

> Never seen any tobacco ad with children smoking.

It's more subtle than that. Most of the marketing is underhanded. You can see it in movies. When did you last see a film depicting a negative aspect of smoking? Cancer, bad smell, addiction… I personally can only recall one, maybe two instances. Most of the time, smoking is the reward after some heroic action, a sign of manliness, a classy move, a cool "rebel attitude", or just no big deal.

The studies about that are terrifying. Those films have the power to multiply the likelihood of a kid becoming a smoker by at least three. And I'm talking about kids who already have a smoker's environment (parents, friends…). For those who don't live in an otherwise smoking environment, the multiplier is ten. (Presumably, the initial risk was much lower in the first place.)

So, you don't want your kid to smoke? Turn off the TV, or have strict control over what your kid watches. Don't smoke yourself, and don't let people smoke in front of your kid. You've got to admit, past some point, it's just too much effort. Past some point, collective action is required. I think one of the first steps is to recognise that tobacco is an addictive drug. That, like any other recreational drug, it should be used with extreme care.

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

#67

Post by chris_wot »

shamney wrote: post #62
chris_wot wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

an unimportant distinction as it doesn't change the basic point -- none of those papers can be used to support a casual link between the introduction of plain packs and a decline in smoking.

Well, no it is important. The first review from the University of Stirling is a review of the literature showing that plain packaging helps makes warnings more clear, packs were less appealing, and expose the reality of smoking - all causal factors to reduce smoking rates - especially amongst younger people.

The BMJ study, "Introduction effects of the Australian plain packaging policy on adult smokers: a cross-sectional study", found that plain packaging helped increase the urgency for smokers to quit. That's a causal link to reduced smoking levels.

The BMJ study "How does increasingly plainer cigarette packaging influence adult smokers’ perceptions about brand image? An experimental study" found that plain packaging helped reduce brand interest, helping reduce uptake by younger people. Again, a causal link to reducing the rates of smoking.

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

#68

Post by chris_wot »

ekianjo wrote: post #60
DanBC wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 increasin…

You've never seen a Joe Camel cartoon? I refer you to the following study: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=393811

"The children demonstrated high rates of logo recognition. When analyzed by product category, the level of recognition of cigarette logos was intermediate between children's and adult products. The recognition rates of The Disney Channel logo and Old Joe (the cartoon character promoting Camel cigarettes) were highest in their respective product categories. Recognition rates increased with age. Approximately 30% of 3-year-old children correctly matched Old Joe with a picture of a cigarette compared with 91.3% of 6-year-old children."

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

#69

Post by NicoJuicy »

DanBC wrote: post #33
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.

Wait, nicotine is already addictive. And there is a strong psychological addiction. How can they make it more addictive?

They can optimize the addiction, kinda what's been done with fastfood or ketchup ..

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

#70

Post by shamney »

chris_wot wrote: post #67
shamney wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

an unimportant distinction as it doesn't change the basic point -- none of those papers can be used to support a casual link between the introduction of plain packs and a decline in smoking.

Well, no it is important. The first review from the University of Stirling is a review of the literature showing that plain packaging helps makes warnings more clear, packs were less appealing, and expose the reality of smoking - all causal factors to reduce smoking rates - especially amongst younger people. The BMJ study, "Introduction effects of the Australian plain packaging policy on adult smokers: a cross-sectio…

they provide some support for some potential links between plain packaging and reduced smoking. But, on their own, they don't provide support the introduction of plain packaging causing a decline in smoking rates. This is because there are 1) other potential effects of plain packaging on smoking (for example: lower prices -> greater consumption) and 2) there is no necessary link between surveyed perceptions of plain packs and actual consumption behaviour. My original point still stands: the linked article, with its bold headline and claim of "success" for plain packs in Australia, is irresponsible shitty journalism.
Post reply on HN