Kvalhion

From the American Lung Association :

Granted, their population was only 1000 smokers, but the point is a majority of smokers would like to stop smoking. If anything, anti-smoking commercials will sometimes bring to the forefront the "I should try to quit" idea with people who already smoke, even if they do not like the adds. Will they actually quit? Probably not. The article also says people have tried to quit on average 5.3 times. The same thing applies to me when I see weightloss commercials or infomercials. I think they are stupid and ineffective, but at the same time it does get me to thinking about changing my daily routine again to become more healthy. Will I actually do it? Maybe, maybe not. I've certainly tried more than 5.3 times though.

As far as targeting potential smokers.. the information is already out there. Teen or not, someone who starts smoking now knows what they are doing. Like someone mentioned before, exposing the marketing that specifically targets young smokers is a good idea, but ultimately the choice is going to be their own. The decision has many more factors on whether or not it is bad for you.

Lastly, if people want to smoke, that's fine by me. But I wholeheartedly disagree that because someone has the right to smoke, they somehow get the right to force others to breathe their smoke. That's bullshit. The legislation to ban smoking in public areas is right on the mark. It's a shame that we must make laws to force other people to be a bit considerate towards others.

Godless Dave

LadyShea, I assume this wasn't directed at me but I have no intention of villifying you. I don't have a problem with smokers (as you know I also use an inhaled-smoke drug), but I do have a problem with the tobacco companies. They have had the government and big money on their side for too long. Sure, anyone with a brain knows smoking is unhealthy, but I still remember when for every scientific study about the health effects of smoking the tobacco industry would pay for a fake study saying the opposite. It's one thing to make money off an addictive unhealthy drug, but it's another to lie to the customers and potential customers about it's addictiveness and health effects (and pay for product placement in entertainment so smoking looks more common than it is, and bribe politicians so yours is the only drug that's not regulated, etc.). The very fact that tobacco isn't regulated by the FDA is ridiculous, as it is both a drug and an agricultural product.

eldar1011

There was a recent episode of Penn & Teller's "Bullshit" covering this very topic. According to the documents cited in that episode, there hasn't been a solid link established between second hand smoke and poor health. Although, it is my understanding that this is true only for adults.

For children, second hand smoke probably does cause some damage. Does this mean that smoking should be banned in bars? Probably if the clientele consists of a significant number of children. But for adults, not necessarily.

brighid

A medical study from NZ:

http://www.ndp.govt.nz/tobacco/Morbi...retteSmoke.pdf

The Health Effects of Passive Smoking - A scientific information paper :
http://www.health.gov.au/nhmrc/publi...es/ph23syn.htm

"Summary of findings "

This scientific information paper is an extensive review of evidence published in peer-reviewed scientific journals linking passive smoking (the intake of second hand smoke or environmental tobacco smoke) to disease.

This review has found important associations between passive smoking and a number of serious illnesses including asthma in children, lower respiratory illness, lung cancer, major coronary conditions and other illnesses.

As there are very few Australian data on the exposure to environmental tobacco smoke outside the home, this information paper estimates the risk of illness from exposure to tobacco smoke at home for people who have never smoked. "

Chapter 3 of this paper is of particular interest: http://www.health.gov.au/nhmrc/advic...hap3/index.htm

"The weight of evidence indicates that exposure to ETS is associated with asthma in childhood, and this association is most likely causal. Does ETS cause asthma, or does it only increase the severity of asthma among children who already have this condition? This question is not one that can be answered readily, as it is difficult to pinpoint the beginnings of asthma, and it may be argued that the condition, once acquired, is lifelong. However the scientific literature suggests that passive smoking may influence both aetiology and severity. Prospective studies have shown that first-ever episodes of asthma occur more commonly among children whose mothers smoke than among children whose mothers do not smoke [Martinez et al. 1992]. Furthermore, studies of children known to suffer from asthma have shown that exposure to ETS tends to make the condition worse [Murray and Morrison 1989, Chilmonczyk et al. 1993]. A review of children with asthma admitted to Davis Medical Center in California found that exposure to ETS was the strongest risk factor for severe disease requiring intubation (odds ratio = 22.4; 95% confidence interval: 7.4-68.0) [LeSon and Gershwin 1995]. In a small US study, children admitted to hospital with acute asthma were found to recover more slowly if they were exposed to ETS at home [Abulhosen et al. 1997]. The mechanisms of action are likely to be the same for induction of new cases and aggravation of existing cases, distinguished only by the diagnostic threshold above which symptoms attract medical attention and lead to a diagnosis of asthma. "

Here is one article (doesn't give the details of the report in scientific terms, just results)

http://www.efc.co.nz/infocat.php3?category=7


Second hand smoke increases both the severity and prevalence of asthma in children. Second hand smoking by children impairs lung function.

Children of parents who smoke are twice as likely to suffer serious respiratory illness. This effect is greater for children under two, but significant for older children too.

From the OMA -

"For more than 30 years, the U.S. Surgeon General's reports, based on strong scientific evidence, have identified tobacco use and exposure to second-hand smoke as serious public health hazards. In 1986, reports by both the U.S. National Research Council and the U.S. Surgeon General concluded that second-hand smoke causes lung cancer in adult non-smokers, and that children of parents who smoke have an increased frequency of respiratory symptoms and acute lower respiratory tract infections, as well as evidence of reduced lung function.5, 6 These facts were confirmed and strengthened by the 1992 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assessment of the health effects of second-hand smoke.7

A scientific consensus has emerged during the past 10 years that second-hand smoke is a major cause of lung cancer and respiratory disease in young people. More recently, evidence has accumulated of a causal link to heart disease. These facts have led to a growth in concern for the health of individuals not addicted to tobacco, but exposed to second-hand smoke."

"There is sound evidence that exposure to second-hand smoke in childhood is associated with an increased probability of developing asthma among certain at-risk children, and suggestive evidence that children who are not at risk and are exposed to second-hand smoke may have a higher-than-average risk of developing asthma. For asthmatic children, second-hand smoke has a causal role in asthmatic-related morbidity. Exposure to second-hand smoke represents a serious pediatric problem which has been estimated to double the risk of infection and death in children.17 They must be protected from the adverse health hazards of involuntary exposure to second-hand smoke. "

Brighid

Jagged

I'm not a smoker, but I've never liked the tone of those "Truth" campaign commercials. In fact I find them really distasteful. Arrogant. Mean. Judgemental. The equivalent of fundies yelling "baby killers!" at abortion doctors. Not helpful. All they do is put people on the defensive and make it harder for real communication to happen.

Smokers are people and should be treated as such, with respect. Who doesn't know that smoking is really bad for you? There would be much more helpful things "Truth" could do with their budget. Perhaps give practical advice to those trying to kick the habit?

What productive results are likely to follow from "yelling" at tobacco companies? They'll pull down the shades and turn up their radios. So what. How does that help anyone?

Sakpo

In high school I was amongst a group selected to miss half a day of classes so we could watch and review anti smoking commercials. These were Canadian commercials so it's unlikely non Canadians would be aware of them.
As they explained it to us, they were looking to find out which ads appealed most to teens and presumably would have the most impact preventing us from starting or get us to quit...based on our (and other similiar groups) ratings of them. I seriously hope they were lying to us because otherwise their methodology was pretty flawed.

Some of the ads were actually pretty good. They were the types that were non judgemental, didn't go out of their way to gross the viewer out but did make the negative health effects smoking has had on individuals clear (you know, the type showing someone smoking through a hole in their throat, that sort of thing). Another one that seemed to get a reaction from the females was one in which they showed a girl saying she smoked to slim down and then showed the negative effects of smoking on attractiveness (I found it quite unconvincing). Nonetheless, these ads which I think really did get good anti smoking messages across weren't as flashy or entertaining as some of the others, which did get top marks from most people. You see, high marks had to be reserved for stupid "funny" commericials that entertained the audience but I doubt really made anyone think smoking was bad... one went aproximately like this (I know it makes little sense at some moments, neither did the actual ad):

A trendy looking young man and a trendy looking young woman enter a restraunt. They are clearly on a date.

Male: So, what's your biggest pet peeve?
Female: Definitely smoking!
Male: Heh, me too. Just a second, I'm going to go get a breathe of fresh air...
The camera pans to look out a window...it's raining like a damned monsoon from a Vietnam War movie. It wasn't before, so obviously this is HILARIOUS! Audience goes nuts.
Male: Wait, on second thought, I'm just going to go to the bathroom instead.
Cut to washroom. Male gets out cigarettes and starts to light up, but then someone else walks in. He gets into a stall and lights a cigarette. This causes the smoke detector directly overhead to go nuts, so he gets up on the toilet to try to tamper with it, slips, and gets his foot soaked in the toilet. Audience goes nuts. Anti smoking message briefly flashes on screen. Finis.

Unfortunately, that ad got super high ratings because we saw it three hours in and everybody was bored and depressed after watching much better ads.

Alludium Fozdex

Well, they have George Bush, Sr. to thank for that! Bastard had the temerity to announce on national television that he didn't like broccoli, thus giving kids an airtight excuse not to eat theirs: "The president doesn't eat his broccoli, why should I eat mine?"

Joking aside, IIRC, a number of broccoli farmers got their knickers in a twist over that.

Okay, back to the topic of tobacco...

repoman

http://www.theonion.com/onion3602/drug_use_psa.html

very funny link about ineffective anti drug PSAs at the Onion. I like love the second pic, it almost hints that being drug free will make you a cripple.

Kinross

Disclaimer: I have never smoked a cigarette in my life. I hate cigarette smoke and it gives a very nasty headache when I'm around it.

Anti-smoking ads are completely ineffective. The surest way to get a teenager to do something is to tell them they can't. Everyone knows that smoking is bad for you and every teenager is fully capable of wieghing the risks and deciding for themselves.

One thing I find highly amusing is that a good percentage of the anti-smokers are pot-smokers. Pot is just as carcinogenic as tobacco except the joint doesn't come with a nice little filter with it to block out the tar.

Moving on to second hand smoke. The EPA fabricated its results on ETS. Here is some good information on epidemiology studies to help wade through the fact and fiction of health scares.

As for restaurants. A business owner can set up his eatery anyway he chooses. If you do not like cigarette smoke and the place is not smoke free then don't eat there. There are many places that are smoke free, why not give them your business. As I stated before I'm a non smoker. When I go out to eat I ask for the non-smoking section. If when I sit down I smell cigarette smoke I get up and leave and tell the manager why. I have no right to tell another how to run their establishment but I am free to take my money elsewhere.

Godless Dave

I'm not sure that's true, but for the record I am not an anti-smoker, partly for that very reason - I'd be a hypocrite.

But I don't see the appeal of cigarettes. They don't get you high! If I'm going to give myself cancer I want to get a good buzz going while I do it!