Nicorette Commercial

[iamdougm]

So do you think Big tobacco has anything to do with all of this?

 

[JustMeAgain]

Good points JustMeAgain and I agree wholeheartedly with you - but consider....in a public debate about this, someone would have to come right out and spell that out, publicly and say, "...we can't afford to have people quit smoking tobacco, we can't afford to have all those 'smokers' live longer...our economy just can't handle it...our state budgets would be hurt far too much."

You're absolutely right ~ in fact, I doubt that it's discussed by anyone, even privately, because it's simply too heinous a thought to be voiced. I think it's more of an undercurrent, an unacknowledged reason to persist in opposing what is an obvious improvement on a method that is already embraced as an improvement, but at such low nicotine levels that they are ineffective.

It's a lame commercial for an awful product, but I don't see how that is marketed to children. The curvy container is meant to look like a lighter in size...and the taste is reminiscent of chalk and indigestion.

The GEICO commercial has a talking gecko, yet children have no need for car insurance. Similar thing here.

Maybe it's the way he pops them in his mouth directly from the container. Maybe it's the weird humor of the commercial, but there's something about it that does not say 'here is a medication to help an adult trying to beat an addiction'.

I don't really think it's going to make kids run out and buy them either, but when compared to all the garbage about e-cig being 'marketed toward children' I can't imagine how any sane person could reconcile their conscience that this is more acceptable.

 

[JustMeAgain]

The psychosis began with the publication of a report by the IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer, which depends on the WHO (Editor's note: World Health Organization). The report released in 2002 says it is now proven that passive smoking carries serious health risks, but without showing the evidence. Where are the data? What was the methodology? It's everything but a scientific approach. It was creating fear that is not based on anything.

And yet there are now claims of third hand smoke.

 

[Wafflestomper]

That shark commercial makes me laugh everytime, I'm sorry.

Just reinforces vaping for me... With E-cigs, you would have have noticed the shark in the first place... that and if you have a Chuck, you could beat the shark into submission with it.

 

[D103]

That shark commercial makes me laugh everytime, I'm sorry.

Just reinforces vaping for me... With E-cigs, you would have have noticed the shark in the first place... that and if you have a Chuck, you could beat the shark into submission with it.

LMAO, great comment wafflestomper, I don't even own a Chuck and now I want one!! Cuz you never know.....about them landsharks....
Remember the old Saturday Night Live skits?

 

[woolfe99]

D103, those are good points, but I think there's another aspect to consider ~ It makes sense that lower health care expense as a result of improved health should be the motivating factor. But what about the effect on our economy as a whole should millions of American's change from smoking to vaping? There would be many health care jobs lost, our already broken Social Security system would bear the additional burden when we all live longer, even all those 'society' groups created in the name of health (American Lung Association, American Cancer Society......) would eventually cease to exist. I guess it would even trickle down as far as many of the people who work for Bic would find themselves unemployed.

Everything would eventually readjust - we're going to spend all the money saved somewhere - but I think there are people out there that see this as having a potentially devastating effect on our economy.

And it's a horrible thought that people could disregard the health and wellbeing of others with such a cold, calculating viewpoint.

While people living longer burdens the SS system, the SS system is in nowhere near the distress of Medicare and overall healthcare costs. Most of the healthcare (over 70%) is driven by chronic illness. Smoking causes chronic illness. The basic concept is that if you remove environmental factors which cause chronic illness, people will live longer and also be healthier while they live. People who do not get chronic illness will tend to live into their 80's and 90's and will use medical care only at the primary level, then their health will suddenly go out before they die, without a protracted period of illness requiring expensive treatment. This scenario saves a lot of money versus the alternative of people getting cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc. These kinds of illnesses are treatable but tend not to be curable. The treatments are vastly expensive and can keep people alive for quite awhile. That is the problem with our healthcare costs which are reaching crisis levels: smoking, obesity, etc. cause chronic illness which is expensive to treat and never finds a cure so the treatment cost goes on indefinitely.

So far as healthcare workers losing their jobs, the stress on employers due to high healthcare premiums is a much bigger net job killer. It makes our labor market non-competitive with foreign markets like China, and it's causing us to ship jobs overseas.

In the shortrun perhaps getting people off cigarettes could be viewed as a mixed bag economically, but it's a huge net positive in the longrun. Lowering healthcare costs is in the general public interest, even if it isn't in the interest of every single individual person.

- wolf

 

[Hendry]

Here is a weird one...

French for to smoke is to be a slave to tobacco

what the hell

 

[quakereject]

Mmm, nicotine flavored tic tacs!

 

[Chris Brown]

adults like candy and sharks too xD

 

[sherid]

what the hell

Thankfully, there was an uproar over that hideous pornographic ad, and the ad was banned.
Here's the story.
*
* 522Share
* 3diggsdigg

The French aren't exactly squeamish when it comes to sex. Nor do they typically bat an eye when it comes to racy content in advertising. Now, however, a controversy has erupted over an ad that some feel has gone a step too far: it doesn't just evoke oral sex but actually seems to depict it. Worse still, the salacious images are targeting young people in what would otherwise be a laudable campaign — trying to stop them from smoking.

Family groups, women's rights organizations and myriad bloggers have joined members of Nicolas Sarkozy's conservative government in objecting to what the Secretary of State for Family Affairs, Nadine Morano, has termed a "public outrage to decency" and vowed to ban. On Wednesday, the Association of French Families filed an official complaint with the national advertising regulators, accusing the campaign of violating ethics rules. Why all the fuss? The posters by the Non-Smokers' Rights Association (NSR) each feature a man or woman who looks to be in their late teens kneeling before a fully clothed adult male. A cigarette dangles from the youth's mouth, extending downward before seeming to disappear into the man's pants. Below the photo is a caption that reads: "Smoking Means Being a Slave to Tobacco."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1967782,00.html#ixzz0pucvvE9j

 

[daisyd]

Horray for ecigs in preventing two environmental factors for me. Smoking and obesity. 'Cause when I quit smoking I get fatter, get depressed about gaining weight, and start smoking again. Now I can suck on my ecig instead of chocolate and Doritos.

ETA: that French ad looks a bit like the first time I went to a midnight showing of "Rocky Horror Picture Show". Only we had bananas.