Your tax dollars at work, buying prime time advertising

[Vocalek]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...vCS_story.html?socialreader_check=0&denied=1\

But the good news is that the networks are giving them a discount.


P.S. - Is the reason you smoked for so many years because you never saw and ad that was scary enough?

I liked this comment best.

Thomas R. Frieden must read Tina Rosenberg's book "Join the Club", chapter 3 Righteous Rebels to see why using disease and fear to get teen agers or adults to sop smoking DOES NOT WORK. For thirty years I practiced medicine and was very much a non-smoking advocate to my patients but my pleas fell on deaf ears most of the time. One problem is that smoking, unlike a bullet or car wreck does not kill instantly, so fear of bad consequences is futile as a motivator. Positive role models of people who never smoked or those who quit 10 years ago and now are great athletes may work.

 

[GIMike]

I've seen those commercials or something similar, they've been out for awhile. Not to sound cruel, but they're disturbing. I would also think they are very extreme. Like, if you smoke a cigarette, you will lose all your hair and can't ever put your face in the water while showering ever again, lest you drown yourself. I think they're going too far. I agree with the positive effect would be better.

 

[DC2]

I disapprove of how my tax dollars are being spent.

 

[haiqu]

If this doesn't stop you smoking, nothing will:

 

[someone3x7]

If this doesn't stop you smoking, nothing will:

I remember that brand. The smoke was real heavy and thick. I couldn't even smoke the whole pack. Ended up bumming them out at parties for shock effect. They didn't used to have that extra warning at the bottom though. Thinking back on it all I am sure glad to be bumming out hits on my PV instead now.

 

[haiqu]

You need to go to better parties.

 

[someone3x7]

You need to go to better parties.

/agreed
Then again my party daze are long over now. As much fun as it might of been its nice waking up before the sun sets...

 

[Fiamma]

The Washington Post article was published in March 14, 2012. I think those ads were intended to go along with the gross pictures they had planned to force on tobacco companies, but the courts shut that program off. I do not watch television but my friends do. No one has said anything about seeing these ads.

I see the CDC had their paws in this project as well.

The country is going further into debt hourly and they spend tax money on TV ads.

 

[GIMike]

CDC: Tips from Former Smokers - Terrie's Ad - YouTube

That is just one of them

 

[BoiseMike]

"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him."

Robert A. Heinlein

 

[Bill Godshall]

At least the CDC's ads about cigarette smoking are truthful and not misleading, unlike Obama FDA's false and misleading claims about e-cigarettes since 2009, and unlike all federal health agencies claims about smokeless tobacco products for the past 25 years.

 

[rothenbj]

Did these ads ever run? The article said a twelve week program, but is dated march.

I personally only know one smoker that died before he was 60 and one ex-smoker, totally unrelated to smoking. The rest just got some nasty disease and were gone. These negative campaigns may work for a few individuals, but a more possitive approach certainly has a much better chance of getting people off cigarettes.

Something like whatever concoction I currently have in my e cig. Unfortunately I always have a little of this and that in my tank at any one time. Whatever I mixed up had eveyone asking what it was last night. It kind of smells maple syrupy and tastes yummy and I only vape for advertising at this point. There's always a smoker around the corner looking for a way out.

 

[Vocalek]

At least the CDC's ads about cigarette smoking are truthful and not misleading, unlike Obama FDA's false and misleading claims about e-cigarettes since 2009, and unlike all federal health agencies claims about smokeless tobacco products for the past 25 years.

Whether or not the ads are misleading is dependent on what message the viewer takes away. For example, in one ad, I saw a young man strapping on his artificial legs and we are told that smoking disrupted the circulation in his lower legs. He developed gangrene and had to have the lower part of both legs amputated.

Take-way message? Young people frequently lose limbs because they were smoking.

The rest of the story? The young man had a very rare condition. In actuality, the odds of a young person losing limbs due to smoking pales in comparison to lives and limbs lost by young people due to somebody's drunk driving.

There is a very, very long delay in most cases between starting to smoke and beginning to see adverse health effects. In fact, the public health folks don't even begin to count "smoking-related deaths" until age 35. Kids know lots of people in their teens, 20s, 30s and even 40s who have no visible adverse health effects even though they have smoked for years. So what are they going to conclude from these ads? a) They might be lying to me, because I don't even know anyone who has ever had any of these things, or b) Maybe it's possible some of this stuff might happen to me, so I will just smoke for a couple of years and then I'll quit.

You want to get the kids where they live? Concentrate on the social messages...like not getting a second date with someone you really liked because the other person couldn't stand the smell of smoke on your breath. That's much more immediate and much more believable to an adolescent.