... dont get me started on the "nanny state" thats seems to be taking over our freedom of choice, speech etc here in the UK!!!

Canada is a bit of a nanny state. Oh yeah, but... but... it's like so many people can't think for themselves anymore and the big industry knows that and is killing us with all the tempting crap.

Protecting people from themselves is taxing us to death.

I dunno... part of me thinks if they can prove you got diabetes 2 from eating like Homer Simpson, you should pay... on the other hand I foresee lawsuits to the makers of the donuts, etc to help. And long court proceedings trying to prove it was genetic, etc.

And having almost killed themselves, they are paying in a hefty way...

Thats fine, let them pay. Once again, my point is society should not be responsible for your health conditions, especially if you made poor choices. You want to live on a flood plain, go ahead. Dont cry to the govt when your house gets flooded. You decide to eat until you weight 500 lbs, dont seek free health care. I know I just sound like an intolerant buffoon, but society cannot support every problem that arises, it is financially impossible. You have to prune some of this out, and the obvious is to stop paying for people who knew what they were doing, did it anyway, and now are facing the consequences.

I don't think it'll make any difference either. I know that I didn't take any notice of the warnings on the cigarette packs when I was a smoker.




The Big Question: Do ever more gruesome warnings really put people off smoking?

The Independent
London, UK
Published: 30 August 2007

Why are we asking this question now?

The Government had decided to make it compulsory for cigarette manufacturers to include graphic pictures of diseased lungs, hearts and other organs on all tobacco products sold in Britain by the end of 2009. After consulting the public and carrying out market research, the Department of Health has chosen 15 hard-hitting images that will be used to accompany stark warnings about lung cancer and heart disease. In 2004, the Government promised to introduce such images on cigarette packets in a White Paper and yesterday it published details of the new rules. It is expected that cigarette packs without the new warnings will not be allowed on sale after 30 September 2008. Other tobacco products will be included in the new regulations from 30 September 2009.

Why is the Government introducing this policy?

Alan Johnson, the Health Secretary, says: "Picture warnings are the next vital step in reducing the number of people who smoke. We are committed to continuing to drive down smoking rates in the UK as smoking remains the number one cause of ill health and early death. We have already made a lot of progress with stark written warnings on cigarette packs. Today's announcement, together with the introduction of the smoke-free law last month and our plans to raise the legal age of sale for tobacco products will potentially save thousands of lives and others will be spared the misery of watching family and friends die prematurely from smoke-related illnesses."

Is there any hard evidence that gruesome picture warnings work?

A study published in the British Medical Journal this month found that the bigger and more graphic the warnings are on a cigarette packet, the more effective the health message becomes. It concluded: "Smokers are not fully informed about the risks of smoking. Warnings that are graphic, larger and more comprehensive in content are more effective in communicating the health risks of smoking." Furthermore, it found that smokers who perceive a greater health risk from smoking are more likely to want to quit, and to quit successfully. Professor Robert West of Cancer Research UK estimated that between 5,000 and 10,000 people would stop smoking as a result of the new adverts. This would translate into saving around 2,500 lives a year, he added.

Do any other countries use graphic images on their packets?

In Europe, Britain will lead the way in one respect. Belgium has already adopted picture warnings but only on cigarettes. Romania and Finland, meanwhile, plan to implement similar picture warnings on cigarettes next year. Canada was the first country to use graphic images to reinforce the written warnings. Several other countries, notably Australia, Brazil and Thailand, have also followed Canada's lead.

But do smokers take any notice of health warnings?

Scientists compared the impact of the different types of health warnings on cigarette packets in four countries, Britain, the United States, Canada, and Australia. Although virtually every country in the world includes health warnings on cigarette packets, the size, number and way the information is presented differs significantly from one to the other. In looking in detail at just four countries, the researchers found that the stronger the warning, the more knowledgeable the smokers were about the health risks of their habit.

If the evidence is so clear-cut, why do people object?

It comes down to a person's right to choose when it comes to personal risk. The pro-smoking lobby argue that it is illogical for the Government to spend so much time and effort on anti-smoking "propaganda" when other activities in life are almost as dangerous. Neil Rafferty, a spokesman for Forest, the smokers' lobby group, described the latest effort of the Government as another example of how smokers are being victimised.

"You could construct exactly t he same argument for placing graphic images on bottles of alcohol, but because most people like to drink alcohol, the government doesn't want to offend the majority. The Government are bullying smokers simply because they can get away with it," Mr Rafferty said.

Are fewer people smoking now because of health warnings?

It's difficult to say if it has a direct impact, but in general smoking is in decline although there continues to be a significant number of young people who take it up – especially teenage girls who are on average twice as likely as boys to start the habit. According to Government statistics, in 2006 some 16 per cent of 15-year-old boys smoked regularly compared with 24 per cent of 15-year-old girls. One in a hundred 11-year-olds is thought to smoke regularly, and one in five 15-year-olds has taken up the habit. Smoking has the highest prevalence among the 20-24 age group, with 34 per cent of men and 30 per cent of women of this age smoking regularly.

Can smokers do anything about the new warnings?

They may want to buy the sort of cardboard cigarette cases on sale in France, which conveniently hide the messages when carrying a cigarette packet. In Spain you can buy a range of stickers with remarks like "living is fatal" and "driving may endanger your health". In Britain, smokers can buy stickers saying "buy your own fags" and "smoking is cool".

Why does the Government persecute smokers in this way?

The simple (non conspiratorial) answer is that smoking is the largest known preventable cause of cancer, which accounts for 30 per cent of all cancer deaths – some 400,000 excess deaths in Britain each year. Smoking is known to increase the risk of lethal cancers of the lung, mouth, larynx, oesophagus, bladder, kidney and pancreas. Colon cancer has also recently been added to that long list. In addition, smoking affects the chances of developing heart disease, one of the biggest of all killers. Several studies found that quitting smoking, even in a regular, long-term smoker, significantly reduces the risk of developing these diseases. For instance, within five years of quitting, the risk among former smokers of developing lung cancer falls to half of that for current smokers. After 10 to 15 years, the risk becomes the same as for non-smokers.

Should we use graphic pictures to stop people smoking?

Yes...

* Cigarettes are the biggest single cause of preventable deaths,and anything that stops people smoking is good

* Young people, especially teenage girls, think smoking is cool, and horrible pictures may persuade them it is not

* Studies show that the bigger and more graphic the images, the more knowledgeable are the smokers of the health risks they run

No...

* People have a right to choose their one level of personal risk without vicious government propaganda

* The relatives of people who have died of smoking may be offended by images used in this way

* If smoking really is so dangerous and anti-social, why not make it illegal? At least that would be more honest than using pictures


http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article2906302.ece

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. As a former smoker, I can tell you that the teeny warning on every pack of cigarettes was easy to ignore. A graphic picture of a blackened or cancerous lung would have been a bit harder for me to overlook and probably would have caused me to think more seriously about quitting a lot sooner than I did.
They show driver's education students rather grapic movies about the results of driving carelessly to emphasize the warning that driving carelessly can get you killed. Why? Because it's human nature to say, 'that won't happen to me' when someone verbally warns you, but a bit harder to deny that we are not immune to injury and death when presented with pictures of people just like us who thought the same thing and found out differently.
People have a right to choose their level of personal risk, but they also have a right to be fully informed as to what those risks are. Telling someone considering taking up smoking 'you could wind up with lung cancer' isn't nearly as informative as adding, 'and this is what that looks like'.

Well, I think it's the 'oh, it won't happen to me mentality anyway.'

I mean, people told me that being obese would cause problems, did I listen? No, won't happen to me...

When I tell people (in my own family) about the risks now that I have heart damage did it help them? nope.

I actually know that even showing a smoker a diseased lung (in person) really gross, looked like a piece of charred meat does not help...

I think perhaps some kind of monetary penalty would work. You're insurance (govt included) would be hirer, etc. I still see lawsuits though...

Unfortunately, it's not a very great pic, but these are some of the images that are going to be used:

Ummm...I would consider paying upwards of 6 bucks a pack a monetary penalty and no...it doesn't work. An addict will do whatever it takes to satisfy their addiction. BTDT for 25 years.

*shrug* as I said, as a former smoker I know that having to look at a graphic picture of what I was doing to my lungs every time I picked up that pack would have probably made me think more seriously about quitting a lot sooner than I did but no method is foolproof; only varying degrees of effective and IMO pictures are probably more effective than words.

Personally, I don't get the thought process that thinks smokers are being victimized by being presented with factual evidence of what they are doing to themselves.

no, I meant MUCH more than on the actual cigarettes. I mean no health coverage, even in gov't funded countries, if they smoke.

I think I might have lost weight faster thinking I might have healthcare costs to pay.

we've had the pictures for a long time. Smokers just draw over them or ignore them.

I'm sure some, probably many, do but did you see this part of the original article?



Pictures aren't wildly effective, but according to the study, they are twice as effective as words alone.

I truly don't believe the original article.

what has stopped a lot of smokers is a new attitude in Canada. smokers have very few places to smoke now and there is this odd mean attitude by non-smokers that smokers are stupid and not worthy of considering. they were shoved outside to smoke EVERYWHERE, then just recently, they are told to get several metres away from the entrances.

Break times for them at some businesses (one, mine) was cut out. they are told they must only smoke at lunchtime and once in the morning and once in the afternoon.

I think it's more pressure by this new society attitude. I've been trying to get my nephew to quit and he said that it's like he's a pariah on society now.

In highschools now, my daughter tells me, the smokers are so outnumbered and other students have a right not to sit near them (due to smell).

Is it the pictures or a move in society? I have no idea.

I feel bad for this wave of feeling as I can feel it could happen for overweight people in a strange way. Oh, look at lazy.. etc.

The same thing is happening here although the study points out that half as many are deterred by the written warning here, despite similar policies.
Some employers are adopting a policy of 'if you smoke, you don't work here' and people in my state have been fired from their jobs for testing positive for nicotine, hospitals in my area have banned smoking anywhere on the property for visitors and during work hours completely for employees (and that includes driving to work...employees may not appear at work with the smell of smoke on them at all). My company does not allow smoking anywhere on company property or within 50 feet of property lines (dismissal for violating the rule) and yet the majority of smokers didn't quit...they just walk around the block or go up to the city parking garage to have their smoke break (they can't take our breaks away..union shop, ya know..)
How's 'quit smoking or you lose your income' for a financial penalty? Still...some chose to continue smoking. Ah, the power of addiction to control behavior and choices.

I worry that the 'if you're fat you can't work here' is coming....

oh, i can feel it. All these media stories about how we're all getting fatter.

Can you imagine!????

One of my best friends just found out she was pregnant and is desperate to quit smoking. But just like with losing weight, peope assume you can just quit eating the bad stuff or quit smoking.

however, I wish there was a 'carbohydrate patch'....

Anything's possible but I don't think it to be likely. With 60% plus of the population falling in at least the 'overweight' category, that would leave a severe shortage of workers, don't you think?




When it comes down to it, it really is just that simple; change the behavior, make a better choice. Note, I said simple, not easy. Ultimately, it's my hand that picked up that pack of cigarettes, took one out, lit it and smoked it. Nobody was forcing me to do it. Every time, I had the choice to either smoke or not smoke and I continued to make the choice to smoke for 25 years. Now I make the choice every day to not smoke and I've been making that choice for going on 2 years. Same thing with my choices of what to eat; I buy the groceries and prepare the meals, so if it's not something I should be eating, I don't have anyone to blame for it but myself.
We all have reasons and excuses for the choices that we make, but at the end of the day, they were still our choices.