So if you're in the US, and you watch TV, at least network television, you've probably by now seen the singularly unpleasant, graphic anti-smoking PSAs that are being aired lately. There's two of them that I know of, which subject you to approx 30 seconds of the incredibly loud, labored breathing and/or coughing of someone suffering/dying from "smoking," followed by a medical fact about smoking (it leads to emphysema, it leads to stroke, et cetera).
To wit (and a fair warning that these are very unpleasant):
Now I'm not arguing that smoking is bad for you, and in fact I'm pretty anti-smoking (I pester the hell out of friends who smoke, and I support the 'no smoking in businesses, public buildings, or within 20 feet of the entrances of such), but seriously? (I should also point out, before anyone goes batcrap on me, that I'm not okay with proposed laws to make smoking illegal in people's residences, homes, or just in general.)
These ads trouble me. Not only are they gross and in-your-face and annoying as all hell, but I can't help but think they could be terribly triggering for people who are only trying to watch their sitcoms or the local news. Now, by trigger, I mean an emotional, or trauma, trigger. Something that could make people really upset. I wouldn't be surprised if they triggered breathing-related motor tics, either (something that occurred to me since I have an occasional one myself).
Now before you say they should grow a pair, two things. One, bravery has nothing to do with anxiety attacks. I would die for someone but I have panic attacks at the thought of fleas on my bed. And Two, come on, they're going out of their way to elicit an emotional response to these commercials.
I just honestly don't think these commercials should be permitted. I think they're way over-the-top and not terribly unlike being beaten with a Bible by a door-to-door evangelist. Surely I'm not the only one?
PLEASE NOTE: The issue is NOT about smoking bans. It is about the PSAs and whether they should be allowed on television. Please don't make this into a debate about smoking bans. Thanks.
As an asthmatic who's condition is genetic and not brought on by inhaling burning hot toxic gasses for the sake of "enjoyment" or vanity, I can honestly say screw all public smokers. I've gone to the hospital a dozen times because I had to go somewhere and the jerks were practically plastered to the entrances with their cigarettes. I am not alone. What you do in your own house is your business and I know the history of prohibitive policies. But it's no longer socially or ethically acceptable to be smoking in public. I look forward to that leash being tightened to the choking point.
I don't dislike these commercials, but I think they're beating a dead horse. As I'm willing to bet you'll see from any responses I get to this post, an addict gets REAL defensive when their drug is attacked. Smokers are particularly vocal and indignant. That's what the drug does to you. You can't see how it controls your thoughts until you're done with it. Point being: who doesn't know smoking is bad for you, at this point? Can anyone in the US, or the developed world in general, actually claim ignorance? The money spent on these adds would have been better spent lobbying for more restrictions on public smoking or setting up low cost-free rehab centers for the droves of ash-tongues out there to have a real shot at getting healthy.
As an asthmatic who's condition is genetic and not brought on by inhaling burning hot toxic gasses for the sake of "enjoyment" or vanity, I can honestly say screw all public smokers...Point being: who doesn't know smoking is bad for you, at this point?
I can claim the exact same thing about cars and pesticides. They are unnecessary and cause thousands of people to be sent to hospital for a whole bunch of reasons. They exist on everything you eat and everything you do in the real world. So are you willing to ban cars, pesticides, polyesters, and 1001 other chemicals used in society?
I can claim the exact same thing about cars and pesticides. They are unnecessary and cause thousands of people to be sent to hospital for a whole bunch of reasons. They exist on everything you eat and everything you do in the real world. So are you willing to ban cars, pesticides, polyesters, and 1001 other chemicals used in society?
Cars and to a lesser extent (but only slightly) pesticides are not unnecessary. Transportation and the need for food products free of insects are essential to society and always have been. It is true, emissions standards could be improved and god help you if you must live in a city. But most people do not live in cities and vehicle emissions do not bring about the instant and sometimes life threatening reactions that cigarette smoke does, usually because the tobacco cloud is more concentrated than the local background pollution.
Asthma is an immune system disease first and foremost. Those substances which you are routinely exposed to often have far less effect on your inflamation levels than something like tobacco smoke.
Also, the majority of the "other chemicals" in society do serve purposes. Tobacco serves none. It has no practical application beyond making poison manufacturers rich and depriving loved ones of someone wholey unique in all the world, in all times.
Ugh, trying to watch the midday news and I'm being subjected to the damn stroke commercial.
Also, guys, I realize smoking bans are a hot-button issue, but this really isn't about that. It's about disturbing PSAs (and potentially other ads, like the ones for that recent excorcism movie) and whether or not people should be subjected to them while watching otherwise innocuous programming like the local news or a sitcom.
Ugh, trying to watch the midday news and I'm being subjected to the damn stroke commercial.
Also, guys, I realize smoking bans are a hot-button issue, but this really isn't about that. It's about disturbing PSAs (and potentially other ads, like the ones for that recent excorcism movie) and whether or not people should be subjected to them while watching otherwise innocuous programming like the local news or a sitcom.
I apologize. I did not mean to hijack your thread. The whole point of the anti smoking propaganda of my first post was to display my considerable hatred for the product as a background for how pointless those commercials were. (IE: even a person as whole heartedly opposed to cigarette manufacture, sale and use as I am thinks these commercials are dumb).
Oh, I'm not mad at you, I completely understand what you mean, but there was no reason for PetraSoft to pick up on that in order to escalate it to an argument. :/
Cars and to a lesser extent (but only slightly) pesticides are not unnecessary. Transportation and the need for food products free of insects are essential to society and always have been. It is true, emissions standards could be improved and god help you if you must live in a city. But most people do not live in cities and vehicle emissions do not bring about the instant and sometimes life threatening reactions that cigarette smoke does, usually because the tobacco cloud is more concentrated than the local background pollution.
Asthma is an immune system disease first and foremost. Those substances which you are routinely exposed to often have far less effect on your inflamation levels than something like tobacco smoke.
Also, the majority of the "other chemicals" in society do serve purposes. Tobacco serves none. It has no practical application beyond making poison manufacturers rich and depriving loved ones of someone wholey unique in all the world, in all times.
You are more or less 100% wrong. The vast majority of people live in the city, in fact 79% of the population does. I feel sorry about your condition, but smoking is as needed as cars and pesticides. You just get the benefit from cars and pesticides. But cars and pesticides cause as much problems as smoking.
Bottom line, if you honestly think that you should get rid of smoking, you should stand in line to get rid of cars and pesticides. They are not required for you to survive, but make life easier. They cause damages to hundreds of thousands of people, ending some lives horribly short. Just like smoking.
To want graphics pictures on one thing that hurt you and helps others is just silly. To not want it on other objects that cause just as much harm to other is hypocritical. And yes, smoking does help people. It harms alot of people, but it helps people.
And yes, smoking does help people. It harms alot of people, but it helps people.
Wait, who does smoking help? Other than tobacco farmers and cigarette manufacturers I can't really see anyone that benefits from it.
On topic, Cigarettes are bad for you. Yeah, I think most people know that. Do we need excessively graphic images to drive that point home? I really think not. Those commercials are just meant to be shocking and sensational. it's just a cheap attempt provoking an emotional rather that an intellectual response. Personally I think it does more harm than good for their cause.
On topic, Cigarettes are bad for you. Yeah, I think most people know that. Do we need excessively graphic images to drive that point home? I really think not. Those commercials are just meant to be shocking and sensational. it's just a cheap attempt provoking an emotional rather that an intellectual response. Personally I think it does more harm than good for their cause.
I agree. It's supposed to be shocking, but as much as they've aired the damn thing, it's lost it's touch. You get desensitized after a while; the next time someone sees the commercial, they'll say "meh" and turn the channel.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The laws of magic are absolute. The laws of physics are optional.
To wit (and a fair warning that these are very unpleasant):
Now I'm not arguing that smoking is bad for you, and in fact I'm pretty anti-smoking (I pester the hell out of friends who smoke, and I support the 'no smoking in businesses, public buildings, or within 20 feet of the entrances of such), but seriously? (I should also point out, before anyone goes batcrap on me, that I'm not okay with proposed laws to make smoking illegal in people's residences, homes, or just in general.)
These ads trouble me. Not only are they gross and in-your-face and annoying as all hell, but I can't help but think they could be terribly triggering for people who are only trying to watch their sitcoms or the local news. Now, by trigger, I mean an emotional, or trauma, trigger. Something that could make people really upset. I wouldn't be surprised if they triggered breathing-related motor tics, either (something that occurred to me since I have an occasional one myself).
Now before you say they should grow a pair, two things. One, bravery has nothing to do with anxiety attacks. I would die for someone but I have panic attacks at the thought of fleas on my bed. And Two, come on, they're going out of their way to elicit an emotional response to these commercials.
I just honestly don't think these commercials should be permitted. I think they're way over-the-top and not terribly unlike being beaten with a Bible by a door-to-door evangelist. Surely I'm not the only one?
PLEASE NOTE: The issue is NOT about smoking bans. It is about the PSAs and whether they should be allowed on television. Please don't make this into a debate about smoking bans. Thanks.
I don't dislike these commercials, but I think they're beating a dead horse. As I'm willing to bet you'll see from any responses I get to this post, an addict gets REAL defensive when their drug is attacked. Smokers are particularly vocal and indignant. That's what the drug does to you. You can't see how it controls your thoughts until you're done with it. Point being: who doesn't know smoking is bad for you, at this point? Can anyone in the US, or the developed world in general, actually claim ignorance? The money spent on these adds would have been better spent lobbying for more restrictions on public smoking or setting up low cost-free rehab centers for the droves of ash-tongues out there to have a real shot at getting healthy.
I can claim the exact same thing about cars and pesticides. They are unnecessary and cause thousands of people to be sent to hospital for a whole bunch of reasons. They exist on everything you eat and everything you do in the real world. So are you willing to ban cars, pesticides, polyesters, and 1001 other chemicals used in society?
Cars and to a lesser extent (but only slightly) pesticides are not unnecessary. Transportation and the need for food products free of insects are essential to society and always have been. It is true, emissions standards could be improved and god help you if you must live in a city. But most people do not live in cities and vehicle emissions do not bring about the instant and sometimes life threatening reactions that cigarette smoke does, usually because the tobacco cloud is more concentrated than the local background pollution.
Asthma is an immune system disease first and foremost. Those substances which you are routinely exposed to often have far less effect on your inflamation levels than something like tobacco smoke.
Also, the majority of the "other chemicals" in society do serve purposes. Tobacco serves none. It has no practical application beyond making poison manufacturers rich and depriving loved ones of someone wholey unique in all the world, in all times.
Also, guys, I realize smoking bans are a hot-button issue, but this really isn't about that. It's about disturbing PSAs (and potentially other ads, like the ones for that recent excorcism movie) and whether or not people should be subjected to them while watching otherwise innocuous programming like the local news or a sitcom.
I apologize. I did not mean to hijack your thread. The whole point of the anti smoking propaganda of my first post was to display my considerable hatred for the product as a background for how pointless those commercials were. (IE: even a person as whole heartedly opposed to cigarette manufacture, sale and use as I am thinks these commercials are dumb).
Sorry, again!
You are more or less 100% wrong. The vast majority of people live in the city, in fact 79% of the population does. I feel sorry about your condition, but smoking is as needed as cars and pesticides. You just get the benefit from cars and pesticides. But cars and pesticides cause as much problems as smoking.
Bottom line, if you honestly think that you should get rid of smoking, you should stand in line to get rid of cars and pesticides. They are not required for you to survive, but make life easier. They cause damages to hundreds of thousands of people, ending some lives horribly short. Just like smoking.
To want graphics pictures on one thing that hurt you and helps others is just silly. To not want it on other objects that cause just as much harm to other is hypocritical. And yes, smoking does help people. It harms alot of people, but it helps people.
Wait, who does smoking help? Other than tobacco farmers and cigarette manufacturers I can't really see anyone that benefits from it.
On topic, Cigarettes are bad for you. Yeah, I think most people know that. Do we need excessively graphic images to drive that point home? I really think not. Those commercials are just meant to be shocking and sensational. it's just a cheap attempt provoking an emotional rather that an intellectual response. Personally I think it does more harm than good for their cause.
I agree. It's supposed to be shocking, but as much as they've aired the damn thing, it's lost it's touch. You get desensitized after a while; the next time someone sees the commercial, they'll say "meh" and turn the channel.
The laws of magic are absolute. The laws of physics are optional.