Smoking / Quit Smoking . . . Do picture warnings on cigarettes increase quit attempts?

I think your great points are quite valid.

THANKS.

originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: BO XIAN

The overall creation of neurological structures is interesting, and universally applicable beyond this subject.

But, in the specific arena of smoking, I think we have some other factors in play that affect results. One being that many smokers tend to want to quit, or at least cut down. In this, individuals will tend to look for reasons to do so. Basically, I would ascribe the small discrepancy between groups on the novelty of a new reason, or excuse, to make a quit attempt. Even from the group with text only warnings, over a third made efforts to quit.

I'd suspect that in a market that has been saturated with images of this type for years, the difference between groups would be negligible at best.

In this respect, the pictorial warnings may well be marginally effective in the short term (as shown), in a market where they do not currently exist. However, as a long term solution, it may not only be subject to the issues with constant exposure (desensitization), but could even cause a slight increase in failed cessation attempts (for the reasons detailed in my previous post).

Personally, I'm a big advocate of vaping for these purposes. Though, with the air quality in large population centers, all of this may be a moot point to begin with.

I suppose its also noteworthy that rebellion against authority is common when that authority constantly breaches the trust implicit in the position. Off topic as an overall subject, but I do believe it plays a part in these things.

originally posted by: Bluesma
a reply to: BO XIAN

All the packs here already have gruesome photos on them. That was started many years ago.
When I was a smoker, I didn't feel any impact. I knew the risks. I just was not real happy with my life and thinking dying earlier sounded fine with me, as long as I can find some pleasure it that shorter life.

I think there is sometimes a slightly suicidal subconscious element to it already. It made me laugh to hear people trying to scare me by telling me I'll die. Living a long life with the daily crap I detested was nothing I aspired to.

Worthy points.

Sounds like a horrid time in your life.

I pray things are greatly better now.

Cheers.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Those are certainly reasonable points, imho.

Congrats on quitting.

originally posted by: Caver78


I think you may be soap-boxing a bit here....LOL!

Who, me? LOLOL.

Bringing any religion into this is unnecessary. Not to mention not every smoker is christian, I certainly am not.
I'm offended you did.

Oh GOOD GRIEF. Get OVER it! RELIGION--for good or bad--happens to be a big influence in everyone's life one way or another. The Supreme Court affirmed that atheism is a religion. Deal with it.

It was fitting to mention in this context because I was noting (A) in Bobby's case that even his religious motivation did not help him a lot. He was still self-destructive and irrational about it.

I was also noting that (B) my value orientation includes the exhortation that all of us have hearts that are deceitful and wicked in whatever sense. And THAT HAS to play a part in self-destructive behaviors and choices.

I understand you are allergic to the mere mention of religion/ Christianity. I doubt there's a fitting pill for that.

That's my perspective. That's my opinion.

You can CHOOSE to be offended, or not. You CAN choose to realize it's merely my perspective, my opinion and that my such have just as much "right" to be included in posts hereon as yours do.

Sheesh.

People decide to smoke for many different reasons and NOT all in the teenage years. I didn't start till I was 25, married and successfully living independently.

It wasn't because I was peer-pressured, it wasn't because I was neglected as a child, it wasn't because I was uneducated. It certainly wasn't because of the Marlboro man and big tobacco's marketing!

They taste good and I like them, the KISS principle is applicable here.

Sweden had massive success with a vaccine that was an antismoking deferent and years ago it went to human trials. I showed it to my Internist. Surprisingly nothing has been heard since and guaranteed the FDA won't approve it.
There may be a day when I voluntarily wish to quit, however should that day come I am not willing to be forced into needless discomfort when it absolutely ISN'T necessary.

Regardless everyone quits when they die, so don't give up hope,
ROFL!!!

Yes, Death concludes a lot of things.

I understand that there are many people who do not begin smoking in their teen years.

Thanks for sharing your experiences and perspective.

a reply to: BO XIAN

never saw picture of cancer on smokes before when you buy them from the cig machines its really convenient

a reply to: BO XIAN

Oh, please don't misunderstand--I think that the government has zero right or design to tell people what we can and cannot put into our bodies. If you thought that was my intent, I'm sorry I wasn't more clear.

There are plenty of anti-smoking groups out there that can fund the quit-smoking campaigns. There are doctors to tell their smoking patients what the negative effects are. There are family members and friends who are capable of being honest with smokers and helping support quitting.

Point is, there is no need for government to stick its nose into either the smoking industry's nor smokers' right to produce or consume the product.

I'd like to see a world where people weren't addicted to the stuff, but quite honestly, I'm not convinced, at all, that it's the nicotine that's the real problem in cigarettes--it's all the other chemicals and crap in there. Modern cigarettes are nothing like what the Native Americans were smoking back in the day.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I suppose you missed the part about Id still smoke no matter what gov trying to play parent decides? My body my right doesnt just cover the abortion issue.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

No I did not miss it.

Its just time smokers to stand up and tell everyone to butt out of our business.

Did you miss the part in the OP where he called smokers "discusting".

Why in hell do we put up with that #?

As for studies that show that parts of the brain of a smoker light up when they look at a new picture, indicating that they are paying more attention. Well show them a new picture of anything and I am sure they will pay attention, we all do the first time just to see if we have it in our collection.

Has anyone ever heard of first and second order desires.

Ask a fat person if they want to loose weight. A vast majority will answer yes. Then put a juicy cheeseburger in front of them. The vast majority will eat it. That is because the second order desire is to lose weight. The first order desire is to eat that cheeseburger.

When smokers say they want to quit smoking, they are expressing a second order desire. Usually, when a smoker is asked if they want to lose weight, what they want is for the person asking to mind their own business. Saying you are going to quit is a way of shutting down the conversation.

When people ask me if I want to quit smoking, I usually look them up and down and ask them why they want to know. if they persist, I ask them if we can discuss their wieght problem. They usually get offended at this point and I innocently reply that I thought personal lifestyle choice discussion were up for grabs. If they discuss mine, I can certainly discuss theirs.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: BO XIAN

its absurd. Morbid.

Not at all a deterrent. The television ads remind me to smoke.

I say lose the farce.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Picture warnings are useless at preventing smoking. Smokers know the risks, but many continue to smoke because they're addicted to it. Rather than waste money on graphic and offensive pictures, the funds should go towards subsidizing stop smoking aids like electronic cigarettes.

Just my opinion, as a former smoker who quit after 29 years.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

No I did not miss it.

Its just time smokers to stand up and tell everyone to butt out of our business.

Did you miss the part in the OP where he called smokers "discusting".

Why in hell do we put up with that #?

As for studies that show that parts of the brain of a smoker light up when they look at a new picture, indicating that they are paying more attention. Well show them a new picture of anything and I am sure they will pay attention, we all do the first time just to see if we have it in our collection.

Has anyone ever heard of first and second order desires.

Ask a fat person if they want to loose weight. A vast majority will answer yes. Then put a juicy cheeseburger in front of them. The vast majority will eat it. That is because the second order desire is to lose weight. The first order desire is to eat that cheeseburger.

When smokers say they want to quit smoking, they are expressing a second order desire. Usually, when a smoker is asked if they want to lose weight, what they want is for the person asking to mind their own business. Saying you are going to quit is a way of shutting down the conversation.

When people ask me if I want to quit smoking, I usually look them up and down and ask them why they want to know. if they persist, I ask them if we can discuss their wieght problem. They usually get offended at this point and I innocently reply that I thought personal lifestyle choice discussion were up for grabs. If they discuss mine, I can certainly discuss theirs.

Tired of Control Freaks

Bo we can agree to disagree, however, in no way is religion relevant to the conversation.
Neither is calling smokers "disgusting".

Both may be your opinions, but since you "generally" would hope for an inclusive conversation in a thread ( I would hope?).

Smokers come from ALL backgrounds and socioeconomic conditions. If all you wanted to do was discuss a segment of that population you should have made that clear in your OP. Since you generalized about "would those images change behavior" you will get all sorts of replies.

I did not Diss your religion, nor was I offensive about it. Your response was out of proportion to mine. I don't believe I will ever "get over" someone using it as a hammer or interjecting it inappropriately into every conversation. Same as I don't tolerate politics or drugs interjected necessarily.

We CAN agree to disagree.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Freedom of speech of course... without it extremism reigns supreme and voices become muted. How can scales work or growth occur or be possible with out some modicum to achieve balance?

In an individual extremist views are a mental abberation, in groups a danger to many others.
Just because I smoke and will regardless of law... does not mean I do not respect the wishes of those that do not want to be around it.

My view is a middle due to respect... but its my body and no one owns it meaning someone else cannot give consent for what happens to it but me... or else rape would be legal.

I can respect coming from such a middle ground those that say no of your business or I dont want to be around it on both sides.

Just because I smoke doesnt mean I cant see the Nazism of both sides of an argument. I take personal responsibility for my body and actions... I dont need group defence but its nice to have when one group wants to gang rape another, and that what justice particularly social justice is all about... and why the US had so much respect to the rights of the individual on its founding in the minds of its founders and of the Authors of its documentation written in plain English that requires no interpretation to twist and cherry pick for specific group agendas to make it say what they want it to say for whatever intent or purpose(s).

So I can defend both sides and I will to the death as thats what keeps freedom ringing free.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

That is a nice speech.....but it has no bearing on reality.

Smokers are financially raped by their government, denied jobs, denied housing and denied places to socialize.

Not wanting to be exposed, now translates to 'if there is a wisp of smoke within 90 yards" or a nanogram of nicotine on the floor.

Smokers are verbally and physically abused. When "they step outside" to have a smoke, they are subjected to the criminal element.

Get over your fine speech, you are simply too much of a coward to fight for self-respect.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Well the reality is youre on an extreme end as the scales are tipped out of favor by the other extreme looking for warriors to help your cause to balance the scales... in society non smokers had no say up intil the early 90s so call it karma as thats how such things operate... all that smoker freedom extreme has led to this new extreme.

Thats just how it operates... Im not going to get my panties twisted and dance like a monkey over social programming from my "non realistic" "coward" position.

Good luck in your crusades sir knight.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

So by your reasoning, shouldn't white people be put in chains and made to serve black people as slaves???? You know, karma, its the "right" thing to do.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Certainly the other dreadful chemicals are horrible enough. I forget how many of them there are--a shocking number, IIRC.

And, I also don't like government ordering private lives around . . . though there is the public interest in having to spend public monies to clean up dreadful results of smoking e.g. in helping an emphysema patient die as mercifully as possible. That's not exactly cheap.

Why should non-smokers have to pay for such an optional selfish problem?

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

However, your body doesn't exist in a vacuum on your own private island.

Thousands of other non-smoking tax payers have to help pay for dying smokers and their expensive treatments every year.

Where do you get off forcing those tax payers to pay for your willful, selfish, expensive problem dumped in their laps against their wills?

It's all nice and independent sounding to decry government managing private lives--which I essentially agree with, generally.

But then to glibly ignore the forced taxation on non-smokers to deal with the aftermath of smokers health problems is rather hypocritical.

a reply to: tadaman

I'm sure for many, you are right.

I don't know the percentage of folks you'd be wrong about. I'm certain, there is such a percentage.

a reply to: ReprobateRaccoon

It IS an empirical question as to whether the pics on packs would discourage smoking more than ads for alternative sources of nicotine.

I don't know of a study sorting that out but imho, it would be worth doing.

Assumptions about it are just ASS U M PTIONS.

Given the varieties of human personalities, motivations and values, I'm sure some would influence some people more than others and vice versa.

a reply to: Caver78

I don't know that my comment was out of proportion to yours. I'd have to look at both closely again to assess that.

I merely made an observation. You seemed to have a strong emotional response to that.

Your assertion that there's no way religion is a fitting aspect of this discussion is wrong on at least 2 counts.

1. Religion tends to be a powerful motivator for those who value it highly. That is relevant to an issue of being motivated to stop smoking.

2. My illustration with my Christian friend who kept smoking while on oxygen to the point of catching his beard on fire 2 different times was a fitting example for the discussion of how even religious motivations are not always that significantly impactful.

Your allergy to the mention of religion is, imho, your own problem. I've provided logical reasons for it's fit in this discussion.

I intended the article as a generalized discussion of a range of general population folks. That's still a fitting scope.

OF COURSE different SEGMENTS of the general population will respond to various influences differently--including pics on packs and ads for alternative sources of nicotine. That's a normal diversification of a generalized discussion. Sigh.

Yes, we can agree to disagree agreeably.