Tuesday
Jun122007
Just fancy that!
Tuesday, June 12, 2007 
"Anti-smoking advertising can have the opposite effect of what is intended and actually encourage people to keep smoking, an Australian study says." Full story HERE.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007 "Anti-smoking advertising can have the opposite effect of what is intended and actually encourage people to keep smoking, an Australian study says." Full story HERE.
References (1)
References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.
-
Response: Klubonit 32 postall about Klubonit and top news
Reader Comments (12)
Ya think?
I am so fed up with seeing and hearing anti-smoking propoganda in the form of adverts on TV and Radio thatI now mute the sound when they come on. They definitely do not encourage me to give up but do have the opposite effect, which is also what the total ban has done. Warnings on cigarette packets also have no impact as once seen they become invisible and are just another lot of propoganda anyway spouting lies based on rubbish so called science. I am sure a GCSE science student could come up with more accurate data and facts - of course their results would be unbiased!
It is about time this government stopped rolling over to the tune of ASH and the like and stopped wasting tax payers money on these ludicrous adverts and bans that do nothing except promote what they are attempting to demonise. Yes, money also paid by the rabid anti smoking lobbyists as well reasonable poeple like us smokers and tolerant non smokers.
It has been illegal to advertise tobacco products and smoking for quite a few years BUT the anti-tobacco folk do this every time they open their mouths.
It is they who have raised the topic and used the 's' word together with 'should not' and now 'must not'. They've even made those that smoke stand outside like naughty children yet every teacher knows you never send 2 naughty children outside together because they'll have fun and encourage naughtiness in others.
The whole discouragement of smoking has been handled with amazing incompetence by people who, despite qualifications, rank & considerable financial reward, show no sense.
Lyn; We are supposed to believe the government "rolled over" to the tune of ASH but the fact is that ASH has been receiving government grants for years. Also worthy of note is that just about every other organization that provides new scare reports or clamors for the government to "do the right thing" is funded by the state.
Neil Rafferty, of smokers' lobby group Forest, said: "I think people are getting really fed up being dictated to and treated like children. He goes onto say "Everyone knows tobacco is bad for your health"
What sort of publicity is this for the smoking lobby? Here we have Forest, an organisation which is supposed to work on our behalf, in our favour, an organisation which is supposed to dispel the myths and lies about smoking and the supposed harm it can cause, yet instead of doing this, Mr Rafferty shouts to the world that smoking is bad for your health.
Everything is bad for someone, but not everything is bad for everyone, and that is what Mr Rafferty should be telling the world, instead of his pro-ash rhetoric
Such things have been making me wonder too Peter. There are several who comment here that I find quite inspiring and I sure would love to meet in a pub and buy a round for. I'm also sure we could organise some resistance of some kind too.
But the feeling I get from most of the actual posts here is somewhat different.
If Neil Rafferty really state that tobacco is bad for health, than in this case he should join anti smoking loby.
If I think that moderate smoking is bad for human’s health I will be ashamed to sabotage work of the people that trying to make world better place.
His statement is in clear contradiction to scientific evidence that moderate smoking extends life span and have protective role from many degenerative disease.
Excessive consumption of the milk is much more harmful than excessive smoking.
what is becoming increasingly clear to me, given the evidence of the past, is that exposure to moderate smoke, especially in childhood, can be positive and strengthening. We now have the longest living and strongest generation ever, and these were the very people exposed during the twenties and thirties onwards to huge amounts of 'passive smoking' everywhere they went.The decline of smoking in homes etc, over the last 25 years is inversely proportional to the rise in childhood asthma. If the asthma rates had fallen, the anti smoking groups wouldn't have been slow to connect the two, but as it's the other way round, it cannot be considered.
We all know what happens to us if we are shielded too much from common diseases, we have no immunity and succumb very quickly, as though we have been living in a bubble. I believe that a little exposure to smoke also strengthens, and the communities in California, for instance, that are trying to live lives completely free of ANY so-called toxins, are making a whole lot of trouble for themselves in the future, and possibly breeding a generation of weaklings.There is more convincing evidence that this is true, than the insane claims of the antis.
So instead of just shooting down the 'passive smoking fraud', we should all be going one step further, and exposing the benefits at every opportunity. Repeat, repeat, repeat, using the governments own classic form of brainwashing.
One point I have not seen in any of these posts is the rights of licencee's to refuse admission to anti-smokers. They still have the right to refuse snyone from drinking inside. They should exercise this in wet and cold weather. The only legal obligation they have is to serve drinks indoors. How many of these sick demented parasites would use the outdoor area they expect us to do. Remember, no terrorist bomb has ever gone off in the open air where a building is so near.
That's a good point Alun. The problem is that when the dreaded ban does come in, the pubs will lose so much trade anyway, that to turn even these sort of people away would be counter productive to their business.
Although I do agree with you, and said as much in a book which I wrote about Spain, where bar and restaurant owners are free to choose if they wish to be "smoking" or "non smoking" establishments. One of my favourite restraints there caved in to the British tourists, and decided to go non smoking, and although I am happy to report a massive loss in their custom since doing this, it still grieves me that this stupid idea has stopped me from now going in there.
In my book, I do state, similar to what you have said, that if these non smokers are so keen of fresh air, then why the hell don't they eat and drink outside, and leave us to eat, drink and smoke,where we want to.
There are other issues to this that go way beyond not being able to smoke when & where we want to. My position is really hard in that its taken me four years to find four decent, honest employees that I can really trust. Two of them smoke, two don't but aren't bothered by it. One in particular is horribly non-conformist but honest as the day's long, he just cant bare being ordered around (which is ok because I don't need to do that). If he's caught smoking inside I have to discipline him - presumably to dismissal or I get fined. I get on really well with all of them but the nazi's want me to report them (or be fined again). I cant do that. I'm likely to be caught myself - its a garage for Christ's sake, not some fancy office block! I have lots of customers who like to stick around for a drink and a chat and a smoke while we fix their cars, I'm supposed to tell them to stand outside, most will say No because, as much as they wouldn't want to drop me in it, they aren't going to be dictated to. I'm between a bloody rock and a hard place. Basically its a threat to my business. Why would I want to sack staff who have done nothing wrong - smoking isn't illegal. There's new legislation creeping in every day now and this load a crap just adds to the burden. The effects of this are going to be enormous. Had to laugh earlier though. Imagine being caught in a busines vehicle while using your mobile phone, smoking a cig and, the latest, wearing the WRONG SHOES! You'd be executed on the spot!!! Does anyone know anything about the government paying out £1.4 billion per year to subsidise tobacco crops? Not sure where i read it now but I cant seem to find anything else on the net. Something has to be done, as other people have stated, but acting individually they're just going to make examples of us.
Thanks Peter. You are the first to agree with me on any post.
Another point of interest is the idea that non smokers take off less days at work. there are 15 of us working on one production line for the past 2 years. Only 4 of us have not taken a day in that time. Only one of those doesn't smoke. the main time waster who doesn't smoke has taken off twice what the other 14 have taken off in total. The same applies to the other 20 lines.
A few weeks ago. the clinical director of some London institute- name escapes me, suggested that firms be encouraged to allow smokers time off to attend anti smoking classes. This is typical of junk science. Has anyone figured out the NHS, ASH and GOV quotes 25 - 28% of this country smoke. I don't remember this question being asked in the 2001 Censor form.