This could work......... not

[shropshire 0]

Quote

Displaying cigarettes in shops could be banned in England under government plans being considered to cut smoking and discourage children from starting.

clicky


W.T.F drugs are these people on? So, kids start smoking because they see the pretty boxes on display in the shops

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

kids start smoking because they see the pretty boxes on display in the shops

Absolutely. We see how well it works to hide any and all reference to sexuality from kids. If they don't see any reference to cigarettes in stores, they will not be tempted to buy cigarettes.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[shropshire 0]

I'm not sure that, that is correct LR. Kids, even if they are bellow the legal age to buy fags, still start smoking (peer pressure, think it's cool etc....) - so I wouldn't think that seeing them on the shelf is what makes them start.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I'm not sure that, that is correct LR. Kids, even if they are bellow the legal age to buy fags, still start smoking (peer pressure, think it's cool etc....) - so I wouldn't think that seeing them on the shelf is what makes them start.

Again strikes the example where I come up with an absolutely ridiculous statement that people think is serious because, well, it's been said before and some people actually BELIEVE it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,120]

>an absolutely ridiculous statement that people think is serious . . .

Oh, come on. It worked for abstinence. Most teenagers will not even notice they have genitals if they don't see any depictions of sexuality in the media, or attend any liberal sex-ed classes in school.

[shropshire 0]

Sorry... I guess that I misunderstood.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Again strikes the example where I come up with an absolutely ridiculous statement that people think is serious because, well, it's been said before and some people actually BELIEVE it.

Not enough smilies and winkies.

Do you not believe this new law is a clear trespass of the Fourth Amendment, and will rightfully be challenged as such?

. . =(_8^(1)

[billvon 3,120]

>Do you not believe this new law is a clear trespass of the Fourth
>Amendment, and will rightfully be challenged as such?

OP: "Displaying cigarettes in shops could be banned in England . . ."

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

OP: "Displaying cigarettes in shops could be banned in England . . ."

It's even worse than you thought -- got my threads mixed up. I was intending to ask lawrocket this question regarding the new motorcycle law. Too many tasks going at once.

. . =(_8^(1)

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

So, kids start smoking because they see the pretty boxes on display in the shops

I don't think anyone is saying that.

But it makes sense that a reduction in advertising would lead to a reduction in sales. (Seeing as the main point of advertising is to increase sales.) And a reduction in sales would mean that people are smoking less, which might mean that children are smoking less too.

[kschilk 0]

Quote

Quote

So, kids start smoking because they see the pretty boxes on display in the shops

I don't think anyone is saying that.

But it makes sense that a reduction in advertising would lead to a reduction in sales. (Seeing as the main point of advertising is to increase sales.) And a reduction in sales would mean that people are smoking less, which might mean that children are smoking less too.

It frees-up space for alcohol advertising.

"T'was ever thus."

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

It frees-up space for alcohol advertising.

Yep. Alcohol and junk food.

I find it odd that the tobacco industry is singled out when it comes to advertising harmful products, but I guess it has something to do with lines being drawn somewhere, or something like that. Or more likely it has to do with there being enough people who are actively anti-smoking that they are able to effect change.

[shropshire 0]

.... and scented candles

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[billvon 3,120]

>I find it odd that the tobacco industry is singled out when it comes
>to advertising harmful products . . .

I think because when someone eats a Ding-Dong the room doesn't stink afterwards, and no one gets sick. (Other than, perhaps, the guy who eats it of course.)

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

>I find it odd that the tobacco industry is singled out when it comes
>to advertising harmful products . . .

I think because when someone eats a Ding-Dong the room doesn't stink afterwards, and no one gets sick. (Other than, perhaps, the guy who eats it of course.)

And what about alcohol?

I'm sure if the tobacco companies just added the "Please smoke responsibly" line to their ads, then no one would ever get sick from second-hand smoke again. In the same way that no one but the drinker is ever harmed by alcohol.

[kschilk 0]

Quote

>
I think because when someone eats a Ding-Dong the room doesn't stink afterwards, and no one gets sick. (Other than, perhaps, the guy who eats it of course.)

If it's the stink you're worried about, let's outlaw coffee!

"T'was ever thus."

[billvon 3,120]

>And what about alcohol?

I think the real activism on that front comes more from MADD mothers and the like than from your average person.

[Lindsey 0]

I'm sure if the tobacco companies just added the "Please smoke responsibly" line to their ads, then no one would ever get sick from second-hand smoke again. In the same way that no one but the drinker is ever harmed by alcohol.

At least it's possible to drink responsibly. Alcohol in moderation has actual health benefits. Smoking is bad juju all the way around. You can drink at the same table with other people without harming them. You can't say the same thing for smoking cigarettes. I'm glad that advertising for both has changed. Remember the television ads during after-school tv? The Marlboro man? HA! I'm also glad that in Arkansas you can't smoke in restaurants any more. :)

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[akarunway 1]

Quote

>And what about alcohol?

I think the real activism on that front comes more from MADD mothers and the like than from your average person.

We need to join these guys then. http://user.pa.net/~nrwing/damm/

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

I'm sure if the tobacco companies just added the "Please smoke responsibly" line to their ads, then no one would ever get sick from second-hand smoke again. In the same way that no one but the drinker is ever harmed by alcohol.

At least it's possible to drink responsibly. Alcohol in moderation has actual health benefits. Smoking is bad juju all the way around. You can drink at the same table with other people without harming them. You can't say the same thing for smoking cigarettes. I'm glad that advertising for both has changed . . .

I can't think of many alcohol ads (if any) that promote the healthy side of drinking. They mostly use sex to sell their product, which IMO is giving the wrong impression and is particularly pushing it to young people. And around here, the store displays include half gallon sized bottles of hard liquor and "pocket shots," which are certainly not there to sell the idea of drinking responsibly.

Which is fine, but I don't see why that's OK while it's not OK to have cigarette displays out as well.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

W.T.F drugs are these people on? So, kids start smoking because they see the pretty boxes on display in the shops

I have a question. If the "power wall" displays do nothing to encourage smoking why do all the retailers use them?
Advertising works. Colourfull displays work. Power walls are banned in most provinces in Canada and yes, the various sanctions against the industry that people have said would not do any good have in fact done measurable good. Education programs work. Workplace bans work. Minor bans work. Advertising restrictions work. Increased excise taxes work. None of them work perfectly but the results are not disputable; less people smoke now.

[shropshire 0]

Advertising may work but kids aren't allowed to buy fags.

I've yet to be convinced that kids will stop smoking if all advertising was banned. I would suggest that most kids start smoking because their mates do not because John Player have nice Black boxes.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Andrewwhyte 1]

All kids will not stop or decline to start. But some will. The smoking rates in Canadian provinces line up perfectly with the amount of restrictions on tobacco. I think you will find that the new restrictions in UK will have an effect. You just have to wait five or ten years to see it.

[kschilk 0]

Quote

All kids will not stop or decline to start. But some will. The smoking rates in Canadian provinces line up perfectly with the amount of restrictions on tobacco. I think you will find that the new restrictions in UK will have an effect. You just have to wait five or ten years to see it.

Well....probably 'coz weed's cheaper, easier to get and a lot tastier.

"T'was ever thus."