AndromedasWake
New Member
I wonder LoR, what say you to this...?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Squawk said:Smoking, and the debate on the right to smoke, has always been a real issue for me. The right to personal freedom vs the health of the nation. Why do we want to prevent people from doing whatever it is to their body. Two reasons are immediately apparent, protection of the individual by the state, and protection of 3rd parties from the individual.
Protection of the individual cannot really be considered. If it was, alcohol would have to be banned, mcdonalds and fizzy drinks would have to be banned and so on and so forth. So, we're looking at protection of third parties.
To that end I advocate a ban on smoking in public places. Always have, I hate smoking. Forget health concerns for a moment, if I stand next to a smoker for 2 minutes I stink for the rest of the day, that damn stuff hangs in your clothes, your hair, everywhere.
And so, to branding. I don't think it makes a difference. I don't care about the person smoking, just the 3rd party. The people you have to aim propoganda at are those that don't already smoke, and brand recognition ain't gonna be affected for those people. Much better to put money into education IMO.
But then we run into the issue of drug prohibition wherein the government just decides that it would be nice to make something illegal and declare it to have no positive effects. I'm inclined to this argument personally, but it would need to be restructured, as in my example of marketing sippable bleach would be banned. In other words, proof would have to be gathered that there is no positive side effect and previous studies WILL be thrown out by Thomas, Roberts, Scalia, and ilk on behalf of their corporate sponsors (in America at least...).MRaverz said:My view on smoking and other similar harmful substances is simple. The government has a duty to protect it's citizens from their own ignorance, as such they should simply be banned from being sold.
Squawk said:Protection of the individual cannot really be considered. If it was, alcohol would have to be banned, mcdonalds and fizzy drinks would have to be banned and so on and so forth. So, we're looking at protection of third parties.
To that end I advocate a ban on smoking in public places. Always have, I hate smoking. Forget health concerns for a moment, if I stand next to a smoker for 2 minutes I stink for the rest of the day, that damn stuff hangs in your clothes, your hair, everywhere.
"Choose our 'Lung Cancer' brand cigarettes; they boast a taste that 'Emphazeema' cant compare to!"WarK said:Seems like advertising won't make any sense now.
Duvelthehobbit666 said:If people want to smoke they should be allowed to. I know people who smoke and they say they want to do it whatever the risks might be.
This is more a generalized statement. And I think the next step to this is that the government will try and ban smoking.Netheralian said:Duvelthehobbit666 said:If people want to smoke they should be allowed to. I know people who smoke and they say they want to do it whatever the risks might be.
Clearly I missed the bit where they said that people aren't allowed to smoke...
Duvelthehobbit666 said:This is more a generalized statement. And I think the next step to this is that the government will try and ban smoking.
WarK said:Poor graphic designers :roll:
I thought the point of tobacco companies was that they've already spent loads of money on their graphic design, or do they have to redesign the design weekly?
You think this won't make any impact? Then why tobacco companies spend so much money on brand promotion?
Will they be using stock medical photos? Otherwise I see a small ledge of designers still clinging to a job in picking and editing the right photos so they meet legal requirements yet somehow make brand A more appealing than brand B. I do agree that its stupid, and a decent number of people will lose their jobs for something that may not have a large enough impact to justify it, but frankly Im too curious to see what happens now to want it to be overturned.Independent Vision said:[Replying to Wark about graphic designers and brand promotion]
Independent Vision said:WarK said:Poor graphic designers :roll:
I thought the point of tobacco companies was that they've already spent loads of money on their graphic design, or do they have to redesign the design weekly?
You think this won't make any impact? Then why tobacco companies spend so much money on brand promotion?
No, but they run limited edition packs and make "new and improved" packaging quite often, at least here.
Tobacco companies spend so much money on brand promotion to keep the smokers smoking their brand, not to keep smokers smoking in general. With plain packaging what it will do is remove the one venue cigarette brands have for promoting their brand and make cheaper brands more prevalent.
Now, I'm all for getting people to stop smoking, although I would like to see that being done via e-cigarettes and other incentives than moves like these. It's not going to make people smoke less. It might discourage new smokers, which it probably won't in the long run either. Kids will be kids. What it does is even the playing field for the smaller brands, I suppose. Which I don't see how it will help getting people to quit smoking. It will open the market for smaller companies who sell their tobacco cheaper though, because self promotion and package design is pricey, and now they can forgo all that and just waltz right in.
Yes, poor graphic designers. Making moves to cut down job positions in an economy where you're trying to force more people out into work is never a smart move.
*shrugs* I don't care either way, personally. I just think it's a stupid ass move.