First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
CDC forcing absurd advertisement down our throats?
43662 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / So Cal
Offline
Posted 4/8/13
I'm sure you've seen the anti-smoking ads the CDC has been putting out with disfigured and mangled people. They spam them throughout the day, so if you live in the US, I'm assuming you had.

I think this is deplorable for a few reasons:

1. There is a rating system to prevent impressionable youth from seeing graphic imagery, which this commercial is bypassing.
If I saw these commercials as a 4 year old, I might have nightmares.

2. Stop spamming it! The latest commercial, being the worst yet, is quite disturbing enough. I don't need to see/hear it a dozen times an evening.

3. An adult can poison themselves with whatever substance, so long as it's legal. They know the risk, it's their choice to make. It's not like the side-effects are still unknown. This commercial doesn't even address the side-effects of smoking. Stop wasting our tax dollars on information-less propaganda that targets legal activities and hardly even work.


What are your opinions?
27501 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Toledo
Offline
Posted 4/8/13
I don't really watch TV much anymore but I have no problem with the commercials. It isn't even being forced on anyone. People are free to change the channel or turn the TV off if they don't like what they are seeing on it.
5044 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / NY
Offline
Posted 4/8/13

BearSol wrote:

I'm sure you've seen the anti-smoking ads the CDC has been putting out with disfigured and mangled people. They spam them throughout the day, so if you live in the US, I'm assuming you had.

I think this is deplorable for a few reasons:

1. There is a rating system to prevent impressionable youth from seeing graphic imagery, which this commercial is bypassing.
If I saw these commercials as a 4 year old, I might have nightmares.

2. Stop spamming it! The latest commercial, being the worst yet, is quite disturbing enough. I don't need to see/hear it a dozen times an evening.

3. An adult can poison themselves with whatever substance, so long as it's legal. They know the risk, it's their choice to make. It's not like the side-effects are still unknown. This commercial doesn't even address the side-effects of smoking. Stop wasting our tax dollars on information-less propaganda that targets legal activities and hardly even work.


What are your opinions?


Personally I have no objection. I'll answer each point with my opinion.

1) Perfect scar them when they are young. Imprint terror with the effects of smoking and the effect will last a life time. Sound horrible and it is but it is better than the alternative.

2) They should lower the amount of ads. More exposure will result in desensitization. One or two ads at prime time or in a much watched event would be much more effective. Maybe something with autopsy photos or footage.

3) Yes an adult should be able to do as they please. The ads do need more information i agree. However if an adult does as he/she pleases they should be ineligible for any Federal and/or State aid programs should they fall ill.

I know my views are extreme but so be it. I've seen what it can do so maybe I'm biased.
22463 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Delaware
Offline
Posted 4/8/13

kamaitachi5587 wrote:


BearSol wrote:

I'm sure you've seen the anti-smoking ads the CDC has been putting out with disfigured and mangled people. They spam them throughout the day, so if you live in the US, I'm assuming you had.

I think this is deplorable for a few reasons:

1. There is a rating system to prevent impressionable youth from seeing graphic imagery, which this commercial is bypassing.
If I saw these commercials as a 4 year old, I might have nightmares.

2. Stop spamming it! The latest commercial, being the worst yet, is quite disturbing enough. I don't need to see/hear it a dozen times an evening.

3. An adult can poison themselves with whatever substance, so long as it's legal. They know the risk, it's their choice to make. It's not like the side-effects are still unknown. This commercial doesn't even address the side-effects of smoking. Stop wasting our tax dollars on information-less propaganda that targets legal activities and hardly even work.


What are your opinions?


Personally I have no objection. I'll answer each point with my opinion.

1) Perfect scar them when they are young. Imprint terror with the effects of smoking and the effect will last a life time. Sound horrible and it is but it is better than the alternative.

2) They should lower the amount of ads. More exposure will result in desensitization. One or two ads at prime time or in a much watched event would be much more effective. Maybe something with autopsy photos or footage.

3) Yes an adult should be able to do as they please. The ads do need more information i agree. However if an adult does as he/she pleases they should be ineligible for any Federal and/or State aid programs should they fall ill.

I know my views are extreme but so be it. I've seen what it can do so maybe I'm biased.


Agreed.
43662 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / So Cal
Offline
Posted 4/8/13 , edited 4/8/13

kamaitachi5587 wrote:



Personally I have no objection. I'll answer each point with my opinion.

1) Perfect scar them when they are young. Imprint terror with the effects of smoking and the effect will last a life time. Sound horrible and it is but it is better than the alternative.

2) They should lower the amount of ads. More exposure will result in desensitization. One or two ads at prime time or in a much watched event would be much more effective. Maybe something with autopsy photos or footage.

3) Yes an adult should be able to do as they please. The ads do need more information i agree. However if an adult does as he/she pleases they should be ineligible for any Federal and/or State aid programs should they fall ill.

I know my views are extreme but so be it. I've seen what it can do so maybe I'm biased.


Other than your first point, I'm in agreement. That's the only one I think could be considered extreme.

Personally, I was raised watching The Texas Chainsaw Massacre(original), the Friday the 13th, Holloween, ect movies, since I had memories(Roughly 4+). I've never had any issues, other than a lack of nightmares. I suppose I get "scary" dreams, but I enjoy them and have fun running for my life or whatever.
So I understand your viewpoint. I was more addressing the issue that our television is heavily censored, yet when it comes to a government commercial, the rules are thrown by the wayside.


Great response btw, appreciated.
43662 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / So Cal
Offline
Posted 4/8/13 , edited 4/8/13

justanotherguy_2005 wrote:

I don't really watch TV much anymore but I have no problem with the commercials. It isn't even being forced on anyone. People are free to change the channel or turn the TV off if they don't like what they are seeing on it.


You can change the channel, but what stops you from seeing it on the channel you change to? Also, you might not be quick enough on that remote to save your proverbial child from a nightmarish experience(if you're concerned about that).
I've often changed a channel from a commercial, only to see it, almost in sync, with the channel I left.
27501 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Toledo
Offline
Posted 4/8/13

BearSol wrote:


justanotherguy_2005 wrote:

I don't really watch TV much anymore but I have no problem with the commercials. It isn't even being forced on anyone. People are free to change the channel or turn the TV off if they don't like what they are seeing on it.


You can change the channel, but what stops you from seeing it on the channel you change to? Also, you might not be quick enough on that remote to save your proverbial child from a nightmarish experience(if you're concerned about that).
I've often changed a channel from a commercial, only to see it, almost in sync, with the channel I left.


If the commercial keeps the kid from doing it then whatever. With the way the world is these days it is getting harder and harder to keep a kid from seeing things they want to see but the parent doesn't. I am not going to waste time and energy over a commercial designed to try and keep them from doing something harmful. Besides that though there are plenty of other options for watching programs now with ways to even cut commercials entirely. If someone is worried about it that much then they can just utilize those options.
62823 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / St. Louis, Misery
Offline
Posted 4/8/13
You guys are freaking out because kids are seeing REAL people on TV? Its not like they are showing someone getting sliced into pieces or anything... they are showing REAL pictures of REAL people.... that your children could run into at anytime.
35990 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 4/8/13

cronozj wrote:

You guys are freaking out because kids are seeing REAL people on TV? Its not like they are showing someone getting sliced into pieces or anything... they are showing REAL pictures of REAL people.... that your children could run into at anytime.


Exactly. I'd rather my kids see some a graphic anti-smoking ad than the latest misadventures of the cardashians or or whatever other talentless starlet that happens to be pregnant or arrested that week.
15507 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 4/8/13
To your third point, why? It cost less for the smokers medical care and retirement because they die earlier, if you want to save money you should encourage smoking. I don't smoke but neither do I presume to make choices for others and particularly when they are thrifty about it.
18138 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/8/13
It's still gross when i turn to something like History Channel while i'm eatting dinner watching something like Pawn Stars and i have to see that nasty shit. It's not like its going to stop me from smoking anyhow. If i wanted to smoke id go buy smokes. Tried it before, tastes like crap.
16431 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / San Diego, Califo...
Offline
Posted 4/8/13
I find nothing wrong with this. Yes, they are spamming it quite a lot BUT we have the choice to either ignore it or follow it. They're just trying to help reduce the number of kids turning to drugs and end up dying prematurely from cardiovascular related diseases.
15095 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Las Vegas
Offline
Posted 4/8/13 , edited 4/8/13
Jamming 777 your point is somewhat true and false. It is true that since they are smokers that they have the potential to die at a younger age. However, it's those people with chronic diseases caused by unhealthy lifestyles (smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, obesity) that are the biggest drain on our health care system. With modern medicine getting more advance, these people with chronic diseases are living longer. Not necessarily longer quality lives, simply longer. The longer these people live sick, the larger their burden financially on health care.

I was just talking to my dad earlier today about healthcare. One of his friend's monthly insurance bill recently increased from $500 a month to $900 a month. It is not because he has become more of a liability. He is paying more, like many others, to help balance out those who can't pay, rely heavily on some sort of aid, or just don't pay at all.

I completely agree with kamaitachi5587. I live in America and believe we have the freedom to choose the lifestyle we want to live. If you want to smoke, smoke. If you want to eat everything insight, indulge till you can't stand. However with those choices they should have to forfeit any help the government would of otherwise given them.

To digress and address the actual post, I say show people the reality that may one day be theirs if they live an indulgent lifestyle. Smokers know smoking is bad, but not to the extent that it really is. A very small percentage will actively pursue knowledge about the diseases they could get from smoking and the struggles living with those diseases. The rest of the population will think smoking is bad, but, "cancer and heart disease are what happens to other people, not me." It can't always be someone else. Unfortunately sometimes you become that statistic that "only happens to other people."

The one's who get leukemia, have their organs fail through no fault of their own, get in debilitating accidents, victims of circumstance are the ones who deserve financial aid for their conditions. Not the ones who take for granted their ability to get up and walk only for a few moments of nicotine satisfaction.
If a commercial helps persuade individuals live a more healthy life style, then i am pro-reality commercials.


43662 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / So Cal
Offline
Posted 4/8/13 , edited 4/8/13

mlchanges wrote:


cronozj wrote:

You guys are freaking out because kids are seeing REAL people on TV? Its not like they are showing someone getting sliced into pieces or anything... they are showing REAL pictures of REAL people.... that your children could run into at anytime.


Exactly. I'd rather my kids see some a graphic anti-smoking ad than the latest misadventures of the cardashians or or whatever other talentless starlet that happens to be pregnant or arrested that week.


You guys are assuming it takes this sort of perverse advertising to teach children to avoid smoking.

Children are going to experiment and test their boundaries regardless. It's a general part of learning the world around you, as you develop as a being, regardless of human or other animal. On the other hand, a child with good parents will be far less likely than those with negligible parenting, to continue down such a road of self-destruction.
I believe families, friends and communities are what shape children, not ridiculous commercials with mangled, rasping individuals who made bad choices, that began regretting it after they got hit by a proverbial mack truck.

I'd rather my kids be intelligent and logically thinking individuals instead of relying on subjective television commercials which provide no information.

Btw, Cronozj



If your arguement is "REAL" people on TV, then how about people getting their hands and feet cut off for stealing and other offenses that happen throughout the world?

You think our children should see those "REAL" people as well?

My children could run into them as well.

The fact is, people like those that are in this commercial and those with their hands and feet cut off, are still rare.
I, nor anybody I've ever known, and since I can remember, most of them have smoked, have ever seen someone like the woman in this commercial.

"REAL" people? Yes. RARE? Very much yes. Those with this form of smoking related cancer and those who have had their hands and feet cut off(Which greatly outnumber those who have had her severity of smoking related cancer).
37272 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 4/9/13 , edited 4/9/13
I haven't seen the commercial mainly because, given my annoyance at the existence of commercials, I've decided to eliminate from my entertainment repertoire anything that uses commercials. I would probably view the commercial in question the same way I view, for example, PETA-ish commercials. They are annoying, self-righteous, and unlikely to change my behavior. In fact, I'm sufficiently petty that, upon seeing a commercial like that, I might go buy some cigarettes and throw them in the garbage just to support the industry that the commercial derides. Part of the reason I've effectively eliminated commercials is to stave off that particular source of my contempt. Yeah, I could re-learn some tolerance for these things, but I no longer see the need. My point here is this -- the commercials are not being "forced down my throat." In fact, I live in the US and have never seen the commercial. Clearly then, there has been no throat-forcing. I can and have chosen not to watch these commercials.

To get back on topic -- If I wanted to smoke, then the commercial won't stop me. If I didn't want to smoke (I actually don't at the moment) then the commercial is useless -- actually, it's less then useless since it's annoying (although, like I said, I haven't actually seen it -- I'm just sort of imagining the "type" of commercial described). As OP said, cigarette dangers are pretty well-known. I don't think a commercial will "enlighten" anyone.

Edit: And while I also understand the logic behind refusing government aid to smokers, there's also an extent to which the logic is flawed. At some point, it seems like the assumption is that if somebody's well-being is threatened as a result of a lifestyle they've chosen, while knowing that the lifestyle carries risks, then they shouldn't be helped. While it's not as though I disagree with this sentiment, should we abandon anyone that makes mistakes? I'm fine with both yes and no as an answer here, but I just get the feeling that some people might be cool with the idea of smokers forfeiting aid, while simultaneously supporting the idea of say, treatment for lung cancer in firefighters. What arguments apply to smokers that don't apply to firefighters? "You knew the risk, so you shouldn't be treated." How does this not apply to fire-fighters? Were they unaware that there were occupational hazards? "But fire-fighters provide a social good, and should therefore be payed for by the people they help, which is to say, tax-payers." Fair enough. So should we treat smokers on the basis of the fact that help people? Should smoking doctors receive government aid? What about smoking garbage truck drivers? Bankers? Further, how do we know that a certain illness certainly resulted from a certain lifestyle? What happens when a smoking fire-fighter gets lung-cancer? How do we know which lifestyle is to blame? If a smoking businessman gets lung cancer, do we know for sure that it was from the smoking. It's easy to say "you smoke, you have lung cancer, and 90% of lung cancer is due to smoking. Therefore, you have lung cancer because you smoke." But can we tell for sure that the person doesn't have lung cancer from one of the 10% of causes that are not smoking? Let's say they accidentally breathed irradiated air (it's a stretch, but not by much). Should they not receive treatment because they're a smoker? There are too many variables at the moment, with which we can determine how a particular illness has been contracted. Diagnosis is more or less analytic, but the explanation for the illness still seems to be pretty subjective. We can determine THAT a person has something, but WHY a person has it is much more of a guessing game... I think. I'm not a doctor.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.