12 ms·

Swiss back further restrictions on tobacco advertising

106 points by hubraumhugo 5y ago

valyagolev 5y ago
love how you can sneak a smoking child into an ad as long as it is an anti-tobacco ad
- simion314 5y ago
  >as long as it is an anti-tobacco ad This won't classify as advertising, most like information for safety, we have similar stuff in our country like - you should drink 2L of water - passive smoking is bad for children - use table salt with Iodium to prevent ... - don't use improvised heating devices - excessive alcohol drinking is very bad for health
  - daniel-cussen 5y ago
    Lost me at "you should drink 2L of water." No. You should drink when thirsty. Too much water is in fact bad for you. In addition, that advice is to get people to buy bottled drinks, because what is called tap water in much of the West, mostly the Americas, is brine. You can't drink it without beginning to crave unsalted water, water without sodium flourine, a salt. Because regulations in USA forbid any district from distributing water, that forces everyone (except those with access to well water) to buy bottled liquids, which conveniently are allowed to use purified water. This despite the fact that many of these bottled liquids contain the sugar that is the obvious culprit of tooth decay, in the name of which tap water was salted. Really the law should be any liquid with sugar in it should itself contain the sodium fluoride that would protect teeth from that sugar. People who don't drink "sugar water" deserve the right to running water.
    - simion314 5y ago
      The actual clip says "liquids" not sure what the small print says. Have no idea if anyone cheks what is in the bottled water though >You should drink when thirsty. is that an expert advice? >Too much water is in fact bad for you. If you link me something that proves that 2L daily is bad then please do, I drink that much and I don't want to get poisoned with water.
      - daniel-cussen 5y ago
        > I drink that much and I don't want to get poisoned with water. It depends on what you consider poisoning means. Water boarding, for instance, is water poisoning, like literally veterans water boarded by Japanese interrogators in WWII spent about a week in the hospital so their kidneys could recover from the effects of the water intake. More than 2L, true. I don't know what water you're drinking, but you should, maybe you can find your water treatment's facility's chemical analysis of the water they provide? And test the water you're drinking from the faucet, the pipes might be lead, and the water company wouldn't report that. Or if you don't want to bother with that, use your sense of taste, which is designed specifically for chemical analysis. Ask yourself as you drink water, "is this good water?".
    - aesthesia 5y ago
      Yes, you should drink when you’re thirsty, and forcing yourself to drink some arbitrary quantity of water every day is probably pointless. But water without any dissolved minerals is also bad for you, and many bottled brands add other salts (eg calcium chloride) to filtered water for flavor. I’ve also never experienced the phenomenon you describe where water with sodium fluoride fails to satisfy my thirst. While I certainly prefer the flavor of filtered water, drinking tap water doesn’t make me crave any other drink. Has there been any research done on this topic?
      - daniel-cussen 5y ago
        Research it with your mouth on your next hike, drink from a stream in the mountains--go high altitude, if you don't get altitude sickness when you arrive at base camp, it won't be enough--and drink water that anyone can see is pure. Assay it with your mouth, it will be conspicuously delicious. When you return, taste the tap, it will not be anything like it. Then if you brush your teeth, you will realize that that is what it tastes like: city water tastes like toothpaste, because that's the intention, to make water good for your teeth, with the same chemical that makes toothpaste good for your teeth. It's toothpaste's signature flavor. The flavor you were told not to object to in childhood when you brushed, guess what, your senses know what it is, sodium flouride wasn't discovered in a lab, many places have it in their groundwater. It's gross because it's supposed to be gross, you aren't supposed to drink that water if you have a better choice.
cletus 5y ago
Let's see how expensive that decision turns out to be [1]. EDIT: to be clear since there seems to be some confusion, I agree with this. The tobacco industry is quite literally cancer. I'm objecting to the ability for companies to sue governments about it. [1]: https://theconversation.com/when-even-winning-is-losing-the-surprising-cost-of-defeating-philip-morris-over-plain-packaging-114279 https://theconversation.com/when-even-winning-is-losing-the-...
- w-j-w 5y ago
  The Swiss government pays for it's citizens' healthcare, which is likely cheaper than damages paid in international tribunal. Also, these laws are typically very popular, even amongst smokers. Pursuing these laws is a no brainer for the lawmakers.
  - noxer 5y ago
    Hell no! Health insurance in Switzerland is mandatory, its NOT paid b the gov. Beside that even if it would be paid by the gov, where do you think does the money comes from? Its still paid by the people.
  - nix23 5y ago
    >The Swiss government pays for it's citizens' healthcare, Wow haha, that's some massive false information you have.
- elil17 5y ago
  A$24 million is an absolute drop in the bucket compared to the economic cost of tobacco - an estimated A$137 billion per year in Australia alone from lost life, diseases, and lost productivity for tobacco victims and their families.
  - cletus 5y ago
    Not to poorer countries it isn't. The cost of legal action quite literally scared off South American countries from adopting similar measures. And I wasn't clear: I don't oppose the Swiss government's action. Not in the slightest.
thanatos519 5y ago
« tomorrow it’ll be alcohol and meat » ... yep, you should have to be an adult to choose those things, too. Protecting kids from alcohol is a no-brainer. Providing kids with a complete diet that does not involve the exploitation of animals is way more complicated.
- noxer 5y ago
  Certain alcoholic drinks such as beer are legal to buy at the age of 16 in Switzerland. So the law actually says you don't have to be an adult for that. Same with tobacco although the age for buying tobacco is not regulated federally but on a state level (So it different in each Kanton (state) either 16 or 18.) >Protecting kids from alcohol is a no-brainer. That is true and mostly anyone would agree but "kids" is undefined in this statement. Clearly the law in Switzerland does not think 16 year olds are kids but many people would disagree with that.
  - throwawayboise 5y ago
    Most 16 year olds are physically adults. They don't have the experience and wisdom/common-sense of older adults, but at some point you have to let people develop that.
  - smoe 5y ago
    One can basically get beer and wine at the age of 16. And when I was at that age, there were many clubs you could get into with color coded wristbands telling the bartenders what they can serve you. But as far as I know, the clubs themselves have since raised the age limits. It is certainly hypercritical to praise alcoholic drinks and demonize other drugs, but alcohol is quite a big part of Swiss culture. Not just getting wasted, but having a beer or glass of wine with a meal or at social gatherings to specific things like the cherry brandy with Fondue. It's a fringe view in the country, that a 16 year old is not adult enough to have any alcohol. I reckon you'd find more people agreeing with lowering that age rather than increasing. Personally, I think it is good, that one can have experiences with alcohol, before reaching full adulthood rights and responsibilities. E.g. being allowed to drive a car.
umvi 5y ago
I think any addictive substances need to have severely limited marketing not just for "the children" but for the public health of society as a whole. This includes tobacco, vape, marijuana, alcohol and any other products containing addictive chemicals that correlate with public health costs. I realize this is poor timing to express this opinion since most of America is going to intentionally watch high-production-value advertisements glorifying alcohol in a few hours from now...
- sfe22 5y ago
  But who decides what is classified as addictive or not and what gets allowed and what censored? I certainly wouldn’t want a monopoly making the decision.
  - sdoering 5y ago
    We actually know quite well the dangers of different substance and also behaviors/institutions like social media. The necessary "institution" is called science. And even with bought/fake science science does have quite a good track record regarding things like these. But I am actually not advocating bans on these things. Every grown up should be allowed to be irrationally dumb and destroy themselves. But, why not tax them. Tax them so that externalities are being compensated. Make these things unattractive. Also work on changing the culture of it being cool to drink till you pass out or even the obligatory social drinking. It doesn't have to be cool. And if anyone wants to kill themselves with substances that is OK. I don't have to like it, but I think it is their right. But don't make me pay for their medical bills (an example) by covering it from their insurance (that becomes more expensive for me). Disclosure: I say that as a person who lost his father prematurely because he drank too much. Way too much. My appetite for alcohol wasn't too high before, but is not existing any more since then. Still I wouldn't want to forbid it for others.
    - sfe22 5y ago
      First problem with taxing is that it takes money without consent and with force, aka theft. But that aside, do you want to get your favorite monopoly hooked on and addicted to the money taken from people’s activities that are harming themselves or others?
wereHamster 5y ago
The people in Schwyz (around Muotathal), Uri (Oberes Reusstal), and Luzern (Entlebuch) are like: Let us encourage our kids smoke that shit! https://abstimmungen.tagesanzeiger.ch/2022-02-13/2/m https://abstimmungen.tagesanzeiger.ch/2022-02-13/2/m Very often you also see which municipalities correspond to big cities and which are more rural areas: https://abstimmungen.tagesanzeiger.ch/2022-02-13/4/m https://abstimmungen.tagesanzeiger.ch/2022-02-13/4/m (Bern, Zurich, Winterthur, Luzern voted differently than all other municipalities in their respective cantons). And on this map you kindof see where the rich people live (Zürcher Goldküste, Zug): https://abstimmungen.tagesanzeiger.ch/2022-02-13/3/m https://abstimmungen.tagesanzeiger.ch/2022-02-13/3/m. They voted against this proposal because it would have negatively affected them.
- ur-whale 5y ago
  > Let us encourage our kids smoke that shit! Or - maybe there are still folks who believe freedom actually matters and a citizen's duty is to keep government interference in people's lives at a healthy minimum.
  - Osiris 5y ago
    Smoking, in particular, has significant effects on third parties so you're freedom to smoke takes away other people's right to clean air. For example, parents that smoke on the house with their kids who have no choice to leave.
    - ur-whale 5y ago
      That is not what we're talking about here. We're talking about regulating ads.
      - kenty 5y ago
        I think this depends on whether or not you agree on the premise: less smoking ads -> less smoking Assuming you accept this premise, this legislation leads to a reduction in smoking which leads to a reduction in second-hand smoke. It follows that this legislation prevents the harm of other third-parties. Note: I am implicitly assuming that: less people smoking -> less harm to bystanders is true (which it obviously is).
542458 5y ago
I live in a place with similar laws (Ontario, Canada) - I can’t remember the last time I saw a tobacco ad. During my lifetime too we’ve banned tobacco displays in most stores (dedicated tobacco shops seem to be exempt?) - the packages are now in opaque cabinets, and you ask the teller to grab you the type you want. Our youth smoking numbers have gone from about 28% in 1999 to about 5% in 2019. To be fair, it’s hard to say what’s causational or not. Of course, youth vaping numbers are on the rise, and while that’s strictly speaking preferable to smoking, it’s hardly ideal.
avgcorrection 5y ago
When I see a political issue about freedom I ask the following: who profits? Are there entities that profit from some apparent freedom? Not coincidentally a lot of “freedom” issues really boil down to businesses wanting to sell stuff, even though the supposed freedom that is being defended is that of the consumer.
kenty 5y ago
Very happy to see this pass. It's idiotic that kids, while going to school, can be exposed to multiple tobacco ads that make tobacco appear as "cool" and "hip" and "desirable". These ads obviously work or else no company would do them. The arguments used by the "No" lobby are: * slippery slope of meat and alcohol being banned in advertizing; when meat is not even a drug (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope). * free market disruption; when smoking is obviously a harmful substance and this law applies to all of the competing tobacco companies. * little events like festivals, bars, and shops get less money; this is probably true but festivals can simply raise their prices a bit. For small owner-led shops, yes, less tobacco consumption => less sales and tobacco is a high-margin product. It's a great example of direct democracy sometimes leading to better political decisions. It's easier for big tobacco to buy off just the legislators (whom actually made an extremely toned down counterproposal) than all of the public.
- nix23 5y ago
  >as "cool" and "hip" and "desirable" Like redbull aka sugar?
  - kenty 5y ago
    In general, two wrongs don't make a right. Additionally for the given example: orange juice contains as much sugar as redbull, a cup of coffee as much (or even more, depending on the type) caffeine and the rest (Taurin, etc...) probably has no effect on the body at all.
    - nix23 5y ago
      >In general, two wrongs don't make a right. No one said that, but you don't have pictures of destroyed livers on wine-bottles, of a rotten feet on sweets, strong alcohol is getting cheaper and cheaper, a bottle of vodka was 25sFr around 2000, now you can get it for 7-8sFr..but no one talks about that. >a cup of coffee as much (or even more, depending on the type) caffeine I quote yourself: >In general, two wrongs don't make a right. >the rest (Taurin, etc...) probably has no effect on the body at all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citric_acid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citric_acid and Sugar a dentist wet dream ;)
pessimizer 5y ago
I'm ambivalent about the actual act of banning tobacco advertising (couldn't happen to a bunch of better guys), but what I'm not ambivalent about is that legislation like this is something that politicians do to pretend like they're working.
- ar0 5y ago
  Which you are wrong about in this case, however, because this was a people’s initiative brought by various health- and youth-related NGOs and actually opposed by the majority of members of parliament and the government.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    The particular politicians who pushed it are who I'm talking about; I'm not talking about politicians in general. They might as well be pushing for even earlier childhood education, higher penalties for child abuse, higher sentences for drug sales near a church, or other random fake progress that will always get votes from the public. It's a vaguely benign version of law-and-order politics. Let somebody write a dubious paper insisting that cigarette packs are too easy to tear open, and they'll be pushing for legislation to freeze cigarettes in a block of ice, and to force people to lock their chisels and icepicks in a safe. The people who work for NGOs make their entire living from pushing initiatives like this of dubious value but that look good on a flier or a picket sign; they're just as guilty. In the US, they're so paycheck- and opportunity-guided that their attacks on vaping have pushed people back into smoking (multiple orders of magnitude more dangerous.) That's not actually a flaw - if smoking rises they can just fundraise off that again.
- avgcorrection 5y ago
  I like that those two people were saved from drowning but I hate that it was Bob who did it.
roydivision 5y ago
If the Swiss were so serious about tobacco maybe they would think twice about hosting the head quarters of the three largest tobacco companies.
- nix23 5y ago
  It's not about being serious, it's about "at least we did something, and now shut up"
kgeist 5y ago
Here in Russia, tobacco advertising has been completely banned since 2013 (in all forms), and if you look at the statistics, the market has since shrinked from 346 bln cigarettes/year in 2013 to 240 bln in 2020. But I'm not sure how much of the difference is attributable to the ban, because apparently there was already a trend for a decrease in cigarette consumption between 2010 and 2013, also in the meantime the government has been increasing the tobacco tariffs every year. Additionally vaping has been on the rise lately, especially among teens/young adults, it's not included in the statistics.
polote 5y ago
In France, since 1991 tobacco advertising is banned and still we have 30% of people smoking everyday. It is also taxed at 80% and forbidden in public places https://www.santepubliquefrance.fr/determinants-de-sante/tabac/documents/magazines-revues/bulletin-epidemiologique-hebdomadaire-26-mai-2021-n-8-journee-mondiale-sans-tabac-2021 https://www.santepubliquefrance.fr/determinants-de-sante/tab... in french
- teruakohatu 5y ago
  Cigarettee are still relatively cheap in France (according to Google). In New Zealand a pack costs about 20 Euros. I have no idea how smokers can afford to continue smoking. We also ban all display of tobacco, so stores have to keep tobacco products inside opaque cabinets. The downside is there is a growing blackmarket trade and increase in armed robbery. 9.4% of our adult population (15+) smkoke regularly.
ornornor 5y ago
This is a step on the right direction but Switzerland really has a loooooong way to go on tobacco. I don’t think I have breathed as much secondhand smoke in the developed world as I have since moving to Switzerland. People smoke everywhere. Basically if you can somehow see the outside, you’re outside and can smoke. That includes parkings, covered areas, train stations (I know it became illegal to smoke there not too long ago but no one seems to care). Not to mention smoking in doorways, under public or office buildings open windows, children playgrounds… hell, I see people multiple times every day smoking with a baby in one arm and a cigarette in the other hand, or dragging children along with them while smoking and have the cigarette burn in the child’s face. Oh, and that festival in Appenzell where children (as in 7–14 years old) are encouraged to smoke. Really. Look it up, it’s a thing. It’s really going to be tough to change it, will probably take a generation at least.
- fourstar 5y ago
  Go back to where you came from if you don't like it.
  - ornornor 5y ago
    Thanks, real classy.
RealStickman_ 5y ago
I don't think this will change the overall percentage of smokers by much. Most of the people I know started smoking because. 1. Their parents are smokers 2. Their close friends are smokers I haven't met anyone who started smoking because of ads. Any ad and cigarette packet has to state "smoking is deadly" or something similar already in any case.

106 points by hubraumhugo 5y ago

valyagolev 5y ago

love how you can sneak a smoking child into an ad as long as it is an anti-tobacco ad

simion314 5y ago
>as long as it is an anti-tobacco ad This won't classify as advertising, most like information for safety, we have similar stuff in our country like - you should drink 2L of water - passive smoking is bad for children - use table salt with Iodium to prevent ... - don't use improvised heating devices - excessive alcohol drinking is very bad for health
- daniel-cussen 5y ago
  Lost me at "you should drink 2L of water." No. You should drink when thirsty. Too much water is in fact bad for you. In addition, that advice is to get people to buy bottled drinks, because what is called tap water in much of the West, mostly the Americas, is brine. You can't drink it without beginning to crave unsalted water, water without sodium flourine, a salt. Because regulations in USA forbid any district from distributing water, that forces everyone (except those with access to well water) to buy bottled liquids, which conveniently are allowed to use purified water. This despite the fact that many of these bottled liquids contain the sugar that is the obvious culprit of tooth decay, in the name of which tap water was salted. Really the law should be any liquid with sugar in it should itself contain the sodium fluoride that would protect teeth from that sugar. People who don't drink "sugar water" deserve the right to running water.
  - simion314 5y ago
    The actual clip says "liquids" not sure what the small print says. Have no idea if anyone cheks what is in the bottled water though >You should drink when thirsty. is that an expert advice? >Too much water is in fact bad for you. If you link me something that proves that 2L daily is bad then please do, I drink that much and I don't want to get poisoned with water.
    - daniel-cussen 5y ago
      > I drink that much and I don't want to get poisoned with water. It depends on what you consider poisoning means. Water boarding, for instance, is water poisoning, like literally veterans water boarded by Japanese interrogators in WWII spent about a week in the hospital so their kidneys could recover from the effects of the water intake. More than 2L, true. I don't know what water you're drinking, but you should, maybe you can find your water treatment's facility's chemical analysis of the water they provide? And test the water you're drinking from the faucet, the pipes might be lead, and the water company wouldn't report that. Or if you don't want to bother with that, use your sense of taste, which is designed specifically for chemical analysis. Ask yourself as you drink water, "is this good water?".
  - aesthesia 5y ago
    Yes, you should drink when you’re thirsty, and forcing yourself to drink some arbitrary quantity of water every day is probably pointless. But water without any dissolved minerals is also bad for you, and many bottled brands add other salts (eg calcium chloride) to filtered water for flavor. I’ve also never experienced the phenomenon you describe where water with sodium fluoride fails to satisfy my thirst. While I certainly prefer the flavor of filtered water, drinking tap water doesn’t make me crave any other drink. Has there been any research done on this topic?
    - daniel-cussen 5y ago
      Research it with your mouth on your next hike, drink from a stream in the mountains--go high altitude, if you don't get altitude sickness when you arrive at base camp, it won't be enough--and drink water that anyone can see is pure. Assay it with your mouth, it will be conspicuously delicious. When you return, taste the tap, it will not be anything like it. Then if you brush your teeth, you will realize that that is what it tastes like: city water tastes like toothpaste, because that's the intention, to make water good for your teeth, with the same chemical that makes toothpaste good for your teeth. It's toothpaste's signature flavor. The flavor you were told not to object to in childhood when you brushed, guess what, your senses know what it is, sodium flouride wasn't discovered in a lab, many places have it in their groundwater. It's gross because it's supposed to be gross, you aren't supposed to drink that water if you have a better choice.

cletus 5y ago

Let's see how expensive that decision turns out to be [1]. EDIT: to be clear since there seems to be some confusion, I agree with this. The tobacco industry is quite literally cancer. I'm objecting to the ability for companies to sue governments about it. [1]: https://theconversation.com/when-even-winning-is-losing-the-surprising-cost-of-defeating-philip-morris-over-plain-packaging-114279 https://theconversation.com/when-even-winning-is-losing-the-...

w-j-w 5y ago
The Swiss government pays for it's citizens' healthcare, which is likely cheaper than damages paid in international tribunal. Also, these laws are typically very popular, even amongst smokers. Pursuing these laws is a no brainer for the lawmakers.
- noxer 5y ago
  Hell no! Health insurance in Switzerland is mandatory, its NOT paid b the gov. Beside that even if it would be paid by the gov, where do you think does the money comes from? Its still paid by the people.
- nix23 5y ago
  >The Swiss government pays for it's citizens' healthcare, Wow haha, that's some massive false information you have.
elil17 5y ago
A$24 million is an absolute drop in the bucket compared to the economic cost of tobacco - an estimated A$137 billion per year in Australia alone from lost life, diseases, and lost productivity for tobacco victims and their families.
- cletus 5y ago
  Not to poorer countries it isn't. The cost of legal action quite literally scared off South American countries from adopting similar measures. And I wasn't clear: I don't oppose the Swiss government's action. Not in the slightest.

thanatos519 5y ago

« tomorrow it’ll be alcohol and meat » ... yep, you should have to be an adult to choose those things, too. Protecting kids from alcohol is a no-brainer. Providing kids with a complete diet that does not involve the exploitation of animals is way more complicated.

noxer 5y ago
Certain alcoholic drinks such as beer are legal to buy at the age of 16 in Switzerland. So the law actually says you don't have to be an adult for that. Same with tobacco although the age for buying tobacco is not regulated federally but on a state level (So it different in each Kanton (state) either 16 or 18.) >Protecting kids from alcohol is a no-brainer. That is true and mostly anyone would agree but "kids" is undefined in this statement. Clearly the law in Switzerland does not think 16 year olds are kids but many people would disagree with that.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  Most 16 year olds are physically adults. They don't have the experience and wisdom/common-sense of older adults, but at some point you have to let people develop that.
- smoe 5y ago
  One can basically get beer and wine at the age of 16. And when I was at that age, there were many clubs you could get into with color coded wristbands telling the bartenders what they can serve you. But as far as I know, the clubs themselves have since raised the age limits. It is certainly hypercritical to praise alcoholic drinks and demonize other drugs, but alcohol is quite a big part of Swiss culture. Not just getting wasted, but having a beer or glass of wine with a meal or at social gatherings to specific things like the cherry brandy with Fondue. It's a fringe view in the country, that a 16 year old is not adult enough to have any alcohol. I reckon you'd find more people agreeing with lowering that age rather than increasing. Personally, I think it is good, that one can have experiences with alcohol, before reaching full adulthood rights and responsibilities. E.g. being allowed to drive a car.

umvi 5y ago

I think any addictive substances need to have severely limited marketing not just for "the children" but for the public health of society as a whole. This includes tobacco, vape, marijuana, alcohol and any other products containing addictive chemicals that correlate with public health costs. I realize this is poor timing to express this opinion since most of America is going to intentionally watch high-production-value advertisements glorifying alcohol in a few hours from now...

sfe22 5y ago
But who decides what is classified as addictive or not and what gets allowed and what censored? I certainly wouldn’t want a monopoly making the decision.
- sdoering 5y ago
  We actually know quite well the dangers of different substance and also behaviors/institutions like social media. The necessary "institution" is called science. And even with bought/fake science science does have quite a good track record regarding things like these. But I am actually not advocating bans on these things. Every grown up should be allowed to be irrationally dumb and destroy themselves. But, why not tax them. Tax them so that externalities are being compensated. Make these things unattractive. Also work on changing the culture of it being cool to drink till you pass out or even the obligatory social drinking. It doesn't have to be cool. And if anyone wants to kill themselves with substances that is OK. I don't have to like it, but I think it is their right. But don't make me pay for their medical bills (an example) by covering it from their insurance (that becomes more expensive for me). Disclosure: I say that as a person who lost his father prematurely because he drank too much. Way too much. My appetite for alcohol wasn't too high before, but is not existing any more since then. Still I wouldn't want to forbid it for others.
  - sfe22 5y ago
    First problem with taxing is that it takes money without consent and with force, aka theft. But that aside, do you want to get your favorite monopoly hooked on and addicted to the money taken from people’s activities that are harming themselves or others?

wereHamster 5y ago

The people in Schwyz (around Muotathal), Uri (Oberes Reusstal), and Luzern (Entlebuch) are like: Let us encourage our kids smoke that shit! https://abstimmungen.tagesanzeiger.ch/2022-02-13/2/m https://abstimmungen.tagesanzeiger.ch/2022-02-13/2/m Very often you also see which municipalities correspond to big cities and which are more rural areas: https://abstimmungen.tagesanzeiger.ch/2022-02-13/4/m https://abstimmungen.tagesanzeiger.ch/2022-02-13/4/m (Bern, Zurich, Winterthur, Luzern voted differently than all other municipalities in their respective cantons). And on this map you kindof see where the rich people live (Zürcher Goldküste, Zug): https://abstimmungen.tagesanzeiger.ch/2022-02-13/3/m https://abstimmungen.tagesanzeiger.ch/2022-02-13/3/m. They voted against this proposal because it would have negatively affected them.

ur-whale 5y ago
> Let us encourage our kids smoke that shit! Or - maybe there are still folks who believe freedom actually matters and a citizen's duty is to keep government interference in people's lives at a healthy minimum.
- Osiris 5y ago
  Smoking, in particular, has significant effects on third parties so you're freedom to smoke takes away other people's right to clean air. For example, parents that smoke on the house with their kids who have no choice to leave.
  - ur-whale 5y ago
    That is not what we're talking about here. We're talking about regulating ads.
    - kenty 5y ago
      I think this depends on whether or not you agree on the premise: less smoking ads -> less smoking Assuming you accept this premise, this legislation leads to a reduction in smoking which leads to a reduction in second-hand smoke. It follows that this legislation prevents the harm of other third-parties. Note: I am implicitly assuming that: less people smoking -> less harm to bystanders is true (which it obviously is).

542458 5y ago

I live in a place with similar laws (Ontario, Canada) - I can’t remember the last time I saw a tobacco ad. During my lifetime too we’ve banned tobacco displays in most stores (dedicated tobacco shops seem to be exempt?) - the packages are now in opaque cabinets, and you ask the teller to grab you the type you want. Our youth smoking numbers have gone from about 28% in 1999 to about 5% in 2019. To be fair, it’s hard to say what’s causational or not. Of course, youth vaping numbers are on the rise, and while that’s strictly speaking preferable to smoking, it’s hardly ideal.

avgcorrection 5y ago

When I see a political issue about freedom I ask the following: who profits? Are there entities that profit from some apparent freedom? Not coincidentally a lot of “freedom” issues really boil down to businesses wanting to sell stuff, even though the supposed freedom that is being defended is that of the consumer.

kenty 5y ago

Very happy to see this pass. It's idiotic that kids, while going to school, can be exposed to multiple tobacco ads that make tobacco appear as "cool" and "hip" and "desirable". These ads obviously work or else no company would do them. The arguments used by the "No" lobby are: * slippery slope of meat and alcohol being banned in advertizing; when meat is not even a drug (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope). * free market disruption; when smoking is obviously a harmful substance and this law applies to all of the competing tobacco companies. * little events like festivals, bars, and shops get less money; this is probably true but festivals can simply raise their prices a bit. For small owner-led shops, yes, less tobacco consumption => less sales and tobacco is a high-margin product. It's a great example of direct democracy sometimes leading to better political decisions. It's easier for big tobacco to buy off just the legislators (whom actually made an extremely toned down counterproposal) than all of the public.

nix23 5y ago
>as "cool" and "hip" and "desirable" Like redbull aka sugar?
- kenty 5y ago
  In general, two wrongs don't make a right. Additionally for the given example: orange juice contains as much sugar as redbull, a cup of coffee as much (or even more, depending on the type) caffeine and the rest (Taurin, etc...) probably has no effect on the body at all.
  - nix23 5y ago
    >In general, two wrongs don't make a right. No one said that, but you don't have pictures of destroyed livers on wine-bottles, of a rotten feet on sweets, strong alcohol is getting cheaper and cheaper, a bottle of vodka was 25sFr around 2000, now you can get it for 7-8sFr..but no one talks about that. >a cup of coffee as much (or even more, depending on the type) caffeine I quote yourself: >In general, two wrongs don't make a right. >the rest (Taurin, etc...) probably has no effect on the body at all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citric_acid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citric_acid and Sugar a dentist wet dream ;)

pessimizer 5y ago

I'm ambivalent about the actual act of banning tobacco advertising (couldn't happen to a bunch of better guys), but what I'm not ambivalent about is that legislation like this is something that politicians do to pretend like they're working.

ar0 5y ago
Which you are wrong about in this case, however, because this was a people’s initiative brought by various health- and youth-related NGOs and actually opposed by the majority of members of parliament and the government.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  The particular politicians who pushed it are who I'm talking about; I'm not talking about politicians in general. They might as well be pushing for even earlier childhood education, higher penalties for child abuse, higher sentences for drug sales near a church, or other random fake progress that will always get votes from the public. It's a vaguely benign version of law-and-order politics. Let somebody write a dubious paper insisting that cigarette packs are too easy to tear open, and they'll be pushing for legislation to freeze cigarettes in a block of ice, and to force people to lock their chisels and icepicks in a safe. The people who work for NGOs make their entire living from pushing initiatives like this of dubious value but that look good on a flier or a picket sign; they're just as guilty. In the US, they're so paycheck- and opportunity-guided that their attacks on vaping have pushed people back into smoking (multiple orders of magnitude more dangerous.) That's not actually a flaw - if smoking rises they can just fundraise off that again.
avgcorrection 5y ago
I like that those two people were saved from drowning but I hate that it was Bob who did it.

roydivision 5y ago

If the Swiss were so serious about tobacco maybe they would think twice about hosting the head quarters of the three largest tobacco companies.

nix23 5y ago
It's not about being serious, it's about "at least we did something, and now shut up"

kgeist 5y ago

Here in Russia, tobacco advertising has been completely banned since 2013 (in all forms), and if you look at the statistics, the market has since shrinked from 346 bln cigarettes/year in 2013 to 240 bln in 2020. But I'm not sure how much of the difference is attributable to the ban, because apparently there was already a trend for a decrease in cigarette consumption between 2010 and 2013, also in the meantime the government has been increasing the tobacco tariffs every year. Additionally vaping has been on the rise lately, especially among teens/young adults, it's not included in the statistics.

polote 5y ago

In France, since 1991 tobacco advertising is banned and still we have 30% of people smoking everyday. It is also taxed at 80% and forbidden in public places https://www.santepubliquefrance.fr/determinants-de-sante/tabac/documents/magazines-revues/bulletin-epidemiologique-hebdomadaire-26-mai-2021-n-8-journee-mondiale-sans-tabac-2021 https://www.santepubliquefrance.fr/determinants-de-sante/tab... in french

teruakohatu 5y ago
Cigarettee are still relatively cheap in France (according to Google). In New Zealand a pack costs about 20 Euros. I have no idea how smokers can afford to continue smoking. We also ban all display of tobacco, so stores have to keep tobacco products inside opaque cabinets. The downside is there is a growing blackmarket trade and increase in armed robbery. 9.4% of our adult population (15+) smkoke regularly.

ornornor 5y ago

This is a step on the right direction but Switzerland really has a loooooong way to go on tobacco. I don’t think I have breathed as much secondhand smoke in the developed world as I have since moving to Switzerland. People smoke everywhere. Basically if you can somehow see the outside, you’re outside and can smoke. That includes parkings, covered areas, train stations (I know it became illegal to smoke there not too long ago but no one seems to care). Not to mention smoking in doorways, under public or office buildings open windows, children playgrounds… hell, I see people multiple times every day smoking with a baby in one arm and a cigarette in the other hand, or dragging children along with them while smoking and have the cigarette burn in the child’s face. Oh, and that festival in Appenzell where children (as in 7–14 years old) are encouraged to smoke. Really. Look it up, it’s a thing. It’s really going to be tough to change it, will probably take a generation at least.

fourstar 5y ago
Go back to where you came from if you don't like it.
- ornornor 5y ago
  Thanks, real classy.

RealStickman_ 5y ago

I don't think this will change the overall percentage of smokers by much. Most of the people I know started smoking because. 1. Their parents are smokers 2. Their close friends are smokers I haven't met anyone who started smoking because of ads. Any ad and cigarette packet has to state "smoking is deadly" or something similar already in any case.