4 ms·
Inhaling Fear: Those Graphic Smoking Ads Potentially Encourage Smoking
- dangoldin 18y agoThis seemed really surprising to me since I'm disgusted by those ads but I'm not a smoker so I wouldn't know about the craving. I guess the question is whether to get people to quit or to prevent people from smoking. The ads might work for the latter but not for the former.
- redorb 18y agoI love such bold claims from a 32 person study. :(
- gojomo 18y agoI'd like to see some rigorous analysis of the anti-smoking ads run in California. Moreso than the messages 'smoking kills' or 'you shouldn't smoke', they emphasize the message 'tobacco companies/executives are evil'. That's always seemed to be an unfair use of public funds for nasty politics, to me. (The ads are a lot like election campaign hit pieces.) I wonder if by blaming third parties for smoking, rather than individual decisions, it subtly enables smokers to avoid making a healthy personal choice. It also fortifies the self-righteousness of anti-smoking crusaders: "we good, they evil, ugh! ugh! ugh!"
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]
- seano 18y ago"To the contrary, the warning labels backfired: they stimulated the nucleus accumbens, sometimes called the 'craving spot,' which lights up on f.M.R.I. whenever a person craves something" - maybe they were craving to be non-smokers.
- joestrickler 18y agoI smoke; most of my family smokes, around half of my acquaintances. As best as I can tell: External messages (warnings, PSAs) have a negligible effect on people who already smoke. The psycho/physiological considerations are much more a factor than how graphic a warning message is. Instead, they should be doing this study on people who don't smoke. The real goal is prevention. Personally, I'm a programmer so I don't worry about warnings anyway, only errors.
- ksvs 18y agoUnfortunately smoking errors tend to be fatal ones.