1st Amendment & Corporations

[tommy_ed]

I take it you contend the graphic warnings are ineffective ? You may have a point. Do you wish to elaborate ?.

yes, i think they will be inneffective. i don't have any solid arguments to back up my thoughts on that point, its just an opinion. things like that don't usually keep teenagers from doing what they want. in fact, sometimes it does the opposite

 

[OutofDate1980]

... yes, i think they will be inneffective. i don't have any solid arguments to back up my thoughts on that point, its just an opinion. things like that don't usually keep teenagers from doing what they want. in fact, sometimes it does the opposite

It appears it's more than just one opinion, that why I included the link to Extreme negative anti-smoking ads can backfire, experts find

 

[tommy_ed]

It appears it's more than just one opinion, that why I included the link to Extreme negative anti-smoking ads can backfire, experts find

i somehow managed to miss seeing that before i replied lol very interesting article

 

[Bob Maxey]

I take it you contend the graphic warnings are ineffective ? You may have a point. Do you wish to elaborate ?

As I mentioned in the OP, I believe the plaintiffs have a good case. Not that I support their position, but with the current make up and past decisions of the current Supreme Court, I believe they will prevail.

I contend they are largely ineffective. Once you start and become addicted, the warnings matter very little to most smokers. Just like alcoholics would ignore the warnings pasted on a fine Chardoney or rare bottle of vintage Ripple.

Warnings might stop some from beginning their life-long tobacco habit, but unless you live in a cave at the bottom of Mel's Hole, you/we/they already know that smoking is a bad habit fraught with dangers.

Granted, smoking does improve your complexion, and it does add years to your life, and it is way cool . . . some people are damaged by smoke. Typically these are whiners that want to control your life.

Smiley.

WARNING: The Android Forums does not endorse the use of tobacco products. Any use of Tobacco requires the express written permission of Major League Baseball . . . all rights reserved.

Smiley.

The current warning says this: SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Quitting smoking Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to Your Health." Not a startling warning and not at all a serious warning.

In 1974 in New Zealand, their warning said this: Smoking Causes Gangrene.

In the United States, our first (1966 if Wikipedia is accurate) warning said this: Caution: Cigarette Smoking May be Hazardous to Your Health

In my view, we all know what dangers lurk behind the way cool advertising. I do not think most smokers care. I do miss the advertising, however.

 

[OutofDate1980]

... I do miss the advertising, however.

Here you go Old TV Cigarette Commercial - YouTube

 

[OutofDate1980]

... In the United States, our first (1966 if Wikipedia is accurate) warning said this: Caution: Cigarette Smoking May be Hazardous to Your Health ...

I'm beginning to think that Wikipedia has become a questionable source. May start a thread on this in the future after doing some fact checking.

 

[Bob Maxey]

I'm beginning to think that Wikipedia has become a questionable source. May start a thread on this in the future after doing some fact checking.

In this case, it is indeed accurate. By all means, get back to me if you think the warning is inaccurate. BTW, I do not use Wikipedia as a sole source.

 

[Frisco]

I'm beginning to think that Wikipedia has become a questionable source. May start a thread on this in the future after doing some fact checking.

One thing I have mixed feelings about is the editable nature of Wikipedia. You and I can go into any page in there and change it (as long as we do it to their standards, etc).

I used to enjoy a comedy site (won't name it because of what I'm about to say) that went under; I clicked its link in my bookmarks and it was not there. So I did a Google search for it and there was a Wiki link.

I went into the Wiki link and was startled to see a long, nasty diatribe about the founders of that comedy site, along with the most disgusting photograph of a person doing something very abusive to himself I've ever seen in my life.

As I read through the spiel there I kept waiting for the "joke" to come along, because the site I liked did make fun of itself along with making fun of a lot of other things in society, the internet, etc. But, no joke, just one big hate filled rant, and all in the Wikipedia titled for that old comedy site.

So, now I have much less trust of Wikipedia, and I think the "pedia" part of that name is misleading because it evokes notions of "encyclopedia" which is about facts. Wikipedia is not necessarily about facts, I learned.

 

[OutofDate1980]

... I went into the Wiki link and was startled to see a long, nasty diatribe about the founders of that comedy site, along with the most disgusting photograph of a person doing something very abusive to himself I've ever seen in my life.

As I read through the spiel there I kept waiting for the "joke" to come along, because the site I liked did make fun of itself along with making fun of a lot of other things in society, the internet, etc. But, no joke, just one big hate filled rant, and all in the Wikipedia titled for that old comedy site. ...

This author had a similar experience and gave a lecture about it at the University of Texas. Click on "For the larger, interactive slideshow version" as the embedded link cuts out half way though.

The Hijacking of Social Media | Deep Capture