An article from the Brisbane Courier mail:

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21183179-5003426,00.html

Here was my online comment. They most likely will not publish it.

Another bogus propaganda story frrom the anti establishment. The text does not even support the headline. Professor Boofhead says it is clear that the warnings are more likely to trigger a response. Yeah Right. Response is either ridicule or anger or both. Or go buy a cover for the pack.

Fact is most Australian smokers are smart enough to recognise these warnings for the outright lies and fraud they represent and ignore them. What a waste of (our) money. The trade practices act prohibits false and misleading advertising and yet these guys get away with it.

The anti smoking establishment in the USA is coming under closer scrutny recently due to the outragious lies they have been promoting and due to their funding ties with drug companies hoping to ramp up their sales of useless and dangerous NRT products. Even leftist newspapers like the Washington Post and NY Times are carrying stories detrimental to the anti ideology.

Just waiting for the whole thing to be exposed and implode.

Their definition of what is considered "works" is always amusing. It works in that people notice it? LOL

The headline reads: Labels work on smokers

Then what they say:

"AUSTRALIA'S new hard-hitting cancer warnings on cigarette packs will prompt more smokers than ever to consider quitting"

"A survey of British smokers...shows awareness of the health message jumped almost immediately"


"'This is the best evidence we have that there will be a very (big) upsurge in awareness of smoking dangers,' Professor Borland said.'"

What buffoons. With their kind of definition for successes I'll bet they think Germany won WWII.

I'd love to see some of the responses to this article. Might some of them been "yep, I noticed that the warnings got larger, but I ignored them anyhow"?

They did not post my comment - I sort of knew they wouldn't as it was a bit over the top for them.

But these warnings make me angry and i was letting off a a bit of steam.

Anyone else care to try pulling them up on it?

Here is the latest warning from Australian health authorities and it covers the entire back of the pack.

TOBACCO SMOKE IS TOXIC

(Photo of beaker half full of brown stuff with a yellow triangular label with skull and crossbones and the word TOXIC)

Tobacco smoke is a complex mixture of toxic chemicals such as nitrosamines and benzopyrenes (which contribute directly to the formation of cancer in smokers), and carbon monoxide (which reduces the ability of blood to carry oxygen). These harmful substances can reach your brain. heart and other organs within 10 seconds of the first puff.

You CAN quit smoking. Call QUITLINE on 131 848 , talk to your doctor or pharmacist, or visit www.quitnow.com.au

There is also a radio ad asking you to imagine rat poison entering your system and going deep into your lungs and to your brain. Then it says well you don't have to imagine if you are a smoker.

So if there was even a scrap of truth in this, why are all the smokers still alive? I suspect the truth is that these substances are everywhere in the environment and that the amount in a cigarette is so small that it is irrelevant.

Makes me mad to see this blatant scientific misrepresentation sponsored by government. And even worse to have it on the blasted radio.

So nobody has a comment to add to this?

quote:

Originally posted by John R:
So nobody has a comment to add to this?

The more overboard they get, the sooner will people see through it all. That's why Siegel, one of more cool-headed antismokers, is increasingly fighting his own side, trying to keep them from killing the golden goose with their lack of reason and restraints. They will self-destruct, anyway.

I posted a comment to the effect that most of us look for a familiar product to purchase. Once we have determined it is we buy it and use it.

If people read the warnings on pain relievers Johnson & Johnson would not have the money to fund the Woods foundation, let alone their other products.

People investigate labels the first time they buy a product, after that they buy what has worked for them in the past.

We all still buy cars regardless of their high cost and depictions of terrible automobile accidents.

Graphic pictures on packaging only add costs to that packaging.

quote:

Originally posted by nightlight:
They will self-destruct, anyway.

Out of curiosity, do you have any speculations on how long this will take? Months, years, decades? Or will their self-destruction hinge on your idea of first de-programming smokers?

It depends on a gullible public.