

Inhaling Fear: Those Graphic Smoking Ads Potentially Encourage Smoking - dangoldin
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/opinion/12lindstrom.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

======
dangoldin
This 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
I love such bold claims from a 32 person study. :(

------
joestrickler
I 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
Unfortunately smoking errors tend to be fatal ones.

------
seano
"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.

------
gojomo
I'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!"

