Discussion in 'Current Events' started by BIV, Aug 24, 2012.
Wait, smoking's bad for you?
Good. I don't need to see that shit.
More people up here are smokers than at any time I've seen. 3/4 the labels are warnings with some awful shit on it. Smokers don't give two shits. Glad it was struck down.
When you see smokers going at it in front of their kids, and the kids are waving off said smoke, a warning of a woman smoking in front of her kids on the pack, won't deter anyone.
Can we have the court strike down those horribly depressing Sarah McLaughlin abused pet commercials? I'd rather watch 100 tracheotomy operations than one more hurt doggy.
Why not combine the 2 and add a warning to the end of the ads saying that this is what cigarettes make you do to your pets? Then at the end they could show a kitten with emphysema.
Well at least is not what they are doing in Australia where smokes are $20 a pack...
Good...those warnings don' stop addicted people.
Here's what they have in Canada:
And Uruguay, which has the largest in the world:
Does anyone else see a blatant contradiction here?
If they agree that the pictures would undermine the companies' economic interests (i.e. keep people from buying cigarettes), how can they say there's no evidence it would reduce smoking?
Without depressing Sarah McLaughlin, there would be no Patrice bit.
"Hi. I'm white lady..."
"There's a kitten, with a pencil in his eye..."