The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
We've all seen the public service TV ads that go much further than most ads could get away with - people getting physically crippled in car accidents (or pub table accidents), nasty fatty goo squeezed from arteries and all the others on the theme - violence and gore with abandon, in the name of saving lives.
Today I saw a new one:
Guy hits on a pretty girl in a pub, she's feeling it, suddenly he pulls away, makes his excuses and leaves.
Cut to the girl with a cigarette and the message - "If you smoke, you stink".
When it was graphic violence and gore, I was surprised how far they were going, but it seemed acceptable given the message.
As soon as it gets personal, I find myself starting to reconsider.
We're not giving people a hard-hitting message that forces them to accept the dangers of smoking to their own health and others'.
We're not providing compelling life-saving information about in a hard-hitting format.
This is all about making people feel social shame. Making them feel socially rejected, objects of disgust, people so unpleasant everyone else will try to avoid them.
This just seems like victimisation.
If people aren't harming other through passive smoking, and they realise the health issues, they have the right to smoke if they want to. Civil liberties, as the law in this country has defined them.
Ram the health message down peoples' throats, in an emotive 'sit up and listen' way designed to make sure it hits home. It forces them to understand the consequences to their health.
But cheap personal shots designed to chasitse and humiliate smokers? Isn't that just below the belt.
We're not talking about education or information any more. We're talking about trying to manipulate, through shame and fear, people into compliance with how certain individuals have decided we should live our lives.
Those people can go to hell.
But wait!
Isn't that what pretty much *any* TV ad is all about - trying to coerce and manipulate someone into compliance to buy a specific product or service?
Yes. But can they go so far as to shame and ostracise the non-compliant - to do so in such a direct, explicit and personal way?
I don't think they'd get away with it.
But isn't this one justified on the grounds that it's for peoples' health?
It may be distinct from the previous public service ads by its commmercial use of manipulation, but it's the same as normal commercial ads. Only taken much further.
And isn't going much further justified by all the lives it'll save?
Or are we back to trying to powerfully shame and manipulate people out of engaging in one of their civil liberties?
We don't have the 'right' to stop them damaging their health like this if they choose to do so.
But if it's normal for commercials to try to manipulate people out of engaging in their civil liberties, say the liberty not to buy product X, then is this ad so different?
What do you make of it all?
[I'm a non-smoker]
Today I saw a new one:
Guy hits on a pretty girl in a pub, she's feeling it, suddenly he pulls away, makes his excuses and leaves.
Cut to the girl with a cigarette and the message - "If you smoke, you stink".
When it was graphic violence and gore, I was surprised how far they were going, but it seemed acceptable given the message.
As soon as it gets personal, I find myself starting to reconsider.
We're not giving people a hard-hitting message that forces them to accept the dangers of smoking to their own health and others'.
We're not providing compelling life-saving information about in a hard-hitting format.
This is all about making people feel social shame. Making them feel socially rejected, objects of disgust, people so unpleasant everyone else will try to avoid them.
This just seems like victimisation.
If people aren't harming other through passive smoking, and they realise the health issues, they have the right to smoke if they want to. Civil liberties, as the law in this country has defined them.
Ram the health message down peoples' throats, in an emotive 'sit up and listen' way designed to make sure it hits home. It forces them to understand the consequences to their health.
But cheap personal shots designed to chasitse and humiliate smokers? Isn't that just below the belt.
We're not talking about education or information any more. We're talking about trying to manipulate, through shame and fear, people into compliance with how certain individuals have decided we should live our lives.
Those people can go to hell.
But wait!
Isn't that what pretty much *any* TV ad is all about - trying to coerce and manipulate someone into compliance to buy a specific product or service?
Yes. But can they go so far as to shame and ostracise the non-compliant - to do so in such a direct, explicit and personal way?
I don't think they'd get away with it.
But isn't this one justified on the grounds that it's for peoples' health?
It may be distinct from the previous public service ads by its commmercial use of manipulation, but it's the same as normal commercial ads. Only taken much further.
And isn't going much further justified by all the lives it'll save?
Or are we back to trying to powerfully shame and manipulate people out of engaging in one of their civil liberties?
We don't have the 'right' to stop them damaging their health like this if they choose to do so.
But if it's normal for commercials to try to manipulate people out of engaging in their civil liberties, say the liberty not to buy product X, then is this ad so different?
What do you make of it all?
[I'm a non-smoker]
Page:
I used to smoke socially up town to "join in with the crowd" but never any other time.
As me and my mates who smoked drifted apart after University 4 years ago I just stopped.
As me and my mates who smoked drifted apart after University 4 years ago I just stopped.
Aye, 'joining in the crowd' for me too ... so bloody stupid.
What gets me is people who have avoided smoking all their lives then start at my age ... I've had two mates who pretty recently have started, I gave them so much grief for it ... to get all this way and then give in ... silly.
Oh well it's their decision.
What gets me is people who have avoided smoking all their lives then start at my age ... I've had two mates who pretty recently have started, I gave them so much grief for it ... to get all this way and then give in ... silly.
Oh well it's their decision.
Re: 'Whatever it takes to make them give up is okay'?
Do you think it's acceptable to behave like that? If they have all the information, know the seriousness of the health risks, they have the right to smoke.
If it's their informed decision to do it, using psychological manipulation to effectively harrass people into compliance doesn't seem 'on'.
Is it really acceptable to 'do whatever it takes' to stop people exercising their civil rights?
Smedlos wrote:
> The thing that bugs me is when people say that smokers are the
> bain of the NHS and that they take up it's resources and
> shouldn't be treated.
>
> Smokers put way more money into the NHS through taxes than they
> take out!
They also mean less old people needing hip replacements and stuff.
And fewer people drawing pensions.
Hmm...
Do you think it's acceptable to behave like that? If they have all the information, know the seriousness of the health risks, they have the right to smoke.
If it's their informed decision to do it, using psychological manipulation to effectively harrass people into compliance doesn't seem 'on'.
Is it really acceptable to 'do whatever it takes' to stop people exercising their civil rights?
Smedlos wrote:
> The thing that bugs me is when people say that smokers are the
> bain of the NHS and that they take up it's resources and
> shouldn't be treated.
>
> Smokers put way more money into the NHS through taxes than they
> take out!
They also mean less old people needing hip replacements and stuff.
And fewer people drawing pensions.
Hmm...
On the other hand, I absolutely hate walking downwind of a smoker in the street.
Plus, I spent last night in a travel lodge, and the only rooms available were smoking-permitted.
My room stank.
It wasn't that strong, but it was vile and persistent.
I guess it's very hard for smokers not to have a detrimental effect on other people.
Plus, I spent last night in a travel lodge, and the only rooms available were smoking-permitted.
My room stank.
It wasn't that strong, but it was vile and persistent.
I guess it's very hard for smokers not to have a detrimental effect on other people.
As an almost militant anti-smoker, i could argue...
It's pointless
It's no different from any other illegal drug
It's anti-social
Social influence on kids
That it impacts on other peoples lives regardless
That you dont have the right to harm yourself (intentionally or not) It's no different from slashing yourself with a knife as far as i'm concerned. Self-harm in addictive form, a kind of mental illness in which the government has every right to act.
That it does cost the NHS more than the tax they put in. (You really think the goverment would discourage it otherwise?)
...and i would expect someone to come back with numerous replies to all of those.
So instead i'll simply say, f**k them. I really dont care whether their feelings are hurt or they feel they're being bullied.
After been irritated to the point of feeling sick by someone smoking near me so many times, i consider them fair game.
I fully expect angry rants in reply to this, possibly with some name calling and mentions of dictators. I'll be disappointed otherwise.
Oh yeah, and i dont smoke either
EDIT
Oh, and as for the civil liberties argument. It's only a civil liberty because the government hasn't made it illegal yet. It's not a civil liberty to shoot up in the middle of the high street and i see little difference.
It's pointless
It's no different from any other illegal drug
It's anti-social
Social influence on kids
That it impacts on other peoples lives regardless
That you dont have the right to harm yourself (intentionally or not) It's no different from slashing yourself with a knife as far as i'm concerned. Self-harm in addictive form, a kind of mental illness in which the government has every right to act.
That it does cost the NHS more than the tax they put in. (You really think the goverment would discourage it otherwise?)
...and i would expect someone to come back with numerous replies to all of those.
So instead i'll simply say, f**k them. I really dont care whether their feelings are hurt or they feel they're being bullied.
After been irritated to the point of feeling sick by someone smoking near me so many times, i consider them fair game.
I fully expect angry rants in reply to this, possibly with some name calling and mentions of dictators. I'll be disappointed otherwise.
Oh yeah, and i dont smoke either
EDIT
Oh, and as for the civil liberties argument. It's only a civil liberty because the government hasn't made it illegal yet. It's not a civil liberty to shoot up in the middle of the high street and i see little difference.
Machiavelli wrote:
> EDIT
> Oh, and as for the civil liberties argument. It's only a civil
> liberty because the government hasn't made it illegal yet. It's
> not a civil liberty to shoot up in the middle of the high street
> and i see little difference.
You can't actually be serious...? Unless you believe a full ban on alcohol should also be instated anyway, because that is a drug, just as harmful to society, and people harm themselves by drinking it...
What about driving cars? Produces pollution, causes people to become asthmatic and causes people who already are to become worse... Should cars be banned too?
Also, the idea that your civil liberties are purely defined by what is or isn't legal is stupid. Are we to then say that it is okay to kill or torture as long as it's legal in the country we do it? Should I not have the right to live if the government who 'rules' me decides so...?
Seriously, I don't think we can ever stop smoking completely. Making it illegal won't help and would be a joke pure and simple. Cannabis is illegal, but I think the majority of teenagers and those in their early 20s will have tried it at some point. And how many police do you think smoke? Do you really think they'll bother to enforce a full smoking ban, when they have better things to worry about...?
I think the way to deal with smoking is to tax companies who profit from the addiction and health deterioration of their customers more. Tax them more and pipe it into the NHS. You obviously also have to educate youth about the negative effects of smoking and everything, but there will always be people who take up smoking regardless.
> EDIT
> Oh, and as for the civil liberties argument. It's only a civil
> liberty because the government hasn't made it illegal yet. It's
> not a civil liberty to shoot up in the middle of the high street
> and i see little difference.
You can't actually be serious...? Unless you believe a full ban on alcohol should also be instated anyway, because that is a drug, just as harmful to society, and people harm themselves by drinking it...
What about driving cars? Produces pollution, causes people to become asthmatic and causes people who already are to become worse... Should cars be banned too?
Also, the idea that your civil liberties are purely defined by what is or isn't legal is stupid. Are we to then say that it is okay to kill or torture as long as it's legal in the country we do it? Should I not have the right to live if the government who 'rules' me decides so...?
Seriously, I don't think we can ever stop smoking completely. Making it illegal won't help and would be a joke pure and simple. Cannabis is illegal, but I think the majority of teenagers and those in their early 20s will have tried it at some point. And how many police do you think smoke? Do you really think they'll bother to enforce a full smoking ban, when they have better things to worry about...?
I think the way to deal with smoking is to tax companies who profit from the addiction and health deterioration of their customers more. Tax them more and pipe it into the NHS. You obviously also have to educate youth about the negative effects of smoking and everything, but there will always be people who take up smoking regardless.
I genuinely don't see the point/benefit in smoking.
Costs a lot - BAD
Stinks - BAD
Makes your skin dry - BAD
Makes your teeth yellow - BAD
Makes your fingers yellow - BAD
Means you throw buts on the pavement - VERY BAD
Means other people have to suffer - DISGRACEFUL
Means other people have to smoke - APPAULING.
But yeah, free country. Knock yourself out. Haha..
Costs a lot - BAD
Stinks - BAD
Makes your skin dry - BAD
Makes your teeth yellow - BAD
Makes your fingers yellow - BAD
Means you throw buts on the pavement - VERY BAD
Means other people have to suffer - DISGRACEFUL
Means other people have to smoke - APPAULING.
But yeah, free country. Knock yourself out. Haha..
Game wrote:
> I genuinely don't see the point/benefit in smoking.
>
> Costs a lot - BAD
> Stinks - BAD
> Makes your skin dry - BAD
> Makes your teeth yellow - BAD
> Makes your fingers yellow - BAD
> Means you throw buts on the pavement - VERY BAD
> Means other people have to suffer - DISGRACEFUL
> Means other people have to smoke - APPAULING.
>
> But yeah, free country. Knock yourself out. Haha..
But it doesn't necessarily mean some of those things... Some smokers will always put out cigarettes in ash-trays or bins or whatnot, rather than throwing the buts on the ground... Some smokers won't smoke around others (unless they are also smokers) so no-one breathes unwanted, second-hand smoke...
I don't smoke btw, but I think it's the persons choice whether to smoke or not. Then again, I think a lot of smokers do need to be more respectful of non-smokers. But I don't like tarring everyone with the same brush.
(See what I did there...? Tarring? Ahahahaha. I'm hilarious!)
> I genuinely don't see the point/benefit in smoking.
>
> Costs a lot - BAD
> Stinks - BAD
> Makes your skin dry - BAD
> Makes your teeth yellow - BAD
> Makes your fingers yellow - BAD
> Means you throw buts on the pavement - VERY BAD
> Means other people have to suffer - DISGRACEFUL
> Means other people have to smoke - APPAULING.
>
> But yeah, free country. Knock yourself out. Haha..
But it doesn't necessarily mean some of those things... Some smokers will always put out cigarettes in ash-trays or bins or whatnot, rather than throwing the buts on the ground... Some smokers won't smoke around others (unless they are also smokers) so no-one breathes unwanted, second-hand smoke...
I don't smoke btw, but I think it's the persons choice whether to smoke or not. Then again, I think a lot of smokers do need to be more respectful of non-smokers. But I don't like tarring everyone with the same brush.
(See what I did there...? Tarring? Ahahahaha. I'm hilarious!)
Machiavelli wrote:
> That it does cost the NHS more than the tax they put in. (You
> really think the goverment would discourage it otherwise?)
Once my plan for world domination comes into being and i am ruling the masses with an iron fist and fear i shall be scrapping NHS healthcare for people whose problems have been caused by smoking, over-eating and other such avoidable issues. Teach them all a lesson i shall, off to the asteroid mines with them
> That it does cost the NHS more than the tax they put in. (You
> really think the goverment would discourage it otherwise?)
Once my plan for world domination comes into being and i am ruling the masses with an iron fist and fear i shall be scrapping NHS healthcare for people whose problems have been caused by smoking, over-eating and other such avoidable issues. Teach them all a lesson i shall, off to the asteroid mines with them
Sibs wrote:
> You can't actually be serious...? Unless you believe a
> full ban on alcohol should also be instated anyway, because that
> is a drug, just as harmful to society, and people harm themselves
> by drinking it...
> What about driving cars? Produces pollution, causes people to
> become asthmatic and causes people who already are to become
> worse... Should cars be banned too?
Drink serves some purpose, wine supposedly has some health benefit. It's only when it's abused that it's a problem. Cars also have a benefit. There is not a single good reason to smoke.
> Also, the idea that your civil liberties are purely defined by
> what is or isn't legal is stupid. Are we to then say that it is
> okay to kill or torture as long as it's legal in the country we
> do it? Should I not have the right to live if the government who
> 'rules' me decides so...?
So what do you define as civil liberties? I'd call it the granted freedoms of society, or in other words, the law and the law is based around perceptions of right and wrong. I should say more but my thinking is a little clouded at the moment. Someone else can argue what i mean.
> Seriously, I don't think we can ever stop smoking completely.
> Making it illegal won't help and would be a joke pure and
> simple. Cannabis is illegal, but I think the majority of
> teenagers and those in their early 20s will have tried it at
> some point. And how many police do you think smoke? Do you
> really think they'll bother to enforce a full smoking ban, when
> they have better things to worry about...?
Making it illegal wouldn't hurt though and it would cut the ammount of people who do it, certainly publicly anyway.
Frankly it's complete hypocrisy that cannabis is illegal and smoking isn't.
As for enforcing a ban, things wouldn't be any different to how pot is dealt with now.
Perception is important and i think there is a big contradiction in the message being sent out by the government that "It's bad but not illegal so knock yourself out".
Really i'd rather it was seem in the same way pot is, just ban it and accept that people will do what they want in the privacy of their own homes but not in public. Truth be told, thats the way it's going anyway so i'd rather they just get on with it.
> You can't actually be serious...? Unless you believe a
> full ban on alcohol should also be instated anyway, because that
> is a drug, just as harmful to society, and people harm themselves
> by drinking it...
> What about driving cars? Produces pollution, causes people to
> become asthmatic and causes people who already are to become
> worse... Should cars be banned too?
Drink serves some purpose, wine supposedly has some health benefit. It's only when it's abused that it's a problem. Cars also have a benefit. There is not a single good reason to smoke.
> Also, the idea that your civil liberties are purely defined by
> what is or isn't legal is stupid. Are we to then say that it is
> okay to kill or torture as long as it's legal in the country we
> do it? Should I not have the right to live if the government who
> 'rules' me decides so...?
So what do you define as civil liberties? I'd call it the granted freedoms of society, or in other words, the law and the law is based around perceptions of right and wrong. I should say more but my thinking is a little clouded at the moment. Someone else can argue what i mean.
> Seriously, I don't think we can ever stop smoking completely.
> Making it illegal won't help and would be a joke pure and
> simple. Cannabis is illegal, but I think the majority of
> teenagers and those in their early 20s will have tried it at
> some point. And how many police do you think smoke? Do you
> really think they'll bother to enforce a full smoking ban, when
> they have better things to worry about...?
Making it illegal wouldn't hurt though and it would cut the ammount of people who do it, certainly publicly anyway.
Frankly it's complete hypocrisy that cannabis is illegal and smoking isn't.
As for enforcing a ban, things wouldn't be any different to how pot is dealt with now.
Perception is important and i think there is a big contradiction in the message being sent out by the government that "It's bad but not illegal so knock yourself out".
Really i'd rather it was seem in the same way pot is, just ban it and accept that people will do what they want in the privacy of their own homes but not in public. Truth be told, thats the way it's going anyway so i'd rather they just get on with it.
Page: