“You know why you shake like that? Vitamin deficiency I’ll bet.”
I saw one of these commercials yesterday home sick from work…buncha kids dragging hospital gurneys through the street until they all met up in one street in front of a hospital, where one of the kids proceeded to rattle off the point of this spectacle: that the hospital they were standing in front of has 190 beds, but over 30 million people in the US were hospitalized for smoking-related illnesses last year!!! “We’re going to need more beds.”
I yelled at the TV for about five minutes. “Is that the only friggin’ hospital in your city???” and "DUMBFUCK, YOU ARE BLOCKING THE ENTRANCE TO THE E.R.!!! :rolleyes:
Actually that’s what New York State is doing now. They also show a brain that had a stroke, and an aorta that’s clogged with plaque. I change the channel when they come on, and I’m not too fussy about getting back to the channel as soon as it’s over. I’ll spend the entire commercial break watching something else.
The most revolting thing about those ads is, They still make me want to smoke a goddamn cigarette!
And this was true before last week, when I fell off the wagon. Even moreso now.
I remember that ad as well and remember being slightly grossed out by it. Then again, I grew up to take up the leaf too. Can’t wait for my tracheotomy. :rolleyes:
Seriously though, I’d have to agree that those “Truth” ads are teh suck. But then I’m not its target demographic. I have a hard time thinking that most teens would pay it any attention though, either. I can remember when I was a teen; it was hard to get my attention for anything really, and the only ones that even made any impression on me were the ones that made me laugh. These adds would have made me roll my eyes with a derisive “Please, foo” even then. They try to be edgy and hip, but just end up being heavy-handed and preachy. Some may have responded to that, but as the study showed, the wide majority did not. Any success is still success, but to me it shows that there’s a continent full of room for improvement.
So far, the only word we have (second-hand) from a member of the intended audience is that that member of the intended audience thinks they’re stupid. Why are you so assured that they are hitting the spot? Wishful thinking?
That’s silly, Frank. You can do better than that.
I’m not assured that they’re hitting the spot. But on the one hand, we’ve got a single second-hand piece of evidence that one member of the intended audience thinks they’re stupid. On the other hand, we’ve got a peer-reviewed study that find significant negative correlation between awareness of the ad campaign and teen smoking levels and attitudes.
Yes, that study has some characteristics that mean we shouldn’t accept it as the final word. But it’s certainly a lot more convincing than the wishful thinking of a bunch of people who find the ads irritating and therefore hope they’re not effective.
Daniel
I’d love to call of up the Truth kids and say
“Your ads really touched me and I gave up cigerretes. Now, every time I see your commercials, I smoke a joint”.
You’re pinning your argument on a single dubious study. “Convincing” is hardly the word I’d use.
You keep saying that kids don’t find these ads as stupid as adults do, with no evidence. At this point, I see no reason to believe that either of our arguments are based on anything more than personal opinion.
“When you smoke dope, you’re smoking with…whoa, dude, have you ever…like…looked at your hands! They can touch anything but themselves”.
I said more convincing, not convincing. It may be proven wrong, but the ball is in the court of the naysayers to offer a shred of data to suggest that.
If there are particular and specific scientific flaws in the study, let’s discuss them. Innuendo is interesting for looking for avenues to explore to bring down the study, but they’re just starting points. You can’t put innuendo up and say that’s your refutation of the study.
Daniel
I honestly don’t see any reason to bother to refute it. It’s one study, from 2002, performed by a vested interest, with an interest in demonstrating that their funding should continue. I see no reason to give it any weight whatsoever.
Had it been performed by an independent interest, or had it been replicated, then I would give the accumulated results some weight. How many unbiased studies on various things have been overturned or unconfirmed by later studies? Why should I take this biased one as gospel all on its own?
By the way, if my two co-workers remember to ask, I should have reports from three teenagers tomorrow on what they think of the ads, if anything.
Because it’s peer-reviewed, that’s why, because it’s more scientific than what you’ve got. It really looks to me like you’re rejecting it because you don’t like its conclusions. You’re free to do so, but policymakers aren’t gonna.
Daniel
What is peer-reviewed, the counter-signature of God? Peer-review automatically makes it right? Yeah, whatever.
I like that you think policymakers actually pay attention to scientific studies, even assuming it was scientific.
No, Frank. I know you’re not normally this dense. You tell me: what is peer-reviewed a characteristic of that anecdotes from your friends’ teenagers of is not characteristic of?
I’m not interested in arguing against your friends’ teenagers.
Daniel
I did, more than once. It’s discusting.
My favorite anti- smoking ads are (were?) from Stupid.ca
So you’re saying those anti-tobacco ads aren’t effective? Why it’s almost as if the tobacco companies that were required to fund them as part of a legal settlement weren’t sincerely trying to convince people to stop using their product.
Boy, you’re cynical… 
In the past day, I’ve refrained from smoking roughly 100,000 cigarettes. Get to work!
Thanks for the vote of confidence. It’s SO nice to have my intelligence insulted.
Actually, I take that back. I’m sure some of my friends are dumb enough to smoke, do drugs, and drink irresponsibly. They’re smart enough not to do it around me though.
And I don’t want a cellphone. I do want an mp3 player or something similar. Saving my pennies. Sigh.