Visiting Canada this weekend (such a patriot, aren’t I?) I had the pleasure of picking up a pack of smokes from a local gas station. The cigarette pack had an image on it of someone’s mouth, ravaged from the use of tobacco.
“Huh,” I thought, and opened the pack. When I opened the pack I found an insert:
“You CAN quit smoking!” Duh. I know.
But it got me thinking.
What if all companies were forced[sup]†[/sup] to display some of the really negative things that could come from their use? For example: what pictures would be on the steering wheel of a car? A bottle of beer? Large pane glass windows? A pack of matches? A Snickers bar? A condom?
What consequences would we come across if all companies were required to take measures to demonstrate to the potential pitfalls of their products? What benefits could we really expect to acheive?
In short: if it was a good idea for cigarettes, why wouldn’t we extend the principle?
†[sub]Point of fact, I do not know if this particular tobacco company was actually forced to put this image on their product.[/sub]
Taco Bell would need to have a long list of possible side effects.
Cell phones: “inappropriate use of this device may cause you to become a complete jerk.”
Canada does require that tobacco product bear photographic depictions of their products’ side effects.
With less toxic products there is a point of diminishing returns. Enough of anything can kill you. It’s hard to figure where to draw the line for many of them.
[MP]
Cleese: Lark’s vomit? I would think the box should bear a large red warning label saying, “WARNING! LARK’S VOMIT!”
Palin: But our sales would plummet!
Cleese: Fuc|< your sales! I’ve got to protect the average consumer.
You mean make it just like the requirements for medicine commercials? If they say the benefit of the medication (“get rid of your allergies”) then they also have to, by law, say all the side affects (“may cause constipation, dry mouth, stillbirth, spontaneous terminal body cancer, etc.”)
Sounds like a great idea to me. You have my vote. I don’t see why medicine and tobacco should be treated any differently than any other product or service that someone decides to advertise.
Now, it wouldn’t be fair to make them say all the bad stuff if they didn’t say the “good” stuff. Most commercials don’t advertise the good things about their products, they just show girls with big tits. I think a disclaimer that says “buying this product will not get you laid” would be in order in such cases.
And who determines what the pitfalls are? Bad idea. Everything can be used in some way to cause harm. As an adult, I prefer to make my own decisions and not pay extra (added cost of disclosure) for a product that some idiot can’t figure out will hurt him.
I think, too, you would run into the problem of value vs harm. In other words, far more good things come from cars than the bad. In even other words, most things aren’t harmful just by their very use. What I am trying to say is, we don’t use tobacco to get to our jobs, and we aren’t increasing our risk of early death tenfold (or whatever it is for cigs) just by simply turning the key.
I’m with Mr. Mace. Although the OP specified " some of the really negative things that could come from their use," how does one create the list?
Could a company make a really long list of minor and unlike negative consequences while totally ignoring one major and likely problem? Who would police this? How would the standards be set? What would all this cost?
Some of the smokers I know like to collect Canadian packs. Gallows humor, I suppose. But that’s what people want me to bring back.
Well I don’t think one has to reach very far to find a picture of a guy who went through a windshield, for example. How many accidents do you suppose there are a day? Wouldn’t a particularly gruesome image of someone dying in a car wreck help people remember “You CAN drive safe!” Do you suppose that it will take a panel of experts to declare that car accidents are a likely ‘side-effect’ of driving a car [given a large enough sample size and years of use]?
Condoms aren’t 100% effective. And we know what the consequences are: we know why people where condoms: to prevent STD transmission and unwanted pregnancy. I think a picture of a syphilitic dick should be a great reminder that abstinence is the only sure way. Do you suppose there will be years of debating why people use condoms to come up with these pictures?
It isn’t particularly a stretch to figure out what a bad thing is that comes from many products. True, you are right, not everything has a clear problem. Should pictures of advanced cavities go on candy, for example?
But this is the question, you see. Is this idea a good one? And how broad is its application if it is a good idea?
The idiots run the world, man, or hadn’t you noticed? Really, I prefer many things. I prefer a world where responsible companies educate consumers of the risks, where responsible citizens work to educate us about those that fail in that responsibility, and responsible legislators keep their mitts off. But here we are anyway, with pictures and warnings on tobacco products and me wondering, “That isn’t the only thing likely to fucking kill me that I pay for!”
I have seen window screens indicate that they are not strong enough to prevent a child from falling out of the window. Wouldn’t cracked baby heads leaking onto someone’s back porch really drive the message home? The company (probably due to some lawsuit, but who knows) felt this was an obvious enough risk that they should take the time to create a label informing the customer of the hazard, but is that really enough? isn’t that just the Surgeon General’s Warning of window screens? Shouldn’t we go that extra mile? I mean, sure, maybe a parent reads the warning, but they might quickly forget it or say “It would never happen with my screen/child/whatever.” But show them an image of a tender young thing dashed on concrete and they might wake the hell up: “You CAN protect your child!”
I’m sure this is a very important question, and I think it is actually implicitly contained in my OP. Isn’t this principleeducating consumers through rather gruesome pictures of the more obvious possible consequences of the use of the productthe right idea? If so, can we extend it properly into more of the consumer world? Are there any obvious or intuitive places or categories of products that would be exempt from the principle?
So more people should drive cars than smoke cigarettes. Who cares what the possible good is? I derive far more pleasure from cigarettes than from driving. But that’s not the issue. The issue is: there is bad, obvious harm, that can come from using an automobile. I’m sure you’ve passed a few accidents in your life. That harm is there: shouldn’t you have a constant reminder of it each time you get into your car?
Please don’t think I’m comparing cars to cigarettes. Or anything to cigarettes, except for in the trivial sense that they are things people purchase and use that can affect the purchaser in a way not desired.
So would you say we should back away from such warnings, John Mace? I might come across as supporting the issue but I’m really not trying to push that agenda right now. In my own opinion the idea is bad from start to finish because I do believe people are responsible for their behavior. But on the other hand, I can see the merit in the idea that companies are responsible for their products, too, and many products can cause damage even when they are used as indicated (if their use is indicated at all), so I think there’s room for a valuable discussion here.
So… should batman capes figure graphic depictions of a child with its head smashed into the pavement because its pretty obvious that children would want to use the thing to fly (why else would they put a disclaimer on there?). Personally, I think its
a) stupid
and
b) ineffective as people will just start ignoring them if they become oversaturated.
Yeah, I think one’s support for this idea depends on where you locate yourself on the responsible/not responsible spectrum. Most people fall somewhere in the middle, and so you end up where we are today-- warnings on cigarettes, and plastic bags with warnings not put them over your head.
Companies that willfully produce defective products should be punished. But I fall very far on the side of personal responsibility, and so don’t support product warnings. I can see where someone would support them, though, if they feel less inclinded to believe people are solely responsible for their own actions.
I think they should apply the 2 percent rule. No product can claim 100 percent effectiveness or safety. There is at least a certain percentage that ant product is bad for or useless. If 2 percent of the entire population that use a product has adverse effects or are too stupid to use it right, that should be deemed acceptable. If more than 2 percent has bad experiences with a product then a warning should be made. If less than half are getting hurt from a product because of stupidity, side effects or what not, then it should be prescribed and monitored by a professional. If more than half gets more bad than good from a product, then that product should be removed from the market.
Can you imagine if they had to include a list of all the stupid things you might do while drunk with every bottle of liquor? The friggin’ thing would be the size of Encyclopedia Brittanica.
X~Slayer(ALE), that’s an interesting start, and on the surface it seems workable. Do you suppose this should apply to all consumer products, everything from washers and dryers to ink jet printer cartriges, or do you suppose there are arguable categories of products that would be exempt from this?
Would we consider faults only relevant to the product being used as specified (if use is specified), or do we count all “stupid” factors that, perhaps, prohibit prescribed use?
As I seem to have found out, for the cigarette packs they have a bunch of different pictures, say, 20 of them, which are cycled over different packs, rather than a complete instruction manual on how to kill yourself with cigarettes.
Really, I prefer many things. I prefer a world where responsible companies educate consumers of the risks, where responsible citizens work to educate us about those that fail in that responsibility, and responsible legislators keep their mitts off. But here we are anyway, with pictures and warnings on tobacco products and me wondering, “That isn’t the only thing likely to fucking kill me that I pay for!”
As I seem to have found out, for the cigarette packs they have a bunch of different pictures, say, 20 of them, which are cycled over different packs, rather than a complete instruction manual on how to kill yourself with cigarettes.