Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Agatha Carmen
190 Followers
SouthTerrazas
-5 Followers
Liza Morton
76 Followers
Muir Caceres
75 Followers
ParentIves
65 Followers
Annabelle Abbott
-7 Followers
Giron Monaco
73 Followers
Louisa Sparks
-11 Followers
myrtlemaldonado
85 Followers
Sebastian Wick
59 Followers
crashdvisMar 21, 2011
Yes this will make a huge difference. Just look at how the Surgeon General's warning on cigarette packages stopped smoking. That was a huge success.
theonewhoknowsMar 21, 2011
Actually, it wasn't a huge success. Those warnings, plus heavy counter-marketing, plus restrictions on the tobacco company's marketing abilities has all helped to reduce the normalizatino of smoking. But it was far from a huge success.
By the way, you know that in the 50's, smoking was considered healthy by many people. Now, even those who regularly smoke know it is "bad" for them, but they do it anyway. That is a huge acheivment in and of itself.
Closed AccountMar 21, 2011
thought he was being sarcastic
norman619Mar 21, 2011
It's called making an informed decision. Everyone knows the potential health problems associated with smoking yet people still CHOOSE to smoke. It must drive the nanny's in this country nuts to know people will freely choose to consume things they know is not good for them. Freedom is fantastic. Sucks for the nanny who would love to control our lives.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
theonewhoknowsMar 21, 2011
Everyone did not know about the potential health problems until after the Surgeon General's warnings.
norman619Mar 21, 2011
They have known for a few decades now. And guess what? People still choose to pick up that habit.
theonewhoknowsMar 21, 2011
I meant, that the surgeon general's warning was effective in educating about the dangers, previously, the dangers weren't widely known. It, along with the other things I mentinoed, were also effective at reducing the rpevalence of smoking.
They were not effeective in eliminating it.
crashdvisMar 22, 2011
So are you saying that people don't know the dangers of taking in too many calories while not burning them off? Seriously? How many diets are there out there? How many weight loss companies? How many pills proclaiming to be a miracle diet drug? How many TV shows are there about fat people and their struggle with food and losing weight?
Also, isn't the nutritional information already on the can? I'm looking at one now. It has the "nutrition facts" panel with serving size and calories and all that good stuff. I thought that was supposed to do the trick. Are you telling me that hasn't worked?
theonewhoknowsMar 22, 2011
I think you are havign a different conversatino than me.
Closed AccountMar 21, 2011
To be fair, the key word there is "informed." I totally support the notion that you're free to put whatever you want to in your body. With smoking, however, for the longest time, the decision wasn't informed at all. People didn't know it was bad for them, and they had no real way of knowing it was bad for them.
drmangrumMar 21, 2011
It wasn't the label. It was the anti-smoking campaigns that shifted smoking to be socially unacceptable (it's tolerate, but generally not accepted).
The label was joke. If someone needs a label to tell them that inhaling burning gases and cinders is bad for them, they deserve the cancer.
Closed AccountMar 21, 2011
lol
NewsMeBackMar 21, 2011
This will make our drinks taste bitter.
3the3dude3Mar 21, 2011
I'm not an unwitting victim, incapable of reading the back of a Coke can and doing the math; I like sugar. I don't like assh**es that regularly condescend to "most Americans".
tssaloicMar 21, 2011
Note: It was the soda companies willingly doing this.
theonewhoknowsMar 21, 2011
"but new labeling may make a difference " - I bet it won't make a difference.
norman619Mar 21, 2011
Dream on. We have all kinds of labels informing the consumer of the contents and nutritional break down of most foods. Has that stopped people from eat them so much? No it has not. this is a joke.
Closed AccountMar 21, 2011
ya know, it's always going to be something. I remember when a can of soda contained upwards of 250 calories. Now you'll see 80-150 calories. Based on a 2000 calorie diet, you'd have to drink more than 10-20 soda's a day to fill those calories. I think it's safe to say people aren't drinking that much soda on average.
The same can be applied to other things like energy, We moved from dirty coal to 'clean' coal, the world is saved. Now we must move from that to renewable resources which is all fine and good, but eventually even green energies will be demonized in favor of something 'better'.
If we keep going we're eventually going to reach a point where wesley snipes is frozen in cryostasis for not paying his taxes and he will wreak havoc on helpless future generations where the only restaurant is taco bell and steak/salt is illegal and sex is virtual. is that what you want?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hearshotkid86Mar 21, 2011
No it won't make a difference. I don't understand this campaign to shove the idea that stuff is bad for you in your face all day. Americans aren't stupid, just lazy and fat, and our biggest trait 'Dont GIVE A s**t' People will smoke cigarettes, always will. and always have. It doesn't matter how many diseased f**king lungs u put on the pack, or how many labels u shove in our face. How many guys have a VD after screwing a girl they thought MIGHT have a STD?? He knew she was a slut, did it anyway. Its not like 60's where we are just finding out suger and tobacco and McDonalds is bad for you. We get it, just stop covering up my precious marketing with your bulls**t. I DONT CARE. Jesus Christ, go put up signs in poor African countries about the dangers of binging and purging you f**king twits.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.