The Gruen Transfer, Series 3 Ep. 11 | Ad Crunch: Plain Packaging

[justplaino]

'you know what you have to do, make it addictive, like ciggarettes.' HAHAHAHA. true, true true

[CalyxAsgard]

If this law spreads to other countries, cigarette companies may use the graphic anti-smoking imagery it is forced to use as its new way to sell the product as the shock value of the anti-smoking imagery has already lessened.

[icekat83]

Please do the new one with the scary lady. At first it was weird, then funny, now it's just creepy.

[Zealith]

that's a bloody deep voice!

[aicha345]

''It won't work so why do it''

MAYBE BECAUSE IT WORKS, YOU IDIOT 

[murf69]

@aicha345 Where is your evidence? Even if it did, what right does any third party have a right to take away our liberties under the guise of protection? The evidence that smoking causes disease is well established and everyone knows it. If people chose to continue to smoke that is their choice. As it is the choice of, for example, rock fishermen to continue their sport despite it being the most dangerous sport in Australia. Do legislators have a right to ban rock fishing? If so, explain why.

[aicha345]

@murf69 what changes to you?you smoke the same cigarettes,you just get rid of the manipulation of advertising,in fact you gain freedom rather than losing it xDDit's scientifically proven that colours cause emotional response in our brain and tobacco industries exploit this to their profit.so I can't see where they''take away our liberties''if you think they're less appealing u can paint on them if you feel like xDso maybe it'll improve our creativity too

sorry 4some strange phrases:italian

[murf69]

@aicha345 I don't smoke. The issue is with what rights we allow legislators to take away. I agree that colour is used to influence in advertising, it's used in all adverting. You don't seem to understand why I'm questioning the right of government to take away the rights of the tobacco industry specificly. By your logic all advertising should be banned to "protect people" from influence. Or is it just dangerous products? Either way I disagree with you. You also missed a few of my questions.

[aicha345]

@murf69 ahah sorry I just read the first two sentences and I got irritated xD yeah obviously just the adv of dangerous products should be banned! explain me why you desagree! the product does not change at all, that's a good thing even for younger people and teenager who're convinced smoking is 'cool' and by making the packaging cool as well you fortify this belief.. still able to buy them but less attracted to do it, that's great!

[murf69]

@aicha Soft drinks and fast food are concidered dangerous by the medical profession. Coca Cola and Cadbury are two good examples of companies that use colour and symbols to maximise mental impact and efficiency of their advertising campaigns. You don't seem to understand that even if it was very effective, it doesn't make it right. 1. You're forgeting the rights of the tobacco industry and 2. You have no perspective.

If you can't understand my point yet, there isn't hope for you anyway lol.

[aicha345]

@murf69 thank you xD never thought that maybe you don't understand what I mean? shitt, food is different because even if unhealthy the body claims it needs it to survive, and cigarettes not, you can't compare them! obviously the use of advertising is wrong in this field too and I wouldn't be against to a measure for making the packaging less elaborated but this won't happen because morally food is more accepted in its different forms.

if I could talk italian I would be more clear, sorry

[aicha345]

@murf69 btw rock fishing has nothing to do with this, it's totally different: by smoking I put my health in danger BUT someone sells it to me, I decide to buy it but there is someone who spends lots of money and time thinking of the best strategy to catch me and other costumers..

rock fishing: nobody wants you to do it for lucrative purposes, you decide to risk your own life by killing other animals, feel free! no reasons to ban it. nobody manipulates you, pure madness.

[CalyxAsgard]

I suspect that even if they do enforce this new law, it would only really be effective for a year or so, but there isn't much more you can do to the cigerette companies short of making it illegal.

[morgzlucas]

this show used to be funny

[MyCaptainPugwash]

She can jam her idea of freedom of choice, if it was pure freedom of choice then there should be no advertising agencies as what they do is manipulate freedom of choice through subtle and sometimes not so subtle method. Its smoking for god sake, something that is actually shown to cause cancer.

[murf69]

@MyCap Bullshit. What you are saying is that there will always be manipulation, so don't even worry about freedom of choice? Your statement makes no sence. You can chose not to watch or be influenced by advertising. Or are you too stupid? If you think a third party has a right to take away our freedoms so we can be "protected from ourselves" so are so naive. Whats next? Ban sport? Driving? Expand the war on drugs to alcohol and tobacco? Just more guns to innocent peoples heads. Slippery slope.