Gerry the smoker

Grandeeod

There's an ad running on TV featuring a poor guy who died from a smoking related illness shortly after the ad was made. I'm assumming it's true.

Anyway, it's a pretty hard hitting ad and I've no problem with that. I'm a smoker and everytime I see it, it makes me think, so it's working. However I do have one particular problem with the ad and that's when it's shown. My young daughter has seen it screened during daytime TV. She understands it. She knows I'm a smoker and now gets very very upset when she sees it. She's not badgering me about quitting, she's more concerned that I'm going to die any day now because I smoke. I agree with anti smoking campaigns to an extent, but exposing young children to such a personal and touching account is perhaps a little too much.

I don't smoke inside the house or car. My daughter thinks its disgusting and I agree with her. I quit for a year and then went back on them. I have recently halved the amount I smoke. I am trying and aiming to be a non smoker asap. But I just believe that this ad should be screened after the watershed. My daughters upset is still not enough to make me go cold turkey, because its an addiction and the process of beating it is a difficult one, yet my weakness is targeted by the ad and upsetting my daughter.

Thoughts?

Mod warning post 68-Keep it civil folks. Thank you

GreatDefector

Grandeeod wrote: »

Thoughts?

Quit

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

No, I agree with it being aired before the watershed simply because if you can get the message into children's heads early enough that smoking kills, it may deter enough of them from ever trying it.

Sheep Lover

You're going to die OP, get your affairs in order.

Atlantic Dawn

Grandeeod wrote: »

There's an ad running on TV featuring a poor guy who died from a smoking related illness shortly after the ad was made. I'm assumming it's true.

Anyway, it's a pretty hard hitting ad and I've no problem with that. I'm a smoker and everytime I see it, it makes me think, so it's working. However I do have one particular problem with the ad and that's when it's shown. My young daughter has seen it screened during daytime TV. She understands it. She knows I'm a smoker and now gets very very upset when she sees it. She's not badgering me about quitting, she's more concerned that I'm going to die any day now because I smoke. I agree with anti smoking campaigns to an extent, but exposing young children to such a personal and touching account is perhaps a little too much.

I don't smoke inside the house or car. My daughter thinks its disgusting and I agree with her. I quit for a year and then went back on them. I have recently halved the amount I smoke. I am trying and aiming to be a non smoker asap. But I just believe that this ad should be screened after the watershed. My daughters upset is still not enough to make me go cold turkey, because its an addiction and the process of beating it is a difficult one, yet my weakness is targeted by the ad and upsetting my daughter.

Thoughts?

That's the key to the ad to make smokers feel guilty and to make those loved ones around smokers put pressure on them to quit, especially children in that they pressure you and will be far less inclined to take it up themselves. There's been warnings on the packs since the early 80's that use of them can/will kill, that approach didn't seem to be working.

Perhaps give those e-cigs a go, plenty of mates of mine took them up and have eventually either quit all cig types or are just on the e-cigs, you can notice their health has improved as a result too.

turnikett1

Grandeeod wrote: »

I agree with anti smoking campaigns to an extent, but exposing young children to such a personal and touching account is perhaps a little too much.

Isn't that the whole point? Anti-smoking ads aren't meant to be happy affairs. They highlight the devastation smoking causes, so people like yourself will hopefully quit. Why hide it? To be honest I miss the ads where they showed people's clogged up veins and blackened lungs. No need to sugarcoat smoking. The more vile it's exposed to be the less people will smoke.

Smoking is a figurative and literal cancer in our society. I hate it so much, quitting has been one of my proudest life achievements. I get very annoyed at my father who smokes like a chimney despite him telling me every week he's going to quit soon (been saying this for years now). I hate hate hate saying it but I don't see him making it past his mid 60s unless he stops NOW. I try and try to pressure him, and he all he says is "don't worry about me", "I'll quit soon", etc. Makes me furious. His mother and brother died due to fags and he'll end up no different

osarusan

No problem with the ad or timing of it.

I think a follow-up campaign with Gerry's family saying how much they missed him would be really good too.

KwackerJack

No point in showing an advert that could save someone's life after all the kids have gone to bed?

A lot of people start smoking before they are even old enough to ride a roller coaster!!

Education on smoking should be in school! It kills and thats the simple fact!

You get this bull**** of my granny is 130 and had always smoked and drank! Well your granny is one very very lucky woman!

Grandeeod

GreatDefector wrote: »

Quit

Not very original considering the detail in my post.

CardinalJ

Whole point of the ad is to point out that smoking kills.

If you stop because it upsets your daughter that it has a good chance of killing you, then the ad has done its job.

Grandeeod

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

That's the key to the ad to make smokers feel guilty and to make those loved ones around smokers put pressure on them to quit, especially children in that they pressure you and will be far less inclined to take it up themselves. There's been warnings on the packs since the early 80's that use of them can/will kill, that approach didn't seem to be working.

Perhaps give those e-cigs a go, plenty of mates of mine took them up and have eventually either quit all cig types or are just on the e-cigs, you can notice their health has improved as a result too.

I see your point. I am guilty, but if the key to the ad is to influence and upset young children of smokers, then I think thats a little irresponsible. I'm all for educating youngsters about the dangers of smoking in a responsible manner.

I was on an e-cig for over a year in the early days of e-cigs. Heading back to one once I find a decent brand.

gctest50

Grandeeod wrote: »

I see your point. I am guilty, but if the key to the ad is to influence and upset young children of smokers, then I think thats a little irresponsible. I'm all for educating youngsters about the dangers of smoking in a responsible manner.
.

Grandeeod wrote: »

.........
I don't smoke inside the house or car. ...........

You don't smoke inside, but many many more would

A non smoker living with a smoker has a 25 per cent increased risk of lung cancer and a 30 per cent increased risk of heart disease. Passive smoke exposure increases the risk of stroke by 82 per cent

maybe the Polonium210 in it doesn't help either -didn't do Mr. Litvinenko much good

Although it has been known for more than 4 decades that tobacco smoke contains the radioactive substance polonium-210 (PO-210), publicity surrounding the poisoning of former KGB agent Alexander V. Litvinenko with PO-210 in 2006 has heightened awareness of its presence in tobacco smoke.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2509609/

The Backwards Man

Grandeeod wrote: »

I see your point. I am guilty, but if the key to the ad is to influence and upset young children of smokers, then I think thats a little irresponsible. I'm all for educating youngsters about the dangers of smoking in a responsible manner.

I was on an e-cig for over a year in the early days of e-cigs. Heading back to one once I find a decent brand.

The key to the ad isn't to upset your kids, the key to the ad is that your smoking upsets your kids. And it's working.

turnikett1

Grandeeod wrote: »

I see your point. I am guilty, but if the key to the ad is to influence and upset young children of smokers, then I think thats a little irresponsible. I'm all for educating youngsters about the dangers of smoking in a responsible manner

Isn't the simple fact that tobacco is a highly-addictive, very fatal drug upsetting as it is though? The ads are showing what happens to smokers. Smoking is inherently a terrible thing to do, so it's completely expected for people to be upset by what it does... I don't see any other way around it.

They're hardly going to have a quick shot of someone really lovin' a fag on a night out, then weigh out the pros and cons for you and encourage you to make your own choice!

Arbiter of Good Taste

Grandeeod wrote: »

I see your point. I am guilty, but if the key to the ad is to influence and upset young children of smokers, then I think thats a little irresponsible. I'm all for educating youngsters about the dangers of smoking in a responsible manner.

I was on an e-cig for over a year in the early days of e-cigs. Heading back to one once I find a decent brand.

If you are labelling someone irresponsible, then maybe have a look at yourself. You are the one that's smoking. It's your action that is upsetting the child, not the ad.

Just sounds like a lot of deflection on your part. If you are really concerned about your child, then quit. It's possible. I did it cold turkey 15 years ago. It's a matter of getting your priorities right.

diomed

The child loves you.
You love cigarettes more.

Bubbaclaus

The advert doesn't upset your daughter, your smoking does.

the groutch

Grandeeod wrote: »

I see your point. I am guilty, but if the key to the ad is to influence and upset young children of smokers, then I think thats a little irresponsible. I'm all for educating youngsters about the dangers of smoking in a responsible manner.

I was on an e-cig for over a year in the early days of e-cigs. Heading back to one once I find a decent brand.

hate to be blunt, but it sounds like you're looking for excuses not to give them up.

Grandeeod

the groutch wrote: »

hate to be blunt, but it sounds like you're looking for excuses not to give them up.

No I'm not. I will accept all the criticism anyone (including my daughter) gives me and I never defend it. I was off them for a year. I went back on them. Ive halved my consumption. Im trying. My point is that this particular ad has caused her nightmares and sleepless nights and I think its a little too much for a young child to comprehend.

etoughguy

OP "But I just believe that this ad should be screened after the watershed" - I don't give a s** what you think there's more than a 50% chance you'll die from smoking. You are on the road to lung cancer but you have an opinion about an ad that will hopefully shock a few people into changing their habit.
I do hope (for your daughters sake) you quit I really do.

Timberrrrrrrr

Grandeeod wrote: »

No I'm not. I will accept all the criticism anyone (including my daughter) gives me and I never defend it. I was off them for a year. I went back on them. Ive halved my consumption. Im trying. My point is that this particular ad has caused her nightmares and sleepless nights and I think its a little too much for a young child to comprehend.

Sorry but no! Your continued smoking is what's causing this. If that ad puts your daughter off cigarettes for life then it has done exactly what it has intended for.

El Weirdo

Fair ****s to the family and Gerry himself.

I'm a smoker with young kids and every time I see that ad I switch off.

It works. Believe me.

etoughguy

El Weirdo wrote: »

Fair ****s to the family and Gerry himself.

I'm a smoker with young kids and every time I see that ad I switch off.

It works. Believe me.

You switch off what? The tv? If it worked you would not be a smoker so no i don't believe you
I do hope you quit

Arbiter of Good Taste

Grandeeod wrote: »

No I'm not. I will accept all the criticism anyone (including my daughter) gives me and I never defend it. I was off them for a year. I went back on them. Ive halved my consumption. Im trying. My point is that this particular ad has caused her nightmares and sleepless nights and I think its a little too much for a young child to comprehend.

Seriously, if you are so concerned about your daughter's mental wellbeing then give up the bloody fags. Otherwise, you have no credibility.

And there is absolutely no excuse to go back on them after a year. You would have gotten over the physical addiction after two weeks and the psychological addiction after a couple of months.

And halving your consumption is bs. You might as well have 20 a day as 10.

Stop trying to blame the telly in order to assuage your guilt

Arbiter of Good Taste

El Weirdo wrote: »

Fair ****s to the family and Gerry himself.

I'm a smoker with young kids and every time I see that ad I switch off.

It works. Believe me.

How is burying your head in the sand working?

Fleawuss

If the ad is upsetting your daughter it's working as it should. She's going to lose you sooner than she should. Your response? Put it on after the watershed. Head in the sand stuff. Deal with it.

Grandeeod

Grandeeod wrote: »

I see your point. I am guilty, but if the key to the ad is to influence and upset young children of smokers, then I think thats a little irresponsible. I'm all for educating youngsters about the dangers of smoking in a responsible manner.

I was on an e-cig for over a year in the early days of e-cigs. Heading back to one once I find a decent brand.

Taking up a potentially fatal act is too
Not stopping, likewise.

RayM

Grandeeod wrote: »

Anyway, it's a pretty hard hitting ad and I've no problem with that. I'm a smoker and everytime I see it, it makes me think, so it's working. However I do have one particular problem with the ad and that's when it's shown. My young daughter has seen it screened during daytime TV. She understands it. She knows I'm a smoker and now gets very very upset when she sees it. She's not badgering me about quitting, she's more concerned that I'm going to die any day now because I smoke. I agree with anti smoking campaigns to an extent, but exposing young children to such a personal and touching account is perhaps a little too much.

I spent my whole childhood worrying that my mum (a heavy smoker) would die from lung cancer. I was genuinely terrified... crying myself to sleep, etc. The fact that 'smoking causes lung cancer' was common knowledge (and printed on cigarette packets) was enough to terrify me. In the end, she did die from lung cancer, but not until I was 30 (she was 58). I wish I had vocalised those fears more.

the_pen_turner

if your daughter is upset it is only because you are slowly killing yourself.


I would go as afar as to say that add is mild compared to what I would put on the tv.

I would show someone fairly young coughing their lunges up and not being able to breath. I would pics of dying kids on the packets too

the_pen_turner

if your daughter is upset it is only because you are slowly killing yourself.


I would go as afar as to say that add is mild compared to what I would put on the tv.

I would show someone fairly young coughing their lunges up and not being able to breath. I would pics of dying kids on the packets too

endacl

I think it's important to note the statistic from the end of that ad. One out of every two smokers will die of a non-smoking related illness.

looksee

And almost two out of every two non-smokers will die from non-smoking related diseases.

The 'almost' is because there will be a few non-smokers who will die from breathing second-hand smoke.

looksee

duplicate

donegaLroad

dont wait for the health scare OP.. just completely quit now, and everyone will be happy.

I was a smoker for just over 20 years, the first 10 or so years was approx 20 B&H a day, the next 10 years was 3 or 4 roll-ups in the evening with a drink, I also used to smoke the other stuff.

I quit 4 years ago and I will never go near them again. Although there was a time where I honestly couldn't see how I would ever quit.... so I do understand op.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Arbiter of Good Taste

Patww79 wrote: »

Isn't he lucky you suggested that as I'd say he never thought of it.

Hugely unhelpful.

You're right, we should just tell him what he wants to hear - that it's the big bad scary ad that's giving his child nightmares, not his disgusting habit. :rolleyes:

Sometime people need to be told the obvious.

briany

the_pen_turner wrote: »

if your daughter is upset it is only because you are slowly killing yourself.


I would go as afar as to say that add is mild compared to what I would put on the tv.

I would show someone fairly young coughing their lunges up and not being able to breath. I would pics of dying kids on the packets too

Imagine all the pictoral warnings we could put on whisky bottles if the government allowed - a drunk man hitting his wife and kids, a teenager face down in a pool of vomit, bloody car wrecks, messy Christmas rows, public indecency, the economic cost of hangovers, a diseased liver....

hairyslug

If your daughter asks you to stop smoking and you stop,for her, just think how much she will respect you for that.

eeguy

Smoking is such a f*cking weird thing.

You actually have to work at it to get addicted and despite the constant message that smoking will kill you and those who quit smoking never regret it, people still take up the expensive, disgusting habit.

What the f*ck.

eeguy

Smoking is such a f*cking weird thing.

You actually have to work at it to get addicted and despite the constant message that smoking will kill you and those who quit smoking never regret it, people still take up the expensive, disgusting habit.

What the f*ck.

Grandeeod

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

You're right, we should just tell him what he wants to hear - that it's the big bad scary ad that's giving his child nightmares, not his disgusting habit. :rolleyes:

Sometime people need to be told the obvious.

You don't know what I want to hear and I didn't start this thread to hear anything apart from an opinion about the ad being screen within the watershed and the effect I articulated. All you have offered is a lecture and another lecture and another lecture. Some smokers don't need that lecture. Like me they already know. (awaiting the obvious not very creative response to this.)

Your contribution to the issue I raised has been based on my habit alone and very little else. Quite frankly you are incapable of actually discussing the particular issue that I raised, despite my admissions that I cannot actually defend my smoking habit. Obviously you like to shroud one with the other.

the_pen_turner

briany wrote: »

Imagine all the pictoral warnings we could put on whisky bottles if the government allowed - a drunk man hitting his wife person hitting their partner and kids, a teenager face down in a pool of vomit, bloody car wrecks, messy Christmas rows, public indecency, the economic cost of hangovers, a diseased liver....

now your talking. at least we are on the same page

Grandeeod

eeguy wrote: »

Smoking is such a f*cking weird thing.

You actually have to work at it to get addicted and despite the constant message that smoking will kill you and those who quit smoking never regret it, people still take up the expensive, disgusting habit.

What the f*ck.

Heroin is the same and coke and lsd and etc etc. I await the ads showing a heroin addict dieing in a laneway as the kids are starving at home in the freezing cold.

eeguy

briany wrote: »

Imagine all the pictoral warnings we could put on whisky bottles if the government allowed - a drunk man hitting his wife and kids, a teenager face down in a pool of vomit, bloody car wrecks, messy Christmas rows, public indecency, the economic cost of hangovers, a diseased liver....

Sure they already do that.
The road safety ad that forever associated Samantha Mumba with a car crash.

That other awful ad that showed the car rolling through the fence and crushing the child.

There's an english one with a compilation of street fights caught on CCTV.

KwackerJack

Grandeeod wrote: »

No I'm not. I will accept all the criticism anyone (including my daughter) gives me and I never defend it. I was off them for a year. I went back on them. Ive halved my consumption. Im trying. My point is that this particular ad has caused her nightmares and sleepless nights and I think its a little too much for a young child to comprehend.

I stood in my mothers bedroom and watched her take her last breath due to lung cancer directly related to smoking!

If you think that advert is bad wait until your daughter experiences what I experienced! I haven't slept a full night since September 14th 2014 and I'm 30......not a young child!

the_pen_turner

KwackerJack wrote: »

I stood in my mothers bedroom and watched her take her last breath due to lung cancer directly related to smoking!

If you think that advert is bad wait until your daughter experiences what I experienced! I haven't slept a full night since September 14th 2014 and I'm 30......not a young child!

I would go as far as to have someone like your mother be filmed during that time and that shown as an add. that would be really hard hitting

briany

The thing about anti-smoking ads is that they're kind of beating a dead horse in a way. That smoking (cigarettes, habitually) is quite bad for you is not lost on anyone. That point has been as hammered home as it's ever going to be at this stage. A poster above mentioned that it's so weird that people continue to take up smoking in spite of its often dire consequences for people who carry on the habit - it's only weird if you believe that enough anti-smoking campaigns and legislation will eliminate the problem, which I think is a narrow-minded view. There's obviously something else at play that anti-smoking campaigns won't really ever touch, whether it be something in the culture, or something about the human psyche.

And the other problem I have with anti-smoking campaigns is that it's preaching an easy standpoint. A just one, of course, but where the question was once hard, it is now easy, in relation to smoking. But when you're still asking easy questions you've got less time to ask hard ones, and less time to put on campaigns likely to find a lot more resistance. It's like smoking is an evil, true, but also an evil that's an easy scapegoat so that other evils can go about their business, relatively unquestioned. I think there needs to be more evenness about what we're preached to about on TV, if we want to be preached to at all. If that means only preachy ads, at least we could say the ads are going towards genuine public good.

First Up

Grandeeod wrote:

No I'm not. I will accept all the criticism anyone (including my daughter) gives me and I never defend it. I was off them for a year. I went back on them. Ive halved my consumption. Im trying. My point is that this particular ad has caused her nightmares and sleepless nights and I think its a little too much for a young child to comprehend.

Her distress today is probably less than it would be at your funeral.

briany

eeguy wrote: »

Sure they already do that.
The road safety ad that forever associated Samantha Mumba with a car crash.

That other awful ad that showed the car rolling through the fence and crushing the child.

There's an english one with a compilation of street fights caught on CCTV.

Road accidents and scuffles are only one of a myriad of social, health-related, and personal ills associated with excessive drinking and drunkenness. Why not the same treatment of alcohol as for tobacco? Anti-drinking campaigns everywhere, banning of alcohol advertising on TV, radio and print, raising the price of drink through the roof (so no more affordable bulk buying). Sure, the country would practically up in arms over that, because drinking to excess might as well be one of the cornerstones of our country's culture, but that's what I'm talking about in asking a hard question.

Grandeeod

KwackerJack wrote: »

I stood in my mothers bedroom and watched her take her last breath due to lung cancer directly related to smoking!

If you think that advert is bad wait until your daughter experiences what I experienced! I haven't slept a full night since September 14th 2014 and I'm 30......not a young child!

I'm older than you. I sat in Harold Cross hospice with my father in law and smoked a last cigarette with him. He died of lung cancer in 2010. I spoke to a mother in the same place that was waiting on her 42 year old son to die from lung cancer. I've been where I have to be, but the battle goes on.

ThisRegard

Grandeeod wrote: »

I see your point. I am guilty, but if the key to the ad is to influence and upset young children of smokers, then I think thats a little irresponsible.

Says the guy who smokes despite the obvious health problems and knowing the upset it's causing.