In December 2000, Canada instituted [http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/site/supersite/resources/docs/gallery_packwarnings.htm graphic warning labels] on cigarette packs to fulfill a requirement of the [[Framework Convention on Tobacco Control]], or Global Tobacco Treaty (which the U.S. has signed but never ratified under the [[Bush Administration]]). The photos take up 50% of the face of the pack. Photos included pictures of people with tracheostomies, amputated limbs resulting from circulatory problems, gum disease and premature babies on life support equipment. An August, 2004 [http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/full/94/8/1442 article] in the American Journal of Public Health examined the effectiveness of these health warnings and found that about one fifth of study participants reported that they started smoking less as a result of these more graphic warning labels and only 1% reported smoking more. 30% of people tried to cover them up (and were not counted in the results of the study).
I agree that the title is a bit overblown... Presumably, any element of the packaging that is consistent over time would become a craving trigger - even warnings! I wrote about this in more detail in Are Tobacco Warnings Really Ads?
An interesting study would be to see the effect of these warnings on those who are not yet regular smokers. Perhaps bold warnings or gruesome disease photos would have the expected scary effect.
I'm pretty sure the author of that book is misstating the results of the study. It seems far more likely to me that showing a smoker a piece of cigarette packaging makes them want to smoke, period. It doesn't sound like they compared cigarette packages with and without warning labels.
The CIA has always employed members of the press for disinformation purposes. The Georgetown social club became infamous for providing members of the press for CIA media campaigns during the Cold War.
The only difference here is that Judith Miller wasn't working directly for CIA but rather for the Neocon's intelligence office in the Pentagon, the Office of Special Planning, as was Ahmed Chalabi, who was feeding her "all the news that's fit to print."
In fact, due to the CIA moderates' "A-Team" conflict with the Neocon hawks' "B-Team" (who Cheney and Rumsfeld moved to the Pentagon to exploit), CIA was working to expose both Miller and Chalabi. Cheney rescued both of them when CIA raided Chalabi's Bagdahd office and took Chalabi's computer, accusing him of working with the Iranians (a double fint, in the he was feeding the Iranians disinformation with them thinking they had him in thier pocket as a double agent when he was in fact a tripple agent).
Miller went to jail for all the wrong reasons -- certainly not in the spirit of the first amendment. She was there knowing she'd eventually be rescued, making money for being there and providing further cover for the real story, which is a story that Valerie Plame and Sibel Edmonds are still gaged from telling in the United States. So you'll have to read the Times Online in London. [cf. Joe Lauria's exposes].
By hiring Miller, Fox exposed themselves yet again as the corporatist-run institution of Neocon disinformation that it always has been. Her job is disinformation, she knows it, she is in agreement with it, gets paid well and she likes it.
When her lips are moving, anyone who takes anything she says as anything other than the disinformation she is paid to shill-out is a damned fool. Everyone from Arlington to Mossad will laugh themselves silly at anyone who takes her seriously.
No really. This is absolutely straight-up the way it is. The press has always been in bed with the intel infrastructure. Cord Meyers of CIA (and the Georgetown set) was the most tragic of examples. While he was working to disinform the world as a pressman during the Cold War, JFK was playing hide the saussage with his wife. Of course, that overstates it all too bluntly. She and JFK went all the way back to college where they were an item together. She did acid with JFK on a few occassions while he was in the White House. [cf. Brohers, by David Talbot.] CIA's wizard of counterintelligence, James Jesus Angleton, was having a fit -- you see, he was in love with her too. Many analysts think he had her murdered because of what she might known that was classified. Certainly, Angleton was so paranoid (like Cheney) that he thought Kennedy might have been a Soviet mole. Kennedy! Angleton was one crazy sob.
You decide: Am I disinforming you? Or telling you straight up? Miller isn't just "wrong." She is right-wing wrong. (Say that five times out loud and win a trip of Hong Kong).
Gee, and I heard it was the Democrats' fault for blocking reforms, at least according to the McCain Campaign. Of course, according to the McCain campaign, everything is Barack Obama's fault, whether it be Fannie/Freddie, gas prices, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
In December 2000, Canada instituted [http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/site/supersite/resources/docs/gallery_packwarnings.htm graphic warning labels] on cigarette packs to fulfill a requirement of the [[Framework Convention on Tobacco Control]], or Global Tobacco Treaty (which the U.S. has signed but never ratified under the [[Bush Administration]]). The photos take up 50% of the face of the pack. Photos included pictures of people with tracheostomies, amputated limbs resulting from circulatory problems, gum disease and premature babies on life support equipment. An August, 2004 [http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/full/94/8/1442 article] in the American Journal of Public Health examined the effectiveness of these health warnings and found that about one fifth of study participants reported that they started smoking less as a result of these more graphic warning labels and only 1% reported smoking more. 30% of people tried to cover them up (and were not counted in the results of the study).
Anne Landman
I agree that the title is a bit overblown... Presumably, any element of the packaging that is consistent over time would become a craving trigger - even warnings! I wrote about this in more detail in Are Tobacco Warnings Really Ads?
An interesting study would be to see the effect of these warnings on those who are not yet regular smokers. Perhaps bold warnings or gruesome disease photos would have the expected scary effect.
Roger
Neuromarketing
I'm pretty sure the author of that book is misstating the results of the study. It seems far more likely to me that showing a smoker a piece of cigarette packaging makes them want to smoke, period. It doesn't sound like they compared cigarette packages with and without warning labels.
The CIA has always employed members of the press for disinformation purposes. The Georgetown social club became infamous for providing members of the press for CIA media campaigns during the Cold War.
The only difference here is that Judith Miller wasn't working directly for CIA but rather for the Neocon's intelligence office in the Pentagon, the Office of Special Planning, as was Ahmed Chalabi, who was feeding her "all the news that's fit to print."
In fact, due to the CIA moderates' "A-Team" conflict with the Neocon hawks' "B-Team" (who Cheney and Rumsfeld moved to the Pentagon to exploit), CIA was working to expose both Miller and Chalabi. Cheney rescued both of them when CIA raided Chalabi's Bagdahd office and took Chalabi's computer, accusing him of working with the Iranians (a double fint, in the he was feeding the Iranians disinformation with them thinking they had him in thier pocket as a double agent when he was in fact a tripple agent).
Miller went to jail for all the wrong reasons -- certainly not in the spirit of the first amendment. She was there knowing she'd eventually be rescued, making money for being there and providing further cover for the real story, which is a story that Valerie Plame and Sibel Edmonds are still gaged from telling in the United States. So you'll have to read the Times Online in London. [cf. Joe Lauria's exposes].
By hiring Miller, Fox exposed themselves yet again as the corporatist-run institution of Neocon disinformation that it always has been. Her job is disinformation, she knows it, she is in agreement with it, gets paid well and she likes it.
When her lips are moving, anyone who takes anything she says as anything other than the disinformation she is paid to shill-out is a damned fool. Everyone from Arlington to Mossad will laugh themselves silly at anyone who takes her seriously.
No really. This is absolutely straight-up the way it is. The press has always been in bed with the intel infrastructure. Cord Meyers of CIA (and the Georgetown set) was the most tragic of examples. While he was working to disinform the world as a pressman during the Cold War, JFK was playing hide the saussage with his wife. Of course, that overstates it all too bluntly. She and JFK went all the way back to college where they were an item together. She did acid with JFK on a few occassions while he was in the White House. [cf. Brohers, by David Talbot.] CIA's wizard of counterintelligence, James Jesus Angleton, was having a fit -- you see, he was in love with her too. Many analysts think he had her murdered because of what she might known that was classified. Certainly, Angleton was so paranoid (like Cheney) that he thought Kennedy might have been a Soviet mole. Kennedy! Angleton was one crazy sob.
You decide: Am I disinforming you? Or telling you straight up? Miller isn't just "wrong." She is right-wing wrong. (Say that five times out loud and win a trip of Hong Kong).
Gee, and I heard it was the Democrats' fault for blocking reforms, at least according to the McCain Campaign. Of course, according to the McCain campaign, everything is Barack Obama's fault, whether it be Fannie/Freddie, gas prices, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
Pages