erosennin

I would definitely like to think that the images would keep kids from starting, but I've also walked the other side of the line. In my opinion there need to be risk factors considered. Having parents, friends, and role models that do not smoke puts you at low risk to starting. Likewise, if one or all of the above do smoke they are at considerably higher risk.

Consider this, who do you care more about? Strangers, or friends and family? Now consider that you are young and impressionable. You know what smoking does and have more than likely seen images of black lungs, etc. At the same time, your friends and family are smoking, despite the fact they know this same information. Now consider that they tell you not to do it, and then continue to smoke themselves. Obviously there must be a positive benefit to smoking inspite of the overwhelming negatives, otherwise no one would do it, right?

Tada. That's the trap. The fact of the matter is we don't need to worry about kids at low risk. They're not curious in the first place (and, oddly enough, the most affected by shocker adds). You never figure it out until it's too late. No ammount of gruesome images are going to get rid of the reason why people start. It's a viscious cycle, people start smoking because other people smoke.

Knowing this, the prevailing theory of shock campaigns is seemingly to keep people from starting, but in order to keep people from starting you must get current smokers to quit, thus eliminating the reason to start, which shock campaigns make no attempt at.

Let us also consider that tobacco companies make large donations to the firms producing these ads. Is it because big tobacco has an honest interest in putting itself out of business, or because they know these things don't work.

Food for thought