Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
Just because it makes some kind of sense, Rand, doesn't mean that it actually works this way. http://www3.uni-bonn.de/Press-releas...cking-images-1

Ironically, that's the same thing you just told Lewk.
Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
The evidence is ambiguous. Changes to packaging seem to have contributed to some of the reduction in smoking rates but the magnitude of any sustained impact on overall smoking rates and how they relate to other contributing causes isn't easy to figure out.
Absolutely the evidence is ambiguous, in any nebulous discussion like this it will be inevitable. Two facts though are not in dispute.

1: Shocking cancer images are being used to try and scare smokers.
2: Smoking rates are going down in a long-term trend.

Correlation does not equal causation of course, but the idea of using shocking cancer images is far from unprecedented or unacceptable or indisputably counter-productive. It is in fact a legal requirement. To link Lewk's suggestion to that is to put Lewk's batshit crazy ramblings on the same level as what we actually do by law. Do either of you really think that Lewk's suggestions are equivalent to our existing legal requirements?