BrenOS said:
So why try to effect it?
Those pictures cause me more offense than second hand smoke.
As a non-smoker why would those pictures cause you offence?
And why try to affect it? It's public health promotion. Note promotion, not enforcement. And the government is bound to promote public health, especially for something that is proven to cause such problems. Until these measures cause more harm than smoking does itself, I can't see why it's a problem. It's a smoker's choice to ignore these images, which, as I said earlier I think most will anyway.
VaderDSL said:
To be fair, I agree with BrenOS, granted smoking can cause cancer, but the pictures shown are extreme cases, if we have pictures like that on packets of cigarettes, why do we not have car adverts showing bits of bodies after a small child is run down by a speeding idiot?, or alcohol adverts with people dead in the road after being beaten to death by a gang of drunken idiots?
To be equally fair, smoking isn't really the same as driving. Sure enough, 'accidental' accidents of course happen, but in the example that you mention, that is dangerous driving. If you drive carefully, you won't have an accident. You can't say the same for smoking carefully now... Same goes for drinking, if you drink responsibly, or at least know your limits, then nothing bad should come of it.
Medically speaking it actually does not matter if you smoke one cigarette each day or 20 a day. There is no 'careful' in smoking. If you smoke at all, you may as well smoke a packet a day, full strength cigarettes (if that is to your taste of course).