Lost me at "you should drink 2L of water." No. You should drink when thirsty. Too much water is in fact bad for you. In addition, that advice is to get people to buy bottled drinks, because what is called tap water in much of the West, mostly the Americas, is brine. You can't drink it without beginning to crave unsalted water, water without sodium flourine, a salt. Because regulations in USA forbid any district from distributing water, that forces everyone (except those with access to well water) to buy bottled liquids, which conveniently are allowed to use purified water. This despite the fact that many of these bottled liquids contain the sugar that is the obvious culprit of tooth decay, in the name of which tap water was salted. Really the law should be any liquid with sugar in it should itself contain the sodium fluoride that would protect teeth from that sugar. People who don't drink "sugar water" deserve the right to running water.
> I drink that much and I don't want to get poisoned with water.
It depends on what you consider poisoning means. Water boarding, for instance, is water poisoning, like literally veterans water boarded by Japanese interrogators in WWII spent about a week in the hospital so their kidneys could recover from the effects of the water intake. More than 2L, true. I don't know what water you're drinking, but you should, maybe you can find your water treatment's facility's chemical analysis of the water they provide? And test the water you're drinking from the faucet, the pipes might be lead, and the water company wouldn't report that. Or if you don't want to bother with that, use your sense of taste, which is designed specifically for chemical analysis. Ask yourself as you drink water, "is this good water?".
Yes, you should drink when you’re thirsty, and forcing yourself to drink some arbitrary quantity of water every day is probably pointless. But water without any dissolved minerals is also bad for you, and many bottled brands add other salts (eg calcium chloride) to filtered water for flavor. I’ve also never experienced the phenomenon you describe where water with sodium fluoride fails to satisfy my thirst. While I certainly prefer the flavor of filtered water, drinking tap water doesn’t make me crave any other drink. Has there been any research done on this topic?
Research it with your mouth on your next hike, drink from a stream in the mountains--go high altitude, if you don't get altitude sickness when you arrive at base camp, it won't be enough--and drink water that anyone can see is pure. Assay it with your mouth, it will be conspicuously delicious. When you return, taste the tap, it will not be anything like it. Then if you brush your teeth, you will realize that that is what it tastes like: city water tastes like toothpaste, because that's the intention, to make water good for your teeth, with the same chemical that makes toothpaste good for your teeth.
It's toothpaste's signature flavor. The flavor you were told not to object to in childhood when you brushed, guess what, your senses know what it is, sodium flouride wasn't discovered in a lab, many places have it in their groundwater. It's gross because it's supposed to be gross, you aren't supposed to drink that water if you have a better choice.
Let's see how expensive that decision turns out to be [1].
EDIT: to be clear since there seems to be some confusion, I agree with this. The tobacco industry is quite literally cancer. I'm objecting to the ability for companies to sue governments about it.
The Swiss government pays for it's citizens' healthcare, which is likely cheaper than damages paid in international tribunal. Also, these laws are typically very popular, even amongst smokers. Pursuing these laws is a no brainer for the lawmakers.
A$24 million is an absolute drop in the bucket compared to the economic cost of tobacco - an estimated A$137 billion per year in Australia alone from lost life, diseases, and lost productivity for tobacco victims and their families.
Well it’s still a drop in the bucket compared to the economic costs, the governments just don’t have access to the funds needed. That doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be worth it for society if they could do it.
Certain alcoholic drinks such as beer are legal to buy at the age of 16 in Switzerland. So the law actually says you don't have to be an adult for that.
Same with tobacco although the age for buying tobacco is not regulated federally but on a state level (So it different in each Kanton (state) either 16 or 18.)
>Protecting kids from alcohol is a no-brainer.
That is true and mostly anyone would agree but "kids" is undefined in this statement. Clearly the law in Switzerland does not think 16 year olds are kids but many people would disagree with that.
Most 16 year olds are physically adults. They don't have the experience and wisdom/common-sense of older adults, but at some point you have to let people develop that.
One can basically get beer and wine at the age of 16. And when I was at that age, there were many clubs you could get into with color coded wristbands telling the bartenders what they can serve you. But as far as I know, the clubs themselves have since raised the age limits.
It is certainly hypercritical to praise alcoholic drinks and demonize other drugs, but alcohol is quite a big part of Swiss culture. Not just getting wasted, but having a beer or glass of wine with a meal or at social gatherings to specific things like the cherry brandy with Fondue. It's a fringe view in the country, that a 16 year old is not adult enough to have any alcohol. I reckon you'd find more people agreeing with lowering that age rather than increasing.
Personally, I think it is good, that one can have experiences with alcohol, before reaching full adulthood rights and responsibilities. E.g. being allowed to drive a car.
My point was that any reasonable person agrees on the "protect the kids" statement. The common ground is obvious but the "how" is not.
There are valid medical arguments why a 16 year old should not drink alcohol (brain development). But there are also valid arguments why they should be allowed anyway. For example 16 matched the age where most western teens with the desire to drink alcohol make their first experience with alcohol anyway and it clearly is in no ones interest if they would have to break the law to do so. Possibly even push an already 18 year old friend to break the law by buying it for them.
Also letting them make their first experience with alcohol with stuff that is unlikely to kill them is probably a good thing too. And yes, drinking before being allowed to drive a car seems to be commonly acknowledged as positive.
So no matter which stance someone has on this, the goal is to protect young people we just dont all agree on the "how".
I think any addictive substances need to have severely limited marketing not just for "the children" but for the public health of society as a whole. This includes tobacco, vape, marijuana, alcohol and any other products containing addictive chemicals that correlate with public health costs.
I realize this is poor timing to express this opinion since most of America is going to intentionally watch high-production-value advertisements glorifying alcohol in a few hours from now...
But who decides what is classified as addictive or not and what gets allowed and what censored? I certainly wouldn’t want a monopoly making the decision.
We actually know quite well the dangers of different substance and also behaviors/institutions like social media.
The necessary "institution" is called science. And even with bought/fake science science does have quite a good track record regarding things like these.
But I am actually not advocating bans on these things. Every grown up should be allowed to be irrationally dumb and destroy themselves.
But, why not tax them. Tax them so that externalities are being compensated. Make these things unattractive. Also work on changing the culture of it being cool to drink till you pass out or even the obligatory social drinking. It doesn't have to be cool.
And if anyone wants to kill themselves with substances that is OK. I don't have to like it, but I think it is their right.
But don't make me pay for their medical bills (an example) by covering it from their insurance (that becomes more expensive for me).
Disclosure: I say that as a person who lost his father prematurely because he drank too much. Way too much. My appetite for alcohol wasn't too high before, but is not existing any more since then. Still I wouldn't want to forbid it for others.
Science would have banned/heavily taxed eggs in the 80s. Does science inform us about addictive products above and beyond what our every day observations tell us?
The level of evidence about eggs was spurious at best even in the 80ies. As with a lot of food science preliminary studies and ideas get overblown in media.
But at least the scientists I know would wait for the level of evidence to be high.
But as policies would be made by politicians I doubt it would work without populistic influences.
Yes, I remember the endless LDL and HDL cholesterol public health debates in the 1980s, especially arounds chicken eggs. When I was older, I learned that the Japanese consume a phenomenal amount of eggs per capita -- over 300 per year(!). (Raw egg over rice is a common breakfast dish.) Yet, the Japanese have much lower incidence of heart disease (per capita) than the United States. The reasons are multi-factor -- not all of which are understood.
'Pay for their medical bills' quickly becomes a slippery slope. Healthy, fit individuals don't much like covering the medical bills of the obese and diabetic (type 2) people, for whom the costs of care vastly exceed those that smoke or drink. There are other medical costs that could be greatly reduced if we allow the moral police to ban other risky and destructive behavior.
That actually happens in countries that rely more on socialized medicine. For example, encouraging physical fitness and healthy food in schools is no longer a “nice to have in rich school districts” but a way to save money in the government’s budget in the long run. They don’t “ban” obesity but simply work to encourage people not to be obese. Europes lower healthcare costs and obesity rates are not uncorrelated.
(It already kind of happens in the more liberal states of the USA, where Californians are much better fit than Texans).
Many insurances in Switzerland sponsor highly local public „vita parcours“ which are some kind of training walking trails. They do it to save costs and there is only a small sign which says who sponsored it.
Switzerland’s system is what Obama and Romney care was modeled on: mandatory insurance, but prices are regulated and group plans are disallowed. As such, no company can really reduce costs that way (but it’s good PR), so it’s up to the Swiss government to ensure most healthiness (which they definitely do in ways many Americans would find authoritarian, eg the extra tax males have to pay if they are unfit for conscription).
Being Deaf I am unfit for conscription. Thirty years ago I would have needed to pay that tax (in French: Taxe d’exemption de l’obligation de servir) [0].
However I was allowed to serve in a different service: civil protection [1]. In case of war I would have gone outside and done measurements for radioactivity, chemical and biological warfare agents. My departement was called ABC (atomic, biological and chemical). I am happy and lucky that the war-games never got real.
Later people with disabilities were exempt from the tax. But then I was thirty and already discharged.
Links are to French text, sorry, no English text available.
The problem is that "having a glass of wine every now and then" is okay and doesn't come with many (if any) external costs. Why should I pay through the nose for alcoholics who abuse it? Plus, I happen to be a fairly well-paid software dev who can afford the occasional beer, but if you're a low-income earner then this occasional beer or glass of wine becomes a luxury, which doesn't strike me as entirely fair either.
I don't think "science" can really help all that much here, because a lot aspects surrounding this aren't really scientific questions. Yes, you can be informed by science to answer questions like "how addictive is this?" and "how harmful is this in what dosages?", but that doesn't really answer the question of who should pay for what, what is "fair", or what should or should not be allowed.
(and the answers to these questions aren't always clear either: is cycling a net-negative or net-positive? Health benefits from exercise, but higher risk of injuries – and why should we tax alcohol to account for all external costs but not cycling or other activities where risk is higher than some others?)
> Also work on changing the culture of it being cool to drink till you pass out or even the obligatory social drinking.
Definitely agree with this. If I say "no" then I mean "no", and trying to "oh come, just have a drink"-me is a very quick way to end up on my shit list. I've seen people do this even with people who never drink alcohol even when they know this.
Usually these high health sin taxes also help fund health systems in the majority of developed countries with socialized medicine, so it does shift the tax burden. So for high bad-health-behavior taxes you get lower income taxes for example.
They're basically the equivalent to getting a lower health insurance premium if you keep your blood pressure low or sign up for a gym for example.
In the Netherlands at least it's just added to the general funds, rather than being ear-marked for health care. Also, it turns out smoking actually saves on overall health care costs because smokers die younger; I only looked at the Netherlands, from [1]:
"On a yearly basis smokers have higher health care costs (€3.5 billion) and use more caregivers. Over the complete life-span non-smokers use more health care, especially elderly care (€8.6 billion) and care givers (€1.4 billion). This is because life expectancy is longer. In a smoke-free society health care costs will be higher per capita"
The overall gist of the article is still that smoking is bad and that a smoke-free society would be good (I agree), but health care costs don't actually seem a strong argument, in the Netherlands at least. And aside from lower health care costs, there are also less pensions to give, which saves money.
The costs of alcohol were estimated to be "€2.3 tot 4.2 billion"/year[2] (2013), which also includes police, damage, loss of productivity, etc. Health care specifically is about €450 million. The income from alcohol tax was about €1 billion, which certainly covers the health care costs, though not all of them. I'm not sure if they should: that a small group of people destroy things when drinking doesn't really need to be paid by other alcohol consumers, IMHO.
Anyway, turns out it's not as simple as "smoking = costs society money". Details may differ per country; I just looked at the Netherlands because that's where I'm from.
> They're basically the equivalent to getting a lower health insurance premium if you keep your blood pressure low or sign up for a gym for example.
I'm not sure we have this kind of thing here. Besides, what if I stay healthy by running or cycling? What if you're genetically pre-disposed to high blood pressure? You can market it as a "discount", but it's really a "premium" for people who don't do this IMHO (reminds me of getting a "discount" at some camping sites if you arrive by foot, which isn't really a "discount" but just a way of packaging "you pay for parking").
The latest research I saw, sorry don’t have a source at this time and about to go to work, states that even small occasional drinks are bad for health. Alcohol is a known carcinogenic and I believe the latest stance is there are no known benefits that outweigh the risks.
First problem with taxing is that it takes money without consent and with force, aka theft. But that aside, do you want to get your favorite monopoly hooked on and addicted to the money taken from people’s activities that are harming themselves or others?
I don’t really see that as a problem. Taxation (aka taking money by law) is a corrective measure to a free market failure: namely accounting for externalities. Sure, we could argue about whether some taxes are good or bad, and whether certain things should or should not be taxed, but the utility of taxation overall as a corrective measure is well understood.
Maybe I’m being dense, but I don’t really understand your second point. Could you be more explicit? Are you saying that the government could get addicted to a certain level of addiction in society to fund itself?
If government is dependent on smokers smoking a lot to fund its activities, what happens if some smokers decide to quit? The government has vested interest to keep number of smokers high.
If people in a region need protection services I am sure they will figure out a way to pay for it. Otherwise said service may not be really that important. If you worry about not getting 100% of people to pay without coercion and threatening taking their freedom to move, good news, even now over 50 percent of Americans don’t pay taxes or pay a tiny amount. The interested parties will take care of it easy.
And those who can't afford to pay for their ambulances and fire departments and roads and schools, fuck 'em, right? It's their fault for being poor, they should try harder.
Libertarians are funny people. It boggles my mind how anyone can be clueless or compassionless enough to be one.
In a free market it will be unlikely to have many poor people, as they will see the reality and settle where they are truly productive. Parents care about their children (even if you don’t think so) and reliable education will be offered to them. Fire department can be arranged by neighborhoods, nobody wants their house burning down, or very high insurance payments. Remember how much resources governments waste, they will all get cheaper, how much they tax, people will get way richer.
And yes, I believe everyone will be better off with free markets, otherwise i’d be a commie too. It’s not that I don’t care about others. I care more than most do. I see they working jobs that are not necessary, or governments destroying their purchasing power.
Fortunately I am doing pretty well, even with after the money government takes, and if I was evil or not compassionate I wouldn’t advocate for change, but rather take advantage of current system and move to the side that benefits from peoples diminished value of work. It would be way easier for me.
> In a free market it will be unlikely to have many poor people, as they will see the reality and settle where they are truly productive
That's a very wild claim, unsubstantiated by anything. The history of industrial revolution shows otherwise ( regular people are exploited to death until some regulations come to stop the most rampant abuses). Do you have anything to support your case?
> And yes, I believe everyone will be better off with free markets, otherwise i’d be a commie too.
So for you there's only communism and absolute free markets? So you're in the clueless libertarian case. Considering the freeish markets available today fail miserably at correcting for externalities such as pollution and climate change, how do you imagine absolutely free ones would do so?
It’s the slogan of the kind of liberal economics that’s way far too the right and involves things like private roads and (more facetiously) private McNukes.
Tax it too much and you'll create underground market. There's probably billions of dollars worth of amateur cigarette contraband around Europe. Fighting that wastes tons of money. But fight isn't about recouping some $, but about some sort of fairness?
What exactly are the negative consequences of “censoring” advertisements for products?
Say someone bans advertisements for social media sites - how is that detrimental to society? People who don’t believe social media sites are a problem can still find and use them.
If we have a monopoly deciding, we may never know. That is why I specifically said a monopoly like government. If some people subscribe to this idea, good for them. If they are a large group, the market will offer them a solution and we will see.
The market for large groups of people is called politics. If you like unregulated markets so much, you should like monopolies, including that of political power.
It’s weird to call Switzerland democratically elected government a monopoly. It a democratic government can‘t institute a ban on trying to get kids hooked on drugs, who can?
I believe freedoms can be restricted to everyone in a region by a monopoly (government) if a very large group of people in a place vote for it. Not 50%, it would take higher percentage than that. And this way you can create basic laws, agains murder for example, nukes, heavy weapons, basic insurance, etc. And said people should have a right to withdraw their vote. If they want to censor TV this way they can. It would he stupid but they can. However to meet definition of democracy in my books, they also need to have the right to withdraw their support for that restriction of freedom, and if the threshold is not met, the law is abolished automatically after a certain period. Having a certain people create laws is ripe for corruption, and we see that everywhere including Switzerland.
If you cannot get the majority to support your censorship, and still believe it is good for a lot of people, you have to create standards and create programs that adhere to such standards that people can subscribe to voluntarily.
This conversation ultimately leads to "We cannot ban anything because someone people might eventually ban the wrong thing", so it's not terribly interesting. It is a garden path argument toward a discussion destination about negative liberties that ultimately rests on framing negative outcomes as, "Look at all this terrible outcomes, but at least we were free to do it." I'm not sure what's appealing about that. It's ok to say, "This is currently a bad thing, let's address it now." Anyone can come up with what-if scenarios that ultimately paralyze any action from being taking. This whether deliberate, or unintentional is a strategy for maintaining the status quo.
"Not terribly interesting" often seems to me to mean that an argument is so direct and clear that there's really no reason to argue about it, i.e. one has already accepted as a principle that the argument must be dismissed in order to continue doing things that we deem necessary.
I don't think cigarette advertising is worse than either cigarette selling or cigarette smoking. Under the rubric of "this is currently a bad thing, lets address it now" there's actually no escaping a slippery slope.
And "We cannot ban anything because someone people might eventually ban the wrong thing" is a strawman. The people doing the banning will think it's the right thing.
It's just that a slippery slope can be constructed for any problem. The ability to universally construct a slippery slope results in absurd conclusions. Either no changes can be effected(a universal maintenance of the status quo), or slippery slopes are an invalid method at making conclusions. That's why they are categorically uninteresting.
I'll use this conversation as an example to demonstrate the absurdity. If you accept someone's argument on one topic then you may find yourself agreeing with other things they say including some terrible conclusions. Therefore, it's better to never accept anyone's argument. There are much better ways to discern whether to accept or reject an argument.
No, we should not let a monopoly like the government banning stuff. If some groups believe this censorship better for them (or people they care for) they are free to do so, and if they are a large group a market solution will be offered to them.
It would take a lot for me to agree that market solutions optimize for just outcomes. Effecient outcomes, sure, but not just outcomes. And before Winston Churchill quotes get involved, no, absence of alternatives are not a valid justification for existence.
Yeah banning stuff is silly. I should be able to drive and practice medicine without a license, sell toxic baby formula, build houses with asbestos. The magic market will provide a solution for anyone who wants different. #Murica
PS we should ban the Wikipedia article on market failures though, can't have people reading that.
Banning by a monopoly dude. Maybe I trust a Canadian organization to regulate baby formulas better, a german one for diapers and no regulation for my hairdresser.
This discussion seamlessly slided from "severely limited marketing" to "We cannot ban anything" in a 2 comment span.
I kinda feel this is the kind of escalation that also paralyses discourse when dealing with corporate behavior that affects society as a whole. We would really benefit a from "nudge"/"don't promote" approach to first limit impacts, without bringing all the ban and censorship drama in it as long as the option is not on the table.
Even if the "wrong thing" is banned, this is a ban on certain types of advertising, not something that restricts your ability to buy (or sell) these things.
I'm glad you brought the inconvenient truth up. Both the lottery and cigarette taxes are used to fund essential programs (schools, police, fire departments) guilt-free here in the states. If those were to be removed, we would be forced to hold a difficult conversation about taxation and how we would fund things from then on.
National lotteries allow lower taxes, that is all. The same dollars could be raised by taxing people in a progressive way instead of via addictive gambling.
Gambling can ruin people's lives. The government shouldn't support it being easily accessible. It should be reserved for a desert city almost no one lives in on vacation.
Gambling is one of these field where most people agree to regulate it, including the gambling companies, and it seems to be working decently well.
For instance mobile game gambling could have been way more rampant and destructive, but we have a decent set of rules and laws to limit the impact.
I can't imagine our society with 0 gambling happening, so if people will find a way anyway, I'd personally prefer it to be on the open, in a mainstream way. Blocking marketing wouldn't work when there are so many different forms of gambling, and obviously it also plays a social stabilizer role so I don't see any serious move to effectively stop people from gambling succeeding.
Some substances will sell without any marketing, such as alcohol and cannabis.
As far as controlling sales, i think a regulated market for drugs is required. So am happy to see both the Swiss initiative and also the German initiative for legalising Cannabis:
I mean, I would prefer that food items come in more generic packages rather than them screaming in bright bold colors how great SALT + GREASE CRUNCH is the best thing that happened to humanity.
There’s a reason we have them, and there’s a reason people buy them. I may be able to meet my nutritional needs on some proverbial Soylent green, but food also has social and psychological importance to humans too.
But here in Norway most supermarkets carry only one or two brands of yoghurt and I never feel any lack even though I am familiar with the ranges to be found in supermarkets in the UK.
I agree packaging should be wayyyy more standardised (and more ecological). But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be only 2 types of yogurt.
FWIW I have a feeling when you buy food manufacturing and transport is the smallest parts of cost. Packaging and shelving are major ones. Kinda why you don't see large packaging, especially in Europe. Why does all toothpaste runs out in a month? I don't change my favourite brand for years..?
I'm not certain whether this is what you had in mind, but in the UK we have a green, amber, red (voluntary) labelling system that indicates fairly quickly at-a-glance how a food product fares in various nutritional dimensions: https://www.nutrition.org.uk/putting-it-into-practice/food-l...
The "no" campaign said "Next they will come for your cervelas" (cervela = the Swiss version of a hot dog, highly processed meat which is considered a sacred cultural icon).
After the vote, the Young Greens were all like, "ok, next we will go for the cervela advertising!!1!"
I think it would need to go beyond culture and regional boundaries to be declared an addiction. A lot of countries don't have sugar/fat/msg issues, that should at least hint at a more compounding set of issues.
Also arguably what some people see as a sugar crisis has more to do with the food industry landscape than the food components themselves. TBF finding a scapegoat is easier than dealing with complex root problems.
is one claim I am not familiar with (usually I hear “psychologically addictive”, like any pleasurable activity), but maybe I am out of date on the latest research. Anyways, swap coffee/caffeine for marijuana and this makes a bit more sense to me.
> is one claim I am not familiar with (usually I hear “psychologically addictive”, like any pleasurable activity), but maybe I am out of date on the latest research.
That's because there is a lot of misinformation spread by stoner types that try to rationalize cannabis usage as "non-addictive". Speaking as a former stoner myself (with nothing against smoking, I just don't partake anymore).
Cannabis use can absolutely cause physical dependence. It can absolutely "cause" (be part of) psychological dependence. It can absolutely be part of a pattern of addiction. The idea that weed is "not addictive" is simply propaganda.
Now, it is true that when compared to drugs like benzodiazapenes, alcohol, and opioids, that cessation of long-term cannabis consumption causes much less severe side effects. You don't get seizures from stopping weed abruptly. But there are absolutely still withdrawal symptoms.
TL;DR: It's a myth that cannabis is a magic plant that one can't get addicted to. It's basically a cope put forward primarily by internet stoners.
How about limiting the use in shared public spaces? i.e. I don't want my kids see alcohol consumption in planes or trains (even tho I drink myself at home).
Very often you also see which municipalities correspond to big cities and which are more rural areas: https://abstimmungen.tagesanzeiger.ch/2022-02-13/4/m (Bern, Zurich, Winterthur, Luzern voted differently than all other municipalities in their respective cantons).
And on this map you kindof see where the rich people live (Zürcher Goldküste, Zug): https://abstimmungen.tagesanzeiger.ch/2022-02-13/3/m. They voted against this proposal because it would have negatively affected them.
Or - maybe there are still folks who believe freedom actually matters and a citizen's duty is to keep government interference in people's lives at a healthy minimum.
Smoking, in particular, has significant effects on third parties so you're freedom to smoke takes away other people's right to clean air. For example, parents that smoke on the house with their kids who have no choice to leave.
I think this depends on whether or not you agree on the premise:
less smoking ads -> less smoking
Assuming you accept this premise, this legislation leads to a reduction in smoking which leads to a reduction in second-hand smoke. It follows that this legislation prevents the harm of other third-parties.
Maybe, and so what? Let other people do what they want, as long as it doesn't affect you.
Unless of course you're the standard do-gooder who can't bear to see others do things you have decided is wrong for them. If that's the way your brain is wired, there nothing left to say.
>less people smoking -> less harm to bystanders is true (which it obviously is).
It don't think it's obvious at all.
A smoker polluting other people with their second hand smoke is a smoker infringing on other people's freedom and right not to be poisoned.
And this is one rare area where government are actually supposed to be useful: defending your freedom not to be subjected to other people's stupidity.
That can perfectly happen without preventing people to poison themselves should they decide to.
You're not responding on-topic. People can still smoke, their "freedom to poison themselves" is fully intact. Ironically, stopping advertisements for cigarettes would give the consumer more freedom of choice free from corporate influence.
Less people smoking means less second-hand smoke. Also just fyi smoke residue clings to interiors so when things get sold the new owner inherits a gross smell and some carcinogenic exposure :)
It's not just people blowing smoke in your face outdoors
It seems all but impossible to fully "ban" second hand smoke:
* how do you prove it?
* how do you measure the amount in case you've proven it?
It seems such a minor individual offense that courts would hardly accept cases.
So we probably have to rely on smoker's good will to not smoke near others instead of on the law.
Every population consists of nice people and inconsiderate people, with something like a normal distribution of niceness.
Assuming that smokers follow this distribution, there will always be inconsiderate smokers which don't care and stand in front of doors blowing clouds of tar into other people's faces. The amount of such people will be governed by the rate of smokers.
Hence, the best way to reduce second hand smoke is to reduce the count of smokers. Note that this even applies if we assume that smokers are much more considerate than the regular population.
Yes, freedom means everybody is allowed to do whatever they want, even if I don't personally agree with their actions and even if some will elect to do stuff harmful to themselves.
Thanks for trying, but the meaning of the word freedom is slowly being changed and the fact that being free is actually a good thing is not something that's as obvious as it once was to the next generation.
Maybe because the previous generation's idea of "bringing freedom and democracy" meant glassing the Middle East. The "freest country on the planet" has been at war for the entire lifetime of all but the oldest zoomers born at the turn of the century.
As soon as freedom stops meaning "freedom of consequences for corporations and our military industrial complex" maybe it'll get some broader buy-in
You mean free to be advertised to by multibillion non-governmental organizations?
They can still smoke when they reach legal age. But I guess you're right, freedom to do anything without consequences is the only standard. We should let people sell and market heroin to 7 year olds if it turns a profit, even if they choose to do things that harm themselves they fully came to that decision alone and 100% understand all of the consequences without a developed prefrontal cortex
Or maybe some choices should carry consequences? You can't have both
That is an overly broad definition of freedom. Surely there are some actions which can be prohibited (e.g. murder, scam robocalls, and trying to get kids hooked on drugs) in a free society.
Very happy to see this pass. It's idiotic that kids, while going to school, can be exposed to multiple tobacco ads that make tobacco appear as "cool" and "hip" and "desirable". These ads obviously work or else no company would do them.
The arguments used by the "No" lobby are:
* slippery slope of meat and alcohol being banned in advertizing; when meat is not even a drug (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope).
* free market disruption; when smoking is obviously a harmful substance and this law applies to all of the competing tobacco companies.
* little events like festivals, bars, and shops get less money; this is probably true but festivals can simply raise their prices a bit. For small owner-led shops, yes, less tobacco consumption => less sales and tobacco is a high-margin product.
It's a great example of direct democracy sometimes leading to better political decisions. It's easier for big tobacco to buy off just the legislators (whom actually made an extremely toned down counterproposal) than all of the public.
Additionally for the given example: orange juice contains as much sugar as redbull, a cup of coffee as much (or even more, depending on the type) caffeine and the rest (Taurin, etc...) probably has no effect on the body at all.
No one said that, but you don't have pictures of destroyed livers on wine-bottles, of a rotten feet on sweets, strong alcohol is getting cheaper and cheaper, a bottle of vodka was 25sFr around 2000, now you can get it for 7-8sFr..but no one talks about that.
>a cup of coffee as much (or even more, depending on the type) caffeine
I quote yourself:
>In general, two wrongs don't make a right.
>the rest (Taurin, etc...) probably has no effect on the body at all
I live in a place with similar laws (Ontario, Canada) - I can’t remember the last time I saw a tobacco ad. During my lifetime too we’ve banned tobacco displays in most stores (dedicated tobacco shops seem to be exempt?) - the packages are now in opaque cabinets, and you ask the teller to grab you the type you want. Our youth smoking numbers have gone from about 28% in 1999 to about 5% in 2019. To be fair, it’s hard to say what’s causational or not. Of course, youth vaping numbers are on the rise, and while that’s strictly speaking preferable to smoking, it’s hardly ideal.
When I see a political issue about freedom I ask the following: who profits? Are there entities that profit from some apparent freedom? Not coincidentally a lot of “freedom” issues really boil down to businesses wanting to sell stuff, even though the supposed freedom that is being defended is that of the consumer.
I'm ambivalent about the actual act of banning tobacco advertising (couldn't happen to a bunch of better guys), but what I'm not ambivalent about is that legislation like this is something that politicians do to pretend like they're working.
Which you are wrong about in this case, however, because this was a people’s initiative brought by various health- and youth-related NGOs and actually opposed by the majority of members of parliament and the government.
The particular politicians who pushed it are who I'm talking about; I'm not talking about politicians in general. They might as well be pushing for even earlier childhood education, higher penalties for child abuse, higher sentences for drug sales near a church, or other random fake progress that will always get votes from the public. It's a vaguely benign version of law-and-order politics. Let somebody write a dubious paper insisting that cigarette packs are too easy to tear open, and they'll be pushing for legislation to freeze cigarettes in a block of ice, and to force people to lock their chisels and icepicks in a safe.
The people who work for NGOs make their entire living from pushing initiatives like this of dubious value but that look good on a flier or a picket sign; they're just as guilty. In the US, they're so paycheck- and opportunity-guided that their attacks on vaping have pushed people back into smoking (multiple orders of magnitude more dangerous.) That's not actually a flaw - if smoking rises they can just fundraise off that again.
Here in Russia, tobacco advertising has been completely banned since 2013 (in all forms), and if you look at the statistics, the market has since shrinked from 346 bln cigarettes/year in 2013 to 240 bln in 2020. But I'm not sure how much of the difference is attributable to the ban, because apparently there was already a trend for a decrease in cigarette consumption between 2010 and 2013, also in the meantime the government has been increasing the tobacco tariffs every year. Additionally vaping has been on the rise lately, especially among teens/young adults, it's not included in the statistics.
In France, since 1991 tobacco advertising is banned and still we have 30% of people smoking everyday. It is also taxed at 80% and forbidden in public places
Cigarettee are still relatively cheap in France (according to Google). In New Zealand a pack costs about 20 Euros. I have no idea how smokers can afford to continue smoking.
We also ban all display of tobacco, so stores have to keep tobacco products inside opaque cabinets.
The downside is there is a growing blackmarket trade and increase in armed robbery.
9.4% of our adult population (15+) smkoke regularly.
This is a step on the right direction but Switzerland really has a loooooong way to go on tobacco.
I don’t think I have breathed as much secondhand smoke in the developed world as I have since moving to Switzerland.
People smoke everywhere. Basically if you can somehow see the outside, you’re outside and can smoke. That includes parkings, covered areas, train stations (I know it became illegal to smoke there not too long ago but no one seems to care). Not to mention smoking in doorways, under public or office buildings open windows, children playgrounds… hell, I see people multiple times every day smoking with a baby in one arm and a cigarette in the other hand, or dragging children along with them while smoking and have the cigarette burn in the child’s face.
Oh, and that festival in Appenzell where children (as in 7–14 years old) are encouraged to smoke. Really. Look it up, it’s a thing.
It’s really going to be tough to change it, will probably take a generation at least.
I don't think this will change the overall percentage of smokers by much.
Most of the people I know started smoking because.
1. Their parents are smokers
2. Their close friends are smokers
I haven't met anyone who started smoking because of ads.
Any ad and cigarette packet has to state "smoking is deadly" or something similar already in any case.
122 comments
[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 155 ms ] threadThis won't classify as advertising, most like information for safety, we have similar stuff in our country like
- you should drink 2L of water
- passive smoking is bad for children
- use table salt with Iodium to prevent ...
- don't use improvised heating devices
- excessive alcohol drinking is very bad for health
>You should drink when thirsty.
is that an expert advice?
>Too much water is in fact bad for you.
If you link me something that proves that 2L daily is bad then please do, I drink that much and I don't want to get poisoned with water.
It depends on what you consider poisoning means. Water boarding, for instance, is water poisoning, like literally veterans water boarded by Japanese interrogators in WWII spent about a week in the hospital so their kidneys could recover from the effects of the water intake. More than 2L, true. I don't know what water you're drinking, but you should, maybe you can find your water treatment's facility's chemical analysis of the water they provide? And test the water you're drinking from the faucet, the pipes might be lead, and the water company wouldn't report that. Or if you don't want to bother with that, use your sense of taste, which is designed specifically for chemical analysis. Ask yourself as you drink water, "is this good water?".
It's toothpaste's signature flavor. The flavor you were told not to object to in childhood when you brushed, guess what, your senses know what it is, sodium flouride wasn't discovered in a lab, many places have it in their groundwater. It's gross because it's supposed to be gross, you aren't supposed to drink that water if you have a better choice.
EDIT: to be clear since there seems to be some confusion, I agree with this. The tobacco industry is quite literally cancer. I'm objecting to the ability for companies to sue governments about it.
[1]: https://theconversation.com/when-even-winning-is-losing-the-...
Health insurance in Switzerland is mandatory, its NOT paid b the gov.
Beside that even if it would be paid by the gov, where do you think does the money comes from? Its still paid by the people.
Wow haha, that's some massive false information you have.
And I wasn't clear: I don't oppose the Swiss government's action. Not in the slightest.
Protecting kids from alcohol is a no-brainer.
Providing kids with a complete diet that does not involve the exploitation of animals is way more complicated.
Same with tobacco although the age for buying tobacco is not regulated federally but on a state level (So it different in each Kanton (state) either 16 or 18.)
>Protecting kids from alcohol is a no-brainer.
That is true and mostly anyone would agree but "kids" is undefined in this statement. Clearly the law in Switzerland does not think 16 year olds are kids but many people would disagree with that.
It is certainly hypercritical to praise alcoholic drinks and demonize other drugs, but alcohol is quite a big part of Swiss culture. Not just getting wasted, but having a beer or glass of wine with a meal or at social gatherings to specific things like the cherry brandy with Fondue. It's a fringe view in the country, that a 16 year old is not adult enough to have any alcohol. I reckon you'd find more people agreeing with lowering that age rather than increasing.
Personally, I think it is good, that one can have experiences with alcohol, before reaching full adulthood rights and responsibilities. E.g. being allowed to drive a car.
My point was that any reasonable person agrees on the "protect the kids" statement. The common ground is obvious but the "how" is not.
There are valid medical arguments why a 16 year old should not drink alcohol (brain development). But there are also valid arguments why they should be allowed anyway. For example 16 matched the age where most western teens with the desire to drink alcohol make their first experience with alcohol anyway and it clearly is in no ones interest if they would have to break the law to do so. Possibly even push an already 18 year old friend to break the law by buying it for them. Also letting them make their first experience with alcohol with stuff that is unlikely to kill them is probably a good thing too. And yes, drinking before being allowed to drive a car seems to be commonly acknowledged as positive.
So no matter which stance someone has on this, the goal is to protect young people we just dont all agree on the "how".
I realize this is poor timing to express this opinion since most of America is going to intentionally watch high-production-value advertisements glorifying alcohol in a few hours from now...
The necessary "institution" is called science. And even with bought/fake science science does have quite a good track record regarding things like these.
But I am actually not advocating bans on these things. Every grown up should be allowed to be irrationally dumb and destroy themselves.
But, why not tax them. Tax them so that externalities are being compensated. Make these things unattractive. Also work on changing the culture of it being cool to drink till you pass out or even the obligatory social drinking. It doesn't have to be cool.
And if anyone wants to kill themselves with substances that is OK. I don't have to like it, but I think it is their right.
But don't make me pay for their medical bills (an example) by covering it from their insurance (that becomes more expensive for me).
Disclosure: I say that as a person who lost his father prematurely because he drank too much. Way too much. My appetite for alcohol wasn't too high before, but is not existing any more since then. Still I wouldn't want to forbid it for others.
But at least the scientists I know would wait for the level of evidence to be high.
But as policies would be made by politicians I doubt it would work without populistic influences.
(It already kind of happens in the more liberal states of the USA, where Californians are much better fit than Texans).
However I was allowed to serve in a different service: civil protection [1]. In case of war I would have gone outside and done measurements for radioactivity, chemical and biological warfare agents. My departement was called ABC (atomic, biological and chemical). I am happy and lucky that the war-games never got real.
Later people with disabilities were exempt from the tax. But then I was thirty and already discharged.
Links are to French text, sorry, no English text available.
[0]: https://www.vtg.admin.ch/fr/mon-service-militaire/generalite...
[1]: https://www.babs.admin.ch/fr/zs.html
I don't think "science" can really help all that much here, because a lot aspects surrounding this aren't really scientific questions. Yes, you can be informed by science to answer questions like "how addictive is this?" and "how harmful is this in what dosages?", but that doesn't really answer the question of who should pay for what, what is "fair", or what should or should not be allowed.
(and the answers to these questions aren't always clear either: is cycling a net-negative or net-positive? Health benefits from exercise, but higher risk of injuries – and why should we tax alcohol to account for all external costs but not cycling or other activities where risk is higher than some others?)
> Also work on changing the culture of it being cool to drink till you pass out or even the obligatory social drinking.
Definitely agree with this. If I say "no" then I mean "no", and trying to "oh come, just have a drink"-me is a very quick way to end up on my shit list. I've seen people do this even with people who never drink alcohol even when they know this.
They're basically the equivalent to getting a lower health insurance premium if you keep your blood pressure low or sign up for a gym for example.
"On a yearly basis smokers have higher health care costs (€3.5 billion) and use more caregivers. Over the complete life-span non-smokers use more health care, especially elderly care (€8.6 billion) and care givers (€1.4 billion). This is because life expectancy is longer. In a smoke-free society health care costs will be higher per capita"
The overall gist of the article is still that smoking is bad and that a smoke-free society would be good (I agree), but health care costs don't actually seem a strong argument, in the Netherlands at least. And aside from lower health care costs, there are also less pensions to give, which saves money.
The costs of alcohol were estimated to be "€2.3 tot 4.2 billion"/year[2] (2013), which also includes police, damage, loss of productivity, etc. Health care specifically is about €450 million. The income from alcohol tax was about €1 billion, which certainly covers the health care costs, though not all of them. I'm not sure if they should: that a small group of people destroy things when drinking doesn't really need to be paid by other alcohol consumers, IMHO.
Anyway, turns out it's not as simple as "smoking = costs society money". Details may differ per country; I just looked at the Netherlands because that's where I'm from.
> They're basically the equivalent to getting a lower health insurance premium if you keep your blood pressure low or sign up for a gym for example.
I'm not sure we have this kind of thing here. Besides, what if I stay healthy by running or cycling? What if you're genetically pre-disposed to high blood pressure? You can market it as a "discount", but it's really a "premium" for people who don't do this IMHO (reminds me of getting a "discount" at some camping sites if you arrive by foot, which isn't really a "discount" but just a way of packaging "you pay for parking").
[1]: https://www.ntvg.nl/artikelen/de-rekening-van-roken#lb-3
[2]: https://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/2018-0146.pdf
I could not agree more.
"I've seen people do this even with people who never drink alcohol even when they know this."
I habe been on the receiving side of this more often than I like.
How would a government pay for protection, infrastructure, education, and a lot of other things governments provide to their citizens?
Libertarians are funny people. It boggles my mind how anyone can be clueless or compassionless enough to be one.
And yes, I believe everyone will be better off with free markets, otherwise i’d be a commie too. It’s not that I don’t care about others. I care more than most do. I see they working jobs that are not necessary, or governments destroying their purchasing power.
Fortunately I am doing pretty well, even with after the money government takes, and if I was evil or not compassionate I wouldn’t advocate for change, but rather take advantage of current system and move to the side that benefits from peoples diminished value of work. It would be way easier for me.
That's a very wild claim, unsubstantiated by anything. The history of industrial revolution shows otherwise ( regular people are exploited to death until some regulations come to stop the most rampant abuses). Do you have anything to support your case?
> And yes, I believe everyone will be better off with free markets, otherwise i’d be a commie too.
So for you there's only communism and absolute free markets? So you're in the clueless libertarian case. Considering the freeish markets available today fail miserably at correcting for externalities such as pollution and climate change, how do you imagine absolutely free ones would do so?
Say someone bans advertisements for social media sites - how is that detrimental to society? People who don’t believe social media sites are a problem can still find and use them.
If you cannot get the majority to support your censorship, and still believe it is good for a lot of people, you have to create standards and create programs that adhere to such standards that people can subscribe to voluntarily.
I don't think cigarette advertising is worse than either cigarette selling or cigarette smoking. Under the rubric of "this is currently a bad thing, lets address it now" there's actually no escaping a slippery slope.
And "We cannot ban anything because someone people might eventually ban the wrong thing" is a strawman. The people doing the banning will think it's the right thing.
I'll use this conversation as an example to demonstrate the absurdity. If you accept someone's argument on one topic then you may find yourself agreeing with other things they say including some terrible conclusions. Therefore, it's better to never accept anyone's argument. There are much better ways to discern whether to accept or reject an argument.
PS we should ban the Wikipedia article on market failures though, can't have people reading that.
I kinda feel this is the kind of escalation that also paralyses discourse when dealing with corporate behavior that affects society as a whole. We would really benefit a from "nudge"/"don't promote" approach to first limit impacts, without bringing all the ban and censorship drama in it as long as the option is not on the table.
Even if the "wrong thing" is banned, this is a ban on certain types of advertising, not something that restricts your ability to buy (or sell) these things.
Gambling can ruin people's lives. The government shouldn't support it being easily accessible. It should be reserved for a desert city almost no one lives in on vacation.
For instance mobile game gambling could have been way more rampant and destructive, but we have a decent set of rules and laws to limit the impact.
I can't imagine our society with 0 gambling happening, so if people will find a way anyway, I'd personally prefer it to be on the open, in a mainstream way. Blocking marketing wouldn't work when there are so many different forms of gambling, and obviously it also plays a social stabilizer role so I don't see any serious move to effectively stop people from gambling succeeding.
As far as controlling sales, i think a regulated market for drugs is required. So am happy to see both the Swiss initiative and also the German initiative for legalising Cannabis:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_Germany
As for Superbowl, there really hasn't been that many iconic ads for alcohol, but I'm sure Budweiser will be represented this year.
https://www.vogue.com/article/best-super-bowl-ads-of-all-tim...
Depending on what you mean by addiction that would include a lot of normal food as well. High sugar, sugar + fat, MSG, etc.
So which is the tail and which the dog?
I agree packaging should be wayyyy more standardised (and more ecological). But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be only 2 types of yogurt.
FWIW I have a feeling when you buy food manufacturing and transport is the smallest parts of cost. Packaging and shelving are major ones. Kinda why you don't see large packaging, especially in Europe. Why does all toothpaste runs out in a month? I don't change my favourite brand for years..?
The "no" campaign said "Next they will come for your cervelas" (cervela = the Swiss version of a hot dog, highly processed meat which is considered a sacred cultural icon).
After the vote, the Young Greens were all like, "ok, next we will go for the cervela advertising!!1!"
Trolling boomers never gets old. :)
Also arguably what some people see as a sugar crisis has more to do with the food industry landscape than the food components themselves. TBF finding a scapegoat is easier than dealing with complex root problems.
> marijuana > addictive chemicals
is one claim I am not familiar with (usually I hear “psychologically addictive”, like any pleasurable activity), but maybe I am out of date on the latest research. Anyways, swap coffee/caffeine for marijuana and this makes a bit more sense to me.
That's because there is a lot of misinformation spread by stoner types that try to rationalize cannabis usage as "non-addictive". Speaking as a former stoner myself (with nothing against smoking, I just don't partake anymore).
Cannabis use can absolutely cause physical dependence. It can absolutely "cause" (be part of) psychological dependence. It can absolutely be part of a pattern of addiction. The idea that weed is "not addictive" is simply propaganda.
Now, it is true that when compared to drugs like benzodiazapenes, alcohol, and opioids, that cessation of long-term cannabis consumption causes much less severe side effects. You don't get seizures from stopping weed abruptly. But there are absolutely still withdrawal symptoms.
TL;DR: It's a myth that cannabis is a magic plant that one can't get addicted to. It's basically a cope put forward primarily by internet stoners.
Very often you also see which municipalities correspond to big cities and which are more rural areas: https://abstimmungen.tagesanzeiger.ch/2022-02-13/4/m (Bern, Zurich, Winterthur, Luzern voted differently than all other municipalities in their respective cantons).
And on this map you kindof see where the rich people live (Zürcher Goldküste, Zug): https://abstimmungen.tagesanzeiger.ch/2022-02-13/3/m. They voted against this proposal because it would have negatively affected them.
Or - maybe there are still folks who believe freedom actually matters and a citizen's duty is to keep government interference in people's lives at a healthy minimum.
We're talking about regulating ads.
less smoking ads -> less smoking
Assuming you accept this premise, this legislation leads to a reduction in smoking which leads to a reduction in second-hand smoke. It follows that this legislation prevents the harm of other third-parties.
Note: I am implicitly assuming that:
less people smoking -> less harm to bystanders
is true (which it obviously is).
Maybe, and so what? Let other people do what they want, as long as it doesn't affect you.
Unless of course you're the standard do-gooder who can't bear to see others do things you have decided is wrong for them. If that's the way your brain is wired, there nothing left to say.
>less people smoking -> less harm to bystanders is true (which it obviously is).
It don't think it's obvious at all.
A smoker polluting other people with their second hand smoke is a smoker infringing on other people's freedom and right not to be poisoned.
And this is one rare area where government are actually supposed to be useful: defending your freedom not to be subjected to other people's stupidity.
That can perfectly happen without preventing people to poison themselves should they decide to.
Less people smoking means less second-hand smoke. Also just fyi smoke residue clings to interiors so when things get sold the new owner inherits a gross smell and some carcinogenic exposure :)
It's not just people blowing smoke in your face outdoors
So we probably have to rely on smoker's good will to not smoke near others instead of on the law.
Every population consists of nice people and inconsiderate people, with something like a normal distribution of niceness. Assuming that smokers follow this distribution, there will always be inconsiderate smokers which don't care and stand in front of doors blowing clouds of tar into other people's faces. The amount of such people will be governed by the rate of smokers. Hence, the best way to reduce second hand smoke is to reduce the count of smokers. Note that this even applies if we assume that smokers are much more considerate than the regular population.
Can you proof that or is that the same hoax like "same salary for men and women"
Hint..have a look at France.
As soon as freedom stops meaning "freedom of consequences for corporations and our military industrial complex" maybe it'll get some broader buy-in
They can still smoke when they reach legal age. But I guess you're right, freedom to do anything without consequences is the only standard. We should let people sell and market heroin to 7 year olds if it turns a profit, even if they choose to do things that harm themselves they fully came to that decision alone and 100% understand all of the consequences without a developed prefrontal cortex
Or maybe some choices should carry consequences? You can't have both
Close to 100% of people would agree with that as a guiding principle and would quibble rather about the specifics.
The arguments used by the "No" lobby are: * slippery slope of meat and alcohol being banned in advertizing; when meat is not even a drug (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope). * free market disruption; when smoking is obviously a harmful substance and this law applies to all of the competing tobacco companies. * little events like festivals, bars, and shops get less money; this is probably true but festivals can simply raise their prices a bit. For small owner-led shops, yes, less tobacco consumption => less sales and tobacco is a high-margin product.
It's a great example of direct democracy sometimes leading to better political decisions. It's easier for big tobacco to buy off just the legislators (whom actually made an extremely toned down counterproposal) than all of the public.
Like redbull aka sugar?
Additionally for the given example: orange juice contains as much sugar as redbull, a cup of coffee as much (or even more, depending on the type) caffeine and the rest (Taurin, etc...) probably has no effect on the body at all.
No one said that, but you don't have pictures of destroyed livers on wine-bottles, of a rotten feet on sweets, strong alcohol is getting cheaper and cheaper, a bottle of vodka was 25sFr around 2000, now you can get it for 7-8sFr..but no one talks about that.
>a cup of coffee as much (or even more, depending on the type) caffeine
I quote yourself:
>In general, two wrongs don't make a right.
>the rest (Taurin, etc...) probably has no effect on the body at all
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citric_acid
and Sugar a dentist wet dream ;)
The people who work for NGOs make their entire living from pushing initiatives like this of dubious value but that look good on a flier or a picket sign; they're just as guilty. In the US, they're so paycheck- and opportunity-guided that their attacks on vaping have pushed people back into smoking (multiple orders of magnitude more dangerous.) That's not actually a flaw - if smoking rises they can just fundraise off that again.
https://www.santepubliquefrance.fr/determinants-de-sante/tab... in french
We also ban all display of tobacco, so stores have to keep tobacco products inside opaque cabinets.
The downside is there is a growing blackmarket trade and increase in armed robbery.
9.4% of our adult population (15+) smkoke regularly.
I don’t think I have breathed as much secondhand smoke in the developed world as I have since moving to Switzerland.
People smoke everywhere. Basically if you can somehow see the outside, you’re outside and can smoke. That includes parkings, covered areas, train stations (I know it became illegal to smoke there not too long ago but no one seems to care). Not to mention smoking in doorways, under public or office buildings open windows, children playgrounds… hell, I see people multiple times every day smoking with a baby in one arm and a cigarette in the other hand, or dragging children along with them while smoking and have the cigarette burn in the child’s face.
Oh, and that festival in Appenzell where children (as in 7–14 years old) are encouraged to smoke. Really. Look it up, it’s a thing.
It’s really going to be tough to change it, will probably take a generation at least.
Most of the people I know started smoking because. 1. Their parents are smokers 2. Their close friends are smokers
I haven't met anyone who started smoking because of ads. Any ad and cigarette packet has to state "smoking is deadly" or something similar already in any case.