Anti Smoking Ads are for the anti-smokers not the smokers.

Sometimes I think that such programs are dedicated more towards fellow supporters than to the so called target audience.  Despite the propaganda that the effects of smoking were hidden from us until recent efforts by brave lawyers/activists forced the truth, the bad effects of smoking were pretty common knowledge in the 1960s when I was a kid.

These films/articles and other attempts seem more justification for the money spent to convince people to change a behavior.  I agree that by now they seem to have little effect on anyone smoking or starting to smoke.

"...the bad effects of smoking were pretty common knowledge in the 1960s when I was a kid."

And they were denied, emphatically, by the tobacco industry for decades. As late as the early 90s, tobacco industry executives testified before congress that they believed tobacco products not to be addictive or carcenogenic. At that very moment, tobacco industry scientists were doing research on how to maximize the addictive potential of tobacco, enhancing that potential by using such agents as benzene and cadmium. Nothing ever resulted from this perjury.

So?

Despite their (tobacco companies) denials, enough people/medical types knew that smoking was dangerous so they could make their own decisions.   Both government and industries lie to us but quite often the information to make correct decisions on it is easily available.

Duane's point is people know, especially now and little the anti tobacco folks are doing is stopping new smokers.  Its become more feel good than a real working effort.  Much like the propaganda today about how government spending is suddenly going to work and restore an economy despite a track record of such failures for over a century all across the world.

"So?...enough people/medical types knew that smoking was dangerous"

 True. However, the denial by the tobacco industry bolstered smokers' defenses against the need to quit. It is strange that Duane's article and your comment would criticize those ads, and the motives behind those ads, while ignoring the ("So?") the gigantic effort made by the industry to deny the effects of smoking.

"Its become more feel good than a real working effort."

If you can show some research that supports that claim, then I'll be glad to look at it.

I don't ignore what the industry did Steve.  My point (again) is that people have and have had the information to make decisions since the 60s.  I remember being overwhelmed by info in school, relatives (esp smokers), the emdical community etc that smoking was bad.  I was no rocket scientist but that info plus the fact they tasted like s*** was all I needed.

A quick thought for you.  The media claims people are picking up the smoking habit again, not sure of actual figures or if this is another "crisis" to be acted on BUT if would contradict the huge efforts of so many if so.  Like so many government agencies and NGOs, it doesn't matter if a need exists or not, they will not go away.  I think much of this effort has become self perpuating (sic)

I have to agree with Charles it is more about who is providing the money than the results.

How long have the health ads been on? If it were a for profit company should we think that they would stay with the same theme this long?

 

Charles and Duane. You present no evidence (other than your opinions) about the motivations of those, who create anti-smoking ads. So I accept your opinions as your opinions.

Charles: "The media claims...."

Reference? I don't find any indication of that searching "prevalence incidence smoking". The most frequent reference is 1,100 kids start smoking daily. I don't find any reference re: whether this is increasing or decreasing.

Charles: "Like so many government agencies and NGOs, it doesn't matter if a need exists or not, they will not go away."

Political comment - nothing more. I don't know if these ads are effective or not, and you have presented no evidence.

A brief search of existing research shows a mixed bag. Some studies indicate effectiveness, some question it. Some encourage these ads in concert with other measures, e.g., legislation restricting use and increasing regulation of tobacco, increasing taxes, etc. There are numerous variables, including target populations, types of ads, etc. But I don't find any support for your blanket judgement that these ads are not effective. And I certainly don't find any evidence for your judgement that the motivations of the creators of these ads are self-serving.

Duane: "How long have the health ads been on? If it were a for profit company should we think that they would stay with the same theme this long?"

Just a brief search for evidence shows that there are wide and varied approaches to discouraging smoking. These ads are only one aspect of that effort. It is a misrepresentation to claim that efforts are not made to find effective means for smoking prevention and cessation.

Duane: "I have to agree with Charles it is more about who is providing the money than the results."

If you want to criticize "self-serving" organizations, perhaps you should follow this article with one that is critical of the tobacco industry. Their ads, targeting youth, apparently are quite effective - well, they were. They're illegal now.

Charles: "My point (again) is that people have and have had the information to make decisions since the 60s."

Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances known to man. It is a fact that industry "scientists" worked on ways to maximize the addictive potential of nicotine (using known carcinogens). There is clear evidence that most smokers want to stop. There is clear evidence that those, who do stop (on average) have 3 to 4 failed attempts before they succeed. There is clear evidence that industry targets youth (not anymore, perhaps), who are tremendously naive, and have illusions of invincibility.

My point is that there is mixed evidence suggesting that the ads you and Duane are so critical of are ineffective. And there is no evidence suggesting the motives behind these ads are self-serving. If people are hooked, it IS their responsibility to quit. Keeping salient in their minds the risks associated with not quitting - I don't think that's a bad thing, and the research is mixed.

Steve B.,

There is no douubt in my mind that nicotine is addcitive and phyical addiction is takes a special will to break it and to stay away from it.

I ma no expert on smoking or another human vices. I offered this article to trigger a discussion about what could be don;t.

I surely don;t disagree with the meassage anout health, I do disagree that the physical images or even the descriptions of the conditions have any impact in actually changing habits. People know full well what the consiqueunce of their action can be and still do them. Trying to simply scare them straight is a dilution of the ad writers or payer.

Duane. I accept your opinion as your opinion. The research on this is mixed.

Steve

Ok, for the 3d time and it looked like you actually agreed with this, is that individuals are responsible for quitting/starting.   Also it at least seemed you grant the info on the dangers of smoking are abundant and long known.  Finally you also seem to agree that the results of advertising on the subject has mixed results.

I can't produce a reference for the increased smoking numbers and I actually qualified that earlier by saying I was unsure if it was simply the crisis of the month or what.  It was something I saw in passing and is not anything I personally am very interested in.  Then you allow that  Duane to have an opinion on the subject is rather decent of you.

While I'm grateful for that, I don't accept as fact that advertising for or against smoking is all that powerful.   Studies pro and con aside, at best these are suggestions to people, not force to make them start/stop. It boils down to the individual like many of one's life decisions.

My political comment on how NGOs/government programs never close out no matter if successful or total failures is easily measured by trying to name one that has shut down.  I was making a statement that programs that help or try to to, often take on lives of their own beyond their original stated purpose.

It is extremely rare to find a not for profit activity that delevlops what the success of a program should look llike and then measures to see if it is working (achieving the success).

Health ads make a lot of sense and health is a reason not to smoke, but is there a point of diminshing returns on the ads?

Virtually everything else has to figure that out if working in the private sector, one would assume something similar if the number of smokers is only decreasing.

Charles: "Ok, for the 3d time and it looked like you actually agreed with this, is that individuals are responsible for quitting/starting."

I haven't disagreed with that. For the Nth time, my objection to this post is:

1. the assertion that these ads are ineffective - the research is mixed on that - and

2. that the motivations of the producers of those ads are self-serving.

Those assertions represent your and Duane's "opinions", but there is no consistent evidence to support the former, and absolutely no evidence to support the latter.

Charles: "Finally you also seem to agree that the results of advertising on the subject has mixed results."

I have said that all along. The difference is that I have not asserted that the ads are effective - except in my own exerience, whereas you and Duane asserted they are ineffective.

Charles: "I can't produce a reference for the increased smoking numbers and I actually qualified that earlier by saying I was unsure if it was simply the crisis of the month or what."

I'll accept, then, your qualification as applicable to your further assertion, which follows: "...BUT if would contradict the huge efforts of so many if so.  Like so many government agencies and NGOs, it doesn't matter if a need exists or not, they will not go away.  I think much of this effort has become self perpuating (sic)"

Charles: "...you allow that  Duane to have an opinion on the subject is rather decent of you."

What can I say - I'm a pretty decent guy. Re: opinions - yes, everyone has a right to theirs. I just prefer that, when expressing opinions, people acknowledge that they are expressing opinions. My objections to this post (for the Nth time) is that opinions are presented as facts. Opinions are not facts. Facts require evidence, and (for the Nth time) there is no consistent evidence to support your opinions re: tobacco ads in this post.

Charles: "I don't accept as fact that advertising for or against smoking is all that powerful."

That's no surprise. Marketeers often claim they really have little influence on their target populations. I guess (opinion) that's why they spend $billions annually trying to do just that.

Charles: "My political comment...I was making a statement that programs that help or try to to...."

Thank you for acknowledging that your comment is political - not factual, and that your "statement" is an opinion, grounded in your political philosophy.

Duane: "...but is there a point of diminshing returns on the ads?"

It is a good research question. Thanks for stating it as a question instead of a fact. The fact is that this question is being studied, and your apparent assumption that it is not, is not accurate. The research is mixed - to answer your question.

Duane: "It is extremely rare to find a not for profit activity that delevlops what the success of a program should look llike and then measures to see if it is working (achieving the success)."

Of course, that's your opinion. It is not, perhaps, an unreasonable opinion - but you can make that same claim of any number of corporations (e.g., GM), and (in my experience) treatment programs.

 

Not measuring performace is true of many organizations. You example of GM proves the rule that if you don;t measure the pefroamnce you fail in the private sector. Except now that the governemnt (not for profit) has gotten involved GM and Chrysler are no being allowed to fail. 

I have had a single experience with a not for profit drug addicts treatment program that had been survived for many years. From that success they ebgan doing more and more different activites and were on at risk of going under. They wanted to do all things for all addicts in its community. They were given a bit coaching in defining what success for their different programs would be and how to measure the perfromance of each. In less than a year they found what worked what didn;t and the scaled back accordingly. Their finance imporved and they continue to serve the community. They were faced with a reality of limited financial resources.

In the case of the govenment that is not a viable driver.

As far as I can tell all any of us have to offer is opinions. Some may have large data bases to support their opinions, other have antodotal experinces, and other simply have applied their lessons and thought process.

The disappointing thing, comoing from lessons learned, is when people reject the ideas/opinions out of hand rahter thenchallenge the idea and try to see if there is something in it that can be used.

Some opinions are more informed than others. Your opinions here are not informed by research, and research actually challenges your opinions. Your statement about the motivations of those producing these anti-smoking ads is unwarranted, unnecessary, unproductive.

"...when people reject the ideas/opinions out of hand rahter thenchallenge the idea and try to see if there is something in it that can be used."

Yes. That's exactly what you did when you wrote this article.

I challenged your article with research, to which you acknowledged you don't have the inclination or energy to look up the research. That's your business, but don't then accuse others of "reject(ing) the ideas/opinions out of hand.

I apologize because I almost always read linker ro referenced articles included in discussion on Gather. The artcle Changing for good, about the 6 stage program didn;t seem to have any data. Link to the ad about smoking affecting sex didn;t have any data.

As best I can tell your refrences to research is interpreation of the reports.

I will accept that the challenge of the ads was based on what I think is their justification for such ads, stopping smoking. The bases of my challenge was that the health issue has been communicated for decades and we have plataued (surely not eliminated) with the number of smokers or the amount of smoking. If the goal is to stop smoking than rather roll out the same old issue simply injecting new photos doesn't seem to have much likelihood of achieving th goal.

Without research (which you seem to feel is mixed on the issue) I made an ableit feeble attempt to challenge the reasoning behind the ads.

I have yet to see the Ad Council ads offering any practical tools such as your method of quiting, they simply focus on tried and true health. You may feel that is not rejection since they didn;t come out and say alternatives don;t work, but by not changing what they are doing give the impression of rejecting all other opinions.

"The artcle Changing for good, about the 6 stage program didn;t seem to have any data."

The reference is to the program developed by Prochaska. If you do an independent search, you will find the data. Oh, that's right, you don't do that kind of thing.

Just be assured that Prochaska's work is based on a broad foundation of research.

"The bases of my challenge was that the health issue has been communicated for decades and we have plataued (surely not eliminated) with the number of smokers or the amount of smoking."

Any data on how that would look without the ads. You are aware that the industry has been running ads, targeted at youth, promoting its products?

"If the goal is to stop smoking than rather roll out the same old issue simply injecting new photos doesn't seem to have much likelihood of achieving th goal."

Big "if". I don't know that anyone has the unrealistic goal (based on prohibition history) of eliminating smoking. The question is whether these ads are helpful in diminishing its frequency. Again, the research is inconclusive.

"I have yet to see the Ad Council ads offering any practical tools...."

Really? Do you think that these ads are "smoking cessation programs"? More likely, they are designed to raise anxiety about smoking so that smokers will self-refer to such programs.

"...by not changing what they are doing give the impression of rejecting all other opinions."

No. These ads are one very small piece of a very large problem. Because they don't solve the whole thing doesn't mean they are useless. Again, the research is inconclusive. It raises further research questions. But, hey, that's how science is done - but you don't seem to know that.

Here, I'll save you the trouble. This is a description of Prochaska's research. You will find plenty of research references at the end of the article. If you want data, look them up.

Transtheoretical Model

"Link to the ad about smoking affecting sex didn;t have any data."

Because no reference to the data was given. It was an example of "social" anti-smoking ads.

If you want to review research on anti-smoking ads, try starting here. Dr. Connie Pechmann seems to have done considerable research in this area - contrary to your opinion that none of these things have ever been looked at. I'm sure you can find plenty of data here.

AntiSmokingAds.org  

"Some opinions are more informed than others. Your opinions here are not informed by research, and research actually challenges your opinions."

Most definitely ther are more informed opinoins. However, many time the ones deemed less informed can actually have a kernel of value it they are properly looked at, and other can spark new tilts to existing ideas held by the inofmred opinoins. It can be a lost opportunity to simply disregard opinons simply because they are "uninformed".

I have seen many times the opinions discounted because of the credibility given to the opniioin holder would have lost real opportunities. Because the "uninformed" opinion may have some practical information that can have a useful impact on the discussion.

Pechmann's work:

I am surpirsed that I read sevral mentions of hyppothosis, of reasons, of skeptisms in framing the research. Could I be wrong in presuming that opinions help frame the research?

About the research, it did show that the intent to smoke was definitely affectd by the viewing of seevral health focused anti-smoking ads when randomly selected teenagers were tested. The adds definelty discourage smoking. And yet kids still smoke. Do you think it possible that some kids have a greater potential to smoke and those may or may not be a majority of the population? I did not go through all the articles, simply for a timely response, so do chastise me if I overlooked a critical article I wam going to go back and review the rest. If I find my questions addressed I will return acknowledge my eeror.

 Transtheorectical model: appears to be a good description for a 3rd party observer the dynamic process a person goes through taking actions.

I must say I would be more appreacative of a proactical tool/means for a smoker to stop smoking. More along the lines of why they smoke, what triggers the desire for the smoking, what are the consequeunces they are getting for the smoking. I think sonething along the lines of Skinnerian Psychology. That would includes metrics the indiviudal could use as part of the conseqeunces. Because in truth it is what works for the individual.

 

"Could I be wrong in presuming that opinions help frame the research?"

If you mean informed opinions, yes.

"The adds definelty discourage smoking. And yet kids still smoke."

As I noted - most people begin smoking in adolescents, and most stop in midlife. Those are statistical facts. Ads may not influence kids to stop immediately, but you don't forget an image like a rotting lung, now do you? I didn't.

"...do chastise me if I overlooked a critical article I wam going to go back and review the rest."

I did (somewhere) refer to a survey of successful quitters, who indicated the ads had been helpful.

"I must say I would be more appreacative...."

As I have said elsewhere, maybe you should get into the research field. Skinner's theories can be applied to smoking. There is a tremendous, instantaneous reward for "lighting up". That's what cessation programs are trying to "extinguish". That's difficult to do when the "hit" is a stimulation of pleasure centers in the brain. Addiction is a real difficult problem.

"...in truth it is what works for the individual."

Yep. And Prochaska's research showed what was common in the individual experiences of successful quitters.

"As I have said elsewhere, maybe you should get into the research field." It is always good to inject humor into these conversations.

Back to offering opinon. I am doubtful that at the moment of lighting the cigarette the image of the lung is in many minds.  I suspect it is more about the setting they are in, the feeling the first inhaled puff will give, or something totally different because they don;t even realize they have lit the cigarette.

The smoker needs change, why shouldn;t the ad writer need to change?

I binged Prochaska's, but didn;t get anything more detailed then the 6 stages, not somehing a smoker could directly apply. Do you have a link of article title I can search for?

Smokers are addicts. Addicts have a distorted cognitive process. So you're probably right that anti-smoking ads have more of an impact on non-smokers than smokers. Smokers (addicts) are generally "well-defended" against such programs.

However, I'm not aware of any research that has studied whether these ads are effective or not. The research I am aware of relates to the process successful quitters go through in the process of quitting, a process that is marked by a number of distinct stages. These ads may be effective in moving smokers from one of those stages to the next. Successful quitters have an average of four failed attempts before they eventually succeed. What role these ads play would be a good subject for research. There is no doubt that mortality plays a role, since most successful attempts occur during the midlife years.

There is a subtle difference in the literature (and my experience) than you describe: "It takes a total commitment that must last a life time. The ads never take into account that it is hard work to quit." I'm not sure why the ads would mention that. Smokers know that. It's what keeps them smoking. Still, there is a psychological component, and research shows that the psychological issue is resolved before or concurrent with the successful attempt. While nicotine is an extremely addictive drug, it is discharged from the addicts system in 72 hours. The rest is psychological. So I would not describe this process so much as a "commitment" (though there is that aspect), so much as a "hatred" of tobacco. This is born out by research (an my experience). It is a guard against relapse - and it is invariably effective.

Today, quitting is not that difficult if the smoker has the right information and assistance. Successful quitting is a well-known process, and has been thoroughly studied. For an excellent read on this subject, try Changing For Good.

Your experience with your dad, "personal" as you say, was doubtless an effective deterrent for you. You're lucky.

I not only have talked to successful ex-smokers. I'm one of them. I quit 3/24/1987, and have never relapsed. I also treated addicts and alcoholics over my career in mental health.

Actually, the ads that are more effective in preventing smoking, are directed at adolescents, and generally target the smokers unattractiveness to potential dating partners. Those are proven, effective ad campaigns. Also, education with adolescents is effective, again supported by research.

Smoking ruins your sex life, new ads warn young

 

Our society thrives on distrust, if someone has a vested interest something whatever they said is put into question. A common tool of those with the "public interest" groups is to create distrust. The only ones that believed the tobacco companies were those that wanted to.

How along has the health warning been on a pack of cigarettes and are there still millions of people smoking and more starting each year?

If health issues advertising were effective the why is obesity including (I had to avoid the pun) more and more of the population?

Why do you think the impacts of the ads aren't studied?

Duane: "Our society thrives on distrust, if someone has a vested interest something whatever they said is put into question."

And I thought you were such a skeptic. Could it be that your "skepticism" is selective, directed, as it is, only at science?

Duane: "...if someone has a vested interest something whatever they said is put into question."

You have no problem with conflicts of interest?

Duane: "How along has the health warning been on a pack of cigarettes..."

How did those warnings get there? Did the tobacco companies voluntarily put them there?

Duane: "...and are there still millions of people smoking and more starting each year?"

You can ask that about alot of things. People tend to be very creative in practicing self/other destructive behavior. People know there's jail time associated with drunk driving. Fast food is almost synonomous with heart disease and diabetes.

Yuo seem to suggest that people trust the tobacco companies over the government and the helath care professionals. I don;t think that has been true for decades. Our society with the help of the media and the actions of many people in corporations has contributed to that distrust.

We have drunk drivers, they rbeak the law and may go to jail.

Should we now outlaw high caloric foods and jail those who sell them?

Maybe it is time to study what works and what doesn;t work and try to modify hhow we approach the issues.

For kids today we what them to be health and yet we eliminiate active play such as tag on the playgrounds in school. How many kids are faitilily or perminently injre palying tag? How many kids never learn to be physically active?

"Maybe it is time to study what works and what doesn;t work and try to modify hhow we approach the issues."

Your assumption that there isn't research is just wrong. Do a search. There is plenty of research on that. The fact that it doesn't entirely support your opinion is - a fact. You bring up some likely effective approaches, but your assertion re: the motives of those who present these ads is just your opinion, based on your opinion.

AS I distrusted the tobacco companies and their claims, so I distrust the adversiters and their efforts. I am also skeptical of the people with good intentions that are never offer up a metrics to measure the prefromance of their favorite activities and programs their good intentions drive.

My opinion and a buck will get you a cup of caffine. 

However, just as here the best part of offer up your opnions is getting to dicuss them, to think about them, and continue to have them evolve.

"I am also skeptical of the people with good intentions that are never offer up a metrics to measure the prefromance of their favorite activities and programs their good intentions drive."

I have pointed to research, the results of which have been mixed. You continue to assume that these things haven't been looked at. That is simply a wrong assumption.

"My opinion and a buck will get you a cup of caffine."

I agree. I think the same of my own (anyone's) unsubstantiated opinion.

"...just as here the best part of offer up your opnions is getting to dicuss them, to think about them, and continue to have them evolve."

Fine, if it is guided by research. Otherwise, you can fall into a kind of cult-like activity of the blind leading the blind.

Based on your experience, what consitutes valid research, sample size, third party work, statistical analysis, etc.?

Do you believe research validation is necessary before actions can betaken on opinoins. In other words, if there is no reseach then opinions should not be used?

Do you believe that there is a threshold of governemnt programs that should include research activties to validate the expected results, should programs that do not have this feature not be implemented, or is it only individuals opinioins that require research and not govenrment actions?

Because in the end isn;t every action based on someone opinoin?

"Do you believe research validation is necessary before actions can betaken on opinoins. In other words, if there is no reseach then opinions should not be used?"

Obviously, that is not what I have said. What I have said is that when research is mixed, or absent, then you have to own your statements as opinion - not fact. Presenting opinion as fact - that's what I am critical of.

"Do you believe that there is a threshold of governemnt programs that should include research activties to validate the expected results...."

Research is a critical aspect of any program, government or corporate or non-government, not-profit. I would question the implementation of any program that does not include a research component - whether done internally or externally, or both.

"Because in the end isn;t every action based on someone opinoin?"

Would you want those opinions to be informed - or not?

I am not sure what constitues informed. Your criteria could easily be diferent than mine. As an example I am surley willing to consider practices or approaches that have proven effective loosely related activities as opinions worth considering. I see smoking as mcuh a human behavoir as a biological or medical issue and would look to other means and methods that have proven effecitve in addressing human habits.

Is the person bring such methods to the smoking issue infromed, quite probably not by the prevaliing medical community, but do they have opinoins worht condiering, I think so.

Maybe another example might be when a doctor wants to follow an established procedure and the patinct challenges that approach and pushes for other cosiderations and decides on one the doctor discourage. Doe sthe patienct have and infromed opinion witout having the medical experise, quite possibly.

"I am not sure what constitues informed. Your criteria could easily be diferent than mine."

Obviously.

"I see smoking as mcuh a human behavoir as a biological or medical issue and would look to other means and methods that have proven effecitve in addressing human habits."

Oh, so you have read Prochaska!!!!

"Maybe another example might be...."

Maybe, but your article targets the effectiveness of specific ads and the motivations of the producers of those ads. Your criticism is baseless.

I had not read any of Prochaska until what you offered here, and then only a curiory of the link you provided. I must be the proverbial pig rooting around and stumbling on an acorn.

My article is raising the question of continuing to spend dollars refining a message that is well recongized. When at best it stimulates an intention and yet provides no means to apply tha intention.

You were concerned about your health, most likely you had not considered that when you started. Now everyone knows so why spend more to pound that same message, why not try something new?

How many ads in the last couple of years were showing how the tobacco people lied, guess what they stop lying years ago, how long ago did they start putting the warnming label on the packs?

It wold seem that maybe it would be time to start advertising how people can quit. The drug companies advertise their version, which focuses on the chemical method, and some with coaching. But why not give people some practical tools like your use of gum, or if were muyst use the old then how about the rubberband, something people can personally use.

If behavior is means than advertise it, give people some undrstanding that it is more than scare ther are things they can do.

 

"If I stop today it will take 5 years before my lung gets healthy."

Partly accurate. Some health risks improve after 5 years. For an ex-smoker's lungs to return to "normal" (look like a non-smoker's lungs), that will take 20 years.

"I have never smoked, because my Dad (a life time 2-3 packs of Camels a day) smoker gave me a bit of advice."

And that advice was....

The first back to what needs to be included in preventing people from smoking and getting those to stop.

The method to get people to avoid smoking needs to be immediate, personal and certain.

My Dad's advice was it controls you and it is your money, and I wish I had never started. Not his words, the gist.

He made it personal, he made it immediate, and he made certain. He would not buy me cigarettes.

As for getting people to stop there are three things that need to happen; they must want to stop, they must create a habit that avoids smoking, and they need a reinforcement of that new habit.

Each person has their own triggers for action, but it has to address the three points made earlier. If health works it may most effectively triggered by retaliating to someone close that has suffered from smoking, it maybe financial, it may be pride (not letting something control them), it maybe family (kids, spouse), etc.

Most times people smoke at certain times of the day, after certain activities (I talking about eating, well I guess there are other things), filling nervous needs, filling slow times, etc. A new habit needs to found that will replace the smoking habit.

The new habit needs to be monitored and reinforced until it becomes something that is done without thinking. I will offer that if a person can do the new habit for 30 straght days I would bet that they will succeed.

"The method to get people to avoid smoking needs to be immediate, personal and certain."

I won't argue with that. Those seem like good variables for effective ads, and I find some support for that in the research - especially "social" ads directed at youth. That does not mean that ads you are critical of are ineffective. I find mixed results in the literature on those ads.

But since you are expressing your opinion here, I will give you mine. When I was smoking, I didn't want to view such ads - but don't think for a moment I wasn't aware of them. Did the threat of lung disease figure into my decision to quit? You bet it did. The most prevelant thought behind my developing hatred of tobacco was: "these g**damned things are killing me." I think if you surveyed successful quitters, you would find similar "opinions" on these ads. I do know that research supports the fact that the more information one obtains about tobacco and smoking, the more likely one is to quit. In fact, information gathering is one of the key variables (supported by research) leading to successful quitting. Perhaps, that represents making general information "personal, immediate, and certain".

How did you quit? what were the mechanics, the motivation each time you had the desire?

If the concept of immediate, cetain, and personal has the potneital to work that maybe that is something to incorparate in t the ads.

The Prochaska studies mirror my experience. Before I actually quit, I underwent an attitudinal shift. The mechanics to deal with the psychological habit came out of that attitudinal shift. The shift made those mechanics possible. Quite simply, at those times I was used to smoking, I chewed gum (plain gum - not nicotine gum).

I have seen the opposite effect, that attitude follows habit. The most noted example is seatbelts. Ever so many people resisted there use (it takes to much, it wrinkles the clothes, won't release whn I need to get out of the car in an emergency, and so on) and then after uninterrupted use for a month or so the attitude changed and all the reason for resistance felt away. That is why I offer the idea of identifying whne and why a smoker does smoke and then developing an laternative habit to use to replace it.

In my experience, and in the Prochaska studies, the "resistance" falls away very early (between step 1 and 2). By the time change actually takes place, the attitude change is well in place. That accounts for the very low incidence of relapse in the Prochaska studies. So, I would say that your example re: the seatbelts is not an "opposite effect". It is more an example of timing, and the circimstances under which the change occurred. Why, for example, if people were so "skeptical" about seatbelts, did they begin to use them at all? I would guess seatbelts were mandated. The decision to quit smoking results from internal, rather than external, motivation. So it's not an "opposite effect". The actual change occurs at a different time in the person's stage of psychological "preparedness" to change.

"I offer the idea of identifying whne and why a smoker does smoke and then developing an laternative habit to use to replace it."

Alternative habits are very important. They are the nuts and bolts of permanent change. But they are not sufficient themselves. People come up with them every January 1. But what motivates people to carry through on those alternative habits until they become permanent? This is the question that Prochaska asked. I would recommend his book. It is a very good summary of his research.

Btw, in my professional experience, Prochaska's research significantly influenced the field of mental health, particularly around addictions treatment.

Here is a study that finds "...television advertisements were found to be the most helpful in the quitting process, particularly those featuring smoking-related illnesses or inspirational quit tips."

I highlight this study because, unlike studies that survey active tobacco users, it surveys "...787 people who had quit smoking in the past two years...." This is the same research method used by Prochaska, Norcross and DiClemente, who developed the most successful program for smoking cessation.

Prochaska, Norcross, and DiClemente studied successful quitters, to discover how they had successfully quit.

There are 6 main iniatives for stop smoking and only one has been implemented. Wouldn;t it make more sense to try the other initiatives before spending money on all the health ads.

Just as you mentioned earlier there are several bad behavior conditions we would like to correct. Rather than simply putting out the health ads, that I must admit don;t seem to be that effective, we try to provide people with the menas and methods to change.

I still feel that the ads we see today are more driven by what the people paying for them like to hear rahter than what has proven effective.

Why did yuo start smoking? Did it taste good, did yuor body like it (when starting), did it make you feel "cool"/accepted, did it give you somehting to do with yuor hands?

Was it the ads that made you sensitive to the health concerns or was it general conversation? Was it concern for your health or how your health effected others you care about that caused you to change?

"Wouldn;t it make more sense to try the other initiatives before spending money on all the health ads."

Not necessarily. One study suggests that the ads are actually more effective because they reach many more people. My opinion is that there is no contradiction between the two, and that they are complimentary. The ads are likely more effective at stage 2 and 3 of the Prochaska model, rather than 1 or 4, 5, or 6.

"I still feel that the ads we see today are more driven by what the people paying for them like to hear rahter than what has proven effective."

Operative words: "I still feel...."

"Why did yuo start smoking?"

Peer pressure, primarily.

"Was it the ads that made you sensitive to the health concerns or was it general conversation? Was it concern for your health or how your health effected others you care about that caused you to change?"

In my own experience (I think I answered this above) the images of rotting lungs "stayed with me". I didn't like looking at them, but they kept the risks salient in my mind. I also worked in the health field. Ironically, smoking was still widely done by health professionals at the time. You won't find that now. It was both my concern for my own health and others. In fact, one of the factors that made me think I could quit was the amount of time I could go without smoking, because I was necessarily around others. I had begun to not smoke in the company of other people.

If we do nothing differently should we accept different results? If not, then why not try somehting different?

Why not place more emphasis on leading rather than following when it comes to not smoking, why not put more on how others feel? For the kids why not get pop icons to speak out aobut not smoking and why?

In my limited experience smoking is significantly less in all most all work environments. As the atmosphere has cleared people no recognize there is a less thna desirable smell. The liimited places smoking can be done is a discouragement to smoking. Smoking removes an individual from most of their peers. There are many reinforcers not to smoke at work. There are even some that are now making smokers pay more for healht insurance, though they are being agressively challeneged.

I am too limited in my knowledge and too lazy to do adequate research so the operative word in all I write is, "I feel", I believe".  

I'll respond to this later. Now, I have to go to the gym - one of those alternative behaviors....

Your questions are based on questionable assumptions.

Work environments that have limited smoking opportunities have significantly improved the risks for diseases related to second hand smoke. I am not aware of any studies (I haven't looked) that they have influenced smokers to stop smoking. Some companies have started treating smoking as any other drug addiction, including testing for nicotine in the blood. Smokers have been given an opportunity to quit or seek other employment. Smoking in some companies has been defined as grounds for not hiring. I'm sure these policies are being, have been, or will be challenged in the courts. But the policies exist.

The one policy that I know has the effect of moving smokers to quit is higher prices, most often effected through higher taxes. I have no problem with that, or with higher insurance premiums. Despite the spin that smokers are not a greater liability re: health dollars because the die sooner, there is evidence that is not true. Even though smokers die earlier, the require more health interventions than non-smokers.

Duane: "I am too limited in my knowledge and too lazy to do adequate research so the operative word in all I write is, 'I feel', I believe'."

I accept that qualification.

My last employer made small changes that signifcantly reduced the number of smokers. Designating certian areas where smoking was allowed (not indoors, but sheltered in most cases). Supporting those that wanted help in quiting (part of medical helath program/insurance coverage). These changes worked in subtle ways. If your boss doesn;t smoke and you are in a meeting with her, during each break rather than continuing discussion the smoker has to leave that  neither helps the smokers opinions on the topic at hand or the preception of the person. The personal impression a smoker makes with the people around them, smell, self control, interruptions of activities. Health concerns weren;t the personal driver to change.

As far as second had smoke, that argue is questionable at best. Have you ever heard of dilution. Second hand smoke is not an issue in any outdoor setting. In my commuinty they are trying to ban it on the beaches based on the risk of second hand smoke.

In reality if that arguement were to be taken as a real work place health risk it would be treated like any other air born chemical. There would be a threshold level establishes, and time weighted average for exposure. Simply put there would be a dose threshold established.

How may people that grew up in chain smoker homes have smoking related problems if they didn;t smoke?

I knw the that the vast majority of smokers cost more, my Dad had to have by-pass surgery, lifestyle (part smoking) contributed, he had emphasima. He cost more because of his smokinf. Simply walk though the grocery store and se the people carrying a oxygen bottle, best gues it is due to smoking. Smoking is a health risk and added cost to the system.

"My last employer made small changes that signifcantly reduced the number of smokers."

I agree - employers can and do influence smokers' decisions to quit. That has also been the case with any number of addictions.

"These changes worked in subtle ways."

Yep. I remember learning I could live through an hour meeting without a cigarette because my employer (a hospital) began to prohibit smoking in meetings. Btw, at that time, I supported that policy, while other smokers were whining about it - evidence of the attitudinal change. It was shortly after that that I quit (1987). Today, my lungs are in excellent condition, and my sitting heart rate is 60.

"As far as second had smoke, that argue is questionable at best."

Well, that's not what the research (science) has found. The carcinogenic effects of second-hand smoke is not in question, as far as scientific research is concerned.

"Second hand smoke is not an issue in any outdoor setting."

I can't say. I'm not familiar with the research on that. Are you?

"In reality if that arguement were to be taken as a real work place health risk it would be treated like any other air born chemical."

Without knowing what the research is, you can't claim to know what "reality" is on this. But why take that approach to ANY (toxic) air born chemical? If they are harmful, then why permit them at all? Unfortunately, very little research has been done on the toxic effects of chemicals, especially used in combination. Fortunately, many companies are launching non-toxic alternatives, especially for residential use. So far, no company has introduce a safe tobacco product.

"How may people that grew up in chain smoker homes have smoking related problems if they didn;t smoke?"

I don't know. I haven't reviewed the scientific research on that.

"I knw the that the vast majority of smokers cost more...."

If you support the higher insurance premiums for smokers, do you support higher taxes on tobacco products to help pay for the increased health costs for medicare and medicaid patients?

"As far as second had smoke, that argue is questionable at best."

"Well, that's not what the research (science) has found. The carcinogenic effects of second-hand smoke is not in question, as far as scientific research is concerned."

"In reality if that arguement were to be taken as a real work place health risk it would be treated like any other air born chemical."

Without knowing what the research is, you can't claim to know what "reality" is on this.

Either there is the research or there isn;t.

"But why take that approach to ANY (toxic) air born chemical?" This sounds like opnion, do we use research of good intenitons to regulate work places?

You mentioned early that smoke/second hand smoke has many chemicals it and many of those chemcals are regulated so if and when the they exceed exposure limits then the employer has to take action. This is established science.

If my opinions are less then sufficient, then why are the opinions of other so strong over science to force regulations?

IN my opinion those people the are so quick to claim the dire effects of "second hand smoke" are either sniffer their own smoke, or don;t really care about science and are blwoing smoke to control people.

I return to my to orgininal point the people who write the ads are writing them to keep the people who pay happy and not trying to develop additional themes to that might change those they aren;t currently reaching.

If you don;t change what you are doing why should you expect the results to change? An editorial editing of a past philosopher quote.

Maybe they shold explore some odd opinions that and develop new approaches.

As an example you developed the gum chewing, when and why did you do that, when and where do use it, what other alternatives to that might be suggested to other.

"Either there is the research or there isn;t."

On these issues, there is. Whether you are interested in that research before expressing an opinion - that is something else, entirely.

"This sounds like opnion, do we use research of good intenitons to regulate work places?"

Wrong question. You should ask, "Do we allow work places to contaminate employees and communities?"  Why wait till after the fact, when damage has been done, and class action lawsuits have been initiated?

That whole framework falls within the "remedial" approach that has so often characterized our society's approach to nearly everything. Wait until it's broke before doing anything about it. Why not adopt a preventive approach - which, btw, would be truly "conservative".

Btw, do you really have something against "good intentions"?

"IN my opinion those people the are so quick to claim the dire effects of 'second hand smoke' are either sniffer their own smoke, or don;t really care about science and are blwoing smoke to control people."

I'll accept that as your opinion. I generally think that trying to guess the motivations of others is a useless activity.

"I return to my to orgininal point the people who write the ads are writing them to keep the people who pay happy and not trying to develop additional themes to that might change those they aren;t currently reaching."

Your original point turns out to be an uninformed opinion, which guesses both at the effectiveness and motivations for those ads. Your uninformed opinion is really no more valuable than a guess. I'll leave your motivation for making such a guess to your own reflection.

"If you don;t change what you are doing why should you expect the results to change? An editorial editing of a past philosopher quote.//Maybe they shold explore some odd opinions that and develop new approaches."

Maybe you should not assume that these ads have not been researched (with mixed results), and that other approaches have not resulted from this and other research on anti-smoking marketing.

"...you developed the gum chewing, when and why did you do that, when and where do use it, what other alternatives to that might be suggested to other."

1. I felt (opinion) I needed to have something in my mouth. 2. It was suggested in the "quit smoking" literature. 3. The literature had discussed gum, candy sticks (like peppermint), or Nicorette, which had just come on the market. I chose plain chewing gum.

Every work environment and every non work envrionment is contaminate. Pristine is an illusion, the world has been changing from the begining of time.

We can make a good effort based on the information of the time, just as we can make an omlet with out breakking an egg neither can we stop change because there is risk.

Do you think we would have any medicines and change if we had to wait until they were proven to have no risk? Asprin has proven to be a truly miracle medicine, do you thibnk it would pass FDA approval today?

I have a real problem with good intentions that disregard risk benefit considerations. DDT is a perfect example, how many millions of lives have been lost prematurally to malaria because they stop using DDT.

 

Good intention said it was a bad chemical, benefits take the hind quarter.

If you consider all of the toxics that are genrated in the manufacture of computers, if we had to wait for those to be made risk free we would still be waiting because we wouldn;t have the computers to use to analyze the data.

When people justify solely on good intentions I surely run for cover because even though the sky isn;t falling the good intentions will make us pay dearly to prop it up.

"

"Every work environment and every non work envrionment is contaminate. Pristine is an illusion, the world has been changing from the begining of time."

Your opinion, I suppose. Look - the human species co-evolved within an ecological system, which was not "contaminated" significantly until the industrial revolution. Introducing synthetic chemicals into that ecology - compounds that could not occur in nature - is a qualitative different ballgame. Know anything about asbestos? Was it studied before being introduced into the workplace? How many lawsuits have resulted, not to mention illness, misery and death. Pristine is not an illusion - eutopia is.

"Do you think we would have any medicines and change if we had to wait until they were proven to have no risk?"

Actually, that is exactly what happens. No medication can be introduced to medical practice without extensive study. Industry complains about it all the time, and when that process was relaxed, we got medications that ended up killing people.

"Asprin has proven to be a truly miracle medicine, do you thibnk it would pass FDA approval today?"

Aspirin has a history. It is known to be safe, used as directed, for overwhelmingly the greater population.

 

"If you consider all of the toxics...."

Nonsense. Non-toxic substitutes are found all the time. It's just now becoming a priority.

"When people justify solely on good intentions...."

"Solely" is your political strawman. Name an incident, in which something was based "solely on good intentions."

It was explained to me by a nationally (quite likely world) recognized analytical chemist (I realy have met a "sceintist or two, they use to come to the plant floor to gather sample and dsicuss their work) that once we we became able to analyze at the part per trillion level there was no such number as zero for chemicals in the envrionment. Yes there are toxics and non-toxics everywhere.

You have mentioned all of the toxins in cegarette smoke, many of which are currently regualted in the work place (having specific exposure limits), why do you feel that they haven;t been used to control or elliminate smoking in the workplace?

As far as the synthetics, you mention asbestos not a synthetic. I belive if you check it was use prior to toxicolgical science became an accept tool.

"Aspirin has a history." I believ that history was established before the ability to test the risks. I simply speculate if asprin had to meet the same rigors of that the medicines do today it may not pass and it may not have even gotten out of the reseaech stage. I do believe that the discovery of asprin was one of the reasons we have a drug industry today. If at the time of its discovery it was know that it had the potential for death, the risk of childhood damage,  there were the potential legal risks associated with its manufacture, and the cost relative to the times to get government approval that it would be available let alone and over the counter medication?

I surely believe in the FDA, but I also believe that there is a risk benefit balance.

Good intentions are not my strawman. There are many examples of the practical approach by those closest to the problem driving change by balancing risk with benefit. Pick any current issue that is being driven by governemnt that offers any thing more than bad guesses at the benefit. Their whole justification is based on it id for the good of all (showing off their good intentions). Pick an issue? Even the one for anti-smoking ads what is the dollar return it yields? It is easier to calcualte the money smoking gewnrates fro the states to spend on pet projects other than health. The good intentions surley don;t reduce the tax dollars.

Cap & trade, stimulus, health reform, etc. which ones are driven by good intentions and which ones have offered metrics to meausre the benefits to be gained?

Good intentions without accountability are the more harmful that open greed.  I do fear the "do gooders" the most because they hold themsleves to be above those with an apparent personal benefit.

I know we have had this discussion before, but it bears repeating here. I value scientific research. I had a career that was dependent on it.

I don't value opinions, that are not based on research (including my own). I may think that opinions, apart from research, could suggest new topics for research, but unproven opinions are of little value.

You have, in the past, characterized my attitude as being too dependent on "experts", and as failing to "think for myself". In light of your statements:

"I am too limited in my knowledge and too lazy to do adequate research so the operative word in all I write is, 'I feel', I believe'."

"My opinion and a buck will get you a cup of caffine.//However, just as here the best part of offer up your opnions is getting to dicuss them, to think about them, and continue to have them evolve."

I would encourage you to be a little less "definitive" or "confident" about your opinions, which are not based on research.

Finally, re: this article, research is mixed on the topic. So there is no basis for your claiming a factual status for your opinion. These anti-smoking ads may or may not be effective. The research is inconclusive.

BAsed on your professional experience which comes first opinions or research?

Do the vast majority of research work start with a purppose to proof or disprove and opinion or is it that the reseearch deevlops data that then is turned into opinion/theory?

What cosititues suffeiincet resraech to feel it is appropriate to offer an opinion? Must you have proof first or is it suffcient to have antadotal cases or should a person have don;t suffcieint research to prove their opinion? Does the data have to be in the feild of discussion or could the foundation of the opinion be based in another field of experience and thenholder of the opinion simply offering what has been learn for consideration in a different field?

Did Einstein prove his theory/opinion or was it an opinion until it was proved by research physists?

I will defer I have no overwhelming facts, at best I have antadotal information. Though I find it rare that governemtn organization make any effort to develop data to prove the basis of what they are spending on. If my opinoin is so weak because I lack the data, it costs nothing though I would be the first to establish metric to meaure effectiveness if anyone want to try it. How much data have those that write the ads colected to determine the effectiveness of what they are doing?

 

If the research is inclusive then the support based on science/research would tend to be inconclusive? In my opinion the same standards should be applied to all rather then just accepting and supporting what is being done at the time. But without data it is only an opinion.

It seems that in many practical situations even those based in science exchange and discussion of opinions ebfore facts are genrated is a common and effecitve practice. It seems in those types of discussion rather than focusing on the data in hand it is more about challenging the reasoning behind the opinion.

The reason behind the opinon that the health ads have reach a level of dimishing returns is that we have still have smokers and the ads have been inplace for years. The reason behind the opinon that the people deciiding to stay with the health ads and simly refining the pictures and appeal is because their is no effort to determine the effectiveness of the ads.

"BAsed on your professional experience which comes first opinions or research?"

I am not a researcher. My guess is that informed opinions and research work hand-in-hand.

"Do the vast majority of research work start with a purppose to proof or disprove and opinion or is it that the reseearch deevlops data that then is turned into opinion/theory?"

Informed opinion is based on research. Science does not set out to prove opinions (hypotheses). Science tests hypotheses. In order for hypotheses to be confirmed, the probability of occurence generally must be 95% or greater. Then science says the finding is "significant".

"What cosititues suffeiincet resraech to feel it is appropriate to offer an opinion?"

You should study "scientific method". Scientists set the mark at 95% to define "significance". Of course, when you haven't the inclination, interest, or energy to look up at least the minimal research on a topic, then that could hardly meet any reasonable criteria of being "sufficient".

"Did Einstein prove his theory/opinion or was it an opinion until it was proved by research physists?"

Einstein was very familiar with Newtonian physics before he suggested alternative ways of viewing phenomena that Newtonian physics had difficulty explaining. His theories were mathematically consistent, but were not able to be "tested" for many years after they were presented. That said, Newtonian physics remains valid within many contexts, and Einstein's theory isn't valid in some contexts. There are inconsistencies between relativity and quantum physics, which are not resolved. Resolutions have been suggested by string theory, or M-theory, but these theories are beyond testing at this point - though they are mathematically consistent.

That said, it is a mistake to think that science typically progresses with such "revolutions" as Einstein's relativity. For more on this, see:

 Greenspan, Einstein and Reich

"If the research is inclusive then the support based on science/research would tend to be inconclusive?"

I agree, the decision to run the ads (spend the money) is not entirely supported by research. It is also not entirely not supported by research. Then the decision is based on weighing risks. Does it cost more to run the ads or treat the diseases? Is there a better approach that is supported by research? (Your article would have been more "legitimate" if it has asked these questions.) These questons have been asked, although you keep assuming that they haven't. New approaches have been developed, as well, as a result of research, although you keep assuming that they haven't.

"The reason behind the opinon that the health ads have reach a level of dimishing returns is that we have still have smokers and the ads have been inplace for years."

So your criteria for judging whether these ads are effective or not would be that there would no longer be any smokers.

"The reason behind the opinon that the people deciiding to stay with the health ads and simly refining the pictures and appeal is because their is no effort to determine the effectiveness of the ads."

All you have to do is look up the research on the topic to see that this "opinion" or "assumption" is simply false. The fact is that there are on-going efforts to research the effectiveness of these ads.

Anecdotally, I will repeat that in my experience as a successful ex-smoker, these ads were useful in helping me reach the decision to quit. And I linked above a single survey of successful ex-smokers, who also found the ads to be helpful in reaching that decision.

Do you think you would get a more accurate picture by asking people, who had successfully quit, or by asking people, who are still smoking? I don't know the answer to that question. Maybe you should ask both, and then see what the informed opinions of the researchers are.

As best I can tell a theory is an opinion developed out of experiences or thooughtful consideration. The scienctific process as told to me was that an expected outcome was established, method repeatable test method was develop and then used to capture data, and then the data was analyzed to verify or disprove the expected out come. Testing by any other word is still proving or disproving, if it passes the test it is proved, if it fails it is disproved.

In that approach the research was not random and laws of nature discovered. There was a discplined appraoch to gathering the data and that appraoch was focused on a theory/opinion. Einstein's theory was his opinoin, it did not become scieince until it was proved.

Until the repeatability of something is established it surely seems to remain an  opinion, or in the scienitific vernacular "theory".

I will readily acknowledge that there have been many great discoveries that were not the point of the research, but would surprised that other than a rare case the reseach from which the discovery came was not based on a plan approach desing to prove or disprove a theory.

I would truly like to eread a link that address the sceintific appraoch or any other topic ebig discussed. One of the best values I gain from Gather is looking at my appraoch to issues and rethinking than and finding informative articles to read. The muscle between my ears is not great but it does benfit from regualr activity.

When talking about people we quiuckly move out of the realm of 95% for significance. If a drug had to be effective for 95% of the people taking it how many drugs do you think we would have on the market. If you enter into the human behavior sginficant becomes more nearer of the 5% for signficant. Do you think the ehalth issue is effective for 95% of the smokers? If it isn't would you disregard it as signifanct and thus not use it at all. To my simple way of thinking if we look at the smoking issue as an elephant and we could eat in 5% bites (finding a means to succeed with 5% of the smokers) than we would be much more liekly to eat the elephant that tryingto eat in one bite (continuing to focus on siply applying the helath issue year in year out).

"As best I can tell a theory is an opinion...."

Yes, as best you can tell. What actually happens is that hypotheses are developed, and then experiments are developed to disprove the hypotheses. Evidence either supports or does not support the hypotheses. If supported, the hypotheses become a theory. That is scientific method. "Prove" is not a scientific word. There are scientists, who post on Gather. Ask them if this is not correct.

"Until the repeatability of something is established it surely seems to remain an  opinion, or in the scienitific vernacular 'theory'."

Your terms are mixed up. Replicability is the same results found by many researchers, using the same experiements. That is part of "peer-review". If results are replicable, the evidence supports the hypotheses, and a theory is born. A theory is a group of scientific hypotheses, which have been supported by evidence. Theory is as "certain" as science gets. Again, "prove" is not a scientific concept.

"When talking about people we quiuckly move out of the realm of 95% for significance...."

I don't think that's what I said or meant. I don't know what the criteria for approving drugs for human consumption is. What I stated is that significance in science is defined as p<.05 (probability of chance occurance is less than 5%). Ask any scientist what the formula is, and what the significance of that forumla is.

Again I am not a "sceintist" an will not attempt to learn the vocabulary. If testing is not able demonstrate an opinion is verifiable then isn't it demostrated to be invalid? If the testing results can not be replicated than isn't the opinion now rejected?

If theory is as certain as science gets that is it a theory before it has been tested or is it a theory after it has been tested?

You have to understand when talking to a non-sceintist and yo keep refereing to sceintific methods you must explain that the scientific criteria you infer that the opinion must withstand doesn;t apply to the point you are taking. When you refrence that the sceintific method requires a 95% threshold fro significance then that suggests that before you would consider an opinion valid it must have reach that level of significance. Does the anit-smoking ads have to meet the same threshold of significance before they move from opinioin to theory?

If we can find the why, we have a better chance of finding the how. If the person doesn;t give or know the why than the best we can do is speculate on it and try to work from there. I think it is important to ask both. We learn from succes and we learn from failure. Back to my limited experiince and education I have found that many people asking the questoins many times stop when they find the answers they expect rather than exploring farther to find the why.

You used gum because peole said that you needed something in your mouth. Why did you need something in your mouth, did they explain why? Many times situations, events, expectations, etc. can be the trigger for the need. If that is understood then there maybe many other approaches that can be considered to work for others.

The vast majority of the public ascribe the distortions and lies by the people in the tobacco companies to be motivated by self interest. Why should we only belive that they are so motivated, why can;t others that claim good intentions be similarly motivated? If I get a paycheck for writing a anti smoking ad, why would I not like to keep getting paid? If they people paying me like what I am writing (not being a scieintist) why should I change what I am writing?

You have said earlier that the research on the effective results for the health focused ads is mixed. Let me speculate further on why they continue to use those that appraoch (in addition to earlies mentioned it fits their logic), writing a single type ad (health focused) with several variations is cost effecient for the payers and convient for the writers. However, if we still have millions of smokers to seems to have reached a limit on the effectiveness at stopping smokers. If the opinion is that we need to be efficent with our dollars than are we sacrificing effectiveness for the smokers?

NOt claiming to be and most pointedly told I ma not a "scientists" and as you suggest I don;t understand the sceintific approach, so all I offer is what I have observed. Watching people in some extremely risky environemnts (or at least considered so by the genral public) and finding people that suffered more than others the conseqeunce of those risk and trying to understand what made the difference has led me to look to the shy of the behavior and to recognize that there are commonalties to them and yet each person is unique. Especially to think that the most effiecent approach is the most effective is at best an illusion. When it conmes to people health and well being their are many things that can cloud their judgement.

As for my article, not being a smoker or having smokers in my family I have limited exposure to what the Ad Council is doing on the subject, I only know what I have seen for years and years. The other consideration is my struggle with writing, this has been a battle that I was formally told about will in high school and have struggle with ever since. It most likely part to do with capacity and lack of practice.

My time has been short, so I'll comment briefly.

Your post claims that anti-smoking ads are for anti-smokers, not smokers. The research does not support that the ads are ineffective, and does not address the motivations of the producers of those ads.

You acknowledge that your article expresses your opinion, which you admit is not based on research.

You insinuate that producers of these ads do not evaluate them for their effectiveness, which is not true.

You also insinuate that these producers do not have more varied approaches to their anti-smoking campaigns, which is also not true.

Challenged on these points, you have made a series of qualifications to your original post.

I consider informed opinions, based on scientific research, to be the most valuable foundation for policy decisions. I do not consider political ideology a valuable basis for policy decisions.

Thanks for the article, and for the discussion. I rated it a 10, btw, because it prompted a good discussion.

Steve B.,
YOu made a comment about this post on another post about my opinions and lack of facts to back them up. I do not try to establish new research nor refute existing research, I simply offer a different thought process on the issue. I try to give the why behind what I offer to elicit people to show the errors in my why's. I will admit I am not intuitive nor as many will say have the necessary abilities to fully understand, some even point out my profound ignorance, and surely not able to point out flaws in others scientific work.

Do you think I should post a warning on any post I write? Somehting to the effect; Reading this maybe harmful to sense of logic. Read at your won risk as this may challenge your sense of ratoinal thought. Read this at the risk of having all science disregarded. (I think David and Chris may subscribe to this one). Read this with the expectation that the author desires hs reasoning challenge and he will be prseistent it responding.

As I hope to offer future posts so in fairness to readers what do you suggest?

Steve B.,

I agree the discussion has been good, I have to think through my responses which is always good. I hope to meet you agian on Gather.