Bloomberg proposes new law prohibiting stores from displaying cigarettes

[Deadvolcanoes]

Advertising in windows, via display cases, not advertising in the general sense.

What's the difference between advertising in a magazine and advertising in a display case? I see them as being quite similar.

Is there anything concrete that shows a store owner having cigarettes in the window decreases smoking, thereby decreasing healthcare costs? Furthermore, enough to offset the costs of enforcing this legislation, and the legal and administrative overhead?

I haven't done enough research into the topic yet, but if reduced advertising reduces smoking, and reduced smoking reduces healthcare expenditures, it's not exactly a giant leap.

[Deleted]

No, not really at all. Advertising would require some sort of sign saying buy these here or whatever having a product in the window does not do that at all. Also, be real for a minute use your brain do you honestly think anyone has ever walked into a gas station and said $5 in gas and some of whatever that is stacked in the window I don't know what it is but you sure are inticing me to buy some because I can simply see the package.

I can't believe you're this naive. Not having them on display is going to mean a reduction. The shop-industry uses billions of dollars every year researching consumer behavior to decide where to put their products so consumers will notice them and buy their products. If you hide them away less people are going to notice them and less people are going to purchase them, and that's a FACT!

We could debate the size of the effect, but debating wether or not it has a effect is just downright stupid.

This is just a small step in a long line of initiatives to eliminate the current massive consumption of cigarettes.
Ban on advertising for cigarettes
Cigarette label warnings
Ban on smoking in certain areas (planes, restuarants, bars, clubs etc.)
Increased price
Ban on showing cigarettes

Sooner or later you'll have to goto to specialized cigarettes shops to get them, because so few people are going to be smoking them.

If you were to outlaw cigarettes from one day to another you would have a generation of smokers on you back, these steps are much better at stopping the newer generation of smokers from starting.

I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch americans protest. Common sense in America seems to be trumped by "personal freedom". I wonder why you even have laws if you don't want restriction on anything anyway?...

[vindicatorx]

In Saskatchewan, since the display law was implemented in 2002, the smoking rate among the 15-19 age group has dropped from ~27% to ~20%, and from 34% to 25% in the 20-24 age group.

I'm sorry but that graph has nothing to do with advertising how much have cigarettes increased in price during that duration? Was smoking indoors also banned during that period? Just because there are less people smoking now does not mean it's because they aren't able to be seen.

[Magpai]

Hard to believe anyone would vote for this idiot. Not only does he think it's within his authority to regulate what his citizens consume to this extent, he actually goes about it by making the purchases inconvenient since he knows he can't outlaw them entirely. It's nice to see his retarded soda ban was shot down.

It's not really an attack on personal liberty, you're still allowed to purchase them.

It's an attack on the liberties of the seller. Oh but the government is protecting us from the evil seller and they don't have rights, I always forget.

Sod the manufacturers, they got rich selling death sticks.

To willing buyers.

I'd support it,

As does everyone else who gets a chubby from government intrusion for the citizen's own good.

Fags are demonized in most of Europe, and rightly so.

ha

[Tinykong]

It's an attack on the liberties of the seller. Oh but the government is protecting us from the evil seller and they don't have rights, I always forget.

Businesses shouldn't have rights, imo (even if I am against this requirement).

[Magpai]

I think that store should advertise electronic cigarettes, they are way healthier and (for the long course) cheaper

I hope you're just making a general statement and don't think this has any relevance to a matter of law.

[Masark]

I'm sorry but that graph has nothing to do with advertising how much have cigarettes increased in price during that duration? Was smoking indoors also banned during that period? Just because there are less people smoking now does not mean it's because they aren't able to be seen.

Yes, smoking in indoor public places was banned in 2005.

The lack of a significant drop among the older age groups compared to the younger groups suggests the cause was fewer young people starting smoking, which in turn suggests that the advertizing restriction was a more significant cause.

[Raidenx]

I'm more against it because the nanny state takes away the responsibility of the parents, depriving children of diversity and forcing them into a hive. The government is not our parent. They serve us. Unless the people of New York overwhelmingly support this then I can't accept it at all.

[vindicatorx]

I can't believe you're this stupid. Not having them on display is going to mean a reduction. The shop-industry uses billions of dollars every year researching consumer behavior to decide where to put their products so consumers will notice them and buy their products. If you hide them away less people are going to notice them and less people are going to purchase them, and that's a FACT!

I easiily insult you call you names as well right now. I'm sorry if you are gullible enough to believe people will simply buy a product like cigarettes if they have never smoked before knowing full well all the health risks involved with smoking. If I want to buy cigarettes I am smart enough to know where to get them even if they are not displayed. Naive people like yourself think everyone else is stupid guess what smart guy they aren't. Also, I think the biggest advertising for cigarettes is seeing people who smoke in general. Why not force people who smoke to cover themselves while smoking as well so others can't see them as well right?

[Raidenx]

Businesses shouldn't have rights, imo (even if I am against this requirement).

The individuals who own and maintain businesses have rights.

[vindicatorx]

Yes, smoking in indoor public places was banned in 2005.

The lack of a significant drop among the older age groups compared to the younger groups suggests the cause was fewer young people starting smoking, which in turn suggests that the advertizing restriction was a more significant cause.

Its seven years not a fucking lifetime 7 years later and less older people are smoking cause they finally got tired of having to pay too much, that and when you can't smoke most places it really limits where you can smoke. Advertising makes 0 difference. Also lets be honest the whole healthy living thing is "cool" right now I'm sure if you look at age groups and see how many people in the younger age groups are now vegan or vegetarian it's siginificantly higher in that lower bracket as well.

[Tinykong]

The individuals who own and maintain businesses have rights.

They really shouldn't, imo. Businesses should be left to live and die by the market, and be forced to put up with whatever regulation we decide to impose on them.

[Magpai]

Businesses shouldn't have rights, imo (even if I am against this requirement).

Businesses are the collective assets and wishes of individuals. To deny a business rights is to deny each individual it represents as well.

But really, "businesses shouldn't have rights?" What kind of nonsense is that? No property rights? No right to have a contract enforced? No right to buy, sell, employ or fire? "No rights" is a completely absurd phrase to apply to any entity, individual or collective. Surely you mean something much more specific and sensible than that.

[Deadvolcanoes]

After doing some more research, it appears that display case bans are more effective than magazine type advertising bans.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...-0197.full.pdf

Compared with youth in the status quo condition, youth in the display ban condition were less aware that tobacco products were for sale (32.0% vs 85.2%) and significantly less likely to try purchasing tobacco products in the virtual store (odds ratio = 0.30, 95% confidence interval = 0.1320.67, P , .001). Banning ads had minimal impact on youth’s purchase attempts.

And that these type of display case bans may help to reduce youth smoking.

Policies that ban tobacco product displays at the POS may help reduce youth smoking by deterring youth from purchasing tobacco products at retail stores

[Cjeska]

In Saskatchewan, since the display law was implemented in 2002, the smoking rate among the 15-19 age group has dropped from ~27% to ~20%, and from 34% to 25% in the 20-24 age group.

Mixing up correlation with causation, right out of the playbook of political demagoguery.

[Masark]

Its five years not a fucking lifetime 5 years less older people are smoking cause they finally got tired of having to pay too much, that and when you can't smoke most places it really limits where you can smoke. Advertising makes 0 difference

1. Your claim of "less older people are smoking" is not supported by the facts. The smoking rate among older people has not significantly changed. The youth smoking rate has gone down.

2. I suppose that's factual if you consider "outside" to be one place. There's no restriction on where you can smoke outdoors, only indoors.

[Deleted]

I easiily insult you call you names as well right now. I'm sorry if you are gullible enough to believe people will simply buy a product like cigarettes if they have never smoked before knowing full well all the health risks involved with smoking. If I want to buy cigarettes I am smart enough to know where to get them even if they are not displayed. Naive people like yourself think everyone else is stupid guess what smart guy they aren't. Also, I think the biggest advertising for cigarettes is seeing people who smoke in general. Why not force people who smoke to cover themselves while smoking as well so others can't see them as well right?

You assume all people are smart and especially smokers are smart eh? I'm sorry but fact is that smokers are generally the stupid part of the population. Simply hiding them away is going to reduce consumption by nature of them not being exposed nearly as much. Also some places actually have rules to that hide smokers away with dedicated smoking rooms or stopping people from smoking near populated doors and such.

[Deadvolcanoes]

I'm more against it because the nanny state takes away the responsibility of the parents, depriving children of diversity and forcing them into a hive. The government is not our parent. They serve us. Unless the people of New York overwhelmingly support this then I can't accept it at all.

How would this measure in any way reduce the responsibility of parents to educate their children about the dangers of tobacco?

[Magpai]

Yes, smoking in indoor public places was banned in 2005.

The lack of a significant drop among the older age groups compared to the younger groups suggests the cause was fewer young people starting smoking, which in turn suggests that the advertizing restriction was a more significant cause.

It's such a luxury believing that correlation implies causation, or at least acting as if you do. After all, there are so many correlations to choose from that you can always find one that reflects favorably on your opinion!

[Tinykong]

Businesses are the collective assets and wishes of individuals. To deny a business rights is to deny each individual it represents as well.

But really, "businesses shouldn't have rights?" What kind of nonsense is that? No property rights? No right to have a contract enforced? No right to buy, sell, employ or fire? "No rights" is a completely absurd phrase to apply to any entity, individual or collective. Surely you mean something much more specific and sensible than that.

I should have been more specific, I'm opposed to corporate personhood.