iPubloc places specially hospitals, school s , residancy areas smoking should be prohibited and severe action on the person who violating the rules should be taken.In residancy areas the cigrett buds are thrown on the roads which are taken by small kids which will be injurious for health and practice of good habits.
Sailormoon - 13 years ago
I have voted for the 'jwatso' idea. It is the only 'big' idea.
When does the voting finish? I want to know what happens.
Any attempt to influence people's thoughts through language needs to be very carefully done, and not overdone. If I heard phrases like 'toxic tobacco industry' every time I heard an interview on the subject, I would quickly turn off. The gaming is too obvious. Using a phrase like that would be the anti-tobacco movement's equivalent of the 10:10 video. I prefer something positive and truthful - referring to giving up tobacco use as 'breaking free' sounds upbeat and achievable, and it's certainly how I viewed it when I stopped smoking a number of years ago.
Steven Gallegos - 13 years ago
WHAT YOU'LL NEVER HEAR THEM SAY -
They say their product is legal – but you’ll never hear them say it’s safe.
They say they have a right to smoke – you’ll never hear them say that we have a right to breathe.
They say we’re taking away their freedom – you’ll never hear them say we’re limiting their addiction.
They say there is no proof of harm – you’ll never hear them say they know people who died from use.
They point their finger to the obese, who harm themselves, but no one ever died from secondhand food.
This issue is always about them as individuals – you’ll never hear them speak out for anyone else.
They say” make a section to smoke” in places people gather to eat and drink – you’ll never hear them say they’ll wait or leave to limit everyone else’s exposure to the poisons in their secondhand smoke.
They say outdoor smoking bans lose customers and profits for restaurants and bars – you’ll never hear them say cities adopting smokefree outdoor policies have never rescinded them because their businesses gain more customers and have seen increases in their profits.
They say they are responsible people – you’ll never hear them say lit cigarettes and irresponsible smoking behavior is the number one cause of apartment and house fires; and known to be a major cause of hillside and forest fires in dry and windy conditions.
They say the act of smoking gives them a sense of freedom and independence – it is anything but – people who smoke should not feel free to light-up around those who don’t smoke; and their independence is more like dependence and slavery to nicotine, the drug of their addiction and irritability.
Some say they feel more comfortable smoking in social situations – fact is, nobody wants to get secondhand smoke on their clothes, in their hair, or on their skin, so they stay away from the person who is smoking.
They reason that smoking has never hurt them – that’s because decreased oxygen levels to their brains are due to the increased carbon monoxide levels in their lungs.
After all is said and done, the fact is, we were all born non-smokers and that is our natural state of being.
Yussuf - 13 years ago
The tobacco manufacturers position themselves as 'responsible companies selling a harmful product'. One could write an essay on the spin behind this phrase. The term "Toxic Tobacco companies" directly challenges this notion and gets my vote. In media interviews I refer to the "irresponsible tobacco industry" whenever I can.
Albert Benson - 13 years ago
To identify a tobacco user as a smoker does not really tell the story for the victim, who needs to know that
it is possible to kick the habit, become an ex-user of tobacco. Breaking up with a friend who is deceitful is
descriptive, may help to enable a tobacco user to develop the attitude which is needed to accomplish this.
Md. Tauheed Ahmad - 13 years ago
I also think 'breaking-up' (the second suggestion) or 'breaking-free' can give a stronger impetus to the desire to quit. 'Breaking-free' has a strong positive connotation."Breaking-Free Center", Breaking-Free Counselling, Breaking-Free Line etc sound quite appealing as well as empowering..
Md. Tauheed Ahmad - 13 years ago
I think that to describe tobacco-related deaths and disease a more frequent use of a word like 'tobacco-victim' can generate stronger public opinion against tobacco.
Patricia MacNevin - 13 years ago
I would also consider not using the word ``quitter...no one likes to be considered a quitter of anything. I like several of the options and understand their justifications. Example - anti-tobacco should be used consistently - say what we mean! Frame our actions by using disease - this can relate to the many impacts of using tobacco, 1st, 2nd and 3rd hand smoke, etc. Toxic tobacco industry speaks volumes as well.
So - you have DISEASE - ANTI-TOBACCO - and TOXIC INDUSTRY in my books. It will not matter what country you are working in - these words are the same in any language (theoretically), are clear and can be used in so many campaigns, editorials, presentations, speeches, etc.
iPubloc places specially hospitals, school s , residancy areas smoking should be prohibited and severe action on the person who violating the rules should be taken.In residancy areas the cigrett buds are thrown on the roads which are taken by small kids which will be injurious for health and practice of good habits.
I have voted for the 'jwatso' idea. It is the only 'big' idea.
When does the voting finish? I want to know what happens.
Any attempt to influence people's thoughts through language needs to be very carefully done, and not overdone. If I heard phrases like 'toxic tobacco industry' every time I heard an interview on the subject, I would quickly turn off. The gaming is too obvious. Using a phrase like that would be the anti-tobacco movement's equivalent of the 10:10 video. I prefer something positive and truthful - referring to giving up tobacco use as 'breaking free' sounds upbeat and achievable, and it's certainly how I viewed it when I stopped smoking a number of years ago.
WHAT YOU'LL NEVER HEAR THEM SAY -
They say their product is legal – but you’ll never hear them say it’s safe.
They say they have a right to smoke – you’ll never hear them say that we have a right to breathe.
They say we’re taking away their freedom – you’ll never hear them say we’re limiting their addiction.
They say there is no proof of harm – you’ll never hear them say they know people who died from use.
They point their finger to the obese, who harm themselves, but no one ever died from secondhand food.
This issue is always about them as individuals – you’ll never hear them speak out for anyone else.
They say” make a section to smoke” in places people gather to eat and drink – you’ll never hear them say they’ll wait or leave to limit everyone else’s exposure to the poisons in their secondhand smoke.
They say outdoor smoking bans lose customers and profits for restaurants and bars – you’ll never hear them say cities adopting smokefree outdoor policies have never rescinded them because their businesses gain more customers and have seen increases in their profits.
They say they are responsible people – you’ll never hear them say lit cigarettes and irresponsible smoking behavior is the number one cause of apartment and house fires; and known to be a major cause of hillside and forest fires in dry and windy conditions.
They say the act of smoking gives them a sense of freedom and independence – it is anything but – people who smoke should not feel free to light-up around those who don’t smoke; and their independence is more like dependence and slavery to nicotine, the drug of their addiction and irritability.
Some say they feel more comfortable smoking in social situations – fact is, nobody wants to get secondhand smoke on their clothes, in their hair, or on their skin, so they stay away from the person who is smoking.
They reason that smoking has never hurt them – that’s because decreased oxygen levels to their brains are due to the increased carbon monoxide levels in their lungs.
After all is said and done, the fact is, we were all born non-smokers and that is our natural state of being.
The tobacco manufacturers position themselves as 'responsible companies selling a harmful product'. One could write an essay on the spin behind this phrase. The term "Toxic Tobacco companies" directly challenges this notion and gets my vote. In media interviews I refer to the "irresponsible tobacco industry" whenever I can.
To identify a tobacco user as a smoker does not really tell the story for the victim, who needs to know that
it is possible to kick the habit, become an ex-user of tobacco. Breaking up with a friend who is deceitful is
descriptive, may help to enable a tobacco user to develop the attitude which is needed to accomplish this.
I also think 'breaking-up' (the second suggestion) or 'breaking-free' can give a stronger impetus to the desire to quit. 'Breaking-free' has a strong positive connotation."Breaking-Free Center", Breaking-Free Counselling, Breaking-Free Line etc sound quite appealing as well as empowering..
I think that to describe tobacco-related deaths and disease a more frequent use of a word like 'tobacco-victim' can generate stronger public opinion against tobacco.
I would also consider not using the word ``quitter...no one likes to be considered a quitter of anything. I like several of the options and understand their justifications. Example - anti-tobacco should be used consistently - say what we mean! Frame our actions by using disease - this can relate to the many impacts of using tobacco, 1st, 2nd and 3rd hand smoke, etc. Toxic tobacco industry speaks volumes as well.
So - you have DISEASE - ANTI-TOBACCO - and TOXIC INDUSTRY in my books. It will not matter what country you are working in - these words are the same in any language (theoretically), are clear and can be used in so many campaigns, editorials, presentations, speeches, etc.
Good luck!
My second choice was reframing quitting as breaking up with a deceitful best friend.