A story recently highlighted that Health Canada has no plans to update the warning labels on cigarettes, a move which has upset the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
The debate over warning labels seems more like a PR issue and a question of whether warning labels actually get people to quit smoking. From my time as a smoker, and the hundreds of smokers I've met along the way, I've never once met anyone who said they quit smoking because they finally realized via the warning labels that cigarettes were bad for them.
Anyone who smokes knows they are bad. The reasons for quitting seem to almost always be the result of either a health scare of some sort, general declining health, the desire to set a good example for their kids by quitting, pressure from family members or simply getting tired of being addicted to something. Often times it's a combination of these variables.
But like I say, I've never seen anyone quit as a result of the warning labels.
I suppose one could argue that the labels help prevent non-smokers (mostly teens) from trying smoking. Yet again though, I suspect lower rates of smoking in teens is less about the warning labels and more about the general societal recognition of how bad smoking is for you (which is tied more to its association with cancer and lung disorders than the labels themselves) and the increased cost.
And one has to ask, while we have warning labels on cigarettes, why don't we have them on alcohol products, which cause almost as much damage in society as cigarettes do?
The answer is PR. Once you start a fear-based campaign you can't really stop. If you do stop, some people will interpret that as saying that there is nothing left to fear anymore. So once you make the choice to 'scare people straight' you basically have to keep it up ad infinitum.
Health Canada's focus on contraband cigarettes versus refreshing the warning labels makes sense to me. We know that price is one of the biggest factors affecting prevalence rates - let's face it, if smokes were $3 bucks instead of $10 bucks we'd probably see use rates rise. Attempting to remove low-cost access to cigarettes will probably have a bigger impact than creating more warning labels that basically say the same thing that the present ones do - after all, you can only tell people something is going to kill them so many ways.
The one scenario I would be glad to see with refreshing labels would be to move away from fear-based messaging towards positive, pro-health messages. Instead of 'You're going to get lung cancer', perhaps they should have a label that says 'Can you walk up 10 flights of stairs? You could if you weren't a smoker." or get inspiration quotes from people who have quit smoking - have a picture of them on the label and a saying of "I smoked 2 packs a day for 20 years and quit - it was the best decision I ever made."
Heck, even using 'shame' would work - "If you aren't addicted, then don't smoke that next cigarette." - which would cause people to really stop and think about just how addicted they are.
Or even use comedy - "Your dog doesn't smoke, are you telling me you have less will power than your dog?" and toss in a funny cartoon picture - at least that would communicate that quitting smoking isn't giving up something, but rather returning to a natural state.
It's also well known for smokers that stress increases their smoking. So presenting them with a label that says 'You're going to die.' generally will make them want to quit, but will also cause them to smoke more to cope with the stress of quitting and the thought that they may have already signed their death warrant from the years they spent smoking.
It's unfortunate that Health Canada didn't reply to this story with an explanation of why they were focusing on contraband smoking versus refreshing warning labels. To me it makes sense and they likely had a rationale for doing so, which would have been nice to hear.
By not providing their rationale, from a PR perspective, they've allowed the CMAJ to frame them as being negligent in their duties to warn people of the dangers of smoking. Which is unfortunate because I suspect that's not really the case.
The debate over warning labels seems more like a PR issue and a question of whether warning labels actually get people to quit smoking. From my time as a smoker, and the hundreds of smokers I've met along the way, I've never once met anyone who said they quit smoking because they finally realized via the warning labels that cigarettes were bad for them.
Anyone who smokes knows they are bad. The reasons for quitting seem to almost always be the result of either a health scare of some sort, general declining health, the desire to set a good example for their kids by quitting, pressure from family members or simply getting tired of being addicted to something. Often times it's a combination of these variables.
But like I say, I've never seen anyone quit as a result of the warning labels.
I suppose one could argue that the labels help prevent non-smokers (mostly teens) from trying smoking. Yet again though, I suspect lower rates of smoking in teens is less about the warning labels and more about the general societal recognition of how bad smoking is for you (which is tied more to its association with cancer and lung disorders than the labels themselves) and the increased cost.
And one has to ask, while we have warning labels on cigarettes, why don't we have them on alcohol products, which cause almost as much damage in society as cigarettes do?
The answer is PR. Once you start a fear-based campaign you can't really stop. If you do stop, some people will interpret that as saying that there is nothing left to fear anymore. So once you make the choice to 'scare people straight' you basically have to keep it up ad infinitum.
The one scenario I would be glad to see with refreshing labels would be to move away from fear-based messaging towards positive, pro-health messages. Instead of 'You're going to get lung cancer', perhaps they should have a label that says 'Can you walk up 10 flights of stairs? You could if you weren't a smoker." or get inspiration quotes from people who have quit smoking - have a picture of them on the label and a saying of "I smoked 2 packs a day for 20 years and quit - it was the best decision I ever made."
Heck, even using 'shame' would work - "If you aren't addicted, then don't smoke that next cigarette." - which would cause people to really stop and think about just how addicted they are.
It's also well known for smokers that stress increases their smoking. So presenting them with a label that says 'You're going to die.' generally will make them want to quit, but will also cause them to smoke more to cope with the stress of quitting and the thought that they may have already signed their death warrant from the years they spent smoking.
It's unfortunate that Health Canada didn't reply to this story with an explanation of why they were focusing on contraband smoking versus refreshing warning labels. To me it makes sense and they likely had a rationale for doing so, which would have been nice to hear.
By not providing their rationale, from a PR perspective, they've allowed the CMAJ to frame them as being negligent in their duties to warn people of the dangers of smoking. Which is unfortunate because I suspect that's not really the case.
Comments
Post a Comment