this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2025
80 points (98.8% liked)

Canada

7307 readers
613 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 5 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (3 children)

The idea that putting labels on every bottle is about "letting Canadians know and informing them better", is flat out horseshit.

That's what education campaigns are for. Putting labels on every bottle is about reminding / nagging people every single time they try and enjoy having a drink to try and make them enjoy it less and change their behaviour.

You can be on board with that or not, but let's stop lying with the 'its about education' comments.

[–] saigot@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I think you seriously underestimate the number of people who are completely unreachable with new information unless it is put directly in front of their faces.

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca -2 points 3 days ago

And how many of those people actually read the fine print on labels?

I've seen a ton of empty cigarette boxes over the years (I don't smoke) but I've never bothered actually reading the warnings.

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 13 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Warning labels do work. Turn the bottle the other way or pour in a glass if you don’t want to see it. The doctor knows more than you do.

We found that graphic warnings had a statistically significant effect on smoking prevalence and quit attempts. In particular, the warnings decreased the odds of being a smoker (odds ratio [OR] = 0.875; 95% CI = 0.821–0.932) and increased the odds of making a quit attempt (OR = 1.330, CI = 1.187–1.490). Similar results were obtained when we allowed for more time for the warnings to appear in retail outlets.

https://academic.oup.com/ntr/article/15/3/708/1091051

Pictorial warning labels proposed by FDA create unfavorable emotional reactions to smoking that predict reduced cigarette use compared to text alone, with even smokers low in self-efficacy exhibiting some reduction. Predictions that low self-efficacy smokers will respond unfavorably to warnings were not supported.

https://academic.oup.com/abm/article/52/1/53/4737219

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca -3 points 4 days ago

Where did I say that they didn't work?

I said that the method of working was through nagging, not education.

[–] natecox@programming.dev 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I need to say that I adore how you have relentlessly asserted that it only counts as education if you’re told once and then never again, because putting a label on the bottle can’t possibly be a form of education.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca -1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I love you I have relentlessly asserted that the mechanism it's working through couldn't possibly be accurately described as nagging.

Oh what scholars everyone is reading a cigarette label and finding out that cigarettes can give you cancer :O! How much better they understand that cigarettes do, in, fact, give, you, cancer! Suddenly knowing that brand new fact changes everything about their decision making! How better informed are they huh?

[–] natecox@programming.dev 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You’re making an (asinine) assertion here that people aren’t changing their minds about smoking based on the warning labels, when even the barest little bit of effort on your part would turn up a wealth of studies demonstrating that the cigarette warnings have been very successful at getting people to quit.

Like, any effort at all. Just a little bit.

As an aside:

I love you…

Thanks, I guess, but let’s try to stay on topic.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca -1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You’re making an (asinine) assertion here that people aren’t changing their minds about smoking based on the warning labels,

No, I'm extremely explicitly not. I'm saying that the mechanism behind that decision is not informing or education, but nagging.

[–] natecox@programming.dev 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

…is not informing or education, but nagging.

See, there’s that “it’s not education” thing again.

Fun fact: repetition is the key to internalizing information. This is like grade-school level stuff here. I bet when the teacher told you that you had to practice the alphabet more than once you threw a fit about them nagging you when you just wanted “education”.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca -1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Repetition is also the key to propaganda and advertising effectiveness, it's the reason why you know exactly what the quicker picker up is and probably hate that you do right now.

You're literally using the word "education" in the way that China uses it to describe their re-"education" camps for the Uighurs.

Try and grow the fuck up and learn how to have a nuanced discussion rather than simplifying everything down to good and bad and black and white.

[–] natecox@programming.dev 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

One of us needs to do some growing up for sure; I suspect it’s the one saying that we can’t warn people about cancer because it’s the same as Chinese propaganda; that one-two punch of racism and non sequitur.

Keep being awesome man.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca -2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

One of us needs to do some growing up for sure; I suspect it’s the one saying that we can’t warn people about cancer because it’s the same as Chinese propaganda; that one-two punch of racism and non sequitur.

Me: points out that propaganda, nagging, and advertising worth through the mechanism of bombarding people with the same message over and over, and is not what we consider education, but is in fact similar to "education camps" which are explicitly distinguished from actual education institutions, since they don't work through informing people and letting them make their own choice.

You: you're racist and don't make sense!

.... ok there bud.

[–] natecox@programming.dev 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Thanks for doubling down on my above points to help clarify them. I appreciate you.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Whoosh. Thanks for making it clear that you didn't actually come on a discussion forum to discuss anything, just to hear yourself talk.

[–] natecox@programming.dev 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

lol. We could probably solve cancer for good if the cure were instances of you deflecting your lack of a cogent argument by claiming that the other person “isn’t here for a discussion”.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 days ago

Lmao.

Just because you can't understand, apparently basic nuance, like the difference between education and education camps, it doesn't mean that it's not understandable.