ANTI-SMOKING CAMPAIGNS

Anti-Smoking Campaigns

[Maria A. Holland]

[Kaplan University]

ANTI-SMOKING CAMPAIGNS

Smoking, despite being considered as dangerous and harmful to a person's health, continues to exist in our society and makes way to drag on and become a constant part of our lives in today's modern and stressful world. The US government and non-government organizations attempted to eradicate smoking through various legal limitations and anti-smoking campaigns, most of which appear to have only temporary effect or little effect (in terms of falling number of smokers). (Proctor, 1996, 1450-3)

It appears that the effectiveness of anti-smoking campaigns is miniscule; therefore, regardless of how much money is spent on such campaigns, they will not eradicate smoking. The United States can cut the yearly cost of anti-smoking campaigns and still be effective in decreasing the number of smokers. With the present methods undertaken to reduce the impact of smoking, the current methods utilized in anti-smoking campaigns are doomed to failure and the organizations may achieve the desired results without spending such huge sums of money. Infact, instead of making anti-smoking campaigns being promoted, one should promote and publicize the accounts of adopting a more healthier lifestyle or living patterns overall because as Mother Teresa once said: “I'd rather be pro-peace than anti-war, because anti-war creates more war.”

First of all it is necessary to explore the main principles, goals and functions of advertising to understand why anti-smoking advertising will always fail. Advertising is based on various human psychological aspects related to memory and reflexes. Advertising shall only prove effective and help in drawing significant outcomes in two cases. One is to outline the need to possess something to customers (remind them that they need something, even if they are not thinking about it at the moment) and the other is to form brand loyalty (to tell the customers that the need that they have been reminded of can be satisfied by a certain company). (Jowett, 2006)

In the first case, the advertisers attempt to do everything possible to convince the consumer that they need something badly to feel good, to fit into the group/society, to save time, to be respected etc. This need can be satisfied only through buying something (not for free) and preferably through buying a certain brand. The anti-smoking ads although openly say “do not smoke” or “smoking causes cancer”, or “smoking kills” in fact only reminds a person about smoking. The vivid imagery of lung cancer and diseases only create additional stress in those who watch the ads, making them want another cigarette, which they truly believe helps to alleviate stress. (Thorp, 1999)The smokers who have no experience as doctors and who currently may feel well, despite smoking and getting additional stress from the warning messages, use perceptive selection as a defense mechanism. They rationalize their harmful habit, and consider it less harmful because the warning messages are exaggerated. They think “well, smoking kills, but I just smoked a cigarette and I am alive! Oh, actually I already smoked the whole pack and am still ...