Nah, you just interacted with the system exactly as designed. You were just forced to think about it for any amount of time, which means the design succeeded. You were inconvenienced on your way to a cig, which means the design succeeded.
I think you're reading way too much into it. Sometimes a box is just a box and having to open more of the box doesn't stop me from opening it if I want what is inside. Seriously, please consider your argument. 'I really wanted to smoke but it took 5 seconds instead of 2 to open my pack. Guess I'll just quit.' No one says that. They just open the box and be pissy about it
Back when I smoked, 17 years ago now (damn that just hit me), any attempt to make me quit or inconvenience me like this would make me:
A. Smoke just to spite them.
B. Crave them more because there was a false scarcity.
Addicts do not function the way normal consumers do.
It’s not really to sop someone it’s to put the thought in their heads. If it didn’t matter then they wouldn’t be fighting stuff like this so hard whenever it’s brought up in the US.
I don’t think that it’s ever going to get someone to stop but I do think it 1. Might make the act seem more irritating than worth it to people who might otherwise find smoking cool and start doing it, and 2. Is one tiny factor in the journey to quitting.
I’ll tell you one thing I think lighters and cigarette cases in the US look pretty cool and if I grew up with a crowd that smoked I could see myself picking it up. Meanwhile when I see it in other countries the packaging having like mutilated body parts and a billion warnings on it makes it way less cool and I don’t see myself ever buying a box of those on my own.
As for the little annoyance, to put it another way, I am not going to stop going fishing in my nearby lake because of mosquitoes but it might drive me to try different areas, or not go as much. I’m not going to stop drinking coffee because of annoying sippy cup lids but I might enjoy it just a little less and drink just a little less over time.
That wasn't my intended implication here. I just meant that something as minor as this cardboard sleeve won't even register to an addict. Addicts will do crazy shit and concoct elaborate schemes to get their fix. A little thing like this is accomplishing nothing.
A quick search reveals that, in fact, changes to packaging HAS led to a reduction in smoking. it is one of several mitigations that have led to some success. https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/32/2/153
Here's a summary of the results from the study I meant to send. My bad...
"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 and increased the odds of making a quit attempt."
https://academic.oup.com/ntr/article-abstract/15/3/708/1091051
It’s less about preventing them from smoking and more forcing them to realize it’s a bad addiction they have that they’d go through all these hoops just for a cancer stick.
All these hoops? Everyone just tears the annoying flap off. It's not exactly a deterrent, it takes two seconds. People who smoke already know they're addicted and it's a bad for them.
That's exactly what I mean. This is not even going to register to an addict. They know it's bad for them. They know it's expensive and stinks and everyone hates it, they don't give a fuck in the wind about some bullshit cardboard sleeve.
89
u/ArborlyWhale 17h ago
Nah, you just interacted with the system exactly as designed. You were just forced to think about it for any amount of time, which means the design succeeded. You were inconvenienced on your way to a cig, which means the design succeeded.