In huge oversimplification some crazy or fraudulent people will claim it cures blindness or cold sores, some other people will believe them and will have to deal with the real danger-to-lethal consequences, with the rest of society paying for their medical care afterwards.
Pretty effective.
In Australia throwing a few diseased lungs on the packs and increasing public awareness has seen usage drop from 35% of the population in 1980 to 11% today.
Not all the drop is purely related to advertising, price increases and restricting sale to out of sight locked access in shops have also helped.
https://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-1-prevalence/1...
On the books, totally worth it.
Are they not addictive? Then it seems a stretch to compare them to cigarettes.
Australia is a democracy with many small parties and several quasi independant larger party (three main large parties) members, there's been scope for almost anyone to campaign to repeal anti-smoking policy by either running directly or by lobbying their local of federal rep.
People have campaigned for hunting, for cannabis, for many things .. so far no one, to my knowledge, has campaigned to repeal the anti smoking policies.
That's exactly correct bart, it reduced smoking by over two thirds and kept it that way.
> still doesn't stop 11% of people from doing so.
Like seatbelts, vaccines, and all other health and safety procedures that also don't have a 100% total absolute success rate .. nor never claimed to.
Who wants to wrap people in bubble wrap and lock them away from the world? Are you advocating for that?