Sarah Bernett - Comment

Of the 72 PDF images: Images 5-6: images do not convey a clear idea Images 7-8: certain users will interpret that smoking, like a pretty woman, is addictive. Creating positive inferences for smoking is not supposed to be the purpose of these proposed regulations. Images 9-14: Why are parents who smoke in front of their children presented as loving and caring, when the purpose of the image is to educate parents that to love and care for your child means NOT to expose them to second-hand smoke? The photographic image should be altered so that sympathy is focused on the child, and none provided to the negligent / ignorant / selfish parent. Images 23-24: Image is manufactured, artificial, insufficiently gruesome. Images 25-26: Message adequately conveyed. Images 27-28: Images appear to be x-rays of healthy lungs; provide a close-up that shows cancer / destruction of lungs Images 29-30: Would be more effective if you photoshopped a cigarette in the hand of the dying person. Images 31-32: Unhelpful; smokers know what burned cigarettes look like. Images 33-34: Message adequately conveyed. Images 37-38: Images do not evoke fear or a warning Images 45-48: Can you replace the word “can” with “will?” Do you consider low birth weight due to smoking during pregnancy not harmful? Images 57-58: Ineffective because lady could be crying about any number of things; there is no association with who died and why the person died Images 63-64: The victim of second-hand smoke should be made to look innocent and the smoker should be made to look non-innocent (try malicious). Images 71-72: Irrelevant images; what does a woman blowing a soap bubble have to do with quitting smoking? This is the best message you could think of for expressing the idea that “[q]uitting smoking now greatly reduces serious risks to your health[?]” How about healthy people playing sports?