'No smoking' signs actually drive smokers to light up a cigarette

A new psychological study has found that 'no smoking' signs evoke desire in smokers and encourage them to take a puff. According to scientists, this is called the 'ironic effect' on smokers.

"You get ironic effects when you couple information that people perceive with negation," the Daily Mail quoted Brian Earp, researcher from Oxford University as saying.

"No smoking signs in particular are everywhere. If you're a smoker walking down a street you're likely to pass five or six of these signs in windows or on doors. If you have a chronically positive attitude to smoking this could boost your craving," he added.

To fortify the theory, Earp's team conducted a test on a group of smoking volunteers by showing them a number of photographs related to 'no smoking' signs.

The results showed that participants, who had earlier been shown the signs, were more drawn to smoking-related images such as ashtrays and cigarettes.

"What's interesting is the ironic effect of the negative image. No smoking signs are meant to discourage an activity but what happens is you get a kick back so that the very item that's supposed to be prohibited becomes more desirable," Earp said.

The study will be presented at the British Psychological Society's annual meeting in Glasgow. (ANI)

What are e-cigarettes?

In this THV Extra, we are taking a closer look into E-Cigs. Are they really healthier than an average cigarette?

Some are calling it the everyday smoker's savior: e- cigarettes. The smokeless, odorless and tobacco free alternative to your average square.

But how do they even work? Can someone actually kick the habit and how healthy, if at all are they?

The e-cigarette, it looks almost like a real cigarette. Maybe a little larger, but the LED lighted tip, the vapor and the filter serving milligrams of nicotine into the user may have some looking or puffing twice.

Setting it even farther apart from the real thing is the absence of nearly 4000 carcinogens.

"These are an electronic device that you put a cartridge inside that contains nicotine and heaven knows what else," says Dr. Carolyn Dresler.

Dresler with the Arkansas Department of Health says a lack of data and studies from e-cig companies themselves has raised red flags with many health officials.

"These products have been out too new to really know the science. The tobacco industry that makes them they're not doing any science on it, so who knows what's really in it," says Dresler.


In 2009 an FDA preliminary study revealed traces of diethylene glycol, an ingredient commonly used in antifreeze.

Late last month, the FDA agreed to take action in attempts to regulate the product.


Harmful or not-- full time college student Kari Ellis has used the device for six months and claims the effects have been monumental in her everyday life.

"It's almost like put a piece of spearmint candy in your mouth and inhale," says Ellis.

Having smoked on and off for years, Ellis says stress just keeps bringing her back. "Right now is just not the time in my life where I can quit."

Liam Hill, who isn't looking to quit smoking anytime soon tried it out.


A little tough at first, but a second drag had him asking questions. "I don't know how much these things cost."

Each changeable filter on the cigarette is the equivalent of one pack of cigarettes.

A one time purchase price of $140 for an e-cig, plus a weeks worth of filters for no more than $30, would bring it's yearly cost to around $1,400.

A pack a day smoker buying cigarettes at six dollars could expect to spend around 2,200.

"In the six weeks I've been using. I've saved about $230."

But still the electronic choice may not be for everyone. Take Joseph Burgess for instance, who tried it for his first time alongside his friend Justin Kroger.

"You have to really pull on it to feel it," says Burgess, who says he would not pay $140 for one.

Still many smokers prefer smoking cigarettes like : Chesterfield cigarettes or Armada cigarettes.

Kroger, though goes back to it being a mind thing. "It's kind of like the oral fixation thing. It's kind of like having something there, and if it's better for you, you might as well do it."

Smokers may sue cigarette makers despite prior ailments, state high court rules

The California Supreme Court decided unanimously Thursday that smokers may sue cigarette makers once they develop a disease such as lung cancer, even if they suffered different smoking-related ailments years earlier.

The decision is likely to keep alive lawsuits that might have otherwise been thrown out because of expired legal deadlines, and to permit new suits to be filed.

In the case before the court, a former smoker was diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in 1989 and a couple of years later with periodontal disease, both attributable to smoking. But she did not sue the tobacco industry until she was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2003.

Cigarette makers argued that her suit should be dismissed because the timetable for suing began when she first discovered that smoking had injured her in 1989.

Many smokers are using different brands as it is Camel FUll Flavor cigarettes or Winston White cigarettes.

The state high court, in a ruling written by Justice Joyce L. Kennard, concluded that an earlier disease does not trigger the legal deadline for filing suit if the injury was "separate and distinct" from the later ailment.

"We hold that two physical injuries -- both caused by the same tobacco use over the same period of time -- can, in some circumstances, be considered 'qualitatively different'" for determining when the clock begins ticking on legal deadlines, Kennard wrote.

"Although we are disappointed with the decision, the California Supreme Court made it clear that it was not addressing the merits of this case or any case," the statement said. "Rather, the decision addresses a narrow technical point of law relating to the statute of limitations. The decision would be relevant only in a very small fraction of cases filed."]

Lloyd LeRoy, an attorney for the former smoker, called the ruling “extremely significant, particularly for tobacco litigation in California.”

Until Thursday’s ruling, smokers could not sue after getting lung cancer if their medical records showed that they were diagnosed with smoker’s cough or another smoking-related ailment years earlier, LeeRoy said. State legal deadlines give people two years to sue after discovering an injury.

“What this says is the courtroom door is open again,” LeeRoy said.

The smoker's lawsuit is before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which asked the state high court to clarify how legal deadlines should apply under California law.