Printable View
It seems the US has just recently adopted the giant smoking advisory labels as seen internationally, in countries such as Canada and the UK. I was shocked to see the giant SMOKING KILLS label I was so used to seeing in England on my Mom's cigarettes today. I never expected we'd get it too!
Thoughts?
Soon you'll have to use the metric system too
It's good since it's the truth. Smoking do kill.
I'm skeptical. Does empirical evidence of this exist?
I'm far to lazy to take a photo, but there is a giant label on my Mom's latest box that takes up nearly 50% of the front of the cigarette pack, and she buys her cigs locally now that it's illegal for her to order them out of state and this avoid NY's crazy smoking taxes.
EDIT: Not the most credible source, but it shows some of the photos.
http://www.freetobacco.info/world-to...-local-habits/
I was moreso talking about "smoking kills". I am skeptical of this information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultima Shadow
The Emphysema Fairy plays favorites.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunny
wonder if the messages ever kept anyone from not smoking the pack they already bought
I always found these warnings funning. like "Wow, I didn't know that!" I understand the American public was lied to for a while about the effects of tobacco products, but I'm pretty sure we are all on the same page now. If you choose to smoke it's your decision. Before you know it they will start putting warnings on pop/soda "drinking excessive amounts will make you fat and give you type 2 diabetes!!!!!....FATTY!" You know, shame people into not drinking it. I feel like JEL is just wasting their breath at this point.
I have to agree with Tarshish. This sort of thing now is just the government trying to act like it's doing something beneficial, by demanding something that will have no impact but also is completely uncontroversial.
It's also obnoxiously hypocritical. Does alcohol have to have this label too? Alcohol abuse kills, it is addictive, and if you OD or do something retarded while drunk it can kill you in one day instead of after decades of abuse. But smoking requires more regulation because it's icky. Just like marijuana is criminalized (despite being less harmful than alcohol by any reasonable standard) because it's icky.
I never understood this nonsense; no one is going to be deterred from smoking by the labels. I doubt a single human being has ever seen that and thought, ":bou::bou::bou::bou:, I better not smoke anymore."
When I see anti-smoking advertisements, it makes me want to smoke more. But I'm lazy. I only go through a pack of cloves every month or so.
I find it absurd that it's okay to have radio and tv commercials on anti-smoking, but the cigarette ads are banned.
Kids are little :bou::bou::bou::bou:s and parents don't want to parent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shorty
That must be why they banned candy, cigarettes, too. :(
Once I was smoking a butt and a lady came up and said "Did you know that will kill you?" and I said "No I've never heard that. Ever. In my entire life I have never heard that."
Hah, that's nothing. This is the back of an australian packet of Cigarettes.
http://www.news-medical.net/images/q...ingwarning.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/...65_634x330.jpg
I had to look to make sure the host of those images was not The Onion.
The mind... it boggles.
I honestly didn't know the rest of the world hadn't implemented it yet. There's others that that are worse than the ones I've posted pics for, not to mention the quitline ads that insist on having people with holes in their throat sing that "sugar, sugar, ooooh, honey, honey" song. *shudders*
The comma was unneccesary in the "Most people who get lung cancer, die from it" statement.
Dramatic, pause!
My parents are 54 and 52, and god damn it, I wish they would quit. The cigs have been killing them for over 30 years and I wish they would stop.
Unfortunately, it's not labels that cause people to stop smoking.
I admit that I'm social smoker. I usually smoke an cig or so I if I have a pack, it usually lasts me a week or so.
To be honest I don't really enjoy smoking that much so it don't get the cravings for it... I much rather get addicted to banana milkshakes....OH and pizza!!! :excited:
The only problem with this is that smokers don't just make it bad for themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarshish
If you decide to hit someone in the face, that's also your decision. But I doubt the other person would appreciate your decision.
(...and yes, that might have been an extreme example. Still, the principle is similar; your decision can affect other people just as much.)
Passive/second-hand smoking is in fact ten times more dangerous than first-hand smoking (when just counting the amount inhaled. First-hand smokers still tend to be at a higher risk since they inhale a whole lot more.) It's entierly possible to cause people near you - who don't smoke themselves - to get all the side-effects that smoking may cause if they spend too much time second-hand smoking.
That's my personal main issue with smoking: it doesn't just hurt the smoker, but also people who spend time with the smoker but don't smoke themselves.
Where does your "ten times more dangerous" figure come from?
Well, I got that one from a TV-show about smoking. So, while it was a pretty trustworthy show, I have no 100% proof. Though I'm sure it can be looked up on the internet as well, somewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by kotora
Basically, what the smoker breath out contains a ten times higher % of the dangerous particles in the smoke that may cause the side-effects. Something along those lines.
Because it's unfiltered, right? :p
Yeah, I was gonna say the same. I've never been to Australia, but the cigarette packets in Thailand are a bit more "fun" as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by eternal essence
http://www.thai-blogs.com/media/cigarettes_03.jpg
http://www.chinasmack.com/wp-content...ing-labels.jpg
Anyway, we've had those white boxes with black text ones here for some years now. I'm a party smoker, and I'm not bothered by them at all. They don't particularly make me wanna smoke less, I don't really notice them, and they honestly are far from shocking (if that was what they were trying to go for). *shrug*
This is almost certainly not true, and seems illogical. I read about a study done in Britain which measured levels of smoke inhalation, and it concluded that working in an office of regular smokers was the equivalent of smoking about five cigarettes a year. Once exiting your mouth, smoke starts immediately dispersing exponentially. Being mere feet away, you would still only get the tiniest fraction of the level of actual smoke (though unfortunately the smell is still there).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultima Shadow
This almost made me lol. I am sure that TV show had no biases at all.Quote:
Well, I got that one from a TV-show about smoking.
How does the smoke which a smoker breathes in -- through a filter -- magically become more dangerous upon exhalation? Again, fails a common sense test. I doubt even "ten times" more dangerous would make much of a difference, considering the thousands, millions of times smaller the exposure is (unless you did something like kiss and blow it into the other person's mouth, which is really, really gross and I regret coming up with it).Quote:
Basically, what the smoker breath out contains a ten times higher % of the dangerous particles in the smoke that may cause the side-effects.
I tend to assume the only reason cigarettes haven't been illegalised in most countries is down to ignorance, taxes and the sheer number of people who smoke who would get pissy about such a ban. Basically, these labels are a health board's way of saying "Yeah, we want to show that we're doing something but we don't want to actually go the full mile because then people will get angry with our government." Basically trying to please both smokers and non-smokers at the same time, I guess.
They should really just show pictures of 18 year old hotties and the same people 10-20 years of heavy smoking later and let the people do the math. No exaggerated makeup or photoshopping, of course, or that's cheating.
Me? A non-smoker that doesn't like that smoking is legal? However did you guess? :D
To me it's the same effect that a "caution: hot" label on a cup of coffee. :p
This. Quit stealing what I'm going to say, Raist.Quote:
Originally Posted by RaistlinThis is almost certainly not true, and seems illogical. I read about a study done in Britain which measured levels of smoke inhalation, and it concluded that working in an office of regular smokers was the equivalent of smoking about five cigarettes a year. Once exiting your mouth, smoke starts immediately dispersing exponentially. Being mere feet away, you would still only get the tiniest fraction of the level of actual smoke (though unfortunately the smell is still there).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultima Shadow
This almost made me lol. I am sure that TV show had no biases at all.Quote:
Well, I got that one from a TV-show about smoking.
How does the smoke which a smoker breathes in -- through a filter -- magically become more dangerous upon exhalation? Again, fails a common sense test. I doubt even "ten times" more dangerous would make much of a difference, considering the thousands, millions of times smaller the exposure is (unless you did something like kiss and blow it into the other person's mouth, which is really, really gross and I regret coming up with it).Quote:
Basically, what the smoker breath out contains a ten times higher % of the dangerous particles in the smoke that may cause the side-effects.
Strangely no one has put forward the point yet that; yes indeed, more non-smokers die every day.
By that logic, suicide must be healthy! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Alive-Man
I'm pretty libertarian on this issue. I'm not a smoker myself. I knew a bar owner who went to the doctor, and they asked him how long he had smoked, and he said "never". Doctor said well it looks like you've smoked for years. Now this was in an extremely smoky bar with a low ceiling and little ventilation. that's when second hand smoke can cause problems. Just getting a whiff now and then is not going to kill you.
That bartender decided to not allow smoking after that. That's cool with me, let the business owner make the decision. It's where the state comes in and restricts liberty that it bothers me. I'm not saying the state doesn't have that power, it just bothers me.
Children of smokers, I can understand the issue there. But for the most part adults have the choice to be around second hand smokers or not. Freedom of association.
Not saying that if you showed me a stack of studies showing that even alittle second hand smoke is dangerous I wouldn't change my mind. I'm just really skeptical.
Please don't talk like that, Loony BoB. :whimper:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loony BoB
Sorry I'm not trying to be a killjoy. I had a pointless lol@usa thread in my head until I looked up the Family Smoking Prevention and pikachu act of 2009:
[q]Passage of the law was supported by the American Cancer Society, whose CEO noted in a press release that "[t]his bill forces Big Tobacco to disclose the poisons in its products and has the power to finally break the dangerous chain of addiction for generations to come."[1] The ACS press release also noted that the legislation would "require cigarette companies to disclose all ingredients used in cigarettes and to stop using words like 'light' and 'ultra-light' to give the impression that some tobacco products have a lower health risk."[1] The legislation also garnered support from the American Heart Association, whose CEO noted that the bill "provides a tremendous opportunity to finally hold tobacco companies accountable and restrict efforts to addict more children and adults." [2][/q]
Anyway, back to lol@usa: when are you going to hide all of the cigarettes so that you need to know the brand of cigarette you want to buy?
Man if they don't want people to smoke cigarettes they should just ban it under the drug and fun things control act. I do not understand why they sell a product that cannot be consumed anywhere [legally]
- not near a building
- not in your house with kids in it
- not in your car with kids in it
- in apartments deemed 'smoke free'
- not in a bus
- not on a truck
- not in your hair
- not anywhere
I think Ultima Shadow may have confused himself on his point. I bet he was aiming for the idea regarding the smoke dissipating from the end of the cigarette. Which is not filtered. And the smoker isn't breathing that as much as everyone around him 'cause some of the smoker's breathes are being taken through the cigarette and filtered. While everyone around him is taking breaths out of the air which is filled with his cigarette's unfiltered smoke
I'm not sure if there's a much higher basis for concern, considering the study Raist pointed out. But the concern for breathing straight from the end of a cigarette seems more worrying than breathing in a smoker's exhale
Look even if we successfully agreed that second hand smoke is pollution - there's far more dangerous pollutants out there, and all we do with that is increase the tax or create some sort of externality cost to justify it. So it's a ridiculously trivial issue at best to quibble over second hand smoke.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyk
I don't smoke regularly but I'll fight to the death the right to smoke.
I did too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
What the hell kind of ack-basswards country sells cigs in packs of twenty five? Dear God.
Heaven forbid people be able to make their own decisions about what goes in their bodies. I suppose you'd like to see Big Macs outlawed too?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loony BoB
Yeah, could be. In fact, that makes way more sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyk
Also, I'm personally a bit of a smoke-alergic who reacts very strongly (in a negative way) to smoke under any circumstances, making me way more cautious and paranoid when it comes to smoking than the average person. :p
So rape should be legal?Quote:
Originally Posted by ShlupQuackHeaven forbid people be able to make their own decisions about what goes in their bodies. I suppose you'd like to see Big Macs outlawed too?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loony BoB
GOOD TO KNOW
And I'm an asthmatic. So what? There's a difference between what I personally desire around me and what I believe I can force others to comply with -- between what I want and what I am forced to conclude by the evidence is right. That is a distinction that an unfortunately few people are able to make.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultima Shadow
Or alcohol, even more aptly. Tobacco is a bogeyman, a convenient target of uncontroversial hatred. I think it's become so brainwashed into most people from a young age that, similar to religion, they don't even bother questioning it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShlupQuack
That being said, I don't smoke and have no desire to ever do so. I definitely agree it's a stupid thing to do, but I feel the same way about drinking heavily and listening to rap music. I may urge people not to do so, but I have no right to say they can't.
EDIT:I am struggling to come up with some sort of crazy logic you must have used to relate that to what Shlup said about personal choice and failing. I can only assume it's a joking reference or parody, in which case its complete lack of sense would be appropriate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunny
Yeah, I won't deny that I choosed to more easily accept the information provided by anti-smoking people than I probably should have, since my personal view on smoking is very negative in general as a result of my bad experiences with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
When I first saw that I thought it was a sarcastic embellishment on the idea of the smoker being around, deciding for everyone that they should have his smoke in their lungs. And a rapist around, deciding for them that they should have his dick in their ass. In both instances he chooses what goes into their bodyQuote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
But knowing my luck I'm way off base
... wow, I did not think of that. I sincerely hope that there's no one in the world who could seriously make that argument. I don't have much hope left for humanity as it is.
For the record, I do think smoking in public is really rude. So is farting in public. Making people smell your stink is rude.
It is not, however, similar to raping someone. A small fraction of a bad smell, no worse for you than the :bou::bou::bou::bou: we Southern Californians inhale all day anyway, is not the same as being violently sexually assaulted.
I can't believe I even had to explain that difference. If anyone would seriously like to push the "smoking in public is comparable to rape" argument, please let me know so I can ban you for being too stupid to tolerate. I'm pretty sure that's in the rules somewhere, and, if it isn't, I will be sure to add it.
"Rule 45: If you are so stupid that your posts cause ShlupQuack physical pain, you will be instantly banned."
Oh god, what have I created.
Whoa. I was just surmising what I thought he might be meaning. I wouldn't presume to say that's what he actually meant. And even if that is what he meant, I certainly wouldn't push that argument, and I highly doubt he was serious even if that is the case
I know, Vyk; my comment wasn't directed at you.
While I dont agree with smoking being as bad as rape I can see how someone who likes to keep their lungs nice and healthy by exercise and not smoking being forced to inhale second hand smoke is somewhat similar to raping virgins who like to keep their bodies pure. And just like rapists can give their rapee's stds/pregnancy, smokers can get the people they force to second hand smoke lung cancer.
So you know if everyone is ok with it then its consensual sex/smoking but if someone politely asks you to stop smoking/making sexual advances and you keep going then the smoker/raper should understand no means no.
Sorry Shlup while the comparison was overexagerated i do feel it is apt.
I'm afraid this is where people will probably say suck it up and don't hang out with your friends who smoke. I understand the arguments for both sides. But in the end, if that's how someone feels then they need to decide between their lungs or hanging out with their smoking friendQuote:
Originally Posted by blackmage_nuke
Oh man, I was joking, calm down! I do not think (and seriously hope nobody thinks) that smoking is, in any way, comparable to rape. I kidnapped Shlup's post and ran away with it in the completely wrong direction. Don't ban me!
I assumed you weren't serious, but damn you for taking away my excuse to ban you. I was so close this time...
Like you've ever needed a reason to do horrible things to me.
and here I was thinking mentioning rape on the internet could only lead to hilarity instead of serious business
"Every limb is an erect phallus" XD
There are two ways to look at that, I guess. Firstly, "Because a Big Mac harms you, too!" - no, it doesn't. It has a high fat content and whatever, sure, but so long as you don't eat other overly fatty foods throughout the day, there is nothing wrong with eating a Big Mac. It's food, just like all other foods. There is nothing directly harmful about a Big Mac unless you have it in excess. One could even go as far as to say that a Big Mac could potentially make up part of a healthy diet on the condition that the other foods you ate throughout the day (and the energy you used up) balanced out.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShlupQuackHeaven forbid people be able to make their own decisions about what goes in their bodies. I suppose you'd like to see Big Macs outlawed too?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loony BoB
Cigarettes damage your own body from the first inhalation and can damage the bodies of others as well. There is basically no health benefit whatsoever, and from what I understand only serve to relieve stress, provide some sense of warmth and to feed an addiction. The former two things can be done in other ways and the latter thing is not a true benefit and wouldn't be required if you didn't smoke cigarettes in the first place. Cigarettes also cause damage to unborn children yet there is no law against pregnant women smoking. I find this stupid, personally, but sadly there are so many people who argue for everything out there to be legalised, and also for everything that is legal now to stay legal forever regardless of the changes in knowledge over the years. If the problems with cigarette use were known to the general public at the time they first came into production I'm fairly sure they would have been classed a drug from then onwards.
I don't really feel at great risk from cigarette smoke, and the dwindling number of people who smoke in places I am these days means that I don't inhale much second hand smoke these days, either. But I want it illegalised because I fear that someday my children may take up smoking at a young age and then become addicted and ruin their body with that addiction. The fact that it's even illegal to do it as a youth pretty much sums up the fact that everyone knows that it's not good for you and that you shouldn't really do it if you want to be healthy.
I understand taxes can be higher due to cigarette smoking, too, but I'm not heavily bothered by that at the moment. Maybe other people might be. Either way, again, it's just another drug people can get addicted to. The only difference is that it doesn't work quickly. The downside of that is it's legal, and that means that people have it for a long time, which means that it is allowed to work slowly. Sort of like saying that if cocaine didn't damage you in a quick way then it would be totally cool to do it over time instead. It's pretty weird to me that some people don't understand why other people want it made illegal.
Still, that's just how I feel about smoking. Almost every friend I have at work smokes, and a bunch of friends I have outside of work smoke too. I gave up on lecturing for the most part, although there have been occasions where I have probably gone overboard with it from time to time.
That's a nonsense rule and you know it. Need I bring back pikaspam?Quote:
Originally Posted by ShlupQuack
I uh... have you be smoking something of your own, BoB? Because anyone with a remotely clear view of the world should see that banning things does not make them go away. I knew more smokers in school than I do anywhere else :p The only thing banning it would do would make it harder to get help.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loony BoB
I didn't know many smokers in school. But then, I didn't grow up in the UK, nor do I intend on having my kids grow up here if I someday have children. I wonder how many of those people you knew in school that smoked still do and how many quit, though.
Cocaine isn't legal and most of the guys at work don't seem to go off for a fix of any kind of drug. Most people I know avoid them. Banning something doesn't make it go away, obviously. But if you ban the manufacturing of cigarettes, then that would have a significant impact. Costs would rise, first. Fewer mature, law-abiding people such as my workmates would buy cigarettes if they were illegal, definitely. I'm not sure, but I think it would probably be easier to stop yourself becoming addicted to the point that you would require more cigarettes when compared to stopping yourself being addicted to crack, and that to me would mean drug dealers would have a bit more of a struggle to sell their wares.
But I'm no specialist in the area. I just know that while there may be a lot of people that smoke marijuana, they certainly don't do it in my face. Underground? Fine, in my opinion. Out of sight, out of lungs!
You are kind of a horrible person.
I like that this thread isn't in EoEO so I feel like I can say that without adding further argument.
Your face is a kind of horrible face. But let's stay on topic, Squeak.
context as to who is horrible would be nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShlupQuack
oh it was BoB
so anyway increasing the cost of smokes by banning them would make it more difficult for children to smoke. So I guess there's some benefit to it. However the government makes too much in tax revenue to do something like that (that and alcohol)
Yeah, I know. I wonder how Singapore offsets the cigarette ban they have there? I'm sure other countries do it, too. The health benefits would obviously help keep the cost of health services down, but then, I don't think America has a full-on tax-paid health service, do they? Or has that kicked in with Obama? Not sure.
Regardless, the masses of smokers in a large population will always dictate things by voting in favour of some guy who says he'll legalise smoking again once the ban is in place, so it's pretty much not gonna happen until the vast majority of the voting population stop puffing away. Not sure when that'll happen, really.
From what I can tell by asking Americans, they don't even have a health care system. It's basically 'pay for medical insurance or else'
Definitely benefits to having a healthy population, but there's less immediate money coming in that taxation of cigarettes would bring in. I tend to stereotype America (or rather, capitalistic countries) as 'get money now; divert externalities to other parties. Profit profit profit'
I bought smokes a few days ago that had a warning inside of the pack that said "No cigarette will help you quit smoking, these aren't any better than any other kind", or something to that effect. I hung it up at my desk.
Haha. That's actually pretty funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jowy
On a slightly related topic, the most brutal anti-smoking message I've seen was on the front of a pack of fags.
It said: "SMOKING WILL CAUSE A SLOW AND PAINFUL DEATH."