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."
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.
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!!!
HOTROD
"Lets go for a spin you and I"
The only problem with this is that smokers don't just make it bad for themselves.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.
Last edited by Ultima Shadow; 10-14-2010 at 11:36 AM.
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.
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?
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.Hah, that's nothing. This is the back of an australian packet of Cigarettes.
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).
This almost made me lol. I am sure that TV show had no biases at all.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).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?
Bow before the mighty Javoo!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
