1/12: Canadian cigarette warnings

These are Canadian cigarette warning messages, which I had not seen until this week. These and about 12 other message rotate on cigarette packages; the message takes up roughly half the package. The messages have been in place for a year now, and this week the Canuck Cancer Assn. announced that they had studied the results of the campaign, and I quote:

"Half the smokers contacted said that the warning had increased their motivation to quit, while more than a third of smokers who tried to quit in 2001 said the labels had been a factor. About a fifth of smokers said the pictures had at least once curbed their urge to light up."

In other words: they didn't work. The twisting and spinning of the study here is remarkable, but the bottom line is that the people who were smokers - or non-smokers - at the beginning of 2001, are still smokers in the beginning of 2002.

There is a Bill Hicks bit about this, but I don't have time to find it...

Re: 1/12: Canadian cigarette warnings

When a friend of mine went to Europe in 1995, she brought back a pack of Marlboro Lights from the UK. I liked their warnings at the bottom of the pack:

"Smoking causes cancer."

"Smoking can kill you."

I have the warning about pregnancy issues on my current pack.

What about these pictures makes you so upset?

Are you a smoker?

Recent studies also showed that smokers often failed to seek medical attention for symptoms, because they thought they would be told to quit smoking. As a result many smokers are dying from treatable illnesses.

Many smokers wouldn't quit if they coughed up a lung. Graphic labels won't convince these people to quit. It just pisses them off.

But, if these pictures aren't enough to convince the addicted to quit, perhaps they might discourage non-smokers from lighting up. How stupid would you have to be to take a first puff of something in a package like that?

See CNN for the full details of the study.

I'm not a smoker. But if the labels don't work, it indicates that perhaps the issue is more complicated than the labelites believe. And if the labels don't work and they continue to be lauded and used, then DEFINITELY the issue is more complicated than anyone believes.

The anti-smoking campaign has gone beyond simple public service and is a decade into bizarre punishment rituals. It is an odd way to treat addiction: punish the addict. Make them stand outside in the freezing cold. Make them go a little longer than they want for a fix. Make them carry around and occasionally look at gruesome photos and warnings about all sorts of bizarre health problems from which they will die.

If all this doesn't work, it is no longer about making them stop. It's no longer about public service messages. It's about making them feel bad - and us, the non-smokers, feel superior. It's about paying for the sins of the past. But it's not help, nor is it a reasonable substitute for help. How can it be help if it doesn't work?

Hm

That last image is something I hadn't seen before on an anti-smoking ad, and I think it's pretty well done =]

Although from what you mentioned from the survey; although yes it can mean that people who were smoking in 2001 are still smoking in 2002, and thus it didn't work... I'd disagree. Maybe it didn't cause a radical reduction of smokers, but it seems to have had at least SOME impact, and probably more than many of the anti-smoking posters that I have seen.

I also like how the images are placed on the cigarette package. Anybody who has such a package gets a reason not to smoke just about every time that they decide to.

If they don't want people to smoke, then they should just make the damned things illegal. Heroin is illegal. Do you think if heroin were legal that these types of tactics would work to get people to quit? I seriously doubt it.
<br>
Hehe... BTW -- Denis Leary has a good bit about this too. Check it out (I know, I know, i'm stealing his intellectual property. Sorry Denis!):

<i>Doesn't matter how big the warnings are. You could have cigarettes that were called "Warnings." You could have cigarettes that come in a black pack, with a skull and a crossbone on the front, called "Tumors" . . . and smokers would be lined up around the block going, "I can't wait to get my hands on these fucking things! I bet you get a tumor as soon as you light up! Numm Numm Numm Numm Numm . . ." Doesn't matter how big the warnings are or how much they cost. Keep raising the prices, we'll break into your houses to get the fucking cigarettes, okay? They're a drug, we're addicted, okay? Numm Numm Numm Numm Numm (Wheezes) I'm a little hyped up tonight. Little hyped up. Smoked a nice big fat bag of crack right before the show. (Screaming)ARRGGGHHH!</i>

Slow death ...

In an interview this week, Bennett LeBow, Vector's chief executive, gave an interesting appraisal of Omni's advantages for smokers. It "will not kill them as quick or as much" as other brands, he said.

Now that's a catchy slogan.

I believe one of the main reasons why smoking is not illigal is the matter of Tax.

Whilst I don't want to sound like a political pessimist, the government (certainly in this country) have a population that is addicted to various things, cigarettes being one of them.

The easiest solution? Tax the bejesus out of them, that way the sufferers cough (bad pun) up the money, without much choice.

The government gets rich because they have you over a barrel, and what is more they can hike the price to the skyline and claim that it is in the public interest. There are few opportunites to screw the voters and tell them that its for their own good and I expect the current government (like all others before it) is simply going to milk the situation for what it is worth.

Now before anyone complains at me, I don't actually smoke, in fact I detest the things, they smell and affect my health. What I am trying to say, is that, like others have pointed out there are innumerable simple steps that anyone could take to overt the problem. Yet smoking in public places, resturants, food courts, shopping centers, taxi's, busses and everywhere else is restricted not by government decree, but by the owners of said public areas, where it is not enforced save a few "no smoking" stickers.

Makes you wonder whether they are trying to help after all doesn't it? Especially since, as pointed out a *lot* of smokers are afraid of seeking medical care for minor problems believing them to be smoking related thus not tying up the resources of a cash-starved over managed beurocraitc mess that is the NHS.

Datalas

--

Ps, I think I took my cynical pills this morning, sorry.

Its not tax, its crime. If you outlawed smoking you'd create a huge demand for an illgeal product, fantastic oppotunity for any organised crime syndicate. And i don't think MP's (congressmen, whatever) are going to make what they do illegal, its too common.

True enough I suppose, although I do sometimes wonder about the rather lack-lustre attempts to stop people from smoking.

The already addicted are told "ooooh, its bad for you", but are neither given particular motivation or assistance to stop (without it costing them)

The *are soon going to be addicted* are disuaded by reaaly effective adverts on TV, which currently have some strange alien figure telling kids that smoking makes you less attractive (which would, from my experience of school seem to be wrong) and very little real encouragement to break the peer pressure motivation.

As for the *not going to be addicted* set, we aren't exactly catered for in any public place....

I suspect the reason it is not illigal is for the reasons you suggested, but the reason it is not seemingly frowned upon (like being drunk in public) is for reasons of economy.

Still, i might be wrong. It has happened on several other occsaions

Datalas

--

Oi, what happened to my .sig? (or should that be .cig )

As a smoker, I can say that ads such as the ones shown have no effect on me. Unfortunately, scare tactics do not work for a lot of smokers. Nor do lectures, public disdain, etc.

I certainly have the reasons for quitting smoking, primarily my lung capacity. Also, the money issue. A pack of cigarettes in Pennsylvania is $2.75-$3.50 a pack. When I started smoking in 1995, they were $1.25 in SE Missouri. Unfortunately, nicotine is one hell of a drug. It is horrendously addictive...and I have tried to stop on many, many occasions--cold turkey, patch, cutting back, etc. When Jim Brady's wife came out about her smoking a month or so ago, I could empathize.

UT, mad props for your second post. We were talking about the non-smoking ads in another thread. Some believe banning smoking damn near everywhere will help. Friendship Heights, MD is trying to ban all smoking in public. Then there's California and its smoking ban. But what about TREATMENT? Only recently have some insurance companies included Zyban under co-pays. And Nicoderm is still almost double the cost of a carton of cigarettes per week. Yet, alcohol and drug treatment are covered under many insurance plans.

I don't think a lot of people view smoking in the same light as drinking in terms of addiction. But smoking CAN become an addiction. I AM an addict of cigarettes. But I am going to keep trying to quit b/c I want to better myself and my health.

1/12: Canadian cigarette warnings

Would you permit someone to urinate in the same room that people are eating? And yet we permit cigarette addicts to do the same thing in restaurants. Do you agree or disagree with the first sentence? Why? In most cases the response will be based on emotion - not facts.

Emotion is why people start smoking. We have all known since the 60s that smoking destroys lungs. Smoking ages people quickly. Smokers have body odor - so why also waste money on deodorant. Smokers make non-smokers smell dirty. Smokers have lower intelligence levels because of the chemical addiction process. Smokers are addicts similar to crack addicts.

So why then does he smoke? Why did he start in the first place? Emotion.

We know that when smokers look cool, then others take up the addiction. It is why the industry so actively encouraged actors to smoke in movies. Emotion is a primary reason for smoking. Emotion must also be used to discourage the addiction.

That is not to say that 100% would be disuaded from smoking. It does not matter that those pictures don't affect you. But it does matter that those pictures cause more people to avoid the addiction. You cannot judge those pictures personally. They must be judged statistically.

Why were Joe Camel and the Marlboro man so effective at their trade? Because kids today are so emotional - so less logical - than they would claim. Under 21s can be manipulated like lemmings. It is why they make such good soldiers and terrorists.

Examples are everywhere. Shelves in a grocery store. If Scope and Listerene do nothing productive, then why is so much sold on store shelves? If the solution to good health is proper ratios of nutrition, then why are vitamin and supplement tablets solds in doses far in excess of daily requirements? In the case of Vitamin C, why is it sold in doses known to create genetic damage? Why all the hype and sales of St John's Wort - which does not live up to its wild claims.

Emotion sells.

If you have 90+% of a toothpaste market, then how do you increase market share? Show the toothpaste on TV fully spread fully across the toothbrush. Sales then sharply increase because too many people 'feel' rather than 'think'. Then how do you increase toothpaste sales? Sell toothbrushes that have longer bristle area - more area to cover with toothpaste. Sales again increase sharply. Then how do you increase sales? Enlarge the hole on toothpaste tubes. These are not speculations. These are the actual stories I grew up with. The toothpaste was Colgate. And toothpaste back then did nothing significant.

Want to see how emotional we are? Is that computer plugged into a $20 or $70 surge protector? The surge protector only works in the realm of emotion. Adjacent to your computer, it does nothing productive. But it can contribute to surge damage of a powered off computer. Why is it there? Emotion. You believe it must work because of the words - "surge" and "protector". It is located where it cannot be effective.

They cannot provide reality pictures of smokers that are ugly enough. Emotional, ugly pictures are necessary to force people, especially such emotional teenagers, into taking a look at the facts. Without those emotional pictures, the facts will be ignored by those who mostly think mostly using emotion.

Why do we not want others to urinate in the same room we are eating? Facts have little to do with our response. Our response is an emotional "diiissgggusssttttinggg". And yet we have not yet associated smokers with the same emotional response even though facts say otherwise.

> it does nothing productive. But it can contribute to surge
> damage of a powered off computer. Why is it there? Emotion.
> You believe it must work because of the words - "surge"
> and "protector". It is located where it cannot be effective.

On the contrary, we use a surge protector at work, where the power supply has detroyed five seperate power supplies in as many months. When we had the posher one (with a little light on it) you could almost party to its flashing....

although, on the whole if your power supply should be that poor in terms of quality (i.e. you live next to several HUGE kilns, ooh look capacative load ) then you should have words with your local supplier....

Although, I agree with the majority of the smoking by emotion thing Never could see a point to it, someone at school tried to get me to smoke and I was left thinking "Lets see I'm unpopular as it is, will smelling horrible, having no money and a shortened life span help?"

The conclusion was pretty easy to come to

Datalas

--

The only way you'll get me to smoke is by setting fire to my trousers.

As long as smoking is a matter of free choice, more government initiatives should be directed to prevent non smokers, particularly children, from making this distructive life decision.

I think these graphic Canadian cigarette package warnings are aimed at the non-smoking public, and they are a good strategy, even if smokers deride them as having no effect on their informed choice to continue smoking.

These warnings are necessary to combat the Tobacco industry's next generation of deceit focused on new "safer" brands. These advertised "safer" brands will have the same graphic warnings.

But, unless they are grossly graphic, Surgeon General's Warnings have little impact on young people, who feel immortal. We have to speak to them in terms they understand. They hate being ripped by government. They abhor being conned by big business. They want to consider themselves smarter than older generations.

Sycamore brings up a very good point. MONEY. The cost of a pack is, of course, largely tax, which ties our governments to the tobacco industry, as well. Government is addicted to tobacco taxes. Politicians are addicted to tobacco industry campaign donations. Smoking is a hidden tax, mostly levied on the poorest of our economy. But it is a voluntary tax, it is argued. So, we have to make our children aware of this hidden tax. Like us, they don't like getting ripped by the government, conned by big business, and duped by politicians supporting big tobacco.

Big money motivates my kids. They were stunned when I walked them through a financial analysis of the monetary cost of smoking a pack a day. It's staggering! I ran the numbers through a tax deferred retirement savings plan and showed the difference at age 65 between one person who smoked a pack a day from age 20, and another who saved the cost of a pack a day and contributed the savings annually into the retirement plan. The latter lives a healthier lifestyle and retires a millionaire at age 65; the other lives a life of poor health and may not be around to retire at 65, but he was short all that cash. I said to my kids, "If Bill Gates would make you a bet, that your couldn't stay off cigarettes 'til age 65, but if you did he'd give you a million dollars then, could you avoid the temptation to smoke?" "Definately!' they said. My parents never taught me about this. I learned from my mistakes.

P.S. That's a millionaire in Canadian Dollars, for those that want to argue my math.

Re: 1/12: Canadian cigarette warnings

It's up to those that are already addicted to quit. Maybe one of those pictures will light a fire under someone's ass. We don't know. There's a chance of it happening, and that's what's important - one person saved is worth it.

As far as dissuading people - that's worth it too. They really don't need to be smoking - there isn't any <b>good</b> reason to start, but there are a lot of bad things that can (and probably will) happen to you if you smoke your entire life. If it can keep one person from starting... then it's worth it.

My opinion, of course...

Another point is, the cost to the cigarette companies of printing those huge colorful photos on every pack of cigarettes is most likely huge. So, that's yet another penalty they have to suck up.

Big tobacco companies agreed to the cost of such messages and advertising in their various settlements of government litigation.

From an Internet appreciation point of view, for those that want to see the slickest public relations effort by an indefensible industry, just take a look at the website of Brown & Williamson, the company at the center of the movie, The Insider.

Actually, big tobacco favours these warnings because they argue that informed free choice of the risks of smoking is a legal defense and limitation of their liability for the damages they cause to the health of their customers. And the damages have run into the hundreds of billions, as you know.

As part of the settlement B&W agreed to make details of the litigation and settlement public on their website.

What a public minded corporate citizen! They'd have you believe.

You misinterpreted what I said, I think.

The fact of the matter is, unless you want to quit, you won't. That's what I'm trying to say. It's up to you to quit smoking. Whatever I can do to help, sure. But unless you want to, you won't.

As far as us trying to help them quit - I happen to agree with you that it's in the public's best interest for people to not be smoking. However, I can also see how some people might think "Well, why should I be responsible for other peoples' fuckups?" Example: my friend Andrea started smoking some 3 years ago. I told her "look, that shit is bad for you, and if you get cancer, don't come crying to me." She went into it knowing full-well that it's bad for her. Most smokers do. So why should there be an extra cost to those who don't smoke to help rehabilitate them? I happen to think that we should help smokers quit, but I also happen to think that they should bear the responsibility and financial burden of doing so. I'm not going to throw away my paychecks because someone else thought it would be cool to start smoking. No offense, of course - I'll still be your friend if you're a smoker. And if I can help you in some way (like kicking you in the shins when you light up, or gathering information for you to help you stop, or whatever), I will. But the whole "Well, the public should help us 'cause it's in their best interest" is kinda a shit argument. It's like me saying "Well, it's in the public's best interest to give me everything I want, because if they don't, I'll go kill people." BS logic.

As for the whole "better health for others" - yeah, or we can just stick your ass out in the cold Seriously though, when we were chilling on Friday, I didn't say anything about you smoking, although the smell makes me feel ill (funny thing - used to smoke, loved the smell, then quit and it became just about the grossest thing to me). Your [rental] car, your smoke. You're doing me a favor by driving. But if I were driving (heh, when I get a license and car), I would have politely asked that you not smoke in the car. Just like how you excused yourself to go outside and smoke. No offense, but the smoker is the one that should be wary of these things - they're the one that's putting out the second hand smoke that can cause cancer in others. It's something that comes with smoking - you excuse yourself from others and go smoke. Just like I excuse myself when I need to defecate, instead of making a nice pile on the floor in front of you. You're the one that's doing it, so you need to bear responsibility for it - and that might mean standing out in the cold while you smoke. I actually generally go outside with the person and stand and talk to them, but Friday night just seemed damn fuckin' cold.

Anyway. I'm all about being friends with smokers, and I'm all about helping them quit - but there is a point where it becomes their responsibility. That's one of the things I learned early on - every one of your actions has consequences. You need to ask yourself "what is it that I really want?" and then go from there. If you want cancer or yellow teeth or whatever, then smoke. If you want to live a healthy life free of physical addictions, then don't. I can't make that choice for you.

Damn dude. You edited the shit outta that post.

And then you just deleted it.

Yeah...I didn't like my presentation...I'll rewrite it.

Maggie, ever had smoking addiction?
I don't think its so much a case of can't as veryveryvetry fucking difficult need-to-be-chained-to-a-chair-for-3-weeks difficult, even if people do want to give up. If they don't, they won't, thats no brainer logic.

• Nocotine
• Heroine
• Alchool
• Crack
• ...
• Cafeine
• Marijuana
• Chocolate

• Alchool (it can kill you)
• Heroine
• Nicotine
• Crack
• ...
• Cafeine, Merijuana
• Chocolate

I think this is a very worthwhile IotD, Undertoad.

If even one of our community helps themselves to change for the better, encouraged by this thread, it's worth the discussion.

For those who may be looking for more information, and are ready to choose to kick the habit and beat the addiction, this website looks helpful.

Nic, thanks for the link! It's a good informative site...and I like the way the information is presented.

sycamore, I know. I didn't mean for it to sound, at all, like I was coming down on <b>you</b>. "You" was used to refer to the public at large. Or rather, the smoking public at large. I know that I'm not making any decisions for you, and you're not asking me. Just stating that I don't buy into the whole "You should help me stop 'cause it's good for you" thing. My point is, if I don't want you smoking around me, I'll make it not happen - either by asking you to leave, or getting up and leaving. Again, not *you* - anyone. Yah, you were considerate. Which is why I don't think you're a dick.

Quote:

Yah, you were considerate. Which is why I don't think you're a dick.

Speaking of dicks ...

Although fear of respiratory and cardial health problems are distant concerns to most young people, sexual capability is an immediate concern ... and that is the point of the drooping cigarette warning above.

For years, the tobacco industry has attempted to portray smoking as "sexy" (the proverbial do you smoke after sex joke) even though most non-smokers think it's a major turn off. It's interesting to see the "public responsibility" ads of the tobacco industry reinforcing this myth, by saying things like ... don't smoke just because the cool kids do, or, we know it's hard to quit because you feel more confident when smoking in social situations. Psych-ops.

No teenager wants to be a limp dick. And older folks associate their continuing sexual functionality with youthfulness! You can cut out a lung if you have to, but don't tell me my dick won't work.

You know what NIC, i think you just hit on the one thing that WOULD stop most U-18s as much as anyone else - stop smoking.

taxation just creates a grey/black market

what a big can of worms

as the resident canadian i feel like i should say something but ahh... i don't really know that many smokers! so, wheeee!

First of all: I am a smoker. (So take it all with a grain or three of salt...)

That said, DEAR GOD PEOPLE!! Give me a break!

I've done the research. I know the risks. I choose to smoke. Now leave me alone.

Ok, that rant out of the way, I have a couple of actual points:

1. Prohibition didn't work on alcohol. It certainly hasn't worked on marijuana. It won't work on cigarettes (which it has been pointed out, are FAR more addictive than either of the others).

2. The single most annoying human being in the world is the self-righteous former smoker. I am a peaceful human being, but I swear, the next stranger that walks up and starts preaching at me gets it. Why must people always push their beliefs onto others? This isn't just a smoking thing. It goes for pretty much any way that someone might choose to spend their time.

3. I agree that people shouldn't smoke in restaurants. 'Nough said there. But BARS? Look. It's a bar. People smoke in bars. Bar owners don't mind if people smoke in their place of business. If want to go to a smokeless bar, open your own. See how many people show up. There comes a point where marginalization (for public safety purposes) turns into outright persecution of a minority.

Every day the government noses a little further into our lives...
Every day I become a little more Libertarian...
Coincidence? I think not.

mh

I would venture a guess that it's probably pretty low (the hit that bars are taking). Think that people will probably just smoke outside or whatever, and if not, it's not like they had much else to do before going to a bar. Now, maybe people are going to bars because they appreciate the fact that they don't have to put up with cigarette smoke there. I dunno. I'm guessing it's not so bad.

That having been said, it <b>is</b> a pretty stupid law...

Look Hamlet. Fact is, nobody gives a damn if you choose to smoke. Enjoy.

Fact is, many people assert their right to smoke in their households with children.

Now, that's not a bar. It's your home. It's your right. Or is it?

Does government have a right to speak for the children?

And don't give anyone that self-righteous put down.

You're just blowin' smoke!

One thing that occurred to me is, what if all people were forced to carry around a gruesome image of how they'd look when they were about to die? What if all people were forced to carry around an image of the worst possible result of their choices?

Smoking is dangerous, but there are other dangerous activities. Take ice climbing for example. Want to force ice climbers to carry around pictures of cold, dead, mangled, frozen bodies at the bottom of tall cliffs of ice? Gee, why not?

Most forms of death are kinda-sorta optional. Heart disease is aggravated by diet and stress and inactivity. Cancer is too. Most accidents are preventable (through training and good infrastructure and systems). Almost all of us make choices that will kill us, they're just not as visible and obvious and not as legislatable. They're just not at the forefront of public opinion, not so subject to the public whim and political fantasy.

In the end, it's all really a weird form of politics, you know. When everyone's doing it, oh, well you can't change it if *everyone's* doing it. If 20% are doing it? Well they're a very visible minority, so we can make ourselves feel better and have more confidence in our OWN choices, by publically putting THEIR choices down.

Now an attempt to really fan the flames. I can think of one activity that is seriously dangerous to the public at large, seriously dangerous to the people who do it, and banning it would have almost no impact on the economy. I'm talking about general aviation.

As we have just seen, general aviation can be easily abused for terroristic purposes. Not a week goes by where you don't hear of some all-too-young person offing themselves by crashing in a forest. It can wreak havoc at any airport, just as much or MORE than a guy running the wrong way down an elevator does. The system appears to be fraught with problems and causing a ton of expenses in homeland security.

We can't ban general aviation without appearing to be too draconian. But we can force pilots to carry with them images of crash scenes. It's just common and fiscal sense to deter these people from making a choice that's inappropriate for society.

We may not be able to force these pilots not to fly, but if we just make them THINK about not flying, I'd consider such a program a success.

Tony -

I think you're missing (or ignoring) the fact that smoking contains chemicals that are <b>addictive</b>, whereas rockclimbing contains no such additives. I think they're there to make sure a person take a little think session before lighting up from that next pack of cigarettes and strengthening their addiction.

Quote:

Originally posted by dhamsaic I think you're missing (or ignoring) the fact that smoking contains chemicals that are <b>addictive</b>, whereas rockclimbing contains no such additives.

Yeah. It's more about whether or not they're addicted to the adrenaline from such activities. But from what I've read (admittedly, not a whole lot, but not just a little either), it's not at all the same as an addiction to, say, alcohol, nicotine or even caffeine - in that you can give it up and not suffer withdrawal-type symptoms.

Nah - sooner or later, they'll have to look at their shriveling penis or warty-vagina anyway, and no one will have anything to do with them after that. 'Sides, sex isn't addictive either (well, for most people, anyway). It's just <b>highly desireable</b>.

And there you have it - you're less likely to die in a plane than a car.

I wonder what the figure comes out to when the airline flights are calculated in? Much better, I assume. I'd be curious to see the statistics though.

You win this round.

hehe. I can just imagine Tony riding off, battered, screaming

"You win this round! But I'll be back, god damn you! I'LL BEEEEEE BAAAACKKKKKKK!"

Quote:

Originally posted by sycamore I have no problem not smoking at a restaurant. I can go an hour or so without smoking a cigarette...I'm not THAT addicted. I agree on the bar thing though...I wonder how much of a hit bars in California are taking b/c of the law out there.

VIctoria (my state) recently passed laws banning smokingin all resteraunts, and it is soon ot be expanded to bars, far as i'm concerned, its all good.

i think this is *the* only thread that has stayed ontopic for 5 pages!
cept for that 14page entertainment one, but thats not so much a discussion.

Jag -

are you a smoker or non-smoker? Just curious. I don't mind if it's banned in bars or restaurants either, but I'm a non-smoker.

The Canadian government is in court now, with big tobacco, over the graphic warnings pictured in this thread.

Internal cigarette-firm documents prove marketing to 15-19 age group, court told.

As they say, "hook 'em while they're young."

I don't remember where I read it, but there was a study about smoking habits and whatnot. Basically, it concluded that if you're not smoking by the time you're 18, you probably won't. I think this is mostly true, though college and whatnot can definitely have an effect. I personally would expand it to say "if you're not smoking by 21, you almost definitely won't start", but then again, that's not based on a study, but just on my observations of the behaviors of those surrounding me. But they cited pretty good evidence to back up their statements. Definitely interesting - the cigarette companies know this, and they're marketing at younger folks, even though they say they're not. There's something out there that's getting kids to smoke... we just gotta find out what it is and eliminate it.

oh i guess i should mention that its terrible i can't enjoy myself when i'm out at a bar because of SMOKERS!

and god don't even let me start about the raves... why must kids smoke! why!!! why when it is 30 billion degrees inside a venue and sweat is collecting on the ceiling and raining on people - why must people add billowing clouds of cigarette smoke to the toxic mixture? as i left that whole scene i had to ask whether it was me getting old or just pissed off with smokers and it'd have to be the latter with a bit of sensible fuckoffery to the idiots that create those terrible conditions in the first place [bad venues!] rant. blah blah! cha cha cha. eat a canteloupe, stick a fork in your ear!

cigarettes - now with 10% more death

just being senseless

Do you like drugs?

If not bars...

I'd like to ask whether or not people think that there should be public places that smokers can go and smoke without either breaking the law or standing outside (that's illegal in CA now too, isn't it?)?

As a follow up, those who said "no" to the above questions: Should people be allowed to smoke at all? (In their own homes...) Obviously if the majority (non-smokers) completely had their way, smoking would be illegal. But should it?

peace,

mh

I think that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't affect others.

If you want to smoke, that's fine. If we're at my house, please go outside (and that's the rule my dad would enforce, and since he pays the mortgage...). If we're in my car, please wait until we get there <b>or</b> I'll pull over and you can smoke outside (I really don't want cigarette smell in my car at all). If you're in your house, fine. If I'm in your car and you smoke, fine - it's my choice to be there, so if you want to smoke, I'll put up with it. People should be allowed to smoke outside, whereever they are - it's up to individual businesses to make rules like "not within 50 yards of entrances" or whatever. I think that telling people what they can and cannot do it silly. I'm a non smoker, and I wish you didn't smoke too (save yourself some money and smell better while you're at it!), but if you do, <b>that's your choice and no one should be able to take it away from you</b>. If you're not hurting anyone else, go for it.

I think that should answer your questions.

No. I don't smoke, anymore. I did smoke, for about a year.
The result of a: social smoking at parties (very much passé) b: stress, but I stopped about 3 months ago now, haven't touched one since. Although I have smoked some apple - yes apple. Its a mix of apple, molasses and little bit of pure tobacco smoked in one of those huge middle eastern water pipes, incredibly smooth, very nice tasting, but that doesn't belong to me so its a once in a blue moon thing.

I gave up by cutting down slowly how much I smoked (from 4-5 a day to one every day/2days. Encouragement from my girlfriend "you've smoked, I’m not kissing you", and a nasty feeling every time I looked at the horrible yellow patches on my fingers. Surprisingly enough mum never found out I did smoke, that was difficult to pull off, but I managed to get my tongue pierced for about 3 months before she twigged too.

Re: If not bars...

You'll appreciate that "disabled toilet" when you wind up in a wheelchair, I promise.

I think one "disabled toilet" in a common area should be sufficient. Go figure that law dictates otherwise. Here, we have one per floor, in a common area, with the rest of the toilets. Floor layouts that make sense!

There is no constitutional right to defecate. What's your point?

defecate? shit ... what's your point?

Anyway, to spare you the pain of thinking about it ...

my point is that the so-called "my right" to smoke which is so often alleged by the smoker is not entrenched in the constitution, so as to be free from abridgement by the will of the people as expressed by the elected representative legislators, in the interests of all the people, including the children of the nation.

and your corresponding point that there is no constitutional right to defecate might be that the government could also abridge your right to emit shit? Actually, no, in your case that might be constitutionally protected by the First Amendment.

And dham, don't tell me to calm down. I'm jus' being feces us.

My point is that there are a lot of things we do that are not specifically detailed in the Constitution. This does not make them any less of a right. Remember - "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." Liberty, in case you've forgotten, is "the condition of being free from restriction or control" - or at least that's the definition we want for this example, and it's my contention that this definition is what was intended by the "founding fathers". So while they laid out a few essential freedoms that could not be encroached upon, they also made it clear that people should have the right to do and act as they please <b>so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others</b>.

A good example of infringing upon the rights of others would be if I got tired of your stupid rhetoric and beat you to death. This would be infringing on your right to life. Remember - "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness". A good example of doing something that infringes on no rights is <b>defecating</b>. Hence the prior mention. However, this is not Constitutionally protected. Would you vehemently dispute the right to defecate? Or would you, now that you are backed into a corner of needing to "shoot down" every "non right" that we exercise so that you can defend your original position, talk about how it wasn't actually "entrenched in the constitution" and therefore isn't a right? If John Ashcroft placed a ban on defecation, would you follow it? Or would you quietly (or not so quietly) dissent, using <b>your</b> bathroom and <b>your</b> body as you pleased?

Now. Here's where it gets tricky, so pay close attention.

Sometimes, when people smoke, they don't hurt anyone else. A good example of this would be when my buddy <b>sycamore</b> was driving back to Philadelphia last Friday night. I guarantee you that he smoked some cigarettes. Guess what? No one was hurt, except himself. So, he's infringing on no one elses' rights.

But, he did hurt himself. Not a whole lot in just that one night, but definitely some. However, is this really any different than slapping yourself on the hand? Or maybe pinching the skin on your arm? The damage may be deeper, but the idea is the same - hurting oneself without hurting anyone else. We could also call this <b>using ones' body as they pleased</b>. Kinda like going to the bathroom. No one's rights are infringed by either act. So, in that <b>fundamental aspect</b>, they are similar.

I know it might have been hard to make this connection, so I have spared you the pain of <i>thinking</i> about it. I hope this helps.

So, now we get to your other point: "so as to be free from abridgement by the will of the people as expressed by the elected representative legislators, in the interests of all the people, including the children of the nation". My question to you is: What is in the interest of all the people?

If it's not smoking, then is it removing the right to smoke? If that's the case, then what other "undefined" personal freedoms can be taken away? The right to masturbate? Would you stand for that? The right to have sex without the intention of impregnation? Would you stand for a law, then, that criminalized coitus <b>unless</b> it was for procreative purposes? Where is the line drawn? Who decides?

When you start removing personal freedoms, even those that are undefined, you open the door to losing them all. So while it may not be specifically defined in the Constitution, and while I may not smoke, <b>smoking is a right</b> that I will forever vote to uphold, because <b>no one should be able to tell you what is right for you</b>.

"right" to smoke...

Nic Name,

At what point do you draw the line in the government's power to protect me from myself? Can you not see the Big Brother argument here? Time was that the government stayed out of people's private lives, and to be honest, I don't think things are so much better now that we're all "protected".

I used to be a radical liberal. I'd say I still have those leanings, but with a healthy dose of libertarianism thrown in. The perspective helps. Try it sometime.

But to address your point...

<b>my point is that the so-called "my right" to smoke which is so often alleged by the smoker is not entrenched in the constitution, so as to be free from abridgement by the will of the people as expressed by the elected representative legislators, in the interests of all the people, including the children of the nation.</b>

This is why we don't have a pure and direct democracy. To protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. If what was best for the nation was always what was best for the majority, here are just a few things you'd see:

Slavery (African-Americans make up only a small percentage of the population. The cheap labor source would surely benefit the majority wouldn't it?)

Eugenics (Mentally and physically handicapped persons contribute less to the overall well being of the nation. Make sure they don't reproduce and drag the average down.)

Enforced Christianity (We are predominantly a Christian country. Why not repeal that pesky First Amendment (as the majority could do if they wanted to) and demand all heathens convert?

Yes, these are exaggerations. But there is a point where a human being should be left to make their own choices. You and I clearly choose a different point. Smoking probably does harm to children who grow up in a smoking house. But so does parental neglect, a FAR more serious and widespread problem in this country.

I grew up in a house with a smoker. Yet I was an star athelete and got into a prestigious college. I picked up smoking there. Neither of my brothers smokes. Both are healthy and decent human beings. Do you really think that being taken from our loving home and forced to live in a series of foster homes with strangers would have been beneficial to our well-being?

The fact is... you have to have a license to drive a car, but you don't need one to have a child. Parenting well is incredibly difficult and most parents are frankly not fit for the job. But they do it anyway, the best that they can. And some of them smoke.

But arguing that the solution to any social problem is for the government to intervene on behalf of those who are being harmed is to invite us to live an Orwellian existance without free will. I, for one, will tolerate a little inconvenience or pain to make sure that never happens.

peace,

tom

Let me be clear, that I fully support your right to express your opinions and to disagree with me if you think differently. It doesn't bother me that we don't always agree.

I have said before, and I'll say it again, I have no problem whatever with those who choose to exercise their right to self-destruct by cigarette smoking. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but I don't care. They can suck on the exhaust pipe of their car if they wish, and it wouldn't bother me. Although, there is probably a law against that.

And I'm not trying to change the minds of those who hold firm the views that it is their right to smoke.

I was just expressing concern for the higher rights of the children, and I suspect we might actually agree on that.

And as far as hamlet's inference that smoking parents can be good parents and the State ought not to step in and wretch the children from their natural parents ... the point that was raised by me for discussion is the issue of custody disputes between two caring and lawful parents. In such a case, whether smokers like to hear about it or not, the fact is that courts are taking into consideration the health risks to the children of the environment of a smoker's home compared to a non-smoker's home. Also, courts are prudently placing conditions on child access to restrict a smoking parent from smoking in the presence of their children for their sake.

I was just hoping to raise some points of concern that smokers might value more that their so-called right to smoke. There may be personal costs associated with that choice that are just not worth it. For some people, even smokers, their children matter more ... so they buck up and quit their self-indulgent behavior. Sadly, other smokers are not at all concerned about the costs to their loved ones, never mind society, of their destructive habit. That concerns me. It might or might not concern you, and I'd still be interested to hear about your rationale for your opinions.

Those are the points that I hoped would be discussed, rather than a thoughtless response such as "There is no constitutional right to defecate. What's your point?" And if nothing else, my barbed repartee did in fact motivate dham and hamlet to think about it for more than a minute and get their passionate thoughts out in their ensuing posts.

Gotta like that!

I apologize for not making my point make sense to you.

Well, not to be difficult, Nic, but I didn't see a lot of substantive argument in your last post. I made my points, in a fairly dispassionate manner, and you largely ignored them. But to continue/conclude my argument against your stance...

<b>And as far as hamlet's inference that smoking parents can be good parents and the State ought not to step in and wretch the children from their natural parents ... the point that was raised by me for discussion is the issue of custody disputes between two caring and lawful parents. In such a case, whether smokers like to hear about it or not, the fact is that courts are taking into consideration the health risks to the children of the environment of a smoker's home compared to a non-smoker's home. Also, courts are prudently placing conditions on child access to restrict a smoking parent from smoking in the presence of their children for their sake.</b>

And I am arguing that this is absolutely wrong. There are SO many things that people do as parents that could be construed by the state as detrimental to the well being of a child. Yes, smoking is one of them. But so is arguing in front of them... How about drinking in front of them? That's legal for us, but illegal for them. I'm sure they'll be more likely to drink before 21 if they see that mom or dad do it.... How about divorce itself? That bad for children. Should we ban divorce for the good of the children?

I guess I have just two more tangental points before I drop this argument:

1. Just because the state (by legislation or by judicial verdict) says something is wrong, that doesn't make it wrong. Government does not have a monopoly on wisdom, nor does it never make mistakes. (see: Prohibition and the current failed War on Drugs) Those who make the laws are people too... They have an agenda and a bias... They make mistakes.

2. "Won't someone think of the children!?" has got to be the most overused and annoying argument ever. We're raising generation after generation of people essentially unequiped for dealing with the realities of adult life. We don't trust most kids to lead their own lives until their early twenties now. And even then they are inadequately prepared. Quit "protecting" them so much. You're not doing them any favors.

One final note: If you think that the people involved in the divorces you cite are being altruists, you really should wake up. I guarentee you that (like all other decisions we humans make) they're selfish individuals using the "smoking" card to manipulate someone into giving them their way. If they were so damn worried about the health of the child, why did they marry a smoker in the first place? Smoking should be a very minor factor, and certainly not a deciding one, in determining something as important as child custody.

peace,

mh

P.S. Whoever's .sig reads: "If salmon are outlawed, only outlaws will have salmon." has a good friggin' point.

Obviously, there is a lot of interest in this topic in the Cellar, considering the number of page views and the number of replies in this thread.

Nice choice for IotD, UT.

It's hard to beat rhetorical argument for entertainment.

But here's an interesting fact sheet in the form of a timeline history of tobacco. An amazing amount of research has gone into this timeline, which is presented in Parts I-IV.

Find more information at: www.tobacco.org

These are not my sites or opinions. Please don't rant at me if you disagree with anything on these links.

Health Canada marks "weedless Wednesday" today in Canada with the launch of a new website to help smokers quit smoking.

This website even offers advice to help to those who don't want to quit:

"How to deal with people who nag you to quit.

Some people want you to quit smoking. Some may tell you directly. Other people try hints such as hiding your cigarettes or ashtrays. Still others may not say or do anything; rather, you just feel like they are judging you.

Of course, you could get angry and tell them to mind their own business, but most of the time this doesn't work. It only encourages them to nag you more because they think you don't understand the health effects of smoking.

The next time someone starts nagging or judging you about your smoking, try these tips:

Remain calm. Remember, you have the right to make your own choices but they have the right to be concerned about you.

Take time to really listen to their concerns and ask them to extend you the same courtesy. Thank them for their concern for your well-being.

Politely explain that quitting is something that you will have to do in your own time and in your own way. When you do decide to quit, you will appreciate their support.

Explain how their nagging makes you feel. They will likely be able to appreciate that putting extra pressure on someone may not always help.

Indicate that you will respect their right to smoke free air if they respect your right to make choices for yourself."

That's excellent. It recognizes the dignity of the smoker, notes their freedom of will, points out that anti-smokers are doing what they do out of concern (well sometimes). Puts the whole thing in perspective and treats smokers as rational human beings.

Speaking of impotence ads....

Re: Speaking of impotence ads....

Very nice, but even us nonsmokers know the ads aren't true. Oh, sure, smoking may contribute to impotence in some percentage of cases, but impotence isn't a common symptom of smoking. Ads which lie or mislead about the dangers of a product are, IMO, counterproductive -- they destroy the credibility of the authority making the claim.

I'd like to see the Onion do some of these warnings just for kicks.

"Surgeon General's Warning: Smoking will cause your cock to fall off." Hahaha. :whofarted

Re: Re: Speaking of impotence ads....

Most of my friends smoke. None of my friends are impotent.

That's what I know. :whofarted

dham,

and you know that how?

[Edit] "Not that there's anything wrong with that."

Because most of my friends have female friends, and I'm friends with most of my friends' female friends, and they'd tell me if my friends' penises didn't work right.

I thought you might have first hand experience.

Anyway, I thought you mentioned that you were 20 years old and so, I would imagine that most of your buddies aren't yet in their 30s and 40s like the 120,000 impotent blokes in the BMA study.

So I guess they're OK. Not to worry.

i don't smoke. that makes jenno, me. and. i don't know who your other friends are besides andrea and chris. but they smoke.

well, matt, but he doesn't smoke, right?

and...um...well, there. that's 3/5 of people who don't smoke.

Shut up.

ecstasy can also cause impotence... which is why the kids these days take viagra at the same time, perhaps in the hopes that they'll spontaneously spawn mutant clones from their weenus while breeding with trollish looking face mongers.

to confirm:

most of dave's friends are open to talking about sex. dave and i talk about sex, and we are brother and sister. no big deal, you know, it's just sex.

View the entire set of beautiful high resolution images online. Or try to collect the complete series on original packaging before you die.

Bad analogy department ...

Quitting smoking as difficult as killing best friend and we all know how hard that is.

If you have the bandwidth and
want a larger image for wallpaper.

I actually have this poster, hanging on my wall in my old house. My sister swiped it from school for me. I just had to have it

Smoking is responsible for the majority (80% - 90%) of COPD
(chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) cases, including emphysema.

Emphysematic lung image from the American Lung Association.

Tobacco has killed half a million Ontario residents since 1950 — more than alcohol, drugs, car crashes and AIDS combined — and claims another every half hour, says a jarring new report.

Reality really sucks

'Basic Instinct' screenwriter has throat cancer, wants Hollywood to cut cigarettes from films