Australian Cigarette Campaign

[DrStrong]

I dont know how many smokers are on AP, i used to smoke a lot. With other countries trying to "scare" smokers from continuing the habit, do you think it will work? What about if the did this in the US. I dont mean by running ads, but by placing cancer patients, aborted babies, deformities, etc. on the packs themselves. There is also plans to sells packs in just plain paper, with no design, not to mention the drastic price increase.

Discuss.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/29/2885725.htm
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-as-australia-cigarette-labeling,0,2314708.story
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/business/global/30tobacco.html

[<*)))><]

I think if your dumb enough to smoke. cigarette companys are dumb enough to make money off you.

[DrStrong]

I think if your dumb enough to smoke. cigarette companys are dumb enough to make money off you.
Do you think that scaring people, or raising the prices will cause people to stop smoking? Personally, i dont think it will work, people will buy, buy, buy.

[catherinexhimel]

I think that the increase of cost of cigarettes might turn someone off them for financial reasons, but I don't think the whole "plain packaging" thing would really discourage current or future buyers of cigarettes. I mean, I don't know anyone who smokes for the package. They smoke to relieve stress or as a social thing to do.

[<*)))><]

Do you think that scaring people, or raising the prices will cause people to stop smoking? Personally, i dont think it will work, people will buy, buy, buy.
Maybe everytime you buy a pack of cigarettes someone should kick you in the balls/vagina then no one would smoke.

[secretsociety92]

Should refuse smokers of free or cheap healthcare, that would get them off it. Over here millions is spent on treatment all because of smoking.

[DrStrong]

SYDNEY (AP) — Tobacco companies would be forced to use plain, logo-free packaging on their cigarettes in a bid to make them less attractive to smokers under legislation introduced Thursday by Australia's government, which dubbed the move a world-first.


What does that even mean? It will be impossible to differentiate between brands.

[<*)))><]

I think that the increase of cost of cigarettes might turn someone off them for financial reasons, but I don't think the whole "plain packaging" thing would really discourage current or future buyers of cigarettes. I mean, I don't know anyone who smokes for the package. They smoke to relieve stress or as a social thing to do.
They are also going to make half of the cigarette boxes contain pink cigarettes so this way when guys buy them they don't want to smoke them because they will look like a bitch.

[DrStrong]

Should refuse smokers of free or cheap healthcare, that would get them off it. Over here millions is spent on treatment all because of smoking.
This is how the US handles smoking when it comes to insurance...

Are you a smoker? []yes, []no, []occasionally

That would be a question on a health care enrollment form. It doesnt really go any further than that? When you have a doctors appointment for a physical, a reason to go other than for being sick, they ask you if you smoke. If you answer, "yes", they will tell you that it would be a good idea to quit.

There is no enforcement here in the US from insurance companies, or from the medical providers.

I cant speak for the insurance companies that insure individuals, based on a person's risk factor, but as far as general medical insurers, thats how it goes.

[catherinexhimel]

They are also going to make half of the cigarette boxes contain pink cigarettes so this way when guys buy them they don't want to smoke them because they will look like a bitch.

Like these?
http://img.alibaba.com/img/buyoffer/102224549/Pink_Elephant_Cigarettes_.jpg

[<*)))><]

Like these?
http://img.alibaba.com/img/buyoffer/102224549/Pink_Elephant_Cigarettes_.jpg
Yup it also needs pink smoke so it is more noticible.

[SomedayTheFire]

Like these?
http://img.alibaba.com/img/buyoffer/102224549/Pink_Elephant_Cigarettes_.jpg
Epic.

[zachff]

I think it's a good idea. Some people may argue too much government intervention in industry/free choice, but I think if it stops those people on the fence from smoking, it's worth it.

Anyone who's smart enough to know the effects of smoking and does it anyways for other reasons (to be cool, because they're addicted, social pressure, etc) won't be effected by this packaging, but for those lowest common denominator people this is a good preventative.

[zachff]

Also, places like New Zealand have been doing this with signs on the highway for a few years now, with ones that say "Slow Down, Death is Forever" with crazy pictures on them (couldn't find a link)

[SomedayTheFire]

I dont know how many smokers are on AP, i used to smoke a lot. With other countries trying to "scare" smokers from continuing the habit, do you think it will work? What about if the did this in the US. I dont mean by running ads, but by placing cancer patients, aborted babies, deformities, etc. on the packs themselves. There is also plans to sells packs in just plain paper, with no design, not to mention the drastic price increase.

Discuss.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/29/2885725.htm
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-as-australia-cigarette-labeling,0,2314708.story
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/business/global/30tobacco.html
Wrong. It's to prevent impressionable teens and others from starting smoking.

[Lirr168]

I think it's a good idea. Some people may argue too much government intervention in industry/free choice, but I think if it stops those people on the fence from smoking, it's worth it.

What's next though? Once the smoking crusade gets old, it can be alcohol or soda or junk food. The latter has already started here in NYC with Bloomberg banning transfats and trying to mandate low-sodium products. I just think it's a dangerous precedent to be setting.

[re7ard1337]

cocaine is expensive, but it's addicting. price cannot prevent people from smoking. and people have know for quite some time that smoking is bad for you, but people continue to do it. i'm not sure if there is really a sure-fire way to keep people from smoking.

[saysmydoctor]

There are a lot of things that are bad for you that people will continue to do.

Rather than scaring, we should work to inform so they can't at do these things responsibly. Cigarettes included. And this means cigarettes that aren't crafted to addict.

[studskalny]

Pretty sure they've been doing this in Canada for awhile now..I can't remember if the person said it was that effective or not. I'm guessing not?

A quick Google gave me this: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Canada_Approves_Dramatic_A nti_Tobacco_Labels.asp

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

I second education

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/smoking.png

[deFobbed14yrs]

ban the nicotine in them. isn't that what makes people go back to cigarettes? B/c it's addicting. So ban nicotine.

[heyguys123]

i stayed in australia over the summer, and they put these wacky pictures on the back of every pack of cigarettes of a blackened lung, or a disgusting eyeball, all this ridiculous shit some of which seemed to have little basis in fact. but whatever, scaring people from smoking is cool. plus their packs have 30 which is awesome. as a smoker, i have zero problem with idiot-taxing the shit out of cigarettes honestly. 10 bucks a pack in nyc sucks, but you can deal with it. if it's that big of a strain on your budget you probably shouldn't be spending money on cigarettes anyway.

[LastDeclaration]

I used to live in Michigan, where cigs are 5-6 bucks a pack, then moved to NYC for college where they're 9-10, and I actually notice more smokers here (or at least as many) than I did in Michigan. If ridiculously high taxes aren't enough to discourage people from smoking, I'm not sure what will.

[Nuns On A Bus]

Seems like the government is more concerned with making more money off of taxes than with the people's welfare to me.

[uninspired_]

What's next though? Once the smoking crusade gets old, it can be alcohol or soda or junk food. The latter has already started here in NYC with Bloomberg banning transfats and trying to mandate low-sodium products. I just think it's a dangerous precedent to be setting.

I'm not an expert on the subject, but I'm inclined to think this is a good thing. Are people really upset about an attempt to make junk food less unhealthy?

And like someone said, I think the fucked up pictures used in anti-smoking advertising are more of an attempt to stop young people from picking up the habit. I don't know if it works. I feel like all it does is torture the squirmish non smokers who have to look at that stuff.

[Gumbyjag]

If anything it will probably make committed smokers more self-aware, scaring off some casual ones but the actual difference it will have for what it's trying to do will hardly be seen. Smoking is something people won't stop doing for a long time.

[DogSizedBird]

...Or you could just let smokers continue smoking if they want to. It's their fucking choice. Their bodies. Trying to scare smokers into quitting is like trying to scare people to quit eating meat. It's impossible and it's also pretty stupid.. Let people put into their bodies what they want, it's not your fucking problem.

[uninspired_]

...Or you could just let smokers continue smoking if they want to. It's their fucking choice. Their bodies. Trying to scare smokers into quitting is like trying to scare people to quit eating meat. It's impossible and it's also pretty stupid.. Let people put into their bodies what they want, it's not your fucking problem.

That meat eating comparison makes fuck all sense.
I don't care if people want to smoke, but you should probably come to terms with the fact it's bad for you.

[Juneau_87]

...Or you could just let smokers continue smoking if they want to. It's their fucking choice. Their bodies. Trying to scare smokers into quitting is like trying to scare people to quit eating meat. It's impossible and it's also pretty stupid.. Let people put into their bodies what they want, it's not your fucking problem.Christ, are you retarded? Ever hear of second hand smoking? (and this is coming from a smoker)

[ace1112]

Maybe everytime you buy a pack of cigarettes someone should kick you in the balls/vagina then no one would smoke.

i still would

[ace1112]

ban the nicotine in them. isn't that what makes people go back to cigarettes? B/c it's addicting. So ban nicotine.

i agree and get the rat poison the fuck out of my cigarettes

[DogSizedBird]

That meat eating comparison makes fuck all sense.
I don't care if people want to smoke, but you should probably come to terms with the fact it's bad for you.

It makes a lot of sense actually. It's an issue of letting people put into their bodies whatever they want. Yeah, it's bad for you, I think EVERYONE knows that, but people still do it anyway. Why? Because they want to, so fucking let them.

[DogSizedBird]

Christ, are you retarded? Ever hear of second hand smoking? (and this is coming from a smoker)

Wow, really? In most places in the US now, you can't smoke inside any commercial buildings whatsoever, even bars. The exception being hookah bars. There are designated smoking areas outside usually anywhere you go. Unless you're a child, you have no excuse. If you don't want to be effected by second hand smoke, remove yourself from the situation.

Believe me, for the first 15 or so years of my life, both of my parents smoked. In the house, in the car, restaraunts, everywhere. I realize how fucked up that is. And in some ways, it probably influenced my decision to start smoking because they set that example for me at such a young age and for such a long time. But if we're talking about adults in public places, no one is forcing you to stand there and inhale the smoke.

[uninspired_]

It makes a lot of sense actually. It's an issue of letting people put into their bodies whatever they want. Yeah, it's bad for you, I think EVERYONE knows that, but people still do it anyway. Why? Because they want to, so fucking let them.

I still don't understand what the personal choice to smoke has to do with the personal choice to eat meat. You'll be hard pressed to find a doctor to encourage you to stop eating meat. Let alone a fucking government. Plus scaring someone out of eating meat isn't hard - people stop eating meat all the time.
I get that you're concerned that it compromises the individual's rights. I don't see this as an issue at all. But I guess it does come down to perspective. Personally I think the negative effects of smoking outweigh the need to stick up for the individuals right to be able to do whatever the fuck they want because they fucking want to and because no one's the fucking boss of anyone else. At some point you've got to step back and see that some things are not worth it. But yeah, that's the perspective of a non-smoker who hasn't smoked. It's impossible for me to understand a cigarette's worth.

[DogSizedBird]

I still don't understand what the personal choice to smoke has to do with the personal choice to eat meat. You'll be heard pressed to find a doctor to encourage you to stop eating meat. Let alone a fucking government. Plus scaring someone out of eating meat isn't hard - people stop eating meat all the time.
I get that you're concerned that it compromises the individual's rights. I don't see this as an issue at all. But I guess it does come down to perspective. Personally I think the negative effects of smoking outweigh the need to stick up for the individuals right to be able to do whatever the fuck they want because they fucking want to and because no one's the fucking boss of anyone else. At some point you've got to step back and see that some things are not worth it. But yeah, that's the perspective of a non-smoker who hasn't smoked. It's impossible for me to understand a cigarette's worth.

Really not your place to decide.

[bung]

http://macsmind.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/obama-smoking.jpg

[uninspired_]

Really not your place to decide.
Decide what? It's an opinion.

[The Indigo]

...Or you could just let smokers continue smoking if they want to. It's their fucking choice. Their bodies. Trying to scare smokers into quitting is like trying to scare people to quit eating meat. It's impossible and it's also pretty stupid.. Let people put into their bodies what they want, it's not your fucking problem.
This.

That meat eating comparison makes fuck all sense.
I don't care if people want to smoke, but you should probably come to terms with the fact it's bad for you.
Every smoker knows it's bad for us. We choose to do it anyway. Why should the government be allowed to try and make it as hard as possible?

And I don't think the blank packages will work. Admittedly, when I tried quitting smoking last summer, I noticed that the label designs made it more difficult, but that was because I was already a smoker and knew which brands I liked. As long as the packaging still says "Marlboro Menthols," I'll still buy them.

[DogSizedBird]

Decide what? It's an opinion.

Decide what other people should and shouldn't be able to do based on what you just said.. an opinion. Your opinion. Not your body, not your place to decide if other people want to destroy their lungs or not. I think if you're trying to prevent underage teens from picking up smoking, that's one thing and that's respectable. But if you're trying to prevent adult smokers from doing something they enjoy, full well knowing it's not good for them, then that's fucking despicable. We don't live in a police state, in Australia or the US, sorry. It's like pretty much any junk food that people know is bad for them. They know it's not doing them any good, but they eat it anyway. Should we ban all junk food because it's bad for you? No. That's a decision for the consumer to make, not their government. Too much of anything isn't going to be good for you.

[DogSizedBird]

This.


Every smoker knows it's bad for us. We choose to do it anyway. Why should the government be allowed to try and make it as hard as possible?

And I don't think the blank packages will work. Admittedly, when I tried quitting smoking last summer, I noticed that the label designs made it more difficult, but that was because I was already a smoker and knew which brands I liked. As long as the packaging still says "Marlboro Menthols," I'll still buy them.

Thank you, I'm glad at least person in here agrees with me. And the blank labels idea is stupid. Alcohol is potentially MUCH more dangerous than cigarettes, should all bottles of alcohol be sold without labels with the brand name just sharpied on? People aren't buying cigarettes for the packaging.

[JuneJuly]

I put the wrong end of a lit cigarette in my mouth this weekend. Whoops.

[zion the lion]

I think it's a good idea. Some people may argue too much government intervention in industry/free choice, but I think if it stops those people on the fence from smoking, it's worth it.

Anyone who's smart enough to know the effects of smoking and does it anyways for other reasons (to be cool, because they're addicted, social pressure, etc) won't be effected by this packaging, but for those lowest common denominator people this is a good preventative.

Then they need to show fucked up livers and that picture of that disgustingly deformed chick on every bottle of alcohol. And then they need to show really fucked up livers and dying people on every bottle of tylenol. Maybe pictures someone with a bloated fat face (because of the medicine they'll have to take for kidney transplants), and bloody piss for every package of benadryl. That seems perfect.

Or to put this in another perspective, put pictures of herpes (because that spreads from just contact) on packs of condoms, or even people at the end stages of AIDS (because apparently nobody uses a condom for oral) to prevent people from having sex or wearing hazmat suits before fucking each other for any other reason than reproduction. If it stops people on the fence from doing it, it's worth it

[zachff]

Then they need to show fucked up livers and that picture of that disgustingly deformed chick on every bottle of alcohol. And then they need to show really fucked up livers and dying people on every bottle of tylenol. Maybe pictures someone with a bloated fat face (because of the medicine they'll have to take for kidney transplants), and bloody piss for every package of benadryl. That seems perfect.

Or to put this in another perspective, put pictures of herpes (because that spreads from just contact) on packs of condoms, or even people at the end stages of AIDS (because apparently nobody uses a condom for oral) to prevent people from having sex or wearing hazmat suits before fucking each other for any other reason than reproduction. If it stops people on the fence from doing it, it's worth it

You really are the wost poster on this website. I'm not even going to respond to your completely fucking asinine comments. Honestly, just shut the fuck up, it's people like you who make people who've been here for years want to leave and never come back.

[uninspired_]

Every smoker knows it's bad for us. We choose to do it anyway. Why should the government be allowed to try and make it as hard as possible?


Decide what other people should and shouldn't be able to do based on what you just said.. an opinion. Your opinion. Not your body, not your place to decide if other people want to destroy their lungs or not. I think if you're trying to prevent underage teens from picking up smoking, that's one thing and that's respectable. But if you're trying to prevent adult smokers from doing something they enjoy, full well knowing it's not good for them, then that's fucking despicable. We don't live in a police state, in Australia or the US, sorry. It's like pretty much any junk food that people know is bad for them. They know it's not doing them any good, but they eat it anyway. Should we ban all junk food because it's bad for you? No. That's a decision for the consumer to make, not their government. Too much of anything isn't going to be good for you.

Cigarettes can not be compared to junk food. They're not bad for you in the same way. For starters you need to eat. Eating a bag of chips or a cheeseburger isn't doing serious health damage. I'm sure the fact that cigarettes are addictive factors in there too but I'm not going to presume to know anything about it. And I agree, too much of anything isn't going to be good for you. But a little junk food is not so bad, and the same does not go for cigarettes. The comparison does not work.

Governments know that smokers are going to continue smoking. And that a grotesque image or a couple dollars aren't going to stop you smoking. Good. Think of it as a little challenge for you. A test of strength or commitment or something. I haven't read the articles but from what I see around me, these campaigns are aimed at people who haven't started yet, or maybe at people who want to quit smoking. This has already been said. It might make it harder for you, but if it makes it easier for these other people to stay away from it then it's not all bad. You shouldn't take it so personally.

[samsara]

ehh I think there can only be so much done before it gets ridiculous.

[bung]

Cigarettes can not be compared to junk food. They're not bad for you in the same way. For starters you need to eat. Eating a bag of chips or a cheeseburger isn't doing serious health damage. I'm sure the fact that cigarettes are addictive factors in there too but I'm not going to presume to know anything about it. And I agree, too much of anything isn't going to be good for you. But a little junk food is not so bad, and the same does not go for cigarettes. The comparison does not work.

How often do you see a really old fat person? Never. How often do you see a really old smoker? Occasionally.

Eating fast food everyday vs. smoking cigarettes everyday. Both are terribly unhealthy, but cancer/emphysema/heart disease/early death aren't automatics from smoking. Most studies estimate that, for those who smoke regularly, people have a 30 - 50% chance of dying prematurely from something directly caused by their smoking.

"Chances are that about one in three smokers who do not stop will eventually die because of their smoking, on average, 10 to 15 years earlier than they would have died from other causes." (http://www.usabledt.com/)

Not a study, but straight from an anti-smoking website. Not to mention:

"About eight hours after quitting the balance of carbon monoxide and oxygen has returned to normal. The risk of heart attack begins to decrease at twenty-four hours. Nerve endings regarding the sense of taste and smell begin growing back after just forty-eight hours. In two to three weeks, circulation improves, the lungs work better, making all forms of exercise easier. As early as one month but as long as nine, the cilia, tiny hair-like structures that clean the lungs and prevent infection, work normally again. After a year the risks of heart failure and disease have decreased by half. After ten years the risks of a smoker are nearly eliminated."

So basically, I could smoke till I'm 28, but by the time I'm 38 it would almost be like I never smoked at all, or close to it.

[zion the lion]

You really are the wost poster on this website. I'm not even going to respond to your completely fucking asinine comments. Honestly, just shut the fuck up, it's people like you who make people who've been here for years want to leave and never come back.

I dont like you either whoop dee doo.

How is my comment asinine? Tylenol leads to liver damage, benadryl can damage your kidneys, drinking could lead to some drunk driver horribly disfiguring your child, sex can easily lead to stds even when its protected sex. If we put horrifying and disgusting pictures on condoms, alcohol, and "medicine" maybe we can prevent stds and drunk driving and organ failure.

It's not that different than doing what they're doing with cigarettes. When demonizing didnt work, you just have to try the gross out factor, and when that doesnt work, what's next...banning it altogether, I get that the prohibition was fun but really, nothing will stop people from smoking. And people who are "on the fence" were probably not going to smoke in the first place.

[DogSizedBird]

Cigarettes can not be compared to junk food. They're not bad for you in the same way. For starters you need to eat. Eating a bag of chips or a cheeseburger isn't doing serious health damage. I'm sure the fact that cigarettes are addictive factors in there too but I'm not going to presume to know anything about it. And I agree, too much of anything isn't going to be good for you. But a little junk food is not so bad, and the same does not go for cigarettes. The comparison does not work.

Governments know that smokers are going to continue smoking. And that a grotesque image or a couple dollars aren't going to stop you smoking. Good. Think of it as a little challenge for you. A test of strength or commitment or something. I haven't read the articles but from what I see around me, these campaigns are aimed at people who haven't started yet, or maybe at people who want to quit smoking. This has already been said. It might make it harder for you, but if it makes it easier for these other people to stay away from it then it's not all bad. You shouldn't take it so personally.

It's completely comparable. Eating one cheeseburger a week may not hurt you (as much), but eating one every day will. Same with cigarettes. Smoking once in awhile wont hurt you (as much), but smoking every day will. Haha and it's laughable that you think "But a little junk food is not so bad, and the same does not go for cigarettes.". Smoking one cigarette a month, let's say, is not going to give you lung cancer. Besides you're arguing fucking semantics, get back to the point. The fact of the matter is people need to be responsible for themselves. It is not the government of any country's role to tell you what you can and cannot consume be it salty food or cigarettes. Let people make their own decisions. Trying to tell someone not to smoke is the same as trying to tell you that you have to smoke, it really is, because it's not about health, it's about personal choice and someone telling you what you can or can not do. The only logical thing to do would be to slightly raise health care for smokers. That's fair. Like I said, I have no problem with advertising to prevent people from smoking, or different sources of help to help people who want to quit (even though in the end, they have the power and they can do so without any help, these organizations are mostly just in it for profit), but when it comes down to trying to persuade or prevent adult smokers who WANT to continue smoking, that's where I disagree and that's where the problem is. I don't think I'm taking this personally at all, but I don't see it as a health issue, I see it as my and others right to continue smoking if we so please. I don't want my government to tell me what I can't do, that's all.

[The Indigo]

Cigarettes can not be compared to junk food. They're not bad for you in the same way. For starters you need to eat. Eating a bag of chips or a cheeseburger isn't doing serious health damage. I'm sure the fact that cigarettes are addictive factors in there too but I'm not going to presume to know anything about it. And I agree, too much of anything isn't going to be good for you. But a little junk food is not so bad, and the same does not go for cigarettes. The comparison does not work.

Governments know that smokers are going to continue smoking. And that a grotesque image or a couple dollars aren't going to stop you smoking. Good. Think of it as a little challenge for you. A test of strength or commitment or something. I haven't read the articles but from what I see around me, these campaigns are aimed at people who haven't started yet, or maybe at people who want to quit smoking. This has already been said. It might make it harder for you, but if it makes it easier for these other people to stay away from it then it's not all bad. You shouldn't take it so personally.
K, I'll levy ridiculous taxes on something unhealthy that you enjoy. You know, like oxygen in large cities.

Also, the body can healthily ingest one cigarette a day, so the comparison to junk food is perfectly logical. There are additives in fast food meant to make it addictive and let's not forget about the incredible amount of caffeine in sugary sodas.

Besides, smoking makes you look cool.

[uninspired_]

How often do you see a really old fat person? Never. How often do you see a really old smoker? Occasionally.

Eating fast food everyday vs. smoking cigarettes everyday. Both are terribly unhealthy, but cancer/emphysema/heart disease/early death aren't automatics from smoking. Most studies estimate that, for those who smoke regularly, people have a 30 - 50% chance of dying prematurely from something directly caused by their smoking.

"Chances are that about one in three smokers who do not stop will eventually die because of their smoking, on average, 10 to 15 years earlier than they would have died from other causes." (http://www.usabledt.com/)

Not a study, but straight from an anti-smoking website. Not to mention:

"About eight hours after quitting the balance of carbon monoxide and oxygen has returned to normal. The risk of heart attack begins to decrease at twenty-four hours. Nerve endings regarding the sense of taste and smell begin growing back after just forty-eight hours. In two to three weeks, circulation improves, the lungs work better, making all forms of exercise easier. As early as one month but as long as nine, the cilia, tiny hair-like structures that clean the lungs and prevent infection, work normally again. After a year the risks of heart failure and disease have decreased by half. After ten years the risks of a smoker are nearly eliminated."

So basically, I could smoke till I'm 28, but by the time I'm 38 it would almost be like I never smoked at all, or close to it.


Is 30-50% not a high enough percentage of people dying early deaths from smoking to be considered a problem? Do you think I'm saying that people shouldn't quit? Or that eating junk food every day is not bad for you? I'm not entirely sure what your point is here.
But I'm concerned about the elimination of very old fat people in your area.


It's completely comparable. Eating one cheeseburger a week may not hurt you (as much), but eating one every day will. Same with cigarettes. Smoking once in awhile wont hurt you (as much), but smoking every day will. Haha and it's laughable that you think "But a little junk food is not so bad, and the same does not go for cigarettes.". Smoking one cigarette a month, let's say, is not going to give you lung cancer. Besides you're arguing fucking semantics, get back to the point. The fact of the matter is people need to be responsible for themselves. It is not the government of any country's role to tell you what you can and cannot consume be it salty food or cigarettes. Let people make their own decisions. Trying to tell someone not to smoke is the same as trying to tell you that you have to smoke, it really is, because it's not about health, it's about personal choice and someone telling you what you can or can not do. The only logical thing to do would be to slightly raise health care for smokers. That's fair. Like I said, I have no problem with advertising to prevent people from smoking, or different sources of help to help people who want to quit (even though in the end, they have the power and they can do so without any help, these organizations are mostly just in it for profit), but when it comes down to trying to persuade or prevent adult smokers who WANT to continue smoking, that's where I disagree and that's where the problem is. I don't think I'm taking this personally at all, but I don't see it as a health issue, I see it as my and others right to continue smoking if we so please. I don't want my government to tell me what I can't do, that's all.

No one's telling you what you can or can't do. They're telling you what you should or shouldn't. It's advice. And you KNOW that smoking is bad for you so what's the difference if they print it on the packaging or not? The smokes are still available. You can still smoke. Get pissed if they ban it altogether.

And I just read the article. The plain packaging doesn't mean bare packets, it just means that there will be no logo. I guess it makes more room for the hideous pictures.

http://www.drmartinrussell.com/images/Cigarettes_health_warning_australia .jpg

[samsara]

I dont like you either whoop dee doo.

How is my comment asinine? Tylenol leads to liver damage, benadryl can damage your kidneys, drinking could lead to some drunk driver horribly disfiguring your child, sex can easily lead to stds even when its protected sex. If we put horrifying and disgusting pictures on condoms, alcohol, and "medicine" maybe we can prevent stds and drunk driving and organ failure.

It's not that different than doing what they're doing with cigarettes. When demonizing didnt work, you just have to try the gross out factor, and when that doesnt work, what's next...banning it altogether, I get that the prohibition was fun but really, nothing will stop people from smoking. And people who are "on the fence" were probably not going to smoke in the first place.

Because things like medications are not intended to harm you in the first place unless you abuse them unlike drugs (cigarettes) and alcohol.

[zion the lion]

Because things like medications are not intended to harm you in the first place unless you abuse them unlike drugs (cigarettes) and alcohol.

And yet medicine does harm you after prolonged use, even if you dont mean to abuse it. And when its your liver...you're fucked. And I'm pretty sure alcohol wasnt meant to be abused either.

[samsara]

And yet medicine does harm you after prolonged use, even if you dont mean to abuse it. And when its your liver...you're fucked. And I'm pretty sure alcohol wasnt meant to be abused either.

Yet in most cases it won't unless you have certain conditions. Wine no, other types of alcohol yes.

[zion the lion]

Yet in most cases it won't unless you have certain conditions. Wine no, other types of alcohol yes.

Duh, and then you might end up getting organ damage.

This cigarette thing is a stupid fucking idea. thats the point.

[samsara]

Duh, and then you might end up getting organ damage.

This cigarette thing is a stupid fucking idea. thats the point.

Well I dont think thats its fair that people can kill others unwillingly along with themselves. So I dont think its that stupid.

[uninspired_]

K, I'll levy ridiculous taxes on something unhealthy that you enjoy. You know, like oxygen in large cities.

Also, the body can healthily ingest one cigarette a day, so the comparison to junk food is perfectly logical. There are additives in fast food meant to make it addictive and let's not forget about the incredible amount of caffeine in sugary sodas.

Besides, smoking makes you look cool.

Ha. Bad things are bad for you and I couldn't care less if the government wants to raise taxes on any of it. I'm so done talking about this topic. Shit gets boring.
For real though, a lot of the time that last point is true.

[bung]

Is 30-50% not a high enough percentage of people dying early deaths from smoking to be considered a problem?

I would consider it more of a problem if people didn't choose to begin smoking, choose to continue smoking, and choose not to quit smoking. I also have no problem with people dying early if it's their choice, if it's due to a risk they're willing to take, or something similar along those lines.

Do you think I'm saying that people shouldn't quit? Or that eating junk food every day is not bad for you? I'm not entirely sure what your point is here.
But I'm concerned about the elimination of very old fat people in your area.


My first point is that you said comparing junk food to smoking is not same, when it's actually a perfectly valid comparison. Eating fast-food everyday is probably worse for you than smoking everyday--obviously depending on the amount of each and various other genetic factors and whatnot. Which is why you sometimes see old people smoking, but you very, very rarely see old obese people.

My second point is that I can smoke for ten or twenty years, quit, and regain the health of a non-smoker. You seemed to be implying that smoking is basically a death sentence, when that's not entirely the case.

[bung]

Well I dont think thats its fair that people can kill others unwillingly along with themselves. So I dont think its that stupid.

Can you give me an example (other than parents smoking in their house/car with children, which I am against and consider child abuse) of a situation in which an adult is unwillingly exposed to prolonged levels of second-hand smoke?

[zion the lion]

Well I dont think thats its fair that people can kill others unwillingly along with themselves. So I dont think its that stupid.

So you're for banning alcohol? And what about bad drivers? HPV is an std that can lead to cervical cancer (which is deadly), are you going to ban premarital sex?

[samsara]

Can you give me an example (other than parents smoking in their house/car with children, which I am against and consider child abuse) of a situation in which an adult is unwillingly exposed to prolonged levels of second-hand smoke?

Standing near a doorway waiting to get into some place. People smoking near or around doorways, theres always a risk of having the smoke waft indoors.

[samsara]

So you're for banning alcohol? And what about bad drivers? HPV is an std that can lead to cervical cancer (which is deadly), are you going to ban premarital sex?

Uh no I was referring to cigarettes. Most things are preventable like HPV if people are smart enough to use condoms.

[bung]

Standing near a doorway waiting to get into some place. People smoking near or around doorways, theres always a risk of having the smoke waft indoors.

Waiting to get into some place? I mean, sure, I've walked into places with people smoking outside... but it takes a total of five seconds.

[samsara]

Waiting to get into some place? I mean, sure, I've walked into places with people smoking outside... but it takes a total of five seconds.

Well I meant having to stand in a line.

Also being around anyone that has smoked there is a chance of getting 3rd hand smoke from residue on clothing and hair that can be harmful to ones health.

[bung]

Well I meant having to stand in a line.

Also being around anyone that has smoked there is a chance of getting 3rd hand smoke from residue on clothing and hair that can be harmful to ones health.

And these places, you're forced to go to them? At a show, maybe?

I'm aware of third-hand smoke, but I'm unaware of any studies that have demonstrated it to be of anywhere near significant enough levels to affect health.

[samsara]

And these places, you're forced to go to them? At a show, maybe?

I'm aware of third-hand smoke, but I'm unaware of any studies that have demonstrated it to be of anywhere near significant enough levels to affect health.

Ha its not like you are but its hard to avoid.

More research has shown that it might be more harmful to babies if anyone.

[zion the lion]

Uh no I was referring to cigarettes. Most things are preventable like HPV if people are smart enough to use condoms.

I'd rather not have someone I love be murdered or be horribly disfigured by a drunk driver. And what happens when you're not using condoms because you're trying to have a baby and you're in a stable relationship and the dude (who had no idea he could even pass hpv on) gives you hpv...then what?

Or herpes, that's just on contact.

Besides, you arent going to be too damaged by a whiff of cigarette smoke.

[samsara]

I'd rather not have someone I love be murdered or be horribly disfigured by a drunk driver. And what happens when you're not using condoms because you're trying to have a baby and you're in a stable relationship and the dude (who had no idea he could even pass hpv on) gives you hpv...then what?

Or herpes, that's just on contact.

Besides, you arent going to be too damaged by a whiff of cigarette smoke.

I think thats a completely different subject.

Uh yeah you can.

[bung]

Ha its not like you are but its hard to avoid.

I avoided going to a show today. It was pretty easy, actually. It seems to me like you're making a conscious choice to do so, and if you were truly worried about your health you simply would not attend these shows.

More research has shown that it might be more harmful to babies if anyone.

A possibility, but I avoid the little creatures, myself.

Uh yeah you can.

No, you really won't. Second-hand smoke is demonstrated to be harmful at high-levels of exposure, for extended periods of time. You'll be fine. You should be far more concerned about car exhaust.

[samsara]

I avoided going to a show today. It was pretty easy, actually. It seems to me like you're making a conscious choice to do so, and if you were truly worried about your health you simply would not attend these shows.



A possibility, but I avoid the little creatures, myself.

Um I dont want to have to avoid every show fearing being enveloped in a cloud of smoke.

Good for you.

[samsara]

No, you really won't. Second-hand smoke is demonstrated to be harmful at high-levels of exposure, for extended periods of time. You'll be fine. You should be far more concerned about car exhaust.

Eh who knows.

Car exhaust is awful, that smell...

[bung]

I don't have to go to shows, but I like to.

Interesting.

[zion the lion]

Uh yeah you can.

Did you ever see that commercial where the girl is holding the picture of her dad and she says that he died of lung cancer but he wasnt a smoker, his coworker who shared the same office with him was the pack a day smoker and then they went on and on about how much second hand smoke he must have inhaled after 20 or 30 years in the same damn office with the guy? Thats when you get damaged, not when you pass someone for two seconds, or the three minutes of someone smoking their cigarette three people ahead of you in an outdoor line for something.

I'm pretty sure me putting a plastic container in the microwave will hurt me more, or even me drinking water out of a plastic water bottle that I've used 4 times in a row that's been sitting in the sun.

[DogSizedBird]

Is 30-50% not a high enough percentage of people dying early deaths from smoking to be considered a problem? Do you think I'm saying that people shouldn't quit? Or that eating junk food every day is not bad for you? I'm not entirely sure what your point is here.
But I'm concerned about the elimination of very old fat people in your area.




No one's telling you what you can or can't do. They're telling you what you should or shouldn't. It's advice. And you KNOW that smoking is bad for you so what's the difference if they print it on the packaging or not? The smokes are still available. You can still smoke. Get pissed if they ban it altogether.

And I just read the article. The plain packaging doesn't mean bare packets, it just means that there will be no logo. I guess it makes more room for the hideous pictures.

http://www.drmartinrussell.com/images/Cigarettes_health_warning_australia .jpg


Yeah, because I really want to look at that every time I go to have a smoke. That shit isn't actually going to persuade anyone to stop smoking, it's just going to create a very profitable market for metal cigarette cases.

[samsara]

Interesting.

I dont use perfect grammar. Fraud!

[samsara]

Did you ever see that commercial where the girl is holding the picture of her dad and she says that he died of lung cancer but he wasnt a smoker, his coworker who shared the same office with him was the pack a day smoker and then they went on and on about how much second hand smoke he must have inhaled after 20 or 30 years in the same damn office with the guy? Thats when you get damaged, not when you pass someone for two seconds, or the three minutes of someone smoking their cigarette three people ahead of you in an outdoor line for something.

I'm pretty sure me putting a plastic container in the microwave will hurt me more, or even me drinking water out of a plastic water bottle that I've used 4 times in a row that's been sitting in the sun.

Eh who know, some people may be more susceptible to things than others. We can be sure since there are so many factors.

[DogSizedBird]

Standing near a doorway waiting to get into some place. People smoking near or around doorways, theres always a risk of having the smoke waft indoors.
Boo fucking hoo if you have to breathe a small amount of smoke in "entering through doorways". hold your breath. Maybe you should ban driving and trucks too while you're at it. Don't let a few people form your opinion on all smokers.

[bung]

I dont use perfect grammar. Fraud!

I quoted your sentiment, not your words.

It makes your entire argument null and void. You're there willingly. If it was really as bad as you make it out to be, you simply wouldn't go to shows.

[samsara]

Boo fucking hoo if you have to breathe a small amount of smoke in "entering through doorways". hold your breath. Maybe you should ban driving and trucks too while you're at it. Don't let a few people form your opinion on all smokers.

Oh yeah because being around parents that smoke all the damn time shouldnt help form my opinion.

Kind of unfair.
I quoted your sentiment, not your words.

It makes your entire argument null and void. You're there willingly. If it was really as bad as you make it out to be, you simply wouldn't go to shows.

How does it make it null and void. Waiting in any line will end up having a few smokers in it and if its something important than it cant be avoided.

[uninspired_]

I would consider it more of a problem if people didn't choose to begin smoking, choose to continue smoking, and choose not to quit smoking. I also have no problem with people dying early if it's their choice, if it's due to a risk they're willing to take, or something similar along those lines.



My first point is that you said comparing junk food to smoking is not same, when it's actually a perfectly valid comparison. Eating fast-food everyday is probably worse for you than smoking everyday--obviously depending on the amount of each and various other genetic factors and whatnot. Which is why you sometimes see old people smoking, but you very, very rarely see old obese people.

My second point is that I can smoke for ten or twenty years, quit, and regain the health of a non-smoker. You seemed to be implying that smoking is basically a death sentence, when that's not entirely the case.

I guess I'll procrastinate some more and answer. I wasn't talking about eating junk food every day. I don't and I don't really know of anyone who does. If people mean excessive junk food consumption they should say so. Because yeah, if you compare people who eat a small amount of junk with people whole only smoke a little, or people who eat junk a lot with people who smoke a lot, the effects might be similar. I'm not about to go and do any research on this, but it seems to me that most people who eat junk food only eat it once in a while. Whereas most people who smoke, probably do so a couple times a day. And in this sense junk food doesn't seem as serious a health issue.

For the second point the information you provided is sort of conflicting. Are you saying that general health may be restored within 10 years, but in the long term, you've still got a 30-50% chance of an early death from smoking related diseases?

[bung]

How does it make it null and void. Waiting in any line will end up having a few smokers in it and if its something important than it cant be avoided.

What are these important things, where you have to wait in line, outside, exposed to prolonged levels of second-hand smoke? I asked you to give me an example where an adult unwillingly is forced to inhale second-hand smoke, and you haven't provided one.

[zion the lion]

Yeah, because I really want to look at that every time I go to have a smoke. That shit isn't actually going to persuade anyone to stop smoking, it's just going to create a very profitable market for metal cigarette cases.

I saw some of the cutest cigarette holders in Greece the first time I was there(it was at a store that was almost like the Greek equivalent to Claires which made it so funny to see the cigarette accessories) that were actually pretty convenient, where you put the cigarettes and the lighter in there. It seems to me like people would go for something like that after this shit.

[bung]

For the second point the information you provided is sort of conflicting. Are you saying that general health may be restored within 10 years, but in the long term, you've still got a 30-50% chance of an early death from smoking related diseases?

People that continue to smoke their entire lives have a 30-50% chance of dying prematurely from conditions/diseases related directly to their smoking habit. The other 50% may die from their habit eventually, but not necessarily prematurely when compared to non-smokers.

After ten years of not smoking, a previous smoker will, indeed, be comparable to a person who has never smoked in regards to their general health, (in that their risk for cancer/stroke/heart disease, etc is the same).

Edit: also, for the record, I'm not about to go digging up any studies either, but I have to imagine people that eat fast-food everyday do exist.

[uninspired_]

People that continue to smoke their entire lives have a 30-50% chance of dying prematurely from conditions/diseases related directly to their smoking habit. The other 50% may die from their habit eventually, but not necessarily prematurely when compared to non-smokers.

After ten years of not smoking, a previous smoker will, indeed, be comparable to a person who has never smoked in regards to their general health, (in that their risk for cancer/stroke/heart disease, etc is the same).

Edit: also, for the record, I'm not about to go digging up any studies either, but I have to imagine people that eat fast-food everyday do exist.

Eh, I just have a hard time believing that if someone smokes heavily for, say the majority of their life, and then quits, they will, after ten years, have similar chances of getting something like lung cancer to someone who has never smoked.

So here. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/quitnow/publishing.nsf/Content/warnings-b-lung
Obviously how often and how long a person smokes for would factor in, but generally people who smoke are twenty times more likely than non-smokers to get lung cancer. After ten years of not smoking your chances drop up to 50%. So you're still at least 10 times more likely to get lung cancer than a non smoker.

I know that smoking isn't a death sentence, and that a lot of people don't care about risks like these because everything gives you cancer or kills you in some other way, but I don't think we should down play the fact that there are certain health implications that can't be erased after not smoking for a couple years or more.

[The Indigo]

Maybe I should post a picture of a cigarette package. Since they, apparently, make people want to smoke, maybe uninspired will take up the habit and shut the fuck up.

[MyNameIsRoss]

ban the nicotine in them. isn't that what makes people go back to cigarettes? B/c it's addicting. So ban nicotine.

nicotine is naturally in tobacco. it's released when tobacco is burned.

[deFobbed14yrs]

nicotine is naturally in tobacco. it's released when tobacco is burned.

ohhh ok.

[ToMyBetterAngel]

http://southparkstudios.mtvnimages.com/images/shows/southpark/vertical_video/import/season_07/sp_0713_05_v6.jpg


Let smokers smoke.

[Crowe41]

Shit, cigarettes have gone up to $16.00 per pack in Australia.