Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Look i am all for it, I have a great reason for the way i think, My father was a grade a ass, i complained about the smoke in the house and the smell and that it hurt my throat and he slapped me put it between my lips and told me to inhale and then i could breath, strange story huh, but guess what it is true. He did that too me when i was seven and i smoked for 28 yrs and just quite last november and i still have problems breathing. There are too many uneducated and ignorant people in this country that need pitures like that to understand that they kill. I am dying because of those damm things. I have NHL and i regreat ever smoking, but my parents smoked in my face , while she was pregant with me and five of my half siblings are dead from lung cancer , my father died of it, grandad, grandma and three uncles, three aunts and one stupid friend of my dads.I can say that maybe just maybe it will change some minds out there. They are not lying when they say it kills. My hole damm family was smokers and now there is only three of us left. I regret everyday i wake up that i let my dad do that too me. I would have gotten the cancer anyway just from breathing air in that house. Let them put the new lables on and lets see how many people put them down for good. let them try to make up for there lies and deceit after all those year. . My grandfather could not read or write , he was just another farmer from the depression that didn't know anything and if a piture could of told him how bad it was maybe he would not of suffered the horrible , painful death he did, his wife my grandmother i never got to meet because she died at 39 yrs old in 1950 with cancer. So tell me what am i too say. Let us see if it will work and maybe it will help with bringing down the cost of insurance because less people will smoke.
With all that many people in one family with the same disease I suppose you won't even consider that it isn't the cigarettes that killed them?
If that was so there would hardly be anybody alive over the age of 50 since the majority of people in that age group grew up in a society where most people smoked and smoked everywhere.
Let me restate this again. During the 1970s, I remember both smoking advertisements for smoking, and I also remember advertisements against smoking. In school, it was taught to me that drinking, drugs, and cigarettes were dangerous to one’s health. I remember being subjected to films that were aimed towards wearing safety belts, and why were there airbags available, but the automobile industry was against including them as standard equipment. Then there were relatives that frequently told me that cigarettes were bad, and it showed up in movies as well.
There were already plenty of campaigns in place back then to show that smoking was bad for one’s health, yet people still smoked. Since the late 70s, the anti smoking movement has increased exponentially. Most non-smokers have completely bought into second hand smoke. It’s a ridiculous idea. I lived with a smoking girlfriend, and I also worked in a nightclub. Inside the club, I was subjected to many times the cigarette smoke than anybody in a normal environment. To imply that second hand smoke is more hazardous than directly smoking is utter rubbish and complete nonsense. During that five-year period of second hand smoke, I never had a sore throat, I never developed a cough, and I never woke up in the morning and hacked up phlegm. Those nasty side affects would be waiting for when I myself began smoking.
Kids and smoking: There are more than enough programs in place to discourage smoking. Smoking, just like drugs, drinking, and prostitution have all been tabooed, and it’s my contention that when a society bans/forbids a substance or activity, it instantly makes it insanely popular with rebellious kids overnight. I’m not asking for rape, robbery, or murder to be legalized here. I’m simply pointing out the obvious, we’re not talking about an overt criminal act here. It’s called smoking.
To those with tragic childhood stories of people that forced you to smoke or loved ones lost, you really should consider what you’re trying to do. You’re taking your own emotional ties, and then asking a country of 300 million to feel like you do. We can’t, and we shouldn’t. Just because of a few tragic events we’re supposed to outright ban some activity. Where does that end? Obesity, cell phones, and automobiles all kill people at alarming rates, and that’s what’s next on the list. When a nation permits such draconian laws, all that happens is they get worse. We have a thing called the Constitution that says I am permitted to do what I want with my body. Unfortunately, this country has gone from a free constitutional republic to a democracy. Democracies are nothing more than mob rule. Mobs can be whipped into an emotional frenzy, and that’s how all sorts of bad legislation gets passed.
You’re against smoking. That’s great! I used to be at one time too. I will never promote the consumption of any tobacco or alcoholic substances. On the other hand, I do not wish to see all sorts of intrusive laws passed against them. I’ve had several Europeans tell me how America is a land of prudes and Zealots, and I’m beginning to agree with them.
If you banned the manufacture and sale of all tobacco products overnight, all that would happen is we’d have a nation smoking illegal cigarettes. It would most likely be more prolific than the consumption of marijuana. Smokers do not care what you think. They want to be left alone. This is like promoting Christianity and other puritanical ideas. There are many people that just do not care what you think. Moreover, we have a thing called the Constitution, and you’re infringing upon the rights of smokers.
I feel urged to turn the question back onto the smokers, what is it they don't understand?
Though stopping people from smoking, which costs the community millions every year, is an amiable goal, I believe the primary goal of ramping up the campaigns against smoking is predominantly to stop others,mostly teenagers and kids, from beginning.
As much as the knowledge that smoking is bad for your health is there, just like the knowledge that a high fat, high sugar diet is very dangerous, people disregard it and "plays down" the danger, "it can't be that bad", "I smoke but at least I work out", "others might get it but my grandma smoked and she was fine" etc.
What campaigns as this do is instead of showing you text that warns against smoking (easily admissible as propaganda), it shows pictures of the actual result. It might not stop all that many smokers from beginning, but hopefully (and it's had promising results elsewhere) it might deter non smokers from picking up the habit, and I don't think I've ever met a smoker that doesn't think it's foolish to pick up the habit.
In any case, adding pictures on the cigarette packs does not force anyone to stop smoking, smokers are free to buy cigarettes when they please, the packaging will simply be different, if the smoker is upset by the photo, put a piece of duct tape over it or move the cigarettes into a different holder, surely it's worth the extra 30 seconds that will take, if it keeps future generations from killing themselves and costing society so many millions?
Some argue that smokers are unfairly singled out, and to an extent I can agree with that. Not nearly enough is done to fight obesity and unhealthy eating for instance, but to me that only means that the focus on that should increase, not that the focus on cigarettes should diminish.
As for the last part of your post, When will anti-smokers realize that forcing their beliefs on other people is very wrong?
In any form of democracy, there will always be an element of force, though I don't think that's the ideal word to use. Majority rule always means that there's a minority that have opinions or legislation "forced" upon them, the remedy for that is elections, if a large enough group of people reject or oppose what's being done, there will be change through elections.
As an example, you might feel forced to live with legislation or the will of people like me, when it comes to smoking, but I'm sure there are instances where you agree with something I feel "forced" to live under as well, it's both of ours responsibility as members of a society to engage in what be believe to be the best and the right way of doing things.
1. And that's fine, but why don't they do similar to alcohol, for the teens? The thing is, alcohol is now in premixed cans etc and I would venture to say that binge drinking is on the up and up with the youth.
2. Let's take a poll...No disrespect intended but I'll start with you seeing as you mentioned those pictures on smoke packets - How many people have YOU personally seen that look ANYTHING like those in the pics on smoke packets? I've been smoking for over 40 years and I ain't ever seen anyone look like that, and I've associated with plenty of smokers in that 40 odd years. Again, I venture to say that I doubt if anyone has EVER seen a smoker look like ANY of those pictures. In fact, we don't even know if they ARE photos of smokers?
3. That's fine as well, but unfortunately I don't see the establishment or Corporations holding that same 'belief' - relating to pretty much anything today.
I'm not having a go here, just thought I'd highlight a couple of your points from a different perspective.
1. And that's fine, but why don't they do similar to alcohol, for the teens?
1) This "they" you refer to is "us". We do or don't.
If you think more should be done about those other issues... do so.
2) Scale mostly. That and the 'soft' aspect that teen drinking by itself isn't really a problem for most of them...
short of the binge use and DWI aspect which absolutely get all sort of press and attention.
In this vein... it's harder for most teens to get alcohol than it is for them to weed (or real drugs).
It didn't used to be this hard when I was a teen.
---
To reiterate and expand on my earlier points in this thread:
I object to these warning labels not because it isn't good to warn idiots but because it is weak spined half stepping.
This crap is little more than a feel good measure.
The manufactured, advertised, polluted, adulterated, industrial product known as 'cigarette' should be banned entirely.
The underlying natural state agricultural product of tobacco can (and should) remain legal.
Last edited by MrRational; 08-23-2011 at 06:08 AM..
Just buy cigarette cases. Moderator cut: Language not allowed
You just stick your whole pack of cigarettes in the nice case. No hassles. They come in all different looks and materials. Nice metal ones, too.
Nobody needs to be subjected to what they are doing - it's outrageous.
These cases cost $3 or $4 bucks each and last forever.
Last edited by TheViking85; 08-23-2011 at 11:58 AM..
Reason: Offensive language removed, unnecessary color removed.
1. And that's fine, but why don't they do similar to alcohol, for the teens? The thing is, alcohol is now in premixed cans etc and I would venture to say that binge drinking is on the up and up with the youth.
2. Let's take a poll...No disrespect intended but I'll start with you seeing as you mentioned those pictures on smoke packets - How many people have YOU personally seen that look ANYTHING like those in the pics on smoke packets? I've been smoking for over 40 years and I ain't ever seen anyone look like that, and I've associated with plenty of smokers in that 40 odd years. Again, I venture to say that I doubt if anyone has EVER seen a smoker look like ANY of those pictures. In fact, we don't even know if they ARE photos of smokers?
3. That's fine as well, but unfortunately I don't see the establishment or Corporations holding that same 'belief' - relating to pretty much anything today.
I'm not having a go here, just thought I'd highlight a couple of your points from a different perspective.
Thank you for your reply, debate is after all what we strive to have here, so I welcome it and will answer as best I can. For simplicities sake, I'll try and answer point by point.
1. According to the CDC:
Quote:
Current drinking during the previous month among persons aged 18 to 20 years declined significantly from 59% in 1985 to 40% in 1991, coincident with states’ adopting an age 21 minimum legal drinking age, but increased to 47% by 1999.
...
The 2009 Youth Risk Behavior Survey found that among high school students, during the past 30 days
42% drank some amount of alcohol.
24% binge drank.
This would, at least to me, indicate that the prevalence of drinking amongst teenagers has either stayed about the same or declined over the last few decades. Looking at it in larger, historical lines, we all drink significantly less than we used to. In 1820, on average, every single person in the US (Man, Woman and Child) drank an average of 5 gallons of alcohol a year, Today that number is less than one. (Source: The Omnivores Dilemma by Michael Pollan)
So though alcohol consumption have their ups and downs, on a larger scale, both teenagers as well as adults drink less of it that they historically have, and because of that, and the fact that no significant spike in consumption seems to have happened between 97 and 09, I don't think premixed drinks in cans have increased drinking or binge drinking by any significant amount.
All that said, I don't think stricter alcohol regulations or regulations on marketing would be objectionable, in Norway for instance, advertising alcohol is illegal (as is cigarette advertisement) and that does show very good results.
Why they do not do the same for alcohol as they do tobacco is not up to me to answer, my guess would be that that the people at FDA like a glass of wine as much as the next guy, it could also be that small amounts of alcohol (at least in the form of red wine) has proven to have *some* medical benefits, though the results remain controversial and lastly, and this might very well be the biggest reason, I would think popular opinion has a lot to do with it. Many people favor strict regulation on smoking whereas most people are ok with moderate alcohol consumption.
That being said, your question might be better directed in an e-mail to the FDA, but in any case, I do not think lacking legislation of one thing warrants negligence of another.
2. I've met a few in my somewhat young life, as it were, the most memorable was probably the man who was missing about 3/5th of his jawbone due to cancer caused by smoking. I was very young at the time and it was a disturbing sight. I've also known people personally with severe breathing problems (I'm sorry but the English name for the disease eludes me, it is after all my second language), a former boyfriend of my mothers who began smoking at the age of 13 had a very nasty cough and problems with his breathing as well, I do not know if his problems have gotten worse. In addition there's of course the people who'd come to our school during class to talk about their experiences, people who had or previously had conditions directly related to their smoking. All in all, I don't know how many, but it's double digits, at least.
In addition to this, I myself have trouble when exposed to second hand smoke, which was a big part of why I was unable to go out as much as I might have wanted to before the smoking bans began to come into effect.
3. I'm not entirely sure if I know what you mean here, but if you refer to businesses not doing what's right, I'd say I agree wholeheartedly in most accounts. There are certainly companies who try and do things better, more sustainable and in a way that's linked to a personal philosophy, but in "big business" they are few and far between.
That said, I don't think corporations are the ones who should have a deciding factor in this. The people and as an extension, their government should. I think the consumer should have substantially more rights than they do in the US today, and I think corporations, through lobbyists and connections to lawmakers have far to great of an impact on legislation. This is a problem I don't see as impossible to fix, but it takes a lot of work and a lot of time as well as a lot of information the public generally do not seek.
Last edited by TheViking85; 08-23-2011 at 12:53 PM..
You just stick your whole pack of cigarettes in the nice case. No hassles. They come in all different looks and materials. Nice metal ones, too.
Nobody needs to be subjected to what they are doing - it's outrageous.
These cases cost $3 or $4 bucks each and last forever.
Many years ago when my mother was a smoker she had a pretty, beaded cigarette case. All ladies did.
Someone, somewhere is making a fortune on this new law. It's not being done for any other reason.
Cigarettes, as a manufactured product, should be made completely illegal.
(note where I live)
Tobacco, the underlying natural state agricultural product*, should be left alone.
But the manufactured, advertised, packaged, and adulterated finished industrial product? No.
Cigarette's have NO redeeming value whatsoever to anyone...
and have no justifiable basis to continue to be a burden on the public.
Want a smoke? OK.
Buy loose raw product and roll your own.
Better yet... quit.
---
* This phrasing "natural state agricultural product" should be applied to many other things that can also be fully legal.
I disagree. To me it is interfering with the freedom to produce something people may want. Sure, I do not smoke and I think it is harmful but if others want to smoke, it is their bodies and should have the freedom to smoke if they so desire, no need for Big Brother to control their lives in wha they can have for pleasure or addictions.
The burden on the public is when something is IMPOSED. Cigarretes are not imposed. You can go to the store and they may be waiting for you. It is up to you to buy them or not so it is not a burden. I do not feel any burden when I go to the sture ans see them. It does not affect my pocket, my hunger, etc. Those that want to buy them and you or somebody else is wanting cigarettes not available see YOU as their burden actually. They could rightfully tell you to mind your own business, take care.
If ciggy packs carried the proposed simple warning it would be so much more effective than autopsy photos and all the anti smoking education and literature ever produced.
Simply:Legal compensation for medical conditions due to smoking shall not be allowed to be filed. Last filing date, June 1st 2011.
So many young people are smoking these days despite years of warnings and antismoking campaigns. Time to cut them off.
Mandating gross pictures on ciggy packs should qualify the person or group who conceived of such a useless and expensive brain fart and those who approved it, for the unemployment line.
Who are these people who advocate gross pictures on ciggy packs?
Is there a living brain cell among them?
Are they from planet X?
The height of stupidity, the zenieth of retro dark ages resides in our federal government. You want these idiots in charge of your health care??????
Last edited by TheViking85; 08-24-2011 at 10:25 AM..
Reason: Please refrain from using the color red, it looks like moderator action.
I am an ex-smoker and quit a little over a year ago after 30 years of smoking. I hope that I quit in time. Smoking IS bad for you and I am more than willing to help others quit if they ask for my help. That being said, I am somewhat amused of the irony when I see some walking heart attack warn others of the dangers of smoking while stuffing their faces with McDonalds and donuts.
I agree with ino...all or nothing.
*raising hand* so how did you do it? I actually hate smoking and can't believe I freaking started the mess. Most people are shocked that I do smoke. They say I don't look like the type. :roll eyes: Didn't realize smokers have a certain look. Anyway, I tried the drugs and I got all the nasty side effects. Tried the gum and its like chewing on a cigg and a box of the damn stuff is more than a carton of smokes. So there is cold turkey...and thinking that is the route, just have to build up the courage.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
