Cigarettes...

DeeCee,

I am serious and I think the car vs. Cigs argument is poor. I think if there were a place in the city where people intentionally tried to ram my vehicle when I went through, then yes, I would quit driving through there. People dont generally drive around trying to harm someone else do they>
 
People dont generally drive around trying to harm someone else do they
Click to expand...
Nope but they still kill and maim tens of thousands of people a year.:(

Hey! Are you suggesting that all smokers are out to kill you?
There's a name for that kind of ideation;)
Dee Cee

Edit: Shitty spelling :m:
 
Price for freedom = risk. Live with it or go be a commie somewhere's else dangit. :)
 
Quigly, you say its a mans right to breath fresh air, while its a mans right to also smoke a cigarette... so why doesnt the person who wants to breath fresh air take advantage of their freedom and move? If they stay there, next to the smoker, and inhale the smoke, it's their own fault. Just move.
 
Quigly, you say its a mans right to breath fresh air, while its a mans right to also smoke a cigarette... so why doesnt the person who wants to breath fresh air take advantage of their freedom and move? If they stay there, next to the smoker, and inhale the smoke, it's their own fault. Just move.
Click to expand...

That is a good solution, but it wouldn't neccessarily work out to well in a working environment. Somebody that has been at a job, say 5 years, and he needs that job. Lets say 4 years being there, it becomes a smokey atmosphere. Well yes, he could look for a new job, but isn't it a health issue just like working with Lead, Asbestos and Mold? Lets say this guy can't find another job and he has a family to support. I can't see the arguments for both sides of the coin. I don't know a good balanced solution to be honest with you. I think the freedom of one is a hinderance to another, and vica versa.
 
I don't know a good balanced solution to be honest with you. I think the freedom of one is a hinderance to another, and vica versa.
Click to expand...
Gee thanks Quigley by hitting on the right answer you just killed this thread.:(

Any aspiring anti-smoking fundamentalists out there want to try and resurrect it?
I believe there's still fun to be had here.;)
Dee Cee :m:
 
Originally posted by Quigly
I don't know a good balanced solution to be honest with you. I think the freedom of one is a hinderance to another, and vica versa.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... We MUST find a cure for vaginitus!

The balanced solution is personal responsibility. No hindrances, only acceptance of responsibility. In other words, you are free to drink and drive until you hurt someone. Then you pay and pay hard. Society should be compassionate about enforcing penalities for unnacceptable behavior, but stern as to deter it malconformities from reoccurence. This must be the underlying philosophy of law or fascism is a long-term inevitability.
 
Originally posted by wesmorris
Hmmm... We MUST find a cure for vaginitus!

The balanced solution is personal responsibility. No hindrances, only acceptance of responsibility.
Click to expand...

Wes, how is this a balanced solution? "Let them go until they hurt someone" Why not stop them before they do such? Shouldnt personal responsibility extend to the drinking itself? Let them drink till they drink to much, then not let them do it again? Or should we hold the parents responsible for not instilling the correct sense of personal responsibility in the child during rearing? Or their parents?

Personally, I'm all for being responsible to myself, but then again I don't smoke, don't drink, don't drive dangerously (see my thread about my car, fucking cunt assholes cutting me off grrrr), but none of that means everyone else is such. 90% of kids drive dangerously... to impress people. They start smoking and drinking to do the same, and eventually it all becomes habit.


Where do we start?
 
My point was that it is difficult to learn responsibility if you don't really know why you should bother, know what I mean?

Meh, I'll try later when my thoughts are more clear on the issue.
 
That warning is big enough. When someone smokes he knows he's killing himself, albeit slowly. A bigger warning isn't going to make him more conscious of the dangers of smoking. I know that with every drag, i'm damaging my lungs - but i dont blame the company. I think the issue heer is responsibility. People should be mature enough to accept responsibility for their actions and not look to find a scapegoat.
 
you should see how analy retentive the canadian gov't is about smokes.
the Du Maurier jazz festival in toronto is in danger because advertising cigarettes is illegal (Du Maurier is a canadian cigs brand)
the grand prix race in toronto is in trouble because of the same reason
every pack you buy, half of its cover is covered with disgusting pictures of rotten brains and lungs (no joke!) and when you open the pack, before you get to the smokes there's a card inside with information to help you quit.

there's also statistics on the cover showing that the highest cause for death is cigarettes.. and it compares the numbers with traffic accident deaths, suicides, murders, etc.

there are also messages such as "cigarettes cause lung cancer" and "smoking causes impotence" ...or "your kids will smoke if they see you smoke"..or something like that

it's illegal to smoke in restaurants and coffeeshops in Toronto unless they have a separate closed room with a ventilation system....
the only place where u can smoke is bars. but by 2004 it'll be banned to smoke in bars as well.

also, the price of smokes has trippled (!) in the past 5 years because of taxes imposed by the gov't.

nice eh?
 
it's illegal to smoke in restaurants and coffeeshops in Toronto unless they have a separate closed room with a ventilation system....
Click to expand...

So where can someone smoke outside his home then?
 
outside.
although, a few years ago i worked as mall security and my job was to tell people not to smoke infront of the back entrance.... even though it was outside.
if ppl didn't listen i could kick them off property or even arrest them..... what a stupid job
 
Heres another package I came across, not the lable, but check out how "wool" it looks. (These are my mothers)
 
Funny, mine say, "Smoking by pregnant women may result in fetal injury, premature birth, and low birth weight." Subsequently, I'm not worried. ;)

But to address a couple of points, smokers know that smoking is unhealthy, the PR is everywhere and you can hardly go a day smoking in public without someone or other mentioning it to you. Making the labels bigger or scarier isn't going to have much of an effect.

Originally posted by getts
Anyone that know anything about science should be able to figure out that there is no scientific proof that cigarettes cause cancer!!
Click to expand...
Actually, the fact that cigarettes can cause cancer and emphysema is well established. What is spurious are the claims regarding the danger of second hand smoke, which are far from being proven.

Originally posted by Wesmorris
Quitting.
Click to expand...
My standard response is, "Quitting is easy, I've done it dozens of times."

But in the final analysis I find the governments interest in my personal health rather scary. Smoking is just one of the less popular unhealthy activities. One can easily imagine, once smoking has been eliminated, the government stepping in to enforce exercise and proper diet, prohibitions against certain sexual activity, dangerous sports. In certain arenas they already are.

~Raithere
 
smokers know that smoking is unhealthy

i think it's mostly directed at stoned 14 year olds who should know better than to start
 
Originally posted by otheadp
i think it's mostly directed at stoned 14 year olds who should know better than to start
Click to expand...
I'm pretty damn sure that they already know, they just don't personalize the long-term consequences. Let's face it, how many 14-20 year olds die of cancer or emphysema; almost none. The immediate risk to a teenage is essentially nil. Teens don't generally think about what the effects of their actions might be 10 or 20 years in the future. Hell, adults even have difficulty doing so; just look at the prisons.

When I started it was with the clear understanding of the possible consequences. But I told myself that I wasn't really starting to smoke, I was just having one every now and again and enjoying myself with my friends. Once it became a habit I told myself that it didn't really matter, that I would quit in a few years and (as a statistical fact) about 7 years after I quit my odds of developing these diseases would be the same as if I never smoked. What I did not realize is how damnably hard it is to quit and stay quit.

~Raithere
 
In my homecountry, the warning is weak:
"Smoking may cause lung cancer and pregnancy problems"
And there are so many people smoking in public areas........
 
Here is an example of the anti-smoking labels in Britain. You cant get more simple than this one, but it really doesnt make me want to quit smoking but instead buy a quality brass cigarette case.

<center><img src="http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=481060" border=0 height=300 width=177/img></center>
 
Last edited:
the prices for smokes went up again in Ontario a few days ago.

holy f&ck.....

what used to cost $3-3.50 4 yrs ago now costs $8.88
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top