Visit the Cellar!

The Cellar Image of the Day is just a section of a larger web community: bright folks talking about everything. The Cellar is the original coffeeshop with no coffee and no shop. Founded in 1990, The Cellar is one of the oldest communities on the net. Join us at the table if you like!

 
What's IotD?

The interesting, amazing, or mind-boggling images of our days.

IotD Stuff

ARCHIVES - over 13 years of IotD!
About IotD
RSS2
XML

Permalink Latest Image

Dec 10th, 2017: Tuturumuri School

Recent Images

Dec 9th, 2017: Stretchers
Dec 8th, 2017: Wounded Warrior
Dec 7th, 2017: Infamy
Dec 6th, 2017: MAREA
Dec 4th, 2017: Sad Reindeer
Dec 2nd, 2017: Biker Chicks
Dec 1st, 2017: Who Won?

The CELLAR Tip Mug
Some folks who have noticed IotD

Neatorama
Worth1000
Mental Floss
Boing Boing
Switched
W3streams
GruntDoc's Blog
No Quarters
Making Light
darrenbarefoot.com
GromBlog
b3ta
Church of the Whale Penis
UniqueDaily.com
Sailor Coruscant
Projectionist

Link to us and we will try to find you after many months!

Common image haunts

Astro Pic of the Day
Earth Sci Pic of the Day
We Make Money Not Art
Spluch
ochevidec.net
Strange New Products
Geisha Asobi Blog
Cute animals blog (in Russian)
20minutos.es
Yahoo Most Emailed

Please avoid copyrighted images (or get permission) when posting!

Advertising

Philadelphia Pawn Shop
The best real estate agent in Montgomery County
The best T.38 Fax provider
Epps Beverages and Beer, Limerick, PA
Sal's Pizza, Elkins Park
Burholme Auto Body, Philadelphia
Coles Tobacco, Pottstown
ERM Auto Service, Glenside
Glenside Collision
Moorehead Catering, Trappe
Salon 153, Bala
Dominicks Auto Body, Phoenixville

   Undertoad  Saturday Jan 12 09:40 PM

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...



elSicomoro  Saturday Jan 12 10:10 PM

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.



Nic Name  Saturday Jan 12 10:25 PM

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.



Undertoad  Saturday Jan 12 10:47 PM

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?



Nic Name  Saturday Jan 12 11:37 PM

Quote:
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?
These warnings may work to dissuade non-smokers from starting, even if nothing works, as you say, to get the addicted to quit.

Unfortunately, the study does not appear to measure the effect of these images on young non-smokers. This approach may well be worth the effort.

Anyway, contrary to your analysis that the campaign isn't working, the CNN report and coverage by the BBC indicates otherwise. By your logic, any survey of smokers will show that nothing works. All those studied are still smoking. Perhaps the study should have included the impact of these images on people who actually quit, and there may be many. And the impact of these pictures on those who haven't started smoking.

And why should non-smokers care? A recent study in the U.K. found that fewer than 10% of NON-SMOKERS studied were free of the effects of second hand smoke. The people most affected by smokers were their non-smoking loved ones. Don't expect that to change smokers' behavior.

What harm do these warnings cause, in any event?

Don't smoke Canadian cigarettes. Not to worry.


Torrere  Sunday Jan 13 12:59 AM

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.



juju2112  Sunday Jan 13 01:30 AM

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>



Nic Name  Sunday Jan 13 01:38 AM

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.



juju2112  Sunday Jan 13 01:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Undertoad
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?
As far as making them stand outside goes -- I have heard that there are (recent) studies that show that secondhand smoke is just as likely to cause cancer as smoking a cigarette through the filter. So, if you're going to poison your own body, that's fine. But don't pollute mine if you don't have to.

As far as the excessive taxing goes, and the states suing them -- like I said in the last post, if they're that worried then they should just make the damned things illegal. If they don't want to make them illegal, then stop bugging the smokers, because it's legal.


datalas  Sunday Jan 13 06:31 AM

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.



jaguar  Sunday Jan 13 06:43 AM

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.



datalas  Sunday Jan 13 07:22 AM

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 )



elSicomoro  Sunday Jan 13 12:54 PM

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.



MaggieL  Sunday Jan 13 01:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by sycamore
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.
What's covered and not covered by medical insurance is pretty capricious. My $13,000 surgery was completely paid for by me out-of-pocket...so I'm quite willing to see smokers buy their own Zyban and Nicoderm, especially considering what I'm paying every month to COBRA my health insurance.

Quitting is possible, even without drugs. I did it. More than once, before it stuck.


elSicomoro  Sunday Jan 13 01:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MaggieL
Quitting is possible, even without drugs. I did it. More than once, before it stuck.
And that's great that you did it that way. But that's YOU. It doesn't necessarily work like that for everyone else.


gmarceau  Sunday Jan 13 02:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by datalas
I believe one of the main reasons why smoking is not illigal is the matter of Tax.
Sorry to break the news to you, but this logic doesn't work in Canada. Remember, in Canada, we all share the same gouvernmental medical insurance. So for every smoker that quits, and every tennager that doesn't start, hundred of thousands dollard are saved by the gouvernment in future medical services.

This justifies alot of the babysitting our gouvernement does on us. For instance : Some of us would like to motorbike without a helmet, but the rest would rather not pay the millions for all the resulting head trauma treatments. Thus helmets are mendatory in Canada.


I would like to point out the effect of those ads are greter than can be mesured in a pool. Remember, when pooled, practicaly nobody ever admit advertisement as an effect on their shoping decisions, but advertisers know better.

The fact is, those ads brought the issue out on the street. For every five discussion about who in the office got the latest ad first, there is one that turns about who will quit next, or about who really hate second hand smoke but is too shy to say so. It got people talking. It got the idea into people's head that there is a social issue at play, and that we should talk about it.


tw  Sunday Jan 13 02:37 PM

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.



datalas  Sunday Jan 13 03:04 PM

> 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.



Nic Name  Sunday Jan 13 03:07 PM

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.



elSicomoro  Sunday Jan 13 03:08 PM

Re: 1/12: Canadian cigarette warnings

Quote:
Originally posted by tw
Smokers have lower intelligence levels because of the chemical addiction process.
tw, would you mind presenting some information on this point? I'd be curious to see it.

Quote:
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.
They may help dissuade people from STARTING to smoke, but what about those that are already addicted?


dave  Sunday Jan 13 03:26 PM

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...



juju2112  Sunday Jan 13 03:36 PM

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.



elSicomoro  Sunday Jan 13 03:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dhamsaic
It's up to those that are already addicted to quit.
I disagree. It's really in everybody's best interests to find a way to help people beat their addictions. I'm not going on statistics here, but here's how I see it:

--Lower health care costs for everyone...b/c those insurance companies are saving money that would be used to treat smokers ailments. Not to mention...

--Better health for others: Less people smoking means less secondhand smoke out there. A benefit for nonsmokers.

--Lower crime: People on drugs or alcohol commit crimes...crimes they may not commit if under the influence. Tobacco is a stretch here, sure, but people have killed or robbed others over cigarettes.

To me, it's more than saving those from starting...why give up on those that already started?


Nic Name  Sunday Jan 13 03:58 PM

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.

Quote:
Throughout Brown & Williamson's web site, we describe our organization as "A Responsible Company in a Controversial Industry."



MaggieL  Sunday Jan 13 04:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by sycamore
And that's great that you did it that way. But that's YOU. It doesn't necessarily work like that for everyone else.
Obviously not--there are all kinds of outcomes from an effort to quit smoking, and they're not all successful.

I'm skeptical of approaches that don't involve stopping cold turkey, or that attempt to substitute one drug for another. Some people do end up quitting while using patches or other drugs. I don't think there's any way to know if that really made it easier for them. That's probably one reson insurance companies don't want to pay for that kind of therapy. If there was a drug for nicotine like Antabuse for alcohol, you might see more willingness to cover that. Maybe. If they were convinced it would save them money.

A while after you stop dosing yourself the cravings do lessen, but there's a boatload of detoxfication to work your way though before you get there, and the longer you've been dosing yourself, the longer that's going to take. Cold turkey has to be the shortest path to reducing physiological dependancy...as long as you actually do *stop*, and *stay* stopped long enough that the idea of not falling back into the addiction has a higher value for you than the nicotine buzz does.

Beyond that, there are the behavioral issues: habituation rather than addiction. They can be a lot harder to tackle. Believing that your addiction is somehow different and less tractable than other people's can't be helpful on that score. "Ads don't work on me." strikes me as a curious thing to say. An ad isn't going to make you stop smoking...at best, all an ad can do is try to keep the ideas and issues in front of your concious mind, and work towards tipping the balance.

Reducing the spaces where smoking is permitted isn't to discourage smokers, it's for the benefit of the people who don't want to breathe your sidestream. There are no "no nicotine patches" zones.


dave  Sunday Jan 13 04:11 PM

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.



elSicomoro  Sunday Jan 13 06:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MaggieL
I'm skeptical of approaches that don't involve stopping cold turkey, or that attempt to substitute one drug for another. Some people do end up quitting while using patches or other drugs. I don't think there's any way to know if that really made it easier for them.
It might be possible if a carefully controlled study were performed. I am not sure if there are any physiological measures (e.g. changes in brain activity) that could determine the severity of a craving.

Quote:
Believing that your addiction is somehow different and less tractable than other people's can't be helpful on that score.
I believe that addictions can be unique. What works for me may not work for Joe Blow. Based on personal experience, I know what has been helpful for me and what has not.

Quote:
"Ads don't work on me." strikes me as a curious thing to say. An ad isn't going to make you stop smoking...at best, all an ad can do is try to keep the ideas and issues in front of your concious mind, and work towards tipping the balance.
To me, it's like a desensitizing. You see it enough, you get used to it.

Quote:
Reducing the spaces where smoking is permitted isn't to discourage smokers
I don't believe that is necessarily true. While I don't argue the health of others aspect, I suspect a psychological element to it as well--"If we make it harder for people to smoke, they will find that it is not worth it to smoke anymore." They have the right to reduce smoking areas...smokers will still find a place to light up.


dave  Sunday Jan 13 06:14 PM

Damn dude. You edited the shit outta that post.



dave  Sunday Jan 13 06:15 PM

And then you just deleted it.



elSicomoro  Sunday Jan 13 06:16 PM

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



MaggieL  Sunday Jan 13 07:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by sycamore

It might be possible if a carefully controlled study were performed. I am not sure if there are any physiological measures (e.g. changes in brain activity) that could determine the severity of a craving.
That level of interpretation of brain activity is *way* in the future. You can implement "careful controls", but what will you measure? That's a rhetorical question....I'm sure there's a psych major someplace that will claim they could design a questionarie that will reveal the truth. But I just think of the term "physics envy". :-)
Quote:
Originally posted by sycamore

I don't believe that is necessarily true. While I don't argue the health of others aspect, I suspect a psychological element to it as well--"If we make it harder for people to smoke, they will find that it is not worth it to smoke anymore." They have the right to reduce smoking areas...smokers will still find a place to light up.
Nobody who's ever been a smoker would subscribe to that strategy--you're right: it simply being inconveniant never stopped anybody from smoking. Employers who maintain a smoke-free workplace (most of them, these days) may be trying to discourage smoking breaks. I've never seen anybody cut down on lunch or coffee breaks to compensate for time they spent puffing *j-u-s-t* outside the entrance--a habit which is annoying in itself.

As a constantly smaller segnment of the population wants to smoke, and an increasing segment doesn't want to have to breathe the sidestream, there's simply less and less reason to go to any lengths to accomodate the smokers. I doubt anybody thinks it will get anyone to quit, but there's simply less willingness to go to any trouble to make it easier.
Quote:
Originally posted by sycamore

What works for me may not work for Joe Blow. Based on personal experience, I know what has been helpful for me and what has not.
Um...what's the longest time you've been smoke-free since starting? Because if you've never sucessfully quit, how can you know what works for you?
Quote:
Originally posted by sycamore

To me, it's like a desensitizing. You see it enough, you get used to it.
Originally there was only one warning text in the US, then they realized they needed to keep rotating them or they''d become effectively invisible over time. Still, a smoker who has some desire to quit, or concern about the effects of his smoking, will sweep that kind of input under a mental carpet as quickly as possible, to resolve the cognitive dissonance. So you have to change the text (and now the gross pictures) to at least freshen the stimulus.


elSicomoro  Sunday Jan 13 07:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dhamsaic
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.
Sure, a person has to WANT to quit. However, there are people who want to quit, try to quit, and cannot quit, for whatever reason.

Quote:
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.
You're already paying for smokers...whether you want to or not. If you have insurance, you (or your company) are paying premiums that help cover the treatment of smokers ailments. You can't deny the people treatment if they have insurance and get sick, as legal issues could come into play. As previously mentioned, many insurance companies cover drug and alcohol treatments. Why treat smokers differently than drug or alcohol abusers? Because they're "out in the open?" What does drug and alcohol rehab do? Hopefully, it makes people better and prevents dangerous ailments down the line, like cirrhosis. Same thing with smoking. If Zyban or Nicoderm or hypnosis or whatever makes people better, and prevents ailments like lung cancer for both smokers AND nonsmokers, everybody wins.

Quote:
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.
I had a feeling this might come up...

I wouldn't smoke in your car, or Jenni's car...because I know that neither of you smoke...nor would I smoke in your home. That's your environment.

By the same token, had I been asked not to smoke in my car, even though that was MY environment, I would have complied. I have no problem extending that courtesy.

Quote:
If you want to live a healthy life free of physical addictions, then don't. I can't make that choice for you.
I do want to live a better life...and I'm not asking you or anyone else to make that choice for me.


sleemanj  Sunday Jan 13 08:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by sycamore
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.
So what would discourage you. How about if over the next 5 years or so government regulation forced tobacco companies to make cigarettes taste *really really* bad, gradually introduced over the period, while at the same time reducing gradually the addictive substances in the cigarettes. So by about the 3rd year the bad taste should out weigh the addictiveness, and people won't WANT to smoke any more.!


MaggieL  Sunday Jan 13 08:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by sycamore

However, there are people who want to quit, try to quit, and cannot quit, for whatever reason.
There are people who want to quit, try to quit, and *do* not quit. That they *cannot* quit is unproven and probably unprovable.


jaguar  Sunday Jan 13 08:20 PM

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.



elSicomoro  Sunday Jan 13 08:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MaggieL
That level of interpretation of brain activity is *way* in the future.
Again, I am not completely familiar with the research, but I wonder if there is some sort of chemical imbalance created when a craving occurs, like a dopamine or serotonin surge.

Quote:
You can implement "careful controls", but what will you measure? That's a rhetorical question....I'm sure there's a psych major someplace that will claim they could design a questionarie that will reveal the truth. But I just think of the term "physics envy". :-)
Having a degree in psychology, I would say you measure the intensity of a craving based on a scale of, say 1 to 5. Sure, there is the obvious possibility of flawed information. But if the study is controlled properly, and the results are determined to be statistically significant (through the use of an ANOVA), it may shed some light as to what options may be more helpful.

Quote:
Nobody who's ever been a smoker would subscribe to that strategy
I am a smoker...and I suspect that the strategy is employed. Of course, I have a psychology degree and have worked in marketing, so maybe I think about it more than others.

Quote:
Um...what's the longest time you've been smoke-free since starting? Because if you've never sucessfully quit, how can you know what works for you?
*thinks*

You know, I believe it is maybe a month...spring of 1997. I used Nicoderm for about 2 weeks. And it really helped take the edge off my cravings. For whatever reason, I felt I was strong enough and quit using it. 2 weeks later, I was smoking again. I used smoking as my outlet for whatever was bothering me at that point. Had I used the program properly, I believe I would be smoke-free now. Because it would have given me more time on the patch (10 weeks instead of 2), and I believe it would have given me more time to build up my willpower. At the same time, perhaps I was just not ready to quit at that point.

Cold turkey has never worked...the longest I've gone without a cigarette in that manner is 5 days...last January. The cravings became too much to ignore. I've done cold turkey too many times to count. Some times I've been more determined than others...but in most cases, there has been a strong genuine desire on my part to quit.

I'll also employ an example here:

When I was in the hospital in September, the way the nurse spoke to me: "Hey, I'm not going to give you a lecture, but you should quit b/c of your reduced lung capacity." (Or something like that...see the Cheesesteak thread for a better version.) I honestly took that to heart. He didn't belittle me, he didn't take a condescending approach, he was just straight out with me. And that's stayed with me since...and that DOES make me want to quit. And I AM trying.

Quote:
Originally there was only one warning text in the US, then they realized they needed to keep rotating them or they''d become effectively invisible over time. Still, a smoker who has some desire to quit, or concern about the effects of his smoking, will sweep that kind of input under a mental carpet as quickly as possible, to resolve the cognitive dissonance. So you have to change the text (and now the gross pictures) to at least freshen the stimulus.
But those texts are getting old now. I haven't seen any new ones since they changed them...when? 10 years or so ago? And I'm not so sure that changing the pictures or texts would truly help b/c you're still using similar stimuli.


elSicomoro  Sunday Jan 13 08:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by sleemanj


So what would discourage you. How about if over the next 5 years or so government regulation forced tobacco companies to make cigarettes taste *really really* bad, gradually introduced over the period, while at the same time reducing gradually the addictive substances in the cigarettes. So by about the 3rd year the bad taste should out weigh the addictiveness, and people won't WANT to smoke any more.!
Hmmm...good possibility. I like the taste of a cigarette...that's just me though.

Unfortunately, I probably won't know what would discourage me until I see it...the whole lung capacity issue has made it more in-my-face for me though.


gmarceau  Sunday Jan 13 08:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by sycamore

It might be possible if a carefully controlled study were performed. I am not sure if there are any physiological measures (e.g. changes in brain activity) that could determine the severity of a craving.
I ran into such study before. The methodology is quite simple : ask your pool if they are trying to stop any drug. Then, rig them up every month and ask them if it worked. The results were eye openner.

Drugs, from most addictive to less :
  • Nocotine
  • Heroine
  • Alchool
  • Crack
  • ...
  • Cafeine
  • Marijuana
  • Chocolate

They also included medical studies on the side effect of trying to quit : from worse to mild :
  • Alchool (it can kill you)
  • Heroine
  • Nicotine
  • Crack
  • ...
  • Cafeine, Merijuana
  • Chocolate

Now I wish I had kept the link


elSicomoro  Sunday Jan 13 08:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MaggieL
There are people who want to quit, try to quit, and *do* not quit. That they *cannot* quit is unproven and probably unprovable.
By the same token, we don't know yet if there is something internally that prevents people from stopping an addiction, be it sex, smoking, alcohol, etc.


sleemanj  Sunday Jan 13 08:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by sycamore


Hmmm...good possibility. I like the taste of a cigarette...that's just me though.

Hence why I said *really really* bad, I'm talking rotten flesh kinda taste here, taste to remind you of maggots squirming through a carass or something, something that if it's too strong is just gonna make you chunder.

Oh dear, now I have a picture in my head of a guy walking down the footpath taking a drag of his ciggy and instantly chundering - then taking another drag... ewwwww. Kinda like those guys who smoke through a trachiotemy (however you spell the word that means "him gotta hole in`is throat") hole.


Nic Name  Sunday Jan 13 08:56 PM

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.



elSicomoro  Sunday Jan 13 09:13 PM

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



dave  Sunday Jan 13 09:20 PM

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.



elSicomoro  Sunday Jan 13 09:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dhamsaic
sycamore, I know. I didn't mean for it to sound, at all, like I was coming down on you
I figured as much...just making my point.

Quote:
Yah, you were considerate. Which is why I don't think you're a dick.
*bows* You are a gentleman and a scholar.


Nic Name  Sunday Jan 13 09:51 PM

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.



jaguar  Sunday Jan 13 10:01 PM

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.



MaggieL  Sunday Jan 13 11:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by jaguar
Maggie, ever had smoking addiction?
Yes indeed.
Started once, smoked for for three or four years, managed to quit (had godawful bronchitis, which helped)...and then after six months was dumb enough to go back and get hooked again.
Then I quit again, that time for good.


bluebomber  Monday Jan 14 09:11 AM

taxation just creates a grey/black market

Quote:
The easiest solution? Tax the bejesus out of them, that way the sufferers cough (bad pun) up the money, without much choice.
When the State of Florida hiked tobacco taxes through the stratosphere, it had the effect of increasing the size of the black market for cigarettes. See http://tobaccofreekids.org/research/.../pdf/0129.pdf, and http://www.floridataxwatch.org/cigs.htm. I wish I could find one of the original reports, but this is pretty good:

http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/199...1/us/us.4.html

Quote:
"Significant criminal black-market activities are occurring today both in the United States and Canada," says Rep. Thomas Bliley (R) of Virginia, House Commerce Committee chairman. "It is much more serious than most people know." John Magaw, director of the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, estimates that several high-tobacco-tax states are already losing hundreds of millions of dollars because of smuggling from low-tax states such as Virginia, Kentucky, and the Carolinas.



kaleidoscopic ziggurat  Monday Jan 14 10:31 AM

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!



modernhamlet  Monday Jan 14 12:41 PM

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



elSicomoro  Monday Jan 14 01:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by modernhamlet
The single most annoying human being in the world is the self-righteous former smoker.
AMEN! PREACH ON!

Quote:
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.
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.


dave  Monday Jan 14 01:23 PM

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...



Nic Name  Monday Jan 14 01:30 PM

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!



Undertoad  Monday Jan 14 01:38 PM

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.



dave  Monday Jan 14 02:11 PM

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.



elSicomoro  Monday Jan 14 02:21 PM

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.
From what I understand though, there has been some research as to whether people are addicted to "dangerous" activities (rock climbing, skydiving, etc.).


dave  Monday Jan 14 02:23 PM

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.



elSicomoro  Monday Jan 14 02:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Undertoad
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?
What about people who like to have lots of sex with lots of different people? Do we make them carry around pictures of people with advanced cases of AIDS? Or pictures of genital herpes? (Ewww! )


MaggieL  Monday Jan 14 02:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by modernhamlet

3. I agree that people shouldn't smoke in restaurants. 'Nough said there. But BARS? Look. It's a bar. People smoke in bars.
People used to smoke in restaurants and movie theaters , too.


dave  Monday Jan 14 02:28 PM

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>.



MaggieL  Monday Jan 14 04:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Undertoad

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.
That sort of thing should be more a part of aviation training. I do recall a particularly gruesome film of a hand-prop starting job that went badly awry that was shown quite often back when more pilots actually *knew* how to hand-prop their aircraft. Of course the message ther wasn't "don't fly" but "don't do this hazardous thing the wrong way". I'm sure a lot of folks took home the message that "handpropping is *so* dangerous I don't ever want to try it".

Of course, general aviation has much more positive value for society than nicotine addiction does. The benefits of general aviation operations include aerial advertising, aerial surveying and map making, environmental surveys, agricultural application; business and personal transportation, emergency evacuations and rescue, fire spotting and fighting, law enforcement, medical transportation or emergency flights; news reporting, photography and video, traffic monitoring, on-demand air taxi, package delivery; personal transportation; pipeline and power line patrol. (And we certainly don't hear pilots wringing their hands in public about how difficult their plight is needing to give up flying but being unable to.)

Further: in 2000, NTSB reported 341 accidents that involved fatalities, for a total of 591 deaths, in thirty *million* hours of aircraft operation conducted by something like half a million non-airline pilots. . (For comparison, in 1999 NHTSA reported 37,140 fatal highway crashes, with a total of 41,717 deaths, with some 187,000,000 licenced drivers.) CDC says there are 47,000,000 adult smokers in the US, with 430,000 deaths a year attributable to smoking...one death in five.


dave  Monday Jan 14 05:41 PM

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.



Undertoad  Monday Jan 14 08:42 PM

You win this round.



MaggieL  Monday Jan 14 10:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dhamsaic
I'd be curious to see the statistics though.
http:// www.ntsb.gov has piles of numbers, including Part 135 and Part 121 operations.

http://www.aopa.org is the general aviation group.


dave  Monday Jan 14 10:32 PM

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!"




tw  Monday Jan 14 10:43 PM

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.
Once smoking was banned from bars and restaurants, then business in both increased, on average, about 10%.

I am forced out of many PA restaurants and almost every PA bar because of drug addiction encouraged in those venues. It makes me physically ill - especially a headache that aspirin cannot stop.

Public smoking is essential to the addiction industry. Would you place a bottle of gin under the nose of a recovering alcoholic? Of course not. Then why would you do same to a recovering cigarette addict? The cigarette addiction industry has long since understood this. They estimate a recovering cigarette addict will 'fall off the wagon' in about seven years. It is very important to have recovering cigarette addicts smell the outgassing of other addicts in doorways, in bars and restaurants, and anywhere else possible. Drug addicts can be encouraged to restart their addiction if constantly exposed to the drug. Not every addict. But then getting many addicts to restart their addiction after an average of seven years means more customers.

The industry was successful in addicting 14 year olds. If you can expose 7 years olds to nicotene, then they too will more likely become permanently addicted customers. Their own research demonstrated the eariler an addict is addicted before age 21, then the more permanent he will be a customer.

The state of MN discovered a program to market nicotene laced candy. Get that nicotene into the body at an eariler age to make him a more likely customer. Put drugs under the nose of an alcoholic, crack addict, or cigarette addict enough times, and he too will start using again. Therefore public drug useage, especially in bars, is important to the cigarette addiction industry.


jaguar  Tuesday Jan 15 12:26 AM

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.



jaguar  Tuesday Jan 15 03:08 AM

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.



dave  Tuesday Jan 15 08:59 AM

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.



Nic Name  Tuesday Jan 15 11:24 AM

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.

Quote:
A 1997-98 Rothmans Benson & Hedges marketing strategic plan stating that "the key 15-19 age group is a must for RBH."



dave  Tuesday Jan 15 11:36 AM

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.



kaleidoscopic ziggurat  Tuesday Jan 15 11:36 AM

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



dave  Tuesday Jan 15 11:42 AM

Do you like drugs?



modernhamlet  Tuesday Jan 15 05:10 PM

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



dave  Tuesday Jan 15 05:14 PM

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.



jaguar  Tuesday Jan 15 05:32 PM

No. I don't smoke, anymore. I did smoke, for about a year.
The result of a: social smoking at parties (very much passť) 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, Iím 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.


Quote:
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
Quote:
There's something out there that's getting kids to smoke... we just gotta find out what it is and eliminate it.
Being a young bloke that ahs smoked I guess Iíve got a pretty good idea why - culture. For all the knowledge, most kids still think itís cool to smoke, from my experience it tends to progress from social smoking at parties and the like to a permanent habit. They are not hard to get hold of, about 50% of places will sell to underage, and some charge a "tax" on it though. I still have a reasonable number of friends I know will smoke for their entire lives or close to, pack a day at 16 years old...

Personally I think if they made better use o the impotence ads, it'd probably have an effect, heart disease, lung cancer etc are a long way off, not being able to get it up would certainly stop allot of people, and the jokes would help too.


elSicomoro  Tuesday Jan 15 05:43 PM

Re: If not bars...

Quote:
Originally posted by modernhamlet
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?
NO ONE should be denied the right to smoke in their home or on their property. Although, I see a dangerous possible scenario here...

Let's say you smoke in your home. And you have kids. Could Social Services pull those kids out of your home, citing that you are putting them in danger?

Anyway...back to point.

Yes, people should be allowed to smoke outside, along the lines of what dham said. At the VA Hospital in St. Louis, they had a little alcove set aside where people could smoke. When I was on jury duty in St. Louis, they had a separate inside ventilated room where you could light up as you wished.

As far as places INSIDE...UNLESS a majority of that company's employees smoke, I don't think they should have to go out of their way to accomodate smokers.

Restaurants and bars: There is a Bennigan's in Columbia, MD that has a sealed-off bar--you have to enter the bar using a separate entrance. (i.e. You go in the restaurant, but if you want to go to the bar, you go through another door that is inside the restaurant.) I thought that was very cool. I say leave the bars for smokers. My personal opinion of course...but in the end, it should be up to the owner of said bar. He should try to determine whether it is worth it to stop the smoking or not...not the state or county or city or whatever.

However, what if public smoking "bars" were set up? Like a tavern of sorts...where people could chew the fat and smoke 'til their heart's content.

I don't know what the numbers are at this point. What is it? Like 20% of Americans smoke? That's over 50 million people, not to mention those that were too ashamed to answer. That's too much of a section of people to ignore. In my 26 years on this earth, the coolest people I've met have mainly been smokers. *shrugs*


datalas  Tuesday Jan 15 05:58 PM

Quote:
As far as places INSIDE...UNLESS a majority of that company's employees smoke, I don't think they should have to go out of their way to accomodate smokers.
There is certainly something to be wary of in this, as you said "UNLESS a majority", seeing as in my current employment we have to (by law) provide a disabled toilet having to provide a smoking room could get expensive, especially considering that non of the nine employees are disabled (at least not in the way that requires their own toilet) nor smoke....

All things considered I suppose we could merrily have the disabled lav be the smoking room too, but then we are talking about silly laws for silly reasons...

Datalas


dave  Tuesday Jan 15 06:02 PM

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



datalas  Tuesday Jan 15 06:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dhamsaic
You'll appreciate that "disabled toilet" when you wind up in a wheelchair, I promise.
I dare say that I would, however since we currently have no need for it (we don't get many visitors either) it is occupying floor space that we need not pay for, and therefore draining resources needlessly (we really could do with the space, it is big enough for an office).

Since I suspect that if I, or anyone else needed the disabled lav they could use the one in the office next door (which is actually closer to the ofices than ours is...) you do wonder why it is one per company, and not neccersarily one per office suit, we have seven rooms, (three offices, a lab, a kitchen and two toilets...) and there is another lab set-up with similar facilites about three feet away from our front door.

I don't mean to sound nasty, but it does seem silly, specifically that we have to have a "disabled access toilet" in addition to the one we have anyhow. We had to have one fitted at my previous place of emplyment, which again occupied space.

Perhaps a better rule would be to have a disabled toilet that the rest of us were allowed to use, apparently (or according to the regulations) there is something in the design of one that stops abled bodied people using it, never saw what, other than the fact it's larger....

Co-incidentely we don't have to have seperate ladies and gents facilities.....

Datalas


dave  Tuesday Jan 15 06:29 PM

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!



Nic Name  Friday Jan 18 01:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by sycamore
NO ONE should be denied the right to smoke in their home or on their property. Although, I see a dangerous possible scenario here...
Let's say you smoke in your home. And you have kids. Could Social Services pull those kids out of your home, citing that you are putting them in danger?
Dangerous possible scenario for the children ... or dangerous possible scenario for the smoker who has children. Which is your point?

Divorcing spouses are successfully arguing smoking as an issue in child custody cases, where the courts must decide in the best interests of the children.

There is no constitutional right to smoke.


dave  Friday Jan 18 08:54 AM

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



Nic Name  Friday Jan 18 09:24 AM

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.



dave  Friday Jan 18 10:05 AM

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>.



modernhamlet  Friday Jan 18 10:09 AM

"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



Nic Name  Friday Jan 18 10:51 AM

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!



dave  Friday Jan 18 11:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Nic Name
rather than a thoughtless response such as "There is no constitutional right to defecate. What's your point?"
No. It made a perfectly valid point, which was reinforced in my later post. The fact that you could not infer the meaning of it only indicates that it didn't make sense <b>to you</b>. It was far from thoughtless, even if it was only one line in length.


Nic Name  Friday Jan 18 11:23 AM

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



modernhamlet  Friday Jan 18 11:39 AM

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.



Nic Name  Friday Jan 18 12:25 PM

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.



Nic Name  Wednesday Jan 23 08:15 AM

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."



Undertoad  Wednesday Jan 23 08:47 AM

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.



kaleidoscopic ziggurat  Thursday Jan 24 03:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by jaguar
Being a young bloke that ahs smoked I guess Iíve got a pretty good idea why - culture. For all the knowledge, most kids still think itís cool to smoke, from my experience it tends to progress from social smoking at parties and the like to a permanent habit. They are not hard to get hold of, about 50% of places will sell to underage, and some charge a "tax" on it though. I still have a reasonable number of friends I know will smoke for their entire lives or close to, pack a day at 16 years old...

Personally I think if they made better use o the impotence ads, it'd probably have an effect, heart disease, lung cancer etc are a long way off, not being able to get it up would certainly stop allot of people, and the jokes would help too.
yah, i rather forgot the schoolyard perspective. some kids are oblivious but others see that the cooler kids are out expressing some slothy rebellion every break... the "pit" [of smokers] develops into its own little social scene that is in fact self-reinforcing. i suppose smoking is one of the easiest forms of rebellion a teen can do. it expresses discontent for those that would chose and control their future perhaps...

as for "weedless wednesday"... well... why is it "weedless" i gotta wonder. stupid canucks.

nice info on the web site but no one got that... ya just get the pap. at least they were thoughtful and realistic though so give 'em some credit! poorly executed idea though, nonetheless...


MaggieL  Monday Jan 28 07:09 PM

Speaking of impotence ads....




russotto  Tuesday Jan 29 02:43 PM

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.



Nic Name  Tuesday Jan 29 03:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by russotto
Oh, sure, smoking may contribute to impotence in some percentage of cases, but impotence isn't a common symptom of smoking.
And you know that how?

The UK government is understood to be in favour of the impotence warning after research by the British Medical Association showed most men are unaware of the link between smoking and erection problems.

The BMA says up to 120,000 British men in their thirties and forties are impotent because they smoke.


dave  Tuesday Jan 29 03:42 PM

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



russotto  Tuesday Jan 29 04:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Nic Name
And you know that how?


Because of all the fucking smokers.

Quote:

The BMA says up to 120,000 British men in their thirties and forties are impotent because they smoke.
IMO, they, like the AMA, will say anything if they think it will get people to follow their directions.


MaggieL  Tuesday Jan 29 04:01 PM

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

Quote:
Originally posted by russotto
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.
I don't think anyone can speak with confidence about the true incidence of impotence....and "even us nonsmokers know the ads aren't true" is an unsupported assertion; I'm an ex-smoker and nonsmoker and I don't know any such thing.

I *do* know that the cliche is "afterwards they smoked cigarettes"...not "before". :-)


dave  Tuesday Jan 29 04:03 PM

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

That's what I know. :whofarted



Nic Name  Tuesday Jan 29 04:10 PM

dham,

and you know that how?

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



dave  Tuesday Jan 29 04:19 PM

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.



Nic Name  Tuesday Jan 29 04:29 PM

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.



jeni  Tuesday Jan 29 04:52 PM

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.



dave  Tuesday Jan 29 04:53 PM

Shut up.



kaleidoscopic ziggurat  Tuesday Jan 29 04:56 PM

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.



MaggieL  Wednesday Jan 30 12:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dhamsaic
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.
Most 20-yo males have testosterone to spare....certainly enough to overcome some nicotine exposure, if you'll pardon the pun.

But if your female friends are reporting on their lover's bedroom performance to you, well, it must be an interesting crowd. :-) Seriously, that's why I think the epidemiology of erectile dysfunction is underreported--people don't like to talk about it.

I'm probably the only female friend you have who has *been* a 20-yo male. Well...one of few, anyhow. :-)


jeni  Wednesday Jan 30 12:48 AM

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.




Nic Name  Tuesday Feb 5 09:08 PM

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



Nic Name  Tuesday Feb 5 09:22 PM

Bad analogy department ...

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



Nic Name  Friday Feb 15 01:57 AM



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



dave  Friday Feb 15 09:20 AM

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



Nic Name  Monday Feb 18 01:54 PM



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.



Nic Name  Wednesday May 22 07:44 PM

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

Quote:
"To use an analogy, the death toll from tobacco in Ontario is equivalent to one fully loaded jumbo jet crashing every sixth day, without any survivors."
Which begs the question ... if smoking on airliners caused one to crash every week, on average, how long would it take to make smoking on airliners illegal?


Nic Name  Friday Aug 9 07:30 PM

Reality really sucks

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



Your reply here?

The Cellar Image of the Day is just a section of a larger web community: a bunch of interesting folks talking about everything. Add your two cents to IotD by joining the Cellar.