If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Wire)   Not that you don't know this by now, but cancer sticks have officially been bad for you for 50 years now   (thewire.com) divider line 47
    More: Interesting, York City, cigarettes, PSAs  
•       •       •

1639 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Jan 2014 at 6:04 PM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



47 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-11 03:41:41 PM
Because people needed the Surgeon General to tell them that inhaling smoke directly into your lungs for 30 years might be bad for you. Morons.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-01-11 03:52:58 PM

Mugato: Because people needed the Surgeon General to tell them that inhaling smoke directly into your lungs for 30 years might be bad for you. Morons.


Even after that the tobacco companies fought it just like the coal and oil companies fight to make people think that global warming is a scam.
 
2014-01-11 04:13:27 PM

Mugato: Because people needed the Surgeon General to tell them that inhaling smoke directly into your lungs for 30 years might be bad for you. Morons.


Can you inhale something indirectly into your lungs?
 
2014-01-11 04:22:31 PM
Thankfully, we're learning to go digital instead:


www.e-cigarette-forum.com
 
2014-01-11 04:42:53 PM

vpb: Mugato: Because people needed the Surgeon General to tell them that inhaling smoke directly into your lungs for 30 years might be bad for you. Morons.

Even after that the tobacco companies fought it just like the coal and oil companies fight to make people think that global warming is a scam.


And they all used the same company!

The Heartland Institute!
 
2014-01-11 04:49:15 PM

hardinparamedic: vpb: Mugato: Because people needed the Surgeon General to tell them that inhaling smoke directly into your lungs for 30 years might be bad for you. Morons.

Even after that the tobacco companies fought it just like the coal and oil companies fight to make people think that global warming is a scam.

And they all used the same company!

The Heartland Institute!


AKA: Big Lie, Inc.
 
2014-01-11 05:05:15 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: AKA: Big Lie, Inc


Yuuup.

A good rule of thumb is if you read something that was written by someone working for the Heritage Foundation, you have just wasted time reading toilet paper.

These people are outright liars, who pay other outright liars to use their expertise and credentials to lend them a shred of credibility.

These jackasses, during the 50s, 60s, and 70s, were paying MDs and "researchers" to go in front of congress and lie about the safety of cigarettes and tobacco. Not just make honest mistakes, or say the research of the time, but outright lie.
 
2014-01-11 05:50:49 PM

hardinparamedic: MaudlinMutantMollusk: AKA: Big Lie, Inc

Yuuup.

A good rule of thumb is if you read something that was written by someone working for the Heritage Foundation, you have just wasted time reading toilet paper.

These people are outright liars, who pay other outright liars to use their expertise and credentials to lend them a shred of credibility.

These jackasses, during the 50s, 60s, and 70s, were paying MDs and "researchers" to go in front of congress and lie about the safety of cigarettes and tobacco. Not just make honest mistakes, or say the research of the time, but outright lie.


So you're saying we should be cautious about blindly accepting the findings of scientists and "researchers" whose livelihood depends on a narrowly carved niche, like those studying global warming or enthusiastically promoting psychiatric drugs for children?  Might they have motives other than scientific?

I applaud your willingness to look beyond the accepted narrative of climate change and the ADHD industry.  You healthy skepticism is encouraging.
 
2014-01-11 05:53:54 PM

nickdaisy: So you're saying we should be cautious about blindly accepting the findings of scientists and "researchers" whose livelihood depends on a narrowly carved niche, like those studying global warming or enthusiastically promoting psychiatric drugs for children?  Might they have motives other than scientific?

I applaud your willingness to look beyond the accepted narrative of climate change and the ADHD industry.  You healthy skepticism is encouraging.


Sorry to harsh your mellow, but what I am saying is that this is a corporation who has built its' self on lying for profit to the highest bidder.

It is not skeptical. It is an outright fabrication mill.

And also, your vindication of all kooks corollary is showing.
 
2014-01-11 05:54:48 PM

nickdaisy: I applaud your willingness to look beyond the accepted narrative of climate change and the ADHD industry


Except there's a lot more money behind those who deny climate change than those who believe the majority of the scientific community.
 
2014-01-11 05:56:41 PM

Mugato: nickdaisy: I applaud your willingness to look beyond the accepted narrative of climate change and the ADHD industry

Except there's a lot more money behind those who deny climate change than those who believe the majority of the scientific community.


And an awful lot of the people who are "Skeptical" about ADHD seem to be less about curbing improper prescribing of medication, and more about selling me their 19.99 book and monthly supplies of herbal supplements on my credit card.
 
2014-01-11 06:07:42 PM
And as smoking rates have dropped obesity has risen and obesity is more expensive than smoking
 
2014-01-11 06:12:47 PM
farm4.staticflickr.com
 
2014-01-11 06:13:19 PM

vpb: Mugato: Because people needed the Surgeon General to tell them that inhaling smoke directly into your lungs for 30 years might be bad for you. Morons.

Even after that the tobacco companies fought it just like the coal and oil companies fight to make people think that global warming is a scam.


This.

It was at least 20 years before anyone took notice of it. When I was a teenager you never heard about how bad it was and nobody gave a crap who they sold them too, I remember buying them as young as 14. On the off chance a cashier said anything you just told them your mom sent you in to buy them.

Why anyone would even think of starting to smoke these days is beyond comprehension.
 
2014-01-11 06:13:23 PM
50 years?  The Nazis figured out the link between cigarettes and lung cancer in 1939.  But they were evil so we ignored any of their research that didn't deal with how to kill Communists.
 
2014-01-11 06:15:26 PM

Mugato: Because people needed the Surgeon General to tell them that inhaling smoke directly into your lungs for 30 years might be bad for you. Morons.


Peopl (including medical doctors) had been touting it's various health benefits for 300 years, so there is that to consider.
 
2014-01-11 06:18:45 PM

MFAWG: Mugato: Because people needed the Surgeon General to tell them that inhaling smoke directly into your lungs for 30 years might be bad for you. Morons.

Peopl (including medical doctors) had been touting it's various health benefits for 300 years, so there is that to consider.


And the very phrase "blowing smoke up your arse" originates from the 1700s practice of tobacco smoke enemas which was discontinued because of rectal cancer
 
2014-01-11 06:19:15 PM
The term "Coffin Nails" was first coined in 1896. Link
 
2014-01-11 06:22:28 PM
Yeah, but they make me look cool.
 
2014-01-11 06:24:15 PM
New York City banned e-cigarerettes?  Why?
 
2014-01-11 06:24:23 PM

Oldiron_79: MFAWG: Mugato: Because people needed the Surgeon General to tell them that inhaling smoke directly into your lungs for 30 years might be bad for you. Morons.

Peopl (including medical doctors) had been touting it's various health benefits for 300 years, so there is that to consider.

And the very phrase "blowing smoke up your arse" originates from the 1700s practice of tobacco smoke enemas which was discontinued because of rectal cancer


I honestly had never heard that. You sound like a sanctimonious test.

Godwin in play.
 
2014-01-11 06:26:29 PM
I've never smoked in my life, never wanted to, think it is a silly habit.
That being said, it is a legal product, but I'm of the opinion that cigarettes do not "cause"
cancer unless you are genetically disposed to "get" cancer.  My grandfather smoked
unfiltered Camel cigarettes from the time he was shipped overseas in WW1, until the
mid 70's, when he quit cold turkey because "I'm not payin' no damn 75 cents for a pack
of cigarettes".  He lived to the ripe old age of 99 years old, with not a drop of cancer.
Had a pacemaker, but that was it.  Even until he hit his 90's, he would walk up to the
"beer joint" every day to have a cold one.  On his 80th birthday, the doctor came and
got him and took him there.  One hell of a guy, but smoking never caused him to get
cancer.  I think it runs in your family.  If you have cancer in your family, smoking just
increases your chances.
 
2014-01-11 06:27:36 PM
FTA: Today, the national percentage of smokers has dropped to 18 percent. That number still comprises 44 million smokers and, along with it, 440,000 pre-mature deaths, $96 billion in smoking-related medical costs, and $97 billion in lost productivity because of illness. Recently, the fight has also reached into the realm of e-cigarettes, which, despite being considered an aid to help smokers quit, have recently become the target of smoking bans in places like New York City, New Jersey, and Utah

Fiscal Year 2012:
- Federal excise taxes - $14,870,000,000
- State and local excise taxes - $17,446,492,000
- State cigarette sales taxes - $4,207,463,000
- Tobacco settlement payments - $7,190,051,472

The fight is against e-cigarettes reducing smoking revenues. These add up to 66% the cost of a pack of cigarettes a poor nicotine addict has to pay, the excuse for the taxes and settlements being the damage suffered by them, the government having sued on their behalf for the settlements, kept the money, and the tobacco companies simply raising their prices to pay for the settlement.

As a further disincentive for the USA and states eliminating smoking, those settlements even provide that the companies don't have to pay them relative to any reduction in their revenues due to competition from people who haven't misled people that tobacco is harmless or been sued for it.
 
2014-01-11 06:28:31 PM

CruJones: New York City banned e-cigarerettes?  Why?


The check from Big Tobacco cleared?
 
2014-01-11 06:29:06 PM

CruJones: New York City banned e-cigarerettes?  Why?


They don't like me lifting my pinky finger.
 
2014-01-11 06:29:23 PM
STFU subby, I smoke organic.
 
2014-01-11 06:32:18 PM
Just started my new e-cig stop smoking plan today!
 
2014-01-11 06:33:15 PM
As long as it's organic, it's ok.
 
2014-01-11 06:34:59 PM

CruJones: New York City banned e-cigarerettes?  Why?


Because people are gigantic, wussy, awful c*nts. Mostly.
 
2014-01-11 06:36:12 PM

diver1: Just started my new e-cig stop smoking plan today!


Congrats!!! Yay you :)
 
2014-01-11 06:36:40 PM

MFAWG: Oldiron_79: MFAWG: Mugato: Because people needed the Surgeon General to tell them that inhaling smoke directly into your lungs for 30 years might be bad for you. Morons.

Peopl (including medical doctors) had been touting it's various health benefits for 300 years, so there is that to consider.

And the very phrase "blowing smoke up your arse" originates from the 1700s practice of tobacco smoke enemas which was discontinued because of rectal cancer

I honestly had never heard that. You sound like a sanctimonious test.

Godwin in play.


I'm not just blowing smoke up your arse wiki it
 
2014-01-11 06:41:43 PM

megarian: CruJones: New York City banned e-cigarerettes?  Why?

Because people are gigantic, wussy, awful c*nts. Mostly.


And nowhere is that more true than in New York.
 
2014-01-11 06:45:04 PM

Amish Tech Support: [farm4.staticflickr.com image 500x333]


came for this, going out for a smoke.
 
2014-01-11 06:53:15 PM

Oldiron_79: And as smoking rates have dropped obesity has risen and obesity is more expensive than smoking


Actually, I would say that obesity rates are more tied to technological advancement.  People smoked like crazy in the 40's, 50's and 60's and they still managed to stay thin.  Obesity rates started to rise with the advent of cable tv, the vcr, computers, gaming, email and the internet.  The technologies that allow us to be more connected also keep up in out chairs not moving.

Before all the technology people had to get up and move around more.  Not so much any more.
 
2014-01-11 07:02:20 PM
I never understand it when I see anyone 40 or younger smoking.  There's NO upside to it, and it's expensive too.  Seems crazy to put your health at risk, and to waste loads of money, just to look "cool."  The sad part is that smart people don't think you are cool, rather, they think you are a weak dope for smoking. LOL
 
2014-01-11 07:16:55 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com
Yet the ads kept coming...
 
2014-01-11 07:20:18 PM
i236.photobucket.com

Would I lie to you?
 
2014-01-11 07:33:27 PM
I'm on the "fark smoking" bandwagon too...

expensive, stinky, and I feel a helluva lot better after quitting.

I don't have a problem with others smoking... do whatever you want, it's your money and your body.

I Do think though -- that if you show up 10 years later with lung cancer, due to your choices... insurance doesn't pay the 200K it costs to operate on your dumb ass.
 
2014-01-11 07:35:22 PM

CruJones: New York City banned e-cigarerettes?  Why?


s29.postimg.org
 
2014-01-11 08:50:07 PM

accelerus: I Do think though -- that if you show up 10 years later with lung cancer, due to your choices... insurance doesn't pay the 200K it costs to operate on your dumb ass.


And no insurance for people who eat fried foods, drink alcohol, ride motorcycles, or partake in any other dangerous activities.
 
2014-01-11 09:05:05 PM

ReapTheChaos: vpb: Mugato: Because people needed the Surgeon General to tell them that inhaling smoke directly into your lungs for 30 years might be bad for you. Morons.

Even after that the tobacco companies fought it just like the coal and oil companies fight to make people think that global warming is a scam.

This.

It was at least 20 years before anyone took notice of it. When I was a teenager you never heard about how bad it was and nobody gave a crap who they sold them too, I remember buying them as young as 14. On the off chance a cashier said anything you just told them your mom sent you in to buy them.

Why anyone would even think of starting to smoke these days is beyond comprehension.


I guess I knew early on as my father was very anti smoking. I still remember him showing me a newspaper the day Walt Disney died and told me he died from too many cigarettes.
 
2014-01-11 09:37:50 PM

Mugato: Because people needed the Surgeon General to tell them that inhaling smoke directly into your lungs for 30 years might be bad for you. Morons.


So now marijuana is good for you? I cannot wait for the fallout after people figure out that marijuana is not good for you either.
 
2014-01-11 09:55:59 PM

volodya: Mugato: Because people needed the Surgeon General to tell them that inhaling smoke directly into your lungs for 30 years might be bad for you. Morons.

So now marijuana is good for you? I cannot wait for the fallout after people figure out that marijuana is not good for you either.


Of course it isn't good for you. But you would have to be one helluva stoner to smoke weed the way people smoke regular cigarettes.
 
2014-01-11 10:06:08 PM

logicalman: I never understand it when I see anyone 40 or younger smoking.   There's NO upside to it, and it's expensive too.  Seems crazy to put your health at risk, and to waste loads of money, just to look "cool."  The sad part is that smart people don't think you are cool, rather, they think you are a weak dope for smoking. LOL


This is obviously false, or no one would even start.

Can't speak for cigarette smokers, but as a pipe smoker I find it relaxing and quite enjoyable.  One or two bowls a week isn't healthy but I don't think it's doing a terribly large amount of harm either.
 
2014-01-11 10:08:16 PM

bullwrinkle: I guess I knew early on as my father was very anti smoking. I still remember him showing me a newspaper the day Walt Disney died and told me he died from too many cigarettes.


I remember this:

www.sciencecorruption.com

It was kind of creepy, especially if you knew him as a big movie star.

I was smoking anywhere from 1-5 cigarettes for a few months, and I got a terrible cold. That hardly ever happens. So I'm not smoking now. Luckily cigarettes have never hooked me. But it is funny how I got that cold after only a short time of smoking.

If weed did that to me, I'd never be healthy.
 
2014-01-12 10:37:29 AM
The 1960's Anti-Smoking PSA 'Johnny Smoke'.

As poor quality as it is, it was much better than about the only other cartoons early Sunday mornings, like Space Angel and Clutch Cargo, which both used the unnerving "Syncro-Vox" technology of static pictures without mouths, with human mouths superimposed over them.  (Conan O'Brien has used that technique.)

Some kids actually wished there was a Johnny Smoke animated western series, kind of a Have Gun Will Travel anti-hero cigarette angel of death, going from town to town killing cowboys with heart disease and cancer.  It would still have been better than most of the programming back then.

Well, there was that one time when Clutch Cargo was flying his light aircraft in central America, when it was hit by the shockwave of a nuclear engineering detonation enlarging the Panama Canal.  Seriously.  Those were different times.
 
2014-01-12 11:06:56 AM

CruJones: New York City banned e-cigarerettes?  Why?


Because (now ex) Mayor Bloomberg is a fascist who's biggest agenda seemed to be denying individual's rights to choose what they consume. (trans-fat, sugar, nicotine, etc.)
 
Displayed 47 of 47 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report