Skip to content
 
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.

(Yahoo)   Australian lawmakers want to put pictures of cancerous lungs and gangrenous feet on cigarette packages   (story.news.yahoo.com) divider line
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

2818 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jun 2004 at 5:32 PM (17 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



186 Comments     (+0 »)
 
2004-06-25 11:08:40 AM  
"medically pornographic images"

Damn... that's soooo hot! *fap*fap*fap*
 
2004-06-25 11:49:12 AM  
I like this idea.

If you can't stand looking at what the product is doing to your body, then maybe you shouldn't be using it.

Extend that out to showing coroded arteries on Big Mac boxes too.

That won't stop me from eating a Big Mac, but, at least I know what eating a lot of them brings you.
 
2004-06-25 12:11:28 PM  
this is stupid.

people know that cigarettes are bad. we knooooooow. but y'know what? nobody cares. i don't even smoke.

if you want to smoke and kill yourself slowly, fine. do it. it's your body. if you're allowed to abort a baby, you should be allowed to smoke fifty packs a day without a picture of your lungs on the front of the box. why? because if "it's your body" is true for one thing, it should be true for all.
 
2004-06-25 12:27:43 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2004-06-25 12:46:37 PM  
Wow. I don't know about anyone else, but I just had a Dennis Leary flashback.

The man is not only a damn good comic, he's a prophet!
 
2004-06-25 3:20:01 PM  
the only problem i have with cigirets is I have to breath them too... So im all for the deturnce at all costs.

If cigerets were like booze (drunk driving aside) and only got those drunk who actualy drunk the booze, not those who drunk and sat next to those who drank then it would be a differnt story.
 
2004-06-25 3:44:21 PM  
they need to up the bad chemicals in cigs so that people who smoke die within minutes.
cleaning out the gene pool, cant have any weaker-gened people who smoke reproducing now can we?

--there is no legitimate reason for those under 35 to smoke--
no redeeming value or quality to smoking..
thus=instadeath
 
2004-06-25 4:33:56 PM  
This deserves a hero tag
 
2004-06-25 4:58:52 PM  
This is silly. Those that want to smoke are going to smoke no matter what.
 
R3
2004-06-25 5:37:27 PM  
We had those pics here in Canada on every pack of cigarettes since 2001 or so.

Recent studies showed that images lke these are highly effective in getting teenagers not to smoke and/or quit.
 
2004-06-25 5:37:38 PM  
Canada has been doing this for years.

Probably safe for work since that link is at a government site.
 
2004-06-25 5:37:43 PM  
That won't stop me from eating a Big Mac, but, at least I know what eating a lot of them brings you.

Most people don't get addicted to Big Macs. Yeah. Most.
 
2004-06-25 5:37:51 PM  
Canada's been doing this for years.

Hero.
 
2004-06-25 5:37:54 PM  
I like this idea and fully support it. I like to see pictures of decaying body parts and I hope they have a variety of them to keep people from being bored each time they buy a ciggerate pack.
 
2004-06-25 5:38:49 PM  
and pix of Ozzy on all baggies.
 
2004-06-25 5:38:52 PM  
We already have that in Canada. Even with the limp cigarette picture (warning impotence), people are still going to smoke. Well, at least I am. Stupid cigarettes.

They should put unattractive people on bottles of alcohol. "Here's what you'll see smiling at you tomorrow."
 
2004-06-25 5:39:05 PM  
badass
 
2004-06-25 5:39:08 PM  
Here is a CNN article on how effective this has been up here in Canada.
 
2004-06-25 5:39:30 PM  
They should do the same with cars.
 
2004-06-25 5:39:33 PM  
Up here in Canada land we've had those for a couple of years. I think the goal is more deterence for those who haven't started rather than stopping those who have. The pics aren't all gross though. My favorite is the one that says cigarette smoking causes impotence...with a pic of a sad flaccid cigarette.

/farkette smoker
 
2004-06-25 5:39:44 PM  
then I guess we could put pics on condom boxes of what a vagina looks like after sex...like a bulldog eatin' mayo.

/I keed
 
2004-06-25 5:40:05 PM  
sometimes I wonder if spell check is not available in certain areas...

I think this is a great idea! I also think they should put pictures of me puking on the side of Tequila bottles. That would deter those underage kids!!!
 
rka
2004-06-25 5:40:20 PM  
Maybe they should put full color pictures of people being decapited in car accidents on that new Toyota too.

Or how about a shot of someone pissing in their pants, laying in the middle of the sidewalk on bottles of liquor and cans of beer?

Perhaps a picture of a fat, lonely man, naked staring at a computer screen on all new Dell boxes.

What a completely stupid idea.
 
2004-06-25 5:41:41 PM  
well, go me and my lack of refreshing....btw did you hear we do that in canada?
 
2004-06-25 5:41:46 PM  
Next you know they'll be putting pictures of ugly men and women on cans of beer as a way to prevent people from getting drunk.

[image from carcino.gen.nz too old to be available]
 
2004-06-25 5:42:40 PM  
AnthroNerd: Has there been a dramatic upswing in cigarette case sales up there?
 
2004-06-25 5:43:19 PM  
What's next, prostitutes wearing pictures of cold sores?
 
2004-06-25 5:44:29 PM  
I'm all for it. A lot of people think that the only risk of smoking is lung cancer, but a whole host of other cancers are associated with smoking. Then there is the vascular damage and all that entails (cardiac disease, poor blood circulation, etc).

There should a $10-$15 per pack health care tax. The majority of people who smoke are too poor and too stupid to earn much money, so the amount of tax they pay is quite small. However, some of these people cost the taxpayer (at least in the US) hundreds of thousands of dollars in end-of-life care because of smoking related illness. If you want to smoke, you should at least bear the financial cost of doing so.

Spigi
 
2004-06-25 5:44:38 PM  
The problem with cigarettes is that they take too long to kill people. We need extreme!ciggs with 100 times the carcinogens.
 
2004-06-25 5:45:18 PM  
Personally I don't think its that bad of an idea, and yes I smoke. If you can't handle it, don't do it. I know I'm killing myself with them but meh....what's so great about living to be 90.
 
2004-06-25 5:45:56 PM  
soporific I believe that would be "XXXtreme Cigz!" to appeal to the youngins.
 
2004-06-25 5:46:16 PM  
This is no more stupid than all those ads from whatever that funky org is that's funded with tobacco settlement money.

And yeah, this is very old news to a Canadian.
 
2004-06-25 5:46:16 PM  
the only problem i have with cigirets is I have to breath them too...

Yeah? Well I have to breathe in the fumes from all the vehicles and factories. Where're the deterrents for those?

"I have to breathe them, tooooooo!"

farking self-righteous whiners.
 
2004-06-25 5:48:09 PM  
They should all just get some Chewlies gum.
 
2004-06-25 5:48:17 PM  
They've been doing that on Canadian cig packs for years.
With lines like you'll kill the babies or you'll become impotent.
 
2004-06-25 5:50:14 PM  
That's hilarious. I think someone needs to make a business selling cigarette boxes from Canada/Australia to other countries as gag gifts to smoker friends. I'd love to buy a few packs for some of my friends who smoke.
 
2004-06-25 5:51:08 PM  
There's a guy- I don't know if you've heard about this guy, he's been on the news a lot lately. There's a guy- he's English, I don't think we should hold that against him, but apparently this is just his life's dream because he is going from country to country. He has a senate hearing in this country coming up in a couple of weeks. And this is what he wants to do. He wants to make the warnings on the packs bigger. Yeah! He wants the whole front of the pack to be the warning. Like the problem is we just haven't noticed yet. Right? Like he's going to get his way and all of the sudden smokers around the world are going to be going, "Yeah, Bill, I've got some cigarettes.. HOLY shiat! These things are bad for you! shiat, I thought they were good for you! I thought they had Vitamin C in them and stuff!" You farking dolt! Doesn't matter how big the warnings are. You could have cigarettes that were called the warnings. You could have cigarrets that come in a black pack, with a skull and a cross bone 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 farking 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 farking cigarettes, ok!? There a drug, we're addicted, ok!?


/not a smoker
 
2004-06-25 5:51:40 PM  
I think it's safe to say that cigarettes will be illigal in the next twenty years.

/Thanks freedom fighters
 
2004-06-25 5:51:43 PM  
Already in canada.
 
2004-06-25 5:51:56 PM  
Useless thought #1:
Any wimp can quit smoking, it takes a real man to face lung cancer. haha

#2:
Raise the cost to $100 a pack. Restrict access to government run outlets that are only open during regular business hours only. Outlaw single packs, sell cartons only. Ban smoking everywhere except your house and your car. (Any smokers getting an idea of how much we hate smoking yet?) Kids will stop taking up smoking. The people already hooked will die off soon enough.

#3:
Love the gross pictures on cig packs here.
 
2004-06-25 5:52:06 PM  
I have to breathe the strong perfume of old women when I go to the mall.

No way that stuff isn't causing cancer.

And really now folks, sure cigs take off years from your life... but they're the LAST years. I don't think I'd complain about having my diaper-wearing drooling years cut short.

That goes for anything else that's bad for you.

And Dr. Knock, would you let people smoke if they plan on never breeding? Or would you execute them because they won't be contributing to the gene pool?
 
2004-06-25 5:52:34 PM  
spigi

I couldn't agree with you more. Thats a sweet idea.

As far as the above mentioned post. If the fumes from factories and vehicles cause as much second hand damage as cigarettes do, then someone may have a point. But when is the last time some ignorant bastard blew car fumes in your face while you were waiting in an outside line somewhere? or in your child/mother's face? Yep. Exactly.
 
2004-06-25 5:54:42 PM  
If pictures woulda kept me from starting all those years ago then I'm for it. Haven't smoked in a few years and I don't intend to ever again.

Those people that put pictures up of aborted fetuses outside abortion clinics for all to see as they drive by though, them I want dead immediately.
 
2004-06-25 5:56:29 PM  
[image from grandpoohbah.net too old to be available]

Whatever. I know the risks now, doesn't stop me.

I'll be smoking till I'm this guy's age.
 
2004-06-25 5:57:14 PM  
[image from tim.hi-ho.ne.jp too old to be available]

[image from asemann.de too old to be available]

And they sold quite well. They were really weak though -- made Parliaments look like unfiltered Camels by comparison -- but they sold and smokers would make jokes abot it.

spigi: There should a $10-$15 per pack health care tax.

Yeah! We could use a good black market in tobacco products!

Tobacco = the new marijuana

Heh.
 
2004-06-25 5:57:53 PM  
Can anybody get a quote from Denis Leary's "No Cure For Cancer"? I would try but I'd probably butcher it.

Anyways, I could care less if they do put body parts and droopy cigarettes on the boxes. I really don't wanna live past 60. The idea of farking old ladies, or even worse, nobody, just scares me.

/Loves killing babies, 1 cig at a time
 
2004-06-25 6:00:19 PM  
HomerSamson113

Heh, guess i should refresh more often. Bravo.
 
2004-06-25 6:00:25 PM  
farking self-righteous whiners.

We're only self-righteous because we're better than you.

You smoke, you're a pariah. Get used to it. Hey, that wouldn't be a bad warning. Might be better than all the health stuff at deterring teen-age smoking.
 
2004-06-25 6:00:32 PM  
I expect there to be warning labels on alcohol then.

Let's show decaying livers.

Let's show DUI scenes.

Let's show photographs of dead bodies from alcohol poisoning.

Turnabout is fair play, people.
 
2004-06-25 6:01:20 PM  
Collect them all!
 
2004-06-25 6:01:48 PM  
The politicians should be forced to put nuclear mushroom clouds and their arrrest records on all their campaign ads.
 
2004-06-25 6:02:22 PM  
This totally deserves a hero tag. Most smokers believe they can quit anytime, when it is so damn far from the truth.

My father quit smoking at 45, and at 71 developed lung cancer from the smoking he did earlier in his life. Lung cancer is also one of the worst ways you can die.

Gee, and smoking provides you with so many benefits!!
 
2004-06-25 6:02:30 PM  
Miss Friday:

When the law first came in, a lot of people were buying cardboard sleeves that slid over your pack with pics of flowers or mock-ups of the old packs...but not too many people bought proper cigarette cases. Once the shock value was over, I think most smokers ignored them. As I said, I think it's more deterence that stoppage that's the goal.
 
2004-06-25 6:02:44 PM  
For the record, I could care less if people smoke (cigs or weed), or drank. My body isn't the property of the state, therefore they should have no say over what I put into it so long as I'm not violating anyone else's rights.

fark this shiat.
 
2004-06-25 6:02:53 PM  
[image from packetwarp.com too old to be available]
 
2004-06-25 6:04:21 PM  
You smoke, you're a pariah.

Only by the non-smokers. And to the smokers, well, what do we care? We're committing suicide anyway; who cares if you don't like us.

Oh, and we're killing you, too, so we have smug satisfaction to boot.
 
2004-06-25 6:05:15 PM  
Someone please point to ONE study that concludes second-hand smoke kills. I'm looking for a link, here.

Come on, someone can find one can't they?
 
2004-06-25 6:05:24 PM  
I expect there to be warning labels on alcohol then.

Let's show decaying livers.

Let's show DUI scenes.

Let's show photographs of dead bodies from alcohol poisoning.

Turnabout is fair play, people.


What? "Use this product as intended for your entire life and none of these things has a chance in hell of happening?"
 
2004-06-25 6:07:52 PM  
First thing that came to mind was Dennis Leary, but once I arrived in the thread, it was clear that it was not meant to be as I was beaten like a prisoner at Abu Gharib.

(anti-war hippie k? thx)
 
2004-06-25 6:08:21 PM  
Vanadium:
You don't tend to find such studies in blogs. You can hundreds of them in peer-reviewed journals if you care to look. Just stop by or write your nearest school of public health (Berkley and U Minn are both very good) and they can point you in the right direction.
 
2004-06-25 6:08:22 PM  
MacGabhain, say that after you've had seven people close to you die because of a drunk driver.
 
2004-06-25 6:08:26 PM  
I don't mind people smoking near me if they allow me to elbow them in the face every time I feel like doing a bit of shadow boxing.
 
2004-06-25 6:08:28 PM  
Let's show decaying livers.

Isn't Mezcal spanish for decaying liver?
 
2004-06-25 6:09:00 PM  
"The experience in Canada showed there was a three percent drop in smoking," Trish Worth, parliamentary secretary for health, told reporters.

Only 3%? Geez, what a waste of time, money, and effort. Stupid asshats.
 
2004-06-25 6:09:55 PM  
This is Jean Calment, the oldest FARKing person to ever walk the face of this planet (with documentation).
[image from aeiveos.com too old to be available]
SHE SMOKED FOR 105 YEARS!!

Smoking has very little to do with anything. And people who think it does are the same people who think the asbestos in their attic is going to give them mesothelioma, and that there is global warming, and were the same people who called saccharin the work of the devil, and who probably think nutrasweet causes you to go into a coma.
 
2004-06-25 6:10:58 PM  
ArcadianRefugee:

I don't think there will ever be a serious black market demand for cigarettes. Besides, even if there is, they will still be a lot harder to obtain than they are now. Either way, the tax payer wins.


Deveyn:

I guess by definition the years before you die are your last years. However, I've seen plenty of people in their late 30's and early 40's with lung cancer, most likely caused by smoking. Have you ever seen someone die from cancer? Have you ever seen someone's face when you tell them they have cancer? It's funny, none of those people ever say "Well, ya gotta die of something." Or some other smart comment that you hear a lot of smoking apologists come out with.

Spigi
 
2004-06-25 6:12:04 PM  
Thanks, Brockway , have ypou heard that theory about how the earth is flat?
 
2004-06-25 6:12:25 PM  
I don't think there will ever be a serious black market demand for cigarettes.

Bullshiat. Go to the NY Gov's website or any good search and you'll find that the black market has EXPANDED since the tax hikes. They have a task force specifically for this now.
 
2004-06-25 6:12:48 PM  
Vanadium:
In what was was the asshole who drove drunk using alchohol as intended?
I'm personally of the opinion that any action taken while voluntarily under the legal-defined influence of any recreational drug, alchohol included, should be considered under the law as pre-meditated and intentional, thus making that horrible incident seven counts of 1st degree murder. That doesn't make having a glass of wine over dinner or a couple of beers during the Super Bowl the least bit harmful to anyone.
 
2004-06-25 6:13:09 PM  
let us people that want to smoke do it - yeah perhaps only in our homes or cars say, but don't screw with my rights to make choices related to my body because you don't 'like it'. These images on cig packs are a waste of time and money, you can't tax anything to death.. the prices on cigs went up here so I just started growing my own tobacco.
 
2004-06-25 6:14:04 PM  
Here, I'll even help:

Black Market in NY over Cigs
 
2004-06-25 6:14:42 PM  
Cancer merchant! Cancer merchant! Cancer merchant!
 
2004-06-25 6:14:44 PM  
Mulambo:

Yeah, and not just tobacco.
 
2004-06-25 6:17:03 PM  
Old news in Canada
[image from hc-sc.gc.ca too old to be available]
[image from hc-sc.gc.ca too old to be available]
[image from dfl.org.za too old to be available]
[image from hc-sc.gc.ca too old to be available]
[image from hc-sc.gc.ca too old to be available]
[image from hc-sc.gc.ca too old to be available]
 
2004-06-25 6:17:21 PM  
don't screw with my rights to make choices related to my body because you don't 'like it'

But when you need that 1/2 million dollar lung transplant, my taxes are supposed to pay for it?
I have never met someone who truly smokes because they like it - just a lot of people so addicted that they can't even think about quitting.
 
2004-06-25 6:18:15 PM  
(Thanks, Vanadium, but that was going to be *my* next post....)

:)

/ex-NYer
 
2004-06-25 6:18:44 PM  
Sorry, but my point stands that by initiating force (through "sin" taxes, forcing manufacturers to include labels the government decides upon, or all-out prohibition) against a section of the population in order to get them to quit a drug never works.

History is on my perspective's side, not theirs.
 
2004-06-25 6:18:53 PM  
Your taxes pay for transplants?? What country do you live in?
 
2004-06-25 6:19:13 PM  
So when are they going to start shooting random people in the head?
 
2004-06-25 6:19:53 PM  
spigi, I have seen people die of cancer from no fault of their own and it's a horrible thing.

However I have no sympathy for people who die of cancer they inflict on themselves through smoking.

Any idiot knows smoking is bad for you. It's farking SMOKE, for chrissakes. There is not a single instance where inhaling smoke can be considered healthy. Add to that the barrage of information from all sides telling you that smoking is bad, mmmkay? Nobody smoking now can claim ignorance of the consequences.

The choices I make to shorten my life are exactly that, choices. I really don't have any desire to live into the so-called "golden years," mostly because I have no children, and never will. My perspective is different than most. However when I choose to have a cigar, I make sure it's outside and away from people who can't or won't appreciate it. One thing I can't stand is smokers who think it's perfectly ok for them to inflict their choice upon others.

I can see your point though. There are those who will suddenly regret the choices they made that resulted in cancer.

And for them I have only one thing to say.

Bed. Made. Lie.
 
2004-06-25 6:20:07 PM  
But when you need that 1/2 million dollar lung transplant, my taxes are supposed to pay for it?

Nope. I don't believe you should be made to pay for my own vices. Nor should I pay for yours.
 
2004-06-25 6:20:11 PM  
But when you need that 1/2 million dollar lung transplant, my taxes are supposed to pay for it?

They tax cigs massively as is. When people stop buying cigs, where you think that lost tax money is gonna come from? Gov't would have to tax something else, so it would STILL come from the tax-payer.
 
2004-06-25 6:22:26 PM  
Since smokers clearly don't care about how bad their habit is to their own health, appearance, personality, breath, etc. maybe the packages should say "Congratulations asswipe, you're slowly killing all the people around you."

Maybe one or two of the people who are stupid enough to smoke will think twice.

I doubt it, since smokers are clearly among the least considerate people on the planet, but it can't hurt.
 
2004-06-25 6:23:43 PM  
Tellin' you right now, the only people that benefit from the Government telling them what's right and wrong to consume is, you guessed it, the Government. Why else do you think they passed a shiatload of these taxes when the economy was low?

Common sense, people. Think about it.

When was the last time you saw a benefit from a "sin" tax, personally?

Exactly.
 
2004-06-25 6:24:37 PM  
Raising taxes to insane amounts will only generate a whole new generation of drunk indians with the cute tax loophole they get.
 
2004-06-25 6:25:02 PM  
Perducci: slowly killing all the people around you

Really? Again, link please? I bet for every study yo find that agrees with you, I can find one that concludes their is no obvious relation.

Also, why cigarettes? Again, why not up in arms about the millions and millions of automobiles that traffic the road everyday? I can almost guarantee most people produce more pollution driving to work everyday than I do smoking everyday.
 
2004-06-25 6:25:58 PM  
Vanadium

When was the last time you saw a benefit from a "sin" tax, personally?

Hmmm, the last time I paid my taxes? Cause, see, I don't smoke.
 
2004-06-25 6:27:21 PM  
How about pictures of squalling babies, crabs, scabies, AIDS, and VD on porn magazines and tapes.

How about a picture of thousands of dead bodies on Bush's smug asshat face?

IT never ends...
 
2004-06-25 6:27:33 PM  
2004-06-25 06:09:55 PM Brockway: "Smoking has very little to do with anything. And people who think it does are the same people who think the asbestos in their attic is going to give them mesothelioma, [blah, blah, blah]."

Exposure to any carcinogen is like walking across a courtyard frequented by pigeons. You aren't always gonna get shiat upon, but if you keep it up long enough, the odds are good that you'll be dripping with poo, centarian smokers notwithstanding.

/besides, isn't it possible that Jean Calment has some quirky genetics that make her resistant to cancers?
//like that super-german-boy. Only different.
///nuthin'
 
2004-06-25 6:27:58 PM  
Explain, frontierpsychiatry, how it benefitted you when you paid your taxes. How did it make them lower? Are you sure?

I'm really curious here.
 
2004-06-25 6:28:27 PM  
As a person who enjoys cigars and pipes, I must say that any habit that makes you willing to stand in the rain to partake, can't be good for you.
 
2004-06-25 6:29:48 PM  
Guys, did you hear they do this in Canada?
 
BHK
2004-06-25 6:30:24 PM  
Try Eclipse! Get the word out! www.newcig.com. They barely stink, have all the nicotene, and only 20% of the tar. There is *no* second hand smoke. I now enjoy smoking again and they don't cause me to cough up a lung like other brands.
 
2004-06-25 6:30:41 PM  
[image from hc-sc.gc.ca too old to be available]

This one's my favourite, just because you can put it up against your own mouth and make 'scary teeth' faces and animal noises and it never fails to get a chuckle.

(my bags of weed, incidentally, come with a picture of a severly bloated guy who just ate 4 pizzas and two bags of cheetos)
 
BHK
2004-06-25 6:31:50 PM  
Sin taxes are dangerous to all taxpayers. When cut down on the sinning, politicians have to look elsewhere for that revenue and you know that cutting spending is not an option.
 
2004-06-25 6:31:55 PM  
Only semi-related, but since Farkers like to poke fun at mistakes or the like of any kind:

From a UK site:
"Half of all teenagers who are currently smoking will die from diseases caused by tobacco if they continue to smoke. One quarter will die after 70 years of age and one quarter before...."

Apparently, half of them die AT 70.

Still not a bad run, in my book.
 
2004-06-25 6:33:58 PM  
Brockway

You've used one of the hoary old "reasons" smokers come up with to justify their habit. Dig a little deeper, and you'll see it is a common fallacy.

A doctor once explained carcinogens like this to me.

Everyone has the risk of cancer. Even non-smokers. You can probably say "I know a non-smoker who got lung cancer". It is possible, just not that probable.

It's as if everyone has tickets to a "cancer lottery".
So even a non-smoker has the risk, it's just not that big, but a "tiny" minority will get cancer nonetheless.

Now, if you smoke, it's as if you are effectively buying more of these "cancer lottery tickets". More cigarettes/day or the longer you smoke=More tickets, more risk of your "number" coming up, less risk of your number not coming up and remaining cancer free.

So, conversely, this means there is still a chance you will not get cancer, it's just not as great. Jean Calment just was damn lucky enough to beat the odds. You can bet there are many more of her contemporaries who smoked and did die of cancer at a younger age.

Probability and statistics, baby. Actually quite facinating.
That is all.
 
2004-06-25 6:41:43 PM  
i've lit it!
 
2004-06-25 6:42:43 PM  
Fark the asshat who put "ASININE" next to this. This is a HERO idea
 
2004-06-25 6:42:48 PM  
Everyone has the risk of cancer. Even non-smokers. You can probably say "I know a non-smoker who got lung cancer". It is possible, just not that probable.

Correction: not as probable. You make it sound as if non-smokers have a teensy chance of getting lung cancer, while smokers are wallowing in a sea of their dead.

http://www.kidon.com/smoke/percentages3.htm
 
2004-06-25 6:45:15 PM  
Day_Old_Dutchie, Ive never heard it explained that way, props to the doctor who told you that, great analogy.
 
2004-06-25 6:47:19 PM  
i like the pics, they remind me that smoking is dangerous. and if it wasn't a little dangerous it wouldn't be cool, now would it?
 
2004-06-25 6:54:02 PM  
Non-smokers are such uncool pu$$ies.

Lets put pictures of liver cirhossis (sp?) on each bottle of beer or liquor.

lets put pictures of jihadists and abortion clinic bombing victims on churches and mosques.

Lets put pictures of dismembered accident victims and exxon-valdez style pictures of oil spills on all the cars.

lets putpictures of rotted teeth on all the candy.

hell, lets just put pictures of dead people everywhere, because living causes you to die.
 
2004-06-25 6:57:19 PM  
Day_Old_Dutchie:


Brockway

You've used one of the hoary old "reasons" smokers come up with to justify their habit. Dig a little deeper, and you'll see it is a common fallacy.

A doctor once explained carcinogens like this to me.


I am a doctor, and I will explain it to you another way. While it is true that smoking is a risk factor, its importance is very much overblown. It would be like people advising you not to go outside when it is raining, lest you get hit by lightning. While true, it is really more harem-scarem than anything. Anyone who wants to see the correlation only need plot the log-log binomial regression of smoking magnitude versus disease of choice mobidity/mortality.

/ex-smoker, in case you're curious.
 
2004-06-25 7:00:12 PM  
rka
Or how about a shot of someone pissing in their pants, laying in the middle of the sidewalk on bottles of liquor and cans of beer?


I would totally buy that beer.
 
2004-06-25 7:01:49 PM  
chipaku

Let's not forget

...pictures of car crashes in new vehicles.

...Airlines can now only show "Airplane" as an in-flight movie.

...video of the WTC attacks in all high-rises....

(Okay, that last one don't happen too often, but hey.)
 
2004-06-25 7:08:08 PM  
MY FAVE
 
2004-06-25 7:11:55 PM  
ArcadianRefugee:

Why stop there? Why not require the results of every product to be displayed on the packaging?
...pictures of human feces on food packaging
...pictures of old naked men on viagra
...pictures of some guy masturbating on the cover of all pornographic magazines (Warning! May cause Fapping!)

/thinks this is silly
 
2004-06-25 7:12:03 PM  
Brockway, excuse me while I point this out again from your post:

I am a doctor, and I will explain it to you another way. While it is true that smoking is a risk factor, its importance is very much overblown. It would be like people advising you not to go outside when it is raining, lest you get hit by lightning. While true, it is really more harem-scarem than anything. Anyone who wants to see the correlation only need plot the log-log binomial regression of smoking magnitude versus disease of choice mobidity/mortality.
 
2004-06-25 7:12:15 PM  
What's the harm in it? If people ignore them, too bad, keep on killing yourself, but if some people, namely teenagers and first time smokers, won't pick up the pack, then good. But the government's not paying for the new packaging, the billion dollar tobacco companies are. So what's the problem? It sounds like some people don't want to have to see some ugly pictures while bypassing the Nicorette aisle.
 
2004-06-25 7:12:51 PM  
[image from hc-sc.gc.ca too old to be available]
 
2004-06-25 7:13:11 PM  
flackbish, I'd prefer putting pictures of infants who choke on toys on all toy packaging.

That should piss a few people off. Because, you know, it could happen.
 
2004-06-25 7:13:44 PM  
there much better hehehe sorry rust since i havn't been able to html

but that is my fave had to get a few to bring home when i was in vancouver !
 
2004-06-25 7:14:15 PM  
But the government's not paying for the new packaging, the billion dollar tobacco companies are.

Who's paying for them to legislate it? Jesus?
 
2004-06-25 7:14:16 PM  
When I see some bummy old freaky deaky homeless guy picking through the crap on the ground for a butt, man, that's romance.

if you are that locked into some shiat, man, that's slavery. That's being legally addicted to something and the government is the pusher.

That's farked up shiat.
 
2004-06-25 7:16:54 PM  
As long as tax dollars (in Canada and Australia) are paying to keep dying smokers alive then I think the government should do everything it can to try and get people to quit.
 
2004-06-25 7:17:26 PM  
Jeezus...if you don't want to smoke, fine, don't do it. Second hand smoke has been proven to have absolutely zero effect on human health, so it is really a personal choice. Don't wanna do it? Fine, but you have no right to try to propagandize it for those who wish to do so.

And I am a non-smoker.
 
2004-06-25 7:17:37 PM  
Littlefish

No, it's just that we think it is stupid. if you look up in the thread, it's kinda obvious that cigarettes could come with a punch to the arm and smokers would still buy, proudly showing off their black-n-blues to one another.

The point is, it is all just a feel-good measure that doesn't do a thing. You think something gross on the pack is gonna turn away teens in measurable numbers? Most teens I've known thrive on "gross-out" stuff.
 
2004-06-25 7:18:11 PM  
[image from members.kingston.net too old to be available]

 
2004-06-25 7:19:21 PM  
As long as tax dollars (in Canada and Australia) are paying to keep dying smokers alive then I think the government should do everything it can to try and get people to quit.

so that money can be used to keep dying non-smokers alive?
 
2004-06-25 7:20:24 PM  
ArcadianRefugee -- Surely you meant keeping alcoholics that need new livers alive!
 
2004-06-25 7:21:49 PM  
TheGoblinKing

Second hand smoke has been proven to have absolutely zero effect on human health

where did you get that fact?
 
2004-06-25 7:25:23 PM  
WOOFYSF

TheGoblinKing

Second hand smoke has been proven to have absolutely zero effect on human health


where did you get that fact?



Thirty-three studies on secondhand smoke had been completed by 1993. More than 80 percent of the studies reported no association between secondhand smoke and lung cancer, including the largest of the studies. The EPA reviewed 31 studies - inexplicably omitting two studies reporting no association between secondhand smoke and lung cancer - and estimated secondhand smoke caused 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually."


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,26109,00.html
 
2004-06-25 7:26:37 PM  
WOOFYSF:

TheGoblinKing

Second hand smoke has been proven to have absolutely zero effect on human health

where did you get that fact?


Where did you get the "fact" that it did?
 
2004-06-25 7:31:00 PM  
There is no onus on anybody to prove that smoking does NOT cause something. The assertion that smoking DOES cause something is what requires the evidence. Without evidence, it is just a gratuitous statement, and can be defeated by another gratuitous statement.

So for those of you who claim smoking causes something - where is your proof? The burden of proof is on you, not me. I don't buy into the argument that just because a lot of (retarded) people believe it, then it must be true.
 
2004-06-25 7:39:35 PM  
And thusly, to tag team with Brockway, there's no damn reason why the Government should be taking up this issue and taxing/legislating it to death. None. At. All.

It's only going to come back on the non-smokers when they feel like they've done enough damage to the smoking industry through hypertaxation and they can't bleed out any more.

It's a feel-good ploy to make the government look like they're helping society against another "evil" some people choose to take part in. And if they want to quit, by all means, feel free - but on your own volition, not through coercion by "sin" taxation and legislation.
 
2004-06-25 7:45:32 PM  
There's certainly no onus on anyone to prove that Brockway knows what he's talking about....
 
2004-06-25 7:47:04 PM  
ArcadianRefugee
ok kewl thanks but fauxnews?

Brockway

well the news and dr's over the years !
 
2004-06-25 7:47:33 PM  
2004-06-25 07:12:51 PM WOOFYSF

I don't even know those kids! I can light up with a clear conscience!
 
2004-06-25 7:49:57 PM  
that is what i think as well just so farking funny like that old saying

" would someone think about the children " hehehe

love that one !
 
2004-06-25 7:51:14 PM  
well it's time to leave
have a great weekend y'all
 
2004-06-25 7:52:01 PM  
That there is any controversy here at all amazes me. Smoking kills and injures not only those who do it, but those around them. Because of this governments are obliged to try to stop people. Much of this is the shared social cost. It may be okay to say it is your life, but what is likely to happen when smoking is that you will get sick and die early. Along the way you will generate high medical bills, and then you will leave behind folks who depended on you. The society foots the bill for all of that, so society gets involved with the decision to smoke.
 
2004-06-25 7:53:43 PM  
WOOFYSF: well the news and dr's over the years !

Well, remember that doctors, during the 50's or so, actually recommended smoking to some patients.
 
2004-06-25 8:08:59 PM  
In other news: Smoking cigarettes causes gangrene of the feet.
 
2004-06-25 8:10:25 PM  
let those of us who want to smoke do so.

I completly respect the fact that most people do not want to breathe in the smoke, and almost always go outside, even at a bar. I however expect people with crying babies and other annoyances to do the same. fair is fair.

that said, i would like to point out that the risk of secondhand smoke has been routinly overplayed. It is very well documented that the EPA fudged it's statistics to get second hand smoke placed on the carcinogens list. For example, the odds of contracting cancer from chloronated tap water, has been calculated by the EPA to be about 1.5 times that of non-chlorinated tap water. The numbers on secondhand smoke: 1.19 times.

chlorinated tap water is still legal in all establishments
 
2004-06-25 8:10:51 PM  
Brockway, what's your specialty? Do you see a lot of smoking related pathology in your practice?

For those asking for evidence of the detrimental effects of secondhand smoke, here is an abstract from a review article:

Respirology. 8(2):131-9, 2003 Jun.
Respiratory health effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. [Review] [90 refs]

Tobacco smoke is a major component of indoor air pollution. Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is prevalent worldwide despite growing awareness of its adverse health effects on non-smokers. ETS contains the same toxic substances as identified in mainstream tobacco smoke. Cotinine (a metabolite of nicotine) can be measured in urine and serum of non-smokers exposed to ETS and reflects the degree of exposure. In children, exposure to ETS leads to reduced lung function, increased risk of lower respiratory tract illnesses, acute exacerbation of asthma resulting in hospitalization, increased prevalence of non-allergic bronchial hyperresponsiveness, increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and possibly increased risk for asthma. Exposure to ETS is responsible for excess cost to the family's financial resources and demands on health services. In adults, exposure to ETS is associated with increased risk of lung cancer, particularly in those with high exposure and acute and chronic respiratory symptoms that improve after the cessation of exposure. Healthcare providers should advocate for non-smokers' rights in the community and support legislation to limit tobacco exposure. [References: 90]

So there you have it. Now will those people who claim that second hand smoke has no adverse effects please back up their claims with evidence.

Spigi
 
2004-06-25 8:11:29 PM  
btw, for a very good article on this, go here

http://www.smokingsection.com/issues1.html
 
2004-06-25 8:16:59 PM  
I hate those words, "second hand", implying that it's already been used once.

The shiat coming off the end of the cigaratte and going right into the air hasn't been used by anything, hell, it hasn't even gone through a filter.

Are some of you chuckleheads gonna sit there and tell us that living in a closed space with a smoker, with that shiat coming off the end of a cigarette into the air, into some non-smoker's lungs, isn't doing anything to them?

You wanna be a smoker, fine, but don't farking delude yourself. It's not just you smoking that shiat. Have fun killing your kids.
 
2004-06-25 8:17:13 PM  
When smoking is out-lawed, only outlaws will smoke.
surprised it hasn't been said yet. Don't usually read comments. (lying)
 
2004-06-25 8:18:35 PM  
Either ban them or quit pissing away taxpayer money and time better spent on real issues.
 
2004-06-25 8:26:04 PM  
TxRabbit

this thread isnt about president bush, so just shut up. there are plenty of political threads to troll in, in fact i think i saw you in one earlier.
 
2004-06-25 8:39:38 PM  
I would go to church more often if they handed out porn trading cards.
I wouldn't want to consume anything that had a picture of a healthy lung on it.
 
2004-06-25 8:43:39 PM  
I'm all for this.

Anyone been to Canada?

I'm gonna smoke from time to time still, but please, remind me every time I pick up my pack what I'm doing to myself.

That way I can properly weigh the risks and benefits myself.

Thanks, Jen.
 
2004-06-25 8:43:40 PM  
This should get a hero tag instead of asinine.
 
2004-06-25 8:47:44 PM  
I'm OK with this, as long as they put pictures of dissected healthy lungs on products that don't cause cancer.
 
2004-06-25 8:53:47 PM  
I guess I'm a bastard for laughing at this:
[image from hc-sc.gc.ca too old to be available]
 
2004-06-25 8:54:38 PM  
ArcadianRefugee,

"Well, remember that doctors, during the 50's or so, actually recommended smoking to some patients."

So a doctor 50 yrs ago knows more than a doctor now?
 
2004-06-25 8:58:38 PM  
Spigi:

Tobacco smoke is a major component of indoor air pollution. Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is prevalent worldwide despite growing awareness of its adverse health effects on non-smokers. ETS contains the same toxic substances as identified in mainstream tobacco smoke. Cotinine (a metabolite of nicotine) can be measured in urine and serum of non-smokers exposed to ETS and reflects the degree of exposure. In children, exposure to ETS leads to reduced lung function, increased risk of lower respiratory tract illnesses, acute exacerbation of asthma resulting in hospitalization, increased prevalence of non-allergic bronchial hyperresponsiveness, increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and possibly increased risk for asthma. Exposure to ETS is responsible for excess cost to the family's financial resources and demands on health services. In adults, exposure to ETS is associated with increased risk of lung cancer, particularly in those with high exposure and acute and chronic respiratory symptoms that improve after the cessation of exposure. Healthcare providers should advocate for non-smokers' rights in the community and support legislation to limit tobacco exposure. [References: 90]

So there you have it. Now will those people who claim that second hand smoke has no adverse effects please back up their claims with evidence.


You cite Dimich-Ward, a lackey of the lawyers? This is like me citing a study by RJR in-house scientists as the opposing view. The fact that you pony up a known lawyer lackey is evidence of how weak your side is. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Dimich-Ward has published on mesothelima/asbestos, and all those other things I mentioned above. Where there is money to be made in a lawsuit, there is Dimich-Ward, and there is Spigi to cite the work. Dimich-Ward, the same person who brought us timeless scholarly classics as "Building illness in the white-collar workplace", "Validity and reliability of a method for retrospective evaluation of chlorophenate exposure in the lumber industry", "A comparison of exposure estimates by worker raters and industrial hygienists", "Concentrations of organochlorine pesticides in the adipose tissue of British Columbia residents", and "Survey of malathion exposure among elevator and dock workers who handle grain".

How about some real science, and not the bough-and-paid=for kind?
 
2004-06-25 9:03:55 PM  
Tobacco is CAUSAL in cancers of the lung, bronchus, larynx, oral cavity, and esophagus in roughly 80-90% of US cases in males.

The biggest cancer killer in both men and women is lung cancer.

Cigarette smoking is responsible for one in every six deaths in the US. Cigarettes knock 10-15 years off of life on average.

Brockway, what is your specialty? Trimming fat off of asses in a strip mall? You obviously know nothing about tobacco.
 
2004-06-25 9:15:16 PM  
fark truth.com

there, i said it...fark em
 
2004-06-25 9:24:13 PM  
Welcome to the utopia that is Canada.
 
2004-06-25 9:32:19 PM  
captainradium:

Tobacco is CAUSAL in cancers of the lung, bronchus, larynx, oral cavity, and esophagus in roughly 80-90% of US cases in males.

The biggest cancer killer in both men and women is lung cancer.

Cigarette smoking is responsible for one in every six deaths in the US. Cigarettes knock 10-15 years off of life on average.

Brockway, what is your specialty? Trimming fat off of asses in a strip mall? You obviously know nothing about tobacco.


Lots of claims, I see. Would you like to back any of them up with evidence, or would you like to just leave them as baseless gratuitous assertions?
 
2004-06-25 10:01:07 PM  
I_am_jesus

"For example, the odds of contracting cancer from tap water, has been calculated by the EPA to be about 1.5 times that of non- chlornated tap water. The numbers on secondhand smoke: 1.19 times."

Maybe so, but at least I get a CHOICE in whether or not I want to drink chlorinated water. Most people who are at risk from second-hand smoke (mostly children) don't get to choose what air they breathe.
 
2004-06-25 10:26:37 PM  
Smokers clothing smell worse than posteriors.
T
hat is all.
 
2004-06-25 10:28:16 PM  
For Vanadium:

NOTE: No reason to make some wise reply, I'm not revisiting this thread, just posting some links as you requested. I know you asked for just one, but here's five for good measure. Have fun!

http://www.man-health-magazine-online.com/second-hand-smoking.html

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=31934

http://www.the-aps.org/press/journal/7.htm

http://www2.whdh.com/features/articles/healthcast/B495/

http://www.nzdf.org.nz/update/messages/2081.htm

None of these articles come from places like "smokingsucks.com" or anything. I didn't even have to put any effort forth for this. It's extremely easy to find articles like this. Google is your friend!

And oh yeah...

[image from hometown.aol.com too old to be available]

You're welcome!!!
 
2004-06-25 10:48:25 PM  
Brockway:
>You cite Dimich-Ward, a lackey of the lawyers?

He may be, I don't know. The reference given is a review article, so it summerised the findings of many other studies.

What is your specialty? What kinds of smoking related pathology do you see in your practice?

Here are some more references:

The tobacco industry's political efforts to derail the EPA report on ETS. [Review] [100 refs]

American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 26(2):167-77, 2004 Feb.

Abstract
Previously secret tobacco industry documents detailed a multifaceted approach of political strategies aimed to derail the 1993 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) risk assessment on environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). These pervasive strategies included the following: (1) lobbying the first Bush Administration to approve an executive order that would impose new risk assessment standards for federal agencies, thus delaying the release of the EPA report; (2) having the first Bush Administration transfer jurisdiction over ETS from the EPA to Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), thus obviating the need for the release of the EPA report; and (3) applying enormous political pressure directly by alleging improper procedure and policy at EPA. Although some of the attempted strategies failed, the political pressure from Congressman Thomas Bliley (R-VA) was a success. This is the first report showing how a single member of Congress in conjunction with his staff, tobacco industry attorneys, and executives worked very aggressively to do the tobacco industry's bidding. These tactics successfully delayed the EPA risk assessment and placed a cloud over its validity that was not fully vindicated until December 2002 when the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the tobacco industry's suit against the EPA. The documents show that the industry will expend whatever effort is necessary to protect itself from public health policy that would adversely affect consumption of cigarettes and, therefore, profit. [References: 100]

So you see, it's not just the pro-smoking lobby that has lackeys.


Adverse health effects of prenatal and postnatal tobacco smoke exposure on children. [Review] [83 refs]

Archives of Disease in Childhood. 88(12):1086-90, 2003 Dec.

Parents who choose to smoke are possibly not aware of, or deny, the negative effects of passive smoking on their offspring. This review summarises a wide range of effects of passive smoking on mortality and morbidity in children. It offers paediatricians, obstetricians, specialists in preventive child health care, general practitioners, and midwives an approach to promote smoking cessation in smoking parents before, during, and after pregnancy. [References: 83]


Spigi
 
2004-06-25 11:15:51 PM  
Here's a few legitimate articles on the perils of second-hand smoke:

World Health Organization:
http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html

The Journal, Nature and the British Medical Association:
http://www.nature.com/nsu/030922/030922-4.html

British Medical Association
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/bmjusa.03070002v1.pdf

U.S. Department of Health
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/roc/tenth/profiles/s176toba.pdf

The EPA article that is so widely derided among pro-smokers was derailed by the tobacco lobby after a judge, and former tobacco lobbyist, in North Carolina ($7 billion tobacco state) found some inconsistencies in it.
 
2004-06-25 11:33:14 PM  
Spigi:

What is your specialty? What kinds of smoking related pathology do you see in your practice?

I am technically under the auspices of the department of psychiatry. I do research on drug abuse, and as such, have been funded by NIDA. So my "angle" is 'mental illness', not lung pathology. Right now, my research is essentially epidemiology. I have post-mortem tissue of people in various categories, as you might imagine, and age-matched and sex-matched controls, etc. Lots of variables are surveyed (Dx, Hx, Rx, etc.). My interest is in the genetic element, but clearly, I have to consider all aspects.

There is only one non-genetic correlation, and it isn't smoking.

Here are some more references:

I am not saying smoking is good for you. What I am trying to convey is that most smoking-disease state couplings are the result of propaganda efforts, not public health concerns. People will claim there is no redeeming quality to smoking. This is simply untrue. Smoking increases cognition. Also, smoking can thin glutamate receptors, which would be beneficial for some people.

The issue is the environmental aspect of developing lung cancer. If it is the case, then why was the only ever discordant identical twin study only able to conclude one thing, viz., that INHALING actually had a protective effect (i.e., some of the discord was pipes, some cigars, and some cigarettes)? How can a corpuscular etiology not be dose-dependent?

A similar case is true for asbestos and mesothelioma. Should you be worried about asbestos? Well, if you work in a brake production plant, yeah, but if not, then probably not. Does that mean that asbestos is good for you? No. Should you worry about it? Yeah, about the same way you worry about getting hit by lightning.
 
2004-06-25 11:52:38 PM  
Brockway

I am technically under the auspices of the department of psychiatry. I do research on drug abuse, and as such, have been funded by NIDA. So my "angle" is 'mental illness', not lung pathology.

So are you a physician, or are you a PhD? I'm a radiologist (an MD) and every day I see smoking related illnesses and conditions exacerbated by smoking, in the form of cancers, vascular disease (strokes, PVD and the like), emphysema, osteoporosis, etc. Sure there have been some studies that show certain beneficial effects of smoking. The one that show it may delay the onset of Alzheimer's is an example. However, that's like arguing that not wearing a seatbelt is better than wearing one because you might get trapped in a burning car if you can't undo the belt.

The issue is the environmental aspect of developing lung cancer.

I thought it was the issue of environmental smoke and whether it was harmful, and the data certainly shows that it is. Whether environmental smoke increases your risk of lung cancer is certainly not proven, in fact most studies do not show a statistically significant link. Of course these cancers can take decades to show up.
 
2004-06-25 11:57:38 PM  
Read "Ashes to Ashes" by Richard Klugar. It won a Pulitzer in 1997. The straight poop on cigs. It obviously paints them as a health risk, but it made me want to start smoking, too. The corporate scumbags get the worst of it.
 
2004-06-26 12:12:04 AM  
Several comments:

1. anecdotal evidence (ex a smoker - or several) of a person living a long life and smoking only shows that cigarettes are not 100% sure to kill you; nothing more, nothing less.
Of course, the same can be said of people dying of lung-cancer, etc. (That is why studies look for strong-correlations (usually .60 - .99), not 100% certainties.

2. comparisons with automobiles, etc. are strange for 2 reasons
a) just because other things are 'bad' does not make this one 'good' (or more acceptable, etc.).
b) things such as automobiles are, sadly, a necessity in our life - cigarettes are not

3. In Canada, the costs for treating cigarette-related illnesses far outweigh the taxes collected on cigarette. Preventing people from smoking not only stops people from harming others (at least according to organizations like the WHO [http://www.who.int/tobacco/areas/communications/events/wntd/2001/en/]​), but also stops a drain on the taxpayers.
 
2004-06-26 12:17:36 AM  
test
 
2004-06-26 12:48:10 AM  
ernst_k:

In Canada, the costs for treating cigarette-related illnesses far outweigh the taxes collected on cigarette. Preventing people from smoking not only stops people from harming others (at least according to organizations like the WHO [http://www.who.int/tobacco/areas/communications/events/wntd/2001/en/]​), but also stops a drain on the taxpayers.


Why are taxpayers in Canada paying the health care costs of individuals? Wouldn't it be better to have a situation that isn't socialist? Maybe if people had to pay for their own health care, they would be more responsible in maintaining their health. And maybe the healthy ones wouldn't be resentful of the others.

On the other hand, having people too old to be productive routinely living to be 1,000 could have some interesting social consequences.
 
2004-06-26 12:58:18 AM  
Asinine? Hardly.
 
2004-06-26 1:07:03 AM  
well if its cig packs all over canada i think its SFW. also, the pics always take up HALF of the pack size.
[image from hc-sc.gc.ca too old to be available]
 
2004-06-26 1:08:35 AM  
this is one damned gripping thread. I just want you all to know, I am judging all your comments on style and merit, and will be checking in throughout the evening. I love it when a good debate gets rolling with people that cite their degrees and professions, and (largely) don't attack each other.

totally serious
 
2004-06-26 1:13:10 AM  
Brockway:
It is an interesting proposition. However, as it stands, that is the situation (and changing smoking laws is simpler than the Canada Health Act). Furthermore, I personally feel that just because I am well-off, I should not be more privilaged in health (and other necessities) then others.

However, I do agree that it would be great if people were more responsible for their health. I think there would be a great problem trying to distinguish exactly who caused what, and to what extent. Every trip to the hospital would be a seperate civil lawsuit.
 
2004-06-26 1:16:31 AM  
also, for those reading to the end, here is the score:

Socialists want to be able to control what you put in your body, since socialism requires that they pay for your medical care.

Capitalists want no controls over smoking, because they want to be able to make money charging you for both the cigs and the healthcare.

Americans (real Americans, not this neuvo-drone citizenry we have of late) oppose all restrictions on personal behavior that does not violate the rights of others. Make the case that it violates the rights of someone else, and you've won. Prohibition in the absence of that makes your actions certifiably unamerican.

/American Certifier #46

*steps out to light up*
 
2004-06-26 1:36:19 AM  
Brockway

Why are taxpayers in Canada paying the health care costs of individuals? Wouldn't it be better to have a situation that isn't socialist? Maybe if people had to pay for their own health care, they would be more responsible in maintaining their health.


In the US taxpayers pay for medical for those that cannot afford it. Our MICU and CCU are full of obese people who are for the most part from the lower socioeconomical strata, who smoked too much, ate too much, drank too much and excerised too little. The cost for one day in the unit is about $15000. Little if any is recouped from the patient. Now, if we had a high enough tax on cigarettes to cover the cost of this treatment it would make those people financially responsible for their healthcare.
 
2004-06-26 3:07:24 AM  
Word to the Leary ref!

"you could put them in a black pack, called TUMORs, with a skull and cross bones on em and smoker would be lined around the corner, saying 'i can't wait to get my hands on these farking things, i bet you get a tumor right when you light up!
 
2004-06-26 3:35:55 AM  
spigi:

I am well aware that our system is socialist as well. I say fee-for-service all the way. If you can't afford your treatment (or your insurance premium based on YOUR risk), then guess what? See you never.

What really bugs me are the fertility junkies who come in and give birth to FARKing googoluplets each weighing 35 femtograms. I have yet to do the calculation, but it must be ungodly expensive. And at the same time, polio nakes a comeback in the Congo.
 
2004-06-26 6:18:08 AM  
Even if second hand smoke causes no ill effects, which I am hesitant to believe, it's still FARKING DISGUSTING.

I can't piss on your leg at the bus stop, so put out your farking cigarette.

If you want to kill yourself in the privacy of your own home, then so be it, but please refrain from doing so in my presence. Weather it will harm me or not, it makes me cough, gives me a headache, makes me smell like shiat, and often times makes my eyes burn if there isn't enough ventilation.

With that said, I don't care if you smoke where it won't affect me. It's your choice, disgusting as I may see it.

/libertarian
 
2004-06-26 6:26:31 AM  
I suppose I should point out that I wouldn't wish to restrict smoking strictly to the home. If a private business or somesuch (For instance, a bar) wishes to allow smoking, then fine. I only request that smoking be disallowed in "public" places such as outdoor bus terminals and sidewalks. If I want to go to a private establishment then I can either submit to the smoke, or find an establishment that doesn't allow it.
 
2004-06-26 7:52:36 AM  
One quick question to smokers:

Why do you smoke?
 
2004-06-26 7:56:40 AM  
Without cigarettes the medical industry will collapse.
 
2004-06-26 8:09:25 AM  
Michigan just passed an additional $0.75 tax on cigarettes (now second highest tobacco tax behind NJ) to fund Medicaid (health insurance for the indigent). A big thank you goes out to Michigan smokers for continuing to provide health care coverage to the needy.
 
2004-06-26 10:48:54 AM  
reno77:

Without cigarettes the medical industry will collapse.

Without illness the medical industry would collapse.
 
2004-06-26 10:59:24 AM  
cmdrbean:

Even if second hand smoke causes no ill effects, which I am hesitant to believe, it's still FARKING DISGUSTING.

I can't piss on your leg at the bus stop, so put out your farking cigarette.


Yet we do not make illegal things which are just inconsiderate. My next-door-neighbor has a retard boyfriend who evidently thinks his car horn is a doorbell. No matter that it is 5am...HONK HONK HONK HONK, come on out Crystal Sue. And then there is the perfume example given above.

I agree with you, though. These things SHOULD be illegal, and I think they will be soon.

Samejima Mamimi:

One quick question to smokers:

Why do you smoke?


When I smoked it was to help me relax and not have homocidal tendencies.
 
2004-06-26 11:02:37 AM  
2004-06-25 06:54:02 PM chipaku

...lets put pictures of jihadists and abortion clinic bombing victims on churches and mosques....


Let's do.

Religion is a drug; like any other drug, we should do our best to make sure it is used responsibily.
 
2004-06-26 11:05:11 AM  
2004-06-26 10:59:24 AM Brockway

cmdrbean:

> Even if second hand smoke causes no ill effects, which I
> am hesitant to believe, it's still FARKING DISGUSTING.

> I can't piss on your leg at the bus stop, so put out
> your farking cigarette.

Yet we do not make illegal things which are just inconsiderate.


Funny, last time I checked, pissing on your leg was illegal.
 
2004-06-26 1:08:31 PM  
"Funny, last time I checked, pissing on your leg was illegal."

Oh.... well this explains why I dont have a girlfriend.
 
2004-06-26 1:23:33 PM  

2004-06-26 03:07:24 AM Stormstar1

Word to the Leary ref!

"you could put them in a black pack, called TUMORs, with a skull and cross bones on em and smoker would be lined around the corner, saying 'i can't wait to get my hands on these farking things, i bet you get a tumor right when you light up!


Leary said that? Ha.

When I lived in LA many years ago (and smoked), all the Hollywood rock and roll crowd that I hung out with smoked Death brand cigarettes, which came in a black pack with a skull and crossbones on em, and graphic, over-the-top warning labels on the side. You could get them in every little hole in the wall store on Hollywood Boulevard. We couldn't wait to get our hands on 'em. I'm sure they were available in other parts of the country, too, that's just where I was when I smoked them.

I'm sure Leary is aware of this, that lame and lazy asshole. He should try actually making up a joke of his own sometime.
 
2004-06-26 1:27:14 PM  
Oops, I should read the farking thread first, ArcadianRefugee has a picture of the pack up already.
 
2004-06-26 6:25:18 PM  
Polartank13
Won't work as condoms actually are intended to prevent such "disasters".
 
2004-06-26 10:13:37 PM  
Personally, I like the pictures...

"Collect the whole set!!"

"I'll trade you a limp willy for a yucky lung"

"Got it...got it..need it...got it..."
 
2004-06-27 9:50:26 AM  
Brockway:

"...Jean Calment, the oldest FARKing person to ever walk the face of this planet SMOKED FOR 105 YEARS!!

Smoking has very little to do with anything. And people who think it does are the same people who think the asbestos in their attic is going to give them mesothelioma, and that there is global warming, and were the same people who called saccharin the work of the devil, and who probably think nutrasweet causes you to go into a coma."

If you're a smoker or know someone who is, check out their household stuff sometime. Their TV for instance. Unless they clean the thing almost daily, there will be a nice thick brown scummy patina on the screen. Wipe it off with Windex & check out the rag. Now imagine... This is just what's left of the smoke after the smoker has exhaled it, filtering out most of the nasty stuff which is still in their lungs. And think of this, that smoke that scuzzes up the TV screen & the other stuff in the house is confined to a large area, the entire house. When you smoke, all of that crap is concentrated into your lungs, which are by comparison quite tiny. And considering that the lungs' job is filtering out oxygen from inhaled air & introducing it into the bloodstream, how could it NOT be harmful to your health? I'm surprised that smoking only a few of these suckers don't kill you., let alone a pack a day for years.

I used to smoke for about 10 years. After watching my wife's dad die of lung cancer caused by his heavy smoking habit, I quit cold turkey. And it was pretty easy. I just stopped buying the cigarettes & that was it. It didn't take long to notice the change. I didn't run out of breath as easily, I stopped coughing, my voice was clearer. I just felt better overall.

And that's not all, two of my neighbors died. One of lung cancer, the other of emphysema. My mom's two best friends died. One of lung cancer & one of emphysema. Two of my wife's uncles & an aunt died of lung cancer. My mom died of metastatic lung disease & emphysema. And what did all of these people have in common? They all smoked like a chimney. My wife's other older relatives who don't smoke are still around, though. True, there are a some golden oldies still around who've smoked all of their lives. I've even known a couple. But these people are an anomaly & not the norm.

So smoke 'em if you wanna. Your life, your body, & I have nothing against you personally for doing it. But don't think that anyone with even a marginally functional brain is going to believe that smoking is OK for you.
 
Displayed 186 of 186 comments


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.