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 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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
 
Displayed 50 of 186 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all



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.