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 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 36 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.