Wrapping Up Smokers

The United Kingdom government is fighting a fierce battle against the tobacco companies, doing everything short of helping people to quit smoking (a move that would both cost money and cut into the precious taxes gained from tobacco companies and smokers) in their efforts to look good to other countries. Governments eh? The latest strike in this raging war is a strike against the fashion sense of smokers themselves as the government is considering forcing all packs to be moved to a single uniform brown or grey colour so that the colourful packets don't attract youngsters to start smoking in the first place.
"We have to try new approaches and take decisions to benefit the population. That's why I want to look at the idea of plain packaging." says Andrew Lansley, the UK Secretary of Health, "The evidence is clear that packaging helps to recruit smokers, so it makes sense to consider having less attractive packaging. It's wrong that children are being attracted to smoke by glitzy designs on packets. We will shortly set out a radical new approach to public health in a white paper. We want to go further and faster in improving the health of the nation based firmly on doing what the evidence tells us works."

Yeah, because we don't want bright colours attracting children to a potentially fatal, lifelong addiction, do we?

Still, at least that company hasn't taken cheap measures to try and appeal to older consumers in one way or another, unlike the evil tobacco companies. Anyway, the point is I'm on both sides of this argument. As a smoker I totally agree that we should be doing everything possible to stop kids from starting smoking. For starters I'm sick of brats asking me to buy them a pack of smokes whenever I go to the shop, and I'm sick of my brand running out too. But here's the problem, lots of shops these days have non-smokers who work there and they're legally not allowed to specify someone has to be a smoker to get the job. This means that when I ask for a pack at a shop where a non-smoker is working I'm constantly having to guide them around the display to the pack I want. It's like a voice operated version of those old arcade claw machines – "Left a bit, down three rows. Stop! No, stop!!! Up two rows. That's left, you need to go up. That's the row, now go across to the right twice. No, you've gone up as well!!! Go back down to where you were and then go right by a single pack. That isn't where you were. Are you fucking with me? Get me a smoker to serve me, dammit!!!" I'm not kidding you, that happens every single time I try to buy a pack of smokes from a non-smoker. So yes, this plan may cut down on new smokers (even though so many people started smoking back when cigarettes were sold in plain brown paper packets, and so many buy loose tobacco with no wrapping at all these days), but the stress caused to those of us who already smoke will increase our intake (if we can ever buy a packet) by enough to keep the tobacco companies rolling in cash and the government in enough smoking taxes to let them try another zany plan.

I wonder if they'll get around to targeting Ronald, who is a massive threat to children's health, in the same way?

Advertisements

67 thoughts on “Wrapping Up Smokers

  1. Fortunately (I would have said 'Thank God', but I don't want to offend anyone) we still have a couple of tobacco shops in my town, where the people behind the counter actually know their products. However, those shops are not always around when you need them. I share your sentiments on the subject of freckled teens with squeeky voices who can't seem to find what is right in front of their eyes at a time when you are just about to commit genocide for a smoke. And… A red packet with a legend saying 'Smoking Will Kill You' is attractive, even fashionable? Yeah, right…Death to Ronald MacDonald!*Puff*

  2. Exactly. If a person is stupid enough to start a potentially fatal habit just because the packets are shiny then they deserve everything coming to them. It'll raise the world I.Q. level a little at least. Me, I started cause it was cool. πŸ˜‰

  3. next thing they will say is herion is attractive cause of the silver foil for god sake!!!! i started smoking at fourteen for many reasons but not because of attractive packaging. ive only given up cause im pregnant. and a tip for when crappy teens want you to buy fags just take their money and say ok will do, what u want then just leave laughing manically and smoking infront or them hahahahaha

  4. lol nah dont worry im not a crack head mummy lol!!!! although i really fancy a smoke after all this talk lol wudnt wanna spoil my whole 3 smoke free days tho.

  5. Defying death is indeed cool. That's why I date blondes. :left:.Originally posted by laurajane1987:

    next thing they will say is herion is attractive cause of the silver foil for god sake!!!! i started smoking at fourteen for many reasons

    For just a second there, I thought you meant the heroin. :lol:.Hey man, you don't take an interest in the Colonel and he wont take an interest in you. 😎 Capische?

  6. It's not just Ronald, it's KFC and Wendy and Buuurrrgerrrr Kiiiiiing. They're all at it, like tobacco companies. Ronald takes a beating, but personally, I think KFC products are *far* worse, health-wise.I gave up smoking for several reasons, my (future) health not being a consideration, or one of the issues πŸ™‚

  7. Anti-smoking campaign is all over Serbia now. Government forced a new law against smoking in public spaces – offices, pubs, restaurants (but left the possibility if they are less than 80 square meters to choose whether they will allow smoking or not). They even founded some kind of special police force – they are unarmed (except batons) and their main job will be, among other things, to prevent smokers to drop fagends on sidewalks or anywhere else except garbage cans :doh:And no one asked how much it would cost.And all of it in a country where a lot of people are quitting smoking because prices of cigarettes went through a roof and salaries are drilling a floor :doh:And minister of health said something I can`t quote because:a) I can`t prove itb) I don`t want to end up in a jail

  8. My reason to keep smoking is complex and not easy to explain, but there is an amount of politics in it. Smoking has always been a statement of free living and rebellion, etc. but in our time it has become a political statement as well. However, my primary reason for not quitting is that I am addicted to nicotine. This goes for the majority of smokers. In fact I believe it's just around 100% of us.

  9. Out here smoking is banned in offices, public buildings, restaurants, theateres, public transport etc you've got to go out to a public road to smoke.Also all packs carry a warning and a picture of a lung or something but don't think this has affected smoking much. Although I do know a couple me guys who have successfully kicked the habit but it wasn't due to any of the government rules for sure.

  10. im not addicted * says she whilst sucking ever ounce of fag smoke outof the cusions* i gave up real easy (please ignore the nervous tick and shaking) hehehe

  11. Smoking's easy to quit. Done it before and I'll do it again one day when I can be bothered. Now coffee, that's a different matter. :coffee:

  12. Originally posted by Mik Furie:

    "I like living dangerously. That's why I date blondes."

    :left: :sst: does Kimmie know? :confused:

  13. Well, life's a bitch and then you die. A life style that supports the illusion of eternal youth an infinite health might be good for some people. I don't need that. I face death every day. Like everybody else. I have just passed the point where I can be bothered with ignoring that fact.

  14. smoke advertising is banned here.. Err cigarette advertising.And warning labels on each pack is mandatory. I always choose the one that says, 'Pregnant? Breastfeeding? Your smoking can be harmfull to your baby.' :happy: i'm so smart. :happy:

  15. We have various warnings printed on packs: Smoking causes lung cancer! Smoking is damaging health of people around you!, etc…There is a joke about a man buying a pack of smokes. There was a warning Smoking may cause impotency! on them. He saw that and returns the pack to seller saying: Please, give me those ones that causes lung cancer, I am having a date tonight…:P

  16. Heh, we get gross out pictures. I keep returning the packs of throat tumours and asking for the dead children or old looking hands. :up:

  17. I'm fully in favour of intelligent people working hard to find ways to stop people from starting to smoke to begin with. :up:.Now if only we could find some intelligent people in the government. :rolleyes:. As for the cashier not being able to read the name on the pack, that sounds like a qualification problem. In South Africa, a cashier is usually expected to be literate. :rolleyes:.

  18. I've heard that the gross pics are on the way to the packets here too. Until now we 'just' have the warning signs on them. I'm not sure if any of it helps. The law against smoking in public places has changed things a bit here, and I must say that it feels good to come home after a night out without having my hair and clothes smelling of smoke. :up:

  19. There's no smoking in public places here too, and there are govt. proposals to make NZ tobacco free by 2025 :yes: That's way more than just 'smoke free'.The only thing that puzzles me is that as a rule, smoking harms mostly the smoker (put aside passive smoking for the moment) – and yet Alcohol consumption – that damages not only the drinker, but anyone who gets in the way (drunken violence, drunk drivers etc.). Both are the results of concious decisons by the drinkersmoker, but…how come *so much* is put into anti-smoking, and perhaps not so much into alcohol education??? Or am I wrong about that? :interested:

  20. Originally posted by qlue:

    As for the cashier not being able to read the name on the pack, that sounds like a qualification problem.

    It's more that there are like a billion brands on the shelf and I'm cheap, but not cheap enough to go for a brand that people only smoke because it's cheap and nasty and so is well known. My brand suffers from medicrity. :(Originally posted by Zaphira:

    I'm not sure if any of it helps.

    It doesn't. The gross out photos just stress me out and, as a smoker, guess what I do when I'm stressed out?Originally posted by laurajane1987:

    ive never smoked a fag and then beat someone up or crashed my car

    She keeps trying but they always see the car coming due to the red glint of the cigarette. :awww:Originally posted by FlaRin:

    Both are the results of concious decisons by the drinkersmoker, but…how come *so much* is put into anti-smoking, and perhaps not so much into alcohol education?

    Let me put it like this. My country has decided to crack down on drinking by making sure cheap drinks aren't readily available. They've done this by quite large tax hikes on the booze recently, yet still allow bars to be open 24 hours with the right license. Doing one thing is high profile while not supporting it keeps the profits coming in. Most governmental policy is more about perceived action on the international stage than it is about doing the right thing, though occasionally something good slips through.

  21. Originally posted by FlaRin:

    how come *so much* is put into anti-smoking, and perhaps not so much into alcohol education???

    I think I can answer that. 14,000 people dies in Denmark every year because of smoking. And 'only' 2,800 dies because of alcohol.

  22. Originally posted by Pussy Cat:

    14,000 people dies in Denmark every year because of smoking. And 'only' 2,800 dies because of alcohol

    My God!! Those are serious figures! Yes, then it makes sense, although I suspect the 2000 drink deaths don't include people run over & killed by drunks, or beaten to death outside clubs & suchlike. But that won't make much, if any difference to the stats – 14,000 a year. Fuck! If the Govt. didn't nake *so much* money out of tobacco, it would be as illegal as the drug of choice.

  23. Originally posted by FlaRin:

    but…how come *so much* is put into anti-smoking, and perhaps not so much into alcohol education???

    The alcohol lobbyist are saying to the law makers… "Hey, look over there! Aren't those tobacco people doing something unhealthy?"

  24. The problem with health statistics and their presumed relationship with either tobacco or alcohol is that they are extremely subjective. Nobody actually dies from 'smoking'. Smoking related illnesses exist even in the absence of smoking. Lung cancer, heart disease and other 'smoking related' illnesses occure anyway, but are automatically attributed to smoking if the patient happens to smoke. Alcohol, however, is treated differently. Only in cases of alcohol poisoning, and similar where a direct link between alcohol and cause of death can be established is alcohol mentioned on the death certificate. So every smoker who dies due to 'natural causes' contributes to the 'smoking related deaths' statistics. But most alcohol related deaths do not affect the alcohol/death statistics at all since alcohol will not be named on the death certificate of someone who was knocked down by a drunk driver, or even that of the drunk driver who wraps himself around a street pole. :irked:.If we treated the facts of each case the same way, the statistics for alcohol related deaths would be far higher than that for smoking related deaths. :awww:.

  25. Originally posted by laurajane1987:

    ive never smoked a fag and then beat someone up or crashed my car lol

    That is so true. And it is all there needs to be said in that discussion. All other arguments fail compared to this simple statement.

  26. Originally posted by Mr M. Scientist:

    Nobody actually dies from 'smoking'

    Sure. But that's like saying nobody dies of HIV – it's the diseasecondition that the body can't combat that actually kills you, but the root cause is the same. Smoking on the one hand, HIV on the other. Don't get me wrong, I'm not comparing the two situations at all, but it's Pragmatics, isn't it – smoking *does* kill you, not everyone that's true – some people are just born lucky – but generally – you smoke, you're chances of a comfortable middle and old age drop off the cliff very quickly indeed. I don't want to go into whether or not you think society as such should bear the cost of your subsequent medication & treatment…but it's a vaild conversation to have……and I agree about 'alcohol related' statistics – the truth of the matter is so obviously much higher than 'the official figures'. Education, then, rather than higher taxes??? Will making it more expensive just turn plain old Tobacco into Cannabis (so to speak – i.e. drive it underground)? Or…..???

  27. Plus the interest you *should have* earned, over the years :)I'm not saying you shouldn't smoke, Martin – it's not that I don't care either – but long term, either tobacco must be genetically engineered so that it no longer produces all the chemical poisons that do the human body so much damage, or people need to *understand* exactly what unpleasantness they're setting themselves up for when they start (usually early teens or younger). Hard to do, I know. Scare tactics will only work short term, ditto severe taxing – and so…what? The *real* problem is surely the tobacco companies and the people who invest in them. Any shareholders amongst our readers? – Check your portfolio. If you're anti-smoking in *any* way, look & see if you own shares in BAT, for instance – you are part of the problem, if so! If you **really* want to do something about the smoking problem, hit the shareholders where it hurts – you, smokers, might think you're in charge, but you're not. Smoking *has* you, is it not so? And thus you are controlled by the finance managers & shareholders of the Tobacco giants. Strike out those shares (and you can, if you want), and lo – the problem might actually start to go away. If there's no *huge* profit, then the business will fade. People's lives will in due course, be unburdened by the need for a smoke and it's attendant health problems.Don't blame the people who buy the smokes – they are in effect the victims – the real culprits are not even the Tobacco companies, but the people who fund them – the shareholders.In my opinion πŸ™‚ <<POP>> Oh. I heard someone press the STFU button πŸ˜€

  28. Lung cancer surgery costs an average of 15000 Euros, depending on the specifics of the operation. Plus two years of medical treatment at circa 6000 Euros per year. Full cost: 21000 EurosI spend around 4 Euros on a packet of cigarettes, 2,8 of which is state tax. I smoke 5 packets per week. That is 728 Euros per year. I have been smoking for 26 years.Total tax (up until today): 18928 Euros.If I smoke for two more years, I have payed the full expense of the surgery/treatment I might need at some point – even if I stop now.That is true pragmatics.

  29. The poisons and carcinogens are in the smoke itself rather than the tabacco. Even grilled over charcoal or smoked foods are carcinogenic. :left:.Nicotine inhalers are banned in some countries and the nicotine refills are banned in other countries, errite being free of the carcinogenic smoke. :rolleyes:.the main point I was making is that the statistical evidence against cigarettes is handled differently to the statistical evidence against alcohol.While tabacco smoking does contribute to heart disease, for example. There are other contributing factors. The death certificate of a smoker reflects that they are a smoker, but only if they die from a 'smoking related' illness. It does not, however, reflect that a hamburger addict ate five hamburgers a day for most of his adult life. :left:.Both lung diseases and heart diseases can develop in a non-smoker.As for AIDS, aka Aquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, there is no evidence that it occurs without HIV. And HIV inevitably results in AIDS. The two are inextricably linked as cause and effect. The link between heart/lung disease is not as exclusive.Now don't get me wrong. I know that smoking increases the risks of heart and lung disease. But it is neither the exclusive cause, nor is it inevitable that a smoker will develop either illness. Many smoker live to an old age and did natural, disease free deaths. But if a smoker happens to have a heart attack, smoking is automatically listed as a causative factor even if there could possibly be other factors like job stress and greasy fast-foods which are not listed on the death certificate.This causes a self referential pattern of evidence;smokers have heart attack=>heart attack causes death=>hence smoking causes deathI bet a similar case can be made for refrigerators. I dare you to research how many heart attack victims lived in a house that contained a refrigerator and compare that with cause of death for people who didn't own a fridge. :p.(the statistics will show a 'definite' link between heart attacks a fridges, but only because work related stress is less common amongst people who can't afford fridges. But there is still 'compelling' evidence. :p)

  30. OK. I don't smoke, and I have a refrigerator. However, we both know that if I have a heart attack, or get lung cancer, it *won't* be because I have a fridge. (Just keeping it real πŸ™‚ )However, if I smoke, then we *all* know that I'm dramatically increasing my chances of getting very sick, one way or another, just, and solely, because I'm introducing *a lot* of toxins and carcinogens into my body. Genetically, I might be more able to deal with them, but again I might not. It's a lottery. However, if I don't smoke, I don't have those toxins, carcinogens, etc flushing around my bloodstream. Therefore I'm returned to the default human status, with 'normal' chances of developing something nasty. It happens, something gets us all in the end. But. The more you smoke, the more you increase your chances of getting sick because you smoke.We can bat stats back & forth all we want, but it doesn't chnage the fact that if you smoke, you increase your personal chances of getting Cancer, Heart attack, stroke, whatever…if you have a fridge, you increase the chances that your loved one will spontaniously pour you a glass of chilled Pepsi, but *not* that you'll fall over with a stroke (because you have a fridge).We know that smoking is bad, we don't need to argue, what we need to do is discuss and see if we can agree on a worthwhile way to convince people that it's a bad idea and that they can spend their money to better effect. That's it, isn't it??? πŸ™‚

  31. You're missing the point. You may not have your death linked to a fridge just because you own one, but the point is that smokers always have their deaths linked to smoking even if it's not the cause. Die in a housefire caused by faulty wiring, it must have been smoke damage to the wires or you fell asleep in bed while smoking. Car crash? Smoke in the eyes. Electrocuted to the point you have a heart attack? Smoke related heart failure. And then there's lung cancer, the big one, that some doctors refuse to admit happens to non-smokers too. Spent all day every day eating bacon for fifteen years then decided to do a full cardiac workout and have a heart attack? It must be down to the smoking that you did ten years ago… :irked:Smokers are treated like having that fridge is automatically going to be the cause of their deaths. When I was a kid I had tuberculosis which weakened my lungs to the point that I get a bad cough every winter and can't hold my breath for long. Everyone who knows me and many who don't and shouldn't be paying that much attention attribute that cough and lung capacity problem to smoking, which I started later in my life. It can't be the disease that almost destroyed my lungs when I was younger because I'm a smoker now so it must be that. If I do die of lung failure (which I have a high chance of due to scar tissue in the lungs themselves) my death will automatically be put down to smoking, even if my smoking hasn't contributed towards any lung damage. :furious:

  32. Sure, Flarin, everybody knows smoking is bad. The warnings are out there, even on the cigarette pakcs. You read about it in the newspaper and watch it on television. What more can possibly be done?What annoys me is, that smoking is overexposed as compared to many other dangers of which alcohol is only a small one. Working up a hysteria on the subject of smoking and rejecting and stigmatising smokers sort of turns the attention away from real big-issue problems like fossile fuel emissions.I know this is a bad pun, but this way the smoking debate becomes a smoke screen, allowing people to carry on driving cars without being dragged along the same guild track as smokers are. Generating electricity from coal – about 6,743,786,000 short tons per year and counting – doesn't only emmit CO2 but also produces waste sludge, containing mercury, uranium, thorium, arsenic, and other carcinogenic heavy metals. This has emmidiate effect on people and is the biggest threat to life as we know it. And causes far more cases of lung cancer than cigarette smoking.People's attention is being kept away from these far bigger issues by focusing on smoking. Smokers become scape goats on a large scale.Someone, please open the windows and make the smoke in front of everybody's eyes dissapear.

  33. I thought to mention George Burns earlier. :lol:.Changing the packs to a uniform grew colour will have no significant effect on smoking in general. Not long ago, a 'new' brand of cigarettes emerged with each cigarette a different pastel colour. It didn't last very long though because it's not the colour of the packs nor is it the colour of the cigarette paper that starts people smoking.Unfortunately, once you start smoking you become increasingly addicted to the nicotine. Only someone who has a chemical addiction can understand this really. And smoking is a curse that I wouldn't wish on anyone. :cry:.It's scarry how quickly I became addicted to the shit. :irked:.I have a medical problem in my right hand called Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. It started many years ago, about five years before I started smoking. Yet one doctor made the comment that I should stop smoking because it's already caused this problem. :irked:.Doctors have convinced themselves that any medical problem that a smoker has must be because of the smoking. :rolleyes:.This myopia is distorting the truth. Every smoker who dies of 'natural causes' is used to bolster a distorted statistic that smoking kills. Statistics should not be considered as proof of anything. And in this case, it's the conviction of the medical field that is creating the statistic in the first place.Find an effective way to stop people from starting to smoke in the first place, yes. But don't ignore logic and don't ascribe a cause and effect relationship as fact based on a hunch. :left:.

  34. fact based on a hunch.

    Fact.Fact.Fact. But OK – deny away. I still don't want to argue particularly, but pushing tobacco smoke into your lungs will hurt you. Fact. You may not develop <whatever etc.> & die straight away. Also Fact. You get a bigger chance of doing so, though. Fact. But up to you – denying the damage is like denying that drinking makes you drunk. One drink one *single* alcoholic drink will affect your judgement or actionsreactions, very slightly, but it will. You can't stop it doing so. You can't stop smoking damaging your body if you smoke. You can't deny that you're doing yourself a measure of harm one way or another by smoking. Agreed?? Or…..?I'm not really the one who's missing the point, I don't think. I don't care about fridges & house fires at all. But I'm trying to say that Smoking Kills One. Not everyone of course, but the examples of George Burns (amusing name under the circumstances) etc. are bogus, because if someone lives to 708090100 and smokes, you could argue how long would thay have lived if they didn't smoke – and the examples that there are to offer like that are *so hugely outnumbered* by the examples on the other hand, people who die of lungthroatmouth cancer caused by hot toxic smoke, provably so, not statistics – I mean – OK, you give George Burns, I riposte with Yul Brynner, who went on public display before his death and said 'don't smoke, it'll kill you like it's killed me' or words to that effect.I'll shut up now, because I feel very strongly about smoking and would, given the opportunity, participate in 'give up smoking' therapy, as a coachtherapist. So I'm probably more biased against it than this conversation calls for, sorry πŸ™‚ \edit : …and this post started out as a focus on corporate-driven threats to children's health (McDonald's etc.) and I see Tobacco as exactly that – adults can justify their smoking somewhat (age, responsibility to self etc.) but – if you were 12 now, and *none of your family smoked*, and never had, would you start?? ? I'm pretty sure I know the answer, even if you don't – because I see it in real life all the time – family contains smokers, kid starts. Family has no smokers, kid doesn't start. You can pretty much bet your Subaru on it πŸ™‚

  35. But Kitty… Everytime you start the engine of your motorbike, the out-burst of emissions, toxic gasses and heavy metals amounts the smoke from 80.000 cigarettes. Even with combustion filter. That is a fact. And the baby sleeping in its cart in the neighbouring backyard will inhale a fair amount of this.This fact would not make you consider riding your motorbike, would it?

  36. Discussions about smoking and the damages smoking causes almost always end up in discussions with smokers on one side and non smokers on the other, and that kinda blurs the picture.People do die of smoking every day. That's a fact that's undeniable. Half the people who die of smoking in Denmark have minors still living at home. That means that it's not 90 year old auntie Hilda who's been smoking, drinking and running with men all her life. That's a fact too. We can spend days throwing facts at each other. But I don't really think it changes anything. I couldn't care less whether people smoke or not. It's their own business. As long a people know there's a risk, then they can make their own choices.What I do care about is the kids, who don't chose to be second hand smokers. Please be considerate and don't smoke around them. Be a good example. You would have wanted adults to have done the same when you were a kid. :up:

  37. I dispute the figures of 800,000,000 cigarettes, and point out that Pussy Cat probably doesn't do that 40 times a day, every day, indoors with the windows shut. Nor do you, of course, but just joining in the discussion… πŸ˜‰

  38. Originally posted by FlaRin:

    I dispute the figures of 800,000,000 cigarettes

    Actually you're right. Thanks for noticing. I accidently added a zero when I wrote the comment. Sorry about that. My source compare ignition of motorbikes with the smoke from 80.000 cigarettes.@KittyIf you were the only Kitty starting a motorbike it would propaply not be a problem. But there are 132.768 vehicles with combustion engine in Copenhagen. 41.000 of them are company cars which means they drive every day. That is a lot of smoke. Particle pollution is a very serious deal, and most of all lung cancer deaths are caused by this.What I am trying to say is, that we are all part of the problem with emissions. And pointing fingers at smokers, yelling 'Bad! Bad!' does not free anybody from responsability. Compared to cars, factories, planes and cargo ships, smokers are absolutely no threat to the environment.

Have Your Say:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s