Smoking

[Swift]

i know but this is the opinion section and thats how i feel

trust me, i know that considering my dad quit smoking not after my sister and i tried but after he got double pnemonia and almost died.

smokers will not quit for you...only for themselves.

but we can try

Well then, by your own admission, your original statement is self-defeating. It certainly contains some truth, but not practical at all.

 

[Danoff]

i know but this is the opinion section and thats how i feel

trust me, i know that considering my dad quit smoking not after my sister and i tried but after he got double pnemonia and almost died.

smokers will not quit for you...only for themselves.

but we can try

Just try to keep in mind when you're trying to presuade someone to do something, that you have to have a solid incentive.

 

[Master_Yoda]

Pot is fun, but side affects arn't, it's why i quit. Until i got too addicted.

 

[Swift]

Pot is fun, but side affects arn't, it's why i quit. Until i got too addicted.

Sorry, this is the smoking thread. Not pot thread. There's a whole seperate thread for that.

 

[FoolKiller]

This is a bit of grave digging, but as TM has it listed in the index I won't start a new thread.

The US Congress just passed a new law, still to be signed by President Obama, that makes sweeping changes to tobacco regulation in the US. The President has said he intends to sign it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-06-11-tabacco-control-bill_N.htm?csp=34

Senate passes the most sweeping tobacco-control bill
By Wendy Koch, USA TODAY

Cigarettes marketed as "light," "low" tar or "mild" will be banned within a year as part of a historic bill the Senate passed 79-17 on Thursday.
The legislation, approved by the House in April, is the most sweeping tobacco-control measure ever passed by Congress. It goes now to President Obama, who has said he will sign it.

The bill, which gives the Food and Drug Adminstration the authority to regulate tobacco products, comes after more than a decade of congressional debate and a half century since the U.S. Surgeon General's 1964 landmark report linking smoking to lung cancer.

"It's long overdue," said Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut.

The bill will dramatically affect how tobacco is marketed as the bill's provisions are phased in:

• Immediately, tobacco makers can no longer make claims that their products pose fewer health risks.

• Within three months, candy- and fruit-flavored cigarettes are banned, and the FDA can extend that ban to cigars and moist snuff, where such flavorings are more common. Menthol is exempt.

• Within nine months, the FDA must publish marketing restrictions that will take effect six months later.

• Within 12 months, new warning labels will be placed on smokeless tobacco products.

• Within 15 months, tobacco companies must disclose the ingredients in their products.

• Within two years, the FDA must issue rules on graphic warrnings for cigarettes that will cover half the pack. The labels will take effect 15 months later.

How exactly the market will change is unclear, says Tommy Payne, executive vice president of RJ Reynolds, the nation's second-largest tobacco maker. His company opposed the legislation, which major health groups supported.

Payne says the bill bans "light" or "ultra-light" cigarettes, which are slightly more than half the market, but it does not specify acceptable words for differentiating them from other cigarettes.

Payne says companies may need to use different packaging colors so smokers can find cigarettes with less tar. He says most currently package menthol cigarettes in some shade of green.

"Consumers have become acclimated to color coding," so removing terms such as "light" won't have a big impact, says Nik Modi, a tobacco industry analyst for UBS.

Tagging a cigarette "light" misleads smokers into thinking the product is less harmful, says Matt Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

Myers says research shows "absolutely no health benefit" to smoking a "light" or "low tar" cigarette. "Consumers smoke them differently," he says. 'They inhale more deeply and smoke them further down."

I believe that Congress has made it official that they think we are too stupid to think for ourselves.

A warning half the size of the pack? Do they think people didn't see it before now? Do they think that people will go to get cigarettes now and go, "OH MY GOD!!!!! These things can kill you!" And I don't know about you guys, but even here in tobacco central, Kentucky, I do not know anyone that actually thinks light or low tar means less cancer.

 

[TofuStoreDrift]

I just think its a load of bs. Sure I need to quit smoking, but just because the box is half covered by a warning label doesn't mean I'll stop. This is just another attempt for the government to control American companies during this bad economy.

 

[ExigeEvan]

This is a bit of grave digging, but as TM has it listed in the index I won't start a new thread.

The US Congress just passed a new law, still to be signed by President Obama, that makes sweeping changes to tobacco regulation in the US. The President has said he intends to sign it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-06-11-tabacco-control-bill_N.htm?csp=34


I believe that Congress has made it official that they think we are too stupid to think for ourselves.

A waring half the size of the pack? Do they think people didn't see it before now? Do they think that people will go to get cigarettes now and go, "OH MY GOD!!!!! These things can kill you!" And I don't know about you guys, but even here in tobacco central, Kentucky, I do not know anyone that actually thinks light or low tar means less cancer.

 

[Famine]

It's expected in the UK though that our government thinks we're all imbeciles who can't be trusted with our own health.

 

[TofuStoreDrift]

Now that is an ugly pack of cigarettes.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm not even sure what this is supposed to do, other than spend more of my money to enforce pointless regulations.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Improve literacy skills?

 

[FoolKiller]

Improve literacy skills?

Nah, ours already have more words, and even variety so you read them to see if you have a completed set. They just aren't big.

 

[Keef]

I don't see the point in any sort of warning on the actual package of cigarettes. So you think a 20-year smoker is going to turn the package around, see the warnings, and go "oh, that sounds awfu, I'd better quit."? No. Sure, they may say it sounds awful, but they're follow it up with a "gimme two."

And the middle school kid who's just trying it for the first time. The warnings are meaningless, because his friends will just counter it with "it gives you an awesome buzz", or some other stereotypical line.

The only time a person ever sees the package is when they're at the counter about to buy the thing. I'm pretty sure most smokers don't even notice the current warnings. They'll notice the new though--the first three times they encounter it.

Where does the classic "I told you so" principle come into play? Why can't it be that simple anymore? All this proactive stuff is nonsense.

And don't forget the government overstepping their bounds, and blah blah blah.

 

[Joel]

Well, I know quite a few people that smoke (cigarettes and weed) and I will never smoke, EVER. I don't care about people smoking as it's their choice. I usually don't have a problem with smokers because here in Canada you can't smoke in public buildings (including restaurants) not saying I agree with it, I think a better way to handle it would be by only allowing 18+ into smoking restaurants, as you are old enough to smoke at that point. Also, no pot doesn't need to be legalized pull out all the numbers you want, i've been around people high, and it's not fun. Honestly, there's not really a huge difference in behaviour when someone goes and smokes a pack, but when someone gets high, you can tell, and I honestly don't feel safe around them.

 

[TrievelA7X]

This is a bit of grave digging, but as TM has it listed in the index I won't start a new thread.

The US Congress just passed a new law, still to be signed by President Obama, that makes sweeping changes to tobacco regulation in the US. The President has said he intends to sign it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-06-11-tabacco-control-bill_N.htm?csp=34


I believe that Congress has made it official that they think we are too stupid to think for ourselves.

A warning half the size of the pack? Do they think people didn't see it before now? Do they think that people will go to get cigarettes now and go, "OH MY GOD!!!!! These things can kill you!" And I don't know about you guys, but even here in tobacco central, Kentucky, I do not know anyone that actually thinks light or low tar means less cancer.

I heard about this a few years back... a comedian was saying pretty much that..
But hey, if he signs it, (which he will) it will be obamas first massive waste of tax money!! YAY!!! during a nice big fat recession!
it's a profoundly stupid waste of time and money for everyone involved.

Well, I know quite a few people that smoke (cigarettes and weed) and I will never smoke, EVER. I don't care about people smoking as it's their choice. I usually don't have a problem with smokers because here in Canada you can't smoke in public buildings (including restaurants) not saying I agree with it, I think a better way to handle it would be by only allowing 18+ into smoking restaurants, as you are old enough to smoke at that point. Also, no pot doesn't need to be legalized pull out all the numbers you want, i've been around people high, and it's not fun. Honestly, there's not really a huge difference in behaviour when someone goes and smokes a pack, but when someone gets high, you can tell, and I honestly don't feel safe around them.

You don't feel safe? really? I love your sig, but you need to stop reading government propoganda. It doesn't make people go crazy and rape and kill like the 1930's movies suggest... but that's another topic so carry on

 

[Sureboss]

You're missing the lovely pictures!

On my packs (Marlboro Red) I've only ever seen the lung ones. Never anything else.

Tagging a cigarette "light" misleads smokers into thinking the product is less harmful, says Matt Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

Well, it is less harmful when compared to stronger cigarettes. A silk cut has 3mg of tar and 3 mg of carbon monoxide, along with .3 mg of nicotine. Marlboro Red (quite strong) has 10mg of tar and carbon monoxide with 0.8mg of nicotine (I think, might be 1mg). Cigarettes should be deemed light, as many people I know go onto them before trying to get off, but quite frankly I don't bother with the light stuff. Silk cut feels like nothing, I'd need about 4 to satisfy what I get out of 1 Marlboro Red. If I was on a weaker cigarette I'd easily be on a pack a day, I reckon.

Myers says research shows "absolutely no health benefit" to smoking a "light" or "low tar" cigarette. "Consumers smoke them differently," he says. 'They inhale more deeply and smoke them further down."

Of course it doesn't. But no one is saying it has a health benefit, but compared to the heavier stuff it is a health "improvement" (about the best wording I can think of).

Not surprising they inhale more deeply, actually trying to find a kick out of a silk cut is quite difficult. I doubt he's ever smoked in his life, either.

Lighter/low tar cigarettes should be advertised as such.

[story]
When moving one of the open barrel of Harvey's at work I spilt some (it was quite full, about 70 pints inside) and I spilt some onto my jacket, where my packet was. I tried smoking it (I love Harvey's - only one had one left, luckily), tasted ****, unsurprisingly [/story]

I'm surprised you Yanks haven't had our style of packaging, actually. Didn't realise it was just small text.

Ooh, got a new one on the back of my pack. "Smoking causes ageing of the skin" with a picture of an OAP grasping their wrists". Had them in my jacket yesterday, sat down on the train and squashed 'em. Now I've got triangular cigarettes.

 

[Small_Fryz]

as someone who has survived 6 open heart surgeys i really dont want to kill my lungs by smoking, i really appreciate the places where its banned. so i can go their. I dont think it needs to banned all together, just have places where you can and cant smoke. That way i can choose to avoid it if i dont like it. Or if i did smoke, i also have a place to go. But ive never smoked anything and never will. When you fight so hard to stay alive your not about to make such stupid choices to die such as smoking.... for what benifit???

 

[Sniffs]

*chuckle* if the US government had done this with Alcohol, Islam waould have one less thing to be mad at the US for.
apparently, the government hasn't been paying attention to the reseach, much. it's not smoking that kills you, it's everybody else's (2nd hand), or the SMELL of it (3rd hand) that's worse.
the only benefit to discarding all "flavors" is getting rid of that disgusting cherry favor they use in Cigar tobacco.
oh, and the reason that there's no precieved difference between regular, lights and ultralights? the machines they test them with draw at the same rate, kinda like NASCAR.

 

[Nicknamealguem]

You're missing the lovely pictures!

And that is nothing compared to Brasilian packs of smoke.
Here is an example:

and another one, that I found trully shocking (View at your own discretion.)

I can’t say I agree with this or not. But I can ask, does this work at all?

I think most people that smoke are aware of the dangers behind smoking. The small text in the bottom saying smoking cigarettes can kill was enough, was there any need of big texts and pictures?

Edit:

Or if i did smoke, i also have a place to go.

Why would you have to smoke in public places in the first place?

 

[Sniffs]

Small fryz: some people in the US precieve it as a fundamental right...along with toting a revolver and a bottle of Jim Beam. that's why all three are lumped together into one Controll Bureau, the BATF.

I still belive all this will do is drive people into the arms of Smokeless tobacco, which affects no-one but the owner...as long as people learn how not to spit

 

[Max Powers]

Oh thanks Obama, now I finally realize that smoking is bad for me. I promise to be good and quit now. I guess the bombardment of anti smoking messages that I've been listening to since 6th grade health class were not enough for my simple mind.

I promise to quit, ASAP. Sorry about the second hand smoke too, I didn't realize that it was harmful, my bad.

 

[Small_Fryz]

I promise to quit, ASAP. Sorry about the second hand smoke too, I didn't realize that it was harmful, my bad.

harmful or not its such a pain in the arse!!! why should we (non smokers) have to put up with breathing in smoke all the time? if i wanted to smoke i would.. but if i dont then i deserve to breathe some smoke free air.

Im not pushing to have it illegal, i just think you have places you can, and have you have places you cant smoke.. This way if you want to smoke you can, and if i want to go out and have some drinks and dinner without breathing in smoke, i can also..

Win win???

 

[Sureboss]

As a smoker, I agree with that. I rarely walk and smoke and generally if I do give myself a good distance between me and other people. If I'm standing it's easier for non-smokers to avoid and pretty obvious if I'm standing next to a smoking stub/bin, which themselves tend to be out of the way. Even when I am walking/smoking and see someone coming towards me who doesn't like the idea of inhaling my smoke (body language is often obvious, but tbh I'm in Hove quite a lot and Hove/Brighton is a very relaxed area with regards to social taboos) then I won't toke and put the fag to the opposite side which they are walking past me.

 

[FoolKiller]

I heard about this a few years back... a comedian was saying pretty much that..

His name is Dennis Leary and it was on his first CD "No Cure for Cancer." Nearly all my humor is a result of 90's pop culture.

But hey, if he signs it, (which he will) it will be obamas first massive waste of tax money!! YAY!!! during a nice big fat recession!

First? The guy has been wasting money since he first got in office as if he could just have it printed from thin air...oh wait.

Small fryz: some people in the US precieve it as a fundamental right...along with toting a revolver and a bottle of Jim Beam. that's why all three are lumped together into one Controll Bureau, the BATF.

Yes, it is any person's right to do as they please with their own body and it is also the right of a business owner to choose which legal activities are allowed within his business. There is no perception here. The perception is that people think they have the right to tell what others can and cannot do with their own bodies and property.

And when this law goes through tobacco will now be under the FDA. I am not quite sure how that affects the ATF, but I suspect they will still deal with the production and delivery of it.

why should we (non smokers) have to put up with breathing in smoke all the time? if i wanted to smoke i would.. but if i dont then i deserve to breathe some smoke free air.

Before I begin I want to remind you that we have similar health situations. That said, I do not have the right to tell private business owners what legal activities they can and cannot allow within the building they own. You have a choice about using businesses based on their smoking practices. To make you happy though means that the business owner does not get a choice about what to do with his own property. It would be the equivalent of someone telling you what legal activities you can do in your house.

I understand it is a hassle for you, but what do you think it means to a business owner who can't run his business the way he wants? What if he wants to have a special smoking club night for cigar aficionados once a week or something? You would limit him to only allowing that in a certain part of his own property?

Im not pushing to have it illegal, i just think you have places you can, and have you have places you cant smoke.. This way if you want to smoke you can, and if i want to go out and have some drinks and dinner without breathing in smoke, i can also..

Win win???

Win win for smokers and non-smokers? Kind of, unless of course the smoking section is full, because they then have to wait or not smoke. Or leave. But what about the business owner? That is who is being regulated in that situation. What if he finds that smokers tend to spend more money and he would like to allow twice the possible number of smokers by having it all smoking?

Nothing prevents a business from going non-smoking but we do have to prevent them from allowing smoking. Creating business regulations that stop or limit a legitimate practice of a business is like saying you don't care what is best for that business as long as some customers are happy.

 

[Small_Fryz]

I understand it is a hassle for you, but what do you think it means to a business owner who can't run his business the way he wants? What if he wants to have a special smoking club night for cigar aficionados once a week or something? You would limit him to only allowing that in a certain part of his own property?


Win win for smokers and non-smokers? Kind of, unless of course the smoking section is full, because they then have to wait or not smoke. Or leave. But what about the business owner? That is who is being regulated in that situation. What if he finds that smokers tend to spend more money and he would like to allow twice the possible number of smokers by having it all smoking?

Nothing prevents a business from going non-smoking but we do have to prevent them from allowing smoking. Creating business regulations that stop or limit a legitimate practice of a business is like saying you don't care what is best for that business as long as some customers are happy.

If you wanted to open up the freedom of choice to the business owners with no laws to govern them, then i think the business will have to show their choice at the door. We have seperate sections for smokers / non smokers or... we dont allow smoking... or you can smoke anywhere you want. This way you know and if you dont like the conditions of entry then you just dont go in. I mean with that supply-demand type of approach you would think it would even out and you would have enough places to go no matter if your a smoker or a non smoker?

 

[Sniffs]

Fool: this is why I'm glad I'm not an urb, where the barriers are humongous about doing EVERYTHING.

Fryz:at least you personally don't have to worry about it, unless you fly up here. it's also why I pointed out "smokeless tobacco"...so you non-smokers can breathe (literally) easy.
oh, and there's a complete ban over smoking anywhere other than outside in designated areas. lobby THAT one through your government, and the entirety of Oz will breath easier.

 

[FoolKiller]

If you wanted to open up the freedom of choice to the business owners with no laws to govern them, then i think the business will have to show their choice at the door. We have seperate sections for smokers / non smokers or... we dont allow smoking... or you can smoke anywhere you want. This way you know and if you dont like the conditions of entry then you just dont go in. I mean with that supply-demand type of approach you would think it would even out and you would have enough places to go no matter if your a smoker or a non smoker?

I do know that before smoking bans started taking affect the companies that were smoke free did advertise it. No regulation was necessary as the smoke-free businesses advertised it on TV and with signs on the door. Smoking establishments didn't need to post signs, but a few did, stating that they are a proud smoking establishment.

 

[Tornado]

A warning half the size of the pack? Do they think people didn't see it before now? Do they think that people will go to get cigarettes now and go, "OH MY GOD!!!!! These things can kill you!"

I dunno. My health teacher brought in some packs of Canadian cigarettes, and seemed to think that half-carton sized warning labels were the best thing ever invented.

 

[FoolKiller]

I dunno. My health teacher brought in some packs of Canadian cigarettes, and seemed to think that half-carton sized warning labels were the best thing ever invented.

Ask her if she knows any smokers that quit because of it.

 

[Tornado]

She's also an idiot, if that helps.