New Anti-Smoking Ads

[Muspelheim]

The packs already declares the most menacing threats of death and torture to me, I've gotten used to it. Short of making the packs out of old, black and a gooey lungs themselves, I think I'm immune against pretty much anything that can be thrown at me.

I know it's -very- unhealthy, I know it's an exceptionally stupid thing to do, like all drugs. But I'm quitting when -I- want to, and all the whining really only makes me want to hang on to the habit out of spite.

I don't smoke right at entrances or in a crowded tram stop, I'd never smoke indoors, I don't smoke when I'm near children and I take care to discard the cigarette butts properly. I'm not a flippin' monster.

 

[likalaruku]

I don't smoke, I don't like the smell of cigarettes, but I think people should be able to do whatever they want to their own bodies. If smokers want to smoke, let em.

 

[crazyarms33]

Probably been said before, but it bears repeating.

Let people live their own lives within the laws of whatever country they're in.

This whole bullshit about how smoking is the greatest evil of the 21st century and will surely be the downfall of mankind really pisses me off. So WHAT if people smoke? It's already banned where I am from in bars and within 50 feet of a public building. Are you kidding? No smoking in bars? To quote South Park, "I thought this was America?! I thought we had freedom!? Are we in a communist country now?" (Absolutely ZERO political statement intended here)

Realizing this is a terrible comparison in advance, the #1 killer in America is heart disease, which is largely caused by fast food. MILLIONS of people die every year because of this, but we get upset because of smokers? Who have to be a certain age to purchase their products? Whereas 5 year olds can go and get a Big Mac? Yeah. Awesome. When there are legal bans on all fast food, THEN I will support banning smoking. But not one freaking second before.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

We've had these ads for years.
Our packets have to be hidden from view in shops and soon we're going plain packaging (blank cardboard so no fonts or pictures).
This is after massive tax increases so a pack costs about $20.

Our government is pretty retarded.
People know smoking is bad. THEY DON'T GIVE A SHIT.

So maybe the government needs to fuck off. If i want to drink acid i should be allowed to, just the same as if someone wants to inhale a bunch of bad shit they should be able to.

But no, go ahead idiots, ban everything bad for peoples health so our population does nothing but grow and become old. It doesn't cost anything to keep 5 billion 100year olds alive or anything.

EDIT: Colour me surprised. Nevermind lol. Conceded

OT:

My father had mouth cancer. Its a cancer 95% for smokers. Hes never smoked a pack in his life. I saw the operations. And the radiation treatment. He can never eat anything solid again. I saw the pain of having your mouth irradiated to kill all the outer skin.

I will never smoke in my entire life and i can honestly only attribute people wanting to to ignorance. Anyone who has seen what ive seen and wants to INCREASE the chance of that shit is fucking stupid end of story. You cant possibly imagine how shit having cancer is. And i didnt even have it. I just watched a family member suffer from it. Suffer and suffer and suffer.

Ignorance is the only answer i can imagine to want to risk so much pain. Maybe we should dispell that ignorance. People dont LIKE pain.

Lol at your last paragraph. Being alive for longer is BAD! Everyone should be shot age 60 then?

By the way, i totally think the government shouldnt ban it. But they, and i, totally have the right to say how stupid it is and how hilariously bad the idea is. If it saves one person from the torment of cancer then im all for it. Not banning. The adverts. Maybe it does save some lives.

Thats the thing though. Youre right. They dont give a shit. But my father gave a shit. The question is why dont they? Its because they dont think it will be them. They dont grasp the reality of the consequences and brush it off as just an advert. Maybe we need to change the sell...

 

[chadachada123]

We've had these ads for years.
Our packets have to be hidden from view in shops and soon we're going plain packaging (blank cardboard so no fonts or pictures).
This is after massive tax increases so a pack costs about $20.

Our government is pretty retarded.
People know smoking is bad. THEY DON'T GIVE A SHIT.

So maybe the government needs to fuck off. If i want to drink acid i should be allowed to, just the same as if someone wants to inhale a bunch of bad shit they should be able to.

But no, go ahead idiots, ban everything bad for peoples health so our population does nothing but grow and become old. It doesn't cost anything to keep 5 billion 100year olds alive or anything.

Costs more to treat smoking related diseases than it does to care for an old person.

Not...actually...true...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18711498

Healthy people cost more in part because they'll live to be old and end up using massive amounts of money (while old) to extend life an extra couple of years.

 

[chadachada123]

Yes while this is true, My line of thinking comes from diabetes potentially bankrupting the NHS within a generation. Whilst diabetes can be hereditary, the massive influx is coming from poor diet, and it is unfair for one to hold the opinion that one group of people should have to provide private medical care due to leading an unhealthy lifestyle whilst another group doesnt. Also to say its ok for people to smoke and be treated on the nhs just so the government can collect a couple of billion in tax revenue at the exspense of peoples health is a poor argument in my opinion anyway.

To be fair, healthy diets are damn expensive compared to poor diets.

I tried getting a meal to eat while out and about a few weeks ago, and the cheapest healthy meal that could even think of filling my stomach up cost over $5 (and wasn't even from a restaurant), when the alternative, getting a very filling (and fattening) McDouble at Mcdonalds, costs $1.06.

I pity the people more poor than I am that also have terrible metabolisms. They're fucked no matter which way you cut it, while rich(er) people can afford to eat healthily.

 

[flarty]

I've heard it was like that in the states before. which is pretty disgusting. Its the opposite here in the uk fast food tend to be more exspensive (though still very cheap). For example a big mac meal costs £3-4 while a tray of vegetarian sushi costs around £1-2 from a reputable supermarket. Its almost theres some sort of conspiracy to push junk food on american citizens.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

At first I was pretty angry that they'd be putting out ads like these, but I watched them all and they're not trying to force you to quit, or make you feel guilty, they're the guy standing next to you going "just saying, dude." Plus, they're doing it for the health of others rather than demonizing the habit like most other ads. Good thing I don't smoke, eh.

 

[5ilver]

Could you put a "NOT SAFE FOR CHILDREN" or "MAY SCAR YOU FOR LIFE" warning before the actual video?

 

[Treblaine]

It was over 70 years ago we learned that smoking was more than just bad for your health, it was the SINGLE most damaging thing you could do (legally) to your body that would shorten your life. But for the next decades since scientists quietly insisted on this risk they were more than ignored, smoking rates went UP! You can see why such measured had to be resorted to.

People should have the right to make their own choice but they have a responsibility to make an INFORMED choice! If they are irresponsible and don't seek out the risks then they will be told.

I think for most people if they really knew the risks and realities of smoking they would never even start.

 

[Treblaine]

People should have the right to make their own choice but they have a responsibility to make an INFORMED choice! If they are irresponsible and don't seek out the risks then they will be told.

I think for most people if they really knew the risks and realities of smoking they would never even start.

I'm fairly certain this goes beyond informing people of risks.

Humans are not machines, for a large population to actually get a message it has to be in human terms. They were told of the dangers calmly and quietly yet most did not register the true dangers. Such uncensored visual depictions of the diseases from smoking are needed for people to take in the facts.

I worked as a medical technician in a hospital and I was trained to inform patients of impotent details in very explicite ways as the NHS had actually conducted evidence based research and the general public took in as little as a quarter of the information given to them and even with a small amount. So if told 5 things they will forget 3 of them and mis remember the 4th.

This advert doesn't ever say "don't smoke". It just states emphatically and unflinchingly what the outcome can be.

I've had people try to tell me smoking is dangerous.

Dangerous, y'all? Really? I'd give you the point that it's unhealthy...but dangerous? Not in the grand scheme of things. If you wanna see smoking get dangerous, try hooking your mouth up to a running engine's exhaust pipe. Now that's dangerous, my friend. Not to mention slightly retarded. As someone else has pointed out, drunk driving's a bit dangerous, too. Also retarded, but happens to be more dangerous than smoking. You wanna know what I find to be even more dangerous than that?

Putting nuclear reactors near goddamn fault lines in a place aptly named the "Ring of Fire".

I wonder if many people have discovered vaporizing yet. Much less dangerous than smoking, and it works with tobacco. FYI: on this nice little topic of drug use - I want to make it PERFECTLY CLEAR that I'm not for or against it in any shape or fashion; do whatcha want. That, and this topic been talked about before, so I'm just going to leave this lil' message from the past here...

Spoiler: Enjoy and pay special attention at the three and a half minute mark

That's bill hick right?

Didn't he die from cancer... when he was only 32 years old?

I think he has a lot of insight into the social aspects of various drugs but the tragedy of his young death does not do much to refute the associated health risks.

Yes there are things more dangerous than smoking. But that's a false dichotomy? It's like saying that playing Russian roulette isn't as dangerous as putting a full loaded gun to your head and pulling the trigger. Playing Russian roulette is still a dangerous thing to do. Smoking is still really bad for you... As should be obvious, you are inhaling huge volumes of smoke.

I think all the benefits of medical cannabis should be delivered professionally via prescription in suitable medical delivery so in pill form or vapourising inhaler if pulmonary delivery really is critical (I don't know of any medical reason for such a rapid delivery).

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

[That's bill hick right?

Didn't he die from cancer... when he was only 32 years old?

I think he has a lot of insight into the social aspects of various drugs but the tragedy of his young death does not do much to refute the associated health risks.

Yes there are things more dangerous than smoking. But that's a false dichotomy? It's like saying that playing Russian roulette isn't as dangerous as putting a full loaded gun to your head and pulling the trigger. Playing Russian roulette is still a dangerous thing to do. Smoking is still really bad for you... As should be obvious, you are inhaling huge volumes of smoke.

I think all the benefits of medical cannabis should be delivered professionally via prescription in suitable medical delivery so in pill form or vapourising inhaler if pulmonary delivery really is critical (I don't know of any medical reason for such a rapid delivery).

That is, indeed, one William Melvin "Bill" Hicks. Here's the weird thing, though - he did quit smoking for a brief period of time! Also, Bill Hicks died of pancreatic cancer and some have debated whether or not his smoking habits were influencial on his death. The argument is that his diet ultimately led to his cancer, which has some merit. Regardles, all forms of smoking are ultimately unhealthy for the human anatomy. But then, when the ultimate outcome of life is death, who is to say what humans should or shouldn't do to themselves as long as it doesn't infringe on another person's freedoms?

Spoiler: Bill Hicks on giving up smoking and non-smokers

 

[Treblaine]

snip

Would you find it acceptable if we did the same with cars?

Yes, and they do. In the UK at least and I've seen what appear to be American versions as well warning of the dangers with car driving. I CANNOT be in a moving car without a seatbelt on which will HUGELY protect me in almost every kind of accident.

Also PSA's about the dangers with house fires and of electricity transformers, and a whole load of other things.

[That's bill hick right?

Didn't he die from cancer... when he was only 32 years old?

I think he has a lot of insight into the social aspects of various drugs but the tragedy of his young death does not do much to refute the associated health risks.

Yes there are things more dangerous than smoking. But that's a false dichotomy? It's like saying that playing Russian roulette isn't as dangerous as putting a full loaded gun to your head and pulling the trigger. Playing Russian roulette is still a dangerous thing to do. Smoking is still really bad for you... As should be obvious, you are inhaling huge volumes of smoke.

I think all the benefits of medical cannabis should be delivered professionally via prescription in suitable medical delivery so in pill form or vapourising inhaler if pulmonary delivery really is critical (I don't know of any medical reason for such a rapid delivery).

That is, indeed, one William Melvin "Bill" Hicks. Here's the weird thing, though - he did quit smoking for a brief period of time! Also, Bill Hicks died of pancreatic cancer and some have debated whether or not his smoking habits were influencial on his death. The argument is that his diet ultimately led to his cancer, which has some merit. Regardles, all forms of smoking are ultimately unhealthy for the human anatomy. But then, when the ultimate outcome of life is death, who is to say what humans should or shouldn't do to themselves as long as it doesn't infringe on another person's freedoms?

Spoiler: Bill Hicks on giving up smoking and non-smokers

Some have debated? Have you heard of "weasel words"? Give me at least a name or a reputable doctor who discounted Bill Hicks chain smoking as not contributing in any substantial way to his untimely death.

I'm not saying Bill Hicks should have been arrested or somehow forced to quit smoking, prohibition doesn't work.

I'm saying if you are going to quote him on how to live your life then you must face up to the reality of how his life was cut VERY short by smoking related disease.

Yeah, his "jokes" about non-smokers dying every day become quite unintentionally macabre when you realise he'd be dead only a few years later while people in his audience who didn't smoke could expect to live over twice as long as him. Bill Hicks deserved a longer life, he was no dummy, I'm sure if he really knew and could accept the risks he wouldn't have smoked so much for so long.

But he was cynical, he clearly was lied to about other drugs and is bitter about that and undermines other warning. He is a victim of the media crying wolf, but he didn't differentiate between scientists restrained advice and special-interests groups like Republicans-Against-Drugs exaggerating the risks of other drugs to such an extent.

It's telling that anti-cannabis campaigns have to hire actors telling convolutely cut dramas, but anti-smoking campaigns just film actual patients who just frankly tell their situation as a result of smoking.

 

[omega 616]

How old do you have to be to smoke these days? 16? 18? Anyway, by that kind of age if you don't know smoking has a high chance of causing you problems then you're a moron.

So everybody who smokes knows the facts about smoking and what it can lead to, so why do they need to be educated? It's like trying to convert Christians to Atheism.

Why not just start releasing adverts about the damages of drinking or stabbing plug sockets with a knife? Talk about trying to teach the bleeding obvious.

 

[Treblaine]

How old do you have to be to smoke these days? 16? 18? Anyway, by that kind of age if you don't know smoking has a high chance of causing you problems then you're a moron.

So everybody who smokes knows the facts about smoking and what it can lead to, so why do they need to be educated? It's like trying to convert Christians to Atheism.

Why not just start releasing adverts about the damages of drinking or stabbing plug sockets with a knife? Talk about trying to teach the bleeding obvious.

Um there are adverts about the dangers of drinking and also the dangers of electricity.

And yeah, it does take just a bit more than "you should know for yourself" about smoking. So many are just not getting the quiet restrained message, they don't want to hear about how their favourite habit is going to causes anything hugely bad to happen.

 

[hatseflats]

Apparently, wood smoke is very dangerous as well, having roughly the same effects as smoking...

Linky thingy [http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/952/1/Beware-Your-Fireplace-Or-Wood-Burning-Stove-May-Be-Harming-Your-Health.html]

But you rarely hear anybody about it. Smoking is something done by a small minority, so it's easy to pick on it. There aren't many people with hearths either (far less I'd think) but most people really like wood burning, while most people dislike smoking. I always hear the main cause of dying by non-natural causes is related to people being overweight. However, it's unlikely the governments will tax fast food as heavily as they do smoking because so many people eat unhealthily.*

I smoke, once in a while. I don't smoke on a daily basis but rather smoke a package within a few days once every two weeks or so.
Thing is, I can't actually make a calculated decision about whether or not I should stop. Because I don't know what the effect is. Most studies I've found simply refer to "smokers", and most smokers smoke an awful lot. Other studies differentiated between heavy smokers (>20 fags a day) and light smokers (less than that), in which case the effect on heavy smokers is far higher. However, I still smoke far less than those light smokers. Another study differentiated between those who smoke half a package a day, one package and two or more. Still far more than I smoke.
Also, studies disagree on what the odds really are on getting lung cancer (which is one of the nastiest possible outcomes). One study reported something like 51/100,000 for 0.5 pack a day, compared to 3.4 for non smokers, but another study found it was more in the range of a 20 percent chance for smokers.
If smoking the amount I do results in an increase from 3.4 tot, say, 10/100,000, I am fine with those odds since I really like smoking (I like the taste of it and going outside to enjoy a walk with a cigarette).**

*Also, people who say healthy food is expensive are really pathetic. It's not. It's expensive if you want fast healthy food, but if you'd take the effort to cook for yourself then it's actually ridiculously cheap.
Me and my girlfriend cook meals for about ?1,50 - ?3 per day, which is in the Netherlands where prices are far higher than in the USA (hamburgers at McDonalds start at ?2 here). For about the same money you've got a full meal with more meat (= relatively expensive) than is actually recommended, so if you really want to eat healthily you could cut back on costs even more. And the good thing is that it actually fills your stomach. I could eat three McDonalds hamburgers and still be hungry.

**Apparently, most people do not smoke because of the taste but out of habit or whatever. Which seems like a pointless thing to do. Probably because people start smoking Marlboro (which tastes like ash really) and then get addicted.

 

[The White Hunter]

It doesn't even get you high.

This. It's by some distance the most pointless substance to abuse. Cannot for the life of me see what makes people want to try it in the first place - at least other drugs have side effects that kind of entice you.

Makes sense. Cannabis has very little negative effect on you anyway so just smoke that instead?

OT: All things in moderation, I don't habitually smoke but the occasional fine cuban cigar with some good scotch is a very nice thing indeed. Only 1 or 2 a year, maybe, do I smoke. Otherwise drink is what's slowly killing me.

But then livers can be transplanted. Lungs can't. Though I don't by any means rely on such things, I have started drinking less and such.

So yeah, moderation. If you're on 60 a day eventually it will catch up with you though.