Canadiens1131
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2004
- Messages
- 10,363
This is your brain.A_Wanderer said:Martha said to keep it in this thread; smoking sucks this is the result
This is your brain on CRACK.
The anti-smoking thread
- Thread starter financeguy
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
This is your brain on CRACK.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
A_Wanderer said:
You seem to be assuming that employers will do things voluntarily, when in fact history shows otherwise.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Historicism is a highlight of authoritrian systems according to some; employers will act in their own interests - and if that interest is making more money by running a clean non-smoking venue then they will do that and if it means covering their arses from loosing house and home to a former employees lawsuit or fines and workplace investigations then they will do that. You seem to assume that regulation and prohibition is the solution.
Do you think that society needs the state to step in when people do things that aren't in their best interests?
Do you think that society needs the state to step in when people do things that aren't in their best interests?
Last edited:
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
A_Wanderer said:
Why wait for lawsuits and dead and injured people?
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Because there is a question of consensuality on behalf of the employee versis the obligations of the employer given the known damage that second hand smoke does. There are multiple sides to the argument of bans and it doesn't boil down to good versus evil.
If the precautionary principle guided all public policy then why shouldn't we ban things that will kill people outright like tobacco, fatty foods, tanning salons and yes alcohol because even though moderate use is positive it is still the most highly abused drug.
If the precautionary principle guided all public policy then why shouldn't we ban things that will kill people outright like tobacco, fatty foods, tanning salons and yes alcohol because even though moderate use is positive it is still the most highly abused drug.
OP
OP
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
A_Wanderer said:
And automobiles.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Well that goes without saying 
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
BANGOR, Maine (AP) -- The Bangor City Council approved a measure Monday that prohibits people from smoking in vehicles when children are present.
When the law goes into effect next week, Bangor will become the first municipality in Maine to have such a law. Similar statewide measures have been adopted in Arkansas and Louisiana and are under consideration in several other states.
People who smoke with children present in the confined space of a car or truck might as well be deliberately trying to kill those children, said City Councilor Patricia Blanchette, who is a smoker.
"Let's step up to the plate and lead; our children are worth the fight," she said.
The ordinance, which was approved by a 6-3 vote, applies to any motor vehicles on any public roads within the city. Violators face fines of up to $50.
An amendment that was added Monday to the original proposal makes the violation a primary offense, rather than a secondary offense. That means police can pull over vehicles if they see somebody smoking with anybody under 18 in the vehicle; if it were a secondary offense, police would have to stop the vehicle for some other reason, such as speeding.
Several residents, doctors and representatives from the Bangor Region Chamber of Commerce and the Fusion Bangor development group spoke in favor of the ordinance.
Pediatrician Robert Holmberg said the evidence is "incontrovertible" that exposure to cigarette smoke causes medical disorders in children, including asthma, bronchitis, ear infections and heart disease.
"Children are the most in need of the protection by public policy, because they can't protect themselves," he said.
But the ordinance also had its critics.
Councilor Susan Hawes, who voted against the law, said the police department should devote its energy to more important issues. There's already too much government intervention in people's lives, she said.
Aaron Prill of Bangor told the council that the ordinance was a "feel- good option" that was not intended to protect children but rather to "moralize" against smokers. Most smokers have enough common sense not to smoke around children, he said.
When the law goes into effect next week, Bangor will become the first municipality in Maine to have such a law. Similar statewide measures have been adopted in Arkansas and Louisiana and are under consideration in several other states.
People who smoke with children present in the confined space of a car or truck might as well be deliberately trying to kill those children, said City Councilor Patricia Blanchette, who is a smoker.
"Let's step up to the plate and lead; our children are worth the fight," she said.
The ordinance, which was approved by a 6-3 vote, applies to any motor vehicles on any public roads within the city. Violators face fines of up to $50.
An amendment that was added Monday to the original proposal makes the violation a primary offense, rather than a secondary offense. That means police can pull over vehicles if they see somebody smoking with anybody under 18 in the vehicle; if it were a secondary offense, police would have to stop the vehicle for some other reason, such as speeding.
Several residents, doctors and representatives from the Bangor Region Chamber of Commerce and the Fusion Bangor development group spoke in favor of the ordinance.
Pediatrician Robert Holmberg said the evidence is "incontrovertible" that exposure to cigarette smoke causes medical disorders in children, including asthma, bronchitis, ear infections and heart disease.
"Children are the most in need of the protection by public policy, because they can't protect themselves," he said.
But the ordinance also had its critics.
Councilor Susan Hawes, who voted against the law, said the police department should devote its energy to more important issues. There's already too much government intervention in people's lives, she said.
Aaron Prill of Bangor told the council that the ordinance was a "feel- good option" that was not intended to protect children but rather to "moralize" against smokers. Most smokers have enough common sense not to smoke around children, he said.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
because kids in cars can't consent and harming them is child abuse.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
The rights of the employees to not contract cancer and other diseases associated with smoking come before any rights of employers who allow smoking in their workplaces.A_Wanderer said:
I'm only talking about employees and employers here.A_Wanderer said:
joyfulgirl
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2001
- Messages
- 16,690
*eh, never mind, sorry*
Last edited:
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Anything more recent?
joyfulgirl
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2001
- Messages
- 16,690
A_Wanderer said:
Sorry, I deleted it when I realized how old the info was and I don't have time to research further...it was one of those moments where I knew I'd be getting into something I don't have time to finish.
Harry Vest
Refugee
A_Wanderer said:
This is such bullshit from the extreme politically correct facists - I was born in 1960 to 2 parents that smoked (that was quite common back then) - both me and my sister spent 20 years in my parents company - in the smoke filled house, the smoke filled car etc. etc. Neither of us has asthma or ANY "smoke related" diseases. In fact most people I know grew up in exactly the same kind of smoke filled atmospheres as I did and NONE of them have any "smoke related" diseases (even those who still smoke). During those years it was extremely rare to meet ANYONE that had asthma - I mean ANYONE!!! Now it seems to be rampant (along with peanut allergies) in kids everywhere. This CANNOT be because of smoking because now hardly anyone smokes in front of children - if you do you are labelled "evil" and a "child abuser" - therefore I pose this question...why, if most people are trying so hard to not expose children to second hand smoke, why are there SO MANY more children with asthma????????????????????????????
Having said that I still believe it's a good idea not to expose children to second hand smoke but I just can't stand society constantly using smoking as an excuse for every health problem. There is much more to the picture than meets the eye ( i.e. the foods we eat, trans fats, exhaust, pollution, chemicals etc. etc.) - obviously.
Last edited:
Harry Vest
Refugee
Harry Vest said:
Oops...i pressed the wrong button. Sorry
deep
Blue Crack Addict
U2democrat said:
you've been watching too many prison films
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Anyone who completely ignores the effects of smoking and act as if it's some big conspiracy theory is fooling themselves.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
One of the very first things you will find in science is that anecdotal evidence is bullshit - see your sample size of two closely genetically related individuals doesn't hold the same weight as studies involving thousands of people; given the wealth of scientific literature of the effects of cigarrette smoke and second hand smoke that supports the notion that it will effect those who aree exposed health and that children are not capable of consent or to have harm inflicted upon them (should go for circumcision as well) then such a law is not unreasonable.Harry Vest said:
It isn't fascistic for such a policy to exist.
Kieran McConville
ONE love, blood, life
Canadiens1160 said:
I'll assume that was irony.
Vincent Vega
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Harry Vest said:
Most asthma, especially of children, is caused by too much hygiene.
Parents use these bacteria killers every second and wash their children more than they speak with them.
I don't know where my recent "asthma" comes from, and I don't want to necessarily blame smoking for that.
The effects of second-hand smoking really are often exaggerated. Still it is not healthy, so people should at least try to not let others inhale the smoke.
BrownEyedBoy
Rock n' Roll Doggie
How hard is it to understand?
Smoking is bad for you, period.
Since it is unhealthy, why should you expose others to that substance?
Just walk outside, have a smoke and slowly kill yourself on your own.
Smoking is bad for you, period.
Since it is unhealthy, why should you expose others to that substance?
Just walk outside, have a smoke and slowly kill yourself on your own.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
Walgreen selling cigarette in a hand gel across the U.S.
Reuters Jan 10, 2007
NEW YORK - A new hand gel is starting to appear on drug-store shelves promising more than just an end to germs or dry skin — this one claims to satisfy users’ tobacco cravings for up to four hours.
Walgreen Co. , the largest U.S. drugstore chain by sales, is now stocking its more than 5,500 stores with packets of Nicogel, a quick-evaporating gel made with tobacco extracts. The roll-out should be finished within a couple weeks, said company spokeswoman Carol Hively in an e-mail, adding that it costs $5.99 for box of 10 doses.
Nicogel, made by a unit of privately held Blue Whale Worldwide Inc., can be used when smoking is inconvenient, such as at work, on an airplane, in a theater or, these days, in almost any other public place.
Blue Whale, which also sells a smokeless tobacco substitute made from tea leaves, is hoping to cash in on the increasing number of smoking bans and the ill-effects of second-hand smoke, Chief Executive Bill Whalen said in an interview this week.
“The potential for this product is enormous,” said Whalen, a horticultural geneticist with a business degree from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. “The most important thing is smoking bans. (Also, more) people don’t want to smell like smoke.”
Nicogel, which is already sold in 40 other countries including the United Kingdom, France and Germany, could generate $200 million in U.S. sales this year, Whalen said, predicting that sales will reach $1 billion by the end of 2008.
Smoking bans, which have cleared some air in places such as New York, Washington D.C., Louisiana, and Philadelphia, are helping to make cigarette alternatives, like smokeless tobacco, the fastest-growing segment of the industry, according to Charles Norton, portfolio manager of the Vice Fund, which has $75 million under management.
The U.S. moist smokeless tobacco category, which is dominated by Skoal and Copenhagen maker UST Inc., is one-tenth the size of the cigarette market, but is seeing unit volumes grow 8 percent to 9 percent a year, Norton said. By contrast, U.S. annual consumption of cigarettes is falling 1 percent to 2 percent.
Cigarette makers such as Altria Group Inc. unit Philip Morris USA have been able to offset declining volumes by raising prices, Norton said.
But Nicogel’s success will hinge on marketing, Norton said.
“Even (for) the established smokeless tobacco companies ... it’s all marketing and promotion spending and how aggressive they can be. For a small private company, I question how much marketing muscle they could put behind it,” Norton said.
Nicogel plans to spend “upward of $15 million” this year on marketing campaigns in national newspapers and magazines, as well as through nightclubs and hospital chains, which Whalen said are interested in Nicogel for their patients, doctors and nurses.
The clear gel, which Whalen said will soon turn up in other large chains, has all the components of tobacco but lacks many carcinogens, which are formed as cigarettes burn.
Patrick Reynolds, spokesman for the Foundation for a Smokefree America, said many anti-smoking advocates will likely oppose the use of Nicogel, claiming that it enables smokers to avoid stopping.
“My feeling is different. I am OK with these products, which help a smoker get through nicotine cravings,” said Reynolds, whose grandfather, R.J. Reynolds, founded the tobacco company that became Camel and Kool maker Reynolds American Inc. .
“Our feeling is that if you can ease a smoker’s way ... if you can give them a little comfort or relief temporarily, we don’t see anything wrong with that,” Reynolds said.
Reuters Jan 10, 2007
NEW YORK - A new hand gel is starting to appear on drug-store shelves promising more than just an end to germs or dry skin — this one claims to satisfy users’ tobacco cravings for up to four hours.
Walgreen Co. , the largest U.S. drugstore chain by sales, is now stocking its more than 5,500 stores with packets of Nicogel, a quick-evaporating gel made with tobacco extracts. The roll-out should be finished within a couple weeks, said company spokeswoman Carol Hively in an e-mail, adding that it costs $5.99 for box of 10 doses.
Nicogel, made by a unit of privately held Blue Whale Worldwide Inc., can be used when smoking is inconvenient, such as at work, on an airplane, in a theater or, these days, in almost any other public place.
Blue Whale, which also sells a smokeless tobacco substitute made from tea leaves, is hoping to cash in on the increasing number of smoking bans and the ill-effects of second-hand smoke, Chief Executive Bill Whalen said in an interview this week.
“The potential for this product is enormous,” said Whalen, a horticultural geneticist with a business degree from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. “The most important thing is smoking bans. (Also, more) people don’t want to smell like smoke.”
Nicogel, which is already sold in 40 other countries including the United Kingdom, France and Germany, could generate $200 million in U.S. sales this year, Whalen said, predicting that sales will reach $1 billion by the end of 2008.
Smoking bans, which have cleared some air in places such as New York, Washington D.C., Louisiana, and Philadelphia, are helping to make cigarette alternatives, like smokeless tobacco, the fastest-growing segment of the industry, according to Charles Norton, portfolio manager of the Vice Fund, which has $75 million under management.
The U.S. moist smokeless tobacco category, which is dominated by Skoal and Copenhagen maker UST Inc., is one-tenth the size of the cigarette market, but is seeing unit volumes grow 8 percent to 9 percent a year, Norton said. By contrast, U.S. annual consumption of cigarettes is falling 1 percent to 2 percent.
Cigarette makers such as Altria Group Inc. unit Philip Morris USA have been able to offset declining volumes by raising prices, Norton said.
But Nicogel’s success will hinge on marketing, Norton said.
“Even (for) the established smokeless tobacco companies ... it’s all marketing and promotion spending and how aggressive they can be. For a small private company, I question how much marketing muscle they could put behind it,” Norton said.
Nicogel plans to spend “upward of $15 million” this year on marketing campaigns in national newspapers and magazines, as well as through nightclubs and hospital chains, which Whalen said are interested in Nicogel for their patients, doctors and nurses.
The clear gel, which Whalen said will soon turn up in other large chains, has all the components of tobacco but lacks many carcinogens, which are formed as cigarettes burn.
Patrick Reynolds, spokesman for the Foundation for a Smokefree America, said many anti-smoking advocates will likely oppose the use of Nicogel, claiming that it enables smokers to avoid stopping.
“My feeling is different. I am OK with these products, which help a smoker get through nicotine cravings,” said Reynolds, whose grandfather, R.J. Reynolds, founded the tobacco company that became Camel and Kool maker Reynolds American Inc. .
“Our feeling is that if you can ease a smoker’s way ... if you can give them a little comfort or relief temporarily, we don’t see anything wrong with that,” Reynolds said.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
Next up: Heroin in a hand gel.
U2democrat
Blue Crack Addict
deep said:
I did enjoy Midnight Express...
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
Report: Movie smoking inspires teens to puff
Study from National Cancer Institute cites smoking promos, films
Reuters
updated 4:53 p.m. ET, Thurs., Aug. 21, 2008
CHICAGO - Tobacco promotions and depictions of smoking in movies cause teenagers to start smoking, according to a sweeping report on tobacco in the media released Thursday.
The report by the National Cancer Institute found the tobacco industry spent more than $13 billion on smoking-related advertising and promotion in 2005. These efforts boosted overall tobacco use, contradicting industry claims that they are intended to build brand loyalty.
"This is the first government report to present definitive conclusions that, No. 1, tobacco advertising and promotion are causally related to increased tobacco use in the population," said Dr. Ronald Davis, senior scientific editor of the report and past president of the American Medical Association.
"And, No. 2, (it shows) that depictions of smoking in movies is causally related to youth smoking initiation," Davis told a news conference.
The report, which examined more than 1,000 scientific studies on how the media influences tobacco use, comes at a time when efforts to keep young Americans from picking up cigarettes have stalled.
Tobacco use remains the single-largest cause of preventable death in the United States, accounting for more than 400,000 premature deaths each year.
Smoking is down from 42 percent of U.S. adults in 1965 to 21 percent in 2006. Still, more than 4,000 young people smoke their first cigarette each day, and another 1,000 become regular smokers. Nearly 90 percent of adult smokers began smoking while in their teens.
Smoking in movies
The report found that even brief exposure to advertising influences adolescent attitudes. Three-quarters or more of hit movies depict cigarette smoking, and specific brands can be identified in about one third.
Last month, six major movie studios -- Viacom Inc's Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures, News Corp's Twentieth Century Fox, General Electric Co's Universal Pictures, Walt Disney Co and Time Warner Inc's Warner Bros -- said they would place anti-smoking public service announcements on DVDs of all movies with youth ratings that depict smoking.
The campaign, brokered by the Entertainment Industry Foundation, a non-profit industry group, does not include youth-rated movies (PG-13 or below) in theaters.
But the report found mass media campaigns aimed at reducing smoking do work, especially when combined with other tobacco-control strategies. Health experts at the news conference called for much more money for such media efforts.
They said 1969 legislation banning smoking advertising in broadcast media and other curbs have led tobacco companies to shift marketing tactics. Price discount promotions, which accounted for 75 percent of total tobacco marketing expenditures in 2005, have proved to be highly effective.
"Any promotional technique that lowers the price the kids see when they go to buy a pack of cigarettes is extremely important," Davis said. "Partial advertising bans don't work."
Dr. Janet Collins, who directs chronic disease prevention and health promotion at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, endorsed the report's findings.
"The report speaks clearly to what amounts to an assault on the nation's health," Collins said.
The report comes just ahead of a Senate vote to give the U.S. Food and Drug Administration oversight of tobacco regulation. The measure passed the U.S. House of Representatives last month by a wide margin.
Study from National Cancer Institute cites smoking promos, films
Reuters
updated 4:53 p.m. ET, Thurs., Aug. 21, 2008
CHICAGO - Tobacco promotions and depictions of smoking in movies cause teenagers to start smoking, according to a sweeping report on tobacco in the media released Thursday.
The report by the National Cancer Institute found the tobacco industry spent more than $13 billion on smoking-related advertising and promotion in 2005. These efforts boosted overall tobacco use, contradicting industry claims that they are intended to build brand loyalty.
"This is the first government report to present definitive conclusions that, No. 1, tobacco advertising and promotion are causally related to increased tobacco use in the population," said Dr. Ronald Davis, senior scientific editor of the report and past president of the American Medical Association.
"And, No. 2, (it shows) that depictions of smoking in movies is causally related to youth smoking initiation," Davis told a news conference.
The report, which examined more than 1,000 scientific studies on how the media influences tobacco use, comes at a time when efforts to keep young Americans from picking up cigarettes have stalled.
Tobacco use remains the single-largest cause of preventable death in the United States, accounting for more than 400,000 premature deaths each year.
Smoking is down from 42 percent of U.S. adults in 1965 to 21 percent in 2006. Still, more than 4,000 young people smoke their first cigarette each day, and another 1,000 become regular smokers. Nearly 90 percent of adult smokers began smoking while in their teens.
Smoking in movies
The report found that even brief exposure to advertising influences adolescent attitudes. Three-quarters or more of hit movies depict cigarette smoking, and specific brands can be identified in about one third.
Last month, six major movie studios -- Viacom Inc's Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures, News Corp's Twentieth Century Fox, General Electric Co's Universal Pictures, Walt Disney Co and Time Warner Inc's Warner Bros -- said they would place anti-smoking public service announcements on DVDs of all movies with youth ratings that depict smoking.
The campaign, brokered by the Entertainment Industry Foundation, a non-profit industry group, does not include youth-rated movies (PG-13 or below) in theaters.
But the report found mass media campaigns aimed at reducing smoking do work, especially when combined with other tobacco-control strategies. Health experts at the news conference called for much more money for such media efforts.
They said 1969 legislation banning smoking advertising in broadcast media and other curbs have led tobacco companies to shift marketing tactics. Price discount promotions, which accounted for 75 percent of total tobacco marketing expenditures in 2005, have proved to be highly effective.
"Any promotional technique that lowers the price the kids see when they go to buy a pack of cigarettes is extremely important," Davis said. "Partial advertising bans don't work."
Dr. Janet Collins, who directs chronic disease prevention and health promotion at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, endorsed the report's findings.
"The report speaks clearly to what amounts to an assault on the nation's health," Collins said.
The report comes just ahead of a Senate vote to give the U.S. Food and Drug Administration oversight of tobacco regulation. The measure passed the U.S. House of Representatives last month by a wide margin.
GirlsAloudFan
Blue Crack Addict
I've been smoking between a half pack and a full pack a day for 5 years now. It's terrible. But I love it at the same time. Cigarettes, as strange as it sounds, have become almost like a friend to me. Something I can rely on everyday. To calm me down. A routine...something that keeps a bit of normalcy in the day to day struggle.
But I fear that I will never quit. I don't see how, at any time in the future, I will be able to eat a big meal without going out for a smoke afterward. Or have a cup of coffee without a smoke. Or have a smoke after my morning shower. And that doesn't even bring into account how hard it would be to have a sip of alcohol without lighting up. These triggers are going to be very difficult to get rid of.
Oh well...
But I fear that I will never quit. I don't see how, at any time in the future, I will be able to eat a big meal without going out for a smoke afterward. Or have a cup of coffee without a smoke. Or have a smoke after my morning shower. And that doesn't even bring into account how hard it would be to have a sip of alcohol without lighting up. These triggers are going to be very difficult to get rid of.
Oh well...
I think you will only be able to quit when you want to quit.
My Dad was like you and he quit in his 30s. He finds it disgusting to be around people who smoke now and says he feels sorry for them and doesn't miss it at all. Just like smoking is a routine to you now, not smoking becomes a routine as well.
My Dad was like you and he quit in his 30s. He finds it disgusting to be around people who smoke now and says he feels sorry for them and doesn't miss it at all. Just like smoking is a routine to you now, not smoking becomes a routine as well.
Jesus Christ did you type this through my fingers?
GirlsAloudFan
Blue Crack Addict
DaveC
Blue Crack Addict
Here's hoping I don't start again.
Epic phail.
I started again at boot camp this year - before I left one of the guys in my unit who went last year told me that if I'd ever been a smoker in my life, I would start again at boot camp just because of how stressful it constantly was. He was right, I bummed a smoke on the 2nd day. I smoked like a fuckin' chimney for a month and a half, and stopped when I got back in mid-June. Three weeks later, my grandma died, and 20 minutes after I got the news I was at the corner store buying a pack. Lately I've had a bunch of shitty news piled onto me, and it's getting to the point where I'm having difficulty stopping outright. I'm up to about 1/3rd of a pack a day, and I feel like it's way too much (of course, one is too much). I hate the taste, the smell, and I always feel vaguely nauseous for a few minutes after I have a smoke. But yet, every time, I still find myself reaching for the pack.
I've set a cut-off date for September 1st, and I plan on sticking to it. Anyone have any tips? Should I just bite the bullet and buy a pack of Nicorette, or a patch? This blows (no pun intended), so any advice from people that have successfully quit would get muchos gracias.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky
