not good if you're a smoker
I like tautologies because I like them.
Permalink
Permalink
Neither are smokes. Seems to me Smokers like things that aren't good for them 
Permalink
Permalink
Can't be bothered watching the clip, but I imagine that it is some bullsh*t story about how smokers are only allowed to have a ciggie if they and padlocked in an air-proof box that is less than 2 meters by 2 meters.
I hate this sh*t. Passive smoking is the biggest load of crap that I have ever about. Either making smoking illegal, or give them rights that everyone else has. None of this "well we will take the money from their taxes, but treat you like a leaper" hypocriticy.
All I do is make the stuff I would've liked
Reference things I wanna watch, reference girls I wanna bite
Now I'm firefly like a burning kite
And yousa fake fuck like a fleshlight
Permalink
Permalink
I agree to a point - What I hate are those Signs and ADs which say "I cant believe we let poison be sold next to the milk. I mean dammit, If the govt. can't believe why don't they change it?
They have the power to.
Law changes in NSW are smokes can no longer be visable in stores, to stop impulse buying and you can't smoke in a vehicle with a child.
They have the power to.
Law changes in NSW are smokes can no longer be visable in stores, to stop impulse buying and you can't smoke in a vehicle with a child.
Permalink
Permalink
make it illegal of leave people alone - alcohol causes worse damage, but because nice white middle class parents enjoy a drink now and then, it'll never be seen as such a social crime as smoking - hypocrisy.
I like tautologies because I like them.
Permalink
Permalink
if smoking did become extinct, i wonder how the smoking lobbyists would get their fill of righteous fulfillment? i guess they'd move onto unhealthy food...
I like tautologies because I like them.
Permalink
Permalink
they'll move onto drinking, ban beer etc!
Queenslander 3x a year.
Permalink
Permalink
I only have a problem with inconsiderate smokers. The "I can smoke around you and you just have to get over it" kind,who blow the smoke in your face. I hate the smell of the stuff,and im sure it aint good for my health either.
Having said that,people should be allowed to smoke if they want to. Its nowhere near like other drugs that make people violent and a (direct) burden to society. It just gives you a higher chance of cancer (what doesnt give you cancer now days anyway) and if your willing to accept the risk of that,then thats fine.
Frankie mac is dead right about the hypocrisy,and thats someth8ing thats bugged me...
NSWs ideas are actually bloody good though
Allegedly
Permalink
Permalink
Frankie mac is dead right
I'm having a little parade right now
All I do is make the stuff I would've liked
Reference things I wanna watch, reference girls I wanna bite
Now I'm firefly like a burning kite
And yousa fake fuck like a fleshlight
Permalink
Permalink
As much as I abhor smoking, I think people should have the right to make such a choice should they wish to. However, that right should not infringe upon the rights of others to not be forced to smoke passively. I think NZ has it about right - smoking in confined spaces is a genuine health threat to passive smokers , hence its ban in public indoor spaces. Smoking outside is negligable so it's still legal, and it should stay that way (within reason - places like schools are obviously a no-no).
As for heavy taxation, it's a matter of responsibility. Smoking costs the public health system, and as such they should have to pay for it. Since the taxpayer pays, they should pay more tax. Taxation on ciggarettes is a good, proportional way of them accepting some responsibility.
As for heavy taxation, it's a matter of responsibility. Smoking costs the public health system, and as such they should have to pay for it. Since the taxpayer pays, they should pay more tax. Taxation on ciggarettes is a good, proportional way of them accepting some responsibility.
Permalink
Permalink
As much as I abhor smoking, I think people should have the right to make such a choice should they wish to. However, that right should not infringe upon the rights of others to not be forced to smoke passively. I think NZ has it about right - smoking in confined spaces is a genuine health threat to passive smokers , hence its ban in public indoor spaces. Smoking outside is negligable so it's still legal, and it should stay that way (within reason - places like schools are obviously a no-no).
As for heavy taxation, it's a matter of responsibility. Smoking costs the public health system, and as such they should have to pay for it. Since the taxpayer pays, they should pay more tax. Taxation on ciggarettes is a good, proportional way of them accepting some responsibility.
As for heavy taxation, it's a matter of responsibility. Smoking costs the public health system, and as such they should have to pay for it. Since the taxpayer pays, they should pay more tax. Taxation on ciggarettes is a good, proportional way of them accepting some responsibility.
Alcohol costs more. And why are smoking bars for people who want to smoke illegal too? that doesn't impinge on anyone's freedom, because you can choose to go to a non-smoking bar instead.
Plus, you don't smoke passively - you inhale a little bit of smoke, and i'm sure car exhausts are worse. In fact, apparently travelling on the London underground causes the equivalent damage as smoking 10 cigarettes. And they want to ban smoking in public parks now - wtf?
I like tautologies because I like them.
Permalink
Permalink
Alcohol costs more. And why are smoking bars for people who want to smoke illegal too? that doesn't impinge on anyone's freedom, because you can choose to go to a non-smoking bar instead. [/QUOTE]
Hence why alcohol also needs sensible taxation. And that is coming from someone who likes a drink
As for the smoking bars debate - the problem is that either way you choose, you'd be excluding part of your potential business. It's more about protecting businesses than bar patrons. I think having outside smoking areas is a very reasonable compromise, especially with covered and heated options.
[QUOTE=Cosimo]
Plus, you don't smoke passively - you inhale a little bit of smoke, and i'm sure car exhausts are worse. In fact, apparently travelling on the London underground causes the equivalent damage as smoking 10 cigarettes. And they want to ban smoking in public parks now - wtf?
Outdoors - inhale a little bit of smoke.
Indoors - passive smoking.
Car fumes are, like cigarette smoke, negligable outdoors. But in a confined area, such as on the London underground, or in the Mt Vic Tunnel, it's a health hazard. It's the same with cigarettes - you won't get much damage from inhaling a bit of smoke outdoors, but you'd get an unhealthy amount in a bar.
Permalink
Permalink
protecting businesses? it's not about that at all. Businesses should have the right to decide for themselves. And smoking is becoming restricted outdoors now as well - so obviously there's more to it than just protecting innocent lungs indoors.
And why don't people that take a kayak out 100km and then need to be rescued by helicopter have to pay more tax because of their burden to the health departments?
there's a lot of moral smugness involved - people dislike smokers even if they have no impact on themselves whatsoever - most of that is from demonising through the media - smoking has never been seen as such a dirty habit as now. Treating people like lepers because they smoke, as Frankie puts it, is just righteous and hypocritical.
btw i don't smoke - i used to, then quit.
Cosimo2008-08-01 17:33:18
I like tautologies because I like them.
Permalink
Permalink
protecting businesses? it's not about that at all. Businesses should have the right to decide for themselves. And smoking is becoming restricted outdoors now as well - so obviously there's more to it than just protecting innocent lungs indoors.
[/QUOTE]
Either way - it's hardly a problem. Outdoor smoking areas attached to pubs and bars allow both smokers and non-smokers to enjoy the establishment without smokers infringing on the health of other patrons. It's a non-issue.
I myself disagree with smoking being banned outdoors. The only problem caused by smoking outdoors is by those who don't dispose of their butts correctly - which is a littering issue, not a smoking issue.
And why don't people that take a kayak out 100km and then need to be rescued by helicopter have to pay more tax because of their burden to the health departments?
In principle I agree - People who take careless risks should have to pay for the burden they impose. People who take safe risks, ie qualified kayakers or a day tripper who gets caught in freak weather - should not have to. But that's just IMHO.
[QUOTE=Cosimo]
there's a lot of moral smugness involved - people dislike smokers even if they have no impact on themselves whatsoever - most of that is from demonising through the media - smoking has never been seen as such a dirty habit as now.
Not so much demonising, more so much educating - are drunk drivers being demonised as well? The aim is not directly to alienate smokers, but discourage people from taking it up. Which is exactly what the government and the public health sector are supposed to do. If portraying smoking as a dirty habit prevents some people from partaking, then it's worth it.
Permalink
Permalink
make it illegal of leave people alone - alcohol causes worse damage, but because nice white middle class parents enjoy a drink now and then, it'll never be seen as such a social crime as smoking - hypocrisy.
Same can easily be said about smoking pot. Views on it are often blurred by the fact that it is illegal rather than what effects it actually has on your body and those around you. Tobacco is far worse and it can be argued Alcohol is more dangerous too but because these are legal they're generally not frowned upon as much in society.
Three for me, and two for them.
Permalink
Permalink
protecting businesses? it's not about that at all. Businesses should have the right to decide for themselves. And smoking is becoming restricted outdoors now as well - so obviously there's more to it than just protecting innocent lungs indoors.
[/QUOTE]
Either way - it's hardly a problem. Outdoor smoking areas attached to pubs and bars allow both smokers and non-smokers to enjoy the establishment without smokers infringing on the health of other patrons. It's a non-issue.
I myself disagree with smoking being banned outdoors. The only problem caused by smoking outdoors is by those who don't dispose of their butts correctly - which is a littering issue, not a smoking issue.
And why don't people that take a kayak out 100km and then need to be rescued by helicopter have to pay more tax because of their burden to the health departments?
In principle I agree - People who take careless risks should have to pay for the burden they impose. People who take safe risks, ie qualified kayakers or a day tripper who gets caught in freak weather - should not have to. But that's just IMHO.
[QUOTE=Cosimo]
there's a lot of moral smugness involved - people dislike smokers even if they have no impact on themselves whatsoever - most of that is from demonising through the media - smoking has never been seen as such a dirty habit as now.
Not so much demonising, more so much educating - are drunk drivers being demonised as well? The aim is not directly to alienate smokers, but discourage people from taking it up. Which is exactly what the government and the public health sector are supposed to do. If portraying smoking as a dirty habit prevents some people from partaking, then it's worth it.
you really believe that? and your comparing a smoker to a drink driver? what? drink driving is ILLEGAL, and a drink driver can easily kill someone instantly, smoking isn't illegal, that's the point, - and as far as education goes, that is bollocks - education is saying "here as the risks" in a mannered and factual way, not having crappy celebrities harp on about how smoking is not cool - that is demonising.
Cosimo2008-08-01 18:02:31
I like tautologies because I like them.
Permalink
Permalink
you really believe that? ad your comparing a smoker to a drink driver? what? drink driving is ILLEGAL, and a drink driver can easily kill someone instantly, smoking isn't illegal, that's the point, - and as far as education goes, that is bollocks - education is saying "here as the risks" in a mannered and factual way, not having crappy celebrities harp on about smoking is not cool - that is demonising.
Okay not the best example - how about problem gambling? Or alcoholism? All three are serious health risks, societal burdens, and yet legal. For the sake of civil liberties I believe they should stay legal, however they should not be promoted. As for the sake of harm minimization, they should be discouraged. As recent ad campaigns have been doing.
As for the celebrities - crappy or not - it's not demonising, it's setting a good example. You and I might not look up to them, but kids do. And those who see their "heroes" discourage smoking are less likely to partake in it themselves. Kids don't always care about the facts - they often care more about image, unfortunately.
The recent ad campaign is known as a "demand reduction strategy" within health advocacy organisations. The aim is simply to make smoking a less attractive option for those who are at risk of taking it up. The aim is hardly to demonise smokers. If it does, it's a shame because being a smoker doesn't make you a bad person. As for smoking itself being demonised - why shouldn't it be? It's an unnecessary health problem that we need to minimize. If that means showing smoking for what it is, then so be it.
Permalink
Permalink
you really believe that? ad your comparing a smoker to a drink driver? what? drink driving is ILLEGAL, and a drink driver can easily kill someone instantly, smoking isn't illegal, that's the point, - and as far as education goes, that is bollocks - education is saying "here as the risks" in a mannered and factual way, not having crappy celebrities harp on about smoking is not cool - that is demonising.
Okay not the best example - how about problem gambling? Or alcoholism? All three are serious health risks, societal burdens, and yet legal. For the sake of civil liberties I believe they should stay legal, however they should not be promoted. As for the sake of harm minimization, they should be discouraged. As recent ad campaigns have been doing.
As for the celebrities - crappy or not - it's not demonising, it's setting a good example. You and I might not look up to them, but kids do. And those who see their "heroes" discourage smoking are less likely to partake in it themselves. Kids don't always care about the facts - they often care more about image, unfortunately.
The recent ad campaign is known as a "demand reduction strategy" within health advocacy organisations. The aim is simply to make smoking a less attractive option for those who are at risk of taking it up. The aim is hardly to demonise smokers. If it does, it's a shame because being a smoker doesn't make you a bad person. As for smoking itself being demonised - why shouldn't it be? It's an unnecessary health problem that we need to minimize. If that means showing smoking for what it is, then so be it.
1.it IS demonising, because it is trying to make smokers outcasts - that's pretty much bullying. Setting a good example is not smoking - it's not saying people are try-hards or uncool or whatever for smoking. That's childish and pathetic.
2. Lots of people enjoy smoking - it's not unnecessary to them, it is unnecessary in the eyes of a non-smoker. Plus, you start off saying that it's not demonising, then you say that if it is, "then so be it" - so if we're arguing from that angle, then its an ends justify the means argument, in which case someone's right to smoke vs. someones right to think people shouldn't, and in that case then , i believe people should have the right, especially as it is legal and isn't as dangerous to other people as much as, say, a bad driver, or overworked surgeon
I like tautologies because I like them.
Permalink
Permalink
1.it IS demonising, because it is trying to make smokers outcasts - that's pretty much bullying. Setting a good example is not smoking - it's not saying people are try-hards or uncool or whatever for smoking. That's childish and pathetic.
[/QUOTE]
The ads are doing no such thing - it's promoting smoking as bad, not smokers. It is trying to promote the idea that smoking is uncool. None of these ads say "you're uncool if you smoke", they simply say "smoking is an uncool thing to do". There is no personal attack involved, and anything that arises from such an angle is that of the message recipient, not the advertiser.
The biggest reason why people take up smoking is social reasons - fitting in, appearing cool etc. An image promoted by years of cigarette advertising and still, unfortunately, exisiting in modern society. It's a smart move to try and counter the social aspect of it- should it prove successful, the main reason should end up being "I took up smoking to enjoy the sensation of smoking" - which to me is a perfectly acceptable reason for doing so.
Hence - It's no demonizing smokers whatsoever. There is no intention to turn smokers into outcasts. It is to to prevent non-smokers from becoming smokers by portraying it as an uncool activity - not an activity undertaken by uncool people. And it is exactly what advocacy agencies should be doing. It does not promote discrimination against smokers, hence it is doing no harm.
2. Lots of people enjoy smoking - it's not unnecessary to them, it is unnecessary in the eyes of a non-smoker.
Just because people enjoy something doesn't make it a necessity. It's a luxury, nothing more. The only things people really needs are food, water and shelter. You can go further and include stuff like "a good education, stable employment etc" and I'd agree with you. However in no way do people, as a whole, need cigarettes. Those who do are those who created a need for them by becoming addicted, a choice I believe anyone has the right to make even if I disagree with it.
[QUOTE=Cosimo]
Plus, you start off saying that it's not demonising, then you say that if it is, "then so be it" - so if we're arguing from that angle, then its an ends justify the means argument, in which case someone's right to smoke vs. someones right to think people shouldn't, and in that case then , i believe people should have the right, especially as it is legal and isn't as dangerous to other people as much as, say, a bad driver, or overworked surgeon
I'm not saying that at all - people should both have the right to smoke, AND people should have the right to think others shouldn't. I think people shouldn't smoke, but I don't begrudge those who do. I don't treat responsible smokers any different from non-smokers (By responsible I mean those who don't break smokefree laws, those who don't smoke around kids indoors etc).
As for "then so be it", I'm referring to the demonization of the activity - no the demonization of its participants. As mentioned earlier, I have no problems with smoking being portrayed as uncool. That is what I was referring to when I said so be it. I would, however, be on your side if the campaign specifically was demonizing smokers.
Permalink
Permalink
1.I'm a non Smoker.
2. I worked in the same Bar before & after the smoking ban, the difference in the quality of the work environment was huge.
3. Smoking only bars, would still have to employ staff, and it would be an unsafe environment for them to work in. Even if the employees agree to the conditions the government wont allow you to knowingly employ someone in a harmful environment without taking suitable precautions at harm minimization.(basically staff wearing full face masks & re-breathers) making it completely impractical.
Permalink
Permalink
totally agree, and it stinks, and it's gross, which is why i quit - not really the point though.
The point i am (trying) to make, is the hypocrisy of it all. Robb, demonising the activity is what i don't like - because if cigarettes are sold in diarys etc, people shouldn't be hassled into quitting. It's like gambling - there are ads on TV about problem gamblers, and how they can get help, but no ads saying "gambling sucks", or "i don't understand why anyone would want to do something so stupid" etc - because it's LEGAL. Exactly the same with alcohol - there are ads about drink driving, or about not getting wasted and starting fights or smashing stuff or whatever, BUT NO ADS saying you shouldn't drink at all, or that "drinking's not cool" or gruesome pictures of destoyed livers on beer bottles. Obviously, because there are ads that PROMOTE gambling, and PROMOTE alcoholic drinks - botht things that can be harmful, can be a drain on society etc, like smoking.
i am not saying smoking's good (altough it IS enjoyable, and definitely no just something to be cool like you said - i loved smoking).
btw, if you only need food, water and shelter, that means you should give up beer, right? or lacrosse? i mean, they're not a necessities...
plus, of course people don't have to like it, once again that's not the point
Cosimo2008-08-03 21:02:12
I like tautologies because I like them.
Permalink
Permalink
The point i am (trying) to make, is the hypocrisy of it all. Robb, demonising the activity is what i don't like - because if cigarettes are sold in diarys etc, people shouldn't be hassled into quitting. It's like gambling - there are ads on TV about problem gamblers, and how they can get help, but no ads saying "gambling sucks", or "i don't understand why anyone would want to do something so stupid" etc - because it's LEGAL. [/quote]
I guess you could call it hypocrisy, but I wouldn't blame any government for the way things are currently run. I think the only reason why it's legal is because the general population wouldn't stand for it to be made illegal - words like "prohibition" and "removal of civil liberties" would be thrown about. The only thing a government can do to remove smoking (or more specifically, the associated costs of smoking, since that is the real problem) is to foster conditions where there is no desire for smoking through demand reduction strategies. When people don't want to smoke, there won't be a problem - at least, not a problem for the government.
Exactly the same with alcohol - there are ads about drink driving, or about not getting wasted and starting fights or smashing stuff or whatever, BUT NO ADS saying you shouldn't drink at all, or that "drinking's not cool" or gruesome pictures of destoyed livers on beer bottles. Obviously, because there are ads that PROMOTE gambling, and PROMOTE alcoholic drinks - botht things that can be harmful, can be a drain on society etc, like smoking[/quote]
Alcohol and smoking are different. Alcohol is not a problem - abuse of it is. Hence why the ads only focus on excessive alcohol use as negative. Smoking doesn't have so much of a distinction. There are people who enjoy a smoke every now and then (I used to be one of them), rather than having a regular habit, or an addiction. However, due to the chemical nature of cigarettes, this is a MUCH smaller percentage in comparison to the percentage of drinkers who don't drink to get drunk.
The difference between problem gambling and smoking is that problem gambling is not a big issue among youth. Teens are much less likely to listen to the facts and are far more likely to listen to societal attitudes - I in no means intend to insult the intelligence of teens, but the high rate of smoking and substance abuse among teenagers is testament to this. Problem gambling campaigns can focus on the facts and consequences, as the intended recipients (adults) can relate to that. A smokefree campaign run the same way would relate for adults - but, unfortunately, not most teenagers. So there needs to be a way to deliver the message in a way youth can relate to.
As for the gruesome pictures - this isn't demonization, it's promoting the facts. It's a visual way of describing the side effects, which is a strategy you advocated earlier.
i am not saying smoking's good (altough it IS enjoyable, and definitely no just something to be cool like you said - i loved smoking).
I actually agree with you here - I didn't intend to posit that smoking is only done to be cool. It's definatly the main reason people start, but not the only reason why people continue smoking.
[QUOTE=Cosimo]
btw, if you only need food, water and shelter, that means you should give up beer, right? or lacrosse? i mean, they're not a necessities...
Not should, but could. I don't want to give up either and don't intend on doing so. Likewise, I'd respect anyone who didn't want to give up smoking.
[QUOTE=Cosimo]
plus, of course people don't have to like it, once again that's not the point
Completely agree. I think peoples right to smoke overrules peoples right to dislike smoking, regardless of the characteristics of it. As long as smokers don't force their habit on other people (ie indoor smoking) then what a smoker does is their own business.
Permalink
Permalink
fair enough - i'm done...
ps. i hope they don't ban cigars - i like cigars...
I like tautologies because I like them.
Permalink
Permalink