October 24, 2004

• How well or poorly did somethign similar work in Canada?
• Here are the Canadian images. I love the impotence one, pure genius.
• Inevitably, these laws also create a market for cigarette packet covers that hide the health warnings.
• Ha! I see the EC has been talking to the Canadians. The EC images are more graphic than those here in Canada so perhaps they will be more effective. I found that when they first came out it made me think but over time they just became so much wallpaper. I think if they kept changing the images it might be more effective and keep peoples' attention. And if I had kids it would be different, I'm sure. Even having cats has made me change my smoking habits. On preview, Hlewagast, there were some pretty funny covers here but I don't see them around much anymore.
• el_hombre, this two-year old survey proclaims it to have been "highly effective" at discouraging kids from picking up the habit. I've actually been an off-and-on cigarette smoker for years, and I think this sort of thing would probably get me to give it up for good...
• Wow that "Feel Free To Say No" video was the gayest* thing I've ever seen. Like, Liberaci gay. said in kyle from southpark voice
• Being a young canadian, I have noticed that fewer young canadians are smoking these days. Whether it has anything to do with those images, I don't know. Marijuana use on the other hand...
• Jesus, there's nothing worse than SHOKING graphics. :) No harm intended, just having some fun.
• You're shoking in it.
• About a year or so ago, one of my many many ideas to make money was to create a line of merchandising with tremendously unsubtle anti-smoking messages and images. If you make them just right, you can get smokers and non-smokers alike to buy them. The non-smokers because they like to try to convince smokers that they shouldn't, and the smokers to show the non-smokers that they don't really care what they think. I'm all for not discouraging younger people from smoking, and cigarettes are certainly not good for you, but adult smokers really kinda get the message already, and are kinda tired of hearing it. Not everyone, of course, Hlewagast, but there's enough of a market that I think it would have at least been a sustainable idea.
• Excellent. Still not far enough, though. What is needed is cigarette packs that deliver a mild electric shock when touched or live fire ants in 1 out of every 10 packs. Something harder to ignore.
• As long as that's something that people who are trying to quit use, I'm all for it, mexican. If that's a selection for legislation, or something well-meaning people might do to smokers' cigarettes, then I fear I am well against it, and indeed I might have some choice words for people who do fall in the latter category. I do not, for the record, smoke cigarettes.
• What is needed is cigarette packs that deliver a mild electric shock when touched or live fire ants in 1 out of every 10 packs. Wow, last time I did mushrooms that's exactly what happened.
• There used to be travelling shows that would come to our school. They'd illustrate various hazards; don't poke metal implements into electrical outlets of you may wind up like this badly cooked weiner or this plastic encased lung is from a smoker, this one is not. See how evil smoking is? It didn't seem to work for me. I smoke and those ads while shocking, haven't convinced me to quit. I generally ignore them now. I'm not so sure shock tactics will work with diehard nicotine addicts, there needs to be more of an incentive to quit.
• ...there needs to be more of an incentive to quit. How about no public funding to cover the costs of medical treatment for smoking related illness (excluding cases where the cause is second-hand-smoke).
• Yeah, if you're going to do that, you need to make sure you have clear proof that the cause is smoking rather than, say, pollution. The problem is that there are many ways to get an illness, and you can only calculate the chances of many of them probabilistically. Substances increase the likelihood of getting cancer, for example, and carcinogenic substances statistically increase that likelihood to the point where people say they "cause" cancer, but it's not a causal relationship like stopping someone's heart causes death or any action on an object will cause a reaction equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. Interestingly second hand smoke has not really been well connected to cancer. It will irritate allergies and asthma, but there's not been a correlation between Environment Smoke and cancer, at least as of about 6 months ago, which is the last time I checked. Oh, I know if you do a google search, you'll come up with this big meta-study that the EPA used to condemn environmental smoke. It was done by a French group of researchers, and it supposedly searched through all the research of the past 10 years and analyzed all the data collectively and determined there was a definite causal relationship between secondhand smoke and cancer. The problem is that they, oh, didn't look at all the studies, they only looked at the ones that supported their conclusions. Also, they kind of fudged the statistical analysis that they did do, and maybe even made up some data. The EPA have been legally prohibited from using that bit of bad science, but anyone with a web browser will automatically bring it up as proof of the dangers of secondhand smoke. The same company was apparently working on a new study, but as of the last time I checked, there was only an abstract available, and it hadn't been peer reviewed, so I'll reserve my judgment until I can see the study and the peer reviews. Then you have certain interesting studies that show that countries with a greater percentage of smokers have a lower incidence of lung cancer. So then you have to wonder what causes the difference. Is it the extra chemicals in American cigarettes? In which case switching to a natural brand might be the way to go. Or is it because those countries have less pollution, or less of a certain kind of pollution? In which case it would make more sense to limit those pollutants rather than telling people what they can and can't do. Or is it because it's politically acceptable to demonize smoking, so far that smoking is often listed as a cause of death on official documentation? If you think that's okay, recall that smoking really can't kill you directly. Stopping the heart, lung failure, inability of the brain to cause the autonomic functions to work, those are all killers. Smoking, except in rare cases, not an actual cause of death, it can only be a contributer.
• Then there's the question of where to stop with the limits on personal freedom. Driving is really dangerous. Many people are injured and die each day from a driving related incident. People know it's dangerous, and yet they do it anyways. Why don't we cut off public funding to cover the costs of medical treatment for driving related injuries? Because people want to be able to drive, even if it's really, really dangerous. And driving increases pollution, so that is an added bit of carcinogenic danger to throw into the statistical analysis. Unfortunately, there are a lot of simple solutions to the "problems" of smoking. Strangely, many of them are just not up to the task of even defining the problem, much less an adequate solution. And, as I said, anti-smoking policy is a politically charged issue that gained a lot of ground in the past couple of decades, so people feel that it's okay to be prejudiced against smokers. After all, it's their choice that they smoke, and they're just filthy addicts anyways, because everyone knows that smoking will kill you as surely as jumping off a really tall building will. Incidentally, for those following some of my posts, you'll find some similarities between this one and the one about the remote control that turns off televisions. I'm am strongly opposed to people who feel the need to restrict personal freedoms. Were I to decide that I want to smoke or watch TV or just be a big jerk and ramble on a lot on the Internet, then that's my choice. I don't like when people decide to come up with clever ways to circumvent my freedoms in the name of bettering myself. When I want to be better, I'll do something about it, thank you. I will also apologize in advance if this seems like any sort of a personal attack. It's really not meant to be, but I am rushed for time and want to get this posted. Please try to take this in the most sympathetic light. Now, if my reasoning is faulty or my facts are wrong, well, I accept what I deserve, but I'll be happy to back up what I have stated with as many sources as possible if anyone is further interested in the subject.
• well said, sandspider
• About the public expense issue - maybe someone can find citations for this, but a few years ago I heard that the British (?) gov't was all up in arms over the costs to healthcare from smoking. Except that after doing studies, they found out that smokers cost the system less. They died of cancers or emphasema, which cost a lot to treat, but not as much as the costs of longterm care for people who live a lot longer. Smoking kills you, but relatively quickly, and not too long after retirement age. / incredibly callous public service announcement.
• Sandspider> You are so right on. I'm not a smoker. Never have been. Watching my grandfather die of emphysema pretty much guaranteed I'd never touch the stuff. But I really object to the idea that smoking is a "problem" that needs to be addressed. It's not. It's just something some people choose to do. And I know it's cliche to say this, but surely alcohol and junk food are just as costly in terms of public health spending, so why don't we start requiring Frito-Lay to put pictures of clogged arteries on the Cheetos bag? It's not any government's business how many smokers there are in the population. If the stuff is so flippin' evil, then ban it. If not, then just back off and let it be. Oh, wait, this is happening in Europe? I guess I can tone it down from unchecked outrage to mild amusement. What a relief.
• Take this with the grain of salt that it deserves on a message board. I'm a smoker as is my wife. My wife happens to work for a well known hospital in the medical community. One of the doctors there happens to run an institute in China. According to him heart disease was never a major problem in China until "western food" was introduced. Smoking? No problem. Western food? Heart disease rates sky rocketed. Smoking is bad for you, but it's a conscious decision, much like drinking alchohol (the other legal drug). There are much worse things out there and alot of it depends on your physiology. Personally, I'd prefer to enjoy life and if that means smoking, so be it. As long as I'm not hurting someone else, who cares? (that is an obvious provoke for the second hand smoke issue)
• I don't think we need people to stop smoking, we just need them to stop smoking the crap the corporations pass as tobacco :P Give a smoker a couple of hand rolled cigs and soon enough they will throw down their Kools in disgust. Or hell, even American Spirits are better than 95% of what is on the market. (Note: This is coming from a guy who smokes maybe once every 2 - 3 weeks)
• Best thing I ever did health-wise was to can the smokes. Shitty, evil, leads nowhere except to cardiovascular disease. Also stinks. A massive con. If there's a single worse lifestyle choice, I've yet to come across it.* *note: I don't use hard drugs. Not any more, anyway. Cigs just hang on and fucking on. Complete shit. Fuck them off, it's the best thing you can do for yourself on one step evah. Did you understand I was serious about this?
• I heart Sandspider. Smoking is such a button pusher. I am a smoker. I know it is not a healthy thing to do. I don't need anyone to harass me over it, I find that so very annoying. I don't smoke where others would be bothered by my secondhand smoke. I am courteous to others and try to keep my smoke to myself. I am a firm believer in freedom of choice in all things in life. Informed choice that is. If I choose to do something that hurts myself, then nobody should bitch, unless what I am doing will cause someone harm also. American food, especially fast food is so very bad for a person. Yet so many people choose to eat it. Riding a motorcycle without a helmet is not a good idea in my opinion, yet I feel, that should also be an adults choice. (I wear my helmet, that is my choice) I have a sticker on my motorcycle gas tank, that says it all on how I feel about this, it reads: *Harassing me about my smoking, could be hazardous to your health.* So I say don't harass others and tend to your own vices.
• Out of sincere affection, can we ask you not to smoke too close to your gas tank? :)
• What is going to happen to the US Social Security system, and those in all the other Monkey countries, when everyone dumps the cigs and lives to a ripe old (expensive) age? The smokers have been doing the rest of us a favor over the decades, by funding our retirements. And personal choice? You may continue to smoke, but not in the room where I am. However, butt flickers get me mad. Throw your trash away! True story: I was sitting at a light when the person in front of me tossed her butt out the window. I honked, in annoyance. She assumed that the light had changed, and drove forward. Stopped in time to avoid the accident, and I do not know if a lesson was learned.
• My husband's a smoker. He's quit several times, sometimes for many months, only to go back to it in times of stress. The Patch has worked the best for him, but now he's saying there's no point in using it again because it obviously doesn't work (even though it's his attitude that eventually fails him; The Patch is great at weaning him off nicotine). Anyone have any ideas? Wolof, how did you quit?
• EarWax, if you own the room, or the room is owned by someone who doesn't allow smoking, then you or the owner can force someone to stop smoking or leave. If you're in a public place that does allow smoking, then you are, of course, welcome to ask the person to stop smoking, and they are free to accept or decline your offer based on their own whims. I agree that cigarette butts should be disposed of properly, and the person who threw the cigarette butt out the window is potentially subject to a littering fine. However, you are potentially subject to a fine for illegal use of a horn, since technically the horn is supposed to be used to warn drivers that they are in immediate danger that they may not recognize. However, the horn laws are very rarely enforced, and the littering laws are more enforced, though probably not as much for people who just throw a cigarette butt out the window of their car. I don't have any statistics on the relative enforcement rates. I, myself, have used the horn illegally to let people know that the light has turned green, but aside from that I try to limit the usage to the proper situations. I will say that if I were in a public, smoking allowable space, and you told me that I may not continue to smoke because we shared the same room, I would continue to smoke my pipe and suggest that you may leave the room where I am smoking. If you asked politely, I'd likely stop smoking, or go outside. Politeness goes a long way. I know you might not have meant it that way, but I know people who do mean it that way, even a good friend of mine.
• Sandspider: Points taken. And I would avoid a room where smoking was taking place.
• Out of sincere affection, can we ask you not to smoke too close to your gas tank? :) jb certainly you can ask, no worries, I won't blow myself up. And personal choice? You may continue to smoke, but not in the room where I am. However, butt flickers get me mad. Throw your trash away! earwax, I wouldn't impose my smoking on you if it were your room, house, or a non-smoking area. But if it is my room, my property, or a designated smoke area, you may leave as Sandspider suggested. As for tossing butts, that makes me crazy too. Trash is trash and it has its place and that place is not the ground or streets.
• One thing that's interesting is that I am a pipe smoker, and on a personal level, everyone I've talked to rather likes the smell of pipe smoke. It reminds them of their grandfathers and whatnot. However, from an institutional standpoint, places are more likely to allow cigarette smoking than pipe smoking.
• Yup, pipe smoking is good.
• (good smelling that is - I'm sure it's still bad for you)
• Wolof, how did you quit? Patches. But you have to want to quit.
• Actually, jb, that's an interesting thing. According to an old study by the Surgeon General, pipe smokers live a year longer than non-smokers. And I've had concerned people do searches for any real, scientific evidence that pipe-smoking is bad for you. My conditions are that it's a proper, scientific study, that real numbers are available as part of the study, and the phrase "the study was done for cigarette smokers, but pipe and cigar smokers are also likely in danger" (or similar) was never used. So far, I haven't found anything, other than likely losing, on average, 3 more teeth by the time I die than non-smokers. Pipe-smokers, by and large, don't inhale (if a given pipe smoker does inhale, then one presumes that many of the dangers of cigarette smoking still apply). Also, unlike cigar smoking and chew, tobacco does not continuously or regularly touch the lips and interior of the mouth. Also, generally pipe tobacco is free of any additives, and pipe smokers prefer either pure tobacco or tobacco with some additional casing or flavors, such as vanilla or cherry. All of these things taken together make pipe-smoking one of the less dangerous vices. Of course, there's always a risk, but I consider it an acceptable risk compared with the pleasure I get from pipe smoking. I am always on the lookout for more information on the dangers of pipe smoking, but as I've said, there's not much bad been written about it with any real backing, and there's even a little good added in.
• "Wolof, how did you quit? Patches. But you have to want to quit." That horrible song could convince me to stop breathing, let alone smoking.
• Patches. But you have to want to quit. Seconded. I took the same route. They help, but they don't do it for you. You still have to want it. My biggest regret quitting smoking is that I have to give up my pipes. I have a respectable collection, and I really enjoyed smoking them.
• mct
• Middleclasstoole, if you need someone to care for your pipes, you just let me know.
• I may be taking some of them to ebay soon. Don't know what I'm going to do, exactly. I'll keep one or two for sentimental reasons, maybe one briar and one meerschaum, but I don't know what I'll do with the rest.
• It is a very sad thing.
• Well, they're just sitting there. I've already proven that I can't smoke them without running out to the convenience store for a pack of Marlboros, so that's out. Plus I could use some cash to go in my iRiver mp3 player fund or buy me some glass tools. Plus someone gets to enjoy them. I'd like to think that they'd find a nice farm somewhere, someplace with lots of space for them to run and play, and maybe there'd be some other pipes there to play with them, perhaps a clan of elderly Dunhills to watch over and protect them...
• middleclasstool, I've sent you an email, as I doubt most of monkeyfilter wants to hear the details of ways to divest themselves of a pipe collection.