Graphic Cig Warnings unveiled

[Mousey]

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Cool!

Let's see... what's next? Pics of seriously obese children and dead diabetics on packets of M&Ms?

Sheesh....

 

[BingoT]

God Bless America

Old Attachment (Invalid)

 

[jod5413]

Our tax dollars paid for this?

 

[chayton]

They started that in Canada years ago. This is one of my favorites, I found this one online.



EDIT: Interestingly, cigarette cases in Canada have made a comeback.

 

[Gremmyboy]

We've had that in Oz for ages! People still smoke the same amount as before they brought this in.

They have banned being able to show what milligrams the cigarettes are plus have the warnings with horrible pictures on the back and front of the pack!

They(Anti smoking Nazi's) are now trying to have every brand of cigarette and every packet in plain packaging(all the same grey colour) brought in to effect. I'm going to punt on them succeeding!
We can't even use plastic bags with our shopping now as they are banned! We now have to purchase 'reusable' plastic bags!
Funny how they ban plastic bags but are allowed to sell the bags to us now?!?!

Madness!


Cheers
Gremmy

 

[Mousey]

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Cool!

Let's see... what's next? Pics of seriously obese children and dead diabetics on packets of M&Ms?

Sheesh....

UPDATE:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[vinylweatherman]

We've had that in Oz for ages! People still smoke the same amount as before they brought this in.

They have banned being able to show what milligrams the cigarettes are plus have the warnings with horrible pictures on the back and front of the pack!

They(Anti smoking Nazi's) are now trying to have every brand of cigarette and every packet in plain packaging(all the same grey colour) brought in to effect. I'm going to punt on them succeeding!
We can't even use plastic bags with our shopping now as they are banned! We now have to purchase 'reusable' plastic bags!
Funny how they ban plastic bags but are allowed to sell the bags to us now?!?!

Madness!


Cheers
Gremmy

It's coming by stealth here. My local store charges 5p for the plastic bags to encourage us to bring our own. The big supermarkets give loyalty points for every bag we bring and use again, although they still give out the free ones, and have stood up to demands that they charge for them. I expect they are worried that shoppers who forget their bags will walk away rather than pay 5p per bag "on principle", and this will cost them money. They do sell bags from 10p upwards, but the idea is that they are designed to last for a number of shops. The problem with the free bags is that they barely last ONE shop, and many are so weak that they split before the shopping gets back to the house. This has lead to shoppers "double bagging" everything, and this has made things even worse.

A small number of towns have agreed a total ban on the flimsy free plastic bags, and shoppers either bring their own, or buy one of the reusable bags.

The environmental problem is that the cheap plastic bags get thrown away after one use, and don't decompose for hundreds of years.

The smoking ban here was brought in to protect others from second hand smoke, but it has quickly developed into a crusade to protect smokers from their own second hand smoke. Some places have now banned smoking out in the open, well beyond the scope of the initial arguments about protecting others from having to put up with second hand smoke in an enclosed environment.

You can't even smoke in your own home under some circumstances, as your home gets declared a "place of work" whenever you bring in a trades person, have a visit from the council, etc. This has alienated smokers who appreciated that something was bound to be done to protect others from their habit, but never expected the legislation to be used as a "back door ban" on smoking altogether. We have the pack warnings, but the moves to ban point of sale visibilty, and "grey" packs for all brands, was fought off.

If smokers actually heeded the warnings and gave up en-masse, it would leave a HUGE hole in the nation's finances as no duty would be coming in. On top of this, the big tobacco companies would ditch thousands of workers, which would put more strain on the nation's finances. Many small shops rely on repeat purchases of tobacco products to stay in business, so many such local shops would close.

The government also said that this ban would have no real effect on our pubs, as non-smokers would flock in to enjoy drinking in a smoke free environment, and replace smokers to moved to drinking at home. This didn't happen, non-smokers carried on drinking away from the pubs, and the smokers joined them in drinking at home, and many pubs had to close.

I believe the government knew this would probably happen, but lied about it to get the ban voted through. Now it is too late to turn back the clock as many countries have followed the lead, and no-one is going to be the first to do the U-turn as they will be faced with accusations of caving in to "big tobacco" at the expense of peoples' health.

At least the UK government didn't start a crusade against our particular "sin", online gambling

 

[immortality]

It's coming by stealth here. My local store charges 5p for the plastic bags to encourage us to bring our own.

That is coming soon here too, I think it's an okay idea, looks like more people will be buying those 'bags for life' that have no chance in tearing

 

[chayton]

We were just talking about this yesterday - they've had these images on cigs in Canada for years, but they're wanting to replace them with more graphic images - one of tongue cancer is absolutely horrific. I'm not going to post it here because it's just too gross.

 

[skiny]

I lit a cigarette before I started typing this.

Legislation has just passed in Ottawa to extend the smoking ban to outdoor patios, parks and even beaches. Never mind the fact that the water you're standing in is probably laced with E. coli and the air is a healthy mix of everything from carbon monoxide to lead. That guy leaning on a tree 20 yards away having a smoke may well kill me.

By the way, I'm told if you're standing IN the water you're not actually on city property so you can smoke all you like. I'm not sure if it's true but if it is I'm wondering what else I can get away with if I wade in passed my ankles.

PORT HOPE -- A Port Hope man is the second person in Ontario charged under a new law that prohibits smoking in vehicles carrying children.

And while the 20-year-old man was waiting to be issued his ticket after being pulled over yesterday, his 15-year-old female passenger got out of the vehicle and lit up a cigarette.

Port Hope Police Const. Tammie Hartford said she could only watch in frustration as the 15-year-old smoked.

Under provincial law, it's only illegal to sell or supply cigarettes to anyone under the age of 19, but there's no law prohibiting a person under 19 from smoking.

SUN MEDIA, Sunday, February 15, 2009

Question: Can a minor be charged with smoking with a minor in the car if she's IS the minor smoking and no other minors are present? And if so does that mean it's legal for a minor to smoke provided she's not with herself in a car?

I'm not pro smoking. It's unhealthy and expensive But I am opposed to stupid. Smoking cigarettes is legal. The government allows cigarettes to be sold publicly and earns tax revenue off the sales. At the same time they continually ban the practice in new places from restaurants to bars to bus shelters to beaches and so on and they do this for the sole purpose of appeasing the politically correct, anti-smoking, extremists who believe that their rights outweigh everyone else's and they do this because they know that regardless of where they ban smoking, smokers will continue to buy cigarettes and they will continue to earn the revenue. Smokers will grumble and find a new place to smoke, PC anti-smoking lobbyists will cheer and vote accordingly.

Now when I say "their rights outweigh everyone else's" I don't mean people don't have the right to breath clean air in a public place although smoking ban or not they'll be hard pressed to find "clean" air in any public place. I mean the right to tell people what to do in private places. Places where nobody is forcing them to go.

I want to go shoot pool. The local pool hall is NOT a public place. It is privately owned and operated but I prefer to shoot pool in a smoke free environment so I have the right to tell the owner/operator of this establishment he cannot allow anyone to smoke in here because I don't like it. It's unfair to the owners because it dictates what types of clients these people can cater to. Personally I don't go out and shoot pool anymore because I can't smoke while I do. I rarely sit in restaurants because I can't smoke in them anymore. As long as I'm allowed to smoke publicly on a city street it should not be illegal for me to do it in a privately owned business. The businesses say they're hurt by these laws because the smokers stopped coming and the lobbyists say they aren't because more non smokers will frequent them when the smokers are gone. Maybe these laws did not hurt these businesses financially and maybe they did. I really have no idea. But I do know that whichever one is right it is STILL wrong because businesses should be allowed to choose their own clientele and not have it dictated to them. The reality is if you put two bars on one street. Allow smoking in one and ban it in another. The one that generates the least amount of business will conform to the more lucrative practice and that is how capitalism is supposed to work.



Two problems here. First of all how come our government can go to all the trouble of legislating and enforcing these warning labels on cigarette packages but can't be assed to get statistics less than 16 years old?

And second, for some reason I'm not nearly as concerned about the "45,000" tobacco deaths considering this number is probably severely inflated by including death due to any illness if the deceased was a smoker as I am about the 3900 Canadian suicides in 1996. I vaguely remember 1996. I had no idea we were so unhappy. WTF was going on in 1996?!!

Anyway, if you run out of places to smoke, come on over. I'll open the balcony door.

 

[Nifty29]

I smoked for 15 years, and quit 10 years ago.

Hence, I've seen it from both angles.

The POV I have arrived at in regards to the "rights" debate is not a popular one with smokers.

Smoking is a personal choice. It is legal. No problem there. Also, there are many other products like alcohol and gambling which are legal. The difference is that out of those three, only smoking DIRECTLY affects others in a serious way. Whilst it is a personal choice for a smoker TO smoke, it is equally a personal choice for a non-smoker NOT to smoke.

Non-smokers do not smoke because they concerned about their health and they do not wish to inhale the chemicals and additives that cigarette and cigar smoke contains. A smoker does so because they enjoy it, its a habit, they are addicted, or all three I.e. their concern for their health hasn't reached crisis point yet.

Although both non-smokers and smokers have an equal right to do so, there is a very important difference in regards to effects beyond their person. The choice of the smoker has a direct impact on the non-smoker whilst the reverse is not true. If people are smoking in a public enclosed or semi-enclosed area, the non-smoker is being FORCED to inhale dangerous byproducts. It is obviously not intentional....the smoker just wants to smoke....but the fact remains that the non-smoker has a right to breathe without inhaling cigarette smoke. It's even more important considering unfiltered smoke straight from the cigarette is even more harmful.

In the pool hall situation, everyone has a right to play pool. Who owns it is irrelevant.... Smoke doesn't behave any differently. A non-smoker shooting some frames is having absolutely no adverse impact on those around them. A smoker affects all those around them by circulating their smoke.

I'm sure this thread could go on for ages and not everyone will agree, but to me it comes down to a basic rights issue. I believe that people have the right to do whatever they choose AS LONG AS it doesn't negatively affect others. Just like a guy who drinks too much and starts fights or damages cars or beats his wife etc.....well alcohol is legal, but it should not be done in a way that it negatively affects others.

As far as beaches...well the litter aspect makes sense. The smoking part is silly. If there is plenty of room for people to avoid the smoke then I don't have a problem.

 

[Tirilej]

Removing my post.
Too personal. Sorry!

 

[skiny]

Although both non-smokers and smokers have an equal right to do so, there is a very important difference in regards to effects beyond their person. The choice of the smoker has a direct impact on the non-smoker whilst the reverse is not true. If people are smoking in a public enclosed or semi-enclosed area, the non-smoker is being FORCED to inhale dangerous byproducts. It is obviously not intentional....the smoker just wants to smoke....but the fact remains that the non-smoker has a right to breathe without inhaling cigarette smoke. It's even more important considering unfiltered smoke straight from the cigarette is even more harmful.

In the pool hall situation, everyone has a right to play pool. Who owns it is irrelevant.... Smoke doesn't behave any differently. A non-smoker shooting some frames is having absolutely no adverse impact on those around them. A smoker affects all those around them by circulating their smoke.

I agree with you 100% except that a pool hall is not a public place. It is a privately owned establishment and the government has take upon itself to dictate which clients it will attract and serve. That is not free enterprise. As long as smoking cigarettes is legal nobody should have the right to tell you that you can't do it in a private place.

I smoke and I respect the rights of non smokers... But if you're riding in my car you'd better open a window. Telling me I can't smoke there is infringing on my rights. The rights of the smokers.

 

[Seventh777]

Yet more political bullshit, they`ve been showing it here on packets etc for years.

I`m not saying smoking doesn`t cause serious diseases but let`s weigh it all up, for those who want to end it all - Drive your car into a closed place (a garage is good here) attach a garden hose to the exhaust pipe and place the other end through the window nearest to you in the drivers seat, start engine and see how long you live, i`ll give you two-three minutes max, now do some rough maths and calculate how much carbon monoxide is spewed into the air each day from the billions of engines worldwide using petroleum based fuels, causing acid rain and bucketfuls of respiratory related diseases.

If you want to see the damage acid rain does, find yourself a block of high-rise flats in a very busy town centre, these must have wooden windows, get as high as you possibly can and open the window, get some tissue paper and take a swab whilst running the tissue over it and smell it, it will smell just like neat petrol, older windows you will be able to poke your finger right into the wood.

A few baffling facts regarding smoking and cancers....

1). Man has been smoking for hundreds of years.

2). How many noted smokers from old died of lung cancer?

3). Walter Rayleigh is a good pointer here.

4). How come none smokers die of lung cancer etc?, if this is down to passive smoking then surely it means that if breathing in second hand smoke is deadly enough to kill, then those taking in every single toxic in the far more deadlier 1st inhale are damn lucky if they survive the 1st packet.

5). Why is it that hardcore smokers for huge parts of their lives go on to live to ripe old ages?.

6). How many passive smoking family pets with respiratory systems nigh on identical to ours die due to "Smoking related" diseases.

At the present time their is a bastard great hole in our ozone layer due to greenhouse gases eating it away, asthma and other breathing related diseases are at an all time high, government maths incoming - Ozone layer + Acid Rain + Respiratory Diseases = Blame the smokers .

 

[immortality]

It all comes down to one fact We are not free.

We have to comply with whichever law is passed in government. I don't agree or disagree with banning smoking in cars that carry children.

This balderdash that a child will copy what the parents do is nonsense, my parents don't drink alcohol, never drank alcohol while we were growing up, yet all of our family,bar mum and dad, drink alcohol. I thought I'd mention this as I read this once, that what mum and dad do, kids will copy as they are role models.

 

[immortality]

1). Man has been smoking for hundreds of years.

2). How many noted smokers from old died of lung cancer?

3). Walter Rayleigh is a good pointer here.

4). How come none smokers die of lung cancer etc?, if this is down to passive smoking then surely it means that if breathing in second hand smoke is deadly enough to kill, then those taking in every single toxic in the far more deadlier 1st inhale are damn lucky if they survive the 1st packet.

5). Why is it that hardcore smokers for huge parts of their lives go on to live to ripe old ages?.

6). How many passive smoking family pets with respiratory systems nigh on identical to ours die due to "Smoking related" diseases.

At the present time their is a bastard great hole in our ozone layer due to greenhouse gases eating it away, asthma and other breathing related diseases are at an all time high, government maths incoming - Ozone layer + Acid Rain + Respiratory Diseases = Blame the smokers .

Good point seventh777, you made me laugh with point num.4 hehe

 

[Silencio]

Smoking is bad mmmkay..
I read once smokers don't notice how bad it is for them because it's slowly gets worse over time. Body gets less and less oxygen > more problems arise.
Still smoking though.. Quit twice, both 3 months time-period. Then started again cause real challenge of not smoking was gone
Gonna give it another go soon though.
And good tip for smokers who want to quit. Smoke outside. It's best if you don't do anything else while smoking so you're conscious of it. It's a zen thing.
And 2. when you quit, drink a lot of water. Cleans body.

Btw they changed the not smoking in pubs law back here in the Netherlands. I think. Now they are thinking of banning hash lol. Retards. Keep weed legal but ban hash. wtf. Same retarded shit as banning magic mushrooms, but not banning psychedelic truffles. Retards don't know you can make hash with weed lol. And weed is a lot worse than hash. They f...... made it so strong that all the anti-psychotic substances are replaced by thc. So it's like smoking hard drugs. Everyone I know who smokes it is addicted.
And the reason they made it this strong is so the shops can ask more money for it. Cause they are only allowed to have a certain numbers of grams on stock.
Government meddling at it's finest!

 

[skiny]

It all comes down to one fact We are not free.

We have to comply with whichever law is passed in government. I don't agree or disagree with banning smoking in cars that carry children.

This balderdash that a child will copy what the parents do is nonsense, my parents don't drink alcohol, never drank alcohol while we were growing up, yet all of our family,bar mum and dad, drink alcohol. I thought I'd mention this as I read this once, that what mum and dad do, kids will copy as they are role models.

There is no such thing as being "free." Unless you live alone on a planet you cannot simply be "free" which means you have to replace "free" with "fair."

Is it fair to ban smoking in public places? Yes. I'm sure it is.
Is it fair to ban smoking in private places? Not unless smoking itself becomes illegal.
Is it fair to ban smoking around minors? Yes. I can't argue that it isn't.
Is it fair to ban smoking around minors but make it legal for the minors to smoke? Well, that's not a question of fairness. It's a question of stupidity.

Personally I don't think that most children copy what their parents do. They're more apt to copy what their friends do and be as little like their parents as they can. Actually one of my parents smoked and the other one didn't so really I should be puffing back half the cigarette and throwing the rest away. What a waste.

Smoking IS bad for you. We know smoking is bad for you. It's an endless debate how bad for you it is but it most certainly IS bad for you. Infringing on people's right to choose what they do in private isn't really all that great for you either. When someone is told they can't do something perfectly legal in a privately owned establishment because someone else might show up that doesn't like it, that's not just a lack of freedom, it's a lack of fairness.

And like I said, it's pretty tough for anyone to truly be free but we could at least be trying to be fair.

 

[immortality]

There is no such thing as being "free." Unless you live alone on a planet you cannot simply be "free" which means you have to replace "free" with "fair."

Is it fair to ban smoking in public places? Yes. I'm sure it is.
Is it fair to ban smoking in private places? Not unless smoking itself becomes illegal.
Is it fair to ban smoking around minors? Yes. I can't argue that it isn't.
Is it fair to ban smoking around minors but make it legal for the minors to smoke? Well, that's not a question of fairness. It's a question of stupidity.

Personally I don't think that most children copy what their parents do. They're more apt to copy what their friends do and be as little like their parents as they can. Actually one of my parents smoked and the other one didn't so really I should be puffing back half the cigarette and throwing the rest away. What a waste.

Smoking IS bad for you. We know smoking is bad for you. It's an endless debate how bad for you it is but it most certainly IS bad for you. Infringing on people's right to choose what they do in private isn't really all that great for you either. When someone is told they can't do something perfectly legal in a privately owned establishment because someone else might show up that doesn't like it, that's not just a lack of freedom, it's a lack of fairness.

And like I said, it's pretty tough for anyone to truly be free but we could at least be trying to be fair.

You Know what skiny, that is a great reply, I totally agree with you, fairness is the key to a harmonious outcome.
I also agree that smoking is bad for you,

1.It slows you down, you know after a bit of work, the crave for a smoke comes on you.

2.It does cause a lack of oxygen in your blood stream, leading to poor circulation which can lead to gangreen(sorry about the spelling).

 

[skiny]

You Know what skiny, that is a great reply

Fluke!

 

[immortality]

Fluke!

 

[Surasanji]

All in good humour, I promise. See? I even spelled humor with an extra U. ;p

Yet more political bullshit, they`ve been showing it here on packets etc for years.

I`m not saying smoking doesn`t cause serious diseases but let`s weigh it all up, for those who want to end it all - Drive your car into a closed place (a garage is good here) attach a garden hose to the exhaust pipe and place the other end through the window nearest to you in the drivers seat, start engine and see how long you live, i`ll give you two-three minutes max, now do some rough maths and calculate how much carbon monoxide is spewed into the air each day from the billions of engines worldwide using petroleum based fuels, causing acid rain and bucketfuls of respiratory related diseases.

If you want to see the damage acid rain does, find yourself a block of high-rise flats in a very busy town centre, these must have wooden windows, get as high as you possibly can and open the window, get some tissue paper and take a swab whilst running the tissue over it and smell it, it will smell just like neat petrol, older windows you will be able to poke your finger right into the wood.

A few baffling facts regarding smoking and cancers....

1). Man has been smoking for hundreds of years.

2). How many noted smokers from old died of lung cancer?

3). Walter Rayleigh is a good pointer here.

4). How come none smokers die of lung cancer etc?, if this is down to passive smoking then surely it means that if breathing in second hand smoke is deadly enough to kill, then those taking in every single toxic in the far more deadlier 1st inhale are damn lucky if they survive the 1st packet.

5). Why is it that hardcore smokers for huge parts of their lives go on to live to ripe old ages?.

6). How many passive smoking family pets with respiratory systems nigh on identical to ours die due to "Smoking related" diseases.

At the present time their is a bastard great hole in our ozone layer due to greenhouse gases eating it away, asthma and other breathing related diseases are at an all time high, government maths incoming - Ozone layer + Acid Rain + Respiratory Diseases = Blame the smokers .

Supporting Facts? Or maybe opposing. I kinda went both ways and just made comments!

I love my smokes

1) True and false- Man has been smoking for tens of thousands of years. Just not Tobacco for most of history. (Romans were known to smoke Coltsfoot for medicinal use, and of course Weed has been smoked, or eaten far into pre-history.) Tobacco was only spread to the rest of the world with the discovery of the Americas.

2) There is no way to tell. However, since the earliest historical record of cancer was discovered originating from Ancient Egypt- its safe to make the assumption that the last 3000 years of human history are not the only times that Cancer existed. Its pretty safe to assume that Cancer has existed as long as biological tissue has existed.

HOWEVER! Lung Cancer was virtually unknown- and indeed not even classified as its own disease until 1761.

3) Walter Raleigh was executed- and while he was old, I'm pretty sure he didn't die of old age or Cancer in that case. But, you can't really guess what he /would/ have died from had he continued smoking. Given historical evidence, it would have not likely been lung-cancer.

4) Cancer is caused by any number of things- but some things add to your chances to develop specific forms of cancer. Smoking, or exposing yourself to smoke (Cigarette or otherwise) is one of the ways to help develop this horrible disease. As such, smokers and non-smokers in various situations can both develop lung cancer for various reasons- smoking included.

Of course, they could also just have the genetic predisposition for it.

5) Which Hardcore smokers? Like the ones who smoke ground up bits of wood and metal and bone? That's pretty hardcore. Almost as hardcore as playing Grenade-Tennis on Grizzly back (That's the most dangerous game.)

6) Any number of house-hold pollutants could cause such an effect in animals. As could any other cancer causing agent. Again, however, if you live with a cigarette smoker your chances of cancer are higher...

Even if you're a dog.

At the end of the day- its still a chance. And unless you were bathing in toxic waste its still going to be pretty random- A CHANCE you could develop something.

So, I suppose, its a question of where your rights end and the rights of others begin.

Although- you do make an excellent point there at the end, Seven! If Clean air is SO important- why are you only going after smokers?

 

[Simmo!]

If Clean air is SO important- why are you only going after smokers?

As an ex-smoker I always used to think it was a bit ironic car drivers should complain about my smoke polluting their enviroment. I fully understand why others don't like it and I agree that controls are needed but it's swings and roundabouts.

 

[chayton]

Once I was standing on a street corner waiting to cross, it's a busy city and there's a lot of traffic - lots of car exhaust and big diesel trucks going by stenching up the place. Some woman also waiting to cross glances over and sees I have a cigarette in my hand, and wouldn't you know it, she starts doing this fake hack hack ack urk ahem ahem sidling away and giving me this look out of the corner of her eye. The funny thing is that the cigarette wasn't lit. So just seeing a person with a cigarette is apparently enough to cause health problems in others I guess.

 

[immortality]

Once I was standing on a street corner waiting to cross, it's a busy city and there's a lot of traffic - lots of car exhaust and big diesel trucks going by stenching up the place. Some woman also waiting to cross glances over and sees I have a cigarette in my hand, and wouldn't you know it, she starts doing this fake hack hack ack urk ahem ahem sidling away and giving me this look out of the corner of her eye. The funny thing is that the cigarette wasn't lit. So just seeing a person with a cigarette is apparently enough to cause health problems in others I guess.

Maybe she was remembering what it was like to smoke, but in all seriousness, that is laugh out loud funny

 

[skiny]

Once I was standing on a street corner waiting to cross, it's a busy city and there's a lot of traffic - lots of car exhaust and big diesel trucks going by stenching up the place. Some woman also waiting to cross glances over and sees I have a cigarette in my hand, and wouldn't you know it, she starts doing this fake hack hack ack urk ahem ahem sidling away and giving me this look out of the corner of her eye. The funny thing is that the cigarette wasn't lit. So just seeing a person with a cigarette is apparently enough to cause health problems in others I guess.

And here we find the extremists... The "anti" smokers. I understand that some people don't like cigarette smoke. I know lots of people that don't smoke. I wouldn't dream of lighting up in their car. My mother doesn't smoke. Not only do I not smoke at her house but when she visits I don't smoke while she's here. At least not inside. I have a balcony.

When I'm at work I stand outside and smoke. Sometimes non smokers come outside and chat with me while I do. Sometimes my mother stands out on the balcony or at the balcony door while I do. None of them pretend to be having a stroke because I'm smoking near them.

And now for some humour. Here's David Mitchel's take on the smoking ban. (And coffee just as a bonus.)

 

[Seventh777]

Supporting Facts? Or maybe opposing. I kinda went both ways and just made comments!

I love my smokes

1) True and false- Man has been smoking for tens of thousands of years. Just not Tobacco for most of history. (Romans were known to smoke Coltsfoot for medicinal use, and of course Weed has been smoked, or eaten far into pre-history.) Tobacco was only spread to the rest of the world with the discovery of the Americas.

2) There is no way to tell. However, since the earliest historical record of cancer was discovered originating from Ancient Egypt- its safe to make the assumption that the last 3000 years of human history are not the only times that Cancer existed. Its pretty safe to assume that Cancer has existed as long as biological tissue has existed.

HOWEVER! Lung Cancer was virtually unknown- and indeed not even classified as its own disease until 1761.

3) Walter Raleigh was executed- and while he was old, I'm pretty sure he didn't die of old age or Cancer in that case. But, you can't really guess what he /would/ have died from had he continued smoking. Given historical evidence, it would have not likely been lung-cancer.

4) Cancer is caused by any number of things- but some things add to your chances to develop specific forms of cancer. Smoking, or exposing yourself to smoke (Cigarette or otherwise) is one of the ways to help develop this horrible disease. As such, smokers and non-smokers in various situations can both develop lung cancer for various reasons- smoking included.

Of course, they could also just have the genetic predisposition for it.

5) Which Hardcore smokers? Like the ones who smoke ground up bits of wood and metal and bone? That's pretty hardcore. Almost as hardcore as playing Grenade-Tennis on Grizzly back (That's the most dangerous game.)

6) Any number of house-hold pollutants could cause such an effect in animals. As could any other cancer causing agent. Again, however, if you live with a cigarette smoker your chances of cancer are higher...

Even if you're a dog.

At the end of the day- its still a chance. And unless you were bathing in toxic waste its still going to be pretty random- A CHANCE you could develop something.

So, I suppose, its a question of where your rights end and the rights of others begin.

Although- you do make an excellent point there at the end, Seven! If Clean air is SO important- why are you only going after smokers?

I hear what you`re saying, so let`s assume lung cancers are solely the cause of breathing in contaminated air, where does a high percentage of this toxin enriched air originate from?, over the years I have lost 3 close family members to cancer including my mother, only one smoked, so, is it suffice to say 66.333333% of cancer victims are none smokers? if so, why are the governments (once again) being liberal with the facts?.

Footnote:- The taxes over here on fuel are so high that most garages selling petrol do so at a loss or at the very best break even, and only the garages that also run as mini super-markets are still managing to stay open, like I previously stated i`m fully aware that smoking can cause respiratory related diseases, but it`s the tip of the iceberg of a far bigger picture. As long as governments are making money then f*&k everyone else, a huge pointer here is WWII - No matter what way you look at this the 78 million plus people who died during this *Great Campaign* can be attributed down to 5-6 people, plain and simple, because, believe it or not they were acting on our best behalf's in doing so, and ofc risking lives in horrendous situations was by far the best way to treat your nations people that you love and cherish so much .

P.S.

If you want to see the profit making war machine in full affect do some research in to whom George Bush`s grandpa was selling arms to during WWII, or Bush sr during the run up to the Gulf war.

Sorry for the slight derail.

 

[skiny]

Once again I would like to reiterate that smoking cigarettes is most definitely bad for you as is second hand smoke but the anti-smoking extremists have this ridiculous idea that all respiratory illnesses are directly attributed to cigarette smoke. The reality is we have absolutely no idea how many respiratory illness have anything to do with cigarette smoke.

The recorded incidents of lung cancer and other respiratory illnesses have grown steadily for the last 200 years or so. From what I can tell the real incline begins around the start of the industrial era. In that time the amount of fossil fuels being burned has grown exponentially as has the population density as people moved from sparsely spread farms and small towns to major cities and metropolises.

Now 200 or more years later we have non smokers dying of lung cancer in their 30s and smokers living to their 90s and although smoking is a contributor to these illnesses it is obviously not the only factor. I'm not even convinced it is the major factor.

When one person can figure out how to separate the smokers who really died from smoking cigarettes and the smokers who just died from breathing in this toxic wasteland we call "fresh air" between cigarettes then the anti-smokers can start spouting statistics at me because until that happens we really just have no idea what killed who.

All they can say with 100% certainty is "smoking is not good for you" and all I can respond with is "Thank you captain obvious."

 

[klara1968]

DO NOT SMOKE

SMOKING IS BAD BAD BAD.DO NOT BELIEVE THE AMAZING IMAGES THAT CIG COMPANIES BRING...

 

[Seventh777]

Once again I would like to reiterate that smoking cigarettes is most definitely bad for you as is second hand smoke but the anti-smoking extremists have this ridiculous idea that all respiratory illnesses are directly attributed to cigarette smoke. The reality is we have absolutely no idea how many respiratory illness have anything to do with cigarette smoke.

The recorded incidents of lung cancer and other respiratory illnesses have grown steadily for the last 200 years or so. From what I can tell the real incline begins around the start of the industrial era. In that time the amount of fossil fuels being burned has grown exponentially as has the population density as people moved from sparsely spread farms and small towns to major cities and metropolises.

Now 200 or more years later we have non smokers dying of lung cancer in their 30s and smokers living to their 90s and although smoking is a contributor to these illnesses it is obviously not the only factor. I'm not even convinced it is the major factor.

When one person can figure out how to separate the smokers who really died from smoking cigarettes and the smokers who just died from breathing in this toxic wasteland we call "fresh air" between cigarettes then the anti-smokers can start spouting statistics at me because until that happens we really just have no idea what killed who.

All they can say with 100% certainty is "smoking is not good for you" and all I can respond with is "Thank you captain obvious."

Well put sir .

 

[Seventh777]

SMOKING IS BAD BAD BAD.DO NOT BELIEVE THE AMAZING IMAGES THAT CIG COMPANIES BRING...

No one has denied this hun, but, when the cause of what single-handedly brings about the cause of - mainly high rise buildings decay is brought to the forefront and rightly exposed, there is going to be a lot of disgruntled people who look outside of the box for answers.

Why are the same pictures showing bodily rot not plastered all over petrol pumps, with the added addition of the after-effects of acid rain thrown in for good measure also?.

 

[Seventh777]

They started that in Canada years ago. This is one of my favorites, I found this one online.

View attachment 27561

EDIT: Interestingly, cigarette cases in Canada have made a comeback.

Then why do all smokers light one up just after and are good to go a few minutes later, again , hell, when i`m finished even the neighbours spark one up - and they don`t even smoke .

 

[Jasminebed]

My city passed a non-smoking by-law before there was a province-wide ban, and it included patios. They are now planning on banning smoking in parks, stadiums, beaches, and within 3 metres of the entrance to any business. In our downtown core, that will mean somewhere in the middle of the road is acceptable I guess.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[skiny]

My city passed a non-smoking by-law before there was a province-wide ban, and it included patios. They are now planning on banning smoking in parks, stadiums, beaches, and within 3 metres of the entrance to any business. In our downtown core, that will mean somewhere in the middle of the road is acceptable I guess.

 

[jinnia]

FACT: Mammograms CAUSES breast cancer.
FACT: Gas stations became "self serve" due to the increase of attendants started being diagnosed with lung cancer FROM the DEISEL FUEL EXHAUST.
FACT: Smoking tobacco INCREASES (not cause) your chance of developing lung cancer due to the WATER used on the plants. The water has sodium fluoride, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, lead which is ADDED, the same water we drink.
FACT: The plants are IRRADIATED WITH NUCLEAR RADIATION, the most carcinogenic part of tobacco, so is the produce we eat.

Can anyone show me a REAL SCIENTIFIC STUDY proving that smoking tobacco CAUSES cancer?

 

[dionysus]

lol, whether it causes cancer or not, it's irrefutable it's BAD for you; there's no upside

 

[jinnia]

Not saying there's an upside to smoking, nor am I saying smoking isn't bad for you (now), I'm just sick and tired of all this hype how smoking "causes" cancer, when it ONLY INCREASES your chance of developing it, just like city water, produce, auto exhaust, etc., all contributed to the HUMAN animal.

 

[skiny]

FACT: Mammograms CAUSES breast cancer.
FACT: Gas stations became "self serve" due to the increase of attendants started being diagnosed with lung cancer FROM the DEISEL FUEL EXHAUST.
FACT: Smoking tobacco INCREASES (not cause) your chance of developing lung cancer due to the WATER used on the plants. The water has sodium fluoride, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, lead which is ADDED, the same water we drink.
FACT: The plants are IRRADIATED WITH NUCLEAR RADIATION, the most carcinogenic part of tobacco, so is the produce we eat.

Can anyone show me a REAL SCIENTIFIC STUDY proving that smoking tobacco CAUSES cancer?

Taken from the website of Canadian National Cancer Institute.

Radiation exposure―Mammograms require very small doses of radiation. The risk of harm from this radiation exposure is low, but repeated x-rays have the potential to cause cancer. The benefits, however, nearly always outweigh the risk.

Taken from the website of the American Cancer Society.

A single chest x-ray exposes the patient to about 0.1 mSv, which is about the radiation dose people are exposed to naturally over the course of 10 days. A mammogram exposes a woman to 0.4 mSv, or about the amount of exposure a person would expect to get in about 7 weeks.

Because radiation exposure from all sources can add up over a lifetime, and radiation can, indeed, increase cancer risk, imaging tests that use radiation should only be done for a good reason. In many cases, other imaging tests such as ultrasound or MRI may be used. But if there is a reason to believe that an x-ray or CT scan is the best way to look for cancer or other diseases, the patient will most likely be helped more than the small dose of radiation can hurt.

Millions of women have survived breast cancer as a direct result of early detection and treatment. So don't start believing you will be doing yourself any good by not having a mammogram. You're not protecting yourself by avoiding it.

 

[Mousey]

Because radiation exposure from all sources can add up over a lifetime, and radiation can, indeed, increase cancer risk, imaging tests that use radiation should only be done for a good reason. In many cases, other imaging tests such as ultrasound or MRI may be used. But if there is a reason to believe that an x-ray or CT scan is the best way to look for cancer or other diseases, the patient will most likely be helped more than the small dose of radiation can hurt.

What worries me about this stat is in cases, like my hubby, who has already had cancer (totally unrelated to cigs) TWICE (two totally different types of cancer unrelated to the other) in the past 20 years. Why does that matter? For any who have had cancer, the number of scans, x-rays, PET scans, CT scans, radioactive Stress tests, etc. repeated over and over again throughout the years is mind boggling. We fully expect him to begin glowing in the dark. Will he stop getting the periodic testing? No. As there's no other way to spot his particular type of (most recent) cancer. He will have test again in May... then more extensive testing in July. The longer he is in remission, the longer he can go between scans/check ups. But that also leaves more time for the cancer to spread should it rear its ugly head between one of the annual test sessions.

Anyway... back to those horrible warning pics on cig boxes. Why does anyone in politics and the FDA think they'll do any good? A smoker will stop when they decide for themselves to stop. A nasty pic on a packet isn't going to make that much difference is it? I think this has recently been ruled as constitutional again... so who knows what will eventually come of it.

Our government has become consumed with regulating and governing the minutia in our lives. They can't even balance a budget, so they want to feel in control by telling me I can't smoke or spend $25 at an online casino.

 

[skiny]

I'm not talking about unusual cases where people require frequent tests. I'm talking about regular check ups.

 

[Mousey]

I'm not talking about unusual cases where people require frequent tests. I'm talking about regular check ups.

Understood, and I agree.

 

[jinnia]

I don't want to read what they "claim", I want to see the ACTUAL study(ies) and the results.

Elected/appointed officials in an office, organization, etc., lie thru their noses to brainwash 'we the people'!!

 

[Glunn11]

If something "increases your chance of getting" cancer, how exactly is that different from "may cause" cancer?

Also, if you're truly interested,

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

is a fairly comprehensive report that is fairly easy to read and takes data from as early as the late 18th century to the 50s. You can find many more like it by going to Google Scholar and searching for what you are interested in.

EDIT: I just realized you might not have access to the link, but here is one of the handier tables in the study. The figures are cause of death, number of deaths recorded in the study, and the ratio of smokers to non-smokers who died of that cause. (10.8:1 for lung cancer deaths, for instance)

Cancer of lung 1833 10.8
Cancer of larynx 75 5.4
Cancer of mouth 152 4.1
Cancer of oesophagus 113 3.4
Cancer of bladder 216 1.9
Cancer of kidney 120 1.5
Bronchitis and emphysema 546 6.1
Coronary heart disease 11 177 1.7
Hypertensive heart disease 631 1.5
Other heart disease 868 1.7
Other circulatory disease 649 2.6
General arteriosclerosis 310 1.5
Peptic ulcer 294 2.8
Cirrhosis of liver 379 2.2

On the bright side, smokers are less likely to die from suicide.

 

[skiny]

Which flies directly in the face of "second hand smoke causes lung cancer" since according to these results 90% of the people who die of lung cancer ARE smokers. If lung cancer is caused by several different sources and only 10% of the people who developed it are non smokers, What percentage of non smokers developed lung cancer as a direct result of second hand smoke?

Also keep in mind that millions of people die of cancer every year. This is a poll of less than 2000.

That being said, smoking is definitely bad for you and will increase your chance of dying sooner than later. You just have to be really careful how you read statistics that's all. It really bugs me when they're contradictory.

You're also probably at a higher risk of getting cancer from not wearing sun block on a high UV day than you are from having a mammogram done every 1 or 2 years. If anyone thinks that small amount of risk isn't worth finding out that you do have breast cancer early enough to do something about it then by all means, don't bother with it.

 

[Glunn11]

Which flies directly in the face of "second hand smoke causes lung cancer" since according to these results 90% of the people who die of lung cancer ARE smokers. If lung cancer is caused by several different sources and only 10% of the people who developed it are non smokers, What percentage of non smokers developed lung cancer as a direct result of second hand smoke?

Also keep in mind that millions of people die of cancer every year. This is a poll of less than 2000.

That being said, smoking is definitely bad for you and will increase your chance of dying sooner than later. You just have to be really careful how you read statistics that's all. It really bugs me when they're contradictory.

You're also probably at a higher risk of getting cancer from not wearing sun block on a high UV day than you are from having a mammogram done every 1 or 2 years. If anyone thinks that small amount of risk isn't worth finding out that you do have breast cancer early enough to do something about it then by all means, don't bother with it.

While it's obviously true that regularly smoking puts you at a very significant risk of dying of lung cancer, that doesn't necessarily contradict that second-hand smoking can pose a risk as well. However, research certainly indicates it is to a much lesser effect.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

(again not sure if you can link to it or not) only really suggests that the risk is posed if you begin exposure before age 25, and even then it's 1.29:1.

You certainly have to look into statistics, which is why it's important to use them. I get frustrated when people carry on debates and usually won't participate in them because nothing is ever cited and it just turns into a big cliche-filled ideology war where it just feels like everyone is in it to gain some kind of odd Internet adrenaline rush. I just like to learn things LOL. I probably won't spend much more time in here because it's only a matter of time before it turns into a politically-oriented bitchfest.

And I would almost certainly agree with you on the mammogram thing. The information it provides is very important and melanoma from sun exposure is not something to mess with.

 

[CasinoBeacon]

If smokers actually heeded the warnings and gave up en-masse, it would leave a HUGE hole in the nation's finances as no duty would be coming in.

Absolutely. I recently tried to make this very point to my brother (a doctor, no less) but he was having none of it. Pah.

 

[jinnia]

@Glunn11

If something "increases your chance of getting" cancer, how exactly is that different from "may cause" cancer?

There is no difference in those two ways of saying it, but to say, "smoking DOES CAUSE cancer" is different.

Has anyone have a link to a single peer-reviewed report of a REAL study proving that smoking tobacco causes cancer?
Is so, please post the link to the STUDY.

I agree that smoking is bad for you, now-a-day, due to what growers and manufacturers put on/add to the tobacco. So is the produce, etc. we eat and drink.

How about GMOs?? It's actually proven to CAUSE CANCER, illness, obesity, sterility, death, and NEW health disorders, but it's ALWAYS smoking that's been targeted.

It don't matter, we all are going to die one day, one way or another, now that's PROVEN every day!