Smoking

[Sides]

Originally Posted by Dxon

Im never going to smoke. Not even going to try that sh!t.. I suggest you all stop now!
Its hard to stop but you should..

Look up Dxon profile

Location:
Holland,Zuid-holland,Capelle aan den IJssel

^_^ Yeah, there is something much nicer to smoke, than tabocco, over there.

Originally Posted by Whitemoon648

Few that i use to relieve my stress are:

1) calm music
2) staying under warm to hot shower
3) relaxing/sleeping in the bed.

There is something else one can do ^^, maybe between point 1) and 2), during point 2) or 3). Really depends if you want to end up messy/dirty ^^


I smoke, but i can easily last a long duration without it as well.
Don't know if it scientifically proven, but i remember some program or someone reporting that some people are more sensitive towards chemical changes, and can develop faster addivition towards some substances than others.

[Daughter!]

Meh, smoking is real hard. For me at least. My friend just stopped one day and that was it. I can't really stop with cigarettes. Pot is even harder.

[WanderingKnight]

To be honest, tobacco is hundreds of times more damaging to your body and much more addictive than marijuana. I'd much rather have marijuana to be legal and tobacco to be banned (though I'd prefer none of them to be banned, for that matter. It should be a matter of personal choice).

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by ToxicNarcotic

Sometimes being a smoker I feel like i'm the witch in some witch hunt. I always mind others and I don't randomly throw my cig butts which arent' bio degradable anywhere but an ashtray. I try at all times to be thoughtful of others but it seems like the majority of the non smokers want to nail me to a damn crucifix for being a smoker. Personally if non smokers and smokers would just show some understanding towards one another I don't think it'd be a problem at all.

That's a rather interesting perspective that I hadn't given much thought to.

I dislike cigarettes and the like and find smokers to be an annoyance, but I don't hold anything against the people themselves. Smoking is a right, in a sense, but in my opinion the people are taken advantage of. In the past, nobody really understood that there were consequences. Cigarettes were marketed to practically everyone. Even though people now know of the health consequences and the addiction, I still feel that they're taken advantage of. Even if they know the addiction, they don't understand it until they're desperately trying to quit.

At the end of the day, that's what it comes down to for me. You started smoking, you became addicted, and now you're some corporation's cash cow. If people could quit smoking on a whim, I'd have a bit less to complain about. Given the relatively large number of products marketed toward quitting, I'd imagine that a fair number of smokers are unwillingly smoking. That seems like an injustice in some form.

One has to take care not to make a slippery slope argument, of course. In theory any substance can be addictive, and any substance could cause a person harm - should those substances be banned? I don't think so. Working to a gradual ban by making it harder to smoke, such as by pricing or limiting the number of smoking areas, will be painful for many smokers. It'll likely be better for society in the long run, though.

[Supersonic]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Working to a gradual ban by making it harder to smoke, such as by pricing or limiting the number of smoking areas, will be painful for many smokers. It'll likely be better for society in the long run, though.

Studies have shown that when prices of tobacco go up, the poor just get poorer, they don't smoke any less.

[Vexx]

aye... basically "sin" taxes (booze and cigs) are a tax on the poor and the addicted since they're statistically more likely to be spending too much money on the stuff.

The taxes *ought* to be levied directly against the tobacco companies as part of the total system costs of their products -- but we all know they'd just pass the costs on rather than reduce their profits.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Supersonic

Studies have shown that when prices of tobacco go up, the poor just get poorer, they don't smoke any less.

Forgive me if this sounds cruel, but this isn't about saving those who are addicted. It's about creating barriers to entry for those who haven't started smoking. I've seen plenty of smokers start when they're in their teens. The teenage years are a time when people are most vulnerable to peer pressure and image marketing, two aspects that cigarette companies strongly take advantage of. The teenage years are also a time when many people do not have much disposable income.

If the prices of cigarettes rise to a ridiculous point, I'd imagine that it would cut off younger people from buying them. The sharing of cigarettes is another method through which younger people obtain cigarettes, but if cigarettes become truly pricey, will people be so willing to share?

Ideally this would mean that the people taking up smoking are informed and reasonable adults who won't be so easily taken in by marketing tactics (one can dream, at least). Ideally they'd value their earnings and would feel that cigarettes were a waste of money, and that would be enough of a deterrant for them.

As I said, the entire issue I have with it is that the product is addictive and creates unwilling consumers. This may be forgotten knowledge, but does anyone recall that Coca Cola used to use trace amounts of cocaine in the drink? It was around the early 1900's, and from what I've read the intention was not to make addicts out of consumers. Yet from a marketing standpoint, it would be brilliant. The people consuming the drink would develop a minor (or major, depending on consumption levels) addiction to the substance, link it to Coca Cola, and just keep buying more. The government eventually stepped in and required that changes be made, probably more to prevent the use of cocaine and less to protect consumer rights.

I find it rather interesting, though. Should companies be able to strong-arm consumers into buying their product by creating a reliance on them? I don't think so, and yet that's the fate for many smokers.

[Defron]

The dangers of smoking

Yeah, never tried smoking, too afraid I will become addicted (smoking isn't exactly cheap) not to mention how much damage it can do to you.

[tripperazn]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Forgive me if this sounds cruel, but this isn't about saving those who are addicted. It's about creating barriers to entry for those who haven't started smoking. I've seen plenty of smokers start when they're in their teens. The teenage years are a time when people are most vulnerable to peer pressure and image marketing, two aspects that cigarette companies strongly take advantage of. The teenage years are also a time when many people do not have much disposable income.

I personally do not approve of the high tax rates on cigarettes. Like the Lottery, it's a horribly profitable venture that comes out of the poorest in the nation. It's the kind of taxation that tax brackets and progressive tax measures are supposed to replace.

Everybody starts small, most people with one cig from peer pressure, then another as they continue to hang out and etc. No matter how high you jack the price on cigs (reasonably), most teens can afford one pack a day, even at say $7 a pack (50% increase). Either you stop there, and are a social smoker, or you get addicted. Either way, demand becomes inelastic, people don't care about price either because they don't buy much, or they need that fix. The incentives for entry are social, not economical, as a lot of people mentioned, they aren't cheap to begin with.

Assuming that you do increase prices enough to drive off most teens. Who's to say that tobacco isn't going to go underground? It's not an easy plant to raise, but with modern fertilizers, it's not out of the question. There is no regulation, and no purity standard in that case. Smoking becomes even more dangerous. Just look at all the cases where government bans an addictive substance, this is the outcome.

[Sides]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

As I said, the entire issue I have with it is that the product is addictive and creates unwilling consumers. This may be forgotten knowledge, but does anyone recall that Coca Cola used to use trace amounts of cocaine in the drink? It was around the early 1900's, and from what I've read the intention was not to make addicts out of consumers. Yet from a marketing standpoint, it would be brilliant. The people consuming the drink would develop a minor (or major, depending on consumption levels) addiction to the substance, link it to Coca Cola, and just keep buying more. The government eventually stepped in and required that changes be made, probably more to prevent the use of cocaine and less to protect consumer rights.

Hmm coca cola uses sweetners in their diet versions, which is also addictive and damaging, believe it or not. Same applies to sugar. If nicotine gets forced out, the next replacement is already waiting to be launched.

Besides seeing how some Uni studends behave here in my city, i pretty sure coke is still being consumed in large amound. Making tabacco illegal or harder to get is actually more tempting for youngesters.

What worries me it that people are actually willing to sacrifies some freedom only to get a healthy socialty. I hope that doesn't ends that we are forced to eat specially produced food and drinks that is 100% cancer proof.
I'm pretty against giving the goverment much more power, because i know that most of them are corrupt. It is time to take back what is ours.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by tripperazn

Like the Lottery, it's a horribly profitable venture that comes out of the poorest in the nation.

I was always under the impression that the lower classes are the ones who take up smoking more heavily than the upper classes, but is that true? If it is, you're right, but I'd also still say that a higher price should act as a greater deterrant. After all, rich people wouldn't care too much about a relatively small boost in prices.

No matter how high you jack the price on cigs (reasonably), most teens can afford one pack a day, even at say $7 a pack (50% increase). Either you stop there, and are a social smoker, or you get addicted. Either way, demand becomes inelastic, people don't care about price either because they don't buy much, or they need that fix. The incentives for entry are social, not economical, as a lot of people mentioned, they aren't cheap to begin with.

I think you're largely correct, but I still believe that if the price is high enough it'll deter many people. A teen's monetary ability really depends on their area and their parents. As a teenager I don't think I would have been able to afford a pack of cigarettes a day, but then I wasn't given any allowance. If the pressure and desire to get it is high enough, they'll get it no matter the price. I don't think you can stop everyone. But the raised prices should help to deter more people, and it should help to make some current smokers consider quitting a bit more strongly.

Who's to say that tobacco isn't going to go underground? It's not an easy plant to raise, but with modern fertilizers, it's not out of the question. There is no regulation, and no purity standard in that case. Smoking becomes even more dangerous. Just look at all the cases where government bans an addictive substance, this is the outcome.

What you've stated is the case with substances that are outright banned. If cigarettes are just incredibly expensive, then they're a product for the social elite. Couple it with proper education about the harmful effects of smoking, and it's a product for the idiotic social elite. I'm not saying that the scenario you mentioned couldn't happen, but it seems a bit less likely since cigarettes would not be banned outright, just very difficult to obtain and to use.

Originally Posted by Sides

Hmm coca cola uses sweetners in their diet versions, which is also addictive and damaging, believe it or not. Same applies to sugar. If nicotine gets forced out, the next replacement is already waiting to be launched.

True enough, but not to the extent that many of these substances are. Well, perhaps I shouldn't say that - since we consume it regularly, who really knows for certain? What I do know is that there are a number of recovery groups and therapies designed for people who were addicted to substances (drugs) and artificual sweeteners generally isn't one of them. Of course, there are groups set up for people with eating disorders - you could make an argument that people who are addicted to food are that way due to the additives. I don't think there's really enough data to make a conclusion about it at this point, though.

What worries me it that people are actually willing to sacrifies some freedom only to get a healthy socialty. I hope that doesn't ends that we are forced to eat specially produced food and drinks that is 100% cancer proof.
I'm pretty against giving the goverment much more power, because i know that most of them are corrupt. It is time to take back what is ours.

I don't agree with giving the government so much power, myself. The (ideal) function of the government is really to ensure the wellbeing of the society and to safeguard its freedoms. A government that dictates what we can and can't do for our own safety isn't an ideal government.

All the same, I'm wary of corporate exploitation. I brought up the Coca Cola example partially to bring it to light that companies have done this sort of stuff. Tobacco companies are currently doing it. You want to say that we should just let the market decide? Keep up the FDA requirements about how companies have to include ingredient information on product labels, and let consumers pick what goes into their bodies? That wouldn't work. I'll get to why:

A barber of mine, in a discussion about shampoos, once told me to go and look at the ingredients in the shampoo that I was using. I probably wouldn't be able to even pronounce more than the first two or three of them, he said. Actually, as a science person I can pronounce and recognize quite a few more than that, but that's not the point. The point is that even though companies are required to list what goes into the product, most ordinary people have no clue what any of it means. Even specialists may not know, although it's more likely that they have the resources to find out. Red 5? Yellow 13? What the heck is that stuff and what's it doing to my body? Let's say Red 5 turns out to cause a greater instance of birth defects - you can damn well bet I'd want the government not only to fund the studies and find out what's going on, but then to either make a massive alert to consumers or to ban it from usage. Corporations don't care about your health, and unfortunately we can't all know what's harmful to us. I don't want the government to tell me what I can and can't eat, but I do want the input from their resources.

Let me expand on why this is different with cigarettes. As I stated in an earlier post, if cigarettes weren't so addictive, I'd have a lot less to complain about. The government has let us know that cigarettes are bad for our health, which is good - they're doing their job. They've let us know that they're addictive, but the problem with this is that I don't believe that many people who have never suffered an addiction before really understand how serious it is and how hard it is to overcome. I've heard plenty of people state "I'll just quit when I feel like it" and then when they're trying to quit, they have extreme regret about ever having started in the first place. You can't properly inform about that aspect - people know it, but they don't understand it until they've experienced it. Once they've experienced it and are struggling to quit, they're unwillingly paying the tobacco companies. That's not how the market is supposed to work - it's almost like extortion. People are being taken advantage of by corporations. Shouldn't the government step in for a situation like this?

[tripperazn]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

What you've stated is the case with substances that are outright banned. If cigarettes are just incredibly expensive, then they're a product for the social elite. Couple it with proper education about the harmful effects of smoking, and it's a product for the idiotic social elite. I'm not saying that the scenario you mentioned couldn't happen, but it seems a bit less likely since cigarettes would not be banned outright, just very difficult to obtain and to use.

You're right, that's what would probably happen. However, there are still the millions of poor, addicted smokers now unable to get cigs legally. Where do they turn to? The underground. As legal as cigs are, I hear the withdrawl symptoms rival that of "hard drugs" like heroin.

However, the solution that you mention are somewhat politically unfeasible in the US. Lobbyists will NEVER allow taxes on cigs to rise high than it already is, nor allow their PR to flounder further under government and private programs that encourage NOT smoking. It will also be a sad day when government trys to take the place of personal responsibility. No matter how good education is about smoking, the choice is ultimately up to the individual. IMO, knowing the dangers of addiction is a personal responsibility, but government has done a lot confirm that (at least where I went to school).

[Sides]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

That's not how the market is supposed to work - it's almost like extortion. People are being taken advantage of by corporations. Shouldn't the government step in for a situation like this?

Face it, that is how the market works. If i'm hungry am i allowed to kill an animal or nick an apple from someones garden? No i have to buy it from a shop. If i'm cold am i allowed to fell a tree to make a fire, no i have to get a licence and am only allowed to use equipment that pass specific tests, or go to a shop.
Freedom in most western countries is already pretty compromised, so i don't think goverments should intervene much more. They already done enought, like banning ads in TV and on the streets, prining leaflets and making TV ads warning people, getting rid off cigarette machines and so on. What more do you want, obviously the next step would be banning it completely, followed by house and body searches, piss tests aso..
I mean most people that still smoke cannot say "i don't know that it is dangerous and additive", there are big f*cking letters on the packs, stating it, such as: smoking can reduce you sperm count, smoking kills, smoking can damage your foetus, if it is you're 10th pack today you're almost dead, and so on.

[Dxon]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

To be honest, tobacco is hundreds of times more damaging to your body and much more addictive than marijuana. I'd much rather have marijuana to be legal and tobacco to be banned (though I'd prefer none of them to be banned, for that matter. It should be a matter of personal choice).

Marijuana is more damaging than tabbaco, right? Thats what they say here. Marijuana is more damaging than tabbaco because it kills a lot of brain cells.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Sides

Face it, that is how the market works. If I'm hungry am i allowed to kill an animal or nick an apple from someones garden? No i have to buy it from a shop. If I'm cold am i allowed to fell a tree to make a fire, no i have to get a license and am only allowed to use equipment that pass specific tests, or go to a shop.

Those are terrible examples. As long as you abide by hunting laws you can kill for food all you want. You can grow your own food as long as you aren't growing something illegal like marijuana. Fire permits are so that stupid people don't start fires on dry days and burn the town down. Tree cutting permits are so you don't tear down wires, have the tree fall onto something important, and so you don't injure someone with the chainsaw.

Yeah it sucks to have red tape and permits/licenses for everything, but they exist because a standard is required and proper safety needs to be followed through.

Freedom in most western countries is already pretty compromised, so i don't think goverments should intervene much more.

Big secret here, I'll let you in on it. Freedom is an illusion. Your rights end where mine begin. I have the right to be naked, but you have the right to not see me naked. It's tough to strike a balance between protection and freedom. And it will never be perfect. Even the founding fathers understood that much.

They already done enough, like banning ads in TV and on the streets, printing leaflets and making TV ads warning people, getting rid off cigarette machines and so on. What more do you want, obviously the next step would be banning it completely, followed by house and body searches, piss tests also..

I mean most people that still smoke cannot say "i don't know that it is dangerous and additive", there are big f*cking letters on the packs, stating it, such as: smoking can reduce you sperm count, smoking kills, smoking can damage your fetus, if it is you're 10th pack today you're almost dead, and so on.

To paraphrase Dennis Leary - "You could market cigarettes called Cancer with a giant skull on the package and people would still buy them".

In short, warnings are there to protect companies just as much as they are intended to protect citizens. This prevents you suing Miller for making the beer that got you into a car accident, or for suing Camel for cancer after 20 years of smoking.

While I'm sure the government can find a better use for their time than telling you how to raise your children (because parents find ratings and warnings oh so hard to read), I am all for them trying to make the country a healthier place to live. The less time and money spent trying to solve the issues that come from smoking, the more time and money they can spend somewhere else.

Just remember - killing yourself is illegal, yet people slowly kill themselves every day, by choice. There is no warning label for ignorance and stupidity.

[Dxon]

Fun fact about Holland:
Our government is going to forbid people to smoke in public places! FINALLY!!! I hate smokers in restaurants.. When your eating your awesome meal someone is smoking a stinky cigar or cigarette or whatever disgusting shit next to you! That just sucks!!!!!!
No more smoking!
Although law is coming in 2009...
Or was it 2008???
I think it was 2009.. :|

[WanderingKnight]

There is no warning label for ignorance and stupidity.

And here is where the "government", or better yet, the society has to step forward. The government is not an isolated being completely extraneous to regular individual people, it's the crystallization of a society's desires towards its very own future. I hate hearing people accusing the government of "illegally" stepping over their right to buy incandescent bulb lights that further aid the senseless waste of energy that ends up affecting the entire world.

You're damn right, there's no warning label for stupidity--but there are ways of eliminating stupidity. And guess what, the very society everyone forms part of is responsible of ensuring that. And, furthermore, the responsibility each person has to assume presupposes giving up some privileges that are not doing any better to society as a whole, or that are even hurting it (such as the case of incandescent bulb lights, and of course, of tobacco).

(I'm not defending governments, it's just that I get tired pretty quickly of people bitching and moaning about their governments when it's partly their responsibility as members of a society).

[diabolistic]

I'm a smoker, and it hasn't really affected me that much. I still go swimming, jogging, and I haven't noticed any decrease in lung capacity. I try not to smoke every day, and once in a while I do get tired of it, so I wouldn't say I'm addicted.

It's nice to have one after a meal, or on a porch.

As for people around me at restaurants or in public.. it's not hard to turn to the people around you and ask "is it alright if I smoke?" usually by showing them courtesy, they'll show you some too. Then there are the non smokers who are all "it's my right to breathe fresh clean air! put out your cigarette asshole!".. asking me to put it out is all you need =_=

People litter the air with loud cellphone conversations, litter the ground with their trash, and bombard their bodies with chemicals.. garbage is everywhere, and I sometimes feel that smokers are getting singled out. Is there a warning label beside the chocolate bar that warns against diabetes if you eat one a day? Or how about the smog in the air? Besides, lung disease isn't the leading cause of death in north america, heart disease is.

[Miko Miko]

Fun fact about Holland:
Our government is going to forbid people to smoke in public places! FINALLY!!! I hate smokers in restaurants.. When your eating your awesome meal someone is smoking a stinky cigar or cigarette or whatever disgusting shit next to you! That just sucks!!!!!!
No more smoking!
Although law is coming in 2009...
Or was it 2008???
I think it was 2009.. :|

wow they already did that here in the UK. i don't feel much of a difference, and I don't think the number of smokers has reduced any, so i think it was pretty pointless.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by tripperazn

However, there are still the millions of poor, addicted smokers now unable to get cigs legally. Where do they turn to? The underground. As legal as cigs are, I hear the withdrawl symptoms rival that of "hard drugs" like heroin.

If the price jump is something incredible - say, 500% in a day - then the scenario you describe may be correct. However, if the price hike is a gradual increase then people are more likely to go along with it. Higher prices mean that fewer people will have the resources or desire to even start smoking. Gradually raised prices also means that current smokers will start thinking twice about their habit, and it'll give them a good reason to quit.

As for nicotine withdrawl being worse than those of "hard drugs" - I don't believe so. It's possible that some people may experience similar symptoms, but generally the people you find in therapy or on psychiatric drugs are those who did the hard drugs. Not that I'm a definitive source, but I've never heard of a case where a person reached that sort of level due to cigarettes alone.

Lobbyists will NEVER allow taxes on cigs to rise high than it already is, nor allow their PR to flounder further under government and private programs that encourage NOT smoking.

Who knows - I think people said the same thing when the issue of whether there should be a government tax on cigarettes was new. There are interest groups working against it, and obviously the tobacco industry is going to try to save itself. I don't think that makes it unfeasible, though.

It will also be a sad day when government trys to take the place of personal responsibility. No matter how good education is about smoking, the choice is ultimately up to the individual. IMO, knowing the dangers of addiction is a personal responsibility, but government has done a lot confirm that (at least where I went to school).

I agree that the government should not take the place of personal responsibility. As I've said, I feel that many smokers are taken advantage of, and the government is doing its part to help prevent that. Why is so much money spent on advertising? It entices people. We all like to believe that we decide what we buy, but the advertisements that we are exposed to do have an impact on us. The effectiveness of the impact depends on how well targeted the ads are to us. Very well targeted ads are incredibly effective at manipulating people. This is why so much money goes into advertising research, why there is so much money in advertising in general, and why companies pay for your information - with your information they can target ads much more efficiently, and with more advertisements they have a better chance of reaching you.

Why it's bad with cigarettes is because people become addicted. Perhaps the addiction is downplayed, or perhaps people don't understand what it truly means to be addicted until it's too late. Once they're addicted and trying to quit, the tobacco companies are making money from them that they should not. If Coca Cola had an addictive substance in their soda, what would you say? It'd be unfair to Pepsi, it'd be unfair to any other beverage company (since some of your spending is now locked into Coke that may have gone elsewhere), and it's unfair to you, because now even if you wanted to stop drinking it, you can't. Or you can - but it's going to be physically and mentally very hard on you. I think many people would feel that such a thing would not be right, and yet that's what the tobacco companies are doing.

Originally Posted by Sides

I mean most people that still smoke cannot say "i don't know that it is dangerous and additive", there are big f*cking letters on the packs, stating it, such as: smoking can reduce you sperm count, smoking kills, smoking can damage your foetus, if it is you're 10th pack today you're almost dead, and so on.

Talk to anyone who's trying to quit and see how they feel. I'd say most smokers are very cavalier about taking it up. They either don't care about what happens to them or they think that they can quit whenever they want to. Many of those who suffer lung cancer or other smoking-related health problems certaintly seem to reverse their stance about what happens to them; many of those who find themselves trying but unable to quit are forced to admit that it wasn't how they thought it'd be. As Solace pointed out, those labels are more for the protection of the companies than to inform the consumer. Even if the consumer is informed, how many people can really consider the consequences of their actions? We can look at many aspects of life and conclude that the answer is, not many.

Originally Posted by diabolistic

I'm a smoker, and it hasn't really affected me that much. I still go swimming, jogging, and I haven't noticed any decrease in lung capacity. I try not to smoke every day, and once in a while I do get tired of it, so I wouldn't say I'm addicted.

Whether it'll affect you or not depends on a variety of factors, including how long you've been smoking, what you've been smoking, how naturally athletic you are, and so on. I don't know what your reasons for smoking are, but you don't sound like you need it. Smoking doesn't always have an obvious impact on people, even those who have been smoking for almost their entire life. It doesn't justify it, either way. You know the potential harms of smoking, and you can weigh them against the nonexistent benefits. Why do you want to risk it?

People litter the air with loud cellphone conversations, litter the ground with their trash, and bombard their bodies with chemicals.. garbage is everywhere, and I sometimes feel that smokers are getting singled out. Is there a warning label beside the chocolate bar that warns against diabetes if you eat one a day? Or how about the smog in the air? Besides, lung disease isn't the leading cause of death in north america, heart disease is.

Does it really matter if lung cancer isn't a leading cause of death in the United States? Typhoid fever was originally one of the leading causes of disease in the United States, way back before sewer lines were formed. After sewers were created, typhoid rates dropped drastically. People didn't stop there and say OK, typhoid isn't number one anymore, let's focus on something else. How many people in America even contract typhoid due to unsanitary waters? I believe it's zero, and if I'm wrong, some heavy federal fines must have been levied in response.

Your argument about litter, noise pollution, and people "bombarding their bodies with chemicals" is valid on its own - but it's too different to be compared with smokers. We can focus on those issues and focus on the issue of smoking as well.