If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
That's me, not him.
We did have loads of smoking cessation officers. We just called them doctor/nurse.
Now we'd prefer that they did something else, more clinical.
Is there a single person in the country who isn't aware that smoking is harmful?
Then what's the point of all of this? Why not do the same with anything else that's harmful, from alcohol to salt to fatty foods as well?
Christ... :rolleyes:
As for the biggest drop in smoking being in the 70's and 80's, is this not just after it was found out that smoking is bad for you?
Not really, it was a lot earlier. The dangers of smoking were first publicly exposed in the early 1950s I think. Although one of the first studies linking smoking to cancer was in Nazi Germany. Tobacco companies also knew before the dangers became public knowledge.
To discharge tobacco companies of responsibility I suppose a discreet written warning at the very least is necessary on cigarette packets. Written warnings covering half the packet or gruesome photographs however are an unnecessary and unwelcome intrusion. Cigarettes are a perfectly legal product, people are universally aware of the dangers and those exercising their freedom to smoke have a right not to be bombarded with government subsidised propaganda.
If the likes of Cancer Research UK and pharmaceutical companies eager to sell more nicotine patches wish to fund anti-smoking adverts and such they’re of course free to do so – however, it’s beyond the role of the government to dictate to people on the demerits of a legal product. (I also have to admit I thought Cancer Research UK was dedicated to funding research for cancer treatment, since medical research is extremely expensive and as a charity, Cancer Research UK will no doubt have limited funds it’s surprising that they’re taking away millions from cancer research to fund highly paid lobbyists and expensive advertising campaigns to tell people how to live. With respect to Cancer Research UK giving up smoking is hardly ‘treatment’ or a ‘cure’ for cancer. They’re a disgrace to their donors).
p.s Will people stop calling Cancer UK a disgrace, christ, they do a good job, people on these forums are so bitter about everything and so quick to judge :rolleyes: .
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
True. But if Cancer Research UK is a charity committed to medical research on cancer as it claims to be employing armies of lobbyists and taking out full-page adverts in national newspapers to try and bring about a smoking ban is imo going well beyond its stated area of concern.
The ‘prevention is better than a cure’ is all very well but how far does it extend to? You could in the name of prevention slash the number of heart attacks by slapping a 50% super-tax on fatty foods. Could aid charities instead of spending their resources on feeding starving people in the third world fund coups against despotic regimes?
Anyway going back to these unnecessary pictures we’re being invited to vote on (link on the BBC article) it’s unfortunate that nobody is being given the option to oppose their actual introduction. It is however unsurprising in a climate where health professionals, the pharmaceutical companies and ASH dictate public policy. It’s almost universally recognised that cigarettes, alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, etc can be harmful, as can fatty foods but I don’t see what’s so radical about believing that individuals should be allowed to make their own mind up. The nanny state at its best. :rolleyes:
Nope. That has absolutely no effect on me whatsoever.
Maybe because i don't travel with small children in the back of my car.
If they have common sense they'll buy foreign cigarettes, although after a while you can guess what 'uccide' probably means..I think duty free cigs have smaller warnings too but in Europe foreign cigarettes are the way to go.
Smoking is different, first of all its more addictive, alcohol is only really addictive if you have problem and drink to to make you feel better. Smoking also affects all the people around you (yes alcohol, can make you violent/drunk driver, but its not really the same is it). Most of all, drinking isnt to bad when in moderation, its fun and its a social luberacent, smoking is always pretty destructive and has collatral damage as an added bonus, and to be honest, its alot harder to get people to stop drinking than to stop smoking, this wont work with alcohol and it will with smoking. Not really the same is it.
I don't disagree, but we're not talking about banning cigs, but about making sure that people (especially people who are just starting with their first cigs behind the bikesheds) actually know that the chances are they're going to regret it later.
I've just restarted smoking after a six month break and believe me there's little so enjoyable as getting home, putting on the kettle and having a coffee and cig (even if the wife makes me smoke outside). i enjoy smoking.
But I can't run as far or fast as I used to and it eats up a fuck of a lot of the household budget and I wish when I was fifteen I hadn't started.
More like putting a paper bag over the repetative government's face, ejaculating "blah blah blah" ad infinitum...
Not really. Primarily it saves money. It's not really burrying one's head in the sand either, every smoker is aware of the dangers of smoking.
You're right, I agree. The balance has to be struck however between discouraging children from starting and allowing adults the freedom to smoke without being subjected to the wrath of busybodies in government and the agenda of anti-smoking pressure groups forced upon them.
I think increasing the age limit to buy cigarettes to 18 would be more effective in reducing the number of young people starting. Most smokers I'd guess start at 14 or 15, if cigarettes were a bit harder to get hold of there'd be less fully fledged 15 year old smokers. These days it seems many places require ID for alcohol for anybody who looks under 21, adopt a similar principle on cigarettes and it'll make it harder for children to get addicted young. (And perhaps then adults won't have to suffer the indignity of gruesome images on cigarette packets). I do have to admit however were I a year younger I wouldn't advocate such a proposal...And I'll be surprised if the age to buy cigarettes is ever increased for regardless of the government's obsession with banning smokers from public places and banning advertising a legal product the treasury is reliant on revenue from smokers.
Therefore is a supreme exercise of hypocrisy to relentlessly bother people about one drug and not about the other.
But then what's new? Both alcohol and smoking are a lot more dangerous and harmful than the likes of cannabis or ecstasy and yet the former remain legal while the latter could land you in jail. Trebles all around!
That is a direct result of alcohol.
A great deal of domestic abuse, traffic accidents, rapes and other crimes are also linked to it.
And then, from the health point of view, alcohol kills or makes ill massive numbers of people, and not exactly a million miles from the number of smoking-related deaths and diseases actually.
It all boils down to hypocrisy and trends IMO.
Yes, but you can't arrest a dead body for commiting suicide. And if they survive, you can't arrest them, because they didn't commit suicide.
And yes, we would. But we wouldn't stop them drinking said alcoholic beverage without the poison, which is still killing you. Alcohol is bad too.
You're right. Alcohol can be very dangerous to somebody's health and it causes far more damage to society than tobacco or illegal drugs. Socially alcohol can be very destructive; for some people alcohol wrecks their entire life, they lose their job, their family, etc. In moderation of course alcohol isn't a problem but evidently if everybody went teetotal tomorrow crime would plummet.
Gambling is an interesting one too. I don't really have any strong thoughts on gambling but I'm pretty sure that the only beneficiary of relaxed gambling laws is gigantic casino operators - and the losers will invariably be the poor and vulnerable. (But thanks to heavy lobbying by gambling firms the government decides to relax the gambling laws). The government is schizophrenic, on one hand they want to play the nanny state and ban smoking in public places to 'protect' us and then they go ahead and allow more casinos to exploit the vulnerable. If there was a mass public demand for Las Vegas style casinos I'd understand somewhat but there isn't...Gambling operators and pharmaceutical companies just have the most and the best lobbyists I guess.
Nope, everone is. The poor try ot make money gamblnig their last few quid, the rich think they can afford it, get hooked and spend it all.
Gambling is dangerous and addictive. We shouldn't let the Casino's over here. At all. Only thing that'll happen is it will fuck up some people and the crime rate will rise. People will try to (and probably some will suceed) in robbing the casinos, people will rob caino goers, people who spend all their money will rob folk to get some back...
And of course, it does seem that in the US, anyway, drugs and gambling go hand in hand. So you may find alot of folk getting hooked on stuff at the casinos.
Domestic abuse may be linked to alcohol, but is not caused by alcohol. There are far more deep rooted problems involved in that, than having drinks. Saying that alcohol is the cause is saying that given enough alcohol, anyone would abuse their partner, which is simply not the case. Alcohol may be used as a tool to rape people, but again, it is not the cause of rape. Ordinary men don't turn into rapists as a result of alcohol. I'll give you traffic accidents, but again, it's the actions of the drunken person, not the alcohol that causes people to suffer from it. With cigarettes, it is the very action of smoking that causes problems. But then, I'm very much of the opinion that as long as they're not affecting me, it's their own choice. I don't have a problem with them being given the correct information, though I can understand why it may be annoying to have it shoved in your face all the time. I wouldn't have a problem if it was just warnings similar to that on a bottle of Absinthe (see alcohol does have warnings on it).
(shock horror!