Jordan from Switchboard will be here Wednesday and Friday this week to answer your questions on anything to do with sexuality and relationships - leave your questions over on this thread
Head over to this thread to submit a song for our February 'Love' playlist that we'll be putting on Spotify!

Pictures of naked obese people on fast food packets

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
Not particularly appealing but will it happen? How about photos of diseased livers on bottles of whisky? Or is tobacco the only harmful habit getting singled out again? Looks like it.

From autumn this year smokers (and non-smokers) will have the pleasure of seeing nasty images on cigarette packets. BBC article.

Maybe old fashioned cigarette cases will make a come back. Either way, every smoker is perfectly aware of the risks of smoking. (Although, I know plenty of non-smokers who seem pretty ignorant of the dangers of getting wasted every Friday and Saturday night). Why does smoking have to be singled out whilst every other harmful habit is ignored?

Yet another reason for smokers to where possible avoid buying cigarettes in Britain.

How long before ASH succeed in convincing everybody that smoking is on par with heroin? Tbh with all the anti-smoking hysteria and the anti-smoking messages that start very early on in schools it would not surprise me if many children already consider cigarettes worse than any illegal drug.
«1

Comments

  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,067 I eat threads for breakfast
    How long before ASH succeed in convincing everybody that smoking is on par with heroin? Tbh with all the anti-smoking hysteria and the anti-smoking messages that start very early on in schools it would not surprise me if many children already consider cigarettes worse than any illegal drug.

    To be fair many illegal drugs arn't as damaging, and certainly not as addictive as tobacco. More addictive than herion? Probably. More damaging to ones health? Certainly.

    And of course Nicotine happens to be one of the most pointless drugs in existance.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Maybe they should stick pictures of teenage single mothers on pubescent spotty boys... :chin:

    Mind you, I find smoking so rude and antisocial, so maybe there's that aspect to it as well, whereas drinking (which can be antisocial) and eating are usually not so bad.

    Though it puts me right off when someone sits their without table manners, scoffing their face, letting grease run over their lips and chin. Eugh.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote:
    To be fair many illegal drugs arn't as damaging

    To be fair, that's your opinion and one that is very disputable. Few respected authorities would agree.
    Skive wrote:
    And of course Nicotine happens to be one of the most pointless drugs in existance.

    If smokers just wanted nicotine they'd satisfy themselves with nicotine patches or nicotine gum surely? Whilst ASH find it difficult to believe there are millions of people who actually enjoy a cigarette.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,067 I eat threads for breakfast
    To be fair, that's your opinion and one that is very disputable. Few respected authorities would agree.

    Well in a chemical sense it's certainly mopre damaging than heroin (which you used as an example)
    Something like 1 in 4 smokers will die of a smoking related disease. You find me a mortality rate for any recreational illegal drug that can come close to that?

    Some other facts for you...
    Smoking is the leading preventable cause of disease in the world.
    Smokers are about twice as likely to die from cancer as non-smokers.
    In the US tobacco use kills more people than the total number killed by AIDS, alcohol abuse, motor vehicle accidents, homicide, illegal drug abuse, and suicide combined. Even if the number of smoking-related deaths were cut in half, they would still kill more people than all of the other causes.

    Now can you tell me it's not one of the most damaging substances in the world?

    If smokers just wanted nicotine they'd satisfy themselves with nicotine patches or nicotine gum surely? Whilst ASH find it difficult to believe there are millions of people who actually enjoy a cigarette.

    Most people enjoy a smoke the simple reason it satisfies their craving.


    ETA: I'm smoker, and I enjoy a smoke. But it's still the most pointless thing I've ever done. A fake pleasure.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Not particularly appealing but will it happen? How about photos of diseased livers on bottles of whisky? Or is tobacco the only harmful habit getting singled out again? Looks like it.

    From autumn this year smokers (and non-smokers) will have the pleasure of seeing nasty images on cigarette packets. BBC article.

    Maybe old fashioned cigarette cases will make a come back. Either way, every smoker is perfectly aware of the risks of smoking. (Although, I know plenty of non-smokers who seem pretty ignorant of the dangers of getting wasted every Friday and Saturday night). Why does smoking have to be singled out whilst every other harmful habit is ignored?

    Yet another reason for smokers to where possible avoid buying cigarettes in Britain.

    How long before ASH succeed in convincing everybody that smoking is on par with heroin? Tbh with all the anti-smoking hysteria and the anti-smoking messages that start very early on in schools it would not surprise me if many children already consider cigarettes worse than any illegal drug.
    Maybe you're over reacting?

    Alcohol is dangerous, alcoholism is terrible but it is nowhere near as addictive as tobacco, nor does drinking around other people force them to consume the chemicals that float around your addiction.

    People should be made aware of the dangers of alcoholism too and that'll probably come one day, but a picture of a shot liver won't stop people drinking just like pictures of rotting tar filled lungs won't stop smokers having a fag.

    Anybody who chuffs away on a cigarette knows what they're doing to themselves hopefully and if the picture makes them feel uncomfortable then maybe they shouldn't be smoking.

    Surely greater awareness of our health and bodies is a good thing. Can't see why it's a problem...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    When they discover that you can get passive obesity from standing too close to someone eating a Greggs pasty on the bus, you may well have a point.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote:
    Now can you tell me it's not one of the most damaging substances in the world?

    That's not really the issue. Smoking is harmful and nobody denies that, my objection is to sticking these gruesome images on cigarette packets. Everybody knows the dangers of smoking but if people choose to smoke they should be free to do so without disgusting images being forced down their throat. (Just as people should be able to enjoy a KFC if they want to without seeing photos of naked obese people).
    Alcohol is dangerous, alcoholism is terrible but it is nowhere near as addictive as tobacco, nor does drinking around other people force them to consume the chemicals that float around your addiction.

    Well alcohol is incredibly addictive for people suffering from alcoholism. Someone who binge drinks every Friday or Saturday night might not be an alcoholic but they're still wrecking their body. And then we're on to how smoking affects other people with the passive smoking line - passive smoking has been ridiculously exaggerated, if there is a danger, it's a very small one. And I think you'll find alcohol can also affect people around the user, what do you think it's like for the family of an alcoholic?
    Anybody who chuffs away on a cigarette knows what they're doing to themselves hopefully and if the picture makes them feel uncomfortable then maybe they shouldn't be smoking.

    It's being forced down people's throats. I don't think that's right.
    Surely greater awareness of our health and bodies is a good thing. Can't see why it's a problem...

    It might be if the many, many different issues were addressed - but they're not, one issue is repeatedly singled out.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think that people are very visual, and that this new campaign is in recognition of that. If I told you that 50,000 people will die of hunger today, then I'm sure you'd care, but you'd forget really quickly. 50,000 isn't an easily visualised number, however, you watch comic relief and you watch films of people dying of hungry, suddenly you care more and ring up to give some money.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's being forced down people's throats. I don't think that's right.

    Which interstingly is what smokers do whenever I go to the pub. And I'd rather look at a picture of lung cancer than get lung cancer.

    Passive smoking is only "overstated" if you believe Forest and BAT:) The major cancer organisations (who I would expect have slightly less an agenda than a pro-smoking organisation and a tobacco firm) are all pretty much in agreeance that passive smoking is a big danger.

    You are right, a drunk person may well start a fight with me, but so might a sober one. I fail to see what your point is. A non-smoker isn't going to force formaldehyde down my throat and greatly increase my chances of getting cancer, having an asthma attack, and making my dry cleaner a very happy and wealthy man.

    That said, I wouldn't get my knickers in a wad if they started putting warning labels on my dog.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    if that does happen, i'll be physically sick everytime i pick up a bag of crisps.
    ...
    i don't think it is fair to do that tbh because i like occasionally having some junk food like a bag of crisps, a bar of chocolate or something. ~ i'll never be able to look at one again if some dumb politician puts naked obese people on the packet.
    the only people who end up so obese are the people who don't have any control over their eating habits, possibly because of mental health problems associated with binging on foods, or physical problems for example with their thyroid.
    we are absolutely obsessed with food in this country and that in itself is not healthy. some people don't care what they look like. some people make themselves like that on purpose. some people don't understand how to eat healthy. ffs educate them! pictures of gross fat people is not a solution and is not a alternative to education.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To be fair, that's your opinion and one that is very disputable. Few respected authorities would agree.

    These scientists would disagree, they suggest that a lot of illegal drugs are less dangerous than tobacco

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5230006.stm#drugs
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That's not really the issue. Smoking is harmful and nobody denies that, my objection is to sticking these gruesome images on cigarette packets. Everybody knows the dangers of smoking but if people choose to smoke they should be free to do so without disgusting images being forced down their throat. (Just as people should be able to enjoy a KFC if they want to without seeing photos of naked obese people).
    If people choose to smoke they will do so, regardless of the pictures. Why is it such a problem? It's not like you're being oppressed.
    Well alcohol is incredibly addictive for people suffering from alcoholism. Someone who binge drinks every Friday or Saturday night might not be an alcoholic but they're still wrecking their body.
    Point?

    Anything is addictive if you have an addiction, internet, gamling, alcohol, solvents ect... But nicotine is one of the most addictive drugs, you can't deny that. Sure heavy drinking can damage your health, too much of anything can but that isn't the point.
    And then we're on to how smoking affects other people with the passive smoking line - passive smoking has been ridiculously exaggerated, if there is a danger, it's a very small one. And I think you'll find alcohol can also affect people around the user, what do you think it's like for the family of an alcoholic?
    So you're saying that you'd rather risk the 'small danger' of your friends and family getting lung cancer from your smoke? Surely the government wouldn't be tryingto discourage people from consuming something so highly taxed if it weren't ruining our health, the health of others and probably putting a lot of money on the NHS. :confused:

    Why would people lie or exagerrate about the effects of smoking and passie smoking? To discriminate against the poor poor oppressed smokers?

    The second part of your arguement here is completely irrelevent. You are arguing intoxication here, not individual health issues. There are adverts forthe affects of alcohol use... Think about the drink driving campaigns.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Pictures of naked obese people on fast food packets

    Not particularly appealing but will it happen? How about photos of diseased livers on bottles of whisky? Or is tobacco the only harmful habit getting singled out again?

    It's an interesting thought. With the government systematically going to work on vilifying smoking, and the militant non-smokers taking it as their cue to mount the high-horses, how long before the governmental spotlight shifts?

    If it's claimed that the current assault on smoking is to benefit the general health of the public, where does it stop? Will pasty-snaffling soon have to involve looking at a naked, clinically-obese dude? I'm sure that Nanny State will soon have finished hen-pecking smokers, will she turn her attentions to the portly and rotund? I suspect the days of overweight people enjoying quasi-immunity from criticism, and subsequently public abuse, are numbered.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why is it such a problem? It's not like you're being oppressed.

    It is oppression. Smokers and cigarettes are being singled out. Images of naked obese people won't appear on McDonald's products. And images of diseased livers won't be stuck on alcohol. (And rightly so).
    Point?

    Cigarettes are not the only harmful (or addictive) product available.
    But nicotine is one of the most addictive drugs, you can't deny that. Sure heavy drinking can damage your health, too much of anything can but that isn't the point.

    Point? Nicotine is addictive and can damage your health. Lots of things can damage your health. Why single out cigarettes?

    Smoking - addiction or habit? - pretty much sums up my views.
    So you're saying that you'd rather risk the 'small danger' of your friends and family getting lung cancer from your smoke?

    Passive smoking is for the most part a small danger. I seriously doubt that the years following the smoking ban will show any decline in lung cancer rates in non-smokers.

    Lung Cancer hits young non-smoking women.
    Ten percent to 15 percent of lung cancer victims are non-smokers. Among that group, women are two to three times more likely than men to get the disease. Doctors don't know why. Hormones, second-hand smoke, diet and air pollution all are believed to be factors.
    Why would people lie or exagerrate about the effects of smoking and passie smoking? To discriminate against the poor poor oppressed smokers?

    Intolerance? Personal dislike of smoking? The pharmaceutical companies that fund the anti-smoking lobby are making billions from quit smoking treatments. I'm absolutely sure that smoking is harmful but I think the very small risks of passive smoking are being completely exaggerated.
    The second part of your arguement here is completely irrelevent. You are arguing intoxication here, not individual health issues. There are adverts forthe affects of alcohol use... Think about the drink driving campaigns.

    So what if it's not an individual health issue? Are you saying it's unimportant? :confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Intolerance? Personal dislike of smoking? The pharmaceutical companies that fund the anti-smoking lobby are making billions from quit smoking treatments. I'm absolutely sure that smoking is harmful but I think the very small risks of passive smoking are being completely exaggerated.

    If the chemicals from smoking cause ill-health to smokers, then its a reasonably safe assumption to make that others breathing it in will suffer from ill-health.

    Smokers want to quit for themselves, not others. You know that. The quit treatments would sell regardless.

    Why would CRUK spend money on anti-smoking campaigns if smoking did not cause cancer?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's an interesting thought. With the government systematically going to work on vilifying smoking, and the militant non-smokers taking it as their cue to mount the high-horses, how long before the governmental spotlight shifts?
    'Miltitant non smokers'... What about militant smokers who are on their high horses about being able to smoke around people?

    And this thread isn't about whether people can or cannot smoke, in fact so far nobody has told people to stop on these boards or said smoking should be banned. This is about whether people should have little pictures of tar filled lungs on their cigarette packets...

    And if you're going to smoke and know what damage you're doing to yourself, then surely it wouldn't bother you anyway.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I've never, ever heard anyone stand up and fight for their right (or freedom or whatever) to "smoke around people".

    It's pretty certain that fat people will be next on the hitlist, probably cited as being a danger to themselves or some such bollocks.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why is it bad to show smokers what the effect on their body is likely to be?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote:
    To be fair many illegal drugs arn't as damaging, and certainly not as addictive as tobacco. More addictive than herion? Probably. More damaging to ones health? Certainly.

    So why would they make tobbaco legal if it was more damaging than certain illegal drugs?:confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sofie wrote:
    So why would they make tobbaco legal if it was more damaging than certain illegal drugs?:confused:
    Because it was never made illegal in the first place (I don't think) and they make a fortune off it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    briggi wrote:
    It's pretty certain that fat people will be next on the hitlist, probably cited as being a danger to themselves or some such bollocks.
    a member of the public might get engulfed by their bellies :rolleyes:

    do we need to be made to feel guilty about every bad thing we put in our bodies?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ballerina wrote:
    a member of the public might get engulfed by their bellies :rolleyes:

    do we need to be made to feel guilty about every bad thing we put in our bodies?

    Yes.

    I'd quite like a picture of a naked obese person on my fast food packet. Especially if there was some sort of game involved. Spot the difference or something.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    LacyMay wrote:
    Yes.

    I'd quite like a picture of a naked obese person on my fast food packet. Especially if there was some sort of game involved. Spot the difference or something.

    :lol: Personally I think it's going slightly OTT by putting pictures on cigarette packets. Not that I smoke or anything so I won't have to look at them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sofie wrote:
    So why would they make tobbaco legal if it was more damaging than certain illegal drugs?:confused:

    For the same reason that Alcohol is legal.
    If we were in a world without any drugs and then they all came at once and the government had to create a class system then I'm sure Alcohol and Tobacco would be alot higher in the class system than other drugs which are currently illegal.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sofie wrote:
    So why would they make tobbaco legal if it was more damaging than certain illegal drugs?:confused:

    now that's an interesting story.....mainly because it can only really be produced in a controlled environment (much like booze which has to be distilled), therefore it's easier for governments to keep an eye on and tax, something you can't do with a lot of illegal drugs, like cannabis for instance....

    btp, i think it's a good thing for younger people who are thinking about or have just started to smoke, but for the older generation it's a bit pointless....but i don't see how they can target just the one demographic, so if this puts a few kids off it when they're young maybe it will be worth it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    'Miltitant non smokers'... What about militant smokers who are on their high horses about being able to smoke around people?

    The middle ground is usually where the best solution is.
    And this thread isn't about whether people can or cannot smoke, in fact so far nobody has told people to stop on these boards or said smoking should be banned. This is about whether people should have little pictures of tar filled lungs on their cigarette packets...

    The topic naturally draws comparisons with other drugs and activities which are bad for our health. The debate is taking its natural course, that’s all.
    And if you're going to smoke and know what damage you're doing to yourself, then surely it wouldn't bother you anyway.

    It may put a select few off, but that’s not really the issue. Smoking has had the spotlight shone on it and a lot of the public, especially the staunch anti-smoking lobby, strapped their militant blinkers on. There are plenty of things that are bad for us, and frankly I find it insulting that the general public are being treated like four year-old children. “No, naughty child, look at the nasty picture, that’s you that is, yes it is, who is it?”

    Being overweight is unhealthy; drinking excessively is unhealthy; it just so happens that smoking is the current hot topic. The over-weight, alcohol abusers and drug addicts have all taken ring side seats, busying themselves with casting aspersions about smokers. The hypocrisy is thick.

    People should be given the facts, but there's a line that needs to be drawn.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Being overweight is unhealthy; drinking excessively is unhealthy; it just so happens that smoking is the current hot topic. The over-weight, alcohol abusers and drug addicts have all taken ring side seats, busying themselves with casting aspersions about smokers. The hypocrisy is thick.

    I'm an overweight, binge drinking smoker. Who should i be aiming my abuse at? :(
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    When I was in sixth form we had a picture of a couple of really obese women in bikinis on the chocolate vending machine.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Smoking - addiction or habit? - pretty much sums up my views. [/URL]

    What's the difference?

    You may as well say "crack - addiction or habit?"
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This thread is funny. That's all I have to say.
Sign In or Register to comment.