a social commentary

does anyone out there find it disturbing that the tac and anti smoking campaigners bombard us with graphic images in order to deter us from making a life choice and therefore accepting the associated risks or consequences? society or the powers that be, seem determined to stop us from doing anything that contains a slight chance of us hurting ourselves, which is what life is all about

Unfortunatly for smoking that personal "life choice" affects everybody else arround you.

so they tell us

Im with MM... if you were just killing yourself with each gasper, then I'd say yeah.. fuck off the graphic adds, let the smokers do what they like... but the fact that you are also killing others around you... to a lesser degree perhaps, but still having an effect... well, that kinda cancels out the nandy-pandy "I live in a free country" argument. :o

I say they should keep bombarding and bombarding.... or even better, ban cigarettes in Australia outright. 👍

One alternative I that could be meritorious is make it illegal to smoke in public, instead having enclosed areas speciffically for lighting up in... but this isnt going to stop those who smoke in there own homes from filling the lungs of their children with noxious gases...

You have the choice to smoke or not smoke... but others around you don't necessarily have the choice of whether or not to be poisoned every time a smoker lights up...

from working as barman i can honestly say good on them for it. smokers fill the air with dangerous chemicals with every cigarette they smoke which is then inhaled but waiters, glassys, bartenders, gaming staff etc.

i used to work in an RSL club ( i now work in a much more ventilated beach side bar) and i would go to work from 6pm till 3 am.

i estimate in that time i had effectivly passively smoked a packet of cigarettes.

when non smoking laws come in next month i will be a very happy camper.

the smoking issue aside you guys dont have any problem showing graphic images of people either about to get there foot cut off or with pins in their head after a car accident on television?

i have a stong stomach🙂

what Nick said... 😂

In my opinion... scare tactics are the best way to achieve anything when all else fails.

The warnings on packages obviously have not worked, so I'm all for em bringin out the big guns 👍

oh...same with the car crash adds... when people see greusome images of people that have beeen fucked over in a car crash, they may think twice next time before they plant their foot that extra bit further, or before they step behind the wheel whilst intoxicated. 👍

In my opinion... scare tactics are the best way to achieve anything when all else fails.

...just ask john coward.

thats the way boys thumb in bum mind in neutral. lets use scare tactics for everything shall we?

this clearly illustrates the power of mass media on public perception.

it wasn't long ago when drink driving was a sport, now you couldn't brag about it for fear of getting mobbed.
(btw i'm not endorsing it just making a point about changing attitudes)

No... as I said earlier... best way to solve the problem is to ban the sale, manufacture, and importation of cigarettes in Australia... but that won't happen unless we have somebody with some balls like Maurice Iemmma as PM, instead of that pansy-ass bitch John Howard, so scare-tactics are the next best thing... :o

dude i have no problem with you at all im sure u are a great guy and u can smoke till the cows come home as far as i care. but while its harming people other than yourself i do have a problem.

quote: "thats the way boys thumb in bum mind in neutral. lets use scare tactics for everything shall we?"

you did ask for opinions......

I don't think it's scare tactics if it's true, bloke I used to work with underground died from smoking. Before he died he had both of his legs amputated from bad circulation caused by smoking.

I gave up the smokes when they got to a $1 a packet😀
smokers have made a choice to smoke but the company they keep does not, they can smoke as much as they want around like minded people in a controlled area . i do not believe prohibition has ever been sucessful in anything. monitoring is better than denial.
unfortnately we are becoming a nanny state with more and more laws catering to the lowest common denominator. all those people that are caning the smokers at the moment, remember them when your old.toxic spewing vehicles are copping the same flak in the future. the lynch mob mentality is alive and well. remember the majority crusified jesus.:jesus

I agree with DUBB61 prohibition does not work.

yep and yep....

Like Anthiron saiid again...I got no prob with you guys as people... but I also have no problem with the tactics the government is using to curb smoking...

It is downright dangerous... quite frankly, I have no problem with people smoking themselves to the grave... but when they are smoking others to the grave, that is a different kettle of fish...

and you DID..ask for opinions 😂

So here they are....

And yep...this is what I was getting at before...

DUBB61 wrote:I gave up the smokes when they got to a $1 a packet😀
smokers have made a choice to smoke but the company they keep does not, they can smoke as much as they want around like minded people in a controlled area .

But this isnt going to happen in the near futuure it would seem... so trying to curb smoking is the next best thing for existing smokers.

I believe that the government campaigns are probably more to prevent individuals taking up smoking than stop existing smoker in there tracks tho... and I see no reason for these campaigns to cease. 🙂

Prevention is the best cure...

Did anbody see the program about 2 weeks back on SBS about the tactics used by Cigerette companies in the third world. They smuggle cigerettes into a country a rock bottom prices, wait for everybody to get hooked. They then go to the goverment and say "look how much exice your losing", bingo you have a legimate buisness.

Exactly... cigarette companies are run by crooks... always have been... so what better reason to introduce inhibition laws.

They may not work as well as they should in the short term... existing smokers may find ways to circumvent them if they are really that intent on killing emselves... but at least the children will not have such poison readily available to them.

Also the way I see it... brandish a big enough stick and you can stop anything... so if a country introduces draconian punishments for illicit cigarette manufacture, it is bound to cease eventually when such laws have been excercised to their full extent a few times.

The poblem is people are thinking short-term....it wont provide results overnight. That is true... it could take years or decades, but keep brandishing a stick long enough and the culture will eventually be beaten out of society for good...

is that why wars work is it?🤪
thats the biggest stick and we are still killing ourselves with greater and greater efficenticy.
i wonder if the people at the end of a smart bombs journey think there that smart.:smirk
educate,monitor and control is the only option. governments make a lot of money from smokers but, they do not put every cent back into harm reduction programs. it is a nice cash cow for them. they will not rock the boat to tip out the paying passengers.

Its not just that smoking effects others who dont smoke, but it also costs our health system at all tax payers expense, I wouldnt mind people smoking if i didnt have to put up with the filthy habbit and if smokers were happy to be farmed out west somewhere to die, rather than my taxes pay for propping them up...

I dont think banning is the key but education, problem is, like many problems in our world, its the under educated that are involved, therefore doesnt work....

ok my problem is with the tactics used in these campaigns not the smoking or reckless driving of cars. every couple of years we hear that violent computer games are to blame for people killing people. how is that not ok but showing the current ads in prime-time acceptable. i dont feel i should be bombarded by these images. if i smoke or drive too fast or intoxicated,i believe im intelligent enough to be aware of the consequences.

Tactics used by cigerette companies Vs Tactics used by Government, I know which is more moral

Prohibition doesn't work. Graphic advertising doesn't work (although maybe on a kid thinking of starting smoking). EVERYTHING is bad for you. I think weapon has a valid point, as do others here. I think smokers should be given a place to smoke that doesn't affect us non smokers. Get rid of the advertising. Just make it clear what the dangers are and let them decide for themselves. You can't condemn smoking if you're holding a beer in your hand. How many people get killed or beaten because of alcohol? Who decides what's ok and what isn't? 50 years ago it was fashionable and socially acceptable to smoke. Try going to Paris tomorrow and telling 90% of the population not to smoke. I'm not saying smoking is ok, but I don't think the government should be our parents and set a moral standard for us. Decide for yourself. If the pleasure of smoking outweighs the dangers FOR YOU, then go nuts.. my 2c:party

[ Edited on 10-6-2006 by Oasis ]

Schmoburger wrote:Exactly... cigarette companies are run by crooks... always have been... so what better reason to introduce inhibition laws.

They may not work as well as they should in the short term... existing smokers may find ways to circumvent them if they are really that intent on killing emselves... but at least the children will not have such poison readily available to them.

Also the way I see it... brandish a big enough stick and you can stop anything... so if a country introduces draconian punishments for illicit cigarette manufacture, it is bound to cease eventually when such laws have been excercised to their full extent a few times.

The poblem is people are thinking short-term....it wont provide results overnight. That is true... it could take years or decades, but keep brandishing a stick long enough and the culture will eventually be beaten out of society for good...

oh!! i get it, just like illict drug use? 🙄

i think a much more effective measure would be to target the health consequences of smoking. smokers get a reduced medicare rebate when going to the doctor and a lower priority for elective surgery over a non-smoker (mandatory testing for nicotine should eliminate the liars) this would focus the health issues of choosing to smoke. my 3c worth

the only problem in our culture at the moment is that everyone is so damn selfish they won't spend 3seconds to consider whether or not they are, in fact, being an arsehole.

ads or no ads... people will still be selfish, thats what the big companies cash in on.

That stuff they show on TV is 100% tru mind you.

Will never forget the excursion i had with my science extension class to the anatomy labs and the morgues. Saw a disected lung in a jar, across from the human leg and the bottle of brains. Said to be from a smoker, and it looked absolutely filthy. You can see the black crap all in it and everything.

:party Each to their own though, it just shits me off when i have to cop with the smokers smoke at train stations and the city. Especially when i have asthma.

By the way, i agree, everything is bad for you.

Where there is life, there is death. Cause everything living must die one day. Interesting that. Perfect example of ying-yang.

All it depends on however in life, is how fast u die. some things Push ya a little quicker to the end. :jesus

Special wrote:

Schmoburger wrote:Exactly... cigarette companies are run by crooks... always have been... so what better reason to introduce inhibition laws.

They may not work as well as they should in the short term... existing smokers may find ways to circumvent them if they are really that intent on killing emselves... but at least the children will not have such poison readily available to them.

Also the way I see it... brandish a big enough stick and you can stop anything... so if a country introduces draconian punishments for illicit cigarette manufacture, it is bound to cease eventually when such laws have been excercised to their full extent a few times.

The poblem is people are thinking short-term....it wont provide results overnight. That is true... it could take years or decades, but keep brandishing a stick long enough and the culture will eventually be beaten out of society for good...

oh!! i get it, just like illict drug use? 🙄

Nope...because if you use elicit drugs,you are at best given a slap on the wrist and marched off to a rehab clinic, and at worst, fined... cant pay the fine?... oh well... rehab or community service then for you and you have cleared your debt to society. :o

About as scary as a fluffy bunny with a sign saying "BOO!" sticky taped to its backside! 🙄

Schmoburger wrote:No... as I said earlier... best way to solve the problem is to ban the sale, manufacture, and importation of cigarettes in Australia... but that won't happen unless we have somebody with some balls like Maurice Iemmma as PM, instead of that pansy-ass bitch John Howard, so scare-tactics are the next best thing... :o

No way could they/would they ban the smokes!!!They should ban alcamahol first...it causes more problems and is more widely used/abused. And let me say as a smoker for 19 years,when i gave up in January this year it had nothing to do with the labels or scare tactics used.When you are addicted to something which is supposedly harder to give up then herion no picture is going to break the addiction.I've yet to meet one smoker who enjoys smoking.Ive met many who enjoy "feeding" their addiction which is a different kettle of fish.If people want to smoke it is their right to do so.Good luck to them.People who don't wish to smoke also have a right not to have to.:kiss

bajachris88 wrote:By the way, i agree, everything is bad for you.

Where there is life, there is death. Cause everything living must die one day. Interesting that. Perfect example of ying-yang.

All it depends on however in life, is how fast u die. some things Push ya a little quicker to the end. :jesus

It's not a matter tho of how fast one is pushing oneself to the grave chris... if it were that simple... then we wouldnt give a toss.

It's a matter of a smoker or drink driver is risking putting someone else in the grave sooner than they would care to be put in it. :jesus

Is it fair that say Nick for instance ends up with a chronic lung disease 30 years from now (hypothetically speaking Nick 🙂)as a result of working in a smokey bar, just because the patrons all ignorantly go on thinking... "I can smoke like a chimney if I please... after all its only me im killing!"???

Bollocks..
How can you equate the social cost of passive smoking to the environmental cost of fossil fuel burning? If you blokes were fair dinkum, you would stop driving petrol/diesel driven cars, stop using electricity and stop buying products that are made with fossil fuels.

Australia is a major culprit when it comes to environmental damage.. Yet the bleeding heart fuckwit's that think that cigarette smoke is a problem, also gag debate (or use scare tactics) on nuclear energy!

No offense to present company.. If you smoke, go outside! Fair enough. But cut out this passive smoking crap.. Thank you

Schmoburger wrote:yep and yep....

Like Anthiron saiid again...I got no prob with you guys as people... but I also have no problem with the tactics the government is using to curb smoking...

It is downright dangerous... quite frankly, I have no problem with people smoking themselves to the grave... but when they are smoking others to the grave, that is a different kettle of fish...

and you DID..ask for opinions 😂

So here they are....

Mick H wrote:No way could they/would they ban the smokes!!!They should ban alcamahol first...it causes more problems and is more widely used/abused. And let me say as a smoker for 19 years,when i gave up in January this year it had nothing to do with the labels or scare tactics used.When you are addicted to something which is supposedly harder to give up then herion no picture is going to break the addiction.I've yet to meet one smoker who enjoys smoking.Ive met many who enjoy "feeding" their addiction which is a different kettle of fish.If people want to smoke it is their right to do so.Good luck to them.People who don't wish to smoke also have a right not to have to.:kiss

But many of these addicted smokers blindly went along and started smoking in the first place not knowing the consequences of there actions in the future... as the effects were silenced by the tobacco companies and in some countries by the governments themselves... there may not be any saving existing smokers from their addiction... but that isnt to say the younger generation can't be scared out of ever getting into such harmful habits in the first place. 😘

StenGuns wrote:Bollocks..
How can you equate the social cost of passive smoking to the environmental cost of fossil fuel burning? If you blokes were fair dinkum, you would stop driving petrol/diesel driven cars, stop using electricity and stop buying products that are made with fossil fuels.

There are generally higher concentrations of cigarette related toxins to be found in a pub frequented by smokers than concentrations toxins related to motor vehicles and such in the air outside that pub.

That said... fossil fuel related toxins are still harmful in the long term...but are a necessary evil... smoking is not! :puke

It is better to only have to put up with one lot of shit being spewed out of automobiles than the same ammount of said shit PLUS the crap attributed to cigarettes and so forth... 🙂

Schmoburger wrote:But many of these addicted smokers blindly went along and started smoking in the first place not knowing the consequences of there actions in the future... as the effects were silenced by the tobacco companies and in some countries by the governments themselves... there may not be any saving existing smokers from their addiction... but that isnt to say the younger generation can't be scared out of ever getting into such harmful habits in the first place. 😘

I was smoking BEFORE you were born.I was well aware of the dangers of smoking when i started the habit.Nothing was hidden as far as side effects go.Any intelligent person new it was a harmfull thing to do to their bodies. The trouble is that when you are at a certain age,say,late teens, you are 10 foot tall and bulletproof.Most people this age think they are good drivers and can't drive for shit.The same with smoking.It wont hurt your body or shorten your life span because you are 10 foot tall and bulletproof. As with anything in life,as you get older you recognise you won't be here forever and yor health which was taken for granted when you were younger,suddenly becomes precious. I grew up when smoking was "acceptable" as a norm and many people i knew smoked.A large percentage of these people gave up when they got older or had kids,as their lives took on a different perspective. As to the original topic....i do think they are ramming the message down peoples throats and because of the high publicity,after some time the initial effect will lessen and people will return to taking up the habbit,which research showed happened after the initial "shock" adds showed many years ago.If you want to stop the "youngins" from taking up the habbit,the best thing would be to give them all a packet and make them smoke them while they are watching a post mortum being performed:puke. Oh hang on thats just another shock tactic........but it would work!!!! Otherwise leave the smokers alone and everyone respect everyone elses rights.:kiss

[ Edited on 10-6-06 by Mick H ]

just to reiterate!
i wasnt really trying to spark a debate on the health implications of smoking or not. i was attempting to gauge public opinion re scare tactics. another example that springs to mind is the weapons of mass destruction and the consequential invasion of iraq. yet another was the children overboard debarcle.are we as a society happy with this type of behaviour?

Schmoburger wrote:There are generally higher concentrations of cigarette related toxins to be found in a pub frequented by smokers than concentrations toxins related to motor vehicles and such in the air outside that pub.

That said... fossil fuel related toxins are still harmful in the long term...but are a necessary evil... smoking is not! :puke

It is better to only have to put up with one lot of shit being spewed out of automobiles than the same ammount of said shit PLUS the crap attributed to cigarettes and so forth... 🙂

I find the lack of factual arguement and one sidedness of the above statements evidence of you being narrow minded in your expression of opinion. On a "WORLD" scale fossil fuels are not the necessary evils,smoking is:P!!! Most of global warming is from the burning of fossil fuels.Tobacco is not a fossil fuel. If you parked a car in the pub idleing people would die in 20 minutes from the car running.People do not drop dead in 20 minutes drinking in a pub when the person next to them is smoking..that takes time.....:P

weapon wrote:just to reiterate!
i wasnt really trying to spark a debate on the health implications of smoking or not. i was attempting to gauge public opinion re scare tactics. another example that springs to mind is the weapons of mass destruction and the consequential invasion of iraq. yet another was the children overboard debarcle.are we as a society happy with this type of behaviour?

NO,most definetly not.:thumb But you can't blame me....I DIDN"T VOTE FOR THEM🙄

[ Edited on 10-6-06 by Mick H ]

Mick H wrote:

Schmoburger wrote:There are generally higher concentrations of cigarette related toxins to be found in a pub frequented by smokers than concentrations toxins related to motor vehicles and such in the air outside that pub.

That said... fossil fuel related toxins are still harmful in the long term...but are a necessary evil... smoking is not! :puke

It is better to only have to put up with one lot of shit being spewed out of automobiles than the same ammount of said shit PLUS the crap attributed to cigarettes and so forth... 🙂

I find the lack of factual arguement and one sidedness of the above statements evidence of you being narrow minded in your expression of opinion. On a "WORLD" scale fossil fuels are not the necessary evils,smoking is:P!!! Most of global warming is from the burning of fossil fuels.Tobacco is not a fossil fuel. If you parked a car in the pub idleing people would die in 20 minutes from the car running.People do not drop dead in 20 minutes drinking in a pub when the person next to them is smoking..that takes time.....:P

But what imbocile parks there car in the pub and lets it idle? :P

But hey I love this continued contradiction... this pro-tobacco company propaganda.. its so feckin funny! 😘 😂 Excuse me whilst I go and smoke a pack of gaspers as homage... back soon! 🤪

...

OK..I'm back now.. btw mick, on a closing note, I find your lack of supporting evidence regarding the global warming issue to be very narrow-minded... there is insatisfactory evidence to support your brash claims that automobiles contribute to global warmming... everybody knows it is a natural process which is directly proportiAONAL TO THE cyclic rise and fall of the earths bovine population! :P :bounce... BAN THE COWS I SAY... BAN BAN BAN!!!!

and now I'm just partaking in blatant shitstirring so I will now go drive my bus through the front of a pub and allow it toi idle away for 20 minutes! :P 😘 :bounce 🤪

be a while before cigs or alcohol gets band.

The tax on em' is huge, and the government only get off there asses when crap hits the fan, or when they want to suck up to get some votes. Since when has it been about us people...

Really, its a very big debate. I got plenty of friends who have a smoke. They don't necessarily like it, and know that i don't, but it helps them in other ways where they need it. Got a few friends that simply need it to de-stress, especially one down the road suffering from obsessive compulsive disorder. I respect smokers, I got nothing against em for it, its their choice, and the ones i have as friends don't blow or let me cope any 2ndary smoke, so its all kool. I still respect em, and they respect how I feel, thats all that matters really.

BUT!! FOR A NEW ISSUE!

How many times have u been to a public place, to find the inevitable cigarette bud dumped on the ground, polluting etc. That pisses me off, but polluting all to gether really.

weapon wrote:just to reiterate!
i wasnt really trying to spark a debate on the health implications of smoking or not. i was attempting to gauge public opinion re scare tactics. another example that springs to mind is the weapons of mass destruction and the consequential invasion of iraq. yet another was the children overboard debarcle.are we as a society happy with this type of behaviour?

i am definatly unhappy with these and the continuing LIES.

Schmoburger wrote:[

...

OK..I'm back now.. btw mick, on a closing note, I find your lack of supporting evidence regarding the global warming issue to be very narrow-minded... there is insatisfactory evidence to support your brash claims that automobiles contribute to global warmming... everybody knows it is a natural process which is directly proportiAONAL TO THE cyclic rise and fall of the earths bovine population! :P :bounce... BAN THE COWS I SAY... BAN BAN BAN!!!!

and now I'm just partaking in blatant shitstirring so I will now go drive my bus through the front of a pub and allow it toi idle away for 20 minutes! :P 😘 :bounce 🤪

LMFAO:P:P😂 Did you know that vegetarians put more gas to the atmosphere than meat eaters?? If you're gunna do the pub thing you will have to reverse..and it will only take 15 minutes with your old 2 liter carbon monoxide pump..the newer engines have less carbon monoxide output (bloody cat. converters) so it takes longer. LEAVE THE KOWS ALONE

Personally, I would have no problem at all with a ban on cigarettes, but where would it stop? Alcohol? Private cars? The plethora of over-the counter medications that can kill you? Pedestrians crossing streets?

And just to clarify, I agree with what most of us have realised:

EVERYTHING is bad for you in some way or another.

The government or powers-that-be should not be forced to protect people from their own stupidity. Thanks to Americans like Stella Liebeck, this is unfortunately the case now for all organisations.