Wow. Was your house ventilated? Like, at all?

Studies show that when people worry about their illnesses, it actually makes said illness worse.
If this is the case, does putting these images on cigarettes make smokers more susceptable to smoking related illness?
I wonder if there are other possible negative consequences for smokers who just cant seem to quit.

I mean, this may be great possibly for discouraging people from starting to begin withm, but people that can feelthe effects of their smoking already, but still can't quit?
Le'ts make them feel worse about themselves- thats gonna help, right? hey, its only harder than kicking herioin.

I can confirm the whole Bronchitis thing. Had them on and on and on : since the ban of smoking in public places, and since my windows are always open, I don't do them anymore. And I still do smoke like a chimney. It was really a question of breathing smokey air.

Lol, yeah. My dad smoked a lot.

You've obviously saved a lot of money that way over time....but if you had skipped school that day you'd probably sporting about in a convertible Corvette doing the speed limit, and obeying all the laws concerned with safe driving. :tongue:

IMO its good thing that in the US they banned smoking in most places its good for everyone. But what is so hard about smoking outside where its legal (or away from non-smokers)? Either way I hate the smell.

Yes, we both have rights to the air but When it's a matter of health, that's what takes precedence... which is why we are no longer allowed to smoke on airplanes, or in gov buildings, or restaurants, or in some cases bars. It's really a shame that tobacco can't feasibly be banned altogether, there's just too much money to be made all around by keeping people addicted to it..and then there's another matter of money I won't get into because that starts getting into forbidden subjects.

As an ex smoker I am fully aware of how inconsiderate smokers can be when it comes to how and where they choose smoke.

I usually buy a bag of tobacco, roll my own with tubes and would very much like to quit, but it's difficult. However, I am always considerate of non-smokers and wait until I'm out of their company before I light up...it helps that I don't really go anywhere that I would have the opportunity to smoke around non-smokers.

1.) I can't take my drink outside with me.
2.) If I'm outside and drunk, that's public intoxication, which is illegal.

It also caused a nice decrease in customers in many bars causing many small businesses to fail. (Or clubs, restaurants etc. etc.)

You'll excuse me if I don't shed any tears over this I hope.

This...Is...A valid point... But only because a few jerks ruin it for the rest of us. Regardless, you win. (..This round...)

EDIT: You'll excuse me if I don't shed any tears over this I hope.

No, I wont. These businesses are tough enough to keep afloat. Some people put their entire lives into it and something as silly as smoking caused many nice places to go under. I believe it should be up to the owner to decide if you can smoke or not inside their establishment, not the government. The bars that were non-smoking before the law was put into effect are doing better now because smokers couldn't go to their non-existent bar.

Its a good thing they banned public intoxication. You also got to remember some people get really violent and do stupid things when there drunk. You really need to go to East Europe and see for yourself and compare.

EDIT: Public intoxication is a completely different topic though.

I think some harsher methods would be better. As someone who has never smoked and will never smoke it annoys me infinitely when I pass a smoker and have to be subjugated to the smoke he or she is spouting around.

Really they′re not going to make any smokers quit just by putting discouraging images on the packages. What I′d like to see done is to ban smoking outside of a private residence (that would extend to a ban at smoking in an apartment block), and to counter the "oh we must let smokers smoke outside because of the children who are inside" there should be a parental ban for those who actively smoke. Then no child would be subjugated to second hand smoking and neither would any pedestrian.

Honestly, I never make those around me get a soar throat and coughs so why do I need to take this abuse from smokers ? It′s a form of physical assault and there need to be laws to prevent that.

Wow. Banning people from smoking anywhere they might harm someone else isn't enough? You want to prevent all unnecessary voluntary harm people cause to themselves? You would genuinely enforce that if you could? Why don't we just wrap people up in cotton wool and keep them in coffin sized boxes so that no harm can ever befall anyone ever again?

Edit: to the above post, I genuinely cannot believe what I am reading in this thread. Have you all read 1984? Do any of you value liberty at all? What's the harm to you if smokers want to damage their own lungs? I dread to think of the Reefer Madness era opinions of marijuana that must prevail among some of you (although that's a banned topic so let's just... back away from that ledge).

for all of you posting for banning smoking absolutely everywhere, think about that while youre driving in your car

Kind of seems that smoking inside and around children is a FORM of child abuse. The parents obviously don't care about the child's health if the parent smokes around him/her. It should be put on as child abuse, and if it already is, it should be more strictly enforced. That's why whenever I smoke I make sure I am not around anybody who has a problem with it, or am far away from people that do. I even sometimes take a small hike where I live so my neighbors can't smell any of it. But not everybody does this, and I agree. The rules should be harsher, and or be enforced more.

Edit-
@greatcarbuncle: I agree with what you are saying. I don't think that banning smoking altogether is a good idea at all. Just look at what happened when we tried to do that with alcohol? Instead we appealed making alcohol illegal and just set some stricter rules and laws on alcohol. I think that's what they should do with tobacco.

Do you honestly not believe that there are more malicious, more harmful forms of child abuse (or just crime in general, really) that public money would be better spent on preventing?

Edit: I also have to contest that smoking outside should be banned. Unless you're standing with the person smoking you're unlikely to notice, and it certainly isn't going to be harmful to you.

Here's a theoretical parallel example: I am a homophobe. I think homosixuality is a sin and that it's harmful to my children to be exposed to it. Therefore, gay people should have to masquerade as straight while in public and while around children. This extends into their private lives too. And I believe that millions of currency should be devoted to this cause.

Or, more concisely in the words of Marge Simpson: "I believe that, since this isn't to my taste, nobody should be able to enjoy it".

There are also noise ordinances, but it doesn't prevent owners of sub-bass systems from assaulting me with their personal 'enjoyment'... Many of those people don't care if there are kids taking a nap, or that some people (not me) have to get up in the morning to earn a living....this is my biggest pet peeve. They're free to play it as loud as they want as long as they turn it down when they see a cop!
But to me it is assault and it makes me really want to hurt someone.

I think the government should protect them from damaging their own hearing with similar tactics.
/sarc.

But that is another subject....

I still haven′t had a car drive past me that left the kind of trail of smoke that would irritate my eyes and throat that a cigarette does. Yes cars emit more CO2 into the air polluting it but I don′t advocate against smoking because of what it does to the environment, I do it because of how it affects me right then and there when I have to be near or go past a smoker with a lit cigarette.

Also encounters with a smoking person usually happen closer to yourself than encounters with a car speeding past on the road, which is often many meters from the walkway. Also cars are a necessity while cigarettes are a luxury that you can go through daily life just fine without.

I don′t partake in recreational activities outside that harm others, so I expect others not to do such to me.



If one has a soar throat and coughs after passing a smoking person then that is most certainly noticing it. Also homosixuality is a concept that does not harm or irritate a person physically in the same way cigarette smoke does. It is a bad example for this case.

No. All I am stating is that it should be enforced more. It has been proven that http://www1.umn.edu/perio/tobacco/secondhandsmoke.html. It is not good when a parent goes inside, smokes around a child, and ruins their child's respiratory system. As far as I'm concerned, that is a big issue to be known as child abuse.

I honestly think smoking outside is better for the person then smoking inside. As long as they stay far enough away from people so nobody gets the effect of secondhand smoke.

In before 10-pages long discussion debating and misunderstanding and criticizing the example rather than the subject at hand.

Unspoken rule of internet debate, as with trying to make a point with a kid : never, ever, ever make a simile.

^ It was a metaphor, so I think we're good


You can't enforce it and if you did you would be punishing people who are not committing their "crimes" maliciously. Parents should be better educated certainly, but they shouldn't be treated as criminals and child abusers. That's absurd.

I think the current system in the UK works quite well (although I think it's silly to ban smoking on station platforms in the open air). I agree that people should not be involuntarily exposed to harmful smoke. What I am contesting is that smokers should be persecuted and their privacy invaded just because it's a pet peeve of somebody. If it's not harming anyone then leave them alone.

Wait, smoking is bad for you!?!?!

:ahhh:

Next you try to tell me that fast food can make you gain weight and alcohol can hurt your liver and make you crash your car. Pfft.

fixed in red. :tongue:

very true. but how many kids are involuntarily exposed to smoke inside a household, or a car, or a... boat? ha. but seriously, There needs to be someway that can prevent this from happening. Just educating parents is't going to stop them from doing it. It's Just like what people having been saying on the thread; just because people know about the risks, doesn't mean they are going to stop.

i dont mention cars because of the envoronmental impacts.
http://drivethrulies.wordpress.com/2008/08/27/study-carcinogens-from-car-exhaust-can-linger/
I dont know how anyone can think a cigarette burning in your front yard is worse for you than a car idling in fornt of your house.



:megahugeeyeroll:

when i was a smoker, i was pretty cureous to others, not smoking around them. finding a place where peope werent walking if i wanted to light up.
but endorsing banning in the open ari is ridiculous iwhen you think about how many cars there are.
i live in san diego.
there are neighborhoods where it is illegal to smoke on your own private patio. in your own house if you rent.
yet, lets drive cars all over heck and back and the only people we should care about iupsetting n that context are environmentalists?
cars put out much more that is bad for people than cigarettes do.
and everyone drives...

I can appreciate that you dont want tpeople smoking around you.
but dont tell me i cant smoke in front of my own house, you know?

smoking is more than a luxury in the states.
since it isnt illegal, it is my right to consume tobacco producs if i choose