Watch all-holier-than-thou nonsmokers rationalize this......

Paul Andrews

your move now wrote:

If you choose to buy a car that didn't have airbags you can't get mad at anyone by yourself at the result (less an issue now but the first comparison that popped into my head).

In the western world at least, nobody is being forced to smoke and nobody is having the health consequences delibrately hidden from them.

Also at that point did want to kick them out, my house, my rules and they're here because they have nowhere else :?

The point with the car highlights the difference with tobacco companies. If used properly that car does not kill, it is the accident that kills - either through negligence, misuse or just plain bad luck. If that car however was defective due to a design or manufacturing fault - especially if the company knew about it, then they'd be sued, the car withdrawn from sale and modifications made to existing models. And we see this regularly when models are recalled. Look at the issues Toyota had in the USA a couple of years back.

Tobacco companies still use persuasive methods to encourage young people to smoke in the Western world. From sponsorship, to product placement and other less than honest means, they create a desire in certain niche markets - and young people is one of them. If you count the number of leading roles in movies where the character is a smoker, it is far higher than the instance in the general public. There has been plenty written of kickbacks and sponsorship from the tobacco lobby to ensure certain stars play smokers in movies. This is why they're kicking up such a fuss over plain packaging - they know the artwork and labelling of the box plays a role in smoking take up rates. The same fuss they made over not being allowed to advertise on TV, then movies, magazines and newspapers and then sports and arts sponsorship.

Part of the problem is that many retailers are still happy to sell tobacco to minors. I've seen it often enough and the kids know which retailers will do it. A part solution is to make tobacco only available in licensed venues. If you could only purchase tobacco from a liquor store and a serious offence to supply tobacco to minors, you'd fin a lot less getting into the hands of minors - these guys have far too much to lose to make a few bucks out of selling smokes to kids. In the old days we'd have no problem buying beer at the age of 15 from the local liquor store but just saying, "Damn, sorry, I left my ID at home/work/ in the car" etc - try and do that now.

your move now

But do you think the fact that it is now harder to buy alcohol when you're a minor actually stops you doing it? of course not. The car thing was a bad example but the point was that we all know what we're getting into, and whether or not it's where the marketing is targeted you cannot blame the tobacco companies for stores that sell to under 18s.
Keeping that in mind if everything was done to the letter of the law - will never happen you cannot stop kids smoking or drinking - then people buying cigarettes would be adults making an informed decision - why should that be anybody elses responsibility

Paul Andrews

your move now wrote:

But do you think the fact that it is now harder to buy alcohol when you're a minor actually stops you doing it? of course not. The car thing was a bad example but the point was that we all know what we're getting into, and whether or not it's where the marketing is targeted you cannot blame the tobacco companies for stores that sell to under 18s.
Keeping that in mind if everything was done to the letter of the law - will never happen you cannot stop kids smoking or drinking - then people buying cigarettes would be adults making an informed decision - why should that be anybody elses responsibility

No it didn't stop us, just made it more difficult and lead to a few nights where piss ups were cancelled due to lack of alcohol. But we rarely had problems getting booze in the mid 80s.

I agree with personal responsibility but government has made plenty of decisions that they decide to step in and 'save us from ourselves'. Why can't I buy an ounce of pot from a store? Because someone decided we can't be trusted with it and made it and other drugs illegal. The government really can't have it both ways. Big tobacco is a drug cartel, getting rich off a dangerous product. They should be held accountable for the effects of their products if they are not to be made illegal like the other substances. As I previously said, tobacco users should grow their own, or like most pot users around here do, know someone with a few plants growing under lights or in their back yard and supplying their friends for a few extra bucks.

Generally young people feel they will beat the odds and be the smoker who dies at the age of 90 from old age. Cigarette companies exploit this sense of invincibility we tend to have when we are young and have most people addicted before the realisation kicks in. Remember the "Anyhow... have a Winfield" adverts aimed at a younger audience in the 80s suggesting, 'Who cares what they're saying about the ill effects of our project, just have another smoke". Tobacco companies pay a lot of money to psychologists, advertising gurus and in bribes to ensure their products remain popular. The Liberal Party (Aussie Republicans) accept millions form them and then oppose or water down most anti-smoking legislation.

It is only through the tightening of regulation on tobacco companies that smoking rates have declined. If government has not stepped in we'd probably still have smoking rates in the 70% range.

I repeat, I'm fairly libertarian when it comes to drug use (of all kinds) and am very critical of the so called 'war on drugs'. Provided your use does not harm others and you are not mislead into using the product and are of an age where you can make an informed decision, then your personal choice is to be respected. I just think it is hypocritical of tobacco companies to portray themselves as anything other than drug cartels, and I believe they should be liable for the effects of their products.

I watched my grandmother die what can only be described a slow torturous death from her 25 a day habit. My grandfather who never smoked died of smoking related cancer some 5 years ahead of her - he hung on for two weeks in intensive care after massive surgeries before his body gave up. His final words to my father were, "This is a terrible way to go."

your move now

I am far too young to remember winfield ads!

But you know there is a reason - aside from the proven failings of prohabition - that smoking is not and will not be banned, because the government love it. in the past 10 years cigarettes have doubled in price and all of that is tax. Do you also think we should be able to sue them as a result?

not really related but awful that your grandparents went like that

Paul Andrews

your move now wrote:

I am far too young to remember winfield ads!

But you know there is a reason - aside from the proven failings of prohabition - that smoking is not and will not be banned, because the government love it. in the past 10 years cigarettes have doubled in price and all of that is tax. Do you also think we should be able to sue them as a result?

not really related but awful that your grandparents went like that

I don't advocate a ban, governments have tobacco stains on their hands and they need the revenue - for at least as long as it takes the current crop of smoking related illnesses to work their way through the health system.

The government protect the tobacco and alcohol industries.

The reason people cannot sue tobacco companies is because of legislation, they are being protected by government. Case in point: It is illegal to grow your own tobacco! It's illegal to grow pot. Who benefits from that decision?

your move now

I'm not for that... with the amount it costs me to fill my body with poisonous chemicals believe me Í'd rather grow it. I just think that we shouldn't be able to blame the companies for the illnesses. which we seem to have covered again and again also seem to have hijacked this thread... so we may just have to agree to differ on that.

Ironic the sides of the arguement we seem to be on as I get the impression - don't know why - that you are a non-smoker

Paul Andrews

Yeah non smoker who has never had a single puff of a cigarette. But was quite a heavy pot smoker for a while and was hopelessly addicted to a prescribed morphine based pain killer for 8 months. I'm more intrigued by the hypocrisy surrounding the issue than demonising smokers or non-smokers. I believe in individual rights and respect, just feel it is vastly unfair what the tobacco industry gets away with (lets face it - by bribing politicians) when so many other industries are heavily penalised for their products.

It's been great debating with you, I can happy agree to disagree with you but think in the scheme of it all, we actually share a fair amount of common ground

your move now

yeah I think we agree on the vast majority of it, just that where we disagree we're unlikely to change our minds which kind of kills the debate

Paul Andrews

However, i do believe the tobacco companies see the writing on the wall. I am told that they are now one of the main owners of legal and medicinal drug companies. That will be interesting to see play out.

hedonist

Paul Andrews wrote:

It's been great debating with you, I can happy agree to disagree with you but think in the scheme of it all, we actually share a fair amount of common ground

It's been great seeing this debate too.

Respectful and logical! ...imagine that.

chadwick

i do have a question, a simple one at that. why smoke?

brianlux

chadwick wrote:

i do have a question, a simple one at that. why smoke?

Easy- most of us started when we were young and we wanted to fit in with friends who smoked. For me it was also back in the day when the Cancer Cowboy rode the plains of our TV screen and the cool and suave TV stars smoked so you wanted to be cool and suave like them too. And then once you got into it- hooked! DUMB!

WaveRyder

chadwick wrote:

i do have a question, a simple one at that. why smoke?

Cuz I dont want to turn into one of you.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9ySCcnoo3c

Danimal

Smoking is awesome.

peacefrompaul

I enjoy a nice cigarette or 5 myself.

PJ_Soul

Smoking makes booze taste better.

peacefrompaul

PJ_Soul3388 wrote:

Smoking makes booze taste better.

your move now

what happened to the nice educated rational discussion?

brianlux

your move now wrote:

what happened to the nice educated rational discussion?

Everybody's too busy smoking?

I only miss cigarettes when I dream about them, but when I do I wake up thinking for sure I've just had a smoke...

I'm sorry- where were we? Ah yes, a serious discussion...

peacefrompaul

your move now wrote:

what happened to the nice educated rational discussion?

I don't want the government telling me I can't smoke on my own property. It's my property to smoke on. If it bothers someone I would urge them to come and talk to me. I would be happy to smoke on another part of my property.

I understand people aren't always going to be as nice as I would be but I'm sorry, that's too bad. If someone owns property they can smoke on it.

I know this is vitriol but I respect property rights.