observer Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 If gruesome pictures on fag packets haven't deterred smokers; why does the Government think that plain packaging will? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 Good point Obs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
francine Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 I think the packaging or pictures on fag packets, will make no difference to someone that smokes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 The Canadian Second Mate on my ship tells me that the result of plain packaging in Canada (they still have the gruesome pictures of disease on them in Canada) is that people ask for them by disease rather than brand. Stupid idea which will have the manufacturers and fake manufacturers rubbing their hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 I was asked the other day, by somebody addicted to these things if I had a light, I replied " No, but I have pink lungs" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 PJ, you really do come out with some cracking one liners! Pity that wasn't one of them :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 Sadly for you, this really isn't a joke. You can defend your addiction until you are blue in the face which is exactly what you will be if you contract emphysema due to your dependency to cigarettes. I have seen a man who died of his horrid disease and it was traumatising to observe.  a link to facts  http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/chronic-obstructive-pulmonary-disease/Pages/Introduction.aspx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 So just be thankfull, it wasn't you - highly inconsiderate of him to die in front of you though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 I had uncle who died of the disease. whether it was smoking or a lifetime working in the Northumberland pits, I don't know, probably a combination of both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 So just be thankfull, it wasn't you - highly inconsiderate of him to die in front of you though. Believe me I am thankful it wasn't me and as for the second bit of your post, not worthy of a response tbh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 Obs.. that was pretty LOW even for you !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 Sadly for you, this really isn't a joke. You can defend your addiction until you are blue in the face I don't smoke, haven't had a cigarette for well over a quarter of a century. It doesn't alter the fact that all this vilfication of smokers isn't working. If the government was serious about forcing people to stop smoking they would ban it altogether. But the loss of tax revenue would hurt too much! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 I don't smoke, haven't had a cigarette for well over a quarter of a century. It doesn't alter the fact that all this vilfication of smokers isn't working. If the government was serious about forcing people to stop smoking they would ban it altogether. But the loss of tax revenue would hurt too much! On this we agree, a ban would suit me fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 29, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 29, 2013 Like the current "ban" on hard drugs - which clearly isn't working; leaving the toga brigade suggesting they be legalised ! However, a "ban" would be a more honest position by Governments that seem to depend on the nicotine revenue stream, but enforcement may be difficult. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy51 Posted November 29, 2013 Report Share Posted November 29, 2013 With all the people that don't smoke these days there must be something else wrecking the nations health....maybe exhaust fumes would be a good starting point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 29, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 29, 2013 Certainly the case in Beijing and Mexico City. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted December 1, 2013 Report Share Posted December 1, 2013 Most of the smokers I know are using e-cigs at least part of the time - not because they want to eventually give up nicotine (which is about as harmless a drug as it's possible to get) but mainly for reasons of cost and because you can smoke them in pubs. Â They're also getting the spin off benefit that they're not taking in as much of the tars and nasty chemicals, but that isn't generally their primary motivation because they still have a "real" fag every now and then. Â So does the EU and NHS want to encourage this positive (albeit largely unintentioned) health benefit, which has caused a greater reduction in total cigarette smoking than all of their education campaigns and scare tactics have in the past 40 years? Â No, they want to classify e-cigs as "tobacco products", restrict their sale, restrict their use, and tax them to the same price as cigarettes, despite the fact that NO tobacco is used in the manufacture of e-cigs and vapour fluids! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted December 1, 2013 Report Share Posted December 1, 2013 They are terrified of losing a substantial source of tax revenue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted December 1, 2013 Report Share Posted December 1, 2013 And terrified of admitting that all the money they've spent on anti-smoking campaigns has been completely wasted! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbo Posted December 1, 2013 Report Share Posted December 1, 2013 Most of the smokers I know are using e-cigs at least part of the time - not because they want to eventually give up nicotine (which is about as harmless a drug as it's possible to get) but mainly for reasons of cost and because you can smoke them in pubs.   Nicotine chemically changes the brain in a similar way to heroin and cocaine. Nicotine adversely affects EVERY major system in the human body. Nicotine disrupts normal neurotransmitter activity.  Nicotine increases heart rate and raises blood pressure. Nicotine prohibits proper blood circulation and is the number one cause of erectile dysfunction, and nicotine prevents the body from properly disposing of damaged cells, thereby allowing cancer cells to develop. ................... well give me heroin any day   Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted December 1, 2013 Report Share Posted December 1, 2013 If nicotine is so damaging to the human body, why are the medical profession and the government pushing nicotine products (patches, gum etc) as ways of stopping smoking? It couldn't be the big pharmaceutical companies doing some effective lobbying by any chance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted December 1, 2013 Report Share Posted December 1, 2013 Or could it be that Robbo's post is complete rubbish? Â Yes, nicotine increases heart rate and blood pressure - but then so does excerise! Â Yes, nicotine causes chemical changes in the brain - so too does excerise when the body releases endorphins! Â Erectile Disfunction? One word - cyclists! Â Despite the best efforts of the anti-smoking lobby over the past 40 years, there is NO evidence that nicotine itself is harmful in any way at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbo Posted December 1, 2013 Report Share Posted December 1, 2013 Similar logic to carry on taking the heroin then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted December 1, 2013 Report Share Posted December 1, 2013 So, if something is proven to be unharmful - you still maintain that it should be banned????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbo Posted December 1, 2013 Report Share Posted December 1, 2013 Where did I ever say it should be banned? Unless you are sure that riding a bike causes erectile dysfunction, in which case I'm all for banning it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.