Do you smoke?

[Diego440]

Taking into account that skydiving is dangerous, I still woulnd't stop a friend of mine from doing it if it's something he/she likes.

 

[Alfaholic]

Taking into account that skydiving is dangerous,....

So is driving. You might run into some idiot who finds it fun to run across six lanes of motorway

The Death cigarettes were definitely available in shops, though they may have been inspired by a video. I did, though, doubt myself enough to verify my claim

Here's the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_(cigarette)

 

[exigeracer]

How many ads have you seen saying "Buy our product?" None. Advertising nowadays doesn't sell the product, it sell the feeling, the situation and the status. "If you buy our product, women will like you. Do you want to be liked by women, then you know what you have to do".

Are you kidding me? Turn on your local broadcast station. Car ads advertising new lease rates, beer ads advertising new fresh taste, cosmetics ads advertising new lip shine, matress stores advertising the lowest prices in town, electronics store ads advertising sales on televisions. These are all ads telling you their product is the best (without saying it - that cliche catchphrase has no value). That is all telling you "buy our product." In fact, so is the one you described, just worded differently, and has nothing to do with reverse psychology.

I'm not nitpicking everything you say, but answer me this. Do you think the problem is that cigarette smokers don't know this? Do you think the smokers are going to read the warning and say "Oh crap, these things are bad for you? I thought they had vitamin C!"

...

On the evidence of this thread, I'd venture that they seem to work more on non smokers than smokers.

How is this a bad thing? In fact, it's a pretty good start. If a non-smoker who picks up a pack sees that warning and doesn't smoke, then we're off on the right step. If the on-pack warnings didn't work and made the government look bad, why do they sell those sleeves? So you aren't reminded that your lungs look like an old purse. That's why, because you don't want to be reminded that you need a friggin' cigarette because you couldn't manage your stress normally. Insecurities, that's all it comes down to.

 

[Diego440]

Are you kidding me? Turn on your local broadcast station. Car ads advertising new lease rates, beer ads advertising new fresh taste, cosmetics ads advertising new lip shine, matress stores advertising the lowest prices in town, electronics store ads advertising sales on televisions. These are all ads telling you their product is the best (without saying it - that cliche catchphrase has no value). That is all telling you "buy our product." In fact, so is the one you described, just worded differently, and has nothing to do with reverse psychology.

No, no no no. I asked if you'd seen an ad saying "Buy our product", not implying it. In the same way that you haven't see an ad saying "don't buy our product". In fact, can you find a serious ad saying "buy our product"; made in the last 20 years? I doubt it.

Check out the websites for most tobacco makers. Some of them have special links, directing you to reasons and ways to quit smoking! Can you tell me of any other company/product that offers services to not buy it? Granted, if it were up to them, they wouldn't have them, but it goes to show you that advertising for tobacco is different.

...

is that your final answer?

 

[Alfaholic]

How is this a bad thing? In fact, it's a pretty good start. If a non-smoker who picks up a pack sees that warning and doesn't smoke, then we're off on the right step. If the on-pack warnings didn't work and made the government look bad, why do they sell those sleeves? So you aren't reminded that your lungs look like an old purse. That's why, because you don't want to be reminded that you need a friggin' cigarette because you couldn't manage your stress normally. Insecurities, that's all it comes down to.

... I didn't say it was a bad thing


P.S. Looks like you could use something to manage your stress.

 

[exigeracer]

... I didn't say it was a bad thing

is that your final answer?

I was using Alfaholics statement as the basis for my answer. The answer to your question "Do you think the problem is that cigarette smokers don't know this?" is

How is this a bad thing? In fact, it's a pretty good start. If a non-smoker who picks up a pack sees that warning and doesn't smoke, then we're off on the right step. If the on-pack warnings didn't work and made the government look bad, why do they sell those sleeves? So you aren't reminded that your lungs look like an old purse. That's why, because you don't want to be reminded that you need a friggin' cigarette because you couldn't manage your stress normally. Insecurities, that's all it comes down to.

That clarifies things for both of you. I thought that my happen, my appologies to you.

No, no no no. I asked if you'd seen an ad saying "Buy our product", not implying it. In the same way that you haven't see an ad saying "don't buy our product". In fact, can you find a serious ad saying "buy our product"; made in the last 20 years? I doubt it.

I just turned on the radio. First ad was a furniture ad, boasting about how they have the largest variety and floorspace to house their inventory. Their final catchphrase was "Come to X Furniture, we make deals." They just told me to go to their store and spend money. Doesn't come much more direct than that.

I just turned on the television. Electronics store asking parents if they're scared for back to school shopping. It's okay, because this store can save you 130$ on back to school laptop bundles. Although this example is less blatant than the previous, it is still saying the same thing.

Find an ad that says to not buy their product, either directly or indirectly, that wasn't created through government-forced laws. I just found two examples in my defense within literally 15 seconds. You must've excpected it to be harder for me, so maybe I'm doing something wrong again. But if the reverse effect is so damned effective, why is it never used?

Check out the websites for most tobacco makers. Some of them have special links, directing you to reasons and ways to quit smoking! Can you tell me of any other company/product that offers services to not buy it? Granted, if it were up to them, they wouldn't have them, but it goes to show you that advertising for tobacco is different.

Those ads are either there forcefully through governments, or they are being used as tools in an effort to clean up the company's image of not caring aout the people they're killing (an image wholy created by truth and similar campaigns).

 

[Diego440]

Those ads are either there forcefully through governments, or they are being used as tools in an effort to clean up the company's image of not caring aout the people they're killing (an image wholy created by truth and similar campaigns).

You may also see ads for petrol companies talking about the wonders of alternative fuels and how we can all help to reduce pollution. Social responsibility ads is what they're called.

On the advertising part, I was referring to ads that actually say "Buy our product", literally. None say it. But again, it's beating a dead horse, there's loopholes in my statement, because you'll eventually find one ad that says/implies you must buy their product and say my whole statement isn't valid.

Look at the really good advertising campaigns, very few mention/showe their product. Do a Google search for Cannes Lions Winners and check out the results...

 

[exigeracer]

I've seen the Cannes nominations and winners for the past 5 years, at least (they show them all once a year at a small repertoire cinema here). I know what effective advertising is, and denouncing your own product to sell it doesn't appear anywhere, other than said PSA ads, which aren't really acting responsible other than to trick consumers into that sale by projecting a caring image.

 

[Alfaholic]

Those ads are either there forcefully through governments, or they are being used as tools in an effort to clean up the company's image of not caring aout the people they're killing (an image wholy created by truth and similar campaigns).

.. or they're making money from tobacco based "quit smoking" products...

 

[Mt. Lynx]

^ You guys need to put your feet up and have a smoke!

 

[OpheliaMontague]

So I should think of everyone else and never consider mt own personal feelings? That just means everyone else is selfish. Do I take the consideration of others while I'm smoking? Yes I do. I won't smoke in the house because my mom has asked me not to, I won't smoke around my grandparents because my grandma has a breathing problem, and so on. But saying it's my body and I'll do what I want isn't selfish...it's acting how you are supposed to act. Only you have control over what you do.

So you're gonna pay for all your own medical bills? Organise your own funeral? Burial or cremation? At 20 I doubt you have enough savings or life insurance to pay for these things.

You don't need someone to sit by your bedside while you're hooked up to tubes and have a machine breathing for you. You don't need anybody you care about you when you get sick, because they were all so very selfish by not wanting you to smoke in the first place.

 

[V1P3R]

Butt butt... ( no pun intended, ha ha) Ophelia, they'll just come back with a "it might happen it might not" response.

 

[Jimmy Enslashay]

You can call me an idiot for smoking, just don't tell me I need to stop.

If I recall correctly, that was our entire argument. You're stupid for smoking. None of us told you to stop smoking, and none of us are going to. We're simply telling you how and why you're stupid for smoking.

Thank you for ending our argument.

Taking into account that skydiving is dangerous, I still woulnd't stop a friend of mine from doing it if it's something he/she likes.

The dangers of skydiving are controlled. People wouldn't throw someone out of a plane if they didn't have control over the dangers. Sure, some people have had accidents, but accidents happen anywhere.

So is driving.

I hope that wasn't serious.

By the way, Death cigarettes aren't related to the Pantera joke. They were made a couple of years before Phil Anselmo was messing around on the Pantera tape, I believe.

 

[SimRaceDriver]

Alfoholic: "..So is Driving.."
Jimmy Enslashay: "I hope that wasn't serious!"

Well, let's see...seeing as you live in Australia..you really need to read this URL:

and I quote:

"...A person is killed or seriously injured on Australian roads every 22 minutes.."

Thus, just ABOUT 3 times in one hour, you risk getting killed or injured while driving in Australia! Not sure about you..but that sounds pretty damn dangerous!

Would you risk walking out your front door if you knew you had a 1-in-3 chance of being shot and killed before actually being able to close the door behind you?

Thus the comment from "Alfaholic" does have some weight behind it!

Now...what's the likelihood of dying from having 3 smokes in that same amount of time?

 

[Blake]

Alfoholic: "..So is Driving.."
Jimmy Enslashay: "I hope that wasn't serious!"

Well, let's see...seeing as you live in Australia..you really need to read this URL:

and I quote:

"...A person is killed or seriously injured on Australian roads every 22 minutes.."

Thus, just ABOUT 3 times in one hour, you risk getting killed or injured while driving in Australia! Not sure about you..but that sounds pretty damn dangerous!

Would you risk walking out your front door if you knew you had a 1-in-3 chance of being shot and killed before actually being able to close the door behind you?

Uh… 3 out of 20 million people getting seriously injured or killed every hour is not a 1-in-3 chance of dying when you leave the house…

Let’s say, on average, every person is in their car for an average of 1 hour per day. I don’t know how accurate that is, but whatever. Every hour there would be at least 800,000 cars on the road. If 3 of them are seriously injured or killed every hour then you’ve got about 0.000375% chance of being seriously injured or killed every day just by driving for an hour.

I think I’ll take my chances.

Oh, btw, most smokers also drive. So it’s not like saying “driving is dangerous” is a winning point for smokers…

 

[ExigeEvan]

Alfoholic: "..So is Driving.."
Jimmy Enslashay: "I hope that wasn't serious!"

Well, let's see...seeing as you live in Australia..you really need to read this URL:

and I quote:

"...A person is killed or seriously injured on Australian roads every 22 minutes.."

Thus, just ABOUT 3 times in one hour, you risk getting killed or injured while driving in Australia! Not sure about you..but that sounds pretty damn dangerous!

No, it's not. nThe population of Australia is approx 30 million. We'll say that 3 injuries or deaths occur an hour for ease of calculation. So that 3 x 24 which is 72 a DAY.

20,000,000 divided by 72 = 1 in 277777. Now while that's better offs that winning the lottery it doesn't take into account the severity of the accident.

Abit of airbag burn to your face or a bruise across the chest from the belt is nothing compared to being diagnosed with a lung disease. But I can understand that complete paralysis would be worse than being diagnosed with lung cancer. It's all Apples and oranges.

Would you risk walking out your front door if you knew you had a 1-in-3 chance of being shot and killed before actually being able to close the door behind you?

You really don't know how to work statistics do you?

Thus the comment from "Alfaholic" does have some weight behind it!

Now...what's the likelihood of dying from having 3 smokes in that same amount of time?

If you smoked 3 cigarettes an hour for every waking hour I think you'd be in a worse position.
If you smoked 20 a day for the rest of your life, I'd still reckon on you having better chances of developing a smoking related illness/decrese in quality fo life than if you were to get severely injured or killed in a car related incident.

[EDIT] Just realised that Blake is right, population is nearer 20million. Recalculated.

Also, in your life time in Australia, not taking into account population and incident rate changes (or leap years) and with an average life of 70 you would have a 1 in 11 chance of being injured in a car related incident. I wonder what the odds are for developing a smoking disease after smoking for 70 years

 

[Alfaholic]

So you're gonna pay for all your own medical bills? Organise your own funeral? Burial or cremation? At 20 I doubt you have enough savings or life insurance to pay for these things.

You don't need someone to sit by your bedside while you're hooked up to tubes and have a machine breathing for you. You don't need anybody you care about you when you get sick, because they were all so very selfish by not wanting you to smoke in the first place.

What are the odds of a smoker putting themselves on life support / in a coffin by the time they're 20? I'd think people aged 20 or under are more likely to write themselves off in a car either trying to impress their mates / change the graphic equalizer on their iPod / phone their boy/girlfriend / just do something dumb through lack of experience. Dunno what it's like where you are but in the UK your general medical bills are covered by medical aid, which is covered by government funds raised from taxes. Smokers and drinkers make a significant contribution to this through the huge tax margins placed on tobacco and alcohol. So they're already paying their bills.

Much as I am sure anyone on their deathbed might hope to be surrounded by people who care about them. But if I cared about someone, I'd offer advice if I felt it was relevant but I'd care about them enough to give them the freedom to do what they choose to do, and I'd love them regardless. If I only care about them on condition that they stop smoking / stop eating meat / stop sleeping around / stop chewing with their mouth open / stop driving huge V8 tanks which "pollute my air", that's not caring about them. That's caring about myself, and using them to make me happy.

 

[SRV2LOW4ME]

+Rep for Alfaholic.

You basically said exactly what I was going to say. Thanks for saving me from all that typing. 👍

 

[Joey D]

So you're gonna pay for all your own medical bills? Organise your own funeral? Burial or cremation? At 20 I doubt you have enough savings or life insurance to pay for these things.

First off I have health insurance like many people in America...if I need medical treatment it will be mostly covered by my provider. And yes I can use my health insurance this way because my we pay such ridiculous premiums in this country I see no reason not to.

I don't want a funeral, I think they are a waste of money, and I want my body to be donated to science. Everyone in my family already knows this just in case something happens. So the cost on that is zero.

And I'm not going to discuss my financial situation.

You don't need someone to sit by your bedside while you're hooked up to tubes and have a machine breathing for you. You don't need anybody you care about you when you get sick, because they were all so very selfish by not wanting you to smoke in the first place.

Why would I need something breathing for me? And really I wouldn't want people being all over me while I was dying. Dying is a part of life and to stop all things because of it seems rather odd to me. Do I feel sad when someone dies? Yes, but no one can live forever and if they lived a good life then everything will be ok.

If people truly cared about me they wouldn't concern themselves with the trivial things I do, they'd accept me for who I am. Smoking a pack a cigarettes a WEEK is hardly going to kill me, smoking a couple cigars a MONTH is hardly going to kill me...seriously I have a better chance of death by car accident, death by crazed homicidal manic, whatever.

Will I smoke forever? No. Once I have kids I will stop no matter what it takes.

 

[Diego440]

You are aware that smoking greatly reduces your sperm count and your ability to have children, right?

I read that on a cigarette pack

 

[Sureboss]

Will I smoke forever? No. Once I have kids I will stop no matter what it takes.

What if your smoking has an impact on your ability to have kids?

 

[Joey D]

Meh there is always adoption right? Plenty of kids out there that need a good home.

And I highly doubt the low quantity of me smoking is going to affect that. But I would like to see scientifically how that works.

 

[Diego440]

Crap, my awesome post got last in the previous page!

 

[SRV2LOW4ME]

You are aware that smoking greatly reduces your sperm count and your ability to have children, right?

I read that on a cigarette pack

I also read on my smoke pack that it makes you impotent, so who cares if you have a low sperm count?! Its beside the point if you can't use them to begin with. Not only that, but what girl would want to have sex with a smoker?! "I can't get it up, but I can't get a woman either so its all good".

 

[exigeracer]

And I highly doubt the low quantity of me smoking is going to affect that. But I would like to see scientifically how that works.

Perfect! You're donating your corpse to science!! Now we'll all know!!!

I don't understand why you claim to not care whatsoever if anyone shows any heed to you or what anyone else thinks about you and your life, but somebody insults your car you throw a hissy fit and don't come back for a year. People show some care and you throw it away, some people show some hate and you can take it to heart. That's so disturbingly strange.

 

[13thmonkey]

Haven,t bothered to read the whole thread.
Seems like a lot of non smokers here....good for you (no pun)
I however do smoke, not to much cigies 10 a day
On the other hand, i love me a big fat reefer (or 2...3....4....)

 

[Sureboss]

Meh there is always adoption right? Plenty of kids out there that need a good home.

And I highly doubt the low quantity of me smoking is going to affect that. But I would like to see scientifically how that works.

You want a demonstation?

 

[Alfaholic]

Perfect! You're donating your corpse to science!! Now we'll all know!!!

Sorry, I just have to say it.. that was a funny response

 

[Joey D]

Perfect! You're donating your corpse to science!! Now we'll all know!!!

Do with me what you like, cut me up, examine me, whatever...I'm dead. And like I said, I don't really smoke that much. Hell I haven't even had a cigarette since Saturday night and it's what Wednesday afternoon? That doesn't sound like a very strong (if any) addition to me.

I don't understand why you claim to not care whatsoever if anyone shows any heed to you or what anyone else thinks about you and your life, but somebody insults your car you throw a hissy fit and don't come back for a year. People show some care and you throw it away, some people show some hate and you can take it to heart. That's so disturbingly strange.

Getting mad over insults to my truck = my immaturity last year. I'll freely admit that. Go ahead and insult it...it's just not that important because I hate the damn thing too. There are more important things to worry about.

Getting mad over someone tell me what I should do with MY life = justifiable. I'm the only person in control of my life and only I should be responsible for what happens in my life. If I wanted advice on what I should be doing I'd talk to my parents or girlfriend...not some people on an internet forum. Don't get me wrong, you guys are great, but when it comes to advice I don't see why anyone would want to ask the internet.

You want a demonstation?

Not really. I want to see a report done by a creditable source that shows smoking reduces sperm count. Show me and I might believe it...but then again we are asking these researchers that just cater to whoever is giving them grant money (another thread some other time perhaps?). And no I don't want to hear someone say "It's a commonly known side affect to smoking" because it's not. I bet I could ask 100 people and only 5 of them would know.

 

[Alfaholic]

Not really. I want to see a report done by a creditable source that shows smoking reduces sperm count. Show me and I might believe it...but then again we are asking these researchers that just cater to whoever is giving them grant money (another thread some other time perhaps?). And no I don't want to hear someone say "It's a commonly known side affect to smoking" because it's not. I bet I could ask 100 people and only 5 of them would know.

I think it says so on some cigarette boxes, though those messages do not go into any particular detail. Then again, when I was younger, the scientists told me tomatoes cause cancer. Some years later, they tell me that tomatoes help prevent cancer. Then they decide that actually, there are only 8 planets, not 9, instantly ruining thousands of classroom mnemonics worldwide. A few weeks ago I read that fruit bats actually aren't blind. That's when I started to understand what Wierd Al meant when he sang "Everything you know is wrong". I suppose the moral is, don't believe everything you read. Unless it's a Stop sign.

On the other hand, smoking was far more popular in the past than it is now, and millions of regular smokers worldwide have managed to produce offspring without too much trouble, so you're probably pretty safe on a few a week (but don't take my word for it)...

Even so, I don't think anyone's actually disputing that cigarettes are generally unhealthy so I don't really understand why the point is being regurgitated so much.