I'm sure it's costly, but I'd like to see the numbers on that before agreeing that it's unequivocally more expensive.
Also, while adult obesity and diet play a big role in type 2, there are other factors. Smoking is a choice 100% of the time.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
New Cigarette Warning Labels
- Thread starter Longhair
- Start date
Also, while adult obesity and diet play a big role in type 2, there are other factors. Smoking is a choice 100% of the time.
GregC said:
There are other factors in smoking related diseases as well. Including diet, exercise, race, age and most importantly genetics. I would also point out that all the numbers don't add up to much because of the way they can be manipulated. Additionally there are no studies that I'm aware of that look at smokers who eat a sensible diet., get regular exercise and have no family history. Do these people have a significantly higher mortality rate in the so called smoking related deaths than the general population? I'm not sure but neither is anybody else. Point being that smokers are an easy target. Over eating couch potatoes aren't. Thats a much larger group in America.
Smokers are perhaps the easiest target because nobody needs to smoke. Anorexic or half ton, we all need to eat.
There is also the fact that, like alcohol, people become addicted.
Nobody needs to consume liquor, beer, or wine, yet alcoholics don't get half the **** that gets flung at smokers, unless theyre operating a motor vehicle.
Alcohol is not without problems. Given the expecation of universal healthcare, I wouldn't be surprised if something happens to alcohol eventually. Although, a beer, shot, or glass of wine a day won't hurt anyone. Smokers will argue until they're blue in the face, mostly due to emphysema, but how many people really smoke 1-2 cigarettes a day? Good thing this isn't about pot, then I'd be getting thousands of made up studies from the interw3b. 
Alcohol is not without problems. Given the expecation of universal healthcare, I wouldn't be surprised if something happens to alcohol eventually. Although, a beer, shot, or glass of wine a day won't hurt anyone. Smokers will argue until they're blue in the face, mostly due to emphysema, but how many people really smoke 1-2 cigarettes a day? Good thing this isn't about pot, then I'd be getting thousands of made up studies from the interw3b.
I smoke less than 1 to 2 cigarettes a day. Some days I dont smoke at all. I wouldnt dare try and argue the adverse effects of smoking, I know full well it isnt good for me.
Healthy people that live longer take more trips, buy more products, cause more accidents, drain natural resources, etc.
Easy to say that, but the amount of $ due to the adverse health problems is a pretty penny for the time they're aound. If dying early were better for the US and natural resources, the govt would be encouraging smoking, not trying to limit it.
I don't get where you're going with this:
Statement: Some people only drain resources, thus taking more than they give.
Your answer: Yeah, but people who give also take.
It's not the act of consuming that is inherently bad, it's the aforementioned imbalance some can induce.
We have them here, have had for quite some time now. They make no difference so far as I can tell.
Let people do what they want, make their own mistakes. Warning labels on cigarettes is not going to do anything. Is there anybody in a western country in this day and age who could go and pickup a pack of smokes, read the label and go "****, these things are bad for you, I never knew!" and throw them away then and there? Scratch that, is there anyone who actually even reads warning labels anymore for anything other than entertainment value of the badly translated text?
The whole idea of people putting a drain on the system is pretty bunk imo anyway. I mean, sure, they cost money in healthcare, but I am fairly sure a good percentage of that is covered by the taxes they charge, if not exceeded. Not to mention, by the time the adverse health effects of smoking kick in, you are already nearing retirement age and about to become a drain on the system anyway. The quicker you die, the quicker the government can cut your pension as well as try and soak up some of your estate.
I mean, what is the cost of giving someone a couple of years treatment for lung cancer. Compare that to the cost of keeping a pensioner alive for 40 years, and then treating them for whatever other type of cancer or health condition they will invariably end up with anyway, and it seems like killing them of with cigarettes (which they pay for) would be somewhat cost effective, no?
Let people do what they want, make their own mistakes. Warning labels on cigarettes is not going to do anything. Is there anybody in a western country in this day and age who could go and pickup a pack of smokes, read the label and go "****, these things are bad for you, I never knew!" and throw them away then and there? Scratch that, is there anyone who actually even reads warning labels anymore for anything other than entertainment value of the badly translated text?
The whole idea of people putting a drain on the system is pretty bunk imo anyway. I mean, sure, they cost money in healthcare, but I am fairly sure a good percentage of that is covered by the taxes they charge, if not exceeded. Not to mention, by the time the adverse health effects of smoking kick in, you are already nearing retirement age and about to become a drain on the system anyway. The quicker you die, the quicker the government can cut your pension as well as try and soak up some of your estate.
I mean, what is the cost of giving someone a couple of years treatment for lung cancer. Compare that to the cost of keeping a pensioner alive for 40 years, and then treating them for whatever other type of cancer or health condition they will invariably end up with anyway, and it seems like killing them of with cigarettes (which they pay for) would be somewhat cost effective, no?
Im a smoker and I dont promote any one to start. But tobacco has been around for awhile. It should be common sense by now that smoking is bad for you.
People give smokers a hard time but no one is busting anyone's balls for raping the dollar menu 5 times a day.
If they put those pictures on packs of smokes, they should play Super Size Me on repeat at fast food places everywhere.
People give smokers a hard time but no one is busting anyone's balls for raping the dollar menu 5 times a day.
If they put those pictures on packs of smokes, they should play Super Size Me on repeat at fast food places everywhere.
LOL, you know that's not even close to a realistic comparison.We have them here, have had for quite some time now. They make no difference so far as I can tell.
Let people do what they want, make their own mistakes. Warning labels on cigarettes is not going to do anything. Is there anybody in a western country in this day and age who could go and pickup a pack of smokes, read the label and go "****, these things are bad for you, I never knew!" and throw them away then and there? Scratch that, is there anyone who actually even reads warning labels anymore for anything other than entertainment value of the badly translated text?
The whole idea of people putting a drain on the system is pretty bunk imo anyway. I mean, sure, they cost money in healthcare, but I am fairly sure a good percentage of that is covered by the taxes they charge, if not exceeded. Not to mention, by the time the adverse health effects of smoking kick in, you are already nearing retirement age and about to become a drain on the system anyway. The quicker you die, the quicker the government can cut your pension as well as try and soak up some of your estate.
I mean, what is the cost of giving someone a couple of years treatment for lung cancer. Compare that to the cost of keeping a pensioner alive for 40 years, and then treating them for whatever other type of cancer or health condition they will invariably end up with anyway, and it seems like killing them of with cigarettes (which they pay for) would be somewhat cost effective, no?
I think smokers would be less likely to buy a pack of cigs if they had Care Bears printed on them, or they were made to look like childrens Band-Aid prints. No one looks cool with a SpongeBob smoke hanging out their mouth.
Force registered sex offenders to smoke and drive SUVs. You get rid of cigarettes and save the environment all in one go!
I'm a 2 pack a day smoker and to be honest, I don't care about the warning labels. This started around the time the labels started stating "smoking causes cancer" - which isn't exactly true. The labels should read "smoking increases your chances of getting cancer", since there's no evidence that smoking once cigarette means you now have cancer.
Besides that, the pictures used on there are the most extreme of the extreme that can be found, most often of pre-existing medical conditions that have been aggravated by smoking, or taken from some godforsaken third world dump where people can't get any sort of medical attention to begin with.
Personally, I'm what one could call a considerate smoker (no, I don't want to debate this point), and won't light up where I'm not allowed to, and if I happen to be in a spot where other people are I will ask them if they mind if I smoke; if they do, I'll go somewhere else. On the other hand, if a non-smoker comes up to me coughing and wheezing like a steam train and I'm in an area where I can smoke (outside, in my own house, in my own car), then tough t*ts for you, but I'm staying put.
Besides that, the pictures used on there are the most extreme of the extreme that can be found, most often of pre-existing medical conditions that have been aggravated by smoking, or taken from some godforsaken third world dump where people can't get any sort of medical attention to begin with.
Personally, I'm what one could call a considerate smoker (no, I don't want to debate this point), and won't light up where I'm not allowed to, and if I happen to be in a spot where other people are I will ask them if they mind if I smoke; if they do, I'll go somewhere else. On the other hand, if a non-smoker comes up to me coughing and wheezing like a steam train and I'm in an area where I can smoke (outside, in my own house, in my own car), then tough t*ts for you, but I'm staying put.
I think the idea is to have ONLY warning labels or something, no branding, just a bland label saying what brand they are.
Utter ******** in my opinion. I don't know how they get away with the labels and bans that they have currently. Hardly seems like it should be legal under fair trade laws etc.
Yes and no. I'd be interested to see the actual figured, I think you would probably be quite surprised to be honest.
As a long time smoker I can't say the labelling requirements here in Australia have actually deterred me personally, but the rate of smoking here has been in continuous decline for many years. Whether this decline is causally related to the stringent warnings and packaging laws I really couldn't say, but I personally support them; if it stops one person from starting smoking it's fine with me.
There have been mandatory health warnings on all tobacco products since 1973 and all forms of tobacco advertising were banned in 1976 (with some minor exceptions for sports sponsorship - now banned too).
Since 2006 every tobacco product pack has had to have graphic images of smoking-related disease covering most of the pack (30% of the front, 90% of the back) plus the very strongly-worded health warnings. Check them out for yourselves [Invalid or Expired Link Removed]. (Warning - it's probably not a good idea to look at them while you are eating breakfast.)
The new rules that have just been passed will mean that every pack will look identical: no branding will be allowed other than the name of the product in small type. The packs will all be olive brown (apparently research found that this is the least appealing possible colour - it's basically baby-poo brown). They will still also have the graphic images and health warnings that are currently in place Check the new packaging out here: Invalid Link Removed
The tobacco companies aren't going down without a fight: they've launched law suits complaining that their intellectual property and trademark rights are being infringed, and are seeking to have the laws overturned and/or multi-billion dollar compensation. I sincerely hope they lose.
There have been mandatory health warnings on all tobacco products since 1973 and all forms of tobacco advertising were banned in 1976 (with some minor exceptions for sports sponsorship - now banned too).
Since 2006 every tobacco product pack has had to have graphic images of smoking-related disease covering most of the pack (30% of the front, 90% of the back) plus the very strongly-worded health warnings. Check them out for yourselves [Invalid or Expired Link Removed]. (Warning - it's probably not a good idea to look at them while you are eating breakfast.)
The new rules that have just been passed will mean that every pack will look identical: no branding will be allowed other than the name of the product in small type. The packs will all be olive brown (apparently research found that this is the least appealing possible colour - it's basically baby-poo brown). They will still also have the graphic images and health warnings that are currently in place Check the new packaging out here: Invalid Link Removed
The tobacco companies aren't going down without a fight: they've launched law suits complaining that their intellectual property and trademark rights are being infringed, and are seeking to have the laws overturned and/or multi-billion dollar compensation. I sincerely hope they lose.
I hope they win. Tobacco companies are companies just like anyone else, they employ people, they sell a product which has a negative impact on ones health, and for some reason this means they are subject to all sorts of unfair regulations, and now its just gone too far.
What happened to any sort of free market, what happened to fair trading. Just because we as a society have demonised cigarettes so much, the government can get away with something like this??
Seriously. Make your ****ing mind up, ban them along with alcohol, and take away the rest of our personal liberties at the same time. Alternatively, give people REAL FACTS (as opposed to ******** propaganda) and let them make their own decision as to whether they want to engage in a passtime/habit/recreational action that is detrimental to their health. What are they going to next, ban advertising for motorbikes because they are soooo dangerous?!?! I don't even smoke and this makes me incredibly angry. It's a perfect example of what Australia has become, a country based around regulating absolutely everything for some reason. And now i'm getting political.
I hate cigarettes, but my stance on them is the same as my stance on other drugs. Ensure the product is of certain standards, just like any other product, give people the facts, the real facts, and then let them decide for themselves. If you can't trust people to make a sensible decision as to their own body, and killing themselves, how can you trust them to do, well, anything else??!
