The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
We've all seen the public service TV ads that go much further than most ads could get away with - people getting physically crippled in car accidents (or pub table accidents), nasty fatty goo squeezed from arteries and all the others on the theme - violence and gore with abandon, in the name of saving lives.
Today I saw a new one:
Guy hits on a pretty girl in a pub, she's feeling it, suddenly he pulls away, makes his excuses and leaves.
Cut to the girl with a cigarette and the message - "If you smoke, you stink".
When it was graphic violence and gore, I was surprised how far they were going, but it seemed acceptable given the message.
As soon as it gets personal, I find myself starting to reconsider.
We're not giving people a hard-hitting message that forces them to accept the dangers of smoking to their own health and others'.
We're not providing compelling life-saving information about in a hard-hitting format.
This is all about making people feel social shame. Making them feel socially rejected, objects of disgust, people so unpleasant everyone else will try to avoid them.
This just seems like victimisation.
If people aren't harming other through passive smoking, and they realise the health issues, they have the right to smoke if they want to. Civil liberties, as the law in this country has defined them.
Ram the health message down peoples' throats, in an emotive 'sit up and listen' way designed to make sure it hits home. It forces them to understand the consequences to their health.
But cheap personal shots designed to chasitse and humiliate smokers? Isn't that just below the belt.
We're not talking about education or information any more. We're talking about trying to manipulate, through shame and fear, people into compliance with how certain individuals have decided we should live our lives.
Those people can go to hell.
But wait!
Isn't that what pretty much *any* TV ad is all about - trying to coerce and manipulate someone into compliance to buy a specific product or service?
Yes. But can they go so far as to shame and ostracise the non-compliant - to do so in such a direct, explicit and personal way?
I don't think they'd get away with it.
But isn't this one justified on the grounds that it's for peoples' health?
It may be distinct from the previous public service ads by its commmercial use of manipulation, but it's the same as normal commercial ads. Only taken much further.
And isn't going much further justified by all the lives it'll save?
Or are we back to trying to powerfully shame and manipulate people out of engaging in one of their civil liberties?
We don't have the 'right' to stop them damaging their health like this if they choose to do so.
But if it's normal for commercials to try to manipulate people out of engaging in their civil liberties, say the liberty not to buy product X, then is this ad so different?
What do you make of it all?
[I'm a non-smoker]
Today I saw a new one:
Guy hits on a pretty girl in a pub, she's feeling it, suddenly he pulls away, makes his excuses and leaves.
Cut to the girl with a cigarette and the message - "If you smoke, you stink".
When it was graphic violence and gore, I was surprised how far they were going, but it seemed acceptable given the message.
As soon as it gets personal, I find myself starting to reconsider.
We're not giving people a hard-hitting message that forces them to accept the dangers of smoking to their own health and others'.
We're not providing compelling life-saving information about in a hard-hitting format.
This is all about making people feel social shame. Making them feel socially rejected, objects of disgust, people so unpleasant everyone else will try to avoid them.
This just seems like victimisation.
If people aren't harming other through passive smoking, and they realise the health issues, they have the right to smoke if they want to. Civil liberties, as the law in this country has defined them.
Ram the health message down peoples' throats, in an emotive 'sit up and listen' way designed to make sure it hits home. It forces them to understand the consequences to their health.
But cheap personal shots designed to chasitse and humiliate smokers? Isn't that just below the belt.
We're not talking about education or information any more. We're talking about trying to manipulate, through shame and fear, people into compliance with how certain individuals have decided we should live our lives.
Those people can go to hell.
But wait!
Isn't that what pretty much *any* TV ad is all about - trying to coerce and manipulate someone into compliance to buy a specific product or service?
Yes. But can they go so far as to shame and ostracise the non-compliant - to do so in such a direct, explicit and personal way?
I don't think they'd get away with it.
But isn't this one justified on the grounds that it's for peoples' health?
It may be distinct from the previous public service ads by its commmercial use of manipulation, but it's the same as normal commercial ads. Only taken much further.
And isn't going much further justified by all the lives it'll save?
Or are we back to trying to powerfully shame and manipulate people out of engaging in one of their civil liberties?
We don't have the 'right' to stop them damaging their health like this if they choose to do so.
But if it's normal for commercials to try to manipulate people out of engaging in their civil liberties, say the liberty not to buy product X, then is this ad so different?
What do you make of it all?
[I'm a non-smoker]
Page:
Sibs wrote:
> What, so you think the vast majority of drinkers are 'glass of
> wine a day' people?
I think i said that abuse is the problem.
> Frankly, I think a lot of people who are very anti-smoking don't
> really care about the NHS/health angle, that's just the
> moral-high-ground excuse. I think it's a personal thing, the
> fact they don't like the smell of the smoke or whatever. Which
> is fine. But don't wrap it up as high morals or anything. (not
> directed at anyone here, btw)
You are correct. It's not high on my list of reasons but it's part of the argument so i'm including it.
> And while there may not be a reason to smoke, people want to.
> People like to. There's not really a reason to do a lot of
> things beyond people enjoying doing them. Why have sex if it's
> not to have a baby? Because we enjoy it. Just because you or I
> don't like smoke or smoking, doesn't mean that some people
> don't. You may say 'Oh, but Smoking is harmful to your
> health!!!', but then people go sky-diving, bungee-jumping, do
> extreme sports, loads of stuff which is risky and could pose
> serious health problems. Everyone does different things for
> enjoyment, many of these things are risky or dangerous... We
> don't ban them...
You've convinced me. Lets legalise heroin, we can use it to put our children to sleep.
> Not that smoking is one of these
> 'basic' liberties that should be guaranteed, but it was just the
> way you spoke of liberties like they were simply things to be
> tossed aside lightly, not things to be valued, cherished and
> defended by society.
Not at all. I'm all for protecting human rights but i dont consider smoking is one of them.
> Frankly I've said many a
> time to people that cannabis should be legal because smoking is.
How about the other way round? Why not?
> There's two sides of that coin. You mentioned earlier that
> alcohol is thought to have some beneficial effects (glass of
> wine), cannabis has some beneficial effects, especially to the
> terminally ill who are in pain... Okay, this is not how cannabis
> is used in the majority of cases, but then again neither is your
> beneficial example of alcohol.
Fair point. When the medical trials on cannabis are finished though, there wont be any excuse left.
> Contradiction, maybe, but any government knows an outright ban
> on smoking is prety much suicide. I'm sure even the vast
> majority of non-smokers wouldn't support such a move, simply
> because smoking has been socially acceptable for centuries.
I think it's getting less and less acceptable and thats due to the governments attitude to it. Whats socially acceptable is always changing and i think we're moving (or being moved) towards a ban at some point in the future.
> Aha. Plenty of people aren't doing pot in their own homes...
> Given that loads of people who smoke it are teenagers who don't
> want their parents to know they've been smoking it... Well, they
> can hardly do it at home can they?
Is that a deliberate misunderstanding of what i meant?
I dont mean literally confined to the home, i meant kept out of the public eye, as in not in the high street.
> What, so you think the vast majority of drinkers are 'glass of
> wine a day' people?
I think i said that abuse is the problem.
> Frankly, I think a lot of people who are very anti-smoking don't
> really care about the NHS/health angle, that's just the
> moral-high-ground excuse. I think it's a personal thing, the
> fact they don't like the smell of the smoke or whatever. Which
> is fine. But don't wrap it up as high morals or anything. (not
> directed at anyone here, btw)
You are correct. It's not high on my list of reasons but it's part of the argument so i'm including it.
> And while there may not be a reason to smoke, people want to.
> People like to. There's not really a reason to do a lot of
> things beyond people enjoying doing them. Why have sex if it's
> not to have a baby? Because we enjoy it. Just because you or I
> don't like smoke or smoking, doesn't mean that some people
> don't. You may say 'Oh, but Smoking is harmful to your
> health!!!', but then people go sky-diving, bungee-jumping, do
> extreme sports, loads of stuff which is risky and could pose
> serious health problems. Everyone does different things for
> enjoyment, many of these things are risky or dangerous... We
> don't ban them...
You've convinced me. Lets legalise heroin, we can use it to put our children to sleep.
> Not that smoking is one of these
> 'basic' liberties that should be guaranteed, but it was just the
> way you spoke of liberties like they were simply things to be
> tossed aside lightly, not things to be valued, cherished and
> defended by society.
Not at all. I'm all for protecting human rights but i dont consider smoking is one of them.
> Frankly I've said many a
> time to people that cannabis should be legal because smoking is.
How about the other way round? Why not?
> There's two sides of that coin. You mentioned earlier that
> alcohol is thought to have some beneficial effects (glass of
> wine), cannabis has some beneficial effects, especially to the
> terminally ill who are in pain... Okay, this is not how cannabis
> is used in the majority of cases, but then again neither is your
> beneficial example of alcohol.
Fair point. When the medical trials on cannabis are finished though, there wont be any excuse left.
> Contradiction, maybe, but any government knows an outright ban
> on smoking is prety much suicide. I'm sure even the vast
> majority of non-smokers wouldn't support such a move, simply
> because smoking has been socially acceptable for centuries.
I think it's getting less and less acceptable and thats due to the governments attitude to it. Whats socially acceptable is always changing and i think we're moving (or being moved) towards a ban at some point in the future.
> Aha. Plenty of people aren't doing pot in their own homes...
> Given that loads of people who smoke it are teenagers who don't
> want their parents to know they've been smoking it... Well, they
> can hardly do it at home can they?
Is that a deliberate misunderstanding of what i meant?
I dont mean literally confined to the home, i meant kept out of the public eye, as in not in the high street.
Machiavelli wrote:
> Drink serves some purpose, wine supposedly has some health
> benefit. It's only when it's abused that it's a problem. Cars
> also have a benefit. There is not a single good reason to
> smoke.
What, so you think the vast majority of drinkers are 'glass of wine a day' people? No, I'd guess the majority are people who will go out and have 2-3 or more drinks in one night (but not every night!), and some people go out and drink lots more and get completely plastered. Drunk people can then get arrested for being abusive/disorderly/etc, drink drive, are more likely to be violent, may have to be taken to hospital to have their stomach pumped... Yet smoking is worse? I bet alcohol costs the NHS just as much or more than smoking. Yet because it's more 'socially acceptable', and just about everyone does it to some extent, people barely bother to bring it up in the old 'drugs' debate. Frankly, I think a lot of people who are very anti-smoking don't really care about the NHS/health angle, that's just the moral-high-ground excuse. I think it's a personal thing, the fact they don't like the smell of the smoke or whatever. Which is fine. But don't wrap it up as high morals or anything. (not directed at anyone here, btw)
And while there may not be a reason to smoke, people want to. People like to. There's not really a reason to do a lot of things beyond people enjoying doing them. Why have sex if it's not to have a baby? Because we enjoy it. Just because you or I don't like smoke or smoking, doesn't mean that some people don't. You may say 'Oh, but Smoking is harmful to your health!!!', but then people go sky-diving, bungee-jumping, do extreme sports, loads of stuff which is risky and could pose serious health problems. Everyone does different things for enjoyment, many of these things are risky or dangerous... We don't ban them...
> So what do you define as civil liberties? I'd call it the
> granted freedoms of society, or in other words, the law and the
> law is based around perceptions of right and wrong. I should say
> more but my thinking is a little clouded at the moment. Someone
> else can argue what i mean.
Civil Liberties are freedoms you have. But the most basic liberties are things we must have. They are not things to be 'granted' or taken away by government. Hence the furore over the erosion of liberties in the West in the wake of various terror attacks recently. Not that smoking is one of these 'basic' liberties that should be guaranteed, but it was just the way you spoke of liberties like they were simply things to be tossed aside lightly, not things to be valued, cherished and defended by society.
> Making it illegal wouldn't hurt though and it would cut the
> ammount of people who do it, certainly publicly anyway.
> Frankly it's complete hypocrisy that cannabis is illegal and
> smoking isn't.
That's a whole other kettle of fish. Frankly I've said many a time to people that cannabis should be legal because smoking is. There's two sides of that coin. You mentioned earlier that alcohol is thought to have some beneficial effects (glass of wine), cannabis has some beneficial effects, especially to the terminally ill who are in pain... Okay, this is not how cannabis is used in the majority of cases, but then again neither is your beneficial example of alcohol.
> As for enforcing a ban, things wouldn't be any different to how
> pot is dealt with now.
> Perception is important and i think there is a big contradiction
> in the message being sent out by the government that "It's
> bad but not illegal so knock yourself out".
Contradiction, maybe, but any government knows an outright ban on smoking is prety much suicide. I'm sure even the vast majority of non-smokers wouldn't support such a move, simply because smoking has been socially acceptable for centuries.
> Really i'd rather it was seem in the same way pot is, just ban
> it and accept that people will do what they want in the privacy
> of their own homes but not in public. Truth be told, thats the
> way it's going anyway so i'd rather they just get on with it.
Aha. Plenty of people aren't doing pot in their own homes... Given that loads of people who smoke it are teenagers who don't want their parents to know they've been smoking it... Well, they can hardly do it at home can they?
> Drink serves some purpose, wine supposedly has some health
> benefit. It's only when it's abused that it's a problem. Cars
> also have a benefit. There is not a single good reason to
> smoke.
What, so you think the vast majority of drinkers are 'glass of wine a day' people? No, I'd guess the majority are people who will go out and have 2-3 or more drinks in one night (but not every night!), and some people go out and drink lots more and get completely plastered. Drunk people can then get arrested for being abusive/disorderly/etc, drink drive, are more likely to be violent, may have to be taken to hospital to have their stomach pumped... Yet smoking is worse? I bet alcohol costs the NHS just as much or more than smoking. Yet because it's more 'socially acceptable', and just about everyone does it to some extent, people barely bother to bring it up in the old 'drugs' debate. Frankly, I think a lot of people who are very anti-smoking don't really care about the NHS/health angle, that's just the moral-high-ground excuse. I think it's a personal thing, the fact they don't like the smell of the smoke or whatever. Which is fine. But don't wrap it up as high morals or anything. (not directed at anyone here, btw)
And while there may not be a reason to smoke, people want to. People like to. There's not really a reason to do a lot of things beyond people enjoying doing them. Why have sex if it's not to have a baby? Because we enjoy it. Just because you or I don't like smoke or smoking, doesn't mean that some people don't. You may say 'Oh, but Smoking is harmful to your health!!!', but then people go sky-diving, bungee-jumping, do extreme sports, loads of stuff which is risky and could pose serious health problems. Everyone does different things for enjoyment, many of these things are risky or dangerous... We don't ban them...
> So what do you define as civil liberties? I'd call it the
> granted freedoms of society, or in other words, the law and the
> law is based around perceptions of right and wrong. I should say
> more but my thinking is a little clouded at the moment. Someone
> else can argue what i mean.
Civil Liberties are freedoms you have. But the most basic liberties are things we must have. They are not things to be 'granted' or taken away by government. Hence the furore over the erosion of liberties in the West in the wake of various terror attacks recently. Not that smoking is one of these 'basic' liberties that should be guaranteed, but it was just the way you spoke of liberties like they were simply things to be tossed aside lightly, not things to be valued, cherished and defended by society.
> Making it illegal wouldn't hurt though and it would cut the
> ammount of people who do it, certainly publicly anyway.
> Frankly it's complete hypocrisy that cannabis is illegal and
> smoking isn't.
That's a whole other kettle of fish. Frankly I've said many a time to people that cannabis should be legal because smoking is. There's two sides of that coin. You mentioned earlier that alcohol is thought to have some beneficial effects (glass of wine), cannabis has some beneficial effects, especially to the terminally ill who are in pain... Okay, this is not how cannabis is used in the majority of cases, but then again neither is your beneficial example of alcohol.
> As for enforcing a ban, things wouldn't be any different to how
> pot is dealt with now.
> Perception is important and i think there is a big contradiction
> in the message being sent out by the government that "It's
> bad but not illegal so knock yourself out".
Contradiction, maybe, but any government knows an outright ban on smoking is prety much suicide. I'm sure even the vast majority of non-smokers wouldn't support such a move, simply because smoking has been socially acceptable for centuries.
> Really i'd rather it was seem in the same way pot is, just ban
> it and accept that people will do what they want in the privacy
> of their own homes but not in public. Truth be told, thats the
> way it's going anyway so i'd rather they just get on with it.
Aha. Plenty of people aren't doing pot in their own homes... Given that loads of people who smoke it are teenagers who don't want their parents to know they've been smoking it... Well, they can hardly do it at home can they?
Sibs wrote:
> You can't actually be serious...? Unless you believe a
> full ban on alcohol should also be instated anyway, because that
> is a drug, just as harmful to society, and people harm themselves
> by drinking it...
> What about driving cars? Produces pollution, causes people to
> become asthmatic and causes people who already are to become
> worse... Should cars be banned too?
Drink serves some purpose, wine supposedly has some health benefit. It's only when it's abused that it's a problem. Cars also have a benefit. There is not a single good reason to smoke.
> Also, the idea that your civil liberties are purely defined by
> what is or isn't legal is stupid. Are we to then say that it is
> okay to kill or torture as long as it's legal in the country we
> do it? Should I not have the right to live if the government who
> 'rules' me decides so...?
So what do you define as civil liberties? I'd call it the granted freedoms of society, or in other words, the law and the law is based around perceptions of right and wrong. I should say more but my thinking is a little clouded at the moment. Someone else can argue what i mean.
> Seriously, I don't think we can ever stop smoking completely.
> Making it illegal won't help and would be a joke pure and
> simple. Cannabis is illegal, but I think the majority of
> teenagers and those in their early 20s will have tried it at
> some point. And how many police do you think smoke? Do you
> really think they'll bother to enforce a full smoking ban, when
> they have better things to worry about...?
Making it illegal wouldn't hurt though and it would cut the ammount of people who do it, certainly publicly anyway.
Frankly it's complete hypocrisy that cannabis is illegal and smoking isn't.
As for enforcing a ban, things wouldn't be any different to how pot is dealt with now.
Perception is important and i think there is a big contradiction in the message being sent out by the government that "It's bad but not illegal so knock yourself out".
Really i'd rather it was seem in the same way pot is, just ban it and accept that people will do what they want in the privacy of their own homes but not in public. Truth be told, thats the way it's going anyway so i'd rather they just get on with it.
> You can't actually be serious...? Unless you believe a
> full ban on alcohol should also be instated anyway, because that
> is a drug, just as harmful to society, and people harm themselves
> by drinking it...
> What about driving cars? Produces pollution, causes people to
> become asthmatic and causes people who already are to become
> worse... Should cars be banned too?
Drink serves some purpose, wine supposedly has some health benefit. It's only when it's abused that it's a problem. Cars also have a benefit. There is not a single good reason to smoke.
> Also, the idea that your civil liberties are purely defined by
> what is or isn't legal is stupid. Are we to then say that it is
> okay to kill or torture as long as it's legal in the country we
> do it? Should I not have the right to live if the government who
> 'rules' me decides so...?
So what do you define as civil liberties? I'd call it the granted freedoms of society, or in other words, the law and the law is based around perceptions of right and wrong. I should say more but my thinking is a little clouded at the moment. Someone else can argue what i mean.
> Seriously, I don't think we can ever stop smoking completely.
> Making it illegal won't help and would be a joke pure and
> simple. Cannabis is illegal, but I think the majority of
> teenagers and those in their early 20s will have tried it at
> some point. And how many police do you think smoke? Do you
> really think they'll bother to enforce a full smoking ban, when
> they have better things to worry about...?
Making it illegal wouldn't hurt though and it would cut the ammount of people who do it, certainly publicly anyway.
Frankly it's complete hypocrisy that cannabis is illegal and smoking isn't.
As for enforcing a ban, things wouldn't be any different to how pot is dealt with now.
Perception is important and i think there is a big contradiction in the message being sent out by the government that "It's bad but not illegal so knock yourself out".
Really i'd rather it was seem in the same way pot is, just ban it and accept that people will do what they want in the privacy of their own homes but not in public. Truth be told, thats the way it's going anyway so i'd rather they just get on with it.
Machiavelli wrote:
> That it does cost the NHS more than the tax they put in. (You
> really think the goverment would discourage it otherwise?)
Once my plan for world domination comes into being and i am ruling the masses with an iron fist and fear i shall be scrapping NHS healthcare for people whose problems have been caused by smoking, over-eating and other such avoidable issues. Teach them all a lesson i shall, off to the asteroid mines with them
> That it does cost the NHS more than the tax they put in. (You
> really think the goverment would discourage it otherwise?)
Once my plan for world domination comes into being and i am ruling the masses with an iron fist and fear i shall be scrapping NHS healthcare for people whose problems have been caused by smoking, over-eating and other such avoidable issues. Teach them all a lesson i shall, off to the asteroid mines with them
Game wrote:
> I genuinely don't see the point/benefit in smoking.
>
> Costs a lot - BAD
> Stinks - BAD
> Makes your skin dry - BAD
> Makes your teeth yellow - BAD
> Makes your fingers yellow - BAD
> Means you throw buts on the pavement - VERY BAD
> Means other people have to suffer - DISGRACEFUL
> Means other people have to smoke - APPAULING.
>
> But yeah, free country. Knock yourself out. Haha..
But it doesn't necessarily mean some of those things... Some smokers will always put out cigarettes in ash-trays or bins or whatnot, rather than throwing the buts on the ground... Some smokers won't smoke around others (unless they are also smokers) so no-one breathes unwanted, second-hand smoke...
I don't smoke btw, but I think it's the persons choice whether to smoke or not. Then again, I think a lot of smokers do need to be more respectful of non-smokers. But I don't like tarring everyone with the same brush.
(See what I did there...? Tarring? Ahahahaha. I'm hilarious!)
> I genuinely don't see the point/benefit in smoking.
>
> Costs a lot - BAD
> Stinks - BAD
> Makes your skin dry - BAD
> Makes your teeth yellow - BAD
> Makes your fingers yellow - BAD
> Means you throw buts on the pavement - VERY BAD
> Means other people have to suffer - DISGRACEFUL
> Means other people have to smoke - APPAULING.
>
> But yeah, free country. Knock yourself out. Haha..
But it doesn't necessarily mean some of those things... Some smokers will always put out cigarettes in ash-trays or bins or whatnot, rather than throwing the buts on the ground... Some smokers won't smoke around others (unless they are also smokers) so no-one breathes unwanted, second-hand smoke...
I don't smoke btw, but I think it's the persons choice whether to smoke or not. Then again, I think a lot of smokers do need to be more respectful of non-smokers. But I don't like tarring everyone with the same brush.
(See what I did there...? Tarring? Ahahahaha. I'm hilarious!)
I genuinely don't see the point/benefit in smoking.
Costs a lot - BAD
Stinks - BAD
Makes your skin dry - BAD
Makes your teeth yellow - BAD
Makes your fingers yellow - BAD
Means you throw buts on the pavement - VERY BAD
Means other people have to suffer - DISGRACEFUL
Means other people have to smoke - APPAULING.
But yeah, free country. Knock yourself out. Haha..
Costs a lot - BAD
Stinks - BAD
Makes your skin dry - BAD
Makes your teeth yellow - BAD
Makes your fingers yellow - BAD
Means you throw buts on the pavement - VERY BAD
Means other people have to suffer - DISGRACEFUL
Means other people have to smoke - APPAULING.
But yeah, free country. Knock yourself out. Haha..
Machiavelli wrote:
> EDIT
> Oh, and as for the civil liberties argument. It's only a civil
> liberty because the government hasn't made it illegal yet. It's
> not a civil liberty to shoot up in the middle of the high street
> and i see little difference.
You can't actually be serious...? Unless you believe a full ban on alcohol should also be instated anyway, because that is a drug, just as harmful to society, and people harm themselves by drinking it...
What about driving cars? Produces pollution, causes people to become asthmatic and causes people who already are to become worse... Should cars be banned too?
Also, the idea that your civil liberties are purely defined by what is or isn't legal is stupid. Are we to then say that it is okay to kill or torture as long as it's legal in the country we do it? Should I not have the right to live if the government who 'rules' me decides so...?
Seriously, I don't think we can ever stop smoking completely. Making it illegal won't help and would be a joke pure and simple. Cannabis is illegal, but I think the majority of teenagers and those in their early 20s will have tried it at some point. And how many police do you think smoke? Do you really think they'll bother to enforce a full smoking ban, when they have better things to worry about...?
I think the way to deal with smoking is to tax companies who profit from the addiction and health deterioration of their customers more. Tax them more and pipe it into the NHS. You obviously also have to educate youth about the negative effects of smoking and everything, but there will always be people who take up smoking regardless.
> EDIT
> Oh, and as for the civil liberties argument. It's only a civil
> liberty because the government hasn't made it illegal yet. It's
> not a civil liberty to shoot up in the middle of the high street
> and i see little difference.
You can't actually be serious...? Unless you believe a full ban on alcohol should also be instated anyway, because that is a drug, just as harmful to society, and people harm themselves by drinking it...
What about driving cars? Produces pollution, causes people to become asthmatic and causes people who already are to become worse... Should cars be banned too?
Also, the idea that your civil liberties are purely defined by what is or isn't legal is stupid. Are we to then say that it is okay to kill or torture as long as it's legal in the country we do it? Should I not have the right to live if the government who 'rules' me decides so...?
Seriously, I don't think we can ever stop smoking completely. Making it illegal won't help and would be a joke pure and simple. Cannabis is illegal, but I think the majority of teenagers and those in their early 20s will have tried it at some point. And how many police do you think smoke? Do you really think they'll bother to enforce a full smoking ban, when they have better things to worry about...?
I think the way to deal with smoking is to tax companies who profit from the addiction and health deterioration of their customers more. Tax them more and pipe it into the NHS. You obviously also have to educate youth about the negative effects of smoking and everything, but there will always be people who take up smoking regardless.
As an almost militant anti-smoker, i could argue...
It's pointless
It's no different from any other illegal drug
It's anti-social
Social influence on kids
That it impacts on other peoples lives regardless
That you dont have the right to harm yourself (intentionally or not) It's no different from slashing yourself with a knife as far as i'm concerned. Self-harm in addictive form, a kind of mental illness in which the government has every right to act.
That it does cost the NHS more than the tax they put in. (You really think the goverment would discourage it otherwise?)
...and i would expect someone to come back with numerous replies to all of those.
So instead i'll simply say, f**k them. I really dont care whether their feelings are hurt or they feel they're being bullied.
After been irritated to the point of feeling sick by someone smoking near me so many times, i consider them fair game.
I fully expect angry rants in reply to this, possibly with some name calling and mentions of dictators. I'll be disappointed otherwise.
Oh yeah, and i dont smoke either
EDIT
Oh, and as for the civil liberties argument. It's only a civil liberty because the government hasn't made it illegal yet. It's not a civil liberty to shoot up in the middle of the high street and i see little difference.
It's pointless
It's no different from any other illegal drug
It's anti-social
Social influence on kids
That it impacts on other peoples lives regardless
That you dont have the right to harm yourself (intentionally or not) It's no different from slashing yourself with a knife as far as i'm concerned. Self-harm in addictive form, a kind of mental illness in which the government has every right to act.
That it does cost the NHS more than the tax they put in. (You really think the goverment would discourage it otherwise?)
...and i would expect someone to come back with numerous replies to all of those.
So instead i'll simply say, f**k them. I really dont care whether their feelings are hurt or they feel they're being bullied.
After been irritated to the point of feeling sick by someone smoking near me so many times, i consider them fair game.
I fully expect angry rants in reply to this, possibly with some name calling and mentions of dictators. I'll be disappointed otherwise.
Oh yeah, and i dont smoke either
EDIT
Oh, and as for the civil liberties argument. It's only a civil liberty because the government hasn't made it illegal yet. It's not a civil liberty to shoot up in the middle of the high street and i see little difference.
On the other hand, I absolutely hate walking downwind of a smoker in the street.
Plus, I spent last night in a travel lodge, and the only rooms available were smoking-permitted.
My room stank.
It wasn't that strong, but it was vile and persistent.
I guess it's very hard for smokers not to have a detrimental effect on other people.
Plus, I spent last night in a travel lodge, and the only rooms available were smoking-permitted.
My room stank.
It wasn't that strong, but it was vile and persistent.
I guess it's very hard for smokers not to have a detrimental effect on other people.
Re: 'Whatever it takes to make them give up is okay'?
Do you think it's acceptable to behave like that? If they have all the information, know the seriousness of the health risks, they have the right to smoke.
If it's their informed decision to do it, using psychological manipulation to effectively harrass people into compliance doesn't seem 'on'.
Is it really acceptable to 'do whatever it takes' to stop people exercising their civil rights?
Smedlos wrote:
> The thing that bugs me is when people say that smokers are the
> bain of the NHS and that they take up it's resources and
> shouldn't be treated.
>
> Smokers put way more money into the NHS through taxes than they
> take out!
They also mean less old people needing hip replacements and stuff.
And fewer people drawing pensions.
Hmm...
Do you think it's acceptable to behave like that? If they have all the information, know the seriousness of the health risks, they have the right to smoke.
If it's their informed decision to do it, using psychological manipulation to effectively harrass people into compliance doesn't seem 'on'.
Is it really acceptable to 'do whatever it takes' to stop people exercising their civil rights?
Smedlos wrote:
> The thing that bugs me is when people say that smokers are the
> bain of the NHS and that they take up it's resources and
> shouldn't be treated.
>
> Smokers put way more money into the NHS through taxes than they
> take out!
They also mean less old people needing hip replacements and stuff.
And fewer people drawing pensions.
Hmm...
Page: