The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
This isn't another "omgay, smokin is bad 4 u!!!" but more of a question to anyone here who smokes - is it just the cardboard chemical crap from the UK/US companies or more rarer exotic stuff like Giantes? Not a smoker myself but I'd like to know.
Page:
Munn, would it be more accurate to say that it's not smoking/drinking you want clamping down on, but the way that our culture views both of these activities, together with restrictions on the way they are marketed to people?
Light wrote:
> And as to why the cars argument comes up? Well, it's because a
> teacher wouldn't stop pupil A from talking but allow pupil C to carry
> on talking at the same volume (to use your analogy). I'm intrigued as
> to why people put so much vehemence into their "smoking is evil
> cos it damages everyones health and so should be stopped", but
> are so willing to make as many allowances as possible for driving,
> and the pollution it causes.
Like I said, cars have (other than to fund the NHS) uses. If smoing was banned, they could jsut raise teh tax on petrol to compensate - everyone would be able to afford it, as no-one would pay for ciggerettes, so that would be everyone happy there.
> You want to cut down on drinking too? So you're in favour of people
> having the personal liberty to cause pollution and cost lives by
> driving a car, but you're against the personal liberty of drinking
> and smoking? Why are you in favour of the personal liberties that you
> personally enjoy, but against the ones you don't? Isn't that a rather
> selfish attitude? (and no, I personally don't smoke, so...)
I don't think so.
I don't want drinking banned completely, after all, I'm partial to a tipple or two myself at times, but it's something that's hitting hoem right now, as my aunt died last year becasue she was an alcoholic, she was younger than my mum (i don't know how old exactly), and she's only 47.
I've been informed by another aunt that another of my aunts will probably be dead in the next few months because she won't stop drinking.
Even though my uncle has banned her from the car etc (they live on a farm) she still manages to get drink from somewhere, so it's something that really makes me want something to be done about the amount of alcohol a person is allowed to buy.
As for smoking, my mum, my younger brother and I are the only 3 out of 9 of 9 of us who don't smoke.
The difference in health between the three of us and the other 6 is visible to anyone with eyes. Even though only my dad is a heavy smoker at 20-25 a day, all of them look worse for the wear, my dad looking the worst (although he's the oldest), and then my sisters, and finally my brothers look the best. You could line them up and tell which ones smoke teh most just by looking at them, and they all (except by dad) only smoke about 10 a day each, at most.
> Just so you know, nicotene in small doses can also be beneficial to
> health as it has many of the same relaxant properties as alcohol. So
> how come you're willing to make the allowance for alcohol in small
> doses, but not for smoking? Are you assuming that everyone who smokes
> does so to excess?
If people want the nicotine for health benfits why don't tehy buy the patches etc that chemists sell to help people cut down on smoking?
There's enough nicotine in them to benefit health, whereas by smoking ciggerettes they're helping themselves with some nicotine, but killing themselves at the same time with the tar?
> Could you go into more detail about your "small amounts of
> alcohol = good" argument, because I'm inclined to think it's
> something you've been told, but that you haven't looked into in any
> detail.
Well, you're correct in that it's something I haven't looked into in huge detail, but I can tell you off the top of my head that both Whisky and Brandy increase something antioxidants in the blood which can destroy free radicals in the blood,, and that there's also something in Whisky which can help to prevent cancer, though I can't remember it's name.
Red wine can also help prevent cancer, heart disease and lower cholesterol levels.
Although I'm not 100% on the details of red wine, I'd assume that it also has something to do with antioxidant levels in the blood.
> And as to why the cars argument comes up? Well, it's because a
> teacher wouldn't stop pupil A from talking but allow pupil C to carry
> on talking at the same volume (to use your analogy). I'm intrigued as
> to why people put so much vehemence into their "smoking is evil
> cos it damages everyones health and so should be stopped", but
> are so willing to make as many allowances as possible for driving,
> and the pollution it causes.
Like I said, cars have (other than to fund the NHS) uses. If smoing was banned, they could jsut raise teh tax on petrol to compensate - everyone would be able to afford it, as no-one would pay for ciggerettes, so that would be everyone happy there.
> You want to cut down on drinking too? So you're in favour of people
> having the personal liberty to cause pollution and cost lives by
> driving a car, but you're against the personal liberty of drinking
> and smoking? Why are you in favour of the personal liberties that you
> personally enjoy, but against the ones you don't? Isn't that a rather
> selfish attitude? (and no, I personally don't smoke, so...)
I don't think so.
I don't want drinking banned completely, after all, I'm partial to a tipple or two myself at times, but it's something that's hitting hoem right now, as my aunt died last year becasue she was an alcoholic, she was younger than my mum (i don't know how old exactly), and she's only 47.
I've been informed by another aunt that another of my aunts will probably be dead in the next few months because she won't stop drinking.
Even though my uncle has banned her from the car etc (they live on a farm) she still manages to get drink from somewhere, so it's something that really makes me want something to be done about the amount of alcohol a person is allowed to buy.
As for smoking, my mum, my younger brother and I are the only 3 out of 9 of 9 of us who don't smoke.
The difference in health between the three of us and the other 6 is visible to anyone with eyes. Even though only my dad is a heavy smoker at 20-25 a day, all of them look worse for the wear, my dad looking the worst (although he's the oldest), and then my sisters, and finally my brothers look the best. You could line them up and tell which ones smoke teh most just by looking at them, and they all (except by dad) only smoke about 10 a day each, at most.
> Just so you know, nicotene in small doses can also be beneficial to
> health as it has many of the same relaxant properties as alcohol. So
> how come you're willing to make the allowance for alcohol in small
> doses, but not for smoking? Are you assuming that everyone who smokes
> does so to excess?
If people want the nicotine for health benfits why don't tehy buy the patches etc that chemists sell to help people cut down on smoking?
There's enough nicotine in them to benefit health, whereas by smoking ciggerettes they're helping themselves with some nicotine, but killing themselves at the same time with the tar?
> Could you go into more detail about your "small amounts of
> alcohol = good" argument, because I'm inclined to think it's
> something you've been told, but that you haven't looked into in any
> detail.
Well, you're correct in that it's something I haven't looked into in huge detail, but I can tell you off the top of my head that both Whisky and Brandy increase something antioxidants in the blood which can destroy free radicals in the blood,, and that there's also something in Whisky which can help to prevent cancer, though I can't remember it's name.
Red wine can also help prevent cancer, heart disease and lower cholesterol levels.
Although I'm not 100% on the details of red wine, I'd assume that it also has something to do with antioxidant levels in the blood.
ssxpro wrote:
> Items such as red wine have been found to aid the heart.
--
It's got flavenoids in it, which help as antioxidants and lower rates of coronary heart disease. Found out by the French Paradox - French people have a high-fat diet that should lead to much higher national rates of CHD, but they drink a lot of red wine, lowering this.
Ah, biology.
> Items such as red wine have been found to aid the heart.
--
It's got flavenoids in it, which help as antioxidants and lower rates of coronary heart disease. Found out by the French Paradox - French people have a high-fat diet that should lead to much higher national rates of CHD, but they drink a lot of red wine, lowering this.
Ah, biology.
Cheers for that ssxpro; nice to see someone actually thinking out their arguments.
You do indeed have a very good point about the pollution argument, but the gist of what I'm trying to say is that the "secondary smoke" argument for banning smoking holds no water at all when we live in such a polluted environment anyway, and when that pollution is going to continue because of our dependance on cars.
You do indeed have a very good point about the pollution argument, but the gist of what I'm trying to say is that the "secondary smoke" argument for banning smoking holds no water at all when we live in such a polluted environment anyway, and when that pollution is going to continue because of our dependance on cars.
Okay, I wasn't going to get into the cars vs cigs argument, but anyway...
The research into new fuels and alternative means of transport is not something we can easily influence. Donations, ideas, our own research or perhaps an agreement to all refuse to pay for petrol (something that just can't happen in today's world) might cause something to happen, but there are plenty of people in this country and around the world who need to get to work, but can't feasibly take a bus or cycle/walk or any other method of transport, other than their own car. Whilst it is still causing pollution, at present there is little that can be done to avoid it.
When it comes to smoking, the same argument doesn't really hold. Whilst the output of pollution may be no more harmful, the alternatives are easier to reach. A smoker can, if they want to, make the decision, all by themselves, without the need for any governmental support or alternative, simply decide to quit. Patches and other devices have been put on the market to aid the transition that many people have already made - clearly showing its not exactly impossible, but perhaps depends on the person's willpower.
Obviously that last paragraph relies on the smoker *wanting* to quit. If they don't want to, I have no argument for that. However, if one person is unable to give up their car usage (but wants to) and another person is unable to give up their cigarette usage (but wants to), then I'd suggest that the latter person is more weak willed than the first person.
Light wrote:
> Just so you know, nicotene in small doses can also be beneficial to
> health as it has many of the same relaxant properties as alcohol. So
> how come you're willing to make the allowance for alcohol in small
> doses, but not for smoking?
Items such as red wine have been found to aid the heart. Various types of alcoholic drink can, in small doces, be of use to the body - something I should take notice of really, since I don't drink. However, smoking is different again. I had no idea nicotene was good for your health too, but even if that's the case, it makes little difference since that's not the main problem with cigarettes - the smoke side of things, even in small doces, can be damaging and there's no nicotene without smoke in cigarettes.
The research into new fuels and alternative means of transport is not something we can easily influence. Donations, ideas, our own research or perhaps an agreement to all refuse to pay for petrol (something that just can't happen in today's world) might cause something to happen, but there are plenty of people in this country and around the world who need to get to work, but can't feasibly take a bus or cycle/walk or any other method of transport, other than their own car. Whilst it is still causing pollution, at present there is little that can be done to avoid it.
When it comes to smoking, the same argument doesn't really hold. Whilst the output of pollution may be no more harmful, the alternatives are easier to reach. A smoker can, if they want to, make the decision, all by themselves, without the need for any governmental support or alternative, simply decide to quit. Patches and other devices have been put on the market to aid the transition that many people have already made - clearly showing its not exactly impossible, but perhaps depends on the person's willpower.
Obviously that last paragraph relies on the smoker *wanting* to quit. If they don't want to, I have no argument for that. However, if one person is unable to give up their car usage (but wants to) and another person is unable to give up their cigarette usage (but wants to), then I'd suggest that the latter person is more weak willed than the first person.
Light wrote:
> Just so you know, nicotene in small doses can also be beneficial to
> health as it has many of the same relaxant properties as alcohol. So
> how come you're willing to make the allowance for alcohol in small
> doses, but not for smoking?
Items such as red wine have been found to aid the heart. Various types of alcoholic drink can, in small doces, be of use to the body - something I should take notice of really, since I don't drink. However, smoking is different again. I had no idea nicotene was good for your health too, but even if that's the case, it makes little difference since that's not the main problem with cigarettes - the smoke side of things, even in small doces, can be damaging and there's no nicotene without smoke in cigarettes.
Light wrote:
> Rai wrote:
> There are better ways to commit slow suicide.
>
> There are indeed. Are you going to be the person to tell everyone how
> they are and are not allowed to do so?
Invite Dringo round for an i-pod party.
> Rai wrote:
> There are better ways to commit slow suicide.
>
> There are indeed. Are you going to be the person to tell everyone how
> they are and are not allowed to do so?
Invite Dringo round for an i-pod party.
Isn't it technically illegal anyway? Not that they'll arrest you if you're stupid enough to do it.
Rai wrote:
> There are better ways to commit slow suicide.
There are indeed. Are you going to be the person to tell everyone how they are and are not allowed to do so?
> There are better ways to commit slow suicide.
There are indeed. Are you going to be the person to tell everyone how they are and are not allowed to do so?
Nope, it means that the taxes on cigs in other countries go to other things. I was using the NHS example for this country; I'm happy to discuss the taxation benefits in other countries if you'd like me to?
And as to why the cars argument comes up? Well, it's because a teacher wouldn't stop pupil A from talking but allow pupil C to carry on talking at the same volume (to use your analogy). I'm intrigued as to why people put so much vehemence into their "smoking is evil cos it damages everyones health and so should be stopped", but are so willing to make as many allowances as possible for driving, and the pollution it causes.
We can expect a better future for cars? When? You're limiting yourself to national boundaries when looking at transport advances, yet you're trying to apply international standards to how we should look at smoking. You don't seem to have factored in the dearth of alternatives to petrol/diesel fuels for cars in America, or their refusal to implement any sort of strategy to reduce pollution from fossil fuels, or the extraordinary pollution caused in developing nations by inefficient cars?
You want to cut down on drinking too? So you're in favour of people having the personal liberty to cause pollution and cost lives by driving a car, but you're against the personal liberty of drinking and smoking? Why are you in favour of the personal liberties that you personally enjoy, but against the ones you don't? Isn't that a rather selfish attitude? (and no, I personally don't smoke, so...)
Just so you know, nicotene in small doses can also be beneficial to health as it has many of the same relaxant properties as alcohol. So how come you're willing to make the allowance for alcohol in small doses, but not for smoking? Are you assuming that everyone who smokes does so to excess?
Could you go into more detail about your "small amounts of alcohol = good" argument, because I'm inclined to think it's something you've been told, but that you haven't looked into in any detail.
And as to why the cars argument comes up? Well, it's because a teacher wouldn't stop pupil A from talking but allow pupil C to carry on talking at the same volume (to use your analogy). I'm intrigued as to why people put so much vehemence into their "smoking is evil cos it damages everyones health and so should be stopped", but are so willing to make as many allowances as possible for driving, and the pollution it causes.
We can expect a better future for cars? When? You're limiting yourself to national boundaries when looking at transport advances, yet you're trying to apply international standards to how we should look at smoking. You don't seem to have factored in the dearth of alternatives to petrol/diesel fuels for cars in America, or their refusal to implement any sort of strategy to reduce pollution from fossil fuels, or the extraordinary pollution caused in developing nations by inefficient cars?
You want to cut down on drinking too? So you're in favour of people having the personal liberty to cause pollution and cost lives by driving a car, but you're against the personal liberty of drinking and smoking? Why are you in favour of the personal liberties that you personally enjoy, but against the ones you don't? Isn't that a rather selfish attitude? (and no, I personally don't smoke, so...)
Just so you know, nicotene in small doses can also be beneficial to health as it has many of the same relaxant properties as alcohol. So how come you're willing to make the allowance for alcohol in small doses, but not for smoking? Are you assuming that everyone who smokes does so to excess?
Could you go into more detail about your "small amounts of alcohol = good" argument, because I'm inclined to think it's something you've been told, but that you haven't looked into in any detail.
munn wrote:
> I think, however, that there should be some sort of limit on drinking
> to try and cut down binge drinkers/alcoholics etc
So people who are sensible drinkers are punished for others actions?
> I think, however, that there should be some sort of limit on drinking
> to try and cut down binge drinkers/alcoholics etc
So people who are sensible drinkers are punished for others actions?
Page: