Viewing Thread:
""If You Smoke You Stink""

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]

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?

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.

Machiavelli wrote:
> 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.

Well, yes, but just as you say it'd be easier to ban smoking altogether than get smokers to simply not do it in public, the same is true of alcohol. It'd be easier to simply ban it than to make sure no one got too drunk wouldn't it?



> You've convinced me. Lets legalise heroin, we can use it to put
> our children to sleep.

I think you're well aware that heroine and tobacco aren't in the same league... ;)



> Not at all. I'm all for protecting human rights but i dont
> consider smoking is one of them.

But it's still currently a right that many people enjoy. It just seems you're very ready to throw away rights because you don't see them as useful or beneficial to yourself.



> 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?

Well, yes, either way round would be more consistent. The way it is now is hypocrisy.



> Fair point. When the medical trials on cannabis are finished
> though, there wont be any excuse left.

To ban it or legalise it...? ;)



> 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.

I seriously do not think society as a whole is being moved towards a ban. I think more people would support one now than a decade or even a four/five years ago, but I think it'll be a very very long time before a majority of the population supports a full ban.



> 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.

Well, kinda, I assumed you just meant 'out of sight'... But still, I'm sure you're aware that out of sight doesn't mean it doesn't go on, and at least now the government benefits from taxes from tobacco. Ban it, and you get people selling tobacco and the NHS etc. getting no money. Just as many (or very close to just as many) people will still smoke, by your own admission they just won't do it in quite as public places. And then you get the age-old problems with drug-dealers benefitting from tobacco sales, and this money then going to people associated with other criminal activity. One of the major reasons for legalising cannabis in my eyes is that legal or not, a lot of people will use it, so why not make it taxable and give the NHS or other public services the money made? Based on how many people have tried cannabis, I doubt legalisation of it will drastically increase the number of people who try it or use it regularly... Similarly the other way around for tobacco. Making it illegal won't stop (m)any people smoking, but will stop all the monetary benefits from people smoking. You just shoot yourself in the foot, because the problem still exists, you just gain nothing from it anymore.

I sat with someone tonight while they smoked a joint and got high in their kitchen.
It didn't stink. It smelt lovely.

Anyway..

I like the sound of the smoking at home. How about in prisons? A prisoner's cell, to them, is like a home but isn't there a law which says they can't smoke in their cells because the POs have to go inside the cells and check them and everything?

I'm not even sure where I heard that, I might've made it up.

Sibs wrote:
> You've convinced me. Lets legalise heroin, we can use it to put
> our children to sleep.
>
> I think you're well aware that heroine and tobacco aren't in the
> same league... ;)

I was speaking to an ex heroin addict a while back, they couldn't quit smoking though.
Yeah i was being facetious. Your point seemed to be that if people enjoy something, it should be legal. That was the only reason you gave for people having the right to smoke. I dont think it's a good enough reason which is why i dont think that right should be protected.
Fox hunting is more justified than smoking, at least it serves a purpose of protecting livestock (Even if they are utter bloodthirsty lying b***ards.)
I hate fox hunting by the way, not condoning it in any sense.
You get the idea anyway. Just because you enjoy something doesn't mean it's a protected right.

> It just seems you're very ready to throw away rights because you don't
> see them as useful or beneficial to yourself.

Useful or beneficial to anyone. Most people dislike it infact.

You make a fair point about the lack of revenue.
I think by making it a blackmarket habit, you cut the ammount of people who'll do it and how much. God bless the black market and their jacked up prices. People would be reduced to smoking in the privacy of their own home (or other places) and nowhere else.
Cannabis will never be legalised in this country because Joe Public is too stupid to be responsible. Also why would the government want to send such a mixed message when they've spent so much money trying to get people to stop smoking.

With fox-hunting though it is more the fact they are killing animals (justifying it through 'oh, they kill our livestock') in a very inhumane way. It's still legal to simply shoot the foxes I think(?). But I think the main outcry was about the inhumane manner in which the killing took place (and probably also the fact foxes are 'cute' animals too, you never se anyone protesting against the way people exterminate rats or suchlike do you?).

Anyway, my point about smoking and it being potentially harmful is that it can only be harmful to the person doing it, as long as they make sure not to smoke around non-smokers. Yes, it also effects others if they get ill/die, but then again all the other things I listed as people enjoying and being risky will also cause families grief if the people engaged in the activities are injured or die.

My point wasn't that anything that anyone could or might find enjoyable should be legal (hell, some people find it enjoyable to have sex with 12 year olds, that certainly shouldn't be legal!), more that if something can be enjoyed without harming others we shouldn't be rushing to ban it. I think smoking falls into that category. Many other more addictive drugs don't, simply because they begin to consume someone's life. As we've already agreed, smoking isn't really comprable to something like heroin.

Sibs wrote:
> My point wasn't that anything that anyone could or might find
> enjoyable should be legal (hell, some people find it enjoyable
> to have sex with 12 year olds, that certainly shouldn't be
> legal!), more that if something can be enjoyed without harming
> others we shouldn't be rushing to ban it. I think smoking falls
> into that category. Many other more addictive drugs don't,
> simply because they begin to consume someone's life. As we've
> already agreed, smoking isn't really comprable to something like
> heroin.

I dont remember agreeing to that. I see many similarities.
I dont think smoking does, or ever will fall into the catergory of not effecting anyone. It takes money from the pockets of parents, influences their kids to take up the habit and it's just a generally nasty habit with no benefit apart from people enjoying it.
This idea that you can do anything without it influencing someone else is also wrong.

What about someone who has no kids to raise and smokes alone at home or in their garden...? The health problems that come with smoking still effect others, but that's true of anything harmful to health. Based on that we should ban any and all fatty foods because whether or not someone is willing to take the risk of heart failure, their friends/family shouldn't have to deal with the persons 'mistakes'.

Sibs wrote:
> What about someone who has no kids to raise and smokes alone at
> home or in their garden...? The health problems that come with
> smoking still effect others, but that's true of anything harmful
> to health. Based on that we should ban any and all fatty foods

Eating is essential. Drinking is essential. Smoking is not essential.
I've already said i accept people will do what they want in their own homes but I want the clear message from the government saying it's not acceptable anywhere else.
In the end, life will kill you and you cant ban everything. What you can do is ban the pointless things that offend people and that'll kill you quicker.

But something like a Triple Big Mac With Cheese And Bacon (I'm not sure if it actually exists, but I'm sure something similar does...) isn't 'necessary'. There's thousands of other things you can eat for sustinance that are far more healthy and far less likely to cause you clogged arteries or heart disease or whatever. I'm just saying, based on your argument for banning smoking there are a hell of a lot of other things that should also be banned...