Viewing Thread:
"Cigarettes and alcohol"

I bought some fags this morning, and thanks to the new legislation on advertising, they now come with a warning that covers over half the pack. Mine says “SMOKING KILLS”.
Good job they told me that, I had no idea. Wow, just think – there I was thinking I was going to live forever but now I guess I’m doomed to pass away like a mortal.
Bummer.

Now, it’s all very well the government suddenly taking such an interest in my well-being and physical health. But something just doesn’t add up for me.
They want to protect me from indulging in something that may be harmful should I continue over a long period of time. Fair enough, thanks for caring.
What I’m wondering is when they will do the same for alcohol?
When we will have warnings on beer that says “Warning, alcohol kills. Oh, and it can also make you obnoxious, violent, unfit to drive, impairs functionality of your body, can induce vomiting if ingested, has been known to exaggerate feelings of depression and unhappiness when consumed in quantity and is also responsible for unprotected sex – which can lead to sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted children and even death”

Seems a little unfair to me to single out cigarettes. Sure they may eventually cause cancer, but that’s all. That’s the most serious thing that can happen to me should I continue to smoke, I die.
Same holds true with alcohol though. Smoking damages the lungs, true. Drinking damages the liver.

So the government decides to ban tobacco advertising in an attempt to “prevent youngsters from starting”.
What they neglect to mention is that cigarette advertising is not aimed at luring new customers, it exists to promote brand loyalty. The idea behind is not “Let’s get people smoking”, but let’s convince the addict that our brand is better than their current choice.
But they have decided to band cigarette ads. Oh, but not in Formula One for another couple of years. This has no link to Bernie Eccleston donating over £2 million to the Labour Party though, and you’d be a fool and a terrorist sympathiser to think so.

So why ban advertising? If the government feels that strongly about it, then ban it. But they wont, because of the billions generated in revenue from smokers. If they were that concerned, they’d treat it like they do cannabis (which is less harmful than cigarettes because of the lack of carbon monoxide, carcinogens and ammonia included to keep it burning. That’s why joints go out so easily, there are no chemicals impregnated to ensure it stays lit).
Why do you think government got so huffy about Duty Free and the abolishment of personal limitations (or at least the relaxing of amount)? Because we all go to France, pay half-price and the UK loses out hundreds of thousands of pounds in taxation.
Bad smokers! Imagine that, an addict seeking the cheapest method of feeding the addiction.

Yet smoking has become almost as intolerable as child-molesting in the eyes of some people. People who, in all probability, drink.
Now to me, drink is far worse than a fag. Why?
Because I cannot ride up on the pavement and kill a child because I smoked 9 before driving home that night.
Because I am not going to have a fight with a stranger because I’ve been out smoking all night with my mates.
Because I can never end up homeless because of a raging nicotine addiction.
Because an alcoholic is unable to function correctly without a drink, whereas a smoker just gets angry.
Now I’m not saying ban drink, I’m saying take a step back and think like a reasonable human being instead of reacting immediately and condemning.
It’s an addiction, other addictions are looked upon as medical conditions. But not smoking.
“Well it stinks” – so does someone out boozing all night
“It can damage my lungs” – so can a drunk driver
“It can kill if used correctly” – so does alcohol.
“It’s anti-social” – worse than public disorder and violence?

Where I get really angry though is the smokescreen (pun intended) that is deployed every single year come budget day.
Fags rise by 10-15p a pack every year. Yet spirits and beer rise minutely, if at all.
Yet more people drink than smoke, it would be faster to collect revenue by taxing alcohol more than cigarettes.
So why doesn’t this happen?
Simple.

Because if booze is cheap, it’s the easiest way to escape the problems you are faced with every day.
You work in a climate of fear and uncertainty about job security. You are being told over and over about terrorist threats and tanks on the streets. You worry about money, whether you’ll be happy, whether your kids will grow up well and safe.
A climate of induced fear and paranoia.
And a carpet-bomb method of advertising a quick and easy way to escape those troubles – Have a drink!
Get drunk and forget your worries, it’ll be alright.
Soap Operas with the pub as central gathering point. Commercials on tv for beer, ads in cinemas making booze look cool, alco-pops aimed at the lucrative teenage/underage drink market.
Hook ‘em young and they’ll be in forever.
Flavoured vodkas, jelly-shots, shandy (for kids to drink and pretend to be drunk! Laugh at your 7yr old already displaying signs of seeing alcohol as an amusement center!!!!).

Keep the population frightened of imminent attack from Arabs or immigrants, they’ll be compliant and too scared to question things like military vehicles at airports.
But hey, keeping them scared isn’t enough because after a few months of waiting for this soon-to-happen end of world event that never occurs, they’ll start to question you.
But don’t panic, booze is cheap and readily available. Encourage your citizens to drink. They’ll soon forget about things and be so terrified by the news each day and papers screaming about Albanian refugees that before you know it, we’ll all be begging for identity cards to keep us safe and could we please have CCTV in our homes in case Saddam uses his bombs on us.
Let’s just stay in and lock the door, if things get too hard we can have a drink and feel better.

Alcoholism is an affliction, just as smoking is. Nobody forces you to drink, just as nobody forced me to smoke.
So why is a substance that can alter moods, destroy brain cells, incite violence and hatred, affect your reactions and perceptions (wow, it’s almost like I’m talking about cannabis – except for the violence) deemed acceptable and ok to promote on tv, cinema, magazines and billboards?

Again, for the reactionaries or those that haven’t manage to reach the bottom – I’m not saying ban alcohol.
I’m saying grow up and think for yourself instead of meekly accepting what you are told.
Because cigarettes don’t kill people, people do.
Let’s ban us instead.

Insane Bartender wrote:
> If anything, smoking is the worse, simply because of the stigma it has
> as a cool thing to do, something people like Goatboy do little to
> discourage.

I actually think alcohol is worse. If someone wants to pay to stick various life shortening chemicals into their body then no problem here - it reduces the weight on the government for pensions in the future as well as for employers who are struggling to meet pension contributions, not to mention that those who started really young will die even sooner thus reducing job competition for the rest of us, all in all a good deal.

Now a drinker ? We all know the problems caused by alcohol and the numerous town and city centres that become no go zones for anyone not wanting to get caught up in drunken violence and disorder at chucking out time, we all know the number of drunk drivers who kill themselves and others, and so on. The smokers kill themselves, drinkers kill and injur others and expect sympathy for it when it all goes wrong.

I don't drink, don't smoke, but have no problem with anyone who wants to do either, I do take offence when doing so inconveniences me, and more often than not it is the drinkers who do so. Endless times people at Uni whine about being late, missing deadlines e.t.c. because of drinking. Do I give a $hit ? No. I don't care if someone has swallowed ten bottles of vodka and killed themselves to be quite honest. Right, end of rant.

~~Belldandy~~

> Let’s ban us instead.

That single line made me laugh my @rse off.

Stryke wrote:
> Yeah, but in no way to the same extent as cigarettes. Isn't this topic
> about which is the greater of two evils rather than a Drinkers Vs Fag
> People?
>
> :D

In theory. The fact that the fag people are trying to fob off their habit as unfairly or unjustly discriminated against doesn't really help.

Just because there is something else that can be a danger to the public that isn't treated as bad doesn't mean that the government should let up on fags.


As I said earlier in the thread, I really don't care if the government bans alcohol advertising and slaps big stickers on beer cans and bottles saying alcohol rots your liver.

Smoking is cool. Bwahaahahahah!!!

If making yourself smell like crap, turning your fingers yellow, making you unpleasant to kiss, burning little holes in your carpets and clothing and ruining your heart and lungs is cool, I'd much rather live my life as an anti-cool geek of nothingshort of epic proportions.

Beer makes you incoherent, rowdy, smelly, stupid and kills your liver, but no-one over the age of 18 considers it "cool". It's just something to do when you feel you need it.

If anything, smoking is the worse, simply because of the stigma it has as a cool thing to do, something people like Goatboy do little to discourage.

Insane Bartender wrote:
>
> So alcohol isn't taxed already then?

--

Yeah, but in no way to the same extent as cigarettes. Isn't this topic about which is the greater of two evils rather than a Drinkers Vs Fag People?

:D

I think the hype over cigarettes is due to the unstoppable affects. Getting lung cancer could happen whether you smoke one cigarette or one thousand. Alcohol only damages the liver when drunk in excess.

But getting so drunk I lose control of my sphincter is fun, and smoking makes me look big and clever.

;-p

Yep, I agree, it does entice new people in. If it just obtained brand loyalty, then eventually all the smokers would be dead. Who'd be left?

Goatboy wrote:
> So the government decides to ban tobacco advertising in an attempt to
> “prevent youngsters from starting”.
> What they neglect to mention is that cigarette advertising is not
> aimed at luring new customers, it exists to promote brand loyalty. The
> idea behind is not “Let’s get people smoking”, but let’s convince the
> addict that our brand is better than their current choice.


Funny, but I've heard this argument a couple of times before.
And only ever from people employed by tobacco companies.

Why do people start smoking? Because it looks cool, I think that's generally the answer. That or peer pressure.
I figure advertising has to help place smoking further forwards in everyones' consciousness, and yes, further the opinion that it's cool.

I think it's actually pretty hard to argue that it doesn't lure new smokers.
And if we can assume smoking to be bad, a ban on advertising seems like it might be good.


The governement may well have some ulterior motives for their line on smoking, particularly where it differs from their line on alcohol. But then again there's a tougher line on illegal soft drugs. Why? Because of more serious health risks.
Meanwhile moderate drinking, as has been mentioned, has health benefits, and unlike smoking is enjoyable without (generally) requiring any addiction (mild or otherwise).
So perhaps a togher line on cigs than alcohol is legitimately justified?

Insane Bartender wrote:
> So alcohol isn't taxed already then?

Don't be silly! Our government is much nicer than that.

Stryke wrote:
> Government hops on a bandwagon. Simple. If there was a social stigma
> around alcohol, they'd probably start with the massive taxation on
> that. They use the anti-tobacco movement as a reason for money. If we
> were early 1920s America, they'd be taxing the hell out of beer.


So alcohol isn't taxed already then?