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.

Agree with Stryke on that one.

Isn't drink good for you in moderation or something like that?
:-)

There you go then, excellent. I've read you saying before that you don't like to share your fumes. This is good. We don't want your fumes. This is equally good. I have quite a few friends that smoke, and they're absolutely OK about walking away if they light up. If there's more smokers around, us non-smokers walk away until they've finished. Not a problem. The world should work like that. Superb.

I absolutely agree Stryke.

I'm glad smoking is banned in aeroplanes, buses, trains, restaurants etc and if somebody asks me to put it out, if I'm not outside or in a designated smoking area then I'll consider doing so perfectly reasonably.

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.

The problem with smoking for other people, I think, is passive smoking. You can't 'passive drink'. Unless it was neat alcohol and you got the fumes, heh. To non-smokers, the fumes from a cigarette are irritating, unclean and smell bad. Before you go off your nut, Goaty, I'm not saying that smokers should be stopped. I just think they should be stopped from doing it in an area of non-smokers. Drinkers don't deliberately pour their drinks on other people, smokers shouldn't force their fumes on other people. Thats all. No 'don't smoke' message here, although I wouldn't myself.

I agree

And I don't smoke, also you sounded like my dad and he gave up smoking 20 years ago.

Goatboy wrote:
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.

Genius.

I have never been assualted by a sober person, nor have I started a fight whilst sober, intentionally.

The government know alochol is worse for people. Infact if there was a ban on alcohol or it was made more expensive crime would probably go down and society would be more 'peaceful'. However, its this reason exactly that stops the government placing out warnings and television ad's, or promoting and funding a 'Quit Drinking Helping'.
Its how they make their money.

Without alcochol, we would all be more peaceful. I deteste alcohol. Its way too close to home. Yet I drink.

I made no point there whatsoever.
Hey ho.

Fair point

Flanders wrote:
I would rather face a smoker
> walking down the street late on a Friday night than somebody fuelled
> on to many snakebites.

I would rather face somebody who'd had too many than somebody who'd had just the right amount.

To make him want to kick you sh*tless.