The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
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.
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.
Page:
I understood it perfectly. Goatboy, as always, pointing out governmental hypocrisy. I believe I put my view on the matter across quite well.
Goatboy wrote:
> The point is, for the last time:
>
> The government makes a token gesture to appear concerned by singling
> out a social pariah.
> Yet all the while continues to promote alcohol, which is condusive to
> keeping you docile and compliant.
Nah, I don't really think that's true. Alcohol has been popular long before governments have been around able to play around with such subltle social engineering. This argument may be applied to the use of the media etc. but i think applying it to alcohol is stretching it. Also, I would hardly say the it promotes alcohol, rather it is happy to take tax revenue from the alcohol industry.
Quite simply the government would have no real benefit in attacking drinking as a social pariah in the same way that it does smoking. It is profitable, and when used correctly, not particularly harmful. In fact regular moderate use has considereable health benefits.
Smoking tobacco is harmful at all doses so it seems fair enough that this is singled out in a way that alcohol is not, without resorting to such paranoid explanations.
> The point is, for the last time:
>
> The government makes a token gesture to appear concerned by singling
> out a social pariah.
> Yet all the while continues to promote alcohol, which is condusive to
> keeping you docile and compliant.
Nah, I don't really think that's true. Alcohol has been popular long before governments have been around able to play around with such subltle social engineering. This argument may be applied to the use of the media etc. but i think applying it to alcohol is stretching it. Also, I would hardly say the it promotes alcohol, rather it is happy to take tax revenue from the alcohol industry.
Quite simply the government would have no real benefit in attacking drinking as a social pariah in the same way that it does smoking. It is profitable, and when used correctly, not particularly harmful. In fact regular moderate use has considereable health benefits.
Smoking tobacco is harmful at all doses so it seems fair enough that this is singled out in a way that alcohol is not, without resorting to such paranoid explanations.
Blinking heck - the second post you have done today that I understand and most of the half wits take totally out of context.
I neither drink anymore nor smoke but as I have told you before I am well aware of what drink can do to people.
Smoking and Drinking can both be used in the same way in moderation to adi relaxation or whatever, both are just as harmful in the long run. You dont have to be a heavy drinker to suffer liver damage in the same way that you dont have to be a heavy smoker to suffer lung damage, a large part of what long term effect these things have on our bodies is due to our general state of health etc etc.
I agree - to remove the hypocrisy (sp!) then the fair way would be for both to carry health warnings - as it is relevant to both and both should be treated in the same way. I would rather face a smoker walking down the street late on a Friday night than somebody fuelled on to many snakebites.
I neither drink anymore nor smoke but as I have told you before I am well aware of what drink can do to people.
Smoking and Drinking can both be used in the same way in moderation to adi relaxation or whatever, both are just as harmful in the long run. You dont have to be a heavy drinker to suffer liver damage in the same way that you dont have to be a heavy smoker to suffer lung damage, a large part of what long term effect these things have on our bodies is due to our general state of health etc etc.
I agree - to remove the hypocrisy (sp!) then the fair way would be for both to carry health warnings - as it is relevant to both and both should be treated in the same way. I would rather face a smoker walking down the street late on a Friday night than somebody fuelled on to many snakebites.
Goatboy wrote:
It is a valid point about the advertising. Alchohol does kill and cause ill health. It also ruins lives and relationshiips. I have never heard of anyone splitting with their partner 'because they smoke to much'.
It has taken a long time for the people who lobby the government to get advertising for cigarettes banned so, who knows, maybe they will start on drink next.
> Seems a little unfair to me to single out cigarettes.
Seems unfair to me as well
> 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.
Don't know how much revenue the government has lost out on by doing this from my partner and I. We have been getting cigarettes from abroad for several years now. Currently we have nearly 10.000 cigarettes in a cupboard. Non for resale - just for us (I'm having to rotate our stock). I recently went abroad and brought back 3200 but I have a friend who goes regularly and always fetches me 2.000 back each time.
> 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.
The government has to put cigs up so much as more and more people stop smoking or buy from abroad and the revenue they receive goes down. This is a catch 22 as the more the prices rise the more tempting a quick, cheap trip over to the continent seems. They don't have to nerve to raise alcohol by too much as it would upset too many people and as more people drink then smoke the tax cost is spread thinner.
Quick side question - if the government puts a pint up by 2p in the budget why do the pubs put their prices up by 5p?
It is a valid point about the advertising. Alchohol does kill and cause ill health. It also ruins lives and relationshiips. I have never heard of anyone splitting with their partner 'because they smoke to much'.
It has taken a long time for the people who lobby the government to get advertising for cigarettes banned so, who knows, maybe they will start on drink next.
> Seems a little unfair to me to single out cigarettes.
Seems unfair to me as well
> 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.
Don't know how much revenue the government has lost out on by doing this from my partner and I. We have been getting cigarettes from abroad for several years now. Currently we have nearly 10.000 cigarettes in a cupboard. Non for resale - just for us (I'm having to rotate our stock). I recently went abroad and brought back 3200 but I have a friend who goes regularly and always fetches me 2.000 back each time.
> 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.
The government has to put cigs up so much as more and more people stop smoking or buy from abroad and the revenue they receive goes down. This is a catch 22 as the more the prices rise the more tempting a quick, cheap trip over to the continent seems. They don't have to nerve to raise alcohol by too much as it would upset too many people and as more people drink then smoke the tax cost is spread thinner.
Quick side question - if the government puts a pint up by 2p in the budget why do the pubs put their prices up by 5p?
Unbeliever wrote:
> Goatboy wrote:
> >you are being encouraged to spend your time wasted without trying
> to change things or ask questions.
>
> Would that be the reason behind the softly-softly approach to cannabis
> as well, I wonder?
Cannabis WILL be slowly introduced, and taxed heavily, as so many people use it.
> Goatboy wrote:
> >you are being encouraged to spend your time wasted without trying
> to change things or ask questions.
>
> Would that be the reason behind the softly-softly approach to cannabis
> as well, I wonder?
Cannabis WILL be slowly introduced, and taxed heavily, as so many people use it.
Ironic: http://news.bbc.co.uk /1/hi/health/2797233.stm
Goatboy wrote:
>you are being encouraged to spend your time wasted without trying to change things or ask questions.
Would that be the reason behind the softly-softly approach to cannabis as well, I wonder?
>you are being encouraged to spend your time wasted without trying to change things or ask questions.
Would that be the reason behind the softly-softly approach to cannabis as well, I wonder?
Goatboy wrote:
> Drinking damages the liver.
Which can regenerate...but that isn't my main point.
> So why ban advertising?
Because they know it won't harm sales too much. An addict isn't goin to see and advert and go "Oh yeah, I'm addicted to that, gotta get me some".
> 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.
Although you can harm the child by smoking.
> Because I can never end up homeless because of a raging nicotine
> addiction.
I wouldn't say it's impossible.
> Because an alcoholic is unable to function correctly without a drink,
> whereas a smoker just gets angry.
Leading to afformentioned fight...?
But I do agree that it's a fairly hypocritical stance taken by the government. I'm not sticking up for drinking because I neither drink nor smoke.
> Drinking damages the liver.
Which can regenerate...but that isn't my main point.
> So why ban advertising?
Because they know it won't harm sales too much. An addict isn't goin to see and advert and go "Oh yeah, I'm addicted to that, gotta get me some".
> 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.
Although you can harm the child by smoking.
> Because I can never end up homeless because of a raging nicotine
> addiction.
I wouldn't say it's impossible.
> Because an alcoholic is unable to function correctly without a drink,
> whereas a smoker just gets angry.
Leading to afformentioned fight...?
But I do agree that it's a fairly hypocritical stance taken by the government. I'm not sticking up for drinking because I neither drink nor smoke.
The point is, for the last time:
The government makes a token gesture to appear concerned by singling out a social pariah.
Yet all the while continues to promote alcohol, which is condusive to keeping you docile and compliant.
THAT is what I'm trying to say, but as happens time and time again, people are unable to distance themselves from the mantra of "smoking is bad smoking is bad smoking is bad" to consider that maybe, just maybe, you are being encouraged to spend your time wasted without trying to change things or ask questions.
The government makes a token gesture to appear concerned by singling out a social pariah.
Yet all the while continues to promote alcohol, which is condusive to keeping you docile and compliant.
THAT is what I'm trying to say, but as happens time and time again, people are unable to distance themselves from the mantra of "smoking is bad smoking is bad smoking is bad" to consider that maybe, just maybe, you are being encouraged to spend your time wasted without trying to change things or ask questions.
Goatboy wrote:
> You idiots.
>
> The post wasn't even about health-effects or whether smoking is bad or
> not.
Okay, so the government is happy to warn us about the dangers of cigs while it happily concedes that it takes the money earned in tax off us. Yet it still prints warnings on cig packets...so what? My friend showed me a packet of cigs from canada - they go one step further by printing a picture of a diseased lung or (if you're really lucky) a floppy willy (the effects of impotence no doubt).
So they won't give alcohol the same recognition...well it doesn't surprise me.
> You idiots.
>
> The post wasn't even about health-effects or whether smoking is bad or
> not.
Okay, so the government is happy to warn us about the dangers of cigs while it happily concedes that it takes the money earned in tax off us. Yet it still prints warnings on cig packets...so what? My friend showed me a packet of cigs from canada - they go one step further by printing a picture of a diseased lung or (if you're really lucky) a floppy willy (the effects of impotence no doubt).
So they won't give alcohol the same recognition...well it doesn't surprise me.
Page: