The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
What do the government recon they can achieve by these new smoking warnings on packets? Do you think that people who already smoke are going to read them and think 'Oh. Smoking kills? I'd better stop then.'
No. These adverts have been on cig packets since before I started smoking, and while I know they are there, I still choose to smoke because I want to, and I will quit when I want to. The day that I quit is allready decided, it's the day the docter tells me I'm going to be a father, and warnings that cover half the packet instead of a fifth isn't going to influence me or anyone else.
The only reason that these new warnings have been added to the cigarettes is that they are under pressure from anti-smoking groups. The thing is, is that the government want people to continue smoking. It's a massive earner for them in the extortionate tax they apply to cigarettes, in the full knowledge that because many people are dependant on them, people will buy them regardless of the price. If it wern't for this, they would have been banned from sale a long time ago.
These new warnings do nothing to change the views of existing smokers, and new people choose to start smoking regardless of the warnings for their own personal reasons. It's like when they banned cigarette advertising in Formula 1. How many smokers do you know started because their favourite F1 team had it plastered down the side of their cars? The removal of the ads had a massive impact on Formula 1, with companies struggling to keep in the season from lack of funds.
The government will continue to rob and mock smokers as they please, and there's nothing smokers can do about it other than quit. Doesn't that suck?
Right, I'm off for a fag.
ps. Don't you just hate it when your enjoyment of a cig is taken away by a desperate need for a whizz?
No. These adverts have been on cig packets since before I started smoking, and while I know they are there, I still choose to smoke because I want to, and I will quit when I want to. The day that I quit is allready decided, it's the day the docter tells me I'm going to be a father, and warnings that cover half the packet instead of a fifth isn't going to influence me or anyone else.
The only reason that these new warnings have been added to the cigarettes is that they are under pressure from anti-smoking groups. The thing is, is that the government want people to continue smoking. It's a massive earner for them in the extortionate tax they apply to cigarettes, in the full knowledge that because many people are dependant on them, people will buy them regardless of the price. If it wern't for this, they would have been banned from sale a long time ago.
These new warnings do nothing to change the views of existing smokers, and new people choose to start smoking regardless of the warnings for their own personal reasons. It's like when they banned cigarette advertising in Formula 1. How many smokers do you know started because their favourite F1 team had it plastered down the side of their cars? The removal of the ads had a massive impact on Formula 1, with companies struggling to keep in the season from lack of funds.
The government will continue to rob and mock smokers as they please, and there's nothing smokers can do about it other than quit. Doesn't that suck?
Right, I'm off for a fag.
ps. Don't you just hate it when your enjoyment of a cig is taken away by a desperate need for a whizz?
Page:
This is how I see it: I don't care. If someone wants to smoke then that's their choice, and unless they're sitting in a no-smoking zone or actually blowing smoke in my face, then I don't give a monkeys what they do to their body. People who do stuff like that are ball-lickers anyway, it ain't the cigarettes that do it.
You don't get tee-totallers complaining about people drinking alcohol, do you?
You don't get tee-totallers complaining about people drinking alcohol, do you?
Funny?
It would be like 28 days later, only instead of the "infected" you'd have the "withdrawn", and they'd be running full pelt across the lawn, bloodshot eyes fixed with a single purpose.
They want in.
It would be like 28 days later, only instead of the "infected" you'd have the "withdrawn", and they'd be running full pelt across the lawn, bloodshot eyes fixed with a single purpose.
They want in.
Mr Snuggly wrote:
> I'm starting to think the world would be a terrible place with
> cigarettes
I take it you mean without? Couldn't agree more, if everyone stopped smoking in this country for say a month, the country would be in ruins.
Would be funny to see though :)
> I'm starting to think the world would be a terrible place with
> cigarettes
I take it you mean without? Couldn't agree more, if everyone stopped smoking in this country for say a month, the country would be in ruins.
Would be funny to see though :)
I'm starting to think the world would be a terrible place with cigarettes - the government would make no money so they'd have to start taxing, er, breathing or something. And ex-smokers would go around generally being irritable to everyone.
Simon Says wrote:
> Does anyone remember death tar cigarettes.
Yep, still got my packet that I bought while in London for the day about 5 years ago :)
Never stopped me from smoking either, neither do the massive signs. At the moment mine reads on a pack of JPS "Roken is dodelijk" (front) and "Uw arts of uw apotheker kan u helpen te stoppen met roken" (back) which gets comments when in the pub.
On the subject of signs, bought a pack in Dublin at New Year and on the back it said "Smoking lowers sperm count in males"! Great form of contraception then :)
*carries on smoking*
> Does anyone remember death tar cigarettes.
Yep, still got my packet that I bought while in London for the day about 5 years ago :)
Never stopped me from smoking either, neither do the massive signs. At the moment mine reads on a pack of JPS "Roken is dodelijk" (front) and "Uw arts of uw apotheker kan u helpen te stoppen met roken" (back) which gets comments when in the pub.
On the subject of signs, bought a pack in Dublin at New Year and on the back it said "Smoking lowers sperm count in males"! Great form of contraception then :)
*carries on smoking*
I was in a pub yesterday and a casual smoker got a packet of cigarettes with one of the new extra large warnings on them and commented on it being depressing. I think that if they take the fun out of smoking it might go some way towards helping, and with deterents like that and extra tax etc it might go some way towards helping.
Does anyone remember death tar cigarettes.
Warning, Smoking these cigarettes WILL kill you
Does anyone remember death tar cigarettes.
Warning, Smoking these cigarettes WILL kill you
Goatboy wrote:
> Didn't we already do this argument this week?
SOrry, Diddn't know that. Ignore this one then.
> Didn't we already do this argument this week?
SOrry, Diddn't know that. Ignore this one then.
cookie monster wrote:
> Christ! And you will continue to pay that?
No, me and a few mates go on a booze cruise every 3 months or so and get them on the cheap.
> Christ! And you will continue to pay that?
No, me and a few mates go on a booze cruise every 3 months or so and get them on the cheap.
Didn't we already do this argument this week?
*checks back through threads*
*checks back through threads*
Slaveunit wrote:
> Nowhere near. Tax on cigarettes is about £2.80 per pack.
Christ! And you will continue to pay that?
> Nowhere near. Tax on cigarettes is about £2.80 per pack.
Christ! And you will continue to pay that?
Page: