Smoking Rant

[blas87]

People won't stop eating at McDonalds no matter how many fear-mongering people lecture them or whatever they watch on the news, and people aren't going to quit smoking because a new study comes out every day about the dangers of it.

I will just keep smoking my "blue" brand of smokes, and if you don't like that I smoke, don't go in my car and don't go outside with me.

[Andara Bledin]

"Light" cigarettes are manufactured to reduce the tar a smoker takes in with each drag. A machine used to determine the facts of the matter confirmed that there was less tar per drag with light branded cigarettes than with those not so branded.

How that is considered false advertising baffles me.

Then again, the report that confirmed that the processes used by cigarette manufacturers were actually effective in doing what they claimed they did then went on to dismiss the fact that they were not actually committing false advertising by going on a biased little diatribe on the dangers of smoking, as if it were even remotely in doubt.

If people weren't so outright zealous in their attack on cigarettes and smokers, they'd probably get a lot further in curbing smoking.

TLDR: "Light" cigarettes served less tar per drag, meaning that it wasn't actually false advertising, but lawmakers just sort of blew that fact off so they could go after big tobacco some more.

^-.-^

[blas87]

If people weren't so outright zealous in their attack on cigarettes and smokers, they'd probably get a lot further in curbing smoking.

^-.-^

That, right there, is why I like and respect you so much.

When I felt like quitting before, I took it upon myself to get hypnotized. Didn't work in the long run, but no one guilted me into it or forced me to.

When I cut down to half a pack a day, I did that on my own time and from my own need/desire. No one bellowing at me or lecturing me.

[Gravekeeper]

TLDR: "Light" cigarettes served less tar per drag, meaning that it wasn't actually false advertising, but lawmakers just sort of blew that fact off so they could go after big tobacco some more.

The problem is studies showed that tar and nicotine content were directly linked. People smoking "Light" cigarettes often believed they were more healthy ( Even though studies showed no real health benefit overall ) thanks to the advertising and ended up smoking more of them anyway to get the same amount of nicotine they needed.

The "smoking machine" they use to measure tar is a 2 second buff every minute until the end of the butt is reached. Even if you knew a smoker that behaves exactly like that to begin with. When using a light cigarette, studies showed people take longer, deeper drags because they're trying to get more nicotine out of it. Completely negating the supposed benefit.

The term "Light" is regulated by the FDA in regards to food to denote food that is healthier for you. So there's a very real branding connection in people's minds when they see "Light" on a cigarette pack.

I'm not an anti-smoking zealot or anything, but lets not pretend the US Tobacco industry's marketing department isn't a bunch of douchebags. ;p

[dendawg]

lets not pretend the any industry's marketing department isn't a bunch of douchebags.

Fixed that for ya.

[bex1218]

Yeah, that's it! Its not the fact that cigarette companies were marketing them as healthier and then studies proved it was total bullshit or anything. It must be just stupid people.

=p

Stupid ass people can go in all directions .

I prefer my full flavored menthol. But if I am bumming off of someone I'll smoke anything. But thats a rare occassion

[DrFaroohk]

All light means is the holes around the filter. Take a close look at a cigarette and you'll see them. Ultralights have like 3 rows of holes, lights will have like 2.

Not that it matters much as you block up the holes with your fingers anyway.

[Andara Bledin]

...ended up smoking more of them anyway to get the same amount of nicotine they needed.

So, does that mean that we're going to start going after diet drinks and foods since people end up eating/drinking more of those to get the sugar they need?

It's a stupid argument. It's taking personal responsibility and tossing it out the window. People know that smoking is likely to lead to cancer and lung disease and heart problems. They've known that fact since our parents (and in some cases grandparents) were young. Anyone who claims that Big Tobacco is responsible for their developing health issues as a result of their decision to start smoking is an asshole, full stop.

And people who support that attitude aren't much better. Until everybody admits that it's the smoker who is responsible for the damage they do to themselves from smoking, it's just going to keep making it more difficult for smokers to quit. They have to own their own responsibility before they can own the responsibility necessary to take control and quit, and anyone who undermines that by blaming everything but them is enabling their habit, not empowering them to quit.

^-.-^

[blas87]

Exactly. I've known since day 1 that it was bad. I would never blame marketing or Big Tobacco for my own addiction.

I never felt that "lights" were a safer option, I only started smoking them when full flavored cigarettes began to be too much for me to inhale, I wanted a lighter flavor to puff on. I didn't treat it like it was diet soda or light beer, thinking I could smoke more to make up for it.

[Gravekeeper]

So, does that mean that we're going to start going after diet drinks and foods since people end up eating/drinking more of those to get the sugar they need?

If sugar were a highly addictive and regulated substance you might have a point.

It's a stupid argument. It's taking personal responsibility and tossing it out the window. People know that smoking is likely to lead to cancer and lung disease and heart problems. They've known that fact since our parents (and in some cases grandparents) were young. Anyone who claims that Big Tobacco is responsible for their developing health issues as a result of their decision to start smoking is an asshole, full stop.

An argument I didn't make. All I did was explain why the law existed and how the advertising was exploiting consumers. People did smoke lights because they thought they were healthier. Period. Thats a fact. Studies proved that said health benefits did not exist. Boom, you get a law stopping them from using the term "Light".

Furthermore, the first thing tobacco companies did afterwards? Polled consumers on what they thought the "healthiest" looking colour was in regards to cigarettes and slapped that colour on the packages instead.

So no, big tobacco is not responsible for anyone's desicion to start smoking in recent times, but they sure as fuck are complacent in trying to push any angle they can that their product isn't cancer in a box. To claim otherwise is hilariously naive.

Until everybody admits that it's the smoker who is responsible for the damage they do to themselves from smoking, it's just going to keep making it more difficult for smokers to quit. They have to own their own responsibility before they can own the responsibility necessary to take control and quit, and anyone who undermines that by blaming everything but them is enabling their habit, not empowering them to quit.

Again, not what I was talking about. But nice soapboxing. -.-

So we shouldn't hold the tobacco company equally responsible for enabling by giving people the impression they have a product thats "better" for you then those mean old nasty "real" cigarettes?

The general public would probably give smoker's more of a pass if second and third hand smoke didn't exist. But seeing as it does, and there are a solid portion of smoker's that don't give a rats ass, then its more than just a personal responsibility.

[Lace Neil Singer]

As for that...

http://yourdoctorsorders.com/2009/01...nd-hand-smoke/

And that link's not from the pro smoking lobby either.

[bex1218]

Heh, was at a concert last night and went outside to smoke. We had to go back inside instead of going down the stairs of the main entrance and go through the exit, get stamped and walk past the gate. Well, we didn't know we had to go past the gate. But we were two feet from it and they wanted to overcrowd us while smoking. I'm glad I didn't get burned. After all the bitching, though, no one else was forced past the gate.

[Arcade Man D]

As for that...

http://yourdoctorsorders.com/2009/01...nd-hand-smoke/

And that link's not from the pro smoking lobby either.

Yeah, that link also confuses correlation with causation. There are many reasons that despite there being more smokers, there might not be as many non-smokers getting lung cancer from secondhand. For one, the fact that you basically can't smoke in a restaurant or bar any more reduces the number of people frequently exposed to secondhand. And two, people just aren't lighting up around non-smokers any more.

Which brings me to my own rant on smokers, smokers who don't ask the people around them if they mind if they light up. And then look at YOU like you're rude when you ask them to move somewhere else with their cigarette. I'm sorry, I'M not the one who introduced an irritant into the environment without asking if others were fine with it. Whether or not secondhand causes cancer, it does irritate the respiratory system, moreso than firsthand because you don't have the benefit of the filter. And it definitely does trigger some people's asthma, like my brother's.

[DrFaroohk]

Which brings me to my own rant on smokers, smokers who don't ask the people around them if they mind if they light up. And then look at YOU like you're rude when you ask them to move somewhere else with their cigarette. I'm sorry, I'M not the one who introduced an irritant into the environment without asking if others were fine with it. Whether or not secondhand causes cancer, it does irritate the respiratory system, moreso than firsthand because you don't have the benefit of the filter. And it definitely does trigger some people's asthma, like my brother's.

This depends on the location. Are you standing in the smoking area outside of a bar? Then piss off, you knew what you were getting into.

Are we sitting in your car? Then the smoker is being an ass.

As for the filter thing...no. As a smoker, I'm getting a direct hit off the end of the cigarette, albeit through a filter. As a non-smoker, you're getting a severely diluted, spread out hit of smoke.

[Arcade Man D]

This depends on the location. Are you standing in the smoking area outside of a bar? Then piss off, you knew what you were getting into.

Are we sitting in your car? Then the smoker is being an ass.

As for the filter thing...no. As a smoker, I'm getting a direct hit off the end of the cigarette, albeit through a filter. As a non-smoker, you're getting a severely diluted, spread out hit of smoke.

Normally, sitting at the bus stop.