Graphic images on cig packs from next year

[stargalaxy]

Starting next year, this could be on the back of cigarette packets.
http://www.packwarnings.nhs.uk/images/main/image2.jpg

If anyone feels offended by me showing this picture, I apologise unreservedly. It is not my intention. The Department for Health are currently looking into the warnings on packets of cigarettes. According to the BBC: "The public are being asked to choose a series of picture warnings to appear on cigarette packets from next year. People can give their opinion on a range of images designed to highlight the dangers of smoking on a website set up by the Department of Health. Evidence shows that images have a greater impact than written health warnings alone, and they have already been introduced in some countries. Images include diseased lungs, a dying smoker and a foetus in the womb." >> Details >> (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5017616.stm)

Interesting suggestion. Let me declare now that I don't smoke. I don't particularly like smoking, but I don't especially mind if those around me choose to do it. However, why is the Government doing this? Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt explains: "We have already made a lot of progress with the stark written warnings on cigarette packs. However, these messages become less effective over time so we now need to refresh our approach by introducing new hard-hitting images. We know that these type of warnings have already been successful in other countries such as Canada, Singapore and Brazil."

Fair enough, but what happens when the latest set of pictures become "less effective over time". What do you replace them with then? Would this put you off smoking? Or is it now time to accept there is a "hardcore" of smokers out there who will never give up?

[Teh_Gerbil]

Jesus.

Fuck off people tbh. We have freedom of choice, don't we? If I chose to smoke, why am I not allowed? It is MY body. And more to the point... this will just piss me off. Yes, they will become less effective over time. The big writing at the moment is a joke.

In a way, this is degrading the poor person who is dead. The image of them, dead, will become a joke. It won't put people off. They'll just not look at the fag packet much anymore.

Will they put people who die of alcohol poisoning on cans of beer? No. So why are fags different? Drinkers die younger too.

[Yerascrote]

I think the government should stop trying to tell people what and what not to do.

It doesn't matter anyway, most of the fags I get are foreign one's, the warnings are all in Polish or some shit.

[Kentish]

There is a stubborn hardcore, but there are a lot of people who are affected by the messages. Smoking cessation services are often swamped with people wanting to give up. But clearly there is a social movement away from smoking in public and it isn't being orchestrated by top level politicians. Ordinary people are starting to object to second hand smoke in a way they never have before, and even "social smokers" are finding that they are becoming a minority. The drink driving epidemic didn't stop because the government imposed punitive taxes or harsher punishments, but because it became socially unacceptable.

[otter]

I think the government should stop trying to tell people what and what not to do.
its a 'double sided coin' though.
they wawnt people to stop for health reasons so feel duty bound to warn them.
but they love reaping in the taxes they get from evry pack of cigarettes sold.
tbh i think the uk is too much of a 'nanny state.'

[stargalaxy]

In a way, this is degrading the poor person who is dead. The image of them, dead, will become a joke. It won't put people off. They'll just not look at the fag packet much anymore. With all due respect, I'm fairly certain that the Department of Health would have obtained permission from the family of the deceased person before using the picture. If they hadn't, rest assured they would be suing the department for every penny it's worth.Ordinary people are starting to object to second hand smoke in a way they never have before, and even "social smokers" are finding that they are becoming a minority. The drink driving epidemic didn't stop because the government imposed punitive taxes or harsher punishments, but because it became socially unacceptable.Not entirely sure about comparing drink-driving with smokers, but I see what you're saying.

[Kentish]

With all due respect, I'm fairly certain that the Department of Health would have obtained permission from the family of the deceased person before using the picture. If they hadn't, rest assured they would be suing the department for every penny it's worth.
Would you recognise him? :confused:
Not entirely sure about comparing drink-driving with smokers, but I see what you're saying.
What's not to get?

[LuckyStrike]

When i was in canada they had pictures of removed lungs and stuff on them, having said that, it didnt put me off.

I smoke because i enjoy it, if it ends up killing me, i cant say noone ever warned me.

I aint gonna smoke forever tho, i'll have stopped by the time im 30.

[stargalaxy]

I aint gonna smoke forever tho, i'll have stopped by the time im 30. We'll remind you of that post seven years from now. :p

[ButtonMoon]

I do not see the point in all of the imagery and wording on cigarette packets! Either ban smoking or let people make the choice themselves.

[Jaloux]

These tactics have been shown to work for some people. Also, if it deters teenagers from starting then that's all good.
I think most people realise that the most hardcore smokers will not quit, but if some of the others quit as a result then the end may justify the means.
Of course I do have some reservations about using photos on the packs themselves, but eh... I'm not fussed.

[Toadborg]

Oh no, the govt trying to make society better....

Damn them to hell the nanny state meddlers.

Smoking is bad, the govt is rightly trying to discourage it, these tactics have been shown to work, it isn't rocket science is it?

[remotebleeper]

its a 'double sided coin' though.
they wawnt people to stop for health reasons so feel duty bound to warn them.
but they love reaping in the taxes they get from evry pack of cigarettes sold.
tbh i think the uk is too much of a 'nanny state.'

Does the money from the tax pay off the money the NHS spend treating smoking related illness?

I don't smoke but I'm pretty sure that picture would put me off if I did.

[Randomgirl]

They do this already in Brazil and to be honest I think it is highly appropriate there given the high percentage of illiterate adults who would not be able to understand a written warning.

Adult illiteracy is actually higher in the UK than most people think so in many ways it would be fairer to give a photo as well or instead of just a written warning.

These are my favourite fag pack photos I've seen so far:

Smoking causes sexual impotence:

http://home.tiscali.be/cartons/Real8/fumar.jpg

http://www.diariohoy.net/media/images/2006/03/29/222767-1.jpg

They also have one with a dead foetus on it that says smoking when pregnant increases you risk of miscarriage which is by far the worst image they use.

[MrG]

who says the guy in the pic is dead, could just be an extra from casualty

[Lacy]

Tbh wouldn't make much difference to me.

I'm fairly intelligent. I know smokers can die younger. I know it makes your lungs all skanky. I know it increases the risk of getting various diseases.

I don't need some picture on a packet to tell me that. It's like they think people who smoke, smoke because they don't realise the risks?! Maybe if your like 6 or something.

And i don't think it'd put much kiddys off smoking. They mainly do it out of curiousity or to fit in with the crowd. Don't think a pic of dead person is gonna make much diff.

[MrG]

pics of dead people made a lot of difference with drink driving

[Lacy]

pics of dead people made a lot of difference with drink driving

Yeah but thats hurting other people. If you smoke your mainly hurting yourself.

[stargalaxy]

Yeah but thats hurting other people. If you smoke your mainly hurting yourself. Someone's bound to raise the issue of "second-hand smoke" now. The term in itself is a bit of a strange one, and no one knows exactly how much of an effect it actually has.

[Teh_Gerbil]

Someone's bound to raise the issue of "second-hand smoke" now. The term in itself is a bit of a strange one, and no one knows exactly how much of an effect it actually has.

Aye. Some studies have said no effect, others say laot.

Who knows.

[Lacy]

Someone's bound to raise the issue of "second-hand smoke" now. The term in itself is a bit of a strange one, and no one knows exactly how much of an effect it actually has.

Yeah but second hand smoking is a completely different issue.

Looking at a dead bloke on a fag packet is not gonna make me think about the fact other people are breathing in my smoke, or the fact i'm hurting myself.

Looking at someone thats innocently died as a result of drink driving is gonna make me not drink and drive though. I could kill loads of people if i was pissed in my car, theres a world of difference to me.

[Randomgirl]

Looking at a dead bloke on a fag packet is not gonna make me think about the fact other people are breathing in my smoke
Would this image make you think about the harm smokers cause to others?

http://www.smoke-free.ca/warnings/warningsimages/brazil/allergy-medium_small.jpg

[luke88]

This measure will not be affected at all since people already know the dangers of smoking, we don't need the nanny state to tell us what do to. It must be abolished immediately.

If you want to smoke cancer sticks then that's your choice.

I fail to understand why the government is so keen to combat smoking when it produces a large revenue for them to waste. I just think there should be public awareness about the dangers of smoking, especially at school and to mmake it seem uncool, which it is.

[stargalaxy]

This measure will not be affected at all since people already know the dangers of smoking, we don't need the nanny state to tell us what do to. It must be abolished immediately. By that theory, you'd also be in favour of getting rid of the written warnings. Is that right?

[luke88]

By that theory, you'd also be in favour of getting rid of the written warnings. Is that right?
Is there any proof it's having an affect?

If not then I don't see the point in it.

[luke88]

Would this image make you think about the harm smokers cause to others?

http://www.smoke-free.ca/warnings/warningsimages/brazil/allergy-medium_small.jpg
Quite affective actually... well maybe because I don't smoke.

[stargalaxy]

Is there any proof it's having an affect? If not then I don't see the point in it. The biggest fall in smoking levels was in the 1970s and 1980s. I doubt we had thousands of smoking cessation officers back then. *waits for Kentish to come along and berate me for saying this* The numbers of young women smoking are rising, however - why?

[Clandestine]

My first thought would more rightly be what sort of parent brings their asthmatic child into a smoke filled environment in the first place?

That said, Id also be curious if that isnt a photo from a house or building fire used as propaganda.

[Kentish]

*waits for Kentish to come along and berate me for saying this*
:confused:

[stargalaxy]

:confused: Well, whenver I talk about smoking cessation officers, you usually respond with something about how useful they apparently are on the public payroll, etc, etc...

[Kentish]

MoK maybe, not me. I doubt I've passed judgement on such posts.

[stargalaxy]

MoK maybe, not me. I doubt I've passed judgement on such posts. :blush: Oops! My mistake. People from Kent all look the same to me. :p

[Man Of Kent]

Well, whenver I talk about smoking cessation officers, you usually respond with something about how useful they apparently are on the public payroll, etc, etc...

That's me, not him.

We did have loads of smoking cessation officers. We just called them doctor/nurse.

Now we'd prefer that they did something else, more clinical.

[Aladdin]

FFS... this is getting ridiculous. It really is... :rolleyes:

Is there a single person in the country who isn't aware that smoking is harmful?

Then what's the point of all of this? Why not do the same with anything else that's harmful, from alcohol to salt to fatty foods as well?

Christ... :rolleyes:

[I'm With Stupid]

Fair enough, but what happens when the latest set of pictures become "less effective over time". What do you replace them with then?
I'm thinking those little things you get on birthday cards, where you open the packet of cigarettes, and it starts coughing and spluttering.

As for the biggest drop in smoking being in the 70's and 80's, is this not just after it was found out that smoking is bad for you?

[Disillusioned]

As for the biggest drop in smoking being in the 70's and 80's, is this not just after it was found out that smoking is bad for you?

Not really, it was a lot earlier. The dangers of smoking were first publicly exposed in the early 1950s I think. Although one of the first studies linking smoking to cancer was in Nazi Germany. Tobacco companies also knew before the dangers became public knowledge.

To discharge tobacco companies of responsibility I suppose a discreet written warning at the very least is necessary on cigarette packets. Written warnings covering half the packet or gruesome photographs however are an unnecessary and unwelcome intrusion. Cigarettes are a perfectly legal product, people are universally aware of the dangers and those exercising their freedom to smoke have a right not to be bombarded with government subsidised propaganda.

If the likes of Cancer Research UK and pharmaceutical companies eager to sell more nicotine patches wish to fund anti-smoking adverts and such they’re of course free to do so – however, it’s beyond the role of the government to dictate to people on the demerits of a legal product. (I also have to admit I thought Cancer Research UK was dedicated to funding research for cancer treatment, since medical research is extremely expensive and as a charity, Cancer Research UK will no doubt have limited funds it’s surprising that they’re taking away millions from cancer research to fund highly paid lobbyists and expensive advertising campaigns to tell people how to live. With respect to Cancer Research UK giving up smoking is hardly ‘treatment’ or a ‘cure’ for cancer. They’re a disgrace to their donors).

[Flashman's Ghost]

In defence of Cancer UK I'd think that there thinking is that prevention is better than cure - surely its better to reduce the numbers getting lung cancer by 10% than to improve the survivability rate by 10%.

[Livin' on a prayer]

When I was in Thailand, I saw these on their cigarette packs, they're quite effective, they had some really gruesome pictures of blackend lungs and rotting teeth etc. I think its a good idea.

p.s Will people stop calling Cancer UK a disgrace, christ, they do a good job, people on these forums are so bitter about everything and so quick to judge :rolleyes: .

[Aladdin]

Can we have pictures of rotting livers and dying, jaundiced cirrhosis patients on alcohol bottles as well? Or is this particular drug too popular with MPs and others to find itself the target of such campaigns?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Disillusioned]

In defence of Cancer UK I'd think that there thinking is that prevention is better than cure - surely its better to reduce the numbers getting lung cancer by 10% than to improve the survivability rate by 10%.

True. But if Cancer Research UK is a charity committed to medical research on cancer as it claims to be employing armies of lobbyists and taking out full-page adverts in national newspapers to try and bring about a smoking ban is imo going well beyond its stated area of concern.

The ‘prevention is better than a cure’ is all very well but how far does it extend to? You could in the name of prevention slash the number of heart attacks by slapping a 50% super-tax on fatty foods. Could aid charities instead of spending their resources on feeding starving people in the third world fund coups against despotic regimes?

Anyway going back to these unnecessary pictures we’re being invited to vote on (link on the BBC article) it’s unfortunate that nobody is being given the option to oppose their actual introduction. It is however unsurprising in a climate where health professionals, the pharmaceutical companies and ASH dictate public policy. It’s almost universally recognised that cigarettes, alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, etc can be harmful, as can fatty foods but I don’t see what’s so radical about believing that individuals should be allowed to make their own mind up. The nanny state at its best. :rolleyes:

[Lacy]

Would this image make you think about the harm smokers cause to others?

http://www.smoke-free.ca/warnings/warningsimages/brazil/allergy-medium_small.jpg

Nope. That has absolutely no effect on me whatsoever.

Maybe because i don't travel with small children in the back of my car.

[wooooooooah]

Yes, these pictures may put some smokers off and encourage them to quit. But what about the ones who continue to smoke, and just feel depressed every time they see the pictures? Surely that could have an effect on their state of mind.

[Disillusioned]

Yes, these pictures may put some smokers off and encourage them to quit. But what about the ones who continue to smoke, and just feel depressed every time they see the pictures? Surely that could have an effect on their state of mind.

If they have common sense they'll buy foreign cigarettes, although after a while you can guess what 'uccide' probably means..I think duty free cigs have smaller warnings too but in Europe foreign cigarettes are the way to go.

[Livin' on a prayer]

Can we have pictures of rotting livers and dying, jaundiced cirrhosis patients on alcohol bottles as well? Or is this particular drug too popular with MPs and others to find itself the target of such campaigns?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Smoking is different, first of all its more addictive, alcohol is only really addictive if you have problem and drink to to make you feel better. Smoking also affects all the people around you (yes alcohol, can make you violent/drunk driver, but its not really the same is it). Most of all, drinking isnt to bad when in moderation, its fun and its a social luberacent, smoking is always pretty destructive and has collatral damage as an added bonus, and to be honest, its alot harder to get people to stop drinking than to stop smoking, this wont work with alcohol and it will with smoking. Not really the same is it.

[Flashman's Ghost]

It’s almost universally recognised that cigarettes, alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, etc can be harmful, as can fatty foods but I don’t see what’s so radical about believing that individuals should be allowed to make their own mind up. The nanny state at its best. :rolleyes:

I don't disagree, but we're not talking about banning cigs, but about making sure that people (especially people who are just starting with their first cigs behind the bikesheds) actually know that the chances are they're going to regret it later.

I've just restarted smoking after a six month break and believe me there's little so enjoyable as getting home, putting on the kettle and having a coffee and cig (even if the wife makes me smoke outside). i enjoy smoking.

But I can't run as far or fast as I used to and it eats up a fuck of a lot of the household budget and I wish when I was fifteen I hadn't started.

[Ballerina]

If they have common sense they'll buy foreign cigarettes, although after a while you can guess what 'uccide' probably means..I think duty free cigs have smaller warnings too but in Europe foreign cigarettes are the way to go.
isn't that just burying your head in the sand?

[katralla]

isn't that just burying your head in the sand?

More like putting a paper bag over the repetative government's face, ejaculating "blah blah blah" ad infinitum...

[Disillusioned]

isn't that just burying your head in the sand?

Not really. Primarily it saves money. It's not really burrying one's head in the sand either, every smoker is aware of the dangers of smoking.

I don't disagree, but we're not talking about banning cigs, but about making sure that people (especially people who are just starting with their first cigs behind the bikesheds) actually know that the chances are they're going to regret it later.

I've just restarted smoking after a six month break and believe me there's little so enjoyable as getting home, putting on the kettle and having a coffee and cig (even if the wife makes me smoke outside). i enjoy smoking.

But I can't run as far or fast as I used to and it eats up a fuck of a lot of the household budget and I wish when I was fifteen I hadn't started.

You're right, I agree. The balance has to be struck however between discouraging children from starting and allowing adults the freedom to smoke without being subjected to the wrath of busybodies in government and the agenda of anti-smoking pressure groups forced upon them.

I think increasing the age limit to buy cigarettes to 18 would be more effective in reducing the number of young people starting. Most smokers I'd guess start at 14 or 15, if cigarettes were a bit harder to get hold of there'd be less fully fledged 15 year old smokers. These days it seems many places require ID for alcohol for anybody who looks under 21, adopt a similar principle on cigarettes and it'll make it harder for children to get addicted young. (And perhaps then adults won't have to suffer the indignity of gruesome images on cigarette packets). I do have to admit however were I a year younger I wouldn't advocate such a proposal...And I'll be surprised if the age to buy cigarettes is ever increased for regardless of the government's obsession with banning smokers from public places and banning advertising a legal product the treasury is reliant on revenue from smokers.

[Aladdin]

Smoking is different, first of all its more addictive, alcohol is only really addictive if you have problem and drink to to make you feel better. Smoking also affects all the people around you (yes alcohol, can make you violent/drunk driver, but its not really the same is it). Most of all, drinking isnt to bad when in moderation, its fun and its a social luberacent, smoking is always pretty destructive and has collatral damage as an added bonus, and to be honest, its alot harder to get people to stop drinking than to stop smoking, this wont work with alcohol and it will with smoking. Not really the same is it. I would say that 100,000 deaths a year plus being the cause of about half of all crime commited in the UK is extremely serious, wouldn't you?

[I'm With Stupid]

I would say that 100,000 deaths a year plus being the cause of about half of all crime commited in the UK is extremely serious, wouldn't you?
What's that? Drinking? Well not exactly. Nobheads drinking might be the cause of half of all crime. Drinking in general, not so much. I drink every weekend, and I've never commited a crime (well, not really anyway) and I suspect that the vast majority of people who enjoy drinking are the same as me. Incidentally, the other half of all crime in the UK is caused by drugs being illegal, so go figure.

[Aladdin]

The point remains that alcohol remains an extraordinarly dangerous and harmful drug, if not to many of the individuals who take it, certainly to society at large. I can't see how anyone can say smoking is significantly worse than drinking- it isn't.

Therefore is a supreme exercise of hypocrisy to relentlessly bother people about one drug and not about the other.

But then what's new? Both alcohol and smoking are a lot more dangerous and harmful than the likes of cannabis or ecstasy and yet the former remain legal while the latter could land you in jail. Trebles all around!

[I'm With Stupid]

The point remains that alcohol remains an extraordinarly dangerous and harmful drug, if not to many of the individuals who take it, certainly to society at large.
You seem to be confusing alcohol with anti-social behaviour. Sure, the two often go hand in hand, but alcohol is not the cause of anti-social behaviour. It is partly a cultural thing, since alcohol and drinking in this country is linked to sex and getting a partner. Therefore, it's not a surprise that the majority of fights occur in clubs, usually when one person has tried it on with another person's partner. Take alcohol out of clubs, and I don't think the number of such occurances would be cut significantly (certainly not to the degree so as to show that alcohol is responsible for half of all crime). Other crimes linked with alcohol would all still occur without it. Vandalism, verbal abuse, all of this happens without alcohol. I think that the people who carry out these sort of crime under the influence of alcohol tend to be the same people who would carry out the same crimes soberly. I can't think of any examples of people who are civil and law-abiding normally turning into raging criminals under the influence of alcohol, no matter how much they've had (though they may get arrested for the "crime" of being drunk and disorderly).

[Aladdin]

You have to agree that alcohol plays a massive part in certain types of crime. Especially those around city centres at weekends. I'm not talking about kids running amok in shopping centres. I'm talking about the pitch battles between drunken revellers that take place in every town every weekend.

That is a direct result of alcohol.

A great deal of domestic abuse, traffic accidents, rapes and other crimes are also linked to it.

And then, from the health point of view, alcohol kills or makes ill massive numbers of people, and not exactly a million miles from the number of smoking-related deaths and diseases actually.

It all boils down to hypocrisy and trends IMO.

[Teh_Gerbil]

Well suicide is illegal isn't it? And we'd all try to stop someone who was dropping poison into thier drink at a party wouldn't we?

Yes, but you can't arrest a dead body for commiting suicide. And if they survive, you can't arrest them, because they didn't commit suicide.

And yes, we would. But we wouldn't stop them drinking said alcoholic beverage without the poison, which is still killing you. Alcohol is bad too.

[I'm With Stupid]

Suicide isn't illegal actually.

[Disillusioned]

The point remains that alcohol remains an extraordinarly dangerous and harmful drug, if not to many of the individuals who take it, certainly to society at large. I can't see how anyone can say smoking is significantly worse than drinking- it isn't.

You're right. Alcohol can be very dangerous to somebody's health and it causes far more damage to society than tobacco or illegal drugs. Socially alcohol can be very destructive; for some people alcohol wrecks their entire life, they lose their job, their family, etc. In moderation of course alcohol isn't a problem but evidently if everybody went teetotal tomorrow crime would plummet.

Gambling is an interesting one too. I don't really have any strong thoughts on gambling but I'm pretty sure that the only beneficiary of relaxed gambling laws is gigantic casino operators - and the losers will invariably be the poor and vulnerable. (But thanks to heavy lobbying by gambling firms the government decides to relax the gambling laws). The government is schizophrenic, on one hand they want to play the nanny state and ban smoking in public places to 'protect' us and then they go ahead and allow more casinos to exploit the vulnerable. If there was a mass public demand for Las Vegas style casinos I'd understand somewhat but there isn't...Gambling operators and pharmaceutical companies just have the most and the best lobbyists I guess.

[Teh_Gerbil]

Gambling is an interesting one too. I don't really have any strong thoughts on gambling but I'm pretty sure that the only beneficiary of relaxed gambling laws is gigantic casino operators - and the losers will invariably be the poor and vulnerable.

Nope, everone is. The poor try ot make money gamblnig their last few quid, the rich think they can afford it, get hooked and spend it all.

Gambling is dangerous and addictive. We shouldn't let the Casino's over here. At all. Only thing that'll happen is it will fuck up some people and the crime rate will rise. People will try to (and probably some will suceed) in robbing the casinos, people will rob caino goers, people who spend all their money will rob folk to get some back...

And of course, it does seem that in the US, anyway, drugs and gambling go hand in hand. So you may find alot of folk getting hooked on stuff at the casinos.

[I'm With Stupid]

You have to agree that alcohol plays a massive part in certain types of crime. Especially those around city centres at weekends. I'm not talking about kids running amok in shopping centres. I'm talking about the pitch battles between drunken revellers that take place in every town every weekend.

That is a direct result of alcohol.
No it isn't. It may be like pouring petrol on a fire, but it is not the direct cause of such incidents. Nor do 'pitch battles' occur between drunk people every weekend in every town. People get into fights, but as I've already said, it's usually has other causes, such as someone trying it on with someone elses girlfriend.

A great deal of domestic abuse, traffic accidents, rapes and other crimes are also linked to it.
Domestic abuse may be linked to alcohol, but is not caused by alcohol. There are far more deep rooted problems involved in that, than having drinks. Saying that alcohol is the cause is saying that given enough alcohol, anyone would abuse their partner, which is simply not the case. Alcohol may be used as a tool to rape people, but again, it is not the cause of rape. Ordinary men don't turn into rapists as a result of alcohol. I'll give you traffic accidents, but again, it's the actions of the drunken person, not the alcohol that causes people to suffer from it. With cigarettes, it is the very action of smoking that causes problems. But then, I'm very much of the opinion that as long as they're not affecting me, it's their own choice. I don't have a problem with them being given the correct information, though I can understand why it may be annoying to have it shoved in your face all the time. I wouldn't have a problem if it was just warnings similar to that on a bottle of Absinthe (see alcohol does have warnings on it).

[Aladdin]

You're right. Alcohol can be very dangerous to somebody's health and it causes far more damage to society than tobacco or illegal drugs. Socially alcohol can be very destructive; for some people alcohol wrecks their entire life, they lose their job, their family, etc. In moderation of course alcohol isn't a problem but evidently if everybody went teetotal tomorrow crime would plummet.

Gambling is an interesting one too. I don't really have any strong thoughts on gambling but I'm pretty sure that the only beneficiary of relaxed gambling laws is gigantic casino operators - and the losers will invariably be the poor and vulnerable. (But thanks to heavy lobbying by gambling firms the government decides to relax the gambling laws). The government is schizophrenic, on one hand they want to play the nanny state and ban smoking in public places to 'protect' us and then they go ahead and allow more casinos to exploit the vulnerable. If there was a mass public demand for Las Vegas style casinos I'd understand somewhat but there isn't...Gambling operators and pharmaceutical companies just have the most and the best lobbyists I guess. Agree entirely.

(shock horror! ;) )

[I'm With Stupid]

You're right. Alcohol can be very dangerous to somebody's health and it causes far more damage to society than tobacco or illegal drugs. Socially alcohol can be very destructive; for some people alcohol wrecks their entire life, they lose their job, their family, etc. In moderation of course alcohol isn't a problem but evidently if everybody went teetotal tomorrow crime would plummet.
I would say that if everyone went tee-total, but still went to clubs on a weekend, you wouldn't get as much of a reduction in crime compared to a situation where everyone drank as much as they currently do, but did so in their own homes. Not that alcohol doesn't throw fuel on the fire, though.

[Kentish]

What does alcohol have to do with cigarette packet warnings? :confused:

[Teh_Gerbil]

What does alcohol have to do with cigarette packet warnings? :confused:

If you follow the thread, people are asking why a dangrous drug like Alcohol is not plastered with warnings like ciggies are?

[Kentish]

If you follow the thread, people are asking why a dangrous drug like Alcohol is not plastered with warnings like ciggies are?
Yeah I've read the thread thanks. Just wondering why you guys are after an all-or-nothing public health policy, and why one particular carcinogen cannot be targetted in isolation?

[Disillusioned]

Agree entirely.

(shock horror! ;) )

It oddly happens occasionally. I even agreed with Teh the other day on something unconnected to America/Israel/Iran/etc. :p

[Teh_Gerbil]

Yeah I've read the thread thanks. Just wondering why you guys are after an all-or-nothing public health policy, and why one particular carcinogen cannot be targetted in isolation?

Because Alcohol causes far more problems that Ciggies but is being left alone. It just makes little sense.

It oddly happens occasionally. I even agreed with Teh the other day on something unconnected to America/Israel/Iran/etc.

'S cos I am right.

[Aladdin]

Plainly, because if I cannot enjoy my drug of choice in peace and safe from police-bothering, I don't see why others should enjoy theirs. Especially when many of them want to stop me from taking what I want.

A bit off topic so I'll leave it there. But there is a genuine question of why we concentrate on one drug so heavily when we don't give much of a shit about the other.

[Kentish]

Because Alcohol causes far more problems that Ciggies but is being left alone. It just makes little sense.
Praps smoking is easier to deal with? Or more cost effective? Why does it matter?

Oh, and lung cancer is only one of a long list of diseases caused by smoking. Not that I deny the destructive potential of alcohol, but it doesn't seem relevant to the specific point made by the OP - are shock tactics useful?

[I'm With Stupid]

I dunno, but as far as I can tell, the majority of smokers want to quit, and could use that extra bit of motivation. :p

[Disillusioned]

'S cos I am right.

I won't be provoked. I'll just say America and Israel rock.

[Teh_Gerbil]

I won't be provoked. I'll just say America and Israel rock.
Nah, Norway rocks. Harder than anyone. 'Tis Black Metal country.

[Flashman's Ghost]

Not according to the esteemed voters of the Eurovision song contest who went for a fellow nordic metal band

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5002798.stm

[Teh_Gerbil]

Yes. But Norway never enter their Black Metal talent.

Fucking props to Finland for that though, it was quite ace.

[Disillusioned]

:lol: Eurovision is classic.

[Randomgirl]

I think the difference with alcohol is that there is a threshold under which it is perfectly safe for most people to drink with it neither being harmful to themselves or others. This cannot be said for cigarettes.

But personally I would support warnings on alcohol, the phone number of Alcoholics Anonymous etc.

[Nikki*]

Most smokers I'd guess start at 14 or 15, if cigarettes were a bit harder to get hold of there'd be less fully fledged 15 year old smokers. These days it seems many places require ID for alcohol for anybody who looks under 21, adopt a similar principle on cigarettes and it'll make it harder for children to get addicted young.

Just to point something out..... everyone I know who is/was a teenage smoker (best friend, boyfriends brother and his friends, my various other accquantances, my cousins... a wideish range of people basically) all started smoking between the ages of 10 - 13. My mum and dad also started at 11/12, and I know the first time I tried a cigarette was around 12/13. I'm not meaning to start anything, just pointing out a discrepancy. That could just be Stafford though, many teenagers hate it so much here, they'd rather die younger [/bad inappropriate joke]

I agree with the Challenge 21 being applied to smoking though. If more places ID'd people, for things you can't buy til you're 16 (paracetamol, superglue etc as well as fags....), there would be less chance for teenagers to get hold of these things.