Support NeoGAF

[Melchiah]

It's not about current smokers. It's about influencing kids, it works because younger generations will find it harder to identify with the common brands. Even if it only helps cut take up by 1% it's worth it.

That's a very idiotic reasoning. When I started smoking at the age of 15, I, or anyone else, didn't care about the package, but the price and the taste; I've always hated menthols and lights. I used to switch brand whenever I found a cheaper one. Nowadays I don't care about the price, only the rich and full flavored taste. Ahh.

 

[BocoDragon]

For you maybe. I had a hell of a time quitting. It wasn't until my grandmother was dying of lung cancer and I had to look after her for 6 months that I managed to quit. So it's nice you had an easy time, but your experience is not everyones.

Fair enough.. but I'd say that most of the addiction is actually a mental addiction. You might as well have been addicted to the Internet or WoW, IMO. And no one would say, as Chitta did above about cigarettes, that "WoW addiction is not something that you choose. The addiction overcomes your rationality and you become dependant".

The physically addictive properties of cigarettes cause us to believe that it's far more serious an addiction than many other habits, but I personally don't think so from my experience. The physical cravings dissipate after a few days! After that you're left with mental habit - the worst part - but that same mental habit would cause us to be addicted to a lot of things that didn't have physically addictive properties.

 

[jamesinclair]

:lol at the people arguing that logo and colors has no effect on sales.

WTF do you think companies spend so much on package design and getting their brand out?

I mean look at this:

I don't think any kid has ever got into smoking because they identify with brands they see on the streets or (used) to see in advertising .

You heard it here first guys, the trillion dollar marketing industry is wrong, all their efforts are futile.

 

[FabCam]

Lived with two. Dad and grandma. My clothes reeked constantly of smoke and everyone at school thought I smoked too. I grew to just deal with it but even I can't stand how god damn selfish smokers are. I don't care how harmless or not second hand smoke is, it's rude to force people to deal with it.

Sounds like a problem with your family's attitude not necessarily the cigs. I don't mean to sound like a douche, I'm fully against inhibiting others with my own habit. But at the same time, I think complaints are way overblown. I hate the smell of smoke, yet when people say "even a few minutes after someone has smoked, I can't possibly stand in an ex-smoking area" - it's just bullshit.

NB I only smoke in smoking areas outside clubs so I'm not an inconsiderate smoker

 

[BocoDragon]

You are the paragon of what every smoker should be, good for you.

/sarcasm

Some people smoke as a means of replacing other addictions. I would know this because my dad does. He traded alcoholism for smoking. I'd rather he not smoke as much as he does, but he's been clean and sober for over 18 years now. Ideally he'd learn how to break addiction completely but part of not being a self-righteous tool is realizing others don't always have self-control on the same level as yourself.

People need to hear real-world examples of how easy it can be to quit. All these people are making mountains out of molehills, and it actually makes it harder to quit. They visualize this long hard battle with smoking that, ironcially, enables them to keep smoking instead of just quitting here and now.

Perhaps for some people, quitting smoking IS a mountain. But don't sneer at someone who did quit and spread the word about how for him, it was nothing but a molehill. Maybe for someone reading that post, they will realize it can be a "molehill" for them too.

 

[Devolution]

Sounds like a problem with your family's attitude not necessarily the cigs. I don't mean to sound like a douche, I'm fully against inhibiting others with my own habit. But at the same time, I think complaints are way overblown. I hate the smell of smoke, yet when people say "even a few minutes after someone has smoked, I can't possibly stand in an ex-smoking area" - it's just bullshit.

NB I only smoke in smoking areas outside clubs so I'm not an inconsiderate smoker

I don't think complaints are overblown at all especially if someone has asthma or breathing issues, smoke makes it that much harder. I don't have any issues with the family anymore, grandma died this year after 5 years of decline post-smokers stroke and dad smokes outside.

But this is what I mean by many smokers being selfish douches. They'll swear up and down that forcing others to deal with their bullshit habit isn't a big deal. Who the fuck do they think they are.

 

[richiek]

That's a very idiotic reasoning. When I started smoking at the age of 15, I, or anyone else, didn't care about the package, but the price and the taste; I've always hated menthols and lights. I used to switch brand whenever I found a cheaper one. Nowadays I don't care about the price, only the rich and full flavored taste. Ahh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Camel

 

[Melchiah]

:lol at the people arguing that logo and colors has no effect on sales.

WTF do you think companies spend so much on package design and getting their brand out?

You heard it here first guys, the trillion dollar marketing industry is wrong, all their efforts are futile.

In Finland, tobacco advertisements have been prohibited for as long as I can remember (at least ~20 years). Many of the packages are colored pretty much the same, excluding some rare oddities (like the Death brand of yesteryears, with its all black package). So, how would one identify with a brand, when they all look similar to begin with, and there's never been any ads around during the past two decades?

 

[avaya]

Seriously guys, you can't just throw this crap out without any references to a source or a study or SOMETHING. For all I know you're just making stuff up because it supports your particular position. If you're trying to posit something as a fact make sure that you actually have some sort of presentable evidence.

I didn't add a source since so much of it is common knowledge. Even from a discounting perspective without the numbers you can present a very strong case that the costs of a ban exceed the benefits.

http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_95.pdf

 

[Dead Man]

Fair enough.. but I'd say that most of the addiction is actually a mental addiction. You might as well have been addicted to the Internet or WoW, IMO. And no one would say, as Chitta did above about cigarettes, that "WoW addiction is not something that you choose. The addiction overcomes your rationality and you become dependant".

The physically addictive properties of cigarettes cause us to believe that it's far more serious an addiction than many other habits, but I personally don't think so from my experience. The physical cravings dissipate after a few days! After that you're left with mental habit - the worst part - but that same mental habit would cause us to be addicted to a lot of things that didn't have physically addictive properties.

I think you need to research addiction a bit more. A 'mental' addiction is not less real than a 'physical' addiction. They both result from chemicals in the body changing behaviours and wants. But hey, you have your experience to fall back on, that should apply to all people at all times.

Edit: Also, a habit is not the same as addiction.

 

[Melchiah]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Camel

Funnily enough, I know only one person who smokes Camel. :lol

Controversy

In 1991, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a study showing that by age six nearly as many children could correctly respond that "Joe Camel" was associated with cigarettes as could respond that the Disney Channel logo was associated with Mickey Mouse, and alleged that the "Joe Camel" campaign was targeting children. ... Mangini alleged that teenage smokers accounted for US$476 million of Camel cigarette sales in 1992. When the Joe Camel advertisements started in 1988, that figure was only at US$6 million, "implicitly suggesting such advertisements have harmed a great many teenagers by luring them into extended use of and addiction to tobacco products."

In July 1997, under pressure from the impending Mangini trial, Congress and various public-interest groups, RJR announced it would settle out of court and voluntarily end its Joe Camel campaign. A new campaign with a more adult theme debuted.

Note the years. What has that got to do with today's situation?

 

[Acid08]

governments are so pussy. they do this, yet won't ban tobacco because it gives them so much money.

need a revolution asap

I don't think you understand the point of a revolution.

 

[Cymbal Head]

 

[avaya]

In Finland, tobacco advertisements have been prohibited for as long as I can remember (at least ~20 years). Many of the packages are colored pretty much the same, excluding some rare oddities (like the Death brand of yesteryears, with its all black package). So, how would one identify with a brand, when they all look similar to begin with, and there's never been any ads around during the past two decades?

Tobacco advertising has primarily focused on international sport for this reason, prior to the early 2000s people in Finland would have had heavy exposure to adverts in F1, WRC and other major motorsports in addition to a variety of other international sporting events. They used these events to circumvent local bans till the EU decided to ban everything from TV and print media even if indirect.

Marlboro spends $250million+ a year to this day to buy the entire Ferrari F1 car advertising space so they could choose the colour and a subliminal barcode pattern to avoid the ban. But hey, Philip Morris must be stupid right? Branding clearly doesn't work.

 

[BocoDragon]

I think you need to research addiction a bit more. A 'mental' addiction is not less real than a 'physical' addiction. They both result from chemicals in the body changing behaviours and wants .

That's exactly my point, actually. The addiction of cigarettes is barely different from an addiction to TV, fast food, WoW. We needn't give it some special consideration because of the physical addiction.

Someone is not less responsible for being addicted to cigarettes than they are for being addicted to WoW. The quote of Chitta above stated that smokers don't choose to be smokers. I believe the same statement could (wrongly) be attributed to any addiction... the physical addictive properties change little.

But hey, you have your experience to fall back on, that should apply to all people at all times..

That what I said is controversial in the slightest tells me a lot of people want to believe quitting smoking should be this big, nearly-impossible ordeal. I can only imagine that people want to believe that it's difficult because they want to deflect responsibility off their own habit... or the habits of friends and family...

 

[Dead Man]

That's exactly my point, actually. The addiction of cigarettes is barely different from an addiction to TV, fast food, WoW. We needn't give it some special consideration because of the physical addiction.

Someone is not less responsible for being addicted to cigarettes than they are for being addicted to WoW. The quote of Chitta above stated that smokers don't choose to be smokers. I believe the same statement could (wrongly) be attributed to any addiction... the physical addictive properties change little.




That what I said is controversial in the slightest tells me a lot of people want to believe quitting smoking should be this big, nearly-impossible ordeal. I can only imagine that people want to believe that it's difficult because they want to deflect responsibility off their own habit... or the habits of friends and family...

Or, that it IS hard for a lot of people, and you have a lucky combination of genes that makes you less susceptible to the chemicals in the smoke. How hard is that to understand?

 

[louis89]

If that's the case, then the cigarette industry wouldn't care less about minimal packaging. But I'm sure they'd protest it. Why is that? Because packaging does matter.

They care because they want to use their brand colours and logo to differentiate themselves from their competitors. Not because it's going to reduce the overall level of cigarette sales.

 

[timetokill]

Time to invest in cigarette cases/holders.

 

[JGS]

These images are on every cigarette packet in the UK, I can confirm that nobody cares.

I think those images are to ensure that I don't care as much when a smoker dies from self-induced illness.

It definitely works in that context.

 

[BocoDragon]

Or, that it IS hard for a lot of people, and you have a lucky combination of genes that makes you less susceptible to the chemicals in the smoke. How hard is that to understand?

So not only are smokers unable to quit -because of their genes, but the only reason I quit is because of my lucky genes?

That's some fatalistic BS right there.

I was addicted as much as anyone. 20-25 smokes a day! I loved smoking. It was my mental efforts which led me to break it. And I'm a middleweight when it comes to self-discipline. I believe that most people could do this.

I just said no, and stuck to it. That's it. That's how you quit. Do the people with more addictive genes have a gun to their head? No, at some point they make a decision "I'm going to give into this craving because.... blah blah. (Whatever reason).". The only difference between myself and them is that I made a different decision. It has far less to do with genes than it does with memes.

 

[poppabk]

Not really, considering the health risks for cigarettes are far greater than pot.

Why would you think this?

 

[BocoDragon]

Why would you think this?

This is not really an unbiased blog, but here's the argument:

http://patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpress.com/marijuana-info/marijuana-vs-cigarettes/

 

[Acid08]

Why would you think this?

What in the fuck :lol

 

[Dead Man]

So not only are smokers unable to quit -because of their genes, but the only reason I quit is because of my lucky genes?

That's some fatalistic BS right there.

I was addicted as much as anyone. 20-25 smokes a day! I loved smoking. It was my mental efforts which led me to break it. And I'm a middleweight when it comes to self-discipline. I believe that most people could do this.

I just said no, and stuck to it. That's it. That's how you quit. Do the people with more addictive genes have a gun to their head? No, at some point they make a decision "I'm going to give into this craving because.... blah blah. (Whatever reason).". The only difference between myself and them is that I made a different decision. It has far less to do with genes than it does with memes.

For fucks sake. What are you not understanding here? Did I say anyone was not able to quit? No. I said it would be harder for lots of people than it was for you. Or do I/they just have no willpower? Are you calling me/them weak? Because if you are you can just come out and say it.

Edit: Actually, fuck you. I'm sick of people like you with your 'just make the decision' bullshit. So you go off on your superiority kick if it makes you feel better to believe that everyone else just doesn't want to quit, or whatever. Have fun with that. Don't let any facts get in the way of your ideas about how chemicals work on the body. Just carry on with your ignorance and your presumptions.

Edit2: And fuck you for making me rant like a crazy person! :lol

Edit3: A source so maybe you can add some facts to your impressive collection of anecdotes.

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4753

Nicotine is an addictive drug. It causes changes in the brain that make people want to use it more and more. In addition, addictive drugs cause unpleasant withdrawal symptoms. The good feelings that result when an addictive drug is present — and the bad feelings when it's absent — make breaking any addiction very difficult. Nicotine addiction has historically been one of the hardest addictions to break.

The 1988 Surgeon General's Report, "Nicotine Addiction," concluded that

* Cigarettes and other forms of tobacco are addicting.
* Nicotine is the drug that causes addiction.
* Pharmacologic and behavioral characteristics that determine tobacco addiction are similar to those that determine addiction to drugs such as heroin and cocaine.

 

[pakkit]

Did you save the second facepalm for yourself? He's right, you're wrong.

 

[BocoDragon]

For fucks sake. What are you not understanding here? Did I say anyone was not able to quit? No. I said it would be harder for lots of people than it was for you. Or do I/they just have no willpower? Are you calling me/them weak? Because if you are you can just come out and say it.

Edit: Actually, fuck you. I'm sick of people like you with your 'just make the decision' bullshit. So you go off on your superiority kick if it makes you feel better to believe that everyone else just doesn't want to quit, or whatever. Have fun with that. Don't let any facts get in the way of your ideas about how chemicals work on the body. Just carry on with your ignorance and your presumptions.

Edit2: And fuck you for making me rant like a crazy person! :lol

Edit3: A source so maybe you can add some facts to your impressive collection of anecdotes.

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4753

Whatever takes the responsibility off you, bro.

 

[poppabk]

What in the fuck :lol

http://www.lunguk.org/Resources/Bri...rated Resources/Documents/A/A_Smoking_Gun.pdf

Why would you think that smoking one plant is any better or worse for your health than another without any research?

 

[Devolution]

Whatever takes the responsibility off you, bro.

Oh man self-righteous ex-smokers are the best kind of people.

 

[Dead Man]

Whatever takes the responsibility off you, bro.

Bloody hell you are self righteous, aren't you? Did you not notice I posted earlier that I had quit? Try reading a few things.
http://www.nida.nih.gov/researchreports/nicotine/newFrontiers.html

A recent NIDA-funded study identified a variant in the gene for a nicotinic receptor subunit that doubled the risk for nicotine addiction among smokers. A subsequent study found that this gene variant also increased susceptibility to the severe health consequences of smoking, including lung cancer and peripheral arterial disease. NIDA is currently supporting large-scale genome-wide association studies to uncover additional genetic risk factors in order to better understand tobacco addiction and its adverse effects on health.

 

[wenis]

How about no.

Most of the people who smoke these days are kids. If these cigarette packets ward off potential newcomers, then I'm all for the new legislation regarding smoking.

But I really thought putting a graphical image of a pathological condition would be a suitable way of fend of potential smokers.

After looking at images of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, who the fuck really wants to smoke?

The people who don't care and do it because it's what they like to do. I personally quit smoking years ago because I realized it was harming me, but I did it without having this huge chip on my shoulder about other smokers. Let em do it. Who gives a shit. I'm sick and tired of namby pamby whiners talking about protecting the children by banning stuff for adults. I get it, it's a tricky subject in "protecting" children, but taking away something from grown adults who've made their decision isn't the right way.

 

[Jobiensis]

Fair enough.. but I'd say that most of the addiction is actually a mental addiction. You might as well have been addicted to the Internet or WoW, IMO.

You are wrong. Nicotine is an addictive drug. People do have different tolerances to addictions, but nicotine is more like heroin or cocaine than the Internet or WoW.

I am very glad you quit so easily, but you are using your personal anecdote as some sort of proof when there is already significant evidence about how addictive nicotine is.

Oh man self-righteous ex-smokers are the best kind of people.

It's hard not to become that way. I hate how much it controlled my life, and sometimes smokers just seem like good scapegoats.

I really don't see that this is going to change much on who starts smoking, but it may have a larger effect on what brand they smoke.

 

[The Technomancer]

Question: was there a study linked to on GAF a few months ago about how the calming effects of cigarettes are actually only caused by the Nicotine release? That is to say, you felt anxious because you weren't smoking, and so smoking calmed you down?

Because if that study was good, then wouldn't that remove the single last defensible reason for anyone to smoke? If it literally has no positive effects on you whatsoever, even the one perceived positive benefit is an illusion of the addiction, then even if you are an adult who is free to do what you want with your body........why?

 

[painey]

just make the cigarettes bright pink. kids won't think its cool then.. packaging aint shit.

 

[Hylian7]

I can slightly understand stuff like banning Joe Camel, and stuff like that, but this seems a little overboard, and I'm not a smoker myself. I have a hard time believing that this will actually accomplish anything other than just confusing smokers.

 

[KevinCow]

Could somebody explain to me why anybody would start smoking in the first place?

I mean you're pretty much told from when you're old enough to understand by every adult in your life that, hey, this stuff horrible for you and can kill you, extremely addictive so it'll be hard to quit and drain your money, and makes you smell like shit so people don't want to be around you.

And then someone says, hey, that sounds great! I want to spend far too much of my money supporting a horrible habit that makes me smell awful. That sounds like a fantastic use of my time and money and health!

It just boggles my mind.

 

[Melchiah]

Tobacco advertising has primarily focused on international sport for this reason, prior to the early 2000s people in Finland would have had heavy exposure to adverts in F1, WRC and other major motorsports in addition to a variety of other international sporting events. They used these events to circumvent local bans till the EU decided to ban everything from TV and print media even if indirect.

Marlboro spends $250million+ a year to this day to buy the entire Ferrari F1 car advertising space so they could choose the colour and a subliminal barcode pattern to avoid the ban. But hey, Philip Morris must be stupid right? Branding clearly doesn't work.

What about the vast majority, like most of the ladies, who don't watch F1, or any other major motorsports, or sports of any kind? Branding clearly works for them.

 

[Liquid Helium]

Could somebody explain to me why anybody would start smoking in the first place?

I mean you're pretty much told from when you're old enough to understand by every adult in your life that, hey, this stuff horrible for you and can kill you, extremely addictive so it'll be hard to quit and drain your money, and makes you smell like shit so people don't want to be around you.

And then someone says, hey, that sounds great! I want to spend far too much of my money supporting a horrible habit that makes me smell awful. That sounds like a fantastic use of my time and money and health!

It just boggles my mind.

The same reason people drink alcohol.

 

[iNvid02]

Did you save the second facepalm for yourself? He's right, you're wrong.

 

[BocoDragon]

Oh man self-righteous ex-smokers are the best kind of people.

Hey, I was kind of forced into that position.

I think it's easy. That's my experience.

"No it's not, it's hard and there's all these reasons why...."

If you're going to defend how hard it is, I don't agree (from personal experience) and I can't help but think you're making excuses.

Why does it benefit you to think of it as a difficult process?

Compassion for the smoker who just can't quit, I understand. I never said that smokers who struggle to quit are stupid. I get addiction. It IS simple, but it's also difficult to do that simple thing....

But it sounds more like an enabling thought "it's hard to quit, so that's why I smoke". If it isn't hard to quit, perhaps that threatens the justification for why you smoke?

You are wrong. Nicotine is an addictive drug. People do have different tolerances to addictions, but nicotine is more like heroin or cocaine than the Internet or WoW.

I am very glad you quit so easily, but you are using your personal anecdote as some sort of proof when there is already significant evidence about how addictive nicotine is.

You haven't said anything that I didn't already say myself.

My position is that physical addictions and mental addictions are 'same shit, different shovel.' In both cases you're after something that you want, but you have learn to say no anyway.

 

[Jobiensis]

Could somebody explain to me why anybody would start smoking in the first place?

I mean you're pretty much told from when you're old enough to understand by every adult in your life that, hey, this stuff horrible for you and can kill you, extremely addictive so it'll be hard to quit and drain your money, and makes you smell like shit so people don't want to be around you.

And then someone says, hey, that sounds great! I want to spend far too much of my money supporting a horrible habit that makes me smell awful. That sounds like a fantastic use of my time and money and health!

It just boggles my mind.

Can't speak for everyone, but for me it was just self destructive teenage tendencies with a bit of curiousness and rebellion. Keep in mind we were also told similar things about alcohol and marijuana.

You haven't said anything that I didn't already say myself.

Perhaps, but I feel you are downplaying what it takes to quit. It seems like you are likening it to a choice over something non-trivial. There are physical side effects, I had a headache for three straight weeks, I couldn't concentrate at all. It impaired my ability to work. I tried to quit many times, it took a coworker killing herself before I actually managed to quit for good.

 

[Dead Man]

Hey, I was kind of forced into that position.

I think it's easy. That's my experience.

"No it's not, it's hard and there's all these reasons why...."

If you're going to defend how hard it is, I don't agree (from personal experience) and I can't help but think you're making excuses.

Why does it benefit you to think of it as a difficult process?

Compassion for the smoker who just can't quit, I understand. I never said that smokers who struggle to quit are stupid. I get addiction. It IS simple, but it's also difficult to do that simple thing....

But it sounds more like an enabling thought "it's hard to quit, so that's why I smoke". If it isn't hard to quit, perhaps that threatens the justification for why you smoke?



You haven't said anything that I didn't already say myself.

My position is that physical addictions and mental addictions are 'same shit, different shovel.' In both cases you're after something that you want, but you have learn to say no anyway.

The bold is where you have gone wrong. You have failed to take into consideration anything but your own experience., You have not considered any of the science of the situation, and so your are drawing faulty conclusions from limited information. In short, you are an ignorant fool.

 

[poppabk]

Could somebody explain to me why anybody would start smoking in the first place?

I mean you're pretty much told from when you're old enough to understand by every adult in your life that, hey, this stuff horrible for you and can kill you, extremely addictive so it'll be hard to quit and drain your money, and makes you smell like shit so people don't want to be around you.

And then someone says, hey, that sounds great! I want to spend far too much of my money supporting a horrible habit that makes me smell awful. That sounds like a fantastic use of my time and money and health!

It just boggles my mind.

Alcohol. Not a comparison - my guess is most people start smoking while drinking.

 

[Jasup]

Could somebody explain to me why anybody would start smoking in the first place?

I mean you're pretty much told from when you're old enough to understand by every adult in your life that, hey, this stuff horrible for you and can kill you, extremely addictive so it'll be hard to quit and drain your money, and makes you smell like shit so people don't want to be around you.

And then someone says, hey, that sounds great! I want to spend far too much of my money supporting a horrible habit that makes me smell awful. That sounds like a fantastic use of my time and money and health!

It just boggles my mind.

There are numerous reasons for people to start smoking: mimicing, social pressure, social conformity, rebellion agains X, intrigue of the taboo, drive for new experiences, total accident...

What you described is a case of cognitive dissonance that make scare tactics a bad educational method. For every "say yes to cigarette and you'll get a cancer" message you see people, many times even in a position of authority (my elementary school teacher was a heavy smoker) do it. People know it's bad for you, but others are doing it too, so it's not such a big deal.

 

[Kurtofan]

Can't speak for everyone, but for me it was just self destructive teenage tendencies with a bit of curiousness and rebellion. Keep in mind we were also told similar things about alcohol and marijuana.

That's why nobody ever should take any of that stuff.
The fuck is wrong with humanity.

 

[Melchiah]

The bold is where you have gone wrong. You have failed to take into consideration anything but your own experience., You have not considered any of the science of the situation, and so your are drawing faulty conclusions from limited information. In short, you are an ignorant fool.

You do realize, that many of the "studies" have been made, or funded, by companies, who f.ex. sell nicotine chewing gum and other similar products.

http://www.joejackson.com/smoking.php

Smoking

Joe Jackson has recently attracted a lot of attention for speaking out against antismoking hysteria and smoking bans. His position is based on neither personal prejudice nor profit, but on several years of research.

Smoke, Lies, and the Nanny State

This essay, the culmination of four years of research, replaces Joe's previous essay "The Smoking Issue". Also included at the end of the essay are Joe's op-ed pieces for the New York Times and the Telegraph of London.

Download the E-Booklet:
http://www.joejackson.com/pdf/5smokingpdf_jj_smoke_lies.pdf

It is has become ‘common knowledge’ that smoking is one of the worst things you can possibly do to yourself; ‘all the experts agree’. Of course, ‘all the experts’ once agreed that masturbation caused blindness, that homosexuality was a disease, and that marijuana turned people into homicidal maniacs.

Most medical practitioners, institutions, and lobby groups are hard-working and wellintentioned. But they can just as easily be clueless, biased, or corrupt, not to mention increasingly, and worryingly, embedded with the pharmaceutical industry.

Lung cancer is the disease most strongly associated with smoking, though even this is a statistical rather than a causative link. In other words, it has been statistically shown that smokers are more likely to get lung cancer, rather than scientifically shown that the cancer is specifically caused by the smoking. This is a more important distinction than it might seem. Much of the antismokers’ case is based on statistics, and statistics is not science.

The evidence linking smoking with lung cancer is much less convincing than we are led to believe. For one thing, there is much disagreement about what the actual risk factor is.

The general consensus seems to reflect the pioneering studies of Professor Sir Richard Doll in the 1950s and 60s, which are still regarded as ‘benchmarks’. Doll reckoned that about 160 in 100,000 smokers developed lung cancer as opposed to 7 in 100,000 nonsmokers; so you have about a 24 times greater risk if you smoke. This can also be expressed as ‘2,400%’. But beware of estimates of ‘increased risk,’ especially when expressed in percentages; they’re a good sign that someone is trying to frighten, rather than to inform.

If you buy 25 lottery tickets instead of one, your chances of winning go up by 2,500%. But though the number sounds impressive, your actual chances of winning are still minuscule.

Likewise, if Prof Doll was right, you still have a 99.8% chance of not getting lung cancer. This is nothing more or less than a re-presentation, or re-packaging, of the same data. But it immediately sounds a lot less scary. Especially if smoking is something you love.

The figures are the same and so is the curve. Nothing has been falsified - except the impression that it gives. A line that has climbed halfway up the chart, all because most of the chart isn't there any more. Why stop with truncating? Simply change the proportion between the ordinate and the abscissa. That is impressive isn't it.

How statistics can lie

Forbes; When Statistics lie
The American Prospect; Statistics lie
Telegraph; Government statistics lie

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

"Simplify and repetition. That is the secret of modern propaganda."

"A lie becomes a truth after being repeated a thousand times."

 

[avaya]

What about the vast majority, like most of the ladies, who don't watch F1, or any other major motorsports, or sports of any kind? Branding clearly works for them.

Advertising is targeted at demographics. They spend millions on ways to attract women to their brand as well as men. Sports is obviously more towards men but that doesn't mean women won't see it too since it will be plastered everywhere.

 

[Fantasy Final]

Here's a motivation to quit smoking, you get more chicks.

A smoking girl is such a huge turn off for me and probably a lot of people are like me too.

 

[Melchiah]

Here's a motivation to quit smoking, you get more chicks.

A smoking girl is such a huge turn off for me and probably a lot of people are like me too.

Untrue. Never been a problem for me, even with non-smoking ladies.

 

[Dead Man]

You do realize, that many of the "studies" have been made, or funded, by companies, who f.ex. sell nicotine chewing gum and other similar products.

http://www.joejackson.com/smoking.php


Download the E-Booklet:
http://www.joejackson.com/pdf/5smokingpdf_jj_smoke_lies.pdf

How statistics can lie

Forbes; When Statistics lie
The American Prospect; Statistics lie
Telegraph; Government statistics lie

None of which demonstrates anything other than the fact that people can use statistics to convince they are meaningless. I studied stats for years at university, I know how to interpret them, I know how they can be used, I know when a correlation is useful and when it is not, I know a lot of things.

You haven't actually demonstrated anything in regards the risks of smoking other than the fact that smoking increases your risk of cancer several fold over not smoking. If that takes a small chance and makes it a larger, but still small chance, that is still an increase.

 

[Kentpaul]

Could somebody explain to me why anybody would start smoking in the first place?

I mean you're pretty much told from when you're old enough to understand by every adult in your life that, hey, this stuff horrible for you and can kill you, extremely addictive so it'll be hard to quit and drain your money, and makes you smell like shit so people don't want to be around you.

And then someone says, hey, that sounds great! I want to spend far too much of my money supporting a horrible habit that makes me smell awful. That sounds like a fantastic use of my time and money and health!

It just boggles my mind.

I only smoke when i'm out having a drink with my friends, its great to escape out the warm club/bar for a few minutes , spark up and relax and socialize in a quite place, the nicotine buzz mixed with the lack of oxygen going to your brain is overwhelmingly awsome. (it feels fucking great)

I make my self feel better knowing some dudes on average smoke more cigerettes in a day than i will in a month.

Apart from tabacco/weed combo i used to do daily before i got my bong, i only smoked tabacco sober twice in my entire life.

I had a cigerette at a wu tang concert., then another time me and some friends were out having a drive, we stopped at an awsome view and i just had to do it., i have never had any cravings for a cigerette when i am sober. (thus live my sober life as a non smoker)

i wouldnt even call tabacco addictive, its just something to many semi straight edge people do to feel the boundries of the other side.