• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

EU considering banning logos and graphics from cigarette packs

Status
Not open for further replies.
Melchiah said:
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







sbsUw.gif


How statistics can lie

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


So I'm supposed to believe the words of a musician who believes that the medical profession is wrong or part of some great anti-smoking conspiracy? Please. This is embarrassing.
 
Jobiensis said:
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.

When I quitting was easy, I didn't mean:

easy = free from challenge

I meant

easy = it's not hard to push past the challenges. They end quickly, and then it's over forever.

Three weeks of headaches for years added to your life and money in your wallet? That's pretty easy! Sorry about the co-worker, though...
 
Melchiah said:

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Are you serious?


BocoDragon said:
Three weeks of headaches for years added to your life and money in your wallet? That's pretty easy!

I understand what you are saying, and granted a bunch of the problems are behavioral and not physical, but they do build off each other.
 
avaya said:
So I'm supposed to believe the words of a musician who believes that the medical profession is wrong or part of some great anti-smoking conspiracy? Please. This is embarrassing.

I guess you want to believe the pharmaceutical companies, lobbyists, and politicians, who all have their own reasons for creating anti-smoking hysteria. Which is embarassing in itself.
 
Melchiah said:
I guess you're supposed to believe pharmaceutical companies, lobbyists, and politicians, who all have their own reasons for creating anti-smoking hysteria.

It's like you forgot just how much of a control the Cigarette Companies had over the information surrounding their product. I'm far less likely to believe those assholes.

Someone needs to watch the Insider.
 
Devolution said:
It's like you forgot just how much of a control the Cigarette Companies had over the information surrounding their product.

Someone needs to watch the Insider.

Unlike many here, I was already an adult before all this started. So yes, I think I remember it all better than those who were still in kindergarten at the time.
 
Melchiah said:
I guess you want to believe the pharmaceutical companies, lobbyists, and politicians, who all have their own reasons for creating anti-smoking hysteria. Which is embarassing in itself.
:lol :lol :lol
 
This law passing seems like it would be a huge pain in the ass for cashiers at drugstores, gas stations, etc. I bet smokers and non-smokers alike will have longer waits in line to look forward to since the cashiers won't be able to fetch packs from the walls of cigarettes just by glancing at the boxes.
 
Melchiah said:
Unlike many here, I was already an adult before all this started. So yes, I think I remember it all better than those who were still in kindergarten at the time.

Questions about the health effects of smoking were happening in the 1920s. In the U.S. the Surgeon General's report of 1964 was a pretty large turning point. Anyone that still believed the propaganda by the 80s should have been convinced with the internal memos from the tobacco companies.

The tobacco companies own scientists knew about the addictive qualities of nicotine and the harmful effects of smoking tobacco.

Joe Jackson is the smoking equivalent of Kirk Cameron.
 
Jobiensis said:
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Are you serious?
There should be no question that smoking is harmful and causes lung cancer. However, there are definite doubts about the effects of normal levels of second hand smoke inhalation, or smoking limited numbers of cigarettes. I don't know of any studies that show that ie smoking 10 cigarettes at the weekend has any appreciable effect on disease risk.
 
Ulairi said:
kids are more influenced by their parents and peers. packaging isn't going to get somene to smoke.
the brand loyalty stuff is true. i think this will help at least a little, and it certainly wouldnt hurt. hell i wish all packaging were reduced to the bare minimum for energy reasons (sans games and movies).
 
iNvidious01 said:
adults can make their own decisions, its to stop kids who are easily influenced by some shiny logos

yes, the way to breed responsible adults is to not let kids make decisions or have experience of their own but to shelter them until they are 18
 
richiek said:
Not really, considering the health risks for cigarettes are far greater than pot.
A lot of the complaint about smoking in this thread aren't about health. They are about cosmetics and hygiene.
 
KevinCow said:
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.
because it's enjoyable

i don't smoke anymore but i still like the act of smoking.

the idea that you smell awful and therefore no one wants to be around you sounds ridiculous and makes me think you live some kind of weird sheltered life.

i would also add that reports of addictiveness are highly exaggerated in my experience. growing up i was lead to believe that smoking a few cigs will have you hooked for life. i found it fairly easy to quit after i chose to.
 
brianjones said:
because it's enjoyable

i don't smoke anymore but i still like the act of smoking.

the idea that you smell awful and therefore no one wants to be around you sounds ridiculous and makes me think you live some kind of weird sheltered life.
Yeah. If it didn't cost so much, stink, and poison me, I would smoke 16 packs a day. No joke.
 
EschatonDX said:
yes, the way to breed responsible adults is to not let kids make decisions or have experience of their own but to shelter them until they are 18
You compare taking a dangerous, addictive drug to an essential life experience?
It's like saying driving drunk is an essential life experience.
 
brianjones said:
alcohol in moderation seems perfectly fine and even has health benefits
the french basically have the healthiest livers in the world
 
J. M. Romeo said:
Mothereffers are gonna put me out of a job!

brand account exec at an ad agency for lucky strike here -_______-

I've always liked you but I must say I despise your job.

I hope you'll find a new job easily despite the tough Spanish job market
 
TheHeretic said:
The anti smoking hysteria by Governments is just embarrassing. I completely reject the idea that any Government should even have the authority to create laws like this, but on a deeper level the risks of smoking are completely exaggerated.

Heretic is right.
 
ahoyhoy said:
Can we move onto replacing this:
Captain+Morgan.jpg


With this:
metastatic-liver-cancer.jpg


Or is this connection less obvious than inhaling smoke?
Pretty sure there's safe quantities of alcohol, not the same with cigarettes.
 
brianjones said:
because it's enjoyable

i don't smoke anymore but i still like the act of smoking.

the idea that you smell awful and therefore no one wants to be around you sounds ridiculous and makes me think you live some kind of weird sheltered life.

i would also add that reports of addictiveness are highly exaggerated in my experience. growing up i was lead to believe that smoking a few cigs will have you hooked for life. i found it fairly easy to quit after i chose to.
this. quit cold turkey, was easy, but i was never a heavy smoker to begin with.
 
It's absolutely silly to be against the de-branding of cigarettes (especially since marketing efforts was the reason they got so fucking popular to begin with). The government isn't forcing you to do anything, but they sure as hell can make the activity seem less appealing. It's actually quite poetic that they are simply reversing the tactics that ingrained cigarettes so deeply into our culture.

"B-b-but the government is being a nanny." Yes, and how wonderful that they are being a nanny. It's absolutely hypocritical if any of you use this little faulty argument and then in typical Gaf fashion stroll into other threads calling the world's population stupid. Are you seeing the contradiction? The government has to be a nanny because of said quantity of stupid people.

And that liquor isn't getting the same treatment is independent of whatever regulation cigarettes are getting. That one is getting a hall pass doesn't mean the other should also get a hall pass.
 
If I was the cig company I would start a new marketing campaign for every 100 images you mail back we`ll send you a free pack.

In fact on the pack of each picture there should be a numbers and stats, make them colectable see if they can start a pokemon type craze.
 
Fantasy Final said:
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.

You would probably not believe the number of girls i've chatted up because of cigarettes. Either because of meeting them in designated smoke areas or because of asking for a cig / being asked for one.

I think your statement is the opposite of true =)

I'd be all for this ban though, as long as they don't ban the cigarettes themselves. That i have the right to poison my body if i so choose is one thing, that does not automatically mean that giant corporations have the right to make billions selling me that poison.
 
jorma said:
I'd be all for this ban though, as long as they don't ban the cigarettes themselves. That i have the right to poison my body if i so choose is one thing, that does not automatically mean that giant corporations have the right to make billions selling me that poison.

Hear hear, but legalize pot ASAP so we have alternatives >:
 
smokers suck because non-smokers are forced to breath their shit in the air in enclosed spaces.

get home from a restaurant, bar or club and stink like smoking bum... absolutely disgusting for a non-smoker

ever kissed a smoker? blargh
 
Free people should be able to destroy their bodies how they choose, be it from cigarettes, alcohol, pot, or heroin.

Anything less, and your body is no longer your own.
 
Thunder Monkey said:
Free people should be able to destroy their bodies how they choose, be it from cigarettes, alcohol, pot, or heroin.

Anything less, and your body is no longer your own.
cigarettes cause 2nd hand smoke that affects people who DO NOT WANT to breath that shit.

you want to shoot up or get drunk? great for you

but if you smoke, don't spew that shit in enclosed indoor public environments
 
Melchiah said:
Unlike many here, I was already an adult before all this started. So yes, I think I remember it all better than those who were still in kindergarten at the time.

so it was your memos that were leaked? That would explain your stance...
 
gutter_trash said:
cigarettes cause 2nd hand smoke that affects people who DO NOT WANT to breath that shit.

you want to shoot up or get drunk? great for you

but if you smoke, don't spew that shit in enclosed indoor public environments
I didn't say anything about that. I don't go to bars or clubs. I don't care if they're not allowed in them.

What I said has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with governments around the world deciding the lives of their citizens.

You're not free until you can legally sell your cooch, buy pot at your local dispensary, or shoot up in the safety of your own home. Governments should not only represent their citizens they should pamper our asses with damn near anything we need. Without us they have nothing.

They shouldn't arrest someone for pot or public intoxication. They should offer you papers and a ride home.
 
Thunder Monkey said:
I didn't say anything about that. I don't go to bars or clubs. I don't care if they're not allowed in them.

What I said has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with governments around the world deciding the lives of their citizens.

You're not free until you can legally sell your cooch, buy pot at your local dispensary, or shoot up in the safety of your own home. Governments should not only represent their citizens they should pamper our asses with damn near anything we need. Without us they have nothing.

They shouldn't arrest someone for pot or public intoxication. They should offer you papers and a ride home.

Unless the majority of the population find that people drunk in public is bad form enough that they should be arrested.
In which case, they make a law that people representing the population agree on.
Seriously if that was deemed important enough someone would have made a proposition for that (and if you think that's missing, contact your local poster boy or become one yourself)
 
Thunder Monkey said:
I didn't say anything about that. I don't go to bars or clubs. I don't care if they're not allowed in them.

What I said has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with governments around the world deciding the lives of their citizens.

You're not free until you can legally sell your cooch, buy pot at your local dispensary, or shoot up in the safety of your own home. Governments should not only represent their citizens they should pamper our asses with damn near anything we need. Without us they have nothing.

They shouldn't arrest someone for pot or public intoxication. They should offer you papers and a ride home.
I don't give a fuck about how much fun you have with smoking or drugs...

I don't want your shit in my lungs, freedom of breathing clean air
 
Mael said:
Unless the majority of the population find that people drunk in public is bad form enough that they should be arrested.
In which case, they make a law that people representing the population agree on.
Seriously if that was deemed important enough someone would have made a proposition for that (and if you think that's missing, contact your local poster boy or become one yourself)
I use to stand on street corners with billboards... but that stopped after the public nuisance dispute.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom