The evil smokers and their fiendish plot!

[InsaneApache]

I gave up a couple of years back, just after my heart attack. However WTF is going on back in Blighty?

Now when I started smoking it was because of the cool logo and writing on a packet of five Park Drive (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sludgeulper/4619207999/). Obviously. Being a rather sophisticated fellow I soon moved on to the even more beguiling Players No 6. They were the bitch in heat of the graphic logo world.

Not content with imposing a blanket smoking ban, which has ruined the pubs and decimated the clubs, the UK government has decided that all cigarettes will from next year be sold in brown paper bags. Well nearly.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12689224

There's that word again; De-normalization. :sweatdrop:

There's so much wrong with this it's hard to see where to start.

Before I go off on a rant though, what do you guys think?

[Hosakawa Tito]

Nanny State knows best. In New York State it's getting to the point that the only place you'll be allowed to light up is inside your home. They don't want you to smoke and treat you like a leper, but they'll gladly collect & spend the taxes collected on tobacco. Can't smoke outdoors in many state/county parks, but second hand barbeque smoke is okay. If I was a smoker I'd petition to ban all outdoor grilling in parks due to that evil barbeque smoke. In fact due to the budget crisis and all the wear & tear from people using the parks...I'd petition to ban people from the parks too.

[Andres]

I quit smoking a couple of years back as well. I do enjoy a cigarillo or a cigar from time to time, usually during summer evenings. It's relaxing. I promised myself to pick up smoking "for real" again once I reach the age of 75, because at that age, I can no longer die young because of lung cancer, heart failure or whatnot, now can I?



Before I go off on a rant though, what do you guys think?


In order to keep the promise I made to myself, I'll be obliged to start stocking up on cigarettes, cigarillo's and cigars right now, I guess. There goes saving for my retirement... I need to buy the equivalent of +/- 15 years of heavy smoking now, before smoking gets illegal alltogether. Bastards!

[Husar]

I think instead they should make it legal that I can punch and beat everybody who smokes anywhere where I cannot easily avoid their smoke to my heart's content without having to fear any legal repercussions.

[InsaneApache]

I think instead they should make it legal that I can punch and beat everybody who smokes anywhere where I cannot easily avoid their smoke to my heart's content without having to fear any legal repercussions.

This attitude is what I'm talking about. :rolleyes:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Having recently quit smoking myself I fully applaud this measure. Tobacco is a highly addictive, dangerous drug. Smoking ought to be de-normalised. Smoking is not normal.

Case in point:

I gave up a couple of years back, just after my heart attack.Let's make sure more grandchildren can enjoy their grandparents. :yes:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well the people are too stupid, they're a danger to themselves and the government needs to protect them for their own good.

Obviously, educating people on the dangers of smoking have failed. So instead we have to remove all the pretty pictures and shiny things from the packets so people will not be lured towards them. Plus, if we hide the packets behind the counter, then the people will get confused and not know where they are, and probably just give up smoking.

I cannot see any flaws in this plan.

[Husar]

This attitude is what I'm talking about. :rolleyes:

I usually start to cough, feel bad, my eyes may hurt and my appetite is gone once I'm subjected to second hand smoke, why should it be legal for anyone to impose this on me?
It's mostly a problem on the subway and the escalator out of it where those impatient smokers have to light their cigarettes already even though it's not allowed.
If they wait until they're outside it's not really a problem usually, I have friends who are black smokers. :laugh4:

[Andres]

I think instead they should make it legal that I can punch and beat everybody who smokes anywhere where I cannot easily avoid their smoke to my heart's content without having to fear any legal repercussions.

I can understand you don't want smoke in your face when having dinner in a restaurant, but I fail to see how it can bother someone if a guy is smoking in e.g. a trainstation :shrug:

Do you want it legal that you can punch and beat everybody who drives a car anywhere where you cannot easily avoid their smoke to your heart's content without having to fear any legal repercussions as well? While we're at it, let's make shooting rockets at evil airplanes with their evil gasses legal. And blowing up houses of people who warm their houses using non-renewable energy sources, which probably would mean that it'll become legal to blow up about any house. Oh, and punching anybody who has someting in his home that's made in China, because all the evil gasses produced to get that stuff here are bad for us.

Meh, why not make it legal to kill human beings, surely, they're all doing something that could be bad for my health.

:rolleyes:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Now when I started smoking it was because of the cool logo and writing on a packet of five Park Drive (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sludgeulper/4619207999/). Obviously. Being a rather sophisticated fellow I soon moved on to the even more beguiling Players No 6. They were the bitch in heat of the graphic logo world.Advertising works. Branding works. That's why the countless billions are spend on them. Branding works especially well for the most vulnerable group, the very group you most want to prevent picking up this dangerous habit: teenagers.
Ever been (or send) a teenager to school with the wrong clothing logo?


Companies can hardly advertise tobacco anymore. It is a small step to ban another form of branding: packaging. So well done to Britain for this important step, I hope the rest of Europe will follow suit.

[Andres]

Having recently quit smoking myself I fully applaud this measure. Tobacco is a highly addictive, dangerous drug. Smoking ought to be de-normalised. Smoking is not normal.

Case in point:
Let's make sure more grandchildren can enjoy their grandparents. :yes:

Drinking alcohol is not normal. It's addictive and dangerous. Idem dito for caffeine. Meat prepared on a BBQ is bad for your health. Fries are teh evil.

Let's forbid living, shall we?

Meh, if this continues, I might start smoking again tomorrow, just to make a political statement. Nanny state :thumbsdown:

[Louis VI the Fat]

There are all sorts of restrictions to limit alcohol consumption. (To see what happens with just a little bit less consumer protection, compare alcoholism in the EU with Russia, or the US with Latin America)

Our food is heavily protected too. (To see what happens with just a little bit less consumer protection, compare average weight in the EU with the US)

Emissions of dangerous gasses from cars is heavily restricted. (To see what happens with just a little bit less consumer protection, compare pollution levels in Hamburg with Shanghai)


Nanny state ftw, every single time. :yes:
The nanny state is what corporations call consumer protection. What those seeking privileges call the common good.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Ever been (or send) a teenager to school with the wrong clothing logo?

We have school uniforms, remember.

Anyway, the logic from some people in this thread means the government should ban a lot of things. Starting with alcohol, the effects of which are far worse and more widespread than smoking.

[Rhyfelwyr]

There are all sorts of restrictions to limit alcohol consumption. (To see what happens with just a little bit less consumer protection, compare alcoholism in the EU with Russia, or the US with Latin America)

Our food is heavily protected too. (To see what happens with just a little bit less consumer protection, compare average weight in the EU with the US)

Emissions of dangerous gasses from cars is heavily restricted. (To see what happens with just a little bit less consumer protection, compare pollution levels in Hamburg with Shanghai)

Those are bad comparisons all round. Culture makes a massive difference in the first two, the nanny state didn't make Scotsmen less alcoholic or less fat (pretty much top of the table in both btw), despite it being the heartland of nanny state Labour.

It is fine for the nanny state to launch campaigns educating people on the dangers of smoking, even if it damaged the tobacoo corporations. It is not on the other hand OK to dictate peoples lifestyles.

[HoreTore]

I support any measure that spoils the day for marketing departments. Maybe they'll get laid off and be forced do something productive with their lives.

Also, the smoking ban in pubs and clubs is a roaring success.

[InsaneApache]

I think peeps should cast their minds back to prohibition and see how that ended up! I think I'll invest in the Albanian Mafia, I'll make a fortune. :balloon2:

From Dick Puddlecotes blog.....


I've had something of an epiphany. The scales have fallen from my eyes and I realise that a perfectly risk free existence is the only way forward. And you know what did it for me? A pink Escort Cabriolet, that's what.

It wasn't just pink inside, either, the steering wheel was pink (and fluffy!), as were the seat belts and most of the collection of soft toys filling every space on the parcel shelf and dash.

Doesn't the driver understand that this isn't a toy? it's a one ton killing machine, goddamit! Garish colours are encouraging the young to take up driving cars which contributes to this awful death toll, it must be stopped.

In fact, it's worse than just the real life deaths, take time to think about the millions who will die in the upcoming holocaust if emissions aren't drastically reduced! I mean, won't somebody please think of the children?

We must denormalise *driving in the eyes of young people, it's the only way to prevent future road deaths and save the planet.

Making cars in just the one plain colour will take away much of the lustre associated with this dangerous habit. Getting rid of pink, red, green cars - or any other colour come to that - will go a long way to achieving that. Go faster stripes should be banned too, along with shiny alloy wheels and ... oh why not, stereo systems.

Not only that, those fancy logos have to go, too. Prancing horses, roaring lions, iconic lettering, all designed to promote driving as 'cool' to the young. What's more, they keep coming up with funky designs too. Car shapes which look like a woman's bottom, sassy wings, little cars that can park sideways, sunroofs as standard, multi-coloured seats - you name it, the evil motor industry have tried it. If we really must have cars at all, they should be a basic shape, functional and nothing else.

Yes, the motor industry will try to tell you that youngsters aren't attracted to driving because of colouring, sleek lines, and logo design; that they are merely competing with other brands; but their business relies on recruiting young people to replace old motorists who die. They spend billions every year on making car use attractive in order to entice the young into an evil mode of transport which will end up killing thousands of its users, not to mention the millions who will be slaughtered by passive motoring inhalation, and damage to the environment.

We need to encourage kids to take buses and refrain from starting to drive; making all cars one bland colour, in one design (with plain type to identify the manufacturer), and eradicating flashy logos, will go a long way to achieving this.

Granted, there's no evidence that it will actually work, but I think it might so that's good enough. If we get in quickly we can even claim to be the first country in the world to take such a bold step - how great is that!

For a better, risk free, future, it's vital that we make all cars in white NOW. You know it makes sense, Lansley, let's have a consultation, eh?

http://dickpuddlecote.blogspot.com/

*There's that word again. :sweatdrop:

[HoreTore]

Yes, because banning advertising has something to do with prohibition....

/sarcasm

Hyperbole.

[gaelic cowboy]

I support any measure that spoils the day for marketing departments.

In the words of Bill Hicks


By the way, if anyone here is in marketing or advertising...kill yourself. Thank you. Just planting seeds, planting seeds is all I'm doing. No joke here, really. Seriously, kill yourself, you have no rationalisation for what you do, you are Satan's little helpers. Kill yourself, kill yourself, kill yourself now. Now, back to the show

[Husar]

I can understand you don't want smoke in your face when having dinner in a restaurant, but I fail to see how it can bother someone if a guy is smoking in e.g. a trainstation :shrug:

Do you want it legal that you can punch and beat everybody who drives a car anywhere where you cannot easily avoid their smoke to your heart's content without having to fear any legal repercussions as well? While we're at it, let's make shooting rockets at evil airplanes with their evil gasses legal. And blowing up houses of people who warm their houses using non-renewable energy sources, which probably would mean that it'll become legal to blow up about any house. Oh, and punching anybody who has someting in his home that's made in China, because all the evil gasses produced to get that stuff here are bad for us.

Meh, why not make it legal to kill human beings, surely, they're all doing something that could be bad for my health.

:rolleyes:

I agree about cars, except electric ones, we could have saved ourselves the whole E10 debacle as well.
It's not just about long term health effects, it's about making me cough, making my clothes and my hair smell horribly bad etc. without it being any of my own wrongdoing, just for the pleasure/addiction/weakness of someone else. The disadvantages of smoking balance out the benefits, at least when you're addicted. And someone who can't wait for a minute until they're outside a subway station where noone minds that they smoke, has to be addicted. Even worse if they do it down at the platform or even inside the train because then everybody standing downwind gets a taste of it...
A train station outside is less problematic.

The China thing is something they have to do in China, their gasses aren't affecting me nearly as much as the ones from a smoker 2m away from me. It's him who I want to beat up for my enjoyment and I don't see why that should be banned because my enjoyment is more important than what he thinks about this minor health problem I'm causing.

[Furunculus]

Having recently quit smoking myself I fully applaud this measure. Tobacco is a highly addictive, dangerous drug. Smoking ought to be de-normalised. Smoking is not normal.


so because you were weak you desire to impose your will on everyone else, and because you finally overcame your weakness you feel mandated to 'assist' everyone else?

no thanks.

[HoreTore]

so because you were weak you desire to impose your will on everyone else, and because you finally overcame your weakness you feel mandated to 'assist' everyone else?

no thanks.

Excuse me, how will the lack of brands and advertising be a way of "imposing Louis' will" on others....?

What use does the average smoker have for a shiny picture on his cigarette pack?

[Tellos Athenaios]

my enjoyment is more important than what he thinks about this minor health problem I'm causing

That tends to sum up the people who smoke pretty well.

[Rhyfelwyr]

That tends to sum up the people who smoke pretty well.

This thread was never about smoking in public places.

[Strike For The South]

You are keeping Fags in the closet

It's only a matter time before you put Frags in the cloest
I lol

On topic: If you smoke you are a fool, I say we give cigs away so we can be rid of these people quicker

[Husar]

This thread was never about smoking in public places.

Yeah, it's about the horrible fascism of completely ineffective, nonsensical "look, we're doing something" "attempts" by politicians which are about as useful as the outrage about our right to have colourful packages being stripped away from us that follows them. ~;)

[InsaneApache]

It's actually about more than that. It's about people deciding what is normal and what is not. That word, "Denormalisation", should have everyone worried. Whether you smoke or not. Who decides what's normal? The government? The local council? ASH? The police?

I don't know either but it's worrying.

They've done the deed on the smokers and are now moving on to "Denormalise" alcohol. After that who knows. Probably fat people. Perhaps people who look a bit different. Maybe even you one day.

:book:

[HoreTore]

Uhm.... Denormalization is a technical term, IA, it has nothing to do with politicospeak...

[Husar]

I never thought I'm normal anyway. ~;)

[HoreTore]

A junkie, for example, usually hangs out in an enviroment where everyone he knows does drugs, ie. the drug abuse is completely normal. Breaking out of that enviroment and finding a new enviroment where drugs aren't used, is denormalizing the drug use.

But it could be applied to everyone and everything. For example, all your friends could be gamers, and so playing games all day long would be normal in that enviroment. If you wanted to change your habit, denormalizing gaming could be one way of doing that, ie. Changing your enviroment to one where people don't play games all day long.

[InsaneApache]

I see.

Is that done either voluntarily or compulsory?

Again, who decides what is normal and what is abnormal?

[HoreTore]

I see.

Is that done either voluntarily or compulsory?

Again, who decides what is normal and what is abnormal?

"What is normal" is objective, not subjective.

[Rhyfelwyr]

"What is normal" is objective, not subjective.

Could you give some examples of normal/non-normal stuff then?

[HoreTore]

Could you give some examples of normal/non-normal stuff then?

I already have. But, I can give more:

In a group where everybody plays video games, playing video games is normal.

In a group where everybody works out regularly, working out regularly is normal.

In a group where everybody drinks, drinking is normal.

Etc etc, I'm sure you get the picture by now. Everything can be considered normal, it is the context the activity is placed within that determines whether or not it's normal.

[InsaneApache]

So if a government half-wit decided that posting on games forums is abnormal and deems it necessary to "denormalise" it, with the sanction of fines and/or imprisonment you'd be OK with that?

[HoreTore]

So if a government half-wit decided that posting on games forums is abnormal and deems it necessary to "denormalise" it, with the sanction of fines and/or imprisonment you'd be OK with that?

I want some of your pot.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I already have. But, I can give more:

In a group where everybody plays video games, playing video games is normal.

In a group where everybody works out regularly, working out regularly is normal.

In a group where everybody drinks, drinking is normal.

Etc etc, I'm sure you get the picture by now. Everything can be considered normal, it is the context the activity is placed within that determines whether or not it's normal.

Surely those are examples of things being subjective... ie there is no sort of objective truth behind what is normal, it is instead relative to the experiences of certain groups/individuals.

[HoreTore]

Surely those are examples of things being subjective... ie there is no sort of objective truth behind what is normal, it is instead relative to the experiences of certain groups/individuals.

No, it is still objective, I probably didn't explain it well enough.

What is normal refers to the context something is placed within, not the action itself. There is no objective truth as to what actions are normal, true. But normalization refers to contexts, and the context is objective, not subjective.

To explain further: let's say we put object X into context Y, which will yield result Z. Z will refer to object X being normal. But object X is completely random. Context Y, on the other hand, is not random, but rather a constant value which will transform object X to "normal". Y is objective.

[HoreTore]

I'm not sure that was a very good explanation... So, I'll gie another one:

The three examples posted above all have one thing in common, one mechanism. This mechanism is objective(as it is constant and will produce the same result over and over again no matter what the input is), and that mechanism is what what makes things "normal".

[Moros]

Drinking alcohol is not normal. It's addictive and dangerous. Idem dito for caffeine. Meat prepared on a BBQ is bad for your health. Fries are teh evil.

Let's forbid living, shall we?

Meh, if this continues, I might start smoking again tomorrow, just to make a political statement. Nanny state :thumbsdown:
Amen to that! If I ever start smoking it's because of all this nonsmoking stuff.

Also bars without smoke? I can't stand those. Bah! Next we'll only be allowed to drink orangejuice or water. :furious3: