Ministry Of Propaganda News

[Snaipyr]

The anti-smoking business has become as big as the pro-smoking business -

 

Come, come.

 

Where are the huge multi-national companies that make money from "anti-smoking"?

 

S

 

The Pharmaceutical companies that make very expensive anti-smoking product?

[sarahc]

I love smoking threads, they're brillo!

 

sarahc

I used the "brillo" retort in another thread and hadn't realised that it had been used earlier today by you. Of course it should be used sparingly but with effect, so my bad, as they say.

 

Don't worry, I don't get precious about the use of brillo.

[mollag]

Sorry, couldnt resist it but Albert Einstein smoked, he was pretty smart, on the other hand Hitler didnt, he was the Anti smoking fascist.

 

Nazi. The word you want is Nazi (sorry, couldn't resist it).

Granted, i should have used that word, its easier to spell!

[Chinahand]

We have a number of people in the Isle of Man who make their entire living by telling us that smoking is A Bad Thing. I'm sure they're right, and if they help people to quit, it's money well spent.

 

It just strikes me that it's more about the ability to create a righteous fuss with many anti-smokers.

 

Stu, I fully admit we have very different philosophies in life - I love life, and hence want to treasure it and prolong it - I think you have posted previously that you see yourself checking out with a battered and worn body from the abuses that living life to "the max" requires [ok I paraphrase, but I don't think I'm that far out! - I seem to remember you posting a quote which has inspired one of the Jims to add it to his signature!]

 

My difference from you partly stems from the fact I've seen people who thought they were living life to the max die from it horribly and at an age they and everyone around them thought was far too young to go. We'd all like to be William S. Burroughs, but the fact is most people who live like him die decades if not generations younger and regret rather than revel in the extremes they put their bodies through.

 

And then there's the fact that I don't see the need to have any cigarettes or more than a certain intake of alcohol to enjoy a good night out.

 

Do you really feel your life is more fulfilled as a result of cigarettes? Genuine question: if asking that makes me guilty of making a righteous fuss well fine: guilty as charged.

 

But I think you are addicted to nicotine and understand the risks of smoking definitely on your body and very very likely on those around you (Hee hee - see Albert I am showing a willingness to concede Mr Velvet Gloves papers vrs the WHO's ones!).

 

With the ban and everything, smokers very rarely annoy me nowadays - they don't make my clothes stink when I go out, they don't pollute me and as basically none of the people I am close to smoke I don't need to worry about friends dying. Smokers mean I pay less health services taxes as you lot pay far more in tobacco tax than treating your bodies requires.

 

So why am I making a fuss? Because if you stopped on average you'd live 10 years longer. That's ten more years for your friends and mates to enjoy your company, ten more years to be a productive member of the community, ten more years to contribute to creating wealth through your hard work.

 

If you don't think it is worth living 10 more years I really question why - are you really saying the satisfaction smoking gives you is worth it?

 

As I say you and I have very different philosophies in life - I'm no puritan and want people to enjoy their life as much as they want to - but I want them to enjoy their lives and not have an addiction limit their lives.

 

Whenever I hear smokers claim its just Nazis stopping them from enjoying their lives I really wonder - What is this amazing enjoyment that smoking gives you?

 

If you stopped you can still chat with your mates, you can still have a drink (though again I really question what is gained from drinking a whole bottle of wine, or 10 pints rather than half a bottle and 3), you can still have a dance and a laugh - and if you didn't smoke you could do it for on average 10 years more.

 

Is it enjoyment or addiction you are loosing by stopping smoking - how about this spend a month smoking roll your own tea leaves and see if its as enjoyable - if it is at least you'll know its not the nicotine which keeps you doing it.

[Stu Peters]

Fair post Chinahand. Like most smokers I certainly don't have a deathwish (we all assume it won't happen to US), and don't get a huge amount of 'pleasure' from smoking...certainly not enough to reward the clear risks.

 

Truth is, I'm an addict. Plain and simple. That's what I hate about being a smoker. And it's MUCH more than an addiction to nicotine (NRT doesn't help ME at all). I suspect it's a complex addiction comprising chemical and psychological factors, but I can't crack it (having tried every remedy). Ex-smokers have an inkling, non-smokers can't, of how tough it is to quit if you've been doing it for years, with no apparent ill-effect (if I suffered from a hacking smoker's cough or shortness of breath it might make a difference). Of course, my lungs could be like black tar sacks just waiting to go on strike.

 

Giving up is easy for me - it's staying off them that has been the problem in the past.

 

Nearest quit aid is the e-fag I've got - but even THAT doesn't hit the spot, for some reason. I'd be all in favour of a total ban on tobacco sales - this whole 'you can buy them and we'll make money from you to stop you smoking anywhere' smacks of complete hypocrisy.

[Albert Tatlock]

China...you could say the same about anything involving risk be it: driving, drinking, parachuting, climbing, and eating bacon butty's, even running the extra risk of slipping on the soap taking that extra shower in the week. Give up any risk in your life and you'll live longer.

 

Personally, I enjoy the pleasure of smoking, with a pint or after a meal especially, but I often go without easily at work and sometimes even at home. But yes I admit I'm addicted. But to me, what seems to be more addictive at present, is this state driven paranoia about living longer, and more so - telling others what to do and how to live their lives - (even though they have been informed and educated about the risks, and have provided for them programs/help so they can easily take action to give up if they so desire). I know the facts and I know help is available should I choose it - I'm well educated, was married to a medical professional, and have relatives who are in medicine, but I don't want to give up thanks, neither do many other people, so please respect that choice.

 

Who the hell wants to live in a world where everyone is the same, lives to be 90, and has only 'state' defined choices? Jebus, this self-rightcheous and self-delusional live-forever behaviour sickens me to the extent that if I didn't smoke I'd probably start just to fight it. It's plain nannyism, totally illiberal and should not have a place in a democracy where a compromise on smoking premises could easily have been reached given the number of smokers, including hospitality working smokers - whatever H&S excuse if used.

 

Even worse, the arguments tend to be backed by pseudo-scientific bullshit and half truths. Yes everyone has the right to protect themselves from exposure to it if they believe it will harm them. But to move the debate into such a crusade against a significant minority (a quarter of the population) is just plain fascism (bullying) - plain and simple - and totally against democratic principles.

 

By all means tell us about the dangers and the addiction, about your friends and relatives that have died horribly from it, and offer assistance to us to give up. But if we say 'no thanks', then respect that choice, as wrong for us as you think it may be - just as I respect your choice to go and have a drink, to go parachuting or to sit in the sun too long.

[P.K.]

If you give up smoking, drinking, fast cars and fast women then you'll live longer.

 

Actually you won't live any longer. It will just seem a lot longer...

[Slim]

Truth is, I'm an addict.

 

See, this is why us non-smokers are so keen not to suck the stuff in. I sympathize, I really do, I've had a hard enough time dealing with food to know that if I was addicted by fags, I'd have a complete get of a time giving up. I'm not persecuting smokers by wanting them as far away from me as possible, I'm protecting myself and my family.

 

In response to LDV: I don't think a future ban will be specific to 'in homes' as such. It'll either be an outright ban on the sale of fags, or a ban on knowingly smoking where others can inhale. I wonder if you could charge someone for assualt if they blew smoke at you?

 

Back on topic, I'll give Albert one more downside to the current ban as it stands: Smokers are now much more visible to kids than they were before the ban. My kids go past the Manx Arms serveral times a day for example, and there's always a smoker or two outside taking a puff, they wouldn't have been there previously.

 

I agree with Chinahand by the way, Albert, you've produced no evidence to say smokings increased in the home, or that offlicense sales have increased as a result of the smoking ban, while there is research that says smoking overall has dropped as a result of bans, and that smoking in the home as decreased, eg:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlere...gi?artid=558726

 

I don't agree with the obsession about people telling you how to live your lives. I'm not doing that, I just want to live my own without inhaling smoke, isn't that fair enough?

[Albert Tatlock]

I don't agree with the obsession about people telling you how to live your lives. I'm not doing that, I just want to live my own without inhaling smoke, isn't that fair enough?

I strongly disagree - that seems to be your nature. You have objections to people smoking in smoking premises away from you.

 

I was arguing against the assertion that children are not exposed to additional smoke as I do not think it has been researched properly - either way. Claims are being made it has been.

 

There is plenty of evidence that off-licence sales have increased - at least 10% in Scotland and Ireland since the bans. There is also plenty of evidence wet sales are down - and that more people are staying at home more drinking.

 

With regard your link - Between 1993 and 2006 the percentage of smokers fell from around 30% to around 24% (National Statistics - predominately the result of the education campaign, which now arguably has only proven to be limited in its effectiveness), so it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that there would be less smoking households and so less kids would be exposed to it.

 

But my view is that those in remaining smoking households will now be exposed to more for longer. This is because even these studies admit since the ban that smoking prevalance is much the same, people can do it in far fewer places like the pub, and with off licence sales up are drinking/spending more time at home. Can't you see the very simple fact that testing the level of cotinine (that has a half life of 20 hours) in kids salivia in the week is meaningless related to their time of exposure???

 

It's a simple manipulation of data, averaging out selective data, and misuse of the presentation of statistics in my view...and I would bet £5 a decent study would show that while many more kids are not/less exposed to it, a significant number are exposed to far more.

[Slim]

I strongly disagree - that seems to be your nature. You have objections to people smoking in smoking premises away from you.

 

I'll ask again for an example of that? If I've given that impression, it's wrong. I'm against people smoking in the same premises, not because I'm telling them how to live their live, but because I don't want to inhale smoke. That's quite a clear difference.

 

There is plenty of evidence that off-licence sales have increased - at least 10% in Scotland and Ireland since the bans. There is also plenty of evidence wet sales are down - and that more people are staying at home more drinking.

 

I've not seen that, got any data? Is there any evidence linking that to the ban, or is it just that supermarkets are doing cheaper beer? I notice you wont accept the relationship between dropping heart attacks for the same period but are happy to accept rising off license sales as linked, why's that?

 

With regard your link - Between 1993 and 2006 the percentage of smokers fell from around 30% to around 24% (National Statistics - predominately the result of the education campaign, which now arguably has only proven to be limited in its effectiveness), so it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that there would be less smoking households and so less kids would be exposed to it.

 

Again, we need longer timescales to judge the trends really, which is also why I think you can't point at off license sales to back up your argument that children are exposed more as a result of the ban.

 

But my view is that those in remaining smoking households will now be exposed to more for longer. This is because even these studies admit since the ban that smoking prevalance is much the same, people can do it in far fewer places like the pub, and with off licence sales up are drinking/spending more time at home. Can't you see the very simple fact that testing the level of cotinine (that has a half life of 20 hours) in kids salivia in the week is meaningless related to their time of exposure???

 

It's a simple manipulation of data, averaging out selective data, and misuse of the presentation of statistics in my view...and I would bet £5 a decent study would show that while many more kids are not/less exposed to it, a significant number are exposed to far more.

 

I'm not so sure. If the heart attack rates are dropping, that must mean people are smoking less overall. I guess it depends on the amount smoked less vs where they're smoking kicks in.

 

I'm amazed anyone smokes in front of their kids though, what twat would?

[Chinahand]

Albert - Its not enforcing my behaviour on others, or wanting government action which drives me - its trying to understand the justification the individual gives for smoking.

 

I cannot see how you can justify smoking - each to there own and all that - but you are one of the few people who claims you smoke for pleasure - well go and roll up tea leaves.

 

I'm sure assam has a full flavour, while green is a bit sharp - why not try peppermint as an alternative to those methos fags?

 

All the psychological pleasures of fiddling with your fags and inhaling after a meal will be there, but the nicotine addiction won't be.

 

What would be the difference? And don't give me any crap about worrying whether smoking tea leaves will be toxic!

 

You stand up for your right to smoke - ok, I'll agree with you there. Do you want your kids to smoke, or any child to take it up? And don't try and deflect the question by saying if they want to they can do - I'm asking about how you feel about them doing it - do you approve or want to encourage it?

[Albert Tatlock]

Slim, I've done my research and presented it in many other threads with links too. I'm not doing your research for you - either look it up for yourself or do a search on MF.

 

I have made my points in this thread (which I actually started), and have not seen anything that reverses my assertion that Anita Hamburger is talking bollocks.

 

If you want to carry on twittering and diverging - on you go.

[%age]

I used to get right stuck in on smoking threads over the past 10 years.

 

Now the reekers have to stand outside the pub I don't really bother any more.

 

The campaign is won. My work here is done.

[Albert Tatlock]

Albert - Its not enforcing my behaviour on others, or wanting government action which drives me - its trying to understand the justification the individual gives for smoking.

 

I cannot see how you can justify smoking - each to there own and all that - but you are one of the few people who claims you smoke for pleasure - well go and roll up tea leaves.

 

I'm sure assam has a full flavour, while green is a bit sharp - why not try peppermint as an alternative to those methos fags?

 

All the psychological pleasures of fiddling with your fags and inhaling after a meal will be there, but the nicotine addiction won't be.

 

What would be the difference? And don't give me any crap about worrying whether smoking tea leaves will be toxic!

 

You stand up for your right to smoke - ok, I'll agree with you there. Do you want your kids to smoke, or any child to take it up? And don't try and deflect the question by saying if they want to they can do - I'm asking about how you feel about them doing it - do you approve or want to encourage it?

I believe in education and then freedom of adult choice with regard smoking (and drinking).

 

Gosh, you're right. I just printed off your post, set fire to it and tried smoking it - it's shit.

[Chinahand]

Albert simply deflects rather than answers the question.

 

Edited for spelling