Except for the dead animals in their mouths, they’re great kids
—Posted by Tim Nudd |
|
January 27, 2006 | Permalink |
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Those commercials are fine with me.
I don't care when smokers whine about their rights. Their "rights" to smoke literally make me SICK!!!
RE: Second hand smoke. My parents smoked when I was little. I have never smoked myself, not once have I ever taken a single drag on a cigarette.
I have SCAR TISSUE in my lungs which looks like little white flakes of dandruff on an X-ray that must have been caused by second hand smoke.
I cannot be friends with smokers.
If I am around anyone who smokes, within TWO DAYS I will have a major sinus infection, without fail, that may turn into bronchitis, and/or pneumonia because of the irritation started with the second hand smoke.
As soon as I get home from a place where people smoke, I immediately put all my clothes in the washer, and take a shower and wash my hair.
So I don't go into places where anyone smokes. The cost of the doctor visit, the antibiotics and the shots is not worth the risk.
I'm thinking of getting one of those little battery operated personal fans and carrying it around, when I go into an office building and the smokers are busy puffing on their coffin nails.
Posted by: perragrande | Jan 27, 2006 2:05:33 PM
Ahh what an effective strategy. Pointing out the bad things and then daring me to try them.
Posted by: | Jan 27, 2006 2:14:21 PM
I'd like to see this same kind of diligence going to something like PEANUT ALLERGIES. Y'all heard about that girl who DIED cuz she kissed a kid who had eaten peanut butter?
LETS BAN PEANUTS.
All kidding aside ~ both my kids are allergic to them and I'm not supporting campaigns to ban peanuts cuz a bunch of kids DIE almost IMMEDIATELY from exposure to them. In fact, I don't even want accomodations made for them. I just don't send them to school!! Hello... 90% of the people on planet earth love and eat peanuts. The few who are allergic shouldn't make the rest suffer.
If I want to smoke, its MY BODY, a FREE COUNTRY and my right. So shut the hell up already!
Posted by: PissedOff | Jan 27, 2006 2:18:13 PM
Your all stupid!
Posted by: YourAllidiots | Jan 27, 2006 2:29:05 PM
Hey Paul, guess what hoss, I am black. I have no idea where you got the white trash comment from but kuddos for making up more crap. I am glad that no one is attacking anyone in these posts due to their individual opinion. That would just be ridiculous and a huge lack of class on the accusers part....(sarcasm included)
Posted by: Tech | Jan 27, 2006 2:34:59 PM
Smoking is for adults over the age of 18. The ads should say,
"Kissing a child this age is pedophilia!"
Posted by: Jabba | Jan 27, 2006 2:50:04 PM
Just out of curiousity... Do all you non-smokers who argue that smoking is causing you to pay more in insurance premiums actually think that the eradication of smoking will cause those premiums to go down? Uh... yeah, and the record companies would drop the price of CDs if only there weren't so many darn pirates. Get a life you pieces of trash. We don't need you dumb asses getting laws passed that protect us from ourselves. If we want to destroy our lungs with smooth satisfying tobacco, then it's none of your god-damn business. Don't like cig butts on the street? TOO BAD. Maybe if you BUY the property and put up KEEP OUT signs, then I'll care.
Posted by: ephewe | Jan 27, 2006 3:17:31 PM
thank goodness the drunks and pot heads arent raging about the M.A.D.D ads .. or we'd all be in serious hell.
I feel the frustrations from these ads, honestly .. I see that they take it a bit too far with the adverts and I can see why you guys are upset. I moved from the states to Canada .. you guys would be super offended if you had to purchase your smokes here and see rotten pictures of lungs and rotten teeth .. but I think the point they are trying to make or get across is, they are doing what they can to "scare" them (kids) into not doing these things. Granted kids are kids and will do what ever in the hell they want .. and the more you tell them NO the more they will do it.
I feel like this, smoke, that's your biz .. not mine. I'm glad they've banned smoking in all public places here, I can finally sit and enjoy a meal without gasping for air, I can have a fun night at the bar without coming out of the place with a film on my skin, and smelling like an ashtray .. I think they need to buckle down on the littering problem .. but the ads can go, they arent doing much good. the truth.com commercials were ok to deal with, stupid from time to time, but we dealt with them .. I think that is plenty. Smoking has been around for ages and will continue to be around for ages more. But in honesty .. smokers: you have to admit, when you light up you ARE putting others around you in a much worse boat than you've gotten yourself into. Not fair for us to have to go out to eat and pay for a good meal and walk out with more than a full belly. It's really not fair .. All I ask is smokers swallow your pride and take it outside. If you smoke then fine. your body, your lungs your future .. we live in a world where we all have to make sacrafices and comprimises .. it's truly not fair to put those who choose not to smoke cigs in an early grave.
BTW .. I dont smoke. Never have, never want to. I'm currently fighting health problems from second hand smoke. Coming from a family of smokers I have to say, please dont put your children at risk of dying before you. My lungs look worse than my sisters lungs and she's the smoker. So there is proof that second hand smoke harms ..
And for the person targeting the "fat epidemic" LMFAO oh my lord, some fat ass eating two more cheeseburgers than you isnt going to cause YOU to get fat or sick .. but you sparkin up that cig sure has an effect on the rest of us .. nothing to compare, try again. Fat folks eating doesnt infringe on your health ... YOUR habit however does affect others.
And to add to the peanut comment: People with peanut allergies can avoid coming across peanut situations .. it's a horrid medical condition and I am sorry your children have those allergies, but again would you eat a peanut butter sammich then give your kid a kiss knowing it could kill him/her? NO you try to keep them safe and away from potential problems .. still you cant compare these two, smoking isnt a serious medical condition but surely causes them.
None of us can win .. we are all right and think everyone else is wrong.
Posted by: cole | Jan 27, 2006 3:25:23 PM
I think they should outlaw smoking. After all it is potentially bad for you and you should never be able to do anything that is potentially bad for you. While you are at it, outlaw candy, driving, owning a gun, red meat, pork, eggs, milk, and salt. They are all potentially bad for you as well.
Don't tell me that those others only affect you. Think about your family when you fat ass is dead from eatting too much. They suffer greatly at the loss of a loved one.
You fuking people need to get a grip already and live your own damn lives. Leave us smokers alone. We already pay ungodly ammounts to do something we enjoy, have to go outside to do it, and pay higher health care cost because of it. We aren't doing it in your face so how about you STFU and go eat your 5 pounds of Adkins Bacon.
Posted by: Loira | Jan 27, 2006 3:45:38 PM
And see... the stupid arguments.. Name calling... fighting.. To hell with it all.. I say that we need an Extinction Level Event.. The fighting and bitching prove to me once again that humanity is a failed cause and any so called god with a brain should just Crtl+Alt+Delete and be done with it.
Don’t like smoking... look on the bright side, we will all be dead soon enough... but then again how many healthy fit non smoking people die of heart attacks every year while jogging... I mean life is a short, nasty, chaotic ride with no point whatsoever.. If some one wants to smoke.. Fine.. Look at it as a slow, guilt free way of committing suicide... when we leave this life you can blame the smoke.. Not the fact that humanity is not worth associating with... I for one like smoking, it goes well with the drinking. And I have always been of the opinion that if you don’t like me and cant except me the way I am then it is your loss not mine… oh no!!! I will spend my life alone??? Relationships are nothing more than an excuse to use me any way… so if smoking causes people to leave me alone.. More the better.. Bring it on… you don’t know me.. so don’t say you care.. by now you think I am cracked in the head.. You think I need “help”.. Keep it to yourself… I don’t tell you how to live your life.. That your Religions are a pack of lies used to breed hate.. You don’t tell me how to live my life and we will get along just fine..
To those that say this post has nothing to do with the article.. it dose indeed.. this was the last straw.. I have put up with it long enough.. and I will sit back with a smile.. light up a smoke.. and watch this world burn because you think making someone quit smoking is more important that corrupt governments, nuclear weapons, global warming, domestic spying.. fine… see in hell
Posted by: Vkandis | Jan 27, 2006 3:46:31 PM
To people who say smoking increases health care costs - WTF are you talking about!??! Think about your argument. So you are saying if you don't smoke, you'll never die?? Everyone incurs hospital costs before they die, if anything, smoking saves money, because people die sooner and don't go through the inevitable 8 life-saving operations when they are 85 years old.
Posted by: Brian | Jan 27, 2006 4:13:28 PM
Why are these people not aiming advertisements and pushing legislation on the government to make smoking illegal? This is just another program looking to get funds from taxpayers to push their own agenda.
There are thousands of factors that raise the costs of health care, smoking is only one of them. I pay for my insurance, smoking is legal, and if I do it and it affects my health causing me to use my insurance to cure/treat me then how am I costing you any money? I'm not, your insurance company would simply like you to think that.
Worried about second hand smoke? Get to your governor, senator or president and tell him to ban smoking in public areas.
Cigarettes have been proven to be addictive and for some people extremely hard to quit. Yet, for some reason, these people seem to think it is ok to make personal attacks on someone who is addicted to a dangerous drug that has been made legal by the government. You don't think this is a personal attack? It is saying that kissing me is like kissing a dead rat, that is a personal attack, and the only thing I have done is used a product that is 100% legal.
The US and States gov't also like to add taxes to tobacco to "deter the use" of it. Would making crack more expensive somehow make drug addicts stop using it? To take something people are addicted to, raise the cost of it so the governments make more money from it, then tell people it is for their own good is blatant wrong, yet "non-smokers that care" think it is ok because they are not addicted to the said substance.
Stop worrying about other people's lives and focus on your own. If there are smokers that impose on your freedoms through second-hand smoke then do something about it. Start writing letters, making phone calls and get something done to make the use/sale of tabacco illegal. Until then it's just name slinging and a waste of taxpayer dollars.
BTW, smoker for 10 years, and would be happy to vote to make it illegal.
Posted by: Florida | Jan 27, 2006 4:17:47 PM
Since when was it someone's right to intentionally foul the air around them? Do non smokers have the right to not smoke?
Yes, this is a free country. You're free to do lots of things, so long as they don't infringe on other people's rights. Smoking in public places infringes on other people's right to *not* smoke in public places. Smokers claiming that they're being victimized by smoking bans just uphold the common conception that smokers don't care about anyone but themselves. "I'll throw my butts down here to spite the sign". "I'll make my car stink so someone who buys it after me will have to cover the smell up with some other foul-smelling thing". "It's my right to smoke around you whether you like it or not - I think I'll do it right here by the door because I'm a self-absorbed asshole who cares about nothing but my 'right' to smoke".
Sure, there are some smokers who take others rights into account. I fully support their right to smoke. If you're smoking right next to the entrance to a non-smoking facility, though, don't be surprised if I throw my trash at your feet. I'm addicted to throwing trash on people's feet, BTW. It calms me.
Posted by: Joe Camel | Jan 27, 2006 4:40:44 PM
Can anybody show actual data that second hand smoke actually causes illness, cancer or death? I've never seen any. The CDC does not report any deaths or illness related to second had smoke. 'And I'm talking about real stats not made up Internet crap or your BS opinions'.
Posted by: smo KING | Jan 27, 2006 4:49:50 PM
So I have been reading through these posts and figured I would drop in with my opinion. I am a smoker, have been for years. My only problem with the latest smoking ban craze is this; Why can I not have an establishment that is for those who smoke? I would think as a business owner (and I was in the food & bev industry for quite some time)there should be a choice. I have no problem with an establishment that chooses to go non-smoking b/c their patrons have voiced the opinion. I am more than willing to step outside. However, I as the business owner should have the choice to go smoking or non. Perhaps all us smokers can grab a minority share of pubs and bars in which we can smoke and let the non-smokers have the rest. Simply put, I just want to be able to sit down after work, have a pint and smoke a marlboro, nothing more, nothing less. As for the employees of these places, sign a waiver. Consider it an occupational hazard, LOL. All kidding aside, most of this argument boils down to restaurants and the imposing of laws on them. Like I said before, I just want a place to smoke and have a drink after work. Can't we agree that every bar, pub, nightclub should not have to be non-smoking. Just let all of us smokers, own, operate and visit these places. The hard core non-smokers don;t want to be around us anyway. At any rate, that's my 2 cents.
Posted by: clint | Jan 27, 2006 4:50:34 PM
Why is smoking hard to quit?
Smoking fosters chemical dependancy, and it works like this:
Plants make a lot of chemicals to thwart herbivors. Many mimic the plant eater's own biochemistry to screw it up and kill the plant eater. Nicotine, the primary chemical in tobacco smoke, mimics the neurotransmitter "acetylcholine." Acetycholine helps regulate the transmisstion of other important neurochemicals: dopamine, serotonin, adrenaline -- the feel-good chemicals.
This mimic in a large enough dose kills in much the same way that nerve gas does -- by making acetycholine levels spike causing a out of control flooding of other neurochemicals, resulting in seizures and convulsions leading to death. The lethal dose of nicotine for a 150 pound man is between 40 to 60 mg -- it's more lethal than strycknine or arsenic.
A smoker takes in 1.4 mg with each cigarette, not enoogh to kill but enough to increase transmission of other neurochemicals.
Unfortunately, once smoking become regular and consistent, this regularity trips a homeostatic response in the body to bring what the body perceives as an overproduction of its own chemistry back in line. It desensitizes itself to the higher levers of acetylcholine by growing more uptake receptors.
In this desensitized state, a smoker becomes chemically dependant on the continual artifical supplementation that smoking provides to feel normal; when nicotine level are depleted, acetylcholine levels drop off (half life of nicotine in the body is around 45 minutes), making the body's feel-good chemicals get choked off, leading to the withdraw effects: irritability, anxiety, depression. Smokers wrongly attribute these sensations as being rooted to reactions to their environment and see smoking as a "stress reliever." This is nonsense. Study after study has shown that smokers experience much more stress than non-smokers. At higher levels of smoking, smokers may experience hand tremors between cigarettes. This is because normal acetycholine production is so thwarted that the arising acetylcholine disorder creates almost parkinson disease-like symptoms. The ill-informed smoker sees his hand stop shaking after a cigarette and wrongly attributes this to the "good" that the cigarette does for him.
Regular smoking creates in the smoker an acetylcholine disorder that the smoker then spend the rest of his life compulsively "treating" (to avoid the withdraw symptoms resulting from a desensitised acetycholine body) up to 20 times a day or more (like a diabetic having to take insulin to feel normal) until all the other deadly chemicals rot his body out and kill him 30 years later.
In this sense, smoking for the smoker is not a choice. The smoker's body gets punished should he stop.
Upon quiting withdraw symptoms peak between 3-4 days after then diminish over the next several weeks until the body rebalances itself.
Smoking is sold as an expression of individuality, of freedom, but it is nothing but slavery. If you're in denial, try stop smoking for three days and see if you really control the cigarette or does the cigarette control you.
Posted by: Bill | Jan 27, 2006 5:00:52 PM
Hey, all you smokers - wah, wah, wah! Shut up!
You wanna use nicotine? Fine - that doesn't give you the right to inflict it on everyone around you. You could chew, dip, use a patch or gum - but no, you want the INSTANT HIGH, so you think you have the right to light up, regardless of the impact on others.
Guess what - my right to swing my arm stops at your nose. As long as smokers continue to ignore that truth, perhaps the rest of us should begin to as well. See if you still like that butt when it's lodged in your sinus cavity.
Posted by: guysmiley | Jan 27, 2006 5:21:08 PM
Smokers know very well that smoking is bad for their health. However, it is demonized more than any other horrific adictions, such as alcoholism, and overeating. All these campaigns demonize smokers for no reason. Eveyrone has the choice to do what they please. Because someone smokes it doesn't mean their stupid, or a bad person. These campaigns are nothing but annoying.
Posted by: ohcomeon | Jan 27, 2006 5:22:46 PM
Good post Bill.
I make no denial of being addicted to smoking, but the fact is that it is also something I enjoy. Could I quit? Yes I could, but it would be hard. That and I don't have a desire to quit right now.
On the other side of that with adds like this. Does it help us, the smokers, quit when adds encourage non-smokers to moch and degrage us? Think back to what Bill said now. "Study after study has shown that smokers experience much more stress than non-smokers." I cannot confirm or deny that as fact. Ask yourselves this, it it is fact, does doing some to increase our stress levels help us?
To say that adds like this are designed for kids is BS. Smoking under the age of 18 is illegal. These adds are made at Adult smokers. Don't feed me that line of BS about non-smokers caring either. If non smokers cared, they would not be bitching at us, but istead they would be doing things like setting up help groups to support smokers and help them quit.
The poplution argument is BS as well. You all forced us outside where there is this thing called wind. Even using an ashtray, chances are the wind will blow it over. Sure, there are smokers that don't use them, but even those that do still end up with butts on the ground. Also, new cars don't come with ashtrays anymore. So we get to either keep and empty can around, or flick it out the window.
As for poluting the air, If you drive a car you are causing far more damamge then a smoker could cause. If you really want to start a crusade, start a crusade to find alternative fuel sorces for cars. Smoking is the least of our concerns when it come to air polution.
BTW for all the people preaching about second hand smoke. All the myths about second hand smoke have been debunked. In order to have any affect your would have to be in a confined location for extended periods of time. going out with your friends to a bar for 3 hours where people are smoking will not do it. Locking yourself in that bar for 6 years with smokers will have an effect, but your night out on the town will do nothing.
So stop the chastising adds and strat thinking of ways to actually help smokers.
Posted by: Loira | Jan 27, 2006 5:26:02 PM
I'm amused that so many smokers are shocked, SHOCKED, that the government would spend money on anti-smoking ads.
Listen up, geniuses - governments always need money (deficits, debt, etc. - and there's votes to buy, dammit!). Governments get lots of money from income tax. People who don't smoke live longer, are sick less, and therefore work more and earn more money. Thereby, the government profits from people choosing not to smoke.
Man, such indignation, too - you'd think being a smoker was some sort of virtue, or demonstration of personal values. Thank god the drunks don't get this uppity - they'd be storming into offices and throwing punches, only to realize later that they're at the wrong building.
Posted by: guysmiley00 | Jan 27, 2006 5:41:15 PM
Smokers will kidnap and hold captive all non smokers. The cleanies will be burnt repeatedly with cigarettes in their most sensitive areas again and again. Burning every part of their bodies repeatedly, then, the sexual abuse.
Posted by: the revolution begins | Jan 27, 2006 6:27:49 PM
Wow, just wow. Reading through all of this made my head hurt.
First off I'm one of those nasty un-american smokers trying to quit for my 8th time. Yes boys and girls, smoking is very difficult to quit and when I kicked caffine years ago it was much, much easier to quit and I was really addicted to caffine.
What everyone seems to forget is people have been smoking tobacco for hundreds maybe thousands of years so why all of a sudden is everyone pitcing a fit about it? Because americans love to have a pariah and right now smokers are the pariah that people can feel good about themselves when they point their fingers and hiss and boo at them.
Also remember, smokers voluntarily pay taxes for thier smokes that go to help pay for other expenses for the state. As for polluting the air, I can guarentee that my organically grown, rolled in hemp paper smokes produce less than the SUVs that everyone insists on driving around.
As for smoking in establishments, here in California smoking is outlawed everywhere and the only place that we can smoke it outdoors. While I can appreciate people not wanting to smell like smoke I do believe there should be bars which are smoking and non smoking after all it is a bar it's not like you're doing anything healthy to begin with.
Last but not least, I'm one of the polite smokers who try to stay away from people who aren't smoking when I'm out side lighting up a coffin nail. Also, I do not leave my butts on the ground because I don't litter and I hate to see garbage on the ground.
Non-smokers. A little politeness can go a long way. Being a rude ass to a smoker will just make us want to smoke more.
Posted by: Nancy | Jan 27, 2006 6:34:22 PM
I smoke and am so sick of the campaign to stop smokers in this state. These billboards are EVERYWHERE in Seattle and just today on the news the anti smokers are complaining about all the butts everywhere. What the hell did you think would happen when you took the ashtrays away ?
Posted by: Impalaguy | Jan 27, 2006 6:36:50 PM
Hah, I didn't realize this was Washington State specific. I started seeing these ads months ago, I see one everyday on my drive to work through the south part of Seattle on 99. My girlfriend smokes, I sent her to this website and told her that this is what she looks like. Humorous.
Posted by: pk | Jan 27, 2006 6:38:56 PM
First off, as a smoker, I find these ads extremely hilarious.
Second, will they keep kids from starting to smoke? Probably not in most cases. Remembering the days of my youth, and comparing those memories to my children's experiences today, I would have to say that the most effective deterrent is peer pressure. All of my children think smoking is gross, as do all of their friends. I wonder sometimes how many of my kids would be smokers today if the social attitudes toward smoking today were as they were 30 years ago.
Third, a note of interest: here in Washington State, our illegitamus satrap Christine Gregoire was one of the lead State AG's to force the multi-state tobacco settlement. Yet she absolutely refuses to entertain the notion of getting the state out of the tobacco business. Why? Because tobacco represents the single largest source of revenue for the State of Washington. Tobacco hero to tobacco whore in one ill-gotten election. What a hypocrite!
Posted by: TamaNeko | Jan 27, 2006 7:00:17 PM
I guess it's always good to support one's assertions.
So when I wrote: "Smokers experience much more stress than non-smokers." Look here:
Smoking doubles risk of post-traumatic stress
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/dn8285.html
Studies Show Tobacco Use Does Not Alleviate Stress But Actually Increases It
http://www.planetpsych.com/zPsychology_101/substance/smoking_stress.htm
Smoking a Cause of Stress, Not Relief
http://www.jointogether.org/sa/news/summaries/reader/0,1854,569973,00.html
To address, Loira's comments: I don't think the purpose is to mock or degrade any particular smoker personally, but to deglamorize smoking symbolically, so that images of smoking no longer convey sophistication, individuality -- the very symbolism that was employed by advertising for decades to push the poison.
I would maintain that what you "enjoy" is the cigarette's "uncanny" ability to right you when you feel "wrong." But I would also say that the relief the cigarette brings about is of the disorder caused by regular smoking itself.
Of course it is illigeal to smoke for those under 18 (wink, wink). It's also a fact that most smokers begin at age 13 to 14 and that if you have not started by age 21 you will probably never smoke. The Tobbaco Industry knows this. Joe Camel was a cartoon character aimed at children. RJ Reynold's own internal memos confirm this.
And there ARE plenty of support groups started and that are run by people who also don't happen to smoke.
Smoking is far more deadly than typical exposure to auto emmisions. When lung cancer rates balloned in the 1930s and 1940s, the alarmed health industry in Great Britian looked into everything including auto emmisions (cars were just becoming common), but the common thread was regular smoking -- this resulted in the first major health report in GB in 1954. Eventually this was followed in the US by the Surgeon General's 1964 report.
As for second hand smoke, yes, it is all about exposure over years. Experiencing smoke in a bar occasionally will not give you cancer (though it has been shown to increase blood pressure and heart rate and for people with heart conditions, theoretically it could be the tipping point). These laws are in place to avoid liability by employers to their workers, not to customers.
Posted by: | Jan 27, 2006 7:37:04 PM
And where are the campaigns for anti-obesity and overweight individules? They are visually offensive to a lot of people, yet somehow they're never targeted. Probably because half of America suffers from overweight issues.
LAME.
Posted by: Sinning | Jan 27, 2006 7:56:39 PM
Well I see a lot of points on right that seem relevant but are not. To reiterate. I defend my right to smoke. I also defend your right to not smoke. Just as I defend my right to dump a bucket of water on my head and defend your right to not have a bucket of water dumped on your head.
One premise, put forth, is that since these rights can conflict, they will. In other words, some would criticize pro-rights smokers for infringing on their right not to smoke. Personally I think you are wrong about me, them and a lot of other smokers who are courteous to non-smokers.
* I don't stand in public doorways and blow smoke in people's faces.
* I do stand where my smoke will disperse to such an extent that it matches the background pollution levels before a non-smoker would have to experience it.
* I don't toss half smoked cigarettes in your yards, oily rag storage bins or drought ridden brush lands, nor do I empty my ash try at intersections.
* I do field strip my buts, so all that's left is carbon ash and keep the stinky damn things in my pocket until I can dispose of them properly.
I would hazard that most posters who advocate smoker rights, fall towards the "do"s and away from the "don't"s.
Additionally, on the very interesting point of comparison to fat-bashing, alcoholic-bashing, needs to be considered.
Some our you have diminished this critique by saying that fat people don't make me fat, this implying that ALL smokers make non-smokers smoke. Or some say that fat people can't choose to be not-fat or alcoholics can't choose to be non-alcoholic's. Well, I never saw a fat person die during a hunger strike. And last I heard cigarettes are highly addictive, just like booze.
I would add that government has no business in telling private entities no one can smoke in their businesses. If you think this infringes on your right to not smoke, you are highly misinformed. You are not forced, nor compelled to enter the business. If you are legally compelled to enter, then you must be in a public place, and the private status vanishes.
Now lets all make some fat bashing commercials. Imagine the digs we can put on diabetics.
Posted by: kurtu5 | Jan 27, 2006 8:20:10 PM
Definition of a Puritan: somebody who lies awake late at night, worrying that somewhere, someone is having a good time
Posted by: yo mama | Jan 27, 2006 9:01:17 PM
greetings fellow second-class citizens
Posted by: yo mama | Jan 27, 2006 9:02:40 PM
Yeah, smoke stinks. So do farts. Should we persecute people with lower intestinal problems?
Your lungs are scarred by smoking parents when you were a baby? I feel sorry for you, because your parents must have been stupid or uncaring or both. I'm not convinced that their smoking caused your problem, but it sure is rude to smoke around babies. Simply assuming the scars were caused by the smoke is as logical as assuming the smoking was caused by your scars.
I do kind of wonder why we need smoking bans. Why haven't non-smoking establishments proliferated? Oh, that pesky free market, we really should regulate it some more. The police state act is a good start, let's see what other freedoms we can eliminate.
Posted by: Colitis | Jan 27, 2006 10:18:16 PM
The so-called "right to smoke" arguments are meaningless. You do not have a Constitutionally protected right to smoke nicotine anymore than you have a inalienable "right" to do cocaine or heroin - this is not a libertarian society so libertarian arguments are worthless.
Yes, it is currently legal to smoke nicotine, just as it once was legal to do heroin or cocaine up to the end of the 19th Century, but every smoker currently alive is at the mercy of our legislators.
Nicotine is a drug - one that only because of political reasons has not been given full regulatory control by legislators to the FDA. However, this is on the way. The FDA did officially classify it as a drug in the 1990s. Once they do gain full control, they could authorize its elimination from tobacco products under their mandate to protect the public health (Tobacco companies are capable of doing this).
The problem for the Tobacco Industry is that in their own internal memos they refer to cigarettes as a "drug delivery device." The also explain how they add chemicals to increase the "hit" of nicotine while being able then to use and report a lower nicotine content value (for marketing purposes). They admit that without nicotine cigarettes do not sell (they've tried, e.g. Philip Morris' "Next" brand -- never heard of it? See.), and they know the amount needed to keep users chemically dependent yet not quite chemically ill and engineer the product accordingly. Every cigarette gets nicotine added during the manufacturing process to meet this amount (between .4 and 1.4 mg - other chemicals added allow for a leeway).
Califonia has just classified tobacco smoke as a toxic substance and from this could be legislation that forces it out of cars if juveniles are riding and force apartment owners to offer separate ventilation for non-smoking residents (more likely they will seek the cheaper alternative and just not allow smokers). Ohio is yet another state that may soon pass statewide legislation outlawing smoking indoors in public facilities and the workplace.
There was a time in the 19 Century when chewing tobacco as a practise and the accompanying public spitoons were everywhere. Then because of an happenstance pandemic and the heightened sensitivity and consciousness it fostered regarding public health practices, public spitoons nevertheless became linked with uncleanliness and disease and began to disappear and along with it the practice of chewing tobacco in public settings (you know, outside of a trailer park, that is). The public ashtray and the cigarette are headed that way.
Posted by: | Jan 27, 2006 10:35:24 PM
Not a right? It seems to me that we have the right to do anything before it is legislated away. Where does it end? I'm not arguing that we should have the right to enjoy heroin or cocain, but what about Big Macs? Fast cars? What definition of drug does oxygen not fit? Do I have the right to it?
Yes, I agree that the right to smoke is going away, that doesn't make it a good thing. Freedom is the one thing that seperates us from the rest of the world, but that seperation is getting smaller all the time. I wonder how long the USA will be the greatest nation on Earth. Not long if pinheads like you keep breeding.
It's my right to say that, but I wonder if my grand children will have that right.
Not a libertarian society? You disgust me.
Posted by: Colitis | Jan 27, 2006 10:52:55 PM
You're funny. Nicotine is an addictive drug, dipshit; where is this freedom you talk of? It's as addictive as heroin. Addicts are by definition not free. Should I cry for our lack of heroin freedom?
http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact09.html
70% of smokers make an attempt to quit each year. Only 7% make it longer than 6 months. Where is the freedom?
In a survey conducted by none other than Philip Morris, 85% of smokers reported they wish they had never started smoking.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9803/16/briefs.pm/minnesota.tobacco/
In another survey 70% of adolescent smokers said they wish they had never started.
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/research_data/youth/initfact.htm
Does that sound like freedom? How many freedoms do you enjoy yet wish you had never started?
Of daily smokers who think that they will not smoke in five years, nearly 75 percent are still smoking five to six years later.
That's not freedom you delusional, denial ridden addict. Face it, you have no control over your tobacco use. You have been sold a bill of goods by people much smarter than you. So what do you smoke, Marlboros? The macho cigarette? Did you know that Marlboro was once a "woman's" cigarette? As factory guys in the 1950s began thinking about quiting as the lung cancer reports started coming out, the maketing executives redressed their only formally femmine filtered brand as the macho alternative to quiting. The whole campaign was to reassure insecure blue collar males that smoking filters did not make you a sissy. Pretty smart, huh?
http://www.courses.rochester.edu/foster/ANT226/Spring01/history.html
It's all bullshit fantasy, you tough Marlboro cowboy. Yee-ha!
Most smokers start smoking when they're 13 years old?
Where is the freedom? Why do you think we have laws that require people to be of age before the can enter into contractual agreements? Maybe 13 is a little too young to start a lifelong addiction? Or is that when you plan to start YOUR grandchildren smoking?
Posted by: | Jan 28, 2006 12:01:50 AM
I kiss lots of smokers and often in places that do not taste like smoke...never bothered me any....usuaully drunk at the time, but still, never bothered me ANY.
Posted by: JHR | Jan 28, 2006 1:43:56 AM
You know, all this talk of kissing smokers being like licking an ashtry is ridiculous. I smoke, and my last boyfriend absolutely hated it. It never stopped him from kissing me. Sometimes I wouldn't kiss him, if I felt I had yucky morning-cigarette breath, but he would still try to kiss me. The guy I'm dating now doesn't smoke, but the fact that I do doesn't stop him from trying to corner me in dark hallways.
And anyone who can't tell inhaling the smoke from burning plant material is bad from you deserves to die. You KNOW when you take a drag that it's harmful. That's why it makes you sick the first time you smoke. We smokers ENJOY doing something that is bad for us. I don't smoke upwind of non-smokers, and I don't light up around children, so LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE.
Posted by: Jenn | Jan 28, 2006 2:01:05 AM
My husband and I didn't realize these commercials were put on by Washington State. We thought this was part of the Truth campaign. We've spoke to friends and family about starting a crusade against these commercials.
We think these commercials are revolting. I'm not a smoker and I'm not going to kiss a smoker. Every time my husband and I sit down to eat dinner and are watching TV, one of these commercials come on and it make us lose our appetites. I think smoking is gross and I hate being in public places where people are smoking, but these ads go too far. These commercials are ineffective, they are going to just make the smokers mad so they ignore the commercials, and they just gross out the non-smokers. There is nothing about these commercials that makes someone think twice about smoking or kissing smoker. There is no relation to the dead animals/cat puke to smoking. They need to be pulled off the air.
Posted by: Serena | Jan 28, 2006 2:18:17 AM
If smokers would be polite and respect other people's requests that they not subject them to their smoke, this would not be such a hot issue. It's the fact that the people who don't want to smoke are still being exposed to it that causes the problem.
Smokers seem to think that their "right" to smoke anywhere they want is an inalienable right, but it's not. The simple truth is- smoking kills. And I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't gives you the right to kill others with second-hand smoke just because you're addicted to nicotine.
Posted by: Sandi | Jan 28, 2006 5:31:50 AM
I quit smoking several months ago and my boyfriend is still a smoker. I was surprised how bad he smelled, but a Breath Saver and washing the hands after smoking reduces an amazing amount of the odor. When I smoked, I was incredibly considerate of non-smokers. I didn't walk around much with cigarettes, and when I did, I avoided children particularly. I would cross a street to not get my smoke near non-smokers, and guess what? I still got dirty looks and treated like a leper. Here is the bottom line: Many non-smokers treat any smoker as if they are a bad person and not worth treating with any decency, even if the smoker is considerate. Often if you are seen with a cigarette the judgment is automatic, no matter anything else about you. PS, to all those non-smokers like that: it is INCREDIBLY hard to quit smoking. Most smokers want to and most are in the process of trying to quit. You know that group clustered together under the overhang at the one place at work they can smoke? They are probably talking about hypnosis, the patch, accupuncture...methods of quitting. I went cold turkey and I had symptoms you would not believe. My concentration suffered for about 3 months, I was constantly irate to the point that my most hardline non-smoking friends told me to just forget it. My grades suffered, my relationships suffered, I had an irregular heartbeat, I did NOT feel better.
And the second-hand smoke argument...yes, it can be hazardous to others. But let's not pretend we are going to get cancer from standing near a smoker at an open-air venue. And let's also not pretend we are not judging people just for having a cigarette or pack of them visible. I especially love to see people drink half a bottle of wine at dinner, give someone standing outside a filthy look for smoking (outside) and then drive home.
I would also like to say to anyone who decided I was a kid who didn't need to be taken seriously when I said that my grades suffered, that I am 34 and a returning student.
Posted by: AMG | Jan 28, 2006 10:08:41 AM
As a person in my 20's living in Florida I have lots of co-workers who are smokers, for the most part they know other people dont like the smoke so they will go out of their way to smoke elsewhere, but some will be right there blowing smoke on your face... Why do they do that? Its like Farting on your face.
Also, some (And I mean a few some) who have kids, I seen people driving and smoking with a car full of kids.
I dont see how people in here still think that Second hand smoking will not make the other person sick, have you been hidding under a rock?
Posted by: Frank | Jan 28, 2006 11:57:43 AM
ha....smokers are stupid. These ads are funny. second hand smoke does kill. if you want to smoke, fine, do it in your own house. to do otherwise is murder.
Posted by: me | Jan 28, 2006 2:41:38 PM
I started smoking when i was about 13.
i smoke only rarely now (i'm 22). anti smoking ads never made a difference. i mocked them as i lit a cigarrette. the ashtraymouth ads are repulsive to say the least, and when i watched them i was so disgusted i ignored the message, because i was so caught up in the grotesque imagery.yeah smoking is bad for you. yeah it's gross.but's its nothing like sticking a decomposing rat carcass in your mouth. i
was able to smoke at a young age, because it
was available to me. almost everyone in
my family smokes, so stealing a cig or two
wasn't a problem. maybe just maybe
dissuading kids from smoking should be
the parents' responsiblity. and if you're an adult and want to smoke, fine, but don't do it around other people, they have a right not to breath your second hand smoke. i went
on the ashtraymouth website and it was
basically the clamation equavalent of
rotten.com almost. do you really want your
kids to see that? besides what probably is
going to happen is that teens are going to
go on the website, giggle at the gross little dolls, play the stupid game, and
move on to something else when it no
longer piques their interest, then they'll
leave just a little bit more jaded until
they work up the courage to see real
pictures of real dead things, and then
go have a smoke out back while mom's busy
in the kitchen and dad's watching t.v.
and btw there's no reason to be nasty,
we're all adults here (i think) please
act like it. thank you.
Posted by: cate | Jan 29, 2006 8:37:32 PM
Love the campaign; it ultimately forwards the impression of how gross and disgusting smoking is.
The combination of innocence (the children) and death always gets my attention. The general feeling I get from the campaign is a morbid one, the ads say it all; sticking a smoke in your mouth is like savoring a piece of dirty death pie. I for one will eat that heated up with chocolate ice cream.
Posted by: Nicolaas | Jan 29, 2006 10:41:01 PM
Yeah! Yeah! Ban smoking, prohibition for smoking. that'll work. Does anyone remember history class? Prohibition was repealed in 1933 because it didn't work, and organized crime thrived on it. But hey, bring back Elliot Ness from the dead to eradicate tobacco. Nobody does drugs that are illegal anymore, Right?
Posted by: Timmmy | Jan 30, 2006 5:10:06 AM
the fact that this campaign has already generated 94+ posts has proved that it can at least cause a conversation to take place. These ads are directed at kids, not current smokers who won't quit. If kids buy stuff because an ad says it's cool, they may stay away from somthing also. Not because it's not cool to do it, but because it looks cool not to. These ads look cool and kids will respond to it. just look at all these posts. so passionate. There are statistics about second hand smoke, look it up. The reason these ads are outdoors also is because, guess what, kids go outside. Everybody just freakin relax and have a few beers, few laughs, play some golf or at least some urban terror.
Posted by: KOOBIAK | Jan 31, 2006 7:09:55 PM
A commercials that I find offensive: The anti smoking ad that depicts cartoon children eating a dead possum.
This commercial is based on the concepts of shock remembrance, a fear tactic, and negative association. The ad tries to shock you into remembering and then gives you a negative association so that you think of that every time you see cigarettes.
There are two reasons why this commercial is wrong. First, it seems like the purpose of the commercial is to traumatize children. We all know that people under the age of 18 watch more TV than their adult counter parts. This commercial even disturbs me when I see it. A sweet little girl with a decaying animal in her mouth is not a pleasant picture to anyone. The shock is so bad that I think of it now every time I see a "precious moment" picture or a cartoon kid. Is this tactic of shock one that we want to use in order to promote our views? The use of a shock tactic is usually used in the media in either a humorous or factual manner, and with a substantial link with the subject matter. I believe that this use was a bit over reaching.
The second point on the commercial is that the use of fear tactic and negative association was in fact probably not effectual. Studies have shown that commercials that use fear tactics, such as the fear of your mouth tasting like a dead animal, do not work if they are excessively repulsive. The study showed that people block subconsciously out the messages in order to mitigate the fear. This commercial, put something forth that is so repulsive that the message will probably not be heard. Lastly the negative association of the cartoon is not properly attached to the fear and shock. The whole commercial has nothing to do with cigarettes, but has to do with these cute children. By the time you get to the antismoking message, you are still trying to cope with the imagery that you just saw, a girl with a dead animal in her mouth. Thus the association of the dead animal does not stick to the anti-smoking message, but sticks to the image of cute little girls. The ad misses its purpose, which furthers the previous argument that the shock tactic is not justified by the message.
Posted by: Cody | Feb 10, 2006 5:34:57 PM
Hi,
I smoked for thirty years and have been quit for ten . Most of my friends have also quit but feel the same way I do about anti- smokers and that is once they have conquered all the nasty smokers what will be next on their list.The do gooders of America have lost site of what our country was founded on. Freedoom for all and not the ones with the biggest stick.I dont think anyone wants to smell cigarett smoke while eating in a public place but who eats twenty four seven. Now these same anti-smokers feel they have the right to tell someone they can't smoke in their own homes. Give it a rest.It's a shame that they don't spend as much time raising their children.
Posted by: Claude Dickson | Feb 17, 2006 4:41:37 PM
What is all this bulls--t about smokers smelling like ashtrays? The died out butt smells horrible in an ashtray and dosent smell or taste like the smoke that goes in my mouth! So up your a-s with your stupid comments! Soon you all will be saying kissing someone who smokes, can give you a disease! You all make me sick! Most people today like to nit pick on the less popular social status to fit in with the majority.
Here's a sollution to your problem, since your the ones who started bit-hing about this,(INFRINGING ON YOUR RIGHTS), I encourage you all to try and pass a bill to congress to segragate smokers from nonsmokers?
This sounds politically correct, since the majority of you that has been fighting for freedom and rights these days in our country, are actually making our country into a totalitarian one? GO F--K YOURSELVES YOU SPINELESS A-S UN-AMERICAN HYPOCRITES!
Posted by: Genaro | Mar 5, 2006 5:29:37 AM
Yeah now all we need is dolls stuffing their faces and turning into something disgusting...and fat, maybe it will be an anti morbid obesity campaign...
Posted by: Edd | Sep 26, 2006 1:40:55 PM
