Anti-Tobacco Plain Packaging coming to Britannia soon

[Ifreann]

Further, if I sit at a bar and drink myself into a stupor over the course of 8 hours I won't do any harm to the bar staff. They won't get drunk by being near me.

That may be true of you but not a lot of drinkers. Last night I witnessed a fight between several drunk people; its not an uncommon occurrence in any of city center on a Friday night.

No, it's not, and it's illegal.

---

That's not an effect of alcohol, that's an effect of driving while drunk. Do learn to differentiate, dear.

And they're driving drunk because of the alcohol.

No, they're driving drunk because they got in a car and started driving it while drunk. Drinking doesn't make you drive drunk.

Really, all you're doing here is serving to highlight the differences between alcohol and tobacco. Yes, people sometimes do dangerously irresponsible things while drunk. Those things are generally crimes. The police will stop people doing them if they can. Whereas smoking around other people hurts them no matter if you are irresponsible or violent or drunk, and the worst you can expect is a fine. Millions of people go drinking every weekend and don't hurt anyone or damage any property or even consider driving. But you just cannot smoke in a bar without exposing people to second hand smoke. It can't be done.

Tobacco and alcohol aren't the same. Stop acting like the government is being an unfair meanypants by recognising that.

[Greater-London]

It makes lots of people docile, so that doesn't really work all that well either.

No it does work. Not all drunk people cause fights but then not all people who passively smoke get lung cancer.

[Scomagia]

No, because it isn't even remotely similar to my original argument.

So alcohol gets a free pass because "it's your choice", but smoking doesn't?

Got it.

Yeah, that's not it either. See, what's happened here is that you intentionally perverted my argument and applied it in a way that makes no sense. It's dishonest and, frankly, juvenile.

[The Two Jerseys]

That may be true of you but not a lot of drinkers. Last night I witnessed a fight between several drunk people; its not an uncommon occurrence in any of city center on a Friday night.

No, it's not, and it's illegal.

---

And they're driving drunk because of the alcohol.

No, they're driving drunk because they got in a car and started driving it while drunk. Drinking doesn't make you drive drunk.

Really, all you're doing here is serving to highlight the differences between alcohol and tobacco. Yes, people sometimes do dangerously irresponsible things while drunk. Those things are generally crimes. The police will stop people doing them if they can. Whereas smoking around other people hurts them no matter if you are irresponsible or violent or drunk, and the worst you can expect is a fine. Millions of people go drinking every weekend and don't hurt anyone or damage any property or even consider driving. But you just cannot smoke in a bar without exposing people to second hand smoke. It can't be done.

Tobacco and alcohol aren't the same. Stop acting like the government is being an unfair meanypants by recognising that.

Where can you even smoke in a bar anymore?

And infringing on intellectual property rights of tobacco companies is blatantly unfair.

[-United Islamic Emirate-]

Have any of you ever tried smoking?

[Scomagia]

Care to argue this point?

Randomly chopping words out of other people's posts and replacing them with completely nonequivalent things isn't very persuasive, you know.

I can't seem to find a thread anymore where people aren't shitposting like that, though. It's sad, really.

[The Nihilistic view]

British understatement FTW!

Ha that would be a great new warning on packages.

"WARNING, SMOKING THIS PRODUCT TENDS NOT TO ALLOW YOU TO REACH STATE PENSION AGE"

I think that would stop smoking overnight.

[Greater-London]

No, it's not, and it's illegal.

Why does that matter? drinking causes some people to get violent which negatively affects the health of others. If you beat someone up you'll probably get arrested but the damage would already have been done.

[Greater-London]

Where can you even smoke in a bar anymore?

In a lot of countries.

[The Two Jerseys]

Where can you even smoke in a bar anymore?

In a lot of countries.

But hasn't Britain already banned it?

[Zottistan]

Randomly chopping words out of other people's posts and replacing them with completely nonequivalent things isn't very persuasive, you know.

I can't seem to find a thread anymore where people aren't shitposting like that, though. It's sad, really.

I can't tell if the quality of posting has gone really downhill over the last few years or if I just got older and less stupid.

[Truthia]

That may be true of you but not a lot of drinkers. Last night I witnessed a fight between several drunk people; its not an uncommon occurrence in any of city center on a Friday night.

No, it's not, and it's illegal.

---

And they're driving drunk because of the alcohol.

No, they're driving drunk because they got in a car and started driving it while drunk. Drinking doesn't make you drive drunk.

^

Really, all you're doing here is serving to highlight the differences between alcohol and tobacco. Yes, people sometimes do dangerously irresponsible things while drunk. Those things are generally crimes. The police will stop people doing them if they can. Whereas smoking around other people hurts them no matter if you are irresponsible or violent or drunk, and the worst you can expect is a fine. Millions of people go drinking every weekend and don't hurt anyone or damage any property or even consider driving. But you just cannot smoke in a bar without exposing people to second hand smoke. It can't be done.

Tobacco and alcohol aren't the same. Stop acting like the government is being an unfair meanypants by recognising that.

[-United Islamic Emirate-]

If you never tried smoking who are you to try to control others tendencies to smoke? When alcohol is a greater threat than what you think/is projected.

[Greater-London]

But hasn't Britain already banned it?

Yeah but IIRC Ifferean is from the Irish Republic? Not sure what the rules are there.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I have no idea how this could evolve into a right/left argument, whereas the objective of this move is to encourage people to reject a harmful habit for their own advantage? I see this as a public health matter.

There is already a burden of peer-reviewed evidence that smoking with tobacco does harm to health and that something has to be done about it. I remember when tobacco smoking was legal indoors, and it was not very nice.

Big Tobacco is slowly losing the fight against the reality: they would have not wanted bans on adverts, bans on indoor tobacco smoking or plain packets.

Why don't let people make their own choices.

Being supportive of civil rights in general, I cannot see how dealing with tobacco must mean that we must restrict other civil rights. There is already a good reason to deal with tobacco smoking because the impact of the serious harms from smoking tobacco is not limited to the smoker themselves but also many others around them.

[Zottistan]

If you never tried smoking who are you to try to control others tendencies to smoke? When alcohol is a greater threat than what you think/is projected.

I've never tried killing anybody either. Have you?

[Scomagia]

I can't seem to find a thread anymore where people aren't shitposting like that, though. It's sad, really.

I can't tell if the quality of posting has gone really downhill over the last few years or if I just got older and less stupid.

The quality has gone down, for sure. Trollnaming rule, influx of teens, and the loss of many smart, adult posters have caused the quality of debate on here to be reduced to the level of monkeys flinging shit at each other.

[-United Islamic Emirate-]

If you never tried smoking who are you to try to control others tendencies to smoke? When alcohol is a greater threat than what you think/is projected.

I've never tried killing anybody either. Have you?

Yeah one time when I was like 8 cos this kid was trying to fight me so I tried choking him. I got kicked from school for a week.

[Zottistan]

I've never tried killing anybody either. Have you?

Yeah one time when I was like 8 cos this kid was trying to fight me so I tried choking him. I got kicked from school for a week.

...Ok.

I was expecting no as an answer, but would you apply the same logic that only people who've attempted murder have valid opinions on murder?

[-United Islamic Emirate-]

Yeah one time when I was like 8 cos this kid was trying to fight me so I tried choking him. I got kicked from school for a week.

...Ok.

I was expecting no as an answer, but would you apply the same logic that only people who've attempted murder have valid opinions on murder?

No and I'll admit it was stupid of me but I was young and wasn't to aware of religion and stuff. But smoking isn't on the same level as murder.

[Zottistan]

...Ok.

I was expecting no as an answer, but would you apply the same logic that only people who've attempted murder have valid opinions on murder?

No and I'll admit it was stupid of me but I was young and wasn't to aware of religion and stuff.

You don't need religion to not want to kill people.

But smoking isn't on the same level as murder.

I didn't say it was, but the same logic applies.

[Ifreann]

Your comparison sucks. Cigarettes, even with moderate use, are highly hazardous to your health. The same absolutely cannot be said for alcohol when consumed in moderation.

Cigarettes with moderate use are no more dangerous than alcohol.

Smoking a fag once a week is as dangerous as drinking alcohol, not doing exercise or eating junk food in the same period.

It's just a silly law.

Smoking a fag a week sounds a very atypical amount. Smoking 140 times more than that would probably be closer to normal.

---

Decorative packaging sounds like the most trivial anti-counterfeiting measure possible short of putting up signs asking people to please not counterfeit cigarettes.

It's quite an effective anti-counterfeiting measure. Cigarette packets, drinks cans, drink's labels ETC are genuinely quite hard to reproduce which is why there often noticeable.

Looking in the cigarette machine behind me, none of those packages seem like they'd be terribly difficult to reproduce.

---

No, it's not, and it's illegal.

---

No, they're driving drunk because they got in a car and started driving it while drunk. Drinking doesn't make you drive drunk.

Really, all you're doing here is serving to highlight the differences between alcohol and tobacco. Yes, people sometimes do dangerously irresponsible things while drunk. Those things are generally crimes. The police will stop people doing them if they can. Whereas smoking around other people hurts them no matter if you are irresponsible or violent or drunk, and the worst you can expect is a fine. Millions of people go drinking every weekend and don't hurt anyone or damage any property or even consider driving. But you just cannot smoke in a bar without exposing people to second hand smoke. It can't be done.

Tobacco and alcohol aren't the same. Stop acting like the government is being an unfair meanypants by recognising that.

Where can you even smoke in a bar anymore?

I couldn't tell you, but I somehow doubt it is illegal everywhere.

And infringing on intellectual property rights of tobacco companies is blatantly unfair.

No such right is being infringed.

---

Have any of you ever tried smoking?

Yes. Why do you ask?

---

No, it's not, and it's illegal.

Why does that matter? drinking causes some people to get violent which negatively affects the health of others. If you beat someone up you'll probably get arrested but the damage would already have been done.

My point is people are not being allowed to get drunk and beat lumps out of each other while the Tobacco Gestapo goes about crushing smokers' throats with their asps, contrary to what people seem to think.

---

But hasn't Britain already banned it?

Yeah but IIRC Ifferean is from the Irish Republic? Not sure what the rules are there.

I am, and smoking is illegal in all enclosed workplaces. There may be some small pring, but that's the gist of the law.

---

If you never tried smoking who are you to try to control others tendencies to smoke? When alcohol is a greater threat than what you think/is projected.

I've never tried killing anybody either. Have you?

Well, there was that one time in Reno...

[Scomagia]

Smoking a fag a week sounds a very atypical amount. Smoking 140 times more than that would probably be closer to normal.

It is atypcial. More to the point, though, "light" smoking still has more or less the same effect on health as regular smoking.

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/121/13/1518.long

"Light and intermittent smoking carry nearly the same risk for cardiovascular disease as daily smoking.28,29 The dose-response relationship between tobacco exposure and cardiovascular mortality is highly nonlinear.29 An analysis of the dose-response relationship based on combined data of passive smoking, particulate matter from air pollution, and active light and heavy smoking indicates that low levels of tobacco exposure as seen in light smoking (4 to 7 cigarettes per day) has ≈70% of the effect of heavy smoking (≥23 cigarettes per day).29 In addition, the risk of ischemic heart disease in light-smoking men and women aged 35 to 39 years who smoke 1 to 4 cigarettes per day is nearly 3 times that of a nonsmoker"

So it's pretty silly for anyone to say that light smoking is as damaging as light drinking, when it clearly isn't fucking true. It's nearly as bad as heavy smoking.

[Magical Dreamworks]

Smoking a fag a week sounds a very atypical amount. Smoking 140 times more than that would probably be closer to normal.

It is atypcial. More to the point, though, "light" smoking still has more or less the same effect on health as regular smoking.

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/121/13/1518.long

"Light and intermittent smoking carry nearly the same risk for cardiovascular disease as daily smoking.28,29 The dose-response relationship between tobacco exposure and cardiovascular mortality is highly nonlinear.29 An analysis of the dose-response relationship based on combined data of passive smoking, particulate matter from air pollution, and active light and heavy smoking indicates that low levels of tobacco exposure as seen in light smoking (4 to 7 cigarettes per day) has ≈70% of the effect of heavy smoking (≥23 cigarettes per day).29 In addition, the risk of ischemic heart disease in light-smoking men and women aged 35 to 39 years who smoke 1 to 4 cigarettes per day is nearly 3 times that of a nonsmoker"

So it's pretty silly for anyone to say that light smoking is as damaging as light drinking, when it clearly isn't fucking true. It's nearly as bad as heavy smoking.

*** Banned for a day for swearing ***

[Untaroicht]

It is atypcial. More to the point, though, "light" smoking still has more or less the same effect on health as regular smoking.

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/121/13/1518.long

"Light and intermittent smoking carry nearly the same risk for cardiovascular disease as daily smoking.28,29 The dose-response relationship between tobacco exposure and cardiovascular mortality is highly nonlinear.29 An analysis of the dose-response relationship based on combined data of passive smoking, particulate matter from air pollution, and active light and heavy smoking indicates that low levels of tobacco exposure as seen in light smoking (4 to 7 cigarettes per day) has ≈70% of the effect of heavy smoking (≥23 cigarettes per day).29 In addition, the risk of ischemic heart disease in light-smoking men and women aged 35 to 39 years who smoke 1 to 4 cigarettes per day is nearly 3 times that of a nonsmoker"

So it's pretty silly for anyone to say that light smoking is as damaging as light drinking, when it clearly isn't fucking true. It's nearly as bad as heavy smoking.

*** Banned for a day for swearing ***

>1 post
>bans someone for swearing