The smoking ban pictures on the packets sounds disturbing. It's annoying that they try to scare the need to smoke out of people instead of stopping production. I think the pics are out for a good reason or maybe not. if they wanted less smokers then maube they should find something to substitute the nicotine as they get rid of all cigarettes so people going through withdrawal won't have to suffer. i think it is strange how companies will sell something on the market that could possibly kill you and tell you that it could could you but still continue to sell it.
What do you mean by substitute the nicotine? The nicotine is naturally found in the tobacco leaves. There hasn't been a way to effectively remove the nicotine and still use the leaf for use in cigarettes. Unless you mean don't use tobacco leaves at all. And companies sell all sorts of products that can kill you if taken in excess. Like mentioned before, alcohol. Panadol (active ingredient paracetamol), if taken in excess (varies from person to person, age weight factor etc) will cause liver failure and you'll need a transplant within 2 days or you will die. Of course, you are meant to only take 1 or 2 to relieve pain. If you want to be pedantic, you can even die of water intoxication if you drink too much. Making cigarettes/cigars illegal probably would save many peoples lives. But if people are truly addicted, they would pay a lot of money for some black market tobacoo. The ban would make a lot of people unhappy. All the people in the tobacco industry would have to find new jobs, which might not be possible. Unemployment would rise. The government would probably have to supply free counselling for smokers. Not to mention that small businesses would lose money if they stopped selling tobacco.
I honestly don't think it's the nicotine people are worried about. It's all the other man made products that are in the cigarette.. like.. fiber glass to cut your lungs so more nicotine gets into your system.. now that's just sick in my eyes.
No, people wouldn't be worried about the nicotine when they're more worried about getting lung cancer. It is the lesser of two evils. That's why the pictures on the packets are lungs that are tar covered and cancer ridden, rather than showing a person under the effects of nicotine addiction. And I wasn't aware of the fiber glass in cigarettes. I suppose if you do smoke, it'd be better if you bought tobacco and rolled your own. That'd be less unhealthy.
The nicotene is there to addict people to cigarettes, so they'll smoke more. As they smoke more,, they'll get more serious cancers and ailments. Tobacco companies have been found guilty of purposefully jacking up nicotine levels just for the purpose of addicting their customers.
Apparently there is a company that produces cigarettes that are nicotine free, Quest Cigarettes. Not available everywhere though. But there has been a reported amount of increase in nicotine levels in many brands, making it harder to quit. But there was no agency regulating the levels of nicotine, and the FDA has stopped starting this year, which was why they were able to do this. And to think that these same companies were paying millions for anti-smoking campaigns.
[quote="commyaji What do you mean by substitute the nicotine? The nicotine is naturally found in the tobacco leaves. There hasn't been a way to effectively remove the nicotine and still use the leaf for use in cigarettes. Unless you mean don't use tobacco leaves at all. And companies sell all sorts of products that can kill you if taken in excess. Like mentioned before, alcohol. Panadol (active ingredient paracetamol), if taken in excess (varies from person to person, age weight factor etc) will cause liver failure and you'll need a transplant within 2 days or you will die. Of course, you are meant to only take 1 or 2 to relieve pain. If you want to be pedantic, you can even die of water intoxication if you drink too much. Making cigarettes/cigars illegal probably would save many peoples lives. But if people are truly addicted, they would pay a lot of money for some black market tobacoo. The ban would make a lot of people unhappy. All the people in the tobacco industry would have to find new jobs, which might not be possible. Unemployment would rise. The government would probably have to supply free counselling for smokers. Not to mention that small businesses would lose money if they stopped selling tobacco.[/quote] What i meant by substitute the nicotine is that there was a special that came on the tele a while ago that showed different methods for stopping the crfavings therefore substituting by fulfilling the cravings by another need. The head people in the tobbacco industry have buckets of cash and will do fine if the industry shut down. The workers would also be fine because you can easily transfer to another mass production company since you already have skills in that department to put on their resume. No one will be out of jobs because people would have to be hired for collection of the cigarettes, disposal, and the keeping of illegal imports out of the area. Cigarettes should not be illegal . I said they should all be destroyed, gone, not a law made because laws don't really mean anything to a person who doesn't care. And you have to drink a LARGE VOLUME of water for it to kill you which rarely happens because people only do it for contests. You will have to pee before you would seriously drown yourself, so that was a pointless statement, to me. Water is a neccesity and you would die without it.
There was a gum that kinda stops that smoking craving... Even though it contains nicotine as well, it kinda prevents you from having to take a smoke and tar-ing your lungs in the process or something.. But to me it's kinda like one addiction changing to another.
kittymeow I think sometime last year this radio station held a contest labelled "Hold your wee for a wii" and the contestants signed the contacts, yadda yadda yadda, and this woman died after drinking about 3 gallons of water. She looked pregnant. It was really sad.. :-( It was even more sad about the atitudes of the people. A NURSE called into the radio station to tell these people that the contestants can die and the dj's were like "well, they signed a contract so we're totally okay, and we have an ambulance and stuff." No one gives a crap about the dj's safety! she was calling in for the safety of the contestants! GRR! BUT they did end up losing their jobs (thank god)
Yes, okay, I agree that there are substitutes that may help with cravings. Not everyone would be fine if tobacco industry was stopped. Farmers who have bought all their equipment to grow tobacco would have to start growing other crops to survive, which would put them at a disadvantage to other farmers. They have been fertilizing the soil to accommodate the nutrients needed by tobacco plants, which could mean other plants would not thrive on them. Also, they would lost a lot of money on the season that tobacco was stopped, may even go bankrupt and not be able to afford to buy the things they need to grow new crops. American tobacco companies also import cheaper tobacco from other countries, which would mean a lot of companies in other countries would be losing money, and if the US were their main buyer, even have to shut down. For countries that are totally dependent on tobacco in their economy such as Malawi and Zimbabwe, this would be devastating. You say that nobody will be out of jobs, because they could just mass transfer the workers to another industry? What sort of industry has that sort of vacancy for jobs? Jobs like those are easily filled, so there wouldnt be that many vacancies in the first place. Its not like there is this great hole of job waiting to be filled. You said that they would be hired for collection of cigarettes, disposal etc. What happens once they are all gone? Those people would be left with trying to find a new job. The unemployment rates would just go higher. Not all the people would be guaranteed jobs. If not made illegal, just more will pop up at a higher frequency than if made illegal. Making them illegal would be a more realistic approach, but not one that would work. If we want people to stop smoking, this needs to be done over time. Tobacco has been a part of the world's society for decades, and it won't go away overnight. The pictures on the packets are effective, and there are other things to reduce smoking. Advertising aimed at youths should be stopped. Youths think smoking is an 'adult' behavior, and advertising has not helped in that image. Tobacco taxation are effective, especially among the youth and the poor, the groups that will benefit the most in saving money and from not getting sick. The money from taxes can then be used for anti-smoking campaigns, or programs to quit smoking. As for tobacco farmers going out of business, the situation I gave was if tobacco was banned overnight. It was estimated that the total percentage of users will decrease as the years go buy, but the number will go up as the worlds population increases. So it will take many decades to reduce tobacco to the point where farmers go out of business. And even then they would be prepared for tobacco reduction, as it hasnt happened suddenly. I was just saying that anything in great excess can kill you. Even something we all need, water. And water intoxication isn't caused by drowning. It's caused by the rapid intake of water, which unbalances the level of electrolytes. It isn't common. It wasnt a pointless statement, you just missed the point that pretty much anything in large amounts can kill you.
I used to smoke-- and if I saw that on a pack of cigarettes, I think it'd piss me off and I'd probably would have smoked more just to spite the package. It'd make me more angry than anything-- I'd be like F*** YOU -SMOKES- HOW ABOUT THAT?
Lol, this sounds like the movie 'Thank You for Smoking.' If you haven't seen it, please do. Funny, informative, and touching =S Shows a different side of view on the smoking business.
Haha, this is AWESOME movie. I definitely have to second the-- Everyone go rent it! Comical but definitely shows you how big corporate companies selling something bad for you-- do what they do every day.
Actually i didn't miss the point and water intoxication is caused by "drowning" , but not like the one if you are in the pool. Yes the electrolytes will be a reason but another is that your body is made up of many cells that are 90% plasma which is basically water. Your body "drowns" when to much water is taken in because more water is entering the cells then needed and where is all that waste in the cell going to go? The cells drown, not literally the person.
[EDIT:] Okay, sorry for this, but i'm gonna make this a bit larger because kittymeow, in the process of quoting me, put her arguments into my quote. I, assuming that it was my quote, skipped it. So i pretty much read the last statement, which was about water. Wow. So much to write. I guess i'll start with this. You said in a previous post If you'll read that particular statement, it did have a point. You thought what I wrote was pointless. Ergo, you missed the point. On another note to argue against that quote, electrolytes are lost through urine and sweat, so even if you did "pee" that wouldn't help your case of water intoxication, in fact converting all that water to urine would make it worse. You said "drown yourself", not "drown your cells". Maybe you could have been a little bit more clearer than that. Even if you did mean to "drown your cells" I'll explain later why that is a bad way of putting water intoxication. Whoah, first of all, cells aren't 90% plasma. I think you are referring to the cytoplasm of a cell, in which the fluid 'cytosol' is found. That makes up 80% of a cell. This is kept between the nucleus and the cell membrane. Plasma is only found in the blood, so you might want to look up the anatomy of a cell before stating such facts. That's also wrong. Look up the term drowning: "Drowning is death as caused by suffocation when a liquid causes interruption of the body's absorption of oxygen from the air leading to asphyxia. The primary cause of death is hypoxia and acidosis leading to cardiac arrest." - Wikipedia No, you aren't depriving your cells of oxygen. The only way i've heard water intoxication being explained as 'drowning' is when it was compared to "drowning in fresh water". Now the only way this can be compared is that water intoxication will happen, but you'll "drown" due to lack of oxygen." before water poisoning occurs. You said since the cell is made up of 90% of water it will have too much water when you drink a large amount in a short time, but the cause of intoxication isn't because "too much water is taken into the cell than is needed" and has nowhere to go. First of all, the only reason water would enter the cell is because the cell is put into a hypotonic environment, which means that the cell has a higher concentration of solutes, creating a lower osmotic pressure outside the cell. The water will enter the cell to try to create an isotonic environment, where it is even. That's why freshwater fish cannot survive in salt water, and vice versa. Your cells become hypotonic due to the increase of water, and via osmosis will swell to the point that they cannot function, because the ELECTROLYTES become diluted. That's the main cause of water intoxication. So using "drowning" as a term for hypotonicity in your cell environment is the wrong way to explain it. Secondly, the other reason is that when cells take in too much water they swell to the point of bursting, because the cell membrane is not able to contain the water, unlike plant cells, which have a cell wall. That's why cryogenic freezing of a person isn't possible at this stage, because water expands as it freezes and would burst your cells. So "drowning" isn't the cause of the cells ceasing to function. In no way do the cells "drown", they will cease to function due to dilution of its solutes, or because they burst. If you study biology in your final years of school, or in college, you'll learn all about cells, and might understand what i just wrote a bit more. (EDIT:Here's the stuff i added in) I wrote in a previous statement: Yes, they are already at a disadvantage. So you can imagine the bigger disadvantage they would be put in, if tobacco was outlawed suddenly, and I was referring to other farmers, who have techniques and know-how of how to grow their specific crop(s). If you weren't sure that Malawi and Zimbabwe were dependent on tobacco exports, you could have looked it up while you were typing this post. I mean, I wasn't going anywhere. You don't believe me? I'm offended. In fact, here's a link: http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4997e/y4997e0k.htm I don't....think you understand how unemployment works. Unemployment exists. And i'm not going to bother explaining unemployment because that'll take up another couple of hundred words, but it's obvious you don't understand it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployme ... employment I think you'll find that link useful. Okay, maybe illegal means nothing to you, but something illegal is against the law. People choose to disobey the law. You'll find that everywhere. Not strange at all. But usually the most countries with negative drug cases do not have such strong drug enforcement as some other countries. And besides, you were putting my statement out of context. In one of you previous posts, you said that they should just destroy tobacco. What you were quoting was in response to that. You want evidence? Tobacco taxation is when they charge more money for cigarettes. What i meant in helping the poor and the youths is that they will not want to buy the cigarettes as much because it is getting too expensive. If the poor do not spend as much money on cigarettes, then they will have more money. I didn't say the taxes go to the poor, but it seems you have misread my statement again. If you do want evidence, just look it up on the web. http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-53.html It's not hard. Really, if you wanted proof, it's not too hard to find it, as opposed to your arguments, which don't seem to have many factual evidence to back it up. And once again, we've reached the end. If you can be bothered reading this far, well done!