A new product for smokers

[Scorpy]

A new product for anti-smokers...

How about this product for anti-smokers. It consists of a plastic bag and a piece of string. The user puts the bag over his/her head, pulling the opening down around the neck, then the string is tied around the neck and bag sealing the bag air-tight.
There you have it - No more need to worry about second-hand smoke.

 

[Baker]

I came up with a new product for smokers. It looks exaclty like a cigarette, and it lights the same. The only difference is that it kills you in about 30 seconds.

Of course, the package will contain all the legally required warning labels.

I figure 30 years, or 30 seeconds, what's the diff?

If the government decides that I shouldn't sell such a prodcut, then they'd be forced to explain why regular cigarretes are allowed and not my "Instant Satisfaction (tm)" cigarettes.

I could also get the Catholic corporation involved. They could bless the package or something, and by smoking one of them, you'd be agreeing to a binding contract that commits your soul to the Catholics.

Ah, the possibilities...

Well that’s odd I have known people who have smoked for over 50 years and are quite healthy.

 

[Bjorn]

I came up with a new product for smokers. It looks exaclty like a cigarette, and it lights the same. The only difference is that it kills you in about 30 seconds.

Of course, the package will contain all the legally required warning labels.

I figure 30 years, or 30 seeconds, what's the diff?

We all die in a hundred years.

I figure 100 years or 100 seconds, what's the diff? Why not just kill any newborn?

Kourama, I don't smoke, but I see an enormous difference between living 30 years longer or die now. Don't you? If not, why don't you just stop now and save the cost of staying alive?

 

[a_unique_person]

Was it "Waiting for Godot" that had the line about life being like a women astride a grave giving birth?

 

[Supercharts]

Was it "Waiting for Godot" that had the line about life being like a women astride a grave giving birth?

Speed the film up really fast and you are right.

 

[fishbob]

The fallacy in your whole line of thought is that cig. smoking doesnt kill EVERYBODY that smokes.

Shooting yourself in the head with a 357 magnum is not 100% guaranteed to kill you either. The only difference is the odds. OK the two differences are the odds, and that you annoy more people by smoking. And the cig companies make a fortune off you.

Most people would say the 357 option is a bad risk. Some people say the cig option is a bad risk, others think it is OK. If you make an informed choice to take the risk, I guess that is OK. If you choose without full knowledge of the consequences, for either option, it is very hard to change your mind later.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Well my point originally was that if a product that kills you if used properly is legal, then does it matter how long it takes to kill you? If so, then what logic determines the length of time? If not, then my fictional product could and should be just as legal as cigarettes.

O.K.. Point understood..

As a few have pointed out, it does seem to matter to some people whether they live 30 seconds or 30 years...


I hope Shemp doesn't see this.. Sounds like the basis for a poll...

 

[Tmy]

If second hand smoke is so bad, how come no one gets addicted to it.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

If second hand smoke is so bad, how come no one gets addicted to it.

Because the nicotine level is not sufficient.. And because the addiction is more complex than the craving for nicotine.
This is apparent from the fact that having a supply of nicotine, is more often than not, ineffective in curbing the desire to
inhale the smoke from a burning tobacco product.

Anyway, smoking is not bad for you because it is addictive..

It is bad for you and addictive..

 

[Ladyhawk]

Kourama:

I'm a reformed smoker and let me tell you, it is without question one of the most difficult things I've ever done. And, believe me...no matter how long you've quit, you still get cravings. I think I'll have them for the rest of my life.

What bothers me about these discussions is what appears to be the total, complete disdain that non-smokers hold toward smokers. You gotta remember that, back in the day when I started smoking, it was completely and socially acceptable! Then, one day the Surgeon General announces that it's not a good thing. Next, smokers are bad people. Second hand smoke, et al.

I loved what former "drug czar" William Bennett said a few years ago...I may not have this quote exactly, but it's pretty close:

"If only this administration were as intolerant of drugs as it is of smoking"

And, don't kid yourself. My drinking a beer may not make YOU fat, but depending on how many I drink and what part of the road you and I travel that night, I could make you very dead.

Given that example, why aren't people as intolerant of alcohol as they are cigarettes? Alcohol cripples, maims and kills, distorts decision making ability....what's the difference, do you think?

 

[kourama]

Re: Re: A new product for smokers

We all die in a hundred years.

I figure 100 years or 100 seconds, what's the diff? Why not just kill any newborn?

Kourama, I don't smoke, but I see an enormous difference between living 30 years longer or die now. Don't you? If not, why don't you just stop now and save the cost of staying alive?

Personal choice is the difference here. Newborns can't make decisions.

Knowing that the product can kill you with a certain statistic regularity is the parallel.

Of course, the same applies to driving a car, or taking a bath, but what exactly are you selling in a cigarette? Pleasure? I dunno.

Well that’s odd I have known people who have smoked for over 50 years and are quite healthy

Sure, and I know soldiers who survived front-line battles. Smoking is one part of the big picture. There are genetics, lifestyle and luck to consider when working out the possibility of death. So, let's add a statistical characteristic to the product.

Each of these fictional cigarettes has a probability of killing you in 30 seconds, that, if applied with the regularity of smoking a regular cigarette, over time gives you the same odds of constributing to your death.

 

[heath]

What bothers me about these discussions is what appears to be the total, complete disdain that non-smokers hold toward smokers.
[/b]

In my experience it's reactionary. If people constantly pissed against my leg while I was at pubs or restaurants I'd distain them a bit for that too. Especially if they were constantly saying "it's not harming you" like smokers do. Or "there's a no pissing section" where the growing puddles of pee could freely wash over my shoes but I'm meant to be thankful that it isn't down the side of my trousers.

The habitual littering of smokers gets me too. I work for a big company with a good reputation and am expected to act in a manner that befits my role. I am really exasperated by people that smoke outside my building (we own the whole thing so it's not people from other companies doing this) and throw their butts on the ground. I can't complain because the global head of my division is one of them...

And, don't kid yourself. My drinking a beer may not make YOU fat, but depending on how many I drink and what part of the road you and I travel that night, I could make you very dead.

Given that example, why aren't people as intolerant of alcohol as they are cigarettes? Alcohol cripples, maims and kills, distorts decision making ability....what's the difference, do you think?

[/B]

Because my drinking a beer doesn't get you drunk. If I then drive a car or cause a fight while pissed that is not the same as being a danger to you simply by drinking in your presence. I am always surprised by people that claim not to get the distinction.

 

[NightG1]

If second hand smoke is so bad, how come no one gets addicted to it.

No one gets addicted to power plant effluent either.

 

[Ladyhawk]

Because my drinking a beer doesn't get you drunk. If I then drive a car or cause a fight while pissed that is not the same as being a danger to you simply by drinking in your presence. I am always surprised by people that claim not to get the distinction.

Actually, I think you're making my point for me. You're drinking a beer doesn't get ME drunk, true. But, I am still endangered because you could be anywhere ...on the road, especially. If I stand next to a smoker, at least I have the opportunity to identify him/her as such and move away. However, I can't always tell who has had too much to drink and may pose a threat to my safety...you see what I'm getting at?

 

[heath]

Actually, I think you're making my point for me. You're drinking a beer doesn't get ME drunk, true. But, I am still endangered because you could be anywhere ...on the road, especially. If I stand next to a smoker, at least I have the opportunity to identify him/her as such and move away. However, I can't always tell who has had too much to drink and may pose a threat to my safety...you see what I'm getting at?

Drinking and then driving are 2 actions that in combination may result in danger to others. BOTH are required to be a danger (and both together do not guarantee a danger). Smoking is a danger in itself (equivalent to any airborne pollution).

That is why drinking and driving has always been illegal (at least in my lifetime) because of the risk it poses. That is also why smoking in public is becoming increasingly illegal...

 

[Tmy]

No one gets addicted to power plant effluent either.

What i mean is that you hear that 2nd hand smoke kills X amount of people a year. How do they figure that out? If 2nd hand smoke is so powerful wouldnt you get addicted to it.

I dont see it as a health issue as much as a nusance issue. No one is stopping you from smoking. Just do it outside instead of in my face while Im eating. Why should my clothes stink like cigarettes. If i threw beer on you should i be "ah well, you chose a restraunt where there's beer."

 

[fidiot]

Does anyoen else have a problem with these "truth.org" anti smoking commercials. They dont seem to be all that truthful.

You'll like this ---> Click here.

 

[heath]

What i mean is that you hear that 2nd hand smoke kills X amount of people a year. How do they figure that out? If 2nd hand smoke is so powerful wouldnt you get addicted to it.

[edit] re adicted to 2nd hand smoke: see the earlier comment from somehone else. No is the short answer.

below is in answer to your first 2 sentences.
[/edit]

That's actually a tough one. The results that X (whatever it is) people die from second hand smoke is hotly contested.

It's one of these probable rather than definite statistical things that leaves people enough room to let their bias affect which way they lean on it. It's difficult to prove conclusively because of confounding factors (like everybody is genetically different, has different lifestyles, etc) that make it quite difficult to tease out effects this small (yes small - after all only a small fraction of smokers die as a direct result of smoking, an unknown number get sick, live shorter lives etc, very messy stuff to prove conclusively). It's also a politically (economically) hot point as well, leading to lobby groups and research teams who actively try to discredit any negative research, publicity etc for economic rather than purely search-for-knowlege reasons - that doesn't happen (to the same extent) for other forms of air pollutions with similarly suble effects.

For me an easy distinction is:
Drinking beer increases your chances of getting X cancer by Y amount. But I like to drink.
Eating barbequed food increases your chances of getting M cancer by N amount. But I like BBQ, I'm australian (see drinking)
Being exposed to 2nd hand smoke increases your chance of getting A cancer by B amount. But I hate cigarette smoke...

It's ok if it's my choice.

I dont see it as a health issue as much as a nusance issue. No one is stopping you from smoking. Just do it outside instead of in my face while Im eating. Why should my clothes stink like cigarettes. If i threw beer on you should i be "ah well, you chose a restraunt where there's beer."

Yeah. The nuisance issue is more easily quantified. I go to a bar - my eyes sting, I cough, I go home stinking of smoke. Easy.

 

[Ladyhawk]

Drinking and then driving are 2 actions that in combination may result in danger to others. BOTH are required to be a danger (and both together do not guarantee a danger). Smoking is a danger in itself (equivalent to any airborne pollution).[B/]

That is why drinking and driving has always been illegal (at least in my lifetime) because of the risk it poses. That is also why smoking in public is becoming increasingly illegal...

Regarding point # 1. Not true necessarily. Either can be, in and of itself, dangerous. Tolerances to alcohol vary among individuals, so, one drink for one person can have the same effect as six for someone else. An inexperienced driver is dangerous; under the effects of alcohol, he/she is even more so.

Regarding point # 2. Agreed. But, you're still not answering my question. Why do smokers get harassed more than drinkers? When is the last time you heard someone say, "Hey, Joe's beatin' up the old lady again..he's had one too many smokes.." Alcohol is in greater use among teenagers than cigarettes. How many times have you heard about "binge smoking" on college campuses?

I'm not making light of your points; they're valid. And, as I've said, I'm a reformed smoker. But, I know how tough it is to quit, particularly when chided by well meaning folks who lecture on the adverse effects of your behavior on their health when you know they get wasted every weekend and jeopardize themselves, their families and others... why isn't society as worked up about that???[I/]

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I'm not making light of your points; they're valid. And, as I've said, I'm a reformed smoker. But, I know how tough it is to quit, particularly when chided by well meaning folks who lecture on the adverse effects of your behavior on their health when you know they get wasted every weekend and jeopardize themselves, their families and others... why isn't society as worked up about that?

For the same reason society doesn't get worked up over automobile drivers not wearing crash helmets as they do about motorcycle drivers, even though it would save thousands of more lives.

I'ts a large group of people forcing their percieved solution, to a problem, created by a small group of people.

Antismoking did not gain much headway until the smokers became a significantly smaller portion of the adult population.

A large majority of the adult population are occasional drinkers, and do not want to rock a boat, that might find them under pressure to give up, or severely restrict their ability to drink at will.