What is Digg?100 Comments
- Ikioi, on 10/12/2007, -11/+36Yeah, this will be ginormous! I'll have to say "Mild" or "Medium Flavor" or "Split Filter" or something or other instead of "Lights".
That's a huge difference, I better quit right now before my cigarettes change names, because I was really fooled by the "Lights" part.
Ok, enough sarcasm. Honestly, would like to quit eventually, but the non-smoking community is way too full of itself, smug, and self-righteous. I think its funny they go to court over things like this. Smokers don't care what you call them. The smoking tax is really a poor tax (just like extra tax on beer, but not wine). I'm not poor, but between gas taxes and cigarette taxes, the only "Butt" I want to put out is the butt I want out of office.
Truth, eh? Here's some truth. I have no kids, I smoke outside, mostly at home, and I'm fully aware of the physical effects and pay extra on my health insurance for it. I'll quit eventually, but on my own terms. I don't bother a single non-smoker with second hand smoke. So, to all those non-smokers cheering this on, how about leaving me the hell alone. I don't charge you a Latte tax or a Polo shirt tax or a Self Important tax. I don't complain because your Lipo-Sculpted Lips raised the price of heath care by depleting the ranks of quality surgeons.
These same people would also love to put a "Fat *ss" tax on Big Macs. While I appreciate how everyone is so concerned over the health of everyone around them, like they're Chuck Norris Gone Wild preaching to the sub-peak crowd not getting their 500 reps in a day, I'd like to be the guy that walks onto a Truth commercial set smoking a cigar and flicking ashes on all those actors playing dead.
The cigarette companies didn't lie to me. I choose to start smoking because its one of the few legal drugs I could purchase when I turned 18. I knew the risks, I lit up, and I enjoyed it. I liked, and still like, the little high I get from it. Nothing feels better than a cigarette after a meal. I ate meals for 18 years without them, so yes, from experience both ways, it's much better to smoke afterwards.
Maybe I'll die 10 years sooner, and maybe the non-smoker driving next to me will get hit by an 18-wheeler that ran a red light when I turn off to pick up a pack and he goes straight through the intersection.
In short, I chose this, and I would grow the tobacco in my basement if it even went so far as to be outlawed. I'll quit when "I" am ready. Go do something useful, like running commercials about real social issues, instead of trying to outlaw everything that doesn't conform to PG standards.
Truth. - Wolfcastle, on 10/12/2007, -8/+29Delicious and Slightly Less Delicious
- HardD99, on 10/12/2007, -14/+34instead of "Regular" and "Light" it should be "Deadly" and "Less Deadly" lol
- mundek23, on 10/12/2007, -11/+27no it should be "horrible painful death in 20 years" or "horrible painful death in 25 years"
- Pacotheparrot, on 10/12/2007, -12/+28Good. If we're going to let people kill themselves let's at least be straight-forward about it.
- parislemon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15If you need a login try:
http://www.bugmenot.com - stubadub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10BTW, I'm not a smoker either. I casually smoked when I used to go out, but I don't even do that anymore. I just hate people attempting to legislate our freedoms away.
I like going to bars here in Austin and not smelling like smoke when I get home. I just think a business owner should have the right to make that decision. I would certainly go to more smoke-free environments, but why shouldn't we allow bars where smokers can smoke in peace? - Xanin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12The article mentioned that the judge regretted not being able to punish the companies further, in this I disagree with her. Fair enough that they shouldn't falsely advertise, but once they've stated the dangers, it's people's own choice to risk their health. It's the same with food, it should be labelled, but it's personal choice whether to heed the warnings or not.
- stubadub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I hate to tell you, but your insurance is affected more by the average American's diet and their lack of physical activity. Insurance companies *DO* charge extra for those that smoke. They do not charge extra for those (including myself) that eat a ***** diet consisting of fried foods and tons of high fructose corn syrup. How many smokers are there in comparison to people that drink multiple Cokes in a day? I know lots of smokers, and they haven't been the ones that have had the most doctors visits. It's been two of my friends that have spent more than a year trying to heal their damaged livers from their diet, and another that is recuperating from a Heart Attack (non-smoker, Big Mac eater). Until you can honestly claim to be eating lots of vegetables, avoiding processed foods, not drinking alchohol and exercising 5 times a week then you are also adding to our health care expenses.
- bar10dr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12NEWS: The government wants the color blind to die from cancer!
- jestoner, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14So because i don't smoke i am smug? I don't even have a problem with people who do smoke although i do have a problem with people who judge others for something they do to keep themselves healthy. Personally i could care less if you smoke 5 packs a day, it's your life, i won't look down on you for it.
- mundek23, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12@ NtHammer - you seriously believe smoking tobacco isn't harmful based on some anecdotal evidence. Well done to your family, but even you say:
"so far none have had problems"
so far, how about withholding judgement until you see how they die? It's not pleasant watching a smoker eventually die. - szembek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6They taste different. I think it's all just personal taste. whatever you are used to, you like.
- bradbeattie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The downside to that is we'd have to determine (for fairness) what activities people participated in and what risks they brought.
"Oh, you like to eat potato chips? Studies show that you'll live 2 years less on average. We'll just adjust your insurance accordingly."
What follows that, lifestyle audits? - hogrod, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I smoked for years and recently quit. I can say that anyone who think that light cigarettes are better for you because of their name is an idiot. In reality no one really thinks that, this is just another stupid issue brought up by non-smokers to try to control tobacco company's.
They all have the same warnings on the packages, it's not like the light ones say...
"These are basically healthy, smoke 20 day to keep doctor away!" - netburnr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8No, not everyone considers "Light" to be less dangerious.
Light can also mean a lighter smoke, as in less harsh.
So if this goes through, how am I to get my Light Cig? - blackjack75, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9"Deadly and less Deadly"?
That's the problem.... light cigarettes are just as deadly. Hence why they forbid this label. - parislemon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8If this holds up (which it may or may not according to the article), this could be huge: "Sales of light brands constitute more than 50 percent of the cigarette market in the United States, according to Mr. Adelman."
- trakais, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7well duh, europe has this for over a year already. now cigarettes are labeled `red`, `blue` and `white` or in some similar way.
- lcarsdeveloper, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Some of the anti-smoking commercials we've been getting in Australia lately are great:
http://www.quitnow.info.au
Lots of graphic pictures of the damage done by smoking. They even put the pictures on the packs now, I think it's a good idea. As to whether or not it works, who knows, I still see lots of young people smoking and it's depressing to think they're going to have so many health problems later in life. All I know is I don't smoke, and I don't ever plan to. - Rickard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6That might make sense in the US, but in Sweden, smokers contribute more to the national economy than non-smokers. We pay loads and loads of tobacco taxes and we die sooner (saving the government money on pensions).
- BitwiseMcgee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Paco: Yeah!
better yet! let's make the decisions for people! ban cigs! no more smokers ruining my day!
or hell! smoking isn't the only thing that kills, I hear motorcycles are dangerous! let's ban those, after all, a car is safe!
but wait! you can die in a car too! but I drive an SUV, which are safe... better make SUVs required! and seatbelts!
don't get me started on fatty foods like mcdonald's!
I like my freedoms of choice. I'll kill myself if I damn well please (note, I'm an ex-smoker) - mozzer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I have 2 non-trolling questions for the smokers:
Those of you who choose Light cigarettes do so because you feel it is less harmful or because there's a discernible change in taste?
How does the smoke/taste differ between Regular and Light (or Ultra Light for that matter)? - EmileVictor, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8If it didn't have a psychological impact there would be no point in the tabacco companies packaging two types of cigarettes would there?
- SpeckledJim, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6In the 90s some company introduced a brand called "Death Cigarettes" in the UK, sold in a black pack with white skull and cross-bones logo. I think they did pretty well, but were eventually done in by stricter import legislation (the company traded from Luxembourg by mail order).
- scuzzman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I'm getting really annoyed by this. Just take the warning labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself. If it's labeled Rat poison or Drain Cleaner, I'm willing to bet you probably shouldn't drink it. When it comes to smoking, YOU'RE BREATHING SMOKE!!! How can any person think this is healthy, regardless of what the label says? For clarification, I'm a smoker for about the past 5 years. I do it because I enjoy it. I started doing it after I was given one and liked the buzz, not because an ad told me to.
- fallingstars, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"Many peolpe have died from lung cancer, but many of these were also non-smokers, because cancer is fundamentally a genetic condition."
The carcinogens present in cigarette smoke cause genetic mutations which lead to abnormal cell growth (cancer). Sure, some non-smokers will get cancer, but the chances of that happening are tiny compared to a smoker.
"...where are similar actions against fast-food chains, which are far more dangerous..."
Fast-food is not physically addictive. That is, whether to consume it is always a choice of the consumer. Not so with tobacco, where there is a physical mechanism of addiction. Plus, even a single cigarette has harmful effects on the respiratory and cardiovascular systems. A single Big Mac, although not the most balanced meal one could choose, is not harmful in and of itself. That is, anything can be harmful in excess, but any amount of tobacco use is harmful. - andrew1193, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"As long as public air remains smoke-free so I don't die as a result of their choices, I don't have any problem with people committing prolonged suicide."
Trouble is, "public air" is defined as air in privately owned and operated bars and restaurants that people have a choice to go into. - kamisama, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6This whole anti cigarette thing is getting way out of hand. And that is in general due to the non smokers being total Nazi's about the whole thing. I need my clean air , i want them banned. All fine by me, but think about this.
My mom never in her life smoked, she was very active and rode her bike around the city even at age 58. Always driving her bike swiftly next to rows and rows of cars standing still. This is a real pest where i live. People are just too lazy to pick up their bike or go a bit on foot, they rather sit in a car for half an hour.
Anyway my mom died of a very aggressive cancer, most likely caused by being surrounded by fumes every time she went out on her bike.
And you people are discussing if cigarettes should have a light label or not? Bleeding hypocrites. Have some priorities in life for once. - postapoc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yeah, because people think smoking is soooooo good for you as it is
- thehans, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The tabacco companies will no label them as no carbs.
- scstraus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5You're an idiot paco. You shouldn't have any right to decide whether someone makes the decision to do something that's unhealthy. Are you going to make 2 hours of manditory workouts every day too? Outlaw McDonalds?
Butt out of other people's lives. - bennies, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I must be a liberal hippy since I think everyone should be cared for. I don't care if you are a drug addict/prostitute/smoker or health freak. If you get sick you should get help. Hey even before you get sick you probably should get help to make sure you don't get sick.
You don't want to ease the suffering of a dying person so more money for you so you can drive a bigger car? Because we aren't exactly starving for food here in the west now are we? - queekus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3They should make filters illegal as well, less litter.
- foofooz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I was a smoker once upon a time, and in the begining I smoked Camel Lights because a drag was not as harsh as a regular. Over time I adapted to the smoke and before I quit was smoking a pack of Camel Non-filters a day (which are very hard to find, I wonder why. =)
The Light label to me symbolized that a drag wasn't as harsh on the throat, not that it had less agents in it causing cancer. - jeffn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I, as a smoker, am sick and tired of all of these nit-picking laws here and there on a legal product. Look, if cigarettes are the terror they are depicted to be then outlaw them altogether or shut up about it already!!
- LocalH, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@brindon:
***** you, *****. - SpeckledJim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3People often switch to "light" cigarettes when they are trying to give up, the idea perhaps being that taking in less nicotine will help you beat the addiction (as well as the imaginary health benefits). However, some studies have shown the exact opposite - smokers of "lights" are less likely to give up.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060720012304.htm
I've tried it myself and indeed, it didn't help. Less nicotine per cigarette only meant an urge to smoke more of the damn things. - mundek23, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Because the word "light" implies they are less harmful than regular cigarettes and thus some people will find it harder to make an informed decision on that basis.
Light cigarettes do contain slightly less tar and nicotine but the same amount of other nasty chemicals and people tend to smoke more of them, so the effect of having less tar and nicotine in the "light" cigarette is negated. - tomboy501, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Light cigarettes don't taste as harsh for some reason...which is really silly, though - because when you are sometimes desperate for a cigarette, anything tastes great.
I've been trying to kick the habit on and off for years...they really are all just little white death sticks and should be labeled as such. - scuzzman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Honestly, I think Light cigarettes taste like burnt popcorn. There are those that disagree. Mostly though, choosing a particular brand/type of cig is all about taste.
- SpeckledJim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Same in the UK. Only applies to the labelling though - hasn't changed what people ask for when they go to buy them, which can be confusing for the cashiers...
- bennybertow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yeah, here in Germany it's been several years now... Lucky Strike Light are called Lucky Strike Silver now... Though the rest of the package remained the same, and still the lighter colors like silver compared to red suggest these are the lighter ones...
Though in fact, the "lighter" ones really are lighter and not as strong as the regular ones. - scstraus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4They were "Black Death Cigarretes". They also had "Black Death Vodka". They both tasted like *****, but were so cool I supported them just because.
There isn't a single smoker in the world that doesn't know it will most likely kill them if they don't stop. Some stupid name change is just a waste of everyone's time and money. Change them all to "black death". I'd be fine with that. Just quit ***** with the poor smokers. (I am an ex-smoker BTW, but I've never harrassed or supported harrasing or taxing those who still do. Live and let live) - tomboy501, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No they won't. They could be labeled: Beware: Contains Plutonium ... and some people will still slap down 5 bucks a pack and continue on. Sad, but true.
- mwilding, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2America is a country founded and made great by self reliant men who took responsibility for themselves, hoisted themselves up by their bootstraps and went about their lives without looking for handouts.
America has become a country filled with people who feel entitled to everything and have cozied up to the notion that government can fix society's myriad problems by legislating them away.
To take a product that already has a warning on the side telling you that it causes cancer and forcing the manufacturer to remove the word "light" is comical at best and a tragic condemnation of what our society has become at worst. A few politicians get to pat themselves on the back and win some votes and tobacco companies have to find new packaging. Whoopeefriggindoo.
Can we focus on some REAL issues, please - like a balanced budget, immigration reform, political corruption, etc? - postapoc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3What happens when smoking is banned completely and people still die of lung cancer?
I hate to break this to some people but your going to die. If you make it to an old age it's a good chance that you'll die of lung cancer, smoker or not.
Second hand smoke is no worse for you than standing a few feet from a running car. I'm a cyclist (haven't owned a car in 5 years.) If I didn't so strongly believe in peoples right to choose their lifestyle a would ban driving cars. - postapoc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'd be really depressed if your perfect healthy body was accidentally ran over by a truck tomorrow
- CeeJayDK, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3They are just required to relabel their deathsticks.
-
Show 51 - 96 of 96 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is