Why, what are you planning to do?!?
Maybe you shouldn't be allowed to know what mental masturbation is. ;)
Printable View
Why, what are you planning to do?!?
Maybe you shouldn't be allowed to know what mental masturbation is. ;)
"experiment" intr.v.
1. To conduct an experiment.
2. To try something new, especially in order to gain experience: experiment with new methods of teaching.
From the American Heritage Dictionary
my two cents (after reading the original question and skimming the responses):
Smoking is becoming very highly restricted in the US (I don't know about other countries) primarily because of the immediate discomfort secondhand smoke brings. Drinking in many states, from what I understand, is also limited to the indoors...you can't just walk around with a drink in your hand, or even just walk around drunk. You can get arrested. If you go into a bar, you accept that you will be around drinkers, and if it is a bar that allows smoking, you accept that you will be around smokers. It is a tad disappointing that there seem to be fewer and fewer places for smokers to take a smoke break outside of their home. (I'm not a smoker, I'm just imagining if people decided that my bright clothing was detrimental to health and I suddenly could only wear it in my home and in certain places how sucky it would be...)
I'd like to thank everyone for their contributions and would like to highlight couple of issuest:
- I am not suggesting that there should be a world-wide ban on smoking and/or drinking.
- However, I am simply wondering why people's attitude towards smoking is so agitated while it is relaxed towards alcohol. In my opinion, the immediate effects of drinking are far worse than those of smoking (I wholeheartedly agree with the points Evi has made in her post).
- Why is it OK to advertise alcohol but not cigarettes?I guess people don't decide smoking or drinking is detrimental to health on their own but base these 'assumptions' on medical evidence. If those claims were to be supported by medical evidence, would you still be willing to wear bright colours in public?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shannanigan
But I don't have to breath into my lungs the color of your clothing. The analogy doesn't fit. Sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shannanigan
So after the first time they smoke pot, it's no longer an experiment. OK. What about the other million times?Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
They are not experimenting, obviously. My point is that the way Shalot used the word is completely legitimate and correct. An experiment does not always involve a lab coat and test tubes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
Reason why alcohol advertising has not been banned (purely opinion):
Just standing in a room with a smoker can damage your health, whereas the drinker is generally only killing him/herself. It requires action on the part of the drinker to harm the non-drinker and I think this is a rather important distinction to make.
On the topic of should alcohol advertising be banned:
Yes, it should (didnt expect that did ya :) ) People who drink will continue todrink, bars and off-licenses could have the features on new brands/drinks etc instead of television/ sponsorship. The majority of alcohol advertising (like cigarrette advertising before it) is being aimed at an ever younger demographic (the kind of kids me and my friends were at 13) this is especially the case with the alco-pops such as hooch, Smirnoff Ice blended drinks, Bacardi Breezers, Aftershock - possibly a glasgow thing: sickly sweet and tastes like licorice - & Mad Dog (MD 20/20). Another issue is the price of alcohol, it is far too cheap! (I remember at 14 walking into Haddows - UK off-license - and buying eight 500ml (approx 1pt) cans of Heineken for 5pounds or $11CDN - The price(in Glasgow at least) has not changed much and here in Canada I can buy 24 bottles of beer for $24. Happy hours also need to be done away with, they encourage binge drinking and lead to increases in violence.
I know during the last 11 years I have probably done some degree of damage to my liver due to drinking. It is due to bingeing over too many weekends (really when the vomit is black it is time to stop). There are entire nights I have no recollection of, I have woken up on doorsteps, parkbenches, privet hedges and on the roof of some stranger's car. It was all stupid and I shouldn't have done it but I was a kid and these things happen (in Glasgow anyway). I made choices and learned my lesson: drinking to excess aint really glamorous or fun, but it is something I had to do. As I said in my previous post: Rite Of Passage.
Ok enough insane rambling (I'll try to limit that to the blog). However, just one final point: Drinking in moderation with friends and remembering the night the following day....Priceless
The reason breathing cigarette smoke into your lungs bothers you is because it is detrimental to your health (not you personally, but people in general who are fighting to reduce the amount of second hand smoke they are around). I was just saying that if it was proven that bright colored clothing could, say, cause you to slowly go blind, people would mind that and start requesting that bright colored clothing be limited to certain places where only those who don't mind the risk would have to see it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I know. I'm silly. You don't have to understand it, I was just trying to put myself in a situation I've never been in. I usually shy away from arguments like this one because opinions and information are soooooo vast that you have to make it your career to take it all in and really see both sides. Yay for opinion! :D
I guess you're asking that if bright colors WERE in fact detrimental to my health, and scientific evidence proved it, if I would stop? Yes, I personally would, but I know lots of bright-color-clothing-lovers who may not back down so easily (and lots of smokers who, despite the evidence, do not try to quit smoking...)Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6157446.stmQuote:
The biggest maker of cigarettes in the US has asked Hollywood studios to avoid using its products in films in case such scenes persuade children to smoke. Philip Morris USA has placed adverts saying: "Please don't give our cigarette brands a part in your movie."
The tactic followed meetings with industry figures, a spokesman said.
But one critic claimed the company would still benefit from smoking scenes in general as its Marlboro product was the leading brand among US teenagers.
Stanton Glantz, head of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California at San Francisco, dismissed the ad campaign as a PR stunt.
Instead of threatening to sue over the use of their brands in movies, Philip Morris officials were saying, "Aw, shucks, we really wish you wouldn't show our products on screen", he told the AP news agency.
'Unmoved'
And Matt Myers, who is president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said film studios had been unmoved by previous appeals to shield children from smoking scenes.
"Hollywood has ignored the very serious problem that smoking in the movies contributes to youth tobacco use," he said.
The problem went beyond "which brands are shown", he added.
Last year a study published in the American medical journal Pediatrics suggested that children exposed to smoking in the film were more likely than their peers to start using tobacco.
Philip Morris USA has cited that research, along with two other studies, in its campaign.
Motion Picture Association of America, which represents the movie industry, has not commented.
I agree with kilted about alco-pops and prices. In Germany, alcoholic drinks are ridiculously cheap.
We don't have any major problems with binge drinking because there's no curfew (well, pubs have to close around 1 or 2 a.m.??? but not as early as 11), so people can take their time. But alco-pops are a major problem, too. Plus there's a lot of cheap booze around...
I think one of the main problems is low-quality cheap booze because people will guzzle huge amounts of it.
If there were only expensive, high-quality, organic, fair trade, specialty, etc. alcoholic beverages, maybe people would drink less and see drinking as a treat for specials occassions???
E.g. I like cocktails but I only drink them at a bar where they use high quality ingredients (delicious fruit juices, etc) and they're so yummie you simply have to enjoy them slowly. There's no way you can gulp them down just to get drunk as quickly as possible.
I used to smoke, but in retrospect I think smoking is disgusting and totally ridiculous.
Not sure which is worse.
I have only skimmed through the responses here, but I don't think too much has been mentioned about 'moderation'. I enjoy a drink - with my wife of an evening, when with friends on a night out or even right now, with some music and a beer. But always in 'moderation' (which means different things at different times!).
Surely any issue with alcohol comes when people go past their limits and forget their responsibilities? I know that if I beat up the wife, or drink drive or turn up for work drunk, I will, at the very least, get fired!
And certainly not everyone who has a drink will become addicted, whereas (and without any statistics as back up) I would suggest that it is 'easier' to get addicted to cigarettes? And indeed, harder to give up. And they WILL give you some sort of horrible disease.
Now, please understand me, I know the pitfalls of alcoholism better than most. However, I also believe that personal choice and free will is the deciding factor in a lot of cases. I also think that education is a huge factor (from an early age) in terms of understanding the dangers of binge drinking, smoking etc.
I think moderation is a relative term. Lots of people go over their limit but don't beat up the wife, drink and drive or turn up to work drunk. That doesn't mean that they don't have a problem with alcohol though. If drinking a quantity of alcohol, either on a regular basis or binging is a coping mechanism or a facade to addressing other issues or responsibilities in life then it is harmful. I guess we've all walked our own walk and have subjective experiences of the effects of alcohol. My parents worked all their lives to feed and clothe us kids but they drank every night (more on weekends) as a way to unwind and us kids never went anywhere physically or emotionally since they were too worn out to notice what our needs were. They weren't abusive - simply oblivious because of the choices they made. Thank god for alcohol, they said! I disagree.
The difference between alcohol and smoking is that smoking is always bad for the smoker, but might be just as bad for the passive smoker - if not worse.
Alcohol, on the other hand, has been cited as having some health benefits in reasonable amounts - below the recommended units by the Govt. Some years ago they were saying a little bit does you good. A little bit being one glass of beer or wine.
Alcoholism, though, is horrible affecting the drinker and their families for a long time. Lower levels of regular drinking may cause personal ill health, but the social effects of hard drinking are really bad. We perhaps all know of someone who has been adversely affected, and this reflects how widespread the problem is.
Yes but if you have high blood pressure, a glass of wine has no health benefit. If a smoke a day stopped you from engaging in other harmful activities - is that a bad or a good thing?
Down on an individual basis there are probably many permutations. I don't know if one smoke a day is better than an alterntive. Can it be limited to that? It depends upon the individual.
It's probably what makes generalisations about the two difficult as you can only speak in general terms which by definition don't fit some people.
I agree Paulclem and well said. I smoked all through the night while I was on a sleepless roll but I'm a non-smoker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Smoking kills more people than alcohol, and also second-hand smoke kills more people than drunk drivers do. Smoking is addictive, but going cold-turkey won't kill you like alcohol will, so perhaps people see it as more negligent. Drinking in moderation is healthy- smoking in any amount is not. People do focus on family abuse, but that doesn't mean we should ignore everything else to make one thing matter? Automobiles are needed and cigarettes aren't?
As mentioned, I think an interesting topic to reiterate is the difference between smoking pot and smoking tobacco, both in contrast to drinking.
On marijuana and tobacco: Even though I used to be a pothead and I am against the legalization of marijuana, I believe that the strongest case in support of its legalization is the fact that there is a medicinal use for it. Last I checked, "medicinal marijuana" exists whereas "medicinal tobacco" and "medicinal alcohol" doesn't. Even if we include red wine, its therapeutic effects are dwarfed by those of marijuana. Marijuana has been shown in many cases to reduce the development of cancer tumors and marijuana is the ONLY drug in existence that has been known to effectively halt SYMPTOMS of severe glaucoma (I didn't say cure the disease). On the other hand, in order for the glaucoma-antagonizing benefits of marijuana to stay effective, 6 to 8 black & mild cigar-sized blunts have to be smoked per day, which could result in extensive damage to the optic nerve and thereby not only negate the positives of Mary J but exacerbate other ophthalmological issues. It can temper the symptoms of various psychological disorders, while at the same time causing even more serious mental problems. Multiple sclerosis, Alzheimers, and even rare cases of Parkinsons have all been more manageable with the drug than without it. And yet there is always a significant trade-off of some sort. Whether marijuana is addictive or not has not be proved so people claiming that it is and people claiming that it isn't are both misinformed.
The reason I'm against weed is the same reason most opponents of the drug are against it whether they are aware of it or not: Simply... we know VERY little about it. As a species, we are genetically bred to exercise caution when using things we know little about. The clarification of our doubts/questions is almost directly proportional to the liberal degree to which we are able to use the drug.
We know for a fact, based on irrefutable scientific evidence that smoking and drinking are both bad, even in moderation, albeit at a substantially slower rate. (I will allow the exception of red wine, but personally I can't stand the taste of red wine and I love white wine, so the health effect is adverse in my case)
I have more to say but I'm too tired. :P.
I love drinking. You get obliterated and every worry is gone from your mind as if wiped, for a time at least. It isn't a black and white subject though, a lot of people destroy their own lives with alcohol. I don't have many uncles, aunts, or grandparents due to alcoholism.
Smoking cigarettes is extremely addictive. They're deadly. You're literally killing yourself one smoke at a time. I quit smoking three weeks ago now, and it's been so damn hard. All my friends smoke and I still crave them. I will continue to crave them for at least a few years, it's a long, insidious game of fighting for your life.
http://www.news-medical.net/news/201...ng-heroin.aspx
Marijuana is also extremely addictive although many potheads will tell you it's not. It's addictive not because you develop a physical dependency but an emotional dependency. Weed is a wonderful drug effect wise. It makes you feel different, brings variation into your life, even if you're just doing the same thing, and it brings euphoria. Many people become dependent on it as a habit for pleasure, and once they convince themselves weed is harmless, it cements the dependency.
I have friends who try to quit smoking weed once every few weeks, only to fail after a day. It's extremely addictive too.
That said, they should all be legal. Allow the people to decide for themselves if they want to kill themselves.
This is a valid, although slightly dismissive point. People should be allowed to do whatever they want and they should be willing to address the consequences of their actions. Instituting legal regulations to the already adverse effects of substance abuse is just adding insult to injury. Good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grit
That being said, it is not merely the individual who is effected by making a poor choice, but society in general. The people that you claim should be "allowed to kill themselves" are the same people who contribute to the work force and who use their salaries to purchase goods. This, in turn, not only fuels businesses, but enhances company productivity while increasing individual independence. Even more apparently, the almost immediate negative effects of substance abuse substantially increases health-care costs for average laborers investing in medicaid/medicare or similar government programs (I don't know if you live in Vancouver, WA or Vancouver, BC, but I'm sure what I say applies to Canada as well.)
Look, smoking is a legal activity. As long as the Government want to rake in the revenue from the taxes they put on cigarettes then I can blow smoke in the face of a baby if I want to. Perhaps fat people should be put down because christ knows how much they cost the health system. They're ugly to look at, repulsive actually and I can't believe they're allowed out during daylight hours. They certainly shouldn't be served supersized meals in restaurants when its so obvious that they're fat gross greedy pigs. They probably drink and smoke too! Yet the industry thrives on their self destructive behaviour and we have to foot the bill. Can't anyone stop these people?????
Yes, lets kill all fat people, because that's exactly the same as stopping people from smoking.
Erm..My healthcare 'sermon' extends to *ahem* overweight people as well. After reading your extremely offensive rant I had to check the username twice to see if it was written by the same intelligent and usually polite Delta40 I've seen around here. I'll just assume you're having a bad day... Not only do you blatantly dismiss the fact that, to a small extent, hereditary traits and other genetic factors contribute to the overweight/obese epidemic, but you also either don't realize or choose not to realize that even though there are many more people with bad health who eat too much, a sizeable number of people aren't "greedy pigs". In fact, there are overweight people who haven't eaten for 2 days (I know someone from personal experience) who involuntarily GAIN weight as opposed to losing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
I'm not trying to start an argument, but your post clearly went way over the line. It was uncalled for. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if someone hacked Delta40's account and typed that.
Ado, you've come back with what I believe to be the only good argument against universal legalization. People killing themselves with drugs is bad for the economy and for society on the whole. Still, like Delta points out, there's massive hypocrisy in limiting substance suicide in some ways but allowing it in others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adolescent09
I think Delta's presentation was more tongue-in-cheek than serious, but still Del makes a great point. Obesity is the number one cause of death in the United States. Why is it that these people are allowed to eat themselves to death, taxing the health care system and contributing less to society on the whole (they receive less oxygen to the brain) while a chronic marijuana smoker isn't allowed to devolve into abuse of he/r vice. Ditto for cigarettes. For those, the government is more than happy to let people kill themselves. Then it comes to heroin or ecstasy (a drug which would be safer, and result in less overdoses if it could be legalized and regulated) and they 'draw the line.'
I just read through your newest post. Yes, for some people obesity isn't a choice and more genetic but for many, it's simply a case of too much cheese and not enough movement.
For me, it's less about the economic or sociological impact of widespread drug abuse and more about basic human rights. Why should one wo/man be allowed to drink the poison he likes to dull the pain while another wo/man is told their poison is bad for you? They're both poison.
It should be either one or the other and I certainly don't advocate prohibition, so I advocate universal freedom in all mind-numbing substances and activities. You know what? People will get those substances anyway, it's not working.
No it was me. I'll tell you why I typed it. My brother weighs in at 200kg and is King of the Hill on people who smoke. I just started again 4 weeks ago. I've been fighting addictive behaviour for a lifetime. I start then I go through the process of quitting but addictive behaviour is more than the practice of smoking itself. I'm sure you understand that. I was having a rant because my brother who would crush me if he fell over has the same addictive problem that I do but it's expressed through food. He can't just lose 100kgs no more than I can just quit without a solid comitted plan in place and then maintain that ongoing change in my life.
His views on the unhealthy practice of smoking is nothing new but it's the pot calling the kettle black when without realising it, him and I struggle with the same problem. He feels we have nothing in common and I make bad decisions while he is a nice guy who is deluded about his size and problem. Perhaps he needs to feel superior or something. I don't know but what I do know is that addictive behaviour isn't about the practice. I chose smoking as the outlet. I could just as easily decided to drink, cut myself up, take illicit drugs etc. At the end of the day, confronting addiction and managing it is the only thing that will make a difference in our lives.
Now THIS is the Delta40 I know :D. The sophistication you show in this post is diametrically opposite to that, which you revealed in your previous post. I have nothing against venting since we all need to do it, but the source of a complaint is made more apparent when it is put into context (typically personal, which is no different in your case). I would make my reply longer but I can't. You made a truly well thought-out argument, and for that I applaud you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
You can't drink a beer without a cigarette.
1. Absolutely correct: drinking is a majority pursuit, whereas smoking is not. This is a case of the majority enforcing their views upon a minority.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
2. Not true at all: tobacco is a big part of our culture, and has been for a long time - some people have just taken it upon themselves to airbrush it out of our history.
3. Fair enough as a reason for banning smoking in offices, planes, trains etc. not for an absolute no exceptions ban that disallows the existence of even a smoking room in a bar or restaurant. Drinking does affect other people far more than smoking does. If you think for one second at all the harm caused by social drinking (fights, drunken accidents, std's, drunk drivers etc.) then you would not believe it more harmful than social smoking. You rubbish the deaths caused by drunk drivers, but these are far more damaging than anything caused by second hand smoke. Alcohol makes people reckless, and having loads of reckless people in the same place is never good. If 'public' smoking is banned, then there is no reason that 'public' drinking should not be banned also.
4. Neither do cigarettes. In fact its has been shown you can be a chronic smoker up to the age of 30 without increasing your long-term health risks. Nor if you just smoked a cigarette every now and then would it be harmful. Don't get me wrong, cigarettes are bad for your health, but the modern health furore about it is greatly exaggerated. Plenty of people have smoked their whole lives and lived spryly into their nineties, and this would not be possible if smoking were as deleterious to your health as many people like to say.
So everything that is legal is codified into our culture as acceptable behaviour? Please. These drugs were legal and unregulated for a long time and they never became widely used. The only reason they are in vogue now is because they are illegal. But i guess you'd just rather have it codified into our culture that 'drugs are bad' and that it's ok to ruin people's lives simply because they've taken them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Just ignore the wasted money and lives caused by the drug war because you seek to impose your morality on others? Usually on already oppressed minorities at that (it is well known that cocaine became illegal because of the fear of its use by black men, opiates because it came from the Chinese, and Cannabis because the Mexicans used it). How can you be morally serious when your pseudo-morality is strongly rooted in racism, oppression and flagrant discrimination?
Your argument boils down to 'people should only consume the drugs i like because drugs are vices and we shouldn't allow any more.' Sorry, but what a load of crap.
You have no more right to stop people from smoking than you do killing fat people. It may not be the same, but it is the same principle of getting rid of what you don't like, when in fact, it has nothing to do with you, or anyone other than the person who smokes for that matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Volya
edit: and btw the 'scientific' evidence for the dangers of 2nd hand smoke is incredibly weak. It's all things like in a study to see the the rates of lung cancer in partners of smokers - this one showed a rate of 6 in 100,000 for partners of non-smokers and 9 in 100,000 for partners of smokers. That tiny percentage difference (which is not even close to being scientifically significant) is then multiplied by the population of the country, and wham, a headline like: '2nd hand smoke kills this (insert big number) Americans a year.' Those whose studies show no correlation between 2nd hand smoke and death will likely not find a publisher, and if they do will be maligned by the anti-smoking lobby.
When science becomes politicised it becomes worthless.