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.Originally Posted by Virgil
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.
What is the use of a violent kind of delightfulness if there is no pleasure in not getting tired of it.
- Gertrude Stein
A washerwoman with her basket; a rook; a red-hot poker; th purples and grey-greens of flowers: some common feeling which held the whole together.
- Virginia Woolf
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
There once was a scotsman named Drew
Who put too much wine in his stew
He felt a bit drunk
And fell off his bunk
And landed smack into his shoe ~(C) Ms Niamh Anne King
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...
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!
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...)
Last edited by Shannanigan; 11-03-2006 at 03:03 PM.
You learn more about a road by travelling it than by consulting all of the maps in the world.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6157446.stmThe 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.
~
"It is not that I am mad; it is only that my head is different from yours.”
~
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.
Before sunlight can shine through a window, the blinds must be raised - American Proverb
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?
Before sunlight can shine through a window, the blinds must be raised - American Proverb
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.
Before sunlight can shine through a window, the blinds must be raised - American Proverb
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.
My hide hides the heart inside
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.
While the truncheon may be used
in lieu of conversation,
words will always retain their power.
Words offer the means to meaning,
and for those who will listen,
the enunciation of truth.
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.
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.)
My hide hides the heart inside
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
