570 British children start smoking every day - figures show rise of 50,000 in one year - Polidicks

[QUOTE=AK'z;40002951]that wasn't the point. the point is people want warning labels on something that might kill them, yet disregard everything else that can meet that criteria. heck let's put a warning label on a bus "Don't stand in front or you will die".[/QUOTE] Probably a bad comparison. Buses aren't made so people can walk in front of them, they are made to transport people. Cigarettes aren't made to transport people, they are made for human consumption. As said McDonalds burgers aren't really that terrible. The sugar and carbohydrates are really the most unhealthy part, the saturated fat in the meat (mind you, depending on where you live some might use trans fat) isn't particularly bad for you so heart attacks are sort of out of the question.

[QUOTE=Scoooooby;40001896]wonderful. smoking is rather rare in florida. it's hard to find people who still smoke cigarettes. most people quit before they get older. that's what i plan to do, smoke when i'm young, quit when older. i've been smoking since 18, i'm now 20. i quit cold turkey twice, for 3-10 months. smoking under 15 is kind of ridiculous though[/QUOTE] why would you ever want other people to start? im having a hard as fuck time stopping and ive only smoked for a year.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;40003029]Probably a bad comparison. Buses aren't made so people can walk in front of them, they are made to transport people. Cigarettes aren't made to transport people, they are made for human consumption. As said McDonalds burgers aren't really that terrible. The sugar and carbohydrates are really the most unhealthy part, the saturated fat in the meat (mind you, depending on where you live some might use trans fat) isn't particularly bad for you so heart attacks are sort of out of the question.[/QUOTE] freakonomics recently posted that the mcdouble is "the cheapest, most bountiful, nutritious food in the modern age" and while there are many criteria for those claims that might not be met, it's true to an extent. i think a mcdouble has 400 calories, like 20% of your daily calcium, and some other nutrients. it's certainly deficient in many nutrients and shouldn't be eaten for every meal, but it isn't incredibly bad for you.

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;40002375]I think every person should have the liberty to do what they wish with their body. If you think otherwise then you must have the biggest, cross-cutting definition of what is considered 'respectful' to the body. Mind as well ban tattoos and junk food while you're at it.[/QUOTE] Then please get the fuck out of my insurance company. An insurance contract is not a one way ticket.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;40003029]Probably a bad comparison. Buses aren't made so people can walk in front of them, they are made to transport people. Cigarettes aren't made to transport people, they are made for human consumption. As said McDonalds burgers aren't really bad for you so heart attacks are sort of out of the question.[/QUOTE] bad diet will increase your risk of stomach cancer. smoking a cigarette will increase risk of lung cancer. standing next to London traffic will increase risk of lung cancer. Yet you want pictures of people dying, on a single product. There's no logic when your aim is to kill a trend that isn't decreasing even after health warnings are in place.

I'd understand that people in the US might not necessarily need warning labels on cigarettes, but in Canada and Britain smokers create a massive tax burden on the universal health care systems. With all the smoking-related illnesses, you can imagine the whopping assload of money that it takes to treat people with self-inflicted conditions. So.. I suppose warning labels probably deter at least some potential smokers.

[QUOTE=AK'z;40003123]bad diet will increase your risk of stomach cancer. smoking a cigarette will increase risk of lung cancer. standing next to London traffic will increase risk of lung cancer. Yet you want pictures of people dying, on a single product. There's no logic when your aim is to kill a trend that isn't decreasing even after health warnings are in place.[/QUOTE] All of those things are warned about in public information. also you can't do anything for the london one unless you want them to evacuate london (probably a good idea but still)

I'd say British drinking culture is a LOT more prominent than the smoking culture. [editline]22nd March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=carcarcargo;40003134]All of those things are warned about in public information.[/QUOTE] then why wrap things that are already known in pictures of death and disease?

[QUOTE=AK'z;40003144]I'd say British drinking culture is a LOT more prominent than the smoking culture. [editline]22nd March 2013[/editline] then why wrap things that are already known in pictures of death and disease?[/QUOTE] Because they're particularly nasty due to their physical addictiveness. You can stop eating rubbish whenever you want, not as easy to stop smoking, best to put people off in the first place.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;40003124]So.. I suppose warning labels probably deter at least some potential smokers.[/QUOTE] you'd think after discoveries were made that smoking killed you and it was made public that smoking would detrimentally decrease in popularity, it just didn't. [editline]22nd March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=carcarcargo;40003163]You can stop eating rubbish whenever you want, not as easy to stop smoking, best to put people off in the first place.[/QUOTE] People can be addicted to high fat foods and alcohol just the same as cigarettes.

[QUOTE=AK'z;40003167] People can be addicted to high fat foods and alcohol just the same as cigarettes.[/QUOTE] idk if you can say "just the same". i've never seen someone get body aches, shakes, and flu symptoms from food withdrawals.

[QUOTE=AK'z;40003123]bad diet will increase your risk of stomach cancer. smoking a cigarette will increase risk of lung cancer. standing next to London traffic will increase risk of lung cancer. Yet you want pictures of people dying, on a single product. There's no logic when your aim is to kill a trend that isn't decreasing even after health warnings are in place.[/QUOTE] Smoking, even casual smoking is by a large margin far worse than either of those things. Don't try to compare eating food with inhaling hot, tar-laden smoke. Poor diet is not a thing that exists unless you're eating nothing but candy and potato chips. The majority of unintentional obesity, diabetes and heart disease is caused by processed food having far too much sugar and trans-fats in them, and that's an issue that is being worked on in a lot of places.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;40003124]I'd understand that people in the US might not necessarily need warning labels on cigarettes, but in Canada and Britain smokers create a massive tax burden on the universal health care systems. With all the smoking-related illnesses, you can imagine the whopping assload of money that it takes to treat people with self-inflicted conditions. So.. I suppose warning labels probably deter at least some potential smokers.[/QUOTE] Actually smokers bring in £10bn in tax and cost the NHS £5bn, without smokers the government would be making £5bn less per year

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;40003208] Poor diet is not a thing that exists[/QUOTE] what are you talking about? Bowel cancer is very prominent, a relative of mine lost her life to it and it was known she didn't eat salad and ate a lot of high-fat foods (she wasn't even fat at all).

[QUOTE=AK'z;40003167]you'd think after discoveries were made that smoking killed you and it was made public that smoking would detrimentally decrease in popularity, it just didn't. [editline]22nd March 2013[/editline] People can be addicted to high fat foods and alcohol just the same as cigarettes.[/QUOTE] Beyond mice there is no evidence high fat foods are addictive.

I highly doubt her stomach cancer was caused by fat in her food. Fat is a form of energy, it has no adverse effect on your stomach. it's far more likely that the stomach cancer was caused by nitrates and salt intake from processed foods.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;40003253]I highly doubt her stomach cancer was caused by fat in her food. Fat is a form of energy, it has no adverse effect on your stomach. it's far more likely that the stomach cancer was caused by nitrates and salt intake from processed foods.[/QUOTE] that's good. warning labels should then go onto all products with nitrates, salt, sugars and trans-fats; since the logic is "Increase cancer risk = Have pictures of death".

[QUOTE=proch;40002760]As far as I know, a smoker's health is more or less regenerated after 20 years of being clean. The lungs, for example.[/QUOTE]iirc it's something like stopping at 30 means one is unlikely to have an increased risk of cancer in the long term. After that, body becomes less able to fix itself as the damage done by smoking is compounded by ageing. Still a few years left for me before I need to resort to more drastic quitting measures, I guess.

[QUOTE=AK'z;40003323]that's good. warning labels should then go onto all products with nitrates, salt, sugars and trans-fats; since the logic is "Increase cancer risk = Have pictures of death".[/QUOTE] That really depends on how much those actually raise the risk of cancer, as in not just some daily mail rubbish, or is there a legitimate high risk of cancer, like how cigarettes have a 50% cancer rate. Also trans-fats should be banned from food period.

[QUOTE=matt.ant;40002000]It's a taboo when you're young, like sex and alcohol. It's the thrill from doing something you know you shouldn't.[/QUOTE] It's still so dumb. You can save SOO MUCH MONEY by not smoking, and you stay healthier. It's beyond me how some people have money for cigs and stuff and don't have for other, necessary things.

[QUOTE=AK'z;40003323]that's good. warning labels should then go onto all products with nitrates, salt, sugars and trans-fats; since the logic is "Increase cancer risk = Have pictures of death".[/QUOTE] I'm not going to exercise this notion of yours anymore. There's no comparison between eating food and directly inhaling smoke. One of them can, under some very limited circumstances be bad for you. The other is [B]always[/B] bad for you, no matter what quantity. If a product that you ingest or inhale has absolutely no positive effects on your body then it should be posted as a toxic substance. The cancer photos are a bit overboard, but in [URL="https://www.ec.gc.ca/eau-water/1A0A0DC6-2039-4F10-B8D8-45E6E6E544AD/prim18.gif"]every other circumstance you're warned about toxic substances[/URL], how are cigarettes any different?

[QUOTE=The mouse;40001956]I don't get why people start smoking, there's literally no good reason to ever want to.[/QUOTE] Because it makes you look cooler.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;40003348] Also trans-fats should be banned from food period.[/QUOTE] If that were going to happen, fast food chains wouldn't exist. [editline]22nd March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=hypno-toad;40003496]I'm not going to exercise this notion of yours anymore. There's no comparison between eating food and directly inhaling smoke. One of them can, under some very limited circumstances be bad for you. The other is [B]always[/B] bad for you, no matter what quantity.[/QUOTE] in what way are trans fats good for you?

[QUOTE=AK'z;40003739]If that were going to happen, fast food chains wouldn't exist. [/QUOTE] They already did in new york, apparently its working fine.

[QUOTE=The mouse;40001956]I don't get why people start smoking, there's literally no good reason to ever want to.[/QUOTE] Social pressures.

[QUOTE=AK'z;40003739] in what way are trans fats good for you?[/QUOTE] trans fats are becoming universally banned. if we treat cigarettes the same maybe we should just ban them.

The only thing about smoking I like is that it is kind of sexy in old style black and white photos, but you can just use a fake cig for that. My mom told me that while she was waiting for the taxi, she saw a man walking around picking up half smoked cigs from the ground and putting them in his pocket very sad.. and revolting also.

[QUOTE=matt.ant;40002589]They look like this: [img]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/06/22/article-2163227-08205183000005DC-314_468x286.jpg[/img] and will soon look like this: [img]http://static.packagingnews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/166824-new-cigarette-packets.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] they already have plain packaging in Australia, same design as here as well, it hasn't stopped anything personally, people will always smoke no matter what the government does with the design

I don't smoke, other than the occasional cigar or cigarello. I honestly find it pretty enjoyable. There is no other feeling in the world like pulling a draft of cigar smoke into your mouth and rolling it around, getting the complex flavors and feelings it has to offer. Cigarettes on the other hand, don't even get me started. I had one cigarette, one time and just looked at it like "Why the fuck?" It tasted like nothing. All it did was give me a slight buzz and a cough. If you are going to smoke, be classy about it. Buy the thirty dollar cigars and smoke one once in a while. The trade off, in my opinion, is worth it. Don't smoke cigarettes though, they aren't worth it.

[QUOTE=dass;40003491]It's still so dumb. You can save SOO MUCH MONEY by not smoking, and you stay healthier. It's beyond me how some people have money for cigs and stuff and don't have for other, necessary things.[/QUOTE] As a kid you really don't consider health problems, basically what you know is you can get lung cancer and that only happens to like a few people - that's what you think. And I doubt picking up smoking in this article is considered smoking a package a day cause I have a hard time believing this many parents would either not notice or allow their kids to smoke this much, so keeping up a habit of maybe 1-6 cigarettes a day or only on weekends isn't hard to have money for. [editline]23rd March 2013[/editline] I occassionly smoke and it's a bad habit, but there is just so much that can kill me that I don't really care. [editline]23rd March 2013[/editline] Btw I approve of all anti-smoke adverts and notes on packages and in school or whatever. [editline]23rd March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=fruxodaily;40006211]they already have plain packaging in Australia, same design as here as well, it hasn't stopped anything personally, people will always smoke no matter what the government does with the design[/QUOTE] It won't stop already smokers from smoking but it can keep people away from starting the habit. [editline]23rd March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=WeekendWarrior;40003887]Social pressures.[/QUOTE] Partially this, and the fact that it feels good.