The money comes from tobacco companies, but the tobacco companies don’t actually make the commercials.  The commercials are made by anti-smoking groups and gov affiliated groups.

I have never smoked. I also hate to be around smokers. My incredibly strong sense of smell and asthma might have something to do with that though…

Good luck on staying smoke free. Even if you start up again, we still love you

Started at thirteen, smoked in increasing amounts until eighteen when everyone quit nagging about it.  Then, not being terribly keen on lung cancer, I quit.  The fact that I waited until people stopped demanding that I quit probably tells something very sad about my personality…

I’d be very surprised of some of those groups didn’t turn out to be tied with string to the tobacco companies.  Some of those ads seem calculated to harness the natural rebellious tendency of young people to go pick up a cigarette.

Smoked Camels and Roll-ups for a few (3 I think) years, but quit with no trouble.  Sometimes when I’ve a had a few pints I really want a fag or two- which works out really expensive, as you have to buy a pack, which goes to waste, plus the horrible taste and smell in the mornings (if I’ve drunk enough to smoke, I’ve drunk to much to care about washing my hair)

For me it was the ritual, (rather than the image). Especially with roll-ups.  Also if you can roll you get real popular at parties!

Down the pub we used to throw our fags in the middle in a communial pile.  Always cheap for me, as my mates mostly smoke Silk Cut or similar (aka ‘Straws’, cos “that’s what it’s like sucking on"), so I hardly ever lost any of the Camels!

I tried smoking for two weeks in my late teens. Couldn’t understand the appeal and stopped without even coming close to finishing the pack.

My folks smoked for most of my life, though, so I’ve probably inhaled enough second hand smoke to qualify as a smoker for at least a couple of years.

Last few years most of the folks I hang around aren’t smokers so as a result I tend to be more sensitive than I used to be when I am around a smoker.

I smoked roll-ups for the last 20 years – there was a ritual tied up with the whole smoking game. Even into my 4th month I still sometimes feel the urge to spin my chair to the table behind me where I used to keep the makings.
I coupla weeks ago I did; that was weird.

WhopV: Some whole counties have actually made it illegal to smoke in public. I personally find this to be wrong.

I can understand keeping shopping centres, eateries and petrol stations smoke-free but this is bloody ridiculous.
I stopped needing a nanny to tell me what I could and couldn’t do to MY body when I went to war.
Being one of those crazy libertarians who believe EVERY drug should be legalised I’d prefer the government to just reap taxes from controlling drugs’ potencies when sold to those people old enough to vote, drive cars and go to war.

I believe that every company has the right to advertise, to try and sell their business, to try and make money.

Absolutely … even though cigarette companies ‘say’ their advertising doesn’t attract new users.
As long as any advertisement isn’t false or misleading any company that pays taxes should be allowed to advertise.
I guess that should rule out churches but it doesn’t.

DoF: The maximum amount of tobacco that one can safely consume is very small because tobacco is toxic

I ‘heard’ that if the nicotine from one cigarette was injected into your arm you’d be dead in 45 seconds; it could be an urban myth.

There’s about 10mg nicotine in a cigarette (you only get a tiny fraction of that by smoking it) and it takes 50mg or so to kill you.  If pure nicotine were dripped on your skin you could absorb a fatal dose, you wouldn’t have to inject it. I’ve read about kids eating cigarette butts and getting sick.  But the harm from cigarettes is mostly from the zillion other compounds in tobacco. It’s complicated stuff.

I have a hunch nicotine is more beneficial to some people than others - that “reward” thing.  The people for whom it is less beneficial can quit easily and feel smug about it.  And the people for whom nicotine is more beneficial feel guilty about it.

Brock, I wish you luck in your attempts to quit…

Thanks, Sadie, I’ll be a member of the non-smokers club soon, I hope. But this time I’ll have to keep my dues payments up.

I’ve been curious, on one occasion only, to try to see what other people see in smoking cigarettes. I’ve only smoked pot as a social thing, and I dropped that like a rock the moment I got accepted to University.

I have a hunch nicotine is more beneficial to some people than others - that “reward” thing.  The people for whom it is less beneficial can quit easily and feel smug about it.  And the people for whom nicotine is more beneficial feel guilty about it.

I think the reward issue is there, and it’s significant. The same people I know who don’t have trouble kicking a habit also have no sex drive, and I like to pretend there’s a strong link.

The same people I know who don’t have trouble kicking a habit also have no sex drive, and I like to pretend there’s a strong link.

Okay, I’m going to concur with you on this one issue just because that was damn funny.

Some of my friends have told me that part of the addiction is the feel of the cigarette in their fingers. I wonder how effective switching to marijuana would be at helping to quit. As far as I understand weed does not cause physical addiction and is far healthier than tobacco.

That’s an interesting concept, Pat.
I was a bit of a root rat when I was younger but nowadays I’m too selfish and lazy to make the effort.

Sadie: It’s very hard at times to not label myself a “fucking idiot” whenever my heart races in response to the smell of smoke.

There’ve been quite a number of times when I thought ‘just one more smoke’ but so far I’ve been able to quickly follow it up with the revealing reality of ‘and then what?’ to which I really do know the answer.
Consensual slavery; how fucked up is THAT concept?

Brock, I wish you luck in your attempts to quit…

So do I, mate.
In the KISS scheme of things, ultimately, it boils down to a continuously simple decision.
Damn! I feel a song coming on.
Ooo shup shup
What’s it gonna be boy? Yes, or, No?

Some of my friends have told me that part of the addiction is the feel of the cigarette in their fingers.

Absolutely. I know of many people who, upon quitting, continue to hold unlit cigarettes between their fingers in order to not completely sever themselves from the experience. I personally am not at the point where I could buy a pack of cigarettes and be able to abstain from lighting them.

I wonder how effective switching to marijuana would be at helping to quit.

For me, smoking cigarettes and smoking pot are barely comparable. Even so, I usually smoked marijuana and cigarettes in tandem. For some reason cigarettes tasted absolutely amazing to me while stoned. I’ve been trying to stay away from pot for the time being because it is so strongly associated in my mind with cigarette smoking.

As far as I understand weed does not cause physical addiction and is far healthier than tobacco.

That’s true. I look forward to the day that I’m ready to score some Mary Jane again. 

I’m the only person in my family who doesn’t smoke. I’ve never been inclined to try it.

I’ve never smoked, but my Dad took up smoking when he was 20 and smoked until his early 40s, at which point I was diagnosed with asthma. He gave up the first time, and now despises the smell of smoke.

Still, I’ve spent a lot of time in smoky bars so I’ve probably passively-smoked a lot of tobacco over the years.

All public places (bars and restaurants included) in the UK will be completely non-smoking by July 1st this year - Ireland, Scotland and Wales already have full smoking bans and England and Northern Ireland are soon to follow. And tobacco companies have been prevented from advertising in any form for some years now here.

The maximum amount of tobacco that one can safely consume is very small because tobacco is toxic and causes extremely expensive health problems in the long run.  In our insurance-connected society, the expense of these health problems is widely spread, and is far higher than other risks.

For tobacco companies to advertise their product as enhancing quality of life (which for some people, in very small doses, is true, but as a chronic habit is completely false) allows them to profit by externalizing the costs of that health care.  This ain’t cheeseburgers, this is poison. 

Libertarian view works out great for the tobacco companies, though.  For society, not so much.

I believe society is smart enough to make decisions for themselves.

I can understand keeping shopping centres, eateries and petrol stations

I can’t understand that. Reasons as follows:

1.) Businesses should be allowed to choose what they do and do not offer.
2.) If they offer a smoking enviroment. Then the consumer should choose to either do businesses there or not to do businesses there.

Forcing the business to not offer something because you personnally don’t like it, is not right. The business should choose what they offer.

Further more.

3.) If there is enough demand to have a non-smoking enviroment. Then some one who does not enjoy smoke, should start their own business that does not offer a smoking enviroment.
4.) If there is enough demand to have a non-smoking enviroment. Then said, non-smoking enviroment, business mentioned above should have sufficient revenue.

In addition to the above.

1.) If an employee recognizes a risk to thier health. Then that employee has a choice to either stay at that job or get a new one.

In fact I think employer should have employees sign a waiver that show the employee does recognize the possible risk.

2.) If enough employees choose to not work in a smoking enviroment. Then employers would have to pay more to retain an employees services.

OK, Whopvillian, you take the libertarian point of view on public smoking, we get it.  Are there any environmental, workplace, or societal depredations related to the exercise of individual freedoms, that you would consider unacceptable?

Whopvillian, you lose me the moment you say “should”. If it isn’t real, it isn’t worth talking about. In particular, though, your emphasis on choice bothers me. Puzzler: when does a person become competent to choose for themselves in a way that benefits our society? How do you know?

Off the top of my head, in terms of smoking. I believe smoking in the public sector should be off limits. We as a citizens are not given a choice to attend a DMV, court house, or village hall. Plus tax funds are used to fund them.

But in the private sector, ie restaurants, bars, stores. The decision should be that of the business owner.

Puzzler: when does a person become competent to choose for themselves in a way that benefits our society? How do you know?

In answer to your puzzler. It is not mine or anybodies right to decide who can and who can’t make thier own competent choices.
You may believe that tomatoes are the devil. I may enjoy them. Who gets to decide?

Which is why I believe that everybody can make a choice for themselves.

It is not mine or anybodies right to decide who can and who can’t make thier own competent choices.

You dodged the question. The question remains, “at what point does the transition from incompetent co competent occur?” For the record, however, you just showed me that parenting is a “wrong” thing, because parenting, of necessity, requires making choices on the child’s behalf.

This isn’t about a matter of authority; only a matter of fact. Your answer seems to rely on that we need to establish an authority (who gets to decide) before we can say whether or not a particular action is well advised. And you hold that nobody has that “right”.

So that’s a pretty blatant admission that you have no power to assert what is good or bad. For this, you give me every reason to believe that I cannot trust your judgement, because you have asserted either that a) no person can know reality sufficiently to make a decision or b) even if we knew the reality and could act in the good of the larger population, that it would be “wrong” to let such decisions be made.

Back to the much funnier topic of spiked PSA’s - by fine-tuning the content of an ad, or making sure that the content will be chosen by someone with zero understanding of youth culture, tobacco companies can realize net gains from them. 

Just for laughs, here’s an article from back when the tobacco settlements were pouring in, about Lolliard’s “Tobacco is whacko if you’re a teen” campaign.  In that case, they didn’t hand money over to anti-smoking groups, they hired an advertising agency and controlled the content of the ads.  In other states, the company handed money over to state agencies that commissioned the ads.  Because you know, government bureaucrats are so adept at picking ads that reach teens.  There was no risk of any effective ads actually being aired.

But back to Lolliard - some of their money was being given to the “Truth” campaign and in 2002 they they tried to stop it because those ads were actually working.  Philip Morris didn’t like it either.

Even the tobacco industry is pretty open about their lobbying, spiking, and astroturfing - they’re just complying with court orders, after all:

In an ironic twist, the American Legacy Foundation has called on tobacco companies to pull their parent-targeted anti-smoking ads, at least in part because an upcoming study in the December issue of the American Journal of Public Health suggests that cigarette manufacturers’ spots actually increase the likelihood that teens will smoke in the future. Tobacco.org news and information: Legacy, Philip Morris spar

The deeper you dig, the worse it smells.

Remember kids!  It isn’t “cool” to smoke!  It’s “cool” not to smoke!