Australia bans tobacco branding

[KichigaiNeko]

As a non-smoker I truly hate being in the company of smelly smokers. When I was younger and attractive to women, I couldn't stand the smell of smoking on a woman's breath. Now I am older, I still can't stand it, but it is less of an issue.
I find it incredible that the habit still exists, particularly where young people are concerned.
I would rather they do other anti-social things than smoke smelly ciggies.
Do smokers not realise how smelly they are, or do they not care?

Funny that bozo....No one has ever REALLY questioned seriously as to WHY Cigarrette smoking is "so attractive" to people. Same with any addiction I guess.

Have you ever thought that non-smokers reak of a stench that is unpalatable?? I guess it's all relative Hmmm??

---

Australia Post created a
New stamp displaying a picture of the current Prime Minister of Australia,
Mr Kevin Rudd, and has recently suspended a recall of the stamps as
Requested by the Prime Minister after a special commission enquiry
Finding.









The Prime Minister was told that the stamp was not
Sticking to envelopes and the enraged Prime Minister demanded a full
Investigation.
After one month of testing and spending of $1.73 million, a special 'royal' commission presented the following findings:
1) The stamp is in perfect order.
2) There is nothing wrong with the adhesive.
3) People are spitting on the wrong side of the stamp.

[Minimalist]

The number of smoking-related deaths are reducing,because the rate of smoking is reducing.

That's probably true, Pad. Trouble with it is that it means that people live longer, develop Alzheimer's and end up drooling in the corner of a nursing home somewhere.

All it does is shift the cost down the road. People have to die of something.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

@Min

Oh dear,that's the kind of comment I'd expect from Pippy. Please tell me you were taking the piss.

The average time spent in a nursing home before death is 5 years.


People who do not die from some smoking-related disease may have decades more of productive life.

Smokers are also susceptible to a range of ailments ranging from bronchitis to diabetes,which cost billions in treatment and lost production.

Using your logic,obesity should be ignored.

I guess this is something about which we will need to agree to differ.

[Minimalist]

People won't live forever if they stop smoking.

I've just lived through both my mother-in-law (Age 86) and my dad (age 94) dying earlier this year. Both were in nursing homes, one for 3 years and the other for less than 2. My MiL took a year and a half to die. She was hospitalized five times and Medicare paid all of it. In that last year they spent well over $500,000 to "give" her she lost 1/3 of her body weight and ended up blind, demented and paralyzed. She finally said she'd did not want to go to a hospital again and they put her on hospice where she finally died peacefully.

My dad had Alzheimers, but he still knew who everyone was and had a whole bunch of buddies at the nursing home that he hung out with. The week after my MiL died he developed shortness of breath and was dead two weeks later.

He definitely picked the better way to do it.

If the recent health care debate over here showed anything it was that Medicare is going broke providing end-of-life care which does nothing but enrich the medical establishment without having any chance to alter the ultimate outcome. There are no easy answers to this issue and that's tough because if ever people want an easy answer it is here.

But no matter when it happens the costs have to be paid eventually.

[KichigaiNeko]

@Min

Oh dear,that's the kind of comment I'd expect from Pippy. Please tell me you were taking the piss.

The average time spent in a nursing home before death is 5 years.


People who do not die from some smoking-related disease may have decades more of productive life.

Smokers are also susceptible to a range of ailments ranging from bronchitis to diabetes,which cost billions in treatment and lost production.

Using your logic,obesity should be ignored.

I guess this is something about which we will need to agree to differ.

That's a whole lot of assumptions pad and something a fundie would put forward as fact.

I'm afraid Min is on the right track. Smokers are no more susceptible to lung conditions than any other person on the planet (thanks to our Industry and Govts.) Your "lost production" is taken up also with 'my dog died', my kids need medical care, 'my husband left me' add nauseum. Like speeding, smoking is an emotional trigger used by govts. to tax the population more. Just look at the price hikes for electricity and water and gas here is Aus. 'Global warming' was used to bring in higher taxes on the environmental fundies...nut jobs backed it to the hilt.

Obesity is a very serious thing and I would hazard a guess that in the end it will be found that it is as 'bad' as the addiction to smoking. The thing that gets me is all of these "illnesses" are a response to something going wrong within society. Most of my obese friends don't smoke and never have, the rest have quit and are getting more obese. Go figure?? The stats are not delivering the results that is out in the community.

If nothing else, 'Society' is ruled by the emotional minority (?) fundies mostly.

Wake up and smell der Houmous!! Humans are so caught up with this desperate NEED to hang on (which is part of an addiction) 'society' makes it a 'crime' if you get ill and die. i can only find such non-sensical notions within religion that will feel threatened if one of their number die then they are one LESS in their strength. Tribal dynamics are an interesting thing nes pas??

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Don't mean to be argumentative. I won't pursue this issue after this post. I have not and will not argue from personal experience or other anecdotal evidence and will ignore any you provide.

FACT smoking leads directly decreased lung capacity; almost all smoker either have or WILL develop emphysema. Damaged lungs mean it's harder to fight minor respiratory infections.

The range of illnesses directly associated with smoking overall cost are well documented. (Google is your friend)

Smoking Related Illnesses and Diseases

Cancer
Cancer was one of the first diseases that was conclusively related to cigarette smoking. The first cancer studied, and still the best known, was lung cancer. However, it is now known that smoking is related to cancers in many parts of the body including the: throat, mouth, larynx (voice box), oesophagus, lung, kidney, bladder, pancreas, stomach, blood (leukaemia) and cervix.

Your risk of getting a smoking related cancer increases with the number of years you have been smoking and the number of cigarettes that you smoke.

Diseases of the Cardiovascular System
Cigarette smoking causes atherosclerosis - the hardening and narrowing of the arteries. This process occurs to some degree anyway as we age, but smoking accelerates the process even for young people. This leads to an increased risk of stroke, heart disease, aneurysms of the aorta and peripheral vascular disease, which can lead to amputations of the limbs.

Diseases of the Respiratory System
The lungs of smokers are likely to become damaged. Damage of the lung tissue can lead to diseases such as emphysema, which reduce the capacity of the lungs to extract oxygen from the air we breathe. 90% of cases of emphysema seen by physicians are caused by smoking.

Damaged lungs are also less able to fight infection, which leaves smokers more likely to get infections of the respiratory tract including bronchitis and pneumonia. It should be noted here that expectant mothers who smoke are likely to be causing damage to their unborn baby's lungs.

Smoking and Pregnancy
Smoking affects every stage of the reproductive cycle. As mentioned above, it damages the unborn baby's lungs. The additional damage it causes is summarised below:

* It reduces fertility so it is more difficult to fall pregnant
* It increases complications in pregnancy, such as anomalies of the placenta (eg placenta previa - which usually necessitates a caesarian section, and placental abruption which can lead to premature labour and stillbirth). Your waters are also more likely to rupture pre-term.
* It increases the risk of a low birth weight baby. Low birth weight babies have an increased risk of subnormal development, illness and death. By low birth weight babies, we are not referring to small parents who give birth to genetically lighter but healthy babies. Low birth weight babies are babies that should have been born heavier, but their growth and development in the womb has been stunted by their mother's smoking. One cause of this is the restriction of the blood vessels in the umbilical cord caused by nicotine, meaning that the unborn baby receives less oxygen.
* Babies whose mothers smoke before and after pregnancy are four times more likely to die from cot death (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome).

http://www.champixinfo.co.uk/smoking-and-health.shtml

COST OF SMOKING IN AUSTRALIA

Smoking is the single largest preventable cause of death and disease in Australia killing 50 Australians daily, 350 each week, and around 19,000 every year.


*

Smoking causes 20% of all cancers, 21% of all heart disease and costs $12.7 billion a year in health care, lost productivity and other costs (1998).


* The decline in the adult smoking rate has stalled on around 25% of the population, with smoking rates of women showing the least decline and rates of smoking amongst indigenous Australians remaining well above the national average.

* Smoking rates of children are rising after a decade of decline during the 1980s. The prevalence of smoking among minors in ‘the past week’, was 28% and 31% of 17 year old boys and girls respectively (1993).

* A child who starts smoking aged 14 years, is 5 times more likely to die from lung cancer than someone who began smoking at 24, and 15 times more likely to die from lung cancer than someone who has never smoked (Doran, Girgis, Sanson-Fisher, 1998 Australian Journal of Public Health vol22 no3).

http://www.ashaust.org.au/lv4/Lv4publica..._costs.htm

The personal financial cost

http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2...enDocument

I support any measure short of banning tobacco production and sale aimed at reducing the number of new smokers. I think existing smoking addicts are pretty well fucked. I've been trying to find statistics on the long term success rate of quitting smoking. By long term I mean more than 2 years. No luck so a far.The most optimistic short term results (claimed by the NHS in the UK) seem to be about 50%. I'm unable to accept that figure without independent verification.To to be blunt, I think it's likely the NHS fudged the figures by using a dubious methodology.[which included self reporting].


It seems our perceptions and interpretations of the same facts vary at some fundamental level. My basic position is that cigarette smoking is pernicious addiction which kills thousands of people each year who pay for the privilege. I consider smoking a significant social evil,which will only ever be eliminated by becoming socially unacceptable and uneconomic to produce.. I have nothing further to say on this issue.

[ib.me.ub]

Good Job Mr Rudd. Peope must be made to change, or they will not change!

[Minimalist]

This is where you lose me, Pad.

I support any measure short of banning tobacco production and sale aimed at reducing the number of new smokers.

Why not? If it is as bad as you say then it has no place in your society. Governments ban drugs all the time for far less reason. Why do you draw that particular line.

[KichigaiNeko]

Don't mean to be argumentative. I won't pursue this issue after this post. I have not and will not argue from personal experience or other anecdotal evidence and will ignore any you provide.

FACT smoking leads directly decreased lung capacity; almost all smoker either have or WILL develop emphysema. Damaged lungs mean it's harder to fight minor respiratory infections.

Thankyou pad ..I will pass on these FACTS to my friends children who have emphysema, Lung cancer and are unable to travel 1km without Bronchiodialators

The range of illnesses directly associated with smoking overall cost are well documented. (Google is your friend)

And are only against smoking ..have you looked up the 'healthy' ones?? The sports injuries, bicycle riding, Mountain biking, Bushwalking injuries and deaths??

Yeah I've read all that and it is still inacurate.

The point I am trying to insert here is the EMOTIONALISM attached the the 'Anti Smoking programe' and it's incongruity with real life.

I dare say you will die of lung cancer long before I will pad. If you aren't on the road there already.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I said I will not argue the point,and I will not. Here I respond to your method of argument:

Thankyou pad ..I will pass on these FACTS to my friends children who have emphysema, Lung cancer and are unable to travel 1km without Bronchiodialators

And are only against smoking ..have you looked up the 'healthy' ones?? The sports injuries, bicycle riding, Mountain biking, Bushwalking injuries and deaths??

The point I am trying to insert here is the EMOTIONALISM attached the the 'Anti Smoking programe' and it's incongruity with real life.

Each of the above statements are straw men. IE May be true but are irrelevant.


You have not refuted my position,and indeed in the first statement resort to the emotionalism of which you accuse others..



0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man