#OutofContext
Tobacco firm Philip Morris calls for ban on cigarettes within decade
- Thread starter sullydnl
- Start date
Smoking shouldn't be banned it should be discouraged. After ardent campaigning in the last 2 decades, the amount of smokers plummeted over here.
It changed smoking from something cool into something sad and pathetic. And let's face it, no one starts smoking because they find the prospect of smelling like shit and dying of cancer so enticing. They start smoking because it's cool, or bad ass, or aloof or whatever the feck companies like Philip Morris taught us to think.
It changed smoking from something cool into something sad and pathetic. And let's face it, no one starts smoking because they find the prospect of smelling like shit and dying of cancer so enticing. They start smoking because it's cool, or bad ass, or aloof or whatever the feck companies like Philip Morris taught us to think.
#TerribleComparison.
#It's okay to admit you didn't follow the conversation, or possibly read the entire post.
The reason I assume you can't have followed the conversation was because my original post was this:
The statement you quoted was never meant to be something I was advocating for, nor was it meant to be a one-to-one comparison. It was deliberately ever so slightly absurd. It was deliberately arbitrary. Obviously I don't think drinking two pints is the same as using your phone while you're driving. I figured that was clear from the context of the conversation, and if not that then from the final paragraph.
The point was that laws are arbitrary and sometimes impossible to compare, but that it doesn't mean that there's a slippery slope of "government overreach". Clearly @Regulus Arcturus Black disagreed, which is fine, but I assumed he knew I wasn't advoctating for making alcohol illegal. Why is it so difficult for you?'
Edit: Sorry, forgot the #hashtag.
Edit Edit: you know what? I don't care. It's going wildly off topic and it's not even fun. Feel free to reply to my redacted post, but don't expect me to engage further.
Last edited:
I wouldn’t be for banning smoking - it wouldn’t work and people would still smoke anyway. Just continued education about the negatives of it will continue to see smoking fall I think. I enjoy an occasional smoke, I maybe smoke 40 a year.
Also vapers are far more annoying than any traditional smoker.
Do you just buy a pack and carry it around for 6 months?
Thing is it's the manufacturers calling for a ban. Why is that?
From my perspective they want out of this business and due to its currently profitable state it would be hard to convince their boards and shareholders to divest.
They are calling for a ban on cigarettes, not Tobacco, right?
No they tend to get chucked in a drawer and forgotten about. I used to buy ten packs but they don’t do those anymore!I’m not clever enough to answer this.
Seems so but let's call it what it is, nicotine.
That said they want to be in position to push smoke free alternatives, which would likely rule out tobacco as well. Though I'm sure one could still grow it and some places like the Americas would require exemptions for traditional uses.
I bet if you dig through your drawers you could buy some serious contraband in prison.
In that case, I think you will still be able to keep buying tobacco, but lose in bags. Just like you buy cannabis. Ideally, to consume it in a healthy way (vaporizer or edibles), but some people will still prefer to buy rolling papers and make their own ciggies (just like many prefer to roll a joint instead of vaping).
Otherwise, cannabis should be banned as well. Smoking weed is just as addictive and bad as smoking tobacco.
not commenting on the health aspects because we simply don't know at this time but nicotine is astronomically more addictive than cannabis. Indeed, in some circles it's considered to be more addictive than cocaine and heroin.
Last edited:
But you didn't actually want it to remove it from public viewing otherwise you would've, I dunno, deleted it? Give it a go, it's really easy.
The thing is, I also read RABs posts, which evidently you did not. I'm perfectly aware you weren't advocating for making alcohol illegal, and it's a little odd this is the only interpretation you could find in why we think your comparison was shite. As RAB rightly points out, comparing the moderation/restriction of something that harms other people as opposed to something that has some health and social benefits is absurd. You tried to 'call him out' on one of the examples you gave that he didn't quote, which he then responds to and reinforces his point, you then make create convoluted amendment to try and save it as opposed to actually tackling the differentiation he makes.
And in response to that you use driving slowly while on the phone as an example of something potentially dangerous to others that you can moderate the danger from? You must know how absolutely ridiculous that is, and how it clearly doesn't challenge the pretty simple concept RAB puts forward.
Edit: Sorry, I meant to 'redact' my post.
Last edited:
We got you sick, now we'll make you better!
Tobacco giant Philip Morris raises bid for respiratory drugmaker
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58140752
Tobacco giant Philip Morris raises bid for respiratory drugmaker
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58140752
You couldn’t make this shit up.
I used to smoke - it’s a horrible habit now that I don’t.
Feck Philip Morris and all the others but I agree that education is better than a ban.
I used to smoke - it’s a horrible habit now that I don’t.
Feck Philip Morris and all the others but I agree that education is better than a ban.