cigarettes only sold in 20s now

Status
Not open for further replies.
Market Where? said:
So how many people do you personally know of your age or younger who died from smoking?
Click to expand...
Two deaths and one case of chronic throat cancer.

Frijj said:
Smoking doesn't, nicotine does. It's the nicotine. Smoking is just the delivery mechanism.
Click to expand...
That's incorrect. I'm using a vape. The dr was amazed, but said he's seeing this more and more and. There's so much we don't know about smoking or the human's body reaction to it.
 


Frijj said:
Well if that's the only value you can scrabble around in the dirt for, you have it.

In fact, since smoking is clearly such a positive, valued thing, why don't you take it up?

After all, the risks are minimal. The nuggets in the tobacco brigade on here will tell you that.
Click to expand...
Again - point out the bit where I have said it is a net positive valued thing?
You have either personalized this or have been brainwashed and now refuse to take an objective view. Now that may well come out with the same answer - tobacco should be banned. But it won't make the difference to health that is suggested unless all the other issues are addressed. It is already likely that sugar and other shit added to food is a bigger health risk and cost than tobacco.
 
Market Where? said:
Again - point out the bit where I have said it is a net positive valued thing?
You have either personalized this or have been brainwashed and now refuse to take an objective view. Now that may well come out with the same answer - tobacco should be banned. But it won't make the difference to health that is suggested unless all the other issues are addressed. It is already likely that sugar and other shit added to food is a bigger health risk and cost than tobacco.
Click to expand...
That last line is categorically untrue if someone has a half decent diet. Smoking a pack a day has evil side effects man.
 
Some Random Guy said:
Really? Zero impact? You do understand that up until a couple hundred years ago lung disease didn't really exist don't you?

Obviously industrialisation had a part to play in that too so I'm not laying all of that at tobacco's door. To say there would be no impact is just daft.
Click to expand...
So are we seeing reduced NHS spend as a proportion of GDP since massive reduction in smoking rates since the 70's?
And lung cancer is an interesting one - woman's rates of lung cancer have gone up since the 70's despite a reduction in smoking. Whilst in men it has reduced which is claimed by the anti tobacco lot to be due to reduced smoking rates.
 
GK said:
That last line is categorically untrue if someone has a half decent diet. Smoking a pack a day has evil side effects man.
Click to expand...
sorry are you saying that additives to food including sugar have zero inpact on NHS costs?

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30122015

Some Random Guy said:
Smoking is unique in that has proven links to a lot of our biggest killers.

You're being a proper fuckwit here. Logoff and have a tab man.
Click to expand...
Do you understand what unique means?
 
Last edited:
Market Where? said:
sorry are you saying that additives to food including sugar have zero inpact on NHS costs?

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30122015


Do you understand what unique means?
Click to expand...
Yes, show me another addictive product you can buy over the counter that has the negative health impacts tobacco does.

Market Where? said:
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30122015
Click to expand...
Because less people smoke now, and everyone eats. :rolleyes:

Market Where? said:
So are we seeing reduced NHS spend as a proportion of GDP since massive reduction in smoking rates since the 70's?
And lung cancer is an interesting one - woman's rates of lung cancer have gone up since the 70's despite a reduction in smoking. Whilst in men it has reduced which is claimed by the anti tobacco lot to be due to reduced smoking rates.
Click to expand...
I've already said has a lot of smoking related diseases can take years to come about.

I could still get smoking related cancer in 20 years despite quitting a couple of years ago. I'm just a lot less likely to than if I kept smoking.

None of that clarifies you zero impact claim either. :rolleyes:



Kind of feeling like in picking on you now, didn't realise all 3 posts I quoted were yours.
 
Last edited:
Some Random Guy said:
Yes, show me another addictive product you can buy over the counter that has the negative health impacts tobacco does.


Because less people smoke now, and everyone eats. :rolleyes:


I've already said has a lot of smoking related diseases can take years to come about.

I could still get smoking related cancer in 20 years despite quitting a couple of years ago. I'm just a lot less likely to than if I kept smoking.

None of that clarifies you zero impact claim either. :rolleyes:



Kind of feeling like in picking on you now, didn't realise all 3 posts I quoted were yours.
Click to expand...
It's fine - as long as it is all in the spirit of debate.
It's not unique - it may have the biggest impact but that does not make it unique. And even the anti tobacco advocates have stopped using that term - after all they need a new target to keep the money rolling in.
There will be zero impact on NHS spending as the same and similar diseases will be caused by other factors. Why are rich smokers less prone to smoking related diseases than poorer smokers? There was an NHS report a couple of years ago that said the rate of lung cancer hadn't come down as expected because of other factors - air pollution - I will try to find it.

GK said:
Are you switching arguments for fun? That has nothing, i mean absolutely nothing, to do with what i said. Nothing. 0%.

Classic strawman.
Click to expand...
Not really - on one measure of health ist it would appear that obesity is a bigger public health issue than smoking.
 
Last edited:
Market Where? said:
It's fine - as long as it is all in the spirit of debate.
It's not unique - it may have the biggest impact but that does not make it unique. And even the anti tobacco advocates have stopped using that term - after all they need a new target to keep the money rolling in.
There will be zero impact on NHS spending as the same and similar diseases will be caused by other factors. Why are rich smokers less prone to smoking related diseases than poorer smokers? There was an NHS report a couple of years ago that said the rate of lung cancer hadn't come down as expected because of other factors - air pollution - I will try to find it.


Not really - on one measure of health ist it would appear that obesity is a bigger public health issue than smoking.
Click to expand...

Thats still nothing to do with what you or i said. Its a classic strawman.

Here's sone rich/poor smoking data

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-wealthy-stopped-smoking-but-the-poor-didnt/
 
Market Where? said:
It's fine - as long as it is all in the spirit of debate.
It's not unique - it may have the biggest impact but that does not make it unique. And even the anti tobacco advocates have stopped using that term - after all they need a new target to keep the money rolling in.
There will be zero impact on NHS spending as the same and similar diseases will be caused by other factors. Why are rich smokers less prone to smoking related diseases than poorer smokers? There was an NHS report a couple of years ago that said the rate of lung cancer hadn't come down as expected because of other factors - air pollution - I will try to find it.


Not really - on one measure of health ist it would appear that obesity is a bigger public health issue than smoking.
Click to expand...
Hadn't come down as expected isn't the same as not coming down (I already mentioned industrialisation playing it's part). Similar diseases will exist, there will be lower rates though that will reduce costs. When it comes to health interventions smoking gets targeted because there is just so much evidence to support targeting it. From a public health stand point it ticks every box because the research has gone on for so long.

I believe that if less than 5% of people smoked less money would be spent on it as there would likely be other things that were more cost effective to target, such as tackling physical inactivity and obesity (diabetes is going to get expensive as fuck).

I wouldn't be surprised if alcohol takes a battering in the coming years too given the links between it and cancer that weren't known 20 years ago.

If we get rid of smoking and lung disease becomes manageable after we get over the initial hump.
 
Some Random Guy said:
Hadn't come down as expected isn't the same as not coming down (I already mentioned industrialisation playing it's part). Similar diseases will exist, there will be lower rates though that will reduce costs. When it comes to health interventions smoking gets targeted because there is just so much evidence to support targeting it. From a public health stand point it ticks every box because the research has gone on for so long.

I believe that if less than 5% of people smoked less money would be spent on it as there would likely be other things that were more cost effective to target, such as tackling physical inactivity and obesity (diabetes is going to get expensive as fuck).

I wouldn't be surprised if alcohol takes a battering in the coming years too given the links between it and cancer that weren't known 20 years ago.

If we get rid of smoking and lung disease becomes manageable after we get over the initial hump.
Click to expand...
Ok but nobody in future can argue when the same tactics are used against alcohol and unhealthy foods. Age restrictions, size restrictions, bans on where you can partake, display bans, plain packaging, restrictions on additives and massive price rises.

Some Random Guy said:
Where's your link to the evidence behind that marra?
Click to expand...
I'll get back later - just getting daggers from the missus for ignoring her.
 
Last edited:
Market Where? said:
Ok but nobody in future can argue when the same tactics are used against alcohol and unhealthy foods. Age restrictions, size restrictions, bans on where you can partake, display bans, plain packaging, restrictions on additives and massive price rises.
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing they should tackle it in the same way, simply that money I spent on tobacco related interventions will eventually make more sense being spent elsewhere. When it comes to public health interventions, where things like this and the smoking ban came from, they spend money where the evidence suggests there would be the most impact to the overall health of the population.

I think there will be a time, probably over the next couple of decades, where that moves away from tobacco and onto other things.

My kid is 11, I can see him or some of his friends taking up smoking, but less so than my generation. My the time he has kid's I think it will be rare.

Market Where? said:
I'll get back later - just getting daggers from the missus for ignoring her.
Click to expand...
Cheers.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top