Smokers Guilt

[XR6Naranja]

Originally Posted by chamb0

JC - I know they're not the same thing, I wasn't trying to draw a long bow I was responding to another poster who brought up the issue of doubt about climate change. I'm not saying there is a link between smoking sponsorship and illness, and climate change, of course they're separate topics. My point was that for the science behind both smoking and climate change, there were/are similarities in the manner in which that science is opposed by those with vested interests, and in both cases early action that could have been taken to reduce the effects was delayed as a result.

Part of the stalling tactic with climate change is to make an an ideological debate rather than a scientific one (at least in the US and Australia - it seems that in Europe people take it more on its scientific merit). Tobacco companies today try to protect their interests by employing an ideological approach, by arousing indignance over the percieved erosion of free choice (I remember a full page ad was run in The Age newspaper last year, in response to the proposed plain packaging laws, with a big picture of a stern nanny). Their scientific opposition to evidence on adverse health effects definately wouldn't stand up today, but they did give it a good old crack in the past.



I was reading an issue of the New Scientist mag a couple of months back and came across an interesting point (I can't remember which issue sorry). The writer was saying that the message about how to protect yourself from cancer on a personal level is getting confused and clouded by the media's tendency to focus on numerous, small and sometimes controversial causes of cancer, rather than making it clear that the vast majority of cases is caused by the big 4 (being too overweight, too much sun, smoking, and too much alcohol). A lot of coverage goes into discussion about more minor risk factors, whether it's mobile phones, chemicals in food, chocolate etc, but it needs to be communicated more clearly that if the primary 4 risk factors are addressed, we're 95% there.

I prefer a more alternative, I'm not a greenie, but I've used and seen stuff work, I rather take natural things that reduce cancer cells, stuff that removes cancer cells close to the skin or fights bad cancer cells, now I know tonnes of people don't believe in natural stuff but that's their own fault and if they die early because of it, that's a problem they should have addressed, but yeah, I mean sure you can try stop the big 4 but that's unlikely to happen, so rather then stop it, slow them down through alternatives.

If you're a big drinker at least with these alternative things on the side instead of dying at 60-70 you might live longer.

[trippytaka]

Originally Posted by TheOrangeSpider

I prefer a more alternative, I'm not a greenie, but I've used and seen stuff work, I rather take natural things that reduce cancer cells, stuff that removes cancer cells close to the skin or fights bad cancer cells, now I know tonnes of people don't believe in natural stuff but that's their own fault and if they die early because of it, that's a problem they should have addressed, but yeah, I mean sure you can try stop the big 4 but that's unlikely to happen, so rather then stop it, slow them down through alternatives.

If you're a big drinker at least with these alternative things on the side instead of dying at 60-70 you might live longer.

What are the herbs / treatments?

[Angeldust]

i have heaps of magic rocks for sale. pm me.

[XR6Naranja]

Originally Posted by trippytaka

What are the herbs / treatments?

You've got Black Salve, used it on myself for skin cancer, no longer have it.

Apricot Kernals are suppose to target deeper cancers.

There is a blend of herbs to stop you from smoking, mother is currently using it, claims she can't smoke normal smokes anymore makes her feel sick, and now is almost off this stuff, I'll grab the name of it later.

I actually forgot the name of the one that keeps the cancer cells at a low, I'll also grab that later.

For weight Guarana promotes weight loss, Guarana is in energy drinks, but it's all the other stuff in energy drinks that is bad for you.

Ginseng promotes muscle building, turning fat to muscle but you need to work out obviously to see any results, it also doubles as an energy supplement.

There's quite a bit of it, Govco will say some of it is fake, but all in all, they don't make money from it so of course they do, but I seen Black Salve work, it has another name of Cancima I believe which Govco along with 3M hurried for it to be branded false.

There's a couple more that I can't think of at the moment.

But anyway back to the topic lol.

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by XR6Naranja

I'd like to think you would be able to blame others for it as advertising for cigarettes in the 1900's was pro-smoking..

Would you honestly only blame yourself if all of a sudden meat and vegetables was actually bad for you (not saying it is, just an example), and you've been eating it for years thinking it was okay, schools taught it was good, tv taught it was good, doctors taught it was good and so on, but it wasn't?

I know I sure wouldn't be blaming just myself.

But maybe you're simply a VERY sincere person and would just blame yourself for that sort of thing. (not taking a dig)

not taking your post as a dig
however, when i first ate vegetables or meat, i didn't have any health reactions - except the taste buds didn't like them
it seems most people cough when they have their first drag of a cigarette. surely that must give people an idea it is not safe. no amount of advertising should make anyone think different. it is no different to me going to calder and breathing in the tyre smoke. it cannot be good for me, no matter little attention quit give it

[GREGL]

By everyones reckoning the rate of cancer should be hitting about 50% of the population by now. When I was frequenting pubs and clubs as a young one you couldn't see the dance floor for smoke haze, your clothes stank and a ashtray was on every table.
I don't know how many exactly of my associates of the time have developed health issues but if anyones willing to give me a grant I'll do my best to find out. While I'm at it a study of the current day trends in designated smoking areas and what percentage of females are frequenting these sinful places will also be possible .
Please forward any grant money to -
Smokers anonyomous. com. net.au

[dylancox]

Originally Posted by XR6Naranja

You've got Black Salve, used it on myself for skin cancer, no longer have it.

Apricot Kernals are suppose to target deeper cancers.

There is a blend of herbs to stop you from smoking, mother is currently using it, claims she can't smoke normal smokes anymore makes her feel sick, and now is almost off this stuff, I'll grab the name of it later.

I actually forgot the name of the one that keeps the cancer cells at a low, I'll also grab that later.

For weight Guarana promotes weight loss, Guarana is in energy drinks, but it's all the other stuff in energy drinks that is bad for you.

Ginseng promotes muscle building, turning fat to muscle but you need to work out obviously to see any results, it also doubles as an energy supplement.

There's quite a bit of it, Govco will say some of it is fake, but all in all, they don't make money from it so of course they do, but I seen Black Salve work, it has another name of Cancima I believe which Govco along with 3M hurried for it to be branded false.

There's a couple more that I can't think of at the moment.

But anyway back to the topic lol.

Once heard the story of an asian lady who smoked like a chimney but drank green tea like there was no tomorrow. Lived quite a long life (90+) with no cancer... go figure

[XR6Naranja]

Originally Posted by dylancox

Once heard the story of an asian lady who smoked like a chimney but drank green tea like there was no tomorrow. Lived quite a long life (90+) with no cancer... go figure

I know there's lots of skeptics when it comes to anything that's Natural compared to anything a doctor prescribes and says safe, but who's in the lead? =P the Chinese and the Indians and earlier civilizations that worked with herbs for thousands of years, or the doctors and medication companies for less then 500 years. =P

But as you said, there's a lot of good old proof out there but it's not widely publicized and if it is, is boo'd off stage.

Originally Posted by gtxb67

not taking your post as a dig
however, when i first ate vegetables or meat, i didn't have any health reactions - except the taste buds didn't like them
it seems most people cough when they have their first drag of a cigarette. surely that must give people an idea it is not safe. no amount of advertising should make anyone think different. it is no different to me going to calder and breathing in the tyre smoke. it cannot be good for me, no matter little attention quit give it

Yeah that is a good point, I remember questioning a couple people about it, and smoking generally came down to peer pressure and wanting to be cool they said, then they got addicted, bit like a fish that wanted food, then it go hooked.

Luckily for me I seen the effects and such and didn't touch it, removed myself from those who smoked it for a year and now we are good mates again but they all smoke and have bad habits lol.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by sprint347dave

i was sitting back looking at some of my 1/18 scale cars and thinking about the sponsorship money from all the cigerete companies that people like moffatt, brock, skafie,jones, seton and johnson recieved ,, and woundered do they feel any guilt or even responsibility for people who have or are suffering or have died due to smoking cigeretes that there cars advertisied.

Well I think they should feel as much guilty as those who buy cars made by a company whose founder, Henry Ford, openly supported Adolf Hitler, promoted commerce between Nazi Germany and his country and was partly responsibe for him being named "Time Man of the year".

Of course, like smoking, at that time it was not known that this was a bad thing.......

[KRL-94]

i havent read this whole thread, but honestly, would you still be interested in the sport if it was still sponsored by a smoking company? i doubt it

[Geez Louise]

Why not? I don't eat KFC? They sponsor the cricket. Should I stop watching cricket because KFC is foul (HAHA! Pun intended )

You can not honestly tell me that eating fat laden chicken is good for you, and yet the advertising is directed at everyone, especially youngin's to entice them to eat it. Is it really that different to what happened with tobacco sponsors?

Hindsight is a wonderful thing and I am sure if they knew of the dangers of tobacco smoking back then, they would not have been allowed as sponsors.

I find it interesting that everyone wants to blame the advertisers. I have educated my children on the health effects of certain things...smoking being one of them.

I am sure in 20yrs time there will be an uproar about how fast food companies were once sporting team/event sponsors...

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by KRL-94

i havent read this whole thread, but honestly, would you still be interested in the sport if it was still sponsored by a smoking company? i doubt it

Unfortunately with your way of thinking If the Benson and Hedges cup and the Winfield cup were still on nobody would be watching either Cricket or Rugby.

Or a lot of Motor Racing as well.

[robbyj]

I'm not sure on how tobacco was processed back then, but if it was anything like the amount of chemicals used in the processing of tobacco now, they would have been well aware that smoking something with that many chemicals dumped on it would have health implications.

[ILLaViTaR]

Originally Posted by sprint347dave

i was sitting back looking at some of my 1/18 scale cars and thinking about the sponsorship money from all the cigerete companies that people like moffatt, brock, skafie,jones, seton and johnson recieved ,, and woundered do they feel any guilt or even responsibility for people who have or are suffering or have died due to smoking cigeretes that there cars advertisied.

That's what capitalism/corporatism is, get used to it. We have a choice (lol), Woolworths and the banks destroy quality of life of 95% of humanity for the sake of their 5%. whilst these guys provide little luxuries in life that eventually kill you. My point being, if you value life so highly the tobacco companies aren't the only problem.

[aussie muscle]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

it seems most people cough when they have their first drag of a cigarette.

hmm, i felt the same way when i first ate McDonalds....

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by aussie muscle

hmm, i felt the same way when i first ate McDonalds....

to me, it was love at first bite

[SSD-85]

As it has been said many a time in this thread, advertising has no real bearing on what you choose to do in your life. Unless you proudly call yourself a sheep....

Im a dirty, filthy little heathen smoker. And advertising had loooong passed before I started.

[chamb0]

Originally Posted by Scotty85

As it has been said many a time in this thread, advertising has no real bearing on what you choose to do in your life. Unless you proudly call yourself a sheep....

Im a dirty, filthy little heathen smoker. And advertising had loooong passed before I started.

We would like to think that about ourselves, but the advertising industry would beg to differ.

Out of curiosity I just had a look at wikipedia to see how much is actually spent on advertising: the figure there was $467 billion worldwide in 2010.

This sort of money isn't spent for the fun of it. Advertisers know there will be a return on investment. It specialises in persuasion and the use of human pschology to influence consumer behaviour. Consumers are not always consciously aware either why they have chosen a certain brand or product. I would think that a fair old chunk of our lives here in the western world is influenced in some way shape or form by advertising, and we're kidding ourselves to think otherwise...

That's not to say we don't have a measure of free will, of course we do. And each of us probably has things we are resistant to. But I guess an there is some level of probability that advertising will work on a certain number of individuals in a target group, and so the industry plays the percentage game, with pretty successful results by the look of it.

I do see your point though in regards to your own smoking. If cigarette advertising was been banned in Australia long before you took it up, it wasn't an influence on you. Other factors would have come into play.