Cigarettes; The Latest Invention

cormie

I was just thinking, if cigarets were just invented and released now, would they be so popular? In the age of everyone being so health conscious, what would the reaction be? Would they be allowed into the country even? If you're a current smoker, do you think you would be drawn to try them out and maybe end up hooked?

Kingp35

Im not sure. One of the biggest mysteries of this world is why the hell do people decide to start smoking?

Kiera

Tut tut cormie: Cigarettes you mean!

Gegerty

I thought there was a new type of cigarette invented called cigaret. People start smoking because its mad and makes them feel grown up. Then they get hooked and can't get by without them. Not to mention the pleasure you get from feeding your addiction. If they did invent a cigaret, smoking only it doesn't hurt you or something, it'd be good. I miss smoking.

astrofool

Whichever cigarrette company managed to get them outlawed to kids was a genius.

Kingp35

Kingp35 wrote:

Im not sure. One of the biggest mysteries of this world is why the hell do people decide to start smoking?

Cos it looks cool. Would have given them up ages ago but would have messed with the image. Blowing rings is the best. Deadly.

Rockdolphin

Kingp35 wrote:

Im not sure. One of the biggest mysteries of this world is why the hell do people decide to start smoking?

Why do people climb mountains ? Why do people do anything !!

[Jackass]

It's my theroy (and many others) that people start smoking to be "cool" .

Why is smoking "cool"? (or at least percieved to be?)

Because from 50's Hollywood right up to today, smoking was used in cinema to depict sexy for women and smooth for men...all the sex symbols, men and women, smoked in movies...the cool bad guys always smoked, all the tough hero's smoked..you've got your John McClean (Die Hard), Jewels (Pulp Fiction), infact all the cool guys in Tarentino smoked...you look at Senatra & the Rat pack or black and white movies with the long ciggarret holder things with sexy women on the end...Ganstar movies...Bradd pitt smoking his brains out in Fight club...It's engraned in our culture as cool. (or at lteast you might think that way when you're 11).

Here's a little thinker for you though. Tobbacco was brought to Europe on the return of Colombus from their discovery voyage to America, amognst other exotic, herbs, spices, animals and foods.

What he didn't bring back, but was in vast quantity, was cannabis....if he had, it would probably be the regular tobbacco we know now...smoked like we smoke ciggarrettes...or at least be a legal substance world wide....world could have been a very different place...Who knows? Hitler could have been a pot head and said "Invade Poland? Nah, I couldn't be arsed"

Ragazza

DubGuy wrote:

Hitler could have been a pot head and said "Invade Poland? Nah, I couldn't be arsed"

I like the way you think...

DublinWriter

Probably not, but you could say the same about alcohol, a drug that:

- Makes you agressive
- Makes you depressed
- Was addictive to many
- Had no medical benefits

As for Cannabis, governments are down on it because it's almost an impossible drug to tax because it's so easy to grow one's own supply. Tobacco on the other hand is very hard to grow and prepare.

Kernel

DubGuy wrote:

Who knows? Hitler could have been a pot head and said "Invade Poland? Nah, I couldn't be arsed"

Yeah but all the great people and minds of the 19th and 20th century could have had the same attitude, and our civilisation would be some kind of Victorian stoners world, where nothing ever got done. It would be like in Futurama, the 'Don't date robots' video.

Rockdolphin

No doubt there would be a clamber to ban any such new product ensuring it's success and widespread usage !

R-KEANE

There are adults today that start smoking all of a sudden. I imagine its because thye hear it helps with stress and start because of a tragedy or something like that in their lifes. However, I cant see such a thing being legal if it was introduced now. There are too many helath checks on anything about to break through. This would be an instant cancer risk and so probably get declined. I admit, when I started smoking it was for two things. To be cool and to see what it was like. Didn tlike it 1 bit, thought I looked silly coughing all over the place but I was then hooked. Thats how soon it happens. Off them 4 years now.

cormie

Kiera wrote:

Tut tut cormie: Cigarettes you mean!

Well that's what I thought until I double checked here

simu

No. What company would introduce a new product that they and the public know gives you cancer?

Kernel

simu wrote:

No. What company would introduce a new product that they and the public know gives you cancer?

I wouldn't put my faith in corporations to show ethics tbh. There's a lot of evidence surfacing recently that the clinical tests on Aspartame were flawed or even fabricated, and that Aspartame (the chemical found in Nutra-Sweet and diet drinks) causes neurological problems and cancers.

http://www.321recipes.com/aspartame.html

There are many cases where corporations have put profits before people. Cigarettes are a great product from a sellers view. It's not like people crave Maltesers, or another consumer product, and consume it all their lives - even knowing it's killing them.

Steoob

DublinWriter wrote:

Probably not, but you could say the same about alcohol, a drug that:

- Makes you agressive
- Makes you depressed
- Was addictive to many
- Had no medical benefits

As for Cannabis, governments are down on it because it's almost an impossible drug to tax because it's so easy to grow one's own supply. Tobacco on the other hand is very hard to grow and prepare.

those dastards

aidan_walsh

simu wrote:

No. What company would introduce a new product that they and the public know gives you cancer?

But of course, would you know if you only released it as a new, never before used product now?

Mimikyu

This post has been deleted.

valor

Theyd probably be made illegal if they were invented today

Dizzyblabla

I dunno, I think if they were invented today people might them that they were a little ridiculous, inhaling smoke like that. Unless poeple already smoked the pipe, then it would be the best invention ever, cause you wouldn't have to clean out your pipe or pack it with tobacco yourself!
like in a movie I saw once (can't remember the name of it for the life of me) where she invents the quick burning cigarrette? so she could smoke it all between classes? remember? anyone? that made her rich! (fiction, yes, but so is the topic!)

simu

Solitaryman666 wrote:

This post has been deleted.

People would know about cancer from pipe-smoking and so on.

They smoke today because they see other people and people on TV etc doing it.

Rockdolphin

simu wrote:

They smoke today because they see other people and people on TV etc doing it.

So why did people smoke before there was TV ?

Furry Burger

DubGuy wrote:

It's my theroy (and many others) that people start smoking to be "cool" .

Why is smoking "cool"? (or at least percieved to be?)

Because from 50's Hollywood right up to today, smoking was used in cinema to depict sexy for women and smooth for men...all the sex symbols, men and women, smoked in movies...the cool bad guys always smoked, all the tough hero's smoked..you've got your John McClean (Die Hard), Jewels (Pulp Fiction), infact all the cool guys in Tarentino smoked...you look at Senatra & the Rat pack or black and white movies with the long ciggarret holder things with sexy women on the end...Ganstar movies...Bradd pitt smoking his brains out in Fight club...It's engraned in our culture as cool. (or at lteast you might think that way when you're 11).

Here's a little thinker for you though. Tobbacco was brought to Europe on the return of Colombus from their discovery voyage to America, amognst other exotic, herbs, spices, animals and foods.

What he didn't bring back, but was in vast quantity, was cannabis....if he had, it would probably be the regular tobbacco we know now...smoked like we smoke ciggarrettes...or at least be a legal substance world wide....world could have been a very different place...Who knows? Hitler could have been a pot head and said "Invade Poland? Nah, I couldn't be arsed"

Tobacco was brought back because its easy to process for smoking, "cannabis" doesnt burn particulary well on its own.

oh yeah and smoking gives you something to do

Kolodny

cormie wrote:

In the age of everyone being so health conscious, what would the reaction be?

The health issue aside, I'd imagine people would now be less inclined to take up smoking where the ban exists. I'm not saying no-one has started to smoke in Ireland since the ban came in because I'm sure they have but I'm reckon the prospect of standing outside a pub in the rain and freezing cold has been a bit of a deterrent to people tempted to 'try'.

rubadub

cormie wrote:

if cigarets were just invented and released now, would they be so popular?

They wouldnt even be considered for legalisation! end of story. Jesus they say paracetomol wouldnt pass todays drug tests.

"cannabis" doesnt burn particulary well on its own

thats because cigarettes contain small amounts of explosives to keep them burning, pipe and rolled cigarettes go out as easily as cannabis.

So why did people smoke before there was TV ?

Because of peer pressure, they saw everybody else doing it and thought it must be nice. Little knowing they were really only smoking to stave off the withdrawl symptoms of the most addictive substance known. Convincing themselves they smoke to "feel good" or "release stress", it is not feeling good rather feeling less bad from the withdrawl syptoms and the stress the symptoms cause.

No. What company would introduce a new product that they and the public know gives you cancer?

a company that wants to legally make a profit. Alcohol can lead to higher cancer lists. In fact almost everything you hear about these days leads to cancer risks, fried food, burnt toast.

cannabis....if he had, it would probably be the regular tobbacco we know now...smoked like we smoke ciggarrettes

cigarettes are the perfect taxable drug, little or no high and the most addictive substance known. Cannabis is easy to ban since it is non-addicitive prohibition is easier to (half) maintain. You could not be allowed smoke cannabis during working hours if legal, like booze.

[Jackass]

As for the cancer aspect...Mobile phones potentially give you cancer, we havn't got a long enough time scale to measure it, but theorys are it does, or at least is very harmfull (particularly the Signal towers)

That is one of the fastest growing industries on the planet.

Rockdolphin

rubadub wrote:

Because of peer pressure, they saw everybody else doing it and thought it must be nice.

Peer presure has bearings on lots of things we do, but doesn't explain all motivations involved in our actions. Walter Raleigh didn't smoke because of peer pressure, he certainly considered the native Indians beneath his stature let alone his peers.

Rockdolphin

Kolodny wrote:

The health issue aside, I'd imagine people would now be less inclined to take up smoking where the ban exists. I'm not saying no-one has started to smoke in Ireland since the ban came in because I'm sure they have but I'm reckon the prospect of standing outside a pub in the rain and freezing cold has been a bit of a deterrent to people tempted to 'try'.

More people are smoking more in Ireland since the imposition of the ban which is the total opposite of what we were told would happen by the OTC. Then again they have consistently lied about passive smoking and ignored the blatantly obvious, If you ban something it will increase demand and it's appeal partricularly to the young !

The ban has singularly undone all the previous years hard work in convincing people smoking was uncool and reducing the amount of new users. The tobacco companies could not have done a better job in getting the younger generation back on the ciggerettes than the idiots who backed the smoking ban.

simu

Rockdolphin wrote:

So why did people smoke before there was TV ?

There was the fillums. o_O

CiaranC

Uuuuuuuuuuh,

Id just like to be the first to say, 2 pages into the thread, that smoking is quite enjoyable. I smoked for several years, quit due to the health implications, but enjoyed it very much. Are people really this brainwashed by the media that they cant even comprehend that people smoke because its enjoyable and they like it? People have been smoking for at least 10000 years for gods sake!

I suggest that everyone in this thread go and procure a fine cuban cigar and enjoy it some saturday afternoon in the garden. Maybe read a book on critical thinking while you are at it. :rolleyes:

Solitaryman666

Solitaryman666 wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Smoking increases the possibility of getting cancer by a very large factor, but not everyone that smokes gets cancer. I've been smoking 14 years, and I dont have cancer. Crap health at times, but no cancer.

As for cool? Nah. I started smoking to belong to a group. You seem to forget. Its only in the last 7-10 years that smoking is considered to be terribly bad. Before that, it was widely accepted even with the health risk.

Drinking alchol can cause liver damage. Is the only reason you drink to cause that damage, or that it was illegal to do it when you were younger? hardly. :rolleyes:

Theres many reasons to start smoking. There's just no good ones.

Kolodny wrote:

I'm not saying no-one has started to smoke in Ireland since the ban came in because I'm sure they have but I'm reckon the prospect of standing outside a pub in the rain and freezing cold has been a bit of a deterrent to people tempted to 'try'.

If they have any determination at all, they'll do what I do. Find the pubs with smoking rooms, or markees.

Its funny, but whenever I go into a smoking room (completely full of smoke, and packed with so many people like sardines in a tin), its amazing the numbers on non-smokers that are there. Usually about 25% (made up % but its a fair enough estimate) of those in there don't actually smoke..... Can't say they're too worried about passive smoking, or getting to odd cig off their friends.

Jimi-Spandex

Jesus make this **** stop.

If cigarettes were made today they'd be as bloody magic as they are now. Possibly even more so.

Now go away and leave me alone to enjoy my slow painful death.

rubadub

Rockdolphin wrote:

Peer presure has bearings on lots of things we do, but doesn't explain all motivations involved in our actions. Walter Raleigh didn't smoke because of peer pressure, he certainly considered the native Indians beneath his stature let alone his peers.

Yes, he did it due to the other reason I gave, they saw everybody else doing it and thought it must be nice. Do you think he tried smoking every plant he found, till they found a "nice" one? He/they started smoking and were then addicted, of course they brought it back. I was answering peer pressure in relation to why people smoked before TV, not why Walter smoked.

Rockdolphin wrote:

More people are smoking more in Ireland since the imposition of the ban

Is this really true? any links to that?

rubadub

Jimi-Spandex wrote:

If cigarettes were made today they'd be as bloody magic as they are now. Possibly even more so.

There is no way they would even be considered for legalisation. Even if they were some guy would just happen to smoke some before commiting suicide. Then Mary Poppins-Harney would have them banned by the next afternoon.

birdwatcher

People.....

Wake up!
Smoking rocks.
Non smokers: there's probably something you're not aware of. All smokers know this, but, as you lot live in a little dream world, and maintain dillusions of some sort of eternal life fantasy, I've got news for you......

NON SMOKERS DIE....EVERYDAY! (BH)


Get off our backs. If you don't smoke...it's for one reason.

---

You're just not cool enough

---

Are you gonna buy into all the hype? Believe what they tell you on TV, in the papers etc? Falsified medical reports?

Don't you realise that smoking is good for you?

I just can't believe the ignorance of some non-smokers.....don't even get me started on the quitters!!

Rockdolphin

rubadub wrote:

Yes, he did it due to the other reason I gave, they saw everybody else doing it and thought it must be nice. Do you think he tried smoking every plant he found, till they found a "nice" one? He/they started smoking and were then addicted, of course they brought it back. I was answering peer pressure in relation to why people smoked before TV, not why Walter smoked.

Jean Nicot was the man who first brought back the tobaco plant from America, hence the name nicotine. Walter Raleigh founded settlements in Virginia though never setting foot there. His interest in promoting tobaco was trade. Incidently smoking or lung cancer didn't destroy the Indians. It was greedy settlers who knew what was good for them !

Increase in smoking in Ireland

rubadub wrote:

Is this really true? any links to that?

Yes : http://www.forestonline.org/output/page190.asp

Mind you you won't find any Irish Government ministry shouting this fact aloud !

Also something to note, in 1633 Sultan Murad IV of Turkey banned smoking and ordered tobacco users executed as infidels. As many as 18 a day were executed. Many centuries later the Turks are still smoking !!

Pigman II

Convince concsumers that your item is desirable and consumers will buy it.

Whether the item is actually necessary or not , harmful or not is for the most part irrelevant.

astrofool

Rockdolphin wrote:

Yes : http://www.forestonline.org/output/page190.asp

Mind you you won't find any Irish Government ministry shouting this fact aloud !

Any chance of a non-bias site showing those findings? (cnn, bbc, rte etc. etc.)

rubadub

Rockdolphin wrote:

Yes : http://www.forestonline.org/output/page190.asp

Mind you you won't find any Irish Government ministry shouting this fact aloud !

hmmm I wonder if it is a true increase due to the smoking ban. i.e. if the smoking ban was not brought in it could well be 25%.
i.e. smoking may be increasing steadily each year and this is a reduction in the usual increase.
Like if they made you use mobiles outside in 1995 and said, mobile phone users have increased a huge amount since the ban, since they would have increased anyway.

Just seems odd to me since I have heard of one or 2 who have given up and many who have drastically cut down, I can't think of any new smokers I know.

I would like to see the figures on tobacco sales since the ban


EDIT. page 28 of this pdf http://www.ndc.hrb.ie/attached/2870-WRDTF2006.pdf

The workplace smoking ban introduced in 2004 was widely supported, even among smokers, and
led to a drop of 18% in cigarette consumption (and a decline in tax revenue of €128 million) in
six months. This legislation was a good example of an effective public health policy, and future
research can be expected to reveal its benefits. Nonetheless, it may be the case that committed
smokers are also adapting in ways other than by reducing their smoking or by continuing to go
to pubs and smoking outside. While tobacco sales have decreased, and around 8% of smokers
have quit since the ban, off-licence sales of alcohol for home consumption have increased. Although
a move towards home drinking had already been occurring, the smoking ban may have accelerated
the trend. Research into the effects of the smoking ban on consumption patterns of both tobacco
and alcohol, as well as health outcomes, will be a useful line of enquiry.
Although it is anticipated that smoking prevalence will decline following the smoking ban, smoking
rates will remain relatively high in disadvantaged groups without more targeted interventions.
In Ireland, as in other countries, there is a marked difference in the prevalence of smoking
between social classes and according to level of educational attainment, with manual workers
being more than twice as likely to smoke as those in the professional or managerial classes58.
Smoking rates are higher among people living in council housing76 and there is also some evidence
that the prevalence could be much higher among Travellers than in the general although
population63 targeted health research in this community has been relatively sparse to date....................

also at last a "drugs taskforce" demonising a legal drug as a gateway drug! (though it is a bullsh-it term)

An important aspect of tobacco use, in the context of drug misuse generally, is its role as a
‘gateway drug’ and its prominent role in the common phenomenon of polydrug use. Research
has shown that, for example, adolescent users of tobacco are much more likely to progress to
use of illicit drugs than are nonusers of tobacco. Clearly, not all adolescent cigarette smokers
progress to using illicit drugs, but tobacco has proved a strong and consistent predictor of
subsequent illegal drug use. Learned smoking behaviours facilitate progression to other drugs
that are self-administered by the same method, while smoking as a social activity normalises
substance use60. Smoking provides “exposure opportunities” where young smokers are more
likely to encounter and use other substances96.

spiderlegs

Smokes would turn into a new form of drug..they'd probably start some kind of crazy new culture in the same way pot created hippies..people would smoke "tobacco" instead of "cannibus" and it would become a worry for parents , booklets would be released "how to tell if you're child is smoking tobacco" The world would be in terror...popes would denounce it and people would be afraid of the effects...well maybe that's my little rambling opinion on the matter...

Rockdolphin

astrofool wrote:

Any chance of a non-bias site showing those findings? (cnn, bbc, rte etc. etc.)

The source for this is non other than the Irish Office Of Tobacco Control. if you visit their website and scan through the figures you'll find the increase. This is not something the OTC wanted to see nor highlight, but the figures are there. A preamble gives a hint " The data shows that while prevalence has declined since 2003, there has been a slight reversal of this trend during 2005."

A slight reversal in trend indeed. Hitherto Western European countries had seen a steady decline for over a decade if not more in tobacco sales. In Ireland post smoking ban, that trend is now reversed. It should also be borne in mind these figures do not include the tens of thousands of cigarettes coming into Ireland everyday illegally and by those purchasing abroad while on holidays.

Rockdolphin

rubadub wrote:

.e. smoking may be increasing steadily each year and this is a reduction in the usual increase.
Like if they made you use mobiles outside in 1995 and said, mobile phone users have increased a huge amount since the ban, since they would have increased anyway.

No, smoking has been steadily on the decrease for the years preceding the ban so one would have expected that trend to continue ban or no ban. The ban has had the opposite effect and reversed this trend in Ireland.

You have to be very careful when reading so called facts, figures, surveys and medical reserach results surronding the smoking debate. The truth is there is no sceintific evidence to support the notion passive smoking poses any serious health risks to non smokers. Airline staff, pilots and cabin crew worked all their working lifes in pressurised smoke filed tubes. Nuetral studies into the mortality rates of airline staff have shown NO increase in mortality rates from the general population. If passive smoking was the risk some would have us believe then cabin staff should be dropping like flies in winter.

rubadub

Rockdolphin wrote:

You have to be very careful when reading so called facts, figures, surveys and medical reserach results surronding the smoking debate.

be careful with ALL stats and figures!
The latest one I saw was smokers had a 40% higher rate of impotency. As if the only difference between people was if they smoke or not. That pdf I listed showed most heavy drinkers smoke, and most drug abusers smoke, makes sense to me. Most people who exercise a lot or eat very healthily are concerned with their well being will not smoke, so I would expect them to have less other health problems too, such as impotency.

Rockdolphin wrote:

The truth is there is no sceintific evidence to support the notion passive smoking poses any serious health risks to non smokers.

probably the same for mace or burning leaves from trees indoors. It would still make me cough, stink my clothes and sting my eyes, all of which I would prefer to do without. I couldnt really give a damn about the alleged cancer risk.

Rockdolphin

rubadub wrote:

probably the same for mace or burning leaves from trees indoors. It would still make me cough, stink my clothes and sting my eyes, all of which I would prefer to do without. I couldnt really give a damn about the alleged cancer risk.

I'm all for freedom of choice and would fully support your right not have to smokers smoke irritating you if it bothers you so much. Smokers and non smokers could easily be accomodated with seperate areas in bars, restaurants, clubs and workplaces provided.

The smoking ban had nothing to do with health or cancer concerns. It was banned because people don't like the smell of it and a pompous uncompromising intolerent minister acted on his pet hate. Since then hardly a day goes by that someone isn't calling for something they find annoying to be banned be it, hoddies, skateboards, mobile phones in public places, modified cars, nightclubs, christmas carols etc. In many cases it's people with the same mindset as those fanatics proposing smoking bans. They tend to be intolerent of lots of things and have a long ban wish list. Our parents and grandparents refered to these people as 'little hitlers' and 'busybodies' and they are on the march big time now !

I doubt there'd be much difference, tbh.

I can't personally see why people smoke - I tried it once. The feeling of smoke going right into my lungs, ughhh.
But whatever, they want to spend that money so fine.