You know, smokers or not, the person to always cast the first stone is usually a douchebag. Are you saying that you do nothing that is endangering the rest of society? When I was a non-smoker I never got so self-righteous. It’s a nuisance, nothing more. I smoke in my house, how does that bother you?
That was awesome.
Tell you what Askance I’m a smoker and along with fellow smokers I’m sick and tired of faggotty arsed tree huggers like you and the rest of your poncy brethren telling me what I can aand can’t do.
My habit is a perfectly legal one unlike that of heroin and other illegal junkies who steal to feed their habit.
I can no longer smoke in a pub which was the last refuge of the working man, I can’t smoke in any public used enclosed space…because of the fucking shitstabbers of the none smoking brigade.
Well bollocks to the lot of you, I don’t give a shit, I’ve had it up to here with you lot.
Breathe my smoke all you want, It’s paid for, you’re getting it for free you twat
Here you go! It’s a link to the UK’s Department of Health site with downloadable images of the photos selected.
My reply to the OP could equally apply to Askance:
Hyperbole is not an effective method to convince someone.
It does not meld well with people’s everyday experience and it gets disregarded.
(My cite is Chowder’s replies!)
I dunno why the OP is griping about pics on cigarette packs when there are so many more important things he should be griping about, like Iraq and Princess Di and Lindsay Lohan’s jail time.
Showing diseased organs on cigarette packs is a dopey idea, though. The best anti-smoking promotion would be TV spots showing typical smokers. Like the one I heard proposed years back, featuring a wrinkled, yellow-toothed, phlegm-laden New York City cabdriver, puffing away and telling the camera “By me, it’s Camels.”
It’s only when I read posts like his that I want a cigarette.
I’m sure people are capable of complaining about multiple things at once. The argument that there are worse thing to complain about holds water like a sieve.
We complain quite rightly about murders with guns, knives or about drunk drivers.
We expect our governments to pass laws and enforce those laws to reduce and prevent the annual death toll and complain when we feel they are not effective.
…and yet…and yet, we do not vote to make murder legal, or allow voluntary murder, hell one guy in Germany volunteered to be murdered and eaten, all with his consent, but the killer/eater still went down for murder.
So what ?
Well so many smokers say that if the evil habit kills them, then its their informed choice.
Basically smokers have given their consent to be killed, albeit very slowly, its still murder, we know the outcome, we know the motives of the tobacco industry and yet we allow these products to be legal.
The Tobacco companies lied and lied and lied, all the while misleading and giving lame excuses to weak willed smokers about the safety of their products.
This has lead directly to the deaths of literally millions of people around the world.
Smokers often do not realise just how inconsiderate many of their number are to non-smokers.
Most smokers simply are not aware, it isn’t malicious, its just that they just do not understand - until they give up smoking themselves, then suddenly there is no non-smoker worse than a recent convert.
In many ways its a bit heavy to blame smokers for being weak willed as the fact is that the product is engineered to be addictive, however many people do find a way to give it up.
Worse than death from smoking related disease, is the amount of chronic severe illnessess that fall short of killing but still ruin lives, thrombosis being very high on the list.
Yet smokers still complain about nanny states, but current figures state that in the UK well over 100k people die of smoking related diseases evey year, but three times that end up in hospital, many suffering permanent damage.
I would put it to you that if we had 100k murders every year in the UK, we would be rather concerned, but still smokers dont seem to be all that worried about the huge loss of life that smoking is responsible for causing.
When you start googling and seeing the numbers in front of you, its pretty stark, but then, most of us have some form of life insurance and we all know that there is a loading on the policy of every smokers.
Insurance companies work on cold hard cash, and if they find smokers are a bigger risk of death and serious illness, maybe some of those liberal minded folk should take notice.
This isn’t a game, millions will die this year, and the next, etc etc etc, by being a smoker and defending it, you help perpetuate a societal environment that makes it aspirational, or aceptable to many, including those that have not yet taken smoking up - you are, in effect, part of the industrial system that condemns those unfortunates to a lingering death.
The way smoking advertising has been geared seems to work best upon those who have not yet matured, who are niaive, whose opinions have not yet had the benefit of experience to inform them, and those who are part of the smoking infrastructure help to form those opinions.
Oh, you may as well read this link, compare the number of deaths from illegal substances to tobacco and alcohol.
http://www.drugscope.org.uk/resources/faqs/faqpages/how-many-people-die-from-drugs.htm
So why is the largest killer by far legal, and yet illegal substances that have a much lower toll considered criminal, along with those who distribute them ?
Remember, these are deaths only, and not long term disabling illnessess, or the differances would be even wider.
Princess Di and Lindsay Lohan went to jail in Iraq? (I always figured she faked her own death so that’s no surprise, but how’d she hook up with Lindsay? Rehab?)
Thank you.
But even worse,
is the gradual erosion
of bandwidth
due to excessive brief paragraphs.
Please,
think of the children.
It’s only when I read posts like yours that I want a nanny state. 
Well, that’s a very interesting article. Can we add another data point here? The amount of taxes that the Canadian (and I believe the British government) adds on to booze and cigs - most of the retail price is taxes. Hmm. Which is better - a government that makes bags and bags of money on some of the most lethal, legal common substances that people take into their bodies, or governments that DON’T make bags and bags of money on some of the most lethal, legal common substances that people take into their bodies (thus reducing the allure somewhat)?