World No Tobacco Day - who knew?

[womble]

Jun 3, 2012 0:27:47 GMT hifistud said:

It's insidious, immoral and an affront to the individual liberties of every citizen.

This is turning into a joke, you should stick with the thing we are discussing.

It's not immoral to point out that something is bad for you.

It's not insidious, or affronting individual liberties at all.

It's pointing out that tobacco is bad to use, which it is. Let's get all the people onto e-cigs if we can, that should cut down on the deaths and lets not let a whole new generation start smoking, or start using e-cigs without having smoked first.

Liberties are not being taken away, no ones banning anything. Let them ban and then I will stand up and be counted.

Highlighting the stupid use of tobacco is a good thing, it is stupid and it results in deaths. Telling people that is a worthwhile thing to do.

I don't want my kids to smoke, or use e-cigs. I use them because I couldn't stop smoking without them. I tell them exactly that.

[domesticextremist]

Jun 2, 2012 13:59:09 GMT womble said:

Rubbish, I'm starting to get a little tired of this "everyone's out to get us" mentality.

No tobacco day, is a day to highlight the damage tobacco does. And I still support it.

Do you mean tobacco or smoking?
Because there's already a 'No Smoking Day'.

I'm fine with coordinated efforts to highlight the health issues
around smoking - though most smokers are well aware of them by now.

What I'm against are world 'No Doing X' days. I'm against being nannied
over choices that should be left to the individual.

[Anne (fuzzy)]

Nothing's foolproof

Click

[womble]

Jun 3, 2012 1:25:29 GMT domesticextremist said:

Jun 2, 2012 13:59:09 GMT womble said:

Rubbish, I'm starting to get a little tired of this "everyone's out to get us" mentality.

No tobacco day, is a day to highlight the damage tobacco does. And I still support it.

Do you mean tobacco or smoking?
Because there's already a 'No Smoking Day'.

I'm fine with coordinated efforts to highlight the health issues
around smoking - though most smokers are well aware of them by now.

What I'm against are world 'No Doing X' days. I'm against being nannied
over choices that should be left to the individual.

You're only nannied when it's banned. Highlighting the problems things cause is not nannying.

[domesticextremist]

Jun 3, 2012 1:55:33 GMT womble said:

Jun 3, 2012 1:25:29 GMT domesticextremist said:

Do you mean tobacco or smoking?
Because there's already a 'No Smoking Day'.

I'm fine with coordinated efforts to highlight the health issues
around smoking - though most smokers are well aware of them by now.

What I'm against are world 'No Doing X' days. I'm against being nannied
over choices that should be left to the individual.

You're only nannied when it's banned. Highlighting the problems things cause is not nannying.

Uh huh. And the problems of tobacco
are (as distinct from the problems of
smoking tobacco)...?

[hifistud]

Jun 3, 2012 0:35:33 GMT Bluefish said:

And back in the box, jesus you can't argue with people like this, seatbelt's haven't cut road deaths, i need a double facepalm smiley, cos sometimes one just don't cut it.

Not even close to what I said. There is no doubt that seat belts have prevented road deaths.

What I said was that the law didn't change that - in other words, it didn't need to have been passed - seat belts were already working voluntarily to the maximum extent - and the proof is there in the figures.

[hifistud]

Jun 3, 2012 1:55:33 GMT womble said:

You're only nannied when it's banned. Highlighting the problems things cause is not nannying.

The Nudge Group would beg to differ, I think - except they don't call it nannying. It was specifically set up to cajole, to persuade folks into compliance with what might otherwise have been enshrined in law. It's set up to change the way people think, by "nudging" them in the "right" direction.

Now, let me be plain. Yes, I know that there's a much greater risk of causing my body damage by smoking tobacco. I think the extent to which that damage occurs is often exaggerated, but it's undeniably true that it does. Knowing that, if I decide to continue smoking tobacco, that's my business, nobody else's - my body, my choice.

As it happens, I do not smoke tobacco - haven't for some time - again, my choice. And it's because I prefer e-cigs - no because they're healthier or cheaper, but purely because I prefer the experience.

If they were taken away tomorrow, I'd be up the corner shop buying Marlbro again like a shot. my body, my choice...

[womble]

Jun 3, 2012 11:18:25 GMT hifistud said:

Jun 3, 2012 1:55:33 GMT womble said:

You're only nannied when it's banned. Highlighting the problems things cause is not nannying.

The Nudge Group would beg to differ, I think - except they don't call it nannying. It was specifically set up to cajole, to persuade folks into compliance with what might otherwise have been enshrined in law. It's set up to change the way people think, by "nudging" them in the "right" direction.

Now, let me be plain. Yes, I know that there's a much greater risk of causing my body damage by smoking tobacco. I think the extent to which that damage occurs is often exaggerated, but it's undeniably true that it does. Knowing that, if I decide to continue smoking tobacco, that's my business, nobody else's - my body, my choice.

As it happens, I do not smoke tobacco - haven't for some time - again, my choice. And it's because I prefer e-cigs - no because they're healthier or cheaper, but purely because I prefer the experience.

If they were taken away tomorrow, I'd be up the corner shop buying Marlbro again like a shot. my body, my choice...

Is that the same nudge group that's come out in favour of peoples using e-cigs as opposed to cigarettes?
I don't remember you complaining about that. It's being quoted on loads of e-cig news sites. Seems like everyone's happy when "they" agree with us.


The rest of what you have written is absolutely nothing to do with no tobacco day. Nothing at all.
How on earth does it hurt or even affect you at all? it doesn't in the slightest.

[hifistud]

Jun 3, 2012 23:36:19 GMT womble said:

Is that the same nudge group that's come out in favour of peoples using e-cigs as opposed to cigarettes?
I don't remember you complaining about that. It's being quoted on loads of e-cig news sites. Seems like everyone's happy when "they" agree with us.

The rest of what you have written is absolutely nothing to do with no tobacco day. Nothing at all.
How on earth does it hurt or even affect you at all? it doesn't in the slightest.

It's everything to do with No Tobacco Day - and while I might be happy that someone in government has seen fit to endorse e-cigs, the perpetual hinting, cajoling and pressure to not do things someone else doesn't like us doing is anathema to me - and that's exactly what No Tobacco Day is about - it's about the process of denormalising a perfectly legal action, as the WHO admits.

I get that defending tobacco smokers might be unpalatable to a few folks around these parts, I do, but I'd also defend those folks when it comes to protecting their e-cigs, or their booze or whatever else they may make a personal decision to use. It's their choice, their business, no-one else's, and as long as they're in possession of the facts, they should be left alone to get on with it, without do-gooders and antis trying to prevent them, or, worse, demonising them in the eyes of others.

That "other stuff" was to make the point that I choose what I decide to do based on information I have. I am aware of all of the risks that are known. If there was no access to e-cigs, I would smoke - my choice. There are those who continue to choose to smoke. That's their choice, and it's nobody else's business.

What will you do if there's suddenly a "World no e-cigs" day (because AHS US, Duncan Bannatyne and a fair few very influential others would just love there to be one)? Who will defend you then?

[violetblade]

When I was smoking tobacco I didn't stop for the day/days that were no doing x days so why oh why are we holding such a carry on over it now it is a day to highlight the issues of smoking/tobacco not a day we are forced into not doing it. I still make my own choices and I dont need anyone to defend me I'm a big girl I do agree with these days as an informative day on the damage smoking does to us.

[bioxx]

Things that do damage ...so I guess we will see a 'no invading other countries day' very soon

[hifistud]

I'd suggest folks read apps.who.int/gb/fctc/PDF/cop4/FCTC_COP4_12-en.pdf - entitled "Control and prevention of smokeless tobacco products and electronic cigarettes" from the very same people that brought you "World No Tobacco Day"

Speaking of which, have a look at www.who.int/tobacco/wntd/2012/en/index.html and see how the WHO supports individual choice and freedom (clue - they don't)

[maccafan]

It's easy to criticize and malign the WHO when you are not bed ridden with smallpox and about to die or pissing blood from malaria and talk about personal choices...The very disease that the WHO co-ordinated to eradicate.

This is the argument of people who have their bellies full and enough money in the bank to lead a comfortable existence who have time to dream up conspiracy theories..The WHO world tobacco day is to campaign against the tactics of the tobacco industry to circumvent tobacco controls.

They didn't step in and stop tobacco from being sold. It's still your choice to smoke tobacco, they are educating people so that more informed choices can be made by the uneducated and the masses. Guess what, it's still one's choice to not wear a seat belt.

The WHO does not exist to promote indvidual choice. It exists to promote world health. The clue is in the name I think.

[womble]

Jun 4, 2012 10:35:20 GMT hifistud said:

I'd suggest folks read apps.who.int/gb/fctc/PDF/cop4/FCTC_COP4_12-en.pdf - entitled "Control and prevention of smokeless tobacco products and electronic cigarettes" from the very same people that brought you "World No Tobacco Day"

Speaking of which, have a look at www.who.int/tobacco/wntd/2012/en/index.html and see how the WHO supports individual choice and freedom (clue - they don't)

Read those, still can't see any problem.

Understanding the tobacco industry's practices is crucial for the success of tobacco control policies. In this context, it's important also to understand that tobacco products are the only legally available products that can kill up to one half of their regular users if consumed as recommended by the manufacturer.
Seems quite reasonable to me.

Their take on e-cigs seems reasonable as well, no one would expect the WHO to support them without cast iron research and even then no one knows the long term harm they may cause and I think may people within the industry would like to see a more careful e-liquid regulation.

Anyway. Yet again you digress from the point. The WHO does not make laws or make you do anything.
I don't think the no tobacco day is aimed at 1st world users anyway, more 3rd world users.

[womble]

Jun 4, 2012 6:59:36 GMT bioxx said:

Things that do damage ...so I guess we will see a 'no invading other countries day' very soon

I think there is already a world peace day. Doesn't seem to work very well though.