h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Oh well... At least it's good for the antiacid companies...


(Politicians in general generally give me heartburn. )

Remember:

Here's how to tell when a politician is lying: His mouth moves.

I am asthmatic, and allergic to tobacco smoke. A reaction to tobacco smoke is relatively common in asthmatics. People who smoke, and particularly those who leave a cigarette dangling with the smoke wafting around, cause me actual physical distress. Note also that if you walk along with a lighted cigarette in your hand, as people do, the burning tip is at about the eye level of a child, and certainly perfectly placed for the child to inhale maximum amounts of unfiltered fumes.

Cigarettes *do* kill more people than alcohol, which is why the tobacco industry is fighting so hard worldwide to be allowed to continue advertising its products - otherwise the consumers will all die and their business is down the toilet. Not to say alcohol is not dangerous.

The epidemiological evidence that smoking causes premature death is incontrovertible. Repeat: incontrovertible. The tobacco companies accept this, which is why they print "smoking causes cancer" and "smoking causes heart disease" on their products. You can bet your life that if there was any doubt about this they would have succeeded through the courts in getting this restriction lifted. The same applies to smoke from electrosurgical generators, and laser plume - both are now being regulated. The tobacco companies are also now starting admit that smoking is addictive, which smokers have known all along.

So, smoke all you like but not, please, in a public place.

Here's a thought:- How come we accept and even expect crap standards from those in public life? Why do we routinely vote for people you wouldn't trust to run your lottery syndicate? Isn't there something wrong about this?
I'm with Billy Connolly, 'coz he says that wanting to get elected should automatically disqualify you from being elected.

Anybody who wants to wield power should under no circumstances be allowed to. Now where have I heard that before?

I think it's like police forces: any society gets what it deserves. In the States the person who spends most buying votes, gets elected. Hence the growth of pork-barrel politics and the disproportionate influence of marginal groups. In the UK it's only slightly more subtle: the Tories tell you that if you vote for anyone else you will pay more tax, then when they've been elected they give you massive tax increases but assure you it would have been worse under the other lot.

Being elected in the UK depends on persuading people that they can pay American levels of tax and have European levels of social benefits.

I feel sorriest for the Liberal Democrats. One piece of research showed that a majority of people would have voted for them if they thought that the Lib-Dems could get elected. It was pointed out to them that if they had voted for them, then the Lib-Dems *would* have been elected. But they shook their heads and said "No, they came third, they always do...."

That's the thing here, too... People vote for the lesser of the two evils out of the two major parties. If it's pretty certain who will win, you'll find more votes for the lesser, unheard of parties and the 'joke' runners... (Soupy Sales 'ran' one year... and he got quite a few write-in votes.) ... If the two main parties are neck-n-neck, there'll be more votes cast for the person hated the least, just to try to keep the other one OUT of office.

Apparently classic fm tweak their sound in order that it might suit a car rather than an home system. Maybe they also play all the same stuff all the time so that you don't get too interested in the music and crash through inattention to the road. Even so, it's probably still not enough tweakage to make the bass overcome the runble of the wheels on the road. When will they start sitting beneath-seat woofers to compensate for this?

Er.... give up.

It is useless to resist.
I'm dreading the day when either cinemas or televisions are able to secrete smells at the viewer. If they blast us with the smell of freshly-baked bread whilst showing food we'd be powerless.

They've already done that. Supermarkets can get fragrance atomizers to fill the store with the smell of freshly baked bread.

But what is at the heart of, etc.

And I thought they just used inferior needles.

Well the flakiest chocolate ad was good, and she certainly looked like she was enjoying herslef in that bath with the chocolate. I'm almost ashamed to say this but this is one advert that worked on me. Everytime I saw it I got chocolate cravings. I also liked the old carling black lable ads, they were funny

Beneath the seat woofers. Wow, what a concept. I'm sure we've all come across people who have massive speakers in the back, but underseat? Feel those vibrations in your butt cheeks, people. I think we've found a market niche. Anyone want to start a company?

>"The epidemiological evidence that smoking causes premature death is >incontrovertible. Repeat: incontrovertible. The tobacco companies >accept this, which is why they print "smoking causes cancer" >and "smoking causes heart disease" on their products. "

They print "smoking causes cancer" and "smoking causes heart disease" on the packaging because the law requires that they do so. In parts of Asia where it is not required by law it isn't printed on the packaging.

Tobacco consumption is legal - therefore advertisibg should be allowed. The argument that tobacco is bad for the consumer & third parties & that this justifies an advertising ban is spurious - if you don't agree I will expect to see you starting a forum calling for the advertising bans for alcohol, cars & firearms based on the injuries these cause The evidence for car & gun related injury is better than 'epidemiologically incontrovertable' it is causal.

;^)#

Yes, the law requires them to print this. Now, consider whether litigious American companies would allow such a law to stand if the statement were not true. That's the point. The law requires it because the evidence is incontrovertible.

The problem with tobacco advertising, whetever the manufacturers claim, is that it is designed to increase demand. So is alcohol advertising, and I would have no problem with a ban on that. Tobacco is a major killer, and smoking in public places causes harm to those who choose not to smoke.

For that matter I would ban the advertising of McDonalds, on the grounds that if you eat too many Big Macs you will also die of heart disease

The fact that something, when taken in excess, is unhealthy is no reason to ban it or restrict the dissemination of knowledge about it. Where would you stop? Would you ban the advertising of high heels because you might fall off? How about skiing, parachuting, American football, gym clubs or cow's milk? Hell, why not remove our right of choice altogether and invade Poland!
I actually agree that smoking in public places should be restricted to minimise the effects of passive smoke, but that is a separate issue from banning advertising. If an activity is legal then knowledge of it should not normally be subject to restraint. If Government disapproves of an activity, it can outlaw it, as has been the case with many drugs. If it chooses to keep the activity legal, then banning publicity is simple censorship, no more, no less.

Some of the luxury models here (such as the Lincolns, etc) have had speakers in the headrests for years... What's a few more holes in the upholstry?

If you really can't tell the difference between promoting, to children, a product guaranteed to damage your health and the health of those around you; and promoting, to adults, an activity which may kill them, but nobody else, then I am wasting my time.

On the assumption that you understand the distinction and are merely being contenitous ...

The reason for not promoting smoking is actually staggeringly simple: smoking related disease is the single biggest cause of premature death in the UK. Not driving, not drinking, not bungee jumping, not wearing high heels, but smoking. If everybody in the UK gave up smoking tomorrow the average life expectancy would rise, over a fairly short period, by over five years.

Over an extended period manufacturers have been forced to be increasingly honest about this, and they have matched this by adding increasingly carefully targeted messages to the adverts themselves. Tobacco adverts in the UK appeal mainly to the young (15-17) and to young women in particular. The message comes across as "hey, that cancer stuff, nobody really believes that - and anyway, who cares - you might be run over by a bus tomorrow!" The result has been a rise in the number of teenage, and especially teenage female, smokers. Peer pressure is quite strong enough without the additional impetus of cleverly-crafted adverts.

So why not ban booze ads? Cigarettes are almost guaranteed to cause addiction, alcohol is not - although the idea of promoting alcohol as "cool" is very disturbing, and several ads have been banned because they targeted young people.

Sorry, but tobacco advertising has been banned here entirely for about 10 years in all media. Where's the biggest growth in the tobacco market since then - under 25 year olds, females in particular.
Notice a trend here?

Banning the advertising of something that is legal to sell & that the government earns a huge income from is hypocracy at its worst.

btw the prospect of a greatly increased life expectancy for the worlds human population when they give up smoking - is that a good thing or a bad thing? - just what the planet needs more humans!

;^)#

I did not suggest that banning advertising would halt teenage smoking. I suggested that, given the FACT that smoking is an undesirable habit (unless you are a tobacco company) and given the FACT that tobacco firms pitch hard at children, then stopping them from adding to the problem is a good idea.

As to whether longer lifespans are generally desirable, at what point do you want to die? Me, I want to go on for as long as possible. Reduced infant mortality and better sanitaion in the third world are, in any case, greater causes of increased worldwide population.

I do *not* want to stop you smoking. I *do* want to stop the tobacco companies from spending millions trying to persuade my children to smoke. And I *do* want to breathe tobacco-free air wherever I go.

Think of it as a sort of affirmative action for the oppressed: we have had topbacco smoke forced on us for long enough, now we're going to force a little clean air on you