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

Not banned here in japan but it costs me about 1pound a pack actually180 yen and if I buy a carton I get a free lighter

Mmmh...

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,14934-2322933.html

Here we're seeing Tom and Jerry cartoons being censored because of smoking... So I should assume that hitting people on the head with a large hammer is healthy, eh?

As we say in French, better laugh at it than cry

"They're only smoking, it's not like they're cooking up and jabbing needles in them after a meal at a restaurant. It's only a cigarette."

This from someone who objects to "the Nanny State". Interesting.

So you don't mind the laws against injected drugs, many of which *do not* cause any harm except to those who are using them, and which are far more tightly legislated against, but you do mind the proposed smoking ban?



You can't inject a drug anywhere at all. -- Fine.

You can't smoke in a public place where you're inflicting your stink on others. -- Nanny State inpinging on your rights.

What rights? Your right to annoy other people?

I'm not advocating the relaxation of drug laws. I don't know enough about the subject to have formed an opinion. I just find it difficult to reconcille these two seemingly contradictory beliefs.

TRiG.

Heck, don't ever remember Tom and Jerry smoking! Which in one sense perhaps shows how 'serious' this issue is.

Though I can actually understand that this wouldn't be an 'okay sort of cartoon image' to show small kids these days.

Used to be that schoolmasters smoked in class, back in the 'bad old days'. Used to be that everybody smoked everywhere!

I'd way rather see smoking cartoon characters being edited somewhat than have the great fun kids get from watching Bugs or the Roadrunner *PC edited* - when they totally and violently do away with their adversaries ... only to see them pop right up again in a cloud of dust or mayhem. Except for Elmer Fudd, most means of demise didn't include firearms but usually outrageous contraptions from the ACME company and whatnot. And having said that, I don't think Elmer ever managed to kill anything ever, did he?

Yeah, some might say this instills an idea in childrens's minds that they can shoot someone and they'll just 'pop up again'. But like, DUH, that would seriously be . . . weird. Most 7 year old kids I know have way more sense than that.

az

I don't mind the smoking ban (nor coming back from a pub with non-smelly clothes), nor did I complain about anybody inpinging on my rights. I just find it a tad exaggerated to ban a cartoon because characters smoke a cigarette in it. They are fictional characters, and I doubt they were used as hidden advertisement for tobacco (I haven't seen the cartoons recently though).

My post was a reply to Dr. Gonzo in post 181.

Yes, I found out afterwards. My mistake, .

For my defense, I have to say you went deep into the backlog!

Not that deep. Not compared to what I sometimes do. I enjoy mining in conversations.

TRiG.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2090-2321096.html

The Scottish Executive wants to ban cigarettes from display in shops.

Why don't they just ban it and disband the NHS to compensate for lost revenue?

Its 3- 15 in the am n I got 3 cigs left so gonna go to bed now so I got some left for the morning before I buy another carton for about 10 quid

Down to two now

In France it is forbidden (and has been for quite long - I was a lad back then) to advertise for cigarettes.

This doesn't prevent adverts for the Dromadary* Trophy and related stuff (watches, lighters, jewelry...) .


* Not the actual name

"Why don't they just ban it and disband the NHS to compensate for lost revenue?"

I seem to remember someone (GreyDesk possibly) debunking that old chestnut in a thread a while ago. Will see if I can find it and/or remember what the figures were...

S'Ok, it was an analogy The point is, loss of revenue will run into £bns and we will either have to cut services or increase taxation to make up the shortfall.

And the point of the debunking, was that the net effect would be a saving to the treasury if everyone gave up. Wish I could find the thread as I can't argue the point myself, I just remember someone else doing so rather effectively

"It is true that NHS costs are lower than tobacco tax revenues."

From the ASH website, not exactly known for hyping the pro-choice argument.

As there is no proven scientific link between lung cancer and passive smoking, it is a fantasy to assert that lung cancer cases will fall with the smoking ban.

People get cancer, emphysema and asthma anyway. The distortion that the anti-smoking lobby have applied is in asserting that ALL cases of the disease have smoking as a contributary factor.

You appear to be arguing a different point now?

I think you are also missing displacement spending in your calculations.

People who give up smoking will not necessarily keep the money under the mattress - they might spend it on other products, or do a number of other things that can have a positive economic benefit for the UK economy and hence tax raised.

You might also want to factor in productivity gains - people having less days off sick - and also potentially less time on ciggy breaks.

sprout

In a way.

The point is, there are gross inconsistencies in the arguments of the anti-smoking lobby. The only logical answer to claims that smoking kills and seriously affects others is an outright ban. Make all tobacco sales illegal.

But that would mean every taxpayer paying around 10% more tax, political suicide.

And even if they did outlaw smoking, lung cancer and suchlike would still be here.