Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Smoking Rant

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DrFaroohk
    replied
    All light means is the holes around the filter. Take a close look at a cigarette and you'll see them. Ultralights have like 3 rows of holes, lights will have like 2.

    Not that it matters much as you block up the holes with your fingers anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • bex1218
    replied
    Originally posted by Gravekeeper View Post
    Yeah, that's it! Its not the fact that cigarette companies were marketing them as healthier and then studies proved it was total bullshit or anything. It must be just stupid people.

    =p
    Stupid ass people can go in all directions .

    I prefer my full flavored menthol. But if I am bumming off of someone I'll smoke anything. But thats a rare occassion

    Leave a comment:


  • dendawg
    replied
    Originally posted by gravekeeper View Post
    lets not pretend the any industry's marketing department isn't a bunch of douchebags.
    Fixed that for ya.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gravekeeper
    replied
    Originally posted by Andara Bledin View Post
    TLDR: "Light" cigarettes served less tar per drag, meaning that it wasn't actually false advertising, but lawmakers just sort of blew that fact off so they could go after big tobacco some more.
    The problem is studies showed that tar and nicotine content were directly linked. People smoking "Light" cigarettes often believed they were more healthy ( Even though studies showed no real health benefit overall ) thanks to the advertising and ended up smoking more of them anyway to get the same amount of nicotine they needed.

    The "smoking machine" they use to measure tar is a 2 second buff every minute until the end of the butt is reached. Even if you knew a smoker that behaves exactly like that to begin with. When using a light cigarette, studies showed people take longer, deeper drags because they're trying to get more nicotine out of it. Completely negating the supposed benefit.

    The term "Light" is regulated by the FDA in regards to food to denote food that is healthier for you. So there's a very real branding connection in people's minds when they see "Light" on a cigarette pack.

    I'm not an anti-smoking zealot or anything, but lets not pretend the US Tobacco industry's marketing department isn't a bunch of douchebags. ;p

    Leave a comment:


  • blas87
    replied
    Originally posted by Andara Bledin View Post


    If people weren't so outright zealous in their attack on cigarettes and smokers, they'd probably get a lot further in curbing smoking.

    ^-.-^
    That, right there, is why I like and respect you so much.

    When I felt like quitting before, I took it upon myself to get hypnotized. Didn't work in the long run, but no one guilted me into it or forced me to.

    When I cut down to half a pack a day, I did that on my own time and from my own need/desire. No one bellowing at me or lecturing me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Andara Bledin
    replied
    "Light" cigarettes are manufactured to reduce the tar a smoker takes in with each drag. A machine used to determine the facts of the matter confirmed that there was less tar per drag with light branded cigarettes than with those not so branded.

    How that is considered false advertising baffles me.

    Then again, the report that confirmed that the processes used by cigarette manufacturers were actually effective in doing what they claimed they did then went on to dismiss the fact that they were not actually committing false advertising by going on a biased little diatribe on the dangers of smoking, as if it were even remotely in doubt.

    If people weren't so outright zealous in their attack on cigarettes and smokers, they'd probably get a lot further in curbing smoking.

    TLDR: "Light" cigarettes served less tar per drag, meaning that it wasn't actually false advertising, but lawmakers just sort of blew that fact off so they could go after big tobacco some more.

    ^-.-^

    Leave a comment:


  • blas87
    replied
    People won't stop eating at McDonalds no matter how many fear-mongering people lecture them or whatever they watch on the news, and people aren't going to quit smoking because a new study comes out every day about the dangers of it.

    I will just keep smoking my "blue" brand of smokes, and if you don't like that I smoke, don't go in my car and don't go outside with me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gravekeeper
    replied
    Originally posted by blas87 View Post
    Marketing ciggs as healthy is about as smart as marketing McDonalds as healthy.
    But has that stopped McDonalds from trying to market stuff as healthy? Nope. Didn't stop cigarette companies either.


    There was nothing wrong with them being labelled as light or ultra light. Any "real" smoker knows there is no such thing as a "safe" cigarette, and a lighter flavor/hit off a cigg does NOT make it any less dangerous to your health.
    So your argument is seriously "We should ignore deceptive marketing practices, even if they impact the public health, because only stupid people would fall for it"?

    Because thats working out so well for China.

    Leave a comment:


  • blas87
    replied
    Marketing ciggs as healthy is about as smart as marketing McDonalds as healthy.

    There was nothing wrong with them being labelled as light or ultra light. Any "real" smoker knows there is no such thing as a "safe" cigarette, and a lighter flavor/hit off a cigg does NOT make it any less dangerous to your health.

    Just like that bullshit with light beer. Oh, a few less calories and carbs. Still gonna bloat you and make you fart later.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gravekeeper
    replied
    Originally posted by bex1218 View Post
    Companies aren't allowed to say lights or whatever per stupid ass law per stupid ass people.
    Yeah, that's it! Its not the fact that cigarette companies were marketing them as healthier and then studies proved it was total bullshit or anything. It must be just stupid people.

    =p

    Leave a comment:


  • bex1218
    replied
    Companies aren't allowed to say lights or whatever per stupid ass law per stupid ass people. I hate when people say "Marlboro gold lights..." Well, not hate it. People use it to describe the color.

    Leave a comment:


  • telecom_goddess
    replied
    Sorry but Pall Malls are nasty. I also like Marlboro LIGHTS (I refuse to call them golds). I can get two packs for $10.30 at the local Walgreens. Cheapest I've seen so far.

    Leave a comment:


  • bex1218
    replied
    I'm glad I don't live where you guys are. 4 bucks a pack is pretty nice. I'll smoke L&Ms. Not too bad, and only like 30 cents more than Pall Malls.

    Leave a comment:


  • DrFaroohk
    replied
    I like the pall malls. Personally I think the best bang for the buck. Around here they're like 5.50 a pack, marbs are around 7.

    Leave a comment:


  • blas87
    replied
    Those "special" Marlboros (I like the light, oops I mean GOLD ones, sorry, forgot we aren't allowed to label ciggs light anymore) are a treat for me, because even at a discount price, they are still $7 a pack, Pall Malls are $6.10.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X