Last smoking day in Holland

Frederik · 1 Jul 2008, 17:05

I'm convinced that it's far more dangerous to walk on the sidewalk of a busy road and inhale all the invisible exhaust from cars and trucks, than it is walking behind a person smoking...!!

It seem as if smoking is banned in most countries in the - so called - Western world ... Here in Scandinavia smoking have been banned in indoor public areas for at least a couple of years now...

What I find most ridiculous is that we're able to fly rockets to the moon and back again, but for some reason no-one is able to make a smokers room with good ventilation...

I'm sure that once the percentage of people smoking is below a certain level, they will start chasing next subject...
Fast food...

I believe it would be much better, if authorities spend some time on all the artificial food additives the industry have invented during the past 10-15 years, cause I'm sure that many of them are more harmful than smoking...

Take this example... One of the most widely and commonly used artificial food additive must be NutraSweet , which is a sweetener used in most "diet" products...
The real name is Aspartame but it's marketed under a number of trademark names...

During thousands of years, people have been used to eat sugar... Plane sugar made of canes or beets, but since sugar isn't considered being particular healthy, some people invented Aspartame as a substitute...

The most scary part - (and now people can call it conspiratorial theories or whatever) - is, that no-one knows exactly the influence Aspartame and many other artificial food additives will have on the human body over a longer period...

david_h · 1 Jul 2008, 17:20

As Jerry Seinfeld has said. . .

%(#FF4080)[*it's a good thing we landed on the moon. .. so now we can have something with which to compare all other acheivements.

We can put a man on the moon so why is it so hard to . . . yada yada yada. . .

Imagine if we hadn't gone to the moon. . .

Well, we can't put a man on the moon--so Why should we be expected to do this?*]

I can understand your take on this Fred. . ..YOu let BABIES SMOKE FOR CRYIN" OUT LOUD!!!!

plot-paris · 1 Jul 2008, 19:10

well, there is the perfect solution for all the poor, discriminated smokers!

Super Cig !

a hightech cigaret, that simulates the smoke of tobacco without emmiting second hand smoke.

"...stainless steel shell, lithium battery, micro-electric circuit, atomizing chamber and an indicator light..."

the only thing they have to add is a little speaker that simulates the crackling noise of burning tobacco when taking a deep drag...

shit, after more than two decades of abstinence I am seriously tempted to start smoking!!!

pilou · 1 Jul 2008, 19:48

suicide?

remus · 1 Jul 2008, 20:38

...and blow vast amounts of money, all from the comfort of your smoke filled living room.

kwistenbiebel · 1 Jul 2008, 20:57

If we are not allowed to have that little puff once and a while, I suggest we sue all our governments for allowing diesel (gasoline) as car fuel to exist while they are making a lot of money on it through taxes...

solo · 1 Jul 2008, 21:01

Dang!!!

I smoke one Camel at a time, not the entire herd.

Mike Lucey · 1 Jul 2008, 21:48

Jakob, thanks for the link. If Supercig does what it says it will be
a big seller as most smokers really don't want to upset non smokers
or cause them harm. I tried a product recently that also worked as
a cigarette replacement, NicoGel. While it satisfied the urge it did
not satisfy the 'comfort /freely' thing!

I have a friend (smoker) that has developed an intriguing argument
with regard to tobacco companies and governments. Tobacco companies
place heath warnings on the product and one smokes knowing this
risk. Seemingly these companies have for filled their legal obligations
and are entitled to their profits, fair play!

My friend argues that governments ALSO enjoy profits from these sales
by way of taxes! And I would add, very heavy taxes in this country
and the UK. In fact they make more per pack than the actual tobacco
companies, well over two times as much!

The argument goes that the governments are NOT living up to their
responsibilities as they are FULLY aware of the damage tobacco is
causing yet at the same time they are allowing it to continue AND
profiting from it. He thinks he has a good case to sue the government
if he falls into bad health for tobacco use!

It would be interesting to see what kind of case a government would
put up if sued. Would they argue that they could not have helped to
prevent the illness?

Mike

remus · 1 Jul 2008, 21:57

The government doesnt really profit, as such, as the money goes entirely in to public services and general country related spending. And surely if this tax didnt exist it would just encourage more people to smoke by making the habit far cheaper.

Mike Lucey · 2 Jul 2008, 00:04

Remus, I think if every smoker stopped in the morning their
would be a lot of governments scratching their heads and
wondering how they can fill the big hole in their finances,
and I mean a BIG hole!

Mike