EVE Search - Very bad taste "design" for cigarette packs in the EU

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

Very bad taste "design" for cigarette packs in the EU

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page

Author	Topic
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.08.02 10:32:00 - [1] !!! WARNING !!! Do NOT click image link if you are easily disgusted. However, this is what SOME cigarette packs that get sold RIGHT NOW in Romania actually look like. Linkage Now, I am all for health warning on cigarette packs, and even the picture of two lungs (actual lungs, from dead people, one "normal", the other one allegedly from a heavy smoker) was barely acceptable, but the one above... it just passes into the BAD TASTE category for me. Personally, I know what risks I expose myself to when I smoke, I knew it all along all too well. But when I see a pack that looks like that, it doesn't make me want to quit smoking, just strangle the guy who decided it would be a good idea to make me nauseous whenever I look at the back of the pack. For all I know, this particular company was the first to introduce this sytle of warnings, but soon all cigarette manufacturers around here are expected to comply. Do you guys have similar "graphic" health warnings on your cigarette packs where you live ? I wonder wether it was the company's choice to put THAT particular image on packs too, or was it a mandatory design ? _ THE APPRENTICE \|\| mineral balance \|\| nanofix
Kyanzes Amarr Utopian Research I.E.L. The ENTITY.	Posted - 2008.08.02 10:43:00 - [2] Edited by: Kyanzes on 02/08/2008 10:43:56 Smoking should be banned. The sole and only reason for it being legal is the tremendous amount of tax flowing in from its sales to the treasury. Sad. I wholeheartedly agree with this policy. I live relatively close to you (Hungary) and I hope this method will be introduced here too. Currently we only have warnings on the boxes stating stuff like "SMOKING MAY CAUSE LUNG CANCER" or "SMOKING RESULTS IN HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE" and stuff like that but to be honest it doesn't seem to have much effect. Surely, some more strong willed people will probably quit seeing such warning but I don't believe that the masses overall would really grasp the implications of smoking. I understand that you would rather leave the judgment to the individual wether it's good for him or not but to be honest people need to be cared after. --------------------------------------------- Unclouded by conscience, remorse or delusions of morality.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.08.02 11:03:00 - [3] Both of my grandfathers were smokers, one of my uncles was a heavy smoker too. I experienced first-hand the damage smoking causes, and I didn't start smoking until I was over 21 years old. My patents and the rest of the family LOATHES smoking, even the mildest whiff makes my father protest and condemn smoking, and my girlfriend doesn't like smoking either (she got used to it after a couple of years, but she still hates it). Heck, I even CONVINCED other people to quit smoking before I started, and some even AFTER I started. The reasons I started are not relevant, but it had nothing to do with not knowing the risks, and there was absolutely no peer pressure involved (quite the contrary, peer pressure is to quit smoking). I make an effort to NOT bother other people with MY smoke, and if needed, I can easily go on without smoking for days. I ask people around me wether it would be ok for them if I light up a cigarette, and if even one person says it would bother them, I don't do it. Still, there are a lot of things that are bad for you, two of the worst being excessive food (obesity) and alcohool (do I need to tell you why?) Yeah, sure, it leads to lower health in smokers, and may cause some problems for second-hand smokers (but the magnitude of second-hand smoke damage is grossly exagerated). I don't see governments starting major campaigns against either of those, so I have to wonder what's the fuss about smoking ? _ THE APPRENTICE \|\| mineral balance \|\| nanofix
Scagga Laebetrovo Ammatar Free Corps	Posted - 2008.08.02 11:07:00 - [4] Ex-smoker here, but as someone studying to enter the medical profession I approve of this graphic content. Why blind people's eyes to what's coming? What does 'bad for your health', 'causes lung cancer/hypertension' etc mean to someone who has never experienced or seen these illnesses? In an ideal world things like smoking and drinking would be voluntarily given up...but where there are stubborn chaps harming themselves and those around them (not to mention hospital budgets) within the law, measures such as these, in society's health interests, are justified in my opinion. I ask you, Akita; Does seeing these graphic pictures make you less inclined to buy the packet and smoke its contents (even to a small degree)? And do you think more people would be less inclined to do buy them? San Matari Official forums
Scagga Laebetrovo Ammatar Free Corps	Posted - 2008.08.02 11:19:00 - [5] Originally by: Akita T Still, there are a lot of things that are bad for you, two of the worst being excessive food (obesity) and alcohool (do I need to tell you why?) Yeah, sure, it leads to lower health in smokers, and may cause some problems for second-hand smokers (but the magnitude of second-hand smoke damage is grossly exagerated). I don't see governments starting major campaigns against either of those, so I have to wonder what's the fuss about smoking ? Akita, are you blind? Really, do you mean to say you've not seen any attempts by the UK government to tackle alcohol misuse and obesity? If this is so, I think you only focus your attention on a narrowed repertoire of issues. Learn your facts before posting such misleading statements. Quote: There's no substitute for common curtesy and decency, and some things shouldn't be outlawed nor criminalised, UNLESS they cause harm to ANOTHER human being except the one doing it. Exactly. By this logic, smoking should be banned. Last I read each person in Manchester pays ú251 per year to cover their local costs for the treatment of smoking related illness/quitting. The annual burden on the NHS is in the hundreds of millions, (for this 'lifestyle' illness), and we are not mentioning the lost productivity in industry that is related to smoking... Quote: You might as well bring back communism and the police state if you want to control what's "good for the people". Now you're just being silly. Get some more sleep and read up on what the responsibilities of a government are. San Matari Official forums
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.08.02 11:19:00 - [6] Edited by: Akita T on 02/08/2008 11:23:49 Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo I ask you, Akita; Does seeing these graphic pictures make you less inclined to buy the packet and smoke its contents (even to a small degree)? Not the least bit. It just makes me want to change the pack for a less "graphic" one or simply not look at the back. There's a fine line between warning people about risks and grossing them out. Quote: And do you think more people would be less inclined to do buy them? I seriously doubt that THIS particular image would have a significant impact. I mean, compared to the many other harsh, but not so vomit-inducing ones. The other ones, they make you THINK. This one, makes you just look away and ignore it. Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo Akita, are you blind? Really, do you mean to say you've not seen any attempts by the UK government to tackle alcohol misuse and obesity? If this is so, I think you only focus your attention on a narrowed repertoire of issues. Learn your facts before posting such misleading statements. How about a "don't do drugs" campaign with pictures of vomit-covered overdose victims ? How about a "drive safe" campaign with posters of mangled bodies after high-speed car accidents ? What about "don't drink and drive" ads with actual pictures of people run over by drunk drivers ? Or what if we had a nice "stop being fat" publicity stunt featuring dissections of morbidly obese people ? Hell, have a "brush your teeth" nation-wide public TV spot with bad cases of oral hygene problems ! There's a fine line between genuine concern and just bad taste. This particular picture in the OP crossed it. _ THE APPRENTICE \|\| mineral balance \|\| nanofix
Scagga Laebetrovo Ammatar Free Corps	Posted - 2008.08.02 11:25:00 - [7] Quote: Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo Akita, are you blind? Really, do you mean to say you've not seen any attempts by the UK government to tackle alcohol misuse and obesity? If this is so, I think you only focus your attention on a narrowed repertoire of issues. Learn your facts before posting such misleading statements. How about a "don't do drugs" campaign with pictures of vomit-covered overdose victims ? How about a "drive safe" campaign with posters of mangled bodies after high-speed car accidents ? What about "don't drink and drive" ads with actual pictures of people run over by drunk drivers ? Or what if we had a nice "stop being fat" publicity stunt featuring dissections of morbidly obese people ? There's a line between genuine concern and just bad taste. This particular picture crossed it. Actually, you didn't answer my question. Have you, or have you not seen the government efforts to tackle alcohol misuse and obesity? There are 'graphic' campaigns used in the tackling of alcohol misuse and obesity. You aren't looking hard enough. San Matari Official forums
YouGotRipped Ewigkeit	Posted - 2008.08.02 11:25:00 - [8] Edited by: YouGotRipped on 02/08/2008 11:28:22 So what made you start smoking at 21? I started at around 5 y.o. tbh, sheer curiosity, people were laughing at me when I was asking for a light. Of course I smoked only leftovers I could find on the street and it didn't last long. Later I developed a taste for some hollow stemmed plants that my mother used as an ingredient for pickled cucumbers. Man that shit was strong. Stronger than anything I experimented so far. My parents of course laughed at first then had to beat me to quit those. Then later together with a friend we decided to gather as much cigars leftovers as we could find in a large radius and hide ourselves some place and smoke them all. What followed... we couldn't smoke them all... but I got really sick. Since that time I hate smoking.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.08.02 11:28:00 - [9] Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo Actually, you didn't answer my question. Have you, or have you not seen the government efforts to tackle alcohol misuse and obesity? There are 'graphic' campaigns used in the tackling of alcohol misuse and obesity. You aren't looking hard enough. I live in Romania. This is a Romanian cigarette pack. There are absolutely ZILCH government efforts/campaigns/whatever against obesity or alcohool use in Romania. _ THE APPRENTICE \|\| mineral balance \|\| nanofix
Scagga Laebetrovo Ammatar Free Corps	Posted - 2008.08.02 11:31:00 - [10] Edited by: Scagga Laebetrovo on 02/08/2008 11:31:26 Originally by: Akita T Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo Actually, you didn't answer my question. Have you, or have you not seen the government efforts to tackle alcohol misuse and obesity? There are 'graphic' campaigns used in the tackling of alcohol misuse and obesity. You aren't looking hard enough. I live in Romania. This is a Romanian cigarette pack. There are absolutely ZILCH government efforts/campaigns/whatever against obesity or alcohool use in Romania. Ah, now we've reached an important point - we're talking about different governments In which case, the only relevant point I can sieve out of our discussion so far - what do you think constitute some of the responsibilities of a government to its people? San Matari Official forums

Kyanzes Amarr Utopian Research I.E.L. The ENTITY.	Posted - 2008.08.02 11:39:00 - [11] Edited by: Kyanzes on 02/08/2008 11:40:20 Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 02/08/2008 11:10:37 You might as well bring back communism and the police state if you want to control what's "good for the people". Akita. I believe the years of communism still haunts you. Yes, I can remember the times when I couldn't walk five blocks on foot without being stopped by policemen requesting identification and asking questions as to where I was going. Still, governmental social care for the people shouldn't be confused with the oppressing policies of an autocratic state. Banning something that has an adverse effect on people's lives isn't oppression. Do you feel bad about the government abolishing the use of paints that have cancer inducing components in them? Or putting embargo on children's toys that are made of poisonous materials? Thought not. One working for a company that produces such toys could say: "Damn government, now my employer went bankrupt and can't pay me. I even lost my job." Yes, it can be bad for the individual, but the good of the many should always be of more importance. To be honest, both communism and democracy could be a wonderful system to live in. It's only human weakness that people in power tend to abuse their power. The truth must be somewhere inbetween. A socialist system with democratic values. There are people who can't care for themselves, and it's not only about money, it's their social life, health and education among many other things. Strong policies and even more strong executive power is needed to keep the profit oriented firms at bay. --------------------------------------------- Unclouded by conscience, remorse or delusions of morality.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.08.02 11:42:00 - [12] Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo What do you think constitute some of the responsibilities of a government to its people? My personal opinion is that real-life governments of today (and for that matter, just about any in human history) are mostly power-hungry self-sustaining, self-replicating and self-serving monsters, which only survive because people PREFER to be told what to do and not to do in exchange for an illusion of safety. The responsabilities of a GOOD government would be to be as "invisible" as possible, as hands-off as possible, while STILL maintaining a modi**of safety for any one of its citizens against anything ELSE other than the citizen in question itself. It is NOT a government's responsability to make me lead a healthier life if I don't want to, it is NOT a government's responsability to take care of me when I end up unable to do so because of something I have done (out of stupidity or lack of knowledge), it is NOT a government's responsability to tell me how I must lead my life UNLESS I ask them for advice (and that advice should be factual and come as promptly as possible with a minimum of effort required for the request for advice). A GOOD government should be more like an university professor rather than as a kindergarten teacher. A GOOD government should be more like a good friend rather than a parent. _ THE APPRENTICE \|\| mineral balance \|\| nanofix**
Rhanna Khurin Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force	Posted - 2008.08.02 11:42:00 - [13] Edited by: Rhanna Khurin on 02/08/2008 11:43:29 I still smoke, damn i'm even smoking now. I couldn't care less about the risks tbh. I live on my own, no kids. I'm not hurting anyone. Only thing i don't like about smoking is that it sometimes makes things smell funny. Cigarette companies can put what ever they like on the packets, just makes them a more interesting read.
YouGotRipped Ewigkeit	Posted - 2008.08.02 11:52:00 - [14] Edited by: YouGotRipped on 02/08/2008 11:57:10 Originally by: Akita T A GOOD government should be more like an university professor rather than as a kindergarten teacher. A GOOD government should be more like a good friend rather than a parent. You're actually saying that you're well aware of the risks smoking poses to your health but you'd prefer not to think about it. Then later (when it's too late) you'd give anything in the world to regain your health and you'll probably sue the government for not taking a more active role. I too agree that those that cannot see their limitations should be left to fend for themselves. Problem is that for most of the people risks and cancer are just words and they don't pay attention thinking it won't happen to them but an image of their future is more likely going to make them aware of the true meaning of those words. Personally I believe that along with the cigar packs the government shoud pass DVD movies covering the effects of long term smoking and of course cigars should cost more just because of this. hahah
Kyanzes Amarr Utopian Research I.E.L. The ENTITY.	Posted - 2008.08.02 11:55:00 - [15] Edited by: Kyanzes on 02/08/2008 11:57:01 Edited by: Kyanzes on 02/08/2008 11:56:45 Originally by: Akita T Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo A GOOD government should be more like an university professor rather than as a kindergarten teacher. A GOOD government should be more like a good friend rather than a parent. Akita. If we had university professors in power we would have large chambers filled with wanderous plans but non of them would ever be carried out We both need academic people AND people who can make things happen. A professor would always find some weakness in the plan or its effects and would try to rework it. In reality sometimes you have to go give a "go ahead" to plans that have known adverse consequences. That's where non-scientists come into play. --------------------------------------------- Unclouded by conscience, remorse or delusions of morality.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.08.02 12:04:00 - [16] Originally by: Kyanzes Do you feel bad about the government abolishing the use of paints that have cancer inducing components in them? Or putting embargo on children's toys that are made of poisonous materials? Thought not. One working for a company that produces such toys could say: "Damn government, now my employer went bankrupt and can't pay me. I even lost my job." Yes, it can be bad for the individual, but the good of the many should always be of more importance. [...] Strong policies and even more strong executive power is needed to keep the profit oriented firms at bay. That falls under "doing harm to those who can't possibly defend against it", and even that is a bit harsh. Simply making it mandatory to list any DANGEROUS materials on product labels (and their possible effects) would have been enough. If somebody is stupid or desperate enough to paint their home with something that says "can cause cancer", or buys a toy that has "toxic chemicals in fabric" a skull-and-crossbones stamp and accompanying text on it... let them do it. A big skulls-and-crossbones picture on one side and a big "warning : causes sickness, aging and death" on cigarette packs would have been more than enough. But you do know what I loathe ? I loathe that governments in many countries banned the use of ANY genetically engineered crops, regardless of type of crop. I hate that governments all over the world decided that some naturally growing plants are illegal, in spite of proven legitimate and effective medical uses. I despise the bans on human cloning and stem cell research. And so on and so forth. As for the last thing... as long as money exists, here's no "cure" for people who want to have more than they need. You can only regulate so much before you stiffle legitimate, honest bussinesses, while still not stopping ruthless and exploitative ones. If anything, corporations should be run more like countries rather than how they are right now, with all employees having a (small) stake and voice in the corporation... not the majority stake nor voice, but one nevertheless. A good alternative would be to make it mandatory that anything ABOVE minimum wage should be paid out as shares instead of cash, and the workers should do with them whatever they damn well please. But that's an utopian concept, and completely unfeasable in the real world. In the end, that's the only problem... people don't care much about anything but themselves... which is funny, considering that the governments seem to be hell-bent on concerning themselves with the same thing, but in a way THEY see fit, not how each individual sees fit. _ THE APPRENTICE \|\| mineral balance \|\| nanofix
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.08.02 12:12:00 - [17] Edited by: Akita T on 02/08/2008 12:16:42 Originally by: YouGotRipped You're actually saying that you're well aware of the risks smoking poses to your health but you'd prefer not to think about it. Then later (when it's too late) you'd give anything in the world to regain your health and you'll probably sue the government for not taking a more active role. More like, I'm well aware of the risks and think about it all the time, whenever I open a new pack, whenever I cough, whenever I hear somebody saying "yes, I do mind if you'd light up a cigarette" and I don't light it. As for the government, far from me suing it, if I would go to a normally "free of charge" doctor's office with a smoking-related problem, I'd actually expect a swift kick in the butt towards the chashier's desk, where I should be expected to pay cash for the treatment. Hell, I would be 100% ok with something like a "smoker's licence", which you have can only get via a government-issued exam about the risks, a licence you have to show every single time you buy a pack of cigarettes, with your purchase recorded. Smoking without a licence would be a crime. However, there should be places everywhere where you can smoke, clubs where only smoking licence holders could enter and so on and so forth. As for your medical bills... the more you have recorded as smoking, the higher the bills (for smoking-relateable illnesses) rake up. I mean, you DO need a driver's licence to drive a car, don't you ? Why not a licence to smoke then too ? But, frankly, why stop there ? Have a licence to drink, a licence to have sex, a licence to do drugs, and even a special licence to have children. Basically, allow everything EXCEPT things that cause direct and unavoidable harm to other people, as long as you have a licence for it. You can get a probationary licence for just about anything easily, but the permanent licence would involve serious tests and exams. The punishment for doing ANYTHING that requires a licence without a valid licence would be DEATH. And no, I'm NOT being sarcastic. I'm dead serious. I would welcome all of the above. _ THE APPRENTICE \|\| mineral balance \|\| nanofix
YouGotRipped Ewigkeit	Posted - 2008.08.02 12:24:00 - [18] Edited by: YouGotRipped on 02/08/2008 12:31:28 Originally by: Akita T But you do know what I loathe ? I loathe that governments in many countries banned the use of ANY genetically engineered crops, regardless of type of crop. At some point food additives were introduced, later some turned to be cancer inducing agents. The risk this time is far greater also considering that a genetic laboratory is pretty affordable (starting from 100,000 USD) and private research on such crops would be impossible to control: "As for environmental impacts, the use of genetic engineering in agriculture will lead to uncontrolled biological pollution, threatening numerous microbial, plant and animal species with extinction, and the potential contamination of all non-genetically engineered life forms with novel and possibly hazardous genetic material." Just google around you can find more. Originally by: Akita T I hate that governments all over the world decided that some naturally growing plants are illegal, in spite of proven legitimate and effective medical uses. Naturally occurring means nothing. Sure there are some natives that use those for medical purposes but many more are interested in extracting opiates and god knows what other alkaloids to further refine into morphine, ****e etc. Originally by:** Akita T I despise the bans on human cloning and stem cell research. There's a reason why this is the way it is and has nothing to do with morals although we like to think that's the main reason.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.08.02 12:34:00 - [19] Originally by: YouGotRipped "As for environmental impacts, the use of genetic engineering in agriculture will lead to uncontrolled biological pollution, threatening numerous microbial, plant and animal species with extinction, and the potential contamination of all non-genetically engineered life forms with novel and possibly hazardous genetic material." The POTENTIAL for NOT THOROUGHLY VERIFIED/TESTED genetically engineered species to do that. It's like banning use of electricity, fire or heavy machinery because people could get hurt by it. There's enough species where the "genetic engineering" done is nothing more than just accelerated artificial selection. I mean, you're not banning dog breeding nor ownership of "pure breed dogs", why the hell would you ban SUCH kinds of genetically engineered crops in the first place ? Serious and thorough oversight is needed, but banning the use (and all the possible advantages) just for the potential risks (which can be minimized to practically zero if even the least bit of care is given) is downright inane. Quote: Naturally occurring means nothing. Sure there are some natives that use those for medical purposes but many more are interested in extracting opiates and god knows what other alkaloids to further refine into morphine, ****e etc. Legalize all of that too, pending licencing. Want to be a dopehead ? Be my guest, get a licence for it and pump your veins full of it. Quote: Originally by:** Akita T the bans on human cloning and stem cell research. There's a reason why this is the way it is and has nothing to do with morals. But it does have EVERYTHING to do and ONLY has anything to do with "morals". More specifically, a certain kind of gnostic set of moral values, nothing more, nothing less. The idea that a bunch of cells has the rights of a human being is preposterous. And that goes on in the ideas about contraception, abortion and so on and so forth, NOT just medical research. _ THE APPRENTICE \|\| mineral balance \|\| nanofix
Kyanzes Amarr Utopian Research I.E.L. The ENTITY.	Posted - 2008.08.02 13:02:00 - [20] Edited by: Kyanzes on 02/08/2008 13:05:00 Originally by: Akita T The idea that a bunch of cells has the rights of a human being is preposterous. And that goes on in the ideas about contraception, abortion and so on and so forth, NOT just medical research. Akita. There's something along the lines you either can't see or deliberately trying to cover up. I believe you have good intentions so I vote you missed it. It's not about the right of the bunch of cells at all. It's about consequences. It's about where it would leave to give free way to such practices. Ususally everything that goes horribly wrong in the end starts out as something harmless. When you decide wether you let something go on its way freely you not only consider the immediate effects but also those that occur in the long run. There's a thing called "preventive measures". There is logic in, for example, separating people by race, sex, or religion to some extent. But if you let it go, it'll end in a bloosdhed. Because there's always those who try to thrive on the chaos to their own benefit. The same goes for genetical manipulation. If you let scientists go further, they WILL arrive at a place you don't want them to go. You must think ahead. Imagine the following: Scientists discover that the Atom, in fact, is dividable and ridciulous amount of energy can be freed up. Hmm. Come on, we'll only use it to produce energy for the benefit of mankind. Ok. Go on. Then they build a bomb and attach it to a plane. They send it to bomb foreign cities. At this particular point you are powerless. Extreme amount of research, money and time had been put in the effort. There's also a pressure to end the war. You could have prevented everything in the very beginning, but you didn't have the foresight. You know, there could have been an international nuke-ban like 70 years ago. Ofc you'll always find someone who'll say: It was justified. There's always an explanation. --------------------------------------------- Unclouded by conscience, remorse or delusions of morality.

YouGotRipped Ewigkeit	Posted - 2008.08.02 13:09:00 - [21] Edited by: YouGotRipped on 02/08/2008 13:16:53 Originally by: Akita T There's enough species where the "genetic engineering" done is nothing more than just accelerated artificial selection. I mean, you're not banning dog breeding nor ownership of "pure breed dogs", why the hell would you ban SUCH kinds of genetically engineered crops in the first place ? Serious and thorough oversight is needed, but banning the use (and all the possible advantages) just for the potential risks (which can be minimized to practically zero if even the least bit of care is given) is downright inane. Like I said research in this field would get out of hand pretty fast plus no one knows what "thorough testing" really means when it comes to long term environment changes/mutations. I assume all countries adhered to banning genetically engineered crops which is a good measure. Plus, just weigh in the advantages vs. risk and you'll see that a higher productivity means really nothing since there's enough for everyone while the risks are not something you want to live with. Originally by: Akita T Originally by: Yougotripped Naturally occurring means nothing. Sure there are some natives that use those for medical purposes but many more are interested in extracting opiates and god knows what other alkaloids to further refine into morphine, ****e etc. Legalize all of that too, pending licencing. Want to be a dopehead ? Be my guest, get a licence for it and pump your veins full of it. I'm sorry but do you know why drugs were banned? Originally by:** Akita T But it does have EVERYTHING to do and ONLY has anything to do with "morals". More specifically, a certain kind of gnostic set of moral values, nothing more, nothing less. The idea that a bunch of cells has the rights of a human being is preposterous. And that goes on in the ideas about contraception, abortion and so on and so forth, NOT just medical research. Morals is not my concern. An artificially increased life span simply screws with evolution, natural selection and survival of the fittest increasing the chances that "unfit" genetic info be passed from generation to generation. Should we save 1 idiot? No? Very well, save all idiots.
Sarmea Moon Gallente The Graduates Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.08.02 13:16:00 - [22] It's akin to putting a picture of a homeless wino on alcohol ( or raging barstool-swinging drunk), or a picture of a naked 400lb chick on your McDonald's fries, or regular softdrinks. How about a rabid hyperactive squirrel on our tea packets, or coffee? My husband smokes/dips once in a blue moon to stay awake on a long drive. English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows them down dark alleys, coshes 'em, and rummages in their pockets for loose bits of grammar.
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2008.08.02 13:25:00 - [23] Edited by: MotherMoon on 02/08/2008 13:31:33 why can't people just smoke tobacco? honestly, put down that shit that is made out of ass and just go smoke normal clean tobacco. it has about 1/20th the part that gets you addicted! I mean it cigs are stupid as shit. or go to a hokkah bar or whatever just stop shoving something that does nothing but feed your nicotine craving. and on top of that is full of ASS. edit:yes it can still give you lung cancer but at about 10% the risk according to studys. also about 70% of a cig is not real tobacco it's woodchip and this wierd coak stuff that is made from the part of tobacco that your suppose to throw away. it holds the most nicotine and has a terrible terrible flavor, but it's masked by the suger and coco added to the cigs nasty parts. Acetanisole * Acetic Acid * Acetoin * Acetophenone * 6-Acetoxydihydrotheaspirane * 2-Acetyl-3- Ethylpyrazine * 2-Acetyl-5-Methylfuran * Acetylpyrazine * 2-Acetylpyridine * 3-Acetylpyridine * 2-Acetylthiazole * Aconitic Acid * dl-Alanine * Alfalfa Extract * Allspice Extract,Oleoresin, and Oil * Allyl Hexanoate * Allyl Ionone * Almond Bitter Oil * Ambergris Tincture * Ammonia * Ammonium Bicarbonate * Ammonium Hydroxide * Ammonium Phosphate Dibasic * Ammonium Sulfide * Amyl Alcohol * Amyl Butyrate * Amyl Formate * Amyl Octanoate * alpha-Amylcinnamaldehyde * Amyris Oil * trans-Anethole * Angelica Root Extract, Oil and Seed Oil * Anise * Anise Star, Extract and Oils * Anisyl Acetate * Anisyl Alcohol * Anisyl Formate * Anisyl Phenylacetate * Apple Juice Concentrate, Extract, and Skins * Apricot Extract and Juice Concentrate * 1-Arginine * Asafetida Fluid Extract And Oil * Ascorbic Acid * 1-Asparagine Monohydrate * 1-Aspartic Acid * Balsam Peru and Oil * Basil Oil * Bay Leaf, Oil and Sweet Oil * Beeswax White * Beet Juice Concentrate * Benzaldehyde * Benzaldehyde Glyceryl Acetal * Benzoic Acid, Benzoin * Benzoin Resin * Benzophenone * Benzyl Alcohol * Benzyl Benzoate * Benzyl Butyrate * Benzyl Cinnamate * Benzyl Propionate * Benzyl Salicylate * Bergamot Oil * Bisabolene * Black Currant Buds Absolute * Borneol * Bornyl Acetate * Buchu Leaf Oil * 1,3-Butanediol * 2,3-Butanedione * 1-Butanol * 2-Butanone * 4(2-Butenylidene)-3,5,5-Trimethyl-2-Cycl... * Butter, Butter Esters, and Butter Oil * Butyl Acetate * Butyl Butyrate * Butyl Butyryl Lactate * Butyl Isovalerate * Butyl Phenylacetate * Butyl Undecylenate * 3-Butylidenephthalide * Butyric Acid] * Cadinene * Caffeine * Calcium Carbonate * Camphene * Cananga Oil * Capsi***Oleoresin Caramel Color * Caraway Oil * Carbon Dioxide * Cardamom Oleoresin, Extract, Seed Oil, and Powder * Carob Bean and Extract * beta-Carotene * Carrot Oil * Carvacrol * 4-Carvomenthenol * 1-Carvone * beta-Caryophyllene * beta-Caryophyllene Oxide * Cascarilla Oil and Bark Extract * Cassia Bark Oil * Cassie Absolute and Oil * Castoreum Extract, Tincture and Absolute * Cedar Leaf Oil * Cedarwood Oil Terpenes and Virginiana * Cedrol * Celery Seed Extract, Solid, Oil, And Oleoresin * Cellulose Fiber * Chamomile Flower Oil And Extract * Chicory Extract * Chocolate * Cinnamaldehyde * Cinnamic Acid * Cinnamon Leaf Oil, Bark Oil, and Extract * Cinnamyl Acetate * Cinnamyl Alcohol * Cinnamyl Cinnamate * Cinnamyl Isovalerate * Cinnamyl Propionate * Citral * Citric Acid * Citronella Oil * dl-Citronellol * Citronellyl Butyrate * itronellyl Isobutyrate * Civet Absolute * Clary Oil * Clover Tops, Red Solid Extract * Cocoa * Cocoa Shells, Extract, Distillate And Powder * Coconut Oil * Coffee * Cognac White and Green Oil * Copaiba Oil * Coriander Extract and Oil * Corn Oil * Corn Silk * Costus Root Oil * Cubeb Oil * Cuminaldehyde * para-Cymene * 1-Cysteine * Dandelion Root Solid Extract * Davana Oil * 2-trans, 4-trans-Decadienal * delta-Decalactone * gamma-Decalactone * Decanal * Decanoic Acid * 1-Decanol * 2-Decenal * Dehydromenthofurolactone * Diethyl Malonate * Diethyl Sebacate * 2,3-Diethylpyrazine * Dihydro Anethole * 5,7-Dihydro-2-Methylthieno(3,4-D) Pyrimidine * Dill Seed Oil and Extract * Originally by: Dapanman1 Terrible idea, you're an idiot
Kirjava Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.08.02 13:27:00 - [24] Originally by: YouGotRipped I'm sorry but do you know why drugs were banned? I'm ashamed to admit I was only ever taught "we know better than you and you mustn't use them". That and getting show what drugs do and being told alcohol and tobacco are all right.... Though the Treasury is financed by the latter so since it was the Government approving and writing this information it was quite biassed... Haruhiists - Overloading Out of Pod discussions since 2007.
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2008.08.02 13:38:00 - [25] Originally by: Kirjava Originally by: YouGotRipped I'm sorry but do you know why drugs were banned? I'm ashamed to admit I was only ever taught "we know better than you and you mustn't use them". That and getting show what drugs do and being told alcohol and tobacco are all right.... Though the Treasury is financed by the latter so since it was the Government approving and writing this information it was quite biassed... most durgs are honestly banned due to abused. like E? that was totally a drug used in marriage therapy. Then some people figure out what it did and started abusing it and people died because they didn't keep their body hydrated because they didn't know what they were doing because most people that do drugs are idiots and don't realize it's dangerous to abuse a substance. I don't have anything people that do it. personally I have my own eyes and figure out that drinking and smoking were no different and I honestly don't do anything :P other than have a social drink. I've never been smashed don't see the point it's just as dangerous as any drug if you abuse it. Originally by: Dapanman1 Terrible idea, you're an idiot
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.08.02 13:59:00 - [26] Originally by: YouGotRipped Morals is not my concern. An artificially increased life span simply screws with evolution, natural selection and survival of the fittest further increasing the chances that "unfit" genetic info be passed from generation to generation. Should we save 1 idiot? No? Very well, save all idiots. No, the "idiots" will end up killing themselves with the now-legal panoply of drugs, inhebriants and other mind-or-body alterig substances. If they don't kill themselves before they could be saved, then the added cost on medical care FOR THEM thanks to the modifiers shown by all their licences to do stupid stuff will make sure only the wealthy ones get a chance to survive. Finally, the licence for children will make sure they don't reproduce all that much, therefore their "unfit" genes won't live on for much longer. We're way past screwing with evolution, we already did that when we invented modern medicine, with surgery and medical drugs. Population numbers in "civilised" countries started to decline already, even if life spans are increasing, due to the fact people have less children and have them at increasingly older ages. _ THE APPRENTICE \|\| mineral balance \|\| nanofix
Jim McGregor	Posted - 2008.08.02 14:02:00 - [27] Edited by: Jim McGregor on 02/08/2008 14:05:05 It may be bad taste, but it may be what is needed to stop people from smoking. Im sick and tired of walking around on a beautiful day and suddenly getting other peoples poisonous smoke down my lungs. You smokers probably dont realize how disgusting it is to feel the smoke instead of the fresh air. --- Originally by: Roguehalo Can you nano Titans?
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.08.02 14:07:00 - [28] Originally by: Jim McGregor It may be bad taste, but it may be what is needed to stop people from smoking. Im sick and tired of walking around on a beautiful day and suddenly getting other peoples poisonous smoke down my lungs. Im fine with people doing whatever they want with themselfs, but when I have to breathe it in, Im not OK with it anymore. The "smoking licence" would solve all those kinds of problems Just like you get points deducted from your driver's licence whenever you do something stupid while driving, causing people who didn't agree to it to inhale your secondhand smoke would get points off your smoking licence And that, my friend, would do a LOT more than any gruesome, disgusting picture on cigarette packs. _ THE APPRENTICE \|\| mineral balance \|\| nanofix
Rawr Cristina Caldari Omerta Syndicate	Posted - 2008.08.02 14:17:00 - [29] Originally by: Jim McGregor It may be bad taste, but it may be what is needed to stop people from smoking. Im sick and tired of walking around on a beautiful day and suddenly getting other peoples poisonous smoke down my lungs. You smokers probably dont realize how disgusting it is to feel the smoke instead of the fresh air. This a thousand times. Breathing in other people's smoke when you don't smoke yourself and arn't used to it is just horrible. Worst is when you're in a car and someone starts smoking. Being unable to breathe without your throat going sore for the next 6 hours isn't exactly nice thnx. ...
YouGotRipped Ewigkeit	Posted - 2008.08.02 14:31:00 - [30] Edited by: YouGotRipped on 02/08/2008 14:32:34 Originally by: Akita T Originally by: Jim McGregor It may be bad taste, but it may be what is needed to stop people from smoking. Im sick and tired of walking around on a beautiful day and suddenly getting other peoples poisonous smoke down my lungs. Im fine with people doing whatever they want with themselfs, but when I have to breathe it in, Im not OK with it anymore. The "smoking licence" would solve all those kinds of problems Just like you get points deducted from your driver's licence whenever you do something stupid while driving, causing people who didn't agree to it to inhale your secondhand smoke would get points off your smoking licence And that, my friend, would do a LOT more than any gruesome, disgusting picture on cigarette packs. Of course it would be a lot more simple if you'd all just quit smoking. What's that? You can't? Crap! We need more efficient preemptive measures but until then let's stick with the gruesome imagery on the cigarette packs.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.