MP backs plain packets for cigarettes (From Daily Echo)

What rubbish. It makes no difference how the product is packaged, if people want to smoke, they will smoke.
If I recall correctly, the images of tarred lungs, people in oxygen masks and similar were put on packets as a deterrent, has that worked? Don't think so.

hulla baloo wrote:
What rubbish. It makes no difference how the product is packaged, if people want to smoke, they will smoke.
If I recall correctly, the images of tarred lungs, people in oxygen masks and similar were put on packets as a deterrent, has that worked? Don't think so.

Of course it makes a difference. Why else does the tobacco industry spend such a huge amount of money on marketing - which includes packaging - every year?

Georgem wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:
What rubbish. It makes no difference how the product is packaged, if people want to smoke, they will smoke.
If I recall correctly, the images of tarred lungs, people in oxygen masks and similar were put on packets as a deterrent, has that worked? Don't think so.

Of course it makes a difference. Why else does the tobacco industry spend such a huge amount of money on marketing - which includes packaging - every year?

Sorry, I should make my point clearer for you. I was not referring to the tobacco manufacturing industry, if you read my post, I was referring to the plain packaging being a deterrent ( or maybe not so).

The only people that would benefit from this crazy idea would be the cigarette companys, they would save millions on printing and not having to redesign the packets every six months.More people out of work?

hulla baloo wrote:

Georgem wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:
What rubbish. It makes no difference how the product is packaged, if people want to smoke, they will smoke.
If I recall correctly, the images of tarred lungs, people in oxygen masks and similar were put on packets as a deterrent, has that worked? Don't think so.

Of course it makes a difference. Why else does the tobacco industry spend such a huge amount of money on marketing - which includes packaging - every year?

Sorry, I should make my point clearer for you. I was not referring to the tobacco manufacturing industry, if you read my post, I was referring to the plain packaging being a deterrent ( or maybe not so).

Sorry, it's ME not being clear. This is just more marketing, only in the opposite direction. It's not meant to deter people, like the scare tactics you mentioned. It's a longer game, that undoes some of the work the manufacturers have put into making their products more appealing. It won't make anyone stop smoking, but it will make it less appealing to future potential smokers, in a small way.

To be honest I couldn't care less what the packet looks like, every packet of tobacco I purchase has foreign writing on it, it doesn't put me off buying it, I often travel abroad and bring home tobacco, the price is what matters not the packaging.

To be honest I couldn't care less what the packet looks like, every packet of tobacco I purchase has foreign writing on it, it doesn't put me off buying it, I often travel abroad and bring home tobacco, the price is what matters not the packaging.

Make something more taboo, the more appealing it can be.

Perhaps we should do the same for alcohol, sweets. crisps... in fact, everything enjoyable.
Come on - people have got to die of something!

Huffter wrote:
Perhaps we should do the same for alcohol, sweets. crisps... in fact, everything enjoyable.
Come on - people have got to die of something!

Nobody's dying of passive crisps.

Plain packaging is meant to stop chldren taking up smoking, but children get their first cigarettes from friends and family and not from shops. In any case it is illegal for shops to sell tobacco products to anybody under the age of 18 so it will not make one bit of difference.

This will change nothing, smoking is without doubt bad for anyone, and giving the addiction up is the way to go; however, I am getting a little sickened by the propaganda being fed to us. For example imagine as a non smoker being stuck in a home garage packed with smokers for one hour, pretty unpleasant but you would survive, now imagine being in the same garage with a car running it's engine for the same amount of time, yes that's right you will probably be dead. Therefore the question has to be asked of politicians as to why is not more is done about the emissions of vehicles which probably cause more damage than tobacco if the truth is known, the answer being of course oil companies and tax revenue.

A complete waste of parliament's time. Tobacco packaging regulation is a petty topic with no straightforward arguments to support it – just convoluted conjecture on what it may achieve – so the proposal is nonsense. MPs of all parties should be pooling their efforts on major social issues and not on easy little games to pass away their time in office.

I simply cannot believe how some politicians are so naive. Anyone who has ever smoked, and I mean everyone, knows the colour of the packets has absolutely nothing to do with starting to smoke.
This is a simple case of Tobacco control making it much easier for youngsters to become seriously I'll because of unlicensed, unregulated dangerous products and should be resisted.

Georgem wrote:

Huffter wrote:
Perhaps we should do the same for alcohol, sweets. crisps... in fact, everything enjoyable.
Come on - people have got to die of something!

Nobody's dying of passive crisps.

Are you sure?

25 stone person falls on you and you'll be ok...?

ITT: tobacco marketing gurus that missed their calling.

Georgem wrote:

Huffter wrote:
Perhaps we should do the same for alcohol, sweets. crisps... in fact, everything enjoyable.
Come on - people have got to die of something!

Nobody's dying of passive crisps.

If the truth be known, nobody,s dying from passive smoke either.

marma495 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Huffter wrote:
Perhaps we should do the same for alcohol, sweets. crisps... in fact, everything enjoyable.
Come on - people have got to die of something!

Nobody's dying of passive crisps.

If the truth be known, nobody,s dying from passive smoke either.

Really. Can you prove that?

marma495 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Huffter wrote: Perhaps we should do the same for alcohol, sweets. crisps... in fact, everything enjoyable. Come on - people have got to die of something!

Nobody's dying of passive crisps.

If the truth be known, nobody,s dying from passive smoke either.

What's wrong with dying? If more people did it sooner we wouldn't have a pensions crisis.

If MPs spent more time dealing with the priorities that are affecting the general public, the better off we would all be. Stop all this fancy nonsense and get some proper political work done. Look behind you Mr Denham, someone is after your seat

Huffter wrote:

marma495 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Huffter wrote: Perhaps we should do the same for alcohol, sweets. crisps... in fact, everything enjoyable. Come on - people have got to die of something!

Nobody's dying of passive crisps.

If the truth be known, nobody,s dying from passive smoke either.

What's wrong with dying? If more people did it sooner we wouldn't have a pensions crisis.

Care to lead by example?

As an ex BAT employee I can tell you what the difference could/would be.
555,Benson & Hedges are a high quality cigarette you get the best tobacco so receive a higher price BAT had to pay for the names of many brands.
how many kids ask for a 555 or any other brand?
they ask for a fag so how will it effect them?
At the moment through the brand names & various designs on the packet counterfeit fags some times with poison in them will be flogged quite happily by the crooks how will customs & other organisations know which ones they are?
If Denham & his mate Whitehead had found out about cigarette manufacturing & the strides BAT were trying to develop a nicotine fag & supported the thousand workers who were in Southampton & were losing their jobs maybe I could respect him.
They've tried this in Australia & it's given the crooks a free run they've seen a marked decrease in legitimate sells ( tax collected) of a monitored fag. but the act of smoking has increased & fatalities have increased as the gangs don't give a **** what goes into the fag as long as they get their money.
Only through cancer do a minority of legitimate smokers die so if you hate smoking the better of two evils are the branded legitimate fags not the plain no name packets.

hulla baloo wrote:

marma495 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Huffter wrote: Perhaps we should do the same for alcohol, sweets. crisps... in fact, everything enjoyable. Come on - people have got to die of something!

Nobody's dying of passive crisps.

If the truth be known, nobody,s dying from passive smoke either.

Really. Can you prove that?

I have NEVER seen a death certificate stating that the death was directly or indirectly caused by second hand smoke.
Have you?

chas wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:

marma495 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Huffter wrote: Perhaps we should do the same for alcohol, sweets. crisps... in fact, everything enjoyable. Come on - people have got to die of something!

Nobody's dying of passive crisps.

If the truth be known, nobody,s dying from passive smoke either.

Really. Can you prove that?

I have NEVER seen a death certificate stating that the death was directly or indirectly caused by second hand smoke.
Have you?

Do death certificates EVER detail indirect causes of death? A murder victim might have "bleeding from head wound" as cause of death. I doubt they'll have "Corporation made cuts twelve years ago that led to the redundancy of a worker, who subsequently went into a downward spiral of drink and depression, which ultimately culminated in their mental breakdown, leading them to stab victim to death in park they happened to be walking through".

What d'you reckon? Should all death certificates have "Cause of death: birth, followed by a series of non-deterministic events which eventually led to death"?

This is one of the lamest arguments I've ever seen. And on these boards, that's up against some pretty stiff competition.

Well then thats the end of NHS everyone will have to cough up to see a Doc!

Georgem wrote:

chas wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:

marma495 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Huffter wrote: Perhaps we should do the same for alcohol, sweets. crisps... in fact, everything enjoyable. Come on - people have got to die of something!

Nobody's dying of passive crisps.

If the truth be known, nobody,s dying from passive smoke either.

Really. Can you prove that?

I have NEVER seen a death certificate stating that the death was directly or indirectly caused by second hand smoke. Have you?

Do death certificates EVER detail indirect causes of death? A murder victim might have "bleeding from head wound" as cause of death. I doubt they'll have "Corporation made cuts twelve years ago that led to the redundancy of a worker, who subsequently went into a downward spiral of drink and depression, which ultimately culminated in their mental breakdown, leading them to stab victim to death in park they happened to be walking through". What d'you reckon? Should all death certificates have "Cause of death: birth, followed by a series of non-deterministic events which eventually led to death"? This is one of the lamest arguments I've ever seen. And on these boards, that's up against some pretty stiff competition.

So you have NEVER seen a death certifacate which states the the death was caused or indirectly caused by second hand smoke!
Neither can you prove that second hand smoke kills!

Plain packaging+recession=
easy money for counterfeiters.

put you in a plain packet denham so people will give up politics

what about.it would be.an important way for young people to keep fit.SAVE OAKLANDS SWIMMING POOL

chas wrote:

Georgem wrote:

chas wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:

marma495 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Huffter wrote: Perhaps we should do the same for alcohol, sweets. crisps... in fact, everything enjoyable. Come on - people have got to die of something!

Nobody's dying of passive crisps.

If the truth be known, nobody,s dying from passive smoke either.

Really. Can you prove that?

I have NEVER seen a death certificate stating that the death was directly or indirectly caused by second hand smoke. Have you?

Do death certificates EVER detail indirect causes of death? A murder victim might have "bleeding from head wound" as cause of death. I doubt they'll have "Corporation made cuts twelve years ago that led to the redundancy of a worker, who subsequently went into a downward spiral of drink and depression, which ultimately culminated in their mental breakdown, leading them to stab victim to death in park they happened to be walking through". What d'you reckon? Should all death certificates have "Cause of death: birth, followed by a series of non-deterministic events which eventually led to death"? This is one of the lamest arguments I've ever seen. And on these boards, that's up against some pretty stiff competition.

So you have NEVER seen a death certifacate which states the the death was caused or indirectly caused by second hand smoke!
Neither can you prove that second hand smoke kills!

Chas, the point is that a death certificate wouldn't record 'passive smoking' as primary or secondary cause of death, because passive smoking is not a medical condition, but a circumstance under which a person may come into sufficient contact with carcinogens leading to a medical condition. Remember, death certificates do not record 'smoking' as a cause of death either, but I'm sure you're not going to hold this as evidence that smoking doesn't lead to cancer.

More smoke from both camps. Trust Dedman to get on the bandwagon, for what? He's so far up his own aerosole he'll never smell the smoke anyway!

Kids new to smoking will always buy the cheap brand, regardless of packaging colours/designs. Total waste of time....concentrate on something more important,Mr Denham.

I don't see how they could achieve this? Is it not a legal requirement for Companies to display their name and company address on a product. Ok, they may all be white packets or whatever, but they surely would still need to display a name somehow and an address for complaint etc?

I take it the hiding behind screens hasn't worked? Maybe they should look at the cause of the problem which is peer pressure rather than the end product, which is simply supply and demand.

Facewagon wrote:

chas wrote:

Georgem wrote:

chas wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:

marma495 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Huffter wrote: Perhaps we should do the same for alcohol, sweets. crisps... in fact, everything enjoyable. Come on - people have got to die of something!

Nobody's dying of passive crisps.

If the truth be known, nobody,s dying from passive smoke either.

Really. Can you prove that?

I have NEVER seen a death certificate stating that the death was directly or indirectly caused by second hand smoke. Have you?

Do death certificates EVER detail indirect causes of death? A murder victim might have "bleeding from head wound" as cause of death. I doubt they'll have "Corporation made cuts twelve years ago that led to the redundancy of a worker, who subsequently went into a downward spiral of drink and depression, which ultimately culminated in their mental breakdown, leading them to stab victim to death in park they happened to be walking through". What d'you reckon? Should all death certificates have "Cause of death: birth, followed by a series of non-deterministic events which eventually led to death"? This is one of the lamest arguments I've ever seen. And on these boards, that's up against some pretty stiff competition.

So you have NEVER seen a death certifacate which states the the death was caused or indirectly caused by second hand smoke! Neither can you prove that second hand smoke kills!

Chas, the point is that a death certificate wouldn't record 'passive smoking' as primary or secondary cause of death, because passive smoking is not a medical condition, but a circumstance under which a person may come into sufficient contact with carcinogens leading to a medical condition. Remember, death certificates do not record 'smoking' as a cause of death either, but I'm sure you're not going to hold this as evidence that smoking doesn't lead to cancer.

Can you prove that second hand smoke kills? Of course not because it doesn't.

IronLady2010 wrote:
I take it the hiding behind screens hasn't worked? Maybe they should look at the cause of the problem which is peer pressure rather than the end product, which is simply supply and demand.

Ironlady you had on some packets for foreign markets SMOKING WILL KILL YOU. it doesn't stop them.
yet you don't see this car will kill & they do?
back to fags.We had to wrap fags with a printed film which showed all the horrors of smoking but still they smoke.
I could say ban it & no one would get cancer but that's a lie.
I know that to smoke a joint they need tobacco some try to use a filter but these are no where as good as the filters on fags yet they want Cannabis legitimised saying it's healthier than both fags & beer but now they know it isn't
Denham must know exactly how much in tax the government take from fag related products(tobacco) he also must know exactly how much is put into the NHS & how much it exceeds presumed tobacco illnesses & that figure is £35billion & the Government take £75billion so exactly what would happen to the NHS funding if both Tobacco & Alcohol was banned?

chas wrote:

Facewagon wrote:

chas wrote:

Georgem wrote:

chas wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:

marma495 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Huffter wrote: Perhaps we should do the same for alcohol, sweets. crisps... in fact, everything enjoyable. Come on - people have got to die of something!

Nobody's dying of passive crisps.

If the truth be known, nobody,s dying from passive smoke either.

Really. Can you prove that?

I have NEVER seen a death certificate stating that the death was directly or indirectly caused by second hand smoke. Have you?

Do death certificates EVER detail indirect causes of death? A murder victim might have "bleeding from head wound" as cause of death. I doubt they'll have "Corporation made cuts twelve years ago that led to the redundancy of a worker, who subsequently went into a downward spiral of drink and depression, which ultimately culminated in their mental breakdown, leading them to stab victim to death in park they happened to be walking through". What d'you reckon? Should all death certificates have "Cause of death: birth, followed by a series of non-deterministic events which eventually led to death"? This is one of the lamest arguments I've ever seen. And on these boards, that's up against some pretty stiff competition.

So you have NEVER seen a death certifacate which states the the death was caused or indirectly caused by second hand smoke! Neither can you prove that second hand smoke kills!

Chas, the point is that a death certificate wouldn't record 'passive smoking' as primary or secondary cause of death, because passive smoking is not a medical condition, but a circumstance under which a person may come into sufficient contact with carcinogens leading to a medical condition. Remember, death certificates do not record 'smoking' as a cause of death either, but I'm sure you're not going to hold this as evidence that smoking doesn't lead to cancer.

Can you prove that second hand smoke kills? Of course not because it doesn't.

Next we'll be having cars all the same colour with a warning sign! Cars Kill & pollute the atmosphere?

chas wrote:

Georgem wrote:

chas wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:

marma495 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Huffter wrote: Perhaps we should do the same for alcohol, sweets. crisps... in fact, everything enjoyable. Come on - people have got to die of something!

Nobody's dying of passive crisps.

If the truth be known, nobody,s dying from passive smoke either.

Really. Can you prove that?

I have NEVER seen a death certificate stating that the death was directly or indirectly caused by second hand smoke. Have you?

Do death certificates EVER detail indirect causes of death? A murder victim might have "bleeding from head wound" as cause of death. I doubt they'll have "Corporation made cuts twelve years ago that led to the redundancy of a worker, who subsequently went into a downward spiral of drink and depression, which ultimately culminated in their mental breakdown, leading them to stab victim to death in park they happened to be walking through". What d'you reckon? Should all death certificates have "Cause of death: birth, followed by a series of non-deterministic events which eventually led to death"? This is one of the lamest arguments I've ever seen. And on these boards, that's up against some pretty stiff competition.

So you have NEVER seen a death certifacate which states the the death was caused or indirectly caused by second hand smoke!
Neither can you prove that second hand smoke kills!

I haven't seen any Eskimos, either. But I'm pretty sure they exist.

2/10 must try harder.

chas wrote:

Facewagon wrote:

chas wrote:

Georgem wrote:

chas wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:

marma495 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Huffter wrote: Perhaps we should do the same for alcohol, sweets. crisps... in fact, everything enjoyable. Come on - people have got to die of something!

Nobody's dying of passive crisps.

If the truth be known, nobody,s dying from passive smoke either.

Really. Can you prove that?

I have NEVER seen a death certificate stating that the death was directly or indirectly caused by second hand smoke. Have you?

Do death certificates EVER detail indirect causes of death? A murder victim might have "bleeding from head wound" as cause of death. I doubt they'll have "Corporation made cuts twelve years ago that led to the redundancy of a worker, who subsequently went into a downward spiral of drink and depression, which ultimately culminated in their mental breakdown, leading them to stab victim to death in park they happened to be walking through". What d'you reckon? Should all death certificates have "Cause of death: birth, followed by a series of non-deterministic events which eventually led to death"? This is one of the lamest arguments I've ever seen. And on these boards, that's up against some pretty stiff competition.

So you have NEVER seen a death certifacate which states the the death was caused or indirectly caused by second hand smoke! Neither can you prove that second hand smoke kills!

Chas, the point is that a death certificate wouldn't record 'passive smoking' as primary or secondary cause of death, because passive smoking is not a medical condition, but a circumstance under which a person may come into sufficient contact with carcinogens leading to a medical condition. Remember, death certificates do not record 'smoking' as a cause of death either, but I'm sure you're not going to hold this as evidence that smoking doesn't lead to cancer.

Can you prove that second hand smoke kills? Of course not because it doesn't.

Roy Castle's on my Heavenphone. He wants a word with you.

loosehead wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
I take it the hiding behind screens hasn't worked? Maybe they should look at the cause of the problem which is peer pressure rather than the end product, which is simply supply and demand.

Ironlady you had on some packets for foreign markets SMOKING WILL KILL YOU. it doesn't stop them.
yet you don't see this car will kill & they do?
back to fags.We had to wrap fags with a printed film which showed all the horrors of smoking but still they smoke.
I could say ban it & no one would get cancer but that's a lie.
I know that to smoke a joint they need tobacco some try to use a filter but these are no where as good as the filters on fags yet they want Cannabis legitimised saying it's healthier than both fags & beer but now they know it isn't
Denham must know exactly how much in tax the government take from fag related products(tobacco) he also must know exactly how much is put into the NHS & how much it exceeds presumed tobacco illnesses & that figure is £35billion & the Government take £75billion so exactly what would happen to the NHS funding if both Tobacco & Alcohol was banned?

You are quite right, this is why there is no ban on smoking out-right. Take away Tax from fags and the Tax will need to be made up elsewhere.

If the government were so concerned regarding smoking they'd ban it, but how would they make up the taxes?

I appreciate smoking adds to the cancer risk, but many factors also need to be taken into account. Some smokers live to 90 odd, how do you explain that one?

Georgem wrote:

chas wrote:

Facewagon wrote:

chas wrote:

Georgem wrote:

chas wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:

marma495 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Huffter wrote: Perhaps we should do the same for alcohol, sweets. crisps... in fact, everything enjoyable. Come on - people have got to die of something!

Nobody's dying of passive crisps.

If the truth be known, nobody,s dying from passive smoke either.

Really. Can you prove that?

I have NEVER seen a death certificate stating that the death was directly or indirectly caused by second hand smoke. Have you?

Do death certificates EVER detail indirect causes of death? A murder victim might have "bleeding from head wound" as cause of death. I doubt they'll have "Corporation made cuts twelve years ago that led to the redundancy of a worker, who subsequently went into a downward spiral of drink and depression, which ultimately culminated in their mental breakdown, leading them to stab victim to death in park they happened to be walking through". What d'you reckon? Should all death certificates have "Cause of death: birth, followed by a series of non-deterministic events which eventually led to death"? This is one of the lamest arguments I've ever seen. And on these boards, that's up against some pretty stiff competition.

So you have NEVER seen a death certifacate which states the the death was caused or indirectly caused by second hand smoke! Neither can you prove that second hand smoke kills!

Chas, the point is that a death certificate wouldn't record 'passive smoking' as primary or secondary cause of death, because passive smoking is not a medical condition, but a circumstance under which a person may come into sufficient contact with carcinogens leading to a medical condition. Remember, death certificates do not record 'smoking' as a cause of death either, but I'm sure you're not going to hold this as evidence that smoking doesn't lead to cancer.

Can you prove that second hand smoke kills? Of course not because it doesn't.

Roy Castle's on my Heavenphone. He wants a word with you.

How did Roy Castle know that his lung cancer was caused by cigarettes smoke when he was still alive? Only an autopsy could give such a cause, but Roy did not have an autopsy when he was still alive. At the time Roy THOUGHT he got his lung cancer nearly all of us THOUGHT that lung cancer was caused by smoking.We all know differently now. By the way Roy enjoyed smoking cigars.

One of the most shameful and embarrassing campaigns ever conducted by this 'newspaper', the Echo, has been their support for the survival of poison-producing B.A.T's operations in Hampshire. I'll never forgive them for it - nor let 'em forget it, either!

Scrutinizer wrote:
One of the most shameful and embarrassing campaigns ever conducted by this 'newspaper', the Echo, has been their support for the survival of poison-producing B.A.T's operations in Hampshire. I'll never forgive them for it - nor let 'em forget it, either!

Sorry but what the hell are you talking about?
BAT no longer has a manufacturing plant in this country.
Did you know that several firms looked into Cannabis stick production?
Did you know that after research they found that cannabis had far more cancerous chemicals in it than the strongest cigarette?
not only cancerous but psycsophrenic drugs so backed out of the production if it was made legal?
How many people admit to smoking dope to their doctors? how many car accidents were down to smoking dope but weren't tested ?
I do not smoke & I don't see or feel the need to do so but ex smokers & some non smokers should get to know the facts before slating people who smoke.
did you know doctors in the war were prescribing fags for peoples nerves instead of drugs?

chas wrote:

Georgem wrote:

chas wrote:

Facewagon wrote:

chas wrote:

Georgem wrote:

chas wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:

marma495 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Huffter wrote: Perhaps we should do the same for alcohol, sweets. crisps... in fact, everything enjoyable. Come on - people have got to die of something!

Nobody's dying of passive crisps.

If the truth be known, nobody,s dying from passive smoke either.

Really. Can you prove that?

I have NEVER seen a death certificate stating that the death was directly or indirectly caused by second hand smoke. Have you?

Do death certificates EVER detail indirect causes of death? A murder victim might have "bleeding from head wound" as cause of death. I doubt they'll have "Corporation made cuts twelve years ago that led to the redundancy of a worker, who subsequently went into a downward spiral of drink and depression, which ultimately culminated in their mental breakdown, leading them to stab victim to death in park they happened to be walking through". What d'you reckon? Should all death certificates have "Cause of death: birth, followed by a series of non-deterministic events which eventually led to death"? This is one of the lamest arguments I've ever seen. And on these boards, that's up against some pretty stiff competition.

So you have NEVER seen a death certifacate which states the the death was caused or indirectly caused by second hand smoke! Neither can you prove that second hand smoke kills!

Chas, the point is that a death certificate wouldn't record 'passive smoking' as primary or secondary cause of death, because passive smoking is not a medical condition, but a circumstance under which a person may come into sufficient contact with carcinogens leading to a medical condition. Remember, death certificates do not record 'smoking' as a cause of death either, but I'm sure you're not going to hold this as evidence that smoking doesn't lead to cancer.

Can you prove that second hand smoke kills? Of course not because it doesn't.

Roy Castle's on my Heavenphone. He wants a word with you.

How did Roy Castle know that his lung cancer was caused by cigarettes smoke when he was still alive? Only an autopsy could give such a cause, but Roy did not have an autopsy when he was still alive. At the time Roy THOUGHT he got his lung cancer nearly all of us THOUGHT that lung cancer was caused by smoking.We all know differently now. By the way Roy enjoyed smoking cigars.

Oh, right. So we've moved on from "death certificates detail everything that led to a death" to "only alive people can say what their cause of death is going to be". Excellent. I'm sure I can find a paper bag somewhere, try arguing your way out of that for a while.

Cigar smoke is not linked to lung cancer. Cigars are not smoked the same way cigarettes are. By the way.

Georgem. It was you who said that Roy Castle THOUGHT that his lung cancer was caused by second hand smoke and NOT me.
Have you found any proof yet that anybody has ever died from second hand smoke?

loosehead wrote:

Scrutinizer wrote: One of the most shameful and embarrassing campaigns ever conducted by this 'newspaper', the Echo, has been their support for the survival of poison-producing B.A.T's operations in Hampshire. I'll never forgive them for it - nor let 'em forget it, either!

Sorry but what the hell are you talking about? BAT no longer has a manufacturing plant in this country. Did you know that several firms looked into Cannabis stick production? Did you know that after research they found that cannabis had far more cancerous chemicals in it than the strongest cigarette? not only cancerous but psycsophrenic drugs so backed out of the production if it was made legal? How many people admit to smoking dope to their doctors? how many car accidents were down to smoking dope but weren't tested ? I do not smoke & I don't see or feel the need to do so but ex smokers & some non smokers should get to know the facts before slating people who smoke. did you know doctors in the war were prescribing fags for peoples nerves instead of drugs?

Just to remind you of one little fact here; the carcinogens released into the human body as a result of cigarette smoking DO cause cancer = FACT. Also, even if they didn't, the other serious lung illnesses caused by smoking to smokers AND non-smokers alike, would still be serious enough-a-reason to have it banned, which is what should have happened many, many decades ago when all this informaton was well known to all previous governments along with the poison pedalling cigarette manufacturers and their silly and ignorant supporters...

And those on here who would have us believe that cigar smoking is more or less harmless - or at the very least are attempting to play down the harmfull effects of that activity - are not going to be allowed to get away with that nonsense either. Cigar smoking DOES cause cancer too, as tobacco chewing does. To put it in a simple way for you to - hopefully - understand; the carcinogens in ALL tobacco-based and related products cause VERY serious harm to health. Try quitting yourself - being in denial that is...

Scrutinizer wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Scrutinizer wrote: One of the most shameful and embarrassing campaigns ever conducted by this 'newspaper', the Echo, has been their support for the survival of poison-producing B.A.T's operations in Hampshire. I'll never forgive them for it - nor let 'em forget it, either!

Sorry but what the hell are you talking about? BAT no longer has a manufacturing plant in this country. Did you know that several firms looked into Cannabis stick production? Did you know that after research they found that cannabis had far more cancerous chemicals in it than the strongest cigarette? not only cancerous but psycsophrenic drugs so backed out of the production if it was made legal? How many people admit to smoking dope to their doctors? how many car accidents were down to smoking dope but weren't tested ? I do not smoke & I don't see or feel the need to do so but ex smokers & some non smokers should get to know the facts before slating people who smoke. did you know doctors in the war were prescribing fags for peoples nerves instead of drugs?

Just to remind you of one little fact here; the carcinogens released into the human body as a result of cigarette smoking DO cause cancer = FACT. Also, even if they didn't, the other serious lung illnesses caused by smoking to smokers AND non-smokers alike, would still be serious enough-a-reason to have it banned, which is what should have happened many, many decades ago when all this informaton was well known to all previous governments along with the poison pedalling cigarette manufacturers and their silly and ignorant supporters...

And those on here who would have us believe that cigar smoking is more or less harmless - or at the very least are attempting to play down the harmfull effects of that activity - are not going to be allowed to get away with that nonsense either. Cigar smoking DOES cause cancer too, as tobacco chewing does. To put it in a simple way for you to - hopefully - understand; the carcinogens in ALL tobacco-based and related products cause VERY serious harm to health. Try quitting yourself - being in denial that is...

I've never smoked & that's the second time I've said it.
Do I agree with smoking? NO.
No more than I agree with Vegans but they're both legal.
Do I agree with plain packets? No as this will bring in counterfeit & you must admit this would be far more dangerous?
I like a beer every now & then but some people want it priced out of ordinary peoples price range why?
because as well as the Cholesterol destroying qualities in excess drinking is bad for you.
Surely the biggest cost in injuries & deaths to the NHS has to be Automobiles do you want all of them banned?