Get fined for dropping a fag butt and the NHS will pay your fine!
08 December 2008, 07:47 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Northants, Wellingborough
Posts: 1,988
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nah because statistically if they use rolling tobacco in the joints, that tobacco is less harmfull than that found in a cigarette!
Lol I'm gonna search and find the facts
Lol I'm gonna search and find the facts
08 December 2008, 07:55 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Northants, Wellingborough
Posts: 1,988
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sarah I have been told! lol......................
Loose-leaf tobacco no safer than cigarettes
People who smoke hand-rolled cigarettes believing they do less harm than tailor-mades may be deluding themselves, the Ministry of Health warns.
It released research yesterday that compared the smoke generated by several brands of loose-leaf tobacco with that from New Zealand’s top-selling tailor-made cigarette, Holiday Red. Tests found roll-your-owns generated a third more tar than the Holiday cigarette, and several also had higher nicotine levels.
Self-made cigarettes lack the chemicals in tailor-mades that keep the tobacco burning, hence the perception they are less harmful.
However, they also needed a higher “puff count” to smoke them, and delivered an “appreciable” amount of nicotine, considering the small quantity of tobacco used to make them, the report from Environmental Science and research said.
Combined with the high tar readings and their low cost, roll-your-own cigarettes were not a safer alternative for smokers, the report said.
“Considering the fact that tobacco excise rate per gram is currently the same for both cigarette types and that roll-your-own cigarettes contain much less tobacco, their lower price could encourage increasing numbers of smokers towards roll-you-own smoking and, consequently, higher tar yields.”
The scientists did note their findings could not be exact, as there was no way of knowing exactly how much tobacco each person put into their hand-rolled cigarettes.
For the tests, tobacco from 10 brands – both normal and mild – was put into a cigarette-rolling machine. Commercially available wrapping paper and filters were used.
“The filters tested in the study provide no protection from volatile organic carcinogens in tobacco smoke,” the report said.
It also found there was no appreciable difference between some normal and “mild” brands of tobacco in terms of the dangerous chemicals they emitted.
“We found that five top-selling brands of loose tobacco used in rollies are no safer that the most commonly sold tailor-mades, and some brands actually produce more cancer-causing substances,” said Ashley Bloomfield, the Health Ministry’s national director of tobacco control.
“Anyone who thinks rollies are safer is wrong. There are a lot of myths around tobacco harm – like loose tobacco is more natural, with fewer additives, so it’s less harmful. It’s not just wrong, but some rollies are potentially more harmful.”
Loose-leaf tobacco no safer than cigarettes
People who smoke hand-rolled cigarettes believing they do less harm than tailor-mades may be deluding themselves, the Ministry of Health warns.
It released research yesterday that compared the smoke generated by several brands of loose-leaf tobacco with that from New Zealand’s top-selling tailor-made cigarette, Holiday Red. Tests found roll-your-owns generated a third more tar than the Holiday cigarette, and several also had higher nicotine levels.
Self-made cigarettes lack the chemicals in tailor-mades that keep the tobacco burning, hence the perception they are less harmful.
However, they also needed a higher “puff count” to smoke them, and delivered an “appreciable” amount of nicotine, considering the small quantity of tobacco used to make them, the report from Environmental Science and research said.
Combined with the high tar readings and their low cost, roll-your-own cigarettes were not a safer alternative for smokers, the report said.
“Considering the fact that tobacco excise rate per gram is currently the same for both cigarette types and that roll-your-own cigarettes contain much less tobacco, their lower price could encourage increasing numbers of smokers towards roll-you-own smoking and, consequently, higher tar yields.”
The scientists did note their findings could not be exact, as there was no way of knowing exactly how much tobacco each person put into their hand-rolled cigarettes.
For the tests, tobacco from 10 brands – both normal and mild – was put into a cigarette-rolling machine. Commercially available wrapping paper and filters were used.
“The filters tested in the study provide no protection from volatile organic carcinogens in tobacco smoke,” the report said.
It also found there was no appreciable difference between some normal and “mild” brands of tobacco in terms of the dangerous chemicals they emitted.
“We found that five top-selling brands of loose tobacco used in rollies are no safer that the most commonly sold tailor-mades, and some brands actually produce more cancer-causing substances,” said Ashley Bloomfield, the Health Ministry’s national director of tobacco control.
“Anyone who thinks rollies are safer is wrong. There are a lot of myths around tobacco harm – like loose tobacco is more natural, with fewer additives, so it’s less harmful. It’s not just wrong, but some rollies are potentially more harmful.”
08 December 2008, 07:57 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Northants, Wellingborough
Posts: 1,988
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok if seems i'm wrong twice now............ lol
So if one is to compare the health effects under typical use conditions, tobacco smoking is much more harmful to health. However, if one were to compare the effects on a “per smoke” basis then the two are likely of similar harmfulness, with cannabis having greater adverse psychological effects.
So if one is to compare the health effects under typical use conditions, tobacco smoking is much more harmful to health. However, if one were to compare the effects on a “per smoke” basis then the two are likely of similar harmfulness, with cannabis having greater adverse psychological effects.
08 December 2008, 08:01 PM
#34
Ok if seems i'm wrong twice now............ lol
So if one is to compare the health effects under typical use conditions, tobacco smoking is much more harmful to health. However, if one were to compare the effects on a “per smoke” basis then the two are likely of similar harmfulness, with cannabis having greater adverse psychological effects.
So if one is to compare the health effects under typical use conditions, tobacco smoking is much more harmful to health. However, if one were to compare the effects on a “per smoke” basis then the two are likely of similar harmfulness, with cannabis having greater adverse psychological effects.
you make me laugh
i think its time to stop smoking spliffs....
with tobacco
08 December 2008, 08:34 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, give me an educated and intelligent reason why you do smoke, do the people that love you think its a bright idea that you smoke, are/do you encourage your kids to smoke?
08 December 2008, 08:45 PM
#38
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08 December 2008, 08:50 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Northants, Wellingborough
Posts: 1,988
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But for you to say people who smoke, are obviously UN-educated, I personally think you are wrong!
08 December 2008, 09:00 PM
#45
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, but you eat to survive, whereas smoking reduces your life and does absolutely nothing for you, in fact you pay massive amounts of money for other people to watch you slowly die.
If you are addicted to nicotine, then why not use gum or patches? If its something to do 'with your hand' then do the action with a pencil etc etc
This is why it is ridicules
If you are addicted to nicotine, then why not use gum or patches? If its something to do 'with your hand' then do the action with a pencil etc etc
This is why it is ridicules
08 December 2008, 09:03 PM
#46
No, but you eat to survive, whereas smoking reduces your life and does absolutely nothing for you, in fact you pay massive amounts of money for other people to watch you slowly die.
If you are addicted to nicotine, then why not use gum or patches? If its something to do 'with your hand' then do the action with a pencil etc etc
This is why it is ridicules
If you are addicted to nicotine, then why not use gum or patches? If its something to do 'with your hand' then do the action with a pencil etc etc
This is why it is ridicules
but you said yourself the urge was similar and that you couldn't resist the urge to eat.
some people are obese, what does that tell you? addiction is just that. admittedly some people can resist that temptation but others cant
08 December 2008, 09:06 PM
#47
No, but you eat to survive, whereas smoking reduces your life and does absolutely nothing for you, in fact you pay massive amounts of money for other people to watch you slowly die.
If you are addicted to nicotine, then why not use gum or patches? If its something to do 'with your hand' then do the action with a pencil etc etc
This is why it is ridicules
If you are addicted to nicotine, then why not use gum or patches? If its something to do 'with your hand' then do the action with a pencil etc etc
This is why it is ridicules
The fact is, nowadays, most people know the risks/suppossed risks involved in smoking, and make their choice, which as yet is theirs to make.
I can bet a fair few people do something in life which isn't 'safe' or sensible, but that is for people to make their choice about, and not to be judged by others.
08 December 2008, 09:10 PM
#48
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08 December 2008, 09:15 PM
#50
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even if a smoker lives till he is 110, this is still not a logical reason to smoke, a smoker doesn't have a better, more enjoyable life because he smokes, the opposite in fact.
08 December 2008, 09:19 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some do say smoking is a mental weakness?
08 December 2008, 09:32 PM
#54
Yes there will be smokers who endure health problems, but I would imagine there are also those who are uneffected by problems. I don't think we can make a sweeping statement either way.
One thing I do agree on, is that I too don't think there are any logical reasons to smoke. There are many reasons why people do, and non smokers are not too likely to understand, but even as a smoker, I can't think of a 'sensible' reason to do it.
The fact is though, people have that choice (however restricted it is becoming), and even if you disagree with it, it is unfair to pass judgement on them.
Maybe what would be a good idea, is somehow remove the really harmful chemicals from cigarettes, so people can happily smoke without the risks.
08 December 2008, 09:32 PM
#55
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Northants, Wellingborough
Posts: 1,988
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08 December 2008, 09:56 PM
#56
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can you make such an assumption? I'm never ever going to say smoking is good, and people should do it, but that is more because of the 'risks' we get told about than anything else.
Yes there will be smokers who endure health problems, but I would imagine there are also those who are uneffected by problems. I don't think we can make a sweeping statement either way.
Yes there will be smokers who endure health problems, but I would imagine there are also those who are uneffected by problems. I don't think we can make a sweeping statement either way.
If a Doctor said to you, take this pill and you will never want or need to smoke again, would you take it?
Would you agree that you need to lie to yourself everyday in a vain attempt to justify what you do? If someone said that the next *** you smoke will trigger lung cancer in your body, would you smoke it? This is the risk you run everyday
But you are still trying to argue to a point, about something that you do but have no idea why you do it? Can you sort of see my point/?
08 December 2008, 09:59 PM
#58
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I never said you were uneducated
I never implied you were obese, you used the analogy. You said you were addicted to a drug, if that is the case, why wouldn't you refer yourself to a Doctor?
I never implied you were obese, you used the analogy. You said you were addicted to a drug, if that is the case, why wouldn't you refer yourself to a Doctor?