It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Could the world be smoke free by 2040? Campaign to ban tobacco to save 1B lives

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 04:44 AM
link   
Sale of tobacco should be phased out in the next 25 years, say experts




Leading experts have called for a 'turbocharged' global campaign to make the world tobacco free by 2040.

The sale of tobacco should be phased out within the next 25 years, leading public health researchers have today said.

They claim one billion deaths from smoking could be averted by the end of the century, if action is taken now.

But a global campaign will only work with the support of governments as well as with stronger evidence-based action against the tobacco industry, they warn.

Professors Robert Beaglehole and Ruth Bonita, from the University of Auckland in New Zealand have called on the United Nations to lead efforts against the sale and consumption of tobacco.

Professor Anna Gilmore, another of the authors from the University of Bath, said: 'Contrary to industry claims, tobacco marketing deliberately targets women and young people.

'The tobacco industry continues to interfere with governments' efforts to implement effective tobacco control policies.

'If the world is to become tobacco free, it's vital that the industry's appalling conduct receives far closer scrutiny and countries which stand up to the industry's bullying tactics receive better global support.'

Deborah Arnott, chief executive of the charity Action on Smoking and Health (Ash) said: 'Along with many other rich nations, we have made good progress in reducing tobacco use over the past several decades.

'However, one in five UK adults continue to smoke, not through choice but because they are addicted.

'And 100,000 die early each year as a result.

'The authors of the Lancet articles are right that we need to do more to tackle the tobacco industry and to make it pay for the damage it does.



I'll be honest with you, this does not surprise me. Between high rates of taxation, more and more government regulation, just in the US alone, it doesn't shock me that this becomes the next step. I'm an ex, and sometimes current smoker. (Only in severe panic attacks.) It's getting to the point where it is a weapon in some divorces, it can be used against you with DCSF, some employers, you cannot smoke in you car in some parking lots, such as clinics, hospitals, etc... (even if the smoke if confined to your car, as are the butts, etc...) I figure it's only a matter of time before they almost make it criminal to light up, period. End of discussion.




posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 04:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Anyafaj
End of discussion.


Hey!! You can't put up a thread and close it out with, "End of Discussion."

You know what I think will happen between now and the end of the century? About 7 billion people are gonna die whether they're smokers or not.

Unless ... we become 'the singularity' in 2045, as predicted.


+5 more 
posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 05:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Anyafaj

My lungs - as long as I am not harming anybody else, I will decide what to do with them - not big brother.

End of discussion.
edit on 13-3-2015 by Sublimecraft because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 05:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Anyafaj

You are so right, the insidious nature of "progressive" social engineering may be proceeding as molasses in January but one may drown just as easily in molasses as water.

The next logical step is to install particulate detectors in everyone's homes to monitor the dust level of indoor environments. That is silly, crazy and ultimately inevitable once we begin down this road.

Spill some baby powder and you may just get a ticket or (as fine powders are explosive when aerosolized) a visit from the bomb squad.
edit on 13-3-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 05:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Anyafaj
End of discussion.


Hey!! You can't put up a thread and close it out with, "End of Discussion."

You know what I think will happen between now and the end of the century? About 7 billion people are gonna die whether they're smokers or not.

Unless ... we become 'the singularity' in 2045, as predicted.



LOL Figure of speech. LOL I'm waiting for the day where there's like a smog detector of some kind in the cities, and if you even light a cigarette all sorts of alarms go off, red lights start flashing, police begin running, everyone begins running for the sewers or underground. You name it. We're all hiding like rats in the city. You see a bunch of plastic inflated bags underground wondering WTH those are, come to find out, it's where people are blowing the cigarette smoke into and tying it off to try and not set the alarms off. Other people warning you, not to step on the bags or you'll release the tobacco smoke and the police will find your hide out, one of the few left. LOL Yeah, I'm a doom porn/apocalyptic creative type. I have seen WAY too many movies. LOL



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 05:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: Anyafaj

My lungs - as long as I am not harming anybody else, I will decide what to do with them - not big brother.

End of discussion.



Wait, Snarl just said we can't say "End of Discussion".




posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 05:20 AM
link   
There's no way they'll (governments) ever ban tobacco.
They take way too much in tax to do that.

I reckon that if cigarettes were only invented now they'd be banned.

No, i cant see this ever happening in my lifetime anyway



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 05:20 AM
link   
well people will just move on to some other type of addiction, that's all.
look at america, smoking/ smokers all treated like something vile, horrible, and since people are addiction prone and look for some form of instant gratification as a way to deal with stress, americans have turned over to food. "from living off the fat of the land to land of the living fat"
so we used to die of lung cancer, tomorrow we will die of diabetes.
banning cigarettes does not change the fact that we are being forced into a over stressful lifestyle that we cannot sustain.
Sure i agree that we should raise awareness about things that are harmful, but you want people to actually quit smoking? give then less stuff to stress about, less debt, maybe higher salaries, maybe not asking someone to have to work 2 jobs just to make ends meet, maybe lower student loans?
but of course all that would translate in freedom for us, and nobody wants that.
they will just substitute tobacco with some other "harmless" pill that makes you more compliant.
edit on 13/3/2015 by IShotMyLastMuse because: imakemanytyposbecuaseiampassionateandimpatientandtypeveryfastandhavenotimetospellcheck



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 05:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Anyafaj
Yeah, I'm a doom porn/apocalyptic creative type. I have seen WAY too many movies. LOL


You need to make use of that insomnia thing you've got going ... and start writing scripts!! People 'do' what they _know_ best.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 05:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Anyafaj

You are so right, the insidious nature of "progressive" social engineering may be proceeding as molasses in January but one may drown just as easily in molasses as water.

The next logical step is to install particulate detectors in everyone's homes to monitor the dust level of indoor environments. That is silly, crazy and ultimately inevitable once we begin down this road.

Spill some baby powder and you may just get a ticket or (as fine powders are explosive when aerosolized) a visit from the bomb squad.



I know it sounds crazy, but it seems we are heading down this road. Heck, some police chief in some town in England wanted to plant CCTV cameras in EVERYONES home in his town to stop crime before it happened! This is how far we've come! Now, in all seriousness how long before it becomes reality? I'm one of those idiots, thanks to Dateline, that cannot go into a hotel room without checking the bathroom for hidden cameras because I'm an ex-stalking victim. The LAST thing I'd need is cameras in my dang home! First thing I do when I move into an apartment, you guessed it, check for hidden cameras. And no, I'm NOT joking. When you're a past victim, it's not paranoia. It's caution.

Right now it's tobacco, but how long before it's something else they want to intrude on?



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 05:27 AM
link   
It is pretty much an impossibility to stop smoking the whole world over, and completely unrealistic and idealistic.

Places like Cuba would have it's economy shattered so why would they comply?



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 05:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: SecretKnowledge
There's no way they'll (governments) ever ban tobacco.
They take way too much in tax to do that.

I reckon that if cigarettes were only invented now they'd be banned.

No, i cant see this ever happening in my lifetime anyway



You never know. Government has gotten quite creative in terms of taxation. I'm sure they'd think of something. Who knows, we might smog up our environment so badly we'll all need oxygen tanks to survive and Government will tax that! LOL Trust me, they'll think of something!



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 05:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: IShotMyLastMuse
well people will just move on to some other type of addiction, that's all.
look at america, smoking/ smokers all treated like something vile, horrible, and since people are addiction prone and look for some form of instant gratification as a way to deal with stress, americans have turned over to food. "from living off the fat of the land to land of the living fat"
so we used to die of lung cancer, tomorrow we will die of diabetes.
banning cigarettes does not change the fact that we are being forced into a over stressful lifestyle that we cannot sustain.
Sure i agree that we should raise awareness about things that are harmful, but you want people to actually quit smoking? give then less stuff to stress about, less debt, maybe higher salaries, maybe not asking someone to have to work 2 jobs just to make ends meet, maybe lower student loans?
but of course all that would translate in freedom for us, and nobody wants that.
they will just substitute tobacco with some other "harmless" pill that makes you more compliant.



What was it, almost 10 years ago, they raised taxes on cigarettes so much that it was almost as much as the pack itself. And just as about every smoker said the same thing, my ex included. "If those bastards do that, I'll quit!" Psh! 10 years later, he's still puffing away like a chimney and paying more than double the price for the pleasure now.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 05:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Anyafaj
Yeah, I'm a doom porn/apocalyptic creative type. I have seen WAY too many movies. LOL


You need to make use of that insomnia thing you've got going ... and start writing scripts!! People 'do' what they _know_ best.


If I had a dollar....




Edit to add, I'm better writing at children stories, poetry, and songs actually. For some reason when I write longer stuff I get very bored, very quickly. I flit and flutter, if that makes sense, from one thing to another and can't sit still. Never diagnosed, but suspect ADHD.
edit on 3/13/2015 by Anyafaj because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 05:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Anyafaj

I dont get it.

How many non smokers die of heart disease or lung cancer?

Honestly the stasts are be, if anyone dies of any smoking related disease it is because of smoking.

Ignoring g all those that die from it never having smoked at all.

Either all must be included in a study or the study is obviously slanted and false at its onset.

Yes more smokers die of smoking related diseases.

But the stats intentionally ecempte non smokers.

Thereby destroying the scientific concept if a control.

Thus no reasonable level of scientific theory can be reached.

If you only include the theory group and exclude the control group, you undermine the study in and of itself.

If you do a study and don't include every group in it you are lying



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 05:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Anyafaj

Oh i know all about that, i smoked for about 10 years and have only quit recently, i never cared about the price increase. and i don't think anyone ever thought that was the solution. it's just a fact that people will not give up what they are addicted to as long as they can.
my biggest issue is how this doesn't fix the main problem, that we are not made to deal with the amount of stress that is thrown at us, and even if governments REALLY do something to get rid of smokes, they will just introduce something else, they won't just be all like "so now we lost a multi billion dollar income, sad for us!"
they will get that money in some other way, and that will translate in more stress for us, and that will translate in finding some other instant gratification device.
the fish always rots from the head.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 05:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Anyafaj

That's all the world needs, one billion more people. Those who smoke cigarettes take their life in their hands (literally), have to put a flaming toxic flareball into their body every half hour or so, and think of this as "normal". On the other hand (literally), banning this substance would be banning another plant from public use, an unrealistic and unfair idea in a time when many are trying to legalize an already banned plant.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 05:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: johnwick
a reply to: Anyafaj

I dont get it.

How many non smokers die of heart disease or lung cancer?

Honestly the stasts are be, if anyone dies of any smoking related disease it is because of smoking.

Ignoring g all those that die from it never having smoked at all.

Either all must be included in a study or the study is obviously slanted and false at its onset.

Yes more smokers die of smoking related diseases.

But the stats intentionally ecempte non smokers.

Thereby destroying the scientific concept if a control.

Thus no reasonable level of scientific theory can be reached.

If you only include the theory group and exclude the control group, you undermine the study in and of itself.

If you do a study and don't include every group in it you are lying



Not quite, you do realize there are people who die of heart disease, non related to smoking, possibly related to obesity or other issues. Lung cancer can be related to asbestos, at times, not always smoking. Mostly smoking, yes. But not always.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 05:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: IShotMyLastMuse
a reply to: Anyafaj

Oh i know all about that, i smoked for about 10 years and have only quit recently, i never cared about the price increase. and i don't think anyone ever thought that was the solution. it's just a fact that people will not give up what they are addicted to as long as they can.
my biggest issue is how this doesn't fix the main problem, that we are not made to deal with the amount of stress that is thrown at us, and even if governments REALLY do something to get rid of smokes, they will just introduce something else, they won't just be all like "so now we lost a multi billion dollar income, sad for us!"
they will get that money in some other way, and that will translate in more stress for us, and that will translate in finding some other instant gratification device.
the fish always rots from the head.



My thoughts exactly. Most of my friends and my ex, they were all, "Oh if that happens I'm going to quit, I'm going to quit, that's BS man!" I knew it was going to happen, just as sure as I knew they would pay it. Addiction is addiction.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 05:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aleister
a reply to: Anyafaj

That's all the world needs, one billion more people. Those who smoke cigarettes take their life in their hands (literally), have to put a flaming toxic flareball into their body every half hour or so, and think of this as "normal". On the other hand (literally), banning this substance would be banning another plant from public use, an unrealistic and unfair idea in a time when many are trying to legalize an already banned plant.



Loved part of your quote. I hope you don't mind me bolding the ironic part.

Edit to add, I don't know about now, but I do remember 20 years ago they taught us in health class marijuana was worse than cigarettes, in terms of lung damage. I'd have to do recent research to see what damage it may or may not do now though. As I said, my education in that area is 20 years old.
edit on 3/13/2015 by Anyafaj because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join