Disgusting anti smoking ads and a liberal agenda

Why is it ok to put lung cancer and anti smoking ads on tv that make the people look like disgusting losers, but it is not ok to do anti-aids commercials like that. Is it because the liberal media agenda is promote drugs and sex, while condemning smoking? One important fact to remember....even non-smokers can get lung cancer. More money goes to AIDS research than lung cancer research. AIDS, except in the case of rape or force, is preventable. But it is not pc to put horrible ads with loser IV drug users and promiscuous people on tv....???? Why do we continue to take this brainwashing?

reply to post by timetothink


One doesn't have to be promiscuous in their sexual contact to contract HIV/AIDS.

reply to post by Garfee


yeah...these folks don't go around sucking on AIDS everyday...well...i hope not....that would just be weird. there are commercials about AIDS awareness and the like...but they can't show commercials of people having sex or sharing needles (what you do to contract HIV)...but cigarette smokers will proudly display their self hatred by blowing their smoke everywhere.

i cannot tell you how many times i've been walking out of a grocery store and walked directly into a huge cloud of smoke that a smoker is exhaling upon walking into the store...and similar stories. most smokers i know are extremely inconsiderate of their habits effects on others. most people with AIDS keep it to themselves or are extremely mindful about having it and how they interact with others...

So don't watch TV.
Problem solved. Do you really need someone to spew their ads and talking points at you anyway?

Originally posted by timetothink
Why is it ok to put lung cancer and anti smoking ads on tv that make the people look like disgusting losers, but it is not ok to do anti-aids commercials like that. Is it because the liberal media agenda is promote drugs and sex, while condemning smoking? One important fact to remember....even non-smokers can get lung cancer. More money goes to AIDS research than lung cancer research. AIDS, except in the case of rape or force, is preventable. But it is not pc to put horrible ads with loser IV drug users and promiscuous people on tv....???? Why do we continue to take this brainwashing?

Well here are some statistics for you that might easily explain why more funding is put into AIDS research than Lung Cancer research.

The average amount of deaths around the world each year from lung cancer is 1.3 million.

The average number of deaths from AIDS/HIV related illnesses is 1.8 million.

They're actually not that far apart, but AIDS kills half a million more people each year. That is a significant number if you ask me.

Secondly, smoking tobacco is a drug. No different than any mind altering chemical you put in your body like alcohol. marijuana, caffeine, coc aine, heroine, a potato, all of these things are technically drugs since they are chemicals that alter your mind. Yes, even a potato. So you're contradicting yourself by saying that somehow this "hidden liberal agenda" is promoting drug use and sex and death by aids, but trying to get people to stop smoking cigarretes....That doesn't even add up with your desire to support more lung cancer research. You're contradicting yourself bud, what's up?

reply to post by Garfee


That is true.

I can envision a scenario in which a faithful spouse is infected by an adulterous spouse who either didn't know or didn't care, or perhaps intentionally infected the faithful spouse. The faithful spouse would be a victim of the promiscuity of the unfaithful spouse.

Maybe there should be a push in media to portray infidelity in a negative light. Unfortunately, I suspect that there's too much money to be made by glamourizing infidelity and promiscuity for that to happen in the near future. Maybe if those who make the movie and write the scripts could be educated on the greater financial gain of promoting more family-friendly values among their leading characters. Think of how the incomes compare between corporations like more family-firendly Disney versus less family-friendly Hustler.

What I am saying is the pc attitudes make it ok to make jerk out of smokers, but you can'say anything bad about people who don't use protection or are IV users. Do you really think the media would allow an ad showing how bad IV drug use is or portray the user as a greasy loser? That is what the new ads in NY are doing to smokers and they are using taxpayer money doing it instead of using it for research.....all the answers on this thread prove my point. Feel sorry for people with AIDS, hate smokers....I guess the brainwashing has been quite successful.

Originally posted by timetothink
What I am saying is the pc attitudes make it ok to make jerk out of smokers, but you can'say anything bad about people who don't use protection or are IV users.

Because it's generalising and offending those with the disease, that they were wither needle users or sluts.

Originally posted by timetothink
Why is it ok to put lung cancer and anti smoking ads on tv that make the people look like disgusting losers, but it is not ok to do anti-aids commercials like that. Is it because the liberal media agenda is promote drugs and sex, while condemning smoking? One important fact to remember....even non-smokers can get lung cancer. More money goes to AIDS research than lung cancer research. AIDS, except in the case of rape or force, is preventable. But it is not pc to put horrible ads with loser IV drug users and promiscuous people on tv....???? Why do we continue to take this brainwashing?

Smoking is drug use, as is drinking. In fact the only drugs worse than tobacco and alcohol are heroin and meth.

In developed nations sex is one of lowest causes of AIDS/HIV infection. Most of it is actually from dirty needles from heroin and meth use. That is why many cities have "needle exchange" programs where drug addicts bring in their used needles in exchange for clean ones to hamper the spread of disease. Actually detoxing meth and heroin users is much more expensive and less effective than just giving out clean needles.

If you watch LOGO, they do have tv commercials about HIV and aids including on the prevention of such. It is a matter of context and showing such in a distasteful manor.

At one time the bad thing of the USA was the Chinese, then the Irish, then the hispanic community, then the African American community, then the homosexual community, then the smokers, fast food consumers, muslims and so forth.

Time we just stated, take responsibility for what you do, cause it may affect you in the long run.

reply to post by timetothink


First of all, I'm with you on the fact that non-smokers villafy and degrade smokers. Their main weapon of "ATTACK" is statistics, wich can be so easily manipulated, for example; unemployment. I have seen in small local areas where one of several Dept. of" Unemployment" offices are so crowded it takes hours to get anything done yet unemployment rate is down to 9%. Do they count people who's benifits have expired, no. Nor do they count those who did not qualify for any one of countless guidelines and rules.Thats just one example.
IMO the culprits are those who don't like the smell. These people fabricate reasons why others should'nt smoke so they don't have to smell it. My message to them is, move upwind, I do not care for the "stink pretty"
you are wearing either! My folks had the saying, "If you don't have something nice to say keep your mouth shut". religious or not the words " Judge not lest ye be judged" should carry some weight with all!

Smoking is a disgusting habit and I'm all for making those who smoke look like "disgusting loosers" I wouldn't mind so much if I didn't constantly have to walk through clouds of smoke while I'm out and about.

On a brighter note, as smokers are killing themselves at least the gene pool will benefit.

Rev

ETA: For the record, I smoke Cuban cigars from time to time, but never in public.

reply to post by revmoofoo


Well it is truly awesome to know that when the "disgusting" all die off that they will be succeeded by perfection and unopinionated people such as yourself!

reply to post by ajay59


I love the way you put words in my mouth. Did I mention how nasty smokers smell to non-smokers? Not only their clothing, but their breath too?

Rev

reply to post by revmoofoo


How could I put words in your mouth with your foot blocking it?And if you are offended by the smell, what can I say?.....You are standing too close for reasons unbeknownst to me!!!!

Thank you, SD and Ajay.......the point people are not getting from my post is that the liberal media tends to lean to the side of "do whatever you want and feels good, unless we are against it....". They always have to have a villain. And you cannot tell me that cigarette smoke in the air is more toxic than car exhaust, Bon fires, factories (including those that make stuff liberals love...there's a lot of plastic in an IPad ) trains, planes on and on and on....

Go suck on a tailpipe for 5 minutes....bet you won't survive......a cigarette may or may not kill you years from now.


You cannot compare a cig smoker to an IV drug user....so why are they allowed to be villianized on TV? Because they are the chosen group to hate right now....

I wonder where all the Ron Paul supporters are on this? Don't you all believe in to each his own, get out of our business? Most of you including Mr Paul himself advocate legalizing drugs. So pot smoking is acceptable but cigarettes are not?


I repeat....the brainwashing has worked excellently.


still haven't received a good reason why 1 self inflicted disease is worse than another self inflicted disease.

And don't say AIDS is not self inflicted...the fact is "most" cases are because of stupidity or irresponsibility. Just like some lung cancer is from smoking.....also from working with asbestos, in mines, certain factories and genetics.


The hypocrisy is disgusting.....either the ads should be pulled (especially since its tax payer money) or run the same kind of ads for every other disease that may be remotely self inflicted. They are always yelling about fair.....but fair only matters when they say it does. (libs I mean)

reply to post by revmoofoo


There are times I almost throw up when I smell some people in public...body odor, cat piss, really bad cologne and some things that cannot be identified......guess what? That's life, tough....people smell, people look funny, people curse in front of kids......to bad....don't go in public then....you can't regulate everything nor should you.

Causes of Lung Cancer The etiology, or the root cause of lung cancer, is not always evident. Although tobacco smoking is the primary etiological factor, scientists agree that many lung cancers have no single cause, but are instead the result of a combination of several causes that may include exposure to radon, asbestos, environmental tobacco smoke, and exposures to other hazardous materials. Don't just assume that your lung cancer was caused by smoking alone. Lung cancer is also a significant health problem among patients who have never smoked. You could have been exposed to carcinogens decades ago, and many people with lung cancer cannot easily remember these exposures. Even if you are or have been a smoker, or if you have never smoked, you may be entitled to compensation. Call us at 1-800-998-9729 to determine if and where you came into contact with hazardous materials that could have increased your risk for lung cancer. Smoking can be the cause of lung cancer but it also can be the enabler. Smoking weakens the lungs and reduces their capacity to get rid of toxins. These weakened lungs become much more susceptible and vulnerable to attack by carcinogens. For example, someone who is a smoker is 11 times more likely to get lung cancer relative to a non-smoker but close to 60 times more likely to get lung cancer if exposed to asbestos AND is a smoker. OTHER CAUSES OF LUNG CANCER Radon. A gaseous decay product of radium-226 and uranium-238, radon can damage the respiratory epithelium (the cells that line the lungs) through alpha particle emissions (a form of radiation). Uranium miners face an increased risk of lung cancer, probably due to radon radiation. Many members of the armed forces came into contact with depleted uranium and radon during military service, as did employees of defense contractors. See our pages on radon as a cause of lung cancer, and uranium as a cause of lung cancer. Secondhand smoke. Also referred to as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), secondhand smoke has been identified as a significant risk factor for lung cancer in the case of never smokers. Experts estimate that 15 to 35 percent of lung cancer cases among never smokers are associated with ETS. More on secondhand smoke as a cause of lung cancer. Between smoking and secondhand smoke, the Centers for Disease Control estimate that 87% of US lung cancer cases are caused by tobacco. Never-smokers can get lung cancer, too. Asbestos. Asbestos is a known cause of lung cancer and other types of cancer. The asbestos fibers can become airborne and get in your lungs. Often the cancer doesn’t show up until decades after exposure. Asbestos is also a cause of lung cancer. If you have lung cancer and were exposed to asbestos, even decades ago, you may be eligible for compensation. Click here to learn more. Click for Full Graphic Pesticides, especially the mixture called Agent Orange. Agent Orange was sprayed from airplanes during the Vietnam War and became airborne, entering the lungs of ground troops. The Department of Veterans Affairs has acknowledged that Agent Orange is carcinogenic and provides benefits for qualified cancer patients with a history of exposure. See our page on Agent Orange as a cause of lung cancer. Heavy metals. These include cadmium, chromium, and arsenic. Heavy metals are in many products and waste streams. Arsenic has been identified as a causative factor for lung cancer when it contaminates drinking water, as seen in areas of Chile and Taiwan. The United States lowered permissible arsenic levels in drinking water several years ago due to health concerns. See our page on heavy metals as a cause of lung cancer. Air pollutants present, for instance, in smoke from burning coal and vapors from cooking oil have been associated with lung cancer. There are hundreds of chemical constituents in smoke and combustion products. Even the experts don’t know all of the carcinogenic ones, but it is clear that there is a connection. See our page on hydrocarbons as a cause of lung cancer.

WHERE WERE YOU EXPOSED TO CARCINOGENS? Workplace Exposures – Several types of occupational exposures have been identified as factors that increase the risk of lung cancer among smokers and never smokers. Electricians, painters, plumbers, steamfitters, pipefitters, and many other jobs brought workers into close contact with asbestos insulation, cements, ceiling tiles, brakes, and other hazardous materials. Carcinogens in these materials include asbestos, beryllium, heavy metals, and hydrocarbons. Click for Full Graphic Military Service Exposure – Thousands of veterans have contracted lung cancer after being exposed to asbestos. Often the cancer doesn't show up until decades after exposure. Members of all branches of the military were exposed to the same materials as civilian workers were. Exposure to beryllium and depleted uranium was especially common among servicemen because those metals were used in defense systems. Agent Orange, the herbicide, was used extensively in the Vietnam War. Home Exposure – Radon accumulates in the basements of buildings in some areas of the country, and asbestos was used widely in home construction for decades. Both radon and asbestos are known causes of lung cancer and pose risks for people who live in homes with those carcinogens.

Not using a condom when having sex with a person who has HIV. All unprotected sex with someone who has HIV contains some risk. However: Unprotected anal sex is riskier than unprotected vaginal sex. Among men who have sex with other men, unprotected receptive anal sex is riskier than unprotected insertive anal sex. Having multiple sex partners or the presence of other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) can increase the risk of infection during sex. Unprotected oral sex can also be a risk for HIV transmission, but it is a much lower risk than anal or vaginal sex. Sharing needles, syringes, rinse water, or other equipment used to prepare illicit drugs for injection. Being born to an infected mother—HIV can be passed from mother to child during pregnancy, birth, or breast-feeding. Less common modes of transmission include: Being “stuck” with an HIV-contaminated needle or other sharp object. This risk pertains mainly to healthcare workers. Receiving blood transfusions, blood products, or organ/tissue transplants that are contaminated with HIV. This risk is extremely remote due to the rigorous testing of the U.S. blood supply and donated organs/tissue. HIV may also be transmitted through unsafe or unsanitary injections or other medical or dental practices. However, the risk is also remote with current safety standards in the U.S. Eating food that has been pre-chewed by an HIV-infected person. The contamination occurs when infected blood from a caregiver’s mouth mixes with food while chewing. This appears to be a rare occurrence and has only been documented among infants whose caregiver gave them pre-chewed food. Being bitten by a person with HIV. Each of the very small number of cases has included severe trauma with extensive tissue damage and the presence of blood. There is no risk of transmission if the skin is not broken. Contact between broken skin, wounds, or mucous membranes and HIV-infected blood or blood-contaminated body fluids. These reports have also been extremely rare. There is an extremely remote chance that HIV could be transmitted during “French” or deep, open-mouth kissing with an HIV-infected person if the HIV-infected person’s mouth or gums are bleeding. Tattooing or body piercing present a potential risk of HIV transmission, but no cases of HIV transmission from these activities have been documented. Only sterile equipment should be used for tattooing or body piercing. There have been a few documented cases in Europe and North Africa where infants have been infected by unsafe injections and then transmitted HIV to their mothers through breastfeeding. There have been no documented cases of this mode of transmission in the U.S.