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

a reply to: johnwick
They have declared smoking evil. Therefore, if someone who never smoked dies of lung cancer / heart disease; it must be second hand smoke! Not very scientific but I guarantee that is how they look at it. Now they are going after the Vape style, my county made all vape products drug paraphernalia. They said not enough studies had been done to find if it was safe or not. I love having others trying to tell me the best way to live my life.

I can never see that happen. More likely illegal drugs will be legalized and taxed. Or legal drugs will be similar to illegal drugs and people switch to that.

Tobacco isn't the only problem. If the campaign was against alcohol, obesity and polluting industries it would appear more credible in their 'saving lives' claim.

Well, that Prof is surely well named! A billion lives saved Eh? Okay maybe, but it will be a bad time for pet lovers watching all the doggies and pussies flying over the hedges every morning, and after lunch and tea times. Everything has a downside.

As someone who enjoys a good cigar on the weekends I do not want some government panty waist telling me what I can or cannot do and anyone who feels having the 'government' decide what is best for you is heading down a rather personally self destructive path, you are just a little too ignorant to pick up on this fact.

a reply to: Anyafaj

No, and this will never happen anyways. They'll SAY its banned and gone, but it'll just become like Marijuana is currently. Grown by people in secret and sold by an underground market. Stupidity...

smokers will just come up with a religion that includes tobacco in daily rituals and then be protected??
Seriously isn't tobacco used in religious ceremonies for many native american tribes??
aren't religious beliefs protected??
therefore they can't keep that protection of religious freedoms while banning smoking worldwide

but I bet if they banned the additives that are put into the tobacco along with every things else they produce they could save a few billion!!!

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.

You can actually put sensors in each units air exhaust ducts to monitor air. I think some smoke free buildings are talking about putting those in.

One more thing. When something becomes banned, usage increases. If they ban tobacco, more people will end up smoking than ever. Right now they are celebrating low smoking rate, but that will change after a few years of tobacco being banned.

How do I know this? Oh... Only because Prohibition and the War on Drugs made usage of all the substances that they made illegal increase instead of decrease.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes, and the data also indicates that simply running 'awareness' campaigns is enough to cause a significant uptick in the targeted behavior.

If this effect is well understood and yet the practice continues, we must conclude that anti-whatever propaganda is intended to promote that behavior.

a reply to: greencmp

I've heard this said before. I've even heard a conspiracy once that the Truth campaign is actually sponsored by cigarette companies (possibly through shell companies) to get more people to smoke by annoying them with anti-smoking ads. Sounds plausible I guess that awareness campaigns increase smoking (maybe not that conspiracy), but I want to see figures for this. Can you produce evidence of your claims?

this struck me as funny,
from the link in the OP

tobacco marketing deliberately targets women and young people.

i can't remember the last time i saw any advertisement for cigs. hell you don't hardly see any one smoke in a movie or tv. there are a few, but most of them are targeting older audiences and the give parental discretion warnings. just about all the stores besides convenience stores do not advertise at all. and convenience stores and smoke shops just use signs with the brand name, (no Joe Camel's) and price when and where they do.

i did a quick little search and used wiki, and looking here most of the whole world has banned Tobacco Advertising or heavily regulated it, over the last 5 to 15,20 years.
Advertisement control

just another little lie that.... well i'll just leave it there. if i said what i think i'll be flamed.

Look, I don't like the smell of tobacco smoke and prefer that people don't smoke around me, but I am totally against governments telling grown human beings what they can and can't do. We don't need a nanny state controlling more aspects of our lives. I feel empathy for smokers.

I'll be long dead by 2040.

Good luck with the world folks!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

I've heard this said before. I've even heard a conspiracy once that the Truth campaign is actually sponsored by cigarette companies (possibly through shell companies) to get more people to smoke by annoying them with anti-smoking ads. Sounds plausible I guess that awareness campaigns increase smoking (maybe not that conspiracy), but I want to see figures for this. Can you produce evidence of your claims?

I did a thread on anti-bullying a while back but, racism, pharmaceutical abuse, etc. have all gone up since their respective campaigns were begun. I suspect there will be a dramatic increase in general misogyny in the coming years.

Anti-Bullying Programs May Have Opposite Effect - Do We Need an Anti-Anti-Awareness Campaign?

It all fits with the law of unintended consequences up to the point where you realize that the practice produces the opposite result. After that, it becomes intentional.

Cigarettes will never be gone "from the world" as long as the Chinese government is the world's largest producer of same.

The Chinese Government Is Getting Rich Selling Cigarettes - Bloomburg

The China National Tobacco Corp., which serves China’s 300 million smokers, is by far the largest cigarette maker in the world. In 2013 it manufactured about 2.5 trillion cigarettes. Its next largest competitor, Philip Morris International (PM), produced 880 billion

a reply to: Anyafaj

because the world needs 1 billion more people on it.

In the end they'll find me with a cigarette in one hand and flipping them the bird with the other.
I'd rather die than quit and most likely will.
My life, my choice.
Screw anyone who thinks otherwise.
Yes, I'm a cantankerous old fart with a rebellious streak, deal with it.

We see how well prohibition has worked in the past from alcohol and drug use to alternative lifestyles- it DOESN'T!

The only thing prohibition does is make people that much more determined to do what they want. The quest to outlaw tobacco will make criminals of innocent citizens and make oodles of money for the police state in fines and arrests along with an instant surge in income for those private corporations who own a vast number of the prisons today. It's ridiculous!

Odd how tobacco companies are denied freedom of speech yet alcohol companies have their ads everywhere and Congress gets all the money they want because it's "protected speech". FFS there is no consistency in their overbearing ways

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
One more thing. When something becomes banned, usage increases. If they ban tobacco, more people will end up smoking than ever. Right now they are celebrating low smoking rate, but that will change after a few years of tobacco being banned.

How do I know this? Oh... Only because Prohibition and the War on Drugs made usage of all the substances that they made illegal increase instead of decrease.

Totally agree with you. However, I think this must be a Maori spoof,
Here is the Professor with the very rude name of which I refuse to type,


And here are his colleagues already in protest outside the lab.