Up Front: No Smoke
177 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Newer→ Last
-
In which direction, Islander? I would assume that road traffic mortality rates would be higher, traffic pollution-related mortality rates much lower, and tobacco use-related mortality rates slightly higher. Tobacco use would still come out the biggest killer.
-
But there's cause of death and cause of death, no? It's rare for a disease to have a single certain cause - there are plenty of non smokers who die of lung cancer. But when you get flattened by a bus, it's a little more clear cut. And besides people killed by tobacco use are on average a lot older than the people killed in road crashes. So it really more of an issue of life expectancy being shortened and quality of life being reduced in smokers, rather than a sudden catastrophic outcome.
I'd like to get back some of those years my dad lost for sure, but he still died in his sixties. And Mum's eventual cause of death is likely to be smoking related, but she's still pushing 80. Her non smoking mother died of Alzheimer's at 87. Which would you pick?
-
But here's the thing. People do shit that is bad for them. Whether that's smoking, eating too much, drinking too much, shagging inappropriate people, or getting into fights. Blowing shit up or taking illegal drugs. Or whatever your harmful behaviour of choice is.
A bunch of those would get you a stiff rating as well, it ought be noted.
Surely it only normalises smoking if you see more of it in movies than you do wandering around the streets. Otherwise it's just showing something people actually do.
Obviously not; movies create norms in a very strong sense, where wandering around the streets doesn't.
I don't particularly like the idea of R-rating smoking (mainly because I don't much like the idea of R-rating very much at all), but I don't think that the `what about historical truth' argument is much of a goer. In terms of films made when smoking was acceptable, well, yes, they do become unacceptable. I think that's quite defensible --- racist films remain racist, no matter if when they were made they expressed acceptable social attitudes. In terms of representations of historical truth, again, there are a great many historic truths we nowadays won't have on the television.
-
Lucy Telfar Barnard - wrong, wrong and wrong- alcohol-related deaths(not necessarily traffic related) =15%, and lung-diseases, along with depression = gently passed-over suicides in a lot of instances), and hard core accidents (squished-by-slips we call 'em, and yes, they include road accidents) are the majors...tobacco use is very minor on the Coast, and most people who were heavy users have already died. I'm trying to dig up figures, but the last lot I saw (back in the early 2000s) indicted that people who died of smoking-related diseases were less than 7.5%...
-
-
Islander,
1. you said "rural areas", not "the Coast" (I assume you mean West, rather than East?), so I was talking about NZ rural areas in general - where tobacco use is on average higher than in urban areas.
2. I thought you were talking about how the ratio between those specific causes of mortality would alter, rather than about overall causes of death - thus my question of "in which direction".
3. As I noted, my statements about the direction of those particular causes of death were assumptions. Maybe I'll look the data up later. If I can be fagged. -
Lucy Telfar Barnard - dont be fagged. I know my area(yes, it's Tai Poutini). I also have family on the east coast of the South Island, who are in rural areas, and they have the same perspective (GP included.)
And, dunno when someone last came through here with a statistical butterfly net, but tobacco smoking is way less than urban areas in my experience
- in which direction -- ??
-death is death, and the causes of death are specified
-"about the direction of those particular causes of death that were assumptions"***that last word is exceedingly important.
Anyway, superior snide person, I'll continue on in my humble wee way (having prominently mentioned The Coast in my response to you.) And - good night. -
Great grandfather lived past 80 smoking a pack a day, grandfather died at 84, smoked two packs a day for 40 years. Neither died from smoking related illnesses, but yes, they did die. Our family has been smoking tabaccy for nigh on 400 years. I figure I'm more likely to die from high blood pressure induced by the wankoff lectures from ill informed do gooders....or a broken heart....or a punch in the face, than smoking. It's genes bro/Ms.
-
chris - I mentioned my uncle Bill; his father died at 65 (oesophagal cancer - he'd worked on a tar marchine for many years before his death- never drunk alcohol, never smoked.) My uncle smoked from his 8th birthday - died at 80, after drinking a LOT of alcohol, and introducing me to some of the finest smokes in the planet-
taku hakoronui, -an absteemer.
Died way too soon.
Taku hakuinui- also an absteemer (my Nanna never drank alcohol, never smoked) lived until she was 81.All this means is - you live until you die. Be kind. And yep - it's the genes bro/ms!
-
Superior snide person? Me? WTF? Please try re-reading my posts as though I was having a conversation. Okay, the numbering kind of messes that up a bit, but I was trying to be succinct.
I am sorry about making assumptions. It annoys me intensely when other people do it, and in part my posting in this thread has been attempting to dispel some assumptions about relative contributions of different diseases to overall morbidity and mortality rates, so I deserve a slap over the wrist for that.
Oh, and you can just call me Lucy, or Lucy TB if there are other Lucys (Lucies?) lurking. 'Cos using three of my names sounds a bit like a strict aunt telling me off for something. Unless that's the tone you were aiming for. Which given the "superior snide" comment, maybe you were. In which case, call me what you like and I'll be sure to ignore you in future.
Giovanni, I agree that what we should be discussing is disability-adjusted life years lost or some such, but I didn't want to appear too technical. I'd go look for them now, but it's bedtime, and I'm still recovering from the name-calling.
-
I think that's quite defensible --- racist films remain racist, no matter if when they were made they expressed acceptable social attitudes. In terms of representations of historical truth, again, there are a great many historic truths we nowadays won't have on the television.
Okay, but if you make a modern film set in a time when those attitudes existed, are you going to erase them from the script because it's unacceptable? There's a difference between depiction and endorsement. There is a difference between a racist film and a film which depicts racism. It's an important one.
-
Okay, but if you make a modern film set in a time when those attitudes existed, are you going to erase them from the script because it's unacceptable? There's a difference between depiction and endorsement. There is a difference between a racist film and a film which depicts racism. It's an important one.
Well. It depends. Suppose you make a film set in Berlin in mid April 1945. You can't erase the rapes; they happened. The Red Army was the fiery sword of an angry god; and the god was the kind that rapes women for the sins of their menfolk. Is it reasonable to portray that rape (even disapprovingly) and expect to show at 7.30 on a Saturday?
Is it okay to make a film where rape is an entirely normal aspect of war, something about as remarkable as bad rations and danger, and expect that it screen early on a weekend? It is, after all, entirely historically accurate.
I think the problem (that is to say, I made this mistake) is confusing `morally acceptable to show' and `morally acceptable to show at a given time'. I think both the above hypothetical films are entirely respectable films, but I wouldn't expect them to get anything but a very sharp rating.
It is a rather dramatic analogy, but I think it is fair.
-
Similarly, if I was trying to give up smoking, I might want to avoid a super-smoky movie.
Would you also wish to avoid a super-smoky book?80
-
It is a rather dramatic analogy, but I think it is fair.
Really? Smoking is on par with rape in terms of what's morally acceptable?
-
superior snide person
Come, come, Islander. This has been civilized all round. This snide field is nine miles wide, you have to search hard for a peck of snide.
-
I'm a smoker very much of webweaver's calibre, although I do smoke if I am alone in my car. I am afraid that both my husband and I smoke - moderately, on the smoking scale, I have been told. I must say that when I used to smoke far more than I smoke now, that sometimes I felt like I was eating them. And yes, I know it's a stupid habit, made stupider by the fact that I started in my early 20's just to look cool. VERY stupid. In fact, epically ridonculously stupid. However. I am not ready to quit completely just yet, and because I affect no-one but me with this filthy habit, I would much like to remind those strangers and family and friends who harangue me - if you know me, you know that I will do the exact opposite of what you want me to do, particularly if you hassle, so quit it. I suspect that most responsible, adult smokers feel the same.
-
, and alternating from week to week between cocaine and ambition, the drowsiness of the drug, and the fierce energy of his own keen nature.
That I think indicates that, however often the word is mentioned, the drug use is habitual.
Only on page 1, bit slow I know, but "drowsiness of the drug"? Don't think so. Lack of the drug perhaps. Fraction too much fiction methinks. Which does suggest that Absinthe could be a drink used in replacement of drugs.
-
Ok catching up, I see it has been mentioned.
As you were.... -
Second-hand smoke is not really the issue for me; it is the pong of smoke-saturated clothing or furnishings.
Now Geoff, please to inform me but, don't you, your attire and your furnishings ever wash? I mean once you get home after that social eventful night before.
Indeed, I prefer the aroma of a well-placed fart as the smell dissipates much more quickly.
You may think so, or are you just moving away from yours in the room? ;)
-
Moderation I think is the word. Moderation.
There you go, leave well be ffs! Making everything/else smokefree is not moderate or reasonable in a society of equals.Educate those who don't know, but dictatorship don't feel democratic to me unless you get all the smokers in agreement.
-
Really? Smoking is on par with rape in terms of what's morally acceptable?
Obviously not. It is however a thing that has been a lot more socially acceptable in other places than it is now (thank god).
-
'm constantly outraged that shock ads for road safety, ACC etc. don't come with a warning, and a loud one at that.
So what do ya think of the drug driving campaign? Makes the drugs look less harmful than alcohol. So, good or bad? I am soo confused. Stressed, grab a cigarette, no don't, you don't smoke tobacco, reaches for the cup cake, OMG! I'm gonna get fat, you just had breakfast and that was a coffee with all that milk. but milk ain't fattening is it?, I'll just do the laundry, but dirt is good , I'll go for a walk, but the country is falling apart, Christchurch started this morning, I'll go for a drive, but they're closing the motorway, maybe I'll crawl back into bed, aw shucks fucking bed bugs.
-
I know it's a stupid habit, made stupider by the fact that I started in my early 20's just to look cool.
Oh, I have a stupider reason for starting smoking. I did it to get my lungs used to smoke so I could smoke joints without choking and looking like a total loser.
-
That, Emma, is actually quite a good reason. And let's face it, faced with what you are all going through in Chch, a cigarette can only be a reassuring thing. As would be a joint.
-
That, Emma, is actually quite a good reason. And let's face it, faced with what you are all going through in Chch, a cigarette can only be a reassuring thing. As would be a joint.
I haven't had time to sit down for a cigarette yet, Jackie. After I get this bread baked, maybe.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.