DeadVim

Gott In Himmel!

iamthecreaturefromuranus

hahahahahahahahaha

Deancm_MKII

His hypnosis tapes were unbelievably good. I tried stopping smoking loads of times unsuccessfully (even with Allan Carr). After listening to his tapes I didn't even have withdrawal symptons and haven't smoked since. I still can't believe how easy it was.

brissybee

The Nair is doing wonders for the top lip.

Rambi

Actually the plain wrapper thing is not a bad idea but may be counter productive as the money saved on advertising could be used to make the product cheaper to buy (what really motivates people).

I can't see beer being banned although I accept that getting punched by a drunk is more socially unacceptable than having smoke blown in your face. Actually I can't see cigarettes being banned either but then 20 years ago I couldn't see them being banned from pubs. So who knows.

DeadVim

Diff'rent Strokes ... Good to have all kinds of options out there ...

What I liked about the Allan Carr book is that it doesn't do the 'smoking bad' angle, it lays out why people think they need to smoke and deconstructs the myths.

I knew all of it already but my mind responds well to logic and reading the book crystallised the fact it was doing nothing for me.

paulry

Whatever works to help you stop. Some people have even managed to succeed using will-power alone. Alan Carr worked for me where nothing else did

Regarding playing around with what appears on the cigarette packets: Fair enough make them a standard plain packet but the practice of displaying harrowing pictures on the box can be more damaging to children than recklessly exposing them to passive smoking. To be honest I don't think plain packaging will damage tobacco companies in any way. It might even backfire where people smoke cheaper lower quality brands with inferior filters or the trendy types no longer buying the lower nicotine brands. The practice of storing them under the counter seems like a good idea.

JoeBloggs80

How are smokers discriminated against
What a load of bollox

I've got no problems with people smoking, but if you want to do it, pay the premium. If its too expensive then stop, simple as that.

paulry

Same here, brain washing wasn't needed - just logical and compelling facts

slapphead_otool

As in most things, what looks simple is actually quite complex. I was working for a university a few years ago, and was asked to assist in the analysis of some data. This happened to relate to smoking.

I pointed out to the researchers that they were way off track with what they were looking at, because a host of other factors had to be considered. It was as if I had become the antichrist personified. Shock horror. They had no interest in listening to what I was saying but simply shouted me down.

(It’s VERY similar to climate Change. Repeat the mantra)

I made one of the points in another thread, so I won’t labour it hear, suffice to say this:

The reduction in smoking since the 1950s does not correlate to the reduction in instances in lung cancer. This does NOT mean that smoking does not cause lung cancer, but it does indicate that other factors are involved.

There were many other data anomalies.

The problem is we dumb it down for the lowest common denominator, and stop looking at the real reasons – much of which probably relates to the disgustingly unhealthy lifestyles we lead. We eat too much, hardly do any exercise, sit in front of flat screen computer monitors for 8 hours a day, and then massive flat screen TV sets for further 6 hours a day. We drive to the corner shop. We sit in filtered climate controlled environments, and we fill ourselves with a diet of junk and chemicals.

As I mentioned elsewhere - your average new tyre weighs around 11.5 kilograms, but when it's used, it's down to 9 kilograms. If you have a busy road with 25,000 vehicles travelling on it each day, it will generate around three kilograms of tyre dust, per kilometre off road, per day. In America, about 600,000 tonnes of tyre dust come off vehicles every year.

To form the rubber into hard-wearing vehicle tyres, an extensive range of chemicals including xylene, benzene, petroleum naphtha, chlorinated solvents, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, anthracene, phenanthrene, phenols, amines, oil, acids and alkalis, polychlorinated biphenyls, halogenated cyanoalkanes, processing aids, and plasticisers are added.

Tyre processing also involves several heavy metals including zinc, cadmium, lead, chromium and copper.

In the last decade studies have shown that about 60 per cent of the fragments can enter the very deepest parts of the human lung and cause damage….

Chances are your lung problems come from tyres anyway. that might just explain how countries like China have a higher rate of smoking but a lower rate of lung cancer.

but no one wants to look at evidence like that.

Repeat the mantra....

JoeBloggs80

Interesting stuff but you seem to contradict yourself. If tyres are the bigger factor, why have instances of lung cancer still gone down? Surely the amount of driving and tyre usage has gone up since the 1950s which would lead to an increase?

DeadVim

Wow, a whole area I hadn't thought about

It does not, of course, justify smoking, but it does indicate that some things are taken for granted without room for alternatives.

There is a series on UKNova "All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace" which is excellent and deals with such things in a variety of contexts.

It's from the same guy that made "The Power Of Nightmares" which was all about governments needing to invent/enhance a 'bad guy' to control the population.

slapphead_otool

I didn’t mean to contradict myself, (I was typing as I was doing something else and multitasking isn’t my strongpoint).

Nor did I mean to infer that the type dust causes lung cancer, although I suspect it isn’t good for you.

What I was alluding to in my rather rambling email is that the direct correlation between smoking and lung cancer isn’t as straightforward as it seems.

Smoking is one of the things that will cause lung cancer, but it isn’t the only one. Many people work in dusty environments that would also cause such problems. That how you end up hearing about people who have never smoked but get lung cancer. The fact that they worked with fine particle carcinogenic material is overlooked.

Similarity, some people are not prone to cancer, usually genetically. Cancer rates are not evenly spread across the world, and are higher in some genetic streams. The chances are my wife will not die of Cancer because she is Japanese.

You might be able to reverse the situation and say some people are genetically disposed to cancer. I’m not sure.

I believe lifestyle also has an impact, although I am not sure why or how. Some of the medical people on here may be able to explain it.

The important thing, and it’s the bit that the researches railed against, is that you have to take a holistic look at our lifestyles, rather than simply point to one thing and say – do that and you will get cancer.

We now live a lifestyle that is far different to that intended for our body. Indeed we expect the body to last far longer than it was designed for, and we subject it to a range of influences that it was never intended to undergo.

paulry

Both available on Youtube

Deancm_MKII

The Allan Carr book works because it brainwashes you. The facts it gives you are not the reason why the book works for some people. As has been said, most people already know the facts about why people smoke and yet still smoke. The book doesn't raise anything new.

Think of the book as hypnosis in a book format.