View Poll Results: What do you think of the new law?

Voters
28. You may not vote on this poll
  • Good

    16 57.14%
  • Bad

    4 14.29%
  • Don't Care

    8 28.57%
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 46 to 50 of 50

Thread: F1-Tobacco Ads=?

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    754
    Quote Originally Posted by Wouter Melissen View Post
    Tobacco is a completely useless, addictive and hazardous product. The same can be said about fast food products. The big difference however is that consumption of a burger is a completely private enterprise, whereas smoking a cigarette has an effect on anybody around the (ab)user. Smoking should be banned from any public place indoor and outdoor, and a good way to start that is banning the ads. It should no longer be cool to smoke.
    before you yell at me for being uncool and thread is too old or stuff like that .
    i would like you to read this article or at least read one paragraph,

    http://www.lcolby.com/b-chap7.htm

    i have checked some of the supporting articles and i dare say he has a point.
    There has been little evidence of lung cancer been connected with smoking and the evidence there is, is really contreversial.

    read the whole book if you will
    Last edited by kigango123; 04-09-2007 at 01:40 PM.
    Once fanboyism infects you it impares all your judgement.
    It's like being drunk, you lack common sense and everyone laughs at you.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    True North
    Posts
    7,682
    Quote Originally Posted by kigango123 View Post
    before you yell at me for being uncool and thread is too old or stuff like that .
    i would like you to read this article or at least read one paragraph,

    http://www.lcolby.com/b-chap7.htm

    i have checked some of the supporting articles and i dare say he has a point.
    There has been little evidence of lung cancer been connected with smoking and the evidence there is, is really contreversial.

    read the whole book if you will
    "IN DEFENSE OF SMOKERS"

    Yup no bias there.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    754
    Quote Originally Posted by The_Canuck View Post
    "IN DEFENSE OF SMOKERS"

    Yup no bias there.
    forget the title, just read a paragraph

    people should not be judged by the color of their lips(smokers)
    but by the words of their mouth
    Once fanboyism infects you it impares all your judgement.
    It's like being drunk, you lack common sense and everyone laughs at you.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,775
    Best to avoid pseudo science "promoting" articles

    See BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL for just one real science.
    http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/315/7114/980
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    22
    - funny discussion really.....why somebody is trying to defend smoking as such is interesting to me. I did think tobacco-producers would be the only ones.. Nevertheless, it has previously been possible to keep the two things apart ; - the advertizing from the act......Colin Chapman was the man who really introduced the tobacco sponsoring in -68 with his "Gold Leaf Lotus" 48 and 49, but the man hated smoking above everything........
    I am not trying to say that he was the most logical guy in everything he did, but.....

    Dag

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •