DeathDomokun
Ex-Bluelighter
Yeah, well maybe if we all went to the same primary school..
-
-
AADD Moderators: andyturbo
The Cigarette Thread
- Thread starter Mr Blonde
- Start date
DoctorChemX
Bluelighter
Ahh, i see, thankyou for clarifying that, i hate SWIM also, but i
was just trying to fit into the croud, on drugs.com it's mandatory
to use SWIM but i hate the idea too, sorry if i offended anyone..
SWIM Is of course me, DoctorChemX. Now in regards to the other
comments about tobacco(Nicotiana Tabacum) do some research
like i have, both in academic articles and books, and the plant does
contain minute(microgram) traces of various alkaloids, the man group
of alkaloids found in the plant are pyridine-alkaloids(the class there in)
and nicotine is the atypical example, the plant itself being full of nicotine.
The person who said that he ingests only one tobacco leave and gets
hallucinations, also said he get's muscle cramps and feels poisoned, so
i never intended(nor will i ever try) it myself, it was just a simple question.
The NorthAmerican indians viewed tobacco as there most sacred plant,
i believed they mixed peyote with it or something, but there are also books
an accounts of indigenous people(like in new guinea) being poisoned by tobacco
plants on plantations there, and they supposingly go into a hallucinatory delirium.
poledriver
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 11,543
Federal Government plan aims to butt out smoking in 15 years
Federal Government plan aims to butt out smoking in 15 years
here
Federal Government plan aims to butt out smoking in 15 years
LICENCES to puff, foul-tasting cigarettes, and financial incentives to stop smoking are next in a bid to help the nation quit a $5 billion addiction to tobacco revenue before the end of the next decade.
Smokeless nicotine, a rising age limit and mandatory limits similar to that proposed for problem gamblers on pokies are detailed in a plan before the Federal Government and health authorities.
Big tobacco warns the looming multimillion-dollar legal fight in the High Court against drab olive-brown packaging of cigarette packets is just one battlefront in a bid to extinguish smoking in Australia.
Anti-smoking lobbyists have submitted a 10-point plan to the Federal Health department, obtained by The Courier-Mail, in an audacious bid to stub out the unhealthy habit within 15 years.
"Plain packaging will still have large gruesome images on the front and the name of the brand but in drab colour,'' said World Health Organisation adviser Professor Simon Chapman. "It'll be a step to de-glamourise smoking.''
Smoking has been banned and made a fineable offence in public bars, restaurants, beaches, stadiums, street malls, in cars with children, and even some suburban sporting ovals.
Despite graphic health campaigns that warn smoking kills, about one in five or 20 per cent of all Australians still smoke.
This figure is down by 40 per cent since 1980.
Australia is set to be the first country to mandate plain packaging under a new law with drab packets due on shelves from December.
In April, British American Tobacco Australia, Philip Morris Asia and Imperial Tobacco will go to the High Court to argue the Government's new plain packaging laws are unconstitutional. It is a challenge they claim will cost taxpayers in a multibillion-dollar compensation payout.
Prof Chapman, who was on the committee that recommended plain packaging, said many people were cynical about the Government's addiction to the $5 billion-a-year smoking excise revenue.
Smokeless nicotine, a rising age limit and mandatory limits similar to that proposed for problem gamblers on pokies are detailed in a plan before the Federal Government and health authorities.
Big tobacco warns the looming multimillion-dollar legal fight in the High Court against drab olive-brown packaging of cigarette packets is just one battlefront in a bid to extinguish smoking in Australia.
Anti-smoking lobbyists have submitted a 10-point plan to the Federal Health department, obtained by The Courier-Mail, in an audacious bid to stub out the unhealthy habit within 15 years.
"Plain packaging will still have large gruesome images on the front and the name of the brand but in drab colour,'' said World Health Organisation adviser Professor Simon Chapman. "It'll be a step to de-glamourise smoking.''
Smoking has been banned and made a fineable offence in public bars, restaurants, beaches, stadiums, street malls, in cars with children, and even some suburban sporting ovals.
Despite graphic health campaigns that warn smoking kills, about one in five or 20 per cent of all Australians still smoke.
This figure is down by 40 per cent since 1980.
Australia is set to be the first country to mandate plain packaging under a new law with drab packets due on shelves from December.
In April, British American Tobacco Australia, Philip Morris Asia and Imperial Tobacco will go to the High Court to argue the Government's new plain packaging laws are unconstitutional. It is a challenge they claim will cost taxpayers in a multibillion-dollar compensation payout.
Prof Chapman, who was on the committee that recommended plain packaging, said many people were cynical about the Government's addiction to the $5 billion-a-year smoking excise revenue.
here
DeathDomokun
Ex-Bluelighter
Rising age limit? Do you how fucked off I would be if I was 18, addicted to smoking, and then they said you can't smoke but you can drink, drive, and have to vote, but nope, no smoking.
It doesn't bother me all that much as it won't affect me and the government always has been fucking stupid, but it's still doesn't make it okay.
And how stupid is it to throw away all that money. People don't smoke because the packet looks pretty, and having their stupid medical pictures didn't stop anybody.
It doesn't bother me all that much as it won't affect me and the government always has been fucking stupid, but it's still doesn't make it okay.
And how stupid is it to throw away all that money. People don't smoke because the packet looks pretty, and having their stupid medical pictures didn't stop anybody.
poledriver
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 11,543
Smoking ban idea goes too far
Smoking ban idea goes too far
here
Smoking ban idea goes too far
The process of making tobacco-smoking socially unacceptable grinds on with a remorseless inevitability. It's a safe bet that, by the end of this century, tobacco-smokers will be confined to darkened rooms, like the opium dens and speakeasies of the past.
It has been a swift shift in public policy and community attitudes, most notable for the fact that the former has led the latter, rather than vice versa. Barely a generation ago, smokers in the workplace - often in a minority - disdained their workmates' pleas for clean air and puffed away; now they congregate outside offices to smoke, smiling apologetically when the same workmates pass, and exchanging pleasantries with fellow smokers about how they're thinking about giving up.
This footpath smoking is one of several behaviours in the sights of public health officials, who this week asked Auckland councillors to ban smoking in all public outdoor areas in the city. Their proposal, backed by all the city's health boards, purports to be aimed at "preventing uptake of smoking among young people", although it's hard to see how even the most impressionable kid would want to emulate the windblown and woebegone addicts in doorways and bus shelters.
But the aim is also to ban smoking in open spaces - parks, sports fields and playgrounds, as well as in malls and pedestrian areas.
The proposal goes further than the call last February by researchers at Otago University for restrictions, common in Australia and comprehensive in Queensland, on outdoor smoking at bars, cafes and restaurants. The terrace of a bar is a confined space even if it is in the open air and smoke-drift from adjoining tables is disturbing to non-smokers, who legitimately complain that smokers monopolise the best seats in the house. Likewise it is easy to understand non-smokers' disgust at having to run a smoky gauntlet at building entrances where smokers gather.
But the proposed extension to take in all public spaces, including streets, beaches and parks, seems like a bridge too far. For one thing, as even the promulgators of the ban admit, it is impossible to enforce. Human beings do not display registration numbers and have addresses stored in a database so that they may efficiently be served with infringement notices. Asked for their details, they could - and would, more often than not - lie, or give the name of an acquaintance they did not care for.
Even allowing for a ban that authorities would call "aspirational" (which is to say meaningless), the prospect of smoking wardens ducking out from behind trees to hand out tickets is more in the realm of farce than sensible social policy - at least until such time as we microchip or barcode the entire population.
Repeated studies show that price is the single biggest determinant in persuading people away from tobacco, and steady increases in excise taxes, the latest of them at the beginning of this month, have had a measurable effect on smoking rates. Most smokers want to quit and, by and large, accept price increases with glum resignation. Most smokers also feel guilty enough and with exceptions, conspicuous only because of their rarity, moderate their behaviour out of concern for others. Disapproval and the embarrassment it engenders is a far more powerful disincentive to smoking in public than any council ban would be.
Smokers can help their own cause by conscientiously showing consideration for others, of course. Bleating about "smokers' rights" does them no credit. Nor does promulgating such fictions as the old one about how they pay more in tax than they cost the health system: the respective figures are actually $1 billion and $1.7 billion a year, not counting the loss to national productivity of their early deaths.
Smoking is, in more ways than one, a dying habit. But its end will not be hastened by seeking to criminalise people for using a legal drug - even if it is the only one which, used as directed, inevitably harms users and those around them.
It has been a swift shift in public policy and community attitudes, most notable for the fact that the former has led the latter, rather than vice versa. Barely a generation ago, smokers in the workplace - often in a minority - disdained their workmates' pleas for clean air and puffed away; now they congregate outside offices to smoke, smiling apologetically when the same workmates pass, and exchanging pleasantries with fellow smokers about how they're thinking about giving up.
This footpath smoking is one of several behaviours in the sights of public health officials, who this week asked Auckland councillors to ban smoking in all public outdoor areas in the city. Their proposal, backed by all the city's health boards, purports to be aimed at "preventing uptake of smoking among young people", although it's hard to see how even the most impressionable kid would want to emulate the windblown and woebegone addicts in doorways and bus shelters.
But the aim is also to ban smoking in open spaces - parks, sports fields and playgrounds, as well as in malls and pedestrian areas.
The proposal goes further than the call last February by researchers at Otago University for restrictions, common in Australia and comprehensive in Queensland, on outdoor smoking at bars, cafes and restaurants. The terrace of a bar is a confined space even if it is in the open air and smoke-drift from adjoining tables is disturbing to non-smokers, who legitimately complain that smokers monopolise the best seats in the house. Likewise it is easy to understand non-smokers' disgust at having to run a smoky gauntlet at building entrances where smokers gather.
But the proposed extension to take in all public spaces, including streets, beaches and parks, seems like a bridge too far. For one thing, as even the promulgators of the ban admit, it is impossible to enforce. Human beings do not display registration numbers and have addresses stored in a database so that they may efficiently be served with infringement notices. Asked for their details, they could - and would, more often than not - lie, or give the name of an acquaintance they did not care for.
Even allowing for a ban that authorities would call "aspirational" (which is to say meaningless), the prospect of smoking wardens ducking out from behind trees to hand out tickets is more in the realm of farce than sensible social policy - at least until such time as we microchip or barcode the entire population.
Repeated studies show that price is the single biggest determinant in persuading people away from tobacco, and steady increases in excise taxes, the latest of them at the beginning of this month, have had a measurable effect on smoking rates. Most smokers want to quit and, by and large, accept price increases with glum resignation. Most smokers also feel guilty enough and with exceptions, conspicuous only because of their rarity, moderate their behaviour out of concern for others. Disapproval and the embarrassment it engenders is a far more powerful disincentive to smoking in public than any council ban would be.
Smokers can help their own cause by conscientiously showing consideration for others, of course. Bleating about "smokers' rights" does them no credit. Nor does promulgating such fictions as the old one about how they pay more in tax than they cost the health system: the respective figures are actually $1 billion and $1.7 billion a year, not counting the loss to national productivity of their early deaths.
Smoking is, in more ways than one, a dying habit. But its end will not be hastened by seeking to criminalise people for using a legal drug - even if it is the only one which, used as directed, inevitably harms users and those around them.
here
drug_mentor
Bluelight Crew
Jeez they are taking things pretty far, no smoking in fucking public? How are you meant to get your nicotine fix. I really don't think its fair to allow a huge population of people to become dependant on a very addictive drug and then decide to turn their world upside down by making it virtually impossible to legally smoke enough to sustain your habit while you go about your day.
Newport shorts. Nothing finishes a green session like a menthol cigarettes -- no one ever accepts them when you offer a bum, that's a perk! Most folk smoke the 100s of these bad boys but the regular size is more menthol. Love 'em -- since 2003. Before that Marb Milds, Marb Lights, Camel Menthol, Kools ... probably a couple other random brands, but mostly menthol. I smoke a pack plus a day ... that would be the opiates encouraging that behavior. Used to get by on a pack every 2 weeks! I'll go back down to that eventually before my lungs take too much more abuse. Oh, cigarettes, you've been a good friend.
poledriver
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 11,543
Top silks in tobacco fight over plain packaging laws
Top silks in tobacco fight over plain packaging laws
here
Top silks in tobacco fight over plain packaging laws
A WHO'S who of the legal fraternity will appear in the High Court today when big tobacco challenges the federal government over plain packaging laws.
Eleven senior counsel - including Allan Myers QC, Alan Archibald QC and Bret Walker SC, three of Australia's highest paid barristers representing the four tobacco companies and the government will appear before Justice William Gummow in Sydney as they prepare for the three-day hearing starting on April 17 in Canberra.
Philip Morris, British American Tobacco Australasia, Imperial Tobacco Australia and Japan Tobacco International are suing the government, claiming plain packaging violates the Australian Constitution because the government is trying to take their brands without paying compensation.
The plain packaging laws were passed by Parliament in November, but the introduction of the green packaging with health warnings will not come into effect until December this year.
Eleven senior counsel - including Allan Myers QC, Alan Archibald QC and Bret Walker SC, three of Australia's highest paid barristers representing the four tobacco companies and the government will appear before Justice William Gummow in Sydney as they prepare for the three-day hearing starting on April 17 in Canberra.
Philip Morris, British American Tobacco Australasia, Imperial Tobacco Australia and Japan Tobacco International are suing the government, claiming plain packaging violates the Australian Constitution because the government is trying to take their brands without paying compensation.
The plain packaging laws were passed by Parliament in November, but the introduction of the green packaging with health warnings will not come into effect until December this year.
here
poledriver
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 11,543
Smokers switching to e-cigarettes
Smokers switching to e-cigarettes
here
Smokers switching to e-cigarettes
Former pack-a-day smoker Peter Grindrod has embraced a growing trend towards swapping traditional cigarettes for the cheaper electronic version.
Mr Grindrod, who owns Mount Maunganui's Tay Street Dairy, said some smokers were dodging the January 1 price hike by spending $30 to $40 a week on e-cigarettes compared with $100 on the real thing.
Mr Grindrod, who made the switch 10 months ago, said one e-cigarette, offering 500 puffs, was equivalent to a normal packet of 20 cigarettes.
"Once I get them on to it people are going 'they're amazing'. The old ones (e-cigarettes) you used to have to suck like a P addict to get anything out of it," he said.
Manager of Tauranga's Tobacco Discounter Mike Lawrence said sales of e-cigarettes were on the speedy increase.
By 4.30pm yesterday he had sold five starter packs worth $79 each, 18 e-cigarettes and two packets of cartridges.
"It's insane is pretty much the word I can use," he said.
Mr Lawrence said most customers were buying e-cigarettes in a bid to stop smoking altogether and slowly reduce the level of nicotine in their cartridges.
"They're using these as their medium to get away from all the chemicals that come in a tailor-made cigarette."
Greerton Super Liquor owner Doug Harvie agreed the sale of e-cigarettes seemed to be gaining in popularity.
"There are people that are trying to give up that are using them," he said.
Mr Harvie said he had one customer who had bought e-cigarettes for the staff at his engineering workshop who kept working while they smoked rather than taking a string of cigarette breaks.
Manager Melissa Harvie said a number of customers had commented on the efficiency of the e-cigarettes.
"You can have a couple of puffs and get your hit and that's where you stop."
A staff member at Bottle Zone in Ohauiti said a lot of people were trying to stop at the moment because the sale of e-cigarettes had increased.
One "softie", as they were known, costs $14.50 and offered 500 puffs, she said. "If you're trying to stop or you're just trying to back off on cigarettes a bit it does help."
Some customers who had previously bought two packets of cigarettes had also dropped down to one.
"I think it's the price, it's just getting far too expensive for people. If you're smoking a pack a day it's a lot of money," she said.
Owner of Grange Road Dairy Craig Thorburn said four or five customers who regularly bought cigarettes had switched to the electronic version over the past couple of weeks.
"They're going pretty good. There's about four or five locals around here that were pretty heavy smokers and they've all gone on to these softies trying to quit," he said.
Mr Thorburn said others had gone cold turkey, with some opting to replace cigarettes with pies and chocolate. He expected the true impact of the latest price rise to be seen next month when everyone had gone back to work.
"When they're in holiday mode people just grab it and they don't really think. I'm picking that the reality will hit in about February," he said.
With the cheapest packet of cigarettes now costing about $13, Mr Thorburn said some customers were commenting that they should kick the habit.
Tina Gillgren, who works at Maleme Street Lunch Box in Greerton, said she had definitely seen a decrease in the number of people buying 50g packets of tobacco.
"I've actually noticed a few people have said they're actually quitting."
She said most people were going cold turkey or getting medication to stop smoking from their GP. While they stocked electronic cigarettes she said sales were very slow.
"I've had a few people say they've tried them and it doesn't really taste good," she said.
What is an electronic cigarette?
An electronic cigarette, or e-cigarette, is an electrical device that simulates the act of tobacco smoking by producing an inhaled mist bearing the physical sensation, appearance, and often the flavour and nicotine content of inhaled tobacco smoke.
Mr Grindrod, who owns Mount Maunganui's Tay Street Dairy, said some smokers were dodging the January 1 price hike by spending $30 to $40 a week on e-cigarettes compared with $100 on the real thing.
Mr Grindrod, who made the switch 10 months ago, said one e-cigarette, offering 500 puffs, was equivalent to a normal packet of 20 cigarettes.
"Once I get them on to it people are going 'they're amazing'. The old ones (e-cigarettes) you used to have to suck like a P addict to get anything out of it," he said.
Manager of Tauranga's Tobacco Discounter Mike Lawrence said sales of e-cigarettes were on the speedy increase.
By 4.30pm yesterday he had sold five starter packs worth $79 each, 18 e-cigarettes and two packets of cartridges.
"It's insane is pretty much the word I can use," he said.
Mr Lawrence said most customers were buying e-cigarettes in a bid to stop smoking altogether and slowly reduce the level of nicotine in their cartridges.
"They're using these as their medium to get away from all the chemicals that come in a tailor-made cigarette."
Greerton Super Liquor owner Doug Harvie agreed the sale of e-cigarettes seemed to be gaining in popularity.
"There are people that are trying to give up that are using them," he said.
Mr Harvie said he had one customer who had bought e-cigarettes for the staff at his engineering workshop who kept working while they smoked rather than taking a string of cigarette breaks.
Manager Melissa Harvie said a number of customers had commented on the efficiency of the e-cigarettes.
"You can have a couple of puffs and get your hit and that's where you stop."
A staff member at Bottle Zone in Ohauiti said a lot of people were trying to stop at the moment because the sale of e-cigarettes had increased.
One "softie", as they were known, costs $14.50 and offered 500 puffs, she said. "If you're trying to stop or you're just trying to back off on cigarettes a bit it does help."
Some customers who had previously bought two packets of cigarettes had also dropped down to one.
"I think it's the price, it's just getting far too expensive for people. If you're smoking a pack a day it's a lot of money," she said.
Owner of Grange Road Dairy Craig Thorburn said four or five customers who regularly bought cigarettes had switched to the electronic version over the past couple of weeks.
"They're going pretty good. There's about four or five locals around here that were pretty heavy smokers and they've all gone on to these softies trying to quit," he said.
Mr Thorburn said others had gone cold turkey, with some opting to replace cigarettes with pies and chocolate. He expected the true impact of the latest price rise to be seen next month when everyone had gone back to work.
"When they're in holiday mode people just grab it and they don't really think. I'm picking that the reality will hit in about February," he said.
With the cheapest packet of cigarettes now costing about $13, Mr Thorburn said some customers were commenting that they should kick the habit.
Tina Gillgren, who works at Maleme Street Lunch Box in Greerton, said she had definitely seen a decrease in the number of people buying 50g packets of tobacco.
"I've actually noticed a few people have said they're actually quitting."
She said most people were going cold turkey or getting medication to stop smoking from their GP. While they stocked electronic cigarettes she said sales were very slow.
"I've had a few people say they've tried them and it doesn't really taste good," she said.
What is an electronic cigarette?
An electronic cigarette, or e-cigarette, is an electrical device that simulates the act of tobacco smoking by producing an inhaled mist bearing the physical sensation, appearance, and often the flavour and nicotine content of inhaled tobacco smoke.
here
Mr Blonde
Bluelighter
^ I love smoking, including the smell and taste. I grew up around it though, and when young found the taste and smell fine perhaps because my parents were both smokers.
drug_mentor
Bluelight Crew
^ Funny as a child when my mother used to smoke around me I hated it, I used to make a little gas mask with my hands when I was like 8 or 9. LOL Pretty surprising really that I ended up getting into smoking weed at 12 and cigarettes at 13 or 14 when I couldn't stand 2nd hand smoke so much as a youngin'.
I have to confess I enjoy tobacco less and less these days, despite being a nicotine addict I would say 90% of the tobacco I consume is in conjunction with cannabis.
I have to confess I enjoy tobacco less and less these days, despite being a nicotine addict I would say 90% of the tobacco I consume is in conjunction with cannabis.
Seth_Heinmann
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 70
I find it interesting that since the introduction of the National Drug Strategy in 1985, there has been a signifcant reduction in cigarette use in Australia. Clearly, Australia's cigarette policy (ie. prices of cigarettes; 'just say no' campaigns; warning labels on cigarettes; and public education generally etc) has worked.
What really fasinates me is that this has occurred BECAUSE tobacco products are legal and, hence, able to be regulated.
For me, this is where the Australian government's policy on illicit drugs has failed. Unlike the legal, and hence, regulated tobacco market, illicit drugs are left in an illegal, and, hence, unregulated blackmarket. Once illicit drugs are treated more like tobacco illicit drug use will not fall.
What really fasinates me is that this has occurred BECAUSE tobacco products are legal and, hence, able to be regulated.
For me, this is where the Australian government's policy on illicit drugs has failed. Unlike the legal, and hence, regulated tobacco market, illicit drugs are left in an illegal, and, hence, unregulated blackmarket. Once illicit drugs are treated more like tobacco illicit drug use will not fall.
Get ready, fellow Oz smokers who travel overseas. Govt. is set to remove the duty-free status for tobacco. No firm dates yet but said to have strong bi-partisan support among pollies. Guess what's likely to go next? HR gone troppo, imho.
Good point Seth. Illegal drug use continues to rise no matter how much money the government spends on scare campaigns, and it shows no signs of slowing down, all the while these illegal drugs are lining the pockets of organised criminal groups, drug cartels, gangs and bikies who make such enormous profits they can afford to corrupt whoever they need to in order to keep the status quo. If you're Victorian, there's a thread which links to a place you can have your say on current drug policies. Regulation makes sense, prohibition never has, and never will work. It's time for the world to actually fucking do something about this.
DoctorChemX
Bluelighter
Well there is no question smoking causes cancer, believe me,
and that goes for any smoke, including cannabis or opium or
anything that contains organic matter. Imagine grabbing some
dried out grass that you had mowe'd from your lawn, lighting it
in a bom fire, and inhaling all the fumes, sounds toxic doesn't it?
Well smoking any organic matter is no different, it's going to fuck
your immune system, get inside your cells, mutate your dna and
cause a nice thick tumour to start growing inside of you. That's
why i don't smoke anymore. I Finally realized the risk is too extreme.
and that goes for any smoke, including cannabis or opium or
anything that contains organic matter. Imagine grabbing some
dried out grass that you had mowe'd from your lawn, lighting it
in a bom fire, and inhaling all the fumes, sounds toxic doesn't it?
Well smoking any organic matter is no different, it's going to fuck
your immune system, get inside your cells, mutate your dna and
cause a nice thick tumour to start growing inside of you. That's
why i don't smoke anymore. I Finally realized the risk is too extreme.
kroniic
Bluelighter
Winfield Blue 
So fucking harsh and disgusting compared to other smokes (especially overseas where everyone can't stand it) but when you smoke Winfield, you can't smoke anything else.
So fucking harsh and disgusting compared to other smokes (especially overseas where everyone can't stand it) but when you smoke Winfield, you can't smoke anything else.
Mr Blonde
Bluelighter
DoctorChemX
Bluelighter
Does anyone actually get any noticeable effect from smoking cigs?
Like the only effect i could ever feel was a mild pleasant stimulation.
Like the only effect i could ever feel was a mild pleasant stimulation.
Mr Blonde
Bluelighter
^ I notice relief of stress, calming... also improves euphoria from opioids. I'm a habitual smoker though, I don't think I really got the decrease of stress thing until after I'd been smoking for a while.