Vaping is rank

Fat_Dragon said:
Indeed. In fact there were said to be so healthy back in the day they even advertised them on kids TV. No wonder 70% of British men and 40% of British women smoked back in the 60s with that on TV every day.

Click to expand...
Although you're right in what you say and obviously so many people smoked around that time. Looking back now how were people daft enough to think that smoking a cigarette would be healthy ? 🤔.
 
18MFC76 said:
Although you're right in what you say and obviously so many people smoked around that time. Looking back now how were people daft enough to think that smoking a cigarette would be healthy ? 🤔.
Click to expand...
I suppose people didnt really have the education in detail to know otherwise. Even going back 20-30 years some things taught in school weren't really correct, but it was probably to a higher standard than what people got back then, especially for women.

Tobacco companies responded to fear about public health from cigarettes by piling cash to local doctors to recommend them

“When you knit this together into a full story, the scope of it and the way it duped the public was just incredible,” said Robert K. Jackler, MD, Sewall Professor and Chair, otolaryngology – head and neck surgery at Stanford University Medical Center. “The public was becoming increasingly worried about the health consequences of cigarettes. They started to refer to cigarettes as coffin nails and started talking about smoker’s cough and smoker’s hack. The companies saw a threat to their success and business model.”

Executives at tobacco companies knew they had to take action to suppress the public’s fears about tobacco products. “Tobacco companies asked themselves: How can we go about reassuring the public that particularly cigarettes, but also cigars and pipes, are not harmful?” Jackler told HemOnc Today. The answer was to use medical research and physicians to show the public that cigarettes were not harmful. Although the doctors in these advertisements were always actors and not real physicians, the image of the physician permeated cigarette ads for the next two and a half decades.

Famous campaigns

During the 1920s, Lucky Strike was the dominant cigarette brand. This brand, made by American Tobacco Company, was the first to use the image of a physician in its advertisements. “20,679 physicians say ‘Luckies are less irritating,” its advertisements proclaimed. The advertising firm that promoted Lucky Strikes had sent physicians free cartons of the cigarettes and asked them whether Lucky Strikes were less irritating to ‘sensitive and tender’ throats. The company claimed that its toasting process made its cigarettes a smoother smoke.

By the mid-1930s, Lucky Strike had some competition. A new advertising campaign for Philip Morris referred to research conducted by physicians. One ad claimed that after prescribing Philip Morris brand cigarettes to patients with irritated throats, “every case of irritation cleared completely or definitely improved.” This series of advertisements, along with others referring to “proof” of superiority, made Philip Morris a major cigarette brand for the first time in its history.

“There was an interesting paradox in the ads. In one ad a company would say cigarettes aren’t harmful and then in other ads they would say our cigarettes are less harmful than the other brands,” Jackler said. “You would get things like ‘not one case of throat irritation’ with a picture of a throat doctor holding a throat mirror wearing a mirror on his forehead.”

One of the most famous of the campaigns of this era was the “More Doctors” campaign for RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company’s Camels brand cigarettes. These ads, which appeared in magazines from Time to Ladies’ Home Journal, claimed that according to a nationwide survey, “More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette!” These ads pictured doctors in labs, sitting back at their desk or speaking with patients. “The idea was that if you show a physician being an enthusiastic partaker in smoking, the public gets the notion, ‘With what doctors know, if they choose to smoke this brand it must be a safer, better brand,’ or the public thought that smoking itself must be OK,” Jackler said.

Flip side of the coin

Physicians were also not immune to the addictions of cigarettes and tobacco products and tobacco companies knew it. Many physicians still doubted that there was a wide-spread connection between smoking and disease. Instead it was believed that only certain individuals' health was affected by smoking; it was thought to be a case-by-case situation.

Tobacco companies targeted this thought process by telling physicians that if patients are going to smoke cigarettes regardless of what was advised for their health, at least prescribe for them a ‘healthier’ brand of cigarettes.

“There were big ad campaigns with hundreds of ads in medical journals,” Jackler said. “For example, there is an ad showing a physician writing on a prescription pad, ‘For your patients with sore throats and cough, Phillip Morris cigarettes.’”

The pages of The New England Journal of Medicine and The Journal of the American Medical Association were home to many tobacco advertisements throughout the 1930s, 1940s and beyond. However, tobacco companies’ courtship of physicians did not end in medical journals.

Giving up the fight

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, a transition began to appear in these ads. Advertisements for Camels began to incorporate a ‘try it for yourself’ approach. Although the ads still pictured physicians proclaiming cigarettes to be less irritating, they also now encouraged consumers to test the cigarettes themselves: “The test was really fun! Every Camel tasted so good! And I didn’t need my doctor’s report to know Camels are mild!”

But it was only a matter of time until science caught up to the advertising. By the mid-1950s more research was being published that confirmed a link between tobacco products and lung cancer. Growing concerns among the public about the dangers of smoking cigarettes meant the slow disappearance of the ‘physician’ from cigarettes ads. Slowly, the tobacco companies began to band together as they realized that their entire industry was in danger.

By 1953, JAMA banned tobacco ads from its pages and from AMA conventions. Other advertisers in the publication disliked having their ads placed by ads for cigarettes. Physicians also began to give up the habit. A study published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 1959 found that the number of physicians in Massachusetts who reported being regular smokers declined from 52% in 1954 to 39% in 1959.

The proof

On Jan. 11, 1964, Surgeon General Luther Terry announced the findings of the Surgeon General’s Advisory Committee on Smoking and Health. The report, Smoking and Health: Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the United States, concluded that there was a link between lung cancer and chronic bronchitis and cigarette smoking. In a press conference, Terry said, “It is the judgment of the committee that cigarette smoking contributes substantially to mortality from certain specific diseases and to the overall death rate.” By the end of 1965, the tobacco industry was required to put warning labels on its products and advertisements to warn the public of the health risks associated with smoking.

After a couple hundred years of tobacco use, tobacco companies would lose several more major battles throughout the next few decades, including the ban on television ads in 1970 when Richard Nixon signed the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act. In 2005, tobacco companies made a settlement with the National Association of Attorneys General that included an agreement to remove tobacco ads from the school library editions of Time, People, Sports Illustrated and Newsweek.

Despite all this, about 45 million Americans still smoke. Although the CDC estimates that tobacco use decreased by almost one-third between 1990 and 2007, it is estimated more than 400,000 people still die before their time as a result of tobacco products. – by Leah Lawrence
Click to expand...
 
18MFC76 said:
Although you're right in what you say and obviously so many people smoked around that time. Looking back now how were people daft enough to think that smoking a cigarette would be healthy ? 🤔.
Click to expand...
How many people believe the sh1te the likes of Trump and Johnson spout 🤷‍♂️
 
It's not as awful as weed or actual cigarettes. I give a lift to 3 lads daily. They smoke weed and fags.... F*cking stinks when they get in my car.

I long for the smell of caramel or vanilla 😂
 
Jedi boro said:
That’s just it as no one really knows as we don’t have any long term data.

Cigarettes were originally said to be healthy once.
Click to expand...
Apols for picking on your post as I had plenty of options but this is tin foil antivax logic.

We cannot KNOW the long term until the long term has happened. That much is trivially true. But we can extrapolate the long term from a mixture of short term tests and epidemiological data and mechanistic modelling. Just as we are highly confident that the risks of having a Covid vax are less than the risks of getting Covid, so we are highly confident that both first and third party risks are less for vaping than for smoking.

And so I come back to the same basic point. It is madness as a matter of public health policy to restrict the alternative that our current best science says is less damaging to a greater degree than the alternative that our current best science says is more damaging. Is there a remotely credible argument against that?
 
They need to market some savoury scents, chicken wings, Sunday roast, spaghetti bolognaise. I wouldn’t mind as such then, perhaps I’m just a fat chunt.
 
Sexpom said:
That’s just misdirection though? We are talking about the effects of vaping. Children and adults breathing in sweet smoke with chemicals in its makeup is a very very bad idea and to say it’s not as bad as smoking isn’t the answer.
Click to expand...
Vaping doesn't produce smoke does it? I thought it was water vapour.
 
r00fie1 said:
Trying to make a comparison and thinking of "big picture" in the scale of things.
I prefer not to savour the sickly odour of canabbis, Rothmans Cambridge, vapes or someone else`s farts.
I also prefer to walk down the street without coughing my guts up when someone thinks they are "entitled" because they have four wheels under their back-sides.
Big picture.
All these issues are for as reason: £££££
Big companies make big profits out of destroying our peoples health and we pay for their profits through the public cost to the NHS.
Follow the money.........

If vaping is going to be banned we should do the same with gambling advertising and sponsorship in sport. It legitimises gambling in young minds......and can be a contributory factor to mental health issues and suicide.
Follow the money.......​
Click to expand...
And alcohol.
 
Laughing said:
A better comparison would be alcohol. It's way more anti social than vaping.
Click to expand...
It's a better comparison, it's more anti-social from a violence perspective, but 99.9% of pints consumed do not lead to any anti-social behaviour. I'd suggest that at least 50% of vape puffs do, as they are largely done in public. The concert tonight is a great example of just how anti-social it gets, a constant cloud from 2,000+ vapes being used in parallel in
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top