PDA

View Full Version : Working with killers



Sheepman
16th-October-2003, 03:17 PM
Did anyone watch "Smoking Under Siege" last night, (I'm still not healthy enough for dancing :tears: ). I couldn't believe some of the stuff that Martin Broughton, the Chairman of BAT was coming out with, in particular the one about discrimination and smokers - I think we've already answered that one elsewhere on the forum. At least the tobacco industry accepts it now kills people, it's just that money is more important.
(And before anyone accuses me of being hypocritical, I admit it, indirectly I have shares in Tracker investments which will include "unethical" industries, though I would never consider directly buying shares in a tobacco company, despite numerous tips I've had over the years.)

The programme also confirmed that I will never go to Anthony Worrall Thompson's restaurant, not because of his attitude on smoking, but because the non smoking section of his restaurant is tucked away upstairs, so you have to walk through the smelly bit to get to it.

Anyway, it got me thinking about workers in the tobacco industry, I can't imagine myself ever being poor enough (again) to even consider it, but what about you?

Greg

Pammy
16th-October-2003, 03:30 PM
I can't stand the thought that they test them on animals and make dogs wear masks that make them smoke constantly all their lives.:reallymad

Animal Testing is something I'm COMPLETELY against, so no wouldn't work in the industry for many reasons, that being just one.

Dance Demon
16th-October-2003, 04:09 PM
Depends how deeply you want to go into things I suppose. Don't know actual figures but there must be a lot of people who die each year because of alcohol induced illness, and in industry the % of working days lost due to alcohol related illness must be very high. I have worked in this industry, both at the production stages, and at the retail end, and have no misgivings about it.
like wise if you look at the clothing industry, and were made aware of the methods used in third world country sweatshops to produce the trendy gear that we wear, would we have second thoughts about wearing it.
The tobacco industry exists, because of the demand for smoking products, and the smoking of tobacco, as yet, is not illegal.
If everyone working in the tobacco industry was to stop working there ,it would do irreparable damage to the financial well being of many countries, and would lead to mass unemployment and poverty......
If it was the only job available, I would have no reservations about working in the tobacco industry, because at the end of the day, my primary concern is providing for my family and myself.

thewacko
17th-October-2003, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by Pammy
I can't stand the thought that they test them on animals and make dogs wear masks that make them smoke constantly all their lives.:reallymad

Animal Testing is something I'm COMPLETELY against, so no wouldn't work in the industry for many reasons, that being just one.

firstly I do not work in the tobacco industry!

secondly the poll is so biased, it doesn't even allow anyone to vote for a job in the industry if they wanted to - unless they were under threat of being out of work

thirdly: i agree that tests should not be made on animals - maybe they ought to try testing on non-smoking cerocers:devil: :wink:

PeterL
17th-October-2003, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by Dance Demon
Depends how deeply you want to go into things I suppose. Don't know actual figures but there must be a lot of people who die each year because of alcohol induced illness, and in industry the % of working days lost due to alcohol related illness must be very high. I have worked in this industry, both at the production stages, and at the retail end, and have no misgivings about it.
like wise if you look at the clothing industry, and were made aware of the methods used in third world country sweatshops to produce the trendy gear that we wear, would we have second thoughts about wearing it.
The tobacco industry exists, because of the demand for smoking products, and the smoking of tobacco, as yet, is not illegal.
If everyone working in the tobacco industry was to stop working there ,it would do irreparable damage to the financial well being of many countries, and would lead to mass unemployment and poverty......
If it was the only job available, I would have no reservations about working in the tobacco industry, because at the end of the day, my primary concern is providing for my family and myself.


I totally agree with this, I used to be a croupier, i
I didn't force people to gamble. I just did my job and paid out to the people who won. Most people in the tobacco industry are just doing there job. for example is the guy who works behind the counter at a newsagent doing something wrong by selling the product?

Sheepman
17th-October-2003, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by thewacko
secondly the poll is so biased, it doesn't even allow anyone to vote for a job in the industry if they wanted to - unless they were under threat of being out of work I won't deny the pole is biased, I'm biased. I can't wait till smoking is banned in all public places, but that is more about my own health and comfort than out of concern for others. Though I can't say I expected there to be many people out there who were desparately keen to work in the tobacco industry, but they don't already, so I thought the "I Have no strong feelings" option was enough. I was being a little flippant (what me! :sorry: ) in setting up the pole, perhaps that was wrong.

And DD, the tired old diversionary tactic that there are other industries that involve killing people. I should have hoped for better from you! Yes there are dozens of industries that result in death (particularly the motor industry), I can't think of many industries that don't. (Modern Jive?) But perhaps apart from the arms industry, I can't think of any where the "normal" use of the product results in so many deaths, how many of you personally know of people that have died due to smoking? I know of many. Whereas no other single cause is notable in the deaths of any of my friends or relatives.

I believe the economics argument is also specious, yes there are a huge number of people currently dependant on tobacco for their livelihoods, and in this country we do particularly well out of basing multinational tobacco companies here. Industries do come and go, as has been especially the case in recent times. There are a lot of people escaping poverty because of the production of heroine, should we be encouraging them?

Greg

Gadget
17th-October-2003, 02:38 PM
Sheepman:
I can't think of any where the "normal" use of the product results in so many deaths, how many of you personally know of people that have died due to smoking? I know of many. Whereas no other single cause is notable in the deaths of any of my friends or relatives.

Heart disease? Us Scotts have a very high rate of heart realated deaths: we deep-fry Mars Bars {in batter} for goodness sake! you could substitute "Chip Shops" in the above pole.

:devil:

Sheepman
17th-October-2003, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by Gadget
we deep-fry Mars Bars {in batter} for goodness sake! you could substitute "Chip Shops" in the above pole.
OK, sorry, I forgot what's "normal" for some! :wink:

Greg

thewacko
17th-October-2003, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by Sheepman


I believe the economics argument is also specious, yes there are a huge number of people currently dependant on tobacco for their livelihoods, and in this country we do particularly well out of basing multinational tobacco companies here. Industries do come and go, as has been especially the case in recent times. There are a lot of people escaping poverty because of the production of heroine, should we be encouraging them?

Greg

:sad: not to mention the copious amounts of revenue sent to the NHS through taxable income from the ole cancer sticks {*} which so many of us rely on



:wink: * anyone going abroad - i could do with some cheap ciggys:drool:

thewacko
17th-October-2003, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by Gadget
we deep-fry Mars Bars {in batter} for goodness sake!
:devil: [/B]

never had had any of these - how do you do it without melting the chocolate

and is it clean batter or the same stuff used to fry the fish in?

:wink: think i'll stick to pork pie and mushy peas:cheers:

Heather
17th-October-2003, 03:41 PM
LEARN TO SPELL !! IT'S 'POLL' NOT 'POLE'.
I'l be stringing you bad spellers up to a pole, when I find out who you are!!!!!!

Gadget, I know who you are, so watch out, if you don't know the catapult, double spin , karate chop move, I'll demonstrate the next time I see you!!:sick:

Some of you need to add 'dictionary' to the top of your Christmas lists!

:kiss: :hug:
Heather.

azande
17th-October-2003, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by Sheepman
how many of you personally know of people that have died due to smoking? I know of many. Whereas no other single cause is notable in the deaths of any of my friends or relatives.

I don't know of anyone that died due to smoking............but three brothers of friends of mine were killed in car crashes.

Sheepman
18th-October-2003, 02:15 AM
Originally posted by Heather
LEARN TO SPELL !! IT'S 'POLL' NOT 'POLE'.
Oops, brain must have gone to sleep :blush: :blush:
Or perhaps it was just a non-sequitarial prolixity!

Greg

Dance Demon
18th-October-2003, 09:26 AM
[i]And DD, the tired old diversionary tactic that there are other industries that involve killing people. I should have hoped for better from you! Yes there are dozens of industries that result in death (particularly the motor industry), I can't think of many industries that don't. (Modern Jive?) But perhaps apart from the arms industry, I can't think of any where the "normal" use of the product results in so many deaths, how many of you personally know of people that have died due to smoking? I know of many. Whereas no other single cause is notable in the deaths of any of my friends or relatives

Greg [/B]

Not a diversionary tactic Wooly Bully.........I am a non smoker, as stated in the other thread. I know of a lot of people that died through drinking too much......some quite famous people suffer from that one......George Best seems to be heading that way, as did some other footballers..:wink:

Sheepman
20th-October-2003, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by azande
I don't know of anyone that died due to smoking....
Names of friends and relatives that died due to smoking kept popping in to my head yesterday, I stopped counting at 9.

Greg

David Franklin
20th-October-2003, 06:52 PM
Interesting article from the online edition of the Evening Standard (London):

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/lifeandstyle/health/articles/7213584?source=Daily%20Mail


A town that banned smoking in public for six months saw heart attack rates plunge by almost 60 per cent.

But when the prohibition was lifted, the rate quickly bounced back to its previous level.
...

Researcher Dr Richard Sargent said a previous study showed smokers' spouses were 30 per cent more likely to have a heart attack.
Dave

thewacko
23rd-October-2003, 01:30 PM
originally quoted by david franklin (from a news paper ):

Researcher Dr Richard Sargent said a previous study showed smokers' spouses were 30 per cent more likely to have a heart attack.

:wink: as a smoker then i better get her indoors's insurance boosted up:wink:

stewart38
7th-November-2003, 10:38 AM
Firstly alcohol causes far more misery then smoking and if it was invented now it would be banned (ps I don't want it banned !)

A recent article in the Evening standard stated there wasn't any report that categorically link passive smoking to premature death. Some of these discussions seem to take that as fact

I would prefer a blanket ban on push bikes that go through red lights far more dangerous

I suggest no one who is so anti smoking go to Bingo (there are many die hards there)

I'm a non smoking and as smoking is not illegal I would like to stand up for smokers rights

I worked for Wimpy part time once I wonder how many people that has killed (Given the class action in the USA against Mcdonalds)

So yes I would if I had to work for a tobacco company .

I think the current law situation re smoking is about right

:sick:

TheTramp
7th-November-2003, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by stewart38
Firstly alcohol causes far more misery then smoking and if it was invented now it would be banned (ps I don't want it banned !)

A recent article in the Evening standard stated there wasn't any report that categorically link passive smoking to premature death. Some of these discussions seem to take that as fact

I would prefer a blanket ban on push bikes that go through red lights far more dangerous

I suggest no one who is so anti smoking go to Bingo (there are many die hards there)

I'm a non smoking and as smoking is not illegal I would like to stand up for smokers rights

I worked for Wimpy part time once I wonder how many people that has killed (Given the class action in the USA against Mcdonalds)

So yes I would if I had to work for a tobacco company .

I think the current law situation re smoking is about right

:sick: Alcohol causes more misery for who than smoking?? Where does this 'fact' come from. Or did you just decide to make it up??

Regarding passive smoking. I thought I'd give the benefit of the doubt. So, I typed 'passive smoking' into Google. The first 20 reports were detailing the dangers of passive smoking. Didn't find one that says it's okie in the first 20 I looked at. While you always get contradictory reports on any controversial issue, I'd prefer to believe the majority thanks. The fact that cigarette packets now have big letters on them, saying things like 'Passive smoking kills your friends', kinda sways it for me too. Not to mention all the other downsides of passive smoking - 'Some of the immediate effects of passive smoking include eye irritation, headache, cough, sore throat, dizziness and nausea' (taken from a report by Ash). I'd also like to include that it is also capable of triggering asthma attacks. I have many personal experiences of this.

Push bikes that go through red lights are only generally immediately dangerous to themselves (very few people that hit a bike with a car suffer any damage to themselves - I know this for a fact, having been knocked off a bike twice, without the car driver having any ill effects (though not while I was going through a red light I hasten to add)). Of course, bike riders going through red lights, are committing an offence, and should it be witnessed by the police, I would hope that they would do something about it. Have to admit that I did it once, in Cardiff, at 2am, when there was no car in sight. And I was pulled over by the police - it's quite an amusing sight I feel, a police car driving with flashing lights behind a bike :na: Additionally, two wrongs don't make a right (as my mother was heard to say many times while I was growing up). The ideal solution would be to stop both.

I was going to say something about the other points you made, but I'm slowly losing the will to live now, and probably so are the people reading this... :rolleyes:

Steve

Forte
7th-November-2003, 11:02 AM
I HATE smoking and I HATE passive smoking MORE THAN I hate smoking so no argument there but I suspect the "misery" being talked about when it comes to alcohol is : violence, domestic violence, divorce, neglected and abused children, hurtful words, promiscuity, and all the other things people do when drunk...

TheTramp
7th-November-2003, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by Forte
I HATE smoking and I HATE passive smoking MORE THAN I hate smoking so no argument there but I suspect the "misery" being talked about when it comes to alcohol is : violence, domestic violence, divorce, neglected and abused children, hurtful words, promiscuity, and all the other things people do when drunk... I understand what the 'misery' is. What I was questioning was the statement that 'alcohol causes far more misery then smoking'.

Steve

stewart38
7th-November-2003, 11:13 AM
Interest views Tramp, although a bit bias

I didn't write the report it followed on from whether London should impose stronger laws on smoking.

Ken Livingstones own department stated yesterday in the Evening Standard there is no concrete evidence (not me !) and they are not looking to extend smoking ban.

Work in the city of london and you will see why bikes are such a danger to all pedestrians !!.

Re drinking well I won't go there. Perhaps you want to go into Leeds city centre in the evening or live with 10% of the people who have a problem with drink which they say effects 30% of the population :sad:

I think we beg to differ

Dreadful Scathe
7th-November-2003, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by stewart38
Firstly alcohol causes far more misery then smoking and if it was invented now it would be banned (ps I don't want it banned !)

Maybe it does cause more 'misery' in the short term, aggressive behaviour, drunken spouses and the like but in the long term the misery of friends and family dropping dead from health problems caused or increased by smoking, probably outway the trauma of getting shouted at by a drunken yob in the street when you were younger :). How many Alcoholics do you know compared to regular smokers? Its unlikely to be a 1:1 ratio.

Alcohol can make some people violent BUT if Mother Theresa had sunk a few pints of Stella on a night out do you think she would have smacked a chair over your head? Alcohol is not a magic drug that causes violence and in moderation does you no long term harm whatsoever. Smoking and even passive smoking DO cause long term harm.

One of my grrr's for the other thread is the highly dubious defence for criminal assault cases of 'they were under the influence and didnt know what they were doing' ... they choose to get themselves in that state didnt they ? Normal people dont behave like that!

I dont think alcohol would be banned if it 'was invented now' there are plenty other poisons that get into your blood stream, chemicals in food and drink, fumes from cars, industry etc .... alcohol is fairly mild compared to lots of other things we ingest deliberately or not on a daily basis. Even red meat builds up in your body for years and causes you harm at a later date, alcohol doesnt do that.

Forte
7th-November-2003, 11:44 AM
Agree with your Grrr about legal defence D.S.
Oh and by the way, scary new signature quote!!!

stewart38
7th-November-2003, 11:53 AM
Gone of the thread a bit and I apologise but just to confirm

Government said it would ban alcohol if it was invented now.It has about a 10% addiction rate (higher then cocaine)

ps I don't like smoking have never taken cocaine.

Maybe I should start a thread 'what is a alcoholic ?' I think people would have very different definitions !.


:confused:

TheTramp
7th-November-2003, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by Dreadful Scathe
One of my grrr's for the other thread is the highly dubious defence for criminal assault cases of 'they were under the influence and didnt know what they were doing' ... they choose to get themselves in that state didnt they ? Normal people dont behave like that!Actually, in Scottish law, there is no defence against 'self or voluntary' intoxication. In Brennan v HMA 1977, the court held that 'voluntary ingestion of intoxicants could not found either insanity or diminished responsibility'.

If you've had a drink 'spiked' though, that is different

Steve

TheTramp
7th-November-2003, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by stewart38
Government said it would ban alcohol if it was invented now.It has about a 10% addiction rate (higher then cocaine)Government?? Define Government please....

Are you talking about one member of Parliament who has said this in a speech? Hardly can be classed as 'Government'.

Until a bill has gone through the first reading, second reading, committee, report, and third reading stage, it can hardly be classed as 'Government has said that.... ' :na:

Steve

Chris
7th-November-2003, 12:13 PM
Government said it would ban alcohol if it was invented now.

[i]Originally posted by TheTramp
Government?? Define Government please....

Are you talking about one member of Parliament who has said this in a speech? Hardly can be classed as 'Government'.

Until a bill has gone through the first reading, second reading, committee, report, and third reading stage, it can hardly be classed as 'Government has said that.... ' :na:

Steve

Since the quote was "would ban if it was invented now" it is hypothetical and unimplementable and not a statement in law, so I think anyone reasonably 'representing' the government could say that with impunity, although some government ministers or PM might be annoyed if it doesn't represent an agreed party viewpoint. Doesn't sound a big deal really . . . As a legal statement it could only be said obiter.

Graham
7th-November-2003, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by TheTramp
Government?? Define Government please....
Until a bill has gone through the first reading, second reading, committee, report, and third reading stage, it can hardly be classed as 'Government has said that.... ' :na: I agree with your basic argument that the government has not made (to my knowledge) the statement attributed by Stewart38, but your reasoning is incorrect :grin: A Bill which goes through the process you described would then be an Act of Parliament. The Government, on the other hand, is the executive body which runs the country, and has many official spokespersons, some of whom are MPs, and some of whom are not. For example, the messages on the cigarette packaging are a "government statement" since they are mandated by officials in the Department of Health. A speech by a government spokesman in parliament would also be a "government statement". However, a speech by the same person in his capacity as a constituency MP would not be a "govenment statement", unless it was confirmed (by him or by other official spokespersons) that he was speaking for the government at the time.

Dreadful Scathe
7th-November-2003, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by stewart38
Government said it would ban alcohol if it was invented now.It has about a 10% addiction rate (higher then cocaine)

Comparing addiction rate is meaningless - caffeine has a very high addiction rate (30%) but any addictive drug has different side effects e.g. too much caffeine can make pregnant women twice as likely to lose the child. Cocaine may be less addictive but alcohol is better for you :).

info: 'The Truth about Caffeine , Alcohol and Tobacco' (http://www.globalchange.com/drugs/TAD-Chapter%204.htm)

I especially like this quote from the above link..

Nicotine is probably as addictive as heroin and on a national scale far more dangerous to health.It kills 120,000 every year in Britain alone and if tobacco were reaching the market today for the first time would without question be banned outright as a highly dangerous, addictive substance.

oh oh and this one...

Smoking kills more people than AIDS, alcohol, drug abuse, car crashes, murders, suicides and fires combined


Originally posted by stewart38
Maybe I should start a thread 'what is a alcoholic ?' I think people would have very different definitions !.


Really? Id be surprised - 'A person who drinks alcohol habitually and to excess' - sums it up perfectly I think ? I dont know anyone who would disagree with that definition !

Chris
7th-November-2003, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by stewart38
Maybe I should start a thread 'what is a alcoholic ?' I think people would have very different definitions !.

I liked the one from my late doctor (who probably died of a combination of cigarettes and alcohol, which, after a few drinks, he often said was his wish)

"An alcoholic is someone who drinks more than their doctor"

Sheepman
7th-November-2003, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by Dreadful Scathe
'A person who drinks alcohol habitually and to excess' - sums it up perfectly I think ? I dont know anyone who would disagree with that definition !
Not quite, because if you speak to anyone who is a member of AA, they will say they are an alcoholic, even if they don't touch another drop in their life.

A personal experience of the misery caused by alcohol and cigarettes. With a father who was an alcoholic, with the attendant problems, and a stepfather who died of lung cancer. Cases that are hard to compare, but I'm sure the whole of my family would agree that the latter caused much more suffering.

Greg

stewart38
7th-November-2003, 04:06 PM
Yes there are people who haven't drunk for 20 yrs who are alcoholic

I loved this article by a women who drank every day whos kids and every one was on at her. She said of course I'm not a alcoholic because I don't drink in the morning !

What this has to do with working for a tobacco company i don't know

:what:

Dreadful Scathe
7th-November-2003, 07:04 PM
Originally posted by Sheepman
Not quite, because if you speak to anyone who is a member of AA, they will say they are an alcoholic, even if they don't touch another drop in their life.

Fair enough. But the definition is still true, even though it refers to the past, pretty much the same as statements like 'unemployed builder looking for work' . He wont forget he's a builder. Ok maybe not exactly the same thing, but i imagine being an alcoholic is something you never forget but some people do hang on to the past way too much.

Daphne
7th-November-2003, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by Dreadful Scathe
i imagine being an alcoholic is something you never forget but some people do hang on to the past way too much.

Being labelled an alcoholic for life is done by AA and suchlikes, but it's not because they're hanging onto the past, it's because 'once an alcoholic always an alcoholic' i.e. you will always be vulnerable to alcoholism. Interestingly the same isn't true for smokers.... phew, back on topic.....

Dreadful Scathe
7th-November-2003, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by Scooby Doo
Interestingly the same isn't true for smokers....

not from the ex-smokers ive spoken to anyway - every ex smoker has always said that they still cannot be in a room with smokers, even 20 years after they had their last one.

I wouldnt know Ive never been addicted to anything :)

Sheepman
10th-November-2003, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by Dreadful Scathe
I wouldnt know Ive never been addicted to anything :) Going further off thread.
Curious - how much tea/coffee/cola do you drink, and have you ever tried giving it up?

Greg