h a l f b a k e r yFutility is persistent.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Let me explain.
Whilst in Australia, where 1 in 3 people die of cancer (skin, lung or liver being the highest culprits), my friend and I were contemplating the disastrous effects of smoking and how at any minute you could pop your clogs.
The more we thought about it the more we realised that it
is the time length, and visable severity that is the issue not the fact that cigarettes are actually deadly.
So we came up with Random Cigarettes.
Cigarettes that look the same as any other. And are packaged in randomly chosen boxes.
These happy chappies though contain an explosive pellet, maybe at the start, the end or the middle, which could blow your head off. The risk from smoking would be no more or less, you could die, you could not. It'd be a random chance like it is now. But maybe the more visual effects and sudden (though not more severe) consequences would deter more smokers.
The down side is that innocent parties may get injured, but don't they through passive smoking anyway? Yes, the odds are the same, the severity equal, just a more sudden and visual consequence of playing with fire and dancing with death.
PS I know you'll all fishbone me on moral grounds. But I don't care. My argument is correct. The death rate is proved.
PPS Just think how much money the NHS would save.
(?) Corrupt Science
http://collection.n...udies/05RskLuik.pdf
[thumbwax, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 21 2004]
[link]
|
| |
Not an original idea. By the way, what incentive do you imagine a cigarette manufacturer could have to implement this idea? |
|
| |
[AJ]'s onto something. And since
approx. 1 in 3 deaths of people
under 24 are due to motor vehicle
accidents, and most of those
where alcohol is involved, we
could randomly
place land mines on roads where
young people commonly drive,
near night clubs, bars, and
schools.
The risk from
driving would be no more or less,
you could die, you could not. It'd
be a random chance like it is now.
But maybe the more
visual effects and sudden (though
not more severe) consequences
would deter more drunk drivers.
The down side is that
innocent parties may get injured,
but don't they through being in
the passenger seat or run over by
drunk drivers anyway?
Yes, the odds are the
same, the severity equal, just a
more sudden and visual
consequence of playing with fire
and dancing with death.
My argument is correct.
The death rate is proved. |
|
| |
I'm an avid reader of the MAD(tm) magazine... and as every other big fan of that crazy publication would tell you: THIS IDEA IS ALREADY BAKED (by Al Jaffee, sometime in the late 80's, I think). [ - ] |
|
| |
//The down side is that innocent parties may get injured, but don't they through passive smoking anyway?//
That is a crock. |
|
| |
Thanks Roby. The sarcasm is appreciated. |
|
| |
PPPS Think of it as an analogous argument seeking to point out the risks of smoking that people seem not to realise. See everything's okay now. |
|
| |
It's already baked? Who's Al Jaffee? Damn him. Now I'll have to think up something else inhumane. Oh well. Just vote for my political party and everything will be fine. |
|
| |
I am a smoker. I think this could work but cigarrette manufacturers won't implement it, as snarfyguy said.
I just wonder why people automatically fishbone all ideas related to quit smoking. I have read much more violent ideas here that have been "croissanted". I think you people are biased. |
|
| |
Also, why does everyone argue about making people quit smoking anyways? There are worse habits in the society that are accepted. I don't mean to say that smoking is good, or that it should be admited as a good habit, but hey, take a look at your own disgusting habits and then complain about other people's ways to die. Smokers know the risk, we will all eventually die anyways, so I think there are other ideas that could be suggested here. |
|
| |
Oh man, don't even go there. We just got done debating this topic to death a couple of months ago. |
|
| |
//Cigarettes with no difference in mortality rate than before.//
Regardless of subject matter, when something is cited as fact, my personal history (in this case, being a smoker) is irrelevant. If someone sends me an email which states something as fact, I check the facts, usually through snopes.com - and return the results to sender, as it's usually false. Same goes for any topic on any forum - if someone states a result, I check facts. In this case, someone states a premise whereby second-hand smoke deaths are a given - and by implementing this idea, those presumed deaths can be can be arbitrarily duplicated. The problem is twofold: One - *see link*. Two: By default, this invention would *actually* not only kill nonsmokers within range, it would kill far more than ever could be killed through passive smoke.
See link regarding second-hand smoke fallacy. |
|
| |
This is utterly ridiculous. You want to put fucking bombs in cigarettes? |
|
| |
Oh, but it doesn't matter if the smoker and everyone around him explodes. After all, he's a *dirty evil smoker*! |
|
| |
Stuff it up your ass. If I ever see you offline, I'll be sure to blow some smoke in your face. |
|
| |
[thumbwax], your link is utterly broken. But you're right--the only reason everybody's so convinced they're going to die if someone lights up a couple feet away from them is because Big Brother told them so. |
|
| |