Can't say you weren't warned...
Jul. 12th, 2005 12:41 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cosmolinguistHere's something I like about Britain.
In the US, cigarette packs all have little white squares on them which say things like THE SURGEON GENERAL WARNS THAT SNOKING CIGARETTES MAY CAUSE PREMATURE BIRTHS AND LOW BIRTH WEIGHT.
In the UK, the white squares take up half the space on the pack and say things like Smoking kills.
In the US, cigarette packs all have little white squares on them which say things like THE SURGEON GENERAL WARNS THAT SNOKING CIGARETTES MAY CAUSE PREMATURE BIRTHS AND LOW BIRTH WEIGHT.
In the UK, the white squares take up half the space on the pack and say things like Smoking kills.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-11 11:53 pm (UTC)I guess eventually it will take up the entire packet, with the makers not even allowed to have a brand logo.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 10:16 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 12:16 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 08:20 am (UTC)Oh, I see, like this? (I love Google.) Cool.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 03:22 pm (UTC)Although last time, I got a 'where there's smoke, there's poison' label on my package of snuff, so I felt pretty safe.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 10:16 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-13 04:15 am (UTC)Either way, we figured we were safe.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 12:28 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 12:40 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 12:47 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 12:57 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 02:44 am (UTC)I'm a non-smoker, but this anti-choice law that the Ontario gov't has recently enacted really offends me. We're grown adults, we should be able to make our own choices about our bodies.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 11:44 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 03:18 pm (UTC)If you don't want to work in a workplace with smoke, work retail. Likewise, a construction worker can't complain about having to work outdoors all day - it's part of the job.
Alternatively, work at a bar that doesn't allow smoking, or wear a gasmask. There's no need to trample the rights of other people.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 08:26 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 11:45 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 01:24 am (UTC)If cigarettes are so bad, why don't both our countries just ban the damned things outright?
The answer, of course, is...tax money!! On the one hand our governments want to look like they are concerned about the health of the citizens. But in reality, they want that cigarette-generated tax money, and they want as much of it as possible.
That reminds me...I've been meaning to ask, and right here in your journal is a good place. Other than cigarettes, is there any other common consumer product that when used correctly and according to directions will kill you?
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 01:37 am (UTC)Firearms.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 01:48 am (UTC)I've never seen a cigarette study that said "only a few percent of cigarettes sold damage anyone's healthy". So firearms are not comparable here.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 02:21 am (UTC)You'll have to pardon me for answering your question you asked instead of the question you meant (it's the debater in me). I wouldn't contend that firearms cause more health problems than cigarettes. However, I would contrive an argument on two points:
- Light one end.
- Draw air through the cigarette from the other end until the tobacco is consumed.
And for firearms:- Load the gun.
- Point it at something.
- Pull the trigger.
Neither of these is more dangerous to life, inherently, than the other. I can construct a machine to do either, without intervention (aside from providing the material in the first place). If I hang out in the vicinity of each, chances are that my health will be impaired at sooner or later.(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 02:46 am (UTC)Proper usage of a cigarette involves inhaling the smoke into your lungs. Proper usage of a cigarette will make you ill. Proper usage of a firearm will not hurt you.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 03:40 am (UTC)I think one can certainly consider the most common use, the most outrageous use, the use assumed by the manufacturer, et cetera, but how does one derive the proper use of an object?
Tellingly, this may be the best counter to my original argument: I've named a use, and you've named a use, but unless we can agree on an answer to this question, the circles are endless...
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 02:48 am (UTC)Because it wouldn't work. Smuggling (from France, Ireland, or Canada) would become huge, and would create a major source of black-market income for organized crime. Police resources, instead of being used to fight actual crime, would have to be shifted towards enforcing the fag ban.
Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, and I don't imagine it would work for fags either.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 05:20 am (UTC)You have no idea how hard this sentence made me laugh, just because of the different meaning of one word between American usage and British usage. Although there are a lot of religious groups over here that really do want to prohibit fags...
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 07:14 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 08:40 am (UTC)::sighs::
And he'd been showing such promise!
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 08:32 am (UTC)Governments don't really permit or deny us things based on whether they're good for us or not. They aren't supposed to be our babysitters.
When people started suing the tobacco companies and winning I was glad not because I think they were right but because it was nice to see "Big Tobacco" stop being invincible. However, now that those lawsuits have inspired others against McDonald's and 7-Eleven for their Big Macs and Big Gulps making people fat, I'm beginning to regret my mirth because this is just getting silly. And that the governments are starting to talk about about regulating junk food serves us right; if we ask them to be our babysitters, they'll oblige us eventually and end up telling us everything we can and can't do, down to the most trivial.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 08:54 am (UTC)I have little sympathy for smokers (and remember, I like cigars, and up until the mid 80's I fed a 2-pack-a-day cigarette habit, so everyone else reading here need not bother with that "you don't understand the addiction!" bullshit). Its been common knowledge that cigarettes were basically bad since the mid-60s, and warnings have been on the packages since at least the 70s (its late, I'm tired, its raining, that's making my joints hurt, and I don't feel like looking up the exact date). The only way a person could not know cigarettes were bad is if they are blind and deaf, or at least can't read and never watch TV or listen to the radio. Nobody stuck a cigarette in the smoker's mouth, put a gun to their head, and yelled "smoke, motherfucker!"
Next thing you know we'll be suing restaurants because they serve hot coffee and we might burn ourselves. Oh...wait a minute...we already do that (note heavy sarcasm).
That's the basic problem in America today. When someone screws up because of their own stupidity, they have to immediately find someone else they can blame it on and take to court.
PS
Date: 2005-07-12 03:43 am (UTC)Re: PS
Date: 2005-07-12 08:33 am (UTC)Re: PS
Date: 2005-07-12 01:27 pm (UTC)Re: PS
Date: 2005-07-12 05:10 pm (UTC)I remember soon after I started talking to Andrew on the phone, I happened to see an old rerun of it on TV, from when Daphne's character was being introduced to the show, and she said she was Mancunian, and I laughed so hard I was howling, in both amusement and disbelief. The roommate or two who were present at the time thought I was nuts, until I managed to say something like "That's so not the accent that someone from Manchester would have!" This was, I think, how they first heard that I was having phone conversations with an English boy.
I didn't understand at the time that Andrew's accent isn't exactly typical Manc either, but I was right anyway. :-) Hers definitely fails to be Mancunian, much more even than his does.
Re: PS
Date: 2005-07-12 05:12 pm (UTC)Re: PS
Date: 2005-07-12 05:23 pm (UTC)I wonder what kinds of adjectives the other -chester cities have; what do you call people from Winchester or whatever? I should ask.
As for "Glaswegian," it always reminds me of how people like my dad will make fun of people like my grandma (his mother-in-law) by calling them "Iowegian," as she's Norwegian by heritage and Iowan (or nearly so) by birth. Considering that a lot of old people (not my dad, older than him) call Iowa "Ioway", I guess it makes sense that they think it should get the same suffix as "Norway". :-) Of course, it may also have something to do with the fact that there are tons of people of Scandinavian descent in the southern MN/northern IA region I hail from.
Re: PS
Date: 2005-07-12 05:27 pm (UTC)Re: PS
Date: 2005-07-12 05:31 pm (UTC)Germans. We got lots of those, too.
Re: PS
Date: 2005-07-12 05:32 pm (UTC)Re: PS
Date: 2005-07-13 09:48 am (UTC)Re: PS
Date: 2005-07-13 01:08 pm (UTC)Re: PS
Date: 2005-07-13 03:23 pm (UTC)The standard ending for cities ending in 'chester' is 'cestrian', but in the case of Winchester, the example you give, I believe it must be a special case, as googling Wincestrian gives no results.
Re: PS
Date: 2005-07-13 03:42 pm (UTC)Seems you were right (surprise surprise) about the Mamucium bit. Agricola called a fort he set up there Mamucium, meaning "breast shaped hill".
Ha! You live on a breast-shaped hill.
Re: PS
Date: 2005-07-13 03:43 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 03:56 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 03:59 am (UTC)Oh, I was online earlier when you called. Guess who still has dialup!
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 08:36 am (UTC)I thought that might've been why the phone was busy, actually, when I saw you replied to a comment or e-mail or something when I checked the Internet after trying to call you. Ah, well. I'll try again.