www.zastitaumestozabrane.com/

[hazard]

Jel ima bar jedan objekat koji ima pravo biranja da je izabrao da zabrani pusenje?

Ima. Jedan od Greeneta u centru npr. Zabranjeno.

[Shan Jan]

Mislim da je Delija mislio na objekte koji rade i posle ponoci.

[dig_chohano]

Napredan mali.

[Shan Jan]

Srecan vam 31. januar, dan borbe protiv pusenja :) Dogodine u dangubi

[betty]

Plainly put, cigarette packaging matters

This week our government committed itself to the removal, albeit slowly, of cigarette displays in shops. But plain packaging on cigarettes has been delayed for further consultation.The Unite union is unimpressed. It represents 6,000 people in tobacco production and distribution, and put out a statement: "Switching to plain packaging will make it easier to sell illicit and unregulated products, especially to young people." This, the union added, "may increase long-term health problems".Tory MP Philip Davies said: "Plain packaging for cigarettes would be gesture politics … it would have no basis in evidence."Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not, sadly, their own facts. Cigarette packaging has been used for brand-building and sales expansion, and that is bad enough; but it has also been used for many decades to sell the crucial lie that cigarettes which are "light", "mild", "silver", and the rest, are somehow safer.This is one of the most important con tricks of all time: people base real decisions on it, even though low-tar cigarettes are just as bad for you as normal cigarettes, as we have known for decades. Manufacturers' gimmicks, like the holes on the filter beside your fingers, confuse laboratory smoking machines, but not people. Smokers who switch to lower-tar brands compensate with larger, faster, deeper inhalations, and by smoking more cigarettes.The collected data from a million people shows that those who smoke low-tar and "ultra-light" cigarettes get lung cancer at the same rate as people who smoke normal cigarettes. They are also, paradoxically, less likely to give up smoking.So the "light", "pale" and "mild" packaging sells a lie. But do people know this? In data from two population-based surveys, a third of smokers believed incorrectly that "light" cigarettes reduce health risks, and were less addictive (it's 71% in China (pdf)). A random telephone-digit survey of 2,120 smokers found they believed on average that "ultra lights" convey a 33% reduction in risk. A postal survey of 500 smokers found a quarter believed "light" cigarettes are safer. A school-based questionnaire of 267 adolescents found once again, as you'd expect, that they incorrectly believed "light" cigarettes to be healthier and less addictive.Where do all these incorrect beliefs come from? Careful manipulation by the tobacco industry, as you can see for yourself, in their internal documents available for free online. They explicitly planned to deter quitters with "mild" products, which were made to seem safer and less addictive.But more than 50 countries, including the UK, have now banned a few magic words like "light" and "mild". So is that enough? No. A survey of 15,000 people in four countries found that after the UK ban, there was a brief dip in false beliefs, but by 2005 we bounced back to having the same false beliefs about "safer-looking" brands as the US.This is because brand packaging continues to peddle these lies. A street-interception survey from 2009 of 300 smokers and 300 non-smokers found that people think packages with "smooth" and "silver" in the names are safer, and that cigarettes in packaging with lighter colour, and a picture of a filter, were also safer.Of course tobacco companies know this. As the Philip Morris tobacco company said in an internal document, entitled Marketing New Products in a Restrictive Environment: "Lower delivery products tend to be featured in blue packs. Indeed, as one moves down the delivery sector, then the closer to white a pack tends to become. This is because white is generally held to convey a clean, healthy association."If you're in doubt of the impact this can have, "brand imagery" studies show that when participants smoke the exact same cigarettes presented in lighter coloured packs, or in packs with "mild" in the name, they rate the smoke as lighter and less harsh, simply through the power of suggestion. These illusory perceptions of mildness, of course, further reinforce the false belief that the cigarettes are healthier.But these aren't the only reasons why banning a few words from packaging isn't enough. A study of 600 adolescents, for example, found that plain packages increase the noticeability, recall, and credibility of warning labels.There's no real doubt that the extended, complex, interlocking branding and packaging machinations of cigarette companies play a big role in misleading smokers about the risks, by downplaying them, and sadly nothing from Unite – for shame – or some Tory MP will change that.If you don't care about this evidence, or you think jobs are more important than people killed by cigarettes, or you think libertarian principles are more important than both, then that's a different matter. But if you say the evidence doesn't show evidence of harm from branded packaging, you are simply wrong.

[Suva krpa na dnu mora]

Ne postoje nikakva "prava pušača." Pušači se ne rađaju kao takvi, već svesno biraju da ugrožavaju okolinu. Da se ja pitam, zabranilo bi se svako pušenje izvan privatnog stana i bilo bi legalno samo ukoliko svi drugi ukućani pristaju na to, inače oni postaju žrtve pasivnog pušenja i dužnost je države da ih zaštiti od ugrožavanja njihovog zdravlja. Jesam clean freak i ne stidim se toga!

[gagorder]

Ne postoje nikakva "prava pušača." Pušači se ne rađaju kao takvi, već svesno biraju da ugrožavaju okolinu.

non sequitur, primer iz udzbenika.

[henrik larsson]

Ne postoje nikakva "prava pušača." Pušači se ne rađaju kao takvi, već svesno biraju da ugrožavaju okolinu. Da se ja pitam, zabranilo bi se svako pušenje izvan privatnog stana i bilo bi legalno samo ukoliko svi drugi ukućani pristaju na to, inače oni postaju žrtve pasivnog pušenja i dužnost je države da ih zaštiti od ugrožavanja njihovog zdravlja. Jesam clean freak i ne stidim se toga!

Avatar ti je bezveze, ugrožavaš moj status svežeg nepušača plus si nepotrebno agresivni štreber početnik. Reportovan si po solidnom broju osnova.

[Suva krpa na dnu mora]

non sequitur, primer iz udzbenika.

Nisam rekao da pušači nemaju ljudska prava, već da kao takvi (kao pušači) ne uživaja nikakva posebna prava po zakonu.

[gagorder]

Nisam rekao da pušači nemaju ljudska prava, već da kao takvi (kao pušači) ne uživaja nikakva posebna prava po zakonu.

nisi to rekao. rekao si da iz toga sto se pusaci "ne radjaju kao takvi" nego "svesno biraju" da puse/zagadjuju/stagod, proizlazi da nemaju prava. ni vozaci se ne radjaju za volanom, ali kad svesno izaberu da za njega sednu imaju odredjena prava. a kad udjes u pusacku kafanu ili pusacki deo neke kafane, pa trazis da pusaci tu prestanu da puse, oni ce ti reci sta? da imaju pravo da puse u takvoj kafani ili u tom delu kafane, sto je tacno. dakle, ni ovaj tvoj preformulisani iskaz nije tacan.

[Suva krpa na dnu mora]

nisi to rekao. rekao si da iz toga sto se pusaci "ne radjaju kao takvi" nego "svesno biraju" da puse/zagadjuju/stagod, proizlazi da nemaju prava. ni vozaci se ne radjaju za volanom, ali kad svesno izaberu da za njega sednu imaju odredjena prava. a kad udjes u pusacku kafanu ili pusacki deo neke kafane, pa trazis da pusaci tu prestanu da puse, oni ce ti reci sta? da imaju pravo da puse u takvoj kafani ili u tom delu kafane, sto je tacno. dakle, ni ovaj tvoj preformulisani iskaz nije tacan.

Koja su to posebna "vozačka prava?" Nikada nisam čuo za tako nešto. Zbog čega su vozači privilegovani po zakonu da čine nešto što drugi ne smeju. Vožnja je vid transporta te je korisna za vozača, dok je pušenje ugrožava ne samo pušača već i njegovu okolinu - koliko samo ljudi godišnje umire od pasivnog pušenja?

[Alphons]

iskreno se nadam da ćeš sutra ujutru na Hate topicu pričati o strašnom pijanstvu i black-outu koji si doživeo večeras, jer ako ovo trezan pišeš, lele majko.Mrzim da odgovaram pitanjem na pitanje, ali moram:- koja su to posebna pušačka prava koja ostali nemaju ? kako su to privilegovani da rade nešto što ne smeju drugi ? Svako može da puši. I svako može da kaže da ne želi da bude u istoj prostoriji sa osobom koja puši. Znaš, kao ona mogućnost da ti neko ponudi da te vozi kad je očigledno pijan, a ti kažeš - neću, hvala, a ni tebi ne bih to preporučio. - vožnja je vid transporta i korisna je za vozača. Kakva sjajna zamena teza : a jel vožnja korisna za sve koji udišu te izduvne gasove ? za ljude koji stradaju u saobraćajnim nesrećama ? jel fokus ovde na "korisnika" ili na one "ostale", koji nemaju nikakve koristi od te cigare/vožnje ? Usput, mislim da postoje alternativni načini transporta koji su eko-friendly. Recimo električna kola, vozovi, tramvaji, trole... loš primer, struja se uglavnom dobija iz termoelektrana, koje zagađuju vazduh. Dobro, ostaju bicikli, roleri, trotineti.... u kurac, za to su potrebni plastični delovi, koji nastaju preradom sirove nafte. Dobro, uvek možemo peške... Poenta je da je trovanje svuda oko nas. Na neke od tih stvari (kao što su termoelektrane) ne možemo na ličnom nivou da utičemo, ne možemo da odbijemo da udišemo vazduh. Kada je pušenje u pitanju, svako može da kaže - ja neću da idem u mesta gde se puši, niti da se družim sa ljudima koji puše u mom prisustvu.

[Suva krpa na dnu mora]

OK možda jesam malo preterao, ali šta raditi sa slučajevima u kući. Naprimer ako drugim ukućanima pušenje izuzetno smeta kako da prisile pušača da više ne koristi duvan u kući?

[Indy]

Jao, majko, logiciranja

[Alphons]

OK možda jesam malo preterao, ali šta raditi sa slučajevima u kući. Naprimer ako drugim ukućanima pušenje izuzetno smeta kako da prisile pušača da više ne koristi duvan u kući?

pa da se dogovore, pobogu. čemu država u tome ?