I guess a fashion forum isn't really the most appropriate venue for discussion on health issues. It seems that for some people at least.. vanity,.. or perhaps more specifically, a need to be seen with a designer label, can triumph over all else!
Thank heavens there aren't any hospitals run by Chanel, palliative care units by Versace, or coffins made by Gucci.
Well, I always seen Chanel as a healthy brand, everything with their chanel logo skis etc... but you're right about versace, gucci and ysl...
I see nothing wrong in Yves Saint Laurent selling cigarettes - if luxury consumers want a luxury cigarette they can buy YSL instead of Sobranie. Saint Laurent isn't promoting anything that isn't already available
Agree with that.
Besides, somehow I don't hear people complaining about cancer etc. when they see the cigarettes in every Vogue Paris issue.
A few years ago you could only get them in certain tobacco shops in Paris, they used to have them in Luxembourg too. The packaging used to be dark red before they switched to the black one - the cigarette is slightly longer than "normal marlboros" and the filter is a bit shiny/sparkly.
As a part-time smoker, I like the taste of them - but I never smoked them every day because compared to "normal marlboros" they contain way more nicotine and carbon monoxide.
^really, could you give us some facts? how much nicotine, compared with marlboros, does ysl's have?
I honestly can't remember, it was several years ago since I had a YSL pack. All I know is that I compared the numbers with my friend's pack and was surprised. However, I do not know if it is the case today as the last time I owned a pack was in 07 or 08.
Cartier also used to make cigarettes by the way - it's way more cohesive with YSL's image than with Cartier's.
Cigarettes give you stained teeth, dark gums, bad breath, black lungs, and bad skin. No matter the designer label they carry, even if it were freaking Ann Demeulemeester or Yohji Yamamoto, they still make you UGLY. I don't see how the super-vain and superficial fashion crowd can reconcile that fact with the idea and image of "glamourous smoking".
I think they are utterly pointless. They taste terrible, too. Smoking only looks good in the movies and photoshoots, when you can't smell them and you're bathed with flattering lighting.
If cigarettes were withdrawn from public sale, I'd probably be more concerned about how the government would react in order to compensate itself for the loss of tax revenue.
Could be seen as a long term investment. Couple of economics students had gone over the numbers and there was a huge loss in health care from diseases directly linked to smoking alone, like COPD, lung, tongue, larynx, esophagus, lip, cancers. Not counting all the conditions where smoking is a huge contributing factor, various other cancers, heart disease, atherosclerosis and so on. Plus there are expenses in cleaning all the mess up, fire damage (when someone falls asleep with a lit cigarette), the cost separate smoker's areas, all those stickers and so on that weren't included in there.
Where I live excise duty is 34% for each pack. So they cost like 5 EUR, means each time someone purchases it, 1.7 EUR go into tax.
Let's say someone smokes 1 pack a day, for 20 years. Makes 7.200 packs=12.240 EUR in tax. Couple months lung cancer treatment, say surgery, radiation plus the additional treatments for survivors (9 out of 10 lung cancer patients die, it goes to stage IV in a blink of an eye) - starting at 50'000 EUR and upwards per person. All paid from public health care budget. Ok, is not given that everyone gets cancer from smoking, but every smoker who is half-way serious about his/hers habit does get COPD and that costs something as well. And there are a lot of smokers, 20-35% of population and they all *are* going to have more health issues than a +/- healthy non-smoker.
Sorry, but I don't think government makes any money by allowing cigarettes, as I see it (could be wrong, maybe someone has better numbers?), they lose huge sums instead. Smokers don't smoke enough to support their habit's consequences.
Anyhow, back to YSL. I still think it's incredibly ugly for a luxury brand to put their name on this kind of product. So 20th century, seriously. Outdated. Coughing up bloody lung pieces is not very glamorous either. Silver lining - they cost more = more tax. (but given that they aim for China and Russia... unlikely there will be much income from tax, all the black market activity there ) In any case - every smoker should get YSL instead of the cheap malboros!
Talk on this forum should be limited to this topics. Even though at tFS we do care about the health of our posters, this thread is not to debate whether smoking is good or not for you (we all know it isnt) or its health risks or legislation.
PLEASE KEEP THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE PRODUCT/LABEL. ANY OFF TOPIC DISCUSSION WILL BE DELETED.
Anyhow, even though I'm not a smoker, I have memories of a small shop in my city centre, which carried cigarette brands from around the world, all the legendary names and designs, hidden away on a high shelf, which only increased their allure, I'm sure. Friends who couldn't afford designer labels still had enough money for a packet of branded smokes from this boutique of newspapers, sweets and nicotine.
__________________ You're perfect, yes, it's true. But without me, you're only you.
Last edited by ultramarine; 28-05-2011 at 02:47 PM.
Reason: off topic discussion