Slashdot Mirror
Safe Cigarettes?
CDPatten writes "The UK Times Online is reporting that we could see a 'safe cigarette' next
year. From the article: 'BRITISH American Tobacco
(BAT) is to launch a controversial 'safer cigarette' designed to cut the risk of
smoking-related diseases such as cancer and heart failure by up to 90%.'
I wonder if this will have any impact on the no smoking bans we have seen in recent years?"
I thought the tobacco industry said that their products already were safe? So these would be just the same again, right?
it's still an addictive expensive drug.
"There is no safe cigarette." I think that's all we need to know.
-Palal
I've always wanted the reassurance that there would be no health risk were I to smoke 99x as many cigarettes as I do now!
If you really want people to quit smoking, make them 100x more lethal, so that smoking a year will kill you. Then we'll see how many people actually have a motivation to quit.
Put linux on the Cigarettes, its the only way to be certain. ACM ICPC w00t
How about just not smoking?
the safer cocaine!
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
No one in my family smoked ever, I was the first. I recently "quit" because of financial reasons, no health. In terms of health, I don't see the causation connection, especially in second hand smoke.
My physician smokes 2+ packs a day. He's 80. He runs, avoids trans fats and high glycemic foods. Many of my older customers smoke but also maintain good diets and exercise.
I started smoking at 21. I had bad bouts with kidney stones that no medications or diet helped. A San Francisco quack Chinese herbal nut told me to smoke. 5 years with zero kidney attacks. Giving it up at 26 gave me 3 years of kidney pains. Smoking again relieved it. Since I stopped a few weeks ago, the pains are back.
My TMJ was also reduced from smoking. It has affected me since the age of 11.
I'm not saying smoking is safe or healthy. I am saying it has some benefits, and the high carb high trans fat diet of most Westerners is far worse. If it wasn't for high taxes and tort suit payments, I'd continue to smoke. I know I live a healthier life because of it.
By the way, I ran a half marathon while smoking 10 cigarettes, and am in great physical shape (good blood pressure, cholesterol, etc). Don't believe the hype.
would be more interested in getting my hands on some safe2smoke crack.
You can't puff smoke without first having the particulates in your lungs.
I wonder if this will have any impact on the no smoking bans we have seen in recent years?
Health concerns are only part of the problem. Us non-smokers don't want public places fouled up by the stink of smoke everywhere.
I also question calling this "safe". 10% as harmful as normal cigarettes is still pretty deadly. How many people who would otherwise have given up smoking will now carry on smoking because they think it's "safe"?
...because the smoking bans was due more to nonsmokers being inconvenienced by people in restaurants that smoked rather than the health of the smoker
And they're DELICIOUS!
and what about the tv ads that start by saying "there is no safe cigarette"? Lies, all of it.
-Tim Louden
I wonder if this will have any impact on the no smoking bans we have seen in recent years?
hopefully not. All the bans are not about health of smokers, it's about fresh air for non-smokers. Who cares if that stinking person over there inhales deadly stuff, or less deadly? It all stinks the same.
#
#\ @ ? Colonize Mars
#
And how will this even attempt to address the environmental issues concerned with smoking?
Not only is it a useless and harmful pastime to people, it greatly hurts the environment. Up here in New England (USA) we even have stories of deer venturing onto roads to eat cigarette butts and causing accidents, all because they are addicted. It is also just unsightly to see them all over roads and sidewalks. All things considered it is harmful to everything and everyone.
Assuming they got rid of all the tar and carbon monoxide, they'd have to leave the nicotine in it to keep people smoking it. Nicotine is toxic, and not good for you. In small doses like in cigarettes, it won't kill you, but if you see someone who hasn't had their nicotine in the past while, then you know just how badly it can effect people.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
"Tastes like sh** and smells like a fart!
Got ourselves a real winner here!"
Of course, for a non-smoker, that applies to all cigarettes.
Not only would it encourage people to quit, all those who were dumb enough to keep smoking would be dead quick enough not to become such a horrible drain on our medical system. Yes, I do know that cigarettes are taxed, blah blah blah.
Maybe we could comprise any make every 1000th cigarete cause instantenous death?
"I wonder if this will have any impact on the no smoking bans we have seen in recent years?"
Zero chance of it having any impact. From the article:
"John Britton, professor of epidemiology at Nottingham University, said: "Anything involving inhaling smoke is unsafe. These new cigarettes could be more like jumping from the 15th floor instead of the 20th: theoretically the risk is less but you still die."
To me it sounds like those "light" smokes that floating around. Safer in theory, but in reality they're still dangerous. So don't expect smoking bans to end anytime soon.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
I don't want the smoking bans removed for one reason and one reason only: I don't like the smell.
-illumina+us "I put on my robe and wizard hat..."
Safer for who? The smoker or those who get to inhale the second hand smoke?
No reason to get into this addiction. Cigarettes in US are expensive and if you are chain smoker you will be pinching your wallet. Needless to say about the future medical costs. I wonder if insurance companies charge more for smokers as compared to non-smokers.
NY state law prohibits smoking inside any public building including bars/pubs. I second that law. Now if I they can make cigarette with mouth-freshners as well, it would be perfect.
As an American, I am appalled at the very idea of the government spending *any* money on developing a "safer cigarette". While that move might treat the physical effects of smoking and make it a safer alternative than traditional cigarettes, it does nothing to address the fact that smokers are *addicts* with a psychological dependence on a drug. Why not put money where it's really needed: addiction recovery. Develop drugs that are more effective at helping smokers quit, put more money into social campaigns against smoking (school, television, etc)? It amazes me sometimes how we Americans will find ways to make bad things acceptable and safer if it makes us money instead of just putting a stop to its use.
Anthony Papillion
Advanced Data Concepts, Inc.
"Quality Custom Software and IT Services"
why not just make it without Nicotine? Safest thing in the world then, nobody'll want them.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
To all you puritan non-smokers, I say good luck - hope you enjoy the old folks' home!!
Haaaaaa-ha-ha-ha-ha-haaaaarggghhhhh!!!!
*cough*
I wonder if this will have any impact on the no smoking bans we have seen in recent years?
Most of the 'added safety' is in the filter.
Much of the passive smoke comes straight from the cigarette tip without passing through the filter, so there's little change there.
Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur (anything said in Latin sounds important)
Because you probably still wont be able to tell which is which. If they outlawed "normal" cancerous cigarettes, then they might be able to coax people into dropping the bans. That way cigarettes would not be any worse than the most offensive cologne you could possibly imagine.
What has the government got to do with anything?
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
Just when I figured out I get 7 minutes closer to Jesus with every cigarette, these guys had to go and screw it up.
0x68ADA2CC
I don't care what you say about smoking and how if you don't realise that putting
smoke in your lungs is bad for you blah blah blah because some people where brought
up around it. The fact is that _many_ people are addicted and the government is
making _big_ money from addictions! That's wrong in retrospect being that the gov
doesn't even provide patches or gum with all the money they make!
Maybe I'm wrong and they spend all that money on health care?
I tip toe like rats on vouge runnways.
I'm too lazy to look it up myself, but someone here probably knows it: how many people actually die of smoking - both because they smoke and because other smoke? How does that compare to other causes (bad diet, traffic accidents, ...)? Would a 90% reduction cause the chances of dying of smoking below the noise threshold?
And, just for fun...what's the chance of dying of plain old age, compared to the risk of dying of any of the human induced causes?
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Most smoking bans are not in place because of disease concerns, but rather because many people find smoke to be distracting anf foul smelling.
One cigarrette can lessen a dining or movie experience for a large number of people, and over time the smoke and ash saturate the environment.
Thus even if there are nos mokers present, it can still smell, and therefore taste, of smoke.
If I were addicted to highly concentrated sulfur fumes, or banging symbols loudly, I would not expect establishments to tolerate me.
Crying babies are another issue, but at least the baby will eventually grow up into a productive member of society. In theory, that is.
I dunno about you, but I, for one, enjoy a little second hand smoke with my coffee in the morning.
I wonder if this will have any impact on the no smoking bans we have seen in recent years.
So long as they keep smelling like shit, that's a big NO!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
We can't have safe cigarettes. If people had safe cigarettes there wouldn't be any excuse to levy massive taxes on them. Poor minorities generally get a break on taxes, in practice because they don't have much money to take, but in rhetoric because we dislike regressive taxation. However, they also make up the vast bulk of cigarette smokers, and it's okay to demonize cigarette smokers. So under the pretense of discouraging cigarette smoking, politicians can impose a regressive racist tax.
If our government weren't addicted to the $15.7 billion dollars in taxes they collect on an annual basis from cigarettes, we would get safe cigarettes in a heartbeat. Right now, though, too many pet projects depend on cigarettes being dangerous for that to change.
This is why it should have NO effect on smoking bans. No matter how you slice it, when you smoke anywhere in public, you ARE imposing on those around you- and it's not just a minor annoyance, it's a health issue.
everyone living in los angeles dies with blackened lungs from the smog and particulate matter in the air.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/cixel
And that's why we should ban cigarettes, and allow only weed and pipe tobacco! Much nicer smell.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
I don't think this cigarette will do much to alter the antipathy the majority of US citizens have towards smoking in general. I hate it when my asthma gets set off by the idiots who light up behind me at the train station. Back when restaurants around here allowed smoking, I hated it when they'd seat you in "non-smoking" and it turned out to be a couple tables surrounded by smoking-allowed tables. Do I vote for every restriction on cigarette use that makes it to the ballot? You bet!
Most people - here in the US anyway - do not smoke. If the tobacco companies want to make smoking more acceptable again, addressing the health issues isn't enough. They have to address the huge annoyance factor associated with cigarette smoking that all of us non-smokers are far too familiar with.
#DeleteChrome
hehehe whaoooo! that reminds me of last friday when I was at the theatre in Minneapolis...
This dude was so drunk and lit up a smoke IN THE THEATRE! nobody said anything..hehehehe
Maybe shock them with a defib....you...later..you know what im sayin.
I tip toe like rats on vouge runnways.
Many of us use tobacco to mix with canabis. this makes it burn in a better way, and helps us to regulate dose...
we'd like to see something nicotine free, but burn well. we're going to do canabis whether it's legal or not, as will other smokers smoke. I think this sort of thing is a good thing for most involved.
if they legalised pot, and made better ways of regulating the doses I'm sure we'd all be a lot happier!
http://www.oldtimecandy.com/bubble-gum-cigarettes. htm
Interesting movie, in it RJR Nabisco have made a smoke-less cigarette. The only problem is, when lit up with a match, the sulfur in the match caused cigarette to smell like shit. Millions of dollars spent on this product and in the end they had to ... er dump it.
As a former smoker, there is no way in hell im going to go back to smoking, safe or not, its too expensive, I might as well switch to Marijuana. Tobacco will end up costing the same amount in 10-20 years.
No matter how healthy cigarettes become, you're still inhaling disgusting smoke. I'm still going to cough if everyone is lighting up, and leave restaurants that allow smoking. I'll still support laws banning smoking in public areas.
Right, cigarettes don't smell good. But You, US citizens, are quite lucky. You can just sail to Cuba to buy excellent cigars. Think different. Try a Romeo y Julieta Corona Cigar. And you will relax.
Million Dollar Screenshot
...sound ridiculous to me. Compulsory smoking? Yuk!
A tobacco companie comes out with a 'safer cigarette' that can cut cancer by '90%' and instead of praising the company, you all bash it. Someone shed light, plz.
Internal memos from Philip Morris from April 1980 indicate that the tobacco companies have been fully aware of radioactivity in cigarettes for over two decades. They also knew of ways of eliminating the radioactivity, but wrote them off as a "valid but expensive point":
Furthermore, switching to indirect fire curing would eliminate virtually all of another carcinogen, nitrosamine, from cigarettes. Nitrosamine was previously found in BEER thanks to direct fire curing of barley. Switching to indirect fire curing of barley reduced nitrosamine in beer to indetectable levels. Yet Philip Morris makes Marlboros, cigarettes with more nitrosamine than any others in the world.
Yes, believe what Philip Morris says, because if you realized there could be a safe cigarette, it would cost them a lot of money...
Here's two simple manufacturing changes they could make which would eliminate the two most potent carcinogens from cigarettes. But I guess it's just cheaper for Philip Morris to kill their customers.
5th element was on TBS this AM, and it shows Bruce Willis smoking a cig with about 3" of filter on it and an half inch of tobacco paper...
If there's something I don't like about a restaurant, then I choose to not patron it and hope that enough people will do the same so that they get the idea.
Disclaimer: I smoke, and after having tried to quit twice and turned into a raging hellbeast on account of it, I am going to wait until things are a bit more stable before I try again. Its actually quite entertaining in hindsight; there is a euphoric initial period, where all the senses that were dulled by the drug come roaring back (like pins and needles all over your body for days) followed closely by a manic depressive section, and then there is a long trudge through what can only be described as psychotic paranoia, in the true clinical sense. Small problems become niggling problems, which must be someones fault, and then these people must be taught not to make the same mistake again. Its pretty hard to keep in check.
But hold on a second there sparky, the only evidence you present is anecdotal, and for all we know you could be pulling it directly from your posterior. Let me try...
I had severe headaches since I was 18, but then I started smoking because after all the doctors couldn't help, a homeopathic practitioner mentioned it might be beneficial.
Sounds just as good as yours, and is just as pulled out of my arse. Anyway the real issue isn't so much health as it is the addictive nature of nicotine. Its a drug, that has no benefits, is toxic in every respect, and it should be just as outlawed as heroin. I recall reading somewhere that the withdrawal symptoms are actually more severe, how true that is I cannot attest to. The only reason it is allowed is because it was in common use before the laws really started to crack down on drugs.
Most smokers smoke and continue to do so because they like most people foolishly started in their rebellious teens, and are now hooked on the things well into adulthood.
So stop talking shite.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
from what i've read, nicotine is the primary carcinogen in tobacco, no matter how you consume it. snuff causes nasal cancer, chewing causes mouth cancer, pipe smoking causes mouth, lips and osesophogeal cancer, cigarette smoking causes lung cancer. even tobacco-farm workers get cancer.
The fertilizers used to grow tobacco (and food) are naturally radioactive...they contain both Polonium 210 and Lead 210
/
http://www.webspawner.com/users/radioactivethreat
http://www.bedoper.com/
Yeah, but will they still STINK?
...then I'm all for it.
-- Knowledge shared is power lost. -- Aleister Crowley
Hey! I predicted this.
Here's one of our satisfied customers .
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
... because I've been saying that for a while. Of course, some cars already fire a shotgun blank into a paper bag 18" in front of your face...
With the smoking bans, nighclubs smell of farts and stale beer rather than of smoke.
I don't care if smoking has real or perceived benefits for anyone. But I believe in personal freedom. If *you* want to kill yourself slowly and painfully, then *you* should have every available means at your disposal to do so. Because I wouldn't like anyone to define what is best for me, I don't define to anyone else what's best for them. Smoking *is* addictive and dangerous, no question about that. But since everybody knows that by now, and smokes anyway, all we can do is watch them die. In a free society, there is no such thing as "help with force", no matter how hard some people wish there was. Restaurant owners can restrict smoking, shopping malls can, as well as airlines and taxi drivers - on their own property. I'm no smoker, but I'll sure as hell defend your right to smoke wherever non-smoking people could escape the fumes if they wanted to, the owner of the place agrees and there's no fire hazard involved. I'm more and more embarassed about how fast we give up personal freedom these days...
Honestly I don't know why more adults who smoke (and refuse to quit) don't switch to chewing tobacco?
When I switched from smoking cigarettes to chewing tobacco (Copenhagen snuff, oh yeah!) I didn't get colds so often, I didn't have lung/phlegm problems, I didn't smell like tobacco smoke, and I didn't have all the other health problems associated with smoking tobacco. Obviously there were risks involved (cancer, receding gums causing tooth loss, possible blood pressure oddities, etc.) but I experienced none of the above in the short time I chewed tobacco.
Sure, spitting tobacco may be seen as disgusting, but some of the methods employed within the delightful read "My world of Nicotine -- a HOWTO of chew" provides brief solutions.
With any tobacco product, it bears investigating what the manufacturers mix in with the tobacco. I've read that chewable snuff from Sweden is touted by many to be safer than brands coming from the U.S.A. I don't know all of the facts, but it seems like people who smoke tobacco end up dying quicker and more often than people who chew tobacco.
I fail to see any 'safe' cigarette being created until/unless someone has managed to eliminate the creation of nitrosamines via curing and burning.
That said, aside from nitrosamines, if the tobacco companies wanted to make a safer cigarette (I know production costs is an issue) why don't they grow organic tobacco, not add anything extra to it, and not dip/treat it with pesticides (hence organic)?
Nor is it safe in any way to inhale smoke of any sort. No matter what you do to make the cigarette safer, you're not eliminating it's burning and smoke. The smoke is still going to be toxic, and even if it wasn't, it's certainly not good to inhale something that's about 200 degrees directly into your lungs anyways. Screw what any tobacco company says.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Hm, I thought most people on slashdot wanted personal freedom.
How can you advocate anything with freedom if you discriminate with different types of freedom? I don't like the smell of alcohol on someone's breath, so prohibition should come back?
You know, they have smoking and non smoking areas for reasons. The smoking areas should just have a different type of ventilation that wouldn't just push the smoke around. Stifiling the rights of others should never be the way to get what you want (in this case, a smoke free environment)
I recently quit smoking, for the obvious health reasons (that were becoming more apparent as I get older) but also because it became too much WORK to smoke - pretty much all workplaces are smoke-free, I don't smoke at non-smoking friends' homes (because that's just rude), all restaurants are non-smoking here, and they are talking about a TOTAL outdoor smoking ban in some cities around me. It would be nice if a "safe" cigarette would stop all the fuss, but rabid non-smokers will still bitch about the smell and air pollution - even though I feel that way when people go out in public wearing noxious amounts of perfume, or stumble around a restaurant smelling like a brewery.
sorry @allSmokers
but on the one hand,
- you mostly stink like a 30 year old bar
- when you cough, I hear your lung cancer celebrating his bright future
- when I see you puff, I see a junky with a needle in the arm
but on the other hand
- its your right to do what you like, till you dont hurt non-smoking people,
especially youths, children and babies.
but concluding, even if the cigarette is a "reduced" killer, the best paying product feature is the fact, that you need it, the fact that you are addicted.
I`m all for freedom, if people choose to harm themselves, practice strange fetishes among consenting adults, or take huge amounts of drugs that`s fine.
So long as they don`t inflict their choices upon anyone who has not consented.
Smoking is a horrendously inefficient method of ingesting a drug, the vast majority of it goes up in the air to affect people nearby, or to settle on clothes, furniture, walls etc and make the environment stink.
If people choose to inject drugs into their bodies, or take tablets, good for them.. But to burn toxic substances and allow the fumes to pollute the environment of others should be made illegal. You have no right to go polluting the air that other people have to breathe.
Smoking does not gain you anything, there are much more efficient ways you could ingest nicotine, and the result won`t result in the smell of your presence causing offense to those nearby.
The stench of smoke has different effects on different people. I personally have a very negative reaction to it, especially to an environment which stinks of stale smoke.. If you imagine the worst possible hangover, where your head is thumping and you feel like your going to vomit any minute, then that`s the effect that inhaling smoke has on me. Most people aren`t affected so severely, but the vast majority of people dislike the smell, and that includes some smokers.
Also being in the presence of someone who smokes heavily, or has smoked recently is equally disgusting, they will stink of stale smoke and their presence is offensive.
If you think it`s acceptable to make other people breathe toxic fumes, i invite you to spend a few hours in a room where you are subjected to sulfur, various insecticides and strong solvents.. The kind of chemicals where people wear gas masks to work with them.
Personally i think smoking should be completely banned. If you really want to ingest nicotine, there are many other ways, such as patches, gum, tablets etc, which don`t affect others.
By smoking you are infact launching a chemical weapons attack against those around you. You are polluting their air with toxic fumes which will harm and potentially kill them.
Why are most forms of harming others banned, while smoking is not? What if Al-Qaeda blanketted a major city in a thick cloud of smoke? Would this attack simply be ignored? Why can a smoker get away with poisoning me and yet i can`t get away with beating him with a baseball bat? What if i instead got my revenge on him by gassing him with mustard gas ?
And by this same reckoning, since using gaseous poisoning seems to be acceptable, why is the holocaust considered a crime? Surely the nazis were just practicing their right to force others to breathe toxic fumes.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Ciggarrets should be taxed based on their level of health risk.
It's obvious...
That's it.
I've enjoyed the "no barfing" sections of restaurants my whole life. Even if new tech reduced the disease-carrying risk of barf to 10%, I still don't want people barfing near me while I'm eating. Smoking, either.
--
make install -not war
i guess this is just like the "for sufficiently small values of" argument.
1 functions as designed
2 causes a correct value of "collateral damage"
3 has a high enough "dosage value"
so yes you are correct
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Wake me when they invent the safe joint, mkay? You know the one you don't get busted for smoking..
So many tobacco free smoking substances exist, you and your stoner friends should put some effort into research.
here's some
http://www.honeyrose.com/
Personally, I just smoke a bong.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
I am an ex-smoker. I smoked for about 8 years and quit just about two years ago. To me, most smokers are fairly courteous to non-smokers. Most are used to go outside, stand out of the way, and don't go blowing smoke into the path of anyone walking past.
Anti-smokers seem to think that they have a right to tell other people what to do, primarily based on dislike. The EPA's environmental tobacco smoke study (the basis for most claims that secondhand smoke causes cancer) was tossed from court in the tobacco trials, because the work was shoddy (http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html).
So, if smoke doesn't hurt anyone but the smoker, then the premise of controlling smokers is about personal taste. That's not cool. You don't have a right to have people only say nice things to you and make nice smells around you. You have a right to live, but other people get to make decisions, like driving cars, whether or not to wear deodorant, eating food loaded with fat and cholesterol, etc. Smokers don't want you to smoke, and there's nothing wrong with telling kids that smoking is bad for them. But when an adult makes a decision about how they want to live, it should be respected.
it should be just as outlawed as heroin. I recall reading somewhere that the withdrawal symptoms are actually more severe, how true that is I cannot attest to.
You could learn a lot from a junky.
you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
Prime UID Club
of course that wouldn't happen since there is too much money to be made. if we aren't going to make it illegal, just STFU. i can't stand all the "i don't like it, so noone should be able to do it". i don't like body odor, doesn't mean we should ban the french. wanna eliminate everything that causes health problems, good luck. insurance costs? well, i'de like to ban a lot of xtreme sports to lower my insurance costs too. oh well. if your going to let it be legal, get over it. resturaunt and bars should be allowed to make their own rules. most smokers (including myself) don't smoke while they eat and don't like smoke around when they eat. i doubt a voluntary no smoking policy will hurt a resturaunt. if anything, it would help. seeing as how most ppl hate smoke around their food, they would avoid resturaunts that allow it. those who can't get through a meal without smoking can go to the ones allow it. everyone's happy (except those who love to enforce their morals and preferences on others).
Driving cars puts smoke in the air as well. Peoples cars put out more chemicals than most smokers would. So where do you draw the line. Maybe they should ban driving around where people walk. Seems unreasonable doesnt it.
I'm going to sell extra-risk cigarettes for those rebellious people. I will advertise: "Live dangerous. Smake extra-risk!" It will have more cancerous chemicals and less tar and nicotine so people will buy more! It'll be the perfect marketing ploy!
I've been thinking about quitting, but I think now I'll just wait for these safe cigarettes.
As long as they're full of nicotine and taste like shit, I'm sure they'll work out fine!
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
Anyway my point is, if smoking these cigarettes decreases your odds of getting cancer over a regular smoker by 9 to 10 times wouldn't that make their smoker's risk of cancer less than a non-smoker? A little hard to believe. I don't expect to take up smoking for the health benefits anytime soon.
I will keep udating "Bare Naked Larry" with news about my evolving health condition. At least it hasn't derailed my upcoming marriage to Nian as it had threatened to.
Letter To Iran
I quit smoking 3 years ago while attending college full time and working full time at an ISP tech desk (phone support). I had smoked for about 9 years prior to that. I think if you really want to quit, you will, my (then) 3 year old girl telling me "Daddy, the cigarettes make you cough." I figured if my 3 year old can see that, I should be able to see that as well.
I set a day and time for me to quit (Friday at 17:00) and chainsmoked up to that point. At 17:00 I placed the remainder of the pack on my counter and left them there. When I had a craving, I smelled the tobacco and placed the pack back on the counter. The aches from the wonderful chemicals leaving my joints were relieved by ibuprofin. And I kept saying to myself, I have gone (insert time) without a cigarette, I will wait a few hours and get one if I need it. The mantra kept repeating, setting goals and pushing them higher and higher.
I threw the pack away three months later with the same contents as it had that Friday. Food and drinks tasted better, my newborn son's asthma went away (I smoked outside, but the smoke comes in on your hair, hands, and clothing), and my wallet was fuller.
I feel so much better now that I would suggest quitting to anyone. People around you will understand if you are a bit of a Hellbeast, and will forgive you if you matter to them. If they don't, screw them they don't care for you anyway.
Beware the fury of a patient man
- John Dryden
Hey. I am a smoker. I LIKE smoking. Its an addiction, but that doesnt make it bad for me. Its a personal choice. Its MY choice. Even with a "safer" cigerette, I would still smoke reds. MY choice.
You people who complain about the smell, the "second hand" health risk, you think nothing of that when you light up a joint (and you do, don't lie), you think nothing of it when you walk down the sidewalk and the cars pass by, and you think nothing of it if you had ever met that super-model-type person who wants to smoke a cigar in your presence. Wait, who am I kidding, this is slashdot...
Bottom line, its a personal choice, and I try very hard not to upset someone with my personal choice, but some people dislike it because they are programmed to do so. Ever think of things this way: the tabacco industry is one of the largest lobbyist groups in the nation. They can buy whatever laws they want... it was fine when they played ball back in the 50's, but now there are some groups who are scared of that money and that influence. Smoking is now bad for everyone.
If it was so bad, lets just ban it all. Lets take away those tax dollars... lets piss about half the nation off. Lets do it. I dare you all.
Smoking tobacco doesn't kill everyone. Yes many of us get lung disease, or the "Big C" but when it comes to 'dying' no more than half of us die because of it. Diet, Environmental, Attitude, & natural genetic disposition has just as much to do with it as anything else. Yes cig's are unsafe, but so is being eligible for the draft here in the USA. Or crossing the street. Or taking medicine prescribed by a Doc... Or eating the wrong food... i.e. ad nauseum. Life is not (nor are it's inherent activities) Safe, we should be grateful that we have been given a shot at it, because in the huge scheme of things that's all it ever really is. As the old dead poets said "Better to have lived fully than not @ all" or 'Life is not as it should be, but IT is what it is". Still smoking Peace Michael S
Smoke at home if you want. Or, outside, away from other people.
/dev/random
The military has created a safe nuclear bomb. Hate-groups have found a way to commit safer genocide. Terrorists have found a safer way to conduct suicide bombing. But in all seriousness, it is such a HUGE relief to learn that people will be safely addicted to this expensive product.
Having a non smoking part of a restaurant is like having a non peeing part of a pool.
I have recently given up smoking (one week ago). I had given up before for two years but started again because I was dating a smoker (what can I say... the body outweighed the smoking and I am shallow). I recently broke up with her (she turned out to be a psycho and I turned out to be not as shallow as I thought I was) and so I have quit again.
I hate non smokers with a passion, especially the ones who have recently quit and start telling people they can't smoke and they can't do this and that and the other... I hate bars which ban smoking at the bar "so the bar staff do not have to breathe smoke" when really do not care about the bar staff, they are just protecting themselves against law suits that may turn up in the future.
What I hate most of all is that we had one guy in our old office who was not a smoker and because of him we had to have a non smoking office and go smoke out in the cold.
I am all about freedom and deomocracy and not picking on minorities... smokers are becoming a minority and they are getting pretty oppressed. Let's just let them do what the fuck they like to themselves and if the non smokers do not want to breathe their smoke then they can go the the crappy McBars which ban smoking.
Yup... one week in and I still hate everyone... I never was much good at quitting.
Be nice, sponsor me: http://jailbreak.ragabonds.org.uk
It does not seem the least bit unreasonable to stop driving indoors. To stop driving in pubs, at the cinema, or in restaurants.
In fact, the whole suggestion to allow driving indoors in the first place seems totally laughable to me.
a slim and stylish nicotine inhaler.
Okay, this wouldn't really be smoking, but at least it wouldn't bother me as much.
i haven't been this furious since i heard about detox centers giving out clean needles to junkies or rave organizers giving out water bottles and pacifiers or free condoms to prevent the spread of STDs. if you're going to engage in dangerous and unsanctioned behavior, it's immoral to try to prevent the harmful consequences of said behavior. it's the right thing to do to let the sinful people die a horrible death
nobody wants the crap that comes from second hand smoke, if they want to screw themselves over thats fine, but at the moment its not totally just them.
The tobacco companies know this. In one case, Phillip Morris told the Czech government about these "benefits" so that they would keep the tax on cigarettes down.
Could you state your oppinion about other drugs, please?
Does it not matter in your oppinion at all how addictive the substance is, or how strongly it is marketed to kids/teeagers/adults? Both of these have no effect on free will? As long as there is even a small bit of choice left, then "people made their own choice to die a slow death"?
Here's the point - this "safer cigarette" reduces your chances of getting cancer by 90% compared to regular cigarettes. Your chances are still better if you don't smoke. This is like women who go to the store and buy $1,000 worth of shit they won't ever use on sale for $200 and claim they saved $800 by the sale. I call bullshit - they wasted $200, just like smoking these cigarettes increases your chances of getting cancer 10% as much as if you had smoked a regular cigarette, compared to no increase whatsoever by not smoking in the first place.
Looks like it's time for me to take up smoking then if I can reduce my risk of cancer by 90%!!
I hope this never happens. I think I've smoked exactly three cigarettes in my life, to see what it was like. I thought it was pleasurable, but I carefully controlled my experimentation so that I wouldn't get hooked on nicotine (which is more addictive than heroin). If there were safe cigarettes, it seems quite possible that I'd adopt an expensive, dirty, socially deprecated habit, because I'd no longer have the threat of cancer as motivation not to.
Find free books.
To me, smoking is a way to reduce my expected life-span. I know they will kill me, and that's the point. I have a degenerative disease that isn't so bad now, but will progressively get worse. i have the choice of spending my twilight years in agony in some hospital, or I can smoke like a chimney now and die before that happens. I'll take the heart disease, thanks.
And no, I don't intend to call an ambulance and waste your tax dollars when the heart attack comes.
Stasis is death. Embrace change.
maybe you missed the where people walk... that would also be sidewalks, park areas, near downtown areas... and i could go on.
I've tried quitting but can't stand the brain fog.
I'm not convinced nicotine is all bad.
That had me wondering, if all smoke is unsafe, what about going to church, are all those candles and incense unsafe? Turns out they may be, I found this bbc article... Church Air is 'Threat to Health'.
And yet, in almost all cases the concentration of that exhaust is still *far* lower than the concentration of smoke in a restaurant with smokers in it.
An acquaintance of mine and his druggie friends once decided that since the drugs they knew about had differences in speed and strength (and safety) of experience between natural plant form, ingested refined powder, and smoked, that they'd try smoking caffeine pills, so they crunched up some No-Doz and smoked it. You do not want to try this.... Apparently the pattern held true, and all the nasty things that caffeine does to you if you abuse it happen all at once - headaches, jitters, nausea, blood pressure and heartbeat - and it was an extremely unpleasant but fortunately brief experience.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
This lets all cigarettes off the list, as very little of their content is actual tobacco. The rest is chemicals, mostly formulated to give you an intense rush and keep you addicted. Try smoking pure tobacco out of a pipe for a week. You'll feel better, and you won't get dizzy with the rush of the first smoke of the morning, it tastes and smells better (non-smokers always compliment the aroma of a pipe; when did that ever happen with a Marlboro?), and, while you'll still have the habit, it won't be as extreme. Natural tobacco doesn't make you feel like a crack addict who's going to snap if you don't get your fix NOW! - it's a kinder, gentler urge which makes it easier to gradually cut down. You can make it through a whole day without and it doesn't drive you crazy.
PS Cigarettes are the only thing I can think of that one can purchase for ingestion that doesn't have any ingredient information at all. Everything else - including gum, medicine, and even things you don't ingest like cleaning products has the components listed in meticulous detail. What do you suppose the big secret is?
What, do you expect smokers to put the butts in their ashtrays or something? They smell terrible and stink up the car. It's much better to throw them out the window where you don't have to worry about those nasty, filthy things anymore.
I tried throwing some of those nasty, filthy things out the window once while driving down the freeway, but I couldnt. You would be suprised at how much strength and endurance an asmatic tobbaco addict has.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
my stoner friends use nettles.
It all started with Cigarettes when I was about 12. Then at 15 it was the 40oz of beer, then at 17 is was Marijuana which lead to LSD. Then at 18 is was mushrooms and more alcohol than any person could deal with.
Cigarettes are the "gateway" drug. Don't let anyone fool you.
Ask me about my habits now, about two cigarette packs a day at at least a 6 pack or a half bottle of Scotch every night.
I am a miserable wreck, add in Linux distro addiction to that as well.
Damn you Distrowatch! Damn you Tobacco! Damn you Guiness!
Don't even ask me about my Internet / Slashdot.org addiction!
YOU DON'T WANT TO BE ME!
I find it fascinating that its believed that creating a safer cigarette will make a difference. Let's compare two drugs - cannabis and tobacco. The nicotine in tobacco has been shown to bind to cells in the lungs and produce free radicals in the lungs that cause cancer. The THC in marijuana has been shown to reduce inflamation in the lungs due to the inhalation of the smoke and has not been shown to cause cancer. There have even been medical benefits from marijuana use including helping against arthritis and with recovering cancer patients. In fact, there has not been one recorded incidence of death due to the use of marijuana. Seem far fetched? Well with how badly marijuana has been demonized in recent years I challenge anyone to find a study showing otherwise. My source, by the way is Penn and Teller, who in addition to being renowned comedians, are also active politically. The reason that cigarettes are taxed heavily is because nicotine is one of the most addictive drugs available, more so that marijuana or heroin, and so because the demand is so inelastic it does not respond to price shocks. The government doesnt care about the health consequences of cigarrettes, they just want to be able to tax it, and so they will continue to allow only dangerous cigarrettes on the market in order that they may claim that high taxes on cigarettes are justifie on the grounds of "prevention". Where would government tax revenues be if all the smokers in America suddenly quit?
Leaving the deadliest form of nicotine use, smoking, legal for sale to the general public while restricting less lethal forms of nicotine use, gum and patches, to prescription only is just insane. Insisting that people injure and kill themselves, and those around them, if they want to use a drug makes no sense. That's like legalizing alcohol ONLY if you are driving while drinking. We need to legalize the gum and patches for over the counter sales and restrict smoking to addiction treatment facilities only.
I bought a volcano vaporizer a year ago and I have never looked back. The price is steep but just think of how much you spend on papers and cigarettes in a year and you will come up with a similar number even if you are moderate user and smoker. I would like my lungs to last as long as the rest of my organs and I could not see that happening smoking marijuana and tobacco for the rest of my life.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
They didn't say they were going to remove the highly addictive Nicotine, now did they? ... contracting the fine capillary blood vessels in your kidney. One cigarette is enough to
Just one of the million ways that Nicotine itself (not the host of other products that
are still in the product after they're done "filtering")... Just one of the ways Nicotine
kills you is by...
shutdown renal (kidney) acticity for at least 30 minutes. Smoke a pack (20) and your kidneys are not working for 10 hours. That's great because then the other mostly toxic metabolic waste products your body comes up with / takes in every day, they get an extra ten hours to work against you. Cancer and kidney patients scream, the rest suffers more or
less in silence.
And it's not only your kidneys... it smothers you, literally. When you are smoking you
are actively depriving yourself of oxygen, primarily not throught the Nicotine (that's
secondary) but by the fact that you are inhaling carbon monoxide. (You might as well
inhale from your car's exhaust pipe)...
Cigarettes really damage the body inside out and spell a world of hurt to every single organ in the body, they even literally go on your stomache... but I am not going to give you
the full rant..., however I want you to think about one thing...
Nicotine nearly killed me twice, people... I had two severe heart attacks... and on one hand I am a doctor and on the other I know exactly how tough it is to stop smoking. For me it had to be life or death to get me to stop. Tell you what, having been there not only as a doctor but also as a helpless and totally frightened patient... IT IS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT EXPERIENCE! Let me tell you only one thing: IT SUCKS TO DIE OF A HEART ATTACK!! IT SUCKS! IT SUCKS! IT SUCKS! I can't get emotional enough over this! OH FUCK DOES IT SUCK!! The pain is EXCRUCIATING and it ENOUGH TO MAKE YOU WANT TO DIE in order to get it over with!!! I don't want to go through this EVER AGAIN and gee... tell you what... I am now very MUCH AFRAID to die because it IS the single MOST EXTREMELY PAINFUL thing that ever happened to me.
So if you smoke... what can I tell you anything but to quit?? Don't hope for some magic cigarette that will allow you to go on smoking AND ABOVE ALL PLEASE DON'T START. Otherwise you risk a miserable death.
do any of you know what sarcasm is? the point of the post is that i've always been baffled by opponents to harm reduction programs. they think that preventing some of the harmful consequences of risky activities is a form of actively encouraging them. it's like saying that giving people ropes for rock-climbing actively encourages them to rock-climb, or refusing to include deadly poisons in alcohol actively encourages drinking, and thus we should add extra poison to alcoholic drinks
I remember when RJ Reynolds introduced Eclipse cigarettes, man those got you eff'd up (cigarettes with a charcoal-like heating element that vaporizes the tobacco, supposedly eliminating carcinogens)
Then they allegedly found out the Eclipse cigarettes expose you to more 'cancer causing' chemicals. I really don't know who does all of these tests, but they really need a new hobby.
Its hard to listen to all this cigarette safety crap, light 'em if you got 'em. If not, don't start.
Woah, somebody's been drinking the "Truth©" kool-aid. Yes, nicotine is a drug, but so is caffeine, which can also have an addicting effect and bad withdrawal symptoms. Should we ban all sodas, are they as bad as heroin too?
Nicotine isn't without short-term benefits. It's a fairly strong stimulant; when taken, it increases alertness, focus, and memory, while providing a relaxing effect. It also reduces the appetite. Physiologically, nicotine increases heart rate and blood pressure, and boosts dopamine levels in the reward circuits of the brain.
Nicotine is not the complete evil the "Truth©" advertisements want you to believe. I'm not saying it's great either; it certainly has long-term consequences, just like caffeine or junk food. I wish people on both sides of the argument would stop being so dishonest about it, then we probably wouldn't have to argue at all.
And the usual answer to that is that your self-determined slow, painful death costs the rest of us a crapload of money. By raising everyone's premiums to cover the cost if you have health insurance, or raising everyone's taxes if you don't.
Unless we had a truly 100% libertarian society that was content to let you die in pain without any intervention other than what you could pay for out of pocket. But we don't have such a society, we're not likely to anytime soon, and few of us would want to live in such a callous culture.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
I SMOKE THESE THINGS TO RUIN MY LUNGS! Would you stop trying to make them safe?!
and re-read the article. it didn't say anything about government funding anywhere in the article. the development was done privately by BAT. hahaha! you really think the government was funding the development of safer cigarrettes? pass that shit to the n**** on your left
Phillip Morris makes Eclipse cigs http://www.eclipse.rjrt.com/RJR/dtc_certify.jsp?br and=ECL&from_Jeeves=true I used to smoke them but they are so hard to find, the Longs drugs stores and 7-11's never have them in stock. When they are in stock I always buy a carton because they are so hard to find.
It is a different sensation "smoking" vaporized nicotine, but worth it as you don't have to deal with the carcinigins that exist in burning tabacco.
right to smoke wherever non-smoking people could ESCAPE the fumes if they wanted to...
You can't just slip that in - that's THE crux of the smoking bans. Somebody is going to be inconvienced, either smokers (forced to go outside or special smoking rooms) or non-smokers (forced to "escape" the fumes as you so quaintly phrased it).
These situations are not symmetrical. Smokers can still enjoy non-smoking venues. Smokers often report preferring non-smoking venues for several reasons - their non-smoking friends are more likely to join them, they can taste their own food better, they aren't tempted to light up themselves as smoke from an adjacent patron waffs by. Smokers who are quiting can't even go into smoking venues because of the last item. At worst they're inconvenienced for minutes every few hours.
Non-smokers, in contrast, don't have any choices. "Non-smoking areas" are a joke. If the smoke bothers us (and I've had to walk away from non-refundable admissions because the smoke caused my eyes to water within minutes) it's going to bother us the entire time we're there, not for a few minutes every few hours.
There's also the issue of fairness to the employees. It's easy for us to say that employees can always change jobs if they don't like dealing with smoke throughout the day, but back in the real world we know that people at this economic rung are often stuck in their job since they live from check to check and can't afford even a modest reduction in hours as the new guy.
Those are reasons for businesses to go smoke-free, is it a valid reason to make it mandatory? That's a non-trivial question -- if you think it's obviously not appropriate for the government to get involved ask yourself how you would feel if most restaurants were "white only" because the owners felt they would lose sales (from white patrons avoiding them) if they allowed non-whites to eat there. It's not an exact parallel but it demolishes the "owner uber alles" mindset.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
In America we have been experimenting with materials that are inflammable for this very reason. What a country!
Screw safe. I could care less if they're safe, because I don't smoke them. What I do care about is how much they stink, and how annoying it is to see hundreds of cigarette butts littering the ground outside every door to every academic building on campus.
(Yes yes I know, secondhand smoke, it matters whether or not they're safe even if I don't smoke them. And I'd probably get more secondhand smoke if they didn't stink, because I'd be slightly more likely to hang around with people who were smoking. It's mostly a joke. Chill.)
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
Phillip Morris... Surely not the same company as I am thinking about... (I think the naming is a little more than a coincidence)
http://www.philipmorrisusa.com/en/home.asp
Wonder what the public key field is for?
There is a place you can go where projective vomiting indoors is acceptable? Do they have a full bar?
However, I must concede that people should have the freedom to be irresponsible, but the education to make informed decisions for themselves. The government should not provide rigid parameters within which we must operate.
Prosperity is only an instrument to be used, not a deity to be worshipped. Calvin Coolidge
I am not denying that there may be positive health effects from tobacco under the right conditions, or that there might even be people who can run a marathon while smoking heavily, but for the overwhelming majority of human beings, smoking is harmful on balance. And if there are any positive pharmacological effects of nicotine, there are safer ways to deliver the drug to your system than drawing soot into your lungs.
Considering all the advocates for pot smoking and legalization on /., the hypocrisy expressed in comments here is truly staggering. It's not okay for some guy to light up his cigarette in a bar, but a smelly hippie in a parka can toke up with impunity next to me at a concert? Pot smoke doesn't contain tar and cancerous substances too? Give me a break!
Let me explain things very succinctly to the anti-smoking crowd. The purpose and benefit of smoking is that some people enjoy doing it, and find it relaxing. That's all. If you think that's bogus, perhaps you should reflect on your own life and realize that you too have done some not particularly healthful thing at one time or another, becaue it felt good. And if you haven't ever once done that, then you must lead a dull, trite life indeed.
So, while it's certainly inconsiderate to light up in an enclosed space near people who don't like smoke, most of you are being screechy and annoying about something which is very unlikely to do substantial harm. There are plenty of non-smoking eating and drinking establishments in these modern times, go there if it bothers you so much.
And if you're still hung up on the notion that the smoking issue is distinctive insofar as it harms others, then why exempt car exhaust from this reasoning? Every internal combustion engine in your vicinity does exactly the same thing. And tobacco companies are no different from any other seller of addictive substances, like alcoholic drinks or "street" drugs containing some active ingredient. No "evil" to be found here, just an idiotic crusade fueled by a few deluded puritans.
may be you have never been to poluted(air) city.. You should try New Delhi. I am sure there are a lot of other out there as well. But I think Delhi is one of the worst I have seen. Parts of downtown chicago also have that problem.
I suppose it is as safe as Sony's DRM software. Now what next? SAFE POISION?
i've been to cities with smoking bans, but what's a "no smoking ban"? do you force a pack of Camels into the hands of everyone who comes to town?
But since everybody knows that by now, and smokes anyway, ...
Depends on what you mean by the word knows .
Safe UK cigarettes are made of cannabis. More fun, too.
--
make install -not war
Smoking is not about safety, it's about fantasies of romance and rebellion.
This still doesn't do anything for second hand smoke. No manufacturer yet filters the output smoke. Who cares about other people? They don't give the cigarette companies money!
So, much like cars then.
It's been tried before. I own a bunch of land, a former tobacco farm in fact, a couple of miles away from Vector Tobacco in Person County, North Carolina. Their clame to fame years ago was tobacco that tastes the same as what you're used to, but with negligible amounts of nicotine. Here we are, years later, and most smokers have still never heard of the stuff.
Yet every time I head out to grab a couple of pints with the boys, hot young girls in tight pants and Marlboro shirts are out there trying to get men to stick to their brand. I can't tell you how many free Zippo lighters I get from these girls. Fat chance I'll switch from a pipe to Marlboros, though...
From the summary: I wonder if this will have any impact on the no smoking bans we have seen in recent years?
From the article: Even if they benefit smokers, such cigarettes would not prevent passive smoking. Deborah Arnott, director of Action on Smoking and Health, said: "Cigarette smoke contains about 4,000 different chemicals, many of which are toxic. These filters and tobaccos can make no more than a marginal difference."
Can They Help Smokers Quit?
I dont remember the brand but Phillip Morris invested billions into a cigarette in the mid to late 80s that contained, if memory serves correct, 95% less tar than normal cigarettes. The entire thing was a commercial disaster and they ended up being pulled off the market after a few years.
"I wonder if this will have any impact on the no smoking bans we have seen in recent years?"
I hope not.
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
Notice I said almost all.
And New Delhi has bigger pollution problems to begin with.
The fact is there are substantial advantages to cars, and there aren't for cigarettes. Smoking makes you stink and die (as someone else put it); cars get you to jobs or anywhere else you happen to need to go.
a comment on "*you* should have every available means at your disposal to do so"
i believe that distribution and public consumption is the core issue, if you want to smoke in private that is great, have fun.
i would also like to expand on 'private' please read 'private' as all people in the group are participating members and are theirfore in a private group. if anyone present is not a member of said smokers group, then the 'private group' theory is gone and so is the ability to smoke. i am considering children here, and public places where one does not have the right to monopolize on the space and theirfore cannot have a private group of smokers.
three people sitting in a room, two adults & one child, no smoking as child is not and cannot be a smoker. and btw, if you do this you are HURTING THE CHILD you prick! grow a brain. asthma! emphasema! etc.
You, sir, are the moron. The poster's point is that pot smokers would prefer not to have to add a damaging, addictive substance to their relatively harmless smoke. Nicotine is far more harmful than marijuana, and many pot smokers are attuned to this fact. As a side note, I hope you don't vote, because you're a goddamn fascist, coupled with the fact that you're ill-informed.
madclamor.com
"a controversial 'safer cigarette' designed to cut the risk of smoking-related diseases such as cancer and heart failure by up to 90%" Cigarettes are a product that, when used correctly, will kill you. These "safer cigarettes," at 100% effectiness, reduce the risks by 90%, but it's still not as safe as simply not smoking.
Ncotine is actually a pretty cool drug.
The only problem is that it's usually packaged with about 620 chemicals which are really bad for you.
If someone works out how to get rid of all other other shit, that someone is probably in a good position to work out how to get rid of the smell of cigarettes.
If we accept that people are going to smoke whether it's good for their health, or bad for it, perhaps lessening the damage is the best thing to do.
You may not smoke, you cannot smoke, you must not smoke.
So don't live anywhere near a highway..
Just drink your Coke, eat your burger, have some fries mate.
And the fat on your thighs can get sucked right away.
You may not smoke, you cannot smoke, you must not smoke.
In the worlds largest frigging polluter?
I smoke, it is bad for me, but worse is.....
The goverment brainwashing your children at school so they think that you are going to die, very, very shortly from it.
People whinging about your smoking and then driving off in a SUV to get some fast food.
People whinging about nicotine being addictive, so what, so is food.
If you want something really addictive, try giving up sugar.
People whinging about smoking in a country where they regularly prescribe children Ritalin?
/. bug #926803 - Why I can post.
Come on. Keep that crap out of everyone else's face. If you farted around me I'd give you the finger and tell you to get the fuck out of my face with your stink. Fart at home. I know I do. If you want to smoke I couldn't care less, but keep that crap out of my face. Don't make this a crusade of rights, because you're clearly not respecting mine.
> I don't like the idea of my tax payments going to the NHS to subsidise
> people who like killing themselves slowly and painfully as an 'expression
> of personal freedom'.
yes, ban all medical care for people who take needless risks with their health and safety - rock climbing, bush-walking, skydiving, driving, crossing a busy road, pogo sticks and more (much more).
people who do stupid things like that don't deserve the benefit of medical care.
I am allergic to something in tobacco smoke - yesterday I was choking so badly my girlfriend says my face turned blue because some drunken louts decided to smoke on the bus I had to catch because it was the only one that could possibly get us to the train-station on time.
Every week I am unable to socialise with my friends because the only place our culture allows young men to socialise is in a pub - in which I cannot breathe.
The sooner we get rid of this so-called "personal freedom" the better as far as I can see - "freedoms" which harm, and even kill, other people are intollerable.
James P. Barrett
I know you won't enjoy your palliative treatment. Here's another 1,700,000 or so articles about a slow, painful death.
I know, you were joking. It's not funny when you work with the victims.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I haven't RTFA, but statements like "up to 90%" automatically trigger my bullshit detector. "Up to 90%" means "not more than 90%". For all useful purposes the statement is meaningless. It could mean 10%, but potentially higher for small enough test groups.
Second, if rock climbing, bush walking, skydiving, driving, crossing a busy road and pogo sticks all had exclusively detrimental health effects, you would have a point. They don't. These are all relatively safe activities provided participants are responsible and have proper equipment and training. Smoking has been recognised to cause a large number of medical complaints and is addictive which means that once the irresponsible decision to start has been made, it is difficult to reverse.
Prosperity is only an instrument to be used, not a deity to be worshipped. Calvin Coolidge
Like they used to tell people when I was in army. Can't stand the smell? Don't breathe. Simple.
When someone has been in a confined, smoke-filled environment for a sufficient length of time, they carry with them (upon their clothing, breath, and person) an aura of smoke. This is the most evident with my co-workers who smoke in their cars while coming to work. Someone who is not sensitive to smoke might not notice this.
A separate smoking section or industrial air-purifiers doesn't necessarily mean that the air is clear enough for people who do happen to be sensitive. An hour or so in the non-smoking section of my local indie coffee shop (if I can stomach the open mic for that long) leaves my clothes smoky enough to disturb my old roommate.
If someone's used to the smell of smoke, all of these things would pass nearly unnoticed.
Secondhand Smoke Ninjas are so ninja they don't even know they're doing it.
...and I'd like to state that I find people who become whiny drama queens about smoking to be far more irritating than smokers themselves.
We all have to deal with irritations from others on a day to day basis. I get on the streetcar in the morning. The woman who comes in and sits down next to me is wearing perfume. The guy sitting in front of me is playing his iPod obnoxiously loudly. Regardless, instead of whining ad nauseum about it, somehow I manage to maintain a positive outlook, enjoy my ride, and try to get through my day.
Maybe you should do the same where the smokers are involved. I highly doubt their intention is to deliberately upset you, and by getting upset and all worked up over it, you're only making yourself miserable.
...is bullshit, as Penn and Teller would say, they did an entire episode on it.
s ion=6&flashURL=/site/video/player_flash.do&pass_va riable=/ptbs/2003/shs_clip&pass_variable_2=&pass_v ariable_3=&altContentURL=/site/video/right.do&pass _variable=/ptbs/2003/shs_clip&pass_variable_2=&pas s_variable_3=
http://www.sho.com/site/video/player_flash.do?ver
Just use cigarette loads - you know, the ones they maybe still sell in the joke sections of comics books and popular mechanics, say - one per carton.
They'll still smoke enough to weaken the heart, then eventually when that load goes off, the shock'll stop their heart.
Now that I think about it - this'll prolly only make money for the bunch that makes those portable defibrillators...
Oh well. Back to the drawing board.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
" "smoking in public places" issue is just a red herring to distract people from the REAL health risk"
Junkie are you? Smoking is a "real" health risk, don't you see? Saying one fume is less bad than another is the red herring. I'll take banning smoking in public for $500 Alex. And we'll work on restricting gas powered lawn mowers and ATVs in Final Jeopardy when we've worked our way to there.
The thought that any kind of smoking would be "Safe" or "safer" is complete nonsense. Smoke fumes of any kind cause smoke damage to lung tissue, that's just one reason why people who breath smoke in cough. Smoke is toxic air, and toxins are not safe by definition.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
"we'd like to see something nicotine free..."
Then you're out of luck with this product. TFA mentions that the filter on these cigarettes is meant to remove toxic compounds, but not nicotine.
P.S. It is spelled cannabis. If you are going to be an advocate for a cause at least learn to spell it correctly, especially when the opposition claims that it lowers intelligence.
Have you actually tried that stuff?
When I tried!! to give up last year I went through the whole range of substitutes and all I can say is you may as well dry some grass cuttings (Garden variety) leaves off of a tree. The all taste like you sucking on a bonfire.
The best things I found were plastic filters and nico-block. (I started off by reducing my smoking by one cigarette every few days until I was down to about three first)
Anyhow, if you smoking weed the best thing to do is use a vaporizer, it heats up the weed until THC turns to vapor and because it doesn't burn anything you don't get high levels of tar and many other carcinogens that are produced by burning. (You can also make oil and chase it)
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Addendum:
I realize that no one smokes weed through a cigarette filter, my point was that the tobacco still contains nicotine (that the filter must not catch).
in fact i am not ill-informed and marijuana is in fact very bad for your body. 1 joint has as much tar and cancer causing agents as a pack of cigarettes. also, the mental effects of pot are much MORE SEVERE and more damaging to OTHER PEOPLE that are exposed. pot has been PROVEN to cause mental deficiencies in children born to pot smoking parents and/or exposed to marijuana.
at what point is one person's freedom more important than another's? i interpret your last comment as valueing freedom more than human rights?(and no they are not one in the same) the right to live and enjoy a healthy environment overrides any level of freedom allowing drug use.
each person has a basic right to not be harmed by others but you say freedom to do drugs as one pleases overrides this?
and you call me a fascist? you who seems willing to argue for the use of drugs and consequence to others, most likely only because of your own personal agent to do drugs as you please?
what happens when you have become intoxicate with some person(of opposite sex!) and produce a child? are you not responsible for that child's possible and probible mental difficencies? what right do you have to damage this persons mind in such a way? or do you prefer to abort such a child?
oh, and btw, people whom commit suicide by jumping of high places would like to eliminate the cold air between them and the ground because of the harmfull effects of frostbite. they would like to eliminate this as they don't like the idea of this harmfull and painfull situation during their relatively painless splat on the sidewalk.(analogy!)
as a side note i do vote.
Yeah. I've noticed that, too. In the CVS where I work, the mayor had laid down a ban on the sale of all of our "heavy" tobacco products (cigars, chewing tobacco, rolling papers, etc.) because she thought that it would stem the use of that stuff to roll joints. It didn't quite work out that way, and only made the smokers angry at us because we couldn't sell. Needless to say, the plan was a failure, and the ordinance was repealed two weeks later. Lately, we've been getting an increase in customers who walk into the store with "cases of the munchies". Strangely, they didn't order any rolling papers, but they were giggling continuously as they picked up a handful of Baby Ruths and Butterfingers. I have seen the face of a weed attic, and boy...it ain't pretty.
Having never worked in a smoking office, I haven't had the chance to try this on someone. If safer cigaretts still smell as bad, I may get the chance to.
Sig? We don't need no stinking sig....
Tobacco addicts endanger our lives more than by the carcinogens they exhale into the air. Their habit also is the leading cause for fire-related deaths. If you live in an apartment building and smokers also live in that building, you are depending on them not to fall asleep with a cigarrette burning in an ashtray on their beds. It's really common for an entire building to go up in flames due to unsupervised cigarrettes. So, yeah, smoking is a pretty significant threat to non-smokers.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
People that survive being in a fire often need treatment for smoke inhalation, but are released from the hospital after a short stay. People that smoke cigarettes may also require treatment for smoke inhalation, involving surgery, radiation and chemotherapy treatments, the loss of all body hair, and premature death.
... cigarette smoke is bad.
So yeah, I agree
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Everyone keeps bringing up Heroin. Heroin has legitimate medical uses, as does cocaine. No one is allergic to either of the,, they are incredibly effective pain killers, and properly managed, they can improve quality of life Go read about heroin, its just morphine repackaged in order to cross the blood/brain barrier more efficiently. heroin is not inherently dangerous to anyone, whereas 99% of the chemicals in most cigs are.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Why can't someone invent a cigarette that has no harmful side effects whatsoever. Technically, it wouldn't be a cigarette at all, but some kind of cane that you could smoke that would taste good. Many times I feel I need a smoke, but it's not the nicotine or anything I'm looking for, it's the habit itself. (note: I don't smoke, I think it's retarted. I've lost my Grandpa to it, and my dad has cancer because of it...)
I've seen products like these, little fake cigs you can put in your mouth to suck on or whatever to try to help cig-addicts quit. But I've never seen a product like this actually done right...I think it would be interesting, and would probably also help smokers that want to quit too...
Is your ID trying to tell us something about your post?
It's pretty shortsighted to miss that second hand smoke is chemically identical to the smoke that is inhaled "first hand" by the smoker that gives their lungs smoke damage, and eventually cancer or trouble breathing.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
"you don't count as a benefit making people happy? bringing a little enjoyment? making a good time better? happiness or contentedness isn't good enough for you? who are you, the Grinch?"
Smoking might make someone happy, like crystal meth might make someone happy, for a time. But there are real health consequences that they could live without bringing upon themselves and the ones they love. It isn't going to bring their family any enjoyment to bury their smoking son early because of his daily drug habit involving smoke damage to his lungs. Life is about being happy when you can be, but why sell future happiness by doing drugs now? The sad reality is that many people start smoking for peer pressure reasons, then they are unhappy when not smoking because they are going through withdrawl. It happens with all sorts of drugs to most people, so why start?
If you want to be happy in the long run, don't do drugs, and find other ways to live life on the edge. Do something that terrifies you like act in a self produced video, sing in public for money, patrol the streets looking to scare away johns or prostitutes, or ask a group of pretty girls to dance with you. All likely intimidating things to do guaranteed to get your self made drugs flowing, and you're not doing anyone any harm, and they are things best done with friends too.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
as a side note i do vote.
Now, if only you could be introduced to the use of capital letters as a novel way to start sentences...
Try giving up caffeine. I've given up a few drugs in my time but caffeine is by far the hardest. I sympathise though, once you're addicted to nicotine you have to keep giving it up for the rest of your life. I haven't smoked in over a decade and STILL get cravings when drinking.
Did they decide to add THC to their cigarettes?
Turns out cannabis inhibits lung cancer.
I see some wisdom being spoken in this thread. It all boils down to how strong-willed the person is. Because no matter how addicted you are to anything, if you *really* wanted to quit, you would.
Nobody's gay for Mole-Man.
Of course the same logic doesn't apply to people who want to kill themselves with heroin or cocaine or . So society does protect you against some things (like heroin), but not others (like dangerous food additives, food colourings, tobacco, fuel emissions, etc). It doesn't actually make any sense... Unless you look at it from an econmics point of view.
We don't believe in radical loony monotheistic religions from the middle east -- we're Christians.
In this world nothing is certain but death, taxes and flawed car analogies.
All the tabacco company sponsored commercials (the PR ones) I have seen of late claim that "there is no such thing as a safe cigarette." So at least lately they do not make the claim that cigs are safe.
I browse at +5 Flamebait and +5 Troll and I have never seen a thread on slashdot with so many messages modded that way.
Many of them are not flamebait or trollish at all, just people speaking their view.
Wheres the safe(er) marihuana?
alcohol is bad for you too.. lets ban that too! you mindless idiots! give away your freedoms... one by one.. sure you dont like this one.. but wait till they hit on something that you do like.... shame on you all! you all need hard spankings on your faces!! i am PJREY
I'm sure I've read something about safe cigarettes before. Check this out http://www.chickenhead.com/truth/lucky1.html
As I understand it, we care more about the second-hand smoke. If a "safer" cigarrete could be made to get rid of these, we wouldn't have a problem (except for health costs of smokers, but we can charge tobacco companies for that). In fact, if we didn't have second-hand smoke, I personally would have no problem in letting the smokers kill themselves any way they want. Alcholics too, not that I have anything against drinking.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
Second, if rock climbing, bush walking, skydiving, driving, crossing a busy road and pogo sticks all had exclusively detrimental health effects, you would have a point.
It's worth noting that smoking's health effects are NOT exclusively negative. It seems to help many people with stress problems, is known to enhance cognitive function measurably, and it is believed to provide some relief for people with even apparently reducing the incidence of tardive dyskinesia.
Of course since smoking is supposed to be just slightly better than murdering babies these days, nearly any article on the subject no sooner says the above than it begins urging everyone to quit anyway.
It seems to me, that for many people suffering mild schizophrenia, depression, or stress problems, smoking may carry less risk than the traditional medications, is certainly more affordable, and avoids the real risk of becoming an involuntary patient.
In the case of stress, the ill effects of smoking are in the long run less severe than those of prolonged stress would be.
Although I won't even attempt to claim smoking is harmless, I do clearly see how the effects are exagerated statistically. Consider people diagnosed w/ lung cancer. If they have EVER smoked, the verdict will be that it is smoking related. Otherwise, even if they lived their whole lives in the most polluted city in America, it will be an 'unknown' cause. If a person who has ever smoked has a heart attack, it will be attributed to smoking even if they eat a half pound of lard for breakfast daily. I have yet to see mortality studies that control for high stress jobs (people with high stress jobs are statistically more likely to smoke, is it the smoke or the stress that kills them)
I'm not claiming that smoking is good for you, only that it is currently in vogue to exagerate the ill effects.
brother, you lack in perspective
I'm a pretty weird case: I smoke socially, maybe 10-15 cigarettes per month only in clubs and when drinking. I've been doing that for 10 years, and I never started smoking or felt like smoking a cigarette outside of that setting... My father smokes 2-3 cigarettes a day, my brother smokes 2-3 packs a week, and my other brother smokes like me... Moderation in everything is more important than banning it outright.
The point is that all that evidence that second hand smoke is deadly doesn't seem to "exist", per se. The problem is those little nanny-state fuckers (from all parties, no political slant here) want to make a problem out of it just to enfore their way of life. I really don't see it as being much different from all our personal property rights that the slashdot crowd seems to love. If you don't like the smell (I don't), just move out of the way. Until science shows otherwise, there is no reason to assume second hand smoke is deadly, unless you're exposed to it all the time, and so shut the fuck up and let those people excercize their god damned right to kill themselves.
(Disclaimer: I have never, ever smoked or drank in my life, and do not recommend it at all. I'm just a big supporter of personal freedom.)
I have never, ever smoked or drank in my life, and do not recommend it at all. I'm just a big supporter of personal freedom.
Doesn't personal freedom involve the right to breath smoke-free air?
People are always afraid that businesses will have to shut down if smokers can't go. Instead, you see businesses actually doing about the same or better, because non smokers enjoy going out more. When they enacted non smoking laws where I live, I didn't see a single restaraunt or bar close due to customers not going because they couldn't smoke.
Yup, but like the earlier parent said in this long thread, you shouldn't base assumptions on a sample of one. When anti-smoking laws took effect where I live this did happen. The bars I go to on weekends are easier to see in, but that partially because there are fewer people in them. One of my favorite restaurants also closed, citing in part the smoking ban. See, lots of the businesses in our downtown get customers from other cities within a fifty mile radius (some larger than us). When the smoking band started, people stopped coming so much, and stayed in their hometowns where they could smoke.
The other thing that happened is every business started opening back porches, beer gardens, and front dining space on the sidewalk. All these front outdoor dining areas can be an obsticle when you're walking down the street sometimes (as each one takes up half the sidewalk width, creating bottlenecks). The businesses have to get approval from the city to put them in, but the city doesn't deny anyone because some businesses already had them before the smoking ban, and the lack of a smoking-friendly space puts a business at a competitive disadvantage.
Did I mention that with everyone smoking out front/in back/on elevated decks there is now a lot more smoking related litter on the street and sidewalks near businesses?
I'm a non-smoker, and was in support of the smoking ban in general when it came out. I was sometimes annoyed by how smoky some establishments got. But after seeing how it has effected the nightlife in town, I rather wish it would be scaled back to not being in effect after 10pm or something like that, making bars exempt, ect. This would still be quite effective for "thinking of the children". The only problem is employees of some of these establishments. They would have to be able to request not to work during smoking hous without it effecting their employability, and that wouldn't happen.
The smoking band had a chance to get put on a ballot (it was enacted by the city commission without a citywide vote originally), but the supports of repealing/changing it were not able to get the required signatures on the petition. Since a fairly large chunk of the smoking population is college students, many who wanted the smoking ban reconsidered were people not able to vote in area elections, because they were not legal residents of the state.
They named it: Marijuana!
Regards,
8-)
One of the best things about our country is the amount of tolerance we strive to have. Every once in a while though, we lose sight. Ever since the media campaigns against smoking, tolerance has dropped more and more to where I'm afraid to tell people that I smoke. Commercials depicting assholes with cigarettes and dogs pissing on them. Commercials comparing cigarettes to hard-core drugs with the pusher friend encouraging Joey Doright to light up. When I go out to a bar with coworkers, they're always surprised to find out I smoke and I can see in their eyes that they're thoroughly confused. Presumably, they liked me up until that point and now they don't know what to think.
Personally, I don't like chewing-gum one bit. You step in it, get it on your hand, sit on it, listen to people chew on it like cows. It's disgusting. If I wanted to see it illegal though, I'd move to Singapore. It may sound rediculous, but I'm sure the average person in Singapore must have seen gum at one point like Americans see tobacco for it to be illegal. Just think about it. Imagine people hating you for chewing gum. I know there's no health risks in gum, but that's absolutely the only difference. It's also the "reason" that all the haters constantly refer to in order to justify their prejudism. The real root of their hate is usually a mix of society's influence and the bad smell/smokey atmosphere of a bar or any other place where it's like a cloud. Personally, I'm the same way. I'm a half pack a day smoker, but if I'm in a bar with 100 people lighting up, my eyes go red and sting. So I leave and go somewhere else. It's not that difficult.
I'll tell you what. If you guys work with me to outlaw talking on Cell phones in public places and outlaw gum, I'll quit smoking.
It sure does and you personally have the right to leave the room, or restaurant, or Bar, or tobacco shop.
Your argument is retarded because smokers not only damage their own health, but the health of those around them as well.
That's a non-trivial question -- if you think it's obviously not appropriate for the government to get involved ask yourself how you would feel if most restaurants were "white only" because the owners felt they would lose sales (from white patrons avoiding them) if they allowed non-whites to eat there. It's not an exact parallel but it demolishes the "owner uber alles" mindset.
It is a non-trivial question, and thank you very much for acknowledging that. I far prefer to engage in debate with those who see that the issue is complex - not for complexity's sake, but because of the issue itself.
Concerning your proposed situation: there are two issues at play here. First, the odiousness of such a provision. Very, very few of us in modern times would care for "whites only." The second issue is how to change it. The first has no question of government involvement, the latter does.
"If most restaurants were 'whites only' would you support government action to outlaw such exclusions?"
I would not. I would march, I would boycott, I would cajole and reason. But I would not support government action. The reason is this: when I allow a vote on how someone else will use their private property, I have undermined all of our rights. What use is it for a black man to own his own restaurant when the local council will not permit him to serve blacks there - or, more commonly for the time - would not permit him to operate a restaurant at all. The idea is the same: other people can decide what you do with your property for the simple cause that they do not approve of your actions.
When we do this, we enter the realm of city planners deciding whether individual restaurants may serve alcohol, whether a sign is to be allowed because it is not fitting with the town's decor, and whether a smoking bar can even exist.
We need to separate the horridness of the action from the nature of the remedy. When we're dealing with private property, we need to consider that the same powers we bestow upon the Custodies we like is the same power the Custodies will have when we are not as fond of them.
I do not believe your situation demolishes the "property rights first" mentality. If you desired to do so, I would move along three lines of attack:
Property rights are limited in scope. We acknowledge that actions upon one property may cause effects in others. Building an aluminium mill causes toxic dust that will go onto neighboring property, and your right to your land does not entitle you to do that. If ownership use is subject to restrictions, how can it be supreme? Further, if property rights are so limited, is it not reasonable to argue that other limitations may be placed upon its use?
Alternately, one could argue that there are elements of ownership. While you may own your own home and the property upon which it resdes, it is very unlikely that you own the allodial title (mineral rights/oil rights), water rights, or throughway rights (there's another name for that, this is basically the right of the water company to run a pipe through your property along a narrow path). In most districts, these rights are owned by the city. As there most manifestly are elements to ownership, it is not enough to merely "own" your property - you must own the right rights on your property.
Lastly, the government has a certain right to all property: a government official (if acting in accordance with the law) may enter any property he pleases. If a police officer needs to serve a warrant or make a search of your home, and he has the authority to do so, it is not tresspass for him to come on to your property. Also, the government has a right to restrict the interactions of people in accordance with the law[1], therefore it is reasonable to restrict the way someone comports their business without being in violation of their right to do business.
But I believe all of these are peripheral to the points above: *how* not *what*.
Thank you again for your insightful comments.
Denver voters OK marijuana measure.. This actually means, that the state, in Denver, will save some of those billions used on marijuana possession arrests and STILL keep the taxes on cigarettes.. clever.
> Junkie are you?
why do you ask? is it because you don't have a real argument so have to resort to ad-hominem bullshit as your opening line?
> Smoking is a "real" health risk, don't you see?
of course i see. smoking is a real health risk for smokers. and there's reasonably convincing evidence that it's a risk for people in a room full of stale smoky air. smoking out in the open is not a risk for anyone but the smoker themselves, and evil-minded fascists like you should keep their fucking ugly noses out of other people's business.
> Saying one fume is less bad than another is the red herring.
no, it's the truth. some chemicals are more harmful than others. that's undeniable fact. breathing diesel exhaust, for example, is many times more harmful to a person than either active or passive smoking.
> I'll take banning smoking in public for $500 Alex.
you can have your ban on smoking in public as long as i can have my ban on fascist fuckwits....a heavy price to pay, but worth it for the benefit to society.
> And we'll work on restricting gas powered lawn mowers
> and ATVs in Final Jeopardy when we've worked our way to there.
unfortunately, that's the biggest trouble with fascist wowsers like you - enough is never enough. whatever you've managed to prohibit today is just a starting point for tomorrow.
Damn pollen.
Someone had to do it.
Everyone in this discussion seems to be missing one of the biggest reasons that smoking bans have been successful -- it's a workplace safety issue.
Stop thinking of the "selfish masses" who don't like the smell of smoke on their clothes (though the asthmatic who can never go to bars or restaurants due to small amounts of smoke triggering an attack may have a point...) -- and start thinking about the bartenders and other staff working those places day in and day out.
Suddenly the research that shows consistent exposure to 2nd-hand smoke being harmful is applicable, isn't it?
Here in the US we have plenty of regulations regarding workplace safety. Indoor smoking bans are a logical part of this, once you look at it in the correct light.
(Banning smoking outside is a more difficult stance to argue for)
The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
um... as for calling the ad-hominem attack used against you to discredit your parent post, you also invalidated your own post. Effective, you both look bad.
Interestingly enough, your 'reasonably convincing evidence' for 'risk free' second-hand-smoke is ludicrous at best. If you say diesel smoke inhalation is bad, (remember this is outdoors), how can you say that second-hand-smoke is fine outdoors?
Instead of calling everyone else extremists, keep your comments consistent with logic, and you will see that you can not call for a ban on diesel vehicles and smoke while insisting that smoking is fine, all the while flipping-off anyone who disagrees with you. Get your head straight, then speak.
Oh, and I fully understand your claim that smoking is less harmful... granted. But both are very damaging, and I pay taxes for Medicare treat the effects of both, (I am sure). All I am asking is that you post logically. If that makes me a 'fascist fuckwits/wowser' then so be it.
--for the record... if it is second-hand smoke, it is my business and that is why my 'ugly nose' is in it. Banned or not, I still have to walk through the cloud of smoke to enter the buildings everyone smokes in front of, and I guess I could move, (since my neighbor smokes), or get another job, or attend another school... but then it would be your 'ugly nose' that is interfering in my business. Or I guess I could always breathe it all in, besides... it is 'risk free' ...right?
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to govern any other" -John Ada
Is your worldview really so twisted that you can't see how people would find throwing terms like "niconazi" around to be flamebait? Grow up.
There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
Of course they didn't buy papers... they already had the paraphernalia needed.
Nicotine is far more harmful than marijuana
Please stop perpetuating this myth. People only say this to try to defend their choice to smoke pot, and it's complete bullshit.
Big problem here is assuming that making drugs illegal actually stems their use or availability. With alcohol, it was shown that banning it caused more deaths than leaving it legal as the black market did not care about purity, and the associated rise in gang violence harmed more people than drinking did. So the prohibition expirement was ended on the national level.
Marijuana is generally easier for teens to obtain than cigarettes or tobacco.
Fascism is marked by the state exerting control over the individual, so banning drug use is definately more in line with fascism than advocating legalization.
what happens when you have become intoxicate with some person.
I tried to speculate on what this phrase means, and the only result I could come up with is that you are an idiot. If you meant "what happens when you become intimate with some person" then this has no bearing on the subject of drugs. If you meant "what happens when you get a person intoxicated for the purpose of seducing them" then there are already laws against this: it's called rape. If you meant "what happens when a pregnant person uses drugs which is potentially dangerous to the child" then I agree that personal responsibility should come into play, and someone who is trying to have a child should not do drugs and someone who does drugs should do what they can to not get pregnant. Making drugs illegal really does nothing to reduce drug use or availability (in fact, many drugs become cheaper and more readilly available when they are banned) so saying that drugs should be illegal in order to protect unborn children is simply assinine.
Yeah, you all know we want them :)
He said the difference was mainly due to nicotine in tobacco, whereas cannabis may inhibit cancer because of the presence of the chemical THC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4350642.stm
Presumably you can back up your own statement?
It's not so much that the children will end up smoking (although that's a major concern too), it is that in the case of babies and young children they're too young to know that smoking is damaging them. What child is going to know that it's not ok for mum or dad to be smoking inside next to their crib or in the living room while they're watching TV. And before you start with the "it's my own home" stuff, it's NOT ok to smoke around babies and the like, any more than it is to feed 'em small amounts of arsenic in their food. Although the law doesn't regard the two as the same: they're both carcinogenic and known to damage health especially in the very young. So while you may be "smoking for yourself", you're impacting others. That's the big issue that non smokers have with smokers generally, and in the case of the "think of the children" argument: the smokers obviously aren't thinking of the children if they smoke anywhere near them. Developing lungs, brain and body are much more likely to be impacted than a mature adults. On the later topic of making their own decisions: we learn from our parents right or wrong. If mum and/or dad smoke, then what hope is there of you as parents being able to convince a child not to take up a habit that will result in a painful drawn out death, inability to exercise without gasping for breath and general ill health for years..
No no! It was smoking that was banned...
From Action on Smoking and Health an anti-smoking organaization: tobacco taxation raises revenue of £9.5bn compared with the £1.7bn needed to treat smoking-related illness. So smokers are subsidizing non-smokers health care. Granted, I'm not British so this doesn't apply to me, but it appears you are as you mentioned the NHS.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
Well, first off, breathing smoke-free air is not a "right" at least last time I looked at the bill of rights.
Consider this concept of personal freedom: If I'm having a party, I have every right to tell my guests that I don't want them to smoke on property. My guests who smoke may choose not to come to my party because I won't let them smoke. They may choose to stand on the sidewalk in front of my house and smoke. They may choose to not smoke while at my party. They have the freedom to decide.
If I'm having a party, I have every right to tell my guests to light up. My guests who do not smoke can choose not to come to my party if they don't wish to inhale smoke. They may choose to avoid smokers and end up hanging out someplace where there are no smokers, such as on the sidewalk in front of my house. They may choose to put up with the smoke. They have the freedom to decide.
To me, personal freedom is about the right to choose. I don't have to agree with their choices. I may wish they wouldn't choose these things. I may not want to be around them when they choose these things. But that doesn't mean that I have the right to not allow them to choose.
Last night, I went out to dinner with a friend of mine. We were at a nice restaurant enjoying a quiet meal and conversation. Unfortunately, about half-way through our meal, a group of people came in and ended up sitting at a table close to us. They'd probably been sitting at the bar for an hour or so, so they were already a little drunk and loud. They ordered a couple of bottles of wine and started getting a little loud. It certainly was annoying. Were infringing on my "personal freedom" to enjoy a quiet dinner? Had I gone to the restaurant and complained, would I be infringing on their "personal freedom" to have a good time?
You'd prefer not to be annoyed by cigarette smoke while enjoying a night out and I can't say that I blame you. But to equate your preferences with "personal freedom" is a bit much. To go back to your term, "right", you don't have the "right" to make everybody else do what you want.
Smoking *is* addictive and dangerous, no question about that. But since everybody knows that by now, and smokes anyway, all we can do is watch them die.
The statement that smoking only harms the smoker is a myth.
I'm a physician, and of the extremely ill patients I admit for heart and pulmonary disease, an astonishingly high proportion of them are sick because of smoking. Their care costs a fortune, and we're obligated to give it to them regardless of their (in)ability to pay for it.
Now, there are important ethical questions about who should pay for treatment of self-inflicted disease. I'm not suggesting that someone should be denied treatment because they made bad choices. But we as a society need to quit pretending that smoking (or drinking to excess) is just another "OK" choice that harms only the smoker. Smokers are addicts. They are drug abusers that cost society far, far more than all illicit drug users combined. Please do not perpetuate the myth that a smoker or other addict is only harming himself.
Smoking in your own living room should be as socially unacceptable as urinating on the carpet in front of your TV. I'm not saying it should be illegal - just widely viewed with disgust and disapproval.
Try Damiana, it has pleasant taste, as well as is easy on your lungs. Not to mention, slight relaxing/aphrodisiac properties.
aah, what australia are you living in? :)
The anti smoking campaigns don't ever say "this will 100% give you cancer", they say imply "is likely" or "it may most likely" give you cancer.. They just present the fact that if you smoke you are much much more likely to get some nasty cancer. Is that lying? Maybe you don't know anyone who's died from smoking YET, but stick around long enough and you will. I have few friends that smoke, but those that do are a bit older (in their 30's/40's) and they're already sounding pretty rough (coughing, bit breathless when having to do much exercise). Another 10-15 years and they're going to be in serious trouble I think.
I think if you smoke long enough everyone will get cancer eventually, but perhaps something else will kill 'em first. Some are lucky and do live to be 100, but I wonder how long would they have lived had they not smoked? Some people have good genetics and are unlikely to get cancer though.. But I know a lot of oldies that had strokes and spend a lot of time on ventilators who smoked.. And it ain't pretty.
The "it may cause blindness" ads: I haven't seen that, but smoking (if you've looked into the medical side of it) makes just about anything you're suffering from worse: blood pressure, cancer, lung/liver/kidney function, blood circulation (the bit they don't talk about much.. but which results in horrible growths on people's skin when they get older), diabetes is exacerbated (which can cause blindness), and yes: vision is affected. So if you're predisposed to blindness, guess what will help speed things along a bit? They also say "smoking while pregnant will harm your baby", do you dispute this because there may be one baby in a million that isn't affected in some way?
But I agree with the comment about the ads on TV: I'm a non smoker and some of those were pretty hardcore, but then again, so were the AIDS ones back a while back (remember the ones with the grim reaper and the bed of needles one.. scared the shit out of me as a kid). If it was just banned there would be no need.. That would be a much more affective use of funds: ban cigarettes full stop. Would be fairly cheap really, no need to come up with ad campaigns and organising school programmes to educate kids, no worrying about definitions about what's non-smoking enclosed areas and what's smoking areas in pubs.. No more paying to empty ashtrays, false call outs due to smoking inside, housefires, cigarette butts.. etc..
aah.. wouldn't that be the easier option..
KEEP AWAY FROM FIRE.
... is that they kill smokers much too slowly.
Science fiction for grown-ups...
I don't want them around me period. If you want to kill yourself, thats your business. Just do it someone that I don't have to breathe your smoke or smell it.
Me lost me cookie at the disco.
"Having a non-smoking section of a resturaunt is like having a no-peeing section in the swimming pool."
"why do you ask? "
/. moderation, where they gave your senseless ramblings a +5, and modded my insightful reply down. I guess there's a lot of smokers on slashdot looking to justify their addiction.
Because most people who defend their right to smoke so strongly, are strongly addicted to nicotine, and the drug warps their sense of reason so they can justify stupid things like smoking.
"smoking out in the open is not a risk for anyone but the smoker themselves, "
And that shows what you know: nothing. There are loads of people can can have a breathing attack in open air smoking areas, brought on by the smoke. This is one reason why in Canada, some sports stadiums that don't have domes are smoke free, because you can smell the ruddy smoke from 10 seats and 5 rows over from the nicotine junkie that just can't wait 3 hours to light up.
I don't think I've seen a worse case of
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
judging by your post, it appears you need some nicotine... Do you honestly believe smokers defend their right to smoke outside because the "drug warps their sense of reason so they can justify stupid things like smoking"? You ever smoke tobacco at all? People don't like to be told what to do, would you?
Now i'll be the first one to argue that cigs stink and i do find it rude when smokers light up right next to a group of nonsmokers, no one wants to be forced to smell that. But i find that most nonsmokers are so gungho about getting people to stop smoking that they stop seeing these smokers as real people.
i live in atl GA and smokers just lost their right to smoke inside at public places where there are people under the age of 18. i can live with that, i can understand the problem. But now you're saying you don't even want smokers to smoke outside... you obviously think you don't have bigger problems.
i guess some people just shouldn't go outside.
They call me the wookie man, I guess that's what I am
"you obviously think you don't have bigger problems."
Buddy, you don't know problems until you have trouble breathing, or an unknown illness possibly triggered by cigarette smoke. There's nothing more important to life than the immediate need to breathe, tempurature/pressure, then water, food, etc. When smokers mess with my right to life and even my enjoyment of it just so they can satisfy a needless drug addiction, it makes me think they are a bit nuts, insensitive, junkies, whatever yeah.
I need nicotine like an extra hole in my head. Drugs aren't the answer to everything you know.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Somebody call a wahhhmbulance!
of course.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/684328.stm
My biggest complaint is that I don't like having to pay for smoker's medical costs. When people smoke 2 packs a day there is a huge risk that activity will affect their health as they age. Many of those people will require medical treatment. Many will also not have medical insurance and go to hospitals that are paid via Medicare or Medicaid. That money comes from tax dollars I worked to create. Even if they have insurance, that risk taking causes my insuance to be higher. Perhaps if they jacked up the taxes on cigarettes to cover those future costs I would be happier. That would really drive up the costs though.
Assume someone ends up causing $500k of medical care due to lung cancer, emphazima, or other ailments. If they smoked 2 packs a day for 25 years, that totals about 20000 packs of cigarettes. That tax alone would be $25/pack. Since its not hard to spend $5/pack now, I wonder how many people would smoke if cigarettes were $30/pack or $1.5 a cigarette?
It is true that some people who smoke don't have major medical issues caused by smoking. I suspect that is a minority though. Many also don't have $500k in medical bills also, but it is not unheard of to have over $1M. Again, they can feel free to hurt themselves. I just don't want to be the one to pay for it!
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
On a minute level, I agree with you. Alcohol causes many more problems than, say, consumption of water. However, while there is damage caused by the effects of 2nd-hand exposure to the behavior of alcohol users, there doesn't seem to be any measurable effect of 2nd hand exposure to alcohol.
Working in a 'bar', might be considered hazardous due to the types of behavior one might be expected to deal with, but that's what bouncers are for.
Bouncers can't stop smoke.
Is there a reason why tobacco can't be grown in your backyard without all the phosphate chemicals so one could enjoy "natural tobacco" cigarettes w/o all the additives? Would these be any healthier?
I was surprised to learn that the "4 o'clocks", or "Marvels of Peru" growing around my property (since before I lived here -- remarkably hardy) are in the Nicotinae family. They are categorized as "poisonous". Are they the same type of poison as the Nicotine in cigarettes? Would this mean that tobacco might grow as hardily? Dunno.
In any event -- tobacco seems to be uniquely suited for stinking up 2nd hand people and objects -- much better than incense or pot smoke. Having smelled people who have been to events where smoking was banned (but pot was smoked), I was told of the smoking or could see that so-and-so might have inhaled, but I couldn't smell it on them. Whereas multiple times, I've had friends just be in the vicinity of others who have smoked and they come home reeking of cigarette smoke. It gets on their clothes and doesn't come off until they wash them. And from input from other girlfriends who used to barhop, they caution not to put such items into the closet, as they will contaminate not only other clothes, but also the walls of the closet!
When my ex and I visited her mom's home, the home looked to be painted yellow on the inside. Her mom was a chain smoker (died of lung cancer in her early 60's). I was surprised when my ex showed me some pictures on the wall -- removing them from the wall -- the wall was white underneath! I'd never seen anything so bad.
I've had some alcohol around for maybe 20+ years (I'm not a real big drinker). It hasn't discolored anything yet.
So...I think there may be some problems with your analogy...
-l
You know, it's funny, but "stink" is truly in the eyes of the beholder. When I was a kid, my father smoked heavily, and he didn't stink to me at all. In fact, I liked the smell of tobacco, because I subconsciously associated it with my father. It was only years later that I would start to think of it as a negative smell.
And before you hippies jump on me, you might want to have a good smell the next time one of your vegan buddies takes a dump in a public bathroom. I don't care how many times they argue that "Humans are made to eat vegetables," nothing that produces a smell like that can be good for you.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I never understood that. A lot of my friends do it, and they say that it makes the bong smoother, as well as regulates the dosage. For me, tobacco makes the bowls more harsh, they taste like crap, and I can just regulate by taking smaller bong hits. I smoke weed every day, and I love the taste - I wouldn't want to mess that up. Oh yeah, and I've smoked for 8 years (cigs) so its not like the tobacco is harsh because im a non-smoker.
You create your own reality - Leave mine to me.
Rather than whining about cigarette smoke, you all need to move to California...You can't smoke in your car, your house or in the street. The entire state is non-smoking now.
Where's my right to smoke marijuana? (Well, In Canada it is kind of a moot point since anyone who wants to smoke casually does, with out any real concern for being thrown in jail.) I forget my point.. which i often do while smoking my drugs... ah well!
The Good Life
1 joint has as much tar and cancer causing agents as a pack of cigarettes. also, the mental effects of pot are much MORE SEVERE and more damaging to OTHER PEOPLE that are exposed. pot has been PROVEN to cause mental deficiencies in children born to pot smoking parents and/or exposed to marijuana.
Please provide evidence to support these statements. Without evidence, you're simply spouting off and picking a fight that will benefit no one. With evidence, we can call it intellectual discourse, and while it probably won't change either side's view, we can all say we learned something.
Your "For The Children" point especially deserves a link to some hard data. Everybody trots out the children, but if you have unbiased study results to back up your statement it's important to make them visible. In my experience, responsible users want to know about things like that if it's proven, as you claim, or even if it's simply correlated. Believe it or not, just because we use cannabis does not mean that we are uncaring outlaws whose only purpose is to get high and slowly destroy society by turning kids into smaller versions of ourselves.
at what point is one person's freedom more important than another's? i interpret your last comment as valueing freedom more than human rights?(and no they are not one in the same) the right to live and enjoy a healthy environment overrides any level of freedom allowing drug use.
each person has a basic right to not be harmed by others but you say freedom to do drugs as one pleases overrides this?
What do you mean by 'healthy environment?' I don't see how my use of cannabis measurably affects your environment. Your car violates your right to a healthy environment much more than I do with my small amount of smoke. You're not requried to be anywhere that people will be smoking. We don't have fiberglass filters to litter. How do cannabis users negatively affect your environment?
Keep in mind that very few people are advocating drug use "as one pleases." I think most people would agree with me that standard smoking laws would affect cannabis, as well as other preventive measures for driving and working environments similar to those in effect for alcohol. [Note: Cannabis is the topic we're dealing with, so I'm taking your statement "freedom to do drugs" to mean "freedom to use cannabis" - not all drugs are equal, and blanket statements about all drugs are generally inaccurate.] Again, just because we use cannabis does not mean that we are uncaring outlaws whose only purpose is to get high and slowly destroy your quality of life by...doing whatever it is you imagine us to be doing. You're setting up a false dichotomy between cannabis use and "human rights", when in reality the two only affect each other in a small number of cases.
what happens when you have become intoxicate with some person(of opposite sex!) and produce a child? are you not responsible for that child's possible and probible mental difficencies? what right do you have to damage this persons mind in such a way? or do you prefer to abort such a child?
I'm not sure what to say about this one. I think you're confusing cannabis with alcohol. See, alcohol's the one that removes inhibitions and judgment to a far greater degree, and you're probably not going to sleep with anyone stoned that you wouldn't sober. Also, if your claims about "pot-baby" mental deficiency prove true, I'm certain the effects will only happen with chronic use while pregnant. Responsible users will either curb their usage or abort the child (note that I do not advocate abortion, but unless it's my kid I have no say in the matter). I think your issue might be that you're starting with the assumption that only evil, irresponsible people use drugs because drugs are evil. This social stigma is the hardest thing for us users to overcome.
oh, and btw, people whom commit suicide by jumping of high places would like to eliminate the cold air between t
Your brain is not a computer.
I am a smoker, and I don't have allergies. One thing that makes my eyes smart though, is some perfumes, in certain concentrations, on certain people. Are you affected by perfume as well as cigarette smoke?
I avoid the cleaning fluid aisle when I go grocery shopping. I mean, I DO clean my clothes and stuff, I just use a non-perfumated cleaning agent. The whole aisle usually stinks, though, and is half as bad as I understand tear-gas to be.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
Judging by the context of this thread, it sounds as if you're opposed to smokers lighting up outside. Is that correct? If so, either purchase a breathing apparatus, stop going outside, or lighten up. The outdoors is a big place, and there are a lot of toxic fumes far worse than factories (like the tens of millions of cars in North America) that create odorous/toxic gasses. If you have a problem with a smoker in the outdoors, stand upwind or stand away.
A hint for you; so many non-smokers believe they have the right to a 100 metre smoke free radius around them at all times. This is simply not the case. These types tend to be the ones who demand (not ask) smokers to butt-out NOW! This will accomplish nothing more than starting an argument. If you don't want someone smoking around you, perhaps at a bus stop you were at first, if you can't avoid being in the smoke ask the person nicely if they wouldn't mind moving away or butting out. Sometimes you will get a hostile response, or ignored, but smokers being humans too; you'll often get a positive response.
Nobody likes to be told what to do, especially by strangers. Regardless of your medical condition, keep that in mind next time you demand something of another human being.
BD Phone Home!
Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.
I wonder if this will have any impact on the no smoking bans we have seen in recent years?
The smoking bans are about social engineering to stop a habit considered by the zealots to be offensive. Whether or not the cigarettes have any health risks has no bearing on the bans whatsoever, especially since the science doesn't support second-hand smoke risks.
Sounds like the same "seperate, but equal" argument to me.
Fix Your Own TV - RiddledTV.com Avoid the Landfill
If a "safer" cigarrete could be made to get rid of these, we wouldn't have a problem (except for health costs of smokers, but we can charge tobacco companies for that).
Technically we have already with all those nicotine patch quit-smoking products. Since smokers are really only after the nicotine, those patches should suffice in delivering the chemical. However, as with most smokers, it is the habit of bringing something to your lips and sucking that is the part they find so hard to give up.
So, if they can deliver nicotine without a burning the medium in a cigarette-like device; everyone will be happy.
Live forever, or die trying.
Don't ask me, ask the combatants of the "War on Drugs(tm)". If you feel qualified about taking the drug yourself, then take it. Qualified in at least the same way you and me would feel qualified after reading the insanely long package inserts of any prescription medicine. Few normal people are able to understand more than the half of it, but we take it anyway. With natural drugs that have been around some thousand years it's probably not as bad, but that's only my opinion, not that of our lawmakers.
Can you stage a political protest at your local pub? No? Then it's not public.
The laws you give as examples don't show that it's considered public. A warehouse facility that moves cargo crates also has to comply with laws about working conditions, inspections, etc - but it's not public in any way.
I think choice is the best policy. If a pub thinks it'll do better business by being non-smoking, let it be non-smoking. Then you can choose whether to go there or up the street to the smoking pub. That allows two groups of people to enjoy themselves as they wish with no government force involved at all.
> Interestingly enough, your 'reasonably convincing evidence' for 'risk free'
...right?
> second-hand-smoke is ludicrous at best.
try reading what i actually said. i said that there was reasonably convincing evidence that large amounts of second-hand smoke inside a building is harmful - i.e pretty much the opposite of what you claimed i said.
> If you say diesel smoke inhalation is bad, (remember this is outdoors),
> how can you say that second-hand-smoke is fine outdoors?
1. diesel smoke contains much worse chemicals than cigarette smoke, including one of the most carcinogenic chemicals known
your question is like asking "how come a water pistol wont kill me but a real gun will?"
2. quantity - a diesel engine puts out hundreds, or thousands of times the volume of toxic chemicals as a smoker, or even a huddle of smokers outside a building's entrance.
> [...] and I pay taxes for Medicare treat the effects of both
no, the taxes on cigarettes more than pay for all medical costs associated with smoking - you aren't subsidising the medical costs of smokers...it's the other way around, the smokers are subsiding self-righteous non-smoking jerks like you.
> for the record... if it is second-hand smoke, it is my business and
> that is why my 'ugly nose' is in it.
no, you live in a society with other people, and you just have to accept that some of them do things that annoy you. you don't have the right to control everything to your satisfaction.
if you're really worried about your health rather than just moral outrage at someone else's choices then focus on something that will actually make a difference - better pollution controls for cars, and the banning of diesel fuel vehicles.
> Or I guess I could always breathe it all in, besides... it is 'risk free'
in small quantities, yes - entirely risk free.
actually, not quite. there is a huge risk of being ear-bashed by pathetic whiners who work themselves into a frenzy over the smell of smoke.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/11/07 /bc-fire-051107.html
Smoking never hurts anyone but the smoker though...
Right?
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Remind me, what's "Life, Liberty, and Good Government" about? Oh, that's Canada's constitution? Never mind if you're not subject to that constitution, but "life" most certainly guarantees citizens of the right to breath clean air that doesn't contribute to health problems. Smelliness probably doesn't qualify, but cigarette smoke is more than just smelly, it's a carcinogen.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Aside from the fact that this is a massive red herring, stupid people start (or cause) fires every day. Many of them don't even smoke.
By the by, did you see anywhere in my post that I remotely suggested that smoking "never hurts anyone but the smoker"?
BD Phone Home!
Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.
"did you see anywhere in my post that I remotely suggested that smoking "never hurts anyone but the smoker""
Not explicitly, however your post was all about blaming the non-smoker for not liking a world where some people take it upon themselves to burn carcinogens and stick them in their mouth. And then the smoker is surprised when other people take offense to being subjected to nasty smoke coming from their mouth, and waving their burning stick around, dropping their ash and butts everywhere? Smokers have to take responsibility for the widespread litter, destruction, suffering, and death their drug causes. Not everyone who uses heroin is going to be destructive, but I'd bet you'd consider any heroin junkie at least partly responsible for supporting the demand for their destructive drug?
If you want to smoke, do it in your home away from anyone who will take offense to it. Out of sight, out of mind. The goal isn't to harm or restrict smokers, it's to get rid of smoking alltogether so don't take my attitude personally. I feel the same way about heroin as a do about nicotine: Attack the drug, not the junkie.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
I must say it's an interesting mindset to have: but I still think you're underestimating what impact it will have on you.
I remember I had a chest infection as a child and I couldn't get enough breath to blow my nose and felt half a chest short of air. Not a pleasant experience and it was a fairly mild case and it was cleared up by a short hospital stay and medicine.
I guess it comes down to attitude about things: I won't say you're too addicted to even try giving up, but perhaps I'll say that you're too lazy and too "it won't really happen to me" to try and give up. Same thing applies to people eating hamburgers every day and ending up obese: eating fatty food is enjoyable, everyone likes a bit of grease. Difference is that some people know that it's bad for them and cut down or show restraint. They can give the same arguments as you: "oh I know I might die of heart disease and heart failure, but my grandfater was fat and he went quietly", "I know the risks but I choose to enjoy eating my 3 hamburgers and 2 hot dogs a day"
Perhaps you're of the viewpoint that all the education stuff on smoking is just propaganda and that's why you have decided that you know better and that it isn't as bad as all that. Perhaps you got the idea that a death from smoking is just a case of going to sleep. Generally when old people die they do just pass away in their sleep. The difference really is the quality of life up until that point and how much of a restriction their earlier choices have put on their life.
Similar to education choices when young have a lasting impact upon the rest of your life: you decide to drop out of school halfway through highschool then it will be rather difficult to become a rocket scientist. Sure it might have been fun bumming around and not having to do uni assignments, but that's a fairly short lived thing. Smoking cos you enjoy it and get to talk to random people at uni a bit easier is the short lived benefit, the longer term impact is that certain things are going to be off limits to you: scuba diving might be a bit more difficult, climbing a mountain, going for a jog (or hell.. having to run to catch a plane), playing with your kids and eventually the "act" of not needing a ventilator and chemotherapy etc etc..
So anyhow, yes there's choice.. I just don't think it's as forward a thinking one as it needs to be if that's your choice..