News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

any smoking roadgeeks?

Started by allniter89, January 21, 2013, 01:00:27 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

The High Plains Traveler

#25
I quit the evil weed when I was 25 and instantly became intolerant of those who continued to partake, especially in public places. Seriously, in my lifetime, I have seen something that was socially acceptable if not necessary become a public nuisance, and now mostly associated with those of little education. My blue-collar, neighborhood bar-heavy, "Pew-town" became one of the first communities to ban smoking in public establishments in Colorado, a few years before the state-wide ban was enacted. (In fact, the local ban was upheld when put to a public vote, even though two city councilmen were recalled by their districts in the same election).

As far as the other substance that can be smoked, I'm interested in seeing the next few years with legalization in two states (including my own) of small amounts. I remember flying back from Amsterdam to Minneapolis in the 1990s and seeing the flight's luggage given extra canine attention prior to customs at the airport. Will I be now subjected to additional search at the border? But whatever I may have done in my callow youth, at my age, I don't want to partake in anything that affects my short-term memory.

In addition to that, I'm concerned about my short-term memory.
"Tongue-tied and twisted; just an earth-bound misfit, I."


allniter89

Quote from: cu2010 on January 22, 2013, 02:13:09 PM
Never started. Have no intentions of ever doing so.

Especially considering that, at four dollars and thirty-five cents a pack, the cigarette taxes in my state are ridiculous...and, thus, it would get expensive fast. :pan:
The price of cigarettes was a large part of my reason to quit in addition to health concerns and the general nastiness of smoking. I remember when cig prices were rising towards $2 a pack, I said I would quit before I paid $2 but the addiction had me and I didnt have the will to quit  :banghead:. For some reason $3 was too much to pay and by then I was ready to quit. It was a struggle I almost lost many times but I fought through the bad times and succeeded  :spin: :clap:. 11 yrs, 48 days and counting  :)
BUY AMERICAN MADE.
SPEED SAFELY.

kphoger

That's what the last person I knew who quit talked about the most:  how much money she saved.  She got out her QuikTrip receipts and added the numbers up, and was positively floored by the totals.  The QuikTrip attendant–not even knowing she had quit–asked her not longer afterward why she didn't shop there as often anymore; she had no idea she'd been spending so much time there.

What has fascinated me most about smoking is its relation to drinking in people's bank of moral values.  I know people who rarely if ever drink but have no qualms about smoking; I also know people who believe smoking is a sin, but don't believe the same about alcohol.  When I first started thinking about it, I became intrigued by people's reasoning for accepting one and rejecting the other, and it still interests me.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

kphoger

Quote from: Alex on January 22, 2013, 05:32:11 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 22, 2013, 05:27:16 PM
I'm really amazed at how many people answered 'no'.  It seems most people I ask have smoked at least once–although I must admit the subject doesn't come up all that often.

That is because there is no option for smoked once or rarely. I may smoke a cigarette once in a given year.

I just noticed that the question in the poll is "Have you ever smoked?"  Once would be yes, right?
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

hbelkins

Quote from: empirestate on January 22, 2013, 09:33:29 PM
Before smoking bans were invented in the U.S., I never particularly noticed the level of smokiness in restaurants and bars. Now that indoor smoking is all but forbidden nationwide, it's immediately and acutely noticeable when you encounter that rare establishment where it's still permitted (or the one scofflaw who lights up where it's not allowed). Besides my just being accustomed to non-smoking premises, I also wonder if it's because smokers congregate more densely in those places because it is still allowed.

My little county seat town (population 1,000 in a county of 7,000 in rural SE Kentucky) passed a smoking ordinance a few years ago. Prohibiting smoking in public establishments seems to be more and more the norm. When Lexington first passed a smoking ban several years prior, many predicted it would kill restaurants and bars in the area. Far from it.

When I was out and about a couple of weeks ago, I went into a restaurant in Maysville. It shocked my senses to smell smoke there, and when I looked around I saw a woman smoking and ashtrays on the table in part of the restaurant. I sat in the non-smoking section but it did little good because the two sections were not separately walled with separate ventilation systems.

Franklin County, Ky. recently enacted a smoking ban so restrictive that it prohibits smoking in individual hotel rooms. All the hotels are entirely smoke-free now.

Some cannot believe that I, as a conservative, not only have no problem with but support public smoking bans. We prohibit a lot of things. You can't have sex in a restaurant (unless you're Rick Pitino and it's after hours) and I would find seeing that a lot less offensive than smelling smoke.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: hbelkins on January 23, 2013, 10:16:56 AM
Franklin County, Ky. recently enacted a smoking ban so restrictive that it prohibits smoking in individual hotel rooms. All the hotels are entirely smoke-free now.

Some cannot believe that I, as a conservative, not only have no problem with but support public smoking bans. We prohibit a lot of things.

I have never smoked, and do not intend to start now. 

But I do have a problem with excessive government regulation of an activity that remains legal, at least for now.  In my perfect world, restaurants and bars would be allowed to have indoor smoking, as long as it is in a well-ventilated area that is entirely separate from the non-smoking part of the establishment. 

Many hospital campuses I have seen (mostly because of my stepmother's frequent visits to same) forbid smoking everywhere, so if someone wants to catch a cigaret, they have to stand on the nearest public street corner.  I disagree with that practice. I think there should be (and can be) designated smoking areas even in hospitals.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

agentsteel53

Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 23, 2013, 10:26:16 AM

But I do have a problem with excessive government regulation of an activity that remains legal, at least for now.  In my perfect world, restaurants and bars would be allowed to have indoor smoking, as long as it is in a well-ventilated area that is entirely separate from the non-smoking part of the establishment. 

I'd even be okay with a bar that doesn't have a non-smoking section.  if that's what the business owner decides to have as his style of business, more power to him. 
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

kphoger

The degree of separation has to be quite high to make for a smoke-free environment in the nonsmoking section.  Like walls and doors.  For this reason, most establishments find it easier to simply ban smoking.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

J N Winkler

Quote from: kphoger on January 23, 2013, 09:07:56 AMWhat has fascinated me most about smoking is its relation to drinking in people's bank of moral values.  I know people who rarely if ever drink but have no qualms about smoking; I also know people who believe smoking is a sin, but don't believe the same about alcohol.  When I first started thinking about it, I became intrigued by people's reasoning for accepting one and rejecting the other, and it still interests me.

My take on this:

*  Some people consider smoking to be a morally loaded lifestyle decision, while others just don't, while in contradistinction drinking is pretty universally considered to be morally loaded.

*  Certain tobacco products--including the ones most frequently consumed--are deliberately engineered to addict, which is not true of alcoholic beverages as a whole.  (My interpretation of the anti-tobacco judgments of the 1990's and early 2000's is not that they required the cigarette companies to make their cigarettes less addictive; they only required that the cigarette companies throw money at state legislatures and at certain groups of victim smokers in order to carry on business as usual.)

*  Alcohol and tobacco present different externalities.  It is hard to avoid the smell of tobacco when it is smoked, and the types of tobacco that are consumed most often produce the most offensive smells that are associated with tobacco products in general.  On the other hand, unless you are kept captive by an alcoholic in the family, it is easy to avoid the spectacle, danger, and other harmful externalities of alcohol consumed to excess.

*  It is notoriously difficult to reduce the prevalence of addiction to a given substance to a single number, but my subjective impression has always been that alcoholism is much less common than tobacco addiction.

I think most people who are not alcoholics and are not troubled by any family history of alcoholism think of alcohol pretty much as I do:  something that can be consumed with genuine pleasure, on infrequent occasions, with little to no fear of addictive cravings.  Consumption of tobacco products that are engineered as nicotine delivery systems (like most mass-market cigarettes, for example) is much more difficult to self-regulate and gives no real pleasure--most veteran smokers describe the next cigarette as no more than a temporary break from the nicotine cravings.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

kphoger

What I have in mind, though, is people's moral aversion or acceptance of one or the other–not simply the avoidance of addiction etc.  That is to say, why do people think smoking or drinking is inherently wrong, but not the other?  I guess I used to assume people would always accept both or reject both (especially when their judgment is based on a substance's altering one's state of mind or being harmful to one's health*), but that's not necessarily the case.

Also interesting is people's inability to formulate an argument that condemns either smoking or drinking while still allowing the consumption of large amounts of caffeine, sugar, fat, or other products which alter one's state of mind and/or are unhealthy.

* Many abolitionists will admit that a lone glass of wine may have health benefits, but wouldn't say the same about having three shots of tequila.  At any rate, those people still tend to object to drinking on the grounds of it altering one's state of mind.  This sort of qualification doesn't really apply to smoking, since it's hard to argue that moderate smoking is beneficial to one's health.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

J N Winkler

Quote from: kphoger on January 23, 2013, 11:38:17 AMWhat I have in mind, though, is people's moral aversion or acceptance of one or the other–not simply the avoidance of addiction etc.  That is to say, why do people think smoking or drinking is inherently wrong, but not the other?  I guess I used to assume people would always accept both or reject both (especially when their judgment is based on a substance's altering one's state of mind or being harmful to one's health*), but that's not necessarily the case.

Temperance is an American institution, and I think it has left a considerable overhang in our culture--this is why Americans in general are more likely to take a moralist stand against alcohol than against tobacco.  (There are exceptions, however:  Mormons deprecate alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine.)  I think you would probably find an opposite result (tobacco deprecated, alcohol tolerated) in other countries where there is an ingrained tradition of responsible drinking instead of the historical legacy of a temperance movement.

QuoteAlso interesting is people's inability to formulate an argument that condemns either smoking or drinking while still allowing the consumption of large amounts of caffeine, sugar, fat, or other products which alter one's state of mind and/or are unhealthy.

It is certainly hard to formulate one that ignores or conceals underlying moral choices.  But I suspect this has as much to do with hard data (or rather the lack of it) as with people's inability to see beyond their own moral convictions.  I have just done some Web searching and been unable to get a handle on the disability-adjusted life-year cost, respectively, of one cigarette, one beer, one teaspoonful of sugar, and the amount of liquid coffee brewed from one teaspoonful of ground 100% arabica coffee.  (This information, if it were available at all, would not settle the question conclusively, since the marginal cost of each is influenced by genetic susceptibility and the overall intensity of consumption, and you also have to consider what end-of-healthy-life scenario is easiest to bear.  Personally, I think liver damage from excessive drinking would be easier to handle than having to be on supplemental oxygen, but I feel this may embody a value judgment not necessarily supportable by objective fact.)

QuoteMany abolitionists will admit that a lone glass of wine may have health benefits, but wouldn't say the same about having three shots of tequila.  At any rate, those people still tend to object to drinking on the grounds of it altering one's state of mind.  This sort of qualification doesn't really apply to smoking, since it's hard to argue that moderate smoking is beneficial to one's health.

What I find perplexing is the objection to mind alteration per se.  As long as there is no collateral damage to health (measurable as DALYs lost), what is wrong with it?
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

agentsteel53

Quote from: J N Winkler on January 23, 2013, 11:54:46 AMAs long as there is no collateral damage to health (measurable as DALYs lost), what is wrong with it?

and even if there is; what is wrong with it?  if I want to engage in mind-altering substances and take some time off my lifespan, that is my decision.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

kphoger

Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 23, 2013, 12:00:23 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 23, 2013, 11:54:46 AMAs long as there is no collateral damage to health (measurable as DALYs lost), what is wrong with it?

and even if there is; what is wrong with it?  if I want to engage in mind-altering substances and take some time off my lifespan, that is my decision.

Right, which is why someone morally opposed to doing so might still believe the same should be legal.  Sort of like someone believing people should be allowed to make the choice of not buckling their seat belts, even though he himself always buckles up (without the same moral overtones, however).

Quote from: J N Winkler on January 23, 2013, 11:54:46 AM
Temperance is an American institution, and I think it has left a considerable overhang in our culture--this is why Americans in general are more likely to take a moralist stand against alcohol than against tobacco.  (There are exceptions, however:  Mormons deprecate alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine.)  I think you would probably find an opposite result (tobacco deprecated, alcohol tolerated) in other countries where there is an ingrained tradition of responsible drinking instead of the historical legacy of a temperance movement.

This helps explain some of what I've read, especially religious objections to smoking from groups which don't likewise object to moderate drinking.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

Takumi

Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 23, 2013, 10:26:16 AM

But I do have a problem with excessive government regulation of an activity that remains legal, at least for now.
Agreed 100%.

Quote
In my perfect world, restaurants and bars would be allowed to have indoor smoking, as long as it is in a well-ventilated area that is entirely separate from the non-smoking part of the establishment. 
After the Richmond meet, we ate at a restaurant/bar that had a smoking section separated from the non-smoking section. (We sat in the smoking section because there was no wait, while non-smoking was full.) It was a fairly new restaurant, as that whole section of Short Pump has only been recently developed.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 23, 2013, 11:00:49 AM
I'd even be okay with a bar that doesn't have a non-smoking section.  if that's what the business owner decides to have as his style of business, more power to him. 
Also agree with this.
Quote from: Rothman on July 15, 2021, 07:52:59 AM
Olive Garden must be stopped.  I must stop them.

Don't @ me. Seriously.

hbelkins

I'm surprised that this hasn't evolved (or devolved, if you wish) into a discussion of drinking vs. drug use.

So I'll forge bravely ahead and take us there.  :bigass:

I've often seen people ponder why consumption of alcoholic beverages is legal, yet consumption of marijuana/heroin/cocaine or the abuse of pain medication is illegal.

I think it can be explained in this way.

There are legitimate uses for the consumption of alcohol that do not involve intoxication. People enjoy drinking beer, wine, etc. and do so for purposes other than intoxication.

No one uses drugs for any purpose other than intoxication -- or if you do not want to use that word, then for the purposes of altering one's perception or senses. You don't smoke a joint because you like the taste, or want to have it with a pizza. You smoke a joint to get high.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

agentsteel53

I drink alcohol for intoxication.  a lot of people do - otherwise, O'Douls would be a lot more popular.

I like the flavor of beer, but if it weren't offering some intoxication as well, I would note that I like the flavor of lemonade more than that of beer, so I'd be drinking that.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

kphoger

Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 23, 2013, 02:02:45 PM
I drink alcohol for intoxication.  a lot of people do - otherwise, O'Douls would be a lot more popular.

I like the flavor of beer, but if it weren't offering some intoxication as well, I would note that I like the flavor of lemonade more than that of beer, so I'd be drinking that.

I think most people do drink alcohol for a mild intoxication.  The question for me is whether it's possible to take a drug in such moderate amount that it has as little effect on someone as a single alcoholic beverage.  You might be able to make the case for marijuana, but meth becomes a tad more difficult.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

formulanone

#42
Quote from: hbelkins on January 23, 2013, 01:50:19 PM
No one uses drugs for any purpose other than intoxication -- or if you do not want to use that word, then for the purposes of altering one's perception or senses. You don't smoke a joint because you like the taste, or want to have it with a pizza. You smoke a joint to get high.

You could also smoke marijuana to help with nausea, pain relief, or anxiety (one's bodily or mental constitution might vary, however). And in some rare cases, to promote hunger for the severely malnourished. I don't see a big problem with legalization; don't toke and drive/operate-heavy-machinery/et al, would be my only legal suggestion. Also, the personal responsibility of your day-to-day life in relation to drugs (i.e. you can't use "but I was high" as a entirely valid scapegoat in a court of law). The other difficulty would be how society and law would handle past and current offences; would they permanently erased, or would the public at large just shrug their shoulders towards these type of misdemeanors (kind of how we think of speeding tickets)?

I haven't smoked (as well as a few other things) in over 15 years, as I said...personally, I quit altogether because I couldn't stand hanging out with people who are constantly wondering how and when they were going to get high, and how non-smokers couldn't understand how people who didn't smoke weed acted and handled their own lives. I think you kind of wind up creating a bit of a second identity, to cover up one's illegal activities. I simply didn't want to live like that. Many hours wasted, although some in interesting and fun ways, other moments lost forever, others in relaxation and contemplation. Making it legal again wouldn't propel me back.

Duke87

Quote from: kphoger on January 23, 2013, 09:07:56 AM
What has fascinated me most about smoking is its relation to drinking in people's bank of moral values.  I know people who rarely if ever drink but have no qualms about smoking; I also know people who believe smoking is a sin, but don't believe the same about alcohol.  When I first started thinking about it, I became intrigued by people's reasoning for accepting one and rejecting the other, and it still interests me.

I have no moral objection to either. My objection to smoking is that it offends my senses, not that it offends my conscience.
And while I do have a problem with the idea of government placing undue restrictions on tobacco use, it's not something I complain about since I'm grateful that it's easy to avoid being around people who are smoking.

Quote from: hbelkins on January 23, 2013, 01:50:19 PM
There are legitimate uses for the consumption of alcohol that do not involve intoxication. People enjoy drinking beer, wine, etc. and do so for purposes other than intoxication.

No one uses drugs for any purpose other than intoxication -- or if you do not want to use that word, then for the purposes of altering one's perception or senses. You don't smoke a joint because you like the taste, or want to have it with a pizza. You smoke a joint to get high.

This argument works with respect to most "hard" drugs, however it utterly breaks down with respect to marijuana. Even if you don't like the idea of THC being prescribed medically, the hemp plant has uses which are completely unrelated to medicine (such as making paper and fabric) that it cannot be used for since it is illegal to cultivate.

This is why there is a movement to legalize marijuana but you do not see the same for other drugs.

If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

Molandfreak

I don't, and don't plan on starting, but it seems to me like smokers are one of the most discriminated demographics. I don't have a problem with laws prohibiting smoking in public places (having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a pool :colorful:), but I think people should stop assuming every single smoker has the same story: they want to quit, but they're too addicted to quit. Some of my best friends, all ages, are smokers. Many of them moderate their use of tobacco or other drugs, and they smoke (or chew) not because they can't stop, but because they enjoy it.

I guess what I'm saying is don't assume people have a problem unless you know for sure, or they ask for help :cool:
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 05, 2023, 08:24:57 PM
AASHTO attributes 28.5% of highway inventory shrink to bad road fan social media posts.

The High Plains Traveler

There is a well-developed medical marijuana (MMJ) industry in Colorado that pre-dates by several years the recent legalization vote. It's not unusual to see stores with the green cross that has become the MMJ symbol, and the alternative newspapers have entire pages dedicated to ads from local outlets. This is probably one major reason the legalization initiative passed so handily (55-45), including even a bare majority in very conservative El Paso County (Colorado Springs). I'm sure the threshold for many willing doctors to issue a prescription is relatively low (I'm feeling a little anxious myself right now), but there are recognized conditions already described above that MMJ is reputed to ease. The feds have sporadically cracked down on clinics, especially those anywhere near a school, and no bank will open an account for a clinic due to fear of repercussions under federal law. Part of the discussions at the Legislature now to implement the new law include defining a blood level for THC that would define legal intoxication.

My employer has made it clear that, prescription or no prescription, anyone required to take a random drug test (DOT employee or not) who fails the test for THC will be sacked.
"Tongue-tied and twisted; just an earth-bound misfit, I."

roadman

I've never smoked in my life.  Even as a child, I couldn't stand the smell of cigarette smoke.  My uncle smoked cigars most of his life, which were more tolerable to me - although I never picked up that habit either.

Had friends for several years who were lifelong smokers.  Although they generally kept their house neat and tidy, I rarely went there because of the smoke stink.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

kphoger

Quote from: Duke87 on January 23, 2013, 06:22:04 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 23, 2013, 09:07:56 AM
What has fascinated me most about smoking is its relation to drinking in people's bank of moral values.  I know people who rarely if ever drink but have no qualms about smoking; I also know people who believe smoking is a sin, but don't believe the same about alcohol.  When I first started thinking about it, I became intrigued by people's reasoning for accepting one and rejecting the other, and it still interests me.

I have no moral objection to either. My objection to smoking is that it offends my senses, not that it offends my conscience.
And while I do have a problem with the idea of government placing undue restrictions on tobacco use, it's not something I complain about since I'm grateful that it's easy to avoid being around people who are smoking.

And most people probably fall right in line with your take on things, too.  I agree that government restrictions on smoking bother me a tiny bit, but my appreciation of a smoke-free environment far outweighs that.  Whether the argument for public smoking bans is health- or convenience-related for the second-hand recipients, it does still seem like a slap in the face that something which has been acceptable for so long and enjoyed by so many people should now become illegal in the most inoffensive of public spaces–walking down the street.  Imagine if wearing flip-flops in public suddenly became illegal just because people didn't like seeing other people's feet (yes, this ignores the health aspect, but that isn't really why most non-smokers support smoking bans anyway, now, is it?).
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

agentsteel53

I think blanket smoking bans are silly for reasons I detailed above.  I can understand not smoking in a hospital, but why ban it in a bar, if the bar owner thinks that allowing it would bring him better business?

apparently*, in CA, there is a law on the books that one can't smoke in one's own private vehicle if they are riding with kids.  sure, if you hotbox Little Billy, you're kind of an asshole, but I don't think assholery should be regulated by law.

*it's on the written driving test.  how knowing that makes me a better driver is beyond me
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

kphoger

Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 24, 2013, 02:20:07 PM
I think blanket smoking bans are silly for reasons I detailed above.  I can understand not smoking in a hospital, but why ban it in a bar, if the bar owner thinks that allowing it would bring him better business?

apparently*, in CA, there is a law on the books that one can't smoke in one's own private vehicle if they are riding with kids.  sure, if you hotbox Little Billy, you're kind of an asshole, but I don't think assholery should be regulated by law.

*it's on the written driving test.  how knowing that makes me a better driver is beyond me

You forget one important thing.  The utterance of the phrase, But what about the kids?, guarantees any legislation will pass.  If they wanted to pass a law making it illegal to feed a child anything cooked in butter, using nothing but the phrase, But, what about the kids?, in their argument, then the law would pass.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.