AARoads Forum

I smoked cigarettes for 30 yrs before quitting in 2001 and yes I did inhale :biggrin:

Never cigarettes but I do enjoy a cigar every few weeks. And no, I don't inhale!

Are we talking about smoke or are we talking about smoke?  ;-)

(I have never partaken of either.)

I smoke every now and then. I tried "the last option" a few times, but it wasn't for me.

I smoked for a little while in high school, but I haven't really since. I also smoked cigars a few times while I was on deployment.

I have never smoked habitually, though I did try an Egyptian water pipe a long time ago.  I also don't approve of smoke as a delivery mechanism for any other drug.  I dislike secondhand smoke in general, although I find that of high-quality cigar or pipe tobacco easier to tolerate than cigarette smoke in general (the more expensive the tobacco is, the easier it is to tolerate).

Both parents smoked for thirty years before they quit (father smoked pipes and occasionally small cigars, while mother smoked half a pack of cigarettes a day).  I never liked the secondhand smoke, which guaranteed that every time I had a cold when I was a child, it was bad enough to keep me out of school for at least one day.  One cold developed into bronchitis and took me out of school for three weeks.

My paternal grandfather died at age 59 from lung cancer as a result of being a heavy smoker of virtually every type of smokable tobacco product, whereas no other grandparent died at an age younger than 84, so I have not been tempted in the slightest to start smoking.

I have the occasional cigar or green product.  maybe 1-2 times a year for each.

I smoke cigarettes very occasionally- once every few months or so my body says "Hey, a cigarette sounds good" and then I smoke one or two and I'm good for several more months. I'll also typically smoke if I'm drinking and one is offered to me. I probably smoke a pack every 9 months or so.

I'll smoke a cigar on a special occasion.

I enjoy the green stuff a couple times a year- I never keep any on hand but usually if I'm around other people smoking and I don't have to do anything the next day I'll do it- with even a couple good hits my brain is fairly useless the next day, particularly if I've been drinking too.

Never smoked, and don't really understand the attraction.  Don't really like second hand smoke either since I've read it's even more dangerous than actual smoking.

Yes, I'm a Tony Stewart fan!  :-D

I've never smoked anything. Never taken even the first puff of a cigarette, and for sure never smoked any wacky backy. I don't see the attraction of sucking hot gases into your lungs.

I don't mind the smell of cigar smoke, but pipe smoke is too sweet, cigarette smoke is just nasty, and marijuana smoke gives me a headache.

Smoked cigs very infrequently at a bar/concert/club (maybe 3-4 packs in a lifetime) and green once in a blue moon. No smoking in over 15 years, can't stand any of it, and I miss none of it.

Quote from: hbelkins on January 21, 2013, 11:55:17 AM
I don't see the attraction of sucking hot gases into your lungs.

I'm with you there. That's why I stick with cigars, usually with a good whiskey.

I have always considered smoking to be disgusting.  And cigarettes in particular have the world's most terrible stench coming from them; like a paper mill is on fire.  I would rather live next to a dairy farm than a smoker.

When bars in Wisconsin when smoke free a couple years ago, I was ecstatic.  Now I can go have a drink and not smell like a goddamn ashtray.  If people want to kill their lungs, that's there business, but it becomes my business when their vice starts directly affecting me.

I find the smell of tobacco to be vile, regardless of form. I have never used it and cannot see why anyone would. Seems about as appealing as inhaling sewage to me.

I totally agree with the opinions on 2nd hand smoke. I never realized how the stink stays on your clothes and hair. My dad smoked at least a pack a day (Camel non-filter yet) for as long as I can remember, he died at 50 yrs old and yet I smoked for 21 years before I quit=stupid.
Some damage has been done to my respiratory system, luckily(?) only extreme exertion brings a episode. Oh well, it is what it is we all have to live with our decisions.

Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 21, 2013, 05:27:21 PM
I have always considered smoking to be disgusting.  And cigarettes in particular have the world's most terrible stench coming from them; like a paper mill is on fire.  I would rather live next to a dairy farm than a smoker.

When bars in Wisconsin when smoke free a couple years ago, I was ecstatic.  Now I can go have a drink and not smell like a goddamn ashtray.  If people want to kill their lungs, that's there business, but it becomes my business when their vice starts directly affecting me.

I feel much the same way, although I don't consider myself to be an anti-smoking zealot.  I will also never knowingly go out with a female who is addicted to tobacco (it's my #1 fatal disqualifier).

And no, I have never figured out the attractiveness to it, either.

I also had a heavy-smoking cousin who died a few years ago at age 43 from lung cancer.

Mike

I have asthma, so no.

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:

I've never touched a single cigarette in my life. My mother, twin brother and younger sister don't smoke either. My maternal grandfather died in 1992 as a result of emphysema and other smoking-related ailments. He was born in 1921, started smoking in the late 1930s and quite cold turkey in 1968. The damage was already done, sad to say.  :-(

I'll smoke a celebratory cigar about once every 2 years.

I don't have a lot to celebrate, apparently.

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.

I've never smoked at all.  As I like to say, I've never put any burning thing in my mouth.  Off and on, I've considered buying a pipe, but my wife would never really go for that anyway.  I enjoy the smell of pipe smoke, I'm on the fence about the smell of weed smoke, I mildly dislike the smell of cigar smoke, and I dislike the smell of cigarette smoke.  However, unlike most nonsmokers I know, I don't totally hate to be around others smoking.  I'm not sure how much I believe in the dangers of casual second-hand smoke, though I don't doubt a bit the dangers of habitual second-hand smoke.

The worst for me is how it saturates all your fabrics with that nasty Old Smoke Smell.  My wife's stepmom chain smokes, and it's gotten to the point that we don't stay the night there anymore.  Even though she sometimes quits while we're there, the smell still permeates everything we own, especially pillows and blankets.

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.

Quote from: kphoger on January 22, 2013, 05:27:16 PMI've never smoked at all.  As I like to say, I've never put any burning thing in my mouth.  Off and on, I've considered buying a pipe, but my wife would never really go for that anyway.  I enjoy the smell of pipe smoke, I'm on the fence about the smell of weed smoke, I mildly dislike the smell of cigar smoke, and I dislike the smell of cigarette smoke.  However, unlike most nonsmokers I know, I don't totally hate to be around others smoking.  I'm not sure how much I believe in the dangers of casual second-hand smoke, though I don't doubt a bit the dangers of habitual second-hand smoke.

Context is also a factor.  I don't like smoke of any kind, even pipe smoke, in my personal living space.  I am especially intolerant of smoke when I am awake and trying to go to sleep.  When I am at rest in a semipublic shared space with the freedom to leave at any time, I find I can tolerate pretty much everything from pipe smoke all the way down to cigarette smoke (including cannabis smoke) for short periods, as long as the atmosphere isn't too smoky.  On the other hand, I hate having to breathe smoke when I am engaged in any kind of physical exertion.  It really annoys me to be walking down the street with a smoker upwind, cigarette going in his or her fingers, and also walking in the same direction, so that it takes ages for me to overtake him or her and start breathing fresh air again.

About cannabis smoke I have a huge reservation--I don't want to breathe it, even at second hand, if I am about to board a flight to the US or any other country that has strict drug interdiction policies.  My one personal experience of a cannabis high was nothing special--it was more a "whatever, don't give a fuck" attitude--but the somatic effects persisted for a surprisingly long time; for example, it took me about a day to get over feeling high, and it then took a further six days for my sweat to smart smelling normal again.  I think many cannabis "stoners" get singled out for secondary inspection or worse because they don't realize how glaringly obvious these signs of recent drug use are to trained immigration and customs officers.

In the US anyone suspected of bringing in drugs can expect at minimum a frisk or patdown, which can then progress to a full body cavity search and X-ray examination with the approval of the director of the port (and a court order if the arriving passenger refuses consent).  I also wouldn't take bets on Customs not having the authority to take samples for drug testing.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/gg00038.pdf

If I were visiting Amsterdam, for instance, I would not like to go to Schiphol and then board a direct flight to the US without first taking care to stay in cannabis-free lodging and to avoid coffee shops.  And the US is mild compared to some other countries--Midnight Express, anyone?

QuoteThe worst for me is how it saturates all your fabrics with that nasty Old Smoke Smell.  My wife's stepmom chain smokes, and it's gotten to the point that we don't stay the night there anymore.  Even though she sometimes quits while we're there, the smell still permeates everything we own, especially pillows and blankets.

The smoke can permeate many kinds of commercial merchandise too.  I visited Spain several years before a nationwide ban on smoking in public enclosed spaces was introduced in 2005.  Previous to the ban there was essentially no restriction on smoking in Spain--you could smoke in the workplace, in airports, in hospitals, in overnight accommodation (no requirement to provide non-smoking rooms), etc.  I went to a small bookshop run by the Ministerio de Fomento at the south end of the Nuevos Ministerios building in Madrid to purchase some books related to traffic signing.  I walked out of there with a print copy of the direction sign design manual (Norma 8.1-IC) and a headache, since both clerks chain-smoked.  Fresh air disposed of my headache right away, but it took years before my copy of Norma 8.1-IC stopped smelling of cigarette smoke.

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.

Perhaps for a similar reason, I perceive outdoor smoking as being more prevalent, since that's where everyone needs to go to do it these days (and parks and plazas are off-limits too). Here in NYC, there's no escaping outdoor smoke with the crowds, and I do feel for those smokers who wish they could find a quiet, out-of-the way place to do it, but there's not enough sidewalk in the city for anyone to find a couple square feet of private space.

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.

Perhaps for a similar reason, I perceive outdoor smoking as being more prevalent, since that's where everyone needs to go to do it these days (and parks and plazas are off-limits too). Here in NYC, there's no escaping outdoor smoke with the crowds, and I do feel for those smokers who wish they could find a quiet, out-of-the way place to do it, but there's not enough sidewalk in the city for anyone to find a couple square feet of private space.

You should read Stephen King's short story, The Ten O-Clock People.

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.

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  :)

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.

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?

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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?).

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

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.

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.

This makes a lot of sense.  One of the biggest causes of fires is lit cigarettes that people left on carpet, blankets, or furniture.  By banning smoking in hotel rooms, you remove one of the biggest fire hazards out there.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 24, 2013, 02:20:07 PMI 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?

In Kansas similar reasoning led to casinos (which, outside Indian reservations, are operated under concessions granted and supervised by the state) getting a carve-out from the statewide ban on smoking in public enclosed spaces.  The one time I visited the Kansas Star casino near Wichita (purely as an exercise in anthropological observation, since at the time I had just five dollars in my wallet), the cigarette smoke drove me out in short order.

Casinos are generally one of the few remaining smoker-friendly classes of businesses out there. This probably has something to do with the fact that Indian casinos claim sovereign immunity against state and municipal smoking bans, and non-Indian casinos claim it's unfair to require them to ban smoking if they have to compete with Indian casinos' smoking. Either that or it's viewed that if you're committing one vice you may as well be allowed to commit them all. And that nobody really needs to go to a casino, so if they don't want to be in a smoky environment they can choose to not play.

Working at a casino, I personally wish they didn't have the smoking exemption. The smoke in the air is annoying, yes, and I have worries about long term health damage due to the prolonged exposure to the smoke, but really, the big problem is the ashes. There is forever a shortage of ashtrays because the drop team (the minimum-wage team that harvests the cash from the machines in the small hours of the morning) is careless and breaks them, so people just ash everywhere–in between the slot machines, in the built-in cupholders on some machines, on the carpet (it's a wonder we haven't had the carpet catch fire). Ashes are constantly getting into the machines and clogging up fans and filters, leading to them overheating. Many of the chairs have cigarette burns in the fabric. Some of the machines, called slant-tops, have an access door that opens by raising up like a car hood; whenever you open one of these it usually rains down ashes and spent cigarettes on your head if you aren't careful.

---

A statistic I have heard is that only one fifth (20%) of the US population smokes. If that's the case, why not have smoking bans in public areas? 20% of the populace shouldn't be able to trample on the rights of the remaining 80%.

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 24, 2013, 04:58:41 PM
A statistic I have heard is that only one fifth (20%) of the US population smokes. If that's the case, why not have smoking bans in public areas? 20% of the populace shouldn't be able to trample on the rights of the remaining 80%.

While that may be so, it's also true in reverse, so it tends to be a dead end of an argument on either side (of any debate, not just the one at hand).

I don't have any problems with marijuana being used for medicinal purposes, if there really are medicinal purposes for it*. I wrote a research paper on the subject as a freshman in college in 1979 and got some interesting comments from my professor, as the topic wasn't as hot as it is now. It would be the reverse of illicit prescription drugs being used for intoxication purposes. (How anyone figured out that they could, or should, crush a pain pill and either snort it or dissolve it in water and shoot it up is beyond me.)

I, however, would not use it even for medicinal purposes. Like I said, the idea of sucking hot gases into my lungs just does not appeal to me.

I also have no problems with the use of hemp for industrial purposes.*

*It seems, however, that in too many cases the advocates for medical marijuana or industrial hemp are trying to backdoor total legalization of marijuana. We had a perennial candidate for governor who first ran on a platform of total legalization, then in subsequent races he backed off that and supported either medical use or industrial hemp or both. His earlier support for total legalization made his later positions suspect.

Quote from: hbelkins on January 24, 2013, 08:21:36 PMI, however, would not use it even for medicinal purposes. Like I said, the idea of sucking hot gases into my lungs just does not appeal to me.

How about pot brownies?  For medicinal purposes only, of course.

Quote from: hbelkins on January 24, 2013, 08:21:36 PM
I, however, would not use it even for medicinal purposes. Like I said, the idea of sucking hot gases into my lungs just does not appeal to me.

Would you be OK with using it medicinally in brownie form then?

EDIT: Damn, I knew there was a reason I shouldn't ignore the "new reply has been posted" warning!  :clap:

Quote from: J N Winkler on January 24, 2013, 11:02:58 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on January 24, 2013, 08:21:36 PMI, however, would not use it even for medicinal purposes. Like I said, the idea of sucking hot gases into my lungs just does not appeal to me.

How about pot brownies?  For medicinal purposes only, of course.

Brownies...

Now put your clothes back on white boy. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_rMSFT4uUI)

Quote from: Brandon on January 25, 2013, 07:20:56 AM

Quote from: J N Winkler on January 24, 2013, 11:02:58 PM
How about pot brownies?  For medicinal purposes only, of course.

Brownies...
Now put your clothes back on white boy. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_rMSFT4uUI)

Even brownies present the problem of processed food, refined sugar, etc., which leads to a natural alternative (from the I-35 Question (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6166.msg136504#msg136504) thread):

Quote from: Steve on February 23, 2012, 09:39:51 PM

Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 22, 2012, 06:02:43 PM

Quote from: dariusb on February 22, 2012, 05:37:57 PM
What's your deal?

welcome to the enchanted forest of NE2.

He's got some delicious mushrooms

I don't mean to imply anything (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fb3nicduLfM).

If it were legal to industrially process, you could easily get THC/cannabis oil in the form of pills, IVs, etc. No need to smoke anything.

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 24, 2013, 04:58:41 PM
A statistic I have heard is that only one fifth (20%) of the US population smokes. If that's the case, why not have smoking bans in public areas? 20% of the populace shouldn't be able to trample on the rights of the remaining 80%.

I don't smoke, but I also don't consider it a "right" of mine to not inhale second-hand smoke.

Quote from: kphoger on January 28, 2013, 12:12:19 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 24, 2013, 04:58:41 PM
A statistic I have heard is that only one fifth (20%) of the US population smokes. If that's the case, why not have smoking bans in public areas? 20% of the populace shouldn't be able to trample on the rights of the remaining 80%.

I don't smoke, but I also don't consider it a "right" of mine to not inhale second-hand smoke.

You must not think much of your rights then.  Do you think it's not your right for companies to pollute the air?

Quote from: bugo on January 28, 2013, 01:28:14 PM

You must not think much of your rights then.  Do you think it's not your right for companies to pollute the air?

secondhand smoke is pretty easy to avoid. 

Quote from: bugo on January 28, 2013, 01:28:14 PM
Do you think it's not your right for companies to pollute the air?

I'm trying to decipher this.....

Yes, I would say that companies polluting or not polluting the air is not a matter of my rights.  Which would be why companies pollute the air.  As do cars.  And lawnmowers.  And barbecue pits.  And people smoking cigarettes.

If you don't have the right to breathe clean air, then you have no rights.  It's the most basic right of all.

Quote from: kphoger on January 28, 2013, 01:53:55 PMYes, I would say that companies polluting or not polluting the air is not a matter of my rights.  Which would be why companies pollute the air.  As do cars.  And lawnmowers.  And barbecue pits.  And people smoking cigarettes.

If companies put enough pollutants in the air to damage your health, then that infringes on your right to life.  This is why the pollution that is permitted is regulated within limits that are judged safe for health.

My parents smoked so much at one point when I was a child that I got fed up with all that second-hand smoke, and now the idea of smoking, no matter the substance, totally disgusts me.

And they say "Children See, Children Do."

Quote from: kphoger on January 28, 2013, 01:53:55 PM

Quote from: bugo on January 28, 2013, 01:28:14 PM
Do you think it's not your right for companies to pollute the air?

I'm trying to decipher this.....

Yes, I would say that companies polluting or not polluting the air is not a matter of my rights.  Which would be why companies pollute the air.  As do cars.  And lawnmowers.  And barbecue pits.  And people smoking cigarettes.

Whenever you feel it's wrong for something to be regulated because your acting in defiance of regulations wouldn't harm everyone, think about what would happen if everyone did that.  Because if you remove the regulations, everyone will.  And that would be a problem.

Quote from: J N Winkler on January 28, 2013, 02:59:27 PM
If companies put enough pollutants in the air to damage your health, then that infringes on your right to life.  This is why the pollution that is permitted is regulated within limits that are judged safe for health.

Quote from: bugo on January 28, 2013, 02:18:09 PM
If you don't have the right to breathe clean air, then you have no rights.  It's the most basic right of all.

Meh, I don't see it as infringing on my rights at all.  Let's not equate the right to life with the right to perfect health.

Quote from: deanej on January 28, 2013, 05:11:02 PM
Whenever you feel it's wrong for something to be regulated because your acting in defiance of regulations wouldn't harm everyone, think about what would happen if everyone did that.  Because if you remove the regulations, everyone will.  And that would be a problem.

I wasn't suggesting that environmental protection laws be abolished.  I was saying that there are all sorts of things out there that pollute the air and make it less than perfect for my health.  I don't see that as infringing on my rights.  Wood-burning stoves are bad for people with asthma, but that doesn't mean they should be banned (even though they are in some places, and are regulated in many more).

---

Anyway, we're getting off-topic here and into politics.

Quote from: kphoger on January 28, 2013, 05:21:27 PM
Meh, I don't see it as infringing on my rights at all.  Let's not equate the right to life with the right to perfect health.

What do you consider a right?  Is clean water not a right?  Do you not believe in any rights whatsoever?

If you lit up a cigarette in my house I would ask you to put it out.  Once.  Then you would have a major problem on your hands.

If you don't have a problem with pollution sometime when I have bad gas can I come into your house and rip a bunch of SBD bunker blasts? 

Quote from: kphoger on January 28, 2013, 05:21:27 PMMeh, I don't see it as infringing on my rights at all.  Let's not equate the right to life with the right to perfect health.

But the right to life arguably includes the right not to have your health damaged by man-made causes any more than it is by natural causes.  Think of it in this way:  you have a life expectancy of so many years.  Man-made air pollution reduces this life expectancy by a certain number of years, and translates into a difference between your natural life expectancy and the adjusted life expectancy when you are not going to be alive.  How is this not a violation of your right to life?

Besides the problem that different rights come into conflict in certain circumstances, there is also a fundamental problem in confining the debate over pollution and its regulation to the question of who has the right to do what.  Negative externalities by definition cannot be resolved except through arbitrage of rights by an authoritative third party (since they are "external" to economic transactions with willing participants).  This arbitrage typically results in benefits to the community as a whole (a social surplus) above and beyond what can be achieved by allowing one party or the other unfettered exercise of his rights.  Why should we forgo these surpluses by rejecting the principle that rights should be subject to arbitrage?

BBQ pit smoke is by definition not pollution.

I quit smoking 11 years ago and am glad I did.

Quote from: Road Hog on February 02, 2013, 05:29:49 AM
I quit smoking 11 years ago and am glad I did.

:clap: Congratulations Road Hog, 11 years for me too, 12/5/2001 @420=last ciggy  ;-) :spin:

I have smoked since I was 14 and I am currently 57.  Tobacco has always been enjoyable for me.  When young I also smoked pipes and cigars as well as cigarettes.  We would roll our own sometimes, using Borkum Riff.  Camel Filter Wides are my smoke of choice.

My father died of cancer in 1999.  He suffered a lot in the last few weeks, mostly due to the effects of the cancer treatment.  He had begun to smoke when he was 14.  I'd say he got a huge ratio in his favor for enjoyment of tobacco vs the final ending.

Last I looked, everyone here on this planet dies.  I had a grandma who smoked a few cigarettes a day.  She lived until she was 97 and the last six years were spent in a nursing home, where she was a prisoner of her own body thanks to back surgery.  Nothing cigarette-related killed her.  Yet she was miserable for far longer than my father was.  So much for good health...LOL!

Ya'll do as you do.  I'll do as I do.  I will give you respect for your smoke free places so long as you respect my smoking spaces and don't go all frickin' nazi on me with your puritan values and raise my taxes as well as infringe on my personal freedoms.  Don't cross the line with me and we won't be crossing swords, capiche?

Rick

Late in joining this thread.....

I have never smoked habitually. Like many people, I tried the odd cigarette or other thing here and there in college, but I never got into it and I also quickly found almost all the girls I knew considered it a major turn-off. More importantly, however, if I had started smoking I would have felt like a hypocrite because my brother and I badgered our father into quitting when we were kids. I don't remember for sure when he quit, but I'm pretty sure it was before I was 10 years old since that was the year we moved to the house where they still live and I do not ever remember him smoking there. Anyway, to me that was a powerful motivator for never getting started.

Last time I smoked anything was in May 1998 a week after I graduated from law school. I was given a cigar by a former college roommate and felt I had to smoke it. Combined with beer, Scotch, and other crap that night, the next morning was hellish.

I'm not out to pass judgment on most smokers, but I genuinely do not understand why so many younger people still take up the smoking habit. Older people who got hooked, sure. I remember my father had a hard time quitting, and I suppose it's like any addiction. I weaned myself off a major caffeine addiction back in 2001 and the headaches were borderline incapacitating, so based on that I have to assume overcoming the nicotine addiction would be brutal too.

The other thing I think is reprehensible is to smoke in the car when you have kids riding with you (especially an infant). As an adult if I know you're a smoker I can refuse to ride with you, and I'll tell you why. Most smokers understand that, I think. But children have no choice in the matter. I really don't remember whether my father smoked in the car (which suggests to me he probably didn't, and given that he's fastidious about keeping the car clean I think it's all the more likely he did not) and I can't imagine being cooped up for a long time in a confined space like that with a smoker. I view it as borderline child abuse to do that to a little kid. I don't necessarily know that I support laws specifically restricting the right to smoke in a car where a kid is a passenger. I have a problem with too much governmental intervention into one's life in that way. BUT on the other hand, I think the kid is entitled to some protection and I'm not sure existing child-abuse laws would afford it.

Final thought....smokers who think the whole world is their ashtray and flip cigarette butts on the ground wherever they go are assholes and hopefully have a special space reserved for them in hell. I especially hate it when I find cigarette butts blown into my front yard because someone tossed one in the street in my neighborhood. If you choose to smoke, I think you assume the obligation to clean up properly (just like it's not OK for dog owners to leave dog shit in other people's yards). So many people have stopped littering compared to what we used to see in the 1970s, yet cigarette smokers seem to think anti-litter laws don't apply to them. It's high time they learned they're wrong about that.

Quote from: 1995hoo on February 22, 2013, 02:01:25 PM
Final thought....smokers who think the whole world is their ashtray and flip cigarette butts on the ground wherever they go are assholes and hopefully have a special space reserved for them in hell. I especially hate it when I find cigarette butts blown into my front yard because someone tossed one in the street in my neighborhood. If you choose to smoke, I think you assume the obligation to clean up properly (just like it's not OK for dog owners to leave dog shit in other people's yards). So many people have stopped littering compared to what we used to see in the 1970s, yet cigarette smokers seem to think anti-litter laws don't apply to them. It's high time they learned they're wrong about that.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.keepgreenvillecountybeautiful.org%2Fimages%2Fcigarette-butt-billboard.gif&hash=6dd8db429d800390cad161517f10379c4b50f42d)

One of my biggest regrets in life is that I smoked cigarettes as a young adult. I quit, thank goodness, in 1987. Now I am absolutely allergic to the smell of them. I can smell a cigarette burning downwind at over 100 feet, and talking to a smoker with standard personal space for a minute or two leaves my mouth feeling like I just smoked. I have often said I would turn down a supermodel if she was a smoker. None of my friends believe me, but that is how much I abhor it.

Not only the 'roads are their ashtrays' thing being an unsightly mess, but it's also a severe fire hazard - I would not be surprised at all if the vast majority of major wildfires are touched off by discarded smoking stuff.  If I were a prosecutor and someone came before me with strong evidence that his or her discarded butt touched off a major wild fire....

:angry:

And yes, tobacco addiction is #1 on my list of fatal disqualifiers in females, even more so than 'unavailability', and yes, I have turned a couple of interested addicted females down over my lifetime.

Oh well....

:meh:

MIke

Quote from: mgk920 on February 24, 2013, 10:57:46 AM
Not only the 'roads are their ashtrays' thing being an unsightly mess, but it's also a severe fire hazard - I would not be surprised at all if the vast majority of major wildfires are touched off by discarded smoking stuff.  If I were a prosecutor and someone came before me with strong evidence that his or her discarded butt touched off a major wild fire.

MIke

Not sure of how many other states have statutes criminalizing "throwing a burning substance from a moving vehicle."  I think OR was the first, and I know the law exists in CO as well.

Quote from: djsinco on February 24, 2013, 02:04:50 PM
"throwing a burning substance from a moving vehicle."

So . . . . . . make sure to park first.

Quote from: kphoger on February 24, 2013, 08:19:36 PM

Quote from: djsinco on February 24, 2013, 02:04:50 PM
"throwing a burning substance from a moving vehicle."

So . . . . . . make sure to park first.

What about the rotation of the earth? Are you one of those flat-earthers?

Quote from: djsinco on February 25, 2013, 02:42:00 AM

Quote from: kphoger on February 24, 2013, 08:19:36 PM

Quote from: djsinco on February 24, 2013, 02:04:50 PM
"throwing a burning substance from a moving vehicle."

So . . . . . . make sure to park first.

What about the rotation of the earth? Are you one of those flat-earthers?

I'm pretty sure any judge would rule that "˜moving vehicle' means moving relative to the ground–except in Alanland, where a flat earth is codified in law.  And no:  though I think it would be kind of neat to be a member of the Flat Earth Society (only if they have membership cards, of course), it's not because I'm a flat-earther.  It would just be a fun conversation-starter.

Hey Roadgeeks. Curious. anyone here smoke? If so what do you smoke/what brand and for how long? and why do you enjoy the act of smoking? do you want to stop?

Me, I used to smoke on and off as a Teenager but I am now strongly opposed to smoking in general. I liked Cigars from time to time but my regular cigarette brand were Marlboro 27s. I loved those things, they were so tasty. but than I grew up and realized it was a waste of time and money. still get cravings sometimes but they are easy to fight since I didnt smoke for that long. Im lucky.

(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-PKommA9wxpY/UiarfXfk7TI/AAAAAAAADHg/0q4WSACh2sM/w800-h800/photo.jpg)

also: mods, can someone merge this with the other smoking thread?  I can't find it offhand.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 16, 2013, 02:16:35 PM
mods, can someone merge this with the other smoking thread?  I can't find it offhand.

Mods, hope this helps:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8530.0

A cig occasionally at a bar, but a much stronger preference for trees with friends.

Quote from: Sherman Cahal on October 16, 2013, 02:34:55 PM
trees with friends.

definitely a new euphemism for me.  I had no idea the stuff grew on trees.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 16, 2013, 02:54:51 PM

Quote from: Sherman Cahal on October 16, 2013, 02:34:55 PM
trees with friends.

definitely a new euphemism for me.  I had no idea the stuff grew on trees.

http://www.reddit.com/r/trees/

Quote from: 1995hoo on February 22, 2013, 02:01:25 PM
...The other thing I think is reprehensible is to smoke in the car when you have kids riding with you (especially an infant). As an adult if I know you're a smoker I can refuse to ride with you, and I'll tell you why. Most smokers understand that, I think. But children have no choice in the matter. I really don't remember whether my father smoked in the car (which suggests to me he probably didn't, and given that he's fastidious about keeping the car clean I think it's all the more likely he did not) and I can't imagine being cooped up for a long time in a confined space like that with a smoker. I view it as borderline child abuse to do that to a little kid. I don't necessarily know that I support laws specifically restricting the right to smoke in a car where a kid is a passenger. I have a problem with too much governmental intervention into one's life in that way. BUT on the other hand, I think the kid is entitled to some protection and I'm not sure existing child-abuse laws would afford it....

There are legal entities where CPS can open a case if an adult smokes around a child and that child develops a chronic disease attributable to smoke exposure.

In college, I used to smoke cloves and unfiltered Lucky Strikes when I drank on the weekends. In social settings, I smoked a hookah and worked at a hookah bar one summer. I always thought regular mainstream cigarettes tasted pretty terrible and processed. I did date a guy who smoked Marlboro lights, which were probably the only mainstream ones that I tolerated.

Then I had a bad night of drinking and smoking too much and quit casually smoking. Oddly, I did not withdraw in real life, but had crazy withdraw dreams. I was more addicted subconsciously than I realized. This was at the end of 2008.

If the social situation allows, I will smoke a hookah, but that usually happens once a year or two. As for the green, I only smoke it in social situations (once every year or two), but it always takes me an ungodly amount of the stuff to feel anything. My friends would be high after a few hits, but it did nothing for me. I believe this is because I'm a pretty excited/anxious person, so i need more of it to mellow.

Interestingly, I never liked the smell of tobacco on me. It would super gross me out that my fingers smelled like it. Thankfully this kept me from smoking it more, so I never got seriously addicted.

My husband's parents smoke Winstons in their house, and it grosses me out. I smell like an ashtray when I leave and it takes me two showers to get the smell completely off. I love them to death but don't visit them as much as I'd like because of the smoke.

Quote from: hbelkins on January 23, 2013, 01:50:19 PM
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.

Then you should ban alcohol and make non-alcoholic versions of these beverages.

Your argument holds no water (or wine).  It doesn't matter why anybody drinks or tokes or whatever they want to do.  It's none of your business and it's none of mine.

Quote from: bugo on October 22, 2013, 04:04:48 AM

Quote from: hbelkins on January 23, 2013, 01:50:19 PM
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.

Then you should ban alcohol and make non-alcoholic versions of these beverages.

Your argument holds no water (or wine).  It doesn't matter why anybody drinks or tokes or whatever they want to do.  It's none of your business and it's none of mine.

Thank you bugo, spot on imo. To add to bugo statement, its no-ones business what we drink or smoke as long as we dont endanger the public. And not everyone smokes a joint to get high, some dont even smoke a whole joint b/c they use it to relax after work or whatever. BTW I've heard there is some nice tasting smoke out there ;-)

Sometimes I believe I'm the only person in the world who has never smoked dope, not even once to try it.

That's kind of like being the only person never to speed.

Quote from: hbelkins on November 14, 2013, 03:15:57 PM
Sometimes I believe I'm the only person in the world who has never smoked dope, not even once to try it.

I have never smoked anything (not even ham).



EDIT: Why didn't I get the "new post has been made" when I tried to submit it?

Quote from: hbelkins on November 14, 2013, 03:15:57 PM
Sometimes I believe I'm the only person in the world who has never smoked dope, not even once to try it.

You're not. I've been in the presence of people smoking it on multiple occasions and have even had some random dude in a park in Montreal at 3 AM ask me if I had any (heh, oh Canada!), but I have never actually smoked anything myself.

Quote from: Duke87 on November 14, 2013, 11:20:50 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on November 14, 2013, 03:15:57 PM
Sometimes I believe I'm the only person in the world who has never smoked dope, not even once to try it.

You're not. I've been in the presence of people smoking it on multiple occasions and have even had some random dude in a park in Montreal at 3 AM ask me if I had any (heh, oh Canada!), but I have never actually smoked anything myself.

Don't miss it for a second, though it was perfectly fun while it lasted. Suddenly it stopped being fun, so that was it for me.

Quote from: hbelkins on November 14, 2013, 03:15:57 PM
Sometimes I believe I'm the only person in the world who has never smoked dope, not even once to try it.

No, you're not. I never did either. Although I'd like to try it once to see what the fuss is about, I never did growing up and my current job situation precludes trying it.

You aren't missing much. It's overrated.

I have inhaled secondhand marijuana smoke; I couldn't really avoid it since I was in Amsterdam at the time and hadn't realized that it is necessary to search specially for marijuana-free lodgings.  I found the experience to be less of a definite "high" and more of a stoned-out indifference.  It also takes a considerable amount of time for the evidence of marijuana consumption to leave your system.  I felt my state of mind (in terms of affect and so on) was essentially normal after 24 hours, but it took about a week for my apocrine sweat to stop smelling of burnt rope.  People who have to submit to drug testing regularly (for either legal or occupational reasons) really can't afford even passive exposure to marijuana smoke.

Legalities aside, I object to smoking in general--not just tobacco but also marijuana, cloves, and indeed anything else that can be smoked--because of the particulate load on the lungs.  Smoke occurs naturally and the human lung can clean itself, but I feel that recreational smoking (even passively) overwhelms the natural self-cleaning mechanism and degrades lung function over time.

The difference in tar collection with vapos pens and bongs/bowls/etc. is also very stark. It's essentially a cleaner high with a vapo pen - you get the thc without the smoky and smelly house.

Now. when I think of a road meet or road trip, I just need to have Cigarettes. As I am mildly suicidal (i.e. I wont end my own life overtly, but I enjoy doing unhealthy things) I enjoy the idea of slowly killing myself and it looks cool as hell!

Any roadgeeks here puff the cancer sticks or even the herb (I am not 420 friendly but I dont care if others do it)??

me, I enjoy Cigars and when I am on the road, Marlboro 27s or Belmonts (if in Canada).

Meow.

I remember already seeing a thread like this looking at old threads on the forum one time.

This would be it: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8530.0

But as for my own answer, I am never thinking about smoking. Oddly, you love the fact you're going to get a heckload of health problems from smoking, but that's you. I don't like the thought of health problems at all (especially lung issues, yeek), so don't count on me ever smoking. Not even once.

EDIT: I don't blame you for not being able to find the first thread about smoking, it has a rather misleading name compared to the actual topic, but good thing I go deep diving into the old threads every so often  :biggrin:

I will sometimes chew tobacco on roadtrips, but I almost never smoke cigarettes. I prefer huffing computer keyboard duster though- that's a pretty insane high.

When I am located in the states of Washington or Colorado and am not currently employed, I definitely enjoy partaking in reasonable amounts of marijuana.

I smoked from 1981 when cigarettes were only 70 cents a pack to 1991 when they became 2 dollars. 

I do not know why I quit, but I am glad I did quit.

BTW, in Florida we have some anti smoking group having someone run their voice through a machine to scare you into thinking the cigarettes changed his voice to sound like a computer for you to stop.  Even though I am not a smoker anymore, I still think that those against it go to far overboard in attempts to get people to quit.

Quote from: place-saint-henri on November 10, 2014, 12:06:55 AM
Now. when I think of a road meet or road trip, I just need to have Cigarettes. As I am mildly suicidal (i.e. I wont end my own life overtly, but I enjoy doing unhealthy things) I enjoy the idea of slowly killing myself and it looks cool as hell!

:eyebrow: There is absolutely no enjoyment in suffering from the diseases brought on from the chemicals in cigarettes. Also, it doesn't look cool. If you do it to look cool then you are a tool.

I have never once smoked a cig in my life, though I was around some of my friends who did it before school, though I did my best to avoid breathing in that nasty smelling odor of Tobacco smoke. However, I enjoyed smoking marijuana every day before school to ease my stress and honestly get me through classes where I was pretty much alone without friends. I stopped because I was (and am) looking for a job, but if someone were to offer me a chance to smoke I would take it up in a heartbeat.

I've never taken the first puff off a cigarette. Never wanted to. They're nasty and they stink. My dad smoked up until I was about 7 or 8; my mother smoked until she died of smoking-related cancer at age 50.

I'm also definitely not 420-friendly. I've never smoked dope and don't have any use for it whatsoever.

These days, I couldn't afford the luxury of paying for anything to smoke even if I did have the addiction/habit.

The single dumbest thing I've ever done–and there's formidable competition for this title–was to start smoking.  Lest this sound like the high horse of a former smoker, I assure you that I felt this very strongly early on in smoking.  It's like willingly catching a barely-curable disease because it's fun.

Finally managing to quit after numerous attempts felt like sneaking off death row when no one was looking.

Whatever your feelings about it, or your success in beating COPD (good friggin' luck), cancer, or emphysema, smoking's the best way there is (aside from sitting in the sun all day) to make your face look like shit long before nature planned. 

It's fun, I admit, but that fun requires willful ignorance and tacit self-contempt. 

Quote from: Zeffy on November 10, 2014, 10:59:01 AM

Quote from: place-saint-henri on November 10, 2014, 12:06:55 AM
Now. when I think of a road meet or road trip, I just need to have Cigarettes. As I am mildly suicidal (i.e. I wont end my own life overtly, but I enjoy doing unhealthy things) I enjoy the idea of slowly killing myself and it looks cool as hell!

:eyebrow: There is absolutely no enjoyment in suffering from the diseases brought on from the chemicals in cigarettes. Also, it doesn't look cool. If you do it to look cool then you are a tool.

I have never once smoked a cig in my life, though I was around some of my friends who did it before school, though I did my best to avoid breathing in that nasty smelling odor of Tobacco smoke. However, I enjoyed smoking marijuana every day before school to ease my stress and honestly get me through classes where I was pretty much alone without friends. I stopped because I was (and am) looking for a job, but if someone were to offer me a chance to smoke I would take it up in a heartbeat.

Same thing with tatoos as women nowadays think that is hot and just as great as the clothes that they wear.  Smoking for some reason is quite popular to want to do with many people as for some reason its considered the "In" thing to do in many places.

I cannot tell you how many girl next door types smoke cigarettes these days.  Go to Hooters, you would think it is a requisition to be a server there as most of the girls smoke who wear the white and orange uniforms.

Quote from: roadman65 on November 10, 2014, 11:09:02 AM
I cannot tell you how many girl next door types smoke cigarettes these days.  Go to Hooters, you would think it is a requisition to be a server there as most of the girls smoke who wear the white and orange uniforms.

I was going to suggest that the girl next door type isn't at Hooters, but then I remembered you live in Florida.

I haven't ever smoked a day in my life. Part of it is the law, another part of it is that I have allergies, and the last part is that I just don't want to.
My dad used to smoke, but he quit when he met my mom.

Quote from: spooky on November 10, 2014, 11:33:05 AM

Quote from: roadman65 on November 10, 2014, 11:09:02 AM
I cannot tell you how many girl next door types smoke cigarettes these days.  Go to Hooters, you would think it is a requisition to be a server there as most of the girls smoke who wear the white and orange uniforms.

I was going to suggest that the girl next door type isn't at Hooters, but then I remembered you live in Florida.

I was merely suggesting that it is one of many places you will find the girl next door.  Yes in Florida we have warmth all year and even when not you have many (guys especially) people who love to dress for the Summer year round.  Matter of fact lately its been those with thin blood who wear shorts more in colder temps than those with thick blood.  It used to be those who planted themselves from the north who wore summer clothing in 60 degree weather as that was considered too cold for Floridians.  Now its the other way around, where tourists from colder climates bundle up on 40 and 50 degree days while those living here wear tank tops and shorts.

Hey in Florida, restaurants are plentiful and the best place for anyone to get a job, and Hooters and all the Breastaurants are places for girls too start serving because you do not need experience to get hired.  Just be good looking and flirtatious and your a Hooters or a Ker's Winghouse waitress without that dumb accessment test that many places make you take to apply for employment.

I have never smoked.  Both parents were smokers--my mother smoked half a pack of cigarettes a day, while my father smoked a pipe.  They continued to smoke for a good fifteen years after my paternal grandfather, a very heavy smoker, died of lung cancer at age 59.  My mother used to smoke everywhere in the house until she noticed I was missing a lot of school due to respiratory illnesses that never seemed to clear up.  The worst of these was an episode of bronchitis that kept me out of school for three weeks in third grade; on my first day back, the other kids on the school bus told me that they thought I had died.

Thereafter my mother went into the bathroom to smoke behind a closed door, though my father used to light his pipe after bedtime and the smoke often kept me awake.

I never experienced the slightest temptation to start smoking even as an act of teenage rebellion.  Now I have friends who tell me of relatives who have emphysema and COPD because they continued smoking into their sixties . . .  No.  Just no.

As I have gotten older and bans on smoking in communal settings have proliferated, I have become more tolerant of other people's smoking, especially when they take care to do it in well-ventilated areas so that nonsmokers don't have to catch more than a whiff or two as they walk through.  However, I have my limits.  I don't want to be following someone on the sidewalk when the wind is blowing his or her cigarette smoke into my face.  I don't want to be waiting at a light next to a smoker who has a cigarette dangling in his or her fingers outside his or her open car window, since the smoke then gets sucked into my vents unless I hit the recirculate button in time.

It is nearly impossible to remove the smoke smell altogether from a house or car.  It is still possible to get a whiff of stale smoke in my parents' house when re-entering it after it has been closed up for a few days, and this is in spite of the carpet being replaced and interior walls being repainted after they stopped smoking.

Because lazy:

Quote from: Laura on October 21, 2013, 09:59:37 PM
In college, I used to smoke cloves and unfiltered Lucky Strikes when I drank on the weekends. In social settings, I smoked a hookah and worked at a hookah bar one summer. I always thought regular mainstream cigarettes tasted pretty terrible and processed. I did date a guy who smoked Marlboro lights, which were probably the only mainstream ones that I tolerated.

Then I had a bad night of drinking and smoking too much and quit casually smoking. Oddly, I did not withdraw in real life, but had crazy withdraw dreams. I was more addicted subconsciously than I realized. This was at the end of 2008.

If the social situation allows, I will smoke a hookah, but that usually happens once a year or two. As for the green, I only smoke it in social situations (once every year or two), but it always takes me an ungodly amount of the stuff to feel anything. My friends would be high after a few hits, but it did nothing for me. I believe this is because I'm a pretty excited/anxious person, so i need more of it to mellow.

Interestingly, I never liked the smell of tobacco on me. It would super gross me out that my fingers smelled like it. Thankfully this kept me from smoking it more, so I never got seriously addicted.

My husband's parents smoke Winstons in their house, and it grosses me out. I smell like an ashtray when I leave and it takes me two showers to get the smell completely off. I love them to death but don't visit them as much as I'd like because of the smoke.

Pretty much nothing has changed. Got a couple of chances (literally, 2) to smoke the green this calendar year (last time was in 2010, longer than I realized), and it worked wonders for my anxiety.

I have no interest in vaps (or e-cigs) because they were deceivingly marketed as "cessation aids" and really haven't been tested for their smoking effects. They could have just as many bad chemicals in them, but we have no idea.

I've never smoked, and being in the casino industry for 5 years hasn't made me want to start any time soon. (Nothing like opening a slant-top slot machine and having it shower ashes on your head...)

Quote from: hbelkins on November 10, 2014, 10:59:15 AM
I've never taken the first puff off a cigarette. Never wanted to. They're nasty and they stink. My dad smoked up until I was about 7 or 8; my mother smoked until she died of smoking-related cancer at age 50.

I'm also definitely not 420-friendly. I've never smoked dope and don't have any use for it whatsoever.

These days, I couldn't afford the luxury of paying for anything to smoke even if I did have the addiction/habit.

You're mixing up your drug slang. "420" refers to cannabis, while "dope" is another name for methamphetamine.

Quote from: hbelkins on January 23, 2013, 01:50:19 PM
I'm surprised that this hasn't evolved (or devolved, if you wish) into a discussion of drinking vs. drug use.

Drinking IS drug use. I notice you separate alcohol from all other drugs. Alcohol is towards the bottom as far as safety is concerned. It's more harmful than cocaine and heroin for example.

Quote from: hbelkins on November 14, 2013, 03:15:57 PM
Sometimes I believe I'm the only person in the world who has never smoked dope, not even once to try it.

I've never smoked meth either.

Quote from: bugo on November 11, 2014, 02:22:57 AM

Quote from: hbelkins on November 10, 2014, 10:59:15 AM
I've never taken the first puff off a cigarette. Never wanted to. They're nasty and they stink. My dad smoked up until I was about 7 or 8; my mother smoked until she died of smoking-related cancer at age 50.

I'm also definitely not 420-friendly. I've never smoked dope and don't have any use for it whatsoever.

These days, I couldn't afford the luxury of paying for anything to smoke even if I did have the addiction/habit.

You're mixing up your drug slang. "420" refers to cannabis, while "dope" is another name for methamphetamine.

Dope has always been a catch-all for a lot of drugs.  I hear it used all the time for weed, and no, not among PTA members, school principals, or narcs.

Quote from: Ian on November 11, 2014, 05:35:43 PM
I smoked cigarettes quite a lot last year, but then I started to hit the gym more, and now I only really smoke cigarettes when I'm drunk.

.............

Ah, the innocence of youth. The things we post on public forums for employers to discover. I'll do you a favor and delete your latter statement.

Quote from: bugo on November 11, 2014, 02:22:57 AM
You're mixing up your drug slang. "420" refers to cannabis, while "dope" is another name for methamphetamine.

Not here. "Dope" means weed.

It have encountered it used for heroin, marijuana, all drugs in general, and of course performance-enhancing drugs in sports (doping).

When I was ten years old, I tried a cigarette for the first time. This was merely out of curiosity, mind you. I did not necessarily want to be "cool."

I put the cigarette in my mouth, and, about five seconds later, I immediately took it out of my mouth. The taste as I remember was truly horrible. To this day, I cannot explain to you what it tasted like, but that made me decide not to smoke again.

Quote from: hbelkins on November 11, 2014, 10:34:38 PM

Quote from: bugo on November 11, 2014, 02:22:57 AM
You're mixing up your drug slang. "420" refers to cannabis, while "dope" is another name for methamphetamine.

Not here. "Dope" means weed.

How do you know? Did you buy a quarter last week? Do you hang out with stoners?

This thread makes me think more of this (at 0:17):

Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 11, 2014, 11:11:04 PM
It have encountered it used for heroin, marijuana, all drugs in general, and of course performance-enhancing drugs in sports (doping).

Same here. At least this was the case 10 years ago, when I was in high school.


iPhone

I smoked around 1 1/2 packs in my life.  Basically, that was around the time of college.  My wife absolutely hates smoking (even though her parents always smoked).  She couldn't get them to stop, but man we will have a fight and a half if I puffed on a cig.  Last time I did we were in New Orleans and a few friends of mine were smoking. I had a puff and she saw me.  Oh, we were screaming up and down Canal Street with each other about that one.  (It was about 330am.  A few alcoholic beverages may have had something to do with that).

Between the ages of 16 & 21, I worked in bowling alleys.  Casinos don't even come close the level of smoke bowling alleys had back then - you could barely see one end to the other.  I came home every night reeking of smoke. 

My mom never smoked, but my dad always smoked thin cigars (cheaper than cigs).  He stopped cold turkey when he was in the hospital for appendicitis (early 1980's I believe)...figuring if he could go several days there without one, he didn't need them at all at home either.  Other than a regular cigar a handful of times since, he's never smoked again.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 12, 2014, 01:31:30 PM
Between the ages of 16 & 21, I worked in bowling alleys.  Casinos don't even come close the level of smoke bowling alleys had back then - you could barely see one end to the other.  I came home every night reeking of smoke. 

This will probably let a few people familiar with the OKC casino scene guess where I work, but the casino I work in now is partly made of temporary trailer buildings. Most of these buildings were put up during the early 2000s and over time their ventilation systems have done a nose dive in quality. Their interiors are dark, so it probably does a fairly faithful impression of your bowling alley. Even when I worked in a properly-ventilated casino I still smelled of smoke when I came home; at the new casino, even more so, to the point where when my girlfriend comes home on days that I don't work I accurately can guess which section of the casino she was assigned to based on the strength of the smoke smell.

Even in a well-ventilated environment working around smokers is annoying. Some people seem oblivious to the fact that the smoke still exists when they blow it out their nicotine-hole and will blow it directly in your face, or hold the cigarette at eye level so a constant stream of it wafts into your nose. They don't seem to realize or care that some people working in a smoke-friendly environment might not smoke themselves and find it unpleasant. And because you are doing your job you can't just remove yourself from the situation.

The main irritant for a casino floor attendant, though, is ashes; they get everywhere. There was a constant shortage of ashtrays at the casino I worked at previously, due mostly to the fact that good quality ashtrays are expensive (if I remember correctly the price they were getting them at was something like 12/$100), and careless patrons and employees would knock them onto the floor and other careless patrons and employees would step on them and break them. Many smokers couldn't be arsed to go find an ashtray so they'd just sit down at a machine and get their ashes all over the place: in between the machines, all over the button panel, etc. Ashes would find their way into the machine cabinets and cause all manner of problems, mostly raining down on you when you go to open certain doors or getting sucked into the machine's ventilation system, causing overheating (the inside of a slot machine cabinet can reach 160°F) and bitchy customers when the machine would reboot to deal with the overheat condition. We even had a few fires where someone would leave a burger wrapper somewhere instead of throwing it away like a civilized person and then people would toss lit cigarettes on top.

Quote from: Scott5114 on November 12, 2014, 02:43:04 PM
snip

This is why I hate humans. Livestock are more civilized.

There is a special level of hell for smokers who throw their butts on the ground. Sometimes there will be a butt can 2 feet away and they still throw them on the ground. Then there are the smokers who inhale, go into a building, then exhale. I had to run a customer off for doing this at my last job.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F736x%2F1b%2Fd5%2Fba%2F1bd5baed72a77b58273b287e7aa5c517.jpg&hash=038208b61835865356e2584bec2fbf426f82ef83)

Quote from: Grzrd on October 16, 2013, 02:29:33 PM

Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 16, 2013, 02:16:35 PM
mods, can someone merge this with the other smoking thread?  I can't find it offhand.

Mods, hope this helps:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8530.0

And another merge.

Quote from: bugo on November 12, 2014, 03:37:45 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on November 12, 2014, 02:43:04 PM
snip

This is why I hate humans. Livestock are more civilized.

There is a special level of hell for smokers who throw their butts on the ground. Sometimes there will be a butt can 2 feet away and they still throw them on the ground. Then there are the smokers who inhale, go into a building, then exhale. I had to run a customer off for doing this at my last job.

Ugh, I completely agree. My in-laws will do this (throw their butts on the ground) and I cannot understand why. Would you throw any other kind of trash on the ground? What makes cigarette butts okay? It's disgusting.

After cringing over these stories about smoking in bowling alleys and casinos, I am so glad Maryland is smoke free inside of buildings. It's weird, though - when I was a kid, more older people smoked in their houses and cars, and it didn't bother me. Now that everywhere is smoke free and most people instinctively go outside to smoke, I can't stand going someplace smoky (like my in-laws' house). It feels so suffocating.


iPhone

When i visited a casino in Philly you could smell the smoke all over, compared to a NJ casino, i wonder if PA has lower standards for filtration, or they just don't give two shits where people smoke in the casino in the overnight hours?

What scares the crap out of me is the concentration of smoking materials and oxygen tanks in casinos.

In regard to Scott's observations about smokers in casinos and their uncivilized behavior, in Kansas the casinos lobbied hard for and received a special carve-out from the state's indoor smoking ban.  The rationale was quite simple.  Gambling is a vice; after talking about the issue for 20 years, the state made a conscious decision to allow this particular vice, and collect revenues from it; why should the state partially rescind this decision by requiring virtuous behavior in a den of vice?

Meanwhile, Nevada does have an indoor smoking ban that applies to every indoor part of a resort casino except the casino floor itself.  It gets kind of tricky to sign the areas where smoking is and is not permitted.

Part of the burden of working in an industry that has traditionally been classified as a vice, and this is true of prostitution and other forms of sex work as well as gambling, is having to deal with a high proportion of customers who feel they are entitled to a holiday from civilized norms in general.

Quote from: J N Winkler on November 13, 2014, 11:05:02 AM
In regard to Scott's observations about smokers in casinos and their uncivilized behavior, in Kansas the casinos lobbied hard for and received a special carve-out from the state's indoor smoking ban.  The rationale was quite simple.  Gambling is a vice; after talking about the issue for 20 years, the state made a conscious decision to allow this particular vice, and collect revenues from it; why should the state partially rescind this decision by requiring virtuous behavior in a den of vice?

Meanwhile, Nevada does have an indoor smoking ban that applies to every indoor part of a resort casino except the casino floor itself.  It gets kind of tricky to sign the areas where smoking is and is not permitted.

Part of the burden of working in an industry that has traditionally been classified as a vice, and this is true of prostitution and other forms of sex work as well as gambling, is having to deal with a high proportion of customers who feel they are entitled to a holiday from civilized norms in general.

In NJ the casino floor is the only non tobacco bar/cigarbar/etc (whatever you want to call it) place that is allowed to have smoking, but it is limited to no more than 25% of said floor, and air filtration is required.

Quote from: Laura on November 13, 2014, 07:07:43 AM
Ugh, I completely agree. My in-laws will do this (throw their butts on the ground) and I cannot understand why. Would you throw any other kind of trash on the ground? What makes cigarette butts okay? It's disgusting.

I actually know the answer to this. The rationale is that we've always been taught (from back in the day when smoking was commonplace and acceptable) how dangerous it is to discard cigarette butts in the trash can, because of the obvious risk of fire, and that ashtrays must always be used. As smoking became less acceptable, ashtrays were far less often provided, yet the perceived danger of throwing butts in the trash remained.

Now of course, some percentage of butts thrown on the ground is just due to people being lousy, the same types who'd throw the packaging of an entire McDonald's meal out their car window. But a significant percentage is due to a choice of the lesser of two perceived evils: "Well, I hate to throw this on the ground, but there's no ashtray around and it's not safe to put it in the trash. At least I'll try to aim for the curb or the sewer grate, where trash is meant to collect anyway."

And to be sure, there is an easy way to safely discard cigarette butts in the trash by first rolling out the flaming plant material onto the ground and just throwing the paper and filter away. But that wasn't part of everyone's upbringing, because that's based on ashtrays being available.

I used to enjoy an occasional visit to a casino, but not so much anymore because of the smoke. Even special smoke-free areas aren't physically separated from the smoking areas, so the entire place reeks of smoke. It's worse on the riverboat casinos.

I don't know if there's a particular smoking carve-out for casinos in Oklahoma law, but even if there is not making it "stick" would be difficult because the vast majority of casinos in the state are tribally-run. A tribe is not going to unilaterally convert their casinos to non-smoking because they fear that their casinos would be abandoned by the smokers in favor of a nearby smoking-friendly casino.

None of the casinos I've worked in have had a non-smoking area, but I've heard that they tend to underperform compared to the rest of the casino floor. As a result, they tend to become a graveyard for unpopular machines since the slot managers reason that they're not going to be making much money anyway, so they may as well use it as a dumping ground for the stuff nobody plays (or worse, problematic machines that require a lot of attendant/tech attention).

If smoke bothers you, you can play poker (for whatever reason poker rooms usually ban smoking while blackjack doesn't) or choose to go at non-peak times like the morning or the wee hours of the night during the week.

I'm thinking about starting smoking. I smoked a pack of Marlboros and I loved it. It's kewl to smoke cigarettes and all the kewl kids do it, and I want to be kewl, you know?

Quote from: GeauxLSU on November 30, 2016, 08:10:55 AM
I'm thinking about starting smoking. I smoked a pack of Marlboros and I loved it. It's kewl to smoke cigarettes and all the kewl kids do it, and I want to be kewl, you know?

Bad idea.  It's not kewl or cool.  Do you like standing 15 feet away from a building entrance in subzero weather to get your fix for your addiction to nicotine?  Do you want to have preventable lung cancer in 10, 20, 30 years?  Do you want people to stand upwind of you so they don't have to smell that shit?

Quote from: GeauxLSU on November 30, 2016, 08:10:55 AMI'm thinking about starting smoking. I smoked a pack of Marlboros and I loved it. It's kewl to smoke cigarettes and all the kewl kids do it, and I want to be kewl, you know?

I wouldn't even joke about this--Stage IV lung cancer is an awful way to go.

Quote from: J N Winkler on November 30, 2016, 11:30:00 AM

Quote from: GeauxLSU on November 30, 2016, 08:10:55 AMI'm thinking about starting smoking. I smoked a pack of Marlboros and I loved it. It's kewl to smoke cigarettes and all the kewl kids do it, and I want to be kewl, you know?

I wouldn't even joke about this--Stage IV lung cancer is an awful way to go.

Not to mention the money that one spends on purchasing cigarettes.  It's a very expensive habit when one totals the purchases plus the long-term health-related costs.

I smoke but never cigarettes (can't stand them)... a black n mild once or twice a day do me juuusssst fine. A little greenery doesn't hurt either...

Hm.  Smells like trolling.

Quote from: Rothman on November 30, 2016, 12:49:09 PMHm.  Smells like trolling.

Yeah, that's what I thought too, and it wouldn't surprise me if others thought the same thing.  This is why I deliberately phrased my reply in limply matter-of-fact terms.

Quote from: J N Winkler on November 30, 2016, 01:59:15 PM

Quote from: Rothman on November 30, 2016, 12:49:09 PMHm.  Smells like trolling.

Yeah, that's what I thought too, and it wouldn't surprise me if others thought the same thing.  This is why I deliberately phrased my reply in limply matter-of-fact terms.

Who's trolling??? I hope you didn't mean me because all I did was answer the question

No, about the kewl cigarettes.

Quote from: plain on November 30, 2016, 02:36:33 PM

Quote from: J N Winkler on November 30, 2016, 01:59:15 PM

Quote from: Rothman on November 30, 2016, 12:49:09 PMHm.  Smells like trolling.

Yeah, that's what I thought too, and it wouldn't surprise me if others thought the same thing.  This is why I deliberately phrased my reply in limply matter-of-fact terms.

Who's trolling??? I hope you didn't mean me because all I did was answer the question

Not you. He is saying that the 14 year old who asked if he wanted to start smoking because it is "kewl" (possible sock) is trolling.

Ahhh I see.

I never thought smoking was cool (or kewl, if you prefer, or even Kool). It's not attractive, it's not sexy, it's not macho.

I also don't understand why anyone would start vaping if they don't smoke beforehand and are either trying to quit or are trying to get their nicotine fix in places that don't allow smoking but don't prohibit vaping.

Not to mention kissing a chick who just smoked is like kissing an ashtray.  And my wife will agree.

Oh, wait, I ventured too far into that story!! haha

Kewl?

No no no, it's Kool. Like the brand name.

I've smoked a total of 7 cigarettes in my life. Never saw what the big deal was.

Now, I get very VERY pissed when someone carelessly throws their butts out their car window. The other night two pieces of smoker's burning trash hit my car.  I understand that auto manufacturers areshying away from putting ashtrays in their vehicles, but I'd argue this is making the flaming butt trash (Hmm.  potential band name) problem WORSE instead of its intended effect of helping people quit smoking.

Quote from: inkyatari on December 01, 2016, 09:48:28 AM
I've smoked a total of 7 cigarettes in my life. Never saw what thebig deal wa.

Now, I get very VERY pised when someone carelessly throws their butts out their car window. The other night two pieces of smoker's burning trash hit my car.  I understand that auto manufacturers areshying away from putting ashtrays in their vehicles, but I'd argue this is making the flaming butt trash (Hmm.  potential band name) problem WORSE instead of its intended effect of helping people quit smoking.

Try driving some vehicle with a roof opening when a smoker in front of you throws his or her butt out the window.

Had more than a few incidents when I drove a Camaro Z-28 with the T-tops removed years ago, when I was afraid a smoker's discarded butt was going to end up in my vehicle when they threw it out.

Speculation has it that a discarded cigarette butt caused the fire that devastated the Smoky Mountains.

To put another angle on it, what's interesting to me about smoking is that the habit seems to have been curtailed dramatically in our population merely by changing the culture surrounding it. Typically, you'd think that if something was all that harmful they would outlaw it completely, but that was clearly seen as impossible. Instead, a different approach was used that involved creating such a stigma around smoking that people would be disinclined to do it at all, because it was perceived as aberrant behavior. Some people still do it, and even enjoy and defend it, but they're increasingly marginalized with the elimination of smoking areas in most public places.

The reason I point this out is: what other aspects of our society have been successfully reduced, eliminated, or substantially altered, just by changing their cultural acceptability? And what changes are currently on our wish list, that might be better addressed through a societal shift than by legislation or enforcement?

Quote from: empirestate on December 02, 2016, 10:00:27 AM

The reason I point this out is: what other aspects of our society have been successfully reduced, eliminated, or substantially altered, just by changing their cultural acceptability? And what changes are currently on our wish list, that might be better addressed through a societal shift than by legislation or enforcement?

Marijuana. I don't see the allure of the stoner culture.

Quote from: empirestate on December 02, 2016, 10:00:27 AM
The reason I point this out is: what other aspects of our society have been successfully reduced, eliminated, or substantially altered, just by changing their cultural acceptability? And what changes are currently on our wish list, that might be better addressed through a societal shift than by legislation or enforcement?

I am disappointed at the growing lack of acceptance of crooked teeth. Thirty years ago, people were much more likely to accept it. The real problems began in the mid-'90s, and I think it's because of the openly classist culture of the time. Hardly anyone ever said anything negative to me about it until I was 24. That was when the Internet was becoming popular and I posted a drawing of myself on my website, which the Usenet Cabal promptly defaced it by drawing crooked buck teeth on it. And then YouTube came along, and that's when the floodgates really opened.

I just don't see what the problem is with crooked teeth, since it doesn't seem to cause any medical problems. It's not a problem for me. At all. I don't even try to hide it in my photos.

I'm not the only person who thinks this. I have a friend who has missed out on job offers because of crooked teeth. But I think they look cool. Society has the problem, not her or me.

So, because of all this, I've made it a crusade to make crooked teeth acceptable again. That's why I posted that video on YouTube. Objectively speaking, you have to admit crooked teeth look pretty cool. Don't you agree that they look a lot more interesting than perfectly straight teeth? Hence, I call them punk rocker teeth.

To be frank, I've always associated crooked and/or buck teeth with low-class, blue-collar citizens who cannot afford dental insurance. If you can have straight teeth, why not? I had braces for four years specifically to avoid cooked teeth, and its long-term, mostly negative cultural perceptions.

Unlike smoking, I can't think of any upsides to crooked teeth. Smoking is a social activity that relieves anxiety. Crooked teeth... I can't think of any benefits.

In regard to changing societal norms by redefining the cultural acceptability of particular behaviors, this article has some insights to offer, including the importance of avoiding antipersuasion:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2016/12/does_fighting_racism_make_racists_more_racist.html

I would personally like to see societal acceptance of low-fiber diets vanish.  It is estimated that no more than between 2% and 10% of the US population eats the fiber RDA (28 g/day for a 2000-calorie diet) on an ongoing basis.  Most of the rest of the population gets just about 50% of the RDA, dropping to about 20% for millennials.  There are some restricted groups in society with a genuine medical need for low-fiber diets (e.g. IBS sufferers), but the generally low level of fiber in the typical US diet contributes to the increasing prevalence of obesity.  We are becoming Metformin Nation and this has to stop.

After five decades of feminism, we still give men a free pass for not knowing how to cook.  This has to come to an end.  I learned how to cook when I was growing up, and when my parents married, it was actually my father who had more cooking experience.

Quote from: jakeroot on December 02, 2016, 12:31:05 PM
To be frank, I've always associated crooked and/or buck teeth with low-class, blue-collar citizens who cannot afford dental insurance. If you can have straight teeth, why not?

I'm not exactly made of money, but that's not the only reason. I just don't see the need.

Even if my dentist could just wave his arm and provide straight teeth for free, I wouldn't do it. It just wouldn't look right. I was about 8 the first time I noticed I had crooked teeth, so to me it's normal.

If people think of me as being of a lower economic status, then well, they're right.

Quote
Unlike smoking, I can't think of any upsides to crooked teeth. Smoking is a social activity that relieves anxiety. Crooked teeth... I can't think of any benefits.

Looking cool is a benefit of crooked teeth.

I used to have a tooth just to the right of my two front teeth that was lodged in my gums, and it looked really cool. Somehow it moved closer to its "proper" position, but I have no idea how. It still sticks out and is twisted at a 45-degree angle, which looks cool, but it used to look even cooler.

Quote from: jakeroot on December 02, 2016, 12:31:05 PMTo be frank, I've always associated crooked and/or buck teeth with low-class, blue-collar citizens who cannot afford dental insurance. If you can have straight teeth, why not? I had braces for four years specifically to avoid cooked teeth, and its long-term, mostly negative cultural perceptions.

There are also definite health benefits to having straight teeth, including reduced incidence of gum disease and tooth loss.

http://saddlecreekortho.com/ourblog/posts/not-just-a-pretty-smile-health-benefits-of-orthodontic-treatment

Quote from: jakeroot on December 02, 2016, 12:31:05 PMUnlike smoking, I can't think of any upsides to crooked teeth. Smoking is a social activity that relieves anxiety. Crooked teeth... I can't think of any benefits.

I would not consider those aspects of smoking to be benefits that would justify even a low-footprint "social smoking" habit (e.g. smoking only at parties).  It is possible to be social without smoking, and nicotine is just as likely to promote anxiety as to relieve it.

Cigarettes in particular have been engineered to promote addiction.  This aspect, and not the mere fact of knowingly selling a product that can cause cancer, is the main reason the tobacco companies were eventually forced to settle the product-liability litigation against them.  Therefore, any expectations of being able to confine smoking completely to social contexts have to be regarded as illusory.  My mother came from a nonsmoking family but spent a number of years working at a newspaper at a time when smoking and drinking were expected parts of being a journalist.  She never actually said when or where she picked up her cigarette habit, and she was an almost complete teetotaller (only a glass of wine at special dinners, no hard liquor, and beer to her was perfectly good ditchwater allowed to spoil), but after years of limiting herself to half a pack a day, she never actually quit for good until I was almost in college.

Quote from: hbelkins on December 02, 2016, 10:27:45 AM

Quote from: empirestate on December 02, 2016, 10:00:27 AM

The reason I point this out is: what other aspects of our society have been successfully reduced, eliminated, or substantially altered, just by changing their cultural acceptability? And what changes are currently on our wish list, that might be better addressed through a societal shift than by legislation or enforcement?

Marijuana. I don't see the allure of the stoner culture.

On your wish list, you mean? Because it's pretty evident that the societal shift there is going in the other direction.

And if so, is there any reason beyond you just not seeing its appeal? I mean, there are many things of which I don't see the appeal, but I wouldn't consider wanting a cultural revolution to eradicate them!

Quote from: J N Winkler on December 02, 2016, 12:53:19 PM
There are also definite health benefits to having straight teeth, including reduced incidence of gum disease and tooth loss.

I've always been very skeptical of that. And the source of that website is an orthodontist, so they want people to use their services.

Pretty much everyone has gum disease and TMJ disorder, and I've never really had any problems that were more severe than most people. It's been 34 years since a dentist has even recommended doing anything about my crooked teeth. I also read in a book when I was about 11 that straight teeth last longer, but it just didn't worry me.

I will admit to one minor problem: Because of slightly buck teeth, I was always afraid of being hit in the teeth when kids at school threw things (which they did all the time). But that was their problem, not mine.

As for teeth, I think that one coincided with the rise of braces.  Back in the 60s, it wasn't common for people to have them, but now it's rare for someone to NOT have them at some point when they're a teenager.  That could be mixing cause and effect though.  There's also an obsession with white teeth.

In my case, I had to wear braces for a LONG time, and I feel like my teeth have moved slightly since I had them (I wore my retainer every night afterwards for several years, but that wasn't enough, and I stopped after it became uncomfortable).  My jaw is smaller than it should be (my baby teeth alone were able to fill it before I got braces), so that's part of why it took so long.  There were a lot of teeth to move since they were all crammed in there (I even had a couple teeth in front of the teeth they were supposed to be next to, and those teeth were next to each other!) and I had an overbite (still have one, just a lot smaller).

Quote from: vdeane on December 02, 2016, 01:43:45 PMBack in the 60s, it wasn't common for people to have them, but now it's rare for someone to NOT have them at some point when they're a teenager.

That is weird. I grew up in the '80s, and I would have just absolutely kicked and screamed to avoid getting them. I refuse to get them. If I go through my entire life without getting them, I will consider my life a complete success at fighting against the medical establishment.

Once when I was about 12, I told my parents I wouldn't get them until the dog got them.

Kids today need to do more kicking and screaming.

Quote from: vdeane on December 02, 2016, 01:43:45 PM
As for teeth, I think that one coincided with the rise of braces.  Back in the 60s, it wasn't common for people to have them, but now it's rare for someone to NOT have them at some point when they're a teenager.  That could be mixing cause and effect though.  There's also an obsession with white teeth.

In my case, I had to wear braces for a LONG time, and I feel like my teeth have moved slightly since I had them (I wore my retainer every night afterwards for several years, but that wasn't enough, and I stopped after it became uncomfortable).  My jaw is smaller than it should be (my baby teeth alone were able to fill it before I got braces), so that's part of why it took so long.  There were a lot of teeth to move since they were all crammed in there (I even had a couple teeth in front of the teeth they were supposed to be next to, and those teeth were next to each other!) and I had an overbite (still have one, just a lot smaller).

Same here...really bad overbite.  Pretty much scarred me for life growing up.  I half-laugh at the people I went to school with who I'm friends with on Facebook, and reading about their kids and bullying issues that's been occurring for a few months..  I'm thinking...yeah, that was THEM back in school, and I dealt with it for years! I don't have much sympathy.  I probably should have a little, but dealing with the bs I dealt with growing up, yeah, I don't.

I actually had a retainer before I had braces because of my issue.  Along with my wisdom teeth getting pulled, I had 4 other teeth pulled as well just to make room in my mouth for my other teeth.  Then had braces for 4 years.  I had a retainer after that, but never wore it as much.  My teeth aren't perfect, mostly due to 2 bottom teeth that are slightly crooked, but otherwise are a billion times better than they were growing up.

Also, I don't think dental insurances covered braces back in the 80's and before.  Whatever is covered now is much greater than it was back then.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 02, 2016, 01:58:29 PMAlso, I don't think dental insurances covered braces back in the 80's and before.  Whatever is covered now is much greater than it was back then.

I bet my parents' insurance in the '80s would have covered it, because I didn't want it, and didn't desperately need it either. It covered stuff I had no use for, but it didn't even cover basic medical needs like why I kept catching the flu 10 times a year. I know it covered quack psychiatrists, but it didn't cover anything necessary. I just got a letter today saying that my PTSD counseling sessions aren't covered, yet our insurance in the '80s or '90s had no trouble at all paying for several visits to a quack shrink when I was 16.

And I really, really, really have no need for insurance that covers braces. If they offered it to me, I'd just sort of laugh, and I'd decline.

My chompers shall remain in their natural position for as long as they dare.

Quote from: hbelkins on December 02, 2016, 10:27:45 AM

Quote from: empirestate on December 02, 2016, 10:00:27 AM

The reason I point this out is: what other aspects of our society have been successfully reduced, eliminated, or substantially altered, just by changing their cultural acceptability? And what changes are currently on our wish list, that might be better addressed through a societal shift than by legislation or enforcement?

Marijuana. I don't see the allure of the stoner culture.

I don't see the appeal of the food addiction culture.

Quote from: GeauxLSU on December 02, 2016, 07:45:18 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on December 02, 2016, 10:27:45 AM

Quote from: empirestate on December 02, 2016, 10:00:27 AM

The reason I point this out is: what other aspects of our society have been successfully reduced, eliminated, or substantially altered, just by changing their cultural acceptability? And what changes are currently on our wish list, that might be better addressed through a societal shift than by legislation or enforcement?

Marijuana. I don't see the allure of the stoner culture.

I don't see the appeal of the food addiction culture.

Can we officially call this a troll before things get way out of hand? 

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 02, 2016, 09:04:57 PM
Can we officially call this a troll before things get way out of hand? 

I think we should.  I (and I think most of us) smell bullshit.  Gotta take out the garbage before it begins to stink.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 02, 2016, 09:04:57 PM

Quote from: GeauxLSU on December 02, 2016, 07:45:18 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on December 02, 2016, 10:27:45 AM

Quote from: empirestate on December 02, 2016, 10:00:27 AM

The reason I point this out is: what other aspects of our society have been successfully reduced, eliminated, or substantially altered, just by changing their cultural acceptability? And what changes are currently on our wish list, that might be better addressed through a societal shift than by legislation or enforcement?

Marijuana. I don't see the allure of the stoner culture.

I don't see the appeal of the food addiction culture.

Can we officially call this a troll before things get way out of hand? 

Smells like a blawp.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 02, 2016, 09:04:57 PM

Quote from: GeauxLSU on December 02, 2016, 07:45:18 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on December 02, 2016, 10:27:45 AM

Quote from: empirestate on December 02, 2016, 10:00:27 AM

The reason I point this out is: what other aspects of our society have been successfully reduced, eliminated, or substantially altered, just by changing their cultural acceptability? And what changes are currently on our wish list, that might be better addressed through a societal shift than by legislation or enforcement?

Marijuana. I don't see the allure of the stoner culture.

I don't see the appeal of the food addiction culture.

Can we officially call this a troll before things get way out of hand? 

We cannot. As the person who wrote it, and thus the official who would make it official, I can assure you it's meant genuinely. So you can call it a troll, but you cannot do so officially.

Quote from: empirestate on December 03, 2016, 12:22:21 AM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 02, 2016, 09:04:57 PM

Quote from: GeauxLSU on December 02, 2016, 07:45:18 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on December 02, 2016, 10:27:45 AM

Quote from: empirestate on December 02, 2016, 10:00:27 AM

The reason I point this out is: what other aspects of our society have been successfully reduced, eliminated, or substantially altered, just by changing their cultural acceptability? And what changes are currently on our wish list, that might be better addressed through a societal shift than by legislation or enforcement?

Marijuana. I don't see the allure of the stoner culture.

I don't see the appeal of the food addiction culture.

Can we officially call this a troll before things get way out of hand? 

We cannot. As the person who wrote it, and thus the official who would make it official, I can assure you it's meant genuinely. So you can call it a troll, but you cannot do so officially.

Actually I've kind of found that a lot of Mods are fairly active in reading these threads....it will bury itself sooner or later....like it did with another recent situation...I'm fairly certain at least anyways? Basically the posts are just gibberish at this point.  It's either a troll or someone who is basically operating with some sort of malfunction.  I'm honestly kind of surprised that it got taken up and run with on a somewhat viable thread...go figure.   

Speaking of allure....why taking up social smoking when you have an alternative?

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 03, 2016, 12:35:05 AM

Quote from: empirestate on December 03, 2016, 12:22:21 AM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 02, 2016, 09:04:57 PM

Quote from: GeauxLSU on December 02, 2016, 07:45:18 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on December 02, 2016, 10:27:45 AM

Quote from: empirestate on December 02, 2016, 10:00:27 AM

The reason I point this out is: what other aspects of our society have been successfully reduced, eliminated, or substantially altered, just by changing their cultural acceptability? And what changes are currently on our wish list, that might be better addressed through a societal shift than by legislation or enforcement?

Marijuana. I don't see the allure of the stoner culture.

I don't see the appeal of the food addiction culture.

Can we officially call this a troll before things get way out of hand? 

We cannot. As the person who wrote it, and thus the official who would make it official, I can assure you it's meant genuinely. So you can call it a troll, but you cannot do so officially.

Actually I've kind of found that a lot of Mods are fairly active in reading these threads....it will bury itself sooner or later....like it did with another recent situation...I'm fairly certain at least anyways? Basically the posts are just gibberish at this point.  It's either a troll or someone who is basically operating with some sort of malfunction.  I'm honestly kind of surprised that it got taken up and run with on a somewhat viable thread...go figure.   

Which part are you saying is the troll? Your quote sequence points back to my comparison to other aspects of society, which I can only assure you was not meant as a troll. In fact, as you say, it was an attempt to make something viable out of what obviously was a (mild) troll, which is the "kewl" comments.

I'm just talking about the Les Miles kid who was throwing "kewl" out there like Eric Cartman, not the real commentary that took place in it's wake. 

I'm not a troll, I'm just an a**hole. My daddy is a medical research chemist and he said that pot is perfectly healthy. I don't know what hbelkins' problem with it is but if he's the guy I think he is he is a fat and needs to quit casting pearls before swine.

Marijuana the devil weed!

LGMS428

Quote from: GeauxLSU on December 03, 2016, 11:26:20 AM
I'm not a troll, I'm just an a**hole. My daddy is a medical research chemist and he said that pot is perfectly healthy. I don't know what hbelkins' problem with it is but if he's the guy I think he is he is a fat and needs to quit casting pearls before swine.

Yep, this is definitely a troll. And yeah, I'm fat. I don't deny it.

Marijuana harmless? Yeah, right. It may not be addictive, but it's sure habit-forming. Anything that alters perception isn't perfectly healthy. I guess our young Bayou Bengal (if 14 really is his age) isn't old enough to know any burned-out dopeheads. I know plenty, which is why I detest the stoner culture. And there's the whole problem of sucking hot gases from burning aromatic hydrocarbons (as I heard it described once) into your lungs.

And dental insurance? What's that? I've never had it -- but then again, I've never been on Medicaid, and Medicaid recipients get better health insurance coverage than working people do.

I don't have perfectly straight teeth, but neither my parents nor my dentist saw the need for me to have braces when I was young. I sorta wish they had.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 03, 2016, 09:36:30 AM
I'm just talking about the Les Miles kid who was throwing "kewl" out there like Eric Cartman, not the real commentary that took place in it's wake. 

Oh, that. Yeah, that was pretty evident all along. We seem to be handling it fine, though; I'm not real worried about it getting out of hand.

Quote from: hbelkins on December 03, 2016, 04:31:09 PM
And dental insurance? What's that? I've never had it -- but then again, I've never been on Medicaid, and Medicaid recipients get better health insurance coverage than working people do.

Medicaid recipients ARE working people. And the coverage really is not all that spectacular. It doesn't cover dentures anymore, and Medicare doesn't either.

If you have Medicaid or Medicare, and your teeth fall out, or if they come out in an accident, you're out of luck.

Smoking takes away your ability to choose for yourself.

When I was a smoker for many years, I was addicted. Addiction means you feel you have no choice but to continue doing what you are addicted to. Of course you could quit, but it feels impossible.

Technically, I am still addicted. If I had one cigarette I would probably want twenty.  So I don't have one cigarette.

If you want to put yourself in a bind that you likely won't get out of, by all means, smoke. The cigarettes decide how you will spend your money.

Smoking is like living with an abusive partner that has all the doors and windows alarmed so you can't get out.  Quitting was like sneaking out one day and running far away and never looking back.  Many years later, I still feel like I made an unlikely escape.

Quote from: GeauxLSU on December 03, 2016, 11:26:20 AM
I'm not a troll, I'm just an a**hole. My daddy is a medical research chemist and he said that pot is perfectly healthy. I don't know what hbelkins' problem with it is but if he's the guy I think he is he is a fat and needs to quit casting pearls before swine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sen8Tn8CBA4

Nothing wrong with Pearls Before Swine.  I think that comic is quite funny.

Quote from: bandit957 on December 03, 2016, 06:04:21 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on December 03, 2016, 04:31:09 PM
And dental insurance? What's that? I've never had it -- but then again, I've never been on Medicaid, and Medicaid recipients get better health insurance coverage than working people do.

Medicaid recipients ARE working people. And the coverage really is not all that spectacular. It doesn't cover dentures anymore, and Medicare doesn't either.

If you have Medicaid or Medicare, and your teeth fall out, or if they come out in an accident, you're out of luck.

Same with the NY state coverage.  Apparently things like eating are not necessities.

Quote from: hbelkins on December 03, 2016, 04:31:09 PM
Marijuana harmless? Yeah, right. It may not be addictive, but it's sure habit-forming. Anything that alters perception isn't perfectly healthy. I guess our young Bayou Bengal (if 14 really is his age) isn't old enough to know any burned-out dopeheads. I know plenty, which is why I detest the stoner culture. And there's the whole problem of sucking hot gases from burning aromatic hydrocarbons (as I heard it described once) into your lungs.

The "burned out dopehead" meme has been profen false. My dad is a research chemist and he smokes every day and it doesn't hurt him. I've known many different medicinal pot users and they come from all walks of life, doctors, lawyers, CEOs, teachers. None of them are strung out. And what is this "stoner culture" you speek of?

Quote from: GeauxLSU on December 04, 2016, 06:42:57 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on December 03, 2016, 04:31:09 PM
Marijuana harmless? Yeah, right. It may not be addictive, but it's sure habit-forming. Anything that alters perception isn't perfectly healthy. I guess our young Bayou Bengal (if 14 really is his age) isn't old enough to know any burned-out dopeheads. I know plenty, which is why I detest the stoner culture. And there's the whole problem of sucking hot gases from burning aromatic hydrocarbons (as I heard it described once) into your lungs.

The "burned out dopehead" meme has been profen false. My dad is a research chemist and he smokes every day and it doesn't hurt him. I've known many different medicinal pot users and they come from all walks of life, doctors, lawyers, CEOs, teachers. None of them are strung out. And what is this "stoner culture" you speek of?

Your Dad want you using weed?  Or smoking?  I'm curious since you are coming onto a road forum and basically your greatest contribution thus far as been "my Dad said" argument in regard to marihuana. 

Also does your father have any published scientific studies on the topic?  I mean if he's as good as you say then his work would probably end up in a medical journal or two?  You are speaking for the guy, so it's probably fair to ask for some real world qualifications of you want is all to take his studies seriously as you do.