sad news, fellow clove fiends

[nathanmbailey]

I'd smoke them now and then, but not very often and the pack would last me a couple weeks. Honestly, it's a bit weird smoking Christmas.

[Ajax Knucklebones]

The number one killer in the U.S. right now is obesity. Start closing down some fast food joints or raise the taxes on fatty foods and then MAYBE I'll side with Morning Glory. Until then, go crying to somebody who gives a crap.

Oh, your second hand smoke is killing me! Really? Because, I thought all the carcinogens in the air from all the other pollutions were doing a better job of it then my second hand smoke...Which...You never really breathe in, because it's basically already illegal to smoke anywhere, but outside...And unless you're standing right next to me while I do so, the last time I checked, smoke rises.....

[Morning Glory]

But by your logic, anyone who goes outside during the day who ends up with skin cancer...means you shouldn't be able to get any form of public health care for said cancer.

That was my logic? that people should not do anything potentially dangerous? I guess you didn't read the part about where I talked about how that exact thing is not what I am talking about and how that is an absurd and impossible scenario. I'll say it again, there's a difference between doing something that may be harmful by incident, especially if you took all due precautions against it, and doing something that is known to be harmful (despite what your grandmother says, I think I'll believe the surgeon general and documented medical research instead) and purposely addictive.

And if no one went outside during the day it would change the lifestyle of everyone on earth, rather than my plan which would only inconvenience smokers dying from cancer and lung disease. Besides, if you are genetically predisposed toward lung cancer and you don't smoke, then it will not be a problem. If you are and you do, then you are an idiot and it only reinforces my point. If you aren't predisposed and you smoke and don 't get sick, then you don't have a problem either. If you aren't and you do and you do get sick, then that just shows that smoking did cause your illness and proves my point again.

The number one killer in the U.S. right now is obesity. Start closing down some fast food joints or raise the taxes on fatty foods and then MAYBE I'll side with Morning Glory. Until then, go crying to somebody who gives a crap.

Ok, fine go ahead. I don't have a problem with that. Of course if you have a healthy diet and exercise regularly, then you won't have a problem with occassionally eating fast food. Same thing for smoking, but that's the same problem, that most people do these things do them in unhealthy excess and not in moderation.

And secondhand smoke aside, it does bother people that have asthma or just anyone who doesn't like breathing in and smelling like smoke. What gives you the right to make someone else uncomfortable? I agree with public smoking bans. If you want to smoke, smoke at home. You can do what you want in the privacy of your own home. In public you have to make a compromise for dealing with the rest of the world. That's why I can't run around naked if I feel like it. And if you want to smoke at work on your break, then I hope that your company has a smoking lounge, otherwise tough shit on you. It's their business and they aren't required to accommodate your whims.

It's not like I hate smokers, I have nothing against them and I have plenty of friends that smoke and it doesn't other me to be around them. As an ex-smoker I'm used to it. But smokers have too many privileges that are granted to them and that they don;t deserve.

[Ajax Knucklebones]

That was my logic? that people should not do anything potentially dangerous? I guess you didn't read the part about where I talked about how that exact thing is not what I am talking about and how that is an absurd and impossible scenario. I'll say it again, there's a difference between doing something that may be harmful by incident, especially if you took all due precautions against it, and doing something that is known to be harmful (despite what your grandmother says, I think I'll believe the surgeon general and documented medical research instead) and purposely addictive.

And if no one went outside during the day it would change the lifestyle of everyone on earth, rather than my plan which would only inconvenience smokers dying from cancer and lung disease. Besides, if you are genetically predisposed toward lung cancer and you don't smoke, then it will not be a problem. If you are and you do, then you are an idiot and it only reinforces my point. If you aren't predisposed and you smoke and don 't get sick, then you don't have a problem either. If you aren't and you do and you do get sick, then that just shows that smoking did cause your illness and proves my point again.



Ok, fine go ahead. I don't have a problem with that. Of course if you have a healthy diet and exercise regularly, then you won't have a problem with occassionally eating fast food. Same thing for smoking, but that's the same problem, that most people do these things do them in unhealthy excess and not in moderation.

And secondhand smoke aside, it does bother people that have asthma or just anyone who doesn't like breathing in and smelling like smoke. What gives you the right to make someone else uncomfortable? I agree with public smoking bans. If you want to smoke, smoke at home. You can do what you want in the privacy of your own home. In public you have to make a compromise for dealing with the rest of the world. That's why I can't run around naked if I feel like it. And if you want to smoke at work on your break, then I hope that your company has a smoking lounge, otherwise tough shit on you. It's their business and they aren't required to accommodate your whims.

It's not like I hate smokers, I have nothing against them and I have plenty of friends that smoke and it doesn't other me to be around them. As an ex-smoker I'm used to it. But smokers have too many privileges that are granted to them and that they don;t deserve.

And what exactly would those wonderful privileges be?

[aXa]

experiencing the great outdoors more than others? staying outside, even in horrible weather, freezing one's ass off?

not to mention being made to pay ever increasing taxes on a substance that they are addicted to, and would find it hard to quit? taxed into the poorhouse.

[nathanmbailey]

Yeah, and the fact that a week's worth of quit-smoking aids cost more than a carton of cigarettes anyway. If the government wants people to quit smoking, shouldn't they offer patches, gums, inhalers, whatever else the have now for free at any drugstore? If you smoke, they're making money off you, and if you try to quit, they're making more money off you.

I've said it before, but public smoking bans are bullshit. I don't know how people do it. Luckily, I still live in a place where you can smoke inside of restaurants and bars. Restaurant smoking bans I don't mind, they make sense and I can live with it since I go outside to smoke at restaurants anyway. But bars? I really don't understand how people put up with it. I went to a Chicago bar the other night and there were two lines by the door. One for people trying to get in and the other was people who had to go outside to smoke. And as for making other people uncomfortable... fuck them! That's right, I said it. If there are places that, as a smoker, I have to feel uncomfortable in because I can't smoke in public places, then there should be places that only smokers go. Fair right? Well, it's no happening, so why should I feel sorry for a non-smoker? I'm usually nice enough to go away from people to begin with, but they can do the exact same thing.

[mystoo]

I've said it before, but public smoking bans are bullshit. I don't know how people do it. Luckily, I still live in a place where you can smoke inside of restaurants and bars.

Ohhh...I miss smoking in the bar. What the fuck do people expect? IT'S THE BAR!!!!
Smoking in the rain sucks!

[Morning Glory]

And what exactly would those wonderful privileges be?

well for starters you get to legally use an addictive mind altering drug, only sharing the privilege with caffeine and alcohol.

you can use that drug in public, unlike alcohol. And you still bitch about it. It's your choice to smoke, it's not everyone else's choice to breath air.

also unlike alcohol you only have to be 18 to buy smokes.

Instead of saying go stand outside, many places give you your own special section to hang out in. As far as I can see the only other group of people to get that distinction are the handicap parking spots.

smoke breaks. nuff said.

gimme freakin break, you want to stink up the joint and ruin your lungs, and you act like it's a grave injustice to you that people don't want to put up with it.

Why would the government give out free shit to get people to stop smoking? Their idea is to tax the shit out of it so that maybe people might be smart enough to realize that they are wasting their money. Guess not.

[Anna Evans]

well for starters you get to legally use an addictive mind altering drug, only sharing the privilege with caffeine and alcohol.

you can use that drug in public, unlike alcohol. And you still bitch about it. It's your choice to smoke, it's not everyone else's choice to breath air.

also unlike alcohol you only have to be 18 to buy smokes.

Instead of saying go stand outside, many places give you your own special section to hang out in. As far as I can see the only other group of people to get that distinction are the handicap parking spots.

smoke breaks. nuff said.

gimme freakin break, you want to stink up the joint and ruin your lungs, and you act like it's a grave injustice to you that people don't want to put up with it.

Why would the government give out free shit to get people to stop smoking? Their idea is to tax the shit out of it so that maybe people might be smart enough to realize that they are wasting their money. Guess not.

IMO, they tax it for their benefit. Not ours.

And actually, smoking in clubs is a pain in the ass now. When I went to Obscura the whole night was pretty much ruined because the drinkers and smokers were smashed into these tiny little cramped spaces and everyone was so fucking pissed about it. (Plus there was no light on the gallery, but that's not relevant to this thread.)

[Amelia G]

Yeah, and the fact that a week's worth of quit-smoking aids cost more than a carton of cigarettes anyway. If the government wants people to quit smoking, shouldn't they offer patches, gums, inhalers, whatever else the have now for free at any drugstore? . . .

Good fucking point. At the very least, quitting should not be crazy more expensive than smoking.

[LeilaHazlett]

That's fine, it's already cheaper to buy it from Canada or overseas and have it shipped in.

I thought in canada they were way more expensive unless you went to a reservation.

I noticed the article didn't mention anything about menthols, does anyone even smoke those anymore?

[LeilaHazlett]

you can use that drug in public, unlike alcohol. And you still bitch about it. It's your choice to smoke, it's not everyone else's choice to breath air.

smoke breaks. nuff said.

gimme freakin break, you want to stink up the joint and ruin your lungs, and you act like it's a grave injustice to you that people don't want to put up with it.

THANK YOU! I used to smoke and even at the time I still supported banning smoking in public places. I also don't understand why smokers feel they are the only ones allowed to litter where ever they feel like it. A butt is trash, take the two seconds to put it in a fucking garbage can.

[mystoo]

I thought in canada they were way more expensive unless you went to a reservation.

I noticed the article didn't mention anything about menthols, does anyone even smoke those anymore?

Reserve smokes are a lot cheaper but...those things will kill you! They're uber nasty.
Normal smokes though aren't that expensive. $8 for a 25 pack.

[mystoo]

If the government wants people to quit smoking, shouldn't they offer patches, gums, inhalers, whatever else the have now for free at any drugstore?

Key word here being IF.
But the gov't doesn't want you to stop smoking.

[Ajax Knucklebones]

well for starters you get to legally use an addictive mind altering drug, only sharing the privilege with caffeine and alcohol.

you can use that drug in public, unlike alcohol. And you still bitch about it. It's your choice to smoke, it's not everyone else's choice to breath air.

also unlike alcohol you only have to be 18 to buy smokes.

Instead of saying go stand outside, many places give you your own special section to hang out in. As far as I can see the only other group of people to get that distinction are the handicap parking spots.

smoke breaks. nuff said.

gimme freakin break, you want to stink up the joint and ruin your lungs, and you act like it's a grave injustice to you that people don't want to put up with it.

Why would the government give out free shit to get people to stop smoking? Their idea is to tax the shit out of it so that maybe people might be smart enough to realize that they are wasting their money. Guess not.

Honestly, I think you're out of your mind.

Mind-altering? Yes, I smoked a cigarette and then all the world made sense to me....Oh, and I saw snakes flying in the sky. Give me a break. Sugar is just as, if not more, mind-altering and really anything that can be considered addictive, that you take inside your body, can be considered a drug. That also means sugar. Oh Hell, even fried foods. They both also can be eaten outside.

In Florida, the only special place we have in a club or a bar is OUTSIDE the club or bar. I'm also sure that the "special" section you speak of is, more than likely, the worst section of the bar or club. Some dank hole, I'm sure. Nothing like the choice handicapped sections of a parking lot what so ever.

Oh...You only have to be 18 to smoke? What a privilege. You don't have to be any age to consume caffeine. I guess caffeine is really the privilege drug here. And last time I checked, if I wanted to, I could smoke 10 packs of cigarettes in one day at 18 and it wouldn't impair my driving...Unlike alcohol.

MG....Except for the Cig break, that I'll agree with, nothing else you mentioned is a "privilege". For you to even think so, makes me question your ideas of what a "privilege" even means.

[athenahollow]

I've never worked somewhere where they have "cigarette breaks". If you get breaks, you get breaks. How you choose to use them is up to you.

[Amelia G]

I've never worked somewhere where they have "cigarette breaks". If you get breaks, you get breaks. How you choose to use them is up to you.

I worked a lot of places over the years and almost every single one permitted smokers to take as many breaks as they pleased, at whatever times they pleased, with whichever co-workers they pleased, while non-smokers could not strike up personal conversations at will and were generally only supposed to even pee at specified times.

Of course the smoke break concept first arose when smokers were initially told they could not smoke at their desks or while carrying heavy equipment or basically anywhere their co-workers had to be to work.

I think the backlash on some of that has been that some people feel less sympathy than would be appropriate for those who still smoke.

[Morning Glory]

As the arrogant smoker you are you you take these privileges for granted and don't even see them as anything other than unalienable rights. But Imagine if you couldn't do any of the things that I stated.

and as for the beer in the car thing, you can't even have an open container in the car or you will be arrested, even if you are not drinking it. You also can't be drunk in public, so you are technically breaking the law just by leaving the bar, even if you are not driving. Basically, if you follow the law the only place that you are allowed to get drunk is in your own home. And that how it should be. Same for smoking cigarettes or reefer or whathaveyou.

[Anna Evans]

As the arrogant smoker you are you you take these privileges for granted and don't even see them as anything other than unalienable rights. But Imagine if you couldn't do any of the things that I stated.

and as for the beer in the car thing, you can't even have an open container in the car or you will be arrested, even if you are not drinking it. You also can't be drunk in public, so you are technically breaking the law just by leaving the bar, even if you are not driving. Basically, if you follow the law the only place that you are allowed to get drunk is in your own home. And that how it should be. Same for smoking cigarettes or reefer or whathaveyou.

Oh, I love how you assume that all smokers are arrogant. That's utterly charming and super accurate. Really.

[nathanmbailey]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around this idea... smoke break? I've never worked anywhere where I got one. Granted, most places I've worked at were either you're working, or you're doing whatever while waiting for work and just as many non-smokers went outside to hang out as actual smokers.

Oh, and you realize that most places that have gone with the public smoking ban ban smoking withing 15-30 feet of the entrance? That mean those "special areas" for us to smoke in is usually around the corner in an alley away from everyone else and if it's a bar/club can't even hear the music? Oh, and if its winter in the midwest or anywhere it snows often, you'll probably be shivering in at least ankle deep smoke because most places I've seen don't plow/shovel alleys if they don't need to. Wow, what a fucking privilege.

I think Ajax covered pretty much everything else. And you also lumped smokers into the drunk group. Thank you, so nice of you. You do know, that even for smokers, it's possible to leave the bar without being drunk? DD's smoke too.

And if the government is taxing cigarettes to make people realize they're wasting their money isn't that OBVIOUSLY a way to get someone to quit? Unless you bum off (and piss off) everyone around you, usually when you stop buying cigarettes you kind of quit smoking them.

And one last thought I'm going to leave you all with, you should thank people who smoke. You know what smoking-caused deseases/health problems are? Population Control. There, I said it. But, if all those people that die of smoking related problems didn't smoke, and thus didn't die, our population would be as out of control as China's. If people keep knocking each other up and having kids, the major reason we've still got any room to spare is the number of people who die from smoking. Morbid way of looking at it? Yeah, so what? It's still true.

[Aza]

I'm a smoker, and I can still admit with a certain disgust that there are some smokers who give "smoke breaks" a bad connotation in the ears and minds of employees. I worked at a 711 in Lake Stevens, WA, that had a population almost entirely made up of smokers... almost. The boss, Shellie, was probably the worst of the bunch; she had her little entourage of favorites who would go on "smoke break" with her every half hour or so, and they'd be out there ten or fifteen minutes standing at least within ten feet of the front door while they talked shit about the rest of us... yet would get on anyone else's case for staying out longer than five minutes on their breaks, taking more than three breaks a shift, or for being anywhere in sight of the front door while we were out there. Her behavior made it not only easy to get her fired, but I felt no twinge of conscience in the process.

On the flipside, some smokers can choose to use their time wisely while on break. While I was outside getting my nicotine fix, I'd take the time to empty the trash cans, sweep the parking lot, empty the ash trays, wipe down the windows, and otherwise stay busy in the eyes of the customers so I didn't just look like the average lazy bum convenience store employee lounging against the wall with a lit cigarette dangling off his lip. I'm not taking a special smoking privilege; I'm smoking while performing my outside chores.

So you see, smokers come in both Bitch/Asshole and Non-Bitch/Asshole, just like regular people.

Point blank, I'm very aware that what I'm doing is considered unhealthy. I'm aware of the same every time I eat a piece of food that the FDA has ever in its history declared "bad for you" (which by this point is pretty much everything), or chew a piece of gum containing Phenylalanine (which again is pretty much all of them), or drink my morning coffee-sludge (because "Dark Roast" is never dark enough), or sip my Courvoisier nightcap, or enjoy a good deep coughing hit from my favorite glass pipe, or walk shirtless in the sun, or climb into a moving vehicle, or take medications for my allergies, or spar, or go base-jumping, or start playing an MMORPG. What's healthy anymore? In fact, I think the fact that such things are unhealthy is precisely what makes them appealing! Vices would hardly be vices if they didn't feel good, and everyone... EVERYONE... has a vice or two. We're supposed to! Our vices are what keep us from killing each other in-mass.

The minute we try to let go of our vices (or as things are going, the minute they're completely taken away from us) then we'll start to see some population control! Think of it this way: I'm killing me so that no one else has to!

But in seriousness, it really is all about individual attitude. If you choose to be affronted by that guy smoking a cigarette in the smoking section of your favorite club where he's supposed to smoke it, insisting again and again that your lungs are breathing in his smoke and poisoning you... well then, I say we need to make bathing less than once a day illegal as well. There's nothing that poisons me more than the guy who smells to high Hell from the front of the bus while I'm way at the back. Likewise, if we smokers choose to be affronted by the fact that other people view what we do as rather unhygienic, we'll always feel like outcasts... 'cause I can guarantee you, and you already know, that the laws aren't getting any more lax from here on. If smoking is on its way to illegality, then so be it. It won't stop me from getting hold of them, just as it hasn't stopped me getting anything else I decide want badly enough. Personally, I think smoking in the shadows would be more dignified than being treated like animals: herded into special pens, or forced to stand outside and away from the door no matter the weather.

I really do have to join these guys in nulling and voiding the "special smoking sections" privilege you speak of, Morning Glory. They're right when they describe the shittiness of most modern-day "smoking sections." That's rather like saying that Native Americans are more privileged than the rest of us for getting to live on their own Reservations.

[Aza]

Oh, and you realize that most places that have gone with the public smoking ban ban smoking withing 15-30 feet of the entrance? That mean those "special areas" for us to smoke in is usually around the corner in an alley away from everyone else and if it's a bar/club can't even hear the music? Oh, and if its winter in the midwest or anywhere it snows often, you'll probably be shivering in at least ankle deep smoke because most places I've seen don't plow/shovel alleys if they don't need to. Wow, what a fucking privilege.

Pre-FUCKING-cisely!

The fact is, modern-day smokers in the U.S. are starting to suffer segregation and discrimination reminiscent of that suffered by Blacks and Jews at the worst points of their respective histories. (I'm convinced the only reason we're not beaten in the street is because of how effectively a lit cigarette serves as a weapon in a pinch.) The most substantial difference is that which we're ever-so-kindly reminded of by our oppressors every chance they get: that in this case we can choose not to be Black or Jewish anymore.

Well, I say it's at least as easy for other people to stop being bigots! (Unless they intend to claim bigotry as an addiction.) Furthermore, since I'm feeling lazy this week, that's the way it'll have to go down.

[Ajax Knucklebones]

As the arrogant smoker you are you you take these privileges for granted and don't even see them as anything other than unalienable rights. But Imagine if you couldn't do any of the things that I stated.

and as for the beer in the car thing, you can't even have an open container in the car or you will be arrested, even if you are not drinking it. You also can't be drunk in public, so you are technically breaking the law just by leaving the bar, even if you are not driving. Basically, if you follow the law the only place that you are allowed to get drunk is in your own home. And that how it should be. Same for smoking cigarettes or reefer or whathaveyou.

Yeah...You're still coming off as crazy. Alcohol doesn't come close to = cigs. Only a drunk would think that. I think you need to go to AA.

[Mr Karl]

sure he's quit

[nathanmbailey]

You know what, this picture pretty much sums up my opinion on this subject. I rest my case.

[Mr Karl]

I haven't been charged for assault since I started smoking........21 years

[Amelia G]

You know what, this picture pretty much sums up my opinion on this subject. I rest my case.

Cigarettes smell so gross, but they look so hot.

Nice pic.

[athenahollow]

Cigarettes smell so gross, but they look so hot.

Nice pic.

That's why I REALLY like the electronic smokes that I smoke. They look even cooler AND you don't smell bad I always smell like vanilla now haha

[Raza]

Oh, I love how you assume that all smokers are arrogant. That's utterly charming and super accurate. Really.

No he didn't. He called Ajax that.

Pre-FUCKING-cisely!

The fact is, modern-day smokers in the U.S. are starting to suffer segregation and discrimination reminiscent of that suffered by Blacks and Jews at the worst points of their respective histories. (I'm convinced the only reason we're not beaten in the street is because of how effectively a lit cigarette serves as a weapon in a pinch.) The most substantial difference is that which we're ever-so-kindly reminded of by our oppressors every chance they get: that in this case we can choose not to be Black or Jewish anymore.

Well, I say it's at least as easy for other people to stop being bigots! (Unless they intend to claim bigotry as an addiction.) Furthermore, since I'm feeling lazy this week, that's the way it'll have to go down.

Smoking isn't something you are, it's something you do - and therefore, anti smoking laws don't discriminate between people but rather against an activity for all people equally. Now certainly, if you want to declare all rules that designate a space for one activity or purpose while forbidding others to be holocaust-scale injustice, as an anarchist I'm with you all the way. Down with the structures of society!

But you have to realise what you're saying there. If locally forbidding an activity counts as discrimination against (and therefore an infringement on the rights of) the group of people that would conceivably want to partake in it, you'd be killing off double digit percentages of all the rules that keep society in the constricted mess it's currently in. Fuck, you can't even appeal to an across the board 'so long as the behaviour doesn't harm others that have an equal right to be there' condition, since smoking does do that, if not quite as horribly as your newfound freedom to set off dynamite in public spaces could.

The fact is that MG's right about smoking being a privileged drug. Fuck comparisons to alcohol and caffeine; every other recreational drug to have popped its head up over the last century or so has been immediately and harshly outlawed on all possible counts upon reaching any noticeable amount of popularity - and many of those are less addictive, less unhealthy and less unpleasant and destructive to bystanders than smoking by miles. If smoking had only just gotten invented, without a massive traditional consumer base and a proportionally powerful industry to lobby it, there'd be no way it'd be cut half as much slack as it receives under current legislation and contemporary social morality.

Now mind you, I think these are 'privileges' we all should have, and that the Moral Majority with its oppressive ideas about protecting you from doing things they don't like should keep its head stuck solidly in the smelly, narrow hole of its own business. I think the rest of the rules are wrong, not that smokers' privileges are an undesirable remnant of more barbaric times for being an exception to the case. But they are an exception. And frankly, if you're so keen on protecting them against the hungry masses that'd take them away because they cannot sympathise with your desire for a liberty they don't think you 'need', you really aught to start looking at the bigger picture of what this means about things you currently think people shouldn't be allowed to do.

[Amelia G]

No he didn't. He called Ajax that.




Smoking isn't something you are, it's something you do - and therefore, anti smoking laws don't discriminate between people but rather against an activity for all people equally. Now certainly, if you want to declare all rules that designate a space for one activity or purpose while forbidding others to be holocaust-scale injustice, as an anarchist I'm with you all the way. Down with the structures of society!

But you have to realise what you're saying there. If locally forbidding an activity counts as discrimination against (and therefore an infringement on the rights of) the group of people that would conceivably want to partake in it, you'd be killing off double digit percentages of all the rules that keep society in the constricted mess it's currently in. Fuck, you can't even appeal to an across the board 'so long as the behaviour doesn't harm others that have an equal right to be there' condition, since smoking does do that, if not quite as horribly as your newfound freedom to set off dynamite in public spaces could.

The fact is that MG's right about smoking being a privileged drug. Fuck comparisons to alcohol and caffeine; every other recreational drug to have popped its head up over the last century or so has been immediately and harshly outlawed on all possible counts upon reaching any noticeable amount of popularity - and many of those are less addictive, less unhealthy and less unpleasant and destructive to bystanders than smoking by miles. If smoking had only just gotten invented, without a massive traditional consumer base and a proportionally powerful industry to lobby it, there'd be no way it'd be cut half as much slack as it receives under current legislation and contemporary social morality.

Now mind you, I think these are 'privileges' we all should have, and that the Moral Majority with its oppressive ideas about protecting you from doing things they don't like should keep its head stuck solidly in the smelly, narrow hole of its own business. I think the rest of the rules are wrong, not that smokers' privileges are an undesirable remnant of more barbaric times for being an exception to the case. But they are an exception. And frankly, if you're so keen on protecting them against the hungry masses that'd take them away because they cannot sympathise with your desire for a liberty they don't think you 'need', you really aught to start looking at the bigger picture of what this means about things you currently think people shouldn't be allowed to do.

I fear I might abuse my right to set off dynamite in public spaces

[Aza]

... you really aught to start looking at the bigger picture of what this means about things you currently think people shouldn't be allowed to do.

That's just it: that's a nonexistent list!

I'm a grown human being, capable of enforcing my own rules about my own life. I preach personal accountability, and I practice it! When I was a non-smoker (because we all started somewhere), and I found myself surrounded by smoke... I either asked the smoker politely to put it out until later, or I walked my lazy ass elsewhere! Novel idea, eh? It's certainly easier (and cheaper) than all that lobbying, segregating, propaganda-pushing and law-passing in which I might have otherwise been tempted to engage, had I the same gigantic stick up my ass that the majority of these human beings (smoking and non-smoking alike) seem to possess.

I certainly never had the audacity to assume, just because I thought the activity disgusting at the time, that it was my right to drastically restrict or even terminate the favored cultural pastime of over a third of this country's population.

I'm not going around blowing my cigarette smoke in anyone else's face. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a smoker do such a horrible thing to a non-smoker, and that's the sort of assault that would be needed to noticeably compromise the health of another human being. (Even then, it would only be compromised for the length of time it took their coughing fit to wear off.) If the intentional blowing of smoke up the nostrils of non-smokers is a much more common activity than I think it is, then perhaps non-smokers do have a valid claim that we're poisoning them... but I swear people must be waiting for me to turn my head before they do this, because I have yet to witness a single instance...

... which leads me to believe that non-smokers' efforts to "make us drink from the colored water fountain" is nothing more than another example of selfish people trying to force the world to conform to them rather than trying for once to realize that it doesn't have to be "their way or the highway."

I ask no one to restrict themselves for me! If you're doing something I don't like, I'll either ask you to quit or make you, but what I won't do is go whining to the teacher for new rules and punishments! That just shows a fear of confrontation! That's the classroom tattle-tale strategy! That's the little old lady who, too afraid to knock on her neighbors' door to ask them to turn the music down, simply calls in a noise complaint and hides in her own apartment; the shopkeep who has you arrested after you leave his store because you had on a trench coat and he thought you were stealing something; the "friend" who, when they actually have a problem with you, makes damn sure you're the last person in the world to know about it.

There's nothing worthy of respect in these types of people.

Oh well; too late now. Let's hurry up and illegalize this thing so they can decide the color of their next soap box and I can continue to get some amusement while I flick the ashes from my next misdemeanor.

[Morning Glory]

Novel idea, eh? It's certainly easier (and cheaper) than all that lobbying, segregating, propaganda-pushing and law-passing in which I might have otherwise been tempted to engage, had I the same gigantic stick up my ass that the majority of these human beings (smoking and non-smoking alike) seem to possess.

I know isn't it? the notion that people could actually engage in a conversation with a total stranger to achieve some kind of accomplishment on common grounds...those days are gone, in more ways than one. Sad.

[Toe Cutter]

It's an error to restrict tobacco. Most state governments rely heavily on tobacco tax. It's also going to create a very profitable illegal industry. Let people smoke if they want, I say.

You eventually have to die from something!

[athenahollow]

It's an error to restrict tobacco. Most state governments rely heavily on tobacco tax. It's also going to create a very profitable illegal industry. Let people smoke if they want, I say.

You eventually have to die from something!

My point exactly. We all die. And I don't care if it cuts those "precious last years" off my life considering alzheimers is genetic and every one in my family on both sides has gotten it by the age of 68. Not like I'd remember those years anyways.

[Ajax Knucklebones]

No he didn't. He called Ajax that.




Smoking isn't something you are, it's something you do - and therefore, anti smoking laws don't discriminate between people but rather against an activity for all people equally. Now certainly, if you want to declare all rules that designate a space for one activity or purpose while forbidding others to be holocaust-scale injustice, as an anarchist I'm with you all the way. Down with the structures of society!

But you have to realise what you're saying there. If locally forbidding an activity counts as discrimination against (and therefore an infringement on the rights of) the group of people that would conceivably want to partake in it, you'd be killing off double digit percentages of all the rules that keep society in the constricted mess it's currently in. Fuck, you can't even appeal to an across the board 'so long as the behaviour doesn't harm others that have an equal right to be there' condition, since smoking does do that, if not quite as horribly as your newfound freedom to set off dynamite in public spaces could.

The fact is that MG's right about smoking being a privileged drug. Fuck comparisons to alcohol and caffeine; every other recreational drug to have popped its head up over the last century or so has been immediately and harshly outlawed on all possible counts upon reaching any noticeable amount of popularity - and many of those are less addictive, less unhealthy and less unpleasant and destructive to bystanders than smoking by miles. If smoking had only just gotten invented, without a massive traditional consumer base and a proportionally powerful industry to lobby it, there'd be no way it'd be cut half as much slack as it receives under current legislation and contemporary social morality.

Now mind you, I think these are 'privileges' we all should have, and that the Moral Majority with its oppressive ideas about protecting you from doing things they don't like should keep its head stuck solidly in the smelly, narrow hole of its own business. I think the rest of the rules are wrong, not that smokers' privileges are an undesirable remnant of more barbaric times for being an exception to the case. But they are an exception. And frankly, if you're so keen on protecting them against the hungry masses that'd take them away because they cannot sympathise with your desire for a liberty they don't think you 'need', you really aught to start looking at the bigger picture of what this means about things you currently think people shouldn't be allowed to do.

Arrogant is what he called me and that why I call him nuts. So, basically our "privilege" that you speak of is that we can smoke outside and NOT get arrested? Vs. all other recreational drugs that you can get arrested for if you are caught with said drugs on your body, when you are in the common man's crowd? Oh.....O.K. I get it now, but really what MG seems to have a problem with, if I can gauge him right is the stink of smoking. Because, other than that, to try to complain how it's such a legalized drug that get's tossed aside is really ridiculous. Caffiene(sp) is put into all kinds of shit. It is addictive (Tell someone to stop drinking coffee and see what happens) and even kids can get it in their soda and chocolates. AND, it totally more of a mind altering drug...SOOOOOOO, you guys MUST be them pissed off about the smell then. Because second hand smoke is pretty much non-existent because smoke rises and, at least in the U.S., it's hard to find anywhere where you can smoke inside, unless it's your house. So.....If it's the smell, than lets outlaw alot of other smells too. Like, if you vomit outside, arrest that fucker. Vomit smells nasty. These old dudes that wear diapers and you can smell that pee...Arrest those fuckers. How about some restaurant that uses too much garlic and onions...Arrest the owners, patrons, and employees...They're all part of the problem.

[Raza]

Arrogant is what he called me and that why I call him nuts. So, basically our "privilege" that you speak of is that we can smoke outside and NOT get arrested? Vs. all other recreational drugs that you can get arrested for if you are caught with said drugs on your body, when you are in the common man's crowd?

You can smoke outdoors in public, indoors in private, posses, buy and sell tobacco; and you cannot be fired, withheld employment or similar things for being tested with nicotine in your system.

Now granted, most of these legal disadvantages are mostly academic to anybody of the spirit to ignore them, but the point remains that you avoid some minor risks, the need for a bunch of inconvenient precautions, and that smokes are a fuckload easier to come by again when you're out.

SOOOOOOO, you guys MUST be them pissed off about the smell then. Because second hand smoke is pretty much non-existent because smoke rises and, at least in the U.S., it's hard to find anywhere where you can smoke inside, unless it's your house. So.....If it's the smell, than lets outlaw alot of other smells too. Like, if you vomit outside, arrest that fucker. Vomit smells nasty. These old dudes that wear diapers and you can smell that pee...Arrest those fuckers. How about some restaurant that uses too much garlic and onions...Arrest the owners, patrons, and employees...They're all part of the problem.

That's kinda circular. You're objecting to rules that restrict smoking to the outdoors on account of 'second hand smoke' being marginal due to rules against indoor smoking. That's not really helping your case.

Also, it's generally presumed that people do not vomit or piss themselves on purpose.

Oh.....O.K. I get it now, but really what MG seems to have a problem with, if I can gauge him right is the stink of smoking. Because, other than that, to try to complain how it's such a legalized drug that get's tossed aside is really ridiculous. Caffiene(sp) is put into all kinds of shit. It is addictive (Tell someone to stop drinking coffee and see what happens) and even kids can get it in their soda and chocolates. AND, it totally more of a mind altering drug...

Caffeine is addictive, but a fair bit less so than tobacco, and a whole lot less unhealthy. Personally, I kick my caffeine addiction and sit through the withdrawals at least once a month to avoid build-up resistance; it's not nearly as big a deal as I am told quitting smoking is.

And yeah, it's a lot more mind altering. Which is why I don't get why people insist on smoking; it's the lamest drug ever, doesn't even really have a high to speak of. I can get thinking of the damage to your health and wallet as a reasonable sacrifice if you get an intense kick out of it, but the only benefit I can see from smoking is withdrawal relief and a very questionable brand of rebel imagery. (Which admittedly is getting more meaningful as smoking decreases in popularity, but sustaining a previously acceptable habit in the face of new peer pressure is still not the same kind of impressive as starting one while knowing full well what condemnation you will face.)


All in all, I maintain that smoking is a drug for people who want the charm of a bad habit without the unwholesomeness of actually having fun.

[Ajax Knucklebones]

You can smoke outdoors in public, indoors in private, posses, buy and sell tobacco; and you cannot be fired, withheld employment or similar things for being tested with nicotine in your system.

Now granted, most of these legal disadvantages are mostly academic to anybody of the spirit to ignore them, but the point remains that you avoid some minor risks, the need for a bunch of inconvenient precautions, and that smokes are a fuckload easier to come by again when you're out.


That's kinda circular. You're objecting to rules that restrict smoking to the outdoors on account of 'second hand smoke' being marginal due to rules against indoor smoking. That's not really helping your case.

Also, it's generally presumed that people do not vomit or piss themselves on purpose.


Caffeine is addictive, but a fair bit less so than tobacco, and a whole lot less unhealthy. Personally, I kick my caffeine addiction and sit through the withdrawals at least once a month to avoid build-up resistance; it's not nearly as big a deal as I am told quitting smoking is.

And yeah, it's a lot more mind altering. Which is why I don't get why people insist on smoking; it's the lamest drug ever, doesn't even really have a high to speak of. I can get thinking of the damage to your health and wallet as a reasonable sacrifice if you get an intense kick out of it, but the only benefit I can see from smoking is withdrawal relief and a very questionable brand of rebel imagery. (Which admittedly is getting more meaningful as smoking decreases in popularity, but sustaining a previously acceptable habit in the face of new peer pressure is still not the same kind of impressive as starting one while knowing full well what condemnation you will face.)


All in all, I maintain that smoking is a drug for people who want the charm of a bad habit without the unwholesomeness of actually having fun.

***That's kinda circular. You're objecting to rules that restrict smoking to the outdoors on account of 'second hand smoke' being marginal due to rules against indoor smoking. That's not really helping your case.***

The ONLY thing I'm objecting to is that smokers have so many privileges. I think that's bullshit. I actually have no problems smoking outside. Never did. Never said I did in any of this.

[nathanmbailey]

Dude, Ajax, your post reminded me of Saturday at a baseball game. Some guy practically stumbled down the steps and puked in the aisle right in front of my seat. I had to smell that stuff for half an hour before it was fully cleaned up. The guy did, of course, get escorted out of the stadium. I'm lucky though, he appearently puked while he was in his seat and it splashed a few people in front of him.

[malcolm]

pack of smokes in arizona= $5.50-$8.00 premium.
pack of rolling tobacco=$ 4.25 ballpark.
can of chewing tobacco=$0.99 -$3.50......................

being able to enjoy tobacco products indoors without some asshole smog emiting suv driving hippy having a hissy fit and if they do being able to retaliate by spitting at them like a camel...............PRICELESS.

[Toe Cutter]

I'm not so sure about chewing tobacco. Mt. Dew bottles full of chaw-juice are pretty rude. I've met very few chicks who were into guys who chewed. Not in the city anyways.

Just do what I do, smoke in the bathrooms. If you only light up and have just a few drags, nobody will catch you. There is an added bonus of how good it feels to be bad.