www.darktwincities.com
https://darktwincities.com/forum/

Okay, so, cigarettes.
https://darktwincities.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6020
Page 2 of 3

Author:  Ether [ Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:57 pm ]
Post subject: 

alisgray wrote:
In any case, I see that you didn't actually read that short and not particularly challenging article. Go chase yourself. I'm sure the rest of your opinions are just as carefully constructed as your research methods.


Nah, I don't engage in cut n' paste arguments with people. People who think they can post a wikipedia page to make their arguments for them annoy me. I find it lazy and it usually indicates someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. In this case, whether or not bread has yeast in it is off-topic so it's really just a method for you to draw attention away from the real discussion (which you gave up on). Y'all can sit here and talk about bread and my spelling all you want, but it won't make what you are saying any less wrong.

~E~

Author:  devil [ Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:02 pm ]
Post subject: 

We really don't have to make what you're saying less wrong. You're doing a fine job of it on your own, sir.

Author:  Ether [ Wed Mar 11, 2009 1:03 pm ]
Post subject: 

devil wrote:
We really don't have to make what you're saying less wrong. You're doing a fine job of it on your own, sir.



Um, yeah. Glad we agree. Thank you for being big enough to admit that.

~Ether~

Author:  alisgray [ Thu Mar 12, 2009 1:22 pm ]
Post subject: 

...that's an remarkably subtle technique, devil. nice.

Ether, dear, you brought up the bread and leavening question. Wikipedia still is more effort than you have put into defending the questionable logic and information I caught you out on. Go on, if your standards are so much higher for research, show me what your sources are. Don't you see how dumb it is to say that "it's not communion unless you do it the oldest way" but that "cigarettes are a modern use of the Native tobacco ritual"?

I am trying to say this in easy, small words for your benefit, since you seem to have trouble following me.

Author:  Ether [ Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:25 pm ]
Post subject: 

alisgray wrote:
...that's an remarkably subtle technique, devil. nice.

Ether, dear, you brought up the bread and leavening question. Wikipedia still is more effort than you have put into defending the questionable logic and information I caught you out on. Go on, if your standards are so much higher for research, show me what your sources are. Don't you see how dumb it is to say that "it's not communion unless you do it the oldest way" but that "cigarettes are a modern use of the Native tobacco ritual"?

I am trying to say this in easy, small words for your benefit, since you seem to have trouble following me.


Pookie-kins,

I'll put this in simple terms for your benefit- it's a tangent. I don't care about bread used in ritual. If your tie-in is that eating this Jesus bread is also a ritual, then so be it. If it's a bad comparison, so be it. Either way, nitpicking the origins of eating bread as a spiritual ritual is not important to this discussion.

The larger point is that humans have been burning leaves and inhaling the fumes since ancient times. We like to make a lot of this cigarette stuff as being a corporate thing and a commercial thing and a health thing- but smoking is actually also an ancient tradition that humanity has participated in for many thousands of years. No respect is paid to it's history, and that history puts the argument in the correct context where it belongs. When the history of humankind's enjoyment of burning leaves is omitted, and the question of freedom to live your life as you wish is omitted- then the issue becomes a witch hunt. It becomes people who don't use the product forcing their will on to people who do under the banner of righteousness and health conciousness.

And that..... is the point.

~E~

Author:  rskm1 [ Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:12 pm ]
Post subject: 

Ether wrote:
The larger point is that humans have been burning leaves and inhaling the fumes since ancient times.
Yeah, ignorant people in the past did LOTS of stupid unhealthy shit. What's so special about smoking again?

Ether wrote:
We like to make a lot of this cigarette stuff as being a corporate thing and a commercial thing and a health thing-
No we don't. But the big corporations do.

Ether wrote:
but smoking is actually also an ancient tradition that humanity has participated in for many thousands of years. No respect is paid to it's history, and that history puts the argument in the correct context where it belongs. When the history of humankind's enjoyment of burning leaves is omitted, and the question of freedom to live your life as you wish is omitted- then the issue becomes a witch hunt. It becomes people who don't use the product forcing their will on to people who do under the banner of righteousness and health conciousness.
I'd make the exact same argument, except replace "smoking" with "chickenfucking". Maybe that should be a separate thread, though.

Author:  manna_panna [ Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:48 pm ]
Post subject: 

Wait, so why would it be ok to allow smoking wherever you want? Wouldn't that be a smoker forcing *their* will upon all the others sharing that indoor space too? All history and corporate bull aside, a smoker exercising their choice to smoke does more harm than a non-smoker exercising their biological need to breathe clean air.

Author:  thosquanta [ Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:58 pm ]
Post subject: 

smoking should only be allowed in oxygen-rich neonatal care units.

Author:  Ether [ Thu Mar 12, 2009 4:34 pm ]
Post subject: 

manna_panna wrote:
Wait, so why would it be ok to allow smoking wherever you want? Wouldn't that be a smoker forcing *their* will upon all the others sharing that indoor space too? All history and corporate bull aside, a smoker exercising their choice to smoke does more harm than a non-smoker exercising their biological need to breathe clean air.


I didn't say that. What are you even talking about? News flash- smokers can't smoke indoors in public. As I said before, the anti-smoking people have already won the war. They got what they wanted, and now they are going for even more beyond what is fair and just (more on that in a moment). In most states you can not smoke inside public places. In every state, it is illegal to smoke in a government building.

You'd think the anti-smoking people would be satisfied with their win, pat themselves on the back and admire what great work they've done. But no, this thing is a long way from over. They will chip away at our individual liberties until there are none.

Many places do not allow smoking within x number of feet of an entrance to a public building and that is being pushed hard by these people. They are also trying to push through a ban on smoking while driving with kids in the car. After they get that passed, they can get a ban on smoking with a passenger in a car of any age. After they win that battle, they'll go on to ban smoking in cars entirely. Then you won't be able to smoke on a bicycle... then, while walking down the sidewalk. And it won't end there. These people love to complain, and as long as they keep punishing and not banning the practice of smoking- they have ammo to b*tch and complain for many years to come. They also love their personal pet projects and even though smoking is evil they have no trouble taking money from smokers to fund these projects. They will tax and penalize and charge their way to funding while they demonize the smokers.

You should be able to smoke outside. Outside air belongs to everybody and this self-righteous tirade about trying to control the air we breathe has gone too far. I can handle no smoking in government buildings- that makes sense and is fair. As for privately-owned businesses, it should be up to the business owner to decide. Then the clientele can decide if that is an environment they want to patronize. Everyone has decisions, everyone is empowered, and nobody loses.

Lastly, nobody has EVER forced me to walk through their smoke. I've always had the option to step around them, cross the street to get by then, hold my breath for the 1 second it takes me to walk past them, avoid them, wear a mask/oxygen tank/spacesuit, or just not hang out with them. This crap about how non-smokers are 'forced' to breath other people's air is ridiculous. And for that matter, nobody ever said you have a RIGHT to breathe perfect, clean air. There is no place in the constitution that talks about how you are entitled to breathe pristine air.

~E~

Author:  alisgray [ Thu Mar 12, 2009 5:30 pm ]
Post subject: 

Witch hunts, the real ones, <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7935048.stm">still happen</a> <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/03/01/2504141.htm">today actually</a>, though they're considered outrageously barbaric and tragic by most of the world. Another ironic example of ritual versus the greater good. The "medicines" those guys are making out of the body pieces of their innocent victims is super traditional.

Author:  manna_panna [ Thu Mar 12, 2009 5:45 pm ]
Post subject: 

You're being an alarmist. This "slippery slope" scenario you present is silly. Get a grip! It's not as if lawmakers and lobbyists sit around and think, "Who shall we pick on? Wait! It's cool to ban smokers! Let's restrict all the things they like to do!" Watch out, coffee and porn is next. /sarcasm

A no-smoking radius around doorways keeps the smoke from being drawn inside by the exit/enter air exchange. Banning smoking in a car with children protects the children. Kids with smokers in their family are more susceptible to ear and breathing problems and are more likely to become smokers themselves. They are pre-addicted, and nobody asks them if that is *their* choice, now do they?
These are logical regulations that lessen the exposure of harmful chemicals to the unwilling/underaged. I highly doubt they are gateway laws into banning your freedom to poison yourself entirely.

I do agree that the owner of certain establishments (i.e. entertainment, food, liquor) should have an option to allow smoking in their business if they wish. Then they would ultimately be responsible for their profit/loss due to that choice. But seeing as how *everybody* is getting gov't handouts these days, they'd probably whine about no matter which option they took.

Quote:
"...And for that matter, nobody ever said you have a RIGHT to breathe perfect, clean air. There is no place in the constitution that talks about how you are entitled to breathe pristine air."


This argument is ridiculous, and I will not revisit it after this statement: There is no place in the constitution that talks about my right to be left-handed, my right to be awake or my right to eat food. <b>Because--like breathing normal air--they are all natural functions of the body</b>.

Author:  boot [ Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:11 pm ]
Post subject: 

This may be a bit off topic.... [warning!]
but have you noticed the over reliance on fog machines to augment light displays at concerts and children's magic/puppet shows has increased significantly since the smoking ban?
whee oooh. That stuff is pretty dang funky in large doses. :o

Since I'm obviously late to the party I'll throw in a couple more non-sequitors (sp?) for good measure:

1:Has anyone here smoked a full tray of communion wafers before?
2:If you have, do you see God or just the Virgin Mary?
3:Why do they call them "cling peaches" if they don't really cling to anything?

wow, I've been gone for far too long. :wink: haha

Author:  +jamison+ [ Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:17 pm ]
Post subject: 

Image

Author:  boot [ Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:25 pm ]
Post subject: 

:lol:
smoke gets in your eyes.
Image

Author:  rskm1 [ Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:26 pm ]
Post subject: 

Ether wrote:
Many places do not allow smoking within x number of feet of an entrance to a public building and that is being pushed hard by these people. They are also trying to push through a ban on smoking while driving with kids in the car. After they get that passed, they can get a ban on smoking with a passenger in a car of any age. After they win that battle, they'll go on to ban smoking in cars entirely. Then you won't be able to smoke on a bicycle... then, while walking down the sidewalk. And it won't end there. These people love to complain, and as long as they keep punishing and not banning the practice of smoking- they have ammo to b*tch and complain for many years to come. They also love their personal pet projects and even though smoking is evil they have no trouble taking money from smokers to fund these projects. They will tax and penalize and charge their way to funding while they demonize the smokers.

OMFG AND EVENTUALLY I WON'T BE ABLE TO FUCK CHICKENS EVEN IN THE PRIVACY OF MY OWN HOME!!

Author:  boot [ Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:30 pm ]
Post subject: 

Image
no sweat, i think the egg man has arrived.

Author:  alisgray [ Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:48 pm ]
Post subject: 

boot: the smoke machines plague me. not as much as lit freaking cigarettes wielded by drunks on the dance floor, though. stupid asthma.

Author:  +jamison+ [ Thu Mar 12, 2009 7:05 pm ]
Post subject: 

Image

Author:  alisgray [ Thu Mar 12, 2009 7:09 pm ]
Post subject: 

(also, my trivia-tastic network of spies says that "Cling peaches" is a market name related to free-stone peach breeding. that is, cling peaches are the original style where the fruit clings to the stone.)

Author:  rskm1 [ Thu Mar 12, 2009 7:35 pm ]
Post subject: 

Klink Peaches? Was ist?
Image

Author:  drok [ Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:10 am ]
Post subject: 

boot wrote:
3:Why do they call them "cling peaches" if they don't really cling to anything?


you're not throwing them hard enough.

or, you know, what Alis said.

Author:  Ether [ Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:04 pm ]
Post subject: 

manna_panna wrote:
You're being an alarmist. This "slippery slope" scenario you present is silly. Get a grip! It's not as if lawmakers and lobbyists sit around and think, "Who shall we pick on? Wait! It's cool to ban smokers! Let's restrict all the things they like to do!" Watch out, coffee and porn is next. /sarcasm



You know, you're right. There is no way politicians would take a popular position and exploit it to further their own agendas. They certainly wouldn't even dream of demonizing an opposing position to advance their cause. I can't believe I even suggested such a thing! And lobbyists certainly wouldn't try to pressure, convince, cajole, influence, bribe, or wine & dine politicians to get their way. They are noble folks who just want what's best for the country, even if that doesn't happen to be what they personally want. I didn't realize what an alarmist I was being, and I apologize.

~Ether~

Author:  manna_panna [ Fri Mar 13, 2009 4:53 pm ]
Post subject: 

Don't lie about being sorry. My political views are nowhere as altruistic as you seem to be so desperate to interpret them. I don't even need to argue my point with you anymore; you just twist my words into some extreme P.O.V. that you'd rather argue against. So have at it. What do I say next?

Author:  Rockula! [ Fri Mar 13, 2009 5:11 pm ]
Post subject: 

manna_panna wrote:
You're being an alarmist. This "slippery slope" scenario you present is silly. Get a grip! It's not as if lawmakers and lobbyists sit around and think, "Who shall we pick on? Wait! It's cool to ban smokers! Let's restrict all the things they like to do!" Watch out, coffee and porn is next. /sarcasm


What planet do you live on?
That's all that lawmakers and lobyists do
Especially when it comes to porn and the selective enforcement of local laws that get certain people's names in the news
You may not have it as severe up there in Liberal Minnesotah but i know people here in dallas who work at porn shops who
either quit or take a vacation during elections because the sherriffs are all out "crackin' down on filth"
All of that creates lots of fines and kickbacks to keep shops open

As far as smoking goes,
How much revenue do you think gets generated by smoking bans?
It sure as fuck 'aint going in the direction of the business owner
Unless, you own a business that is connected with the construction/conversion or the enforcement of smoking bans
Not to mention the revenue from fines

Anyone who thinks that the government
ANY GOVERNMENT
is looking out for their own best interests
is deluding themselves

You may see some true blue public servants out there but the important shit gets decided by where the money goes and where the public attention gets directed
90% of the time, public attention is directed in an opposite direction from where the money goes

Author:  Ether [ Fri Mar 20, 2009 5:17 pm ]
Post subject: 

manna_panna wrote:
Don't lie about being sorry. My political views are nowhere as altruistic as you seem to be so desperate to interpret them. I don't even need to argue my point with you anymore; you just twist my words into some extreme P.O.V. that you'd rather argue against. So have at it. What do I say next?



All you need to say now is that you are wrong, accept my genius, and then thank me for enlightening you.

And please, do stop arguing. It's pointless and you're not very good at it. I'm all for a spirited debate, but if you are just going to be argumentative because you can't admit when you're wrong then this gets boring real fast.

~Ether~

Author:  manna_panna [ Fri Mar 20, 2009 10:07 pm ]
Post subject: 

Ha. I was thinking the exact thing about you. You're tiresome, delusional and self-righteous. Whiny and repetitive. And *that's* why I'm done arguing with you.

Author:  thosquanta [ Sat Mar 21, 2009 12:20 pm ]
Post subject: 

i love the irony when someone says "i'm done arguing with you."

Author:  SicTim [ Sat Mar 21, 2009 4:48 pm ]
Post subject: 

I love smoking. Fucking love it. I've been smoking since I was 13 and smokes were 60c a pack, available to anyone who had a note from (heh heh) their parents.

I quit heroin 20 years or so ago now. Ditto cocaine. Don't miss 'em much at all these days.

I quit smoking for a year once, and it was the most miserable year of my life. I wanted a smoke every minute of every day. After that year, I was told I had to quit drinking, thanks to my liver. So, I quit drinking and started smoking again -- and I was the happiest non-drinker you've ever seen.

The second hand smoke shit is a scam. Follow the science. The first EPA report was so flawed it was repudiated -- but it's still the one that gets tossed around. "30,000 people die every year from secondhand smoke." Wow. Name one. One.

That figure came from attributing every case of lung cancer in a non-smoker as resulting from secondhand smoke. I bet the asbestos lawyers are still pissed about that one.

Here's how insane the non-smoking advocates have become: Here in Minnesota, they're considering a law which would ban smoking in your own car if there are children in it.

Yeah. Perfect sense. Keep the kids away from smoke, while you ferry them around in a vehicle more likely to kill them than anything else. "Warning: Cigarette Smoke Contains Carbon Monoxide." Wow. Scary. That must be why so many people kill themselves by shutting their garage doors, getting inside their cars, and having a smoke.

Speaking of the kids, smokers have dropped from about 50% of the population to 25%. In that same time, childhood asthma rates have nearly doubled. Explanation please.

Author:  dj_craig [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:46 pm ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
WASHINGTON, March 4 -- Congress is a step closer to giving the FDA regulatory power over tobacco products -- something public health groups have been pushing since the 1970s.

A bill approved 39 to 13 by the House Energy and Commerce Committee Wednesday during a contentious mark-up session would authorize the FDA to regulate labeling, marketing, transport, and sale of tobacco products.

It would not permit the agency to ban tobacco products entirely, but the FDA could require the removal of harmful additives from cigarettes and even reduce the nicotine in cigarettes to just short of zero.

The FDA would also be able to prohibit companies from advertising their products in ways that appeal to kids -- such as by adding clove or vanilla flavors -- or labeling their smokes as "light" or "low tar," or with other phrases suggesting a healthier cigarette.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), sailed through the House last year but stalled in the Senate as the clock ran down on the 110th Congress. Former President Bush opposed the bill then, but President Barack Obama, who has struggled to quit smoking, supports the bill.

Waxman had said the tobacco bill would be among his early priorities during this Congress, and cemented that pledge when his committee approved the bill today and sent it to the full House.

But Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) said the Senate remains the obstacle to final passage.

Several Republican committee members who oppose the bill pointed to an already strained FDA that they say is failing its food and drug safety mission.

"I'm cautious of the FDA's ability to have the necessary staff and money to carry out the regulation of tobacco in every town, city, and state in America," said Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.).

"Clearly this is erroneous," Dingell responded, who pointed out the bill would collect user fees from tobacco companies to fund the FDA's added tobacco responsibilities.

Republicans favored a substitute bill that would place control of tobacco in the hands of a new agency outside the FDA, but within the Department of Health and Human Services.

After that amendment was flatly rejected by Democrats, more than a dozen other GOP amendments were voted down.

Nevertheless, six of the committee's 23 Republicans voted to move the bill forward. No Democrats opposed it.

Rep. Michael Burgess, M.D. (R-Texas), an obstetrician-gynecologist, said if the Democrats really cared about public health, they would give the FDA full authority to ban cigarettes, rather than just the discretion to require companies to adjust nicotine levels. The bill would not allow the FDA to completely eliminate nicotine from cigarettes, however.

"If our true goal is to limit the public health exposure to cigarette smoke then we would take away the thing that makes the cigarette addictive," Dr. Burgess said. "If our goal is simply to collect more tax dollars from cigarette companies, then let's be honest about what we're doing," he said.

Committee Republicans accused Waxman of pushing an "abstinence-only" tobacco bill that could place restrictions on all types of tobacco products without taking into account that some might carry a comparatively lower health risk.

The bill applies the same standards to cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products, such as lozenges, which can be a less harmful alternative to smoking, said Rep. Steve Buyer (R-Ind.).

But Democrats including Waxman and Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) said Congress shouldn't support legislation that gives any sort of pass to smokeless tobacco, which is highly carcinogenic. (See: Smokeless Tobacco Called Unsafe Cigarette Substitute)

Waxman said his bill would give the FDA discretion to allow companies to market their product if independent scientific evidence confirms they make a healthier alternative to cigarettes.

Philip Morris USA, the nation's largest tobacco manufacturer, supports the legislation and has said that it could spur competition among cigarette companies to see who could produce the least harmful tobacco products.

But smaller tobacco companies oppose the bill and have said it would just boost Philip Morris' market share because it requires cigarette companies to carry out expensive research and restricts new competitors from entering the market.

Joel Nitzkin, M.D., a public health physician, and chairman of the tobacco control task force with for the American Association of Public Health Physicians, said the cigarette giant Phillip Morris has lobbied tirelessly for a bill that would favor them.

Dr. Nitzkin said that Waxman realizes that without support from the powerful cigarette company, the bill never would pass.

Waxman declined to comment except to say, "Phillip Morris supports it for its own reasons."

The American Lung Association, which has lobbied for years for the bill, along with the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association, lauded the committee's approval of the bill.

"FDA authority over manufactured tobacco products will finally allow our nation to begin to take significant steps to reduce the tobacco-caused death toll that claims 442,000 lives each year and results in $193 billion annually in healthcare costs and lost productivity," American Lung Association president and CEO Charles D. Connor said in a release.



http://www.medpagetoday.com/Washing...ton-Watch/13126

Author:  Ether [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:59 pm ]
Post subject: 

manna_panna wrote:
Ha. I was thinking the exact thing about you. You're tiresome, delusional and self-righteous. Whiny and repetitive. And *that's* why I'm done arguing with you.


Oh, snap!

~E~

Author:  SicTim [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:14 pm ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
"FDA authority over manufactured tobacco products will finally allow our nation to begin to take significant steps to reduce the tobacco-caused death toll that claims 442,000 lives each year and results in $193 billion annually in healthcare costs and lost productivity," American Lung Association president and CEO Charles D. Connor said in a release.


Also note that that roughly "440,000 deaths a year" number hasn't changed since cigarette smoking has been drastically reduced.

Author:  rskm1 [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:42 pm ]
Post subject: 

SicTim wrote:
Also note that that roughly "440,000 deaths a year" number hasn't changed since cigarette smoking has been drastically reduced.
SO?

Looks like the 442K figure was released by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2002:
Annual Smoking-Attributable Mortality, United States, 1995-1999
Cancer 155,761
Cardiovascular disease 148,605
Respiratory conditions 98,007
Perinatal conditions 1,006
Burn deaths 966
Secondhand smoke deaths 38,053
Total 442,398

It's 10 years later, and you're claiming the number has gone down.
Well? What's the figure now, Mr. Brilliant Statistical Insights?
Is it down to 220,000 people a year now? Under 100,000?
More importantly: SO WHAT?

Author:  SicTim [ Fri Mar 27, 2009 8:40 am ]
Post subject: 

You seem to be making my exact point: The number hasn't changed in ten years, despite a sharp decrease in the number of smokers.

"So what?" is that statistics are the easiest way to lie.

Remember, these are the same government agencies that say smoking pot will cause you to flip out and shoot your little brother in the head.

Here's the CDC page with the statistics for 2008 -- including that never-changing 440,000 deaths per year number: moral panic.

Also, note that the figure for obesity-related deaths sticks at about 400,000 per year, which is close enough to make the extra 40,000 seem like quibbling.

Author:  chainsaw [ Fri Mar 27, 2009 11:49 am ]
Post subject: 

I wouldn't expect the number to show a significant drop so quickly, given that the damage caused by smoking may not be evident for years to decades after the initial harm has been done.

Author:  Ether [ Fri Mar 27, 2009 7:08 pm ]
Post subject: 

Ok, here's a cut n' paste argument for you!

Forget smoking- the real danger is PETS! We need to ban pets ASAP!

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/27/fa ... index.html

Author:  rskm1 [ Fri Mar 27, 2009 7:20 pm ]
Post subject: 

At least Lassie could go get help after she'd pushed Timmy into the well (err, Timmy "fell"... thanks to the magic of editing).

Can a cigarette do that?

Author:  Haakon [ Sun Apr 05, 2009 6:05 pm ]
Post subject: 

rskm1 wrote:
At least Lassie could go get help after she'd pushed Timmy into the well (err, Timmy "fell"... thanks to the magic of editing).

Can a cigarette do that?


No, but it would make that time spent in the well, waiting in the desperate hope that a dog can bring help, go that much smoother.

-"Timmy, are you alright?"
-"Yes, I'm alright, and suddenly I feel so much more mature and cool."

Author:  Trioxin245 [ Sun Apr 05, 2009 7:54 pm ]
Post subject: 

This thread makes me want a cigarette.

Author:  thosquanta [ Sun Apr 05, 2009 8:22 pm ]
Post subject: 

i've got something you can smoke.

Author:  SicTim [ Wed Apr 22, 2009 6:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Okay, so, cigarettes.

In case you smokers missed the latest outrage, loose tobacco and small cigars now also have the shit taxed out of them.

I went to pick up the $15 can of Top I keep around for emergencies, and it was $20-something.

I smoke three packs a day. I'm starting to think weed would be cheaper.

Author:  thosquanta [ Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Okay, so, cigarettes.

let us know if you manage to smoke 3 packs of joints per day.

Author:  Rockula! [ Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Okay, so, cigarettes.

And how would you remember how many you smoked after you were done?

Author:  boot [ Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:52 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Okay, so, cigarettes.

why you'd be out of rolling papers that's how!
Image

Author:  Rockula! [ Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Okay, so, cigarettes.

That's kinda like thinking "How can there be no money in my bank account? I still have checks!"

Author:  Long Pig [ Sat Jul 10, 2010 8:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

devil wrote:
But there are some pluses. They satisfy your body's growing addiction to nicotine and...okay I guess there's just that one plus.


can't remember the comedian that said this, but....
Quote:
I feel sorry for people that don't smoke. They have no idea what it's like to want something sooooo bad, ....and get it every time.

Author:  Ether [ Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Okay, so, cigarettes.

Rockula! wrote:
That's kinda like thinking "How can there be no money in my bank account? I still have checks!"


That is the best analogy you've ever made. Well played my friend.

~€ther~

Author:  dj_craig [ Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

can't remember the comedian that said this, but....
Quote:
I feel sorry for people that don't smoke. They have no idea what it's like to want something sooooo bad, ....and get it every time.
[/quote]

That is awesome!

Author:  Nemphusi [ Sat Oct 16, 2010 4:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Okay, so, cigarettes.

I love you guys.

My brand is Camel, by the way. Any of the Turkish blends I love, I also love the Kamel Red.

I tried to quit a while back when I was really broke, and I did okay, then I started to get money again, and I started, now I'm broke again, but have generous friends.

It's fascinating. I guess I never really cared if it effected the later years of my life, they're not, in particular, years I really want to have.

We've been having a lot of anti smoking regulation here, too. You can't smoke inside any public space or building, much like up there, and it's hurt some small businesses that sorta survived by being smoker friendly. I'm not saying it shouldn't happen, it has happened, and I live with it okay, it irks me slightly then I get over it.

I guess it's weird, I feel like I missed an epoch. If I'd been born just ten or fifteen years earlier, I probably coulda smoked in a hospital.

Author:  Rockula! [ Sat Oct 16, 2010 12:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Okay, so, cigarettes.

Nemphusi wrote:
I guess it's weird, I feel like I missed an epoch. If I'd been born just ten or fifteen years earlier, I probably coulda smoked in a hospital.



Oh yeah?
Try becoming sexually aware during the first AIDS scare
You got to watch people have sex left and right during the 70's and now it is your turn to get some
Only no one wants to touch each other because they are afraid to die
Still think a few measley smoking inconveniences is worse?

Author:  devil [ Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Okay, so, cigarettes.

I never once used a condom and I didn't die. I'm no Wilt Chamberlain but I have engaged in sexual congress with a large number of women, protection free. And I never knocked anyone up either. So don't believe the hype.

That being said, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

Author:  Nemphusi [ Sun Oct 17, 2010 10:01 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Okay, so, cigarettes.

Well, you live a charmed life, Devil. Maybe they'll play Lucky man at your funeral.

And sex is almost as cool as cigarettes. So it's sorta like, well, you know...

Author:  edentropy [ Tue Oct 26, 2010 7:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Okay, so, cigarettes.

devil wrote:
I never once used a condom and I didn't die. I'm no Wilt Chamberlain but I have engaged in sexual congress with a large number of women, protection free. And I never knocked anyone up either. So don't believe the hype.


Pic or it didn't happen!

Author:  zom-zom [ Wed Oct 27, 2010 6:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Okay, so, cigarettes.

You can make all the fun you like about my age, but man the '70s sure was a great decade to be a teenager.

Plus, we had quaaludes and lots of cheap and easy to obtain excellent drugs. And no, I don't mean the 1870s.

But cigarettes? Fuck those things. I had my go with them. Never got hooked but will never smoke one again. Useless.

Author:  thosquanta [ Wed Oct 27, 2010 12:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Okay, so, cigarettes.

apparently they stave off sleep deprivation in the hardcore mode of fallout new vegas, tho.

Author:  rskm1 [ Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Okay, so, cigarettes.

I thought they made a flavor of Mountain Dew specifically for that.

Author:  Ether [ Wed Oct 27, 2010 5:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Okay, so, cigarettes.

devil wrote:
I never once used a condom and I didn't die. I'm no Wilt Chamberlain but I have engaged in sexual congress with a large number of women, protection free. And I never knocked anyone up either. So don't believe the hype.


Ah, the advantages of having a microscopic penis.

~€~

:lol:

Author:  Ether [ Wed Oct 27, 2010 5:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Okay, so, cigarettes.

zom-zom wrote:
You can make all the fun you like about my age, but man the '70s sure was a great decade to be a teenager.

Plus, we had quaaludes and lots of cheap and easy to obtain excellent drugs.


Yeah, yeah, we know gramps... and movies were just a nickel.

~€~

Author:  thosquanta [ Wed Oct 27, 2010 6:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Okay, so, cigarettes.

rskm1 wrote:
I thought they made a flavor of Mountain Dew specifically for that.


nuka cola quantum?

Author:  Rockula! [ Thu Oct 28, 2010 2:53 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Okay, so, cigarettes.

Ether wrote:
devil wrote:
I never once used a condom and I didn't die. I'm no Wilt Chamberlain but I have engaged in sexual congress with a large number of women, protection free. And I never knocked anyone up either. So don't believe the hype.


Ah, the advantages of having a microscopic penis.

~€~

:lol:


DAMN!

Author:  Rockula! [ Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:00 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Okay, so, cigarettes.

Ether wrote:
zom-zom wrote:
You can make all the fun you like about my age, but man the '70s sure was a great decade to be a teenager.

Plus, we had quaaludes and lots of cheap and easy to obtain excellent drugs.


Yeah, yeah, we know gramps... and movies were just a nickel.

~€~


DOUBLE DAMN!
A peanut girl
Alonely little peanut!!!

Page 2 of 3 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/