home studios equipment staff/friends booking/rates for sale forum contact

Habit: smoking

Vote and debate.

Moderators: kerble, Electrical-Staff

Whether it's you or someone else...

CRAP
115
76%
NOT CRAP
36
24%
 
Total votes : 151

Postby rocker654 on Wed Dec 13, 2006 7:20 pm

Ishmael wrote:Trolls win.


You must be quite a winner.
blue_thunder wrote:You know, I can't help but think that Kim Gordon records all of her vocals while dropping a deuce.

http://www.myspace.com/therealrocker654
User avatar
rocker654
Perfect Picture of Wisdom and Boldness
Perfect Picture of Wisdom and Boldness
 
Posts: 3162
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 5:18 pm
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Postby Richard on Fri Jan 26, 2007 2:40 pm

Richard
meatball enthusiast
meatball enthusiast
 
Posts: 1275
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 10:52 am
Location: Suffolk County

Postby alphred_stenson on Fri Jan 26, 2007 5:28 pm

I just quit. I hate not smoking. But I love the fact that I'm no longer smoking. Got to respect something that can cause double think.

not crap
norin please. Thank you.
User avatar
alphred_stenson
viceroy
viceroy
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:35 am
Location: Columbia, MO

Postby DrAwkward on Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:08 am

So, OK. My dad just went back into the hospital once again today. He's in for cellulitis, which is an inflamation of the tissues and where they connect to each other. This is caused by bacterial infection. He's set up on IVs for the next few days.

My mom said he should be out in a few days and should be ok, but the tone of her voice wasn't very assuring.

Why is his face completely swollen up from cellulitis? Because his teeth are rotting out of his head, and the dentist has not yet yanked them for fear that his gums wouldn't heal properly.

Why wouldn't his gums heal properly, and why are his teeth rotting? From radiation treatments he underwent seven years ago.

Why did he undergo radiation treatments seven years ago? Because he had cancer in his throat, tongue, and the roof of his mouth.

Guess where he got the cancer from? Yup, smoking for 25 years straight.

I understand that susceptibility to specific cancers is probably genetic--after all, some people smoke their whole lives and all they have to show for it is yellow teeth. So i have made it a point to not be "that guy" and constantly tell people that they shouldn't smoke, because look what happened to this one person i know who happenes to be one of the most important in my life.

After all, just because my dad has a permanent speech impediment from missing part of his tongue, and is in and out of hospitals twice a year now, and is probably fucking dying at age 59...well, that doesn't mean every smoker in the world will. I get that, so do what you will.

But man oh man, this isn't fun.

My brother and one of my sisters smoke. I think they're fucking idiots for doing so and i wish so much they would quit, because we fucking know it's in our family and we know what it can do to us.

Smoking = CRAP. Please indulge my momentary weakness; i promise i won't lecture you when i see you light up.
Stinky Pete wrote:BDSM is a bit like Queens of the Stone Age in that it's basically fine to be into, but a bit worrying if you're obsessed with it.

Body Futures
IfIHadAHiFi
Martian Dance Invasion!
User avatar
DrAwkward
World's Greatest Lover
World's Greatest Lover
 
Posts: 11919
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 9:03 am
Location: SEWI

Postby Eierdiebe on Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:13 am

Sorry to hear that, Doctor Awkward.
User avatar
Eierdiebe
saw big cat
saw big cat
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:44 am
Location: Out East

Postby Eierdiebe on Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:19 am

The fella across the hall from me, Ed, smokes two packs a day, but he's schizophrenic.

These days I only smoke every now and then, on average five times a week. I prefer to roll my own cigarettes when I have that option.

Question: Are cigarettes one rolls for himself less damaging than filtered cigarettes out of a pack? Less additives, etc.?
User avatar
Eierdiebe
saw big cat
saw big cat
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:44 am
Location: Out East

Postby eva03 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 12:19 pm

I'm just amazed that smokers don't understand how disgusting cigarettes smell and how they seem to be oblivious to the fact that people who don't smoke don't want to smell that nasty shit or breathe smoke into their lungs. I mean is it necessary to smoke a cigarette every five fucking minutes? I mean you're inhaling hot smoke into your lungs like twenty times a day I just don't get it.
Rimbaud III wrote:
I won't lie to you, I don't want to be invisible so that I can expose the illuminati, I just want to see Natalie Portman DJing at her downstairs disco.
User avatar
eva03
roman
roman
 
Posts: 847
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 6:17 pm
Location: Oakland

Postby DrAwkward on Mon Jun 25, 2007 12:37 pm

eva03 wrote:I'm just amazed that smokers don't understand how disgusting cigarettes smell and how they seem to be oblivious to the fact that people who don't smoke don't want to smell that nasty shit or breathe smoke into their lungs. I mean is it necessary to smoke a cigarette every five fucking minutes? I mean you're inhaling hot smoke into your lungs like twenty times a day I just don't get it.


To be fair, i really don't find the smell all that disgusting, despite the fact that i don't allow smoking in my house or car. I've been around it all my life, though.
Stinky Pete wrote:BDSM is a bit like Queens of the Stone Age in that it's basically fine to be into, but a bit worrying if you're obsessed with it.

Body Futures
IfIHadAHiFi
Martian Dance Invasion!
User avatar
DrAwkward
World's Greatest Lover
World's Greatest Lover
 
Posts: 11919
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 9:03 am
Location: SEWI

Postby Ernest on Mon Jun 25, 2007 12:43 pm

Sorry about your father, Doc. I hope he gets better.

I'm a smoker, and I respect people's wishes about not smoking in their home or car. It's like what Matthew said, you need a firm decision to quit. Some people can give it up quick, while others wrestle with it for years.
Marsupialized wrote:A bus will crash and there'd be three people stepping over injured children to get out saying 'fuck them' it's just how it is with people.
User avatar
Ernest
Master of Cunnilingus
Master of Cunnilingus
 
Posts: 12620
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 4:18 pm
Location: Past where they paint the houses

Postby charliedon'tsurf on Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:03 pm

This one is more complex than simple crap/not crap.

First off smoking is crap because it damages your health, but unlike most other addictive drugs does not provide a noticeably pleasurable buzz. No wonder it is one of the legal ones.

Second, yeah as noted people who act like it their god given right to chain smoke a couple packs a day regardless of circumstances and being considerate of others around them, are human crap. Then the ones who get indignant and act like you are stripping a fundamental human right to have them refrain from their damaging habit for an hour or two are just idiots. I will believe their strong convictions for rights of the individual as soon as they likewise fight to get cocaine and heroin addicts out of jail who are similarly addicted to drugs and self absorbed.

However indulging in an occasional cig if you got your habit and your sense of entitlement are in check, is not a bad thing and therefore not crap. I made myself very uncomfortable a few years ago resolving to quit the habit entirely. After torturing myself with abstinence I gave in to the craving and kept it just to situations where I wanted to smoke. Which is only the once or twice a week when I am out getting liquored up. During the three or four days between hanging out in taverns I do not smoke tobacco at all. Then again America as a whole has a real issue with you are either doing something or not in a fascistic binary fashion, rather than just indulging in things in moderation from time to time. All the twelve stepping militant prohibitionist philosophy that has a strangle hold on drug treatment in the States does not help matters either.

Still in sum total of two craps and one not crap adds up to crap. There are better drugs out there than tobacco.
User avatar
charliedon'tsurf
wayne thiebaud
wayne thiebaud
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 11:36 am
Location: Austin, Texxxass 78756

Postby Eierdiebe on Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:13 pm

charliedon'tsurf wrote:Then again America as a whole has a real issue with you are either doing something or not in a fascistic binary fashion, rather than just indulging in things in moderation from time to time.


True.

charliedon'tsurf wrote:All the twelve stepping militant prohibitionist philosophy that has a strangle hold on drug treatment in the States does not help matters either.


Also true.
User avatar
Eierdiebe
saw big cat
saw big cat
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:44 am
Location: Out East

Postby stevenstillborn on Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:56 pm

Crap with a side of waffles since I still enjoy a cigarette now and again. Curiously, this always seems to become a good idea after more than 4 beers.
What are the queers doing to the soil?
User avatar
stevenstillborn
pete maravich
pete maravich
 
Posts: 499
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 3:45 pm
Location: Somewhere in the Swamps of Jersey

Postby Rotten Tanx on Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:21 pm

A guy on another message board wrote this. Makes sense to me but then I want to believe it. Reactions welcome.


On July 1st the UK wide smoking ban comes into force. Bearing what now must be all the hallmarks of the Labour government this new law is poorly planned, based on lies and will have a dramatic effect on the civil liberties of the nation.

The ban has been publicly justified by five main reasons, none of which are strictly speaking true;

The first reason given is that smoking kills. Broadly speaking this is of course true however the argument fails to mention that every single one of you is going to die and on average a smoker only dies seven years younger then a non-smoker. In effect this is the difference between dying at 79 rather and dying at 86. Contrary to popular belief you will not spend these extra years playing with your grandkids, travelling the world or writing that novel you always wanted too. You will instead spend them confined to your home, alone and in pain.

The second reason given is that the NHS cannot afford to treat smoking related diseases. This is utterly untrue. In 2005 the treatment of smoking related diseases cost the NHS £1.5bn which admittedly sounds like a lot until you realise that the total NHS budget for the same period was £90bn which means that treating smoking related diseases only accounted for around 1/90th of the NHS budget.
Over the same period the excise duty and VAT from the sale of Tobacco products contributed £10bn or 1/9th of the total NHS budget. To put it more simply every smoker has not only paid in full fro their treatment they have also paid for the treatment of eight non-smokers.
On top of that you have the fact that over their lifetime a non-smoker will cost the NHS $6000 more then a smoker and that figure doesn’t even include the increased social care cost associated with old age.

The third argument given is that the ban will empower people to rid themselves of an addiction that is controlling their lives. This is again untrue because smoking causes the brain to overproduce a chemical called dopamine (the so called pleasure hormone). This dopamine flood causes the receptor sites to shut down to avoid the person to become overwhelmed with pleasure. The closure and reduction of these pleasure receptors is permanent and irreversible meaning that when someone gives up smoking they do not free them themselves of the addiction they merely learn to modify their behaviour to cope without this pleasure. This is why Allan Carr lied to his readers by telling them that smoking is a totally negative pleasure which they don’t really enjoy and why ex-smokers such as John Reid and Gordon Brown seem to be always trying to convince us that they were right to give up smoking.

The fourth argument for the ban is that it will in someway act as a form of resistance against the “evil tobacco companies”. If the fact that these incredibly rich companies who enjoy the support of more voters then any political party in the UK have not lifted a finger to stop this ban has not convinced you that this argument is a nonsense allow me to explain further. Since the 1960’s the main and very effective tactic of the anti-smoking lobby has been something called “de-cooling” this basically means employing propaganda such as the lie that Steve McQueen died of lung cancer in order to make smoking appear less cool and less desirable. The first thing the ban will do is make smoking an act of rebellion again. It will also produce a clear physical and visual division between the smokers and the non-smokers and this division will not serve the anti-smoking cause well because the smoking sections of pubs have traditionally been a lot more fun then the non-smoking sections.
Also any restriction on a market place cuts competition in that market allowing the big four tobacco companies that already operate in that market to consolidate their costs and boosts their profits.

The fifth argument for the ban and the one which is used specifically to ban smoking in pubs is that it will protect bar staff who are being forced to work in a smoky environment by the nasty capitalist system. I have to say that this is again nonsense because in my extensive experience bar work is without doubt the most difficult area of the service sector to get into because earning your money getting chatted up by the regulars is definitely preferable to trying to sell harassed parents kids shoes. This means that bar work has a very competitive labour market so if someone cannot get a job in Tesco’s it is highly unlikely that they will find work in a pub. In short the government is trying to legislate against a problem which does not exist.
This “protecting the worker” argument also falls flat on it’s face when you consider that in Scotland there was a 20% drop in pub trade following a smoking ban meaning that staff were laid off so presumably Patricia Hewitt thinks that it is far better that people starve to death then breathe second hand smoke.

As none of the reasons given for the smoking ban are quite as they seem I think it important to ask why the government is still so keen to spend £1.7bn of taxpayer’s money introducing this ban?

To answer this question we need to look at the history of the anti-smoking movement. Again contrary to popular mythology this movement did not begin in 1950’s America it began much earlier in 1930’s Germany when Adolf Hitler, the father of the modern anti-smoking movement before anything was known about the effects of smoking declared that smoking was part of a communist conspiracy to slow and derail the growth of the master race.
Upon coming to power Hitler began to pass laws to prevent Germans from smoking. These measures included a ban on Tobacco advertising and advertising campaigns which attacked smoking as Un-Aryan. Over the next 8 years the German people actually began to smoke more while Hitler annexed Austria, invaded Czechoslovakia and began ghettoising the Jews amongst increasing internal opposition.
In 1939 Hitler had enough and introduced a ban on smoking in all public places declaring; “If I had not stopped smoking then the Third Reich would never have happened!” This date also coincided with the invasion of Poland which started the second world war and the point at which the Nazi’s solution to the “Jewish question” switched from the relatively humane Madagascar plan to the final solution of Auschwitz.

During the course of the Second World War the allied intelligence services became impressed by the resilience of the Reich which managed to suppress both the horrors of the holocaust and the failures of the German army right up to the point that allied troops marched on Hitler’s Berlin bunker. After the end of the war they identified the social control of the smoking ban as one of the cornerstones of the Nazi’s ability to control their populace. It was this interest which allowed the key research into the effects of smoking to be published in 1950 and 1951.

Aside from the health effects of smoking these and other studies found nicotine to be a psychoactive substance which has a mildly sedative effect and alter the way the user thinks. This discovery was reinforced by work done by the US military which discovered that non-smoking soldiers were better at blindly following orders then their smoking counterparts. Other studies also found that smokers were less likely to follow the rules of Nash’s infamous “fuck you buddy” games.
As a lot of this work was carried out by the private sector on behalf of the US Army this knowledge began to bleed into America’s corporate world where smoking was seen as a weakness which made those who indulged less able to participate in the kill or be killed culture. Thus in the 1950’s the American anti-smoking lobby was born.


Given the rather sinister history of the anti-smoking movement coupled with the failure to produce a coherent argument for its introduction I have to say that I am very worried by our ever more controlling government’s motivations for introducing this smoking ban.

These worries are not being alleviated by the way the ban is to be enforced. Since the middle ages Britain has been policed by the consent of the people. This means that if you choose to break a law passed by parliament you can expect to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. However if you witness someone else breaking the law you have no obligation to stop them, report them to the authorities or participate in their prosecution.
The smoking ban changes all this because it brings with it criminal offences for any employee of a pub or other public place who fails to report to the relevant government authority anybody they witness breaching the ban. To quote a member of the civil service this law has been specifically designed to make private citizens the agents of the state.

I know that this sounds like a very subtle and technical point to most of you but this right of non-compliance makes the difference between the citizen of a democracy and the subject of a tyranny. It is a right which has underpinned every important social movement throughout Britain’s history from the anti-slavery movement, through the suffragette movement right up to the modern anti-war movement and even before the ban has been introduced the removal of this right is already been used to justify changes in the terrorism act.
User avatar
Rotten Tanx
Heaven-Sent Hero
Heaven-Sent Hero
 
Posts: 6121
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2004 7:44 pm
Location: Birmingham, England

Postby DrAwkward on Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:36 pm

Rotten Tanx wrote:The first reason given is that smoking kills. Broadly speaking this is of course true however the argument fails to mention that every single one of you is going to die and on average a smoker only dies seven years younger then a non-smoker. In effect this is the difference between dying at 79 rather and dying at 86.


That's cute, but try this on for size:

My dad is only 59 and has been in and out of hospitals for seven years now due to the direct and indirect results of his smoking habit. There's a big difference between limping along with rotting teeth, a speech impediment, and frequent hospital stays until you finally end your suffering at 76, and living a (relatively) healthy, happy life until you die at 86 (my grandma on my dad's side, for example, has never smoked a day in her life and while 80 years old looks closer to 69-70, an i expect her to live fairly well for another 10 years or so).

That's only my immediate example, but i just thought i'd point out that the whole reducing life expectancy to a numbers game combined with the assumption that old people suffer regardless of habit is kinda bunk and hurts the rest of his argument.
Stinky Pete wrote:BDSM is a bit like Queens of the Stone Age in that it's basically fine to be into, but a bit worrying if you're obsessed with it.

Body Futures
IfIHadAHiFi
Martian Dance Invasion!
User avatar
DrAwkward
World's Greatest Lover
World's Greatest Lover
 
Posts: 11919
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 9:03 am
Location: SEWI

Postby Rotten Tanx on Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:39 pm

Yeah I don't think every aspect of the argument holds up but this isn't an article, just some young guy's opinions and he makes some good points.
User avatar
Rotten Tanx
Heaven-Sent Hero
Heaven-Sent Hero
 
Posts: 6121
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2004 7:44 pm
Location: Birmingham, England

Postby DrAwkward on Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:44 pm

Rotten Tanx wrote:Yeah I don't think every aspect of the argument holds up but this isn't an article, just some young guy's opinions and he makes some good points.


Understood. For the record i'm 100% against legislated smoking bans in bars. For fuck's sake, it's a bar. Sure, they're get you sauced up until 2 AM (or your local equivalent) and send you on your way, left to your own devices to get home, but god forbid you light up!
Stinky Pete wrote:BDSM is a bit like Queens of the Stone Age in that it's basically fine to be into, but a bit worrying if you're obsessed with it.

Body Futures
IfIHadAHiFi
Martian Dance Invasion!
User avatar
DrAwkward
World's Greatest Lover
World's Greatest Lover
 
Posts: 11919
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 9:03 am
Location: SEWI

Postby alex maiolo on Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:51 pm

Rotten Tanx wrote:The first reason given is that smoking kills. Broadly speaking this is of course true however the argument fails to mention that every single one of you is going to die and on average a smoker only dies seven years younger then a non-smoker. In effect this is the difference between dying at 79 rather and dying at 86.


Yeah, but what's the quality of life? My dad smoked for 35 years or so. He's relatively active, but has had 3 angioplasties and has some minor health issues as well.

My grand dad lived to be 88, and until he got The Alzheimer's at 86, he could still swim over a mile. Fit as a fiddle until he lost his brain, that guy.

Also, it's not like 7 years is insignificant. That's almost 10%.
If your savings account earned 10% you'd be psyched.
If you got 10% better fuel economy in your car, you'd consider that a big deal.
If someone told you that you could live 10% longer if you quit eating cereal for breakfast, you probably would.

-A
dontfeartheringo wrote:If $100 is too much for you to spend on a microphone maybe you should find a new hobby. People like you seem to like Magic: The Gathering a lot.
User avatar
alex maiolo
Power Incarnate with Endless Creativity
Power Incarnate with Endless Creativity
 
Posts: 7367
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 11:47 pm
Location: Chapel Hill NC (please excuse my english)

Postby dimpfelmoser on Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:02 pm

Smoking is so sexy

How can it be crap then?
User avatar
dimpfelmoser
linus pauling
linus pauling
 
Posts: 415
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 12:57 pm
Location: Berlin

Postby eva03 on Tue Jun 26, 2007 4:14 am

The second reason given is that the NHS cannot afford to treat smoking related diseases. This is utterly untrue. In 2005 the treatment of smoking related diseases cost the NHS £1.5bn which admittedly sounds like a lot until you realize that the total NHS budget for the same period was £90bn which means that treating smoking related diseases only accounted for around 1/90th of the NHS budget.
Over the same period the excise duty and VAT from the sale of Tobacco products contributed £10bn or 1/9th of the total NHS budget. To put it more simply every smoker has not only paid in full fro their treatment they have also paid for the treatment of eight non-smokers.
On top of that you have the fact that over their lifetime a non-smoker will cost the NHS $6000 more then a smoker and that figure doesn’t even include the increased social care cost associated with old age.

Granted I haven't looked at official figures but I did hear a report on NPR last week discussing the state of British health care, and they're apparently trying to cut costs in lots of places. The example they used on the segment was a woman with cancer who couldn't get treatment cause it wasn't in the budget. One of the main reasons they cited for budget problems is that apparently your health care system covers elective surgeries like breast enlargement and other vanity procedures. Obviously health care related to smoking diseases isn't elective but smoking in the first place is so this makes alot of sense to me. I only have NPR to go on this and they may be wrong but I'd rather people with cancer(through no fault of their own) get treated than people who choose to engage in a risky behavior(not that those people don't deserve treatment but if the state can prevent it they should)
Rimbaud III wrote:
I won't lie to you, I don't want to be invisible so that I can expose the illuminati, I just want to see Natalie Portman DJing at her downstairs disco.
User avatar
eva03
roman
roman
 
Posts: 847
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 6:17 pm
Location: Oakland

Postby emmanuelle cunt on Tue Jun 26, 2007 4:22 am

moron from the other message board wrote:
The first reason given is that smoking kills. Broadly speaking this is of course true however the argument fails to mention that every single one of you is going to die and on average a smoker only dies seven years younger then a non-smoker. In effect this is the difference between dying at 79 rather and dying at 86. Contrary to popular belief you will not spend these extra years playing with your grandkids, travelling the world or writing that novel you always wanted too. You will instead spend them confined to your home, alone and in pain.




This reasoning = 101% retarded.
caix wrote:^ more like "a manual vagina."
User avatar
emmanuelle cunt
Power Incarnate with Endless Creativity
Power Incarnate with Endless Creativity
 
Posts: 7214
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 2:05 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Crap / Not Crap

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 6 guests