Why did you start smoking?

[unitrunker]

Growing up, only my father smoked. My siblings and I do not smoke. One brother - back when he would go out to clubs - kept a lighter in his pocket - in case some pretty young woman asked him for a light. At another company, when seeking advice from the more sage coworkers, I could find them huddled together outside at a place designated by the company for smokers. The habit rubbed off on another coworker who picked up smoking while hanging around that circle of knowlege.

There is a strong social connection to smoking - though I imagine it easily replaced with something like sports or music.

My siblings were too young to remember, but our grandmother died from lung disease. She was a heavy smoker.

Edit: I think there is a special category of casual smoker. This person never buys their own cigs but will gladly bum a cig off another smoker. In part, it's like they're able to not smoke, until another smoker comes 'round.

 

[PMc]

completely useless, has no benefit at all what-so-ever, except to enrich the drug dealers ['tabacco corporations']

You're paying (a lot of) money for ruining your life.
You waste signifcant parts of your power to earn money for drug dealers, without getting anything in return, except to look immature while sucking on something.

See, this is what I don't understand.

People looking immature and doing something that apparently(!) has no benefit, that is not a problem. Because, 1) if you're concerned about this, you could find hundreds of things that fit to the description, and which you could then oppose, and 2) it is everybody's full own personal right to look as immature as they want and do whatever others may consider without benefit.
The problem therefore is not tobacco. The problem is money, or more precisely, governmental extortion (-see my footer-).

Now I think You're logical people, so please look at it logical: if you're a gang of criminals and extort money from your victims, one of the big issues is to keep your victims under-the-thumb. Often this is done by violence, but it is more elegant to just make the victims believe that they deserve to suffer. Make them believe that they are bad people, everyone on their own, and have no justification to oppose their oppression.
Obviousely this violates our most basic understanding of human freedom - so why can you accept it?

Then, what is even stranger: there are lots of other people who should not be concerned, but also accept the extortion. They even write long and elaborate treatises about why the victims are indeed bad people and deserve to suffer -now look at yourself-, and their only excuse is that they propose to be concerned about these other people's well-being. But in fact they aren't: when I'm in a bad mood and desperate, and need somebody to talk to, then none of them is here. They don't give a damn, they don't care about me - the only thing is that they want to dictate my do's and dont's. Why?
To me this is not really different from Heinrich Kramer, who also wrote an elaborate treatise called the Witches Hammer, about why witches deserve to burn. It is religious bullshit: you create your own understanding of good and bad, associate with a group that continuously confirms this understanding, and then oppress other people to conform to what you think is the right way.
And the only benefit of this is to help some other people -be it church or government- to stay in power and get filthy rich. It doesn't make the world a better place.

 

[scottro]

I don't know that many would disagree with that. Isn't it an adage that after awhile, governements (be it civil, religious, or any ruling body) become more concerned about keeping themselves in power than in fulfilling whatever they were originally created to do?

 

[%pupil -sceptical]

It is religious bullshit

Not in this point.
It's not about good, or bad, it's simply about healthy, and unhealthy.

Tabacco is a drug, and its consume ruins your health.
There is nothing religiuos about it telling scientific proven facts.
Telling the truth in general is not telling him or her what to do.
You're free to do so.
But this also doesn't change the facts.

It may become kind of religious if smokers defend their habit.
Almost every smoker deeply knows it's not doing him any good.
As I said I once was smoker myself, and I know all tricks nicotine pulls on one to stay with it,
also all the plausible, or even 'proven facts' used as excuses to keep on smoking.
I've been through all this by myself.

I also experienced that to really fully see first when you stopped.

You're getting no benefit of smoking cigarettes whatsoever.
As a smoker you believe - no, you're convinced smoking cigarettes enforces your ability to concentrate and focus.
But I experienced myself you need to become an ex-smoker to realize that's just another trick nicotine plays on you.
To inhale the first draw of a fresh lighted cigarette only releases you from your urge for another cigarette, thus making you believe you get more relaxed, more concentration.
After quitting smoking I felt my brains got clearer as I ever experienced before, and - way - more capable to focus and concentrate as I ever was a smoker.

You cannot contradict unless you made the same experience.
Contradicting while still being a smoker, that was religious.

but it is more elegant to just make the victims believe that they deserve to suffer.

Nah, I again need to contradict.
The best way to get money is by selling things people must regulary have, e.g. drugs they are addicted to.
And the most elegant way to do it is legally, covered by the law under the plea of tradition. ?

 

[%pupil -sceptical]

I don't know that many would disagree with that. Isn't it an adage that after awhile, governements (be it civil, religious, or any ruling body) become more concerned about keeping themselves in power than in fulfilling whatever they were originally created to do?

That is a core problem of any organization - governments, churches, foundations.
If they exist too long unchanged at a certain point they only work for themselves to stay.
That's why most democracys have a limit of how many turns a government may stay in charge.
But on the other hand, the more an organzations prevents changes ('upodates') the more likely it becomes its time ends.
Which of course seldom ends well, because revolutions always destroy more as needed, and seldom ressult in something better.
But that's another topic.
Crucial point is: Every system without any corrections will sooner or later destroy itself.
Basic principle every one knows who understood the basics of control engineering.

 

[blackbird9]

not a smoker; coffee is my drug

 

[RypPn]

The issue is lack of enforcement, these are over 18 products. Oh and you'll pry my vape out my cold dead fingers, what gives you the right to pontificate about adult choice?

nicotine dementia at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

 

[PMc]

It's not about good, or bad, it's simply about healthy, and unhealthy.

There is no difference. Our understanding of "good" and "healthy" derive from the same root "heil".

Tabacco is a drug

So what? There has never been a culture without drugs.
If You believe people should live without drugs, then this is just an ideology of yours.

and its consume ruins your health.

It is everybody's very own right to deal with their health as they like.
But my point is: why do You claim to care about the health of people you do not care about, or not even know? And if so, why don't you care about the many other unhealthy aspects of the life they may be forced to?

There is nothing religiuos about it telling scientific proven facts.
Telling the truth in general is not telling him or her what to do.

I believe in science, and I no longer accept it to be abused for ideology.
Every religion claims to tell "the truth". Science doesn't, it only has knowledge.

It may become kind of religious if smokers defend their habit.
Almost every smoker deeply knows it's not doing him any good.

Indeed, every sinner "deeply knows" he's a sinner.

As I said I once was smoker myself, and I know all tricks nicotine pulls on one to stay with it,

Indeed, once I was a sinner, and I know all the tricks the devil pulls on one to stay with him.

also all the plausible, or even 'proven facts' used as excuses to keep on smoking.
I've been through all this by myself.

Indeed, every proselyte talks like that, no matter which sect. It's your semantics that make things obvious.

You're getting no benefit of smoking cigarettes whatsoever.

I might get a lot of benefits.
As I said, there is no culture without drugs. Drugs have a social function.

As a smoker you believe - no, you're convinced smoking cigarettes enforces your ability to concentrate and focus.

Not always true. That may be Your experience, but You shouldn't generalize.

But I experienced myself you need to become an ex-smoker to realize that's just another trick nicotine plays on you.

I don't care about Your generalizations. I only contradict You applying them onto other people.

You cannot contradict unless you made the same experience.

Yes I can.
Your experiences are Your's alone, as everybody must make their own experiences. So stop talking to me about my experiences; You know nothing about my background.

Nah, I again need to contradict.
The best way to get money is by selling things people must regulary have, e.g. drugs they are addicted to.
And the most elegant way to do it is legally, covered by the law under the plea of tradition. ?

I agree so far.
So in fact what we have is governments acting as "the pusher man". I think this is bad enough.

Then, addiction is a different matter. Addiction is effectively solved by giving the brain something more valuable to do. And that is why addiction is so widespread in our society: because many people just don't have something really rewarding to do with their brains.
And that is why I am wondering why people like You are so eager to proselytize others (which they don't even know) and tell them that what they do is not rewarding (which they probably already notice), but not at all care about giving them something more rewarding to do.

 

[BingHelloMan]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rBPwu2uS-w

 

[%pupil -sceptical]

It is everybody's very own right to deal with their health as they like.

I didn't say anything contradicting.

My point is simply smoking is bad, not only for one-self, but for others, too.
All my point here was to support those who want to quit,
and further more to prevent people to start in the first place.
I never ment to 'manipulate' you.
You're absolutely free to do the opposite of what your common sense seemed to figur out of it.
If you feel the need to defend yourself by something you may seen in my words, then it's your business, not mine.

We don't need to discuss the point telling you what to do, or not - I can't remember where I did.
If I'm using the term 'you' I mostly mean the 'royal you' not you personally.
If you take it personally then I'm sorry for my bad english, and it may be also up to you, how to take the words you read here.

I am not trying to tell you to stop. I clearly said it's ones own choice.
To me you can smoke ten cartons af cigarettes, hook up on a crack pipe, and drink six bottles of Wodka every day.
Again no need for contradicting you won't need no permission to do so by me.
I don't give you permission.
I simply don't care.

As long as you don't endanger anybody else but yourself. This exactly is the limit of everybody's freedom, when the freedom of others are endangered.
When you hit the road drunk, then I care.
If you stay within a private area I don't care if you drink 3 gallons of gasoline, and then light a cigarette.
Simply saying in general that might set one on fire is not telling you not to do so.
If any I'm concerned about the neighbours may will have their homes burned to the ground.
But if you are alone in your own lonesome house... - need a light?

To me bikers not using a helmet, or drivers not fasten seatbelts shouldn't pay no penalty.
They only endanger themselves.
Telling my experiences serving on ambulances having an accident without a helmet brings significantly more and worse injuries than with wearing one, and telling this is a scientific proven fact, is neither telling you have to wear a helmet, nor is it defeated by you telling me that's my experiences only, you never wear a helmet, never had an accident, never going to use a helmet.

But in my eyes they should lose insurance coverage on doing so. Because if they consciously decide to endanger themselves by willfully act against what's the law by being proven right, it's their own business, not society's.
It's not my business to pay higher insurence fees for higher expenses because of more medical treatment for others willfully endanger themselves, which was avoidable.
Since this ain't the law, and also helmet-, and seat-belt deniers are getting cobbled together after an accident on society's payment, in my eyes is prove law also covers the stupid, and irresponsible - or one can say, more fair than right.

Before you object: On cigarrets I see it a bit different. Since it's a highly addictive drug, not that easy to get those lost as fasten a seat-belt, or wear a helmet. And smoking was promoted for decades to have it in society, sometimes even with government's support. But I applaud ideas by insurance agencys to rise the fees for those who don't want to quit, who refuse any help to get off that shit. Because - again - if it's their business, then so it's their business. Others then don't have to pay for that.
And before you may come with some:'Haha! But they cannot prove the cause of a desease!' No. But there are a lot of statistics elborate the amount of costs smoking has on insurance expenses.
Again:
This is not I'm telling you not to smoke.
This is I tell you you're not telling me to pay for its propable outcomes.

Anarchy was the best form of society, with most freedom, and most justice possible for every one
if everybody is acting responsibly, respecting anybody else (Kant's categorical imperative)
which presuppose everybody is capable of doing so.
Most are not.
Anarchy is the form of society which requires highest form of sapience imaginable.
Even in anarchy there are rules. The rules of respect, and love. If not, that's not anarchy, that's chaos. That's way before the first humans organized themselves as tribes. That's called animals: The physical stronger always wins.
This theoretically can be fixed by enough education.
But how to ensure everybody gets the sufficient amount of education required to live in such a society without having again a system of 'forcing' people to be teached, but relying on everybody getting its eduction by itself - while facing the current reality that never in history so much knowledge, so many possibilities of education have been easily available and accessible for free, and not being used?
Anyway
only a single person not playing by the rules, only one get the idea to win more by mock others, brings down the whole system.
So like communism anarchy is a pure theoretically experiment of an idealistic world.
So, unless we reached that state - and we are far, far away - we have to have some system with rules.
And that means, unless we figured how treat every single case absolutely individual, we still have to live with some are not treated fairly - which also is no charter to treat people willfully unfairly.

I am so very thankful we also have the laws to prohibit smoking in public areas, such as restaurants, or trains.
Not because I feel 'endangered' by smokers in my presence, but I simply like to enjoy the taste of my meal - especially in expensive restaurants, and not get my taste buds blocked by someone blowing his stinking blue smoke into my face.
...or trying to imagine an transatlantic flight with almost every third is smoking in the cabin.
In the 70's quite normal. Today unthinkable. You couldn't see the end of the cabin ?

A crucial experience I once had (I still was a smoker back then) was many years ago in Ireland.
Ireland is (was?) one of europe's countries with highest smokers percentage.
They got the law to prohibit smoking in pubs many years before germany.
And they all simply respected it. The majority of pub visitors in Ireland were (are?) smokers. They smoked outside.
Same in Italy.
Italy seems to be a country people do not fully respect the law when they don't believe it's right.
But by the day this was law nobody smoked inside any bar, restaurant,... ever again.
That's not 'I take me my freedom whatever!'
That's simply respecting others.
I found that exemplary.

To me it seems you are fighting something you may project into what I said, but I didn't.
It seems I hit a nerv
Well, that's also not religion. That's psychology. ?
But I didn't ment that either to put on you.
Simple fact is, worst non-smokers are ex-smokers,
'cause they know where and how to push the buttons.
As you said yourself:

every sinner "deeply knows" he's a sinner.

Oh, come on, PMc !
I suggest you simply had a bad day.

Get yourself a beer - bring me one, too, if you be so kind.

Light up a cigarrete!
No, honestly, I mean it.
You're a smoker.
And I once was one, too.
It took me ten years to quit.
I know that's anything but easy.

Now I'm trying to manipulate you personally to stop smoking: ?
If you really deeply openly honest to yourself, you admit you would be happy if you won't smoke anymore.

I may be wrong, but if not, that's also possible, by my expierence [that doesn't mean it's neccessarily true, especially not THE truth] for most [that means not everybody] that's just an excuse not to stop (now).

It's hard. I know that.
You need the right time to do it.
If you are under stress, that's not the time.
And it seems, you are, at the moment
So, honestly:
Light up cigarette, relax! get us both a couple of beers,
and let's talk about something else, okay, please?

Of course that is not ment you were 'not allowed' to answer on this anymore.
But I close my case in this thread; already said more than enough.

 

[astyle]

Y'know, governments usually act in their own best interests. When it's convenient, they'll push economic drivers, even if it's tobacco. When push comes to shove, and government sees that some things are clearly not in the best interests of the general population (like secondhand smoke getting into food that is not meant to be smoked, or higher death rates that have too much correlation to smoking to ignore), then governments will push the idea that maybe smoking is not the greatest invention of mankind and needs to be moderated.

And of course, individuals will push back on an idea meant to benefit the population, rather than individiuals.

 

[%pupil -sceptical]

Y'know, governments usually act in their own best interests. When it's convenient,...

In democracys governmets consists mostly of partys, voted by people, standing for different points of views.
Since governments have to make decisions for the future, but nobody can foresee it in many cases only history proves things were right, or wrong, or better or worse.
What I claim to be blockheaded idiocy is to hold on something proven to be wrong.

 

[Empty_Handshake]

Back when I was 17 between my Jr and Sr year of High School, went to visit a smoker friend of mine for vacation. Smoked for about a month but never did enjoy it so I quit and haven't touched them since. I'm now 70. (Sidenote: he quit smoking about 30 years ago.)
My wife goes with me to my Dr's visits. Dr asked if I smoke. Nope. Wife says, "You used to!" Dr asked, "You used to smoke?" My reply, "Over 50 years ago." Dr said it is safe to say that I never smoked.
Our son started smoking Camels when he was about 14. Still smokes Camels today. I hear him outside at least 3 times a day coughing up a lung while having a cigarette, or three. 2nd son smokes but he lives in the next state over. Daughter gave up smoking 10-12 years ago. And so has her husband.

 

[PMc]

To me bikers not using a helmet, or drivers not fasten seatbelts shouldn't pay no penalty.
They only endanger themselves.
Telling my experiences serving on ambulances having an accident without a helmet brings significantly more and worse injuries than with wearing one, and telling this is a scientific proven fact, is neither telling you have to wear a helmet, nor is it defeated by you telling me that's my experiences only, you never wear a helmet, never had an accident, never going to use a helmet.

But in my eyes they should lose insurance coverage on doing so. Because if they consciously decide to endanger themselves by willfully act against what's the law by being proven right, it's their own business, not society's.
It's not my business to pay higher insurence fees for higher expenses because of more medical treatment for others willfully endanger themselves, which was avoidable.

I agree with You on that.

But my background comes from the "Legalize it!" movement of the pot smokers. Back when there were still hippie communities, I was busy connecting them via computer mailboxes. People were put into prison for pot smoking, in some contries there was death penalty. And all that only because some guy Anslinger had provided "scientific proof" that pot smoking is a danger to society (and not a medicine as it was before).
It was all bullshit, but this shows how easily even a single person can create a world-wide witch-hunt.

People in general are apparently fond of witch-hunting, and I think this is a danger. So now it is the tobacco smokers who are the evil. But it will not stop with that. They already look creepy on those who dare to not be veggie, and meat prices are rising.

Before you object: On cigarrets I see it a bit different. Since it's a highly addictive drug, not that easy to get those lost as fasten a seat-belt, or wear a helmet. And smoking was promoted for decades to have it in society, sometimes even with government's support. But I applaud ideas by insurance agencys to rise the fees for those who don't want to quit, who refuse any help to get off that shit. Because - again - if it's their business, then so it's their business. Others then don't have to pay for that.

If you trust statistics, then it doesn't look like others pay for it. If we accept that smokers statistically die a whole lot of years earlier, then the savings at retirement payments should compensate for some extra medical treatment. And nowadays death does not occur naturally anymore, but everybody gets treated until the body does no longer accept treatment. And everybody's organs will start to fail at some age.

So this is mainly an argument to engage in divide&comquer: if you tell peoply, <hey, this guy is taking away your money>, that is how to get them enraged. That is how to get people up against each other, so they do not care who is really taking away their money.
If you can make people concerned about what their neighbour does wrong, they do not bother about what the government does wrong.

Anarchy was the best form of society, with most freedom, and most justice possible for every one
if everybody is acting responsibly, respecting anybody else (Kant's categorical imperative)
which presuppose everybody is capable of doing so.
Most are not.
Anarchy is the form of society which requires highest form of sapience imaginable.
Even in anarchy there are rules. The rules of respect, and love. If not, that's not anarchy, that's chaos. That's way before the first humans organized themselves as tribes. That's called animals: The physical stronger always wins.
This theoretically can be fixed by enough education.

That doesn't work, because you need to manipulate people to make money. In anarchy people would think for themselves, so you cannot sell the same crap to millions of people by making them believe they would actually want it.

But how to ensure everybody gets the sufficient amount of education required to live in such a society without having again a system of 'forcing' people to be teached, but relying on everybody getting its eduction by itself - while facing the current reality that never in history so much knowledge, so many possibilities of education have been easily available and accessible for free, and not being used?

See above. It is not desired.

Anyway
only a single person not playing by the rules, only one get the idea to win more by mock others, brings down the whole system.
So like communism anarchy is a pure theoretically experiment of an idealistic world.
So, unless we reached that state - and we are far, far away - we have to have some system with rules.
And that means, unless we figured how treat every single case absolutely individual, we still have to live with some are not treated fairly - which also is no charter to treat people willfully unfairly.

No, it is a balance. Basically between freedom and security.

You can`t have the idealistic world (because out of itself it would create it's own negation - but that's another story).
But societies can tend to put the value more on freedom and self-responsibility, or more on regulation and security.

And while around 1960/70 the balance was moved strongly into the freedom direction, since then it continousely moves in the more-regulation direction (and it doesn't matter if that is right-wing or left-wing, the outcome is the same).

But behind all that are always the big players, and they want only one thing: make money. And currently it serves them to have more regulation, have more uniform people, easily controlled via the network. Yes, freedom is highly valued, but only as long as it follows the uniform diction, e.g. if you choose your freedom to buy the newest iphone.

I am so very thankful we also have the laws to prohibit smoking in public areas, such as restaurants, or trains.
Not because I feel 'endangered' by smokers in my presence, but I simply like to enjoy the taste of my meal - especially in expensive restaurants, and not get my taste buds blocked by someone blowing his stinking blue smoke into my face.
...or trying to imagine an transatlantic flight with almost every third is smoking in the cabin.
In the 70's quite normal. Today unthinkable. You couldn't see the end of the cabin ?

See, that's how manipulation works. In the 70's it was propagated everywhere (movies etc.) that it is cool to smoke, so (mostly) everybody found it okay and nobody was offended. Then, somebody came up with the idea that smoking is bad - and people grabbed their opportunity to feel offended.
That's how it works: you tell people how they should feel, and then they will feel accordingly.

But my point is: both stances are wrong. It was wrong to manipulate people into believing smoking is cool, and the current prohibition is just as wrong. They tried the same with alcohol, in the US, around 1930.
Or consider meat: either people believe that every dish must contain meat, or they are veggie fanatic that get bothered when the hair shampoo isn't veggie (I don't know, do they drink it?) Both are crazy extremes, because traditionally, as a peasant, you would have meat only one or two days a week, and be thankful for it.

So why can't we have a nice and relaxed attitude towards habits? If you don't like smoking in a restaurant, then why shouldn't that be at the discretion of the restaurant, and everybody would know, and you can choose in which one to go?

To me it seems you are fighting something you may project into what I said, but I didn't.
It seems I hit a nerv

Yes, it's my "personal freedom" nerve.
It is my idea of "supply and demand": that the supply of government (which takes away our money) would automatically dminish if there were less demand for government to help fighting what the neighbour is assumendly wrongdoing.

Well, that's also not religion. That's psychology. ?
But I didn't ment that either to put on you.
Simple fact is, worst non-smokers are ex-smokers,
'cause they know where and how to push the buttons.

Yes, that's the case with everything: people go from one extreme to the other, and don't get wiser.

Now I'm trying to manipulate you personally to stop smoking: ?
If you really deeply openly honest to yourself, you admit you would be happy if you won't smoke anymore.

Well, what You did not yet consider, is that my issue is not actually with smoking.

I may be wrong, but if not, that's also possible, by my expierence [that doesn't mean it's neccessarily true, especially not THE truth] for most [that means not everybody] that's just an excuse not to stop (now).

You may very likely be right. But my concern is not specifically smoking - it is all the new brainwash all the same: the veggie madness, the gender madness, the climate madness -- we knew for decades that burning all the gasoline is not a good idea, but money was made selling cars - now they can make money selling electric cars, so now it must be an issue. Now we get always reminded that we should not use throwaway-plastic - but when the sausage is now only 60g instead of 100g in the same plastic (for the same price, because we should not eat meat), then that is almost twice the amount of throwaway-plastic, and that is then okay because more money can be made.
As I said, it's the big players who steer the brainwash.

 

[drhowarddrfine]

Governments will push health agendas in order to keep the general populace healthy. A healthy working force is a productive working force but also one that won't rely on the government for health services.

 

[astyle]

To me bikers not using a helmet, or drivers not fasten seatbelts shouldn't pay no penalty.
They only endanger themselves.
Telling my experiences serving on ambulances having an accident without a helmet brings significantly more and worse injuries than with wearing one, and telling this is a scientific proven fact, is neither telling you have to wear a helmet, nor is it defeated by you telling me that's my experiences only, you never wear a helmet, never had an accident, never going to use a helmet.

But in my eyes they should lose insurance coverage on doing so. Because if they consciously decide to endanger themselves by willfully act against what's the law by being proven right, it's their own business, not society's.
It's not my business to pay higher insurence fees for higher expenses because of more medical treatment for others willfully endanger themselves, which was avoidable.
Since this ain't the law, and also helmet-, and seat-belt deniers are getting cobbled together after an accident on society's payment, in my eyes is prove law also covers the stupid, and irresponsible - or one can say, more fair than right.

In US, people can get fined by law enforcement and also lose tbeir license and eligibility to even be insured if they refuse to wear the motorcycle helmet on public roads. And unfortunately, there's no grounds for them to say "it's my business and nobody else's!". On private lands, safety laws don't apply, true - but then helmet deniers would be completely on their own, and nobody would be obligated to step in and help in case of an accident.

And no, it's not just the riders putting themselves at risk - ever been hit by any airborne object while driving? or driven too fast to avoid some debris on the road? who's supposed to clean that up and keep the roads in usable shape?

I have driven on dirt roads where shoulders were strewn with abandoned, crushed cars - I could not go very fast mostly because of the littering. People get reckless, and then can't even clean up after themselves when they do have an accident. That's what makes the decision to wear a helmet or fasten the seatbelt NOT belong to just the individual. If the decision truly belonged to the individual, there'd be no point in enforcing penalties for safety law violations.

Oh, and all that is before any medical care, which in US is yet another can of worms that I'd rather not get into. ?

 

[scottro]

I suspect most people know the story of the motorcycle rider, in the US, where we specialize in "Free-dumb", who was riding in an anti-helmet protest, and was killed, because he wasn't wearing a helmet. This was back in 2011.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/04/new.york.motorcyclist.death/index.html.

 

[Crivens]

Governments will push health agendas in order to keep the general populace healthy. A healthy working force is a productive working force but also one that won't rely on the government for health services.

No. When they raised taxes on tobacco here In Germany, they did that in steps. Asked about that, the minister of health stated that they wanted to avoid smokers from stopping due to the sudden high price spike. They don't want you to stop, they want you to work untill you drop dead and not see retirement or long sickness, collecting from the retirement fund for ages. Then it would show how many siphons they attached to that fund.

 

[scottro]

I seem to remember (though I am not sure, and web searching can't find any backup documentation) that some country or another actually encouraged smoking for awhile, because it was good for the economy--or more likely, good for some relatives of people in power, like here in the US, where some relative of Bush managed to sell some intrusive and relatively useless scanners to the airports for security theater.

 

[drhowarddrfine]

They don't want you to stop, they want you to work untill you drop dead and not see retirement or long sickness, collecting from the retirement fund for ages.

This is what I said. A healthy population won't collect for health benefits and continue to work.

 

[Crivens]

This is what I said. A healthy population won't collect for health benefits and continue to work.

You don't get the point, sorry.
Someone who keeps fit and healthy will collect retirement for 20-30 years, plus some disc surgery and new hip/knee joints.
But if you can make the same people smoke, drink and then get terminally sick and die within a week or two, this saves an awful lot of money. Plus, they spend a lot of extra taxes on smokes and alcohol. We still have a tax in place that was meant to pay for the fleet buildup prior to WW1! That is politics, from poly meaning many and ticks being parasitic bloodsucking critters (according to Sir Terry Pratchett).

Or why do you think Canada has it troduced MAID?

 

[Espionage724]

I found a vape, tried it, liked the outlandish energy boost, went to picking up cheap vapes, got tired of gambling with em after a few ended up defective, and went to buying cigarettes. I empty about half a cig into a portable dry herb vape (figure it's healthier than combusting it); gets the job done for an energy boost but it has to be the worst tasting experience imaginable (I imagine anyone's first-smoking try with that would have em very encouraged not try it ever again real quick )

I'm interested in quitting but don't quite like the idea of dealing with withdraw past a week. I also feel dry-herb vaping largely outweighs the most unhealthy part about smoking to kind-of tolerate continuing doing it for the energy, but having less stress overall is a nicer goal eventually!

 

[drhowarddrfine]

It takes a lot longer than a week or two to die from smoking though you can make it happen with drinking but one needs to have a desire for the drink to do that.

One needs to do a life cost over the course of long term smoking and drinking versus the short term of collecting retirement benefits. I'd still bet that the long term clean up of all that bad behavior is far more costly.

 

[%pupil -sceptical]

It was all bullshit, but this shows how easily even a single person can create a world-wide witch-hunt.

Yes.
With that background now I comprehend your very sensitive, almost paranoid attitude.
Since the McCarthy era weed smokers truely faced a witch hunt, also in Germany.
I thought you were much younger. But now I see you're ten years older than me; experienced witch hunting bs on weed, not me.

I see most things like you (don't comment all that in detail - agree. Also with this EV-BS [don't get me started on this - because I am concerned about climatic change and the environment... - another bog roll post ? 'Money rules the world'])

I also know that especially those blockheaded reactionary conseravtives come with 'scientific proof' to 'prove' their yesterday attidude, and above all simply ignore fact if they don't fit into their program.
But since I have a MS degree if I talk science, I mean science, not 'science'
That's a topic where I am very sensitive about. Especially today many not only mix up opinions with facts, refuse scientific proven facts, but above all - and that makes me angry - is to claim scientific facts were personal opinion.
Please take my excuse on that I assumed you were such.

I also want to have cannabis legalized. Even if I stopped on it over fifteen years ago. I'm convinced it'll come. It's just a question of time.
But we're talking tabacco here.
If I was enjoying some weed again, I'd either use a vaporizer, or I'd bake me some cookies. ? Since I once made the mistake to smoke a classic tabacco rolled joint after I already became a ex-smoker. To >1 package cigarettes/day again within one night. ?
I never want to smoke tabacco again. It's so good to stopped on that crap.

However,
above I all I want to say I very much appriciate, and I applaud your honest and open attidude on critical self reflection.
No, really, honestly.
That's a very valuable moral courage, but very rare. Very few are cool and strong enough to admit made a mistake. ?

 

[drhowarddrfine]

I never want to smoke tabacco again. It's so good to stopped on that crap.

Long ago, a girlfriend and I broke up. She said one of the things she was grateful to me for is that I got her to quit smoking. She said food tasted better, she could smell things she never could before, and she didn't lose her breath as easily.