The Smiley Smile Message Board

.

.

.

Trivia fact time: Gitanes were John Lennon's brand.

.

I've never really gotten tobacco. Used to smoke a few cigs every weekend back in the 9th grade when going out only because all of my friends did so, but never really felt the need when on my own. They don't do much for me, take it or leave it really. However, if I were to choose a favourite from the ones I've tried, I'd stick with the classic Marlboro red:

(http://m.img.brothersoft.com/android/67/6748a1592781db1d62eed749b37521c3_screeshots_2.jpeg)

.

Smoked since I was 16, moved onto e-ciggies last september after it f***ed with my voice a week before a show, and now i won't look back. Not wishing to rain on y'alls parade, but cancer seems like an ugly death and I'm only in my 20's, and the aesthetic downsides of smoking actual cigarettes  - the stank, crappy teeth, phlegm, setting fire to £80 a week, having to listen to fuckwits whilst trying to smoke a cigarette IN PEACE, DAMMIT, standing outside the pub in the rain trying desperately to light a sodden Pall Mall whilst passers by look at you funny, etc - outweigh idk, smoking as a social and internal (i used to love my first cigarette of the day, y'know?) thing. I dread summer because i'll be sat in pub gardens surrounded by smokers, tbh. E-Cigarettes seem like a knife at a gun fight.

I still need my nicotine fix, tho. Damn you, e-cigarettes.

Loved me some Djarums. The new versions suck sh*t. So now I don't smoke anything that isn't green and I've even cut that sort of consumption to practically never. Hug life.  :hat

Nasty, nasty habit. I've hated the smell of cigarette smoke since I was a little kid. Apparently I was secure enough with myself as a teenager that I didn't need people to think I was "cool and rebellious". However, left-handed cigs are an entirely different story...  :hat :hat

Never understood the appeal of drying and shredding some leaves, rolling them in a tube of thin paper, putting one end in your mouth and lighting the other end then sucking.

My father, a smoker since 14, died of lung cancer, and smoking sure didn't help my mother in her declining years. Smoking isn't cool, chic or rebellious. It's nasty, smelly, expensive, antisocial and monumentally stupid, and I'll say that to the face on any smoker. I've never even had an unlit cig in my mouth. Being the only non-smoker in a class of 30-odd other schoolboys in the late 60s/early 70s... now that's real peer pressure. My stance is this: your illness is smoke/alcohol/drug related, you don't get free treatment. Your choice, your problem: I don't want my takes paying for the new liver of some drunken sot.

Nicely put. Though what if someone gets an illness that is smoking related, but only from second-hand smoke? Then do you think they should get free treatment?

Smoking is stupid and deadly, but I'm not here to preach.

It's funny, ever since I was little I always loved the smell of tobacco smoke (and no, nobody close to me smoked), even though everybody else always called it nasty and everything else.

The taste is great IMO, the breath is a different story. And, at the right times, a nicotine buzz can be fun.

I wouldn't call myself a smoker, but I can see the appeal.

 I agree mostly with what you are saying. Still the insane ammont of taxes a person in the UK pays on a pack of fags somewhat justifies their entitlement to healthcare if they end up with a smoking related illness.

Very fair point: chances are I'll be that person, as both my folks smoked like chimneys. If it can be proven, then yes, and I hereby grant myself that very exemption.  ;D

What about other illnesses that are caused or influenced by behaviors? For example, in the USA (and I believe UK, to a lesser extent), obesity has become a major problem. It can raise the risk of heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure, diabetes, certain cancers, etc. Should tax dollars for the healthcare of the obese be withheld if they develop any conditions known to be caused by it? What about skin cancer being withheld from anyone who tans?

I understand your point and on the surface it seems like a fine idea, but I think without much effort you can point to behavior-related causes or contributors for virtually any health problem. Deciding what is or isn't worthy tax dollars would seem problematic. I think the better plan is to educate and regulate to try to curb the behaviors.

I used to smoke during my late-teens through early 30s, mostly when I was having alcoholic beverages. I'm so glad I stopped because (and I agree with AGD) smoking is a filthy and gross habit. Looking back on my smoking-years, I cannot even believe that I allowed myself to smoke. I'm an obsessive neat freak. I cannot stand strong odors. How the hell was I okay with smoking? Makes no sense. But I'm glad I stopped doing it. My home and automobile are smoke-free zones! And I'm glad that people aren't allowed to smoke in restaurants and concert halls anymore. Where I live you cannot smoke in public parks. Wow! Times have changed haven't they!

For my little on-topic bio--having only responded on a policy level to AGD but not said anything--I'm not a smoker and never have been. I don't mind other people smoking, and actually enjoy a certain amount of smoke in certain environments. Conversely, I recall being a little kid in the late 70 and early 80s and being at other people's houses where the smoke was baked into shag carpets or whatever, ashtrays always full, and that was pretty disgusting. But outside, or in a bar with a lot of wood, I like it somewhat.

Like the last poster, it's pretty heavily restricted where I live. It was made illegal in bars about 10 years ago (which seemed like a revolution at the time), is banned in parks, etc. Big change from my younger days.

As far as the legality, I have a hard time being too strong on any side, in part because of the post I did above. I believe in individual liberty to the largest extent practicable, but I am also a believer in a more socialized healthcare system than we have in the US. (I realize those things seem incompatible, but note that I said "as practicable" ... it's all about finding middle ground.) So like AGD, I hate the idea of subsidizing other people's bad decisions ... but I hate the idea--very real in the U.S.--of people being denied healthcare and dying because they can't afford it, whether they contributed to it themselves or not. Especially because in many cases, their own ignorance helps lead to the decisions they've made. (Not in every case, not entirely, and that doesn't entirely absolve them of responsibility.)

Anyway, yeah. Nonsmoker without strong anti-smoking feelings. Before anyone comments that I'd feel differently if I'd lost someone, I should note that one of my grandparents died of smoking-caused emphysema.

There was, of course, a time when smoking wasn't merely tolerated but actively promoted - hell, some of the adverts used commendations from DOCTORS  claiming that their brand wasn't only safe to smoke but actually healthy - but anyone who has started smoking in, say, the last 30-35 years in the face of the medical evidence is, to be blunt, a f****** moron and deserves no free medical care: they knew exactly what they were doing and the consequences thereof. Oh, you've got lung cancer ? You smoke 20 a day ? Well, then you're losing two ways. Your decision, live with it. Or, actually, not.

Obesity is another topic. Mea culpa, I'm no slimline myself, but as yet have avoided any related illnesses, but tomorrow, who knows.

As for free medical care, being in the U.S., that's the stuff of fairy tales, anyway... So I won't comment much on that. And clearly everyone does have an inkling of the damage smoking causes, though I do think you'll find certain segments of the population less informed than others. Not making excuses for them, just saying what I see.

But the point was definitely meant to expand beyond smoking (and drinking), because those kinds of policy decisions can't reasonably be expected to stay in one area when others are analogous.

There is eventually the moment when it isn't in the theoretical realm and a real sick person is in need of real medical attention or s/he will really die. Of course, in our 2012 Republican primaries, the Tea-Party inspired audience was thrilled to shout "let them die" (to much audience applause) when the question of the urgently ill person showing up at a hospital's door came up. But it seems to me that's not a legitimate choice, however unhappy at the cause of the situation I may be.

I agree. Lets extend that to people who get injured taking part in dangerous sports, and people who had unprotected sex and caught AIDS.

‍

Yeah, I've also been offered them many times and could probably bum piles upon piles of cigarettes off of friends if I wanted to. I don't get the appeal either really. Like Hypehat said, you're practically burning your money.  Plus, there's really no benefit - other than lookin' cool, man.
And, really, the only people who need cigarettes are the people who already smoke. How's that for some Catch 22-like logic.

Why should anyone receive free medical care? Why can't they pay for it themselves?

As far as I am aware there is no such thing as free medical. Anywhere.

Well, in the case of "universal health care" it's still not free; everyone is made to pay for others' health care on top of their own. The arguments given here by those who disagree with smokers being allowed the so-called "benefits" of a nationalized health care system are precisely why I'm against the idea.

It is so affordable and not a remotely corrupt system, you'd think they totally could. I mean, in my day, we paid for home visits with eggs or chickens or whatever, and a candy bar cost a nickel. People with cancer should just get over themselves and fork over the hundreds of thousands of dollars to cover it. Freeloaders. And private insurance companies deserve to make fortunes denying sick people money for the coverage their premiums paid for. God bless america.

.

Despite what the guy at the tobacco store tells you, clove cigars don't taste just like clove cigarettes. They are terrible.

Not to be rude - it's been a very in phrase lately - but I find it funny to talk about non-smoking in the cigarettes thread. I'm glad you attempt to lead healthy life, however, it's not making any point here. Back on topic. hbig had nice idea in another thread to turn the subject into music, so I've got the Herman's Hermits song "The Man with the Cigar". Not my fave, save the fact it has one of the better vocs by Peter.

.

.

Smoke Rings - Mary Ford and Les Paul

http://youtu.be/bK3APtfqp5Q

There is unfortunately no studio track on YT, it has more polished guitar & bass lines, as well as tons of marimba, but funkiness is still there:
NRBQ - Everybody's Smokin' live on Penn & Teller (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5g2tU7exsLA&index=1&list=PL820B7952FE732F1C)
The 2 showmen had been loyal fans of the band, so naturally, they invited their favorites. Other names are Paul McCartney, Keith Richards, Elvis Costello (not news, his style is similar), the voice of Sponge Bob & even Dylan. NRBQ's fanbase is varied.

I mostly only enjoy cigs after a couple beers, but I occasionally smoke outside of that situation...not often. A nice friend gave me some Camel Straights - best cigarette ive had, though in Asia they did had some cool brands

Anyone here ever smoke Sher Bidis??

(http://www.cigarettespedia.com/images/0/06/Sher_bidi_lion_brand_l_20_b_with_picture_india.jpg)