• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

First Cigarette....

#141
My point entirely.
I like to smoke occasionally. One in a while, like when I'm out for a few beers or during a break at a gig. Then I'll go weeks without a cig. Smoking in excess scares me as I think it should anybody. The same with alcohol. The same with fatty foods. I enjoy all these things but I don't get addicted. I moderate. These things are not a problem for me and I suspect they are not a problem for many other people.
So I don't like the preachy stuff from crusaders and fanatic former smokers and alcolholics and overweight people. These substance abuse problems are theirs, not mine. The problem is their weakness. So on that once every few weeks occasion when I want to smoke it sucks that a law has been passed so I can't do it in a smoking section of a privately owned bar that would otherwise allow it.
I see it as a loss of freedom and an encroachement. It's not just smoking either. It's coming for snack foods and junk foods and it's already here with crazy low (0.08) DUI blood alchohol levels and then there's the drug war (I don't do any drugs).
CrispyDelicious said:
It's too bad some people get addicted so easily. I can go weeks or months without smoking a thing, but if my uncle stops by, we always have port and cigars. If someone offers me a smoke now and then, sure I might take it. There's a way to enjoy the dangerous things in life - using intelligent moderation. This is why I drink beer but am not a raging alcoholic, much like how I might occasionally enjoy a stogie without smoking like a chimney. As a source of occasional recreation and in small doses, these things won't kill you, and can be quite enjoyable. But using them as a crutch puts you in a dangerous position.
Click to expand...
 
#143
ZachOrem said:
Do not talk down to me like that. People do not have ultimate knowledge of right and wrong nor are we capable of diefic empathy. These things taken together mean that nither you, I, or anyone else responding to NINFAN are able to predict what will be a mistake for him. Indeed, smoking could be the emotional release he has been searching for and negitive peer pressure will only be a hinderance to his well-being.

We are getting off topic and I apologize.
Click to expand...

How about if I talk down to you about trying to sound educated and not being able to spell ?

diefic
nither
hinderance
negitive

did you mean to say deific, neither, hindrance, and negative ?....
Is nicotine a spelling enhancer?

OK, back to the OP's topic !
 
#144
Bigjohn said:
My point entirely.
I like to smoke occasionally. One in a while, like when I'm out for a few beers or during a break at a gig. Then I'll go weeks without a cig. Smoking in excess scares me as I think it should anybody. The same with alcohol. The same with fatty foods. I enjoy all these things but I don't get addicted. I moderate. These things are not a problem for me and I suspect they are not a problem for many other people.
So I don't like the preachy stuff from crusaders and fanatic former smokers and alcolholics and overweight people. These substance abuse problems are theirs, not mine. The problem is their weakness. So on that once every few weeks occasion when I want to smoke it sucks that a law has been passed so I can't do it in a smoking section of a privately owned bar that would otherwise allow it.
I see it as a loss of freedom and an encroachement. It's not just smoking either. It's coming for snack foods and junk foods and it's already here with crazy low (0.08) DUI blood alchohol levels and then there's the drug war (I don't do any drugs).
Click to expand...
Weird. I've posted extensively on this very forum my support for bar owners to establish thier own smoking policies, and yet find myself labeled a preachy fanatic former smoker by somene who advocates blowing smoke in others' faces out of spite (in other words, a preachy fanatic smoker). Seems the gun has been jumped. Multiple times. Round hole, square peg, etc, etc, etc.

Mike
 
#145
Bigjohn said:
I see it as a loss of freedom and an encroachement. It's not just smoking either. It's coming for snack foods and junk foods and it's already here with crazy low (0.08) DUI blood alchohol levels and then there's the drug war (I don't do any drugs).
Click to expand...

Are you seriously suggesting that DUI laws which set a .08 limit are an encroachment on your freedom? Do you really believe that you have a right to endanger the safety of other road users by driving while impaired by alcohol?
 
#147
Godfather said:
How about if I talk down to you about trying to sound educated and not being able to spell ?

...
Click to expand...

I know I have terrible spelling, I'll freely admit to it. But you're taking what I said out of context. I believe whoever I directed my comment at (not you) was implying that I was as childish as a first grade kid for arguing the merits of smoking. While my spelling might be on par with the elementary crowd, I would hope my arguments would be given the consideration and thought that they deserve instead of being cast aside as juvenile. That's why I said not to talk down to me. I wasn't trying to assert any sort of intellectual superiority. I was just demanding the respect I feel that everyone deserves. Back in the days of Greek symposium it's true that insults were a important part of moral discussions, but I'd hope we'd have grown up a little in the past few millennia.

I'm sorry if I've offended you. I'm also sorry that you resorted to name calling (BAD SPELLING BAD SPELLING) instead of trying to deconstruct my arguments.

I might not be the most intelligent guy out there - but I try. What else would you have me do?

PS: You asked is nicotine is a spelling enhancer - it might very well be. I've said twice in this thread that I don't smoke; so you never know. If I light up I might just become more competent.
 
#148
Febs said:
Are you seriously suggesting that DUI laws which set a .08 limit are an encroachment on your freedom?
Click to expand...

Potentially, yes.

Febs said:
Do you really believe that you have a right to endanger the safety of other road users by driving while impaired by alcohol?
Click to expand...

Nope - I also don't believe in determining "impaired" with static measurements.

I'm a big proponent of functional impairment testing and tickets issued on the basis of actual impairment - whether that impairment is caused by alcohol, drugs, lack of sleep, or general idiocy is irrelevant.
 
#151
aborgman said:
It doesn't require a perfect world - the technology already exists.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I don't believe that.

If you can find me technology that can test for lack of sleep or general idiocy - or better yet, a technology that can test for narcotics or alchohol and discern on a case by case basis what the 'limit' of intoxication is for that particular person in a reasonable amount of time (say an hour), I'll eat my words - but it seems like fantasy to me.
 
#155
ZachOrem said:
I'm sorry, I don't believe that.

If you can find me technology that can test for lack of sleep or general idiocy - or better yet, a technology that can test for narcotics or alchohol and discern on a case by case basis what the 'limit' of intoxication is for that particular person in a reasonable amount of time (say an hour), I'll eat my words - but it seems like fantasy to me.
Click to expand...

See the Bowles-Langley and their alertness testing for industrial safety for an example.

A 2 minute or so test, that will reveal any impairment - regardless of source.

See: http://www.bowles-langley.com/Resourcedocs/AC-Access.pdf

If you'd like to try one yourself.
 
#156
aborgman said:
See the Bowles-Langley and their alertness testing for industrial safety for an example.

A 2 minute or so test, that will reveal any impairment - regardless of source.

See: http://www.bowles-langley.com/Resourcedocs/AC-Access.pdf

If you'd like to try one yourself.
Click to expand...


Interesting, but I bet tests like those can be beat. I know some pretty focused potheads who would excell at those games but still couldn't be trusted with hurling a two ton metal casket down the street at 110kph while stoned.

There's has to be a balance between one man's freedom to drown himself in drink and another man's right to be free from the potential danger of the first man's inebriation. I think that most rational people would be happy to cope with a tiny bit of restiction when it comes to where you can be and what you can do while drunk or high if the boons of the ristrictions are safety and peace of mind for everyone.

Sure, you might be able to drive just fine with moonshine flowing through your veins, but I believe all men should be equal under the eyes of the law. A mind altering chemical in your brain is cause enough for you to be taken off the road.
 
#159
rarisgod said:
Anyone who does not think it's wrong for someone to start smoking is insane.

Smoking is bad. That's the truth. Get over it.
Click to expand...

So a guy who has never smoked in his life, has cancer, and is going to die in a month anyway - takes up smoking because of the pleasure the nicotine buzz gives him... and he is insane?

Now, I'll agree that smoking is unhealthy. So is drinking... and a million other things - but sometimes unhealthy choices aren't dumb, because the benefits outweigh the costs.

I'll also add that your average person doesn't do a good cost/benefit analysis when making any of their decisions.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back