I'm new to this board and just got around to installing hijack today. I tried making a few boot images with just a pack of cigarettes I had laying on my desk. I'd like some opinions about them, not necesarly the content but the quality.




http://www.gtahq.com/jason/riocar/marlborobox.raw


http://www.gtahq.com/jason/riocar/marlborobox2.raw

Take care not to use these in Belgium.

Rob

Out of curiosity, Why not?

The Belgian govenment in their infinite wisdom decided on a law that forbids every kind of advertising for smoking products. It's for this reason we'll probably also won't have a Formula1 championship in Belgium this year, because most of the sponsors there are from smoking products companies and they really don't care for the new law.

I myself, though I am very much against smoking and think it is a disgusting habit, don't think this law is a good thing. I don't think this national ban on smoking advertising will stop anyone from smoking. Politicians are blind if they think it will. For one, advertising does not stop at the borders. To give just one example : probably 90% of all tv channels that are on the cable here are foreign stations, which are not subjectable to the new law. Same goes (to a lesser degree) for magazines that are sold here.

That and the fact that I don't believe anyone ever started smoking because they thought the commercials looked nice. They did because of their sociological interactions with other people. (admit it : most of you started smoking because one of your friends or your whole group of friends did) Commercials only support smoking behaviour. I don't believe they create it and thus they can't also make it go away if they are forbidden.

Ah, that's assinine. They banned tobacco ads on TV here (the US) and it hasn't done a thing except save the tobacco companies from spending money on TV ads that won't alter things. They also caused a HUGE increase in the number of billboard/magazine ads, which I percieve as an eyesore.

not necesarly the content but the quality.

If I am any sort of example, some members of this BBS can not always be relied upon to stay on topic -- tend to wander off on our own agendal tangents. In fairness, I'll try to indicate that so that you can skip those parts if you like....

Quality? Well, I'm not much of an expert on visuals, so I don't think I have much to say on that score.

[RANTANGENT]

Man, the content, though. Eeeeeewe!

Many of the original Marlboro Men -- those Stetson-wearing, horse-riding studs -- have died from emphysema and lung cancer. It is amazing, though, just how persistent a grip the brand they built has on the collective tobacco psyche. I mean, Marlboro was a low-selling girlie PM brand until those cowboys came along. Now, look at them. Formula One, logo clothing and ballcaps! They is everywhere! Oh, and there are reports that while the original cowboys died clutching their oxygen cannulas in the West, PM hired some new cowboys to ride the herd into the East.

I'm sorry that Belgium is missing a Grand Prix this year, but I salute their decision. Just think, if FIA sticks to its EU-driven decision, there will be no tobacco advertising starting in 2006 and it will be a level playing field (that is, of course, if the tobacco industry fails to get the FIA to overturn that ban).

Man, I was heartbroken to see Peugeot strike a deal with Marlboro in WRC for 2003. How can I root for them? The logo pollutes what *was* a beautiful car. Like they weren't competitive and needed the money!! They did it just to keep Marlboro money out of a lesser team's hands (Corrado Provera, if you are reading this then let me tell you that you are a souless creep!).

But I digress from my digression. I smoked a pack and a half a day of Marlboros for 14 years starting at age 13. Until I die I will remember the precise date, time, and location where I smoked my last one 23 years ago. To Lectric's point, did advertising have anything to do with me starting? Well, I don't rightly remember (Hey, I was 13!).

I did smoke that brand faithfully, but it wasn't too long before I really wanted to quit, but couldn't find a way (this was a particular bitch when the Army PX would sell me a carton for $1.50!), and I only quit after a long, long struggle. OK, I was faithful insofar as I was really, really hooked, but would I have ever thought of wearing a Marlboro ballcap? This is what I don't get. Most folks who smoke really want to quit, yet some are willing to provide free advertising for their oppressor?

The absolute effect of advertising bans may not yet be very well understood. As compared to things like raising prices (which in a recent study here in Washinton State seem to have a definite effect), maybe advertising bans don't accomplish as much. I don't have a problems with them, though. I *do* have a problem with a 12 year-old standing on a stage watching the New Marlboro Men -- Richard Burns, Marcus Gronholm, Gilles Pannizzi, or Harri Rovanpera -- ride their steeds by and perhaps be seduced into the conclusion that Marlboro just *might* be cool.

[/RANTANGENT]

...And the LARGE increase of smoking in PG-13 movies.

Spa has been confirmed dropped in 2003. In 2006 tobacco advertising will be banned in all European countries so the teams will need some new (less lethal) sponsors. F1 were upset that Belgium couldn't wait until then.

Rob

I wonder... if the anti-tobacco alliance or whatever they call themselves were to start a campaign claiming that their eco-saboteurs had infiltrated the tobacco companies, and had placed an instantly lethal dose of potassium cyanide in one out of every 10,000 cigarettes...

Do you think it would have an effect on the number of cigarettes sold and consumed?

Tobacco is amazing -- truly it must be the only product legally sold in America (other than handguns) that, when used as intended, kills the user.

tanstaafl.

Maybe I'm missing something, but last time I checked, hand guns were intended to kill the person on the other side of the hand gun... They're not sold for suicide.

As an anti-smoker, I have to say I hate anti-smoking comericals. All they do is give it that same "i'm going to live forever" appeal that teenagers are looking for. Most smokers know tabacco companies are evil anyways... I'm not sure what the right way to market the message to teenagers, but it's still certainly an unsolved problem. (Don't get me started on the pot-causes-terrorism adds)

Matthew

Tobacco is amazing -- truly it must be the only product legally sold in America (other than handguns) that, when used as intended, kills the user.


What about bullets?
And someone should teach users which way to point handguns

I'm a smoker and I think there should be a world-wide ban on all tobacco and everything related to it.

I'm not a smoker and find it repulsive

I find the stupidist part of the whole tobacco debate is how it's legal, taxes are collected on it (lots of taxes), the farmers are even subsidzed but then the government sues the tobacco companies and tries to ban the stuff everyplace. If they are going to sue them and ban the crap from everywhere it should be illegal. But I want less government not more and prohibition worked so well (yeah right)

I'll go out on a limb here, I like the logo. And I can't wait to get my Marlboro tent I sent away for last month

[rant] It's fine to promote drinking, which kills quite a few people from complications and drunk drivers but god forbid we be allowed to smoke. I for one quit going to baseball games when they banned smoking in the seats at an outdoor stadium. It was ok for the jerks next to be to be insulting and drunk and knock beers on me but I sure wasn't allowed to offend them by smoking next to them. [/rant]

Insults and beer stains can't kill you. Tobacco smoke can.

Drunk drivers can. Has anyone ever been killed by someone driving under the influence of a cigarette?

The environment can kill you also but most of us don't live in plastic bubbles because of it.

But drunk driving is illegal and the environment is unavoidable.

Mind you, I'm not saying that annoying drunks aren't more immediately annoying than smokers.

Smoking isn't illegal yet everywhere and you can avoid being around it. And being illegal doesn't stop very many people from driving drunk. I just get tired of people saying it's such a disgusting habit, there are many things people do in public that others find disgusting.

Oh, nevermind.

Well, most baseball stadiums (your original example locale) have assigned seating, so I can't avoid being near a smoker if one is near me. And the fact that people don't pay attention to the law and the fact that it's barely enforced doesn't make drunk driving any less illegal or dangerous.

It is a disgusting habit, but that's not the reason it's banned in public places. It's banned because it kills people who don't intentionally use it.

And, as Steve Martin said, ``Mind if I fart?''

I wonder... if the anti-tobacco alliance or whatever they call themselves were to start a campaign claiming that their eco-saboteurs had infiltrated the tobacco companies, and had placed an instantly lethal dose of potassium cyanide in one out of every 10,000 cigarettes...

Do you think it would have an effect on the number of cigarettes sold and consumed?

I kinda doubt it. I have met two people who set themselves ablaze when making the decision to have a cigarette even though they were tied to an oxygen cylinder.

Of course these folks were seriously addicted and didn't have much to lose. The cyanide campaign might have more of an impact on the newbies!

As an anti-smoker, I have to say I hate anti-smoking comericals. All they do is give it that same "i'm going to live forever" appeal that teenagers are looking for. Most smokers know tabacco companies are evil anyways... I'm not sure what the right way to market the message to teenagers, but it's still certainly an unsolved problem.

You can join a whole bunch of PhD behavioral psychologists in not knowing what the right message is for teenagers!

FWIW, I will say that some of the common wisdom doesn't always hold true. Like "pressuring someone to quit doesn't help". I quit precisely because of a lot of friendly pressure. Emphasis on friendly.

I find the stupidist part of the whole tobacco debate is how it's legal, taxes are collected on it (lots of taxes), the farmers are even subsidzed but then the government sues the tobacco companies and tries to ban the stuff everyplace. If they are going to sue them and ban the crap from everywhere it should be illegal. But I want less government not more and prohibition worked so well

Absurd, isn't it? Subsidies and all of that. Says something about vested regional interests. One thing that ticks me off is some of the huge state tobacco settlements (ostensibly to recover health care costs) being siphoned off to pay for unrelated programs.

I'd agree, though, with your end conclusion. Prohibition nevers seems to provide an answer -- imagine how peeved Laura would be!! -- but the approach that seems to work (and Laura isn't obliged to like it either) is taxation/regulation -- sin taxes, more or less.

Has there been a documented case of second hand smoke killing anyone? Then again, Living in most major cities will do the same things to your lungs and that doesn't seem to stop people.

OK, I'm a smoker, but let's set one thing clear, if someone asks me politely, I have no compunction whatsoever about putting it out. I do not smoke in other peoples cars, even with permission UNLESS they are also a smoker. What I DO hate is people that make some snide remark purposely loud enough for me to hear and hope that'll shame me into snuffing out or going away. My typical response in that situation is to start chain smoking and follow them around for the next half hour or so. I guess I'm one of those people who values respect. Treat me with respect and I'll reciprocate. Treat me with disdain and I'll behave likewise. Same goes for banging on the wall in an apartment. Is it REALLY so hard to knock on my door and ask politely for me to turn down whatever I'm doing? OK, I'm done, and I need a smoke.

Mason

I'll go out on a limb here, I like the logo. And I can't wait to get my Marlboro tent I sent away for last month

You're not out on a limb. You're just saying what you think.

I want to say that I don't want to succumb to generalizations. I remember some pleasurable aspects of smoking. And there are folks out there who thoroughly enjoy smoking, who are glad that PM invented Marlboros, and who will never in 110 years experience the really shitty, painful things that make tobacco/cigarettes such an evil, evil thing.

[rant] It's fine to promote drinking, which kills quite a few people from complications and drunk drivers but god forbid we be allowed to smoke.

I wouldn't dispute the adverse health effects of excessive drinking or negligent intoxication, but they aren't obligatorily tied to beer/wine/spirits. Also, we're finding that a glass of wine/beer with dinner can be outright good for you, something that I don't think will ever be said about cigarettes!

I for one quit going to baseball games when they banned smoking in the seats at an outdoor stadium. It was ok for the jerks next to be to be insulting and drunk and knock beers on me but I sure wasn't allowed to offend them by smoking next to them.

Uh, two wrongs don't make a right or something like that? It was *not* OK for them to knock beers on you. You may be mildly interested to know that I stomped out of the last baseball game I ever attended (in 1992) after having a drunken yahoo tip a super-size beer doen my back. I considered starting a fistfight or having he and his two drunken cronies arrested, but then I said "Naw, who needs the frickin' Mariners?". I don't think I'd fare very well in the presence of football hooligans!

Has there been a documented case of second hand smoke killing anyone? Then again, Living in most major cities will do the same things to your lungs and that doesn't seem to stop people.

Leaving aside a bunch of bad things like asthma and emphysema, let's take something pretty pathologically objective like squamous cell lung cancer (that is very closely tied to smoking in our world).

Secondhand smoke-wise, you can always find someone who contracted SCLC (or asthma or emphysema or something ) who never smoked or who was not exposed to secondhand smoke. Likewise you can find folks who contracted those bad things and who *were* exposed to tobacco.

It's the old bell-curve thing, though. It isn't what happens in any single case. It is about what the risk is for an overall population in what epidemiologists (I used to be one) call "relative risk"

It is in the interest of tobacco companies to poke holes in causative implications based in the same old "My Uncle Charlie smoked until he was 110!" basis, but it belies the really nasty [censored] that befalls their customers when you look across the whole population of their customers.

Anyhow, the overall bad effects of secondhand smoke are decently well established (look here for starters), are becoming even more well established, and I think I can safely say that most flight attendants are *really* glad you can no longer smoke on their airplanes!

I considered starting a fistfight or having he and his two drunken cronies arrested

I've had to pick up friends from the hospital several times after they got drawn into a fight with a drunken person, or a group of the drunk's friends after my friends 'won' the fight they didn't pick in the first place. Myself, I've managed to avoid getting into any such fights, I find it easier to leave humiliated than to end up in a hospital.

Oh, and I lost one good friend due to a drunk driver, and have another friend who lost a parent...

On the positive side, nobody I know has died or ended up in a hospital as a result of second hand smoke. So right now I actually do consider the effects of drinking on others more dangerous than second-hand smoke. Maybe the balance will change as I get older, although I hope not. Now I have to find that piece of wood to knock on.

I find it easier to leave humiliated than to end up in a hospital.

Yup, being humilated generally requires *way* fewer stitches!!

Oh, and I lost one good friend due to a drunk driver, and have another friend who lost a parent...

On the positive side, nobody I know has died or ended up in a hospital as a result of second hand smoke. So right now I actually do consider the effects of drinking on others more dangerous than second-hand smoke. Maybe the balance will change as I get older, although I hope not. Now I have to find that piece of wood to knock on.

Don't knock too hard. No way do I want to minimize the tragedies that result from drunk driving, and, yes, I can believe that it would be seen as a more immediate problem in the 20s and 30s given the statistics.

On average, bad smoking-related things like emphysema/COPD generally won't kick in until later, but that isn't an absolute. I remember a guy -- 27? 28? -- who wandered into our ER complaining of a persistent chest cold and the sad look on the radiologist's face (looking at the chest X-ray) that essentially said "This poor bastard's [censored]." He was. The whole bell curve thing.

Believe me, I am in no way stating that I don't believe smoking is bad for you. Or even that being around smokers is bad for you. I was just saying that there are SOOO many things to worry about, second hand smoke is generally a lame excuse for telling someone what they can and can not do. I mean, based on that, we should not drive cars, for several reasons, they crash into things when not driven properly, they expel WAAAAAAY more noxious smoke than my cigarette does, they produce carbon monoxide, they add to noise pollution, air pollution, and water pollution, they drain the natural resources of our earth, ad nauseum. But there are very few people complaining about driving cars. I mean, for heavens sake, saccharin is known to cause cancer, but am I going to stop using it because of that?

Basically, there is nothing in this world that is totally risk free, and if there was, it probably wouldn't be enjoyable anyway.

Basically what I'm saying is this: I know smoking is bad for me, but I choose to do it anyway. If you don't like my smoke, don't stand near me, but don't expect me to stop simply because you say to. For the record, I don't intend to stop drinking, driving (not at the same time, don't get nervous) , walking across the street, talking on my cell, skydiving, scuba diving, swimming, surfing, drinking artificially flavored drinks, eating my twinkies with no expiration dates, listening to my music loud, or consuming polyunsaturated fats for fear of dying from it. Life is too short as it is to live in that kind of fear. I'll just do as I damn well please and let God handle the incidentals.

For the record, the number of people I know that have died from alcohol related disease outnumbers the smokers 6-1. Liver disease can be a very bad thing indeed.

Believe me, I am in no way stating that I don't believe smoking is bad for you. Or even that being around smokers is bad for you.

It sounded like you might be questioning the latter (granted, there are different levels of "being around smokers" that would have a lot to do with how bad it is for you).

I was just saying that there are SOOO many things to worry about, second hand smoke is generally a lame excuse for telling someone what they can and can not do. I mean, based on that, we should not drive cars....

Now *I'm* going to go out on a limb here and say that this is a sentiment that I have heard a lot of smokers express, often relatively young smokers, *before* they start experiencing shortness of breath when pushing a gurney up a gentle incline, *before* they start having chronic colds and sinus infections , and *before* those chronic sinus problems mean that they can't breath through their nose at night so wake up 3-4 times a night from mouth breathing.

, for several reasons, they crash into things when not driven properly, they expel WAAAAAAY more noxious smoke than my cigarette does, they produce carbon monoxide, they add to noise pollution, air pollution, and water pollution, they drain the natural resources of our earth, ad nauseum. But there are very few people complaining about driving cars. I mean, for heavens sake, saccharin is known to cause cancer, but am I going to stop using it because of that?

IIRC, the juries on saccharin and aspartame are still out. I'm going to guess, though, that in 10 years if you are still using saccharin but you decide that it is bad for you, I think you'll be able to quit. Let's talk in 10 years about your tobacco addiction (or let's not!)

Basically, there is nothing in this world that is totally risk free, and if there was, it probably wouldn't be enjoyable anyway.

I agree. I don't think of myself as a killjoy prohibitionist type.

Basically what I'm saying is this: I know smoking is bad for me, but I choose to do it anyway.

This is indeed your choice.

If you don't like my smoke, don't stand near me,

Hey, I was sitting here first!!

but don't expect me to stop simply because you say to.

I don't think I'm saying that. In all honesty, I guess I'd have to say that I'd be OK with prohibiting you from seeing cigarette ads all over town and that it would be OK if the government increases cigarette taxes to pay for your future health care costs and to create an economic barrier to potential teenage smokers (and that you can't smoke in buildings where other folks are), but that's about it.

For the record, I don't intend to stop drinking, driving (not at the same time, don't get nervous) , walking across the street, talking on my cell, skydiving, scuba diving, swimming, surfing, drinking artificially flavored drinks, eating my twinkies with no expiration dates, listening to my music loud, or consuming polyunsaturated fats for fear of dying from it. Life is too short as it is to live in that kind of fear.

I don't want to read too much into the brief comment by jets (a smoker against smoking), but I'm guessing that those comments are coming from someone who has started to feel some of the negatives -- social, economic, health, whatever. You may be the exception, but otherwise I think the time is going to come (all of the qualifications about skydiving, drinking, etc aside) when you will really want to quit. That's just my guess.

I'll just do as I damn well please and let God handle the incidentals.

Hey, I worship the Big Blue Invisible Bunny, but I'm not sure I trust him with my health!

Watch those Twinkies!

In reply to:

---

On the positive side, nobody I know has died or ended up in a hospital as a result of second hand smoke.

---

I think I said this last time smoking came up, but I'll say it again. Smoking is banned in bars here because of the employees have no choice. You or I can chose not to go into a business, and only spend a few hours doing in our lungs if we so chose. The waitress spends 40 hours a week in that smoky environement. Their lungs will be harmed by the presistent smoke.

Matthew

But the waitresses choose to work there. Yes, I know they have rent to pay, but so do the guys building skyscrapers. They assess the risk, and they choose to do the work. If second hand smoke was really a big problem for employees, then bars would have a tough time finding waitresses and the average salary for working in a smoke environment would go up.

Should we exterminate bears because they put park rangers at risk who have "no choice" but to work there?

I believe a bar owner has every right to not allow smoking in his bar, but the government has no right to tell him he can't smoke in his own building. Nobody is forced to endure a smoky environment (unless they are a child). Whether they're an employee or a customer, they choose to go in and take the risk. However, I would support a law that would require employers to inform their employees of the risks they are taking and things they are breathing, but you would have to be retarded not to realize that you are breathing smoke in a bar.

In reply to:

---

Should we exterminate bears because they put park rangers at risk who have "no choice" but to work there?

---

I think you'll find that any bear attacking humans is relocated or put down. All park rangers cary guns, and know how to deal with usualy harmless bears. In fact, I've never heard of a park ranger being killed by a bear.

What you do in the privacy of your own home, between consenting adults, is compleetly up to you. But if you want to do it in public, it shouldn't harm other people who happen to be around you.

Anyways, I think this topic has been discussed to death. Please insert this thread into the conversation.

Matthew

OK the bear wasn't the best example, but....

"What you do in the privacy of your own home, between consenting adults, is compleetly up to you"

Exactly my point! A bar is not a public place. It is a private place that the owner chooses to open to the public. He doesn't have to let anyone in. That's why I think it is absurd that someone who does not have the right to be there can protest about smoke! If you don't like the smoke then get out!

should smoking be banned in private homes where children reside? do they have a choice? should they not get the same protection as the average barfly?

seems to me this is a slippery-slope argument that is hard to justify. gotta say i agree with d3zzY on this one.

--dan.

I'd like to hear your opinion of this when you grow up and you've been out of work for a year through no fault of your own. Then let's talk about making choices.

Has there been a documented case of second hand smoke killing anyone?

No one directly answered this, and I don't have a reference for you, unfortunately, but there have been studies performed that examined the rate of tobacco-related illnesses in long-term bar waitresses who didn't smoke versus a control group of people who didn't smoke, and there seemed to be higher instances of those illnesses in the waitresses.

I find it somewhat ludicrous and hypocritical that bans on smoking in bars are being introduced as a "Health and Safety at work" measure. This has only happened since a ruling (I can't remember where) that said a town/state couldn't generically ban a legal activity in a private establishment - which is what they were trying to do. It's just so convenient that they can talk about the waitresses' health to achieve the same motive.
Every job has risks - chemists work with dangerous chemicals, biologists with organisms, builders with heights and machinery, radiologists, dentists and their staff with radiation, electronic engineers with leaded solder, interior decorators with paint fumes/old leaded paint etc, software engineers with management-induced stress, etc.

Maybe we should ban cars from the road since they pose a risk to the traffic cop at roadworks? And houses since they pose a risk to firefighters when they catch alight? Electricity since it poses a risk to the electrician fixing your wiring? Cooking equipment because it poses a risk of burns to cooks?

Maybe once we're done, we can all sit around in a (smoke-free) bar bemoaning the fact that none of us can afford a beer, and that we are all either hungry or suffering from salmonella. ( Although without chemists there won't be any beer, and we're going to have trouble that bar, considering that no-one could build it, decorate it, wire it etc. )

Maybe we should just sit in a field instead. That would be progress.

There comes a time in life where you choose a vocation. It is unfortunate that this time is usually in your early teens, and that whilst the advisor tells you about the rewards, benefits and challenges of that vocation, they rarely tell you about the risks. But whatever, once that vocation has been chosen, it is up to you to research the risks involved and decide whether it is worth pursuing further. And it's unfortunate that sometimes the risks just are not known yet. Whatever.
My point is that it is *impossible* to remove every risk from every workplace, only to reduce it where it is possible to do so without making that business a non-viable one. We'll stop using leaded solder in electronics when safer viable options exist, just as we stopped painting our houses with lead paint. We'll stop using foam that emits toxic chemicals when burned, just as we stopped using 'wire and spool' as an electrical standard. And so on. Making the workplace a safer place.
But do you see these towns and states introducing legislation to mandate effect air filtrage in bars? That would be an effective manner of increasing the air quality - and could also reduce other airborne pathogens such as pollen and viruses (virui?, virii? Where's Bitt?). Do you see them introducing legislation to mandate better communication of risks to employees? Or to mandate employer health insurance to cover periodical checkups?
No, they just want to generically ban smoking in bars, and can't do it any other way.

This to me is just sneaky, backhanded and an abuse of power. It's right up there with federal lawmakers tacking on a controversial piece of legislation as an amendment to an unrelated and popular bill, just because they know they couldn't pass it any other way.

BTW, the 'sin tax' idea unfortunately becomes a tax on the poor. A higher percentage of the lower classes smoke. And the argument of using tobacco tax to "pay for the additional health costs due to smoking" is not a good one either - the UK currently earns 3 times more in tobacco tax than it costs to run the NHS. So you could say that smokers pay for the health of everyone...and then some. And in the US, smokers already pay a premium hike for health insurance - I'd love to see the underlying figures to justify the amount.

it kills people who don't intentionally use it

Sources Please?

The whole debate of second hand smoke (ETS) was started by an EPA "study" in 1992. That study claimed that 3000 people would die each year from second hand smoke and classified ETS as a Class A carcinogen. The study was challenged in court and was found by Judge Osteen in 1998 to be deeply flawed and was written to do nothing more than support their predetermined results. There are numerous analyses of the report on the web and in print. Take your pick.

For the record, I am a non-smoker.

As a restaurant type person myself, I have gone through a few of these changes in smoking policies in different places. The one thing that remains the same, is that when smoking is banned in a restaurant or bar, sales go down.

Every server and bartender that has ever worked for me when one of these smoking bans was either instituted or lifted, agrees that the money they make with the smoking is more important than the detriment to their health. I think that servers and bartenders don't really care too much about the heath hazards of second hand smoke because most of them view their jobs as pretty much temporary work. Athough a good many of them end up working in the industry for many years. Most of them want to work where there is smoking because of the seemingly direct corrolation between smoking, drinking and high tipping.

They all also agree that they have a choice to not work in that environment. In fact, one waitress that worked for me had asthma, so she never worked around the bar or smoking sections. Of course she did not have the opportunity to make as much money as the other servers sometimes, but that was her choice.

Tobacco is amazing -- truly it must be the only product legally sold in America (other than handguns) that, when used as intended, kills the user

I don't know what kind of gun you are using but any gun I've ever used as intended a) did not kill me (the user) and b) did not kill anything else that was living.

Its when you don't use a gun as intended that sadly gets people hurt or killed.

Its when you don't use a gun as intended that sadly gets people hurt or killed.

ok then. What exactly is the intention of a gun?

I think a gun works as intended when the trigger is pulled and a bullet comes out the other end at the designed speed with the desired rate of rotation and it doesn't blow up in the hands of the user or jam. Any definition of 'works as intended' beyond that implies the intention of the user and not the tool. The gun does not decide where it's pointed and when it's fired.

-Zeke

ok, here is a more direct question for those of us who need help...

When the gun was invented, what was it's intended purpose?

Has that intended purpose changed over time? or is it the same?

I would say to kill other people. In this light the gun was simply the continuation in lineage of the bow & arrow, club, sharp stick, knife. Any of these things can also be used for constructive, non-murderous purposes. The point I'm making is that an item does not have murderous intents. That the gun is a very effective tool for carrying out murderous intents is not the same thing. It's an important distinction.

-Zeke

When the gun was invented, what was it's intended purpose?
Hunting, protection, and battle.

The intended purpose has expanded - and yes, some things guns are used for are wrong and evil.

I take gun ownership and marksmanship to be a hobby and simply that. Same as someone would pick up a bow & arrow or a crossbow and shoot at targets. I don't use guns as a weapon to protect myself with, or to promote violence.

What really pisses me off is how crap American washing machines / houses / hurricaines are compared with their British / European / Iraqi counterparts. You guys drive on the wrong side of the road, you proceed on red lights and your TV looks wierd. There's only one true spotted dick and Maggie Thatcher is George Bush Snr's love child.

Guns are bad. Smoke spliffs.

Rob

What the hell was that in response to?

And speaking of spliffs, I understand that there was some British legislation to ignore people carrying personal-use marijuana. You might be interested to note that there's a proposition in Nevada to make possession of 3 oz. or less for personal use totally legal.

Same legislation as in Canada.

I wanted to hurry the thread along a bit.

Rob

we should not drive cars, for several reasons, they crash into things when not driven properly, they expel WAAAAAAY more noxious smoke than my cigarette does, they produce carbon monoxide, they add to noise pollution, air pollution, and water pollution, they drain the natural resources of our earth, ad nauseum. But there are very few people complaining about driving cars.

That's because there are measurable, quantifiable, and quite significant advantages to driving cars that are far more important than the disadvantages.

Can you say the same thing about tobacco usage?

tanstaafl.

That's because there are measurable, quantifiable, and quite significant advantages to driving cars that are far more important than the disadvantages.

Can you say the same thing about tobacco usage?


Some of us actually enjoy smoking.

How else would I get that wonderful light-headed feeling. Actually, I'm much more pleasant to be around if I've had a smoke.

That's because there are measurable, quantifiable, and quite significant advantages to driving cars that are far more important than the disadvantages.


Really?
Wind back the clock 100 years and look at what small communities had - local industry, local shops, and a local community spirit.
The 'advantages' that cars have brought include those such as large out of town malls that non-driving pensioners can't get too, that have helped create inner- city/town declines, large centralised employers vs. smaller distributed employers, and an ever-increasing pace of life where society *accepts* sitting in traffic for 12% of a 16 hour day as normal.

Don't get me wrong - I love to drive. Winding roads over hilly terrain, and no traffic in sight. But apart from that, the car is a means to an end. It's a means of getting to and from work that is moving further away, and a means of picking up grocerys from stores that are also moving away.

It's very difficult to survive without a car now - and that can't be a good thing. Sure, there are some advantages too*, but I wouldn't neccessarily state that they are "far more important" than those aspects of life that we have given up.

*Just where would you install an empeg on a horse?

It's very difficult to survive without a car now - and that can't be a good thing. Sure, there are some advantages too*, but I wouldn't neccessarily state that they are "far more important" than those aspects of life that we have given up.

As I watch traffic around here get worse and watch mass trasit initiatives spin their wheels, I am more and more away of the mixed blessing of the automobile. It seems like an implementation issue, though. There are small towns where the elderly can walk to the store or take a bus there. They just don't seem to be in the car and freeway-fixated country I live in. I've fallen into the trap. Moving out west from Boston years ago, I can no longer walk down the block to the local pizza shop. More things require a drive.

To balance this out, though, I'm going to guess that most of the ranchers in Two Dot, Montana -- a very small town -- are *real* glad that the automobile (and pickup truck) were invented.

Yes, where would I put my Empeg on that horse? Oh, and if we absolutely had to wind the clok back to 1902, some of those elderly folks wouldn't be walking to the store. they'd be pushing up daisies after succumbing to pneumonia in a pre-antibiotic world (another mixed blessing).

Some of us actually enjoy smoking.

That goes without saying. I used to enjoy it, sort of.

A few questions, though, if I may be so bold:

How many years has it been? Could you quit tomorrow on a big bet? If I was Jim the Magic Fairy and offered you a wave of my magic wand to let you quit tomorrow, for good, with no struggle and no pain involved, would your answer be "yes" or "no"?

If I was Jim the Magic Fairy...


You mean you're not?

oh yeah, nice logos...

I will answer your questions truthfully since you asked so nicely.

How many years has it been?

33 years. I have quit twice for 2 years each time and started back up again.

quit tomorrow, for good, with no struggle and no pain involved, would your answer be "yes" or "no"?

A part of me would say yes and a part of me would say no. I would be happiest to cut way back but without a wave of a magic wand I know even that is very difficult to do.

My neigbour was killed when a smoker dropped his cigarette and lost control of the car trying to get it off the floor. So yes, someone was killed by someone driving under the influence of a cigarette.

I'm sorry to hear that, but I don't think that was quite what Laura meant...
If you're talking about distractions, then we should also consider cell phones, fast food, conversation and ICE/GPS as potential killers too.

Actually a friend of mine has such a phobia of any small and multi-legged - spiders, ants, centipedes, you name it, that she vacuums her car daily to try and avoid accidents, as her reaction to seeing a creepy crawlie is to let go of the steering wheel and duck. She's still had 2 ant-related accidents in the past 5 years though, and I'm trying to persuade her to see a phobia specialist so that she can at least gain enough composure to stop the car safely..

I don't think that was quite what Laura meant...

I know, but I'm still a silly rabbit.

OK...
7 years.

I doubt it, but it's worth a shot. (actually, if my g/f didn't ALSO smoke it would be esier.)

And probably. The odd thing is that there's no real pain for me. I just WANT one. Actually, it was easier to quit when I was on my ritalin. One of the effects of ADD is cumpulsive/addictive behaviour. I had quit for a year or so and then went through a rough period and jumped back on the wagon, so to speak.

Oh, as she quickly reminded me with a swat to the backside of the head, she is no longer my g/f, but my fiancee.

You mean you're not?

I *knew* I could depend on someone to ask!

Oh.....Not telling!

A part of me would say yes and a part of me would say no.

Laura, thanks for answering. When I find that dad-gumm magic wand (It's always flying off!) I'll be in touch.

(actually, if my g/f [FIANCE! FIANCE!}didn't ALSO smoke it would be esier.)

Yeah, for a person who decided that they do want to to quit, this is one of the biggest classic obstacles....

on somewhat of a similar note, my girlfriends brother, who has been smoking for about 10 years or so (he's 27) was just diagnosed with Emphysema. He of course had to quit the day his doctor told him about it. His fiancee quit smoking the same day.

The sad part about the whole thing is that his father who has been smoking for over 30 years and is a very loving, compassionate guy, cannot quit. His whole family has pleaded with him for years to stop smoking and he can't bring himself to do it.

It is a real shame that a thing as simple as a cigarette can bring a strong man to such a pathetic state as to not be able to stop smoking for the love of his son.

[judgemental statement]
People (especially those with families) who understand that smoking kills both themselves and people around them and still continue to do nothing to try and stop are among the most selfish people I know.
[/judgemental statement]

I had quit for a year or so and then went through a rough period and jumped back on the wagon, so to speak

[seinfeld reference]Isn't it "jumped off the wagon"?[/seinfeld reference]

[judgemental statement]
People (especially those with families) who understand that smoking kills both themselves and people around them and still continue to do nothing to try and stop are among the most selfish people I know.
[/judgemental statement]

How about this. My friend's girlfriend (who smokes and drinks) recently found out she was pregnant. When she found out she was pregnant, I believe she was already 5 months! She had been smoking and drinking all that time. Even worse, she hasn't stopped. That is a shame, and very sad. I must agree with your statement, and in this case, at least for the sake of the baby, expectant moms must be responsible.

Unfortunately, outside of the strong urging, coercing, etc that myself and all my friends have done, she won't/can't quit.

Just goes to show that just because you can get pregnant doesn't mean you should ever be a parent.

If you're talking about distractions, then we should also consider cell phones, fast food, conversation and ICE/GPS as potential killers too.

You bet. I'd be more than happy if drivers were banned from using a cell phone. I was nearly plastered by a woman yakking on the phone. I was saved by the fact that it takes longer to rollerblade across 2 lanes of a 4 lane street than it did for her to run the red light. She stopped in the middle of the intersection and shrugged at me. Then there was the time a guy rolled through a stop sign and into the middle of the crosswalk that I was currently in (missing me by about a foot). He was on the phone, too. You should have seen him jump when I slammed the shoes I was carrying on his trunk -- he followed me for 10 minutes, until I cut through the University of Toronto campus, where he couldn't follow in his car with a dented trunk.

I'd be more than happy if drivers were banned from using a cell phone

In Belgium it's been forbidden (since last year) to use a cell phone while driving. I you really want to phone you need to use a car kit. The fines are also pretty high.

Most people still do it though...

I'd be more than happy if drivers were banned from using a cell phone.

Some states in the US are working on passing this legislation. I think some already have.

Of course, if they do that, I think they also should ban drivers from eating, applying makeup, reading, and making empeg EQ adjustments.

Bumper sticker seen: "Maybe you'd drive better with that cell phone up your ass."

Metro NY(the five boroughs of New York City proper) has a ban on cell use without a hands-free headset. New Hampshire recently passed a 'Driving while distracted' law that gives police pretty broad discretion in what behavior constitutes 'distracted'. It could be anything from yelling at kids to reading a book while driving (yes, I have seen this!).

-Zeke

Here in Louisiana, distracted driving laws have been on the books for quite some time. It is, however, very rarely enforced. Usually when it is the cause of an accident, and another fine is issued.