Smoking

Post Reply New Topic

I have had a lot of personal experience with a wide range of cannabis users. It's really just the sporadic users that appear "stupid".
Regular users, you would hardly even know that they are baked out of their minds. But the effects on short term memory are the greatest among all users, which does contribute to the appearance of stupidity. The laziness too can be labeled by many as something "stupid".

The differences between democrats and republicans are really minor, mostly what special interests pay for their campaigns. The law enforcement lobby is a major contributor to republicans, while democrats are tax happy gold-diggers and see cannabis as another thing to tax. But to me a politician is a politician and, donkey or elephant, they are all snakes and will just serve the highest bidder.

But there is a chance things could shift on a federal level. If that happens, buy some stock in Frito-Lay

Well, I feel that this is getting away from thelibrarian's proto-conspiracy theory about nicotine making us smarter and dope making us dafter. Which is a pity because I was hoping this would be investigated in greater depth.

So if someone smokes both tobacco and cannabis, it evens out?

I never even said anything about decreased life expectancy of smokers.
If people aren't going to be a burden on a national healthcare service (such as the NHS, etc) because of smoking, then I think it's fine if they want to make themselves ill from smoking and die prematurely (typically 25 years younger, according to some sources) because of that.

I also find it bizarre that some smokers seriously think that smoking is making them smarter.
I mean really now, who are you trying to fool ?


Apart from anything else, smokers tend to come out with weird claims like "all Western governments want to outlaw tobacco and celebrate cannabiss" ... which would be why many western governments continue to have it illegal, right ? And why they even make synthetic cannabis replicants illegal ? And why they almost all (if not all) continue to have tobacco freely available to purchase ?
I guess I'm just not smart enough to see why that makes sense, or something.

Last edited by Ladywoofwoof on 01 Dec 2013, 5:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Haha. One would like to think so but give the US practice of smoking pure green roll-ups, that seems unlikely. We here in the UK smoke tobacco-heavy spliffs with a bit of green thrown in.

... which wouldn't be necessary if the government were really so keen to outlaw tobacco and so fond of cannabis consumption, you would think...

The entire rationale for higher tobacco taxes is just what you say: That tobacco users take more government services. Actually, just the opposite is true. Not only do smokers have shorter life spans, and hence take less from Social Security, but treatment options are very limited for smokers' diseases. There are the standard cancer treatments for lung cancer, but they aren't any more expensive than other cancer treatments. Otherwise, smokers are given oxygen and pain medications, and sent home to die. So, if higher costs are really at issue, there should be a tax on nonsmokers, since they not only cost more, but a lot more in medical and government services.

I can believe you would find my claim that nicotine improves the mind and nervous system. You would have to read to know that since that is what the scientific literature says.

As far as how popular tobacco is, I would challenge you to light up a cigarette in public and see the reaction you get. If it's inside a building, you will go to jail or at least receive a fine; and otherwise you will get all manner of dirty looks.

I won't comment on your intelligence, but your ignorance is such that I'm embarrassed for you. Don't you read at all? Are you totally incurious about the world you live in?

Last edited by Thelibrarian on 02 Dec 2013, 10:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

I know what you are talking about as far as irregular users getting hit harder by the effects of cannabis. But I think it is also still the case that even regular users do better when sober, even if it doesn't affect them as much as non-users. This has certainly been my experience.

Yes, the differences between the Democrat and Republican parties are minor. But there is an almost unbridgeable gulf between the constituencies of both parties. This is why cannabis isn't legal in any way in any Southern state. The GOP is more than happy to go along with cannabis prohibition because it costs them nothing and keeps their voter base happy. This isn't the case with open borders and free trade policies.

I'm still shocked as to how you can get away with such rudeness and arrogance when someone disagrees with what you write, but hey ho. EDIT I'm glad you've edited your post to be less rude

The first point you make is surely ridiculous. Taxing smokers so much is to discourage smoking, so that society is healthier and more people are healthy to work. As it is, the working population sustains so many people who cannot support themselves (rightly, in my opinion) - but obviously this might not be sustainable if things continue the way they are.

The second point ignores the problems of addiction. Are you telling me that someone who hasn't had their hit of nicotine is of sound mind? And has a healthy nervous system? What about the reduced sensation in their fingers, and so on?

Have you ever known someone with lung cancer, for instance?

Sorry, I think you wish to justify the fact that you smoke by using such wacky examples - why not say "I smoke because I want to" and leave it at that? I think you should thankful that you live in a liberal society which allows you to do this - otherwise smoking and drinking surely would be banned.

If they care that much, why don't they just ban it?

I don't expect a good answer -- no-one ever has one to this question.

Charity, good question. I think the answer is that government is just as addicted to the tax revenues from cigarettes as smokers are to the nicotine. In fact, if the tobacco companies were smart, they would threaten to stop selling their products in places like California and NYC. The politicians wouldn't dare let that happen.

Because the government really does not care. All they care about is squeezing more money from the population.

Banning tobacco would also cause riots. Even though smokers are a minority, we would be freakin PISSED!! !!

I suspect that there's more than an element of truth to that pete

Politicians love "sin" taxes. Funny, now that smoking numbers have dropped, states like new York have tried to go after Pizza & soda-pop. Expect more of that in the future. Some day the Junk food tax will be a common thing.

I remember when I started smoking cigars, I did a bit of research to see if it would effect my health insurance rates and discovered that according to the actuarial tables there was no discernible health impact until you smoked more than 2 cigars a day, and the health insurers have the most reasons to exaggerate the health effects out of anyone. I can barely manage to fit one 30-90 minute smoke into a day, let alone two, and the expense would add up quickly too. Strangely enough, cigars can be cheaper than cigarettes if you buy online, I've bought bundles of decent robustos for less than a dollar each shipped, dirt cheap if you measure by weight.

I do love it when I light one of things in public and someone who's 100 yards away and upwind starts giving me the stink eye and faking a cough, I always find an excuse to go and make conversation with those people. It's even more amusing if I happen to be open carrying that day...

Oh how I hope we cross paths one day...