|
FRINGE posted:Smokers are not a "class" of people any more than alcoholics or junkies. Please look up what "class" actually means and get back to me.
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 20:26 |
|
|
Cigarettes smell gross. Cigars, pipes and shisha all smell great and are almost always consumed in moderation. There are forms of tobacco that are fine for recreational use. It's just the cigarettes aren't it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
Smoking is the new black. Actually smokers are more oppressed, you don't see black people banned from bars, restaurants, and, airplanes do you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
raminasi posted:This, uh, isn't true. I don't really want to wade into the slapfight that's been going on here but smoking a very small number of cigarettes socially is absolutely a thing. I definitely won't say it's common, but it's not "nobody." My mother smoked "a very small number of cigarettes socially," because her friends smoked and she didn't want to be rude. Then she got addicted. Then she smoked regularly for years despite repeated attempts to quit. So let me rephrase that: there are such people, but not for very long. silence_kit posted:They kind of are though. They are pretty heavily reliant on sales to alcoholics, and the alcoholic beverage industry would greatly shrink in size if alcoholics only drank as much as everybody else. Many people drink casually their entire life and never become addicted. The purpose of selling alcohol is not to get more people addicted; the tobacco industry relies not just on people who consume their products heavily (like literally any industry), but on specifically crafting your products to create more such people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
I just have to laugh at the lack of self awareness in this thread. Like twenty different people just posted about how lovely, selfish, and destructive "smokers" are and people who've never met me are saying horrible things about me personally just because I fall under that label, but this is clearly just an objective public policy issue and I deserve nothing but more mockery for suggesting there's any sort of cultural animus at play. I don't think banning cigarettes in state parks is enforceable (people already drink and do every other drug there). I don't think it will meaningfully effect public health. I think it actually might be dangerous for fire prevention because people who can't smoke in camp grounds will just walk into the bushes to smoke. And if we're really that concerned about errant butts and ash, then maybe we should let people smoke somewhere with an ash can. Am I actually wrong about any of this, or would this ban still be worth supporting even if all it did was marginalize smoker?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
Duckbox posted:I just have to laugh at the lack of self awareness in this thread. Yeah you are actually wrong about all of this, not least because not a single person has said anything horrible about you personally, even in jest, so you just keep proving everyone's points over and over. The king of no self awareness, really.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 04:07
|
|
|
Yes the guy saying "don't want needless fire risks in national parks, well we'll just take even stupider risks that are even more likely to start wildfires, so there" is definitely coming off as the reasonable one in this conversation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
If you don't let me smoke 20 feet away from your tent in a crowded campground then I'll just go set the woods on fire instead, why won't you be reasonable. Also why are you trying to ban littering, its unenforceable!
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
So which is it, smokers are normal, reasonable people who we should treat with respect and allow them to quit on their own time (the version I personally would like to believe in), or smokers are selfish, arrogant junkies who will only resort to ever more dangerous methods of getting their fix at inappropriate times if we attempt to prevent them from destroying the world around them?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:So which is it, smokers are normal, reasonable people who we should treat with respect and allow them to quit on their own time (the version I personally would like to believe in), or smokers are selfish, arrogant junkies who will only resort to ever more dangerous methods of getting their fix at inappropriate times if we attempt to prevent them from destroying the world around them? Herm yes it must be one of those two options and not "smokers are normal humans with an addiction but that addiction doesn't grant them the privilege of smoking in all places regardless of social cost or desire."
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Herm yes it must be one of those two options and not "smokers are normal humans with an addiction but that addiction doesn't grant them the privilege of smoking in all places regardless of social cost or desire." I completely agree with you. Duckbox is the one presenting that dichotomy, except also claiming that both answers are simultaneously true.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 04:19
|
|
|
why can't they at least make filters that decompose? Those things live for 5,000 years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 04:20
|
|
|
When I had my fun service industry job I would be the one cleaning the counters and reinventorying things while the pack of smokers that worked there (AssManager included) took an immediate 20 minute break any time there was downtime. So one day I did my work as usual and took out a DS after my poo poo was done. AssManager comes in and lectures me about how I should be using that time better and it's unprofessional for someone to come through and see me being inattentive. So I pointed to the work I had done, and then to the smokers still outside and asked him why I didnt get to enjoy the same break benefits they did. He did that thing where you start to talk then realize you're not going to say anything so he just walked outside. So really, confine the smokers to a covered patio that recycles their smokeair and we'll be fine. In typical CA fashion thia would have to be peppered with Surgeon General warnings and pamphlets about how to quit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:Yeah you are actually wrong about all of this, not least because not a single person has said anything horrible about you personally, even in jest, so you just keep proving everyone's points over and over. The king of no self awareness, really. Pretend I quoted the guy who told me to "get some will power," the person who told me to pick up other smokers' butts (I do sometimes), and everyone who made universal statements about what "smokers" are like as if we were all exactly the same. Look, this argument has dragged on for pages, but where's the substance? The only "statistics" anyone has posted were numbers people made up on the spot. How many fires do errant cigarettes in state parks cause? What's the public health impact of second hand smoke in campgrounds? What about litter? How will a ban on cigarettes actually affect any of that when only the most cursory sort of enforcement is possible? There should be research on this. Impact analysis. Why haven't any of you even looked for it? Don't tell me if you think the ban makes sense. Tell me if it will actually solve or even address the problems it's allegedly intended to. The burden of proof isn't on me here. I'm not the one trying to limit people's rights on public land. I'm saying this is a symbolic measure that won't meaningfully affect public health or safety, but will penalize a group/behavior that the general public finds annoying. Saying "smoking is bad" a bunch doesn't really change that argument.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
I'm all for collecting data on it, that sounds like a great idea. Let's do the ban, collect data on the effects, and if it's worthless or counterproductive we can repeal it. I'm gonna guess that this isn't acceptable however. In fact it's probably so awful and mean to smokers for just no gosh-darned reason. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 05:39 on Nov 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 05:31
|
|
|
Keyser_Soze posted:why can't they at least make filters that decompose? Those things live for 5,000 years. solution: tax the gently caress out of all cigarettes except lucky strikes
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 05:37
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:So which is it, smokers are normal, reasonable people who we should treat with respect and allow them to quit on their own time (the version I personally would like to believe in), or smokers are selfish, arrogant junkies who will only resort to ever more dangerous methods of getting their fix at inappropriate times if we attempt to prevent them from destroying the world around them? That's where ease of access comes in. Cannabis is easy to cultivate compared to tobacco. Nicotine is very addictive but if you can only buy cigars and they cost $100 a pop, you save them for special occasions. Like, when you are in your early 20s, you share one little cigar with some friends. In your late 20s, you share one with a date. Then you get married and whistfully talk about the good ol' days where you'd get together with some friends and smoke nicotine. You'd do it now, but it's just too damned expensive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
Look, its not a health thing or a fire thing, its just a ton of gross litter many people don't want don't want all over the beach/park.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:So which is it, smokers are normal, reasonable people who we should treat with respect and allow them to quit on their own time (the version I personally would like to believe in), or smokers are selfish, arrogant junkies who will only resort to ever more dangerous methods of getting their fix at inappropriate times if we attempt to prevent them from destroying the world around them? It actually is both because the only thing uniting smokers as a group is a nicotine addiction. I know my posts can be read as me saying "I'm not the problem, everyone else is the problem," but I genuinely feel pretty lovely about my addiction and work hard to minimize my impact on others. At the same time though, it's much easier to respect people's reasonable expectations about where I should and shouldn't smoke than it is to accept "just don't smoke" as a valid answer for more than a few hours (except on airplanes, etc.) If I'm somewhere where smoking is broadly banned, like college campuses, but there are designated smoking areas, then that's where we all smoke. If there aren't smoking areas though, and I'm desperate for nicotine, then my stupid addict brain starts saying "where's the harm?" Hate me for it if you want, but if I want to do something, know I won't get in trouble, and don't think I'm actually hurting anyone or doing anything wrong, I just might do it. Different people have wildly different definitions of what's "harmless" though. I smoke in my car. Some people smoke in the quad and chuck their butts in the bushes. If there's a way to smoke and follow the rules, the vast majority of smokers will choose it, but some won't give a poo poo. If there's nowhere you're allowed to smoke, the people who followed the rules start bending or breaking them and the people who didn't give a poo poo before now have way more rule breakers to hide behind.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
Marlboro's He-Man Heroin ad campaign has taught me that shooting up is a brave and manly assertion of my identity and it's my goddamned right as an American to do it in public parks if I want. None of those needles on the ground are mine, I always police them up, so it's not my fault because I'm only enabling the litter and not contributing personally. And let's get some data on whether anyone actually gets injured thereby, and even if people do get hurt let's find out who they are because maybe they sucked anyway, I mean does anyone have data on that. And furthermore
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
E.^^^ What does it even mean to "enable" littering? Is everyone who ever drank a soda accountable for that time Homer Simpson got his head caught in a six pack ring?VitalSigns posted:I'm all for collecting data on it, that sounds like a great idea. I'd be OK with this except when's the last time California voted to expand smoking rights? People would just let the cigarette ban go on for years and assert it was working (because the state just loves to acknowledge failed policy) and even if people could eventually gather enough evidence to prove it didn't work, they'd be crucified for trying to "let" people smoke in parks. Getting legislation right the first time is always preferable to trying to fix it once it's law. Duckbox fucked around with this message at 06:23 on Nov 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 06:17
|
|
|
Marlboro's logo, if turned upside-down, is horrifically and intentionally antisemitic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
Duckbox posted:E.^^^ What does it even mean to "enable" littering? Is everyone who ever drank a soda accountable for that time Homer Simpson got his head caught in a six pack ring? This is essentially the problem, that you can only conceive of the issue in terms of some kind of malicious punishment being inflicted on you or blame levied on you somehow. Are plastic bag bans a "punishment" of everyone who used plastic bags even the good ones who always picked up after themselves and never ever tossed them into creeks and drains not ever?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 06:27
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This is essentially the problem, that you can only conceive of the issue in terms of some kind of malicious punishment being inflicted on you or blame levied on you somehow. The plastic bag ban is mostly different by virtue of being something that actually works. The guy who said filters should be biodegradable was right and you're wrong because the actual equivalent would be banning people from carrying plastic bags in state parks. Lol if you think that would work and plastic bags aren't addictive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 06:44
|
|
|
Filters are mostly cellulose. It's not like it's some harsh plastic. You couldn't find a more natural sugar.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 06:45
|
|
|
Duckbox posted:The plastic bag ban is mostly different by virtue of being something that actually works. The guy who said filters should be biodegradable was right and you're wrong because the actual equivalent would be banning people from carrying plastic bags in state parks. Lol if you think that would work and plastic bags aren't addictive. Actually the plastic bag ban isn't a ban because you can still get bags, just not for free. So, following your logic the solution is to keep increasing taxes on cigarettes until there is no more litter and no more wildfires. I'm okay with this instead of an outright ban.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 06:48
|
|
|
it’s pretty amazing how tacking ten cents onto plastic bags finally got everyone (myself included) to buy tote bags
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 07:08
|
|
|
The logical analogy is that tobacco smokers should have to use re-usable smoking apparatus for their tobbaco smoking. E.g., ban cigarettes, subsidize pipes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 07:23
|
|
|
The plastic bag ban was stupid because now I have to buy trash bags to line my tiny waste baskets instead of reusing my shopping bags.  And paying .10 doesn't make it worth it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 07:28
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:it’s pretty amazing how tacking ten cents onto plastic bags finally got everyone (myself included) to buy tote bags Aren't the 10 cent bags also paper? At least at Safeway and Target I don't think I've seen any of the old plastic bags even if you pay.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 08:00
|
|
|
There's none of those super thin bags anymore, but the Target near me has much thicker and sturdier plastic bags. I have a few that I've been re-using for groceries for over a year.. well worth the 10 cents.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 08:04
|
|
|
Duckbox posted:Pretend I quoted the guy who told me to "get some will power," Duckbox posted:the person who told me to pick up other smokers' butts (I do sometimes), Duckbox posted:and everyone who made universal statements about what "smokers" are like as if we were all exactly the same. Duckbox posted:Look, this argument has dragged on for pages, but where's the substance? We're not politicians. We aren't debating legislation here. The lawmakers have the statistics. It's not even a Proposition as far as I know, so why would we care beyond supporting our parks not burning down? All this started talking about the cigarette tax, which is already a done deal. Sorry if this conversation was over by now, by the way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 08:57
|
|
|
A lot of the "reusable" bags only last a few trips before the handles fall off or the bottom wears out. Still better than plastic, but it reflects a broader cultural problem where things are built to be cheap and flimsy and everyone is used to just throwing broken things away and buying new ones. I get the argument that smokers don't pay the "real" costs of their consumption, but that's true for so much of what people buy and use that our entire pay scale is based on that illusion. If we paid the "real" costs of gas, water, electricity, food, and land, the working poor would be freezing and starving in the streets. So it's weird that these "real cost" arguments get applied selectively at the consumer end when we really should be asking ourselves how these things got so ludicrously cheap in the first place and why it's impossible to make the producers pay the real costs. Basically, what I'm saying is, when the revolution comes, I promise I'll quit smoking.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 09:08
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure it had something to do with industrialization, automation, and exporting the suffering to other, poorer countries.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 09:44
|
|
|
Nationalize the cigarette companies, put the execs in jail for all the fraud they've been committing re:health effects, and issue free cigarette rations to the proletariat for use in designated smoking areas, conditional on enrollment in an addiction treatment program of course. Total decriminalization of cultivating tobacco for personal use, but if you sell it for profit you go to jail.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 10:07
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Marlboro's logo, if turned upside-down, is horrifically and intentionally antisemitic. I'm not seeing it and Google is failing me. Can you spell it out for me?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 13:09
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:My mother smoked "a very small number of cigarettes socially," because her friends smoked and she didn't want to be rude. Then she got addicted. Then she smoked regularly for years despite repeated attempts to quit. So let me rephrase that: there are such people, but not for very long. Your mother’s experience isn’t universal though? You can’t possibly be making such a strong generalization from that one story.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 14:13
|
|
|
I didn't care about paying .10 per bag but once the poor baggers instinctively started stuffing way too much into every single paper bag (because people were screaming at them) I just bought some of the Trader Joe's bags and they are sturdy as hell and worth it. I often remember to leave them in my trunk and then sometimes even remember to bring them into the store.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
Duckbox posted:I get the argument that smokers don't pay the "real" costs of their consumption, but that's true for so much of what people buy and use that our entire pay scale is based on that illusion. If we paid the "real" costs of gas, water, electricity, food, and land, the working poor would be freezing and starving in the streets. Yo dog I was starting to feel bad that everybody was picking on you but then you had to go and make this argument. "Hey, man. What's the real COST of anything we actually buy, bro?? It's all energy!!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 20:26 |
|
|
https://www.amazon.com/Ikea-Shoppin...T0HXMCMP7Z74ZTW buy these IKEA bags, they last forever and I've never needed more than 3 to hold all my groceries
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 16:20
|
|