That's absurd. You make a sweeping generalization.

(October 24, 2023 at 9:35 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: That's absurd. You make a sweeping generalization.

Well it's a generalization because it's true.

(October 24, 2023 at 11:19 am)Ahriman Wrote:

(October 24, 2023 at 9:35 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: That's absurd. You make a sweeping generalization.

Well it's a generalization because it's true.

(October 24, 2023 at 7:25 am)FrustratedFool Wrote: But would they have smoking, lol

And I certainly wouldn't want monogamy.

Gods all about burning that bush, to hear the story told. ...and other things....

Just found out that the drug I was prescribed five years ago to quit smoking, Champix, was discontinued in (at least) the UK and Europe, a year or two ago, for fear of contamination by a carcinogen:

Pfizer recalls all stock of smoking cessation medicine over nitrosamine contamination. Note: this link seems to be behind a limited/conditional paywall which I didn't notice at first, so you may only get one read of the article.

For myself I'm not really worried about it; it can't have been a bigger carcinogen than smoking itself, so I'm still grateful I received it when I did because I doubt much else would have worked for me personally, but obviously I can no longer recommend it to others, which I had been doing to all and sundry. So to whoever I've recommended it to so wholeheartedly in the past, please consider that recommendation retracted.

And I've also just found out that a similar drug, Zyban, (when I was quitting smoking both were offered at the same time, and it was a choice between the two; they both have similar perceptual effects, but achieve them in different ways) was also recalled for similar reasons... though indications are that it may have been, or be being, approved for resupply, late 2023: https://www.ncsct.co.uk/publication_zyban_stock.php. Though, if I'm reading that right, it does suggest it does still contain that carcinogen, but just at 'acceptable' levels so it would require a risk/benefit analysis on whether or not to use it.

Never saw any value in lighting a fire under my nose for the privilege of smelling like a cat's arse and dying early.

Boru

(November 9, 2023 at 6:33 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Never saw any value in lighting a fire under my nose for the privilege of smelling like a cat's arse and dying early.

Boru

I guess if you see it that way, sure.

Many others see it quite differently.

Likewise, many don't see the value of drinking alcohol or eating a burger or getting less than 9 hours sleep and so on.

(November 9, 2023 at 6:34 am)FrustratedFool Wrote:

(November 9, 2023 at 6:33 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Never saw any value in lighting a fire under my nose for the privilege of smelling like a cat's arse and dying early.

Boru

I guess if you see it that way, sure.

Many others see it quite differently.

Likewise, many don't see the value of drinking alcohol or eating a burger or getting less than 9 hours sleep and so on.

The person sitting next to me who is having a drink isn't going to damage my liver. The person sitting next to me who is eating a burger isn't going to harden my arteries, The sleep-deprived person sitting next to me isn't going to cause me to fall asleep at the wheel.

Boru

The person sitting next to you having a drink might get drunk and vomit on you or punch you in the face or steal your car or drive into your house.. And their health complications will cost you in tax.

The smoker smoking away from you in their home won't increase your chance of cancer at all.

This seems a weird argument to make. At best you've moved goalposts from the aesthetics of smoking to the risks to others from passive smoking in public.

(November 9, 2023 at 6:33 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Never saw any value in lighting a fire under my nose for the privilege of smelling like a cat's arse and dying early.

Boru

For me, as for many others I'd assume, it was peer pressure and thinking it was cool, that started me smoking at 15, and then, like I said, various delusional beliefs that maintained that addiction for over twenty years after that. Now that I'm free of it, the thing that angers me most is how it is and was targeted at young people, same with vaping. So in my ideal world, if smoking/vaping has to remain legal, I'd at least want the age it could be purchased raised to maybe 25 or something... so that people could make a truly informed choice, not influenced at all by immature social pressures. As I understand it, the smoking age in Britain is 18 now, when it used to be 16; that's definitely an improvement, but I still think 18 is way too young, because I think those sorts of social pressures are or can be still very influential at that age. I think if the age were raised to something like 25, then it would all but stamp out the uptake of smoking/vaping in this and future generations, not just from the point of people being more mentally mature so as to make informed decisions, but also it's much harder for young people to pass for 25 than it is for them to pass for 18, when trying to buy it in a shop.