Smoking

[Gawdzilla Sama]

In my experience the best way to quit is to be hardheaded Mick, stubborn and ornery. It also helps to pick the most painful way to quit. (AKA "cold turkey") as it helps motivate you to NEVER GO THROUGH THAT SHIT AGAIN! 36 years smoke free.

[FrustratedFool]

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.

It's hard to have consistency with age limits.
25 to smoke.  But then shouldn't we use the same argument to say 25 for tattoos?  Drinking?  Credit debt?  Marriage?  And so on.
Dunno.  It's just hard to settle on good ages for things that seem consistent as well as reasonable.

[emjay]

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.

It's hard to have consistency with age limits.
25 to smoke.  But then shouldn't we use the same argument to say 25 for tattoos?  Drinking?  Credit debt?  Marriage?  And so on.
Dunno.  It's just hard to settle on good ages for things that seem consistent as well as reasonable.

I think smoking deserves to be higher, as it leads to strong addiction, and undeniable cumulative health consequences, and is as I said specifically (and arguably cynically) targeted/marketed at young people. Marriage can be reversed, debt can be reversed, but the damage of smoking cannot. I suppose you could argue also for a similar age for drinking, but it is far more possible to 'drink in moderation' than it is to 'smoke in moderation'; the latter doesn't really exist IMO, it's all going to be cumulative damage, slowly creeping up on you as you get older, however much you smoke. I know you're still enamoured of it, and I don't know how old you are but from this thread I would assume you're quite young, but however cool or 'aesthetically pleasing' it may seem, you can't escape the damage it does, which creeps up slowly on you as the years go by.

[FrustratedFool]

It's hard to have consistency with age limits.
25 to smoke.  But then shouldn't we use the same argument to say 25 for tattoos?  Drinking?  Credit debt?  Marriage?  And so on.
Dunno.  It's just hard to settle on good ages for things that seem consistent as well as reasonable.

I think smoking deserves to be higher, as it leads to strong addiction, and undeniable cumulative health consequences, and is as I said specifically (and arguably cynically) targeted/marketed at young people. Marriage can be reversed, debt can be reversed, but the damage of smoking cannot. I suppose you could argue also for a similar age for drinking, but it is far more possible to 'drink in moderation' than it is to 'smoke in moderation'; the latter doesn't really exist IMO, it's all going to be cumulative damage, slowly creeping up on you as you get older, however much you smoke. I know you're still enamoured of it, and I don't know how old you are but from this thread I would assume you're quite young, but however cool or 'aesthetically pleasing' it may seem, you can't escape the damage it does, which creeps up slowly on you as the years go by.

You can certainly smoke in moderation.  I do.

Regarding my age, whether I count as young or not is arguable.

And yes, it's bad for you. 

And yes, I think it should have a high age limit.  I'd be ok with 24, though 21 is likely more palatable and easier to keep consistent.  Though I would make that the same for driving and other things too.

[emjay]

I think smoking deserves to be higher, as it leads to strong addiction, and undeniable cumulative health consequences, and is as I said specifically (and arguably cynically) targeted/marketed at young people. Marriage can be reversed, debt can be reversed, but the damage of smoking cannot. I suppose you could argue also for a similar age for drinking, but it is far more possible to 'drink in moderation' than it is to 'smoke in moderation'; the latter doesn't really exist IMO, it's all going to be cumulative damage, slowly creeping up on you as you get older, however much you smoke. I know you're still enamoured of it, and I don't know how old you are but from this thread I would assume you're quite young, but however cool or 'aesthetically pleasing' it may seem, you can't escape the damage it does, which creeps up slowly on you as the years go by.

You can certainly smoke in moderation.  I do.

Regarding my age, whether I count as young or not is arguable.

And yes, it's bad for you. 

And yes, I think it should have a high age limit.  I'd be ok with 24, though 21 is likely more palatable and easier to keep consistent.  Though I would make that the same for driving and other things too.

I'm glad we at least agree that the age should be high.

I just mean that alcohol in moderation/small amounts is not damaging and sometimes even considered good for you, but any amount of smoking is damaging. If you truly don't smoke that much, then that's definitely better, but still damaging over the long term.

[FrustratedFool]

The amount of damage from the amount I smoke is negligible. But smoking is always bad for you.

There is no good amount of alcohol really, I think that largely a myth tbh. Even small amounts cause small amounts of damage. Drinking is always bad for you.

[emjay]

The amount of damage from the amount I smoke is negligible.  But smoking is always bad for you.  

There is no good amount of alcohol really, I think that largely a myth tbh.  Even small amounts cause small amounts of damage.  Drinking is always bad for you.

Well, I'm no fan of alcohol but I have often heard it argued that wine for instance, in moderation, is good for you. But anyway, I can't really speak to that, I don't know enough about it.

[Angrboda]

There is no good amount of alcohol really, I think that largely a myth tbh.  Even small amounts cause small amounts of damage.  Drinking is always bad for you.

[Ravenshire]

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

If only those good people would keep that shit at home and not at the bar, the office, the public transportation stops, or any of the many, many, outdoor areas designated by law as non-smoking, where they gleefully spew their noxious shit with abandon.

Sorry, but I no longer see any glamour in smoking. All I see is just how big a fucking dumbass I was for 35 years.

[FrustratedFool]

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

If only those good people would keep that shit at home and not at the bar, the office, the public transportation stops, or any of the many, many, outdoor areas designated by law as non-smoking, where they gleefully spew their noxious shit with abandon.

Sorry, but I no longer see any glamour in smoking. All I see is just how big a fucking dumbass I was for 35 years.

It seems perfectly reasonable to allow smoking only in private abodes and designated and licensed venues or areas.