is smoking still cool

[Swordsman3003]

I agree with Honor. People should smell like people. Not fruit. Not ...axes....

[Putaro]

Let's both go into our garages and seal 'em up. I'll burn two cases of cigarettes and you burn one tank of gas. Who do you think is walking out of the garage, and who's being carried out in a body bag?

Two cases of cigarettes don't weight much. Burn the same amount of cigarettes by weight and I guarantee you won't be walking out of the garage either.

While we're on the subject of silly statistics how about the new scary one - driving while talking on your cell phone is as bad as driving with a .08 blood alcohol level.

Hmmm...sounds like driving drunk isn't all that bad, now does it? (that is, a *little* drunk)

[Indigo Violent]

If we're primarily concerned with "nuisance" issues rather than intentionally inflated "health" issues, then smoking at your own table in a restaurant is certainly no worse than farting, bringing unruly children to dinner, talking loudly or for more than about 5 seconds (i.e: long enough to say "I'm at dinner, and I'm not smart enough to use voice-mail... I'll call you back later.") on your cell phone, talking with your mouth full, laughing through the meal like a braying ass, or any number of other things that nobody has even been taken seriously in suggesting that we outlaw.

They may not be outlawed, but make enough of a nuisance of yourself in a restaurant and management can still show you the door.

[Putaro]

If we're primarily concerned with "nuisance" issues rather than intentionally inflated "health" issues, then smoking at your own table in a restaurant is certainly no worse than farting, bringing unruly children to dinner, talking loudly or for more than about 5 seconds (i.e: long enough to say "I'm at dinner, and I'm not smart enough to use voice-mail... I'll call you back later.") on your cell phone, talking with your mouth full, laughing through the meal like a braying ass, or any number of other things that nobody has even been taken seriously in suggesting that we outlaw.

They may not be outlawed, but make enough of a nuisance of yourself in a restaurant and management can still show you the door.

Yah, and in fact you can combine the two! My brother-in-law got banned from a restaurant for starting a fight with people who were smoking during his dinner (the restaurant being a small restaurant in Tokyo without a non-smoking section).

[Honor]

Two cases of cigarettes don't weight much. Burn the same amount of cigarettes by weight and I guarantee you won't be walking out of the garage either.

Silly huh...? Let's see... Are you willing to back that "guarantee" with a cash amount?

First, the requirement itself is kind of random, almost to the point of being capricious - that in order for the illustration to be valid, the unburned weights of the two substances have to be the same.

Why don't we go with dollar value? I'll burn $50 in my clove cigarettes, and you (meaning "the other test subject, of course... not you specifically) burn $50 in gasoline... Or maybe we should go by volume? About two, two-point-five cartons per gallon? Or maybe we should go by time consumed? It'll take me almost two weeks of normal use to burn a carton of cigarettes... So you could just idle your car that long.

All of the above are just as meaningful as a comparison of pre-brun weight, for a number of reasons... Cigarettes, for instance, are not made of hydrocarbons. While I don't have hard data to fall back on, I would feel comfortable with the assumption that the "byproduct" of burning 5 lbs of cigarettes would not be as dangerous as the byproduct of burning 1 lb of gasoline.

Anyway... Sticking with your weight requirement, for the sake of fun... There are about 8.73 cartons of cigarettes, by weight, per gallon of gasoline... Which means, if we assume a 20 gallon tank, then that's 174.6 cartons of cigarettes - 1746 packs. 34,920 cigarettes.

It would take over 36 days of smoking one cigarette after another, 24 hours a day, to get through those in the course of aything like 'normal' use... (after all, it's not like the car is going to be required to flash-burn all the gas at once...) So, yes... I'd die. But not of carbon dioxide poisioning or suffocation, but rather of sleep deprivation.

If we allow for a substitute smoker, or smoking apparatus, so I can take sleep breaks (without leaving the room, of course), or if we simply assume, through some kind of magic, that I won't die of sleep depreivation, I "guarantee" I'd walk out just fine.

The pile of cartons, using the way my brand are packaged for the math, would be about 3 feet by 3 feet by, say, a little over a foot high... So, yeah... Even if I had to burn them all at once, I'd probablybe ok. A bit cooked, but ok. Certianly a bet I'd be willing to take for the right incentive (providing someone else paid for the over $3000 in cigarettes...)

The point remains... Nobody's ever committed suicide by going into the garage and smoking a lot of cigarettes.



We've uncovered a far more important statistic, though, about who's doing more damage to the breathing quality of our air...

Smoking at my 'normal' rate, it would take me six years, nine months to smoke those cigarettes. Even if I was the archetypical 'pack a day' smoker, it would take four years, nine and a half months.

In that time, four times as many Americans as are smokers will have, on average, each produced 57,356 lbs - over 28 tons - of carbon dioxide, by burning 2,390 gallons of gasoline.

[Putaro]

Two cases of cigarettes don't weight much. Burn the same amount of cigarettes by weight and I guarantee you won't be walking out of the garage either.

Silly huh...? Let's see... Are you willing to back that "guarantee" with a cash amount?

I really don't want you going out in the garage and smoking 34,920 cigarattes to win the bet so I'm not putting up any cash to tempt you. I'll say right here that I agree with your main point that cigarette smoke isn't as bad as it's made out to be. However, when it comes to arguing trivia...

First, the requirement itself is kind of random, almost to the point of being capricious - that in order for the illustration to be valid, the unburned weights of the two substances have to be the same.

Why don't we go with dollar value? I'll burn $50 in my clove cigarettes, and you (meaning "the other test subject, of course... not you specifically) burn $50 in gasoline... Or maybe we should go by volume? About two, two-point-five cartons per gallon? Or maybe we should go by time consumed? It'll take me almost two weeks of normal use to burn a carton of cigarettes... So you could just idle your car that long.

Well, if you want to argue that car exhaust is more dangerous than cigarette smoke I think it's only fair you take them on a cc/cc comparison. I figured starting weight will give you about equivalent amounts of combustion products.

All of the above are just as meaningful as a comparison of pre-brun weight, for a number of reasons... Cigarettes, for instance, are not made of hydrocarbons. While I don't have hard data to fall back on, I would feel comfortable with the assumption that the "byproduct" of burning 5 lbs of cigarettes would not be as dangerous as the byproduct of burning 1 lb of gasoline.

Well, now that's going to depend on how you burn it. If you burn gasoline in continuous combustion with lots of oxygen you should just get carbon dioxide and water. Now, burning it in your car is a different matter. However, cars are required to put out less than 3.4 grams/mile driven of CO.

Anyway... Sticking with your weight requirement, for the sake of fun... There are about 8.73 cartons of cigarettes, by weight, per gallon of gasoline... Which means, if we assume a 20 gallon tank, then that's 174.6 cartons of cigarettes - 1746 packs. 34,920 cigarettes.

It would take over 36 days of smoking one cigarette after another, 24 hours a day, to get through those in the course of aything like 'normal' use... (after all, it's not like the car is going to be required to flash-burn all the gas at once...) So, yes... I'd die. But not of carbon dioxide poisioning or suffocation, but rather of sleep deprivation.

I was kind of assuming you meant to burn your cigarettes all at once in a little pile and maybe do a Wiccan dance around them. Sitting in the garage and smoking for a month is not nearly as entertaining an image

(BTW, you can't die from carbon dioxide poisoning. Carbon dioxide is non-toxic. You can suffocate in it if there's no oxygen but it's not a poison. Carbon monoxide will kill you and it doesn't take a whole lot). Nicotine will kill you as well.

The pile of cartons, using the way my brand are packaged for the math, would be about 3 feet by 3 feet by, say, a little over a foot high... So, yeah... Even if I had to burn them all at once, I'd probablybe ok. A bit cooked, but ok. Certianly a bet I'd be willing to take for the right incentive (providing someone else paid for the over $3000 in cigarettes...)

I don't think that's a bet you want to take. You'll most likely die from carbon monoxide or nicotine poisoning if you don't set the garage on fire. Follow along with my math here:

Cigarettes put out about 20mg of CO each when smoked.
A 20x10x10 ft garage is going to be about 60 m3 (metric is easier for this stuff) or about 60,000,000 cc's.
Air weighs about 0.00129 g/cc
60,000,000 * .00129 = 77400 g/air
20 mg = .02 g * 34920 cigarettes = 698.4 g CO
Concentration = 698.4 g/77300 g = .9% CO
800 PPM or .08% CO is lethal in 2 hours. .9% will put you out PDQ.

You'll also put about half that amount of nicotine into the air and that will kill you as well. I think the nicotine is much more dangerous than the carbon monoxide but it's harder to figure out what a lethal concentration of nicotine in air would be. However, one source says that you pick up about 1mg of nicotine from smoking a cigarette and the lethal dosage of nicotine is about 60 mg. If you were to smoke more than one at a time I think you could get a lethal dose off 60-100 cigarettes. Burning them in an enclosed space, dunno....34920 seems like more than enough though.

Please do not smoke 34920 cigarettes in your garage Honor. We'll miss you.

Burning 20 gallons of gas in a modern car with a catalytic converter that meets 1980 + EPA specs would give you about 1300 grams of CO or about twice as much. Most cars in good repair will put out a lot less. I don't have any of my old smog checks around but as I recall my 1989 Jeep Cherokee used to have absolutely miniscule amounts of CO output even after 150000 miles on it.

The point remains... Nobody's ever committed suicide by going into the garage and smoking a lot of cigarettes.

Only because it's a lot cheaper to go burn some charcoal instead (a common method of suicide here in Japan is to tape up the windows and doors and start a charcoal fire).

If you want to kill yourself quickly and cheaply with cigarettes, eat them. An average cigarette contains about 10 mg of nicotine. I'm sure if you managed to choke down a pack of cigarettes you'd get enough nicotine into your bloodstream to die.

[Spazz Kitti]

You ppl write too much I can't be bothered reading it all.

But you know smoking's bad right? I mean, last night I smoked a packet of cigarettes, then I beat up my boyfriend, hopped in my car and hit another car, killing all the occupants, coz all that smoking made me pass out at the wheel and choke on my own vomit.

Earlier I had been pointing lit cigarettes at people and killing them. I did a "ciggie drive-by" and pointed lit cigaretts at innocent bystanders, killing them instantly, while trying to get those other bastards who smoke a different brand to me. Yeah it was carnage.

Meanwhile, my neighbours were having a fun and completely safe time, by consuming mass quantities of alcohol and playing with guns.

[JohnnyTwoEyes]

putaro, you never seemed to take into account the displacement of oxygen in the air by carbon dioxide when burning gasoline in the garage. You tossed a lot of math around for the anti-ciggie side, I'd really like to see the math for the other end of the argument.

thanks!

[Squidflakes]

All I've got to say is that the logical fallacies in these arguments are enough to fill an Olympic sized swimming pool.

[Spazz Kitti]

*Spazz Kitti drags in a Tentacle Monster to tentacle-rape everyone until they agree to play nice and stop arguing about such a silly thing*

[Putaro]

putaro, you never seemed to take into account the displacement of oxygen in the air by carbon dioxide when burning gasoline in the garage. You tossed a lot of math around for the anti-ciggie side, I'd really like to see the math for the other end of the argument.

thanks!

What's your point Johnny? No one is arguing that burning 20 gallons (about 160 lbs) of gasoline in an enclosed space won't kill you. Honor seems to think that cigarettes are magical fairy things that you can just burn to your heart's content without any problems. Face it, cigarettes are burning stuff and smoke is not the best thing for you. It's not the worst thing for you but it's not a health food.

[Infinity-Iz-Blue]

There's a lot to consider here, but I'm a lazy arse and can't realy be bothered to read it all and post an informed decision of my own, so I shall add a bit of personal experience instead. Not judgemental, not trying to prove a point, not even for amusment's sake, just an observation.

A few days ago I dropped by my aunt and uncles' place. Now normally I roll my own, used to smoke Golden Virginia, but have lately discovered a liking for a brand called Drum (I live in the UK, so I don't expect many, if any of you will know these brands). So there I was, watching the idiot box and chatting to my uncle Nigel, whilst making a roll-up. He looks around and says 'Hey Gav, wan't to try and Indian cigarette?' Well, I'm inquisitive, if I enjoy something I'm always ready to try a slightly different way of doing it, so I said right back 'Sure, thanks'. He then produced a large amount of Tobacco leaves, dried, rolled and tied at the bottom to make them stay rolled. I was slightly wary, but I lit one said leaf up. It took some doing to stop it from going out, but it was a lovely smoke. I asked whether it was just a leaf, and apparently it was. Grown without pesticides and simply dried. Just a leaf.

Thank you.

[Kingofthemorlocks]

One note regarding people smelling like people...My buddy Rob's girlfriend refuses to use deodorant, because she doesn't like the way it smells. So, she subjects the people around her to her particularly musky scent. It's nauseating at times.

So while pheremones are delightful things, not smelling like a musk ox is also delightful. Just my $0.02.

[Honor]

What's your point Johnny? No one is arguing that burning 20 gallons (about 160 lbs) of gasoline in an enclosed space won't kill you. Honor seems to think that cigarettes are magical fairy things that you can just burn to your heart's content without any problems. Face it, cigarettes are burning stuff and smoke is not the best thing for you. It's not the worst thing for you but it's not a health food.

As I've said, again and again, from my first post on the subject onward...

By the way... I wasn't planning on losing by dying. I figured you'd probably be nice enough to allow me a window and a second, who'd open the garage door and pull my stubborn ass out of the room if I passed out... Thus yielding you a win.

Either way, all the math and stuff is a lot of fun, but, the point remains:

You have to change the rules to make the cigarettes as deadly as the gasoline. You have to create a wholly unbalanced contest in which the gasoline will be burnt at a miniscule trickle, as the engine idles (and still be deadly as hell) and the cigarettes must be burnt all at once to have a chance at the same effect.


The fact remains, also, from all established science on the subject, that the exhaust we produce from our automobiles is far, far more irritant, carcinogenic, and toxic in general - not to mention abundant - then the smoke from cigarettes.

Now consider this for a moment... Compare the amount of money being spent to crucify tobacco companies and smokers with the amount of money being spent to sanctify the oil industry... The American government spends a great deal of money, time, and effort on both... But there's plenty of money coming from other sources, too.

We've (Americans, anyway) have all heard it so many times... "There's no such thing as global warming, and everyone who dies, dies because of cigarette smoke."

Now there's a big red and yellow 'new and improved' starburst on the package reading "Now with Fat as an Additional Villian!" So, We now say "Everyone who dies, dies because of cigarette smoke and obesity. Oh, and a few from illegal drugs." but, that's the current position in a nutshell, right?

Cigarettes are already taxed into deep, dark oblivion - over half of the price paid at the register is for the government - but gasoline is subsidized by our government - I've seen figures that suggest as much as $10 total per gallon, including tax incentives - to keep the prices low, so we can burn more and more...


People encounter a lot more automobile exhaust walking down the street than they do cigarette smoke while eating in the smoking section of a resturant, but which one do they whine and bitch and rail at?

Now, remind me again... Which one is the government throwing money at vilifying? Oh... The same one it's become fashionable to hate? And which one are they subsidizing? Oh, the one we don't mind so much? Hmm... Is there some kind of wierd coincidence here?

Worse... All these people think they're being original and self-directed when they complain about the terrible, onerous burdon of getting a whif of cigarette smoke somewhere.

The standard quotes about knowing and paying attention to history are so numerous it's hard to choose one to use here, but what I wouldn't give to make them all watch a documentary detailing how completely and effeciently and obediently public opinion about the unbearable evils of cigarette smoke have followed the efforts (and money) of the American government and a few other moneyed concerns.

It's really, really simple...

About thirty years ago, there was a lot more cigarette smoke in this country... On airplanes, in workplaces, in bars, in resturants (there were hardly any "non-smoking" sections) and other places, and people were enjoying their dinner just fine - I know, I was there... And I wasn't smoking. It wasn't very long before then that people were still smoking in movie theaters and hospitals.

What do you think... People were just too meek back then to complain about it? They sure didn't mind complaining about anything else... They'd raise an unholy hell over things we don't even consider polite to mention today.

People didn't start bitching about cigarettes in large numbers until after "the establishment" told them to.

If the same effort had been put into illustrating the dangers and ill-effects of petroleum combustion as a mainstay of our economy, we'd be smoking a cigarette talking about what evil, insensitive assholes gas-burners are, and how badly gasoline fumes fuck with our athsma.

I think it's alltogether possible that the people who control our economy had to pick something to distract us from the damage being caused by our oil addiction... Because nothing in this economy is as lucrative or as far-reaching as that oil addiction.

Of course, I'm not suggesting an active conspiracy, per se, and I'm not saying "the people who control our economy" as in an Illuminati, or a Star Chamber... But we all know the "golden rule", and - by now, at least - we should all know how good some of those in the business of managing society, economy, and industry have gotten at understanding the importance and power of shaping the message, and thereby, public opinion.

[Honor]

One note regarding people smelling like people...My buddy Rob's girlfriend refuses to use deodorant, because she doesn't like the way it smells. So, she subjects the people around her to her particularly musky scent. It's nauseating at times.

So while pheremones are delightful things, not smelling like a musk ox is also delightful. Just my $0.02.

There is a fine distinction between "smelling like a girl" and "smelling like a stale, unwashed girl".


The long essay in my last post got me thinking... If I'm going to be writing all these huge, long, posts for nobody to read, I may as well collect them all into books for nobody to read, as well.

[Squidflakes]

I agree, there is a huge difference between spelling like a girl, and smelling like one.

[Honor]

I agree, there is a huge difference between spelling like a girl, and smelling like one.

*cries*

And I even provided an example!

(fixed)

[Cryogenick]

Honor makes alot of very good points and I have to agree on the cars VS siggs idea...I smoke about a half to 3/4 of a pack of Djarum blacks a day, A clove that has the stereotype of being one of the worst for you. I also ride my bike to/from school for a total round trip of a little over 10 miles, often times my schedule has me making the trip twice in a day. I tend to smoke on my bike, something most people consider really bad, I see it as killing two birds with one stone, I have to get to school, and I want a cigarette before I have to go in for a 3-5 hour lecture.

I read some comments about the regulations on car exhaust but what some fail to realize is older cars are exempt, and large commercial vehicles as well. Yes, in most places the majority is compliant, but still 1 of 30 (just a guess) is non compliant. I own an older car (64 nova, I don't drive it at the moment, nor have I for the past 3 years, it sits and gets started for a few minutes a week to keep everything flowing.) and I know if it did have to pass smog, it wouldn't. On my rides to and from school I regularly pass/get passed by cars that are spitting out shit that makes me nearly gag and want to vomit. Even with a clove in my mouth, certain cars/trucks force me down the nearest side street or pulling my brake to get some distance so I can escape the noxious clouds erupting from their tailpipes.

Yes, neither are good for humans/the environment but when it comes to what does more damage on a worldwide scale, it's motor vehicles for the win.

[Lowky]

And what we truly fail to recognize in the current crusade against smokes, is twofold.

1) We evidently didn't learn anything from Prohibition...It doesn't work, it causes an increase in crime, the prohibited substance being made unsafer by people craving it, cutting it with toxic substances etc.

2) The economic burden that banning cigarettes all together would cause this country's already shakey economy when Virgina, The Carolina's etc. Lose their biggest industry (Taxable corporation), employers (people putting money in consumers pockets), and contributers to the economy (employees) in one fell swoop.

That said I just wish more people were considerate of their smoking. I actually listened to someone today, who was complaining that their sister-in-law, just lit up in the house without asking, despite being told more than once that there were people present who were severly allergic to cigarette smoke. When I was a smoker, I would never have lit up in someone's house without A) at least asking first, even if they were a smoker too. B) Would still probably have gone outside to smoke.

And you may have a point Honor, that part of the asthma attack is psychosomatic upon seeing the cigarette/smoke. However having said asthma/allergies be damned I want to see this band, enjoy a nite out with friends or whatever, I have definitely paid the price in following days, with problems with laryngitis, multiple asthma attacks, difficulty sleeping due to sinus problems from the allergic response, sometimes culminating in lost time from work due to developing bronchitis.

[JohnnyTwoEyes]

putaro, you never seemed to take into account the displacement of oxygen in the air by carbon dioxide when burning gasoline in the garage. You tossed a lot of math around for the anti-ciggie side, I'd really like to see the math for the other end of the argument.

thanks!

What's your point Johnny? No one is arguing that burning 20 gallons (about 160 lbs) of gasoline in an enclosed space won't kill you. Honor seems to think that cigarettes are magical fairy things that you can just burn to your heart's content without any problems. Face it, cigarettes are burning stuff and smoke is not the best thing for you. It's not the worst thing for you but it's not a health food.

My point is that you're completely ignoring the other half of your own argument. You are basically saying "cigarettes are more dangerous thank gasoline fumes because cigarettes are bad for you"; It reminds me of a lot of the high school argumentative essays I used to grade. You need to give both sides to make a cohesive argument.

To continue, you're really being dense when it comes to what Honor is talking about. She has stated on many occasions what damage she can realistically expect cigarettes to do to her. To say that if you smoke twenty cartons at once it will hurt you does not mean that the occasional smoke will. To play a little example, doing a shot of bourbon won't hurt you. Chugging two bottles of bourbon one after the other quite easily will kill you.

This whole argument seems to be going around in pointless hypothetical circles.