Does Alyson Hannigan Smoke?
Zygon Curry
Just a quick question. Does either Alyson Hannigan or Sarah Michelle
Gellar smoke at all?
Regards,
Zygon Curry
jillian
Zygon Curry <kame...@ic24.net> wrote in message
news:rriomtgb6furujbbu...@4ax.com...
johndiem
wrote:
>
>Just a quick question. Does either Alyson Hannigan or Sarah Michelle
>Gellar smoke at all?
Only in "Gingerbread."
I have no idea really. I wouldn't be surprised if Sarah did, but
actresses who are going for the glamorous image are pretty careful
about not getting photographed while smoking (nowadays). Actually,
one of my more useless brain cells is trying to tell me that Alyson
smoked for awhile in high school, but quit long ago. Could be true.
The brain cell which remembers which interviews I've read can't verify
the source of that information.
-Diem
Sandra S
but quit some time ago.
Sandra
Dan Damouth
news:3b6c53fe...@news.bellatlantic.net:
> On Sat, 04 Aug 2001 20:24:27 +0100, Zygon Curry <kame...@ic24.net>
> wrote:
>>
>>Just a quick question. Does either Alyson Hannigan or Sarah Michelle
>>Gellar smoke at all?
>
> Only in "Gingerbread."
Let's not forget "The Prom".
Dan Damouth
QueenChase
obligation comes with the job. I didn't go to clubs before I was 21. You will
never find a picture of me smoking. Well, that's because I don't smoke,
[though] I did for a little bit. I hated it. It wasn't for me. But you never
saw a picture of me with a glass of champagne in my hand before I was 21. And I
am militant about drugs. You want to do 'em? You're out of my life. End of
story. I have to go to bed at night knowing I'm a good person, that I've made
decisions that are good for me and make me happy. If, in the process, I can set
a good example for others, great. I don't live my life for other people, but I
do prove something I'm very proud of: You don't have to be a rebel to be cool."
I'm pretty sure that Hannigan used to smoke, but quit, but I have no proof or
quote to back that up.
Katie "Miss May"
My love is real. But I am not.
QueenChase
I read this in a recent article about Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (which
Eliza and Marc Blucas are both in). This part's talking about the cast going
into the studio to do some voice-overs:
"... Eliza opts for the headphones and "beeps" to assist her, but oddly her
voice since shooting, has gone through a slight change, which she accounts must
be due to her recent decision to give up smoking and now lends itself to some
difficulty in matching her voice."
Beats me where the article came from or what it's called. It was e-mailed to me
without any description.
Mrs. Poet
>From: queen...@aol.com (QueenChase)
>Date: 8/4/2001 7:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20010804224615...@ng-fm1.aol.com>
>
>Gellar said this in the February 19, 2000 issue of TV Guide: "I think a
>certain
>obligation comes with the job. I didn't go to clubs before I was 21. You will
>never find a picture of me smoking. Well, that's because I don't smoke,
>[though] I did for a little bit.
Some people said they don't think stars should have to be role models. How do
you feel about what Sarah said here? I've read statements that are similar
from other young actors.
RosePoet
Keeper of the Codpiece of Mumble*&%^, the Key to Spike's Redemption!
"I made a promise to a lady." -- Spike in Knight mode
David M. Sueme
wrote:
>Just a quick question. Does either Alyson Hannigan or Sarah Michelle
>Gellar smoke at all?
They won't say but I have it on good authority (George) that you have
their permission to start if you want.
Dave
Usenet threads are more like rats than snakes. There is no head to chop off - it's when you stop feeding it garbage that it dies.
EGK
>>Subject: Re: Does Alyson Hannigan Smoke?
>>From: queen...@aol.com (QueenChase)
>>Date: 8/4/2001 7:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <20010804224615...@ng-fm1.aol.com>
>>
>>Gellar said this in the February 19, 2000 issue of TV Guide: "I think a
>>certain
>>obligation comes with the job. I didn't go to clubs before I was 21. You will
>>never find a picture of me smoking. Well, that's because I don't smoke,
>>[though] I did for a little bit.
>
>Some people said they don't think stars should have to be role models. How do
>you feel about what Sarah said here? I've read statements that are similar
>from other young actors.
You didn't ask me but I agree with her 100%. Sarah guards her privacy much
more then some but i think it's because she realizes if she talks too much
about her private affairs it just encourages loonies. That was why i didn't
think Alyson Hannigan's Playboy interview was all that smart though the
content didn't offend me and she had every right to do it. Sarah, on the
other hand, seems to try and present a more dignified image in public and
tries to keep her private life private.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are opinion newsgroups. Please try to remember that when posting. No
one is trying to force you to believe anything and everyone is entitled
to their own view.
"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people
didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you"
- (Calvin and Hobbes)
KS
KS
--
"You think you know. What's to come,
what you are... You haven't even begun"
-- Tara (4.22 "Restless")
"Zygon Curry" <kame...@ic24.net> wrote in message
news:rriomtgb6furujbbu...@4ax.com...
Pamela
<fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Does Alyson Hannigan Smoke? From: queen...@aol.com
>>(QueenChase) Date: 8/4/2001 7:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id:
>><20010804224615...@ng-fm1.aol.com> Gellar said this in the
>>February 19, 2000 issue of TV Guide: "I think a certain obligation comes
>>with the job. I didn't go to clubs before I was 21. You will never find
>>a picture of me smoking. Well, that's because I don't smoke, [though] I
>>did for a little bit.
>
> Some people said they don't think stars should have to be role models.
> How do you feel about what Sarah said here? I've read statements that
> are similar from other young actors.
I don't think that stars should have to be role models. OTOH, many public
figures are taken as role models by fans, especially young fans. I have no
problem with stars who live their lives according to their own standards
and try to be an example of what they think is right. I do have a bit of
a problem with stars who use their fame as a springboard for launching
campaigns to try and convince people of something they would not believe
if it were not endorsed by the star. It's a fine line, I know.
--
Pamela
_______________________________________
Bite me.
Zygon Curry
wrote:
>On Sat, 04 Aug 2001 20:24:27 +0100, Zygon Curry <kame...@ic24.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Just a quick question. Does either Alyson Hannigan or Sarah Michelle
>>Gellar smoke at all?
>
>They won't say but I have it on good authority (George) that you have
>their permission to start if you want.
Why would I want to start smoking?!
Regards,
Zygon Curry
Zygon Curry
<k...@bans.all.dip.t-dialin.lamers> wrote:
>No. Only James Marsters on the current Buffy cast.
Do you say that because we have seen him smoke on Buffy and Angel?
Or are those just those herbal cigs?
Regards,
Zygon Curry
David Cheatham
k...@bans.all.dip.t-dialin.lamers says...
> No. Only James Marsters on the current Buffy cast.
James Marsters smokes? Where'd you hear that?
Tom Breton
> I have no idea really. I wouldn't be surprised if Sarah did, but
> actresses who are going for the glamorous image are pretty careful
> about not getting photographed while smoking (nowadays). Actually,
> one of my more useless brain cells is trying to tell me that Alyson
> smoked for awhile in high school, but quit long ago. Could be true.
> The brain cell which remembers which interviews I've read can't verify
> the source of that information.
SMG has said in interviews that she doesn't smoke. However, she often
lies, so that's not conclusive.
She smoked in one scene in IKWYDLS. For the most part, you don't see
her actually smoking it, except once.
--
Tom Breton, http://world.std.com/~tob
BTVS geek code, http://world.std.com/~tob/btvs-geek-code.html
1+ 2+++ 3- 4- 5- W--- B--? Bbot+++ F+ Dar++ J+ A&B--- A&Dar+ W&Moloch+++
T&O++ X&C+ XL+++ Cru--- Gav--- SR-! JM++ JW---- MN- DF--- JE+
Tim Bruening
Tom Breton wrote:
> john...@hotmail.com (johndiem) writes:
>
> > I have no idea really. I wouldn't be surprised if Sarah did, but
> > actresses who are going for the glamorous image are pretty careful
> > about not getting photographed while smoking (nowadays). Actually,
> > one of my more useless brain cells is trying to tell me that Alyson
> > smoked for awhile in high school, but quit long ago. Could be true.
> > The brain cell which remembers which interviews I've read can't verify
> > the source of that information.
>
> SMG has said in interviews that she doesn't smoke. However, she often
> lies, so that's not conclusive.
Do any of the actors or actresses smoke? I have often seen Spike smoke,
sometimes in front of "No Smoking" signs.
Tim Bruening
Tom Breton wrote:
> john...@hotmail.com (johndiem) writes:
>
> > I have no idea really. I wouldn't be surprised if Sarah did, but
> > actresses who are going for the glamorous image are pretty careful
> > about not getting photographed while smoking (nowadays). Actually,
> > one of my more useless brain cells is trying to tell me that Alyson
> > smoked for awhile in high school, but quit long ago. Could be true.
> > The brain cell which remembers which interviews I've read can't verify
> > the source of that information.
>
> SMG has said in interviews that she doesn't smoke. However, she often
> lies, so that's not conclusive.
Do any of the actors or actresses smoke? I have often seen Spike smoke,
KS
No, he smokes real cigs. The cast are trying to make him quit..
David M. Sueme
wrote:
>Why would I want to start smoking?!
Because tobacco has a fascinating complex aroma, and because nicotine
dialates your blood vessels, including those in your brain, and
creates an instant brief illusion of increased smartness. It is an
immediate positive reinforcement.
Admittedly, the well-known long-term costs of smoking weigh heavily
against starting. But your question implied that you think smoking is
utterly senseless. It isn't. It is like avacodos - fun with a cost.
Elf Bard
>Do you say that because we have seen him smoke on Buffy and Angel?
>
>Or are those just those herbal cigs?
*Very* herbal cigs ;P
just kidding
BTR1701
<tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
Eliza Dushku, Clare Kramer and Nicholas Brendon smoke.
BTR1701
<tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
Eliza Dushku, Clare Kramer and Nicholas Brendon smoke.
David Cheatham
>
> "Zygon Curry" <kame...@ic24.net> wrote in message
> news:vgeqmtgvjn95o7ejt...@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 05 Aug 2001 06:19:00 GMT, "KS"
> > <k...@bans.all.dip.t-dialin.lamers> wrote:
> >
> > >No. Only James Marsters on the current Buffy cast.
> >
> >
> > Do you say that because we have seen him smoke on Buffy and Angel?
> >
> > Or are those just those herbal cigs?
> >
>
> No, he smokes real cigs. The cast are trying to make him quit..
I doubt you can actually smoke tobacco on a closed set, even if you
actually smoke. It's probably a union violation.
Outdoors, probably, but not inside.
Paul Hammond
David M. Sueme wrote in message
<3b6e373e$0$93662$272e...@news.execpc.com>...
>
>Admittedly, the well-known long-term costs of smoking weigh heavily
>against starting. But your question implied that you think smoking is
>utterly senseless. It isn't. It is like avacodos - fun with a cost.
>
>Dave
>
What is/are avacodos, and what's the cost?
I'm only coming up with avacados, which have no long-term cost.
Paul
Marysia
>>Gellar said this in the February 19, 2000 issue of TV Guide: "I think a
>>certain
>>obligation comes with the job. I didn't go to clubs before I was 21. You will
>>never find a picture of me smoking. Well, that's because I don't smoke,
>>[though] I did for a little bit.
>
>Some people said they don't think stars should have to be role models. How do
>you feel about what Sarah said here? I've read statements that are similar
>from other young actors.
S'her choice. I don't _expect_ stars to be role models, but if they
want to be then it's no skin off my nose.
Unless they started saying things that really annoy me :)
I enormously support anyone who makes an effort to deglamorise smoking
as it is one of my pet hates and I would never be seen with a
cigarette in hand even for an acting role (watch as Marysia instantly
gets offered a role in Buffy which requires her to smoke and dumps all
her morals on the spot :)
--
Marysia in Seattle, www.marysia.com - remove the "spanner" to email
music at www.mp3.com/marysia inc Spike inspired song 'Darker than This'
"And you can use my skin, to bury secrets in" - Fiona Apple
Marysia
<pa...@hammond3671.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>David M. Sueme wrote in message
><3b6e373e$0$93662$272e...@news.execpc.com>...
>>
>>Admittedly, the well-known long-term costs of smoking weigh heavily
>>against starting. But your question implied that you think smoking is
>>utterly senseless. It isn't. It is like avacodos - fun with a cost.
>
>What is/are avacodos, and what's the cost?
>I'm only coming up with avacados, which have no long-term cost.
Avocadoes? Avocados?
And i guess some people think they're fattening but I don't believe in
that sort of crap.
BTR1701
<mar...@marysia.spannercom> wrote:
> On 05 Aug 2001 03:18:49 GMT, fyl...@aol.comspam (Mrs. Poet) wrote:
>
> >>Gellar said this in the February 19, 2000 issue of TV Guide: "I think a
> >>certain obligation comes with the job. I didn't go to clubs before I was 21.
> >>You will never find a picture of me smoking. Well, that's because I don't smoke,
> >>[though] I did for a little bit.
> >
> >Some people said they don't think stars should have to be role models.
> >How do you feel about what Sarah said here? I've read statements that are
> >similar from other young actors.
>
> S'her choice. I don't _expect_ stars to be role models, but if they
> want to be then it's no skin off my nose.
>
> Unless they started saying things that really annoy me :)
>
> I enormously support anyone who makes an effort to deglamorise smoking
> as it is one of my pet hates and I would never be seen with a
> cigarette in hand even for an acting role (watch as Marysia instantly
> gets offered a role in Buffy which requires her to smoke and dumps all
> her morals on the spot :)
I've heard people make this claim before, that they wouldn't even
pretend to smoke for a role in a play or a film. But they'd have no
problem accepting a role portraying a thief or a murderer.
Seems like a misalignment of priorities to me.
ANIM8Rfsk
>
>What is/are avacodos, and what's the cost?
>I'm only coming up with avacados, which have no long-term cost.
Avocadoes? Avocados? >>
Avocados.
I'm mystified. I guess if Avocados are like smoking, then guacomole must be
lung cancer? And doritos are cigarette holders?
Joerg Plate
3 definitions found
From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English [gcide]:
Avocado \Av`o*ca"do\, n. [Corrupted from the Mexican ahuacatl:
cf. Sp. aguacate, F. aguacat['e], avocat, G. avogadobaum.]
The pulpy fruit of {Persea gratissima}, a tree of tropical
America. It is about the size and shape of a large pear; --
called also {avocado pear}, {alligator pear}, {midshipman's
butter}.
[1913 Webster] ||
From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English [gcide]:
colorful \colorful\ adj.
1. having striking color. Opposite of {colorless}.
Note: [Narrower terms: {changeable, chatoyant, iridescent,
shot}; {deep, rich}; {flaming}; {fluorescent, glowing};
{prismatic}; {psychedelic}; {red, ruddy, flushed,
empurpled}]
Syn: colourful.
[WordNet 1.5]
2. striking in variety and interest. Opposite of {colorless}
or {dull}. [Narrower terms: {brave, fine, gay, glorious};
{flamboyant, resplendent, unrestrained}; {flashy, gaudy,
jazzy, showy, snazzy, sporty}; {picturesque}]
[WordNet 1.5]
3. having color or a certain color; not black, white or grey;
as, colored crepe paper. Opposite of {colorless} and
{monochrome}.
Note: [Narrower terms: {tinted}; {touched, tinged}; {amber,
brownish-yellow, yellow-brown}; {amethyst}; {auburn,
reddish-brown}; {aureate, gilded, gilt, gold, golden};
{azure, cerulean, sky-blue, bright blue}; {bicolor,
bicolour, bicolored, bicoloured, bichrome}; {blue,
bluish, light-blue, dark-blue}; {blushful,
blush-colored, rosy}; {bottle-green}; {bronze, bronzy};
{brown, brownish, dark-brown}; {buff}; {canary,
canary-yellow}; {caramel, caramel brown}; {carnation};
{chartreuse}; {chestnut}; {dun}; {earth-colored,
earthlike}; {fuscous}; {green, greenish, light-green,
dark-green}; {jade, jade-green}; {khaki}; {lavender,
lilac}; {mauve}; {moss green, mosstone}; {motley,
multicolor, culticolour, multicolored, multicoloured,
painted, particolored, particoloured, piebald, pied,
varicolored, varicoloured}; {mousy, mouse-colored};
{ocher, ochre}; {olive-brown}; {olive-drab}; {olive};
{orange, orangish}; {peacock-blue}; {pink, pinkish};
{purple, violet, purplish}; {red, blood-red, carmine,
cerise, cherry, cherry-red, crimson, ruby, ruby-red,
scarlet}; {red, reddish}; {rose, roseate}; {rose-red};
{rust, rusty, rust-colored}; {snuff, snuff-brown,
snuff-color, snuff-colour, snuff-colored,
snuff-coloured, mummy-brown, chukker-brown}; {sorrel,
brownish-orange}; {stone, stone-gray}; {straw-color,
straw-colored, straw-coloured}; {tan}; {tangerine};
{tawny}; {ultramarine}; {umber}; {vermilion,
vermillion, cinibar, Chinese-red}; {yellow, yellowish};
{yellow-green}; {avocado}; {bay}; {beige}; {blae
bluish-black or gray-blue)}; {coral}; {creamy}; {cress
green, cresson, watercress}; {hazel}; {honey,
honey-colored}; {hued(postnominal)}; {magenta};
{maroon}; {pea-green}; {russet}; {sage, sage-green};
{sea-green}] [Also See: {chromatic}, {colored}, {dark},
{light}.]
Syn: colored, coloured, in color(predicate).
[WordNet 1.5]
From WordNet (r) 1.7 [wn]:
avocado
adj : of the dull yellowish green of the meat of an avocado
n 1: pear-shaped tropical fruit with green or blackish skin and
rich yellowish pulp enclosing a single large seed [syn:
{alligator pear}, {avocado pear}]
2: tropical American tree bearing large pulpy green fruits
[syn: {avocado tree}, {Persea Americana}]
--
"I'm working on it." <http://www.psyche.kn-bremen.de/>
"Du hast gemacht was wir von Dir wollten." Kündigungsbegründung
Mark Nobles
> Avocadoes? Avocados?
>
> And i guess some people think they're fattening but I don't believe in
> that sort of crap.
Not that they are fattening, though I suppose they might be in mass
quantities. The real thing about them is that they are the only
vegetable with cholestorol.
Jeff and Lisa
> pretend to smoke for a role in a play or a film. But they'd have no
> problem accepting a role portraying a thief or a murderer.
>
> Seems like a misalignment of priorities to me.
You're comparing apples and oranges.
David Cheatham
Well, some people are ex-smokers, and they're afraid if they start, even
with 'fake' herbal cigarettes, they'll get sucked back in.
But the real point is that being a murderer isn't usually protrayed as a
good thing, or a neutral thing. There is very little danger of
glamorizing murder, or stealing.
Idly, I think Spike smoking in front of a No Smoking sign in a hospital
is one of the funniest sight gags in the show.
David Cheatham
Paul Hammond
David Cheatham wrote in message ...
Well, they're both green, but apples have a number of small pips
inside, and a centre that looks like a star if you slice it perpendicular to
the stalk, while avocados have a large stone in the middle which you
have to eat around.
Why are we comparing apples and avocados?
Paul
BTR1701
<da...@creeknet.com> wrote:
You've never watched a mob movie, have ya? ;-)
BTR1701
Lisa) wrote:
Nope. I'm comparing people who refuse to take roles based on the theory
that it glamorizes the activity portrayed.
They feel glamorizing smoking is bad but for some reason lack the same
scruples regarding murder.
ANIM8Rfsk
scruples regarding murder. >>
Well, you'd need to show me somebody who turned down playing a murderer because
the role was glamorizing murderers, to start with . . .
BTR1701
anim...@aol.comNOSPAM (ANIM8Rfsk) wrote:
Precisely my point. There aren't many.
Robert Redford is the only one I can think of.
David Cheatham
Heh. ;)
Estron
> I've heard people make this claim before, that they wouldn't even
> pretend to smoke for a role in a play or a film. But they'd have no
> problem accepting a role portraying a thief or a murderer.
> Seems like a misalignment of priorities to me.
Playing a scene in a college acting class is the only time I
_have_ smoked.
Tobacco, that is.
--
All opinions expressed are exactly that.
Pax vobiscum.
est...@tfs.net
Kansas City, Missouri
Elf Bard
>Eliza Dushku, Clare Kramer and Nicholas Brendon smoke.
He dose?! DAMN!
David M. Sueme
<tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>Do any of the actors or actresses smoke?
They might well be as foolish as ordinary people.
Marysia
wrote:
>I've heard people make this claim before, that they wouldn't even
>pretend to smoke for a role in a play or a film. But they'd have no
>problem accepting a role portraying a thief or a murderer.
>Seems like a misalignment of priorities to me.
Well there isn't a lot of peer pressure around to become a murderer
and smoking seems to be a lot more addictive than killing :)
Marysia
wrote:
>> You're comparing apples and oranges
>
>Nope. I'm comparing people who refuse to take roles based on the theory
>that it glamorizes the activity portrayed.
>They feel glamorizing smoking is bad but for some reason lack the same
>scruples regarding murder.
Then let me make it simple.
I feel that the average human being is in vastly more danger from
smoking than from murder.
I feel the average human is vastly more likely to start smoking than
to stab someone with a large kitchen knife.
I feel that the average human being is more likely to be pressured by
society to smoke because it's cool than to kill because it's cool.
I think the statistics bear me out.
This makes smoking more serious than murder on a global basis even
though murder feels more serious when it actually occurs on an
individual basis.
Medusa_27
> No. Only James Marsters on the current Buffy cast.
>
> --
> "You think you know. What's to come,
> what you are... You haven't even begun"
> -- Tara (4.22 "Restless")> news:rriomtgb6furujbbu...@4ax.com...
> > Hi
> >
> > Just a quick question. Does either Alyson Hannigan or Sarah Michelle
> > Gellar smoke at all?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Zygon Curry
> >
Don't know about real life, but in "Bandcandy" Both Giles and Joyce smoked.
BTR1701
(David M. Sueme) wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Aug 2001 17:06:18 -0700, Tim Bruening
> <tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>
> >Do any of the actors or actresses smoke?
>
> They might well be as foolish as ordinary people.
They are ordinary people. Which is to say they are people, no different
than any others.
BTR1701
<mar...@marysia.spannercom> wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Aug 2001 17:25:58 -0700, BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> You're comparing apples and oranges
> >
> >Nope. I'm comparing people who refuse to take roles based on the theory
> >that it glamorizes the activity portrayed.
> >They feel glamorizing smoking is bad but for some reason lack the same
> >scruples regarding murder.
>
> Then let me make it simple.
>
> I feel that the average human being is in vastly more danger from
> smoking than from murder.
>
> I feel the average human is vastly more likely to start smoking than
> to stab someone with a large kitchen knife.
>
> I feel that the average human being is more likely to be pressured by
> society to smoke because it's cool than to kill because it's cool.
>
> I think the statistics bear me out.
>
> This makes smoking more serious than murder on a global basis even
> though murder feels more serious when it actually occurs on an
> individual basis.
Personally, I'm aggressively unconcerned about smoking. People can
choose to start and choose to stop. It's up to them. If they want to
kill themselves, who am I to object?
BTR1701
<mar...@marysia.spannercom> wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Aug 2001 07:35:00 -0700, BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I've heard people make this claim before, that they wouldn't even
> >pretend to smoke for a role in a play or a film. But they'd have no
> >problem accepting a role portraying a thief or a murderer.
> >Seems like a misalignment of priorities to me.
>
> Well there isn't a lot of peer pressure around to become a murderer
> and smoking seems to be a lot more addictive than killing :)
Millions of people stop smoking by just choosing to quit. The "I can't
stop because it's addictive" excuse rings hollow with me.
Jeff and Lisa
> stop because it's addictive" excuse rings hollow with me.
Smoking is extremely addictive.
Obviously, some people are more sensitive than others. But it is
not easy to quit smoking for many people.
BTR1701
Lisa) wrote:
No one said it's easy. But it can be done.
hlk
wrote:
I feel the same way about murder. Not much different than second-hand
smoke, really. Except it's much more common.
BTR1701
h...@cannedvegetables.org wrote:
Actually, it is different. Murder, by definition, actually kills people.
Second-hand smoke has never been proven to do that.
ANIM8Rfsk
Second-hand smoke has never been proven to do that. >>
Except of course that it has.
hlk
wrote:
> Actually, it is different. Murder, by definition, actually kills people.
> Second-hand smoke has never been proven to do that.
Sigh. At least *I* amuse me.
Chris Collins
So, why exactly are millions of people doing something that evidence
strongly suggests causes cancer, emphysema, heart desease, etc?
Hey I enjoy smoking, but the financial cost alone would be enough to
make me quit if it was as simple as saying "I quit". Problem is,
quitting just isn't something I'm accustomed to. I'm sure I'm capable
of it - but I haven't managed it yet.
JVV4sm
One way or another, all smokers quit.
JVV4sm
>Personally, I'm aggressively unconcerned about smoking. People can
>choose to start and choose to stop. It's up to them. If they want to
>kill themselves, who am I to object?
Because second hand smoke affects more than just the smoker?
JVV4sm
Yuck, a naive member of the "just say no" crowd.
Corwin2
>Just a quick question. Does either Alyson Hannigan or Sarah Michelle
>Gellar smoke at all?
I'd say they were hot, but I don't know if I'd go as far as saying they
were smokin'. Probably depends on how they dress.
David Cheatham
David Cheatham
Erm...smoking has been proven to dramatically increase the risk of lung
cancer. Presumably, it's doing that with the smoke, unless you can think
of a reason the paper or unsmoked tobacco would be getting in your
lungs.
If it's the smoke that does it, on all cigarettes, the smoke coming off
the end is either exactly the same as the smoke being inhaled, or, it's
*less* filtered. It's as strong or more strong then the inhaled smoke.
It various depending on how people smoke, but there is also usually more
smoke that simply floats off the end of the cigarette then people
inhale. (And, of course, a lot of the inhaled smoke gets also exhaled
fairly soon.)
At this point, you then have to define 'secondhand smoke'.
Are people talking about people standing near them outside? While you
can smell that smoke, you are probably not getting enough particulate to
increase your risk of lung cancer by any detectable amount. Simply being
able to smell it doesn't mean you're breathing the smoke. Tobacco odor
is a fairly strong odor.
If, however, you mean sitting in a closed, let's make it 25x25 foot area
for 60 minutes with someone who smoked 3 cigarettes in that time, you
probably just 'smoked' half a cigarette yourself. As smoking one
cigarette cigarette a day noticeably increases your risk of lung cancer,
and that is logically the same as smoking half a cigarette a day for
twice as long (Remember, you don't quit secondhand smoking.) would have
the same effect.
Even if it only barely increases the risks, it still 'kills people',
just fewer of them.
David Cheatham
Some people get sucked into addictions, and some people don't. It's a
personality thing. I myself almost never get addicted to things,
although I've (knowingly) become addicted to caffeine before, that's
rather easy to shake off if you have a spare two days.
Don Sample
<da...@creeknet.com> wrote:
> If, however, you mean sitting in a closed, let's make it 25x25 foot area
> for 60 minutes with someone who smoked 3 cigarettes in that time, you
> probably just 'smoked' half a cigarette yourself. As smoking one
> cigarette cigarette a day noticeably increases your risk of lung cancer,
> and that is logically the same as smoking half a cigarette a day for
> twice as long (Remember, you don't quit secondhand smoking.) would have
> the same effect.
Using that sort of reasoning, I "smoked" nearly half a pack of
cigarettes a day for the first 18 years of my life. (My mother was a
heavy smoker.) I should have become a nicotine addict myself. (Show
me someone who's been smoking half a pack a day for several years who
*isn't* addicted to the stuff.)
Funny thing...I have never had even the slightest inclination to take
up smoking.
--
Don Sample, dsa...@synapse.net
Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://www.synapse.net/~dsample/BBC
Quando omni flunkus moritati
David Cheatham
> In article <MPG.15db4c0ef...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>, David Cheatham
> <da...@creeknet.com> wrote:
>
> > If, however, you mean sitting in a closed, let's make it 25x25 foot area
> > for 60 minutes with someone who smoked 3 cigarettes in that time, you
> > probably just 'smoked' half a cigarette yourself. As smoking one
> > cigarette cigarette a day noticeably increases your risk of lung cancer,
> > and that is logically the same as smoking half a cigarette a day for
> > twice as long (Remember, you don't quit secondhand smoking.) would have
> > the same effect.
>
> Using that sort of reasoning, I "smoked" nearly half a pack of
> cigarettes a day for the first 18 years of my life. (My mother was a
> heavy smoker.) I should have become a nicotine addict myself. (Show
> me someone who's been smoking half a pack a day for several years who
> *isn't* addicted to the stuff.)
>
> Funny thing...I have never had even the slightest inclination to take
> up smoking.
I didn't say secondhand smoke was addictive. Addiction has many
different aspects, and part of it is simply knowing why you feel bad
when you don't get it. Part of smoking addiction is also that it's a
very oral thing, with something hanging between your lips at all times,
which explains why people who quit sometimes walk around with unlit
cigarettes in their mouth, and some of it is the action of inhaling the
smoke.
Frankly, I think smoking addiction is a bit silly. If I simply could not
stop smoking, I'd simply get someone to lock me up and refuse to give my
any cigarettes. It's not like other addictions where you can die from
quitting straight out, like heroin, or things like alcohol, where it
changes your body chemistry in large ways even when you're not using it.
All it changes in you is make you seriously want it, and get irritated
when you don't.
I dunno, though, I've never smoked, and thus never tried to quit. I'm
not really the expert in smoking addiction.
I simply said it is probably the equivalent, lung cancer-wise, and other
disease related things, of smoking half a cigarette. You probably get
1/6th as much smoke in your lungs, in a 25x25 foot room, as the person
who's smoking. Note I just made that number up out of thin air, it could
be as much as 1/2 or as little as 1/25. Probably depends on a bunch of
factors, like ventilation, humidity, method of smoking, room layout,
etc.
I was just responding to the claim that secondhand smoke has not been
proven to hurt people, in that smoking *has* been 'proven' to, and
logically you should be getting *some* of the effect of that from
secondhand smoke also.
PS The reason I put proven in quotes is that smoking is as proven to
increase the risk of lung cancer as much as it ever can. Studies have
shown, without fail, that if two groups of people are in identical
situations, but one group smokes, that group has a significantly higher
risk of lung cancer, and the theories on *why* they get lung cancer have
been figured out also, so it's not just statistics. It's pretty much how
you prove every other high risk activity is high risk.
Paul Hammond
ANIM8Rfsk wrote in message <20010808130502...@ng-fi1.aol.com>...
><< Actually, it is different. Murder, by definition, actually kills people.
>Second-hand smoke has never been proven to do that. >>
>
>Except of course that it has.
>
Debatable. Although, the fact that several non-smokers who used
to work in smoky environments have died of lung cancer is fairly
strong evidence that second-hand smoke exposure can be dangerous.
A surer way to save lives would be to ban cars...
Paul
Forge
>>Millions of people stop smoking by just choosing to quit. The "I can't
>>stop because it's addictive" excuse rings hollow with me.
>
>Yuck, a naive member of the "just say no" crowd.
Well addiction is addiction but that's how I quit smoking. It ceased
to be worthwhile so I just quit.
BTR1701
<da...@creeknet.com> wrote:
Touche. ;-)
BTR1701
jvv...@aol.comNOSPAM (JVV4sm) wrote:
Oh, please! We automatically assume someone who smokes is puffing his
fumes into the faces of others. My girlfriend used to smoke and unless
she told me about it, I'd have never known. She was always considerate
enough to indulge her habit away from others.
I'm not talking about rude smokers, I'm talking about people who choose
to smoke, knowing it's bad for them (yes, even teens know it's bad for
them), but want to do it anyway. More power to them. It's their choice.
But if they become "addicted" to it, they shouldn't whine and cry about
the big bad cigarette companies. They should suck it up, exercise a
little strength of character and self-discipline and quit smoking.
Millions of people do it all the time. It can be done.
BTR1701
<da...@creeknet.com> wrote:
The ambient air pollution in any major city like Los Angeles or Houston
is hundreds of times more unhealthy than some smoker sitting across a
restaurant from you.
Worrying about second hand smoke while breathing the city air is just
plain silly. And I don't see all these second-hand smoke activists
screaming about banning cars and planes and buses because of their
harmful emissions. Only cigarettes.
BTR1701
anim...@aol.comNOSPAM (ANIM8Rfsk) wrote:
No, it actually hasn't. There's never been a proven case of death from
second hand smoke. That's a fact.
There's been a lot of speculation masqueraded as science but the stark
cold fact is no person has ever been *proven* to have died from second
hand smoke exposure.
BTR1701
jvv...@aol.comNOSPAM (JVV4sm) wrote:
Yuck, a naive member of the "everyone's a victim" crowd.
And by the way, I certainly am not advocating "just say no". If you want
to smoke, great. Just say yes and smoke away. I have no problem with
that. Just don't whine to me later and say it's not your fault that
you're "addicted" or worse yet, sue a tobacco company and claim they
forced you into it.
You got yourself into your situation, you should get yourself out of it.
Exercise a little thing called strength of character and self-discipline
and quit smoking.
BTR1701
c...@crcdesign.net (Chris Collins) wrote:
> BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:<btr1702-7F58AC...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> > In article <plp1ntc5ssupbevrk...@4ax.com>, Marysia
> > <mar...@marysia.spannercom> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 07 Aug 2001 07:35:00 -0700, BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >I've heard people make this claim before, that they wouldn't even
> > > >pretend to smoke for a role in a play or a film. But they'd have no
> > > >problem accepting a role portraying a thief or a murderer.
> > > >Seems like a misalignment of priorities to me.
> > >
> > > Well there isn't a lot of peer pressure around to become a murderer
> > > and smoking seems to be a lot more addictive than killing :)
> >
> > Millions of people stop smoking by just choosing to quit. The "I can't
> > stop because it's addictive" excuse rings hollow with me.
>
> So, why exactly are millions of people doing something that evidence
> strongly suggests causes cancer, emphysema, heart desease, etc?
The same reason I enjoy the hell out of Wendy's hamburgers even though
evidence suggests they lead to high cholesterol, arteriosclerosis and
heart disease.
Because they taste damned good. And presumably smokers enjoy smoking on
the same level. They like it and they assume the risk in exchange for
the pleasure.
I used to be able to eat anything I wanted in truly stunning amounts and
never gain a pound but when I hit my 30's and started to notice a bit of
gut developing, I decided to make some life changes and I gave up fast
food, altered my diet and started running every day. Now that gut is
gone and I feel a lot better. Was it easy giving up the foods and
desserts I liked? No. But I made myself do it in order to achieve a more
important benefit.
Smokers are no different. It's not easy to kick it, but it certainly can
be done so long as the smoker doesn't adopt an "I'm a victim and I'm
helpless" mentality.
David Cheatham
While the air in many cities is unhealthy, there usually are not
carcinogens in it, or not as much as in tobacco smoke, unless they are
doing asbestos work nearby or something. If there were, then we wouldn't
have the clear evidence we do that smoking dramatically increases your
risk of lung cancer, because it would be overshadowed by all the
'normal' lung cancer. People do not 'normally' get lung cancer anymore.
Breathing pollution can give you asthma and lung diseases, much like
coal mining (and cigarettes will give you also), but almost nothing else
will give you lung *cancer* except banned things, like asbestos
and...um...radon. ;)
David Cheatham
Right, just like no one has even been *proven* to die from being tossed
out an airlock into space. However, we can extrapolate what happens when
we expose people to vacuum in other circumstances, like that time a
Russian ship leaked on reentry, and figure out what might happen.
It *has* been proven that risk of lung cancer increases when you smoke.
There are tons of evidence proving they are linked, and well regarded
theories on how tobacco smoke does it. This is considered 'proof' in
medical science for risk factors.
As the only possible thing (and what the theories all say) causing the
cancer is the smoke, the possibility is fairly good that exposing other
people to the same smoke that increases the chances of cancer in smokers
will increase the exposed people's chance of cancer, even if they
themselves are not smoking. It's the same smoke, after all, it should
cause the same effect no matter what you're currently holding in your
mouth.
The only question is 'How much smoke does a nonsmoker inhale if they're
in the same room?', and like I said, no one has any clue, because rooms,
airflow, positions, etc, all vary from situation to situation. You can't
say 'secondhand smokers have 1/x the risk of smokers', it depends on
large amounts of other factors.
Nevertheless, saying 'being around smoke hasn't been proven to increase
your chances of lung cancer' is like saying 'high humidity hasn't been
proven to increase your chances of rain'. It does, the real question is
'How much?', and that's pretty unanswerable.
David M. Sueme
wrote:
>They are ordinary people. Which is to say they are people, no different
>than any others.
Induhviduals?
Dave
Usenet threads are more like rats than snakes. There is no head to chop off - it's when you stop feeding it garbage that it dies.
David M. Sueme
wrote:
>> Except, of course, better looking. ;)
>
>Touche. ;-)
There is an exception.
BTR1701
<da...@creeknet.com> wrote:
> BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> says...
> > In article <20010808130502...@ng-fi1.aol.com>,
> > anim...@aol.comNOSPAM (ANIM8Rfsk) wrote:
> >
> > > << Actually, it is different. Murder, by definition, actually kills
> > > people.
> > > Second-hand smoke has never been proven to do that. >>
> > >
> > > Except of course that it has.
> >
> > No, it actually hasn't. There's never been a proven case of death from
> > second hand smoke. That's a fact.
> >
> > There's been a lot of speculation masqueraded as science but the stark
> > cold fact is no person has ever been *proven* to have died from second
> > hand smoke exposure.
> Nevertheless, saying 'being around smoke hasn't been proven to increase
> your chances of lung cancer' is like saying 'high humidity hasn't been
> proven to increase your chances of rain'. It does, the real question is
> 'How much?', and that's pretty unanswerable
Considering the air pollutants present in most major cities, complaining
about second hand smoke (unless it's being blown directly in your face)
is silly.
To use your rain anaology, it's like standing in a torrential
thunderstorm and complaining because someone dumps a cup of water on
your head.
BTR1701
<da...@creeknet.com> wrote:
The stuff that comes out of a car's tailpipe is full of carcinogens.
Ozone is a carcinogen.
Marysia
wrote:
>In article <plp1ntc5ssupbevrk...@4ax.com>, Marysia
><mar...@marysia.spannercom> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 07 Aug 2001 07:35:00 -0700, BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I've heard people make this claim before, that they wouldn't even
>> >pretend to smoke for a role in a play or a film. But they'd have no
>> >problem accepting a role portraying a thief or a murderer.
>> >Seems like a misalignment of priorities to me.
>>
>> Well there isn't a lot of peer pressure around to become a murderer
>> and smoking seems to be a lot more addictive than killing :)
>
>Millions of people stop smoking by just choosing to quit. The "I can't
>stop because it's addictive" excuse rings hollow with me.
So why do impartial scientists rank it as at least or more addictive
than cocaine?
--
Marysia in Seattle, www.marysia.com - remove the "spanner" to email
music at www.mp3.com/marysia inc Spike inspired song 'Darker than This'
"And you can use my skin, to bury secrets in" - Fiona Apple
David Cheatham
Some of us don't live in major cities. ;)
JVV4sm
>Worrying about second hand smoke while breathing the city air is just
>plain silly. And I don't see all these second-hand smoke activists
>screaming about banning cars and planes and buses because of their
>harmful emissions. Only cigarettes.
Huh? Where have you been looking?
JVV4sm
>In article <20010808134449...@mb-md.aol.com>,
>jvv...@aol.comNOSPAM (JVV4sm) wrote:
>
>> >
>> >Personally, I'm aggressively unconcerned about smoking. People can
>> >choose to start and choose to stop. It's up to them. If they want to
>> >kill themselves, who am I to object?
>>
>> Because second hand smoke affects more than just the smoker?
>
>Oh, please! We automatically assume someone who smokes is puffing his
>fumes into the faces of others. My girlfriend used to smoke and unless
>she told me about it, I'd have never known. She was always considerate
>enough to indulge her habit away from others.
My understanding is that outside Calfornia, smoking is allowed in restaurants
and bars, and that is obvious source of second hand smoke.
>I'm not talking about rude smokers, I'm talking about people who choose
>to smoke, knowing it's bad for them (yes, even teens know it's bad for
>them), but want to do it anyway. More power to them. It's their choice.
>But if they become "addicted" to it, they shouldn't whine and cry about
>the big bad cigarette companies. They should suck it up, exercise a
>little strength of character and self-discipline and quit smoking.
>
>Millions of people do it all the time. It can be done.
And millions of people also try but can't do it. Addiction is real.
JVV4sm
>> >stop because it's addictive" excuse rings hollow with me.
>>
>> Yuck, a naive member of the "just say no" crowd
>
>Yuck, a naive member of the "everyone's a victim" crowd.
>
>And by the way, I certainly am not advocating "just say no". If you want
>to smoke, great. Just say yes and smoke away. I have no problem with
>that. Just don't whine to me later and say it's not your fault that
>you're "addicted" or worse yet, sue a tobacco company and claim they
>forced you into it.
>
>You got yourself into your situation, you should get yourself out of it.
>Exercise a little thing called strength of character and self-discipline
>and quit smoking.
It's pretty obvious you don't understand the nature of addiction.
O Deus
And we feel very sorry for them indeed
O Deus
So is Tab
Forge
wrote:
>Oh, please! We automatically assume someone who smokes is puffing his
>fumes into the faces of others. My girlfriend used to smoke and unless
>she told me about it, I'd have never known. She was always considerate
>enough to indulge her habit away from others.
Smoke doesn't have to be visible for it to be harmful.
Forge
wrote:
>The ambient air pollution in any major city like Los Angeles or Houston
>is hundreds of times more unhealthy than some smoker sitting across a
>restaurant from you.
This is so; it's not a worry in a large area but in a small apartment
with constant exposure it could be pretty harmful.
Forge
wrote:
>And by the way, I certainly am not advocating "just say no". If you want
>to smoke, great. Just say yes and smoke away. I have no problem with
>that. Just don't whine to me later and say it's not your fault that
>you're "addicted" or worse yet, sue a tobacco company and claim they
>forced you into it.
Tell it brothah
BTR1701
<mar...@marysia.spannercom> wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Aug 2001 08:40:59 -0700, BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <plp1ntc5ssupbevrk...@4ax.com>, Marysia
> ><mar...@marysia.spannercom> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 07 Aug 2001 07:35:00 -0700, BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I've heard people make this claim before, that they wouldn't even
> >> >pretend to smoke for a role in a play or a film. But they'd have no
> >> >problem accepting a role portraying a thief or a murderer.
> >> >Seems like a misalignment of priorities to me.
> >>
> >> Well there isn't a lot of peer pressure around to become a murderer
> >> and smoking seems to be a lot more addictive than killing :)
> >
> >Millions of people stop smoking by just choosing to quit. The "I can't
> >stop because it's addictive" excuse rings hollow with me.
>
> So why do impartial scientists rank it as at least or more addictive
> than cocaine?
Are you sure they're impartial?
And even if it is addictive, people can still quit. People quit using
cocaine too. They started smoking, it's up to them to stop.
I know it's the extreme of unpopularity these days to actually hold
people responsible for the consequences of their actions instead of
rejoicing in their victmhood but I'm not swayed by argument to the
contrary.
BTR1701
jvv...@aol.comNOSPAM (JVV4sm) wrote:
Of course you're right. Unless I see people as helpless before an
implacable force beyond their control, I must not understand.
I don't deny that the body can develop a biological dependence on some
substances to the point where a person can risk injury or death by the
sudden removal of them from their system.
Nicotine is not such a substance. Cigarette addiction is mostly
psychological and what physical symptoms there are in a minority of
people are minor and can be overcome with determined effort.
BTR1701
<xfo...@spammersmustdie.bellsouth.net> wrote:
I never said it did. It does, however, have to actually be present for
it to be harmful.
BTR1701
jvv...@aol.comNOSPAM (JVV4sm) wrote:
They could if they tried hard enough. Some people just lack the power of
will.
JVV4sm
Yep. you don't get it.
JVV4sm
>In article <j4e4ntoedjqafgssj...@4ax.com>, Marysia
><mar...@marysia.spannercom> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 08 Aug 2001 08:40:59 -0700, BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <plp1ntc5ssupbevrk...@4ax.com>, Marysia
>> ><mar...@marysia.spannercom> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 07 Aug 2001 07:35:00 -0700, BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >I've heard people make this claim before, that they wouldn't even
>> >> >pretend to smoke for a role in a play or a film. But they'd have no
>> >> >problem accepting a role portraying a thief or a murderer.
>> >> >Seems like a misalignment of priorities to me.
>> >>
>> >> Well there isn't a lot of peer pressure around to become a murderer
>> >> and smoking seems to be a lot more addictive than killing :)
>> >
>> >Millions of people stop smoking by just choosing to quit. The "I can't
>> >stop because it's addictive" excuse rings hollow with me.
>>
>> So why do impartial scientists rank it as at least or more addictive
>> than cocaine?
>
>Are you sure they're impartial?
>
>And even if it is addictive, people can still quit. People quit using
>cocaine too. They started smoking, it's up to them to stop.
People become Olympic athletes too. it's just up to them to be determined,
right? WRONG.
Some people are unable to do certain things
BTR1701
jvv...@aol.comNOSPAM (JVV4sm) wrote:
Whatever. Go celebrate your victimhood, then. I remain unsympathetic.
BTR1701
jvv...@aol.comNOSPAM (JVV4sm) wrote:
Nope. I'm not buying it, your false analogy not withstanding.
Chris Collins
> In article <1857b4d5.01080...@posting.google.com>,
> c...@crcdesign.net (Chris Collins) wrote:
>
> > BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:<btr1702-7F58AC...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> > > In article <plp1ntc5ssupbevrk...@4ax.com>, Marysia
> > > <mar...@marysia.spannercom> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 07 Aug 2001 07:35:00 -0700, BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >or a murderer. Seems like a misalignment of priorities
> > > >
> > > > and smoking seems to be a lot more addictive than killing :)
> > >
> > > Millions of people stop smoking by just choosing to quit. The "I can't
> > > stop because it's addictive" excuse rings hollow with me.
> >
> > So, why exactly are millions of people doing something that evidence
> > strongly suggests causes cancer, emphysema, heart desease, etc?
>
> The same reason I enjoy the hell out of Wendy's hamburgers even though
> evidence suggests they lead to high cholesterol, arteriosclerosis and
> heart disease.
>
> Because they taste damned good. And presumably smokers enjoy smoking on
> the same level.
level. In my case, for instance, I don't even like the taste anymore.
I switched to the cheapest brand I can find partly because I wanted
to save money and partly to help me cut back to avoid the taste. It
hasn't helped much... but maybe it will in the long run (gradually
weakening the positive reinforcement of taste?).
When a cigarette delivers nicotine to the bloodstream it almost
immediately (and immediate gratification strongly enhances any
addiction) has the following effects:
increased alertness
improved short term memory
Lower anxiety levels
Dilation of the brain's blood vessels
Analgesia
Direct stimulation of the brain stem's arousal center
... in other words your body feels relaxed, alert and happy. Even if
we think of this as a consious thing it's not the same. And it's not
all consious - there's a subconsious craving to reproduce these
effects.
> ...I gave up fast food. Was it easy giving up the foods and
> desserts I liked? No. But I made myself do it in order to achieve a more
> important benefit.
>
> Smokers are no different. It's not easy to kick it, but it certainly can
> be done so long as the smoker doesn't adopt an "I'm a victim and I'm
> helpless" mentality.
No, we aren't victims, nor are we helpless. But that doesn't make it
the same thing. You climbed a steep hill - congratulations, really.
But don't suggest that for the 25% of smokers who are chronically
addicted that the sheer face of mountainside we're looking at is the
same thing. It can be done - but not so easily.
David Cheatham
And, a lot of times people think they're around 'cigarette smoke',
they're just around the *smell*, which is pretty strong and goes
everywhere.
And, of course, the smell, while annoying (Because, evolutionary, we
should have been running away from smoke the past several million years.
;) , is not harmful in the least.
Zygon Curry
>Personally, I'm aggressively unconcerned about smoking. People can
>choose to start and choose to stop. It's up to them. If they want to
>kill themselves, who am I to object?
Well I object!
You see there's this thing called Passive Smoking! Non-Smokers die
from it!
Regards,
Zygon Curry