Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« The Morning News | Edwards vs. Clinton's Coat »

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

To My Smoking Coworkers

posted by on July 24 at 8:16 AM

All those times outside the office when I’ve asked you not to smoke? Thanks for not shooting me in the head.

RSS icon Comments

1


Here's a related, horrible story from 2003:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2947467.stm

Posted by ba | July 24, 2007 8:26 AM
2

Leaving aside the health issue, any so-called progressive who smokes is a hypocrite.

Posted by Fnarf | July 24, 2007 8:31 AM
3

What kind of cigarettes were they smoking...

Posted by Mr. Poe | July 24, 2007 8:42 AM
4

This paragraph got to me:

"Mr Oyebola is good friends with Chateau 6's owner, thought to be an Irish man who is said to be devastated."

What?

Posted by Phelix | July 24, 2007 8:52 AM
5

It's like telling people to please stop fucking up the planet.

Posted by Lloyd Clydesdale | July 24, 2007 8:56 AM
6

Those crazy Europeans always shootin' people.

Posted by SeMe | July 24, 2007 8:58 AM
7

I believe Mayor Nickels is asking that the Chateau 6 liquor license be suspended.

Posted by elrider | July 24, 2007 9:10 AM
8

fnarf -- why is that??? (out of curiousity, not animosity.)

Posted by infrequent | July 24, 2007 9:28 AM
9

Um, because cigarettes -- all cigarettes -- are made by precisely the Big Evil Corporations that most smokers find so objectionable. I just love it when I see some anti-WTO shade-grown dingleberry lights up a nice R.J. Reynolds product. Especially when it's an "American Spirit".

Posted by Fnarf | July 24, 2007 9:35 AM
10

hmmm.... i never really thought about that. i did think about the wto protestors kicking in windows wearing nike's. it is a secondary correllation... i've never smoked before, but could one get independent tobacco and roll their own?

Posted by infrequent | July 24, 2007 9:38 AM
11

So by the same twisted logic, no one who drives a car, rides on airplanes, eats meat or veggies not grown in their garden can't be progressive either right...?

Fnarf, either you're a secret hippy, or you're a hypocritical progressive. Which is it?

Posted by UNPAID BLOGGER | July 24, 2007 9:40 AM
12

2. The labels 'Democrat' and 'Progressive' aren't necessarily related.

Posted by Gomez | July 24, 2007 9:41 AM
13

@11: that's not the same logic. one could easily argue that smoking does not play the same role as driving. furthermore, one could take a progressive stance toward their driving as much as possible.

Posted by infrequent | July 24, 2007 9:48 AM
14

Smokers don't give a shit about THEIR OWN LIFE, why should they value someone else's? I feel very sorry for that big guy and his family. This sucks.

Posted by Les A. Phair | July 24, 2007 9:49 AM
15

I'm with Unpaid Blogger on this one--dig hard enough, and you'll link the things you buy and the activities you engage in to some corporate entity in one fashion or another.

And not wanting to support corporations wasn't the reason I finally quit smoking, nor was my desire to impress Fnarf with my social conscious.

Posted by Boomer in NYC | July 24, 2007 9:52 AM
16

Fnarf- how did you quit smoking? Seriously... I tried (Party Crasher Guy?)'s method and it's apparently the most successful and it SO did not work for me.

Posted by gleaner | July 24, 2007 10:02 AM
17

Was the boxer gay? The article just keeps mentioning his partner of 15 years... hmm.

Posted by Cook | July 24, 2007 10:33 AM
18

I'm sorry -- that's "independent tobacco" you're rolling? Right.

The difference between cigarettes and cars shouldn't be TOO difficult for you to figure out. Cars serve a valuable function. Cigarettes don't. They're just a way for you to fork over $10 a day or whatever to RJ Reynolds, because you're PHYSICALLY ADDICTED TO THEM.

Gleaner, I quit the hard way: I got married. My wife, who never smoked, started, to keep me company when I "cheated". I had quit the day I got married -- throwing my half full pouch of Drum in the trash at Las Vegas airport -- but cheated a little while I was trying to shake it. A tin or two of chewing tobacco was the finishing touch -- that got rid of the constant mouth-touching part of the habit (a big deal for a twitchy compulsive like me), and then ditching the chewing habit was REALLY easy, because it's so repulsive (I was fucking eating the stuff). But watching my wife puff one down was the last straw.

Posted by Fnarf | July 24, 2007 10:37 AM
19

@11,

Yes, but, unlike those other activities, smoking is completely worthless. It does nothing other than kill you. Cars and planes move people around. Meat and vegetables keep us nourished. Even the narcotic effects of tobacco are minimal. You know how smokers calm down when they smoke? That's not because tobacco is calming, it's because smokers get stressed when they go without their fix for too long, just like any other addict.

Posted by keshmeshi | July 24, 2007 10:39 AM
20

@18 - yes, but they also bankroll our unbalanced trade polices too, so let's not forget that.

now excuse me while i drink my latte.

Posted by Will in Seattle | July 24, 2007 11:08 AM
21

Yeah, Fnarf, you can't live without a car, absolutely impossible. And every single car trip you take is absolutely non-discretionary. You never drive the car some place you could have gotten to by walking, biking, or public transit? Uh huh.

Posted by cast the first stone | July 24, 2007 11:18 AM
22

How would you feel if somebody told you not to smoke pot? As a smoker in a state that banned smoking, I wish a holocaust on you.

Posted by Born Again Lib | July 24, 2007 11:25 AM
23

Fnarf, Keshmeshi - Cars and airplanes serve a function? Which function is more noteworthy at this point: The transportation aspect or the pollution aspect? Maybe it's just a trade off, hunh?

Would there be such a thing as economic addiction?

Posted by Lloyd Clydesdale | July 24, 2007 11:36 AM
24

Did anyone notice in the article linked @1 the vile way that everyone quoted tried to blame that murder on New York's then-new smoking ban?

I guess because the two attackers would never in their lives have dared hurt anyone if not for the extraordinary provocation of being asked to put out their smokes...

Posted by lostboy | July 24, 2007 12:22 PM
25

That'll teach you smoke hating no goodniks. These criminals have done something that will hopefully have a positive impact on smoker's rights.

Posted by Philip Morris | July 24, 2007 1:43 PM
26

The other blogger to look up is Maddox's friend Tucker Max. Show his site to ECB and watch her head explode.

http://www.tuckermax.com

Posted by UNPAID BLOGGER | July 24, 2007 2:47 PM
27

Fuck. Wrong thread.

Sorry about seemingly random post

Posted by UNPAID BLOGGER | July 24, 2007 2:49 PM
28

Fnarf: You seem confused about what progressivism is about. It's not about applying your ethics to your own life. Like religious conservatism, it's about enlisting the government to enforce your ethics on others.

For example: Paying for a poor person's health-care = charity. Having the government force some rich person to pay for a poor person's health-care = progressivism.

Posted by David Wright | July 24, 2007 3:55 PM
29

Fnarf: You seem confused about what progressivism is about. It's not about applying your ethics to your own life. Like religious conservatism, it's about enlisting the government to enforce your ethics on others.

For example: Paying for a poor person's health-care = charity. Having the government force some rich person to pay for a poor person's health-care = progressivism.

Posted by David Wright | July 24, 2007 4:00 PM
30
Leaving aside the health issue, any so-called progressive who smokes is a hypocrite.

Kind of like eating meat, except eating meat is way way way waaaaay worse.

Posted by jamier | July 24, 2007 4:08 PM
31

Yeah 29, it's really that simple! Man, you must be a rocket scientist! Did you read that in a Friedman book or hear it in a Ron Paul speech?

Posted by Jay | July 24, 2007 6:33 PM
32

How is eating meat worse than smoking? Maybe if it was succulent, delicious smoked ham...

Posted by Hamwinkies | July 24, 2007 7:46 PM
33

Over the campfire, I smoke Salmon.

Posted by Omega Three | July 24, 2007 9:04 PM
34

"THANK YOU FOR NOT SMOKING!!!!!" A wake up call to all the self-righteous loud-mouthed schnooks out there. Get this thru yer friggin dumbskull - we smoke, we like it and we donít take shit from asswipes like you. Shut up or get shot up n'amean? Man I only wish I had the guts to blow away every little whiny fuck who's ever said that when I'm smoking OUTSIDE and/or IN A SMOKING SECTION.

PS. for all the other loud-mouthed schnooks who are US xenophobes and may not know it, "fag" is an endearing term for a cigarette coming form the French "fagot" meaning stick(s).

PPS. Oh and not eating meat will inevitably lead to an acute case of vaginitis - you have been warned.

Posted by Chip shoulderin, fag smokin, pistol totin bloke | July 25, 2007 7:53 AM
35

Cook @ 17: In the UK a "partner" is a person of either gender who is in a committed relationship with another person, same gender or opposite.

All this animosity about cigs kinda makes me want to laugh - and it would be funny if someone hadn't been gravely wounded &/or died as a result. As a former smoker, now clean approx 18 months, I can see the situation from both sides. I say thank you to any non-smoker who simply asks politely that the smoker take it elsewhere or refrain from lighting up in their presence. (That means you, Dan.) I say fuck you to any smoker who can't respect the wishes of their fellow human beings, be a decent chap & smoke somewhere else.

I desperately hope those asshats who shot that boxer man get caught and punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Oh, and Fnarf? Holier than thou just doesn't work with the tobacco addicted. Might wanna try a different tack...

Posted by OddlyEnough | July 25, 2007 8:29 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).