smoker
in fact i am the malborough woman! i could speak all day on why you should smoke.
smoking and drug-use, frequently of the polydrug variety, is highly heritable. when i visited bangladesh and met cousins i had not met since childhood, i found most of them to be drug-users. i favour nicotine and caffeine, but have tried almost everything. it correlates with a personality that is extravert and curious, seeking novelty, not fearful. people with this personality-type may not take drugs if socially inhibited, e.g. women in bangladesh often do not smoke, religious members of my family have not given in to temptation, but in general drug-use correlates with availability. unfortunately, now we have gone the american way and given in to propoganda that drugs are evil and banned many from public places (surprisingly, given the social cost, not alcohol in england. but then i am for the legalisation of drugs, not nit-picking about inconsistencies). i am a teacher and the smoking staff-room used to be the only fun place to be in a school, full of humour, light-heartedness, open-mindedness, approach of taboos and general lust for life. non-smokers would visit just for a laugh. the non-smoking staffroom was always dull and anally-retentive by comparison. smokers have been driven home or to their cars for their breaks, and establishment bon-hommie has suffered as a result. much is made of the fact that passive smoking is harmful. i would not wish a non-smoker (unless they were actually a failed smoker, i.e. repressed by society) to near me. smokers are not evangelical and it would have cost little to set up ventilated smoking facilities, like a smoking shed, to permit us our extravances. the righteous have won the moral battle and bigotry reigns.
p.s.
without smokers we would not have a health service. smoking pays taxes which prolong lives!
Last edited by shamimkhaliq; 03-18-2009 at 10:11 PM.
|
01-09-2009, 04:39 AM
Linear Mode
