How many times have you quit smoking?

[J. Mark Flint #31954 LIFE]

7 or 8 with 2 years on the most recent effort.

 

but it brings up a funny story

 

Mr grandmother Kate started smoking at age 14, but having come from a religious family, she stopped smoking at sundown every Friday night and did not light up again until after Sundown on Saturday.  She developed dementia and her memory deteriorated.  She then had cancer discovered in her kidney.  She was in a nursing home and the kidney was removed and she was on the normal pain killers.  When she woke up, she saw cigarettes on the nightstand, asked the nurse who they belonged to and to get them out of her room.  Eighty years after she started smoking. . . . she forgot she smoked and that was that.

[Mud Marine,SASS#54686 Life]

I smoked in high school and college, at work and in the Corps, I smoked two packs a day and 3 to six cigars. When I could get them, I smoked "Home Runs" or "Picayunes" because they were the stronghest. In 1964, a bunch of us started a Rugby Club, the Chicago Lions. One day, at spring practice, we were doing wind sprints after the winter off. I darned near died and started coughing black crap out of my lungs. That was my incentive to quit!!!

[Alpo]

"but having come from a religious family, she stopped smoking at sundown every Friday night and did not light up again until after Sundown on Saturday"

 

 

If my fical memory is working, the prohibition was against using fire.

 

If you lit one up using a car cigarette lighter (or similar) which does not use a flame, would that be allowed?

 

Or would the coal on the cigarette itself be considered fire, and therefore a no no?

[J. Mark Flint #31954 LIFE]

flipping a light switch is verboten, so . . . . pretty much the fire exclusion applies to the coal.  Religious scholars may nit pick, but when it comes to restrictions the Orthodox tend to be pretty strict

 

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

 

 In 1964, a bunch of us started a Rugby Club, the Chicago Lions. One day, at spring practice, we were doing wind sprints after the winter off. I darned near died and started coughing black crap out of my lungs. That was my incentive to quit!!!

 

As a fellow Rugger, I identify. I was one of the founders of a Rugby club myself, the Tacoma Nomads. Still going strong after 45 years. (They are, that is!)

 

One of the main reasons I didn't smoke much and finally quit was because of its effect on my wind in sports, etc. Decades after my Rugby years, I still XC ski, backpack, etc. It's hard enough to stay conditioned; impossible if you smoke.

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

 

 

 

 

Triple tap, somehow...

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

 

 

And finally, shame on the US government for not declaring tobacco a defective product and banning its sale in any form (or at least opening it up to strict liability claims).  When I think of all of the less deadly stuff that is banned or regulated, there is absolutely no justification for leaving this poison on the shelves, where it entices and harms yet another generation of curious kids.

 

LL

 

This is exactly- exactly- the argument used by those who would ban firearms. They claim that a 'public health' rationale should overcome a lawful activity. And it's the same rationale that was leading to lawsuits against firearms manufacturers: that they are inherently 'defective' because very dangerous, and the manufactures should be 'opened up to strict liability claims.' The suits against gun makers were a direct result of the tobacco litigation, and were only stopped by the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which of course is now under total attack by the Left.

 

This is no defense of tobacco. But it is a lawful substance, and if I now only smoke 4 or 5 good cigars per year, or my pipe around the campfire 4 or 5 times a year, that's my business and I plan to do it when I want to.

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

 

 

And finally, shame on the US government for not declaring tobacco a defective product and banning its sale in any form (or at least opening it up to strict liability claims).  When I think of all of the less deadly stuff that is banned or regulated, there is absolutely no justification for leaving this poison on the shelves, where it entices and harms yet another generation of curious kids.

 

LL

 

This is exactly- exactly- the argument used by those who would ban firearms. They claim that a 'public health' rationale should overcome a lawful activity. And it's the same rationale that was leading to lawsuits against firearms manufacturers: that they are inherently 'defective' because very dangerous, and the manufactures should be 'opened up to strict liability claims.' The suits against gun makers were a direct result of the tobacco litigation, and were only stopped by the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which of course is now under total attack by the Left.

 

This is no defense of tobacco. But it is a lawful substance, and if I now only smoke 4 or 5 good cigars per year, or my pipe around the campfire 4 or 5 times a year, that's my business and I plan to do it when I want to.  

[Mud Marine,SASS#54686 Life]

I have no wish to ban smoking. I just figured out that it sure wasn't doing me any good. I's still shooting as a Grand Patron while most of my heavy smoking buddies are no longer with us on this earth.

 

Although I quite booze many years ago, I sure never faulted beer for anything!!!  I lived in Wisconsin for years and beer, brats and cheese were Holy!!!

[Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438]

 

 

This is exactly- exactly- the argument used by those who would ban firearms. They claim that a 'public health' rationale should overcome a lawful activity. And it's the same rationale that was leading to lawsuits against firearms manufacturers: that they are inherently 'defective' because very dangerous, and the manufactures should be 'opened up to strict liability claims.' The suits against gun makers were a direct result of the tobacco litigation, and were only stopped by the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which of course is now under total attack by the Left.

 

This is no defense of tobacco. But it is a lawful substance, and if I now only smoke 4 or 5 good cigars per year, or my pipe around the campfire 4 or 5 times a year, that's my business and I plan to do it when I want to.

 

Well, not exactly.  Guns are a safe product when used according to the manufacturers instructions and safe gun handling practices.  Tobacco is inherently unsafe.  You cannot use it in a safe way, unless you don't use it as intended by the manufacturer.  And because it is chemically addictive, no warnings will overcome the inherent danger.  There's a world of difference between a product that cannot be used safely and one that can be dangerous if used improperly.  I don't buy the tobacco/gun equivalency argument; it obscures the basic differences between the two products.  I also don't buy the idea that seeking to ban a truly dangerous product creates a potentially damaging analogy that could be used against lawful gun sales.  We don't allow the over the counter sale of heroin or fentanyl, but you surely would not argue that this is a precedent for permitting the banning of guns.  

 

LL

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

I certainly agree that the analogy between tobacco and guns is hardly exact, but the nature of the legal claims regarding both are very close to being so. You use the term 'strict liability' which of course is a civil tort law term, and it is strict liability for an inherently dangerous product that plaintiffs' attorneys were ramping up for guns before the LCAA.

 

It is true that tobacco poses far greater health risks than firearms, but this becomes a matter of degree; many courts are not restrained by 'matters of degree'.

 

A better analogy is with alcohol. Alcohol use is sanctioned by ancient tradition. It has good effects used properly, but very bad social and individual effects when abused-- and it is very subject to abuse. It is clearly addictive for some. All have always agreed that the social and personal costs of alcohol abuse are huge. But not only did Prohibition not work-- it was a direct attack on freedom, including the freedom to use substances sanctioned by long usage and tradition.

 

I quit smoking for health reasons, but tobacco can be used without serious health impacts-- such as my 4-5 cigars and 4-5 pipes per year. 

 

But anyway, I'm not too much for banning things, especially those things that have been used by free people for generations.

[Cypress Sun]

 

I certainly agree that the analogy between tobacco and guns is hardly exact, but the nature of the legal claims regarding both are very close to being so. You use the term 'strict liability' which of course is a civil tort law term, and it is strict liability for an inherently dangerous product that plaintiffs' attorneys were ramping up for guns before the LCAA.

 

It is true that tobacco poses far greater health risks than firearms, but this becomes a matter of degree; many courts are not restrained by 'matters of degree'.

 

A better analogy is with alcohol. Alcohol use is sanctioned by ancient tradition. It has good effects used properly, but very bad social and individual effects when abused-- and it is very subject to abuse. It is clearly addictive for some. All have always agreed that the social and personal costs of alcohol abuse are huge. But not only did Prohibition not work-- it was a direct attack on freedom, including the freedom to use substances sanctioned by long usage and tradition.

 

I quit smoking for health reasons, but tobacco can be used without serious health impacts-- such as my 4-5 cigars and 4-5 pipes per year. 

 

But anyway, I'm not too much for banning things, especially those things that have been used by free people for generations.

 

While I agree with most of your statements, tobacco cannot be used without serious health impacts. Every time one smokes a cigar or pipe, the tobacco ingested is a cancer causing agent. You may never contract cancer, some people don't...even heavy cigarette smokers, but with every puff of a cigarette, pipe, cigar or dip of smokeless tobacco, you increase the odds of contracting cancer. Loophole is dead on correct that tobacco cannot be used in a safe manner, no matter how you cut it. It is and always will be a cancer causing agent but if any tobacco user is unaware of that then they have been living under a rock for many years.

 

Firearms have been used for hundreds of years, tobacco much longer. Banning tobacco products would only lead to "bootlegging" cigarettes, cigars and pipe tobacco and make the vaping fad even even worse. I can see it now, the feds would bypass the pot crops and go for the tobacco plants. 

 

I don't know much about law, that's Loophole's realm. I do know that Americans don't too kindly to the government banning or prohibiting things that have been used and enjoyed by American's for hundreds of years. In fact, they tend to react to such prohibitions in a violent manner as has been witnessed many times over the years. Once you take away ones freedom to choose to smoke, what other freedoms will come next? Fast cars? Alcohol? Big Gulps? Firearms? Sailboats?

 

I think we need less government intrusion into our personal lives, not more.

[Assassin]

Unfortunately, today mostly poor folks smoke and pay the taxes and suffer the consequences of tobacco.  

[Yul Lose]

My mom and step dad smoked a lot. Mom quit when I was in my teens dad said he quit but did it on the sly for years. I had absolutely no desire to smoke after testing a cigar my cousin and I found when we were about 10 years old, that was enough for me. Never started, never quit.