Downgrade

H/T A.C. for an article in The Freeman:

 Students are equipping dorm rooms with rolling machines. Kids carry pouches and filters. They are only occasional smokers but they are serious about the art and technique of rolling.

It strikes me as very strange, like a reversal of time. It’s one thing to do this as a hobby—people brew their own beer and even make their own cars—but as a necessity? Sadly, this is not just a fashion trend. It is a direct result of government policy that has effectively reversed the course of history.

I’ve been rolling my own for ages. I just prefer roll-ups. But they do also happen to be a lot cheaper than ready-rolled cigarettes.

But the author is right. It is a sort of reversal in the course of history.

An older man once told me that back in the 1930s, “ready roll” cigarettes brought a huge upgrade to his life—sort of like indoor heating, telephones in every home, and the electric icebox. Thanks to ready rolls, there was no more fussing with papers and spilling contents. How peculiar, then, that roll-your-own (RYO) has made such a roaring comeback today.

The ‘upgrade’ was that cigarettes relieved people of the chore of rolling their own cigarettes, or refilling a pipe. They also delivered a product with a consistent quality and flavour.

The ‘upgrade’ that came with oil or gas central heating was that they relieved people of the chore of periodically feeding fires with lumps of wood or coal carried in from some outhouse, and their thermostatic controls meant they kept people more consistently comfortable, and every room could be heated.

The ‘upgrade’ that telephones brought was that they made it much easier to talk to other people, relieving people of the chore of going to meet them in person. Mobile phones made it even easier: you didn’t even have to get out of your armchair to speak to somebody.

The ‘upgrade’ that came with iceboxes was that you could store many kinds of food for much longer before eating it. And you could store new kinds of foods – like ice cream.

And if something isn’t an upgrade, it’s a downgrade. And when things get downgraded, they make life harder.

It’s a forced result, something that would not have happened but for intervention. Was this what it was like to live in Cuba in the 1970s or Russia in the 1950s, places and times where cars and heaters had to be hacked just to keep from slipping further back in time? Is this all we are destined to do, hold desperately onto memories of a good life we once knew and hack our way toward survival?

Maybe it seems like a small sign, but there are just so many signs. It’s hard to get even legal medications and so more people are relying on sketchy websites. Appliances like washing machines and dishwashers that once worked now have to be hacked up just to function. You can’t buy a decent gas can anymore. Proposed taxes on sugar, salt, and fat collectively seem like a move to outlaw birthday cakes. Are we going to have to get those from the darknet? And the tobacco example is not insignificant, either.

He’s right. Everything is being downgraded. Wind and solar and tidal power means intermittent downgraded power supplies. What Leg-iron calls ‘dimbulbs’ are downgraded lightbulbs. In the UK, there are plans to remotely cut people’s power consumption by turning things off if they’re using too much power. That’s another downgrade.

Our food is being downgraded too, as we’re being pressured – even required by law – to stop eating meat, fat, sugar, salt. And I can easily imagine birthday cakes being outlawed.

Transport is being downgraded as well, as we’re being told that we have to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and are ‘nudged’ towards using public transport or electric cars or bicycles. Particularly bicycles, because they make people do some exercise.

Instead of life being made easier for everyone, life is being made harder for everyone. It’s reverse economic growth. We’re being made poorer.

And manufactured products are being downgraded too:

He told me that taxes weren’t the only reason RYO was becoming more popular. Smokers believe RYO tobacco is healthier, he told me, since it doesn’t include the FDA-mandated chemical flame retardant—meant to keep tobacco from burning sofas and beds—that pre-rolled cigarettes do.

This began about four years ago. Reduced fire propensity cigs are now mandated in 43 states. The added substance is EVA, a carpet glue. Many people report that it tastes awful. Others say that this stuff is more dangerous to ingest than the tobacco. The government doesn’t care. Cigarette makers go along.

I was stunned. We have heard about the dangers of smoking for a century. But what about the dangers of being looted and poisoned by bureaucrats? It seems like there ought to be warnings about this, too.

Economic recession/depression is also reverse economic growth. And, oddly enough, we happen to be in one right now. People are getting poorer.

In Europe, it’s the strangulating one-size-fits-all euro that is choking European economies, along with multiplying, suffocating rules and regulations.

I sometimes wonder whether our political masters have decided that we don’t need economic growth any more. Because there are lots of things they could do to stimulate the economy. Like deregulate. Reducing the strangulating burden of regulations on businesses would provide a big boost by reducing their costs. So would lifting smoking bans to increase demand.

But it seems that they just want to add more and more rules and regulations. They think they know what’s good for us better than we do. And they don’t want to know what we think anyway. Because you don’t want to know what people think if you’re sure you know better than them anyway.

Where does it end?

I think that public discontent is just going to mount. Because people don’t like being made poorer. And politicians and bureaucrats of every kind are going to increasingly be hated. Fringe political parties are going to get bigger, and mainstream political parties will lose support. This is already happening. The healthist-socialist-green-bully state is steadily losing credibility and support and trust. People will start hating anything that’s ‘healthy’, or ‘green’, or ‘sustainable’, as the state becomes the enemy of the people.

So we’ll see mounting civil disobedience. And riots. And strikes. And go-slows. And stiffening resistance.

I’ve already moved a fair way down this track myself. I already loathe everything that’s ‘healthy’. And I won’t vote for any mainstream political party. And I don’t watch or read or listen to their mainstream media propaganda. And I won’t do anything they encourage me to do. And I encourage people to resist.

But I think that, as a smoker, I’ve just got there a bit earlier than most people, because they’ll be catching up soon. They’ll be resisting too.

But going back to those college kids who are rolling their own, the fact that they’re doing that means that they’re already resisting. They’re clearly not only disbelieving antismoking propaganda, but are taking active steps to do the exact opposite of what’s demanded of them. They’re refusing to be controlled. And that’s good news.

Maybe some of them might like to take a look at my illustrated cigarette hand-rolling guide? It’s one of my more popular posts these days.

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Downgrade

  1. magnetic01 says:

    1.
    The very serious issue of Reduced Ignition Propensity (RIP) or “fire safe” (FS) cigarettes.

    RIP cigarettes have been mandated in a number of countries, e.g., Australia, parts of the USA, Canada, and soon in other countries, e.g., Europe. These cigarettes were pushed in the USA by the rabid antismoker dentist, Greg Connolly, and, in Australia, by the high-profile antismoker, Simon Chapman.

    Initially, FSC were supposed to have burn accelerants removed. However, the eventual design has been to add bands of glue running the length of the cigarette paper. The burning of this glue introduces an additional chemical load to smoking. This design of cigarette was never health-tested on people, yet they were made mandatory. Many smokers have reported immediate symptoms from these cigarettes, e.g., constant phlegm production, a burning sensation in the lungs, wheezing, headaches.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rebecca-brooks/fire-safe-cigarette-laws_b_519867.html
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rebecca-brooks/fire-safe-cigarette-laws_b_519867.html
    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/repeal-fire-safe-cigarette-laws/
    http://www.brandcigs.com/carbon_1776/
    http://www.gopetition.com.au/petitions/stop-act-697.html
    http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/685697
    http://www.consumeraffairs.com/health/fire_safe_cigarettes.html

    Chapman was the first to push for RIPs for Australia in 2004. At the time the talk was about removing burning (accelerants) agents. By 2006, this had changed to “speed humps” (glue) added onto the cigarette paper. He was still pushing RIPs.
    http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/where-theres-smoke-no-fire/2006/08/22/1156012541790.html
    He was then very much behind fast-tracking RIPs for Australia in 2009.
    http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1009297/Fire-safe-cigarettes-to-be-fast-tracked
    RIPs were introduced into Australia (mandatory) in early-2010. RIPs were never tested on smokers. For many, RIPs produce immediate symptoms, e.g., constant phlegm production, cough, wheezing, a feeling of “bruised lungs”.

    Notably, when smokers experiencing these symptoms switch to RYO cigarettes, the symptoms immediately disappear.

    The antismokers that pushed for FSC are in denial.

    The research that backs up claims of elevated toxins in the new Fire Safe Cigarettes points to a 2005 Harvard study led by a man with the last name of Connolly. Connolly said people who regularly smoke cigarettes have become very acutely set off or cued by sensory stimuli, and that, “any change can drive a smoker crazy.”
    EVA is used to slow the absorbtion or delivery of a drug into the human body.
    Connolly led the 2005 Harvard study that found higher levels of some toxins in fire-safe
    cigarette smoke. He said these differences were insignificant.
    “There’s actually more variation in toxin levels among the different cigarettes within a brand than between fire-safe and conventional cigarettes, he said.
    “The cigarette is the most lethal, toxic product in the marketplace,” Connolly said. Fire-safe cigarettes, he said, are “no more or less lethal.”

    http://www.examiner.com/x-4874-Indianapolis-Music-Examiner~y2009m11d23-Firesafe-cigarettes-cause-headache-fatigue-naseua-and-more-says-rock-band-Black-Shirley

    Connolly has also made such statements:
    To Professor Gregory Connolly of the Harvard School of Public Health, estimates that smoking may be banned in the United States by 2050 aren’t good enough.
    “I want to see the last cigarette sold to a child by 2020,” Connolly said. “I want to accelerate that because I want to go to the party.”

    http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/05/the-battle-of-the-butts/ 5/

    Connolly is a long-time, high-profile antismoking activist. And, given baseless claims about untested health aspects of RIPs, is a liar. He couldn’t care less about smokers. It is his life’s mission to eradicate smoking.

  2. magnetic01 says:

    2.
    Wherever Tobacco Control is involved, facts undergo considerable torture, e.g., “light” cigarettes. In TC’s hands, everything somehow is turned into a conspiracy of the “evil” tobacco industry; only TC is forever “saintly”, having to fix the “mess” created by Big Tobacco.

    This from a 1992 tobacco-industry document. The RIPs that have been imposed on populations around the world are the same design that was purely exploratory in 1992. It was indicated that these paper banded designs were associated with higher mainstream deliveries, e.g., carbon monoxide.

    Burn retardants have been used on cigarette paper to reduce ignition proclivity, i.e. self-extinguishing cigarettes. The use of burn retardants, in this fashion can result in excessive increases in mainstream deliveries and/or a decidedly poorer quality smoking experience. Numerous patents and references are available (2, 3, 8, 9), but at the present time, the commercial viability of truly self-extinguishing products is doubtful. Most research into the use of burn retardants has been conducted by paper manufacturers such as Ecusta, Kimberly-Clark and de Mauduit. Samples of the new developments in reduced ignition proclivity papers are periodically reviewed by cigarette manufacturers. An example of such a review was conducted by Irwin in 1983 (20). In this technical note, Irwin described a “periodic burn retardant paper” developed by Ecusta, The paper was coated with transverse bands of magnesium oxide/nitrocellulose/maleic resin 8mm in width. The manufacturer claimed that the cigarette would burn but not smoulder through the bands. Therefcre, it would not remain alight for more than 5 minutes unattended. Irwin found that indeed the cigarette did not smoulder through the bands, but it did not self-extinguish under standard smoking conditions. Furthermore, all mainstream deliveries were elevated relative to the control cigarette. Carbon monoxide delivery was especially elevated, to twice the delivery of the control (28.1 mg/cigt. vs. 14.1mg/cigt., 20). There was also a distinctly unpleasant odour associated with the sidestream smoke.
    Case also looked at burn retardants added to cigarette paper from the point of view of controlling sidestream emissions (9). The results are extremely difficult to interpret in terms of the effects of these additives on mainstream deliveries. The blend used contained 80% expanded tobacco which would greatly influence the deliveries of the cigarettes. However an excessive increase in mainstream delivery of tar and CO was observed (Table 9). P.25

    http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fks46b00/pdf;jsessionid=A8B7F94131D876EA6065F7F2A21B538C.tobacco04

    The idea of “fire safe” cigarettes has been aggressively pushed since the 1980s by TC. The issue came very much to the fore in early-2000s. TC was claiming that BT had long known how to make a fire-safe cigarette. TC was claiming that, by not introducing FSC, BT was responsible for cigarette-related fire deaths. It even introduced the idea of people affected by cigarette-related fires should sue BT for not having introduced FSC. Fire authorities were also brought in to pressure for FSC. The overriding theme was that to not introduce FSC was irresponsible and negligent. Through the 2000s, there was great pressure brought by TC to introduce an FSC to market. In Australia, FSC was fast-tracked and introduced in early-2010. It seems that the design spoken of in the 1992 report is what was eventually brought to market.

  3. magnetic01 says:

    3.
    Here’s a 2007 article – the only reference in the literature to possible health hazards of FSC – by the TC advocate, Hemant Goswami. The major thrust of Goswami’s argument is that FSC had not been tested from the health perspective.

    “We must do independent primary research before accepting and adopting concepts like fire-safe cigarettes, (also called Reduced Ignition Propensity Cigarettes [RIP]) which are claimed to be less likely to catch indoor structural fires if left unattended. Such concepts have been only tested from the fire-safety point of view and no independent study has still been undertaken by the scientific or public health community to assess the effect of the engineered modifications in RIP cigarettes. The scientific community must do independent primary study to get a clear idea about things like, the effect on Nicotine delivery due to change in mass burn rate, paper porosity, chemical coatings, banding pattern manipulation on RIP; the increased toxicity levels in RIP; puff-to-puff count and changes in actual human puffing and inhalation of RIP so as to assess it’s effect on current smokers and know about any increase in addictiveness and other changes,” Hemant emphasised.

    He also makes the extraordinary claim that it was BT that forced FSC, untested, onto the market. It’s the standard divestment of responsibility by Tobacco Control. He also refers to supposed secret studies code named as “Project Tomorrow,” “Project Hamlet,” “Project Delta.” etc. with an intention to develop a patented cigarette paper technology which could give it’s business the cutting edge and reduce the competition in the market. The company actually succeeded in its objective by developing such a patented cigarette paper and by managing to manipulate and strategically push it through the scientific and public health community in the name of “Reduced Ignition Propensity” cigarettes. The patented paper and the testing method developed by Phillip Morris (On which ASTM standard E2187-02b have been modelled) actually have been adopted in its totality in the name of fire-safe cigarettes. Such tactic has already increased the market share of the big tobacco in the New York by eliminating the smaller and unorganised tobacco industry players.”

    This claim is staggering. The evidence clearly points to TC being the culprit for rushing FSC to market. Believing that nonsmokers are the priority, it is nonsmokers that should be “protected” from potential cigarette-related fires. FSC were only independently tested from the fire-safety perspective. But, as Goswami notes, FSC do not seem to prevent fires either. Whatever the spin by TC, FSC are a Public Health disaster. It is Public Health that should have required a health investigation of FSC. And, according to another Public Health advocate – Greg Connolly – there is no health issue with FSC. This statement is fraudulent because no health testing has ever been done.

    There has been a dangerous cross-over as now many health departments across the globe are adopting RIP as fire-safe cigarette standards, unconcerned and unmindful of the fact that the initial concept of RIP was tested by the NY fire-safety department and the modification were also approved by the fire-safety department and not the health department. This crossing over of the concept from the fire safety departments to public health department is the biggest slip and manipulation ever in tobacco control.
    The analysis of the structural fire related fatalities in NY also show that there has been no reduction in the fire-related deaths as was initially claimed. Moreover, contrary to popular belief, RIP cigarettes actually offer no protection from the California like forest fires.

    http://www.prlog.org/10036553-science-and-public-health-duped-on-rip-cigarettes-hemant-goswami.html

  4. magnetic01 says:

    Frank, I’ve posted 3 comments, numbered 1, 2, 3. Comment no.1 seems to be in the dungeon.

  5. magnetic01 says:

    Concerning FSCs, I can speak from experience (including friends). As soon as they were forced on the market, the pre-made cigs produced a smoke with different odour (unfavorable), different burn pattern, and produced constant phlegm and wheezing [they didn’t feel at all like the old cigarettes]. As soon as we switched to RYO, the symptoms disappeared.

  6. waltc says:

    Greg Connolly, the anti-smoking czar of Massachusetts (who was said by another anti-smoker to be against any proposal for “harm reduction”) did a study comparing FSCs to regular cigarettes, found the FSC’s to be way higher in a lot of badstuff and essentially said, well fuckit, and urged their mandated use. If anyone cares, at some earlier hour, I’ll document that.

    FTR, my brief experience with standard US FSC’s was that they were notably harsh and destroyed the flavor of the brand I’d smoked for years. Being a klutz at RYO, I switched to Nat Shermans at a premium price but they apparently use rice paper and…agar? (I forget) to meet the standards w/o ruining the smoke (or the smoker). Magnetico;’s experience is not isolated. There were petitions for repeal of this (along with comments describing similar symptoms) by upwards of 40,000 US smokers but, hey, who listens to smokers.

    As for Frank’s main thesis, the “free world” is rapidly being collectivized into something none of us recognize or ever wanted to know. And even the most collectivized countries (Sweden, f’r Gods sake) are starting to rebel. I suppose the ultimate outcome will depend on whether the forces of inertia (and the mass of the mass media) impede the progress towards devolution.

  7. mikef317 says:

    Klaus K:

    I’ve posted a lengthy response to your questions on my Auerbach’s Beagles essay. Look at Frank’s “Don’t Ask” post of June 13th and scroll to the end of the comments.

  8. garyk30 says:

    Sometimes the old way is more fun.
    I am on a trout fishing holiday and this is more fun rhan buying trout at a store.

  9. harleyrider1978 says:

    “In a year like this when the demand for tobacco is high and people are going back into tobacco that haven’t raised it in 10 years, and those raising four or five acres are now raising 25 acres, the (amount) of barn space is going to be limited,” he said.

    Smither has increased his production of burley this year by 25 acres but did it based on the number of barns he could rent, a decision made over the winter.

    http://www.kyforward.com/2013/06/growing-tobacco-is-not-easy-but-it-is-still-a-tradition-for-many-kentucky-farmers/

  10. harleyrider1978 says:

    Let the excuses for anti-smoking failures fly!!!!

    Stress from 9/11 linked to nationwide resurgence in smoking
    The 9/11 attacks on America appear to have caused about one million former smokers across the country to take up the habit again and maintain it, according to a Weill Cornell Medical College public health study.

    The analysis, published in the June 20 issue of the journal Contemporary Economic Policy, is the first to look at the net costs to society of terrorism-induced smoking in the United States after 9/11 and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.

    “This helps us better understand what the real costs of such disasters are in human and economic tolls, and it suggests ways that such future stressful reactions that result in excess smoking might be avoided,” says the study’s author, Dr. Michael F. Pesko, an instructor in Weill Cornell Medical College’s Department of Public Health.

    http://scienceblog.com/64037/stress-from-911-linked-to-nationwide-resurgence-in-smoking-among-americans-who-had-quit/

  11. harleyrider1978 says:

    http://www.wort.lu/en/view/health-commission-green-lights-smoking-ban-51c31615e4b0c469586121cf

    Luxembourg Published on 20.06.13 16:47

    Health commission green-lights smoking ban

  12. Dirk says:

    “The healthist-socialist-green-bully state is steadily losing credibility and support and trust. People will start hating anything that’s ‘healthy’, or ‘green’, or ‘sustainable’, as the state becomes the enemy of the people.
    […]
    I’ve already moved a fair way down this track myself.”

    Me too. The unfair and often psychotic way tobacco (a medical plant after all) and tobacco users are treated by so-called politically correct people and (self proclaimed) “experts” has made me extremely sceptical about some movements that I once regarded as overall positive and useful, even if I didn’t fully agree with all aspects. Yes, I have developed quite a loathing for many things that are advertised as “social”, “healthy”, “green” or “sustainable”.

    And it’s not just a mindless antipathy. I think that we all should be sceptical.

    – It’s not healthy at all to eat (too) little salt or fat or sugar.
    – A windmill that consumes more (fossil) energy for it’s production and maintainance than it delivers afterwards, is not sustainable.
    – Electric cars are not green, if they overall consume more energy than a car with combustion engine.
    – Job protection is not social, if it forces companies to employ some long-serving, but lazy employees, while highly motivated people have no chance to get a job.

    The list could be extended almost endlessly. Things often don’t are what they look like and many mainstream movements are nothing but brainless and costly nonsense, often born out of prejudices and personal dislikes, often money-making schemes for unproductive people and inferior, state-subsidised industries… just like the anti-tobacco movement.

    Cheers,
    Dirk

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      They tend to forget when you plug up a Green car to charge the electricity is made from petroleum…………………. So those so called non-carbon foot prints are actually there anyway. I havent taken the time to convert charge rates of these electric cars versus how much carbon is released to manufacture enuf electricty to charge one of these green propaganda machines as of yet.

      If you were to take a solar array to charge the green propaganda machine itd likely take a month or longer if it were ever able to reach a charge at all!

      The one thing I do know for sure is if it says Green on it,its a LIE!

      • nisakiman says:

        I seem to recollect reading a year or so ago that over the lifetime of a car, taking into account the manufacturing and disposal as well as the running, a Hummer is less damaging to the environment than a Toyota Prius.

    • beobrigitte says:

      Good points!
      The water-drinking-health-freaks in their “detox” mania can be very costly to the system! At least the detoxers pay for their “healthy” colonic irrigation themselves. (The latter has been a source of great amusement; people’s obsession with their bowels reaches a sort of climax!)

      The rather noisy, unsightly and bird killing windmills do not only require fossil fuel; most of them also require Neodymium.

      To quote:
      Neodymium is radioactive, though for most practical purposes it can be regarded as stable. 30.4% of neodymium is of two radioactive isotopes, but their half lives are very long, the shorter being 2,290,000,000,000,000 years. Like all other elements, neodymium has synthetic radioactive isotopes.

      http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_neodymium_radioactive

      Here an article from January 2011:
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html

      – Job protection is not social, if it forces companies to employ some long-serving, but lazy employees, while highly motivated people have no chance to get a job.

      This I do not really agree with as I believe in a work pace should be such that the majority of people can have a work-life balance. A motivated work force will crank up the pace in times of need by themselves.
      Only today I did crank up the work pace to a point that annoyed my colleagues. I come with the bonus of being a perfect multitasker; the more multitasking the better! Nevertheless, I did apologize to my annoyed male colleague who struggled. I told him that my driving the work pace will NEVER be the norm and that I appreciate a “little help” greatly. In short – just put up with me for today.
      Instead of moaning he responded to the challenge of helping – we had some great laughs, too.
      Nevertheless next week we’ll work as usual.

      I do agree, however, with having to carry lazy colleagues, so I do view job protection with some skepticism.

  13. beobrigitte says:

    Downgrading. The BBC lamented yesterday that with an ever increasing and longer living population [despite smoking!] food production, despite still being adequate, will no longer be able to compensate e.g. ruined harvests.

    The first thing that springs to mind is the question: “What about the chiiiiiildren? They are our future!” Surely the ever-so-long-living anti-smokers would not wish to take food out of the chiiiildren’s mouths, would they?
    Of course anti-smokers live not really longer than smokers, as every government that has to fund the retirement years for the baby-boomer generation should know! And this generation seems to be exceptionally well; they are expected to retire at the age of 65 – 70 years of age.

    In Christoph’s latest video added to
    https://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2013/06/16/dusseldorf-smoking-ban-protest/
    the speaker does talk about the older generation which used to sit on a table in a pub with a glass of beer and a cigarette, being condemned to a very lonely life by the smoking ban.

    I still do remember an anti-smoker’s comment: “If an old person can drag himself to the pub, he can drag himself outside to smoke”.
    Not much respect for the older generation that has done it’s duty, working, raising the next generation of children, paying their contribution towards their pension, looking forward to a few years in the way they had envisaged!!
    Then these older people find that the anti-smokers not only celebrate their “victory” – they feel the urge to insult this generation on top!!

    As the speaker in Christoph’s video said: The prohibition orgy is not over yet! Yeah, it’s sugar, salt and alcohol on the list when they are done with us smokers.
    The older generation is just collateral damage. They are no longer “needed”.
    Our society in it’s health fear is becoming inhumane. The speaker in Christoph’s video also states that she does not want to live in a prohibition state. I second that. Isn’t it a pity that smoking does NOT kill? We’d all have been out the way of the anti-smokers long ago.

  14. DP says:

    Dear Mr Davis

    Proof if ever needed that governments are value-subtracted organisations.

    Want to improve your lot? Say ‘no’ to government – the largest organisation dedicated to terror, crime, money-laundering and child abuse in the country.

    DP

  15. cherie79 says:

    When I chose to star smoking again after my lung cancer surgery I admit there was a bit of me that just wanted to prove that it was not caused by smoking. Time will tell but so far so good, next scan results in September, that will be three years since surgery, I will let you know. Sometimes I feel like a teenager again, determined to do whatever I am told not to! as far as I can see with LC contacts all over the world now it doesn’t seem to make any difference whether you stop or not. It recurs in never smokers, those who stop and those who continue or it doesn’t.

  16. smokervoter says:

    One of the many things I’ve learned about British smoking culture since I became so hopelessly addicted to your’ blogs is that roll-ups are a big part of the tobacco scene there.

    Hardly anyone does roll-ups here for two main reasons. One is the class issue. To be seen smoking a roll-up is to say you’re to poor to afford a pack of say, Marlboro’s. But the second and more important is that it looks like you’re smoking a freakin’ joint in public, which is still a no-no in most places.

    I get the feeling that you’re one of these guys who can roll a perfectly round one that appears like a tailormade for all intents and purposes.

    Nowadays more and more Americans are doing SYO (stuff-you-own) or MYO (make-your-own), myself included (since 2007) with the tube machine and the filters. But it still appears to the outside world that you’re smoking a tailormade.

    I put mine in a used hard pack of readymades for going out and about. I roll up about 10 at a time. There’s always an inventory problem – one too few – or two too many. I stored up about 60 old hard packs before I switched over and I’ve only gone through about twenty so far. If I ever run out I’ll buy a fresh carton (sleeve) and go from there.

    It’ll cost me a comparable fortune though, maybe it would be cheaper to buy a cigarette case.

    • cherie79 says:

      I do the same, I just prefer rolling tobacco now though I will take ordinary cigarettes if I am going somewhere special. I have a Rizla tin which makes perfect roll ups. Also keep mine in a regular pack but bought a black leather case which holds the pack so don’t have to look at all the garbage.Don’t worry the way things are going it will soon be fine to smoke a joint but criminal to smoke a cigarette!

    • Frank Davis says:

      I get the feeling that you’re one of these guys who can roll a perfectly round one that appears like a tailormade for all intents and purposes.

      You talking to me? Because, no, mine aren’t usually perfectly round. And they’re a lot slimmer than a standard manufactured cigarette. They don’t look like them at all.

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.