Do you smoke cigarettes?

[RINO Tom]

No (all liberal all the time)

Sorry, dude, but I'm not letting you get away with these moronic posts that just decide that because you are a "liberal," everything you like and do is "liberal" ----> all liberal, all the time.  Smoking a cigarette is neither liberal nor conservative, and if you think it is, you're seriously retarded.

Anyway, no I do not smoke.  Three out of my four grandparents smoked, and the kid's dad whose house we always used to play neighborhood sports at smoked heavily, and I developed an almost traumatic aversion to the smell.  I simply can't be around it.

[TDAS04]

No, never.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

No (all liberal all the time)

Sorry, dude, but I'm not letting you get away with these moronic posts that just decide that because you are a "liberal," everything you like and do is "liberal" ----> all liberal, all the time.  Smoking a cigarette is neither liberal nor conservative, and if you think it is, you're seriously retarded.

Anyway, no I do not smoke.  Three out of my four grandparents smoked, and the kid's dad whose house we always used to play neighborhood sports at smoked heavily, and I developed an almost traumatic aversion to the smell.  I simply can't be around it.

[Segue into a discussion on the conservative and liberal features of self-destruction, and whether the masculine association with the "Marlboro Man" (right-wing) outweighs the image of pea coat-shrouded hipsters clutching American Spirits (left-wing).]

[Santander]

BTW, when it comes to "natural" cigarettes, Nat Shermans are far superior in quality and taste than American Spirits, which taste worse than the North Korean cigarettes I've had.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No (all liberal all the time)

Sorry, dude, but I'm not letting you get away with these moronic posts that just decide that because you are a "liberal," everything you like and do is "liberal" ----> all liberal, all the time.  Smoking a cigarette is neither liberal nor conservative, and if you think it is, you're seriously retarded.

The black states are the ones without public smoking bans:

[RR1997]

Nope. Never will. Would vote to ban it.

[Thunderbird is the word]

No (all liberal all the time)

Sorry, dude, but I'm not letting you get away with these moronic posts that just decide that because you are a "liberal," everything you like and do is "liberal" ----> all liberal, all the time.  Smoking a cigarette is neither liberal nor conservative, and if you think it is, you're seriously retarded.

The black states are the ones without public smoking bans:

Even so I wouldn't say that it's a culture war issue in the same way that abortion or gay marriage or guns is though. The reason that southern states are less likely to ban it is probably just because the tobacco industry is stronger there. When I lived in New York as an undergrad a good deal of the smokers were lefty hipster types in part because I think a lot of people take up smoking when they're young as a form of misguided rebellion and a lot of the people that do might be inclined to lean to the left for cultural reasons. It's just that most come to hate the habit and the tobacco industry because it doesn't have any effect except or any real benefit to slowly kill you so you aren't going to see them very likely to organize politically against smoking bans. Meanwhile I think that a lot of conservative minded people who might subscribe to a clean living conservative lifestyle would be less likely to take it up in the first place.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I've been hearing a lot that smoking a pipe is likely to give you a lung cancer (but more likely to give you a tongua cancer). I'm not an expect, though.

I used to smoke a pipe for purely financial reasons: it was cheaper than buying cigarettes.

And also oesophageal cancer.

The 'safest' way to consume tobacco - in a trad. way at least - is snuff, incidentally.

Snus is pretty safe as well.

[Ebowed]

I quit over five months ago.  I smoked for eight years and eventually came to believe within myself that supporting tobacco companies was irreconcilable with my social worldview.  How could I continue to contribute to sickness, greed and death?  I didn't have to work throughout my quitting experience and that was definitely helpful.  The irritability is real and intense.  I have used some nicotine replacement products (like the gum) in the past and it was not helpful for anything other than not smelling like smoke for brief periods of time; pretty useless to me as a quitting aid.  Cold turkey was what worked for me.  And throughout that time, while I didn't feel pleasant, I didn't necessarily think that breaking and having a cigarette was the answer.  I've only had a few serious cravings since, usually around friends who are smoking.

Reasons to oppose tobacco companies other than their promotion of a product that kills people by causing cancer, emphysema, strokes, heart attacks, gangrene and other diseases?  The undocumented children they use as labor in their fields right in the United States who get sick from nicotine absorption into their hands simply from picking the leaves all day, for longer than most adults work in each day.  The strong arm tactics they use to shut down smoking restrictions in developing countries, including age limits, where their customer base continues to grow as it falls in other countries.  The millions of beagles and other animals needlessly pumped full of cigarette smoke in order to cast doubt on whether smoking causes lung cancer as though the ultimate proof would be anything other than the actual human population which has conclusively proven in its own 'testing' that of course smoking causes lung cancer in humans.  The lost habitat and wasted use of land caused by ever expanding tobacco growing operations.  The fact that cigarette butts are the most commonly littered item on earth, and the nicotine and other toxins in the litter seeps out into waterways, poisoning ecosystems and urban wildlife.  The millions of children who grow up asthmatic or with breathing problems, and the spouses that acquire them, due to living with smokers.  When I think about all of this, I ask whether it's really necessary to keep indulging in a product just so that I don't have to feel irritable for a few weeks?  Well, my answer is no.

[Thunderbird is the word]

I quit over five months ago.  I smoked for eight years and eventually came to believe within myself that supporting tobacco companies was irreconcilable with my social worldview.  How could I continue to contribute to sickness, greed and death?  I didn't have to work throughout my quitting experience and that was definitely helpful.  The irritability is real and intense.  I have used some nicotine replacement products (like the gum) in the past and it was not helpful for anything other than not smelling like smoke for brief periods of time; pretty useless to me as a quitting aid.  Cold turkey was what worked for me.  And throughout that time, while I didn't feel pleasant, I didn't necessarily think that breaking and having a cigarette was the answer.  I've only had a few serious cravings since, usually around friends who are smoking.

Reasons to oppose tobacco companies other than their promotion of a product that kills people by causing cancer, emphysema, strokes, heart attacks, gangrene and other diseases?  The undocumented children they use as labor in their fields right in the United States who get sick from nicotine absorption into their hands simply from picking the leaves all day, for longer than most adults work in each day.  The strong arm tactics they use to shut down smoking restrictions in developing countries, including age limits, where their customer base continues to grow as it falls in other countries.  The millions of beagles and other animals needlessly pumped full of cigarette smoke in order to cast doubt on whether smoking causes lung cancer as though the ultimate proof would be anything other than the actual human population which has conclusively proven in its own 'testing' that of course smoking causes lung cancer in humans.  The lost habitat and wasted use of land caused by ever expanding tobacco growing operations.  The fact that cigarette butts are the most commonly littered item on earth, and the nicotine and other toxins in the litter seeps out into waterways, poisoning ecosystems and urban wildlife.  The millions of children who grow up asthmatic or with breathing problems, and the spouses that acquire them, due to living with smokers.  When I think about all of this, I ask whether it's really necessary to keep indulging in a product just so that I don't have to feel irritable for a few weeks?  Well, my answer is no.

I honestly didn't think about it that way before. Excellent points.

[Joe Republic]

No (all liberal all the time)

Sorry, dude, but I'm not letting you get away with these moronic posts that just decide that because you are a "liberal," everything you like and do is "liberal" ----> all liberal, all the time.  Smoking a cigarette is neither liberal nor conservative, and if you think it is, you're seriously retarded.

The black states are the ones without public smoking bans:

https://home.isi.org/hipsters-and-cigarettes

http://www.gotquestions.org/smoking-Christian-sin.html

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I know some conservatives are anti-smoking (Mormons obviously are) but almost all liberals are. John Oliver even did a piece about the abhorrent practices of the tobacco industry internationally and he's pretty much all liberal all the time.

Not having dental complications, developing lung cancer and smelling awful is good enough for me regardless of ideology anyway. Not to mention a pack a day in Minnesota would cost almost $3000 a year, even in the cheapest state of Missouri it'd be over $1900. F[inks] that.

[Blair]

Started smoking in January, but only did it when I was going out and drinking. Gave up after 3 months mainly due to the expense, smell and general crappiness of it

[President Johnson]

No, lifelong non-smoker.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I know some conservatives are anti-smoking (Mormons obviously are) but almost all liberals are.

Define "anti-smoking". If you're defining it as advocating measures to discourage/limit the scope of addiction, you may be largely right. In this regard I'm certainly anti-smoking (I support no-smoking rules in most of public places for one). But if you're going by "liberals don't smoke", it's just plain bull. There are (plenty of) liberals who are smoking tobacco and your President is one of them.

Not everything is usable as a tool to draw an ideological division.

[dax00]

I'm against smoking where innocents may be rightfully present (i.e. public places). That includes sidewalks.

[GMantis]

Never

Ironically, I haven't started smoking regularly until I was 18. I've tried it before, of course, but didn't get the addiction until my last HS year. My parents were lifelong smokers (and it contributed to my father's death) and for a long time I was just resolved not to make their mistake, but, alas, it came down to this.

Unfortunately it seems that too often children of smokers also smoke, even when like in you case they want to avoid their parents mistakes. It goes the other way too, of course. I attribute the fact that I've never attempted smoking due to the fact that almost no one in my family smokes and some are quite outspoken against smoking (my grandfather used to criticize young smokers on the street).

[°Leprechaun]

Obviously if someone is addicted to something there are underlying emotional reasons.
Most people who don't smoke have a disturbing sanctimonious attitude toward those who
do whether the smoker does it public or in private, the latter not hurting anyone but themselves. People who are not addicts themselves rarely have any compassion for people
that are and can't even bring themselves to shed crocadile tears for those to whom they feel morally superior. It is doubtful that any but a small number of people here have a clue as to any of this, as usual. Non smokers may have an addiction to something else (drinking, drugs, food, ocd, etc) and yet fail to see the hypocrisy in their sanctimonious hatred of smokers.

No, I'm not defending smoking, it is not good for one's health, but there are many other things that make a person unhealthy. Yes, people of various political persuasions are smokers.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Obviously if someone is addicted to something there are underlying emotional reasons.
Most people who don't smoke have a disturbing sanctimonious attitude toward those who
do whether the smoker does it public or in private, the latter not hurting anyone but themselves. People who are not addicts themselves rarely have any compassion for people
that are and can't even bring themselves to shed crocadile tears for those to whom they feel morally superior. It is doubtful that any but a small number of people here have a clue as to any of this, as usual. Non smokers may have an addiction to something else (drinking, drugs, food, ocd, etc) and yet fail to see the hypocrisy in their sanctimonious hatred of smokers.

Indeed. There seems to be much more harsher attitude toward tobacco smokers than toward those addicted to many other (often as dangerous to one's health) things. It feels sometimes, the smokers, became an universal scapegoat. I saw instances of people being more understanding toward alcoholics, even though this is just as bad an addiction (and, yes, while there's no "second hand drinking", it destroys people around you as well). Even if one has no addiction as such, sanctimonious behavior towards others is of no use other than being a dick.

I'm not proud in any way of smoking. I hope that I'll be able to quit one day and I would never encourage anybody to try. I support all initiatives aimed at reducing it, provided such initiatives are not limited to "I'm better than you" BS.

[pho]

Yes. Way too much honestly, just like my mother before me. She died of lung cancer, I probably will too.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Yes. Way too much honestly, just like my mother before me. She died of lung cancer, I probably will too.

Smoking contributed to my father's death. He already had heart problems, but smoke really, really a lot and it certainly had some effect.