This page contains an email archive from the Ice Cave or some other public source. Please help improve this wiki by taking the ideas you find here and putting them in an ordinary article that is easier to read. The process is described in our guidelines. |
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 21:19:16 -0500 (EST)
From: The Man in Black
Here in beautiful downtown Honolulu, we do a lot of smokin'. While the MiB doesn't partake of the 'baccy, mostly due to his highly developed brain functions and the fact that Mib's Man from Uncle (Uncle Melvin, who owned a tobacco shop/cigar store in Memphis, Tennessee) and one mentor type person (read: Old Fucker who smoked three packs a day) died of lung cancer, he does want to know what people smoke in other lands.
Tobacco advertising in the USA is restricted to print ads. This violation of the First Amendment is rationalized by the idea that this somehow protects the little kiddies from being bombarded with smoking ads while they droolingly watch Pro-wrestling, manipulative toy commercials,and teeny bopper mindless mucus music.
In most states, smoking in public buildings, restaraunts and most public indoor areas is prohibited by law. This leads to unusual areas set aside for nicotine addicts. In some cases, this leads to a violation of physical security. In Rogue Warrior, Dick Marcinko describes how US Naval Intelligence HQ for Europe routinely leaves the side emergency exit unlocked so smokers can get a few puffs between spying sessions. This in a building with no windows that requires bad-@$$ keycards and voice recognition and metal detectors to be passed from the front door.
In the good ole USA, Marlboro is the prototype for sucking nicotine and carbon monoxide into one's lungs. It's what the MiB would smoke if he wasn't brainwashed by the fascist Health Police. Marlboro Reds in a hard pack - marketed toward tough guy Marlboro Men to smoke when they're not coughing up those gooey-yummy chunks of lung-candy.
Marlboro also has a fictional counterpart in Conspiracy Horror that NRO SpeedWagon sorts might find popular. They're called Morley's, keep a sharp eye on anyone who smokes these bad boys.
For the ladies, the tobacco conglomerates push Viginia Slims, the idea being that sophisticated modern women do more than refuse to serve beer to their worthless piles of trailer park trash men. They also yellow their teeth and fill the air and their hair with ashes and foul smelling carcinogens. Perhaps I miss the point of their marketing. Anyway, a lot of chicks like to wrap their dainty lips around the long mentholated hardness of Virginia Slims.
For the kiddies (read: teenage idiots that resemble Beavis) they push Camels. Camels hearken back to the days of Cliffhangers and Pulp fiction. Old timers might suck on these short pissant slivers of genetically altered, nicotine-additive death weeds, but mostly sprog-tards that suffer from the delusion that Joe Camel is a Kool Dude are still alive to enjoy the aerolae-blackening richness that is Camel.
The symbolic aspects of smoking are clear. Smoking is Kewl. Smoking represents deception, melodrama and romance. Sometimes they can mean mean a hidden menace. For people who's lives are otherwise empty, this is a powerful lure. Cigars may represent a latent Homoeroticism, penis envy, or not, as Freud acknowledges.
There is a Cigar fad amongst people who are too dumb for their money, and starved for social contact. Cigar Bars and Tobacco Stores (like my Uncle Melvin's) cater to these wretched individuals trying to enliven themselves with the lure of flames. These are good places to pass small easily concealable items in cigars, cigar boxes and maybe even briefcases.
Pipe smokers convey an atmosphere of dignity and academic authority. Pipe tobacco usually smells decent when burnt, although the health risks remain. Joseph Camp probably sucks on a a meerchaum while babbling senile meanderings about Pagan Publishing's latest Space Mead enhanced exploits. So get back to AlAnon, you pathetic humps!
Chaw, as chewing tobacco is called in redneck country, is reminscent of the Great American Pastime - no, not impeachment or celebrity criminal trials - Baseball. To stimulate themselves, these athletes sitting in the dugouts of America chew on a substance that produces a vile browinsh mucus ridden substance that is unfit to spit upon the mother earth. Not that this stops the endless river of spittle that begins in Spring training and proceeds ceaseless right through the traditional caterwauling of the National Anthem that precedes every major event in the USA. Maybe these MVP/Hall of Fame wannabes should stick to decorating their faces with sunflower seeds?
So, what does this mean for Delta Green, not much, but I would still like to get a thread going about how smoking is viewed in countries around the world. If anything, cultural details would help in a realistic portrayals of other nations. Even if the vast majority of any such portrayal would be about as real as Jesper Anderson's talent… :)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 12:53:02 +0100
From: Davide Mana
The Nicotine-free (yeah, right!) Man in Black wrote
[US of A facts and cutting irony snipped for the sake of brevity]
Well, why not? Here goes…
Statistics say that the number of smokers is going down.
Out in the streets, it does not look like it.
The Italian hard-core smoker is generally female, thirty-something, well educated and with a professional job. The fag is seen by these characters as an essential accessory to mark their independent, emancipated status - I hope you appreciate the irony (they usually do not). She started smoking when she was 15 or something, usually to feel cool and sexy, and got serious about it in university; of course, she could stop if she just wanted, yeah, right, I mean, any time, really… (this pathetic litany is usually recited between puffs).
The lady in question smokes Diana - lightweight and reasonably cheap cigarettes - even if Marlboro are a close second. Maybe she drags on a cigarillo once in a while, to feel sophisticate or adventurous.
Women are not alone.
Many guys, now, started at school to act macho. Today it is probably less so, but when I was teen-ager (yes, I was once) being a non smoker was being socially unacceptable. Otherwise, they get in the habit during the year spent in the army - they keep you there with nothing to do and sell you cigarettes at a reduced price. Marlboro is their poison of choice.
The Italian law forbids advertisements for smokers goods, which just means that a lot of brand names have created legit secondary, advertiseable goods (fashion and accessories, travel franchises) and sidestepped it.
The Italian law also says you can't smoke in public places. With the exception of cinemas (thanks to the Turin Statuto theatre, that fizzed and went whoosh killing a few dozens with fire and burnt carpet smoke), the law is not applied, as from day one it was labelled as "discriminatory", and is openly ignored.
This means that unless you are really lucky, you can't dine out without a fat smelly gray cloud of second hand fumes hanging over your table. Which is disgusting, and unhealty as hell, but there you are.
On the other hand, protesting about it generally leaves you with a self-righteous guy blowing smoke in your face and accusing you of limiting his liberties.
[A big pair of scissors - the kind used by carpet-layers, with 30+ cm. long blades - to flash in the face of the guy and cut his cigarette in half is a good tactics (but you need practice).
Water guns are also useful:
"What the heck…!"
"Sorry, man! I thought you caught fire!"]
As for brands, Marlboro and Diana are the most popular by far.
Cheapasses and u:ber-macho anthropoids smoke things like MS, Nazionali (the worker's choice, the fags that killed my grandfather) or the dreaded Caporals. Of course without a filter.
Camels and Chesterfields are for old romanthics, jazz players and Bogart fans that learned to smoke at the movies - therefore the kind I'd be supposed to smoke had I not learned right from Bogart (and Yul Brinner), looked at the lung x-ray pics and buried my dead.
Gauloises are for cynical intellectuals of a verbose kind, the old "I've seen it all and done it twice" kind of people.
Turkish cigarettes have an extremely limited market, for those that like to look exotic.
Cigars are for a small minority and for kinky ladies.
Pipe went back in fashion in the '80s, when our very popular President Sandro Pertini (may he rest in peace) was rarely seen without his old smokestack - liberal, dinamic middle aged men smoke a pipe, or just chew on it as they can't keep it going.
Both pipe and cigar smokers will tell you that their stuff is much healtier than cigarettes.
Suckers - (pun intended).
The DG relevant part of the post: contraband.
Cigarette contraband - an old Italian mainstay - has entered the 21th century already; the guys use heavily modified offshore motorboats, with reinforced steel hulls for ramming Coast Guard vessels, global positioning and on-line satellite maps courtesy of our friends from the old Eastern Block. The "Scafi blu" (blue launches) are so sophisticated that when captured are immediately turned into law-enforcement vessels.
And here I stop.
Smoke kills (but so do cars).
From: "Elliot A. Rushing"
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 09:41:24 -0500
Davide wrote a nifty piece on Italian attitudes on cigarettes, which leads me to offer a comment that may subject me to quite a bit of ridicule.
I had a room-mate for 3 years in college from Pino Torinese, Italy. He and I discussed cultural differences between Americans and Italians a lot.
It strikes me that today's young Italians have a view toward smoking that correlates with that of young americans, say, in the early 1960s — smoking makes you stylish, intelligent, suave, independent, daring.
I also noticed that European students at Georgetown in the late eighties (and those who emulated them) were so obsessively preoccupied with the *style* issues (how the cigarette was held, the *color* of the cigarette, European vs. American brands, and so forth) of smoking that it was the frequent butt of campus humor.
Additionally, gender roles in Europe to an extent seem less, well, liberated.
Conversely, it appears to me that Americans lag significantly behind Europe in the realm of intelligent discussion regarding current issues in sexuality. In fact, the least-common-denominator low-water mark of popular American culture seems permanently locked in 6th grade toilet and anatomical obsession.
This is most evident regarding the impeachment matter, which is, depending on your point of view, either a brouhaha over a simple sexual indiscretion or a serious matter of obstruction of justice that is permanently clouded by America's cultural obsession with lurid sexual exposes.
And thus ends my dangerously opinionated comment, ;)
From: "Jimmie Bise, Jr."
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 12:20:05 -0500
For the kiddies (read: teenage idiots that resemble Beavis) they push
Camels. Camels hearken back to the days of Cliffhangers and Pulp fiction.
Old timers might suck on these short pissant slivers of genetically
altered, nicotine-additive death weeds, but mostly sprog-tards that suffer
from the delusion that Joe Camel is a Kool Dude are still alive to enjoy
the aerolae-blackening richness that is Camel.
Ahh..the rich, rich flavor of Camels (my brand, incidentally)…:-)
Having had MiB's most interesting view on things <grin>, I'd like to toss in my two cents (with as little opinion as I'm able, but this is a sensitive subject with me).
Smokers are not treated very well here in my area of the country. We are not allowed to smoke in Federal, State, or Local Government offices (and since I've worked for the MD State Government for ten years now, this has ben a pain). The State and Local laws are about 7-8 years old now. Most businesses are allowed to make their own policies, except businesses that allow general public access (like convenience stores and grocery stores and such), which may not allow smoking. Restaurants may allow it, but only in specifically designated areas, which (and this may well be colored by my own opinions) are usually not as nice as the non-smoking areas. Employees aren't allowed to smoke in most businesses, which follow the policy that, if one person doesn't like smoking, then no one can smoke. Smokers go outside when they're able, to smoke. There are moves afoot that would ban smoking in sports stadia, including outdoor arenas. Some may ban smoking already, but I'm not for sure about that.
A couple of years ago, Maryland attempted to pass a law that would have prohibited smoking in bars. That didn't last long at all. Most bar owners laughed out loud at the notion that people would come to bars if they couldn't smoke. basically, the law died an ugly death.
Our Federal Government has declared an open war on smoking of just about any kind, but mostly on cigarette smoking. In the last 12 years or so, the price of a pack of cigarettes in my area has gone from $1.05/pack to $3.15/pack. Most of the price increase has been in Federal and State taxes.
Next interesting note - When the Federal Government levied its last tax increase on tobacco, it designated all that money to go to education programs. Oddly, though, they actually budgeted the amount they believed they'd receive in taxes and spent it in the budget before it arrived. They based their new revenues on last year's totals, not apparently remembering the basic economic rule that if you tax a thing more, the demand for it decreases. Right now, some of those education programs are experiencing fiscal problems, because the revenue they were expecting isn't coming in.
So that's the take on smoking in my neck of the woods. It's different from MiBs, but only because I come from a different viewpoint on this one. <rant ON> I smoke, and have since I was 18. I smoke because I want to and because I enjoy it. I stopped for a few months back in 1998, but I took it up again, pretty much because I wanted to. I'll grant that tobacco has addictive properties, and that there's no excuse whatsoever for it's being marketed to children. I won't grant, however, that any government or individual has the right to demand that I stop smoking in places where it isn't a harm to anyone else, which is basically what my government is doing with the tax increases. Interestingly enough, I've found that, among rabid opinions on smoking (pro and con), rabid anti-smokers are far ruder than rabid smokers. I've never had a smoker blow smoke in my face, on purpose or otherwise, but I have had perfect strangers walk up to be and berate me for smoking - outside and downwind from them. <rant OFF>
Personally, it's interesting how we slip into new habits of behavior. I was in a convenience store in Virginia last week picking up some sundries. The store was fairly busy and there were about ten people in it, including the cashier. This older fellow walked up to the counter and made his purchases with a lit cigarette hanging out of his mouth. No one made a comment nor a fuss. He apparently had been smoking it the whole time he was in the store, and no one said anything. It was so shocking that it took me aback for a moment. I just couldn't believe that I saw someone smoking in a public area like that.
I'd also be interested in seeing how something like this is seen in other countries. Sorry for the mild rant, guys.
ObDG: Stephen King wrote a short story called "The Ten O'Clock People". It involves an alien or eldritch race that is attempting to take over the human race, similar to the John Carpenter movie "They Live". Twist is, the only people who can see them are smokers who smoke a certain quantity of cigarettes a day.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 20:56:20 +0100
From: Davide Mana
Ignoring all personal risks, Elliot wrote
Ooooh, you have all my simpathy.
For the uninitiated, Pino Torinese is a small, low profile/high income community in the immediate vicinities of Turin. It is the seat of the local astronomical observatory and planetarium and two nationally renowned haunted houses (including a wonderful Baroque mansion). It is also not considered the epitome of continental sophistication ;)
That's the best way to sell it, after all, or the old "What can we honestly say about this product?" issue - as it has no redeeming features or utility whatsoever, they have to attach something to it in order to sell it - a symbolic meaning being generally cheap and easy to establish.
[snip!]
The image-obsessed eighties were bad for all involved, but more generally your observation is exact.
We could go on for a while about the habit actually being a social ritual, and not a common mundane activity and what else, but I guess there's another, simpler explanation: as many start smoking to emulate somebody (a friend, an actor or a character in a novel) a stripped down "personality" is almost automatically attached to the habit. You started smoking because Bogart did, and you end up smoking the Bogart way; you hold them like he did, light them up that way, probably go for '40s style american imports. Just an idea, of course.
I'm not sure in what sense you mean, but please remember what I told you about Pino Torinese ;->
Now seriously, some roles or attitudes are more ingrained than others - single women, for instance, tend to be regarded as weird and often suffer from a lack of direction, as our society is not yet geared for that situation and shuts them out. Same goes for single fathers and many other categories.
But there are some attitudes that have nothing to do with sexual issues that are just as much ingrained and just as hard to understand for Americans - it is a given that a man should work and live in the town where he was born. Moving around, changing jobs and carreers and places once or twice in a lifetime (!) is considered really weird. All this will have to change, but there's a lot of resistance.
Another good point - a lot of american students I met were rather backward on such things (but I put that down to the inordinate amounts of booze they downed daily).
It's actually a matter of personal maturity, I guess. And of national character - the French are much more open on the subject than Italians, for instance.
But don't despair - the younger generations (and the "fake youngs" that emulate them) are getting back to the old superficial "I wanna screw, not talk about it" attitude.
Intelligent discussion of sex related issues will soon be a thing of the past in Italy at least. This, too, is presented as a form of emancipation and modernity by many influential characters - tv personalities, pop stars, the lot.
I guess being superficial is easier - you ignore complications and let them solve themselves.
Or is the local Shub-Niggurath cult gearing the kids for a global copulation rampage?
And afterwards, what?
That was more than welcome: the "Western Society" tag often hides some dramatic, unsuspected differences.
From: "Elliot A. Rushing" <ten.sillert|xel#ten.sillert|xel>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 15:26:57 -0500
Jimmie Bise wrote a nice bit on the smokers' perspective.
I don't smoke, outside of the *very* occasional (and increasingly rare, actually) recreational cigar (macanudo), usually in combination with nice glass of single malt scotch - both of which I liked before they became faddish. I picked up both as an offshoot of the *definite* SAN loss caused by law school
Cigars are a pretty nice "one off" smoke — interesting, but not something I'd do regularly — the aftertaste (and health hazards) disagree with me. They're also pretty damn bad for your mouth (as opposed to lungs, since most cigar smokers don't draw the smoke deeply), so I imagine I'll drop off the smoking eventually. The last I smoked was at my brother's bachelor party — it's a special event sort of thing. I also had several macanudos left over after my son was born, and I couldn't let them go to waste. ;)
I've found most women to not like cigars, their smoke, smell, anything, really. Apparently there's a "woman cigar smoker" fad going on somewhere, but I haven't seen it.
—-
I've always found it ironic that folks are focusing so much money, time, and effort on regulating an addictive mild stimulant, while at the same time many of the same folks advocate eliminating restrictions on mind- and judgment-altering drugs.
It's also interesting, given all this, that teen marijuana use in America is at a high (if you'll pardon the pun).
—-
Many cops smoke, largely for the stimulant (long hours), but it also masks smells well — it's humorous to watch the cops roll up at a bloody homicide scene, grunt, and light up. ;)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 12:52:00 -0800
From: "Mark McFadden
This is actually valid DG subject matter, I'd make it a subset of Tradecraft. All the OSS alumni remember the laborious lessons on European table manners and smoking mannerisms. Nothing like using knife and fork in the American manner to blow your cover.
I'm personally aware of these differences since I was a NATO brat and picked up European mannerisms during my formative years. Some made more sense, so I kept 'em despite the peer pressure.
Apocryphal memory: IIRC, during WWII, a non-Dane (=spy) could be spotted by the manner in which they ate a herring.
BUT, on to cig related trivia.
US Military. Basically two brands smoked. Marlboros and Kools.
Observed demographic:
Kools smoked by African-Americans and all aspiring to coolness. Therefore stoners, urban and artistic types would smoke menthol for the duration. Rule of thumb; if the music was Funk, the smoke was Kool.
Marlboros smoked by lifers and rednecks. Marlboros were the default brand of everyone who didn't smoke Kools.
From: "Elliot A. Rushing"
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 15:53:36 -0500
If by that you mean, erm, *traditional*, I'll certainly agree. ;)
Bert (Alberto) took offense when I was too friendly (platonically) with a female acquaintance he was interested in, and it was a bit of a rift for a while — it astounded me. :)
Yep. Sex and Style. Style and Sex. What a combination!! Especially when you're selling to people who know little about either, and have a bit of a complex about it. ;)
A good one, and I agree.
The irony here is that it's often difficult to develop a true personal style through simple emulation. It's also difficult to do so when you're too busy conforming to the currently-popular conception of style. ;)
Culture is a pretty fascinating subject, actually.
The American obsession with sex appears to be from its taboo nature. Of course, some aspects of sex should be "taboos", I guess, but sometimes the subjects that are off-limits (or scandalously titillating) here are pretty ridiculous.
Hey, worked for me in college. :)
From: "Jimmie Bise, Jr."
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 16:07:25 -0500
I've always found it ironic that folks are focusing so much money, time, and
effort on regulating an addictive mild stimulant, while at the same time
many of the same folks advocate eliminating restrictions on mind- and
judgment-altering drugs.
It's also interesting, given all this, that teen marijuana use in America
is at a high (if you'll pardon the pun).
I agree. I still find it hard to understand why teen marijuana use, or any other drug use for that matter, gets so little apparent attention while we're going whole-hog after cigarette smokers.It was one of the more surreal moments of the Clinton administration to see him, years back, begin his campaign to end smoking, while, at the same time, justify the comments from his Attorney General that Marijuana use should be legalized.
The world is far odder, sometimes, than even Cthulu would like…
Many cops smoke, largely for the stimulant (long hours), but it also masks
smells well — it's humorous to watch the cops roll up at a bloody homicide
scene, grunt, and light up. ;)
I was party to something akin to this once myself, when an officer on my shift made an arrest of someone carrying 45 little plastic bags of parsley flakes laced with PCP. The officer counted out the baggies in front of her supervisor, per policy, in the radio room where he (and I) was. The smell from the PCP was something I don't think I could ever forget as long as I live. The supervisor and I immediately lit up a cigarette apiece, then lit up two more just to burn in the ashtray, solely to kill the smell of the PCP.
From: "Jimmie Bise, Jr."
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 16:13:40 -0500
>That's the best way to sell it, after all, or the old "What can we honestly
>say about this product?" issue - as it has no redeeming features or utility
>whatsoever, they have to attach something to it in order to sell it - a
>symbolic meaning being generally cheap and easy to establish.
Yep. Sex and Style. Style and Sex. What a combination!! Especially when
you're selling to people who know little about either, and have a bit of a
complex about it. ;)
In general, I agree. Remember, though, that most teenage smokers don't really smoke beause of advertising..they smoke because of peer pressure, and the image they they get being a smoker, historically, has a very real benefit. They look cool and are treated as "better" because of it.
>But there are some attitudes that have nothing to do with sexual issues
>that are just as much ingrained and just as hard to understand for
>Americans - it is a given that a man should work and live in the town where
>he was born. Moving around, changing jobs and carreers and places once or
>twice in a lifetime (!) is considered really weird.
>All this will have to change, but there's a lot of resistance.
Culture is a pretty fascinating subject, actually.
Oddly, this subject came up in a discussion between my Canadian girlfriend and me. She finds it absolutely amazing that I and my friends have relatives and friends that live all over the United States. As far as I know, moving from place to place, for whatever reason - changing jobs, or scenery, or just for the heck of it - seems to be almost uniquely American.
The American obsession with sex appears to be from its taboo nature. Of
course, some aspects of sex should be "taboos", I guess, but sometimes the
subjects that are off-limits (or scandalously titillating) here are pretty
ridiculous.
You Honor, I'd like to introduce the Jerry Springer Show into evidence and have it marked Exhibit A!
From: "gerald mckelvey"
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 18:22:47 -0500
Many pardons, but this is really not hard to understand at all. Remember, the tobacco companies are huge, multi-billion dollar conglomerates that represent huge financial windfall for our friends out there on the left wing. The drug industry does the same sort of volume business, but the tobacco companies fundage is much easier to get because they know where the $$ is. No need to chase down the colombian cartels and steal thier money when you can steal the same amount from the folks at home. Less overhead too. As an added bennie, the tobacco companies won't shoot back, or remove body parts from the IRS when they put a lien on the business. After all RJR nabisco doesn't have an army of mercenaries to guard it's tobacco fields and shoot it's wall street rivals.
Also, remember the current administration has a track record of hostile relations towards big business in general. After all, that money goes (traditionaly, at any rate) to the Enemy, the evil republicans. (My personal favorite, btw…). This extends to the recent administrations dealings with silicon valley (the infamous encryptions export talks with the silicon valley reps) and the Microsoft case. The administration figures that it won't really hurt anyone by taking the evil megacorps down a peg or two, and if they get a lot of buckage out of them then they won't have to raise taxes. It's just big dollar politics at work.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 18:49:57 -0500 (EST)
From: The Man in Black
I've always found it ironic that folks are focusing so much money, time, and
effort on regulating an addictive mild stimulant, while at the same time
many of the same folks advocate eliminating restrictions on mind- and
judgment-altering drugs.
I've heard from hard-core scumbags, that smoking was harder to quit than heroin.
It's also interesting, given all this, that teen marijuana use in America
is at a high (if you'll pardon the pun).
A police offcer aquaintance of mine once said to us that they should outlaw Budweiser and legalize marajuana, as he'd never had to break up a fight where some or all the participants had been smokin' Maui-Wowie. Plenty of violence involving the King of Beers however…
ObDG: Ruthless dealers sometimes lace joints with other hardcore drugs to addict unsuspecting Bong-boyz. The usual is PCP, but what if they used a Mythos drug?
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 19:00:38 -0500 (EST)
From: The Man in Black
Oddly, this subject came up in a discussion between my Canadian girlfriend
and me. She finds it absolutely amazing that I and my friends have
relatives and friends that live all over the United States. As far as I
know, moving from place to place, for whatever reason - changing jobs, or
scenery, or just for the heck of it - seems to be almost uniquely American.
This is probably related to several factors: the Great Depression forcing rural workers into the cities, WWII and the subsequent nomadic military life, and the children of generations affected by such radical change carrying on their childhood lessons in a time of rapid cultural, technological and economic acceleration.
Europeans were isolated and forced to stay in one place during WWII, while Americans had to travel all over the world. We continue doing what we experience during our development.
You Honor, I'd like to introduce the Jerry Springer Show into evidence and
have it marked Exhibit A!
Je-RRY, Je-RRY, Je-RRY!
ObDG: Children of Cultists grow up to be cultists.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 19:04:01 -0500 (EST)
From: The Man in Black
I agree. I still find it hard to understand why teen marijuana use, or any
other drug use for that matter, gets so little apparent attention while
we're going whole-hog after cigarette smokers.
There isn't any money in anti-marajuana, anti-drug lobbying. Plenty O' Dough in laying the smack down on Coffin Nails.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 19:14:09 -0500 (EST)
From: The Man in Black
$$ is. No need to chase down the colombian cartels and steal thier money
when you can steal the same amount from the folks at home. Less overhead
The US Marshall's Service confiscates billions every year in narcotics related property seizures. IMHO, these are unconstitutional and violate Due Process, but they continue because of the profitable nature of the activity.
relations towards big business in general. After all, that money goes
(traditionaly, at any rate) to the Enemy, the evil republicans.
Wrong, big business supports Republicans and Democrats almost right down the middle. Certain industries traditionally support Republicnas, and certain industries help Democrats. If you look at campaign contributions you'll find just as many defense contractors and telecommunication giants on the Donkey side as you will on the Elephant side. Large corporations hedge their bets in every election. DNC didn't outspend the Republicans with small contributors ya know.
The moral of the story: vote for the side with *your* special interests at heart.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 19:26:55 -0500
From: Stephen Parks
Oddly, this subject came up in a discussion between my Canadian girlfriend
and me. She finds it absolutely amazing that I and my friends have
relatives and friends that live all over the United States. As far as I
know, moving from place to place, for whatever reason - changing jobs, or
scenery, or just for the heck of it - seems to be almost uniquely American.
ROFL…
There's all kinds of people all over the world, including millions in Canada quite different from your girlfriend.
That having been said, here's some info about smoking in Canada:
Demographic Info:
-Probably the same as the United States and the rest of the world: kids, parents, retirees, cool people, trashy people, tough people, snobby people, etc.
-If you buy cigarettes, you're a smoker. If you just smoke when offered, you're not. If you bum smokes incessantly and never buy, you're a jerk.
Regional Info:
-Here in Quebec there is a very high percentage of both smokers and cancer victims. (average start-up age: 12)
-Toronto and Vancouver have been experimenting with very restrictive anti-smoking laws, such that you can't even smoke in bars. How widely these laws are obeyed/enforced is questionable, since the penalty against offending businesses is just a fine. Hopefully if there are any list members who know more about this they might fill you in.
Social Issues:
-Plenty of smuggling from the US through both Indian reservations and conventional smuggling channels.
-Canada has recently moved to eliminate tobacco-corporation sponsorship from arts/sporting events, which has pissed off any number of people.
Stylistic Info:
-The average smoker smokes DuMaurier or Player's. (Quote from a girl I knew in high school: "I smoke Player's because the fibreglass cuts up my lungs so that I get the nicotine hit faster.")
-I smoke Dunhills on an intermittent basis. (Stupid corrupting ex-girlfriends… :)
-Variety of brands is (as expected) proportional to proximity to urban locations. (Which means that when I was working at the lumber mill back home in Buttfork, Ontario last summer finding Dunhills was tricky and my co-workers hadn't even heard of 'em.)
-Quebec has its own small brands but I don't know how popular they are. (Same goes for beer, somewhere between the macrobreweries Labatt and Molson and the microbreweries exists Boréale, yuk.)
-Students here at McGill who put cheapness above laziness, roll their own smokes. (And yes, people smoke marijuana somewhat openly in this little area; so whenever someone starts rolling, people sauter over to check the aroma.)
Packaging Details (forensic clues!):
-Health warnings are, for the moment, in the form of large rectangles (black/white or white/black) on which is printed:
1 Smoking can kill you/Fumer peut vous tuer
2 Cigarettes cause strokes and heart disease/La cigarette cause des maladies du coeur
3 Cigarettes are addictive/La cigarette crée une dépendance
4 Tobacco smoke causes fatal lung disease in non-smokers/La fumée du tabac cause chez les non-fumeurs des maladies pulmonaires mortelles
etc.
Health Canada/Santé Canada (French is on one side, English on the other just like cereal boxes.)
DG set pieces:
-The poor university kid whose nerves are shot so bad he can't roll his cigarette.
-The indian smuggler who doesn't want to talk about what he saw that one night because he doesn't want to admit to his little crimes. (I'm not up on the details of what is or isn't legal for our native peoples to sell off their reservations but I do know that I've gotten ridiculously cheap booze there.)
-Butts from Québecois cigarettes strewn about at an investigation in Alberta signalling the presence of bikers from Quebec's Hell's Angels or La Rock Machine/Banditos. (I don't know what brand preference these jerks might have, for all I know they might smoke Marlboros, but it's a reasonably believable scenario.)
-Some poor shlub telling Agent [redacted] that he has to sit in the little glass smoking box at Tim Horton's if he wants to smoke.
From: "gerald mckelvey"
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 20:43:20 -0500
yep, and I seem to remember reading something a while back about how the DEA was targeting drug dealers who had the most toys so they could get their hands on them. Makes you wonder some times who the good guys are supposed to be.
relations towards big business in general. After all, that money goes
(traditionaly, at any rate) to the Enemy, the evil republicans.
I said traditionally. Most common folks don't really look past the party propaganda. I did look at campaign contributions for 98. check out www.crp.org for some really interesting details on your favorite politician. I had some surprises there when I saw who was donating to my congressthing.
If you look at campaign contributions
Hmm…so you are saying that it really WAS just a coincidence at that buddist temple then? Gee, I thought politicos could smell campaign donations at 100 paces upwind in a hurricane. there were some really interesting contortions of the campaign finance laws this past presidental election. There's enough conspiracy material there to run many many many DG games. (Just imagine the Riady family as pawns of the Tcho-Tcho and get wierd from there…)
but I can't find anyone who supports ownership of blasphmous occult texts detailing Things That Man Was Not Meant To Know. Microsoft notwithstanding, of course.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 04:38:24 +0100
From: "Florian R. Hanke"
So, what does this mean for Delta Green, not much, but I would still like
to get a thread going about how smoking is viewed in countries around the
world.
I know that the thread has evolved but here's some info on Switzerland (the german part, the french and italian part (more or less) behave like people in France and Italy respectively):
The number of smokers has gone up, numbers say that now about 30% consider themselves to be smokers. Problem is: when you go out on saturdays or so, about 75% of the people smoke.
<interlude>
Although the MiB isn't very happy about the smoking situation in the U.S. there's one thing I got to say: I really envy you guys (concerning smoke), because when I went out over there, after I got home in the morning, I was still able to smell my pull-over and smell myself (whether this is good or not ;-), at least it's better than smelling like having been hanged over a campfire for 24 hours) or at least my perfume…Which isn't the case at all over here.
</interlude>
The brands people smoke are generally the same like Davide pointed out for Italy, although I haven't ever heard of "Diana". But then, "Pall Mall", an english(?) brand is very popular amongst the youth here. What's unique for Switzerland, are very short, fat cigars, called (translated) stumps, like in: tree stumps - they are smoked without exception by people older than 50. What's also very popular amongst these older ones are cigarillos, those non-straight thin, long cigars usually sold in packs of three.
Now, what bothers me a lot, is that smoking rates went up a *lot* amongst young people here (sarcasm: seems like it's not enough we're second place worldwide with youth suicides, first being Korea or Japan(?)) - especially with young women, starting at 12 for both genders - (number of smokers aged 13-16 doubled in the last 7 years) the reasons being:
- peer pressure
- definition of a position in the ever changing world
- coolness
- rituals
- women want to stay slim (don't laugh, I'm serious)
- having an excuse going out on freezing nights at parties to talk about private matters
- and more…
Well, maybe some more details about soft drugs here:
The position of the youth towards soft drugs has changed *alot* here in the last seven years:
<depressive mode>
Well, a few days ago I returned to my hometown school for a day, meeting my ex-teachers, remembering the days of running around on winter-days kicking a ball from here to there - But what I saw were schoolboys/girls standing around in groups, smoking like hell, all of course in the latest Hilfinger "Define-my-style" clothes. Coolness. Bah. Goof off. Climb a tree.
</depressive mode>
Well, that's reality, as are these new soft drugs:
- Sodas called "Alcopops"(*unbelievably* popular here), with about 3%o, nothing you may say - but it helps entering the world of 20+%o stuff, also you don't notice the change that much, and it helps young people do things they regret very much afterwards
- "Snus": Stuff you put between the upper lip and teeth, nicotin enters the blood really fast, high cancer risk - sport-idols use them alot, mimickried by young people
- Snuff Tabacco (don't know if it's called like that in english): Very popular, used for rituals -> peer pressure again
- Cannabis
Note: Last month we were able to vote whether Cannabis should be legalized, I voted yes. I have not problem with it, except when all activities are focused around the stuff, which sadly sometimes seems to be the case
On the topic of comparing the US with Europe:
(Funny, in most discussions I partook (partaked? Gnah!) where europeans and us-ers discuss something, it almost always devolved into a very ugly "We are better than you!" comparisation - Funny because it never mattered actually what the original topic was! And you can always see the differences in the societies very well - also in politics. For europeans, the two parties are exactly in the middle of the spectrum, while for some us-ers socialist is equal to communist. Well…)
Elliot A. rushing wrote:
And Davide added:
Hmm… at least for Switzerland that's not the case, to live single has become very popular here - which also means the liberation of gender roles, emancipation and all that. Also, what's becoming more and more popular and also supported by the industry is job sharing for women and men, so they can each follow their career, at the same time being able to do "home-work". (Of course, this might not be the point in the more southern countries of Europe, Spain, (southern) Italy,… )
My point of view was rather that the picture of the family was upheld more in the US.(?)
:) Exactly my opinion
Another thing I always wondered about was the almost exclusive US thing: dating, does it actually work? Well, for me this somehow seems rather unnatural (I mean with younger people, if you're getting older and more desperate :-) it's ok) - although I have to say that it's getting more and more common here, as are other products from over there (if I like it or not).
Then Davide said:
That's right - the french part of Switzerland is more open than the german part too.
And went on:
Heh, whenever one watches Italian or Spanish TV, one can't overlook those long legged blondes. The reason being not their look, but the fact that they are just all over the place! ;-)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 00:08:43 -0500 (EST)
From: John Petherick
<deleted>
You forgot the favourite warning of most of my (male) friends who smoke: Smoking will harm your pregnancy / developing fetus (I can't remember).
Specifically, they're supposed to sell only to natives, not necessarily from that reserve. In most areas it's simply *cheaper* smokes and gasoline since it's only provincial taxes and the GST that's not applied. Near Montreal, there's a lot of cross-border smuggling so prices are even lower.
<deleted>
- The American agent found out because his cigarettes smell different from Canadian smokes
- angst-ridden, pasty-faced teenagers hanging out in groups and smoking clove cigarettes. They think that they're *just* pretending, but someone sneaks a real Mythos ritual into their game …
- agents looking for something on the St. Lawrence River who stumble into a cigarette smuggling operation, defended by automatic weapons
- an American confused by people hauling out their pack of smokes and opening it when asked about a specific date (many Canadian cigarette packages, which are constructed differently from American ones, have calendars printed on the inner packaging)
- border stores selling "authentic Cuban" cigars. In RL most of these are, even if they're actually Cuban, made from floor sweepings or otherwise counterfeit. In DG, some other strange substance could be introduced.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 23:50:55 -0800
From: "Marco S. Subias"
««< This is probably related to several factors: the Great Depression forcing rural workers into the cities, WWII and the subsequent nomadic military life, and the children of generations affected by such radical change carrying on their childhood lessons in a time of rapid cultural, technological and economic acceleration.
Europeans were isolated and forced to stay in one place during WWII, while Americans had to travel all over the world. We continue doing what we experience during our development.»»>
Rural types in the U.S. were already moving to the city in huge numbers since the late nineteenth century, when crop prices took a nosedive as the number of farms expanded, boosting supply to huge levels and driving prices down. Mechanization of agriculture in the late 19th and very early 20th century lowered drastically the need for farm laborers, further pushing people off the farms. The boll weavil infestations in the South (and possibly other areas?) also led to a drop in demand for labor. By 1920, the U.S. census showed that most Americans lived in cities.
The Great Depression is not associated with a demand for labor in the cities, so the opportunities for rural people there were few. Ever see (or read) "The Grapes of Wrath?" Steinbeck accurately showed that rural people in the Midwest tended to move to rural places in the West — not cities. "Sure I'll go to the city, _lots_ of opportunity for farm workers there!"
Actually, the father (when he a was a litttle kid) and his family lived in the city during the Depression, and picked crops in rural areas, following the crops during harvest season. There was very little opportunity in the cities then.
Europeans also travelled "all over the world." Administrative demand of the British Empire and other colonies of France, Belgium, Portuagal, Italy, etc, gave then ample opportunity to do so. Also, many Europeans traveled abroad either permanently or temporararily for work even before the Renaissance. Sometimes this was to other European countries, and sometimes to other continenets. Many Europeans worked in other countries for several years, then went back home with a nest egg. There are also huge internal "colonies" of Europeans in Europe. For example, there are ethnic German communities in Russia, and Barcelona was a melting pot for the Mediteranian. Europeans actually have a long history of moving around, though probably less so now than earlier in the century.
What you wrote was probably based on impulse MIB, as it bears little relation to any real history.
From: Nightgaunt
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 13:23:37 +0200 (SAT)
Having had MiB's most interesting view on things <grin>, I'd like to toss
in my two cents (with as little opinion as I'm able, but this is a
sensitive subject with me).
Smokers are not treated very well here in my area of the country. We are
not allowed to smoke in Federal, State, or Local Government offices
The new (post-1994) government in South Africa has drawn lots of flak from the health policies it is following. One of these which has my complete support is the smoking bill. This is extremely draconian, and prohibits smoking in any public area, as well as any cigarette advertising. It's being opposed on constitutional rights grounds by various opposition parties and lobby groups. What has passed is the bill requiring warning labels on cigarette boxes and adverts.
Our Federal Government has declared an open war on smoking of just about
any kind, but mostly on cigarette smoking. In the last 12 years or so, the
price of a pack of cigarettes in my area has gone from $1.05/pack to
$3.15/pack. Most of the price increase has been in Federal and State taxes.
Not being a smoker, I can't say for certain, but cigarettes have doubled in price in this country since the new laws were passed. The cheaper brands are now about R6 or R8 a box ($1 - $1.30 at current exchange rates).
I'd also be interested in seeing how something like this is seen in other
countries. Sorry for the mild rant, guys.
Smoking is still very popular and cool in the 14-25 age group (ie, my age group). When the murder and violent crime rates in the cities are considered, dying from cigarette smoke is a minor worry :). There is a vocal anti-smoking group (of which I am a member) but there is little outright condemnation; with this whole new personal rights thing, it's fine if people smoke, so long as they don't infringe on other people's right not to have to live in a pall of foul-smelling carcinogens.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 13:28:59 +0100
From: "Florian R. Hanke"
Next interesting note - When the Federal Government levied its last tax
increase on tobacco, it designated all that money to go to education
programs. Oddly, though, they actually budgeted the amount they believed
they'd receive in taxes and spent it in the budget before it arrived. They
based their new revenues on last year's totals, not apparently remembering
the basic economic rule that if you tax a thing more, the demand for it
decreases.
Which is good, but see below…
Right now, some of those education programs are experiencing
fiscal problems, because the revenue they were expecting isn't coming in.
But then, look at it from a different angle:
Levying tax increases on tobacco is always good. Why? *Either* smokers accept the new prices and still smoke, which means the government gets more money to spend on anti-drug campaigns (as here in Switzerland), so if they can't stop, they at least 'help' "kiddies" not to start smoking *or* smokers try to give up smoking, government gets less money, but at least people smoke less. In reality it's probably a mixture of both scenarios, as is in your case.
btw, cigarettes cost about 2.70$ to 3.20$ over here.
Davide wrote:
Well, they probably they wanted to say not that their *stuff* is healthier but the way of smoking it, as pipe smokers don't inhale it. btw, I like pipe smoke as much as I dislike cigarette smoke. I guess it's the same thing I like smelling fuel at gasoline stations (both very healthy).
Another thing is: Light cigarettes smokers often think they live healthier than, say, Marlboro smokers - But I observed that they inhale a lot more and smoke a bigger quantity of cigarettes each day. Whereas only hardcore Marlboro 100 smokers smoke 2 packs a day, I think, because this is the heavy stuff.
P.S: In an earlier mail I wrote that tobacco consumation went up while now I write that lots of money is spent on prevention. This just goes to show us, that soft drugs can't be looked at as a single thing, that these problems are all interconnected with changing society/family issues etc… e.g. divorce rate went up to almost 45% here. It takes time for people to adapt.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 14:42:45 +0100
From: Davide Mana
This smoke issue is rapidly getting out of topic (if it ever was on it, that is) but I think a pair still need my attention…
Florian commented…
Well, they probably they wanted to say not that their *stuff* is healthier
<polemic> This works only if you consider tongue/mouth cancer healthier than lung cancer </polemic>
;>
Another thing is: Light cigarettes smokers often think they live healthier
From what I saw of tests on different cigarette brands in my old environmental analisys classes, the difference between lights and lungbusters is minimal.
There's a lot of stuff in a cigarette that can get to you really bad [I'll cover this from an environ. safety point of view. Doctors are invited to chime in and correct me]
. Nicotine - it is addictive and (IIRC) causes the fat cover on neurone stems to get thinner. In other words, it's bad for your brain. Also, and DG relevant, it's bad for night vision.
. Tar - messes up the cilia in your upper respiratory apparatus, so that a lot of nasty little partcles can now get to your lungs and screw them. Also, would you put in your lungs something that's generally used to pave streets? It reduces the active surface of the lung cavities (IIRC) so you make less of each breath in terms of Oxigen.
. Nasty Paper Combustion Stuff (TM) - expecially the stuff they use to bleach the paper white.
. Particulate (sp?) - small but evil sharp-edged particles of ash (filters are not that good, sorry) that can get in your lung tissues and traumatize (=cut) them.
[Incidentally, Stephen's bit about "Fiberglass cutting up the lungs" made me shiver - that's the shortcut to lung cancer if I ever saw it.]
. anything else they put in there and you don't know, ranging from opium (in Camels) to a few exotics and chemicals.
In the end, I feel the point is essentially one of information and respect - there's nothing wrong as long as people makes an informed choice and respects the different choices of others.
Sadly, I feel consumer information is not open and complete (the same can be said about a lot of products) and respect sometimes is forgotten between smokers and non smokers, and between buyers and sellers (and the same can be said about a lot of other issues).
Here I rest my case, and I will no longer touch upon the subject unleess something relevant surfaces.
Last note: a pack of smokes in Italy should cost about 5000 Lire (3+ US$), but I'm not sure; cigarettes are a Government Monopoly in Italy, so actually it's the government that's selling us the stuff. They have no reason to enforce the regulations they made.
Finally, sorry if in expressing my opinions I sounded harsh or flippant (or offensive!) to some. It was not meant to (well, maybe the flippancy… ;)).
From: Shane Ivey
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 11:44:47 EST
«I've heard from hard-core scumbags, that smoking was harder to quit than heroin.»
I did a brief stint as a counselor in a methadone clinic where I heard the same thing quite often (from hard-core scumbags and from some fairly decent people). Of course, these were mostly folks who couldn't face quitting opiates, either; but they usually said that, even with the horrible physical symptoms of opiate withdrawal, nicotine had the longer and more persistent draw.
Most of them didn't bother with the patch for smoking while they took methadone for opiate addiction. Cigarettes are just a lot less complicated than heroin and second-hand demerol, and the come-down is not as big a bitch.
Having chimed in to the whole discussion, I will beat Womack to the punch by requesting that we stick to sharing facts and factoids about behavior (smoking or otherwise) in other cultures without trying to vent our opinions about those behaviors. I'm sure there are lots of newsgroups out there which love to hear arguments about the topic. Either that, or we all just relax and don't let the venting get under our skins and turn into massive bandwidth-crunching debates.
From: "Elliot A. Rushing"
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 13:20:56 -0500
Replying to Shane (and several related informative posts) and magnanimously ignoring MiB's well-intentioned toilet references:
My wife quit smoking in 1996. About four to five times a week she verbally expresses a strong desire to smoke (especially after — well, we won't go there). My father quit smoking in 1992, after a lifetime (well, 30 years of it) of 2 packs of Winstons a day (equivalent to Marlboros). They get together and reminisce wistfully.
Based upon that information and my actual drug enforcement experience and specialized narcotics training (surprise!), I would generally *agree* with the statement that physical addiction to nicotine is very high — in fact, much higher than that of several controlled substances.
Certainly I don't mean any of my comments to offend anyone, and if they do, I apologize.
I do have very definite opinions about the validity of narcotics enforcement and how it SHOULD be done (which it isn't, at least not outside efforts made by individual officers, really).
In my opinion, many folks simply miss the boat on this — on BOTH sides.
I highly recommend the book "Deep Cover" by former DEA agent Michael Levine to folks on the list as a good look into how federal narcotics enforcement (particularly) can be *incredibly* mishandled, despite some very good core reasons for enforcing narcotics laws. Levine castigates the DEA's "Drug War" while pointing out why narcotics are a serious problem. It's simply an excellent book. He's also written another autobiographical book that's relevant (and I've read), but I borrowed it (Deep Cover, in contrast, sits prominently in my office) and can't remember the name.
For DG reasons, these books also point out how not to do undercover ops. Levine was one of the first officers (I think he started with Customs in New York) to develop undercover narcotics enforcement techniques when it was a new thing in America in the early 1970s (French Connection era), and he's blunt about mistakes made, as well as the devastation being an undercover operative causes in your personal life (lost a brother to heroin addiction (irony), marriage disintegrated, and so forth).
Back to narcotics and marijuana.
Most cops feel that the Drug War is a term invented by suits for suits. Saying "Drug War" to a cop is kind of like saying "Community Policing" (otherwise known as doing your job) or "Outcome-oriented Problem Solving" (otherwise known as your supervisor doing *his* job). Since I *am* a suit, and I feel blunt today, I can tell you categorically that these terms do no more than define an area for discussion, and in fact perform even that task poorly.
I find the drug debate generally to be one ensconced with misapprehension, defensiveness on all sides, and often an overall disagreement on what we're even talking *about* from moment to moment.
To most cops, drug *abuse* equals devastation to families, children, and young people.
So-called "casual" drug users (we like the co-opted (from computer lingo) term "newbies", it describes them more honestly) will be charged, but are not considered the problem. Unfortunately, and I'm sorry to say this, the number of casual drug users that *remain* in that state is extremely rare. In fact, I think they're on the endangered species list, because I've never met one, and I've met a lot of drug users.
It's sort of like strongly feeling you're standing at door and are just cracking it open a teeny little bit, not moving at all, when in fact you're in the front seat of the roller coaster as it's *just* edging over the top of the hill.
MiB mentioned a cop buddy supporting alcohol prohibition over marijuana prohibition. Given the context (violent assaults and difficult encounters), it's a reasonable statement. Folks high on MJ aren't, on the whole, violent. In fact, they're easy to work with, they don't fight you, and they're usually downright tickled to completely incriminate themselves, everyone with them, and that buddy they know down the road, too, sure, no problem, officer. S'cool, man. Say, you got a bag of Doritos or somethin', man?
We *love* that.
The problem with marijuana isn't violence. It's judgment impairment. When stoned, otherwise normal folks will: (1) cause fatal wrecks, (2) get robbed or criminally victimized, (3) put themselves in violently dangerous situations (how'd I get here?), (4) be a witness or an accomplice to someone hopped up on something *else* when *they* commit the crime (Hunh? Fred did what? Damn…), (5) become stupidly sexually indiscriminate (see 3), (6) develop complex communication-impaired "drug-as-common-bond" social-sexual relationships with multiple people, often of differing races/sexes/sexual preferences/ethicities/economic classes/biases RE these differences (see 3), (7) decide in their drug-induced wisdom to single-handedly calm down their two-twelve buddies who're having a violent confrontation (often amplified by their use of alcohol or other drugs) (see 3), (8) form familiar/sexual relationships with easy sources for the marijuana, who may deal in other drugs (see 3), (8) form familiar/sexual relationships with *serious* marijuana sources who deal only in marijuana "weight" (see 3), (9) possibly decide (though this is, I believe, over emphasized in pro-"Drug War" circles) that trying a different drug "just this once" is cool, man, and so on…
Marijuana casually smoked by super-models Jacques and Dionne while sequestered in their hideaway holiday retreat in Nice wouldn't be a problem. That's not what we see on the street.
Dude, I don't know from experience, but I've heard from, damn, hundreds of those who *would* know from experience, that Marijuana makes you feel gooood, man. Peaceful, happy, sexy, and most importantly emotionally *complete*. That's the draw, and it's stupid to yell about how "bad" things are without recognizing that folks take this stuff to feel good, and because it WORKS. It makes you feel good. Period. Deal with it.
The sucky part that's hard to hear (man, I'd *love* to support marijuana, I've heard it makes you feel awesome) is that MJ is a demonstrated connector to a lot of crimes, period, that cops have to face on a daily basis: accidents, domestics, impromptu child custody/support arguments at your local drive-in "narcotery" (including the Top 10 hit "He's not mine! Well, he's not mine!" "Well, she slept with Fred, too…" "Yeah, b, go see Fred, H*!!"), assaults, murders, larcenies (often from Mom and Dad, who are *sure* Trevor doesn't do *drugs* — "Hmph. Are you sure you *know* what you're talking about, officer? Our Trevor's in *medical* school") to buy the grass, you name it.
The other problem with Marijuana is that, in my direct experience, those who smoke are quite content with their lives, which often regularly include the crime-probable situations I've listed above. So, basically, these folks are essentially a prolonged police investigation waiting to happen, and hey, man, they're happy with that.
I'm not. And I tell them, for what it's worth. Sometimes they listen, if I'm nice about it.
Of the homicide calls I've been involved with, well over half involved drug use. Many also involve alcohol mixed with drug use. In some of these cases (not all, but definitely some), had the defendant and victim been *sober*, there would likely not have been a murder — maybe a fight or domestic, but not a murder.
Drug abuse, by directly and utterly removing your ability to think clearly, directly ratchets up the likelihood and seriousness of criminal involvement or victimization.
That's the real cost of feeling good with drugs.
And that's the scoop.
Awaiting the flames patiently,
From: "Jimmie Bise, Jr."
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 14:28:34 -0500
And that's the scoop.
Man, you are right on the mark. I have to agree with everything you've said in your post. Folks, this is the real dope (no pun intended), and, believe it or not, it's way useful to know stuff like this. It helps you to understand why folks do the things they do, especially the stoned ones. I've been on the "call-taking" end of law enforcement for quite a while now and I've gotten a lot of experience talking to folks actually under the influence. Elliot's dead right about impaired judgement.
No flames here.
I would like to know something from any medical experts on the list. I have heard, from at least two doctors that there is a hidden danger to marijuana. I understand from them that marijuana actually alters the brain's chemistry, and that such an alteration doesn't automatically go away once the marijuana is out of the system. This is in apparent contrast to something like cocaine, which apparently leaves the brain's chemistry the way it found it when it got there.
Is such a thing true? If so, we have yet another decent DG hook, neh?
From: CrossMLK
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 15:07:26 EST
This is a little off topic, but sorry I had to reply.
I understand your point regarding nicotine, however I'm getting tired of the way the antismoking crowd (I'm a nonsmoker, hate the stuff and don't want to be in the same room with it) keeps bastardizing the language. Addiction is typically misused when referring to nicotine dependence. The classical medical definition of addiction does not apply to nicotine. Read the 1964 surgeon generals report (US). Then read a subsequent report like the 1980 report. They've totally changed the definition of addiction to suit there own purposes. Words mean something. If we keep changing the meaning of those words to suit our own purposes we've essentially changed the rules of the game. We're all gamers here. How long would you play with a GM who continually changed the rules to suit their purpose? Well, anyway end of rant.
From: "Elliot A. Rushing" <ten.sillert|xel#ten.sillert|xel>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 15:53:26 -0500
Jesper (Howdy) wrote:
My wife would kill you…
(Of course, I am a closet megalomaniac, but that's beside the point)
—-
—-
Um, well, No, I guess. I'm flattered.
My only request is that it's edited to double-check for offensiveness — that's the last thing the drug enforcement debate needs.
Also, please don't include a "Mail him now!" back to me (it can be elsewhere) right on the file, or else my mailbox will fill with posts from legalization advocates with strong convictions. :)
Which leads me to a point I'll conclude with in a minute.
---------—
Jimmie (Hey there, thanks for the backup) wrote:
"I would like to know something from any medical experts on the list. I have heard, from at least two doctors that there is a hidden danger to marijuana. I understand from them that marijuana actually alters the brain's chemistry, and that such an alteration doesn't automatically go away once the marijuana is out of the system. This is in apparent contrast to something like cocaine, which apparently leaves the brain's chemistry the way it found it when it got there. Is such a thing true? If so, we have yet another decent DG hook, neh?"
—
Jimmie, there are legitimate (well, kind of legitimate) studies on both sides of that issue.
The problem with tobacco and drug studies is that most tend to have point to them, that is, there's a position the study is generally intended to support.
I've heard that Marijuana smoking deteriorates short term memory sharply over time, and I have several friends (one a very close friend) who were formerly heavy marijuana users that confirm this anecdotally.
However, many studies are subject to reasonable challenge, which is why I generally avoid them to avoid the charge of "Lying with statistics."
Can you tell I've spoken at public forums on this? ;)
Something else — my formerly-addicted friends — who are among those who tell me what FUN I've missed by not partaking, by the way — have told me that if you're addicted and "in the life" (ironically the SAME EXACT TERM we use in law enforcement for cops) that you will think of everything possible to justify your addiction, because you feel a little guilty about spending all day stoned out of your mind.
Even so, there *are* reasonable arguments for legalization that are worth discussing — this is an issue where reasonable people can disagree.
I understand the nature, for example, of the "victimless crime" argument, which has some merit, but I feel that it's the collateral consequences of drug use that most affect society.
——
And, finally, CrossMLK wrote:
"I understand your point regarding nicotine, however I'm getting tired of the way the antismoking crowd (I'm a nonsmoker, hate the stuff and don't want to be in the same room with it) keeps bastardizing the language. Addiction is typically misused when referring to nicotine dependence. The classical medical definition of addiction does not apply to nicotine. Read the 1964 surgeon generals report (US). Then read a subsequent report like the 1980 report. They've totally changed the definition of addiction to suit there own purposes. Words mean something. If we keep changing the meaning of those words to suit our own purposes we've essentially changed the rules of the game. We're all gamers here. How long would you play with a GM who continually changed the rules to suit their purpose? Well, anyway end of rant."
—
Actually, this is an excellent point. I agree. In fact, the purpose of my post was to point out that much public debate involves people shouting at one another over the chasm caused by the unwillingness to define the specific issue and terms of the debate.
As for the addiction term, I was referring to withdrawal symptoms, not to any particular government's definition of the term. Generally I find "official government definitions" of anything not *immediately* relevant to a specific government function a little suspect (and I work for the government!) — especially on the federal level / executive end, where reports are usually issued to publicize a need or justify an expenditure.
Similarly, the government's definition of AIDS was expanded recently to include more types of illnesses, and the press immediately reported a sudden increase in AIDs cases, which I found humorous (not the topic — the press).
For the record, I'm not an anti-smoker. However, I'm not a pro-smoker, either, really. Actually, I worry when folks identify themselves or others as members of an "anti-" or "pro" group on an issue, as the designation itself can be detrimental to reasoned discussion — particularly on the net, where reasoned discussion is the (perhaps futile) aspiration of many.
I do think, as a cop, that the preoccupation with tobacco (on either side) is somewhat humorous given the enormity of other problems facing society (public health, *meaningful* drug enforcement, hell, I'd even class "the ability to disagree and still compromise peacefully" in this group).
Thanks for pointing out how even the most subtle change in topic definition can derail the most positive of discussions.
It's a point well-taken and remembered.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 17:33:51 -0500 (EST)
From: The Man in Black
You will cease to be, Robert Dushay:
This would seem to be not only off-topic, but well off the mark, and
gratuitously insulting to those who oppose big tobacco's legal murder of
ignorant teens.
You want ignorant teens to live?! I'm ready to give Uncle Darwin a helping hand and start killin' em myself!
ObDG: Mass-Market edition of The King in Yellow causes legal euthanasia, govt sponsored Lethal Chambers, and a New Eugenics movement in the ENDTIMES.
New Eugenics Organization; NEO - making the world a better place.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 18:12:59 -0500 (EST)
From: The Man in Black
Elliot A. Rushing was puffing on a monster cigar joint at the hippie time love jam when the MiB strode up wearing Paradoxical tie-dyed black. "Isn't that illegal?" asked the MiB. It was then that Elliot A. Rushing was enlightened.
Replying to Shane (and several related informative posts) and magnanimously
ignoring MiB's well-intentioned toilet references:
Dammit!
Unfortunately, and I'm sorry to say this, the number of casual drug
users that *remain* in that state is extremely rare. In fact, I think
they're on the endangered species list, because I've never met one, and
I've met a lot of drug users.
You've met a lot of problem drug users because you're a cop and problem drug users and those who become such, get into all kinds of judgement impaired trouble.
I know three (now two, RIP) Casual Drug users, at least they say they're casual. My cancerman buddy smoked (pot) very rarely until his chemotherapy started - then he was puffing joints about one every few hours, with those atrocious generic menthols inbetween. He would do this with or without his oxygen tank wheelchair. Him, his brother and I all thought it was pretty hilarious when we weren't worried about being blown skyhigh to kingdom come, wheelchair parts embedded in our skulls. His wife was less than amused, but I'm a sick bastard, and Brian and Ben were trained morticians (read: sick bastards too :)
Dammit, I miss that old scumbag!
Casual Drug Users encounter police trouble about as often as law abiding citizens, that is to say, not very much. So your experiences are merely representative of probability and demographics. Mine are less so, thanks to my Weirdness Magnet disadvantage.
Awaiting the flames patiently,
Is this… permission?! The Mind Boggles!
ObDG: The pot smoking lung cancer victim, who won't stop smoking regular cigarettes. An Interview Subject with a built in oxygen tank self-destruct system.
From: "David Farnell"
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 13:12:04 +0900
A couple of the posts in this thread have actually been useful, so I decided to chime in with Smokes in Japan. Like Italy, _tobako_ is state-run, so you have the paradox (lot of those lately, eh?) of the government selling the stuff and making a very half-hearted (perhaps sixteenth-hearted) attempt at educating the public on the dangers at the same time.
I think TV commercials were finally banned a year or two backI just know I haven't seen Charlie Sheen acting like Mr. Elegant-with-Cigarretes on TV for a while. But maybe that's because he's been in rehab. Anyway, tobako ads are everywhere, and tobako vending machines are almost as common as those selling soft drinks. Jean Reno is a big ad star these days. (note: It is possible to find vending machines selling beerincluding HUGE jugs of beer—and sake, too. ObDG: Sake can be used to clean wounds.) (Further note: In Tokyo, I hear you can buy ANYTHING out of vending machines, including pre-worn high-school girls' underwear. I'll let Jay comment on that.) Anyway, it's very easy for kids to buy cigs (or booze).
A common ad sign a few months back read "Now I Smoke Now I Smoke Now I Smoke Now I Smoke Now I Smoke Now I Smoke Now I Smoke Now I Smoke NOW I SMOKE!" (About a hundred Now I Smokes redacted for brevity.)
Smoking is very common, although I've met a few people lately who have quit. As people are quite concerned with longevity here (Japan has the greatest longevity of any nation, BTW), this may be the beginning of a trend. But only the beginning. Most restaurants don't have non-smoking sections, except for American-based ones like Western Sizzler and McDonalds. Oddly, most of those require one to walk through a huge smoking section to get to the non-smoking section, not a terribly well-thought-out plan. Trains are either no-smoking or they have sealed-off smoking cars these days, although I've encountered problems on buses (having half the bus non-smoking makes about as much sense as having every other seat non-smoking—the whole bus fills up with fumes anyway).
OTOH, I've found that most smokers here are pretty polite about it, and pay attention to air movement when around non-smokers. There are some glaring exceptions, of course. I have only felt it necessary to protest once, when a couple of ultra-fashionable college girls were puffing it up like mad (they were like steam engines!) right next to my asthmatic daughter in a tiny, enclosed fast-food joint. Most people seem to be quick to douse their butt if they notice anyone around them showing discomfort. Reflection of 1000 years of cultural evolution.
Chewin tabaccy is right out. Just doesn't fit in with Japanese ideas of what's cool. Although you might find the ocassional weirdo who thinks he's a cowboy.
Marijuana: Big-time conversation killer. Loco-weed is regarded as being as dangerous as heroin in Japan. Probably not a good idea to mention that you smoked it a couple of times in college—it's like saying you killed a couple of people when you were young, just to see what it was like. OK, I'm exaggerating a little, but only a little. (DG agents caught with any kind of illegal drug will be in serious trouble. Although they'll probably get deported, rather than serving much prison time.) People here don't have any access to the info that's thrown back and forth in the arguments for and against legalization in Europe and North America.
Right. That's it. And just for the record, I don't smoke, had family who died of cancer, wife smokes but avoids getting it on me or our kid, and, as someone mentioned before, cars put out a helluva lot of deadly fumes, too.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 12:37:30 -0500
From: Stephen Parks
John Petherick wrote:
You forgot the favourite warning of most of my (male) friends who smoke:
Smoking will harm your pregnancy / developing fetus (I can't remember).
I just wrote down all the ones I found on empty packs strewn about the floor of my apartment.
My personal favourite is still:
"Tobacco smoke causes fatal lung disease in non-smokers" /"La fumée du tabac cause chez les non-fumeurs des maladies pulmonaires mortelles"
(Subtext decoded: Smoke in order to kill others)
Specifically, they're supposed to sell only to natives, not necessarily from
that reserve. In most areas it's simply *cheaper* smokes and gasoline since
it's only provincial taxes and the GST that's not applied. Near Montreal,
there's a lot of cross-border smuggling so prices are even lower.
The bit that I've forgotten the legalities about is that I believe our native peoples enjoy some sort of exemption from paying duty, such that they can buy cigarettes/booze/etc in the States, and bring them back super-cheap and legally; the illegal part is reselling the stuff.
- The American agent found out because his cigarettes smell different from
Canadian smokes
Well maybe, apparently there is a difference between (for example) the Marlboros you can buy in Canada and the Marlboros you can buy in the States because of different regulations on ingredients. However, I would imagine that the difference in the second-hand aroma would be negligeable. Even if someone were caught with American packs and their tiny health warnings, depending on the agent's cover story most people probably wouldn't take much notice. Just say, "Oh I was down in the States last weekend."
- agents looking for something on the St. Lawrence River who stumble into a
cigarette smuggling operation, defended by automatic weapons
or agents smuggling something stumble into RCMP looking for smugglers and armed with automatic weapons
- an American confused by people hauling out their pack of smokes and
opening it when asked about a specific date (many Canadian cigarette
packages, which are constructed differently from American ones, have
calendars printed on the inner packaging)
Really? I never noticed… and they're not inside my Dunhills, hmm…
How about an art-exhibition which had previously been tobacco-funded and is now funded by some conspiracy's front-company, who bring in Mythos-tainted artwork. Or Montreal's International Jazz Festival could get some funky sponsoring and a guest appearance by Anton Merriweather engaged in a 'side-project.'
Oh, and there's the classic badass line to be uttered before giving oneself the .45 calibre retirement: "I beat cancer."
PS to MiB: thanks for the response but you should be more careful with your Montreal-ward ventures, given what I've heard is the second largest gay population in the world, laying the smack down on my candy ass has a number of interpretations. Shake it baby! (And remember we're Canadians so bring the proper gadgets.) Humbly waiting for that reach-around, you big bad pirate…
Did I just tap the glass? Apologies to the bandwidth-busters
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 12:04:55 +0900 (JST)
From: Jay and Mikiko
Dave has pretty much covered what you need to know about vice in Japan. I'll just add one or two words:
I know of these only by rumor, so I can neither confirm nor deny. It wouldn't surprise me a bit, though.
I have a friend over here who tags the following signature onto his email: "Welcome to Tokyo, a great place to drink and smoke." Smoking in men seems to be (very) slightly decreasing, while the numbers of women smokers are on the increase. Combining discussions about other bad Japanese habits and you get conversations like this:
Gaijin: "Why do Japanese men hawk and spit everywhere they go?"
Smoking Japanese Woman: "Because they're men."
G: "But why do they spit?"
SJW: "Because men smoke."
G: "So?"
SJW: "The cigarette smoke causes them to have sinus problems so they have to spit."
G: "Well, you smoke. Do you spit?"
SJW: "Of course not!"
G: "Why not?"
SJW: "Because I'm a woman!" (unspoken "you fool" attached to the end of sentence)
G. grits teeth.
From what I've seen, imprisonment seems more likely, although it seems to be more likely the more press the case has gotten. Almost all legal decisions seem to be reached on a "Case by Case Basis", an expression much loved by Japanese, and used to indicate that they'll handle things pretty much as they damn well please, thank you very much.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 10:32:54 -0500
From: Jeff Ewing
(Quoted from a post by Stephen Parks)
Ah, smoking, how I loved it. Some reflections from a former user.
Beg to differ. I used to smoke Rothman's, a brand I believe is very popular in Europe, and the Jolt Cola of cigarettes (all the nicotine, twice the tar), and people really noticed the difference. I've had bartenders start pouring water into their trashcans thinking that a carelessly disposed of butt had set some paper on fire when in fact it was the Rothman. This would probably count as a disadvantage in a role-playing game: smokes extremely noticeable cigarettes. Du Mauriers have produced a similar effect, and they and Export A are the packs with the little calendar inside:
- an American confused by people hauling out their pack of smokes and
opening it when asked about a specific date (many Canadian cigarette
packages, which are constructed differently from American ones, have
calendars printed on the inner packaging)
I later took to smoking hand-rolled Drum, a Dutch product. The Drum lacks the chemicals which cause cigarettes to keep burning in an ash tray, and will go out if you don't keep puffing. Another bonus of hand-rolled: superior dosage control. You can roll a nice slim one while waiting for a bus, or 2-sheeter if you're sitting down to some serious drinking. What's really addictive about nicotine delivered by cigarettes is the incredibly precise dosage control you can achieve even with factory produced cigarettes. A cig can liven you up if you're logy, or calm you down if you're jittery. Interested parties should read _Cigarettes are Sublime_ (ISBN: 0822314010).
As to smoking habits: I moved from California to New York, and the difference is really noticeable. In California it is all but illegal to smoke, at all, anywhere (I've shared the experience of having someone tell me, quite rudely, to put my cigarette out, while outside, in a stiff wind). In New York, by contrast, it seems everyone smokes. I'm always entertained when I see a clerk in a record store, for example, smoking behind the counter.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 20:18:08 -0500
From: Stephen Parks
Jeff Ewing wrote:
Beg to differ. I used to smoke Rothman's, a brand I believe is very
popular in Europe, and the Jolt Cola of cigarettes (all the nicotine,
twice the tar), and people really noticed the difference. I've had
bartenders start pouring water into their trashcans thinking that a
carelessly disposed of butt had set some paper on fire when in fact it
was the Rothman. This would probably count as a disadvantage in a
role-playing game: smokes extremely noticeable cigarettes.
I don't doubt that it's possible to tell one brand from another by their smell. However, the question is could some clever person blow an agent's cover by noticing that the agent was smoking Marlboros bought in Canada rather than Marlboros bought in the States, simply by the smell? (This is assuming that they are constituted differently because of regulatory differences and that the clever person didn't notice possible differences in packaging or the fine print on the butt.) If an NPC was to do that, some justification would have to be provided to avoid disgruntled players.
Du Mauriers
have produced a similar effect, and they and Export A are the packs with
the little calendar inside
Thanks
Don't I feel silly for never paying attention. I guess I blew my Spot Hidden and Retain Trivia rolls. And there's an empty case of Labatt Blue (that I'm using as a footstool) for which I wouldn't be able to tell what was on the labels without looking.
Another DG set piece:
The classic doppleganger-infiltrator tip-off: 'When did YOU start smoking?'
Stephen
who is thinking about those posters that show Greys smoking really big joints and wondering how DEA/DG agents might react. 'Okay boys, first we buy-bust then we seize their saucer!'
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 17:09:00 -0800
From: "Mark McFadden
Sherlock Holmes thought it worth his while to study tobacco ash.
Doyle mentioned several times in the stories that Holmes could identify every English and most Continental cigars by their distinctive ash (and this using only a magnifying glass). At the time, cigarettes were for women.
In California (at least), the presence of cigarette butts at a crime scene would tend to eliminate or include entire populations of suspects. Out here, there are smoking and non-smoking holding cells downtown.
The common "impersonation" scenario ("Hey, when did you start smoking?") is nowhere near as incriminating as someone who apparently stopped smoking over the weekend. And isn't wearing a nicotine patch. And isn't short-tempered, chewing gum/nails/pens, eating too much etc etc etc.
When you find several Virginia Slim Ultra Light 100 butts at a crime scene, it's probably not gang related.
"Three on a match." It is supposed to be bad luck to light 3 (or more) cigs from one match. Military folklore maintained (circa WWII) that lighting the first cig catches the sniper's attention. The second cig let's him sight in. The third BANG!
Ran into some interesting juju around '75. Sailors would take one cig from the pack and put it back in upside-down. They wouldn't smoke that one. "That's the one with the cancer in it."
When I was in Dubrovnick, Yugoslavia in '77, I purchased an excellent French meal at a lovely seaside restaurant for one (1) Zippo lighter. I don't smoke anymore, but I still have a Zippo (with extra flints tucked into the cotton) on hand at all times. BTW, aviation types never buy lighter fluid, they just go out to a plane's wing and tap the fuel drains. Doesn't always light on the first flick, but fuggit.
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 11:37:13 +0100
From: Davide Mana
Cheers.
I feel uneasy about this, as the Keeper of the List put quite clearly his foot down on the subject, but still - Mark wrote
"Three on a match." It is supposed to be bad luck to light 3 (or
more) cigs from one match. Military folklore maintained (circa WWII)
that lighting the first cig catches the sniper's attention. The second
cig let's him sight in. The third BANG!
This piece of folklore seems to be pretty international as far as I know. And it was already established in World War I as far as the Italians were concerned.
Ran into some interesting juju around '75. Sailors would take one cig
from the pack and put it back in upside-down. They wouldn't smoke that
one. "That's the one with the cancer in it."
Funny.
This same thing was a common practice among teenagers in Italy in the mid-'80s. No explanation/rationale was given by the majority. They did it, and it was simply "A smoker's thing" [refer to the previous posts about style and smoking]
A few variants existed on this basic pattern: a girl once explained that she always offered around when she opened a fresh packet because the first cigarette was the one with cancer in it, so you passed it to someone else. Makes me wonder what other sinister things the kids learned from those sailors …
When I was in Dubrovnick, Yugoslavia in '77, I purchased an excellent
French meal at a lovely seaside restaurant for one (1) Zippo lighter.
I don't smoke anymore, but I still have a Zippo (with extra flints
tucked into the cotton) on hand at all times.
A pair of Ray-Bans can work much the same way and probably give you more mileage.
This could be an interesting thing to add to the Green Box setup - something legal, lightweight and easily exchanged for services/stuff. The booze Alphonse suggested can also have this function. The old silk stockings/american cigarettes/chocolate cliche' needs to be updated, but the principle is worth taking in consideration.
Any more suggestions?
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 19:29:41 -0500 (EST)
From: The Man in Black
Who are you to doubt El Dandy, Davide Mana?
A pair of Ray-Bans can work much the same way and probably give you more mileage.
What are you? NUTS! Trade my Shades! There's sompin' X-tra in what you're smokin'. You can have the MIB standard issue neuralyzer, but not the Ray-Bans (TM), just gimme the moldy old tome already.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 12:20:20 +0100
From: Davide Mana <ti.loi|eed.rotcod#ti.loi|eed.rotcod>
The Man in Black tried an outraged tone writing…
Cut it, Man!
We all know they are government issue and you get two pairs per month free anyway, plus poor Buzz's - as he does not strike me as the eyewear type. And then, I'm old fashioned and was thinking about the olive-tinted, pear-shaped shades, not the Blues Brothers-style face gear.
Just a precisation.
Take care.