• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion


    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: andyturbo

The Cigarette Thread

Being a cranky cunt changes your perception of taste.
The different coloured inks used in the packaging have an effect on your mood, thus plain packaging = a nation of pissed off, mega taxed addicts without even the comfort of their favourite colour to console them.
I feel for you emphysemic bastards, I really do.
 
oh i can just feel the empathy oozing through your post, spacejunk;)

the only reason i'm back on the fags temporarily is because my e-cig went faulty so need to order a new one:\ plus smoking on morphine is just so darn good.
 
no, i was being a tad facetious, but i do feel for smokers.
nasty habits are fucking hard to break. you know that as well as i, sir. we humans can become slaves to all kinds of unhealthy addictions - it doesn't make them right or wrong.
i don't like cigarettes, but i have been fortunate enough to not be environmentally predisposed to smoking them (ie my family are non-smokers, i don't hang out with enough smokers to make it part of the obligatory social ritual)
nothing against smokers though - it's your life, do as you please.

i just find the anti-govt sentiment ironic, considering how highly taxed the things are, and have been for years.
 
i just find the anti-govt sentiment ironic, considering how highly taxed the things are, and have been for years.

I'm pretty sure they pay out a fare amount in Health Care due to Tobacco related disease.

Cigarettes give me an instant headache every single time I try one .... I see it as a blessing.
 
Dont know if this has been posted already but..

An academic has proposed introducing a licence for smokers to buy cigarettes - and limit them on how many they can purchase. Source: The Daily Telegraph
It comes after University of Sydney professor of public health Simon Chapman said smokers should be forced to have swipe-card licences limiting how many cigarettes they can buy.

Prof Chapman believes the radical scheme, which would restrict the number of cigarettes a smoker could buy to 50 a day over two weeks, could cut smoking and send a powerful message that tobacco was no ordinary commodity.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...mon-chapman-says/story-e6frg6n6-1226516923608
 
I don't really see the purpose of restricting people's access to smokes.
Encouraging folks to quit? Great?
Trying to prevent people taking up the habit in the first place? Even better!
But it seems like some of these new anti-smoking measures are just being carried out by busybodies, trying to prove they are "doing something" by aiming at easy targets (that don't make up enough of the population to create a political backlash).

Surely we have more pressing social and health issues than how many ciggies people are smoking?
 
i just find the anti-govt sentiment ironic, considering how highly taxed the things are, and have been for years.

Oh for the love of fuckn god, don't let busty see this! He'll whip up some mad old statistics which are irrelevant to current taxs and taxpayer money which is spent on smoking related illness's
 
100% of idiots would still smoke no matter how high the taxes ;)

as a serious response to yet another one of your highly educated and informative comments regarding tobacco smokers (I mean this in the nicest way possible, I really wish you would fuck right off out of this thread :) ):

I thinks its the other way around, the idiots are the people that completely rule out something they have always n still do enjoy in life just because theres a little tax increase on it... thats like saying only idiots buy KFC since the latest 'fast food' (fucked if I know what the correct term is) tax... would you stop playing (dunno if you play, I know its one of your interest) ruby if there was a significant tax increase on (membership to) all registered sporting clubs in Australia?

yeah I know its a bad comparison there (it really is), but at the end of the day, your having a dig at smokers that still smoke (ie. something they enjoy) due to high tax's... unless ofcourse you just calling smoker idiots for no reason at all

and just quickly before you pull the 'smoking will kill you blah blah blah'.. guess what, so will bad diet.. so will playing contact sports (ruby having one of the highest serious injurie rates among common sports in australia..)

Im probably putting up a bad argument here, I have good reason ATM (those reasons being I havnt eaten properly or slept for a couple of days and Ive been surfing all morning so both my mind n bodys completely off tune) but you get my jist
 
I had to pay tax on my last contract but my club picked up my medical bills. I couldn't tell you if the club paid taxes, it was Italy so it probably involved some sort of dodgy under the table payment to a government official. Last time I checked there are very few professional smokers. It would be hard to sell advertising on their shirts I'd imagine.
 
I had to pay tax on my last contract but my club picked up my medical bills. I couldn't tell you if the club paid taxes, it was Italy so it probably involved some sort of dodgy under the table payment to a government official. Last time I checked there are very few professional smokers. It would be hard to sell advertising on their shirts I'd imagine.

yeah Im not 100% on this, but I'm more positive than not that the tax associated with any sporting clubs membership 'fees' here are to cover cost of grounds maintenance n all that other little miscellaneous shit to keep the whole sporting complex (whatever that may be, depending on the sport) up to match standard (or atleast to stop it from turning to shit)

also, last time I checked, there were no professional smokers.. funny thing is, tobacco companies used to spend millions in advertisements of which ALOT was associated with various sports and their venues.. surely a man of your wise old age will remember? ;)
 
Tax is alright, hey.
Provides us with good stuff. Fucked if id wanna pay extra to drink booze or smoke ciggies though.
It's like some middle-man taxing your (*drug of choice) - but at least the government is open about it.
 
When my old man graduated university in the 60's he was offered to go to South Africa to play rugby and "work" as an ambassador for Rothmans. He turned it down because he didn't agree with apartheid and was not a smoker.
 
Pisspot what the heck is ruby? If you mean rugby but didn't realise it's pronounced rug-bee then as a new zealander it is my duty to inform you that you are a disgrace and a 100% idiot. Haha just joshing. Busty I'm guessing youre a kiwi? Kia ora bro, tu meke mai maori.

Does anyone here smoke rollies? I take it plain packaging has taken over rollie packs as well? I usually smoke champion blue but seeing as I'm trying to lay off the smack smoking hasn't seemed so desirable, smoking during withdrawal is awful. You're right tent, smoking and opiates go together way, way too well. I like to time my first smoke for just after the initial rush - it totally brings it back on and makes the nod so much deeper and also intensifies that tight chested euphoria I love so much with opiate highs. I think I'd go crazy if I didn't have dirty old cigarettes while on opiates, the two are mutually inclusive for me.

I don't know if this is what whoever asked this meant but the reason they still write the 'colour' of the plain packs is because the colour denotes the different strengths of cigarettes within brands. As far as I know its what determines the amount of nicotine in each ciggy, eg reds are usually 16mg nicotine per smoke, dark blue 10 or 12mg (I think) and so on so forth.

I couldn't care less about plain packaging, it doesn't really change anything for me enjoyment wise and discouraging smoking has to be a good thing, there are definitely good and bad ways to go about it but I don't see plain packaging as a necessarily bad way to go about it, it may not be all that successful but it doesn't seem harmful. For one less advertising in the world has got to be a good thing. It's better than trying to ban it to anyone born after 2000 like they were/are doing in tassie which will almost certainly open up a black market for tobacco. The one surprise I had with plain packaging is that it's not just the packs but the cigarettes themselves that are plain, in a way this seems to be the more important part of the change. You really only look at the pack when your buying and pulling out/rolling a smoke but you (and the people you're with/around) look at your cigarettes as you smoke them a lot, 20+ times a day in many cases. Part of the attraction with cigarettes, especially tailor made's is that they look cool and stylish, I think the cigarette companies put a lot of thought and effort into how they designed the look of the individual smokes for good reason; who the hell wants something that looks like shit dangling out of their mouths for 10 minutes every hour of the day? If a company put out a smoke where the filter was pink and veiny and looked like a knob then you could bet not many people would smoke them, it's an extreme example but I think its definitely relevant to the popularity of smoking - cigarettes are consciously or unconsciously considered fashionable to many people. The tailor cigarettes I occasionally smoke had a cool pattern on the filter and the brand was written stylishly with blue ink and I thought it looked quite cool and at times when I smoked them I felt cool, now they have a hoary looking filter with 'nzw 227' stamped on them and they look like shit, it looks more like the code for some kind of poisonous chemical now than a means to define my particular brand of style. I think this change may have more of an unconscious effect on smoking than people may realise and I think it may have as much or more effect than the packets themselves. Anyone else notice this?
 
Top