I'm not completely serious, but I'm not completely joking either.

The reason that "bad boys" get women at that age is because they do things that age them. The pure, youthful look of a drug-free twenty year old is difficult to make pretty if you're not already genetically gifted.

I'm not too sure yellow teeth and fingers, bad breath and stinky clothes is what we women look for in a guy.

Seriously smoking is disgusting and unless she's a smoker, she'll probably hate the smell and be hella turned off (I know I am). So no, don't smoke cigarettes, smoke weed instead.

This has been a PSA *thumbs up*

I'm not too sure yellow teeth and fingers, bad breath and stinky clothes is what we women look for in a guy.

Seriously smoking is disgusting and unless she's a smoker, she'll probably hate the smell and be hella turned off (I know I am). So no, don't smoke cigarettes, smoke weed instead.

This has been a PSA *thumbs up*

It's easy to avoid or limit those things. And I'm not suggesting heavy smoking.

I'll also add that smoking weed, IMO, is much more damaging to your person than cigarettes.

>but weed doesn't have any side effects

Aside from all of the common, observable negative traits in weed smokers.

This is coming from a guy who has smoked weed several times and who has never had a cigarette.

I personally believe that I lost an amount of sharpness I had because I smoked a little bit of weed and drunk a little bit of alchohol before I was 21.

Both are equally damaging to your lungs, but cigarettes smell like ass. The moment I know a guy smokes, I am completely disinterested in him (romantic wise).

I smoked quite a bit of weed and I haven't seen any difference behaviourally or memory wise. It might permanently affect some but you can't generalize such a claim with products that changes the chemicals in someone's brain when we don't have all the same chemical balance. Some are better after, some are worse and some have no changes at all; it's a case by case issue.

Nicotine, however, affects everyone the same way as it's an addictive substance that leads to a compulsive need for it daily. Smoking weed everyday is a habit, you can get addicted to the high but not to the substance itself. That's the biggest difference.

smoke asbestos. the cough you get will age you like a fine beef.

Fine points

.

But what if romantic relationships is not even on the list of your priorities? What do you smoke then?

While I'm aware this is just another one of spam's shitposting parades, I figured I'd just give my two cents:

Pretty much hated cigarettes my whole life, both because they smell like shit and also because they're a very large contribution to societal health problems and death. That's not even taking second-hand smoke into account, which is basically considered worse as common knowledge and essentially fills the air around us now like a death trap.

Long story short, if people want to slowly kill themselves, they should do it in a way that isn't basically murdering family, friends, and strangers.

Too harsh? I don't really give a fuck.

I won't even go into the damage on society it creates through addiction, since that's beyond obvious.

You may now return to your regular daily shitposting.

@IntPenDespSword

Who needs to smoke in the first place? It's all just a crutch for people who can't get through life on their own, in my eyes. The only exception is people who needs things for medical purposes.

Don't smoke cigarettes, smoke communism. The class-conciousness that comes as a byproduct will win you all the women.

I'm not even a communist (not the opposite either though, since I don't really have a political alignment that I know of), and I can get behind that if it means people stop filling the air with that shit.

Thumbs up, my boyo.

.

@catchamber

For the record, I don't drive, so that statement's essentially meaningless when said to me.

On the other hand, a lot of people only drive because it's the only way they can get to or from their places of business, or to visit people, or to take someone to a hospital. There's plenty of good reasons to counterbalance the unfortunate sacrifices that come from having cars pollute the planet. What does cigarette smoking actually contribute to society? Nothing.

.

@catchamber

I'm honestly all for a healthier way of running cars, even though I'm sure big business would go out of its way to prevent this from happening if they can. I do agree that it'd be a good idea to find countermeasures for the pollution, but chances are those things aren't 'profitable' so the majority of people (who can actually do something) won't care. Still worth pursuing.

Sure, contributing to taxes is something, but nearly everything does that. I'm sure there's plenty of things the world would be better off without that have sales taxes.

.

But what if romantic relationships is not even on the list of your priorities? What do you smoke then?

porn

I've always been crazy neutral about smoking. I just don't care. It was pretty normal when I was a kid, and all the old people smoked everywhere, so it doesn't make me angry, or even slightly annoyed. Honestly, the smell of someone hygienic smoking a cigarette is sorta nostalgic. (Though yeh, stale cigarette smoke is an awful smell. If you smoke, you better be eugenically obsessed.)

But to me, no matter what you think about health, the greatest argument against smoking is the fucking cost. I could never justify paying those prices. It's like people decided paying rent once wasn't enough in a month, so they opt to pay it twice. I've seen poor folk very regularly walk between businesses picking used cigarette butts out out of those ash-trays on trash cans because they can't afford the entire second rent thing. That's crazy as fuck to me.

@Shoryu Magami
The US government got $16 billion in 2015 from cigarette sales taxes. That's more than enough to build an ionic smog vacuum tower in its 10 most populated cities. China built one in Beijing last year, and it seems to be working. Carbon dioxide causes respiratory problems for urbanites, as it's denser than regular air. Carbon monoxide is less dense, but causes more health issues by latching onto red blood cells.

By preventing these problems, you prevent medical expenses that drain economic productivity, so it's very profitable.

16 billion dollars raised is by far not enough to offset the 170 billion dollars in health costs each year as estimated by the CDC, who like-wise estimates the economy looses 156 billion a year from pre-mature death of other-wise working-age individuals, or from illness related to the habit. Expenditures for smoking-related treatement were on 50 billion in 1993, 22 billion in 2003, and as of a 2016 report cost the health-care system 39 billion.

State governments are supposed to appropriate a minimal amount of funds from tobacco sales taxes per year to cessation/quitting programs but so far only two states even meet the recommended level (North Dakota, Alaska) and one state (Oklahoma) even bothers to meet the half-way mark.

You could use the funds to build smog-scrubbing towers in ten cities, but the results of the tower in Beijing are arguably pretty poor for a working model and its placement hardly strategic. The article you posted too even admits:

UPDATE: However, there’s some debate over just how accurate the Ministry of Environmental Protection’s statistic is, and how effectively the smog-sucking tower really works. The Chinese Forum of Environmental Journalists (CFEJ) discussed another assessment of the tower. The best statistic gathered didn’t meet World Health Organization standards, according to CFEJ, for PM2.5 particles. They said ultimately the tower is very limited in scope. They suggested the tower be renamed the “Haze Warning Tower” instead, in keeping with Roosegaarde’s goal of raising awareness, as the government, scientists, or entrepreneurs seek better solutions to address China’s air pollution issue.

Of additional critical reading to this effect.

This pretty much keeps the dark narrative cloud hanging over China in terms of numbers its own government puts out: that being they're over-inflated. The Chinese government isn't a very transparent or approachable organization, less so than the US or US state governments; all qualms aside. And speaking to an engineer friend of mine he raises concerns over the program based on its non-strategic placement of the emplacement, that it's not actually anywhere that does any good at the source and is a mere publicity stunt. They could have installed it in or near a smokestack to scrub the exhaust as it comes out and to help shoot the problem then and there, which is really the real theme in China: it needs to clean up its industry at the very source.

But using that 16 billion in tax earnings figure to buy a few towers still doesn't resolve the ill-effects of smoking on an expenditure level. As it stands, and as I pointed out, the costs associated with smoking still outweigh the reward from tax earnings by a ration of 2:1 against smoking at its best estimates, and you could find more cost-effective things to do with that money that building ten effectively publicity stunt towers.