h a l f b a k e r yRight twice a day.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
| |
"Astronaut?"
"Nah. Chainsmoker..." |
|
| |
Nice - it would need some means of getting beer/single malt whisky to your lips, but definitely a winner. |
|
| |
Like those old fashioned personal steamers. Just a white box with a hole in the top for your head.
I see rows of these white boxes with a hemispheric plexiglass shell on top of each one. A head in each shell, smoking. Lined up like port-a-johns at a special event. |
|
| |
Not too bad an idea; Mad Magazine once did a piece on similar concepts. I still personally lean toward "let businesses accommodate smokers or non-smokers in such a way as to best help their bottom line." What this tends to mean is that some businesses will be non-smoking only, others will only have a "smoking" section [non-smokers welcome of course, if they don't mind the smoke], while others will have "smoking" and "non-smoking" sections. |
|
| |
I find it interesting that anti-smokers will push to ban smoking even in places that they have no interest in going. It's also interesting to note that while anti-smokers claim bar business in California is up, the only reason per-bar sales is up is that many bars have closed. The law allows bars meeting certain conditions to allow smoking, so any bar that meets those conditions benefits from the state's elimination of any competition which doesn't. |
|
| |
Returning to your original invention, it seems like a somewhat plausible idea, though a bit anti-social. A somewhat simpler approach is to just have social gathering places where smoke is expected. |
|
| |
// I find it interesting that anti-smokers will push to ban smoking even in places that they have no interest in going. // |
|
| |
I would ban smoking because it kills people, supercat. |
|
| |
//I would ban smoking because it kills people, supercat.// |
|
| |
Yes, but generally only the people who indulge in it, (unlike, say, drinking which often kills people who aren't drinking). |
|
| |
Prohibition has been tried. It has in every case been an unmitigated disaster. |
|
| |
// Yes, but generally only the people who indulge in it, // |
|
| |
So I should not care about those people then? And there is a difference between prohibition (not what I was suggesting) and banning smoking from public places. |
|
| |
Ramming a fishbowl on your head is the answer then?
I'll let you know,uncle Beagle is commin to town. |
|
| |
Clever concept. This could even take place in an office
setting. Your cube partner is enjoying his own personal fog
while your air remains clear. |
|
| |
This would probably require less tobacco per user than the traditional cancer stick due to the economical smoke recycling feature, infuriating the tobacco companies and hampering their bottom line. A little dab will do ya. |
|
| |
an important consideration, [whartock]. Perhaps the answer then is to allow the smoker to smoke in free air, but have a powerful backpack-mounted suction fan and filtration system, with two intake noxxles mounted on flexible hoseing, one attached to the arm and sucking the smoke from the fag as it is waved around, the other attaching to the jaw (perhaps on both sides) to suck exhaled air. As long as the fan is powerful enough, the throughflow of air should ensure than no smoke escapes into the ambient surroundings. |
|
| |