meet the vigilantes
the dollar vigilante blog
The Weekend Vigilante September 29th, 2012
Share this article on:
Hello from beautiful Acapulco,
Everyone has their place and this is truly mine. I was just walking down the street with a glass of wine, smoking a cigarette and... well, actually I should mention something about that.
I finally started smoking! I'm so happy about that. I tried when I was younger but when I was in my teens and twenties I was not in very good health. As I just mentioned, everyone has their place, and when I am here... with the sun, every day of the year, it builds up your immune system immeasurably. When I lived in northern Canada, the sun was always this little white light in the distant horizon for most of the year. It'd peer down to me as though to say, "What are you doing living here?" And that's if you could even see it at all, through the clouds, rain, snow and hail. I was almost constantly sick. Even when I visit, I look around and everyone is a grey color. Here, with the sun and all the locally grown, mostly organic produce and meat, it is almost impossible to get sick. I think the last time I heard someone even cough here was never.
So, I just couldn't start smoking while I lived there. Even one cigarette felt like it was going to kill me. I've since experimented with electronic cigarettes and snus. Both had their moments but I felt like I was missing out. Smoking, of almost all activities, is hardwired into us from thousands and thousands of years of practice. I wanted to participate in that tradition. But, something has happened of late, a switch just clicked and now I am nearly a full smoker. I only tend to smoke when I drink... but that is nearly all the time anyway, so I'm good.
One of the funnest parts has been collecting all the government mandated scare propaganda on each pack. Here's just one hilarious one, just for your entertainment.
That wouldn't be allowed in the USSA. Boobies are illegal to see... But in Panama, it's allowed. Even if they turn one of the breasts into an ashtray. I have a friend who collects these and puts them on his fridge.
I remember once I was with my Thai girlfriend in Myanmar... and there they haven't started putting these on cigarette packs yet. When she saw a cigarrete pack without disgusting, horrific images on it she got so excited. At first, I didn't understand. She said, "You know how much I can sell these for in Thailand?" I just looked at her with a blank stare. She then said, "The people there are so superstitious that they'll pay double or triple for a cigarette pack without propaganda on it." She bought a few cartons and sold them to her friends at a nice profit. God bless entepreneurialism.
Even still, when some people I know hear that I have finally started smoking, they say, "You are going to die if you smoke those!"
I just look at them, again in confusion. Are they under some misconception that no one ever dies?
Even still, I figure, if it is true, and I will die of cancer, it usually takes 20-30 years before the cancer sets in. And, ignoring for the moment that there are numerous natural remedies that destroy cancer on contact (hemp oil, for one), at 41 years of age I'll maybe get cancer and die in my 60s or 70s. Good, I think. I have no intention to be here forever.
HOPE
I don't care what you think about rap music. And, in fact, if you listen to most of the rap today I can understand why you might not like it. But, the rap community is street level anarchism and they are spreading the word about what is going on faster than anyone right now. Don't believe it? Give this video a listen. Even if you don't naturally like rap music, listen to the lyrics (it starts about 1 minute in).
Click here or on thumbnail to watch video
Or, listen to this.
Click here or on thumbnail to watch video
On the streets, right in the belly of the beast, people like this are spreading truth. There is much more going on than you even know. Have hope.
Not everyone is like the 'Bama phone woman.
Click here or on thumbnail to watch video
That woman is a product of the system. The rappers above are the future. She is the past... and it is sad. She has been destroyed by the system. You don't have to be.
THE FREE LIFE
I just hopped on my scooter and switched locales. On the way, a US Government supplied SUV full of guys with machine guns on the prowl for anyone smoking plants was ahead of me. I've learned now, just ignore them, like they don't exist. But I did take pleasure when one car honked numerous times at them going so slow and holding up traffic, cut in front of them and said something in Spanish whose meaning I can only imagine. The guys in costumes with their guns lowered their heads. Try that in the USSA. Actually, don't. You'll be in Guantanamo faster than O'Bomber can golf 18 holes. So, just ignore them... they are already done. The rap videos above already show that it is baked in the cake. 'Bamba phone woman will be one of the last to clue in to reality but even she will soon realize she lives a violent and thieving lie. And we will soon move on to a world of peace and prosperity that no one can even imagine. Stick with us here and take the ride with us.
Share this article on:
Anarcho-Capitalist. Libertarian. Freedom fighter against mankind’s two biggest enemies, the State and the Central Banks. Jeff Berwick is the founder of The Dollar Vigilante, CEO of TDV Media & Services and host of the popular video podcast, Anarchast. Jeff is a prominent speaker at many of the world’s freedom, investment and gold conferences as well as regularly in the media including CNBC, CNN and Fox Business.
Yoututbe
55
Videos | 2348 Subscribers 
Twitter Feed
Archives
- May 2013 (24)
- April 2013 (30)
- March 2013 (32)
- February 2013 (28)
- January 2013 (30)
- December 2012 (24)
- November 2012 (30)
- October 2012 (31)
- September 2012 (30)
- August 2012 (31)
- July 2012 (36)
- June 2012 (31)
- May 2012 (29)
- April 2012 (22)
- 1 of 3
- ››
latest comments
I speak from experience. I was put in federal prison...
15 hours 49 min ago
Comments (45)
It's very interesting that this topic garnered so much attention. Why is that?
I remember when I started chewing as a teenager. Dad found and asked, "You know what that did to grandpa, don't you?" "No," I replied (I really didn't). "Killed him at 90."
After about fifteen years of chewing, with receding gums and sores in my mouth, I quit. It was tough. Even I knew I was a jerk while going through withdrawals, but I couldn't get away from me. The funny thing is, I always enjoyed chewing. In fact, I'd like to have one today, but am afraid I'd start up regularly again.
As was mentioned ealier, I'd urge smokers to at least get 100% tobacco ciggarettes if you prefer to smoke 'em. My uncle buys from the Indian res. They're half the price and aren't laced.
I'm curious about other thoughts regarding smoking though. For instance, Jeff mentions that he didn't do well with smoking when he was young. A lot of people don't, whether it's due to allergies or just weak lungs.
With this in mind, what would be the best pursuit in a crowd? Whose freedom prevails; the smokers or abstainers? Is there any sort of resentment if Bob doesn't want people smoking in his house, car or even presence? I'm just trying to understand the sentiment of those who prefer to light up.
Very nice input from your writers. I really appreciate the work you do.
wine art prints
congrats on escaping Canada. Not all of us are so lucky
Thanks, it made me want to smoke a cigar. That cigarette picture promotes BDSM. I will out live the NWO, ha, ha, ha!!!!!!!!!!
Part and parcel of anarchism and libertarianism is the freedom to make mistakes, to do things of which others don't approve as long as it doesn't harm others or their justly acquired property, to take risks and to do things that you know could or definitely will cause you harm.
Freedom isn't about becoming somebody else's idea of perfect or disciplined or "moral". That's why Jeff posts what he does in general and about the smoking in particular. He's not "showing off". He's trying to show a world of frightened and brainwashed sheep a hint of what it is to be free, to form your own opinions based on the evidence and to accept the risks and consequences of doing what you want. You call that "bondage"? That is the very definition of freedom.
I do understand and appreciate the sentiment that you express here, but an intelligent anarchist/libertarian does not repeat the mistakes of others simply because he can. Jeff would never do that in his financial endeavors and I see no good reason (my opinion of course) for him to do so in his physical endeavors.
I'm not sure who you're addressing with your comment about bondage, but it sort of twists the arguments being made here. For myself, choosing to destroy your future health will result in a physical bondage, due to the fact that you no longer have the freedom to function to your physical potential; and psychological bondage, due to the fact that decisions made as an addict suffer because fullfilling your need for a fix will always vie for your attention, especially if you decide in the future that you must quit because you can't take the ill effects anymore.
Making a mistake because you have the freedom to do so is just exercising your freedom to fail, despite being equipped with the information that allows you the freedom to succeed. As I alluded to before, no one can make me look both ways before I cross the street, but equipped with the knowledge of the risks and the freedom to make either choice, I'm going to exercise that freedom and make the right choice. I'm understand that doing so is not an act of a sheep simply because there are nazi do-gooders imploring me to do so. I'm making these choices because they are good choices, not because I am told to make them.
There is a book of wisdom, I'll call it Galatians, that emphasizes the importance of keeping yourself free and not falling back into bondage. To make the admonition "do not go back to into bondage" implies that you have a choice. The book of wisdom mentions a very wise king who handed down the law but the people were free to decide if they would keep the law or transgress the law and thus suffer personal afflictions. Not one set of laws for the ruling class and another set of laws for the working class. There was no coercion to give; do not let the left hand know what the right hand gives. Every man was prince of his own household. There were no prisons in the king's kingdom.
Yup...It seems the Gimme-Gimee-FreeShit Democracy Parasites are going to permantely destroy the Amerika in November.
Mentally retarded tribal monkeys make up the overwhelming majority in this hemisphere.
Might as well smoke and drink....
Dr. William Campbell Douglass refused to treat patients who refused to stop using tobacco - until he actually did his own research. He wrote a book, The Health Benefits of Tobacco, 1/3 of which is reference to the actual research.
The bottom line is that tobacoo, like alcohol, is deleterious in large quantities, but in moderate to light use, actually has certain health benefits (the principle of hormesis: many things can have an opposite affect depending upon how much is used.)
Douglass himself now smokes up to 4 all-natural leaf cigars a day (he recommends you not inhale), but stakes that up to 6-8 cigarettes a day should be safe. The obvious problem is that few smokers limit themselves this way.
In my opinion, showing pictures of lung cancer and claiming that even light tobacco use definitely causes it is no more honest than holding up a picture a cirrhotic liver and claimging that even one drink a day causes that.
It astonishes me how many anti-tobacco zealots I know think nothing of guzzling "soft" drinks and providing higly processed food and beverages to their kids. However, anti-tobacco is a "blessed" issue, so zealotry is mistaken for virtue. If you feel tobacco is dangerous in any amount, then don't use it. Just don't band with others to deny that choice to someone else, or try to destroy private property rights by telling a business owner that he/she cannot allow smoking in a private establishment.
A-frickin-men!
I read Douglass' website for years, but eventually his infomercial approach to writing led me to go elsewhere for medical information. He's spot on in some cases, but in others he comes across as driven by ideology far more than empiricism. Refering to hormesis as a principle is way out of line as it isn't even marginally accepted as factual (which doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't of course) or even remotely understood. One other element that calls it into question is in a related advance in dose-response understanding where it has been shown that substances that are known to cause disease processes at high relative doses, but were previously thought to cause no pathologies at lower doses, do in fact cause pathologies at low doses that are entirely different than the pathologies at high doses. The take-away there is that just because we may not see cancer with low tobacco usage, it doesn't follow that other diseases processes are not a threat.
Smoking comes with a variety of health risks. Perhaps there are genetic components that make some of us more susceptible than others, but unless you've had your genes mapped and you know you're not one of those people, you introduce a risk. Considering that the risk involves an addictive habit that involves inconveniences and questionable personal hygiene issues in addition to being akin to setting fire to your hard-earned money, it makes little sense to introduce the habit into your life. Cigars would be much less risky imo, though I've never really understood the appreciation for them, though I've tried.
Your final paragraph is just a straw man argument. Cigarettes are a major cause (a contributing cause at the least) of disease and so is guzzling soft drinks, which is probably the primary cause of obesity in the US. And unless I missed it, no one here has tried to deny Jeff or any private businesses a choice in the matter. There's nothing wrong with the sharing of opinion and information, but accusations like this (as well as charges of zealotry) only serve as attempts to shut down the flow of information.
Yes, smoking comes with a variety of health risks, although I'm not aware of any actual studies that demonstrate that a couple of cigarettes a day or occasional cigars are going to cause an average person any harm. So does just about everything else come with risks. Even too much water can be deleterious or even lethal, a well-established fact.
My last paragraph does not employ a straw man, as your reply to garygibson demonstrates. I myself have smoked in the past, and occasionally still do, although I typically go weeks or months at a time without tobacco. I have never been addicted and felt I simply had to have a smoke. Yes, some people do become addicted and over-use tobacco in a way that is harmful. Your reply seems to suggest that everyone does, which simply is not true. (If that is not what you were attempting to say, my apologies for mis-interpreting.)
There are people who only smoke a couple of cigarettes in a day. To suggest that anyone who chooses to smoke is going to "repeat the mistakes of others simply because he can" and is "choosing to destroy [their] future health" and that it "will result in a physical bondage" as well as a "psychological bondage" because they will then make decisions "as an addict" because of the "need for a fix" is not apropos for all tobacco users, and thus is hyperbolic when applied in a broad brush fashion to all tobacco users. To me your argument (as I read it) is no less hyperbolic than solemnly warning someone that they will destroy their liver, lose their job and family, and die prematurely in an alcoholic stupor because they choose to enjoy a daily drink or wine with their meal. While one third of the population may drink too heavily, that's no excuse for the one third that is teetotalers to brow beat the one third of the population that drinks responsibly to eschew all alcohol just as they themselves do.
Even though I believe soft drinks are deleterious and I never user them myself, I don’t lecture someone else for occasionally enjoying one, although I might offer a friendly opinion if I see them pounding one down right after another. I don’t think there is evidence that even an occasional soft drink is going to cause harm, although too much is likely to.
Employing logic and facts to dissuade someone from over-doing something is not the same thing as employing emotionally loaded terms in a hyperbolic fashion in an effort to dissuade someone from doing that something at all. I think the anti-tobacco campaign has been so ubiquitous and unrelenting that many of us have been caught up its zealotry without even realizing it.
I think Douglass has shown with his actions where he thinks the more likely problems lie: choosing to smoke cigars and not inhaling versus inhaling either cigars or cigarettes. I agree with you about the paucity of studies about people who smoke few cigarettes and I can see a couple of reasons for this: finding people who have the self-control to keep their addictions in check may be too difficult to find as nicotine addiction has been likened to herion addiction, which is one of the biggest dangers. Another reason is that the only researchers who would undertake such a study would probably have to be those involved in the tobacco industry (which would automatically call into question the objectivity) because anyone else would run the risk of being accused of being unethical for "studying people who are killing themselves" rather than encouraging them to quit (that quoted phrase is what I imagine would be said, not something that I am thinking myself). Genuine, unbiased medical research is sometimes hard to find as conflicts of interest are rampant, and the tobacco industry is notorious for instilling doubt about the harm of tobacco (a tobacco executive used the phrase "doubt is our product" to describe this) in order to create questions about it and to extend the life and profits of tobacco use. I see these people as no different than the government deceiving people into supporting war. In fact, the tobacco industry used the PR firm Hill and Knowlton to convince people that tobacco was okay, just as the government used Hill and Knowlton to convince Americans that we must attack Iraq in the Persian Gulf War. Data that supports the use of tobacco must be viewed with suspicion, or skepticism at least.
Researchers can't study every angle of everything of course, so at some point we have to use our own judgment. If you've studied anatomy and physiology, you know how lungs operate and as such, you are aware of the idea that tar will impede the epithelial function of the lung in the immediate term and in the long term. Does smoking few cigarettes allow the body to absorb the tar before it can cake in the alveoli? I don't know if anyone has studied that either, but I would guess that this wouldn't be the case. You may evade the risk of cancer, but you're still at risk of developing COPD and that would suck as well.
We do know that many of the compounds in cigarettes are absorbed into the bloodstream, including whatever tar may have been absorbed. I agree that the risks of harm increase with an increase in the amount smoked, so it must follow that they will decrease with a decrease in the amount smoked. It won't be a linear risk across the board however, and the sorts of health problems are ugly and can still lead to major decreases in quality of life. Again: a person like Jeff is setting himself up for a fantastic future of financial freedom. It seems a shame to me to risk his enjoyment of that.
The problem with tobacco addiction is that you don't know until it is too late. Anecdotally, I've known scores, perhaps hundreds, of smokers in my day and I can't recall a single one who was not addicted to varying degrees depending on how much he smoked. I quit smoking over a period of five years and even though I got to a point where I would go a few months without a smoke, I still was addicted enough to really want that smoke when the time came. If nothing else comes of this discussion, I think the idea that being aware of the degree of addiction and keeping it in check is important. We become addicted over time and our addiction intensifies over time, so we can reduce our addiction over time as well, though it takes much longer.
There are big differences between the risks of tobacco and alcohol use and I'd rather try to fade the discussion rather than expand it, but I'll at least say this: the data supporting moderate alcohol use is solid. I'm no slave to data, as it only reflects reality, it doesn't change it. At some point we have to use our experiences, the experiences of others, and whatever education/understanding we have of A&P to arrive at the choices we make.
Wish I'd posted that. Well put!
P.S. I,too, enjoy cigarettes now and again. There were times when I went through a pack a day (usually at night along with lots of drinking), but usually a pack would last me a week or more. Then there are times, like now, in which I have zero urge to smoke. I don't fight the urge. I simply don't have any urge. This can go on for weeks or months. Like alcohol and my other "vices" I use tobacco in moderation. Sometimes I abstain. Sometimes I overindulge. Usually, there's just light occasional usage.
Embarrassing? Seriously?
You are going to decide for Jeff, and that is what you call Liberty?
LRC should have banned Berwick! Banished him, preferably, to some institution where he would be explained what is good for him, by those who know it all. ROTFLMAO!
"You are going to decide for Jeff, and that is what you call Liberty?"
We all use the input of others to influence our decisions, whether directly or indirectly. We know some of that input is wrong, and in response we make a decision that we feel is right. In this case, Jeff appears to be making the decision to smoke at least in part because people whose views he does not respect do not want him to smoke. This is like cutting off his nose to spite his face. I know that those people are wrong about a lot of things. Many of them had been telling us we should not eat eggs and we should reduce our saturated fat consumption to prevent heart disease. I knew they were wrong and I refused to do so. I didn't do it as an in-your-face snub to them; I did it because it was good for me. A more traditional diet is good for me AND it tastes good.
No one is wrong about everything. Though I may disagree with the health nazis about diet, I believe they are right about smoking. With smoking, the negatives dramatically outweigh the positives (such as they are), and this doesn't tend to become apparent until damage has been done and it is extremely difficult to stop. If Jeff one day comes to the decision that he really wants to quit, the process of quitting is so onerous that it will negatively impact virtually every other aspect of his life, including his investment decisions, because his mind will be distracted from physical and psychological withdrawal.
Obviously Jeff has a talent and a knack for building a life of financial independence. Wouldn't it be a great thing if, when he reaches his 60s and 70s, he has the FREEDOM to enjoy the fruits of his labors by basking in the sun and indulging in a fullfilling life of physical activity rather than lying sick in bed? Heck, I didn't even get close to that point in the short time that I smoked, but it still had a terrible effect on my quality of life. Is it really that wrong for someone like me to try to encourage him to think twice here?
Jeff will still use the input of others to make his ultimate choice. He is still free to do so. No one here is saying anything to suggest otherwise. Some of us are just saying that this choice is a poor choice made for poor reasons. If any of us made a poor financial choice based on poor reasoning, Jeff and any number of libertarians would rightly encourage us to change our minds and I doubt any of the people here would be chastising them for doing so, with claims that encouraging us to make a better financial decision is an attempt to rob us of our freedom of choice, or that it is against libertarian principles.
"LRC should have banned Berwick!"
I see this kind of logical fallacy all the time. Here's one for you: meddlesome do-gooders tell me I should put a smoke detector in my house. Screw them! I'm taking the smoke detectors out of my house AND I'm not going to look both ways when I cross the street. THAT'LL teach 'em!
"Banished him, preferably, to some institution where he would be explained what is good for him, by those who know it all. ROTFLMAO!"
So are you disagreeing with the claim that smoking is bad for you? Or are you saying that it logically follows that since I want to express my views on the nature of tobacco that I want to forceably subject Jeff to every other opinion that I have regarding safety? Why can't the subject just be discussed without devolving into the sorts of nonsensical attacks that we see in mainstream politics and on Facebook?
This article is attracting a lot of California-style libertarians. They support your right to do what you want, but will use a lot of energy telling you how unhealthy and stupid what you want to do is.
1) I personally didn't use a lot of energy
2) I totally agree he can do whatever he wants with his body, but equivalently, why would anyone not allowed to offer a friendly warning that getting rid of one problem (govt) for another (addiction) is not necessarily ideal.
3) This is the first time I read something I disagree and thought about offering my warning on addiction. But I can promise, you won't hear it again.
A true california libertarian would take out a life insurance policy on J.B.
http://silvervigilante.com
I am libertarian but this has got to be about the stupidest supposedly libertarian article I have ever read. To me being a libertarian means that one has used their intelligence and experience to come to the conclusion that liberty is a personal and public good. If one is going to use their liberty for a stupid reason that is their right but I would certainly question their intelligence if they do so. You are acting like a juvenile in crowing about your smoking habit. Oooh. Look at me. Man am I the cool libertarian or what? Is this your idea of what passes for spreading the libertarian message? This post is embarrassing to real libertarians and I am embarrassed for LewRockwell.com for posting it.
Smokers will die of lung cancer.
Non-smokers will die of anal cancer.
Thanks for the introduction to LowKey and Vinnie Paz, I was always a metalhead so my knowledge of rap is somewhat lacking. Good Stuff. Alastair
Love you, Jeff...but it's everyone has their place, not there place...just sayin'...
Several comments seem to miss the point: it's about FREEDOM. Including the freedom to make one's own decisons regarding self-imposed risks.
Sorry, but anyone who fails this litmus is NO kind of libertarian. Period.
Chained to a health-destroying habit is freedom? I don't see any comments here telling him that the LAW should tell him not to smoke. Instead, I see comments telling him that ruining his health is no great freedom.
Smoking is a choice, and like all other choices, it's not up to others to impose their own values upon that decision. Whether the satisifaction derived from smoking is worth the cost and potential risk is something each person needs to be free to determine for themselves.
Succint. Hoozah!
I, - I agree with him who said that the world is in deep hypnosys. Totally true. I will not bring forth any details or evidence, - I don't care if your don't think so, I am speaking here only to those who does.
Most succeptible to the chosen method are women. I think this is because they are more emotional than men and also, because they have brutal hormone changes, - all of which makes it that mach easier to loose a thin thread one might had actually noticed hanging on a screen he thought of until then as of reality.
But, what is really interesting about this hypnosys, it is that its grip is counteracted by Nicotine. Yep, simple and funny. I noticed this long time ago, when I was a kid. Those who smoke, always had "their own mind". Of course, they all were different people with different capacities for logical thinking, and different emotions, different amount of relevant knowledge. But, there was one strange, unifying feature to all of them.
So, most of them, weren't "Morphiuses" by any means. Their "own mindedness" did not flourish into cohesive understanding of "the matrix". In other words, due to the nicotine, they had their hypnotic succeptibility lowered, but did not use it to acquire further understanding.
By the way, what do you think is the "pill" that Morpheus was offering Neo? LOL, it was a cigarette.
Relax. Ha-ha. I don't mean to say that the only way to understand the reality is to smoke. Of course not. Some have much clearer conscience than others. I am just trying to show you, what is it that Nicotine does first, before it destroys your lungs. Actually, that was incorrect, as it is not nicotine, that destroys your lungs, but the method of delivery, - hot, burning gas mixed with not gasous particles of various compounds of carbon. This method of delivery has one advantage - simple independence and versatility. This is not to say that if you want to be very healthy on your death bed and looking as if you are in your 20-ies, that you should start smoking, no, make your own choices.
How does it do it? Hell, I am not a doctor, but I am guessing that the Nicotine binds to some particular receptors in the brain, and that is probably the same receptor that is supposed to be a key-component responsible for hatching a new reality, - one that is being carefully downloaded into your brain from your TV and many other sources. When Nicotine is bound there, - the hypnosys can not progress. The so to say "flashable rom" part of our brain is not accepting any connections.
OK? Anyone has any thoughts?
BTW, I am a smoker. Not heavy, but 5-6 cigs a day, outside.
Fire Safe Cigarettes (look for "FSC" on the package) are in the U.S. now too. They've just about ruined the cigarette. Between that and the taxes pushing them up to well over $5 per pack, it may be time to just give them up and go to cigars.
Who needs all that obnoxious rap. Punk was there first!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETKuoHlYuHMClick here or on thumbnail to watch video
"Even still, I figure, if it is true, and I will die of cancer, it usually takes 20-30 years before the cancer sets in. And, ignoring for the moment that there are numerous natural remedies that destroy cancer on contact (hemp oil, for one), at 41 years of age I'll maybe get cancer and die in my 60s or 70s."
Wow. Do you realize that you will still want to live when you are 60? Do you realize that you will still want to live comfortably at that time? I realize that teenagers think 60 is "garbage time", but I'm dumbfounded that an otherwise worldly 41 year old hasn't come to this understanding yet. Ditto for your apparent sense of invincibility, or the idea that you'll just use a natural remedy and erase the disease. It's funny how you'll turn to something "natural" after having inflicted very unnatural harm on your body for decades.
There are so many other things to be concerned with besides cancer, and unfortunately, you will not experience ANY of them until you are well and truly hooked. And just as I and most other smokers thought, you probably think quitting at that time will be mildly difficult, which couldn't be more wrong, though HOPEFULLY, not too late.
By the time I entered basic training at age 18, I had been smoking cigarettes and pot for four years. My fellow airmen laughed at me and warned me about how I would be hacking and dying by the time I was 40. Come time for our timed mile-and-a-half run at the end of BT, I blew them all away and laughed to myself as I passed them, hacking and out of breath as there were. Yes, after four years of smoking, as an active kid I was still able to kick my body into gear and perform. However, come certain months of the year, every year, I would hack disgusting bits of phlegm. Like your fellow smokers, I didn't cough regularly, but make no mistake about it: I hacked enough to know the insidious harm that cigarettes were inflicting on my health. The question is: why was my body rebelling like that? The answer is: I was inflicting damage on it. Eventually, I could not peform like I did in basic training, losing wind long before I should have. I was so tired of my mouth tasting like shit and my clothes, body, and hair smelling no better. I finally quit at the ripe old age of 27, after five years of slowly cutting down because quitting outright was too hard.
Quitting was quite easily one of the best things I've ever done for myself. Even twenty five years later, the thankfullness I feel is immense. I have friends who never quit. One of them just had part of his lung removed. This was after about 30 years of smoking. This would bring you to the age of 71. If you think you won't care about how terrible your general health may be (yes, MAY be) at the age of 61 -- or 51 -- you are very, very wrong. And if you think that this was simply a sudden occurence where he was a-okay before the surgery -- again, you're very wrong. This former athlete is barely a shell of his former self. And why do you think a person actually goes to a doctor to discover he has cancer? Because he has been having health problems for a period of time before that visit.
Other friends who continued smoking have not yet had cancer manifest itself. Their physical health still sucks. And despite the years-long bouts of ill health, they still can't quit smoking. One of the most pathetic images I've ever seen is watching these people wake up in the morning and coughing their lungs out as they light their first cigarettes of the day.
It boggles my mind how some people in the libertarian community hold up smoking as some sort of expression of freedom when in fact, it is a slow imprisonment of the human body. Is your hatred of "do-gooders" really that great that you need to destroy your health in a non-sensical attack against them? I've got news for folks like that: there are people in the corporate world who are every bit as despicable as any politician.
Hey, I'm an RN and I'll be seeing you at the hospital for that arthrectomy, bypass, dialysis, dementia, bladder cancer, lung cancer, etc from smoking those cigarettes. I will see your long suffering partner slowy fading away from laboring to take care of you. I will see those sores on your legs and feet because your blood vessels have been damaged by the chemicals in those cigs. I see it every day over and over again. So, pal, I hope my kid didn't read your article. I want my kids to live a happy pain free life. You are no role model. See ya at the hospital.
Yes, it takes decades to develop cancer from smoking. But long before that, smoking will drastically decrease the quality of your life. And if you get emphysema, you will become a burden to your loved ones. You are a selfish fool.
Jeff, go ahead and smoke all you want. Don't listen to the so called libertarians on here that are against smoking and rap or drinking and scootering for that matter. Just jealous namby pambies. They don't seem capable of grasping the ever so enlightening concept of natural rights and private protections. I for one know that when you get old and cancer takes you out from your 4 pack a day habit for 40 years you won't make me pay a dime of your medical bills. I know this because I believe you are a true anarcho-capitalist and libertarian. I personally have been an anarchist and Rothbardiaanarcho-capitalist since the 1981 when I became a punk rocker in middle school in NYC. My good friend introduced me to anarchism and I've never looked back. I live anarchism all day long. I sleep and breathe anarcho-capitalism. I educate every blind statist I can. I don't care where their from. I seek out likeminded individuals in business and during daily interactions and mutually beneficial exchanges. I am always on the lookout for people that know what time it is. I connect with them and I learn from them as they relate their experiences and philosophy. This is a higher calling for me. I read the Vigilante, the daily bell, Jeffrey tucker's online book club, Doug Casey, Bill Bonner, etc every day. I'm currently working on my own writing and wordpress with the intention of building a couple of online businesses. I'm working with a mentor that has a company building business on the internet. He says he sees me doing thecomplete delivery with video interviews and a strong following of loyal subscribers. I'm actually very into doing this as I see I have no other choice. This is a calling for me and its the greatest way I can see to get my message out.
"Just jealous namby pambies."
Oh please. What's so ballsy about ruining your health before your time? I have no idea what smoking yourself to a feeble, early grave has to do with "anarcho-capitalism", but a fit, muscular 70 year old is MUCH more of a badass than a hacking ICU patient. AND he is much more valuable to the cause.
10 cigarettes a day will do you zero harm...especially if you are out in the sun and arobically fit.
I am moving to Mexico after the election when the FreeShit Terrorist win in a landslide. Probably Cancun area.
Jeff,
You are indubitably a badass. If I see you at Libertopia I'm buying you a cigar and a glass of scotch.
Jeff Berwick isnt aware of the hazards of smoking?
Doug Casey smokng while giving a speech at a conference?
A couple of gentlemen that are irreverent to the status quo.
Great article, Jeff. Thank you for pointing out the rap videos - definitely an encouraging bit of enlightenment that was way off my radar.
As far as smoking, if I were going to inhale smoke on a regular basis, I would go with something that does more for me than mere tobacco :) Though I do enjoy only an occasional puff on a swisher sweet. As far as I see it, the whole point of living is to enjoy life, and if a plant or a fermented brew (or whatever) furthers that objective without doing net harm, it is a good thing.
Kudos on another great article!
Those videos are great. I'm also not normally a rap guy, but these are huge excpetions. Here's another great one from Lupe Fiasco:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22l1sf5JZD0
Also, what's with the soldier boys looking for plant smokers? I thought you said that was legal down there.
Fortunately, one can be a 1,000% libertarian, anarcho-capitalist (as I think I am) without celebrating smoking or rap music. I could list a few hundred examples of fun things to do that result in degenerative diseases. Maybe you think an extended, painful death that decimates your family and debilitates your caregivers is worth the fun, Been there, done that; and I assure you that it is not worth the fun. I believe that your are in a tiny minority even among your own kind and, even were you not, that you should make no claim that such decisions are good policies for libertarianism. How childish! And let's not forget a few hundred other example of "street level anarchism" (which seems to be your justification for many things) that rip relationships apart, that shred agreements/contracts, that engender violence, that destroy efforts to live peaceably, and to do plenty of harm to others -- central tenets of libertianism. You've clearly "gotten a life," and that's certainly your prerogative. Bravo! But, thankfully, it will be a very unattractive one to most serious libertarians.
Hi Jeff
As a smart man you are making a terrible mistake by starting to smoke. It will age you prematurely and you will suffer many other assaults on your body. I watched my spouse die of lung cancer and it was no fun.
A fellow western Canadian.
Hi Jeff, Recently told you about the EU mandatory fire retardant in cigarettes. Seems like that is active in a lot of other places as well. I bet cigarettes without it also command a premium. http://freedom-2-choose.blogspot.com/2011/09/fire-safe-cigarette-is-forc...
Jeff,
A rare time I disagree with you (in regards to cigarettes and heavy use of alcohol).
You are leaving one enslavement (govt) for another (addiction) - be careful please.
Fantastic post! Just went to Mexico. Only found trouble on the way back into the US.
More of the future:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S77zUWqawag
Post new comment