My Prediction Of Our Future.

[milehighpiper]

RYO tobacco is the vast majority of the American "Pipe Tobacco" market. I believe that is why it feels like pipe tobacco gets picked on. It's like getting bullied in school because your older brother blew the Gym teacher.

That said, it helps support our pipe outlets online and otherwise so it is a double edged sword..

I am out of the loop on the tobacco legislation side of things. I just smoke and buy whatever works for me and cellar the old favorites. Do you guys know if they hate the RYO pipe tobacco because they can’t tax it like individual cigarettes? I just watched a youtube video of a guy who “loads” his own cigarettes and said he can get over 2 cartons rolled out of one pound of tobacco at approximately $20-25 per pound.
That made me question how the taxman feels about people smoking cigarettes for a dime without paying Mr. IRS his quarter... just a thought.

 

[BROBS]

I am out of the loop on the tobacco legislation side of things. I just smoke and buy whatever works for me and cellar the old favorites. Do you guys know if they hate the RYO pipe tobacco because they can’t tax it like individual cigarettes? I just watched a youtube video of a guy who “loads” his own cigarettes and said he can get over 2 cartons rolled out of one pound of tobacco at approximately $20-25 per pound.
That made me question how the taxman feels about people smoking cigarettes for a dime without paying Mr. IRS his quarter... just a thought.

Yea that’s exactly why. Loose cig tobacco costs twice to three times what is labeled as “pipe tobacco”. It’s a tax loophole.

 

[milehighpiper]

I rather thought it’s the health insurance mafia that determines how tobacco is regulated, legislated, and perhaps one day eradicated. For example, the hospital where I work is smoke free to the point we do not hire those who do smoke to appease the insurance company to keep our rates down. Those that smoke and were grandfathered before the new regs have to pay more for the same benefits.

If that were the case, shouldn’t they be promoting smoking to increase their customer, I mean patient, base? The healthcare scam is a joke. I have paid for the same health insurance plan for the last 15 years with a grand total of 4 non-emergent medical visits in the same span of time. My rates have not gone down but I bet you if I admit to smoking a pipe a few times a week, I will have to pay a higher premium for it...

 

[milehighpiper]

This. I Think there will be many people who will throw away grandpas tins of McClelland, not realizing how much they are worth. It would probably be good to leave a note in the cellar letting them know how much it is really worth.

I recently updated my Living Will for other reasons and took the time to complete an inventory of all my hobby collections. I put a price next to the item and left a few contacts who are part of the hobbies and understand the current and fluctuating value of these items. My friends also placed me as a contact in their lists and we all have an understanding to take care of each other’s families if they try to sell off our collections.

 

[telescopes]

They is now “woke” language for gender identities that are not “cis”. Cis? When did a man stop being referred to as man? That’s not politics, that 10,000 years of known language agreement. Stand back as I blow you a smoke ring if you get the drift.

So this is not a political statement. I am not eluding to any thoughts on gender identity. I am suggesting that hijacking language in order to control how people can and will then discuss topics is a bit Orwellian at minimal and Stalinists in all probability. (To all those who get outraged by comparisons to a certain German regime that ruled some 70 years ago, here is an example of you don’t need to use the word nazi or Hitler to make a linguistic analogy. )

I'd give this comment a "Like" but if anyone associates my online presence with any kind of dissenting remarks then a Twitter mob is likely to harass all financial institutions into closing my accounts and preventing me from ever doing business in any official capacity ever again.

 

[frozenchurchwarden]

So this is not a political statement. I am not eluding to any thoughts on gender identity. I am suggesting that hijacking language in order to control how people can and will then discuss topics is a bit Orwellian at minimal and Stalinists in all probability. (To all those who get outraged by comparisons to a certain German regime that ruled some 70 years ago, here is an example of you don’t need to use the word nazi or Hitler to make a linguistic analogy. )

Your opinion on any topic is irrelevant, "Wrong Vocabulary" on its own will get you fired from many corporations today.

 

[sablebrush52]

They is now “woke” language for gender identities that are not “cis”. Cis? When did a man stop being referred to as man? That’s not politics, that 10,000 years of known language agreement. Stand back as I blow you a smoke ring if you get the drift.

Except that it isn't. Here's an excerpt from the Oxford English Dictionary and a link to the page:

"But that’s nothing new. The Oxford English Dictionary traces singular they back to 1375, where it appears in the medieval romance William and the Werewolf. Except for the old-style language of that poem, its use of singular they to refer to an unnamed person seems very modern. Here’s the Middle English version: ‘Hastely hiȝed eche . . . þei neyȝþed so neiȝh . . . þere william & his worþi lef were liand i-fere.’ In modern English, that’s: ‘Each man hurried . . . till they drew near . . . where William and his darling were lying together.’


Since forms may exist in speech long before they’re written down, it’s likely that singular they was common even before the late fourteenth century. That makes an old form even older."

A brief history of singular ‘they’ | Oxford English Dictionary

OED ambassador Prof Dennis Baron turns to the OED to provide a brief history of the singular 'they' - from the 14th century to present day:

public.oed.com

Wikipedia:

Singular they - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So such usage has been around for about 700 years. That doesn't seem particularly new.

Personally, while i find the topic bemusing, I don't see a reason to deny someone the freedom nor the liberty to apply "they" or "them" to their identification, nor to get my panties in a bunch over it. It doesn't threaten me. I just can't promise to always get it correct on each and every occasion.

 

[cigrmaster]

This is true; however, where the legal system is concerned, there is quite a lot of grey area. Even set-in-stone laws can be no match for a crafty legal team, and when it comes to the persecution of tobacco, any given state will have a veritable squad of them at hand. State of Washington = Exhibit A.

Also, I should have expounded a little bit. When I mentioned the word "cost," I didn't just mean financial. I also meant the cost in energy and time. It's no secret that lawyers have an affinity for dragging out the process, and even in the rare instance of a victory (for the "good guys"), recovering legal costs is about as easy as keeping a bowl of Molto Dolce lit during a Category 5 hurricane.

Lastly, I will say that there's no such thing as an "easy" case. For obvious red, spiky, microscopic reasons, many courts are overwhelmed with thousands of pending legal cases right now which are just getting postponed indefinitely, even quite serious ones. I was just reading earlier this week of a woman whose son was wrongfully arrested, and died in police custody. Her lawsuit is nearing the two year mark, with no resolution in sight due to the postponements. Richard Pryor once said, "You go to the courthouse looking for justice, and that's what you'll find: just us!"

Merely my two cents.

Very well said. My dad was a corporate attorney and his longest case was Automatic Radio plaintiff vs Ford Motor Company the defendant and it took 11 years for my dad to win. It was a simple breach of contract really as Automatic Radio had a contract to supply every radio in ever Ford until a certain date. Ford said fuck you and created Delco and stopped buying from Automatic Radio who at the time was the largest radio mfg. in the states.

I recently updated my Living Will for other reasons and took the time to complete an inventory of all my hobby collections. I put a price next to the item and left a few contacts who are part of the hobbies and understand the current and fluctuating value of these items. My friends also placed me as a contact in their lists and we all have an understanding to take care of each other’s families if they try to sell off our collections.

If this is too personal please just say so. Who did you use for an insurance company as I have been thinking the same thing. I have all my stuff in trusts and only one time 30 plus years ago did I insure my jewelry. That shit was outrageous. Just one of my rings they wanted 600 plus. The appraisal on it was 10,000 and change. I was a finance and insurance manager years ago in the car biz and know how things should be valued.

 

[telescopes]

Except that it isn't. Here's an excerpt from the Oxford English Dictionary and a link to the page:

"But that’s nothing new. The Oxford English Dictionary traces singular they back to 1375, where it appears in the medieval romance William and the Werewolf. Except for the old-style language of that poem, its use of singular they to refer to an unnamed person seems very modern. Here’s the Middle English version: ‘Hastely hiȝed eche . . . þei neyȝþed so neiȝh . . . þere william & his worþi lef were liand i-fere.’ In modern English, that’s: ‘Each man hurried . . . till they drew near . . . where William and his darling were lying together.’


Since forms may exist in speech long before they’re written down, it’s likely that singular they was common even before the late fourteenth century. That makes an old form even older."

A brief history of singular ‘they’ | Oxford English Dictionary

OED ambassador Prof Dennis Baron turns to the OED to provide a brief history of the singular 'they' - from the 14th century to present day:

public.oed.com

Wikipedia:

Singular they - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So such usage has been around for about 700 years. That doesn't seem particularly new.

Personally, while i find the topic bemusing, I don't see a reason to deny someone the freedom nor the liberty to apply "they" or "them" to their identification, nor to get my panties in a bunch over it. It doesn't threaten me. I just can't promise to always get it correct on each and every occasion.

For the record, I wasn’t objecting to the use of “they” as a choice. I personally use this pronoun for such purposes in my own writing and have since the mid 80s. To clarify, I object to the ”forced” use of they to describe populations. In my profession, I now have attended many many mind numbing professional developments prescribing and dictating this use as the common use of a singular pronoun (preferred use rather than use based upon request of an individual or population). I could go on. I am directly aware of the examples you quoted and have used such examples to support my own use of they in my own writings- since the 80s - when I was considered an outlier for such thinking. But to state clearly so there is no confusion- woke thinking takes it one step beyond a choice and moves it to political indoctrination. If I wouldn‘t get into too much trouble breaking the confidentiality agreement I signed to be trained to deliver gender identity curriculum to elementary aged students, I would love to make the contents of such curriculum public. But this clearly exceeds the scope of this forum. For any confusion as to my internet , I apologize. But to be clear, thought policing via language is troubling for any student of language. Yes, I am happy to use they when requested.

 

[telescopes]

Your opinion on any topic is irrelevant, "Wrong Vocabulary" on its own will get you fired from many corporations today.

You are correct.

 

[peregrinus]

As so often happens on this forum there multiple topics being addressed.

On pipe tobacco, I can attest that the same fears and dire warnings were being expressed over 30 years ago on the now largely irrelevant ASP (alt.smokers.pipes) Usenet newsgroup. And yet, here we are, decades later, in what some would argue is a golden age of pipe tobacco variety and availability.

Will this cornucopia of tobacco blends end at some point, probably, but how and when has been mostly inaccurate and speculative drivel.

That said, I went ahead and amassed a lifetime supply to be ensure I can remain safely ambivalent.

Things change, language, social norms and even tobacco usage and availability, all are grist as the wheel stone of time grinds slowly on and on.

 

[telescopes]

Your opinion on any topic is irrelevant, "Wrong Vocabulary" on its own will get you fired from many corporations today.

I find that just thinking for oneself is enough to get fired. I’ve had an illustrious career in academia. Thank goodness I can now retire before the last shreds of academia are all turned to ashes and blue gray smoke.

 

[telescopes]

To return to topic, the future of pipe smoking is directly tied to the politics of vocabulary. Ones ability to engage in a risk and make provision for that risk is either allowed or disallowed by how that risk is perceived by those who define what the the risk is and how it should be perceived, regardless what the data suggests. Pipe smoking, unlike pot smoking, is seen as unhealthy.

 

[sablebrush52]

To return to topic, the future of pipe smoking is directly tied to the politics of vocabulary. Ones ability to engage in a risk and make provision for that risk is either allowed or disallowed by how that risk is perceived by those who define what the the risk is and how it should be perceived, regardless what the data suggests. Pipe smoking, unlike pot smoking, is seen as unhealthy.

Perceptions change over time as more data gets assessed. Banning Pot only succeeded in enriching criminals, in much the same way as did Prohibition in the 1920's. Banning a substance sometimes leads to it becoming attractive to people who are attracted to "forbidden fruit".
The carcinogenic effects of cigarette smoking are well documented. Rates of lung cancer in the US are in decline.
As the effects of Pot smoking become better known, I would not be surprised if the "death by a thousand cuts" approach used against tobacco is harnessed against pot.

 

[telescopes]

I agree. Legislation should be based on sound knowledge of any topic. But given that humans have just about 840 months to live their lives, some deference should be given to individuals as to how they want to spend those few available months left to them after birth. Rock climbing, motorcycle riding, and any number of things significantly impacts the average number of months available to simply "breathe." I would argue that one should be allowed to cut short those months in an arbitrary and capricious fashion if one wishes. No one should be forced to stick around just because others think one ought to do so. Which brings us to the subject of this thread. Pipe smoking. Are we allowed to do so by a government and public to which we can not influence? Probably not. Which means hoarding and cellaring and storing up for a time when tobacco will no longer be available either via internet, mail, or B&M becomes a reality. But a larger question will remain. Will one be allowed to continue to smoke and be insured when such activity is deemed unlawful and claims for insurance coverage are dependent on whether one smokes or not? It is no fun being a thought policeman if you can only police another's thoughts. It is only a joy and a kick if you can police the actions that follow from any thoughts that precipitate such unlawfulness from wrong thinking thought. Right?

So, I say, the future of pipe smoking where one can honestly purchase tobacco is 12 years. No more.

 

[brian64]

So, I say, the future of pipe smoking where one can honestly purchase tobacco is 12 years. No more.

Can we possibly make it 13? (My 840 months will be up then)

 

[sablebrush52]

I agree. Legislation should be based on sound knowledge of any topic. But given that humans have just about 840 months to live their lives, some deference should be given to individuals as to how they want to spend those few available months left to them after birth. Rock climbing, motorcycle riding, and any number of things significantly impacts the average number of months available to simply "breathe." I would argue that one should be allowed to cut short those months in an arbitrary and capricious fashion if one wishes. No one should be forced to stick around just because others think one ought to do so. Which brings us to the subject of this thread. Pipe smoking. Are we allowed to do so by a government and public to which we can not influence? Probably not. Which means hoarding and cellaring and storing up for a time when tobacco will no longer be available either via internet, mail, or B&M becomes a reality. But a larger question will remain. Will one be allowed to continue to smoke and be insured when such activity is deemed unlawful and claims for insurance coverage are dependent on whether one smokes or not? It is no fun being a thought policeman if you can only police another's thoughts. It is only a joy and a kick if you can police the actions that follow from any thoughts that precipitate such unlawfulness from wrong thinking thought. Right?

So, I say, the future of pipe smoking where one can honestly purchase tobacco is 12 years. No more.

It largely boils down to dollars and sense. Few are happy to bear the costs borne of others life style choices. The climbing enthusiast who decides to take a more difficult route at a particularly bad time of year might pay with their life or be rescued, but the process of extracting them, one way or another, involves others and costs. Same too with someone who is getting a lung removed, or is needing permanent breathing help.

The campaign against smoking is often portrayed as a fringe effort brought about by extremists in one area of the political spectrum and that's inaccurate. A lot of business interests, looking at the bottom line costs for loss of labor productivity caused by smoking, as well as increased insurance costs, are on board with ending smoking. You want the freedom to smoke, they want the freedom to not bear any of the costs. Many corporations already tie the co-pay for insurance coverage to an employee's physical fitness.

Your projection may be absolutely correct, in which case, sell those expensive pipes while they continue to have more utility than as kindling or doorstops.

 

[telescopes]

It largely boils down to dollars and sense. Few are happy to bear the costs borne of others life style choices. The climbing enthusiast who decides to take a more difficult route at a particularly bad time of year might pay with their life or be rescued, but the process of extracting them, one way or another, involves others and costs. Same too with someone who is getting a lung removed, or is needing permanent breathing help.

The campaign against smoking is often portrayed as a fringe effort brought about by extremists in one area of the political spectrum and that's inaccurate. A lot of business interests, looking at the bottom line costs for loss of labor productivity caused by smoking, as well as increased insurance costs, are on board with ending smoking. You want the freedom to smoke, they want the freedom to not bear any of the costs. Many corporations already tie the co-pay for insurance coverage to an employee's physical fitness.

Your projection may be absolutely correct, in which case, sell those expensive pipes while they continue to have more utility than as kindling or doorstops.

In a democratic world, we could tie their unwillingness to full fund their employees' healthcare to their tax burden. It still seems to be that the debate is defined in language in one direction. It also seems to me that these companies are responsible for society having to rescue a lot of people who are harmed in accidents due to large companies overusing our public roads. It's a circular debate of he said/ she said/they said. Lets see, these same companies pollute our air and water - so maybe we should outlaw them because their manufacturing freedoms are costing tax payers to absorb unnecessary risk costs. When freedom is framed in this manner, then there is no use discussing freedom. Of course, I might not be looking at the big picture, LOL. And again, I am really trying to refrain from anything that detracts from the topic at hand. But pipe smoking, currently, is framed and defined as a risk by insurance companies, employers, governments, but not by the people who "intelligently and with forethought" engage in the risk.

And I will toss my pipes before I sell them. I have too much of my father's culture in me.

 

[Casual]

A lot of political nonsense here for a non-political forum.

 

[JB00]

A lot of political nonsense here for a non-political forum.

Unfortunately pipe smoking has become a political issue on both sides of the aisle.