>The most curious feature of smoking is its identification with >intellectuals. Poets, like politicians, are often thought of as sitting >in smoke filled rooms. Professors, smoking pipes. Deeply inhaling, >while deeply thinking. When did that image begin? For one thing, I'm given to believe there's a bit of physiology at the base of it. Smoking demonstrably enhances memory (at least, in smokers) and, of course, raises blood pressure - forcing more blood through the brain, I guess. I need to smoke when I think - how much of that is addiction at play, or unconscious media-induced roleplay or physiologically enhanced acuity, I dunno - but of the enhanced acuity bit at least I'm quite convinced. Whatever lack of acuity is evident in this post, I shall put down to the draconian anti-smoking laws here (I haven't thought of an excuse for the others yet). If I were on smack, I'd get methodine for free, a clinic for the cold turkey, and a whole heap of sympathy (albeit not from everybody, of course), but I'm on nicotine - demonised whilst smoking, and always expected to give it up, smile at people and remain moderately intelligent. Which is a pity as I've tried, and am always reduced to a sociopathic inarticulate fool. In sum, as heroin is illegal, government and industry (Castell's reservations notwithstanding) make nothing out of it - so the industry is at fault and the user is the victim. As smokes are legal, enriching government and industry alike, addicts are at fault and non-addicts the victims. I've made myself so cross I have to nip out for a gasper now. Cheers, Rob.
