Jump to content

Recommended Posts

lavender27 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Are you suggesting people smoke because they

> > subconsciously miss breast feeding?

> >

> > That had never occurred to me.

>

> Cannot understand that, your mothers nipples I'm

> sure did not have nicotine in them and did not

> smell of smoke. Breastfeeding is the most

> beautiful thing, smoking is not.


If she smoked or was on patches/gum, they quite possibly did (the nicotine, at least)

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Drinking first thing in the morning is in deed a

> pleasure. Been to the Market Porter once, usually

> go to Smithfields but last Xmas I think that they

> were down to only two pubs open early morning.

>

> Biggest issue is knocking back too many, they go

> down surprisingly easy!


When I worked on The Sporting Life back in the day and we were based at the old Mirror building on Holborn Circus a colleague of mine would lie to his wife and tell her he had to be in the office early so he could go drinking in a pub at six in the morning by Smithfield Market. Half a dozen large De Kuyper's (Dutch gin, for that was his tipple) later and he'd stagger into the office at 9am all bright and breezy by half ten he'd be banging on the door of "The Stab" downstairs to be let in for round two. They usually obliged, for he was a good customer. There were a few Daily Mirror journalists who were known to do the same. I've done it myself after a mad night out back in the day. But the real breakfast of champions is a big fat line of cocaine washed down with a healthy swig of Jack Daniel's and a spliff to take the edge off. Been there and done that too. It ain't big and it ain't clever.


Also going back to the first morning gasper - when the body has been asleep for seven hours of so without a cigarette the body is craving for that first nicotine hit of the day and what a pleasure it is to the confirmed smoker.

binkylilyput Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> When I saw the title of this post I assumed there

> would be hoards of tedious comments damning

> smokers like they have issues with morality

>

> Actually pleased to see the responses!



binks, if there's a chance of a bit of smut and/or tales of debauchery, you can always rely on the EDf to rise to the occasion...

I love Jah's reminiscing. Cocaine breakfasts, oh gawd to those were daze - Ha ha!


Some parts of our lives seem like someone else lived them, I can remember smoking a fags in the shower once upon a time. Like fekk sake, the nights before were that heavy, it took the edge off the morning.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • We had a take-away from Aroma Lab last night. I was impressed, utterly delicious stir fried tofu and sweet and sour chicken. Generous portions too… will definitely make a habit of eating their home-cooked food. 
    • I think that's a big assumption.  Many people vote for the candidate precisely because they are a member of a particular party and represent that party's policiies.  I personally didn't know who McAsh was in the last election, but I knew what party he represented.  When politicians don't act "morally" what are we to think of them and their motivations? But I think there will be people who want to vote Labour, don't know that McAsh has defected and accidentally vote Green precisely because they do vote for the name.  Yes, you could say they need to read the ballot paper more carefully but it's possible to see one thing and not notice another.
    • Morally they should, but we don't actually vote for parties in our electoral system. We vote for a parliamentary (or council) representative. That candidates group together under party unbrellas is irrelevant. We have a 'representative' democracy, not a party political one (if that makes sense). That's where I am on things at the moment. Reform are knocking on the door of the BNP, and using wedge issues to bait emotional rage. The Greens are knocking on the door of the hard left, sweeping up the Corbynista idealists. But it's worth saying that both are only ascending because of the failures of the two main parties and the successive governments they have led. Large parts of the country have been left in economic decline for decades, while city fat cats became uber wealthy. Young people have been screwed over by student loans. Housing is 40 years of commoditisation, removing affordabilty beyond the reach of too many. Decently paid, secure jobs, seem to be a thing of the past. Which of the main parties can people turn to, to fix any of these things, when the main parties are the reason for the mess that has been allowed to evolve? Reform certainly aren't the answer to those things. The Greens may aspire to do something meaningful about some of them, but where will they find the money to pay for it? None of it's easy.
    • Yes, but the context is important and the reason.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...