When asking someone to join you for a cigarette you would be obliged to offer them one of yours. By doing so you would not only cut back your own smoking via a check and balance relationship with other smokers but also introduce a deserved appreciation for the act itself. Arguably, smoking has become an even more intimate gesture than that of our parents’ generation. The unanticipated result of the direct ostracization of smokers. Regarded assumingly as walking carcinogens, the contemporary smoker is relocated outdoors if not also away. Ironically, such conditions strengthen camaraderie and form a solidarity for the shunned. It may even be asked if such segregation does do so to a degree against it’s motive. As cigarettes have/are/will be endorsed by counter culture, they will be part of any such identities. Noting their current client base despite neutered advertising, association is all that their influence needs. And rules which create time and space for one to interact with others while rebelliously taking a break seem asinine. Which leads to the possible conclusion that anti-smoking sentiment can not suffocate smokers and in actuality harbors their existence. This is not to say no non-smoking common rule would work better, only that the efforts thus far to suppress smoking and it’s wheezing side effects might be sustaining a market niche. Or perhaps anti-smoking signage is merely the latest expression of the public’s disdain for the habit, confirming many a smokers near paranoid self-awareness. Alas, amicably exclusive, smoking provides alone time in a time where we never are. So I say if we’re to be pragmatically cast away, let us take pride in it and act with the dignity of negligent antiquity!