Butt Deposits

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I have already given an explanation. In the mind of a smoker, and even objectively, dropping a butt is the traditionally accepted disposal method, just as it is traditionally accepted to leave your drink under your seat at the baseball game. If you don't conclude that a baseball fan is more likely to litter in general, you ought not conclude that a ...[text shortened]... mpting to convince that the inference that they are is unsound based on the presented facts.

If a baseball fan leaves drinks under his seat 15 times a day, 365 days a year (5475 times a year!), then yes, I would agree that he is more likely to litter in general.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
I like it. With this modification. You do have a $1 per butt tax, but when you turn in the used, stinky cancer stick, you only get fifty cents back. The other fifty cents goes into a big savings account to pay for your chemo and to have your lungs cut out when you inevitably get cancer or emphysema so that healthy non-smokers can pay reasonable health insurance premiums.

Inevitably?

Originally posted by royalchicken
Inevitably?

RC, lend a smoker's perspective to this issue. Do you regularly litter? Do your extreme smoking comrades?

Originally posted by Sicilian Smaug
Where is a smoker supposed to deposit his lit cigarette? In the bin with the rest of the rubbish? Probably get fined for arson then. They cant win.

I guess that settles it. Thanks for clearing the matter up. It turns out that this whole debate is really choosing between unavoidable pollution versus massive fires. I suppse I should be thankful for all the burning butts on the ground, clogging up the gutters. Because hey, at least there isn't a huge fire.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
RC, lend a smoker's perspective to this issue. Do you regularly litter? Do your extreme smoking comrades?

I only throw cigarette ends on the ground. I can't recall ever having littered, except for butts, and if there is a bin available, I put them out and bin them. If I've got other rubbish I'm carrying with me, I'll often pack butts with it, but I'd rather throw the butts than, say, put them in my pocket. I suppose I could dedicate a bag of some sort for this purpose, but I fear I'd start to reek in short order.

Many, if not most, of the people I associate with smoke, and, as far as I've seen, take a similar attitude towards littering.

Originally posted by Sicilian Smaug
Haha, yeah (goes away for more interesting discussion with someone less annoying).

And mabye we could pass a bill rewarding smokers for not starting fires. Whenever a cop sees some smoker toss the butt on the ground, he ought to give him a voucher for some tax break, for doing a public service. You got my vote.

Originally posted by Sicilian Smaug
Where is a smoker supposed to deposit his lit cigarette? In the bin with the rest of the rubbish? Probably get fined for arson then. They cant win.

Tap the end out. Step on it if it's still burning. Bin the filter; the bits of carbon you stepped on are biodegradeable.

Alternatively, stub it out on the side of the bin and then bin it, making sure it is fully extinguished.

Another method is to put it out on your tongue, if you are a Hell's Angel, or your arm, if you are Richey Manic.

Originally posted by royalchicken
but I fear I'd start to reek in short order.

Not to get too far off topic, but the "reek" is probably there despite your lack of a special butt baggy.

Originally posted by kingdanwa
Not to get too far off topic, but the "reek" is probably there despite your lack of a special butt baggy.

True, but I've smoked half a cigarette and put the remainder in the pack for later when short on cash, and the resulting reek is abnormally bad. I suspect a designated butt baggy would have a similar effect.

Originally posted by kingdanwa
If a baseball fan leaves drinks under his seat 15 times a day, 365 days a year (5475 times a year!), then yes, I would agree that he is more likely to litter in general.

I'd be truly amazed if this hypothesis has not been tested. Are there people who study habits for a living? If someone in the area of psychology is looking for a diseration topic, this could be it.

Any thoughts on setting up an experiment to test my claims? (smoking, not baseball, but eventually both)

Originally posted by kingdanwa
I'd be truly amazed if this hypothesis has not been tested. Are there people who study habits for a living? If someone in the area of psychology is looking for a diseration topic, this could be it.

Any thoughts on setting up an experiment to test my claims? (smoking, not baseball, but eventually both)

Stand on a street corner and wait until you observe somebody litter something other than a butt. Catch up to him and observe whether he smells like smoke.

Repeat this many times. If the proportion of those observed litterers that smell like smoke is significantly greater than the proportion of smokers in the population, reject the null hypothesis that smokers and non-smokers are equally likely to litter and conclude that smokers are more likely to litter in general. Otherwise accept the null hypothesis.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Stand on a street corner and wait until you observe somebody litter something other than a butt. Catch up to him and observe whether he smells like smoke.

Repeat this many times. If the proportion of those observed litterers that smell like smoke is significantly greater than the proportion of smokers in the population, reject the null hypothesi ...[text shortened]... nclude that smokers are more likely to litter in general. Otherwise accept the null hypothesis.

You'd need two people, one to watch for litterers, and one to sniff them. If you missed enough litterers because you were sniffing the previous litterer, your results would be very suspect. Also, smokers would be overrepresented because you're more likely to be able to catch up to them.