• Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    I meant he was breathing in whatever was being pulverized into dust by the bombings in London from ages 7-14.

    He was not, however, a smoker. Quite anti-smoking, in fact. Wouldn’t even smoke weed- when he came to visit me in L.A. many years later, he was happy to try edibles, but refused to smoke a joint.

    And yes, it was a lot of fun to get high with my dad when he was in his 70s.

    • philpo@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      Deutsch
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yeah,I absolutely got that, but simply wanted to point out that whatever he might have breathed in then could not been “much worse” in the grand scheme of things back then.

      And, by today’s terms everyone was a smoker back then - public smoking was so omnipresent back then (and cigarettes much more harmful - I just say asbestos filter) while todays smokers are exposed to less toxins, that even non-smokers would be considered low intensity smokers today in terms of toxins. Crazy, I know, but on the other hand I had 3 weeks of smokers cough as a child after flying Bangkok to Zurich as a child - in the row closest to the smokers section.(Thanks Swissair)