Why must people try to assume a position of moral authority based on the silliest things?

[Cuppa Tetleys]

I understand how you get pissed off by people taking the moral highground, that pisses me off about anything, never mind smoking, but it's just although that smokers often claim that they understand the risks of smoking and yet they still carry on, the reality is they don't. I know everyone has heard this before but smoking seriously damages the health of yourself and everyone around you. I've had several people in my family die of cancer due to smoking, at relatively young ages. Now although it's your body and you can do what you like with it, think about how everyone else feels. Your family, friends, partners, children-they'd all be devastated and hurt for life if you were to die by any means (accident, murder etc). So then you deliberately participate in an act that has taken the lives of so many others, endangering yourself while harming those you love, both emotionally and physically just so that can attain a relaxed, calm state. Smoking isn't the only bad thing in the world - I imagine racing drivers get hurt more seriously, and I'm not saying that smoking is guaranteed to kill you, either, it's just something that has a very high risk, is anti-social and has very low profits.
So in the end, I can't preach to you about it, you probably don't care and neither do most smokers, I'm not saying I haven't done something as bad as, or if not worse than smoking, but I believe it is something that should be discouraged at every opportunity; like over-eating. But just imagine the faces of all those you care about at your funeral, all mournfully staring at the life you chose not to cherish. I don't know about you, but no thanks.

 

[Nihilism_Is_Bliss]

its not a matter of morality. its a matter of stupidity.
The only reason people smoke is because initially they're pressured into doing so, or because they think it'll make them stand out as being cool or rebellious.
I see less reason to smoke tobacco than pot. tobacco is disgusting in taste, smell, to the other people in your environment, to your health etc. etc. it has no endearing features whatsoever, people only smoke because they're too lazy too quit.
Now, i'm not saying pot is good, hell, I wouldn't do it, but there is at least enjoyment out of doing pot.
now i guess what my point is here, if there are more reasons to take an illicit drug that you wouldn't touch, to a legal one you do. Then what's the point?!
In my opinion smoking tobacco is the most pointless waste of time anyone can take part in.

If you smoke, then put up with people dissing you for it because they're justified in doing so. If you don't like it, then quit and give yourself an extra 10 years of life.

Sorry if that was harsh, but i find having to put up with being near smokers disgusting. Smoking is probably the only thing I would like to see be made illegal.
For nicer air, healthier people, emptier hospitals, and stronger economies.

• 
  you don't drive
  you don't buys things that have to be transported to you by non-green vehicles
  you don't pay taxes towards road and transportation upkeep
  you don't get your power from a coal-burning power plant
  you don't (knowingly or unknowingly) support clear-cutting, the oil-sands, or resource-harvesting corporations
  you don't eat fast food
  you don't buy cosmetic products or consumer good that are made of, tested, or otherwise harm animals
  you don't have a dwelling that remains weather-proof due to oil-based products
  you don't produce any sewage or waste that goes into the river and lakes, or must be transported to a landfill
  you don't maintain your dwelling, or allow it to be maintained using gas or electric landscaping methods, or non-natural products.

The thing is, these things all, in some way, benefit us.
benefits of smoking? I challenge you to present me with one.

 

[UberNoodle]

So a smoker is upset because people find his habit repulsive.

And what now?

Enjoy smoking. Let other people enjoy not smoking. Get used to the fact that smokers are a minority in many countries so smoking places are few. It's not "anti smoking demons'" fault. It's just the way with minorities. So what? That's life. You aren't doing something that only affects you - smoke affects others directly, unlike alcohol. I really don't see what's wrong.

 

[JoshGod]

i wouldn't worry about it those kind of people do that stuff because they are insecure about themself.

i dont mind smokers (unless its not a cig) but i dislike them around me (asthma).

 

[aithilin]

OP, why do you feel that your choices are being challenged so much that you're asking for validation for them? They're threads on a forum. Someone, somewhere thinks your life choices may be stupid. It's not a big deal.

 

[Private Custard]

So, by that reasoning, you'll hate the following people for taking up precious hospital beds.

smokers
motorcyclists
extreme sports people
overweight people (or anyone that eats fast food with a high fat content)
anyone that sunbathes (skin cancer is mostly self inflicted too)
alchoholics (or binge drinkers that have stupid accidents)

The list could go on and on. The number of people that willingly expose themselves to health threatening activities/lifestyles on a daily basis is huge.

You can't have many friends!

To be fair all of the above except smoking would end up in hospital because they are doing it wrong... That is still their fault (mostly).

It would just make more sense to charge a patient who ended up in hospital because the patient chose to do something reckless or hazardous to their health. It is kind of fair to say that a patient lying in hospital with self inflicted lung cancer has less 'right' to be treated for free than a person who needed treatment for something like a hereditary heart condition...

The tax generated from tobacco in the UK last year was over £10bn. Smoking cost the NHS around £3bn. The argument that says we don't pay our way is totally invalid.

 

[Private Custard]

I still think it should be illegal.

Are we going to get any elucidation on that? There's no real reason smoking should be made illegal, excepting possibly in the area immediately surrounding/within hospitals. Outdoor smoking should be legal 100% of the time (again, with the possible exception of the immediate area around a hospital), and indoor smoking should be left to the discretion of the owner of the building. It harms no one but the self, and anyone who's exposed to second hand smoke can fairly easily just walk a few yards away and it is no longer a problem. There's no reason to ban it.

I should not have to move to avoid you're cloud of death.

Well, if the smoker was there first, and you have a problem with smoking, you should be the one that moves out of the way.

No, he's the problem. If you're a problem you should have to take the punishment for it.

What punishment? It just seems rude to expect someone who is smoking by themselves to move out of the way to accommodate your needs when you come along.

Well, perhaps if they'd stop smoking you wouldn't have to.

HG131, you're a total lunatic!!

 

[AngloDoom]

-Snip-

Oddly, I've not seen a single thread that says "Smokers are evil" but more enquires as to why they do it. I've seen plenty of threads from 'Smokers' saying "Get off our back, man."

In all honesty, I consider people who smoke the whiniest people in the world. Ever since smoking was banned from pubs in England it seems people have gotten the impression that, if you smoke, you're almost an ethnic minority who's constantly under attack from the rest of the world.

If you can't put up with people whining, then don't smoke. If you think "fuck them, I'll smoke" then do it, stop telling all us 'non-smokers' to get off your back when I'm happily sitting here eating a great sandwich and really not caring about whatever the hell you do with your life.

 

[Kermi]

snip

I think of myself not morally superior to you, simply...superior in a survival instinct manner.

Since smoking is simply poisoning yourself and you are doing that and I'm not...get the picture?

I ***** not because I'm moral...but because i'm fucking sick of having to wait even longer for hospital treatment because some douchebag smoker with cancer or w/e is taking up a bed/using the oxygen tanks.

So yeah..smoke if you want, just don't get any medical care and we'll be great friends.

Maybe we should all just quit smoking, then the government will have to find something else to tax so you uppity non-smokers even have a health care system.

 

[Raven's Nest]

The tax generated from tobacco in the UK last year was over £10bn. Smoking cost the NHS around £3bn. The argument that says we don't pay our way is totally invalid.

It's not an invalid sentiment though...

Just because £10bn is raised from tax on tobacco products that does not necessarily mean £3bn of that is given back to the NHS to deal with tobacco related problems... The UK economy is grateful for the contribution to it's coffers but don't assume that means £3bn spent on treating an unnecessary habit is actually justified entirely...

 

[Woodsey]

Smoking is hardly a silly little thing: lung cancer is one of the largest causes of death in the UK.

Okay, OP... when you deem the risks of second-hand smoke as "the silliest things", you have officially lost all credibility. Look, if you want to suck on tar and ruin your lungs, that's your business, but second-hand smoke has caused many people suffering. Bitching about people vocalizing legitimate concerns is just dickish.

You do realize there's a very easy solution to that, and it doesn't involve altering or interfering with anyone's habits or behavior: Move away from the smoke. It's not that hard to walk away from a smoker, and it takes less than a few seconds to get well away from the smoke and whatever harmful chemicals it contains.

The courteous solution is for the smoker to move out of other people's way if it's causing them discomfort.

 

[Private Custard]

The tax generated from tobacco in the UK last year was over £10bn. Smoking cost the NHS around £3bn. The argument that says we don't pay our way is totally invalid.

It's not an invalid sentiment though...

Just because £10bn is raised from tax on tobacco products that does not necessarily mean £3bn of that is given back to the NHS to deal with tobacco related problems... The UK economy is grateful for the contribution to it's coffers but don't assume that means £3bn spent on treating an unnecessary habit is actually justified entirely...

Just had a search and my figures were out. For the same year the figures for tobacco were

tax earned - £10bn
cost to state - £5bn

So that means that after expenses, the country is £5bn better off because of us smokers. No matter how you look at it, a £5bn profit is a £5bn profit. It's not our fault that successive governments haven't a clue how to allocate the money earned. We're paying our way fair and square.

 

[WanderingBiscuits]

Yeh like most people in this thread, i don't care if you smoke as long as your not around me when you are doing it.

 

[Raven's Nest]

Actually, OSHA laws in my province DO CHARGE people that are willfully ignorant or dangerous in the process of doing their jobs, and there's been at least one case where a dead man's family had to pay fines levied against him for the conditions which lead to his (admittedly preventable) death.

Fair enough it's good to see at least some places operate with an ounce of common sense.

And realistically, my point about the rest of the things that our society produces as airborne pollutants still stands: I'm largely harming myself, but each breath I take in has some percentage of toxin inherent to it.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"...

Pointing at another problem doesn't make your responsibility go away. Cars and factories are now unfortunately necessary for human survival, sad though it is that we have let ourselves become dependant on such things to even stay alive. The crucial flaw in your argumant is that smoking is entirely unnecessary to human survival, ergo you must accept the consequences of your (and the rest of the tobacco industry and it's consumers) effect on the global environment for what it is... A selfish and foolhardy habit.

I hope you don't even put on too much cologne, though; that smells worse than I ever will. That said, I don't mind the people that don't want to be around me, I mind the ones that won't ever shut up about it.

You might not think stale smoke smells too bad to you but trust me, I'm sure I speak for most people when I say the odour is abhorrent. As a former smoker I am well aware of the difference between the sense of smell of a smoker and a non-smoker. Truth is, you will never know just how bad it can smell if you continue to smoke...

Oh, and I'll take cologne any day. Not to mention that most people don't go around re-applying cologne every half an hour or so.

 

[Emil-san]

Um, you're a little off target there, sonny.

People complain that second hand smoke has negative health impacts, and so does a car. Cars produce more ppm of harmful airborne pollutants than cigarettes do. In fact, it's often claimed that second-hand smoke is a massive factor in cancer amongst non-smokers (I'm not up-to-date on those stats, so I'll let you worry about that), and I've pretty accurately pointed out that the direct pollution from a car is more dangerous than my second-hand smoke, because of the massive difference in the scale of exposure.

If my argument can be directly supported and relevant, it's not a strawman. If it doesn't agree with you, however, it obviously must be.

I'm not really sure if this has been replied to, as I haven't read the whole thread. But still, your argument is making me confused.

Essentially, what you're saying is that it's OKAY to pollute nearby peoples lungs (regardless of how YOU might treat bystanders, the majority of the smokers don't care) with cigarette smoke just because cars are already polluting them MORE than cigarettes could? I mean.. what?

 

[Lim3]

"Why must people try to assume a position of moral authority based on the silliest things?"

Because I'm RIGHT!

I'm to lazy to respond to the small paragraph you posted, except to say that i live on Giligan's island and my computer is constructed from bamboo and pulls energy from the ether to power it. Oh and the hamster in the wheel pulls the energy from the ether.

 

[Raven's Nest]

Just had a search and my figures were out. For the same year the figures for tobacco were

tax earned - £10bn
cost to state - £5bn

So that means that after expenses, the country is £5bn better off because of us smokers. No matter how you look at it, a £5bn profit is a £5bn profit. It's not our fault that successive governments haven't a clue how to allocate the money earned. We're paying our way fair and square.

This is one of the reasons why I'm against an all out ban. You can't argue against £5bn profit, especially when smoking isn't considered morally wrong. Still, there has to be a line somewhere, if drugs and prostitution etc were legalized and taxed that'd be another £5bn added. But is that necessarily a good thing too?

Edit: Just incase you missed my point with that last part: In a world where morality can only be measured in shades of grey, this issue is a fine example. If the taxation of tobacco generates this much income and that this is enough to do without legalizing drugs or prostitution then I'm happy to keep smoking legal and I'll even tolerate the smoke that goes with it.

I think people on both sides of the argument ought to think about this too...