Are smokers an unrightfully persecuted minority?

[classical_hero]

They are rightfully "persecuted". Why? Because no other habit is as dangerous to non users as smoking is to non smokers. People have gotten lung cancer from smoke they inhaled from smokers while they never smoked and as an asthmatic, smoking makes me ill whenever I get a whiff of it, so it is more than just the cost of what it costs to keep the smoker alive when ill, plus smoking has deleterious effects on many other treatments, so the overall effect of smoking is the worst.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

crap, %^$%blocked

 

[Terxpahseyton]

First of all data seems to suggest that you're completely incorrect..

The data you have hidden up your sleeve? Sorry but I don't see where you are coming from with that impression.

And look. Premiums aren't about punishment for bad health decisions, as you apparently think. They are about economics. Even if you don't like what that entails. Premiums for smokers is justified by economics. Not (dubious) morality.

I'm not going to hate an addict.

I don't know you well enough to make the following call, so sorry if I just get it all wrong. But here is the impression I just got. I'll quote it to emphasize that it is more a question than an allegation.

I guess you don't even realize anymore how you stigmatize / see it as the obvious and logical way to view smokers. Not that it is wrong to say a heavy smoker is addicted. But to be "An addict" is a different thing if you get what I mean. It denies being a smoker any legitimacy and belittles the smoker.

@CH
At the moment the only response I want to give you would be personal and very impolite, so for now I'll say nothing.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I hope the economic analysis in the OP takes second-hand smoke into account. And that people who are healthier and live for longer are productive for longer.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I am starting to think there is some kind of second-hand-smoke craze going on in the Anglo-Saxon world.
Also smokers die 10 years earlier. Those 10 years are years of retirement.
Also smoking has short-term benefits for your brain power, while long-term deficits.

 

[Tahuti]

Okay, I will be frank here: I'm proud to be a smoker. While I do not smoke that often - I seldom buy my own pack and always smoke in company with other smokers - it gives you more opportunities to socialise. It also is a personal acknowledgment you prefer living intense and short over living long and boring.

Smoking is not for everyone, though it is definitely something for me.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I am starting to think there is some kind of second-hand-smoke craze going on in the Anglo-Saxon world.

Smokers seem to like hanging out just outside entrances to malls and transit hubs, from my experience. They keep away from hospitals, at least.

Also smokers die 10 years earlier. Those 10 years are years of retirement.

I doubt they only get sick and die after retirement.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

If smokers only smoke in such a way without forcing others to be second-hand smokers, that's fine. But no they don't. End of story.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

Hate the smoke, not the smoker. Addiction is not a laughing matter, I'm not going to hate an addict. But I might strongly disapprove of certain things they do that affect me directly or indirectly.

Hate the smoke and not the smoker? Are you serious? It's one of the dickest moves out there for people to share his cigarette with an entire streetful of unwilling people. And unfortunately, that happens a lot because it is still legal to smoke outdoors.

 

[AdamCrock]

(many things ....)
My roommate is a smoker, the only time we ever got into an argument about it was when I told him that no, it's not okay to just drop the butt on the ground (many things warpus said and You should read it ! ...)

This is simply not acceptable ! I saw somewhere that You are wanting to go back to Europe I should warn You ! You will never see so many "cigarette butt gardens" like we have here believe me. No Thailand, no Australia , this is SPARTAAAAAAAA ..... whooops sorry (wrong movie) but anyway do not say You have not been warned

PS> Still this is not acceptible and I always butt my butt in my ashtray ! ^^ (least I can do) because I smoke like a dragon sometimes.... do not get near without sufficient vodka fortification promotion ! ^^ ) ( or loose that first strike chance )

 

[Narz]

They're persecuted? They are legally able to consume their drug of choice.

Ask your average heroin, cocaine, or marijuana user how they'd feel if they were able to use without having to worry about being busted by the cops.

Nah man, nicotine and alcohol users are looked after well in our society. They can walk into a corner store and buy the drug that keeps them ticking. How easy is that?? Any other addict has to turn to the black market, aside from marijuana users in states like Colorado I suppose.

Smokers have it good man, society accepts their vice as something that's normal and legal. Sure, there are restrictions in place, but they make perfect sense: go use your drug somewhere in private where you aren't bothering people who do not want to participate. All other drug users already have to do this. With alcohol it's easy because people generally don't run around and pour beer into the mouths of people who don't drink alcohol.

As for the whole healthcare thing, smoking is unhealthy.. obviously it's going to on average cause you to die faster, that's what unhealthy things tend to do. Doing certain unhealthy things drives up premiums. Heck, I get higher insurance premium just because I'm a guy. I can't change that! You're lucky, you can at least change your habits. I could get an operation but I like my manly physique.

Take everything I've written with a grain of salt, because it's happy hour. I have very little emotional interest in this debate, I just like yelling at smokers because they think it's okay to litter for some reason and sometimes blow smoke in my face. I don't care what they do as long as they stop doing those 2 things, really. And if there really is discrimination here, I'd actually support them.

My roommate is a smoker, the only time we ever got into an argument about it was when I told him that no, it's not okay to just drop the butt on the ground on the front lawn. How rude to assume that that's perfectly acceptable? And eventually he was all "alright, that's cool, whatever", and now there's always an ashtray there. People doing drugs is fine, as long as it doesn't negatively affect others. As long as you make sure of that, do whatever you want. Just realize that it's a vice, isn't good for you, and has consequences like maybe health problems 30 years from now, or a higher cost of living and maintaining your lifestyle.

Okay, I will be frank here: I'm proud to be a smoker. While I do not smoke that often - I seldom buy my own pack and always smoke in company with other smokers - it gives you more opportunities to socialise. It also is a personal acknowledgment you prefer living intense and short over living long and boring.

Smoking is not for everyone, though it is definitely something for me.

Proud to be a smoker??

You can socialize with the smokers wasting time outside of buildings & parties without being one yourself. I do (though I'm careful to keep about 8 feet away or at a lower level & ideally upwind).

Smokers don't live intense & short. Getting coughy & gross & not being able to dart up stairs or catch a bus about to pull off is not intense. Time to get out of denial.

 

[Tahuti]

Smokers don't live intense & short. Getting coughy & gross & not being able to dart up stairs or catch a bus about to pull off is not intense. Time to get out of denial.

I know that. Yet let's face it: By smoking, you are saying to yourself that you don't care!

 

[El_Machinae]

Nicotine stimulates the brain

I absolutely buy that argument. I think that we've gotten to the stage where the people who smoke perceive a benefit from smoking that I just cannot comprehend. There's some interaction between brain chemistry and the neurostimulant that benefits 'them' more than non-smokers understand.

Now, you can get this same benefit from vaporizors and the patch. And I honestly think that's good news. Because, if some person needed to smoke to thrive through med-school, then I'm happy that they smoked. There's definitely an IQ bump from smoking, but (and this is important) only for some people. I'm not one of them, but I'm not going to deny that the phenomenon exists.

 

[Core Imposter]

Hate the smoke and not the smoker? Are you serious? It's one of the dickest moves out there for people to share his cigarette with an entire streetful of unwilling people. And unfortunately, that happens a lot because it is still legal to smoke outdoors.

I have a neighbor with just your attitude. I like to wait for weather like this, beautiful spring days and then I take a folding chair, when the wind is right, and sit right on the property line.

And smoke cigar after cigar. And watch the smoke rings waft over his deck.

This is the best part of life. You just can't buy satisfaction like that.

 

[Tee Kay]

I have a neighbor with just your attitude. I like to wait for weather like this, beautiful spring days and then I take a folding chair, when the wind is right, and sit right on the property line.

And smoke cigar after cigar. And watch the smoke rings waft over his deck.

This is the best part of life. You just can't buy satisfaction like that.

Actually you bought the cigars, so yes you bought your satisfaction.

 

[History_Buff]

I don't understand why smokers get so self righteous about taxes on tobacco products. It's a good source of revenue, and it discourages self harm. I don't get all worked up about liquor taxes.

IMO, we've essentially won the "2nd hand smoke" war, with a few exceptional individuals not yet accounted for, with their allergies. The 2nd hand smoke mostly justified the 'push back' against smokers. We've won.

There's been great strides made, but we're not done yet. Personally I see at least three things that need to be done yet. In no particular order:

• Ban smoking where minors are going to be exposed to the second hand smoke. This would include people smoking in their own home if children live there. Granted, I'm not sure how to enforce this one, but if there's a way that's not overly draconian, we should do it.
• Ban smoking while driving, because I cannot believe that having a slow burning fire in your car doesn't pose a risk to other people on the road by distracting the hell out of the driver. It also feeds into the next point:
• Reasonable enforcement of littering laws in general, including the disposal of cigarette butts.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

If you smoke, it is your choice and you take full responsibility for its health effects. It also your choice to hang around with smokers, so no one should moan about 'co-smoking'.

It's not my choice when I'm waiting for a bus or taxi and a smoker lights up next to me. I do my best to get upwind, but sometimes upwind means standing in the street, which is not a great idea, either.

They are rightfully "persecuted". Why? Because no other habit is as dangerous to non users as smoking is to non smokers. People have gotten lung cancer from smoke they inhaled from smokers while they never smoked and as an asthmatic, smoking makes me ill whenever I get a whiff of it, so it is more than just the cost of what it costs to keep the smoker alive when ill, plus smoking has deleterious effects on many other treatments, so the overall effect of smoking is the worst.

This may be the only time I agree 100% with you.

There's been great strides made, but we're not done yet. Personally I see at least three things that need to be done yet. In no particular order:

• Ban smoking where minors are going to be exposed to the second hand smoke. This would include people smoking in their own home if children live there. Granted, I'm not sure how to enforce this one, but if there's a way that's not overly draconian, we should do it.
• Ban smoking while driving, because I cannot believe that having a slow burning fire in your car doesn't pose a risk to other people on the road by distracting the hell out of the driver. It also feeds into the next point:
• Reasonable enforcement of littering laws in general, including the disposal of cigarette butts.

Agreed.

And add to that banning smoking inside apartment buildings. Smoking is allowed in this building, and I live in fear that some night one of my neighbors will fall asleep with a lit cigarette and burn the place down.

And please, nobody start talking about "constitutions" and "freedoms." It's legal in Red Deer to prohibit smoking in apartment buildings; my last building was supposed to be smoke-free (the real estate company did a damn poor job of enforcing it, though).

 

[Quintillus]

No, smokers aren't being persecuted. It's been clearly shown that secondhand smoke is harmful, and can even be deadly, to non-smokers. Thus it's perfectly reasonable to have public smoking bans, have cigarette taxes to discourage smoking, and so forth. And if you're a smoker, your chances of lung and heart disease at any given age are higher than that of a non-smoker with otherwise equivalent lifestyle, so the higher healthcare premiums also make sense.

The argument that "everyone should smoke because then we'd die at 60 instead of 75 on average" and save tons of money on healthcare for older people is ludicrous. Does anyone really want to die at 60 instead of living fairly healthily until 75? And would society really be better off if the average kid's grandparents died when they were 10 due to smoking?

There is a problem with excessive healthcare costs for the elderly, but a better solution to that than having everyone take up smoking is to have better later-life planning. Some doctors, at, I believe it is the University of Minnesota, have been studying this and working with patients to do this, and have found that a lot of people don't really want to be kept alive for years while unable to do anything. Which, to me, is not particularly surprising. However, as it is now, the current medical practice is to keep patients alive at all costs unless the patient has previously said not to. Since most people never make their preferences known, they'll be kept alive as long as possible at a very high cost, even if this is not what they want.

But a not-unsizeable number of people would rather say, "If I have a serious case of Alzheimer's, don't bother trying to revive me if I have a heart attack." However, since there's not really any planning for this in western society, by the time they are ready to say this, they already are too far advanced in Alzheimer's to be able to make any long-term plans.

Back on the original topic, I think we're actually fairly close to a decent equilibrium, at least in most of the U.S. Public smoking bans have made it vastly nicer (and healthier) for non-smokers in restaurants and bars, while those who do like to smoke are still able to in their private residences and in more open public areas. I'd personally prefer a few more restrictions, particularly more strict enforcement of not smoking near buildings, but it's come a long way from 15 years ago. It seems really backwards when traveling somewhere without a smoking ban, and still having smoking in restaurants.

Although that's just the U.S. As someone living in an area with low smoking rates, it's rather hard to fathom how many countries there are where a third or more of people smoke. Russia, Greece, China, Austria, Bosnia... some of the smoking rates are so high that the smokers are nearly a majority. And actually, looking more carefully, it appears they are the majority in Greece.

 

[Camikaze]

Because of your sub-conscious stigmatization of smokers I bet

I think an important question in this debate would be whether stigmatization is oppression. Society tends to stigmatize obesity; it's viewed as unhealthy, unattractive, and generally undesirable. Does that mean obese people are oppressed? I would say not. Similarly, although there might still be some small remnants of society that view smoking as attractive for some reason, it's certainly no longer seen as healthy or desirable. There's an extent to which society can look at certain harmful behaviours and lifestyles as negative, and express that judgment, without there being any oppression, and I think that's what's occurring in both these cases. That is not to say there isn't oppression of smokers as distinct from that, but that the stigmatization of smokers/smoking isn't really part of it if it exists.

There's also the point that highlighting the chemical dependency of smokers might seek to humanise them. Using the label 'addict' reminds people that the choice to smoke doesn't occur in a vacuum, but is facilitated by predator corporations taking advantage of youth and dependency. I would agree that if repeated so often as to frame the debate, labelling a group as 'addicts' could produce action which denies smokers any agency and treats them as helpless victims who therefore must be completely governed, but simply mentioning the fact of smokers being addicts hardly achieves that. Instead it probably results in a middle ground of help being offered to those who want it but face difficulty in quitting, without it being forced upon others.

 

[mrt144]

I'm married to a smoker. She doesnt feel oppressed, she knows what she's in for and how to be polite.