Are smokers an unrightfully persecuted minority?

[Terxpahseyton]

To add:

Smoking has advantages and downsides. An objectively right or smart decision for everyone does not exist, because the only objective measure of meaning and value - our emotional worlds - are just complex like that instead of being as limited as societies understanding of stupidity.

If anything, such a smug and limited understanding makes the one having it stupid.

 

[Camikaze]

An objectively right or smart decision for everyone does not exist, because the only objective measure of meaning and value - our emotional worlds - are just complex like that instead of being as limited as societies understanding of stupidity.

Right, that's why I said inter-subjectively, not objectively.

Stupidity is similarly not an objectively bad thing.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

You should just say that smoking is disapproved of then. Stupidity IMO means the assumption that the other side would agree if it only duly considered all aspects. And I am saying that this assumption is wrong, smug and, well, stupid.

 

[Camikaze]

It is disapproved of, but specifically disapproved of because it's considered to be stupid, and omitting that word would whitewash why there's disapproval. I think stupidity more means the generally agreed assumption that the other side ought to agree if it only duly considered all aspects, not that it actually would agree. That generally agreed assumption does exist, whether you'd like it to or not. Society does consider smoking to be an act of stupidity, and given that we've agreed that all stupidity is, is the product of society's (or some other group's) consideration, I wouldn't be too perturbed about smoking being labelled as stupidity. For that's simply a statement of how society views smoking, and not whether it's objectively good or bad. To contest the label, I think you'd have to demonstrate not that you value things differently from society, which is simply an explanation of why you smoke, and not an explanation of why society shouldn't regard that choice as stupid, but rather that society is wrong in their valuation, such that they shouldn't view smoking as a bad choice or unintelligent miscalculation.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

How is knowingly accepting a risk stupid? If I were to claim that smoking has vitamins in it and that it's a healthy past-time, then you'd be right labeling it stupid.

And society is such a broad meaningless and fickle term it's completely useless when talking about what it considers.

 

[Camikaze]

If someone who isn't suicidal jumps off a tall building, knowing the risk involved, I'd contend that most people would consider that stupid. More realistically perhaps, if someone knows of drink driving laws and the risk of driving whilst drunk itself, yet still goes out to a bar planning to drive home intoxicated, most people would probably also consider that stupid. Knowledge of the risk involved in an activity doesn't mean you're not stupid for doing it anyway. Stupidity can arise out of ignorance or miscalculation. In fact, I think most people would probably consider the latter a greater form of stupidity; doing something despite warning instead of simply not knowing about the risks (and to clarify, this paragraph is to demonstrate that knowingly accepting a risk can still be stupidity, and not to directly compare smoking to any other particular act).

Society is a broad term, but societal norms are pretty real things, such that it's possible to talk about them as existing. In fact, the premise of the thread seems to somewhat except that 'society' views smoking negatively, at least.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You have demonstrated that in other cases it can be stupid. Well done. But I am off course talking about smoking. Want me to spell it out? Ok, I'll spell it out: If someone is aware of the risks of smoking, and accepts those risks to enjoy a cigarette, how is that stupid?

And as a response to the OP I raised this exact same objection. As in that I myself have not experienced the kind of thing the OP talks about. It is in fact a good example how silly it is to talk about what a society "thinks". Societal norms may be real things, but they are not as homogenous as both you and the OP portray them to be in these specific cases.

I hope you're now not going to talk about the societal norms with for instance regard to murder.

 

[El_Machinae]

To add:

Smoking has advantages and downsides. An objectively right or smart decision for everyone does not exist.

That's where I'm at on this topic. I think that nicotine and smoking can have advantages and obviously has disadvantages. While too many people become addicted before they can weigh the advantages (or aren't really cognizant of them), I think that's an issue.

I mean, I deliberately allowed myself to become addicted to caffeine in order to get the cognitive boost. Now, luckily, coffee might be good for me (we'll see, later on), but I became addicted looking for a short-term advantage with the understanding that I would suffer long-term consequences.

Will I be better off at the age of 65 than I would have without coffee? Maybe. Maybe if the compound returns on investment (cognition) pay off better than the compound returns of cost (money, health issues).

Now, with coffee, I think it's much easier to come out ahead ($$$, health costs being much lower), but it stands as an example.

 

[Camikaze]

@Ziggy - very true about societal norms being different in different places, and perhaps in the Netherlands smoking is socially acceptable. It certainly is in many parts of the world (e.g. the Balkans). But I'm just talking about societies in which it might be suggested that social pressure against smokers amounts to unjust persecution. The core of that complaint seems to be that society treats smokers as stupid, or distinctly (see my post on the last page about separating the two), smoking as an act of stupidity.

If someone is aware of the risks of smoking (e.g. increasing the risk of cancer and resultant death), accepts that risk and enjoys a cigarette, society regards this as stupid because of the value generally placed on health and life, and because it sees paying a lot of money to engage in an activity that damages health and shortens life, in exchange for instant gratification, to imply a miscalculation of those values. There is positive enjoyment to be gained, but society thinks that if you consider that outweighs the costs, you've miscalculated (according to the value society assigns to those costs), and given you ought to be aware of the risk-reward calculus, this is stupidity rather than the result of incomplete information. I'm not intending to present this as a personal opinion about smoking (I do generally agree with society's assessment, but that's not relevant to this point), or as a controversial statement. I'm just describing what I think is pretty clearly the view of smoking that supposedly produces unjust persecution.

And it's not like smoking is particularly unique in this regard. Not exercising much is another thing that is probably also regarded as generally stupid.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Here is how it looks to me.

Smokers takes less money out of health care because the years when it is gets really expensive are the years when people are old which are the years when smokers are dead.

Smokers take less money out of pension funds because they are dead.


http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-04-08-fda-tobacco-costs_N.htm

Yet when I googled for this source I also read that there are at least plans that obamacare wants premiums for being a smoker? Hello???

Not that smokers wouldn't already pay a huge ass premium. By paying huge ass prices for every pack of cigarettes.

A former German minister of health once openly stated, that the reason the taxes on cigarettes went up steadily but slowly was because otherwise there would be a part of the federal budget missing...

Is that just? Right?
Or are smokers just oh so convenient to oppress and rip them off their money?

It's not plans, it's the law. Obamacare allows for companies to charge smokers more but doesn't not allow them to charge more for other life choices such as obesity. Not all companies are charging smokers more for fear of turning off more customers. But some are and from what I've read, they sometimes charge up to 50% more.

I'll try and catch up to the thread when I have more time later. But from what I've read so far, people are getting way too hung up on a piece of obvious hyperbole, 'persecution'.

 

[warpus]

It's not plans, it's the law. Obamacare allows for companies to charge smokers more but doesn't not allow them to charge more for other life choices such as obesity. Not all companies are charging smokers more for fear of turning off more customers. But some are and from what I've read, they sometimes charge up to 50% more.

One of the differences, as I see it, is that nicotine is a drug that's optional, while food is something you need to survive.

So drug addicts don't necessarily need to put themselves in a situation where they'll get addicted to the drug (by smoking the first couple cigarettes), but everyone has to eat, so people with eating disorders and/or addictive personalities have no way to avoid eating that "first deep fried sandwich".

And yeah I realize I won't get many sympathies dubbing cigarette smokers "drug users", but in essence that's exactly what they are. It's just that the drug they're addicted to is legal.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

No complaints from me for that term.

Add coffee or beer and I have double-barrelled drug action

 

[Farm Boy]

but everyone has to eat, so people with eating disorders and/or addictive personalities have no way to avoid eating that "first deep fried sandwich".

Doesn't fly for me. The Twinkies are at the gas station. You don't need to buy them. The Pall Malls are at the gas station. You don't need to buy them in exactly the same way as you never needed to eat a Twinkie or smoke a Pall Mall.

 

[warpus]

Doesn't fly for me. The Twinkies are at the gas station. You don't need to buy them. The Pall Malls are at the gas station. You don't need to buy them in exactly the same way as you never needed to eat a Twinkie or smoke a Pall Mall.

In your country unhealthy foods get subsidies from the government and end up being cheaper than healthy food for that reason and for a variety of others. So it's often a lot easier and cheaper to go with the unhealthy alternative.

The difference is that you need food though, while you don't need to smoke.

 

[Farm Boy]

You don't need to be fat. You can eat less. I know not-rich vegans. Eating too much is a choice, just as is smoking. You just understand one better than the other, I suspect?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I agree with Farm Boy. It is possible to eat healthy. Even if theoretically it wasn't, it is still possible to exercise. Sorry, but for non hypo-thyroidal individuals, being fat is a choice (also exempting other potential medical conditions).

 

[Terxpahseyton]

It is disapproved of, but specifically disapproved of because it's considered to be stupid, and omitting that word would whitewash why there's disapproval.

Then live with me pointing out that this judgment at least in this absolute and uncompromising fashion is not valid.

To contest the label, I think you'd have to demonstrate not that you value things differently from society, which is simply an explanation of why you smoke, and not an explanation of why society shouldn't regard that choice as stupid, but rather that society is wrong in their valuation, such that they shouldn't view smoking as a bad choice or unintelligent miscalculation.

I contest the label on the grounds that one can neither be right or wrong about this, exactly because it is relative to how one values what. And since this is about me and not this society, I see no reason whatsoever why I should have to argue on the grounds of how they value stuff instead of how I value stuff.

But from what I've read so far, people are getting way too hung up on a piece of obvious hyperbole, 'persecution'.

True that. It seems the Internet just can't for the life of it handle hyperbole titles.

It's not plans, it's the law. Obamacare allows for companies to charge smokers more but doesn't not allow them to charge more for other life choices such as obesity. Not all companies are charging smokers more for fear of turning off more customers. But some are and from what I've read, they sometimes charge up to 50% more.

I wonder why exactly they do that. I have the suspicion that the only reason they do it is because they think they can get away with it. Not because the numbers actually call for it.
Though on the other hand things are different with private health insurances, because they may only cover a certain time of ones life and it is disconnected to retirement costs. The later a smoker joins a private insurance, the more expensive this person will be.

And you know, this to me is another example how American culture can be a lot more restrictive than in other parts of the Western world. It seems to me that the cultural melting pot of yours has created a relative (naturally not relative to say Saudi Arabia, but relative to some European countries and I think also elsewhere) cultural authoritarianism. Smoking is just the latest example I cross.

 

[Camikaze]

I contest the label on the grounds that one can neither be right or wrong about this, exactly because it is relative to how one values what. And since this is about me and not this society, I see no reason whatsoever why I should have to argue on the grounds of how they value stuff instead of how I value stuff.

Well, you don't have to argue about it on any grounds, if you don't wish to. You could just ignore society's judgment. But ignoring it doesn't challenge it or make it go away, and of course society is going to judge things according to how it values things.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I AM arguing. I am NOT ignoring. I am just arguing that the parameters you want to establish are invalid parameters. And that my parameters are valid parameters. And that according to my parameters - society makes a call it can not make. So any such general call is wrong by default and society just has to shut up or make kind suggestions if it pleases so.

 

[Farm Boy]

And you know, this to me is another example how American culture can be a lot more restrictive than in other parts of the Western world. It seems to me that the cultural melting pot of yours has created a relative (naturally not relative to say Saudi Arabia, but relative to some European countries and I think also elsewhere) cultural authoritarianism. Smoking is just the latest example I cross.

We did pass prohibition. We did fire off modern incarnation of the war on drugs. It should be no terrible surprise that the moralizing busybodies should decide to go after smokers(if with slightly less hamfisted tactics, we do learn). They're all the same people, just new incarnations per generation.