Are smokers an unrightfully persecuted minority?

[Mise]

Clearly non-smokers aren't going to notice you going out of your way to avoid blowing smoke in their faces. They're going to notice the times when someone is rude and is blowing smoke in their faces. Even if you think it's illogical or unfair, you surely understand that nobody is going to notice what you deliberately go out of your way to prevent them from noticing?

And good for you for going outside for a cigarette, instead of annoying other people with your smelly smoke. Surely the morally right response is to continue to do that, in spite of the understandable nagging directed at smokers-as-a-group. If you never annoy people with your smoke, then no-one will think that you are a smelly, dirty smoker, or nag you for blowing smoke in their faces. Cos you never do those things.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Since we've separated the social aspect from the legal aspect (e.g. "saying 'it's legal' is a cheap answer"), and we seem to be talking about societal attitudes exclusively now, what about the social nuisance of having to smell all that awful smoke? That's really annoying. If society forms its attitudes on smokers based on how horrible the smell of cigarette smoke is, how it stinks up your clothes if you're in a smoky room for too long, how it makes you cough when you accidentally breathe it in, then is it really any wonder that society views smokers as annoying, rude, obnoxious, bad people?

Sure, people have a legal right to annoy people. But we're not talking about legal rights; we're talking about people's attitudes. If smokers as a group are annoying non-smokers with all that cigarette smoke and litter and stuff, then is it really any wonder that non-smokers treat smokers with disdain? Is it morally justifiable to annoy people with cigarette smoke? Is it morally justifiable to nag people who annoy them with cigarette smoke?

I could give a rats ass about societies attitude. The non smokers have largely won, smoking is disallowed in a lot of places. I am fine with that. I do not think it is right for the government to penalize smokers and not fatties and alcoholics et al. I prefer the government not penalize anyone.

And if you have issues with smokers making you cough and your clothes stink - get new friends?

 

[Mise]

How will getting new friends help?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I dont know, I am being a combative derp for no good reason.

 

[Mise]

Well this is CFC, that's reason enough

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Clearly non-smokers aren't going to notice you going out of your way to avoid blowing smoke in their faces. They're going to notice the times when someone is rude and is blowing smoke in their faces. Even if you think it's illogical or unfair, you surely understand that nobody is going to notice what you deliberately go out of your way to prevent them from noticing?

Same with Muslims. I always notice Muslims when they are in the news blowing up stuff. Not when they are cueing for groceries.

Damn, Muslims are such terrorists

And good for you for going outside for a cigarette, instead of annoying other people with your smelly smoke. Surely the morally right response is to continue to do that, in spite of the understandable nagging directed at smokers-as-a-group. If you never annoy people with your smoke, then no-one will think that you are a smelly, dirty smoker, or nag you for blowing smoke in their faces. Cos you never do those things.

Have you read this thread?

 

[Mise]

Ziggy, I agree that generalising all smokers is illogical and unfair. I disagree, however, that it's "morally wrong" to the same extent as racism against Muslims or blacks etc. I'm not even convinced that it's of the same kind of moral wrongness as racism. I know you are not trying to imply that smokers have it as bad as Muslims in terms of discrimination, you're simply saying that it's wrong to generalise people on the basis of the actions of a minority, and are using Muslim terrorists as an extreme example to make the point. However, while I agree with that, I don't think that all sorts of generalisation are of the same kind. I.e. I think that some forms of generalisation are strictly morally wrong while others are wrong insofar as being factually incorrect, obnoxious and annoying is a moral deficiency. I don't really accept that discrimination based on skin colour or religion or sexuality or gender or whatever is of the same kind as discrimination based on whether you like chocolate or smoke or prefer pepsi to coke. The former is strictly morally wrong, whereas the latter is just obnoxious and annoying.

Also I have read this thread but I don't know what you're getting at.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Why shouldn't society make a judgment according to its own parameters?

Because it assesses weather I hurt my own self-interest. That call makes IMO no sense if it is not based on my actual self-interest, i.e. how I actual value stuff, but on somebody else's self-interest (i.e. the one postulated by society).
I would be like Bob loves vanilla ice cream and Harry loves strawberry. And Harry says Bob is stupid for eating vanilla instead of strawberry, because strawberry tastes so much better. Bob says "That is not my taste". And Harry says "So what? according to my taste you are stupid. So I will call you stupid".
See the problem?
Harry of course can say "I wouldn't eat vanilla, I was stupid if I ate vanilla instead of strawberry". But to call Bob stupid for that?

If smokers as a group are annoying non-smokers with all that cigarette smoke and litter and stuff, then is it really any wonder that non-smokers treat smokers with disdain?

First, I think you greatly exaggerate the actual annoyance.
Secondly, I think that a tolerance for such annoyance is lacking simply because there is a lacking tolerance for smoking as such. Not because it is oh so horrible and terrible. People simply see an easy target and pick ahead.

In an specific instance it can be different of course. Sometimes it really stinks like hell and to be annoyed by that is only reasonable. To hence crusade against smokers in general is not.

 

[CavLancer]

I used to think that Terx but when I quit I could smell smokers and ashtrays full of butts. You think stale ashtrays smell bad to you? Wait until you quit and your senses start returning. As it happens I like the smell of cigarette smoke but most hate it. You would be surprised. Back when it was legal to smoke in a restaurant I've seen people get up and leave with their kids, and I was the smoker. There's many reasons to quit. I'd say any decent non smoking parent doesn't want their kids to get the secondhand smoke. Of course those days are gone except in Indian casinos. Still kids are exposed in the homes of parents who smoke, and that's a wrong thing.

Once I quit I couldn't find a good reason for ever smoking. What an ass I was.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

My father has been a smoker since I can remember and I was with him for years without being a smoker myself. I never was bothered by his smell / smelled nothing of note. Except on rare occasions perhaps. But absolutely nothing to make a big deal of. He also smokes outside.
Smoking inside is no question in its intrusiveness.
I also have experienced situations where a smoker gets on the seat next to you and you are hit with a smoke cloud. That is not a pretty situation and annoying, sure. But it is from my experience not at all like all smokers are walking smoke smell clouds.
And again on second-hand-smoke: To once in a while get a bit of a wink is simply no big deal IMO. People in this thread seem to be acing like "OMG Cancer cloud I will die..." when in actuality it for all intends and purposes is meaningless. But because smokers are such a convenient target, people get all worked up about it. That is at least my impression. And I have little tolerance for ganging up on people simply because they are a tempting target.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Once I quit I couldn't find a good reason for ever smoking. What an ass I was.

regardless of my future attitude towards cigarettes I believe I will always find value in the ritual of going to have a smoke. It gives a nice moment of pause and reflection.
On parties ti can also be a nice way to change the environment of a conversation to something more secluded and personal for a moment.
ugh.. sorry for double post

 

[El_Machinae]

Because it assesses weather I hurt my own self-interest. That call makes IMO no sense if it is not based on my actual self-interest, i.e. how I actual value stuff, but on somebody else's self-interest (i.e. the one postulated by society).
I would be like Bob loves vanilla ice cream and Harry loves strawberry. And Harry says Bob is stupid for eating vanilla instead of strawberry, because strawberry tastes so much better. Bob says "That is not my taste". And Harry says "So what? according to my taste you are stupid. So I will call you stupid".
See the problem?
Harry of course can say "I wouldn't eat vanilla, I was stupid if I ate vanilla instead of strawberry". But to call Bob stupid for that?

This resonates. The only caveat I have is that it's an addictive product that's targeted to teenagers. The idea that a teenager can pre-emptively 'best' judge their own self-interest is ... non-intuitive.

 

[Camikaze]

Because it assesses weather I hurt my own self-interest. That call makes IMO no sense if it is not based on my actual self-interest, i.e. how I actual value stuff, but on somebody else's self-interest (i.e. the one postulated by society).
I would be like Bob loves vanilla ice cream and Harry loves strawberry. And Harry says Bob is stupid for eating vanilla instead of strawberry, because strawberry tastes so much better. Bob says "That is not my taste". And Harry says "So what? according to my taste you are stupid. So I will call you stupid".
See the problem?
Harry of course can say "I wouldn't eat vanilla, I was stupid if I ate vanilla instead of strawberry". But to call Bob stupid for that?

But we're not talking about whether Harry is correct in calling Bob stupid, but in whether he has a right to make that judgment based on his own parameters. I think a better analogy would be strawberry flavoured ice-cream and earwax flavoured ice-cream. Because with vanilla and strawberry, Harry wouldn't call Bob stupid because he can understand how someone could come to that conclusion; he disagrees with it, but he acknowledges that it's entirely possible for someone to prefer vanilla to strawberry. That's not the case if Bob likes earwax flavoured ice-cream, or smoking. Harry is unable to fathom how someone could come to such a conclusion, and would conclude that there is something wrong with Bob. Bob really isn't any more right or wrong than if he preferred vanilla, but it's more understandable for Harry to perceive Bob's decision as the product of a miscalculation.

Of course, the word 'stupid' would probably still be inapplicable in this situation, but that's because there is no element of risk. Society's making a judgment not because it has different tastes, but because it perceives that smokers are taking an undue risk for not enough reward. That's a fundamentally different consideration than a question of whether someone has 'right' or 'wrong' tastes. A more correct analogy would be Harry preferring strawberry ice-cream, and Bob preferring arsenic-laced ice-cream.

 

[Farm Boy]

Or my confusion as to why anyone would want to live in a stinking, polluted, hellhole of concrete and pavement? An unhealthy and unnatural rat maze of humanity? My perpetual bewilderment that people are stupid enough to enjoy being in cities, much less the total idiots that want to breathe that air perpetually because they choose to live there?

 

[civver_764]

regardless of my future attitude towards cigarettes I believe I will always find value in the ritual of going to have a smoke. It gives a nice moment of pause and reflection.
On parties ti can also be a nice way to change the environment of a conversation to something more secluded and personal for a moment.
ugh.. sorry for double post

And it's a great excuse to get a break at work.

I do appreciate smoking as a social hack of sorts. I started smoking for social reasons and I can't lie it has helped tremendously in that regard.

They also feel really really good when you're drunk.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Yeah, it balances out the drop of blood pressure that goes with alcohol pretty nicely.

 

[Farm Boy]

They also feel really really good when you're drunk.

Right until you smoke two too many since you're drunk. Then you vomit.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Or you get a massive hiccupping fit. Anyone ever done that?

 

[AdamCrock]

I can hold my liquer ! ^^

PS. Massive hiccups ? sure I got hiccups once or twice but it were not massive ...

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Or you get a massive hiccupping fit. Anyone ever done that?

Big inhale, pressure the diaphragm until you're face goes purple. Get rid of hiccup. Looks pretty silly though.

Things Ziggy is proud of, nr 1.439: No matter how drunk I am I can roll a cigarette.

Things Ziggy isn't too proud of, nr 176.354: when drunk to the extend of horizontal misinterpretation I start rolling cigarettes without being aware of it, or lighting them up. I was often found asleep in drunken stupors during parties with 5 or 6 of them scattered around me.