People continuing to smoke Cigarettes

[Athenian200]

One thing I've wondered about for a long time is why they continue to allow cigarettes to be sold. The health impact is so well-documented. It's effects are almost as bad as some narcotics. Drugs have been pulled from the market for having effects less detrimental than cigarettes. So why are these things still sold? What is going through the heads of the people making law? Why is there a perception of cigarettes as somehow being more acceptable? What is the psychology behind this?

 

[FemMecha]

What is the psychology behind this?

money
free will

People use cigarettes for pleasure and coping. People also do many other activities for these same reasons that are destructive. Life is messy and complicated and controlling people is rarely, if ever, the answer.

 

[Wolf]

Money

 

[Athenian200]

money
free will

People use cigarettes for pleasure and coping. People also do many other activities for these same reasons that are destructive. Life is messy and complicated and controlling people is rarely, if ever, the answer.

So, what are you saying? That there is nothing wrong with people doing things that could harm themselves? Then why do we have laws about seat belts? Laws about not drinking until 21? And why do you believe that I wish to control people? I'm simply saying that it doesn't fit well with many of our other laws and regulations regarding such matters.

Money

A one word answer is a bit confusing and disconcerting, so tell me if I understand correctly. This occurs because the manufacturers of tobacco have been in business for a long time, have influence over politics and politicians, and manage to promote their own agenda via their financial muscle?

 

[Mycroft]

This occurs because the manufacturers of tobacco have been in business for a long time, have influence over politics and politicians, and manage to promote their own agenda via their financial muscle?

Looks like you've got it pretty well figured out to me.

 

[prplchknz]

So, what are you saying? That there is nothing wrong with people doing things that could harm themselves? Then why do we have laws about seat belts? Laws about not drinking until 21? And why do you believe that I wish to control people? I'm simply saying that it doesn't fit well with many of our other laws and regulations regarding such matters.



A one word answer is a bit confusing and disconcerting, so tell me if I understand correctly. This occurs because the manufacturers of tobacco have been in business for a long time, have influence over politics and politicians, and manage to promote their own agenda via their financial muscle?

I say if someone wants to smoke and get cancer/ emphysema let them it's their choice. I don't like so called laws that are meant to protect us from ourselves. By that I mean anyone over 18. If your too stupid to figure out how to surive without certain laws then you should probably take yourself out of the gene pool.

 

[Rohsiph]

The problem I see is when the self-destructive folks' self-destructiveness extends such that it is necessary for non-self-destructive people to deliberately avoid the self-destructive folks in order to avoid the risks/dangers/consequences of such self-destructive tendencies.

Easy example: second-hand smoke. The last time I checked, the studies still don't show a clear leaning towards second-hand smoke being more than mildly damaging, yet there are enough studies to suggest that non-smokers would do well to try avoiding second-hand smoke. Should people who want to protect their health be forced into weighing the risks of the less conscientious people who don't care about their health?

I'll try to clarify with a specific example I face pretty often: although most all-ages music venues in my area enforce county and city smoking bans, the 21+ private bars/clubs still let patrons smoke. If I want to attend a concert at one of these bars/clubs, I am forced to take some kind of health-hit for exposing myself to heavy second-hand smoke. Since my values striving toward personal health already keep me from a wide range of "fun" risky activities, I can't help but feeling subdued when I have to put up with second-hand smoke to go to certain concerts.

The free-will/freedom of choice arguments are powerful, as, indeed, I have the choice to stay at home. Yet, . . . it's a matter of enabling. Perhaps if everyone could have the same education about the consequences of self-destructive tendencies (to the extent that everyone is made to understand these consequences, rather than just knowing the cursory statistics as in some cases) I think I would be more inclined to accept that, fine, this person who knowingly fucks up his/her body is making a bad choice, and good riddance when he/she dies before I do. But, I don't think it's the case that everyone understands what they're doing--especially younger folk. :steam:

Boxing myself in the MBTI system, I chalk it up to the INTJ desire for everything to make sense. Tendencies toward self-destruction really make no fucking sense. I search and search and search for arguments to show me that, in fact, people who choose to hurt themselves are making choices no worse than many of my own, but it always seems to come down to annoying short-sighted relativism that I can never seem to show the other side why such arguments are groundless . . .

Annoying.

 

[The Ü™]

To quote a line from Robocop:

- "Smoke?

- "No, those things will kill you!"

- "You wanna live forever?"

My advice for the kids: Go ahead and smoke. If you don't die of lung cancer, you'll die some other way.

(That's actually more of an INTJ answer, I think, since it's global, rebellious of the norms, logical, simple, and closure-oriented.)

In terms of functions, the INTPs and ISTPs are actually the types that try to make sense out of everything either conceptual or physical. They make things more complex, since they use judgment before cognition in their functional orders.

 

[JivinJeffJones]

Survival is overrated. Second-hand smoke tends to keep the tedious people away from me. I don't have to interact with them, and they get to go their way feeling healthier, more educated and generally superior to me. It's a win-win situation.

As to the OP, where would they stop? If they banned cigarettes because they are eventually dangerous, would they then have to ban salt or packets of chips since they also have an unnecessarily detrimental effect on your health? As far as I know, narcotics were only banned originally as a form of sanction on the countries which exported them, NOT because of their detrimental effects on health. Maybe it was a bad precedent to set.

I don't see much difference between legislated health and legislated values really.

 

[ptgatsby]

Second-hand smoke tends to keep the tedious people away from me.

Heh heh, funny that. I see smoking as a flag for people I probably won't enjoy talking to. So I guess it does work (Is there anyone more tedious than me? Probably not)

 

[Rohsiph]

I agree that there's not much of a difference, but the legislature would be there not to arbitrarily penalize self-destruction more than to facilitate justice for people who aren't hurting anyone (as opposed to facilitating justice for those who are hurting people around them).

Slippery slope on the "where do we stop, then?"--textbook definition of slippery slope, even. Regulating salt? :hi: no.

And I don't really see what's so "tedious" about wanting to experience clean air when in public places. I'm not going to pull your cigarette out of your mouth and give you a lecture on why I'm better than you (although I might think about it)--I really don't care about you that much.

What annoys me is that it really is a tough issue, when the few subjective claims smokers can really make always sidestep directly replying to my rights as a chronic asthmatic to breathe comfortably in public places.

Interesting to note legal issues concerning failed suicide attempts . . . not that I remember what they are, or would bother looking them up right now, but, noting scientific documentation over the last 50 or so years, it is a hell of a lot more like passive long-term suicide to smoke than it is to eat lots of salt.

 

[Mycroft]

Survival is overrated.

I get the whole James Dean thing, but smoking won't necessarily lead to a super-rad death; you might just get the pleasure of, say, breathing through a hole in your throat.

 

[ptgatsby]

Slippery slope on the "where do we stop, then?"--textbook definition of slippery slope, even. Regulating salt? :hi: no.

I don't think slippery slope applies here. Least, not until people start walking around with salt shakers and pouring it in my food, anyway. And it also ignores that salt has 1-2 nutritional requirements (sodium @ 1000-2300mg, iodine) and is used as a preservative, of which the alternatives are worse... whereas smoking certainly does not have a RDI.

 

[Rohsiph]

I don't think slippery slope applies here. Least, not until people start walking around with salt shakers and pouring it in my food, anyway. And it also ignores that salt has 1-2 nutritional requirements (sodium @ 1000-2300mg, iodine) and is used as a preservative, of which the alternatives are worse... whereas smoking certainly does not have a RDI.

I'm a little distressed, thinking perhaps I don't understand your reply here.

I think you might be saying that salt would not be a slippery slope to worry about. I am a bit confused because you seem to say this in a way that suggests you disagree with the line you quote. However, I mentioned slippery slope as a reason to dismiss JivinJeffJones' second paragraph in his previous post, re his literal "where would they stop?" Or, at least that was my intention . . .

I'm probably making too much of this asking for a clarification . . . oh well

 

[ptgatsby]

I think you might be saying that salt would not be a slippery slope to worry about. I am a bit confused because you seem to say this in a way that suggests you disagree with the line you quote. However, I mentioned slippery slope as a reason to dismiss JivinJeffJones' second paragraph in his previous post, re his literal "where would they stop?" Or, at least that was my intention . . .

Nah, I just have a knack for confusing INTJs

I meant that legislation to oppose second-hand smoke (public smoking) wouldn't fall into a slippery slope argument when compared to salt.

The other reason for it not being a slippery slope argument is that salt (sodium, indirectly iodine) is a requirement for healthy living - it is the excess of salt that causes risks. This is not true for smoking.

(I don't support blanket laws to reduce smoking, regardless of personal feelings, except in the case of public spaces... and possibly work spaces.)

 

[JivinJeffJones]

My slippery slope comment was in reference to the OP, which suggested that all smoking should be banned because of its detrimental effect on health.

As for second-hand smoking, I guess I find it hard to understand where you're coming from since I live in country with possibly the strictest regulations on smoking in the world. Smoking is not permitted here in any indoors restaurants, cafes, pubs or workplaces. It was quite a shock moving from Germany (where I first started smoking) to Australia.

Personally I think many non-smokers define "second-hand smoking" as being able to smell any cigarette smoke at all, which I doubt has any greater detrimental effect on the health than ambient pollution. I consider second-hand smoking as being exposed to cigarette smoke with little ventilation in an on-going fashion, like in a car or in a smallish room. That sort of second-hand smoking I concede is an infringement on someone's right not to smoke, and should be a reason to designate non-smoking spaces (or smoking spaces) which would prevent this from taking place. Which is the case in Australia at least.

What irritates me is people who, when faced with any number of other options, choose to place themselves in my proximity when I am smoking and then think I should feel guilty about smoking around them.

 

[Rohsiph]

What irritates me is people who, when faced with any number of other options, choose to place themselves in my proximity when I am smoking and then think I should feel guilty about smoking around them.

Ah--this I can understand (insofar as I understand you to mean that you are finding a place specifically free of non-smokers, and then non-smokers encroach upon the area you went out of your way to find).

Personally, I want to go so far as a flat-out ban of smoking in all circumstances--but, personally, I also feel that way about alcohol

Practically, I want legislation that grants "justice" for people in public places and, preferably, also in work places. Private establishments encroach upon a grey-area that I am not very comfortable with . . . technically, I note it is *really* infringing on personal rights to enforce the same laws of public domains on private areas, but if the establishment is one that routinely caters to crowds that regularly include non-smokers then I want to make the same claim as I do for public/work places.

My value-system does not allow for relativistic live-and-let-live policy. However, living in the real world sometimes forces such policies upon me

If you know the risks and want to continue acting in a way that is detrimental to your own health, I won't stop you as long as you do not also affect my health. (Unless you're family. Be glad you're not.)

Re: ptgatsby--thanks for the clarification

 

[Park]

I pretty much agree with Toonia
money
free will

Besides social trends come and go.
Today, society dictates that a heathy lifestyle=happy lifestyle.
50 years ago, a happy lifestyle with societal status could easily be personified by a severly overweight general manager smoking a cigar.
Like these two fellows:

Today, the the happy life with societal status looks like this:

Personally, I get stressed just by looking at the guy on the last pic and I can honestly say, I'm not fast enough, not healthy enough, not smart enough, and not aggressive enough to even try to live up to that. I'd probably die sooner from living the healthy= happy lifestyle than from smooking.

 

[Wolf]

I find this discussion pretty funny.

I must admit, I often have this phantom pistol on my belt that I want to grab and use to shoot the burning bit off the cigarette with...preferably when looking at the person straight-on. I am highly allergic to them (and I have asthma), so it's worse for me than most.

Smokers are assholes, I've found, and they don't care about anyone but themselves. I wish their habit killed them a lot more quickly.

 

[Park]

Smokers are assholes, I've found, and they don't care about anyone but themselves. I wish their habit killed them a lot more quickly.

PMS?