You said “We, the People,” the implication is pretty clear. Are you saying you didn’t chose the words for that reason?
No big deal. Now we can get back to disagreeing about banning smoking.
I’m not interested in justifying smoking. I’m not interested in rationalizing. I like to smoke, therefore I smoke. I like to drink, therefore I drink.
If someone else doesn’t enjoy those things, there is no reason they have to light a cigarette or swallow a drink.
We, the people, obviously aren’t very serious about banning smoking. For whatever reason, the majority of the citizens don’t appear to want to. If we did, it’d probably be illegal and I’d be buying black market cigarettes.
Certainly. Give me just a moment to deal with the title nit-pickers, because I didn’t really do that very well above…
Read the sticky: PLEASE USE DESCRIPTIVE TITLES WHEN STARTING THREADS
Then, start with the pretext: "We, the citizens of our society (as opposed to the totally out-of-touch politicians we’ve elected to run the government for us), are not really serious about ridding our society of tobacco products … If we were, then … "
Task: shorten this thought to a Descriptive Title that will perform the functions of a Title: Grab Attention. Pique curiosity. Motivate the reader to action (i.e., open the link), and fit in the space provided.
Hmmm. We, the citizens of our society (as opposed to the totally out-of-touch politicians we’ve elected to run the government for us) …
‘We, the people …’ (and I am not the first to borrow that phrase to grab attention.)
are not really serious about – drop the word ‘really’ (it’s redundant) –
Hmmm … ridding our society of tobacco products won’t fit. Gotta shorten it. Hmmm … ‘Ban’ is always a good attention grabber, and the most common use of tobacco products is ‘smoking’ … use ‘banning smoking’. Okay, that fits. Ergo:
“We, the People, are not serious about banning smoking.”
That, essentially, is how I got the title for this thread. Nothing more presumptuous than writing a moderately good title. Period. (It does seem to have done the job, at least moderately well.) No intent to “speak for all”, no ulterior motive other than to motivate the reader to hit the link. Hope that satisfies. If not, I don’t know what else I could say.
Okay, catsix, you asked for it – you got it. 
Here we go …
Precisely. In 41 years as a smoker, that was the best rationalization I came up with, too. Except that – when push came to shove – I can’t say that I’ve really enjoyed it the last few years. Especially the expense. And, over the years, I have grown a little more concerned about the health side of it, even though as yet I haven’t seen too many ill effects. ::knocks on wood:: But all of that does not stand in way of my starting again tomorrow … and if that should happen, it will be for one reason and one reason only. I am still addicted to the habit. Will be for the remainder of my life.
WOW. Exactly my point! We aren’t serious about it!
Stick with me here for a couple of minutes. I probably should have done this in the OP but, well, I didn’t. So I’m gonna tackle it here. (This is going to go long, I can just feel it …) :eek:
Please – take the time to read this a couple of times and reflect upon it before posting your reply …
I do not now, nor have I ever, advocated an immediate outright ban of tobacco products. Hell, I may need to have 'em around myself! I wish I could have thought of a better word for the title. What can I say? Human and thesaurus failure.
However … I also don’t want to sit idly by and watch more and more individuals get sucked into this devious habit when, if we all thought about it real hard and put some effort into it, we could rid ourselves of this scourge forever. (Or at the very least reduce it to something like more acceptable levels …)
How? I’m not at all certain. I have some ideas. Some may be good, some bad. My experience has taught me that inaction is worse that action – even if a plan is not great – you can fix it once you get moving. (My handling of this thread is probably a good example of that …)
Education should probably come first. I think we’ve been doin’ pretty good on that score. I also think we could do a lot better.
Next, we should continue making it more socially unacceptable to smoke.
[SIDEBAR] STOP RIGHT THERE! I did NOT say ostracize smokers or condemn them. I did NOT say take away more of our rights or force us to hide in the closet. (I do believe San Francisco is definitely going over the line by banning smoking in outdoor public places.) We Smokers, one and all, whether we want to admit it or not, fell into the trap laid before us by major corporations and, to a large extent, the socially acceptable practice of smoking that was characteristic of the society of the 1940’s, '50’s, and '60’s. We started smoking for what ever reasons made sense to us at the time, but we became addicted, none the less. Heart, mind, and body. It’s an insidious addiction, too. Kinda sneaks up on ya. Once it’s got hold, it never lets go. [/SIDEBAR]
We should, however, make it progressively more socially unacceptable to start smoking in the first place. I think that could be tied into the education bit somehow.
Then, as the decades go by, we should make it more difficult to obtain tobacco products. We might look at raising the age of possession. Gradually. Pick a year, say – oh, five years from now. Or Ten. Begin in that year to start raising the age of possession each year. It would be kinda like drawing a line in the sand and saying, “This is the year we begin to rid ourselves of this habit.” (If we, as a society, were really serious … we’d start this year.)
Eventually, we old smokers will all die off from one cause or another (life is, after all, fatal …), the allure of the habit will (hopefully) fall off, and tobacco products will attain the social status that illicit drugs now enjoy.
I understand all too well that tobacco will always be with us. I am merely hopeful that, at some point in the distant future, our children’s grandchildren, and theirs, will no longer be faced with having to choose whether or not to smoke.
One final point and then I’ll go away again: Though at times I do a pretty good imitation of a pessimist, I’m really a hopelessly romantic optimist. I really do believe that no one who is currently addicted to tobacco products would wish that addiction on someone else – most especially someone who may not yet be capable of truly understanding all of the social, health and financial pitfalls of the addiction.
So who should really be leading the fight against smoking? Non-smokers? They haven’t got a clue.
We, smokers and former smokers, should be out front leading the charge! After all, how can someone who’s never smoked ever truly understand the habit?
::whoops:: that one’s gonna cause a stir …
::ducks and runs for cover::
There you go again, calling for continually raising the bar (age limit). No matter how many words or paragraphs you post, it comes back to it. Some of us have tried to explain that it is a matter of giving up personal choices due to some one else’s “icky factor”. We brought up Prohibition, which tried to do the same thing with alcohol as you are proposing for smoking (the end result being eventual total prohibition). It failed in spectacular fashion. It brought corruption, violence, bootlegging, and an increased standard of living for mobsters.
Some of us have no desire to “lead the charge”, we simply believe people should be entitled to live in peace and have their little vices occasionally. Some of us realize that if you rid society of everything that anyone might complain about, there will be nothing left to do.
The “San Francisco experiment” is an exercise in futility. It is a bad law, for no reason other than “warm fuzzies”. It is an attempt to exert government control where none is proper. It is an example of “tyranny of the majority”.
I heard a commentary on the radio yesterday, one of those talk radio shows where people can call in. Several of the antismoking callers were borderline fascists. One came out and actually said she doesn’t care about peoples rights, she wants to outlaw smoking. Just because she does not like it. Is that your viewpoint? Think about it. The gentleman running this radio show had an excellent point. His show was mainly about San Francisco, but I think he also intended to cover the “bigger picture” everywhere. He said, that people who “fight” so loudly and continually against such bogus things are cowards. They fight things that are safe. They never take any risk and fight any of the true evils - corruption, crime, tyrants. They want to curtail other peoples rights, but scream bloody hell if their little patch of dirt is threatened. They have nothing better to do and are petty little creatures. His words, not mine.
I get great joy out of every minute I spend on my smoke break, inhaling the wonderful nicotine and being left the fuck alone by the non-smokers and worse, ex-smokers, who won’t dare set foot in the smoking area.
‘We’ don’t want to be. You want to be. Apparently the majority of the country is not in your camp, or smoking would already be entirely illegal.
What part of ‘I don’t want you playing nanny for me.’ are you failing to understand? It’s not up to me to decide what kind of personal choices an individual should make regarding a ‘devious habit.’ So what if it’s dangerous? So is skydiving. And it’s not up to me to determine what the ‘acceptable level’ of smokers is. Nor is it up to you.
Why? If it’s an activity that comes with risks but is enjoyable to those who engage in it, why the hell should ‘we’?
Eventually all of us, smokers and not, are going to die. Every single one. And a thousand years from now, it is not going to matter one damn bit whether we smoked or not.
You are obviously still under the deluded impression that a smoker like me wants to be in your club. I don’t. I have no interest in what you want to do, nor any intention to ever join you. Why in the bloody blue hell would I seek to eliminate an activity I enjoy? Why would I want that activity to be ‘socially unacceptable’?
What on earth should make me actually want to join your camp?
I don’t think you quite understand that this premise you cling to like it’s the divine truth from on high is not just automatically accepted by everyone else. Why on earth would we get on your ‘ban smoking’ bandwagon when we don’t want to ban smoking?
The problem is that there is no cheap replacement for nicotine in cigarettes. I mean really, if there was a satisfying way to stop smoking that still catered to nicotine addiction then we, as a society would be a lot better off. Sure… Nicotine addiciton isn’t good, but pure nicotine isn’t carcinogenic, I don’t think. I know for sure its not nearly as bad as real cigarettes. Why not make something like that?
Ever since I quit smoking I want one after I finish a big meal. My mouth literally starts to water from an old pavolvian reflex. I wish there was something I could do to satisfy that urge now, but I can’t.
I used to dip snuff. I don’t know what the horror stories there are. Probably not lung cancer, but not a good thing either, right? But nothign beats an aftter dinner dip. But now, i coulnd’t handle it anyway. that’s what I always tell myself.
Congrats to all the people in this thread who have quit!
My uncle’s brother in law just dropped dead at 66 a couple of weeks ago. I wonder how many more years he could have had if he’d put the cigarettes down, ya know?
At any rate, our prisons are overcrowded enough with nonviolent offenders. Who here wants to foot the bill for locking up a large group of people for tobacco possession?
“We are Borg. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.” Courtesy of Star Trek: Then Next generation.
You are hopeful that your children and grandchildren will have choices taken away from them? What you should be hopeful for is that they will live in a free society where they are allowed to make their own choices, not the communistic one you seem to be proposing.
Sorry, I calls it the ways I see it.
*lights up a smoke, inhales the sweet taste, thankful that I can enjoy the things that I want, live as a hermit if I choose to, and die the way I want"
Yeah this approach works really well with drugs, right?
I look forward to the day years from now when the clerk at the 7-11 says, “Excuse me sir, do you have any proof that you are 44?”
Too much exposure to the sun can cause skin cancer. Should we do something to eventually stop people from sun bathing?
Eating unhealthy foods can cause high blood pressure, diabetes, high cholestorol and possibly a heart attack some day. Should we stop people from eating at McDonalds until they turn 40?
Having sex with multiple partners increases your risk of getting AIDS and other STDs. Should we throw people in jail for being too promiscuous?
I could go on, but I hope you can see my point from this.
Be concerned about your own life, live a good example. Maybe others will follow, maybe not. But doing the right thing for yourself should be your only concern. The best thing a person can be is a “good example”. Find peace within yourself, and your life will be a happy one.
My friend’s cousin just dropped dead at the age 16 a few months ago. He never smoked a cigarette in his life.
What’s your point?
Yeah, my grandfather dropped dead at the age of 82. I wonder how much longer he could have lived if he hadn’t smoked? Probably not very long.
I have to admidt it must have sucked for him to quit because it was totally involuntary when he went into the nursing home.
No, it would not be nice. Not nice at all. In fact, it would be the exact opposite of nice. Freedom is nice. The fact that you think it would be nice to curtail your grandchildren’s freedom frightens me.
It isn’t that freedom or free choice is the question here; it is the denial of those things. It is “We will tell you what things we will allow you to make choices about”. “We will decide what is important for you.” It is a “You are free to do what you are told”. It would be like a dictator saying you are free to vote for him, when you damn well know nobody else is on the ballot.
Oh, absolutely. Let’s ban smoking.
I’m tired of subsidizing you guys anyway. After all, most of the cost of a pack of smokes is taxes. What will you do when the tax money goes away? Will you gladly pay more knowing that all you’ve done is taken away a person’s right to make decisions for themselves? Or will you wring your hands and complain about how you shouldn’t have to bear more of a burden, the one that I’ve been shouldering for you?
As for me, I’l just grow my own if I want to. Tax-free. Cheap. Plentiful. And if the ATF would want to come and get me for it they would be welcome to try.
So yeah, ban the stuff. Let’s see how it works out. I would bet you my entire next year’s salary that the ban would last no more than 6 months before the states, feeling the pinch, would legalize the stuff again.
HO-HO-HO!
Airman Doors! If said ban goes into effect, would you like to join me in a business venture? In the “small package trade”?
I hate to have to break this you, but kids already know all the stuff smoking can do to you. It’s been in all the health textbooks for…well, all of my school career. It was in my health book when I was in second grade in 1984, and our books were roughly 10 years old at that point. So, we’ve been educating kids about the dangers of smoking for 30 years or so now. Teenagers who start smoking are making an informed decision. They’re not pitiful deceived innocents being taken advantage of by the big bad tobacco companies–they’re people who know good and well they’re doing something stupid, expensive, and dangerous and choose to do it anyway.
Oh, and there is no “We” in your little scheme, unless you’re talking about you and the mouse in your pocket.
Lucy’s ideas here are reminding me of that movie Demolition Man that had the future society in which everything that was bad for you (smoking, alcohol, drugs, sex, salt… ) was banned.
Only in this version of the movie, there are a whole lot more Dennis Learys saying we like freedom.
Whoops. Forgot how long it’d been on this thread. Sorry everybody.