Calling it a hobby is considered denial? You have to explain that one. Collecting pipes and tobacco is definitely a hobby. No different than collecting comic books. Smoking the tobacco is like reading the comic book and being engaged with the hobby?
Do You Consider Yourself a Smoker?
- Thread starter jamespworth
- Start date
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
More linguistic contortions. Reading comic books is no different than smoking tobacco? Surely you jest? If you purchase pipes as an investment or just to enjoy looking at, you can pass as a collector or, perhaps, a hobbyist. If you are smoking your collection, or parts of it, you are a smoker who also collects, or amasses pipes. Perhaps a comic book collector who set fire to his comics now and then, sitting over the fire and inhaling the smoke would be a better comparison to a "tobacco colector/hobbyist" who smokes his valuable collection.
I am a bit at a loss to understand why some smokers wish not to be known as smokers. At one time many pipe smokers used the term "piper" to distinguish their smoking from cigarettes. I can understand that distinction. although I do picture something else entirely when I hear the term "piper." When someone states that they are a "piper" I always ask, "War pipes? Ullean?" Never "Dunhills? Cobs? Meers?"
Perhaps more truthful responses to the original question would be: Occasional smoker, pipe only, the occasional bowl, or some such.
I am a bit at a loss to understand why some smokers wish not to be known as smokers. At one time many pipe smokers used the term "piper" to distinguish their smoking from cigarettes. I can understand that distinction. although I do picture something else entirely when I hear the term "piper." When someone states that they are a "piper" I always ask, "War pipes? Ullean?" Never "Dunhills? Cobs? Meers?"
Perhaps more truthful responses to the original question would be: Occasional smoker, pipe only, the occasional bowl, or some such.
Linguistic contortions? Warren, you are just way too practical and make too much sense. In our current society your way of thinking is archaic at best.
Your stance; You smoke = you are a smoker. Seems sensible, (black and white, really) to me, but....
We live in a culture that embodies "cafeteria style" morality. Choose what you want, leave everything else behind that you don't feel comfortable with or you don't want to define your actions. Hell, even the fact that you have male genitalia does no longer even mean that you are a man according to some. Actions no longer matter. It is more about how you identify. Smoke all day, everyday? As long as you think you're not a smoker, then you must not be. :roll:
In all honesty, how I answer this question entirely depends on who is asking, which is entirely the fault of the corporate tobacco cigarette companies. I feel no kinship whatsoever with a cigarette smoker, and would rather not have their support in defending my right to smoke an occasional pipe or cigar.
The truth is, our pipe and cigar smoking has been demonized due to the devastating effects the chemical laced cigarette has had on the health care industry. That is most likely the motivation behind the author starting this thread, and with good reason.
My guess is, that if the cigarette had never "caught on," pipe and cigar smoking would still be viewed as the noble and dignified pastime it once was, at least here in America. If that were the case, some of us wouldn't feel the need to make such a distinction, but it is certainly a distinction worth noting.
The truth is, our pipe and cigar smoking has been demonized due to the devastating effects the chemical laced cigarette has had on the health care industry. That is most likely the motivation behind the author starting this thread, and with good reason.
My guess is, that if the cigarette had never "caught on," pipe and cigar smoking would still be viewed as the noble and dignified pastime it once was, at least here in America. If that were the case, some of us wouldn't feel the need to make such a distinction, but it is certainly a distinction worth noting.
The OP, in his second post, was careful to clarify what he was asking:
I added the italics to the quote. His motivation is very clear.
Interesting dialogue going on here.
The issue here borders on political correctness. But if we reduce it to the basics, the deliberate ingestion of smoke makes you a smoker. I don't like the term either, particularly because I kicked cigarettes four years ago and took up the pipe about a month after I quit cigs (I'm one of those people who use "piper" instead of "pipe smoker" because I dislike the association with cigarette smoking), but I cannot get around the simple fact that pipe smoking is still smoking, albiet of a different species. However, society does take a selective association with the word and because tobacco smoke is easily detected on me (I smoke about 6-8 bowls a day, sometimes more), I explain, wearily, that I smoke a pipe, entirely different than cigarette smoking.
The issue here borders on political correctness. But if we reduce it to the basics, the deliberate ingestion of smoke makes you a smoker. I don't like the term either, particularly because I kicked cigarettes four years ago and took up the pipe about a month after I quit cigs (I'm one of those people who use "piper" instead of "pipe smoker" because I dislike the association with cigarette smoking), but I cannot get around the simple fact that pipe smoking is still smoking, albiet of a different species. However, society does take a selective association with the word and because tobacco smoke is easily detected on me (I smoke about 6-8 bowls a day, sometimes more), I explain, wearily, that I smoke a pipe, entirely different than cigarette smoking.
People always like to define themselves or, redefine themselves into what they wish to be. (edit: People also lie to avoid consequences to behavior.) They want friends, relatives, etc. to see them in the same way. End the end, we simply are what we are and no amount of playing with words, dreaming dreams, or psycho-babble changes the reality of it all. Words do indeed have meaning but, when it comes to defining a person it boils down to what they do in life, not what they say they are or wish to be perceived as.
jmill: Archaic is a good term. I am a very pragmatic realist. All the wishing in the world will not make me taller. I am the height people see me as. In my mind's eye I may still be a lean, mean crime fighting machine. In reality I am an old guy and time has mellowed me bit, made me a tad more accepting of my foibles and of the foibles in others. But, the last person we should ever try to con is ourselves. Human nature and all that dictates, to some extant, we all do it at now and then. Hell, I still suck in my gut on the beach when passing a cute, young lady.
jmill: Archaic is a good term. I am a very pragmatic realist. All the wishing in the world will not make me taller. I am the height people see me as. In my mind's eye I may still be a lean, mean crime fighting machine. In reality I am an old guy and time has mellowed me bit, made me a tad more accepting of my foibles and of the foibles in others. But, the last person we should ever try to con is ourselves. Human nature and all that dictates, to some extant, we all do it at now and then. Hell, I still suck in my gut on the beach when passing a cute, young lady.
People who want to distinguish between enjoying a bowl or two a week, and smoking (and inhaling) ten bowls a day, are not being self-delusional. They know that saying "yes" to the simple question "Are you a smoker?" is not adequately communicating what they are about.
When 99% of people (or questionnaires) ask "Are you a smoker?" they mean are you a regular smoker of cigarettes. Unless there's a third checkbox for "casual smoker", then some will have trouble checking one or the other. It's more nuanced than "yes or no".
When 99% of people (or questionnaires) ask "Are you a smoker?" they mean are you a regular smoker of cigarettes. Unless there's a third checkbox for "casual smoker", then some will have trouble checking one or the other. It's more nuanced than "yes or no".
For those that like nuance, great. I prefer straight forward answers to straight forward questions. If in an official capacity, my follow up question would be, "Describe your smoking habits." If you answered "no" to the first question and I smelled stale smoke on your person, you would have impeached yourself and any further questions would be a waste of my time and yours. I am absolutely not a fan of people who weasel or are loose with the truth. They are akin politicians and hucksters. Neither of which I expect the truth from and so treat all of their statements as fabrication and obfuscation.
I would like to see a citation of the 99% percent of questionnaires. Most questionnaires are very specific in my experience. If they were targeting cigarettes the question would be "Do you smoke cigarettes?"
edit: Because people do not take questionnaires seriously my department also uses interview with associates, friends and relatives. Then all the data is studied for use in a polygraph examination. We were serious in our attempts to weed out those that are trying to play the hiring process.
I would like to see a citation of the 99% percent of questionnaires. Most questionnaires are very specific in my experience. If they were targeting cigarettes the question would be "Do you smoke cigarettes?"
edit: Because people do not take questionnaires seriously my department also uses interview with associates, friends and relatives. Then all the data is studied for use in a polygraph examination. We were serious in our attempts to weed out those that are trying to play the hiring process.
Cigars & pipes during nice weather. Usually around payday so every 2 weeks or so. But never smoked cigarettes.
Warren, since you are a fan of "yes" or "no" questions with no room for nuance, let me ask you a couple:
Are you an exerciser?
Are you a cyclist?
Are you a drinker?
Are you a reader?
Hopefully, even if you can answer "yes" or "no" to these yourself, you can appreciate how others might want to expand on their answers.
Are you an exerciser?
Are you a cyclist?
Are you a drinker?
Are you a reader?
Hopefully, even if you can answer "yes" or "no" to these yourself, you can appreciate how others might want to expand on their answers.
I don't like the way users of chewing tobacco are escaping scrutiny. I've given much thought as to how the question should be worded, and I've settled on "Are you a chewer?"
This really needs to start being asked routinely. Only those who answer in the affirmative will be considered users of chewing tobacco.
This really needs to start being asked routinely. Only those who answer in the affirmative will be considered users of chewing tobacco.
If on a questionnaire:
1. No
2. No
3. Yes
4. Yes
There is no room nor need for explanations or expansion, so obviouly none is desired. The questionnaire is not interested in the degree of drinking, nor obviously what you drink be it water of Jim Beam. It doesn't want to know your reading level nor your comprehension ability. It simply wants to know if you read, cycle, etc. I do not see the problem. It's all about the information the company/person using the questionnaire desires. Not the applicant's extenuating or labored explanation.
If I ask a yes/no question I want a yes or no response. I will determine if I need or desire further information, not the person being questioned. What I am looking for and why is simply none of their business unless I start to violate some law with my questions. One may wish to justify or expand an answer but, none appear needed in your four questions. You have your answers, the information you asked for. Nothing else is required. Simple really.
1. No
2. No
3. Yes
4. Yes
There is no room nor need for explanations or expansion, so obviouly none is desired. The questionnaire is not interested in the degree of drinking, nor obviously what you drink be it water of Jim Beam. It doesn't want to know your reading level nor your comprehension ability. It simply wants to know if you read, cycle, etc. I do not see the problem. It's all about the information the company/person using the questionnaire desires. Not the applicant's extenuating or labored explanation.
If I ask a yes/no question I want a yes or no response. I will determine if I need or desire further information, not the person being questioned. What I am looking for and why is simply none of their business unless I start to violate some law with my questions. One may wish to justify or expand an answer but, none appear needed in your four questions. You have your answers, the information you asked for. Nothing else is required. Simple really.
While the public aren't discerning with regards to tobacco type/form, telling someone that you are a smoker immediately conjures the image of a daily cigarette smoker (it does here, anyway). In the same way, there's a big difference between someone being a reader and someone knowing how to read. Telling someone you're a reader implies that it's your hobby, not that you occasionally have to read machinery manuals at work. While I value the quality of being a straight-talker you still have to think about what you're implying as much as what you're saying.
If the world took a smoker to be someone who enjoyed lit tobacco products in unspecified form at unspecified intervals then yes, I'd class myself as a smoker.
What do you think that someone who only smoked 1 cigar at new year should call themselves? What about 2 cigars a year? There must be a threshold somewhere. I have the ability to go without a pipe or cigar for an indefinite period and often do during the winter months. I think that saying I was a smoker would actually be more misleading than saying I wasn't. If the person/agency asking the question wants to get pedantic about it then they need to start asking more specific questions.
If the world took a smoker to be someone who enjoyed lit tobacco products in unspecified form at unspecified intervals then yes, I'd class myself as a smoker.
What do you think that someone who only smoked 1 cigar at new year should call themselves? What about 2 cigars a year? There must be a threshold somewhere. I have the ability to go without a pipe or cigar for an indefinite period and often do during the winter months. I think that saying I was a smoker would actually be more misleading than saying I wasn't. If the person/agency asking the question wants to get pedantic about it then they need to start asking more specific questions.
Only when I smoke. Seriously, the rest of the time I don't. I smoke 4-8 bowls a week. I do not consider myself as "smoker". Occasional tobacco user with fire? Yes.
Exactly. The goal should be clarity, not brevity. "Smoker" is a loaded term, and using it without defining what you mean by it will lead to confusion.
- Status