You also smoke everything possible so you have an inherent bias. Of course you want to be able to smoke.
I don’t think it’s a Karen thing not wanting to be around smoke. It sucks, period.
No Pipe Smoking - Why?
- Thread starter workman
- Start date
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
I don’t think it’s a Karen thing not wanting to be around smoke. It sucks, period.
Correct. But only in ventilated areas or outside. I totally understand not wanting to be around it. Breathing it in is horrible.
My issue with the anti-smoking laws is that they are, in my best estimation, based on bunk "science" and misinformation. I don't believe second hand smoke is a bona fide risk. I believe it to be essentially a pretext. Conversely, motorcycle helmet laws, seatbelt laws, automatic firearms laws, etc. are all based upon tangible and bona fide public interests, notwithstanding my arguments against the nanny state in its entirety which I know you're already familiar with, so I won't repeat them here.
As to the rights of people to not breathe smoke, they can choose not to patronize privately-owned establishments that (would) permit smoking.
In practice, I don't really mind a bit of regulation, but I think we've gotten to the point in the anti-smoking laws that they've crossed the thresh hold of absurdity, especially by banning smoking in privately-owned establishments such as bars. If you're terribly concerned about your health, you don't belong in a bar in the first place.
As to the rights of people to not breathe smoke, they can choose not to patronize privately-owned establishments that (would) permit smoking.
In practice, I don't really mind a bit of regulation, but I think we've gotten to the point in the anti-smoking laws that they've crossed the thresh hold of absurdity, especially by banning smoking in privately-owned establishments such as bars. If you're terribly concerned about your health, you don't belong in a bar in the first place.
So multiple reports and studies including those from the US Attorney General and CDC are bunk science? Come on man. I know you’re from the country but come on. ?
Next thing we’re going to say the moon landing wasn’t real. ? Though I have already injected my bleach for the day.
I think it's an issue of a cultural phenomenon known as "moral panic." Just part of human nature. Even scientific viewpoints are often informed by social matters, and it's impossible not to have bias come into play, even if that bias is only in deciding what issues to research in the first place and how to research them.
Going out way in left field, Soviet scientists back in the day promoted a theory known as "lamarckism" where parents acquire traits during their lifetime and then pass them on genetically to their children. The implications there basically justify redistributive policies, e.g. that acquired traits (rather than only inherent traits) can be passed on from parents to offspring, so redistributive policies can be used to help people "acquire" traits, and those acquired traits can be passed on to offspring genetically to literally make the human species more equal. They rejected Darwinian genetic inheritance as a bourgeois capitalist lie designed to justify hierarchy as being fundamental and unavoidable.
Of course Western scientists thought that was all a bunch of nonsense, as westerners knew factually about genes and the way they are passed on, so of course Western scientists thought that Lamarckism was just some made up thing to justify the Soviet attempt at equality of outcome. Some years later, more recently, it was discovered that there is some element of truth in Lamarckism, in that certain types of genetic triggers can be flipped during an organism's lifetime and then passed on to offspring, so that some acquired traits are passed on as well as inherent traits.
Back to smoking, there is also a great deal of evidence out there that moderate smoking (yes, even including cigarettes) is not really very harmful compared to other common risk factors, and is probably quite a bit less harmful than a lot of things which people spend no time at all worrying about. The concern about tobacco is mainly a social phenomenon.
TLDR, its basically impossible to do any 100% objective science on an issue heavily informed and influenced by social pressures. Historically, the science conforms to the social pressure, not vise versa.
There is less consensus in all areas of science than the average person is led to believe...and more corruption in science than the average person is led to believe.
It all boils down to which "experts" you choose to believe are correct...and why.
It all boils down to which "experts" you choose to believe are correct...and why.
Right. I too prefer experts that pander to my opinion.
Yes most bans have now gone way too far... like not being able to even smoke outside.
Yes most bans have now gone way too far... like not being able to even smoke outside.
Last edited:
That's such a typical, condescending and unthinking dismissal of any alternate views...but sadly the norm these days.
My mommyWhich expert told you it was wrong to smoke at the chicken store?
From my perspective over the many years, often both pipes AND cigars were often banned and the “logic” revolves around the more prodigious volume of smoke that a pipe or cigar produces. Now, of course that really depends upon the smoker himself.... but for a lot of years in the 60s to at least 2000 or so, a lot (not all) of pipe smokers and cigar smokers tended to produce more NOTICABLE smoke than did an individual cigarette smoker. Not necessarily a valid statement for all of us.... but I think that was a general impression many folks had during that time.
It's precisely because I believe in the scientific method that I actually care when it's corrupted by money and politics.
And that's a more polite response than you deserve.
LOL! So the side you believe is not corrupted or swayed by any external means. Must be some Buddhist monks performing the studies?
The science has ceased to be a driving force. The general public's wish to not have clothes contaminated, nose assaulted and the like drives today's restriction. A few smokers and some scientists argue the merits of the science but, it's no longer relevant today. If tobacco use was suddenly found to be a healthy habit I sincerely doubt much would change socially.
People understood long before there was any "hard" scientific data that smoking obviously wasn't efficacious for the smoker's health. Smokers kept to themselves in the early days, women did not smoke, men wore caps and jackets to lessen the reek smoking only in their club or home. I believe Sir Walter's queen banned the use of tobacco around her countenance. It was only after WWI that smoking in public became more or less acceptable simply because of the number of smokers free cigarettes had created. Upscale bars and eateries went to great lengths to remove the rankness from the air. They created smoking areas long before any regulations because customers did not wish to reek of stale smoke after dining or while enjoying a meal. Working class bar/cafe patrons simply endured and often became inured to the reek as they took the smell home with them, on their skin, hair and clothes whether they smoked or not.
Scientific data simply provided the support/weight for the non-smokers to clean up bars, diners and public areas through laws and ordinances. The politicians had to get on board or not be reelected. The world has simply moved full circle and in "first world countries" smoking is becoming severely restricted in public places.
Landlords ban smokers to reduce costs. Car dealers lower your trade-in value due to the stench of smoking. Prospective home buyers have their agent attempt to drive down the asking price because they will have to spend moneys reducing the reek of a smoke coated house. Unions forced employers to begin providing health insurance for employees. Insurance companies now offer lower rates to companies for reducing the number of smoking employees. If individual employees had to provide their own insurance the employers wouldn't have a vested interest in the situation. The unions provided that hammer.
If I was still employed in my chosen career I would have reluctantly quit smoking. The upside of that would have been much more income to invest or ... to waste on a hobby.
People understood long before there was any "hard" scientific data that smoking obviously wasn't efficacious for the smoker's health. Smokers kept to themselves in the early days, women did not smoke, men wore caps and jackets to lessen the reek smoking only in their club or home. I believe Sir Walter's queen banned the use of tobacco around her countenance. It was only after WWI that smoking in public became more or less acceptable simply because of the number of smokers free cigarettes had created. Upscale bars and eateries went to great lengths to remove the rankness from the air. They created smoking areas long before any regulations because customers did not wish to reek of stale smoke after dining or while enjoying a meal. Working class bar/cafe patrons simply endured and often became inured to the reek as they took the smell home with them, on their skin, hair and clothes whether they smoked or not.
Scientific data simply provided the support/weight for the non-smokers to clean up bars, diners and public areas through laws and ordinances. The politicians had to get on board or not be reelected. The world has simply moved full circle and in "first world countries" smoking is becoming severely restricted in public places.
Landlords ban smokers to reduce costs. Car dealers lower your trade-in value due to the stench of smoking. Prospective home buyers have their agent attempt to drive down the asking price because they will have to spend moneys reducing the reek of a smoke coated house. Unions forced employers to begin providing health insurance for employees. Insurance companies now offer lower rates to companies for reducing the number of smoking employees. If individual employees had to provide their own insurance the employers wouldn't have a vested interest in the situation. The unions provided that hammer.
If I was still employed in my chosen career I would have reluctantly quit smoking. The upside of that would have been much more income to invest or ... to waste on a hobby.