The Alienation Of Tobacco Users

[brian64]

Ok, so I suppose the question is, is something that 16% of adults do considered a "normal" activity? I have no idea.
But I think the way that our society operates these days, "normality" in general is more of a media managed perception than anything else.

 

[jackswilling]

Media/Hollywood still glamorize or, at the very least exploit the use of cigaretts as being cool. I don't think society generally hates cigarette or tobacco use, but society will not lift a finger to stop idiotic regulations. So passing a law in 2009, allowing further FDA regulation of tobacco, just flies under the radar of the majority. The e-cig proponents are a real asset in dealing with the current FDA tobacco pogrom.

 

[perdurabo]

Jack, Congress is forbidden to pass its responsibilities to another branch of government. Another fact that flies under the radar of the majority, shame on the sleeple. Droning on and on and on and on. An uneducated electorate is dangerous, as we are witnessing. Bad times, this FDA issues is only the beginning.

 

[brian64]

Media/Hollywood still glamorize or, at the very least exploit the use of cigaretts as being cool.

Yeah, that's still somewhat true in movies, but not nearly as much as it used to be. But the anti-tobacco media is primarily coming from the government/corporate news complex. IMO, Hollywood glamorizes alcohol WAY more than cigarettes, even in the past, but especially these days.
+1perdurabo. As far as the legal questions go, it should always be, where does the authority come from? But as we all know, the Constitution was shredded long ago. And it was done by both the left and the right.

 

[brian64]

For the record, below are some additional data I've gleaned regarding smoking stats:

Smoking rates in the U.S. in 2014 hit an all-time low, with only about 16.8% of adults smoking cigarettes in 2014, which is nearly a 20% drop from the smoking rate in 2005. Smoking rates in the United States have dropped by half from 1965 to 2006 falling from 42% to 20.8% of adults.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_tobacco_consumption
From 1965 to 1991, the prevalence of current pipe smoking for men declined 12.1 percentage points (from 14.1% to 2.0%)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743596999995

For whatever reason, it seems difficult to find data on the current number of pipe smokers in the U.S., but according to the below site, fairly current numbers are only 0.8% of population.
http://www.vocativ.com/interactive/culture/health-culture/cigarette-use-us/

 

[warren]

"Oh! Woe is us!"
The people have happily and willingly ceded all sorts of power to government. It makes life soooo much easier. All of the finger waving and running around in circles, and wringing our hands is not going to change the facts of the matter.
Back in Shakespeare's day, when smoking first gained a major foothold in Western society, it was sold as a panacea for all things bad, plague, the vapors, dull minds, etc. Even then there were people who found it unacceptable, smoking was only for the rich or upper classes, not often seen in public and certainly not something done by "proper" women. The tools used to grow smoking are now turned against it.
The simple fact of the matter is; there is no "good" reason to take up the habit. It is strictly a selfish (personal) decision which causes loss of moneys with no real gain, may damage one's health, causes discomfort to others, etc. We like to smoke, so we do. Hardly a well reasoned response to the antis.
The response many here use is "What about liquor? Marijuana?" Again, I can think of no reasonable defense for the habit (hobby?) than to say "It makes me happy. I like it."
A strict adherent to the US Constitution might respond with "What about the pursuit of happiness?" My response would be; "Pursue it all you want. No where in the document is there any mention of a right to happiness."

 

[brian64]

A strict adherent to the US Constitution might respond with "What about the pursuit of happiness?" My response would be; "Pursue it all you want. No where in the document is there any mention of a right to happiness."

Rights are not derived from the Constitution...we're born with them. The document is only there to outline the limits of government authority.
As for all of the rest of the conversation, there is no running in circles or hand wringing going on here...at least not on my end, I assure you. Just conversing about the nature of the society we live in, and specifically how it relates to tobacco use. Sorry if that bothers you Warren, but perhaps that's what you should expect to find on a tobacco forum.

 

[perdurabo]

Beautiful Warren, Simply Beautiful.
Brian, you nailed it my friend. But I will always side and speak in favor of the Civil Society and the Social Compact. It's long overdo, we need to begin to severe our ties with this Compact. At this point the Anti-Federalist have won the argument, it took long enough.

 

[perdurabo]

MootPoint: The Republicans have never been Conservative, Reagan was hated by the Republican Party and the Bush family despised the man. Just trivia.

 

[warren]

Doesn't bother me in the least. Most of this just reads as amusing, time well wasted. And, time should always be well wasted, never just frittered away. It's just the idea of trying to interject reason or thought into what is essentially a "feel good" subject (the antis) and politics or political leanings is meaningless fun. At least, that is how I read it. It's nothing serious, just good, clean fun. Entertainment as it were.

 

[warren]

I should point out, in my defense, I am only paying scant attention to this discussion. I am fully riveted on my TV. It appears some scantily clad, nubile young ladies were swimming in Stockholm. Something chased them out of the water and they escaped on bicycles. Then, while I was responding here, someone stole all their bicycles and now they are furiously running from some as yet unidentified peril. Captivating!

 

[aldecaker]

You damned youngsters and your digital devices. If you're not glued to the television, you're pecking away on some "forum" full of loonies and sex perverts...

 

[brian64]

It's just the idea of trying to interject reason or thought into what is essentially a "feel good" subject

I agree Warren...an injection of reason is just what is needed with the anti-tobacco hysteria.

It appears some scantily clad, nubile young ladies were...and now they are furiously running from some as yet unidentified peril.

Now that does sound interesting. I hope they're safe from whatever the peril was. Perhaps they were exposed to second-hand smoke.

 

[warren]

I'm not sure hysteria is the correct word. There is a lot of money being carefully and logically applied to sway opinions. Professional politicians do not "do" hysteria. They check the wind, continuously and often, before deciding on a position and when to change positions. The preponderance of evidence, real and imagined, shows how carefully managed the effort against smoking is. No one, in the organized smoking opposition, is calling for tobacco products to be banned, the tax levels are carefully chosen so as not to kill the "golden goose." The tobacco industry is carefully managing their approach to maximize profits and reach other markets. No, the only hysterics I see are the fringe antis and many of the adversely impacted, the smokers.
The tobacco manufacturers are pragmatic and understand and accept the need to adjust without totally surrendering. Government wants and needs the moneys we smokers give them. To see hysteria where only carefully crafted ad campaigns, political pressures, etc. are being used is to sadly underestimate the "anti-smoking" campaigners.
The anti-smoking lobbies have attorneys well versed in the laws and the founding documents, unlimited moneys, and the assistance of many "well meaning" nanny types. Smokers have none of the weapons and are pretty much dependent on letter writing, venting and, fully dependent on the tobacco lobby to mitigate the damage to their business so as to continue to provide product, what in the west, is a shrinking market. Third world countries are where the market is going. There the education and poverty levels make tobacco attractive. In the West? Tobacco is taking a battering and losing ground.
By and large, I think not having seen any relevant studies, smoking is becoming the refuge of people lower on the economic totem pole and, most likely, lacking a college education. Again, this opinion is based strictly on personal observation, anecdotal evidence and poor evidence at that. 'Tis a far cry from the days in which smoking was almost strictly a diversion of the rich and titled.
Hysteria? Hardly!

 

[phil67]

warren wrote:

The simple fact of the matter is; there is no "good" reason to take up the habit. It is strictly a selfish (personal) decision which causes loss of moneys with no real gain, may damage one's health, causes discomfort to others, etc. We like to smoke, so we do. Hardly a well reasoned response to the antis.
The response many here use is "What about liquor? Marijuana?" Again, I can think of no reasonable defense for the habit (hobby?) than to say "It makes me happy. I like it."
A strict adherent to the US Constitution might respond with "What about the pursuit of happiness?" My response would be; "Pursue it all you want. No where in the document is there any mention of a right to happiness."

Well said Warren, and I couldn't agree more.

 

[warren]

Glad you agree, even though I cited the wrong document. I should of paid less attention to the triathlon and more to framing my thoughts. Mea Culpa!

 

[brian64]

I mostly agree Warren. The hysteria I refer to is the distorted public perception created by the propaganda...such as the unrealistic, and greatly exaggerated, perceived danger of second and third hand smoke and moderate tobacco use.
I fully realize that the architects of that propaganda are doing it in the manner you describe. The tone of the propaganda is hysterical in its distortion of reality, even if those creating it know better.
What I disagree with is that tax dollars are a prime concern and motive. It's simply about control and about creating a scapegoat. Once upon a time they produced such propaganda regarding Marijuana (Reefer Madness) and they knew then it was BS and were doing for other reasons regarding control of hemp products. And the financial system makes more money off the black market than from taxing such products. The big banks are awash in money derived from illegal substances.

 

[perdurabo]

Anti-smoking...lobbies....founding documents

No one in Washington cares about founding documents. Since the time of Wilson, both sides have tried to skid by those wasckally documents. We the People...hmmm...hmmm...We the Majority Government Educated Fools, purposely have been indoctrinated to care more about stuff than Civics. Stuff is great, I love stuff. Pipes and tobacco are stuff, but the Binding Law that protects me and my stuff is much more important.
As far as taxes, The Statist( D&R's Respectively) have found a global piggy bank in the form of Green Fascism. This new tax machine will garner the Statist much more tax revenue than tobacco does. Now that they are pushing Government HealthCare,(Obamacare was designed to destroy the Insurance Companies, The designers/ technocrats have admited this) Smoking will create more health issues(Asthma and the like) that the government has to pay for. So, as Brian has pointed out, it's about control. It's part of the rationing care that Socialised Medicne is so well known for. Not only will you stand in line, your freedom will be limited.
If you don't believe this, that's fine, We are all privy to our own delusions, but you are a fool. The writing is on the wall.
Other than that, I'm here to have fun. Usually at someone else's expense. :rofl:

 

[warren]

Very few outside of the District are the least bit concerned about or are even aware of the documents. Which is the result of you and I not caring enough to be involved in schools and government. Much easier for us to sit on the sidelines and pontificate. But, I'm a deft hand at both, especially since I'm pretty much retired and all I have is time on my hands to bitch and complain.
What about the insurance companies which happily participated in the formulation of "Obamacare"? Did they sign their own death warrant or, did they figure out how to reward their stockholders with better dividends? Large companies do not usually intentionally harm themselves or their stockholders.
One of my philosophies of life is, "If people can be rich, I'll do my damnedest to attempt to be one of them." I've been poor and I discovered having money is better. Much, much better! So, I'll try and figure out how to make moneys with "Obama Care" even as I denigrate it. I'm not a fan but, it does create opportunities. Also, having a bit of coin means I do not have to participate in the latest health care fad.
As a young man I started taking steps, reading, taking certain classes, observing the successful, to insure that I wouldn't ever have to look to the government dole to survive. I worry about those who have a sense of entitlement to a stress free life, paid vacations, maternity leave, free health care, minimum wage, etc. Trust me, someone is paying for all of that, It's lazy and, I think, unnatural. One usually does get what one pays for and the entitlement types desire others to pay for a quality of life they have not earned (paid for) and do not merit.
Do not read into this that I have no compassion. I fully realize that there exist a few people needing and deserving of assistance. To them I willingly share what I have. I also determine who is deserving of my moneys.

 

[macaroon]

In response to the OP:
My parents, after learning that I took up pipe smoking while away at college, sat me down and had the delightful "what the heck are you doing?" talk. That was two months ago. Both had parents who smoked, and both have nothing but negative impressions of tobacco. Their primary concerns where health and addiction, which is understandable especially because my father was diagnosed with kidney cancer two months before our talk--despite there being no clear contributing factor(s) to the development of the disease. I am still of the mind that 3 pipes a week would very likely have no lasting effects on my health, but I decided to give up tobacco for the sake of my parents since no amount of reasoned argument has the capacity to change their minds on the subject. I still have my two pipes, though, just to fidget with.
Tobacco can certainly lend itself to fairly innocent enjoyment, but I also agree with Warren; when examined objectively, the only pro next to a long list of cons regarding tobacco in general is "it brings me enjoyment." To be fair that one point is a pretty strong one, but antis still have plenty of reasonable arguments against tobacco to choose from. Why risk cancer and all the emotional and monetary costs associated with it, produce offensive smells, and beckon social disdain (from both strangers and from loved ones), and implicitly support Big Tobacco's business practices for something that a nice cup of tea could theoretically replace? Obviously some arguments do not hold up as well to smoking pipes than to inhaling cigarettes, but they remain valid. The point is, I see where they're coming from.
That said, if I didn't think it would cause my parents great undue anxiety I would still be smoking right along with you all, albeit in careful moderation. Maybe in the future I'll just go ahead and start again, but that day is a long ways off.