Is there such a thing as a considerate smoker?

[Hawaii Islander]

I was wondering how long it'd take for that to be brought up. That is a whole other can of worms, though, IMO. Even still, there IS a lot of difference between going into a landfill versus just being put haphazardly into the ground by individuals.

Landfills concentrate millions of cigarette butts. Burying individual butts out in the wilderness causes a minimal impact on the environment. Burying the filters also speeds up degradation.

As a side note: take a look at cellulose acetate (that older cigarette filter types are made of) Cellulose acetate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click on cellulose and acetate links in the page. They provide an interesting read on the compounds and their origins.

 

[BassyBill]

Sheesh. Some of you guys are just ridiculously obsessed. All the things that people do in the world to offend others, waste our resources, perpetuate injustice, harm other people, damage the environment, ignore moral standards of behaviour - and still some of you think that people who smoke cigarettes are some kind of major problem for humanity?

Please, try to get some sense of proportion or priority. This sort of misplaced hatred has to be bad for your health.

 

[Selta]

I'm not sure who said that smokers are a major problem for humanity... nor do I recall anyone saying they "hate" anything in this thread (though there have been a handful of posts I mostly skimmed...). Just a very specific topic being discussed and points from afar being brought up by all.

 

[Hawaii Islander]

Sheesh. Some of you guys are just ridiculously obsessed. All the things that people do in the world to offend others, waste our resources, perpetuate injustice, harm other people, damage the environment, ignore moral standards of behaviour - and still some of you think that people who smoke cigarettes are some kind of major problem for humanity?

Please, try to get some sense of proportion or priority. This sort of misplaced hatred has to be bad for your health.

Great point!

 

[GregC]

Why bad? The most common complaints are either (a) "it smells bad", or (b) "it's unhealthy for me (or mine) to breathe this." Both completely legitimate, but also possibly hypocritical.

For (b), is there really that big a difference in the effects of someone lighting up outdoors (for pleasure) and someone driving to see a movie (for pleasure)? The driver is going to dump way more carcinogens into the air than the smoker that he condemns. Just because it's less visible and more socially acceptable doesn't mean it's any less harmful.

You're a reasonable and learned fellow as far as I can tell, and to some extent you're making me reconsider the "badness" of the analogy when it comes to cars. But I still have several problems with it.

First, most folks using it care comparing all driving to smoking. Quite obviously, one has a great deal of utility and the other does not. Second, even limiting it to "outside" smoking is too broad. At an outdoor gathering where you're stuck in one place (concert, etc.), the same problems occur with prolonged exposure--eye, nose and throat irritation, stinking up clothes, skin and hair, health risks, etc. Unless you're in a traffic jam with your windows down, this isn't happening with car exhaust.

Third, the smell and the health risks don't appear to be as bad with car exhaust. I work in downtown Chicago--lots of cars all the time, of course--and really, about the only time I smell exhaust is when I'm standing too close to the road after I get off a bus and it leaves. Admittedly, I'm far less informed on the health risks, but I'm not aware of any studies proving that people in busy cities are dying or getting sick from exposure to exhaust. (Note: I'm not denying that it's bad for you on some level.) On the other hand, I encounter the smell if cigarettes around building entrances and when I get stuck in an elevator with someone coming off their smoke break. (That's a real treat.)

Fourth, and this is really the biggest thing for me: Smokers and drivers aren't separate groups in the least. Heck, given cigarettes' cardiovascular effects, smokers might drive a little more often than nonsmokers. The effects of their smoking are layered on top of what they're doing with their driving. Person A drives to the movie theater and sees a movie. Person B drives to the movie theater AND smokes while waiting in line if the box office is out front AND leaves the butt in front of the theater and sees a movie. (Not that all smokers do this, but it happens with regularity in my experience.)

For (a), there's a million things that don't harm me but I still dislike - other people's farts (mine, of course, smell fine ), loud obnoxious people, several shades of the colour blue, the neighbours playing bad techno at 4am, and (now I'm a non-smoker) the smell of stale cigarette smoke.

Here again, smokers probably fart, play bad techno and are loud and obnoxious just as often as nonsmokers. Actually, given that loud, obnoxious people are often drunk and given the obvious link between drinking and smoking...

I suppose my point is that the social acceptability of things doesn't properly match up with the actual damage or offense caused. It feels more that smokers are receiving more negative attention than other people who do similar amounts of harm, which is bound to cause resentment and a feeling that they are expected to meet standards of "consideration" that those making the demand don't make of themselves. Which is, of course, both inconsiderate and hypocritical.

As to the meaning of "consideration" ... does it mean that someone is expected to modify their behaviour so that it has no effect on others, or does it mean that they are only expected to modify their behaviour so that it has no more effect on others than a generally accepted level? IOW, if a smoker does the normal stuff of smoking outside or in places where they're explicitly permitted to do so, not blowing it in other people's faces, all that ... I don't see them as any less considerate than the average person, it's just that the spotlight is on that particular set of behaviours.

Sorry to repeat myself, as you've surely gotten my point, but there really is no "other people". Smokers are part of those other groups, too.

I don't mean to sound flip about this or cop out from a more philosophical discussion of these issues. But I had to make the above point and my post is getting absurdly long (and my time short tonight). I have seriously tried to come up with an activity comparable to smoking that is engaged in by a particular group that leaves others physically irritated and smelly long after the fact, exposes others to health risks and yet is still legal to do in public. I have yet to think of one.

 

[Munjibunga]

Yup. Thing that surprised me the first few times it happened was that I was on the 3rd floor, and the smokers at least did go to the ground level to smoke. Even still, it came right into my apartment. I realize that they have their vices (don't we all), but it was just irritating, especially how some of them had a "it's outside I can do whatever I want" attitude about it, even though I was trying to be cordial and nice about it. I contemplated talking to the apartment managers about it, but that with other factors pointed me to moving to another place. Luckily, here, there are no smokers around, so I don't have to deal with it.

I should probably point out that I on occasion like to take in a good cigar. Probably about once a month, total (edit: actually, the more I think about it, it's less than that. Maybe once every 2 months). However, since I know personally how much the smell and such can be a bother, I try not to bother others with it at all. I go as far away from the entire complex and other people that I can while smoking if I'm here - though usually it's at a friend's house, who also enjoy cigars, and actually got me re-started with them

Every time I see someone light up a stogie, I think, "Wow. Another guy seeking ways to be even more obnoxious than usual." Cigar smoke is a HUGE imposition on people within smelling distance. Vile.

 

[ShredderMaximus]

My god, so many sound just like my mom...

 

[Munjibunga]

My god, so many sound just like my mom...

Just because she's your mom doesn't mean she's wrong.

 

[Hawaii Islander]

You're a reasonable and learned fellow as far as I can tell, and to some extent you're making me reconsider the "badness" of the analogy when it comes to cars. But I still have several problems with it.

First, most folks using it care comparing all driving to smoking. Quite obviously, one has a great deal of utility and the other does not. Second, even limiting it to "outside" smoking is too broad. At an outdoor gathering where you're stuck in one place (concert, etc.), the same problems occur with prolonged exposure--eye, nose and throat irritation, stinking up clothes, skin and hair, health risks, etc. Unless you're in a traffic jam with your windows down, this isn't happening with car exhaust.

Third, the smell and the health risks don't appear to be as bad with car exhaust. I work in downtown Chicago--lots of cars all the time, of course--and really, about the only time I smell exhaust is when I'm standing too close to the road after I get off a bus and it leaves. Admittedly, I'm far less informed on the health risks, but I'm not aware of any studies proving that people in busy cities are dying or getting sick from exposure to exhaust. (Note: I'm not denying that it's bad for you on some level.) On the other hand, I encounter the smell if cigarettes around building entrances and when I get stuck in an elevator with someone coming off their smoke break. (That's a real treat.)

Fourth, and this is really the biggest thing for me: Smokers and drivers aren't separate groups in the least. Heck, given cigarettes' cardiovascular effects, smokers might drive a little more often than nonsmokers. The effects of their smoking are layered on top of what they're doing with their driving. Person A drives to the movie theater and sees a movie. Person B drives to the movie theater AND smokes while waiting in line if the box office is out front AND leaves the butt in front of the theater and sees a movie. (Not that all smokers do this, but it happens with regularity in my experience.)
Here again, smokers probably fart, play bad techno and are loud and obnoxious just as often as nonsmokers. Actually, given that loud, obnoxious people are often drunk and given the obvious link between drinking and smoking...
Sorry to repeat myself, as you've surely gotten my point, but there really is no "other people". Smokers are part of those other groups, too.

I don't mean to sound flip about this or cop out from a more philosophical discussion of these issues. But I had to make the above point and my post is getting absurdly long (and my time short tonight). I have seriously tried to come up with an activity comparable to smoking that is engaged in by a particular group that leaves others physically irritated and smelly long after the fact, exposes others to health risks and yet is still legal to do in public. I have yet to think of one.

I diasagree Greg with your assessment of hazards related to car exhaust. Carbon monoxide output alone from cars (even new ones) greatly exceeds the output of a smoker and his/her cigarette.

Diesel vehicles are also a major pollution problem and impose significant risks of lung disease, including cancer. Check out what the American Lung Association has to say about it. Invalid Link Removed
Buses and trucks and other diesel powered vehicles (and gas powered vehicles) do serve a useful purpose, but they also kill and injure many people every year (not counting from accidents). By shear numbers, I would venture to guess that internal combustion engine vehicles cause more harm to people than cigarettes overall.

The utility of smoking cigarettes is very limited, but to soldiers in combat cigarettes provide a stress relief mechanism while boosting alertness and energy all from one source. Are cigs good for soldiers? Of course not. But, neither are IEDs and enemy bullets.

 

[UncleFluffy]

I diasagree Greg with your assessment of hazards related to car exhaust. Carbon monoxide output alone from cars (even new ones) greatly exceeds the output of a smoker and his/her cigarette.

CO is nasty but something the body will clear. Benzene is really nasty (read: carcinogenic) stuff and the two biggest environmental sources are ...


car exhausts and tobacco smoke


I'll reply to the rest of Greg's (well stated) post tomorrow. Spent the evening doing recreational welding to recover from a hectic day and am now a couple of bottles of Duvel in the direction of sleepy...

 

[Munjibunga]

What if smoking doesn't cause lung cancer ... it's all that asbestos dust that came off older cars' brake pads.

 

[R. Laevinus]

... Quite obviously, one [driving] has a great deal of utility and the other [cigarette/tobacco smoking] does not. ...

You're clearly an intelligent fellow, and literate (which I highly respect in this day and age), and also evidently able to discuss a subject on which you hold strong feelings with calmness and reason - something else I highly respect.

So well done, sir.


However; I would ask you to please credit me with a minimum of sense, and to reconsider your position that tobacco use is of no utility. It is of great utility to those who do it; that's why we do. I am not a stupid person; I've merely made some poor decisions, as have we all. Some of those poor decisions have set up interesting circumstances that make the consumption of tobacco products very useful, integral even, to my current lifestyle.

I respect your point of view... but by suggesting that an expensive and self-destructive habit has no benefits to the individual partaking in such habits, you are suggesting, however obliquely, that those individuals are somehow less capable of reason or in posession of less intelligence.

Gladly (sadly?), I inform you that this is not the case.

 

[dbhokie]

I highly suggest reading Mark Twain's thoughts on tobacco, one of my favorite articles on the subjects or abstracts, or what have you:

Invalid Link Removed

 

[ShredderMaximus]

Now I'm not saying smoking is "cool" and that all the "cool" people do it, but the elitist attitude that they are superior to smokers... well

 

[UncleFluffy]

You're a reasonable and learned fellow as far as I can tell,

and to some extent you're making me reconsider the "badness" of the analogy when it comes to cars. But I still have several problems with it.

First, most folks using it care comparing all driving to smoking. Quite obviously, one has a great deal of utility and the other does not.

Sure ... it's unreasonable to compare "all" driving. But I'd give fair odds that a good 50% of miles driven are for recreational purposes. Driving to play a show may be work, but driving to see a show is play and should have no more or less weight on the scales than other entertainment choices, even stupid ones like having a smoke.

Second, even limiting it to "outside" smoking is too broad. At an outdoor gathering where you're stuck in one place (concert, etc.), the same problems occur with prolonged exposure--eye, nose and throat irritation, stinking up clothes, skin and hair, health risks, etc. Unless you're in a traffic jam with your windows down, this isn't happening with car exhaust.

Or if you live close to a busy road or in a heavily built-up urban area.

Third, the smell and the health risks don't appear to be as bad with car exhaust. I work in downtown Chicago--lots of cars all the time, of course--and really, about the only time I smell exhaust is when I'm standing too close to the road after I get off a bus and it leaves. Admittedly, I'm far less informed on the health risks, but I'm not aware of any studies proving that people in busy cities are dying or getting sick from exposure to exhaust. (Note: I'm not denying that it's bad for you on some level.) On the other hand, I encounter the smell if cigarettes around building entrances and when I get stuck in an elevator with someone coming off their smoke break. (That's a real treat.)

Smell I'll give you. Health risks, not so sure. My intuition would be that smoke is worse but the exposure time is less. Even if you're standing next to a smoker for a couple of hours, they're not puffing away every minute. Living near a busy road is 24/7.

Fourth, and this is really the biggest thing for me: Smokers and drivers aren't separate groups in the least
.
.
.
Sorry to repeat myself, as you've surely gotten my point, but there really is no "other people". Smokers are part of those other groups, too.

Completely true, and I agree 100%. I just think we draw different conclusions from this fact.

My position is that smoking is just one more of the hundreds of entertainment options people have that have negative effects on others. Some people do A,B and C, others do B,C and D, some folks manage the whole alphabet. Given this, why do people focus so intently on this particular activity instead of others? Is it because it's easier to require others to change their behaviour than change one's own?

By pushing smokers out into the street we've managed to reduce the health effects of second-hand smoke massively. Pushing them further than that gets harder to justify, IMO.

Is there a point where trying to restrict other people's choices to a level that you wouldn't accept for yourself is itself inconsiderate? Society will never be frictionless. The best we can do is to be even-handed.

I don't mean to sound flip about this or cop out from a more philosophical discussion of these issues. But I had to make the above point and my post is getting absurdly long (and my time short tonight). I have seriously tried to come up with an activity comparable to smoking that is engaged in by a particular group that leaves others physically irritated and smelly long after the fact, exposes others to health risks and yet is still legal to do in public. I have yet to think of one.

No, I don't think that there's a single exact equivalent, but I believe (again, just intuition) that if you took 100 smokers and 100 non-smokers and looked at everything they do during the course of a year you'd not see a huge difference in the total amount of consideration they showed for others.

 

[okcrum]

The reason the US is no longer considered racist is all that pent up racial hate is now directed against smokers. Political liberals can hate smokers, where before they'd have felt guilty about hating some race or other. Same goes for conservatives. You should thank smokers for performing this valuable moral service.