Mark Latimour said:
They properly dispose of it in either an ashtray or some other kind of disposable container. If that's not available they eat it.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Is there such a thing as a considerate smoker?
- Thread starter Marlat
- Start date
They properly dispose of it in either an ashtray or some other kind of disposable container. If that's not available they eat it.
Cigarette ash on the ground is biodegradable and is a fertilizer similar to charcoal ash. Flicking ashes onto the floor or carpet is just plain rude though.
I was unaware of doctors and nurses having to wear military style uniforms and hospitals becoming government installations as part of the single payer option of health care delivery. As far as expensive, most individuals cannot afford to buy health insurance under the current system through private insurance companies. Insurance companies ad more to the cost of healthcare than your average smoker. Talk about inconsiderate people.I would rather trust my government to handle the healthcare payment system than private insurance companies. I am unaware of a third alternative, or I might choose it instead of the first two choices.
It's easier to blame insurance companies than the people destroying their own health, eh? It's true that some can't afford insurance, but this just means we'll be spreading the bills among tax payers. Collectively, I don't think we can afford as well as most would like to think.
Too bad I know most of your answers to any given question. They should outlaw seatbelt laws, legalize weed, etc.
Incorrect analogy. The vet who beat his wife caused direct harm to another person. The vet who is a smoker may not have imposed his smoking on others (he/she may be a considerate smoker, like I was). Simply being a smoker is different than simply being a wife beater. If someone thinks the two are the same, then they have a real cognition problem.
If they were the same, by definition, it wouldn't be an analogy would it?
An my point is that the fact that they may be vets doesn't excuse any particular transgression.
Not a veteran, but I am well aware of the amount of vets who did / do smoke. My point is stated fairly simply above, being a vet is great, but it doesn't flow that transgressions / inconsiderate behaviour should be excused because of it. One can be an amazing person in some respects and a douche in others (and no, i'm not saying smokers are necessarily douches).
It would depend on whether there was a legitimate reason for the attitude shift applying to the people. Lets use the same example, attitudes towards the activity of hitting one's spouse have changed over time and (I would say appropriate), its not just the activity but the persons who partake in the activity which is demonized. Why? As you said earlier, there is a an obvious harm to a third party. I think the jury is still out in the case of smoking and third parties, but if people are lead to believe that it is harmful to them, why wouldn't they demonize people who are potentially harming them?
[/QUOTE]
That would be the wrong assumption. I don't care if pot gets legalized or not. I don't use the stuff. I think it's a waste of resources to throw people into prison for it.
I wear seatbelts and support seatbelt laws. Their use saves lives.
You somehow think having a position on one issue automatically makes a person fit into one side of a spectrum or the other. That is a bad assumption to make.
To your first point. All human beings are going to need medical care at some point in their lives, whether they live healthy lives or not. You seem to prefer to blame people for their life choices rather than deal with the issue of making sure all people have access to health care services when the need arises. Guess what? All people who are not killed from accidients, wars or murders, eventually die of disease (aging is a disease process that is ultimately fatal for all of us), how we treat the ill and infirmed speaks volumes of who we are as a species.
[/QUOTE]If they were the same, by definition, it wouldn't be an analogy would it?
An my point is that the fact that they may be vets doesn't excuse any particular transgression.
Not a veteran, but I am well aware of the amount of vets who did / do smoke. My point is stated fairly simply above, being a vet is great, but it doesn't flow that transgressions / inconsiderate behaviour should be excused because of it. One can be an amazing person in some respects and a douche in others (and no, i'm not saying smokers are necessarily douches).
It would depend on whether there was a legitimate reason for the attitude shift applying to the people. Lets use the same example, attitudes towards the activity of hitting one's spouse have changed over time and (I would say appropriate), its not just the activity but the persons who partake in the activity which is demonized. Why? As you said earlier, there is a an obvious harm to a third party. I think the jury is still out in the case of smoking and third parties, but if people are lead to believe that it is harmful to them, why wouldn't they demonize people who are potentially harming them?
The premise used was not the same and thus the analogy does not fit. Being a smoker (the simple fact of existing) is not analogous to the action (wife beating). The veteran wife beater associates two things, being a veteran and the action of wife beating. A veteran who is a smoker lack a qualifying action compared to the wife beating example. You wrongly assume that being a smoker equates to a wrongful action. A veteran who is a smoker, in itself, implies no action.
To the last part of your post. Demonizing people is wrong. It is an avoidance mechanism that inhibits dealing with issues that need to be addressed.
Not net. Obviously, some people have to produce a net gain on society so the slugs, slackers and smokers have something to drain.
Okay, if you feel the semantics are necessary, I will concede that being a smoker does not mean that one is smoking all the time in the presence of a non-smoker (it does however mean that the person must smoke at some point). The qualifying action is smoking (or more specifically, smoking in a manner that affects others). My point was that if the "others" are lead to believe (through marketing campaigns etc) that second had smoke is harmful, the demonisation of the people who do it (lets find a collective term for them....smokers) are harming them. The explanation for the shift in blame from the act to the actor is reasonably ascertainable. If the reason is legitimate (and I am not saying it is), then it becomes analogous with other activities where attitudes towards the activity have shifts (racism is another example).
I'll try to remember that next time I am demonizing suicide bombers.
Matching your statements to your avatar?
I might tend to agree with your earlier statement if you said "the environment" as opposed to "society." You have to agree that many people are a net benefit to society while others are a net liability. I would be quite depressed if I believed I was going to die without leaving society at least a little better for my having been here. Unfortunately not everyone shares this feeling, and are fine with screwing everyone and everything they can.
Okay, if you feel the semantics are necessary, I will concede that being a smoker does not mean that one is smoking all the time in the presence of a non-smoker (it does however mean that the person must smoke at some point). The qualifying action is smoking (or more specifically, smoking in a manner that affects others). My point was that if the "others" are lead to believe (through marketing campaigns etc) that second had smoke is harmful, the demonisation of the people who do it (lets find a collective term for them....smokers) are harming them. The explanation for the shift in blame from the act to the actor is reasonably ascertainable. If the reason is legitimate (and I am not saying it is), then it becomes analogous with other activities where attitudes towards the activity have shifts (racism is another example).
I'll try to remember that next time I am demonizing suicide bombers.
You automatically associate wrongful action on the part of the smoker when none is indicated. That's the problem I have with your analogy. If you said a veteran who put their cigeratte out in your dinner plate them, badmouthing the action of putting out the cigarette in your food would be analogous and appropriate. Personally, I'd deck the clown. But, that's just me.
To your last comment: Demonizing suicide bombers doesn't help solve the problem, does it. I can avoid demonizing suicide bombers and still support punishing those who make the attempt and fail or are caught in the process. I can also support efforts to eliminate the reason people are doing the bombings in the first place, if a plausible solution exists.
Could it be that not everyone is capable or lacks the resources (money, education, family support, community support, etc.) to contribute the way some of us do? Just a different way of looking at the same thing.
I have a feeling I know most of your answers to those questions, too. I find it weird that some people will tolerate gov. intrusion in every aspect of their lives EXCEPT healthcare. Gun laws, behavior type laws(smoking, drugs, etc.) seatbelt laws, ID laws all ok. Gov. healthcare? WHAT?!
I don't doubt that some people are incapable, but I don't see how that relates to my comments.
to be honest i dont mind being around smoking all that much.. my coworkers have all asked if they can smoke when in my truck and they all have my permission. however, certain days the smell of smoke is literally nauseating to me and i dont want to have to deal with it
i was just pointing out 2 examples that i say happen almost every day of how a large number of smokers are very inconsiderate.
but apparently none that are on TB
I think that part is adequately explained (twice now). I can't be bothered re-repeating it a third time. Needless to same I disagree with the statement above. If you think its inadequately explained, I apologise.
I was being facetious, but try demonizing someone, hell pick me, it might make you feel better!
I was pointing out the negative outlook of your statement and providing a less negative one as an alternative. Not everyone who contributes little or nothing to benefit society do so because they "choose" not to. That's all I was saying.
No need to apologize. I just felt the associations made were weak.
I was being facetious, but try demonizing someone, hell pick me, it might make you feel better!
I only demonize beings when I play Dungeons and Dragons (i.e., trolls, bugbears, ogres and the like). I haven't played that game in years though.
As did I your ability to comprehend them. I guess we just have to divide the difference!
To me the question comes down to freedom and rights. The smoker wants the freedom and right to smoke. The non-smoker wants the freedom and right not to be in its vicinity. The two things cannot co-exist. In my opinion the person performing the action, be it an addiction or not, is infracting on the other persons' rights and freedom to not breath in the smoke.Incorrect analogy. The vet who beat his wife caused direct harm to another person. The vet who is a smoker may not have imposed his smoking on others (he/she may be a considerate smoker, like I was). Simply being a smoker is different than simply being a wife beater. If someone thinks the two are the same, then they have a real cognition problem.
Mark, you either are not a veteran or unaware of the vast number of war vets that smoked cigarettes, cigars or pipes during the campaigns that I mentioned. In fact military rations used to come with a pack of Lucky Strike cigarettes in them for soldiers in the field. War veterans were treated with respect for risking their lives to defend others. This was intended as an example that can be applied to any group of people.
The attitude toward smoking has shifted over the years due to the links between cigarette smoking and health issues. Unfortunately, attitudes toward people (smokers) has mirrored that attitude shift toward the activity (smoking). I am fine with saying the activity (smoking) is bad and should be avoided. I am not fine with applying that attitude toward people (smokers).
Inconsiderate people exist (smoker and non-smoker alike) and should be dealt with appropriately in a way that does not demonize entire groups carte blanch. IMO
Though there may be a few smokers who are considerate I'd bet big that they are in the vast minority.
