Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I love all the benefits that come with living in a city. But more recently, living in Vancouver, BC, it seems I cannot take a stroll outside of my home or go shopping without being bombarded by cig smoke from all directions. This has brought me to the consideration that maybe my only option, if I want to breathe relatively clean air (all vehicle emissions and other forms of pollutants aside the point) is to live far from the city, and do a lot of my shopping online. The irony of that is would also contribute further to pollutants. Living in a city (with a lot of efficient lightrail and rapid transit service which is electric and thus doesn't emit pollutants) is really the way to go.
I know it will be a long time, if ever, the general public is to come to the 'duh' moment that cigarette smoking was never a good idea, for themselves or for anyone. The only option for those of us who get that it seems is to keep complaining. Well, whenever I do, people come up with the same old arguments, which if you really use some thought, are pretty weak. I thought I would list them, just so the cigarette smoking supporters can save their (precious) breath. Let's take a moment to consider this critical, polarizing issue which is constantly endangering our species...and which really makes me frequently come to the sad realization that the movie "Idiocracy" resembles reality pretty darn closely.
The Tired List in Defense of Urban Cigarette Smoking
1. there are lots of annoying things everywhere (though many that aren't optional and that don't cause cancer, like listening to headphones.. which you can evade by putting on headphones yourself, although it is much more difficult to evade smoke)
2. cigarette smoke kills you slowly, not instantly
3. people will do whatever they please
4. you can't make people stop doing something very harmful to the health of others, even something that is optional
5. car pollution is bad too (even though it isn't quite so optional; many places you have no choice but to drive a vehicle because of inadequate public transportation, esp. that which is electric)
6. if i don't like cigarette smoke i should live in the middle of nowhere because that is the only option
7. other things are bad for you too (completely unrelated to cigarette smoke - see non sequitur argument fallacy )
8. i'm just a whiner and a health freak for complaining about having to smell people's cig smoke nonstop if i want to live in a city
9. cigarette smoke isn't really bad for you, or not that bad (the person saying this very rarely actually bothers compiling any compelling evidence on this...and seriously why bother? that is quite a daft assertion...regardless of what they come up with, you cannot contest with the widely known fact there are more than 70 known carcinogens in cigarette smoke...I will provide a Canadian source: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/pubs/to.../index-eng.php)
10. You're a control freak if you think people should not smoke without regard to the harm it brings to those around them, even though it's unnessary and has no benefit to themselves or anyone except greedy and unethical cigarette corporations, and puts a real damper on others' experience of urban life (hey, why not just allow drunk driving too? I guess the main difference there is death is a little more instant...)
11. There's no real harm in cigarette smoke. It's all in your head! You're crazy/paranoid for even thinking something with 70 carcinogens can be harmful! (Might I remind you that death is real, and that people are brought to a hastened death from second hand smoke exposure as well..."Since 1964, 2.5 million nonsmokers have died from exposure to secondhand smoke" http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_stat...general_facts/)
12. Smoke is dispersed, so the harmful effects are too negligible to be considered (anything that is harmful that is consumed repeatedly over time is harmful. In my experience, walking along one city block of a busy part of the city, I am constantly inhaling smoke from several smokers. Add this up and and yes, clearly there is a problem. This is a very simple concept; that a bad thing is more bad with frequent exposure).
13. Everyone dies anyway, so who cares. Gotta say, this is the worst argument of them all.
Am I forgetting anything?
Last edited by supersavina; 06-19-2014 at 08:39 PM..
Yes, I believe you are forgetting what a straw man argument is. By putting together a list of repetitive and unconvincing reasons as being the standpoint of the "other side", you have an easy time making that other side look silly and ridiculous.
This disclaimer is important:
1. I quit smoking 42 or 43 years ago. I am now 70.
2. I think smoking is a completely stupid habit. Smokers are spending good money to destroy their own health.
In an ideal world, no one would smoke. (We probably agree on that). In fact, the percentage of smokers in the adult population, at least in the United States, has gone down dramatically in the last 50 years.
The real issue is just how far big brother government should go in a regulatory effort to achieve perfection. We should all brush and floss our teeth at least once a day, but would you favor making that a legal requirement? Government has already (in my view properly) banned smoking in restaurants and airplanes and workplaces. So the debate is whether those bans should be extended to outdoor spaces.
When we are on a public outdoor sidewalk (except on a deserted one), yes, we will get a whiff of other people's smoke from time to time. It would be quite a stretch to claim that the amount and frequency of that smoke (being dispersed as it is because of the outdoor setting) constitute a health hazard.
That it is highly irritating to you is beyond dispute, but isn't that more of a psychological reaction than anything else? I don't particularly care for those whiffs either, but I choose not to elevate a very minor annoyance into the subject of a thread. On the scale of things wrong with modern living, outdoor smoke ranks way down there.
Yes, I believe you are forgetting what a straw man argument is. By putting together a list of repetitive and unconvincing reasons as being the standpoint of the "other side", you have an easy time making that other side look silly and ridiculous.
This disclaimer is important:
1. I quit smoking 42 or 43 years ago. I am now 70.
2. I think smoking is a completely stupid habit. Smokers are spending good money to destroy their own health.
In an ideal world, no one would smoke. (We probably agree on that). In fact, the percentage of smokers in the adult population, at least in the United States, has gone down dramatically in the last 50 years.
The real issue is just how far big brother government should go in a regulatory effort to achieve perfection. We should all brush and floss our teeth at least once a day, but would you favor making that a legal requirement? Government has already (in my view properly) banned smoking in restaurants and airplanes and workplaces. So the debate is whether those bans should be extended to outdoor spaces.
When we are on a public outdoor sidewalk (except on a deserted one), yes, we will get a whiff of other people's smoke from time to time. It would be quite a stretch to claim that the amount and frequency of that smoke (being dispersed as it is because of the outdoor setting) constitute a health hazard.
That it is highly irritating to you is beyond dispute, but isn't that more of a psychological reaction than anything else? I don't particularly care for those whiffs either, but I choose not to elevate a very minor annoyance into the subject of a thread. On the scale of things wrong with modern living, outdoor smoke ranks way down there.
I know that a straw man argument is where you misrepresent the opponent. I am characterizing the opponents' points of view based on previous experience on debating this topic the best I can. Also a lot of these are simple reiterations of their arguments, basically word for word.
Yes, I believe you are forgetting what a straw man argument is. By putting together a list of repetitive and unconvincing reasons as being the standpoint of the "other side", you have an easy time making that other side look silly and ridiculous.
This disclaimer is important:
1. I quit smoking 42 or 43 years ago. I am now 70.
2. I think smoking is a completely stupid habit. Smokers are spending good money to destroy their own health.
In an ideal world, no one would smoke. (We probably agree on that). In fact, the percentage of smokers in the adult population, at least in the United States, has gone down dramatically in the last 50 years.
The real issue is just how far big brother government should go in a regulatory effort to achieve perfection. We should all brush and floss our teeth at least once a day, but would you favor making that a legal requirement? Government has already (in my view properly) banned smoking in restaurants and airplanes and workplaces. So the debate is whether those bans should be extended to outdoor spaces.
When we are on a public outdoor sidewalk (except on a deserted one), yes, we will get a whiff of other people's smoke from time to time. It would be quite a stretch to claim that the amount and frequency of that smoke (being dispersed as it is because of the outdoor setting) constitute a health hazard.
That it is highly irritating to you is beyond dispute, but isn't that more of a psychological reaction than anything else? I don't particularly care for those whiffs either, but I choose not to elevate a very minor annoyance into the subject of a thread. On the scale of things wrong with modern living, outdoor smoke ranks way down there.
Ah, thanks, you've reminded me of those extra two arguments, #11 and #12. Very typical, and also very weak.
11. There's no real harm in cigarette smoke. It's all in your head! You're crazy/paranoid for even thinking something with 70 carcinogens can be harmful! (Might I remind you that death is real, and that people are brought to a hastened death from second hand smoke exposure as well..."Since 1964, 2.5 million nonsmokers have died from exposure to secondhand smoke" http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_stat...general_facts/)
12. Smoke is dispersed, so the harmful effects are too negligible to be considered (anything that is harmful that is consumed repeatedly over time is harmful. In my experience, walking along one city block of a busy part of the city, I am constantly inhaling smoke from several smokers. Add this up and and yes, clearly there is a problem. This is a very simple concept; that a bad thing is more bad with frequent exposure).
Yes, I believe you are forgetting what a straw man argument is. By putting together a list of repetitive and unconvincing reasons as being the standpoint of the "other side", you have an easy time making that other side look silly and ridiculous.
This disclaimer is important:
1. I quit smoking 42 or 43 years ago. I am now 70.
2. I think smoking is a completely stupid habit. Smokers are spending good money to destroy their own health.
In an ideal world, no one would smoke. (We probably agree on that). In fact, the percentage of smokers in the adult population, at least in the United States, has gone down dramatically in the last 50 years.
The real issue is just how far big brother government should go in a regulatory effort to achieve perfection. We should all brush and floss our teeth at least once a day, but would you favor making that a legal requirement? Government has already (in my view properly) banned smoking in restaurants and airplanes and workplaces. So the debate is whether those bans should be extended to outdoor spaces.
When we are on a public outdoor sidewalk (except on a deserted one), yes, we will get a whiff of other people's smoke from time to time. It would be quite a stretch to claim that the amount and frequency of that smoke (being dispersed as it is because of the outdoor setting) constitute a health hazard.
That it is highly irritating to you is beyond dispute, but isn't that more of a psychological reaction than anything else? I don't particularly care for those whiffs either, but I choose not to elevate a very minor annoyance into the subject of a thread. On the scale of things wrong with modern living, outdoor smoke ranks way down there.
Also...
Government legislation should not have to force people to do what is clearly the best for them. I feel that change needs to come from inner willpower. Sadly, too many people, despite knowing what is best for them, lack the self-discipline necessary. They have to be coerced like children if there is to be any positive change. But it should not be like that. It would be so easy to just do the right thing! I'm not giving up on trying to bring people to this realization.
But this attitude that "I'll do whatever I want, you can't make me" is truly reminiscent of a rebellious, immature teenager.
I think a lot of the smokers today probably started in that foolish teenage phase where they wanted to get back at their parents for caring about their well-being. Or.. also when they began to feel the sting of life's inevitable consequences... fighting fire with fire..
does that mean they are going to enforce pot smoking the same;I would think so.
Who..?
Totally aside the point.
By the way, since you bring it up and probably are thinking I like pot since I am against cigarette smoking, I don't support the legalization of pot. When I've had pot in the past, I was completely out of it. No one under its influence should be operating a vehicle, also endangering others. Not to mention the way it can make some people extremely happy and relaxed, but extra hostile once its effects have subsided..I don't know the scientific basis of that but experienced it firsthand (my dad smoked regularly). If you feel like getting personal.. my mom smokes cigarettes regularly and it is killing her quickly. You can see clearly the way it has wreaked havoc on her skin. It's so sad. And my little brother and sister have to be exposed to it about seven times a day, because it slips in through the screen door. If you're a smoker, think about your children.
The only drug I can say I'm okay with is a limited amount of wine or beer. I typically drink a glass or two every evening, and even now I am pleasantly tipsy, but fully cognizant, reaping the benefits of the high polyphenol content of red wine. Of course, I would never operate a vehicle while tipsy.
Make sure you enjoy your vices while condemning everyone else for theirs. BTW, you should move to CA. Hardly anyone smokes here anymore.
uh huh, that's #1 lame argument... "1. there are lots of annoying things everywhere (though many that aren't optional and that don't cause cancer, like listening to headphones.. which you can evade by putting on headphones yourself, although it is much more difficult to evade smoke)"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
