h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Yes, I do.
I had not expected such a one-sided view on such an integrated part of the human society as we know it. This article treats smoking as a fad, while it has been around for almost as long as the sentient human has. Really. What he writer basically says is 'there is such a thing as smoking, and everyone either has, is trying to, or should quit'.

Not only do I disagree with the writer about the desirability of smoking as a social institution (which it is, to all hypocritical non-smoking evangelists), I also find the article lacking in depth and consideration of the smoking society.

Now I'm a smoker myself, and I think to know many others in this community and the rest of the world who would, or should, disagree with this article presented as THE entry on smoking in the Guide to the Earth. I therefor move to either have it revised, taking more sides of the phenomenon into account (and no, I won't do it myself, got other things to do) or that it be removed from the guide until other and better essays come.

Why are non-smoking evangelists hypocritical?
What is this smoking community of which you speak?
In what way is smoking desirable as a social institution?

your three questions retorted:
1- hypocritical in proclaiming that smoking is anything less than a social institution that softens the experience of counteracting hardships, just like religion is, and many ideologies, following any strong leader, alcohol, drugs, self-deception. All very human, each with its very own remarkable history, but none of them things you can come off of as a society like it's nothing. Fact is, most of the nonsmoking evangelists probably don't fully realise this, which means it can't be hypocritical in the strict sense of that word, if i'm not mistaken. Well sorry for that then.

2- the collection of smokers, one, on this site (they're not united but I'm guessing I'm far from alone, considering some of the traits that are similar between a smokers' and a HHGGers' mindset), and two, around the world (which is also far from united sufficiently to counter the surge of the antismoking lobby, because of that common trait in many hardened smokers, individualism. Ironically, this individualism is also a major setback for the antismoking lobbby, becaucse the individualist smoker doesn't react to the impetus given off by the antismoking crowd. too arsed, really).

3- you need your neuroses. we all do, whether you bite your nails, crack your knuckles or whatever, you (and if you're so perfect you don't, then you're also unique, scarp) need something to calm you on a regular basis. some need it more than others, but that's not their fault. our fault. who is anyone to judge? then their's the death threat in smoking. that IS hypocritical, really. we all know that some practices in our everyday life, for nothing but pleasure as well, are just as potentially harmful as smoking is. even if you've never smoked a butt in your life, your body and flesh would not pass even the most admissive EU testing, it's that full of chemicals and toxins. and that's just consumption. driving is another.

trust me, the antismoking campaign is a hype, just like the health food craze. it's smoking that has the longest historic roots, and I don't think it should be described so casually as the writer of this Approved Entry does.

I believe that anyone who smokes tobacco in a public place, thus inflicting their vile habit on others, DESERVES a slow, painful death through lung cancer. I consider myself a moderate, in that I would not actually randomly shoot smokers in the street. (However, if someone came door-to-door collecting to buy the bullets, I'd probably give them all my small change.)

If my opinions make smokers uncomfortable, they can consider it poetic justice for what their filthy, disgusting habit has done to me all my life.

I have to side with the Pres on this (though Pres you'll excuse me if it's downwind). I'm a lifelong nonsmoker, I have asthma, the smell of tobacco smoke literally makes my skin crawl, but I can't stand preachers.

Personally, I am constantly irritated by Alcoholics Anonymous adverts and the like, encouraging everybody to DRINK LESS, making me feel guilty for having a single pint, once a week. I feel like I'm being punished for their lack of self-control. That's my particular vice and I'm not bothering anyone else when I do it. If someone wants to have the odd ciggy and don't bother me when they're doing it, then that's fine.

On the other hand, if they're smoking a pack a day or something, they seriously need to consider quitting. Me, I'd hate to drink SO MUCH, that I'd have to give it up.

Peet, I AM a smoker and your views don't so much much make me uncomfortable as make me depressed, in the way that religious fundamentalists make me depressed. It's depressing to be reminded that you have to share a planet with intolerant, blinkered, revoltingly self-righteous people.
I agree entirely with the posting at the top of this thread. This Entry is not informative or funny. It's just a short burst of clumsy rhetoric, and it should never have been Approved.
In fact, it annoys me so much that I need a cig to calm down.

The article will grow and be revised. It's obviously a subject that people have strong views on.

If anyone would like to write about the other side of the coin, or about smoking from a historical point of view, I'd be happy to get it updated and revised...

Just to get something straight: there is no BIBLICAL reason not to smoke. I don't know about other religions but I've read the bible and there is no justification for Evangelists to teach (or preach) that people should stop smoking(Or drinking alcohol for that matter.) and because of this I agree that they can be defined as hypocritical. I do not smoke but my reasons are related to health.

I must say that I've always found it rather strange when certain Christians preached against alcohol. I mean, the founder of their religion is supposed to have turned water into wine...

And not just a glass to go with the gefilte fish, but several whole water pots. And that's in addition to the wine that had already been drunk.

Must've been helluva bash (if you'll pardon the expression)...

LOL! Yep, say what you like about that Jesus, but he certainly knew how to get his round in!

It's nice to see this article turn into a reli-bash, but jus fo da scrip I'd like to state that with 'evangelists' I do not indicate christian evangelists, but everyone who preaches quitting smoking like an evangelist. So it has nothing to do with religion, only with unwarranted zeal.

Unfortunately, the "evangelists" in question are usually former smokers - therefore allowing them a true "holier than thou" attitude. I have recently quit, but have made a promise not to turn into an instant anti-smoking lobbiest. My opinion of the "don't smoke in my air" attitude is this: it is largely illegal (here in Canada anyway) to smoke anywhere indoors - if you don't like smokers outside - all you have to do is move 3 feet and breath in your own share of car exhaust/industrial pollutants, etc. instead of the smoke from one cigerette.
Now, if you will excuse me, I'm going back to my bag of carrots which are keeping me from running outside for a smoke ::grin::

The subtlety in this article is indeed very well hidden.
Let me start with the facts :

____________
Introduction

"When smoked, they have the addictive properties of heroin, and the narcotic value of about half an aspirin".

- This means that the author(whose name is not mentioned) does not know the difference between Hard-drugs and Tobacco.

Just for the record, examples of harddrugs are Heroin, Cocaine and Alcohol. Cigarettes are not yet included in this definition. I rest my case.
___________

"They are also phenomenally carcinogenic, as well as carrying all the health risks normally associated with gluing one's mouth to the exhaust pipe of a locomotive."

- Funny but inaccurate. A bit more research might have been a good idea, especially since this is a touchy subject. If you want to criticize do your homework !
___________
Why smoke?

"In a uniquely human act of stupidity, countless teenagers begin to smoke cigarettes each year, with the anticipated effect of 'hipness'. Typically the 'hip' effect lasts a few years, and is directly followed by the 'can't ascend a simple flight of stairs' effect. This is in turn followed by the 'coughing up blood in the local hospital' effect."

- Teenagers cannot be held directly responsible for joining the 'pack'. Judging from organisations/activities such as Footballmatches plus Hooliganism, University-rituals involving the most ridiculous assignments in the University-bar, etc. bonding is one of the basic needs of humanity. I could go on untill we reach the Waffen-SS, another 'club'. This has nothing to do with smoking but with human psychology.
____________

Legal implications

"Some users of cigarettes, especially in the United States, have found that the producers of cigarettes, who tend to be quite wealthy, can be held financially responsible for the costs associated with smoking. This is due to rise of a school of legal thought which posits that whenever anyone does anything stupid, someone else should have to pay."

- The only pararaph I completely agree with. It is ridiculous to sue the tobacco-companies because 'you didn't know it was bad for you'.
Hogwash !
_____________

Social implications

"For North Americans, there is great deviation to be found in the degree to which people will tolerate the act of smoking. If you're a smoker, a general rule of thumb is that, in the eyes of others, you become a greater social pariah the further West you go. For instance, in Montreal there is a much-cited myth that there exists such thing as a non-smoking environment. Due to certain legislatory quirks, many merchants are forced to place 'No Smoking' signs in their Montreal establishments. The visitor to Montreal can ignore these signs at will. By contrast, the mere possession of a cigarette in Vancouver is an offence punishable by absolute ostracism. The people of some West-coast communities are actually able to, with a straight face, prohibit smoking in bars. On most other continents, people have found an equitable compromise somewhere between the two attitudes."

- You cannot compare the situation in North America with the rest of the world. Lots of good things can be said about the americans but they are generally a bit more 'radical' in these matters than the rest of the world. Americans have the uncontrollable urge to blame someone nowadays. 'I'll sue you' is a well known phrase throughout the world.
____________

Quitting

"One of the strangest things about smoking is that it starts as a voluntary pastime, but almost everyone who partakes of it is constantly trying to give it up. Amongst the most popular ways are:

Patches
Nicotine Gum
Shared Suffering
Displacement Activity
Aversion Therapy"

- So now the author not only mocks and ridicules the smokers but the people who are trying to quit as well. So what exactly does the author want ? Does he/she also mean to say that quitting is stupid ?


***End of analysis***

___________

I would like to suggest that the author first solves :

1) The population-problem
2) The pollution-problem
3) The childlabour-problem
4) The world's Hard-drugs-problems
5) The alcohol-problem(another hard drug)
6) Religious fanatism

If he/she has done that please report back to me as I know a few more problems that need solving first.

Oh, and of course I expect the author to have perhaps just one kid no more, not to smoke, not to drive a car except for the cleanest ones, not to use alcohol of any kind and not to use electricity whatsoever.

I agree with the President of Headsnot Incorporated : this is an official entry that shouldn't be one. It does not offer unbiased information, insults about 45 % of the world's population and is not even very funny to read. If you want to make fun out of smokers go ahead and make fun but please do not post an official attack on the smoking population.

TM.

"I would like to suggest that the author first solves :

1) The population-problem
2) The pollution-problem
3) The childlabour-problem
4) The world's Hard-drugs-problems
5) The alcohol-problem(another hard drug)
6) Religious fanatism"

I suspect you'll find that the immediacy of the Tobacco problem lies in the way that the perpetrators inflict it on others willy-nilly. Alcohol may be a problem, but while I drink a pint I'm rarely forcing a percentage of it into a bystander's metabolism. I don't mind people smoking - I just choose NEVER to inhale the stuff myself. I despise anyone who deprives me of that choice, either deliberately or through their careless attitude to their own eminations.

To sum up,

1) I am not an evangelist. I don't try to change the opinions of others, I merely choose to express my own strongly-held opinion with a force which I consider equal to the opression of my freedom to breathe clean air. It is my experience that smokers assume the god-given right to "light up" anywhere, with a small percentage taking the time afterwards to ask if it bothers anyone.

2) I don't object to people smoking, just to the infliction of the stench on innocent bystanders. I don't care about the health issues - as has been pointed out, car pollution is just as bad. It doesn't smell so bad, though. To me, the smell of tobacco is stomach-turning. When I've had to spend any time in a room with a smoker, I have to put my outer clothing in the wash as soon as I get home, because the spell stops me from being able to sleep if I leave them in the bedroom.

My opinion stands - the majority of smokers Deserve lung cancer.

As I said : a forum without subtleties...

As far as the alcohol is concerned : How many crimes and how much agression has been caused by it ?

I doubt that an entire football-stadium full of people would go berserk on smoking tobacco and wreck the place and it's surroundings ... you know, the nice shops that the owners took about 30 years to build up... And I'm not even mentioning the violence against the police...

Great invention...alcohol...and yes I drink alcohol frequently but I am in control(otherwise I stop immediately, I hate being out of control)...So what is the greater danger ?

Oh and before I forget : I do not smoke in public places...only at home and were I am allowed...

Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion but if one puts it down in an article as rude as this one expect strong responses please...

Kind regards,

TM.

While not a smoker myself (I don't know why), this article smacks a little of : Mostly harmless. Except written more like downright nasty.

Now trying to remember from memory, smoking in western society and more specifically Europe started about 200 or so years ago, a French plantation owner down Africa way wanted to grow tobacco leaves and sell them as cigarettes (his name was Nicos, I think,definitely Nico-something) anyway, the response was outrage and disgust there was mention in the info I read that punishment considered or implemented were along the lines of public dismemberment and other such joys...

My opinion, while only my own is what they do is there own business, as long as it doesn't impinge on others. Now having said that I think that (again my own opinion) the only reason smoking smells so foul, and is apparently so detrimental to the health is because of all of the crap that is sprayed on it to stop bugs eating away at it. Now the message that I guess that I am trying to convey is that someone (pesticide companies and all the others involved) sticking their nose into this business is probably what created the problem in the first place.

One cigarette that I don't happen to mind the smell of are Indonesian cigarrettes, I think they contain cloves and the buts are dusted with cinnamon, I don't know the brand name though, but I encountered them from time to time in the Army.

My goodness, this is certainly a hot topic. What's the big deal? Everyone has the right to smoke or not to smoke (at least in my country) and everyone has the right to an opinion. To say that people who chose to smoke 'deserve lung cancer' is downright insensitive and shows that the writer has probably never known someone with (or dying of) cancer. Does everyone who has sex (hetero- or homosexual, protected or unprotected) deserve to have AIDS?

Thanks TM, for a thorough burndown of the article, it needed that.
Thanks Epsilon for a point well made. The sexually active don't deserve cancer, and smokers shouldn't be forced to dress their ciggies with a condom... the mere thought!

Who I'd like to see joint the thread are the researchers
Camp_Freddy Nihil &
Garfield formerly known as Sandmaennchen, possibly Global Vilage Idiot. There's more to smoking than just quitting or suing smokers.

For the friendly non-smokers: Hooray hooray hooray for you! You don't smoke, or you have smoked and quit, and here you are telling us smokers that you don't mind what we do as long as we dont exhale in your face. Cool! Y'know what? We won't! Now let's all take a mushroom and love eachother. Thank you for calling, really.

To those who Damn Smoking: I am flattered by your absolute inability to see things in their right perspective. To bring the point home, I'd like to ask those, who are prepared to step up to a smoker with lung cancer and say 'I told you so'... to step forward.

I regularly use the phrase "Smokers Deserve Lung Cancer" because I have found that in the right circumstances it makes smokers as uncomfortable as their habit makes me feel. I even occasionally wear it on a T-shirt. When people raise the point "what if an innocent bystander is really offended, even though you didn't aim the phrase at them", I point out the similarity between that situation and smoke fall-out. Someone who lights up in a public place always risks seriously offending people they have never met. I take the same risk.

I wouldn't have replied to the article, which I thought a little "Weak, but acceptable", had it not stirred up replies from apologists for what I consider to be mankind's second-most disgusting habit. (after War...)