May contain adult scenes....

[skip spence]

I've no time for a lengthy reply now but firstly, I think you misunderstood me slightly. I might have erred with the terminology as well. Unless I'm mistaken, all economic theory is based on the supposition that all players act in what they deem as their own best interest. What I mean by economic terms as opposed to moralistic terms, is therefore not only the money-factor but also that the politicians who decide on smoking policies make a more or less rational assessment based on which action they think serves their party, and more importantly themselves, best.

Oh man, I have to run, will explain later...

[alatar]

I can understand people's anger, for and against, tobacco use. I personally don't use, and will avoid another's smoke as much as possible, but, that said, couldn't care less if people smoke. It's their issue, not mine. Most smokers are respectful of my air space. My only gripe is the disposal of the cigarette butts, which, for some reason, unlike any other piece of trash/rubbish, can, and seemingly MUST! be thrown on the ground/in the gutter.

Please be a little more responsible...You smokers do realize that your DNA is easily recovered from the spent cigarette, don't you? Welcome to your country's DNA database.

Anyway, I'm not sure why this product is singled out so in movies, especially in a movie trilogy like LotR, where it's all fantasy. Not sure if my kids, when they watched Bilbo and Gandalf puffing away, understood that pipeweed exists in their world as well as in Middle Earth. The characters in ME have and use weapons, drink ale and wine, overeat, suggest cannibalism, murder (even children), pillage, don't practice oral hygiene, etc - a multitude of sins, poor choices, unhealthy habits and bad behaviour.

And some smoke!

What I find annoying is, like many have said, why, if the product is so bad for health, it remains legal. Actually, the real question is how anyone can say with a straight face why it is so bad and yet so legal.

What a deal! Heavily tax a physically addictive substance, pretend to ban the advertising of it (thereby making it more exclusive), subsidize its production, and cry over its cost to the health system. When you're having this much fun, you know that government is involved...

Why not allow people to make their own choices, and also be responsible for their own actions? A life insurance company, knowing that tobacco users have better odds of 'cashing in,' increase premiums for users. If you want to smoke - fine - but it may cost you more, but that's your thing.

An aside: The other night we're driving home on a larger four lane highway. We're driving with traffic, and so traveling at about 50 mph (80 kph). It's getting darker. There's a motorcyclist in front of me, and the guy isn't wearing a helmet, but that's his choice.

Anyway, he slowed a bit, and pulled somewhat to the side of his lane, yet maintained speed and continued along. Me, wanting to get away from this organ donor in training, passed him on his left. When we came level with him, his odd behaviour was now explained.

He was using his left hand to text on his cell phone!

Gandalf and Bilbo smoked, but they also showed wisdom.

If only we could ban stupidity...

[PrinceOfTheHalflings]

Originally Posted by skip spence

I've no time for a lengthy reply now but firstly, I think you misunderstood me slightly.

Perhaps, but only slightly. Even so, it doesn't matter how the ill-effects of smoking are evaluated ... the fact remains that smoking is still legally permitted and yet morally disapproved - by the same authorities who permit it.

Originally Posted by alatar

I can understand people's anger, for and against, tobacco use. I personally don't use, and will avoid another's smoke as much as possible, but, that said, couldn't care less if people smoke. It's their issue, not mine.

I don't smoke either, nor have I ever taken up the habit. I agree that smokers could dispose of their rubbish better - but the same is true of those who drink Coca Cola or eat at McDonalds etc.

In some cases it must be noted that smokers do not always have a place to dispose of their rubbish - they are often expected to smoke outside in a designated area that has no rubbish disposal because some bureaucrat has decided that "smokers bins" would be unsightly, undesirable or immoral. The excuse used would be such bins would "encourage smoking". Naturally, not providing bins further stigmatises smokers and their "dirty habit".

As I said ... I don't smoke ... but I don't like busy-bodies either. I see no problem in designating that most places be "smoke-free" but on the other hand I don't understand why no places can be "smoke-friendly", as seems to be the trend in most countries.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by PrinceOfTheHalflings

I don't smoke either, nor have I ever taken up the habit. I agree that smokers could dispose of their rubbish better - but the same is true of those who drink Coca Cola or eat at McDonalds etc.

I disagree. I don't have a scientific study to back up what I write, so you'll just have to believe me.

My one point of evidence is my neighbor who throws his cigarette butts in his own yard. I've seen him with other non-edible consumables, but not *one* of these other items has ever hit the grass. Every evening, though, there's one more butt on the lawn.

He lives upwind, and it smolders...

In some cases it must be noted that smokers do not always have a place to dispose of their rubbish

I hard trouble reading this through my tears...can't we have some kind of fundraiser?

...they are often expected to smoke outside

I use this to teach my kids what addiction means:

"See those people standing over there by the doorway. It's forty below (an easy temp for both ºF and ºC fans), and yet they're out there, puffing away.

That's addiction."

in a designated area that has no rubbish disposal because some bureaucrat has decided that "smokers bins" would be unsightly, undesirable or immoral. The excuse used would be such bins would "encourage smoking". Naturally, not providing bins further stigmatises smokers and their "dirty habit".

I could upload a picture of all of the butts outside of the bins. And we would need to install them on the doors of cars as well.

As I said ... I don't smoke ... but I don't like busy-bodies either. I see no problem in designating that most places be "smoke-free" but on the other hand I don't understand why no places can be "smoke-friendly", as seems to be the trend in most countries.

Agreed. Smoke'em if you got em, or not if you rather not. But don't blame Gandalf for it.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Originally Posted by alatar

I use this to teach my kids what addiction means:

"See those people standing over there by the doorway. It's forty below (an easy temp for both ºF and ºC fans), and yet they're out there, puffing away.

That's addiction."

My husband has been saying the same thing for years. He calls them "smoking exiles." He also counts the number of cars with a single occupant while he's on the bus for the morning commute, and about 70 percent of them have drivers who are smoking. As I'm allergic to tobacco smoke (and haven't been able to stand the smell of smoke since I was a little kid), I'm going to be quite happy in about a year when our state's ban on all public smoking goes into effect. The guy who was hanging his butt out his car's window and flicking his ashes into ours yesterday evening just made me that much more eager for the ban to start.

That said, I've known a lot of smokers in my life (in my mother's family, it was apparently a required practice of the family religion, drinking. I was considered a freak for wanting to do neither). I don't really care if people want to smoke, but I do want them to keep their smoke to themselves, which they can't do. Therein lies the rub. My friends who smoked were very polite about it, long before it was fashionable (or required). But I did notice one thing among them: most of the people who were exclusively pipe smokers could take it or leave it. They smoked only occasionally, and when some needed to quit because of their health, they had no trouble doing so. Not so for cigarette smokers. Now, maybe I just happen to know a remarkable bunch of people, but I've long wondered if there's a manufacturing difference between the two. Wouldn't surprise me.

I disliked smoking even before I read LotR, but it had no influence on my liking of the book or the characters (Gandalf has always been my favorite). The book was not only written during a time when smoking was socially acceptable, it was a fantasy set in another time and place. It certainly did not influence my attitudes about smoking, any more than it made me believe I could go out and learn magic spells or develop hairy feet. I think kids of today are as capable of separating fantasy from reality, if adults will let them. Screenwriters can downplay a thing without totally eliminating it, if it is necessary to the plot or character. If it isn't, it can simply be left out, but it shouldn't be replaced by something silly, like candy (which is just as big a no-no in today's world).

[davem]

Well, as someone who has smoked pipe, cigarettes & cigars in the past (stopping when my little boy made his appearance) I have to say the worst of them were the ciggies & the nicest the pipe. I have never driven a car, preferring either bus, train or 'Shank's pony'. Hence, I like to think I can take the role of disinterested party on this subject. Other people's smoke is bad, & they should keep it to themselves. But they should also keep their music (particularly the horrid little 'tss- tss' of their Ipods), their BO, & their exhaust fumes (which are much more dangerous than second hand tobacco smoke - would you prefer to be locked in a sealed room with a running car or with a smoker puffing away?). Point is, there are lots of things people do which impinge on others, & which are to some degree unpleasant, but we are human beings, flawed, fallen & mostly bloody annoying even (or ironically, especially) when we're trying our best not to be. Smoking, it seems to me, is kept legal by the government 'cos they make lots 'n' lots of money out of it, & gives non-smokers a group they can look down on, & complain about.

As to the 'addicts' standing outside in the rain & snow puffing away, I'm fairly sure that if you restricted TV watching, candy eating or complaining about smoking to the sidewalk you'd see a large-ish number of non-smokers gathered in the same kind of groups, in the same kind of weather conditions indulging their own particular 'vice'. Smoking is one of many dirty, unhealthy & annoying habits human beings indulge in & the real puzzle for me is why its become seen as a 'moral' issue. I honestly don't see how anyone who drives a car regularly can complain about smokers producing smells, carcinogenic fumes, or being a danger to themselves & others - & if we're talking about damage to the environment I don't think the smokers are the ones posing the risk. That said, of course, there are those who indulge in both pastimes so I'm sure my argument collapses in some way right there. I note that Tolkien gave up his car but kept his pipe, & personally I think he was right.

Nope, this is a moral crusade against a smelly habit, which is no worse than many other human follies & foibles, & merely confirms to me only that the human race has lost its wits as well as its moral compass.

[Lush]

"...The saddest thing that I'd ever seen
Were smokers outside the hospital doors."

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by davem

Nope, this is a moral crusade against a smelly habit, which is no worse than many other human follies & foibles, & merely confirms to me only that the human race has lost its wits as well as its moral compass.

I still maintain that it isn't mainly a moral issue but an economical one. The elected governments in our more or less transparent democratic systems do not really separate between morals and laws. That which is legal is ok, that which isn't is not, simple as. Only when the ban is in place we can talk about moral crusades originating from the state, such is the case when it comes to illegal drugs. In this area all the busy-bodies have a license to condemn, chastise and punish, and gladly uses it whether it's useful or not.

It's a question of utility really. In contrast to many of the examples that have been brought up, smoking has little or no positive societal influence, well, apart from tax revenues. Then again the damages it causes and the health-care costs that follow probably out-weights this advantage too (unless killing off the retired and unproductive balances the equation out again). The sort of general consensus these days is that not even the smokers themselves actually want to smoke, and that the state would be doing them a favour stopping them. Even if this isn't true, the perceived pleasure individual users get from smoking is hardly considered in these equations.

Motor-traffic is obviously dangerous and polluting, but without it the national economy would suffer greatly, so that we can't get rid of. We tax it heavily though to keep people from driving too much and for a good, steady source of tax revenue.

Sex? Well, it's all good, isn't it? Guns and violence? They too have redeeming qualities with the army and the police making what they claim to be justified use of them.

But smoking? Nah, if the government could just snap their fingers and make it all go away, they would I'm sure. It's a matter of maximizing utility. Smoking is harmful with no redeeming qualities (from a societal point of view) and therefore unwanted. It's just that the smokers are still a minority large enough to be influential (but for how long?), and furthermore, a total ban would just open up the floodgates for organized crime as it did when other drugs were banned. So it's better for the state just to slowly stifle this unwanted activity with propaganda, taxes and regulations. I maintain it has little to do with morals.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Originally Posted by skip spence

I maintain it has little to do with morals.

As long as it has to do with Middle-earth...

Please do stay on topic, people!

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

Well, as someone who has smoked pipe, cigarettes & cigars in the past

Would you agree that pipes, as seen in the movies that we're discussing, have the least 'offensiveness?' They all create smoke, but even as a nonsmoker I find pipe smoke less annoying, plus there's the lack of the non-decaying filter thing, meaning that at the end of smoking a pipe, all you have is ash (I assume).

(stopping when my little boy made his appearance)

Excellent!

I have never driven a car, preferring either bus, train or 'Shank's pony'. Hence, I like to think I can take the role of disinterested party on this subject. Other people's smoke is bad, & they should keep it to themselves. But they should also keep their music (particularly the horrid little 'tss- tss' of their Ipods), their BO, & their exhaust fumes (which are much more dangerous than second hand tobacco smoke - would you prefer to be locked in a sealed room with a running car or with a smoker puffing away?).

Depends on the size of the 'combustion' engine, whether mechanical or organic. But much agreed.

Point is, there are lots of things people do which impinge on others, & which are to some degree unpleasant, but we are human beings, flawed, fallen & mostly bloody annoying even (or ironically, especially) when we're trying our best not to be. Smoking, it seems to me, is kept legal by the government 'cos they make lots 'n' lots of money out of it, & gives non-smokers a group they can look down on, & complain about.

Agreed.

One issue is that I can indulge in my vices - cheeseburger-flavoured double fried donuts topped with real bacon, washed down with 64 oz of overpriced (but fair traded) coffee - and no one has to share in the experience...unless they can't help staring. With smoking, it's much harder to keep it to oneself. It's not only the smoke, but the lingering residue as well.

As to the 'addicts' standing outside in the rain & snow puffing away,

Note that I was making the point that, not only is nicotine addictive, people also have developed ways of getting their fixes despite adverse conditions. You won't see me out in the cold looking for a donut shop. Also, as a nonsmoker, I see it as somewhat odd that you would stand around with a bunch of people with whom you share just that one thing - cigarettes. Obviously I take breaks when working, but the smokers in the building take breaks in groups, as I guess that it's more fun to puff with company - I just don't get it.

Surely some anthropologist has done a study.

Smoking is one of many dirty, unhealthy & annoying habits human beings indulge in & the real puzzle for me is why its become seen as a 'moral' issue.

As you say, it's the one unforgivable sin. We can find compassion for other 'wrongdoers,' as long as they're not smokers.

I honestly don't see how anyone who drives a car regularly can complain about smokers producing smells, carcinogenic fumes, or being a danger to themselves & others - & if we're talking about damage to the environment I don't think the smokers are the ones posing the risk.

You obviously need more practice with being a hypocrite. But note that as *they* are after tobacco, they are also after my car.

What I find funny is the coupling of cigarette sales with gas (petrol) stations. Okay, so most don't light up when they are actually pumping the highly combustible fluid into their vehicles, but they light up right around the place...

That said, of course, there are those who indulge in both pastimes so I'm sure my argument collapses in some way right there. I note that Tolkien gave up his car but kept his pipe, & personally I think he was right.

If only we had the transportation systems you 'cousins' have...and *someone* has to burn up all of the remaining fossil fuels.

Nope, this is a moral crusade against a smelly habit, which is no worse than many other human follies & foibles, & merely confirms to me only that the human race has lost its wits as well as its moral compass.

Agreed. There is so many other things wrong with the world, like starving children. Think that Tolkien has his hobbits tell it right - there are those that just can't help but mind everyone else's business, and even Peter Jackson has his version of Saruman monologuing about 'order' and yet Merry and Pippin find barrels of pipeweed in the flood.

Do as I say, not as I do.

Originally Posted by Lush

"...The saddest thing that I'd ever seen
Were smokers outside the hospital doors."

Nope. It's the women outside the local maternity hospital, in those tie-back gowns, obviously just minutes/hours away from giving birth, still puffing away.

[Lush]

Maternity ward is part of a hospital, innit?