Do Hobbits get Lung Cancer?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Mind you, lung cancer was a great medical rarity until the widespread smoking of cigarettes arose ca. WWI.

a repulsive and immoral means of slowly killing yourself while making everyone in the close proximity suffer horribly too

Not opinionated, are we?

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Not opinionated, are we?

Well, on a side note, I've always been intrigued by how the smell of tobacco can be so terribly offensive to some people. I mean, heavy indoor smoking is one thing, but nowadays a mere whiff of tobacco smoke seem to be able to provoke the most astonishing reactions, as if that certain odour violates our most basic human rights, or as if deadly cysts would instantaneously start to popping up on people all around that horrible smoker.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

To the point that many places are banning smoking outdoors!

But I digress...

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by skip spence

Well, on a side note, I've always been intrigued by how the smell of tobacco can be so terribly offensive to some people. I mean, heavy indoor smoking is one thing, but nowadays a mere whiff of tobacco smoke seem to be able to provoke the most astonishing reactions, as if that certain odour violates our most basic human rights, or as if deadly cysts would instantaneously start to popping up on people all around that horrible smoker.

I do not think it is the odor that some find offensive, but the idea that others are freely and needlessly polluting the air that we all have to breathe.

There are laws against public nudity, but there is no actual danger to a person who sees even the ugliest naked body. It is thoroughly socially unacceptable to pass gas where others will be forced to inhale it, yet, again, doing so would cause no actual harm to anyone. Cursing where all around you are forced to hear it is very inconsiderate, and is even a misdemeanor in some places, if I am not mistaken.

I enjoy the smell of nearly all tobacco products, personally, and I tend to share your attitude about the danger of casually inhaling second-hand smoke. The fact, however, is that it is inconsiderate of others to pollute their bodies against their will, and is more offensive than those things I mentioned above because of the actual damage that is caused, negligible or otherwise. Most importantly, children must be considered. The dangers of second-hand smoke appear to be real, inasmuch as one can trust the studies that have been conducted. Surely you do not condone forcing even the risk of these negative effects on children.

[Andsigil]

When I first saw this thread, the first thing I imagined were hobbits like Lotho Sackville-Baggins forming a "Health and Safety" (or "Elfin-Safety") Commission to dictate to the other hobbits how they should behave.

That, of course, would lead to other forms of control, in other areas of behavior, over which the Lothos of the world would love to have jurisdiction. Kind of like now. And, like today, we'd see places like the Shire turn into nanny states.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by obloquy

Surely you do not condone forcing even the risk of these negative effects on children.

"Think of the children!", exclaims the moralistic Helen Lovejoy.

I actually think the concept that all risks should be minimized at the cost of personal liberty is one of the most frightening ideas to come out of modern civilisation.

I'm quite sure Tolkien would've agreed with that too, as Andsigil implied.

Now as I said, heavy smoking in poorly ventilated indoor areas is one thing - the detrimental health-effects of tobacco smoke is well documented, whether is is inhaled first or second hand, and unwilling people shouldn't be forced to breath in excessive amounts of it, no. But it has gone way beyond that now, hasn't it? A few stray molecules of incensed tobacco isn't a reasonable danger to anyone's health, children or no.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by skip spence

A few stray molecules of incensed tobacco isn't a reasonable danger to anyone's health, children or no.

I've heard that they will soon ban smoking under the Party Tree as the smoke is harmful to the tree.

[Mugwump]

Originally Posted by skip spence

Now as I said, heavy smoking in poorly ventilated indoor areas is one thing - the detrimental health-effects of tobacco smoke is well documented, whether is is inhaled first or second hand, and unwilling people shouldn't be forced to breath in excessive amounts of it, no. But it has gone way beyond that now, hasn't it?

Indeed. Smoking is banned in so-called "public resturants and bars" that are actually privately owned businesses frequented by people who go there voluntarily.

I hate cigarette smoke and I've always avoided restaurants and pubs where I could smell cigarette smoke. The new laws making smoking illegal in those places is a convenience for me, sure (at least until those places go out of business), but I support the right of privately owned businesses to choose to allow smoking or not.

I do support laws banning smoking in publicly owned buildings (like government offices), public transportation (e.g., city busses), and government-regulated interstate carriers (e.g., airplanes).

I think the chemical they put in cigarettes to keep them from going out when not being actively puffed is what causes the smell that makes me hate cigarette smoke so. I don't particularly mind pipe and cigar smoke, although I do not smoke pipes and cigars myself.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by skip spence

I actually think the concept that all risks should be minimized at the cost of personal liberty is one of the most frightening ideas to come out of modern civilisation.

I think a far more frightening concept is that which champions personal liberty at the expense of cooperation and compromise. The idea that the individual's will should be subject to no external limitations can lead only to the ultimate destruction of civilization, as it is anathema to that very definition. Unless you mean to be selective about the application of this sanctification of personal choice, you are not merely ridding yourself of criticism (which I surmise is the motive in the first place), you are granting impunity to the sociopaths and perverts who also walk among us with equal rights.

Now as I said, heavy smoking in poorly ventilated indoor areas is one thing - the detrimental health-effects of tobacco smoke is well documented, whether is is inhaled first or second hand, and unwilling people shouldn't be forced to breath in excessive amounts of it, no. But it has gone way beyond that now, hasn't it? A few stray molecules of incensed tobacco isn't a reasonable danger to anyone's health, children or no.

How, exactly, is this two different things? Why do you get to be the one to draw the line? Why do you decide what is an "excessive" amount, and what another should accept as perfectly harmless? For someone who has made the choice not to smoke, any amount can reasonably be called "excessive," and here we might make an appeal to your god, Personal Liberty. Maybe I believe that a little unwanted touching should be dismissed as harmless, so it is within my personal rights to pinch asses as long as I am not crossing some arbitrary line of excess that I have imagined. Attractive ladies should recognize that no actual harm was done, and they should certainly recognize that if they seek recourse through the mechanisms established by government, it is my personal liberty that they are attacking. I agree, it is certainly "frightening" that someone would be willing to sacrifice my rights on the altar of "comfort" and "propriety!"

You are simply favoring one person's personal liberty (yours) over that of another--over that of many others, in fact. Unless you believe that these laws preventing smoking were passed unilaterally.

[skip spence]

While this is a very interesting discussion I fear that I'll be cut short by our dear modess as the Tolkien tie-in is hard to maintain. But, very briefly, I've never claimed personal liberty should be absolute when it also concerns others. Just where to draw the line is, however, not so easy. It is not a black and white issue. As with drug laws, driving laws, gun laws etc etc we need to strike a balance between separate interests.

Why do you get to be the one to draw the line?

Unfortunately I don't. But I reserve the right to express my opinion that the line, in this instance and many similar ones, has been drawn, well, too tight. And no, I'm not a smoker.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

I dunno, I rather feel that the original question of whether or not Hobbits get lung cancer is about the same as the question of whether or not the inhabitants of Middle-earth of all species ever feel the need to go to the bathroom (so to speak). Of course they do, but we never see it, because it's not really relevant to the story. One could take up the position of a friend's old Sunday school teacher, though: when she was a little kid, my friend drew a picture in Sunday school of Mary changing Baby Jesus' diapers (no anatomical correctness to quibble about, she was just a kid and had the drawing skills thereof ) and was taken to task by the teacher, who found it not innocent but offensive. Apparently it was the teacher's belief that Jesus didn't do such base human things as piddle in his nappies, a trait which she also felt carried on into adulthood. I might have thought my friend was kidding if I hadn't heard this same line of thought from other people in my own church when I was a kid.

Some Hobbits probably did get lung cancer; it's the world marred by Melkor, after all, and disease is not unknown among the mortals. Hobbit toughness may be greater than our own, and they may have been less prone to cancers of all kinds, but in the end, the evil Melkor wrought in the world by infusing his power into it would affect them. Like humans of our own past centuries, the Hobbits may have thought it was "consumption" (which was really tuberculosis, if I recall correctly, but acted as a catch-all phrase for diseases of the lungs that slowly killed the victim). I shall have to take a look in the letters to see if Tolkien had any opinion about this. He might've.