smoking is bad, right?

[rimbaud]

well, it got my attention on TV it was some kind of documentary

we all know that smoking is bad, even before the writings on the boxes. Lung cancer and impotency and all that stuff. But if someone knows all that stuff, some still judge him/her for it.

there was an example:
Person A is a smoker and is lighting a cigarette, and Person B is a non smoker and judgmental and is all "how can you do that to yourself? Don't you know that smoking is bad, and ...."

Now if there was a large woman/man in a McDonald's eating for tree would someone yell at her " how can you do that to yourself? watch your cholesterol? look at the size of you"

how is this different?

[Delta40]

Smoking has no health benefit at all, whereas food does. It is easy for us to misconstrue the use of food.

The example you gave is problematic since how do you know the person in McDonalds was not eating one entire meal for the day as part of their new diet regime, where previously they ate much greater portions? The person could have lost a considerable amount of weight and your comments would be presumptious, discriminatory and discouraging.

[papayahed]

Is there such a thing as second hand colesterol?

[rimbaud]

ok, not McDonalds, somewhere else
eating has health benefit, but not in the case of the lady
what I ask is, why the second example is less acceptable than the first one?
I an non smoker and still don't mind it when someone smokes
amd many things are bad for us but we do them anyway
some may say that antidepresives are just for people who can't work out their own problems on their own (quoting) but they are still given by doctors
what my point is, there are more vices but they make it like smoking is the worst of them all.
how can we judge someone for smoking? he knows the risks, do we all lead such healthy and righteous life? and if we judge, can we judge about one thing and not about the other?

Is there such a thing as second hand colesterol?

no there is not, i get your point, but smoking open-doors, and now there are non smoking areas, at least in my country.
that is not the point, read the upper post

[Gladys]

Whatever the difference, the ongoing Burka thread is instructive. We in the West feel it is unacceptable for foreigners to coerce all women to wear the burka. Yet most on the forum feel free to coerce all women to refrain from wearing a burka in the West. A cultural double standard?

On the radio this morning, I learnt more of the 1952 suicide of Alan Turing, UK codebreaker and artificial intelligence pioneer. In 1952, Turing was convicted of homosexuality and forcibly administered an experimental chemical castration agent.

Returning to the issue of criticising smoking: many pillars of society in 1952 felt free not only to criticise Turning's sexual preference and to prosecute him accordingly, but also to venture a human experiment befitting of Josef Mengele. These same pillars would have been horrified at the voicing of criticism of a large woman or man eating fast food!

[Manchegan]

I think the hatred for smoking is the only thing saving it. People smoke because it's cool. It wouldn't be cool if it were universally accepted. Smokers thrive on your hatred of them. They also have mommy issues...all of them. Every last one.

[Mathor]

Smoking has no health benefit at all, whereas food does. It is easy for us to misconstrue the use of food.

The example you gave is problematic since how do you know the person in McDonalds was not eating one entire meal for the day as part of their new diet regime, where previously they ate much greater portions? The person could have lost a considerable amount of weight and your comments would be presumptious, discriminatory and discouraging.

i have to say that a strong majority of food at McDonalds has few health benefits, other than an excess of caloric intake per meal.

[Delta40]

You are right of course but we cannot measure the caloric intake that the person had prior to that, which may have been much greater. For all we know their purchase may have been a reduction in comparison to what they were used to and on those grounds, the comments would be inappropriate.

It isn't likely that we will live in a society that will serve food portions based on the size and health of the customer is it?

[PeterL]

smoking is bad, and ...."

No, smoking is not bad in and of itself. There has been a huge amount of noise about how bad it is, but the basics are almost always wrong. Smoking tobacco (I assume that you were referring only to tobacco) is not wrong. In addition, smoking tobacco in moderation is not unhealthy, and the claims by the government and others do not even disagree with this point.

[Jazz_]

No, smoking is not bad in and of itself. There has been a huge amount of noise about how bad it is, but the basics are almost always wrong. Smoking tobacco (I assume that you were referring only to tobacco) is not wrong. In addition, smoking tobacco in moderation is not unhealthy, and the claims by the government and others do not even disagree with this point.

Smoking in moderation maybe, but this ignores the fact that smoking is addictive (though some people can resist). I know many people who began smoking 'socially' (in moderation), but are now pack-a-day smokers.

I have no issues with people smoking - if properly informed of the health risks (hard not to be). My only problem is people smoking around others...

[PeterL]

Smoking in moderation maybe, but this ignores the fact that smoking is addictive (though some people can resist). I know many people who began smoking 'socially' (in moderation), but are now pack-a-day smokers.

It does not ignore the fact that nicotine is addictive. Addiction is not a major issue.

[Jazz_]

If your reasoning is that smoking is not a problem when in moderation (but is when someone smokes often), the fact that they are addictive is a major issue. If moderate smoking leads to heavy smoking, which leads to health problems, then surely the original moderate smoking is bad?

Are you saying that something that is addictive does not lead to excessive use? I'm sorry but I disagree, smoking has very serious consequences, and the fact that it is addictive exacerbates the problem.

[The Comedian]

I think the hatred for smoking is the only thing saving it. People smoke because it's cool. It wouldn't be cool if it were universally accepted. Smokers thrive on your hatred of them. They also have mommy issues...all of them. Every last one.

Indeed. Indeed.

[KazTarja]

wow this discussion totally went off the track ha. i believe it is a bit of a double standard, how can you look down on someone for their own choices? what makes you so damn righteous that you can judge others? im not that religious but damn, he who is without sin throw the first stone! and who is to say, on the idea that the woman in maccas is cutting down, that the guy smoking isnt cutting down as well?? what if hes down from 2 packs a day to only half a pack??

people are too quick to critise, too judgemental. if you were inhaling the smoke move away, or ask them to, but that wasnt the point, she said that "dont you know smoking is bad??" well duh the guy isnt stupid, but people take risks everyday you wake up you take risks, and if he likes to enjoy a cigarette bloody well let him it is his life, his body, freedom and all that. he doesnt deserve to be critised just like fat people shouldnt be looked down upon for ordering an extra large fries with a side of fries.

out..

[TheFifthElement]

I think that there are a large amount of people who are generally uncomfortable with the idea of other people having the freedom to think for themselves and act as they choose. I remember, once, in a discussion around public nudity, that someone mentioned this idea that there is a 'social contract' which the majority believe we are somehow signed up for and anyone not behaving in accordance with the 'social contract' is a loose cannon, not to be trusted, because if they can break one rule they can break them all right? And then there'd be anarchy, wouldn't there? So it makes people nervous when others fly in the face of these grey 'rules' because 'control' and 'order' are no longer established.

Possibly the only difference between your two examples is the length of time in which it has been against the 'social contract' to behave in that manner. Certainly the anti-smoking message has been around for the duration of my lifetime, whereas the anti-obesity message is still in its infancy. So perhaps in 20 or 30 years time your second scenario will become more commonplace. I find both scenarios deplorable; I don't understand why it is that, in the absence of injury to another, one person's fear should outweigh another person's freedom. If someone wants to smoke let them smoke providing that does not force another person to inhale such smoke against their will. If someone wants to eat and eat and eat until they give themselves a heart attack, let them. It's their choice. But I think the idea that people choose to do these things regardless of the 'known' risk, makes others very nervous.

But you could apply this scenario to many examples. Should people be judged for undertaking risky sports, like mountaineering, coasteering, potholing, sailing? Should people be judged for permitting their children to play out unsupervised? Should people be judged for not washing their hands before dinner? Should people be judged for crossing the road at places other than the designated crossing point?