Friday, June 29, 2007

"Lights out for lighting up"

... Maybe I should start following the lead of magazines and news outlets and make puns in headlines, regardless of whether they are good or bad. For instance Reuter UK today: "Lights out for lighting up". Worse, somehow they managed to make the headline different when you find it in google, and it is: "England stubs out smoking for breath of fresh air".
On the other hand, maybe I'll wait until after my lobotomy.

In any case, I can't say I'm sorry about England banning public smoking from this Sunday, July first. I have sometimes come into my favorite place to have my lunch, and not be able to find a place which was not full of smoke.

The defensiveness of some smokers of their right to pollute the bodies of others is a marvel to behold, though. Once I was sitting in a group of people in a small room, and the woman next to me lit up a cigarette. I did not attack her, I did not even ask her to smoke somewhere else. I just moved to the other side of the room because the smoke was bothering me. And still she snarled at me like I had slapped her face. Weird.

Alex expanded:

I went through California's transition from smoking to non-smoking. It was kinda interesting to see. There was outcry at the idea of not being allowed to smoke in restaurants, but by the time the law came into effect we'd already had restaurants which were 60-80% non-smoking with separate air conditioning for each half. These just became 100% no smoking.

Around this time I took a road trip to NY. One restaurant in the Carolinas, when we asked for no-smoking, showed us one of two tables near the door. We laughed it off, remembering how that was how it always used to be, but it did detract from the meal.

When it came to changing the regulations for bars, there was an outcry. It almost didn't pass. Then there was a re-interpretation of "no smoking in the work place". A bar is a place of work for the bar employees, and so it became enforced.

I used to enjoy a good evening out in the pubs, but couldn't settle after because of the lingering smell of cigarette smoke in my hair, something smokers don't notice.

The interesting effect is that you really notice smoke now. If you are in a traffic jam, and the guy in front is smoking, you can smell it. It's very commonplace for drivers to hold their cigarettes out the window, so as not to stink up their own car.

We've seen many laws passed in my life that try to make the air better for us all. In CA there is no MOT [Ministry of Transportation] like in the UK, only a smog check. I know Britain has now introduced air quality control into the MOT.

California has changed regulation on diesel emissions. Since 2003 you have not been able to by a diesel car in CA. In the UK there was a to-do when unleaded fuel was introduced. This again was to remove pollution from the air. Why should pedestrians have to breath air poisoned by motorists?

Britain suffered killer smogs back in the 60's. As a result fossil fuel usage became regulated, coal being replaced by coke, anthracite and furnacite.

I actually believe that smokers have the right to smoke. It is a legal product, permitted for personal consumption. My electing not to smoke is my choice, and does little to impact the average smoker. I have had friends who elected to step out for a ciggy, even in the pub, so as not to offend us non smokers. On occasion I elect to join them for conversation, and we shuffle around the wind to keep me in clean air.

However, when a smoker elects to smoke in an enclosed area, or densely populated patio/beer garden, then they are imposing their smoke on others, and going against the non-smokers right to "clean" air. With the demonstrated health impact of second hand smoke, then this behavior seems very anti-social.

Since most of us live in dense urban areas we have to respect all around us. This extends beyond cigarette smoke, it embraces noise pollution, use of lighter fluid on barbecues, types of fuel for vehicles, fuel for fires, one could even say how we dress and present ourselves is of import too.

Long and short of it. It's a tough transition. It is a decision no nation/state enters into lightly. Smoking is restricted, not outlawed. There are too many of us jammed into overflowing cities for us all to have complete freedom, and we must find a sane set of guidelines to allow us to live together.

Update July 7:
Final Identity joined in:


I'm what I hope would be identified as a "considerate smoker." I use a tobacco pipe with tobacco that has pleasant-smelling off-gasses. If indoors, I only smoke in enclosed private places where I have relative assurance that my smoke is tolerated, expected, or welcomed, by all other humans in vicinity (examples: tobacco room at coffee bar; cigar shop smoking room; designated separately ventilated smoking area at airport). If outdoors, I smoke down-wind of others.

My family does not know that I smoke. I am attracted to it because it is a "gourmet" experience, much like knowing a lot about fine wines, careful facial shaving with vintage equipment, or model trains. Also, I enjoy the "reverie" through which nicotine aids me in relaxing and concentrating, but I am not so addicted that I "require" it. In fact, I often go months without getting out the pipes and tobaccos from the box hidden in the bottom of my closet.

I think cigarette smokers are the worst offenders. Their "need" for the nicotine hit supersedes their ability to be cognizant of other humans' needs and rights. Cigarette smokers tend to disbelieve that their second-hand smoke can annoy others -- I have had many conversations in which a cigarette addict informed me, "Oh, get over yourself, it DOESN'T bother you, you're just making that up!" This despite my watering eyes, repeated sneezes, and insistence that we get out of the smoky room before I die. In general, the concept of the "social contract" (according to the French and Scottish et al. Enlightenment philosophers upon whose ideas most Western democracies are based) is that they can use tobacco only in as much as it doesn't interfere with my own (or anyone else's) interest in clean air. Cigarette smokers tend to forget that premise and arrogantly assume they deserve greater rights than others. Very rude.

In fact, it is no surprise to me that the (few) pro-smoking advocates on this thread are quite rude about advocating in favor of (what they believe to be) their rights. No logic, very little syllogism at all, a great deal of flaming, a rejection of commonly held scientific understandings (which may indeed be false -- but to reject common understandings, an intelligent writer would address the understandings, and their usual support, not merely contradict them and thereby assume right). The usual types who advocate for the usual types of smoking tend to be similarly inept at thinking.

There are good reasons to keep tobacco legal and easily available. I can list a few: 1. people like it. 2. Large companies depend on the profit of it. 3. Tax revenue from it is quite helpful to the government for things like education, etc. 4. People who do it privately and respectfully (as I would hope I am doing) have a right to making their own choices, whether detrimental or beneficial to themselves, in all their private affairs. 5. The ill effects of tobacco are only roughly equally as detrimental as the ill effects of many other items which we are not even THINKING about outlawing: highway travel, greasy food, etc. 6. The "nanny society" is a bad plan, in general, for a large state which claims to be mostly a democracy.

I don't find all of those arguments compelling, actually. I just thought I'd list a few, to indicate that this conversation COULD be civil and intelligent.

Here's why I smoke and continue to do so despite two compelling arguments against. (Those two are, 1. carcinogens 2. emphysema.) I continue to smoke because I like it, because I do it in a manner that minimizes health risks, and because it adds to the quality of my life rather than detracting from it (enjoyable hobby; fun fine accoutrements; interesting knowledgeable acquaintances; personal time occupation; etc.).

I can't really image a good reason to stop, nor do I wish to. And I have tested myself several times -- I have no trouble doing "without" for up to three months. The medical reasons, I don't find compelling. For habitual, addicted, lung-oriented cigarette smoking, I do; but for intermittent pipe smoking? Naw. There's not even a demonstrated casual correlation between pipe use and any form of cancer (though many might assume there is, merely because tobacco smoke has been proven to contain carcinogens). I think I'd be worse off going to a smoky, poorly ventilated bar for three nights a month but never taking up smoking, than I would be while doing as I do now, enjoying a careful and diligent pot of pipe tobacco once or twice a week.

Well, I still support stop-smoking campaigns, for several reasons. First, I'd be happy if cigarettes never were manufactured again. They're the cheapest, crassest form of tobacco distribution and use, to the point that many people are simply smoking sticks and twigs. The dastardly devious devices used by the manufacturers to "hook" people and fool them into thinking they're getting less negative impact than they're actually getting, make clear that the manufacturers know there's something deadly about them. And I always want to support any human who involves himself in any perceived form of "self-improvement" or "self-actualization," so as long as somebody's set it as a goal for himself, then I'm going to hope to help that somebody to reach it! The addictive nature of nicotine means that the goal is all that much harder to attain for many, so I understand the difficulties they're going through.

I personally won't succumb to the "guilt" messages. People who WANT to quit cigarettes, but find that practically speaking they CAN'T, often feel terrible about themselves. For me, it's a different issue. I do what I choose, and am happy with my choices. So I don't really lump myself in with the crowd who complained that no smoking in a bar would ruin the bar. Fact is, that change only ruined it for the rude people who had been ruining it for you and me for generations!

34 comments:

Anonymous said...

Mind if I smoke?

No, mind if I fart?

Anonymous said...

I've always been sorry, in such circumstances, that I am unable to fart at will!

"And still she snarled at me like I had slapped her face."

Maybe someone should have. If she had been slapped more as a child, she might've learned some manners. Typical attitude of substance addicts, to consider others as abnormal...

I've checked, many times, even a loud hacking cough, if I'm genuinely sick, initiates no reaction in a majority of weed-burners and tar-inhalers.

Say what you want about the primitiveness of the "good old days", but there was a time when people were considerate and selfless enough to ask/wonder whether their smoking could bother somebody.

Hmm... Come to think of it, maybe some manly burping would do the trick. Waiter, a soda, please. Stirred... no, make that shaken! And a vomit bag for the lady with the cigarette, my treat. ):-)
(Hunh? No-no, an empty bag. She'll be filling it up herself.)

Anonymous said...

Smokers do actually deserve to have their faces slapped. When someone is poisoning me, I do get ever so slightly annoyed. It'd be interesting to see if beating up a smoker could go under "legal self defence" in a court of law. After all, poisoning someone *is* assault... no? ;)

Anonymous said...

It'd be interesting to see if beating up a smoker could go under "legal self defence" in a court of law. After all, poisoning someone *is* assault... no? ;)

It'd be interesting to see if kicking the shit out of a whiny ass non smokers cry would be "justified action agaisn't an arrogant asshole. After all, taking the rights away from me is communisism....no? ;)

Anonymous said...

For smoking weed, you could always try The BC Vaporizer (bcvaporizer.com). I haven't used one myself so I don't know how well they work.

This talk of kicking the shit out of people is really kind of depressing. We don't seem to have evolved much at all.

It's interesting that people usually choose anonymity when they decide to hurl abuse.

Alex said...

I went through California's transition from smoking to non-smoking. It was kinda interesting to see. There was outcry at the idea of not being allowed to smoke in restaurants, but by the time the law came into effect we'd already had restaurants which were 60-80% non-smoking with separate air conditioning for each half. These just became 100% no smoking.

Around this time I took a road trip to NY. One restaurant in the Carolinas, when we asked for no-smoking, showed us one of two tables near the door. We laughed it off, remembering how that was how it always used to be, but it did detract from the meal.

When it came to changing the regulations for bars, there was an outcry. It almost didn't pass. Then there was a re-interpretation of "no smoking in the work place". A bar is a place of work for the bar employees, and so it became enforced.

I used to enjoy a good evening out in the pubs, but couldn't settle after because of the lingering smell of cigarette smoke in my hair, something smokers don't notice.

The interesting effect is that you really notice smoke now. If you are in a traffic jam, and the guy in front is smoking, you can smell it. It's very commonplace for drivers to hold their cigarettes out the window, so as not to stink up their own car.

We've seen many laws passed in my life that try to make the air better for us all. In CA there is no MOT like in the UK, only a smog check. I know Britain has now introduced air quality control into the MOT.

California has changed regulation on diesel emissions. Since 2003 you have not been able to by a diesel car in CA. In the UK there was a to-do when unleaded fuel was introduced. This again was to remove pollution from the air. Why should pedestrians have to breath air poisoned by motorists?

Britain suffered killer smogs back in the 60's. As a result fossil fuel usage became regulated, coal being replaced by coke, anthracite and furnacite.

I actually believe that smokers have the right to smoke. It is a legal product, permitted for personal consumption. My electing not to smoke is my choice, and does little to impact the average smoker. I have had friends who elected to step out for a ciggy, even in the pub, so as not to offend us non smokers. On occasion I elect to join them for conversation, and we shuffle around the wind to keep me in clean air.

However, when a smoker elects to smoke in an enclosed area, or densely populated patio/beer garden, then they are imposing their smoke on others, and going against the non-smokers right to "clean" air. With the demonstrated health impact of second hand smoke, then this behavior seems very anti-social.

Since most of us live in dense urban areas we have to respect all around us. This extends beyond cigarette smoke, it embraces noise pollution, use of lighter fluid on barbecues, types of fuel for vehicles, fuel for fires, one could even say how we dress and present ourselves is of import too.

Long and short of it. It's a tough transition. It is a decision no nation/state enters into lightly. Smoking is restricted, not outlawed. There are too many of us jammed into overflowing cities for us all to have complete freedom, and we must find a sane set of guidelines to allow us to live together.

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

Alex, what's an MOT?

Alex said...

M.O.T.

Ministry of Transportation

There was a road worthiness test, lighting, suspension, body condition, tires (or is that tyres), brakes etc.
I know it was still in effect in the UK in 95 when I left. They added the emissions test to that. It may have a new name now.

If you have a car over 3 year old you used to have the test every 2 years.

Anonymous said...

If you have a car over 3 year old you used to have the test every 2 years.

They tried that shit here in the United States and it lasted a few months and blew away like the wind. Everything remains as it was with the vehicles of yesterday.
Some governments are so stupid, they attempt something retarded and then it fades into oblivion.

Anonymous said...

"This talk of kicking the shit out of people is really kind of depressing."

Right. A good laxative would be far less brutal for the exact same result.

"However, when a smoker elects to smoke in an enclosed area, or densely populated patio/beer garden, then they are imposing their smoke on others"

Back to Hangar's initial half-joke, this is not unlike some "delicate citizen" farting inside an elevator. Except that farts are just stinky and disgusting, they're not ALSO known to cause cancer.
Not that it's much of an excuse for being a two-legged animal.

"Since most of us live in dense urban areas we have to respect all around us."

This here is the key of the matter. If anybody could do anything without bothering others, we'd need no such laws. But when you drive fast, you risk hitting and killing somebody who did nothing to you. Because we live together, in high density.

For some years now, officially more than half the planet's population lives in cities. I do not think it is wise, and it could probably be changed, but hic et nunc, here and now, it demands adaptations to guarantee everybody (ideally!) decent living conditions.

It bothers nobody when a wolf howls in the middle of the taiga, or when an eagle shrieks over the Grand Canyon. But a tiny chihuahua barking in your neighbor's house affects the many people living very close around. It's not necessarily the dog's fault, just very different circumstances for everybody.

As my dear grandmother says: "People have the right to be stupid, this is a free country." They also have the right to do anything else as long as is harmful only to them. Live and let live. Or let die from lung cancer, whatever one fancies for himself.

"New law: suicide is sanctioned with capital punishment."
There, that should really be a deterrent!

Anonymous said...

Pascal, don't try to be funny. It falls flat and you just end up looking stupid.

Anonymous said...

then they are imposing their smoke on others"

Drunks impose their gross habit upon me.
I don't like being around the boozers who reek of beer and act like assholes and ruin your night night out. i say prohibit booze just like tobacco too. but it ain't gonna happen anywhere ladies.
you can't legislate morality or common courtesy. btw, second hand smoke causing cancer is a MYTH. MYTH. MYTH. Ask the kids who are born with luekemia or never smoked a day in their lives and die from cancer.
Sell me a pebble from the ocean lol. Idiot people. Besides, beer smells like sewage shit and is resposible for millions of premature deaths per year. Liver, car accidents, falls, yada yada.
They can take that to the freaking bank those silly uneducated rednecks.

Anonymous said...

Pascal, don't try to be funny. It falls flat and you just end up looking stupid.

He thinks he's Robin Williams or something. Do like me, just hurriedly scroll past his stale unfunny remarks and read the other points to the posts. It's better than his tiring attempts at comedy.

Alex said...

Prohibit Booze said "btw, second hand smoke causing cancer is a MYTH. MYTH. MYTH. Ask the kids who are born with luekemia or never smoked a day in their lives and die from cancer."

Cigarette smoke and its constituents, are not the only carcinogens. If someone is raised in a smoke free community/environment, it does not mean they are free from cancer.

The "myth" is being propagated by WHO and US Surgeon general. It is hard to tell with some of the evidence the media present to us, like saccharin being a carcinogen, as proven in male lab mice. How does that translate to humans?

Cancer is not the only effect of smoke. Ever talk to an asthmatic about smoke, be it cigarette, diesel, wood...?

Smoking in crowded environments has other consequences too. As a kid I was burnt on the back of my hand by a cigar from a passerby in a crowded shopping street.

I agree, obnoxious drunks, inconsiderate cellphone users, wearers of cologne and perfume, litterbugs are all aggravating peoples to encounter.

Anonymous said...

I agree, obnoxious drunks, inconsiderate cellphone users, wearers of cologne and perfume, litterbugs are all aggravating peoples to encounter.

Very good point Alex. Thank you for bringing that to attention. It's nice to know that some people think beyond the box as they say.
Your answers and concerns are well meaning and taken seriously.
Thanks for your well thought contribution on this.
(Yes, I smoke but will not smoke around someone it bothers.) I wish people didn't drink alcohol myself personally because of it's aftermath.

Anonymous said...

Ouch. Busted. Holy rusted metal, Batman, somebody saw right through me! The jig is up. Uncle!

I'm such a monster, forcing everybody to read me, even when they don't want to. Shame, shame, shame on my indignant person. Mud on my face, I'm a big disgrace, kicking my trend all over the place. I promise, I'll change. Next time, I'll try to make you guys weep. Okay? Peachy. :-)

Um... you ARE guys, right? Not that I'm any less pathetic with the ladies, au contraire. In reality, even kittens hiss as soon as they spot me.

Confession time: I am, indeed, a low-life. The lowest possible. Lower than the abyssal rift of Mindanao, Philippines (10,452 metres below sea level). The Iranian President once said I looked like a mangy unkempt porcine (or was that porcupine?), and Bin Laden says I get on his nerves because I'm too agressive and unfriendly. Rush Limbaugh finds me devoid of ethics, and Pat Robertson resents what he calls my intolerant and narrow-minded bigoted hostility. My face once scared away a tasmanian devil. Skunks scrunge at my body odor. Several pregnant monkey females aborted briefly after glancing me through the impenetrable jungles of Congo. My neighborhood's mothers all got court orders forbidding me to come within sight of their kids because they get scared (and scarred for life); and they all call me "the boogeyman". Or sometimes the booger-man.
Why, I don't even know where I'll end up at the end of my life. Nobody will accept my unsightly carcass soiling their country's soil or even their garbage landfills, the maggots'll probably refuse to eat me, and I can't go to Hell because Satan himself would most likely kick me out before I give the place a bad reputation. Hollywood might make a fortune with a monster movie inspired by me or my appearance, but they fear that nobody will ever dare watch it.

I once pretended to be a jew, to justify my constant self-loathing attitude. I remember it well, it was in Berlin, in 1936. A guy named Hitler got word of it, and next thing you know he went foaming at the mouth, people are still talking about his fit of rage today. I almost went to that Shoah conference in Indonesia recently to "spill the beans", but their Customs thought it meant I planned to throw up my chili con carne live on world TV (and on the conference table), so they cancelled my visa. Then, to be on the safe side, they grabbed napalm flamethrowers and cremated my last remaining passport. The one I had to bribe the Pakistani Minister of Terrorism to obtain.

I'm expecting to be immortal, if the Grim Reaper asks to be excused from dealing with such a sorry individual as my obnoxious self. So much for ridding the world of my burden one (glorious) day. Guess why I'm never sick? That's right, germs ALSO can't stand me. Mosquito bites? I should BE so lucky. With me, hornet stings are always fatal to the insect. The cobra poisoner, I'm called in Rajastan (India).

In all honestly, the only reason I make bad jokes in the first place is not because I'm histrionic. No, I'm way beyond that. My true motivation is being sadistic to wretched audiences while pretending to be friendly to them. I once worked briefly for Saddam as an interrogator in Abu Ghraib. You guessed it, "shortly" because I got kicked out. Not by Saddam, by his son Udai, the psychopath one. He said my methods grossed him out and I was worse than a mad infidel dog. I similarly got laid back from promising "intel" careers in Birmania, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Guantanamo Bay, the Janjawids of Sudan, and Pol Pot's Red Khmer regime. If Lebanon wasn't in such a state of pure anarchy, I'd have real trouble finding a country to simply stay in!
What's that? Syria? Sorry, I'm already known there. Crossed their borders once before, in the `70s, and they're on to me for good. Now they have a law with my name. But it is forbidden to mention it out loud without a written presidential approval or you'll get caned in public.

I'm also the only known person (or vague excuse for) to have been bitten by the caimans of the Caiman Islands when I tried to open a bank account there. Poor beasts didn't pass the night after that. Because I'm connected to the sewers, which end up in the sea, sharks worldwide are becoming extinct. A popular legend claims that I was raised by a pack of hyenas, but of course none would have tolerated me! They have their dignity.
The best oiled doors squeak when I push them open. In protest.

A'ight? You sobbing yet? (Or puking?) If not, I can tell you a classic Andersen story, called "the Little Girl with the Matches". This always draws those tears.
I can even make a snake cry. Which is some feat, modesty aside. Because snakes don't have tear glands. Or so it was long believed until I got involved.

prohibit booze too said...

"btw, second hand smoke causing cancer is a MYTH. MYTH. MYTH. Ask the kids who are born with luekemia or never smoked a day in their lives and die from cancer."


Is there an echo in this big, empty chat room?
Yeah, I too am getting fed up with that huge crowd constantly repeating that smoking is the ONLY cause of cancer. (And also the only cause for war, famin, crime, global warming, inflation, pornography, Jehovah's Witnesses, and stupidity on the internet.)
Um... incidentally, anybody remembers when was last time it happened? Oh yeah, when I gave lots of documented facts on this very blog about smoking, and was contradicted with gratuitous hostile denegations. Sounds vaguely like déjà-vu... déjà-vu... déjà-vu... jà-vu... à-vu... vu... u... .

Surgeon General warning: smoking causes bad breath, impotence, ugliness, wrinkling, and decrease in mental performances.

Saaay... Maybe I should pick up smoking and boozing? In MY case, any change is a hope for improvement. I certainly can't become much worse of a human detritus...

BTW, your remark about the poor behaviour of drunks is perfectly correct. Which is why, drunk or not, disorderly conduct in public is a misdemeanor punished by law. Not drinking in itself, but being rude and irresponsible about it.
And I consider it disorderly conduct to exploit the excuse of cancer children, which I've long been with and cared for. Have you? Next time you try and use human shields, I'll have Putin send his SWATs and slap your tushie. You wicked mean meanie! A... a big, fat BLOG MODERATOR, that's what you are! You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? Watch it, gringo, I am locco in my cabessa! Bring it on, champ. (Huff! Huff!)

It's a pity this Blogger engine doesn't support arabic fonts. Arabic has the reputation for being the world's best language for heavy-caliber, powerful-sounding swear words. Ah well, as the Italians say, "il tatte batto messali, betennaro"...

not impressed either said...
"[Pascal] thinks he's Robin Williams or something."


Hey, I thought you hated him in Patch Adams? Or was it just his guts?
(A good laxative would take care of THAT, too.)

Anonymous said...

Bad news, fellow Pascal-haters. I tried to off him (taking great risks in the country where Hizbullah makes the law), but it was true: even silver bullets won't go near him. No more than baseball bats and small rocks.
A suicidal exorcist, maybe? Holy water Batman?

Anonymous said...

413 ERROR :
[Something very impolite and rude that was automatically deleted by the server's new automated moderation software.]

Anonymous said...

Did that 413 have anything to do with me, Mr O'Tomated Mudration Southtwerp?

Anonymous said...

403 ERROR :
Request denied. You do not have clearance for accessing such information on this server.
Thank you for your feedback.

Anonymous said...

Don't worry, Pascal will off himself one day.

Anonymous said...

Alas (for my hate-club), I'm a very poor aim. I once crossed a minefield on foot without managing to find a single one of the 300-plus charges. And that's no fib!

But it was only afterwards that I was informed there were mines. (Even *I* am not that stupid.) No warning sign, no fence, nothing. And there I thought it was just a pleasant secluded botanical garden behind the Anatomy classes.

That's daily routine when your alma mater is on the demarcation line in Beirut... We also had a sniper on the west side, or so we were told, but he never manifested himself while I was there. We did get bombarded, though. At least. (Ah, the fond memories of my wild youth!)

My bad aim must be genetic: my father also missed a mine, which took the leg off one of his colleagues. This memory he's not very fond of.

Even our pet canary got missed by a sniper. Three times, three nights in a row. I'm afraid I'm hopeless with weapons.

A solo Lover's Leap might do the trick?...

Anonymous said...

"Don't worry, Pascal will off himself one day."

Okay, I told myself I wasn't going to get involved with this, but now you guys are just getting silly with this stuff. Do you seriously not have anything better to do than try to draw a reaction from somebody?

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

"But it was only afterwards that I was informed there were mines. (Even *I* am not that stupid.) No warning sign, no fence, nothing."

That's the most patently insane thing I've heard.

Anonymous said...

eolake said...
"That's the most patently insane thing I've heard."


And therefore it's true. Who could ever make such a story up? :-/
I think with a bit of effort, my country can do even better (or worse?). Just give us a sporting chance.

Perheps this may help "some people" understand why I don't react like the standard Westerner. In the middle of a war (just go back to one of the many excellent classic WW2 movies), you can't dwell on and get depressed about the fact that your life is in constant and serious danger. This "sane" reaction would become insane in such an extreme situation. So people learn to react differently because their world is different. If you're alive and well, clearly it's great news, and tomorrow is another day.

I can't live without happiness. So every day which is not tragic is a good day. With or without a good cigar, Herr Groucho Marx. ;-)

Oh, and, to those who genuinely and unjokingly flame me? You have my (lowly and unworthy) sympathy. I hope you find one day that most precious of universal treasures: your smile.

Officially, as a Lebanese, my patriotic duty's to be a raging anti-Semite. Because "Israel is our enemy". (Which is ironic, if you consider that technically, Arabs are Semites too!)
But I can't help understand and respect the spirit of jewish humour, after what they've been through without losing their soul. Dammit, peace SHOULD be possible, we're so alike!

At the start of this thread, I considered joking with "Well, excuse me for not smoking!"
Here, I'll just say, "Excuse me for not hating".
The only bitter thing that's to my taste is dark chocolate. :-)

Actually, not only those attacks don't bother me, can't bother me, but they inspire me. Like a breeze stimulating a flame. Pun intended!
Reminds me of the (not so) "good old days". I feel so ALIVE!

Please, Eolake, don't go back to moderating the blog. I'd lose my source of inspiration! :-)))

Anonymous said...

Please, Eolake, don't go back to moderating the blog. I'd lose my source of inspiration! :-)))

Pascal, so would I. But I think the good Captain (I hope) will never moderate again. I like his blog very much and feel so free to speak without being censored or erased.
And Pascal, may I ask you a question? Why does Lebanon consider Israel an enemy? I hope you never consider me (an American who would join the army to protect Israel at any cost) an enemy?
Please respond my friend Pascal.

Anonymous said...

Several responses, Terry:

- I meant I would lose my source of inspiration because these attacks just make me think of amusing stuff instead of hurting me. I don't MIND posting on a moderated blog/forum in itself, it's just a bit slower.
Recently, a tiny part of a comment I made of a discussion (on another site) was edited. Rightfully, too: on second thought, my humour there *could* have been mis-interpreted as an attack, and the webmaster subtly but undoubtedly added his moderating touch. He removed just two words, which weren't useful anyway. (What, you thought I was perfect? ;-)
Moderation does open room for censorship, it's true. But most of the time it is just what it says it is: bringing moderation where excess is always possible. And "most" becomes "all" of the time with somebody with as much principles as Eolake. :-)
(Or is that "as many"? I meant it in quality.)

- For your main question, the Arab world deeply resented the creation of the jewish State of Israel, and never accepted it. Part nationalist pride at the end of the colonial era, part religious conflict. (Muslims and Jews are nicknamed "the Enemy Brothers": so alike, so in conflict.) The Arab League, as I've heard, was originally founded for the goal of making Israel disappear from existence. (So much for THAT silly project!)
It's all a very narrow and simplistic attitude, yes. But it is an official one, including in Lebanon, and there are explicit laws enforcing it! ):-P
I hope it changes one day, but until then it's wiser for me to keep my pacifist beliefs in the private sphere.

- I'm a lover, not a fighter. Supposing, in the most extreme scenario, that the USA declared war on Lebanon and we were both drafted, technically this would make us enemies. Technically. But it wouldn't change what's in my heart. In fact, I firmly believe I'd be a conscience objector, because I can't imagine deliberately and calmly killing a human being. Fortunately for me, in such a case I'd certainly become a medical officer. "A soldier who only SAVES lives." :-)
More realistically, if you were in an army defending Israel, well, I cannot deny anybody's right to self-defense. Not even if I DID consider Israel an enemy country.
Well, technically (again!), we are enemies, because our two countries are still officially at war. (Only two arab countries have signed a peace treaty with Israel: Jordan and Egypt. Smart move from these neighboring countries. All the others remain officially at war with Tel-Aviv.)
But me, I consider war as merely a delay in peace. Heck, during the civil war here, everybody was everybody's enemy. And it was to nobody's benefit. Apart from some now-billionaire war-lords. Some of this hostility is gone and forgotten. Another part is officially a thing of the past, but still very alive in the hearts.
Sounds complicated? It is. :-/

We need nobody's stinkin' help to act stupid by ourselves in Lebanon. To be sarcastic, "with fellow countrymen like that, who needs enemies?"
I don't hate my enemies, I just hate HAVING any. So this is a collection I never intend to start. I'm too busy collecting friends like you. :-)
Some people hate me, consider themselves my enemies (judging by some comments I couldn't help noticing). But I won't be theirs. I just refuse to play along (so there!). Maybe it's an unexpected side-effect of my agitated childhood, which failed to make me agressive and obtuse?

So much for becoming the eternal victim of one's past. ;-)

Cliff Prince said...

I'm what I hope would be identified as a "considerate smoker." I use a tobacco pipe with tobacco that has pleasant-smelling off-gasses. If indoors, I only smoke in enclosed private places where I have relative assurance that my smoke is tolerated, expected, or welcomed, by all other humans in vicinity (examples: tobacco room at coffee bar; cigar shop smoking room; designated separately ventilated smoking area at airport). If outdoors, I smoke down-wind of others.

My family does not know that I smoke. I am attracted to it because it is a "gourmet" experience, much like knowing a lot about fine wines, careful facial shaving with vintage equipment, or model trains. Also, I enjoy the "reverie" through which nicotine aids me in relaxing and concentrating, but I am not so addicted that I "require" it. In fact, I often go months without getting out the pipes and tobaccos from the box hidden in the bottom of my closet.

I think cigarette smokers are the worst offenders. Their "need" for the nicotine hit supersedes their ability to be cognizant of other humans' needs and rights. Cigarette smokers tend to disbelieve that their second-hand smoke can annoy others -- I have had many conversations in which a cigarette addict informed me, "Oh, get over yourself, it DOESN'T bother you, you're just making that up!" This despite my watering eyes, repeated sneezes, and insistence that we get out of the smoky room before I die. In general, the concept of the "social contract" (according to the French and Scottish et al. Enlightenment philosophers upon whose ideas most Western democracies are based) is that they can use tobacco only in as much as it doesn't interfere with my own (or anyone else's) interest in clean air. Cigarette smokers tend to forget that premise and arrogantly assume they deserve greater rights than others. Very rude.

In fact, it is no surprise to me that the (few) pro-smoking advocates on this thread are quite rude about advocating in favor of (what they believe to be) their rights. No logic, very little syllogism at all, a great deal of flaming, a rejection of commonly held scientific understandings (which may indeed be false -- but to reject common understandings, an intelligent writer would address the understandings, and their usual support, not merely contradict them and thereby assume right). The usual types who advocate for the usual types of smoking tend to be similarly inept at thinking.

There are good reasons to keep tobacco legal and easily available. I can list a few: 1. people like it. 2. Large companies depend on the profit of it. 3. Tax revenue from it is quite helpful to the government for things like education, etc. 4. People who do it privately and respectfully (as I would hope I am doing) have a right to making their own choices, whether detrimental or beneficial to themselves, in all their private affairs. 5. The ill effects of tobacco are only roughly equally as detrimental as the ill effects of many other items which we are not even THINKING about outlawing: highway travel, greasy food, etc. 6. The "nanny society" is a bad plan, in general, for a large state which claims to be mostly a democracy.

I don't find all of those arguments compelling, actually. I just thought I'd list a few, to indicate that this conversation COULD be civil and intelligent.

Here's why I smoke and continue to do so despite two compelling arguments against. (Those two are, 1. carcinogens 2. emphysema.) I continue to smoke because I like it, because I do it in a manner that minimizes health risks, and because it adds to the quality of my life rather than detracting from it (enjoyable hobby; fun fine accoutrements; interesting knowledgeable acquaintances; personal time occupation; etc.).

I can't really image a good reason to stop, nor do I wish to. And I have tested myself several times -- I have no trouble doing "without" for up to three months. The medical reasons, I don't find compelling. For habitual, addicted, lung-oriented cigarette smoking, I do; but for intermittent pipe smoking? Naw. There's not even a demonstrated casual correlation between pipe use and any form of cancer (though many might assume there is, merely because tobacco smoke has been proven to contain carcinogens). I think I'd be worse off going to a smoky, poorly ventilated bar for three nights a month but never taking up smoking, than I would be while doing as I do now, enjoying a careful and diligent pot of pipe tobacco once or twice a week.

Well, I still support stop-smoking campaigns, for several reasons. First, I'd be happy if cigarettes never were manufactured again. They're the cheapest, crassest form of tobacco distribution and use, to the point that many people are simply smoking sticks and twigs. The dastardly devious devices used by the manufacturers to "hook" people and fool them into thinking they're getting less negative impact than they're actually getting, make clear that the manufacturers know there's something deadly about them. And I always want to support any human who involves himself in any perceived form of "self-improvement" or "self-actualization," so as long as somebody's set it as a goal for himself, then I'm going to hope to help that somebody to reach it! The addictive nature of nicotine means that the goal is all that much harder to attain for many, so I understand the difficulties they're going through.

I personally won't succumb to the "guilt" messages. People who WANT to quit cigarettes, but find that practically speaking they CAN'T, often feel terrible about themselves. For me, it's a different issue. I do what I choose, and am happy with my choices. So I don't really lump myself in with the crowd who complained that no smoking in a bar would ruin the bar. Fact is, that change only ruined it for the rude people who had been ruining it for you and me for generations!

Anonymous said...

I prefer a considerate smoker to an inconsiderate farter or a rude cell-phoner any time. Whatever one's beliefs, habits or tastes, if they're civilized I can get along with them. And if they're not, no matter how much we have in common, I won't hang around with them. It's a matter of fundamental human qualities and knowing the priorities.

And Final's right: the tobacco used in pipes today is VERY different from the classic stink of cigarettes, cigars, or (eeuw, yuck!) cigarillos. I'd almost give it a try if I didn't know that tobacco is unhealthy, even the one that smells good. ;-)
A user not being addicted to it is also a major plus in my book. A substance addict is someone who's lost part of their freedom. Even if done willingly, you're not free to change your mind, so...

"My family does not know that I smoke."

This says it all. It doesn't even matter if they'd approve of it or not: if even they aren't aware of it, you're definitely the kind who doesn't impose upon others. I have friends like that: I knew they were smokers, but over time I just forgot that detail because it remains a strictly private matter.
It's so easy sharing this planet with people who have manners and common sense! As I once said, I don't throw my chocolate wrappers around me. And I have no way of finding out whether somebody's allergic to even the SMELL of chocolate, unless I ask them. Live and let live...

"There are good reasons to keep tobacco legal and easily available."

Total agreement there. People have the right to make their choices freely, even if they may sometimes be self-harmful, stupid, or, say, mean certain doom for their soul in the Afterlife.

"And I have tested myself several times -- I have no trouble doing "without" for up to three months."

I can go double or triple that time without a drop of alcohol. But let's not start playing "my willpower's bigger than yours"! :-)

Regarding the medical reasons to stop:
Some research, from what I've read, declare that "there is no minimal harmless dose" regarding tobacco and cancer risk. Well, first I honestly wonder how they came to such a conclusion in a reliable manner, considering the factual reality of today's societies. And second, I have a hard time accepting such a doctrin about ANYTHING. For instance, it has recently been discovered that Arsenic, that notorious roman noir poison, can be used at small doses to spectacularly relieve auto-immune diseases. I'm sure excess of caution is far more detrimental for the quality of one's life than any truly reasonable "vices".
In fact, I *know* that for a fact. I know some overly cautious people. So busy being careful that they forget to live.
Heck, just being born is already taking a huge chance. So far, the numbers suggest that the mortality rate of being born is of 100% in no more than 123 years. Jinkies!

All in all an excellent post, Final Identity. Hey, why the delay? Been thinking and listening before speaking? ;-)

Cliff Prince said...

I said, "My family does not know that I smoke."

Pascal responded, "This says it all. It doesn't even matter if they'd approve of it or not: if even they aren't aware of it," and I thought to myself, "Uh oh, he's going to let me have it now. He's going to say, 'you see, you keep it secret because deep down you KNOW it's unhealthy and WRONG and you just WON'T ADMIT IT TO YOURSELF." I've gotten that type of response from a lot of people ("What!! You do something you're EMBARRASSED about??").

But instead, he continued with, "you're definitely the kind who doesn't impose upon others. I have friends like that: I knew they were smokers, but over time I just forgot that detail because it remains a strictly private matter.
It's so easy sharing this planet with people who have manners and common sense!"

Wow, first time I've been congratulated for being secretive. :) Thanks! :)

He also asked, "Hey, why the delay? Been thinking and listening before speaking? ;-)" Heck no! Been doing OTHER interesting things. Like looking for a job. My father's pointless unnecessary make-work yard and lawn clean up over the (USA's) Independence Day holiday. Etc. Great stuff. :P

Anonymous said...

Excellent comment(s), final identity.

I have never smoked cigarettes, and hate the smell and smoke of it. And yet I am strongly against any kind of laws that rule how restauranteurs must conduct their business. No one is forced to work in a smoking restaurant/pub. Similarly, customers can always choose a non-smoking place if they want to.

If there is a demand for non-smoking places, let the free market sort it out. That way we get the exact right amount of non-smoking places vs. smoking places in exactly the right locations. And what's more, all this will automatically and continuously adjust as customer demands change.

I have occasionally smoked cigars for culinary pleasure. For me, personally, it's no big deal if I can't do that anymore. But I can't help but be very worried about the path our society is taking here.

Cliff Prince said...

I disagree on the free market theory. I think a government has a right to prevent person A from poisoning person B at any location. And yes, people ARE "forced" to work at a variety of locations. If I had had a choice, I would never have "chosen" to wait tables or tend bar. But I happen to be smart and have ethics. Same for a large number of other less skilled people. Jobs don't come and go just because the employee wants them.

Anonymous said...

TTL said...
"No one is forced to work in a smoking restaurant/pub."


Well, technically, that's true. But I don't need to remind a smart fellow like you of the discrepancies between the spirit of the law and the prosaic daily reality of finding a job and dealing with the pressures a boss can legally place on you.
Or are bosses only bossy in Lebanon? :-P

"If there is a demand for non-smoking places, let the free market sort it out."

Provided the service offerers show some sense in seeing the demand, and some courage when the rude smokers start claiming the world as their oyster/ashtray.
I see it every day: a noisy minority stirs up some hype, and the majority feels outnumbered by the appearances and caves in. Murdering fanatics are a minority in Islam, but most of the others are afraid to speak up to confirm it. Rude loudmouths are (I believe) a minority in smokers, and definitely a minority in the GLOBAL population, but they bulldoze their tyranny on all the others: non-smokers, and sensible smokers who fear they might go against their own interests by not showing, um, "group solidarity", at least through their silence. The greatest lies are often spoken in silence. (Mark Twain or Stevenson quote, I believe.)

At they say, in the soup pot, it's always the bones that make the noise. While the discreet nourrishing stuff is the concealed marrow or the meat pieces.
I hate bone soup. I'd prefer "de la bonne soupe". ;-)

In summary, TTL, I'm not saying you're wrong, just that you seem to underestimate the weight of social immobilism here. If non-smokers were as active, perfectly separated atmospheres would be available everywhere since 20 years ago.

"But I can't help but be very worried about the path our society is taking here."

We're in perfect harmony here. Educated manners, mutual respect and common sense are very important. But so is fundamental freedom, which I see more and more threatened and conquered by what you might call "limp tyranny". The same kind of totalitarism as happened with communism, where the hammered nobleness of the doctrin became the most convenient weapon to silence any other thought expression. Political correctness is doing the same, in the form of some arbitrary "social consensus", which in fact originates from the political power, pressure & interest groups, and falsely independent media. The bones in the juice. Clank! Clank!

A law that protects my right for NOT smoking or being inflicted tobacco pollution is okay, and apparently made necessary by contemporary social circumstances. But outlawing smoking altogether? Just as cockamamie as jailing somebody for smoking weed or getting drunk in the privacy of their home when they weren't about to drive afterwards (or assault their family). Similarly, viewing porn or simple nudes could be outlawed by the "soft iron hand of Law & Order in a nylon glove" (velvet is expensive these days!).
In fact, it is. "...or if the wiewing of such adult material is illegal where you live..." Sounds familiar?

I believe that's what TTL means: that "gentle", parasitic constant nagging pressure that whispers in your back, "It's not okay. You're not harming anyone, but what you're doing is wrong, you're wicked, and one day you'll go to prison for it."
Or, in another form: "God/Allah can see you, you're going to Hell." To quote the Saudi version.
Believing this fear is what we have to fear.

There are definitely grave and worthy challenges in this futuristic third millenium of ours. Will it ever end?
Perhaps. *IF* we manage to stop repeating the errors of the past again and again, ad nauseam. Wishful thinking...

Cliff Prince said...

Third Millennium: the era of the Pan-Opticon (google it!).