Are Cigarette Smokers Unfairly Stigmatized?

angrysoba

Philosophile
angrysoba
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
38,935
Location
Osaka, Japan
A friend in Vancouver tells me that cigarettes are increasingly restricted in Canada, and especially so in Vancouver.

Apparently:

you cannot display cigarettes in canada.
the cannot have anything but company name awful picture of dead people
and giant warning on the packet.
you cannot smoke in your car in vancouver or in a park or within 10 metres of any building.
the last one is crazy cause that puts you in the middle of the road and no one obeys it.
Click to expand...

According to a poster on another thread, something very similar is true in Australia.

And it looks likely to be the same in the UK soon as well.

Although I don't smoke anymore, Japan seems to be either one of the last holdouts of liberty, or a backward pre-modern smoke-pit, as here people can smoke in bars, restaurants and on (some) train platforms, on most roads, in cars, at the gym, in football stadiums, in parks and in schools. Also, cigarettes are prominently on display in shops and in ubiquitous vending machines on the streets which also often have ashtrays beside them so that you can smoke by the roadside. There are warnings on the packet, but instead of people with rotten teeth falling out, no hair, holes in their necks, fingers and toes falling off and post-mortem lungs, they tend to warn that smoking may not be entirely beneficial to one's health and it may be a good idea if you did not smoke too many if at all possible.

Of course, in my grandma's day, she would have a fag and a gin-and-tonic while a few days before popping out my dad and it didn't do her any harm. She's 95, you know!

But one thing I have noticed is that whereas the right-wing used to be all religious and high and mighty about people's behaviour, it now seems to be more of a left-wing thing to preach the sins of smoking. So much so that these right-wing publications are now saying that anti-smoking prejudice has become a stigma.

This one from the Revolutionary Communist Party-turned right-wing libertarians sp!ked, calls it a war on smoking in the UK. This one from the New Republic also says there is a "war on smoking" and says that it has gone too far.

What does everyone else think?
 
As somebody who has smoked and has not smoked and who seems to oscillate between the two positions.....

I'm glad that there is no smoking in bars and restaurants and on public transport. When I was a relatively enthusiastic smoker I still didn't like the smell of cigarette smoke on my clothes so a trip to a restaurant, bar or even in the smoking compartment of a train would result in a full wash and/or dry cleaning.

These days when I go to Germany I find it strange to see people smoking indoors and I'm not happy about the smell.
 
Restrict smoking in public places when the presence of smoke diminishes the enjoyment of non-smokers. This is proper.
 
The Don said:
As somebody who has smoked and has not smoked and who seems to oscillate between the two positions.....

I'm glad that there is no smoking in bars and restaurants and on public transport. When I was a relatively enthusiastic smoker I still didn't like the smell of cigarette smoke on my clothes so a trip to a restaurant, bar or even in the smoking compartment of a train would result in a full wash and/or dry cleaning.

These days when I go to Germany I find it strange to see people smoking indoors and I'm not happy about the smell.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know what you mean about the smell. And of course, the laws against smoking in bars are ostensibly due to the idea that employers should not be allowed to subject their employees to a dangerous (i.e smoke-filled) working environment, if I remember rightly.

However, if this is the ostensible reason then it seems odd that smokers are also banned from smoking in their own cars, often in their own homes, and also outside where they are presumably subject to fines if caught.

Do you think it should also be forbidden to smoke cigarettes outside?

I wonder what others think of this, too.
 
angrysoba said:
How about smoking bars or smoking cafes where it is expected that customers will be smoking?
Click to expand...

I favor the owner of such private properties deciding what otherwise legal conduct is acceptable on his premises. I favor allowing patrons to choose whether or not to patronize such establishments.
 
angrysoba said:
However, if this is the ostensible reason then it seems odd that smokers are also banned from smoking in their own cars, often in their own homes, and also outside where they are presumably subject to fines if caught.

Do you think it should also be forbidden to smoke cigarettes outside?

I wonder what others think of this, too.
Click to expand...

My company's property is smoke free, including the parking lot. While I've seen plenty of evidence that people are smoking in their cars, officially they are supposed to leave company property before lighting up.

It occurs to me that one of the reasons for banning it even in your own car may be to reduce cigarette litter.
 
Last edited:
Loss Leader said:
Cigarettes have one of the lowest cost-to-externality ratios of just about any legal product. I would be very, very happy to see the whole thing completely outlawed.
Click to expand...

I looked this up because I didn't really understand it. Apparently an "externality" is some cost or benefit incurred by someone who didn't ask for it.

Okay, but I am not sure if I understand you completely. Are you saying that nobody else benefits from someone else smoking, and maybe even suffers therefore it should be outlawed?

I think it is possibly irrelevant if we are talking about somebody's right to smoke in, say, their car or at home. I am not sure how we can justify preventing anyone smoking if they want in such circumstances.
 
Nah. Cigarette smoker are fairly stigmatized. Cigarette maker on the other hand are unfairly not stigmatized enough.

I am fine with people being allowed to smoke outside and in their owned home, but nowhere in public. Freedom and so forth. But that does not mean that smoker should be snuggled. Same for other drug or substance like alcohol. Freedom to take whatever poison, but one should not be cuddled for it.

In fact I think there isn't enough stigmatisation for both alcohol and smoking.
 
sarge said:
I favor the owner of such private properties deciding what otherwise legal conduct is acceptable on his premises. I favor allowing patrons to choose whether or not to patronize such establishments.
Click to expand...

Sure, but doesn't that contradict this:

sarge said:
Restrict smoking in public places when the presence of smoke diminishes the enjoyment of non-smokers. This is proper.
Click to expand...
 
The answer to the OP could only be yes if we were still ignorant of the dangers of smoking. In my lifetime, the pendulum has swung from a position where smokers had to be deferred to, ash trays supplied and no objection raised to the horrible smell, etc, to a position where they are most definitely the ones who must defer to the non-smokers. Are they stigmatised? No!
 
angrysoba said:
I looked this up because I didn't really understand it. Apparently an "externality" is some cost or benefit incurred by someone who didn't ask for it.

Okay, but I am not sure if I understand you completely. Are you saying that nobody else benefits from someone else smoking, and maybe even suffers therefore it should be outlawed?

I think it is possibly irrelevant if we are talking about somebody's right to smoke in, say, their car or at home. I am not sure how we can justify preventing anyone smoking if they want in such circumstances.
Click to expand...

The externality in this case, is the cost of lung cancer and various other treatment being shifted unto other. Not only the monetary cost (health care) but also the emotional one really.

Although one could argue the same could be said to other illness.
 
angrysoba said:
Yes, I know what you mean about the smell. And of course, the laws against smoking in bars are ostensibly due to the idea that employers should not be allowed to subject their employees to a dangerous (i.e smoke-filled) working environment, if I remember rightly.

However, if this is the ostensible reason then it seems odd that smokers are also banned from smoking in their own cars, often in their own homes, and also outside where they are presumably subject to fines if caught.

Do you think it should also be forbidden to smoke cigarettes outside?

I wonder what others think of this, too.
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of people being prevented from smoking in their own homes unless they are in a non-smoking rented apartment, maybe things are different in Japan.

Regarding smoking outside, I suppose it comes down to the impact on other people. I wouldn't cry too much over people not being allowed to smoke in crowds, I find the gaggle of smokers clustered outside a bar or restaurant unpleasant to walk through and the pile of butts around preferred smoking areas are unsightly. I suppose this comes down to enforcing litter laws and giving smokers somewhere reasonably pleasant and out of the way to go.

I am however in favour of restricting parents' smoking in cars when there are children in the car. The parents are entitled to damage their own health but they're not entitled to damage their children's health. Then again I'm not in favour of banning parents' smoking in houses containing children but that's more to do with enforcement and because at least a house is bigger than a car.
 
angrysoba said:
A friend in Vancouver tells me that cigarettes are increasingly restricted in Canada, and especially so in Vancouver.

Apparently:



According to a poster on another thread, something very similar is true in Australia.

And it looks likely to be the same in the UK soon as well.

Although I don't smoke anymore, Japan seems to be either one of the last holdouts of liberty, or a backward pre-modern smoke-pit, as here people can smoke in bars, restaurants and on (some) train platforms, on most roads, in cars, at the gym, in football stadiums, in parks and in schools. Also, cigarettes are prominently on display in shops and in ubiquitous vending machines on the streets which also often have ashtrays beside them so that you can smoke by the roadside. There are warnings on the packet, but instead of people with rotten teeth falling out, no hair, holes in their necks, fingers and toes falling off and post-mortem lungs, they tend to warn that smoking may not be entirely beneficial to one's health and it may be a good idea if you did not smoke too many if at all possible.

Of course, in my grandma's day, she would have a fag and a gin-and-tonic while a few days before popping out my dad and it didn't do her any harm. She's 95, you know!

But one thing I have noticed is that whereas the right-wing used to be all religious and high and mighty about people's behaviour, it now seems to be more of a left-wing thing to preach the sins of smoking. So much so that these right-wing publications are now saying that anti-smoking prejudice has become a stigma.

This one from the Revolutionary Communist Party-turned right-wing libertarians sp!ked, calls it a war on smoking in the UK. This one from the New Republic also says there is a "war on smoking" and says that it has gone too far.

What does everyone else think?
Click to expand...

I think the author may have been partially misinformed about BC's restrictions on smoking.

  • "you cannot display cigarettes in canada" -> not sure what this means... do you mean in a store? this would be correct, they are a 'behind the counter' purchase (this is Canada wide); if you mean 'public advertising' - > also correct, no public advertising of cigarettes
  • "the cannot have anything but company name awful picture of dead people and giant warning on the packet" -> partly correct... the package can have the usual branding, but half the front will display an image from a stock set depicting common health complications caused by smoking (this is Canada wide)
  • "you cannot smoke in your car in vancouver" -> partly correct: you can smoke in your car unless there are passengers under the age of 9
  • "or in a park" -> partly correct: parks are folded into the 'public places' rule, but the restriction predated it anyway due to fire risk - I think smokers who portray themeslves as 'persecuted' for wanting to walk around in the forest with a burning object need a serious reality check
  • "or within 10 metres of any building" -> incorrect: the restriction is 3m from a building's doors, open windows, or 6m from an air intake... the idea is to prevent the smoke from being drawn into the building (this regulation is shared by about half the provinces in Canada) If you find a location away from open windows, doors, vents, smoke away

Not mentioned in the OP's list is Vancouver also has a workplace ban, which includes bars and restaurants. The only exception is nursing homes, which can have a ventilated smoking room. Hotel rooms are also excluded from the workplace ban. My wife is involved in trying to get hospitals added to the list of exceptions as well.

There is no restriction against smoking in one's own home, unless that's the owner's terms for renting or strata bylaw.


ETA: there's actually a link! [Smoking In Canada]
 
Last edited:
Aepervius said:
Nah. Cigarette smoker are fairly stigmatized. Cigarette maker on the other hand are unfairly not stigmatized enough.

I am fine with people being allowed to smoke outside and in their owned home, but nowhere in public. Freedom and so forth. But that does not mean that smoker should be snuggled. Same for other drug or substance like alcohol. Freedom to take whatever poison, but one should not be cuddled for it.

In fact I think there isn't enough stigmatisation for both alcohol and smoking.
Click to expand...

**** that.

Besides, it's been tried: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperance_movement
 
Aepervius said:
Temperance movement got stuff forbidden outright IIRC.
Click to expand...

I think it's a good comparison.

Temperance's strategy was to apply stigmitizing pressure on alcohol producers, distributors, and consumers.

One of my grandmothers was active in Temperance in the 1920s (Canada - no Prohibition here) and she used to tell me plenty of stories (she quit when she married a bartender). One strategy was to ask women to refuse sex with drinking husbands a la Lysistrata.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom