|
Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| How much do you smoke? |
| I never smoke. Smoking stinks. Lung cancer is a stupid way to die. |
|
59% |
[ 32 ] |
| I smoke about a pack per month, only for special occasions. |
|
16% |
[ 9 ] |
| I smoke a pack per day, no apologies. |
|
12% |
[ 7 ] |
| I chainsmoke constantly and blow smoke in nonsmokers faces and I will never die because god told me so, NO APOLOGIES!!! |
|
11% |
[ 6 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 54 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Justin Trullinger
Joined: 28 Jan 2005
Posts: 3110
Location: Seoul, South Korea and Myanmar for a bit
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 9:40 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| Freedom, even the freedom to be a damned fool, is one of the few things that make us human - more than animals or slaves. |
+1 Well said.
BUT...somebody's making a lot of money out of products that frankly are designed to make it harder to exercise free choice. Freedom and addiction are subjects that interact in odd ways. I don't support a smoking ban, but advertising that targets children re smoking is just plain sick. As is the often intentional ways that cigarette manufacturers make it easy to pick up, hard to put down.
Here in Ecuador, smoking is more often social than habitual. (Meaning that I have a lot of friends who smoke a ciggie or two if we go out to a bar, but fairly few friends who smoke every day, or even every week.)
This is odd to me, but I sort of like it. Wish it were that easy for me...(If I smoke one today, I'll smoke ten tomorrow. Tried it enough times to know for sure.)
Best,
Justin |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
moneyoriented
Joined: 11 May 2008
Posts: 76
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Justin Trullinger wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Freedom, even the freedom to be a damned fool, is one of the few things that make us human - more than animals or slaves. |
+1 Well said.
BUT...somebody's making a lot of money out of products that frankly are designed to make it harder to exercise free choice. |
Exactly - WHAT "freedom"? When you're addicted you don't have freedom. That's the whole definition of addiction - you can't stop. Yes, many people have quit, but most people find it extremely difficult or impossible. That's what makes tobacco and other addictive substances such great products, all the more so if you have a monopoly or even just an oligopoly.
And don't forget, we're talking about kids here. People should not pay for the rest of their lives for a stupid mistake they made as a kid or teen. And a civilized, humanist society should not allow corporations to prey on foolish youth the way tobacco companies do.
| Justin Trullinger wrote: |
Here in Ecuador, smoking is more often social than habitual. (Meaning that I have a lot of friends who smoke a ciggie or two if we go out to a bar, but fairly few friends who smoke every day, or even every week.)
|
I'm guessing that cigarettes are expensive in Ecuador, relative to the income of local people. That would mean that they can't afford to smoke often enough to get addicted. And if taxes are the reason for tobacco being expensive in Ecuador, that would be an example of government being a force for good.
Last edited by moneyoriented on Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:58 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
moneyoriented
Joined: 11 May 2008
Posts: 76
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chancellor wrote: |
In response to some other parts of your post, I firmly believe that it is not the government's place to dictate to people what substances they may or may not ingest. |
I respect your opinion because I used to think the same. But then I asked myself "what is the logical conclusion of such a policy?" and I thought of the example of China in the 19th and early 20th century. A once rich, powerful and proud nation was utterly bankrupted and destroyed by drugs. Opium was everywhere, and it destroyed lives and crippled society. That will happen anywhere you allow it to happen, because the vast majority of people really are children and don't know what's best for them. They'll take the "rebellious pleasure" every time, never mind the consequences.
| Chancellor wrote: |
You said, "Government can be a force for tremendous good."
Hack, hack, cough, cough, choke, choke! Please tell me you're not serious. How sick! |
Again, I used to think the same way.... to quote one of the American founding fathers: "That government which governs best governs least". But that point of view comes from the history of abusive government in Dark Ages Europe which the Enlightenment was a reaction against.
But you know it's not quite true. All of the societies which you and I would consider civilized and want to live in have quite a lot of government. We wouldn't want to live in (anarchic) Somalia or Afghanistan. Granted, we also wouldn't want to live (as ordinary citizens) in (commie-fascist) North Korea or Cuba, nor in (theocratic) Iran or Saudi Arabia.
When I said governments can be a tremendous force for good, I was thinking of the governments of East Asia - especially Japan and Singapore, which took their people from rural backwater or urban race-riot hellhole to ultra-civilized, highly-educated, modern, clean, safe and prosperous societies almost overnight.
As well, many people would argue that the social democratic governments of Canada and western Europe (especially the Netherlands and Scandinavian countries) have produced a very high standard of living for their people.
None of these countries are perfect, but they do demonstrate that government can be a force for good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rusmeister
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 867
Location: Russia
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi, MO,
I appreciate what you are right about. You ARE right when you complain of the targeting of children for addiction, and so far I support you completely. However, I am a living denial of your broad generalization (see my previous post), and so would speak for the freedom to responsibly engage in pleasures on the condition that you take the necessary steps to avoid dangers like addiction.
Traditional religions, such as Orthodox or Catholic Christianity, teach that thinks like gluttony and drunkenness are sins - because they are an abuse of a good thing (food and drink) (and are silent on smoking as such, except insofar as it causes offense or harm to others or self - again, addiction or excess). But the point is that a person should be free, except where he is forbidden. A philosophy that has more concern for what is allowed than what is forbidden is a far more restrictive and unfree philosophy, and so is the society that adopts it (such as Puritanism). It's notable that the 10 Commandments, restrictive though they are, actually provide a broad framework for freedom. (In the garden of Eden, there was only one forbidding law - you could say that in breaking that, we got 10 laws, and then couldn't even keep them.)
All of that is to say that blanket condemnation really is unfair and unreasonable - even though there is much that you are right about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TeacherPreacher
Joined: 17 Nov 2009
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I actually smoke cigars occasionally. I only started because I wanted to look distinguished and appeal to women but I actually like it now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chancellor
Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 1337
Location: Ji'an, China - if you're willing to send me cigars, I accept donations :)
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| moneyoriented wrote: |
| Chancellor wrote: |
In response to some other parts of your post, I firmly believe that it is not the government's place to dictate to people what substances they may or may not ingest. |
I respect your opinion because I used to think the same. But then I asked myself "what is the logical conclusion of such a policy?" and I thought of the example of China in the 19th and early 20th century. A once rich, powerful and proud nation was utterly bankrupted and destroyed by drugs. Opium was everywhere, and it destroyed lives and crippled society. That will happen anywhere you allow it to happen, because the vast majority of people really are children and don't know what's best for them. They'll take the "rebellious pleasure" every time, never mind the consequences. |
And they suffered the consequences of their choices: I have no problem with that. What I object to is government presuming to think it has the right to try to protect people from themselves.
| moneyoriented wrote: |
| Chancellor wrote: |
You said, "Government can be a force for tremendous good."
Hack, hack, cough, cough, choke, choke! Please tell me you're not serious. How sick! |
Again, I used to think the same way.... to quote one of the American founding fathers: "That government which governs best governs least". But that point of view comes from the history of abusive government in Dark Ages Europe which the Enlightenment was a reaction against. |
And Thomas Jefferson's words are just as valid today. Having more laws doesn't necessarily make for a better society.
| Quote: |
| But you know it's not quite true. All of the societies which you and I would consider civilized and want to live in have quite a lot of government. We wouldn't want to live in (anarchic) Somalia or Afghanistan. Granted, we also wouldn't want to live (as ordinary citizens) in (commie-fascist) North Korea or Cuba, nor in (theocratic) Iran or Saudi Arabia. |
I would like very much for the United States to return to its very narrow constitutional limits and I have to applaud Honduras for standing up for its Constitution.
| Quote: |
| When I said governments can be a tremendous force for good, I was thinking of the governments of East Asia - especially Japan and Singapore, which took their people from rural backwater or urban race-riot hellhole to ultra-civilized, highly-educated, modern, clean, safe and prosperous societies almost overnight. |
But how much of that was really the government and how much liberty do the people in those countries really have?
| Quote: |
| As well, many people would argue that the social democratic governments of Canada and western Europe (especially the Netherlands and Scandinavian countries) have produced a very high standard of living for their people. |
At the expense of liberty.
| Quote: |
| None of these countries are perfect, but they do demonstrate that government can be a force for good. |
I guess if you really believe in the notion that prosperity and a high standard of living at the expense of liberty then it's a good thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johnslat
Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 13859
Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dear Chancellor,
Just curious - what country (if any), either currently or in the past, would most closely approximate having the sort of government that you consider ideal?
Regards,
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sashadroogie
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Posts: 11061
Location: Moskva, The Workers' Paradise
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chancellor wrote: |
| Quote: |
| As well, many people would argue that the social democratic governments of Canada and western Europe (especially the Netherlands and Scandinavian countries) have produced a very high standard of living for their people. |
At the expense of liberty.
. |
Eh? The most socially progressive European countries of all? What liberties don't they have? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chancellor
Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 1337
Location: Ji'an, China - if you're willing to send me cigars, I accept donations :)
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| johnslat wrote: |
Dear Chancellor,
Just curious - what country (if any), either currently or in the past, would most closely approximate having the sort of government that you consider ideal?
Regards,
John |
If by ideal you mean "perfect," none. However, I do believe in the American Constitution and the very narrow limits it placed on the federal government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chancellor
Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 1337
Location: Ji'an, China - if you're willing to send me cigars, I accept donations :)
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sashadroogie wrote: |
| Chancellor wrote: |
| Quote: |
| As well, many people would argue that the social democratic governments of Canada and western Europe (especially the Netherlands and Scandinavian countries) have produced a very high standard of living for their people. |
At the expense of liberty.
. |
Eh? The most socially progressive European countries of all? What liberties don't they have? |
Let's start with freedom of speech. A number of these countries have laws that make it a crime to express certain "politically incorrect" views. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Trullinger
Joined: 28 Jan 2005
Posts: 3110
Location: Seoul, South Korea and Myanmar for a bit
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Exactly - WHAT "freedom"? When you're addicted you don't have freedom. That's the whole definition of addiction - you can't stop. |
I'm familiar with addiction. It makes the exercise of free will harder. It doesn't make it impossible. (I am completely, and I believe permanently, addicted to nicotine. This is not unproblematic, but it doesn't take away my freedom to choose not to smoke. Just makes it harder.)
I think I agree with you about the immoral behaviour of companies which, in the interest of their profits, intentionally make natural products like tabacco even more addictive than they originally were.
Advertising that attempts to encourage addiction to these products from childhood is just plain sick. Again, I know something about starting smoking young.
Chemical addiction is only part of the story, though. Social trends and habits play as big a role.
FYI, in Ecuador, as a percentage of average salary, are about 25% as expensive as currently in the last major US city I spent time in. This is, in a large part, because they aren't taxed any more heavily than other "luxury" products like beer, wine, or chocolate. Yet you do see many fewer people smoking on the street here than I did in Chicago. I don't know why this is, but it doesn't support your hypothesis of government as a force for good. I don't have a fully formed hypothesis on this one.
I agree with you that government can be a force for good. Can also be quite destructive.
I favor an absolute ban on cigarette advertising, as the only sure way to avoid unduly influencing the young. Also in favour of much harder labeling and manufacturing control- there's no reason, aside from encouraging addiction, for tobacco companies to be intentionally increasing the nicotine in their products.
I'm not opposed to taxation as a means for society to offset the costs to society of unhealthy behaviour, and to influence that behaviour, either. Fast food, tobacco, junk food...all these things have a societal cost, and have no objection so conscious users and overusers of them shouldering the cost.
But a heck of a lot of damage has been done throughout history by well-meaning individuals in interfering governments who want to make people do what's good for them. And to that, I have to object.
Best,
Justin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deicide
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 1005
Location: Caput Imperii Americani
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chancellor wrote: |
| Sashadroogie wrote: |
| Chancellor wrote: |
| Quote: |
| As well, many people would argue that the social democratic governments of Canada and western Europe (especially the Netherlands and Scandinavian countries) have produced a very high standard of living for their people. |
At the expense of liberty.
. |
Eh? The most socially progressive European countries of all? What liberties don't they have? |
Let's start with freedom of speech. A number of these countries have laws that make it a crime to express certain "politically incorrect" views. |
Mate, do we (Americans) even give a flying *beep* about the Constitution anymore? Most Americans can't even cite the first few Ammendments and politicians run roughshod over the Constitution. Look at our foreign policy for the past 60+ years. NOT CONSTITUTIONAL. As an American who has spent the better part of his adulthood in Europe I can tell you for all their flaws I prefer living here (Europe) to the (current) US. At least the Europeans decided to give up their empires; we were just too stupid to think we could follow suit. There are some minor issues with freedom of speech, yes, but in today's US, freedom of speech is being curtailed as well. Plus these days you can be detained indefininitely for being 'a bad guy' by presidential decree. Government sucks but the American government is the very epitome of soft fascism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chancellor
Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 1337
Location: Ji'an, China - if you're willing to send me cigars, I accept donations :)
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Deicide wrote: |
| Chancellor wrote: |
| Sashadroogie wrote: |
| Chancellor wrote: |
| Quote: |
| As well, many people would argue that the social democratic governments of Canada and western Europe (especially the Netherlands and Scandinavian countries) have produced a very high standard of living for their people. |
At the expense of liberty.
. |
Eh? The most socially progressive European countries of all? What liberties don't they have? |
Let's start with freedom of speech. A number of these countries have laws that make it a crime to express certain "politically incorrect" views. |
Mate, do we (Americans) even give a flying *beep* about the Constitution anymore? |
There are a few of us left who do.
| Quote: |
| Most Americans can't even cite the first few Ammendments and politicians run roughshod over the Constitution. Look at our foreign policy for the past 60+ years. NOT CONSTITUTIONAL. As an American who has spent the better part of his adulthood in Europe I can tell you for all their flaws I prefer living here (Europe) to the (current) US. At least the Europeans decided to give up their empires; we were just too stupid to think we could follow suit. There are some minor issues with freedom of speech, yes, but in today's US, freedom of speech is being curtailed as well. Plus these days you can be detained indefininitely for being 'a bad guy' by presidential decree. Government sucks but the American government is the very epitome of soft fascism. |
I would love to see the United States return to the kind of non-interventionist (which is not isolationist) foreign policy promoted by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams.
There are those of us who are deeply concerned about the significant loss of freedoms here in America in recent decades and concerned about how much America is becoming more and more like Europe.
As for smoking, I will continue to enjoy my cigars and I don't need some government trying to protect me from my personal choice to smoke. New York State is one of the states where it's illegal to smoke in indoor public places. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sashadroogie
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Posts: 11061
Location: Moskva, The Workers' Paradise
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh dear. I now see the error of my ways. I don't enjoy all the privileges that US citizens do. Don't have the same rights at all.
However, I do retain the right not to be executed by my own state. There's a liberty not all Americans enjoy. I think I'll continue to back the limited freedom of the Nordic model. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
moneyoriented
Joined: 11 May 2008
Posts: 76
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 4:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rusmeister wrote: |
Hi, MO,
I appreciate what you are right about. You ARE right when you complain of the targeting of children for addiction, and so far I support you completely. However, I am a living denial of your broad generalization (see my previous post), and so would speak for the freedom to responsibly engage in pleasures on the condition that you take the necessary steps to avoid dangers like addiction.
Traditional religions, such as Orthodox or Catholic Christianity, teach that thinks like gluttony and drunkenness are sins - because they are an abuse of a good thing (food and drink) (and are silent on smoking as such, except insofar as it causes offense or harm to others or self - again, addiction or excess). But the point is that a person should be free, except where he is forbidden. A philosophy that has more concern for what is allowed than what is forbidden is a far more restrictive and unfree philosophy, and so is the society that adopts it (such as Puritanism). It's notable that the 10 Commandments, restrictive though they are, actually provide a broad framework for freedom. (In the garden of Eden, there was only one forbidding law - you could say that in breaking that, we got 10 laws, and then couldn't even keep them.)
All of that is to say that blanket condemnation really is unfair and unreasonable - even though there is much that you are right about. |
rusmeister - thanks for your thoughts - they made me think a bit more about the issue.
Well, I'm pretty sure I'm not a Puritan, if that means being opposed to pleasure. I'm all for pleasure, as long as it's not destructive to self or others.
It's interesting that you bring up the "sins" of gluttony and drunkenness, which we hardly hear about anymore. I think we'd all be better off if religious people would focus on fighting these self-destructive behaviors (and *hello?* how 'bout violence?) instead of always obsessing over gays, pornography, prostitution and sex in general.
My opposition to tobacco comes from my own family experience. My mother started smoking as a teenager, like most all smokers. My father, a doctor, nagged her to quit, but she couldn't. She told me she tried, but it was just too hard. Then she got cancer and died within a year. She was only 49. That was a horrible tragedy for her and a terrible loss for all of us, and she is still missed very much. I was much too young to lose my mother. It's really unfair that I haven't had a mother all these years.
So you'll have to forgive me for hating the tobacco companies, the fat-cat executives who make obscene profits from this business (and lie and cover up evidence of the massive harm they're causing, as well as all the unethical/illegal things they do to get kids addicted to their drug), the governments which allow this to happen, and most especially the paid shills for the tobacco industry like big-mouth Rush Limbaugh, who disingenuously (I think) frame the issue as one of "personal freedom" instead of a public health crisis which continues to cause massive and entirely unnecessary suffering and death. I'm pretty sure Mr. Limbaugh would change his tune if the tobacco companies were based in China or Iran. Then again, maybe he'd happily take bribes from them too.
But yeah, I guess there's a middle ground. I don't care too much for this so-called "war on drugs". First off, I think the whole thing is a scam and a public-relations ploy to cover up what's really going on (governments themselves importing and selling most of the drugs (through government controlled gangs), and "busting" only their small-time competitors). Next, I think it's bad enough that anyone becomes addicted to drugs in the first place, but it's even worse to then brutally arrest them and throw them in prison where they're further brutalized by real criminals.
So I might actually be in favor of decriminalizing all drugs. But I would ban advertising (and probably branding as well), restrict sales to adults over age 21, and tax them as much as possible without creating a new black market. That tax revenue should only be used to educate people about the dangers posed by these drugs, and the health consequences of using them.
And I would treat tobacco and alcohol the same way. I guess this is a fair middle ground, which would protect the young and uninformed, yet allow informed adults to engage in self-destructive pleasures if they insist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
