Smoking.

America is not a nation fueled on Christian thought; it is a nation fueled on suppositions of moral superiority.

You think my words too harsh?

Think about it for just a moment. Gandhi, who was himself not the most innocent of parties, put forth the idea of Satyagraha, or the force of moral strength over physical strength in the world of politics. It is not necessary to be the greatest in numbers, nor to be stronger in either the ways of violence of intellect, but merely in the ways of perceived moral superiority; from there, mastery follows, because none dare act in the face of perceived morality.

In Gandhi's case, he challenged British control, on the grounds that they were abusing the Indian peoples--plural, not singular--and were refusing the Indians self-determination, of which they were fully capable. At the same time, when Jinnah went to Gandhi and Nehru to ask for protection of the Indian Muslims in the face of Hindu majority, Gandhi rebuked him and told him to get his priorities straight; not that Jinnah's request would have derailed Gandhi's agenda, but Gandhi did not care overmuch about the concerns of Indian Muslims, and would prefer to have control with his own party.

I do not say this to challenge the greatness of Gandhi: he is still amongst the wisest of men. However, like all men, Gandhi falls short of the mark, because all men are imperfect, even according to their own standards.

Nonetheless, Gandhi was a hypocrite in his call for Indian self-determination, because he intended to afford no protections to the Muslims. The moral high ground that he seized was created, not real, and so it is--or so I believe--with all of the moral high ground created by men.

There are any number of modern topics to which my critique could be applied; there are perhaps some of you that have gay marriage dancing before your eyes, perhaps others dwell on the death penalty.

No matter what, there is not one party within our society that bases its claims upon superior numbers or might or wisdom or pragmatic realism; all parties lay the foundations of their arguments in  perceived superiority.

To challenge certain societal norms--or emergent societal norms--makes you a bad person. To act against these norms puts you at a level that is practically sub-human. There are some behaviors we are no longer allowed to question, and still other things in which we are no longer allowed to engage.

I am about to go where you did not expect.

Would you care to know why I began smoking a pipe? (occasionally, of course)

I can think of three moments that most strongly influenced me. The first was my great grandfathers that used tobacco, and apparently derived some pleasure from it, both of whom were intelligent, healthy, long-lived men, who understood the importance of moderation, but also enjoyed their simple pleasures.

The second instance was a pastor at the Higher Things, In His Face concert in Texas. I left the absolute bedlam of the hotel for a moment of fresh--98 degree with equal Houston humidity--air and found myself alone with a pastor, who was taking a mental health moment. He was reading and smoking his pipe; it smelled marvelous, and of all the people of the conference, he seemed to me like the one who was making the best use of his time.Being a thoughtless teenager, with as yet uncontrolled social impulses, I began talking at him, and he seemed perfectly content and at ease. I will carry the image of his bearded person for quite awhile I imagine; I wonder who he was.

The last influence, with which I would never have picked up the pipe, will come as less of a surprise to those who know how contrary I am.

Connie Willis wrote a book. Her book was named Bellweather. If you have not read Bellweather, then you are wasting your time reading this. H'anyway, in this most amusing and best of books, Willis parodies the visceral reaction of societies against smokers, and the ridiculous reviling of a single vice.

I laughed at it in Willis, but the reality is that smokers really do get the shaft from the rest of us. Habitual smokers are looked at like they have a disease or a mental defect, and the rest of society seems to stand together in agreement that they and their second hand smoke may--and you will pardon my profanity--fuck off.

Smoking is dirty, can be quite uncouth, and like all behavior, should be abstained from around those who do not care for it, as good manners and basic courtesy dictate.

However.

When I have someone in line at work who gives someone else a dirty look for smelling like smoke; when I have someone act as if smoking were a mental disease; when I hear smokers as not caring for those around them...I draw the line.

I have no time for the perceived moral superiority.

Those same people who get angry with the smokers drink too much alcohol, drive too fast, do not exercise enough, and are all going to die one way or another. Smoking is a dirty habit. So are lying, gossiping, and masturbation, but the latter three are generally excepted by society as inevitable.

Furthermore, I say that smoking is the only one of those three that is not an absolute moral wrong. It is a small pleasure that is bad for your health, like large quantities of red meat and insufficient exercise. Obesity related conditions--especially heart issues in males--are still more deadly than lung cancer to date, so where is the outrage over gluttony? Or is it that you only care about the 'dangers of second hand smoke.'' You know, from that one time you walked past a smoker on the side walk.

Smoking is not wise, but chew on this.

In some forms, it is indeed pleasant. I smoke, usually, no more than once a week, and only when I am at my most restless. I can get to the point where I find it hard to do anything but pace like a caged animal, especially when I have a headache. Smoking tends to relieve this in the space of fifteen odd minutes. I tend to spend a much better night after this.

The other great attraction is social.

I went to Riegels today. Riegels is our local tobacconist, and they have a simply splendid selection. On this occasion, like every other, I was not alone in the store. In the store were three old men, all of whom seemed to know each other, and all of whom were having a good time smoking their cigars.

Smoking, like drinking, is a social vice. It gives these men an excuse to come together and enjoy themselves, just as it does with the young people in the smoke huts on campus. They have a good time, and they have community. The people in the smoke hut are huddled against the wind, and the old men in that tobacconist are huddled against the disapproval of society.

In the one case, the young folks in the smoke hut are rebels; they do not care that society has decided that their little pleasure is unacceptable. The reality that their habit alienates them from the rest of the body only makes their sense of community that much stronger: everyone knows the other people who meet in the smoke huts.

So also, those fine old men of Riegels know each other, and though society does not approve of their particular little vice, they know their way around life and have learned something that most of us are yet to learn. Everyone dies.

Is this a reason to go out and chain-smoke? Good heavens, no. I do not, and nor will I ever.

But it is a lesson in moderation. Just as we should be moderate in how we take things into ourselves, so also, we should be more moderate in the judgements we hand down.

Accept that your body is already moldering. Birth is the beginning of the slow road to death, if you will allow me to be macabre. It is also, however, blessed with the ability to perceive numerous--innumerable--kinds of pleasure, all of which should be enjoyed in moderation and in the proper time and place. Alcohol, tobacco, food, sex, music, poetry, and coffee are all for our enjoyment, but are all destructive if they become obesessions.

If you abstain from alcohol and smoking entirely in the interest of preserving your body, go ahead. But please have the consistency to abstain from gluttony and laziness; do not fall to the darkness of a delicate pastry, neither the leisure of fake buttered popcorn, nor allow yourself to fall into contact sports; such as are contrary to your God, Goodhealth.

Addiction is not a good thing, so far as anything that takes a man's will from him is a bad thing; in the same way, peer pressure, and caving to perceived moral force in the absence of principle may be said to be a bad thing, as it strips a man of his will and makes him dependent on something outward. A slave is a slave, regardless of who the master is.

My problem is that we are all slaves of public opinion; the greatest evil in our society--whether we will admit it or not--is to be unpopular, and this is exactly what we should expect from a democratic society, where the will of the people is the alpha and the omega.

I started smoking, je so oft, as a protest against all of those who looked down on smoking and smokers. Had I not been so angry at the outrage against smoking, I never would have picked up my pipe.

Get rid of all of your bad habits. Obey all laws fully and completely. Stop being a glutton. Stop undressing women in your head as they walk past. Stop sitting there and reading stupid blogs when you should be doing something useful.

Then, we can talk.

Comments

  1. As a somewhat morbidly obese man, I can tell you that there is plenty of outrage against obesity. Just ask Michelle Obama, former-Mayor Bloomberg, and any fat guy who ever asked a pretty girl on a date. (I was lucky on that last count.)

    We all have our moral high grounds picked out, and none of them are as high as we think they are.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh, and you forgot to mention coffee, the dirtiest of Lutheran vices. *wink*

    ReplyDelete
  3. *Bellwether

    (Actual response to the text forthcoming, if I can get my words together.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. ... never mind. Response canceled.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh, C'mon! Don't wuss out on me! I have heard significantly less hue and cry than I thought.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, I calmed down and realized that most of what I initially wanted to say didn't make sense, and what's remaining I'm not really an authority on.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "But it is a lesson in moderation. Just as we should be moderate in how we take things into ourselves, so also, we should be more moderate in the judgements we hand down."

    I dare say we should.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. (Repost to fix formatting.)

    There is the possibility that my previous comment was actually too subtle, to the point that it failed in its function as a counter to your piece. So I will pursue the issue a little more.



    ...However. Given that I still have my bad habits, I'm still something of a glutton, and I'm still in the habit of wiling away time reading blogs (stupid and otherwise), it would seem that I do not qualify to participate in this discussion. But, in the interest of good debate, I will offer my thoughts anyway; and if you're feeling generous, perhaps you will respond to them the same way you would if—hypothetically—you were in the habit of lowering yourself to my level.



    You acknowledge two basic types of smoker: the moderate, which you self-identify as and spend much of your piece discussing; and the extreme, or chain-smoker, to which you devote a few choice sentences. I think it's a fair distinction, and I also think it's fair that you don't agonize over it. After all, there's a pretty clear difference between "usually no more than once a week" and "twenty times a day". (The exact location of the line between moderate and extreme may be unclear, but that shouldn't prevent us from discussing specimens that obviously fall on one or the other side.)



    So where is your acknowledgement of the two basic types of anti-smoker: moderate, and extreme? Surely both animals exist? Your generalizations imply otherwise. What, precisely, am I to make of the following assertion?



    "Those same people who get angry with the smokers drink too much alcohol, drive too fast, do not exercise enough..."



    I know many people who get angry with smokers. Some are my immediate family members. One is my wife. You're very free with your accusations against them.



    Somehow I feel that your piece could as easily have been an attack on smoking as a defense of it. You might have spent several paragraphs listing good reasons not to smoke—which are plentiful—and inserted, near the end, the following lines: "Is this a good reason to go out and ridicule anyone with a cigarette in their mouth? Good heavens, no. I do not, and nor will I ever."



    Additional objections/comments:



    "Smoking is a dirty habit. So are lying, gossiping, and masturbation, but the latter three are generally excepted by society as inevitable."



    Is this an inaccurate assessment?



    "Obesity related conditions--especially heart issues in males--are still more deadly than lung cancer to date..."



    I think this comparison is unfair. Rather, we should compare obesity-related conditions with smoking-relating conditions. My quick search in that direction suggests that every year in this country, smoking kills 1 out of every 100 people who use cigarettes, while obesity kills 1 out of every 300 people who eat food. (Sources here, here, here, and here.)



    "If you abstain from alcohol and smoking entirely in the interest of preserving your body, go ahead. But please have the consistency to abstain from gluttony and laziness; do not fall to the darkness of a delicate pastry, neither the leisure of fake buttered popcorn, nor allow yourself to fall into contact sports; such as are contrary to your God, Goodhealth."



    Are you not in favor of being contrary to false gods?




    ReplyDelete
  10. Nathaniel, I hope the second paragraph was in good humor; you are good at sarcasm, so it is not easy to tell. You know full well that I value your intellect as at least equal to my own. I love you, man, so let us not get carried away.

    I know this is a bit of a sore issue for you, so please bear with me. There is certainly a continuum on both sides, but the more radical anti-smokers have legal power and have used it; they have so much power, that it is now illegal to smoke in private clubs in most places, which to me is a gross infringement on individual rights.

    Perhaps, you might think, that it is good that we outlaw smoking. More people will live longer, and that is good. I ask then, at what point is it inappropriate to regulate behavior in the best interest of a given person. Who are we that we know their best interests?

    I am interested, in why anti-smoking movements are one of the successful crusades of our time, and why it has been decided that smoking may be looked down on as a moral wrong. You want to take gluttony out of the occasion as not as deadly as smoking? Fine. 22 out of 100 children are aborted. And yet, just as my college campus celebrates a campus wide smoking ban, Planned Parenthood has a booth at just about everything. There are movements to ban both, so why is the smoking ban crowd so much more successful. It is not all about death tolls, after all. It is more complex.

    The next thing I must address is your claim that I cast aspersions on your family. I cast aspersions on all mankind, and your family is decidedly human. I have no doubt your family makes great efforts to live well, but until such point as they achieve perfection, the indictment stands. I do not know that our anger--in our fallen flesh--is ever justified, even if well meant, 'for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God.' Perhaps righteous anger could be argued to exist in a case of clear moral right and wrong, but that simply has not been revealed to us in this matter, and I have a feeling that we would taint it regardless.

    And, answering another point, I would say that this piece was both an attack on, and defense of, smoking. It is a complex issue, tied up in tradition, social ritual, and personal well-being. Within each of those fields, it has different possible effects and shades of consequences. There are the chummy old men at Riegels, and there are the 14 year old hooligans smoking while they skateboard; doing it to thumb their noses at authority. There are people who get terminal lung cancer at 40, and there are my grandfathers, both of whom smoked, one of whom made it into his late eighties, and the other to his early nineties. There is no black and white. We may predict what will happen in the extreme cases, but not all cases are the extreme.

    I enjoy your question on the last paragraph; funny.

    Oh, and my experience, at least to this point in life, has taught me that society gives lying and gossiping more than tacit consent, and that masturbation is portrayed as downright healthy.

    I realize that the answers will not be entirely satisfactory, but I hope this helps.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My post was indeed meant entirely in good humor, especially the second paragraph, and I love you too, man. I simply thought that the best way to respond to your hyperbole was to act as though you were being sincere. Likewise my comment about you casting aspersions on my family. I am, of course, aware that you do not necessarily believe that my wife drinks too much, drives too fast, etcetera. Such conclusions do follow, however, from a literal reading of your words; and the only alternative to a literal reading of your words is to start guessing at the meaning behind them, in which case I would be, well, guessing.

      While exaggeration or hyperbole certainly have their place, they have in this case somewhat obscured your actual meaning (I can be more specific, if necessary). They also are more likely to inspire vitriol, AKA the eater of logic.

      Regarding smoking: I absolutely do not believe that smoking should be outlawed, and the fact that it's outlawed on any private property, without an exceptionally good reason, is disgusting. I believe the popular parlance for this sort of thing is "nanny state".

      Other responses:

      You want to take gluttony out of the occasion as not as deadly as smoking? Fine. 22 out of 100 children are aborted. And yet, just as my college campus celebrates a campus wide smoking ban, Planned Parenthood has a booth at just about everything. There are movements to ban both, so why is the smoking ban crowd so much more successful. It is not all about death tolls, after all. It is more complex.

      Hold on, hold on. Abortion has nothing to do with this discussion — at least, not this particular point. I agree that it's not all about death tolls, but you're the one who brought up death tolls. I was merely challenging one of your statements. Not to be too anal about it, but the logical thing for you to do now is either challenge my argument, or concede the point.

      Oh, and my experience, at least to this point in life, has taught me that society gives lying and gossiping more than tacit consent, and that masturbation is portrayed as downright healthy.

      I agree. But that does not answer the question I asked you.

      Final note: a lot of warmth is lost in online communication, not to mention nuance, so let me assure you that I feel no annoyance or anger writing these words. On the contrary, I quite enjoy this (possibly more than I should). Furthermore, though I don't smoke, I am guessing that your and my philosophies regarding smoking are altogether very similar, and that in most debates on the subject, we'd be quite on the same side. As a rule, the people I agree with are the people I'm most critical of, because I have a vested interest in them being correct.

      Delete
    2. I was assuming you were writing in good humor; I just wanted to be sure I had not made you mad, but, as you say,this blasted medium makes it so difficult to get at actual intent. Thank you for being so straight forward.

      I will concede the obesity-related conditions point; your sources there are pretty good.

      And to the other one, are you asking if those things are ok? I would have to say no, probably not, and I get your point in the context ;-p

      Delete
  11. Spoken like a gentleman.

    To wrap this up... In your original post, you said,
    Smoking is a dirty habit. So are lying, gossiping, and masturbation, but the latter three are generally excepted by society as inevitable.

    To which I asked,
    Is this an inaccurate assessment?

    While I think there are some valid comparisons to be made between those things and smoking, it seemed odd to me that the specific thing you implicated was the idea that those three things were inevitable, since I think that idea is very accurate. All three of them are pretty much inevitable, compared to smoking. (Though this does not make any of them okay.)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tired, not Sleepy.

To Every Hobo a Suit...or Not

Lamp Post