May 28, 2004
SOCIALLY PURPOSELESS PLEASURES
On American Morals (G.K. Chesterton)
Incidentally, I must say I can bear witness to this queer taboo about tobacco. Of course numberless Americans smoke numberless cigars; a great many others eat cigars, which seems to me a more occult pleasure. But there does exist an extraordinary idea that ethics are involved in some way; and many who smoke really disapprove of smoking. I remember once receiving two American interviewers on the same afternoon; there was a box of cigars in front of me and I offered one to each in turn. Their reaction (as they would probably call it) was very curious to watch. The first journalist stiffened suddenly and silently and declined in a very cold voice. He could not have conveyed more plainly that I had attempted to corrupt an honorable man with a foul and infamous indulgence; as if I were the Old Man of the Mountain offering him hashish that would turn him into an assassin. The second reaction was even more remarkable. The second journalist first looked doubtful; then looked sly; then seemed to glance about him nervously, as if wondering whether we were alone, and then said with a sort of crestfallen and covert smile: `Well, Mr. Chesterton, I'm afraid I have the habit.'As I also have the habit, and have never been able to imagine how it could be connected with morality or immorality, I confess that I plunged with him deeply into an immoral life. In the course of our conversation, I found he was otherwise perfectly sane. He was quite intelligent about economics or architecture; but his moral sense seemed to have entirely disappeared. He really thought it rather wicked to smoke. He had no `standard of abstract right or wrong'; in him it was not merely moribund; it was apparently dead. But anyhow, that is the point and that is the test. Nobody who has an abstract standard of right and wrong can possibly think it wrong to smoke a cigar. But he had a concrete standard of particular cut and dried customs of a particular tribe. Those who say Americans are largely descended from the American Indians might certainly make a case out of the suggestion that this mystical horror of material things is largely a barbaric sentiment. The Red Indian is said to have tried and condemned a tomahawk for committing a murder. In this case he was certainly the prototype of the white man who curses a bottle because too much of it goes into a man. Prohibition is sometimes praised for its simplicity; on these lines it may be equally condemned for its savagery. But I myself do not say anything so absurd as that Americans are savages; nor do I think it would matter much if they were descended from savages. It is culture that counts and not ethnology; and the culture that is concerned here derives indirectly rather from New England than from Old America. Whatever it derives from, however, this is the thing to be noted about it: that it really does not seem to understand what is meant by a standard of right and wrong. It is a vague sentimental notion that certain habits were not suitable to the old log cabin or the old hometown. It has a vague utilitarian notion that certain habits are not directly useful in the new amalgamated stores or the new financial gambling-hell. If his aged mother or his economic master dislikes to see a young man hanging about with a pipe in his mouth, the action becomes a sin; or the nearest that such a moral philosophy can come to the idea of a sin. A man does not chop wood for the log hut by smoking; and a man does not make dividends for the Big Boss by smoking; and therefore smoking has a smell as of something sinful. Of what the great theologians and moral philosophers have meant by a sin, these people have no more idea than a child drinking milk has of a great toxicologist analyzing poisons. It may be a credit of their virtue to be thus vague about vice. The man who is silly enough to say, when offered a cigarette, `I have no vices,' may not always deserve the rapier-thrust of the reply given by the Italian Cardinal, `It is not a vice, or doubtless you would have it.' But at least the Cardinal knows it is not a vice; which assists the clarity of his mind. But the lack of clear standards among those who vaguely think of it as a vice may yet be the beginning of much peril and oppression. My two American journalists, between them, may yet succeed in adding the sinfulness of cigars to the other curious things now part of the American Constitution.
Perfect, Peter.
Posted by: David Cohen at May 28, 2004 5:51 PMG.K. Chesterton on Suicide
"…Not only is suicide a sin, it is the sin. It is the ultimate and absolute evil, the refusal to take an interest in existence; the refusal to take the oath of loyalty to life. The man who kills a man, kills a man. The man who kills himself, kills all men; as far as he is concerned he wipes out the world… spiritually, he destroys the universe.
"…Obviously a suicide is the opposite of a martyr. A martyr is a man who cares so much for something outside him, that he forgets his own personal life. A suicide is a man who cares so little for anything outside him, that he wants to see the last of everything. One wants something to begin; the other wants everything to end.
"The Christian feeling [is] furiously for one and furiously against the other: these two things that looks so much alike [are] at opposite ends of heaven and hell."
* from Orthodoxy
Posted by: oj at May 28, 2004 7:05 PMOut here in California, militant anti-smoking has been the State Religion for a decade or two.
Some 20 years ago, I had to listen to this sanctimonious preaching about smoking from a guy whose sexual behavior (predatory homosexual ehebephilia) was general knowledge.
When your entire morality is determined by your position on smoking, it's real easy to be holier-than-thou no matter what other kinks you have. Better deal than the Manicheans of old; you can be holier-than-thou and indulge any lust (save that one) at the same time.
Gay Marriage GOOD!
Smoking BAAAAAAAD!
Both my parents were heavy smokers, and all the anti-smoking sanctimony just reinforced the habit. It got to the point that if you asked them not to smoke, they'd deliberately light up and blow the smoke in your face out of pure spite.
Posted by: Ken at May 28, 2004 7:49 PMWhat's ehebephilia?
Posted by: NKR at May 28, 2004 8:59 PMI need to start reading Chesterton. Time for a trip to Barnes & Nobles.
Posted by: Gideon at May 29, 2004 2:25 AMLoverly piece...
Although, as it turns out, smoking IS a vice; It kills the smoker, (albeit slowly, and often not completely), and it also kills bystanders. (Thanks !!).
Any smoker who maintains that it isn't a vice should attempt to give up tobacco... Not permanently, just for three weeks or so...
Yeah, that's what I thought.
Ken:
Gay marriage may reduce deaths, due to lessened AIDS transmission; Smoking increases deaths. And not just for smokers.
Ephebophilia may be seedy, but it's also a natural result of human males' psychological makeup.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at May 29, 2004 7:44 AMI am a non-smoker who maintains that smoking is not a vice, and that calling smoking suicide is a grandiose leap of logic indeed.
Posted by: Paul Cella at May 29, 2004 8:33 AM"ehebephilia" is incorrect. The word is spelled "ephebophilia".
Harry would call it the "Priest's disorder", I think.
Posted by: Uncle Bill at May 29, 2004 8:48 AMMichael:
Would you be so good as to tell us the difference between a vice and a natural result of human psychological makeup?
Your assertion that smoking kills innocent bystanders is absurd and one of the greatest scientific frauds of the century. Yes, yes, you know of someone who knows someone..... We all do, but nobody knows the someone.
A) The Boomer generation is the healthiest in history. Most of them grew up in smoke-filled houses, lecture halls, buses, etc. etc. and smoked themselves for several years.
B) A life-long smoker dies on average six years earlier than a non-smoker. Ruminate on the difference of smoke concentration ingested by the smoker and non-smoking bystander.
You know it can't possibly be true. You have fallen victim to that modern scourge, the scientific prig.
Posted by: Peter B at May 29, 2004 9:22 AMWell said, Peter.
Posted by: Paul Cella at May 29, 2004 9:30 AMTo expand on point A above-- The rise in asthma over the past few years has been blamed for an excessive cleanliness preventing exposure in childhood to disease, leading to a less well developed immune system. It wouldn't surprise me that a related cause is the lack of exposure to pollutants like smoke. (And not just tobacco, but wood smoke from open fireplaces and stoves that have been replaced by natural gas.)
Raoul:
Indeed, certain studies link the rise of asthma quite clearly to childhood vaccinations! Apparently, deprived of any other outlet, the immune system can become hyperactive...
Posted by: mike earl at May 29, 2004 10:32 PM"Ephebophilia may be seedy, but it's also a natural result of human males' psychological makeup..."
So are murder, rape and robbery.
Posted by: joe shropshire at May 29, 2004 11:24 PMPeter B:
Yes, of course I will.
For starters, ephebophilia is an attraction, or desire, and says nothing about any act associated with said attraction.
It is natural for humans to desire things, many of which they cannot, or should not, have.
The habitual act of fufilling a harmful desire is a vice.
Therefore, if smokers wanted cigars, but didn't smoke any, it would not be a vice.
As to second-hand smoke:
You have fallen victim to that ancient scourge, "common sense".
Please correct me if I err, but I believe that you've simply made some assumptions, that so much appear to be irrefutable, that you didn't bother to fact-check before taking me to task, resulting in some less than true statements.
(However, I am cognizant of the kindess that you do me by according me "victim" status).
I don't know anyone, nor do I know someone who knows anyone.
Consider A).
Yes, of course that's nearly true... But are you attempting to assert that it's because of first or second-hand smoke ?
No, of course not.
So, the Boomers are the second-healthiest generation in spite of smoking.
Once polio was eradicated, the penicillins and actinomycetes developed, seat belts mandated and installed, etc., etc., there were simply many fewer things to die FROM.
Perhaps the greatest advancement from an epidemiological point of view was the development of flu vaccines... A "friend of the old", (but also a scythe among youth), reduced to a casual acquaintance.
Michael
Here are some great links to cutting edge scientific studies that I'm sure will gladden your heart and affirm your righteousness. My favourite is the one that proves that smoking outside is still a risk to children in the home.
Posted by: Peter B at May 30, 2004 5:55 AMConsider B).
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control reports that adult smokers lose an average of 14 years of life because they smoke. Many who don't die are disabled from respiratory and cardiovascular conditions. The U.S. Surgeon General estimates that for every smoking-related death, there are 20 people suffering with at least one serious smoking-related illness. 1,1a
In addition, roughly 750 people die every year in the US from house or apartment fires caused by careless smoking.
Also, interestingly enough, smokers have a 50% higher divorce rate than non-smokers, regardless of age, income level, education, gender, race, etc. 2
The second sentence is where things go most horribly awry.
"Ruminate on the difference of smoke concentration ingested by the smoker and non-smoking bystander."
First, I will concede that smoking in the open air probably does no harm whatsoever to bystanders, with the exception of asthmatics and the highly allergic.
However, to harken back to A), in enclosed and often poorly ventilated spaces, such as busses, houses, lecture halls, bars (especially), and places of employment, you may be surprised to find that there is little difference in smoke concentrations ingested by smokers and non-smokers.
In a report conducted for the Nova Scotia gov't in '01, it was found that second-hand smoke levels in restaurants, even those with no-smoking areas, were twice as high as in other workplaces where smoking was not restricted. In casinos and bars, the levels were three to six times as high.
Food service workers were found to have rates of lung cancer 50% higher than among the general population. 3
Further, ordinary ventilation systems have been found to be completely inadequate at removing second-hand smoke and particulate contaminants, even in spaces such as cocktail lounges, where the air is typically fully exchanged seven times an hour. In large part, this is due to more highly ventilated areas also having higher concentrations of smokers. 4
Even away from smoke-filled work or recreation areas, non-smoking spouses of smokers are 16% more likely to get lung cancer than if they live with a non-smoker. 5
Non-smoking spouses of smokers also suffer a 30% greater rate of heart disease, when compared to non-smoking couples. 6
1. www.idph.state.il.us/public/press04/5.27.04.htm
1a. www.nationalreview.com/comment/commentprint052900a.html
2. www.divorcereform.org/mel/rsmokers.html
3. www.whsc.on.ca/Publications/hazardbulletins/winter01-02/secondhandsmoke.html
4. www.repace.com/factappen.html
5. www.ash.org.uk/html/passive/html/telegap.html
6. www.lambtonhealth.on.ca/smoking/second.asp
Well, something went wrong, 1a. above was supposed to have a note following, urging readers to visit the site. It's a pretty funny essay comparing the damage done by heavy TV viewing to smoking.
Peter B:
Well, I hadn't gotten to the big guns yet, the Helena, MT city-building total smoking ban, and how heart attack rates dropped by 40%, but I reckon you get the gist.
As for my "righteousness", I am indeed a righteous person... But that has nothing to do with whether second-hand smoke is harmful, or not, or whether I can show that it is, or not.
I assume that you mean something like sanctimonious...
Perhaps you misunderstand my point. I don't care if you smoke, nor if you smoke with your kids sitting on your lap, or if you smoke a cigar in the park.
I don't consider myself morally superior to anyone who smokes.
All I want is for you not to light up in any enclosed public place.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at May 30, 2004 8:42 AM> All I want is for you not to light up in any enclosed public place.
And by "public place" you mean "privately-owned business", right? :)
Posted by: Guy T. at May 31, 2004 9:14 AMGuy:
Of course he does. "Public" has a broad and protean meaning today.
Posted by: Peter B at May 31, 2004 9:23 AMGuy T.:
Not necessarily.
"Public" meaning, that the public is invited to enter, such as casinos, bars, restaurants, malls, etc.
Also, spaces that the public has access to, such as gov't buildings and reception areas.
If bars and restaurants want to be private clubs that allow smoking, fine; If any business can get all of its employees to agree that blazing up in the workspace is OK, that's fine too.
For instance, most hotels have smoking and non-smoking rooms.
However, as I wrote in a previous post, non-smoking areas in a common space are useless, and therefore smokers must be allowed the open air, or be provided a separate facility.
Peter B:
For a guy that acknowledges that smoking harms smokers, and that second-hand smoke is also harmful in certain situations, you're awfully cranky on this subject.
As for the "junk science" charge you made on the other thread, yes, it certainly exists when dealing with this issue, but there's enough solid, irrefutable evidence to convince anyone but the most stiff-necked people.
Michael:
Crankiness in my middle name om this one since the anti-smoke cause became the anti-smoking cause and a whole society bought into "scientific" nonsense. Michael, if some study purported to prove that children on farms in Wyoming actually suffered as much from incidental exposure to the exhaust fumes from their daddy's combine as children who live in downtown smoggy LA or Mexico City, would you believe it? That's about what you are buying into here. And your "sort of" reasonable parameters outlined above are way behind the times. Consent means nothing any more.
Gotta give you one thing, though. I haven't had an indoor smoke in about three years (no mean trick up here) because of draconian municipal regulations and even more draconian domestic ones. But my aged mother is a smoker and she lives with my sister and brother-in-law--both smokers. I paid them a visit a couple of months back and was quite looking forward to a hassle- free, trip-down-memory-lane kind of treat. I spent the whole evening trying not to throw up.
Posted by: Peter B at May 31, 2004 3:11 PM