A Biased and Opinionated Article with Absolutely No Quotes- Smoking (Tobacco)

Preface: Warning, these will be highly one-sided, biased, black and white opinionated articles. If you're offended by anything I say, then switch off the computer, and go join a Luddite commune or something. Even better - though a slightly less practical approach - would be to write a SENSIBLE reply. And by sensible I mean only using swear words where and when appropriate.

Ok, this week's Biased and Opinionated Article focuses on people who smoke tobacco in its many forms, but most specifically in the cigarette form.

Firstly, I will fill you in on my personal perspective of smoking, and where I am coming from. I don't smoke, I have never smoked anything, and I don't plan on. Neither of my parents ever smoked while I was growing up (or before, for that matter), nor do any of my relatives. I spent a year in Japan at the age of 18, where I was subjected to a culture infused with cigarette smoke. It was utterly disgusting, but I had to live with it. I had to burn my clothes on returning home, but I lived with it.

My personal opinion on smokers is that whether they admit it or not, they are in some form or other addicted to smoking. Anyone that smokes beyond their initial cigarette in highschool or whatever is an addict. Simple as that. After thinking about it, I can separate smokers into two groups. The Ignorant Addicts and the Informed Addicts; the last probably being the worse of the two. The Ignorant Addicts are those that don’t know about the destructive properties of smoking, and as such blindly continue smoking to their hearts content. Informed Addicts - a sad bunch - are those that know, acknowledge and/or admit that there are destructive properties to smoking, but continue to smoke anyways. Now, remember, I’m using the word addict so that I can add that it isn’t completely 100% these individual’s fault that they smoke. There is a chemical reaction going on that is most probably the cause for their continued use of tobacco. This also means that the physical treatment of this chemical reaction is a step towards breaking the addiction.

My personal opinion is that smokers should be able to smoke if they want to, with the one simple exception that they do so in no public place. At all. And that controls are put in for private locations that may allow smoking e.g. clubs and live music venues. So basically, if you want to smoke, do so in your own home, not in anywhere I could be. Period.

You want me to get technical, ok, I will. As a citizen of this country - let alone a human on this earth - I have as one of my basic rights (although we don't have a bill of rights, I'm fairly sure it's hidden somewhere in the Constitution) to be free from intentional or unintentional harm wherever I am in Australia (let alone the world). Ok, so this may be a bit too much when talking about private places, but at a basic level, public spaces are spaces and places where anyone is allowed to be. Anyone is allowed, with the knowledge that they are free from harm and that if any such harm would happen to fall upon them, that punishment would be forthcoming on those that caused the harm. Unfortunately this is not the case at our current point in history. People are freely locating themselves in public places, and unintentionally (sometimes knowingly) causing actual physical harm to those around them. In any case, it doesn't matter whether these people are unintentionally or knowingly causing this harm, it is the act itself that is important to stop, at least in public places. It IS my right; to be in any public place, at any time, and be safe in the knowledge that no-one around me is causing me physical or psychological damage. No-one has the right to smoke in public places, because that constitutes a threat to my health.

And for all of you out there that are about to reply by saying I have no way of proving that smoking has negative effects on the individual smoking or those around them. You are inhaling toxic substances into your lungs, whereby they get absorbed into your bloodstream and are carried all over your body. But that’s just your body. The exact same thing is happening to a passerby who gets a whiff of your cigarette, but for them the smoke hasn’t passed through a filter, its coming straight out of the cigarette. And I don’t care if there are studies to prove that second hand smoking doesn’t kill. That’s a load of crap. It’s a physical invasion of toxic substances; if that doesn’t set warning bells ringing then you deserve to be working at the toxic waste dump in a swimsuit.

Another interesting point that I want to bring up on the whole smoking phenomena, is about the lasting power of the cigarette, and where this power comes from. Cigarettes have been around for a long time. They will continue to be around for a lot longer. So why haven't other social trends and fads stayed around from the time cigarettes where really the in thing, the cool thing, before people knew that it was bad for you, and for everyone around you? Smoking doesn't have a lasting ability in a cultural, social, or personal sense, or any other sense for that matter. That is other then the physical effects it has on people. One example of an effect is the chemicals in the cigarette that cause the relaxing effect, another of course being the harm it causes to the lungs and the rest of the body. The most important effect it has to this discussion is the one of addiction. The real reason why cigarettes have stayed around as a dominant form of relaxant and social lubricant is that it’s inherently addictive. Which makes it much easier to make a lot of money off of, but I’ll leave the whole politics/money discussion surrounding smoking for later.

Obviously I haven’t gathered any referencing or links to sites that support any of my claims. Fortunately this is all simply my opinion so I could really give a shit whether it’s properly sourced or not. It also might be called common sense in some parts of the world!