Cigarettes. We all know about them. We all know about the negative health risks and we all know how much society hates it. But, why? is the question. What was once socially acceptable, even encouraged only as little as 50 years ago has turned southbound. It's now an "abomination", and "disgraceful", and even "unethical" to smoke cigarettes in the 2000s. And sure, we're partially on the right track, I'm not saying every man, woman, and child should start lighting up Kent's filterless, 2 pack a day habit; that would be disastrous of major proportions, and I am by no means advocating the smoking of Cigarettes. It's a decision you yourself have to make. Anyways, with that being said, lets get to the point. What I'm trying to say is, in this time focused around existentialism, freedom, and the focus of the individual, cigarette smokers have more pressure, and are almost as stigmatized as the archetypal Caucasian bourgeois Father figure (for the lulz). The Western world love it's decadent individualism, they wanna stand out and live their life like they're in control! And ah-salute! God bless you, that's fine! But what about the smokers? Why is it, that, every time someone mentions cigarettes some jerk off has to say "cigarettes kill bro, you're gonna get lung cancer, and aids, and diabetes, and hepatitis C if you keep smoking, man" right.....as if....as if I didn't already know that! Tell me one more time, the message wasn't quite clear the first 10000 times.
Smokers are labeled as reckless, bored, stressed out, unclean, disregard for hygiene, dissonant, weak at making independent decisions, etc, et cetera! Not to mention they blow the whole lung cancer thing into your face. It's like the uncultivated heads of those who are hard for the normative-ethical ways are laughing at the cigarette smokers. But what's hilariously ironic is that all those bored determinists have their own vice, and their own deficiency. It's immoral to devalue a human being based on their vice, and even worse than to make them feel ashamed for it.
We as humans have always hated a particular. The Puritans hated homosexuals, the KKK hated blacks, etc. But in the midst of these terrorist events, everybody was smoking, and damn well everybody enjoyed it. But as concepts such as homosexuality, feminism, religious freedom and most importantly individualism has molded itself into society, we are now haters towards cigarette smokers. What was once accepted and established, during a time of moral and humanistic confusion, has now flipped to the opposite of this! We accept those concepts, yet reject cigarettes. I know there might not seem to be a correlation at first, but bear with me. It appears to be almost symbolic! We had disregard for actions not in conformity of our own values, and the aforementioned concepts of humanity were prejudiced and discriminated upon, for their involuntary qualities (skin color, sexuality). We've now come to become the master of the whip, the slave-owner who strikes down the cigarette smoker because he is doing an action which is voluntary and harmful as opposed to voluntarily harming someone for an involuntary quality. It's symbolic for cleansing, and the hate on the cigarette smoker is just to turn the back on the accepted fashions and values of the 1950s. Like the housewives in ancient Greece, to the homosexuals in Volendam, and the Negros of Mississippi were ashamed and guilty, and felt humiliation because of their "destined" roles, the cigarette smoker now takes their place, the smoker now feels a sense of self-pity, and insecurity, and undermined. The justification lies in "you chose to smoke, you chose to harm yourself, therefore I should not respect your existentialistic decisions as a human being." The generally held view is that "the ends justifies the means", which is hypocritical in its own right. See, the mass media, and tyrants who use crowd manipulation tactics to cut down on cigarettes ultimately instill the notion that they're intentions are good, good for the benefit of the economy and population. By using commercials and advertisement which make the smoker feel guilty and ashamed is cut their sense of self control. Commercials which show a mother on her death-bed, caused by lung cancer, which the precursor ultimately had to have been "the horrendous cigarettes" her children all around, mourning and crying, and enraged at Big Tobacco for allowing this. Nobody seems to pay attention, nor care about the other medical factors and physiological predisposition which could have led up to this woman in her cancer bed. Others on the cigarette packaging of some 5 year old boy and with the message "second hand smoke kills your children" (which, not to mention the notion that 2nd hand smoke is such a massive killer was actually proven false). Yet, sadly, that all who see who have any humanity will be guilty, and ashamed, led into moral conflict upon actions. It's a callous psychological maneuver. The worst part is, how can there be an opposition? How can the opposition to this be considered moral? All who oppose will be ostracized. Every defense the smoker tries to put forth, every reason for their smoking habit is ultimately rejected. The motives for smoking are just shrugged off as "rationalizing" and "justifying" a harmful action, and the smoker is often labeled "in denial" about their habits. The Mass Media who fuels this fire plays out their motive very well, and through their seductive, rhetorical, and manipulative ways, they can get anything they want. Unfortunately, nobody seems to pay attention to their mass hypocrisy and quasi-psychopathic ways. 3rd world countries, the problem with alcohol, drug prohibition, the fallacy of pharmaceuticals, overcrowded prison, poverty, national debt, the list goes on, and on, and on, and yet people still believe the media is on their side. The undeniable proof of my argument, which is essentially the exception which proves the rule, that the media, the core of entertainment, during the revolution of television of cinema sensationalized the action of smoking. They gave it elegance and an aesthetic appeal which seduced all following generations. They did so because it benefited themselves. It was the profit and publicity in the cigarette industry, the marketing and economic profit. Now, science has used it's power to caution people of cigarette, and how it's a risk if they approach it. The media, of course has spun this around and like they had made millions of off cigarettes, they are currently making more and more money off the "anti smoking" products. There's hundreds of anti-smoking products, and they're held in the same regard as cigarettes. Their purpose is profit. It's how the fat-cats, brass hats, and wall street executives maintain their sense of control and sustainability. It's what they do. Bobby Fisher played Chess, Mozart wrote music, Farmers farm, and Smokers smoke.
I'm beginning to ramble, so let me conclude with this: Cigarette smoking, like all voluntary actions are pursued to attain some good. This good might not be good in your eyes, or even mine, and it might not seem physically or physiologically good, but it is good to the person who pursuits the action. It gives them a sense of control and confidence. In an existentialistic world where we think we're in control, smoking, like all other actions give the individual a sure sense of control. A sense of doing what they want to do. We who stigmatize them are no better than the slave master, and the Christian Puritan whom we've all grown to despise. We have little control, but we should be fair to do what we want. As long as we don't harm another party, and as long as we know the risks involved for our actions, we should be free to smoke, do drugs, read the news paper and sip a nice cup of Joe. It's got nothing to do with the risks, or the benefits. It's about the quality, and the love of our decisions. We feel much guilt about feeble and nonsensical things, why should this be one of them? Remember: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I wrote this strung out after a night long stimulant binge. Please forgive my disorder and possibly incoherence. It's something I intuitively felt requisite to post, regardless of the cognitive and physical deficiency I felt when writing.
Smokers are labeled as reckless, bored, stressed out, unclean, disregard for hygiene, dissonant, weak at making independent decisions, etc, et cetera! Not to mention they blow the whole lung cancer thing into your face. It's like the uncultivated heads of those who are hard for the normative-ethical ways are laughing at the cigarette smokers. But what's hilariously ironic is that all those bored determinists have their own vice, and their own deficiency. It's immoral to devalue a human being based on their vice, and even worse than to make them feel ashamed for it.
We as humans have always hated a particular. The Puritans hated homosexuals, the KKK hated blacks, etc. But in the midst of these terrorist events, everybody was smoking, and damn well everybody enjoyed it. But as concepts such as homosexuality, feminism, religious freedom and most importantly individualism has molded itself into society, we are now haters towards cigarette smokers. What was once accepted and established, during a time of moral and humanistic confusion, has now flipped to the opposite of this! We accept those concepts, yet reject cigarettes. I know there might not seem to be a correlation at first, but bear with me. It appears to be almost symbolic! We had disregard for actions not in conformity of our own values, and the aforementioned concepts of humanity were prejudiced and discriminated upon, for their involuntary qualities (skin color, sexuality). We've now come to become the master of the whip, the slave-owner who strikes down the cigarette smoker because he is doing an action which is voluntary and harmful as opposed to voluntarily harming someone for an involuntary quality. It's symbolic for cleansing, and the hate on the cigarette smoker is just to turn the back on the accepted fashions and values of the 1950s. Like the housewives in ancient Greece, to the homosexuals in Volendam, and the Negros of Mississippi were ashamed and guilty, and felt humiliation because of their "destined" roles, the cigarette smoker now takes their place, the smoker now feels a sense of self-pity, and insecurity, and undermined. The justification lies in "you chose to smoke, you chose to harm yourself, therefore I should not respect your existentialistic decisions as a human being." The generally held view is that "the ends justifies the means", which is hypocritical in its own right. See, the mass media, and tyrants who use crowd manipulation tactics to cut down on cigarettes ultimately instill the notion that they're intentions are good, good for the benefit of the economy and population. By using commercials and advertisement which make the smoker feel guilty and ashamed is cut their sense of self control. Commercials which show a mother on her death-bed, caused by lung cancer, which the precursor ultimately had to have been "the horrendous cigarettes" her children all around, mourning and crying, and enraged at Big Tobacco for allowing this. Nobody seems to pay attention, nor care about the other medical factors and physiological predisposition which could have led up to this woman in her cancer bed. Others on the cigarette packaging of some 5 year old boy and with the message "second hand smoke kills your children" (which, not to mention the notion that 2nd hand smoke is such a massive killer was actually proven false). Yet, sadly, that all who see who have any humanity will be guilty, and ashamed, led into moral conflict upon actions. It's a callous psychological maneuver. The worst part is, how can there be an opposition? How can the opposition to this be considered moral? All who oppose will be ostracized. Every defense the smoker tries to put forth, every reason for their smoking habit is ultimately rejected. The motives for smoking are just shrugged off as "rationalizing" and "justifying" a harmful action, and the smoker is often labeled "in denial" about their habits. The Mass Media who fuels this fire plays out their motive very well, and through their seductive, rhetorical, and manipulative ways, they can get anything they want. Unfortunately, nobody seems to pay attention to their mass hypocrisy and quasi-psychopathic ways. 3rd world countries, the problem with alcohol, drug prohibition, the fallacy of pharmaceuticals, overcrowded prison, poverty, national debt, the list goes on, and on, and on, and yet people still believe the media is on their side. The undeniable proof of my argument, which is essentially the exception which proves the rule, that the media, the core of entertainment, during the revolution of television of cinema sensationalized the action of smoking. They gave it elegance and an aesthetic appeal which seduced all following generations. They did so because it benefited themselves. It was the profit and publicity in the cigarette industry, the marketing and economic profit. Now, science has used it's power to caution people of cigarette, and how it's a risk if they approach it. The media, of course has spun this around and like they had made millions of off cigarettes, they are currently making more and more money off the "anti smoking" products. There's hundreds of anti-smoking products, and they're held in the same regard as cigarettes. Their purpose is profit. It's how the fat-cats, brass hats, and wall street executives maintain their sense of control and sustainability. It's what they do. Bobby Fisher played Chess, Mozart wrote music, Farmers farm, and Smokers smoke.
I'm beginning to ramble, so let me conclude with this: Cigarette smoking, like all voluntary actions are pursued to attain some good. This good might not be good in your eyes, or even mine, and it might not seem physically or physiologically good, but it is good to the person who pursuits the action. It gives them a sense of control and confidence. In an existentialistic world where we think we're in control, smoking, like all other actions give the individual a sure sense of control. A sense of doing what they want to do. We who stigmatize them are no better than the slave master, and the Christian Puritan whom we've all grown to despise. We have little control, but we should be fair to do what we want. As long as we don't harm another party, and as long as we know the risks involved for our actions, we should be free to smoke, do drugs, read the news paper and sip a nice cup of Joe. It's got nothing to do with the risks, or the benefits. It's about the quality, and the love of our decisions. We feel much guilt about feeble and nonsensical things, why should this be one of them? Remember: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I wrote this strung out after a night long stimulant binge. Please forgive my disorder and possibly incoherence. It's something I intuitively felt requisite to post, regardless of the cognitive and physical deficiency I felt when writing.
- but I really don't think there is THAT MUCH of a negative look on smokers. 
