Tobacco Madness
Humphrey Bogart did as much as anyone to portray smoking cigarettes as 'cool.' He was a heavy smoker and a prodigious drinker and these bad habits combined led to an early death of cancer of the esophagus at the age of 57.In terms of social costs, which is worse, smoking or drinking? It is clear that drinking is worse. Drunk driving is a very serious problem. According to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in 2005, 16,885 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes -- an average of one almost every half-hour. These deaths accounted for approximately 39 percent of the 43,443 total traffic fatalities. How many nicotine-related crashes were there during the same time period? Since smoking enhances alertness, it is arguable that smoking makes crashes less likely.
Now consider spouse and child abuse. Do I need to cite statistics to prove to you that alcohol consumption seriously exacerbates these forms of abuse but smoking does not?
Which is worse when it comes to destroying careers and livelihoods, drinking or smoking? Again the answer is obvious. Would you rather air traffic controllers drink or smoke while they work? The answer again is clear.
Given the fact that the effects of drinking are far, far more deleterious than the effects of smoking, why is it that an 'R' rating is to be bestowed on movies featuring sex, violence, and smoking, but not on movies depicting drinking?
Does this make any sense? No, but it does illustrate the delusional cast of the liberal mind, the propensity of said mind to succumb to misplaced moral enthusiasm. The church of liberalism must have its devil, and his name is tobacco.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Are Smokers Irrational?
- Tobacco Madness
Posted by William F. Vallicella on
Saturday May 12, 2007 at 7:17pm
I couldn't help but wonder how the population of smokers in the U.S. are segmented? I would guess that there are more liberals who smoke than conservatives but it is just a guess. Nonetheless, whatever segment (or segment of a segment) is promoting this, it's still "misplaced moral enthusiasm."
This is very odd. Perhaps the reason tobacco is an easy target it that it has no clear redemptive value, while drinking does (in my view). Drinking in moderation seems to be a good thing, while smoking is harmful in any quantity(?). Put another way, tobacco is necessarily harmful, while alcohol is only possibly harmful.
Maybe, to most folks, a long, agonizing death from cancer sounds worse than death-by-auto.
Glad you got the allusion.
Drinking is a delightful adjunct to a civilized life. In moderation: no more than 2 oz per diem. For example, a 12 oz beer and a glass of wine with dinner. But the same goes for smoking: a fine cigar after your excellent dinner. Pleasure is a value, is it not?
I hope you are not saying that smoking is harmful in any quantity. That is plainly false. And I suspect you are confusing always with necessarily and sometimes with possibly. Tobacco is not always harmful let alone necessarily harmful, and alcohol is sometimes harmful, hence actually harmful, and so not merely possibly harmful.
I don't know Bennett's view on this one, but I suspect he'd agree with me that it is utterly absurd to object to the portrayal of smoking when one does not object to the portrayal of drinking.
2. Disallowing comments from a particular person, or deleting an offensive, off-topic, or otherwise substandard comment, has nothing to do with censorship. People who think otherwise confuse censorship with lack of sponsorship. I am under an obligation not to interfere with anyone's exercise of legitimate free speech rights. But I am not under any obligation to aid and abet anyone's exercise of free speech rights, legitimate or illegitimate.
3. The Comments area is not an open forum for anyone to say anything about any topic. As the name implies, it is primarily for commenting on the author(s)' posts. But to comment on them, one must have read them. And if I have spent three hours on a post, a reader will not understand it in thirty seconds. Secondarily, the Comments area is to facilitate civil discussion between and among commenters as long as the discussion remains on-topic.
4. Some undesirables: The skimmers, those who cannot read but only read-in. The sophists who, abusing argument, argue for the sake of argument. The ideologues, those who are out for power, not truth. The uncivil. The illogical. The politically correct. Worst of all, perhaps, are those who exemplify the anti-Socratic property: those who think they know what they don't know. If Socrates was famous for his learned ignorance, these types are marked by their ignorant unlearnededness.