In response to your disclaimer, I must make this following case:Acrisius said:
I am also stubborn. To add to that, I'm a philosophy major, and thus arguing like this is a wonderful pass-time activity to me. I'm afraid that since the disclaimer was put at the top and thus didn't give me any reason to agree/disagree to reading it beforehand, that your ability to strip me of a) my right to argue back and b) my soul (funny thing is, I have a spare... a story for another time, though), has rendered that bit null and void. Furthermore, I will admit no such urge to smoke during the writing of these posts. In fact, I was more thinking of how I need another Dr. Pepper more than I needed a smoke. Caffeine, I'll admit, is my big addiction.
Now, before things start (and.. just because I can) I'm going to light a cigarette (and an incense stick, in case that goes out unexpectedly), and I'm going to try to finish rebuking your arguments before the cigarette (or incense stick) goes out. (Don't worry, I've fixed the incense stick so it should burn just as long as the cig)
I think you mean "chore", but I see what you're getting at. To me, long posts indicate that it's a good topic for argument and might actually have a good offense/defense going for it to keep a good debate alive. Again, philosopher, so I love to argue.
So you have proven your long history around/with smokers, so I can see where you're coming from. Perhaps, in your case, it would be good to designate a "smoking room" for when the weather gets freezing. Funnily enough, my boyfriend's a Swede too...
Also, I'd like to say I'm sorry your grandfather went like that. It's always hard to lose a loved one.
But to counter your anecdote, I have one of my own. My grandfather smoked a pipe from the age of 14. He died at the age of 98 from macular degeneration (not entirely sure if I spelled that right). My grandfather smoked his pipe happily every day and it never had any serious side effects for him. Call it a "minority" if you want, but truth be told, there's more out there than you think that have this same thing happen.
Most sensible people know when they're hooked. If you look at a cigarette and go "mnh... damn, I need one..." then you're addicted. If you're like me and can see people puffing away and just shrug, then chances are you're not addicted. Most people just don't want to admit they're addicted, so they claim they aren't because they don't want to be (see the "I can quit tomorrow! ... or maybe the next day.")
A little more dramatic than what you said, but...
Honestly, I do have a few statistics for you, too. As a gay male, my life expectancy average is about mid-40s already. So... I figure if I'm going to end up dying early anyway, why not live life and enjoy what I can while I'm still here? There isn't just me, though, what of people who have chronic diseases that will terminate them before they turn 30? Should they forsake smoking and drinking and the like because they might live a few extra years? Should the terminal brain cancer patient stop smoking because "it's bad for him"? Methinks that if you're going to die soon, LIVE. Live life with love.
To answer your first question: I can't really say one way or another. I view smoking as a neutral entity that, while it might cause medical complications and the like, isn't necessarily bad. Personal opinion, however.
Let's lay out your argument here...
Unhealthy things are bad.
Smoking is unhealthy (overall).
Therefore, smoking is bad.
I'll disagree with the first premise on the grounds that many unhealthy things are actually quite good. Soda, junk food, energy drinks, and even gaming are fairly unhealthy, but I still think that they're not only permissible, but good. I tend to prescribe to the school of "do what makes you happy, so long as it's not destroying the lives of others," which is essentially the Wiccan Creed bent around a bit ("And it harm none, do as thou will.").
It's true that a non-smoker has a better chance of getting jobs et cetera, but that's mostly because of the anti-smoking crusade going on now. Truth be told, I've actually heard in places where smoking is actually encouraged to pick up because it will get you a much needed break when otherwise they'd just keep your shoulder to the plow. (Culinary school, if you're wondering)
Well, the advertisements were doing what they were supposed to: sell cigarettes. Back in the day, they considered smokes to be not only harmless, but healthy, too. And in comparison to today's smokes; chances are they were right. Studies have shown that old school cigs didn't have nearly as many of the chemicals that we have in cigarettes today that make them so dangerous. Nicotine really isn't as bad as people think it is... the worst it does is makes you want to get more nicotine, which brings me to...
This:http://www.ecigaretteschoice.com/
All the nicotine goodness, none of the smoke, none of the destructive chemicals, and no complaints from non-smokers.
Granted your pathos works here, and I can see where you're coming from, but that's sidestepping the point. There's no proof that he would've lived long enough to see those things even from a natural death. You're right, as much as I hate to admit it and because I loathe the argument, but the "You can't know the alternate outcome" argument does fit here. Perhaps he was fated to smoke and die at that age? Perhaps we were destined to argue online about the morality of smoking... who knoooooows.
I'm sorry, but it's never okay "for the lulz"... I can understand a joke, but after spending so many years around Anonyjerks and /b/tards, I've seen too many "innocent jokes" go way past the point of being just "for the lulz" and actually causing people detrimental harm.
Woops, skipped over this on the first read through your post...
Isn't sentimental value just as addictive as chemicals? I don't know about you, but I've seen people nearly tear someone apart over some small bauble that they held close. Cigarettes are just like that to the smokers who are addicted; something they can pull out and use to make them happy. Liken it to a music box someone could pull out that makes a little song that has a chance to cause cancer, somehow... perhaps it's made of asbestos or something. I doubt that you'd go and destroy that, just because it's potentially harmful. I hope that makes a little more sense now.
Yes, I enjoyed reading. Yes, I enjoy arguing this. No, I won't beg for mercy or admit that I'm wrong (yet). I don't particularly want to stop any time soon. A truce or an "agree to disagree" I think needs a few more posts and the like to really get to a point where we end up repeating ourselves...
And ice cream/dinner would be nice, actually. >.> Kinda reminds me of "Thank You For Smoking". I love that damned movie...
-----------------------------------------
Oh, and to whomever said "there is no anti-smoking companies" is dead wrong. Here in the US we have the ever annoying, ever persistent "Truth Organization" which spews statistics and does various things to show that smoking is bad and stuff.
Also, to whomever pointed out that cigarette companies do it just to make a profit, and not caring about the side effects of their products... doesn't that describe almost every company? Welcome to corporate capitalism!
One last thing to wrap this up: I encourage my friends to take a single drag, or a single cig so they know what it feels like. The most common response is "This sucks, I hate it, good to know that I don't like it," which is preferable to "I've never smoked, never will, and I think it's stupid because it doesn't do anything but kill you". Smoking does a helluva lot more than people think, but the corporations trying to get smoking banned/illegal omit the upsides of smoking because they don't want you to know them. Makes them less unappealing if the only upside is "to look cool".
P.S. Damn. Couldn't do it in the time the cigarette burned out. Fun experiment though.
well in that case I would shove them outside and lock the doors until they finish 
