March 01, 2006
The stigma of smoking
"As the smoker has become a pariah, sufferers from lung cancer have become the lepers of the twenty-first century."
Dr. Michael Fitzpatrick in Spiked:
The advert features a young mother, clearly in the terminal stages of lung cancer, who expresses her feelings of guilt and remorse that a cancer caused by her own smoking will soon take her away from her children. In turn, her daughter expresses her anger and grief at the fact that her mother is expected to die shortly as a result of a disease resulting from her smoking. This advert is clearly designed to make parents who smoke feel guilty - and to make children of parents who smoke feel angry. Its objective is to use children as an instrument of the campaign to deter adults from smoking...
It is a sign of the times that there has been no storm of protest over the increasingly manipulative and moralistic character of anti-smoking propaganda. In the crusade to reduce mortality from smoking it is considered legitimate to exploit the deepest fears of parents and children. While the law seeks to prohibit smoking in public, the new anti-smoking advert seeks to proscribe it in the private sphere, fomenting domestic strife to achieve this objective. At a time when a wide range of civil liberties are under threat it is alarming that the strategy of using children to police their parents' behaviour - reminiscent of totalitarian regimes - provokes so little public disquiet.
The immediate casualties of the war on smoking are people with lung cancer and other smoking-related diseases.
More here.
Posted by Abbas Raza at 04:27 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c562c53ef00d834ad802269e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The stigma of smoking:





Comments
"reminiscent of totalitarian regimes " What nonsense! Children have a right to breath clean air at home and to be concerned about their parents' health. My kids helped stop their mum from smoking, good for them! Smokers should definitely be stigmatized.
Maybe Dr. Fitzpatrick is an "agent provocateur" from the anti-smoking lobby, who is deliberately trying to make smokers look ridiculous, by waiving red herrings.
Posted by: aguy109 | Mar 1, 2006 6:49:42 PM
If smokers just went away and died on their own, this would make sense. Sadly their habit takes others with them.
Cancer cures smoking.
Posted by: Nosmo King | Mar 2, 2006 6:05:14 AM
smoking is dumb. i still smoke. it's hard to quit, but i am trying.
that said, smoking-related diseases don't just strike smokers. a friend of mine who never smoked suffered from lung cancer. another suffered from mouth cancer. my grandfather was a nonsmoker who suffered from chronic pulmonary obstruction.
stigmatize smokers if you must, but don't rush to assume everyone with an ailment generally associated with smoking brought it upon themselves. you can't always reason backwards from someone's current condition in order to divine the choices they made in their lives.
Posted by: liz | Mar 2, 2006 10:49:28 AM
In my view, smokers are worse than people who perpetually fart in public. Not only do they not control a personal habit that creates bad smells, but they insist on inflicting health problems on others.
That being said, people are free to smoke and kill themselves as long as they are prevented from taking other people with them. That's why I support things like smoke-free workplaces and smoke-free bars, as long as smoking clubs can form where smoking is tolerated.
liz, many non-smokers have lung cancer because they worked in smoke-filled locations. Bartenders and waitresses in particular suffer from this.
Posted by: Hektor Bim | Mar 2, 2006 3:14:24 PM
i know. all i'm saying is that smoking should carry the stigma, not lung cancer.
Posted by: liz | Mar 2, 2006 4:58:13 PM
Liz, I think smoking is dumb ONLY if you are unaware of its risks. What many non-smokers overlook in their self-righteous and contemtuously condescending vision of smokers (seen solely as addicts) is that smoking is a great PLEASURE for smokers. If a smoker is willing to put with the risk for the sake of this pleasure, why shouldn't she? I don't ride a motorcycle because they are very dangerous, but I don't tell other people not to.
Before someone starts yelling about how that is a bad analogy because riding a motorcycle doesn't endanger OTHER people's health, let me say that yes, it is probably good that smoking is banned in public enclosed spaces.
On the other hand, I constantly have to breath in the exhaust fumes and carbon monoxide of people who choose to drive in Manhattan rather than take the subway, etc., etc. There's always a tradeoff between what might hurt an individual and what society wants as a whole.
Posted by: Abbas Raza | Mar 2, 2006 5:30:25 PM
Post a comment