Mind your manners . . . I'm smoking here!

People will believe anything, no mater how outlandish it is.

I've alway said, if you say something (anything) loud enough and long enough, with enough conviction, people will believe it. Especially if there has been scientific research on the subject.

This tendency to believe a strongly sent message is why Ad campaigns work so well. It's also how cultural trends are set; presidents are elected; and social standards are established.

It's even determines how people behave.

This is not the bad news (it's just the news).
The bad news is:  Certain ideas in our culture -- ideas which people take as truths -- have given people license to be rude to others and not take responsibility for it. And they seem to be blind to this. A condition I refer to as: "ruditude" (a self-righteous, demeaning attitude).

In certain instances they don't even think about their behavior as bad-mannered. As I've toured the country, lived in numerous states and lived bi-coastally, I've noticed this especially in the case of non-smokers towards smokers. This is not true of every individual, but it has become general practice to feel justified in scorning those that partake in a pleasure that really doesn't impact the scorner to any great extent. Not only have cigarette smokers been treated with disdain they are being banished as if they are criminals. ("Smokers are not allowed here").

I don't know how many times people use "the research" as an argument to support their case against any particular issue (be it smoking, eating fat, consuming salt, drinking alcohol, prostitution or whatever the market deems an important issue).

We all know, or should know, that research results are never objective. (Actually nothing is objective -- except that everyone has a subjective experience -- but that's a topic in itself and will be addressed on some other post). Results on any research can be skewed to favor any idea. Those of us who know this make great debaters.

But when people use research results to justify their beliefs, my response is: "I don't believe that myth, it's all in how it's marketed."

Case and point: The anti-smoking movement has put a bad spin on smoking. It has done so to the extent that people actually feel that they have a right to be offensive toward smokers. Behaviors like defaming and ostracizing smokers or making make out and out derogatory remarks become common place. This is conduct that the culprits teach their children is unacceptable behavior. Yet they do it to smokers. . . even in front of their kids. Great role modeling -- huh?!?

In what other circumstance would someone, without thinking, come up to a total stranger and speak this way or tell them how to behave? Yet in any public place you can be sure someone will approach a smoker and do exactly that: "You're disgusting! You shouldn't smoke! Smoking is bad for you. You stink!" Who are you people? Did your Mama not teach you manners? Unfortunately, these people are representative.

They often use "the research" to say they have a right to do so "because second-hand smoke kills."  Actually, the research on second-hand smoke does not indicate that people are dying from someone else smoking, but that is the common belief.  In reality, it's no longer a health issue, it's a crusade to control others. Needless to say, I was pleased to see that 20/20 just did a segment on this myth and how out of hand it's become.

Irregardless, does anything you've read or heard really give you reason to be mean to someone else? Please, people deal with your anger and righteousness in a more constructive way.

And lets try to have common courtesy be more common, no matter what the "research" says.

Anyone got a light?

Comments

[David Reich]

No, there should never be an excuse for out & out rudeness. However, you made a statement that has a major fallacy in it...

"...scorning those that partake in a pleasure that really doesn't impact the scorner to any great extent." Actually, smoking does often impact the scorner to some extent. The smoke can be an irritant to some people's eyes and nose. Some scorners may actually be allergic. And that is before we get into the whole concept of second-hand smoke and its possible impact on scorners.

Smoking impacts everyone and anyone within yards of the smoker. It's not intemntoional andthat doesn't make the smoker a bad personb. But it does create an impact which, to some people, is objectionable or harmful.

Sorry to be crude, but if someone farted in an elevator, you wouldn't like it. To some people in a closed area, the smell of cigarette smoke is just as nasty.

That said, it still does not justify anyone being rude. But if a scorner asks someone to move their cigarette or not blow smoke in their direction, the smoker is being rude in not complying or getting an attitude.

Sorry, Red, that's how I feel. Still love me?

[Red]

Dear David:
I love that you started off your comment stating your agreement and then proceeded to make my point. Thank you.

You used your belief about how smoking impacts another to make an offensive statement about smoke (comparing it to farting). Which, incase you didn’t realize it, is a not so thinly veiled insult to the smoker attached to the cigarette.

As far as people having allergies to cigarettes, again, does this justify “ruditude” (a self-righteous, demeaning attitude) towards the smoker? Is it the smoker's fault that you have an allergy or is it their responsibility to fix it for you?

For example, would you expect that because someone has allergies to a certain flower or plant that you could tell them not to plant it or insult them because or it? Of course not. It sounds kind of ridiculous when you hear it in that context doesn’t it? Or maybe not.

And as far as second-hand smoke . . . myth!
(see link above).

Anyway, Got a light?

Kisses,
Red