Not to mention self-medicating. Cigarettes are expensive but they're cheaper than dealing with mental health issues for the uninsured.
Exactly. Nicotine has mental health benefits (e.g., schizophrenia ) and is a nootropic, stimulant, and feel-good drug. By smoking, the poor are trading years in the future for pleasantness now. Calling them stupid or irrational just makes too many assumptions about their opportunities, situations, and goals.
Wait, what? I've never felt any of those effects from smoking, and I made sure to inhale deeply. Maybe I'm doing it wrong? Are there people who are genetically unable to get the high?
There are some lovely comments about here about how the poor are stupid, they deserve it, etc. While discussing this, we should also consider that in situations where there is very little to lose (e.g. going to die soon anyhow, little chance of a successful life) risky behaviors make more strategic sense than if the subject had the promise of better opportunities. Also, the pleasures available to the impoverished are…
> A pack of cigarettes is one of the most luxurious pleasures available if all you have is $5. There's nothing luxurious about smelling bad and getting a wicked cough. Unless you're already addicted, nearly anything under $5 is more luxurious than a cigarette. I just ate an orange that cost 50¢ and it was more luxurious than any cigarette I've ever smoked.
> Unless you're already addicted, nearly anything under $5 is more luxurious than a cigarette.
Completely subjective. I'm not sure the purpose of your post. Are you telling everyone what is more luxurious to them or just giving your singular opinion for yourself? Assuming the latter, it appears to add little to the discussion.
So America has massively increased the tax burden on the poorest Americans (ever increasing tobacco taxes) while simultaneously cutting taxes on Capital Gains and Inheritance and now we are considering a large cut to the Corporate rate? Not to mention all the states with a lottery, which can also be thought of as a tax on poor people who are bad at math. This seems like class warfare.
With that spin, sure it would seem that way. You might consider it "Warfare" if the poor were being forced to smoke, or say there weren't pictures of cancer on the cover of the packages of cigarettes, or minors were allowed to smoke or there wasn't a huge vice tax on cigarettes essentially everywhere in the world, and a ban on cigarette advertising in most countries then yeah if you ignore all of that you might consider it class warfare...
> A recent study shows that the overall rate in both whites and blacks is about 15%, while in coloureds it is 40%. Worth knowing that "colored" is a loaded term in American vernacular, and may provoke strongly negative responses depending on context - I know that's not how you're using it, but many would not, and might take it amiss therefore. "Black" is a denotative equivalent lacking the same connotations, and what…
You misread my post. Black and coloured is not the same thing in South Africa. Coloured has a significantly higher rate than other ethnic groups (black and white). The clash with American terminology is unfortunate, but in this case there is no alternative.
> A pack of cigarettes is one of the most luxurious pleasures available if all you have is $5. There's nothing luxurious about smelling bad and getting a wicked cough. Unless you're already addicted, nearly anything under $5 is more luxurious than a cigarette. I just ate an orange that cost 50¢ and it was more luxurious than any cigarette I've ever smoked.
> Unless you're already addicted, nearly anything under $5 is more luxurious than a cigarette. Completely subjective. I'm not sure the purpose of your post. Are you telling everyone what is more luxurious to them or just giving your singular opinion for yourself? Assuming the latter, it appears to add little to the discussion.
I'm offering a reasoned analysis of what the actual effects of smoking a cigarette are and whether those things are widely considered luxurious. If you're addicted, sure, smoking offers a great luxury in taking the money off your back for a while. If you're not addicted and don't have some other physical need (e.g. untreated mental illness), it offers a pretty mild buzz and a lot of negatives.
But regardless, wouldn't this be more appropriate as a reply to the parent, who made the initial claim that cigarettes are luxurious and didn't present any reasons for it?
There are some lovely comments about here about how the poor are stupid, they deserve it, etc. While discussing this, we should also consider that in situations where there is very little to lose (e.g. going to die soon anyhow, little chance of a successful life) risky behaviors make more strategic sense than if the subject had the promise of better opportunities. Also, the pleasures available to the impoverished are…
> A pack of cigarettes is one of the most luxurious pleasures available if all you have is $5. There's nothing luxurious about smelling bad and getting a wicked cough. Unless you're already addicted, nearly anything under $5 is more luxurious than a cigarette. I just ate an orange that cost 50¢ and it was more luxurious than any cigarette I've ever smoked.
There's some subjective aspect to this as well. I smoked off and on for over 10 years. I quit several years ago and don't want for money. But still, to be 100% honest, I've yet to find anything as enjoyable as a cigarette. Its like a tiny espresso that gives an instant rush that I can revisit as often as I'd like. It fits into my 5 minute break mindset. It gives me a reason to (briefly) talk to people I don't know. I could go on, but overall I wasn't just addicted to them. I honestly enjoyed many things about them. If they weren't so unhealthy, I would be happily smoking today. And I would gladly trade a great majority of the other pleasures in my life for them. I say this because there's two themes so far in these comments, but I didn't notice this one. For many people, smoking is a legitimately enjoyable, cheap experience, on top of being insanely addictive. Its not surprising that they are so hard to be rid of.
There are some lovely comments about here about how the poor are stupid, they deserve it, etc. While discussing this, we should also consider that in situations where there is very little to lose (e.g. going to die soon anyhow, little chance of a successful life) risky behaviors make more strategic sense than if the subject had the promise of better opportunities. Also, the pleasures available to the impoverished are…
Remember the power of marketing: Freud's nephew hired by Cigarette companiest o make cigarettes "sexy" for women in USA (previously a taboo).
I just got back to the States from Germany. I was struck by how common smoking seems to be there, but I was glad that it was strictly an outside activity. I smoked when I was younger, but I started as a teenager. (Intelligence test failed.) Once you are addicted, it operates directly on the brain's reward mechanism, much the same way I imagine opiates would. It seems as vital and necessary as breathing. (I am general…
Same thing in Italy and France, in my experience. Quite baffling, really.
The French have it down to an art form. The difference here is smokers still seem to be outside hiking, walking, snowboarding, biking and doing all manner of outdoor things. I'd be interested in how lung cancer rates compare between the US and France.
The decline of the middle class and the huge explosion of the riches of the rich class will ensure that rich and poor in 50 and 100 years look and live like different species... Slum dwellers and "city trash" on one hand, and 150 year old clean shaven organic vegan genetically modified uberlords on the other. Warlocks vs Elois all over again...
...or another B- summer block-buster starring Matt Damon?
Exactly. Nicotine has mental health benefits (e.g., schizophrenia ) and is a nootropic, stimulant, and feel-good drug. By smoking, the poor are trading years in the future for pleasantness now. Calling them stupid or irrational just makes too many assumptions about their opportunities, situations, and goals.
"the poor are trading years in the future for pleasantness now" This also describes how a lot of people are poor.
No, it really doesn't. Depending on one's discount function, such a trade is perfectly rational.
This thinking also reeks of the 'just world fallacy', in which the predicament of the poor is deemed to be a deserved consequence of their moral failings.