why "why do people smoke?" went up in smoke December 19, 2003 1:43 PM   Subscribe

What just happened to ossibuke's "why do people smoke?" question?
posted by scarabic to Bugs at 1:43 PM (71 comments total)

excuse me, "oissubke"
posted by scarabic at 1:51 PM on December 19, 2003




It didn't seem like a question that seeked to solve any problem, as most of the successful ask metafilter threads seem to do. It's just a "what's your favorite color?" kind of question. It encourages talk for the sake of talk, and so far ask metafilter seems useful because every question and answer has some purpose behind it -- a pressing problem in search of an answer.

I deleted another of oissubke's threads that was along the same lines last week.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:56 PM on December 19, 2003


Because it was stupid.

Next up: Why do people eat squash, a food I do not enjoy?
posted by xmutex at 1:56 PM on December 19, 2003


Keeps me regular.
posted by yerfatma at 1:58 PM on December 19, 2003


Something in my refrigerator smells strange. What is it?
posted by staggernation at 2:12 PM on December 19, 2003


I got this rash, y'see...
posted by xmutex at 2:13 PM on December 19, 2003


Does AskMe have to be only for problem solving?

I don't know why people smoke, a habit that to many non-smokers seems quite odd, and wanted to find out from the large, varied, and expressive MeFi community.

I don't quite see how "Could someone post a link about why people smoke?" is significantly better than "Could someone who smokes tell me why they do it?"

I'm asking for basically the same thing, except the former (which I could have just Googled for) would probably have been considered a legitimate AskMe question, while the latter (which actually sought the experiences and knowledge of the community, which I thought was the point) was deleted.
posted by oissubke at 2:17 PM on December 19, 2003


Once, during what I refer to as "the stoned years", I had a deadline and no story...and was up in the middle of the night when the phone psychic people do their advertising. I had a pressing problem, in that my remote control had been missing for weeks and the phone was closer than the TV. And so I called the nice psychic hotline people and asked them where my remote control was. The transcript of the conversation was hysterical and was probably the column that got the best reader response.

I'm just saying, sometimes...stupid questions can lead to some pretty funny results. ;)
posted by dejah420 at 2:23 PM on December 19, 2003


Why would that be interestingm oissubke? It's tired. People who smoke do so because they like it. People who do not smoke refrain because they do not enjoy it.

Much like eaters of hot dogs, or drinkers of apple juice: they engage in these activites because they enjoy it.

Plus you know it's just a question to piss people off. Get over it.
posted by xmutex at 2:26 PM on December 19, 2003


I'd have thought "because Nicotine is a very addictive drug" was such an obvious answer that the question is pretty spurious.
posted by normy at 2:30 PM on December 19, 2003


Probably all a bad idea:

How can people like Bush?
How can men have sex with each other?
How can people worship imaginary friends?
How can people smoke?

There are good answers to all these questions. And good answers to questions like these would probably be pretty darn interesting.

But bringing them into AskMe would be bad.

Want an example? I think I'm pretty qualified to answer the smoking question.

After living with a smoker for many years, and discussing it at length, smoking myself for a short time, and even doing a bit of reading on the subject, I've come to the conclusion that smokers smoke due to their inner self loathing and inability to deal with the unconscious contempt they feel for themselves.

That's my opinion, and if any smokers disagree with that I'll have to spend some time explaining how they're incorrect.

My....... Doesn't that sound like fun........
posted by y6y6y6 at 2:36 PM on December 19, 2003


I wasn't trying to piss people off. I specifically mentioned that in the post.

My wife and I were talking about the subject yesterday, and I just thought I'd ask a question about it so I could learn some more. I've got no point to prove. I wasn't trying to provoke debate about an issue, I was just asking people about their experience with something.

Matt -- Sorry about the infraction, and I'll try not to do it again. I don't spend quite enough time on here to know all the backroom (MeTa) discussions happening about what users should and shouldn't be doing, so I tend to have to learn the hard way. I just had a question to ask MeFi, so I asked MeFi.
posted by oissubke at 2:39 PM on December 19, 2003


oissubke's question was also posted within half an hour of his current post up there right now.

Questions scroll down fast enough as it is - can we self-limit to not more than one question every day (or two) rather than have matt treat us like children and hard-code a limit?
posted by vacapinta at 2:40 PM on December 19, 2003


This is very interesting. I've noticed that in this thread several people have dismissed oissubke's question as obvious, yet no two inferences have been the same, (i.e. obviously because they enjoy it, obviously because they're addicted, you're obviously baiting smokers). The question doesn't seem obvious at all, which argues for having kept the thread.

I'm a 15-year smoker who has been off for a few years, but oissubke's question still rides my mind. I, too, would have enjoyed contributing to and reading that thread. I'm as excited/concerned about the prospect of Ask MeFi as anyone, but Mathowie might consider going a little easier with the cleaver.

That said, oissubke's question could easily have been worded better.
posted by squirrel at 2:42 PM on December 19, 2003


I don't know why people smoke

I'll let you in a private, little secret - We like it, and we're addicted. Wanna know why people do heroin? Same principle.
posted by SweetJesus at 3:05 PM on December 19, 2003


Wittgenstein posited that if any question doesn't appear to have a consistent or verifyable answer, than there is something fundamentally wrong with the question. squirrel, you're right that most here agree that its obvious why the question was deleted, but not what the answers in the thread would hypothetically have been. It seems therefore obvious that, regardless of how interesting you may have found the thread's play out, it was a bad question.

Add that to the obvious agreement among all that it would have turned into a flamewar of some kind, and I think the cleaving was well justified.
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:09 PM on December 19, 2003


"I wasn't trying to piss people off."

I don't think anyone took it that way.

I'm interpreting Matt's comment as a suggestion that polling for everyone's opinion isn't the sort of thing he wants Ask MetaFilter to do. As usual he's being vague enough that most people will make up their own mind what he means. Plus you have the gas plus flame possibilities here.

It might have been nice to see if we could have behaved ourselves. But now we've shined a light on that, so it wouldn't be a fair test.

"I don't spend quite enough time on here to know all the backroom discussions happening about what users should and shouldn't be doing"

I do. And I can assure you that we don't agree on anything. And if you read just the stuff Matt says, and then read MetaFilter, you'll swear he's talking about a different site since so many people either ignore what he says or have strange interpretations.

It's cool. We're all learning. This is too new for anyone to know what users should and shouldn't be doing.
posted by y6y6y6 at 3:11 PM on December 19, 2003


I've come to the conclusion that smokers smoke due to their inner self loathing and inability to deal with the unconscious contempt they feel for themselves.

Disagree. Smoking is a way to deal with such feelings, and these feelings may not be unconscious ones.

Also, my years of research have left me with the conclusion that Happy People aren't very interesting. (Note: not all non-smokers are Happy People.)
posted by DaShiv at 3:12 PM on December 19, 2003


Well, I can hardly presume to stand against a crunchland/mathowie/xmutex trifecta ;) but I completely disagree with you guys.

I think that was a perfectly valid question that a lot of people wonder (I've been asked before), and it elicited some interesting responses (not least of all mine, which never saw the light of day).

I dunno Matt, seems like a pretty harsh, intrusive move to me. I think Ask is fantastic and I hope you don't try to control too obsessively "what it's all about" while it is still emerging, evolving, developing.

And as for solving a problem, you don't see anything productive about building a bridge of understanding between people who smoke, and those who don't?

When I was a smoker, I had lots of negative shit going on between me and certain family members who didn't understand why I didn't "just quit." Their participation in my ultimate decision to kick the habit probably would have been more positive if they'd taken the time to try to understand where I was starting from.

That seemed the goal of oissubke's question.
posted by scarabic at 3:18 PM on December 19, 2003


iirc oissubke's background understand why I wouldn't consider the asked question "baiting", just curiosity. Also this site may be the only place he has a chance politely asking a smoker in person.
posted by thomcatspike at 3:21 PM on December 19, 2003


*blows smoke in y6's face*
oissubke, it's thoroughly enjoyable and a delicious sensory experience (and addictive), helps me relax, and gives me something to do with my hands in social situations.
posted by amberglow at 3:25 PM on December 19, 2003


I absolutely love the eagerness people have to ignore any possibility of complexity in this subject, too. "Bah - I already know what I think, delete the thread!"

y63, you in particular are doing nobody any good with your "I'm right and if I feel like it I'll tell you why you're wrong" routine. What a pathetic lack of curiosity, and a pretty limp rehtorical showing to go with it. One wonders with such an attitude why you bother to fill out the comment blank and post. Nothing better to do?

Matt - have you noticed how much of this thread has become discussion about the original question? Think there might have been something there?
posted by scarabic at 3:29 PM on December 19, 2003


Why do people smoke?

Because they stood too close to the fireplace.
posted by konolia at 3:35 PM on December 19, 2003


"I hope you don't try to control too obsessively "what it's all about" while it is still developing"

Once again I would just like to reiterate my (apparently very minority) opinion that guidelines for what it's all about should err on the side of being too narrow rather than too broad.

"What's you favorite color?" could generate some very interesting discussion. Or not. But 400 variations on this question would get old. And I don't think we stop doing things here just because they get old.

I'm just sayin'...........
posted by y6y6y6 at 3:39 PM on December 19, 2003


And as for solving a problem, you don't see anything productive about building a bridge of understanding between people who smoke, and those who don't?

A worthy goal. Lets see if we can use AskMefi to build bridges of understanding between fundamentalist Christians and Satanists, between NeoCons and f_and_m, between vegans and meat eaters, between queers and cowboys, between Palistinians and Jews, between Rottweilers and Moonbats, between masturbaters and ... uh ... those who don't, between Hillary and the VRWC. Can't we all just get along?

No. Any time you approach a question of difference from the standpoint of "why do they do what they do" you've already set up a point of devisiveness, whether you intended to or not. There may be value to these questions, but this doesn't appear to be the venue for their answer, not when phrased as opposition at least.
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:41 PM on December 19, 2003


Good point Wulfgar, the way the question is asked is a key here, not the "topic".
posted by thomcatspike at 3:49 PM on December 19, 2003


I'll let you in a private, little secret - We like it, and we're addicted. Wanna know why people do heroin? Same principle.

Starts off being primarily the former, ends up being primarily the latter.

Speaking as someone who's given up smoking 7 times now...
posted by inpHilltr8r at 3:54 PM on December 19, 2003


"y63, you in particular are doing nobody any good with your routine."

We don't agree on that. I think I am doing good. And I'll continue to express my opinion on these matters until Matt sees fit to delete my account. Thank you very much.

I'm sure I'm wrong at times, as well as right at times. That's the way opinion goes. I'm not in charge here and I have no desire to be. I've said on numerous occasions that Matt runs the place better than I ever could.

I've never claimed anyone was wrong just because they disagreed with me. If I feel someone is wrong I think I'm petty consistent in giving a reasoned argument for that being the case. I'm contrary by nature, and very familiar with being on the losing side of debates. But I try to stay educated about the issues at hand, and I also think I'm usually right. I think I'm good about admitting when I'm wrong.

If you want to explain to me how I'm wrong that might get results. Telling me to shut up won't.
posted by y6y6y6 at 3:54 PM on December 19, 2003


Once again I would just like to reiterate my (apparently very minority) opinion that guidelines for what it's all about should err on the side of being too narrow rather than too broad.

y6y6y6, don't take the wrong way (please, I'm begging) but from spending this afternoon getting caught up on a lot of MetaTalk conversation, it seems to me that you are the kind of person who enjoys more structure/rules rather than fewer (I'm guessing here) -- and there's nothing wrong with that. Let me try and share the opposition view.

For me, the joy of AskMe is its free form nature. I greatly enjoyed reading the answers to the question about farting, and was finding some interesting, thoughtful responses to the smoking question, as well. I'm really coming to think of AskMe as a kind of after-dinner conversation between friends -- kind of the ultimate "weblog as conversation", if you will, where we have the freedom to ask the kind of "I've always wondered..." questions that few people have friends close and/or diverse enough to ask anymore. I'm reminded a bit of an evening where we ended up peppering an African friend of ours (I live in Maine, remember, a very Caucasian state) with questions about African-American hair care, because it turned out it was something that we'd all been curious about, but everyone had thought it was too rude/personal to ask until the topic came up after two glasses of wine. It was an education for everyone sitting at the table, and (interestingly) led, I'm very sure, to a better understanding of one another as people.

I noted on #mefi that I do see AskMe as having the same potential as the meetups do -- namely, that its harder to call someone a baby-eating fuckwit when you've just been sharing lost cat stories over on The Green. That's the reason I think the loose guidelines are so good -- it gives a way to ask those kinds of questions and actually build a relationship as a community.

But maybe I'm just a cockeyed optimist....
posted by anastasiav at 3:55 PM on December 19, 2003


The question was asked in an explicitly non-confrontational, out-of-curiousity way. Quite hospitable and encouraging of honest 1st-person answers.

I think you're forcibly reducing the debate, Wulfgar!, presuming that there is no complexity to the issue, and it's just a simple black and white Liliputians vs. Blefescutians argument. Coke vs. Pepsi. Well, friend, just because you see no depth to the question doesn't mean that those who do should be prevented from talking about it. And simply because some people will cast it as "us/them" doesn't mean we all will. I smoked for years, quit years ago, and I am now very much against smoking, but quite compassionate toward people who still do it. The thread did not, in fact, resemble a two-sided alley rumble, as you seem to think inevitable.

Ok, y6, here's *why* you're wrong: first, because not all people smoke for the same reason, second, because not all smokers despise themselves, third, because living with one smoker and smoking yourself temporarily does not, in fact, qualify you to generalize about everyone. I'm sorry the person you lived with suffered from self-loathing. That really stinks. Luckily for you, it sounds like you managed to escape a deep addicition of your own. That's good news, but it does limit your knowledge of the subject, doesn't it?

Please contemplate the contradiction between being contrary by nature, and transacting only in reasoned arguments, as you claim to do.
posted by scarabic at 4:04 PM on December 19, 2003


Also, here's a rewrite that should be more or less touchy-feely enough to pass any standards.

"Much to my dismay, one of my children has started smoking cigarettes. We have had discussions about her quitting, but we can't seem to get through to one another. She knows how damaging they can be to one's health, and I don't understand why she can't just put them down. She tells me I just don't get it, and can't help her with what she's going through. Our conversations always end in her storming outside to light up. I give in. Telling her to 'just say no' doesn't seem to be doing the trick, and is only alienating the two of us from each other further. Can anyone who's smoked help me understand the habit, its compulsion, how it begins and what keeps it going?"

Having an utter lack of sympathy for smokers doesn't make it a stupid question. It could eventually hit home for you too, in someone you love.

But anyway... let's get back to solving CSS problems, choosing the best car stereo, and helping each other find new movies to watch.
posted by scarabic at 4:05 PM on December 19, 2003


Wittgenstein posited that if any question doesn't appear to have a consistent or verifyable answer, than there is something fundamentally wrong with the question.

I think this gets to the heart of it. I don't see the need for rhetorical questions or gauging everyone's reaction by putting up a poll type question.

Based on all the posts so far, the questions and answers that seemed to have worked out best look like those that are more specific than general, but not too specific, because then no one has shared experience to work from. Why do people smoke is just about the most general question ever asked and I can't see it garnering good answers, since historically non-smokers and smokers often have a problem discussing the issue as it gets quickly emotional for both parties involved.

Why are people fat? Why do people like dumb music? and Why are guys so stupid compared to girls? are all bad questions for the site that could have some salvageable question, if they were significantly reworked. The recent question about the user's brother that liked the Insane Clown Posse was a good reworking of "why do people like dumb music?" when it was asked along the lines of "how do I share good music with my brother?" But then again, that also cuts from general to fairly specific, as we're helping someone find music for their brother.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:14 PM on December 19, 2003


scarabic, that is indeed a worthy rewrite that would garner much, much better answers than "why do people smoke?"

Can you see how it has become personal, specific to a problem, and universal in that people can contribute to help someone and not argue for or against smoking?

If you agree that your rewrite is better, hopefully you can see why I deleted the low quality question of simply "why do people smoke?" since it lacks specificity, isn't personal, and doesn't seek to solve a problem everyone can help with.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:17 PM on December 19, 2003


One more thing: everyone makes the joke that the worst possible and useless question is "where can I find my keys?" People have made the joke several times already, and it embodies something that is generally useless for everyone involved but the person asking the question and ultimately it's something no one can help out with.

It's the worst possible question, but could be rewritten as:

"I'm constantly losing small important things in my life and I'd like to organize my things to the point where this doesn't happen. For those of you that always know where their keys, cell phone, and wallet/purse is, what is your system? Should I pick a place to always put stuff in or actively try to remember where I leave stuff? What works for you?"

It's obvious there is a difference betweeen "where are my keys" and what I just asked, and I hope everyone can see why I would delete the former but leave the latter (and I would look forward to seeing people that have come up with a system to solve the problem they want to share).

It's all in the delivery I guess. I'm not against a thread about smoking, but it could have been handled better.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:23 PM on December 19, 2003


Well, friend, just because you see no depth to the question doesn't mean that those who do should be prevented from talking about it. And simply because some people will cast it as "us/them" doesn't mean we all will.

I don't believe that you're reading me very clearly at all. As I indicated, I do see depth to the topic, if not the question asked. Any question can have topical value, but let me hit you with a simple question that I read on another website just this very day:

How can anyone listen to (Howard) Dean and not think he's a traitor?

It's a simple question, though it uses a negative syntax. The topic is probably worth discussing. But the question itself already establishes an opposition, not to a thesis, but to one who might agree or not (depending on stated or negated syntax, of course). It's personal, and assumes that there can be a rational discussion of behavior between those who agree with those actions and those who don't. Generalize that behavior to a class of people, and then you really have the makings of a street fight, (or what many here would argue as bigotry and/or racism). I'm not "forcibly" reducing anything; the language of opposition is.

And simply because some people will cast it as "us/them" doesn't mean we all will.

I apologize if this hurts an feels, but I find that plank of argument rather arrogant. Upon finding a pile of poo on the road, many of us would likely find it smelly. Others may find it intriguing. But asking the rest of us to keep this smelly poo with us because you'd like to study this poo is remarkable self-centered. Please, by all means, study and indulge your interest in poo. But asking an entire community (including the one who brought us all together and has stated that he doesn't like the smell of poo) to accept, and indeed to see value in your fascination with poo is a little over the top, I think.

I smoked for years, quit years ago, and I am now very much against smoking, but quite compassionate toward people who still do it.

If this is true, than I first applaud you. Second, I would refer to your attitude as unique, and certainly not what many or most of us have encountered. Thirdly, I would point out that in this venue, the MetaFilter domain, experience has taught us all that your attitude is not shared or supported. Personal attacks against smokers fall third, only to attacks against Neocons/Bush and against fat people. Regardless, discussions of this type in the MeFi-verse turn ugly, angry and poo-smelling. That is experience, not intention.
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:39 PM on December 19, 2003


Can you see how it has become personal, specific to a problem, and universal in that people can contribute to help someone and not argue for or against smoking?

Obviously I added some window dressing to that effect, but the question is identical!

If you liked the rewrite, then you just fell for the personal story, which gives emotional impetus to the question. Do we really need to jump through these hoops to keep an interesting question on the page? I'll agree that more could have been done, but I don't think you should delete a valid core question for poor phrasing.

It's hard to figure what standards you're actually applying, too, because you frequently say things like "the threads that *seem* to work best are like XYZ." So... certain kinds seem best to you. Ok then. Seriously, it's hard to tell why better is better unless you elaborate.

Specificity is really the only thing I can really nail down from your comments. I guess I just don't see "why do people smoke" as a potentially gaping universe of possibilites that threatens to swallow the database. There's more than one answer, sure, so Wittgenstein registers a thumbs down. But I sure hope that "one question, one answer" doesn't become some kind of logical razor here. The principle has a fancy name attached to it, but it's reductive, and ill-suited to anything in the human dimension. By the same logic, anything at all open-ended is invalid, just discussion fodder, not specific, and not suited to a localized problem:

1) Where's a good place to take a child for vacation?
2) What are some ways to live abroad?
3) What are some good movies for a horror buff?

None of these have one verifiable answer. I think we're mis-applying our dead friend's principle here, which I am guessing is better suited to scientific experimentation and study. Not solving human problems.

I hope you consider the content of the question as much as the delivery, and open your sense of value up a little wider. I trust your judgement pretty good, but I think you missed the mark on this one and I hope you're open to the criticism. That said, I'll lay my complaint to rest now. Thanks for answering.
posted by scarabic at 4:41 PM on December 19, 2003


MetaTalk: ugly, angry, and poo-smelling

I couldn't bring myself to make that a tagline for MeFi, sorry
posted by anastasiav at 4:45 PM on December 19, 2003


Ok, Wulfgar! my POV is statistically rare, so I'm wrong (!)

I'm sorry if I read you wrong at first. Here, for the record, is the phrasing of the question. This is the post itself, and the 1st comment:

Question for smokers: Why do you smoke?
posted by oissubke at 12:39 PM PST
(I don't mean this as a snarky question -- I'm just curious.)

Now is that anywhere near as provocational as "how can anyone not think Howard Dean is a traitor?" Your Howard Dean example isn't really even a question. It's an assertion in disguise. I didn't see any of the responding smokers react as if they'd been attacked. So, I'm sorry, but I can't see how the comparison applies.

And, um... with the.. um, poo thing? Am I really supposed to respond to that? You designate something as "poo" and use the analogy of a rank odor to argue that no one should even have to so much as scroll past the question, because it's so repugnant. This whole "designation as poo" is a unique rhetorical approach I admit I have never seen before. Can I try it? I think *you're* poo. And you stink. So *you* should leave. [sticks tongue out]

lol! that was fun!
posted by scarabic at 4:50 PM on December 19, 2003


"it seems to me that you are the kind of person who enjoys more structure/rules rather than fewer"

Just with online discussion forums actually. I tend to be much more libertarian about most issues. I think structure in AskMe would be good since it would keep things from going the way of MetaFilter - A minority of people there ue the free form nature to troll and swing heavy agendas.

I think Usenet is one of the coolest things man ever invented, largely because it's wide open. But I rarely go there since it's usually useless to me as a forum. I also think that Ashcroft should be jailed for the chilling effect he's had on free speech.

There is a place for everything. My opinion is that Ask Metafilter shouldn't be a place for unfettered free speech. It should be a friendly community help desk.

I agree that cat questions are bound to be friendly. Questions about why people smoke, maybe not. I think Matt has things well in hand. I just feel like I need to balance the call for "any question goes" in AskMe.

It's certainly possible I'm overreacting.
posted by y6y6y6 at 4:53 PM on December 19, 2003


"Please contemplate the contradiction between being contrary by nature, and transacting only in reasoned arguments, as you claim to do."

Very insightful. It's a balance I struggle with daily. Not always successfully.
posted by y6y6y6 at 4:57 PM on December 19, 2003


"first, because not all people smoke for the same reason......"

Oops. My bad. I was referring to the idea that the smoking question wouldn't be a good idea on AskMe.

I was full of shit about the smoking thing. But it is something I believed a long time ago. I was only making a point about how it could go bad. I can see someone making that point eventually. Multiply that by 40 threads a day and you have a problem.
posted by y6y6y6 at 5:03 PM on December 19, 2003


Fair enough, y6y6y6. Thanks for giving it the extra thought.
posted by scarabic at 5:26 PM on December 19, 2003


why are people fat?
why are there SUV's?
why do you choose to be gay?
what's up with prostitutes?
why are mormons?
posted by quonsar at 6:00 PM on December 19, 2003


People who do not smoke refrain because they do not enjoy it.

Nonsense. Many (most, I should think?) of us who choose not to smoke do so because we are aware of the negative health consequences of smoking, as well as the other related negative consequences (breath like an ashtray, clothes that reek, etc.). It has nothing to do with whether we would enjoy it or not, all else being equal, because we know that all else is not equal.
posted by rushmc at 6:11 PM on December 19, 2003


why is quonsar?
posted by scarabic at 7:13 PM on December 19, 2003


Why do fat mormons pick up gay prostitutes in SUV's?
posted by webmutant at 7:14 PM on December 19, 2003


Questions scroll down fast enough as it is - can we self-limit to not more than one question every day (or two) rather than have matt treat us like children and hard-code a limit?

Once a week, max, in my opinion, would cut down on stupid questions fast.

Why do fat mormons pick up gay prostitutes in SUV's?

Because their station wagons are broken down.
posted by namespan at 7:33 PM on December 19, 2003


(fwiw, my previous response had more to do with why I though Matt deleted the thread. With both parents dead from cigarette smoking, I'm about as rabid an anti-smoker as they come.)
posted by crunchland at 7:35 PM on December 19, 2003


are any smokers here interested in a joint (i use the term loosely) effort to quit ?
we could all agree a date or something , i'd like to post this as a question to ask me but ..........
posted by sgt.serenity at 8:20 PM on December 19, 2003


gives me something to do with my hands in social situations.

*slides chair closer to amberglow*
posted by quonsar at 9:48 PM on December 19, 2003


Something in my refrigerator smells strange. What is it?

For those who were concerned: it turns out I just had to take out the garbage. Thanks for all your help.
posted by staggernation at 10:20 PM on December 19, 2003


I think I see mathowie's perspective a bit more clearly now, but I don't find the Wittgenstein position at all useful in a forum like this one. Questions without consistent, verifiable answers may not be logical, but they still can be interesting. Ironically, without this metadiscussion ossibuke's original question as asked may not have produced a logical or interesting discussion. But my point is that Wittgenstein is irrelevant here.

And FWIW, I think I smoked for all those years because I liked who it made me feel like. I still miss that me.
posted by squirrel at 10:27 PM on December 19, 2003


are any smokers here interested in a joint

Yes.

(i use the term loosely) effort to quit ?
we could all agree a date or something , i'd like to post this as a question to ask me but ..........


Oh, drat. Should've read the whole thing first.

(n.b. I am currently on my 5th or so attempt at quitting, which has been the most successful [if for no other reason than it is ongoing])
posted by nath at 10:28 PM on December 19, 2003


If you really want to know why people smoke (and why some of them get hooked) and you weren't just being snarky, I'm arrogant enough to think an earlier post of mine to Metafilter sums up the issue nicely and completely:



Nicotine is one of the greatest drugs known to mankind. It can instantly calm nerves, significantly reduce depression without sexual side effects (a far more effective anti-depressant than prozac), focus the mind and provide a temporary increase to IQ. Studies have found smokers are more alert, and have more of a mental focus than non-smokers.

It also has a strongly positive benefit to schizophrenics, significantly reducing the 'voices' without any of the nasty side effects of other psychotropic drugs. Some researchers have found the drug has further mental benefits. Longterm smokers have a greatly reduced chance of developing Parkinson's or Alzheimer.

Nicotine moderates the negative impact of alcohol while enhancing the pleasure, by delaying the onset of nausea and by moderating the onset of drunkenness.

Nicotine, by itself, can give one a wonderful, lightheaded buzz and yet, even at the peak of the buzz, one can still drive and think and function normally, unlike the euphoria brought on by practically every other drug which leaves one irresponsible.

Nicotine can also act as great social lubricant. In conjunction with the positive mental effects mentioned above, nicotine loosens the tongue and removes most social anxieties. There's a very good reason the smoking section of your bar or restaurant is usually much more convivial than the non-smoking section.

So these are the reasons people smoke. Some of these reasons are why some people get addicted. Its not a class issue and its not an appearance issue. Nicotine provides several benefits to our society and its certainly the most pleasurable drug I've ever encountered. Its the only drug I've encountered which allows one to get quite a buzz from consuming but one never loses control as a result of overindulging.
posted by pandaharma at 12:04 AM on December 20, 2003


what fun metafilter would be if wittgenstein and aj ayer had the run of this place.
of course, i am unable to prove this statement empirically.
posted by sgt.serenity at 12:21 AM on December 20, 2003


metafilter : language , truth and logic.
posted by sgt.serenity at 12:22 AM on December 20, 2003


what fun metafilter would be if wittgenstein and aj ayer had the run of this

Escecially if Wittgenstein brought his invisible pet rhinocerous.
posted by homunculus at 12:56 AM on December 20, 2003


i Escecially if Wittgenstein brought his invisible pet rhinocerous.
and a chair for it?
posted by amberglow at 8:25 AM on December 20, 2003


but how could we prove it was really a chair ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 9:08 AM on December 20, 2003


pandaharma: very good talking-points memo on the joys of smoking. Thank you.
posted by davidmsc at 9:55 AM on December 20, 2003


For all those who've answered my question in a roundabout way (by doing so in this thread), I wanted to say that I appreciate it. My question managed to get answered despite itself. Thanks. :-)
posted by oissubke at 10:38 AM on December 20, 2003


AskMe: My question managed to get answered despite itself.
posted by poopy at 11:45 AM on December 20, 2003


sgt.serenity - I'm with you, as long as we're talking about quitting tobacco. Right??
posted by tr33hggr at 12:29 PM on December 20, 2003


Ah, nicotine. I loved her so, pandaharma. But quitting her (repeatedly) taught me that she's only a willowy princess while your knees are bent. If you try to stand up or turn your back on her, or even slow the momentum of your addiction, she shows another side. Nicotine is a lying, scheming bitch who will tell you anything to get her way. I loved her while it lasted, but good riddance for anyone who gets away.
posted by squirrel at 12:44 PM on December 20, 2003


pandaharma summed up quite nicely why I used to smoke.

As an aspiring writer who has trouble focusing, occasionally experiences bouts of depression, and isn't schizophrenic but definitely has distracting things going on in his brain, cigarettes were really an excellent solution (the only drawbacks being the coughing, smell, and the women hating it).

Man. It sounds so good I'm thinking about one right now. I'd probably have started again, if it wans't for the women.
posted by nath at 1:21 PM on December 20, 2003


why do people smoke?

Because I don't get enough sex.

Please help.
posted by jonmc at 1:45 PM on December 20, 2003


*offers jonmc a smoke*

That's about the best I can do, man.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:58 PM on December 20, 2003


If you're looking for a way to abuse yourself in lieu of sex, there ARE other options, jon.
posted by orange swan at 6:22 PM on December 20, 2003


pandaharma - well put. I'd love to collect some supporting research for your points, which seem intuitively true to me. It would probably make for an eye opening article, though in whose interests the writing of it would be I've no idea. Schizophrenics and big tobacco, sounds like.

I'm glad I wasn't so aware of those empirical benefits while I was trying to quit. I think mainly people who are in strong health, and smoke moderately are in a position to enjoy those benefits. The negative impact on my general health eventually began to cancel out the near-term boosts for me.

Also, I highly doubt this is supportable by research, but I swear I almost never got sick while I was smoking. "Nothing can survive in a smoker's body" is one theory I've heard :\
posted by scarabic at 7:51 PM on December 20, 2003


This is Metafilter, man. Wittgenstein would bring his poker.
posted by dhartung at 9:57 PM on December 20, 2003


« Older Metafilter: funny tag lines   |   self-link, with a twist Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments