Bruce, I really appreciate that you extended your personal story to me b/c it's given me a different angle to view this subject from.

I'm beginning to write my report and part of what's in this response is what I'll be using for college and the other part is for you folks.

On a topic such as this, the bias one side is typically easy to see. Where's the middle ground on the topic of smoking? I'm willing to say that "there is no middle ground." If I suggest something that reflects the smokers opinion, the non-smokers get upset. If I suggest something that reflects the non-smokers opinion, the smokers get upset. Even if I associate myself with one side and express the opinion's of the other side, there's still going to be a question as to which side I'm truly associated with... since it seems a person must be on one side or the other.

People with a generally positive attitude towards life might say, "You learn something new every day." I find this true on a daily basis as part of my job of being a student. In life, we are constantly filtering through information and deciding whether or not to adapt the new information to our perception of life. As with research, the same process is applied, but with a bit more depth. This is what I've had to learn... and relatively fast. I consider this to be part of the cyclic process of being a skeptic. When I find a source I need to decide the following: Are the authors of this source credible? Are the sources credible? Do the authors have a bias, if so, for what side? Back to question one.

If you've never had to filter through a library in search of credible sources with hundreds books, data bases of thousands of sources, and the internet with millions, then you don’t understand the complexity of the process of filtering through sources to decide the above criteria for every source you read.

As a natural starting point for this research, I began with medical journals, medical dictionaries, and psychology references. In these published authoritative books, experts in each field express their findings for the reader. Being completely honest, the information I found from these sources all claim that smoking leads to the "degradation of the body". So naturally, its my inclination to believe something released as a result of 'studies and research' within the medical field - after all, look at how advanced the medical field has become in just the last 50 years. Every book I've read on the psychology of a smoker and every report released from the medical field states a direct correlation between "negative health affects" and smoking.

This is the point where I came onto the search for the "smokers perspective." I searched through websites (because of a lack of "pro-smoker" scientific research done and written in books) and I wasn’t impressed with the information I found; From a skeptic's point of view.

I found few (if any) references to "experts" (we'll say, M.D. or Ph.D.) and so naturally, I began to question the side of smokers when claims of conspiracy consisted of most of what I found for "Pro-smoker" websites. Then I stumbled on this forum, with four weeks of research already in my head and a theory as to a "smokers mindset." As some of you have observed, and as ChainSmoker stated, "He claimed to be a "non-smoker" but yet everything I('ve) seen around him in the picture he posted sure as heck looked "anti" to me..." With my previous assumption (intentional use of the word) and the life style I live, I've been opposed to smoking on a personal level. Meaning, I don’t smoke, but I don’t mind if other people do. That's been my philosophy for years as many of my best friends have smoked (most have quit), my step-dad smokes on and off (I admire him more then any other man), and I experimented in High School with both cigarettes and marijuana.

With my research however, simply by compiling megabytes of information supporting the opposition to smoking is what led me to state a "fact" here, wait for the responses, and look for confirming responses to the "psychology behind the habit." I expected to receive resistance,
continued denial, and little in the way of personalized responses. For the most part, I got what I thought I'd get.

Until Bruce responded with, I think, the only perfect response to the "pro" of smoking that I had heard. He gave me a well justified reasoning for not only his choice to smoke, but also for his disbelief in the medical information. His response is what really made me rethink
the position I started to adapt to.

After Bruce, I think something sparked. I read back through my posts and found that I wasn’t impressed with the "single focus of health" reflected by my research. I think I understand now that there is a broader issue at stake. I think it can be compared to the encroachment of an uncrossable line. I know and understand a life with minimal freedoms b/c of my time in the military. In that situation, I was essentially stripped (over a course of three months) of everything I knew as a civilian. With the end result of minimal freedoms in mind, the virtual path of getting to that point as a society would entail the constant removal of individual freedom. So the question that comes to mind; At what point have we taken away too many freedoms from individuals in a 'free' nation? At this moment, I would contend that that point is reached when an individual can no longer live the way he desires.

Naturally, there's sociological boundaries as related to unlimited individual freedom's, as are there sociological boundaries related to restriction of individual freedom. Arguments can be made for both sides, but essentially, in referring back to my image of "the encroachment of an uncrossable line," if the government takes away an individuals freedom to smoke "for the benefit of society," what's to prevent the government from taking away any freedom for the "benefit of society?" In this respect, I've slowly begun to agree with smokers that "this isn’t just an issue of good health versus bad health" but "of freedom and private property rights versus the lack of such (John L)."

I accept both the statistics from my research and I accept the opinions of smokers, but I have difficulty in choosing a side because both views are incongruent and counter each other. If I choose to believe the statistics from the "anti-smokers," how can I not hold the belief that smoking is bad is for you? If I choose to believe the philosophy from the smokers, how can I not support the importance of individual rights in a free nation? I want to support both, however, both beliefs are polar. The belief or support of one requires the elimination of the other.

This is known as cognitive dissonance. As defined by Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, cognitive dissonance is the "psychological conflict resulting from simultaneously held incongruous beliefs and attitudes." I cannot have both a "fondness for smoking" and a belief that it is harmful. One belief must be removed. This explains both sides of the conflict between anti-smokers and smokers. An anti-smoker, according to this concept, must hold to the belief that smoking is harmful to ones health. Likewise, a smoker must hold to the belief that smoking is either not harmful or "not as harmful as they say it is."


For the purpose of my duel acceptance, where is the middle ground and how can I support both sides?



This is where I'd like your help folks. If it exists, where is the middle ground?



NOTE: What's been written is NOT the final report. This is, I guess, a rough draft on a scaled down level that doesnt address everything I plan to address. I felt the need to explain my position a bit further, because I felt I treating most of you, and the issue of smoking unfairly. I'd like your responses.

Also, in my final report, I'll be addressing the issue of nicotine as an "addictive agent in tobacco (as stated by anti-smokers)." I'd also like your response to this, if you dont mind.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Aaron,

The reason I called you a fraud, Aaron, is that evidently you haven't combed all the medical research (taken from MEDICAL JOURNALS) on http://www.forces.org (see "The Evidence," which is arranged by topic). If you want to know "the other side" go there, read up, and then come back once you've been a bit more educated about even the health issues (as well as whether or not tobacco--rather, nicotine--is addictive).

Meanwhile, I'm closing this thread.