When did tobacco become so villified in Western societies?

When did tobacco become so villified in Western societies?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=cyU4AfFsEQ4
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Counterblaste_to_Tobacco
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays
twitter.com/AnonBabble

1964

youtube.com/watch?v=cyU4AfFsEQ4

It's degenerate

...

when faggots started being fixated on their little phallic symbols stuck in their mouths 24/7.
Around the time the social elite stopped smoking and the scum started.

Everyone fucking smoked back in the day you baby cunt, were they all "degenerate"? Do us all a favour and crawl back into your mothers cunt

>were they all "degenerate"?

Yes

>The last 400 years of history was "degenerate"
Kill yourself

probably around the time we figured out it causes you to die, is horribly addictive, and had become solely the realm of only the most soulless, mass market focused mercantile corporations?

>>The last 400 years of history was "degenerate"

That's correct, yes, albeit with rare exceptions.

No more degenerate than posting on Veeky Forums.

Why do liberals want to legalize pot but ban tobacco even though studies are proving pot is destroying your brain and making you retarded?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Counterblaste_to_Tobacco
>It is written in Early Modern English and refers to medical theories of the time (e.g. the four humours). In it, James blames Native Americans for bringing tobacco to Europe, complains about passive smoking, warns of dangers to the lungs, and decries tobacco's odour as "hatefull to the nose."
>A Counterblaste to Tobacco is a treatise written by King James VI of Scotland and I of England in 1604, in which he expresses his distaste for tobacco, particularly tobacco smoking.

who wants to ban tobacco? I've only seen policies intended to discourage smoking. at times liberals even attack the "sin tax" on liquor and tobacco because it primarily affects the working class

>liberals giving a fuck about the working class
That would be a first

How can you even argue otherwise?

Source pls, can't recall I've ever heard a liberal claim both things.

Because I'm not a child so obsessed with memery I think it's a religion or even philosophy? Grow up cunt. Nice fucking Tumblr shitpost by the way

Which really does beg the question, what the fuck are they going to do when everyone stops smoking?

wtf is a sin tax?
t. asian

Excises on alcohol and tobacco

They want to ban tobacco in places where other people have to inhale the smoke
And nobody anywhere ever is saying pot should not have those same restrictions.

>OOOH I GOT CANCER FROM 3 PUFFS OF A FAG
>Never mind the fact I live in a city loaded with cars spewing carbon monoxide out of their exhaust pipes, factories and power plants doing the same and an international airport to boot!
Passive smoking is a fucking meme

I don't give a fuck about cancer, I just want to not smell like sewer every time I walk into an enclosed space.

And yes, that should count of pot as well.

Because those two things are comparable.

Well that's a far more reasonable argument than I expected, can't disagree
t. Smoker
They are if you're whining about passive smoking causing cancer

>When did tobacco become so villified in Western societies?

18+

it's really obnoxious to smoke in a restaurant. if you got a seat close to the smoking section in a restaurant it was fucking miserable

>I don't give a fuck about cancer, I just want to not smell like sewer every time I walk into an enclosed space.
Don't go into pubs and restaurants then.

When its consumption became massively extended

Getting rid of enclosed places filled with smoke is just common sense

If i fucking constantly farted in the face of everyone in a pub they'd bar me, or i'd get the shit kicked out of me, stop being such a selfish prick and bring it outside.

I genuinely hope a bunch of chain smoking skinheads bash your faggot face in the next time you pull this shit in a restaurant.

But more people smoked in the 40's and 50's than now you fucking dickhead

-you stink
-you die early
-your illness costs the state money and undermines your productivity
-you infect others while doing this, can damage the health of other people including children
-the marketing caused it to be associated with the "though cowboy man" which ended up being the lowlives of today

>your illness costs the state money
Lets say they smoke a pack a day, how much in excise tax is that in America a year per smoker?

>modern skinheads
>actually having the balls to commit violent acts
Pick one my lad.

Never underestimate the aggression of poorfags. Look at blm and antifa, and the nu-nazis.

Most of them are middle class faggots having a LARP, it's why they can't fight

the problem started with the mass production of cigarettes. before that it was not nearly as common.

One of my favorite conspiracy theories is that the whole anti-smoking/smoking kills campaign was started to cover up an increase in cancer deaths from all the nuclear testing that occurred during the Cold War.

Mass production started the minute they figured out the chemical drying system, so that's basically everything after 1900

t. western Euro cuckold

when soccer moms became the majority of the electorate, which is ironic since smoking was initally promoted as women lib's and for flappers.

the state started taxing cigarettes to discourage people from buying them dummy. the "cost" is the healthcare costs from smoking and secondhand smoking, which cause chronic diseases that are a huge money sinkhole. that said, i'm not sure if the productivity loss is true as nicotine undeniably increases concentration and memory retention. the most productive years of one's life are your adult years and you usually reap the negatives of cigarettes as you near retirement age. Still I think public smoking is a nuisance and should not have tolerated it for so long. As someone with asthma it must have been hell before the early 2000s desu

its also a really fucking stupid conspiracy. cancer from nuclear radiation is so overblowm its laughable. the types of cancer you get like thyroid are the easiest cured types, though the leukemia gotten from radiation is deadly.

yes. but that poster said 400 years lmao. i'm quite aware mass production of cigarettes, like many other mass produced things, came during the industrial revolution

That isn't what I'm asking, where are you going to get those tax dollars without cigarettes? Do you think it literally all funnels into healthcare? The government should really be encouraging it, it's basically a voluntary tax

when scientists proved that smoking causes cancer

One is most likely a result of where your work is located with healthier not being an option, the other is a result of someone being a cunt. You don't piss in a wound just because it's open.

>where are you going to get those tax dollars without cigarettes?
you know... raising taxes elsewhere? i understand that you're saying that taxing cigarettes is very easy because there it's popular among the public because it has been sold as beneficial for the society. Its a win-win in everyone's book. But the point of taxing to begin with was to punish smokers. More important is that it prevents the formation of new smokers, as kids don't have the expendable income to pay for ever increasing price of cigarettes. As it is right now, raising prices DOES discourage smokers from continuing smoking. Eventually, the price reaches a certain point after which quitting seems more pleasurable than wasting one's money. That price is different for everyone, but I think it's safe to say that for some people the government tax hikes will never stop them, so what you have left is a population of heavy chain smokers who, anyway, make up the highest grossing consumers in the cigarette industry. Those remaining smokers are likely to be part of the increasingly older generation, as the younger ones are far less discouraged to take up smoking from the increasing taboos, restrictions and taxes, and so never become heavy smokers (research showing that chain smokers almost always start smoking early, similar to alcoholics and junkies in general)

>wasting one's money
maybe "indulging one's habits" is a btter way to put it

>raising taxes elsewhere?
Have fun punishing people for not smoking dickhead

Smokers and fat people both cost the state less because they die years earlier.

you're missing the point. this argument is about whether cigarette taxes are meant to discourage people or not from smoking. you're bringing up an entirely different issue.

common, did you put any thought into this? you realize that obesity is one of the leading if not THE leading cause for healthcare spending? diabetes, heart disease, copd and a myriad other complications from obesity and smoking cost an unimaginable amount of money and drag on for years before these people kick the bucket.

No, I asked you how you expected to make up for the shortfall of dropping cigarette excises and you came up with raising taxes for the general population instead, you're literally punishing non-smokers in your gay little crusade and you don't even realize it

implicit in you're argument is that all taxes are punitive, which is bullshit...

>ou're literally punishing non-smokers in your gay little crusade
no, your mental gymnastics is just dumb. you're saying we should nurture a generation of smokers just so we can righteously tax them because only evil-doing people should be taxed? this is just foolish reasoning. Taxes are meant to raise revenue but governments can also use them as tools for social change. Have you ever heard of "externalities" in basic economics? This is a case of "internalizing the externality"

>you're saying we should nurture a generation of smokers just so we can righteously tax them because only evil-doing people should be taxed?
And you're saying instead of people making an informed choice to purchase an item with an excise all people should have to give up their own earnings, how very altruistic of you, what a fucking hero

>how very altruistic of you, what a fucking hero
drop the petty ad hominems and actually give an argument, you bitter cunt. I never said whether I was for or against cigarette taxes, I'm simply presenting you with the argument of people who support the tax, so your trying to typecast me as a social crusader or something else is just pathetic and childish.

>And you're saying instead of people making an informed choice to purchase an item
>making an informed choice to purchase an item
libertarian cultist detected. I just told you about externalities, which are examples of inefficient markets that fail to account for the social or external costs of a transaction. now go read about them.

>with an excise all people should have to give up their own earnings
this is specious reasoning, again. why are you assuming that eliminating the cigarette tax will automatically lead to taxation in other areas? as I said in my first post, taxing cigarettes is politically popular for various reasons. Other types of taxes less so. There's no guarantee that new taxes will get passed because people hate income and sales and property taxes.
>to give up their own earnings
I just can't get over how much of a brainlet you are. People give up their earnings in hidden sales taxes every fucking day. They pay taxes to the state every year. You're making mountains out of molehills because, again, you're not actually arguing with me but trying to push your ideological agenda that "taxation is evil and the state is a sadistic institution that likes to hurt hardworking people!"

You smell like shit you degenerate, that's why we don't want it.

We have evidence that pederasty was a significant social institution in every human civilization, dating back over 5000 years. Judging by the fact that it's behavior that's also observed in bonobos and chimpanzees, our closest nonhuman relatives, it may well go back 6 million years or more. Humanity is degenerate by design.

It's not about libertarianism or anything else. you are advocating raising taxes that don't need to be raised over a moral issue that affects themselves alone for the most part
This is literally a better argument than your passive-aggressive bullshit

Is the tobacco leaf itself the cause of cancer or the chemicals they use to make cigarettes? Thought cigars were better because they leave the leaves in a more natural state, simply rolling them

It's the drying method, Cigars aren't any better

Cigars aren't any better. Considering you're gonna smonk that shit without a filter, and in greater quantities.

The difference is that cigars aren't usually inhaled.

>your passive-aggressive bullshit
typical butthurt projection. you're seething with passive aggression, on the other hand. those accusations of me being a "crusader" when I haven't so much as lifted a finger for anti-smoking laws is evidence of this. what makes you angry is that punitive taxes grates your sense of individualism, a spook you've drunken so much of that you lash out like a child against anything that tells you you're not a special snowflake existing in a vacuum independent of society. thats why you like the other guy's comment much more. it's more emotional, visceral and standoffish, which is what you prefer because you can't just can't stand intelligent debate.

>that don't need to be raised over a moral issue that affects themselves alone for the most part
except it does affect society shithead. secondhand smoking, huge strains on the healthcare system from cancers, lung diseases, heart diseases, digestive diseases and pancreatic diseases all made worse by smoking.

NHS did the research, smokers and obese cost the state less.

autism

>Cancer from nukes is overblown.
>Cancer from cigarettes though, now that's the REAL threat!

Literally, exactly what they would want you to think.
:^)

They take one for the team and keep the pensions afloat.

Those fucking cunts.

Who smokes a pipe here? I sit outside with my dogs at night or early morning and smoke some Sir Walter Raleigh tobacco. I enjoy it, and it's very relaxing. Clears my head and lets me think.

interesting. how did they add it up?

not an argument

cancer

Smoke cigars at night, for similar reasons
I like how peaceful the world is as I have my cigar

>unions are bad for you, trust me, the right REALLY cares about workers

Smoke in general is carcinogenic

When we realized it killed us.

Not him but the primary trade unions back a republican candidate half the time. The AFL-CIO and others really don't care in a democrat/republican sense, they just support whichever candidate will support the unions.

That being said, George Meany was right when he said in the 50s that public sector jobs shouldn't be allowed to unionize because as he put it "you can't collectively bargain with the government"

Smoking has always been something you do to look edgy. Cigars were seen as a gift for rich spendthrifts and druglords who say "fuck it" to health and embrace the "luxury" of it. All the while it's a useless high that does nothing but make you dizzy and satisfy a forced craving.
There is no need for human beings to inhale smoke.
It's the definition of degenerate and it only became popular when idiot colonists tried to copy the natives with their stupid religious pipes.

>They want to ban tobacco in places where other people have to inhale the smoke

True liberals don't even want that.
In the event that smoking-bans are banned, it will still be profitable for restaurants to maintain non-smoking sections.

I'm Austrian so it will start next year to be villified properly.
I don't like it, I am not a smoker but sitting in a bar or cafe and having people smoke is just a part of our culture.
>inb4 ashtray of europe

Tobacco is still the one fucking thing ANYONE will go childishly, hysterically apeshit over.

Legit this, they talk a mad game but are so prone to pussying out when shit actually goes down or they go for the person that has a clear disadvantage over them. I'm from the south, I had to fight my way through 12 years of public school and I guarantee the average southerner is more likely to actually stand up and fight instead of your average alt. right kid.

How can you said that a Republican was the one who broke the unions in the 80s? Are you being willfully ignorant or maliciously deceptive? Right wing ideology has no place for unions

>Right wing ideology has no place for unions
Meant it the other way around

So is being fat but liberals say that's fine

I would place the death knell of smoking being completely acceptable to have been circa the 1980s or 1990s. I remember in school, drugs and smoking were widely vilified, although alcohol was not as much.

The Lupin III gang sure are frequent smokers, themselves.

>I would place the death knell of smoking being completely acceptable to have been circa the 1980s or 1990s.

Earlier, it was doomed by the late 60s. It just took it a very long time to die.

>thinking tobacco is classy
Its funny how the right glorifies shit like this yet cries about degeneracy infiltrating western civilization. Tobacco is a fucking redskin drug gifted to whites that has probably killed over 100 million of you stupid fucks since you started huffing it en masse.

>western

I think you mean Anglosphere, because rest of Europe gives fuck all about tabacco

>when did we throw off the brainwashing that made us pay for our own cancer

ftfy

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays

I'll smoke a cigar every once in awhile. I smoke them sometimes when cut the grass, which I hate doing. Smoking makes it okay though. Smoking and music.

What gets me is the fat fucks who eat like shit, drink soda on daily, don't exercise and sit in a chair most of their day talk about how smoking is unhealthy.

Greeks in Europe and Japanese in Asia are the heaviest smokers and have the most longevity. anti-smokers AstroTurf can't even explain that.

Post any study showing that pot is 'destroying your brain and making you retarded'. The only reputable evidence for this is smoking chronicly from a young age while your brain is still developing but even that is heavily disputed with multiple studies showing no correlation. Stop pulling shit out of your ass, and stop being a retard yourself by implying weed and cigarettes are anywhere near each other when it comes to be destructive to your health

t. beelzebub

The real answer, OP, is that anti-tobacco sentiment went hand-in-hand with the Temperance movement through the 19th and early-20th centuries.

>we should legalize all drugs
>what do you think about tobacco?
>TOBACCO IS FUCKING DISGUSTING NOBODY SHOULD SMOKE