The Sin of Pleasure and The Virtue of Suffering
While hardly a monolith, and thus displaying a more or less expected assortment of gradations, one the groups' shared belief elements presented itself as a variant of one of the oldest and most popular of its species: Suffering Good, Pleasure Bad.
Throughout our human history, across continents and cultures, creeds and faiths, and right down to the present day, we can see examples of this belief, from full flower to vestigial trace.
While its most widely recognized form is generally associated with every possible flavor of sexual activity, it has been, and still is, applied to everything from dancing to music itself, to cosmetics, even colors and spices. At various times and places, not even the laughter of children has escaped its sweeping inclusion.
Whether it takes the form of a belief that a deity is pleased by human suffering and displeased by human fun, or a simple moral equation, they're opposed to e-cigarettes because they believe that the pleasure derived from their use is itself a Bad Thing, and conversely, endurance of the lifelong suffering experienced by people recovering from addiction to anything is of itself a virtue.
While some may be only marginally, or even not at all, aware of the core of their belief or its provenance, it's not unusual for them to express their opposition to e-cigarettes as some variation of "they let you keep on enjoying smoking" or "it's taking the easy way out."
The immediate and involuntary reaction of those for whom both the hand to mouth custom and the enjoyment of puffing something are moral neutrals is likely to be along the lines of "Um, yeah..."
Addiction: Belief or Opinion? Does It Matter?
Some erstwhile cigarette smokers believe that addiction itself is the Bad Thing, and make little, if any distinction between addiction to a substance or to a custom.
They're opposition is based on the premise that e-cigarette users remain addicted to the action of puffing something, the "hand to mouth" element of smoking.
The classification of "hand to mouth" as an addiction, even if presented as an opinion, as opposed to a full-blown belief, isn't an argument we can refute with any authority, since nobody really knows diddlysquat about addiction anyway.
As many smokers, including this one, will attest, that element is indeed a Big Thing, and is one of the reasons so many of us haven't been able to stop smoking even using various nicotine replacement aids, like patches and gum.
While many of us see e-cigarettes as our best.chance.ever at smoking cessation success, that may not be the case for an individual who is bothered by the idea of "being a slave" to the action of holding an object and puffing it, whether that comes from a belief, an opinion, or just plain old personal preference.
At best, they may view e-cigarettes in the same way they view patches and gum - an acceptable temporary measure to get the smoker through the initial stages of nicotine withdrawal, but be strongly opposed to their continued use.
Understanding their perspective can help us understand why they are so displeased with the very things that delight us most about e-cigarettes - like such a variety of devices and flavors that somewhere out there, there's an e-cigarette that's the perfect match for virtually every smoker!
It can also help us avoid the mistake of lumping them together with people who believe that enjoyment itself is the villain.
For people whose beliefs or opinions are addiction-centered, it's not about that. From their perspective, it's more about encouraging and perpetuating what is to them, an "addiction" that is in its own way, as harmful and objectionable as the more traditional use of the term when used to describe physical dependence on a harmful substance.
Nicotine: The Supernatural Nature of Eggplant
For some belief-based Opposed, it's all about the nicotine.
Well, not all. There will usually be some addiction belief related content in there, but the bulk of their belief is based on the premise that nicotine is an extremely harmful substance that no one should ingest.
Some may have such strong nicotine-centered beliefs that they anthropomorphize or even literally demonize the alkaloid, ascribing to it all the characteristics of a real live evil spirit, and according it the status of manifestation or embodiment of evil itself!
Others may stop short of the view of nicotine-as-evil-being, but nevertheless have very strong beliefs that the substance is harmful and dangerous. Or, as with the views on addiction mentioned above, it may be a strong opinion, but not rise to the level of belief.
Nicotine is hardly the only chemical about which people disagree. Findings of studies on all kinds of things are routinely questioned and critiqued, even within the lofty science nerd circles where such things take place.
It's theoretically possible to debate the relative merits of scientific studies about nicotine even with someone who has very strong opinions about them, but if someone believes nicotine is so highly toxic that no one should ingest it at all, ever, pointing out that the tomato in the salad and the eggplant in the moussaka the believer had for dinner last night both contain nicotine is both impolite and I say this with respect and love, useless.
There is no clear-cut formula, at least that I know of, that can be employed to distinguish strong opinion from belief, and that the two are fond of dressing themselves in identical clothing doesn't make it any easier.
Neither opinions nor beliefs are bound to a consistency clause, but very generally speaking, if you notice particularly garishly glaring inconsistencies sticking out like sore thumbs in the course of a discussion with someone who appears to be well-read on the subject at hand, that just might be an indicator that belief is present.
I'm So Opposed To Nicotine That I Even Oppose Things That Don't Have Any
To me, one of the more baffling leitmotifs of nicotine-centered Opposition to e-cigarettes is opposition to e-cigarettes that do not contain nicotine.
It should have already been pointed out, but since it wasn't, I'll do it now: Not all belief-based opponents of e-cigarettes subscribe to all of the beliefs I've mentioned.
There are plenty of people who have opinions, beliefs, or a combo-pak, about nicotine who do NOT share the belief of some of their fellow anti-e-cigarettistas that suffering is a virtue, nor pleasure innately wrong, nor do they necessarily hold with the view that the hand-to-mouth custom itself is either addiction, morally wrong, or both.
Some, as noted, don't even believe that nicotine is a supernatural being.
Yet there are many who are, nevertheless, so opposed to nicotine that they even oppose things that don't have any.
I admit I have been unable to resist the temptation to indulge in a little malicious-intent-free amusement at the expense of this doctrine, even as I recognize and appreciate that from these believers, we receive the gift of a clear demonstration of the principle that "making sense" is in fact as subjective as the relative aesthetic merits of two different shades of blue.
The believer's "sense" is made from different ingredients and via a different process than the non-believer's "sense."
So, yeah, yeah, beliefs can't be explained, but how do we explain why some people who don't have beliefs about nicotine, just strong opinions, still oppose the use of zero-nicotine e-cigarettes?
It took me a while, but after some more lurking and reading, I was finally able to get it through my head that in addition to people who believe, as an absolute, that those who use e-cigarettes will be more likely to resume smoking tobacco ones, there are also people whose opinion is so strong that it produces a "belief-strength" view of even nicotine-free e-cigarettes as a potential "trigger," that will remind those who seek to stop smoking of the very nicotine-havin' thing they're trying to abandon.
While beliefs are, as previously bleated, impervious to facts, believers are human beings and are therefore not impervious to being called out by other human beings and invited to justify their beliefs, prove them like those distasteful math problems, ew, or watch demonstrations of how no adapter can make belief fit into the neat little slots of logic, facts, et al.
This does not mean, however, that we are bound by courtesy to refrain from any mention of facts simply because those facts happen to be at variance with the beliefs of those present.
There may be others present who might benefit from those facts, and even be interested enough in them to add them to their thoughts as they go about the process of forming their own opinions and beliefs.
It's ironic that on the internet, the place where for the first time in human history, we can interact with each other, exist to each other, as pure ideas, essence d' people, any and every word we say is more likely to be misunderstood.
As great as it is to be able to communicate without all the distractions we present to each other in "meatspace," at the same time we've become dependent on things like gestures, intonations and facial expressions.
Being sensitive to the feelings of others is just basic good manners, online or off, but it's especially important on the internet, where even monosyllables can be misinterpreted.
As is so often the case in these matters, there is no better source of guidance than a poet.
You know what that means -
Everybody's Favorite Game Show: Let's Ask Maya Angelou!
While hardly a monolith, and thus displaying a more or less expected assortment of gradations, one the groups' shared belief elements presented itself as a variant of one of the oldest and most popular of its species: Suffering Good, Pleasure Bad.
Throughout our human history, across continents and cultures, creeds and faiths, and right down to the present day, we can see examples of this belief, from full flower to vestigial trace.
While its most widely recognized form is generally associated with every possible flavor of sexual activity, it has been, and still is, applied to everything from dancing to music itself, to cosmetics, even colors and spices. At various times and places, not even the laughter of children has escaped its sweeping inclusion.
Whether it takes the form of a belief that a deity is pleased by human suffering and displeased by human fun, or a simple moral equation, they're opposed to e-cigarettes because they believe that the pleasure derived from their use is itself a Bad Thing, and conversely, endurance of the lifelong suffering experienced by people recovering from addiction to anything is of itself a virtue.
While some may be only marginally, or even not at all, aware of the core of their belief or its provenance, it's not unusual for them to express their opposition to e-cigarettes as some variation of "they let you keep on enjoying smoking" or "it's taking the easy way out."
The immediate and involuntary reaction of those for whom both the hand to mouth custom and the enjoyment of puffing something are moral neutrals is likely to be along the lines of "Um, yeah..."
Addiction: Belief or Opinion? Does It Matter?
Some erstwhile cigarette smokers believe that addiction itself is the Bad Thing, and make little, if any distinction between addiction to a substance or to a custom.
They're opposition is based on the premise that e-cigarette users remain addicted to the action of puffing something, the "hand to mouth" element of smoking.
The classification of "hand to mouth" as an addiction, even if presented as an opinion, as opposed to a full-blown belief, isn't an argument we can refute with any authority, since nobody really knows diddlysquat about addiction anyway.
As many smokers, including this one, will attest, that element is indeed a Big Thing, and is one of the reasons so many of us haven't been able to stop smoking even using various nicotine replacement aids, like patches and gum.
While many of us see e-cigarettes as our best.chance.ever at smoking cessation success, that may not be the case for an individual who is bothered by the idea of "being a slave" to the action of holding an object and puffing it, whether that comes from a belief, an opinion, or just plain old personal preference.
At best, they may view e-cigarettes in the same way they view patches and gum - an acceptable temporary measure to get the smoker through the initial stages of nicotine withdrawal, but be strongly opposed to their continued use.
Understanding their perspective can help us understand why they are so displeased with the very things that delight us most about e-cigarettes - like such a variety of devices and flavors that somewhere out there, there's an e-cigarette that's the perfect match for virtually every smoker!
It can also help us avoid the mistake of lumping them together with people who believe that enjoyment itself is the villain.
For people whose beliefs or opinions are addiction-centered, it's not about that. From their perspective, it's more about encouraging and perpetuating what is to them, an "addiction" that is in its own way, as harmful and objectionable as the more traditional use of the term when used to describe physical dependence on a harmful substance.
Nicotine: The Supernatural Nature of Eggplant
For some belief-based Opposed, it's all about the nicotine.
Well, not all. There will usually be some addiction belief related content in there, but the bulk of their belief is based on the premise that nicotine is an extremely harmful substance that no one should ingest.
Some may have such strong nicotine-centered beliefs that they anthropomorphize or even literally demonize the alkaloid, ascribing to it all the characteristics of a real live evil spirit, and according it the status of manifestation or embodiment of evil itself!
Others may stop short of the view of nicotine-as-evil-being, but nevertheless have very strong beliefs that the substance is harmful and dangerous. Or, as with the views on addiction mentioned above, it may be a strong opinion, but not rise to the level of belief.
Nicotine is hardly the only chemical about which people disagree. Findings of studies on all kinds of things are routinely questioned and critiqued, even within the lofty science nerd circles where such things take place.
It's theoretically possible to debate the relative merits of scientific studies about nicotine even with someone who has very strong opinions about them, but if someone believes nicotine is so highly toxic that no one should ingest it at all, ever, pointing out that the tomato in the salad and the eggplant in the moussaka the believer had for dinner last night both contain nicotine is both impolite and I say this with respect and love, useless.
There is no clear-cut formula, at least that I know of, that can be employed to distinguish strong opinion from belief, and that the two are fond of dressing themselves in identical clothing doesn't make it any easier.
Neither opinions nor beliefs are bound to a consistency clause, but very generally speaking, if you notice particularly garishly glaring inconsistencies sticking out like sore thumbs in the course of a discussion with someone who appears to be well-read on the subject at hand, that just might be an indicator that belief is present.
I'm So Opposed To Nicotine That I Even Oppose Things That Don't Have Any
To me, one of the more baffling leitmotifs of nicotine-centered Opposition to e-cigarettes is opposition to e-cigarettes that do not contain nicotine.
It should have already been pointed out, but since it wasn't, I'll do it now: Not all belief-based opponents of e-cigarettes subscribe to all of the beliefs I've mentioned.
There are plenty of people who have opinions, beliefs, or a combo-pak, about nicotine who do NOT share the belief of some of their fellow anti-e-cigarettistas that suffering is a virtue, nor pleasure innately wrong, nor do they necessarily hold with the view that the hand-to-mouth custom itself is either addiction, morally wrong, or both.
Some, as noted, don't even believe that nicotine is a supernatural being.
Yet there are many who are, nevertheless, so opposed to nicotine that they even oppose things that don't have any.
I admit I have been unable to resist the temptation to indulge in a little malicious-intent-free amusement at the expense of this doctrine, even as I recognize and appreciate that from these believers, we receive the gift of a clear demonstration of the principle that "making sense" is in fact as subjective as the relative aesthetic merits of two different shades of blue.
The believer's "sense" is made from different ingredients and via a different process than the non-believer's "sense."
So, yeah, yeah, beliefs can't be explained, but how do we explain why some people who don't have beliefs about nicotine, just strong opinions, still oppose the use of zero-nicotine e-cigarettes?
It took me a while, but after some more lurking and reading, I was finally able to get it through my head that in addition to people who believe, as an absolute, that those who use e-cigarettes will be more likely to resume smoking tobacco ones, there are also people whose opinion is so strong that it produces a "belief-strength" view of even nicotine-free e-cigarettes as a potential "trigger," that will remind those who seek to stop smoking of the very nicotine-havin' thing they're trying to abandon.
While beliefs are, as previously bleated, impervious to facts, believers are human beings and are therefore not impervious to being called out by other human beings and invited to justify their beliefs, prove them like those distasteful math problems, ew, or watch demonstrations of how no adapter can make belief fit into the neat little slots of logic, facts, et al.
This does not mean, however, that we are bound by courtesy to refrain from any mention of facts simply because those facts happen to be at variance with the beliefs of those present.
There may be others present who might benefit from those facts, and even be interested enough in them to add them to their thoughts as they go about the process of forming their own opinions and beliefs.
It's ironic that on the internet, the place where for the first time in human history, we can interact with each other, exist to each other, as pure ideas, essence d' people, any and every word we say is more likely to be misunderstood.
As great as it is to be able to communicate without all the distractions we present to each other in "meatspace," at the same time we've become dependent on things like gestures, intonations and facial expressions.
Being sensitive to the feelings of others is just basic good manners, online or off, but it's especially important on the internet, where even monosyllables can be misinterpreted.
As is so often the case in these matters, there is no better source of guidance than a poet.
You know what that means -
Everybody's Favorite Game Show: Let's Ask Maya Angelou!
