Understanding Phenomenology of Smoking

(image credit)

Corina Marinescu posted A few smoking facts a few months ago on Google+, and it triggered quite a lengthy, very thoughtful discussion among friends, including me:

The epidemiology of smoking is quite compelling and disturbing to me +Corina Marinescu. So I'm very glad I don't smoke. But there is clearly a fundamental, maybe deep-seated need for smoking among scores of people. The fact that so many still smoke, decades after it's been proven to be harmful is a remarkable human commentary, I'd say. I really appreciate what you've shared +Nicodin Bogdan. Besides the epidemiology, I think we need to do more to understand the phenomenology of smoking. Not so much in the aggregate (scientific) vein, but more on a person by person (idiographic) basis. I anticipate that with such a deeper, more personal understanding, (a) we will know better how to help a person who truly wants to quit and (b) we will appreciate, though not necessarily agree with, any person's choice to keep smoking.

What Nicodin Bogdan said resonated very well with that phenomenology many people overlook:

Some people just want to see the world burn +Sam Collett . For example , I've been smoking since I was 14. I couldn't care less about lung cancer , to be honest I'd much prefer it than some other types out there. In the meantime I've been a vegetarian for 15 yrs , buy only locally produced greens , don't support big agro business that takes advantage of poor workers , contribute to charity , work out 3 times a week and I'm generally a nice guy. It doesn't always come down to 'health'. I love smoking as much as the next obese guy that loves to eat. It's disputable who does more harm to the world.
p.s. I also ride motorcycles , so .. ya know .. once you pick too many poisons worrying about death is pretty much wasted time , you may as well enjoy life.

He added:

+Jussi Lahtinen Meh , a lot of self-loathing people out there thought I would imagine a big chunk of smokers would like to quit but can't. The rest just figured out it isn't cool these days and use addiction as an excuse. That has never been a problem for me. I usually quit for 2 weeks every year or so just to test my willpower. I never failed to quit for that amount of time but I will admit that it's a powerful drug and argue that people should not smoke if they don't like it. But if like myself , they enjoy it , I see no harm in that as long as they don't puff in front of their pregnant wives or give cigarettes for free in front of schools. Chances are I'm going to die from it. Hopefully a heart attack but with my life style I doubt it. If it's gonna be the big C I hope it's a small cell lung cancer so that I go quickly and don't bother anyone unnecessarily :) Than again I could live to be 100. I would hope not but who knows ? 

Who knows? is quite right.  Chances are those who smoke habitually are not likely to live as long as those who don't.  But in the complexity and variety of life, there is absolutely no scientist or seer who can predict exactly how long each of us will live.  In the meantime, regardless of government ideology, all of us have an inviolably freedom to make choices in our lives.  Maybe one choice isn't so available, such as being impoverished and not having access to housing comforts.  But another choice is bound to be available, and it could very well be smoking cigarettes.

But like many, Marinescu seems to have difficulty appreciating the more holistic context here, and admits to a particular perspective:

Well...I do like +Ron Villejo point is nice...but unfortunately I see smoking from my point - which is medical. I also like +Nicodin Bogdan 's explanation it's real and just pictures his life choices......but still, I see this from medical point. After so many people I've seen dying of lung cancer (including members of my own family) all these nice words and options etc etc are just that words. Lung cancer KILLS and more than that is a slowly painful death (for some). In the end you'll look like a cadaver asphyxiating yourself, if your dying from respiratory failure.
When lung cancer spreads to other regions of the body, it can interfere with the normal functioning of those organs. For example, if lung cancer has spread to the brain, it may interfere with normal brain functions such as the ability to walk, talk, and swallow, or even result in a hemorrhagic stroke, so get ready to wear a diaper and get feed like a baby. Or simply look like a vegetable staring at the ceiling.
You should consider yourself lucky if the lung cancer has spread to the liver or pericardium...at least you're going to die faster.
So, I'm sorry but all I can do is laugh at smokers and at the "smoke philosophy". Also I have a request....please all of you out there who smoke and which one day you'll end up in the hospital "shocked" that you have cancer after 40 years of intense smoking, at least smile. Desperation and prayers to invisible entities are not going to work, also doctors are not magicians...be responsible for your own life and try to live healthy!

But this is her human algorithm.  This is what she sees, what she believes, and what she chooses to say.  In that holistic context, we may choose what part, or parts, to focus and bank our ideas on.  We ought to acknowledge and understand that as well.

Zorean Dean was very kind to compliment my comment:

+Ron Villejo you are extraordinarily articulate and i very much enjoyed reading what you have to say. I also have to agree. though i will say i am a smoker.