ANYONE out there still smoke?
If so, I salute your indefatigability (though I may deny saying that later).
News wafts up our nostrils that top medical experts Asda are working with Her Majesty's Nationalist Government to help smokers quit. I mustn't mock Asda. The move seems well motivated and, for the record, they do a good curry.
It's just that I got to thinking: who still smokes? All my friends used to, as did I. None of us does now. It's extraordinary really. To think we all used to do something so irrational.
But lately my friends and I have become nostalgic for smoking. We didn't do it like sad addicts in an opium den. We all said that, actually, we enjoyed it.
How so? Broken down, it is, like much of human life, absurd. We burn some vegetation in a little stick and inhale the smoke for a hard-to-define pleasure that involves making the breath visible. Neat trick in a way, though arguably tiresome when repeated 20 times a day.
Ah, but there was more to it than that. There was the way it made you narrow your eyes, for a start, giving you a shrewd outlook on the world.
Smoking encouraged you to look mistily into the distance. And where do misty distances lead? That's right: to philosophy. Smoking made you think.
A health expert spits out his Asda curry and objects: "It didn't make everybody think. I don't want to sound snooty, but many smokers were and remain from the lower classes. Their smoking was of a bovine nature."
Smoking ruminants aside, that's a fair point, even if its accompanying curry-spit has stained my shirt front. All the same, however tenuous, the link between smoking and thought remains. True, in many cases, the thought may have less to do with epistemology and more with the 2:30 at Kempton Park. But a thought is a thought is a thought. At least I think it is.
Apart from which, the pack in your pocket was a personal salve. A comfort. Didn't matter where you were in the world, or how stressful your situation, you could reconnect to your inner self by fondling that packet, removing one of the sticks and, literally, taking a breather. But it was a breather that left you short of breath.
Asthmatics aside, breath isn't a problem when young. We've bags of the stuff. Smoking helps turn it into hot air, of which there is much to expend in the teenage years.
In that uncertain time, it's important to belong. There's a desperate urge to conform, preferably with non-conformists, and smoking provided a small bond with others. You could pacify a bully with a fag. You could get a bird.
By the time I was growing up, in the grey 1970s, the established truth of a health threat made fags a forbidden fruit, and therefore all the sweeter.
For many years, smoking was the only hobby I had. Had there been night classes in the subject, I'd have signed up. I smoked roll-ups too, with their suggestions of purity and self-reliant craftsmanship.
Meanwhile, I took writing (of sorts; small-w writing) for a vocation, often as not unpaid (and unwanted), and could not conceive of spewing forth volcanic musings in the absence of fag ash.
But all good things, like life itself, must be stubbed out. And, in the end, only those with a death wish smoked.
Yonder hero, who still stands there alone with a fag, who is he? A thrawn sort perhaps, saying eff-you to the suffocating world of common sense. There's a form of freedom in smoking. Your life. Your death.
Alberto Moravia wrote: "It is what we are forced to do that forms our character, not what we do of our own free will." Common sense forces you to stop smoking.
One of Moravia's characters compared her unfulfilled plans to the contents of an ashtray. Billy Connolly used a similar analogy for life: "full of little douts."
No doubt about it, though: smoking is a peculiar pastime. Pricey too at seven quid a packet. You could get two Asda curries for that.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article