h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I would just like to point out that in Britain, if everyone stopped smoking the national health service would collapse due to underfunding. Smokers pay more tax than non-smokers and should therefore, in my opinion, be treated with respect.

One thing that really annoys me is, when a smoker goes into a cafe only to discover the smoking section is full, he/she must sit with the non-smokers and remain nicotineless. I therefore believe that when a non-smoker discovers the non-smoking section in the cafe is full and has to sit with the smokers, they should be forced to smoke.

Although, ironically, if they hadn't smoked in the first place, the NHS wouldn't be nearly so overloaded, as approximately half of long term in-patients are there directly or indirectly through smoking-related disease.

If someone goes into a cafe and finds the smoking section full, they don't have to remain nicotineless. They can always try a different cafe It all depends on how much you want to smoke. I don't eat in my local chinese (which is fantastic) because they don't have a non smoking area. I just buy a takeaway. I'm not sure what I'd do if they didn't offer this service, though. I don't know if the food's _that_ good.

But you're still giving them the custom, only more easily since they don't have to find a seat to put your bum on. If you took your business elsewhere they might rethink their policy?

Just a thought...out there in cyberspace all on its own...

but not alone. . . .

I am one of the sub-editors (no, I didn't have anything to do with this one) and I'm tending to agree with those who say that the article needs help.

What I have to offer, though is a bit of context: Because smoking is many hundreds, if not thousands, of years old - although it probably never had the kind of common-use that it does now - almost every culture probably had smokers in it....although WHAT they were smoking likely differred considerably.

I am a non-smoker, though I sampled it in junior-high school (catching a passing cold stopped that; I couldn't breathe properly anyway, so why aggravate the situation?). I know many that smoke, and some enjoy it, others wish they'd never started. One person I know is now kicking the habit.....

Because we've all grown up with the social acceptability of smoking, despite the knowledge that it's self-destructive, those that continue to smoke are now feeling the backlash of the change in society....and thatfeels hypocritical. The social acceptability of many activities go through changes: drinking and driving was never really 'accepted', but few did much to stop it; for about 20 years now, activists have changed the public opinion to make drinking and driving unacceptable....and reduced the number of deaths dramatically.

Now we move into the social acceptability of smoking: whether you like to smoke, feel the need to justify an addiction that's too strong for you to kick, or want the image of the smoker (the ones that sell the smokes in the first place) instead of the reality of clogged lungs and huge medical bills.....the fact is that the smoker is now under attack because the social acceptability lustre has been worn down to the quick.....and many people really really hate being told they have to quit something that a few years ago was perfectly okay.....

Logic really doesn't stand much chance here....emotions are just too powerful, and society has sooo many double-standards, nonsensical rules and anachronsistic behaviours to put up a decent fight.....which will lose out to personal choice and responsibility anyway.

My stand: I don't like breathing any sort of smoke, although I have a high tolerance for being around it. If I choose to enter a place that permits smoking, I take my chances.....and I can stand a lot of that. If a smoker enters a place where smoking is forbidden and lights up, that's theirs to deal with.....and I don't have to put up with it. In some ways I feel for the smokers: being addicted to something that disgusting must be a miserable experience (even if you like smoking, you're probably also addicted; that's the nature of the beast).

I would love to own a car that runs on something other than fossil fuels; hydrogen would be wonderful, and as soon as a car like that is affordable, I'll be in the queue....until then, I cycle, bus and drive as little as possible.

Fruitbat

While use of psychoactive drugs in a variety of delivery devices has been around for a long time, I would argue that:

a) Use of cigars and cigarettes as nicotine delivery devices, used on an ongoing basis regardless of surroundings or circumstances is a fairly recent development; and

b) A history of indulgence is irrelevant to whether behaviour is beneficial or harmful.

The fact is that 100% of humanity is naturally born to not smoke. Taking up smoking is a deliberately manufactured, discretionary choice. There are no consequences whatsoever attached to not smoking and there is no natural compulsion or need to dry a toxic weed, set it on fire, and inhale the fumes. Smoking is not something that would occur to the vast majority of people to do in the absence of promotion and/or socially modelled behaviour. Someone who went through life not knowing such a thing existed would never miss it.

Even as an advertised and socially modelled behaviour, in societies where the consequences of tobacco use are generally known, only 1/4 to 1/3 of the population wish to try it and 2/3rds of those who become addicted wish they could quit. Studies, some conducted for marketing purposes by tobacco companies themselves, show that those who take up smoking tend to be depressives and/or psychotics who self-medicate, come from impoverished and/or high-stress backgrounds, are poorly educated, have impulsive natures with lower than average ability to foresee consequences, and/or have lower than average IQ’s.

This is why kids are historically such popular targets for tobacco advertisers – very few mentally competent, fully informed adults think taking up nicotine use is a good idea. While the media occasionally provides a platform to some defensive smoker to congratulate other smokers on what fun, daring, desirable people they are, the truth is that some 90% of the population in most developed countries either does not wish to begin smoking or wishes it had never started.

Smoking is a cost to society, a couple of well-publicized studies by whining tobacco-funded organizations notwithstanding. There is not only the cost of treating those who have given themselves premature and serious longterm illnesses. There is also:

a) the cost of children who have lost parents to smoking-related illness;

b) illness caused to passive smokers;

c) property damage;

d) the exceptionally high rate of antisocial, destructive behaviour of children whose mothers smoked during pregnancy; and

e) æsthetic offensiveness which destroys the pleasures of others.

If smokers died quickly and efficiently, and affected no one but themselves with their behaviour, one could argue that they save society money, but the truth is that smoking is an unnecessary and preventable cost to society. This makes smoking, like it or not, everyone's business.

Just when I thought there could be no more idiots on this website, you come along and write so much rubbish you could almost choke on it.

"Studies, some conducted for marketing purposes by tobacco companies themselves, show that those who take up smoking tend to be depressives and/or psychotics who self-medicate, come from impoverished and/or high-stress backgrounds, are poorly educated, have impulsive natures with lower than average ability to foresee consequences, and/or have lower than average IQ’s."

Instead of dressing it up, why don't you just say what you think? Smokers are stupid, poor, lonely killers??

If you did take the time to do some research, you would find that there are many cultures who have been smoking in one form or another for many centuries. Yes the cigarette and cigar are 'new' packaged form of this, but there was no advertising for the South American natives who smoked rolled tobacco leaves.

Humans are 100% born not to do a lot of things - fly in planes, drink alcohol, shot people, etc. But they still do it.

Most smokers I know have agreed with me on this - If we could have a non toxic & non smoke cigarette that made you feel the same way and tasted the same way, we would not argue against it.

Taking up smoking is more to do with peer influance than media pressure. The same goes for many, many things we all do.

Kids are good targets for cigarette companies because their products are addicted, not because the kids are stupid. Playstation is addicted too, but no one moans about that. Well okay maybe my girlfriend might sometime !!! (only joking Åsa)

I think alcohol is a far worse cost to society, no wait, guns, yes that’s is. Now what is that most people die from ..... gun shots. Nasty habit that. Those damn horrible soldiers all addicted to firing guns at people.

"a) the cost of children who have lost parents to smoking-related illness;"
- This is a reason to ban smoking??? So everything that kills a parent should be ban eh? Well there goes all your fun as an adult (I assume you are not yet).

"b) illness caused to passive smokers;"
- Well they should not be nearby, should be shut in tight rooms breathing in each other’s odours.

"c) property damage;"
- eh? As in someone drops a cigarette and the house burns down? In that case, they made the choice and had to die from it. If you mean smoke colouring the walls, so paint it again! Doesn't sunlight do the same or do you live in a hole?

"d) the exceptionally high rate of antisocial, destructive behaviour of children whose mothers smoked during pregnancy; and"
- Hmmm don't think it was the smoking, more likely to be the bad parents fault. I can imagine the parents using the excuse "Well I blame my smoking, as I am of course a great Mother/Father". But I do agree neither parent should smoke during pregnancy or around the child while it is very young. Does not mean you have to quit forever, just means while the child is young it will be like being back at your parents!!

"e) aesthetic offensiveness which destroys the pleasures of others."
- What about the aesthetic pleasure of the one who smokes? If something is aesthetically offensive to me, does that give me the right to get it banned? In that case, I wish to ban rolled up jeans and pink plastic shoes, ruins my day shopping.

"If smokers died quickly and efficiently, and affected no one but themselves with their behaviour, one could argue that they save society money, but the truth is that smoking is an unnecessary and preventable cost to society. This makes smoking, like it or not, everyone's business."
- Hmmm a rewording of Petes words I think. Die you smokers one and all eh??? Sorry but it is not going to happen. If idiots like yourself died out quickly no one would miss you. Not nice when someone is being offensive to you is it?

==== ~~~

"Not nice when someone is being offensive to you is it?" - No, and smokers do it on a daily basis. They are so arrogant in their habit that they don't even realise they are doing it.

"...say what you think? Smokers are stupid, poor, lonely killers??" OK, I'll say what I think - that's not necessarily the case, but from my experience so far any stupid, poor, lonely killer I am likely to meet will probably be a smoker, too.

"...there are many cultures who have been smoking in one form or another for many centuries" - Yup, for religous or ceremonial purposes. The American Indian had a "smoke lodge" where they closed themselves in a confined space to indulge in pipes of tobacco. Rather like your suggestion of "...should be shut in tight rooms breathing in each other's odours"!

"Just when I thought there could be no more idiots on this website" - that cuts both ways...

Wow! It's like you know me.

I am the most arrogant, stupid, poor, lonely, religous killer of non smokers, Muhahahahahaha

And, curiously enough, after all this ranting, mudslinging, and righteous defensiveness, the article's still there to be read.....as are the attitudes of those that have left posts here.

Fruitbat

"Any stupid, poor, lonely killer I meet will probably be a smoker too. . ." Well that makes a lot of sense. Just because someone who does something smokes too it doesn't mean that all smokers do it. As for the assumption that all smokers are stupid, I don't think that's fair at all. Many of my friends (and I) smoke, and none of them has a below average IQ, several of them are very smart, many at university (even Cambridge University, England I might add). I'll agree smoking is a stupid thing to do but that doesn't make smokers all stupid. Many of the points raised by people here can be applied to anything you care to mention, it's just a case of how you look at it. I wish people spent less time judging others, pidgeon-holeing and stereotyping and a little more time learning compassion, understanding and any other favourable human traits.

Gentlemen(?),

I am an h2g2 ACE and in accordance with the ACE-rules and regulations
I will keep this response polite.

I feel that I have to respond somewhat to Mr. U92's statement regarding IQ and smoking.

So here is a list of famous smokers. Read it and weep Mr. U92. And please document you facts before you use them on a forum.

Adams, John (President of U.S., Statesman)
Armstrong, Neil (Astronaut)
Atkins, Chet (Entertainer)
Aykroyd, Dan (Entertainer)
Bach, Johann S. (Composer)
Bacon, Sir Francis (Intellectual, Scholar)
Baudelaire, Charles (Poet)
Bell, Alexander Graham (Inventer)
Bernhard, Prince of the Netherlands
Bohr, Neils (Physicist)
Brett, Jeremy (Actor)
Brynner, Yul (Actor)
Byron (George Gordon, Lord Byron; Poet)
Carter, Ron (Musician)
Casals, Pablo (cellist, conductor)
Chandler, Raymond (Writer)
Chomsky, Noam (Linguist, Political Activist)
Clemens, Samuel (Mark Twain; writer)
Cronkite, Walter (TV Journalist)
Darwin, Charles (Biologist)
Davis, Angela (Political activist, academic)
Doyle, Sir Arthur Conan (Writer)
Dulles, Allen (Diplomat, Head of CIA)
Dunn, Donald "Duck" (Musician)
Einstein, Albert (Physicist, Mathematician)
Eisenhower, Dwight (Military leader, President of U.S.)
Ellison, Harlan (Writer)
Emerson, Ralph Waldo (Poet)
Faulkner, William (Writer)
Ford, John (Film director)
Garbo, Greta (Actress)
Gershwin, Ira (Lyricist)
Godfrey, Arthur (Broadcaster)
Grant, Cary (Actor)
Hemingway, Ernest (Writer)
Hubble, Edwin P. (Astronomer)
Joyce, James (Writer)
Jung, Carl Gustav (Psychologist)
Kaye, Danny (Entertainer)
Kipling, Rudyard (Writer)
Leakey, Richard (Anthropologist)
Lewis, C.S. (Writer)
Mancini, Henry (Composer)
Manet, Edouard (artist)
Mankiewicz, Joseph (Film Director)
Marx, Julius Arthur "Groucho" (comedian)
Maugham, Somerset (Writer)
Melville, Herman (Writer)
Mencken, H.L. (Journalist, Writer, Humorist)
Miller, Arthur (playwright)
Milne, A.A. (Writer)
Mingus, Charles (Musician, Composer)
Moliere, Jean Baptiste (Playwright)
Mondriaan, Piet (Artist)
Newton, Sir Isaac (Physicist, Mathematician)
Oppenheimer, Robert (Physicist)
Patton, Gen. George S., Jr. (Military leader)
Roosevelt, Franklin (U.S. President, Statesman)
Russell, Bertrand (Philosopher)
Sadat, Anwar (Egyptian President, Statesman)
Salk, Jonas (Scientist)
Sarowiwa, Ken (Nigerian author)
Sartre, Jean-Paul (Philosopher)
Schlesinger, Arthur M., Jr. (Historian)
Schweitzer, Albert (Missionary, Doctor)
Tati, Jacques (Actor)
Tennyson (Alfred, Lord Tennyson; Poet)
Thurber, James (Cartoonist, humorist)
Tolkien, J.R.R. (Writer)
Twain, Mark (see Clemens, Samuel)
Van Gogh, Vincent (Artist)
Walesa, Lech (Polish Statesman)
Waugh, Evelyn (Writer)
Welles, Orson (Film Director, Actor)

*****************************

Now for the umpteenth time would someone PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE start a continuation-thread ?

It IS the polite thing to do you know.

Thank you,

TM.

Ok, obviously a lot of people have put their two cents in on this, but I just thought I'd add mine as well. Smoking is an addiction. It is not a religious issue. People who smoke do not "deserve" lung cancer any more than people who don't wear their seat belts "deserve" to die in car accidents. Chronic smoking is an addiction, like alcoholism. Both cigarettes and alcohol have cultural significance, but that doesn't mean that they are the less addictive because they are culturally sanctioned. I am most emphatically not trying to say that every person who has a drink or smokes a cigarette is an adict, but their addictive power needs to be acknowledged, as well as their harmful effects on the body over the long term. This is not to disparage the smoker or to accuse him or her of some moral wrong, and I think smokers and non-smokers alike would do well to take note of this. It is merely to acknowledge the nature of the substance.

With regards to my previous posting.

So then my deer Peet raping is number three or what? Smoking is nothing compared to that. I smoke, but i have never tried to stick my cigarettes inside of people. I´m not following you at all.

Sorry, you don´t have to answer that thingie I wrote. I don´t mind anymore. People do have a right of opinion, but be nice. I usually ask if I can smoke, and often do answer "Yes", and if they say no I walk away a distance. It works quite nice. And I do live in Sweden we don´t even have rooms for smokers anymore. We have to go outside, and sometimes it is pretty cold out there, but it is my choice, so I guess I´ll have to take it... Right

You forgot Roy Castle and Nat 'King' Cole.

Whatever your view might be on smoking, I thought this article was quite balanced. I don't recognise your complaints in a reading of the text of the entry.

It has to be said that peer pressure is a major factor in driving people to smoke, as is the subtle and very effective advertising (it is simply not credible that tobacco companies would spend so many millions of pounds persuading a reducing number of people to switch brands). The bit about giving up recognises a major topic of conversation amongst smokers - all the different methods they have tried to give up, and so on. What's wrong with that?