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

I dont smoke, never have never will. but it is an intersting point no?

No, its not an interesting point, nor it an intelligent point. In fact there is no `point` being made at all. Men, woman, black , disabled are just labels, they are not actively trying to poison the air we all have to breathe, unlike smokers, whose filthy habit does not contribute in any positive way to the existence of life on our planet.

Oh, I don't know.
We keep people who make, sell distribute etc tobacco products in employment, contribute the lord knows how much in tax (certainly in England the tax on tobacco is huge, much largely than the rest of Europe). Not that I'd use these facts to defend smoking, it's just that I'd think carefully before declaring that smokers contribute nothing through their habit.

BornOn20th is absolutely right. There is no point. What in the name of [removed by me before a moderator could] does skin colour, gender, state of physical/mental challenge, etc. have anything to do with tobacco smoke? The aforementioned traits in NO way could possibly be offensive to any living being on the planet, and even much less pose any kind of health hazard.

KerrAvon,

The taxes on smoking currently aren't enough to offset the drain on NHS resources caused by smoking-related and smoking aggrivated diseases. Smokers are keeping a huge number of plantation and factory workers on minimum wage in employment and a few thousand extremely wealthy shareholders in profit.

Even if smoking stopped worldwide today, the health services would still be dealing with the aftermath for the next twenty years or so.

If it was just the issue of the smoke itself, there would be no parallel, however, I think the point Bob was making wasn't about the smoke- it was the treatment of smokers themselves. Being treated as Pariahs, somehow an undesirable underclass, rather than people.

unlike all the other labels (black, disabled etc) smokers did choose their habit. that's fine, but where it impinges on other people's choice not to smoke it should be banned.

that's not treating smokers as pariahs, just respecting other people's right to make their own choice.

imho

Being annoyed at someone because of their skin colour: not really that clever since a) specific skin colours very rarely seem to produce unpleasant side-affects such as cancer, pollution, bad smells etc and b) you can't choose or designate your skin colour unless you're Michael Jackson.

Being annoyed at someone because they smoke: could be understandable since a) smoking carelessly can easily annoy other people, invoking cancer, pollution, bad smells etc and b) it is each individual's decision to smoke or not.

Duff,
"...specific skin colours very rarely seem to produce unpleasant side-affects such as cancer..."

To be fair, an albino living on the equator has a *much* higher chance of contracting skin cancer than someone of a darker hue... However, they wouldn't be inflicting it on anybody else...

againe I am compleatly missunderstood. I mean that a persion who smokes cannot go in to certian bars never mind certain areas of them (in liverpool any way) now that is a form of discrimination. last time I checked there was an on going argument that smokers should not get treated on the NHS becaause they did it to them selves but suaside attempts vcan, that is a form of discrimnation. in the society where lookin at someone the wrong way is discrimination wh the hell is evrythin so anti smoking. yes people can get cancer from it, they can also get cancer from factories, air polution from cars ext, verious typs of adiation andthere own genes. so what, it is like alchohol, becore anyone says that doisent harm anyone, the amoutnt of people hospitalised by drunks is at least three quorters higher tan sober people. but people who drink are not getting bannedf from places are they?
drinking distroyes your liver, againe they are not (as far as I know) being debated over not having the NHS any more.

Bob, this is a discussion about smoking- for and against. Not about drinking alcohol. People who smoke in public places are discriminating against the rest of us who do not smoke. If you have a vile disgusting habit that pollutes the air around yourself and everybody else you deserve to be discriminated against, until you kerb that habit. This planet is polluted enough without adding the daily exhalations of millions of selfish weak-willed people.

Don't you mean that people can't smoke in certain bars, rather than smokers being banned from them (i.e. large man on door saying 'You smoke? No, 'fraid you're staying outside.) I passed something calling itself a 'No Smoking Restaurant' t'other day, which I thought was lovely. In very small areas the smoking/non-smoking areas are ridiculous since smoke is no respector of imaginary barriers. I was in a caff once where this (looked like a transvestite, actually) woman was smoking a gurt big cigar! in the 'separate' area which actually was just across the aisle. Usually I find cigars less offensive than cigarettes, but in this proximity- to my food, specially- I was ready to murder.

There are plenty of restaurants with smoking areas. If I were planning a meal out with friends who smoke, I would go to one of those. Simple as that! like alcohol-free areas and such.

ps- some smokers are selfish and weak-willed, aye, but it is a sneaky addiction with extreme psychological effects. Trying one cigarette 'for fun' is likely to get you hooked even if the experience was unpleasant. So the practise itself may be vile and disgusting, but the people doing it are not necessarily the same. (70% of them want to quit, after all, and they can't all be mere wusses.)

Of course people who smoke should be allowed into pubs and clubs etc. but that doesn't mean they should be allowed to smoke in there. Boxers are allowed in pubs but that doesn't mean they should be allowed to go around hitting people when inside them.

Smokers deal with:


1) Tremendous loss of disposable income due to heavy (and discriminatory) taxation
2) Denial of Gainful Employment
3) Loss of Existing Employment
4) Exposure to inclement weather conditions
5) Segregation, alienation, and discrimination
6) Censorship (not allowed to publically express views without repercussions) - includes the workplace
7) Placement in the category of "Social Outcasts"

Every point has 2 sides. Simply stating your point of view in harsh, absolute terms does not invalidate the other man's point of view.

Yet, that is the kind of post I'm seeing.

Obese people face the same type of negative feedback as smkers. So do many practitioners of religions not considered mainstream.

I believe that smokers should keep their smoke to themselves. That being said, I will add that, A) we often don't
B) our actions take a toll on the health and comfort of others.

if the majority of our citizens want smoking banned in public so be it. It just seems that they could find a way to compromise. Separate facilities should be made available for those who smoke. When this courtesy is denied smokers, it is not because they are evil, murdering fiends. It is because those who do not approve of smoking are not willing to make a compromise.

Thank you Ms Rambling, what a breath of fresh air in such a rancorous deabte

::coughs::

The reason for my posting is to stamp down on the hoary old chestnut that smokers cost the NHS a fortune that isn't covered by the additional taxation that pay throughout their career.

It simply isn't true. The cost of treating all smoking related diseases is around £2billion less than the income made for from all forms of tobacco taxation. Furthermore you are only considering the cost in absolute terms. Non-smokers die as well as smokers you know, and the cost of their treatment has to be bourne by the NHS. On average there is no difference between the lifetime health costs incurred by a smoker as compared to a non-smoker. The only difference is that the smoker uses up their alloted amount of cash quicker because they die younger.

Which brings me to the next point about pensions and smoking - a point often missed by the non-smoking factions.

Smokers die younger, yes we know this. But the time that they lose is at the end of their lives ie the claiming pensions and not paying taxation into the government exchequer years of their lives. Therefore by dying early these smokers are saving the pensions industry and the government whole heaps of money.

In my case I fully expect to die about 10 years younger than I would have done had I been a non-smoker. In those ten years I would have been paid (at 2003/04 prices) some £160,000 in state and occupational pension. Now that is a seriously large chunk of wedge!

::coughs::

Right, I'm off for a fag

I think Ms Rambling has a valid point. You can't ask someone's sexuality on a job interview, and the ethnic background is voluntary but on every job application I have filled in it asks "do you smoke" and this to me suggests that employers discriminate against smokers!