Why didn't anyone smoke?

[Alrik]

Regardless of where one comes down on the smoking issue, I'm just glad Roddenberry stuck to his guns and didn't show it. That would have dated TOS worse than the sets or F/X.

Case in point, I was flipping through the channels last weekend and came across an ep of Barney Miller. It actually kind of threw me a bit to see Harris light up in the squad room.

 

[Pauln6]

Let's face it, the main reason Moore filled BSG with so much smoking was precisely because there was none in Trek. A great deal of what he did in that show was basically rebellion against the rules he had to follow as a Trek writer.

Lol. I think Cottle was exactly that. I mean in one scene instead of mopping his brow, his attending nurse looks after his fag during an operation. It's hilariously farcical and clearly making a comedic dig at the political correctness of non-smoking.

 

[RoJoHen]

Cottle is the Cylon God. He can do whatever he wants.

 

[Pauln6]

Cottle is the Cylon God. He can do whatever he wants.

Shh. No spoilers.

 

[RoJoHen]

Not a spoiler. Just a hope.

 

[Myasishchev]

I'll bet Khan's guys from the 1990s smoked. That's probably why they got pissed off and tried to take over the ship. No cigarettes on the Enterprise? Then Kirk gets pressurized to death!

 

[Greg Cox]

As noted before on other threads, the Iotians of "A Piece of the Action" appear to be the only race in the Star Trek universe to practice the habit.

And Martia in "Undiscovered Country"--because she was EVIL!

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Roddenberry was aware that smoking was an unhealthy habit, and yes, he was very forward-thinking in choosing to present a future that had eradicated it . . . In TNG, he tried to do the same with alcohol by postulating that harmless "synthehol" had taken its place.

That stupid "synthehol" was taking Political Correctness TOO FAR! I mean, what's the point of something that tastes like alcohol but doesn't get you drunk?

I wonder about that, too. No matter how "evolved" we get, we will always use some mind-altering substances. I don't believe it's in human nature to eliminate everything that helps you lose control, or at least lighten up. I don't know about smoking, but alcohol will not disappear.

 

[RoJoHen]

But synthehol DOES get you drunk. The difference is that it also allows you to instantly sober yourself up if you need to.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

1. Like that's gonna happen.

2. People will always, always feel attracted to a little danger, to a glimpse of the "dark side". Too safe gets boring. I'm not saying this is true for everyone, but it is true for many people. Human beings like running the risk of losing control. Synthehol isn't the real thing... even in ST many think like that.

 

[Christopher]

1. Like that's gonna happen.

It already is happening.

http://io9.com/5434752/real+life-synthehol-will-get-you-buzzed-but-never-drunk

Alcohol kills people. Drunk drivers kill millions. A large percentage of crimes and acts of abuse are committed under the influence of alcohol. If there's a way to let people keep the pleasurable effects of alcohol without costing lives, how could any remotely ethical person object to that?

It's one thing to put yourself at risk for a thrill. But putting others at risk for your own personal gratification? That's just indefensible.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

I meant like it's gonna happen that they'll invent a kind of alcohol that enables you to snap out of the stupor at will after consuming it.

And oh, I am not defending anything. I'm just saying people will not abandon all mind-altering substances just because they're perilous. So fucking what, they'll say.

And also, it's not all or nothing: either complete abstinence or going on a drunken killing spree.

Even in Trek people still drink real alcohol. Sorry, it ain't happening. The pull will always be too great.

 

[scotpens]

. . . No cigarettes on the Enterprise? Then Kirk gets pressurized to death!

DE-pressurized, actually.

Alcohol kills people. Drunk drivers kill millions. A large percentage of crimes and acts of abuse are committed under the influence of alcohol. If there's a way to let people keep the pleasurable effects of alcohol without costing lives, how could any remotely ethical person object to that?

If a magical substance like “synthehol” actually existed, I certainly wouldn't object to its being available to compete with the real thing in the free market. I would object most emphatically to the government banning alcohol and permitting only the ersatz stuff to be sold. Another Prohibition era we don't need.

It's one thing to put yourself at risk for a thrill. But putting others at risk for your own personal gratification? That's just indefensible.

I absolutely agree. That's why we should take drunk driving seriously, and clamp down on enforcing DUI laws — which is exactly what we've been doing for the last 30 years or so.

Just like guns, it's not the alcohol that kills. It's the irresponsible use of it that kills.

 

[Myasishchev]

Depressurization works too.

As for DUIs, what the world needs isn't tougher laws. It's self-driving cars. I still find it difficult to believe such do not exist. The technology exists, what's the hold up?

I suppose the initial investment and cost of the vehicles would be suicide for a private automaker, because the savings to society it would entail--the tens of billions of dollars lost in wrecked automobiles, medical costs, lost productivity, legal enforcement of speed limits and DUI laws and the like--are not going to directly go into the automakers' pockets.

It's one of those things that the government should have started investing in a long time ago. Forget hydrogen--that's important, but not critical. The free market is bad when it comes to exploiting technologies that reduce or eliminate externalities.

The alternative, I suppose, to the comfort cruise of tomorrow, is the shitty dieways of today. But of course that isn't the place of our government. The place of our government is to use the physical violence of the criminal law to frighten people into behaving and hurting those who do not.

 

[scotpens]

As for DUIs, what the world needs isn't tougher laws. It's self-driving cars. I still find it difficult to believe such do not exist. The technology exists, what's the hold up?

We already have self-driving cars, of a sort. It's called public transportation.

The “hold-up” is that people DON’T WANT cars that drive themselves. The whole point of privately owned, personal transportation, i.e. the automobile, is that YOU, the individual driver, are in control. YOU decide where you want to go. YOU decide when and by what route you want to go there. YOU learn and apply the skills necessary to maneuver a car safely and responsibly in traffic. And YOU take a visceral pleasure in driving. Well, I do, anyway.

If I want someone else to do the driving, I'll take a taxi or the bus.

My, this thread seems to have been hijacked. Or carjacked . . .

 

[cwnorma]

Because its a filthy, thoroughly health risking habit that they knew better than to continue to indulge in?

In 1968, Doctors used to actually recommend smoking. Yes, we know better now, but 1968, not so much.

 

[scotpens]

In 1968, Doctors used to actually recommend smoking.

Oh?? Which doctors were those?

 

[Neutral Zone]

I seem to remember on the additional material put with unaired pilot Todenberry mentioned that there was no smoking on the Enterprise, can't remember the reason he gave. Either way it was way ahead of its time, in those days smoking was in almost every programme or film especially cowboys or gangsters.

 

[Nerys Myk]

In 1968, Doctors used to actually recommend smoking.

Oh?? Which doctors were those?

Four out of five.

 

[Myasishchev]

Maybe to lose weight or something?

My, this thread seems to have been hijacked. Or carjacked . . .

A little, yes. But I am passionate about self-driving cars. (If they fly all, the better. )