Why didn't anyone smoke?

[scotpens]

Maybe to lose weight or something?

Even 40 years ago, no ethical doctor would have recommended smoking as a way to lose weight. That's like having your legs amputated to cure sleepwalking.

. . . I am passionate about self-driving cars.

This is really for another thread entirely, but ever hear of the AMTronic?

http://www.showrods.com/showrod_pages/amtronicextra.html

 

[DevilEyes]

This was one of the things that annoyed me about Battlestar Galactica. They're in a rag-tag fugitive fleet with limited food, limited water, limited ability to purify and recycle air and yet they think it's a good idea to turn over a significant part of hydroponics to keep growing tobacco? Unless were supposed to believe that Doc Cottle smuggled 10 years' worth of fags on board when he escaped the destruction of the colonies? At the rate he smoked?

Sounds pretty realistic to me. Not the unlimited supplies of tobacco thing, but the unwillingness to give up smoking thing. I remember an article published in a magazine in my country in the late 1990s - it was a survey about the way the severe economic and social crisis that the country was in that decade was lowering the standard of life, and the way that the population was coping with it. One of the questions they posed to the people they polled was to rank the things they were most and least willing to give up due to lack of money. It turned out that cigarettes and alcohol were the things people were least ready to give up. Sounded true, too - from what I've seen, the widespread use of alcohol, cigarettes, soft and hard drugs and painkillers only escalated during the times of social, political, and economic crisis. Addictions are the last thing people are ready to let go off. I can see it with my friends who are smokers but who are students who have to pay tuition and are always complaining about the lack of money - they'll always make sure to buy beer and cigarettes at the expense of everything else.

 

[RoJoHen]

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 . . .

Plus a lot of us don't actually have access to public transportation. Our buses stop running at 9pm, and there are no local cab companies.

 

[DevilEyes]

It's weird that the extreme violence and depravity in LA Confidential would get through but smoking would be prohibited. I mean, don't get me wrong, I think smoking is a horrible thing, but murder and organized crime and all the other stuff in that movie are horrible too. It's not as if the characters in that movie were being held up as role models for children to emulate; heck, it wasn't a movie that any children should've been allowed into anyway. Plus it was a period piece set in a time when smoking was ubiquitous. So it seems a strange film to subject to a smoking ban. If the studio insisted on "cleaning up" the story in that respect, why not require toning down the violence and the immorality of the lead characters?

But then, Hollywood does tend to be bizarrely tolerant of violence even as it cracks down excessively on nudity and sexuality. So I guess I shouldn't be surprised by a double standard.

Marge Simpson: "Homer, we have to do something. Today he's drinking people's blood, tomorrow he could be smoking! "

 

[Dusty Ayres]

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?

Oh, I don't know, because most crew members have to be on duty at a minute's notice?

Plus they only have one toilet. Where would people go while on duty?

They have about 900 toilets on board the ship, in quarters, and on most decks. Where did you get that bullshit from?

 

[RapidNadion]

I feel like I can say this, now that we're on page 6: I find it absolutely hilarious how viciously intolerant the BBS can be of things like smoking. Someone earlier linked to my thread in Movies about the "No Smoking" signs in TWOK, and that conversation also didn't take long to fall to the anti-smoking crusaders. Now, those kind of sentiments are much more at home in this thread than the other one, but still ...

I suppose I just find it funny how many posters here are so vehemently opposed to "bad habits." You'd think we were talking about daily baby kitten sacrifices or something.

Anyway, carry on.

 

[RoJoHen]

daily baby kitten sacrifices

 

[Kegg]

If daily baby kitten sacrifices were part of a mainstream Western religion we'd see them in a whole different light.

I feel like I can say this, now that we're on page 6:

That's awfully presumptuous.

I'll bet even money that someone will come along and post a few indignant paragraphs of response. I can even make a gander of a guess as to from whither their argument will strike; certainly second-hand smoking will be brought up with the greatest of severity.

Also, as someone who never drinks, I could really use one of those self-driving cars because geography is confusing.

 

[RapidNadion]

Bah. I feel like "presumptuous" is a bit harsh. In any case, it's not my intention to de-rail the (already precariously teetering) thread. But I felt the need to say something before the Sanctimonious Squad completely overran the world. Feel free to disregard.

 

[RoJoHen]

Bah. I feel like "presumptuous" is a bit harsh. In any case, it's not my intention to de-rail the (already precariously teetering) thread. But I felt the need to say something before the Sanctimonious Squad completely overran the world. Feel free to disregard.

I completely agree with you, and I wanted to say something a few pages back when some described smoking as "immoral."

I chose not to because I learned a long time ago that arguments on this board usually just go around in circles and never get resolved...and then I just get cranky.

 

[Kegg]

Bah. I feel like "presumptuous" is a bit harsh.

Naive, then?

I don't mean to sound rude, but one does sort of expect these responses to be swiftly coming, as surely as night follows day.

And in a thread that's discussed drinking, syntheol, BSG, and self-driving cars, the merits and demerits of smoking might actually stray perilously close to the topic.

 

[Kegg]

I completely agree with you, and I wanted to say something a few pages back when some described smoking as "immoral."

Or someone using the same adjecative, within the same paragraph, to describe smoking and violence negatively. Yeah, quite a bit of it can be eyebrow raising at times, but at heart I've never had much of a moralist bent.

 

[RapidNadion]

Naive, then?

Haha - I'll take it, sure.

Actually, no, though. Better: "since we've reached page 6, I feel this is appropriately timed because we've already strayed into:

drinking, syntheol, BSG, and self-driving cars

, and a potential on-topic debate is at least as worthwhile as an existing off topic discussion ... which you and I seem to have created anew."

::Takes a bow::

 

[RapidNadion]

I completely agree with you, and I wanted to say something a few pages back when some described smoking as "immoral."

I chose not to because I learned a long time ago that arguments on this board usually just go around in circles and never get resolved...and then I just get cranky.

You most definitely chose the wiser path. I can't often be relied upon to do so. But it's nice to know someone else out there gave the Spock eyebrow to the "immoral" bit.

 

[scotpens]

. . . from what I've seen, the widespread use of alcohol, cigarettes, soft and hard drugs and painkillers only escalated during the times of social, political, and economic crisis.

Well, you know what they used to say back in the ’60s: Dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope!

Plus they only have one toilet. Where would people go while on duty?

They have about 900 toilets on board the ship, in quarters, and on most decks. Where did you get that bullshit from?

I addressed that issue several posts back. I assumed Pauln6 was referring to the single toilet on the BRIDGE -- never shown or implied in TOS, but present on the Franz Joseph Enterprise plans. And a logical necessity, like access to the emergency stairs from the bridge.

So, in addition to smoking, drinking, synthehol, BSG, and self-driving cars, we can now add plumbing to this discussion.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

You think you're going to put 40,000 people in the miserable, dire circumstances of the BSG fleet and they're not going to do every kind of drug they can get their hands on?

Welcome to the human race. Enjoy your stay.

 

[Nerdius Maximus]

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.

People would just end up taking a handful of those pills at a time, or wash them down with a shot of jack daniels.

 

[Nerdius Maximus]

In 1968, Doctors used to actually recommend smoking.

Oh?? Which doctors were those?

Four out of five.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCMzjJjuxQI

 

[scotpens]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCMzjJjuxQI

That was 1949, not 1968. A lot of doctors did smoke back then. Hell, EVERYONE smoked. And the ad only claimed that Camel was the brand most preferred by doctors who smoke, not that doctors RECOMMEND smoking.

Still, today that commercial usually elicits a reaction akin to that of the audience during the opening number of Springtime for Hitler.

 

[Pauln6]

You think you're going to put 40,000 people in the miserable, dire circumstances of the BSG fleet and they're not going to do every kind of drug they can get their hands on?

I was indeed making a gag about the toilet on the bridge being the only one we've seen designated.

I agree up to a point with the above but where would the resources to keep producing the stuff come from? I can buy it for maybe 6 months but after that? In a barter economy the cost of such items is likely to exceed the reach of the people to whom you are referring. Drugs, cigarettes, and alcohol would become expensive rarities. Certainly there is no way the doc could keep chain smoking for 4 years unless he's refusing to treat patients unless they supply him with fags.

With regards to cigarettes being immoral, that is a far more complex and emotive issue. Passive smoking would be an issue in an enclosed environment but as people have said, any negative effects could be countered by future medical care. Conversely, if the nicotene is no longer pleasurable and addictive, why would anybody bother? We also don't know what effect an airborne toxin might have on alien species serving on or visiting the ship either.

In the modern era there are people who think that smoking in a room with your children is a form of child abuse! Tests have even shown that young babies breathe in toxins stored on clothes and fabrics even if the cigarettes are smoked elsewhere and don't get me started on the way far too many smokers don't think of cigarette butts don't count as litter.

Of course there is a moral element in everything humans do so even driving cars, burning wood, or producing more than say three children can be seen as 'immoral' in some respects depending on your definition. Catholics view large numbers of children as 'moral' because the Bible (and I'm sure other texts) encourages large families. This was understandable at the time the text was written when relatively small religious groups were competing for scarce resources with rival factions and religions; increasing your numbers was a vaild goal.

I watched the remake of the Day the Earth Stood still, which was quite enjoyable. It lacked enough dramatic tension for me and I thought that Klaatu could have been a bit less wishy washy and more specific in his criticism of the human race. Today where the number of humans is vastly increasing while the number of plants and animals is decreasing as the humans seek living space and food. We're polluting the planet and consuming resources in ever-increasing amounts. If we were locusts we'd be considered a plague and I suppose that was the analogy they were aiming for in the movie.

I've meandered a bit but I don't think that smokers can cock a snook at being called immoral any more than I can for buying cheap clothes made in third world countries by exploited workers.

P.S. Smoking does have a beneficial effect on some stomach complaints but the medicinal qualities are outweighed by the negative health effects when there are other, safer treatments.