Why didn't anyone smoke?

[Pauln6]

Lol - maybe but it does fund the child sex trade, people trafficking, and, in the case of heroin, terrorism and that's without the harmful effects to the individuals and their families. I'm happy with holoporn addiction and chocoholism being Trek characters' main vices... Hell, if I had a holodeck and a Zachary Quinto program I'd... er... discuss the nuances of his performance repeatedly...

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Point taken. What about fair trade cocaine? There's no arguing the benefits of that.

 

[GalaxyClass1701]

Because by the 23rd century people were smart enough to avoid cancer sticks.

 

[Chaos Descending]

By the 23rd Century, they wouldn't BE "cancer" sticks.

Or if they were, it wouldn't matter!

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Because by the 23rd century people were smart enough to avoid cancer sticks.

Snowball in hell.

 

[DevilEyes]

I'm happy with holoporn addiction and chocoholism being Trek characters' main vices...

You forget T'Pol. Trelium-D is pretty much Vulcan cocaine.

 

[scotpens]

Lol - maybe but it does fund the child sex trade, people trafficking, and, in the case of heroin, terrorism and that's without the harmful effects to the individuals and their families.

Illegal drugs fund terrorism, human trafficking and other nefarious activities because they're so lucrative. And what makes them so lucrative is their illegality. Legalize all voluntary use of recreational substances by adults, and terrorists and organized crime will get out of the drug business.

As for the harm to individuals, that's the individual's free choice. The state has no right to compel anyone to act in his own best interest. Freedom to do only what's good for you isn't freedom; it's nanny-state paternalism.

Wherever something is in demand, someone will be willing to supply it. Time and again, history has shown that the best way to deal with so-called "vice" is to legalize it, regulate it and tax it.

Okay, end of soapbox rant for today.

 

[Pauln6]

No I'm not wholly against the legalisation of drugs. I'm quite glad if people with dodgy addictive genes want to kill themselves - it's what Darwin is all about. The problem is that drugs take too long and we have to spend money keeping them alive. Bleuch.

The other problem is that while cigarettes are legal, there is a large black market as well. I'm not sure to what extent legalising them would increase demand, magnify the problem, and still leave criminals room to make a profit.

 

[Wingsley]

Thing is, starships are robust enough to spend years upon years in space and retain their breathable air despite having all sorts of onboard fires, battles, mishaps, sabotage attempts, poison gas attacks and whatnot. Surely their air circulation systems could be programmed to handle chain smokers, Klingon armpits and a large recreational bonfire on Deck 3?

May be so, but that doesn't mean the regulations allow bon fires or smoking. Life support systems aboard spacecraft have been known to have limits.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

I'm happy with holoporn addiction and chocoholism being Trek characters' main vices...

You forget T'Pol. Trelium-D is pretty much Vulcan cocaine.

No, although she injected it, it sort of made me think more of crack that cocaine.

 

[DevilEyes]

I'm happy with holoporn addiction and chocoholism being Trek characters' main vices...

You forget T'Pol. Trelium-D is pretty much Vulcan cocaine.

No, although she injected it, it sort of made me think more of crack that cocaine.

Whatever. In any case, she was a junkie.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

[/joke]

 

[Hambone]

Plenty of people smoked on Star Trek.

Here's a recently-disintegrated redshirt, smoking.

Here's Spock, smoking.

Here's Sherry Jackson, smoking.

 

[Sci]

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.

What can I say? I resent other people's bad habits when they involve making it hard for me to breathe by giving me an asthma attack and by increasing my risk of dying of cancer by exposing me to carcinogens.

I actually resent it when someone else's bad habits endanger my health. I'm funny that way.

 

[cwnorma]

^^ I think officially, that's Sherry Jackson "SMOKIN!"

 

[Kegg]

by increasing my risk of dying of cancer by exposing me to carcinogens.

Called it!

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.

Okay, so it isn't a few paragraphs, but I got the severity and the second-hand smoking stuff down pat.

 

[Pauln6]

I'm not a rabid anti-smoker but I am asthmatic and cigarette smoke is one of my allergens. Sad fact is that somebody else smoking near could trigger an attack that could kill me! I've also known other people whose health was affected because their partners smoked in the house and small children should never be exposed to passive smoke in my view - it can have long term effects.

I do think the habit is crazy. I do think that we need to do all we can to block subliminal messages that smoking is cool to try and limit the number of youngsters who start. I do thin the majority of smokers are not considerate enough (in the UK at least) as evidenced by the masses of fag butts all over our streets.

Now I chew gum and all gum chewers could fall foul of the same blanket criticism based on the amount of gum all over our streets (sometimes even within spitting distance of a litter bin) but I have never once spat gum out on the street.

Until we start executing people for their third littering offence things will never change

 

[Sci]

by increasing my risk of dying of cancer by exposing me to carcinogens.

Called it!

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.

Okay, so it isn't a few paragraphs, but I got the severity and the second-hand smoking stuff down pat.

Considering that there aren't all that many drugs that can kill people who don't even use them, I think the thing about second-hand smoke and cancer is perfectly legitimate.

And just as legitimate is the fact that smoke will often trigger asthma attacks in asthmatics. I often suffer fairly painful attacks when I'm exposed to cigarette smoke, and when I was an R.A., we had a number of residents who indicated that the asthma attacks they suffered from smoke making it into their windows from inconsiderate smokers who tended to smoke just outside the residence hall were getting so severe that they felt the situation to be genuinely dangerous.

 

[Timo]

There's also the aspect of "general bad manners" there. Those tend to be fairly consistently defined and treated when one deals with things of residue, smudge, smell or stain nature... If you leave a mark, you are likely to be universally hated.

Spitting has been out of the vogue since the early 20th century, and a person spitting indoors today is likely to get physically injured by his compatriots pretty quickly. There's the health aspect to it, with many diseases spreading or feared to be spreading in congested 20th century cities via expectoration. But there's also the general aesthetic aspect of it.

It might not be as common to kick the teeth out of a smoker's mouth as it would be to make an expectorator bleed today, but we're getting close. In the average bus around here, if there's a smoker who has the misfortune of not being wrestler-sized, and if there are average-sized men in there in addition to the person who expresses her displeasure on the subject of smoking, threats of physical violence towards the smoker will quickly ensue, and will be universally appalauded. (The situation where one of those average-sized men would be the first to express the displeasure is less likely to occur, it seems.)

That, more than any health concerns or statues, is likely to have an effect on public smoking. If it's considered unwelcome by a few, many will rally to show their support to those few in hopes of scoring... The natural result is that smoking will only continue in environs where threat of physical violence ain't a scoring factor as such - where one might have to follow through in order to gain anything. Basically, smoking is becoming the vice of the "criminal classes" for purely ego- and fashion-related reasons!

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Kegg]

I do thin the majority of smokers are not considerate enough (in the UK at least) as evidenced by the masses of fag butts all over our streets.

Now I chew gum and all gum chewers could fall foul of the same blanket criticism based on the amount of gum all over our streets (sometimes even within spitting distance of a litter bin) but I have never once spat gum out on the street.

Honestly I wouldn't mind if gum got banned if it'd just clean up the goddamn streets. They did that in Singapore, after all. Cigarette butts are also a major problem but as far as sidewalks go not as significant as gum, really.

Considering that there aren't all that many drugs that can kill people who don't even use them, I think the thing about second-hand smoke and cancer is perfectly legitimate.

Of course you do.