Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Smokers soon to be pariahs?

My thought is that cellphone users are the new smokers. Why can't people ever "be alone"? Is it really necessary to have a phone glued to your ears in every public place having a conversation loud enough for people within a 20-foot radius to hear you? :rolleyes:
 
imac/cheese said:
From what I understand, smokers die earlier so the smoker's lifetime healthcare costs are generally lower than the non-smokers. Sorry no link or data.
Click to expand...

Even if the total cost is indeed less than scotthayes's 10M figure, there is no way the average smoker is costing the health services LESS than a non-smoker. :rolleyes:
 
Much Ado said:
Even if the total cost is indeed less than scotthayes's 10M figure, there is no way the average smoker is costing the health services LESS than a non-smoker. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
It is well possible, since smokers generally don't live long enough to develop those really intractable and expensive ailments which put old people in nursing homes for twenty years.
 
skunk said:
It is well possible, since smokers generally don't live long enough to develop those really intractable and expensive ailments which put old people in nursing homes for twenty years.
Click to expand...

But we're talking the average smoker vs. the average non-smoker. How many non-smokers end up in nursing homes for 20 years?

And nursing home costs are accommodation, not healthcare, right?

We need some cold, hard stats in this thread ;)
 
brn2ski00 said:
Second hand sugar... love it!
Click to expand...

I don't. Euuuh! :p

I suppose I'm lucky I never smoked. My dad was a heavy smoker, and I'd be woken every morning by the sound of him coughing his guts up. Plus his fingers were permanently stained yellow from the cigarettes, and the room of the dining room he smoked in was stained brown from the pall of smoke that was always in there.

That, together with a friend of mine who's a mid-wife who told me far too descriptive stories about being able to tell if a mother who's giving birth is a smoker or not. :eek:

Even though I never smoked, I was against the smoking ban here initially. But on the whole, it's had positive effects. Air is a lot cleaner in pubs and restaurants, your clothes don't reek of smoke when you get home, there's actually a good buzz out on the streets these days with more people out there smoking - hence a lot more outdoor cafes, seating areas, roof gardens etc.

The only downside (as someone mentioned) - you get to notice the other smells a lot more now. Can we blame the smokers for that too? :p
 
leekohler said:
I propose a ban on all "let's-bash-the-smokers-and-call-them-names" threads. Honestly- enough already. It's been done enough. :mad:
Click to expand...

I fail to see why the term "drug-addict" is considered name-calling if it is applied to a person who is addicted to a drug. If properly used the term is accurately descriptive.

The same would apply to a term like "mentally challenged". As applied to some people it is an accurate medical diagnosis. Only when the term is intentional missapplied could it be an insult.

When applied to most smokers the term "drug-addict" is is accurate and descriptive of their condition.
 
ChrisA said:
I fail to see why the term "drug-addict" is considered name-calling if it is applied to a person who is addicted to a drug. If properly used the term is accurately descriptive.

The same would apply to a term like "mentally challenged". As applied to some people it is an accurate medical diagnosis. Only when the term is intentional missapplied could it be an insult.

When applied to most smokers the term "drug-addict" is is accurate and descriptive of their condition.
Click to expand...

Was the word "disgusting" necessary too? You know what we're talking about. It's not as if smokers are junkies stumbling through the streets knocking off convenience stores. The term "drug addict" has certain connotations that are inescapable.
 
leekohler said:
The term "drug addict" has certain connotations that are inescapable.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it is time to broaden the term. Perhaps you should not be thinking of "drug addicts" only as junkies. Those addicted to prescription drugs, alcohol and cigarettes fall squarely within the category.
 
I figured that I would chime in on here as a smoker. I as a smoker respect non-smokers and when I smoke outside I don't do it next to the entrance or exits of a building. What I do have a problem with is the government telling businesses that they can't allow smoking inside their facility. I think places funded by the government have to certainly ban smoking as those places are to be available to anyone; however, a bar or club that wants to allow smokers should have the right to do so either by allowing the entire place to be a smoking facility or building a separate smoke room with a separate venting system.

Argue all you want about the health affects of second hand smoke, a private entity has the right to allow smoking in their place of business if they so desire.
 
maestro55 said:
Argue all you want about the health affects of second hand smoke, a private entity has the right to allow smoking in their place of business if they so desire.
Click to expand...

That's the thing though. Postal firms deliver to them, water cooler guys come in to replace water, inspectors and other visiting parties, cleaners, non-smokers who don't give the smokes dangers a second thought. If it was a building filled with only smokers that knew the dangers then it would be okay, but that's a little unrealistic isn't it?
 
maestro55 said:
I figured that I would chime in on here as a smoker. I as a smoker respect non-smokers and when I smoke outside I don't do it next to the entrance or exits of a building. What I do have a problem with is the government telling businesses that they can't allow smoking inside their facility. I think places funded by the government have to certainly ban smoking as those places are to be available to anyone; however, a bar or club that wants to allow smokers should have the right to do so either by allowing the entire place to be a smoking facility or building a separate smoke room with a separate venting system.

Argue all you want about the health affects of second hand smoke, a private entity has the right to allow smoking in their place of business if they so desire.
Click to expand...

The laws protect the employees who work there. It is the right of the government to mandate and the responsibility of the company to provide safe working conditions.
 
leekohler said:
Too late, he already did. This is why these threads always go down the toilet. This one will be no different than the others.
Click to expand...

This thread hasn't exactly gone down the toilet. Besides, it's something that more people are in favour of than against.

I thought you were "out of here"?

skunk said:
It is well possible, since smokers generally don't live long enough to develop those really intractable and expensive ailments which put old people in nursing homes for twenty years.
Click to expand...

They just develop major health issues earlier in life, and live with less severe issues throughout their life.

As someone who knows how much medical procedures really cost, I think it's impossible to put down a value regarding healthcare cost of smoking, especially when things like lost productivity due to a person's overall health is concerned.
 
mac 2005 said:
The laws protect the employees who work there. It is the right of the government to mandate and the responsibility of the company to provide safe working conditions.
Click to expand...

I will give you this; however, in places where there is a separate smoking section, is it hard to find waiters/waitresses who are smokers who are willing to work in the smoking section.
 
Smoking in public in a lot of American states has been banned for a while notably California. In Utah it is illegal to smoke within 25ft of a doorway outside.
 
davidjearly said:
....Smoking should be outlawed in your car for the same reason mobiles phones are. They are a distraction to you as a driver. Just like eating whilst driving should not be allowed either. You are not only putting yourself at risk, but also others.
Click to expand...


LOL okay now that's just silly :p Then they should crack down on women putting their makeup on in the car as well, or people having children in the back of the car (they can be a distraction too sometimes).

Ooh I know, maybe governments should choose for us what we eat at nights too??
 
leekohler said:
Was the word "disgusting" necessary too? You know what we're talking about. It's not as if smokers are junkies stumbling through the streets knocking off convenience stores. The term "drug addict" has certain connotations that are inescapable.
Click to expand...


I agree and it's not as though they are alcoholics or teenagers out on another drinking binge who then get into a car and run down some innocent pedestrian.
 
djellison said:
I always wondered how or why people thought smoke would stop at a small wooden sign.
Click to expand...
In Australia the smoking section is outside. Smokers have to huddle in the cold/rain to smoke before scuttling back inside. It's a sorry sight. However they've got a better deal on warm summer nights as they occupy the al fresco dining areas.
 
It's always a chuckle for me, every week, when I see one of these peeps heading out for a smoke.

23284427.jpg
 
Smokers are, in large part, already pariahs among upper-middle and upper class circles in the US. Smoking, like tattoos and bad grammar, is seen as something for the lower elements of society. Politically incorrect, perhaps, but true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back