Smoking "working class pleasure"

[Spentastic]

"Smoking is one of the few pleasures poorer people have access to, according to Health Secretary John Reid"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3789591.stm

Here's a guy that really wishes he hadn't given up. As an recent ex smoker I can see where he's coming from but a health secretary really should know better.

[Goldom]

1. oops

-nm- thought this was in usa. even so, come on, "poor people must be allowed to smoke, even if they aren't allowed to, oh, have a house! otherwise they couldn't contribute their part to multimillion dollar companies!"

[mom cat]

19. I have seen people on disability spend half their income on

cigarettes. What real pleasure can they have if they are chained to such a destructive, expensive habit. It's a horrible addiction that keeps people in grinding poverty. The only ones who derive pleasure from this habit are the stock holders in coffin nails. This Goon should be fired, or at least sentenced to a month in a hospital ward with people dying of lung cancer, emphysema, or any other fatal conditions caused by smoking and have to try to sleep in the same room with their cries of pain.

[0007]

40. You've explained it fairly well except the for the horrendous cost

of one that is struck by lung cancer, emphysema and the other diseases that cigarettes and other forms of tobacco bring.

This should be where the real war is fought.

[NashVegas]

2. Common Sense

The former heavy smoker, who quit 18 months ago, went on to warn against "middle class professional activists" who were fighting for a ban.

He said: "I just do not think the worst problem on our sink estates by any means is smoking, but it is an obsession of the learned middle class.

[Spentastic]

3. Bollocks

Heroin use is also mainly a pursuit of the lower economic classes. I guess that the "learned middle classes" should shut up about that too.

That's not common sense. It's rationalisation. Poor people should be allowed to damage themselves and their children and anyone near them because there are worse problems? Does not sound like sense to me. Sounds like a point of view that big tobacco would espouse.

He's projecting. He views smokers as victims of non smokers. That's quite simply rubbish.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. It's in the context of a ban in 'public places'

meaning, most notably, pubs. This is why talk of the 'working classes' is valid - they're more likely to be affected by a ban in pubs. If rock climbing were outlawed, on the grounds that it's dangerous for the participants, I'd be pissed off.

By now, everyone really does know smoking is bad for you. If the smoker were the only one involved, I don't think there'd be much of an argument - you'd allow it to continue. But the possible dangers of passive smoking mean the ban is worth considering (personally, I hate the stink of tobacco, but I can't see any legislation coming from that).

But if you're going to invoke their children, then I'd say that allowing smoking in pubs and other public places would probably be better than making them do it at home, where the children are likely to be.

[Bandit]

44. What if rock climbing was banned because the climbers knocked

rubble down on innocent bystanders and killed over fifty thousand a year. Would you still wish to knock the rubble down and kill so many people just for your rock climbing pleasure?

[muriel_volestrangler]

45. I repeat

If rock climbing were outlawed, on the grounds that it's dangerous for the participants, I'd be pissed off.
...
But the possible dangers of passive smoking mean the ban is worth considering

[Rich Hunt]

43. great!

I take it you will express equal concern for industrial pollution, toxic waste, a lack of health care and hazardous jobs, then?

My guess is that you've never thought of these things.

Funny how when it comes to drugs, the middle-class all of a sudden displays concern for the health of the lower classes.

:puke:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. I find it interesting

that my husband, who has smoked since he was 12, has perfectly clear lungs. Recently, he fell and fractured a rib, and went to the ER for X--rays. The MD in charge couldn't believe he smoked. His secret? He rolls his own, and only uses tobacco from Europe, where it is illegal to put in all the chemicals used in ready-rolled cigarettes. Sure, I'd like him to smoke (I've never taken up the habit), but I'm glad if he has to he rolls his own.

[T_i_B]

5. So cigar smokers don't count then?

:shrug:

[TX-RAT]

16. Once more under the wire

Been a cigar smoker over 20 yrs. Started when i quit cigarettes. Just had a check up and the lungs were fine.

[ProfessorGAC]

24. Me, Too & Me, Too

My company does a physcial every year for all employees and my lungs are spotless and clear, and i started smoking cigars in 1979.

I don't inhale though, so that may have something to do with it.
The Professor

[sam sarrha]

17. Sorry.. not true. cigars have over 40X the nicotine, you are more prone

to mouth, esophagus and stomach cancer. My friend had his jaw shoulder and arm removed. Radiation treatment killed his tear ducts..etc etc.

Smokeless tobacco is the worst. Cancer can start only 7 years after beginning use. I was a Juvenile Parole Officer. several of my guys had had cancer. still used it because they couldn't quit, after losing most of their jaw and teeth..bone grafts from ribs. one actually had cancer twice, couldn't stop using.. Addiction.

[jmowreader]

29. Because of the way cigars are smoked...

actual metabolized nicotine is less.

From Dr. Marc Schneiderman's study of cigars and health:

Turner, J.A., et al., 1977

This research was crucial in demonstrating that cigar smokers who never smoked cigarettes, and who didn't inhale, did not absorb nicotine or carbonmonoxide. The paper also demonstrated that ex cigarette smokers tend to inhale cigars even though they reported that they didn't. "The primary pipe and cigar smokers had low carboxyhemoglobin levels throughout the study, confirming that they did not inhale. The reduced mortality in primary pipe and cigar smokers probably relates to this fact. Not only did the primary pipe and cigar smokers not inhale, they also absorbed very little nicotine. The small rise in plasma nicotine in this group was similar to that found in passive smoking and would be expected in the environment of this study. The failure of the primary pipe and cigar smokers to absorb nicotine from the large cigar suggests that extrapulmonary routes of absorption of nicotine from smoke are unimportant. .We conclude that cigarette smokers who change to cigar smoking do not lose their habit of inhaling even after many years. The health benefit of such a change must be uncertain. The absence of inhalation by primary pipe and cigar smokers probably accounts for their smaller risk of heart and lung disease, but he accompanying absence of nicotine absorption makes their motive for smoking an enigma."

On edit: Dr. Schneiderman's study is at http://www.cigargroup.com/faq/health/

[Enraged_Ape]

6. Well...that and masturbation.

I wonder how John Reid feels about that?

What a butthole. What a dumb thing for a Health Secretary to say.

[non sociopath skin]

7. Of course the "pleasure" consists of addiction ......................

....... you feel good when you smoke only because your body craves the fix. This is exactly what a "Health Secretary" is paid to educate people about.

As ever, there's a political angle here. The Blairistas fear losing their blue collar votes in less affluent areas and are anxious to be seen to be "on their side."

The Skin

[missile_bender]

8. And alcohol and drugs

are among the many pleasures richer people have access to. What's the point?

[Bridget Burke]

9. The "social cost" of smoking is low.....

A doctor I know had this explained to him in medical school (not in the USA).

1) Lung cancer generally strikes after the worker's most productive years.

2) Treatment can be expensive, but the course of lung cancer is usually rather brief.

3) After the disease has run its course, costly pension payments can end--more savings ensue!

The doc who told me this did not agree with it; neither do I. But apparently the Health Secretary does. While the right kind of people protect their health, its more economical to let the peasants die early.

[THUNDER HANDS]

11. that's what the doctors in my hospital say as well

The ones who make frequent visits to Washington and to Albany, they say that government doesn't want people to stop smoking because it would actually raise health care costs.

People who smoke die faster, don't use up as much Social Security and aren't a burden on the state.

Thats partly the reason tobacco isn't criminalized.

[BiggJawn]

12. I'm so glad I quit, then!

Besides the personal health benefits (quit smoking, ride a bike, lose weight, Die Anyway) the knowledge that I'm a thorn in the side of lawmakers for not following their plan for the Unwashed Poor is extra sweet....

[jus_the_facts]

31. not to mention..... payin' all those HIGH TAXES on 'em as well.....

:evilfrown:

[FeebMaster]

32. Buy bulk tobacco and make your own.

$12.50 a carton or so.

http://www.ryomagazine.com

[jus_the_facts]

34. Marlboro Lights....

....there are NO substitues! :nopity:

[FeebMaster]

41. Sure there are.

I used to smoke Marlboros but have found a reasonable, if a bit lighter, facsimile.

http://www.cigarettetobacco.com

D&R tobacco, here, has some quality tobacco. If you want something Marlboroish in taste though not in smell, burning or otherwise, try the Rowland Tobacco with Windsail tubes.

You could buy a hand injector and a 3.5 ounce tub of tobacco with a box of tubes for under $20 to try it. That 3.5 ounce tub should make you around 100 cigarettes.

If you were really going to get into making your own, I'd recommend getting one of the full size injectors. I have the Excel Deluxe and I like it. You could get an Excel Deluxe, a 14oz bag of tobacco, and a couple boxes of tubes for around $50. That's about 2 cartons worth, so it literally pays for itself with your first bag of tobacco.

It's surprising how much just the cigarette tube changes the flavor of the cigarette but there are plenty to choose from, not to mention all the tobacco choices. You're bound to find something you like with a little experimentation. Then you'll be paying about $1 a pack instead of whatever ungodly amount you're paying now. They're well over $5 here last time I checked.

[Philostopher]

18. It's called social Darwinism.

It goes right along with the economic Darwinism that seems to be the fashion these days. Which is almost laughable coming from, in many cases (not necessarily in the UK yet, or even in all cases here in the US, but funny when it does nonetheless), people who espouse young-earth creationism and refuse to believe we evolved from a lower life form. They only like natural selection when it means survival of the richest.

[sam sarrha]

10. He is planning to run for public office and is courting contributions..!!

[LibLabUK]

13. Umm

He's an MP already...

[sam sarrha]

14. The governments support of smoking now makes sense! kill em off early

steal their SSI, pensions and medicare,... they took 2/3rds of my mothers SSI income when tobacco killed him 20 years ago.

but not a slick as AIDS..!!! With AIDS they are removing entire populations from 3rd world countries.. that will make it easier for us to steal their resources.

Aids is also pretty handy for getting rid of fornicators and and other unbelievers in Old Testament Law. ...I always thought it strange how hung up on the old testament some Christians were.. but it really comes in handy when you want to persecute someone.

[obelus]

20. "Smoking "working class pleasure"

Someone once said, "sex is the poor man's opera." Now, what happens if the DOJ and the ATF ban both?

[newyawker99]

27. Hi obelus!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[SOS]

21. Here's another "pleasure"

According to a report on ABC News' 20/20 alcohol is a factor in:

70% of child abuse cases
52% of rapes
86% of murders
75% of domestic assaults
40% of traffic fatalities (16,000/year)

Where's the effort to discourage alcohol use?
They don't want to throw a wet blanket on rich people's cocktail parties?

[T_i_B]

22. The British government is aware of this issue

I'll post this BBC article as an introduction to the issue of binge drinking and its effects in the UK. It's not that small an issue at all. I'll let other UK DUers comment on the goverment's plans for 24 hour liqor licences though.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3731025.stm

Tony Blair has warned that unless more is done to combat binge drinking, the alcohol industry may be forced to pay for dealing with drunken behaviour.

Mr Blair said ministers were trying to give people freedom to enjoy sensible drinking, but the police the power to deal with alcohol related crime.

The prime minister was making his first major speech on the subject since the government published its alcohol reduction strategy.

"Millions of people drink alcohol responsibly every day and no-one wants to stop the pleasure, but there is a clear and growing problem on our town and city centres up and down the country on Friday and Saturday nights," he said. At a time when overall crime is falling, alcohol related violent crime is actually rising.

"As a society we have to make sure that this form of what we often call binge drinking, doesn't become a British disease."

[Nihil]

25. Two ways to look at that list

The first is the honest one: question what "is a factor in" actually means.

In terms of UK police reports it is frequently a completely bogus stat.
If an accident involves a car being hit by a moving vehicle driven by
a sober but overtired delivery guy and traces of alcohol and cannabis
are detected in a subsequent blood test, this counts as a tick against
"excessive speed is a factor", "fatigue is a factor", "alcohol is a
factor" and "drug use is a factor" ... even if the alcohol and cannabis
are present in the victim, not the driver who caused the accident!

Statistics are a crap way to manipulate public opinion.

The more flippant view is to point out that according to your statistics,
it is more dangerous to drive sober ...

[SOS]

26. Yeah

It is more dangerous to drive sober. The 16,000 people killed every year in American DWI accidents are "crap statistics".

btw- Do you have any statistics on how many drunk people are sitting in their parked cars, minding their own business, when they are hit by a moving vehicle driven by an overtired delivery guy? Is this a major problem in the UK?

[Nihil]

36. Keep your hair on

Suggest you look up the meaning of the word "flippant".
It may help reduce your blood pressure.

Clue: I was pointing out the fallacy in listing simple statistics in
a way intended to suggest that a simple

Similarly, your trite "16,000 people killed every year" comment:

Exact number? No
All killed by excess alcohol? No
All killed by driving safely, legally and considerately while being a
small fraction over the limit? No
All killed by actions that would be dangerous (and/or illegal) even if
sober? Yes
Convenient blurring of facts in order to support a particular point of
view? Yes

Like I said, statistics are a crap way to manipulate public opinion.

> Do you have any statistics on how many drunk people are sitting in
> their parked cars, ...

FWIW, the person concerned was not drunk (was well inside the limit,
no prosecution was contemplated) and was not parked (was waiting to
join at a roundabout <=rotary?> ). This was not presented as an
exercise in statistics, merely as a factual, known example of how
an event can be reported in three false categories in addition to the
true category and thus how easy it is to make the statistics show
whatever you want them to. I talked with the driver concerned (not me)
and with a colleague of the officer concerned (also not me) - this was
not the one & only time that such "multiple-entry" reports were made
in that constabulary and I received no impression that it was a local
procedure (rather than a countrywide one).

For the record, I do not condone drink/driving, drug/driving,
driving while fatigued or speeding even though I admit to doing the
latter two at times. Sorry if I caught you at a bad moment.

[gratuitous]

23. Yup, and so is suing the daylights out of tobacco companies!

Oregon Court of Appeals just re-re-re-reaffirmed our client's $80.3 million verdict against Philip Morris from May 1999.

We aren't looking for a check just yet, though.

[MrSlayer]

28. At $5 a pack it's becoming a rich man's pleasure.

[many a good man]

30. Take it from our nation's idol

and working class hero:

[FeebMaster]

33. I prefer lucky strikes

They're toasted and endorsed by Ted Williams.

[Rex]

35. Ummm....WTF?

whoops...thought this was a Bush Admin critter. Brits should know better IMO.

[Pert_UK]

37. Didn't know you'd given up mate.......

You must be the last Marlboro Red man in the country!

This was a very amusing story.......

"Poor people have nothing in life and should be allowed to smoke themselves into an early grave."

I actually quite like the sentiment behind it - namely that the poorer classes are often patronised by politicians and the "middle" class. However, the way it was expressed and the particular theme of the comments were hugely inappropriate...and patronising in themselves.

IMHO.

[Mari333]

38. Smoking creates a dopamine storm in the brain

around 68% of the pop of the US is considered mildly or severely depressed...understandably so.
If there were proper mental health care agencies, and people had insurance and the time to access them, there would be less smoking, believe me, and less abuse of alcohol and illegal drugs.
People use what is available to them to access some way of dealing with their depression. And we are depressed, anxious, and I see it everyday. People are trying to take the edge off of numerous scenarios in their lives
Poor wages
Stress (!!!!)
poverty
and numerous other factors that contribute to the stress in US society
Until there are alternatives, such as Universal health care, accessible clinics and programs to help people cope, we will have people using what is available to them to cope...its all they have
Before fingers are pointed and blame and shame occurs, one has to look at the bigger picture.
Everyone deserves proper mental health care, and in US society, that isnt happening.
I see a counselor on a weekly basis, so does my husband. I have sen abuse of chemicals in my own family, smoking, drinking, and teenager abuse of drugs. There is help out there, and legal medications and alternative measures to the angst in this society.
Having a kid in Iraq can stress you out more then you can imagine.
Therefore, massage, deep breathing, learning the center yourself, keeping your life structured, eating properly, (another problem for the poor), medication thats appropriate if you choose it, and all kinds of things can help people cope.
Not many poor folks can afford a 50 dollar an hour massage.
The body is loaded with phramaceuticals that can access and help stress.
I take a class with a large number of poor people and they are barely surviving. They are living from 7 dollar paycheck to paycheck.
Believe me, they cant afford a massage or counseling. They can barely afford food. Many of them are dressed in clothes donated to them.
Its rough out there, and we have to vote for Kerry and hold his feet to the fire for Universal Health Care.
Blaming and shaming these folks wont work.
They, and we, all deserve better coverage and treatment for our stress.
Society needs a major overhaul.

[Pepperbelly]

39. thanx ....

it really surprises and astounds me at times when the so-called liberals that post here take such a jaundiced view of the working poor, their aspirations, their struggles, their lives. They should walk a mile or two in the shoes of these folk and see if the shoe pinches them as much as they pinch us.

BTW, my son is going into the Navy next month. As a Navy vet, I tried everything I could to dissuade him but when they get a wild hair and decide to do it ...

:shrug:

I fully understand the statement re: stress from one's children being exposed to such danger. Peace.

[AP]

42. I once got in an argument with a friend about drug use.

I had just gotten back from a particularly refreshing trip to the ocean, and a friend was complaining about drug use among poor, black people in his neighborhood.

It struck me that if you're rich, you can go on a vacation when things get tense. If your poor and your daily life is miserable, maybe getting high every once in a while is the only thing you can do to get the equivalent degree of relaxation.

My friend did not like that argument at all.