to genuinely not understand why smoking is vilified

[Redpipe]

and yet drinking, overeating and other addictions that cost the NHS huge sums of money are not?

AIBU to genuinely not understand why it is just smokers in this country that are socially unaccepted?

I work in chronic disease management and of course it's vilified!!

Chronic respiratory diseases, including COPD (of which smoking is the major cause) is the only major cause of death whose incidence is increasing and it has a huge economic impact. The NHS spends almost £3 billion a year on treating the effects of it. Europe spends €100 billion.

This is part of the reason why the NHS is under financial pressure - treating people who continue to smoke is unsustainable. We just can't afford to continue spending billions on people who refuse to give up, and this is why over 50% of clinicians want to refuse treatment to smokers. Treating them is a waste of money, because not only are they actively doing something that will most likely kill them, some treatments given for other diseases they might gave will be less effective as a result.

So yes, it is vilified because it is downright selfish and unjustifiable and I find it shocking that a grown up who should understand basic scientific facts and economics should be throwing this kind of adolescent opinion about.

monicalewinski - I did actually mean to say smoking stinks, I cant think of anything good to say about smoking. My lovely friend (who I can say lots of good things about) hates the smell of smoking even though she cant seem to find the willpower to stop

I cant think of a good thing to say about smoking though
I watched my father die a horrible death of lung cancer and I have with people with COPD
Having to rely on O2 16-24 hours a day is not fun

Round of applause for McFox. Very well said.

Nicotine is the most addictive substance known to man.
Smoking it kills you.

It should be ILEGAL.

(Watched D ex P die of lung cancer last year. Please don't smoke)

My mother died from smoking related cancer. I always hated it and feel ill when forced to breathe in other peoples' smoke.

My mother also had a drinking problem, and while I agree that excessive alcohol consumption is a big problem, her drinking did not affect me 20x a day as her smoking did.

Social drinking (ie drinking which is not a problem) doesn't impact me, while social smoking definitely does.

I think it should continue to be vilified (along with binge drinking).

Well you can smoke passively but your unlikely to eat or drink passively

My mum and dad both smoked like chimneys. Dad gave up when I was in my teens, but mum still smokes as much as ever. I am absolutely convinced that growing up in a constantly smoky atmosphere has led to long term effects on my health. Whenever I get a cold, it goes straight to my chest - even now - and I have lost count of the number of chest infections I have had.

I don't know how many parents smoke nowadays, but I bet not all of those parents who do smoke, smoke outside, so there are still little children breathing in second hand smoke - which increases the risk of childhood cancers and other serious problems such as asthma, and according to the American cancer society, this causes:

Between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections (lung and bronchus) in children under 18 months of age, with 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations each year.

Breathing second hand smoke also increases the risk of SIDS.

Basically, a smoker who smokes around another person, is causing that person to inhale more than 7000 chemicals, of which 250 are known to be harmful, and 69 are known to cause cancer.*

• • American Cancer Society www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/secondhand-smoke

What McFox said, too. Sorry. I hate drinking too - well, drinking to excess. I don't drink. I don't get it.

an issue with food or other substance that is required to function is different.

I don't think that smokers have any idea how vile they smell! I can pass one in the street and they reek of it. This is apart from the effects of their smoking in others. It is a proved killer so I can't think why anyone would persist in doing it.

Btw I thought it was already a thing that clinicians could refuse to treat someone who drinks persistently to the point of self destruction.

My uncle is a case in point - he has had various transplants and is on dialysis, I don't know the details but he didn't stop drinking and they did stop offering certain solutions.

Also, smokers will continue to devalue the opinions of others about smoking.

They will say we just want to feel superior.
That it is no longer a bother to anyone else.
That it's actually cars causing health problems...

And on and on and on and on and on...

Never will they seem to admit that others simply find it revolting.

OP- first and foremost because eating and consuming alcohol are not harmful per se (only when done to excess or unhealthily are they bad for you) whereas there is no such thing as a harmless cigarette. You are choosing to put toxins into your body and to pollute the air around you.

Secondly, I disagree that obesity and drinking to excess aren't vilified. I think they are widely regarded as socially unacceptable, particularly in terms of the financial costs to the NHS and emergency services, and the social impact of things like binge drinking

Thirdly you talk as though people who smoke, drink to excess or eat to excess are 3 distinct groups. Whereas in reality there are lots of overlaps. Thinking of the smokers I know (which admittedly aren't many as far fewer people are daft enough to do it) they do seem to be the ones who eat pretty unhealthily, for example. Which is kind of logical in as far as all these things are essentially about not caring about your physical well being

What McFox said.

My dad smoked heavily when I was little and I had repeated pneumonia and bronchitis, resulting in permanent scarring of the lungs leading to chronic respiratory disease which is life limiting and severely crap to live with. So yeh, I villify smoking. I don't blame dad, he had no idea of the effects on health at the time and he did later give up, thankfully.

Now I have to run the gauntlet of smokers every time I go to the hospital - the respiratory dept is the worst and yes, it makes me ill. Most memorable time was being blue lighted in when pg after someone lit up next to me in a bus shelter and I pretty much collapsed. These are not mythical situations made up by people who like being sanctimonious. I believe in a free country and all that, but I reckon my right to breathe trumps your right to smoke, actually.

And, experiencing first hand the effects of degenerative lung disease, I get angry, really angry, with people who smoke because I know what it is like and I cannot imagine why these people would wilfully do something that may result in my experience. You don't want it, I can promise you, you don't want the feeling of drowning and choking and hideous pain and not even 02 making it better. It's just not worth it.

And let's not go with those who assume I've bought this on myself - 'that's a nasty cough, one too many fags' and much worse. I didn't, but many did, and that's what saddens me.

We just can't afford to continue spending billions on people who refuse to give up,

Yeah, we can. It's still cheaper than treating them for other things during the extra years they would otherwise live. See here: proper peer-reviewed evidence, not "won't somebody think of the smokers".

Figure 1.

Lifetime health costs at age 20, obese: 250k Euro. Lifetime health costs at age 20, smoker: 220k. Lifetime health costs at age 20, "healthy living": 281k.

Throw in the extra pension costs of someone living an extra seven years (healthy life expectancy at 20 is 84.4, smoker is 77.4) at about 8k Euro per annum and smokers cost the country over 100k Euro less. And they pay a shitload of tax, too.

There's lots of reasons to decry smoking. Costs to the welfare state are not amongst them.

an issue with food or other substance that is required to function is different

It's different because it isn't an addictive substance, therefore should be easier to cut down and no great hardship to simply stop over eating?

Yet it seems to be difficult for lots of people. If you take that nicotine is addictive then it is much more difficult to simply stop, unfortunately.

an issue with food or other substance that is required to function is different

It's different because it isn't an addictive substance, therefore should be easier to cut down and no great hardship to simply stop over eating?

Yet it seems to be difficult for lots of people. If you take that nicotine is addictive then it is much more difficult to simply stop, unfortunately.

And the argument about cars and buses causing more pollution and deaths is a red herring. Transport serves a necessary purpose, smoking doesn't. Also, cars being driven safely don't cause accidents- it is other factors such as carelessness, stupidity etc

My parents are both smokers, and always have been. My dad smoked a pipe and my mum chain-smoked cigarettes. I grew up with it, although neither my sister nor I have ever smoked at all.

I am on the fence here, not because I condone smoking at all because I don't, but because they were still lovely parents and still are. Very supportive, and they always strongly advised us NEVER to take up the habit. They are both in their late 70s now, and I see them maybe a couple of times a year because of the distance we live apart (we phone regularly though). I do notice the cigarette smell when I visit their house now that I don't live with it. I wish that they had ever been able to give up for the good of their health, but at their age it is not going to happen.

True though that cigarettes and alcohol bring in a lot of tax for each successive government. Ironic, really.

The money argument is the weakest one of all IMO.

Even if smokers bring in more money in tax than they cost in medical treatment, that's hardly a favorable argument is it? It's hardly ethically right to suggest it's a good thing that some people choose to poison their bodies because actually it brings extra money into the public purse?

Anyway, what kind of idiot voluntarily pays wad loads more tax to the govt through smoking? Don't they think they pay enough already??!

.....because my best friends husband at the grand old age of 35 is currently battling lung cancer brought on from passive smoking! He has never smoked in his life! Really? What a ridiculous thread!! If he had something related to overeating or drinking then at least it would be something he had done.
They have a 3yr old child.

we are the least smoking nation in Europe bar Sweden and Finland, and there are a whopping 73 countries that smoke more than the UK, we smoke 750 fags per person per year compared with over 2000 for the top nations

I don't know why you care op.

I smoke and I make a conscious effort to avoid pissing people off when in public.

But I am one of those annoying smokers who smokes in the beer garden of a summer evening. I'm also likely to be found smoking in the beer garden in bleakest January as well. I don't sit next to people and light up. I sit away from them. If people then choose to come and sit next to me that is not my problem.

I'll give up at some point I imagine but until then

£2.6 billion made from VAT on smoking

the cost of smoking to the NHS is £5 billion per year

so there is a £2.4 billion gap

but alcohol is just as bad

www.alcoholconcern.org.uk/assets/files/PolicyandCampaigns/HMT_-_alcohol_tax_and_price_review_August_2010.pdf Alcohol misuse is a costly business. Not just for individuals and their families but also to society, through unemployment, welfare benefits, health care costs and housing support. The cost of problem drinking to society as a whole is estimated at between £17 billion and £22 billion1. These costs will increase unless strategic action is taken.

Approximately £9 billion is collect in tax from alcohol sales.

alcohol is far more costly to the nation than smoking

Ivykaty, do you read the links you post?

£2.6bn in VAT. £9.5bn in excise duty. Less £5bn in cost to the NHS. profit: £7.1bn. What on earth makes you think there's a £2.4bn deficit? Why doesn't excise duty count?