Re: ban urged on smoking
 

There is something in this post that leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

Re: ban urged on smoking
 

that will be the creosote, stop eating your fence man :rofl:

Re: ban urged on smoking
 

He's made his thoughts clear on "that" subject several times, as have I, and I can assure you that neither of us are sitting on the fence ;)

Re: ban urged on smoking
 

if someone wants to smoke let em what happened to freedom of choice if u ban fag's then you have to ban booze as well :nono:

Re: ban urged on smoking
 

If someone doesn't want to smoke though Jonboy where is their freedom of choice ?

Re: ban urged on smoking
 

Why?

Re: ban urged on smoking
 

walk away just open the door and walk away easy :D

Re: ban urged on smoking
 

i would like to point out i smoke but do not inflict it on others

Re: ban urged on smoking
 

No you don't. Booze in moderation is actually good for you. Fags in moderation (or any amount) are bad for you from the first puff.

Good!
...Do you drop your fag ends or the cellophane that you unwrap from the packet onto the ground?

Re: ban urged on smoking
 

Aye I hear what you're saying. I don't think though having to avoid public places or having to move away if someone decides to smoke as freedom of choice.

I'm quite happy for people to smoke if they want. If they aren't doing anyone any harm I don't care what people get upto. The way I look at it is that if you want to smoke you should be the one who has to go out of their way to do it. Its your habit and you get the enjoyment. I don't believe in non smokers having to go out of their way to accomodate a habit of someone else.

A daft example this, that I just thought of :) If I enjoy playing golf and practicing swinging my driver. Would it be acceptable if I wanted to do it in the middle of a pub and everyone else had to sit in another area of the pub cos I decided I wanted to enjoy swinging a golf club ? No, that'd be daft.

Re: ban urged on smoking
 

Before casting the first stone, as a non drinking smoker I think the ethanol imbibers should contemplate this article. "Who takes up more NHS resources ethanol addicts or nicotine addicts ?"

Answers on a postcard please

"Disturbing new figures show drugs and alcohol abuse are causing widespread damage to Britain's health and social services.
Experts are warning that illnesses and injuries caused by alcohol abuse cost the NHS up to £3bn a year.

And the government's financial watchdog says drug addicts will continue to commit half of all crime, because their treatment is so ineffective.



The NHS is on the brink of collapse and it is hard to argue otherwise

Dr Chris Luke
A report by the charity Alcohol Concern says that more than 28,000 hospital admissions a year are caused by alcohol dependence or poisoning.

Such statistics have prompted warnings that the health service could crack under the strain of dealing with alcohol-related illness.

Alcohol is implicated in 33,000 deaths every year and one in six people attending accident and emergency units has alcohol-associated injuries.

This rises to eight out of 10 at peak times.

Alcohol Concern will present its findings at a conference for primary care health workers on Thursday to alert them to the scale of the problem.


Alcohol implicated in 33,000 deaths a year

Dr Chris Luke of Cork

Re: ban urged on smoking
 

if a smoker want to smoke fine same goes for drinkers and junkies as long as no one get hurt while we enjoy our habit they will be banning sun bathein next cos it Might Cause Skin Cancer Etc Etc Etc

Re: ban urged on smoking
 

fireman you've got a good argument, but its got a major flaw. It exists on the basis that we should never tackle one problem because there are other problems.

Of course alcohol causes a major strain on the NHS. The number of deaths from alcohol fair outweigh the deaths from any illegal drugs for example. But it doesn't alter the fact that smoking kills. It doesn't alter the fact that hundreds of non smokers die each year through passive smoking.

I'm all for tackling all the ills of society but please don't use the argument that we just have to live with the problems of smoking because there are other things which cause death aswell.

The simple fact of the matter is, passive smoking kills people. So we shouldn't allow people to smoke in public places where they are killing others through their uncessary habit. If smokers want to smoke, fine, it should be their free choice to smoke even if its bad for them. But since its bad for those around them too they should be forced to go out of their way to enjoy their habit, non smokers shouldn't have to go out their way to accomodate their addiction, ala the golf club example.

Re: ban urged on smoking
 

no the argument is if im sitting next to a smoker on public transport there are no other seats available im breathing in the toxins he/she is creating i dont want to breath them in if he or she wants to harm there health then they can do so but not at the expense of my health too

the point is not just about harmful substances to ones self its about the health impact it has on others

Re: ban urged on smoking
 

So you agree that a ban on public smoking is acceptable then? Anybody smoking in public puts smoke into the air that other people then breathe in. There are harmful chemicals in smoke - including cyanide - that I don't want to breathe in.

Anyone who doubts the difference a ban on public smoking might make should go and visit a few shopping malls. Some ban smoking, some do not. A trip to the Marlowes Centre in Hemel Hempstead followed by the Arndale in Luton would illustrate the point very nicely. The Arndale hasn't banned smoking. After being used to shopping in Hemel (or at the Harlequin in Watford, which is also non-smoking), going to the Arndale is a vile experience. It stinks.