[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by Chris T

So the tactics of the smoking lobby can be summed up something like this:

1. Attempt to deflect the debate onto other health concerns (e.g. alcohol), as if it's impossible to do anything about smoking unless we also do something, simultaneously, about a thousand and one other things.

I'm not so sure whether this was an attempt at deflection but rather pointing out apparent hyprocrisies, some of which have been conveniantly ignored by the pro-ban supporters. Some of these '1001' other things may be equally if not more damaging to health than smoking but are either noticeably less visible or obvious therefore represent a harder target, or maybe this would mean that everyone, not just smokers may have to look at their own everyday practices and habits.

2. Attempt to characterise the ban itself as an assault on public health because of the possibility of depression in some people who quit. At the same time, conveniently forget that smoking kills far more people than giving up does.

This is pushing it a little. Why is pointing out a supposed negative impact of the smoking ban, such as the potential effect for people suffering from mental health problems, seen as constructing the ban as an 'assault on public health'. I know you and others may not like or accept it but there may just be some negative consequences of this ban.
Also I thought the discussion was concerned with smoking in public places rather than smoking per se. What therefore has the amount of people smoking kills as opposed to giving up got to do with it? As said before many non-smokers die everyday too.

3. Attempt to portray the ban as an assault on freedom. Never mind the fact that non-smokers are in the majority and do not currently have the freedom to go to a pub and not inhale smoky air, because the smokers, who are in the minority, insist on the absolute freedom to indulge in their habit regardless of the fact that it compels others to share it.

Well the evidence from Ireland suggested that the majority of all customers were not in favour of the ban. I think the people opposed to this ban here have been quite happy to suggest smoking areas, separate rooms, smoking/non smoking pubs, good filtration systems etc. Hardly the absolute freedom as you suggest. It appears to me that, on the whole, pro-ban supporters do not appear to want to budge.

and finally, the opus, the masterpiece itself:

4. Attempt to ridicule the arguments in favour of a ban as a hobby of those with nothing better to do with their time. Happily ignore the fact that smoking, and passive smoking, is a killer that many people quite justifiably wish to see taken out of their way.

This is a misinterpretation. What the suggestion was, to be honest, is that is it not worth getting a bit of perspective, and actually see whether smoking in public places is that high on the agenda when it comes to a list of damaging problems that need to be solved. If many would actually put as much effort into solving some of these other problems as they do supporting the ban then maybe the world would be a better place.

There is no denying that smoking is a killer, but I am simply attempting to look at what the facts are about this particular ban and see what the effects are. As I suggetsed earlier and will do so again, leaving aside staff for one moment, which I am aware is an issue, does anybody actually have the evidence or is aware of how much damage a non-smoker actually does to themselves by ,say, going into a pub a few times a week. I mean what are the actual facts here. Have any actual comparative studies been undertaken? Is the effect different/worse than living in a built up area? I would bet that the vast majority of any passive smoking effects are caused by living in a smoky environment rather than visiting a pub a few times a week. These are the issues are they not?

If this ban, as I suspect, will have minimal difference on illness caused by passive smoking should we not be focusing on these issues. Many children are exposed to smoking from a very early age and then are more likely to become smokers themselves. So already they may have had many years exposure. What we need to be doing is fostering a culture where children are less exposed to smoking and therefore are less likely to take up the habit. Not something this ban will address. By doing this over time a more non-smoking culture will evolve creating smoke free areas by their own accord.

Once these questions have been answered then surely the debate would be based on facts rather than conjecture. This I believe is a much healthier and constructive way to proceed for both smokers and non-smokers alike.