[clarie]

Originally Posted by SlackDad

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.

How is this a hypocrisy? A lot of the things mentioned by you, and others, are dangerous, yes. But much harder to combat and do NOT take away from the danger of smoking. They are a harder target yes, but so what? I cannot see how it is wrong to combat the easier targets first - in fact it makes sense!!! Introduce a smoking ban in public enclosed spaces. Simple. Yes maybe we should look at the others also, but why argue against banning smoking on the grounds that it is easier than other dangers to resolve?

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.

As I have said before I do not consider the possible effects on mental health to be a sound argument. You are talking of evidence that suggests smoking will worsen depression and social isolation, I say the opposite is true. Evidence has shown that smoking and depression perpetuate each other. Once the smoker has given up he can start to look for actual causes to his depression as opposed to a shield to hide behind. Furthermore yes, we are currently talking about a ban on smoking in public places, which will force no one to quit, and will simply protect the non-smoker from passive smoking.

Originally Posted by SlackDad

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.

It was me who suggested separate smoking rooms and the smokers do not seem happy with this idea. Smoking areas do not work.

Originally Posted by SlackDad

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.

I see this ban as a step towards eradicating smoking from our lives altogether. Furthermore, banning smoking in public places will protect more children from second-hand smoke. So I believe the ban does address this.