[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by clarie

How? Do tell

Because the effects of banning smoking in public places will not have that much effect on the length of childrens exposure to secondhand smoke.

I do not have these figures, as well you know. This doesn't invalidate my argument. You do not have figures to the contrary. However, for those people who live in non-smoking households and yet passively smoke in pubs, the ban will definitely have benefits on their health. You're avoiding the issue once again I feel. How can you acknowlegde that smoking is a killer yet still demand evidence of it?

Here are some facts for you:


http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact08.html

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact14.html

I am not trying to be facetious by asking these questions but merely asking on what evidence is this ban being introduced, and where are the studies that overwhelmingly demonstrate adverse effects, from exposure within these environments.
The research you point to of course demonstrates harmful effects of passive smoking (although hardly from an independent source. I could have pointed you to the Forest website challenging this research but again, that is not impartial). The main point of my contention is the usefulness of this particular ban and what is it hoping to achieve. How long do people have to be exposed before any ill effects for example? Without the kind of evidence that I am calling for how can the Government justifiably ban smoking in public places?