More smoking restrictions (is it enough?)

[Gary L]

In the future you can look back and say..

They banned smoking in public spaces.
They banned smoking in public buildings.
They banned smoking in company cars/vans.
They banned smoking in cars containing children.
They banned tobacco advertising.
They banned tobacco vending machines.
They banned cigarettes being displayed in shops.
They banned colourful tobacco packaging.
They went after people selling cheaper tobacco from abroad.

But they didn't ban tobacco. because they took a great big cut of the filthy killer drug that people died and suffered from.

Later this year, tobacco products will be taken out of vending machines - and now ministers are seeking to ban displays in shops and, perhaps, force manufacturers to use plain packaging.
Smoking, it is fair to say, is probably the most regulated mass habit around.
But a quick look at smoking rates explains why the government is taking an increasingly tough stance.
In the 1950s, when the link between smoking and lung cancer was established beyond doubt, eight in 10 men smoked.
By 1974, 45% of adults were smokers and this continued to fall until it dipped under a quarter in 2001.
But since then the numbers have started levelling off. Some 21% of adults still smoke, with manual groups twice as likely to do so as professional groups.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12687458

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Gary L

But they didn't ban tobacco. because they took a great big cut of the filthy killer drug that people died and suffered from.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12687458

I would have no issue with them banning tobacco, However if they are to ban tobacco then they will get pressure from the smokers for alcohol to be banned as well.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Sirius

I would have no issue with them banning tobacco, However if they are to ban tobacco then they will get pressure from the smokers for alcohol to be banned as well.

Hmmm.... not sure that those who smoke and drink will want to lose both life's little pleasures..

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Osem

Hmmm.... not sure that those who smoke and drink will want to lose both life's little pleasures..

There is no way the government will want to lose there drug money

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Sirius

I would have no issue with them banning tobacco, However if they are to ban tobacco then they will get pressure from the smokers for alcohol to be banned as well.

Would you have an issue with the increased taxes you'd have to pay though? If they ban smoking, the government's going to lose a large chunk of their income. A chunk that will have to be replaced from elsewhere.

Personally, if people know the risks and are happy to kill themselves, I say let them.

[Taf]

The upcoming Budget should be interesting..... any bets on how much smokers and drinkers will be hammered to "balance the books"?

---------- Post added at 15:17 ---------- Previous post was at 15:12 ----------

Lung cancer rates have more than doubled for women over 60 since the mid-1970s, figures show.

Cancer Research UK figures say the rate rose from 88 per 100,000 in 1975 to 190 per 100,000 in 2008, the latest year for which statistics are available.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12651455

So up from 0.088% to 0.190%... a HUGE percentage of the population! No wonder smoking is attacked so much.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Taf

The upcoming Budget should be interesting..... any bets on how much smokers and drinkers will be hammered to "balance the books"?

It'll get to the stage one day where even the non smokers will say that they're just profiteering from the drug money.

By making the packaging unattractive the only thing allowed on the packaging will be "THESE THINGS WILL KILL YOU" *
they remove all responsibility from the makers and from the government for the sale and the allowing of these things to be sold. so in effect you can't sue anyone for the ill effects that these things will give you.
they say it's personal choice. if you choose to take the risk, they'll profit from that risk.

but they won't allow 'other killer drugs' to be sold.
because they don't profit from them, or because they're bad for people?

* one of many warnings.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Taf

The upcoming Budget should be interesting..... any bets on how much smokers and drinkers will be hammered to "balance the books"?

---------- Post added at 15:17 ---------- Previous post was at 15:12 ----------



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12651455

So up from 0.088% to 0.190%... a HUGE percentage of the population! No wonder smoking is attacked so much.

You forget that Passive smoking kills 600,000 a year which sounds a lot, but that figure is worldwide, so it's out of 6,000,000,000..

Compare that to 3,000 deaths as a result of car accidents just in the UK.

[Pierre]

In the future you can look back and say..

They banned smoking in public spaces.
They banned smoking in public buildings.
They banned smoking in company cars/vans.
They banned smoking in cars containing children.
They banned tobacco advertising.
They banned tobacco vending machines.
They banned cigarettes being displayed in shops.
They banned colourful tobacco packaging.
They went after people selling cheaper tobacco from abroad.

But they didn't ban tobacco. because they took a great big cut of the filthy killer drug that people died and suffered from.

For once, an excellent point.

It's a fairly pointless move, but I'm not against it.

People who still wish to continue smoke, will, and so they should.

So it has no impact.

Originally Posted by Pierre

It's a fairly pointless move, <snip>
So it has no impact.

Patently untrue. At the time the causal link with lung cancer was established, about 80% of men smoked. Now it's a little over 20%. It has fallen steadily as restrictions on it, and education about it, have grown tighter and more sophisticated.

There is every reason to expect the ban in public places, and now the proposal to ban display, to reduce the level of smoking in our society still further. And there is no basis for suggesting, as you have done, that there will be no impact.

[Taf]

Originally Posted by Stuart

You forget that Passive smoking kills 600,000 a year which sounds a lot, but that figure is worldwide, so it's out of 6,000,000,000..

Compare that to 3,000 deaths as a result of car accidents just in the UK.

I can't see if you're for or against my statement that smoking causes cancer in a tiny proportion of the population in the UK.

Passive smoking "causes" 600,000 worldwide deaths by cancer out of a world population of 600,000,000... therefore 0.1%.

3,000 deaths as a result of car accidents in the UK... how many die as a result of car accidents worldwide out of the 600,000,000?

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Taf

I can't see if you're for or against my statement that smoking causes cancer in a tiny proportion of the population in the UK.

I am actually surprised it is so low..

Originally Posted by Taf

I can't see if you're for or against my statement that smoking causes cancer in a tiny proportion of the population in the UK.

Passive smoking "causes" 600,000 worldwide deaths by cancer out of a world population of 600,000,000... therefore 0.1%.

3,000 deaths as a result of car accidents in the UK... how many die as a result of car accidents worldwide out of the 600,000,000?

Your calculations for the rates of both tobacco and road deaths are flawed. To average across the population of the entire world you need to be confident that the exposure to the risk is reasonably uniform.

The risk will be higher where the exposure is higher; therefore I would generally expect a higher rate of smoking-related deaths in less developed countries that tend to have higher smoking rates, and a higher rate of road deaths in more developed countries where more of the population are exposed to cars.

Naturally, in both cases, the risk will be mitigated by whatever safety legislation is in force. In the UK, for example, the use of seat belts in cars and the careful control of who can smoke, and where, might reasonably be expected to make a difference.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

Patently untrue. At the time the causal link with lung cancer was established, about 80% of men smoked. Now it's a little over 20%. It has fallen steadily as restrictions on it, and education about it, have grown tighter and more sophisticated.

There is every reason to expect the ban in public places, and now the proposal to ban display, to reduce the level of smoking in our society still further. And there is no basis for suggesting, as you have done, that there will be no impact.

So why did more women take up smoking in the 60s and 70s?

Originally Posted by danielf

So why did more women take up smoking in the 60s and 70s?

A very good question, but one which misses the point slightly. These changes are generational. We're looking at a major, population-wide decline over 60 years, so an increase within part of the population during a span of less than 20 years has to be seen within that limited context.

Smoking was historically less aimed at women; there's some useful info here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_smoking

... which while slanted at the USA is I think still relevant to the UK situation. It suggests that around the 1950s, fewer than 40% of women were smoking and the tobacco companies were marketing at women aggressively. This would account for the counter-trend rise in female smoking rates.

Of course, it might also demonstrate the power of marketing in the face of medical warnings, thereby adding weight to the current proposals to eliminate what remains of tobacco marketing in this country.