ban urged on smoking

[trebor]

Originally Posted by Nor

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.

All very true so lets start by banning booze, it costs the NHS and society in general a lot more than tobacco ever will. I have not got any figures but I would imagine alcohol related deaths far out way tobacco related deaths. just go and stand in any busy city center on a saturday night and you will see what a dramatic influence alcohol has on society.
so if we must start banning peoples bad habits at least lets start with ones that cost the most and have the biggest effect on the population.

[Dave Stones]

Originally Posted by kronas

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

last time i was in heckmondwike all public transport was non-smoking

im all for banning it in public though. cant stand walking through somewhere and coming out smelling like a backy factory. people doing it in nightclubs and pubs though i have nothing against funnily enough. i think it is part of the atmosphere of a pub that it has to have a visible "smoke layer" there...

and no im not a smoker in case anyone asks

[kronas]

Originally Posted by Dave Stones

last time i was in heckmondwike all public transport was non-smoking

yes thats correct

Originally Posted by Dave Stones

im all for banning it in public though. cant stand walking through somewhere and coming out smelling like a backy factory. people doing it in nightclubs and pubs though i have nothing against funnily enough. i think it is part of the atmosphere of a pub that it has to have a visible "smoke layer" there...

i dont think anyone cares if people smoke in a pub and or club its the norm so to ban that would be a travesty

[Russ]

Originally Posted by kronas

i dont think anyone cares if people smoke in a pub and or club its the norm so to ban that would be a travesty

So if dropping the date-rape drug in to drinks became the norm would that be ok?

[Nor]

Thats the whole point Kronos Its all about banning people smoking in pubs and clubs. Of course we care

Using aesbestos in schools used to be the norm until the health risks were realised. Then something was done about it.

[kronas]

Originally Posted by Nor

Thats the whole point Kronos Its all about banning people smoking in pubs and clubs. Of course we care

its not the general ethos in the public though

Originally Posted by Nor

Using aesbestos in schools used to be the norm until the health risks were realised. Then something was done about it.

but will we ever see a ban soon i doubt it

Originally Posted by Russ D

So if dropping the date-rape drug in to drinks became the norm would that be ok?

of course not you have missed the sarcasm in that post im all for a ban on smoking in all public places but there seems to be an issue with most that they dont want to see a ban

Hi kronas,
I think we are missing a lot of the nuances of your postings because of the lack of punctuation.It makes it all too easy to miss your meanings and leads to misunderstandings.

Incog.

[kronas]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Hi kronas,
I think we are missing a lot of the nuances of your postings because of the lack of punctuation.It makes it all too easy to miss your meanings and leads to misunderstandings.

Incog.

LOL i did put the sarcastic smiley at the end

i cant punctuate :p

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by fireman328

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

Alcohol related injuries...like a split lip or a broken arm- not like tobacco related injuries....cancer!

Drugs and alcohol? Nicotine is a drug! Lets leave 'drugs' out of this and just talk about alcohol and tobacco. Dont lump drug addicts together with p*ssheads drinking too much on a Saturday night.


Drug addicts causing crime? OK, different argument. Lets leave that for a different thread

It costs far more to treat cancer from smoking than alcoholism.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Jonboy

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

I don't agree with sunbathing (without factor 40) either, but lets leave that out of this discussion as well!
Smokers will kill themselves (or others) if they live long enough while smoking-any amount (so will junkies) whilst drinkers (in moderation) will just die of something else.
There is no safe dosage of tobacco, there is a safe dosage of alcohol.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

I don't agree with sunbathing (without factor 40) either, but lets leave that out of this discussion as well!
Smokers will kill themselves (or others) if they live long enough while smoking-any amount (so will junkies) whilst drinkers (in moderation) will just die of something else.
There is no safe dosage of tobacco, there is a safe dosage of alcohol.

Not when said alcohol drinking twerp is behind the steering wheel of any vehicle or transport.Not when drinking pillock carries a knife and then uses it or they bottle someone.

Frankly we can all argue for the total ban of anything on the grounds that it can cause serious injury,death and can be a drain in the public spending through the NHS,police and social services and for it's effects on the whole community.

To go back to my ladder theory,where do we begin to stop banning things?My stepfather,bless him, in his later years had an addiction to climbing ladders and falling off them.He ended up in the hospital THREE times because of his addiction,each time managing to break a leg and various other bones.In the end I took his ladder away from him until I caught him standing on a chair.

Of course this only goes to underline the fact that you can only go so far to protect people before it becomes an interference and then they will find a way to circumvent the rules.

A total ban in public spaces,buildings,work spaces,shops,pubs-yes.Elsewhere I'm not so sure that it is right or fair.

Incog.Who's only true vice is CHOCOLATE and having watched a childrens programme where chocolate was totally banned by the government because it was bad for everyone's health I truly shudder at where banning will lead.

[Bifta]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

It costs far more to treat cancer from smoking than alcoholism.

That's ok, we pay through the nose in the form of taxes on cigarettes for such treatment.

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Of course this only goes to underline the fact that you can only go so far to protect people before it becomes an interference and then they will find a way to circumvent the rules.

"Nanny state!!" "Nanny state!!"

[Stuart]

Although I am a non-smoker, I don't agree that the bans we have in place should be extended. Yes, smoking related-diseases cost the NHS about 1.5 Billion pounds. The government collects many times that in excise duty though.

Also, if you are considering banned smoking because of it's environmental impact (polluting the atemosphere for other people), then really, there are other things you need to consider banning (or at least controlling). Cars & Lorries being two examples (petrol fumes have been linked to various diseases and Diesel produces some of the worst pollution, far worse than tobacco).

[Nor]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Not when said alcohol drinking twerp is behind the steering wheel of any vehicle or transport.Not when drinking pillock carries a knife and then uses it or they bottle someone.

Frankly we can all argue for the total ban of anything on the grounds that it can cause serious injury,death and can be a drain in the public spending through the NHS,police and social services and for it's effects on the whole community.

To go back to my ladder theory,where do we begin to stop banning things?My stepfather,bless him, in his later years had an addiction to climbing ladders and falling off them.He ended up in the hospital THREE times because of his addiction,each time managing to break a leg and various other bones.In the end I took his ladder away from him until I caught him standing on a chair.

Of course this only goes to underline the fact that you can only go so far to protect people before it becomes an interference and then they will find a way to circumvent the rules.

A total ban in public spaces,buildings,work spaces,shops,pubs-yes.Elsewhere I'm not so sure that it is right or fair.

Incog.Who's only true vice is CHOCOLATE and having watched a childrens programme where chocolate was totally banned by the government because it was bad for everyone's health I truly shudder at where banning will lead.

But stabbing someone or drink driving are illegal ? Killing someone through passive smoke isn't.