Home Politics & Debate

A total ban on smoking in public 'will put children at risk'

As the debate about smoking rages on with MPs again demanding a full ban, an interesting study was disclosed yesterday:
Children's health will be put at risk from passive smoking if the government bans smoking in all restaurants and bars, according to dramatic new research out today.
The study, which will provoke fresh controversy over whether a partial ban would be the better option, concluded that parents, particularly poorer ones, who are prevented from smoking in bars tend to smoke more in front of their children at home.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/smoking/Story/0,,1670100,00.html


I fear that might be case...
Beep boop. I'm a bot.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hmmm, so they stay home and smoke more and not only increase the amount of passive smoking going on at home but also increase th elikely hood of kids starting to smoke because of course children follow parents examples and or peer pressure of those who do.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Can't see it myself, at least not to the extent suggested. It's a scare story, this time in support of no ban...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Makes absolute sense. If people can’t enjoy a cigarette and a drink after a day at work at the pub they’re going to smoke (and drink) at home – putting children at risk and hurting pubs.

    I don’t think this is any concern to much of the anti-smoking lobby though. Aside from wishing to interfere in people’s lives and tell landlords what to do the anti-smoking lobby sees a ban in enclosed spaces as the first step in their little plan. You only need to look at California to see what these people are capable of; non-smoking parks and non-smoking beaches are widespread! Don’t be naïve enough to think that appeasing these people with a ban indoors will go far enough. Indeed part of the anti-smoking extremists plan is already materialising – denying treatment to smokers on the NHS. Quite disgusting since smokers more than cover their burden to the NHS through excessive duties on tobacco.

    The simple plan of the likes of the anti-smokers is to take away the choice of whether to smoke or not. And they’re doing that through scaring people by denying NHS treatment and they’ll do that through these bans that they’re pushing for that will slowly turn smoking into an even greater taboo. No one disputes the fact that smoking is harmful (although the dangers of passive smoking are exaggerated) but the mindset and methods of the anti-smoking lobby is definitely disturbing. And whatever happened to free choice? Likewise cigarettes are a legal product - why can't I see tobacco adverts? I'm allowed to see adverts for Bacardi and 'partypoker' - I see no reason why a product that is legal for adults can't be marketed like any other legal product.

    Denying smokers NHS patients is I think the most disturbing aspect of this trend. Shall we start denying treatment to say HIV positive homosexuals who could have contracted the disease through unprotected sex? Or how about somebody that visits Africa and gets malaria? After all they wouldn’t have malaria if they hadn’t been to Africa, like the smoker might not have got cancer if he hadn't smoked? (Because lets remember while the person who visited Africa and caught malaria can for almost 100% accuracy attribute their disease to visiting that region – since it’s possible to catch many illnesses that are termed ‘smoking-related diseases despite being a non-smoker there can be no such almost 100% accuracy in the case of treating the smoker with the smoking-related disease. Hence denying treatment to somebody who has visited Africa and caught malaria (which would be completely ridiculous) would be more justifiable than denying a smoker treatment - which shows how absurd disturbing this trend is. Rant over..
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Indeed part of the anti-smoking extremists plan is already materialising – denying treatment to smokers on the NHS.

    Can you link to that, or are you talking about the case which hit the media today?

    If you are then the man wasn't denied treatment. Quitting was the treatment suggested as, on it's own, it would alleviate his problem...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ---
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    New Labour: party of the wealthy, enemy of the poor.

    And i thought with your Far Right viewpoint, you'd like it.

    I must agree though, New Labour is pretty much that. It has stolen the conservatives ground away from them.

    Leaving... no party for the working class man.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru

    Pretty much as I said, his smoking habit is a major contributer to his condition. The consultant in question was interviewed on the radio and refuted the claim that he was refusing treatment. He said that stopping smoking in itself would halp alleviate the condition.

    In fact, if you bothered to read the article you would see the following quote:
    Surgeon Andrew Lamerton wrote to Mr Smith advising him to stop smoking: "Giving up smoking may lead to an improvement in a patient's symptoms.

    "Unless the condition was limb-threatening this would always be the preferred option and the best course of action for the patient, helping them to avoid medical or surgical intervention."

    The advice to stop smoking is the course of treatment recommended at this time.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why is against working class interests to ban smoking?

    If it is true that the working class are more likely to smoke then of course any ban on smoking will benefit them the most if it encourages them to stop something that damages their health and reduces their life expectancy.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A ban on smoking in public places is unlikely to make many people smoke though.

    Hell, even making cigarettes illegal altogether would have no consequence for millions.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No it's a scare story. A ban on smoking in public places won't make you not go out, it just means you'll have to smoke outside when you do go out.

    Seriously, can you imagine someone sitting in their house thinking "fuck it, I'm not going to the pub so I'll just sit and smoke in front of my child for hours" No, they'll go to the pub if they want to go.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    turlough wrote:
    No, they'll go to the pub if they want to go.

    Exactly, people go to the pub for a reason and it isn't so that they can smoke.

    It's the self same reason that non-smokers go now even though they bitch about the smoky atmosphere.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's the self same reason that non-smokers go now even though they bitch about the smoky atmosphere.
    That's a fair point...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    smoking inside building which serve food should be banned

    otherwise it's alright ie outdoors, someones home as its their choice etc
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    A ban on smoking in public places is unlikely to make many people smoke though.

    Hell, even making cigarettes illegal altogether would have no consequence for millions.

    I assume you meant 'stop smoking'?

    I can't remember where I saw it but I beleive studies have suggested that the ban on smoking in public places in Ireland has had a significant effect in terms of reducing the number of smokers.

    Logic suggests it would though some people persist with the idea that government regulations have no impact on consumption levels........
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    May I also point out that you are dismissing this study as a 'scare story' without any knowledge of its details.

    The study has been conducted by academics who no far more about what they are doing then any of us do.

    Worrying sceptisims of science from our enlightened and rational debaters I see?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How significant exactly has the reduction been in Ireland Toadborg?

    That's the crux of the matter isn't it?

    Because if banning smoking in all public places makes, say 40-50% of all smokers to quit, then that's clearly a good thing.

    But if it only makes 5-10% to quit but another 10-20% of those who carry on smoking end up lighting up at home more cigarettes than they used to before the ban, then you actually have made things worse by enforcing a total ban.

    I think we should be told.
Sign In or Register to comment.