If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
How would it make things worse, if it were more difficult to obtain cigarettes, less people would smoke, the health of the nation improves it is qute obvious.
if telling people how dangerous smoking is, has virtually no impact, you think a change of law will do it
and remember the biggest cause of death is being born
It really is rather obvious that making something more difficult to do will reduce the number of people who do it.......
What makes you so sure that telling people how dangerous it is has no impact by the way? I thought that smoking had become far less popular in the last couple of decades, has better health information not contributed to this?
Good idea! I'd be behind that.
surely someone can smoke in their houses? non?
i agree about affecting other people, so not allowing it in enclosed spaces, but not an all out ban, thats just stupid
Well actually I would say there is a case for an all out ban given stuff like this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1114132.stm
But I agree that it would be unworkable in practise........
There cannot be any objection to smoking in open areas. Whatsoever.
You speak too soon............
http://www.tobacco.org/news/229707.html
(Was in Metro today but their website is crap so got it from here)
Even when you smoke outdoors the crap from the cigarette clings to your clothes etc and can be contaminating later. hence children whose parents smoked outside of the house still had far higher levels of some toxins in their bodies than non-smokers children and it could be linked to increases in Asthma cases.
Smoking is stupid and dangerous and society would be better if no-one smoked, it is simple.....
- own cars, motorbikes or vans
- live in cities and large towns
seeing as their children will be exposed to contamination and pollution too.
Let's keep a sense of balance and proportion to things. Whereas there might be a genuine case for smoking in the same room (or even the same house as children) being in some degree harmful, there is no excuse whatsoever for demanding people should not smoke in open air, children or not children.
Did you read the link? It can be dangerous, so if there is a case (at least moral) for not smoking in the same room as children then why not elsewhere if it can still be dangerous?
Because if you are suggesting any risk is unacceptable then you must also demand that all children grow up in small countryside hamlets where no motor vehicles are allowed in or through. You cannot have one without the other.
Believe me, CO2 emissions and pollution in towns and cities are infinitely more harmful than whichever lingering substances smokers might have embedded in their clothes and bring home.
Any comparison to car fumes etc is ridiculous because ars etc are useful, of course you can make arguments about people driving too much etc but it doesn't compare to smoking which is completely pointless, selfish and socially damaging......
But living in cities and large towns is not a necesity at all. If we are to take the position that any risk to children however small is unacceptable then it's not unreasonable to demand that anyone who raises children should move out to the countryside.
- Parents should not smoke, its simple really, not only are you potentially harming them, but you are also making it WAY more likely they will smoke.
As for banning it or raising the age, I sometimes wonder if anyone has learnt any lessons from 30 years of the Misuse of Drugs Act. Banning it will only make it more harmful and raising the age range will only give more business to the smugglers.
Seriously. Thats wrong. By MOST of Britain, lets be fair. Our public transport is too inadiquate to compensate for most car journeys. It really is.
Nobody (with a few special cases and exceptions) really needs a car to commute into and through a big town or a city. They might not want to take 2 or 3 buses, they might not want to cycle, they might not want to use a crowded train carriage, but they certainly nothing is preventing them from doing it.
Although that's verging a bit into a public transport discussion rather than protecting children's health one.
The only relevant questions are?
Is smoking harmful? Yes
Is there any use to it that counters this harm? No
Thus it is purely a danger to public health and should be actively discouraged by society and the government in particular. The degree of discouragement may be debated but there is little doubt that it should be quite severe in my mind......
Don't give me this bullshit, we have had these threads before and i don't really want to start a whole one again.
Safe to say that knowing your views that we should have tough controls on immigration your outrage at 'removing peoples liberties' sounds like hypocritical wank.............
I oppose unlimited immigration because it is infrastructurally unsustainable. I think a constraint on liberties necessary for the preservation of a continued (controlled) immigration system is also a constraint vital to avoid fostering discontent and a decline in living standards among the existing population. That's a far lesser attack upon individual's liberties than telling everybody here and everybody who wants to come here that they can't smoke fullstop. If somebody wishes to risk their health through use of tobacco (or indeed, drug use) it's none of the government's business. You could technically argue that it is given the existence of the NHS which treats smokers and drug-users, but to that it can be answered that smokers contribute far more to the treasury than they cost to the NHS. (And a good argument can be made for legalising and taxing drugs so drug addicts fund their treatment, although that's another debate). Anyway you've started a completely pointless discussion. Outlawing smoking would create the biggest blackmarket overnight, make illegal tobacco smugglers near instant millionaires and prove completely unenforceable. And because of that, and the gigantic amount of money smokers and tobacco companies based here are worth economically it's just never going to happen.
Outright bans, even for places which can provide separated accomodation, is wrong.
I'm all for banning smoking in pubs if they cannot provide smoking rooms, but if they provide separate smoking rooms then that is the end of the matter as far as I care.
Outside bans are wrong.
At school it would be quite sociable too, to stand outside and have a smoke. But in the winter, it's hell.
I think such a compromise would suit just about everybody, far more so than the outright ban that's going to be introduced.