I've never smoked and I agree with many of the comments posted so far. I think that the idea of increasing the minimum age every year is a good one as it won't inconvenience anyone that currently smokes. I also hate it when people smoke in public places that I need to pass through. As also mentioned, I think that limiting the advertising is a good plan too.
paradoxsm: The train just came off the tracks and suddenly went off-topic lol., though "obesity" and "smoking" are kind of related, smoking apparently stops the food cravings smokes often say.
Agreed.
Please stay on topic, if you want to discuss fatties let's create a new topic as not to dilute this discussion.
Behodar: I've never smoked and I agree with many of the comments posted so far. I think that the idea of increasing the minimum age every year is a good one as it won't inconvenience anyone that currently smokes. I also hate it when people smoke in public places that I need to pass through. As also mentioned, I think that limiting the advertising is a good plan too.
We've already made indoor areas smoke free - I think it should be extended to public passage ways as well. The office building I'm in has cigarette disposal containers right at the front door - cheers for the stench as we walk in the office first thing in the morning.
I've got no problems with backyards, pub outdoor areas, etc being allocated "smoking" - as long as it's not the entrance way...
disclaimer: I am an ex-smoker. (They're the worst types).
Having said that ... I'm not convinced that an outright ban is the answer ...
hbk: moderation is the answer but I guess addiction is stronger than most people.
Surely at this stage of the game it's just mentally deficient for an individual to smoke, for whatever reason?! It's not an airy fairy theory that they're incredibly harmful, no matter the quantity or frequency. We're not talking about the other things that society might treat as "ok in moderation", like drinking alcohol. The differences are clear. Drinking in moderation - at the same rate at which you suggest you would smoke, can have no lasting medical effects and in some cases can be beneficial depending on the medical papers you read. But at no point EVER is smoking beneficial and every single solitary cigarette is putting health at risk. Not only from the big C, but from swathes of other problems that may not manifest in something that you actually notice enough to seek medical help for.
Not only that but nothing else really effects others as quickly and easily as smoking does. Sure there are specially designated areas for smoking outside bars and restaurants, but what about walking down the street?! I can't count the number of times I've been stuck downwind of someone smoking at the traffic lights or on the train platform. It's ridiculous that these people who so self righteously barrack for their own "right to smoke" and "know the risks" would so easily force their choices on the strangers around them.
Don't even get me started on the work colleagues who duck out once an hour for a puff and then come back inside to your small confined office space smelling absolutely disgusting!! It's my right to be comfortable in the workplace without needing to gag every time Joe Smoker sits next to me.
hbk: moderation is the answer but I guess addiction is stronger than most people.
Surely at this stage of the game it's just mentally deficient for an individual to smoke, for whatever reason?! It's not an airy fairy theory that they're incredibly harmful, no matter the quantity or frequency. We're not talking about the other things that society might treat as "ok in moderation", like drinking alcohol. The differences are clear. Drinking in moderation - at the same rate at which you suggest you would smoke, can have no lasting medical effects and in some cases can be beneficial depending on the medical papers you read. But at no point EVER is smoking beneficial and every single solitary cigarette is putting health at risk. Not only from the big C, but from swathes of other problems that may not manifest in something that you actually notice enough to seek medical help for.
Not only that but nothing else really effects others as quickly and easily as smoking does. Sure there are specially designated areas for smoking outside bars and restaurants, but what about walking down the street?! I can't count the number of times I've been stuck downwind of someone smoking at the traffic lights or on the train platform. It's ridiculous that these people who so self righteously barrack for their own "right to smoke" and "know the risks" would so easily force their choices on the strangers around them.
Don't even get me started on the work colleagues who duck out once an hour for a puff and then come back inside to your small confined office space smelling absolutely disgusting!! It's my right to be comfortable in the workplace without needing to gag every time Joe Smoker sits next to me.
I started this thread with a view to seeking other opinions on whether a smoking ban would be successful, given the govt is two faced about smoking, it happily accepts the revenue and only makes a token effort with anti-smoking campaigns.
No-one is disputing that smoking is not a disgusting & objectionable habit that will more than likely contribute to health issues (I say more than likely as there is plenty of evidence that it does not affect everyone, examples close to home being my late paternal grandparents continued smoking until their death, grandfather at 97, grandmother at 106, my maternal grandfather was also a heavy smoker and died at 93 or 94).
I come back to my original query, would a smoking ban work, after all prohibtion was a massive failure and alcohol is not as addicitive as tobacco.
Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly
to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.
Trusted
ID Verified
