"Stopping smokers from lighting up in bars, pubs and restaurants forces them to smoke more than they previously did at home. Consequently, children and non-smokers face a higher risk of exposure to carcinogenic fumes than beforehand, the study concludes."The article goes on to to tell us that pro-smoking groups are being accused of bias by anti-smoking groups, and vice-versa. Tell us something we don't already know. I think it's fairly obvious though, that telling people they can't feed their addiction somewhere, will force them to feed their addiction somewhere else... They're not going to stop smoking overnight, are they?
I'd rather smoking was allowed in pubs and private clubs. I don't see why the government should tell grown ups that they can or can't smoke in the boozer with other consenting adults... It's not like there's only one pub. People are free to choose where they go, and who they associate with. That said, I do like getting home and not reeking of cigarette smoke. Bah. Nothing is ever simple.
9 comments:
Hi Steve
Wise words indeed!
Are you aware of the organisation Freedom2Choose (www.freedom2choose.co.uk)? They have a access to a lot of pro-choice arguments.
A haven for anti-ban thinkers is The Big Debate forum (www.thebigdebate.org).
My blog is www.pro-choicesmokingdoctor.blogspot.com.
Well said and keep on blogging.
Phil
II have no patience for the kind of people who want to deprive smokers of their pleasure on the grounds that "it makes my clothes reek with the stench of smoke"
I can remember when they sold cologne that smelled like tobacco. Wash your goddam clothes!
I stopped smoking last year and bought myself a few toys, and I don't regret it at all, but I have no truck with anyone that condemn smokers.
Especially not doctors who without smokers taxes wouldn't be in a fucking job.
Without the tax smokers pay Brown and the rest would be in a real mess and they should consider this, but they don't because as usual any eye catching initiative and way to demonise this or that section is good for votes and to be seen to be doing something positive.
Fuck them, and even if I don't want smoke in my house car or workshop, I wouldn't tell someone else to stop.
Well I hope none of you, your family or friends, are in the queue at the Beatson for suffering from passive smoking related illnesses. Stop being so selfish and think of others for once in your lives.
Well Mr Thoms, what else are you going to tell me I can or can't do? It is precisely because I am thinking of others that I posted this. I think that others should be able to make their own decisions without limp wristed, hand wringing, totalitarian arseholes telling them what they can and can't do.
Passive drinking is a much greater problem in society, and as much they try, they are not going to ban booze.
What costs us more in society regarding crime, vandalism, bad behaviour? Is it 20 B&H or a bottle of Buckfast?
Take your pontificating on whether my friends and I should be allowed to smoke (and face the consequences, same as if we drink!) and shove them firmly up yer arse. You are not forced to drink in the same clubs and pubs as us. The staff are not being forced to work there either.
And Anonymous 3:12, I do wash my clothes regularly, but you're quite right about that cologne - although I still think Hi Karate is worse. I see your point, but I do enjoy not reeking of smoke as much as I used to when out socialising, but I am not about to tell my friends to stop smoking, or shop a smoker...
Son,
You seem to be oversimplifying the central issue of choice. One should be able to go to the pub and not smoke. Since only one smoker can quite sauccessfuly force an entire room to smoke passively regardless of age or health status, the most equitable solution must be to ban smoking.
The Daddy
Daddy,
That's why we would have pubs for smokers and pubs for non smokers. If you value your pals more than your or their smoking habit, you choose accordingly.
How come there were so few non smoking pubs pre-ban? Possibly because market forces told publicans it wasn't worth it...
Grant Thoms...
I'd be very grateful if you could point me towards some research (not website ravings) that indicate that "passive smoking" is in any way dangerous.
The whole ``passive smoking'' scam is an outrage to science. Yet more proof, if proof were needed, that public science has been converted to propaganda.
Post a Comment