Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
aaaaaagghhh - H&S!!! it's no more hazardous smoking in a car, than it is using a mobile; eating a sandwich; drinking a hot coffee; etc - as many do!!
I have heard of more prosecutions for problems caused by the latter issues, than I have because someone was smoking.
if you want to ban smoking in cars on H&S grounds, then ban all the other hazards as well - the biggest of which is the frigging driver!!!
eh?
drivers get banned for being a hazard.
you've heard of prosecutions for the other issues so they're effectively banned as well if they're proving a distraction.
therefore smoking should be banned in cars according to your logic.
Couldn't agree with you more. I remember when in my old job years ago it was ruled you could no longer smoke at your desk... oh good grief the shit HR had to deal with... people throwing a strop and taking time off with "stress" because they weren't allowed to smoke at their desk anymore!!
I'd like to see the statistics on this, I think it's a myth.
Revenue from tax on tobacco related products is around £8bn a year. This figure is from the Treasury. This country cannot afford for smoking to be banned.
i'm not so sure about that part.
they just get their complex illnesses and problems from an earlier age and use it then.
It was a few years ago now but there was a massive disparity.
i.e. smokers contributed something like 300% more than they cost.
With there being more and more money spent on cancer treatments and new drugs and treatments being pursued - I am sure this will have changed since those figures were published. Sorry I can't link to them - I am pretty sure i got them from Pubmed and office of stats.
With regards to smoking though - I think the money part of it is irrelevant. It's nonsensical to say that it's okay for people to give themselves and others nasty unpleasant fatal illnesses because they contribute tax money in exchange.
One other side to the cost - is the cost to businesses. Perhaps it's just my luck but in my business I have several employees who have health conditions either caused by or exacerbated by their smoking. When they are ill or have to have an operation - the time for recovery is longer. When they have a cold - it lasts longer and they are sicker..... This is a difficult cost to define but I would be willing to bet someone somewhere has a study.
The other argument that was put forward earlier I believe was alcohol. As far as I can see the government (mine at least - in Scotland) is doing it's best to start making alcohol harder to get hold of and much more expensive (fingers crossed). As an almost tee-totaller I have always failed to see the allure of alcohol but surely with this there is an element of degree.
i.e. someone can have a drink or two a week and be fine - cause no harm and harm no one else.
But with smoking - it may only take a few cigarettes a day to ruin your health long term - and of course the whole point of cigarettes is that the constituents are manipulated to try and increase use by the consumer so that one or two becomes much more in time.
Takes nothing into account of the actual costs that are imposed on health and social services whilst smokers dying of their diseases. Like I said I'd like to see the actual stats, to verify it.
BTW, 20 years working in intensive care and 25 years in the NHS tells me that smokers use the NHS far more than their non smoking counter parts. Smokers may use the NHS for fewer years in total but they, anecdotally, place a far greater drain on resources during the years they are alive.
i don't think so.
few and far between, usual anecdotal and don't outweigh the burden the average smoker is placing on the health service.
not sure that smoking should be banned......don't care about the individual rights part of it..........load of bollocks...if its in the best interest of the country then smoking is in the end a choice which can be taken from you........................but I believe smoking whilst being incharge of children should be banned..........especially your own................
i hate it when I see parents smoking in the same room as their children or when they are holding the baby in the one arm and a fag in the other
when accounting for the costs of smoking do they take into tyhe cost of loss of education for the children whose health is affected or their health costs..............
My initial opening post pondered a public smoking ban and the price people will be willing to pay.
It has found its way to a complete cigarette ban and the financial effects on the NHS.
I'm not actually that concerned about the financial effect a public areas smoking ban may have, and my initial post may be a selfish opinion, but it was what I was thinking at the time. Second hand smoke may be reasonably harmless in a case by case basis, but I'm still disgusted to be sucking it in.
I'm also not debating it's relative merits in respect to alcohol. I partake in a small amount of alcohol, but, I can't see any wide reaching effects of me having 50ml of sloe gin every other night - especially on others, which really is the basis of my whole thread.
Abuse of substances across the spectrum of chemicals can lead to crime, self harm, harm to others, debt etc, but for the sake of dodging the Daily Mail Stone-them-all topic, maybe a narrow band for the thread might make it easier.
Thought police mode off
Funny how if you have a hearty discussion about anything, the old 'Daily Mail' thing gets wheeled out all the time. Getting a bit tiresome. I'm writing to the paper about it
. Whats wrong with a bit of passion?
The anti alcohol line gets wheeled out too - unfortunately I can't remember the last time I stood outside a pub soaking innocent passers by with my beer. Unfortunately this happens with fag smoke when I walk past 'smoke alley' outside Euston station every evening.
Shame smokers will NEVER be able to keep their smoke to themselves - I keep my drink to myself, like the vast majority do also. Thats the difference.
its a shame that drunk people cant keep their abuse to themselves and verbally attack anyone on the road or even their family at home after a few drinks.
smokers attitudes and behaviour doesn't change- it really doesn't matter how much they smoke! unlike a drinker who can't even talk after a few too many.
the two are not mutually exclusive.
in fact the vast majority of absusive drunks outside pubs these days seem to be smokers as well. they're probably the ones you notice because they're always standing outside do to the smoking ban but the argument still stands.
it is not the case that non-smokers drink to much and then go home and abuse their families while smokers don't do any harm to anyone.
Totally off the point. Smokers can't control their smoke - it gets in my eyes and hair, as I explained. I can control my pint.
..you come back with all drunk people attack their family. Nice one.
I too hate walking past pub/shop doorways where there are smokers, but given that it means I can now eat in restaurants without being subjected to smoke, I can live with it. My employers don't allow smokers to smoke immediately outside the doorways, which is a good compromise.
I totally agree with the current moves to ban smoking in cars where children are present. Developing lungs are much more susceptible to the chemicals in smoke, and children aren't as able to object as adults. I can remember feeling horribly sick when my father smoked in the car, but was just told to open a window! I have refused to travel with someone who smoked, much to their annoyance, but hey, that's my choice.
What I can't understand is why people start smoking these days. Ok, young people are subject to peer pressure, but there are adults still taking it up. There's so much evidence of the harm it causes, and let's face it, it's not that pleasant the first few times you try it (I started at 14 and had to persevere to be "cool"- it was a long time ago)n so it's not like some drugs when you can be hooked from day one.
By and large, although I think Simon does have a point; the sensibly moderate consumption of alcohol doesn't have a negative effect on anyone else at all, whereas there isn't a minimum level of cigarette smoking in public where second-hand smoke isn't produced.
That being said I'm a non-smoker who doesn't believe outdoor smoking should be banned. There's no legislating for inconsiderate behaviour but smokers smoking right outside doorways etc. doesn't irritate me any more than any other number of socially annoying things I can think of.
Ha, beautiful.
'I won't get involved in this topic, as I am superior and feel your thread is below me, but not enough for me to score a nice smug point for myself.'
Banned inside - banned at work, the odd bozo standing outside pub etc isn't going to kill anyone.
It does upset me a bit when I see some toerag holding a baby in one arm and a fag in the other but such is life and it's what my mother did with me till she saw the light and quit.
It's makes me laugh when folks start commenting on the thread being a bit 'daily mail'. I read the daily mail once on a train {shudder} there are no words of more than 2 syllables so I don't think this thread really could be submitted as being similar to one of their articles.