Smoking ban to be extended 'outdoors'

[Phanerothyme 12]

the pleasure from smoking though actually just raises you up to the same level that everyone else enjoys without doing anything.

The addiction actually makes you less happy when you aren't smoking, and having a hit of nicotine brings you back up to where you'd be if you'd never smoked.

 

Also nicotine amplifies the myriad effects of other alkaloids like theobromine, caffeine, theophylline and other methylxanthenes found in cocoa, tea, coffee, green tea etc. Frequently nicotine is combined with these drugs to create an overall effect that is quite different from that of nicotine alone. Likewise, the disinhibiting effects of alcohol are potentiated by nicotine, and nicotine itself is a powerful emetic and hallucinogen; although using it at hallucinogenic levels is not without risk.

[viking 10]

I cant wait till I see our pubs smoke free,just to be able to go home without smelling like a pack of fags will be great.

 

It's all these foreign imports Roy.

[RichD 10]

If you are worried about asthma, you should campaign for a ban on cars, buses and lorries. We have leaping childhood asthma in this country, and there's a strong correlation between proximity to traffic and asthma in children.

 

In this country, every year, nearly 2000 kids die from asthma.

I am very much in favour of alternative fuels which pollute less, and I personally think it's disgusting how with the imminent shortage of fossil fuels, vehicle manufacturers haven't spent many, many more times as much money on researching clean, (vaguely) renewable power sources / fuels. Believe me, I'm not singling out smoking, although I do think it should be kept away from the kinds of places where people have little choice about going (the ones I mentioned before). I'd actually be happier if it was allowed in pubs and banned in bus/train stations.

 

And not that I want to be picky, but you have mentioned childhood asthma - which is indeed a serious issue in today's society - but what so many people seem to fail to realise is that there are plenty of adults out there with asthma. It seems to be society's view that it is a disease which affects children and the elderly - forgetting about all those in between. Not everyone's asthma is easily controllable through adulthood. And as I have said before, if you stand next to a complete stranger and light up, how can you tell that that person doesn't suffer so acutely that you could give them an attack there and then? Answer - you can't. So why make the assumption that you won't? (This could also be addressed to some extent if Joe Public had the manners of years gone by, and asked, "Do you mind if I smoke?")

[KenH 10]

In this country, every year, nearly 2000 kids die from asthma.

.

 

No they don't, it is a tiny fraction of this.

 

In 2004 there were 40 children who died from asthma. Government stats for under 16's put the figure at about 2 children per million on average each year.

 

http://www.asthma.org.uk/news_media/media_resources/for_1.html

[Phanerothyme 12]

No they don't, it is a tiny fraction of this.

 

In 2004 there were 40 children who died from asthma. Government stats for under 16's put the figure at about 2 children per million on average each year.

 

http://www.asthma.org.uk/news_media/media_resources/for_1.html

I stand corrected.

 

Not 2000 children, but 1400 people both adults and children, in 2004.

 

And these were deaths due to asthma, not related to asthma.

[rocketpig 10]

No, kids do get addicted to a lot more things e.g. fast food, caffeine and booze. Probably more in fact get addicted to these things than get into smoking. What next if that's our primary concern? Ban Happy Meals as they give kids a taste for junk food?

 

wrong......

 

there's a big difference to nicotine having an urge to do stuff

[Mathom 10]

wrong......

 

there's a big difference to nicotine having an urge to do stuff

 

You don't think people can get addicted to alcohol?

[Don_Kiddick 11]

A dog with no teeth then.

I once had a nasty suck from one of those

 

 

Great news though

 

Smokers >>>>

[rocketpig 10]

You don't think people can get addicted to alcohol?

 

oh you're being silly

 

you can drink regularly and not get addicted. you can't (in the vast vast majority of cases) smoke regularly and not get addicted.

[Crayfish 10]

I'd disagree, I think quite a few people are addicted to alcohol without realising it. And on that one I do speak from experience. Ever get that feeling 'I could murder a pint?' - bet you get it a little more often than 'I could murder a banana'.

 

Anyway, main difference between smoking and other habits is that smoking harms everyone around you - I get that chest tightness and nausea too Foxx, and a kind of fight or flight reaction - just want to get away from the stuff and definitely doesn't make me feel good about the person inflicting that on me. Besides that, the stuff stinks and makes me smell, that's disgusting never mind the (incredibly many) health issues.

[timo 10]

I am not in any way a passionate anti-smoker, I just think smokers are either weak willed, stupid, or ill. I think it is inevitable that smoking will disappear completely and my views are based on that assumption rather than on any urge to stop it immediately.

 

How unutterably ludicrous! If an audible sigh can be heard to escape the lips of hundreds of posters, it is because Ken H has yet again plumbed the sublime depths of idiocy. How very arrogant of you to pathologise the behaviour of smokers like this. According to you, those who smoke are either weaklings, dafties or sickies. This is, of course, an example of a classic left/liberal strategy in debate. Perhaps there is a 'Rough Guide to Leftist Bigotry' available Ken? You appear to follow what might be its rules- if one dissents from another person's position, firstly pretend to be reasonable and moderate in one's own views ['I am not in any way a passionate anti'- fill in the space as required], and then adopt an absolutist, reductionist stance ['it is inevitable that' - fill in the space as required], finally pathologising the behaviour/opinions of your opponents ['they are weak-willed, stupid, or ill'- fill in the space as required].

 

Ask any Chest Consultant, there is no absolute consensus in the medical profession upon the causal link between the smoking of tobacco and lung cancer, or that so-called 'passive smoking' is dangerous. There is a perfectly good libertarian argument against banning smoking too. I am not a smoker, but I sincerely hope that we in Britain never see a ban on smoking. Cromwell Blair and his nannying, hectoring, self-righteous Roundheads would like to ban all sorts of things in 'New', 'young' Britain. If they banned smoking, what next...a ban on cheese because someone somewhere says that the consumption of dairy products cause heart problems, obesity etc?

 

 

Balls to the 'Big State', balls to those who invent needless red tape and petty restrictions on individual freedom, and balls to the legions of pompous bores who allow the Nannies and Smoke Detectors of the anti-smoking lobby to thrive.

[cloudybay 17]

How unutterably ludicrous! If an audible sigh can be heard to escape the lips of hundreds of posters, it is because Ken H has yet again plumbed the sublime depths of idiocy. How very arrogant of you to pathologise the behaviour of smokers like this. According to you, those who smoke are either weaklings, dafties or sickies. This is, of course, an example of a classic left/liberal strategy in debate. Perhaps there is a 'Rough Guide to Leftist Bigotry' available Ken? You appear to follow what might be its rules- if one dissents from another person's position, firstly pretend to be reasonable and moderate in one's own views ['I am not in any way a passionate anti'- fill in the space as required], and then adopt an absolutist, reductionist stance ['it is inevitable that' - fill in the space as required], finally pathologising the behaviour/opinions of your opponents ['they are weak-willed, stupid, or ill'- fill in the space as required].

 

Ask any Chest Consultant, there is no absolute consensus in the medical profession upon the causal link between the smoking of tobacco and lung cancer, or that so-called 'passive smoking' is dangerous. There is a perfectly good libertarian argument against banning smoking too. I am not a smoker, but I sincerely hope that we in Britain never see a ban on smoking. Cromwell Blair and his nannying, hectoring, self-righteous Roundheads would like to ban all sorts of things in 'New', 'young' Britain. If they did as Ken wishes, what next...a ban on cheese because someone somewhere says that the consumption of dairy products cause heart problems, obesity etc?

 

 

Balls to the 'Big State', balls to those who invent needless red tape and petty restrictions on individual freedom, and balls to the legions of pompous bores who allow the Nannies and Smoke Detectors of the anti-smoking lobby to thrive.

 

My dear timo, probably one of the best postings I've ever had the pleasure of reading. I fear it will be wasted on the Liberal PC pinheads though. No surprises there then !