Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by kriztinae)
    i think theres more important things than putting a total ban on smoking.
    yes its harmful but cars create more pollution.
    First of all, what is more important than maximising the chances of the good health of the nation? The benefits to the health service of having a population with healthy bodies is enormous and far outweighs the moans of smokers.

    Secondly - I recognise that argument about cars creating more pollution. It's one I always used myself as an addicted smoker!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tishysquishy)
    I dont think that u can do this by half measures. There must be a total ban otherwise people will find loopholes, people are not stupid. If tobacco had been discovered now instead of all those years ago it wud b put as a class A drug.

    True, there shud b a freedom of choice, like other people have sed. Smokers can still smoke in their homes, and making it hard for the smokers to light up, will gradually persuade all but the hardcore smokers to stop.

    You can never stop everyone from smoking, but a total ban will persuade a large number to, as for an number of people, it isnt worth the hassle.
    to be honest people who ar that desperate to stop will still smoke.
    for example my friend who isnt allowed to smoke in our accomodation due to fire alarms etc lives on the 3rd floor, she goes all the way downstairs and outside at least 10 times a day to have a cigarette even if its cold and raining outside (which is usually the case in england)

    i think there should be stricter regulations on young persons smoking.

    say now persons over 18 arent alloewd to smoke or even buy cigarettes.
    in 3 years time, make the age limit 21, and keep increasing it until most of the younger generation doesnt smoke.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    First of all, what is more important than maximising the chances of the good health of the nation? The benefits to the health service of having a population with healthy bodies is enormous and far outweighs the moans of smokers.

    Secondly - I recognise that argument about cars creating more pollution. It's one I always used myself as an addicted smoker!
    smoking is one way of being unhealthy
    what about being obese? being extremely overweight is extremely unhealthy
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by kriztinae)

    i think there should be stricter regulations on young persons smoking.

    say now persons over 18 arent alloewd to smoke or even buy cigarettes.
    in 3 years time, make the age limit 21, and keep increasing it until most of the younger generation doesnt smoke.
    Since when has that sort of legislation ever stopped addicts from getting their fix?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Since when has that sort of legislation ever stopped addicts from getting their fix?
    it will make it harder for people to start in the first place.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by kriztinae)
    smoking is one way of being unhealthy
    what about being obese? being extremely overweight is extremely unhealthy
    Smoking causes heart disease, lung disease, cancer of all sorts - not only in the smoker but in those who passively smoke the products of the smokers cigarettes.

    Being obese affects only the obese person and does not endanger the lives of others who are in close proximity to them.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by kriztinae)
    it will make it harder for people to start in the first place.
    The only thing that will help to reduce the uptake in smoking in the first place is to introduce a ban on smoking in public places.

    The evidence from the Republic of Ireland, where a total ban is in place is that many smokers have ceased smoking. If they don't smoke it is less likely that their children will smoke and so on.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Smoking causes heart disease, lung disease, cancer of all sorts - not only in the smoker but in those who passively smoke the products of the smokers cigarettes.

    Being obese affects only the obese person and does not endanger the lives of others who are in close proximity to them.
    thats true but we were talking about the health of people in general so i just used it as an example of other ways people can be unhealthy

    plus smoking and non smoking areas can help that situation
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=kriztinae]to be honest people who ar that desperate to stop will still smoke.for example my friend who isnt allowed to smoke in our accomodation due to fire alarms etc lives on the 3rd floor, she goes all the way downstairs and outside at least 10 times a day to have a cigarette even if its cold and raining outside (which is usually the case in england)[/QOUTE]

    She's one of the hardcore smokers that will probably never change that i mentioned earlier.

    (Original post by kriztinae)
    i think there should be stricter regulations on young persons smoking.say now persons over 18 arent alloewd to smoke or even buy cigarettes.in 3 years time, make the age limit 21, and keep increasing it until most of the younger generation doesnt smoke.
    thats a good idea too, but with young people i can see a backlash occuring, as some kids wud then be more likely to smoke more because its banned?
    Offline

    13
    [QUOTE=kriztinae]

    The end result regarding the NHS is that there may be a refusal to treat people who smoke for any smoking related illness. Now that's a scary propect for any smoker! :eek:

    For posting this, Izthe Wiz calls me a ******* nazi !! That is laughable considering how most members of this forum know my views on many matters.

    I am not the instigator of this policy, just the messenger. Health rationing is happening all over the world now - it is a sad fact of life that health providers are coming to the conclusion that treatment should be restricted to those who are wilfully responsible for their own 'self-inflicted' medical problems.

    I don't agree that this should be the case - but it looks like becoming common practice.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Smoking causes heart disease, lung disease, cancer of all sorts - not only in the smoker but in those who passively smoke the products of the smokers cigarettes.

    Being obese affects only the obese person and does not endanger the lives of others who are in close proximity to them.
    the governments spending millions tackling obesity too.

    isnt it some huge amount of money just for school dinners in the first instance?

    at any rate, this thread isnt about obesity.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    When I referred to the health of the nation and the benefits to the NHS I was specifically referring to the consequences of smoking on the nation - seeing as this thread is about a smoking ban.

    Many of those admitted to hospital are admitted because of smoking related illnesses - and that has consequences on surgical wards as well as medical wards. Smokers take up a disproportionately large slice of the resources. If the practice of smoking was drastically reduced we would not need the revenue we get from cigarette tax to treat the patients, both smokers and passive smokers, who need treatment.

    The only way to help that situation is to have a total ban on smoking in public places. This will mean that only those who choose to smoke will suffer the effects of their habit because others will not be exposed to their smoke.

    The end result regarding the NHS is that there may be a refusal to treat people who smoke for any smoking related illness. Now that's a scary propect for any smoker! :eek:
    that is extremely scary... but unfair.
    its like saying the NHS will refuse to treat those perons admitted into hospital due to a car crash which they caused as they were driving really fast etc.
    i dont see it happening.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    When I referred to the health of the nation and the benefits to the NHS I was specifically referring to the consequences of smoking on the nation - seeing as this thread is about a smoking ban.

    Many of those admitted to hospital are admitted because of smoking related illnesses - and that has consequences on surgical wards as well as medical wards. Smokers take up a disproportionately large slice of the resources. If the practice of smoking was drastically reduced we would not need the revenue we get from cigarette tax to treat the patients, both smokers and passive smokers, who need treatment.

    The only way to help that situation is to have a total ban on smoking in public places. This will mean that only those who choose to smoke will suffer the effects of their habit because others will not be exposed to their smoke.

    The end result regarding the NHS is that there may be a refusal to treat people who smoke for any smoking related illness. Now that's a scary propect for any smoker! :eek:
    And this is meant to be a 'progressive' view?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    All the arguments in favour of banning public smoking come down to a "nanny knows best, and we'll decide what's good for you" attitude.

    The free-choicers are happy to accomodate the nicotine-fearers and allow them their own restaurants etc.

    We can choose for ourselves and the market will provide. No laws required.

    Incorrect.

    People know what is best for them
    Do they?

    "smokers know that smoking is bad for them, they pathetically try to justify it however because they are addicted"

    You seem to know what theyre thinking. As you claim to know whats best for two friends enjoying a cigarette in their own home. This is a classic, ""nanny knows best, and we'll decide what's good for you" case as ArthurOliver rightly points out.

    Government has sought the views of the electorate and the electorate say they want smoking in public places banned!
    When the views of the majority interfere into private affairs, its commonly referred to as tyranny of the majority. Technik, as a statist authoritarian, has the honesty to admit this is what he prefers. When will you?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Smoking causes heart disease, lung disease, cancer of all sorts - not only in the smoker but in those who passively smoke the products of the smokers cigarettes.

    Being obese affects only the obese person and does not endanger the lives of others who are in close proximity to them.

    True - but obesity is associated with amongst others stroke, respiratory disease, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis and increased risk of colorectal, breast, ovarian and prostate cancer. Morbidly obese all provide a huge management problem on the wards often requiring the hiring of extremely expensive specialist equipment.

    Whilst, it is fair to say obese people only affect themselves - the same cannot be said of alcohol abuse (also associated with a huge range of diseases). Do you support an alcohol ban in public too? I struggle to see a difference between the two issues and why alcohol is treated favourably.

    It is not the Government's role to dictate to people how to live but to ADVICE on issues of public health so that people can make informed decisions. Otherwise the list of things banned could be endless:-

    Sex outside of wedlock - due to STIs, HIV
    Many sports etc etc etc...

    I am not a smoker - but this endless nonsense of banning things and dictating to people I find really distasteful.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I voted partial ban - I think that having successful no smoking areas, e.g not just one half smoking and one half not but fans and deviders and whatever, gives people a choice. I think having no smoking restaurants is a good idea - but not all of them because its too much like discrimination. Give people a choice - if they want to eat in a no smoking restaurant then they can. Make them available!
    And if the NHS stopped treating smokers they'd have to close. Also - thats basically murder, don't you think?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    the NHS already prioritises treatment depending on how useful you are. there was even talk a few months back i believe about denying treatment to old people if it was going to cost too much.

    everythings economics these days, and you are just a national insurance number and name attached to it here in the UK. get over it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by technik)
    the NHS already prioritises treatment depending on how useful you are. there was even talk a few months back i believe about denying treatment to old people if it was going to cost too much.

    everythings economics these days, and you are just a national insurance number and name attached to it here in the UK. get over it.
    If that's the case, why don't you all just lay your cards on the table and quit posturing about rights and freedoms?

    Why don't you just say, "People are more economic (i.e., useful to us) as nicoderm-patch addicts and Prozac zombies than as smokers, sitting in recirculated-air offices, watching TV instead of going to pubs, etc. And people are only worthy of medical treatment after we've determined that their benefits to society outweigh their costs. Their economic usefulness is what we value, not some old romantic notion about leaving people free to pursue their manner of happiness in their fashion."
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    If that's the case, why don't you all just lay your cards on the table and quit posturing about rights and freedoms?

    Why don't you just say, "People are more economic (i.e., useful to us) as nicoderm-patch addicts and Prozac zombies than as smokers, sitting in recirculated-air offices, watching TV instead of going to pubs, etc. And people are only worthy of medical treatment after we've determined that their benefits to society outweigh their costs. Their economic usefulness is what we value, not some old romantic notion about leaving people free to pursue their manner of happiness in their fashion."
    correct me if im wrong but you live in the states right?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kriztinae)
    correct me if im wrong but you live in the states right?
    Yes.
 
 
 

3,005

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.