Around 110,000 people play organised football each weekend according to the FA, whilst around 10,000,000 people smoke. Footballers may be clogging up AE for an hour or two a week, but smokers are clogging up ward after ward 24/7
the point wasnt just about amateur footballers on a sunday it was in general - people do things and get injured all the time, most of which is preventable - i smoke and ive no one to blame but myself, but i have paid in via taxes to the system.
But how many of these choices directly impact upon other people? Sure, if I box I may have a higher chance of concussion or broken noses, but the people watching or who walk around near me won't get broken noses as a result.
Second hand smoke is a genuine problem, especially for people who already have respiratory conditions.
No one is doubting that, no one is saying people should be forced to breathe second hand smoke.
The point is that if you are going to discriminate against people because of their life choices (in this case smoking - and paying a hell of a lot of tax) then logically you should discriminate against anyone who does anything they don't need to do, which they know could result in a hospital visit.
But then the passive smoking argument comes into it. If the football players kept kicking their ball onto the road, causing accidents, no doubt it would be stopped, or measures taken to stop it happening so regularly.
I live somewhere with no smoking ban at all, so people smoke literally everywhere, bars, clubs, restaurants, in elevators even in my school sometimes, ffs!
Being here really has made me appreciate the smoking ban in the UK and I wish I could go out without coming home smelling like an ashtray, or not have to spend yonks on the internet trying to find non smoking restaurants before I can take my son out to diner.
How much of a hardship is it to pop outside for a fag for the sake of everyone else in the establishment? I certainly didn't find it so bad when I was smoking, however the idea of stopping all smoking is clearly ridiculous and is never going to happen
I wonder if the government have thought this through, not only will they lose out on the tax generated by the smokers, but they will will have to pay out on many more pensions, bus passes etc which at the moment the majority of smokers either forfeit by dying early or by only receiving a very limited amount.
Love it when a government makes choices for the wellbeing of the people. Next up is social and affordable housing, a minimum wage rise and a ban on fossil fuels.
I wonder if the government have thought this through, not only will they lose out on the tax generated by the smokers, but they will will have to pay out on many more pensions, bus passes etc which at the moment the majority of smokers either forfeit by dying early or by only receiving a very limited amount.
They way they keep raising the retirement age, people will be dieing of a life time of grafting at 70... not smoking
Around 110,000 people play organised football each weekend according to the FA, whilst around 10,000,000 people smoke. Footballers may be clogging up AE for an hour or two a week, but smokers are clogging up ward after ward 24/7
the point wasnt just about amateur footballers on a sunday it was in general - people do things and get injured all the time, most of which is preventable - i smoke and ive no one to blame but myself, but i have paid in via taxes to the system.
But how many of these choices directly impact upon other people? Sure, if I box I may have a higher chance of concussion or broken noses, but the people watching or who walk around near me won't get broken noses as a result.
Second hand smoke is a genuine problem, especially for people who already have respiratory conditions.
No one is doubting that, no one is saying people should be forced to breathe second hand smoke.
The point is that if you are going to discriminate against people because of their life choices (in this case smoking - and paying a hell of a lot of tax) then logically you should discriminate against anyone who does anything they don't need to do, which they know could result in a hospital visit.
But then the passive smoking argument comes into it. If the football players kept kicking their ball onto the road, causing accidents, no doubt it would be stopped, or measures taken to stop it happening so regularly.
Which is exactly what has happened with the ban on smoking in public places Rob, the ban on cigarette advertising and the ban on displaying cigarettes in shops. Measures have been taken to stop it happening.
All I am talking about is smokers being discriminated against when it comes to health care. Some say they choose to smoke, so they should "pay" for healthcare. Boxers choose to punch each other, footballers choose to kick each other and horse riders know they are more than likely going to fall off. Their choice.
personally sounds strange but i like going outside for a cig maybe because its all i've ever known, i dont smoke indoors always in the garden and if ever near young kids i usually stay a distance.
Around 110,000 people play organised football each weekend according to the FA, whilst around 10,000,000 people smoke. Footballers may be clogging up AE for an hour or two a week, but smokers are clogging up ward after ward 24/7
the point wasnt just about amateur footballers on a sunday it was in general - people do things and get injured all the time, most of which is preventable - i smoke and ive no one to blame but myself, but i have paid in via taxes to the system.
But how many of these choices directly impact upon other people? Sure, if I box I may have a higher chance of concussion or broken noses, but the people watching or who walk around near me won't get broken noses as a result.
Second hand smoke is a genuine problem, especially for people who already have respiratory conditions.
No one is doubting that, no one is saying people should be forced to breathe second hand smoke.
The point is that if you are going to discriminate against people because of their life choices (in this case smoking - and paying a hell of a lot of tax) then logically you should discriminate against anyone who does anything they don't need to do, which they know could result in a hospital visit.
But people can smoke outdoors and in their homes as much as they want to. They are just not allowed to smoke in areas where other people might breath in their smoke. Hardly discrimination.
The country has turned a massive corner in terms of smoking, you used to be the odd one out in most of my social groups if you didnt smoke and for at least the last 10 years the opposite is true
Vaping is fine, I've done a lot of research into what goes into the juice and I'm happy that people are not killing anyone with second hand smoke as is the case with tobacco
Among other bits of research I watched a video on youtube featuring a few experiments and a handful of medical professionals. The medical people to a man/woman all said they wished everyone who smoked would take up vaping instead as the nasty type of illnesses that come from smoking would begin to disappear in a relatively short space of time. A few of these people were dentists and they said smoking is pretty much second only to brushing your teeth with full fat coke as the most destructive thing to do to your mouth and everything in it, throat, tongue, glands, tonsils, teeth and gums.
No two ways about it though, Sean Connery looked cool as fuck smoking fags as James Bond which just wouldn't be the case if he was toofing on a cloudbuster 3000 raspberry doughnut flavour vape
People who smoke will have started their habit for lots of different reasons. To look cool, peer pressure, etc. Once that initial reason is no longer relevant they continue to smoke because just like any other addict they are addicted to a very powerful drug. I would estimate the vast majority of smokers would prefer to give up but can’t. There’s not much glamour huddling under a sun umbrella outside a pub. Most smokers I know and have known get defensive when these harsh facts are pointed out but I’m afraid the truth sometimes hurts.
There is nothing pleasant, glamorous, cool or healthy about smoking. Those are the facts.
People who smoke will have started their habit for lots of different reasons. To look cool, peer pressure, etc. Once that initial reason is no longer relevant they continue to smoke because just like any other addict they are addicted to a very powerful drug. I would estimate the vast majority of smokers would prefer to give up but can’t. There’s not much glamour huddling under a sun umbrella outside a pub. Most smokers I know and have known get defensive when these harsh facts are pointed out but I’m afraid the truth sometimes hurts.
There is nothing pleasant, glamorous, cool or healthy about smoking. Those are the facts.
I completely agree, I'm taking the piss
Cigarettes are filthy things, my point was more how they have been ingrained in pop culture for decades and someone like Connery as James Bond looking suave sucking on a gauloise has definitely encouraged a few young men to take the habit up over the years to impress women. I'm not saying that is a sensible thing to do
Are people really comparing the risks of smoking to the risks of getting injured playing football and suggesting that both are lifestyle choices that put a strain on the NHS?
I wonder if the government have thought this through, not only will they lose out on the tax generated by the smokers, but they will will have to pay out on many more pensions, bus passes etc which at the moment the majority of smokers either forfeit by dying early or by only receiving a very limited amount.
But by people living longer surely they will be paying more taxes?
Are people really comparing the risks of smoking to the risks of getting injured playing football and suggesting that both are lifestyle choices that put a strain on the NHS?
Wow. Speechless.
No, not people - just me. At least you have grasped what I am saying though mate.
The scale is different of course, but then Sunday footballers don't pay millions extra into the system via cigarette tax.
Just put this up for the third time on this thread for those that don't read it all:
I will try for the final time to explain my thinking, if anyone can explain why the logic is wrong, that's fine.
I am only (that is ONLY) referring to the people who say that smokers should be denied healthcare, or pay extra.
Got that, folks?
On that basis (just that basis - okay?) then anyone doing anything that is likely to be detrimental to their health that they don't need to do, should also be denied treatment/pay extra.
No-one should pay extra is what I am saying. Smokers possibly/contribute as much as they cost.
personally wish they bought back smoking into pubs/restaurants. purely just to hopefully stop parents bringing their loud obnoxious brats into those places.
personally wish they bought back smoking into pubs/restaurants. purely just to hopefully stop parents bringing their loud obnoxious brats into those places.
In 1974, almost half of all adults in the UK smoked. For many, spending time in smoke-filled homes, pubs and workplaces was simply a part of daily life.
But some people remain much more likely to smoke than others.
People living on a low income are disproportionately likely to smoke, for example. One in three social housing residents and one in four manual workers smokes, compared with one in 10 of those in professional or managerial jobs.
This regional divide is startlingly illustrated by the proportion of women who smoke while pregnant.
In England, one in 10 pregnant women smoke. But within this there are huge variations - ranging from one in 50 in some wealthy parts of London to one in four in Blackpool, one of the most deprived areas.
In recent years, the UK has introduced policies that appear to have helped many smokers quit and deterred others from starting.
The smoking ban was introduced in 2007, alongside a raising of the minimum purchasing age to 18.
Taxes on a £10 pack of 20 cigarettes have increased to over 80% of the retail price, while the packaging and display of tobacco products have become increasingly restricted and advertising banned.
Wales is targeting a 16% smoking rate by 2020, while the Scottish government aims to create a "tobacco-free" generation by 2034 and Northern Ireland is also aiming to eradicate smoking altogether, in addition to England's pledge to end smoking by 2030.
Stop-smoking services providing support and medication have also been offered nationwide, contributing to the fall in overall smoking rates.
For these reasons, a different approach may be needed.
Some clear recommendations have been made to stop the third of mentally ill people who smoke from being left behind. Many can be applied to other at-risk groups.
Free, tailored individual support, including advice, mobile stop-smoking services and online resources, has been shown to be effective, as have financial incentives such as making cigarettes more expensive and offering smokers cash to quit.
Price increases appear to work best in combination with support such as counselling and smoking alternatives such as electronic cigarettes or nicotine patches.
Doctors asking patients if they smoke could also help identify would-be quitters who don't want to bother the NHS or are facing multiple health conditions.
People who smoke will have started their habit for lots of different reasons. To look cool, peer pressure, etc. Once that initial reason is no longer relevant they continue to smoke because just like any other addict they are addicted to a very powerful drug. I would estimate the vast majority of smokers would prefer to give up but can’t. There’s not much glamour huddling under a sun umbrella outside a pub. Most smokers I know and have known get defensive when these harsh facts are pointed out but I’m afraid the truth sometimes hurts.
There is nothing pleasant, glamorous, cool or healthy about smoking. Those are the facts.
I completely agree, I'm taking the piss
Cigarettes are filthy things, my point was more how they have been ingrained in pop culture for decades and someone like Connery as James Bond looking suave sucking on a gauloise has definitely encouraged a few young men to take the habit up over the years to impress women. I'm not saying that is a sensible thing to do
Are people really comparing the risks of smoking to the risks of getting injured playing football and suggesting that both are lifestyle choices that put a strain on the NHS?
Wow. Speechless.
No, not people - just me. At least you have grasped what I am saying though mate.
The scale is different of course, but then Sunday footballers don't pay millions extra into the system via cigarette tax.
Just put this up for the third time on this thread for those that don't read it all:
I will try for the final time to explain my thinking, if anyone can explain why the logic is wrong, that's fine.
I am only (that is ONLY) referring to the people who say that smokers should be denied healthcare, or pay extra.
Got that, folks?
On that basis (just that basis - okay?) then anyone doing anything that is likely to be detrimental to their health that they don't need to do, should also be denied treatment/pay extra.
No-one should pay extra is what I am saying. Smokers possibly/contribute as much as they cost.
I hope that is clear now?
I don’t think anyone should be denied healthcare full stop.
But surely the big flaw in your argument is that doing something like playing football (or getting out of bed, crossing the road, etc) only may, occasionally, lead to health issues. For example, you look at the number of participants in ratio to the number of injuries. In addition there are benefits to playing football (or crossing the road).
But with smoking it’s more or less all one way. There are no real benefits - not once the addiction kicks in - and its a cast iron fact that you are choosing to give yourself health problems. It’s not an unforeseeable or occasional consequence. It’s a fact.
Of course, a smoker may not ever need medical treatment - they may get hit by a bus before the adverse health effects ever manifest themselves - but we all know about the adverse health consequences now.
So, in my view, comparing smoking to playing football is completely flawed from the off. And that’s before you even consider the effects passive smoking can have on those around you.
Still, each to their own and I would defend someone’s right to do something that isn’t good for them. But I also 100% defend someone’s right not to have to breath in some other selfish bastards smoke if they don’t want to. So, smoke away if you want, just don’t do it near me - or my kids.
People who smoke will have started their habit for lots of different reasons. To look cool, peer pressure, etc. Once that initial reason is no longer relevant they continue to smoke because just like any other addict they are addicted to a very powerful drug. I would estimate the vast majority of smokers would prefer to give up but can’t. There’s not much glamour huddling under a sun umbrella outside a pub. Most smokers I know and have known get defensive when these harsh facts are pointed out but I’m afraid the truth sometimes hurts.
There is nothing pleasant, glamorous, cool or healthy about smoking. Those are the facts.
I completely agree, I'm taking the piss
Cigarettes are filthy things, my point was more how they have been ingrained in pop culture for decades and someone like Connery as James Bond looking suave sucking on a gauloise has definitely encouraged a few young men to take the habit up over the years to impress women. I'm not saying that is a sensible thing to do
People who smoke will have started their habit for lots of different reasons. To look cool, peer pressure, etc. Once that initial reason is no longer relevant they continue to smoke because just like any other addict they are addicted to a very powerful drug. I would estimate the vast majority of smokers would prefer to give up but can’t. There’s not much glamour huddling under a sun umbrella outside a pub. Most smokers I know and have known get defensive when these harsh facts are pointed out but I’m afraid the truth sometimes hurts.
There is nothing pleasant, glamorous, cool or healthy about smoking. Those are the facts.
I completely agree, I'm taking the piss
Cigarettes are filthy things, my point was more how they have been ingrained in pop culture for decades and someone like Connery as James Bond looking suave sucking on a gauloise has definitely encouraged a few young men to take the habit up over the years to impress women. I'm not saying that is a sensible thing to do
I am an ex-smoker who now vapes. My wife and I gave up smoking four years ago purely because of cost. If people want to smoke that is there choice. I have chosen not too but I don't preach to people who continue to smoke.
Just to throw in a curve ball, I don't drink and I don't know any official figures but I am sure drinking is a considerable drain on the NHS and other resources such as the police.
Excessive drinking is obviously a health issue which seems to be getting worse and excessive drinking in public can have an adverse effect on those around people who have had a bit too much and think they can fight the world.
Should the government ban drinking by 2030 to save people from themselves?
The key difference between smoking and drinking is there little damage to oneself and no harm to anybody else when drunk responsibly. In fact all the negative effects (to third parties) are caused by drinking to excess and breaking the law (public drunkenness is still an arrest-able offence). There is no non-excess level of smoking, it is uniquely harmful when taken in its intended volume.
My concerns with vaping aren't the long-term effects (though they haven't been researched anywhere near enough as yet), it's the misconceptions caused by it being regarded as "safe".
To give a pair of anecdotes, in the full knowledge that anecdotal evidence isn't worth much, but can be informative if nothing else.
Firstly, a mate of mine quite smoking a took up vaping instead. Like most vapors (it seems*), he had to have his vape to hand at all times, and working in a manual trade he actually worse his on a chain around his neck. Now the problem with it to hand at all times is the person loses track of how often they're using it. With cigarettes you have to take a break from whatever you're doing, each last a short period of time and the packet acts as a visual indication of how many you've smoked. Nicotine is a nasty drugs, taken in even relatively small doses (remember cigarettes have tiny tiny amount of nicotine in), eventually he started to get head-aches, heart palpitations and ended up hospitalised for nicotine overdosing.
Second example is my sister-in-law, how vaped through pregnancy. I imagine the thought was that it's not harmful, therefore no problem. Nicotine seriously fucks with an unborn babies heart, causes the heart rate to soar. Just because vapes cut out the tar and other harmful chemicals, doesn't mean it's not harmful, and there seems to be a widespread belief that vapes are safe, which isn't the case, they're just safer than smoking numerous poisons, which is a very low bar to beat.
Not sure why some people are throwing curve balls into the discussion trying to compare like for like controversial bad habits that some members of society have and indeed some habits or hobbies that aren’t anything even remotely similar and using that as an argument not to peruse, penalise and disenfranchise smokers. The subject is smoking....not alcohol, sporting activities, or questionable hobbies.....we are talking about banning smoking here......that is the stand alone object of the government plans. We should focus on that first and foremost, it has little or no connection with other problems which in their own time and place can also be tackled at sometime in the future.
I am an ex-smoker who now vapes. My wife and I gave up smoking four years ago purely because of cost. If people want to smoke that is there choice. I have chosen not too but I don't preach to people who continue to smoke.
Just to throw in a curve ball, I don't drink and I don't know any official figures but I am sure drinking is a considerable drain on the NHS and other resources such as the police.
Excessive drinking is obviously a health issue which seems to be getting worse and excessive drinking in public can have an adverse effect on those around people who have had a bit too much and think they can fight the world.
Should the government ban drinking by 2030 to save people from themselves?
I am not advocating a ban just asking a question.
Drinking is an interesting one. Personally I feel that if the ambulance service is required for a drunk person or that a drunk person requires the attention of the police then those drunks should be billed.
Three years ago I was diagnosed with emphysema, (I was told I have the lungs of a heavy smoker), but I have never smoked in my life, so thank you selfish people who say, "I can smoke if I want to, it is noone elses business". I take medication, but have read that on average, someone with my condition will lose about 6 years off their life, so if you are a smoker, try thinking of others. Thank you
I smoke occasionally and reluctantly agree that the smoking ban in Pubs is progress (not for Pubs, as it is one of the factors that has caused the closure of them, but for health reasons for the masses).
I don't agree though with banning in it public places (if that is considered anywhere outside your own property). Firstly, I don't believe walking 'through' some passive smoke is any more damaging than any of the other toxins we breathe in daily. And secondly, as for the 'unpleasantness' of it to others (and yes, when I do, I am quite conscious of those around me), then most of us do things that come into this remit. The trash littered around Sidcup from fast food shops backs me up as example of this.
Smoking is a dirty habit that can kill you but also occasionally has made people look cool.
I'd suggest a total ban on the sale of tobacco. Seriously. And whilst we are at it think about fast food and ready meals also.
Comments
Being here really has made me appreciate the smoking ban in the UK and I wish I could go out without coming home smelling like an ashtray, or not have to spend yonks on the internet trying to find non smoking restaurants before I can take my son out to diner.
How much of a hardship is it to pop outside for a fag for the sake of everyone else in the establishment? I certainly didn't find it so bad when I was smoking, however the idea of stopping all smoking is clearly ridiculous and is never going to happen
All I am talking about is smokers being discriminated against when it comes to health care. Some say they choose to smoke, so they should "pay" for healthcare. Boxers choose to punch each other, footballers choose to kick each other and horse riders know they are more than likely going to fall off. Their choice.
Vaping is fine, I've done a lot of research into what goes into the juice and I'm happy that people are not killing anyone with second hand smoke as is the case with tobacco
Among other bits of research I watched a video on youtube featuring a few experiments and a handful of medical professionals. The medical people to a man/woman all said they wished everyone who smoked would take up vaping instead as the nasty type of illnesses that come from smoking would begin to disappear in a relatively short space of time. A few of these people were dentists and they said smoking is pretty much second only to brushing your teeth with full fat coke as the most destructive thing to do to your mouth and everything in it, throat, tongue, glands, tonsils, teeth and gums.
No two ways about it though, Sean Connery looked cool as fuck smoking fags as James Bond which just wouldn't be the case if he was toofing on a cloudbuster 3000 raspberry doughnut flavour vape
There is nothing pleasant, glamorous, cool or healthy about smoking. Those are the facts.
Cigarettes are filthy things, my point was more how they have been ingrained in pop culture for decades and someone like Connery as James Bond looking suave sucking on a gauloise has definitely encouraged a few young men to take the habit up over the years to impress women. I'm not saying that is a sensible thing to do
Wow. Speechless.
The scale is different of course, but then Sunday footballers don't pay millions extra into the system via cigarette tax.
Just put this up for the third time on this thread for those that don't read it all:
https://fullfact.org/economy/does-smoking-cost-much-it-makes-treasury/
I will try for the final time to explain my thinking, if anyone can explain why the logic is wrong, that's fine.
I am only (that is ONLY) referring to the people who say that smokers should be denied healthcare, or pay extra.
Got that, folks?
On that basis (just that basis - okay?) then anyone doing anything that is likely to be detrimental to their health that they don't need to do, should also be denied treatment/pay extra.
No-one should pay extra is what I am saying. Smokers possibly/contribute as much as they cost.
I hope that is clear now?
Who are the smokers that haven't quit?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-48472828
In 1974, almost half of all adults in the UK smoked. For many, spending time in smoke-filled homes, pubs and workplaces was simply a part of daily life.
Today, that figure has fallen to 15%. The government has pledged to end smoking in England altogether by 2030.
But some people remain much more likely to smoke than others.
People living on a low income are disproportionately likely to smoke, for example. One in three social housing residents and one in four manual workers smokes, compared with one in 10 of those in professional or managerial jobs.
Smoking rates also differ considerably around the country. Only 8.6% of those in East Devon smoke, for example, compared with 21.8% in Dundee.
This regional divide is startlingly illustrated by the proportion of women who smoke while pregnant.
In England, one in 10 pregnant women smoke. But within this there are huge variations - ranging from one in 50 in some wealthy parts of London to one in four in Blackpool, one of the most deprived areas.
People with mental health problems are similarly affected. This group is 50% more likely to smoke than the rest of the population, a gap that has been widening.
Because smoking is so uniquely harmful, this translates into major differences in illness and early death.
One US study suggested smoking accounted for two-thirds of the life expectancy shortfall among people with mental health problems, 10 years of lost life. These findings are likely to apply to other countries too.
Another study indicated the poorest men in England and Wales were twice as likely to die between the ages of 35 and 69 as the richest - and their death was almost five times more likely to be caused by smoking.
Why are these groups more at risk?
In recent years, the UK has introduced policies that appear to have helped many smokers quit and deterred others from starting.
The smoking ban was introduced in 2007, alongside a raising of the minimum purchasing age to 18.
Taxes on a £10 pack of 20 cigarettes have increased to over 80% of the retail price, while the packaging and display of tobacco products have become increasingly restricted and advertising banned.
Wales is targeting a 16% smoking rate by 2020, while the Scottish government aims to create a "tobacco-free" generation by 2034 and Northern Ireland is also aiming to eradicate smoking altogether, in addition to England's pledge to end smoking by 2030.
Stop-smoking services providing support and medication have also been offered nationwide, contributing to the fall in overall smoking rates.
Yet they have been less effective for poorer and mentally ill smokers, even if they are as likely to try to quit as other groups.
The reasons for this are varied and complex.
These groups can have higher levels of dependence, making it harder to give up. They are also more likely to be around other smokers, normalising the behaviour and making it harder to quit successfully.
They may also have to deal with stress factors such as income instability, poor housing and living in run‐down neighbourhoods.
At the same time, stop-smoking services, which appear to have helped reduce inequalities, have disappeared in many areas, with an estimated 30% funding cut in England between 2014-15 and 2017-18 .
Financial incentives
For these reasons, a different approach may be needed.
Some clear recommendations have been made to stop the third of mentally ill people who smoke from being left behind. Many can be applied to other at-risk groups.
Free, tailored individual support, including advice, mobile stop-smoking services and online resources, has been shown to be effective, as have financial incentives such as making cigarettes more expensive and offering smokers cash to quit.
Price increases appear to work best in combination with support such as counselling and smoking alternatives such as electronic cigarettes or nicotine patches.
E-cigarettes, in particular, have become more popular in recent years. Public Health England suggests these products carry a fraction of smoking's risk and every year could be contributing to between 22,000 and 57,000 people quitting smoking.
Doctors asking patients if they smoke could also help identify would-be quitters who don't want to bother the NHS or are facing multiple health conditions.
But surely the big flaw in your argument is that doing something like playing football (or getting out of bed, crossing the road, etc) only may, occasionally, lead to health issues. For example, you look at the number of participants in ratio to the number of injuries. In addition there are benefits to playing football (or crossing the road).
But with smoking it’s more or less all one way. There are no real benefits - not once the addiction kicks in - and its a cast iron fact that you are choosing to give yourself health problems. It’s not an unforeseeable or occasional consequence. It’s a fact.
Of course, a smoker may not ever need medical treatment - they may get hit by a bus before the adverse health effects ever manifest themselves - but we all know about the adverse health consequences now.
So, in my view, comparing smoking to playing football is completely flawed from the off. And that’s before you even consider the effects passive smoking can have on those around you.
Still, each to their own and I would defend someone’s right to do something that isn’t good for them. But I also 100% defend someone’s right not to have to breath in some other selfish bastards smoke if they don’t want to. So, smoke away if you want, just don’t do it near me - or my kids.
My wife and I gave up smoking four years ago purely because of cost.
If people want to smoke that is there choice. I have chosen not too but I don't preach to people who continue to smoke.
Just to throw in a curve ball, I don't drink and I don't know any official figures but I am sure drinking is a considerable drain on the NHS and other resources such as the police.
Excessive drinking is obviously a health issue which seems to be getting worse and excessive drinking in public can have an adverse effect on those around people who have had a bit too much and think they can fight the world.
Should the government ban drinking by 2030 to save people from themselves?
I am not advocating a ban just asking a question.
My concerns with vaping aren't the long-term effects (though they haven't been researched anywhere near enough as yet), it's the misconceptions caused by it being regarded as "safe".
To give a pair of anecdotes, in the full knowledge that anecdotal evidence isn't worth much, but can be informative if nothing else.
Firstly, a mate of mine quite smoking a took up vaping instead. Like most vapors (it seems*), he had to have his vape to hand at all times, and working in a manual trade he actually worse his on a chain around his neck. Now the problem with it to hand at all times is the person loses track of how often they're using it. With cigarettes you have to take a break from whatever you're doing, each last a short period of time and the packet acts as a visual indication of how many you've smoked. Nicotine is a nasty drugs, taken in even relatively small doses (remember cigarettes have tiny tiny amount of nicotine in), eventually he started to get head-aches, heart palpitations and ended up hospitalised for nicotine overdosing.
Second example is my sister-in-law, how vaped through pregnancy. I imagine the thought was that it's not harmful, therefore no problem. Nicotine seriously fucks with an unborn babies heart, causes the heart rate to soar. Just because vapes cut out the tar and other harmful chemicals, doesn't mean it's not harmful, and there seems to be a widespread belief that vapes are safe, which isn't the case, they're just safer than smoking numerous poisons, which is a very low bar to beat.
The subject is smoking....not alcohol, sporting activities, or questionable hobbies.....we are talking about banning smoking here......that is the stand alone object of the government plans.
We should focus on that first and foremost, it has little or no connection with other problems which in their own time and place can also be tackled at sometime in the future.
I don't agree though with banning in it public places (if that is considered anywhere outside your own property).
Firstly, I don't believe walking 'through' some passive smoke is any more damaging than any of the other toxins we breathe in daily.
And secondly, as for the 'unpleasantness' of it to others (and yes, when I do, I am quite conscious of those around me), then most of us do things that come into this remit. The trash littered around Sidcup from fast food shops backs me up as example of this.
Smoking is a dirty habit that can kill you but also occasionally has made people look cool.
I'd suggest a total ban on the sale of tobacco. Seriously. And whilst we are at it think about fast food and ready meals also.