I always hear people advocating that smoking is a right and that you should be able to do it almost everywhere and that other people should be 'cool' about it and accept it. I completely don't agree with it since it is indeed your right to ruin your own health, but it isn't your right to ruin the health of other people. And that is where a public smoking ban comes in order.
Of course, just like the negative effects of smoking that have been denied for a long time, the same goes for passive smoking. But the statistics seem to speak for themselves.
| Quote: |
| A new study provides surprising evidence of the effects of smoking bans: Heart attacks have dropped by 17 percent in Scotland since smoking was banned in public last year. |
| Quote: |
| But for medical experts, the Scottish study is actually not that surprising. There are already several studies from other countries which have yielded very similar results |
| Quote: |
| The number of heart attacks suffered in the town of Helena in the US state of Montana even declined by about 40 percent following a 2002 smoking ban. However when a judge legalized smoking again six months later, the number of heart attacks returned to previous levels. |
| Quote: |
| "The correlation between passive smoking and heart attacks is now excellently documented," says Tobias Raupach, the scientific director of an center for people who want to quit smoking at the University Medical Center Göttingen. The peculiar thing is that, both with passive and active smoking, a minimal change can already lead to a large effect. Much as with an avalanche, a small stimulus can lead to a cascade of events. |
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,506730,00.html
Of course, these results could be a bit too drastic and just a coincidence, but nonetheless passive smoking is really bad for the health of almost everyone and should really be banned everywhere in public spaces in my opinion. To be honest, Ireland introduced it, and it has made the place a lot nicer to get stinking drunk in.
Back in the old days, you'd wake up the day after with a headache and something lodged in your lungs. Nowadays you wake up with just the headache, or (if you're a smoke) the above + frostbite on one of your lil toes because of that stupid blizzard.
I couldn't agree more Bondings. I like to compare it with many things, for this one I'm going to mention 'mustard gas'. Don't I have the right to breath mustard gas? If you ban people from releasing mustard gas into the air, you can reduce mustard gas deaths by 100%! You see, passive-mustard gas breathing is very dangerous.
It's not just health though either. As bogger mentioned, less air pollution. Being able to see more than 5 meters in front of you should be possible all the time (unless there is a wall or something or something within 5 meters of you 
). Being in a room clogged with smoke is disgusting.
Litter: If you can't smoke outside, there can't be any dropped cigarette buts on the floor.
Economy: Less importing, less spending, more saving etc.
Sort of related to health, but tidiness. Bad teeth, nails and bad breath might not be solved, but stopped from getting worse at least.
The list goes on, but the above are the main advantages.
By the way. If you are the judge from Helena who legalised smoking (I know it's unlikely their reading, but hey! Frihost is growing all the time ), your daft! It has certainly been a great thing down here in New Zealand. Nothing worse than reeking of smoke the day after a night on the beers. Once they instated the no smoking, waking up was always a joy. sort of... Of course all the bars stunk of stale beer and urine once they removed the smoke. But they soon sorted that out too.
Smoking smells awful..it would seem however that the quite gory images on cigarette packets and the various marketing campaigns (disecting a liver in the ad breaks anyone?) have had a pretty major effect.
Every now and then you come accoss an idiot who stands next to you on the tram and breathes his disgusting smokiness all over you but that seems to be happening less and less.
| Tim Graham wrote: |
| Smoking smells awful..it would seem however that the quite gory images on cigarette packets and the various marketing campaigns (disecting a liver in the ad breaks anyone?) have had a pretty major effect. |
I don't agree with the gory images, though. It should only contain information about the (bad) effects of smoking.I think it's needed. I highly doubt I would smoke anyway, but having seen the ooze in arteries and the havoc to a lung, I know now that I'll never smoke!
The whole UK is now "smoke free" as of May this year, and this means no smoking in substantially enclosed public spaces or workplaces - substantially enclosed essentially means a building with less than 2 open sides/walls, and this includes bus stop shelters, phone boxes, etc etc.
Its had its problems but Ive enjoyed the new clean smelling world in bar's especially, the only thing I would've done differently would be to allow individual private members clubs, such as the Royal British Legion (veterans association), to have had a free vote amongst members to decide themselves whether to adopt the ban in their premises.
Private members clubs are not "public" places in the regular sense, and the old boys (and women) who fought a few campaigns dodging bullets for the UK now have to hobble outside their clubs in the cold to smoke cigarettes - seeing an old man in a wheelchair smoking outside in the cold doesn't make me feel very comfortable.
That said though, I support the move overall if it helps put people off smoking, because the only people who benefit from it are the tobacco companies.
| Bondings wrote: |
| Tim Graham wrote: | | Smoking smells awful..it would seem however that the quite gory images on cigarette packets and the various marketing campaigns (disecting a liver in the ad breaks anyone?) have had a pretty major effect. |
I don't agree with the gory images, though. It should only contain information about the (bad) effects of smoking. |
But that's the thing - it is one of the consequences of smoking.
That said, they wouldn't chop up a liver to demonstrate how excercise is good for you. | Tim Graham wrote: |
| Bondings wrote: | | Tim Graham wrote: | | Smoking smells awful..it would seem however that the quite gory images on cigarette packets and the various marketing campaigns (disecting a liver in the ad breaks anyone?) have had a pretty major effect. |
I don't agree with the gory images, though. It should only contain information about the (bad) effects of smoking. |
But that's the thing - it is one of the consequences of smoking.
That said, they wouldn't chop up a liver to demonstrate how excercise is good for you. |
It's one of the consequences, but there is no reason for those pictures. On medicine you don't see any pictures about the bad effects either. The same for other unhealthy items, like hamburgers, soft drinks. And I don't want to see a fat guy on every hamburger I eat. 
| Quote: |
| And I don't want to see a fat guy on every hamburger I eat |
I do, I think it would be great, not that I ever eat hamburgers anyway but. Maybe it would guilt trip people until eating healthier. Some states/local governments, here in the USA have instituted no-public smoking as well. I think it should be a federal law, but more states are passing laws, so its only a matter of time until is across the country.Considering that second hand smoking is just as bad as smoking it self i believe the stats. I am all for these laws. I know most don't agree but why hurt others with your dirty little habbits? Shouldn't us non smokers have the freedom to well, not have to deal with people that chose to do this. We don't really chose to be around people that smoke. Especially when you go somewhere in public like a resturent or something along them lines.
