Scotland to ban Smoking

[Phenomenon]

If you actually look at the government figures on the percentage of smokers who die from smoke related illness and the figures of those who don't smoke who also die from the same diseases it's quite surprisng.

Needless to say the non smokers would blame this on the smokers for creating a passive smoking society.

[Seraphina]

Talon quoted a few stats from Scotland earlier.

* About 13,000 people die in Scotland each year from smoking-related illness

* Smoking costs the NHS £200m a year

* In 2002 about 1.15 million people smoked in Scotland

* At least 20 to 25% of all deaths in Scotland result from smoking

* More than four out of five lung cancer deaths are smoking related

* Smokers who die are losing about 14 years of life expectancy

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3606071.stm

Wasn't it you just now who said nobody was disputing the health problems brought on by smoking?

Needless to say the non smokers would blame this on the smokers for creating a passive smoking society.

Actually, yes, I think it would be very interesting indeed to see how many nonsmokers who died from these diseases lived with smokers...I don't believe we live in a "passive smoking society", but I do believe it's difficult to go out for a night without finding someone who's going to light up....if one person in a room start's smoking, then everyone in that room is smoking with them, and is going to start suffering from the same conditions as the smoker if they are exposed to it frequently.

[Phenomenon]

Don't ya just love these figures.

£200 million. Let's ban smoking and see how the Scottish government recuperate their losses.

[Seraphina]

Yeah....how...will they manage with that extra £200million not being spent?

.... ....

Um...anyway...

What would certainly be interesting is to see how much the rate of heart attacks, lung cancer, strokes and so on starts to decline a few years into the ban.

[Phenomenon]

Yeah....how...will they manage with that extra £200million not being spent?

Recuperate means to gain back what is lost. Ban smoking completely and governments would lose far more than this.

[Seraphina]

I'm well aware of what it means Mr P...I'm also unaware of the moment people's health, and the upkeep of it, became a matter of "how much money would we lose if we stopped people poisoning each other?"

I also don't see any of the places in which a ban has been enforced currently being financially crippled, do you?

Edited September 3, 2004 by Seraphina

[Phenomenon]

I'm well aware of what it means Mr P

At least address me in a polite manner.

In simple terms so as you understand, governments in the UK can not possibly ban smoking completely. Agree or disagree , but take cigarette taxes away from a government and serious problems would be a foot.

[Seraphina]

Well you see, that's not what's been proposed Mr P This bill is about banning smoking in public places

Nobody's proposed an outright ban...certainly not at this moment at any rate....did you even read up on what you're objecting to?

[Guest Lottie]

Well done Talon! you have started a very interesting thread!

My great aunt is dying very slowly and painfully, has to have an oxygen cylinder with her at all times, cannot move about anymore and is coughing up her lungs and she is has NEVER SMOKED in her life! Her HUSBAND though did/does and the reason she is dying is due to BREATHING he husbands smoke!

Smokers can make all the excuses they like but breathing in second hand smoke as a non-smoker can cause the exact same disease in non-smokers as in smokers.

Its a foul and disgusting habit and fair enough people have the right to do as they choose but I do feel strongly that the sooner smoking is banned from public places the better.

I do NOT have yellow teatch or fingers and probably get fewer coughs and cold than most. None of my posts have supported your remark.

This is just an excuse I am afraid. Your teeth, fingers may not be yellow YET! You may not be coughing YET! But just you wait and see...Smoking causes severe long term effects and you will most certainly be hacking and coughing when you are alot older if you are not careful. ALSO what about your lungs??? Its easy to smoke when you cannot see the state your lungs are in but if you could I am sure you would stop in a second! Have you ever seen smokers lungs? Its terrifying and horrific.

[Guest Lottie]

Needless to say the non smokers would blame this on the smokers for creating a passive smoking society.

I would love to be able to show you the state my great aunt is in (read above post) and then see if you are flippant.

Edited September 3, 2004 by Lottie

[Phenomenon]

Trust me when I say that I am not being flippant, nor would I ever belittle an individuals suffering at the hands of smoking or otherwise.

It's almost common procedure now to blame all cancers of the lung or heart on either smoking or passive smoking. I don't buy in to this and if people were honest the evidence to support passive smoking as a killer is more of an unsubstantiated threat rather than based on direct and proven research. This isn't to say I'm right, but until proven otherwise I feel that smokers are blamed for just about any chest related disease going.

Edited September 3, 2004 by phenomenon

[Seraphina]

I wouldn't say for one second that smoking is the cause of every single case, of every single smoking related illness that occurs...but there's no denying it's a factor. And one that people who don't smoke should be spared exposure to.

X-Rays aren't the only cause of cancer, but would you be perfectly happy with someone walking down the street blasting them in your direction against your will?

[Phenomenon]

People are well aware of the risks to an indiviuals health if exposed to x-rays for too long. there is no debating its effect. As for passive smoking, this has yet to be proven as a definate risk.

[Seraphina]

Every single person on the planet has managed to accept that it IS a risk...except smoker....we know the chemicals that are in the smoke...we know what effects those chemicals have on the human body...we have documented cases of people suffering all sorts of horrific conditions because of inhaling second hand smoke...

There's no denying second hand smoking is a health risk. You can deny it if you like, but quite honestly the arguement that is isn't is just clutching at straws...it's based on the idea that yes, some of the conditions caused by second hand smoke can arise without it being present, not that second hand smoke doesn't increase the chances of them occuring.

[LoPar]

As heavily taxed as cigarettes are I say yes. We're contributing billions of dollars to the state and federal budget.

And cause billions of damage to yourselves and others.

252728[/snapback]

Then another question is.....Does the smoking industry pay enough taxes to offset the costs incurred to humanity directly to smokers and indirectly to non-smokers?

[Seraphina]

Then another question is.....Does the smoking industry pay enough taxes to offset the costs incurred to humanity directly to smokers and indirectly to non-smokers?

A better question would be do we live in the kind of society, and are we the kind of people, who consider the taxes from the smoking industry as JUSTIFICATION for the costs and poor health incurred to smokers and non-smokers?

[LoPar]

Then another question is.....Does the smoking industry pay enough taxes to offset the costs incurred to humanity directly to smokers and indirectly to non-smokers?

A better question would be do we live in the kind of society, and are we the kind of people, who consider the taxes from the smoking industry as JUSTIFICATION for the costs and poor health incurred to smokers and non-smokers?

253482[/snapback]

Seraphina, My intention wasn't to say that net of any taxes over costs justifies the smoking industry. I believe that its a little hard to put a price tag on a persons life and suffering. I believe that a more severe smoking ban is unlikely because they state and federal governements are getting the tax dollars. If governments were serious about stopping smoking they could raise the taxes on corporations and indiviuals for cigarettes as much as 2 or 20 times what it is now.

[Stamford]

Smoking will never be outlawed because the black market would have a field day.

We have seen with all prohibition, whether it be alcohol, marijuana, cocaine or heroin, that it doesn't prevent its use and in fact can encourage its use.

All it does achieve is driving the market underground and lining the pockets of gangsters.

Edited September 3, 2004 by Stamford

[LoPar]

Smoking will never be outlawed because the black market would have a field day.

253495[/snapback]

So..... smoking is here to stay regardless of the cost. Society will just have to be happy making it uncomfortable to smoke and place smokers on the bottom of all lists for related medicare.

[Stamford]

So..... smoking is here to stay regardless of the cost. Society will just have to be happy making it uncomfortable to smoke and place smokers on the bottom of all lists for related medicare.

Sounds to me like this is already occuring.

But, yes, smoking is here to stay, for the forseeable future anyway.

Nicotine is as addictive as heroin, and if the effects had been know it would never have found its way onto the open market.

However, it is available, which means there are a lot of addicted people out there.

If you take away their source when they do not want to stop smoking, trust me people will find a way of obtaining it (i.e. the black market).

[LoPar]

Well Stamford, our only hope is that the continued educational programs depicting the affects of smoking sinks into the present generation and the next generation etc. Eventually the demand will begin to dry up until it isn't a profitable enterprise anymore.

[Stamford]

I hope you are right.

Unfortuntely, most people begin smoking when they are in their teens (and think they can give up anytime).

It's not until you have a few months of continued smoking under your belt that you realise you may have a little habit on your hands.

Sadly smoking is still deemed 'cool' to many teenagers and this will be the hardest thing to defeat.

I sadly speak from experience.

[LoPar]

I think some change is coming. I spent my high school years as a minority....only 5 of 24 of us didn't smoke. I think that the generation that is coming through the school system now do not look on smoking as cool. At least not as many. Cigarette smoking was cool because there used to be many visible idols who were smoking. There aren't as many now (most have died of cancer).

[Dancing_Dumplings]

bout 1/2 of my hs smoke...either pot or cigarettes. some kid got busted for having pot in his locker...moron. we have 2500 students in the whole school

*edit*

actually there are drug dealers on the fifth floor of one building. some girls some boys...they hang in the bathrooms during school. and after school they deal off campus so security wont bust em. *sniffle* such a great school

Edited September 3, 2004 by Anti_girl17

[LoPar]

bout 1/2 of my hs smoke...either pot or cigarettes.

253563[/snapback]

That's a start....considering most smoked in my class in high school. Perhaps the next generation will 2/5 of the hs smoking - cigarettes or otherwise.