UK's Potential Smoking Ban
I've been following the potential complete ban on smoking in the UK very keenly for a while, but probably for different reasons to many people out there. I, as a non-smoker, am completely against this ban, with the main reason being the way the Government intends to keep on profiting from tobacco taxation, while endorsing the ban. Also is the ever growing evidence that secondary smoke doesn't even have the adverse affect so many people assume that it would have.
For me, this feels like they're being a tad hypocritical - the government, and many people who support the ban on smoking want the smoke out of their faces, but they still want the Smokers money to be used to supply their services? I feel slightly disillusioned at the greed of the non-smoking masses, who would quite happily exclude many people from enjoying many private services, such as pubs, and club, yet would happily oblige to indulge in using the smokers money for medical research (much of which would not directly help smokers), and improvements to public services. Note: the government have stated that tobacco taxation in the UK amounts to around £10 billion per year, whereas treatment for sufferers of smoking related illnesses (such as lung cancer, heart disease, atc) only costs £1 billion, so they're not doing it because the NHS need it to treat self-inflicted illness.
"But", anti-smoking sympathisers say, "secondary smoke has been proven to kill people in huge numbers!". Is this actually true? Well, let's ask the EPA (the US Envirnomental Protection Agency) - they were the ones who produced one of the first reports on the supposed effects on secondary smoke. From one of their papers (The Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders), we can read that the actual exposure of secondary smoke for someone who live or work in smoky environments is the equivalent to 6 cigarettes per year. Those six cigarettes add up to a whole lotta nothing. Now, consider your view that going out once a week in a smoky environment is going to cause you cancer because of all the smoke - it really loses credibility very quickly, because the equivalent amount of literal cigarettes you would theoretically smoke adds up to an even smaller amount (typically 2 cigarettes per year). It really is a shame that some of these figures have been twisted and misconstrued by anti-smoking lobbyists, and people who are perpetually motivated by their own opinions.
So, would a complete ban on smoking be a good thing? My view is, emphatically, NO. Show me some concrete evidence, which hasn't been skewed by some dodgy maths, and then I'll reconsider.
Anyone who'd like to know a few more facts about the misconstrued research papers which give the false appearance that secondary smoke causes huge increases in the likelyhood of a non-smoker contracting cancer should probably check out Episode Five, from Series One of Penn & Tellers: Bullshit, available at all good stores! Also, more resources can be found at The Age, Forces.org, and The Hittman Chronicle. As always, comments and discussion encouraged!
- 11th January, 2006
- Uk Life, and Government.
Comments about 'UK's Potential Smoking Ban'
jess said:
3.02am, 3 December 2007
i think the ban is stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
richard holmes said:
11.32am, 5 August 2006
smokers smoke because they are unable not to.why should the majority- who ARE able not to- suffer when they don't want to???take that crap outside smokers-your time is up.
Michael said:
10.13am, 15 February 2006
After the news last night we see that the blanket ban will come into effect in the summer of 2007, However this does not cover the house of commons where they will be able to smoke in (Bit of a kick in the Bo**ocks to us all)
I find it comletely ridiculas and an infringement on peoples right to choose.
they estimate that they will save 3500 lives per year.
There even going to introdue a £50 fine to anyone caught smoking in a public place
Just shows everyone what a bunch of Di**Heads the government are
Jess said:
1.24pm, 23 January 2006
Craig,
Wouldn't worry about the lack of smoke detracting from atmosphere, there's still enough sweat, booze and loud music to make your local hostelry feel like home!
Fair point about obstruction, if The Man said I couldn't eat bacon sarnies any more, I'd be dropping a petition off at Number 10 before you could say "clogged arteries"!
Jess
P.S. My username on last.fm is Gripchimp.
Craig said:
12.44pm, 17 January 2006
Hi Jess - thanks for stopping by!
You also raise some good points - I can't say I enjoy having clothes which smell like a rasher of smoked bacon, but I do think that psychologically (for me at least) a smoky bar or club makes for a better atmosphere, although that probably has something to do with me wanting the smoke to obscure other peoples views of my suspect dancing.
I'm not sure if your point about people having to make more of an effort to smoke is a good thing, as it's ultimately their choice. People aren't obstructed when they want to eat harmful things, so why should they be obscructed from smoking a legal, governmentally endorsed product? If people want to smoke less, they should be able to make the choice out of their own free will, not because legislation is making them.
What's your username on last.fm? I'd quite like to check your songlist!
Jess said:
11.05am, 17 January 2006
Hi,
Came across your blog as you're one of my neighbours according to last.fm - congratulations on having obviously excellent taste in music!
Regarding your piece on the possible UK smoking ban; you put across several pertinent points. However, disregarding the health and nanny-state arguments for now, my personal opinion is that it is infinitely preferable to go pubbing/clubbing in a venue that is smoke-free. Having recently been to Ireland and Sweden on business, with both countries having a total ban in public places, I found that it's far more pleasant coming home after a night on it without sore eyes, a sore throat or cough (not saying I'll die from it, but however you spin it, second-hand smoke does irritate the throat) and clothes/hair that smell of stale smoke.
Speaking to friends and colleagues in Dublin and Stockholm, I found that the vast majority of them were in favour of the ban. Even the smokers agreed, saying that after initial teething troubles, they now smoked less due to the sheer effort required to have a cigarette during a night out. This is a good thing, shurely?
As for the government being hypocrytical as regards tax revenue from snouts, well, what's new?! It ain't like council tax - no-one is forced to smoke; if you don't like the injustice of it all, don't smoke.
Jess