Thinking back to the days before the 2007 indoor smoking ban I remember nurses had a bit of a reputation for smoking; in the 1980s you would see a small group in the hospital canteen enjoying a ciggie with their coffee break and they would say 'pass round the cancer sticks'! A nice social currency and probably helped with the stress of the job.
And there were posters that said "Kiss a non-smoker and taste the difference ".
I never did kiss a smoker so I wouldn't know!
I don't smoke. With one exception, which was for a special reason, the last time I smoked was in 1969.
However, the level of sanctimonious, self-righteous humbuggery there is on this thread both horrifies and disgusts me.
It's not the job of the government to stop other people doing the things you don't like.
Nor is it the job of the government to protect people from themselves or their own weaknesses.
That applies to smoking, drinking, gambling, chocolate, eating too much, obesity, and in my opinion drugs - which I also don't do or like by the way. I believe it was popular in the 1920s in the United States to refer to prohibition as 'the Noble Experiment'. Well, noble or intrusive, it didn't work. Learn from that.
Nor has that state or my own eradicated taking drugs by making them illegal. Indeed, the old system here for managing drug addiction that was abolished in the 1960s under American pressure worked a lot better than anything since.
I agree with the ban on smoking indoors in pubs, cinemas, restaurants etc. The air is much more pleasant and one does not come home smelling of other people stale tobacco. The distinctive smell of Clan – does anybody still remember that? - or Gauloises might be nostalgic live but ingrained into the cloth of one's jacket, no.
It's not the job of the government to stop other people doing the things you don't like.
No-one here is proposing further restrictions on smoking on those grounds alone. Theft is illegal and also happens to be something I dislike.
The question is the balance of restricting activity against societal good.
Nor is it the job of the government to protect people from themselves or their own weaknesses.
The job of government is whatever role we as a society decide it should have. You appear to be posting your personal preference on that topic as if it were an established fact.
The fact is that we fund healthcare as a society. It is by no means a given that government cannot include measures aimed at mitigating that cost - as we do through the UK Health Security Agency.
The questions are all over whether this is a proportional measure.
Well @Enoch, I think the state can make things easier, especially for parents
The sugar tax in the UK certainly helped.
"A levy on sugar in soft drinks (often referred to as a 'sugar tax') led to an estimated drop in the amount of sugar consumed by children of almost one teaspoon per day within a year, according to an analysis of UK data.'
@Marvin the Martian: You've convicted me of hypocrisy without knowing anything about my stance on what government policies on food and agriculture should be.
That wasn't my intent - I used your post as a springboard for my thoughts rather than my post being a direct reply to yourself.
So when are we going to ban chocolate, sweets, cakes, crisps, patties, jam, butter, soft drinks, sauces, ice cream, fried food, and so on?
The problem is not the foods people have been making and eating for hundreds, even thousands of years. The problem is the things passing for food that were introduced into the food supply in the second half of the 20th century.
Secondly, it forces people to consider how they would feel if something harmful that they enjoy was being considered for a ban, rather than something they don't like and would never try. The easiest sin to condemn is the one you're never tempted to commit, after all. Are those calling for a ban really doing so on societal health and economic grounds, or just because it's something they don't like?
It would be fucking awesome for me if salty, highly processed carby things disappeared from the grocery store overnight. If I make crackers myself, I can easily limit how many I eat, as they weren't designed in a lab to be hyper-palatable.
You're consistent, and I respect that. I don't agree though, as I think people should be free to choose what they eat, drink, and (yes) smoke. I don't think government should be controlling our choices, even if - especially if - they think it's what's best for us.
Of course, a lot of people would be denied the pleasure of consuming them and it would be a hideously oppressive imposition on people's freedom to decide their own lifestyle, but that's surely not important in the face of such obvious health and social benefits. Is it?
No, it's really not, and the reality is people aren't deciding their own lifestyles. Global corporations and governments that refuse to regulate them are.
I'm not aware of any corporation threatening me with jail if I don't consume their product. They may have persuasive advertising and an appealing product, but there's no equivalence at all.
The Treasury actually likes smokers. While the Health and Social Services costs are significant, they are more than counterbalanced by the savings on pension payments. Smoking is actually a rather painful form of voluntary euthanasia and the death rates are a highly significant proportion of deaths prior to and shortly after retirement. That’s what the Treasury likes. With generally increasing life expectancies, anyone who contributes to a moderation in that trend is a friend.
This is very true, and IMO is another positive aspect of smoking. We have a demographic crisis in this country - frankly, we have too many old people. We've got so damn good at keeping people alive despite infirmity that now we have far more of them than our care systems can deal with or our taxes can pay for. We need things like smoking and unhealthy foods - things freely chosen by the individuals concerned without any governmental coercion - to reduce their numbers a bit.
At my age (early 80’s) I aim to maximise my pension return and cheat the Treasury and the actuaries for as long as possible. It’s enlightened self-interest, really.
That's your choice of course. Mine is that I'm not interested in adding a few years to the broken, worn out and infirm end of my life if doing so means removing some of the things that bring me pleasure from the parts of my life when I'm fully capable of enjoying them. I may well change my mind about that in thirty years (by when I'll be 75), but then if I never did anything I might regret later I'd have had a much more boring life. What's the point of a long dotage with nothing about which to reminisce?
tl;dr - it's not about the amount of years in your life, it's the amount of life in your years.
The question is the balance of restricting activity against societal good.
...
The questions are all over whether this is a proportional measure.
Hence my raising the question of unhealthy foods. On every measure thus far stated as a reason to ban smoking bar one*, banning unhealthy foods would be a far greater societal good. Yet even suggest the possibility and people line up to defend their right to eat/drink the things they enjoy.
Proportionality does not mean "more people dislike this than like it, so it's fair game".
.
*= the one is, of course, second hand smoking - and even then it's only relevant because the affected person hasn't chosen to be affected. But while an indoor ban can be justified on that ground, I'm not aware of any studies that indicate temporary second-hand exposure to tobacco smoke in the (otherwise) fresh air has a statistically significant impact on health outcomes. There's plenty of evidence of second-hand smokers suffering consequences, but as far as I'm aware they were all people who were consistently exposed to smoke in confined spaces over many years.
The question is the balance of restricting activity against societal good.
By prohibiting theft, society protects you against other people who might want to steal your stuff. With the ban on indoor smoking, society protected you against other people's second hand smoke.
The proposed ban on outdoor smoking really doesn't do that. The "good" that we're talking about with the proposed ban accrues to the smokers themselves, by making it more awkward and unpleasant to smoke, and so encouraging smokers to smoke less or give up, and perhaps discouraging a few more people from taking up smoking.
"You can't do this because it hurts other people" is a very different statement from "you can't do this because it hurts yourself".
The question is the balance of restricting activity against societal good.
By prohibiting theft, society protects you against other people who might want to steal your stuff. With the ban on indoor smoking, society protected you against other people's second hand smoke.
The proposed ban on outdoor smoking really doesn't do that. The "good" that we're talking about with the proposed ban accrues to the smokers themselves, by making it more awkward and unpleasant to smoke, and so encouraging smokers to smoke less or give up, and perhaps discouraging a few more people from taking up smoking.
"You can't do this because it hurts other people" is a very different statement from "you can't do this because it hurts yourself".
Well, that's arguable (for the avoidance of doubt I haven't decided where I stand on this one yet). One might argue that in a society that provides health care there is a right for the state to mitigate its losses - somewhat like an insurance company putting requirements on your cover.
I think it's more complicated and less simple than both entrenched sides are trying to make it.
I suppose it is complex. Questions of individual and social costs, and benefits, and the interplay between them, are all in play.
But I find it puzzling when people who seem to be furious advocates of personal freedom defend their addiction - when it removes their freedom now and will restrict their lives later.
Viewing, with equanimity, swapping years of good health for years of debilitating sickness shows how deeply you are trapped. It’s shocking to non-addicts - and to ex-addicts, when they realise how much of themselves they were willing to obliterate.
If you cannot let something go when it would be good for you to do so, you are a slave.
Take back your freedom, smokers. That nicotine stick is burning you, not the other way around.
But I find it puzzling when people who seem to be furious advocates of personal freedom defend their addiction - when it removes their freedom now and will restrict their lives later.
Yes, absolutely.
I am an ex-smoker and a just-about-recovering HPF addict and help is needed, we can't 'just stop' without support imo.
Great response to my post, mate! You embrace painful voluntary euthanasia as a socially responsible life choice!
My response was different, of course. The idea that the government was happy for me and others to screw ourselves in their financial interests got me cross. I thought it was cynical. They even supported anti-smoking propaganda as long as it was ineffective! “Bastards!” I said to myself. “They’ve got many ways of screwing me but that’s a screw too far”.
Clearly I lack your sense of social responsibility. You have socialist tendencies after all!
However, the level of sanctimonious, self-righteous humbuggery there is on this thread both horrifies and disgusts me.
Double dare you to take this to Hell.
It's not the job of the government to stop other people doing the things you don't like.
Nor is it the job of the government to protect people from themselves or their own weaknesses.
One of the jobs of government is to regulate businesses, i.e., stopping people from doing things other people don't like. The UK has been regulating what can go into tea sold to the public since the 18th century.
@Marvin the Martian: You've convicted me of hypocrisy without knowing anything about my stance on what government policies on food and agriculture should be.
That wasn't my intent - I used your post as a springboard for my thoughts rather than my post being a direct reply to yourself.
You still effectively called me a hypocrite. Be more careful.
Which is mainly funded by the food industry, so a lousy source, and one that makes no effort to correlate what it says people should and shouldn't eat with what has caused large numbers of Britons to get fat, which is what you were talking about.
You're consistent, and I respect that. I don't agree though, as I think people should be free to choose what they eat, drink, and (yes) smoke. I don't think government should be controlling our choices, even if - especially if - they think it's what's best for us.
You prefer that multi-national corporations control your choices then. Because no one makes unconditioned choices.
I'm not aware of any corporation threatening me with jail if I don't consume their product. They may have persuasive advertising and an appealing product, but there's no equivalence at all.
They don't need to threaten you with jail. All they need to do is make their products cheaper, more readily available, and hyperpalatable. You're right, though, it's not the same. You get some say in the government. You get no say in what multi-national companies are doing as long as the government lets them do whatever they want.
Are they really going to jail violators? Where I live the penalties are just fines, and the onus is placed on restaurants and bars to keep their places smoke-free. Beaches and parks are also supposed to be smoke-free, in which case someone would have to make a complaint and get someone from the city to come out and cite the offender. The cops aren't patrolling the beaches and parks looking for smokers.
That's your choice of course. Mine is that I'm not interested in adding a few years to the broken, worn out and infirm end of my life if doing so means removing some of the things that bring me pleasure from the parts of my life when I'm fully capable of enjoying them.
In general I'd agree, but at the same time smoking brings forward the point when you might start to experience symptoms of being broken and worn out.
Well, that's arguable (for the avoidance of doubt I haven't decided where I stand on this one yet). One might argue that in a society that provides health care there is a right for the state to mitigate its losses - somewhat like an insurance company putting requirements on your cover.
As long as the state is an unbiased participant that is treating all risky activities on an equal basis, you might be able to make an argument for that case. That argument would say that the state has not just a right but an obligation to treat expensive activities equally, which brings to the forefront the comments already made about obesity and poor dietary choices, about risky extreme sports, and so on.
And you'd also have to consider the "killing off old people earlier" aspect as well, given that elder care (and particularly care for those suffering from dementia and so on) is resource-intensive.
Are they really going to jail violators? Where I live the penalties are just fines, and the onus is placed on restaurants and bars to keep their places smoke-free. Beaches and parks are also supposed to be smoke-free, in which case someone would have to make a complaint and get someone from the city to come out and cite the offender. The cops aren't patrolling the beaches and parks looking for smokers.
"Well, they don't really enforce it" is a bad argument for anything. You can make a reasonable principled case for certain things to be illegal, or for them to be legal. I'd be interested in hearing a principled argument for "this should be illegal, but the law shouldn't usually be enforced."
One might argue that in a society that provides health care there is a right for the state to mitigate its losses - somewhat like an insurance company putting requirements on your cover.
One might also argue that tax revenues of over £8 billion a year from tobacco products is mitigation enough.
But I find it puzzling when people who seem to be furious advocates of personal freedom defend their addiction - when it removes their freedom now and will restrict their lives later.
If someone freely chooses to consume a product that they know is harmful and/or addictive then that’s their choice to make and their risk to take.
And for the avoidance of doubt, I have no problem whatsoever with giving people all the information they need to make that choice in the most informed manner possible. I just think it should ultimately be their choice, not something the government decides for them.
If you cannot let something go when it would be good for you to do so, you are a slave.
I imagine that would make pretty much everyone a slave to something, whether it’s smoking, drinking, unhealthy foods, gambling, bad relationships, unhappy jobs, being a Giants fan, or suchlike.
Great response to my post, mate! You embrace painful voluntary euthanasia as a socially responsible life choice!
Everyone dies of something eventually. And I do NOT want to spend the last decade of my life locked in my own private hell as the Alzheimer’s eats away at my brain like my nan did. I’d honestly rather go ten years earlier with my marbles intact, even if it’s more physically painful towards the end.
Are they really going to jail violators? Where I live the penalties are just fines, and the onus is placed on restaurants and bars to keep their places smoke-free. Beaches and parks are also supposed to be smoke-free, in which case someone would have to make a complaint and get someone from the city to come out and cite the offender. The cops aren't patrolling the beaches and parks looking for smokers.
"Well, they don't really enforce it" is a bad argument for anything. You can make a reasonable principled case for certain things to be illegal, or for them to be legal. I'd be interested in hearing a principled argument for "this should be illegal, but the law shouldn't usually be enforced."
I didn't say they don't enforce it. I said the cops aren't wandering around parks and beaches looking for it - not at all the same thing. Whether or not anyone gets nailed for it I don't know, because I so rarely see anyone smoking anywhere. The last few times were people out for walks, as best I could tell. Which isn't illegal.
Great response to my post, mate! You embrace painful voluntary euthanasia as a socially responsible life choice!
Everyone dies of something eventually. And I do NOT want to spend the last decade of my life locked in my own private hell as the Alzheimer’s eats away at my brain like my nan did. I’d honestly rather go ten years earlier with my marbles intact, even if it’s more physically painful towards the end.
I appreciate this is tangential but not without point. Generally folks get warning of the onset of Alzheimersand are sufficiently competent to make rational decisions in their own interests. There’s always the Dignitas option,
And the bad news is that smoking does actually increase the risk of Alzheimers. You may be lucky and avoid terminal cancer, only for your later years to be blighted by it.
Back on the main topic, Legislating to ban smoking in confined spaces because of the dangers to others via secondary smoking inhalation may be both partial and selective but it does reduce the health risk. I’m not sure the risk reduction is as well founded outdoors in general. I suppose it depends what outdoor category one looks at.
But I don’t have a problem with decisions based on the safety of others.
To continue the tangential point - an outcome where one lives a full life and then declines quite quickly and dies in ones 70s is only one possible smoker's outcome. If Mrs LB's professional experience is any guide, a distinct possibility is a decades long decline in poor health followed by early death. Effectively the same period of ill health and decline, but starting and finishing earlier.
To continue the tangential point - an outcome where one lives a full life and then declines quite quickly and dies in ones 70s is only one possible smoker's outcome. If Mrs LB's professional experience is any guide, a distinct possibility is a decades long decline in poor health followed by early death. Effectively the same period of ill health and decline, but starting and finishing earlier.
Great response to my post, mate! You embrace painful voluntary euthanasia as a socially responsible life choice!
Everyone dies of something eventually. And I do NOT want to spend the last decade of my life locked in my own private hell as the Alzheimer’s eats away at my brain like my nan did. I’d honestly rather go ten years earlier with my marbles intact, even if it’s more physically painful towards the end.
You don’t get to choose like that - smokers are most likely setting themselves up for both physical and mental problems. My mother - a life-long smoker - ended up with Alzheimers and COPD (among other comorbidities). Her last years were heartbreaking for her and for us.
If you are a smoker, what will the last years of your life look like to your partner, your children and maybe your grandchildren (assuming you live long enough to meet them)?
Smoking has been identified as a risk factor in all forms of dementia, and the strongest link is with Alzheimers.
If you really want to lower your risk of dementia, the Alzheimer’s society has advice.
Addiction is a privatehell - anything that make people embrace sickness and death surely qualifies for that label.
My addiction is to sugar and hyper processed food. I am working extremely hard to conquer it. I’ve lost a stone and I’m well on the way to my target.
It’s a struggle. Slip ups on my heathy eating path are caused by me compartmentalising and pretending to myself that ‘just one’ will be fine. It’s a form of denial. ‘Just one’ or moderation isn’t fine, because these foods are cleverly designed for ‘just one’ to lead to another and another.
Even more so for people with addictions to cigarettes and other drugs. Alcohol is different, I think, and depends on how your brain is wired. I can take it or leave it.
I will note that smoking is banned in most of the parks around here (California) though perhaps less because of the smoke damage to people's lungs and more because of the danger of wildfire.
My addiction is to sugar and hyper processed food. I am working extremely hard to conquer it. I’ve lost a stone and I’m well on the way to my target.
It’s a struggle. Slip ups on my heathy eating path are caused by me compartmentalising and pretending to myself that ‘just one’ will be fine. It’s a form of denial. ‘Just one’ or moderation isn’t fine, because these foods are cleverly designed for ‘just one’ to lead to another and another.
Even more so for people with addictions to cigarettes and other drugs. Alcohol is different, I think, and depends on how your brain is wired. I can take it or leave it.
I don’t disagree with you, in general.
But my wording was a specific response to the comments made by MtM, which I found sad and disturbing. I’m sorry if you felt it was directed at you.
(Alcohol does affect people differently, it seems, but there are many for whom drinking is a very bad idea indeed).
In passing, congratulations on your progress and your determination. I have always found your positive and sensible attitude, here on the ship, to be an example.
Although it is a tangent, I also think it is really positive that we are getting to talk about many addictive health issues on this thread.
I wonder if there's an 'addictiveness' scale and, if there is one, where nicotine stands on it?
Purely anecdotal, but I knew someone who had kicked alcohol, crack cocaine and cigarettes, and he said cigarettes were for him by far the hardest to quit and the only thing that still tempted him over 10 years later.
I wonder if there's an 'addictiveness' scale and, if there is one, where nicotine stands on it?
Purely anecdotal, but I knew someone who had kicked alcohol, crack cocaine and cigarettes, and he said cigarettes were for him by far the hardest to quit and the only thing that still tempted him over 10 years later.
I can believe that. I stopped smoking 16 years ago, but still get a craving every now and then.
I wonder if there's an 'addictiveness' scale and, if there is one, where nicotine stands on it?
Purely anecdotal, but I knew someone who had kicked alcohol, crack cocaine and cigarettes, and he said cigarettes were for him by far the hardest to quit and the only thing that still tempted him over 10 years later.
I mentioned previously that in my professional experience (a while back now) I have met a lot of ex-drug users who couldn't stop smoking...
I wonder if there's an 'addictiveness' scale and, if there is one, where nicotine stands on it?
Purely anecdotal, but I knew someone who had kicked alcohol, crack cocaine and cigarettes, and he said cigarettes were for him by far the hardest to quit and the only thing that still tempted him over 10 years later.
I can believe that. I stopped smoking 16 years ago, but still get a craving every now and then.
I think we’re most at risk in”reaching for comfort” (however misguided that reaching may be) when frustrations with life in general - and other people in particular- get on top of us.
I think we have reserves of kindness, tolerance and patience. When they get used up, reaching for comfort often emerges. So, unfortunately, do verbal and physical violence. Or other forms of unkindness.
I had an excellent boss at work who was a convinced pipe smoker. He used to say both that was a bad habit and also that it helped him keep balanced.
There are better solutions. But in these kind of discussions over restrictions, it is worth recognising that prohibition can have bad, if unintended, consequences.
There are better solutions. But in these kind of discussions over restrictions, it is worth recognising that prohibition can have bad, if unintended, consequences.
People can calm themselves with many things other than addictive, harmful substances. I'd be a lot more concerned about prohibition creating a black market.
Prohibition was successful in reducing the amount of liquor consumed, cirrhosis death rates, admissions to state mental hospitals for alcoholic psychosis, arrests for public drunkenness, and rates of absenteeism.
All of this went out the window, of course, when it was repealed. What did not disappear, of course, was the enormous police apparatus that grew up to enforce it.
I'm surprised that cirrhosis rate reduction would be significant in just 13 years. I would have thought it takes much longer than that for such damage to occur.
The effect on rural pubs of the smoking ban was pretty bad and only those able to attract diners have survived. If there is now a ban on outdoor smoking areas the rural pub is likely to disappear for ever.
The effect on rural pubs of the smoking ban was pretty bad and only those able to attract diners have survived. If there is now a ban on outdoor smoking areas the rural pub is likely to disappear for ever.
How do you know it's the smoking ban and not changes in drinking habits (including more negative attitudes to drink driving) that are the cause?
The effect on rural pubs of the smoking ban was pretty bad and only those able to attract diners have survived. If there is now a ban on outdoor smoking areas the rural pub is likely to disappear for ever.
How do you know it's the smoking ban and not changes in drinking habits (including more negative attitudes to drink driving) that are the cause?
And as the data we reviewed earlier showed, the link between the smoking ban and pub closures is far from proven.
How do you know it's the smoking ban and not changes in drinking habits (including more negative attitudes to drink driving) that are the cause?
Having grown up in a rural US county with no public transportation outside the county seat (where the bus came once an hour on each of two routes), I don't see how you can drink much in a public rural setting without driving drunk.
Comments
(which is also a cause of obesity)
And there were posters that said "Kiss a non-smoker and taste the difference ".
I never did kiss a smoker so I wouldn't know!
However, the level of sanctimonious, self-righteous humbuggery there is on this thread both horrifies and disgusts me.
It's not the job of the government to stop other people doing the things you don't like.
Nor is it the job of the government to protect people from themselves or their own weaknesses.
That applies to smoking, drinking, gambling, chocolate, eating too much, obesity, and in my opinion drugs - which I also don't do or like by the way. I believe it was popular in the 1920s in the United States to refer to prohibition as 'the Noble Experiment'. Well, noble or intrusive, it didn't work. Learn from that.
Nor has that state or my own eradicated taking drugs by making them illegal. Indeed, the old system here for managing drug addiction that was abolished in the 1960s under American pressure worked a lot better than anything since.
I agree with the ban on smoking indoors in pubs, cinemas, restaurants etc. The air is much more pleasant and one does not come home smelling of other people stale tobacco. The distinctive smell of Clan – does anybody still remember that? - or Gauloises might be nostalgic live but ingrained into the cloth of one's jacket, no.
As far as I'm concerned leave it at that.
No-one here is proposing further restrictions on smoking on those grounds alone. Theft is illegal and also happens to be something I dislike.
The question is the balance of restricting activity against societal good.
The job of government is whatever role we as a society decide it should have. You appear to be posting your personal preference on that topic as if it were an established fact.
The fact is that we fund healthcare as a society. It is by no means a given that government cannot include measures aimed at mitigating that cost - as we do through the UK Health Security Agency.
The questions are all over whether this is a proportional measure.
Just a reminder that if anyone is aggrieved with a specific Shipmate, please take it to Hell.
North East Quine, Purgatory Host
Hostly hat off
The sugar tax in the UK certainly helped.
"A levy on sugar in soft drinks (often referred to as a 'sugar tax') led to an estimated drop in the amount of sugar consumed by children of almost one teaspoon per day within a year, according to an analysis of UK data.'
That's a win.
That wasn't my intent - I used your post as a springboard for my thoughts rather than my post being a direct reply to yourself.
My list was taken from this output of the British Nutrition Foundation.
You're consistent, and I respect that. I don't agree though, as I think people should be free to choose what they eat, drink, and (yes) smoke. I don't think government should be controlling our choices, even if - especially if - they think it's what's best for us.
I'm not aware of any corporation threatening me with jail if I don't consume their product. They may have persuasive advertising and an appealing product, but there's no equivalence at all.
This is very true, and IMO is another positive aspect of smoking. We have a demographic crisis in this country - frankly, we have too many old people. We've got so damn good at keeping people alive despite infirmity that now we have far more of them than our care systems can deal with or our taxes can pay for. We need things like smoking and unhealthy foods - things freely chosen by the individuals concerned without any governmental coercion - to reduce their numbers a bit.
That's your choice of course. Mine is that I'm not interested in adding a few years to the broken, worn out and infirm end of my life if doing so means removing some of the things that bring me pleasure from the parts of my life when I'm fully capable of enjoying them. I may well change my mind about that in thirty years (by when I'll be 75), but then if I never did anything I might regret later I'd have had a much more boring life. What's the point of a long dotage with nothing about which to reminisce?
tl;dr - it's not about the amount of years in your life, it's the amount of life in your years.
Hence my raising the question of unhealthy foods. On every measure thus far stated as a reason to ban smoking bar one*, banning unhealthy foods would be a far greater societal good. Yet even suggest the possibility and people line up to defend their right to eat/drink the things they enjoy.
Proportionality does not mean "more people dislike this than like it, so it's fair game".
.
*= the one is, of course, second hand smoking - and even then it's only relevant because the affected person hasn't chosen to be affected. But while an indoor ban can be justified on that ground, I'm not aware of any studies that indicate temporary second-hand exposure to tobacco smoke in the (otherwise) fresh air has a statistically significant impact on health outcomes. There's plenty of evidence of second-hand smokers suffering consequences, but as far as I'm aware they were all people who were consistently exposed to smoke in confined spaces over many years.
Science has given the big corporations a way to 'push' these foods on us rather like drug pushers.
Addiction isn't always a simple choice. We, the addicted, need other kinds of help I'm the modern era, I feel.
By prohibiting theft, society protects you against other people who might want to steal your stuff. With the ban on indoor smoking, society protected you against other people's second hand smoke.
The proposed ban on outdoor smoking really doesn't do that. The "good" that we're talking about with the proposed ban accrues to the smokers themselves, by making it more awkward and unpleasant to smoke, and so encouraging smokers to smoke less or give up, and perhaps discouraging a few more people from taking up smoking.
"You can't do this because it hurts other people" is a very different statement from "you can't do this because it hurts yourself".
Well, that's arguable (for the avoidance of doubt I haven't decided where I stand on this one yet). One might argue that in a society that provides health care there is a right for the state to mitigate its losses - somewhat like an insurance company putting requirements on your cover.
I think it's more complicated and less simple than both entrenched sides are trying to make it.
But I find it puzzling when people who seem to be furious advocates of personal freedom defend their addiction - when it removes their freedom now and will restrict their lives later.
Viewing, with equanimity, swapping years of good health for years of debilitating sickness shows how deeply you are trapped. It’s shocking to non-addicts - and to ex-addicts, when they realise how much of themselves they were willing to obliterate.
If you cannot let something go when it would be good for you to do so, you are a slave.
Take back your freedom, smokers. That nicotine stick is burning you, not the other way around.
Yes, absolutely.
I am an ex-smoker and a just-about-recovering HPF addict and help is needed, we can't 'just stop' without support imo.
I want to know to which shipmate's posts your invective is aimed at.
Because if it's mine there's a hell-call coming your way,
Great response to my post, mate! You embrace painful voluntary euthanasia as a socially responsible life choice!
My response was different, of course. The idea that the government was happy for me and others to screw ourselves in their financial interests got me cross. I thought it was cynical. They even supported anti-smoking propaganda as long as it was ineffective! “Bastards!” I said to myself. “They’ve got many ways of screwing me but that’s a screw too far”.
Clearly I lack your sense of social responsibility. You have socialist tendencies after all!
One of the jobs of government is to regulate businesses, i.e., stopping people from doing things other people don't like. The UK has been regulating what can go into tea sold to the public since the 18th century.
You still effectively called me a hypocrite. Be more careful.
Which is mainly funded by the food industry, so a lousy source, and one that makes no effort to correlate what it says people should and shouldn't eat with what has caused large numbers of Britons to get fat, which is what you were talking about.
You prefer that multi-national corporations control your choices then. Because no one makes unconditioned choices.
They don't need to threaten you with jail. All they need to do is make their products cheaper, more readily available, and hyperpalatable. You're right, though, it's not the same. You get some say in the government. You get no say in what multi-national companies are doing as long as the government lets them do whatever they want.
Are they really going to jail violators? Where I live the penalties are just fines, and the onus is placed on restaurants and bars to keep their places smoke-free. Beaches and parks are also supposed to be smoke-free, in which case someone would have to make a complaint and get someone from the city to come out and cite the offender. The cops aren't patrolling the beaches and parks looking for smokers.
In general I'd agree, but at the same time smoking brings forward the point when you might start to experience symptoms of being broken and worn out.
As long as the state is an unbiased participant that is treating all risky activities on an equal basis, you might be able to make an argument for that case. That argument would say that the state has not just a right but an obligation to treat expensive activities equally, which brings to the forefront the comments already made about obesity and poor dietary choices, about risky extreme sports, and so on.
And you'd also have to consider the "killing off old people earlier" aspect as well, given that elder care (and particularly care for those suffering from dementia and so on) is resource-intensive.
"Well, they don't really enforce it" is a bad argument for anything. You can make a reasonable principled case for certain things to be illegal, or for them to be legal. I'd be interested in hearing a principled argument for "this should be illegal, but the law shouldn't usually be enforced."
One might also argue that tax revenues of over £8 billion a year from tobacco products is mitigation enough.
If someone freely chooses to consume a product that they know is harmful and/or addictive then that’s their choice to make and their risk to take.
And for the avoidance of doubt, I have no problem whatsoever with giving people all the information they need to make that choice in the most informed manner possible. I just think it should ultimately be their choice, not something the government decides for them.
I imagine that would make pretty much everyone a slave to something, whether it’s smoking, drinking, unhealthy foods, gambling, bad relationships, unhappy jobs, being a Giants fan, or suchlike.
Everyone dies of something eventually. And I do NOT want to spend the last decade of my life locked in my own private hell as the Alzheimer’s eats away at my brain like my nan did. I’d honestly rather go ten years earlier with my marbles intact, even if it’s more physically painful towards the end.
I didn't say they don't enforce it. I said the cops aren't wandering around parks and beaches looking for it - not at all the same thing. Whether or not anyone gets nailed for it I don't know, because I so rarely see anyone smoking anywhere. The last few times were people out for walks, as best I could tell. Which isn't illegal.
And the bad news is that smoking does actually increase the risk of Alzheimers. You may be lucky and avoid terminal cancer, only for your later years to be blighted by it.
Back on the main topic, Legislating to ban smoking in confined spaces because of the dangers to others via secondary smoking inhalation may be both partial and selective but it does reduce the health risk. I’m not sure the risk reduction is as well founded outdoors in general. I suppose it depends what outdoor category one looks at.
But I don’t have a problem with decisions based on the safety of others.
Yes, that is a common pattern.
You don’t get to choose like that - smokers are most likely setting themselves up for both physical and mental problems. My mother - a life-long smoker - ended up with Alzheimers and COPD (among other comorbidities). Her last years were heartbreaking for her and for us.
If you are a smoker, what will the last years of your life look like to your partner, your children and maybe your grandchildren (assuming you live long enough to meet them)?
Smoking has been identified as a risk factor in all forms of dementia, and the strongest link is with Alzheimers.
If you really want to lower your risk of dementia, the Alzheimer’s society has advice.
Addiction is a private hell - anything that make people embrace sickness and death surely qualifies for that label.
My addiction is to sugar and hyper processed food. I am working extremely hard to conquer it. I’ve lost a stone and I’m well on the way to my target.
It’s a struggle. Slip ups on my heathy eating path are caused by me compartmentalising and pretending to myself that ‘just one’ will be fine. It’s a form of denial. ‘Just one’ or moderation isn’t fine, because these foods are cleverly designed for ‘just one’ to lead to another and another.
Even more so for people with addictions to cigarettes and other drugs. Alcohol is different, I think, and depends on how your brain is wired. I can take it or leave it.
I don’t disagree with you, in general.
But my wording was a specific response to the comments made by MtM, which I found sad and disturbing. I’m sorry if you felt it was directed at you.
(Alcohol does affect people differently, it seems, but there are many for whom drinking is a very bad idea indeed).
In passing, congratulations on your progress and your determination. I have always found your positive and sensible attitude, here on the ship, to be an example.
Although it is a tangent, I also think it is really positive that we are getting to talk about many addictive health issues on this thread.
I didn't think it was directed me. No need for an apology, and thank you for your encouragement.
Addiction is very complex. People rationalise it in many ways, the example above being one of them. I agree that it is sad.
I wonder if there's an 'addictiveness' scale and, if there is one, where nicotine stands on it?
Somewhere below cheese I reckon.
Purely anecdotal, but I knew someone who had kicked alcohol, crack cocaine and cigarettes, and he said cigarettes were for him by far the hardest to quit and the only thing that still tempted him over 10 years later.
I can believe that. I stopped smoking 16 years ago, but still get a craving every now and then.
I mentioned previously that in my professional experience (a while back now) I have met a lot of ex-drug users who couldn't stop smoking...
I think we’re most at risk in”reaching for comfort” (however misguided that reaching may be) when frustrations with life in general - and other people in particular- get on top of us.
I think we have reserves of kindness, tolerance and patience. When they get used up, reaching for comfort often emerges. So, unfortunately, do verbal and physical violence. Or other forms of unkindness.
I had an excellent boss at work who was a convinced pipe smoker. He used to say both that was a bad habit and also that it helped him keep balanced.
There are better solutions. But in these kind of discussions over restrictions, it is worth recognising that prohibition can have bad, if unintended, consequences.
People can calm themselves with many things other than addictive, harmful substances. I'd be a lot more concerned about prohibition creating a black market.
Prohibition was successful in reducing the amount of liquor consumed, cirrhosis death rates, admissions to state mental hospitals for alcoholic psychosis, arrests for public drunkenness, and rates of absenteeism.
All of this went out the window, of course, when it was repealed. What did not disappear, of course, was the enormous police apparatus that grew up to enforce it.
How do you know it's the smoking ban and not changes in drinking habits (including more negative attitudes to drink driving) that are the cause?
And as the data we reviewed earlier showed, the link between the smoking ban and pub closures is far from proven.
Having grown up in a rural US county with no public transportation outside the county seat (where the bus came once an hour on each of two routes), I don't see how you can drink much in a public rural setting without driving drunk.