Food & Drink1 min ago
Alcohol costs this country more than smoking?
43 Answers
I make no apology for raising this issue yet again, but the smoking ban is totally unnecessary. Passive smoking never harmed anyone, let alone killed them. There is no proof. If there was proof, it would appear on death certificates as a contributary cause of death. Please don't quote Roy Castle again. He presumed he caught lung cancer through passive smoking and everyone believed him. But he had no proof. Don't direct me to web sites and studies. They might be evidence but they are not proof. Where is the proof? For all the problems caused by smoking, multiply them by ten for alcohol. When did you ever know anyone pull a sickie cos they had a couple of cigs too many the night before? Town centre violence. Is that caused by smoking? Domestic violence. Is that caused by smoking? Death by drunken driving. Is that caused by smoking? The cost to the NHS of alcohol related problems is ten-fold compared to smoking. This is a victory for the nanny state and the self-righteous whingers.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 10ClarionSt. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Surely the point is all down to freedom of choice. As a smoker you choose to smoke, however, as a passive smoker that choice is taken away from you. Yes, as a non-smoker I do resent having to inhale toxic fumes but someone drinking next to me has no direct physical effect - I don't inhale the alcohol. Someone else drinking will only has an effect on me if their behaviour (drink driving, violence etc) is effected by alcohol - and there are already laws in place for those situations.
Passive smoking does kill and whereas I can choose to go to a bar or not, I have to go to work. Children and pets are also effected by second hand smoke.
Breathing in other peoples' secondhand smoke can damage almost every organ in the human body. It increases the risk of lung cancer by 24% and heart disease by 25%.
Breathing in secondhand smoke makes the blood more sticky. This means that there is a risk of blood clots forming. A blood clot can block an artery and cause heart attacks, strokes, angina or even complete heart failure.
You can't see or smell 85% of secondhand smoke.
Secondhand smoke is a dangerous cocktail of over 4,000 chemicals, including 69 cancer-causing chemicals, such as arsenic, benzene and formaldehyde.
However - all you smokers do pay for our NHS so smoke as much as you like, thats your choice. The Govt is just trying to protect those who don't want to die of smoking-related illnesses. It may be a bit OTT to include bars in the ban - but as for the workplace - surely no one can disagree with that??
Passive smoking does kill and whereas I can choose to go to a bar or not, I have to go to work. Children and pets are also effected by second hand smoke.
Breathing in other peoples' secondhand smoke can damage almost every organ in the human body. It increases the risk of lung cancer by 24% and heart disease by 25%.
Breathing in secondhand smoke makes the blood more sticky. This means that there is a risk of blood clots forming. A blood clot can block an artery and cause heart attacks, strokes, angina or even complete heart failure.
You can't see or smell 85% of secondhand smoke.
Secondhand smoke is a dangerous cocktail of over 4,000 chemicals, including 69 cancer-causing chemicals, such as arsenic, benzene and formaldehyde.
However - all you smokers do pay for our NHS so smoke as much as you like, thats your choice. The Govt is just trying to protect those who don't want to die of smoking-related illnesses. It may be a bit OTT to include bars in the ban - but as for the workplace - surely no one can disagree with that??
Someone else drinking will only has an effect on me if their behaviour (drink driving, violence etc) is effected by alcohol - and there are already laws in place for those situations.
Yes, but they are "after the fact laws" rather than "pre-emptive" laws, which is what the public smoking ban is. As far as "effect on others" goes, the smoking ban seeks to prevent any of the (still disputed) harm that smoking can cause others, but any laws for dealing with drunken behaviour are more aimed at punishing those who have already harmed others.
Yes, but they are "after the fact laws" rather than "pre-emptive" laws, which is what the public smoking ban is. As far as "effect on others" goes, the smoking ban seeks to prevent any of the (still disputed) harm that smoking can cause others, but any laws for dealing with drunken behaviour are more aimed at punishing those who have already harmed others.
-- answer removed --
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.