To think smoking should be BANNED???

[Mum2OliverJames]

Or it at least should be taken back into the pubs where it doesnt effect me, they cant all sit together in their deseise ridden smoke.

I am SOOO sick of walking behind someone who is smoking or walking through their putrid cloud of smoke, i hate it for my DS to, the smell makes me SICK, and i mean it actually makes me feel like i want to vomit!

Why cant smokers just realise how much they stink, you can smell a smoker a mile off.

I also hate how when someone speaks to you in the street, if they are smoking they will put their cigerette behind their back whilst talking to DS, like that stops him from breathing in you cancer fumes!!!

I think if someone is going to smoke they should at least do it where its not going to have an effect on anybody else (like in their own homes)

i dont think iabu, i think the smokers are v. much bu to expect everybody else to put up with their disgustingness - i think its v selfish.

Oh Ok FAQ you're right

Onager - point by point:

1)Perfume is not usually as strong as smoke, ie you have to get nearer to be affected - also a minority are subject to its effects, whereas tobaco is universally lethal.

2. I didn't say it harms you by 'seeing it waft by' but I believe it harms my children by wafting into the house.

3. I did not dismiss allergies as harmless and would never do so. I said that the toxicity posed by tobacco and that associated with perfumes etc are not comparable.

4. I think I am more angry with the people who run the home than those who are told to smoke in that place but even so I am angry that the residents choose to smoke - although they presumably don't realise it affects us. They choose to smoke, wherever they are made to do it. It isn't my children's fault.

I could not give a shit if they smoke in their own rooms.
I did not campaign for outside smoking areas in residential homes. Nor did I wish for it.

Can I offer a compromise solution? We just ban my DH from smoking?

I never used to mind the smell of smoke, then got pg and omg it made me hurl! I hoped that it was just to do with pregnancy, but no, nearly 4 years later I'm still vomming at the mere whiff of it.

And DH smokes in the car believing that there's no smell cos he had the window open. DD's child seat in the back is covered in fag ash, but he denies it's there And then he comes to give me a kiss reeking of it... bleuggh!

So just ban him from smoking and I'll be eternally grateful

Seriously, I always seem to be the one to be walking behind a smoker and it does make me feel ill, but short of providing hermetically-sealed booths for smokers it's just part of the price you pay for being smoke-free indoors (which is bliss!).

Flight, you have my sympathy, that must be horrible!

Perfume is not usually as strong as smoke, ie you have to get nearer to be affected>> Really?. I guess you must be equating "how much I dislike the smell" with "how poisonous it is" unless someone has done a study comparing the two.

a minority are subject to its effects, whereas tobaco is universally lethal.>>

The perfume danger isn't an allergy as far as I know, but applies to everyone, and tobaco is not universally lethal even to people who smoke for their entire life (is the residential home full of old people?), let alone people who briefly smell it as they pass. The government's reason for moving smokers outside is that it is entirely harmless there so it is just about not liking the smell.

FlightAttendant that's really horrible for you. I would have to move house if that happened to me. The smell of cigarettes does make me feel ill. I feel nauseous and giddy, and like Raven I have stood in the rain at bus stops (upwind) because there is someone smoking there. This makes me very angry when it happens, because their action is directly affecting me. Why should I have to breathe in their smoke. Why can't they breathe it all in if they love it so much? That's what I would like to see, some sort of device for capturing all the cigarette smoke and returning it to the owner.

My dh smokes. I know he is an addict, but I also know that when it comes down to it he prefers to remain in thrall to his addiction rather than consider his health, and the impact that it has on the family enough to do something about it. When I see other smokers that's what I see, people who are choosing to inflict their habit on me. However I am also aware that they probably do not have a clue how much of an impact it has. My husband for example denies that I can smell his cigarettes when he is smoking outside, but has left the door open. Why else am I coming out and yelling at him to shut the door? At work smokers have to go away from the building now (FlightAttendant you will be glad to know that no shelter has been built (in fact the previous one was removed), but I bet there are places where they congregate and the smoke has to go somewhere. The lift stinks when a smoker has come in. How nice is that? Smokers sit next to you on the bus or train and their stink gets all over you. Lovely.

One nice thing about living in the States is that there is much less visible smoking. In fact I can't think of the last time I had to walk/hold my breath behind someone. Maybe the ban in public places here will change the way people think about smoking in the UK too (NYC had this several years ago).

Ah. Good rant. Thanks' M2OJ

About cars being useful so it's ok to poison people. Should we not have drivers fill out a 'need to drive' form for each journey? I have heard that some drive for pleasure and that is just SO SELFISH

Anyway think of all the new jobs that would created as the reports would have to be collected, collated, and fines imposed for reckless usage

and for all the people that say ooo if we quit smoking you'll have to pay tax

well fuck that, if we quit driving you'll have to pay like £20 for a pack of 20!!

its a big circle (of life - sorry just watched lion king with ds lol) and one thing affects another. they would just put tax on something else like alcohol or something, it wouldnt come off our actual money tax

Just to get in the last word. Smokers may smell of smoke but not shit, well at least I don't. Nooka mentioned that she can smell shit on smokers, you need to walk past a better class of smoker.

Someone asked if there are any benefits to smoking.

Its an appetite suppressant, keeps you slim.

Sorry I should really let this thread lie.

THIS THREAD HAS NOW BECOME EXTREMELY BORING.

CAN WE PUT IT TO BED NOW PLEASE? WE'VE ALL MADE THE POINT THAT YOU CAN'T DIE FROM PASSIVE SMOKING IN THE OPEN AIR AND THAT THE OP IS BEING UNREASONABLE.

YAWN YAWN YAWN!

Whats so good about being slim?

Being slim does not equal being healthy, especially not if you are a smoker.

What so good about being slim bit of a daft question.

I'm fit and healthy with it too. Don't smoke many actually. Anyway someone has been shouting and telling us off for posting [bully emotion].

I know, I'm ignoring the shouting

I just mean, with all this 'size zero' nonesense lately, being slim isn't a good thing to aspire to.

Plus, i'd rather be a little over weight and be able to breathe properly than smoke.

Each to their own though.

Ahem! I did not say smokers smelled of shit. I would never use such vulgar terminology . I just said the lift was stinky after the smokers used it on the way back from their fag break. Obviously the stink is stale cigarette odour.

I can't be bothered to argue against such obviously daft comments any more. But I think it is utterly ridiculous to state that cigarette smoke 'is harmless outside'

That is bollox, really it is. It is exactly the same mix of chemicals but slightly more diffused. Show me the research and I might consider that as possible.

Well I will just mention it one more time as it has been avoided on this thread since I mentioned it a couple of pages back.

£9.3 billion................

Where's it gonna come from then?..........

I've not read the whole thread,but just wanted to say....

NEXT TIME I SEE YOU WALKING DOWN THE ROAD I'LL MAKE SURE I BLOW THE SMOKE ALL OVER YOU

Get the smokers off the road so you can go and have a walk with your son...i mean WTF???
I hope you don't take him to any coffee shops,restaurants,shopping centres or just about anywhere where there is even a slightest possibility he might disturb others with his crying/whining/any other child like noise.

so many people around who once they have a child lose their brain...(and any common sense)-how embarassing

rant over

Daphne, I suspect the health service once it ceases having to deal with the cancer patients who are ill directly because of smoking.

The societal costs of smoking have been debated, but the evidence available is not that conclusive so far. There is one paper sponsored by a tobacco company that suggested that smoking (including taxes) saved the economy as a whole money, as smokers die earlier, thus saving on pensions etc. This has been widely discredited as the conflicts of interest were fairly obvious. After a bit of trawling I have found a link to the only study which was commissioned by Phillip Morris, and looked at the Czech Republic (where they sold about 80% of the cigarettes)
www.mindfully.org/Industry/Philip-Morris-Czech-Study.htm also some interesting commentary! www.mindfully.org/Health/Tobacco-Helps-Economy.htm Phillip Morris were very embarrassed when the report got out. It was a real PR failure.

On the other side, there was a US study www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5114a2.htm that suggested the cost to the economy (this was in 1999) was about $7.18 for every pack, which was higher than the cost of a packet of cigarettes, let alone the tax take. The cost was based on healthcare costs + productivity lost (premature death and illness). The study also found that on average, adult men and women smokers lost 13.2 and 14.5 years of life. This does not factor in the lowered costs of pensions, but it should be remembered that smokers do not just keel over dead a few years earlier than everyone else (the Phillips position), they also have a higher burden of illness prior to death. That study was US based, so the costs in the UK would be different because of our welfare state systems. It also does not include wider costs such as fire from cigarettes and lighters (the biggest cause of fires). I've also found a recent Australian paper (long and boring, but it was written by economists) about the societal costs of smoking, which includes interesting concepts such as discounting (principally used because of changes in smoking patterns over the years, and the different ways the costs/benefits arise). It's not very useful on the tax side though, because of the federal set up in Australia.
www.cancerwa.asn.au/resources/80915_WEB_Social_Costs_of_Smoking_Report.pdf. For a smaller sub set, there is an estimate that the cost of smoking related ill health for Australians with mental illnesses (smoking is much higher in this group) is $33bn, whilst the tax taken is $2.8 billion. www.health.wa.gov.au/smokefree/docs/SANE_Access_Economics_exec_summary.pdf However most of the costs identified in this study are bourne by the individual (it was an argument to say that more should be spent on quitting smoking services).

I guess when looking at societal costs you'd also have to factor in the contribution made by tobacco companies themselves, probably not that high in the UK, but certainly important is important to some countries. Another thing to bear in mind is that ex-smokers are highly likely to spend the money they spent on cigarettes on something else, and that is likely to generate revenue too, whether directly in VAT or indirectly in stimulating other parts of the economy.

So a bit of a mixed picture. However certainly there is evidence that effective quit smoking programmes are the most cost effective intervention that the NHS can make.

Probably government needs to reach a balance where the tax level on smoking is high enough to discourage all but a few, whilst generating enough to pay for the direct costs of their treatment. If the numbers were low enough the societal impact would be lower. But then I also think that other currently illegal drugs should be legalised, controlled and heavily taxed. Oh, and anybody with antisocial habits should be kept away from everyone else whilst they indulge.

One

Enough of a response for you Daphne! (I should point out that I am currently unemployed and bored - I wouldn't usually be doing this sort of thing!)

first i don,t smoke never have its disgustiing but i have noticed the diffence in smokers TBH you get some that stink and i mean stink of stale old smoke its in the clothes /hair /skin etc and if you walk or talk to them to close it,ll knock you out
"then you get some who just smell of smoke "

"so many people around who once they have a child lose their brain...(and any common sense)"

and so many people had no common sense to start with. In what fantasy land is it common sense to deliberately inhale a poisonous smoke into your lungs?

OP. I know Stamford very well indeed. The centre is a pedestrianised area. There is no need to walk behind anyone - pass by them if you have a problem. Most people sit on benches if they want to smoke - and you needn't go near (they tend not to be near main pavements). This is ridiculous.

Nooka, that was a much better response than the usual one where people claim they are paying extra to the NHS for smoking related illnesses.

However I'm still wading through it, but already I see some creative bookkeeping

On one report they include cost of carers to people with mental illness who also smoked.
They also include the actual cost of growing the tabacco that could have been put to better use. But that's just wrong isn't it. You could argue that the money spent on televisions could be donated to charity and that would be a better use, but it's money belonging to someone who can choose how they spend it.

It was the NHS who said that they make far more from tax than they spend on smoking related illeness. Not the tabaco companies (whose opinions I would tend to discount too)

Sadly there is a lot of disinformation on both sides. Tabacco companies fiddle the figures to make it look good for you and anti smoking groups like ASH etc invent stories of how it is the sole cause of cancer, the common cold and global warming.

Oh totally, you can't really draw any conclusions from the reports I think, except that the costs to smokers are extraordinarily high. I suspect that for governments it is about getting the taxation levels high enough to deter most people, so as to avoid too much stress on the health systems, but low enough to bring in enough money to pay for those that persist (also bearing in mind that the current costs are brought about by people who started smoking many years ago). Price seems to be the most effective way to deter people from taking up smoking (although the bans in the workplace and now in pubs and clubs has also brought about some change). That's why it is always advocated by public health groups.

It is strange how otherwise intelligent, well informed people (including many who actually work in health) can so effectively blind themselves to the consequences of smoking. I think it is to do with very poor perceptions of risk that people have (there is a paedophile lurking behind every corner, there is a real chance of winning the lottery, and I will have given up smoking before anything bad can possibly happen to me). I know that smoking is highly addictive, but many many people do give up effectively, and they all say that will power - ie the wish to succeed is the key. This to me implies that smokers who don't give up really want to keep on smoking. As smoking has no discernible benefits (it does not reduce stress levels for example) it seems a very poor deal to me. At least drugs like coke deliver something for the risk taken.

Honeyandlemon you will then know that only a small stretch of stamford center is pedestrianised and the rest of it has paths that you cant even past someone by without wandering into the road.
and even in the pedestrianised areas if it is busy like it was on the day i was annoyed about then you cant really dodge the smoke.

im so glad there are some ppl on here who share my POV because when i was trying to argue my point the other day it seemed like everyone on here has pro smoking

Nooka, starting smoking if you don't already is illogical. Most smokers start young I think.
Still, when you say "no discernible benefits" and "At least drugs like coke deliver something for the risk taken" you don't seem to be allowing for the pleasure in smoking.

Many people who smoke have very few other pleasures. In my case I can't get around easily so no holidays, no restaurants and I don't drink any more.

The cost/benefit calculation can be complicated for anyone who has smoked for some time.

The physical withdrawal from smoking is slightly unpleasant, but only lasts three days. There is a psychological side to it that lasts forever for some people. A sense of loss and forever reaching for something you cannot have. Like being hungry forever.

While there may be a chance of some serious illness/injury that is also true of rock climbing, skiing or in the rush for the january sales. You can go a lifetime and not have that happen. On the other hand there is a real and continuous effect on breathing that no reasonable person would deny.

The latter can be handled by stopping for a time. Personally If I feel a bit short of breath I stop for six months with the full intention of starting again. I don't really expect non smokers to understand that.