Govt want to reduce smoking...

2»

Comments

  • Pokerface
    Pokerface Posts: 7,960
    Tail end Charlie wrote:
    Yes, the risks are well known. Yes, only fools ignore them.

    But as a father whose 16 year old has just started smoking, anything which can be done to reduce young people from starting in the first place must be applauded.


    I thought you were responsible for children in this country until they turn 18? Or can they do as they please at 16?
  • Tail end Charlie
    Tail end Charlie Posts: 352
    OK tell me how I stop him smoking then. He looks old enough to buy them and I'm not with him the whole time.
  • cee
    cee Posts: 4,553
    Tail end Charlie

    Tail End Charlie....your son should not be able to buy cigarrettes until he is 18, in accordance with the updated purchase of tobacco laws...

    If he can buy cigarettes, then the shop he and the shop he is buying them from are breaking the law.

    Phone the police.
    Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I believe in the future of the human race.

    H.G. Wells.
  • markyboy2005
    markyboy2005 Posts: 465
    Tail end Charlie wrote:
    OK tell me how I stop him smoking then. He looks old enough to buy them and I'm not with him the whole time.


    I assume he is working then?
  • SteppenHerring
    SteppenHerring Posts: 720
    Tail end Charlie: I spent over 20 years and about £40,000 smoking. Ask if he's ready for that sort of commitment.

    Shame I didn't get that much faster when I stopped.

    Saying that, I'm not really in favour of bans that nibble away at the edges of people's freedoms. Traffic fumes are a much bigger health problem than passive smoking ever was.
  • Headhuunter
    Headhuunter Posts: 6,494
    ...I used to smoke. Up to 25 per day sometimes. Now I just have the occasional 1 on a night out but I have to say, there's nothng like sparkling up a nice Marlboro, Dunhill, B&H, whatever. Oh so naughty but oh so nice... Aaaah....
    Do not write below this line. Office use only.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253
    Tail end Charlie wrote:
    OK tell me how I stop him smoking then. He looks old enough to buy them and I'm not with him the whole time.

    I'd suggest sitting him down and talking about it. But no lecturing. No mention of health or money.

    Instead, ask him why he smokes. The only legitimate reason to smoke is because you are an addict. This is the reason I smoke.

    Reasons he may come up with include:

    Looks cool: It doesn't really. Ask him who he thinks is 'cool' and why they are cool. It won't be becuase of the smoking.

    Teenage rebellion: Rebellion against who? You? Only if you keep going on about his smoking and making threats.

    His friends all do it: All of them? They won't stop being his friends if he stops smoking.

    He likes the taste: Ask him to describe it. It's not really that great

    Stress management: Smoking can actually contribute to stress - particularly when you can't smoke - a scenario which is probably more stressful than the rest of daily life.

    Get him to smoke a cigarette in front of you - ask him to talk you through the experience, the sensations (there really aren't any bar relief at sating the addiction) and what he's gaining for his £6 a packet.

    Hopefully, he'll come to realise for himself that it's a pretty pointless exercise.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • Stewie Griffin
    Stewie Griffin Posts: 4,330
    Looks like the Indonesian Governments methods are a bit more drastic than our free patches and chewing gum :shock:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 493288.stm
  • Jez mon
    Jez mon Posts: 3,809
    Pokerface wrote:
    Tail end Charlie wrote:
    Yes, the risks are well known. Yes, only fools ignore them.

    But as a father whose 16 year old has just started smoking, anything which can be done to reduce young people from starting in the first place must be applauded.


    I thought you were responsible for children in this country until they turn 18? Or can they do as they please at 16?

    You don't have children, or were never a child, were you? Ultimately if a 16 yo decides he's going to smoke there's very little a parent can do. At least Tail end Charlie is taking enough interest in his child to know that they smoke and is concerned about it which is pretty much all you can do.
    You live and learn. At any rate, you live
  • markyboy2005
    markyboy2005 Posts: 465
    Stewie Griffin wrote:
    Looks like the Indonesian Governments methods are a bit more drastic than our free patches and chewing gum :shock:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 493288.stm

    I saw that story in the paper here......quite funny really.

    Smoking is part of the culture here and far too many people, including young kids smoke continuously.

    Local cigarettes are cheap and have a very different smell to the big international brands.

    Based on some of the comments on here earlier, I agree that education is the key.

    However, I can also see quite clearly that the cheapness of cigarettes here contributes to so many people smoking.....so price increases do work IMO. I had 3 uncles who all gave up smoking in the 80's/90's as the price went up.

    By the way, note this guy was smoking whilst riding his moped, that's just one of the many bizzare stunts you see people here doing whilst on the road.....
  • MadammeMarie
    MadammeMarie Posts: 621
    Headhuunter wrote:
    ...I used to smoke. Up to 25 per day sometimes. Now I just have the occasional 1 on a night out but I have to say, there's nothng like sparkling up a nice Marlboro, Dunhill, B&H, whatever. Oh so naughty but oh so nice... Aaaah....

    I'm with you on this one. Never smoked the amount you did, but I gave up the daily fag, even threw away ALL my ashtrays. Have the occasional fag with a drink and I sooo enjoy it!! My local pub sells them by the unit, so if I have a drink, I don't have to buy an entire box or pinch one from someone. And since I don't go out that often, it works for me.

    But man, I love the stuff!! Wouldn't it be great if it didn't kill you? :)

    I would like to add a few points:

    - Outlaw tobacco and you create a black market and illegal traffic. Or do any of you think that the "war on drugs" has been won? Have we not learned ANYTHING????

    - THIS IS A PLOY TO PRIVATIZE THE NHS!!!!
  • Crapaud
    Crapaud Posts: 2,483
    David Goerlitz, the 'Winston Man' has an interesting perspective on big tobacco and the anti-smoking movement ...
    [url=http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7027/]Sp!ked[/url] wrote:
    ...In 1988, at the age of 39, Goerlitz’s growing unease at working for the tobacco industry boiled over into open dissent. He publicly denounced his employer RJ Reynolds for marketing cigarettes at children and joined America’s emerging anti-smoking movement. ...
    ...‘But I never intended to become an anti-smoking zealot; that has never been a part of who I am. I’m just livid at the fact that now I’m guilty by association because of the people in the anti-smoking movement who are so vindictive and hateful.’ ...
    Goerlitz believes smokers and non-smokers can get along just fine with a little give-and-take and common sense. ‘There’s none of that in the tobacco control movement, and there hasn’t been for the last 10 or 12 years that I’m aware of. In every other [tobacco control] programme, smokers are offended, they’re harassed, they’re treated like lepers and second-class citizens and child abusers.’
    What should we make of this ...
    ... Finally, I ask a question that would have seemed absurd 20 years ago. Who is more honest, the tobacco companies or the anti-smoking movement? ‘There’s not much of a difference, but I would say the tobacco companies.’ It’s an extraordinary answer from a man who has spent two decades attacking Big Tobacco. ‘Because the tobacco industry has been caught. The anti-tobacco movement hasn’t been caught yet’, he says.
    ...from someone who has been active in the thick of the anti-smoking movement?

    Other news: Deborah Arnott of ASH UK is a lying toerag (in The Guardiantoday) ...
    ... To pause is to run the risk of the numbers once again increasing: in Ireland, she tells me, the government successfully brought in smoke-free legislation, but "they didn't do anything else, and smoking started to creep back up again". ...
    It shot up to 33%.
    [url=http://www.independent.ie/national-news/smoking-rate-soars-up-to-one-third-despite-ban-1923543.html]The Independant[/url] wrote:
    ... Despite hikes in tobacco tax, the smoking ban and a new law against the public display of cigarettes for sale, the number of smokers has steadily risen since 2007 when 29pc of the population smoked. ...
    Ireland has the highest rate of cigarette tax of any EU country, has graphic warnings on cigarette packs, has banned all forms of tobacco advertising, has raised the age of purchase to 18 and it was the first country in the world to ban tobacco displays in shops.
    A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject - Churchill
  • simonaspinall
    simonaspinall Posts: 645
    This whole thing is such a PR Red Herring

    If the government really wanted to make an impact on air quality they should be going after motorists and power stations.

    Power station technology is probably a little bit longer in the development pipeline so go after motorists.

    As if walking quickly through a doorway with a few smokers on the occasion that you do will raise your passive smoking risk.

    Well, compared to everyday motoring - especially buses in city centres.

    Hmmm.....wonder why they aren't taxing motorists more...? Would a general election be a reason perhaps?
    What wheels...? Wheelsmith.co.uk!
  • Cressers
    Cressers Posts: 1,329
    edited February 2010
    So far I've noted much discussion about the effectiveness of measures to restrict smoking, but little discussion as to the morals of a govt taking upon itself the power to control what individuals may do with their own bodies. Any legislation that would make it a criminal offence to smoke within a wide radius of a building enterance is surely going over the top. Why pick upon smokers? Because they are an easy target. Then to pressurise alcohol, transfats, salt...

    And if you could keep your quoting of all the previous posts to a minimum it would be very helpful. Thanks.
  • MrChuck
    MrChuck Posts: 1,663
    simonaspinall wrote:

    Hmmm.....wonder why they aren't taxing motorists more...? Would a general election be a reason perhaps?

    Of course it would, but that doesn't reflect as badly on the government as it does on the general public.
  • simonaspinall
    simonaspinall Posts: 645
    MrChuck wrote:
    simonaspinall wrote:

    Hmmm.....wonder why they aren't taxing motorists more...? Would a general election be a reason perhaps?

    Of course it would, but that doesn't reflect as badly on the government as it does on the general public.

    Absolutely, Motorists of course demand hypermobility with no problems at a low cost OR ELSE! Anyone in the way, making them have to think or general inconvencing their caged lemming insular attitude can just f*ck off.

    But smokers being in doorways...? These people will bring down society!
    What wheels...? Wheelsmith.co.uk!
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    simonaspinall wrote:
    As if walking quickly through a doorway with a few smokers on the occasion that you do will raise your passive smoking risk.
    I do notice that when I'm on my bike and a car goes past, I can't tell from the smell whether it's petrol or diesel. And I don't think I've ever thought "Ugh, what a foul smell" either.
    But I can always tell when someone in it is smoking, and it's never pleasant.

    Of course this says nothing about the relative harm of the pollutants in question, but my main objection to people smoking is that it stinks.
    Whenever I'm in central Glasgow I find I have to dive into shops to get some fresh air; except, of course, that the smoke is always blowing in. I mention Glasgow because I've noticed it's particularly bad there, and for the benefit of any anti-anti-smoking posters on this forum who hail from there, but it's not a lot better anywhere else.
  • simonaspinall
    simonaspinall Posts: 645
    bompington wrote:
    simonaspinall wrote:
    As if walking quickly through a doorway with a few smokers on the occasion that you do will raise your passive smoking risk.
    I do notice that when I'm on my bike and a car goes past, I can't tell from the smell whether it's petrol or diesel. And I don't think I've ever thought "Ugh, what a foul smell" either.
    But I can always tell when someone in it is smoking, and it's never pleasant.

    Of course this says nothing about the relative harm of the pollutants in question, but my main objection to people smoking is that it stinks.
    Whenever I'm in central Glasgow I find I have to dive into shops to get some fresh air; except, of course, that the smoke is always blowing in. I mention Glasgow because I've noticed it's particularly bad there, and for the benefit of any anti-anti-smoking posters on this forum who hail from there, but it's not a lot better anywhere else.

    I see your point. I myself am vehemently anti-smoking and have no qualms about putting restrictions on smoking. I do think that the government emphasis on this is grossly misplaced when there are 20 million+ cars chugging out fumes.

    So it's just a PR stunt, plain and simple.
    What wheels...? Wheelsmith.co.uk!
  • MrChuck
    MrChuck Posts: 1,663
    simonaspinall wrote:
    bompington wrote:
    simonaspinall wrote:
    As if walking quickly through a doorway with a few smokers on the occasion that you do will raise your passive smoking risk.
    I do notice that when I'm on my bike and a car goes past, I can't tell from the smell whether it's petrol or diesel. And I don't think I've ever thought "Ugh, what a foul smell" either.
    But I can always tell when someone in it is smoking, and it's never pleasant.

    Of course this says nothing about the relative harm of the pollutants in question, but my main objection to people smoking is that it stinks.
    Whenever I'm in central Glasgow I find I have to dive into shops to get some fresh air; except, of course, that the smoke is always blowing in. I mention Glasgow because I've noticed it's particularly bad there, and for the benefit of any anti-anti-smoking posters on this forum who hail from there, but it's not a lot better anywhere else.

    I see your point. I myself am vehemently anti-smoking and have no qualms about putting restrictions on smoking. I do think that the government emphasis on this is grossly misplaced when there are 20 million+ cars chugging out fumes.

    So it's just a PR stunt, plain and simple.

    Dunno if it's just a PR stunt. If you left off addressing things because there are bigger things that also need addressing you'd never do anything. And ulitmately there's got to be some sort of broad public support for it or it ain't going to happen.
  • simonaspinall
    simonaspinall Posts: 645
    True, but it just seems such a token, minor thing to target when there is such a larger threat to air quality - Especially after already implementing a ban.
    What wheels...? Wheelsmith.co.uk!
  • SteppenHerring
    SteppenHerring Posts: 720
    Basically the government hate the working class. Things like smoking, cheap booze, fatty food, [strike]child abuse[/strike] all the stuff that working class people like, they are against. They tax binmen and give the money to bankers for god's sake.

    On the air quality thing, would you rather ride in a car with someone smoking, or with the exhaust venting into the cabin? Just a thought there.
  • Crapaud
    Crapaud Posts: 2,483
    Thread resurrection!!!

    After the recent call for smoking in cars to be banned it was no surprise, to me at least, the there would be a next step. If banning smoking in cars is sucessfully passed - and I expect it's only a matter of time - logically the next step would be banning it from the home.

    An editorial in the British Medical Journal is calling for just that.

    I don't have access to the article, so I'll have to rely onMichael Seigel's blog.
    ... She then defends the idea of banning smoking in homes with children as follows: "We now have major inconsistencies in our approach to protecting children from passive smoke. It is acceptable to ban smoking in some home environments, such as family vehicles, multi-unit dwellings, and child protection and custody settings, but providing legal protection for children in detached homes and intact families is not viewed as "an effective or ethically justifiable approach"; moreover, "legislation . . . would be difficult to design, implement and enforce." Yet, legal bans have broad public support; in Ontario, Canada, for example, 78% of adults surveyed in 2008 expressed support for bans on smoking in homes with children. There are other examples of laws that set a social norm for behaviour. At least 25 countries have introduced a full ban on corporal punishment for children. In Sweden, there are no legal penalties for spanking children, and most who violate the law are referred for counselling. A similar approach could be used for passive smoke."

    The Rest of the Story

    Is this serious? Mandated counseling for parents who smoke?
    ...
    Considering all the potential dangers, would it not be easier to just hand over all children to the self-rightous / government to bring them up?
    A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject - Churchill
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    The anti-smoking in car proposal is aimed at protecting children.

    Whether or not this particular idea is the right one is open to debate, but on the whole, why should children be forced to breathe in their parents' filth?
  • mikebx
    mikebx Posts: 21
    my granddad smoked for 75 years, with no ill health. one day he decided to quit. the day after he was knocked down and killed............. by a cigarett lorry
  • Frank the tank
    Frank the tank Posts: 6,553
    johnfinch wrote:
    The anti-smoking in car proposal is aimed at protecting children.

    Whether or not this particular idea is the right one is open to debate, but on the whole, why should children be forced to breathe in their parents' filth?

    How would such a ban be enforced? Only in the same manner the no mobile phone use while driving is issued. IF YOU HAPPEN TO BE OBSERVED BY THE FEDS TO BE DOING SO.

    While I agree with the intention it really is almost un-enforcible or just "pot luck" at best.
    Tail end Charlie

    The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
  • Smokin Joe
    Smokin Joe Posts: 2,706
    johnfinch wrote:
    The anti-smoking in car proposal is aimed at protecting children.

    Whether or not this particular idea is the right one is open to debate, but on the whole, why should children be forced to breathe in their parents' filth?
    Feck the kids.

    There are already too many of the little shites anyway.
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    Frank the tank wrote:
    johnfinch wrote:
    The anti-smoking in car proposal is aimed at protecting children.

    Whether or not this particular idea is the right one is open to debate, but on the whole, why should children be forced to breathe in their parents' filth?

    How would such a ban be enforced? Only in the same manner the no mobile phone use while driving is issued. IF YOU HAPPEN TO BE OBSERVED BY THE FEDS TO BE DOING SO.

    While I agree with the intention it really is almost un-enforcible or just "pot luck" at best.

    Which is why I used the highlighted phrase.

    Personally I think that it should be through education, rather than legislation, but I just wonder if some parents are so selfish that they can't wait 10 minutes to smoke in order to avoid forcing it on their children.
  • Frank the tank
    Frank the tank Posts: 6,553
    I agree with the education rather than legislation.

    What I can't get my head around is when I was a child both my parents smoked and I was told by them both never start smoking. Also by the time I was born (1961) the dangers of smoking (to the smoker) were well documented and I used to nag at my parents to pack up because it would kill them. They both stopped and didn't smoke for the last 20-25years of their life.

    When my mum died a couple of years ago her post mortem showed smoking had contributed to her death. My lungs are crap enough as it is and I've never smoked and I can't for the life of me think why anyone younger than myself would smoke'

    As an aside I always feel disapointed/sad when I see an attractive young lady smoking, only 'cos I think if I were YF&S I'd not be interested in her for that reason alone even if she had the best personality in the world.
    Tail end Charlie

    The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
  • Smokin Joe
    Smokin Joe Posts: 2,706
    Frank the tank wrote:
    I
    As an aside I always feel disapointed/sad when I see an attractive young lady smoking, only 'cos I think if I were YF&S I'd not be interested in her for that reason alone even if she had the best personality in the world.
    I used to make a beeline for the ones who smoked. I found they dropped 'em more readily than the non-smokers (weaker willed and all that) and it's nice to have someone to share the post shag cigarette with.
  • crumbschief
    crumbschief Posts: 3,399
    I think i might start smoking.

Categories