So you alone have decided it entirely makes up for the bit of upset it has caused for the die-hards?
Who are you to decide that? That is for those who are/were upset to decide, not you!
But then dictating to others seems to be MO for the anti's and they really do think that dictating to others is in some way acceptable.
:rolleyes:
Roll your eyes all you like but the cold hard fact is that people's lives are being saved by this legislation. That is parents, children, husbands, wives, brothers and sisters.
I am entirely in favour of this law and if you have family and/or children you should be too. I don't have to be a genius to reach the conclusion that a bt of upset to some smokers was more than worth it for the hundreds of lives saved.
And if the decision was "left to those upset" the law would not have been passed and hundreds of people alive today would have ended up dead.
Which is the greater upset, someone who can't have a cigarette in a pub or someone who has lost a loved one to heart attack or cancer.
This reduction in the figures for heart attacks will probably be just the tip of the iceberg. I think we will see even greater benefits and even more lives saved over the next few years.
Of course the Die-Hards will continue to try and cast doubt on scientifically proven results. But that won't change a thing - the majority will want the law to stay, even if only for their children's sake.
The medical experts in Europe and the United States seem more than happy with the veracity of the figures. That is good enough for me thanks.
Roll your eyes all you like but the cold hard fact is that people's lives are being saved by this legislation. That is parents, children, husbands, wives, brothers and sisters.
I am entirely in favour of this law and if you have family and/or children you should be too. I don't have to be a genius to reach the conclusion that a bt of upset to some smokers was more than worth it for the hundreds of lives saved.
And if the decision was "left to those upset" the law would not have been passed and hundreds of people alive today would have ended up dead.
Which is the greater upset, someone who can't have a cigarette in a pub or someone who has lost a loved one to heart attack or cancer.
This reduction in the figures for heart attacks will probably be just the tip of the iceberg. I think we will see even greater benefits and even more lives saved over the next few years.
Of course the Die-Hards will continue to try and cast doubt on scientifically proven results. But that won't change a thing - the majority will want the law to stay, even if only for their children's sake.
Regards,
Lt. Dang
Yes, lovely post utterly missing the point! Told you it was the anti's MO.
IT'S NOT FOR YOU TO DECIDE. (The point you missed. Again!)
I'll keep repeating it and you keep thinking that you can tell others what to do.
Keep deluding yourself that only your view gets imposed on others whilst their view is fully ok to ignore as only you see fit and dictate.
Edit: And please stop abusing the word "Children" as an emotional blackmailing tool. It's so transparent and old hat!
I don't smoke nor will I ever but people can do what they want, its their money they're wasting. My dad smoked around me (very little but he still did it) and there's nothing wrong with my health.
My dad stopped for good the day he was told he had cancer, and he now tells his experience to every smoker he meets (the embarrassment I face when we're out together )
I don't really like the smoking ban tbh because its encouraging more people to go out and drink which I think is worse (to excessive amount) than smoking.
Yes, lovely post utterly missing the point! Told you it was the anti's MO.
IT'S NOT FOR YOU TO DECIDE. (The point you missed. Again!)
I'll keep repeating it and you keep thinking that you can tell others what to do.
Keep deluding yourself that only your view gets imposed on others whilst their view is fully ok to ignore as only you see fit and dictate.
No, you have missed the point I'm afraid.
I have every right to look at the legislation, then look at the benefits and decide that the law was worthwhile. It is just a common sense conclusion that anyone could draw.
However, if you are playing with some pointless semantics about me supposedly deciding on behalf of everyone that the ban was correct then you are deluding yourself because that is obviously not possible.
I didn't tell anyone what to do, I cannot dictate to anyone. We live in a democracy and that is how the law was formulated and passed, democratically.
This time democracy has worked quite nicely thank you.
Regards,
Lt. Dang
Edit: And yes, I have Children, and that more than entitles me to be pleased for them that this legislation will stand.
but did they use the same formula that Pell did in Scotland?
i.e. take 12 months figures after the ban and only use the statistics in the months that showed a drop and ignored the months that showed an increase?
heart attack admissions have been steadily declining for years before the smoking ban, so to put the latest decline down to the smoking ban is not entirely honest.
I wonder if the NHS have stopped counting those that only had 1 cigarette 40+ years ago and decided that they didn't like smoking and so didn't go onto being a smoker but when asked if they had ever smoked, admitted to that 1 cigarette, that have since died having a cause of death as being a smoking related death just to support their assumptions?
Looking back on it, I'd have to say the smoking ban helped me quit so perhaps it was a good thing to bring in, although friends in the pub trade say it's definitely hurt their business.
What I do miss though is the banter of the cigarette break and gathering round the back of the building huddled round the one heater to keep warm.
Does anybody else miss this? Where was your smokers corner?
My OH has angina even though he has never smoked. He spent years as a lorry driver sitting next to a chain smoker. I'm not saying this is what caused his angina but it could have been.
No, I quit for myself and personal reasons. If anything a "ban" might
make me want to do something more, if I were still that childish.
But then as someone who has "recovered" from things, in the past, I rapidly lost the illusion that others want me to do so "for my own good". Realistically, and as fairly as possible, it was ALWAYS, to some level, their desire to control me or to "do good".
but did they use the same formula that Pell did in Scotland?
i.e. take 12 months figures after the ban and only use the statistics in the months that showed a drop and ignored the months that showed an increase?
heart attack admissions have been steadily declining for years before the smoking ban, so to put the latest decline down to the smoking ban is not entirely honest.
I wonder if the NHS have stopped counting those that only had 1 cigarette 40+ years ago and decided that they didn't like smoking and so didn't go onto being a smoker but when asked if they had ever smoked, admitted to that 1 cigarette, that have since died having a cause of death as being a smoking related death just to support their assumptions?
The BBC article says that the figures were taken from a number of studies done in the USA and across Europe.
Therefore, I feel more confident about these figures than just a singloe set of figures from a possibly biased party.
In any event, results from medical studies are always subject to a fairly critical Peer Review.
So I feel pretty happy with the results of the smoking ban since a significant number of lives have been saved.
My husband stopped smoking at the beginning of this month and so far hasn't given in. He says it would have been impossible to do if there wasn't a smoking ban in public places as the smell would have been too much for him (he only has so much will power!).
So whereas he didn't stop because of the ban, the ban has helped him to give up.
The few people I know that gave up have put on 2 stone plus - hows that healthy??
Also, I don't remember being asked to vote on it - democracy??
When I quit I put on 4 stone. With the same will power i used to quit smoking I then put to losing 8 stone. So it is all down to personal choices. If you like to smoke, go ahead. I dont care about your health, but to try to make out quitting smoking makes you less healthy is utter poppycock.
When I quit I put on 4 stone. With the same will power i used to quit smoking I then put to losing 8 stone. So it is all down to personal choices. If you like to smoke, go ahead. I dont care about your health, but to try to make out quitting smoking makes you less healthy is utter poppycock.
I didn't actually say that quitting smoking makes you less healthy! The people I know have swapped one vice for another either food or driink - thats all. Good for you tho:)
no the ban didnt
as iam in scotland we had the ban longer
i only stop smoking as i am almost 40 an wanted 2 get to stop an get fit again in which i have done n stop with no problems
i am a non smoker of 7 months now an loving it
Not a smoker myself, but I do agree with the ban in public places. Reason being, even if you have a smoking section and a non smoking section, it will still carry. Say you have 20 people in a room and 3 of those are smoking, the room will fill up. Some people who don't smoke can tolerate it, others hate it. I can tolerate.
I think some public places should be able to apply for exemption from the ban. Places for instance that have the resources to pay for a smoking room with extractor fans for instance. If they can provide a sealed off area indoors for smokers, great. If not, then leave it as is.
My best friend smokes, which is fine, she goes out for a puff and I go out sometimes, but more often than not, I stay in. The ban I don't think was about forcing people to stop, just about greater consideration for non-smokers.
Comments
So you alone have decided it entirely makes up for the bit of upset it has caused for the die-hards?
Who are you to decide that? That is for those who are/were upset to decide, not you!
But then dictating to others seems to be MO for the anti's and they really do think that dictating to others is in some way acceptable.
:rolleyes:
Roll your eyes all you like but the cold hard fact is that people's lives are being saved by this legislation. That is parents, children, husbands, wives, brothers and sisters.
I am entirely in favour of this law and if you have family and/or children you should be too. I don't have to be a genius to reach the conclusion that a bt of upset to some smokers was more than worth it for the hundreds of lives saved.
And if the decision was "left to those upset" the law would not have been passed and hundreds of people alive today would have ended up dead.
Which is the greater upset, someone who can't have a cigarette in a pub or someone who has lost a loved one to heart attack or cancer.
This reduction in the figures for heart attacks will probably be just the tip of the iceberg. I think we will see even greater benefits and even more lives saved over the next few years.
Of course the Die-Hards will continue to try and cast doubt on scientifically proven results. But that won't change a thing - the majority will want the law to stay, even if only for their children's sake.
Regards,
Lt. Dang
Yes, lovely post utterly missing the point! Told you it was the anti's MO.
IT'S NOT FOR YOU TO DECIDE. (The point you missed. Again!)
I'll keep repeating it and you keep thinking that you can tell others what to do.
Keep deluding yourself that only your view gets imposed on others whilst their view is fully ok to ignore as only you see fit and dictate.
Edit: And please stop abusing the word "Children" as an emotional blackmailing tool. It's so transparent and old hat!
My dad stopped for good the day he was told he had cancer, and he now tells his experience to every smoker he meets (the embarrassment I face when we're out together
I don't really like the smoking ban tbh because its encouraging more people to go out and drink which I think is worse (to excessive amount) than smoking.
No, you have missed the point I'm afraid.
I have every right to look at the legislation, then look at the benefits and decide that the law was worthwhile. It is just a common sense conclusion that anyone could draw.
However, if you are playing with some pointless semantics about me supposedly deciding on behalf of everyone that the ban was correct then you are deluding yourself because that is obviously not possible.
I didn't tell anyone what to do, I cannot dictate to anyone. We live in a democracy and that is how the law was formulated and passed, democratically.
This time democracy has worked quite nicely thank you.
Regards,
Lt. Dang
Edit: And yes, I have Children, and that more than entitles me to be pleased for them that this legislation will stand.
But not the medical experts here? That says a lot.
but did they use the same formula that Pell did in Scotland?
i.e. take 12 months figures after the ban and only use the statistics in the months that showed a drop and ignored the months that showed an increase?
heart attack admissions have been steadily declining for years before the smoking ban, so to put the latest decline down to the smoking ban is not entirely honest.
I wonder if the NHS have stopped counting those that only had 1 cigarette 40+ years ago and decided that they didn't like smoking and so didn't go onto being a smoker but when asked if they had ever smoked, admitted to that 1 cigarette, that have since died having a cause of death as being a smoking related death just to support their assumptions?
What I do miss though is the banter of the cigarette break and gathering round the back of the building huddled round the one heater to keep warm.
Does anybody else miss this? Where was your smokers corner?
make me want to do something more, if I were still that childish.
But then as someone who has "recovered" from things, in the past, I rapidly lost the illusion that others want me to do so "for my own good". Realistically, and as fairly as possible, it was ALWAYS, to some level, their desire to control me or to "do good".
Erm...quick geography lesson.
Europe actually includes the UK.
If you read the article you will see it includes data from studies done in the UK.
Regards,
Lt. Dang
The BBC article says that the figures were taken from a number of studies done in the USA and across Europe.
Therefore, I feel more confident about these figures than just a singloe set of figures from a possibly biased party.
In any event, results from medical studies are always subject to a fairly critical Peer Review.
So I feel pretty happy with the results of the smoking ban since a significant number of lives have been saved.
Regards,
Lt. Dang
Also, I don't remember being asked to vote on it - democracy??
So whereas he didn't stop because of the ban, the ban has helped him to give up.
You either voted for, or against, (or did not vote at all), for your MP who had a free vote in the House for this Bill.
That is Democracy.
You also continue to have the right to vote against your MP/Party in the next election if you are unhappy with any legislation passed.
That is Democracy too.
But ultimately this legislation will stay because the majority (mostly non-smokers it seems these days) will want it to stay.
And that is definitely Democracy.
Regards,
Lt. Dang
When I quit I put on 4 stone. With the same will power i used to quit smoking I then put to losing 8 stone. So it is all down to personal choices. If you like to smoke, go ahead. I dont care about your health, but to try to make out quitting smoking makes you less healthy is utter poppycock.
I didn't actually say that quitting smoking makes you less healthy! The people I know have swapped one vice for another either food or driink - thats all. Good for you tho:)
as iam in scotland we had the ban longer
i only stop smoking as i am almost 40 an wanted 2 get to stop an get fit again in which i have done n stop with no problems
i am a non smoker of 7 months now an loving it
I think some public places should be able to apply for exemption from the ban. Places for instance that have the resources to pay for a smoking room with extractor fans for instance. If they can provide a sealed off area indoors for smokers, great. If not, then leave it as is.
My best friend smokes, which is fine, she goes out for a puff and I go out sometimes, but more often than not, I stay in. The ban I don't think was about forcing people to stop, just about greater consideration for non-smokers.