The smoking ban issue (again)

yep...of course it is Pepsoid, being a smoker is just like being a murderer. I think actually, the point that Ms Webster was making was that it is not illegal to buy cigarettes (just very bloody expensive) so why should she be treated like a criminal for smoking them. I quite like styx's post on another thread...whatever next, illegal for fat people to buy cakes, alcoholics to buy drinks, 'writers' to include the words 'friend Larry' or 'friend Mick' in their stories? Smoking is an addiction, a high percentage of people who smoke really want to quit but find it difficult, unless you have had an addiction then you really shouldn't pass judgement and you certainly shouldn't do it in such a condescending way.

Not to mention that vast sums within the NHS are spent on palliative care for people who have abused their bodies in such a manner, when the money could be better put to use somewhere else, like paying the nurses and doctors what they deserve for having to take care of people who abuse themselves (and people in the periphery...) Smoking isn't just expensive for 50-a-day-Helen. It's expensive for all of us. I, for one, think the ban can't come quickly enough.

It's a pretty much indesputable fact that smoking is a public health risk, to those who do it and those who find themselves around it. those who do it, yes, those who are around it, evidence is sketchy at best. Those who live near busy roads probably have more to worry about. Not to mention that vast sums within the NHS are spent on palliative care for people who have abused their bodies in such a manner Time and time again this argument gets wheeled out. SMOKERS PAY MORE IN TAX THAN THEY COST THE NHS, even by government figures. Personally I think it's a disgustiong habit and I'm sick of coming back from the pub with my clothes stinking of it, but that is an inconvenience at worst, and we should not legistate for inconvenience.

hmmm, I agree, smoking is bad. However...smokers are just as entitled to NHS care as anyone else. They pay massive amounts of tax for the priviledge of killing their lungs. Huge amounts of money are also spent in the NHS on people who have heart attacks, strokes etc through bad diet or being grossly overweight. (let's ban bakerys) Drinkers require liver care, even transplants, (that's the pubs gone too) drug addicts often require hospitalisation. Lets face it, many, many, many patients each year are in need of treatment because of their vices it's not just smokers!

Well, if it said it on a website then it must be true eh!

That sounds worryingly like blind faith in the government there pepsoid.

As someone who worked in a multi-agency consortium on public health in the local government (and began but never finished a master's degree in public health), I would disagree that smokers put more into taxes than they get out of the NHS, although I would agree that other people with vices also suck up huge quantities of funding. The cost of palliative care for such people is exhorbitant, amounting to millions and millions of pounds for doctor's visits, secondary illnesses, treatment of long-term illness such as emphesyma, support equipment such as oxygen tanks, staff wages, follow-up services from PCTs and county council social services, etc.: so while the NHS takes the brunt of it, other governing bodies are also involved in 'paying for' smokers. From the goverment standpoint, it's not an 'inconvenience' to smoke. It's a financial black hole, one they can scarcely afford. Why should the government have to pay for people's (entirely voluntary and quittable) addictions? Thus, the double-thrust of banning smoking in public AND the increase in quitting smoking campaigns. It will save the NHS billions in the long-term and is a very wise move on their part. Obesity is also a serious public health issue, one which they are slowly addressing. However, I would have to say that obesity is a much more complex issue than smoking and has many other mitigating factors, and thus banning bakeries would not remotely solve the problem. Drinking is a complex issue, although in my *personal* opinion, long-term abusers of alcohol should come -last- on the list for liver transplants. The funding would be much better spent of helping them solve their emotional problems that led them to abuse the booze in the first place. But until society stops approving of binge-drinking as national pastime, it will continue. IMO.

from the 'Smoking Kills' white paper on tobacco: treating illness and disease caused by smoking is estimated to cost the NHS up to £1.7 billion every year in terms of GP visits, prescriptions, treatment and operations http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm41/4177/chap-01.htm best info I can find on the revenue from tobacco sales, from 2002 (tax on fags has gone up several times since then): In monetary terms the figures in the last Budget show that tobacco revenues for the year just ended increased for the second year in a row from £7.6 billion to £7.8 billion http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmpubacc/143/... I didn't say smoking was an inconvenience, I said it is an inconvenience for non-smokers to be around people smoking. Pepsoid, in my experiece talking to smokers and non-smokers alike, it is not remotely unpopular.

maddan, the white paper you quote was prepared *eight* years ago. I can guarantee you the numbers given in the paper are no longer valid and are only an estimate at best... 'Costs the NHS': you didn't add to that the stuff that the NHS filters out into other governing bodies, which the NHS doesn't pay for. I'd also be curious to know how much of the tax brought in by smokers is actually rechannelled directly into the NHS, and not filtered out to other pressing budget areas, like the promotion of 'democracy' in other countries. But look, I'm not moaning. As I said, the ban can't come quickly enough, so for the smokers who complain about not being able to light up on their way into Debenham's on Saturday at the mall, too effing bad. They can still smoke freely and with alacrity inside their cars, with the windows closed.

Fewer people smoking means soaring taxes, trust me.

If you can keep your cigarette smoke to yourselves - smoke away! I am attending a daily treatment centre for my long-standing alcohol problem. I was discussing with one of the counsellors, the disparity of government funding between illegal drugs and alcohol. She said it's about 9 to 1 in favour of illegal drugs. When you consider the amount of damage caused to society by alcohol, not just in the violence and deaths caused, but the societal damage. Broken homes, broken people, the financial loss, days lost at work, limitation of aspirations. I could go on but won't. If alcohol is the Premier league then drugs in comparison are Conference League. This is not to minimize the damage caused by drugs to the individual and society. Legalize them then deal with the addiction. The sums of money spent by governments fighting an un-winnable war is monumental and futile. The rate of muggings and theft would drop overnight leaving the police more time to spend on booking motorists for infractions of the highway code. And yes there is a case for treatment centres for nicotine addiction as they have in America, also food addiction (or obsession if you prefer). I've always felt the worst addiction/obsession must be one with food. I don't have to drink alcohol, smoke, gamble, etc. but I do need to eat. I have an elder brother in the States who is about 24st and is suicidal about his weight, and I'm not bandying that word about lightly. He has just bought a gun with that very objective in mind. This is a man who used to run, shift weights and was extremely healthy, but junk food did for him. Sorry I'm going on a bit here, but I'm from a family of addicts and it's personal. But that's the great thing about abctales threads, they'll twist and turn in every which way. Oh by the way nicotine addiction is every bit as ensnaring as heroin and as difficult to give up. I hadn't had a cigarette for 8 years and was with friends one night having a drink, when someone offered me a cigarette. I thought, well, one won't hurt. It took another 2 years to stop. I haven't had a fag or even a cigarette (lets play with our American's friends minds) for 16 years now. But by criminey this booze is a bitch to give up.

*Speaking as someone who has been lucky enough to have been able to virtually give up the stuff (allowing myself just one or occasionally two ‘portions’ (of tea, coffee or Coke) per day),* Bloody hell pepsoid, bet that halo takes some polishing...do you have any vices?

Archer, as you are an expert on PCT and NHS, answer me this; does wearing ones head in ones arse cause any health problems?

styxbroox, I have enormous compassion for your struggles; as I said, drinking is much more complex an issue than many other addictions, as there is a physical/physiological aspect AND generally a lot of unspoken or unacknowledged emotional pain underlying it. I think people who are prepared to even try to deal with it are to be commended and encouraged to continue trying. Obesity as well often has underlying emotional issues at the root; food is lovely; I love food, but I experimented with bulimia in my early twenties, and then food (and the purging of such) was used as a medium by which to express a whole bunch of very angry, painful feelings stemming from an abusive childhood. It is often the case with many sorts of self-abuse: getting in touch with and expressing those feelings is often the beginning of healing, although with physically addictive drugs the physical addiction then has to be dealt with. You're absolutely right about the proportion spent on supporting illegal drug abuse versus the socially-approved abuse of alcohol. I recently worked on a joint project with local drug/alcohol treatment services in this county, and they said much the same thing. Services to get off heroin are manifold and [fairly] well-funded. This particular area doesn't have a service specific to alcohol: it's generally treated as a 'secondary addiction' alongside the Class A ones, but for those whose only trouble is hitting the bottle there is very little in the way of Gov't funded services to provide help... Pepsoid, I struggle with the same addiction; gawd, I just love strong French roast coffee with a splash of milk. Caffeine isn't particularly malevolent, but neither is it a health-promoting food, either! There is some research that determined that too much caffeine can lead to loss of absorption of calcium into your bones, and therefore lead to osteoporosis later on in life; it has other detriments (hyperstimulation, etc.). I have valiantly tried decaff, but occasionally I 'slip' and have the full-fuel, and the cycle starts all over again...

celery soup, you'll have to let me know. Never had the problem myself, although it's certainly pandemic on this site.

Predictably witless.

Eat me.

I doubt I could manage the head, no thanks.

maddan, the white paper you quote was prepared *eight* years ago. I can guarantee you the numbers given in the paper are no longer valid and are only an estimate at best... Of course it was an estimate, it was an estimate produced by a partisan comittee who wanted a big number, you REALLY think they underestimated it by a factor of 4. If anything they over-estimated it. In the intervening 8 years the number of smokers has fallen, lowering the cost to the NHS, but tobacco tax has gone up, raising the amount per smoker raised as revenue. I'd also be curious to know how much of the tax brought in by smokers is actually rechannelled directly into the NHS That's about the dumbest question I've heard all year, it all goes in to the same pot.

I've been addicted to many things, though I only include heroin, alcohol and nicotine as the worst, due to the sheer difficultness of giving up. The one I've never managed to give up even for a short while is the nicotine, like styxbroox I come from a family of professional addicts and there is more done for class A addicts, though all addictions, whether gambling or alcohol are damaging to the addicts family and society. I would argue that the effects of alcohol aren't worse than the nightmare caused by drug addicts. They do all that is mentioned to the family etc but they're also more likely to commit serious crime daily to enable them to use. Of course legalising and prescribing it would make it a lot easier. By the way there are smoking groups in the UK, ask your GP. nobody

* Of course legalising and prescribing it would make it a lot easier.* and taxing it!

It would be much more effective to deny treatment to people with conditions resulting from smoking. They could get treatment by paying full cost in cash, but no insurance or NHS funding. That would be a proper incentive to stop smoking, but it will never happen. What I find objectionable about the anti-smoking frenzy is the pompous and sanctimonious attitude of its proponents. I don't smoke, but I find these secondary-smoke arguments comically infantile. The airlines went along with the smoking ban when they learned they could save on fuel by not recirculating the air as much. The net effect of that is that the air quality on airplanes is far worse now than when people were allowed to smoke. But the squealing like a stuck pig anti-smoking activists have another notch in their collective belts.

Budgets are apportioned, dear maddan, so it's not dumb, and it wasn't a question. You might've missed that part. I just love how people can't stand it when someone else owns a bit of knowledge. I'm no expert and never said I was. What I -said- was, read carefully, I have worked on these public health committees, and do know something about how the system works. I've researched and written the reports that go to councillors and ministers, and I know how much of the research gets left out at the last minute, as the reports are being read and regurgitated by elected officials, not academics. They are also intended to be read by the general public, and thus are considerably dumbed-down. However, they categorically *won't* over- or under-estimate -anything- with a number in it; they will try to be as close as possible, because everything in a report that supports a paper has to be verifiable and sourced. Any misquotes are held highly accountable. Hope this clears up any misunderstanding.

But justyn, it's well-documented that children who breathe their parents' smoke are at higher risk of bronchial conditions than children of non-smokers. I for one am utterly thrilled that they stopped smoking on airplanes. Who cares why?

Budgets are apportioned, dear maddan Quite right, your national insurance goes straight into unemployment benefit and the state pension and isn't used as just one more way of raising tax, and if you believe that you'll believe anything. AG, why are you thrilled they stopped smoking on airplanes, the air you breathe got less healthy, is it just schardenfreude at all the poor suffering addicts.

Smoke stinks, that's why I'm glad, and all the fag-butts in the ashtrays stink even more. It's quite clear that you know more about how it all works than I do, maddan, what do I know? I just have my head stuffed up my arse, so I'll quit right now and toodle off to breathe some second-hand smoke from the staff hanging out under the eaves. Ta ta!

I'm no expert and never said I was. That's the funniest thing on the whole thread. I lose count of the amount of jobs you've had that give you superior knowledge over everyone else. And, yeah we know, you had a job in the Dept of Superior Knowledge for 65 years, and you can categotically state everyone else knows fuckall.

Pepsoid, THANK YOU for that! I have had many different jobs over the years and have interests in many subjects, so yes, I do know a bit about several different areas. So? Since when was being familiar with a subject a problem? I never worked for the Dept of Superior Knowledge, but I *did* work down the road from the Department of People with Nothing Better to do than Chase Other People Around the Threads Badmouthing Them. I never knew you were managing director there, celery. Must pay you pretty well, you do it so often. Good thing I know so much, otherwise my feelings might be hurt... Now give us a kiss and be nice.

http://www.jbmedical.com/bl_econsmoke.pdf Some figures on the true cost of smoking to the country. I haven't checked all the numbers, but it would seem that this report concludes that smoking still makes the country a large amount of money, even with related health costs taken into consideration. So perhaps Dan was right after all.

Interesting article, chagrin. I'm quite sure that most medical and financial analyses will agree that 'smoking pays', but like all statistics and estimates produced, there are always those things at the periphery, never included in the papers, that can shift things. What I would like to see is what the costs of *second-hand* smoking are to the nation; the medical journals and economists usually focus on the effects of smoking on *smokers*, but what about the non-smokers who have to breathe the stuff but can't prove that the smoke is what caused the problems? I used to work in a TEFL school. The boss, a real arsehole, would strut around the place like a bantam cock, chainsmoking. The office was -tiny-. If I were to, say, come down with lung problems years later, and I never smoked, would I be able to attribute them to my year spent inside a smokebomb? I honestly don't know. The way medical records and statistics work is (and I do, so very sorry, have a little knowledge of these as well, so please forgive me): they are very, very flawed. The way illnesses are recorded and documented in patient records is sometimes appallingly bad; hospitals at this time use completely different recording systems, so statisticians collecting 'evidence' are left with a very difficult task, indeed. Information is left out, or the recording system doesn't have that one little 'box' to fill in which might give the extra, relevant information. If a patient transfers from one hospital for another (say, if they have multiple health issues or relocate), some of that medical information can wind up being 'lost'. So, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the number of people who actually have smoking-related illnesses is much, much higher (and therefore the cost to the NHS commensurately higher) than is documented. So while the statistics say such-and-such cost and such-and-such tax, I would recommend not putting too much faith in statistics, medical consultants, or the government, for that matter! Statistics are too easy to manipulate... Luckily, the NHS is piloting a standardised records mainframe, which will, if successful, be operational throughout the UK in about 5-7 years, and that may make data recording much easier, but like everything with the NHS, I wouldn't hold yer breath... whew.

All I know is that the air in airplanes is much worse now than it was when they allowed smoking. On a 1-2 hour flight that is not much of an issue, but on a 10-11 hour flight, it is.

maybe the flight attendants can pass out breath mints and foot deodorant to each passenger as they board... or maybe leave the oxygen masks hanging down if the air gets *too* stale...

I struggle with this debate because, despite being a non-smoker (in fact, I'm one of the very small minority who didn't even try smoking once or twice when they were 13) I don't support a ban on smoking in public places. Ideally, I think the government should ban as few of the recreational activities of consenting and between consenting adults. By going into a pub where I know people will be smoking, I count myself as a consenting adult and completely understand and accept the options if I want to avoid passive smoking. I think the cost to the NHS argument takes us down an extremely dangerous road. At what point will government stop me eating lots of sweets and fried breakfasts because it's bad for my teeth or will give me a heart attack? The idea of refusing free health treatment to smokers is utterly horrific. A healthy lifestyle is not a requirement for equal citizenship and human rights and it never should be. All that said, the one reason why I'm not actually out on the streets with my banner demonstrating against the smoking ban in England is that many of my smoker friends support it, on the grounds that it might help them give up.

I used to work in a TEFL school. * job # 14,589 *area of expertise # 236,897

I don't actually object to people smoking inside pubs, because I detest going to pubs and should a fey mood take me where I feel like having a pint, we're lucky enough to have a non-smoking pub in the city. Which is usually rammed, I might add, with all the other desperate pub-loving smoke-haters. However, I -do- object to people smoking in other enclosed public places, like the local shopping mall, because I don't have a choice there as to whether or not I breathe their smoke whilst sipping my cappucino and peoplewatching. It infringes on -my- right to breathe smoke-free air. This is the difference between smoking and obesity, if we're not considering the burdens of the taxpayer: if a fat lady is sitting next to me chomping down her sixth luscious Tesco raspberry jam doughnut, I am not -forced- to eat one, myself, though I might be tempted to ask her for one.

celery, your envy of my vast work experience begins to bore me. Go re-train in something other than spite.

So while the statistics say such-and-such cost and such-and-such tax, I would recommend not putting too much faith in statistics, medical consultants, or the government. Have you considered, and I am being completely serious here, that you might have problems of self delusion?

actually I had just come on to ask something similar to celery, you do seem to have had an awful lot of jobs etc. Are you a secretary and have just temped in all these places or were you actually highly trained in something. Either way you seem to have had as many jobs as the average pensioner.

I got my first job when I was 16 and have been fairly steadily employed ever since, so that's twenty years in which to gather knowledge; no, I'm not a secretary and most of my work was -not- temping (although I've done that, too), but neither am I 'highly' trained, e.g. I'm not a specialist. I read anthropology at university and got a good chunk of the way through a master's in PH before relocating elsewhere; the rest of it is down to a certificate here and there (including cooking school, TEFL and emergency medical technician), travel/work in foreign countries, and having what is known as a 'well-rounded' CV. I've been hired to do various things for various organisations because I have loads of transferrable skills, but really have no interest in staying with one job for more than a couple of years as I get very bored and restless. But thanks for asking. As for you, celery, and I'm being completely serious here, have you considered contributing elsewhere on the site, submitting work under this particular nom de plume, or are you content to be malicious to people who get your goat?

a masters in PH. Is that Puff and Huff or Pompous Hubris?

God, what a sad and empty little life you have, poor thing. So nasty. So little reason for it. It's actually 'Perfectly Honest'.

For every smoker there is an alcoholic.