ChatterBank2 mins 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.
I smoke, I don't force my habit on anyone else. Sat in a smoking restaurant I still wouldn't smoke next to people who are eating. I still think places that don't serve food should have been able to choose whether to go non smoking or not, of course if out with non smoking friends I would have gone to non smoking bars. I would have thought passive smoking causing problems, even as a smoker, working in pubs it would get too much, eyes constantly watering and a hangover is always worse if you have smoked too much.
Alcohol is a huge problem in this country .
Alcohol is a huge problem in this country .
Car exhausts cause more harm than smoking will ever do, would all these tobacco whingers be prepaired to give up their gas guzzling vehicles that every hour of the day and night are belching out harmful poisonous gasses.
I know I have said this before, but solid proof of this would be to lock someone in a garage with numourous cigarette smokers, then open the doors after a couple of hours, they would all come out alive. But lock someone in for the same length of time with a car with it's engine running, and you would be up on a murder charge, for certain.
This is 100% proof not some abscure theory about passive smoking that some people will absorb into their sponge like brains while sitting in front of their TV or reading their favourite gossip magazine.
Incidently I do not smoke, but I will defend anyone's right to smoke, until such times that the Goverment makes tobacco illegal, in the meantime if anyone cannot stand the smell or intake of tobacco smoke, then tough keep away from it.
I know I have said this before, but solid proof of this would be to lock someone in a garage with numourous cigarette smokers, then open the doors after a couple of hours, they would all come out alive. But lock someone in for the same length of time with a car with it's engine running, and you would be up on a murder charge, for certain.
This is 100% proof not some abscure theory about passive smoking that some people will absorb into their sponge like brains while sitting in front of their TV or reading their favourite gossip magazine.
Incidently I do not smoke, but I will defend anyone's right to smoke, until such times that the Goverment makes tobacco illegal, in the meantime if anyone cannot stand the smell or intake of tobacco smoke, then tough keep away from it.
tell you what 10CS, I too make no apology for giving the same answer as I did last time, perhaps you'll acknowledge the point this time. You are probably correct about passive smoking and your analysis of the booze situation is spot on, the problem is that what you always overlook is that it's irrelevant whether passive smoking is harmful, I don't care if it's harmless I just don't want my fresh air made into foul smelling air by an inconsiderate oaf, get it? I don't go around pouring my pint down other peoples throats do I? Smokers have made our lives uncomfortable for long enough, can you not acknowlwdge that? I agree theat booze is a big problem but that should not detract from the smoking debate.
I stopped going into pubs years ago. I would rather sit at home and enjoy the odd tipple without being around a load of drunks.
There, I said it.
The smoke didn't bother me ~ but the foul mouthed drunkards did.
I have known of at least 5 people dying from the effects of alcohol. Only one person from lung cancer..and not only had she never smoked in her life, neither had her husband. I wonder how she got it?
There, I said it.
The smoke didn't bother me ~ but the foul mouthed drunkards did.
I have known of at least 5 people dying from the effects of alcohol. Only one person from lung cancer..and not only had she never smoked in her life, neither had her husband. I wonder how she got it?
diamondrocks
Some of the perfumes women throw over yourselves before they go out, not only smell absolutely vile to me, but also brings on nausea, and headaches. One in particular is called Poison, a very apt name.
So should we also ban perfume? Or is it the old, old story, BAN THIS, BAN THAT, until it effects one personally?
Some of the perfumes women throw over yourselves before they go out, not only smell absolutely vile to me, but also brings on nausea, and headaches. One in particular is called Poison, a very apt name.
So should we also ban perfume? Or is it the old, old story, BAN THIS, BAN THAT, until it effects one personally?
I'm with 10ClarionSt : If smoking is to be banned because of the (possible) health risks, then why not alcohol? I feel it is a valid comparison as the sort of venues where people tended to smoke most were (until today) the sort of places where people also consume alcohol.
There can be no doubt that alcohol causes far more problems both in terms of health and society. About the only thing that it isn't as bad for is the smell (though that's open for debate). Yes, drinkers don't generally pour their choice of poison over non-drinkers, but the effects of their drunken actions do have repercussions for others - and these repercussions are able to be observed and measured, unlike the possible risks of passive smoking.
Re Ethel's car story - far more accidents are caused by people's car stereos...
Re stokeace's baby theory - there's a world of difference between passive smoking and passing on poisons that you have ingested to a baby in your womb.
I'll be very interested to see what happens over the next few weeks. Will the pubs and clubs suddenly become busier as all those "excluded" non-smokers emerge? Will they become less busy as smokers (from my observations currently a high proportion of the client�le) stay at home? Will the two balance out? Or will (my suspicion) things get a bit quieter as the hard-core smokers stay at home while those smokers who still go out and are unwilling/unable to quit spend their evening flitting in and out of the smoking area (until the non-smokers start complaining that the smokers have got access to somewhere that abstainers haven't) or outside (until that too becomes illegal)?
PS: Reformed smoker (under duress) and occasional drinker (generally at home - like Pippa68 not happy with the atmosphere in many pubs).
There can be no doubt that alcohol causes far more problems both in terms of health and society. About the only thing that it isn't as bad for is the smell (though that's open for debate). Yes, drinkers don't generally pour their choice of poison over non-drinkers, but the effects of their drunken actions do have repercussions for others - and these repercussions are able to be observed and measured, unlike the possible risks of passive smoking.
Re Ethel's car story - far more accidents are caused by people's car stereos...
Re stokeace's baby theory - there's a world of difference between passive smoking and passing on poisons that you have ingested to a baby in your womb.
I'll be very interested to see what happens over the next few weeks. Will the pubs and clubs suddenly become busier as all those "excluded" non-smokers emerge? Will they become less busy as smokers (from my observations currently a high proportion of the client�le) stay at home? Will the two balance out? Or will (my suspicion) things get a bit quieter as the hard-core smokers stay at home while those smokers who still go out and are unwilling/unable to quit spend their evening flitting in and out of the smoking area (until the non-smokers start complaining that the smokers have got access to somewhere that abstainers haven't) or outside (until that too becomes illegal)?
PS: Reformed smoker (under duress) and occasional drinker (generally at home - like Pippa68 not happy with the atmosphere in many pubs).
Why the assumption that drinkers don't smoke? The majority of alcoholics who pass through our intensive care unit are also smokers (must have a desire to abuse their own bodies).
If I hear the blooming smoking v cars argument one more time I think I'll throw a minor wobbly - it's like you never see a car driver throwing a fag end out of the window. (For your info, I walk to work, and walk to the shops).
If I hear the blooming smoking v cars argument one more time I think I'll throw a minor wobbly - it's like you never see a car driver throwing a fag end out of the window. (For your info, I walk to work, and walk to the shops).
Got to agree with clarion, pippa and anotheoldgit
All put forward valid points, especially the pont made about perfumes, especially poison.
Everything in moderation. I really do think that heavy drinking causes more problems as does exhaust fumes from cars.
Scotland has had this ban for 15 months now and the debates are still going on.
I think we are between a rock and a hard place to be honest. No easy answers.
All put forward valid points, especially the pont made about perfumes, especially poison.
Everything in moderation. I really do think that heavy drinking causes more problems as does exhaust fumes from cars.
Scotland has had this ban for 15 months now and the debates are still going on.
I think we are between a rock and a hard place to be honest. No easy answers.
A girl I went to school with died from a severe asthma attack which was brought on by her working in a smoke filled pub. So yes, passive smoking killed her. Maybe she didnt have to work there, or maybe she did because we lived on a small Island where work was scarce and beggars cant be choosers. I suppose you will argue that her asthma killed her, but she may still be here if she didnt work in a smokey pub.
the government's intent in respect of banning smoking in enclosed spaces was known before the last general election. Smokers therefore had the chance to vote for an MP that better served their interests - how many smokers bothered to ask their local candidates where they stood on the issue?
If their MP wouldn't support them and a ban seemed inevitable, how many smokers lobbied their MPs to steer the pragmatic course of smoking being permitted in the absence of food service?
At the end of the day, you voted for the MPs that set the smoking ban into legislation. The law says what it says, and you can choose to abide by it, or not. And if you choose to ignore it, there can be no complaints when you get fined.
We are where we are, and you must bear some responsibility for it. That's democracy. Live with it.
If their MP wouldn't support them and a ban seemed inevitable, how many smokers lobbied their MPs to steer the pragmatic course of smoking being permitted in the absence of food service?
At the end of the day, you voted for the MPs that set the smoking ban into legislation. The law says what it says, and you can choose to abide by it, or not. And if you choose to ignore it, there can be no complaints when you get fined.
We are where we are, and you must bear some responsibility for it. That's democracy. Live with it.
I don't think anyone is arguing for it, as a smoker myself, I don't really give a stuff. I surprised myself by going 8 hours on Wembley without a fag, although their were loads around me ignoring it and not one nonsmoker batted an eyelid at it. What is irritating is how holier than thou some nonsmokers are....esp the ex smokers.
Even during a nonsmoking phase, I wasnt really fussed about coming home stinking of fags, its not like I wasnt going to wash.
Even during a nonsmoking phase, I wasnt really fussed about coming home stinking of fags, its not like I wasnt going to wash.
I know many many people, myself included, who can have a drink - or not. Some drink rarely - Christmas, weddings, parties and so on, some drink regularly - a couple or three pints on a Friday night. They can take it or leave it.
They are not addicted, not alcohol dependent or alcoholic. This is the vast majority of drinkers in this country.
I have only ever known three people who smoked socially and could go days or weeks without smoking. Apart from these three all the smokers I have known HAVE to smoke - they stand outside restaurants because they can't go a couple of hours without a fag. They HAVE to have smoke breaks at work.
Smoking achieves nothing except dependence - it does not relax, it merely relieves the tension caused by withdrawal symptoms from being an addict.
The motor engine does pollute,it is true. But that is not the function of the car and lorry - unlike smoking where the burning of noxious substances is the only purpose of the cigarette. There is no comparison between smoking, drinking and motor vehicles.
They are not addicted, not alcohol dependent or alcoholic. This is the vast majority of drinkers in this country.
I have only ever known three people who smoked socially and could go days or weeks without smoking. Apart from these three all the smokers I have known HAVE to smoke - they stand outside restaurants because they can't go a couple of hours without a fag. They HAVE to have smoke breaks at work.
Smoking achieves nothing except dependence - it does not relax, it merely relieves the tension caused by withdrawal symptoms from being an addict.
The motor engine does pollute,it is true. But that is not the function of the car and lorry - unlike smoking where the burning of noxious substances is the only purpose of the cigarette. There is no comparison between smoking, drinking and motor vehicles.
I heartily agree with your views on the alcohol problem, clarion, I'm hoping the new PM will make some changes there, such as reducing the easy access from shops and supermarkets, and maybe bringing back the old 'off-licence 'only, it used to be sold only between about 11am till 2pm and the 7pm till 10pm.as for smoking, well, if it keeps people out of the pubs all the better.they won't be able to drink alcohol in the street with their ciggie.
Whatever happened to freedom of choice? Have smoke rooms in bars/clubs so people in there can smoke to their hearts content.
Ooohhh we want all the taxes from smoking but it's so bad you can't do it any where else. People will be going roung enforcing the law, pity it took the police 4 days to turn up when a relative got burgled.
Ooohhh we want all the taxes from smoking but it's so bad you can't do it any where else. People will be going roung enforcing the law, pity it took the police 4 days to turn up when a relative got burgled.
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.