JFKvsNixon Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 Just have to breathe in more car fumes then, "whoops shoudnt have said that" . Funny tho i dont drive but got lead flying thro me veins???? :hihi: No, but you do use/buy goods and services that utilise cars / vans / lorries somwhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathom Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 drinking and eating unhealthly doesn't directly effect others directly and exactly why should drink and eating unhealthly foods be banned if smoking is? i agree that smoking should be banned altogether becasue most people who smoke want to stop, they just can't. Many smokers enjoy smoking, especially cigar and pipe smokers can be connoisseurs of tobacco, just as much as people are into wine appreciation. It may not be healthy but nevertheless a lot of people gain a good deal of pleasure from it, just as they do from sunbathing, partaking of buerre blanc sauce, playing poker and parachuting. Just because a thing can harm people does not mean it ought to be banned. Where regulation is correctly used is where it is used to deal with a pastime affecting other people or being carried out to excess. That's why I actually think it is reasonable for smokers to be segregated from others indoors, as this new law will do. However to ban it outright removes civil liberties. And would also be utterly unworkable. Banning it won't help people give up - heroin is illegal but it doesn't stop people using it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketpig Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 Well as i said i dont drive a car but im affected by the lead in the car emissions.So to be simplistic if you drive then you affect me with your car polution?? cars are useful- they get people from a to b, what advantages are there in smoking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brooksy Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 cars are useful- they get people from a to b, what advantages are there in smoking? Yes but what about the polution,wether you smoke or dont its up to the indiviual .?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 but well save loads of money on the nhs from better national health and the economic implications of a healthier nation will be much greater than revenues lost imh unfortunately a cursory check would prove that opinion to be wrong. Cost to the NHS £2 bill, revenue from tax £6 bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 Yes but what about the polution,wether you smoke or dont its up to the indiviual .?? I think that it is far easier for society to go without people smoking than it would be for society to go without Hospitals, the police, fresh food, fresh water, telecomunications etc. All these thing rely upon the combustion engine somewhere along the line. Also as I mentioned earlier you do profit massively from cars / vans / ambulances/ lorries / buses / taxis / ships / panes / tractors etc, or do you disagree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketpig Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 unfortunately a cursory check would prove that opinion to be wrong. Cost to the NHS £2 bill, revenue from tax £6 bill. go back and read my post....did i just talk about costs to the nhs or did i mention the economical implications? so your cursory check didn't prove my opinion wrong did it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketpig Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 Yes but what about the polution,wether you smoke or dont its up to the indiviual .?? what is your point? do you think banning smoking and banning cars/vans/lories and trains to be equivelent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathom Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 what is your point? do you think banning smoking and banning cars/vans/lories and trains to be equivelent? I think the point is that if you smoke, you choose to pollute your own lungs, likewise if you do not wish to be polluted by smoke you can choose to avoid it. But if you do not want to be harmed by fumes you have no choice in the matter unless you have the money to go and live somewhere like Sark, where there are no cars. BTW I don't think vehicles should be banned! That too would be unworkable. But like with smoking, I think it is inevitable that their use will end up being restricted in some way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 of course the only way for a non smoker to avoid the smoke would have been to avoid leaving their house as before yesterdays vote smokers rights always took precendence apparently. What the government should do regarding transport is encourage the use of greener more economical styles. Ie biodiesel, and other alternative fuels should be subsidised to encourage their use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.