Smoking is carcinogenic and it kills

[George.]

Why, when we have all known for decades that smoking is carcinogenic, do so many people continue to smoke tobacco? Not just that, why do so many people, be they children, teenagers and even adults, still start smoking when they know fine well what the result will be?

 

Why is it still legal to sell tobacco, why is it still legal to buy tobacco and why is it still legal to inflict cancer on both yourself and those around you. Why it quite legal to destroy your lungs with COPD or asthma?

 

NHS Shetland has agreed to add its name to a national charter for a tobacco-free generation.

 

Hopefully tobacco will be made illegal, whether it be to buy, sell or smoke - for ever.

Edited October 3, 2018 by George.

[Ghostrider]

Folk smoke, because they fancy trying it, like it, and want to continue enjoying it. Just like numerous other things, alcohol, unhealthy foods, various currently 'illegal drugs' etc....

 

So what if it kills, everything kills eventually. Tobacco has been made the bogeyman by various governments, based on half-truths and politically motivated spin, there are other arguably equally 'nasties' out there that are swept under the carpet for 'reasons'.

 

Ingesting smoke, whatever kind of smoke it is, is inevitably going to have a negative effect on people who do it. Yes, it triggers cancer in some, but not in all smokers by a long shot, and even with those it does it typically takes years to occur - At the end of the day it boils down to personal choice, does an individual wish to take the risk of dying from cancer 10, 20 or whatever years down the line, having enjoyed smoking as much as they wished to smoke during that time, or do they wish to deny themselves that pleasure in the hope they live to be 80 or 90. And that is just a hope, not a certainty, as cancer comes along without smoking or doing any of the other 'nasties' too.

 

It must be a bit galling for someone who tried tobacco and liked it as a teen etc, but denied themselves it in the belief that they would be putting themselves in an early grave, gets diagnosed in their 20's or 30's with terminal cancer anyway. Especially when several of their peers who've smoked like chimneys since their early teens are still running around fit and healthy.

 

Bans on easily obtained products never work, if prohibition didn't prove that point, the total ineffectiveness of the current ban on so-called 'illegal drugs' should. In addition many bans are an infringement of an individual's freedom of choice, I never asked any Government to decide 'what was best for me', I have never been asked if I wanted a Government to decide 'what was best for me', and they needn't bother, as they'd be told where to go. I object strongly to any Government assuming they have the right to decide 'what is best for me' - I'm happy, and I believe more than capable of doing that for myself, thankyou very much.

 

What I do with my body which does not directy affect anyone else is nobody's business but my own, and I alone will decide 'what is best for me'. Regardless of whether the 'risks' of 'passive smoking' are real or theoretical, the current ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces is fair enough, other folk have the right to breathe as clean air as is practical even if the reason is only personal preference of aroma, but thats as far as any ban can be justified.

 

Dictating what folk do in private is opening up a whole other can of worms. If there's a 'health' argument to be made to support a tobacco ban, there's an equally good one to be made for an alcohol ban, or at least the imposition of very strict controls on daily consumption, the same goes for many 'foods' and likewise, participating in sex is as likely to give you a whole plethora of diseases some of which are as equaly horrendous for the sufferer as any cancer. Do we ban alcohol, at least half the stock of your average grocery shop, and all conjugal activities too on 'health' grounds.

 

We're living in 1984 for too much as is, leave folk to do what they please to themselves as long as they do it in private, its their bodies and lives after all, and nobody else's business unless help is actively sought by them. Living as long as one possibly can is not compulsory, what gives any one person the right to judge that just because someone decides they want everything now, and fills their body with every hellery going that puts them in their box before they're 30 is somehow 'wrong' in their choices. They did what they did for the reasons they did it, just like the one who abstained from every nasty all their life but still died riddled with cancer in their 60's did what they did for the reasons they did it.

 

Mutual respect for others freedom of choice and personal responsibility for ones actions is rapidly being lost in some vague theoretical politically led societal construct of everybody having a right to interfere and dictate in others personal and private lives, its time that stopped.

 

If someone wants to sit in private and chain smoke until they're entirely kippered, if someone wants to sit and drink all day every day until they turn their liver and brain to soup, if someone wants to bareback every AIDS carrier they can find until they look worse than someone in The Walking Dead, let them all get on with it, its their choice to make, it directly affects nobody but themselves and is nothing to do with anyone else.

[Colin]

@GR

 

Well said..

[hakama]

After doing their body in they then expect the NHS. to fix things so whatever you do it does impact on other people.

[George.]

Mutual respect for others freedom of choice and personal responsibility for ones actions is rapidly being lost in some vague theoretical politically led societal construct of everybody having a right to interfere and dictate in others personal and private lives, its time that stopped.

Very true, mutual respect for others freedom of choice is disappearing and all too often that is worse than just unfortunate.

 

Enjoy your fags but come nowhere near me with them. After all, they cause cancer and a lot more deadly problems.

Edited October 3, 2018 by George.

[Ghostrider]

After doing their body in they then expect the NHS. to fix things so whatever you do it does impact on other people.

 

If I get cancer, as I probably will if I live long enough, I'm going to be dead, end of. I'm under no illusion what the NHS sells as a cancer fix, the 'cure' is virtualy as bad as the complaint, and doesn't work 99% of the time. Its a prolonging of the dying process, nothing more, and with cancer onboard I want as quick an exit as possible. The less contact I have with the NHS between diagnosis and having the lid screwed down, the more delighted I'll be.

 

No doubt some expect miracles from the NHS, but I'm not one of them, so those who do will just have to justify, or otherwise, why they see it that way.

[Ghostrider]

Very true, mutual respect for others freedom of choice is disappearing and all too often that is worse than just unfortunate.

 

Enjoy your fags but come nowhere near me with them. After all, they cause cancer and a lot more deadly problems.

 

I would hope that mutual respect on the smoker's part involved refraining from smoking when a guest of anyone who had an issue with tobacco smoke, and that mutual respect on the non-smoker who had an issue with tobacco smoke's part, involved refraining from being a guest of a smoker in circumstances where they were actively smoking.

[Colin]

After doing their body in they then expect the NHS. to fix things so whatever you do it does impact on other people.

Yes, well we have paid for it, handsomely, in advance.

[JGHR]

Folk smoke, because they fancy trying it, like it, and want to continue enjoying it. Just like numerous other things, alcohol, unhealthy foods, various currently 'illegal drugs' etc....

Or perhaps folk smoke because they were taken in by advertising campaigns which glamourised smoking and subsequent campaignes which downplayed or flat out denied the health consequences.

 

So what if it kills, everything kills eventually. Tobacco has been made the bogeyman by various governments, based on half-truths and politically motivated spin, there are other arguably equally 'nasties' out there that are swept under the carpet for 'reasons'.

Really? Can you provide some examples of those 'half truths' and 'politically motivated spin'?

 

Bans on easily obtained products never work, if prohibition didn't prove that point, the total ineffectiveness of the current ban on so-called 'illegal drugs' should.

I sort of agree with you on that, banning the fags wont stop folk smoking, it might help reduce the number of folk who start though.

 

I object strongly to any Government assuming they have the right to decide 'what is best for me' - I'm happy, and I believe more than capable of doing that for myself,

What I do with my body which does not directy affect anyone else is nobody's business but my own, and I alone will decide 'what is best for me'.

Your capacity to decide is dubious. That's the problem with the 'freedom of choice' argument that libertarians like to make. Addicted, ill informed or irrational smokers are helpless in this regard, they lack the facility to provide well balanced informed consent. Consequently they are not able to exercise proper freedom of choice - however much they may like to. In enlightened societies the helpless need to be helped, that's why regulation and disincentives are necessary.

 

Regardless of whether the 'risks' of 'passive smoking' are real or theoretical,

Are you suggesting that there is some doubt about the risks of passive smoking?

[tooney1]

Hopefully tobacco will be made illegal, whether it be to buy, sell or smoke - for ever.[/size]

I agree. It and e-cigs could be made available only under prescription for those already addicted, then phase it out for newcomers.

 

I think it is also time that perhaps extra insurance needs to be paid by those who indulge in high risk activities, be it smoking, excessive drinking, extreme sports or cosmetic surgeries that end up burdening the NHS when things go wrong.

[George.]

Around about nine million people in Britain smoke. Two thirds of them start before the age of eighteen.

 

Smoking statistics

Edited October 4, 2018 by George.

[Spinner72]

This is one of lifes mysteries to me. I am 46, and when I was a bairn it was well known how bad smiking was health wise, not to mention how stupid and uncool it was. Yet a few still did it, though even to this day I still ask smokers why and nobody can give me an answer.

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

Your capacity to decide is dubious. That's the problem with the 'freedom of choice' argument that libertarians like to make. Addicted, ill informed or irrational smokers are helpless in this regard, they lack the facility to provide well balanced informed consent. Consequently they are not able to exercise proper freedom of choice - however much they may like to. In enlightened societies the helpless need to be helped, that's why regulation and disincentives are necessary.

Passive aggressive much?  You really do believe in Big Brother 1984, don't you?

 

Why on earth do people buy water in plastic bottles?  Why do people not wear masks when changing toner in photocopiers?  Why do people drink alcohol?  Why do people work in nuclear plants?  Why do people live near substations?  Why do people still allow petrol and diesel cars to exist?  Why do people participate in jogging/boxing/horseriding/rugby ... the list is endless.  It's called choice.  Individuals will always participate in activities that others might not approve of.  I'm just waiting for the total ban on alcohol and see how many of you like that then.  Freedoms are being wittled down but apparently that's okay because carry on like it and you'll destroy what you so dearly 'love' about 'society'.

[George.]

It's called choice. 

You may well smoke your first cigarette by choice, you may well smoke the second one by choice and, if you're very lucky, you might squeeze in the third one by choice. Then the "choice" goes downhill and you become an addict, and it's all thanks to the nicotine that you've become addicted to. Yes, there are another few things that are addictive and the large majority of them are drug-related. Nicotine is a drug and, of course, you become addicted to it by choice. The same sort of choice that you find you've got regarding heroin, methadone, cocaine etc.

 

Think that I'll go and make a cup of coffee with a bit of milk and, hopefully, two or three spoons of sugar. I'm probably addicted to it but, as far as I know, it doesn't really matter how close to another person I am when I drink it - unlike tobacco.

Edited October 5, 2018 by George.

[Davie P]

 

Your capacity to decide is dubious. That's the problem with the 'freedom of choice' argument that libertarians like to make. Addicted, ill informed or irrational smokers are helpless in this regard, they lack the facility to provide well balanced informed consent. Consequently they are not able to exercise proper freedom of choice - however much they may like to. In enlightened societies the helpless need to be helped, that's why regulation and disincentives are necessary.

Passive aggressive much?  You really do believe in Big Brother 1984, don't you?

 

Why on earth do people buy water in plastic bottles?  Why do people not wear masks when changing toner in photocopiers?  Why do people drink alcohol?  Why do people work in nuclear plants?  Why do people live near substations?  Why do people still allow petrol and diesel cars to exist?  Why do people participate in jogging/boxing/horseriding/rugby ... the list is endless.  It's called choice.  Individuals will always participate in activities that others might not approve of.  I'm just waiting for the total ban on alcohol and see how many of you like that then.  Freedoms are being wittled down but apparently that's okay because carry on like it and you'll destroy what you so dearly 'love' about 'society'.

 

 

Interesting to note how a factual and reasonable post was escalated into an accusation of passive aggression and support for an authoritarian government!

 

The fact is that people who are addicted to substances have diminished capacity to exercise choice in whether or not they continue to use/consume a substance. The number of times people try to give up smoking and fail is a straightforward example of that. Here are but two examples from a quick google to illustrate that

• It's estimated that about 70% of American smokers want to quit, more than half try each year, but only 6% succeed. <reference>
• "for many smokers it may take 30 or more quit attempts before being successful" <reference>

Edited October 5, 2018 by Davie P