Interact
Interact


Smoking Prohibition

Started by: dave© (3507)

When prohibition was in operation in the US in the early part of the last century, places that people could have a drink in were called "speakeasies," given the fact that a smoking ban has come into operation in Wales. I wonder if a smokeeasy will soon be a common thing now?

Started: 3rd Apr 2007 at 23:59

Posted by: aussie roy (2574) 

It is to be hoped that does not happen,because the ban is supposed to be for the benefit of everyone not just non-smokers. Since it has been introduced here the clubs are much more pleasant to be in,my clothes no longer smelling of smoke when I go home,and guess what? the sky hasn't fallen in.

Replied: 4th Apr 2007 at 07:59

Posted by: lectriclegs (4866)

IF THE GOVERMENT REALY WANT TO STOP PEOPLE SMOKING WHY NOT JUST BAN IT.
THE SKY MIGHT NOT FALL IN BUTT (SIC) THE
ECONOMY WOULD. WHERE ELSE DO YOU RAISE
£40 M PLUS A DAY IN REVENUE

Replied: 5th Apr 2007 at 16:34

Posted by: aussie roy (2574) 

I can't believe that the country's economy is totally dependent on tobacco exise,a large slice maybe but there must be clever people who can come up with a way of offsetting this loss of revenue.
It doesn't have to be an immediate,total ban,it wouldn't work anyway,rather phase it out gradually in conjunction with real education of the health problems and in the meantime introduce alternative ways of raising revenue. In the long term the savings on the health bill will far outweigh the initial loss of the exise revenue.
The only obstacle to the above is that no one seems to have the political will to do such a thing and the future for most politicians is the next election.

Replied: 6th Apr 2007 at 02:23

Posted by: getwom (inactive)

.

Replied: 6th Apr 2007 at 23:33
Last edited by getwom: 8th Aug 2010 at 20:53:54

Posted by: copperhead (1415) 

No one is seriously proposing to ban smoking entirely, only in public places and in the work place. Smoking affects more than the participant, passive smoking is a real threat. Obesity only affects the individual with a knock on cost to the N.H.S. Alcohol again the main affects are to the individual with some cost to the N.H.S. Some individuals will find it difficult but I suggest the majority will eventually welcome the decision.

Replied: 7th Apr 2007 at 00:04

Posted by: getwom (inactive)

.

Replied: 7th Apr 2007 at 00:35
Last edited by getwom: 8th Aug 2010 at 20:54:19

Posted by: copperhead (1415) 

Getwom the question should be I think is how many passive smokers have smoking related diseases, cancer is just a small part of the problem and probably the cheapest to treat as it is usually fatal, whilst emphysema and chronic bronchitis can linger for years at great cost to the N.H.S. I'm no killjoy I am a reformed smoker and know the difficulties in giving up. I would not support a total ban, it would be unworkable anyway.

Replied: 7th Apr 2007 at 01:00

 

Note: You must login to use this feature.

If you haven't registered, why not join now?. Registration is free.