Your Blog

Smoking V illegal drugs,Alcohol addiction and Gambaling

Posted by coolcatmillie on Wednesday, 15 November 2006 11:54:31

There has been much debate over human's rights, and people's freedom.

Which is sometime not a bad thing, however I do feel sometimes that to give one person their right and freedom you take away another's.

I just wondered what those who support human right, equality and freedom think about

The smoking ban that will soon be force.

Before I go any further, I would like to point out that I amcouldr a Smoking bam in public places, and I just wondered if anyone can answer the following.

We all agree that smoking is an addiction,

We all agree that drug abuse is an addiction,

We all agree the alcoholism can be an addiction

We all agree that gambling can be an addiction.

However the sympathy with the last 4 addiction is greater than that of Smoking, I don't believe I have ever heard anyone say "yes, but smoking is an illness" and lets tread carefully", what I have heard is stick smokers in a corner and ignore them as if they were riddled with some form of highly contagious disease.

And I have heard "lets work with these druggies, and drunks who beat their wives, lets look outside the box to find out why they do these things and feel so dependant on the drug their cant live without".

If we are to take a smokers right for their addiction away from them in a public place, to protect the freedom of those who do not want to die through passive smoking, surley we must take away the freedom of those who are walking the streets doped up and drunk,

After all there is more chance being harmed by them than there is of passive smoking.

There are many reports of figure regarding passive smoking; estimates that domestic exposure to second-hand smoke in the UK causes around 2,700 deaths in people aged 20-64.

Where alcohol is responsible on average 3,000 people are killed or seriously injured each year in drink drive collisions and in 2005 more than one in four of all deaths on the road involved drivers who are over the legal alcohol limit.

I cant find the figure for them addimited to A&E; for admission for, after being attacked by a drunk or druggie, but I'm sure someone can, And I have no doubt that they are very much higher than that of passive smoking.

My point here is that We are willing to take away a smokers freedom, and confine them to smoking at home only, but still allow them to buy cigarettes, drugs are illegal and it is also an offence to be drunk and disordoly, but we see it every weekend!

Will allow people to get high as a kyte, and so drunk there are incapable of knowing what they are doing to roam the streets and take away the freedom of those who would like to go for a quiet trip to the theatre or night out without the fear of being attacked.

After all smokers will not kill/mug or attack for money to feed their addiction,

I think there is more chance in Britain today that those who have a right and the freedom to stand at a bus stop are likely to get hurt by the two more serious addictions that that of passive smoking.

And by the way..does anyone know if prisoners freedom to smoke will be taken away form them,or will they be exempt,after all being in prison is a stressful old game!

drugs, freedom, alcohol, gambling

You could comment if you logged in | Read comments


 

Posted by pamixchris on Wednesday, 15 November 2006 17:34:31

I live in scotland and have seen the effects of the smoking ban here. What you must realise is that it is only inside public buildings that you cannot smoke so people can smoke outside - many pubs now have outdoor fascilities such as chairs tables, ashtrays, benches, canopays and sometimes even patio heaters. Thhe smokers seem to develop a real sense of community. (and bus stops can be smokled at)

You compare it to drunks and druggies, if you were to roll a joint in a public place you would also be kicked out, and the drunkare often removed and reffused servise. this means that no drugs, drunks or smokinmg in permitted in these places.

Also: gambling in not an addiction, it is addictive

Posted by AndrewFarnden on Wednesday, 15 November 2006 17:53:04

I'm a bit confused is sex an addiction or just addictive?

Posted by coolcatmillie on Wednesday, 15 November 2006 19:04:13

I compare it to drunks and druggies based on the comparison of rights…
And the effects of other addictive substances infringing on others enjoyment and day-to-day life.
As for drunks being refused service that’s not what 100s of town centres and A&E; departments are seeing on a weekend.
I mustn’t have made my point about the bus stop clear…my view was there was more chance in general that you would or could be hurt or be a victim of crime due to a drunkenness or someone under the influence of an illegal substances than you were to be harmed by second hand smoke.
We know that the police do not us their power on Friday and Saturday nights to arrest drunken individuals with public disorder offences and anti social behaviour as there is simply not enough of them to enforce this, but we will see in England in Wales next year a fixed penalty of £50 for smoking in public places that does not allow this.
Basically if we can disapprove and impose a penalty for one habit that can cause danger and harm to others, suely we must be able to condemn the other.

Addiction being enslaved to habit or practice…addictive or addiction... it still wrecks people lives

Posted by Donnie on Wednesday, 15 November 2006 20:12:30

The Smoking Ban that New Labour are introducing is the biggest fraud going. The so called consultation was totally flawed. The office of National Statistics reported that 68% of people wanted separate rooms and or ventilation only 33% of the population wanted a total ban. Instead of taking their own figures the government took the survey carried out and paid for by ASH and Cancer Research. Who funds ASH, the government and Cancer Research. Of the so called consultation which received only 57,000 replies out of an adult population of over 40 million, 27,000 replies were from Cancer Research (stated on their website). This was totally incestuously gathered information. One of the directors of ASH Debbie Arnott then bragged in the Guardian that the whole thing was a confidence trick and MPs fell for it. Some democracy.

http://society.guardian.co.uk/health/story/0,,1823348,00.html

There have been 40 reports on Second hand smoke. 33 found no connection to lung cancer at all and 7 only a minute not worth bothering about risk.

"..not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer, but that it could even have a protective effect."
World Health Organization, March 1998

"The results are consistent with there being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer.."
London Telegraph, 1999

"In general, there was no elevated lung cancer risk associated with passive smoke exposure in the workplace. ..."
- Brownson et. al.
American Journal of Public Health, November 1992, Vol. 82, No. 11

"... no evidence of an adverse effect of environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace."
- Janerich et al. New England Journal of Medicine, Sept. 6, 1990

"... the association with exposure to passive smoking at work was small and not statistically significant."
- Kalandidi et al.
Cancer Causes and Control, 1, 15-21, 1990

"We did not generally find an increase in CHD [coronary heart disease] risk associated with ETS [environmental smoke] exposure at work or in other settings."
Steenland et al.
Circulation, Vol. 94, No. 4, August 15, 1996

"... no statistically significant increase in risk associated with exposure to environmental tobacco smoke at work or during social activities...."
- Stockwell et al.
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 84:1417-1422, 1992

"There was no association between exposure to ETS at the workplace and risk of lung cancer."
Zaridze et al., 1998
International Journal of Cancer, 1998, 75, 335-338

The largest study done was by Enstrom and Kabat who have now gone on line to protest about the treatment they have received over their work.

http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/defense.html

http://www.antibrains.com/shs.html

According to the Guardian this week we are now going to be subjected to another round of obnoxious TV adverts on smoking costing 10 million and I quote.

"The government is worried that next year's smoking ban could face a public backlash. Now it is turning to 'terror tactics' in a new advertising campaign to change our minds "

"The adverts, created by the agency Golley Slater, aim to educate people who regularly go to a pub or a club that they are putting their health at risk. The script highlights the potential cocktail of 4,000 chemicals which enters people's bodies from second-hand smoke around them."

"'The TV commercials feature second-hand smoke personified as a malignant, unseen predator which stalks customers at a pub and cafe location' said Phil Hickes, creative director at the agency."

Adolf Hitler would be proud of the tactics that Blair and New Labour use to terrorise people.

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id1.html

I am absolutely fed up with being persecuted by this Labour Government for buying a perfectly legal product of which 4/5ths of the cost is tax. Smokers are already being excluded from employment and I just want to know when they are going to require me to sew a badge on my coat.

I want someone to take Blairs Jackboot off my throat.



Posted by canvas on Wednesday, 15 November 2006 20:14:23

I think alcoholism is actually an illness - although I understand your point about addiction.

I smoke, I drink, I gamble. They are legal activities.

I don't do illegal drugs.

I am addicted to smoking - but I am NOT addicted to gambling, alcohol or illegal drugs. I might be addicted to Webcameron :)

If I want to smoke somewhere in a public place (because I'm addicted to cigarettes and it's legal) and I'm not allowed to - then am I being denied my human rights by the government not allowing me to satisfy my addiction? Can I sue and settle out of court too? :) Go figure.

Posted by coolcatmillie on Wednesday, 15 November 2006 20:38:50

Donnie..thanks for that,very interesting will have to check out some of those links,when I get a minute.

Canvas,this is exactly the point!
I sure Tony Blair would love to put a goverment warning of the dangers of using Webcameron...".webcameron can cause a slow and painful death of the labour party " :-0

Posted by Donnie on Thursday, 16 November 2006 18:45:07

coolcatmillie you are more than welcome. It may interest you to know that there are a group of publicans, non smokers and smokers on a site called http://thebigdebate.org. These publicans are attempting to bring a judicial review against the government on this smoking ban. I have looked over this site, it is very good with lots of useful information. It is not advertising pro smoking but pro choice. The people blogging on there are excellent. Go have a look you are not alone.

Don't miss these