Childhood asthma 'admissions down' after smoking ban

[Chippiewill]

There was a sharp fall in the number of children admitted to hospital with severe asthma after smoke-free legislation was introduced in England, say researchers.

A study showed a 12% drop in the first year after the law to stop smoking in enclosed public places came into force.

The authors say there is growing evidence that many people are opting for smoke-free homes as well.

Asthma UK says the findings are "encouraging".

Researchers at Imperial College in London looked at NHS figures going back to April 2002.

Presenting their findings in the journal Pediatrics, they said the number of children admitted to hospital with severe asthma attacks was rising by more than 2% a year before the restrictions were introduced in July 2007.

Taking that into account, they calculated the fall in admissions in the next 12 months was 12%, and a further 3% in each of the following two years. They say over the three-year period, this was equivalent of about 6,800 admissions.

The fall was seen among boys and girls of all ages, across wealthy and deprived neighbourhoods, in cities and in rural areas.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21067532

Mounting evidence that the public enclosed smoking ban was beneficial.

[e5]

Saw this on the news, seems to have worked!

[Explorator]

Also saw it on the news. I remember my brother got an asthma attack off my mum smoking when he was about 5.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Ban salt in restaurants and shops now to save the children and prevent heart disease!

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!! Long live the state.

Interestingly, the same arguments 'for the sake of the children' when applied to restricting the internet so we can keep children safe from pedophiles are dismissed by the same people who use children as the main argument for banning smoking, guns and the rest of it.

But hey, people are hypocrites so what can ya do other than point out their stupidity.

[Chippiewill]

Ban salt in restaurants and shops now to save the children and prevent heart disease!
Not the same, people don't go pouring salt onto other people's plates.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Not the same, people don't go pouring salt onto other people's plates.

Salt within foods? fat within foods? most fat and salt, but especially salt, is contained within the food cooked itself.

Or how about the latest suggestion from the Labour Party, that cereals such as Frosties (high sugar content) ought to be banned?

I mean if it's for the children then it must be right yeah?

[The Don]

Salt within foods? fat within foods? most fat and salt, but especially salt, is contained within the food cooked itself.

Or how about the latest suggestion from the Labour Party, that cereals such as Frosties (high sugar content) ought to be banned?

I mean if it's for the children then it must be right yeah?

Get a grip and stop using idiotic comparisons

[Chippiewill]

Salt within foods? fat within foods? most fat and salt, but especially salt, is contained within the food cooked itself.

Or how about the latest suggestion from the Labour Party, that cereals such as Frosties (high sugar content) ought to be banned?

I mean if it's for the children then it must be right yeah?
Analogies are meant to be analogous. Give up.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Get a grip and stop using idiotic comparisons

Not idiotic at all, indeed thats why we've got idiot Democrats in New York who have already banned table salt in restaurants along with the Labour Party here in the United Kingdom saying openly that it's considering a ban on the likes of Frosties as they're too sugary for children.

I don't come up with these comparisons remember - your side of the argument provide them for me.

As i've said time and time again, these sort of debates are the reason why I welcome internet regulation for the purpose of debate - because the self righteous (ie you) find themselves in such a hypocritical mess that they can't get out of it and just dismiss the comparison. The basis of this argument is, less freedom on something I don't like = good for children statistically so therefore it's right.

Well let's bring in internet restrictions, monitoring and ID cards - I mean, think of the children right?

..But no, howls of rage along the lines of "ITS NOT RIGHT THE STATE INTERFERE WITH THE INTERNET" will be posted in response, not one of you seeing the absolute hypocrisy in that just because you value the internet over smoking doesn't make smoking subject to your diktat.

[Kardan]

Not idiotic at all, indeed thats why we've got idiot Democrats in New York who have already banned table salt in restaurants along with the Labour Party here in the United Kingdom saying openly that it's considering a ban on the likes of Frosties as they're too sugary for children.

I don't come up with these comparisons remember - your side of the argument provide them for me.

As i've said time and time again, these sort of debates are the reason why I welcome internet regulation for the purpose of debate - because the self righteous (ie you) find themselves in such a hypocritical mess that they can't get out of it and just dismiss the comparison. The basis of this argument is, less freedom on something I don't like = good for children statistically so therefore it's right.

Well let's bring in internet restrictions, monitoring and ID cards - I mean, think of the children right?

..But no, howls of rage along the lines of "ITS NOT RIGHT THE STATE INTERFERE WITH THE INTERNET" will be posted in response, not one of you seeing the absolute hypocrisy in that just because you value the internet over smoking doesn't make smoking subject to your diktat.

I don't understand why you've brought children into it really. The article suggests that children have benefited from it, but I didn't realise the legislation was brought in to 'save the children'.

As for banning table salt, I'm not entirely sure how well that's going to work. Surely the fact that children have too much salt is based on the salt already within the food. I don't see many children pouring salt all over their dinner.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I don't understand why you've brought children into it really. The article suggests that children have benefited from it, but I didn't realise the legislation was brought in to 'save the children'.

I didn't bring children into it, the entire thread is about children. If the logic is because something is said to be statistically good for the children then its good, then logically a whole host of other anti-freedom measures are also good because they prevent children from coming into harms way.

Now strangely enough this never seems to apply when it comes to debates over internet freedom, the cry is usually (which I agree with) that although children could be made more safe with more regulation, we reject regulation on the basis of freedom from state control and interference.

Yet because smoking is one of those overly demonised activities which is soooooo not 2013, we see this sort of blind support for the government ban. My point is simple, that not liking an activity which carries a slight risk is not enough reason for the state to ban it.


As for banning table salt, I'm not entirely sure how well that's going to work. Surely the fact that children have too much salt is based on the salt already within the food. I don't see many children pouring salt all over their dinner.

It was applied in New York which now means that because some idiots pour massive amounts of salt on their food, I can't go into a restaurant there and put some salt on my plate of chips because the government said so - just as in this country I can't walk into a private pub and light up a cigarette... just because some people are too stupid not to leave a private building if they feel the risks of second hand smoke are too high.

This same sort of nannying and patronising ******** has also been extended to fizzy drinks in New York City (where you now are barred, in law, from buying a drink over a certain size) and is being considered by the Labour Party in this country in relation to sugary breakfast cereals... in the British Labour Party example, guess what demographic section of society is being used to justify it? you guessed it, the children.

Personal responsibility, you know? it'd be nice.

[Catchy]

I wish -:Undertaker:-; and Kardan; would put their handbags away for once!!! but ye anyway surprise surprise, sort of obvious as we've known for god knows how many years about passive smoking.

[Wig44.]

Ban salt in restaurants and shops now to save the children and prevent heart disease!

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!! Long live the state.

Interestingly, the same arguments 'for the sake of the children' when applied to restricting the internet so we can keep children safe from pedophiles are dismissed by the same people who use children as the main argument for banning smoking, guns and the rest of it.

But hey, people are hypocrites so what can ya do other than point out their stupidity.

Let's look at that argument for a second. What are the positives of smoking? As far as I can tell, they allow people already hooked on nicotine to relax, with more frequent smoking required over time. What are the downsides? They cost the NHS billions every year due to the damage they do to people's health. They also damage the health of people inhaling the smoke, but not opting to smoke themselves, with very young children and infants just happening to be a big part of this demographic, who are also most susceptible to second hand smoke. I don't even need to talk about the positive aspects of the internet.

On to my point, why is it ok to ban public smoking but not restrict internet access? Public smoking provides one benefit - people hooked on cigarettes can smoke outside. The downsides are obviously related to second hand smoking. The downside to restricting internet access is far greater. When the government starts to take liberties revolving around the freedom to communicate and the freedom to access information away, they take away the power the public has over the government, and their protection from dictatorship. The fact that people access torrents and child porn is a necessary price for this freedom. The benefits of unrestricted internet access don't just outweigh the negatives, they are an absolute necessity in my opinion. Public smoking is not comparable in the slightest.

Society is not governed by black and white reasoning, so there is no reason to ban everything that is harmful to children. We have the ability to think logically, I suggest you try it some time and tell me how that works out.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'd just add before I start that it's telling you haven't picked up on the other examples and have only jumped in to defend internet freedom. Are you willing to come out and say that you're in favour of banning salt in restaurants, large fizzy cola cups and sugary cereals?

If not, why not? and if yes, then it speaks for itself.


Let's look at that argument for a second. What are the positives of smoking? As far as I can tell, they allow people already hooked on nicotine to relax, with more frequent smoking required over time. What are the downsides? They cost the NHS billions every year due to the damage they do to people's health. They also damage the health of people inhaling the smoke, but not opting to smoke themselves, with very young children and infants just happening to be a big part of this demographic, who are also most susceptible to second hand smoke. I don't even need to talk about the positive aspects of the internet.

I don't think you quite understand how a free society works. It doesn't matter whether or not you think there are benefits to smoking or whether or not you even have smoked a cigarette in your life - I personally haven't ever put one to my lips and have vowed not to as I think it's downright foolish and wasteful to do so. But just because I think something of this activity doesn't mean I have a right to use the state to enforce my opinions, my tastes and my desires on other people. It's that simple.

As for second hand smoke, there's evidence out there to strongly suggest that its indeed a myth. But make what you will of it, of course there's a slight risk poised by sitting in a smokey room - and thats a risk you voluntarily take when you go into a pub for example. Do remember that you do not own the pub and thus the pubs smoking policy is no more your business than the colour of the walls are. Property rights are a wonderful concept.


On to my point, why is it ok to ban public smoking but not restrict internet access? Public smoking provides one benefit - people hooked on cigarettes can smoke outside. The downsides are obviously related to second hand smoking. The downside to restricting internet access is far greater. When the government starts to take liberties revolving around the freedom to communicate and the freedom to access information away, they take away the power the public has over the government, and their protection from dictatorship. The fact that people access torrents and child porn is a necessary price for this freedom. The benefits of unrestricted internet access don't just outweigh the negatives, they are an absolute necessity in my opinion. Public smoking is not comparable in the slightest.

And I could just as easily argue that heavier internet restrictions are worth the price in some freedom to protect innocent children - I could also make that emotional case. But i'm going to be honest and say that I don't actually think increased safety in most cases is worth the loss in freedom, and that applies to both internet regulation and the smoking ban. Indeed if anything, the effects of smoking in public are much less severe than the crimes that go on via the internet; from terrorism to hacking, from child abuse to fraud - all that results from the internet.

So again, somebody may think less internet freedom is worth protecting children right? to which the replies of the psuedo internet freedom warriors will be "its not your remit to restrict my internet freedom" - and I agree, just as it's not your remit to restrict activities such as smoking in private property.


Society is not governed by black and white reasoning, so there is no reason to ban everything that is harmful to children. We have the ability to think logically, I suggest you try it some time and tell me how that works out.

No, sadly society is governed nowadays by the tyranny of the majority and consensus - whereby just because smoking is soooo not 2013 and has been demonised beyond rationality - people such as yourself somehow get it into your heads that you have a duty to save us from ourselves and that you know best when you don't. It's rather like the same dogma back in the 1950s and 1960s that kept homosexuality illegal .. that the state knew best and was merely protecting homosexuals from themselves and society as a whole.

For every freedom you cheer on as it's lost, I hope the state takes away the freedoms you find precious - and indeed it will.

[Chippiewill]

As for second hand smoke, there's evidence out there to strongly suggest that its indeed a myth.

There's evidence to suggest any position, but most of it indicates that it is not a myth. Just as most evidence indicates that the planet has warmed up in the past 100 years and just as most evidence indicates that the World Trade Centre attacks were not organised by the US Government but by the terrorist group Al Qaeda.

[Wig44.]

A child eating sugary cereal doesn't cause harm to other children. Foods with salt in them can be avoided by people that want to avoid them. It's not like you can opt out of breathing.

I also think you miss the distinction between banning smoking and banning public smoking. People can smoke all they want, I don't think they should be forced not to because it damages their health. I don't think they should receive treatment from the NHS for any illness that the smoking caused though. It is the fact that other people have no choice in inhaling the smoke and suffering because of it that it was banned in public places. The asthma numbers speak for themselves about the efficacy of banning public smoking and thus the negative effects that second hand smoke has on people.

[-:Undertaker:-]

There's evidence to suggest any position, but most of it indicates that it is not a myth. Just as most evidence indicates that the planet has warmed up in the past 100 years and just as most evidence indicates that the World Trade Centre attacks were not organised by the US Government but by the terrorist group Al Qaeda.

Evidence can be seen in any light, taking the global warming example as one - whilst the Earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age period generally - over the past 15 years since the late 1990s we've had a cooling. So thats just one example.

And besides i've made my point clear regardless of evidence - that freedom does require and is worth increased risk.


A child eating sugary cereal doesn't cause harm to other children. Foods with salt in them can be avoided by people that want to avoid them. It's not like you can opt out of breathing.

And smoking can be avoided by those who don't want to be around it (or their children for that matter) by not going into a building where the owners have a pro-smoking policy. Now whats so hard to understand about that? it's very simple.


I also think you miss the distinction between banning smoking and banning public smoking. People can smoke all they want, I don't think they should be forced not to because it damages their health. I don't think they should receive treatment from the NHS for any illness that the smoking caused though. It is the fact that other people have no choice in inhaling the smoke and suffering because of it that it was banned in public places. The asthma numbers speak for themselves about the efficacy of banning public smoking and thus the negative effects that second hand smoke has on people.

Nobody forced anybody else to breath in smoke, you enter a private property such as a local pub for example in the knowledge that that particular pub allows smoking. If you do not like this, then do not go into the pub just as if I don't like salt on my plate of chips then I won't put salt on them.

Right? or are you now going to argue that its your invented 'right' to force pub owners to have the smoking policy you agree with.

[Wig44.]

Evidence can be seen in any light, taking the global warming example as one - whilst the Earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age period generally - over the past 15 years since the late 1990s we've had a cooling. So thats just one example.

And besides i've made my point clear regardless of evidence - that freedom does require and is worth increased risk.



And smoking can be avoided by those who don't want to be around it (or their children for that matter) by not going into a building where the owners have a pro-smoking policy. Now whats so hard to understand about that? it's very simple.



Nobody forced anybody else to breath in smoke, you enter a private property such as a local pub for example in the knowledge that that particular pub allows smoking. If you do not like this, then do not go into the pub just as if I don't like salt on my plate of chips then I won't put salt on them.

Right? or are you now going to argue that its your invented 'right' to force pub owners to have the smoking policy you agree with.

'Public places' doesn't only mean pubs. It seems silly to me that you would be restricted in where you could go because some places have people forcing their smoke on you, but I personally wouldn't ban smoking in pubs. Public places that people have to go to for one reason or another shouldn't come with the possibility of having to inhale someone's smoke.

Using your logic, if I feel like running around punching people, I should be able to - because freedom is worth increased risk. Ok then. Did it ever occur to you that people are actually freer now than they were before the ban? The difference for a smoker is that they have to step outside - the difference for people that previously chose or had to avoid smoking environments for one reason or another is that they are no longer restricted in where they can go. Sounds like a net gain of freedom to me, but I'm being almost as facetious as you in my arguments now.

[Chippiewill]

Evidence can be seen in any light, taking the global warming example as one - whilst the Earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age period generally - over the past 15 years since the late 1990s we've had a cooling. So thats just one example.
Cooling happened many times during the past century, it's the overall trend which counts.


And smoking can be avoided by those who don't want to be around it (or their children for that matter) by not going into a building where the owners have a pro-smoking policy. Now whats so hard to understand about that? it's very simple.
Just because someone has a pro-shooting people in the foot policy doesn't suddenly mean it's ok for everyone in the building to start shooting each other in the foot.

[Wig44.]

Cooling happened many times during the past century, it's the overall trend which counts.


Just because someone has a pro-shooting people in the foot policy doesn't suddenly mean it's ok for everyone in the building to start shooting each other in the foot.

But if I'm not allowed to shoot people in the foot MY FREEDOM IS BEING RESTRICTED. To hell with the consequences, this philosophy, completely rigid and uncompromising, makes perfect sense! *REMOVED*

Edited by JerseyShore (Forum Moderator): Please don't be rude to other forum members.

[-:Undertaker:-]

'Public places' doesn't only mean pubs. It seems silly to me that you would be restricted in where you could go because some places have people forcing their smoke on you, but I personally wouldn't ban smoking in pubs. Public places that people have to go to for one reason or another shouldn't come with the possibility of having to inhale someone's smoke.

Nobody is forcing any smoke on you. You do understand the concept of negative freedom right? if I go into your house and start smoking or a non-smoking pub and light up then yes, I am forcing my smoke on you. If you walk into a private building that allows smoking, and people are smoking - then nobody has forced anything on you, you have entered at will.


Using your logic, if I feel like running around punching people, I should be able to - because freedom is worth increased risk. Ok then. Did it ever occur to you that people are actually freer now than they were before the ban? The difference for a smoker is that they have to step outside - the difference for people that previously chose or had to avoid smoking environments for one reason or another is that they are no longer restricted in where they can go. Sounds like a net gain of freedom to me, but I'm being almost as facetious as you in my arguments now.

You seem to have absolutely no regard or understanding of how freedom works along with the concept of property rights - the example of punching people for example is wrong and why? because thats an act of force against another person against their will. Now, with smoking that would be the case if I lit up in an area where the landlord of the property had banned smoking. Interestingly enough, that example of somebody punching somebody else without permission is an example of force being used .. which is exactly what you are advocating in that the state should use force to implement certain ideals which appeal to you. That's force, and your the one using it.

If you don't like smoke then don't go into that building - it's that simple. Do you understand that? If I don't like Chinese food, I don't go into a Chinese restaurant and order an Indian just as if I don't like smoke then I don't go into a smoke filled pub. I mean, duh.


Cooling happened many times during the past century, it's the overall trend which counts.

Just because someone has a pro-shooting people in the foot policy doesn't suddenly mean it's ok for everyone in the building to start shooting each other in the foot.

If you enter a building or join a club where it's made clear that the purpose is to shoot eachother in the foot, then i'd argue you'd be entirely within your rights to do so even if I think your absolutely bonkers. Why not? if people wish to shoot eachother in the foot then by all means let them. I wouldn't go somewhere like that as it doesn't appeal to me, just as smoking doesn't appeal to you - then don't go to a building where smoking is allowed if it's such a big deal as you make out.

If people want to sell their bodies for sex, then let them - its not being forced on me.
If people want to smoke dangerous drugs such as weed and allow weed in pubs - then I won't go that pub.
If people want to partake in dangerous sports then let them - I just won't take part myself.
If people want to engage in certain sexual acts which carry a higher risk of HIV, then let them - it's not being forced on me.
If people want to open a society where they eat one another then let them - it's not my remit even if I think they're utterly foul.

And so on and so on.


But if I'm not allowed to shoot people in the foot MY FREEDOM IS BEING RESTRICTED. To hell with the consequences, this philosophy, completely rigid and uncompromising, makes perfect sense! *REMOVED*

I argue it's the decision of the property owner and not the state whether to allow smoking or not. If you and the other anti-smoking zealots feel that strongly about smoking, then by all means open your own pub and ban smoking on your own property - thats the beauty of living in a free society and not having what are simple decisions decided by a little dictator in Whitehall.

Don't use the state to force your ideals on other people, just as the state did on homosexuals for example back before the late 1960s.

[The Don]

Don't use the state to force your ideals on other people, just as the state did on homosexuals for example back before the late 1960s.

This entire situation is comparable to the whole legalising gay marriage debate we had. You oppose it as it could potentially lead to Christians being brought into court. If you were all for total freedom you would be willing for the state to take this risk and for potential court cases to spring up and in this situation the court cases are purely hypothetical. You said that you were all for freedom but allowing gay marriage could impose on certain religious peoples freedoms as they can potentially get sued (this is entirely similar to how the smoking ban affects non-smokers and smokers) The question i'm asking is, why do you favor the freedoms of Christians more so than those of same sex couples, especially when the impact on Christians is purely hypothetical and might not necessarily happen? The whole notion of a free society is ludicrous, it looks nice on paper but some people simply can't be trusted on some matters which is why i'm for minor state interference.

[-:Undertaker:-]

This entire situation is comparable to the whole legalising gay marriage debate we had. You oppose it as it could potentially lead to Christians being brought into court. If you were all for total freedom you would be willing for the state to take this risk and for potential court cases to spring up and in this situation the court cases are purely hypothetical. You said that you were all for freedom but allowing gay marriage could impose on certain religious peoples freedoms as they can potentially get sued (this is entirely similar to how the smoking ban affects non-smokers and smokers) The question i'm asking is, why do you favor the freedoms of Christians more so than those of same sex couples, especially when the impact on Christians is purely hypothetical and might not necessarily happen? The whole notion of a free society is ludicrous, it looks nice on paper but some people simply can't be trusted on some matters which is why i'm for minor state interference.

Wrong, and this is why. The contradicting points of the gay marriage debate are brought about purely because of the sorts of 'minor' laws your side of the argument have brought in over the years. I have said many times that the state shouldn't be involved in marriage at all - something i'd enact tommorow if I could, thats a free society where you don't have to seek approval of the state for what kind of relationships can be blessed or not.

Secondly, anti-discrimination and equality laws (which I have no doubt you probably support) then lead to the absurd situation where people can be punished by the state for expressing their own opinions in their own property (ie, the Christian couple who didn't want a gay couple staying in their Bed and Breakfast). In a free society, we'd simply accept that people have different opinions and we would also accept the premise of property rights.

It's because of the 'minor state intervention' in these matters that i'm caught in a web of whos rights do I put above others - well ideally I wouldn't have to as again, I wouldn't have these sorts of laws. But when i'm faced with your side of the debate arguing for retaining these laws and legalising something like gay marriage, i'm then forced (not by my choice but yours) which rights to support in the given circumstances. In the gay marriage debate, I back the Christians as they're more to my outlook on life and its as simple as that. I wish we didn't have to have the gay marriage debate, but your side make that impossible.

A free society is much better as it solves most political debates we have in a 'democracy' - liberty allows you to go about your life how you see fit and myself to go about my life how I see fit. I'm naturally conservative in my personal opinions/outlook and thus you wouldn't find me at a gay pride parade, a gay bar or club, a womens club, a foreign aid charity meeting and so on - whereas you may be the opposite. I don't want to force you to abide by my standards anymore than I want to be forced to abide by your standards. I return again to the decriminalisation of homosexuality in the 1960s, the exact same arguments of 'the state ought to protect people from themselves and eachother' are being used in this debate just as they were by the anti-decriminalisation side all those years ago. Butt out and let people get on with it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=BUjzrS6jwiw&feature=endscreen


but some people simply can't be trusted on some matters which is why i'm for minor state interference.

And thou speaks the tyrant. I trust individuals to run their own personal affairs much more than I trust an official in Whitehall, you or even myself to.

[dbgtz]

@-:undertaker:- Sort of an unrelated point, but you say there has been a period of cooling for 15 years or something with no source. Why are people supposed to believe this when you don't even believe evidence when there are sources? I'm not really debating the issue, it's just you can't dismiss information when there are sources because "it's twisted by government" but then you state information without any sources and this somehow is meant to be credible information.

On the actual issue, I think in public places where there is virtually no choice in where you go like in a shopping centre & close surrounding areas then it should be banned but I don't really see the need to ban it in pubs and buildings which are isolated a bit more so long as there is a clear notice.

Also your comparison with internet freedom & salt levels is laughable. At least if you compare something, make it similar. It's like having a cat and a bird and then seeing which one can fly further.

[-:Undertaker:-]

@-:undertaker:- Sort of an unrelated point, but you say there has been a period of cooling for 15 years or something with no source. Why are people supposed to believe this when you don't even believe evidence when there are sources? I'm not really debating the issue, it's just you can't dismiss information when there are sources because "it's twisted by government" but then you state information without any sources and this somehow is meant to be credible information.

Because this isn't a debate on global warming. If you want a debate on AGW then i'll be more than happy to take part in it, just as I have done countless times on this forum over the years - and i'll supply source after source if you request them. But you see, this is my point - that i've actually looked at other sources and come to a different conclusion and thus am aware of both sides of the debate whereas you've probably just gone on what you've been taught in your science class or seen on the BBC. If you want to research this yourself after reading both sides of the debate, then a good start is to read about the Manhattan Declaration, the Little Ice Age, the Roman Warming and the Climategate I & II scandals.

Oh and just to add, I never said I don't believe all sources. I merely make the case that i'm always sceptical of sources, studies and the claims they make and its why i'll always compare whats happening today to past trends in history. General History is your best source for any argument, whether its guns/global warming/failed states/problems foreign intervention causes etc.


On the actual issue, I think in public places where there is virtually no choice in where you go like in a shopping centre & close surrounding areas then it should be banned but I don't really see the need to ban it in pubs and buildings which are isolated a bit more so long as there is a clear notice.

If you own the shopping centre then I agree entirely, its down to your discretion whether to ban or not.


Also your comparison with internet freedom & salt levels is laughable. At least if you compare something, make it similar. It's like having a cat and a bird and then seeing which one can fly further.

But i'm not comparing the examples themselves, i'm comparing the logic behind your arguments and applying them to what are different examples. I've always found that when people are confronted by hypocrisy within their own logic, they'll usually just dismiss the comparison out of hand because their own logic is too uncomfortable when applied to other examples for them to defend - and indeed their logic is often to moronic that it's often impossible to defend.

If the logic behind the smoking ban is in the name of protecting children or even adults, then why rule out applying it to other case studies in society? that suggests to me that concern of your argument actually isn't peoples welfare, but rather is simply you don't like smoking and would like to see it banned. Of course nobody here will admit to that, because it's not a good enough reason to ban something via legislation.

[dbgtz]

Because this isn't a debate on global warming. If you want a debate on AGW then i'll be more than happy to take part in it, just as I have done countless times on this forum over the years - and i'll supply source after source if you request them. But you see, this is my point - that i've actually looked at other sources and come to a different conclusion and thus am aware of both sides of the debate whereas you've probably just gone on what you've been taught in your science class or seen on the BBC. If you want to research this yourself after reading both sides of the debate, then a good start is to read about the Manhattan Declaration, the Little Ice Age, the Roman Warming and the Climategate I & II scandals.

Oh and just to add, I never said I don't believe all sources. I merely make the case that i'm always sceptical of sources, studies and the claims they make and its why i'll always compare whats happening today to past trends in history. General History is your best source for any argument, whether its guns/global warming/failed states/problems foreign intervention causes etc.


How would you know what I've read? You can't just assume my sources, hell I haven't even hinted where I stand on it because it wasn't really what I was getting on at. You do just dismiss sources you don't believe, and those 5 sources you listed are ones which are biased to what you think.






If you own the shopping centre then I agree entirely, its down to your discretion whether to ban or not.


That's not what I said.





But i'm not comparing the examples themselves, i'm comparing the logic behind your arguments and applying them to what are different examples. I've always found that when people are confronted by hypocrisy within their own logic, they'll usually just dismiss the comparison out of hand because their own logic is too uncomfortable when applied to other examples for them to defend - and indeed their logic is often to moronic that it's often impossible to defend.

If the logic behind the smoking ban is in the name of protecting children or even adults, then why rule out applying it to other case studies in society? that suggests to me that concern of your argument actually isn't peoples welfare, but rather is simply you don't like smoking and would like to see it banned. Of course nobody here will admit to that, because it's not a good enough reason to ban something via legislation.

Or perhaps you should realise you're the common denominator? You're like Taylor Swift, always complaining about how it was the guy when the likelihood is that she is the problem.

Anyway my point was that smoking should be banned in public places where there is virtually no choice in where you go like in a shopping centre (but not necessarily each shop themselves) so long as people are shown clearly if there is smoking or not. Perhaps you should look at public smoking in regards to the harm principle and tell me really how it does not infringe that.

[Kyle]

doesnt get point across

posts vid of irrelevant magician who explains it even worse

[The Don]

If the logic behind the smoking ban is in the name of protecting children or even adults, then why rule out applying it to other case studies in society? that suggests to me that concern of your argument actually isn't peoples welfare, but rather is simply you don't like smoking and would like to see it banned. Of course nobody here will admit to that, because it's not a good enough reason to ban something via legislation.

There are multiple factors behind the smoking ban, it isn't in place solely to protect children. You argue that banning salt is comparable to cigarettes as it’s harmful to you. Not only are you looking at this from a single perspective thus ignoring every other reason why this comparison is void, you’re also failing to understand that smoking infringes on the ‘freewill of others’. Yes, you can also argue that limiting the places from where you can smoke infringes on the rights of smokers but I believe that the benefits from banning public smoking justify the tiny amount of freedom which is removed. Since smoking infringes on the rights of others and banning public smoking infringes on the rights of smokers I’m going to side with the majority which happens to be ‘the others’. The negatives of public smoking far outweigh the positives (the only positive I can think of is FREEDOM which isn’t really infringed upon considering anybody can walk to the designated smoking zone and fill their lungs with as much tar as they want)

[Chippiewill]

@-:undertaker:- Sort of an unrelated point, but you say there has been a period of cooling for 15 years or something with no source. Why are people supposed to believe this when you don't even believe evidence when there are sources? I'm not really debating the issue, it's just you can't dismiss information when there are sources because "it's twisted by government" but then you state information without any sources and this somehow is meant to be credible information.

It MUST be cooling, we've had winters!!!11!1
http://i.imgur.com/uvDcX4D.gif

[-:Undertaker:-]

How would you know what I've read? You can't just assume my sources, hell I haven't even hinted where I stand on it because it wasn't really what I was getting on at. You do just dismiss sources you don't believe, and those 5 sources you listed are ones which are biased to what you think.

I don't dismiss sources at all (well, I do on the count that you should be sceptical with all sources and statistics - especially government ones) but what I do is look at the other sources and statistics that the other side give, and then make a rational decision on the topic... usually using history and simple logic. I know you haven't read on the global warming topic in much depth from your response, hence why when I stated there hasn't been global warming for a period of 15 years you had no rebuttal to this commonly made claim from my side of the debate - as you haven't heard of it before and are unaware of that particular argument. The same can be seen in the response of Chippiewill; below, where he thinks that by posting the debunked hockey stick graph he's rattled me - it suggests to me that he's completely unaware of the opposing arguments to AGW, otherwise he wouldn't have posted a graph that i'd guess he picked up in Science class.

It's unwise to go into a debate when you don't know the opposing sides arguments and have reasonable rebuttals to those arguments.


That's not what I said.

Then i'll have to confront this then, if I own a private shopping centre and I have a smoking policy that allows smoking within the building - why is this the business of you or the state? you are not forced to shop there, you don't have to come into my shopping centre. If it's such a big deal to a great many of you, the fact that you no longer visit my shopping centre will show in the sales figures and then maybe i'll change my mind.

Thats how a voluntary society works, that you can bring about changes - provided it's not via the force of the state.


Or perhaps you should realise you're the common denominator? You're like Taylor Swift, always complaining about how it was the guy when the likelihood is that she is the problem.

Ad hominem. I don't see a problem with free people in a free society deciding their own smoking policies on what is their own property - it's you and the anti-smoking lobby who are advocating the use of force via the state, not me. I never advocate force.

Ask yourself this, when have you ever seen me on this forum argue for something to be banned or regulated by the state? never. Even if I detest the issue at hand (cannabis smoking for example) i'll always argue for your right and the rights of others to smoke it - just as a number of people argued back in the late 1960s for the state to get out of the bedroom and stop its persecution of homosexuals.


Anyway my point was that smoking should be banned in public places where there is virtually no choice in where you go like in a shopping centre (but not necessarily each shop themselves) so long as people are shown clearly if there is smoking or not. Perhaps you should look at public smoking in regards to the harm principle and tell me really how it does not infringe that.

If the shopping centre is privately owned, then no - it's not your business or that of the state. If it's a publically owned area or publically owned shopping centre, then fair enough you could lobby for that if you liked. But it's when you trample on property rights thats unacceptable.


doesnt get point across

posts vid of irrelevant magician who explains it even worse

No argument of any substance put forward and a dim-witted dismissal of a logical and philosophical point.


There are multiple factors behind the smoking ban, it isn't in place solely to protect children. You argue that banning salt is comparable to cigarettes as it’s harmful to you. Not only are you looking at this from a single perspective thus ignoring every other reason why this comparison is void, you’re also failing to understand that smoking infringes on the ‘freewill of others’. Yes, you can also argue that limiting the places from where you can smoke infringes on the rights of smokers but I believe that the benefits from banning public smoking justify the tiny amount of freedom which is removed. Since smoking infringes on the rights of others and banning public smoking infringes on the rights of smokers I’m going to side with the majority which happens to be ‘the others’. The negatives of public smoking far outweigh the positives (the only positive I can think of is FREEDOM which isn’t really infringed upon considering anybody can walk to the designated smoking zone and fill their lungs with as much tar as they want)

Then why have you and others been arguing on the children principle throughout this debate along with the gun debate? but nevertheless, i'm glad i've shifted that ridiculous "its for the children" argument on. So what do we have left? well, the harm of others from second hand smoking - so lets explain this and grind it down to the bone. If a building is privately owned, then the people who go into that building are voluntarily taking that given risk to inhale second hand smoke. If they do not want to take that risk and find it unacceptable, then they do not have to enter that building. Property rights.

Now is that a simple enough explanation or not? and if not, whats the reason for being opposed to it.


It MUST be cooling, we've had winters!!!11!1

Ah the infamous hockey stick graph.

Tell me, have you ever examined any other graphs (or graph models) regarding the temperature of the earth? are you aware that different patterns can be achieved when placing data onto a certain type of graph or that different results can be obtained by including different sets of data from different periods? I didn't think so.

Copying and pasting me the graph out of your school science book just isn't the slam dunk you'd thought it would be.

[dbgtz]

I don't dismiss sources at all (well, I do on the count that you should be sceptical with all sources and statistics - especially government ones) but what I do is look at the other sources and statistics that the other side give, and then make a rational decision on the topic... usually using history and simple logic. I know you haven't read on the global warming topic in much depth from your response, hence why when I stated there hasn't been global warming for a period of 15 years you had no rebuttal to this commonly made claim from my side of the debate - as you haven't heard of it before and are unaware of that particular argument. The same can be seen in the response of Chippiewill; below, where he thinks that by posting the debunked hockey stick graph he's rattled me - it suggests to me that he's completely unaware of the opposing arguments to AGW, otherwise he wouldn't have posted a graph that i'd guess he picked up in Science class.

It's unwise to go into a debate when you don't know the opposing sides arguments and have reasonable rebuttals to those arguments.


I'll reiterate the first thing I said; how would you know what I've read? I've heard plenty on both sides and made no indication on what I actually believe because that's not really the point I was trying to make.



Then i'll have to confront this then, if I own a private shopping centre and I have a smoking policy that allows smoking within the building - why is this the business of you or the state? you are not forced to shop there, you don't have to come into my shopping centre. If it's such a big deal to a great many of you, the fact that you no longer visit my shopping centre will show in the sales figures and then maybe i'll change my mind.

Thats how a voluntary society works, that you can bring about changes - provided it's not via the force of the state.


Each to their own.



Ad hominem. I don't see a problem with free people in a free society deciding their own smoking policies on what is their own property - it's you and the anti-smoking lobby who are advocating the use of force via the state, not me. I never advocate force.

Ask yourself this, when have you ever seen me on this forum argue for something to be banned or regulated by the state? never. Even if I detest the issue at hand (cannabis smoking for example) i'll always argue for your right and the rights of others to smoke it - just as a number of people argued back in the late 1960s for the state to get out of the bedroom and stop its persecution of homosexuals.


The point (which you replied to) what I was making was to do with your choice of comparisons and how you say


I've always found that when people are confronted by hypocrisy within their own logic, they'll usually just dismiss the comparison


But in response to this anyway, I don't paticularly care so long as it's not in areas where there's no alternative choice.

You haven't, and for most things the state should not interfere.



If the shopping centre is privately owned, then no - it's not your business or that of the state. If it's a publically owned area or publically owned shopping centre, then fair enough you could lobby for that if you liked. But it's when you trample on property rights thats unacceptable.


Just ignore the harm principle because you know smoking would directly infringe on that.

[Chippiewill]

Ah the infamous hockey stick graph.

Tell me, have you ever examined any other graphs (or graph models) regarding the temperature of the earth? are you aware that different patterns can be achieved when placing data onto a certain type of graph or that different results can be obtained by including different sets of data from different periods? I didn't think so.

Copying and pasting me the graph out of your school science book just isn't the slam dunk you'd thought it would be.

I was showing evidence that for the past 15 years there has been warming when you claimed that there hadn't been. I was not making any assertion about other time periods.