Childhood asthma 'admissions down' after smoking ban

[-: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.