banning smoking from resturants pubs public places as bad for health?

Question

should this rule apply to eating considering all the media on obese children of today. would it not be wise to stop them eating junk food in public places as this is also bad for health.

Answer 1

Now that would really topple this government can you imagine?
.
Entire families would die of starvation.
Psychiatric hospitals would be full.
Thousands of people would be walking about in a state of total shock.
There would be riots in the streets and we'd have to bring in the army.
Prescott and Brown would immigrate to America.

They can do what they like to the smokers and drivers of Britain but if they dared touch the mighty hamburger all hell would break loose.

Answer 2

You would find too much opposition with the junk food issue because it isnt only the obese who eat it! Kids nowadays will not even eat a healthy school dinner once a day as Jamie Oliver and others have tried and failed. The thin dont care if it encourages the obese as long as they get their burgers, they aren't at risk from an obese persons habit.
Its the same thing with Alcohol. Not everyone who drinks is alcoholic. The threat of disease isn't personal.
Smoking affects non-smokers too which is why the ban should be accepted by the majority.

Answer 3

I'd ban junk food full stop.
With regard to smoking, I am a smoker and the ban introduced here (scotland) didn't really bother me as much as I thought it would. I think it's only fair that if I choose to smoke that I should respect the wishes (and health) of those who choose not to. I don't mind going outside for a few minutes. Also the pubs and resturants are much, much nicer without the smoky atmosphere.

Answer 4

There are no risks associated with passive smoking that are scientifically verifiable.

Consider the 2 largest studies ever:

the WHO announced with much fanfare that those who were subjected to passive smoking ran a 16 to 17% greater chance of contracting lung cancer. What they failed to mention is that the chances of a non-smoker contracting lung cancer is only 0.01%, meaning the increased risk equates to only 0.0017%, which in statistical terms is zero.

The other large study was conducted with a sample of over 35,000 non-smoking spouses of smokers, by scientists from the Universities of Califonia and New York. They found that there was no statistical evidence ot suggest these non-smokers (in a study which ran from 1959 to 1998) suffered greater mortality rates than non-smokers generally from either coronary heart disease or lung cancer at any time or any level of exposure.

I suspect this won't be the most popular answer, because so many people are health facists. That of course is the problem: lots of people with little tolerance and a big axe to grind, overlooking scientific study because they prefer instead to mis-interpret statistics and ban things they don't like themselves.

Me? I'm a militant smoker.

Answer 5

Yes! Good point!

When I think back to when I was a school, I would say there was probably 2 or 3 "Large" kids out of about 1,200!

Now days it is more like 200-300 v 1,200!

Answer 6

Smoking can affect the people around you. Others can get ill from breathing in your cigarette smoke. Other people cannot get ill from you eating a cheeseburger so there's no reason on that basis to ban junk food.

Answer 7

I understand what you are saying but them eating junk food doesn't impact on everybody elses health whilst smoking does.

Answer 8

The reason smoking was banned is because it's bad for OTHER PEOPLE who don't smoke. I can sit next to a fat kid who's eating a candy bar and it won't affect my health.

But so you know, NY just banned trans fats from all their restaurants, so we're on our way . . .

Answer 9

I am think smoking should be banned in all public places

Answer 10

From the way I see it. if you eat junk food you're only hurting yourself. You're not hurting anyone else.
Smoking is hurting not just the smoker but everyone else around the smoker.