Is passive smoking dangerous and is the government wasting tax payers money?

Question

The government is to run an advertising campaign from Monday the 5th March warning us of the dangers of passive smoking it is costing the tax payer £ 4m to run this campaign but somehow I dont think they are serious about this considering the amount of revenue generated by the government on the tax paid by smokersThey are shooting themselves in the foot even if 5% of smokers give up

Answer 1

Passive smoking has never ever been proved to cause cancer,they have summised that it does.

My doctor told me that.

I dont smoke,but I think people who do are being discriminated against,and I thought that wasn;t allowed in this country.

Answer 2

Well, lets get straight to the point. NO, it is not dangerous, there are far worse things in the air, and also things that we ingest. YES, the Government is wasting taxpayers money. If you take up heroin, you can mug old ladies, and still be regarded as a victim, and you can get treatment in the NHS, including free heroin.

I have rehearsed the full argument about anti-smoking zealots many times, mainly female inspired I think, and have tried to argue that it should be allowed in pubs whose owners still want it, and further, that their intolerance will simply encourage this Government to extend its nannying attitude to other areas of life.

This particular initiative seems to be a power trip for the government, because, if they can ban smoking, they know that they can get away with banning anything. The financial arguments don't stack up for the Government either. But it wont stop them, because this issue seems to have taken on a life force of its own, and, in any event, they will introduce green taxes to compensate.

On this particular issue, I have realised how incredibly gullible the general public are to indoctrination. Often, they are willing sheep. It makes my clothes smell, or, I wanted to give up anyway. Well, stay out of smoking pubs. The irony is, that those that make the most noise, probably don't go into pubs very much anyway. They will start squealing when they introduce quotas for drinking alcohol.

I accept the ban in most places. But I think that more leaway should be given to pubs to decide.

I can guarantee that you will get answers from the usual intolerant brigade. And don't believe for one moment that they care about your health. They are hypocrits, and self obsessed ones at that. Horrible people, and stay out of my pub you old women.

Answer 3

the statistics are clear 10 out of 100,000 non passive smoking
12 and one half from passive non smoking per 100,000
the difference is
2 and one half
but because 2 and one half is one quater of the oh so low 10 out of 100,000
the propaganda can claim the statistical lie of 25 percent
yet 25 percent sounds so much better than 2 and one half people out of 100,000 ,its how it is spun to make a case where the real facts would just support a lie a con
a destraction
what of the 10 out of 100,000 that show non smoking cause compared to the 2 and one half
think they saw 2.5 made a case then had to explain it but the facts disnt prove anything but a great excuse to beat up on smokers ,ridiculing and decieving by lie
oppression by any other name is yet oppression

Answer 4

Of course it's not. Running a car engine doesn't kill you, and the gas which comes out of an exhaust really is poisonous - if you vented an exhaust into your front room you could end up with carbon monoxide poisoning. If you are silly enough to believe the passive smoking scare, you should logically stop riding on a bus too.

Answer 5

its less dangerous than the passive inhilation of exhaust fumes where there is no factual evidence that passive smoking affects the normal growth of childrens lungs Children who grow up living near busy roads have been found to have lung dysfunction so in a fair world if there are smoking bans to protect non smokers health from passive smoking there should also be driving bans to protect non drivers from the passive inhalation of exhaust fumesor or is it only smokers who get picked on

Answer 6

There is a risk in inhaling anything. If you burn something, be it tobacco, petrol, coal, or barbecue charcoal, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) will be generated. PAHs will be generated from your car, the power stations that create your electricity, and even from the well-done steak that you pan-grill in your own kitchen. It is these PAHs that contribute to the lovely smell one gets when potatoes are being sauteed.

I'm asthmatic, yet I smoke a pipe without effect. Tobacco smoke is not a trigger for my asthma, but I have to ask, when I call a minicab, that the company sends me a cab without a 'magic tree' air freshener, as these do trigger my asthma. I have the same trouble with cheap perfume (Chavelle No 5!).

I do not feel that passive smoking is any more dangerous than passive car-fume inhaling. All these activities that involve burning create risk, and I have not seen quantitative evidence whereby COPD and Cancer incidences in non-smoking professional drivers are exposed to public scrutiny in the same way that the consequences of active or passive tobacco smoking are emblazoned upon the collective mind.

Smokers are being scapegoated prior to the introduction of the smoking ban in public enclosed spaces in England and Wales. This measure, introduced contrary to the election manifesto of this Government, is proving to be a little more unpopular with both the electorate and the hospitality industry than was originally envisaged. The example of closed and boarded-up pubs in Scotland, and the loss of trade to bingo establishments (as revealed by the analysis of the Rank Organisation) is rightly causing concern, and the Government has chosen to respond by the expenditure of further vast sums of money to vilify smokers in order to justify their policy, a policy that is being increasingly questioned by both smokers and voters. If one makes a pledge in one's manifesto that non-food pubs and private members clubs are to be exempt from a smoking ban, and then renege upon it, what value can voters place upon future manifestos?

PAHs smell lovely, in some circumstances, the combustion of tobacco or the sauteeing of a potato being a case in point. How long, however, before some learned idiot starts a campaign about the burning of incense in church or temple as being 'passive inhalation'. Shall I live to see the day that joss-sticks carry health warnings? Will my saute pan be siezed in case my fried potatoes have a 0.25% risk of giving my dinner guests stomach cancer. When will lemon juice be banned?

And the leaflets informing us of the ban on incense, and the council police who will enforce these absurdities, will still drive around in cars, and MPs will take taxis to the House. Smoker, or non-smoker have to breath these fumes without any choice.

Look out for tax increases, folks.

Answer 7

It is more dangerous to passive smoke those fake cigs coming into country. Gordon Brown must be in tears losing 3 billion a year tax because of those fakes.

Answer 8

yes to both questions, because while the government wants or at least show the appearance for people to quit smoking, smoking does raise a lot of taxpayer revenue. You need to put that into your computation.

Answer 9

As a smoker, (I started smoking when I found the lump in my breast) I am disgusted by laws controlling smoking. Yeah! Yeah! Well, what was it going to do? Give ME cancer? HA

This country was built on Tobacco!

What will the country control next? I hear "fat" children are next!
Let's put their parents in jail for feeding them!

Let's drug test Wal-Mart employees cause they have such a critical job dealing with the public safety!

If the Country really wanted Smokers to stop, GIVE AWAY the non-smoking gum, patches, etc. instead of charging outrageous prices for them!

Answer 10

It's all a fraud & hoax.
The government is quilty of extortion against tobaccao companies.
It's all about Money & Power.
Do people believe that these Anti-Smoking Nazis actually care about people who smoke?
They have an agenda and are making money.