When the ban on smoking in public was announced, many said it wouldn't reduce smoking at all whilst some idiots used the most unpleasant of threats that "Okay , I'll smoke in front of my kids at home more then". The main argument constantly was that it would have no effect on smoking levels overall. The facts, however, to not bare that out.
The Independent today has news of research which shows that among the smokers questioned, 1.8% have quit smoking since the ban, 15.8% smoke less overall, while 34.1% smoke less when out drinking in bars or pubs.
Perhaps the most bizarre argument now given against the smoking ban is from those the 61% of smokers and 24.2% of non-smokers who now think they now smell of other foul odours such as sweat and stale beer without cigarette smoke to hide these smells.
So if the stats are right, surely deodorant sales have gone up ?
5 comments:
Surely it should read 'roll on deodorant sales...'. Reducing smoking is good but if it encoyurages people to hide bad smells with spray deodorant then there will be a knock on environmental impact.
It still doesn't make it a good thing.
Its not something the state should be involved in (even if you take the 'but it costs the NHS money' argument - the evidence is that it costs more due to living longer and needing even more medical care)
If the stats are right, surely cigarette sales have gone down?
It is irrelevant whether people have stopped smoking. The government shouldn't have any say about where people can smoke. The decision should be up to the people who actually own the pubs.
Yes but who says that Smokers should have more power over non-smokers?
A smoker is causing long term damage to themselves and to the people they are smoking around. Surely the ban is leveling the playing field. Smokers still have the option to smoke. Where as previously non-smokers never had an option to go to a smoke free pub.
Are the costs of someone living longer higher than that of treating a someone who is ill from the effects of smoking?
Post a Comment