|
|
|||
|
Like it or not, smoking has now been banned in enclosed public spaces - including workplaces. This is welcomed by many but opposed by others. Whilst we like the idea of clean air - both indoors and out - do we really need to be nannied by the Government? The arguments put forward by the anti smoking lobby could also be applied to alcohol and car use - are we on a slippery slope - where will it all end? We* explore the reasons for the ban further....July 2007 |
|
||
|
|
The main argument for the total ban, pertain to the negative health risks of tobacco consumption, the effects of passive smoking and the financial costs incurred by the NHS to deal with the problem. Roughly £4 of the cost of a £5+ packet of cigarettes is taken in taxes. Excluding VAT, this earned the Treasury more than £8 billion in 2003-4 (HMCR click here for report ).The NHS spends approx £1.7 billion a year treating diseases caused by smoking (Department of Health - how this is calculated - we do not know) although sickness & invalidity payments can add to this. Harsh as it sounds, the facts are that smokers live less. This equates to less benefits, less pensions, less hope ... ultimately less expense. Actually, sounds like a nice little earner - particularly with all the current furore over pensions. In regards to our health, if the Government really does care so much, why stop with smoking? Based on the arguments against passive smoking, surely alcohol (over) consumption should also be addressed. (It is only a matter of time!)
How many innocent people end up getting injured as a consequence of drunken, anti-social behaviour? How many lives have been ruined by drink-driving accidents? How many nurses and medical professionals have been assaulted at work, whilst attending to patients with self inflicted, alcohol-related injuries? The social & financial costs go on. |
||
|
The question is - does the UK population need to be 'nannied' by the Government or not? The fact is loads of people die each year from falling - do we ban walking? What about choking - do we ban eating? The fact we live in a democracy is being rammed down our throats on a daily basis - shouldn't we be allowed to make our own individual choices?
The last element of our constructive criticism of the passive smoking debate involves cars and road transport. Is it coincidental that respiratory illness such as asthma in children is at an all time high? Why should the millions of people who choose to walk or cycle, who don't contribute to the problems of pollution and congestion in our towns and cities, be subjected to a myriad of noxious emissions spewing from the tens of millions of exhaust pipes, rattling around the UK each day? It is like passive smoking - but on a far bigger scale. What about people who work outdoors - what about their rights? Do they not qualify for clean air?
If you
are going to ban smoking in the workplace based on health risks then
surely the same should apply to car use for n You have to address the wider issue - otherwise the whole topic of sustainable development and the creation of sustainable communities becomes inconsistent and a waste of everybody's time & money. The old adage "Think Global, Act Local" is as true as ever - yet still not implemented. This makes achieving positive change more difficult for us mere mortals than it has to be. Whilst smoking is legal in the UK, people have the right to smoke - even despite of the obvious health dangers and negative environmental consequences. However at the same time, people should have the right not to be exposed other peoples pollution.
Just because I have chosen not to drive and use public transport instead, I don't harbour any ill feelings towards those who do. Driving is essential for many people and no matter how much money is invested into public transport - buses, trains and trams will never offer the same freedom, security and appeal as driving your own car does - even if it is a mostly unpleasant experience, Most driver's would agree, it's better than the bus and I don't blame them.
There is a massive
paradox glaring us in the face. The Government wants the British Public to
buy cars, to keep the manufacturing industry/economy turning over. They
want us to buy fuel as this generates massive amounts of revenue (to give
to the fat cats in the banks! -March 2009) pay road tax, tolls, congestion
charges etc - to generate further income. Yet they don't want people to
actually drive their vehicles. They make it very expensive and
difficult for people which is unfair on those who can't afford to run a
vehicle - often these people are the ones who need to drive the most.
Necessity is the mother of invention and the technology exists to run
clean vehicles that don't damage our health. Why is it not available?
Imagine one day in the future - smokers, jokers and midnight tokers could build bridges and unite together; to demand the right to clean and healthy air indoors, because we certainly don't have a clean supply outside! All we are certain about is that the Government and it's policies have been making us sick - literally. And criminalising smoking in public places, restaurants and bars is not going to solve respiratory illnesses - it will take much more effort than the ban. If the Government wants to discourage smoking, maybe they should broaden their argument to include problems not only on the local environmental level in terms of litter and pollution, but on the global level in terms of deforestation, soil erosion and exploitation of the poorest people from the poorest countries. We would rather see global tobacco production banned for these reasons and certainly not to help protect the health of relatively rich westerners, who are fortunate enough to have a choice whether they want to breathe smoke or not! If people choose to smoke, why not devolve production and manufacture to local people in developing countries, who might be kind enough, if paid fairly, not to add the 599 additional ingredients that the multinational conglomerates do (click here for list of the additives put in cigarettes). It is a topic that anti-capitalists and Governments could finally agree on. Hurray!
Subsistence farming is forsaken for cash crops - land used for cash crops such as tobacco, is leached of nutrients leading to soil erosion and eventually, possible desertification - which ultimately leads to a reduction in the biodiversity of our planet - and for what? To increase the value of the stakeholders shares. For anyone interested in the wider, impacts of tobacco consumption, 'The Tobacco Atlas' (World Health Organization 2002) is available online. It provides a factual insight into the tobacco industry, and provides a much wider view of the global impacts associated with smoking and the manufacture of tobacco products. Whining about passive smoking seems almost laughable in comparison. What do you think? Let us know your opinion, click here to contact us.
|
|||
On another level there is also the environmental implications and the
costs incurred from alcohol over-consumption. Local Authorities have to
clean up the mess - vandalism, vomit, take-away leftovers and wrappers (if
the rats don't get there first!). LA's spend
hundreds of millions of pounds every year dealing with litter and street
cleansing and we wonder why our council tax keeps rising. 
The
term 'Sustainable Development' was defined by the World Commission on
Environment & Development (The Brundtland Report) in 1987 as "development
that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs." Regardless of whether it is
'right or wrong' to smoke, the fact is that people do smoke, drink and
take drugs - we have been for years and will continue to do so for the
foreseeable future. We need to meet the needs of the present - what would
happen if we didn't? 
on-essential journeys (how do you define essential?) The arguments put forward by non-smokers are
credible and valid - Do you think any of them drive? Why on earth should
people have to breathe in other people's smoke? Even more so, why on earth
should people have to breathe other people's car exhaust fumes - made up
of highly noxious substances such as benzene and carbon monoxide!
N
CONGRATULATIONS? For the first time in the modern world we have reached a
perfect, equal balance. Whilst one half starves, the other half is dying
from diseases of excessive consumption. "Some 1.2 billion people in the
world still have too little to eat; the same number today, suffer from
being overweight." (Lawrence, 2004**). A shameful fact.