WHO do they think they are?

[bipolarbear]

I think our resources would be better spent trying to prevent the causes of death which people don't purposefully inflict upon themselves.

[C0ckney]

the public smoking ban in wales is alright, going out in less smoky and your clothes don't stink afterwards. however it does mean that you can smell every smelly ****'s BO, farts and stale puke in pubs, bar and nightclubs.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by bipolarbear
I think our resources would be better spent trying to prevent the causes of death which people don't purposefully inflict upon themselves.

It's statistics.

Take any 1000 newborns. A certain number of them will take up smoking at some point in their lives.

Do nothing and x will take it up. Do something to discourage smoking and a fraction of x will never smoke. Ban the substance and just about zero will ever take it up.

What would you choose? Do nothing? Do something? Ban it?

Keep in mind we are speaking of a substance which is supposed to be a leading cause of early death. Some of those dead may be children or the elderly (among others) who are exposed to smoke in their homes. Others will be people who took up the habit before health warnings and who have been unable or unwilling to quit because of addiction. Still others will be people who take up the habit despite the current climate due to peer pressure or other social factors. What would you choose?

[bipolarbear]

My choice? Allocate some resources to allow for the implementation and enforcement of certain regulations to keep people who don't want it away from it (like those which ban people from smoking within x feet of a building). The rest can be spent on other forms of philanthropy such as Neglected Tropical Diseases

Two questions though...

How do we know that banning will be so effective?

Counting those who took up the habit before the implementation of health warnings seems a bit out of scope. Doesn't that artificially inflate the death rate by tobacco in the face of all of the measures being taken to curb its use?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by bipolarbear
My choice? Allocate some resources to allow for the implementation and enforcement of certain regulations to keep people who don't want it away from it (like those which ban people from smoking within x feet of a building). The rest can be spent on other forms of philanthropy such as Neglected Tropical Diseases

Philanthropy?

This is supposed to be a major public health issue. Tobacco was supposed to be the leading cause of death in the United States in 2000.

Why is a substance with upwards of 400,000 deaths in a single year in a single (admitadly large) country still legal to produce and sell?

Two questions though...

How do we know that banning will be so effective?

Because tabacco isn't like any other drug or alcohol.

Banning the importation, manufacture and sale of it would drastically reduce the number who would take it up. I hazard to guess it would virtually eliminate the habit within a very short time.

Counting those who took up the habit before the implementation of health warnings seems a bit out of scope. Doesn't that artificially inflate the death rate by tobacco in the face of all of the measures being taken to curb its use?

Why? These are people who are supposed to face a far higher risk of early death than if they didn't smoke.

I'm talking about dead people and why they died. Why are we happy to allow the continued manufacture and sale of a product that is widely reported to kill people?