London Set for smoking crackdown?!
- Thread starter snips86x
- Start date
The literal part there is not totally accurate (though I get your point of view).
Smoking has been proven to help people, such as myself, with the aiding of remission and provide protective effects of Ulcerative Colitis patients. The reasons for this remain largely unknown.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
There have been periods of compulsory vaccinations for certain very infectious diseases - ones that can be proven to have significant health impacts on a wide population.
Epidemiology is more than just statistics, it's about looking at root causes of wiser disease spread within communities.
You haven't explained much at all, just repeated the same line over and over again and it doesn't make any more sense the second or third time.
Public health issues such as the spread of cholera and yellow fever in the 1830's show that you can't combat these conditions individually and that you need to look at wider sanitary conditions as well as quarantine to stop the spread.
We're seeing the same public health responses to the recent Ebola outbreaks. You can't solve Ebola by looking purely at individual outcomes.
You can ignore public health is you live in complete isolation, but humans don't do that.
I didn't say alcohol isn't a public health issue, it most certainly is and there is plenty of evidence to support that. That isn't the same for bacon. Also, Sharia law is much wider than alcohol or bacon but I see why you're trying to introduce such an emotive (albeit irrelevant) topic.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Source?
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 1,937
- Location
- Nottingham
Yeah the 'animosity' I mentioned earlier, as has been shown a few times in the thread, comes from smokers basically being inconsiderate.
If smokers had a designated area to smoke in, away from entrances and the like, where non-smokers would not come into contact with them, then this would be the solution. However, it would need to be enforced.
If smokers had a designated area to smoke in, away from entrances and the like, where non-smokers would not come into contact with them, then this would be the solution. However, it would need to be enforced.
I've heard about this before. I dont think its been proven just a lot of first hand accounts. I know 2 people who suffer from ulcerative colitis and they claim smoking has helped them manage.
Could be placebo?
[I'm a non-smoker, never smoker (aside from a few when drunk in my student days)]
To be fair, I think much of the "animosity" seen in the thread is from non-smokers being intolerant. People stating that something should be banned because they don't like the smell! It's pretty absurd, frankly.
Here.
Now, I didn't put "benefits", nor "harm" in the search, and the top three results show information regarding positive reactions to smoking in Ulcerative Colitis patients.
I've heard about this before. I dont think its been proven just a lot of first hand accounts. I know 2 people who suffer from ulcerative colitis and they claim smoking has helped them manage.
Could be placebo?
Could be. Dependant on the degree of improvement, the ends justifies the means.
More information taken from Wiki;
Furthermore, it has been suggested that the protective benefit of smoking in ulcerative colitis is due to the hydrogen cyanide from cigarette smoke reacting with hydrogen sulfide to produce the nontoxic isothiocyanate, thereby inhibiting sulfides from interrupting the pathway.[32] An unrelated study suggested that the sulphur contained in red meats and alcohol may lead to an increased risk of relapse for patients in remission.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
I think the key thing to take away from this is that nicotine is the substance that is related to research which is just one component of smoking. There are plenty of better (and less damaging) ways to get nicotine into your body.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
You can't compare dealing with virus epidemics with using public health stance to justify controlling the lives of individuals. The two are completely different. This is what they (public health heroes) like to do though. They take the most extreme cases, virus outbreaks or improving the sanitation standards of a culture during the industrial revolution and use that as means to justify telling people that they can't smoke or buy large soda and so on.
It reminds of that speech from the film demolition man.
checked for swearing there is none.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
How are they different? Surely quarantining people is controlling the lives of individuals? What about the airport screening? That's a control on the population.
There's an immediate and clear endangerment to health of disease epidemic. There isn't for smoking in public. It's a real stretch to suggest that a public smoking ban is in any way a public health issue.
Yeah perhaps, but I've read various theories that nicotine gum and or patches that suggest they aren't anywhere near as effective as actually smoking a cigarette.
Ironically, the results for the nasty big brother IBD (Crohns) are actually very detrimental.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Mar 2014
- Posts
- 2,810
- Location
- Inverness,
I think this is a good idea, I get enough 2nd hand smoke from people walking ahead of me, the smoke lingers too long and I end up smoking passively, this ban is a good idea.
I thought that was the idea, you gradually lower your dose to help ween yourself off the cigarettes and help quit
I thought that was the idea, you gradually lower your dose to help ween yourself off the cigarettes and help quit
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 3,114
I see passion from both sides on this debate, I for one hate to see banning as a course of action to get results.
I think London is on shaky ground given it struggles to meet air pollutant targets and the smoke ban is being considered on Public Health grounds together with Role Model (a child see's an adult smoking and therefore will do the same)
I think London is on shaky ground given it struggles to meet air pollutant targets and the smoke ban is being considered on Public Health grounds together with Role Model (a child see's an adult smoking and therefore will do the same)
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Mar 2014
- Posts
- 2,810
- Location
- Inverness,
Its true that a ban may be a harsh and cruel way to go about cracking down on smoking, but it is a nasty habit, many of whom do not do in moderation, causing as much damage to their own bodies as they do to others through 2nd hand smoke
the problem is the third side will be ignored. thats us saying its a stupid move for what they are trying to do.
its to help londoners be more healthy, so why not sort out vehicle poloution, oh yeah because its easier to go after the smokers who in the grand scheme of clean air cause very little. but the general public will rally behind it because smokers are evil!!!.
also this report has A line about cycling as opposed to the 4 pages of anti smoking info. if this was for healthy living why not try and encourage more cycling. that again would be too hard as you'd have to cut hgv's from the city centre which wont happen any time soon.
It doesn't revenue from smoking outlays nhs costs several times over.
It's a good idea and slowly reducing smoking is the best way, from revenue, to public opinion etc. It's a slow step that slowly makes it socially unacceptable, people slowly give up, tax is slowly moved to other things.
A slow withdrawal to a point you can only do it in your own home works, outright prohibition doesn't work and especially not in a sudden way
Last edited:
To quit, yeah, but I was talking in regards to the health benefits for IBD.