BBC BLOGS - Have Your Say
« Previous | Main | Next »

Is passive smoking a problem?

10:32 UK time, Friday, 26 November 2010

The first global study into the effects of passive smoking has found it causes 600,000 deaths worldwide every year. Should more be done to stop people smoking in public places?

The World Health Organization (WHO) carried out the study which blames one in one hundred deaths on passive smoking which can also cause heart disease, respiratory illness and lung cancer.

According to the study, passive smoking is particularly dangerous for children, as children exposed to second-hand smoke are at a higher risk of sudden infant death syndrome, pneumonia and asthma. One third of those killed were found to be children, who are often exposed to smoke at home.

Are you a smoker, do you worry about people passive smoking around you? Have you stopped smoking or do you only smoke in certain places as a result? How big a problem is passive smoke? Is enough being done to protect adults and children from second-hand smoke in your country?

Thank you for your comments. This debate is now closed.

Comments

Page 1 of 6

  • Comment number 1.

    Yes it is, but then so is Joyriding, so will we ban cars?

  • Comment number 2.

    "Is passive smoking a problem?"
    Yes, I've heard it can be quite bad for you!

  • Comment number 3.

    Assuming the results of the studdy are validated and verified then yes, something needs to be done about 600,000 deaths that are easily avoided. It seems that the majority are children so maybe an education programme to help people understand the dangers they cause to these children is a starting point. Legislation may be necessary if that fails. I can only conclude that an adult who intentionally exposes a child to passive smoking could be charged with some form of child neglect.

  • Comment number 4.

    I cannot sign in to comment about the drug trafficers!

  • Comment number 5.

    when you see someone die from lung cancer as i saw my father suffer it should change everybodys attitude because it really does happen to YOU and your loved ones. DONT LET IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Comment number 6.

    Of course it's a problem.
    I suffer from chronic chest problems (can't remember the letters!) caused by, according to my doctor 'very bad smokers chest', but I've never smoked. My dad, my ex-wife and my ex-colleagues all lived in a constant haze, but then no one told them did they, so it's hardly their fault.
    I think smokers are already considered and treated as pariahs, so please lets just tell them the facts and then leave them alone now.

  • Comment number 7.

    No. Trouble is my entire family buck this. The only person to die and aged only 64, of cancer was a NON-smoker both passive and actual. All the others lived in a haze of cigarette smoke and all lived past 89. I suspect those that do die from supposedly smoking-related illnesses have another factor in their make-up which causes their illness/death. I have read in a reputable scientific journal that smoking+drinking heavily+extrovert personality type is possibly the cause of deaths claimed to be ONLY from smoking either passively or actually. None of the family I mention above drank heavily, nor were any of them particularly extrovert. I grew up in my parents' smoke-haze - never had chest problems/asthma etc.

  • Comment number 8.

    It's all too easy to blame smokers without taking other environmental factors into account. I don't smoke, and neither does my sister. We were both born in the '60's and lived all our childhoods with two heavy smoking parents, who never left the house when they lit up. We NEVER had any chest problems, in fact we were, and still are fit as fiddles. Of course most people who smoke wouldn't inflict that on their kids now...
    Isn't it odd though, allergies in kids are off the scale.. asthma, excema blah blah blah.. It's too easy to point the finger at the usual suspects, smokers, without looking at what else is happening.

  • Comment number 9.

    Nobody would deny that smoking, passive or otherwise, is unhealthy. But it has to be kept in perspective. The World Health Organisation estimates that air pollution causes 800,000 premature deaths worldwide and a recent US study suggested long-term exposure to traffic fumes increases the risk of death from heart disease and stroke by 76 per cent. The fact is there a lot of things that are no good for us so rather than demonise one particular cause (which is still legal) we need to tackle all causes of pollution. And no, i am not a smoker.

  • Comment number 10.

    Given the amount of "could"s, "may"s and "estimate"s in the report, I'd be taking this one, like most others of its kind, with a very large pinch of salt, although that's probably considered a health risk as well. Presumably none of these 600,000 had any other contributary factors, such as poor diet, or environmental concerns, which would be remarkable given the circumstances reported, or is this just another example of a lobby trying to generate sufficient hysteria, to enable them to achieve a wider agenda? In answer to your questions, yes, no, no, yes, infintesimal and yes.

  • Comment number 11.

    I do worry about passive smoking as although I am no longer with my partner, she has my son and she also has no intention of ever giving up her heavy smoking habit. I urged her to give up while we were together and to no avail. It won't make a blind bit of difference now we're not.

  • Comment number 12.

    So that's 1% of deaths worldwide are caused by passive smoking annually which are 'avoidable'. I would like to see the following before drawing any conclusions:

    1. Breakdown of the environment that this 1% lived in - is it highly polluted
    2. Breakdown of the socio-economic factors
    3. How the WHO proved that there was a direct link between the death and passive smoking.
    4. What % of UK deaths are directly linked to passive smoking and how that compares to data prior to the ban of smoking in public places.

  • Comment number 13.

    Utter drivel, remember the nonsense studies back in the 80/90's that stated reduced smoking would eliminate Lung Cancer. Smoking has been reduced by over 50%, yet Lung Cancer deaths have not decreased, but actually increased. Smoking is stupid, but so are silly studies that fabricate the truth to fit a preconceived agenda.

    BBC you know better, shame, shame from your Canadian watcher

  • Comment number 14.

    It certainly is to me, but with the help of recent legislation, it's not usually difficult to keep out of the way of smokers, who are usually considerate when an obvious non-smoker comes nearby.

  • Comment number 15.

    Surely we should be taxing all these passive smokers shouldn't we? They are enjoying cigarette smoke and not paying revenue on it. Its an outrage.

  • Comment number 16.

    Yes, but so are passive exhaust fumes. Why not compare the two and see what the results are. I suspect passive exhaust fumes cause many more deaths than those caused by passive cigarette smoke.

    I'm a non smoker but it's easy to see a constant vendetta against smokers; even though, certainly in UK, they contribute more to the fiscal economy than they take out and that's allowing for their potential extra health needs.

  • Comment number 17.

    Oh, AND both my parents are alive, and fit as fiddles too !!

  • Comment number 18.

    Yes, I am a smoker.

    ... but my wife is a non-smoker, so I don't smoke in our house.
    ... and many of my friends are non-smokers, so I don't smoke around them.
    ... and I am aware of the dangers of smoking, passive or active.
    ... and I support the smoking ban, but I would prefer to give pub owners/managers the choice of making their establishments "smoking" or "non-smoking" (and I'd probably choose to go to a "non-smoking" pub).
    ... and I am sick of smokers being seen as the cause of all the problems in the world today!

    I always try to be considerate while I smoke.

  • Comment number 19.

    I'm sorry but the world health organisation were the same people that said smoking a hookah pipe for five minutes was the same as smoking a hundred cigarettes.

    From that day it completely discredited itself. So nobdy should ever take a word they say seriously again. They are clearly not real scientists.

  • Comment number 20.

    Orlando and missmoggy (#7 & #8) of course many many people don't suffer from passive smoking, or it would be a severe epidemic amongst anyone older than about 30. But please don't write stuff off just because you know someone who bucks the trend.
    As I said earlier, I have severe chest problems (largely eased by medication incidentally, so hopefully it won't kill me just yet). Never smoked, never been a big drinker, eat fairly healthily, lead a good healthy life. And it's not genetics, coz my big smoking brother and my non-smoking other brother are both fine.
    The whole passive smoking thing is a problem, which hopefully the UK and most of Europe and North America has grasped by banning smoking in enclosed public areas. I certainly don't want to see smokers forced any more into the shadows like 19th century opium users.
    But please lets have less apologist arguments along the 'my gran smoked til she was 98 and it didn't hurt her'. Well maybe it did; maybe she would have lived til 106.

  • Comment number 21.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 22.

    "16. At 12:01pm on 26 Nov 2010, ExpatKS wrote:
    Yes, but so are passive exhaust fumes. Why not compare the two and see what the results are. I suspect passive exhaust fumes cause many more deaths than those caused by passive cigarette smoke.

    I'm a non smoker but it's easy to see a constant vendetta against smokers; even though, certainly in UK, they contribute more to the fiscal economy than they take out and that's allowing for their potential extra health needs."

    Those halth needs are not even extra.

    Think about it. Not only does a smoker pay many times more to the government in tax than their health costs would ever be, but they also die younger. Which actually saves money.

    Sure a smoker might get treated for cancer at say 70 years old. But that is a lot cheaper than caring for that person until they are in their ninties.

    So yes this vendetta should stop. Tax from cigarettes pays nearly the entire NHS bill and the shortened lives of smokers saves the NHS even more money.

    So smokers should be held up as heros in society. People who selflessly give up their own lives to provide money and resources for others.

    Praise the smoker.

  • Comment number 23.

    No. I don't smoke, but other peoples smoke doesn't bother me. I don't believe folks should smoke with kids about. There's more terrible rubbish in the air than fag smoke. Get a life you whinging twaddle heads.

  • Comment number 24.

    Yes... I hate it when I'm waiting for the bus and someone decides to arrive and then have a smoke right next to you.... they don't just kill themselves but everyone around them... they might as well bring a knife a stabe people cos its the same affect!!!!

    I'm so glad the pubs, resturants, etc stopped the smokers

  • Comment number 25.

    Let's just ban everything that isn't good for you. LOL

  • Comment number 26.

    I'd imagine it is, but then again walking the streets and breathing in all those traffic fumes cannot exactly be healthy - don't see the government tackling that. (for those car drivers, just try walking along a main road and taking a deep breath - you will be shocked)

  • Comment number 27.

    600,000 deaths in a world population of 7 billion plus. This equates to circa 0.0086%. Thus nearly nine people in every 100,000 may die of passive smoking. I say 'may' because odds of 11,111 (recurring) to 1 wouldn't even appeal to a British Banker (oh sorry, yes they would -see financial crisis).
    More numerate research and much less hysteria please.

  • Comment number 28.

    Please can we have some science here?

    There is no evidence that passive smoking CAUSES anything. There is evidence that passive smoking can lead to an increased RISK of contracting certain diseases the actual CAUSES of which are as yet unknown.

    There is also evidence that those exposed to second-hand smoke are LESS likely to suffer allergies or the common cold...

    I do wish that medicine would stop playing statistics and start doing some real science. They'd have a better chance of finding cures that way!

  • Comment number 29.

    I'm sorry people, you can't rubbish a scientific report just because your own personal experience doesn't match the results. There will always be a huge range of individual responses, and good for you if you fall into the end that has had many years of passive smoking exposure with no ill effect, but the evidence is there to say that in many cases ill health and death are the outcome.

  • Comment number 30.

    "The first global study into the effects of passive smoking has found it causes 600,000 deaths worldwide every year"
    -------------
    Is passive smoking a problem what a stupid question to ask!
    You surpass yourself HYS

    You might as well ask is being run over by a steam roller good for your health!

  • Comment number 31.

    Let's just ban everything that isn't good for you. LOL


    ---------------
    I think you miss the point it isn't the good or bad for you it is the good or bad for everyone else that is the issue here.

  • Comment number 32.

    Simple... If you don't want to breathe other peoples smoke then walk away from them. If you're standing at the bus stop and someone lights up just walk away until the bus comes and they have to put it out you lazy fool.

    You can't smoke in any public buildings any more so this must be a deminishing problem.

    It's just an opportunity for those that are never happy unless they're poking their nose into how others live their life to have another moan. They must be exhausted all this worrying about other peoples habits.

    As I have said before without smokers we'd have to find another £7bn through taxation or cuts in services so either put up or shut up.

  • Comment number 33.

    Look forward to the banning of:- all motor vehicles; all alcohol; all wars; all industry that causes diseases/injury. I am NOT a smoker but I am getting sick and tired of people butting into other peoples lives.

  • Comment number 34.

    As others before me have said, this study is meaningless without better context, and even then is way too full of unknowns.

    I also think that all reasonable measures to remove smoke from people's environments have already been taken - smokers are already severely discriminated against.

  • Comment number 35.

    Sure thing! I can`t stand people who smoke in public places and kill not only themselves, but also the people around them. I don`t smoke and none of my parents does. The most outrageous thing is that parents smoke when their children are about and give such a 'dangerous' example to them.

  • Comment number 36.

    I want to live to a ripe old age where society ignores me and the rulers leave me to freeze and starve on my own in a squalid room.

    Hmmm...I'll have a packet of 20 please, newsagent.

  • Comment number 37.

    I don`t smoke and don`t recommend the others!!!

  • Comment number 38.

    I also agree with Tio Terry (#3)
    By the way, overall this is probably the most calm and sensible debate I've ever seen on HYS

  • Comment number 39.

    I am not a smoker but the BBC seems to be constantly lecturing people I for one am getting somewhat fed up with it. why not try leaving people alone for a while to live their lives without aunty BBC wagging her finger constantly, a lot of us are over 21 you know.

  • Comment number 40.

    As others have put on here already, what about standing at a bus stop waiting for 20 minutes until the bus arrives? With the traffic going by while you wait, you'll have probably inhaled the equivalent of 10 cigarettes in traffic fumes - pass on the exact amount but you get the picture. Same goes for children with asthma and other breathing problems, they're nearer the ground in their buggies so will probably inhale more of the fumes.
    I'm not saying that smoking or 'passive smoking' are not responsible for bad health - I've seen the results of that - but there are other causes of heart disease & lung problems without blaming people who are paying through the nose for the privilege of standing outside in the freezing cold for a cigarette.

  • Comment number 41.

    Come on BBC!

    The WHO are usually always about twenty years behind the times, so when they publish this study it means that tomorrow or the day after they will be looking for funding for anti-smoking campaigns in Africa/Asia/South America take you pick which. Which we in the rich and decadent west will once again be expected to fund!

    Whats the old saying about lies, damned lies and statistics?

  • Comment number 42.

    "26. At 12:17pm on 26 Nov 2010, One in a million wrote:

    I'd imagine it is, but then again walking the streets and breathing in all those traffic fumes cannot exactly be healthy - don't see the government tackling that.
    "

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Not sure how much is Government instigated, but I'd have thought that "cleaner" fuels, more efficient cars, engines and exhausts and far lower tax for cars with the lowest CO2 emmisions were all pretty positive steps. Not to mention the Clean Air Act and designated "Clean Air Zones" which have all helped to make walking the streets and breathing in far more pleasant than it was 50 to 60 years ago.

    As for any proven or otherwise risks of passive smoking, common sense surely says that breathing in any sort of smoke from whatever the source can't be good for you. I'd personally rather work towards a situation that minimises unnecessary exposure to smoke for those who don't wish to breathe it in.

  • Comment number 43.

    Second-hand smoking can also make you addicted to tobacco. I had never smoked in my life (and never intended to) until -at age 22- my chain-smoking brother came to live with me as we shared an apartment during college. Within months of breathing his smoke I unwittingly developed a craving for tobacco. I did not realize it at the time, of course. In my mind I was still a healthy non-smoker. But I had become extremely edgy and nervous, and I though it was from pressure at college. Finally one day it became too much. I bought a pack of cigarettes and had one. It hurt my lungs but it relaxed me enormously. (Besides, it looked cool.) What I did not know at the time was that I was satisfying a habit I did not even know I had aquired. That was twenty-three years ago. I'm still smoking. I hate it and I can't let go of it. My brother still smokes and has become a wheezing wreck. He has smoked well over a quarter of a million cigarettes. I may have smoked a hundred thousand. So take it from us, victims or idiots or both: Stay well away from tobacco! And keep smokers out of your environment by all means available. They are very, very dangerous to you and your loved ones. Good luck and good health!

  • Comment number 44.

    It is interesting reading the methodology used in this 'research' viz:

    "Methods: The burden of disease from second-hand smoke was estimated as deaths and disability-adjusted life-year(DALYs) for children and adult non-smokers. The calculations were based on disease-specific relative risk estimates and area-specific estimates of the proportion of people exposed to second-hand smoke, by comparative risk assessment methods, with data from 192 countries during 2004."

    In other words it is guesswork, educated or otherwise. The study also makes less interesting reading than a much less publicised WHO work suggesting low income leads to certain premature death. Presumably the DALYs in this were more easy to identify as well.

  • Comment number 45.

    just to throw the cat among the pigeons!

    of these 600.000 deaths

    71 were in europe (well off countries)

    most were africa etc

    so 40k+ in africa die from it but in most of europe 71?

    yes its just passive smoking nothing else at all

    what aload of tripe this report is.

    spin spin spin

  • Comment number 46.

    I don't smoke. I dont like smoke. But if you want to smoke, then that's your choice. Just please don't blow it all over me. The waste product of my vice - coca cola - is urine. Would you like it if I poured that all over you?

    And can I also concur with comment five. I've seen two close relatives die via cancer. Neither were smokers but you seriously do not want to increase your chance of getting it, and putting your loved ones through what I've been through. Always assuming that you actually care about them rather than your own selfish pleasures, that is.

  • Comment number 47.

    We all die of something in the end the real problem are the busybodies who want to tell everyone else how to live their lives, get on with your own business, leave others to theirs, if smoking is not for you do not associate with smokers but lets stop silly rules regarding this, drugs or any other pleasurable experience certain people enjoy. Mind your own business.

  • Comment number 48.

    also to my previous comment:

    dont smoke you will die, passive smoking kills


    im sorry did i miss the discovery of immortality? thought not

    your born you die it is the only certain thing in life

    if you smoke thats your choice
    if you dont then dont smoke but dont go moaning that you have to smell smoke deal with it you whiney pansies. its not your world its everybodys,
    maybe if you hadnt forced us all outside with a ban you would be able to go outside and not smell smoke but you banned it from indoors so we have to go outdoors, you didnt even let us designate pubs or places where we can indoors then start moaning how you hate walking out of the pub through smoke.

    maybe it was better before the ban? you know when there were pubs that banned smoking on there own and others didnt? you know giving smokers and non smokers the choice f where they went? but no you whiney and spat your dummy out came out with a load of tripe reports on passive smoking and used that to ban it.

  • Comment number 49.

    "39. At 12:44pm on 26 Nov 2010, 1stTopic wrote:

    I am not a smoker but the BBC seems to be constantly lecturing people I for one am getting somewhat fed up with it. why not try leaving people alone for a while to live their lives without aunty BBC wagging her finger constantly, a lot of us are over 21 you know.
    "

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I couldn't agree more! I'm sick and tired of the BBC telling me what I can and can't do!! It's just constant lecturing isn't it? I mean some people might call it "reporting the news" or something equally ridiculous, but I'm with you - it's just none stop finger wagging!

    They'll be having a go at me for putting up tuition fees and attacking South Korea next...

  • Comment number 50.

    43. At 12:54pm on 26 Nov 2010, Oscar wrote:
    Second-hand smoking can also make you addicted to tobacco. I had never smoked in my life (and never intended to) until -at age 22- my chain-smoking brother came to live with me as we shared an apartment during college. Within months of breathing his smoke I unwittingly developed a craving for tobacco. I did not realize it at the time, of course. In my mind I was still a healthy non-smoker. But I had become extremely edgy and nervous, and I though it was from pressure at college. Finally one day it became too much. I bought a pack of cigarettes and had one. It hurt my lungs but it relaxed me enormously. (Besides, it looked cool.) What I did not know at the time was that I was satisfying a habit I did not even know I had aquired. That was twenty-three years ago. I'm still smoking. I hate it and I can't let go of it. My brother still smokes and has become a wheezing wreck. He has smoked well over a quarter of a million cigarettes. I may have smoked a hundred thousand. So take it from us, victims or idiots or both: Stay well away from tobacco! And keep smokers out of your environment by all means available. They are very, very dangerous to you and your loved ones. Good luck and good health!

    -----------------

    rubbish! you probably saw him smoking and thought ill give that ago realised you liked it to and now your feeling sorry for yourself making yourself into a victim so people feel sorry for you.

    pathetic

    blaming your brother for you smoking for 23 years totally pathetic

  • Comment number 51.

    Is passive smoking a problem?

    Short answer - No. Because smoking is banned in enclosed public places. Of course the ban should be extended to anywhere the public gather but as things stand it is great not to leave pubs, clubs, restaurants etc., smelling like a stale ashtray. But lets not increase the price of cigarettes too much as smokers unselfishly endanger themselves for the fiscal benefit to we non smokers. The balance is about right.

  • Comment number 52.

    "However, the researchers said were limitations to the study, including uncertainties about the underlying health data and gaps in the data relating to exposure to second-hand smoke."

    I'm pretty sceptical about this report and the reported findings, to say the least...

    When are we going to se research into the effect of vehicle fumes on health? Why isn't this ever reported?

  • Comment number 53.

    I am sure it is, I am a smoker ( although I wish I was not ). Places like pubs and restaurants should have a licence for smoking or for non smoking premises and the sign prominently displayed outside as to which they are. In addition to prevent workers being effected the air conditioning system should be set up properly to ensure that the smoke is directed outside ( as effectively done in Australia pubs ).

  • Comment number 54.

    I don't actually think you need to be an qualified scientist to work out that a sustained period of passive smoking can cause health problems and possibly death if a person was subjected to it long enough.

    We all know that cigarettes contain poisonous and addictive substances that cause harm to the individual actually smoking, so it stands to reason that their second-hand smoke also contains substances hazardous to whoever is close enough to inhale it...I think that argument was put to bed some time ago.

    Does that mean we should do more to ban it from public places? Many people draw the distinction between alcohol and cigarettes in an attempt to argue 'if you ban one you have to ban the other', but there is a significant fundamental difference -

    Alcohol in moderation consumed by a responsible person, as it is by the majority of the population, does no harm to the individual nor does it have any direct effect on other people around them. It only becomes a problem when people drink to excess and when some idiots (a minority) become violent with it. Certainly I agree that more should be done to curb this sort of behaviour. Cigarettes however are virtually guaranteed to cause the smoker health problems short and long term, whether the poblems are minor breathing difficulties or severe illnesses such as lung cancer. They also have a direct effect on the people within the immediate vicinity, who at the very least will have a little difficulty breathing properly and probably get sore watery eyes as I do. There is no completely safe and responsible way of smoking that doesn't affect your health or the health of people around you, even if it's in a less severe way.

  • Comment number 55.

    Propaganda - and most of you will fall for it. One Canadian 'study' suggested that so-called passive smoking is more dangerous than actually smoking! The 'report' concentrated on "fatty platelets" that appear for a short time after exposure to smoke. Good reason to get worried? Well, if it is you'd better stop eating salad and quite a few other foods since they must be equally 'dangerous' as eating them produces the same platelets.

    If public health, rather than prejudice, is the real issue then alcohol should be banned - but it won't, because the quiche-eaters who insist on interfering in others lives like a drink with their coke.

  • Comment number 56.

    Passive smoking along with other combinations is the problem. Living by a busy main road or the centre of a city is equivalent to smoking 40 a day, add that to the qty smoked. So someone who lives and works in the countryside has the benefit of clean air between each cigarette. However, put somebody into a workplace i.e. a pub before the smoking ban then it is similar to smoking none stop for the entire shift.

  • Comment number 57.

    Probably it is - almost certainly in fact, but more importantly...

    Why this on HYS when there are far more important issues to discuss such as profiteering by the energy companies and railways being allowed to have customers pay for their investment?

    The way it's supposed to work is that the business invests its own profits and the investors take a reduced return during a period of investment. The model the government seems to be working to is that the investment returns are fixed and the price to the customer varies whenever the businesses feel like investing.

    That is totally wrong and is because there is no real competition in railways. You do not see the same service being run often by more than one company - that would be competition.

    The way things are we may as well re-nationalise.

  • Comment number 58.

    There was chap on tv the other day saying how he had mouth cancer - yet he had never smoked.
    So what use this study is - I don't know

  • Comment number 59.

    Have ALL environmental factors been taken in to consideration in this study? I know there are certain areas of my city I wouldn't walk around during the day because the concentration of vehicals & the pollutants being pumped out of them severely affect my breathing. Before it starts, catalytic converters etc that are now fitted to cars do not stop ALL pollutants from being pumped out, mostly just the visible ones. Admittedly I am a smoker BUT smoking a cigarette affects my lungs far less than a walk to my local shopping area along the busy road.

  • Comment number 60.

    Smokers have been demonised by politicians and the media for years. A recent study found that alcohol caused more problems than most illegal drugs, but the government were not interested in that inconvenient truth and sacked its author.

  • Comment number 61.

    Smokers' are the new whipping boys? like the private car owner, what about the money they pay in extra tax to the government? When everyone stops smoking who will they charge the tax shortfall? The cream cake eaters????

  • Comment number 62.

    33. At 12:29pm on 26 Nov 2010, afreethinker wrote:
    Look forward to the banning of:- all motor vehicles; all alcohol; all wars; all industry that causes diseases/injury. I am NOT a smoker but I am getting sick and tired of people butting into other peoples lives.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Wars aside, the other things you mention including cars and industry have a positive affect on society that far out-weights the negatives...and i'm sure you're intelligent enough to work them out yourself without me having to go into details.

    For my opinion on Alcohol - see my previous post above...it is something that can and is done perfectly safely without any negative effect on our health or the health of those around us. The fact that there are a minority of idiots who can consume it responsibly and cause problems for themselves and others as a result is something that we should deal with.

    Cigarettes have little or no positive effect on society, and the obvious and well reported health concerns consistently published by the best scientists around the world over the past 30 odd years far out-weigh any minor positive aspects i.e. because you 'enjoy' it. There is no 'safe' or responsible way of 'enjoying' a cigarette...you may not get lung cancer or some other terrible disease, but it WILL have other effects on your health and the health of others around you that are more subtle.

    This will make you laugh...I don't actually think there should be a blanket ban on cigarrettes...BUT I do think it's just crazy talk to deny the above.

  • Comment number 63.

    When a child I suffered from asthma, smoky atmospheres were anathema.

    On going to sea the GP who examined me asked if I smoked, I replied about ten a week, "Oh well," he remarked, "it will probably sooth your asthma." such was the medical expertise of that far off time. I smoked for 20 years, the fresh air at sea however benefited me so much that after I went to sea I only ever suffered one further asthma attack. In my twenties and thirties I did suffer from hayfever attacks, when ashore but not at sea.

    I have not smoked for nearly 40 years and the smell of cigarettes is most annoying to me although I can enjoy the smell of a good Cuban cigar but don't suffer the temptation to resume. Asthma and hayfever are for me in the past. If the doctor ever gives me 6 months to live with no possibility of remission then I might go out and buy a good cigar or two, I must admit that they were very enjoyable.

    Undoubtedly tobacco smoke does have a bad effect on our bodies whether it is from our own use of the dreaded weed or somebody across the room indulging but so also do many other things generated by human activity; exhaust fumes from road, rail and air vehicles as well as ships; chemical sprays used in agriculture, exotic chemicals used in industry, fertiliser run off in our water supplies to name but a few which can be quite deadly.

    Yes do get rigorous in preventing damage to peoples health with second hand tobacco smoke, but let's get a lot more rigorous with all the other pollutants that we are pouring into our environment, some of these are terribly persistent and do not only destroy humans but other harmless life forms as well, look at what DDT has done and yet the chemical industry has gone on to sell us even more deadly products which leak out into our environment and will undoubtedly have a cummulative effect upon other life forms.

  • Comment number 64.

    50. At 1:08pm on 26 Nov 2010, scotty1694 wrote:
    43. At 12:54pm on 26 Nov 2010, Oscar wrote:
    Second-hand smoking can also make you addicted to tobacco. I had never smoked in my life (and never intended to) until -at age 22- my chain-smoking brother came to live with me as we shared an apartment during college. Within months of breathing his smoke I unwittingly developed a craving for tobacco. I did not realize it at the time, of course. In my mind I was still a healthy non-smoker. But I had become extremely edgy and nervous, and I though it was from pressure at college. Finally one day it became too much. I bought a pack of cigarettes and had one. It hurt my lungs but it relaxed me enormously. (Besides, it looked cool.) What I did not know at the time was that I was satisfying a habit I did not even know I had aquired. That was twenty-three years ago. I'm still smoking. I hate it and I can't let go of it. My brother still smokes and has become a wheezing wreck. He has smoked well over a quarter of a million cigarettes. I may have smoked a hundred thousand. So take it from us, victims or idiots or both: Stay well away from tobacco! And keep smokers out of your environment by all means available. They are very, very dangerous to you and your loved ones. Good luck and good health!

    -----------------

    rubbish! you probably saw him smoking and thought ill give that ago realised you liked it to and now your feeling sorry for yourself making yourself into a victim so people feel sorry for you.

    pathetic

    blaming your brother for you smoking for 23 years totally pathetic

    =========================================================================

    Thinking you know someone elses mind and body (that you've never even met before) better than they know themself is pathetic scotty.

  • Comment number 65.

    "Are you a smoker, do you worry about people passive smoking around you?"

    No, I just don't smoke around people.


    "Have you stopped smoking or do you only smoke in certain places as a result?"

    No, I just don't smoke around people.


    "How big a problem is passive smoke?"

    Its not, I just don't smoke around people.


    "Is enough being done to protect adults and children from second-hand smoke in your country?"

    Yes, by law smokers are discouraged to smoke around non-smokers. Though its a law that CANNOT be exercised in certain places; the home for example.


    So, in summary...

    Either outlaw the filthy, disgusting, unhealthy habit completely (and miss out on the 10.5 BILLION/pa in excise duty and VAT) - if you want to protect health - or keep your damn nose out of my damn business.


    As always, thank me very much.

  • Comment number 66.

    46. At 1:01pm on 26 Nov 2010, paul tapner wrote:
    I don't smoke. I dont like smoke. But if you want to smoke, then that's your choice. Just please don't blow it all over me. The waste product of my vice - coca cola - is urine. Would you like it if I poured that all over you?

    ========================================================================

    Maybe a little aggresive, but still one of the best comments on here.

    Like Paul, I really don't care if you want to smoke...but I do care that some smokers still think they have a right fill a public room up with poisonous smoke (that is factually what it is you know) so others who choose not to smoke either have to inhale the fumes themselves or leave...why should someone have to vacate a building just because of you're addiction?

  • Comment number 67.

    Its more dangerous than all illegal drugs, makes you wonder what we actually pay our MPs for.

  • Comment number 68.

    More should be done to stop people smoking in public places, it should only be allowed in designated areas that are closed off from the rest of us, so that the smokers only do damage to each other. Their right to smoke should not give them a right to put my life at risk, in the same way as the law prevents others who want to murder people from exercising their right do so.
    I have never smoked in my life, but suffer from respiratory illness because I grew in a household where my father was a chain smoker. He did not intend to risk my health and that of my brother, but the law told him it was safe to smoke in front of children. He has stopped smoking now, and says he would not have smoked in front of us had he known passive smoking is particularly dangerous for children.
    I worry about passive smoking as people still smoke around me on the streets, in parks, at bus stops.
    Passive smoking is still a big problem and will remain so until it is banned in all public places and, anywhere around children.

  • Comment number 69.

    "Second-hand smoke kills 600,000 a year: WHO"

    Those that advocate freedom to smoke are really advocating freedom to kill.

    There is an argument against that? i think not.

  • Comment number 70.

    It is good to see so many sensible people here. I am a proud smoker (but a social one) and I think it is time that we start looking at the real causes of death in this world. War, famine, pollution (cars and industry) and kapitalism.

  • Comment number 71.

    I am a 'smoker' therefore I am a mass murderer! How odd and strange.

    Oh, think I just jumped down a devious rabbit hole into the realm of Alice's Wonderland logic!

    I wonder how one can correlate the 'evidence' to arrive at such a conclusion!

  • Comment number 72.

    No - not now. So we should all get off smokers backs and let them kill themselves if that is what they want.

  • Comment number 73.

    I am not sure I believe these figures, just how is it possible to say how many would not have died weather they inhaled smoke or not.At best this can only be a guess.It is good to be able to go to the pub,cinema etc and not choke on the fog but lets leave it at that before it becomes a witch hunt.

  • Comment number 74.

    Here we go again on HYS, get ready for "my Aunt Polly smoked 500 fags a day for 99 years and when she died we had to beat her lungs to death with a stick".

    I wish, I really, really, wish that scientists would prove once and for all that smoking gives you cancer. They do not at present, god knows why with all the studies that go on,and on, and on.

    Until they do we have to put up with this foul habit. I grew up with both parents smoking and had bronchitus every two years. I have never smoked or lived in smokey atmospheres and have not suffered in 30 years.

    We none-smokers want this menace to end. Go into a passive smoking area and you come out with your clothes stinking, your hair, your skin, all stink. The reason you can see ciggerette smoke is because it contains ash, which settles on all surfaces.

    This is not about 'freedom' or 'rights', as one comedian said "smokers do not have rights - they have an addiction".

    Smoking is a problem for everyone. It costs a lot of money that actually goes up in smoke. It blocks the NHS, yes I know the tax goes to the NHS, but just think of how much smaller the NHS would need to be without it.

    Companies are now recruiting non-smokers because they are more productive, not 'nipping out' for a 5 minute break every half-hour.

    I support every single initiative that hinders, slows down, annoys, or just stigmatises smoking.

    When it has gone, oh happy day!, we will wonder why we put up with it for so long.




  • Comment number 75.

    Probably for emotional reasons, the press release concentrates on the claimed risk to children, although there is very little statistical evidence to back this up. The vast majority of studies are on spousal passive smoking. The association between asthma and passive smoking is baffling. Asthma was very rare among children 40 years ago when there was far greater exposure to tobacco smoke.
    One very simple measure we could take to protect children in the UK is to allow the provision of places outside the home where adults can congregate to smoke and from which under 18s are prohibited. Best not call them public houses. It gives the impression that they are not private property under the control of the owner. Perhaps smoking clubs would be a better description - no chance of accidentally wandering in and then complaining about the smoke.

  • Comment number 76.

    The problem isnt smoking in public, the problem is that where places are designted for smokers, you will find that the none smokers congregate there also.

    So instead of banning smokers from certain areas maybe the none smokers should be banned from standing in designated smoking areas.

    Its crazy smokers go outside to smoke then the none smokers follow them and stand with them and complain about the smoke an passive smoking!!!!!

    There is nothing worse then hearing a reformed smoker tell you about the dangers of smoking!!!

    "So you have quit smoking! good for you, well sod off an let me smoke in peace then, I dont want to listen to your rubbish drabble about my health, its my body and I will do with it what I want, go and annoy someone else!"

  • Comment number 77.

    44. At 12:59pm on 26 Nov 2010, Daisy Chained wrote:
    It is interesting reading the methodology used in this 'research' viz:

    "Methods: The burden of disease from second-hand smoke was estimated as deaths and disability-adjusted life-year(DALYs) for children and adult non-smokers. The calculations were based on disease-specific relative risk estimates and area-specific estimates of the proportion of people exposed to second-hand smoke, by comparative risk assessment methods, with data from 192 countries during 2004."

    In other words it is guesswork, educated or otherwise. The study also makes less interesting reading than a much less publicised WHO work suggesting low income leads to certain premature death. Presumably the DALYs in this were more easy to identify as well.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------

    That is just hilarious -

    So we can conclude - that smokers are mass murdering villain's, social pariahs and innately evil......on the basis of a guesstimate of undefined probable causes related to the deaths of non-smokers at risk because of an unproven assumption that passive smoking is a probable cause. With conclusions drawn and correlated with data of several variant estimates of risk factors! Mmmm - that's all clear then!

  • Comment number 78.

    65. At 1:31pm on 26 Nov 2010, Some other person with a comment wrote:
    "Are you a smoker, do you worry about people passive smoking around you?"

    No, I just don't smoke around people.

    "Have you stopped smoking or do you only smoke in certain places as a result?"

    No, I just don't smoke around people.

    "How big a problem is passive smoke?"

    Its not, I just don't smoke around people.

    -----------------------------------------------------------

    If only all smokers were as considerate as you, then I wouldn't mind. Unfortunately, I work in the city, and twice a day run a veritable gauntlet of smokers between the train station to my office.

    The worst spot is outside the City University campus on Bunhill Row. The entire footpath is often filled with young smokers who not only don't give a monkey's about the visible pall of smoke around them, but who also can't be bothered to get out of the way of passers-by!

    I know people will say that I should be more worried about pollution from vehicles, but two points need to be made. 1) Vehicle emissions are usually quite dispersed and not as noticeable as cigarette smoke. 2) Vehicle exhaust fumes don't make me choke the way inhaling a concentrated lungful of cigarette smoke does.

  • Comment number 79.

    Smoking is a digusting evil habit.

    Yes - many smokers are not damaged by the smoke and live to be a right old age. My father started smoking aged 7 and gave up after a health scare and a nasty bout of pneumonia aged 77. He lived to the age of 93.

    My mother died of a smoking related cancer an she did not smoke.

    My own lungs have suffered from many years of smoke inhalation since i was born. I do not smoke but every cold that i get soon develops into bronchitis.

    If I had my way, tobacco would be a class A drug and the sentence for possession of class A drugs will be far more severe than the current punishment levels.

  • Comment number 80.

    The press release concentrates on the claimed risk to children, probably for emotional reasons. However the vast majority of studies are on spousal passive smoking and there is very little evidence on any risk to children. The association with asthma is baffling. Asthma was very rare 40 years ago when children's exposure to tobacco smoke was much greater.
    One very simple measure to protect children in the UK would be to allow the provision of places where adults could congregate to smoke, outside the home and from which under 18s would be prohibited. When these last existed they were called confusingly called public houses. Calling them smoking clubs would stop people accidentally wandering in and then complaining about the smoke.

  • Comment number 81.

    Passive smoking doesn't give liver disease
    Passive smoking doesn't kick someone's head in at kicking out time of the local pub
    You don't see ambulances and police cars rushing to the scene of passive smoking

    Smoking is literally NOTHING in comparison to alcohol.

  • Comment number 82.

    I am not a smoker, nor I ever intend to be.Certainly, I worry about people passive smoking around me. The very smell of smoke is obnoxious. I wonder how so many people enjoy smoking.I never smoked, and as such the question of my smoking in certain places only does not arise. All my life I have been a teetotaller.But even then I have three gnawing diseases-heart disease, diabetes and chronic kidney disease.I suspect passive smoking could be the cause. But I have no scietific evidence to draw such a conclusion.My father and grand father smoked. My mother and grand mother did not.Nor are my siblings any heavy smokers.Nor can I attribute my diseases to genetic reasons. In my offices I had to work in hazes of smokes though.
    Something has been done to protect adults and children from second hand smoke in my country. Law prohibits smoking in public places.Smoking is punishable with small fines. This could not be a deterrent.Due to increased health awareness smoking in my country has been significantly reduced. But still many people, both young and old, have the temerity of smoking in publc places.

  • Comment number 83.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 84.

    This so-called study does not seem to offer any proof. Is that because there isn't any proof? Did they add up all the death certificates that said 'died from passive smoking'? Or is it an educated guess better known as a wild guess? Where did they get the number from?

    Over one million people are killed in road accident worldwide every year. Many, many millions more die from malaria and all sorts of other often preventable illnesses, and from drug addiction, wars, HIV, etc.

    Wasn't it the WHO which started the flu pandemic scare last winter when Big Pharma relieved the UK of one billion pounds, which we didn't use and were never likely to use? Like man-made global warming, it sounds like a scam to me. And anyone who says it isn't, show me the proof; show me the death certificates.

  • Comment number 85.

    Probably for emotional reasons, the press release concentrates on the risk to children, although the vast majority of passive smoking studies are on spousal smoking and there is very litle evidence on the risk to children. The association with asthma is baffling. It was very rare 40 years ago when children were exposed to much more tobacco smoke,
    One simple measure to protect children in the UK would be to allow the provision of places where adults could congregate and smoke and from which under 18s are prohibited. To prevent people from accidentally walking in and then complaining about the smoke, they should be called smoking clubs. Like the betting shops of old, children would hardly be aware of their existence.

  • Comment number 86.

    I know, why dont we have a type of sharia law whereby smokers have there hands amputated, then we couldnt smoke could we ? Not a week goes by on HYS where smokers arent blamed for one thing or another. Leave us alone !

  • Comment number 87.

    78. At 1:57pm on 26 Nov 2010, Val wrote:
    If only all smokers were as considerate as you, then I wouldn't mind. Unfortunately, I work in the city, and twice a day run a veritable gauntlet of smokers between the train station to my office.

    ---------------

    The pollutants in city air will do you more harm than passing a few smokers on the way to your office.


  • Comment number 88.

    This is an old chestnut ..how many more hys are going to be about smoking ? the number quoted is very small seeing it is world wide , more folk die at the hands of others ..or on the roads ... or from being obese. please beeb stop trying to tell us how to live , without the revenue from smokers the nhs would be a lot worse off , and i havent noticed the pubs full of non smokers like they said when smoking was banned , in fact they are closing every day, maybe the nhs will close down without the cash coming in .

  • Comment number 89.

    Data from 192 countries: 40% of children and more than 30% of non-smoking men and women regularly breathe second-hand smoke.
    Scientists estimate passive smoking causes
    - @ 380,000 deaths from heart disease,
    - @ 165,000 deaths from respiratory disease,
    - @ 38,000 deaths from asthma and
    - @ 20,000 deaths from lung cancer a year.
    Take all these together and you have @ 1% of world-wide deaths. (The study that I read was paid for by the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare).
    If you add the second-hand victims to the first-hand victims, you get @ 6,000,000 smoking-related deaths/year, of which around 200,000 will be children.
    Imagine the mix of malaria or other infectious diseases added to second-hand smoke and the picture is ugly. Imagine the mix of asthma or ear infections to second-hand smoke and the picture approaches criminal.
    Some Western countries have introduced smoking bans in public places, but some experts say it would be difficult to legislate further? Excuse me? What?
    Someone who smokes on the street, in a park, or any other public place should be ticketed and fined - like illegal parking.
    Furthermore, it should be illegal to smoke inside a home where children are present or inside a car where children are present.
    I am a smoker. I do not smoke inside the home; I never smoke inside a car where a child is present.
    If people respect my right to smoke, I will go out of my way to respect their right not to unhale my smoke second-hand.

  • Comment number 90.

    Passive Smoking ? People are not allowed to smoke anywhere! except in designated areas such as the North Atlantic (single manned rowing boat), the Polar regions (outside) or Siberia (entrance to gulags only). I wish non-smokers would'nt be so selfish and let me decide and the Surgeon General (I think) and doctors and people in hospitals who ask (cause you have broken wrist)"do you smoke?". Yes, so what, mind your own buissness I paid tax on the ciggies.

  • Comment number 91.

    "Is passive smoking a problem"? is the HYS question.

    Based on a latest WHO report.

    As the World Health Organisation are still clearly failing the people of post earthquake Haiti; flood victims of Pakistan. Plus, the WHO are useless at preventing the plight of most women and children, living in poverty across the world - including so called 'advanced' and 'emerging' nations. East, West, North and South.

    So, WHO - focus your funds, expertise and highly paid officials on at least one of the above for decent resolution - that would be progress.

    Shame on you WHO - you are obviously not fit for purpose.!!!

  • Comment number 92.

    #28. At 12:19pm on 26 Nov 2010, Megan wrote:
    Please can we have some science here?

    There is no evidence that passive smoking CAUSES anything. There is evidence that passive smoking can lead to an increased RISK of contracting certain diseases the actual CAUSES of which are as yet unknown.

    ---------------------------

    1) In animal studies there's tons of empirical evidence that passive smoking causes all the same sort of things that direct smoking causes. We can hardly carry out equivalent studies on children, so this is the best we can hope for as direct 'evidence'.

    2) Epidemiology may never truly prove anything, but studies linking passive smoking to disease are now so well established that the probability a cause-effect hypothesis is wrong is astronomically small.

    3) Your argument is contradictory anyway. As you acknowledge, passive smoking increases risk. It is by definition therefore, a contributory factor -- i.e. one of many causes.

  • Comment number 93.

    "The World Health Organization (WHO) carried out the study which blames one in one hundred deaths on passive smoking which can also cause heart disease, respiratory illness and lung cancer."

    * Yeah. The WHO also told us that there was a massive swine-flu pandemic.

    Come on, wake up!

  • Comment number 94.

    50. At 1:08pm on 26 Nov 2010, scotty1694 wrote:

    43. At 12:54pm on 26 Nov 2010, Oscar wrote:
    Second-hand smoking can also make you addicted to tobacco. I had never smoked in my life (and never intended to) until -at age 22- my chain-smoking brother came to live with me as we shared an apartment during college. Within months of breathing his smoke I unwittingly developed a craving for tobacco. I did not realize it at the time, of course. In my mind I was still a healthy non-smoker. But I had become extremely edgy and nervous, and I though it was from pressure at college. Finally one day it became too much. I bought a pack of cigarettes and had one. It hurt my lungs but it relaxed me enormously. (Besides, it looked cool.) What I did not know at the time was that I was satisfying a habit I did not even know I had aquired. That was twenty-three years ago. I'm still smoking. I hate it and I can't let go of it. My brother still smokes and has become a wheezing wreck. He has smoked well over a quarter of a million cigarettes. I may have smoked a hundred thousand. So take it from us, victims or idiots or both: Stay well away from tobacco! And keep smokers out of your environment by all means available. They are very, very dangerous to you and your loved ones. Good luck and good health!

    -----------------

    rubbish! you probably saw him smoking and thought ill give that ago realised you liked it to and now your feeling sorry for yourself making yourself into a victim so people feel sorry for you.

    pathetic

    blaming your brother for you smoking for 23 years totally pathetic

    ----------------------------------

    It looks like I struck a sensitive chord here. Feeling guilty, old chap? How many have you inspired to become smokers? Brother? Sister? Any friends? Children perhaps?

  • Comment number 95.

    do we really need another debate about smoking ? ............. YAWN

  • Comment number 96.

    What I can't stand about smokers is their lack of concern about the well-being of others. Only No 1 matters to them, they stand smoking on the pavement outside pubs completely blocking the way of pedestrians who often have to step into the road and the traffic flow in order to pass by. I think MPs ought to look at this and bring in appropriate legislations to outlaw these practices. The Police too should move these people on or apprehend them on public disorder. Since the ban was introduced, we, the long-sufferring non-smokers can at last take in some fresh air in pubs, restaurant and other public places. Today, I can smell a smoker ten metres away - something I wouldn't have been able to do before the ban....and boy, isn't the cloying stench of tobacco absolutely vile?? How these people can live with themselves, I have no idea. What exactly do they get out of smoking?...Nothing, except rotten smell, cancer, heart and lung diseases, emphysema etc and possibly early death.

  • Comment number 97.

    9. At 11:52am on 26 Nov 2010, corncobuk wrote:
    "Nobody would deny that smoking, passive or otherwise, is unhealthy. "

    I would. The evidence for the dangers of passive is largely made up by statisticians manipulating pre-existing studies so the conclusions match the expectations of the pharmaceutical companies and WHO mandarins who provide them with their careers. The only original study I know was that one from Dundee where they found that out of about sixty people, more of them had coughs and colds in gloomy February than jolly June.

    Many smokers die of "smoking related illnesses". I saw one study where being killed in a road accident where the driver was a smoker was considered to be "dying from a smoking related illness". Bowel cancer is a smoking related illness, and your death is included in the stats for smoking-related fatalities, even though it was probably all those cheese-burgers you ate.

    I saw another study where the numbers had to be "fiddled" down because it proved that more people died from smoking related causes than were actually alive, giving the population something like 175% mortality rate.

    Next: passive breathing causes death!

    Also: I'm quite amazed that they surveyed 192 countries, when there are only 194 in total. How do you think they got on in Somalia and Afghanistan? Or how about the Vatican?

  • Comment number 98.

    81. At 2:08pm on 26 Nov 2010, Bauer wrote:
    Passive smoking doesn't give liver disease
    Passive smoking doesn't kick someone's head in at kicking out time of the local pub
    You don't see ambulances and police cars rushing to the scene of passive smoking

    Smoking is literally NOTHING in comparison to alcohol.

    ----------------------


    Passive smoking may not cause liver disease but see my earlier comment. Passive smoking can be deadly - every bit as deadly as drunk drivers are deadly to innocent other road users.

    Alcohol abuse will cause problems but the odd drink (within guidelines) will do no harm to anyone. Drunken behaviour by yobs smashed out of their tiny minds on strong lagers and weird cocktails is unacceptable. In my yoof, I used to go out with my friends on a weekend and get (fairly) drunk - it is something that many youngsters did and still do but I don't remember the drunken problems that seem to happen now a days. Getting drunk too quickly on alcoholic drinks that are much stronger than they were in my day is part of the problem and I still dislike beer stronger than 4%.

    Tobacco is a habit forming drug and, for most people, it will not take that long to get hooked. Alcohol will become habit forming only after abusing the drink.

  • Comment number 99.

    I notice we have the Righteous anti-smokers out in force throwing around words like 'smell', 'obnoxious', 'disgusting', etc. And others claiming that their relatives all died because of passive smoking - with no proof offered.

    "Something must be done!", they cry. "The government must do something!" "Smoking must be banned!" "Smoking must be classed along with other drugs!"

    What is surprising is that no-one has said, as far as I can see, that: "We must have a war on smoking." And therein lies the problem. We never seem to learn from history, do we. 'Wars' on things don't work. Banning things doesn't work. Look at Prohibition in the US. It didn't work. The one trillion dollars the US has spent on the war on drugs hasn't worked. And ultimately trying to ban smoking - and it might happen if the Righteous have their way - will not work.

    The smoking ban in pubs has worked on a practical level, but the rate at which pubs have been closing increased dramatically because of the ban - and the ban came before the recession. Instead, smokers buy supermarket alcohol, stay at home and smoke in front of their kids. They got round the ban. People always get round bans.

  • Comment number 100.

    "Is passive pollution of our water, air and food supplies a problem"?

    "Will you cope with increasing energy costs"?

    "Is the World Health Organsiation (WHO) failing World Health"?

 

Page 1 of 6

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.