Education campaigns are far more effective with far less pushback than draconian bans. Let people choose for themselves.
I remember constant campaigns in the past trying to convince the public of the ills of smoking, and it (slowly) appeared to be working. Then vaping came along, and instead of continuing the education campaigns, the health departments tactics seemed to change to "take up vaping, it's better than smoking".
And now, it may just be anecdotal, but smoking appears to me at least, to be on the rise again. I wonder why?
Sounds like the same argument against banning smoking in pubs, which is probably the single greatest health intervention in the last fifty years and now supported by basically everyone.
This reminds me of the pushback against mandatory seat belt use in the US. It's absolutely in the public's best interest to ban public smoking and arguing that people should make their own decisions is ridiculous. Make smoking inconvenient for smokers and allow people in pubs and bars to enjoy smoke free air.
People IN pubs and bars already enjoy smoke free air. The discussion is about outside beer gardens. Where the wind is. There's also nothing stopping pubs having their own rules against smoking in their beer gardens already. Why must the law be used to criminalise those who smoke?
I'm not a smoker by the way. I'm pro-smoke reduction even, as stated by my point about education, but I'm anti-authoritarian and anti every faucet of human life being criminalised.
Absolutely authoritarian.
Education campaigns are far more effective with far less pushback than draconian bans. Let people choose for themselves.
I remember constant campaigns in the past trying to convince the public of the ills of smoking, and it (slowly) appeared to be working. Then vaping came along, and instead of continuing the education campaigns, the health departments tactics seemed to change to "take up vaping, it's better than smoking".
And now, it may just be anecdotal, but smoking appears to me at least, to be on the rise again. I wonder why?
Sounds like the same argument against banning smoking in pubs, which is probably the single greatest health intervention in the last fifty years and now supported by basically everyone.
Health departments are recommending vaping, are they? Are you just making things up?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-around-95-less-harmful-than-tobacco-estimates-landmark-review
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-could-be-prescribed-on-the-nhs-in-world-first
https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/quit-smoking/using-e-cigarettes-to-stop-smoking/
https://www.nhs.uk/better-health/quit-smoking/vaping-to-quit-smoking/vaping-myths-and-the-facts/
That took about 3 seconds of Googling
Fair dos. Better off just banning it. Would do me a world of good not to have the temptation.
This reminds me of the pushback against mandatory seat belt use in the US. It's absolutely in the public's best interest to ban public smoking and arguing that people should make their own decisions is ridiculous. Make smoking inconvenient for smokers and allow people in pubs and bars to enjoy smoke free air.
People IN pubs and bars already enjoy smoke free air. The discussion is about outside beer gardens. Where the wind is. There's also nothing stopping pubs having their own rules against smoking in their beer gardens already. Why must the law be used to criminalise those who smoke?
I'm not a smoker by the way. I'm pro-smoke reduction even, as stated by my point about education, but I'm anti-authoritarian and anti every faucet of human life being criminalised.