Poster
BT Rep: +1
Only about 2% of lung cancer deaths can be attributed to passive smoking. Is it not about time that we tried to save the other 98%? Banning smoking altogether could be a choice or in the UK make Lung Cancer sufferers pay for treatment unless they can prove that they are 'passive smokers'.
Could banning smoking in public places raise that 2%. If people prefer to stay at home to smoke, might that raise the risk to their spouses and children? We wont know this till a lot of years down the line.
Last edited by bigboab; 04-22-2007 at 12:13 PM.
The best way to keep a secret:- Tell everyone not to tell anyone.
Frog Shoulder
BT Rep: +4
I don't agree with banning smoking.
I do agree with taking every step possible to prevent passive smoking.
The reason smokers deny the effects of passive smoking is that, if they accept them then they also have to accept what they are doing to other people, including as you say their spouse and children. They have to accept that they are killing other people or reducing their quality of life, because they want to inhale noxious fumes. Or are too weak to stop doing it.
"there is nothing misogynistic about anything, stop trippin.
i type this way because im black and from nyc chill son "
Poster
BT Rep: +1
Ban the sale of tobacco then. It is happening in a couple of countries already. Bhutan has banned smoking completely. Thought you would like to know that.Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
The best way to keep a secret:- Tell everyone not to tell anyone.
Frog Shoulder
BT Rep: +4
There's a subtle difference twixt that and banning smoking.Ban the sale of tobacco then.
Very subtle indeed.
"there is nothing misogynistic about anything, stop trippin.
i type this way because im black and from nyc chill son "
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks