|low graphics version | feedback | help|
|You are in: Talking Point|
Sunday, 27 May, 2001, 16:21 GMT 17:21 UK
Smoking: Personal choice or public health issue?
Select the link below to watch Talking Point On Air
Pictures of diseased lungs and rotten teeth could soon be appearing on the front of cigarette packs in Europe.
The European Parliament has approved the use of such shock tactics to try to get people to kick the habit.
Governments in developed countries are trying to reduce smoking through advertising restrictions and court action against the tobacco industry. But they are also increasingly reliant on the billions they collect on taxes from cigarette smokers.
Can they do both or are they guilty of hypocrisy?
Tobacco companies are expanding their markets in places, such as India and China, where regulation is less severe. They claim they are creating wealth and employment through a legitimate business.
But are their promotional methods justified? And more generally, is smoking a personal choice or a public health issue that has to be regulated?
We discussed this issue on Talking Point ON AIR, the phone-in programme of the BBC World Service and BBC News Online. Diana Madill was joined by anti-smoking campaigner Doreen MacIntyre.
This Talking Point is now closed. Read your comments below.
Prohibition of alcohol in 1920s America did not work any more than the current prohibition of certain drugs. All responsible governments can do is to tax and ban advertising and promotion of harmful and unhealthy substances like tobacco, alcohol, other drugs and meat. When the whole of society is expected to pay for medical treatment of users and their victims, and all the other karmic consequences, then it is certainly not just a matter of personal choice.
Adam, Coventry, England
Cigarettes or rather the tax they raise (stealthy or otherwise) is crucial to pay for the diseases that a smoker will catch. Keep cigarettes, tax them harder across all of Europe, thus defeating the smugglers, and treat it like a health insurance so their medical care will be self funded. I don't want to stop people smoking, but I object quite strongly that my taxes will be funding the medical care that smokers WILL require. I'm sure private medical insurance reflects this, so why must the innocent (non-smoking) taxpayer suffer?
We in the "civilised" world tend to live in democratic nations where people have the freedom of choice. By all means let people smoke (the tax they pay actually pays for the health service more than once over in the UK) but give people the freedom not to smoke also. Restaurants, pubs etc. should provide spaces for both smokers and non-smokers, with communal areas being non-smoking. Where they are unable to provide separate smoking/non-smoking facilities, they should be completely non-smoking by regulation.
Chris Packett, Wakefield, England
As a non-smoker, my interpretation of the habit is still one of glamour, status and fashion. There may be a hundred pictures of gruesome body parts, but one image of an attractive person smoking makes the young forget about the former and attempt to feel like, or be the latter. Actors do it, models do it, pop stars do it - it's all very well using imagery to try to deter potential smokers, but it is imagery that makes people want to smoke, especially when "the beautiful people" are doing it.
In Canada, we already have those gruesome illustrations on the front of cigarette packets but they don't do a bit of good at all. If a person smokes, those depictions are not going to deter them one iota. I am tired of being over-regulated by governments, especially when nothing much is done about drink-driving and the tragic consequences that it entails. If governments want to save lives, then they should concentrate on banning liquor and consider printing gory illustrations on every bottle of intoxicating liquor. While they are at it -they might as well ban the use of garlic so that the rest of us are not suffocated by the incredible and offensive odour that emanates from someone who has ingested it.
Philip, London, UK
Do those who oppose paying for the health care of smokers also oppose paying for the treatment of heart disease, joint replacements, cervical cancer, trauma victims etc? All of these are contributed to by "personal choice". What about suicide attempts and pregnancy? If there is a stupider or less fair idea, I haven't heard it. Something about glass houses comes to mind.
I am a smoker. I started when I was too young to realise the dangers but I don't smoke in my house, or near any of my children and never smoked while I was pregnant. I hate to see women smoking with a bump in front of them - they are the selfish ones. And if anyone who comes into my house wants to smoke, they to have to go outside. But I do get angry with these people who seem to think they are better than me and make out that I shouldn't have the right to smoke. Well, if that's the case, they should be made to walk everywhere. I cannot drive a car but I have to breathe all the fumes from the cars that pass me. So you see it goes both ways. You car drivers who are non-smokers, you're just as bad.
Dave M, Wales UK
Everyone agrees that smoking is bad for health and that Governments have a duty to try to persuade people to give up or better not start smoking. But the EU proposals to show gruesome pictures on cigarette packets goes too far.
The British Government tried similar scare tactics with its early HIV/AIDS education campaigns which featured pictures of tombstones and the grim reaper. It was a total failure.
Young people in particular are not persuaded by images of illness and death which they feel will never affect them. It is far better to concentrate on things that matter to them - their looks and perceived attractiveness to members of their peer group. Anti-tobacco advertising needs to reinforce images that it is not cool to smoke - not that it kills you, even if it does.
We should not separate one version of unhealthy air pollution from other forms such as industrial of vehicle pollution.
Will those non-smokers who are so concerned about suffering health problems as a result of smoking, please refrain from polluting the air with their vehicles.
I find it very easy to avoid polluted air from smokers, but impossible from vehicles yet at the same time I have to pay taxes to subsidise the health problems caused by smoking and also the health problems caused by vehicle pollution - as well as the cost of accidents and the obesity-related health problems.
Of course worse of all, is the obese, car-using smoker.
Guy Chapman, UK
As a non-smoker, I strongly feel smoking is a disgusting habit. Not only do they destroy their own health, smokers are the only group of people who seem to be able to get away with polluting closed environments i.e. offices, shops, restaurants and bars. They have the unique ability to impose their smelly habit on others. Most importantly they seem to have the given right to litter! Addiction is merely an excuse and weakness of the individual.
Smoking is without doubt one of society's most critical health hazards. Smoking clearly should be banned from all public areas but in addition governments have a responsibility to protect the user from himself by restricting the manufacture of smoking devices. There are times when the common good - and common sense - outweigh any freedom of choice issues and smoking is one of them.
What I would like to say to the smokers is, first of all you are burning your money and then you are burning your insides. What is the point?
Peter Haslett, Australia
I'm for a policy of mutual respect, where smokers aren't persecuted, but where non-smokers aren't overly exposed to smoke. With smoking/no-smoking areas, modern ventilation and a little common sense, you can solve 90% of the problem. Heavily discouraging on health grounds? What about fatty foods, fossil fuels, fast cars, alcohol, and sunbathing? Typical answer would probably be to discourage the ones that don't affect me.
I find it strange that some people compare the problems of passive smoking with that of the pollution of cars. As far as I can tell, smoking is a voluntary pastime whereas, unfortunately, the use of the internal combustion engine is absolutely necessary for the continuance of the society we live in. In addition, there is a lot of research going into improving engines, to decrease emissions. What is being done by the tobacco companies to reduce the emissions of their products?
Diaa Eldin, Omdurman Sudan
It is obviously a lesser-known fact that the tax revenue generated from cigarette sales pays for the entire police budget of this country. In addition, as a rule smokers die younger than non-smokers hence saving the NHS a great deal of time and money, freeing up hospital beds for sanctimonious non-smokers. Is it the case that mountain climbers should be prevented from climbing, as their activities jeopardise their own safety? I think not. This country's laws are based on liberal traditions. Smoking mountain climbers' days are obviously numbered.
If someone wants to smoke in their house, that's fine by me, and personal to them - and their freedom of choice. If someone imposes their smoking on me or, worse, my young family in a public place, I find that objectionable. They are impacting on MY families right and freedom to breath clean air, and when you have never smoked, that means a lot.
As a physician, an American citizen, and a fellow who lost his mother to tobacco, I would be grateful for my government's transferring its financial resources from anti-cocaine and marijuana effort to the much more desperate fight against smoking. Smoking is much more dangerous than pot or cocaine, and we are blowing billions in the wrong direction.
I live in Japan where cigarettes cost around 50 pence a packet. I can tell you that everyone smokes and it is almost unbearable in work and restaurants. I think smoking is not just a personal habit because it effects everyone around the smoker. It is a selfish and unhealthy act that should be regulated.
Mike, London, (Australian)
I wonder if the European Parliament will also pass a law which requires pictures of half cooked brains to be placed on cell phones, pictures of diseased hearts and livers to be placed on alcohol and pictures of various cancerous growths to cover our cars?
Cigarettes should be banned. A 'Just do it' kind of a scenario. The business is not legitimate: it sells misery and death. More money and energy has to be spent on trying to undo the smoking wrongs, than the supposed wealth it creates.
In as much as smoking could be seen as private choice, it constitutes public hazard. The activities of developing countries in reducing the rate of smoking should not be seen as an act of hypocrisy. Developed countries should be seen as such, because globalisation has made nonsense of the efforts made by the developing world.
Why do the anti-smoking lobby not stop using private cars if they are so worried about the effects of passive smoking? I am a smoker and fully accept that it can be unpleasant at times for other people but less so than having exhaust fumes spouting out even more hazardous chemicals. For this reason I choose to use public transport or a bicycle. None of the self-righteous non-smokers posting comments in this forum seem to appreciate that many of their daily activities and/or purchases contribute even more to the problem.
Smoking is certainly a horrible habit and non-smokers have my every sympathy. Please remember, though, that rudeness, ignorance, hypocrisy and a lack of compassion are equally unattractive.
I'm a UK ex-pat currently living in San Francisco and can testify to the success of the anti-public area smoking rules enforced in California. The rules making smoking prohibited in places of work, bars, restaurants and public transport have had a knock-on effect resulting in a general decrease in the amount of smokers. It's rare to get a face full of smoke while walking along the street. That's not something that can be said of the UK, where the aroma of smoke is noticeable within minutes of leaving Heathrow. Incidentally, California recently reported a near 30% reduction in cases of lung cancer since the rules were introduced.
The health implications of smoking, drastic though they appear to be, are the responsibilities of the smoker. In the context of environments shared by smokers and non-smokers, the issues are things like density of smoke, and time spent in the environment - for example, I refuse to believe that there can be serious health implications for a non-smoker sharing an open-air railway platform with a smoker for a few minutes, although I willingly accept the possibility of such implications for a non-smoker spending long periods of time in a dense smoky environment, perhaps a barman or such like.
There is a need for simple compromise - surely those with a violent intolerance to smoke can order their lives in such a way as to fit in with the vast bulk of the population whose attitude to smoking lies somewhere on the scale between distaste and desire.
The argument that smokers should be forced to somehow pay for medical treatment in the event of smoking-related illness is laughable - indirect taxation on tobacco products in the UK draws in a huge surplus over out goings on tobacco-related illness.
I have two secondary points regarding this issue. Many people in this discussion have suggested banning or increasing tax on tobacco to stop people smoking. This simply doesn't work, if tax goes up, black market trade goes up. If it is prohibited it will become like any other illegal drug. I agree that addictive drugs are bad for society over all, but the problem must be solved culturally, not with legislation.
Secondly several people so far have mentioned that eating GM food is unhealthy, as if this was a well-established fact. They compared it to smoking, when in fact it is a very tenuous conjecture, based on fear of the unknown and media hype.
My father has just given up smoking with no help from any drugs. As he always had a cigarette with his drink, he has overcome the craving by having a cake, biscuit or chocolate snack each time he has a drink. The side effect of this is that his weight is ballooning, hence it may not be the cigarettes that kill him but the obesity.
In a liberal society people should have the choice of life. Passive smoking cannot be cited as a reason to ban smoking unless all other pollutants are banned - for example cars.
I am a bad asthmatic and many times I have had bad attacks due to stupid tyrants smoking in public places.
Daniel Bardwell, Hertfordshire, UK
It's hard to understand why people spend around £2,000 a year on something to kill them self's. That's more than £100,000 in average lifetime. You can explore the world with that sort of money.
I would say 99% of people start smoking to show off, thinking it will give them a cool image, than they get addicted and find it very hard to quit. Lots of people might think the taxes, which are generated from tobacco, are very good for the Economy; in fact the cost of treating smokers from diseases is much higher.
I am fed up to the eyeballs with the hypocrisy of EU politicians and authorities. Walk into any European Union building here in Brussels and whilst there are no-smoking signs throughout, you bump into smokers at the reception desks, in the corridors and in offices. I am asthmatic and did not relish having puffs of smoke blown into my face on two occasions in the past few weeks in the said buildings.
Antonio de Luca, Canada
From the discussions which have been going on, it is obvious that most people, even smokers themselves, are fed up with this revolting habit.
The first steps which can be taken is a clear ban on smoking in public places and at work, as well as slowly but surly reducing the worldwide production of cigarettes. This may eventually see the end of the cigarettes. This of course has to be a worldwide government effort.
Surely the main point about smoking is that those that wish to pursue
their lives without
having to breathe in the smoke of others should have the freedom to do
so. When I take the Eurostar from Paris to London I have to walk through
the smoking car to get to the buffet car: I should not have to do this. I
can't go to pubs without breathing in smoke and my clothes reek of
I watched my father die agonisingly from emphysema. Even when he knew it was killing him he would retire to the end of the garden for an illicit puff. So personally I could never smoke regularly. However, I can smoke occasionally without being addicted.
Jeff Granger, Chicago, USA
A couple of years back the Swedish government drastically raised the tax on cigarettes and the number of smokers nose dived. Unfortunately so did the tax revenues, so, on pretext of making
less lucrative, the tax was lowered again.
I'm a non-smoker and have been recently diagnosed with having asthma. Basically I choke on every thing which causes irritation to my breathing system - including smoke. I find it hard to go to places as bars, etc and not find a place for non-smokers.
Shouldn't the dialogue surrounding smoking be predicated upon the facts? The fact is that smoking doesn't "cause" lung cancer, although it does multiply the risk that those prone to lung cancer will contract the disease.
Bob Kelly, UAE
In Hong Kong there is already talk of setting up a 'Tobacco Control Force', with 'Tobacco Control Officers' able to take immediate steps against anyone alleged to be smoking.
I started smoking at the age of 16 during the early 1950s. Smoking was made to seem attractive and normal by advertising, and particularly by movies. Peer pressure and chain-smoking parents were additional factors. Many 16-year-olds are not capable of "making that personal choice" as claimed by the tobacco companies. Their claim that tobacco advertising is simply informing the public is absurd nonsense.
I made my personal choice when I was 30 and succeeded in quitting.
Dr. Hans-Peter Laqueur Cyprus
In Uganda, tobacco is a major source of revenue for the government. I therefore
don't see our government coming vigorously to play it's part in the campaign
against smoking. This is a time when the widening of the tax base and attaining a
higher economic growth are a matter of urgency for Uganda.
I watched my lovely grandfather die of emphysema, which is a chronic lung disease, caused by smoking. He struggled for breath 24 hours a day for about 25 years and spat up phlegm. Also my own father was in intensive care for a fortnight after a brain haemorrhage probably caused by smoking - he is now paralysed down one side. I tried a few fags when I was on holiday away from my parents at the age of 12 but not for long enough to get addicted - so I am lucky and my 14 year old niece and my sister (a nurse) insists on smoking.
Marek Taborsky, Prague
I personally do not smoke.
However, almost every one of my friends, age of 18 to 26, smoke cigarettes.
In fact, I respect their right to smoke and have never suggested them to quit smoking, even though
it's scientifically proven and worldly known that cigarette smoking can cause various form of cancer.
Stephanie Cooper, London
If a smoker claims smoking is a personal choice, then a non-smoker can say that prohibiting smoking or discouraging smoking is his personal choice. It is important to note that smoking does not merely affect the smoker himself but also people subjected to the second-hand smoke. This is DEFINITELY a health risk.
It is in no way a personal choice: other people have to repair the damage.
If funds from tax are needed, then they will still be paid, from 'fag' duty or otherwise.
Smoking can be a public nuisance to those who do not smoke. Aside from the awful stench which clings on to your clothes, and the plethora of conditions which smoking (actively and passively) is said to cause, I find it nauseating.
Your comments before we went ON AIR
Smoking is definitely NOT something people are free to do. The vast majority of smokers start in their teens, due to pressure from friends and tobacco advertising. That is not a free choice. And, having smoked for a short while, they are unable to stop. That is certainly not a free choice.
Martin Clarke, London UK
Sorry, I just don't see the debate here... as a non-smoker, the only thing I have to ask about smoking is¿ What's the point?
I think smoking is good
The more people who smoke and die from it the more space there is in the world for normal sensible people. Call it population control if you like.
The tobacco companies or patients should pay the bill for all NHS treatment for smokers instead of the general non-smoking public.
This is less an issue of 'free will' than some suggest. Nicotine is highly addictive, so that once one starts smoking for any reason it is extremely difficult to stop. This is the hidden danger of the substance and the reason why comparisons to wine, autos and other 'personal choices' don't work.
Banning tobacco it its present addictive form is a certainty in this century. If a non-addictive replacement is offered, it will probably vie for popularity with anchovy flavoured chewing gum.
James Penlington, London, England
I think that what would be more useful would be a ban on people who have taken up or carried on smoking over the last 20 years. These people have done so through personal choice whilst ignoring all the warnings. Legislate to stop people benefiting through stupidity or laziness.
I have two thoughts on this - as a non-smoker and an anti-smoker:
I have spent some time recently working in California, and it is an absolute joy to be able to go to a restaurant, a bar or a shop, and know that the air will be free of tobacco smoke. My other thought is what I believe is the way to ban smoking altogether. You don't ban smoking, you ban "starting" smoking. You make all smokers register over the period of, say, a year, and then you make it illegal for anyone who isn't a registered smoker to buy tobacco. Once the initial registration period is passed, you stop anyone else from registering, and as time goes on, the number of smokers will fall as they die off. In 75 years time, there will be no more registered smokers, and you simply stop selling tobacco. No-one is forced to stop smoking, but the scourge will die out over time.
Julia Rees, Reading, England
If governments were serious about trying to get people to stop smoking, they would either make smoking illegal or else push the price up to something like £50 for a pack of 10. Ciggies bring in a lot of TAX revenue for governments so why would they want people to stop smoking?
I'm quite happy for anyone to condemn themselves to a slow death via lung, throat, tongue or bowel cancer as long as they accept the responsibility for it. That means paying what it actually costs the NHS for their stupidity and not inflicting it on others. I went to a bar in San Francisco and it was so nice not to emerge from there with my hair and clothes not stinking of cigarette smoke. So smoke if you want just don't inflict it on others.
Dave Harvey, Swansea
To Jennifer in London, it's estimated that in the UK for every £1 a smoker costs the NHS they pay £7 in tax. I don't smoke but it keeps my tax burden down! Let them kill themselves.
I think we should ban work: the stress is very bad for our health.
Tibor Saringer, Budapest, Hungary
Yes, smoking causes health problems and second hand smoke affects non-smokers. But quite honestly, there are so many more polluting and toxic products in my environment, that I feel smoking is the least of them. One only needs to read the label of a typical processed food product, or step outside in a city and take a deep breath. Why are these things ignored, when they affect so many other people?
Is smoking a personal choice or a public health issue? It is both.
Go ahead and smoke all you want. Just don't do it in places where people who choose not to smoke, gather: Restaurants, theatres, bars and shops would be a good place to start.
California's public smoking laws made it a great place for me to live as a non smoker.
Yes of course the government is guilty of hypocrisy in the manner in which they deal with cigarette smokers. Banning it would be useless and unenforcable, but banning advertising from all public places, including the media, billboards and at point of sale could be useful instead. High taxes on cigarettes and alcohol should be used to help those addicted to these dangerous drugs, not used by the government to prop up other services which should be funded by taxing the rich.
Ultimately, however, both the cigarette and alcohol industries are very powerful pressure groups, whose influence should not be underestimated. It only takes a look across to the USA, where George Bush Jnr has given massive concessions to the tobacco industry in return for financial support during the recent presidential elections, to see that ultimately the government is likely to bow to pressure from an industry which will do anything to protect its massive profits.
I despise comments that smokers should not be given medical care. Look at all the other pollutants on this earth, irradiated areas in Russia, oil spills and factories spewing out poison gases each day. Come on guys lets look at the big issues.
And yet, while there is unrestrained
enthusiasm for attacking tobacco
advertising, we live in a society
dominated by advertising to
encourage us to eat more food.
No one has suggested discouraging
children from gorging themselves on
junk food and confectionery, by
banning sales to them. No government health
warnings about excess food consumption
have even been suggested.
Unlike tobacco, cutting down excess
food consumption will not hurt the
tax system. And, by discouraging the
excesses of agribusiness, it might
help to prevent the environmental
damage that we have seen in recent
Funny old world, isn't it?
Hands up I admit it! I am a smoker! sorry I am, but a considerate one, I don't smoke at home or at work, I don't light a fag if people are too near in stations/bus etc. I was railroaded into smoking at 15 and 10 years on still puffing away. However I have paid a lot in tax, in 10 years I have probably handed over about £8,000 in tax on cigarettes, I think that pays for me so far on the NHS-if that is what the government spend it on!
If you ban smoking you drive it underground and then comes crime, more police having to deal with yet another problem, and the government loose out on the tax money that they pocket from our disgusting habit!
Now off you go and drink your camomile tea and stay in doors with your pure oxygen masks on and your bubble wrap around you!
Joan Fiver, USA
Smoking in public places like restaurants should be banned. Part of the tax from tobacco should go to local authorities who have to clean up the mess left by smokers.
I don't smoke and I resent having the air I breathe being poisoned by those around me. Sit near a smoker and my chest get irritated and my clothes stink. No thank you.
Yet banning smoking would be an act of folly. For goodness sake learn the lessons of the American alcohol prohibition.
After living in California for almost 20 years now, (originally from North Wales), I can only say going out to a bar, restaurant etc here is so much better than back in the UK knowing I won't have to breath in someone else's smoke. People who smoke don't realise how much of a healthy lifestyle they are missing.
Banning cigs, what a great idea! Prohibition of drugs has worked so well that it was only a matter of time before some genius thought of this one. Personally I hate cigarettes, but this is one of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard of.
Nigel Harper, London, UK
I don't mind what anyone does to himself or herself, however, why should they pollute my lungs and try to kill me with acrid pollutants and carcinogens when they stand near to me on a railway platform or in the street. Why should they try to kill me, my wife and my children, simply because of their stupid addiction? - Smokers are a large threat to non-smokers, as we know that passive smoking is also more dangerous. Furthermore, why should I pay taxes to treat their smoking related illnesses when they get to old age? I say let them smoke, but only in private where they can kill themselves together.
I don't think it has much to do with 'freedom of choice'. Many smokers are railroaded into it in their teenage years by peer pressure. Quickly hooked there is no more choice. Quitting smoking and breaking the addiction is just too hard for some people. You are more likely to be pressured into smoking if you are weak and will therefore be less well equipped to quit when realisation that it is killing you hits.
Ian Leonard, Bracknell, UK
The issue is not about smokers - it is about the tobacco industry marketing a lethal product. Imagine it, a company invented a new product that kills at least 1 in three users, is addictive and is overwhelmingly first used when you are a child. Would we allow it?
With bans on the so called "right" to market tobacco all we are doing is trying to correct an historical wrong.
Lucas Ogutu Oganje, Dar es Salaam, Tansania
Just as the government wants to fill its coffers, manufacturers want to make money. So there has to be a way to circumvent the government regulations by targeting the uninformed Third World countries. What a pity to those innocent lives lost for the wealthy to live longer in the developed world!
Paul C, Scotland
Let smokers continue the filthy habit if they wish, but tax them heavily, restrict where they can smoke, and make them pay all their own medical bills.
I don't know what all the fuss is about. I've been smoking 200 unfiltered cigarettes a day since I was ten years old. I also drink 15 pints of cider and half a bottle of scotch daily. I love eating fried bread, greasy eggs and bacon whilst changing TV channels with the remote control. You won't believe it but for a ninety year old I am still fit as a fiddle.
Adrian JR Evans, UK
Keep them smoking. If they all give up, we will have to take up the loss to the tax system.
Lets be realistic - Governments across the world take billions of pounds each year in tax from tobacco related products - this is what keeps the country going - without this additional revenue think how bad our public services would be - they're bad enough now!
Steffen Rasmussen, Pituffik, Greenland
Every day I pray to God to help me stop this evil. Cigarettes, especially those destined for the Third world, I believe have more nicotine and tar to ensure that it's population doesn't take the current trend in the West where people are giving up smoking in a large scale. Finally it's a shame what man can do to another in the name of profits.
Along with personal choice comes a responsibility towards society. Regulation is essential to ensure social responsibility. The other issue is about people responsible for this predicament, the tobacco companies. These are the ones who thrive on the addictions of people and exploitation of the situation. It starts with glamorising smoking with their promotions and capitalising on ensuing addictions. It is time that they pay back to society for all the damage they have done!!
Jon livesey, USA
It is not the job of the government or the world to protect you from yourself. I believe that the job of educating the public on the affects of smoking have been done and it should be up to the individual to decide for themselves. The course and efforts that have been used on Tobacco indicates a lack of priority and focus on behalf of the government. You cannot force people to quit, and to attempt to do so would only create a black market for tobacco and give the government another reason to throw someone in jail with real criminals creating a criminal not a reformed person, just as we have done with marijuana, making the overall cost of forcing people to quit a price not worth paying. Are we an educated and democratic society or are these just politically correct words with no meaning? Is Democracy so similar to Communism?
The question should really be, do we want to live in a free society where, we the citizens, have ultimate authority on how we live our lives? Everyone knows the dangers of smoking. If an individual chooses to smoke because he/she enjoys it, so be it, it's no one else's business. As far as the increased health costs of smoking, we all engage in one risky behaviour or another that over the long run raise health costs. Does this mean all risky behaviours should be banned? No, it's comes with the territory of living in a "free" society. If tobacco is banned, why not ban fatty foods since they lead to heart disease? This may be nextay be next on the list anyway.
Cigarettes will never be banned for one simple reason. The Government makes too much money from taxes.
Roman Lajciak, Bratislava, Slovakia
Like drinking alcoholic beverages, eating food full of cholesterol, driving automobiles, and so many other things we either need to do, or enjoy, smoking is indeed hazardous to our health. I have smoked for forty years, I enjoy it, and I will do it as long as I can afford to.
What concerns me far more than any vice or "hazardous" personal activity, as it should any free person, is a government that dictates to me what I may and may not do in my personal life.
Even as the government of the USA ignores skyrocketing fuel and electricity costs, poor quality medical care, a pitiful and declining educational system that will bankrupt the society, that same government is trying to tell me that "illegal" drugs and tobacco are to blame for almost all of our problems.
Smokers have the right and freedom to smoke. If you want to ban it, then ban cars, power stations, alchohol, factories, fast food chains, and any other pollutant or health damaging matter. I think we are old enough to make our own decisions. It is my right to smoke just like it is your right to breathe fresh air, so stop badgering me.
John Yates, Ekenas Finland
Will shock warnings make smokers quit?
15 May 01 | Health
Europe strikes at smoking
04 May 01 | Health
No agreement on tobacco treaty
26 Apr 01 | Americas
US may abandon tobacco lawsuit
06 Feb 01 | South Asia
India to ban tobacco sponsorship
25 Jan 01 | Asia-Pacific
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan file US cigarette suit
07 Feb 00 | South Asia
Bangladesh move against tobacco companies
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
Other Talking Points:
Links to more Talking Point stories
|^^ Back to top
News Front Page | World | UK | UK Politics | Business | Sci/Tech | Health | Education | Entertainment | Talking Point | In Depth | AudioVideo
To BBC Sport>> | To BBC Weather>>
© MMIII | News Sources | Privacy