Floods and Smoking

Large tracts of the West Country and the Thames Valley are under water, large numbers of people are homeless, and what does the House of Commons have a debate on?  Not the floods, as one might expect, but the possible harm that second hand smoke might do to children travelling in cars.

Meanwhile, after weeks of dithering, the Environment Agency decides some extra pumps are needed and a Dutch company gets 20 of them on the road within 4 hours of receiving a phone call.

There are all the signs that panic has set in within our government with different Ministers meeting the media, but no-one seemingly being in charge and having overall responsibility.

"No Smoking" - Let's take drugs instead!

The Daily Mail today reports that in spite of it having been made illegal, mephedrone or "Meow Meow" is still the "drug of choice" for the younger generation.

I just wonder if this increase in drug taking has any connection with the smoking ban. You can no longer smoke in Pubs or Nightclubs and will get thrown out if you do so. But when was someone last thrown out for taking drugs? Its unlikely anyone would notice and even if they did, would they say anything?

I don't smoke, but I still think that the non-smoking fanatics have done far more harm than good, increased drug taking being yet one more of the unexpected consequences of the ban.

Smoking and Heart Disease

According to the British Heart Foundation, amongst others, smoking causes heart disease. I don't think even the most rabid smokers would disagree with this statement, but my short search of the internet failed to reveal any actual figures, although no doubt they exist. This does tend to suggest to me that they are actually quite low, so it is perhaps better not to actually mention them!
But this figure in today's Daily Mail is worth noting
Chantix, the No.1 anti-smoking drug in America, 'increases risk of heart disease by 72 per cent'
The drug is also associated with other reported side effect such as people trying to kill themselves, depression and unprovoked attacks on others.
So if you can't give up smoking without any chemical aids, it would seem that your best bet is simply to continue smoking, as I'm quite sure that smoking does not increase the risk of heart disease by anything like 72%.
I don't smoke, but I do object to the constant harassment of individuals whether they are smokers or drinkers by people who want to "improve their life". Sorry, my life would not be improved without my glass of beer or drop of Scotch, and I assume that smokers feel exactly the same about their cigarettes. We are aware of the risks, and it is our lives which are at risk; just leave us alone.

The NHS costs due to Smoking.

As I have said before, I'm a non-smoker. Even so, I find it impossible to accept that smoking is costing the NHS the large sums that the antis claim, particularly if you take the revenue from tobacco taxation into account.
As I have got older, I have realised that the bulk of people that I knew, who have died in the past ten or so years, have cost the NHS or the Social Services quite a lot of money in the two or three years prior to their death. This may be by being in hospital, by having daily carers call, or being in a nursing home, and it is a depressing fact (to me) that unless one drops down with a heart attack, we are all going to end up requiring one, or more, of these services.
So what is different with smokers? Exactly the same happens with them, except in general it is at a somewhat younger age. They usually die of emphysema or cancer of the lungs rather than illnesses like Parkinson's or Alzheimer's disease. So where is the extra cost? In fact it us oldies who are costing the country money. We insist on staying as fit as possible, going to the GP for regular check-ups, consuming pills by the bucket load (if only statins for our cholesterol and diuretics for our blood pressure) and requiring annual flu injections.
And that is likely to be the minimum on-going NHS maintenance costs, without the running repairs. Two of my friend have recently fallen and broken their legs, requiring ambulances, hospital care and once home, physiotherapists, which certainly doesn't come cheap.
Then, of course, there are the other costs we incur, state pension, heating allowance, bus passes, and all the rest.
Now I am certainly not advocating that we should not get these things, but simply making the point that if you try to look at the situation logically, there is no reason for arguing that smokers, on average, cost the state any more than non-smokers. the costs simply come earlier in their, statistically shorter, lives.

So the only remaining question is whether the government has a moral duty to try to maximise people's lives. And if they do have this duty, should they try to force people to try to maximise their own lives?
Personally, I don't feel that they have the latter duty, and that their responsibility ends once they have made reasonable attempts to make sure that the public are aware of the risks. I believe they have more than fulfilled their duty, both towards smokers and non-smokers.

Indeed, their fanatical action on smoking in pubs has led to the reduction in size of my favourite local to about a third and the conversion of the remainder to a restaurant on the basis that it was no longer making a profit. As it was well ventilated before the ban, only a fanatical zealot could have objected, and he would have been free to drink elsewhere, just as the smokers are doing now. But I can no longer drink with my smoking friends at the pub, and it seems that I'll soon be unable to drink there at all as closure now seems imminent.