Smoking ban 'helps 400,000 to quit' in the UK

motivez · 07-01-2008, 10:42 AM

Stubbed out: A study claims more than 400,000 people in England have quit smoking since the ban on lighting up in public was introduced last year

More than 400,000 people in England have given up smoking thanks to the ban on lighting up in public introduced a year ago tomorrow, a study claims.

The surge in numbers kicking the habit is expected to save 40,000 former smokers from early death over the next ten years.

Researchers tracked 32,000 smokers before and after the ban came into effect.

In the nine months prior to the ban 1.6 per cent gave up smoking, compared with 5.5 per cent in the following nine months.

The survey results will be presented to the UK National Smoking Cessation Conference in Birmingham tomorrow, marking the first anniversary of the ban in pubs, restaurants and other public places.

Professor Robert West, Cancer Research UK's director of tobacco studies, who carried out the survey, said: 'These figures show the largest fall in the number of smokers on record.

'I never expected such a dramatic impact and of course there are no guarantees that smoking rates will not climb back up again.

'But if the Department of Health can keep up the momentum this has created, there is a realistic prospect of achieving a target of less than 15 per cent of the population smoking within the next ten years.'

Another study by the Health Department will show a similar trend, with 234,060 people making successful use of the NHS Quit Smoking Service since last July - 22 per cent more than the same period a year earlier.

Ban on smoking in public 'has helped 400,000 to quit' in one year | Mail Online

I of course think people should be allowed to do what they want, including smoke.. but this is certainly a positive effect of the ban. Considering they have socialized health care in the UK.. is it reasonable for them to implement such bans?

I mean, obviously cancer and other health issues related to smoking are a huge financial drain on the health care system there.. so in one respect it seems reasonable to me that they'd try to prevent people from damaging their health in public areas

On the other hand, I don't know why they should be allowed to tell people they aren't allowed to smoke in private establishments (like pubs) simply because they're open to the public. If an owner of a pub decides he wants it to be a smoking-enabled environment for his patrons, he should certainly be allowed to operate his business that way.. and people can make a decision whether or not to give him their business based on his policies.

Ardentfrost · 07-01-2008, 10:56 AM

Were these 400k people WANTING to quit, but didn't have the will without the law? Or was it 400k people just so discouraged by the laws restricting them in so many ways, they quit?

The first way is a sad thing for the state of those 400k people. If you can't quit something on your own if you want to, then you should seek help, it doesn't matter what the addiction is (legal or not).

The second way is a sad thing for the liberties of the people. They WANT to smoke, but it has become too much work for them to.

Either way, the legislation disgusts me, but it's England...

Dylith · 07-01-2008, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

Ban on smoking in public 'has helped 400,000 to quit' in one year | Mail Online

I of course think people should be allowed to do what they want, including smoke.. but this is certainly a positive effect of the ban. Considering they have socialized health care in the UK.. is it reasonable for them to implement such bans?

I mean, obviously cancer and other health issues related to smoking are a huge financial drain on the health care system there.. so in one respect it seems reasonable to me that they'd try to prevent people from damaging their health in public areas

On the other hand, I don't know why they should be allowed to tell people they aren't allowed to smoke in private establishments (like pubs) simply because they're open to the public. If an owner of a pub decides he wants it to be a smoking-enabled environment for his patrons, he should certainly be allowed to operate his business that way.. and people can make a decision whether or not to give him their business based on his policies.

I'm really up in the air about this topic, and have been for quite some time now. I pretty much agree with everything that you have said. I can udnerstand the financial darin that health problemns related to smoking would have on a society with socialized medical care, but despite that and despite my personal bias against smoking, I honestly agree that private business owners should have a right to cator to this population.

Though there is the issue of second hand smoke. I haven't done too much research on it, but I have heard arguements that second hand smoke is both very harmful and that its effects are minute.

If it is the latter, then wouldn't smoking in a public place be similar to assualt? Even in the libertarian philosophy no one has the right to damage your person. We certainly wouldn't allow a business to operate if people threw acid on each other inside of it (a bit extreme but hopefully it helps to make my point).

I think though that this may have been ignored simply because the damages associated with smoking are more subtle and not as visible.

thewise1 · 07-01-2008, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Ban on smoking in public 'has helped 400,000 to quit' in one year | Mail Online

I of course think people should be allowed to do what they want, including smoke.. but this is certainly a positive effect of the ban. Considering they have socialized health care in the UK.. is it reasonable for them to implement such bans?

I mean, obviously cancer and other health issues related to smoking are a huge financial drain on the health care system there.. so in one respect it seems reasonable to me that they'd try to prevent people from damaging their health in public areas

On the other hand, I don't know why they should be allowed to tell people they aren't allowed to smoke in private establishments (like pubs) simply because they're open to the public. If an owner of a pub decides he wants it to be a smoking-enabled environment for his patrons, he should certainly be allowed to operate his business that way.. and people can make a decision whether or not to give him their business based on his policies.

That argument is one (more) reason that I'm afraid to see socialized healthcare implemented here. Suddenly I won't be allowed to eat anything but government approved food, or do anything with my body that isn't approved... Obviously my 5 second post here is dealing in some hyperbole but nonetheless I think it would be a fair argument if everyone else is paying for me.

WickedLou9 · 07-01-2008, 02:21 PM

It would only be fair to allow them to continue smoking if you also imposed an additional tax to help offset the increased healthcare costs, perhaps 10 or 20 dollars per pack. Otherwise, an individuals decision to smoke takes money directly out of someone elses pocket. If Smokers would agree to pay for the increased costs, then I don't see how you can justify banning it anywhere.

Ardentfrost · 07-01-2008, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by Dylith

If it is the latter, then wouldn't smoking in a public place be similar to assualt? Even in the libertarian philosophy no one has the right to damage your person. We certainly wouldn't allow a business to operate if people threw acid on each other inside of it (a bit extreme but hopefully it helps to make my point).

It's the difference between tying someone up and forcing them to be around you while you smoked, and someone going to a bar voluntarily that allowed smoking.

That is if it's as dangerous as claimed, which is "common knowledge" but there was that WHO study in the late 90's that found no statistically significant harmful effects of second hand smoke (even though they "concluded" there are harmful effects...).

Whatever, if it is or if it isn't, as long as people have a choice in being around the smoke, all is good.

thewise1 · 07-01-2008, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

It would only be fair to allow them to continue smoking if you also imposed an additional tax to help offset the increased healthcare costs, perhaps 10 or 20 dollars per pack. Otherwise, an individuals decision to smoke takes money directly out of someone elses pocket. If Smokers would agree to pay for the increased costs, then I don't see how you can justify banning it anywhere.

It's interesting how you suggest a capitalistic, personal responsibility related solution to the problem with a socialized healthcare system

Dylith · 07-01-2008, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

It's interesting how you suggest a capitalistic, personal responsibility related solution to the problem with a socialized healthcare system

The negative consumption externalities associated with smoking can be internalized through taxation, in this case, an excise tax.

In the case of health insurance it isn't as simply as correcting such an externality. The market failure is a bit more extensive than that.

He brought up a good point.

Ardentfrost · 07-01-2008, 05:42 PM

In insurance, companies *should* be charging more if you smoke. I only assume at least some do (I was never asked if I smoke for my insurance though). That is an externality corrected by market forces.

I heard today that home owner insurance companies are starting to do this (not about smoking, but dealing with risk as they should be). Whereas there used to be 3 basic plans, now there is a multitude of pricing levels based on where you live (even within a city, not just "are you likely to be hit by a hurricane"), your credit score, if you've filed claims before and the types of claims they are (for instance, they want to charge people more who are more likely to file piddly claims). For home owners who are honest and safe, it could potentially spell really good savings on the insurance.

That's really how insurance should be. I am a really low health risk. In the 27 years I've been on this Earth, I've been to the doctor for an emergency twice (once for strep, once to be diagnosed with mild acid reflux which I don't even need medicine for... just that one time it was pretty bad for some reason). And I've only broken one bone ever which was my wrist in 1998. I don't smoke, I drink lightly, I exercise, have little excess body fat, and eat right. I have good mental health as well and am generally a happy person. It's ridiculous that I pay the same amount for my insurance as fat ass smokers who sit on their rumps all day stuffing their faces with Little Debbie snack cakes.

Again, I'm not sure if all health insurances are like that, I just know mine is because it goes by a very prescribed pricing scheme and they don't require any checkups or anything. Hell, for all I know it might be illegal for health insurance companies to "discriminate" in that way.

Joe Castro · 07-01-2008, 05:44 PM

I should say first that i do smoke , but i totally support the ban, it actually happened in Scotland a year or so before England. I see no reason why people who don't smoke should have to breathe in the second hand smoke of the likes of me.

The only adjustment i think that could be made to the law is to allow bars to apply for a license to be a smoking bar. I don't see any reason why smokers can't have a place to go and non smokers another, it's better to create a balance. With that said i would still rather such smoking clubs remained in the minority.

motivez · 07-01-2008, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

I should say first that i do smoke , but i totally support the ban, it actually happened in Scotland a year or so before England. I see no reason why people who don't smoke should have to breathe in the second hand smoke of the likes of me.

The only adjustment i think that could be made to the law is to allow bars to apply for a license to be a smoking bar. I don't see any reason why smokers can't have a place to go and non smokers another, it's better to create a balance. With that said i would still rather such smoking clubs remained in the minority.

The counter argument to that is of course, what about breathing in pollution from people's cars and trucks and the like? Certainly that has a similar effect if you're "out and about" and not inside an establishment

Joe Castro · 07-01-2008, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

The counter argument to that is of course, what about breathing in pollution from people's cars and trucks and the like? Certainly that has a similar effect if you're "out and about" and not inside an establishment

Of course. However, i believe there to be a big difference regarding smoke and car pollution. Cars are required for society to function. If we did not have cars and trucks we would have to move back to a 19th century economy. We would all be stuck living and working in our own little towns. So in that regard transport pollution is a necessary evil. The same cannot be said about smoking.

Ardentfrost · 07-01-2008, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

Of course. However, i believe there to be a big difference regarding smoke and car pollution. Cars are required for society to function. If we did not have cars and trucks we would have to move back to a 19th century economy. We would all be stuck living and working in our own little towns. So in that regard transport pollution is a necessary evil. The same cannot be said about smoking.

Seems to be a double standard, still.

Why not just ban pollution and force everyone to buy electric cars? I mean, if we're telling people what to do anyway.

Joe Castro · 07-01-2008, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Seems to be a double standard, still.

Why not just ban pollution and force everyone to buy electric cars? I mean, if we're telling people what to do anyway.

Hey i am all for being in a position where non polluting cars are the norm. I would support that. Our capitalist government on the other hand. They are unlikely to force the hand of the manufacturers.

Ardentfrost · 07-01-2008, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

Hey i am all for being in a position where non polluting cars are the norm. I would support that. Our capitalist government on the other hand. They are unlikely to force the hand of the manufacturers.

Doesn't seem to need the government. Car sales outnumbered truck sales last year for the first time since 1992. Hybrids are so popular, there's a waiting list. The trend is so prevalent that Daimler, who previously refused to bring the SMART Car to America, is suddenly shipping them over here in droves.

In America, especially, the amount of driving we do is very inelastic. As gas prices go up, we can't really commute less (in most cases, some people are able to take mass transit). So the economic response is to buy more gas efficient vehicles, and that is most certainly happening.

The demand is there to turn America into a fuel efficient society... now all it takes it a little bit of time and more companies realizing the profits that can be made to fulfill the demand and make new technologies. In 10-15 years, the face of the American automobile is going to be very different.

I, however, can't speak for your country.

Joe Castro · 07-01-2008, 06:35 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Doesn't seem to need the government. Car sales outnumbered truck sales last year for the first time since 1992. Hybrids are so popular, there's a waiting list. The trend is so prevalent that Daimler, who previously refused to bring the SMART Car to America, is suddenly shipping them over here in droves.

In America, especially, the amount of driving we do is very inelastic. As gas prices go up, we can't really commute less (in most cases, some people are able to take mass transit). So the economic response is to buy more gas efficient vehicles, and that is most certainly happening.

The demand is there to turn America into a fuel efficient society... now all it takes it a little bit of time and more companies realizing the profits that can be made to fulfill the demand and make new technologies. In 10-15 years, the face of the American automobile is going to be very different.

I, however, can't speak for your country.

That is great. I wont pretend it is an area i study at all. I just guess that things are not moving so fastly here. I do not even know how environmentally friendly such cars are. I did see on TV an exeperiment that showed a hybrid car that used more gas on a set journey than a specific brand of car (which car it was escapes me).

All i suggest is that more could be achieved quickly if the hand of manufacturers was forced. I would support only selling the most environmentally friendly cars. I personally would have no problem with that.

I see no contradiction in my position. I am fully behind curbing liberties if that liberty harms others, be it smoking or polluting.

motivez · 07-01-2008, 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

I see no contradiction in my position. I am fully behind curbing liberties if that liberty harms others, be it smoking or polluting.

I think the saying of "Your freedom ends where mine begins." is applicable here, you don't have a right to infringe on my liberties, so I don't think someone really has a 'liberty' to pollute say a river, people down stream would be negatively impacted

Smoking is a bit different than something like that because there's still controversy in some circles about whether second hand smoke is real / truly a factor when other pollution is considered

Smull · 07-01-2008, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

That argument is one (more) reason that I'm afraid to see socialized healthcare implemented here. Suddenly I won't be allowed to eat anything but government approved food, or do anything with my body that isn't approved... Obviously my 5 second post here is dealing in some hyperbole but nonetheless I think it would be a fair argument if everyone else is paying for me.

Hell yeah man, lots of people choose to do things that are dangerous, and one aspect of socialized health care that really scares me is that theres no telling how far the government can/will go to make sure we're all safe. Smoking, fatty foods, alcohol, motorcycles, football, rugby, sky diving, anything. It just sets a precedent that bothers me.

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

Hey i am all for being in a position where non polluting cars are the norm. I would support that. Our capitalist government on the other hand. They are unlikely to force the hand of the manufacturers.

I half agree with you, our government fucking sucks when it comes to this issue, we've been supporting the oil companies and doing them favors for way too long. I don't think you can blame it on capitalism though, if anything I think that capitalism/ the free market is much more likely to get us out of this mess than the government. Like Ardentfrost said. I saw this article the other day which made me feel very optimistic.
EcoGeek - Technology for the Environment