Taking the government to court over the smoking ban please help

You obviously have not read the other posts otherwise you wouldn't have asked that question. Unless it's a joke in which case my ribs are aching (sorry for the sarcasm).

People treat is as if they will be lynched by police for smoking a cigarette. It's not a case of trying to get you to be healthier, it's a step towards healthier social venues and restaurants, which makes perfect sense. You want to smoke, well... yeah, you can, just go outside. Like when your in the workplace, you go out the back and have a fag. Barely taking away much freedom if you ask me, and I fucking hate it when i'm trying to eat in a restaurant and your dirty fag smoke is blowing into my face. Trying to sue the government for passing a law like this is a joke, it's the most effective step in decades towards recognising the sheer, utter pointless existence of cigarettes for the consumer.
I agree with the anger expressed towards banning it in pubs and clubs, that's where people usually go to smoke, however I believe the outcome will be very good in the long run when people start to realise they're not only smoking less but having a much better time in such venues with the lack of intoxicating air.
Anyway, good luck with, you know, taking the entire government to court over a law that is already in full effect...

Head + brick wall , head + brick wall , read the posts bb come up with something new

I hope it stops little kids who think they're cool by smoking outside not start in the first place.

I don't need to come up with something new, it's a valid point.

One thing I will say is I find this whole process completely hypocritical. The goverment ban cigarette advertising. Why? "Because cigarettes are fatally bad for you and we don't want to condone their use." Now they ban smoking in indoor public venues. Why? "Because cigarettes are fatally bad for you and we don't want to condone their use."

These actions are utterly void of sense. The reasons for the passing of these laws are valid enough to ban cigarettes altogether, yet the government will never admit they thrive off the tax collected from thousands of packs sold every day. They collect on your cancer ridden lungs. But hey, we don't wanna condone it or anything.

And it's laughable this group of yours (nebaleseblack) is attempting to get donations for this 'cause'. I think I would much rather donate my money to a more worthy cause, perhaps one when I can help save lives as opposed to put millions more in danger so addicts can get their fix more conveniently. Do any smokers that disagree with the ban ever take their personal health into consideration? You know, "freedoms" aside, the fact is your better off smoking less. It's like shouting at the nurse for trying to give you morphene. The careful (and popular) words "erosion of our civil liberties" suggest that some kind of bad will come of this.

Sorry my posts are long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B.Basher

One thing I will say is I find this whole process completely hypocritical. The goverment ban cigarette advertising. Why? "Because cigarettes are fatally bad for you and we don't want to condone their use." Now they ban smoking in indoor public venues. Why? "Because cigarettes are fatally bad for you and we don't want to condone their use."

These actions are utterly void of sense. The reasons for the passing of these laws are valid enough to ban cigarettes altogether, yet the government will never admit they thrive off the tax collected from thousands of packs sold every day. They collect on your cancer ridden lungs. But hey, we don't wanna condone it or anything.

And it's laughable this group of yours (nebaleseblack) is attempting to get donations for this 'cause'. I think I would much rather donate my money to a more worthy cause, perhaps one when I can help save lives as opposed to put millions more in danger so addicts can get their fix more conveniently.

---

I see lots of old people that have smoked all their lives, and they are fine and happy.

I think if you did donate and we won or designated smoking rooms with ventilation and filtration you would help people to stop start smoking in the first place, as all bans do is to get more people to smoke;

THE IRISH BAN STARTED ON 1/3/04 AND IT WAS 23.1% OF THE PEOPLE SMOKED, NOW IT'S FAR HIGHER, AS ALL THE KIDS AND PEOPLE SEE THE PEOPLE SMOKING OUTSIDE THE PUBS AND THINK IT'S COOL, SO THEY START TO SMOKE, IT'S NOW 25.4% OF THE PEOPLE THAT SMOKE.[/QUOTE]

Ireland Has Almost 20 000 More Smokers after the ban,

Office of Tobacco Control

Ireland Has Almost 20 000 More Smokers


Smoking outside ain't no drag for 'smirters' - News - Sunday Life

New Zealand smoke more after the ban,

Scoop: Smoking Prevalence Falling Too Slowly

Italians smoking more despite national ban,

SignOnSanDiego.com > News > World -- Italians smoking more despite national ban

Spain: Spaniards knuckle under to new smoking curbs and there are 1/2 million *****less***** smoking; There ½ Million less smoking in Spain??? Why, because Spain lets you smoke in the bars and clubs.

Spaniards knuckle under to new smoking curbs: poll

New York has a bar smoking ban, so Smoker Numbers Rise,

Smoker Numbers Rise, but Mayor Lauds Other City Statistics - September 15, 2006 - The New York Sun


Smoking rates up in Scotland,

Money | Telegraph

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B.Basher

Do any smokers that disagree with the ban ever take their personal health into consideration? You know, "freedoms" aside, the fact is your better off smoking less. It's like shouting at the nurse for trying to give you morphene. The careful (and popular) words "erosion of our civil liberties" suggest that some kind of bad will come of this.

---

I myself am not a big smoker, I only smoke on my three nightly visits to my pub, and am very into fitness, and at 46 have a resting pulse of about 55, in my youth my pulse was down to about 35, however I donâ??t think smoking like I do or even smoking 20 a day is that bad for you, I think itâ??s all to do with what genes your born with, and I think the Government and the Doctors just love to blame the higher cancers and asthmas on smoking when it just cant be, they try to brainwash people, and do a very good job.[/QUOTE]



Why not smoking you may ask, Because UK Government statistics from 1970 to 2006 show smoking is in decline worldwide. in 1970, 45% of the UK smoked, now in 2006, only 25% smoke, that is means the total smokers in the UK in the last 36 years has nearly halved, HOWEVER cancer is on the rise, Between 1971 and 2003, the age-standardised incidence of cancer increased by around 17 per cent in males and 40 per cent in females.

Visit the following site it will give you tables of the highest smoking prevalence and the highest lung cancer prevalence, the higher percentage of smokers per country, the lower the cancer rate, the two don't match up; cancer we â??thoughtâ?� was more likely to be caused by food or individual genes, however we now know itâ??s not smoking, but diesel, and the diesel article ties up with our other articles, unless someone can come up with another idea.[/QUOTE]

Smokers Prevalences, Lung Cancer Death Rates and Life Expectancies

So you have not got to be Einstein, to work out something else is causing the cancer, and as from statistics its not tobacco.

The real cause of cancer, and mostly lung cancer, according to another Oxford research scientist, Dr. Kitty Little, is diesel fumes. And the evidence here is much more persuasive. It includes the facts that: tobacco smoke contains only very low% of carcinogens, while diesel fumes contain four known carcinogens; that lung cancer is rare in rural areas, but common in towns; that cancers are more prevalent along the routes of motorways; that the incidence of lung cancer has doubled in non-smokers over past decades; and that there was less lung cancer when we, as a nation, smoked more, we here at the big debate, think this is a breakthrough, and the REAL reason for the higher cancer, when there has been a natural decline in the people smoking thought the years, blaming the higher cancer on smoking, is not true, when there are over a million less smoking from the 60â??s and cancer is up, is just does not add up, diesel fumes does add up.
[/QUOTE]

Do Diesels, Not Smoking, Cause Lung Cancer? - Second Opinions

Apart from already mentioning the lack of substantive evidence that second hand smoke causes harm, I know people of the 'baby boom' generation, conceived and brought up after the second world war when just about everyone smoked. Our house was filled with tobacco smoke as my parents, their friends and my older siblings and their friends all smoked. Wherever you went people smoked so you could not avoid it. Therefore IF second hand smoke is SO harmful however did we all survive? Why haven't people in my generation been falling like flies? How come people are living longer than ever? And how come, as smoking has decreased, childhood asthma, and other allergies are increasing at a tremendous rate? Something else is causing this and it certainly isn't tobacco smoking.

Finally, one of the myriad of conditions ascribed to smoking is infertility. It certainly didn't affect the parents of the 'baby boom' generation.[/QUOTE]

Wayne