Smoking and Obesity

[Quillan]

Puskin, thanks for that and very valid points, hope the dog's OK.

John, would it be the same a  person who has sex with sheep but with sheep replaced by dog?

Wendy, I did take you literally, why shouldn't I? I'm sorry I picked on your post but the statement you made was one I thought people could relate to more.

What I was saying is that the penalties for D&D are not strong enough and that the law should be changed to make it a criminal offence (it's currently only a driving offence) which would then open the gate to stronger sentences which is what the crime demands. You can't take away peoples freedom of choice but you have to make them aware of the penalty should you break that law. The penalty should be so big that people should be terrified of breaking such law. Fifteen or twenty years ago salesmen (I've never been a salesman) in the company I worked for thought it almost an occupational hazard to be done for D&D which was EXTREEMLY stupid yet if they got caught the got a one year ban which they could work around by being office based. However if they for instance got a 10 year ban plus a year in prision perhaps they would have thought longer and harder about taking a drink and driving.

The reason I posted the original was to see how people react, do they think about what effects them or do they think about the future? Do we say you can't do this and you can't do that or should we, as Puskin says, using smoking as an example, say "If smoking in public places is presented as antisocial, it may have little effect. Present it as vulgar and the effect may be different."

Is it not better to educate people in to why they should not do something than to beat them with a big stick. As I quote again from Puskin (sorry) "Education is the key here, with adequate medical support".

Wendy, sorry once again for using your quote as example, no disrespect intended.

[Quillan]

[quote]As smoking and obesity were the topics I didn't add my pleasure at the hunting ban going through........[/quote]

Gay,

Open it as another thread, it was done before coz I would love to answer that one especially about the Counryside Alliance and how wrong they are, go on I dare you.

[SaligoBay]

Quillan said: You can't take away peoples freedom of choice but you have to make them aware of the penalty should you break that law. The penalty should be so big that people should be terrified of breaking such law.

Well, what jolly good timing.  Headline news tonight in France, a car with 6 (SIX) young people, every one of them dead as dodos, including the driver, because guess what, he was drunk.

I'm sorry, but I still think there are situations where people should NOT have freedom of choice.  Zero tolerance is the only answer.  The risk to the rest of us is just too great.  Maybe you've never seen first-hand the damage that a car can do to a human being?     

[Dick Smith]

I saw that news story - six kids, carbonisé.

http://fr.news.yahoo.com/041120/202/45ex3.html

http://fr.news.yahoo.com/041120/5/45exo.html

Not just the damage to the people the car hits - ever spoken to an emergency worker after one of these? Not to mention the families and friends. I'm with SB on this one.

[Quillan]

"I'm sorry, but I still think there are situations where people should NOT have freedom of choice.  Zero tolerance is the only answer."

How do you have zero tolerance for drinking and driving other than either ban alchohol (wouldn't be a bad idea as it is just a big a drug as cig's) or check every person for their car keys before serving them a drink.

Both the above would never work. What I was saying if you read it more carefully is to change the law to make drinking and driving a criminal offence (as opposed to a driving one - in the UK) and yes you can say no alchohol.  In this instance perhaps if they locked the guy/girl away for life, and ment life, it may serve as an example of what happens when you do drink and drive and kill soembody. Just  If a person is stopped with alchohol in them when driving they automatically get a 5 or 10 year prison sentance that would also work as a deterant. Give them the same treatment as those found with illegal guns ir weapons and treat killing people with cars as murder (not manslaughter).

[Iceni]

There are cars which have 'breathalyzers' built into them, I think the US have them. You blow into the machine and you fail (this looked like 'any alcohol at all' but I could not be sure), the engine will not start. Saw one on a film the other day, the driver was supposed to be an alcoholic in remission.  If this was added to cars instead of all the stupid info you get in new car computers it would in 'time' may solve the problem.

When you are young you feel immortal, and the above would not solve the drug problem which also adds to the problem.

[Jill<br><br>Jill (99)]

Tying together a number of points made to make another. If people can be prosecuted for using mobile phones whilst driving (quite right) and drink driving, and if restaurants etc are going to be no smoking (at last) then it should be possible to prosecute people who smoke in their cars for safety reasons (as with mobile phones) and also for the health risk to others in the car. It really appalls me to see people driving around smoking with children in the car and also people smoking in their houses with children around. When you work with children, you sometimes notice the smell so strong on children, you almost think they have been smoking - although with 3 year olds this becomes doubtful!!

As regards freedom though, I will feel more inclined to go out to pubs when smoking is banned completely as there is no advantage to sitting in a no smoking area when there is no wall between the two. I hope it will encourage people to give up smoking. But I think it will just mean people either breaking the rules (as smokers often do in no smoking areas) or people smoking on the street where there will be piles of fag ends and it won't be pleasant for people passing by. I still feel that smoking should be banned in shopping centres - even in shopping streets as I saw lit cigarettes hovering dangerously close to my children's faces in their pushchair days.

So, I do feel that it would be appropriate to establish a closed off room in pubs where smokers could go, and possibly some special pubs for people who really cannot cope with discomfort of popping out for 5 minutes (compared to the hours of discomfort everyone else has had to put up with for years.

Last night we went for a meal and I forgot to ask if they had a no smoking area. It was early and there was only one other table taken but we were put next to it. After his meal, the man lit a cigarette and promptly lit another, which he left in the ashtray, smoking when he went to the loo. Then, mercifully, he left - but not before wiping his nose on the table cloth - lovely!

Now, one of you said you knew no smoking restaurants in France - wonderful - I've not found one which even has a no smoking area yet!

Incidentally, I did smoke in my youth and now I'm ashamed of what I put other people through! But I did only smoke because if I had a cigarette, other people's smoke didn't make my eyes and nose itch so much. Sort of homeopathy! I never liked the taste nor the smell!

Incidentally, on obesity and exercise - I dance for between 10 and 20 hours a week and it doesn't stop me from being fat, so exercise doesn't necessarily help. Also, I do agree that children should be encouraged to do sports of some kind, but perhaps if there was more choice in school, more children would be encouraged to take up a regular sport which they liked, rather than being forced into playing sports that they hate and which just reinforce their hate of sports. My son does Karate, but he detests the sports they do in school. My daughter dances and also detested the sports done in school, although she was happy with Gym/dance and trampolining. But most of the time they had to play football, basketball etc and they really do not enjoy ball sports.