Light em up?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/07/01/smoking.ban.reut/index.html

For those of you who smoke, thought this might be interesting. Probably not planning a trip to the British Isles anytime soon I take it.

I found a few points here worthy of further comment:
"Smoking is the single most preventable cause of death". Actually this is probably incorrect. Smoking is heavily related to various forms of ailments, but I'd have to say that weight related stuff is passing it, if not already then soon. So I'd say (over) eating/improper nutrition is the most preventable cause of death. In developing countries, maybe smoking is up there (and rising, they're called emerging markets for a reason). But it's still probably behind lack of adequate diet/water and third to lack of adequate health care in the first place.

"harm done by tobacco smoke is now known to be significantly dangerous"- the same person in fact from the story. Not surprisingly, they're from an advocacy group. In point of fact, secondhand smoke is not overly harmful. It's just extremely annoying. If someone were to sit in a smoke-infested room for hours on end (such as the employees), then perhaps I'd say that's a raw deal with health effects from many months or years of exposure. To that I say, find a different job. But for most of us non-coughers, smoking is merely unpleasant, not deadly. It's unpopular to say so, and hey, I don't want to be around the stuff myself. Bad science doesn't support popular politics though.

"A quarter of adults smoke, with the level higher among those doing manual and routine jobs." -- Again from my long protracted essay (which I'm sure nobody would bother to try to read it all) on health care, poor people (those who do the manual and routine jobs) are more likely to smoke. There are no suggested alternatives in this ban or any other ban I know of to deal with this problem. I had a suggestion which did not require us to ban private businesses from permitting smokers in their domains. As the story later points out, it's going to directly affect, even if only temporarily, some businesses. That should not be the idea. The idea is to limit as naturally as possible the number of smokers (particularly among the poor) by making the choice a harsher one. Bans in public places do not directly reduce the number of smokers at all statistically the way a hit to the pocketbook does. I ask how exactly this improves public health?

"People will still be able to smoke at home, although those receiving home visits from local authority employees can expect to be asked not to smoke for a period before they arrive." -- I thought this was cute. Even though I would prefer myself if I was to visit someone who smokes that they do exactly this, I would not require it. It is after all their domain, and they are the master of their own domain. I'm not sure if this is a requirement or a 'suggestion', but I can imagine it will make it's way to a requirement before long. Always a wonderful thing when the government flexes into our private domains. I'd have to wonder also how this would work with someone who is being arrested or having their property searched. It's not like they'd call ahead and say, yes hurry up and destroy the evidence too while you're not smoking.

"Offshore oil rigs, hotel rooms and prison cells are among the few places where public smoking will continue to be permitted" -- I suppose it doesn't make sense to disallow criminals. Trading of smokes is one more thing which keeps inmates from rioting. And a hotel room is sort of like a private apartment. But the offshore oil rig? Does that really make sense to allow someone lighting up right above a complex machine that is dredging up inflammable substance? Seems a bit this side of stupid to me.