They've finally done it.

[Wordbender]

I think I'm far more likely to be harmed by someone else's drunken violence than by passively inhaling their smoke.

 

Again, your evidence is mainly about alcohol abuse rather than use, Steve, and the abuse of alcohol is already subject to all sorts of laws. Smoking kills and damages many times more people than alcohol yet it has few legal controls on it. Those controls are now being brought in.

 

I say not before time, that's all.

[Wordbender]

I believe there were 34,500 deaths and serious injuries on British roads in 2004. I don't see many calls to ban driving!

 

But it IS governed by all sorts of laws designed to make it less hazardous, isn't it?

 

Smoking isn't being banned either, by the way.

[Guest Brumagem Phil]

Wordbender, whilst I accept your differentiation of use from abuse, I also share the view that alcohol usage has a far bigger impact on the nation as a whole than smoking.

 

Yes there are supposed to be laws which protect us from such behaviour, but only a fool would actually consider them to be any REAL protection.

 

Smoking is however drug addiction and as such I applaud the governments bold actions which pover time should help the nation be more healthy.....can't really be a bad thing in the long run.

[Steve Walker]

Again, your evidence is mainly about alcohol abuse rather than use, Steve, and the abuse of alcohol is already subject to all sorts of laws. Smoking kills and damages many times more people than alcohol yet it has few legal controls on it. Those controls are now being brought in.

 

I say not before time, that's all.

 

Fair enough. That's smoking dealt with. Now, what have you got against banning alcohol?

[Wordbender]

Fair enough. That's smoking dealt with. Now, what have you got against banning alcohol?

 

Simply that alcohol can be, and is, enjoyed by millions without causing death, chronic illness or harm to others.

 

And again, smoking isn't being banned. It's harmful effects on others is being restricted.

[Alan Stubbs]

Fair enough. That's smoking dealt with. Now, what have you got against banning alcohol?

 

Plenty - in moderation alcohol is therapeutic! (It feels like it is to me, is to me anyway!)

I say this in the context of someone who has helped a couple of friends dry out over the last 8 years. One has suffered serious health issues arising from alcoholism; the other does drink occasionally, but has appeared to have his drinking under control

 

The same therapeutic benefits can't be said of tobacco, so far as I've been able to find.

 

As someone who lost his father and several friends to smoking related disease (and as a close friend of someone who lost her father to cirrhosis caused by alcohol), I'd sooner see tobacco banned in public or even in your own home when the public have cause to enter your home on business, than have even more restrictions placed on alcohol.

 

Banning the consumption of alcohol in a public place is long overdue.... but I say that based upon my own social preferences rather than anything else.

[Steve Walker]

Simply that alcohol can be, and is, enjoyed by millions without causing death, chronic illness or harm to others.

 

It does cause those things, though. You may say that it only causes those problems when it is "abused" but it's clear from a Friday night in any provincial town centre that it is abused on a massive scale and that what you consider abuse represents a normal relationship with alcohol for many people.

 

And again, smoking isn't being banned. It's harmful effects on others is being restricted.

 

This wouldn't be a complete ban on alcohol, just a restriction of its harmful effects on others. You'd still be able to enjoy it at home. Of course this would not remove all of the damage caused to individuals by their own drinking but it would prevent the public being exposed to noise, nuisance and violence. It would also help alcoholics to quit drinking, as they would be able to socialise without being tempted.

[DavyR]

This wouldn't be a complete ban on alcohol, just a restriction of its harmful effects on others. You'd still be able to enjoy it at home. Of course this would not remove all of the damage caused to individuals by their own drinking but it would prevent the public being exposed to noise, nuisance and violence.

 

The only times I can remember being exposed to alcohol-fuelled noise, nuisance and violence have been when parties inside private houses have got out of control!

But then I don't go out much in the evenings...

[Wordbender]

1. ...what you consider abuse represents a normal relationship with alcohol for many people.

 

2. ... it would prevent the public being exposed to noise, nuisance and violence.

 

3. It would also help alcoholics to quit drinking, as they would be able to socialise without being tempted.

 

1. The definition is clear, Steve. Abuse of alcohol causes death, damage and/or distress to the drinker or those around him/her. Normal use does none of these things. The 'normal relationship' you describe is already subject to laws restricting its effect on the public.

 

2. Yet again, these are all consequences of alcohol abuse, and all are subject to preventative laws.

 

3. Alcoholics are abusers. Their treatment and recovery is a medical issue. Banning alcohol from pubs would be pointless because it's readily available from shops. Banning alcohol to remove temptation from alcoholics would be like banning the sale of glue, gas and solvents to keep them away from sniffers.

 

Steve, there really is a huge difference in 'use' and 'abuse'. One is acceptable, the other is not. The crucial difference between smoking and drinking is, drinking can be done regularly without damaging anyone.

[Steve Walker]

Ah well. Bored now, I'll stop trolling playing Devil's Advocate. For what it's worth, of course I don't want to ban alcohol from pubs, and for much the same reason most people don't; it's one of my vices, and banning one's own bad habits is far less fun than banning other people's

 

I do think that if the anti-smoking argument had to stand or fall solely on harm to non-smokers it would have no more or less merit than the anti-drinking one. It's perfectly possible to arrange smoking in pubs such that non-smokers are not exposed. The arguments over the effects of passive smoking are disputed. There doesn't seem to be strong epidemiological evidence of a high risk of serious harm. The evidence of drinking-related harm to others is pretty conclusive. It may well be the result of abuse of alcohol (though many would say that getting drunk is what alcohol is for) but the causal link between alcohol and violence remains. The argument that smoking inevitably causes damage to the smoker is perfectly valid, although whether that amounts to grounds for legislation against the individual smoker depends on where you stand on the relationship between the state and the individual. I have a great deal of sympathy for the libertarian argument that it's none of the state's damn business.