Smoking ban 'saved 75,000 lives'

What is it on about kiwi's he report itself does not say anything about them just about people.Please can someone help me for some course work.

What is it on about kiwi's he report itself does not say anything about them just about people.Please can someone help me for some course work.

As one of those that has given up smoking this year, not for health reasons or the money, or because of this nanny state that we live in, but because someone dangled a long distance plane ticket in front of me, I wish to say that unless you've walked a mile in my shoes, lay off. Firstly, the stats are screwed by whoever is standing on the soapbox. I got asthma whilst working in a bottlestore, in and out of a chiller all day - they put the asthma down to my smoking not my work environment. Never mind that when i stopped working there, it went away. As a newly smoke free person, I'm not sure i want my life extended by another 15 years or so. Both my parents were smokers and both are still alive and well into their 70's. As a non smoker, I eat more, therefore will be expecting to cause concern to those who wish to make my smoke free life even more miserable because they want to ban all the types of food that I enjoy. Of course, having put weight on, I can't get around so easily because of the extra strain on my joints, but, hey, who's worried about that, at least now i'm smoke free. And what about the depression? and the rage? and the not knowing how to deal with things now that I don't smoke? Has anyone ever considered the cost, the true cost of rehabilitating smokers? Cos its far greater than all the experts say. They offer nicotine replacement, but what about all the other chemicals? And where do they get off saying that my smoking is worse than other people's alcohol choices? I've worked with enough hungover drunks to know that my smoking is less of a hazard in the work place than alcohol is, and my smoking is less of a danger than alcohol abuse in the home. The reality is that people are not better off because some-one else says they will be. People are the way people are, and those people that think the whole world would be better conforming to one ideal - smokefree - need to understand that for some, there are worse things than being a smoker, such as being obese. Obesity is "the problem" of this decade, possibly longer and its related costs will spiral. How are you going to fix that?

Greer, I know you are not to blame for this shoddy reporting.

but is it really necessary to go down the path of paid advertising for government agencies?

perhaps next time you could delve deeper into the press release, maybe even pressure your editor to look deep within his conscience?

On the bright side - you made it to fark.com

http://go.fark.com/cgi/fark/go.pl?i=3719122&l=http://www.stuff.co.nz/4609688a19716.html

What has abortion got to do with smoking, Bob?

Since we're offtopic, Your post makes me ask the question: If we're banning abortion to save the unborn, how about banning the sale of addictive harmful chemicals like alcohol and cigarettes to save the already-born? I would be willing to bet that heart and liver disease, cancers, drunk driving and other followon effects directly caused by these substances and chemicals kill far more lives than abortion. Good luck with those facts, sir.

Tobacco causes countless deaths and causes a huge financial burden to the healthcare system. Any drop in numbers is good. You shouldn't use this article loke a soapbox in order to push an unrelated issue.

Where do the numbers come from? answer-a ninny! a ninny paid by a nanny government to brainwash the weak minded with well intentioned lies.

I'd like to thank the department of "Figures We Pulled Out Of The End Of Our Digestive Tract" for yet another infotainmentive release about smoking. I look forward to their next press releases on marijuana, methaphetamine, cocaine, alcohol and the positioning of chocolate in supermarkets.

If all you sit back and think a minute......

What the heck does smoking really contribute to your personal self destruction?

You inhale 'thousands of gallons' of 'UNBURNT' and partial 'combusted' Automative/Truck fumes (notice that smell/headache when you follow a poorly tuned diesel vehicle?).

Commercial production plants generating (Fuel,Steel, detergents, etc.), excess CO2 production from the so called 'Green House effect'(which may not be that bad, Remember Co2 promotes Plant growth, thus more Oxygen production), you have another thing coming!!

I am not an advocate of smoking(my Mom keeps giving me Hel.!), but to think that the 'beginning' of the 'end' starts with a mere '5 gram per cigarette' comparison to the 'gallons' of 'Unburnt' TOXIC fuel used in Private & Commercial vehicles is sheer ludicrous!!

This is forgetting about the commercial plants used to power our homes (Hydro,coal, nuclear, etc..) that we depend on to run our 'routine lives' on a day to to day basis.

So before we become advocate's and all knowing righteous foreseers, sit back and ponder the virtuos of what you ask!

Yes, we have banned 'smokers' from restaurants (have you noticed the recent foreclosures?), and ignored the reality 'mass production' of day to day 'TOXINS' by industry, we still 'toot' our horns about the feeble attempt to make a difference.............

Just my 2 CDN cents worth.... RWG.

At least you admit you don't know how many lives have been "saved". I suspect the number is much much smaller than claimed and of those, most will die in a couple of years anyway.

Firstly, some of these people who have quit since the ban would have quit anyway. Smoking rates have been falling for years before the ban.

The article didn't even state that the rate of quitting has increased.

Secondly these people have quit anywhere from 1 month ago to 3.5 years ago. Would they really already be dead if they hadn't quit smoking?

Maybe their lives have been extended by a few years - certainly not 15 since they aren't non-smokers - only former-smokers.

I believe I can reasonably argue against the bans. In places without bans in bars and restaurants, management of those establishments have actually started voluntarily prohibiting smoking.

If anti-smokers simply stopped going to places that allowed smoking, more and more would and you would end up with a handful of places that allowed smoking and there would be plenty of places that did not allow smoking - without the interference of the government which feels that it has to make up statistics to justify their policies.

If 70% of Kiwis really did support the ban when it went into effect, why weren't these people staying home from places that allowed smoking and forcing them to change without government interference?

Smokers contribute hundreds of millions to the state coffers every year in tobacco tax. Why then is it still expensive to purchase quit smoking aids. Instead of giving the Smoke free money to non smokers to play sports and play in bands, the tax money could be more usefully spent on supporting more people to give up cigarettes. Zyban for example has been proven around the world to help people break the habit successfully without excessive side effects, yet is still extraordinarily expensive. There are a number of other cessation aids that are in the same boat. Its hypocrisy at its worst.