Smoking dilemma

As a life-long non-smoker, I'm intrigued by the British government's latest attempts to reduce cigarette-smoking and reduce tobacco-related hospital admissions.

They're hoping to pass a new law that would ban the sale of cigarettes to anyone under 15, with the age limit rising each year.

A similar law proposed in New Zealand was heavily opposed and it has now been scrapped by the incoming New Zealand government.

I must say I'm of two minds whether the proposed English law is a good idea. Yes, I'm all in favour of anything that makes people healthier but would people observe the new law or would they try to find ways around it?

You could get an older friend to buy the cigarettes for you, or you could lie about your age, or there would no doubt be a black market in fags you could resort to.

And how would shopkeepers know if you were over 15 or not? If they asked for ID, they could be insulted or threatened.

On the other hand, the sale of alcohol is subject to a similar ban, which says you can't sell alcohol to anyone under 18. It seems to work quite well and nobody is lobbying for the age limit to be scrapped. And young people are consuming much less alcohol anyway, largely because they're more aware of the long-term health risks.

I think on balance I support the new law, if nothing else because it would emphasise the dangers of smoking.

Fuggy no more

A doctor has disputed the widespread consensus that passive smoking damages your health. She says the Professor who first proved the link between smoking and lung cancer also said that the health risks of passive smoking were negligible.

But the clampdown on passive smoking gathered pace and now smoking is banned in just about every public building. The ban has been generally accepted as necessary and beneficial.

As a lifetime non-smoker, all I can say is that the ban on passive smoking has definitely improved my quality of life. Instead of going into an office and fighting my way through a thick and smelly fug of tobacco smoke, I can relax and enjoy reasonably fresh air.

It also means that my clothes are still fairly clean at the end of the day and not reeking of smoke and needing a good wash. I remember not wanting to get too close to one heavy smoking workmate who seemed to only wash his clothes about once a week.

I recall vividly my early days in my first-ever job in a newspaper office. The tobacco smoke was so dense I felt as if I was suffocating. I seriously considered resigning because I could hardly breathe.

Fortunately after several days of near-asphyxia, I became acclimatised to the fug and it no longer bothered me. And it's interesting that although I was exposed to heavy smokers day in and day out, it hasn't affected my health, which is still pretty good. I have no lung or circulation problems.

For many years my mother was exposed to my father's cigarettes (he smoked about ten a day and died of lung cancer), yet she's still alive and kicking at the age of 95.

But am I glad we've seen the last of those foul, stinking offices.

Health bribes

Would you give up an unhealthy habit if you were paid to do so? That's what the NHS believes, and they're running some trials to see if the lure of cash will persuade people to give up smoking or lose weight.

In Kent fatties are being offered £425 to slim down by 50 pounds and keep it off for six months. Pregnant women in Essex can get £100 in food vouchers if they give up smoking for a year.

The idea is that a financial incentive will have more effect on people than merely telling them they're damaging their health - or their child's health. We're all tempted by a bit of filthy lucre.

I very much doubt if this is the case. Unhealthy habits are so deeply engrained, so much a part of your whole personality and even your social life, that I can't see money being persuasive for very long. For a month or two maybe but not permanently.

If I was a couch potato and I was offered some cash to take regular exercise, would I succumb? I might do for a while, but sooner or later the familiar mindset would take over and I'd think "God, this walking business is boring. Plodding around looking at grass and trees. I'd rather be watching a good movie." And that would be that.

In fact research has already shown that paying people not to smoke only works as long as the money's being paid. The same is true of weight loss. So I'm not sure why the NHS is pursuing what seems to be a failed idea.

It could be expensive too. If they paid every heavy drinker to cut down on alcohol, the bill would be ruinous. And suppose the boozers just spent the money on fags instead?

At the end of the day, the only thing that promotes good health is healthy role models. Perhaps some of those gluttonous, overweight politicians could show us the way?