Rhys
Thank you for your astute comments and your humanity.

If you have the time, check the comments section of the following blog thread.
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/08/gallup-poll-shows-increasing-lack-of.html
You will find a photo from circa 1915 about half-way down the comments section. The photo shows a large anti-tobacco billboard. At that time, eugenics dominated proceedings in America. Although secondhand smoke “danger” had not been concocted yet, the sentiments and words on the billboard could be seamlessly transposed to modern day: It is the same mentality. In other words, we’ve regressed about a 100 years.

The problem is that we really don’t understand the full scope of the eugenics framework. Eugenics has two aspects. The first and primary aspect, and the one that most are familiar with and which solely appears in descriptions of eugenics, is the racial/heredity/breeding aspect. The second aspect, and one that most are not familiar with, is a behavioral/environmental aspect, e.g., anti-tobacco, anti-alcohol, dietary prescriptions/proscriptions, physical exercise. Post-WWII, the American eugenicists simply stopped using the “E”[ugenics] word due to its horrific connotations, de-emphasized the racial dimension - for obvious reasons, and dispensed with their flawed “heredity trees”. But they continued with the behavioral aspect. By the late-1970s it was apparent that a movement was afoot that was obsessed with physical health, e.g., anti-tobacco, anti-alcohol, dietary prescriptions/proscriptions, physical exercise. Since the “movement” was nameless and the commentators of the time were not familiar with eugenics, they termed the movement “healthism”. Yet healthism is nothing other than the behavioral dimension of eugenics.

Post-WWII, the heredity dimension was taken up by genetics research. The last 60 years has resulted in the Human Genome Project which is now housed in the very same building complex in Cold Spring Harbor, New York, as the original Eugenics Record Office.

Some blogs you might keep your eye on, if you’re not aware of them already:

Blog run by Professor Michael Siegel. Michael is very much a Tobacco Control advocate but he has attempted to distance himself from the more outrageous claims of Tobacco Control (i.e., anti-tobacco).
http://www.tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com

Also,
http://www.velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com
http://dickpuddlecote.blogspot.com

I think that there should be an encouragement program for those who want to attempt giving up.

I also think that the reasons for regulating smoko time outweigh those to the contrary. Of course, getting the dosages correct is important, and to some extent may have some bearing on the overall recovery of patients.

And, as some poor wretched poppets may have been "in the gutter" without an income for a while, I think that the hospital should take charge of the durrie supply.

Of course, cigarettes with the addition of "after burner" chemicals in them and or additional sh!t that makes them more addictive could also be weaned out.

Something economically creative perhaps, like a simple direct debit on the CentreLink income of the inmates should suffice.

Of course, if "informed legal consent" is an issue then perhaps a legislative tweak to provide an exception for a "Legal Guardian"

(ie the hospital or facility where the patient is)

to authorise these types of matters.

An expansion of the role of the social workers to provide a more complete package solution and orientation program pre graduating to "out patient" status would also make for better outcomes all round I believe.

..

Hospital Grade durries!? HaHaHa