Cable Forum
Page 6 of 17 « First 2345 6 7891016 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   smoking and the pub (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=17305)

Chris 30-10-2005 21:33
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackDad
I stand corrected (and haven't the time to search for conflicting research ;)), although the dopamine effect is accurate, which only goes to demonstrate that the relationship between nicotine-depression is complex.
Smoking, as I have discussed, is an important way of coping with everyday life and social relationships, especially when suffering from depression. Therefore it is not something that we can easily gloss over with puritanical policies based on unsound evidence.
Indeed ... I knew someone who suffered quite badly mentally, had more than one psychotic episode, and was advised by his psychiatrist not to give up smoking.

However I think it is grasping just a little to suggest that restricting the places people can smoke will have a detrimental effect on the nation's mental health. It's not as if they're making it illegal. Yet. ;)

SlackDad 30-10-2005 21:40
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris T
Indeed ... I knew someone who suffered quite badly mentally, had more than one psychotic episode, and was advised by his psychiatrist not to give up smoking.

However I think it is grasping just a little to suggest that restricting the places people can smoke will have a detrimental effect on the nation's mental health. It's not as if they're making it illegal. Yet. ;)
Although a side effect is to potentially increase the risk of social isolation for a fifth of the population. This is a serious concern for the nation's mental health. But not for the first time in this thread I fear we're going round in circles and once again will have to agree to disagree :).

clarie 30-10-2005 21:52
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackDad
Although a side effect is to potentially increase the risk of social isolation for a fifth of the population.
Sorry but I fail to see that as a genuine reason to avoid the ban. I don't even believe it will increase any sort of social isolation, certainly not of one fifth of the population.

Although I will say it is an interesting point to consider and not one we have touched on before in this thread.

SlackDad 30-10-2005 22:48
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by clarie
Sorry but I fail to see that as a genuine reason to avoid the ban. I don't even believe it will increase any sort of social isolation, certainly not of one fifth of the population.

Although I will say it is an interesting point to consider and not one we have touched on before in this thread.
These are the figures quoted by Oliver James in the article I quoted from earlier. I have to disagree. I think social isolation is exactly the kind of area that this ban is going to affect but will not be seen in the headlines. It is most definitely a reason to reassess the ban as it is one of the most destructive elements within society, but of course, by definition, is not readily seen, or perhaps even thought about. Unless of course it is happening to you.

Stuart 30-10-2005 23:44
Re: smoking and the pub
 
I am pretty sure I have already posted this, but I can't find it, so here goes:


My opinion on this ban is that it is a good thing, but the way it is implemented is terrible.

Put simply, the Landlord should be free to decide if his or her pub is to ban smoking. They should, however, consult their staff and customers first.

BTW, before you start saying "He's only saying this because he's a smoker", I am not a smoker (I think it's a disgusting habit).

etccarmageddon 31-10-2005 08:09
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris T
Thing is, the brain is known to reduced production of its own antidepressants when it starts to get a regular supply of nicotine. It's therefore not surprising that people can suffer depression in numbers after quitting - the nicotine is gone, and the brain has given up on its own production so there's nothing to plug the gap.

The long-term aim of a policy like this is to reduce the number of people who take up smoking in the first place. If that happens, the number of people with brains deficient in natural antidepressant (someone tell me what its called!) would reduce...QUOTE]only found this out yesterday...
http://www2.rnw.nl/rnw/en/features/s...ne2000228.html

SlackDad 31-10-2005 08:23
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Very complex relationship between nicotine and depression :http://hmiworld.org/hmi/past_issues/...d_smoking.html

andyl 31-10-2005 08:27
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Employers are going to have to think hard about their responsibilities to staff and potential liabilities if they do not protect them from smoke: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4386122.stm

etccarmageddon 31-10-2005 08:31
Re: smoking and the pub
 
it shouldn't be a subject of debate - by default ALL staff should be protected from smoke whether they care or dont care. just like we have health and safety regardless of whether we think it's necessary.

SlackDad 31-10-2005 10:15
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by etccarmageddon
it shouldn't be a subject of debate - by default ALL staff should be protected from smoke whether they care or dont care. just like we have health and safety regardless of whether we think it's necessary.
A large part of health and safety regulation is also concerned with the worker taking responsibilty for themselves. Why can't a bar worker make an informed decision over whether or not to work in a smokier environment. If not, work in a bar/restaurant where smoking is not allowed. It seems quite straightforward to me. There are risks attached to many jobs but we can't allow a situation to develop where nobody will do anything without a risk assessment or for the fear of being sued.
As David Hockney said, "we have become so scared of dying that we have forgotten how to live." Wise words indeed.

andyl 31-10-2005 10:18
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackDad
A large part of health and safety regulation is also concerned with the worker taking responsibilty for themselves. Why can't a bar worker make an informed decision over whether or not to work in a smokier environment. If not, work in a bar/restaurant where smoking is not allowed. It seems quite straightforward to me. There are risks attached to many jobs but we can't allow a situation to develop where nobody will do anything without a risk assessment or for the fear of being sued.
As David Hockney said, "we have become so scared of dying that we have forgotten how to live." Wise words indeed.
But people may take a job out of necessity; that element of choice doesn't exist.

SlackDad 31-10-2005 10:39
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyl
But people may take a job out of necessity; that element of choice doesn't exist.
I'm not so sure that given a fair amount of smoking and smoke free pubs in any one area this should present a problem.

clarie 31-10-2005 10:44
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackDad
I'm not so sure that given a fair amount of smoking and smoke free pubs in any one area this should present a problem.
I don't think that's going to be the case though. Didn't they say that poorer areas will be at a disadvantage because there are less food-serving pubs in those areas?

ian@huth 31-10-2005 10:48
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyl
But people may take a job out of necessity; that element of choice doesn't exist.
So non-smokers should be able to choose whereas smokers are denied the option of choosing.

If over 20% of the population are smokers then it is several million people who are being denied a choice if a smoking ban was to be imposed in all enclosed public spaces. Smokers aren't saying that they should be allowed to smoke everywhere they want to. Smokers are quite happy to have a situation where they are allowed to smoke only in establishments where the owner decides that he wants to allow smoking on his premises. Non-smokers aren't being forced to enter those premises and the people who do choose to enter do so of their own free will. What harm is being done to non-smokers by giving smokers the choice of having enclosed places where they can smoke? More harm could possible occur if there is a complete ban as many smokers will find alternative places where they can legally smoke which might have non-smokers, particularly children, present in them.

basa 31-10-2005 10:48
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Just to add my 2p, and as a SMOKER .... I think smoking should be banned in ALL public indoor places. If I want to smoke I go outside.

All companies should provide a place for smokers to smoke, be it a special ventilated room or outside.

I would also make it illegal to smoke anywhere indoors (including private dwellings) where children under 16 years are present. Again if you want to smoke, go outside, I do.

To hell with smokers choice ! If you choose (chose) to smoke then accept the limitations.

andyl 31-10-2005 10:54
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ian@huth
So non-smokers should be able to choose whereas smokers are denied the option of choosing.
Yes, for obvious and oft pointed out reasons.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by clarie
I don't think that's going to be the case though. Didn't they say that poorer areas will be at a disadvantage because there are less food-serving pubs in those areas?
Yes. And more pubs will stop serving food because of this useless compromise.

Chris 31-10-2005 10:55
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ian@huth
So non-smokers should be able to choose whereas smokers are denied the option of choosing.
Got it in one. Do we have to keep going over the reasons why this is fair and reasonable?

andyl 31-10-2005 10:55
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris T
Got it in one. Do we have to keep going over the reasons why this is fair and reasonable?
Apparently so ;)

clarie 31-10-2005 10:59
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ian@huth
So non-smokers should be able to choose whereas smokers are denied the option of choosing.
Excellently put!!

As Basa said, he who chooses to smoke should accept the limitations put upon him as a result of that choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ian@huth
More harm could possible occur if there is a complete ban as many smokers will find alternative places where they can legally smoke which might have non-smokers, particularly children, present in them.
People will always smoke in front of children, it's a sad fact but true.

Russ 31-10-2005 10:59
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackDad
I'm not so sure that given a fair amount of smoking and smoke free pubs in any one area this should present a problem.
You show me ONE non-smoking pub in Port Talbot/Swansea and I'll agree with you.

SMHarman 31-10-2005 11:00
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyl
Yes. And more pubs will stop serving food because of this useless compromise.
John whatsisname of the BBC was interviewing the member of the cabinet promoting this.
"Is a Sandwich food?"
No
"How about a bag of Crisps, peanuts, pork scratchings?"
No

This one will run and run.

ian@huth 31-10-2005 11:06
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris T
Got it in one. Do we have to keep going over the reasons why this is fair and reasonable?
It is only fair and reasonable in some peoples eyes. Just because you find it fair and reasonable doesn't mean that it is. Many people will find it very unfair and unreasonable. Smokers are not asking any non-smoker to be in a smoky environment.

clarie 31-10-2005 11:11
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ian@huth
It is only fair and reasonable in some peoples eyes. Just because you find it fair and reasonable doesn't mean that it is. Many people will find it very unfair and unreasonable. Smokers are not asking any non-smoker to be in a smoky environment.
I am not sure getting back into this bit is a good way to proceed but we can if you like...

You're right, smokers aren't asking any non-smokers to be in a smoky environment. They are however, saying if you don't like it, go elsewhere. You're also not taking into account people who are not as educated as others in the dangers of smoking, or the poorer people living in areas where there are very few, if any, non-smoking pubs.

It is a dangerous habit. If you want to indulge in it, that's fine. But millions of people choose to renounce it or to avoid it because of its danger. If smokers can't or don't, that's their problem, and it's not ok to inflict it upon me.

basa 31-10-2005 11:12
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ian@huth
Smokers are not asking any non-smoker to be in a smoky environment.
Get real .... light up in ANY enclosed environment, aircraft, train, restaraunt, pub, and everyone there gets a bit !!

Chris 31-10-2005 11:13
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ian@huth
It is only fair and reasonable in some peoples eyes. Just because you find it fair and reasonable doesn't mean that it is. Many people will find it very unfair and unreasonable. Smokers are not asking any non-smoker to be in a smoky environment.
But it's only a smoky environment because the smoker makes it one. Your argument is circular.

ian@huth 31-10-2005 11:26
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by clarie
I am not sure getting back into this bit is a good way to proceed but we can if you like...

You're right, smokers aren't asking any non-smokers to be in a smoky environment. They are however, saying if you don't like it, go elsewhere. You're also not taking into account people who are not as educated as others in the dangers of smoking, or the poorer people living in areas where there are very few, if any, non-smoking pubs.

It is a dangerous habit. If you want to indulge in it, that's fine. But millions of people choose to renounce it or to avoid it because of its danger. If smokers can't or don't, that's their problem, and it's not ok to inflict it upon me.
Doesn't the fact that there is a lack of no smoking pubs tell you something? Publicans could have made their pubs non-smoking some time ago. Why didn't they? In an area that has no non-smoking pubs I would have thought that a publican deciding to make his pub non-smoking would be on an absolute winner. All those potential customers who want to enjoy a smoke free atmosphere would flock to it and profits would go through the roof. Maybe the people who frequent pubs actually prefer things the way they are without a ban.

I very rarely go in a pub these days because of my medical condition which makes getting about difficult and alcohol an absolute no-no (stares longingly at the unopened bottle of 25 year old single malt in the cabinet and thinks "if only"). Smoking is bad for my health in many ways but it is also a big benefit to me in association with the L.Dopa prescribed for Parkinson's. Whilst going to the pub is a rare occurence for me I would never go in one again if smoking was not allowed.

Chris 31-10-2005 11:34
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ian@huth
Doesn't the fact that there is a lack of no smoking pubs tell you something? Publicans could have made their pubs non-smoking some time ago. Why didn't they?
Centuries of tradition? Fear that if they were the only ones to do it, they would lose out? There are all kinds of reasons why legislation is often required to kick-start something that the majority have long been in favour of.

fireman328 31-10-2005 11:37
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyl
Employers are going to have to think hard about their responsibilities to staff and potential liabilities if they do not protect them from smoke: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4386122.stm
That does not mean a ban on smoking, there are many occupations which require protective masks or in my previous career breathing equipment which was provided and used as part of the overall health and safety policy.
If a person is employed in a hazardous area then sufficient and adequate equipment must be available to the workers at risk. Are we going to stop paint spraying, fumigation, crop dusting or the production of carcinogens, if so where will it end ?

ian@huth 31-10-2005 11:38
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by basa
Quote:
Originally Posted by ian@huth
Smokers are not asking any non-smoker to be in a smoky environment.
Get real .... light up in ANY enclosed environment, aircraft, train, restaraunt, pub, and everyone there gets a bit !!
Very observant. What bit about having premises which the owner wants to allow smoking in and the customers want to be able to smoke in are you failing to understand. Non-smokers don't go in and all those who do get a bit of the smoke but aren't in the least bothered because they don't mind this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris T
But it's only a smoky environment because the smoker makes it one.
Very observant again. It is only a smoky environment because the smoker chooses to be in it and doesn't mind the smoke. Non-smokers can choose not to enter.

Chris 31-10-2005 11:42
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ian@huth
Very observant again. It is only a smoky environment because the smoker chooses to be in it and doesn't mind the smoke. Non-smokers can choose not to enter.
No, it is not a smoky atmosphere because the smoker chooses to be in it and doesn't mind, it is a smoky atmosphere because the smoker puts the smoke into the atmosphere. The smoker, who represents a convincing minority of the overall population.

Non-smokers can do what they have the democratic right to do - applaud and support a ban on the habit of the minority affecting the health, wellbeing and enjoyment of a night out of the majority.

SlackDad 31-10-2005 11:43
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris T
Centuries of tradition? Fear that if they were the only ones to do it, they would lose out? There are all kinds of reasons why legislation is often required to kick-start something that the majority have long been in favour of.
Are you actually sure the majority have long been in favour of this ban? For instance all pub customers in Ireland were not in favour:
Quote:
Even customers do not want an outright ban, the vintners claim, citing a study that found 54% of pub customers would support a separate smoking area over a total ban.
Source:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3543179.stm

Or do you mean the majority of the population?

ian@huth 31-10-2005 11:46
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris T
Centuries of tradition? Fear that if they were the only ones to do it, they would lose out? There are all kinds of reasons why legislation is often required to kick-start something that the majority have long been in favour of.
That would imply that publicans don't have brains and are unable to do a proper risk assesment on their business. If the majority of people have been in favour of smoke free pubs for a long time then there would be far more of them by now. Tradition is something that has no place in making a business plan. Profit potential is the ultimate driving force and it appears that there is a lack of non-smoking pubs because the publicans know that they will lose profit by going down this road.

Chris 31-10-2005 11:47
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackDad
Are you actually sure the majority have long been in favour of this ban? For instance all pub customers in Ireland were not in favour:
Source:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3543179.stm

Or do you mean the majority of the population?
I don't go into pubs much because of the smoke (and lack of babysitters for the children it's true, but that's another story). It's not surprising if a group of people that has chosen to go into a pub despite the smoke is generally less ambivalent about that smoke.

ian@huth 31-10-2005 11:51
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris T
No, it is not a smoky atmosphere because the smoker chooses to be in it and doesn't mind, it is a smoky atmosphere because the smoker puts the smoke into the atmosphere. The smoker, who represents a convincing minority of the overall population.

Non-smokers can do what they have the democratic right to do - applaud and support a ban on the habit of the minority affecting the health, wellbeing and enjoyment of a night out of the majority.
Smokers may represent a convincing minority of the overall population but are they a minority or majority of the pub going population?

Nothing about having a choice between smoking and non-smoking pubs affects the health, wellbeing and enjoyment of a night out of a non-smoker.

clarie 31-10-2005 11:53
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ian@huth
Profit potential is the ultimate driving force and it appears that there is a lack of non-smoking pubs because the publicans know that they will lose profit by going down this road.
Which is exactly why the ban needs to be put into place. Of course a publican is not going to want to implement a health and safety rule in his bar if he thinks it's going to reduce his profits. That's the nature of business. Doesn't mean he shouldn't do so.I am sure a lot of publicans and restaurant owners could make a much bigger profit if they could just ignore health and safety laws.

However a blanket ban would mean that no bar is at an advantage or disadvantage to any other other bar as regards smoking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ian@huth
Nothing about having a choice between smoking and non-smoking pubs affects the health, wellbeing and enjoyment of a night out of a non-smoker.
Again, it does, because the non-smoker cannot have free choice of where to go.

We are very much on the same road we were on before and we are in danger of going in infinite circles!

andyl 31-10-2005 11:58
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fireman328
That does not mean a ban on smoking, there are many occupations which require protective masks or in my previous career breathing equipment which was provided and used as part of the overall health and safety policy.
If a person is employed in a hazardous area then sufficient and adequate equipment must be available to the workers at risk. Are we going to stop paint spraying, fumigation, crop dusting or the production of carcinogens, if so where will it end ?

If you are paint spraying then as you say you get given a protective mask. Bar staff are given nowt although I love the idea of bar staff them wearing such masks - apart from anything else should add wonderfully to the tabloid-generated climate of fear over avian flu.
__________________

Actually, just to remind, while this thread makes reference to pubs, the legislation refers to all public enclosed spaces does it not. The fact that the licensed trade believes it should enjoy special exemption is IMO nonsense given this is supposed to be a public health initiative.

clarie 31-10-2005 11:59
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Good point andyl, what do all of the anti-ban people think of a ban on smoking in public places other than a drinking establishment?

Chris 31-10-2005 12:01
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyl
Actually, just to remind, while this thread makes reference to pubs, the legislation refers to all public enclosed spaces does it not. The fact that the licensed trade believes it should enjoy special exemption is IMO nonsense given this is supposed to be a public health initiative.
They have rather tried to corner the debate, haven't they? :erm: First, try to get sympathy by making out that they, above anyone and anything else, are the victim, and then quietly support the rather desperate stories that started to appear in the Press over the last couple of days that the smoking ban actually represents a *risk* to public health. Insidious is a good word for it.

basa 31-10-2005 12:08
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ian@huth
Very observant. What bit about having premises which the owner wants to allow smoking in and the customers want to be able to smoke in are you failing to understand. Non-smokers don't go in and all those who do get a bit of the smoke but aren't in the least bothered because they don't mind this.

Very observant again. It is only a smoky environment because the smoker chooses to be in it and doesn't mind the smoke. Non-smokers can choose not to enter.
Maybe you should observe the fact this thread is discussing possible new legislation to outlaw smoking in public places. The legislation would effectively prohibit owners from allowing smoking in their property .. presumably because smoking is hazardous to persons.

Smokers and non smokers can then use the premises, except to smoke in !!!!

(There is always a very large space in which smoking is permitted .. it is called THE OPEN AIR.)

ian@huth 31-10-2005 12:16
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by clarie
Again, it does, because the non-smoker cannot have free choice of where to go.
As I said before, why should the non-smoker have a choice and the smoker should have no choice?

I like Chinese food but don't like Indian food. Thankfully there is a choice of both of these and many more types of restaurant. I know that choice of restaurant doesn't have health and safety implications but I hope that you can see my point. All sections of the community should be catered for and if they aren't then it is discrimination.

Nearly everything in life involves having a choice. You don't have a free choice of which Church you go to if you want a Catholic service, for instance. You don't have a free choice of music that you hear on the radio. If the station that you tune to is playing the wrong type of music for you then you retune to one that does. Why should you have a free choice of pub when millions of the population are given no choice?
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by clarie
Good point andyl, what do all of the anti-ban people think of a ban on smoking in public places other than a drinking establishment?
To me it doesn't matter if it is a pub or any other place. If the owner of the public space wants to allow smoking on their premises then they should be allowed to.

Russ 31-10-2005 12:16
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ian@huth
You don't have a free choice of which Church you go to if you want a Catholic service, for instance. You don't have a free choice of music that you hear on the radio.
What if that church or radio station is the only one for miles around?

clarie 31-10-2005 12:17
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ian@huth
I know that choice of restaurant doesn't have health and safety implications but I hope that you can see my point.
I see your point yes but what you have said above is exactly the issue. I am all for free choice yes, but not when it comes to something as dangerous as this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ian@huth
Why should you have a free choice of pub when millions of the population are given no choice?
As Basa said, smokers are free to enter into the pub, they will simply have to go outside to smoke. Sorry, but the habit is dangerous, end of story. It's not a lifestyle choice, it's a dangerous habit that you are either unwilling, or 'unable' to quit, and all this talk of 'free choice' will not disguise that. Basa, as a smoker, accepts that as it is his habit, he should not inflict it upon others, and chooses to smoke outside, and I applaud that.

ian@huth 31-10-2005 12:24
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by basa
Maybe you should observe the fact this thread is discussing possible new legislation to outlaw smoking in public places. The legislation would effectively prohibit owners from allowing smoking in their property .. presumably because smoking is hazardous to persons.

Smokers and non smokers can then use the premises, except to smoke in !!!!

(There is always a very large space in which smoking is permitted .. it is called THE OPEN AIR.)
Discussing possible new legislation involves hearing both sides of the argument. It appears that one side is in favour of restricting freedom of choice whilst the other side is sticking up for freedom of choice.

clarie 31-10-2005 12:27
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ian@huth
It appears that one side is in favour of restricting freedom of choice whilst the other side is sticking up for freedom of choice.
Freedom of choice is not what is at stake here!!!!!!!!!!

The health of millions is what is important!

(And actually you are trying to restrict my freedom of choice btw with regards what pubs I go to so :PP: )

ian@huth 31-10-2005 12:34
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by clarie
Freedom of choice is not what is at stake here!!!!!!!!!!

The health of millions is what is important!

(And actually you are trying to restrict my freedom of choice btw with regards what pubs I go to so :PP: )
Freedom of choice is certainly at stake here.

The only concern regarding health is the health of people who knowingly choose to go into an establishment that allows smoking.

I love your I'm all right Jack, sod the millions who want to enjoy a night out at the pub where they can drink, smoke and socialise attitude

Russ 31-10-2005 12:37
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ian@huth
Freedom of choice is certainly at stake here.
Well you could say that the anti-terror laws are against the suicide bombers' freedom of choice!

Or if you want to try one within the law, if I wanted to follow you around and fart within your personal space, I'm sure you'd object.

But wait! It's my freedom of choice to follow you around!

clarie 31-10-2005 12:40
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ian@huth
The only concern regarding health is the health of people who knowingly choose to go into an establishment that allows smoking.
Yeah, and who cares about them anyway...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ian@huth
I love your I'm all right Jack, sod the millions who want to enjoy a night out at the pub where they can drink, smoke and socialise attitude
Ach, calm down. They can still drink and socialise. And pop outside for a fag.

As I have said before, I am sure it's not too much effort to pop outside. After all, you have already sacrificed so much to maintain your habit - finances, fresh smell, good health, fitness, and flesh coloured fingers...

basa 31-10-2005 12:40
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ian@huth
Freedom of choice is certainly at stake here.

The only concern regarding health is the health of people who knowingly choose to go into an establishment that allows smoking.

I love your I'm all right Jack, sod the millions who want to enjoy a night out at the pub where they can drink, smoke and socialise attitude
Point is Ian, it is only the smoker who gets freedom of choice here. The non smoker cannot choose to enter a non smoky atmosphere because it will not exist.

The smoker can choose to go outside to smoke or not smoke. Then everyone who wishes can enjoy the pub. Those who want to smoke go outside, those that want to relieve themselves of the 6 pints they've consumed can go to the loo.

Simple. :erm:

clarie 31-10-2005 12:42
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Basa: :nworthy:

Salu 31-10-2005 12:44
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Just to add another dimension to the debate.

If I could predominantly address the smokers...

Ash estimates that just under 5000 lives could be saved each year by this smoking ban. If they are liberally overestimating that figure and just for arguments sake we said it only saved one life......wouldn't it be worth it? If I handed a bag round asking for a £1 to save a life of someone who had cancer for eg, you'd probably put one in. It wouldn't really cost you much (unless you were very poor of course). So how about actually allowing an element of cost into your life with respect to smoking and save a life?

In reference to children and passive smoking mentioned before, did you realise that 17000 children under the age of 5 are to hospital every year because of the effects of passive smoking?

Smokers, stop being so selfish and think of the health of the nation and not your "right" to smoke in a public enclosed space!

Pierre 31-10-2005 12:45
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BASA
(There is always a very large space in which smoking is permitted .. it is called THE OPEN AIR.)
What!!! and be forced to breathe in all that Lead and those Diesel particulates

basa 31-10-2005 12:54
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salu
Just to add another dimension to the debate.

If I could predominantly address the smokers...

Ash estimates that just under 5000 lives could be saved each year by this smoking ban. If they are liberally overestimating that figure and just for arguments sake we said it only saved one life......wouldn't it be worth it? If I handed a bag round asking for a £1 to save a life of someone who had cancer for eg, you'd probably put one in. It wouldn't really cost you much (unless you were very poor of course). So how about actually allowing an element of cost into your life with respect to smoking and save a life?

In reference to children and passive smoking mentioned before, did you realise that 17000 children under the age of 5 are to hospital every year because of the effects of passive smoking?

Smokers, stop being so selfish and think of the health of the nation and not your "right" to smoke in a public enclosed space!

Smokers, stop being so selfish and think of the health of the nation and not your "right" to smoke in a public enclosed space!
As a smoker I endorse all that Salu says. :)

Also I feel it is criminal for anyone to smoke in the presence of any under 16 year old as I have previously pointed out. Where is freedom of choice there ?? Does your baby go outside in his baby walker ?? :disturbd:
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
What!!! and be forced to breathe in all that Lead and those Diesel particulates
You could always ban road vehicles ...... I cycle to work !!!! :D My fags burn more quickly though !! :rolleyes:

clarie 31-10-2005 13:05
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
What!!! and be forced to breathe in all that Lead and those Diesel particulates
That risk will remain whether we enforce a smoking ban or not!

It's almost like saying 'we have found a cure for Aids! But we better not enforce it cos we haven't found a cure for cancer yet.' Sounds ridiculous doesn't it.

andyl 31-10-2005 13:07
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Ian, Has anyone ever tried to force feed you an Indian takeway? If this was a widespread practice maybe you have a point, otherwise........ ;)

SlackDad 31-10-2005 13:26
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ D
You show me ONE non-smoking pub in Port Talbot/Swansea and I'll agree with you.
http://www.swansea.gov.uk/index.cfm?Articleid=3191 ;)

Russ 31-10-2005 13:29
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackDad
The Lounge closed earlier this year (still looking for the link).

edit: here.

As I've said, I have no choice with regards to where I go in the Swansea/Port Talbot areas for pubs which have a no-smoking policy. The closest I can get is Llanelli which, apart from being 20 miles away, is South Wales' very own Royston Vasey.

Pierre 31-10-2005 13:49
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by clarie
That risk will remain whether we enforce a smoking ban or not!

It's almost like saying 'we have found a cure for Aids! But we better not enforce it cos we haven't found a cure for cancer yet.' Sounds ridiculous doesn't it.
It's nothing at all like saying that - anyway the point I'm making is that there are lots of carcenogens you quite happily indulge in every day.

If we are to ban smokings how about a ban on this lot as well??????????

Quote:
This list includes three categories of substances and processes regarded as carcinogenic, primarily by the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organisation (IARC), and to a lesser extent, the US Government's Annual Report on Carcinogens from the National Toxicology Program (NTP).

Although there are some difference in categorisation, for convenience we have combined the lists under a common nomenclature. There are some minor omissions and exclusions of exotic materials. Please notify us of any errors or omissions considered important.

Category 1 is for substances for which there is sufficient evidence for a causal relationship with cancer in humans (confirmed human carcinogen).


Category 2A is for substances for which there is a lesser degree of evidence in humans but sufficient evidence in animal studies, or degrees of evidence considered appropriate to this category, eg unequivocal evidence of mutagenicity in mammalian cells (probable human carcinogen).


Category 2B is for substances for which there is sufficient evidence in animal tests, or degrees of evidence considered appropriate to this category (possible human carcinogen).


Excluded from the list above are IARC category 3 carcinogens for which assessment evidence is 'limited'.


All IARC monographs up to issue 60, 1994 and the NTP Sixth Report on Carcinogens are included; (and will update both sources soon).


Please refer to the original IARC and NTP documents for a more detailed description of categories and carcinogenicity evidence.


NOTE: THIS LIST CONVEYS A WEIGHT-OF-EVIDENCE APPROACH AND CAN NOT INCORPORATE INFORMATION ON RISK.
WHILE WE SUPPORT SUCH AN APPROACH, RISK ASSESSMENTS MUST INCLUDE CONSIDERATIONS OF EXPOSURE, DOSE AND BIOCHEMICAL RELEVANCE.




Category 1
=========
Aflatoxins
Alcoholic beverages
Aluminium production
4-aminobiphenyl
Arsenic and arsenic compounds
Asbestos
Manufacture of auramine
Azathioprine
Benzene
Benzidine
Beryllium and compounds (upgraded from 2A)
Betel quid with tobacco
Bis(chloromethyl)ether and chloromethyl methyl ether (technical grade)
Boot and shoe manufacture and repair (occupational exposure)
1,4 Butanediol dimethanesulphonate (Myleran)
Cadmium and compounds (upgraded from 2A)
Chlorambucil
Chlornaphazine
1-(2-Chloroethyl)-3-(4-methylcyclohexyl)-1 nitrosourea
Chloromethyl methyl ether (technical)
Chromium compounds (hexavalent)
Coal gasification
Coal tar pitches
Coal tars
Coke production
Cyclophosphamide
Cyclosporin
Erionite
Ethylene oxide
Furniture and cabinet making
Underground haematite mining with exposure to radon
Iron and steel founding
Isopropyl alcohol manufacture (strong acid process)
Manufacture of magenta (see also magenta, 2B)
Melphalan
8-Methoxypsoralen (Methoxsalen) plus ultraviolet radiation
Mineral oils_untreated and mildly-treated oils
MOPP and other combined chemotherapy for cancer
Mustard gas (sulphur mustard)
2-Naphthylamine
Nickel and nickel compounds (essentially sulphate and sulphide)
Nonsteroidal oestrogens (not necessarily all in group); includes
diethylstilboestrol
Oestrogen replacement therapy and
Combined oral contraceptives and sequential oral contraceptives
Steroidal oestrogens (not all in group)
Painter (occupational exposure as a painter)
Phenacetin (analgesic mixtures containing)
Rubber industry
Salted fish, Chinese style
Solar radiation
Shale oils
Soots
Sulphuric acid (occupational exposures to strong-inorganic-acid mists of
sulphuric acid)
Talc containing asbestiform fibres
Thiotepa
Tobacco products (smokeless)
Tobacco smoke
Treosulphan
Vinyl chloride

Category 2A
===========
Acrylamide
Acrylonitrile
Adriamycin
Anabolic steroids
Azacitidine
Benzanthracene
Benzidine-based dyes (technical grade)
Direct Black 38
Direct Blue 6
Direct Brown 95
Benzopyrene
1,3-Butadiene
Captafol
Bischloroethyl nitrosourea (BCNU)
1-(2-Chloroethyl)-3-cyclohexyl-1-nitrosourea (CCNU)
Chloramphenicol
para-Chloro-ortho-toluidine and its strong acid salts
Chlorozotocin
Cisplatin
Creosotes
Dibenzanthracene
Diesel engine exhaust
Diethyl sulphate
Dimethylcarbamoyl chloride
Dimethyl sulphate
Epichlorohydrin
Ethylene dibromide
N-ethyl-N-nitrosourea
Formaldehyde
Glass manufacturing industry (occupational exposure)
Art glass, glass containers and pressed ware
Hairdresser or barber (occupational exposure, probably dyes)
Insecticide use (occupational)
IQ (2-Amino-3-methylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoline);
Mate drinking (hot)
5-Methoxypsoralen
4,4'-Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline) (MOCA)
N-Methyl-N-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine (MNNG)
N-Methyl-N-nitrosourea
Nitrogen mustard
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
Petroleum refining (occupational refining exposures)
Phenacetin
Polychlorinated biphenyls
Procarbazine hydrochloride
Silica (crystalline)
Styrene-7,8-oxide
Tris(1-azaridinyl)phosphine sulphide (Thiotepa)
Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl) phosphate
Ultraviolet radiation: A, B and C including sunlamps and sunbeds
Vinyl bromide

Category 2B
===========
A-C(2-Amino-9H-pyrido[2,3-b]indole)
Acetaldehyde
Acetamide
AF-2[2-(2-Furyl)-3-(5-nitro-2-furyl)acrylamide
para-Aminoazobenzene
ortho-Aminoazobenzene
2-Amino-5-(5-nitro-2-furyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazole
Amitrole
ortho-Anisidine
Antimony trioxide
Aramite
Atrazine
Attapulgite
Azaserine
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
Benzo[j]fluoranthene
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Benzyl violet
Bitumens (extracts of steam-refined and air-refined bitumens)
Bleomycins
Bracken ferns
Bromodichloromethane
Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA)
ÃÃâ€*’¡-Butyrolactone
Caffeic acid
Carbon black extract
Carbon tetrachloride
Carrageenan (degraded)
Ceramic fibres
Chloramphenicol
Chlordane
Chlordecone
Chlorendic acid
Chlorinated paraffins of average carbon-chain length C12 and average
degree of chlorination approx 60%
alpha-Chlorinated toluenes (not necessarily all in group)
Benzotrichloride
para-Chloroaniline
Chloroform
Chlorophenols
Pentachlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Chlorophenoxy herbicides (not necessarily all in group)
4-Chloro-ortho-phenylenediamine
CI Acid Red 114
CI Basic Red 9
CI Direct Blue 15
Citrus Red No.2
Cobalt and cobalt compounds
Coffee (bladder)
para-Cresidine
Cycasin
Dacarbazine
Dantron (1,8-dihydroxyanthraquinone)
Daunomycin
DDT
N,N'-Diacetylbenzidine
4,4'-Diaminodiphenyl ether
2,4-Diaminotoluene
Dibenz[a,h]acridine
Dibenz[a,j]acridine
7H-Dibenzo[c,g]carbazole
Dibenzo[a,e]pyrene
Dibenzo[a,h]pyrene
Dibenzo[ai]pyrene
Dibenzo[a,l]pyrene
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
para-Dichlorobenzene
3,3'-Dichlorobenzene
3,3'-Dichloro-4,4'-diaminodiphenyl ether
1,2-Dichloroethane
Dichloromethane
1,3-Dichloropropene (technical grade)
Dichlorvos
Diepoxybutane
Diesel fuel (marine)
Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
1,2-Diethylhydrazine
Diglycidyl resorcinol ether
Dihydrosafrole
Diisopropyl sulfate
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine
para-Dimethylaminoazobenzene
trans-2-[(Dimethylamino)methylimino]-5-[2-(5-nitro-2-
furyl[vinyl]-1,3,4-oxidiazole
2,6-Dimethylaniline (2,6-Xylidene)
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine (ortho-tolidine)
Dimethylformamide
1,1-Dimethylhydrazine
1,2-Dimethylhydrazine
1,6-Dinitropyrene
1,8-Dinitropyrene
1,4-Dioxane
Disperse Blue 1
Ethyl acrylate
Ethylene thiourea
Ethyl methanesulphonate
2-(2-Formylhydrazino)-4-(5-nitro-2-furyl)thiazole
Fuel oils (residual, heavy)
Fusarium moniliforme (toxins derived from)
Fumonisin B1; Fumonisin B2; Fusarin C
Gasoline
Gasoline engine exhausts
Glasswool
Glu-P-1 (2-Amino-6-methyldipyrido[1,2-a:3'2'-d]imidazole)
Glu-P-2(-Aminodipyrido[1,2-a:3'2'-d]imidazole)
Glycidaldehyde
Griseofulvin
HC Blue No 1
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclohexanes
Technical grades
alpha isomer
gamma isomer (lindane)
Hexamethylphosphoramide
Hydrazine
Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene
Iron-dextran complex
Isoprene
Lasiocarpine
Lead and lead compounds (inorganic)
Magenta (containing CI Basic Red 9)
Man-made mineral fibres (see glasswool, rockwool, slagwool, and ceramic
fibres)
MeA-a-C (2-Amino-3-methyl-9H-pyrido[2,3-b]indole)
MeIQ (2-Amino-3,4-dimethylimidazo[4,5-f]-quinolone)
MeIQx (2-Amino-3,8-dimethylamidazo[4,5-f]quinoxaline)
Methylmercury compounds (methylmercuric chloride)
Merphalan
2-Methylaziridine
Methylazoxymethanol and its acetate
5-Methylchrysene
4,4'-Methylenebis(2-methylaniline)
4,4'-Methylenedianiline
Methylmethanesulphonate
2-methyl-1-nitroanthraquinone (uncertain purity)
N-methyl-N-nitrosourethane
Methylthiouracil
Metronidazole
Mirex
Mitomycin
Monocrotaline
5-(Morpholinomethyl)-3-[(5-nitrofurfurylidene)amino]-2-oxazolidinone
Nafenopin
Niridazole
5-Nitroacenaphthene
6-Nitrochrysene
Nitrofen (technical grade)
2-Nitrofluorene
1-[(5-Nitrofurfurylidene)amino]-2-imidazolidinone
N-[4-(5-Nitro-2-furyl)-2-thiazolyl]acetamide
Nitrogen mustard N-oxide
Nitrolotriacetic acid and its salts
2-Nitropropane
1-Nitropyrene
4-Nitropyrene
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine
N-Nitrosodiethanolamine
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
3-(N-Nitrosomethylamino)propionitrile
4-(N-Nitrosomethylamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK)
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine
N-Nitrosomethylvinylamine
N-Nitrosomorpholine
N-Nitrosonornicotine
N-Nitrosopiperidene
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
N-Nitrososarcosine
Ochratoxin A
Oil Orange
Panfuran S (containing dihydroxymethylfuratzine)
Phenazopyridine hydrochloride
Phenobarbital
Phenoxybenzamine hydrochloride
Phenyl glycidyl ether
Phenytoin
PhIP (2-Amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-b]pyridine
Pickled vegetables, traditional Asian
Polybrominated biphenyls
Ponceau MX
Ponceau 3R
Potassium bromate
1,3-Propane sultone
Propylene oxide (downgraded from 2A)
Progestins
Medroxyprogesterone acetate
ÃÃâ€*’¡-Propiolactone
Propylthiouracil
Rockwool
Saccharin
Safrole
Slagwool
Sodium ortho-phenylphenate
Sterigmatocystin
Streptozotocin
Styrene
Sulfallate
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin (TCDD)
Tetrachloroethylene
Textile manufacturing (occupational exposures)
Thiocetamide
4,4'-Thiodianiline
Thiourea
Toluene diisocyanates
ortho-Toluidine
Toxaphene (polychlorinated camphenes)
Trichlormethine (trimustine hydrochloride)
Trp-P-1 (3-Amino-1,4-dimethyl-5-H-pyrido[4,3-b]indole)
Trp-P-2 (3-Amino-1-methyl-5H-pyrido[4,3-b]indole)
Trypan blue
Uracil mustard
Urethane
4-Vinylcyclohexene
4-Vinylcyclohexene diepoxide
Welding fumes
Wood industries
Carpentry and joinery

Chris 31-10-2005 13:57
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
It's nothing at all like saying that - anyway the point I'm making is that there are lots of carcenogens you quite happily indulge in every day.

If we are to ban smokings how about a ban on this lot as well??????????
Well, for a start, the proposed law will not ban smoking. It will, however, control more tightly the way in which tobacco can be used. In much the same way as legislation already controls the use of (I would surmise) most, if not all, of the chemicals on your list.

Pierre 31-10-2005 14:04
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris T
Well, for a start, the proposed law will not ban smoking. It will, however, control more tightly the way in which tobacco can be used. In much the same way as legislation already controls the use of (I would surmise) most, if not all, of the chemicals on your list.
True,

It's just that the buzz word everybody seems to be banging on about is "Choice". None of use have a "choice" but to breathe in the crap the some foundries and chemical plants kick out, some people don't have a choice but to leave beneath high voltage power line, some people don't have choice but to leave on estates where there are high volumes of Radon gas.

At the moment you do have the choice to go into a smoking or non-smoking area.

and now because of this legislation your choices will be even clearer as we will now have smoking or non-smoking pubs.

So now I can't see what the problem is?

SlackDad 31-10-2005 14:10
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris T
Well, for a start, the proposed law will not ban smoking. It will, however, control more tightly the way in which tobacco can be used. In much the same way as legislation already controls the use of (I would surmise) most, if not all, of the chemicals on your list.
I'm not so sure, http://www.greenpeace.org/internatio...mpaigns/toxics
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris T
They have rather tried to corner the debate, haven't they? :erm: First, try to get sympathy by making out that they, above anyone and anything else, are the victim, and then quietly support the rather desperate stories that started to appear in the Press over the last couple of days that the smoking ban actually represents a *risk* to public health. Insidious is a good word for it.
I hardly think a reasoned look at the effect on depression and social isolation of the smoking ban is 'insiduous'. If that of course is what you are referring to.

clarie 31-10-2005 14:18
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
anyway the point I'm making is that there are lots of carcenogens you quite happily indulge in every day.
What makes you think I am happily indulging in them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
It's nothing at all like saying that
I disagree. One of the main points being made on this thread by those opposing a ban is that there are many other dangerous substances out there such as alcohol, drugs, and car exhaust fumes. But that is completely beside the point, and how on earth is it an argument against protecting us from smoking? This is why I said about the Aids cure thing - it's like saying 'well what is the point of focusing on reducing the dangers caused by one thing and not on others?'
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackDad
I hardly think a reasoned look at the effect on depression and social isolation of the smoking ban is 'insiduous'. If that of course is what you are referring to.
I really do think this concern is another 'straw clutcher'. Is this honestly an argument being put forwards - let's not stop people smoking because it might make them feel depressed?? I think finding out you have lung cancer would be pretty depressing...

SlackDad 31-10-2005 14:28
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by clarie
I really do think this concern is another 'straw clutcher'. Is this honestly an argument being put forwards - let's not stop people smoking because it might make them feel depressed?? I think finding out you have lung cancer would be pretty depressing...
Please (re)read my previous posts on this subject. This a a rather glib response to the serious issue of mental health problems. The fact that you may or may not get lung cancer is not going to have much bearing on somebody suffering a mental illness.

Pierre 31-10-2005 14:39
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by clarie
What makes you think I am happily indulging in them?
figure of speech.

Quote:
I disagree. One of the main points being made on this thread by those opposing a ban is that there are many other dangerous substances out there such as alcohol, drugs, and car exhaust fumes. But that is completely beside the point, and how on earth is it an argument against protecting us from smoking? This is why I said about the Aids cure thing - it's like saying 'well what is the point of focusing on reducing the dangers caused by one thing and not on others?'
But why single out smoking when it is proven that all these other things affect people that have no choice.

whereas non-smokers have a choice.

and to use your anology it's like saying we can cure Aids, Cancer, Hepatitis, Ebola, glandular fever and Bird flu.

But that would be too expensive at this time so we'll pick an easy target and cure the common cold. Only they can't cure the cold all they can do is hand out lemsips.

clarie 31-10-2005 14:42
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackDad
Please (re)read my previous posts on this subject. This a a rather glib response to the serious issue of mental health problems. The fact that you may or may not get lung cancer is not going to have much bearing on somebody suffering a mental illness.
I have re-read your posts and I still disagree that this is a relevant point that goes against a ban. As said before, no one is being forced to quit, and furthermore from what I have read, smoking and depression perpetuate each other, and smoking can cause depression, or make it more likely that you will develop depression.

Even if smoking were a good remedy for depression this still has no effect or benefit for non-smokers, and smoking and passive smoking are still bad for the health!
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
figure of speech.



But why single out smoking when it is proven that all these other things affect people that have no choice.

whereas non-smokers have a choice.

and to use your anology it's like saying we can cure Aids, Cancer, Hepatitis, Ebola, glandular fever and Bird flu.

But that would be too expensive at this time so we'll pick an easy target and cure the common cold. Only they can't cure the cold all they can do is hand out lemsips.
You cannot compare smoking to the common cold in your analogy as smoking is one of the most dangerous and risky causes of cancer of all of the things affecting our healths on a daily basis. And even if your analogy were true, so what? How is that a bad thing? Maybe it is too expensive and too difficult to cure those illnesses yet, doesn't mean we should sit on our asses and do nothing!

Pierre 31-10-2005 15:09
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by clarie
You cannot compare smoking to the common cold in your analogy as smoking is one of the most dangerous and risky causes of cancer of all of the things affecting our healths on a daily basis. And even if your analogy were true, so what? How is that a bad thing? Maybe it is too expensive and too difficult to cure those illnesses yet, doesn't mean we should sit on our asses and do nothing!
If the Government spent money on all of those things then they would save lives.

They could ban cars in town centres to stop the passive intake of car fumes, quite easily just make it so that anyone driving into a citry centre has to have an electric car.

But they target the perceived threat of passive smoking

I don't see where there is a difference, if they were to announce a series of initiatives where they were to address all of the carcinogens in the atmosphere then I would support a total smoking ban. But they're not.

There is even little hard evidence on the effects of "passive smoke" but there is hard evidence on the effects of lead and other heavy elements that are kicked out into the atmospshere every day and little is done.

clarie 31-10-2005 15:14
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
They could ban cars in town centres to stop the passive intake of car fumes, quite easily just make it so that anyone driving into a citry centre has to have an electric car.
How is that easy? It's nowhere near as easy as saying right, stop smoking indoors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
I don't see where there is a difference, if they were to announce a series of initiatives where they were to address all of the carcinogens in the atmosphere then I would support a total smoking ban. But they're not
I can't understand your logic. Yes I agree it would be much better if we were to address all carcinogens in the atmosphere, but as we are not, surely it is better to attack the one we are??

If you want rid of cancer provoking poisons, why refuse to support a ban on smoking on the principle that not all carcinogens are being considered? All the time you are resting on your principles, people are continuing to puff out smoke into the air...

andyl 31-10-2005 15:20
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
If the Government spent money on all of those things then they would save lives.

They could ban cars in town centres to stop the passive intake of car fumes, quite easily just make it so that anyone driving into a citry centre has to have an electric car.

But they target the perceived threat of passive smoking

I don't see where there is a difference, if they were to announce a series of initiatives where they were to address all of the carcinogens in the atmosphere then I would support a total smoking ban. But they're not.

There is even little hard evidence on the effects of "passive smoke" but there is hard evidence on the effects of lead and other heavy elements that are kicked out into the atmospshere every day and little is done.
Raising other issues is just a diversionary tactic. Yes more should be done to reduce air pollution, especially given the major rise in respiratory diseases, but that doesn't mean smokers should be allowed to pollute enclosed public spaces.

Chris 31-10-2005 15:24
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackDad
I hardly think a reasoned look at the effect on depression and social isolation of the smoking ban is 'insiduous'. If that of course is what you are referring to.
OK, so I'm grandstanding (just a little ;) ). But the difficulty I have with the mental health angle is that those who put it on the agenda are pushing supposition and estimates of illness as reasons for not introducing a public ban. This merely begs comparison with the general health argument in favour of a ban - statistics that have been quoted in this thread ad nauseam - yet they are quiet on that point. Either health is an issue or it isn't; if it is, then the death-from-smoking argument wins hands down.

Pierre 31-10-2005 15:29
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by clarie
How is that easy? It's nowhere near as easy as saying right, stop smoking indoors.

I can't understand your logic. Yes I agree it would be much better if we were to address all carcinogens in the atmosphere, but as we are not, surely it is better to attack the one we are??

If you want rid of cancer provoking poisons, why refuse to support a ban on smoking on the principle that not all carcinogens are being considered? All the time you are resting on your principles, people are continuing to puff out smoke into the air...
Quote:
Raising other issues is just a diversionary tactic. Yes more should be done to reduce air pollution, especially given the major rise in respiratory diseases, but that doesn't mean smokers should be allowed to pollute enclosed public spaces.
Because it's a soft target, the links between passive smoking and any of the smoking related illnesses have not been categorically proven.

Anyway I'm not bothered for me the argument is over, I am an infrequent smoker usually having a smoke only whenever I am having a drinking session.

And I'm happy to say that my local does not serve food and therefore my enjoyment of a night out will not be affected.

clarie 31-10-2005 15:32
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
Because it's a soft target, the links between passive smoking and any of the smoking related illnesses have not been categorically proven.
And until they are there in black and white in front of your eyes, you don't see why you should allow your 'enjoyment' on a night out be slightly marred by a little walk outside to light up...:rolleyes:

Pierre 31-10-2005 15:33
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by clarie
And until they are there in black and white in front of your eyes, you don't see why you should allow your 'enjoyment' on a night out be slightly marred by a little walk outside to light up...:rolleyes:
Nope.

basa 31-10-2005 15:36
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
Because it's a soft target, the links between passive smoking and any of the smoking related illnesses have not been categorically proven.
Enough for me to realise I am risking my life ... but that's my choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
Anyway I'm not bothered for me the argument is over, I am an infrequent smoker usually having a smoke only whenever I am having a drinking session.
Or stop altogether.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
And I'm happy to say that my local does not serve food and therefore my enjoyment of a night out will not be affected.
But not that of those in the same room. ;)

Chris 31-10-2005 15:41
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
And I'm happy to say that my local does not serve food and therefore my enjoyment of a night out will not be affected.
And I'm happy to say that here in Scotland we are protected from that classic piece of Westminster fudge. Smoking will be gone from every public building, without exception, from next April. Bring it on.

SlackDad 31-10-2005 15:52
Re: smoking and the pub
 
It will, however, be interesting to see how strictly the ban will be observed, firstly by landlords, etc. and secondly by the police/local authority? Is this going to be such a high priority on the agenda when the ban actually comes into effect? Or maybe it will go the same way as fox hunting where, to the best of my knowledge, no prosecutions have taken place even though hunting with hounds is still, in some way, occuring.

andyl 31-10-2005 15:53
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackDad
It will, however, be interesting to see how strictly the ban will be observed, firstly by landlords, etc. and secondly by the police/local authority? Is this going to be such a high priority on the agenda when the ban actually comes into effect? Or maybe it will go the same way as fox hunting where, to the best of my knowledge, no prosecutions have taken place even though hunting with hounds is still, in some way, occuring.
Well I for one thought the Irish ban would not be enforced or adhered to: I was wrong (it made a pleasant change ;) :D )

Bifta 31-10-2005 15:54
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackDad
It will, however, be interesting to see how strictly the ban will be observed, firstly by landlords, etc. and secondly by the police/local authority? Is this going to be such a high priority on the agenda when the ban actually comes into effect? Or maybe it will go the same way as fox hunting where, to the best of my knowledge, no prosecutions have taken place even though hunting with hounds is still, in some way, occuring.
Fines in the Republic of Ireland have been imposed though, the smoking ban works very well over here, smokers don't complain (people leave that to the english ;)) as most pubs have created a heated area outside for them.

Chris 31-10-2005 15:57
Re: smoking and the pub
 
It will be very interesting to see what happens. I would imagine that isolated small local pubs all over the place will possibly not change at first, unless there is already a body of opinion among the locals that the ban should be enforced. It's unlikely the police are going to prioritise it.

However in the big city venues, you are more likely to get people whp carry on lighting up as they basically don't give a stuff, and in these places the police are more likely to be on hand to dish out on-the-spot fines.

I suspect that the way this is most likely to be enforced is to impose nasty punishment on proprietors who allow smoking to continue, to give them an incentive to ensure it stops.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bifta
most pubs have created a heated area outside for them.
Woah, hang on - a smoking ban will contribute to global warming by stimulating sale and use of patio heaters! Stop the ban now!! :p:

Salu 31-10-2005 16:03
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salu
Just to add another dimension to the debate.

If I could predominantly address the smokers...

Ash estimates that just under 5000 lives could be saved each year by this smoking ban. If they are liberally overestimating that figure and just for arguments sake we said it only saved one life......wouldn't it be worth it? If I handed a bag round asking for a £1 to save a life of someone who had cancer for eg, you'd probably put one in. It wouldn't really cost you much (unless you were very poor of course). So how about actually allowing an element of cost into your life with respect to smoking and save a life?

In reference to children and passive smoking mentioned before, did you realise that 17000 children under the age of 5 are to hospital every year because of the effects of passive smoking?

Nicely dodgedSmokers, stop being so selfish and think of the health of the nation and not your "right" to smoke in a public enclosed space!
Nicely dodged, smokers....

clarie 31-10-2005 16:17
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
Nope.
Well what can you do with that eh? :shrug:

fireman328 31-10-2005 16:17
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Has anyone considered what the effects of dry ice and smoke machines in places of public entertainment are ?

As far as I am aware the dry ice, CO2 is an asphixiant and the smoke effects are generated by heating vegetable oil.
Will the owners have to go outdoors to use these effects which are very common, particularly at this time of year, with pantomimes attracting children or will some non-smoker decide that this effect is perfectly safe for all to inhale on this occasion. Will a risk assessment be carried out on the effect to patrons and theatre staff of inhaling this smoke. What will be the effect on live theatre if someone sues a club or theatre for not safeguarding their health and safety by allowing them to inhale smoke ?
Oh, I forgot, the witch hunt is only against tobacco smoke.
How many of the non smokers will still attend pantos and discos.
I feel it slightly ironic that all the tobacco smokers will be outside the building in the fresh air whilst all the non smokers will be indoors in the smoke.
It has finally happened, the lunatics are running the asylum.

andyl 31-10-2005 16:20
Re: smoking and the pub
 
I have a fog machine (currently set up for Halloween). It's non-toxic.

SlackDad 31-10-2005 16:21
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salu
Just to add another dimension to the debate.

If I could predominantly address the smokers...

Ash estimates that just under 5000 lives could be saved each year by this smoking ban. If they are liberally overestimating that figure and just for arguments sake we said it only saved one life......wouldn't it be worth it? If I handed a bag round asking for a £1 to save a life of someone who had cancer for eg, you'd probably put one in. It wouldn't really cost you much (unless you were very poor of course). So how about actually allowing an element of cost into your life with respect to smoking and save a life?

In reference to children and passive smoking mentioned before, did you realise that 17000 children under the age of 5 are to hospital every year because of the effects of passive smoking?

Smokers, stop being so selfish and think of the health of the nation and not your "right" to smoke in a public enclosed space!
Well firstly the figures are hardly from an unbiased source, and as you say, estimated. Presumably they refer to smokers rather than non-smokers, so are they saying that a percentage of smokers will give-up, hence the lives saved. This argument has been used before and as then I asked what the take-up rate of smoking was, and whether this declined due to a ban. From my experience most people do not start smoking in an enclosed public spaces, but rather sneaked at school, parks etc.

I also believe that this ban will have minimal, if any effect on children, as most children do not frequent smoky pubs but rather are affected within the home environment. BTW Where did you get those figures? Increased respiratory diseases in children is not simply down to passive smoking but many other factors, such as increasingly untested chemicals in household products, and even being to clean.

clarie 31-10-2005 16:22
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fireman328
Has anyone considered what the effects of dry ice and smoke machines in places of public entertainment are ?

As far as I am aware the dry ice, CO2 is an asphixiant and the smoke effects are generated by heating vegetable oil.
Will the owners have to go outdoors to use these effects which are very common, particularly at this time of year, with pantomimes attracting children or will some non-smoker decide that this effect is perfectly safe for all to inhale on this occasion. Will a risk assessment be carried out on the effect to patrons and theatre staff of inhaling this smoke. What will be the effect on live theatre if someone sues a club or theatre for not safeguarding their health and safety by allowing them to inhale smoke ?
Oh, I forgot, the witch hunt is only against tobacco smoke.
How many of the non smokers will still attend pantos and discos.
I feel it slightly ironic that all the tobacco smokers will be outside the building in the fresh air whilst all the non smokers will be indoors in the smoke.
It has finally happened, the lunatics are running the asylum.
'Witch hunt'. Have you been smoking a bit of the old wacky backy? Feeling a little paranoid? :p:

Honestly speaking this debate has taken on a rather crazy slant - I feel like Alice in Wonderland.

Seriously fireman I hear what you're saying but once again how is any of this an argument against banning smoking in public places?

SlackDad 31-10-2005 16:35
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by clarie
Honestly speaking this debate has taken on a rather crazy slant - I feel like Alice in Wonderland.
You obviously like your poisons a little stronger ;)
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by fireman328
Has anyone considered what the effects of dry ice and smoke machines in places of public entertainment are ?

As far as I am aware the dry ice, CO2 is an asphixiant and the smoke effects are generated by heating vegetable oil.
Will the owners have to go outdoors to use these effects which are very common, particularly at this time of year, with pantomimes attracting children or will some non-smoker decide that this effect is perfectly safe for all to inhale on this occasion. Will a risk assessment be carried out on the effect to patrons and theatre staff of inhaling this smoke. What will be the effect on live theatre if someone sues a club or theatre for not safeguarding their health and safety by allowing them to inhale smoke ?
Oh, I forgot, the witch hunt is only against tobacco smoke.
How many of the non smokers will still attend pantos and discos.
I feel it slightly ironic that all the tobacco smokers will be outside the building in the fresh air whilst all the non smokers will be indoors in the smoke.
It has finally happened, the lunatics are running the asylum.
I think this post nicely encapulates the way that as a society we are becoming obessed with risk assessing every aspect of our lives. In the mean time, of course, life is passing us by. I'm frankly starting to wonder that if people are that concerned with smoking in pubs etc. then maybe they haven't really got that much to worry about at all.

clarie 31-10-2005 16:45
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackDad
I'm frankly starting to wonder that if people are that concerned with smoking in pubs etc. then maybe they haven't really got that much to worry about at all.
I am surprised by what you say. of course we are concerned about our health, more to the point, why aren't you?

Salu 31-10-2005 16:46
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fireman328
Has anyone considered what the effects of dry ice and smoke machines in places of public entertainment are ?

As far as I am aware the dry ice, CO2 is an asphixiant and the smoke effects are generated by heating vegetable oil.
Will the owners have to go outdoors to use these effects which are very common, particularly at this time of year, with pantomimes attracting children or will some non-smoker decide that this effect is perfectly safe for all to inhale on this occasion. Will a risk assessment be carried out on the effect to patrons and theatre staff of inhaling this smoke. What will be the effect on live theatre if someone sues a club or theatre for not safeguarding their health and safety by allowing them to inhale smoke ?
Oh, I forgot, the witch hunt is only against tobacco smoke.
How many of the non smokers will still attend pantos and discos.
I feel it slightly ironic that all the tobacco smokers will be outside the building in the fresh air whilst all the non smokers will be indoors in the smoke.
It has finally happened, the lunatics are running the asylum.
I depends how you define dangerous. As CO2 is heavier than air then it will sink to the floor so would be more dangerous if you were lying on it. The issue with CO2 is that it binds much more easily than O2 to Haemoglobin and will interfere with your abilty to transport oxygen around the body. The normal concentration of CO2 in the air is around 0.38% and if it gets much beyond 0.5% will start to interfere with your O2 transport. As far as I am aware the dry ice I have seen is only used in short bursts which will be harmless providing there is adequate ventilation. There presumably is some regulation around its use in public places?

Chris 31-10-2005 16:53
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackDad
I think this post nicely encapulates the way that as a society we are becoming obessed with risk assessing every aspect of our lives. In the mean time, of course, life is passing us by. I'm frankly starting to wonder that if people are that concerned with smoking in pubs etc. then maybe they haven't really got that much to worry about at all.
So the tactics of the smoking lobby can be summed up something like this:

1. Attempt to deflect the debate onto other health concerns (e.g. alcohol), as if it's impossible to do anything about smoking unless we also do something, simultaneously, about a thousand and one other things.

2. Attempt to characterise the ban itself as an assault on public health because of the possibility of depression in some people who quit. At the same time, conveniently forget that smoking kills far more people than giving up does.

3. Attempt to portray the ban as an assault on freedom. Never mind the fact that non-smokers are in the majority and do not currently have the freedom to go to a pub and not inhale smoky air, because the smokers, who are in the minority, insist on the absolute freedom to indulge in their habit regardless of the fact that it compels others to share it.

and finally, the opus, the masterpiece itself:

4. Attempt to ridicule the arguments in favour of a ban as a hobby of those with nothing better to do with their time. Happily ignore the fact that smoking, and passive smoking, is a killer that many people quite justifiably wish to see taken out of their way.

I have an idea - smokers, if you want to indulge in a potentially fatal habit that gives you a buzz, why not take up base jumping? Then you can take your life into your hands as often as you like without affecting anyone else at the same time.

Russ 31-10-2005 16:56
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris T
I have an idea - smokers, if you want to indulge in a potentially fatal habit that gives you a buzz, why not take up base jumping? Then you can take your life into your hands as often as you like without affecting anyone else at the same time.
Objection - I consider the screams they make as they fall to their deaths to be noise pollution, just as their nicotine fumes are air pollutants :D ;) :angel:

fireman328 31-10-2005 16:58
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by clarie
I am surprised by what you say. of course we are concerned about our health, more to the point, why aren't you?
Probably because we live in the real world where, contrary to government advice, everybody dies at some time.

clarie 31-10-2005 17:03
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris T
So the tactics of the smoking lobby can be summed up something like this:

1. Attempt to deflect the debate onto other health concerns (e.g. alcohol), as if it's impossible to do anything about smoking unless we also do something, simultaneously, about a thousand and one other things.

2. Attempt to characterise the ban itself as an assault on public health because of the possibility of depression in some people who quit. At the same time, conveniently forget that smoking kills far more people than giving up does.

3. Attempt to portray the ban as an assault on freedom. Never mind the fact that non-smokers are in the majority and do not currently have the freedom to go to a pub and not inhale smoky air, because the smokers, who are in the minority, insist on the absolute freedom to indulge in their habit regardless of the fact that it compels others to share it.

and finally, the opus, the masterpiece itself:

4. Attempt to ridicule the arguments in favour of a ban as a hobby of those with nothing better to do with their time. Happily ignore the fact that smoking, and passive smoking, is a killer that many people quite justifiably wish to see taken out of their way.

I have an idea - smokers, if you want to indulge in a potentially fatal habit that gives you a buzz, why not take up base jumping? Then you can take your life into your hands as often as you like without affecting anyone else at the same time.
:clap:

Quote:
Originally Posted by fireman328
Probably because we live in the real world where, contrary to government advice, everybody dies at some time.
Ah yes, the infamous Tony Blair 'Give up smoking and you can become immortal' speech, I forgot about that one.

You're right. Sod trying to prolong my life. Pass me over that carton of 200 B&H - if you can't beat 'em, join 'em eh! After all I did seemingly give up smoking for nothing...

andyl 31-10-2005 17:03
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fireman328
Probably because we live in the real world where, contrary to government advice, everybody dies at some time.
Later rather than sooner is to be preferred I guess though! ;)

fireman328 31-10-2005 17:20
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris T
I have an idea - smokers, if you want to indulge in a potentially fatal habit that gives you a buzz, why not take up base jumping? Then you can take your life into your hands as often as you like without affecting anyone else at the same time.
I have taken my life in my hands quite a lot of times, usually to enter a building when everybody else was running out to find someone trapped by fire , or underneath tube trains picking bits of people from between the rails or shutting down a leaking chlorine cylinder not to mention being on the first attendance in Oford street when the I.R.A. bombed London etc.

Nah, base jumping is for wimps.

andyl 31-10-2005 17:25
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fireman328
I have taken my life in my hands quite a lot of times, usually to enter a building when everybody else was running out to find someone trapped by fire , or underneath tube trains picking bits of people from between the rails or shutting down a leaking chlorine cylinder not to mention being on the first attendance in Oford street when the I.R.A. bombed London etc.
Credit to you for that

Quote:
Nah, base jumping is for wimps.
And doesn't give you that reall thrill of uneasy danger that smoking does; that permanent adrenaline rush of never knowing quite when it's gonna get ya ;)

fireman328 31-10-2005 17:45
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyl
Credit to you for that

{QUOTE]Nah, base jumping is for wimps.
And doesn't give you that reall thrill of uneasy danger that smoking does; that permanent adrenaline rush of never knowing quite when it's gonna get ya ;)[/QUOTE]

None of us knows "when its gonna get ya"
My mother lived to be 92, smoked 20 a day until she was 82 then gave up because of the cost.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by andyl
Later rather than sooner is to be preferred I guess though! ;)
Have you seen some of the people in the geriatric wards, mouths open, eyes closed, drooling, incontinent.
If you want that kind of later then good luck.
I'd rather go quickly with all my senses of a heart attack

clarie 31-10-2005 18:09
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fireman328
I'd rather go quickly with all my senses of a heart attack
But smoking is also a risk for cancer and that would NOT be a quick death.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fireman328
None of us knows "when its gonna get ya"
That's why it's so scary!

fireman328 31-10-2005 18:41
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salu
I depends how you define dangerous. As CO2 is heavier than air then it will sink to the floor so would be more dangerous if you were lying on it. The issue with CO2 is that it binds much more easily than O2 to Haemoglobin and will interfere with your abilty to transport oxygen around the body. The normal concentration of CO2 in the air is around 0.38% and if it gets much beyond 0.5% will start to interfere with your O2 transport. As far as I am aware the dry ice I have seen is only used in short bursts which will be harmless providing there is adequate ventilation. There presumably is some regulation around its use in public places?
Sorry, it was a rhetorical question, I used to lecture on hazardous substances and radiation at the Fire Service College.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by clarie
But smoking is also a risk for cancer and that would NOT be a quick death.

That's why it's so scary!
Death does not scare me it comes to us all, in many and various ways, a lot of which I've seen.

Maggy 31-10-2005 18:44
Re: smoking and the pub
 
I think as this thread is becoming just like every other thread on smoking I'm unsubscribing.Byeeee...

clarie 31-10-2005 18:47
Re: smoking and the pub
 
Quote:
Death does not scare me it comes to us all, in many and various ways, a lot of which I've seen.
Maybe it doesn't scare you but I want to put it off for as long as possible!

andyl 31-10-2005 19:05
Re: smoking and the pub
 
I've had a heart attack. I don't recommend it as such ;)

Julian 31-10-2005 19:54
Re: smoking and the pub
 
If our illustrious government REALLY wanted to do something serious about smoking they would do well to target the children who take it up.

Raise the minimum age to 18 to buy tobacco products and, most importantly, make it illegal for children under the age of 18 to POSSESS tobacco products.

You could quite soon remove a generation of potential smokers and remove one of the key things that they think makes them look tough.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 14:51.
Page 6 of 17 « First 2345 6 7891016 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum