Re: smoking and the pub
 

I agree that we should be doing everything to stop kids smoking (and it's girls leading the way I believe). I dunno about extending prohibition though - kids will get hold of fags the same way they do Lambrini.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

What can we do? Kids will smoke. Even if everyone who bought cigs had to prove without doubt their age, they could still get older friends to do it. When I was younger my friends and I sometimes asked strangers to buy alcohol or cigs for us - how dangerous is that?

The only way I can imagine would work would be making smoking illegal. Then you would have the problem of black market cigarettes appearing, and having dodgy substances in them but at least it would reduce the numbers of kids who start smoking.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

why make it illegal - we need the taxes. it's a way of the poorer in society funding the better off!

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Leaving aside staff for one moment, which I am aware is an issue, does anybody actually have the evidence or is aware of how much damage a non-smoker actually does to themselves by say going into a pub a few times a week. I mean what are the actual facts here. Have any actual comparative studies been undertaken? Is the effect different/worse than living in a built up area? I would bet that the vast majority of any passive smoking effects are caused by living in a smoky environment rather than visiting a pub a few times a week. These are the issues are they not?
__________________

With all due respect my health is my concern. Also as far as I am aware I haven't actually stated whether or not I am a smoker, which at time of writing I am, but hoping to give up some time soon. It is also interesting to note however that because I smoke you assume that I have no concern at all for my health.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

I wasn't assuming you were a smoker - in fact I didn't think you were. I was responding to this comment of yours:
Which just seemed to infer we were making something of nothing, and I don't believe that is the case.

I have to say it does seem to be mainly the smokers who are against the ban. Which says enough to me.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

I'm a smoker, but I actually find myself supporting the idea of a complete ban on smoking in public places.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

I'm not so sure whether this was an attempt at deflection but rather pointing out apparent hyprocrisies, some of which have been conveniantly ignored by the pro-ban supporters. Some of these '1001' other things may be equally if not more damaging to health than smoking but are either noticeably less visible or obvious therefore represent a harder target, or maybe this would mean that everyone, not just smokers may have to look at their own everyday practices and habits.

This is pushing it a little. Why is pointing out a supposed negative impact of the smoking ban, such as the potential effect for people suffering from mental health problems, seen as constructing the ban as an 'assault on public health'. I know you and others may not like or accept it but there may just be some negative consequences of this ban.
Also I thought the discussion was concerned with smoking in public places rather than smoking per se. What therefore has the amount of people smoking kills as opposed to giving up got to do with it? As said before many non-smokers die everyday too.

Well the evidence from Ireland suggested that the majority of all customers were not in favour of the ban. I think the people opposed to this ban here have been quite happy to suggest smoking areas, separate rooms, smoking/non smoking pubs, good filtration systems etc. Hardly the absolute freedom as you suggest. It appears to me that, on the whole, pro-ban supporters do not appear to want to budge.

This is a misinterpretation. What the suggestion was, to be honest, is that is it not worth getting a bit of perspective, and actually see whether smoking in public places is that high on the agenda when it comes to a list of damaging problems that need to be solved. If many would actually put as much effort into solving some of these other problems as they do supporting the ban then maybe the world would be a better place.

There is no denying that smoking is a killer, but I am simply attempting to look at what the facts are about this particular ban and see what the effects are. As I suggetsed earlier and will do so again, leaving aside staff for one moment, which I am aware is an issue, does anybody actually have the evidence or is aware of how much damage a non-smoker actually does to themselves by ,say, going into a pub a few times a week. I mean what are the actual facts here. Have any actual comparative studies been undertaken? Is the effect different/worse than living in a built up area? I would bet that the vast majority of any passive smoking effects are caused by living in a smoky environment rather than visiting a pub a few times a week. These are the issues are they not?

If this ban, as I suspect, will have minimal difference on illness caused by passive smoking should we not be focusing on these issues. Many children are exposed to smoking from a very early age and then are more likely to become smokers themselves. So already they may have had many years exposure. What we need to be doing is fostering a culture where children are less exposed to smoking and therefore are less likely to take up the habit. Not something this ban will address. By doing this over time a more non-smoking culture will evolve creating smoke free areas by their own accord.

Once these questions have been answered then surely the debate would be based on facts rather than conjecture. This I believe is a much healthier and constructive way to proceed for both smokers and non-smokers alike. ;)

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Not much.

But whilst having a smoke on Friday night is not illegal, then I will take advantage of the fact.

Because although I don't fully support it, I am a realist and it will only be a matter of time before a total ban comes into force. When it does it wont really bother me too much either.

But until that day comes..........

Re: smoking and the pub
 

How is this a hypocrisy? A lot of the things mentioned by you, and others, are dangerous, yes. But much harder to combat and do NOT take away from the danger of smoking. They are a harder target yes, but so what? I cannot see how it is wrong to combat the easier targets first - in fact it makes sense!!! Introduce a smoking ban in public enclosed spaces. Simple. Yes maybe we should look at the others also, but why argue against banning smoking on the grounds that it is easier than other dangers to resolve? :confused:
As I have said before I do not consider the possible effects on mental health to be a sound argument. You are talking of evidence that suggests smoking will worsen depression and social isolation, I say the opposite is true. Evidence has shown that smoking and depression perpetuate each other. Once the smoker has given up he can start to look for actual causes to his depression as opposed to a shield to hide behind. Furthermore yes, we are currently talking about a ban on smoking in public places, which will force no one to quit, and will simply protect the non-smoker from passive smoking.
It was me who suggested separate smoking rooms and the smokers do not seem happy with this idea. Smoking areas do not work.
I see this ban as a step towards eradicating smoking from our lives altogether. Furthermore, banning smoking in public places will protect more children from second-hand smoke. So I believe the ban does address this.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Oh come on the ban will have a neglible effect on children's health and as has been pointed out perhaps a worse effect by forcing people to stay at home and smoke. How do you think the ban is really going to affect children that much?

I see you nicely avoided these points:

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Who is going to administer the ban ? If it is, as a previous post suggested, the police, then I will be asking my MP why are these resources being used in this way. At the moment it is impossible to report your car being stolen without you having to attend a police station and in the Metropolitan Police area calls on the 999 system are stacked until a unit can respond, sometimes until the following day.
Will the accused be allowed their day in court or will the ubiqitous ASBO be used ? What evidence will be gathered and who will gather it, if it is that required for criminal cases the lawyers will have lots of work and the court system will become even more overburdened.
The Poll Tax riots showed that pushed far enough the populace will vote with actions demanding that priority be given to matters of greater importance than lighting up a cigarette in a pub.
Let the government not lose sight of the 20% of the population who are smokers who could, if pushed could ensure that at the next election they became Her Majestys Opposition instead of Her Majestys Government.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlackDad Oh come on the ban will have a neglible effect on children's health

How? Do tell :confused:

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlackDad There is no denying that smoking is a killer, but I am simply attempting to look at what the facts are about this particular ban and see what the effects are. As I suggetsed earlier and will do so again, leaving aside staff for one moment, which I am aware is an issue, does anybody actually have the evidence or is aware of how much damage a non-smoker actually does to themselves by ,say, going into a pub a few times a week. I mean what are the actual facts here. Have any actual comparative studies been undertaken? Is the effect different/worse than living in a built up area? I would bet that the vast majority of any passive smoking effects are caused by living in a smoky environment rather than visiting a pub a few times a week. These are the issues are they not?

I do not have these figures, as well you know. This doesn't invalidate my argument. You do not have figures to the contrary. However, for those people who live in non-smoking households and yet passively smoke in pubs, the ban will definitely have benefits on their health. You're avoiding the issue once again I feel. How can you acknowlegde that smoking is a killer yet still demand evidence of it?

Here are some facts for you:

Quote:

Exposure to secondhand smoke at work is estimated to cause the death of more than two employed persons per working day across the UK as a whole (617 deaths a year), including 54 deaths a year in the hospitality industry.

Quote:

A MORI survey commissioned by ASH found that 80% of respondents favoured a law to require all enclosed workplaces to be smokefree

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact08.html

Quote:

The evidence that exposure to other peopleââ‚Ã⠀šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s smoke is dangerous to health is now incontrovertible. It has been confirmed by the Governmentââ ¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s Chief Medical Officer (CMO) Sir Liam Donaldson (in July 2003) as well as by the heads of all of Britainââ‚à ‚¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s thirteen Royal Colleges of Medicine (in November 2003), and by the Scottish CMO Dr Mac Armstrong (in April 2004). Comprehensive reviews of the effects of passive smoking include reports by the US National Research Council, the US Surgeon General, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and the UK Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health. More recent studies include a World Health Organization (WHO) consultation report on Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Child Health, a report by the California Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) and a review by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Finally, the Governmentââ ¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s advisers the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health reported in November 2004 that exposure to secondhand smoke was a serious health risk to non-smokers, increasing their chance of contracting lung cancer and heart disease, in both cases by about a quarter

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact14.html

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Re: smoking and the pub
 

in my opinion the intention is to reduce the potential number of cases where people might claim compensation for medical conditions they attribute to passive smoking.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Any google search you care to do on the effects of passive smoking will show you how the Government is justified in calling for this ban. I don't understand how you can justify allowing smoking in public places. Instead of trying to pick holes in the arguments of the anti-smokers, can you justify to me why you think smoking in enclosed public places should be allowed?

Besides as we have said before, it isn't just for health reasons that the ban would be a good thing. The smell of cigarette smoke is appalling. It hurts your eyes and makes your clothes smell. I came home at the weekend after a night out and felt as though I had been smoking myself.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

I am not trying to deny the effects of passive smoking (although I am sure some will). I am merely trying to point out and ask whether this particular ban is really going to make any difference to illness from passive smoking, and as I have pointed out before will have minimal effects on children who can not always make a choice about which environment they are in. If the government is serious about this topic why does it not simply ban smoking full stop, rather than some half-arsed measure that, to my mind at least, is not going to make much difference to illness. The issue is not simply about passive smoking per se.

Not liking the smell is hardly a reason to ban something. Car fumes have the same effect on clothing etc. as you suggest. If I didn't like the smell of flowers and I had an allergic reaction to them does this mean I can rip them up even if they are providing pleasure to others? (Not a brilliant analogy I know but the points the same)

Re: smoking and the pub
 

It is one of a list of reasons, and I doubt you could find anyone who likes the smell of smoke on their clothes.
I would be happy for a total ban. But at the moment that doesn't seem to be on the cards so all we can do is take steps towards it.

It seems you are not against the ban but don't consider it to be enough?

Re: smoking and the pub
 

I've never been out and then come home and had my cloths stink of car fumes!!!

Re: smoking and the pub
 

You're obviously going to the wrong pubs ;) :disturbd:

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Allow me to sum this one up for you neatly.

I don't smoke, never have, never will. Very few of my friends smoke.

I work in pub/social club. Sometimes I'm behind the bar, other times I'm on a stage doing a music set. The only times I'm subjected to prolonged passive smoking is therefore when I'm at work.

Logic dictates that if my exposure to passive smoking is removed (by way of a ban or whatever) then that will make a HUGE difference to my chances of contracting an illness from it.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

I don't think I would suport a total ban but at least would show the government was serious about public health and would be grounded in supportive research.

Have you ever been out in London?
__________________

Logic perhaps, but what about research. And are you so confident that the difference will be HUGE?

Re: smoking and the pub
 

How is it that you don't think this ban is grounded in supportive research anyway?

Passive smoking is bad for your health. Therefore by reducing the possibility for people to be exposed to passive smoking, you are reducing the negative effect on your health.

Can it be any more simple?
But you don't have to live in London to have your clothes smell of cigarette smoke...

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Erm.....you're not serious???

How on earth can passive smoking affect my health if I'm not around any smoke for me to breathe it in, which would be the result of such a ban???

Are you sure you know what passive smoking is???

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Something which I am not denying but I would like to see research around exposure times etc. for the type of effect that this ban will have. That is my point.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

OK but without those figures (which are seemingly impossible to get) you are not denying that there will be some positive effect on health?

Re: smoking and the pub
 

One in every three people will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their life. Not very good odds, whether you smoke/exposed to smoke or not... :(
Being an ex-smoker, I've already done permanent damage to myself and perhaps, to others... :( I think a ban in all enclosed public places should be enforced really. Can't see any other way.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

No exposure (which would be the result of a ban) to smoke = no passive smoking for non-smokers.

If there's any research on earth which defies that then I will show my butt in Tesco's windows.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

At last you might have an excuse for your disgraceful hobby!

Re: smoking and the pub
 

*ahem*

Do you mean your fag butt :PP:

Re: smoking and the pub
 

The 1 in 3 figure is not specific to smoking related cancer though, is it?

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Yes I know, try re-reading my first sentence. ;)

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Hardly what you claimed earlier but still nicely misses my point.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

How does it miss your point? You are asking how effective the ban will be in reducing the dangers of passive smoking, Russ is saying that as the only place really encounters passive smoking is at work so if it were banned there, he would not be a passive smoker.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

OK, to address your point: in the absence of a ban, how would you propose to conduct a study of sufficient scale and rigour to demonstrate convincingly the type of effect a ban would have?

Re: smoking and the pub
 

We have pilot studies in other areas such as longer opening hours for licensed premises that can be conducted in whole towns or areas for a set period of time to assess the changes. How can a ban be introduced without this kind of evidence?

Re: smoking and the pub
 

SlackDad are you asking for a study on reactions to a ban and effects on the hospitality industry, or definitive results on the dangers of passive smoking on people who go to a smoky pub a few times a week?

Re: smoking and the pub
 

The general statistical correlation between smoking (including passive smoking) and diseases such as lung cancer, heart disease and athsma is very well understood and, in my view (and the view of the medical fraternity), is already more than adequate to justify a ban.

I think the comparison with pub opening hours is bogus. Such trials are designed to assess behavioural changes and can therefore operate effectively over a period of months. A pilot study banning smoking would require something like 50 years to be effective. This is plainly silly, and as we already have ample evidence that doing nothing will result in more needless death, the time for decisive action is clearly now.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

It's exactly what I claimed earlier - here:

And what I posted above:

So you see, it's exactly what I claimed earlier.

To be honest mate, I think just about everyone is missing your point...

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Nicely avoided my point about the actual effect that this ban will have on the health of people who actually spend in time pubs etc. where smoking is allowed, and the negative effects of secondary smoke. I suggest that any effect will be quite minimal.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

I haven't avoided it at all. I just didn't give you the answer you were looking for. ;)

To spell it out:

It is not possible to state with certainty the precise actual effect without actually implementing the ban (a point I suggest you avoided, with an IMO invalid comparison with pilot pub opening hours). However the general evidence for the harm done by tobacco smoke provides more than sufficient evidence to proceed on the grounds that doing something must be better than doing nothing.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Ah I see, even though there is no actual evidence do it anyway, to then see whether we were right all along. We're right, don't care what you say, and who cares about evidence because it may take alot of time to implement. A bit like Blair and his WMD's ;)

Re: smoking and the pub
 

:banghead:

Re: smoking and the pub
 

No grounds to claim it will be minimal, and any such study would take 50 years to complete as Chris T has said. We already know that passive smoking is dangerous, is there any need to quantify exactly how much we will be reducing the dangers by banning it in public places? Any reduction is good.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Is that to get you prepared for Tesco, Russ?

:p:

Re: smoking and the pub
 

There is actual evidence. The statistics for people who die as a result of smoke each year have been posted in this thread multiple times. It is no giant leap of faith to conclude that if you separate the smoke from the people, then fewer people will be affected by the smoke.

The precise effect, of course, cannot be measured without actually implementing the ban. However the statistics are sufficiently compelling to justify doing it anyway.

Incidentally, Bush and Blair invaded Iraq based on intelligence which, at the time, appeared to justify what they were doing. It quickly became clear that their intel was a pile of dingo's kidneys and therefore their justification was removed (they then found other 'justification' but that's another subject). Are you suggesting that the 'intelligence' that there is a fatal correlation between tobacco smoke and ill health is similarly flawed?

Re: smoking and the pub
 

If someone offered to come over and kick you in the crown jewels, would you allow them to do so? After all, there's been no research in to whether your spuds are immune to a good shoeing, has there?

Or will you just go along with common sense?

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Or more precisely, yes we know that spuds are vulnerable to such things but as we don't know exactly how much damage could be caused, or could be spared by not doing so, we shouldn't ban people from kicking you in the julies just yet.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

So what forms the basis of the ban? Do we ban chocolate because eating it excessively may be harmful to your health? All I am saying, which people seem to be struggling with, is that does going into a pub a few times aweek actually affect your health to such a significant degree to justify a ban? Simply saying that passive smoking is harmful therefore, yes, is IMO not wholly justified.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

If it affects my health I would like you to stop it. Never mind degrees. It is a habit not a necessity before you throw the car exhaust fumes at me again.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Not true at all. How do you think the passive smoking evidence came about. Testing on rats probably, not however something I could condone.

Really? But that's for another thread.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

For someone who seems pretty insistant on proof, evidence and research that's quite weak statement to make.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

I did say probably ;)

Re: smoking and the pub
 

My point exactly,would you accept "Banning smoking would eliminate the effects of passive smoking - probably" or would you demand to see evidence, research etc?

Re: smoking and the pub
 

That is twisting the point of what I was saying. I would and have suggested that we look for evidence to see how effective the ban is going to be before implementing it. And seeing as you insist, sadly it would appear that such research on animals is common place. http://www.pcrm.org/resch/anexp/beyond/smoke2_0411.html

And yes I do think we are talking degrees. We can eat small amounts of what is not good for us with minimal adverse effects. Do we know the effect of occasional exposure to second-hand smoke? If the answer is, as is very likely, there was no significant impact on health or no increased risk to serious illness would you still support the ban? That is my point.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

I've never doubted you on that - what I was trying to say was all day you've been asking for proof, research etc and at the same time you make a fairly assertive statement with 'probably' included.

And the point you were making to me was:

Do you really need research (or anything other than common sense) to tell you that if you remove smoking from the equasion, a person will not suffer from passive smoking ie breathing in second-hand smoke?

btw my challenge to you to find a non-smoking pub in the Port Talbot/Swansea area hasn't been forgotten about just because you glossed over it ;)

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Just discovered a friend has lung cancer which has spread to his liver. He gave up smoking 3 years ago (from a 40 a day habit).

So far he is being very positive, but time will tell as his treatment kicks in. :mis:

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Sorry to hesar that Angua.


On the subject of research, forgive if this has already been posted http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact08.html OK, It's ASH, but it quotes a Government committee.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

It has already been posted (or, at least, quoted from), but one of the frustrations of this thread is that cold, hard statistical fact seems to cut little ice with some of the determined smokers. :erm:

Puts me in mind of a time when, as an impetuous teenager, I was losing a game of snooker on a full-size table, (and losing quite badly), but refused to concede even when we got down to the black ball, on the grounds that I could still technically win if only I could get a couple of bunker snookers (with one or both balls obscured by nestling against the cushion right over one of the pockets). Silly me. :D

Re: smoking and the pub
 

And... the Aussie Govt:

Conclusion
The scientific evidence shows that passive smoking causes lower respiratory illness in children and lung cancer in adults and contributes to the symptoms of asthma in children. Passive smoking may also cause coronary heart disease in adults. It is estimated that passive smoking contributes to the symptoms of asthma in 46,500 Australian children each year and causes lower respiratory illness in 16,300 Australian children. It also causes about 12 new cases of lung cancer each year in adult Australians. Passive smoking may also cause 77 deaths a year from coronary heart disease.

http://www7.health.gov.au/nhmrc/publ...htm#conclusion

Re: smoking and the pub
 

I totally agree with you that if you remove smoking then there can not possibly be any adverse effects from passive smoking. That is not up for debate (well, not by me anyway). What I have been trying to suggest is that do we really think the ban is going to make that much difference to the vast majority of passive smoking related illnesses. Does the average amount of exposure time from enclosed public spaces really have an effect on our health? If not, then are we are banning something that poses only a tiny risk. Is this why the government backtracked on its initial proposal. The vast majority carry on using mobile phones even though some research has identified a risk. I would think common sense may tell me that I am frying my brain by carrying on but I still do.

I'll find one for you in a couple of years ;) .

Re: smoking and the pub
 

And this.... BUPA resume of research (reasd the whole thing for the dodgy tobbacco-funded research findings! ;) )

"More than 50 studies on the health impacts of passive smoking have been carried out over the past 25 years, including a number of landmark studies providing significant evidence of passive smoking risks. Such work includes research by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health and the ACS.

Notable research includes a study published in the BMJ in 1997, conducted by Hackshaw and colleagues, which analysed 37 passive smoking studies and found a 24 per cent increase in lung cancer among people living with smokers. In fact, said the charity Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), "Tobacco specific carcinogens found in the blood of non-smokers provided clear evidence of the effect of passive smoking."

Additionally, far more reliable data was obtained in the ACS Cancer Prevention Study II (CPS-II) study, which was about 10 times larger than Dr. Enstrom's work. They enrolled patients in the 1980s, when fewer exposures to tobacco smoke outside the home existed, and therefore far less "background noise", and follow-up has been much better (over 99 per cent). The results unquestionably show an increased risk of lung cancer and heart disease."

http://www.bupa.co.uk/health_informa...0503smoke.html

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Good!! That's all I've been trying to point out since about 10am....

Not if the passive smoking gets me first :disturbd:

Re: smoking and the pub
 

None of which I am in contention with.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

And this... (hey, this is fun! ;) :) ) American College of Physicians

"Conclusions: Both passive and active smoking are associated with an acute deterioration in the elastic properties of the aorta. This association between exposure to tobacco smoke and aortic elasticity indicates that aortic function deteriorates during passive or active smoking. " http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/128/6/426

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Children shouldn't be in smokey pubs.

Funnilly this site doesn't mention it at all

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~aair/asthma.htm

Although I would think that all would agree that children should not be subjected to passive smoke.

Such a shame then, that if a total ban did come about that is exactly what would happen in milions of homes up and down the country.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Or rather, lack of.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

This one's chirpy....
"The body of research on passive smoking continues to grow. In addition to the health effects described in the conclusions of the major reviews cited above, research evidence has linked passive smoking with the following effects on health:


Lung cancer

Asthma

Parental smoking during pregnancy and risk of cancer in childhood

Cystic fibrosis

Cancer of the uterine cervix in non-smokers

Snoring and night cough in children



http://library.thinkquest.org/19796/data/e012.html
__________________

I have no idea what endothelial dysfunction of the coronary circulation means, but it doesbn't sound good!! :) :td: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/286/4/436



Is this debate done yet?!!

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Hey Andyl, another Hicks quote for you: "And you know what doctors say? "****, if only you'd smoked - we'd have the technology to help you. It's you people dying from nothing who are screwed". I've got all sorts of neat **** waiting for me - oxygen tent, iron lung...it's like going to be dandy." :jk:

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Evidently not...:dozey:

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Given Andyl's two recent posts, you're really just serving to illustrate my point. :confused:

Re: smoking and the pub
 

OK, I'm irritating myself now, so last hurrah: http://www.ehso.com/SmokingRespHealth.htm

And Pierre, smoky pubs shouldn't be inflicted on children.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

They have every right to be eating dinner with their parents in any of the tens of thousands of pubs that also function as a restaurant. Many of these have segregated seating, I accept, but I think the concept of air conditioning that keeps smoke out of the non-smoking areas is one of the greatest mis-selling scandals of our age. I have yet to go to such an establishment where the non-smoking tables anywhere near the smoking ones are free of smoke.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Hang on I've stated on more than one occasion that I am not in contention with the research on the effects of smoking and secondary smoke :confused:

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Why?

Re: smoking and the pub
 

And the new regulations state that this will be the case, so what's your problem?

Re: smoking and the pub
 

In which case I don't understand your objection. We agree that smoking and secondary smoke are both injurious to health. There is a body of opinion that says it is therefore common sense to reduce the exposure of the general population to such smoke by banning it in all public places (with certain exceptions in England). You apparently are objecting that there is no direct evidence that this solution will address the problem adequately enough to justify the upheaval it will cause. The contrary view is that the problem is so big, any improvement is worth having, and that the statistics do indeed demonstrate that is is a big problem.

Russ very succinctly put it earlier. There is no direct evidence that a very hard boot in the nuts would cause you, specifically, great pain (I'm assuming that no-one has ever afflicted you in such a way). Does that mean you're happy for the law of common assault not to apply to your goolies until such time as you're satisfied it should? Or does common sense tell you that if it hurts, it hurts, and it's logical to play safe and enjoy legal protection?

Re: smoking and the pub
 

I'm all for "family" pubs. If the kids are out for a family meal then you're quite correct.

However, if the kids have been dragged down to the local drinking den with their dead beat parents, then thats a different story.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Ah so posh pubs are OK, not-posh ones not?!

Besides this isn't just about the kiddlewinks, its also about the staff and other punters.


Someone please put a (strictly metaphorical) gun to this thread's head. :)

Re: smoking and the pub
 

That's a nice attempt to reduce my objections to the narrow issue of smoke drift in supposedly 'segregated' premises, but as you are fully aware, my support for a *complete* smoking ban is not based on this one narrow issue. I've explained my various reasons over and over again in this thread, so forgive me if I don't do so again now, I am switching off my PC to go home.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Surely their parents should not be taking them to smokey enviroments in the first place?
Is anyone holding a gun to non-smokers' heads saying "you must come into smoking establishments or else" because as a non-smoker (never ever have I been tempted to smoke) I've never felt that I could not say no and choose somewhere else to go.
Even when out with my gf who is a smoker, if it's too smokey for me, I will tell her and she understands (she's great like that).
We'd never take kids into a restaurant which has smokey non-smoking areas, to me only a bad parent would deliberately expose their children to such an environment.

I feel it is hypocritical of the goverment to remove the choice of people to partake in second hand smoking, but let people retain the choice to partake in the more dangerous first hand smoking.

Why as a non-smoker should I not be allowed to sit at a table with smokers and enjoy a meal with them "because it may damage my health" while I take up smoking which definitely would damage my health?

It should be up to the landlord/owner to decide if they're going to go non-smoking totally or not.
Sure, increase the ventilation regulations etc of establishments to reduce the danger to people, but don't let us sink further into a nanny state.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

In Greater Manchester 53% of licensees have said they will stop serving food as a result of this useless fudge. A total ban would have seen food kept - yummy! - and smoking removed. A far better idea surely?!

Ok, I'm off. Only so many times you can go around a roundabout befored the view gets stale!

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Nothing to do with Posh or no Posh.

I do not think that your typical local drinking den is suitable environment for kids full stop.

Under the new regulations the "family" type pub will be smoke free. The typical drinking den that doesn't serve food will probably not be.

However, if you think the red lion on the corner of the main street is a good place for kids to be whilst their parents drink their giros and they sit in their with their packet of crisps and glass of cook a good thing, then all power to you.

I suppose that's the way I grew up and it didn't do me any harm. I just though we'd moved on a bit since then.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Well, if you think about it, in most pubs, their wet sales (booze) far outweigh their dry sales (food)
Alot of the drink sales are from people who smoke and drink.
Cut out smoking, and you cut out a huge amount of the drink sales.

For example, say a pub takes in £6000 a night from drink, but only £500 from food.
They cut out smoking, their drink sales drop by £2000, their food sales go up by £200.
They're now losing money.
Or they could cut out the food and keep the drinkers, so they're only £500 down instead of £1800.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Finally somebody has at least correctly acknowledged my argument :)

Although I see the point the analogy isn't that good. There is direct evidence as most of us have either been hit in some capacity in this area or seen it happen to somebody else. There is of course the survival instinct that makes us protect this area when the situation arises. But i'm starting to feel a little pedantic.

Ok Ok I will admit that I have at times played the devil's advocate. I am not that stupid to know that smoking and indeed passive smoking can cause serious illness, but alas, stupid enough to smoke.
I do hope that soon I will be able to give up and maybe this ban will in some way help.
However what I have been trying to do is question the effectiveness of this ban in tackling the problems associated with passive smoking and especially the effects on children. (And at times look at other areas that will be affected such as social isolation). I am still not so sure what the actual effects of this ban will be in tackling this problem. What I suggested in a previous post was that we should focus on the overall culture of smoking so that people esp. children do not feel the need to take up the habit in the first place. Again, I don't know how effective this ban will be in this area.
If I am still smoking when the ban takes effect I will of course not inflict my smoke on others, which I agree is rude and inconsiderate. I still contend that as a society we are becoming more fearful and obsessed with risk and I don't know how healthy this is. But thanks for the debate, esp. Chris T, Clarie and Russ D ;)

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Pubs should not be inflicted on children.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Actually most of the profit is in food sales where the mark up is high and publicans are not beholden to the brewery for sales. The mark up on wet sales is very small.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

In restaurants which also have a bar perhaps, but from personal experience of pubs which also serve food (in a restaurant type manner) their wet sales have far out matched their dry sales.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

heh, food attracts a huge amount of custom, especially at lunch and dinner times, also people who eat food also drink, removing food is going to remove a fair bit more money than that. If you want food, you are going to go to a pub which serves food, on the other hand if there were a complete ban on smoking, people who wanted to smoke would still go to the pub, but smoke outside.
This does of course change from pub to pub, one which serves only chips and sandwitches will likely opt to remove their food, whilst pubs like wetherspoons would be better keeping it.

Also as a sidenote - many people here have been saying that pubs will not be able to manage to stay open if they ban smoking.

What about wetherspoons then? They are banning smoking voluntarily, and afaik are the most sucessful pub chain in britain.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

I know I'm out of this now but to be fair Wetherspoons pubs are crap!! :)

Re: smoking and the pub
 

To conclude smoking should be banned altogether!

Re: smoking and the pub
 

so i'm not allowed to smoke in my house? pfft.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Yep you can unless of course you own a public house then in 2006/2007 then the nanny state has won.

Although you could build a room for smokers and let the non smokers stand outside and only enter with masks when they need a refill.

The day when someone dictates I cannot smoke in my own house and makes that a law is the day I go back to jail.

:D

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Nice thought - never happen though. Look what happend in America with Prohibition.......

:angel:

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Of course it should be banned - I find it bizarre that smoking, of all of the drugs, is legal. It might give the remaining smokers the kick up the *** they need to quit.

Although yes of course it would cause a lot of problems, as prohibition did in America.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Forgive her incoherant ramblings - she's been out drinking :D

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Blimey, this thread is almost as long as the 'NTL 10Mb' thread :rolleyes: ...and the person who started the whole thing has been banned since it was created, so can't see what's being said! :disturbd:

My views are that I am fully aware that inhaling cigarette smoke is dangerous to one's health, whether the smoke is inhaled passively or otherwise (what's the opposite to passive smoking? Aggressive smoking..?!?). I have seen the statistics and have read reports linking passive smoking to fatal diseases. However, I am struggling to see why such a ban was deemed necessary. Like Xaccers said earlier on, I think this proposed ban would be a bad thing because it is an infringement on civil liberties. I really, really don't like being told what I can and can not do. I like having the freedom of choice, as a sane adult, to do what I like where I like.

Saying that, I admit I like the idea of living in a civilised society, and I live by the laws that are imposed. So, if the Government were really serious about this, then I'd like to see it banned in private as well as public places, and I'd like to see people arrested for possessing cigarettes. If such a law were enforced then I would accept that smoking in public places be outlawed. This, alas, isn't realistic so smoking will remain legal.

Despite smoking remaining legal, and without any laws currently in place governing such a thing, smoking is not allowed in my local cinema, nor my local library, nor the local sports centre, nor even in my local hospital. Despite there being no law forbidding this (I understand the Public Places Charter is only voluntary), I've yet to see anyone light-up in any of these places - there's an acceptance that smoking in these places is not allowed, and this rule is always stuck to. There is no law that prevents someone from running a cinema where smoking is permitted if they wanted to do so, but I don't honestly think we'll see such a thing where I live.

Focusing on pubs, which is what this thread is all about after all... Currently, I have a choice about where to go and what to do, so I am happy. When my wife and I take our son to eat at one of our local pubs, we can go to the Manor Farm, which has a very large non-smoking area (the main bar) plus a very large non-smoking restaurant, and all the smokers are confined to a smaller room at the back of the pub where they don't cause any harm to anoyone but themselves (I've noticed that the smokers even take their empties back to the bar, so the bar staff aren't inconvenienced/harmed by their smoke!). Alternatively, we can go to the Abbey Meads pub where smoking is again only allowed in a small section of the pub - it's not quite as well managed as the Manor Farm, so we tend to go there less often unless we want to eat outside. Finally, there's the Toby Carvery... fully non-smoking wherever you sit (although you can probably smoke outside).

To put this in perspective, that's 3 pubs that serve food within a ½-mile radius of our house, where we confidently feel that the health of our son is not being compromised by passive smoking. There are other pubs we could go to if we wanted to, but we always decide not to, because of the smokey environment. We have a choice, and we exercise that choice when we go to a particular pub instead of another pub. Similarly, smokers currently have a choice. They can go to the Manor Farm pub - and they do - provided they don't mind being segregated - and apparently they don't mind it. Otherwise, they can go to the Abbey Meads pub and again can drink and smoke at the same time (ok, physically that's not possible, but you get my meaning). Otherwise, they can go to the pub within the Toby Carvery and can sit outside in the garden whenever they want a cigarette. Currently, the smokers exercise their choice when they decide where they want to smoke.

Now, if this bill became law, it is possible that some of the pubs my family and I currently frequent will cease serving food, so we will no longer have such a varied choice over where to eat :( Alternatively, they will prevent people from smoking where they are currently allowed to do so, and that results in the smokers having less choice, even though they are not affecting me nor my family as much as some people are suggesting.

By the way, there's a good article in Tuesday's Guardian comparing the dangers of passive smoking to air pollution, and highlighting the fact that air pollution kills many, many times more people per year than passive smoking, yet is still being overlooked.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

One of the reasons why might be that people don't want to give up their car's and are probably the same people pontificating to smokers about passive smoking? :devsmoke: Time for a new thread perhaps? :p:

As the article said "Passive Driving" anyone ?

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Gareth, that was an interesting summary of what you believe (essentially, personal choice I think), but you really didn't address any of the issues that have been raised as objections to smoke in public. If you think that personal choice is to be rated more highly than the health issue, could you explain why? This is something I don't think anyone on the pro-smoking side has adequately answered in this thread.

As for the comparison between smoking and cars ... we have said over and over in this thread, just because something other than smoking can be shown to be a problem, it does not follow that nothing should be done about smoking. The smokescreen (:D)the pro-smoking lobby has tried to put up, about alcohol, cars, etc etc etc, is entertaining but conveniently fails to address the persuasive arguments in favour of a ban on smoking.

But if we are to compare them, are you suggesting that an outright ban on smoking would affect the economy in a similarly drastic way as a ban on driving?

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Wetherspoons are the most sucessful because they are the cheapest - they buy just about out of date stuff for next to nothing, knock it out to their patrons and a ridiculously low price, so people go there and get bladdered before they go to a real Pub. Their menus are laminated also, which in my 12 year experience of pubs and restaurants, means the food is all prepacked and microwaved, therefore they do not have to pay the wages of a fully trained chef, just some college student who can use a pair of scissors and a 'Hinari Lifestyle'. Hence the bargain food prices too. To summise, Wetherspoons are sh1te, and if you think they're a real pub, then you seriously need to get out more.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

I don't get out much, and it's usually to Wetherspoons. :erm: :( :p: