smoking and the pub

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Pia

WTF?? How do you come up with these assumptions?

Nealry every single non smoker i know, doesn't care about passive smoking.
In fact, at work they all come out to the smoking area.
I haven't met many anti smokers in my life at all- so what makes you think that everyone who works in a smoking bar ahould be either a smoker or an idiot?

That wasn't what I was saying.... Someone said about the health and saftey as far as passive smoking is concerned for bar staff. I was pointing out that if you did in fact detest smoky places or have a high intolerance to passive smoking you'd be a fool to take a job in a pub.....

What I'd like to see is some comparison between the amount of smoking that goes on in the UK and the amount of driving. It seems to me that a bald statistic comparing death from smoking to death from air pollution (important point, the article *did not* put all air pollution down to vehicle emissions) is meaningless.

For example, prior to the Paris crash, Concorde was IIRC the safest commercial airliner in the world. Afterwards, it was one of the most dangerous. This of course was simply because there were not many Concordes and not many flights, so the statistical effect of a single crash was artificially magnified.

Similarly, how do you compare miles driven to fags smoked?

Originally Posted by orangebird

That wasn't what I was saying.... Someone said about the health and saftey as far as passive smoking is concerned for bar staff. I was pointing out that if you did in fact detest smoky places or have a high intolerance to passive smoking you'd be a fool to take a job in a pub.....

See posts above, then rejoin the merry-go-round.


SOMEBODY PLEASE ANNIHILATE THIS THREAD!!!!

[Gareth]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Umm, no, I could decide it's not worth the risk being a pedestrian and stay at home, which is what smokers seem to think those of us who want to drink in a smoke-free pub should be doing. That is plainly silly, as it remains a cold, hard fact that smokers are the minority, and yet seem to think it's still their right to expect the majority to accommodate them.

Let's look at this from another angle... at the moment, you, as a pedestrian, have the choice of walking either along the pavement or you can walk on the side of the road. You're fully aware that walking on the pavement is the safest option, but it would inconvenience you more than walking in the road from time to time. Should you have the choice as to where you choose to walk - if you want to, should you be allowed to walk on the road instead of always on the pavement?

If the government gets its way, they're saying that because of the risk of walking in the road and potentially getting run over, you're no longer allowed to not walk on the pavement, because they've decided it should be that way. Even if you want to, you will not do it.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by andyl

See posts above, then rejoin the merry-go-round.


SOMEBODY PLEASE ANNIHILATE THIS THREAD!!!!

How's this?

Originally Posted by Gareth

Let's look at this from another angle... at the moment, you, as a pedestrian, have the choice of walking either along the pavement or you can walk on the side of the road. You're fully aware that walking on the pavement is the safest option, but it would inconvenience you more than walking in the road from time to time. Should you have the choice as to where you choose to walk - if you want to, should you be allowed to walk on the road instead of always on the pavement?

If the government gets its way, they're saying that because of the risk of walking in the road and potentially getting run over, you're no longer allowed to not walk on the pavement, because they've decided it should be that way. Even if you want to, you will not do it.

That's a thoroughly bad analogy - the ban on smoking is not going to prevent you from standing outside a pub to smoke. It is just going to restrict you from smoking inside.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Chris T

That's a thoroughly bad analogy - the ban on smoking is not going to prevent you from standing outside a pub to smoke. It is just going to restrict you from smoking inside.

In the analogy, you're still able to walk in your home, or anywhere else other than the pavement

[clarie]

Originally Posted by Gareth

Let's look at this from another angle... at the moment, you, as a pedestrian, have the choice of walking either along the pavement or you can walk on the side of the road. You're fully aware that walking on the pavement is the safest option, but it would inconvenience you more than walking in the road from time to time. Should you have the choice as to where you choose to walk - if you want to, should you be allowed to walk on the road instead of always on the pavement?

This doesn't take into account many of the other important factors - for example that smoking isn't just dangerous for the non-smoker but also for the smoker. Also the anti-social problems associated with it such as the terrible smell. To put this into your analogy, let's add that the driver is also risking his own life, and causing terrible smells for everyone, making his and their clothes smell. Do you not then think it would be less of a case of free choice and more of a case of what can we do to reduce the numbers of drivers on the road full stop?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by clarie

This doesn't take into account many of the other important factors - for example that smoking isn't just dangerous for the non-smoker but also for the smoker. Also the anti-social problems associated with it such as the terrible smell. To put this into your analogy, let's add that the driver is also risking his own life, and causing terrible smells for everyone, making his and their clothes smell. Do you not then think it would be less of a case of free choice and more of a case of what can we do to reduce the numbers of drivers on the road full stop?

Smoking is legal yes?
It's a personal choice yes?
Not smoking is also a personal choice yes?
Not exposing yourself to passive smoking, or actually exposing yourself to passive smoking is also a personal choice, yes?
Is there anything about this that you're still confused by?

[clarie]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Smoking is legal yes?
It's a personal choice yes?
Not smoking is also a personal choice yes?
Not exposing yourself to passive smoking, or actually exposing yourself to passive smoking is also a personal choice, yes?
Is there anything about this that you're still confused by?

I am not confused in the slightest thank you Xaccers. Repeat the same points if you like but it won't add weight to what you are saying.

Originally Posted by Chris T

What I'd like to see is some comparison between the amount of smoking that goes on in the UK and the amount of driving. It seems to me that a bald statistic comparing death from smoking to death from air pollution (important point, the article *did not* put all air pollution down to vehicle emissions) is meaningless.

For example, prior to the Paris crash, Concorde was IIRC the safest commercial airliner in the world. Afterwards, it was one of the most dangerous. This of course was simply because there were not many Concordes and not many flights, so the statistical effect of a single crash was artificially magnified.

Similarly, how do you compare miles driven to fags smoked?

Think the similarity is that they are both air pollutants (air pollution/smoke) and cause cancers that are both respiratory diseases and effect both lung and heart similary.
__________________

Originally Posted by clarie

I am not confused in the slightest thank you Xaccers. Repeat the same points if you like but it won't add weight to what you are saying.

You seem to be repeating the same points of view aswell, as do I, and a good many others contributing to the thread discussion.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by clarie

I am not confused in the slightest thank you Xaccers. Repeat the same points if you like but it won't add weight to what you are saying.

You seem to think that the owner of any establishment should bend to your will no matter if it will affect their ability to stay in business or not.
I believe that is a very self centred view.
If I don't like the enviroment of an establishment, I just won't go there. I certainly won't try and get the owner to change the enironment within their establishment.

And like I said, what about members only clubs where everyone has accepted that smoking takes place?
Either they have to stand outside the premises to smoke, or are denied the ability to eat at such clubs.
Why should they suffer because people like you can't accept that people have the right to choose if they want to expose themselves to unhealthy activities.

[Nugget]

Originally Posted by Chris T

That's a thoroughly bad analogy - the ban on smoking is not going to prevent you from standing outside a pub to smoke. It is just going to restrict you from smoking inside.

Ah, but you might get run over while you're stood outside - bloody car drivers

Originally Posted by NEONKNIGHT

Think the similarity is that they are both air pollutants (air pollution/smoke) and cause cancers that are both respiratory diseases and effect both lung and heart similary.

I understand that. However, how much exposure to each substance is required to produce the carcinogenic effect? How many tonnes of toxins are released into the environment annually by each activity? And how much could reasonably be reduced by the introduction of sensible legislation?

You can't simply say 'car exhaust kills more people than tobacco smoke'. Before the statistic can be meaningful, you have to understand how many tonnes of each pollutant is required to kill one person.

None of the above, by the way, should be taken to mean that nothing should be done about air pollution and vehicle exhaust's role in it. In fact, a lot has been done already. Legislation has removed lead from petrol, fitted catalytic converters to exhaust pipes and reduced sulphur and particulates in diesel engine exhaust. Still, more can be done. And I will be happy to debate it endlessly just as soon as one of the pro-smokers who profess to care so much about it, demonstrates their care by starting another thread on it, instead of using it as a spurious argument against targeting smoking.

[Angua]

One night at work my husband needed to get some information (away from the normal work environment) from some others at work and the only way he could get the info was to join the smokers (who had the info) in the outdoor shelter. That morning he came home reeking of cigs!