Smoking in public places to be banned

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Graham

I really cannot follow this logic. The fact of them being smokers has *no* relevance to their *entitlement* to treatment.

It's not "my" logic.

I am just trying to make sense of what you posted on posts 122, 126, 130

Can you explain?

Originally Posted by Pierre

It's not "my" logic.

Well it's not mine either!

I am just trying to make sense of what you posted on posts 122, 126, 130 Can you explain?

I'm not sure what you want explained.

Post #122 was a sarcastically humorous response to Orangebird's comment that because she'd paid so much in tax on cigarettes she should be entitled to free NHS care, whereas, as I pointed out in the other posts, it is, of course free to everyone at the point of delivery whether they smoke or not.

I'm not sure what else there is to say.

[Nugget]

Originally Posted by Wolf

I don't smoke apart from the occasional special wrap on a day out. I don't mind pub smoking as long as the smoke is extracted by a proper system. I hate going home smelling like an ash tray. I work in retail and I hate smokers because they stink. Chewing gum does NOT help. There should be not smoking on the streets. Smokers ignore warnings on packets which means they are trying to cause man laughter to the rest of us. Get rid of phone booths and make smoking booths. Ban smoking breaks as it's discrimination against non-smokers. I get extremely annoyed by ASDA who let customers smoke in the main entrance to the shop. Very unhealthy and disgusting.

Have smokers looked at there teeth? Have they notice there cough? Have they noticed how ugly they are getting?
Someone i know died a year ago because of smoking. She had a stroke and survived but her body wasn't strong enough to fight infections as she was wheel chair bound. Sadly she drowned in hospital due to excessive fluid on her lungs. I have a friend who is pregnant yet she insists on smoking. And another friend whos mother and sister smoked all the way through there pregnancies and think its fine. I will lock my missus up if she tried to hurt my unborn child. Hopefully so would any sensible father.

This are my views and i hope that i didn't offend. if i did i apologise.

TBH, even as a smoker, I agree with much of what you're saying here, but I must take issue with the phrase 'Smokers ignore warnings on packets which means they are trying to cause manslaughter to the rest of us'.

As it stands, I don't ignore the warnings on packs - as a reasonably intelligent adult (well, I like to thivk so anyway ), it is down to me to make the choice as to whether to smoke or not. However, it is also up to me as to how much I 'inconvenience' non-smokers as a result of my choice - I do what I can to prevent other people from being affected by it. Ignoring the fact that I very rarely go to pubs or clubs nowadays, I still try not to smoke around non-smokers, even to the point of going outside to have a fag when my sister-in-law visits my house.

Please don't take this as a personal attack because I really don't intend it as such, but I really don't see how anyone can be of the opinion that people smoke because they want to directly inflict harm on someone else.

[Steve H]

Originally Posted by Nugget

Please don't take this as a personal attack because I really don't intend it as such, but I really don't see how anyone can be of the opinion that people smoke because they want to directly inflict harm on someone else.

In-directly your always going to be inflicting harm on someone else. Unless your very lucky, you've already shortened your life a great deal... think about your family?

Slightly OT : My dad used to smoke heavily. 20-30 a day every day.. after he had 3 heart attacks and a bypass he realised how much stress not only was it causing him, but the rest of his family.

[Nugget]

Originally Posted by Steve H

In-directly your always going to be inflicting harm on someone else. Unless your very lucky, you've already shortened your life a great deal... think about your family?

I agree with what you're saying Steve, but what I was trying to was, for want of a better word, rebut Wolfs point (I've already upset someone in this thread for interpreting what they said in a different way to them, and I really don't want to do it again).

[NitroNutter]

Is this a no smoking section ??
cuz Id like to light one up

[SOSAGES]

only one of my buddies smokes its a pain as he often says oh aint going there cos its no smoking ...ban it from pubs etc and make him stand outside i say

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by SOSAGES

only one of my buddies smokes its a pain as he often says oh aint going there cos its no smoking ...ban it from pubs etc and make him stand outside i say

What a great buddy you are....

[Ramrod]

THE risks of heart disease faced by passive smokers are double what was previously estimated, a study has found.
Previous research has indicated that passive smoking could be linked with an increased risk of coronary heart disease of up to 30 per cent. But the latest study published by the British Medical Journal found that non-smokers faced an increased risk of between 50 and 60 per cent.



The researchers noted that most studies on passive smoking examined the risks of living with someone who smoked. They said that while this was important, it did not take into account the additional exposure at work and other places such as pubs and restaurants.

The team said that by measuring cotinine †� a by-product of nicotine †� they could get a more accurate measure of exposure to smoke from all sources. The study focused on 4,792 men from 18 British towns who were monitored for 20 years.

The researchers took blood samples to measure cotinine, concluding that higher concentrations of the substance in the blood of non-smokers were associated with an increased risk of heart disease.

They said that the risks were increased in the early follow-up period, indicating that the link between cotinine levels and heart disease seemed to decline with time.

This suggested another source of underestimation of the effects of passive smoking because other studies have had much longer follow-up periods. The researchers said more studies were needed to find the link between cotinine and other biomarkers and the increased risk of heart disease to help assess the impact of passive smoking.

Professor Peter Whincup, of the Department of Community Health Sciences at St Georgeââ‚Ã⠀šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s Hospital Medical School in London, said the study highlighted the case for tackling passive smoking.

He said: †œThis study adds to the weight of evidence that passive smoking is harmful and strengthens the case for limiting exposure.â₠¬Â�

†œPeople are smoking less now so non-smokers are exposed to lower levels of second-hand smoke. But this study suggests the harmful effects of passive smoking have been underestimated in the past because previous studies only looked at the effect of a non-smoker living with a partner who smoked.

†œThey gave a 25-30 per cent increased risk. Using a biological marker for passive smoking allowed us to assess the effect of wider exposure on heart disease risk.ââ‚ƚ¬Ã‚ÂÂÂ�

Deborah Arnott, director of Action on Smoking and Health, the anti-smoking campaign group, said: †œThis important study provides yet more evidence of the serious health risks posed by second-hand smoke.ââ‚Ã⠀šÃ‚¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÂ�

She called for the Government to ban smoking in public places in the light of all the evidence on the dangers of second-hand smoke.

Dr Tim Bowker, associate medical director of the British Heart Foundation, said: †œThe need for a ban on smoking in public places in the UK has never been better illustrated.

†œThat people who choose not to smoke can suffer an increased risk of heart disease of around 50 per cent just by frequenting smoky public places is disturbing. The Government should not delay any further in introducing legislation to protect non-smokers from this unnecessary risk.ââ‚ƚ¬Ã‚ÂÂÂ�

Simon Clark, director of FOREST, the smokersââ‚à ‚¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ lobby group, said: †œThis new report needs to be seen in perspective. It is one of over 100 studies on the subject and the vast majority have failed to find any connection between passive smoking and ill-health.

†œOn the few occasions a link has been detected it has been too small to be significant.âââ€à …¡Ã‚¬Ã‚ÂÂÂ�

Link

[Bex]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Link

why oh why do i always have a cig in my hand when i read stuff like that? or see the quit smoking ads on tv?

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Bex

why oh why do i always have a cig in my hand when i read stuff like that? or see the quit smoking ads on tv?

I must be psychic

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Bex

why oh why do i always have a cig in my hand when i read stuff like that? or see the quit smoking ads on tv?

I wouldn't worry too much Bex. Funny how that report came out on the same day Labour announce they're considering a public smoking ban..... Anything to do with crapping themselves about losing the next election and wanting to sway support back their way???...I think so... And I certainly wouldn't hold my breath about this ban materialising if they do get voted in...

[zoombini]

Even if it did come in, whats going to happen?

Nothing, no-one would police it, councils would not make places smok free with all the signage etc it entails.
Too much work & money involved.

Smokers would still smoke & tell people where to get off if they pointed out that they should not be smoking there.
If they cared about what other thought they would not be smoking there in the 1st place (so those of you that would not smoke where it affects others need not comment thus).

[orangebird]

My local pub would go out of business... all the regulars that keep the place ticking over in the quiet months smoke - (including me). I wouldn't go to a pub where I couldn't smoke, and neither would any of my smoking frends.....

[Bex]

Originally Posted by orangebird

My local pub would go out of business... all the regulars that keep the place ticking over in the quiet months smoke - (including me). I wouldn't go to a pub where I couldn't smoke, and neither would any of my smoking frends.....

i agree.... all of my friends smoke. i think if pubs were all no smoking then they would lose a certain amount of business... although offlicences might increase theirs

if i go to a place which has smoking and non-smoking places, then i always head for the smoking area, but if you notice there are never any seats in the smoking bits and loads in the non-smoking.

also if im out in a pub or something at lunchtime and there is someone eating at a table next to me, or kids around i tend not to smoke or wait till they have finished their meal.