smoking and the pub

[Russ]

Originally Posted by SlackDad

http://www.swansea.gov.uk/index.cfm?Articleid=3191

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]

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??????????

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

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]

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]

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
__________________

Originally Posted by Chris T

They have rather tried to corner the debate, haven't they? 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]

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?

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?'

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]

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]

Originally Posted by clarie

What makes you think I am happily indulging in them?

figure of speech.

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]

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!
__________________

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]

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]

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.

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...

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.

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]

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...

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]

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...