smoking and the pub

[andygrif]

Originally Posted by Nidge

Because the Government collects £1.2 billion from the sales of alcohol and it costs £2 billion to treat the effects of alcohol, the Government collect £700 million from smokers each year and it costs £200 million per year to treat smoking related diseases, alcohol sales will always go through the roof each year because of the binge drinking effect we have in the UK.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that shutting all pubs would be good for the country?

Also, as there is 1/2 a Billion quid excess from tax on tobacco, shouldn't the government be encouraging more smoking rather than trying to ban it in some places?

Originally Posted by Nikko

I read today that 80% of respondents in the poll (that the top 5 breweries are basing the restrictions on) would prefer a smoke free environment.

Clearly the breweries are expecting a huge upsurge in trade based on this, whereas in reality its the 20% minority that actually go to the pub.

Must be that the 20% do an awful lot of drinking too then.

[Salu]

Originally Posted by paulyoung666

and as a devotee of the wicked weed , i hope you dont complain when the taxes go up to maintain the status quo

The decsion is really; As a non smoker, which do you prefer - Paying more taxes and living longer due to the decreased risk of passive smoking or being wealthier as a non smoker?

Smoking directly causes lots of diseases. Lung cancer is the well known one. But there are others for example; Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Heart Disease, Other cancers (Throat, nose, mouth, pancreas, leukaemia etc), Circulatory problems, impotence, asthma, etc etc)

People often use the "Well I could go out today and get run over by a bus, so I might as well enjoy myself smoking...." To that I reply that being run over by a bus is probably a kinder way to die than smoking. Believe me, I have seen many people die from smoking and it is painful, degrading, scary (as you can't breathe) and slow.

You have to balance the pain/gain.

Any ban I would support wholeheartedly

Originally Posted by Salu

The decsion is really; As a non smoker, which do you prefer - Paying more taxes and living longer due to the decreased risk of passive smoking or being wealthier as a non smoker?

Smoking directly causes lots of diseases. Lung cancer is the well known one. But there are others for example; Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Heart Disease, Other cancers (Throat, nose, mouth, pancreas, leukaemia etc), Circulatory problems, impotence, asthma, etc etc)

People often use the "Well I could go out today and get run over by a bus, so I might as well enjoy myself smoking...." To that I reply that being run over by a bus is probably a kinder way to die than smoking. Believe me, I have seen many people die from smoking and it is painful, degrading, scary (as you can't breathe) and slow.

You have to balance the pain/gain.

Any ban I would support wholeheartedly

good points there, Salu, I can certainly confirm the scarey bit - I had a nasty chest infection a few weeks ago & the sensation of trying to breathe & not a lot happening is VERY scarey - which makes you panic, so you need more air, which you can't get, so you panic some more............

- so far, since then, I have been able to stop smoking.

[orangebird]

FFS, they'll be banning cars and peanuts next.....

[Mike]

Originally Posted by orangebird

FFS, they'll be banning cars and peanuts next.....

They banned beef due to possible health risks. So a smoking ban in public must be a good thing. The sooner the better for me and my children

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Mike

They banned beef due to possible health risks. So a smoking ban in public must be a good thing. The sooner the better for me and my children

And now it's not banned. What about cars and their health threatening pollutants?

[Escapee]

I will be pleased to attend non-smoking pubs, theres nothing worse than getting home at 3am being drunk but still having to jump in the shower to get the terrible smell of smoke off your body and out of your hair. (I dont suppose Russ will appreciatem it)

I dont think smokers realise how badly the stuff smells to people who dont smoke, I never complain about smoking and accept it in the pub. I will certainly be happy to be without it though!

Originally Posted by Mike

They banned beef due to possible health risks. So a smoking ban in public must be a good thing. The sooner the better for me and my children

it's getting that way now, I was really glad I had decided to pack it in before going on holiday, or I would have been 'climbing the walls' - Airports seem to be arranged to cause smokers maximum inconvenience, nowadays - smoking only allowed in designated areas, which are cunningly located just far enough away from the departure lounge to guarantee you will miss your boarding call if you go for one. So then you suffer 9 hours on the no smoking plane, before landing at another airport that arranges baggage check out & immigration to last just long enough that you barely make the transfer coach (non smoking), which dumps you at the hotel, where, finally, you can have that fag you've been craving for the last 15 hours

[andygrif]

Originally Posted by Salu

The decsion is really; As a non smoker, which do you prefer - Paying more taxes and living longer due to the decreased risk of passive smoking or being wealthier as a non smoker?

<snip>

Any ban I would support wholeheartedly

But the whole issue is one of choice. Smokers know the risks and can make an informed decision. Whether you support a ban or not, the issue is one of people's rights and that of a nanny state.

I'm all for more non-smoking pubs or smoke-free sections, as this increases that freedom of choice.

Taking that choice away is part of a bigger issue of control over people - which for a government obessessed with 'liberating' other countries is somewhat hypocritical in my opinion.

[Bifta]

Originally Posted by Salu

Smoking directly causes lots of diseases. Lung cancer is the well known one. But there are others for example; Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Heart Disease, Other cancers (Throat, nose, mouth, pancreas, leukaemia etc), Circulatory problems, impotence, asthma, etc etc)

I'd like to point out that I don't have any of them ailments, my gran who smoked never died from any of them (or anything even remotely smoking related) my other gran who is still alive and over 80 (and smokes) has none of them, in fact, I can safely say as far as I know, not a single person I know or have known has had or has died from anything that could be construed as smoking related. I increase my risk (apparently) through smoking of contracting lung cancer, so? Eating meat that's slightly charcoaled is apparently supposed to increase your risk of cancer, are you do-gooders going to give up barbecues?

[Salu]

Originally Posted by annoyed andygrif

But the whole issue is one of choice. Smokers know the risks and can make an informed decision. Whether you support a ban or not, the issue is one of people's rights and that of a nanny state.

I'm all for more non-smoking pubs or smoke-free sections, as this increases that freedom of choice.

Taking that choice away is part of a bigger issue of control over people - which for a government obessessed with 'liberating' other countries is somewhat hypocritical in my opinion.

And what about my choice/right as a non-smoker NOT to breathe in 2nd hand smoke?

Smoking per se should not be banned as that would then fulfill your point above but I wouldn't call this removing choice so much as creating a law for the good of everyone.

My not smoking could not offend or harm the person next to me...but someone smoking next to me would. If the smoker enforces his right/choice to smoke then he will be removing mine, not to. If I don't smoke I will not affect him. The smoking ban would ensure that I could exercise mine. The smoker, however can go outside or pop home etc...

Originally Posted by BBQ Bifta

I'd like to point out that I don't have any of them ailments, my gran who smoked never died from any of them (or anything even remotely smoking related) my other gran who is still alive and over 80 (and smokes) has none of them, in fact, I can safely say as far as I know, not a single person I know or have known has had or has died from anything that could be construed as smoking related. I increase my risk (apparently) through smoking of contracting lung cancer, so? Eating meat that's slightly charcoaled is apparently supposed to increase your risk of cancer, are you do-gooders going to give up barbecues?

We all have immunity and defenses against different diseases. That is why I can suffer with a cold while you breathe easily. Smoking won't give everyone lung cancer but will increase your chances. Burnt meat is a carcinogen true but much much less harmful than smoking. Your granny's are more likely to have had chest infections too as the smoke will paralyse the little hairs on your wind pipe (villi) that remove excess mucus from your lungs. I would also hazard a guess that they are slight in build which may mask peripheral circulation diseases from being apparent??

Maybe I shouldn't make wild guesses.....

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Salu

<snip>My not smoking could not offend or harm the person next to me...but someone smoking next to me would. If the smoker enforces his right/choice to smoke then he will be removing mine, not to. If I don't smoke I will not affect him. The smoking ban would ensure that I could exercise mine. The smoker, however can go outside or pop home etc...

Yeah, ok - you drive twenty minutes into town on the weekend to do your shopping - just nipping home isn't always an option...

We all have immunity and defenses against different diseases. That is why I can suffer with a cold while you breathe easily. Smoking won't give everyone lung cancer but will increase your chances. Burnt meat is a carcinogen true but much much less harmful than smoking. Your granny's are more likely to have had chest infections too as the smoke will paralyse the little hairs on your wind pipe (villi) that remove excess mucus from your lungs. I would also hazard a guess that they are slight in build which may mask peripheral circulation diseases from being apparent??

Maybe I shouldn't make wild guesses.....

No you shouldn't. Biftas gran might be as big as a house and fit as a butchers dog - how would you know???

[Salu]

Originally Posted by orangebird

Yeah, ok - you drive twenty minutes into town on the weekend to do your shopping - just nipping home isn't always an option...

Go outside then.

No you shouldn't. Biftas gran might be as big as a house and fit as a butchers dog - how would you know???

It is only an observation. In my clinical experience I have observed (maybe coincidently) that the type of person who can smoke like a chimney and lives healthily in their 80's are small, slight in stature, keep their minds exercised and probably lucky with their allocation of good genes. Not scientifically proven, just an observation. It will be interesting to hear from Bifta though..

[prepares for egg on face and lifts coat towards shoulder]

[Bifta]

Originally Posted by Salu

We all have immunity and defenses against different diseases. That is why I can suffer with a cold while you breathe easily. Smoking won't give everyone lung cancer but will increase your chances. Burnt meat is a carcinogen true but much much less harmful than smoking.

But still a risk that people are willing to take.

Your granny's are more likely to have had chest infections too as the smoke will paralyse the little hairs on your wind pipe (villi) that remove excess mucus from your lungs.

I'm sure they've had no more than anyone else has.

I would also hazard a guess that they are slight in build which may mask peripheral circulation diseases from being apparent??

Maybe I shouldn't make wild guesses.....

No, maybe you shouldn't, one of them died 2 weeks ago from a meningococcal infection (go on, I dare you to blame smoking) and the other is in perfect health, but topping 20 stone plus at least (much like the other)

[Salu]

Originally Posted by Bifta

No, maybe you shouldn't, one of them died 2 weeks ago from a meningococcal infection (go on, I dare you to blame smoking) and the other is in perfect health, but topping 20 stone plus at least (much like the other)

Sorry to hear about that Bifta. No I wouldn't blame everything on smoking. Only those diseases that have been scientifically proven to be exacerbated by smoking.

Originally Posted by Bifta

...but topping 20 stone plus at least (much like the other)

Typical....lesson learnt.