smoking and the pub

[etccarmageddon]

I think we need some stats then on how many people die due to alcohol related illnesses per year and how many are killed due to passive alcohol related illnesses (where someone has died due to the effects of someone else drinking).

and similar stats for smoking.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Paul

Wouldn't that be discrimination against non-smokers who wish to remain working at that pub?

Paul, if they're already employees, they obviously don't have a particular issue anyway (if they do they bloody stupid). This law is not coming in for over a year. If they felt that strongly, they wouldn't be working in the pub in the first place, and certainly wouldn't be wanting to wait that long for the law to take effect.

There is a difference between alcohol and tobacco in that it's alcohol abuse that's the issue whereas with tobacco it's just use.

Originally Posted by fireman328

Try telling my G/F that alcohol is not dangerous to her health, she is an A&E sister in a London hospital who has been assaulted a number of times and had her arm broken once.
Strangely enough all the incident reports she has submitted have included "patient smelled strongly of ethanol"

I did not say alcohol is not dangerous to health. I said it is not dangerous to health to anything like the same degree as tobacco is. Statistics bear this out. Tobacco smoking is the single biggest cause of preventable premature death in the UK, by a very, very long way.

There is no safe level of smoking - unlike alcohol.
There is no way of smoking that is not dangerous to the person sat next to you - unlike alcohol.

Alcohol carries a degree of risk, which is already recognised by laws which are currently more stringent than those applied to tobacco. You can't buy alcohol until you're 18. You can buy cigarettes when you're 16. You can only buy alcohol within certain licenced hours. You can buy cigarettes any time the shop that sells them is open. In many towns and cities in the UK, you cannot drink alcohol in the street (or can be told to stop by the police). You can smoke outdoors wherever and whenever you like.
__________________

Originally Posted by SlackDad

I'm sorry but you talk about a sensible discussion while firstly, disregarding many of the points around alcohol - I mean, come on, you only need to venture into a town centre on a Fri/Sat night to see how socially destructive alcohol is - and secondly, if the points are accepted that either a separate room for smokers is required or banned completely from public places, then why is thier habit 'indefensible'. Many of the habits of non-smokers may not be to my liking but doesn't mean to say that I would feel I have the right to stop them doing it.

As Andyl just said very succinctly, problems arise with alcohol when it is abused. Problems arise with tobacco when it is just used.

I'm not ignoring alcohol as an issue. I am merely saying that in the context of a discussion of tobacco, its use, the dangers of its use and possible restrictions on its use, it is a red herring, or worse, a smokescreen, tokeep banging on about alcohol. You can decry the demon drink all you like, but it doesn't make tobacco any less dangerous and it doesn't make the need to restrict tobacco use any less pressing.

The habit of smoking is indefensible because every smoker is fully aware that their habit is killing them and is adversely affecting those around them also. While it may not be the smoker's deliberate intent to harm themselves or anyone else, they cannot possibly be ignorant of the fact that this is happening. Arguments about freedom and choice pale into complete insignificance next to this. Choosing to indulge in the habit of smoking (I say choosing, some people are big enough to admit they want to stop but don't have the willpower), is absolutely indefensible.

[clarie]

Originally Posted by Chris T

The habit of smoking is indefensible because every smoker is fully aware that their habit is killing them and is adversely affecting those around them also. While it may not be the smoker's deliberate intent to harm themselves or anyone else, they cannot possibly be ignorant of the fact that this is happening. Arguments about freedom and choice pale into complete insignificance next to this. Choosing to indulge in the habit of smoking (I say choosing, some people are big enough to admit they want to stop but don't have the willpower), is absolutely indefensible.

I have said it before and I will say it again, the big issue here is not free choice or freedom, and it is simply an excuse to defend the habit of smoking.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by clarie

I have said it before and I will say it again, the big issue here is not free choice or freedom, and it is simply an excuse to defend the habit of smoking.

For you Clarie, I think you forgot to add....

MY issue is freedom of choice.

[clarie]

Originally Posted by orangebird

MY issue is freedom of choice.

Of course. I wouldn't expect it any other way...

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by Chris T

I did not say alcohol is not dangerous to health. I said it is not dangerous to health to anything like the same degree as tobacco is. Statistics bear this out. Tobacco smoking is the single biggest cause of preventable premature death in the UK, by a very, very long way.

Not strictly true when compared to obesity rates for example. At least not a 'very, very long way' as you put it. See here, for example.

There is no safe level of smoking - unlike alcohol.
There is no way of smoking that is not dangerous to the person sat next to you - unlike alcohol.

Again, although the dangers to health of smoking are widely known many people live to very old age quite happily whilst smoking for a significant proportion of their lives. This may be the exception but at least questions the fact that there is never a safe level to smoke. Like most things, effects are never in isolation. Other lifestyle factors, i.e. stress, diet, exercise, genetic disposition, etc. all have to be taken into account. Are smoking related illnesses prevalent in the meditteranean, for example, where diets and even factors such as sunlight differ from the UK?
Drinking can be dangerous to the person sat next to you if that person then punches you for example, as a direct effect of intoxication. To say that there is no danger is not true.

As Andyl just said very succinctly, problems arise with alcohol when it is abused. Problems arise with tobacco when it is just used.

Fair comment.

The habit of smoking is indefensible because every smoker is fully aware that their habit is killing them and is adversely affecting those around them also. While it may not be the smoker's deliberate intent to harm themselves or anyone else, they cannot possibly be ignorant of the fact that this is happening. Arguments about freedom and choice pale into complete insignificance next to this.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I can think of many indefensible actions but smoking is not one of them. If somebody wants to put poison in thier body, aware that it may shorten thier lives, it is up to them. In some contexts this may be selfish, but still, is their decision. Perhaps smoking for some, is their one real pleasure in an otherwise hard life. Who knows. Perhaps for others it really helps relieve stress and therefore is a coping mechanism. Again, who knows. But I for one am not going to self-righteously say to anybody they should not be doing this and how selfish they are.

Choosing to indulge in the habit of smoking (I say choosing, some people are big enough to admit they want to stop but don't have the willpower), is absolutely indefensible.

Maybe it's a choice at the start but smoking is an addiction like any other, hence why support is now available on the NHS.

I should point out I have the odd puff at home. But I don't see why others should have to inhale what I inhale.

And whilst I agree it is an addiction (though not for me) and that treatment should be offered for it, I don't see why that addiction need be inflicted upon others. Have a smoke by all means, just not in an enclosed public space.

OK non smoker here.Been one all my life.Never liked smoking over food or in the bedroom but that is the only restrictions I insist on.

Would much rather other half didn't smoke but I appreciate how difficult it is for him to give up having watched the innumerable attempts to do so.In fact I hate being around him when he's trying to do so because it is heartbreaking when he falls off the wagon...I've supported him all the way each time enduring bad temper and depression on his side.Whenever he smokes at home he goes outside.I try to understand because he can't smoke at work these days.

However I still believe it should be a matter of choice in regards to pubs WHILST it is still not illegal to smoke tobacco.The moment it becomes illegal to smoke is when a full public ban should into place because I believe in the rights of ALL not just my fellow non smokers.I think that those who don't smoke should try to empathise with the difficulties of addiction and those that smoke should realise that it's bad enough living in a world that some smokers seem to regard as one big personal ashtray.

So how about just trying to see each others POV instead of thinking that only your viewpoint is the right one.As has been pointed out there are other issues that impinge on our health and are contrbutary to poor health that perhaps need our combined ire to sort out.Our air in general needs cleaning up..Now shall we give up our cars?I bet smokers and non smokers feel strongly enough about that together...Enough to make changes?

Failing that why not just agree to disagree?This ding dong argument is going nowhere at present.


Coggy.

Originally Posted by SlackDad

Drinking can be dangerous to the person sat next to you if that person then punches you for example, as a direct effect of intoxication. To say that there is no danger is not true.

This one statement leaves me concerned that you didn't actually read my previous post(s), the thrust of which I thought was extremely clear:

Originally Posted by Chris T

I did not say alcohol is not dangerous to health. I said it is not dangerous to health to anything like the same degree as tobacco is.

and elsewhere:

Originally Posted by Chris T

This is totally ridiculous. For a start, alcohol simply is not dangerous to someone who happens to be sitting next to someone who is drinking it, in anything like the sense that tobacco is. To claim otherwise is absurd, and, frankly, clutching at straws just a little.

To paraprase Claire (I think), if I sit next to a smoker, my heath *will* be compromised. If I sit next to a drinker, if I am very unlucky, my health *might* be compromised. It's a matter of degrees, and if tobacco is boiling point, alcohol is somewhere below freezing.

As for your other comments, yes, we wll have to agree to differ. I say it's indefensible because I rate the knowledge of tha harm it does above the freedom of choice aspect. You obviously take the contraty view. We're not about to change our minds on that point.

[clarie]

Originally Posted by SlackDad

Again, although the dangers to health of smoking are widely known many people live to very old age quite happily whilst smoking for a significant proportion of their lives. This may be the exception but at least questions the fact that there is never a safe level to smoke.

The negative side-effects of smoking are not just limited to terminal illnesses though. It is true that some people do live to old age happily having smoked all of their lives but that isn't a strong argument against the dangers of smoking because whilst we know that smoking kills, there is no way of knowing if you are going to be one of those lucky people who lives to old age as a smoker. Furthermore the fitness levels, general health, and appearance of someone who has smoked all of their lives are often significantly lower than non-smokers. Furthermore that old person may well have escaped the dangers of smoking himself, but who knows what damage he could have done to others by smoking in front of them all his life.

Originally Posted by SlackDad

Drinking can be dangerous to the person sat next to you if that person then punches you for example, as a direct effect of intoxication. To say that there is no danger is not true.

Again, I don't think anyone is denying the dangers of alcohol abuse.

Originally Posted by SlackDad

If somebody wants to put poison in thier body, aware that it may shorten thier lives, it is up to them.

But the point is that it's not just their body they are poisoning.

Originally Posted by SlackDad

Maybe it's a choice at the start but smoking is an addiction like any other, hence why support is now available on the NHS.

There is still a choice to quit. It may well not be easy for everyone. And for those who cannot quit without support - they have the choice of whether or not to approach the NHS.

And I agree by the way, we may just all have to agree to differ.

Originally Posted by Incognitas

OK non smoker here.Been one all my life.Never liked smoking over food or in the bedroom but that is the only restrictions I insist on.

Would much rather other half didn't smoke but I appreciate how difficult it is for him to give up having watched the innumerable attempts to do so.In fact I hate being around him when he's trying to do so because it is heartbreaking when he falls off the wagon...I've supported him all the way each time enduring bad temper and depression on his side.Whenever he smokes at home he goes outside.I try to understand because he can't smoke at work these days.

However I still believe it should be a matter of choice in regards to pubs WHILST it is still not illegal to smoke tobacco.The moment it becomes illegal to smoke is when a full public ban should into place because I believe in the rights of ALL not just my fellow non smokers.I think that those who don't smoke should try to empathise with the difficulties of addiction and those that smoke should realise that it's bad enough living in a world that some smokers seem to regard as one big personal ashtray.

So how about just trying to see each others POV instead of thinking that only your viewpoint is the right one.As has been pointed out there are other issues that impinge on our health and are contrbutary to poor health that perhaps need our combined ire to sort out.Our air in general needs cleaning up..Now shall we give up our cars?I bet smokers and non smokers feel strongly enough about that together...Enough to make changes?

Failing that why not just agree to disagree?This ding dong argument is going nowhere at present.


Coggy.

Nobody's saying your hubby can't smoke, just that he shouldn't inflict his smoke on others. And yes air pollution generally is an issue - another one. Alcohol abuse is an issue - another one. The fact we have a useless Govt pandering to commercial interests is an issue - another one. So, one at a time please. As I said before I don't actually mind smoke in pubs but I do think others should be protected, particularly staff. This fudge will please very few; fewer pubs serving food, fewer child-friendly pubs....

But yes, it's a ding-dong argument. I've said it before, life would be a lot easier, though a trifle duller, if you would all just concede I'm right.

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by Chris T

This one statement leaves me concerned that you didn't actually read my previous post(s), the thrust of which I thought was extremely clear:



and elsewhere:



To paraprase Claire (I think), if I sit next to a smoker, my heath *will* be compromised. If I sit next to a drinker, if I am very unlucky, my health *might* be compromised. It's a matter of degrees, and if tobacco is boiling point, alcohol is somewhere below freezing.

As for your other comments, yes, we wll have to agree to differ. I say it's indefensible because I rate the knowledge of tha harm it does above the freedom of choice aspect. You obviously take the contraty view. We're not about to change our minds on that point.

Agreed but my alcohol comment was two lines. You fail to address the other points I make re obesity rates, lifestyles etc. and the fact that some people do smoke all their lives without ill effects.
__________________

Originally Posted by clarie

The negative side-effects of smoking are not just limited to terminal illnesses though. It is true that some people do live to old age happily having smoked all of their lives but that isn't a strong argument against the dangers of smoking because whilst we know that smoking kills, there is no way of knowing if you are going to be one of those lucky people who lives to old age as a smoker. Furthermore the fitness levels, general health, and appearance of someone who has smoked all of their lives are often significantly lower than non-smokers. Furthermore that old person may well have escaped the dangers of smoking himself, but who knows what damage he could have done to others by smoking in front of them all his life.

Agreed but the debate appeared to be steering towards individuals right to smoke per se, regardless of whether this was in front of others, hence my comments.

[clarie]

Originally Posted by SlackDad

Agreed but my alcohol comment was two lines. You fail to address the other points I make re obesity rates, lifestyles etc.

IMO there isn't much you can say. Yes there are other factors that have significant impact on our health. But we can't address them all at once, and there is no reason why we can't currently address one but not the others.