smoking and the pub

[Salu]

Originally Posted by SlackDad

These stats only go to back up my previous point about making smoking more and more unattractive sometimes has the opposite effect, especially when in a rebelling mood, i.e many teenagers. Think of the times trying to sneak a quick ciggie at school without being caught for instance.

Another very salient point. While in Europe and the USA the tobacco comapnies are finding it harder and harder to ply their trade, they don't just disappear. Rather they move to developing areas of the world where perhaps the effects are not so widely publicised or the health infrastructures not in place to advise and support. So a perceived benefit here may be having a detrimental effect elsewhere.

I think this arises from the duplicity of the messages that teens are hearing. On one hand they hear adults say you must not smoke you are under 16, it's bad for you. On the other hand they see adults go into pubs, get drunk and smoke their heads off. That makes it attractive.

Originally Posted by Pierre

I don't think any smoker would be happy, or celebrate, if there was a rise in young people taking up smoking

Maybe not, but I think the ostriches at F.O.R.E.S.T. might well quote such a statistic in order to suggest that a blanket smoking ban would be ineffective.

[clarie]

Originally Posted by Salu

I think this arises from the duplicity of the messages that teens are hearing. One one hand they hear adults say you must not smoke you are under 16, it's bad for you. On the other hand they see adults go into pubs, get drunk and smoke their heads off. That makes it attractive.

Excellent point. Kids want to grow up quick, and look mature and cool, and to rebel and that's what often leads to smoking.

The further along this discussion goes, the more I am beginning to hope for a total ban on smoking!

[Nugget]

Originally Posted by clarie

Yeah! I spoke about this earlier on - I think it makes me one of the more vehement anti-smokers.

I have to be honest and say that I've always found ex-smokers to be the worst non-smokers around (and don't worry, this isn't a specific attack on you, clairie ).

I've always failed to understand how people who did smoke can then be so against smoking, just because they managed / had the willpower to stop. I think it's pretty much been proved that tobacco is ana addictive substance and, as such, it's difficult to just stop. Therefore, to my mind, ex-smokers should appreciate more than anything why people still do smoke.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Nugget

I have to be honest and say that I've always found ex-smokers to be the worst non-smokers around (and don't worry, this isn't a specific attack on you, clairie ).

I've always failed to understand how people who did smoke can then be so against smoking, just because they managed / had the willpower to stop. I think it's pretty much been proved that tobacco is ana addictive substance and, as such, it's difficult to just stop. Therefore, to my mind, ex-smokers should appreciate more than anything why people still do smoke.

Indeed. My mother is an exsmoker, and don't I know about it... My dad has never smoked, and although he doesn't like my habit at all, he doesn't **** and moan about smoke in pubs etc like mother does.....

[Salu]

Originally Posted by andyl

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.

Nugget............resist........

[clarie]

Originally Posted by Nugget

I have to be honest and say that I've always found ex-smokers to be the worst non-smokers around (and don't worry, this isn't a specific attack on you, clairie ).

I've always failed to understand how people who did smoke can then be so against smoking, just because they managed / had the willpower to stop. I think it's pretty much been proved that tobacco is ana addictive substance and, as such, it's difficult to just stop. Therefore, to my mind, ex-smokers should appreciate more than anything why people still do smoke.

This is a very good point. I sometimes ponder this myself. But as I said earlier, I am not sure I ever was 100% addicted because I wasn't always a habitual smoker. Furthermore, having reaped the benefits myself of quitting, I never understand why a lot of people don't even want to quit, let alone are unable to do so. I believe also that the smell becomes a lot more repulsive when you quit smoking, because you know you have been putting that stuff in your body. So you want to get as far away from it as possible.

I read an excellent analogy for smoking once in a book on how to give up. It said imagine if you have a spot on your face that won't go away, so your friend lends you some ointment. You use it, and the spot vanishes, but a few days later, another one appears. You use the ointment again, and again it disappears. But later two more appear, then three, and soon your whole face is covered. Every time you use the ointment and they disappear, but come back again worse every time. You realise of course that the ointment is causing the spots, but as it is also the remedy, you don't want to stop using it.

What do you do? Stop using the ointment and put up with a really spot face for a while until it goes for good, or keep on using it and just accept that your skin will keep on getting worse, and that you will only ever have short sharp bouts of relief...

It is my experience that denial often goes hand in hand with smoking. I myself was probably in denial about what smoking was doing to me when I used to smoke, and often smokers don't like to talk about smoking because they do not want to face the thought of what they know they have to do: quit. That's entirely down to them of course. But it makes the concerned friend or family member look like a 'moaner' when actually they really want to look out for their loved one.

Originally Posted by SlackDad

But to be honest I don't really know whether stopping smoking in pubs for instance is really going to address the issue. As I have said previously adults can choose (generally speaking) to sit, work etc. in a pub where smoking is permitted. (Also good filtration systems can minimise much of the smoke). Children, however, do not have such a choice. So while pubs are nice and smoke free parents are still puffing away at home or in the car around their children. As much as I would not support making smoking illegal, if the government was serious about addressing the ill effects then at least proposing this would mean it wasn't spineless. Or maybe Blair's waiting for Bush's signal .

It is interesting that the focus is on pubs; the legislation, when its finally enacted (which it will be) will ban smoking in all enclosed public spaces, not just pubs.

Parents choose their parenting style. I wouldn't smoke in front of my kids, but others would. Not something I'd approve of certainly, but in their own home.... Public spaces are different.

And yes people, I do inhale, but I did not have sexual relations with that woman!

[Nugget]

Originally Posted by andyl

<snip>And yes people, I do inhale, but I did not have sexual relations with that woman!

Was that because you were waaaaaaay below her standards?

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by clarie

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact02.html

http://www.recovery.org.uk/druginfo/index.html

The problem with statistics is that they only show what the publisher wants them to show.

There is a difference between 114,000 people in the UK are killed by smoking each year and 114,000 smokers die in the UK each year. They may die of illnesses that could have been a result of them smoking or the same illness could have been caused by many other factors. They are automatically put in the "death caused by smoking" group simply because they are smokers. They could just as well have died from the same illness if they had never smoked a cigarette in their life or been anywhere where they encounted passive smoke.

Deaths from passive smoking are even harder to be correctly diagnosed. They die prematurely from an illness that could have been smoking related but could just as easily be nothing to do with smoking. A non-smoking barman dies from lung cancer so it must be because of the effects of passive smoking. Why must it?

Originally Posted by Nugget

Was that because you were waaaaaaay below her standards?

Oh, how I wish I could date a woman who had standards. Any standards.

[clarie]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

The problem with statistics is that they only show what the publisher wants them to show.

There is a difference between 114,000 people in the UK are killed by smoking each year and 114,000 smokers die in the UK each year. They may die of illnesses that could have been a result of them smoking or the same illness could have been caused by many other factors. They are automatically put in the "death caused by smoking" group simply because they are smokers. They could just as well have died from the same illness if they had never smoked a cigarette in their life or been anywhere where they encounted passive smoke.

Deaths from passive smoking are even harder to be correctly diagnosed. They die prematurely from an illness that could have been smoking related but could just as easily be nothing to do with smoking. A non-smoking barman dies from lung cancer so it must be because of the effects of passive smoking. Why must it?

It's a good point. But smoking has been being investigated for such a long time now, I think we have to give the experts a bit of credit. What benefit would be gained from making smoking out to be more dangerous to be than it actually is, especially when as has been mentioned, so much tax is spent on cigarettes in the UK. Perhaps the statistics that best illustrate the risks of smoking would be the numbers of smokers who develop certain illnesses compared to the non-smokers.

Originally Posted by andyl

Oh, how I wish I could date a woman who had standards. Any standards.

I've got standards.

You just have to have a pulse...

[Nugget]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

I've got standards.

You just have to have a pulse...

That's andy stuffed then

Originally Posted by Incognitas

I've got standards.

You just have to have a pulse...

I meant a woman with an extensive collection of flags. (cue Nug rude-ities re flagpoles!)