smoking and the pub

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Thing is, the brain is known to reduced production of its own antidepressants when it starts to get a regular supply of nicotine. It's therefore not surprising that people can suffer depression in numbers after quitting - the nicotine is gone, and the brain has given up on its own production so there's nothing to plug the gap.

Actually, I think you'll find that nicotine actually stimulates production of the pleasure hormones dopamine and serotonin, hence the anti-depressant effect. Remember the increased rate of depression in quitters was pronounced in individuals who already had a history of depression. Therefore James' assertion that we need to look at the causes of depression in the first place before causing further social isolation by banning smoking in public places, for me is a very pertinant point. I certainly don't think that he is suggesting that smoking should be prescribed as a form of medication but rather looking at the evidence of what is actually happening and suggesting one effect of the the Government's policy.

BTW you failed to comment on the Government's hypocrisy

Originally Posted by SlackDad

BTW you failed to comment on the Government's hypocrisy

Which particular piece of Governmental hypocrisy is that?

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Which particular piece of Governmental hypocrisy is that?

Apologies, I appreciate that there is so much, but in particular http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/pol...icle323342.ece

Originally Posted by SlackDad

Actually, I think you'll find that nicotine actually stimulates production of the pleasure hormones dopamine and serotonin, hence the anti-depressant effect.

Actually ... I think you'll find I'm not wrong about serotonin ... now I know what it's called, I've been Googling:

http://www.tgorski.com/Prevention/Pr...g%20020109.htm

The article is a discussion on smoking while pregnant, but paragraph H is relevant:

Depression & Smoking: Addicted smokers who stop smoking for period of several weeks often find themselves developing serious problems with depression. This is may be caused by the tendency of heavy smoking to inhibit the production of serotonin and other naturally occurring brain chemicals that have antidepressant effects.

__________________

Originally Posted by SlackDad

Apologies, I appreciate that there is so much, but in particular http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/pol...icle323342.ece

I think it's outrageous. The problem is bigger than smoking though, the fact that the place is a Royal palace exempts it from a worrying amount of legislation. IIRC someone recently failed in an attempt to sue over a workplace accident there because it's exempt from health and safety legislation due to its status. This, in the 21st century, is just ridiculous.

Now where's that monarchy thread ....
__________________

Some more research on the serotonin-killing effects of smoking:

Scientists at Dundee University have discovered that smoking causes physical changes in the brain which stop it being flooded with the bodyâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s natural stress-busting hormone, serotonin.

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com...m?id=293452004

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Actually ... I think you'll find I'm not wrong about serotonin ... now I know what it's called, I've been Googling:

http://www.tgorski.com/Prevention/Pr...g%20020109.htm

The article is a discussion on smoking while pregnant, but paragraph H is relevant:




[/size][/font][/font]
__________________



I think it's outrageous. The problem is bigger than smoking though, the fact that the place is a Royal palace exempts it from a worrying amount of legislation. IIRC someone recently failed in an attempt to sue over a workplace accident there because it's exempt from health and safety legislation due to its status. This, in the 21st century, is just ridiculous.

Now where's that monarchy thread ....
__________________

Some more research on the serotonin-killing effects of smoking:

I stand corrected (and haven't the time to search for conflicting research ), although the dopamine effect is accurate, which only goes to demonstrate that the relationship between nicotine-depression is complex.
Smoking, as I have discussed, is an important way of coping with everyday life and social relationships, especially when suffering from depression. Therefore it is not something that we can easily gloss over with puritanical policies based on unsound evidence.

Originally Posted by SlackDad

I stand corrected (and haven't the time to search for conflicting research ), although the dopamine effect is accurate, which only goes to demonstrate that the relationship between nicotine-depression is complex.
Smoking, as I have discussed, is an important way of coping with everyday life and social relationships, especially when suffering from depression. Therefore it is not something that we can easily gloss over with puritanical policies based on unsound evidence.

Indeed ... I knew someone who suffered quite badly mentally, had more than one psychotic episode, and was advised by his psychiatrist not to give up smoking.

However I think it is grasping just a little to suggest that restricting the places people can smoke will have a detrimental effect on the nation's mental health. It's not as if they're making it illegal. Yet.

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Indeed ... I knew someone who suffered quite badly mentally, had more than one psychotic episode, and was advised by his psychiatrist not to give up smoking.

However I think it is grasping just a little to suggest that restricting the places people can smoke will have a detrimental effect on the nation's mental health. It's not as if they're making it illegal. Yet.

Although a side effect is to potentially increase the risk of social isolation for a fifth of the population. This is a serious concern for the nation's mental health. But not for the first time in this thread I fear we're going round in circles and once again will have to agree to disagree .

[clarie]

Originally Posted by SlackDad

Although a side effect is to potentially increase the risk of social isolation for a fifth of the population.

Sorry but I fail to see that as a genuine reason to avoid the ban. I don't even believe it will increase any sort of social isolation, certainly not of one fifth of the population.

Although I will say it is an interesting point to consider and not one we have touched on before in this thread.

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by clarie

Sorry but I fail to see that as a genuine reason to avoid the ban. I don't even believe it will increase any sort of social isolation, certainly not of one fifth of the population.

Although I will say it is an interesting point to consider and not one we have touched on before in this thread.

These are the figures quoted by Oliver James in the article I quoted from earlier. I have to disagree. I think social isolation is exactly the kind of area that this ban is going to affect but will not be seen in the headlines. It is most definitely a reason to reassess the ban as it is one of the most destructive elements within society, but of course, by definition, is not readily seen, or perhaps even thought about. Unless of course it is happening to you.

[Stuart]

I am pretty sure I have already posted this, but I can't find it, so here goes:


My opinion on this ban is that it is a good thing, but the way it is implemented is terrible.

Put simply, the Landlord should be free to decide if his or her pub is to ban smoking. They should, however, consult their staff and customers first.

BTW, before you start saying "He's only saying this because he's a smoker", I am not a smoker (I think it's a disgusting habit).

[etccarmageddon]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Thing is, the brain is known to reduced production of its own antidepressants when it starts to get a regular supply of nicotine. It's therefore not surprising that people can suffer depression in numbers after quitting - the nicotine is gone, and the brain has given up on its own production so there's nothing to plug the gap.

The long-term aim of a policy like this is to reduce the number of people who take up smoking in the first place. If that happens, the number of people with brains deficient in natural antidepressant (someone tell me what its called!) would reduce...QUOTE]only found this out yesterday...

http://www2.rnw.nl/rnw/en/features/s...ne2000228.html

[SlackDad]

Very complex relationship between nicotine and depression :http://hmiworld.org/hmi/past_issues/...d_smoking.html

Employers are going to have to think hard about their responsibilities to staff and potential liabilities if they do not protect them from smoke: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4386122.stm

[etccarmageddon]

it shouldn't be a subject of debate - by default ALL staff should be protected from smoke whether they care or dont care. just like we have health and safety regardless of whether we think it's necessary.

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by etccarmageddon

it shouldn't be a subject of debate - by default ALL staff should be protected from smoke whether they care or dont care. just like we have health and safety regardless of whether we think it's necessary.

A large part of health and safety regulation is also concerned with the worker taking responsibilty for themselves. Why can't a bar worker make an informed decision over whether or not to work in a smokier environment. If not, work in a bar/restaurant where smoking is not allowed. It seems quite straightforward to me. There are risks attached to many jobs but we can't allow a situation to develop where nobody will do anything without a risk assessment or for the fear of being sued.
As David Hockney said, "we have become so scared of dying that we have forgotten how to live." Wise words indeed.