smoking and the pub

Originally Posted by Julian

If our illustrious government REALLY wanted to do something serious about smoking they would do well to target the children who take it up.

Raise the minimum age to 18 to buy tobacco products and, most importantly, make it illegal for children under the age of 18 to POSSESS tobacco products.

You could quite soon remove a generation of potential smokers and remove one of the key things that they think makes them look tough.

I agree that we should be doing everything to stop kids smoking (and it's girls leading the way I believe). I dunno about extending prohibition though - kids will get hold of fags the same way they do Lambrini.

[clarie]

What can we do? Kids will smoke. Even if everyone who bought cigs had to prove without doubt their age, they could still get older friends to do it. When I was younger my friends and I sometimes asked strangers to buy alcohol or cigs for us - how dangerous is that?

The only way I can imagine would work would be making smoking illegal. Then you would have the problem of black market cigarettes appearing, and having dodgy substances in them but at least it would reduce the numbers of kids who start smoking.

[etccarmageddon]

why make it illegal - we need the taxes. it's a way of the poorer in society funding the better off!

[SlackDad]

Leaving aside staff for one moment, which I am aware is an issue, does anybody actually have the evidence or is aware of how much damage a non-smoker actually does to themselves by say going into a pub a few times a week. I mean what are the actual facts here. Have any actual comparative studies been undertaken? Is the effect different/worse than living in a built up area? I would bet that the vast majority of any passive smoking effects are caused by living in a smoky environment rather than visiting a pub a few times a week. These are the issues are they not?
__________________

Originally Posted by clarie

I am surprised by what you say. of course we are concerned about our health, more to the point, why aren't you?

With all due respect my health is my concern. Also as far as I am aware I haven't actually stated whether or not I am a smoker, which at time of writing I am, but hoping to give up some time soon. It is also interesting to note however that because I smoke you assume that I have no concern at all for my health.

[clarie]

Originally Posted by SlackDad

It is also interesting to note however that because I smoke you assume that I have no concern at all for my health.

I wasn't assuming you were a smoker - in fact I didn't think you were. I was responding to this comment of yours:

Originally Posted by SlackDad

I'm frankly starting to wonder that if people are that concerned with smoking in pubs etc. then maybe they haven't really got that much to worry about at all.

Which just seemed to infer we were making something of nothing, and I don't believe that is the case.

I have to say it does seem to be mainly the smokers who are against the ban. Which says enough to me.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by clarie

I have to say it does seem to be mainly the smokers who are against the ban.

I'm a smoker, but I actually find myself supporting the idea of a complete ban on smoking in public places.

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by Chris T

So the tactics of the smoking lobby can be summed up something like this:

1. Attempt to deflect the debate onto other health concerns (e.g. alcohol), as if it's impossible to do anything about smoking unless we also do something, simultaneously, about a thousand and one other things.

I'm not so sure whether this was an attempt at deflection but rather pointing out apparent hyprocrisies, some of which have been conveniantly ignored by the pro-ban supporters. Some of these '1001' other things may be equally if not more damaging to health than smoking but are either noticeably less visible or obvious therefore represent a harder target, or maybe this would mean that everyone, not just smokers may have to look at their own everyday practices and habits.

2. Attempt to characterise the ban itself as an assault on public health because of the possibility of depression in some people who quit. At the same time, conveniently forget that smoking kills far more people than giving up does.

This is pushing it a little. Why is pointing out a supposed negative impact of the smoking ban, such as the potential effect for people suffering from mental health problems, seen as constructing the ban as an 'assault on public health'. I know you and others may not like or accept it but there may just be some negative consequences of this ban.
Also I thought the discussion was concerned with smoking in public places rather than smoking per se. What therefore has the amount of people smoking kills as opposed to giving up got to do with it? As said before many non-smokers die everyday too.

3. Attempt to portray the ban as an assault on freedom. Never mind the fact that non-smokers are in the majority and do not currently have the freedom to go to a pub and not inhale smoky air, because the smokers, who are in the minority, insist on the absolute freedom to indulge in their habit regardless of the fact that it compels others to share it.

Well the evidence from Ireland suggested that the majority of all customers were not in favour of the ban. I think the people opposed to this ban here have been quite happy to suggest smoking areas, separate rooms, smoking/non smoking pubs, good filtration systems etc. Hardly the absolute freedom as you suggest. It appears to me that, on the whole, pro-ban supporters do not appear to want to budge.

and finally, the opus, the masterpiece itself:

4. Attempt to ridicule the arguments in favour of a ban as a hobby of those with nothing better to do with their time. Happily ignore the fact that smoking, and passive smoking, is a killer that many people quite justifiably wish to see taken out of their way.

This is a misinterpretation. What the suggestion was, to be honest, is that is it not worth getting a bit of perspective, and actually see whether smoking in public places is that high on the agenda when it comes to a list of damaging problems that need to be solved. If many would actually put as much effort into solving some of these other problems as they do supporting the ban then maybe the world would be a better place.

There is no denying that smoking is a killer, but I am simply attempting to look at what the facts are about this particular ban and see what the effects are. As I suggetsed earlier and will do so again, leaving aside staff for one moment, which I am aware is an issue, does anybody actually have the evidence or is aware of how much damage a non-smoker actually does to themselves by ,say, going into a pub a few times a week. I mean what are the actual facts here. Have any actual comparative studies been undertaken? Is the effect different/worse than living in a built up area? I would bet that the vast majority of any passive smoking effects are caused by living in a smoky environment rather than visiting a pub a few times a week. These are the issues are they not?

If this ban, as I suspect, will have minimal difference on illness caused by passive smoking should we not be focusing on these issues. Many children are exposed to smoking from a very early age and then are more likely to become smokers themselves. So already they may have had many years exposure. What we need to be doing is fostering a culture where children are less exposed to smoking and therefore are less likely to take up the habit. Not something this ban will address. By doing this over time a more non-smoking culture will evolve creating smoke free areas by their own accord.

Once these questions have been answered then surely the debate would be based on facts rather than conjecture. This I believe is a much healthier and constructive way to proceed for both smokers and non-smokers alike.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by clarie

Well what can you do with that eh?

Not much.

But whilst having a smoke on Friday night is not illegal, then I will take advantage of the fact.

Because although I don't fully support it, I am a realist and it will only be a matter of time before a total ban comes into force. When it does it wont really bother me too much either.

But until that day comes..........

[clarie]

Originally Posted by SlackDad

I'm not so sure whether this was an attempt at deflection but rather pointing out apparent hyprocrisies, some of which have been conveniantly ignored by the pro-ban supporters. Some of these '1001' other things may be equally if not more damaging to health than smoking but are either noticeably less visible or obvious therefore represent a harder target, or maybe this would mean that everyone, not just smokers may have to look at their own everyday practices and habits.

How is this a hypocrisy? A lot of the things mentioned by you, and others, are dangerous, yes. But much harder to combat and do NOT take away from the danger of smoking. They are a harder target yes, but so what? I cannot see how it is wrong to combat the easier targets first - in fact it makes sense!!! Introduce a smoking ban in public enclosed spaces. Simple. Yes maybe we should look at the others also, but why argue against banning smoking on the grounds that it is easier than other dangers to resolve?

This is pushing it a little. Why is pointing out a supposed negative impact of the smoking ban, such as the potential effect for people suffering from mental health problems, seen as constructing the ban as an 'assault on public health'. I know you and others may not like or accept it but there may just be some negative consequences of this ban.
Also I thought the discussion was concerned with smoking in public places rather than smoking per se. What therefore has the amount of people smoking kills as opposed to giving up got to do with it? As said before many non-smokers die everyday too.

As I have said before I do not consider the possible effects on mental health to be a sound argument. You are talking of evidence that suggests smoking will worsen depression and social isolation, I say the opposite is true. Evidence has shown that smoking and depression perpetuate each other. Once the smoker has given up he can start to look for actual causes to his depression as opposed to a shield to hide behind. Furthermore yes, we are currently talking about a ban on smoking in public places, which will force no one to quit, and will simply protect the non-smoker from passive smoking.

Originally Posted by SlackDad

I think the people opposed to this ban here have been quite happy to suggest smoking areas, separate rooms, smoking/non smoking pubs, good filtration systems etc.

It was me who suggested separate smoking rooms and the smokers do not seem happy with this idea. Smoking areas do not work.

Originally Posted by SlackDad

Many children are exposed to smoking from a very early age and then are more likely to become smokers themselves. So already they may have had many years exposure. What we need to be doing is fostering a culture where children are less exposed to smoking and therefore are less likely to take up the habit. Not something this ban will address. By doing this over time a more non-smoking culture will evolve creating smoke free areas by their own accord.

I see this ban as a step towards eradicating smoking from our lives altogether. Furthermore, banning smoking in public places will protect more children from second-hand smoke. So I believe the ban does address this.

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by clarie

I see this ban as a step towards eradicating smoking from our lives altogether. Furthermore, banning smoking in public places will protect more children from second-hand smoke. So I believe the ban does address this.

Oh come on the ban will have a neglible effect on children's health and as has been pointed out perhaps a worse effect by forcing people to stay at home and smoke. How do you think the ban is really going to affect children that much?

I see you nicely avoided these points:

There is no denying that smoking is a killer, but I am simply attempting to look at what the facts are about this particular ban and see what the effects are. As I suggetsed earlier and will do so again, leaving aside staff for one moment, which I am aware is an issue, does anybody actually have the evidence or is aware of how much damage a non-smoker actually does to themselves by ,say, going into a pub a few times a week. I mean what are the actual facts here. Have any actual comparative studies been undertaken? Is the effect different/worse than living in a built up area? I would bet that the vast majority of any passive smoking effects are caused by living in a smoky environment rather than visiting a pub a few times a week. These are the issues are they not?

[fireman328]

Who is going to administer the ban ? If it is, as a previous post suggested, the police, then I will be asking my MP why are these resources being used in this way. At the moment it is impossible to report your car being stolen without you having to attend a police station and in the Metropolitan Police area calls on the 999 system are stacked until a unit can respond, sometimes until the following day.
Will the accused be allowed their day in court or will the ubiqitous ASBO be used ? What evidence will be gathered and who will gather it, if it is that required for criminal cases the lawyers will have lots of work and the court system will become even more overburdened.
The Poll Tax riots showed that pushed far enough the populace will vote with actions demanding that priority be given to matters of greater importance than lighting up a cigarette in a pub.
Let the government not lose sight of the 20% of the population who are smokers who could, if pushed could ensure that at the next election they became Her Majestys Opposition instead of Her Majestys Government.

[clarie]

Originally Posted by SlackDad

Oh come on the ban will have a neglible effect on children's health

How? Do tell

Originally Posted by SlackDad

There is no denying that smoking is a killer, but I am simply attempting to look at what the facts are about this particular ban and see what the effects are. As I suggetsed earlier and will do so again, leaving aside staff for one moment, which I am aware is an issue, does anybody actually have the evidence or is aware of how much damage a non-smoker actually does to themselves by ,say, going into a pub a few times a week. I mean what are the actual facts here. Have any actual comparative studies been undertaken? Is the effect different/worse than living in a built up area? I would bet that the vast majority of any passive smoking effects are caused by living in a smoky environment rather than visiting a pub a few times a week. These are the issues are they not?

I do not have these figures, as well you know. This doesn't invalidate my argument. You do not have figures to the contrary. However, for those people who live in non-smoking households and yet passively smoke in pubs, the ban will definitely have benefits on their health. You're avoiding the issue once again I feel. How can you acknowlegde that smoking is a killer yet still demand evidence of it?

Here are some facts for you:

Exposure to secondhand smoke at work is estimated to cause the death of more than two employed persons per working day across the UK as a whole (617 deaths a year), including 54 deaths a year in the hospitality industry.

A MORI survey commissioned by ASH found that 80% of respondents favoured a law to require all enclosed workplaces to be smokefree

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact08.html

The evidence that exposure to other peopleââ‚Ã⠀šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s smoke is dangerous to health is now incontrovertible. It has been confirmed by the Governmentââ ¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s Chief Medical Officer (CMO) Sir Liam Donaldson (in July 2003) as well as by the heads of all of Britainââ‚à ‚¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s thirteen Royal Colleges of Medicine (in November 2003), and by the Scottish CMO Dr Mac Armstrong (in April 2004). Comprehensive reviews of the effects of passive smoking include reports by the US National Research Council, the US Surgeon General, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and the UK Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health. More recent studies include a World Health Organization (WHO) consultation report on Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Child Health, a report by the California Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) and a review by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Finally, the Governmentââ ¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s advisers the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health reported in November 2004 that exposure to secondhand smoke was a serious health risk to non-smokers, increasing their chance of contracting lung cancer and heart disease, in both cases by about a quarter

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact14.html

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by clarie

How? Do tell

Because the effects of banning smoking in public places will not have that much effect on the length of childrens exposure to secondhand smoke.

I do not have these figures, as well you know. This doesn't invalidate my argument. You do not have figures to the contrary. However, for those people who live in non-smoking households and yet passively smoke in pubs, the ban will definitely have benefits on their health. You're avoiding the issue once again I feel. How can you acknowlegde that smoking is a killer yet still demand evidence of it?

Here are some facts for you:


http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact08.html

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact14.html

I am not trying to be facetious by asking these questions but merely asking on what evidence is this ban being introduced, and where are the studies that overwhelmingly demonstrate adverse effects, from exposure within these environments.
The research you point to of course demonstrates harmful effects of passive smoking (although hardly from an independent source. I could have pointed you to the Forest website challenging this research but again, that is not impartial). The main point of my contention is the usefulness of this particular ban and what is it hoping to achieve. How long do people have to be exposed before any ill effects for example? Without the kind of evidence that I am calling for how can the Government justifiably ban smoking in public places?

Originally Posted by SlackDad

The main point of my contention is the usefulness of this particular ban and what is it hoping to achieve.

in my opinion the intention is to reduce the potential number of cases where people might claim compensation for medical conditions they attribute to passive smoking.

[clarie]

Originally Posted by SlackDad

Without the kind of evidence that I am calling for how can the Government justifiably ban smoking in public places?

Any google search you care to do on the effects of passive smoking will show you how the Government is justified in calling for this ban. I don't understand how you can justify allowing smoking in public places. Instead of trying to pick holes in the arguments of the anti-smokers, can you justify to me why you think smoking in enclosed public places should be allowed?

Besides as we have said before, it isn't just for health reasons that the ban would be a good thing. The smell of cigarette smoke is appalling. It hurts your eyes and makes your clothes smell. I came home at the weekend after a night out and felt as though I had been smoking myself.