smoking and the pub - Page 42

SlackDad · 01-11-2005, 13:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by clarie

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?

I am not trying to deny the effects of passive smoking (although I am sure some will). I am merely trying to point out and ask whether this particular ban is really going to make any difference to illness from passive smoking, and as I have pointed out before will have minimal effects on children who can not always make a choice about which environment they are in. If the government is serious about this topic why does it not simply ban smoking full stop, rather than some half-arsed measure that, to my mind at least, is not going to make much difference to illness. The issue is not simply about passive smoking per se.

Quote:

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.

Not liking the smell is hardly a reason to ban something. Car fumes have the same effect on clothing etc. as you suggest. If I didn't like the smell of flowers and I had an allergic reaction to them does this mean I can rip them up even if they are providing pleasure to others? (Not a brilliant analogy I know but the points the same)

clarie · 01-11-2005, 13:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlackDad

Not liking the smell is hardly a reason to ban something.

It is one of a list of reasons, and I doubt you could find anyone who likes the smell of smoke on their clothes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlackDad

If the government is serious about this topic why does it not simply ban smoking full stop, rather than some half-arsed measure that, to my mind at least, is not going to make much difference to illness.

I would be happy for a total ban. But at the moment that doesn't seem to be on the cards so all we can do is take steps towards it.

It seems you are not against the ban but don't consider it to be enough?

etccarmageddon · 01-11-2005, 13:36

I've never been out and then come home and had my cloths stink of car fumes!!!

Nugget · 01-11-2005, 13:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by etccarmageddon

I've never been out and then come home and had my cloths stink of car fumes!!!

You're obviously going to the wrong pubs

Russ · 01-11-2005, 13:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlackDad

I am merely trying to point out and ask whether this particular ban is really going to make any difference to illness from passive smoking

Allow me to sum this one up for you neatly.

I don't smoke, never have, never will. Very few of my friends smoke.

I work in pub/social club. Sometimes I'm behind the bar, other times I'm on a stage doing a music set. The only times I'm subjected to prolonged passive smoking is therefore when I'm at work.

Logic dictates that if my exposure to passive smoking is removed (by way of a ban or whatever) then that will make a HUGE difference to my chances of contracting an illness from it.

SlackDad · 01-11-2005, 13:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by clarie

It is one of a list of reasons, and I doubt you could find anyone who likes the smell of smoke on their clothes.

I would be happy for a total ban. But at the moment that doesn't seem to be on the cards so all we can do is take steps towards it.

It seems you are not against the ban but don't consider it to be enough?

I don't think I would suport a total ban but at least would show the government was serious about public health and would be grounded in supportive research.

Quote:

Originally Posted by etccarmageddon

I've never been out and then come home and had my cloths stink of car fumes!!!

Have you ever been out in London?
__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ D

Logic dictates that if my exposure to passive smoking is removed (by way of a ban or whatever) then that will make a HUGE difference to my chances of contracting an illness from it.

Logic perhaps, but what about research. And are you so confident that the difference will be HUGE?

clarie · 01-11-2005, 13:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlackDad

I don't think I would suport a total ban but at least would show the government was serious about public health and would be grounded in supportive research.

How is it that you don't think this ban is grounded in supportive research anyway?

Passive smoking is bad for your health. Therefore by reducing the possibility for people to be exposed to passive smoking, you are reducing the negative effect on your health.

Can it be any more simple?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlackDad

Have you ever been out in London?

But you don't have to live in London to have your clothes smell of cigarette smoke...

Russ · 01-11-2005, 13:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlackDad

Logic perhaps, but what about research. And are you so confident that the difference will be HUGE?

Erm.....you're not serious???

How on earth can passive smoking affect my health if I'm not around any smoke for me to breathe it in, which would be the result of such a ban???

Are you sure you know what passive smoking is???

SlackDad · 01-11-2005, 13:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by clarie

How is it that you don't think this ban is grounded in supportive research anyway?

Passive smoking is bad for your health. Therefore by reducing the possibility for people to be exposed to passive smoking, you are reducing the negative effect on your health.

Something which I am not denying but I would like to see research around exposure times etc. for the type of effect that this ban will have. That is my point.

clarie · 01-11-2005, 13:46

OK but without those figures (which are seemingly impossible to get) you are not denying that there will be some positive effect on health?

01-11-2005, 13:48

One in every three people will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their life. Not very good odds, whether you smoke/exposed to smoke or not...

Being an ex-smoker, I've already done permanent damage to myself and perhaps, to others...

I think a ban in all enclosed public places should be enforced really. Can't see any other way.

Russ · 01-11-2005, 13:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlackDad

Something which I am not denying but I would like to see research around exposure times etc. for the type of effect that this ban will have. That is my point.

No exposure (which would be the result of a ban) to smoke = no passive smoking for non-smokers.

If there's any research on earth which defies that then I will show my butt in Tesco's windows.

clarie · 01-11-2005, 13:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ D

If there's any research on earth which defies that then I will show my butt in Tesco's windows.

At last you might have an excuse for your disgraceful hobby!

Nugget · 01-11-2005, 13:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ D

No exposure (which would be the result of a ban) to smoke = no passive smoking for non-smokers.

If there's any research on earth which defies that then I will show my butt in Tesco's windows.

*ahem*

Do you mean your fag butt

orangebird · 01-11-2005, 13:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEONKNIGHT

One in every three people will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their life. Not very good odds, whether you smoke/exposed to smoke or not...

Being an ex-smoker, I've already done permanent damage to myself and perhaps, to others...

I think a ban in all enclosed public places should be enforced really. Can't see any other way.

The 1 in 3 figure is not specific to smoking related cancer though, is it?