smoking and the pub

Originally Posted by SlackDad

Ah I see, even though there is no actual evidence do it anyway, to then see whether we were right all along. A bit like Blair and his WMD's

There is actual evidence. The statistics for people who die as a result of smoke each year have been posted in this thread multiple times. It is no giant leap of faith to conclude that if you separate the smoke from the people, then fewer people will be affected by the smoke.

The precise effect, of course, cannot be measured without actually implementing the ban. However the statistics are sufficiently compelling to justify doing it anyway.

Incidentally, Bush and Blair invaded Iraq based on intelligence which, at the time, appeared to justify what they were doing. It quickly became clear that their intel was a pile of dingo's kidneys and therefore their justification was removed (they then found other 'justification' but that's another subject). Are you suggesting that the 'intelligence' that there is a fatal correlation between tobacco smoke and ill health is similarly flawed?

[clarie]

Or more precisely, yes we know that spuds are vulnerable to such things but as we don't know exactly how much damage could be caused, or could be spared by not doing so, we shouldn't ban people from kicking you in the julies just yet.

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by clarie

No grounds to claim it will be minimal, and any such study would take 50 years to complete as Chris T has said. We already know that passive smoking is dangerous, is there any need to quantify exactly how much we will be reducing the dangers by banning it in public places? Any reduction is good.

So what forms the basis of the ban? Do we ban chocolate because eating it excessively may be harmful to your health? All I am saying, which people seem to be struggling with, is that does going into a pub a few times aweek actually affect your health to such a significant degree to justify a ban? Simply saying that passive smoking is harmful therefore, yes, is IMO not wholly justified.

[clarie]

Originally Posted by Slackdad

So what forms the basis of the ban? Do we ban chocolate because eating it excessively may be harmful to your health? All I am saying, which people seem to be struggling with, is that does going into a pub a few times aweek actually affect your health to such a significant degree to justify a ban? Simply saying that passive smoking is harmful therefore, yes, is IMO not wholly justified.

If it affects my health I would like you to stop it. Never mind degrees. It is a habit not a necessity before you throw the car exhaust fumes at me again.

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by Chris T

The precise effect, of course, cannot be measured without actually implementing the ban. However the statistics are sufficiently compelling to justify doing it anyway.

Not true at all. How do you think the passive smoking evidence came about. Testing on rats probably, not however something I could condone.

Incidentally, Bush and Blair invaded Iraq based on intelligence which, at the time, appeared to justify what they were doing.

Really? But that's for another thread.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by SlackDad

Testing on rats probably

For someone who seems pretty insistant on proof, evidence and research that's quite weak statement to make.

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by Russ D

For someone who seems pretty insistant on proof, evidence and research that's quite weak statement to make.

I did say probably

[Russ]

Originally Posted by SlackDad

I did say probably

My point exactly,would you accept "Banning smoking would eliminate the effects of passive smoking - probably" or would you demand to see evidence, research etc?

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by Russ D

My point exactly,would you accept "Banning smoking would eliminate the effects of passive smoking - probably" or would you demand to see evidence, research etc?

That is twisting the point of what I was saying. I would and have suggested that we look for evidence to see how effective the ban is going to be before implementing it. And seeing as you insist, sadly it would appear that such research on animals is common place. http://www.pcrm.org/resch/anexp/beyond/smoke2_0411.html

And yes I do think we are talking degrees. We can eat small amounts of what is not good for us with minimal adverse effects. Do we know the effect of occasional exposure to second-hand smoke? If the answer is, as is very likely, there was no significant impact on health or no increased risk to serious illness would you still support the ban? That is my point.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by SlackDad

That is twisting the point of what I was saying. I would and have suggested that we look for evidence to see how effective the ban is going to be before implementing it. And seeing as you insist, sadly it would appear that such research on animals is common place. http://www.pcrm.org/resch/anexp/beyond/smoke2_0411.html

I've never doubted you on that - what I was trying to say was all day you've been asking for proof, research etc and at the same time you make a fairly assertive statement with 'probably' included.

Originally Posted by SlackDad

And yes I do think we are talking degrees. We can eat small amounts of what is not good for us with minimal adverse effects. Do we know the effect of occasional exposure to second-hand smoke? If the answer is, as is very likely, there was no significant impact on health or no increased risk to serious illness would you still support the ban? That is my point.

And the point you were making to me was:

Originally Posted by SlackDad

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

Do you really need research (or anything other than common sense) to tell you that if you remove smoking from the equasion, a person will not suffer from passive smoking ie breathing in second-hand smoke?

btw my challenge to you to find a non-smoking pub in the Port Talbot/Swansea area hasn't been forgotten about just because you glossed over it

[Angua]

Just discovered a friend has lung cancer which has spread to his liver. He gave up smoking 3 years ago (from a 40 a day habit).

So far he is being very positive, but time will tell as his treatment kicks in.

Sorry to hesar that Angua.


On the subject of research, forgive if this has already been posted http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact08.html OK, It's ASH, but it quotes a Government committee.

Originally Posted by andyl

Sorry to hesar that Angua.


On the subject of research, forgive if this has already been posted http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact08.html OK, It's ASH, but it quotes a Government committee.

It has already been posted (or, at least, quoted from), but one of the frustrations of this thread is that cold, hard statistical fact seems to cut little ice with some of the determined smokers.

Puts me in mind of a time when, as an impetuous teenager, I was losing a game of snooker on a full-size table, (and losing quite badly), but refused to concede even when we got down to the black ball, on the grounds that I could still technically win if only I could get a couple of bunker snookers (with one or both balls obscured by nestling against the cushion right over one of the pockets). Silly me.

And... the Aussie Govt:

Conclusion
The scientific evidence shows that passive smoking causes lower respiratory illness in children and lung cancer in adults and contributes to the symptoms of asthma in children. Passive smoking may also cause coronary heart disease in adults. It is estimated that passive smoking contributes to the symptoms of asthma in 46,500 Australian children each year and causes lower respiratory illness in 16,300 Australian children. It also causes about 12 new cases of lung cancer each year in adult Australians. Passive smoking may also cause 77 deaths a year from coronary heart disease.

http://www7.health.gov.au/nhmrc/publ...htm#conclusion

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by Russ D

Do you really need research (or anything other than common sense) to tell you that if you remove smoking from the equasion, a person will not suffer from passive smoking ie breathing in second-hand smoke?

I totally agree with you that if you remove smoking then there can not possibly be any adverse effects from passive smoking. That is not up for debate (well, not by me anyway). What I have been trying to suggest is that do we really think the ban is going to make that much difference to the vast majority of passive smoking related illnesses. Does the average amount of exposure time from enclosed public spaces really have an effect on our health? If not, then are we are banning something that poses only a tiny risk. Is this why the government backtracked on its initial proposal. The vast majority carry on using mobile phones even though some research has identified a risk. I would think common sense may tell me that I am frying my brain by carrying on but I still do.

btw my challenge to you to find a non-smoking pub in the Port Talbot/Swansea area hasn't been forgotten about just because you glossed over it

I'll find one for you in a couple of years .