Jump to content

smoking ban


indio
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Im for the smoking ban.

 

Why should I get smoke related illnesse just through second hand smoke inhilation? And like others, why should I come home smelling of smoke (all horible like) when I wasn't even the one smoking

 

Let them rowen there own health and clothes ect, not mine.

 

I want to go to the pub and eat with my friends too, (none of them smoke) but can't cause as they say in the radio adds 'no-more smoke with my chips thankyou' :D And yes as others have said on here, what is the point of a seperate smoking area if its indoors cause the smoke always seems to go everywhere anyway

 

 

Did anyone hear anything about the smoking age being highered in Octerber so something along those lines, cause I want to make sure I wasn't hearing things.

 

When I was working at WHSmiths and worked at the counter serving people and selling them fags which I hated doing (I want no part in someone else smoking fags thank you) they said that we would soon have to check people for id to make sure they were over 18 when buying fags rather then 16.

 

Personnaly and don't shoot me for this, I think the smoking age should be 21, that way you have more chance of telling kids, who look old for there age, from the adults who are legally old enough to smoke, and may stop 14/15 year old kids buying there own fags.

 

 

 

 

 

 

:huh:

LLAP :borg:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah the law changes in October to 18.

 

Also a little known (and certainly not enforced) law was that it was an arrestable offence for a person aged 14 or below to smoke in a public place.

 

There was some landlord on the news here saying that he'd let people smoke in his pub and would go to prison if he had to just to save his job!! I'm sure the brewery relieved him of that responsibility this morning!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember thinking it was a bad idea at first but...

 

I gave up smoking over a year ago now after my kids begged me to not die from cancer.

 

I've spent half a year watching my beloved Grandmother slowly and painfully dying of cancer and after seeing the agony she suffered I'd be happier with a full ban on smoking anywhere on the planet.

 

Irony is that when I gave up smoking I developed serious asthma that had been masked for years by the cigarettes, I can barely walk anywhere and my health is awful.

 

So I'm FOR the ban.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For it, but pretty sure there's no conclusive proof that second hand smoke raises your chances of getting lung cancer.

Tell that to Roy Castle.

 

And there have been people who have worked for decades in smoky environments and haven't developed lung cancer. How do we know it was because of second hand smoke? It's not just smokers that get it, you can get lung cancer if you've never been within 100 miles of a cigarette, so what you said proves nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For it, but pretty sure there's no conclusive proof that second hand smoke raises your chances of getting lung cancer.

Tell that to Roy Castle.

 

And there have been people who have worked for decades in smoky environments and haven't developed lung cancer. How do we know it was because of second hand smoke? It's not just smokers that get it, you can get lung cancer if you've never been within 100 miles of a cigarette, so what you said proves nothing.

 

doesn't help though does it.

 

maybe we should spend money on researching that instead of something completely fuking useless like wether pirhanas are violent or just scared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For it, but pretty sure there's no conclusive proof that second hand smoke raises your chances of getting lung cancer.

Tell that to Roy Castle.

 

And there have been people who have worked for decades in smoky environments and haven't developed lung cancer. How do we know it was because of second hand smoke? It's not just smokers that get it, you can get lung cancer if you've never been within 100 miles of a cigarette, so what you said proves nothing.

 

Cigarette smoke significantly raises the chance of developing cancer. There is way too much evidence of that for anyone (other than tobacco companies and the odd smoker in denial) to refute. It's not the physical contact with the cigarette which does that, and there's no reason why the smoke would suddenly become less dangerous to breathe in just because the cigarette is in someone else's mouth and not your own.

 

Smoking is akin to Russian Roulette - every time you smoke, you spin the chamber and pull the trigger. You can buck the odds for a long time, if you are lucky, but equally you might be unlucky, and get shot in the head early on. I have no problem with someone who wants to shoot at themselves like that; its a free world, and you can do whatever damage you like to your own body. But smoking, especially in an enclosed space, is also pointing that gun at everyone else around you, and firing randomly at them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

doesn't help though does it.

 

No it doesn't help, but it doesn't cause it either.

 

For it, but pretty sure there's no conclusive proof that second hand smoke raises your chances of getting lung cancer.

Tell that to Roy Castle.

 

And there have been people who have worked for decades in smoky environments and haven't developed lung cancer. How do we know it was because of second hand smoke? It's not just smokers that get it, you can get lung cancer if you've never been within 100 miles of a cigarette, so what you said proves nothing.

 

Cigarette smoke significantly raises the chance of developing cancer. There is way too much evidence of that for anyone (other than tobacco companies and the odd smoker in denial) to refute. It's not the physical contact with the cigarette which does that, and there's no reason why the smoke would suddenly become less dangerous to breathe in just because the cigarette is in someone else's mouth and not your own.

 

Smoking is akin to Russian Roulette - every time you smoke, you spin the chamber and pull the trigger. You can buck the odds for a long time, if you are lucky, but equally you might be unlucky, and get shot in the head early on. I have no problem with someone who wants to shoot at themselves like that; its a free world, and you can do whatever damage you like to your own body. But smoking, especially in an enclosed space, is also pointing that gun at everyone else around you, and firing randomly at them.

 

That is simply not true. Second hand smoke is just another instance of people believing something and not checking their facts. Certain people want to force other people who don't do things the way they want to do them to change. It's like certain groups trying to get certain TV shows off the air, if you don't like it, don't watch it, and there are places you can go with no smoking, but that doesn't justify making it mandatory. Of course actually smoking increases your chances of any number of diseases but as I said there is no conclusive proof that second hand smoke does the same for non-smokers.

Edited by stanmarsh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For it, but pretty sure there's no conclusive proof that second hand smoke raises your chances of getting lung cancer.

Tell that to Roy Castle.

 

And there have been people who have worked for decades in smoky environments and haven't developed lung cancer. How do we know it was because of second hand smoke? It's not just smokers that get it, you can get lung cancer if you've never been within 100 miles of a cigarette, so what you said proves nothing.

 

Cigarette smoke significantly raises the chance of developing cancer. There is way too much evidence of that for anyone (other than tobacco companies and the odd smoker in denial) to refute. It's not the physical contact with the cigarette which does that, and there's no reason why the smoke would suddenly become less dangerous to breathe in just because the cigarette is in someone else's mouth and not your own.

 

Smoking is akin to Russian Roulette - every time you smoke, you spin the chamber and pull the trigger. You can buck the odds for a long time, if you are lucky, but equally you might be unlucky, and get shot in the head early on. I have no problem with someone who wants to shoot at themselves like that; its a free world, and you can do whatever damage you like to your own body. But smoking, especially in an enclosed space, is also pointing that gun at everyone else around you, and firing randomly at them.

 

That is simply not true. Second hand smoke is just another instance of people believing something and not checking their facts. Certain people want to force other people who don't do things the way they want to do them to change. It's like certain groups trying to get certain TV shows off the air, if you don't like it, don't watch it, and there are places you can go with no smoking, but that doesn't justify making it mandatory. Of course actually smoking increases your chances of any number of diseases but as I said there is no conclusive proof that second hand smoke does the same for non-smokers.

 

You agree that smoking increases the chance of the smoker getting any number of diseases. Please explain why that smoke is dangerous to the smoker, and yet supposedly not similarly dangerous to a person sitting next to them who is forced to breath in the same smoke.

Edited by Stuart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BMA re Passive Smoking

 

Wiki - not the best source but this one seems rather good

 

Interesting enough, Geoffrey Kabat who is one half of the controversial study is a supporter of smoking bans.

 

I've done the research, read the pros and the cons - even gone into looking at the levels of toxins in second-hand smoke and possible theoretical effects on lungs, etc.

 

Of course, the big thing is that second-hand smoke is an irritate and contains several toxic components that whilst seeming small, are not that great when exposed to over a longer period.

 

Maybe just forget the health aspect and consider the pollution factor - bit like commercial smoke control orders but on an individual scale :)

 

Btw, the pub near us has a nice heated outside area for smokers - it's well posh and I bet it will not be so bad in the Winter months either, and I believe a lot of pubs have gone this route so I don't personally see that individual liberties are being swallowed up here as smokers are being catered for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to point you in the direction of Kanat and Estrom (2003) and their long term (40 years) epidemilogical study of second hand smoke in California and the incidences of Lung cancer and Heart disease in never-smokers compared with their exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke, which found no linkage exposure to ETS and the incidences of Lung Cancer and Heart Disease. In fact of the recent studies into the effects of second-hand smoke on never-smokers published by the BMJ the far majority (22 of 23) found no linkage between ETS and Lung Cancer or Heart Disease.

 

And before somebody says something like "I bet it was funded by one of the big tobacco companies" it was, but only after the American Cancer Society and another group from the anti-smoking lobby withdrew their funding when the results started to go the other way.

 

Funny that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw, the pub near us has a nice heated outside area for smokers - it's well posh and I bet it will not be so bad in the Winter months either, and I believe a lot of pubs have gone this route so I don't personally see that individual liberties are being swallowed up here as smokers are being catered for.

Another reported uninttended effect of the ban in places where it has already been introduced is the effect of constantly having people outside. A numebr of complaints have been filed by residents who live near pubs that previously did not have outside facilities, so the disturbance from the pub was minimal; maybe the occasional drunk singing at closing time, but generally nothing. Now of course there are people standing or sitting outside the pub throughout its opening hours, not being individually antisocial, but their numbers are sufficient for their chatter to cause some local residents to complain. (I've heard a couple of radio reports about this from pubs in Wales, and read abouta similar case from Scotland)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My problem with the ban is what it represents. I smoke, and I'm not ashamed of it. But I will be persecuted for using a product that is legally available. Health grounds are always given as a reason, but if that were the only reason, surely the sales of all tobacco products should be stopped. That's not going to happen, I wonder why...

 

I don't understand why we can't cater for all members of the public? I have always respected no smoking signs. I have stubbed out and moved tables if I saw that someone was bothered. So why can't people who do not smoke extand that same curtesy to me? Surely isn't that what tolerance must be?

 

The real question is this: should governments legislate personal choice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone posted a massive journal entry on lj which i agree with. I've edited bits out though, ha!

 

---

 

at the end of the day, tobacco is a drug, the same as alcohol is - a legal one, maybe, but in just the same way that anyone drinking every single day would be classed an alcoholic, so someone who smokes every single day is an addict. funny thing, then, that the only people i've seen to protest the ban is those who fall into that category.

 

tobacco contains ammonia, arsenic, and formeldahyde among others, and around 600 people die every single year just from passive smoking. this ban is NOT an infringement on the human rights of those who smoke - it's standing up for the human right - to LIVE - of those who have to spend their nights out breathing in the smoke of others and subsequently causing damage to their lungs through no fault of their own.

 

smokers, you're not losing the right to make your own choice over whether to smoke or not - smoking itself is not illegal. you're simply losing the ability to damage others through your smoking. and let's face it, if you still did have the choice of smoking in pubs and such, you wouldn't make the choice not to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to point you in the direction of Kanat and Estrom (2003) and their long term (40 years) epidemilogical study of second hand smoke in California and the incidences of Lung cancer and Heart disease in never-smokers compared with their exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke, which found no linkage exposure to ETS and the incidences of Lung Cancer and Heart Disease. In fact of the recent studies into the effects of second-hand smoke on never-smokers published by the BMJ the far majority (22 of 23) found no linkage between ETS and Lung Cancer or Heart Disease.

 

And before somebody says something like "I bet it was funded by one of the big tobacco companies" it was, but only after the American Cancer Society and another group from the anti-smoking lobby withdrew their funding when the results started to go the other way.

 

Funny that.

 

what's funny is that you're still arguing about it.

 

It's done, you're just gonna have to get used to it.

 

You said earlier that it's like watching TV and that if non-smokers want to, they can just go elsewhere. Well, not any more mate, the tables have turned. You don't like watching the non-smoking hour at pub TV, then you can go outside with the other smokers and get used to the cold wind n rain, just like non-smokers had to get used to sitting in a pub surrounded by smog.

 

Just quit, it'll save you £5 a day 'n you can sit in the warm too all night instead of just bits of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'there's no proof that passive smoking is dangerous' - can you be any more dense? if smoking in itself causes cancer among loads of other diseases, then of course breathing in the smoke from others' cigarettes is going to be dangerous.

 

Hello kaybs =p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look at my first post you'll see that I'm for the ban, personally I hate smoking. I was just saying that there is no conclusive proof about second hand smoke, and there isn't. If you want to believe there is, that's fine, but when the overwhelming number of studies have shown that there is no causal link between ETS and lung cancer, you have to start wondering whether the conventional wisdom is right. And if believing the majority of studies into it makes me dense, then so be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...