View Full Version : Ban on smoking in Public
Just wondered what the local opinion on this was.
I for one think it is a really good idea.
dragonfly
10-Nov-04, 16:10
it would be great to go out for a night and not come home stinking of smoke - I was a heavy smoker for years but gave up 5 years ago and I am now one of those reformed smokers who hates the smell of smoke ;)
my mum smokes and she looks after our dog when I'm working - unfortunately he comes home reeking of stale smoke but I'm too scared to say anything to her incase she won't take him anymore! :lol:
I think it would be great....
If smokers had only certain places to smoke i personally think that alot of them would stop smoking.
JammyDodger69
10-Nov-04, 16:33
So what happens if your caught smoking in public, they gonna cut your fingers off???
on the spot fine.......lol
like if you drop litter :confused
I'm not 100% sure but i think the ban is on smoking in enclosed public places.
www.scotland.gov.uk has the latest on the talks today.
Even more from the "I don't like it -Ban It" Brigade.
Tic Chick
10-Nov-04, 18:09
I don't feel it's a case of 'I don't like it', it's a filthy disgusting habit that kills and I say that as a smoker.
I'm all for the ban, I'm hoping it'll be the kick in the ass I need to stop. I stopped for a while after returning from a holiday in California, not being able to smoke in the bars and restaurants there made me realise I could do it, or do without it rather. Unfortunately I don't have the will to stop myself when it's right there in my face, that's my excuse for now anyway.
No doubt you'll see me shivering outside the bars though once the ban is in place!
I dont personally have a problem with people smoking outside in public areas but when its inside its a different matter altogether. Passive smoking has known health effects and in my opinion my health shouldn't be affected by other peoples habits.
So if they want to smoke let them but why put others at risk.
I don't mind the smoking in a public place - it's the spontaneous combustion that makes me mad.......
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/MadPict/images/flaminmad.gifMadPict
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/MadPict/images/gruff_ext.gif
I don't really have a problem with banning smoking per se, what really gets up my nose is the removal of freedom of choice. If there was a demand for non smoking pubs don't you think we would have them? If I don't like smoke then the choice is mine, nobody twists my arm and drags me into a pub or resturant. Yes, smoking should be banned in truly public places where we have no choice but to go (council buildings, hospitals etc..), but pubs and resturants we go to by choice and they should be allowed to set their own standards.
FREEDOM.
OK, this is probably not going to surprise you but I am totally for a ban of smoking in enclosed public areas.
Why should I or any other non smoker have to have a meal ruined by those who cannot go 2 or 3 mouthfuls with out lighting up yet another cancer stick?
Why should non smoking tables be shoved into the corner of a pub or restaurant?
Why should non smoking staff be subjected to up to 8 hours exposure to secondhand cigarette smoke?
No matter how good the ventilation is in a eating place you always get the smoke drifting into your face. It's not as if the smokers actually smoke all the cigarette! They light up, take a drag, exhale, talk for a few minutes, take another drag or two, have a drink and talk some more and so on. They probably actually smoke only half of the cigarette. The rest is just burnt away into the atmosphere. Why don't they just make a cigarette an inch long which is lit, smoked then put out?
I had to laugh the other day - in Starbucks was a sign stating "To protect the quality of our coffee we ask you not to smoke" !!!!:roll: What about the health of your customers? And your staff?
I really object to the fact that as a non smoker I have to either travel miles to smoke free establishments or sit outside while the smokers enjoy the comfort of the pub. I just want to walk into my local sit down and enjoy a pint in a smoke free place and come home and not stink like a week old unwashed ashtray......
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/MadPict/images/flaminblob.gifMadPict
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/MadPict/images/gruff_ext.gif
I agree kenimac1. If there was such a demand from the vast majority of the general public then I'm sure some enterprising people would have opened pubs, clubs and restaurants etc. all over Scotland. If the demand was so great there would be millions to be made by providing for it.
The First Minister quotes figures and percentages from all sorts of polls to prove the ban is wanted. When somebody quoted a poll that showed differently he then announced, without the slightest sign of embarrassment, that polls were notoriously unreliable.
(Pardon, who said that? Yes, I know, he's a politician so he's entitled to change he mind and swear that black is white.)
How will it work? They don't know yet!
Where will it apply? They don't know yet!
What constitutes a public place? They don't know yet!
Who will enforce it? They don't know yet!
This is just another ill thought out piece of Social Engineering and Political Opportunism by a Parliament which cannot find anything better to do with it's time and wishes to justify it's existence.
And if you think that I am being unfair, then consider this, they are already making noises about this only being the first step! Already they are making noises about the insides of cars and also inside homes.
All you none smokers who are being convinced it is in the interests of you health should beware. There are already mutterings about alcohol and health, and food and health, and exercise and health and that is how they started with smoking.
Once they have done one thing quoting "Health" as a reason then they won't stop there, they will soon want to go on another power trip to ban another of the things mentioned in the interests of "Improving the Nations Health".
The Health Gestapo are alive and well and will soon be paying a visit to your door!
gravedigga
10-Nov-04, 22:08
I as a smoker think it should be up to the proprietor of the building/establishment.
I can understand it being banned in restaurants but i think it'd have a detrimental effect to ban smoking in pubs n clubz.
i agree with the ban as well.. its not fair to the non smokers to suffer.. i worked behind the bar when i as preggers and the smell made me so sick..but there wasnt anything i could do about it.. i had to work and i couldnt complain it was my job. a lot of people were lovley and didnt smoke at the bar but would go to the tables but then there are those who could care less... and then ive been in places where there really shouldnt be smoking and people light up... usually when i have the kids with me..
i usually just leave and if im speaking to some one make my exscuses and head out.. dont want the babies exposed to the smoke.. can guarantee no one would ever smoke here *grins* had a few guests who thought it would be ok to smoke but put it to rights * :D
sorry my home my rules! :evil
but in public its free game at the moment i just try to avoid it whenever i can.. *smiles*
I don't really have a problem with banning smoking per se, what really gets up my nose is the removal of freedom of choice.
.
As an ex smoker who quit on medical grounds, what Freedom of choice does the NoN Smoker have when all the cancer stick puffers are blowing smoking in our faces when we go for a drink or a meal.
If ye want till smoke go ahead but do it in your own house or behind the bike shed or where ever. I dont condem Smokers or preach at them till convert them, I was one myself.
BUT I am a non smoker now and we have rights also
Golach
Golach, I to am and ex-smoker who quit for the same reason. If people want to smoke then that is fair enough by me. According to all the health experts and their health scares I should have died at least ten years ago.
There are a lot of things people do which I find I do not like and some of them might even affect my health and well being. That being the case I exercise my rights and stay away.
I decided to smoke and I decided to quit, that was my choice.
Knowing what I know now would I start smoking if I were young again? Yes I most certainly would. The only problem I have ever had with smoking is the fact that I had greedy Governments on my back ripping me off whilst trying to tell me that it was for my own good. Cant and Humbug! That's as moral as a mugger telling you he has beaten you up and stolen your money for the sake of your mental health so you didn't have to suffer anxiety attacks about losing it.
If they want something to ban which is far worse than smoking, and statistics and mortality rates will confirm this the world over then they should stop new born babies from breathing, every singe person who has or will draw breath will suffer death as a consequence.
Save the Health of the World!
Ban Breathing!
It's extremely Catching!
And It's 100% Deadly!
[para] [para] [para]
http://app100828.applicabroadband.net/BumperStickers/surggen.gif http://app100828.applicabroadband.net/BumperStickers/smokers_as_long.gif
yeah ban smoking i am all for it
Just think on the extended lifespan on carpets, curtains and other interior decoration that the pub landlords will not have to fork out for, surely landlords are in favour of a smoking ban because i have seen many landlords complain of smoke damage to such items
There you are, it's an economic disaster in the making already.
Think of all the lost jobs amongst painters and decorators and the poor seamstresses put out of work, not to mention all the carpet factories closing down!
on the news last night it was stated that if you are caught smoking in a bar or restaurant etc you can be fined up to £1,000 and the owners £2,000. If it happens more that 2 times the owners can loose their licence.
i expect the owners of the bars etc will be pretty strict about this especially with the threat of loosing their licence so you won't even be able to have a fly fag in the loo.
I am a non smoker and i have no problems with anyone else ruining their health but please respect mine.
We've heard it before, but it deserves saying again:
"A smoking section in a restaurant is like a peeing section in a swimming pool"
i think its totally ridiculous that they are putting a total ban on it, who is going to be going round enforcing that no-one is smoking in what they class as a public place and enforcing fines on people. If they are desperate for people to stop smoking shut down the companys that make the fags and ban selling them.
BTW im a non smoker
I as a smoker think it should be up to the proprietor of the building/establishment.
I can understand it being banned in restaurants but i think it'd have a detrimental effect to ban smoking in pubs n clubz.
I agree!!
I am a smoker and as u would expect the people that smoke r going to b angry and the people that don't r happy
I am well annoyed [mad]
I do go in2 places like cafes etc where u can't smoke now but i just go outside and have a fag and i don't go out much anyway
BUT
Is this going to cause more fighting on the streets??
People on a night out having to go outside for a fag, getting more and more drunk??
We've heard it before, but it deserves saying again:
"A smoking section in a restaurant is like a peeing section in a swimming pool"
That's so funny, but it's also so true!
I was in Dublin for a couple of days in the summer. They have had a smoking ban in pubs and restaurants for some months now, and it works. Pubs and restaurants are smoke-free. There is usually a group of smokers hanging around outside pub entrances, but that doesn't lookquite as bad as it sounds. Consequently, there is a steady stream of people nipping in and out of the pub for a smoke. But the ban does work and most people seemed to support it.
The strangest thing of all was that all the smokers I spoke to supported the ban!
The Irish woman I sat next to on the plane on the way back was a smoker, and she supported the ban, but she did admit that she was really looking forward to sitting in a pub here with a drink and a ciggie. :D
Will they next ban motor vehicles, to support the rights of those that don't drive? :eek: [evil]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/medical_notes/336738.stm
mike.mckenzie
11-Nov-04, 12:32
I smoke unfortunately, and will have to put up with this both here in Liverpool, which passed its own anti smoking legislation, and when I come back north. Can't say i'm against it wholely, I consider myself a considerate smoke and never light up in a restaurant.
Shame we can't have smoking licensed pubs and bars, if you don't want to go into them, don't go. When I was in dublin, I noticed the non smoking laws there created a smoking "underclass", with people retreating to small dingy rooms under the pub buildings to smoke...was an easier environment to chat up women as well I found! Haha.
Still, like someone said earlier, it might give me, and thousands of others, the impetus to kick the habit.
then the government will raise taxes to make up for the lost revenue from a healthy nation...
I worked in a No-Smoking Workplace for 18 years and it certainly didn't make me cut down or stop or even want to.
Neither did it cause any of the other smokers I worked with do that either.
People just went on as normal, it wasn't considered even to be worth a mention.
When people got a break all that happened was they smoked as many cigarettes as they could as quickly as they could before they went back into the Workplace.
If you want a good example of what is more likely to happen then ask about the "Ten o'clock Swill!" some of the older people will remember it or the weekend train from Wick to Thurso when Wick was dry.
I have heard often that the ban will hinder smoker's freedom of choice to smoke. This is true, but nicotine is highly addictive so that means their freedom of choice not to smoke is compromised. So much for their arguement for freedom of choice then!
Just because something is "addictive" does not mean you "have" to do continue doing it, all it means is that your body will react to it's absence for a period of time.
Many things are "addictive" and the use of that argument means you had better stop drinking tea, coffee, Coke and any number of other everyday substances. And watch out for your Tonic Water as well!
If the Government were really as concerned as they profess to be then there would be far more medical help for people who genuinely wish to quit. Until that happens then all the are doing is spouting so much Hot Air for the benefit of good PR.
All they are doing at the moment is playing "Let's pretend we are concerned because it looks good!"
If so many smokers want to give up but can't because the addition is so strong then smokers are not acting rationally therefore their true freedom to choose is compromised.
I am an ex smoker, my freedom to choose to stop smoking was affected by my addiction to nicotime.
Back in the early 80s if I was working and socialising in a smokefree environment then I would not have started in the first place!
If your freedom to choose to stop smoking was affected by your addiction to nicotine then I assume you must be obtaining the same amount of nicotine from some source other than smoking.
Are you saying that because you worked and socialised amongst smokers your freedom of choice was affected to such an extent that you had to start smoking?
Or are you saying that you had an addiction to nicotine before you started smoking and that is why you had to start?
Nobody forces anybody to start smoking. People do it all on their own unless you are saying that people start because they are held down and cigarettes are forced on them by others putting them in their mouths.
Nobody forces anybody to start smoking. People do it all on their own unless you are saying that people start because they are held down and cigarettes are forced on them by others putting them in their mouths.
To a degree this is the case. They may not be held down physically but others are responsible for putting the cigarettes in their mouths. Peer pressure is probably responsible for the vast majority of young people taking up smoking. They think it makes them look older, look cooler and includes them in a circle of friends. Then they get addicted and they are at the mercy of the evil tobacco companies.
It's all downhill from there.
It's well documented that the tobacco companies used to target young people to ensure a continued supply of victims, err customers. They are not allowed to now, at least not in this country. So what do they do? They switch their marketing campaigns to 3rd world countries where they give away their products in massive drives to ensure they hook a new generation of addicts. Then once they have their victims well and truely addicted they stop the free supply. Hmmm, sounds kind of familiar.
Drug dealers give away free samples to young victims, then stop the free supply forcing their now addicted clients to buy the drugs. Only difference is in this case the drug dealers are breaking the law and dealing in illegal substances like cocaine or heroine.....
http://app100828.applicabroadband.net/BumperStickers/smokers_as_long.gif
Nobody gave me "freeby's" when I was young, I only wish they had.
If peer pressure forces it on children then why don't almost all of them smoke?
Funny how it's never peer pressure which stops people from doing something they shouldn't because none of their did it.
It's always easier to find somebody else to blame, especially if it's an evil company selling a product you disagree with, than it is to admit the truth. "I knew it wasn't wise to do it but I did!"
If in doubt, find a scapegoat!
"It wasn't me, honest, it was him. I only went along because he told me to!"
Oh how I wish I had a pound for everytime I've heard that, or something very similar, used as an excuse.
Yippee, a smoking ban in public at last. Now i can give up my 40 a day habit and spend my £10 on a bottle of whisky each day, which has no warnings about damaging my health. Thank god for the nanny state
Nobody gave me "freeby's" when I was young, I only wish they had.
If peer pressure forces it on children then why don't almost all of them smoke?
Funny how it's never peer pressure which stops people from doing something they shouldn't because none of their did it.
It's always easier to find somebody else to blame, especially if it's an evil company selling a product you disagree with, than it is to admit the truth. "I knew it wasn't wise to do it but I did!"
If in doubt, find a scapegoat!
"It wasn't me, honest, it was him. I only went along because he told me to!"
Oh how I wish I had a pound for everytime I've heard that, or something very similar, used as an excuse.
My wife teaches in a FE college and almost all of her 50 students smoke. As they are invariably all late teens they must have started while in secondary education. She says it's quite sad to see them all stood outside at break time puffing away not only their money but their lives as well. These are students who are probably on a low income anyway and they are spending some of that to feed their habit.
I know the cost of fags is the governments "fault" but why should we non smokers subsidise the healthcare of smokers when they know darn well that smoking can cause lung cancer and other diseases (thats if the tax raised on ciggies really does get back to the NHS and not into Tony's warfund).
I dare say I could tell you the world is round JAWS and you would still argue the point that it isn't......
:eyes
Naefearjustbeer
12-Nov-04, 11:46
I am glad it is going to be banned I hate how if you go out for a drink even after half an hour you stink of smoke. If thats what its doing to your clothes I would hate to have a look at my lungs.
MadPict, I've heard smoking blamed for some things but causing the current war, now that is different. Of course, it could always be a major cause of Global Warming! Don't Smoke, you are destroying the Antarctic!
How students spend their money, within the law, is their business. Why is it that everybody gets so concerned with how people spend their own money?
Of 50 students, if almost all of them smoke, then it says a lot about how the Executive and the Government put their statistics together.
Perhaps it's them who should be standing around outside College again after all most of them still haven't grown out of their "Student Days" anyway!
Now how does it go? "Slow, Slow, Quick Quick Slow!"
Oops, sorry, right tune wrong words, please fill in your own slogan, it doesn't matter what!
jaws wrote
Of course, it could always be a major cause of Global Warming! Don't Smoke, you are destroying the Antarctic!
Smoking does not contribute to Global Warming because tobacco is a renewable biomass :lol:
Now do not twist it my comments into a case for smoking, wil you?
Smoking does not contribute to Global Warming because tobacco is a renewable biomass :lol:
Eh? :confused
Surely burning anything that is carbon-based will produce CO2? Or would the natural decay of the tobacco produce the same amount of CO2?
Yeah, that's a serious question. Well a semi-serious one. I'm not a biologist or chemist of any shape or form.
tobacco is a renewable biomass because the farming of the following crop of tobacco provides a mechanism to remove the CO2 produced by the previous crop that was smoked. Therefore there is no net increase of CO2 due to smoking. Global warming is only caused by net increases in CO2 from fossil fuels, this is why smokers can smoke and cows can fart and belch as much as they like as long as they don't do it in enlosed public places like the pub!
Er, I assume you are not going to test me on the actual mechanism of photosynthesis are you? :roll:
Rheghead, thanks for confirming that I figured out the "renewable biomass mechanism" correctly. Phew.
But would the natural decay of the tobacco in a cigarette produce more, less, or the same amount of CO2 as smoking it would?
Yeah, I know the answer to my question is probably of little interest to anyone, and it's maybe not even a sensible question at all.
Photosynthesis? Is that the art of faking photographs of people smoking in a public place?
I'd never thought of that one Rheghead, that's definitely one up to you!
I just thought that seeing Smoking gets blamed for everything else I might as well blame it for Global Warming as well.
MadPict, I've heard smoking blamed for some things but causing the current war, now that is different.
Avoiding the baited hook you have thrown me, that was just me questioning whether the money raised from tobacco tax actually ends up in the NHS. I could have used any other bottomless pit the government diverts taxation into.
As for your other points, I tire of this badinage now. I have paint to watch dry... :roll:
George Brims
12-Nov-04, 21:37
The tobacco farmer must also use tractors and other energy-consuming machinery which produces more CO2. Then there is the cost of transporting it, turning it into cigarettes, shipping those etc etc.
I would also like to observe that before they banned smoking in bars in California there were all sorts of dire predictions about bars closing, jobs lost etc. Of course none of that happened. It'll take more than a smoking ban to stop people drinking.
In my opinion banning smoking in confined spaces is a great idea. It merely enforces good manners.
The money from Tobacco goes into the General Exchequer as does all the money paid by way of Income Tax, Nat. Ins. etc.
It is a long time since money from a particular form of taxation was allocated to a particular expenditure. Even money which they like to call "ring-fenced" is just money out of general taxation allocated just the same as other monies in the Government Budget!
And information for all those who are adamant that people should stop smoking, remember this - all that means is that the nice Chancellor, whoever it is, will replace the lost revenue from somewhere, i.e. by increasing taxation for all of you!
The only reason the tax on smoking has been raised over the last decades is not because of the oft spouted mantra "To improve the nations health by stopping people smoking!" but rather the opposite, to replace the lost revenue from there being fewer smokers to collect tax from. (The law of diminishing returns)
Once that little scam ceases then you will all cough-up! :evil [lol]
I hope all these non smokers walk or bicycle everywhere, cause if they go by car, bus or train they are doing more damage to my health and my kids than smoking ever could, and we all have to breath that air.If they have the freedom to choke us with car fumes then anyone smoking is really negligible[/b]
angemonster
13-Nov-04, 11:03
I am a smoker and feel my freedom of choice is going to be taken away from me as I am not able to go out to and to have a smoke. It's great that non-smokers get what they want but what about smokers. Is there going to be smoking bars & clubs or not. a lot of clubs say once your out your out so you cant even go outside for a smoke as u cant get back in!
This is not being fair to the full public.
jellybean
13-Nov-04, 13:12
Angemonster, that's the point, life just isn't fair!!
You can please most of the people some of the time............
You can fool some of the people all of the time.
You can fool all of the people some of the time.
The rest you just trample underfoot!
bacardibabe
13-Nov-04, 20:33
let those who own the pubs decide if we smoke or not.i certainly wouldna go to a non smoking pub if i had the choice!
If we had all voted NO when we had the chance we wouldn't have these clowns in Edinburgh dictating to us where we can and can't smoke and telling our kids what sexual proclivities are normal. Funny, that's the only two things I can remember the Scottish parly ruling on. We also wouldn't be lumbered with a bill for over £500 million to provide a hall for them, thats in addition to them and all their hanger ons costs. Jamie Stone MSP does a column in my local paper, full of amusing tales of he and his colleagues journeys to and from Edinburgh (financed by us of course)
All you none smokers who are being convinced it is in the interests of you health should beware. There are already mutterings about alcohol and health, and food and health, and exercise and health and that is how they started with smoking.
Once they have done one thing quoting "Health" as a reason then they won't stop there, they will soon want to go on another power trip to ban another of the things mentioned in the interests of "Improving the Nations Health".
The Health Gestapo are alive and well and will soon be paying a visit to your door!
For those who thought I was having a "Senior Moment" or was on a Wind-up when I wrote the above should think again!
The Health Minister, John Reid, has informed the food industry that unless they put a "Voluntary Advertising Ban" in place on certain foods before the 9pm water-shed then legislation will be introduced to force them to! (Control by threats! I thought that was the prerogative of Thugs!)
Watch your backs, the next thing you will know is that a complete ban on advertising certain foods will be put in place, then they will vanish from take-aways, then from the shelves of shops and all will be done in the interests of “Health”!
Hoard your Baxters Soup now, or pay a fortune on the Black Market, it might not be around for much longer or if it is it will not taste the same.
“We Have Ways of Making You Healthy! Submit or Suffer the Consequences”
I have only one thing to say to that, “Nuts!” and Salted Nuts at that!
[
The Health Gestapo are alive and well and will soon be paying a visit to your door!
I want to become one!!! Where do I join up!!!!!!!
Golach
They go under the title of "Outreach Co-Originator for (Fill in whatever outlandish health/exercise fad you fancy)". For pay scales, look at the top scales for whatever qualifications you possess and double them plus expenses!
Application forms can be obtained from any Central Belt Council, Education Department, Health Trust, Government Department or any Quango with a bottomless pit of Tax-payers money to waste! It is preferable if you can find one of the above which is running out of ridiculous ideas, they are always in a panic to find something to justify their organisation requiring a huge increase in budget!
Adding the words "The status-quo is not an option!" usually means your idea will be forced on the General Public without question!
If you are very persuasive you might even get a whole new Quango to run with a salary made up of telephone figures.
The object of the exercise is to get yourself transfered to Brussels so you can fill in your own wage-slip! [lol] [lol] [lol]
Well the 10pm news on BBC have revealed that a smoking ban will be introduced in Englandcestershire for all public places where food is served.
Yeah, bring it on!!!
Can't wait to enjoy a meal in the pub without the air being polluted by the selfish smokers, who whinge and moan about their rights being infringed, but cannot understand that everyone around them also smokes their cigarette/cigar/pipe in the form of secondary smoke. What about the right of a non smoker to be able to breath clean air. If I wanted to contract all the diseases which have been shown to be linked to smoking, I'D TAKE UP SMOKING!!!!! [mad]
http://app100828.applicabroadband.net/BumperStickers/surggen.gif
John Traill
16-Nov-04, 00:02
Yippee, a smoking ban in public at last. Now i can give up my 40 a day habit and spend my £10 on a bottle of whisky each day, which has no warnings about damaging my health. Thank god for the nanny state
That's fine by me. If I'm in the same room as you for 5 minutes I won't go home stinking of whisky.
Unless you'll share it :D
JT
celtic_heart
16-Nov-04, 17:00
I am well in favour of the ban it will make me extremely happy not to be stiking like an ashtray when going home from the pubs and clubs, i am always complaining to my friends that it is a filthy thing and i hate being there and i am so delighted that they are thinking about banning it if i could ban it, it would be done already. :Razz :Razz :D :D
John Traill
16-Nov-04, 19:01
if i could ban it, it would be done already. :Razz :Razz :D :D
Do you mean ban it completely, like Bhutan has done? One month to sell all remaining tobacco products, brilliant. They must have been feeling the influence after having tv for about 5 years now.
All this is supposed to be so the NHS can save money. I think they should just charge smokers who started after they were telling us how bad it was.
JT
The Godfather
16-Nov-04, 19:36
"Smokers don't have rights, they have an addiction.
Sorry people but i'm afraid i'm a smoker and i enjoy being a smoker - i think the ban is a big blow for skinandis to be quite honest - if we have to be in by mdnight and stay in then i cant see any smokers going there so the non-smokers will have it all to themselves. At least i'll save some money though not going to skins!! have to stick to other pubs where i can go out for a cigaretter
People have to have freedom of choice, whether it's to indulge themselves with a smoke or to breathe clean air!! We can't please everyone, so there has to be SOMEkind of compromise. I'm all for banning smoking in enclosed spaces, public buildings, restaurants etc.
But how is the government going to make up for the losses in revenue from the hordes of people who may now give up the habit? Will they put other taxes up?!! :confused
Tugmistress
18-Nov-04, 21:53
all i can see happening from this 'banning' is an endless debate on who it pleases, who it displeases etc.
the ideal world will never happen when everyone is happy with their lot.
regarding the ban, i am a smoker and not ashamed of it. i enjoy the occassional night out in the pub in the company of my good friends (who do not smoke, they are both ex smokers) and being sociable. if this ban comes in that will no longer happen unless it is a warm evening and i aren't going to freeze standing outside.
Personally, it would be better left to the landlords discretion but if imposed why don't they bring back the old smoking room in pubs? modern technology called extractor fans can work wonders when the corect type are installed and maintained efficiently.
grumble over now, i suppose at least i will up the takings in lidl for when i start drinking at home :roll:
:eyes I am all for the ban on smoking in public place, especially eating places. There is nothing worse than cigarette or cigar smoking being blown in your face when eating, and the smokey pubs make your eyes water. Plus, in a smokey pub your clothes stink with smoke. It will also encourage people to stop smoking. If you dont smell it you wont miss it and wont want a cigarfette.
By the way, i smoke in the evenings only, I never want one in the day, but would like to stop, again, and this will help me, and others to kick the bad habit. :Razz
None of this nonsense will make anybody stop smoking. The only person who can make you stop is you yourself.
When you are ready to stop you will stop because you want to yourself and not because it's somebody else's bright idea.
Jaws this legislation is not geared to make anyone stop smoking, I have never seen that anywhere is any of the propoganda. This legislation is only to stop smoking in public meeting and eating places. Having been a smoker and worked in the bar trade I have seen both sides of the coin, and now as one of the recent converts to the no smoking lobby I am all for it.
How come when they stopped smoking on public transport there was not a whimper from the smoking lobby it was accepted by the majority, there is also a general no smoking ban in every shopping complex these days,but people still go shopping there without complaint.
So will all you smokers get off your high horses, and get on with it. See you in the Comm next time I'm up
Golach
The pubs might be interested in finding out how many people are drinking at home now, because they can't be asked to go to the pub and come home reeking of smoke.
There are plenty of pubs we avoid simply because of the smoke. Wetherspoons in Wick isn't so bad, as the high ceiling seems to draw the worst of it away, but we won't go to any of the other pubs in Wick unless a band is playing we want to see, or some other special occasion.
Just a thought...
A pub wi nae smoke is like a pub wi nae beer! [evil]
A pub wi nae smoke is like a pub wi nae beer! [evil]
Bet your beer would taste alot better without that stale, smoky taste...
Never did before so I don't suppose it will now.
Besides, if as few people smoke as the Executive insists then there is no problem to solve!
Or put another way. if pubs, clubs and resaurants have air that is thick with smoke then there are a lot more smokers than the Executive are willing to admit to.
Now I wonder who the nice person was who said, "If the lie is big enough and is told often enough then the public will believe it!"
Perhaps he was the one who taught our politicians their jobs! If only I could remember his name.
What kills me about this debate is the point regarding the freedom of establishments to open "non smoking pubs"...
Tell me this: if a pub DID decide to open as non-smoking in the current legislation, and some miscreant smoker decides they want to go there (cuz that's where all the cool people are, of course) but light up anyhow, what legal authority would the non-smoking pub have to get the smoker to stop smoking? They can ASK them to butt out, but can they force them to, because that is their rules???
I'd bet some people would go in an light up JUST BECAUSE it was against the rules.
Rules that aren't enforceable aren't rules at all...
A licensee does not have you on his premises at all!
That's provided the reason for ejecting you doesn't fall foul of one of the various "Discrimination" laws etc.
You've obviously not seen any of the many signs such as "No Coaches", "No Jeans", "No Workclothes", "No admission after Midnight" and many others depending on the premises and the area.
Am I to assume that each sign has it's own separate piece of legislation voted on and passed by Parliament?
But how is the government going to make up for the losses in revenue from the hordes of people who may now give up the habit? Will they put other taxes up?!! :confused
If people do stop smoking, whatever the government looses in taxes will be more than made up for in health care savings.
I'm all for the ban on smoking in public places. Was out last night for the first time in ages and the smoke was awful. I was sitting in a group of about 15 people and the majority were smoking. I had to leave the room because it was making me feel sick! :( At one point a huge cloud of smoke was heading for me and I waved it out of the way. The smoker beside me apologised but her partner made a huge joke about it. If they want to kill themselves that's fine but I would appreciate it if they would consider others.
Don't complain, Rhubarb it was yours for free and not many people are that generous nowadays!
Tristan, you seem to forget that the Government is complaining already about people living too long and putting extra strain on the Health Service and the Welfare Services and that they will be unable to fulfil their State Pensions Obligations.
Without smoking the fact that people will be living longer only means that they will eventually still require treatment for Non-Smoking Related Illnesses which will cost just as much. They will require more care as they become more frail with age. They will require Pensions etc. over a far longer period of time.
In the end the Economy will suffer even more by an increase in people over retirement age who will still need to be provided for.
Eventually the retirement age will creap up and up. If you fancy working into your mid-seventies that's your business, but that's what you will eventually condemn everybody to! They were already making noises about an increase to retirement at 70, that was until somebody remembered that there is an Election in the offing. Once that's done and dusted you can be sure it will raise it's ugly little head again.
If people are living longer due to a smoke free culture then they are living longer so they are working longer so they are paying longer for an NHS!
If we take the smokers arguement then if we all smoke then we are living shorter and paying for a shorter time but paying largeramounts for an NHS!
A subnote to the above
A smoker has an addiction, but think of it this way, the Addiction HAS all you Smokers!
This explains why we get the opinion on this forum so many times that says "I am a smoker and I enjoy a smoke"
That is your addiction speaking!!! Not YOU! Those that eventually decide to give up and feel so stupid why they they started up in the first place.(including me)
Let my words of non bovine faeces be the impetus for your decision to give up the weed that is controlling your thoughts.
So I take it that when somebody says they like a drink it's their alcohol addiction talking!
With that amount of Alchoholics around the Hospitals should have no room for anybody else.
Rheghead, you said it yourself, you have the certainty of the Convert and the same pathetically blinkered view.
Whatever you do, don't get Religion, we have enough extemists as it is. The last thing the World needs is another extremist!
I thought we were discussing a smoking ban here? Not alcoholism or religious extremism, so keep it relevent and stop clouding the issue like you seem to do quite often on other posts.
By the way, one needs to be zealous against an addiction including alcohol to resist the temptation. For your info, I am an aetheist and an extemist at that as well!
Someone who fits the description of an 'extremist' is someone who is a member of a minority (eg smokers) whose activities create harm(eg.the effects of passive smoking) to the majority.
Who is the extremist here? Me or Jaws?
Whatever you do, don't get Religion, we have enough extemists as it is. The last thing the World needs is another extremist!
Ahem!!! Jaws, your statement above smacks of extremism to me.
As I have said before I am a converted ex-smoker and I never wish to smoke ever again,
so why do I have to put up with the attitudes of the smoking fraternity when I express my opinions on the debate that the Scottish Parliament have decided to implement for the general good of the Nation. I also take offence at being told by the nicotine addicts that if I dont like smoke blown in my face when I am eating or enjoying a pint then I am infringing their civil liberties by complaining and supporting the Government. I HAVE Civil Liberties also and I support the NON Smokers to the hilt
Golach
A subnote to the above
A smoker has an addiction, but think of it this way, the Addiction HAS all you Smokers!
This explains why we get the opinion on this forum so many times that says "I am a smoker and I enjoy a smoke"
Rheghead, who was it that introduced Addiction into the tread and made certain assumptions about it? All I have done is question your assertion that enjoyment and addiction are automatically linked.
Whatever you do, don't get Religion, we have enough extemists as it is. The last thing the World needs is another extremist!
Ahem!!! Jaws, your statement above smacks of extremism to me.
As I have said before I am a converted ex-smoker and I never wish to smoke ever again,
so why do I have to put up with the attitudes of the smoking fraternity when I express my opinions on the debate that the Scottish Parliament have decided to implement for the general good of the Nation. I also take offence at being told by the nicotine addicts that if I dont like smoke blown in my face when I am eating o [/quote]
Both you and Golach state you are "ex-smokers". Again, all I have pointed out is that "Converts" to anything (including ex-smoking) are usually less tolerant than those who didn't need converting in the first place. When I mentioned "Religion" it was in respect to "Converted" to which the term more usually refers and was not intended as a diversion from the subject.
Rheghead, with respect to extreme attitudes I have yet to see a sign anywhere which says "No Non-Smokers!"
The only person who needs to be zealous about "resisting temptation" to any addiction is the person who suffers it. If you still need to be "zealous" about someone else partaking in your addiction then you still have not overcome it yourself however much you think you have.
I think both your posts make my points about certain attitudes for me.
]
Both you and Golach state you are "ex-smokers". Again, all I have pointed out is that "Converts" to anything (including ex-smoking) are usually less tolerant than those who didn't need converting in the first place. When I mentioned "Religion" it was in respect to "Converted" to which the term more usually refers and was not intended as a diversion from the subject.
Rheghead, with respect to extreme attitudes I have yet to see a sign anywhere which says "No Non-Smokers!"
The only person who needs to be zealous about "resisting temptation" to any addiction is the person who suffers it. If you still need to be "zealous" about someone else partaking in your addiction then you still have not overcome it yourself however much you think you have.
I think both your posts make my points about certain attitudes for me.[/quote]
I also " Converted" From Scottish Power to Scottish Gas and from analogue television to digital, does that make me a Zealot....I think not.... if anything the person who has tried something and decided that it is not for them to me is a better person, the protestations of the hard done by smokers carrys very little weight with me, "Thou doth protest too much" springs to mind
Golach
A subnote to the above
A smoker has an addiction, but think of it this way, the Addiction HAS all you Smokers!
This explains why we get the opinion on this forum so many times that says "I am a smoker and I enjoy a smoke"
Rheghead, who was it that introduced Addiction into the tread and made certain assumptions about it? All I have done is question your assertion that enjoyment and addiction are automatically linked.
Whatever you do, don't get Religion, we have enough extemists as it is. The last thing the World needs is another extremist!
Ahem!!! Jaws, your statement above smacks of extremism to me.
As I have said before I am a converted ex-smoker and I never wish to smoke ever again,
so why do I have to put up with the attitudes of the smoking fraternity when I express my opinions on the debate that the Scottish Parliament have decided to implement for the general good of the Nation. I also take offence at being told by the nicotine addicts that if I dont like smoke blown in my face when I am eating o
Both you and Golach state you are "ex-smokers". Again, all I have pointed out is that "Converts" to anything (including ex-smoking) are usually less tolerant than those who didn't need converting in the first place. When I mentioned "Religion" it was in respect to "Converted" to which the term more usually refers and was not intended as a diversion from the subject.
Rheghead, with respect to extreme attitudes I have yet to see a sign anywhere which says "No Non-Smokers!"
The only person who needs to be zealous about "resisting temptation" to any addiction is the person who suffers it. If you still need to be "zealous" about someone else partaking in your addiction then you still have not overcome it yourself however much you think you have.
I think both your posts make my points about certain attitudes for me.[/quote]
I agree with you that as an exsmoker I am probably more keen on seeing anti smoking in public places legislation put into place. And yes I am fanatical towards my own exsmoking habit. If I wasn't then I would probably stil be in the quitting and restarting
mode. Such is the addictive power of the weed.
With respect to enjoyment of smoking, I merely suggested that people say they enjoy
smoking as a way to justify their habit to themselves and to others. There were
authentic nicotine free cigarettes on the market at one time, did these enjoyers of smoking enjoy them? Answer No. That is because their addiction was not being fuelled. So it wasn't the smoking that they enjoyed, it was the nicotine hit that was being enjoyed.
With respect to "No Non Smokers" signs, I would be appalled at such a thing just as much as "No smokers" signs. This implies an apartheid is in place on the grounds of an activity which will be done lawfully in private or in the open air.
"No smoking" signs are the ones that I would like to see. I do not deny smokers the right to smoke as long as they go outside or do it at home.
But on their way out for a ciggy I will let them know the logic of staying inside and enjoying the craic, saving money, staying warm, breathing clean air, good company enjoyment and saving his seat!
Rheghead, you know very well what I was getting at with "No Non-Smokers" but just to make sure I will re-phraise the term so that I am sure you understand.
"No Smoking" signs everywhere in effect means Smokers can come in provided they do not Smoke.
I was simply suggesting that those signs are no less extreme than a sign meaning "No Non-Smokers who are not Smoking" in any premises.
The whole thing could well have been overcome without the dictatorial attitude taken by the Executive and certain others.
With respect to the "Enjoyment of Smoking" I just cannot see your arguement. Yes the nicotine is part of the enjoyment so where is the problem? Your attitude seems to imply to imply to me that it is you who have a fixation about other people having an addiction which you feel they should be without. All you seem to wish to do is to force them into hiding behind the Bike Sheds so the Teacher does not catch them or forcing them out of places designed for socialising.
Golach, if you insisted that I or anyone else should therefore also be obliged to Convert to Scottish Gas and Digital Television or be made to feel that they should be excluded form socialising then yes I would most certainly call you a Zealot.
I take it that the "Thou doth protest too much" would imply that as a Smoker I would automatically be biased!
ok I will concede that I might have known what you were on about with the signs, I just couldn't resist getting the apartheid thing in :o)
But what I want to know is how this legislation will be worded. For any offence that we may commit there has to be a worded definition. Something like:-
A person commits an offence of smoking in an enclosed public place if he or she illegally ignites, attempts to ignite or smokes tobacco materials in an enclosed public place.
Then there are legal definitions on the meanings of the words, which are usually decided by Case Law, ie in a court
Lets say my definition above will be the one adopted.
Now take the word 'illegally', no problem there we have just legislated. That fine then.
Tobacco products?, er does this mean we can smoke these herbal things now? They smell worse than the real thing!
Enclosed?, surely a room in a building and a taxi or bus? Of course yes.
A public place? After time in a pub? No it is private, so we can smoke then presumably. If we are drinking aftertime then I am there illegal anyway.
Inside ones car that is parked in a public place is already deemed by Case law to be still a public place.
So it could therefore be rather unfairly and harshly judged in Case Law that smoking in ones own car would be covered by this law as it is enclosed and still public?
I doubt if it would be deemed so, however, I might rule so if the driver was actually driving at the time of the offence and he was not using his "Hands-Free Smoking Kit"! :evil
No probs, the signs were just a bit of mischeif anyway.
I gather that the way they wish to work the legislation is to use the term "workplace" to define where the ban should exist. That is a straight copy of the method used in Ireland in order to get the Unions "on-side" using the excuse of "Protecting Workers in the Workplace". In that way they hope to get round places like your car and your home.
This has already caused them problems because of prisoners in cells in Prisons, people in Secure Psychiatric Hospitals, Hostels, Homes for the Elderly etc. All are "Workplaces" yet, as has been pointed out, a complete ban on smoking in some of those places would cause greater risk of health problems to the Staff that any amount of "Passive Smoking". And that has been pointed out in many cases by the staff themselves.
I'm not sure how they will try to get round private homes where a cleaner or Home Help is employed but it appears that one Minister was seen standing outside his Limousine because it was his Chauffeur's "Workplace". (Now that really does appeal to my sense of humour, a Politician shooting himself squarely in the foot!)
If I really did think that they were really serious about the Health side of things I would be a little more kindly disposed towards the idea. However, the impression the Executive give, certainly as far as I can see, is to do something "Trendy" and to get in there first just so they can play the childish game of "We did it first, so there! You just copied us!"
The bottom line is that the whole thing is more about politicians playing "one-upmanship" and I'm afraid that when they are busy doing that they usually make a complete mess of things.
All you need to do to see that is look at what happened with the Hunting Bill last week. It reached the stage where everybody had to stop, both those for the ban and those against it, and ask what some of the votes were about so they could decide if they were in favour or against a particular point because there was so much confusion.
Legislation should be carefully worked out, studied, discussed, made water-tight and then voted on and passed into legislation. What seems to be happening at present is to think of an idea, slap something together, rush it into legislation and let the courts decide what it means and if thats the case then you might as well give up the idea of a Parliamentary Democracy and just appoint a Bench of Judges to create laws.
And don't anybody try to start a discussion on Hunting here, if you must, start it on another thread. The point I was making, to save confusion, was that half-way through the debate most MPs ended up not knowing if they were coming or going and that is a ridiculous state of affairs. It seems that it made "Yes, Minister" look like the serious version of Parliament.
(Don't know about you lot, but My Brain Hurts after that) :evil
The law is a blunt instrument, and whatever is written into the fine print of the ban is purely incidental. The fact is that it looks as if it is destined to be in force by Spring 2006. My suspicion is that some pubs may close down, but the remainder may thrive. Restaurants are largely already non smoking so will be unaffected.
People are different to eachother, that makes life so rich. But those people who indulge in something which causes discomfort to others and are not prepared to compromise their actions at all do take a hell of a lot of tolerance. Especially when they know exactly what they are doing to others and show no consideration. This applies to both sides of the smoking ban debate.
(Don't know about you lot, but My Brain Hurts after that) :evil
EXACTLY!!!!! Jaws get off your brain and get out a bit more [lol]
Golach
But "Baby it's cold outside!".
I don't mind going outside, but I sure as heck don't see why others should be forced outside!
The Brain-pain was caused by trying to ensure that an example did not move the discussion on to another contentious issue! That would be a little too much to bear!
I grew up smoking outside so all these Clowns are doing is reminding my of my very enjoyable "gloriously mis-spent youth!" before the decision was made to "Control me from the Cradle to the Grave".
What will they do with persistent offenders who have no money to pay the massive fines? The Knock at Midnight? Disappearance to the Gulag?
Just for a moment consider how many other things have been suggested for the same treatment by various politicians and pressure groups in the last decade!
A Journey of a Thousand Miles starts with a Single Step! But where does it End?
And Golach, you didn't answer my previous question.
Do I "Protest too much" because I am a smoker and would that affect my judgement on the subject?
Whew!
Just finished reading the whole of this thread, and while most people are dancing around the issue and making their individual point of view, there are a few who keep on about the general publics "Freedom Of Choice"
These people are absolutely correct!
i live in a small village with two pubs (Rheghead knows who I am!). One is non-smoking (no choice there), the other has the coice of whether you want to smoke or not ie it is not obligitory to smoke, but if you want to , carry on.
Both pubs are thriving, and the non-smoking pub was brought into effect because the landlord is a non-smoker who wanted to provide the choice for the villagers to drink in a non-smoking establishment. Good on him, I've seen people out for a drink who I've never seen out in 14 years of living here. Not a bad thing.
Both venues have customers who would not go into the rival establishment because of the non-smoking/smoking issue. Again, this is their coice.
The point is people do have a choice!
If a the law is passed thgat the other pub MUST become non-smoking then the choice is lost. (I live in Englaand so no such law has (yet) been passed, although I am sure it will happen)
One final point, the landlay of the smoking pub owns the premises, what right does the govenrment have to make her stop smoking on her own property? She also lives on the premises. Will this mean that she has to stand outside her own dwelling to have a ciggie during opening hours? That would surely infringe on her civil liberties.
One more thing!
It has been mentioned a few times about the strain on the NHS that smoking causes *takes a drag of ciggie*
What about all the colds/flu/bronchial conditions that will occurr when all the poor smokers are made to stand outside in the middle of Winter? esp in Scotland!! :D
Welcome aboard bosstard, at least somebody else can see through the smokescreen of mis-information which has been handed out, especially about the costs to the NHS. Most of it is little more than a poor attempt at moral blackmail. The latest from the originators of the hysteria in California is "Give up for the sake of your Pets!" (and no I'm not joking), followed by a ban on smoking on beaches because discarded cigarette ends contain carcinogens. I can only presume that it is some strange form of mental illness which causes Californian Non-smokers to go round beaches rooting through the sand to find discarded cigarette ends to ingest! Personally I would have thought the sand would rather ruin the taste.
There are many things which take up the resources of the NHS and Smokers are only one of them. The Health Freak who started the Jogging Craze collapsed and died of a heart attack whilst jogging. Perhaps all Health Clubs should carry a Health Warning "Exercising Damages Your Health!" After all, just look at the number of times fit healthy Sports People are unable to take part in their sport for reasons of injury! Just listen to the Sports News on any weekend and those are just the few who play professionally.
For those old enough to remember the old style pubs before the Breweries got hold of them will be able to recall the frosted glass windows with quaint words etched into them such as "Snug" and "Lounge" and "Smoke Room" and heaven help you if you disturbed the old ladies in the Snug with your smoke or went into the Lounge with your dirty working clothes on or used "naughty" words.
Double-deck buses had "No Smoking" on the lower-deck and Trains had "No Smoking" compartments.
But then, in those days common sense and tolerance prevailed!
There are many things which take up the resources of the NHS and Smokers are only one of them. The Health Freak who started the Jogging Craze collapsed and died of a heart attack whilst jogging. Perhaps all Health Clubs should carry a Health Warning "Exercising Damages Your Health!" !
We could even take this to the extreme
"Crossing the road may damage your health.........you may get run over by a bus!"
Where does the nanny state stop??
Bosstard, you are correct that the pub establishments should choose - but I still think anywhere that serves food should be non-smoking. Also public areas like transport, cinemas and shopping centres should be non-smoking as there is no way to control the drift of smoke. Smokers probably don't realise just how strong a fume they give off - I can tell if there is a smoker ahead of me on the street just by the toxic fug that drifts across.
I remember spending a lot of my teenage years watching telly at home with my face submerged in my jersey, to my parents displeasure. They thought it was just a teenage thing to distort my clothing. However when I moved out I no longer found it necessary to do this and discovered that I had only been doing it sub-consiously to screen my face from their cigarette smoke!! I was also very car sick when cigarettes were smoked when travelling. Smokers just don't realise the effect the fumes have and that non-smlokers don't just protest to be "fashionable".
I quite like the English proposal for a smoking ban. It seems to preserve the right to smoke in the 'spit and sawdust' places. And other places where food is served are smoke free.
as a non-smoker I would welcome smoking bans, and we'd both maybe go out to pubs more - provided the foul language and slobbering drunken types that seems to pervade in most pubs are alse curbed. I do agree though that a pub landlord should choose - a business decision - and the customer spends where he prefers! I don't see why non-smoking staff should have to breathe in smoke in 'smoking' pubs though! :roll:
gravedigga
27-Nov-04, 20:05
I was in the new cafe/bar No1 yesterday and it's a no smoking place, as a smoker i am fine with this - quite happy to have my fag when i get outside.
I would however miss having a fag with my drink if i was on a night out going round the pubs becasue i would have to go so long without one and i personally tend to smoke more after i've had a few. I think a reasonable thing to do would be to ban in all places serving food, but then you get places like the yard which is a bar that serves food so maybe it would be an option to ban it during the times that meals are being served???
And the arguement about passive smoking - well we breathe in car fumes and pollution everyday, they gonna have us walking around with masks on. Sooner or later something's going to kill us.
As i said before i think it should be up to the owner, least if they tried it and lost too much money they could change it back to a smokers pub. I know a lot of people who've said they won't go out if they can't smoke. If it does happen i would just drink in the house and have friends round then go to The pub later for a few hours before closing
Bosstard, you are correct that the pub establishments should choose - but I still think anywhere that serves food should be non-smoking. Also public areas like transport, cinemas and shopping centres should be non-smoking as there is no way to control the drift of smoke".
I have no problem with banning smoking in areas where non-smokers have little choice but to go
If a village has only one pub, make it non-smokig, this does not then exlcude anybody. it just means the smoker will have to go outside. On the other hand, if an area has two cinemas (for example) why not make one non-smoking but let the other one give the option to smoke or not?
On other words, as my original post was trying to say, give people as much choice as possible. I hate being told what to do and when and where I can or cannot do it.
In this weeks New Scientist there was an article that outlined the dangers of going to church! The arguement being that the carcinogens produced by burning candles could cause lung cancer. The levels of carcinogens were higher than what was observed in cities at the height of the rush hour.
I would be interested to know whether the levels in church would be higher than a busy pub on a Saturday night?
Also, why don't people smoke in church? If it is not the done thing in the eyes of the lord then it must be a sin?
The church encourages consideration for others, is it only in church that selfish smokers bother to take in the considerations of others?
The carcinogens from the candles also cause Cardiac problems and are something like 20 times higher than the recommended "safe" levels.
I take it there will now be a campaign for Churches to display a "Health Warning"!
Rheghead, perhaps you can think of a suitable one!
I wonder why everybody didn't die of lung cancer when candles were the only form of lighting?
I wonder why people in the Stone age that didn’t smoke and didn't have Churches full of Candles to kill them didn't live as long, on average, as the heaviest smokers and the most Religious of Church Goers do now?
The carcinogens from the candles also cause Cardiac problems and are something like 20 times higher than the recommended "safe" levels.
I take it there will now be a campaign for Churches to display a "Health Warning"!
Rheghead, perhaps you can think of a suitable one!
I wonder why everybody didn't die of lung cancer when candles were the only form of lighting?
I wonder why people in the Stone age that didn’t smoke and didn't have Churches full of Candles to kill them didn't live as long, on average, as the heaviest smokers and the most Religious of Church Goers do now?
I would love to think up a health warning for over the Church door, it would not just point out the dangers of candle smoke though!? :evil
Maybe people did die of lung cancer when candles were the main form of lighting?
I would need to study dead human tissue samples from 5 groups of people
1. People before the advent of candles.
2. People in the age of the candle but before tobacco use.(Pre 1492)
3. People in the age of the candle and tobacco (Post 1492)
4.People after the decline in candle use but before opinions were expressed on the dangers of smoking. (1930s-1951)
5. Non smokers after 2006 who can live their lives without danger of breathing in tobacco smokers residues and who don't use candles.
The study groups would have to be large enough so I could derive some statistical conclusions though. :confused
I could then decide if canldes are bad for you, tobacco was bad for you or a concoction of the 2 was bad for you.
In view of the fact that the initiators of the study are of the opinion that occasional Church Goers have little to worry about but Priests and others who are subjected for similar periods are the main sufferers and that Chapels are likely to increase the problem then surely a study of non-smoking Priests as compared to smoking non-Church goers would provide a comparison.
Non-smoking Priests and Smoking Heathens are not difficult to find in this Country and surely all the Health Studies carried out over Smoking and Health must contain those figures somewhere. After all we are assured that the figures are so perfect that there can be no doubt.
With respect to Passive Smoking there must be enough studies amongst people who live mainly in the open air who do not smoke or live mainly in confined smoke ridden areas and therefore are subjected to Passive Smoking for there to be comparisons.
I am assured that the studies leave no doubt as to the dangers so no doubt all these matters have been studied, considered and subjected to every possible computation otherwise the absolute certainty would not be there.
Mind you, I would hate to see placards proclaiming "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here!" over every Church Door.
Perhaps sticking with Religion and abandoning Science might be the safer option.
After all with Science only the facts are of concern but with God, "All things are possible!"
In view of the fact that the initiators of the study are of the opinion that occasional Church Goers have little to worry about but Priests and others who are subjected for similar periods are the main sufferers and that Chapels are likely to increase the problem then surely a study of non-smoking Priests as compared to smoking non-Church goers would provide a comparison.
Non-smoking Priests and Smoking Heathens are not difficult to find in this Country and surely all the Health Studies carried out over Smoking and Health must contain those figures somewhere. After all we are assured that the figures are so perfect that there can be no doubt.
With respect to Passive Smoking there must be enough studies amongst people who live mainly in the open air who do not smoke or live mainly in confined smoke ridden areas and therefore are subjected to Passive Smoking for there to be comparisons.
I am assured that the studies leave no doubt as to the dangers so no doubt all these matters have been studied, considered and subjected to every possible computation otherwise the absolute certainty would not be there.
Mind you, I would hate to see placards proclaiming "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here!" over every Church Door.
Perhaps sticking with Religion and abandoning Science might be the safer option.
After all with Science only the facts are of concern but with God, "All things are possible!"
Jaws, I think I could make you into a scientist yet if you can keep thimking this way! :D
As for the God bit, who am I to ask? though I do (as a scientist) need proof rather than faith, but this is another thread don't you think?
The Church did encourage science once because the church (on Faith) thought through knowledge and science, we could stand just a little bit closer to our maker.
It is a pity we couldn't get Gallileo's point of view on that one when he was done for heresy!
Talking about smoking? Galileo was probably fuming! [lol]
George Brims
01-Dec-04, 20:40
Jaws wrote:
The latest from the originators of the hysteria in California is "Give up for the sake of your Pets!" (and no I'm not joking), followed by a ban on smoking on beaches because discarded cigarette ends contain carcinogens. I can only presume that it is some strange form of mental illness which causes Californian Non-smokers to go round beaches rooting through the sand to find discarded cigarette ends to ingest!
Well the appeal to people to think about their pets is just smart advertising. There are plenty people who show more concern for their pets than their fellow humans (see other thread about dog poo on the pavements!) .
The beach smoking ban has been welcomed even by smokers since the cellulkose or whatever fibres they use in cigarette filters seem to last forever. I don't know about you but I prefer to see sand without cigarette ends in it when I go to the beach. I haven't heard a word about the purpose of the ban being to eliminate carcinogens though I suppose all those nasty chemicals would end up in the water eventually. I wouldn't eat the fish caught off a Southern California beach in any case, but I suppose some people do. :p
I have a new vote on this subject
Well didn't really expect a response like that from one little question
Rheghead - I think you need another group or two for your study
People in the age of the candle and the tobacco before the industrial revolution
People in the age of the candle and tobacco after the industrial revolution
luskentyre
28-Dec-04, 22:59
As a smoker, a ban on smoking in public places wouldn't bother me too much. I never smoke in restaurants anyway and I think I can cope with nipping out for the odd puff in a pub. I can totally appreciate where non smokers are coming from.
Now, if we can just ban children from eating places...
Im a smoker myself and i think its a good idea to band it in public places and hopefully it might encourage people to stop.Addiction is a terrible thing and theres loads of smokers that would love to stop but cant because of the withdraw symtoms it might be the push they need
friendlymel
31-Dec-04, 10:18
ive read with intrest here and im a smoker i dont agree with this ban it is getting like the states here in the uk, and soon we will be a second usa, no offense here but soon we will all be told what to do when to do it even in are homes we will be told what to do when and where times etc it isnt fair for us smokers to be told what to do and when not to do it many a bloke likes to sit and have a pint and a fag after working all day they are taking that away from them as well yes let there be a no smoking section why dont they bring back the smoke rooms in the pubs where smokers can go there used to be smoke rooms in pubs, but they have done away with it just like they have in most places a mans vault men only nowadays they have mixed vaults and just lounges where everyone is in the same room dont get me wrong but why should we be told what to do and not to do, and the non smokers are getting too much of there own way comeon, have us smokers protested? no we have gone along and gone with the flow and now they want to rule us and as for them blaming it on ill health well come on first it was drinking, now smoking hey ive a few friends who in there early ages of 40 s plus have passed away and been riddled with cancer and they never smoked or drank alcohol in there lives we are all born with cancer and it only takes a fall, a knock etc to waken it up so i dont believe that either smoking or drinking or both can cause this
i too have families who dont smoke and i respect there wishes and if i like a smoke i go outside, or ill take a walk round the block or go to the shops but hey this is going to stop as well smoking outside well where can we have a smoke? im not allowed to smoke in our house i dont mind that and yes the decoration and curtains etc are cleaner but come on we all like a puff us smokers and to be told and keep being told what we can do or carnt do its getting on my nerves now there picking on people who have weight there telling them what to eat what not to eat how must they feel i feel for them so why carnt people leave us alone and let us enjoy life like the rest of us do....
I tried to read it, really I did, but with no capital letters, apostrophes, paragraphs or punctuation of any form I just had to give up, sorry. :eek:
[quote=JAWS][
The Health Gestapo are alive and well and will soon be paying a visit to your door!
I want to become one!!! Where do I join up!!!!!!!
Golach[/quote
Go go Golach.
I got my cigs free while in the military during WW2. When I returned home after the war and I discovered that I would have to pay for the worthless things, I gave up on them. Healthwise I believe I have made a good decision. I now dislike second-hand smoke. I try to find smoke-free areas to enjoy the few years I have left to breathe. Golach I join in with you and others who want to ban public smoking.
:D :) :o)
friendlymel
i too have families who dont smoke and i respect there wishes and if i like a smoke i go outside
If you walked into a pub now that was full of non-smokers and you knew they would object if you lit up, would you nip outside to smoke? Or would you show inconsideration and light up inside?
I am all for a ban. But as for freedom of choice, perhaps if they chose, pub owners should have the right to install a 'smoker's room' apart from the main area and enclosed.
I was in Ireland last summer and the ban hasn't affected pub sales at all.
I think pub landlords should be preempting the ban by banning smoking before they have to.
Non-smokers will patronise those pubs that cater for nonsmokers. In time when the ban comes into force, the non-smokey pubs will have a good customer base while pubs that cease to be smokey because of the ban will struggle to survive. It is a question of building up a reputation and taking in the 'big picture'.
What have they got to lose?
friendlymel
08-Jan-05, 13:34
if i go into a bar or whaere ever and rher is no smoking or as you say went in and they were all non smokers then i would still have a drink and go outside and have a smoke
no i wouldnt light up in front of them
if i go into a bar or whaere ever and rher is no smoking or as you say went in and they were all non smokers then i would still have a drink and go outside and have a smoke
no i wouldnt light up in front of them
If true then you will be in the very tiny minority, smokers seem to think that if smoking is allowed then they light up regardless of consideration for others in the same room.
[mad]
I must say, if there is one thing that annoys me its when someone lights up a ciggy right beside me when im out having a meal!
I agree with the smoking ban 100% I think that they should have their own little smokers room, so its there lungs that are getting damaged, not the non-smokers lungs, as it has been proved that passive smoking can cause lung cancer.
If we choose not to smoke then it is our right that our lungs shouldnt be damaged by tobacco smoke.
misschief
11-Jan-05, 13:10
I agree with sky divvy.
My not smoking does not damage the health of others in any way. Nor does it make their clothes and hair smell and it does not damage the property of pubs as smoking does in many cases.
I am 100% behind this ban and I think the government has a responisibilty to investigate and provide legislation which prevent the actions of others doing harm. Smoking does damage your health this is an undisputable fact. I am undecided if it actually causes cancer as there are many cases ( as have been pointed out) where individuals who have never smoked have got cancer. But then I have to ask the question how much of the nasties in cigarrettes did they inhale passively.
I think the government should pass the law and ride out the storm against smoking in public. They did it with drinking and driving fifteen to twenty years ago there was no stigma about drinking and driving. It was not seen by many as a bad thing to do. This has changed and now most people would never think to drink drive( and before anyone tries I wholly agree with drinking and driving being against the law).
I believe the same will happen with smoking.
[quote="Rheghead"]In this weeks New Scientist there was an article that outlined the dangers of going to church! The arguement being that the carcinogens produced by burning candles could cause lung cancer. The levels of carcinogens were higher than what was observed in cities at the height of the rush hour.
Must be the dangers of going to chapel. they don't burn candles in the church of scotland!
In this weeks New Scientist there was an article that outlined the dangers of going to church! The arguement being that the carcinogens produced by burning candles could cause lung cancer. The levels of carcinogens were higher than what was observed in cities at the height of the rush hour.
Must be the dangers of going to chapel. they don't burn candles in the church of scotland!
I didn't realise that? (me being a non churchgoer an' all)
Though it begs the question 'Why do smokers refrain from smoking in Church quite willingly and without being asked?'
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.