Should there be a blanket ban on public smoking?

[Guest Monolithix [MVP]]

Sorry, but I'm a bit annoyed having found out that the smoking ban does not apply to the House of Commons as it is a "royal palace" rather than a public place.  B******s.

*rant over*

According to yesterdays Independent it may end up being extended to there afterall :)

Incedentally i'm for the ban, i'm sure trying to justify it will just provide more flamebait so i'll refrain. You all know deep down it makes sense though... ;p

[Guest mike-oh]

A load of stuff...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Firstly...if we're talking facts, what's this lead pollution you speak about? It's not from cars, petrol has been unleaded for 20years now! Secondly why are you so concerned about breathing in air pollution when you regularly put cancer sticks in your mouth and inhale all their concentrated goodness including over 60 carcinogens and substances, such as carbon monoxide, tar, arsenic, cyanide, benzene, formaldehyde, methanol, acetylene, ammonia, lead and 4000 other chemicals?

If you want hard facts i suggest you read "Particulate matter from tobacco versus diesel car exhaust: an educational perspective Tobacco Control 2004; 13: 219-21"

Which states "The air pollution emitted by cigarettes is 10 times greater than diesel car exhaust" and "Combined particulate levels in the first hour after the engine had been started measured 88 ug/m3. Those recorded in the first hour after the cigarettes had been lit measured 830 ug/m3: 10 times greater."

So ok what happens if we ban cars/vehicles overnight. Economy grinds to a hault, leading to mass depression. You don't get your groceries, farmers can't farm, ultimately people riot/revolt/starve (pick one or all three). Oh and you don't get your cigarettes because they can't be delivered to your local.

Now lets suggest a ban on cigarettes. Several thousand people are cranky for a few weeks but ultimately live for several years longer. Sales of Febreze plumet and everyone can enjoy a night out without smelling like an ashtray and haveing their lungs blackened by second hand smoke.

You also talk about non-smokers haveing a choice of exits. If i'm sat in the pub haveing a drink and chat with a few mates and some inconsiderate smoker comes in and lights up next to me....why the F**K should i have to move because the addict wants their fix?

I don't condone our reliance on fossil fuels, but sadly there's nothing that can be done overnight to stop that. Let me finish by asking if you use a car? Leave your appliances on standby? Leave phone chargers plugged in? Use standard filament bulbs? Have inadequate insulation? I could go on.... But if you're answering yes to most of them then perhaps you shouldn't be wingeing that the governments to blame. We all have our part to play in reduceing our dependance on fossil fuels.

anyhow, i'll step down from my soapbox now.

Edited February 16, 2006 by mike-oh

[Guest Jamma14]

Most people who do encounter second hand smoke do so by choosing to enter an establishment.  I have no choice about breathing the lead pollution that comes from a car exhaust ... unless I actually 'choose' to stay at home.  The fact is that the brown clouds of smog over London, LA, Sydney etc etc, is not cigarette smoke, but years of industrial/automotive poison.  Does anyone suggest that cars should be banned?  Or industry?  But oh no, it's fine to suggest banning smoking on the basis that it is harmful to other people!!?? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I didn't want to get involved in this topic but that pissed me off, that is a crap argument, why should we accept that there will be smoke in the establishment in the first place? That's like saying if you walk on the street you should accept that you are going to get mugged and just put up with it. Great idea, lets legalise mugging. :|

Also I agree with mike-oh, the reason people suggest banning smoking as opposed to cars and industry is because they are useful and we depend on them to make things like smartphones, and transport us to our next MoDaCo meet. :)

And what is smoking seriously useful for? Giving you and others around you cancer and lung disease?

I do thank you for all your homescreen help etc Dr Blow, but I think you're addiction is getting in the way of logical reasoning. :D

James

[Guest drblow]

Firstly...if we're talking facts, what's this lead pollution you speak about? It's not from cars, petrol has been unleaded for 20years now! Secondly why are you so concerned about breathing in air pollution when you regularly put cancer sticks in your mouth and inhale all their concentrated goodness including over 60 carcinogens and substances, such as carbon monoxide, tar, arsenic, cyanide, benzene, formaldehyde, methanol, acetylene, ammonia, lead and 4000 other chemicals?

If you want hard facts i suggest you read "Particulate matter from tobacco versus diesel car exhaust: an educational perspective Tobacco Control 2004; 13: 219-21"

Which states "The air pollution emitted by cigarettes is 10 times greater than diesel car exhaust" and "Combined particulate levels in the first hour after the engine had been started measured 88 ug/m3. Those recorded in the first hour after the cigarettes had been lit measured 830 ug/m3: 10 times greater."

So ok what happens if we ban cars/vehicles overnight. Economy grinds to a hault, leading to mass depression. You don't get your groceries, farmers can't farm, ultimately people riot/revolt/starve (pick one or all three). Oh and you don't get your cigarettes because they can't be delivered to your local.

Now lets suggest a ban on cigarettes. Several thousand people are cranky for a few weeks but ultimately live for several years longer. Sales of Febreze plumet and everyone can enjoy a night out without smelling like an ashtray and haveing their lungs blackened by second hand smoke.

You also talk about non-smokers haveing a choice of exits. If i'm sat in the pub haveing a drink and chat with a few mates and some inconsiderate smoker comes in and lights up next to me....why the F**K should i have to move because the addict wants their fix?

I don't condone our reliance on fossil fuels, but sadly there's nothing that can be done overnight to stop that. Let me finish by asking if you use a car? Leave your appliances on standby? Leave phone chargers plugged in? Use standard filament bulbs? Have inadequate insulation? I could go on.... But if you're answering yes to most of them then perhaps you shouldn't be wingeing that the governments to blame. We all have our part to play in reduceing our dependance on fossil fuels.

anyhow, i'll step down from my soapbox now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You sound stressed, maybe you should try smoking! :)

Yes, I do drive a car ... I don't leave appliances on standby ... I use energy saving light bulbs ... my insulation is grand thanks ... & I am fully ware of the implications of my actions, but then, it's not me advocating that a bunch of moaning do-gooders be allowed to dictate to the rest of us what we should be able to do. At least I can say I am not being hypocritical.

Oh, & if you reckon that car exhaust fumes are all nice & friendly ... how about locking yourself in an airtight garage with the motor running ...

[Guest mike-oh]

Oh, & if you reckon that car exhaust fumes are all nice & friendly ... how about locking yourself in an airtight garage with the motor running ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Probably better for my health than smoking :)

Oh and the last bit wasn't aimed at you specifically, just a thought provoking bit to end on.

Edited February 16, 2006 by mike-oh

[Guest Jamma14]

Probably better for my health than smoking :D

Oh and the last bit was aimed at you specifically, just a thought provoking bit to end on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

:)

Yeah, and btw with the catalytic converters in most cars nowadays, killing yourself using exhaust fumes is not very realistic. :)

PS. mike-oh - you meant wasn't :D

EDIT: O rite, corrected. Good good. 8)

James

Edited February 16, 2006 by Jamma14

[Guest mike-oh]

:)

Yeah, and btw with the catalytic converters in most cars nowadays, killing yourself using exhaust fumes is not very realistic. :)

PS. mike-oh - you meant wasn't :D

EDIT: O rite, corrected. Good good.  8)

James

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jamma, Modacos very own grammar checker :D lol

refresh is your friend :D

And mine too as i was about to pick you up for picking me up! lol!

Anyhow, i'm off downstairs for a drink. Afterall everyone knows alcohol is harmless and has never harmed anyone...has it? :D

[Guest drblow]

:) OK then ... how about you start the car in the garage & I'll start smoking & we'll see who dies first??

[Guest mike-oh]

:) OK then ... how about you start the car in the garage & I'll start smoking & we'll see who dies first??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I park on the drive :) The garage is too full of crap! I'd be crushed by stuff falling on me long before the fumes got me :D

[Guest w411y]

I wouldn't say that many want the ban because of its affect to the environment but a majority of us see smoking as a generally unpleasant thing. If I meet a person who is smelling of tobacco my initial impressions of that person are not good.

My question is, why are you smoking in the first place? Its obvious you can live without it as plenty do. Wasting money and harming yourself and others around you for unnecessary reasons. In my eyes your feeding so much money to an industry that causes death :?: You could argue in that the vehicle industry is doing the same but surely the positives balance out the negatives?

[Guest chucky.egg]

OK, sorry but I can't just let this lie

I'm not picking on mike-oh, but he's just picked a few of my pet peeves (sorry mate, nothing personal!)

And with regards the tax generated by cigarette sales. When you take into account the cost the NHS spends dealing with smoking related illness, days off work and all the other side effects of smoking. the money generated from tax is negligeable!

Rubbish. The cost to the NHS was estimated recently and was something like 25% of the tax revenue. Samsonite posted them earlier I see

If i'm sat in the pub ... and some inconsiderate smoker comes in and lights up next to me....why the F**K should i have to move because the addict wants their fix?

You dont have to. Stay put, you might make some new friends.

But just because we smoke doesn't mean we have to use different facilities either - even the South Africans got the idea eventually :wink:

I'm happy enough to smoke outside if I cant smoke indoors, but all the while it's legal dont bleat at me that your delicate little lungs are clogging up because you spend too long in the pub killing your liver!

That sounded harsh, and isnt aimed at mike-oh (or anyone else here) but I get this every bloody day at work too. People complain that they have to walk past smokers to get into the building (we've been pushed outside long ago)

[smelly, tar-coated, dirty soapbox vacated]

[Guest Jamma14]

Jamma, Modacos very own grammar checker :) lol

refresh is your friend :D

And mine too as i was about to pick you up for picking me up! lol!

Anyhow, i'm off downstairs for a drink. Afterall everyone knows alcohol is harmless and has never harmed anyone...has it? :)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You shouldn't start a sentence with "and", or if it wasn't a new sentence (as there's no fullstops :roll: ) then no reason for a capital anyway. Also "lol" should've been capitilised.

Also why all the line breaks and no punctuation on the first two lines!

Sorry couldn't resist :D

EDIT: Just realised, starting my own sentences with "also" is poor, I'm disappointed. :roll: :D

James

Edited February 16, 2006 by Jamma14

[Guest mike-oh]

Chucky you seem to have missed the point entirely about sitting next to someone who smokes. I've nothing against them personally but I hate the smell not to mention the fact that second hand smoke makes me wheezey and my eyes sting. I'm not asking smokers to use different facilities, just refrain yourselves for a few minutes and please respect the fact that those around you don't necessarily like breathing second hand smoke.

Would you be happy to stay put if I came and sat next to you and constantly farted?

Edited February 16, 2006 by mike-oh

[Guest chucky.egg]

A few corrections Jamma...

You should not start a sentence with "and", or, if it wasn't a new sentence (which could be the case as there are no fullstops :roll:) then .........

Sorry, couldn't be bothered to correct it all! :)

[Guest chucky.egg]

Would you be happy to stay put if I came and sat next to you and constantly farted?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

:)

You've met my wife then have you? :D

[Guest Jamma14]

A few corrections Jamma...

Sorry, couldn't be bothered to correct it all! :)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You found the deliberate mistakes then?? :) :oops:

PS. It's nice that general off topic chat's getting busy again, don't yall agree? Even if it is argumentatively busy. :D

Jamma

[Guest mike-oh]

Who's argueing? This is a civalised social debate :)

Most of my posts are in off topic, so yes it is nice to see it busy again :D

[Guest drblow]

Let's start a new poll ... how many people actually know of someone who has suffered as a result of "second-hand smoke" (apart from Roy Castle!). I mean somone who has actually never smoked a cigarette in their life. I asked around my work today & noboby there had.

[Guest mike-oh]

I suffer everytime i go out clubbing with stinging eyes, reeking clothes, and wheezing chest.

[Guest Alex_le_brit]

I did some research comparing the revenue in tax and duty and the cost to the State of smoking and drinking. I was quite startled. As a smoker I have to say I don't have a problem with people smoking, but as a drinker I have a real problem with people drunk on a Saturday night, and would rather see a clampdown on public drunkenness, than on smoking. So I thought I'd see if I could find comparable figures for the costs of alcohol consumption and the tax revenue.

The cost tothe NHS of smoking and the tax revenue(1)(2)

£ 1.7 billion annual NHS treatment for all smoking related diseases.

£ 10.3 billion annual revenue from duty and VAT

And now the cost to the NHS of drinking and the tax revenue(3)(4)

£ 1.7 billion annual NHS treatment (40% of A&E treatments are due to alcohol consumption alone)

£ 7 billion annual revenue from duty and VAT.

So there we have a comparison of health costs in relation to tax and duty revenues. Already we can see that the cost to the NHS is the same, but the revenues for smokers are £3.3 bn higher.

Now lets look at the further costs of drinking. (4)

£ 7.3 billion annual cost of alcohol related crime.

£ 6.4 billion in lost productivity

£ 4.7 billion spent on the human and emotional costs of alcohol-related crime

TOTAL including NHS costs almost £ 20,000,000,000.00 (£20 billion)

Plus:

17 million working days are lost to hangovers and drink-related illness each year

1.2 million incidents of alcohol-related violence a year.

1.3 million children are affected by parents with drink problem

Now, in none of the reports I've seen, whether governmental, or from the various lobby groups, have I seen anything like this cost due to smoking. Smoking doesn't give you a hangover and prevent you from working, smoking doesn't result in violent behaviour, smoking isn't a leading factor in unwated pregnancies, smoking doesn't result in crime.

So why, when alcohol has a much higher financial, physical and emotional cost to our society are we happy to allow drinking, but seek to marginalise smoking?

Sources (The main sources for the figures above came from)

1) 2003 Figures (latest available), UK Office of National Statistics

2) ASH Anti-smoking lobby

3) 2005 Report from the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit

4 )2005 BBC news report

Alcohol is available for almost all our waking hours like cigarettes, and on top of that it is deemed acceptable for people to go out and enjoy a drink in company, and in relatively comfortable surroundings, whereas this total ban, has removed the equivalent pleasure for smokers, and has removed the rights not only of the smoker but of the owner and staff of the venue to provide an enjoyable experience.

I would have argued for a partial ban, not based on food service or any of those ridiculous ideas, but one based on the licencing system. When a licence is sought for the sale of alcohol, in a pub or club, one of the criteria the licencing authorities use can be the existing provision of alcohol sales available in the area.

So if permission from the licencing authorities was needed to open up a smokers' bar, the licencing authority could take into account the existing provision of non smoking establishments in the area and could stipulate certain conditions. This way smokers could still have the right to enjoy a night out with a drink and a ciggie/cigar/pipe AND non-smokers would also be provided with the equivalent night out.

Please no-one doubt for a second that having a ciggie and a pint is not an ejoyable experience and that smokers are all poor addicts who hate smoking and would give their unborn children to quit. Smoking is a pleasure as is drinking a pint or two.

Imagine what it would be like, if you had to go outside and have your pint on the doorstep in the cold, whilst your friends stayed in in the warm having a laugh without you.

[Guest fraser]

Where's Fraser in this contraversial discussion? Never mind, here I am!!

OK, where to start. Roy Castle is an anecdote. You don't make policy or harm-impact studies from a single anecdote. People have this sick idea that smoking is the only cause of lung cancer. People with little or no smoke exposure at all get lung cancer all the time. If anecdotes make science, we must ban 9v batteries because some moron actually managed to electrocute themselves with one once.

Cost to the NHS is bullshit. Worst case, smoker gets ill ten years earlier than non-smoker. You are still going to die one day. When that is has no bearing on the NHS. The only activites that "harm" the NHS are non fatal injuries, as they are additional unnessesary injuries. Ban sport I say!

As Bill Hicks said: "Non-smokers die everyday". You aren't going to live forever and let me please pop that "I'm saving the NHS money" bubble. You aren't. You are still going to get sick and die some day. The question is, how much of a drain will you be on the pension system until that point?

Second hand smoke risks are still contraversial. In 1997 the BMA found that second hand smoke REDUCES the risk of cot death. Yet the current anti-cot death advice is to NEVER smoke around children. Madness. I'm not saying exposing children to smoke is warranted, however they have completely turned the data around to say something else than what the study found. It's politcally motivated bullshit. Read up on study techniques, especially in relation to what is known as a "meta study". A meta study is where you take data from existing studies, pool it together and draw conclusions. You can make a meta study say anything with enough studies to source. A good description for a meta study is: "after throwing out all evidence to the contary, I conclude that ...".

The most commonly referenced second hand smoke study is a mid-90s one produced in the USA by the EPA. This is still referenced all the time today, and used as a source for meta studies. The fact that there were congressional hearings into it's inaccuracy and questionable research techniques doesn't seem to bother anyone. It's junk science at it's best.

Most reputable studies that conclude second-hand smoke is a very low risk, except for those in constant exposure. See the WHO and BMA studies. Various lies have been used to present this as a real danger. Example, it was found that cats in smoking households get ill more. So, smoke is bad, right? Of course, they don't mention that cats clean themselves with their tongues. See that yellow tint that's in on your pubs wall? Your cat has been licking that off it's fur. Hense the ill health. But hey, passive smoking is bad for cats, so it must be absolutely horrid for humans!! (well, those that spend time licking each other!!)

Remember how it used to be "passive smoking". Mmm, passive, doesn't sound too bad, does it? Gandi was passive. On the other hand, who wants "second hand" stuff? Yuck? Others leftovers? Not for me. Fecking newspeak marketing evil manipulative gits. I am one of the only people who notices this rebanding nonsense? Reminds me of the Monkey Dust sketch where they remarket cancer as "closure"? "You've got closure. That's great!!"

Smoking is getting hit on because those who are doing it are buying their way into heaven doing "good". They believe it's in our interests and their self-gratification centres go through the roof. They believe it is good for their political career. Facts and science be damned.

The following is going to happen (based on other countries experience)

1) weekend smokers will smoke less in the pub (the only benefit)

2) regular smokers will go to the pub less

3) as regular smokers make up a large percentage of pub goers (both are unhealthy activies, so it's a large convergence over the two groups) 25% of bar staff will lose their jobs

4) people living near pubs will be kept awake at night while drunk people laugh and have a smoke outside the pub

5) walking past pubs will be dangerous, as they will have groups of fed-up, cold, miserable and wet drunken people hanging around outside

6) the areas around pubs will be strewn with litter and fag-ends

7) bouncers will not be able to search people going in and out of clubs, resulting in far more drugs and weapons in circulation within the premises.

8 ) tourists will be turned off by the mess and bodies of people hanging around our streets.

Once smoking is dealt with, drink is next. I guarantee it. As for banning smoking completely, get real. Remember how we banned drugs and you just can't smoke a joint anymore? Banning will make the problem worse and will also increase the availability to children. Drug dealers don't require proof-of-age cards, and there is already a large tobacco smuggling infrastructure in the UK. Full regulation to zero regulation? No thanks!

On the other hand, each year 1,000 people in the UK die falling downstairs. 100,000 are injured. Ban stairs now!!!!

So, to summarise, we are living in a country where smoking is about to be banned, and we are now also to get ID cards. We lock people up without trial and invade resource-rich and strategically important countires. Know what other countries have done this? Which political party was the first to ban smoking? The Nazi Party.

Godwinned. Thread over, end of discussion!! ;-)

Edited February 17, 2006 by fraser

[Guest chucky.egg]

I was agreeing with you right up until...

5) walking past pubs will be dangerous, as they will have groups of fed-up, cold, miserable and wet drunken people hanging around outside

The image of a damp, frustrated smoker pummeling passers-by with a soggy fag packet drowned out anything you said that may have made sense.

How about this for an alternative prediciton of what will happen:

1) weekend smokers will smoke less in the pub

2) regular smokers will go to the pub less, thereby reducing the incidence of drink-related crime

3) working in pubs and clubs will become much more enjoyable because of the better atmosphere, and will attract more people

4) people living near pubs will continue to be kept awake at night while drunk people laugh and have a smoke outside the pub in summer, but will catch up on sleep during the winter, thereby reducing the effects of SAD on the nation

5) walking past pubs with people standing outside will draw attention to the venue and make it appear popular, thereby increasing the proitability of the business

6) the areas around pubs will continue to be strewn with litter and fag-ends

7) bouncers will be able to search people going in and out, but the extra time it takes will persuade more people not to smoke on their nights out

8 ) tourists (esp. Americans) will be attracted to non-smoking venues and will enjoy staring at us lot outside on the pavement while they "soak in the rich culture of funny little Britain"

Edited February 17, 2006 by chucky.egg

[Guest fraser]

I was agreeing with you right up until...

The image of a damp, frustrated smoker pummeling passers-by with a soggy fag packet drowned out anything you said that may have made sense.

As a victim of a 100% random serious assault under similar circumstances, I can't agree. Part of the benefit of pubs is that they keep some people off the streets!!

2) regular smokers will go to the pub less, thereby reducing the incidence of drink-related crime

Locking up the whole country would reduce the incidence of drink-related crime. So would exterminating most racial minorities. Gotta look at the bright side of your totalitarism I suppose!! :)

3) working in pubs and clubs will become much more enjoyable because of the better atmosphere, and will attract more people

Most folk I know that work in pubs smoke. And they have no issues hiring, there are plenty of people looking for work.

Oh, no-smoking pubs actually are a worse atmosphere. The smoke hides a multitude of sins. Stale booze stinks and the carpets are covered in spills. Many of the punters themselves are quite smelly. You'll see what I mean when it happens...

4) people living near pubs will continue to be kept awake at night while drunk people laugh and have a smoke outside the pub in summer, but will catch up on sleep during the winter, thereby reducing the effects of SAD on the nation

lol, is it that bad? I know better than to live above a busy pub, so I'm not that familiar with the problems. I just assumed chucking-out time would be noisy. A club here used to give out lollipops to people leaving. Kept them quiet. Must have been a parents idea! :D

But the noise will get far worse, it has done everywhere this has been done. New York was especially bad.

5) walking past pubs with people standing outside will draw attention to the venue and make it appear popular, thereby increasing the proitability of the business

You kidding? It puts me off! Hell, bouncers put me off, why do they need bouncers? OK, I can understand one to keep kids out, but when you have three big knuckle draggers on the door that's not where I want to be spending my time.

6) the areas around pubs will continue to be strewn with litter and fag-ends

Oh, it'll get far worse!! Pubs empty a lot of ash each night. That's going on your doorstep now! About 5% of my office smokes and if the special bin is full, the ground becomes a mess in no time. Say 10 smokers with five fixes a day, that's 50 fag ends. That's quite a mess, from one day. When people drink, they tend to smoke more, and there will be more than ten of them. Say at least 100 fag ends on the street each night.

Hey, theres a positive. Pubs will put in special bins and the tramps can raid them for the soggy dogends. Think of the tramps, PLEASE won't someone think of the tramps!! :)

7) bouncers will be able to search people going in and out, but the extra time it takes will persuade more people not to smoke on their nights out

Not convinced, I used to do a lot of clubbing and logistically it's not possible. Just searching people on their one traditional entrace causes queues at clubs to get in. No way could you search all the smokers. And how do you deal with who's paid to get in? Tickets? With drunk people? Please!! In fact, some of the pubs/clubs here in Glasgow are going to have a hard time of it; many are basement clubs and simply do not have anywhere you could go without leaving the whole building!!

Oh, and it's illegal to drink on the street, so you have to leave your drinks inside. I'm buying shares in the company that makes Rohypnol (a date rape drug).

8 ) tourists (esp. Americans) will be attracted to non-smoking venues and will enjoy staring at us lot outside on the pavement while they "soak in the rich culture of funny little Britain"

Funny, every no smoking pub I've been in was practically empty. There is no market for no smoking pubs and those who think that a ban will encourage more people to go out are delusional. The "non-smokers" are generally heathly people, and drinking is frowned upon now. There simply aren't enough "non-smoking drinkers who don't go out due to smoke" to make a difference. And frankly, with those whining intolerant people going to the pub, I'm not so sure I want to go now... :D

If Americans are put off by smoking then smoking should be mandatory :D

[Guest mike-oh]

Just out of interest, how many of you smokers actually dispose of your fag ends properly (ie a bin/ashtray) as opposed to treating Britain as your own ashtray (ie littering)?

[Guest Alex_le_brit]

I do, I'm always searching for an ashtray... oh but wait I live in France.