"Thick black smoke" from Diesel engines is FAR from harmless: http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg286.htm and So if you see a vehicle belching black smoke, it hasn't been looked after properly, has a **** load of nasties in the exhaust, and the gases and particulates are more than likely carcinogenic.
I smoked from the age of 12 until I was 22. I really did enjoy it at the time, but now 4 years after giving up I must say that I do find it absolutely disgusting to go out for a few pints of an evening and to come back absolutely minging of fags. I do support a ban in places like pubs and restaurants, but I can also understand where the owners of such places are coming from when they say that they will lose business. I live in a town in Scotland where there are more pubs than any other business (one of the reasons I moved here ) and if the Scottish parliament have their way most of these pubs will lose a lot of their business. But the owners of such drinking establishments also have to understand that an increasing majority of the population are now non-smokers and therefore will have different demands than the generation of drinkers previous to this one. Blimey I sound half intelligent!!!
i think it is a slippery slope that we dont need the government to run down. I have no problem with a pub/taver/bar/store/food place/whatever saying you cant smoke here. Thats fine, if they want to risk lossing some customers (and in every case study they gain customers) that is there choice. But i dont want the government to say you cant smoke in a X. whats to stop them in a few years from saying you cant smoke in Y? or you cant smoke at all? what about you cant drink beer any more? what about you cant have a fast car? it is just a slippery slope we dont need to go down. and no i dont smoke any more, and i tend to go to resteraunts more offten if they are completly non-smoking. But thats my choice and the owners choice, not a law.
Why would a complete ban on smoking be a bad thing? It does no good whatsoever for anyone except multinational companies who make a killing (literally) out of people's addictions... And don't try and compare drinking to smoking. If I have a pint that's my choice- but why should I have the "right" to force everyone else in the room to drink too? Personally I find it very hard to believe that Pubs will lose a terrific volume of business- drinking is such an ingrained part of British society that there's no way people are going to stop going to the pub just because they can't inhale a foul smelling carcinogenic substance whilst there! Anyway, even if we did experience a cutback in the level of drinking in this country- would that be such a bad thing either? There are more important things than profits Sam
There was a study here in NY State, where we've had a public smoking ban in place for a while now, that the vast majority of bars, pubs and clubs have experienced an increase in business since the ban was in effect. It makes complete sense if you think about it. I mean, people (like myself) who never really went out because of being inundated by second hand smoke will go to these places now. I hated going out to a bar with friends and coughing up a lung the following day.
IF they use public health as a reason to ban smoking, they can do the same thing with drinking, because how many people are killed each year from drunks? this all so would apply to fast cars (like mine) they could say we all have to drive smart car's or other micro/mini underpowered vehicles and limite the max speed to say 55kmph simply to save lives, because speed kills. and while you dont force anyone else in the room to drink with you, you do force everyone else on the roads to do something to avoid you as you (and others) drive massivly impared even if they are not drunk. and while i do "force" others to smoke when i smoke (dont any more remember!(3 years and counting Yah me)) there has been no link to second hand smoke and cancer. I also think that if there was a ban because the owners want it, they might get a boost in customers, but they might not. There was a ban in Washington state (just one county) and alot of pubs almost went out of bussiness becuase everyone just went to the next county. If you think cutting back on drinking would not be a bad think, why stop there, lets outlaw fat, and deep frying foods, what about spicy food because of the gas issue? How far will you allow you rights to degrade, before you do something?
Absolutely. I avoid pubs for the same reason. I seem to be allergic to cigarette smoke: when I walk into a smokey room I turn into Kermit the Frog (green skin, bulging, watery eyes, croaking voice, the works). My scalp starts to itch like crazy. I have to have a shower the same evening, and I have to change clothes. I cannot stand the stuff. If you're in your own home, or out on the street, hey, smoke 'em if you got 'em. But in enclosed public spaces, I feel it is inconsiderate and an intrusion on other people's health and wellbeing.
Thinking about it I think smoking should be banned in clubs as well as restaurants. I hate meeting girls in clubs who taste of fags. Actually, if they only banned smoking for females under the age of 25, thats cool with me.
Agreed. The problem is that many smokers didn't feel the same way and when the ban went into effect, they were screaming discrimination.
Drunk people are responsible for an infinitessimal number of fatalities when compared to smoking related deaths... The difference being that driving actually has a useful purpose. What purpose does smoking serve? Yeah, but we're talking about a whole country here. People won't be able to go to another county to drink... People have a "right" to do whatever they want with their own bodies- but they have no right whatsoever to inflict that on anyone else. Sam
In June 2002 the International Agency for Research on Cancer analysed all the significant published evidence relating to tobacco smoking and cancer – covering data from 12 European countries. The panel of experts – which included eminent Cancer Research UK researchers Sir Richard Doll and Professor Richard Peto – identified passive smoking as a cause of lung cancer and concluded that second hand smoke is carcinogenic to humans. They estimated that non-smokers who are exposed to second hand smoke are between 20 and 30 per cent more likely to develop lung cancer.
...and just to add to the above arguments... Smoking has more than 50 ways of making life a misery through illness and more than 20 ways of killing you. In general, smokers endure poorer health than non-smokers. Estimates are that, in England, 364,000 patients are admitted to NHS hospitals each year due to diseases caused by smoking. This translates into 7,000 hospital admissions per week, or 1,000 a day(!). Half of all teenagers who are currently smoking will die from diseases caused by tobacco if they continue to smoke. One in two long-term smokers will die prematurely as a result of smoking – half of these in middle age. The most recent estimates show that around 106,000 people in the UK are killed by smoking every year, accounting for one fifth of all UK deaths. Admittedly, alcohol is a problem too: there are approximately 33,000 alcohol -related deaths a year in Great Britain; Alcohol is involved in 15% of traffic deaths, 26% of drowning and 39% of deaths in fires. One in 4 acute male hospital admissions is related to alcohol. Drinking above the recommended limits is the commonest cause of high blood pressure and increases the risk of stroke and heart disease. About 3% of all cancers are attributable to alcohol. About 65% of suicide attempts are linked to heavy drinking. Alcohol is a factor in 40% of domestic violence incidents. Alcohol is a factor in a third of child abuse cases. Heavy drinking is a common factor in family break-up --marriages where one or both partners have a drink problem are twice as likely to end in divorce as marriages where alcohol problems are absent. Offender or victim have been drinking in 65% of murders and 75% of stabbings. 25% of accidents at work involve intoxicated workers. Up to 14 million working days are lost each year due to alcohol related problems. The reason people don't pounce on alcohol quite as severely as on cigarettes, is that moderate alcohol consumption doesn't harm you (--in moderation it is even good for you: drinking 2-3 units a day gives a slightly lower blood pressure than teetotallers and reduces risk of heart disease), whereas even moderate smoking does damage. Of course being drunk and disorderly is a problem to others, as is being drunk at work or drunk behind the wheel of a car, and as such all these behaviours are penalised. We do have speed restrictions for that reason. And driving tests. And penalties for reckless driving. Hey, perhaps we should have penalties for "reckless smoking"! I think :: kna :: covered that one nicely. Rights and responsibility go hand in hand. You cannot have one without the other. You want to smoke? Go right ahead, just don't affect others with it. You want to drink? Be my guest, just don't bother others with your reckless drunken behaviour (like driving drunk, being drunk and disorderly etc.). You want to eat fried food and become overweight? Again, not my problem --as long as you foot the hospital bill for the treatment of your malnourishment and obesity related illnesses. 1000 hospital admissions a day are due to smoking. 1 in 4 acute male hospital admissions due to drinking too much. 1442 admissions a year due to obesity (usually treated on outpatient basis, it costs the NHS about £480 million a year. A surgeon colleague of mine explained that to opearate on an obese person requires a special operating table, room --with reinforced floor to support the patient and the bigger table-- equipment and even special training for staff). Imagine the resource drain on the health care service. Imagine how much more health care services could do for the population if people didn't smoke or drink or eat excessively. Now I don't wish to pontificate, but I don't smoke. I watch what I eat, I drink moderately (and I do NOT, under ANY circustance, drive after even ONE drink), I look after myself. I have to --high cholesterol runs in my family, big time, and it landed right on my genes. When I found out, did I just shrug and tuck into my burger with fries and think: "Hey, I pay taxes, the NHS will cure me if it comes to that"? No. I took responsibility. I read up and found out what I can do to reduce the risk of heart disease. I struck certain foods off the menu, no matter how much I like them (and Ben & Jerry's was a great sacrifice, trust me) and changed my diet. I limit my drinking. I never smoked. The NHS may have to bail me out (I certainly am on lifelong medication) but I do my bit where I can. Life and the world don't owe us. They were here first.
I just wish more people were like that. Currently no one is responsible for their own problems - all they want to do is continue as they are after throwing the blame at somebody else. In the end, the only people really benefitting from this situation are lawyers.
don't smoke (never have), and do support the ban. it's obvious smokers have no will power, we need to give them some help stopping.
I smoke, and i think banning smoking in enclosed public places is fair enough, before i started smoking i used to hate having to passive smoke. Banning smoking in the streets and so on is just silly tho..
i know this point was made a while ago - but up here, since they put the ban in that took it away from bars and such, their buisness has plumetted. What's worse is the buisnesses who have invested hundreds of thousands into the new dedicated smoking rooms, and were never told that these would only have a few short years run. As to cigarette smoke being a carcinogen, diesel fumes being a carcinogen blah blah blah. EVERYTHING is pretty much a carcinogen now-a-days - it's pretty much the cost of industry. And until everything is pretty much "clean" we are always going to be immersed in it every single day of our lives. Finally as to a total ban, it just doesnt seem right to me. I know that non-smokers have rights too as i am one, but so do smokers. The dedicated smoking room concept is one that works, bar one issue - you'll have to put up with somebody sitting at your table that smells like smoke.
Oxygen, as a matter of fact, is a carcinogen; just one we have developed a good resistance to and learned to exploit (and eventually have become dependent on) in out metabolic processes. But the very first lifeforms on earth would have been killed off stone dead if any free oxygen were about at that time. However be that as it may, you can't argue with 20% of all deaths in the UK being smoking related. A lot of things are carcinogens, but cigarettes are pretty much up there with toxic waste, radioactive fall-out and the rest. I agree that having a dedicated smoking room would be enough of a anti-smoking measure. And smokers have rights --but thenagain these come accompanied by responsibilities. Smokers already pay a surcharge on life insurance, but perhaps they should also pay extra contributions to the NHS. Perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to smoke with their young children present; they have rights, too. Perhaps, if they really take responsibility, there won't be any need for draconian ban measures...
true enough, but isnt is sort of ironic that for generations this was an okay thing and is suddenly vilanified. I'm sure that if we didnt stop it after a few hundered (or thousand) years it would be good for us in some way or another, but for now it does indeed have adverse affets. Granted, there is the issue of responsibility, rights and respect, but that's also a personal thing. There's bound to be a good amount of people that are ingrained with the ideal that it's their right to smoke when and where they want, and since their parents did it, they have no heistation in stopping it too.
I don't think it will necessarily force the other regions in the UK to ban smoking. When I lived in the city (Albuquerque, NM), they passed a smoking ban. This didn't affect the suburb towns, like the one I live in now, at all. You can still smoke like a chimney out here. I am in favor of smoking bans because they are a happy medium. The smoker is not denied the right to smoke (he can still go outside), but everybody else isn't denied the right of not having to sit and endure it in silent misery. If the other regions in the UK decide to pass a similar ban, it will be because they were encouraged by a good idea, not because they were forced to do it.
