Smoking in England banned from July 1st...

[RedPop4]

I never had that choice before though. [huh]

I understand both points of view in this one, I totally understand the smokers because pretty much all my friends smoke, so unless I want to sit indoors on my own, I'm out in the cold and wet with the smokers (what a wonderful English summer we're having). But I can now breath easier, and not stink of other peoples smoke. It's not an easy one to solve, and I don't exactly support peoples decisions being made for them, yet I do understand why it's swung in favour of the non-smoker. Surely breathing clear air is more essential, than breathing cigarette smoke? I know I've always felt sorry for people working in bars and clubs who don't smoke.. they don't even get the choice to stay at home that I had.

Sure they get a choice. They can choose to work ELSEWHERE. I don't know about the UK, but here in the U.S. as Elaina recounted earlier in this thread, a vast majority of food-service employees smoke, and in copious fashion.

More emotion, little fact.

 

[TheKitschGoth]

Sure they get a choice. They can choose to work ELSEWHERE. I don't know about the UK, but here in the U.S. as Elaina recounted earlier in this thread, a vast majority of food-service employees smoke, and in copious fashion.

More emotion, little fact.

Yep, new job, just like that. Easy right? I know a lot of my friends have got bar work on top of their day jobs (usually retail) just so they can earn enough to just about rent and eat. But that's a whole other argument. And yes a fair few of them smoke, but not all.

In an ideal world everyone would work in their ideal job, and do what they liked without it affect anyone else in a bad way. Unfortunately it doesn't work like that. Yes the choice is there, in theory, in practice it's not always like that.

 

[warbird]

Sure they get a choice. They can choose to work ELSEWHERE. I don't know about the UK, but here in the U.S. as Elaina recounted earlier in this thread, a vast majority of food-service employees smoke, and in copious fashion.

More emotion, little fact.

:eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap

 

[TheKitschGoth]

I am quite certain, that there were places like this beforehand... It's not enough to have places not allow smoking on their own, so that people can make a choice of where to spend their money that way you can go somewhere where your "throat is not feeling like you've swallowed sandpaper" [sic] and let others go where they will to pursue their past times.

I never actually found anywhere, and honestly I would love for the smoking ban to be dumped and to find somewhere I can go that doesn't allow smoking. I can't say I'm too happy about being called a "bigot" for wanting that. I will repeat again, I am not 100% keen on the smoking ban and would like people to be free to choose.

I mean, the way those lads sing and enjoy themselves supporting their side, I'd bet that 95% of those chaps go home with "throats feeling like" they've "swallowed sandpaper."

And I've been to many gigs where I've screamed my throat raw, but that was my choice. Breathing other people's smoke isn't.

There are a lot of things out there that aren't "the healthiest thing" but we don't go banning all of it, it's patently ridiculous to suggest it.

Obviously. I've done no end of damage to by body so far through totally unhealthy things, but it's always been my choice. I don't choose to inhale other peoples smoke.

Now just in case you missed it. I. Do. Not. 100%. Support. The. Ban.

I just understand the non smoking side of the argument, and felt like playing devils advocate to your argument.

 

[dundeedavie]

So, should crowd participation at football matches be curtailed? I mean, the way those lads sing and enjoy themselves supporting their side, I'd bet that 95% of those chaps go home with "throats feeling like" they've "swallowed sandpaper." Imagine--non singing football grounds. I like it. I'm for banning singing at football matches. Better get that CD of "You'll Never Walk Alone" NOW, because if I have my way, it'll end. I've gone to too many gridiron matches here in the U. S., and baseball games, too, where I've yelled and screamed and given myself a sore throat. I can't take it any more. I think we need a government BAN to protect me and those around me who have to endure my ear-splitting second-hand yelling.

just a quick point as this thread was originally about the UK ..... at football matches in the UK the chanting is often sectarian (scotland in particular) , very racially motivated , downright vicious and hate filled quite often ending in violence of the highest order , and yes i have the scars to prove it , one in particular being 6 inches long ...... maybe banning it wouldn't be that bad a idea

 

[MudInYerEye]

Aw Pop, you've convinced me with your facts. From now on I am going to smoke copiously and continuously no matter who objects to second hand smoke because completely objective medical surveys say that it does not cause cancer and if it bothers the anti-smoking bigots screw 'em anyway because who cares what they think, it's my opinion that matters no matter what the majority thinks? Lady, I don't give a hang that you have children present, and sir your asthma means nothing to me. I am a real free-thinking he-man. I am a true American. Liberty or death! Right on!

 

[nightandthecity]

Facts are troublesome, ain't they? lol

Indeed they are. Here are a few.

It is a fact that the majority of studies have shown passive smoking to be harmful. That the majority of scientists and doctors believe this to be the case. That no matter how solid the consensus in any area of enquiry there will always be some dissenters. That quoting those dissenters in isolation is no way to try and reach a meaningful conclusion. That the one thing linking most dissenting studies is that they were funded by the tobacco industry.

I could respond by simply posting a load of links to mainstream studies and criticisms of the material you have posted. But I suspect you wouldn’t read them. I’ll content myself with linking to this wikipedia article on passive smoking, which fairly neatly summarizes all points of view and includes a disussion of the articles you have quoted, the WHO report, the Enstrom/Kabat study etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking

It would certainly be a wonderful thing if passive smoking were harmless. That way we could all carry on smoking without harming ourselves by the simple expedient of NOT PUTTING THE CIGGY IN OUR GOBS! You could light up a fag, place it on the table, and then just casually inhale the fumes. This would indeed be a miracle equivalent to transubstantiation.

 

[RedPop4]

Are you averring, then, that the Wall Street Journal, The Economist and The Telegraph are funded by the tobacco industry? Are you also asserting that the vaunted World Health Organization is a front for "big tobacco?" I would definitely like to see some documentation to support those claims. The fact is the two main smoking studies of the past twenty years have yielded results that non-smokers don't want to hear. The WHO's findings undercut the entire argument that passive smoke is killing everyone in it's wake, and the U.S.' EPA study had foregone conclusions so that the empirical data was gathered in a way to ensure those conclusions. "A majority of doctors BELIEVE this to be the case." With all of the facts you have at your disposal, they don't KNOW? They only BELIEVE? I find that funny, especially in light of your last insulting sentence.

As a reference librarian at a university, I can tell you that Wiki is not considered a solid resource.None of the instrutctors here, accept Wiki as reference work. It's too easily manipulated, anyone can create a userID and subsequently edit the entries. I could also say that might be able to dig up facts and that you would ignore them, as well, in the same manner you accuse me.

As for your last paragraph, as a devout Roman Catholic, I really liked your little "transubstantiation" dig which is a shot at the heart of my faith. To be fair, you had no realization this would occur, but instead, like most, find the Romans an easy target, much like smokers, who for whatever reasons, don't get the same level of protection in contemporary political discourse, unlike many other "minorities." Seems I'm at the wrong end of many things, and that even defending is somehow anathema.

The bartenders have told me this topic is a divisive one, and that most of the time the issue is discussed, it ends up being removed. I would hope that my tone, in response to the anti-smoking zealots has been illustrative. I've been aiming to make my points in the same manner that most smokers are treated in debate as well as out in public. The line about "STICKING ONE IN MY GOB" was really appreciated. It seems my reductio ad absurdem has gone unnoticed, and my point not made. My apologies Bartenders, for making your work a bit more difficult.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

ah well, it was fun while it lasted.

bk

 

[Edward]

ETA: Better ventilation could achieve the same thing, and that would be wonderful, but doesn't change the fact that other peoples smoke isn't good for me to breath

Still does nothing about the stench, though - and quite honestly, I've never fonud anywhere - not a single venue - where that didn't happen.

FWIW, I'm not sure if things are different in the US, but in the UK certainly I never encountered nor even heard of a pub going non-smoking prior to the ban being discussed (though once passed, there was talk of some places gonig non-smoking ahead of it comnig into force). I don't recall ever having a choice. I certainly didn't have a choice at the many gigs I've been to over the years when folks lit up and I went home with the smell on me. I even found that several times in one venue where the ventilation was so strong I wouldn't have been aware of the folks smoking at the next table if I'd not seen it, I still went home with clothes stinking of it. Quite honestly, for me personally that's probably a more immediate issue than the controversial health risks of passive smoking.

That's a typical emotion-laden, facts-be-damned argument if ever I heard one.

To be fair, I've found that the majority of the argument beingp ushed by the pro-smoking lobby on this one is wholly emotional, mostly to do with "rights", "liberties" and other such buzzwords. Ultimately it's all going to be personal opinion, but leaving aside the health issue, smoking still impinges considerably on those of us who don't. Quite bluntly, a smoker can choose to smell of smoke - we can't. I really don't see whay it is being taken as such a huge affront to be asked to step outside for as long as it takes to smoke a cigarette. It's not as if they're banning smoking altogether.

I am quite certain, that there were places like this beforehand.

Non-smoking pubs? It's possible they existed, but alas I was never able to find a single one in the UK. Things may be different in the US.

But that's never good enough for most bigots. Oh no.

It seems to me rather absurd to adopt the terminology of "bigot" here - not appreciating someone smoking around you is hardly to be equated with prejudcial attitudes adopted on grounds of race / religion / sexuality.

The lack of compromise on this issue is really disheartening and scary.

On the contrary, the whole premise is a compromise. No one is forcing anyone not to smoke - smokers are merely being obliged to compromise a little on where they do it so that it is not affecting the vast majority (70%) of the adult population of the UK who do not smoke. I expect it's simply a matter of personal perspectives and we'd never agree on this, but I simply don't see the imposition in being asked to step outside for five minutes to have a cigarette.

It's not enough to have places not allow smoking on their own,

This was not happening in the UK in some sectors. Yes - theatres, corporate buildings and libraries; no, I never encountered it in a pub, music venue, club, or restaurant.

so that people can make a choice of where to spend their money that way you can go somewhere where your "throat is not feeling like you've swallowed sandpaper" [sic] and let others go where they will to pursue their past times. Nope. Sorry, can't do that. Non-smokers want to be able to go ANYWHERE THEY PLEASE, THE SMOKERS BE DAMNED.

Equally, it seems, you as a smoker seem to be very keen to go anywhere you please, the non-smokers be damned - quite clearly so, actually, otherwise it seems to me you wouldn't feel so passionate about this. And hey, it's not as if they're refusing to let smokers in to these places now. you just have to step outside for a smoke. You can still go anywhere you please....

 

[Baron Kurtz]

FWIW, I'm not sure if things are different in the US, but in the UK certainly I never encountered nor even heard of a pub going non-smoking prior to the ban being discussed (though once passed, there was talk of some places gonig non-smoking ahead of it comnig into force). I don't recall ever having a choice.

The Ferryboat in Tottenham has been non-smoking for quite a while. certainly since i've been here (March) and since the baroness has been here (last Sept)

What d'ya mean Tottenham is out of the way? Hub of civilisation, i tells ya!

bk

 

[Edward]

The Ferryboat in Tottenham has been non-smoking for quite a while. certainly since i've been here (March) and since the baroness has been here (last Sept)

What d'ya mean Tottenham is out of the way? Hub of civilisation, i tells ya!

bk

I wonder when they brought that in? I don't remember there ever being a non-smoking bar as such ,but I do remember a few places being quoted as saying they were going to do it ahead from when the ban was first being debated. Intersting to hear of one that actually went through with it!

I've got a couple of friends that live in the 'Nam, though I don't think they've ever mentioned the Ferryboat, mustn't be their end of things.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Quite a while ago by the looks of things. The signs seem to have gathered quite a bit of dust. They do a lot of food business . . . families, sunday roasts, that kind of thing so maybe that's the reason. I'll ask next time i'm down there when they crossed over.

It's a very nice bar, in fact. overlooks the canal and the reservoirs. A haven of nature in built up post-industrial wasteland.

bk

 

[LocktownDog]

I recall reading somewhere recently that a car idling for 5 minutes puts out the same toxins as 20,000 burning cigarettes.

I don't know what that really has to do with the topic on hand. I just found it interesting. I know that I for one would like to see more emissions controls.

Alrighty ... back on topic then. You boys can resume the verbal beatings.

Richard

 

[nightandthecity]

Are you averring, then, that the Wall Street Journal, The Economist and The Telegraph are funded by the tobacco industry? Are you also asserting that the vaunted World Health Organization is a front for "big tobacco?" I would definitely like to see some documentation to support those claims. The fact is the two main smoking studies of the past twenty years have yielded results that non-smokers don't want to hear. The WHO's findings undercut the entire argument that passive smoke is killing everyone in it's wake, and the U.S.' EPA study had foregone conclusions so that the empirical data was gathered in a way to ensure those conclusions. "A majority of doctors BELIEVE this to be the case." With all of the facts you have at your disposal, they don't KNOW? They only BELIEVE? I find that funny, especially in light of your last insulting sentence.

As a reference librarian at a university, I can tell you that Wiki is not considered a solid resource.None of the instrutctors here, accept Wiki as reference work. It's too easily manipulated, anyone can create a userID and subsequently edit the entries. I could also say that might be able to dig up facts and that you would ignore them, as well, in the same manner you accuse me.

As for your last paragraph, as a devout Roman Catholic, I really liked your little "transubstantiation" dig which is a shot at the heart of my faith. To be fair, you had no realization this would occur, but instead, like most, find the Romans an easy target, much like smokers, who for whatever reasons, don't get the same level of protection in contemporary political discourse, unlike many other "minorities." Seems I'm at the wrong end of many things, and that even defending is somehow anathema.

The bartenders have told me this topic is a divisive one, and that most of the time the issue is discussed, it ends up being removed. I would hope that my tone, in response to the anti-smoking zealots has been illustrative. I've been aiming to make my points in the same manner that most smokers are treated in debate as well as out in public. The line about "STICKING ONE IN MY GOB" was really appreciated. It seems my reductio ad absurdem has gone unnoticed, and my point not made. My apologies Bartenders, for making your work a bit more difficult.

I had been following this thread for a while before I posted, and deliberately not getting involved, for two reasons. Firstly, I try to avoid FL modern political threads (which this is: it doesn’t have to be based on party politics or a left/right dichotomy to be political). Secondly, my own position on this issue is not a simple one. So before anything else let me make my own position clear.

I am not a non-smoker: I am an occasional smoker and if I didn’t believe (sorry, think) the practice was seriously dangerous I would be a regular smoker. I actually like the smell of tobacco, and consider a nice smoky atmosphere to be a central feature of the ambience of a traditional pub, and I am very fond of traditional pubs. Moreover, I am against the UK ban for the following reason: society is moving away from smoking, and communities, groups, and individuals have been quietly re-negotiating the ettiquette and rules re smoking for several decades. Most workplaces and eating establishments are already non-smoking. Where I live at least, many pubs are either non-smoking or have separate smoking and non-smoking areas. It seems to me that this kind of organic evolution is much preferable to a one-size-fits all government ban, which inevitably produces anomolies like suppressing cigar clubs.

So I am not a non-smoking “bigot”. Ironically, in the final analysis I am on your side. My objection was to your presentation of some distorted and long discredited newspaper reports as if this was the scientific “truth” or the final say on the issue of passive smoking. I am afraid the overwhelming scientific consensus is that passive smoking is very, very bad for you.

In general I am inclined to agree with you about Wiki. It is fine for the purely factual, but definitely has to be treated with caution re anything at all controversial. However, the article as it stands at the moment seemed to me quite a good summary of the current state of scientific research and opinion, it includes dissenting voices, and it specifically discusses the articles and studies you cited. Of course, as always with Wiki you need to read the discussion page as well as the article.

I wasn’t expressing an opinion on the doctrine of transubstantiation. As it happens I do think it is irrational mumbo-jumbo, but I think that about all religion. The point I was trying to make would stand even if I was a devout Catholic. Namely this: to deny the dangers of passive smoking is to presume that the substance (fag smoke) somehow undergoes a miraculous transformation and is substantially chemically different when it enters the lungs of the smoker from when it enters the lungs of those around him. Of course, if you are arguing that smoking as such is harmless that‘s another issue.

You seem to have misread and misunderstood the fag in gob comment. It looks clear enough to me, but like most people I don’t always manage to get my point across as coherently as I’d like.

 

[nightandthecity]

I recall reading somewhere recently that a car idling for 5 minutes puts out the same toxins as 20,000 burning cigarettes.

I don't know what that really has to do with the topic on hand. I just found it interesting. I know that I for one would like to see more emissions controls.

Alrighty ... back on topic then. You boys can resume the verbal beatings.

Richard

that is actually another reason why I am sceptical about government smoking bans. Given the scale of pollution from the motor car, industry etc it always seems to me that the obsession with smoking bans is a convenient way of appearing to be "doing something" whilst avoiding the real issues. It is a lot easier to attack the increasingly unpopular habit of a minority of private individuals than to attack the car industry.

 

[Fridaynight]

The car industry is continuously being smacked with more and more regulations for emissions. It's even getting to the point where they're trying to design cars that do the driving for you, so that you can't put the throttle to the floor, etc.
Every single year vehicle emission standards go up, so it's not a non-issue. It just isn't as divisive as smoking, so they don't mention it much.

 

[tinmanzzz]

My objection was to your presentation of some distorted and long discredited newspaper reports as if this was the scientific “truth” or the final say on the issue of passive smoking. I am afraid the overwhelming scientific consensus is that passive smoking is very, very bad for you.

It was a good thing for us on the other side of the POND, that Christopher Columbus didn't believe the overwhelming scientific consensus that the Earth was flat. Or Chuck Yeager didn't accept the overwhelming scientific consensus that the sound barrier couldn't be broken.

 

[nightandthecity]

The car industry is continuously being smacked with more and more regulations for emissions. It's even getting to the point where they're trying to design cars that do the driving for you, so that you can't put the throttle to the floor, etc.
Every single year vehicle emission standards go up, so it's not a non-issue. It just isn't as divisive as smoking, so they don't mention it much.

I suppose I should have said “the car” rather than the “car industry”. Yes, the industry is heavily regulated, but despite this the internal combustion engine remains the biggest source of air pollution in the UK.

I’m not trying to defend smoking, it is a dangerous and unhealthy habit, but I am not convinced that spending the night in a smoky pub is worse for you that spending the day in the polluted air of our streets. On a purely personal level, I have had asthma attacks on particularly smoggy days in the city streets, but I’ve never had one down the pub.

The point I was trying to make is that the car is a much bigger threat to public health than smoking. But as most people own one, and as our culture and economy is increasingly dependent on them, no government is going to seriously tackle the issue. Smokers on the other hand are now a shrinking minority and so an easy target. Smoking bans look like the state is doing something positive to protect public health - though privately negotiated smoking bans in public places were spreading rapidly anyway, and would almost certainly have been the norm in a few years.

 

[nightandthecity]

It was a good thing for us on the other side of the POND, that Christopher Columbus didn't believe the overwhelming scientific consensus that the Earth was flat. Or Chuck Yeager didn't accept the overwhelming scientific consensus that the sound barrier couldn't be broken.

Knowledge is always advancing. There is no guarantee that the scientific consensus on anything is correct, but it makes much more sense for the layman to accept that consensus than to simply believe whatever they want to believe, because that consensus is far more likely to be correct.

The scientific majority view of the Columbus era was that the earth was round. In fact this had been known for centuries.

I don’t think there was any consensus re the sound barrier. It was open question. Which is why all the major powers of the 1940s were trying to develop aircraft that could break the barrier. That is the scientific method, pose the question and experiment to see what happens.