Wales stubs out smoking in public places

[JPaul]

http://www.virginmedia.com/news/uk/uk-story.php?storyid=5498920


Smoking in public places in Wales has become illegal ahead of the English ban in July.

Any smokers caught lighting up now face a £50 fine and the Assembly Government has embarked on an advertising and publicity campaign to warn people about the ban.

English smokers will not have to stub out their cigarettes until July 1 and a backbench bid to delay the Welsh ban and bring both sides of the border into line was defeated in the Assembly earlier this year.

Ministers say the three smoke-free months could save 100 lives as passive smoking kills 400 people a year in Wales.

Wales was the first part of the UK to call for a ban, but because of the Assembly's limited law-making powers it had to wait until Parliament passed legislation last year.

Landlords and managers who do not display adequate no-smoking signs will be fined £200. They will face a fine of up to £2,500 if they allow people to smoke on their premises.

Anyone issued with a penalty notice can challenge it in court in the same way as a speeding ticket.

Health minister Brian Gibbons said: "I would be shocked if there is anybody who this is likely to affect in Wales who doesn't know that the ban is coming in."

The Scottish Executive heralded its year-old ban as a success last week when it said there had been more than 46,000 attempts to quit smoking since it began.

I've already said my piece re the ban in Scotland. In short, I think that it's a good thing, however I do see arguments on both sides.

[lynx]

Ministers say the three smoke-free months could save 100 lives as passive smoking kills 400 people a year in Wales.Anyone want to bet that there's absolutely no proof to back that up?

How many jobs and businesses are going to be lost over a ban that few wanted at this level? Most people expected a compromise situation, with enforced smoke free areas. Once again though this government has shown that it is really just a movement for bullies. I'm hardly surprised at those I find to be its backers.

The Irish are now finding many pub closures due to lack of business. Where are all the people who said they avoided pubs because of the smoky atmosphere? Were they invented, or simply liars?

[Busyman™]

Is it possible to make private clubs for smokers?

I don't like catching sidestream smoke but I think that banning it in bars is ridiculous.

I can see it now, some poor owner sets up a private club and some fuckhead non-smoker claims he should be let in and basically tries to close the place with legal action.

Hell make bar owners have to outfit their place with some overly great ventilation system. It's better than them closing the fuck down.

[vidcc]

Ministers say the three smoke-free months could save 100 lives as passive smoking kills 400 people a year in Wales.Anyone want to bet that there's absolutely no proof to back that up?



I'm guessing it's an average figure taken from documented statistics, however with something like smoking in public it's not purely a personal choice. The smoker gets to decide if he wants to take the risk, the non smoker has the choice made for him.

You absolutely have the right to smoke but others have the right not to share your smoke and seeing as they are not the ones inflicting their habit on others I don't see why they should be the ones that have to stay at home to avoid it.

I'm sure someone will bring up car pollution etc etc into the argument but that doesn't reduce the effects of passive smoking.

[Busyman™]

I think there should be smoking bars and non-smoking ones.

If you have the right to fuck off if you don't wanna deal with the smoke.

I think the market should choose.

Obviously there's seems to be a bigger market for smoking pubs than non-smoking ones.

The only thing that seems to have been achieved is shutting down an establishment and that's pretty fucked up.

So much for one's right to not have to be subjected to sidestream smoke in a bar.

Now the bar is gone. Nice going.:ermm: Now you can't subject yourself to the bar.

I think (and have always thought) the bigger picture is that the government just wants to stamp out smoking altogether and this is their fucked up way of going about it.

Why not outlaw it outright and grandfather cigs for current smokers? Shirley lives'll be saved. There'll be tons less new smokers and those that want cigs that are not grandfathered will be driven to an underground market.

It's funny how the US has big court cases about something and then other countries follow suit with action.

Phillip Morris and Microsoft spring to mind.

[vidcc]

Traditional bars have been losing business for years before smoking bans started. Higher prices for beer and changes in the way people socialise in general are all factors. To place all the blame on smoking bans is a bit unfair.

Sure some smokers will stop going to bars, that's their choice. Everyone has their own likes and dislikes. My father stopped going to his local pub (he only ever went on a Sunday afternoon anyway) because they installed a TV and had the football on. His view was that he left the house to have a drink with some friends and to get away from football and TV in general. I know some people that will only go into bars that have the game showing.

how many smokers would appreciate going to a movie theater and have the person next to them talk on their phone through the film?

The onus is on the person that causes the interference not the one suffering it.

[Busyman™]

Traditional bars have been losing business for years before smoking bans started. Higher prices for beer and changes in the way people socialise in general are all factors. To place all the blame on smoking bans is a bit unfair.

Sure some smokers will stop going to bars, that's their choice. Everyone has their own likes and dislikes. My father stopped going to his local pub (he only ever went on a Sunday afternoon anyway) because they installed a TV and had the football on. His view was that he left the house to have a drink with some friends and to get away from football and TV in general. I know some people that will only go into bars that have the game showing.

how many smokers would appreciate going to a movie theater and have the person next to them talk on their phone through the film?

The onus is on the person that causes the interference not the one suffering it.


Mmk. Explain the bar closings after the smoking ban then.

Whatever business they had, shrunk the fuck all.

What would you think about a private smoking only bar? Do you think you have the right to demand membership and then complain about the smoke?

[vidcc]

Mmk. Explain the bar closings after the smoking ban then.

Whatever business they had, shrunk the fuck all.

What would you think about a private smoking only bar? Do you think you have the right to demand membership and then complain about the smoke?

Some bars will lose patronage but as i explained smoking would be just one among many reasons. I would guess that the bars that fell after the bans weren't doing so well before. I know people that prefer to drink at home because they can buy beer cheaper from walmart and don't have to worry about drinking too much.
I remember going into a bar about ten years ago that was the only non smoking bar in the area, it was packed and frankly hard to get to the bar through the crowd. The other bars in the area although not empty were not exactly overflowing.

The complaint that the bars are not suddenly filling up with non smokers that didn't go out before could be because maybe, just maybe those people don't go to bars anyway or the bars are not set up in a way that attracts them.

I would have no problem with member only bars allowing smoking, but if it's open to the general public they should go by the sae rules that apply to all other public places. The ban is public places, not just bars.

[lynx]

The complaint that the bars are not suddenly filling up with non smokers that didn't go out before could be because maybe, just maybe those people don't go to bars anyway or the bars are not set up in a way that attracts them.The whole point is that many of the people who have been pushing for a ban in bars have stated that it is the reason they don't frequent those bars.

The logical follow up is that once they've got their ban they would start to frequent those bars that they previously avoided. However they don't crawl out from under their stones which just proves that their initial objections were false.

[JPaul]

Once again though this government has shown that it is really just a movement for bullies. I'm hardly surprised at those I find to be its backers.



:lol:

Indeed, stopping one group of people killing another because they chose to poison themselves. That's bullying.

Which Government btw. The Westminster one, the Welsh one or the Scottish One. Or maybe the Irish. Don't you just hate it when a small group bullies a large one and forces their desires on them.

[bigboab]

People don't seem to grasp that the 15% loss of trade, I have seen quoted, after a smoking ban is the fact that there is hardly any cigarette sales. The drink sales are probably the same or slightly higher.

I have been visiting the Republic Of Ireland a lot over the last six years. The smoking ban has had very little effect on trade. The new drink driving laws that they are introducing will, however, decimate the industry.

[Chip Monk]

Don't let the facts spoil a perfectly good argument boab.

[manker]

People don't seem to grasp that the 15% loss of trade, I have seen quoted, after a smoking ban is the fact that there is hardly any cigarette sales. The drink sales are probably the same or slightly higher.To think that 15% of a pubs sales is due to cigarette sales is pretty much delusional.

Cigarette sales in UK pubs are almost always done thro' a machine owned by a different company. The pub receives a very low commission or a flat monthly rate for having the machine on its premises. The pub owners don't mind having a facility which makes hardly any money in itself as it saves the smokers leaving the premises to get ciggies (and then possibly venturing to a different drinking establishment).

Only the commission or rental income goes thro' as sales income and, I can assure you, that is nowhere near 15%. More like 0.15%


===

On the subject of the smoking ban in Wales, it's not such a bad thing. Tennants of public houses and lessees won't feel the pinch on any restructuring as most breweries have taken it upon themselves to fund it. Free Houses will obviously be hit more tho'.

The ban works in more ways than one too. People will definitely smoke less now and, therefore, will have more disposable income - people will now be more inclined to give up altogether. Maybe they'll spend the extra they have in pubs. I'm in the pub a fair bit and I seriously don't know anyone who goes to the pub just so they can have a cigarette so I can't see all that many people cutting off their nose to spite their face.

All in all, I think this is probably only a bad thing for people who get settled in their seat and can't be arsed to go outside for a ciggie (read; old people). Young and middle aged smokers won't be put off going to pubs - in fact, the social implications of speaking to different people in the outside smoking wendy house has its own favourable connotations.

If you see what I mean.

[Barbarossa]

Mother-in-law is thinking about quitting, because she will no longer be allowed to smerk in the bingo hall :01:

[Busyman™]

Mmk. Explain the bar closings after the smoking ban then.

Whatever business they had, shrunk the fuck all.

What would you think about a private smoking only bar? Do you think you have the right to demand membership and then complain about the smoke?

Some bars will lose patronage but as i explained smoking would be just one among many reasons. I would guess that the bars that fell after the bans weren't doing so well before. I know people that prefer to drink at home because they can buy beer cheaper from walmart and don't have to worry about drinking too much.
I remember going into a bar about ten years ago that was the only non smoking bar in the area, it was packed and frankly hard to get to the bar through the crowd. The other bars in the area although not empty were not exactly overflowing.

The complaint that the bars are not suddenly filling up with non smokers that didn't go out before could be because maybe, just maybe those people don't go to bars anyway or the bars are not set up in a way that attracts them.

I would have no problem with member only bars allowing smoking, but if it's open to the general public they should go by the sae rules that apply to all other public places. The ban is public places, not just bars.

Right but I said private bar. Not open to the general public.

Regarding your other paragraphs, that still doesn't explain bars that were open for years now closing after the ban.

Saying maybe they weren't doing well in the first place isn't a closed bar.

Pointing out a packed bar you went to 10 years ago was filled with non-smokers says nothing about bars that depend on the patronage of smokers.

Saying that you know people that prefer to drink at home (I'm one of them, btw) says nothing about folks who frequent bars for drink then. You may as well had pointed out that you know people that don't drink.:dabs:

Mind you, I'm not saying bars don't fail on their own (like any other business) but I can see this as a nail in the coffin.

I am in total agreement with the principle of the ban. It's just I can see some nipshit non-smoker demanding entrance to a private bar.

[Cheese]

Ah, so this'll be why manker is coming down to Plymouth this weekend. So he can smoke in a pub...

[vidcc]

Right but I said private bar. Not open to the general public.

Regarding your other paragraphs, that still doesn't explain bars that were open for years now closing after the ban.

Saying maybe they weren't doing well in the first place isn't a closed bar.

Pointing out a packed bar you went to 10 years ago was filled with non-smokers says nothing about bars that depend on the patronage of smokers.

Saying that you know people that prefer to drink at home (I'm one of them, btw) says nothing about folks who frequent bars for drink then. You may as well had pointed out that you know people that don't drink.:dabs:

Mind you, I'm not saying bars don't fail on their own (like any other business) but I can see this as a nail in the coffin.

I am in total agreement with the principle of the ban. It's just I can see some nipshit non-smoker demanding entrance to a private bar.

Bars that were open for years closed before the bans, the point being that the industry has been in a decline for some time. Bars don't just have to serve beer these days to stay competitive. They have to offer other things.

The bars that seem to be doing the most business these days seem to be the "family friendly" ones. The old fashioned pubs where the men went to get away from the wife, get drunk and have a fight have been in decline for a long long time.

My point about the guys drinking at home was that they could do so cheaper and not have to worry about getting home if they have too much. These are all guys that used to go to bars on a regular basis. As prices rose and crack downs on dwi /public intoxication laws etc. they started going less.
What I am basically saying is that some people may stop going to bars because they absolutely are so addicted to smoking they feel they can't go out without it (sad really) but the suggestion that bars are closing solely because of smoking bans is a little bit of a stretch.

[JPaul]

I am in total agreement with the principle of the ban. It's just I can see some nipshit non-smoker demanding entrance to a private bar.

There's problems with the private club thing as well. Part of the argument for non-smoking is to do with staff, suppliers etc. If it was a private club which allowed smoking you would almost also have to have a smokers only policy for staff members and not allow non-smokers on the premises. That would include tax inspectors, people who deliver / repair things, meter readers basically anyone who wanted onto the premises.

That would constitute a restrictive practice, to say nothing of some legal people's rights of entry. There would be legal problems with that.

[Busyman™]

I am in total agreement with the principle of the ban. It's just I can see some nipshit non-smoker demanding entrance to a private bar.

There's problems with the private club thing as well. Part of the argument for non-smoking is to do with staff, suppliers etc. If it was a private club which allowed smoking you would almost also have to have a smokers only policy for staff members and not allow non-smokers on the premises. That would include tax inspectors, people who deliver / repair things, meter readers basically anyone who wanted onto the premises.

That would constitute a restrictive practice, to say nothing of some legal people's rights of entry. There would be legal problems with that.

Staff can't work in a private smoking bar if they don't agree to handle the smoke.
You have a point about tax inspectors, fire marshalls, etc. Appointments can be made.
Suppliers and repairmen have a right to refuse entry much like I do when I'm at work.

Again I'm referring to a private club.

If a repairman comes to my house (private residence), I can smoke up a storm, and he can either work in it or refuse. I might make concessions if I want something fixed or a smoker can be sent over.

[JPaul]

There's problems with the private club thing as well. Part of the argument for non-smoking is to do with staff, suppliers etc. If it was a private club which allowed smoking you would almost also have to have a smokers only policy for staff members and not allow non-smokers on the premises. That would include tax inspectors, people who deliver / repair things, meter readers basically anyone who wanted onto the premises.

That would constitute a restrictive practice, to say nothing of some legal people's rights of entry. There would be legal problems with that.

You have a point about tax inspectors, fire marshalls, etc. Appointments can be made.


They don't have to make appointments, that would defeat the purpose.

[lynx]

You have a point about tax inspectors, fire marshalls, etc. Appointments can be made.


They don't have to make appointments, that would defeat the purpose.That's total bollocks, there are other "hazardous" situations and they have to cope with those.

Btw, you were right earlier, I was wrong to say that it is the government that's at fault, I'll lay the fault firmly at the feet of the Labour Party. They are well versed in bully boy tactics as exercised by the bigger unions.

[Chip Monk]

They don't have to make appointments, that would defeat the purpose.That's total bollocks, there are other "hazardous" situations and they have to cope with those.



Which analagous situations are we talking about.

Oh and it's good to see that no-one has a problem with private clubs having restrictive policies with regard to employment. That's nice.

[Busyman™]

Ah, so this'll be why manker is coming down to Plymouth this weekend. So he can smoke in a pub...

Hell yeah man.




Right but I said private bar. Not open to the general public.

Regarding your other paragraphs, that still doesn't explain bars that were open for years now closing after the ban.

Saying maybe they weren't doing well in the first place isn't a closed bar.

Pointing out a packed bar you went to 10 years ago was filled with non-smokers says nothing about bars that depend on the patronage of smokers.

Saying that you know people that prefer to drink at home (I'm one of them, btw) says nothing about folks who frequent bars for drink then. You may as well had pointed out that you know people that don't drink.:dabs:

Mind you, I'm not saying bars don't fail on their own (like any other business) but I can see this as a nail in the coffin.

I am in total agreement with the principle of the ban. It's just I can see some nipshit non-smoker demanding entrance to a private bar.

Bars that were open for years closed before the bans, the point being that the industry has been in a decline for some time. Bars don't just have to serve beer these days to stay competitive. They have to offer other things.

The bars that seem to be doing the most business these days seem to be the "family friendly" ones. The old fashioned pubs where the men went to get away from the wife, get drunk and have a fight have been in decline for a long long time.

My point about the guys drinking at home was that they could do so cheaper and not have to worry about getting home if they have too much. These are all guys that used to go to bars on a regular basis. As prices rose and crack downs on dwi /public intoxication laws etc. they started going less.
What I am basically saying is that some people may stop going to bars because they absolutely are so addicted to smoking they feel they can't go out without it (sad really) but the suggestion that bars are closing solely because of smoking bans is a little bit of a stretch.

Mmk I never said they were.:huh:



That's total bollocks, there are other "hazardous" situations and they have to cope with those.



Which analagous situations are we talking about.

Oh and it's good to see that no-one has a problem with private clubs having restrictive policies with regard to employment. That's nice.

If one can't deal with a nudie bar, they shouldn't work there.

A woman cannot walk in pubic in the nude but they can even in a bar open to the public.

I doubt the restaurant, Hooters, would hire a huge fat woman to work there. Oh and she's required to wear some scant shorts and shirt.

[Chip Monk]

Passive nakedness, that's a new and intriguing concept.

[vidcc]

Oh and it's good to see that no-one has a problem with private clubs having restrictive policies with regard to employment. That's nice.

What's the difference between a restrictive employment policy that prevents smoking and one that specifically allows (or basically requires) it?

I think it all depends on what the restriction is. I don't think companies should be allowed to discriminate but the employee has to decide if his own "rules" will allow him to work at certain places.

If the members only club specifically permits smoking then I don't think a non smoker should be prevented from working there, but they then have to accept the risks before they decide to work there.

The reverse applies to smokers working in non smoking environments, they should not be prevented from working in those places, but they shouldn't expect the company to make allowances for them to smoke.

If vegetarians wish to work at a burger joint they must be prepared to handle meat (and not lecture others on the sins of eating meat).

I agree with the smoking ban in public places, this includes privately owned places that allow general entry. I do also think that a private club that restricts entry to members only (which limits their patronage and potential profit) should be able to get an exemption.

[JPaul]

The difference is that it's proven that passive smoking causes all sorts of diseases and kills people.

These arguments people use about strip clubs, burger shops etc are specious. The things are not analogous.




I agree with the smoking ban in public places, this includes privately owned places that allow general entry. I do also think that a private club that restricts entry to members only (which limits their patronage and potential profit) should be able to get an exemption.

Let's think your plan thro'.

My pub is no longer a pub. It's a private club. Anyone can join, on the night and it costs 1p for life membership.

So basically the ban doesn't count for me. Or anyone else.

Sort of defeats the purpose of the thing you agree with.

[vidcc]

The difference is that it's proven that passive smoking causes all sorts of diseases and kills people.

These arguments people use about strip clubs, burger shops etc are specious. The things are not analogous.
The point being that the employee has a choice if his rules allow him to take the risk. He has to actively decide to work there.
There are many things proven to cause disease and death, smoking is just one of them




Let's think your plan thro'.

My pub is no longer a pub. It's a private club. Anyone can join, on the night and it costs 1p for life membership.

So basically the ban doesn't count for me. Or anyone else.

Sort of defeats the purpose of the thing you agree with.

I don't see that it does. It doesn't matter if membership can be gained on the night or even if life membership costs one penny or even free. The member has to actively decide to join the private members only club. By restricting entry to members IMO it no longer counts as a general public area.

If your pub deiced it wants to restrict access by becoming a private club and lose your custom that's their right (or at least should be).

[JPaul]

If every pub and restaurant becomes a private club, with minimal membership qualifications i.e. anyone can join. Then the ban is negated and you support the ban.

They don't want to lose people's custom, it's just a really simple way of getting round the ban. If private clubs are allowed an exemption.

"There are many things proven to cause disease and death, smoking is just one of them"

Uhuh and we have health and safety laws to protect people.

[vidcc]

So every pub becomes a private club. So what? they then become private areas not open to the general public and are limiting their profit potential. They should have the right to make that choice.

I support the ban in general public access areas, not private areas closed to the general public.

The point raised about inspectors earlier.......... should smoking be banned in private homes? After all certain people have to enter those homes on business matters such as meter reading. The company they work for should provide safety equipment to protect against hazards. So if the people doing those jobs that require going into smoke areas wish they can wear respirators.

People have the right to do things that are bad for their health. The ban was designed to protect those that do not wish to take that risk. If they decide they wish to take the risk then they should have the right to do so in private areas.

There should always be reasonable compromise, without it then the ban is unreasonable

[JPaul]

So every pub becomes a private club. So what? they then become private areas not open to the general public and are limiting their profit potential.

HOW. If they are a "private club", open to anyone.

If they all become "private clubs" then the ban becomes meaningless.

Read my first post again. If membership is so lax, but it is still a membership system, then it makes the whole thing meaningless.

You go to a restaurant. Sorry we are a private club, would you like to join. Yes please. OK that's 1p and you are now a life member. Please bring this cloakroom ticket which I have written your name on the next time you visit.

The system fails, you must see that. They aren't really "private" as such. They just claim to be but let anyone in. I've been to "private clubs" like that before. You simply put 10p in the box and sign the book, that makes you a "member" for the day.


So every pub becomes a private club. So what? they then become private areas not open to the general public and are limiting their profit potential. They should have the right to make that choice.

I support the ban in general public access areas, not private areas closed to the general public.

The point raised about inspectors earlier.......... should smoking be banned in private homes? After all certain people have to enter those homes on business matters such as meter reading. The company they work for should provide safety equipment to protect against hazards. So if the people doing those jobs that require going into smoke areas wish they can wear respirators.

People have the right to do things that are bad for their health. The ban was designed to protect those that do not wish to take that risk. If they decide they wish to take the risk then they should have the right to do so in private areas.

There should always be reasonable compromise, without it then the ban is unreasonable

My meters are on outside walls. They are locked but can be accessed by the reader. Do you have to let them into your house.

[vidcc]

I doesn't matter if you think membership is too easy, the point is the person has to decide if they wish to join so they can enter and expose themself to the smoke. As long as they are made fully aware that the smoke is there I see no problem. A private club is a private club no matter how lax gaining membership is. If it would make you any happier and allow others to decide for themselves to inhale second hand smoke I would have no problem if the rules for membership for such clubs were officially tightened.


My meters are on outside walls. They are locked but can be accessed by the reader. Do you have to let them into your house. My house has them outside, a couple of the properties I own in the UK have them inside. I'm guessing that's not unique.

[JPaul]

You must see that it defeats the purpose of the ban (which you support) if every establishment can simply ignore it.

[vidcc]

You must see that it defeats the purpose of the ban (which you support) if every establishment can simply ignore it.

You are trying to phrase it differently to how I see it. I'm not saying every establishment can ignore it. Those that wish to have open doors have to abide by the rule. I am for the ban in places that give open access to the general public. I do not include private clubs in this group.
Those that don't wish to have open doors, which you or I as non smokers or smokers would be prohibited from entering unless we decide to join and accept their terms and conditions of membership regarding smoking, should be allowed to apply for an exemption. we would be making that choice for ourselves with open (if a little bit watery from the smoke) eyes.

As I said if it makes you happier I would have no problem if such clubs had to abide by stricter membership rules.

If this means that every establishment in existence wishes to become a private club, so be it. They are not obligated to run open houses.

[JPaul]

If this means that every establishment in existence wishes to become a private club, so be it. They are not obligated to run open houses.

So you are happy that every pub and restaurant becomes a "private club", fine.

That's why they won't give exemptions to private clubs, it would defeat the purpose of the ban (which you support).

[vidcc]

If this means that every establishment in existence wishes to become a private club, so be it. They are not obligated to run open houses.

So you are happy that every pub and restaurant becomes a "private club", fine.

That's why they won't give exemptions to private clubs, it would defeat the purpose of the ban (which you support).

Obviously yes. But if they want my and probably (especially with restaurants) most peoples custom they would be making a bad business decision in doing so.

They are not providing an essential service here, they are trying to make money. Very few establishments survive purely on regular customers.

The purpose of the ban is to protect people in open public areas from second hand smoke. A private club is not an open public area.

It seems the point of the ban as you see it is defeated buy allowing people to smoke in their own homes.

Would you support a ban on drinking in public places (this would include bars and just for this private bars) because many people that haven't touched a drop have died because of the actions of drinkers due to the effect alcohol has on the drinker.

[JPaul]

Do you understand that I'm saying that every establishment could become a "private club". However they really wouldn't be a "private club" they would let anyone join. At short notice for a nominal fee.
As such the ban would become meaningless, if private clubs were given an exemption.
Do you understand that people don't have to be regulars to be members.
Can you see beyond the words "private club" and see that people would abuse the idea.
Do you understand that such an exemption would make the ban pointless.

[Busyman™]

That's what I was saying earlier.

Let the market decide. If every bar became a private smoking bar and business went well then it obviously means that enough smokers and, most likely, non-smokers didn't mind the smoke.

I don't smoke but don't mind going into bars that have smoking. So I could be one of folks in a smoking bar but am a non-smoker.

At the same time, a normal bar might be packed in the same area.

A private bar doesn't circumvent the ban. It's private so it shouldn't even be part of the ban.

The way GayPaul puts it, bars are obligated to serve to serve liquor to everyone cuz it's custom.

Also as a technician, I have refused to work in certain establishments under many conditions.


Do you understand that I'm saying that every establishment could become a "private club". However they really wouldn't be a "private club" they would let anyone join. At short notice for a nominal fee.
As such the ban would become meaningless, if private clubs were given an exemption.
Do you understand that people don't have to be regulars to be members.
Can you see beyond the words "private club" and see that people would abuse the idea.
Do you understand that such an exemption would make the ban pointless.
Do you understand that the ban is for public places?

A private club should not be included. It is private.

Actually the private club would not let anyone join. They would let people join that agree to the terms of membership.

One could say that anyone could get a credit card but that's simply not true.

[vidcc]

Do you understand that I'm saying that every establishment could become a "private club". However they really wouldn't be a "private club" they would let anyone join. At short notice for a nominal fee.
As such the ban would become meaningless, if private clubs were given an exemption.
Do you understand that people don't have to be regulars to be members.
Can you see beyond the words "private club" and see that people would abuse the idea.
Do you understand that such an exemption would make the ban pointless.
I understand what you are saying I just disagree. Do you understand that disagreeing is not the same as failing to understand?

What is it you object to about private clubs-
That they don't allow anyone to join or that they allow anyone to join.

So what if the idea is abused. nobody will be forced to join those clubs

[JPaul]

My point is, if you give exemptions to "private clubs" then they will all become "private clubs", however the membership rules will be nominal and they will allow anyone in. They will effectively be open to the public.

The ban will then be meaningless. Which is contrary to the wishes of the democratically elected governments of Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England.

I can't really make that any clearer. My bad.

[vidcc]

My point is, if you give exemptions to "private clubs" then they will all become "private clubs", however the membership rules will be nominal and they will allow anyone in. They will effectively be open to the public.
The ban will then be meaningless. Which is contrary to the wishes of the democratically elected governments of Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England.
I can't really make that any clearer. My bad.
Well then that's the choice of the people that decide to become members. I agree with the ban in open public places which is where the protection is supposed to be applied. If a pub or restaurant have an open door policy I should expect to be able to walk in there and not have my lungs subjected to someones second hand smoke. I do not expect to enjoy the same protection in a club where I have to become a member (however easy that is) and it clearly states in it's terms that smoking is permitted. This is because I do not feel that a private club that requires me to join to enter (no matter how many of them exist) meets the criteria of an open public place, I'm sorry I can't be any clearer on this little point....my bad.

Can you see the meaningless of banning smoking in public places and not allowing private smoking clubs where non smoker do not have the automatic right to enter while not actually banning smoking altogether

[JPaul]

Ttfn

[lynx]

It's really quite simple - it is bad law.

[JPaul]

It's really quite simple - So far the democratically elected Governments of The United Kingdon of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, The Irish Republic, Wales and Scotland have decided to pass this law.

That's not just my opinion btw, see above.

[vidcc]

It's really quite simple - it is bad law.

I don't agree. On the face of it it's a good law. Smoking is not a personal habit and while I think you have every right to smoke and endanger yourself the idea that you have the right to inflict your habit on others that choose not to smoke no matter where you are is selfish and IMO simply wrong.

Where I don't agree is the law being applied to private member only clubs (if it actually is).


It's really quite simple - So far the democratically elected Governments of The United Kingdon of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, The Irish Republic, Wales and Scotland have decided to pass this law.


So because a government is democratically elected no law passed should be questioned ?????????????????
Democratically elected does not equate to just or competent, they are not always acting at the will of the people or in the best interests of the nation.

[bigboab]

I don't agree. On the face of it it's a good law. Smoking is not a personal habit and while I think you have every right to smoke and endanger yourself the idea that you have the right to inflict your habit on others that choose not to smoke no matter where you are is selfish and IMO simply wrong.

Where I don't agree is the law being applied to private member only clubs (if it actually is).


It's really quite simple - So far the democratically elected Governments of The United Kingdon of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, The Irish Republic, Wales and Scotland have decided to pass this law.




So because a government is democratically elected no law passed should be questioned ?????????????????
Democratically elected does not equate to just or competent, they are not always acting at the will of the people or in the best interests of the nation.

I agree.:) I think things like this that affects the whole nation should be put on the ballot paper beside the party that intends to implement such laws.

************

http://www.clearingtheairscotland.com/faqs/qanda.html#exemptions

EXEMPTIONS

1. Residential accommodation.

2. Designated rooms in adult care homes.

3. Adult hospices.

4. Designated rooms in psychiatric hospitals and psychiatric units.

5. Designated hotel bedrooms.

6. Detention or interview rooms which are designated rooms.

7. Designated rooms in offshore installations.

8. Private vehicles

9. Designated laboratory rooms.

10. HM Submarines and ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.

[JPaul]

I think things like this that affects the whole nation should be put on the ballot paper beside the party that intends to implement such laws.


:lol:

What else would you have on this ballot paper come manifesto, boab.

[bigboab]

I think things like this that affects the whole nation should be put on the ballot paper beside the party that intends to implement such laws.


:lol:

What else would you have on this ballot paper come manifesto, boab.

Anything that is going to affect the whole nation. I am only talking about major changes. Would you like the SNP if and when elected to declare Scotland independent without a Referendum? Would you like the Conservative Party to take the UK out of Europe without consulting the public?

Incidentally I agree with the no smoking law. Just because I think it is right should not overrule the the rights of the people who think it is wrong.

[Busyman™]

:lol:

What else would you have on this ballot paper come manifesto, boab.

Anything that is going to affect the whole nation. I am only talking about major changes. Would you like the SNP if and when elected to declare Scotland independent without a Referendum? Would you like the Conservative Party to take the UK out of Europe without consulting the public?

Incidentally I agree with the no smoking law. Just because I think it is right should not overrule the the rights of the people who think it is wrong.

Same here. We have the ban in MD.

I just look at it from both sides and not just because I don't smoke.

In certain circumstances like a private bar, we'd be infringing on smoker's rights.

Unless cigs are deemed illegal (which I'm all for :devil:), smokers should have rights.

[JPaul]

Just because I think it is right should not overrule the the rights of the people who think it is wrong.

I couldn't agree more. However rights must be balanced and I think that the right of people to not be killed by passive smoking outweighs the right to smoke anywhere you chose. To

Glasgow Council is taking it further. People aren't going to be allowed to smoke anywhere on their premises. So if you are sitting in your car, parked in their car park then you will not be allowed to smoke. I think that takes it too far personally.

[bigboab]

Just because I think it is right should not overrule the the rights of the people who think it is wrong.

I couldn't agree more. However rights must be balanced and I think that the right of people to not be killed by passive smoking outweighs the right to smoke anywhere you chose. To

Glasgow Council is taking it further. People aren't going to be allowed to smoke anywhere on their premises. So if you are sitting in your car, parked in their car park then you will not be allowed to smoke. I think that takes it too far personally.

My point exactly. Everyone has 'A step too far'. The National Ban was a step too far for smokers.
I see that the Freemasons are complaining because they have to go outside with their aprons and cuffs on in order to get a smoke.:lol:
Hellfire and brimstone inside but no smoking.:lol:

[Barbarossa]

Anything that is going to affect the whole nation. I am only talking about major changes. Would you like the SNP if and when elected to declare Scotland independent without a Referendum? Would you like the Conservative Party to take the UK out of Europe without consulting the public?

The way I understand it, if you vote the SNP in to power, you're sort of approving of their policies, one of which would be an independent Scotland.


I don't really see the need for you to have a referendum on top of that.


I mean, who's actually supposed to be running the country, the government, or the populace :blink:

[bigboab]

Anything that is going to affect the whole nation. I am only talking about major changes. Would you like the SNP if and when elected to declare Scotland independent without a Referendum? Would you like the Conservative Party to take the UK out of Europe without consulting the public?

The way I understand it, if you vote the SNP in to power, you're sort of approving of their policies, one of which would be an independent Scotland.


I don't really see the need for you to have a referendum on top of that.


I mean, who's actually supposed to be running the country, the government, or the populace :blink:

It is a rare occasion for a Government to have more that 50% of the votes cast. Even then they would only have over 50% of the people who bothered to vote. The only way it could be fair is to make voting compulsory and allocate seats in proportion to votes cast.
First past the post is archaic and does not represent the people.:)

[JPaul]

"...the people who bothered to vote"

Exactly, they are more likely to get the sort of Government they want.

That's kind of right in my opinion. That those who can be arsed voting every for or five fucking years get to pick who runs their country.

[lynx]

Just because I think it is right should not overrule the the rights of the people who think it is wrong.

I couldn't agree more. However rights must be balanced and I think that the right of people to not be killed by passive smoking outweighs the right to smoke anywhere you chose. I agree that rights have to be balanced, and that's exactly where these laws fall down - they make no attempt to achieve a balance which is why I say they are bad laws.

While ruling out the right to smoke anywhere the smoker wants they at the same time give the right to the non-smoker to breath smoke free air anywhere they want - why? By what right do they decide where the owner of a private business allows them to exercise their smoke-free rights?

All sorts of compromises could have been reached. For example smoking allowed in no more than 25% of the premises, provision having to be made such that at least 50% is smoke free (ie smoke actively prevented from reaching such areas), and access to all facilities being possible without having to leave the smoke free area.

However, the worst outcome with regard to bars and public houses is that politicians have been swayed by the argument that people do not visit these establishments purely because of the smoky atmosphere. Yet studies in Ireland have shown that there has been almost no change in the people visiting, with the exception that some smokers have decided to stay at home. In other words vast numbers of people who convinced their governments that their wishes should be granted just flat out lied about their future habits.

In any case, passing laws just because the majority want them is inherently bad, yet governments use the argument as an excuse when it suits them. If they followed that argument all the time, among the first things on the agenda would be the sealing of our borders, the return of capital punishment and the immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

[JPaul]

While ruling out the right to smoke anywhere the smoker wants they at the same time give the right to the non-smoker to breath smoke free air anywhere they want - why?

Because people should be able to breath smoke free air, it's a basic human right. However why should smokers have a right to inflict their poison on other people. There is not one redeeming feature to smoking, so why should people have any rights in relation to it.

The next thing is that people will not be allowed to smoke in open public places. I'm sure that will come in as well, perhaps in city centres at first. Then you will have the situation where smokers won't even be able to go outside for a cigarette. That'll probably be a wee while coming tho'

[vidcc]

While ruling out the right to smoke anywhere the smoker wants they at the same time give the right to the non-smoker to breath smoke free air anywhere they want - why? By what right do they decide where the owner of a private business allows them to exercise their smoke-free rights?
As smoking is not a personal habit the onus is on the smoker, not the non smoker. I'm sorry if you feel victimised because you think you have a right to force people to breathe in your cancer causing smoke, but you only have the right to kill yourself, not others. Invent a smoke free cigarette (this includes smoke exhaled) then you have a valid complaint.
Chewing gum (even though dentists recommend it and the disgusting noise made when people chew with their mouth open) is a personal habit. It becomes impersonal when they spit out their gum out on the streets or stick it under a table. So should we allow gum chewers to "exhale" their gum however they wish?

I make the point about member only clubs being given exemptions. I view these as being different from a privately owned business with an open door policy.






All sorts of compromises could have been reached. For example smoking allowed in no more than 25% of the premises, provision having to be made such that at least 50% is smoke free (ie smoke actively prevented from reaching such areas), and access to all facilities being possible without having to leave the smoke free area.



Seems complex and expensive to me and I suspect would still not please the inconsiderate smokers. (these being different from the considerate ones)

[bigboab]

How many people who are demanding the right to fresh air are running around in motor cars spewing noxious gases everywhere they drive. What rights have the non drivers got? Every time I go down town or walk to the nearest shop I am subjected to emissions of the following;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/medical_notes/336738.stm

Carbon monoxide
Nitrogen dioxide
Sulphur dioxide
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Polycyclic hydrocarbons
Lead
Tiny suspended particlesI suppose that does not count because nearly everyone drives.:rolleyes:

[vidcc]

I'm sure someone will bring up car pollution etc etc into the argument but that doesn't reduce the effects of passive smoking.

:01: you made us wait a bit on that one

[Mr JP Fugley]

How many people who are demanding the right to fresh air are running around in motor cars spewing noxious gases everywhere they drive. What rights have the non drivers got? Every time I go down town or walk to the nearest shop I am subjected to emissions of the following;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/medical_notes/336738.stm

Carbon monoxide
Nitrogen dioxide
Sulphur dioxide
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Polycyclic hydrocarbons
Lead
Tiny suspended particlesI suppose that does not count because nearly everyone drives.:rolleyes:


Driving has a purpose and without the internal combustion engine we would not have the World we have today. I agree we should clean things up, however that's not the same as smoking, which poison's and kills whilst serving no purpose.

With cars, lorries etc we must balance the dangers against the good they do. There's no such balance with cigarette smoking. The only thing we need consider is a person's right to kill themself, slowly and often painfully.

[bigboab]

How many people who are demanding the right to fresh air are running around in motor cars spewing noxious gases everywhere they drive. What rights have the non drivers got? Every time I go down town or walk to the nearest shop I am subjected to emissions of the following;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/medical_notes/336738.stm

Carbon monoxide
Nitrogen dioxide
Sulphur dioxide
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Polycyclic hydrocarbons
Lead
Tiny suspended particlesI suppose that does not count because nearly everyone drives.:rolleyes:


Driving has a purpose and without the internal combustion engine we would not have the World we have today. I agree we should clean things up, however that's not the same as smoking, which poison's and kills whilst serving no purpose.

With cars, lorries etc we must balance the dangers against the good they do. There's no such balance with cigarette smoking. The only thing we need consider is a person's right to kill themself, slowly and often painfully.

Sixty years ago this country was one of the most powerful and industrious countries in the world. The percentage of car owners per household was in the low single figures.

Today this country is neither powerful or industrious yet car ownership has gone up to about 80% of households. What is the purpose that you talk of?
During a normal weekday 15% of cars on the road are parents taking children to and from school, which in most cases is just round the corner.
Get the public transport back to where it was and find a way to reduce the use of cars. It is the children that are going to suffer in the long run.

Please ignore all of the above. I forgot about the tax revenue from car ownership and fuel.:whistling

[JPaul]

What is the purpose that you talk of?


Moving things and people from place to place. It's really that simple.

What purpose does smoking serve.

[lynx]

While ruling out the right to smoke anywhere the smoker wants they at the same time give the right to the non-smoker to breath smoke free air anywhere they want - why?

Because people should be able to breath smoke free air, it's a basic human right. However why should smokers have a right to inflict their poison on other people. There is not one redeeming feature to smoking, so why should people have any rights in relation to it.

The next thing is that people will not be allowed to smoke in open public places. I'm sure that will come in as well, perhaps in city centres at first. Then you will have the situation where smokers won't even be able to go outside for a cigarette. That'll probably be a wee while coming tho'Since you ignored that bit, I'll emphasise it, that's the important part of what you've bothered to answer. I note that you've failed to address the parts that could prove difficult to your case.

When you are on private premises, you have to put up with the rules imposed by the owner. It applies to other things such as areas reserved for those who are eating, why not to areas that the owner deems to be permitted smoking areas? I've yet to see anyone give a reasoned answer to that point.

Whether smoking has any redeeming features or not is irrelevant, it is a legal activity and as such it should not be up to governments to decide that it is not permitted in all areas of a private business.


As smoking is not a personal habit the onus is on the smoker, not the non smoker. I'm sorry if you feel victimised because you think you have a right to force people to breathe in your cancer causing smoke, but you only have the right to kill yourself, not others. Invent a smoke free cigarette (this includes smoke exhaled) then you have a valid complaint.
Chewing gum (even though dentists recommend it and the disgusting noise made when people chew with their mouth open) is a personal habit. It becomes impersonal when they spit out their gum out on the streets or stick it under a table. So should we allow gum chewers to "exhale" their gum however they wish?

I make the point about member only clubs being given exemptions. I view these as being different from a privately owned business with an open door policy.Once again, you make the mistake of thinking that I smoke, I don't. I've also never advocated forcing people to breathe other peoples' smoke, and I've never heard anyone else make the suggestion either. It is a poor tactic to argue against something that has never been proposed, one that I find is usually employed for some of our more slippery politicians. I'm surprised at you.

All I've ever argued is that owners of private businesses have the right to designate that smoking is permitted in some areas, just as they designate areas of their business for other activities. I can't see how such a simple concept is so hard to understand.






All sorts of compromises could have been reached. For example smoking allowed in no more than 25% of the premises, provision having to be made such that at least 50% is smoke free (ie smoke actively prevented from reaching such areas), and access to all facilities being possible without having to leave the smoke free area.



Seems complex and expensive to me and I suspect would still not please the inconsiderate smokers. (these being different from the considerate ones)It may seem complex and expensive, but it is the sort of thing that was being actively proposed. The very fact that no consideration was given to such a proposal indicates that those who made these laws had the basic intent of trampling all over any rights the smoker might have.

Additionally, you seem to see such proposals as being an exercise in pleasing the smoker, in actual fact it is about preserving rights, in particular the rights of the owner of private premises to accommodate ALL of his/her customers.

[vidcc]

Once again, you make the mistake of thinking that I smoke, I don't. I've also never advocated forcing people to breathe other peoples' smoke, and I've never heard anyone else make the suggestion either. It is a poor tactic to argue against something that has never been proposed, one that I find is usually employed for some of our more slippery politicians. I'm surprised at you.
if you do not smoke I will correct the post and say
As smoking is not a personal habit the onus is on the smoker, not the non smoker. I'm sorry if you feel smokers are being victimised because you think they have a right to force people to breathe in their cancer causing smoke, but they only have the right to kill themselves, not others. Invent a smoke free cigarette (this includes smoke exhaled) then they or anyone else have a valid complaint. the corrections in bold



By arguing that smokers have the right to smoke in open public access areas or deciding to smoke in areas where non smokers are by default you/they are advocating / forcing others to breathe in their smoke. There are plenty of smokers who take that attitude and it appears you take that attitude too.

[bigboab]

What is the purpose that you talk of?


Moving things and people from place to place. It's really that simple.

What purpose does smoking serve.

There is a possibility that smoking relieves stress and the likelihood of a nervous breakdown in some cases.

[Mr JP Fugley]

While ruling out the right to smoke anywhere the smoker wants they at the same time give the right to the non-smoker to breath smoke free air anywhere they want - why?

I really don't see any reason why I would have to justify why people should be allowed to breath clean air, wherever they are allowed to be. Certainly not so that other people can chose to breathe poisons (forget the euphemism of smoking, they are breathing a mixture of poisons), that really makes no sense. There is no balance needing struck.

If people are allowed someplace, then the person in charge of that place is responsible for their health and safety. Allowing people to be subject to passive smoking is not ensuring their health and safety. The Governments have decided that the best, indeed only truly effective way to do this is to ban smoking in such places. Again that makes sense.

You feel that is an unfair breach of a percieved right to breathe poison and impose it upon others. Fair enough, we can simply agree this is a subject on which we disagree. There are no more arguments I can put forward than the simple ones I have already expressed.

[bigboab]

Right! now that is the smoking nearly out of the way let's start on obesity caused by greedy bar stewards. They are taking up far too much room on the pavements, buses etc.:rolleyes:

[Mr JP Fugley]

Make an "excess baggage" charge, that should sort that out.

[bigboab]

Make an "excess baggage" charge, that should sort that out.


I agree. weigh passengers going on aircraft and charge for excess weight.:yup:

[Mr JP Fugley]

Passenger plus baggage.

It's bizarre that someone of 12st may get an excess charge whilst someone at 24st doesn't. Surely the gross weight of passenger plus baggage should be used.

That would be fairer.

[vidcc]

If the flight is busy they already charge obese people for two seats..........this can be a problem if the seats are in different rows or different sides of the isle

[Busyman™]

If the flight is busy they already charge obese people for two seats..........this can be a problem if the seats are in different rows or different sides of the isle

What do you think of an obese person being charged for 2 seats?

[vidcc]

If the flight is busy they already charge obese people for two seats..........this can be a problem if the seats are in different rows or different sides of the isle

What do you think of an obese person being charged for 2 seats? If they take up two seats I think it's fair. I also don't think they should be allowed to insist on only paying for one seat And only having one seat if they are going to "spill over" onto the space of the person sat next to them.

To be fair to the airlines very few would charge for two seats if there was an empty seat on the flight. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, it all depends on the check in agent and the attitude of the passenger.

[bigboab]

If the flight is busy they already charge obese people for two seats..........this can be a problem if the seats are in different rows or different sides of the isle

That is what like about you youngsters. You give in too easily.:)

[lynx]

Seems some of you think you are allowed to go anywhere you want, with no restrictions.

In that case, since all bars are obliged to have bathroom facilities and therefore pissing is permitted, it is surely reasonable that you can piss anywhere you want.

Or do you perhaps think that the owner is allowed to make a rule that pissing is allowed in certain places and only those places?

The alternative is surely a ban on pissing in all areas open to the public, including the bathroom facilities. I hope you are good at crossing your legs.

[vidcc]

Seems some of you think you are allowed to go anywhere you want, with no restrictions. Who suggested that? please quote.



In that case, since all bars are obliged to have bathroom facilities and therefore pissing is permitted, it is surely reasonable that you can piss anywhere you want.

Or do you perhaps think that the owner is allowed to make a rule that pissing is allowed in certain places and only those places?

The alternative is surely a ban on pissing in all areas open to the public, including the bathroom facilities. I hope you are good at crossing your legs.

Maybe not the silliest argument ever........ but f**king close :rolleyes:

[lynx]

Seems some of you think you are allowed to go anywhere you want, with no restrictions.Who suggested that? please quote.If you accept that there are restrictions, then why can't you accept that one of those restrictions may be that the owner can allow smoking on part of their premises, as long as it does not interfere with those areas where smoking is not allowed?

If you don't accept that then you are arguing that you can go anywhere, so the following applies.



In that case, since all bars are obliged to have bathroom facilities and therefore pissing is permitted, it is surely reasonable that you can piss anywhere you want.

Or do you perhaps think that the owner is allowed to make a rule that pissing is allowed in certain places and only those places?

The alternative is surely a ban on pissing in all areas open to the public, including the bathroom facilities. I hope you are good at crossing your legs.

Maybe not the silliest argument ever........ but f**king close :rolleyes:Of course it is silly, it was intended to be, but it is also the logical extension of the argument that you have a right to go anywhere. If this is silly then so is the argument it derives from.

[vidcc]

If you accept that there are restrictions, then why can't you accept that one of those restrictions may be that the owner can allow smoking on part of their premises, as long as it does not interfere with those areas where smoking is not allowed?

If you don't accept that then you are arguing that you can go anywhere, so the following applies.

Your statement was some people think they can go anywhere they want with no restrictions, you still haven't quoted where anyone said that. Public access means just that........public. You can be refused entry for any number of reasons such as behavior or inappropriate attire but public access still is public access. So unless one breaks those rules then they can enter public access areas. Nobody has suggested they can enter private areas.






Of course it is silly, it was intended to be, but it is also the logical extension of the argument that you have a right to go anywhere. If this is silly then so is the argument it derives from.

You think that crap is a "logical extension"? :ermm:

[Chip Monk]

Seems some of you think you are allowed to go anywhere you want, with no restrictions.



Quite the reverse, I think there should be restrictions. Smoking for example, that should be restricted, particularly in instances where it is being imposed on other people. You want to smoke in your own home, fill yer lungs, you are harming no-one but yourself. Obviously they would also be harming their own children, however that's really down to their conscience.

As to me being able to go wherever I want, nope I don't think that at all. That's just plain silly, even the hardest of thinking can see that there are loads of places where free access would be inappropriate.

However anywhere I can go, the person in charge of that place is responsible for making it safe. If it is my home, then I am responsible. If it is walking down the street, then the local authorities, Police etc. If it is in a shop, then the shopkeep. If it is in a restaurant, then the restaurateur etc. They are responsible for my health and safety while I am on their premises.

As to the rest, no comment, you're just talking pish.

[Busyman™]

h

Who suggested that? please quote.If you accept that there are restrictions, then why can't you accept that one of those restrictions may be that the owner can allow smoking on part of their premises, as long as it does not interfere with those areas where smoking is not allowed?

If you don't accept that then you are arguing that you can go anywhere, so the following applies.



In that case, since all bars are obliged to have bathroom facilities and therefore pissing is permitted, it is surely reasonable that you can piss anywhere you want.

Or do you perhaps think that the owner is allowed to make a rule that pissing is allowed in certain places and only those places?

The alternative is surely a ban on pissing in all areas open to the public, including the bathroom facilities. I hope you are good at crossing your legs.

Maybe not the silliest argument ever........ but f**king close :rolleyes:Of course it is silly, it was intended to be, but it is also the logical extension of the argument that you have a right to go anywhere. If this is silly then so is the argument it derives from.

Jeez man. A public enclosed place shouldn't be a free for all where the owner makes up rules willy nilly.

The government's job is to protect the public.

Now I don't agree with GayPaul's stance on trying to apply the no smoking policy to private clubs but your stance (or the way you convey it) is just as daft.:dabs:

Now if the gubment really wanted to protect the public and not fanny about they would outlaw smoking altogether allowing only addicts a fix.

[JPaul]

I don't have a stance on trying to apply it to private clubs. It already does apply to them.

My stance is that to allow private clubs an exemption is a non-starter. As every establishment would simply become a "private club", thus negating the law. There may be another way to allow smoking in certain places, other than those already allowed. However an exemption for "private clubs" isn't it.

[j2k4]

Jeez man. A public enclosed place shouldn't be a free for all where the owner makes up rules willy nilly.

Is it your contention that the owner be excluded from the "free-for-all"?

A free-for-all in a public enclosed place generally leads to jail-time for someone, and as such is something to be avoided by sane persons.

In any case, would you propose applicable rules be formulated under exclusively government auspices, absent input from the owner of the establishment in question?

Surely you would not leave the rules to the whims of the patrons?

What would be an example of a venue beset by "willy nilly" rules?

I have never been to such a place...



The government's job is to protect the public.

Find that in the Constitution for me, please?

[JPaul]

To a large extent the Government, or other agencies do determine what an owner of such a place must do.

In the UK we have Health and Safety laws, which must be complied with. The Fire Department can make rules with regard to safety. Environmental Health can inspect premises, for example to ensure they are hygienic enough for food preparation. If an owner fails to comply with these then they may be closed.

I don't know how it goes in the US, however in the UK an owner of premises open to the public has surprisingly little control over their own premises.

[lynx]

A public house has a room for people playing pool. It is so small that there's hardly room for the players. Consequently the manager has a rule that only those playing are allowed in that room. Anyone breaking that rule is ejected.

A public house has a room for people smoking. It is so smoky that there's hardly enough air for the smokers. Consequently the manager has a rule that only those smoking are allowed in that room. Anyone breaking that rule is ejected.

Now, those of you who say they are allowed in any public part of a privately owned business show me the difference between those statements. Just highlighting the different words makes you a jackass.

[j2k4]

To a large extent the Government, or other agencies do determine what an owner of such a place must do.

In the UK we have Health and Safety laws, which must be complied with. The Fire Department can make rules with regard to safety. Environmental Health can inspect premises, for example to ensure they are hygienic enough for food preparation. If an owner fails to comply with these then they may be closed.

I don't know how it goes in the US, however in the UK an owner of premises open to the public has surprisingly little control over their own premises.

It is largely the same here.

I was addressing the "free-for-all" and "willy-nilly" aspects of his post.

I would say it is perfectly normal for the owner of an establishment to have "house rules" having to do with comportment or dress, etc., but, as many aborted attempts at public house/bar/pub/restaurant/cafe operation have revealed, "free-for-all" and "willy-nilly" are two precepts with little or no practical use.

As to the issue of smoking, I am an ex and reformed smoker who nonetheless feels that telling smokers that they may not under any circumstances use tobacco anyplace other than (or even in) the confines of their homes is an overstep...that said, however, an establishment which chooses to allow smoking should provide facilities which keep communal air from being befouled.

If the owner of an establishment chooses to cater to all (and thus reap the resultant financial benefit), he obligates himself thus.

Relative to the government, it is plain that smoking will be passe in a generation or so anyway, and certain things must be given time to occur without coercive government action.

My opinion.

[JPaul]

A public house has a room for people playing pool. It is so small that there's hardly room for the players. Consequently the manager has a rule that only those playing are allowed in that room. Anyone breaking that rule is ejected.

A public house has a room for people smoking. It is so smoky that there's hardly enough air for the smokers. Consequently the manager has a rule that only those smoking are allowed in that room. Anyone breaking that rule is ejected.

Now, those of you who say they are allowed in any public part of a privately owned business show me the difference between those statements. Just highlighting the different words makes you a jackass.

:lol:

I'm assuming you're doing that as satire.

Self-parody ftw.

[lynx]

A public house has a room for people playing pool. It is so small that there's hardly room for the players. Consequently the manager has a rule that only those playing are allowed in that room. Anyone breaking that rule is ejected.

A public house has a room for people smoking. It is so smoky that there's hardly enough air for the smokers. Consequently the manager has a rule that only those smoking are allowed in that room. Anyone breaking that rule is ejected.

Now, those of you who say they are allowed in any public part of a privately owned business show me the difference between those statements. Just highlighting the different words makes you a jackass.

:lol:

I'm assuming you're doing that as satire.

Self-parody ftw.Typical.

Give you one which destroys your argument and you try to make a joke out of it.

Answer the question.

[Chip Monk]

Oh, you were serious.

You're absolutely right about both. The manager can throw someone out for breach of either rule. Whether it is being in the pool room not playing pool, or being in the smoking room not smoking. He can also however throw people out for wearing yellow socks, being in possession of an offensive wife, or pretty much anything he wants.

Your "point" therefore is neither here nor there. It certainly adds nothing to this discussion. I had assumed you were joking, you obviously weren't. I should have realised that was a bit unlikely. You taking yourself in anything other than a totally serious way.


Give you one which destroys your argument and you try to make a joke out of it.


:lol: It's you who made the joke, at your own expense.

[lynx]

Oh, you were serious.

You're absolutely right about both. The manager can throw someone out for breach of either rule. Whether it is being in the pool room not playing pool, or being in the smoking room not smoking. He can also however throw people out for wearing yellow socks, being in possession of an offensive wife, or pretty much anything he wants.

Your "point" therefore is neither here nor there. It certainly adds nothing to this discussion. So, you finally admit that you don't have the absolute right to use any section of a public bar for any purpose other than that which the owner/manager sees fit? That's the whole crux of the issue. It makes no difference what that activity happens to be, the simple fact is that you don't make the rules.

You want smoking to be stopped simply because you don't like smoking, but as long as it doesn't affect you in other parts of the building it should be none of your concern, and neither should it be a government's concern.


I had assumed you were joking, you obviously weren't. I should have realised that was a bit unlikely. You taking yourself in anything other than a totally serious way.


Give you one which destroys your argument and you try to make a joke out of it.


:lol: It's you who made the joke, at your own expense.Falling to your usual "haven't got a real argument so let's get personal" level again? Why am I not surprised.

[Chip Monk]

Your "point" was entirely irrelevant to the issue. It still is. The fact that a pub can have a function suite where it allows private parties for the evening and other people aren't allowed in changes absolutely nothing about the issue in hand. The fact that a landlord can stop people getting in is irrelevant.

I therefore thought it was a joke and replied as such.

You thought and still think that you made a good point. You really didn't.

Oh and it's good to know that you never get personal. You're above that like.

[lynx]

Neither involves private functions, that would certainly be irrelevant and isn't anything approaching what I was saying so don't try to twist my point into something else. One rule involves smoking which you say isn't allowed.

The challenge to you is to say why you think that rule isn't allowed but the other is, when neither rule affects you if you don't want to take part in the activity.

One method of resolving disagreement is to look at the extreme situation, no matter how absurd you may think it is. If you have no answer for the extreme situation then you certainly have no answer for the commonplace. Don't repeat that it isn't relevant, that's like saying "na na na, I'm not listening".

One other point you might want to consider, since in general we are simply talking about a room, no different from any other room, except that people are allowed to smoke in that room. Please indicate why you have such a fascination with that room that you demand right of entry and therefore demand that no smoke is allowed.

[Busyman™]

Neither involves private functions, that would certainly be irrelevant and isn't anything approaching what I was saying so don't try to twist my point into something else. One rule involves smoking which you say isn't allowed.

The challenge to you is to say why you think that rule isn't allowed but the other is, when neither rule affects you if you don't want to take part in the activity.

One method of resolving disagreement is to look at the extreme situation, no matter how absurd you may think it is. If you have no answer for the extreme situation then you certainly have no answer for the commonplace. Don't repeat that it isn't relevant, that's like saying "na na na, I'm not listening".

One other point you might want to consider, since in general we are simply talking about a room, no different from any other room, except that people are allowed to smoke in that room. Please indicate why you have such a fascination with that room that you demand right of entry and therefore demand that no smoke is allowed.

Cuz it's a public place.:unsure:

Imagine the local WalMart (Asda) allowing smoking....ok now the grocery store, the Chuck E Cheese, the movie theater, etc.

[lynx]

Neither involves private functions, that would certainly be irrelevant and isn't anything approaching what I was saying so don't try to twist my point into something else. One rule involves smoking which you say isn't allowed.

The challenge to you is to say why you think that rule isn't allowed but the other is, when neither rule affects you if you don't want to take part in the activity.

One method of resolving disagreement is to look at the extreme situation, no matter how absurd you may think it is. If you have no answer for the extreme situation then you certainly have no answer for the commonplace. Don't repeat that it isn't relevant, that's like saying "na na na, I'm not listening".

One other point you might want to consider, since in general we are simply talking about a room, no different from any other room, except that people are allowed to smoke in that room. Please indicate why you have such a fascination with that room that you demand right of entry and therefore demand that no smoke is allowed.

Cuz it's a public place.:unsure:

Imagine the local WalMart (Asda) allowing smoking....ok now the grocery store, the Chuck E Cheese, the movie theater, etc.You have obviously missed the bit where I said that all facilities have to be available in a smoke free (not just non-smoking) area. Any area where smoking is allowed has nothing extra (other than smoking) than any other part of the establishment.

Additionally, I was talking about public bars. I can see no reason why the logic shouldn't apply to other types of establishments, but neither can I see any reason why the majority of establishments would want to offer smoking areas, given that they would still have to provide the smoke free areas.

The point is that those who want a smoke free atmosphere get exactly what they want, while at the same time those businesses which want to do so can offer a smoking environment to their customers.

The problem comes with those who want to control our lives down to the minutest detail, they are worse than "Communism" ever was in Eastern Europe, and I was certainly no fan of that regime.

[Chip Monk]

The problem comes with those who want to control our lives down to the minutest detail, they are worse than "Communism" ever was in Eastern Europe, and I was certainly no fan of that regime.

No one wants to do that tho', so that's not a problem.

They just don't see poisoning yourself and other people as a right. As such it does not have to be taken into account when deciding what is allowed in relation to providing a safe and healthy environment for customers, staff and any other person entering an enclosed public space.

One only requires to compromise when rights have to be balanced. Take speed limits as an example. It would be nice if everyone could drive at any speed they wanted, wherever they wanted. However I am not keen on people driving at 70mph through a residential area. We don't ban cars we simply impose a maximum speed at which they can travel.

[lynx]

The problem comes with those who want to control our lives down to the minutest detail, they are worse than "Communism" ever was in Eastern Europe, and I was certainly no fan of that regime.

No one wants to do that tho', so that's not a problem.

They just don't see poisoning yourself and other people as a right. As such it does not have to be taken into account when deciding what is allowed in relation to providing a safe and healthy environment for customers, staff and any other person entering an enclosed public space.

One only requires to compromise when rights have to be balanced. Take speed limits as an example. It would be nice if everyone could drive at any speed they wanted, wherever they wanted. However I am not keen on people driving at 70mph through a residential area. We don't ban cars we simply impose a maximum speed at which they can travel.Don't you ever read what you are responding to?

I've already said repeatedly that it can only be in a part of an establishment THAT DOES NOT AFFECT THOSE WHO WANT A SMOKE FREE ENVIRONMENT. As to poisoning oneself, it is not regarded as such otherwise it would not be permitted at all. Consequently your argument on that score is total pish.

Since no-one except those who wish to smoke are affected, it is reasonable to conclude that there is simply a desire to control the minutiae of peoples lives. Given the interference in other ways by our "nanny state" I don't think there can be much doubt of that.

If you want to compare it to cars, it doesn't equate in any way to driving at any speed you may like on a public road. Smoking in a private area of a public place would be more like driving on a race track - guess what, they can drive at any speed they want and it is perfectly legal. There are some who would like to ban that too, but by and large we recognise them as the intolerant cranks they are.

[JPaul]

Let's not get personal now. That would just make you look like a jackass. The fact that you don't actually understand my point is no reason to get all uptight.


As to poisoning oneself, it is not regarded as such otherwise it would not be permitted at all. Consequently your argument on that score is total pish.

It doesn't matter what it's regarded as. I said it was poisoning one's self and others. It is, that's just a fact. Whatever you regard it as.

Smoking is not the minutiae of people's lives. If it is then why do you even care, it's minutiae, it's not important, why all the fuss.

You didn't even understand the driving analogy. It's to do with balancing rights and reaching a compromise position. Smoking is not a right, therefore no compromise is required. What's all this nonsense about racing cars.

Just as well there are no intolerant cranks here, they might think you were getting personal. We know you don't do that, they might not.

[lynx]

You may think smoking is not a right, but freedom to perform legal acts certainly is. I think you'll get pretty hot under the collar when they try to stop some activity you like, and they almost certainly will if they aren't held to account.

The whole point of mentioning minutiae is that they should be unimportant to governments, the very fact that they interfere down to such a small level means that the massive control they attempt to exert over all aspects of our lives is oppressive. But then you knew that.

What's more, I certainly understood your attempt to divert the argument with your driving analogy, but the way it was phrased made it total nonsense. Such a policy would have a detrimental effect on others, a factor which I have been at pains to point out is unacceptable, and a point which you seem determined to ignore. Why is that? Could it be that if you acknowledge that point then your argument collapses?

My point is that driving as fast as one wants on public roads is not equivalent since other would be affected, but that use of a race circuit would be comparable, since speeds are not restricted yet it is still a public place. In a similar vein, those who do not wish to visit are not affected.

Btw, it could be some other off road venue but you knew that too, since as you said it is an analogy. It really is tiresome having to explain every issue (right down to the minutiae). You make it seem as if you are pretending not to understand the English language which we all know is not the case. It does you no credit.

[JPaul]

My point is that people moving freely and using transport can be considered a right, it has a purpose. Therefore when deciding whether it should be allowed, the answer is yes, even tho' it does present dangers. So a compromise is reached, speed limits are set. That balances the right to use a car against the dangers it represents.


My point is that driving as fast as one wants on public roads is not equivalent since other would be affected

exactly, see above. Others would be affected, so we set limits.

It wasn't an attempt to divert anything, it was a way of demonstrating how there were instances where one has to compromise and balance rights. Compare the pros and cons as it were.

However my contention is that smoking is not a right, it is poisoning yourself, it is poisoning other people. It serves no other purpose, whether it is legal or not. As such I do not see any need to include the "right to smoke" in any part of the decision making process. It simply doesn't exist.

Oh and, once again, try not to get personal if you don't mind.

[Tokeman]

we had a smoking ban here in my city also a year ago. Recently, a local bar won a court battle to fight the smoking ban. It is currently undergoing an appeal, so their lawyers say to wait until the appeals process is done to let people smoke in the bar again.
I am an ex-smoker, but when I go to bars, especially grungy bars, I expect smoke and a bad atmosphear. I hope they uphold this win for all bars.

[lynx]

My point is that people moving freely and using transport can be considered a right, it has a purpose. Therefore when deciding whether it should be allowed, the answer is yes, even tho' it does present dangers. So a compromise is reached, speed limits are set. That balances the right to use a car against the dangers it represents.


My point is that driving as fast as one wants on public roads is not equivalent since other would be affected

exactly, see above. Others would be affected, so we set limits.And I've consistently said that it should only be allowed where others are not affected.
It wasn't an attempt to divert anything, it was a way of demonstrating how there were instances where one has to compromise and balance rights. Compare the pros and cons as it were.

However my contention is that smoking is not a right, it is poisoning yourself, it is poisoning other people. It serves no other purpose, whether it is legal or not. As such I do not see any need to include the "right to smoke" in any part of the decision making process. It simply doesn't exist.

Oh and, once again, try not to get personal if you don't mind.You've tried to introduce a false comparison, a typical trick used by poor politicians (unfortunately many of whom now occupy high office). Where possible I expose there mendacity, so I see no reason why I should let you get away with it.

Twist as you may, you STILL haven't acknowledged that I've consistently advocated only areas where others are not affected. If you can't answer that point then your whole argument is false. I think that must becoming fairly obvious to even the most strident anti-smoker though.

[lynx]

we had a smoking ban here in my city also a year ago. Recently, a local bar won a court battle to fight the smoking ban. It is currently undergoing an appeal, so their lawyers say to wait until the appeals process is done to let people smoke in the bar again.
I am an ex-smoker, but when I go to bars, especially grungy bars, I expect smoke and a bad atmosphear. I hope they uphold this win for all bars.I'm an ex-smoker too, and I don't agree with your point that we should expect a bad atmosphere. However, I DO expect a compromise if I'm not affected.

On a legal point, I'm pretty certain that if the bar won the court battle then it is perfectly legal to smoke in that bar. It doesn't matter if there is an appeal, until (and if) the ruling is overturned the current status has sway. Depending on the wording that may or may not apply to other bars though. The bar association would know. :ermm:

[JPaul]

Again, what of people who must enter these "smokers only" areas. Staff, Tax Inspectors, Police Officers, Delivery Men, Firemen and whatever else you may wish to mention.

I love this utopia you have created where there are hermetically sealed rooms which only smokers need ever inhabit. No smoke will ever leave because the doors are perfect and there is an airlock twixt them and the other areas of the pub. No carcinogens would leave and destroy the lives of others who were simply going about their normal lives

Where we can have a new rule "smokers only need apply for jobs" if you don't smoke fuck off and stay on the dole. Or compromise and die of throat cancer, or emphysema.


Where possible I expose there mendacity ...

:lol:

Go for it Zorro.

Lots of things are becoming obvious.

[lynx]

The only possible reason you've submitted is that affecting staff.

I've already covered most of the others.

Delivery persons would have to have a separate route and since the smoking area I defined is not allowed to be in an access path that's already covered.

Tax inspectors - that's a good one, what are they going to say, "I want to look at your books and I want to do it in that room so you have to ban smoking"? Get real. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Firemen - "Sorry, we had to let the place burn down, there was smoke in there". :lol: :lol: :lol:
Policemen - "These villains are getting even more devious - last week we even had one escape by dodging into a smokers area". :w00t:

The emergency services have to deal with all sorts of situations which they may find unpleasant and even life threatening. It is part of life, we have to get on with it. Many of these relate to motor vehicles, I haven't heard you calling for cars to be banned. Next week perhaps.

I'm sure you've heard of smoke extraction systems, or air cleaners as they are more properly known, some of which are so effective that the air that leaves them is cleaner than so called "fresh" air, and in a very short space of time too. With a system of negative pressure the progression of air would be into the smoking affected area, there's no great technological leap required to achieve that. Certainly no need for the hermetically sealed rooms and airlocks you've dreamt up.

So you are left with the question of staff in a smoking area. Remember that all facilities have to be accessible in smoke free areas, which by definition means that all serving must be done in such an area. By and large that leaves such activities as cleaning and glass collection. It is hardly difficult to devise a scheme whereby this can be achieved without staff being exposed to smoke, particularly given the effectiveness of modern air cleaners; I exclude most members of parliament from those capable of formulating such a plan.

Long before the votes, governments were asked by the license trade to indicate how they might react to the introduction of smoke free areas and active air cleaning, and all refused to give any lead. The license trade would have been insane to invest in potentially soon-to-be-redundant equipment. These same governments then cited the lack of such investment as one of the reasons for not going down that route. Talk about two-faced.

Whoopee, you spotted a typo. Is that the line you propose to pursue next?

[lynx]

Where we can have a new rule "smokers only need apply for jobs" if you don't smoke fuck off and stay on the dole. Or compromise and die of throat cancer, or emphysema. I've just found an article (not online so I can't link to it) that shows the hole in that argument - 34% of respondents to a query by the Scottish Licensed Trade Association reported that they have had to lay off staff, so now the choice is stay on the dole.

That's it, even for those who were willing to put up with the risks. Nice.

[Busyman™]

Well I'm switching my opinion now, somewhat.

I have to agree with lynx to a degree. If there are rooms designated for smoking then there shouldn't be a problem. It's almost an extension of what I was saying with the private club. However......

A smoking area would be a matter of logistics since clearly a room right next a non-smoking area is not good enough or even worse, I've seen smoking areas that were wide open right next to non-smoking areas.

That ain't good enough.

If the rooms were totally separate then it would be totally fucked up that some non-smoker demanded access knowing it's a smoking area.

Either way, as it stands now where I live, the restaurants with "bar" areas fail and so do pure bars. On principle, it could work but no one imo meets the requirement since a non-smoker would have legitimate gripe about smoke simply going out the so-called smoking area into their non-smoking area.

[JPaul]

As always the point is being missed. Smoking isn't a right, so why should any compromise be needed.

We don't want hundreds of poisons in enclosed public places. So ban it, sorted. Nothing complicated there, simple 100% effective solution.


Tax inspectors - that's a good one, what are they going to say, "I want to look at your books and I want to do it in that room so you have to ban smoking"? Get real.
Firemen - "Sorry, we had to let the place burn down, there was smoke in there".
Policemen - "These villains are getting even more devious - last week we even had one escape by dodging into a smokers area".

A VAT inspector is entitled to inspect all of a set of premises at any reasonable time. "People smoke there" is not an aceeptable reason to prevent that.

Why should firemen have to inhale other people's poisons. Yes if there's a reason they have to go into dangerous areas they do it, after balancing the risks, that's a given. However why should they have to do it because other people chose to inhale noxious fumes.

Policemen, see above. The fact that people have a dangerous job already does not make them fair game for the self imposed lunacy of others.


The emergency services have to deal with all sorts of situations which they may find unpleasant and even life threatening. It is part of life, we have to get on with it. Many of these relate to motor vehicles, I haven't heard you calling for cars to be banned. Next week perhaps.

As previously discussed cars have a reason. However there are risks so we compromise. Remember, that was the analogy you didn't understand.


Whoopee, you spotted a typo. Is that the line you propose to pursue next?

It wasn't the typo, it was the fact that you posted "Where possible I expose there mendacity ...". Who the fuck do you think you are.

[Night0wl]

Ban it everywhere. Then just maybe I could quit ;)

[JPaul]

That's a bit harsh, people should be able to smoke if they chose to. So long as it's only themselves they are slowly killing.

[bigboab]

Ban it everywhere. Then just maybe I could quit ;)

I agree. There are over THIRTY thousand deaths from tobacco caused lung cancer per year in the UK.

There are TWO deaths from using Marijuana per year in the UK.

It is legal to smoke tobacco in the UK.

It is illegal to smoke Marijuana in the UK.

It all seems logical to me.:whistling

[JPaul]

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact02.html

Illness caused by smoking

Smoking harms nearly every organ of the body, causing many diseases, and reduces quality of life and life expectancy. It has been estimated 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 day. [1] For every death caused by smoking, approximately 20 smokers are suffering from a smoking related disease. [2] In 1997/98, cigarette smoking caused an estimated 480,000 patients to consult their GP for heart disease, 20,000 for stroke and nearly 600,000 for COPD. 1



Half of all teenagers who are currently smoking will die from diseases caused by tobacco if they continue to smoke. One quarter will die after 70 years of age and one quarter before, with those dying before 70 losing on average 21 years of life. [3] It is estimated that between 1950 and 2000 six million Britons, 60 million people worldwide, died from tobacco-related diseases. [4]



Non-lethal illness

Smokers face a higher risk than non-smokers for a wide variety of illnesses, many of which may be fatal (see “Deaths caused by smoking” below). However, many medical conditions associated with smoking, while they may not be fatal, may cause years of debilitating illness or other problems. These include: [5]



Increased risk for smokers

Acute necrotizing ulcerative gingivitis (gum disease)


Muscle injuries

Angina (20 x risk)


Neck pain

Back pain


Nystagmus (abnormal eye movements)

Buerger’s Disease (severe circulatory disease)


Ocular Histoplasmosis (fungal eye infection)

Duodenal ulcer


Osteoporosis (in both sexes)

Cataract (2 x risk)


Osteoarthritis

Cataract, posterior subcapsular (3 x risk)


Penis (Erectile dysfunction)

Colon Polyps


Peripheral vascular disease

Crohn’s Disease (chronic inflamed bowel)


Pneumonia

Depression


Psoriasis (2 x risk)

Diabetes (Type 2, non-insulin dependent)


Skin wrinkling (2 x risk)

Hearing loss


Stomach ulcer

Influenza


Rheumatoid arthritis (for heavy smokers) [6]

Impotence (2 x risk)


Tendon injuries

Optic Neuropathy (loss of vision, 16 x risk)


Tobacco Amblyopia (loss of vision)

Ligament injuries


Tooth loss

Macular degeneration (eyes, 2 x risk)


Tuberculosis

Function impaired in smokers

Ejaculation (volume reduced)


Sperm count reduced

Fertility (30% lower in women)


Sperm motility impaired

Immune System (impaired)


Sperm less able to penetrate the ovum

Menopause (onset 1.74 years early on average)


Sperm shape abnormalities increased

Symptoms worse in smokers

Asthma


Graves’ disease (over-active thyroid gland)

Chronic rhinitis (chronic inflammation of the nose)


Multiple Sclerosis

Diabetic retinopathy (eyes)


Optic Neuritis (eyes)

Disease more severe or persistent in smokers

Common cold


Pneumonia

Crohn’s Disease (chronic inflamed bowel)


Tuberculosis

Influenza






Deaths caused by smoking

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 114,000 people in the UK are killed by smoking every year, accounting for one fifth of all UK deaths. [7] Most die from one of the three main diseases associated with cigarette smoking: lung cancer, chronic obstructive lung disease (bronchitis and emphysema) and coronary heart disease. The table below shows the percentage and numbers of deaths attributable to smoking, based on the latest available detailed breakdown (2002 data).



Estimated percentages and numbers of deaths attributable to smoking in the UK by cause

(based on 2002 mortality data) 1, [8]




* Studies have shown that smoking appears to have a protective effect against the onset of some diseases such as endometrial cancer. However, the positive effect is so small in comparison with the overwhelming toll of death and disease caused by smoking that there is no direct public health benefit.



Deaths caused by smoking are five times higher than the 22,833 deaths arising from: traffic accidents (3,439); poisoning and overdose (881); alcoholic liver disease (5,121); other accidental deaths (8,579); murder and manslaughter (513); suicide (4,066); and HIV infection (234) in the UK during 2002. 8 World-wide, almost 5 million die prematurely each year as a result of smoking. Based on current trends, this will rise to 10 million within 20 years. [9] For further information on smoking deaths in the UK and worldwide see: www.deathsfromsmoking.net





References

[1] Nicotine Addiction in Britain. A report of the Tobacco Advisory Group of the Royal College of Physicians. RCP, 2000 (for percentage of smoking-related deaths). Mortality statistics 2002., Office for National Statistics, 2002; General Register Office for Scotland, 2002; Registrar General Northern Ireland, Annual Report, Statistics & Research Agency, 2002.

[2] Cigarette smoking-attributable morbidity – United States, 2000. MMWR Weekly Report, 5 Sep. 2003

[3] Peto R. Mortality in relation to smoking: 40 years’ observations on male British doctors. BMJ 1994; 309: 901-911

[4] Peto R et al. Mortality from smoking in developed countries, 1950-2000. Oxford Medical Publications, 1994.

[5] Cigarettes: what the warning label doesn’t tell you. American Council on Science & Health, 1997.

[6] Hutchinson, D et al. Annals of Rheumatic Diseases, 2001; 60: 223-7

[7] Peto, R. et al Mortality from smoking in developed countries 1950-2000 (2nd edition) Oxford University Press, Oxford. View report

[8] Mortality statistics 2002., Office for National Statistics, 2002; General Register Office for Scotland, 2002; Registrar General Northern Ireland, Annual Report, Statistics & Research Agency, 2002.

[9] The World Health Report 2003. World Health Organization, 2003.

[JPaul]

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact08.html

Introduction

Breathing other people's smoke is called passive, involuntary or secondhand smoking. The non-smoker breathes "sidestream" smoke from the burning tip of the cigarette and "mainstream" smoke that has been inhaled and then exhaled by the smoker. Secondhand smoke (SHS) is a major source of indoor air pollution.



What's in the smoke?

Tobacco smoke contains over 4000 chemicals in the form of particles and gases. [1] Many potentially toxic gases are present in higher concentrations in sidestream smoke than in mainstream smoke and nearly 85% of the smoke in a room results from sidestream smoke. [2] The particulate phase includes tar (itself composed of many chemicals), nicotine, benzene and benzo(a)pyrene. The gas phase includes carbon monoxide, ammonia, dimethylnitrosamine, formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide and acrolein. Some of these have marked irritant properties and some 60 are known or suspected carcinogens (cancer causing substances). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the USA has classified environmental tobacco smoke as a class A (known human) carcinogen along with asbestos, arsenic, benzene and radon gas. 1



How does this affect the passive smoker?

Some of the immediate effects of passive smoking include eye irritation, headache, cough, sore throat, dizziness and nausea. Adults with asthma can experience a significant decline in lung function when exposed, while new cases of asthma may be induced in children whose parents smoke. Short term exposure to tobacco smoke also has a measurable effect on the heart in non-smokers. Just 30 minutes exposure is enough to reduce coronary blood flow. [3]



In the longer term, passive smokers suffer an increased risk of a range of smoking-related diseases. Non-smokers who are exposed to passive smoking in the home, have a 25 per cent increased risk of heart disease and lung cancer. [4] A major review by the Government-appointed Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (SCOTH) concluded that passive smoking is a cause of lung cancer and ischaemic heart disease in adult non-smokers, and a cause of respiratory disease, cot death, middle ear disease and asthmatic attacks in children. [5] A more recent review of the evidence by SCOTH found that the conclusions of its initial report still stand i.e. that there is a “causal effect of exposure to secondhand smoke on the risks of lung cancer, ischaemic heart disease and a strong link to adverse effects in children”. [6] A review of the risks of cancer from exposure to secondhand smoke by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) noted that “the evidence is sufficient to conclude that involuntary smoking is a cause of lung cancer in never smokers”. [7] A study published in the British Medical Journal suggests that previous studies of the effects of passive smoking on the risk of heart disease may have been under-estimated. The researchers found that blood cotinine levels among non-smokers were associated with a 50-60% increased risk of heart disease. [8]



Deaths from secondhand smoke

Whilst the relative health risks from passive smoking are small in comparison with those from active smoking, because the diseases are common, the overall health impact is large. Professor Konrad Jamrozik, formerly of Imperial College London, has estimated that domestic exposure to secondhand smoke in the UK causes around 2,700 deaths in people aged 20-64 and a further 8,000 deaths a year among people aged 65 years or older. Exposure to secondhand smoke at work is estimated to cause the death of more than two employed persons per working day across the UK as a whole (617 deaths a year), including 54 deaths a year in the hospitality industry. This equates to about one-fifth of all deaths from secondhand smoke in the general population and up to half of such deaths among employees in the hospitality trades. [9]



Risk to young children

Almost half of all children in the UK are exposed to tobacco smoke at home. [10] Passive smoking increases the risk of lower respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis, pneumonia and bronchiolitis in children. One study found that in households where both parents smoke, young children have a 72 per cent increased risk of respiratory illnesses. [11] Passive smoking causes a reduction in lung function and increased severity in the symptoms of asthma in children, and is a risk factor for new cases of asthma in children. [12] [13] Passive smoking is also associated with middle ear infection in children as well as possible cardiovascular impairment and behavioural problems. [14]



Infants of parents who smoke are more likely to be admitted to hospital for bronchitis and pneumonia in the first year of life. More than 17,000 children under the age of five are admitted to hospital every year because of the effects of passive smoking. [15] Passive smoking during childhood predisposes children to developing chronic obstructive airway disease and cancer as adults. 15 Exposure to tobacco smoke may also impair olfactory function in children. A Canadian study found that passive smoking reduced children’s ability to detect a wide variety of odours compared with children raised in non-smoking households. [16] Passive smoking may also affect children’s mental development. A US study found deficits in reading and reasoning skills among children even at low levels of smoke exposure. [17]

For further information regarding the health risks of exposure to secondhand smoke for adults and children see the ‘Going smoke-free’ report by the Royal College of Physicians. [18]



Exposure to passive smoking during pregnancy is an independent risk factor for low birth weight.13 One study has also shown that babies exposed to their mother’s tobacco smoke before they are born grow up with reduced lung function [19] Parental smoking is also a risk factor for sudden infant death syndrome (cot death).





What protection is there for non-smokers?

A bill to ban smoking in public places and workplaces is currently being considered by Parliament. It is expected to come into effect by mid 2007. Scotland is covered by separate legislation which comes into effect from 26 March 2006. For further information see Factsheet no 14 in this series: Smoking in workplaces and public places.





Reports and surveys

Public opinion surveys have shown widespread support for smoking restrictions in public places whilst support for comprehensive legislation has increased dramatically over the past 2 years. A YouGov poll commissioned by ASH and Cancer Research UK in December 2005 found that 71% of respondents across the UK said they would support a law to make all workplaces smoke-free. [20]







References

[1] Respiratory health effects of passive smoking. EPA/600/6-90/006F United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1992. [View document]

[2] Fielding, JE and Phenow, KJ. New England J. of Medicine 1988; 319: 1452-60.

[3] Otsuka, R. Acute effects of passive smoking on the coronary circulation in healthy young adults. JAMA 2001; 286: 436-441 [View abstract]

[4] Law MR et al. Environmental tobacco smoke exposure and ischaemic heart disease: an evaluation of the evidence. BMJ 1997; 315: 973-80. [View abstract] Hackshaw AK et al. The accumulated evidence on lung cancer and environmental tobacco smoke. BMJ 1997; 315: 980-88. [View abstract]

[5] Report of the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health. Department of Health, 1998. [View document]

[6] Secondhand smoke: Review of evidence since 1998. Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (SCOTH). Department of Health, 2004. [View document]

[7] Tobacco smoke and involuntary smoking. IARC Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Vol 83. Lyon, France, 2004. View summary

[8] Whincup, P et al. Passive smoking and risk of coronary heart disease and stroke: prospective study with cotinine measurement. BMJ Online First June 2004 [View abstract]

[9] Jamrozik,K Estimate of deaths among adults in the United Kingdom attributable to passive smoking. BMJ 2005, published online 1 March 2005 View abstract

[10] Jarvis MJ et al. Children’s exposure to passive smoking in England since the 1980s: cotinine evidence from population surveys. BMJ 2000; 321: 343-345 View abstract

[11] Strachan, DP and Cook, DG. Parental smoking and lower respiratory illness in infancy and early childhood. Thorax 1997; 52: 905-914.

[12] Respiratory health effects of passive smoking. EPA/600/6-90/006F United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1992.

[13] Health effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Report of the California EPA. NCI, 1999. [View document]

[14] International Consultation on ETS and Child Health. WHO/NCD/TFI/99.10, World Health Organization, 1999. [View document]

[15] Smoking and the Young. Royal College of Physicians, 1992.

[16] Nageris,B Effects of passive smoking on odour identification in children. J Otolaryngol. 2001; 30 (5): 263-5 [View abstract]

[17] Yolton, K et al. Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and cognitive ability among US children. Abstracts Online. May 2002 View abstract

[18] Going smoke-free. The medical case for clean air in the home, at work and in public places. A report on passive smoking by the Tobacco Advisory Group of the Royal College of Physicians. RCP, London, 2005

[19] Gilliland FD et al. Thorax 2000; 55: 271-276 [View abstract]

[20] YouGov. http://www.ash.org.uk/html/press/051230.html

[bigboab]

You missed out the number of people killed in house fires by people trying to smoke or falling asleep while smoking.:)

You are excused.:whistling

[JPaul]

Imagine how long that took me to type as it is. I had to just do the most important bits.

[lynx]

As always the point is being missed. Smoking isn't a right, so why should any compromise be needed.
I didn't miss it, smoking is a legal activity, there are rights regarding the ability to perform legal acts. Once again you are ignoring what I said, and at the same time trying to twist the truth on other people's rights.

We don't want hundreds of poisons in enclosed public places. So ban it, sorted. Nothing complicated there, simple 100% effective solution.
I can think of lots of things that I don't like to experience in public places, I'm sure you can too. Banning everything that someone does not like is not the solution if there is no harm to those not involved in the activity.

A VAT inspector is entitled to inspect all of a set of premises at any reasonable time. "People smoke there" is not an aceeptable reason to prevent that.
A VAT inspector is also entitled to inspect a private dwelling, and does NOT have the right to ask the occupants to stop smoking. It could easily be made one of the conditions that in the case of a lawful inspection that smoking would have to cease. Remember that the air cleaners are very effective. In any case, what are the chances of that happening while the place is open to the public? When was the last time YOU saw a VAT inspection where they wanted to see the whole of the premises?

Why should firemen have to inhale other people's poisons. Yes if there's a reason they have to go into dangerous areas they do it, after balancing the risks, that's a given. However why should they have to do it because other people chose to inhale noxious fumes.
Jeez, you are clutching at straws now. For a start firemen often wear breathing apparatus, and in any case the smoke from a fire is thousands of times more toxic than tobacco smoke, get a sense of proportion.

Policemen, see above. The fact that people have a dangerous job already does not make them fair game for the self imposed lunacy of others.
See the part above about VAT inspectors.


The emergency services have to deal with all sorts of situations which they may find unpleasant and even life threatening. It is part of life, we have to get on with it. Many of these relate to motor vehicles, I haven't heard you calling for cars to be banned. Next week perhaps.

As previously discussed cars have a reason. However there are risks so we compromise. Remember, that was the analogy you didn't understand.
If you remember, it was about speed, and as I recall it was you who tried to twist the analogy because it hurt your argument. Nice try, but no cigar.


Whoopee, you spotted a typo. Is that the line you propose to pursue next?

It wasn't the typo, it was the fact that you posted "Where possible I expose there mendacity ...". Who the fuck do you think you are.I think I'm someone who points out when people are lying bastards. Not necessarily in a big way, but I often make a comment about it somewhere. Why do you ask? I didn't have you down as one of those people who are willing to let them get away with spouting nonsense. Maybe I got that wrong.

[lynx]

Careful with all those references JP, they might just be lying to you.

For instance, smoking does NOT cause

Influenza (twice) - caused by a virus
Tuberculosis (twice) - caused by a mucobacterium
Ocular Histoplasmosis (fungal eye infection) - caused by a fungus (there's a surprise)


I can't be bothered to check any more. Was it the same for you when you did your C&P, or did you just not understand it?

[JPaul]

"Where possible I expose there mendacity ..."

Oh come on, that just sounds so far up your own arse it's unbelievable. You must see that.

"I can think of lots of things that I don't like to experience in public places, I'm sure you can too. Banning everything that someone does not like is not the solution if there is no harm to those not involved in the activity."

How many of them have such a detrimental effect on people's health though. Don't tell me we can have smoking rooms. Why should we, it's just a bad thing, why should we make allowances for it.

I'm not dealing with the rest, because I really can't be bothered. Other than to ask when VAT inspectors were given the power to inspect private dwellings. Where did you get that from. It's not something I know about, however it seems unlikely to me.

[vidcc]

Careful with all those references JP, they might just be lying to you.

For instance, smoking does NOT cause

Influenza (twice) - caused by a virus
Tuberculosis (twice) - caused by a mucobacterium
Ocular Histoplasmosis (fungal eye infection) - caused by a fungus (there's a surprise)


I can't be bothered to check any more. Was it the same for you when you did your C&P, or did you just not understand it?
I can't be bothered reading the whole thing but does it actually say smoking is the cause

Increased risk for smokers

To me this says that a smoker is more susceptible because of the habit, not that the habit will cause it. In short smoking lowers efficiency of the bodies defense systems

[JPaul]

Careful with all those references JP, they might just be lying to you.

For instance, smoking does NOT cause

Influenza (twice) - caused by a virus
Tuberculosis (twice) - caused by a mucobacterium
Ocular Histoplasmosis (fungal eye infection) - caused by a fungus (there's a surprise)


I can't be bothered to check any more. Was it the same for you when you did your C&P, or did you just not understand it?

Did someone say smoking caused these things. I thought they said that smoking increased their likelihood.

Perhaps you should expose their mendacity.

[lynx]

"Where possible I expose there mendacity ..."

Oh come on, that just sounds so far up your own arse it's unbelievable. You must see that.

"I can think of lots of things that I don't like to experience in public places, I'm sure you can too. Banning everything that someone does not like is not the solution if there is no harm to those not involved in the activity."

How many of them have such a detrimental effect on people's health though. Don't tell me we can have smoking rooms. Why should we, it's just a bad thing, why should we make allowances for it.

I'm not dealing with the rest, because I really can't be bothered. Other than to ask when VAT inspectors were given the power to inspect private dwellings. Where did you get that from. It's not something I know about, however it seems unlikely to me.So you don't think liars should be exposed? That explains a lot.

You really haven't got a proper handle on this rights thing have you. It isn't about taking things away because you don't like them, or even because there is a potential for doing someone else harm, whether you see any purpose or not. The whole point about protecting people's rights is to see if there is a way that they can be accommodated. The use of mob mentality to alienate sections of society is a common trick of fascism, but communism has often employed the same tactics.

As to whether VAT inspectors can inspect private dwellings, they were initially part of the Customs service, and as such have the power to enter any premises without warrant. Now that the Customs service is merged with the Inland Revenue, I wonder if that same power now applies to tax inspectors.

Edit: The burden of proof lies with those making the claim. ASH provides none. What a shame you don't require the same standards from them as you seem to do from everyone else.

[Chip Monk]

So you don't think liars should be exposed? That explains a lot.

Not even sure what you mean by that, unless it's intended as some form of personal insult.


You really haven't got a proper handle on this rights thing have you. It isn't about taking things away because you don't like them, or even because there is a potential for doing someone else harm, whether you see any purpose or not. The whole point about protecting people's rights is to see if there is a way that they can be accommodated. The use of mob mentality to alienate sections of society is a common trick of fascism, but communism has often employed the same tactics.

My handle on rights is just fine. It's just that you seem to think that because something is legal it is a right. Life is a right, freedom from torture is a right, privacy of home and family life is a right. There are others, inhaling a cocktail of noxious fumes isn't one of them.


As to whether VAT inspectors can inspect private dwellings, they were initially part of the Customs service, and as such have the power to enter any premises without warrant. Now that the Customs service is merged with the Inland Revenue, I wonder if that same power now applies to tax inspectors.

That's simply not true. HMCE had a thing called a "Writ of Assistance" which they could execute when they had reasonable grounds to suspect that there were goods liable to forfeiture on a set of premises. In practice they only used this if it was impractical to get a Warrant. For example if the goods were likely to be moved in the near future. They couldn't use it for the collection of tax and certainly not to gain access to private dwelling places.


Edit: The burden of proof lies with those making the claim. ASH provides none. What a shame you don't require the same standards from them as you seem to do from everyone else.

You would have thought they would list their references at the end of the article, or something like that.

Are you suggesting that it hasn't been proven just how detrimental to health smoking is, to both smokers and non-smokers. Exposing the mendacity of the entire medical profession are you.

[lynx]

So you don't think liars should be exposed? That explains a lot.

Not even sure what you mean by that, unless it's intended as some form of personal insult.
You comment was that exposing menacity "sounds so far up your own arse it's unbelievable". The logical conclusion of your own statement is that you don't agree with making such exposures.


You really haven't got a proper handle on this rights thing have you. It isn't about taking things away because you don't like them, or even because there is a potential for doing someone else harm, whether you see any purpose or not. The whole point about protecting people's rights is to see if there is a way that they can be accommodated. The use of mob mentality to alienate sections of society is a common trick of fascism, but communism has often employed the same tactics.

My handle on rights is just fine. It's just that you seem to think that because something is legal it is a right. Life is a right, freedom from torture is a right, privacy of home and family life is a right. There are others, inhaling a cocktail of noxious fumes isn't one of them.
Ah, the narrow definition that people resort to when they want to deny rights, exactly the opposite of the definition the same people use when they want to claim rights. But you are quite right, inhaling a cocktail of noxious fumes isn't a right, the freedom to do so is though.



As to whether VAT inspectors can inspect private dwellings, they were initially part of the Customs service, and as such have the power to enter any premises without warrant. Now that the Customs service is merged with the Inland Revenue, I wonder if that same power now applies to tax inspectors.

That's simply not true. HMCE had a thing called a "Writ of Assistance" which they could execute when they had reasonable grounds to suspect that there were goods liable to forfeiture on a set of premises. In practice they only used this if it was impractical to get a Warrant. For example if the goods were likely to be moved in the near future. They couldn't use it for the collection of tax and certainly not to gain access to private dwelling places.
It is a shame you haven't watched the recent factual series on the actions of HMCE - Undercover Customs. They entered premises, including private dwellings, on several occasions without a warrant. I only mention it because you were the one who said that they have the right to inspect all premises.


Edit: The burden of proof lies with those making the claim. ASH provides none. What a shame you don't require the same standards from them as you seem to do from everyone else.

You would have thought they would list their references at the end of the article, or something like that.

Are you suggesting that it hasn't been proven just how detrimental to health smoking is, to both smokers and non-smokers. Exposing the mendacity of the entire medical profession are you.
Please indicate where I have claimed that smoking is not detrimental to health.

The point is that some people try to attribute all manner of conditions to smoking, when all they have is hearsay, anecdote and assumption. But there is absolutely no way that smoking is a contributive cause of diseases like influenza, tuberculosis.

Imagine putting you hand in a meat grinder. You'll probably lose a few fingers. If it is the hand you write with there's quite a good chance your handwriting will suffer. Using the same standards used by ASH the equivalent statement might be to say that a meat grinder contributes to poor handwriting.

Putting your hand in a meat grinder is bad for your health.
Smoking is bad for your health.
In neither case can the conclusions drawn be justified.

Ask yourself why they thought to put many of the diseases down twice. It is simply because they wanted to pad out the list, on the assumption that many people will look at the quantity not the quality of the article. Hence padding it out with bits that simply aren't true.

It is sloppy, untruthful use of science.

[JPaul]

It's too circular to be even interesting now. I'm sure you agree with that at least.

Catch you when England bring the legislation in, that's June I think.

[vidcc]

On the point that smoking serves no "good" purpose, I submit for consideration the story of one Brenda Comer..................






Updated: 11:42 a.m. MT April 18, 2007

ROCK HILL, S.C. — Smoking just might have saved Brenda Comer's life.

She said she had just finished washing dishes Monday and stepped outside to smoke a cigarette when an 80-foot oak tree crashed through her roof, landing across the sink where she had been standing just seconds before.

"Honey, I know you fuss at me for smoking," Comer said she told her husband. "But today it saved my life.":smoke:



So put that in your pipe and smoke it ....... Just do it at home where you don't poison anyone else ;)

source (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18178129/)

The foxnews version for you bushies (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266781,00.html) ;)

[bigboab]

On the point that smoking serves no "good" purpose, I submit for consideration the story of one Brenda Comer..................






Updated: 11:42 a.m. MT April 18, 2007

ROCK HILL, S.C. — Smoking just might have saved Brenda Comer's life.

She said she had just finished washing dishes Monday and stepped outside to smoke a cigarette when an 80-foot oak tree crashed through her roof, landing across the sink where she had been standing just seconds before.

"Honey, I know you fuss at me for smoking," Comer said she told her husband. "But today it saved my life.":smoke:



So put that in your pipe and smoke it ....... Just do it at home where you don't poison anyone else ;)

source (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18178129/)

The foxnews version for you bushies (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266781,00.html) ;)

:lol:

Are you sure it wasn't an Ash tree?:)

[lynx]

On the point that smoking serves no "good" purpose, I submit for consideration the story of one Brenda Comer..................






Updated: 11:42 a.m. MT April 18, 2007

ROCK HILL, S.C. — Smoking just might have saved Brenda Comer's life.

She said she had just finished washing dishes Monday and stepped outside to smoke a cigarette when an 80-foot oak tree crashed through her roof, landing across the sink where she had been standing just seconds before.

"Honey, I know you fuss at me for smoking," Comer said she told her husband. "But today it saved my life.":smoke:



So put that in your pipe and smoke it ....... Just do it at home where you don't poison anyone else ;)

source (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18178129/)

The foxnews version for you bushies (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266781,00.html) ;)

:lol:

Are you sure it wasn't an Ash tree?:)You are going to burn for that one. :ph34r:

[bigboab]

If it ever came about that smoking was banned everywhere in the UK would there be any point in calling for the legalization of the smoking of Cannabis?:wacko:

[Mr JP Fugley]

Yes, yes there would.

[bigboab]

Yes, yes there would.

The point would be?:)

[Mr JP Fugley]

So that people could smoke cannabis without breaking the law.

[bigboab]

So that people could smoke cannabis without breaking the law.

Where would they go to smoke Cannabis if smoking was banned everywhere.:)

[j2k4]

Dr. Williams' contribution to your debate:

The public has become increasingly aware that the science behind manmade global warming is a fraud. But maybe Americans like bogus science in pursuit of certain public policy objectives. Let's look at it.

Many Americans find tobacco smoke to be a nuisance. Some find the odor offensive, and others have allergies or asthma that can be aggravated by smoking in their presence. There's little question that tobacco smoke causes these kinds of nuisances, but how successful would anti-smokers have been in a court of law, or public opinion, in achieving the kind of success they've achieved based on tobacco smoke being a nuisance?

A serious public health threat had to be manufactured, and in 1993 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stepped in to the rescue with their bogus environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) study that says secondhand tobacco smoke is a class A carcinogenic.

Why is it bogus? The EPA claimed that 3,000 Americans die annually from secondhand smoke, but there was a problem. They couldn't come up with that conclusion using the standard statistical 95 percent confidence interval. They lowered their study's confidence interval to 90 percent. That has the effect of doubling the margin of error and doubling the probability that mere chance explains those 3,000 deaths.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) said, "Admittedly, it is unusual to return to a study after the fact, lower the required significance level, and declare its results to be supportive rather than unsupportive of the effect one's theory suggests should be present." The CRS was being kind. This kind of doctoring of research results would get a graduate student expelled from a university.

In 1998, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer released the largest ever and best formulated study on ETS. The research project ran for 10 years and in seven European countries. The study, not widely publicized, concluded that no statistically significant risk existed for nonsmokers who either lived or worked with smokers.

During the late '90s, at a Washington affair, I had the occasion to be in the presence of an FDA official. I asked him whether he would approve of pharmaceutical companies employing EPA's statistical techniques in their testing of drug effectiveness and safety. He answered no. I ask my fellow Americans who are nonsmokers: Do you support the use of fraudulent science in your efforts to eliminate tobacco smoke nuisance in bars, restaurants, workplaces and hotels?

You say, "Okay, Williams, the science is bogus, but how do we nonsmokers cope with the nuisance of tobacco smoke?" My answer is that it all depends on whether you prefer liberty-oriented solutions to problems or those that are more tyranny-oriented.

The liberty-oriented solution has to do with private property rights, whereby the owner of property makes the decision whether he will allow smoking or not. If one is a nonsmoker, he just doesn't do business with a bar or restaurant where smoking is permitted. A smoker could exercise the same right if a bar or restaurant didn't permit smoking. Publicly owned places such as libraries, airports and municipal buildings, where ownership is ill defined, presents more of a challenge.

The tyranny-oriented solution is where one group uses the political system to forcibly impose its preferences on others. You might be tempted to object to the term "tyranny," but suppose you owned a restaurant where you did not permit smoking and smokers used the political system to create a law forcing you to permit smoking. I'm sure you'd deem it tyranny.

The public policy debate on smoking has been settled through bogus science. My question is, how willing are we to allow bogus science to be used in the pursuit of other public policy agendas, such as restrictions on economic growth, in the name of fighting global warming?


Dr. Walter Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics

[bigboab]

Dr. Williams' contribution to your debate:

The public has become increasingly aware that the science behind manmade global warming is a fraud. But maybe Americans like bogus science in pursuit of certain public policy objectives. Let's look at it.

Many Americans find tobacco smoke to be a nuisance. Some find the odor offensive, and others have allergies or asthma that can be aggravated by smoking in their presence. There's little question that tobacco smoke causes these kinds of nuisances, but how successful would anti-smokers have been in a court of law, or public opinion, in achieving the kind of success they've achieved based on tobacco smoke being a nuisance?

A serious public health threat had to be manufactured, and in 1993 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stepped in to the rescue with their bogus environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) study that says secondhand tobacco smoke is a class A carcinogenic.

Why is it bogus? The EPA claimed that 3,000 Americans die annually from secondhand smoke, but there was a problem. They couldn't come up with that conclusion using the standard statistical 95 percent confidence interval. They lowered their study's confidence interval to 90 percent. That has the effect of doubling the margin of error and doubling the probability that mere chance explains those 3,000 deaths.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) said, "Admittedly, it is unusual to return to a study after the fact, lower the required significance level, and declare its results to be supportive rather than unsupportive of the effect one's theory suggests should be present." The CRS was being kind. This kind of doctoring of research results would get a graduate student expelled from a university.

In 1998, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer released the largest ever and best formulated study on ETS. The research project ran for 10 years and in seven European countries. The study, not widely publicized, concluded that no statistically significant risk existed for nonsmokers who either lived or worked with smokers.

During the late '90s, at a Washington affair, I had the occasion to be in the presence of an FDA official. I asked him whether he would approve of pharmaceutical companies employing EPA's statistical techniques in their testing of drug effectiveness and safety. He answered no. I ask my fellow Americans who are nonsmokers: Do you support the use of fraudulent science in your efforts to eliminate tobacco smoke nuisance in bars, restaurants, workplaces and hotels?

You say, "Okay, Williams, the science is bogus, but how do we nonsmokers cope with the nuisance of tobacco smoke?" My answer is that it all depends on whether you prefer liberty-oriented solutions to problems or those that are more tyranny-oriented.

The liberty-oriented solution has to do with private property rights, whereby the owner of property makes the decision whether he will allow smoking or not. If one is a nonsmoker, he just doesn't do business with a bar or restaurant where smoking is permitted. A smoker could exercise the same right if a bar or restaurant didn't permit smoking. Publicly owned places such as libraries, airports and municipal buildings, where ownership is ill defined, presents more of a challenge.

The tyranny-oriented solution is where one group uses the political system to forcibly impose its preferences on others. You might be tempted to object to the term "tyranny," but suppose you owned a restaurant where you did not permit smoking and smokers used the political system to create a law forcing you to permit smoking. I'm sure you'd deem it tyranny.

The public policy debate on smoking has been settled through bogus science. My question is, how willing are we to allow bogus science to be used in the pursuit of other public policy agendas, such as restrictions on economic growth, in the name of fighting global warming?


Dr. Walter Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics

I find the printing of this article unbecoming of you J2. It suggests that the people we have elected would stoop to implementing laws based of fallacy or fad.:whistling

Incidentally why does Dr Williams not use his own name at George Mason University?:)

[Mr JP Fugley]

So that people could smoke cannabis without breaking the law.

Where would they go to smoke Cannabis if smoking was banned everywhere.:)

Yes but you asked if they would campaign for it to be allowed. To which I replied yes.

You then asked why and I said so that they could smoke it without breaking the law.

If it was allowed they wouldn't be breaking the law, so I don't get your point.

[j2k4]

Dr. Williams' contribution to your debate:

The public has become increasingly aware that the science behind manmade global warming is a fraud. But maybe Americans like bogus science in pursuit of certain public policy objectives. Let's look at it.

Many Americans find tobacco smoke to be a nuisance. Some find the odor offensive, and others have allergies or asthma that can be aggravated by smoking in their presence. There's little question that tobacco smoke causes these kinds of nuisances, but how successful would anti-smokers have been in a court of law, or public opinion, in achieving the kind of success they've achieved based on tobacco smoke being a nuisance?

A serious public health threat had to be manufactured, and in 1993 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stepped in to the rescue with their bogus environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) study that says secondhand tobacco smoke is a class A carcinogenic.

Why is it bogus? The EPA claimed that 3,000 Americans die annually from secondhand smoke, but there was a problem. They couldn't come up with that conclusion using the standard statistical 95 percent confidence interval. They lowered their study's confidence interval to 90 percent. That has the effect of doubling the margin of error and doubling the probability that mere chance explains those 3,000 deaths.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) said, "Admittedly, it is unusual to return to a study after the fact, lower the required significance level, and declare its results to be supportive rather than unsupportive of the effect one's theory suggests should be present." The CRS was being kind. This kind of doctoring of research results would get a graduate student expelled from a university.

In 1998, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer released the largest ever and best formulated study on ETS. The research project ran for 10 years and in seven European countries. The study, not widely publicized, concluded that no statistically significant risk existed for nonsmokers who either lived or worked with smokers.

During the late '90s, at a Washington affair, I had the occasion to be in the presence of an FDA official. I asked him whether he would approve of pharmaceutical companies employing EPA's statistical techniques in their testing of drug effectiveness and safety. He answered no. I ask my fellow Americans who are nonsmokers: Do you support the use of fraudulent science in your efforts to eliminate tobacco smoke nuisance in bars, restaurants, workplaces and hotels?

You say, "Okay, Williams, the science is bogus, but how do we nonsmokers cope with the nuisance of tobacco smoke?" My answer is that it all depends on whether you prefer liberty-oriented solutions to problems or those that are more tyranny-oriented.

The liberty-oriented solution has to do with private property rights, whereby the owner of property makes the decision whether he will allow smoking or not. If one is a nonsmoker, he just doesn't do business with a bar or restaurant where smoking is permitted. A smoker could exercise the same right if a bar or restaurant didn't permit smoking. Publicly owned places such as libraries, airports and municipal buildings, where ownership is ill defined, presents more of a challenge.

The tyranny-oriented solution is where one group uses the political system to forcibly impose its preferences on others. You might be tempted to object to the term "tyranny," but suppose you owned a restaurant where you did not permit smoking and smokers used the political system to create a law forcing you to permit smoking. I'm sure you'd deem it tyranny.

The public policy debate on smoking has been settled through bogus science. My question is, how willing are we to allow bogus science to be used in the pursuit of other public policy agendas, such as restrictions on economic growth, in the name of fighting global warming?


Dr. Walter Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics

I find the printing of this article unbecoming of you J2. It suggests that the people we have elected would stoop to implementing laws based of fallacy or fad.:whistling

Incidentally why does Dr Williams not use his own name at George Mason University?:)

I find your perception of irony facetious, as do Mssrs. Williams, Olin, and Mason. :)

[vidcc]

So now we trust the opinion of a Professor of Economics to debunk climatologist on global warming and medical research on the effects of tobacco.:rolleyes:

If his article stuck to the merits of what we do about such things it could have been half credible, but his "Scientific conclusion" is that the whole thing is a conspiracy.

Again...........A political argument does not debunk scientific studies.

[Mr JP Fugley]

Kev

I prefer the opinions of groups like the British Heart Foundation. Particularly when your source is discussing WHO reports from 1998. I suspect that substantial advances have been made in the 9 years since that time. Indeed there was probably more passive smoking going on then, I believe smoking was more common, which would make passive smoking more common as well. It would therefore be difficult to compare those subjected to it with those who were not.

http://www.bhf.org.uk/questions/index.asp?secondlevel=1178&thirdlevel=1408#7497

[j2k4]

Kev

I prefer the opinions of groups like the British Heart Foundation. Particularly when your source is discussing WHO reports from 1998. I suspect that substantial advances have been made in the 9 years since that time. Indeed there was probably more passive smoking going on then, I believe smoking was more common, which would make passive smoking more common as well. It would therefore be difficult to compare those subjected to it with those who were not.

http://www.bhf.org.uk/questions/index.asp?secondlevel=1178&thirdlevel=1408#7497

Do you mean to say the British Heart Foundation's opinion is to be looked upon as superior to that of the WHO.

Heathen.


So now we trust the opinion of a Professor of Economics to debunk climatologist on global warming and medical research on the effects of tobacco.:rolleyes:

If his article stuck to the merits of what we do about such things it could have been half credible, but his "Scientific conclusion" is that the whole thing is a conspiracy.

Again...........A political argument does not debunk scientific studies.

Maybe not, but a logical argument surely can, especially when the science is of that distinctly specious type favored by Pope AlGore of the New Church of the Global Warming, but I digress...

Back to the subject of smoking, if you please. :whistling

[vidcc]

Maybe not, but a logical argument surely can, especially when the science is of that distinctly specious type favored by Pope AlGore of the New Church of the Global Warming, but I digress...
What constitutes "logical"?

Logical doesn't always mean correct. And no matter how "logical" you may feel a political argument is, it still does not refute what appears in your head to be an illogical scientific study.


Back to the subject of smoking, if you please. :whistling Your quote brought the global warming part into the thread, not mine



The public has become increasingly aware that the science behind manmade global warming is a fraud. But maybe Americans like bogus science in pursuit of certain public policy objectives. Let's look at it.

[Mr JP Fugley]

Do you mean to say the British Heart Foundation's opinion is to be looked upon as superior to that of the WHO.

Heathen.



Would you be disappointed if I posted something along the lines of "Given the circumstances, the age of the report and the source you quote, yes."

Obviously if that's the case I won't post it.

[j2k4]

Do you mean to say the British Heart Foundation's opinion is to be looked upon as superior to that of the WHO.

Heathen.



Would you be disappointed if I posted something along the lines of "Given the circumstances, the age of the report and the source you quote, yes."

Obviously if that's the case I won't post it.

No, I intended his column to present of a piece.

He is attempting to make the point that nothing has been proven to a scientific certainty, stepping outside the arena of American-generated study only to include the WHO study, which, absent a closer look, one would by default assume to conclude second-hand smoke to be the health scourge to end all health scourges, when in fact it does not.

Had he been writing his column for consumption beyond our borders, he may well have included the opinion you favor, and then modulated his argument to suit.

Perhaps I should have presented his column with a "for U.S. consumption" caveat, but I would have thought doing so insulting to attending company.

That means you. :)

[Mr JP Fugley]

Would you be disappointed if I posted something along the lines of "Given the circumstances, the age of the report and the source you quote, yes."

Obviously if that's the case I won't post it.

No, I intended his column to present of a piece.

He is attempting to make the point that nothing has been proven to a scientific certainty, stepping outside the arena of American-generated study only to include the WHO study, which, absent a closer look, one would by default assume to conclude second-hand smoke to be the health scourge to end all health scourges, when in fact it does not.

Had he been writing his column for consumption beyond our borders, he may well have included the opinion you favor, and then modulated his argument to suit.

Perhaps I should have presented his column with a "for U.S. consumption" caveat, but I would have thought doing so insulting to attending company.

That means you. :)

Are the effects of passive smoking different in America. That seems unlikely.

Why would he have written it differently were it written to include a non-American audience. Unless of course he realised that others would see it for the mendacity it was and take him to task over it.

Plenty has been proven about the effects of passive smoking. FFS if you accept that smoking has an adverse effect on health then even if you only do it intuitively you must accept that inhaling the same chemicals passively must have an effect.

Unless of course it's jut harmful when you put it thro' a filter.

[bigboab]

Only about 2% of lung cancer deaths can be attributed to passive smoking. Is it not about time that we tried to save the other 98%? Banning smoking altogether could be a choice or in the UK make Lung Cancer sufferers pay for treatment unless they can prove that they are 'passive smokers'.

Could banning smoking in public places raise that 2%. If people prefer to stay at home to smoke, might that raise the risk to their spouses and children? We wont know this till a lot of years down the line.:(

[Mr JP Fugley]

I don't agree with banning smoking.

I do agree with taking every step possible to prevent passive smoking.

The reason smokers deny the effects of passive smoking is that, if they accept them then they also have to accept what they are doing to other people, including as you say their spouse and children. They have to accept that they are killing other people or reducing their quality of life, because they want to inhale noxious fumes. Or are too weak to stop doing it.

[bigboab]

I don't agree with banning smoking.

I do agree with taking every step possible to prevent passive smoking.

The reason smokers deny the effects of passive smoking is that, if they accept them then they also have to accept what they are doing to other people, including as you say their spouse and children. They have to accept that they are killing other people or reducing their quality of life, because they want to inhale noxious fumes. Or are too weak to stop doing it.

Ban the sale of tobacco then. It is happening in a couple of countries already. Bhutan has banned smoking completely. Thought you would like to know that.:lol:

[Mr JP Fugley]

I don't agree with banning smoking.

I do agree with taking every step possible to prevent passive smoking.

The reason smokers deny the effects of passive smoking is that, if they accept them then they also have to accept what they are doing to other people, including as you say their spouse and children. They have to accept that they are killing other people or reducing their quality of life, because they want to inhale noxious fumes. Or are too weak to stop doing it.

Ban the sale of tobacco then.

There's a subtle difference twixt that and banning smoking.

Very subtle indeed.