Wales stubs out smoking in public places

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

The government's job is to protect the public.

---

Find that in the Constitution for me, please?

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chip Monk

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chip Monk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trad3r

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Where possible I expose there mendacity ...

---

:lol:

Go for it Zorro.

Lots of things are becoming obvious.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blue_Skies

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

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.

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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?

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

I can't be bothered reading the whole thing but does it actually say smoking is the cause

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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

Perhaps you should expose their mendacity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chip Monk

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.