Smoking Ban Being Introduced In The Uk

I'm with Mono, there are studies that show both sides are right. One study shows it does affect your health, another study shows it doesn't. I just feel that to take away the right of the private business owner to decide if he wants to allow smoking in his facility or to disallow it infringes on the rights of the owner. I could give a shit less about the customers at this point, it's about the private sector being invaded by the Government and denying them rights based on subjective studies and unproven abstract projections. This is a lot like censorship in my eyes, the idea of "This offends me and is bad for my health, it should be outlawed!" is a lot like the idea of "This offends me and is bad for my children's development, it should be outlawed." If you don't like your kids to hear bad words, don't let them hear bad words. If you don't like to be around secondhand smoke, don't be around it.

Anywhere outside is fine as far as I know, just not in restaurants, bars, etc.

Canada has been banning smoking in public places for a few years now so Im more or less used to it. Along with the ban saw another price raise in smokes. It's now close to $10.00 a pack. No one breaks the rules, there are fines and charges laid if you smoke where you arent supposed to. Plus you have to be at least 9' from a building entrance to smoke and all that shit. It's really lame for smokers in Canada because any given year we can get multiple feet of snow and drop to -30 - -40, so 9 feet feels like an eternity.

I dont think its right at all. A business should be able to decide if it is smoking or not and post on the door that they are either a smoking or non smoking establishment, that way people decided for themselves going in. If they dont like the smoke, they can go somewhere else.

Totally agree, that's what Spain has done.

To be honest, it takes a fucking moron not to realise that passive smoking permanently damages the human body. Ray Charles developed respiratory problems later in life (that eventually led to his deteriorated condition once liver disease set in and killed him) because he played in bars full of smoke during his career, even though he himself did not smoke. Fact. Respiratory issues are difficult as fuck to get over, I should know. If taking away peoples' right to poison themselves around me lets myself and others avoid it, then great.

EDIT: Fuck, wasn't Ray Charles. I'm thinking of another jazz musician. My point remains valid though.

Further edit: So as not to double post.

Passive smoking causes significant decline in lung function and reduces blood flow around the heart after half an hour, fact. Passive smokers have 25% more likely chance of heart/lung disease. Fact. Cite all the articles you want about exaggeration, this has been verified by doctors and scientists the world over. It's been seen in millions of cases. omfg coincidence!

Smokers and screaming children are two things I can do without in a public place. So now that we're done here, lets go out and shoot some kids!

They've been trying to do this down here in australia for years, dunno if it will ever be successful. You can still smoke in pubs and clubs which is cool though and pretty much anywhere else that isn't inside a public or government building.

I say we should all just move to amsterdam.

I say legalise crack in pubs.

if it's illegal to smoke outside of stores and shit I wouldn't mind much.

I mean I enjoy smoking out in public due to conveniance but if the outcry agaisnt people doing it do to there health I wouldn't mind just keeping it at home or others houses or in the woods or whatever.

Moron? like the oxford university lecturer. Yer, sitting in a pub your whole life will cause you some damage, but if your in there what, once a week, doubt it will cause you much damage, it took that jazz musician his whole life to get respiratory problems, occasionally in a bar therefore, should be fine.

Fuck!

I better stop spending all my free time in the pub until smoking in public has been outlawed, afterall I don't want to risk my health.

Yeah, I would call him a moron. It's been recognised since the late 80s at least, by sources from Oxford, Cambridge, Princeton and the Royal London School of Medicine, as well as numerous government papers from all over the world, including the Republican party from America themselves, who tend to oppose smoking bans. Champion the oxford professor if you want. I'll throw back 50 more institutes to counter it. is pointless.



That is so far removed from the point, as well as untrue (respiratory problems can develop within half an hour, permanent damage after 1 month. Look it up if you don't believe me). If it's unhealthy to others who aren't asking for it, it should be stopped, no matter how long it takes. But I'll go along with this if it leads to making any sense.What if I and other non-smokers want to be in the pub all the time? Should we have to leave because otherwise we die? How about I tell smokers to leave every four hours, otherwise I castrate them? Fair?

It has never been proven though, never. So you can't rely on information like that. There are lots of different view points on the matter, just because it's been thought of from the alter 80's, doesn't mean it's true, look at religion.
Going into a pub that you know is going to be smokey, is asking for it, it's like saying that if you drink excessively, you wern't asking to get liver damage.

The London air is no healthier than me sitting in a moderately smoky bar.

I can prove it to you if you want. I'm asthmatic. When I sit in a pub for ages, it gets difficult for me to breathe. It must be all the beer I'm drinking!




Alter 80s?



You're right. The thought that 4000 chemicals (including carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide and tar) floating directly into my lungs will be harmful to me is just as crazy as believing some dude 2000 years ago was the incarnation of God and rose from the dead. Dammit what was wrong with me!



Again you seem to be offtrack, that is exactly the point I'm making. Why should I be asking for it simply by walking into a pub to have a drink? Shouldn't it be my right to go for a drink without being at risk to heart disease? And before you give me that bullshit about it being your right to smoke, I know, you do have the right to smoke. But do it at home where you're harming nobody but yourself.

I can prove it to you if you want. I'm asthmatic. When I sit in a pub for ages, it gets difficult for me to breathe. It must be all the beer I'm drinking!

Your asthmatic, that's a whole lot different, most people arn't asthmatic so it might affect them differnetly.
That's not proof, I know people who are asthmatic and smoke, there fine. They can breathe, people act differently.


You're right. The thought that 4000 chemicals (including carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide and tar) floating directly into my lungs will be harmful to me is just as crazy as believing some dude 2000 years ago was the incarnation of God and rose from the dead. Dammit what was wrong with me!

Carbon monoxide is used in many detergeants and is naturally found in the atmostphere.
Hydrogen cyanide is found in our atmosphere, through some insects and car emissions.
Tar is found in the atmosphere and used in cosmetics.
Quick, stop breathing and washing.


Again you seem to be offtrack, that is exactly the point I'm making. Why shouldI be asking for it simply by walking into a pub to have a drink? Shouldn't it be my right to go for a drink without being at risk to heart disease? And before you give me that bullshit about it being your right to smoke, I know, you do have the right to smoke. But do it at home where you're harming nobody but yourself.


Why is it your right, you don't own the pub, like someone said, it should be the owners.

lmao. Now that's a totally different argument. That's about government representation in the business world. That's not got a damn thing about what we were talking about. I personally agree that it should be the business owner. But it's not, and it had nothing to do with the argument. But nice way to bring it up when you have nothing left to say.

EDIT: Lol you edited your post.

Im eagerly waiting thsi to happen in Finland. I used to smoke full time, but the I "quit" but every time I was drinking I would serisulu need a fag. So I did a compromise, I smoke only ehen drinking. WOuld be hella easier to quit fukki when there wouldnt be people smoking me around in bars. Yes I need goverment to wathc my back. Either way democracy is ass, cause majority of peoplle are way too stupid to give right to decide. Enlightened dictatiry, thats solution for humanity.

Of course it has something to with it. You can't say it's my right to go to a pub and have no smoking, when you don't own it. We are arguing about the ban, that encompasses a lot.
As for nothing left to say:
Simon Clark, director of Forest, said: "The poll shows there is no enthusiasm for a total ban on smoking in all public places.
That's an independant poll, it's around 30% of people don't want to see a ban and around 50% don't want a ban on nearly the same level as the one made.
That means that we are going against our democratic way of life by giving in the the minority.


Dr Chris Proctor, head of science and regulation at BAT, called the report "unfair and irregular".

He said: "Whatever one's views on smoking, an official scientific committee giving policy advice on tobacco has a duty to consider objectively all the evidence, including representations from tobacco companies."

The smoking companies and their scientists are not being allowed to put forward a case, that means all that people will hear about is the scientists advice on smoking that favours the goverments proposal.


Thirdly, it is one more thing to add to a nanny state culture, they are getting rid of some vechicles as places to smoke. How can they infringe on your own possesions?
They still allow smoking at home, although the home is the most likely place second hand smoke has been theoritcally, effecting.
Work and other areas have shown a lot less risks. They are targetting the wrong area for a start, if they have all this "proof" why are they aiming at the wrong area?

Lastly,
There have been many many studies proving that a lot of things are dangergous for us,
mobile phones give us cancer.
We'll be dead because of the avian flu that was meant to hit like a year ago.
Microwave meals give you cancer.
This is a list of things that give us cancer from medical studies, apparently
Acetaldehyde, acrylamide, acrylonitril, abortion, agent orange, alar, alcohol, air pollution, aldrin, alfatoxin, arsenic, arsine, asbestos, asphalt fumes, atrazine, AZT, baby food, barbequed meat, benzene, benzidine, benzopyrene, beryllium, beta-carotene, betel nuts, birth control pills, bottled water, bracken, bread, breasts, bus stations, calcium channel blockers, cadmium, captan, carbon black, carbon tetrachloride, careers for women, casual sex, car fumes, celery, charred foods, chewing gum, Chinese food, Chinese herbal supplements, chips, chloramphenicol, chlordane, chlorinated camphene, chlorinated water, chlorodiphenyl, chloroform, cholesterol, low cholesterol, chromium, coal tar, coffee, coke ovens, crackers, creosote, cyclamates, dairy products, deodorants, depleted uranium, depression, dichloryacetylene, DDT, dieldrin, diesel exhaust, diet soda, dimethyl sulphate, dinitrotouluene, dioxin, dioxane, epichlorhydrin, ethyle acrilate, ethylene, ethilene dibromide, ethnic beliefs,ethylene dichloride, Ex-Lax, fat, fluoridation, flying, formaldehyde, free radicals, french fries, fruit, gasoline, genes, gingerbread, global warming, gluteraldehyde, granite, grilled meat, Gulf war, hair dyes, hamburgers, heliobacter pylori, hepatitis B virus, hexachlorbutadiene, hexachlorethane, high bone mass, HPMA, HRT, hydrazine, hydrogen peroxide, incense, infertility, jewellery, Kepone, kissing, lack of exercise, laxatives, lead, left handedness, Lindane, Listerine, low fibre diet, magnetic fields, malonaldehyde, mammograms, manganese, marijuana, methyl bromide, methylene chloride, menopause, microwave ovens, milk hormones, mixed spices, mobile phones, MTBE, nickel, night lighting, night shifts, nitrates, not breast feeding, not having a twin, nuclear power plants, Nutrasweet, obesity, oestrogen, olestra, olive oil, orange juice, oxygenated gasoline, oyster sauce, ozone, ozone depletion, passive smoking, PCBs, peanuts, pesticides, pet birds, plastic IV bags, polio vaccine, potato crisps (chips), power lines, proteins, Prozac, PVC, radio masts, radon, railway sleepers, red meat, Roundup, saccharin, salt, selenium, semiconductor plants, shellfish, sick buildings, soy sauce, stress, strontium, styrene, sulphuric acid, sun beds, sunlight, sunscreen, talc, tetrachloroethylene, testosterone, tight bras, toast, toasters, tobacco, tooth fillings, toothpaste (with fluoride or bleach), train stations, trichloroethylene, under-arm shaving, unvented stoves, uranium, vegetables, vinyl bromide, vinyl chloride, vinyl fluoride, vinyl toys, vitamins, vitreous fibres, wallpaper, weedkiller (2-4 D), welding fumes, well water, weight gain, winter, wood dust, work, x-rays.

Do you really wanna believe all that becuase you hear it in the news? Will you stop using all of these becuase it says so? Will you organise a mass protest against all of these things in case it gives us cancer?

Actually, I'll think you'll find we were arguing whether or not passive smoking was hazardous to health. If you look back to the last page you denied this several times. Now suddenly you've gone on to how it's not my right to tell you what to do since I don't own the pub, overlooking whether or not it damages my health.



You're being ridiculous. Of course not. I don't agree with most of the things in that list. However, I KNOW smoking causes poor health because it causes ME poor health.

'

I agree, I think the tobacco companies should be able to put their evidence across. Because I think you'll find they're (un)surprisingly lacking in that department. Find me one tobacco company that has proven that passive smoking doesn't cause reduced lung capability.



You realise this isn't some government agenda, right? If anything, the government are actually against the smoking ban. Tabbaco tax brings in so much money, the government will lose out when the ban comes in.

They allow smoking the home precisely because of what you are objecting to; the government cannot infringe upon YOUR possessions. The pub is not YOUR possession (no matter how much we can dream ), it is used by many, many people. It's obvious that most landlords will allow smoking, as it increases business. Therefore the non-smoking public are forced to sit in the majority of pubs where they receive poor health due to smoking. By the way, this country is now 70% non smokers. There's your majority.

Oh, and many workplaces don't allow smoking. They have special smoking sections.

You can google 'passive smoking' as many times as you want, cite as many researchers that you can find. It all comes down to - passive smoking makes the pub uncomfortable, you can still smoke at home or just outside the pub.

You're fighting a losing battle anyway. The ban comes in July. Hurrah!

EDIT: Have you looked at your 'hilarious' list? It includes hepatitis, weed killer, air pollution and diesel exhaust. If you tell me that you have huffed these and felt peachy, I will kiss my own arse.

The OBVIOUS medicalissues (not only for the smoker himself but for other around him) aside smoking can and is very disturbing to non-smokers. Many in this topic has stated that they hate it when they go out and the smoke and scent gets everywhere.

So surely considering the healthissues for everyone and the discomfort it brings people its very easy to not even question this law that is gonna be implemented.


Sure there are studdies that say this and that and studdies that say bullshit. Go figure... but you gotta be extremely bias, influenced or stupid to not realize that tobacco is a major health risk.


Allso im sure this new law will lighten the burden set on health resources by tobacco. Due to health problems originating from tobacco.


And all those things that Joe listed can hardly be compared with tobacco. Tobacco has much more poisonous substances in it and is used daily by millions of people.

I mean what is more dangerous a mobile phone or a tobacco? Passive phoning? pfft

Actually, I'll think you'll find we were arguing whether or not passive smoking was hazardous to health. If you look back to the last page you denied this several times. Now suddenly you've gone on to how it's not my right to tell you what to do since I don't own the pub, overlooking whether or not it damages my health.
I still stand that it doesn't affect your health as much as it has been stated.
I made that point, whats the point in doing it again.
My view is that passive smoking has been blown way out of proportion, it's not as bad as it is made out.


You're being ridiculous. Of course not. I don't agree with most of the things in that list. However, I KNOW smoking causes poor health because it causes ME poor health.

You have asthma, that's is a massive reason why it causes you bad health, you want allowances becuase of something very few people have, you get problems breathing, from passive smoking, or maybe its the astma? You can't judge everyone on your standards, not everyone has asthma, and there are endless possibilites of other factors that affect the results.


I agree, I think the tobacco companies should be able to put their evidence across. Because I think you'll find they're (un)surprisingly lacking in that department. Find me one tobacco company that has proven that passive smoking doesn't cause reduced lung capability.

You can't prove it either way. That's my point, you can't find studies because there not allowed to be printed. Much like scientists find it hard to publish media about the exageration of global warming. It's highly rescrited.

You realise this isn't some government agenda, right? If anything, the government are actually against the smoking ban.

That's why they passed it.

By the way, this country is now 70% non smokers.

Not all non smokers are for the ban, it doesn't work like that.

You're fighting a losing battle anyway. The ban comes in July. Hurrah!

Just becuase it's coming in doesn't mean give up, who the hell would do that? You don't give up becuase someone says they want to do it.

man this thread is too much to read this early in the morning

[quote name='Opinionated Joe' date='Dec 2 2006, 04:31 AM' post='401073']I still stand that it doesn't affect your health as much as it has been stated.
I made that point, whats the point in doing it again.
My view is that passive smoking has been blown way out of proportion, it's not as bad as it is made out.[/quote]

But still dangerous to health. So why should my liberty be oppressed just so you can sit there an do something you could do at home. Fact it - smokers make a choice that affects them and those around them



[quote name='Opinionated Joe' date='Dec 2 2006, 04:31 AM' post='401073']You have asthma, that's is a massive reason why it causes you bad health, you want allowances becuase of something very few people have, you get problems breathing, from passive smoking, or maybe its the astma? You can't judge everyone on your standards, not everyone has asthma, and there are endless possibilites of other factors that affect the results.[/b]

I have asthma, I also hate the smell. 70% of people don't smoke - you want allowances because of something few people do?

[quote name='Opinionated Joe' date='Dec 2 2006, 04:31 AM' post='401073']You can't prove it either way. That's my point, you can't find studies because there not allowed to be printed. Much like scientists find it hard to publish media about the exageration of global warming. It's highly rescrited.[/quote]

omfg its the big bad government coming to take away my freedom of speech! People can say what they want, smoking companies have PR guys that speak at conferences concerning this very topic. It is allowed to be printed, just not in papers concerning the smoking ban itself. Find me one that says passive smoking is harmless.


[quote name='Opinionated Joe' date='Dec 2 2006, 04:31 AM' post='401073']That's why they passed it.[/quote]

They passed it because they have to. Otherwise they'd get anti-smoking leagues on their back because so many other governments are passing it. They don't want to. Jesus, have some kind of understanding of the world around you, please.



[quote name='Opinionated Joe' date='Dec 2 2006, 04:31 AM' post='401073']Not all non smokers are for the ban, it doesn't work like that.[/quote]

A ban on smoking isn't going to affect non-smokers negatively. Therefore, in your little democracy argument, the majority are not negatively affected.


[quote name='Opinionated Joe' date='Dec 2 2006, 04:31 AM' post='401073']Just becuase it's coming in doesn't mean give up, who the hell would do that? You don't give up becuase someone says they want to do it.
[/quote]

Ok. You make your stand here. If you want me, I'll be in the smoke-free pub.


You spout the liberty argument like you believe it's not a double-edged sword. You have a giant chip on your shoulder concerning the nanny state. Jesus man, you get pissed that the fucking weatherman advises you to wrap up warm on a cold day because you think he's telling you what to do. Fucking grow up and realise that something which harms innocent people shouldn't be allowed.

You spout the liberty argument like you believe it's not a double-edged sword. You have a giant chip on your shoulder concerning the nanny state. Jesus man, you get pissed that the fucking weatherman advises you to wrap up warm on a cold day because you think he's telling you what to do. Fucking grow up and realise that something which harms innocent people shouldn't be allowed.

Yer I do, thats my opinion, so that makes me immature? So what if I don't like a nanny state, it's called a political view, that's why we have elections, becuase not everyone thinks like everyone else. Just because you don't mind the nanny state, that's the mature and right thing to think? Becuase your opinion is high and mighty?
That statement saying something which harms innocent people shouldn't be allowed isn't strictly true.
One, the term innocent, you mean someone who doesn't smoke but "has" too becuase others do. What about people who don't drive and still become affect by the global warming? Should we stop driving, because it hurts the innocent people?
What about if we get a cold? Should we aviod everyone becuase there too innocent incase we spread it?
Secondly, we could reverse the statement and state that the smoker is the innocent who is being taken away his freedom of expression? It harms the smoker, not in the same way but it still does.
Or maybe the innocent is the property owner who looses money, has to impliment new signs across the entire property or face £2000+fines, so we shouldn't harm them either. It's a very vague statement about the innocent. It could be used to justify all manor of opinions and view points on this matter. So by saying that I don't want to harm the innocent property owner, have I grown up yet?

No, it makes you selfish.



Find where I said I liked the nanny state. I was outlining the fact that you take it to the extreme.



Find where I said that.

I said grow up because you've come into this debate obviously not fully aware of its origins. Of course the government would be needing to push for the smoking ban, after Scotland, numerous states in the US, Ireland and European countries have passed it.



Fine, let's get into this drawn out and ultimately pointless exercise.

Global warming is different. It would be illogical to propose to stop driving because our society depends on it. There is no way it would ever happen. But people are being encouraged to take public transport instead of driving because it's more environmentally sounder. A smoking ban is not illogical - it's happened in numerous other countries, and by all accounts has improved the conditions of the bars and their patrons.

A cold is a sickness, therefore not usually self-inflicted. But for the sake of this meaningless argument you've brought up, lets say I was to purposefully lie naked in the snow all night and get the flu. Would it be ok for me to then walk up to you and hack up a nice ball of snot into your mouth so that you get it to?



Oh I'm terribly sorry. Getting cravings? Instead of walking outside, by all means, light up next to me, causing me extreme discomfort and health damage. Oh look, we're back at this argument!



I have no idea what you just said. To me, that made no sense.


I'm giving up. This is like bashing my head against a very hard brick wall. You've won Joe. It's all a scheme by the weatherman so that you can't smoke and have to wear a coat. Passive smoking doesn't cause health problems. In fact, it makes me feel as though small pixies are massaging my prostate - it's lovely!

Bashing you head against a wall, I don't see a single point you've raised I havn't countered, It's not like im being stubborn, im backing up my opinion as best I can, that's an argument. You believe that your opinion is valid, but your only evidence is that smoking affects you, you used to smoke, you go to the pub a lot. Before this thread, I have never heard you complain about smoking harming you, other than you not liking the smell. I don't like the smell of some stuff, but if other choose to wear that smell, say a perfume, I dont pesecute them for it.
I never blamed it on the weatherman, that's a really childish strop.
Passive smoking does cause problems, I said it was over exagerted, and there is no proof that it does cause the problems you so firmly believe. Me saying passive smoking does not harm people that much, is no worse or naive than saying it does, there are no facts about it.
And I don't believe sticking to your opinion is selfish, otherwise you are nonethebetter.
Just because other countries pass laws, doesn't mean we have to, in fact different countries have many different laws, so that's not a reason.
I don't take it to an extreme, saying I want to smoke in a pub, thats not extreme, a lot of people feel that and do that at present.

Man, Joe's lived up to his name! I think Rob should put opinionated in front of his too! This is fun!

Lol just saw this, a new sexier joe and wealthier would be nice
But nar, in reality, it wont make me quit, I like smoking, it's nice
It will make my life poo, well not really, but will make the pub more of an effort.
Of course I would care about others, but it's not up to me, I'm joe, I smoke, it's peoples choice if they want to hang around me if I smoke, so I leave it up to them, if someone walked off when I was smoking because they didn't like it, I wouldn't be offended, so in my eyes im not doing anything wrong.

You obviously completely missed my argument, studies can prove whatever they want. It's just the government blowing issues completely out of proportion. I think pubs should individually chose if they want to allow smoking or not.

I just don't see why you're bitching about it so much, you've never given a shit in the past.