Public smoking bans for or against?

Won't happen. The government make too much in tax from it (more than they pay out in NHS costs for it, I'd wager - or it WOULD be banned). Same with alcohol - why ban one drug and not the other? The only reason they won't legalise Class As is they'd not have the nonce to work out the distribution chains - all IMHO of course.

The government don't care about your health - they care about MONEY.

I don't class smoking a cigar as smoking - as you don't inhale. It still produces smoke, but it's not the same for you. It IS the same for other people near you mind you.

If they're going to ban smoking in pubs, I see no reason why they can't have "smoke friendly" pubs where the staff have to sign a waiver form before they can work there. Smoke-filled interiors are GRIM though, so decent air conditioning should be mandatory - even in said "friendly" pubs.

 

Whether you're superman or the runt of the litter, you'll still have carbon monoxide poison, higher blood pressure, and damaged alvioli after every single fag. You can't stop your alvioli in your lungs opening up from the smoking, resulting in poor efficiency in the lungs - the only reason he could get away with it on the outside is because he was fit, so his body needed less oxygen for the same output.

What did he die of? Smoking-related deaths don't just include cancer you know....

BTW - I've given up rollies and fags, but, err, still have the odd cigar and the odd number...

 

Ya that's true, they are getting back handers more like, I bet if any accountant looked closely at certain records they'll find a nice healthy donation from a certain Cancer inducing firm.

Your name Bill Clinton by any chance! Cigar's are worse, smell wise anyway, geez they're much much worse for the Non smoker!

 

At best, second greatest, after Eddy Merckx (who didn't smoke).

 

What that cancer-inducing firm sound like dinner dinner dinner dinner xxxman???

Yeah - point taken re cigars

 

Nah, he smoked to give whimps like Steady Eddy a chance

I'll state what I meant about washing in words of one syllable just in case the smoke is getting in your eyes

If you complain about your cloths that smell of smoke then wash them. If it makes the house smell hang them outside.

Personally I find peoples bad breath and body odour more repulsive than cigarette smoke. Sometimes it's so bad it nearly makes me want to :chunder:

And as for the guys down the pub that have been smoking 60 a day for the last 50 years they should be dead anyway. Anything over 72 is borrowed time, smoking or not.

And anyway what is the point of living so long that you get to a point where you can't even wipe your own arse

 

I don't think I understand - are you endorsing infanticide?

 

Just go down the pub naked then, solve that problem.

But it also gives me a sore throut and headaches, oh and did I mention the smell?

 

I think Lance Armstrong is definitely a candidate there too. Anyway, just imagine how good Hinault would have been if he hadn't smoked

I'm all in favour of smoking bans in public places. Why let the dirty habit of a few ruin the enjoyment of the many?

Michael.

 

Hmm the good old "You could get hit by a bus tomorrow" argument. I think the important bit is the lengthy period of suffering before you die. Smokers don't just keel over 10 years before the rest of us with a big grin on their face whilst triumhantly claiming that its better to burn out than to fade away.

BTW i'm indifferent, I'd prefer if pubs were fitted with good air conditioning instead of segregating people.

 

I dunno. That's my plan in a nutshell.

Some people in a social group will always cause some irritation for others in the same group: mobile phones, over-loud conversations, BO, farting, eating smelly junk food, being Tories, smoking, being an annoying drunk, whatever. Banning things that are a bit annoying seems a bit daft to me. ISTM that nowadays more and more people feel alienated from social contact, preferring to live in a private space that's completely antiseptic and within their own control, and use lame public health and decency arguments that are profoundly anti-libertarian to justify it.

-- Ian

 

The likes of Eddy, Bernard, Jaques Anquetil to name but 3 rode all of the classics and the 3 major tours and usually managed to win most of them. Lance rides one race a year, and people are suprised that he wins it (actually I do think he is better than that but not one of the greats)

 

And of course all of you guys who enjoy a spliff don't inhale.

 

Ian - other people smoking is more than "a bit annoying", it's damaging my health and there's the distinction with all the other things you mentioned which are merely annoying.

Michael.

 

I smoke but would support a ban in all public places (which will inevitably happen). It's simply progress.

 

There isn't in fact much evidence that passive smoking causes any significant health risk as compared to other daily activities of most normal human beings. A barbeque releases many carcinogens. Perhaps barbeques should be banned? Living in a city with high degrees of airborne toxins created by industry and motorists may well be more dangerous to health than passive smoking. Perhaps industry and cars should be banned?

OK, this link is to FOREST, and therefore has an agenda, but the anti-smoking lobby still has questions to answer about what evidence they have to justify the health claims surrounding passive smoking:

http://www.forestonline.org/output/Page16.asp

The average person in the West lives far longer than he or she would have done a century or two ago, yet from the way some anti-smoking campaigners talk you would imagine passive smoking was wiping people out in droves. Where's the evidence?

-- Ian

 

Smoking won't be banned, though. You just won't be able to smoke inside a public building. If you want to smoke, you go outside. Sounds fair to me. Personally, I would ban barbeques and cars inside public buildings too.

 

so ian, is guiness still good for you too?
cheers


julian

 

The WHO carried out a study of passive smoking and lung cancer and the only statistically significant result was that non-smoking children of smokers who smoked in the home have a reduced risk of lung cancer later in life.

If you don't like the smoking in pubs, don't go to pubs, it's not a requirement. Using the law to constrain the otherwise legal behaviour of people on private property is absurd.

Paul

 

As Micheal said is the health issue which is involved. The use of mobile phones is more annoying than anything else but within reason it is not really damaging to your health.

One thing I hate about the winter is people some how seem to smoke more, if its 30c a lot of people find it too hot to smoke I think.