Public smoking bans for or against?

PBirkett said:
But because some troublemaker chav either kills themselves drinking too much (in which case, good riddance) or looks for fights (which they'd do anyway), lets ban it and spoil the enjoyment for the rest of us who can enjoy a drink responsibly.
Click to expand...
What if you get hit by this chav's car?
 
Obviously alcohol can cause all sorts of problems but the key difference between it and tobacco is that you can go to a pub, drink several pints and cause no harm to anyone around you. If, on the other hand you are a smoker then, unless you sit up on a step ladder and exhale directly into the extractor fan, the by-product of your smoking WILL affect other people.

I also get the impression that the vast majority of smokers would love to give up – after all, who wants to pay loads of money to kill themselves slowly and painfully – but they are addicted. Maybe a ban in public places would help them too.

Matt.
 
Matt F said:
...the key difference between it [alcohol] and tobacco is that you can go to a pub, drink several pints and cause no harm to anyone around you.
Click to expand...
I've just spent the last few posts pointing out that this is not necessarily true.

Having smelly clothes is a far smaller inconvenience than is being run over or assaulted, for example.
 
PBirkett said:
Thats up to the individual to be able to handle their drink. I can handle mine, I know when to stop, I dont get involved in fights, I dont drive, I dont look for trouble and all the rest.

But because some troublemaker chav either kills themselves drinking too much (in which case, good riddance) or looks for fights (which they'd do anyway), lets ban it and spoil the enjoyment for the rest of us who can enjoy a drink responsibly.

As for health problems. Yeah sure, if you drink too much, all of the time, you are asking for trouble. Drinking in moderation is actually good for your health, it relieves stress and stress is probably an even bigger killer than alcohol. If alcohol knocks 5 years off my life but I die a lot happier, then I'll carry on drinking thanks.

Edited to add, totally agree with Michael about the licensing laws. That would solve so many problems. Its already a bit better since there was a few bars open later in Newcastle.
Click to expand...

Exacty, I thinlk the problem is everybody has different limits. I have a mate who drinks 12 pints a night, he never causes any trouble, he knows he can handle it. I know about 8 pints is my limit, anything after this I may start acting anti socialy so I never drink anything near that.

I am in favour of putting the drinking limit to 21 but then there are plenty of 1 8 year olds who can handle their drink and are sensible so it may be unfair.

I think the government should perhaps do more to say to youngters drinking a few pints a night is fine, but getting plastered is dangerous and stupid. Maybe promoting the image that drunks are as sexualy attractive Ann Widercombe may get the message across.
 
The Devil said:
What if you get hit by this chav's car?
Click to expand...

Unlucky for me.

The risk I take just by stepping out of my house really, isnt it...

Mind you, it would be good if you could punish these people in a particular way that would stop them drinking. Some sort of injection maybe that makes them allergic to alcohol. Obviously science fiction, but that would be a good idea IMHO :D
 
The Devil said:
I've just spent the last few posts pointing out that this is not necessarily true.
Click to expand...

Okay, serious damage to health aside, if I'm standing next to a smoker then, quite apart from rancid clothes, I find my eyes sting and I get a sore throat (and sometimes even a bit of a wheeze on the old chest). This doesn't happen if I stand next to someone drinking alcohol.

Matt.
 
The Devil said:
I've just spent the last few posts pointing out that this is not necessarily true.

Having smelly clothes is a far smaller inconvenience than is being run over or assaulted, for example.
Click to expand...

Exactly. There IS a difference between smoking and drinking, but I personally reckon drinking's far worse.

That said, I enjoy a drink (or 8) at least once a week. Never been in a fight yet, though that nearly changed once when I was on Stella; never drank that since except when desperate.

Lightweights who can't handle their beer will still fight, whether they have 1 hour to drink in or 10. It will decrease the problem if licencing laws are relaxed, but it won't cure it.

Besides - explain this; CAMRA beer fests - 7.5%-4% real ales, and similar rates on ciders. £10 to get in, get a glass, and have 7 (generous) half pint servings. Lots of people thus mixing drinks, and no sign of trouble despite some people being 3 sheets to the wind - and that's at closing time. What's the difference between that and a pub? (Newton Abbott's one last Friday was exactly this - I started on 7.5% ale, moved on to 8% moonshine cider, and had at least another 5 pints all over 5% in 3 hours, and had a great time. NO fights or insults - just a mild case of ugly bird/beer goggles ;)
 
domfjbrown said:
Exactly. There IS a difference between smoking and drinking, but I personally reckon drinking's far worse.
Click to expand...

What I'm getting at Dom is that the natural byproduct of smoking is second hand smoke which, I believe, is generally considered bad for one's health and, as I pointed out, can often leave bystanders with stinking clothes, sore throats, stinging eyes etc.

The natural human byproduct of beer is, well, piss and hopefully (certainly in most pubs I know) it ends up going down the urinal, not sprayed over the people standing at the bar next to you.

Obviously there are lots of idiots who can't handle their beer and end up causing trouble which may well affect innocent bystanders. The difference is that with smoking, no matter how careful you are, if you are doing it in a confined space then you WILL affect the people around you.

Matt.
 
Dom

People who smoke in public are stinking the place out and causing passive smoking problems. Therefore if they break the law they should be punished in accordance with my earlier suggestion of two weeks in prison and a fine to ensure that the tax payer does not fund their stay inside.

They will still continue to smoke, so we still collect their taxes. They are addicts, they cannot give up period.

If someone becomes drunk in a public place, then I agree that severe punishment is called for. My personal view is that 6 strokes of a cane would be the best deterrent for that particular crime. Please do not waffle about their human rights, violent drunks should not have any rights.

That however should not prevent anyone from enjoying a drink in a bar or open restaurant. These sensible people are harming no one in contrast to smokers who are harming everyone within walking distance.

Regards

Mick
 
sideshowbob said:
Irrelevant. The important point is that people don't generally go around banning things when there is no clear-cut evidence of harm to others.

-- Ian
Click to expand...

and you REALLY believe that? It says on the packet "SMOKING KILLS",but not if you sit next to the person smoking? so the evidence is what exactly 'it kills but from no further than 3 inches'?

seriously,do you genuinely believe that passive smoking is a perfectly healthy thing to do?
 
Well, if Professor Sir Richard Doll, who was the first person to provide research proving the link between smoking and lung cancer, doesn't believe passive smoking is a risk, that's good enough for me. Or do you know something about the subject that he doesn't?

-- Ian
 
And the experts are always right? Like the chap that was an expert on child abuse and now 500 cases are being reviewed urgently? and why? because he guessed

If you believe its safe Ian,then thats fine,your choice.I don't,I believe that breathing cigarette smoke is an inherently dangerous thing to do.Each to his own.I am sure you are aware there are just as many experts on either side of the arguement,so its all down to personal choice.
Personally,I do agree with the choice highlighted earlier,I will only go to non-smoking restaurants and pubs,so a ban is irrelevant to me.
As for scientists in general,well historically they will always have somethings wrong at any moment in time,whether is flat earth or even black hole theory,which i gather is now being re-thought.
On a different subject althogether,its was very interesting hearing a scientist today use the exact words 'child abuse' for schools who teach creation ie the world is only 10000 yrs old.The interviewer was shocked so he repated it.I bet that blows up in tomorrows press.The point I am making is science is still guess work,evolution is a classic case in point,its all a guess.So lack of evidence doesn't stop me from adding 2 and 2 and getting whatever when it comes to passive smoking.
 
So lack of evidence doesn't stop me from adding 2 and 2 and getting whatever when it comes to passive smoking.
Click to expand...

You can think what you like about anything, but why on earth do you believe that what you think gives you any right to ban other people who think differently?

If people want to ban a certain behaviour on the grounds of public health, it doesn't seem too much to ask them to show some incontrovertible evidence that there really is a public health issue. If that evidence was forthcoming, I'd be in favour of a ban.

-- Ian
 
sideshowbob said:
Well, if Professor Sir Richard Doll, who was the first person to provide research proving the link between smoking and lung cancer, doesn't believe passive smoking is a risk, that's good enough for me. Or do you know something about the subject that he doesn't?

-- Ian
Click to expand...
Lets see what the Prof Doll are reported to have actually said.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=13945339&method=full&siteid=50143

http://www.nzdf.org.nz/update/messages/1841.htm

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/news/publicaffairs/tobacco/passive

Doc,
After reading a list of 20 original articles brought up by searching BMJ, people have actually try very hard to look for evidence whether passive smoking are indeed harmful. There are actually many more but I don't get a feeling the experts think the evidences are weak or paper thin.
 
Surely it is simple common sence that if you're breathing in other peoples smoke you are also breathing in th toxic wastes of that product? Where do you think all the harmful produce goes to?
 
sideshowbob said:
You can think what you like about anything, but why on earth do you believe that what you think gives you any right to ban other people who think differently?

If people want to ban a certain behaviour on the grounds of public health, it doesn't seem too much to ask them to show some incontrovertible evidence that there really is a public health issue. If that evidence was forthcoming, I'd be in favour of a ban.

-- Ian
Click to expand...


well thats deocracy,as in banning fox hunting

and a quick quote from your friend Sir Richard

A group of 29 scientists from the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is part of the WHO, reviewed more than 3000 scientific papers on smoking, including 50 large studies on passive smoking.

Professor Sir Richard Doll, a member of the group, said it was the first time an international body had given a definitive statement that passive smoking was carcinogenic.

"This is the first time there has been a formal evaluation by scientists that has concluded that involuntary smoking causes lung cancer."

The study shows the dangers of smoking are more serious than previously recognised.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
the only way to tell if passive smoking is harmful is to DBT it. that way you'll be sure of THE TRUTH (ahhhhhh - holy music - ahhhhhh).
cheers


julian
 

Latest posts

Back
Top