Public smoking bans for or against?

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.

 

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.

 

What is the moral case for preventing me running a business where my customers can enjoy a cigar in company?

Paul

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

I take it she wasn't too keen, then?

-- Ian

 

Lol

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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?

 

well thats deocracy,as in banning fox hunting

and a quick quote from your friend Sir Richard

 

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