Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

3 Months since the smoking ban in the UK - how's it been for you?

2»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It hasnt made ANY difference... Every Club and Bar has an "outdoor" smoking area... of course it has a massive tent like cover over it so its as close to indoors as you can get, especially when they have heaters as well. All my smoking mates still smoke as much as they did and the clubs have started spraying "smoke" scent into the clubs so the smell of sweat doesnt overwhelm anyone. No difference as far as i can see.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru

    Like Aladdin, I'd like to see some stats for after the winter when people have to endure the cold and rain just to have a fag.

    Be interested to see how many shisha cafes are closing down per hour and how many people's livelihoods have been ruined versus how many people's have been bettered/increased (aside from the company that makes non-smoking signs who must be rolling in it).

    Well, Scotland had a winter much harsher than anything England experiences, but I don't see any pubs or bars throwing in the towel.

    Of the (ex) shisha cafes, I'm not aware of any that have closed. If they're a decent joint, with good food, drink and atmosphere, they'll survive. If they're shit, they'll close, but I haven't seen that yet. Just rebrand the place as a regular Moroccan Restaurant or something and move on. It's not like the regular customers are going to emigrate so they can smoke inside.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To all those who are complaining about having to walk through smokers to get into a pub.

    FUCK OFF!

    you wanted to ban us from being inside, so deal with it.

    Incidently, I am totally fine with the ban. I just feel sorry for the landlords.... all that money spent on a) new decor inside and b) furniture over the years ......
    people now spend the majority of the night outside :lol:

    Oh and as for the heaters outside ..... GOOD!!!!!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jeez. If I had my way I'd ban cigarettes full stop. I'm glad people can't smoke inside any more and yes I do hate having to walk through a cloud of smoke to get into a pub. So what? That's just my opinion. I think smoking is disgusting - I've never smoked cigarettes so no I don't understand the pleasurable side of it - and I'm not afraid to say so. If you disagree that's fine (note how I'm not telling you to fuck off!)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hmm, you'd have to show a lot of lost livelihoods to make up for the 17% drop in heart attacks in Scotland in half a year since the ban (compared to a usual average drop of 3% in previous years). In my maths that works out at around 800 in 6 months. Incidentally, smokers saw a 14% drop, whereas non-smokers saw a 20% drop. But I imagine that's just a coincidence, and that second-hand smoke is exaggeratted?

    Possibly, though it's a bit of a cat argument. It could also be because people are drinking less

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/5276680.stm
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hmm, you'd have to show a lot of lost livelihoods to make up for the 17% drop in heart attacks in Scotland in half a year since the ban (compared to a usual average drop of 3% in previous years). In my maths that works out at around 800 in 6 months. Incidentally, smokers saw a 14% drop, whereas non-smokers saw a 20% drop. But I imagine that's just a coincidence, and that second-hand smoke is exaggeratted?

    There is fuck all evidence second hand smoke has anything more than a minute effect. Correlation doesn't prove causation.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    StupidGirl wrote: »
    Jeez. If I had my way I'd ban cigarettes full stop. I'm glad people can't smoke inside any more and yes I do hate having to walk through a cloud of smoke to get into a pub. So what? That's just my opinion. I think smoking is disgusting - I've never smoked cigarettes so no I don't understand the pleasurable side of it - and I'm not afraid to say so. If you disagree that's fine (note how I'm not telling you to fuck off!)

    Quite an apt name you've got there.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote: »
    Quite an apt name you've got there.

    Play nice!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    StupidGirl wrote: »
    Jeez. If I had my way I'd ban cigarettes full stop. I'm glad people can't smoke inside any more and yes I do hate having to walk through a cloud of smoke to get into a pub. So what? That's just my opinion. I think smoking is disgusting - I've never smoked cigarettes so no I don't understand the pleasurable side of it - and I'm not afraid to say so. If you disagree that's fine (note how I'm not telling you to fuck off!)
    So you would ban people from smoking in their own homes as well?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As the smoker that I am, I must say it's great not having to worry about my tights being burnt by a stray fag! But it is annoying when I go out as I have to think about which pub to go to i.e. with a garden. It's boring and soon to be cold standing around pub doors, gardens have been great for the summer but the winter is gona be a killer!
    At first I thought in all honesty I'm glad, it will cut down on my smoking and save some cash, this may be true in the winter but I'll be back to the same in the summer. I always sit outside in the summer anyway. And maybe in winter, I just won't go out as much. It's one big loop, I don't think I'll be any better off either way, this is because I am a smoker. If this ban benefits non smokers healthwise and it's proven, then I can't argue.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Possibly, though it's a bit of a cat argument. It could also be because people are drinking less

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/5276680.stm

    That's a good thing too though :)

    At the end of the day it's impossible to judge completely, only to get a general feeling. I think the good spin is that it encourages people to quit. Whether that's infringing on their civil liberties... well it's no different really to being forced to wear a seatbelt in a car or face a fine, or wearing a helmet on a motorbike.

    Maybe it's the nanny state, but it makes us healthier (or in the case of helmets, more likely to be alive :p) and theoretically happier in the long run.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why is that stupid? OK, I know it's peoples' choice to smoke - and it's a fair point to say they should be allowed to in their own homes, if it's not going to adversely affect other people who choose not to smoke. I stand corrected on that. I just think if cigarettes didn't exist at all, the health problems associated with smoking would be eradicated. I may get accused of hypocrisy by saying this because, for example, I drink alcohol and I know that can also cause health problems, but I'm not convinced it's the same thing. I don't appreciate being called stupid for this opinion though, I think that's quite unfair.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    StupidGirl wrote: »
    Why is that stupid? OK, I know it's peoples' choice to smoke - and it's a fair point to say they should be allowed to in their own homes, if it's not going to adversely affect other people who choose not to smoke. I stand corrected on that. I just think if cigarettes didn't exist at all, the health problems associated with smoking would be eradicated. I may get accused of hypocrisy by saying this because, for example, I drink alcohol and I know that can also cause health problems, but I'm not convinced it's the same thing. I don't appreciate being called stupid for this opinion though, I think that's quite unfair.
    Would you ban cars as well?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No I wouldn't - because although I know they have their own problems associated with them, it can be said that they serve a useful purpose, whereas I don't think cigarettes do. But I can see where you're coming from and I accept that my original post was written a bit thoughtlessly. I just thought people being told to fuck off for saying they didn't like walking through people smoking to get into pubs was a little harsh. I don't want a big argument about this, sorry if I've got peoples' backs up.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm happy about the ban in pubs, because I don't smell like an ashtray when I leave. I could careless about the smokers outside. They don't bother me a bit. It's respectful to allow them a heated place to smoke. I think that a pub owner should invest in a nice smokers' area if he or she wants to keep business.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I spoke far too soon - walked around town today and I swear nearly eceryone was smoking. Some lovely person finished their cigarette and blew in my face as I walked past. That was nice, thanks for that! :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    VinylVicky wrote: »
    As the smoker that I am, I must say it's great not having to worry about my tights being burnt by a stray fag!

    I know, us gay lads and our tight burning fetish :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    StupidGirl wrote: »
    No I wouldn't - because although I know they have their own problems associated with them, it can be said that they serve a useful purpose, whereas I don't think cigarettes do. But I can see where you're coming from and I accept that my original post was written a bit thoughtlessly. I just thought people being told to fuck off for saying they didn't like walking through people smoking to get into pubs was a little harsh. I don't want a big argument about this, sorry if I've got peoples' backs up.

    So just because something doesn't serve a useful purpose, it shouldn't be allowed?

    I refer you to some of the proven benefits of smoking (well, the one main one)
    A statistically significant inverse association between smoking and Alzheimer's disease was observed at all levels of analysis, with a trend towards decreasing risk with increasing consumption"
    The risk of Alzheimer's disease decreased with increasing daily number of cigarettes smoked before onset of disease. . . . In six families in which the disease was apparently inherited . . . the mean age of onset was 4.17 years later in smoking patients than in non-smoking patients from the same family
    Although more data are needed . . . [an analysis of 19 studies suggests] nicotine protects against AD
    Nicotine injections significantly improved certain types of mental functioning in Alzheimer's patients. One theory: nicotine improves the responsiveness of Alzheimer's patients to acetylcholine, an important brain chemical.

    Anyways, smoking brings a lot of people a bit of pleasure. I personally love a fag after a couple of beers or after a big meal. Are you saying that it's not bringing me some benefits? Granted, it's also doing damage to me but you can't deny that the people who do it get pleasure from it otherwise we wouldn't do it. So stop being such a fascist. Just because you don't like something doesn't give you the right to scorn other people who choose to do it.

    I also echo the previous sentiment. It was all you non-smokers who forced us outside in the first place so you've only got yourselves to blame if you don't like walking past people smoking on the street. So short of nipping home every time you feel like a fag, where else are we meant to smoke?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Anyways, smoking brings a lot of people a bit of pleasure. I personally love a fag after a couple of beers or after a big meal. Are you saying that it's not bringing me some benefits? Granted, it's also doing damage to me but you can't deny that the people who do it get pleasure from it otherwise we wouldn't do it. So stop being such a fascist. Just because you don't like something doesn't give you the right to scorn other people who choose to do it.

    I also echo the previous sentiment. It was all you non-smokers who forced us outside in the first place so you've only got yourselves to blame if you don't like walking past people smoking on the street. So short of nipping home every time you feel like a fag, where else are we meant to smoke?

    Actually I'd say that a lot of people smoked not because it's pleasurable but because it's physically addictive and people suffer withdrawal symptoms if they do not smoke.

    "All you non smokers"? The reason why the smoking ban was put in place wasn't for non smokers to have a pleasant evening, but because it was unfair for people who work in bars etc to be subjected to cigarette smoke which has proven links to cancer, heart disease et al.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote: »
    There is fuck all evidence second hand smoke has anything more than a minute effect. Correlation doesn't prove causation.

    Yeah, it's all just a coincidence. :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Possibly, though it's a bit of a cat argument. It could also be because people are drinking less

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/5276680.stm

    That would explain a drop off in rates of heart disease. It wouldn't explain the clear deviation between the reduction in heart disease when you compare smokers to non-smokers. Seems quite clear to me that one group is no longer being exposed to smoke on a regular basis, and is therefore seeing a greater reduction than those who are still smoke. If anyone is drinking less, it would be the smokers, not the non-smokers, and yet it's the non-smokers who are seeing the biggest benefits.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah, it's all just a coincidence. :rolleyes:

    Ok then find me some evidence.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ok then find me some evidence.

    Will do, but it'll take a while because there's a bunch of people annoying me in my house right now. But I'll just start you off with a list of organisations that agree with the scientific consensus, and I'll find you some studies later on.

    The World Health Organization
    The U.S. National Institutes of Health
    The Centers for Disease Control
    The United States Surgeon General
    The U.S. National Cancer Institute
    The United States Environmental Protection Agency
    The American Heart Association
    American Lung Association
    American Cancer Society
    The American Medical Association
    The American Academy of Pediatrics
    The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council
    The United Kingdom Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health

    Though with all due respect, if you can't find anything yourself considering the overwhelming scientific consesus, you obviously just don't want to. Meanwhile, if you'd like to hypothisize as to the reasons for the reduction in heart attacks in Scotland, I'd be interested to hear your theories.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That would explain a drop off in rates of heart disease. It wouldn't explain the clear deviation between the reduction in heart disease when you compare smokers to non-smokers. Seems quite clear to me that one group is no longer being exposed to smoke on a regular basis, and is therefore seeing a greater reduction than those who are still smoke. If anyone is drinking less, it would be the smokers, not the non-smokers, and yet it's the non-smokers who are seeing the biggest benefits.

    Alternatively it could be lots of non-smokers go drinking with smokers and as smokers go to the pub less so do non-smokers.

    I'm not saying you're neccessarily wrong - just that the evidence isn't nearly as conclusive as you claim.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Alternatively it could be lots of non-smokers go drinking with smokers and as smokers go to the pub less so do non-smokers.
    So the non-smokers go to the pub less now they're non smoking? And at a rate of 6% less than their smoking friends?
    I'm not saying you're neccessarily wrong - just that the evidence isn't nearly as conclusive as you claim.
    Nope, it's just a practical example of what has been shown in studies time and time again. The evidence didn't need this example to already be pretty conclusive.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So the non-smokers go to the pub less now they're non smoking? And at a rate of 6% less than their smoking friends?.

    Why not? its certainly not inconcievable. My parents often used to go out on a Sunday lunch with my uncle and aunt. Only one of them smokes, but they've stopped doing it unless it looks a nice day and they can sit in the beer garden.

    And lots of groups of people will contain a minority of smokers
    Nope, it's just a practical example of what has been shown in studies time and time again. The evidence didn't need this example to already be pretty conclusive.

    Well the evidence tends to show that passive smoking is a risk. However it also shows that its a negligent risk for most people in pubs and the risk is mainly to those with asthma etc (ie it's not a reduction in heart attacks). The biggest risk is people who live with smokers.

    That said I'm going to slightly change my argument because I was talking about this to someone and they pointed out the heart attack reduction is more likely to do with people who have used the ban as a reason to give up smoking and its impact on their husband, wives, lodgers, grannies etc. So there's a correlation, albeit not a direct one.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah, it's all just a coincidence. :rolleyes:

    Unless your statistic came from a controlled experiment testing the whether the ban a) stopped people smoking and b) that it caused 17% less of those people to have a heart attack than was statistically likely then post hoc ergo propter hoc, innit.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Thunder, you know that the Alzheimer's thing was debunked a few years ago, don't you?


    In fact this suggests that actually the risk doubles!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Thunder, you know that the Alzheimer's thing was debunked a few years ago, don't you?


    In fact this suggests that actually the risk doubles!

    Really? I'd honestly forgotten.




    :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That said I'm going to slightly change my argument because I was talking about this to someone and they pointed out the heart attack reduction is more likely to do with people who have used the ban as a reason to give up smoking and its impact on their husband, wives, lodgers, grannies etc. So there's a correlation, albeit not a direct one.

    Possible. Although again, I can't see why the number of non-smokers suffering from heart attacks would be reduced more than smokers. You could argue that one smoker could effect more than one non-smoker, though I'm struggling to thing of many people who live with more than one other person of heart attack age. From what I read in an article on it though, the fears about people smoking more at home have proved unfounded, and the levels are pretty much the same as ever (maybe people who smoke more at home have been balanced out by those who chose to quit ;) ). But if the above statement is your opinion, then it does kinda prove what I was claiming: fewer people have had heart attacks as a direct result of the smoking ban. Whether this is because of pubs, homes, people quitting or whatever is pretty academic (though interesting).

    My point was simply to refute Thundertruck's insinuation that more people's livelihoods have been destroyed (something he hasn't backed up) compared to people's lives benefiting. In my opinion, this doesn't change the main argument about people's choice, I just like to make sure all the facts are heard first.
Sign In or Register to comment.