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 ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
What do they do if someone does it, then? Let them rot in prison?
Or do they threaten to shoot them if they kill themselves?
Sorry, but it just seems unbelievable!
Except it isn't, but it will invalidate life insurance. It used to be illegal but not any more - assisting suicide on the other hand...
Still aren't
Take a bow MrG :thumb:
I`m not sure what "awfully good point" you wanted to make but if it has anything to do with the above matter of fact part of the post then I`d wholeheartedly agree with you.
Very explanative.
As for the remainder below, no comment,aside from pointing out it contains an apparent contradiction.
If you feel like signing a petition then there is a good one here,
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/smokers-united/
Smokers talk about their right to smoke, many non smokers talk about their right not to breath in smoke.
So one group is talking about their right to damage their bodies for the sake of pleasure, the other is talking about the right not to breath in smoke that will damage their bodies, to take pleasure in a clean atmosphere and not to stink of smoke.
As Mr G said, it's about freedoms, not rights. Too many people think they have rights to things (e.g. right to smoke, right to cheap flights, right to dress how they want), but there's a difference between what is essential to our culture and the way we live and what is expendible.
For now I've kicked my 20 a day habit, to aquiring a status as a social smoker, meaning only on nights out (that said, as a student, nights out occur quite often - and also in between lectures. Oops). The ban will probably mean that I'll only have a smoke here and there when stressing about essays.
So yeah, it might help me to kick a habit. But I am already in the mindset of quitting. Anyone who isn't, wont be benefitted of the ban.
All in all, I am against the ban, and view it as wrong on so many levels.
The ban isn't for smokers, its for the 86% of the population who do not smoke and shouldn't have to breathe in someone else's cancer chemicals.
If people are going to use that as an argument, please please find me a medical source.
Even the guy who discovered the link between smoking and lung cancer laughed at the idea that second-hand smoke was remotely dangerous.
Bibliography.
That do for starters?
Didn't Roy Castle die from lung cancer he got from inhaling second hand smoke?
I haven't checked this BTW it's just memory, may be wrong.
As an asthmatic I am badly affected by cigarette smoke and it makes me wheezy and need to use an inhaler. I can't wait for the ban. There's already one pub in Brum I know of that's gone non smoking and I love to meet my mates in there so we can have a drink and a chat without ending up with stinky hair and clothes.
Personally, I don't smoke, and I hate everything about it. But I think the ban (at least from what I know of it) is a stupid idea.
I absolutely detest walking out of a door and having to fight my way through a crowd of smokers, because they can't smoke inside, but don't want to move away from the building. I choose not to go around town very often because of the smoke and I declined a job at a bar because of the smoke.
They recently banned smoking completely on our local hospital premises. So why did I have to walk through a cloud of smoke to get into the hospital? Who's policing it? What exactly is the point?
I rank it alongside the hunting ban. Stupid laws made up by stupid people that don't have a clue about how to make the ban effective. I partially agree with both bans, but at the same time there are elements that I disagree with.
I absolutely detest walking out of a door and having to fight my way through a crowd of smokers, because they can't smoke inside.[/QUOTE]
They have to smoke somewhere and it's a lot safer walker through a crowd of smokers than sitting inside with them for a lock of pints.
I hate this holier-than-thou shit a lot of anti-smokers have, the whole "aw sure why don't you just quit" attitude, one poster in particular here said we endanger the lives of children by putting their wee innocent heads at risk from the flames. WTF! The ban is good though, smokers will get used to it and the craic is 90.
If i was a landlord and wanted to make my pub non snoking i should be allowed. If i loose customers, then tough shit!
If i want to make my pub a smoking venue then i should be allowed. If customers are put off by this rule and stop coming, then once again tough shit!
let the market decide where we can smoke and not the government!
:thumb:
yeh if they banned smoking entirely i'd support the smokers, but it's a ban on having to breathe other peoples smoke, and if you dont smoke you do notice it on your clothes how much you can take in at a pub
thery should legalise chewing and snorting tabacco
No not really. I take it you didn't actually read the medical paper that CRUK cited in their sweeping statements, overlooking the immense doubt in Professor Konrad Jamrozik's article which most of the badly-interpreted conclusions were lifted from. You've read the CRUK article, but not the one that's based on.
Firstly, Prof Jamrozik's pitch is full of doubt. The title of the thing is 'Estimate of deaths attributable to passive smoking among UK adults' which kinda implies no conclusive proof that any of these deaths can be 100% attributed to passive smoking.
For someone who says that 'it is likely' and that passive smoking 'might' account for those deaths, he seems very sure that the end result 'would lead to substantial reducations in these avoidable deaths' which 'might' be caused by passive smoking. Hardly concrete evidence is it?
From the actual journal article,
Now I could be wrong, but assumptions aren't exactly condusive to concrete scientific evidence are they? Especially when Table 3 refers to 'Results of sensitivity analyses for deaths attributable to passive smoking'.
Indeed, a whole paragraph of this article is given over to the Professor's 'Assumptions' which include such gems as:
- 'My calculations do not formally take into account the well documented issue of a time lag between exposure to tobacco smoke and impact on health'
- 'The calculation of the risks associated with passive occupational exposure of employees in pubs, bars, and nightclubs assumes a linear function, in keeping with known associations between active smoking and the diseases of interest, and is based on figures for median rather than mean salivary cotinine reported by Jarvis'
Again - using the median average rather than the mean doesn't exactly scream accuracy does it?
And that was just one of the articles CRUK was basing their sweeping statements on.
Thus, please, if you're going to cite something in response to something I've said, make sure it does actually back your argument up.
The full article is here: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/330/7495/812#REF1
The pitch is here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15741188
It remains to be seen how the smoking ban will work in practice, I'm optimistic that the Conservatives who mostly opposed it will slip in a loophole with some future legislation but the organised pharmaceutical industry that has lobbied for a ban is so strong it's probably doubtful. Oh well, a few pubs that pack in patio heaters outside will notice an upsurge in trade and no doubt many more pubs will follow suit. It might not be that bad, Yerascrote seems to think it's okay in Ireland.
And then had to wash my hair twice just to get out the smoke from there as well.
Like someone just said smokers are a quarter of the population (don't know if this is true) but if this is the case then yippee for the majority of those that don't smoke .. I might hold a party on the 1st July!!
86% don't smoke, so it's slightly less than a quarter.
No idea what the figure is but change is long overdue..
I'm sure venues will start getting around the new laws by finally providing decent out door spaces .. loads of pubs have really nice beer gardens and we certainly have the technology to heat outdoor areas now even in the midst of a cold winter, it's certainly a lot easier to generate heat to keep people warm then it is to provide air conditioning for example.
If businesses want to attract smokers they'll find ways to adapt.
I can only assume that either non-smokers have a gross penchant for hyperbole [likely] or that they must have really sensitive noses, very porous hair and wear extremely porous clothing. I smoked heavily for years and years, don't at the moment and have not found any of these supposed greatly upsetting issues to trouble me on nights out, but whatev, it's a non-issue now anyway.
It is going to be very bizarre in a clubbing scenario, I have to say. Are they going to fit smoke alarms everywhere in clubs then? What about smoke machines? All said, it's going to be difficult stopping your friendly village wreckhead having a cheeky snout at 3am
As for parties on July 1st, I will be hosting one too in a fuck off huge smoke-filled iron lung. It's going to be off the hook :thumb:
I think inhaled smoke really does affect people, I've noticed when I get home even my socks and underwear smell of smoke ..
I have to clean my contact lens at least twice to get out all the smoke from them as well
:yes: Well said Dis.
It's Labour's last gasp at fucking over some minority in this country before leaving office. Since they've successfully acheived virtually no change to the realities of the hunting scene, judging by the amount of hunts going on near me yesterday ( :yippe: ) they thought, since they know they're gonna get booted out in the next election, they'd have one final swipe at those evil smokers.
It should completely be down to the publican / licencee whether he or she wants their establishment to be smoking or nay. And if you don't like the choice that the establishment has made, the beauty of living in a nominally free country is that you can go somewhere else.
What I really hope is that Cameron, as an ex-smoker doesn't become all militant like most ex-smokers (particularly my mum). Hopefully they'll either amend the bill or repeal it completely.
Nothing was proven (or even could be proven), the only thing for certain is that Roy Castle died from lung cancer. It was blamed on the time he spent in clubs but there is no evidence to support that claim. There is still no evidence that second-hand smoking causes lung cancer.
There is something called common sense though