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.
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
And you should know better by now than to submit a blatently biased source.
Bollocks.
Smoking bans will still have an effect. Out of people that actually go to pubs and go to pubs regularly a lot smoke. Even if they still go and don't stay at home, if you're nipping out for a smoke you're going to buy less alcohol.
However, the fact is that different pubs and bars cater to different people. And whilst smoking bans might even boost trade in some pubs - hence some owners voluntarily banning smoking and doing what they feel is right for their business, in other pubs the owners can see that smoking bans won't help their business...Indeed, it'll simply cause an inconvenience to many customers.
You keep going on about 86% of the population not smoking - ignoring the fact that it's nowhere near that high it's completely irrelevant. What's more relevant is what the owner thinks is right for their business. (And in the case of private members clubs in plenty of working mens clubs and even London gentlemen's club the majority smoke - that the government is refusing to allow members of such clubs to vote on smoking bans is indefensible).
Exactly. You're not a country boy are you Kermy? And citing one example doesn't account for all the rural pubs in the country.
Like Cancer Research UK?
:yes: And I don't even have to be standing/sitting next to someone to even smell it - when my dad smoked, he only had to walk in the room (I was normally over the other side) and could still smell the smoke.
:rolleyes:
What's your point? Other than you having an exceptional sense of smell? I could smell the cheap perfume of someone standing next to me on the tube. So what?
She really hasn't got an exceptional sense of smell. Smokers smell of smoke. And quite strongly. They're obviously not going to notice it so much as it is part of their smell. It's the same thing as going into a house you don't know. It will smell of the occupants. But the occupants won't smell it when they walk in, because they are used to it, and it is probably how they smell too.
I would be saying this even if cigarette smoke was the most wonderful smell in the world, it's not just a jab at smokers.
It hasn't in Scotland.
How many pubs can boot out 10-15% of their customers, even if 85% of them favour a smoking ban. That 10% will just go next door instead. You know that and I know that.
An ban stops that- next door also has the ban, so the customers won't go next door. And they won't stay at home.
If a landlord decided that banning gypsies and black people was right for their business, would you support that? No? Why not?
Thunderstruck, whilst I may be from a city, GWST shares the same views as me and her family are all from the middle of a field in the fucking lake district. And given that the in-laws don't have staff to go to the village shop (six miles away) for them, I'd say I trust her experience more. That country enough for ya?
Why is Cancer Research a "biased source"? If smoking didn't cause cancer then they wouldn't be campaigning for people to stop giving themselves and everyone else cancer, would they? It's a cancer charity. It'd be a waste of their time and money. If smoking was a healthy and fun pastime for the whole family that prevented cancer they'd be telling us all to chuff away.
Forest, on the other hand, is the pro-smoking body funded generously by the ethical and morally sound tobacco congolmerates. Last time I checked, Tim Schitt (or whatever his name was) and the CEO of J D Wetherspoon plc were not experts in the field of cancer.
Bollocks.
I've already answered this. See p. 15 of this thread.
I've spent a bit of time in a rural part of North Yorkshire with relatives...And I have to say I've found smokers to often be in the majority at small and cosy little rural locals.
Tbh I always thought donations to Cancer Research UK were funding research into cures for cancer. The sad fact is that in the past several years Cancer Research UK has diverted millions from medical research and handed over millions to expensive Westminster PR and lobbying firms to lobby for a public smoking ban...How is Cancer Research not biased?
Cancer Research UK is apparently committed to funding research into cures/treatments for cancer, even if it can afford to give millions to lobbyists that is their aim. And with many of those involved in the charity personally affected by cancer it's not unreasonable to say that they might act irrationally sometimes because of their desire for others not to suffer as they have. Forcing a complete smoking ban on publicans and private clubs is irrational. They're a charity fighting cancer, smoking can increase the risk of cancer, they're hardly a neutral player.
Although, imo the obsession with smoking in recent years will not improve public health. (Binge drinking every Friday night and an unhealthy diet might be worse than smoking. France, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Austria, Israel, Greece, Germany all have higher life expectancies than Britain yet all have a higher proportion of smokers. Source).
And Cancer Research UK are funded by pharmaceutical companies - and everyone talks about tobacco firms lobbying but it's well documented that in NY and Britain the biggest champions of smoking bans were the pharmaceutical companies. (Guess who makes billions out of the NHS doling out nicotine patches?) You can be naive sometimes...
At least Forest are very open about their links with the tobacco companies...And judging by the amount of lobbying that went on for the smoking ban it's very clear which side had the backing of morally sound congolmerates - it certainly wasn't those defending freedom.
OK then ...how do you explain people's sock's and even underwear reaking of tobacco if they're wearing a thick pair of denim jeans when they themselves are not smokers?
Only way I can explain it is they're absorbing it and the toxins are being expresses through natural sweat glands.
smokers don't have the right to go about burning people with their cigarettes and yet I've had countless shirts ruined by cigarettes burns and had my arms and hands burnt several times.
It wouldn't be so bad if smokers exercised some respect on where they smoke, sitting at a bar smoking is one thing .. waving your hands with a burning cigarette on a crowded dance floor is another.
I'm sure most of the people protesting the ban on this thread are smokers and most of those whether they acknowledge it or not are drug addicts .. the drug in this case being nicotine.
My father smokes but he smokes outside, he smokes because he's addicted to it..
He doesn't see the need to smoke indoors and stink up his own house, he doesn't see the need to smoke in his car, or in other places where non smokers are likely to feel the effects. He has a drug habit but at least he's exercising some respect to the non smokers in the house.
A lot of the countries at the bottom have problems with poverty and AIDS.
Chemicals found in a cigarette include...
Acetone (nail varnish remover), hydrogen cyanide (used in the gas chambers for capital punishment I think), formaldehyde (preservative, sometimes used to preserve human flesh), lead, arsenic and methanol.
Can anybody honestly say that these don't cause harm to people around them?
I'm a social smoker, I love to smoke when I'm at a pub, club, with mates having a good time and drinking. For me, drinking goes hand in hand with a ciggy... And I'm very happy that way, thanks! I've no intention of changing that habit. I've asked no one to help me quit smoking, so please stop the bollocks about the ban doing us a 'favour'. :rolleyes: Affirming that it does because it's best for my own interest only proves a very patronising position -quite unacceptable in my opinion. Sure, smoking isn't good for my health but then loads of things I do aren't either, and I don't see anyone passing bans on those (thank god!). A ban like this one can only be discussed on the grounds of smoking being harmful for other people - but NOT on the people who choose to smoke!
And in that respect, wtf would be the problem with having some smoking pubs and others non-smoking? People who support the ban please give me a satisfying answer to this.
Cos oddly enough air does get through to your knackers and your feet even if you do wear socks and underwear!jeans and trainers aren't airtight you know...
Again then you've met some inconsiderate twats, no one i know who smokes will be waving their hands around with a cig whilst dancing, and the only time i've ever burnt anyone is when they've barged past/walked into me.
I smoke but i'd actually be more in support of a complete ban rather than what is being planned. If it was really about people's health that much then just fucking ban it altogether.
It doesn't on that site. It just gives the life expectancies.
Japan which has a very high life expectancy (only tiny Andorra, Macau, San Marino, Singapore and HK are higher) has a very high % of smokers. Amongst males it's 45% and Japan has almost no restrictions on smoking, you're lucky to find non-smoking areas in restaurants , bars, etc.
France also has a higher life expectancy than Britain yet the French smoke more. Over 30%. In Germany, it's over 35%. (Same source). Germans also live longer. Brits smoke less, the same source says amongst Brits it's over 25%. Kermit thinks it's much lower but hasn't given any source. And we don't live as long.
Nobody can deduce from the French, Germans and Japanese smoking more and living longer that smoking is not a harmful habit. But, at the same time it does make some of the anti-smokers claims seem a little exaggerated. I get the feeling that smoking is lazily guessed at to explain all sorts of deaths and I think the huge emphasis on the anti-smoking message is often at the expense of other (arguably more important) factors of a healthy lifestyle. I'd personally guess my light smoking habit (pretty similar to bluewisdom) in lighting up socially (and sometimes elsewhere) and usually smoking about 10-15 cigarettes a week is a far smaller risk to my health than what binge drinking every Friday would be. (And I do not 'binge drink' regularly). There is a risk I'm sure but then if we banned everything we liked because of the risk involved life would suck.
It's not a theory, it's an observation. It's not the main reason I'm against the ban anyway. And it's anecdotal statements that Kermit has been basing his argument on...Indeed I was responding to one such remark with that statement.
Fascinating. But the vast majority of landlords will not ban smoking until they're forced to.
Further anadoctal evidence the pub up the road from me has been non-smoking for the last 2/3 years. That doesn't sound too forced to me.
Well said.
People smoke generally because they want to.
'Doing them a favour' = 'We know what's best for you more than you do'
We are treated like second-class citizens simply because of a democratic and legal choice we make. Until they make smoking illegal, there can be no excuse for people looking down on us for a simple choice that we make.
Stuff in exhaust fumes according to good ole Wikipedia:
- Nitrogen (N2) - pretty safe - around 70% of normal air
- Carbon dioxide (CO2)
- Carbon monoxide (CO) - Extremely fucking toxic, not remotely nice
- Hydrocarbons - the stuff that cuases global warming and has such attractive airborne by-products as mercury and arsenic
- Nitrogen oxides (NOx) - lovely stuff that aggravates asthma, as well as being extremely toxic, causes smog and all that lovely global warming
- Particulate matter - think aerosols. The full list of what these nasty little things can do to you can be found here
Diesel fumes are slightly different but no less nasty. Read.
Now, last time I checked, infinitely more damage was being done to the world by exhaust fumes than by cigarette smoke. Yes, the latter has a higher mortality rate at the moment but if Al Gore is to believed, the former will wipe us all out soon, completely trouncing the latter's mortality rate.
So which is the greater evil? Clearly it's exhausts yet virtually fuck all is being done about it. In a just world, motorists would be treated like scum for ruining the planet for future generations but sadly the world don't work like that and it is the humble smoker that must bear the brunt of the criticism.
What's your point?
NOWHERE on this thread have I seen anybody criticise the right of pub owners to voluntarily ban smoking. I don't care about that...
What disgusts me is the government forcing total smoking bans on establishments and not allowing them to accommodate smokers at all. (If they want to).
Currently you can go to your non-smoking pub up the road and I can go to the pub that does allow smoking. Once you, Kermit and GWST have your way there'll be no such choice and nowhere for smokers to go and enjoy a cigarette.
There is no better example of intolerance and selfishness than that of the ban smoking brigade.
On the smell subject - some of you lot must have either really sensitive noses, or spend time with people who chain smoke all day. My mum can't smell if I've had a cigarette as I've been walking the dogs, and never could, even before she knew I smoked. I can't smell it if people have just come in from a smoke at work (even if I haven't had one myself all day) unless they come really close to me. The only time I can really tell people have been smoking is if I'm talking face to face with them, because it's still on their breath. My sister, afaik, never smells of smoke when she comes in from a night out.
*shrug*
We could say exactly the same thing about cars (part from the driver is actually the only person NOT being exposed to the death gas that his car spews out). Yet everyone jumps on the bandwagon against smoking because petrol-fuelled cars are seen as some kind of necessity and because the majority of people do it, it must be ok...
Vehicles might be a necessity but ones that spit out all the nasty crap that petrol fuelled ones do certainly are not.
Whilst smoking may not be a necessity, virtually all things that bring people just a little bit of pleasure aren't necessary for us to live.
Smoking certainly has a purpose albeit not a necessary one.
But glad to hear you're opposed to the ban too though!