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.

Smoke Free by 2007 July

17810121316

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Nobody is banning smoking. Having a bit of consideration for other people around you in an enclosed space isn't that unreasonable IMHO.

    Oh I am considerate - I always ask people if they mind and if they do object, I go outside or whatever, but at the same time, I hate the way we are treated as second-class citizens just for smoking.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Indeed not GWST. A close friend of mine smokes, and goes outside to do so in her own home, and I have, for years, kept her company (standing downwind), just because she has a nasty habit doesn't mean that we can't continue spending time with together.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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.

    There are other factors than smoking to the previous statistics... For example nutrition (the Japanese have a very good diet), alcoholism, obesity, lifestyle, mental health, physical exercise ect... So smoking could still be harmful, but a mixture of other factors could also be the cause of death.

    I don't see why a government which gets a shitload of tax from cigarettes would say that it's harmful for any reason other than to save the NHS money for smoking related diseases.

    And again, it isn't about your health, it's about people around you not wanting to breath in chemicals (read the post I did about what is found in cigarettes) or come home from a night out stinking.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What if you actually LIKE breathing in the chemicals and smelling of smoke afterwards. Should they be persecuted too?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There are other factors than smoking to the previous statistics... For example nutrition (the Japanese have a very good diet), alcoholism, obesity, lifestyle, mental health, physical exercise ect... So smoking could still be harmful, but a mixture of other factors could also be the cause of death.

    I don't see why a government which gets a shitload of tax from cigarettes would say that it's harmful for any reason other than to save the NHS money for smoking related diseases.

    And again, it isn't about your health, it's about people around you not wanting to breath in chemicals (read the post I did about what is found in cigarettes) or come home from a night out stinking.
    Doesn't matter though, it seems the non smokers are the ones in the wrong for not wanting to breath in smoke. What can a non smoker that dont want to breath in smoke do? As I do not smoke therefor not causing anyone to breath in smoke there's not much I can do. Where as a smoker can stand outside for a few mins and smoke.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I would quite happily replace all petrol based cars with greener alternatives, not going to argue with you about that. But I don't think that the technology is practical yet.

    Nobody is banning smoking. Having a bit of consideration for other people around you in an enclosed space isn't that unreasonable IMHO.
    Yes... Completely.

    The main arguement which seems to be sported by smokers is that they want to smoke at the expense of the enjoyment and health of non-smokers who tend to be in the majority. Can't they wait for a cigarette? or stand outside?

    Nobody needs to smoke after all (and this comes from somebody who has been a smoker for years), being able to smoke isn't a right, it's a liberty which can ruin the enjoyment of a night out for other people...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The main arguement which seems to be sported by smokers is that they want to smoke at the expense of the enjoyment and health of non-smokers who tend to be in the majority. Can't they wait for a cigarette? or stand outside?

    For me it's the holier-than-thou attitude a lot have. All those smokers, common as muck they are. :yeees:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote:
    For me it's the holier-than-thou attitude a lot have. All those smokers, common as muck they are. :yeees:
    No it's not... It's the "I want my own way for the expense of others" that a lot of smokers have. It's just selfish.

    Don't see why so many of them get on their high horse because people want healthier places to socialise in... I mean nobody is stopping anybody from smoking... It is just about stopping smoking in pubs or closed spaces.

    Either have special "smokers pubs" or ban it completely is what I say.

    And nobody is yet to call smokers "common".
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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.

    You don't get it. I am not saying that smoking doesn't smell or cause a nuisance. I am aware it does, and will happily admit it.
    I am just saying that there is no need to exagerate on the effects - it doesn't help your case.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Dear Wendy wrote:
    I am just saying that there is no need to exagerate on the effects - it doesn't help your case.


    We really really aren't exaggerating the effects. When I have been in a smoky pub for the evening, my entire being smells, from my hair and skin to my clothes. When I wake up in the morning, my throat and eyes are sore, my nose is blocked up and I feel like I have a hangover, despite the fact that I don't drink. And these are just the tanglible effects, I'm not even talking about the nasty chemicals here. This stuff is in no way an exaggeration. When I visited Ireland not long after they had implimented their ban, we went to pubs most nights and it was such a relief to wake up in the morning with no headache and without smelling awful, especially since we were camping.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Again, I am not denying those effects.
    I am just saying that having to wash your hair several times, and not just once, and your sweat smelling of smoke, is either exageration or not connected to the smoking but a physical problem to begin with.

    You guys seriously don't listen.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Oh I am considerate - I always ask people if they mind and if they do object, I go outside or whatever, but at the same time, I hate the way we are treated as second-class citizens just for smoking.

    How are you treated as second class citixzens? Or do you think that you as asmoker are more important than non smokers and therefore should have the right to smoke wherever you want, whenever you want? :rolleyes:
    A close friend of mine smokes, and goes outside to do so in her own home

    A friend of mine does this and both times I've been out with him, I've stood out there with him and talked to him whilst he has his cigarette.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Dear Wendy wrote:
    Again, I am not denying those effects.
    I am just saying that having to wash your hair several times, and not just once, and your sweat smelling of smoke, is either exageration or not connected to the smoking but a physical problem to begin with.

    You guys seriously don't listen.
    I haven't no medical problem, smoke gets everywhere and in your skin so yes your sweat can smell. Some jumpers I sometimes have to wash again because the smoke smell hasn't gone. No ones is exaggerating.

    I'm getting sick of this, instead of actually admitting that other people (non smokers) are affected by smoke your saying were exaggerating and treating you like second class citizens. Smoke gets everywhere no one is exaggerating. And by the sound of it people think there banning smoking altogether.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Just out of interest, do the people who thing that whether to permit smoking in pubs and restaurants should be decided by the private owner, also think that the same thing should be decided by the private owner of buses and trains?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Just out of interest, do the people who thing that whether to permit smoking in pubs and restaurants should be decided by the private owner, also think that the same thing should be decided by the private owner of buses and trains?

    Buses and trains are a bit different. They're a form of public transport and unavoidable; by contrast you don't need to go in the pub on your way to work. I don't really object to smoking bans on buses and trains. That said I think smokers should always be accommodated where possible. Separate areas on buses aren't really viable but on trains it's perfectly reasonable for at least one carriage to be reserved for smokers. (Until not that long ago GNER did just that. And in Germany most train services seem to have at least a carriage designated smoking and it works well).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    HIT wrote:
    I haven't no medical problem, smoke gets everywhere and in your skin so yes your sweat can smell. Some jumpers I sometimes have to wash again because the smoke smell hasn't gone. No ones is exaggerating.

    I'm getting sick of this, instead of actually admitting that other people (non smokers) are affected by smoke your saying were exaggerating and treating you like second class citizens. Smoke gets everywhere no one is exaggerating. And by the sound of it people think there banning smoking altogether.

    Seriously, if your sweat smells of smoke, then there's something seriously wrong with you. I'm sorry.
    And again - you're not listening. I'll be the first to admit that yes I can smell it heavily on my clothes after a night out and that they go in the wash immediatly (though then again, they would even if they didn't smell of smoke) - yet I'm just stating that it doesn't help your case when going over the top with your descriptions.
    Either way, have explained myself enough on this petty point. If you guys choose to argue about it do it with yourself. If you truly still don't understand what I am trying to say, then you're past saving anyway.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Dear Wendy wrote:
    Seriously, if your sweat smells of smoke, then there's something seriously wrong with you. I'm sorry.
    And again - you're not listening. I'll be the first to admit that yes I can smell it heavily on my clothes after a night out and that they go in the wash immediatly (though then again, they would even if they didn't smell of smoke) - yet I'm just stating that it doesn't help your case when going over the top with your descriptions.
    Either way, have explained myself enough on this petty point. If you guys choose to argue about it do it with yourself. If you truly still don't understand what I am trying to say, then you're past saving anyway.
    Just because you dont like to hear what smoke those I am lying? When your hot your pours open, smoke gets into them. Simple. You seem to think you have come to a compromise saying oh OK yeah it makes your clothes smell but that's it everything else is made up or you have a health problem. You try being the non smoker, weather or not after you stop smoking you will gain your full sense of smell back or not, but its a nasty smell.

    I dont need saving thank you, you need the saving weather or not you want it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Dis, we had been through that before, and the only argument that you came up with was that it's different because you are only in favour of "private choice" when landlords are likely to favour you (due to being held to ransom by barely 15% of their customers).

    My position is well stated- I am happy for people to smoke when and where they want, so long as I can have a pint and a piss without being forced to breathe it in.

    But the smoking lot on here are guilty of a gross misrepresentation- smoking is not being "banned", the law is simply that you need to step outside the building for the 30 seconds or so it takes you to chuff your Lucky Strike. I really genuinely don't understand why this is such a big deal. I get to sit in the pub and enjoy my pint and my pork scratchings without breathing in your smoke, you get to enjoy your pint and pork scratchings and have a cigarette when you need one.

    The other thing, of course, is that this legislation is not being brought in for the punters, its being brought in for the staff. If any other piece of workforce health and safety legislation was left for the employer to choose (say, crash hats and harnesses for builders) Aladdin et al would be pissing themselves with anger. Why's this any different?

    Why is the inconvenience of having to stand outside for 30 seconds (something which smokers are happy to do on public transport and at work) so bad? I get to enjoy my pint without having an asthma attack and without my clothes stinking of smoke, and you get to enjoy yours too. Isn't that what "consideration" is all about, taking into accounts the wishes and needs of others?

    Why is your right to smoke in the pub (when standing outside for 30 seconds doesn't exactly rank with sacrificing your eldest daughter in the hardship stakes) greater than the right of my asthmatic mother-in-law and wife to go in the pub full stop? Answer me that, showing consideration for the needs and wishes of the 85% of people who do not smoke, and maybe I will begin to sympathise with the "persecutuon".
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    At the end of the day, health is the deciding factor, and smokers need to get over this fact.

    Non smokers do not effect the health of smokers in public indoor places.

    Smokers do effect the health of non smokers in public indoor places.

    Therefore, smokers should have to go outside to do their smoking. It makes perfect logical sense and a lot of smokers need to stop being so incredibly selfish. Its as simple as that. Non smokers should not have to stay away from pubs to save their health when EVERYONE- smokers and non smokers can all go together.

    When i have a night out i suffer for an average of 3 days after. I get a sore throat, a croaky voice, a blocked nose, sore and itchy dry eyes, asthma symptoms, a cough, and i fucking reek head to toe and so does everything that i took out with me.

    I wouldnt consider puffing car exhaust fumes in someones face in a pub then throw a hissy fit because it became illegal, so why should i tolerate someone puffing poisenous fag fumes into my face causing me to suffer.

    It DOES harm others, and it DOES kill. And other than that its dam right disgusting to be surrounded by smoke. Its like being in a room full of smelly dangrous farts, only the smell doesnt leave you when your out of the building, it lingers.

    Ive heard so many smokers arguing that if non smokers dont like it they shouldnt go out. Selfish fucks. Enjoy dying of lung cancer wont you :thumb:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Going back to the smoking ban ruining businesses - what about shisha cafes? The government's repressive anti-smoking policy is going to overnight instantly ruin these businesses. It's completely avoidable and for the government to knowingly and deliberately destroy the livelihoods of shisha cafe owners is criminal.

    The damage on pubs and bars will be slower, it will not have an effect on all - but it's indisputable Kermit that there are a lot of pubs where smokers form a lot more than 25% of the customers and it will hurt some places.
    Kermit wrote:
    Dis, we had been through that before, and the only argument that you came up with was that it's different because you are only in favour of "private choice" when landlords are likely to favour you (due to being held to ransom by barely 15% of their customers).

    You know it's much more than 15%. And you know in a lot of pubs and clubs it's probably nearer 50%, in some even over 50%.
    Kermit wrote:
    the law is simply that you need to step outside the building for the 30 seconds or so it takes you to chuff your Lucky Strike.

    Which isn't that easy in a club. Lots of us like a cigarette with a few drinks in a pub. The ban stops that.
    Kermit wrote:
    The other thing, of course, is that this legislation is not being brought in for the punters, its being brought in for the staff.

    People have always smoked in pubs. If you hate smokers you're not going to take a job in a pub. (Likewise if you're a vegetarian sickened by the sight of meat you probably won't get a job in a butchers).

    This patronising talk of 'protecting' bar staff is rather annoying. I work part time in a pub as well as working part time in a supermarket. I was fed up to recently hear of Christians and MPs wanting 'protection' for shop workers working Sundays and on Christmas Eve and the same goes with this talk of 'protecting' bar staff. (Oh and a lot of bar staff smoke - more than 15%, where I work it's the minority who don't...) I like working Sundays and whilst I can't speak for all bar staff, like a lot of others I don't mind working in a smoky environment.
    Kermit wrote:
    Why is your right to smoke in the pub

    I have no right to smoke in a pub, just as I have no right to smoke in somebody else's house. But I do believe a landlord has a right to allow me to smoke in their pub.
    Kermit wrote:
    greater than the right of my asthmatic mother-in-law and wife to go in the pub full stop?

    A pub isn't a public service that you fund in your council taxes. It's a private business. If you don't like the service they offer (i.e. if they don't have a decent non-smoking area) I suggest you take your business elsewhere.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A pub isn't a public service that you fund in your council taxes. It's a private business. If you don't like the service they offer (i.e. if they don't have a decent non-smoking area) I suggest you take your business elsewhere.
    Well technically it's a public house.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blah wrote:
    Smokers do effect the health of non smokers in public indoor places.

    It's affect. :rolleyes: And it's also pretty insignificant. Going to a smoky pub a few times a week isn't going to have any major impact on long term health. (French people after all go out more than us, French restaurants rarely have non-smoking areas let alone smoking bans yet the French live longer...Although, that is of course something to do with them not eating the crap Brits do but still, the smoking ban won't have any big impact on overall public health).
    Blah wrote:
    When i have a night out i suffer for an average of 3 days after. I get a sore throat, a croaky voice, a blocked nose, sore and itchy dry eyes, asthma symptoms, a cough, and i fucking reek head to toe and so does everything that i took out with me.

    Quite remarkable. Whether I smoke or not when I go out I never have those problems... Tbh I don't think I know of any smoker who gets a blocked nose, dry eyes and a cough from a few hours in a pub. How awful regardless. How ever would people like yourself have coped fifty years ago when people smoked everywhere? I wonder if non-smokers moaned so much back then. What ever will you do when smoking is banned and you can't blame your common cold on those nasty smokers?

    If you're particularly sensitive and know that you will get a 'blocked nose' or whatever from going out - you should remember that nobody is forcing you to go out to pubs. (There's lots of non-smoking alternatives).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well technically it's a public house.

    Er, no, that's a description in that it's a house open to the public...It's still a private business.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    People have always smoked in pubs. If you hate smokers you're not going to take a job in a pub. (Likewise if you're a vegetarian sickened by the sight of meat you probably won't get a job in a butchers).
    Every time you make that argument, I remind you that you believe that supermarket staff have the right to a shorter day on Sundays, and in our discussion about that you were adament that some people have no choice in what job they choose when they need to support their family and what-have-you. So how does that translate here? Oh yeah, some people have no choice but to accept a job in a bar.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Every time you make that argument, I remind you that you believe that supermarket staff have the right to a shorter day on Sundays

    That's actually the first time you've 'reminded' me.

    Supermarket staff do not really have a 'shorter' day on a Sunday. If you've worked in a supermarket you'll know people are working before and after the shop opens... I don't really have an argument for keeping the present Sunday trading rules other than that the status quo works well.
    and in our discussion about that you were adament that some people have no choice in what job they choose when they need to support their family and what-have-you.

    What?
    Oh yeah, some people have no choice but to accept a job in a bar.

    Bollocks. Unless you live in a tiny hamlet with nothing more than a pub and a Church there's usually plenty of choice for basic work. (Starbucks, McDonald's, retail, restaurants, etc). Most people who work in pubs work there not because there's no alternative but because they like working in that kind of environment. Pay and benefits in retail or a chain like Starbucks are generally quite a bit better than a pub).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Er, no, that's a description in that it's a house open to the public...It's still a private business.
    If it's open to the public, then it must abide by public laws. And that means laws regarding health and safety. Is a health inspection (and the subsequent closing down) not an infringement of his freedom to prepare food as he wishes? An owner of a business open to the public has a responsibility to provide a safe environment for his customers and staff, and that has always been the case. It is only the same infringement on his freedom to run his business as has always been in place, just a new measure within that framework. The only argument is whether you believe that the health threat is enough to warrant the measures in place. Because I'm sure you don't dispute health and safety measures on the whole, even though the invariably infringe on a business owners absolute freedom to run his business as he chooses.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Bollocks. Unless you live in a tiny hamlet with nothing more than a pub and a Church there's usually plenty of choice for basic work. (Starbucks, McDonald's, retail, restaurants, etc). Most people who work in pubs work there not because there's no alternative but because they like working in that kind of environment. Pay and benefits in retail or a chain like Starbucks are generally quite a bit better than a pub).
    Yeah tell that to someone who's been on the dole for a year, has sent their CV round all of those places and got no replies, and then finds out the local pub's looking for a job. Why should someone have fewer job opportunities because they refuse to put their health at risk?
Sign In or Register to comment.