The Smoking Ban 01/07/07

andyoxon · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Smokin Joe

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by andyoxon

Roll on the ban...I was in a pub on Friday night and didn't enjoy the smokey atmosphere at all.

Active or passively inhaled cigarette smoke is carcinogenic, oxidising and generally damaging to health. My aunt and grandfather, both smokers, died of lung cancer and emphysema respectively... [:(]

I used to know a consultant respiratory physician in London who smoked - which goes to prove it isn't what you know about the dangers which makes the difference. Nicotine is addictive. And as demonstrated by non-(active) smoker Roy Castle, breathing large volumes of air in smokey venues is not good for your health.
Andy

--- Beware of 'all things being equal' - because very often they are not. ---

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
That is merely a theory Andy, not a fact. It can never be proven that any individual case of cancer is down to cigarette smoke because if cigarettes had never been invented people would still get lung cancer.

Nobody ever got laid because they were using Shimano
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I know that the case of Roy Castle is anecdotal - and that there are other causes of lung cancer. There is a risk in just about any activity, but knowing the chemical composition of cigarette smoke - one could never describe passive smoking as desirable or harmless.

This is from ASH admittedly but quite informative...
http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact08.html

Andy

--- Beware of 'all things being equal' - because very often they are not. ---

Tourist Tony · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Peyote

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Tourist Tony

Bonj:

"eh? I'm not understanding what you're on about here."

At last, some Bonjocks I can agree with!
Well, some people's idea of pleasure is smoking. The residue of their pleasure is smoke, which apparently, as it gets into my nose, mouth, eyes, clothes, food etc, only annoys me if I let it.
My pleasure is beer. The residue of my pleasure is urine.
Bonj, you know it will only annoy you if you let it when I stand on a chair and piss all over you...

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Interesting analogy TT! [:)]

However, I think to make it a bit more accurate I would vapourise your urine and allow it to permiate the same medium that 2nd hand cigarette smoke inhabits!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

So I'll make sure I get it into his mouth and eyes and all over his food. After all, it'll only annoy him if he lets it.

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

Unknown · May 2007

It may not annoy him at all TT, in fact you may even be able to charge. I've heard rumour some folk like such... ...activities!

The Bosscp · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Commuter

It's not the health aspect I don't like, it is the stinking clothes once you have been in a smoky pub and smoke from the end of a cigarette drafting into my face.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
But then it comes back to the green shirt analogy. You can't ban something just because YOU don't like it. Even if a lot of people don't like it, a lot of people don't like bright lime green shirts, but it's no reason to ban it. The point I'm making is the nanny-state anti-smoking lobby knew they couldn't get it banned just on the grounds that people don't like smelling other people's smoke, so they had to invent and propogate the myth that it's harmful to health.

The Bosscp · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Tourist Tony

Well, some people's idea of pleasure is smoking. The residue of their pleasure is smoke, which apparently, as it gets into my nose, mouth, eyes, clothes, food etc, only annoys me if I let it.
My pleasure is beer. The residue of my pleasure is urine.
Bonj, you know it will only annoy you if you let it when I stand on a chair and piss all over you...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well, that's not socially acceptable. And standing on a chair and doing it over somebody is done purely out of spite, you don't NEED to do it over somebody. Smoke is just a by-product of smoking, and not particularly unpleasant, not in the same way that piss is.

notanotherusername · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Absinthe Minded

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Joe Sacco:

You seem to have missed the fact that they may want the choice of going to that restaraunt? Choosing not to go is hardly a choice is it!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">So, what you're saying is that some non smokers might like to go to a smokers restaurant but they don't want anybody smoking there?

So why do they want to go to a smokers restaurant?

<hr noshade size="1">Ja sam napisao ovo ovde samo zbog toga da izgledam pametan...

See My route to work!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

But surely they are just restaurants? I didn't realise they were special smoking restaurants - will they exist after the ban? [:)]

Isn't the issue that every restaurant where smoking is allowed (which at the moment quite often is the norm) is therefore a "smoking" restaurant? Smoking impinges on other people. Non-smoking doesn't. After all, there is nothing I can do as a non-smoker that will impinge upon smokers (except maybe fart a lot - hey that's an idea![:D])

Stephen

andyoxon · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Tourist Tony

Well, some people's idea of pleasure is smoking. The residue of their pleasure is smoke, which apparently, as it gets into my nose, mouth, eyes, clothes, food etc, only annoys me if I let it.
My pleasure is beer. The residue of my pleasure is urine.
Bonj, you know it will only annoy you if you let it when I stand on a chair and piss all over you...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well, that's not socially acceptable. And standing on a chair and doing it over somebody is done purely out of spite, you don't NEED to do it over somebody. Smoke is just a by-product of smoking, and not particularly unpleasant, not in the same way that piss is.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

What do you make of this lot..?

A few of the 4,000 chemicals in secondhand smoke, several of which are cancer causing agents, are listed below.

This is from Table 3-1, 1992 EPA Report, Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking.

Benzene
2-Napthylamine
4-Aminobiphenyl
Nickel
Polonium 210 (radioactive)
Nitrogen oxides
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
1,3-Butadiene
Analine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
N-Nitrodiethanolamine
Cadmium
Benzo[a]pyrene
Benz[a]anthracene
Y-Butyrolactone
Particulate matter
N-Nitrosonornicotine
NNK
Carbon monoxide
Carbon dioxide
Carbonyl sulfide
Toluene
Acrolein
Acetone
Pyridine
3-Methylpyridine
3-Vinylpyridine
Hydrogen cyanide
Ammonia
Methylamine
Dimethylamine
Nicotine
Anatabine
Phenol
Catechol
Hydorquinone
Cholesterol
Quinoline
Harman
Zinc
Benzoic acid
Lactic acid
Glycolic acid
Succinic acit
PCDDs and PCDFs (Dioxins, Dibenzofurans)
Formic acid
Acetic acid
Methyl chloride

--- Beware of 'all things being equal' - because very often they are not. ---

Mister Paul · May 2007

You lost him after the B of 'benzene'.

__________________________________________________________
Road Safety Expert

Medals · May 2007

A couple of years ago me and my 3 mates were being 'smoked out' by two women next to us in the pub. Pi**ed off by this, my mate farted, saying outloud, words to the effect of, 'if I've got to smell your exhaled gas you can smell mine'. So starting the farting competition. Don't think they saw the funny side. But then, neither did we find it amusing having to breathe their smoke.

Unknown · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by andyoxon

Acetic acid

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Vinegar? Carcinogenic? Fish 'n' chips will never be the same again!

marinyork · May 2007

I thought vinegar was supposed to be bad for your heart?

Unknown · May 2007

I thought that was salt, couldn't find Sodium Chloride on AndyO's list!

The Bosscp · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by andyoxon

What do you make of this lot..?

A few of the 4,000 chemicals in secondhand smoke, several of which are cancer causing agents, are listed below.

This is from Table 3-1, 1992 EPA Report, Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> Yes, but those are mainly trace compounds i.e. only present in miniscule quanitities, a lot of which are in fact probably present in the air aswell.

Tourist Tony · May 2007

So why do you allow piss to upset you, Bonj? You tell us it's a matter of choice!
You prove one of my claims, anyway: those who deny climate change are the same sort of knobheads who deny that smoking is harmful.

Do you know if the giant lizards smoke?

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

speshcp · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss
Smoke is just a by-product of smoking,<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">No $hit Sherlock, I'd never have guessed that on my own... [:0][:D]

Somebody give that man a cigar! [:o)]

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> and not particularly unpleasant...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">So you don't think being fumigated by cigarette smokers is unpleasant? Do you wear full NBC kit and a gas-mask on your nights out, then? [}:)][:D][}:)]

<hr noshade size="1">"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." (Albert Einstein)

andyoxon · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by andyoxon

What do you make of this lot..?

A few of the 4,000 chemicals in secondhand smoke, several of which are cancer causing agents, are listed below.

This is from Table 3-1, 1992 EPA Report, Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> Yes, but those are mainly trace compounds i.e. only present in miniscule quanitities, a lot of which are in fact probably present in the air aswell. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> It takes many years for the harmful effects of these chemicals to cause symptoms of the most likely end diseases... Have a look at this... <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Most of the harmful substances in tobacco smoke are found at low levels in a single cigarette. But over months and years, many of them can build up to high levels in our bodies. This is why a smoker's risk of cancer and other diseases increases the more cigarettes they smoke a day, and the more years they spend smoking. Compared to non-smokers, the breath and blood of smokers can have: * twice as much cadmium, * four times as much radioactive polonium-210 * ten times as much benzene * ten times as much arsenic<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> And this... for more info on the chemicals themselves...http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/health ... ls/?a=5441

Not worth the risk really is it? Nor is it fair to subject others passively to these chemicals.

Andy

--- Beware of 'all things being equal' - because very often they are not. ---

The Bosscp · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spesh

So you don't think being fumigated by cigarette smokers is unpleasant? Do you wear full NBC kit and a gas-mask on your nights out, then? [}:)][:D][}:)]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Not really, no. IF you don't like it, don't go there.

The Bosscp · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Tourist Tony

So why do you allow piss to upset you, Bonj? You tell us it's a matter of choice!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well, I don't know. Piss on me, then. I'll take bets on how long it will take me to have you arrested.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Tourist Tony

You prove one of my claims, anyway: those who deny climate change are the same sort of knobheads who deny that smoking is harmful.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I don't deny it's possibly slightly harmful to the smoker themself, what I deny is that it's harmful to other people who aren't the ones doing the smoking.

The Bosscp · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by andyoxon

Not worth the risk really is it? Nor is it fair to subject others passively to these chemicals.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Oh, the old precautionary principle - that old one. We can't prove it, but you may aswell take our word for it because it might be true.
The issue here is not non-smoking versus smoking, or whether passive smoking's harmful or not, it's just the nanny state brigade ever eager to clock up yet another ban.

andyoxon · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss
I don't deny it's possibly slightly harmful to the smoker themself, what I deny is that it's harmful to other people who aren't the ones doing the smoking.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Then have a look at this...

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> ]Second-hand smoke consists mainly of sidestream smoke, which is about four times more toxic than mainstream smoke, although people inhale it in a more diluted form.

This is because sidestream smoke contains much higher levels of many of the poisons and cancer-causing chemicals in cigarettes, including:

* up to three times as much carbon monoxide
* five times more cadmium
* 3-10 times more polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
* 10-40 times more Nitrosamines
* about 15 times more benzene
* 40-70 times more ammonia<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/health ... ke/?a=5441

--- Beware of 'all things being equal' - because very often they are not. ---

Gary Askwith · May 2007

Are you a chuffer Bossj perchance? [xx(]

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

Mister Paul · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Tourist Tony

So why do you allow piss to upset you, Bonj? You tell us it's a matter of choice!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well, I don't know. Piss on me, then. I'll take bets on how long it will take me to have you arrested.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Tourist Tony

You prove one of my claims, anyway: those who deny climate change are the same sort of knobheads who deny that smoking is harmful.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I don't deny it's possibly slightly harmful to the smoker themself, what I deny is that it's harmful to other people who aren't the ones doing the smoking.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Bonj

I repeat the suggestion that I made to you a while ago.

Go and have a look around your local hospital. You may find the ENT department particularly interesting. You might want to look at it in your normal way -peering through squinted eyes with your fingers in your ears.

__________________________________________________________
Road Safety Expert

andyoxon · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by andyoxon

Not worth the risk really is it? Nor is it fair to subject others passively to these chemicals.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Oh, the old precautionary principle - that old one. We can't prove it, but you may aswell take our word for it because it might be true.
The issue here is not non-smoking versus smoking, or whether passive smoking's harmful or not, it's just the nanny state brigade ever eager to clock up yet another ban.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss
Not really, no. IF you don't like it, don't go there.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Well, it's academic thankfully... because after 1 July, and it's about time too - we won't have to sit in a pub (for example - chosen by a friend for a birthday drink) and breathe in everyone's else toxic second hand and sidestream smoke...

Andy

--- Beware of 'all things being equal' - because very often they are not. ---

The Bosscp · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Gary Askwith

Are you a chuffer Bossj perchance? [xx(]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Only socially, not in a public pub.

The Bosscp · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by andyoxon

Well, it's academic thankfully... because after 1 July, and it's about time too - we won't have to sit in a pub (for example - chosen by a friend for a birthday drink) and breathe in everyone's else toxic second hand and sidestream smoke...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Don't think it'll be enforced to the letter in all pubs. There'll be some areas where it'll be a 'gentleman's agreement' / 'unwritten rule' that you can smoke in there, and no-one reports it because no-one in there minds.

andyoxon · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by andyoxon

Well, it's academic thankfully... because after 1 July, and it's about time too - we won't have to sit in a pub (for example - chosen by a friend for a birthday drink) and breathe in everyone's else toxic second hand and sidestream smoke...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Don't think it'll be enforced to the letter in all pubs. There'll be some areas where it'll be a 'gentleman's agreement' / 'unwritten rule' that you can smoke in there, and no-one reports it because no-one in there minds.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Now that is wishful thinking... the writing is on the wall, and the pubs are soon to be smoke free; from July...

--- Beware of 'all things being equal' - because very often they are not. ---

Gary Askwith · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by andyoxon

Well, it's academic thankfully... because after 1 July, and it's about time too - we won't have to sit in a pub (for example - chosen by a friend for a birthday drink) and breathe in everyone's else toxic second hand and sidestream smoke...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Don't think it'll be enforced to the letter in all pubs. There'll be some areas where it'll be a 'gentleman's agreement' / 'unwritten rule' that you can smoke in there, and no-one reports it because no-one in there minds.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I don't think so, no bar manager will risk the œx,000 fine
BTW you must be the only 'social only' smoker in the UK.....I cant think of a single one who does not light up at any and every opportunity esp in the public bar

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

jel · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss
Don't think it'll be enforced to the letter in all pubs. There'll be some areas where it'll be a 'gentleman's agreement' / 'unwritten rule' that you can smoke in there, and no-one reports it because no-one in there minds.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The fines are punitive and enforced by the council as it's a licensing issue backed up by health and safety legislation. The council want the fines and between licensing and H&S there will be very little wiggle room and it would be a brave man indeed to risk the enforcement on the basis that noone minds.

I run a licensed business, and work in a smoky environment day in day out: Can't come in soon enough.

On another note I guarantee that your gentleman's agreement will be reported because although people will tell you that it doesn't bother them ('do you mind if I smoke?") it does. And people are a bit insane anyhow.

The Bosscp · May 2007

I bet airport staff are bracing themselves for some angry stressed passengers.

snorri · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

I bet airport staff are bracing themselves for some angry stressed passengers.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Not at all, many passengers will be more relaxed not having to contend with smokers in their midst.[:)]

The Smoking Ban 01/07/07

Comments

Categories