England Goes Smoke Free

roryf · June 2007

FMF is an idiot. Passive smoking is dangerous and unhealthy. The reason that the smokers should move outside, rather than the non-smokers move away, is because smoking is unhealthy, and by making it inconvenient for you to smoke, you are being helped to quit. Also, non-smokers outnumber smokers, so it makes sense proportionally, to move the smokers rather than the non-smokers.

360 · June 2007

Now Im going to have to smell your fetid stench.

seriously, clubbing in non-smoking countrys is rank

"I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure."

P.s Im not doing that again.

Mike Skinner · June 2007

those resources lists merely list the name of the investigater and the investigation, they dont show the results of said investigation.
while i doubt it, they could all be investigations around: 'does ETS cause cancer', conclusion, "no".

as i say, probably not the case, but the point is the references are of no use without the finds if said reports.

However IMO lung cancer isn't the reason for the ban, the numbers of people suffering health problems from apssive smoking is very very low, as people generally don't spend THAT much time in pubs etc.

This is more about trying to create a different 'atmoshpere' in places and I'm mainly upset as I like the smokey dingy little pubs in villages and such, and I dislike the big loud scrubbed clubs in town, whether you can smoke in them or not. I don't want to lose the atmosphere of pubs, which i think this ban will do.

<center>HighZine "More Fun than Kucking Dead Fids</center>
<center>Punk Cabaret Is Freedom</center>
<center>M i n i- L i n k</center>
<center>Old Vids</center>

blacksun · June 2007

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

FMF is an idiot. Passive smoking is dangerous and unhealthy. The reason that the smokers should move outside, rather than the non-smokers move away, is because smoking is unhealthy, and by making it inconvenient for you to smoke, you are being helped to quit. Also, non-smokers outnumber smokers, so it makes sense proportionally, to move the smokers rather than the non-smokers.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Links to proof? (I just want to awkward)

<hr noshade size="1">
'You don't like smurfs?'

'Fuck those little blue bastards. They look like a town of deformed fetuses that were suffocated and thrown into a mushroom patch'.

Red Lemon · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mike Skinner
However come next month, the table is going to be interupted every 5 minutes to let the smokers keep going outside, or more likely we will all go and sit outside, so then the non-smokers have to sit out in the cold for no fault of their own.

Therefore the gtovernments smoking ban is bad for the health of non-smokers.
fact.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I hope that was tongue in cheek. I really do, because your argument relies on some pretty huge assumptions that make it a load of mooooooo!!:

1) The non-smokers will go out to join their mates, even when it's cold.
2) The non-smokers won't wear appropriate warm clothing.

And if 2 is true, and the non-smokers choose to go outside wearing inadequate clothing, there's a third assumption, which I'm sure you have no evidence to back up:

3) Cold is as bad for health as passive smoking.

At least they've brought the ban through in July, to ease it in more gently.

Mike Skinner · June 2007

BRS, your mom is in one form or another allergic to smoke. I'm allergic to cats, so I avoid cats, I don't try to get them banned.

Asthma sufferers should avoid pubs that allow smoking, hardly difficult is it.

<center>HighZine "More Fun than Kucking Dead Fids</center>
<center>Punk Cabaret Is Freedom</center>
<center>M i n i- L i n k</center>
<center>Old Vids</center>

whyamihere · June 2007

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

those resources lists merely list the name of the investigater and the investigation, they dont show the results of said investigation.
while i doubt it, they could all be investigations around: 'does ETS cause cancer', conclusion, "no".

as i say, probably not the case, but the point is the references are of no use without the finds if said reports.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">What about the ones that are linked to in the form of a PDF? Example, produced by the US Department of Health and Human Services.

Red Lemon · June 2007

I can see I'm going to have to search "passive smoking" on web of science. Trouble is, I can't be arsed.

whyamihere · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mike Skinner
Asthma sufferers should avoid pubs that allow smoking, hardly difficult is it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Why should I change what I want to do because someone wants to smoke? As far as I'm aware, smoking isn't something you have to do (yes, fair enough, you may be addicted, but were you forced to smoke and so become addicted in the first place?). Asthma isn't a choice, it's something you have to live with, whereas smoking is a choice.

anto164 · June 2007

i'm not arsed, i dont mind being in a smoky atmosphere, dont smoke myself so i dont mind. the only thing i will prefer is the fact that i wake up in the morning, and my clothes won't wreak. other than that, my mates at work will be stuck for somewhere to smoke. 4/5 people at work smoke, so they'll be stuck for somewhere to smoke.

 MON BICI!!
myspaz

Tom · June 2007

of course passive smoking is dangerous if smoking is. its the same smoke your breathing but with the added pleasure of already being through someones tarred up lungs.

<center>Killing? No. No satisfaction. Everything up until the killing, will be a gas.</center>

Fantastic Mr Fox · June 2007

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

of course passive smoking is dangerous if smoking is. its the same smoke your breathing but with the added pleasure of already being through someones tarred up lungs.

<center>Killing? No. No satisfaction. Everything up until the killing, will be a gas.</center>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

By that logic, surely its dangerous to stand next to a car or anywhere with any fumes at all. Its obviously not going to be good for you, but is it bad enough for you to the extent in which it should be banned?

<hr noshade size="1"><center>I'd rather not.</center>

whyamihere · June 2007

Cars serve a valid purpose, in that they are probably the best way to move long distances at high speeds, and to move people and possessions around.

Smoking serves no such purpose, it is used solely for enjoyment, and so cannot be compared to driving a car.

Red Lemon · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Fantastic Mr Fox

Originally posted by Tom

of course passive smoking is dangerous if smoking is. its the same smoke your breathing but with the added pleasure of already being through someones tarred up lungs.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yeah, but cars are useful.

Mike Skinner · June 2007

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

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mike Skinner
Asthma sufferers should avoid pubs that allow smoking, hardly difficult is it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Why should I change what I want to do because someone wants to smoke? As far as I'm aware, smoking isn't something you have to do (yes, fair enough, you may be addicted, but were you forced to smoke and so become addicted in the first place?). Asthma isn't a choice, it's something you have to live with, whereas smoking is a choice.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

beacuse there are more smokers than asthma sufferers?
well that the reason placed above for moving smoekrs outside.

RL, yes, it was to a degree toungue in cheek (the colds bit) but:

yes, I expect groups will go and sit outside, you don't go out as a group of mates and sit seperately, and from my experience smoking doesn't bother people enough that they would make the smokers stop and suffer all nigt, rather than sitting outside.

What has clothing got to do with it, firstly, if you go out in town, you arn't going to dress for british winter, as you're hoping to hang around indoors, secondly, however well you dress, sitting outside in the english winter is miserable as fook.

I'm absolutely fuming (pun intended) that they've brought the ban in in July. It is typical labour confrontation avoidance. If they brought it in in the winter, there would be far more of a protest as people would immediately see the problems, bringing it in in the summer gives them 3 or so months with no complaints, and then it is to late to do much about it, by the time people start getting upset.

If they want to ban smoking, they should do it and forfeit their tax, but as it is, they are wormfooting around and making no-one happy

<center>HighZine "More Fun than Kucking Dead Fids</center>
<center>Punk Cabaret Is Freedom</center>
<center>M i n i- L i n k</center>
<center>Old Vids</center>

blacksun · June 2007

Hell, alcohol should be banned because it makes _some_ people act like twats.

Is that valid.. would that ever happen?

<hr noshade size="1">
'You don't like smurfs?'

'Fuck those little blue bastards. They look like a town of deformed fetuses that were suffocated and thrown into a mushroom patch'.

Big Red S · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Fantastic Mr Fox

As to all my statements being 'facts'... Well, opinions are not facts are they...?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No. They're not.
When stating facts, people say things like "there is NO evidence to demonstrate that...". That is a statement of fact.
When stating opinions, people say things like "i've not seen any evidence to the effect that..." "I don't think that...".

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I'll form an opinion according to the evidence available to me. Which up to now, implies that, we know fu*k all about the health risks of passive smoking.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
That's fine. If you state it as a possibly incorrect opinion then no-one's going to take issue with it (though they may well provide you with contending data).
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Your welcome to take everything I say as fact though, if you like. I wouldn't advise it though.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Why in the world would I? If anything, this would just make any readers less likely to take anything you state as fact as such, and less likely to believe you in general.

<hr noshade size="1">

README
[url=mailto:avisforwardedemails@gmail.com?subject=MBUK Moderation]E-mail me if you think i've moderated something wrong[/url] (but don't change the subject or I won't get it)

Mike Skinner · June 2007

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

Cars serve a valid purpose, in that they are probably the best way to move long distances at high speeds, and to move people and possessions around.

Smoking serves no such purpose, it is used solely for enjoyment, and so cannot be compared to driving a car.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

BullS, it it was a worrying enough health risk, they would force cars to change their fuel to bio-gas or similar.

The fact of the matter is, while passive smoking, does to some degree pose health problems, the risks are small enough to be irrelevant. As I said above, this isn't about the health side of things, it's about keeping the agressive anti-smoking groups happy, as sadly there are no vocal groups fighting for the otehr side

<center>HighZine "More Fun than Kucking Dead Fids</center>
<center>Punk Cabaret Is Freedom</center>
<center>M i n i- L i n k</center>
<center>Old Vids</center>

Big Red S · June 2007

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

BRS, your mom is in one form or another allergic to smoke. I'm allergic to cats, so I avoid cats, I don't try to get them banned.

Asthma sufferers should avoid pubs that allow smoking, hardly difficult is it.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

And wheelchair bound people should avoid places with stairs?

You're seriously suggesting she should avoid going out in public because she's got asthma?

<hr noshade size="1">

README
[url=mailto:avisforwardedemails@gmail.com?subject=MBUK Moderation]E-mail me if you think i've moderated something wrong[/url] (but don't change the subject or I won't get it)

roryf · June 2007

Mike S, they are making people happy. They are making those of us who like having our clothes not stink of smoke when we return home, and those of us for which the smoke serves as an irritant which aggravates our breathing difficulties, not to mention those of us who simply don't want to be breathing in a carcinogenic pollutant where it can be avoided.

What data do you have to say the risks posed by passive smoking are irrelevant? I believe you are talking out of your arse.

Big Red S · June 2007

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

I'm absolutely fuming (pun intended) that they've brought the ban in in July. It is typical labour confrontation avoidance. If they brought it in in the winter, there would be far more of a protest as people would immediately see the problems, bringing it in in the summer gives them 3 or so months with no complaints, and then it is to late to do much about it, by the time people start getting upset.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You'd rather they brought it in in the depths of winter so you could complain it was cold?

<hr noshade size="1">

README
[url=mailto:avisforwardedemails@gmail.com?subject=MBUK Moderation]E-mail me if you think i've moderated something wrong[/url] (but don't change the subject or I won't get it)

Big Red S · June 2007

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

Hell, alcohol should be banned because it makes _some_ people act like twats.
Is that valid.. would that ever happen?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

It's already not socially acceptable to drink in a large amount of public places, and drinking is banned in quite a few public areas anyway.

<hr noshade size="1">

README
[url=mailto:avisforwardedemails@gmail.com?subject=MBUK Moderation]E-mail me if you think i've moderated something wrong[/url] (but don't change the subject or I won't get it)

Mike Skinner · June 2007

BRS "You'd rather they brought it in in the depths of winter so you could complain it was cold?"

yes, because at least the problems with the ban would be immediately highlighted

BRS: "You're seriously suggesting she should avoid going out in public because she's got asthma?"

I'm seriously suggesting she avoids bars and pubs that allow smoking, yes. It makes no difference to her going out in public as smoking is still allowed around and about, it's just banned indoors, which it generally is anyway, so the only real difference will be in pubs, bars, and maybe work vehicles.
Which brings me on to:

roryf: " Mike S, they are making people happy"
They're not, as if they actually cared about the health problems, they would ban smoking. That is the obvious answer, it would stop the health problems, and make non smokers happy.

As it is you will still smell smokein the street, at bus stops, garden parties etc etc etc.
It's a worm-footed half-way solution that solves very few of the real problems that are associated with smoking

<center>HighZine "More Fun than Kucking Dead Fids</center>
<center>Punk Cabaret Is Freedom</center>
<center>M i n i- L i n k</center>
<center>Old Vids</center>

Mike Skinner · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Big Red S

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

Hell, alcohol should be banned because it makes _some_ people act like twats.
Is that valid.. would that ever happen?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

It's already not socially acceptable to drink in a large amount of public places, and drinking is banned in quite a few public areas anyway.

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

this is going off topic, but I know you're not naive enough to have no idea what most town centres are like on friday and saturday evenings.

<center>HighZine "More Fun than Kucking Dead Fids</center>
<center>Punk Cabaret Is Freedom</center>
<center>M i n i- L i n k</center>
<center>Old Vids</center>

roryf · June 2007

Can you imagine the uproar that would be caused if they banned smoking outright straight away? This is the first step in that direction. Think of public opinions if they had an outright ban straight away.

Anonymous · June 2007

My problem with the smoking ban (already in force here in wales, and scotland and ireland) is that the government is forcing landlords, cafe managers etc to adopt their own party opinion.

I have no problem with pubs banning smoking, because they choose to do so themselves, it the fact that it's enforced that pisses me off.

<hr noshade size="1">
My trusty steed
1999 marin wolfridge, Marzocchi Jr Ts, Saint cranks, D321 rims, Hope C2s, raceface bits and bobs, XT running gear. All vintage stuff! (apart from the saints)
<hr noshade size="1">

Mike Skinner · June 2007

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

Can you imagine the uproar that would be caused if they banned smoking outright straight away? This is the first step in that direction. Think of public opinions if they had an outright ban straight away.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
why the massive uproar?
they clearly don't mind upsetting smokers as they are doing so currently, and the public opinion generally should support it, assuming the majority are non-smokers.

<center>HighZine "More Fun than Kucking Dead Fids</center>
<center>Punk Cabaret Is Freedom</center>
<center>M i n i- L i n k</center>
<center>Old Vids</center>

Big Red S · June 2007

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

BRS "You'd rather they brought it in in the depths of winter so you could complain it was cold?"

yes, because at least the problems with the ban would be immediately highlighted
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
So you'd rather the entire smoking population suddenly be forced outside in the depths of winter than they have most of the summer to quit (if they wish) or, at the very least, some time for these public/work areas to see (and therefore respond to) demand for smoking area's?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
BRS: "You're seriously suggesting she should avoid going out in public because she's got asthma?"

I'm seriously suggesting she avoids bars and pubs that allow smoking, yes. It makes no difference to her going out in public as smoking is still allowed around and about, it's just banned indoors, which it generally is anyway, so the only real difference will be in pubs, bars, and maybe work vehicles.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
It's now banned everywhere the smoke's likely to accumulate, rather than disperse. Everywhere public and enclosed.
And I don't think it's a bad thing that she may now go to any restaurant knowing that she wont have a fit of coughing. Quite nice, really.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
roryf: " Mike S, they are making people happy"
They're not, as if they actually cared about the health problems, they would ban smoking. That is the obvious answer, it would stop the health problems, and make non smokers happy.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
That'd be very far from an ideal solution, though. This way, they are saying that the population is responsible enough to be able to decide whether to smoke or not, but it'd be nice if you did it somewhere that other people don't also have to smoke.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
It's a worm-footed half-way solution that solves very few of the real problems that are associated with smoking
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
What are the real problems? An outright ban on anything unhealthy is, in my opinion, exactly the wrong way to go about it.
To recognise that there is an incredibly small proportion of venues who manage to balance the needs of smokers and non-smokers, and therefore legislate in the direction of the latter (since smokers do spend a fair bit of time not smoking) is quite fair, if not entirely desirable, in my opinion.

<hr noshade size="1">

README
[url=mailto:avisforwardedemails@gmail.com?subject=MBUK Moderation]E-mail me if you think i've moderated something wrong[/url] (but don't change the subject or I won't get it)

Red Lemon · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mike Skinner
BullS, it it was a worrying enough health risk, they would force cars to change their fuel to bio-gas or similar.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Actually, fuel regulations have been tightened up and catalytic convertors introduced for this reason. As for this mythical bio-gas? Forget it. The main products will still be CO2 and water and unless your engine gives 100% combustion with every compression stroke and your fuel is 100% pure, you'll still kick out some nasties into the environment.

Mike Skinner · June 2007

But you speak as if you are giving smokers the choice. You're (you being the people supporting the ban, not you personally, clearly) not at all. As mentioned, this is the first step to banning smoking, but an almost pointless one IMO.

Smoking has been proved to be a fairly high risk habit, passive smoking, while posing minor health risks isn't a huge strain on many people or the NHS.

Banning smoking would be the responsible thing for a givernment to do. While I don't think much of the nanny state at all, I do appreciate that smoking is probably harmful enough to validate being made illegal. Allowing people to still smoke, but just telling them to keep it out of pubs, which have been smoky since their conception serves little real purpose except to the minority who strongly object to cigarette smoke

<center>HighZine "More Fun than Kucking Dead Fids</center>
<center>Punk Cabaret Is Freedom</center>
<center>M i n i- L i n k</center>
<center>Old Vids</center>

England Goes Smoke Free

Comments

Categories