93 pub smoking days left in the U.K.

[Tru]

You need sunlight to survive, Like Semi-pro waster said, You need it fro Vitamin D.

People that work outside are probably healthier then the office jobs.

Working out side is also usually put as an incentive when an advertisement is sent out.
You never see places putting up an Advertisement saying "Get to enjoy a nice room for of passive Smoke" used to attracted people.

Most skin cancers are caused due to people going out in summer and getting burn over and over again to get a tan or just because they dont put suncream on

You appear to be an authority on everything, but at the same time, nothing.

"Probably...usually...most"

I'm afraid that cold, hard facts are against you here.

You don't get it, someone serving food and drink, outside on a sunny day is exposed to harmful rays and alcohol vapour the equivalent of thousands of cigarettes. What should be done to protect them from this? Or is it OK because, "People that work outside are probably healthier then the office jobs.". What a ridiculous statement. Really.

edit: I have to go out, I'll respond later.

 

[Zip]

What can be done tru?

Its not like you can take the sun away.

Mosy out door places have roofs and umbrellas over them anyway.

They do get Hates, Cloths, Suncream all taken out of there tax.

When serving you dont serve out side all day because you serve inside and out side at most places down here.

I dont think there will be one time where you would be out side for more then 15 minutes if you are serving food.

Dont forget us Australians do have more tolerance to the Sun

 

[semi-pro waster]

Scientist don't actually know the safe level for exposure to the sun to avoid skin cancer, and it's the same for passive smoking. Sure, the propaganda would have you believe one whiff of tobacco smoke is going to kill you, how do we know peeking out your window won't give you melanoma? Scientifically speaking, we don't.

Of course I'm not proposing we blot out the sun, but if we were to apply the anti-smoking legislation to other leisure pursuits, we'd be in a right old state.

True we don't know what 'safe' levels of sun exposure are, the matter is likely to be complicated by genetic preponderance to skin cancer (or indeed any cancer). However this still doesn't alter the basic fact that if I go out into the sun I affect nobody but myself directly, if I smoke then those around me have to breathe it in. I'm not about to suggest that passive smoking is some mass killer, the statistics I've seen wouldn't support it anyway and it isn't a point I care to make but you cannot suggest that the smell from smoke, at the minimum, does not affect those around the smoker. If a smokeless cigarette gets invented with no emissions whatsoever then we can possibly compare rays from the sun and that cigarette but until then, one does impact on those around it and one doesn't.

 

[Lysander]

What can be done tru?

Not a lot. I think this thread has turned into pointless arguing really... the smoking ban is coming up on July 1st for England and there's nothing that anyone can do about it.

More fool anyone who still smokes for being so stupid. What are the benefits?

You waste your money
You make need more vitamins than anyone because you're killing your own stocks
You have a highly increased chance of getting cancer
A lot of people find smoking unattractive
You clothes reek and you don't notice while everyone else does

Can't think of anything good.

 

[Amp34]

http://www.freedom2choose.co.uk/

HAHAHA!

What a load of *******!

Viable alternatives? Name them?

Non smoking/smoking areas - Smoke doesn't respect signs (and neither do some smokers). Already tried and doesn't work.
Ventilation - Yes of course, there is a possibility it may help a little but not anywhere near enough, unless of course they are strong enough to suck a cat up! And then they would be way too noisy.
Seprerate smoking room - A possibility, but then smokers would still moan as they would have to go out of the room to get their drink. And if they just went into the smoking room to smoke then it's not all that different to what the new legislation is saying now. And of course for the employee health side, the smokers would HAVE to bring their own glasses and rubbish out with them as the employees wouldn't be able to go in and get them. No chance of that happening.

Any others?

Doubtful statistics? There are only a few uninformed people (mostly diehard smokers) who believe the statistics are wrong, and even if they are the law is also in place to stop other people from having to put up with the smell and taste of smoke.

Even if the long term satistics are wrong the short term issues such as sore throat and breathlessness some people get are definately not wrong.

Attacking of other lifestyle choices? Well none of those listed are damaging to other people, you can't passive drink or eat can you? And Alcohol has already had something similar put in place, there wasn't uproar when that legislation wa put in place. (I am talking about banning the consumption of alcohol on streets or public places without a licence). There are also a lot of other lifestyle choices such as motorcycling and 4X4ing (to name but a couple I enjoy) that have similar restrictions put on them due a lot to "spoiling" peoples lives.

"Freedom to Choose"

He hit the nail right on the head there. This country is a democracy, the government saw the fact the majority of people want the freedom to choose to go out without being poisoned by other peoples smoke. It's called democracy, live with it or leave!

/rant

 

[Tru]

True we don't know what 'safe' levels of sun exposure are, the matter is likely to be complicated by genetic preponderance to skin cancer (or indeed any cancer). However this still doesn't alter the basic fact that if I go out into the sun I affect nobody but myself directly, if I smoke then those around me have to breathe it in. I'm not about to suggest that passive smoking is some mass killer, the statistics I've seen wouldn't support it anyway and it isn't a point I care to make but you cannot suggest that the smell from smoke, at the minimum, does not affect those around the smoker. If a smokeless cigarette gets invented with no emissions whatsoever then we can possibly compare rays from the sun and that cigarette but until then, one does impact on those around it and one doesn't.

This is exactly my point, it is possible to segregate smokers, it is possible to allow venues to decide for themselves whether they want smoking on their premises or not. Punters can choose whether to go to a bar that allows smoking or not. A blanket ban is completely over the top.

I get the feeling I'm seen (not necessarily by you) as some militant smoker up on his high-horse about not being able to chain-smoke myself to death. That couldn't be further from the truth. I'm more than happy to forego smoking when I'm in a pub. I've just spent 4 hours in my local and didn't smoke at all, I was with two of my non-smoker friends, I didn't even drink.

 

[Tru]

What can be done tru?

Its not like you can take the sun away.

Mosy out door places have roofs and umbrellas over them anyway.

They do get Hates, Cloths, Suncream all taken out of there tax.

When serving you dont serve out side all day because you serve inside and out side at most places down here.

I dont think there will be one time where you would be out side for more then 15 minutes if you are serving food.

Dont forget us Australians do have more tolerance to the Sun

I'm using the skin cancer model to illustrate my point, I don't care to discuss the minutiae of sun exposure. My point, which you are repeatedly failing to grasp, is that the draconian laws which have been passed are simply too much.

They've taken away a civil liberty, (however 'socially unacceptable' it is), and it's given the Government a lever to apply similar restrictions to other aspects of our lives.

Restricting smoking, in itself, is not a bad thing. People are stupid and patently can't look after their own health, and sick people are a strain on a country. It's right for an administration to take measures to improve the health of it's citizens. Unfortunately the anti-smoking bigots have allowed this government to go too far.

 

[Tru]

Not a lot. I think this thread has turned into pointless arguing really... the smoking ban is coming up on July 1st for England and there's nothing that anyone can do about it.

'Pointless'? Just because the law has been passed, doesn't make debate 'pointless'. If it does, why should we bother debating any laws? Why bother debated the War in Iraq? After all, we're in it up to our necks now and there's nothing we can do about it.

More fool anyone who still smokes for being so stupid. What are the benefits?

You waste your money
You make need more vitamins than anyone because you're killing your own stocks
You have a highly increased chance of getting cancer
A lot of people find smoking unattractive
You clothes reek and you don't notice while everyone else does

Can't think of anything good.

Humans have lots of pastimes which have negative effects and connotations, that's irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[Belmit]

No, not rolleyes.

I LOL'd!

 

[Tru]

HAHAHA!

What a load of *******!

Viable alternatives? Name them?

Non smoking/smoking areas - Smoke doesn't respect signs (and neither do some smokers). Already tried and doesn't work.
Ventilation - Yes of course, there is a possibility it may help a little but not anywhere near enough, unless of course they are strong enough to suck a cat up! And then they would be way too noisy.
Seprerate smoking room - A possibility, but then smokers would still moan as they would have to go out of the room to get their drink. And if they just went into the smoking room to smoke then it's not all that different to what the new legislation is saying now. And of course for the employee health side, the smokers would HAVE to bring their own glasses and rubbish out with them as the employees wouldn't be able to go in and get them. No chance of that happening.

Any others?

Doubtful statistics? There are only a few uninformed people (mostly diehard smokers) who believe the statistics are wrong, and even if they are the law is also in place to stop other people from having to put up with the smell and taste of smoke.

Even if the long term satistics are wrong the short term issues such as sore throat and breathlessness some people get are definately not wrong.

Attacking of other lifestyle choices? Well none of those listed are damaging to other people, you can't passive drink or eat can you? And Alcohol has already had something similar put in place, there wasn't uproar when that legislation wa put in place. (I am talking about banning the consumption of alcohol on streets or public places without a licence). There are also a lot of other lifestyle choices such as motorcycling and 4X4ing (to name but a couple I enjoy) that have similar restrictions put on them due a lot to "spoiling" peoples lives.

"Freedom to Choose"

He hit the nail right on the head there. This country is a democracy, the government saw the fact the majority of people want the freedom to choose to go out without being poisoned by other peoples smoke. It's called democracy, live with it or leave!

/rant

As you've pointed out, restrictions have been placed on other social pursuits which have passive effects, but none so draconian as this.

You make a salient point about democracy, the government have removed choice, not offered it. There's about 10,000,000 adult smokers in Britain, another 1,000,000 pipe and cigar smokers, do these people not deserve a say? Or are smokers not allowed a democracy?

 

[semi-pro waster]

I've just spent 4 hours in my local and didn't smoke at all, I was with two of my non-smoker friends, I didn't even drink.

Now steady on there fella, even I have limits to what I'm willing to accept about someone before I start to think ill of them.

As to the rest, the ban was introduced to protect the health of workers, any other effects are entirely incidental (supposedly). While smokers can be segregated there is still the clean up needed of any rooms they have specific for that purpose. Would it then be that workers wore gas masks to go through the fug that seems to exist in smoking rooms (at least the ones where I have worked) which is probably demeaning/rude to smokers or would the business need to employ a designated smoker to go through the room who would then get 'danger money'?

This all goes back to something I'm sure I saw when the debate was first mooted - that the pro-smoking lobby were so intransigent that they wouldn't accept a compromise of smoking room or additional ventilation. However I've never been able to find a decent source for this bit of heresay again so I stopped mentioning it until now. A compromise could and perhaps should have been reached but if my vague recollections are correct about the pro-smoking lobby then there was only ever going to be one winner.

 

[Tru]

That's interesting about the pre-ban attitudes, I can't confirm or deny any of it because, funnily enough, I was pretty ambivalent towards the proposal, I wasn't enjoying my smoking and money was tight, I was really close to quitting. That'll teach me for letting the anti-smoking propaganda get to me, never again

 

[Russinating]

Haven't read all of this topic due it's length and lack of time at the moment, but I just have to say that I go to uni in Wales, in which the smoking ban came into effect the beginning of last month, and it's SOO much better. Can actually go into the SU without dieing and you don't come home from a night out stinking of fags. Also with the warm weather recently it's been a nice atmosphere outside with quite a few people outside every bar\club (smoking, or with friends who smoke).

 

[WIBSBOT]

That's interesting about the pre-ban attitudes, I can't confirm or deny any of it because, funnily enough, I was pretty ambivalent towards the proposal, I wasn't enjoying my smoking and money was tight, I was really close to quitting. That'll teach me for letting the anti-smoking propaganda get to me, never again

As a smoker who never smokes inside, this law won't affect me directly. However, I share Tru's concerns that this is the state interfering in our liberties and that they won't stop there. Indeed, the ID card fiasco is already underway, we are the most monitored country in the world in terms of CCTV, and more laws to erode our freedom will certainly follow under some silly guise like our own health, terrorism, or 'global warming' or some other such nonsense.....

 

[Stephen7372]

30 days left

 

[AthlonTom]

30 days left

Doh!

 

[Wossi]

I'm in the same situation as taxi drivers as I have a company car and as it's classed as an extension of my workplace, form July 1st I'm not allowed to smoke in it. So when I finish work, or at weekends, I still can't have a smoke while driving. We already have a 'smoking shelter' set up at work, which now means I get to spend even more time having a ciggie as it's on the otherside of the 2nd building and adds an extra 2 minutes or so. There are also signs everywhere saying it's illegal to smoke unless in a designated area.

I've been tempted to quit for a while now, but I don't like being forced to do something so I've carried on.

Everyone goes on about how dangerous smoking is, how about we just ban all forms of alcohol aswell as that is just as dangerous.

 

[Skii]

Yippee , once all those smokers give up we can all look forward to making up that massive tax defecit - can't wait

 

[Naffa]

Everyone goes on about how dangerous smoking is, how about we just ban all forms of alcohol aswell as that is just as dangerous.

Alcohol doesn't damage the health of those around you whilst you're consuming it.

 

[Dreadi]

does if some **** lout punches the crap out of you cus he's wasted