Pub landlord gives 2 fingers to the smoking ban

[Steve Walker]

The effect on the health of the smoker is well documented and clear cut. It's hardly controversial, people were calling fags "coffin nails" long before professor Doll's research.

 

The effects of passive exposure to smoke are much less clear cut, with dispute about the magnitude (if any) of the effects. I'm accustomed to sifting through scientific papers, and have had a sniff through what evidence I can find, and I wouldn't like to hang my hat on any particular interpretation. What you have to be aware of is that relative to what evidence does exist, public health bodies and anti-smoking groups tend to overstate the case for harm and groups supporting the freedom to smoke tend to understate it.

[Ken Davison South Wales]

I never realised scientific method quite worked like that Ant, but as long as the facts are verifiable and quantifiable it can not be fiction whichever viewpoint it supports.Tony

That's where arguments on both sides of the fence fall down, they are inconclusive because a large amount of data is based on assumptions when it comes to the damage caused by passive smoking.

I would quite happily support the protection of people in work places other than bars and clubs. I believe in clubs and bars there should be a choice the premises should be able to operate as smoking or non smoking, if non-smokers are correct that a pub going down the smoking track will lose out financially and subsequently close then so be it.

But I do not think that would be the case and non-smokers know that and put up all sorts of diversions to avoid going down that route.

If smoking is that dangerous on the passive side of things then the government should ban tobacco sales and make it an illegal substance, because according to non-smokers the figures for lung damage due to passive smoking far exceeds casualties caused by drink driving and that has been banned.

We are after all talking about protecting society as a whole which should include children in households where parents smoke, I have not seen to much debate down that route.

In my book total ban or concede that smokers, owners of clubs and bars have a choice.

The effect on the health of the smoker is well documented and clear cut. It's hardly controversial, people were calling fags "coffin nails" long before professor Doll's research. The effects of passive exposure to smoke are much less clear cut, with dispute about the magnitude (if any) of the effects. I'm accustomed to sifting through scientific papers, and have had a sniff through what evidence I can find, and I wouldn't like to hang my hat on any particular interpretation. What you have to be aware of is that relative to what evidence does exist, public health bodies and anti-smoking groups tend to overstate the case for harm and groups supporting the freedom to smoke tend to understate it.

That sir is my contention. Edited January 24, 2008 by Ken Davison South Wales

[Tony U]

Just one more quote for you from the United States Surgeon General's 2006 report on passive smoking,

"The industry has funded or carried out research that has been judged to be biased, supported scientists to generate letters to editors that criticized research publications, attempted to undermine the findings of key studies... and attempted to sustain controversy even as the scientific community reached consensus."

 

Is this the less clear cut evidence we are talking about.

 

And Ken, as a very close and dear friend of mine died from Pancreatic Cancer on Monday, which was attributable to smoking; I agree with the ban and dont think it goes far enough, ban the filthy habit from all public places even outdoors.

 

Tony

Edited January 24, 2008 by Tony U

[mr motorola]

And Ken, as a very close and dear friend of mine died from Pancreatic Cancer on Monday, which was attributable to smoking; I agree with the ban and dont think it goes far enough, ban the filthy habit from all public places even outdoors.

 

Tony

Sorry to hear of your friend Tony.

I am in agreement with you , ban em outright or let em ride.

I do feel that the main culprits in all this debate are the government. It's a case of having their cake AND eating it.

A ban in public places isn't going to make the matter go away.

A question i asked many pages before hasn't been answered yet though. If an outright ban was to be implemented , where would the government find the money to fill the enormous hole it would leave in its wake?

[kleinboet]

There is so much talk on here about "scientific papers" here is a report from "scientists" and you MUST believe it because they know more than you!

 

I am afraid I can remember a wonder drug being introduced into this country. It was acclaimed by all of those who had anything to do with it!

 

It was hailed as a "superdrug"!!!

 

Just ask all the Thalidomide babies. (now in their late 40s)

 

What is being said here is the same as mobile phone aerials. People have shown anecdotal proof that these aerials are Cancer forming. The scientific worlds attitude is "prove it and we'll believe you"!!! BUT ask the companies to sign a form admitting liability for the damage caused when (not if) the undeniable proof is given that they are harmful and they TOTALLY refuse!

WHY? Scientific evidence shows that it is NOT harmfull!!

 

All the smokers (and I am NOT one of them!) Do NOT deserve to be treated as pariahs ! They are quite willing to accept a 50% drop in places where they may smoke in peace, but are being hounded by the non-smokers without any thought of THEIR feelings (You didn't think of us, so we are not going to think of you! real kindergarten stuff!!)

[nick]

There is so much talk on here about "scientific papers" here is a report from "scientists" and you MUST believe it because they know more than you!

 

I am afraid I can remember a wonder drug being introduced into this country. It was acclaimed by all of those who had anything to do with it!

 

It was hailed as a "superdrug"!!!

 

Just ask all the Thalidomide babies. (now in their late 40s)

Interesting choice of drug to try to prove a point with.

 

It is probably more widely used now than ever it was 40 years ago, and has proved itself to be an incredibly useful drug for many many conditions. The only proviso is that it is now recognised that it is not advisable to give it to pregnant women.

[kleinboet]

Yes nick - more so in the fact that cigarette smoking (and nicotine) may prove to be as helpful to mankind as that drug is now IF THEY ARE ALLOWED TO!

[Ken Davison South Wales]

And Ken, as a very close and dear friend of mine died from Pancreatic Cancer on Monday, which was attributable to smoking; I agree with the ban and dont think it goes far enough, ban the filthy habit from all public places even outdoors.

 

Sorry to hear of your loss Tony always very sad to lose a friend.

 

If the sentence I highlighted is your belief surely a total ban on tobacco is the only course of action.

 

To my way of thinking children are the ones who need more protection than any adult and if your beliefs are correct then I feel you and all the other non-smokers should be protecting them and not yourselves.

 

I appear to be the only person in this debate to raise this point.

 

In fact if any form of smoking is to be allowed it should only be in smoking clubs and pubs and that is my argument.

[mr motorola]

I thought i might put a few links up on the board , seeing as it's the done thing on here.

 

It said ordinary people were better equipped to consider the arguments than the government, "perhaps because the UK public does not have to consider directly the £9.3bn per year raised in tax revenue on tobacco".

 

In comparison, the £1.5bn cost to the NHS of smoking-related diseases was "paltry", the Lancet argued.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3292979.stm

 

YES , i know the link is a bit old . Could the NHS suffer from a possible ban (outright)? Or maybe a partial ban , say , 100,000 stop smoking. With reports today that council tax is yet again to rise because of low funds and imminent job cuts in the sector , are we already feeling the squeeze?

 

The government are losing billions with bootleg fags too.

http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=118454

 

If they are this insistent on the payment of duty of cigs , then does it sound likely that they are RELIANT on them as a valuable income?

 

My point in this post is to put across my feeling as a smoker who sees that he has piled thousands of pounds(just like every other smoker) into a system which has taken with open hands , but always threatened to come down on me with a firm hand if i avoid paying duty , to be told it's not gonna happen like it used to anymore.

 

I feel hard done by , for all the money i have given into the system , (although i do admit and feel for non-smokers) that a better foresight could have been taken into the ban. A lot of people may argue that it has gone straight into the balance of NHS smoke related problems , yes i agree , but not all of it.

 

This thread has produced some very good ideas , from both sides of the coin , some in good manner , some rather hostile at times. I guess it cuts very deep on both sides of the fence.

 

As i said , the government are the silent culprits in all of this heated debate , and will continue to sell cigs , just as long as the smokers buy them.

Does that sound a little 2 faced by our elected party? "you can't smoke in public , you can't bring them in from over the water....but you can still buy them at the shop , so long as you give us our share!!!! we don't care , you're hooked!!"

[snakey1]

As i said , the government are the silent culprits in all of this heated debate , and will continue to sell cigs , just as long as the smokers buy them.

Does that sound a little 2 faced by our elected party? "you can't smoke in public , you can't bring them in from over the water....but you can still buy them at the shop , so long as you give us our share!!!! we don't care , you're hooked!!"

They're politicians mr m what do you expect, honesty ? to do things for the good of their people ? i wouldn't p1ss on any of them if they were on fire and i certainly wouldn't trust anything they say. as for being elected i never voted for that slimy git whos in charge at the moment in fact nobody did i seem to recall.