Smoking in public to be banned!
Posted by: Top Cat on 10 November 2004
...in Scotland, at least...
About high time too.
Discuss, 33mks.
Posted on: 14 November 2004 by Guido
quote:
Any woman who smokes whilst pregnant is an uncaring, irresponsible bitch.
My Mum smoked while pregnant with me.
You say anything against my Mum?
Have a look at the good side:
The average cost a smoker causes in a society is smaller than the cost induced by a non smoker (we usually live shorter, die of diseases the others don't get that quickly and will have cashed less pension checks by the day we depart).
And yes, there are individuals who need intense care and surgery - but looking at the total balance it is still a good deal if you run a country (or a health system).
By the day we are gone we will have contributed a fair amount of free cash to society. Tobacco tax is big buck and no government can afford to loose it so far (they've done the math).
Smoke free work environments: no objection to that.
Guido
(smoking while writing)
Posted on: 14 November 2004 by Guido
Tom,
no! I'm not OK being killed. Even if it would save a lot.
Just wanted to point to the financial side. As long as the "smoking balance" for society causes a positive cash flow, it will not be banished.
But exposure to cigarette smoke is not killing, it is increasing a risk. Under which circumstances this increased risk is tolerable is one point of the discussion I understand.
To smoke in places where it is allowed but may increase the risk for other persons is an ethical question, Kant's categoric imperative comes to my mind here.
As long as the other individuals do not live to an ethical maxime which minimizes their influence on the "risk of life" of others, where is their ground to postulate such demands?
Finally someone will have to start to be good, but why us smokers?
Regards
Guido
Posted on: 15 November 2004 by Stephen Bennett
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Alves:
Cool, you know http://www.stevelawson.net? I hope it was all positive. He's a great guy and superb bass player. and of course a non smoker.
Tom
http://www.activesbl.plus.com/RecordIndex.htm
Tom
I've played with him once and I hope that he'll join us on the short 2005 tour we're doing. and yes, it was. 'Tom Alves? Actively enjoying it all....'
I think all my musical collaborators are non-smokers. But we'll probably all get lung cancer from playing gigs.
Stephen
Posted on: 15 November 2004 by Stephen Bennett
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Alves:
But was the music any good?
Well Brian Eno seemed to like it.
Regards
Stephen
Posted on: 15 November 2004 by Stephen Bennett
quote:
Originally posted by matthewr:
I was in The Spitz the bar/rastaraunt, the music happens in "Upstairs at The Spitz" which is, erm, upstairs.
All in all, cold over priced food aside, it's a pretty cool place.
Matthew
I dined in the market with a waggamammas special.
It would be cooler if it was non-smoking (to get back on topicish!)
Regards
Stephen
Posted on: 15 November 2004 by Stephen Bennett
quote:
Originally posted by Guido:
quote:
Any woman who smokes whilst pregnant is an uncaring, irresponsible bitch.
My Mum smoked while pregnant with me.
You say anything against my Mum?
She was, like my mum, probably ignorant of the dangers (as supressed by Tobacco companies and probably Governments)
Women today cannot clam ignorance. They know they are harming their children. They simply make excuses. This is a common reaction to addiction; the same mother will be distraught at the thought of their child being abused by others (unlikely though that is), but be blind to the obvious fact that they are abusing and possibly fatally injuring their own child as a result of their own addiction.
Stephen
Posted on: 15 November 2004 by Stephen Bennett
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Alves:
Was he there? Oooh. I believe Steve has just got into the Fripp/Eno stuff from the early 70s
Tom
http://www.activesbl.plus.com/RecordIndex.htm
Well his brother was on the bill.
But he did stay and watch, which was nice.
I would have though Mr L was a great Fripp fan - I've never asked, just assumed!
regards
Stephen
Posted on: 15 November 2004 by Stephen Bennett
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Alves:
So this is you then? http://www.harpguitar.com/images/sb.jpg
*sigh* - I really need to change my name....
Tom, we've had that mistake on the board before...I'm also not the Rocket Scientist or the football manager.....
Stephen
Posted on: 15 November 2004 by Stephen Bennett
Posted on: 15 November 2004 by matthewr
Stephen said "But we'll probably all get lung cancer from playing gigs"
Just to set your mind at rest, if I understand the resesarch correctly then it is extremely unlikely that any of you will get lung cancer from passive smoking at gigs.
Matthew
Posted on: 15 November 2004 by Stephen Bennett
quote:
Originally posted by matthewr:
Stephen said "But we'll probably all get lung cancer from playing gigs"
Just to set your mind at rest, if I understand the resesarch correctly then it is extremely unlikely that any of you will get lung cancer from passive smoking at gigs.
Matthew
Unless that's just the straw that breaks the Bennett's back.....
Add passive smoking from..
Mum (womb, 17 years at home)
Pubs
Clubs
Cafes
Gigs as audience
..............ad nauseum (literally)
Remember Roy Castle!
Stephen
PS I don't think my mind has ever been at rest.
Posted on: 15 November 2004 by matthewr
"Remember Roy Castle!"
Actually you should probably forget him. His tragic demise is one of the main reasons why people worry disproportionally about passive smoking. For it to be worth worrying about there should be rather more examples.
Matthew
Posted on: 15 November 2004 by DLF
quote:
Originally posted by matthewr:
"Remember Roy Castle!"
Actually you should probably forget him. His tragic demise is one of the main reasons why people worry disproportionally about passive smoking. For it to be worth worrying about there should be rather more examples.
Matthew
There are, just nobody famous so who gives a sh*t.
Posted on: 15 November 2004 by matthewr
Not if I understand the reasearch correctly -- passive smoking for working musicians is a tiny risk that almost certainly won't kill you. Marrying a smoker would be far more dangerous but even that would pale next to regular trips up the M1.
Matthew
Posted on: 15 November 2004 by Stephen Bennett
quote:
Originally posted by matthewr:
Not if I understand the reasearch correctly -- passive smoking for working musicians is a tiny risk that almost certainly won't kill you. Marrying a smoker would be far more dangerous but even that would pale next to regular trips up the M1.
Matthew
Better not marry a smoking musician from Leicester then.
Stephen
Posted on: 15 November 2004 by DLF
quote:
Originally posted by matthewr:
Not if I understand the reasearch correctly -- passive smoking for working musicians is a tiny risk that almost certainly won't kill you. Marrying a smoker would be far more dangerous but even that would pale next to regular trips up the M1.
Matthew
Well, 49 deaths from passive smoking last year were people who were only really exposed at work (bar staff, waiters, musicians). People don't die of smoking they die of something that is *probably* caused by smoking and may not be recorded as cause of death. Tobacco sompanies spend a fortune keeping smoking out of cause of death statistics so it may actually be safer to drive up and down the M1 on a Sinclair C5 than be a professional musician. When I read your post I had a vision of John Gummer stuffing a burger into his child to *prove* there is no BSE in British beef. There was also no *proof* that BSE could be contracted by humans either. I am sure an educted Guardian reading type like yourself wouldn't want to fall into the same trap.
Posted on: 15 November 2004 by matthewr
If we take 49 deaths per year at face value it would indicate that passive smoking is a trivial risk which, in the grand scheme of things, is not remotely worth concerning yourself about. Stephen is more likely to die from, say, catching a nasty strain of flu at a gig.
Matthew
Posted on: 15 November 2004 by matthewr
The claim was that there were 49 deaths per year for people exposed at work -- which presumably means pople like Stephen.
"Anyway does the low risk mean his life is any less valuable?"
No. It means his life is not really at risk.
Matthew
Posted on: 15 November 2004 by Stephen Bennett
quote:
Originally posted by matthewr:
Stephen is more likely to die from, say, catching a nasty strain of flu at a gig.
Matthew
You're really putting me off performing....
Stephen
Posted on: 15 November 2004 by Stephen Bennett
quote:
Originally posted by matthewr:
No. It means his life is not really at risk.
Matthew
I dunno - have you seen some of those London crowds?
Stephen (*cough*)
Posted on: 15 November 2004 by DLF
quote:
Originally posted by matthewr:
The claim was that there were 49 deaths per year for people exposed at work -- which presumably means pople like Stephen.
"Anyway does the low risk mean his life is any less valuable?"
No. It means his life is not really at risk.
Matthew
Acceptable losses, plenty more where they came from. The profits of the proprietors are far more important.
Posted on: 15 November 2004 by DLF
quote:
Originally posted by matthewr:
If we take 49 deaths per year at face value it would indicate that passive smoking is a trivial risk which, in the grand scheme of things, is not remotely worth concerning yourself about. Stephen is more likely to die from, say, catching a nasty strain of flu at a gig.
Matthew
Only if he is a pensioner (children being barred). Are you a pensioner Stephen?
Posted on: 17 November 2004 by Stephen Bennett
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Alves:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4014597.stm if you live in England.
Tom
http://www.activesbl.plus.com/RecordIndex.htm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Any of Tonys half-hearted laws (lord reform, casinos, probably fox hunting if he gets his way). You'll still be able to smoke (and have to work) in gigs and other establishments. If it's not a health risk why ban it? If it it is, ban it completely.
Stephen
Makes no sense at all - as usual.
[This message was edited by Stephen Bennett on Wed 17 November 2004 at 10:45.]
Posted on: 17 November 2004 by Trevor Newall
quote:
Originally posted by jlfrs (a smoker):
I feel uncomfortable with the thought that others have to breathe in my second-hand smoke without a choice in the matter.
therein lies the problem, in a nutshell.
well said, jlfrs!
if only other smokers, and even more importantly, the out of touch and ludicrously narrow-minded idiots who are against a smoking ban, could get their heads around what you've said.
TN
Posted on: 17 November 2004 by Trevor Newall
quote:
Originally posted by sideshowbob:
I hope none of you drive. Consider how you pollute the atmosphere for non-drivers and use up the earth's fuel resources. Shocking, eh?
-- Ian
yes indeed, why not change the direction of the argument when you're losing it?
excellent tactic, Ian!
TN
