Smoking bans in public places - how are they doing?

quote:

---

Can't find the data but there was an Economist study a few years ago that confirmed this. For the financial health of the nation we need to encourage smoking!

---

I think you'll find the definitive economic reasons were given by Sir Humphrey Appleby in an episode of Yes, Prime Minister called "The Smoke Screen" back in the 80's. The Economist probably half-inched it from there ... ;-)

Duncan

I have a (non-smoking) friend in New York who was recently ineterviewed by Radio Five about how the smoking ban was working. One effect he noted was that smokers and non-smokers were seeking out dodgy "dive bars" in the Lower East Side that allowed smoking and this had become mildly fashionable for a time amongst the young hipsters of NYC.

He didn't have much more to say in his interview and frankly seemed quite drunk.

Matthew

Paul,

quote:

---

Prove it.

---

OK, download this report in .pdf format, then go to page 2, under the heading "Tobacco: Environmental tobacco smoke". There it is in a nutshell. If you need more detailed info, you can look up these references:

BROWNSON RC, et al. Cancer. In: Brownson RC, Remington PL, Davis JR, eds. Chronic Disease Epidemiology and Control. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association, 1998.

HACKSHAW AK, LAW MR, WALD NJ. The Accumulated Evidence on Lung Cancer and Environmental Tobacco Smoke. BMJ 1997; 315:980–989.

INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER. IARC Monographs Program Declares Second-hand Smoke Carcinogenic to Humans. (www.iarc.fr.)
Joe

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
I
He didn't have much more to say in his interview and frankly seemed quite drunk.

Matthew

---

He probably had a fag afterwards even though he was a non smoker.

Regards

Stephen

I lost both my grandfather and father due to smoking. It was their choice whether they smoked or not, and I respected that. But they didn't smoke at my house, but they did at their own homes.

I dont want to breathe in smoke, nor do I see why my contributions to the health service should be diverted to help people who can see overwhelming medical evidence why they should not smoke, then they choose to do so.

I'll put me crash hat on now....

If my local pub had a ban on smoking, the smokers, of whom there are many, would go elsewhere, but the rest of us would go to the pub more often. As it is, I generally walk further to go to a pub that controls smoke very well, to the extent that you don't notice it. I think the whole thing could be handled by having a regulated air change standard for pubs which must be of a high rate and enforced.
It can be done.

Chaps

The banning of smoking inside public buildings is going to happen soon. It is only a question of when and not if. The pub trade is seriously frightened of litigation being taken by non smoking staff.

On a personal note, I just plain object to some filthy sod puffing away and making my clothes stink of his vile stench. Smokers smell like old ashtrays and they are disgusting.

Regards

Mick

There is a pub near where I live that has a fairly small 'family' room, the main area of the pub is usually full of smoke. In this pub these 2 rooms are entirely separate, the family room doesn't even have access to the bar, to get a drink you have to leave the family room and go to the smoke filled bar to be served. I see no reason why this couldn't be reversed.

I think Mr Ranson nicely hit the nail upon the head.
Fritz Von What'salionburger ?

Piss: No I don't mean the PM, I saw it on a Menchester Pub menu recently and wondered what the hell it was, didn't like to ask, you know ?

Joe's report says "Environmental tobacco smoke — ETS or secondhand smoke as it is often called — also causes lung cancer.[1,6] In June 2002, the International Agency for Research on Cancer
declared ETS a known human carcinogen to which there is no safe level of exposure.[7] This is the first time an international group has made such a conclusion about secondhand smoke, although about ten years earlier the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and National Cancer Institute announced the same conclusion. Nonsmokers
exposed to ETS have approximately a 20% increased risk of lung cancer (RR = 1.2).[6] Or, to put it another way, an estimated 2% of all lung cancers in the United States can be attributed to secondhand smoke.[1] This translates to about
80 new cases in Kentucky each year, or 16% of the estimated lung cancers diagnosed in nonsmokers"

Paul's link says this on the EPA report:

Fact: After juggling the numbers, The EPA came up with an RR (Relative Risk) of ETS causing lung cancer 1.19. In layman's terms that means:

• Exposure to the ETS from a spouse increases the risk of getting lung cancer by 19%.
• Where you'd usually see 100 cases of cancer you'd see 119.

Fact: A RR of less than 2.0 is usually written off as and insignificant result, most likely to be due to error or bias. An RR of 3.0 or higher is considered desirable. (See Epidemiology 101 for more details.)

and this on the WHO report:

Fact: The study found a Relative Risk (RR) for spousal exposure of 1.16, with a Confidence Interval (CI) of .93 - 1.44. In layman's terms, that means

• Exposure to the ETS from a spouse increases the risk of getting lung cancer by 16%.
• Where you'd normally find 100 cases of lung cancer, you'd find 116.

• The 1.16 number is not statistically significant.

Would these not seem to be contradictory?

Can someone with a background in Epidemiology explain who is right and why?

Matthew

quote:

---

Surely 'pub' is short for 'public house' and is thus by definition a public place.

---

ISTM that if it is 'right of admission reserved' then it cannot, by definition, be a public place.

quote:

---

I was going to respond to this, but as the research evidence is easily available on then net and in journals, I can't be bothered. It's such a 'schoolyard' response to a serious statement.

---

The point is that there is serious doubt about the assumed truth of 'second hand smoke gives you cancer'. Even assuming the risk seen by the non-smoking spouse of a smoker is similar to an evening a week down the pub is ingenuous.

quote:

---

And off topic!

---

I provided a link to some stuff about the reaction in New York that I thought was entertaining.

Paul

Even if you dismiss the health issues, smokers stink and they make everyone elses clothes stink and that is unaccepatable.

Regards

Mick

Paul,

The more you post, the more ridiculous you look.

You're the type to use cheap rod-end spherical joints and then argue the point of why buy expensive ones. (off topic but true I bet)

quote:

---

Why argue

---

Mick,

What else are we supposed to do?

The smokers have basically lost the argument.

About a year or so ago I met a Director of an hotel chain who admitted that they are concerned that bar and waiting staff could claim damages against the hotel if they suffered as a result of secondary smoking.

The fact that they knew that customers smoke is irrelevant in law.

Several claims could cost millions and that is seriously scaring the trade.

Smoking in pubs and restaurants will soon be banned and there is nothing that will stop it.


So hence why waste your time arguing with them.

Regards

Mick

quote:

---

Smoking in pubs and restaurants will soon be banned and there is nothing that will stop it.

---

Well this is my point earlier. There is more to it than just banning smoking in pubs and restaurants. I don't particularly like to be anywhere near anybody who is smoking, whether it be indoors or outdoors.

Perhaps the fag companies could somehow be persuaded to fund the building of dedicated smoking areas for their customers?

quote:

---

Smoking should be banned inside all public places.

Simple as that.

Don't give a toss how hard it is for smokers.

---

Motor Racing should be banned. And shooting animals for sport, and 4x4s in towns, and eating meat, and processed food, and football, and chewing gum, and perfume, and weedkillers, and insecticides, and genetically modified food, and factory farming,and the Daily Mail, and the Sun, and Sky TV, and owning pets (filthy stinking creatures that spread disease), and spitting (done by filthy stinking creatures who spread disease), and salt and sugar (filthy substances that cause disease)....drone drone...

Ever heard of tolerance? One man's meat etc? Live and Let er..die?

ps. I forgot to include BoringFritzinnit in the list

Jez

quote:

---

Ever heard of tolerance?

---

Fair comment, that's what I believe I'm trying to do by suggesting dedicated smoking areas.

In order for smokers to expect tolerance of their habit by non-smokers, the smokers need to show some consideration and realise how disgusting others find their habit. For example, I'm sitting on a bench in my town, if someone joins me and starts smoking it makes me get up and look for somewhere else to sit down. I know it's a free country and we can sit where we like, but that's what I mean by a bit of consideration. If someone is already there they shouldn't light their tab or they should find somewhere else to sit. Generally I don't see this kind of consideration from smokers. Do you?

quote:

---

Even if you dismiss the health issues, smokers stink and they make everyone elses clothes stink and that is unaccepatable.

---

You have the choice whether to associate with smokers or not.

You're basically saying 'I want to go to a place that welcomes smokers, and because the owner of that place allows smoking and since he derives much of his trade from smokers, I'll use the power of government to make the place more acceptable to me.'

I'd prefer it if I didn't encounter smoking, but I don't find that argument acceptable.

Paul

Paul

quote:

---

but I don't find that argument acceptable.

---

What argument would be acceptable?

BTW Don't you think that public places like boozers 'welcome smokers' just because that's what they've always done? By that what I mean is pubs don't actually target smokers, do they? They've just never banned them before, so they're 'welcome' by virtue of not being unwelcome.

Of course we couldn't smoke then either, I was referring to Mr Ranson's intollerance statement which I found bang in order, innit.


Fritz Von Coolasamountainstream

Piss² The Catering Industry gets people to mould around it's requirements, not the other way around:

Brian, I have no problem with what you say. What I was lampooning is the people who demand that their habits are tolerated by everyone, but want to crucify others for theirs.

Jez

I know.

The main part of my post wasn't really to you, it was a general to everybody that was just prompted by you mentioning the 'tolerance' word.

quote]What argument would be acceptable?[/quote]
I'm waiting for one. I find lager offensive and being near lager drinkers is bad for my health. Should the government force pubs only to sell real ale?

quote:

---

BTW Don't you think that public places like boozers 'welcome smokers' just because that's what they've always done? By that what I mean is pubs don't actually target smokers, do they? They've just never banned them before.

---

I think that's changing. One of the pubs at the end of my road advertises a non-smoking area, and I think they have ventilation to back that up. The 'family oriented pub' across town has at least half its area smoke free, and again the ventilation ensures that's so.


Paul