Smoking bans in public places - how are they doing?

quote:

---

posted Wed 25 February 04 19:24
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?

---

Jez,

Just because I thought you looked gay on the "Show thyself" thread, there's no need to pick my miniscule comment from the masses of anti-smokers' posts. If you are, we'll still all love you (in a hugging communal not sexual way)

quote:

---

I find lager offensive and being near lager drinkers is bad for my health. Should the government force pubs only to sell real ale?

---

No, Guinness. Seriously, not a good analogy, really. I find the smell of whiskey disgusting, but it's not going to damage my health.

quote:

---

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.

---

Like all change, it's very slow. There is a cafeteria in my town that has a non-smoking room, similar to the pub that has the family room. This non-smoking room at the cafe is away from the main area and to reach it you have to walk through the smoking area. The area where the staff work, preparing the drinks, sorting out the apple turnovers etc, do this in the smoking area and they carry the stuff to the non-smoking room. That's the wrong way around imo.

To work properly the smoking areas need to be completely separate from the non-smoking. I've never yet been in a pub that has a single room with smoking and non-smoking areas that has this working effectively.

Burnin pub carpets, fartin, belchin, unholy bunch of uncivilised hypocrytical yobbo's:


Fritz Von Bollox²

Yes it was Knobworth & The Atlanta Rhythum Section were Ace, innit.

Matthew,

quote:

---

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.

---

That's a gross oversimplification. An RR of 2 means that the exposed group is twice as likely as the unexposed group to get the disease under study.

If the disease and exposure happen to be rare in a population, an RR of 2 may not have much medical or clinical significance -- there's not much difference between 1 in 100,000 people with a given condition and 2 in 100,000 people.

But if the disease and exposure happen to be common in a population, an RR of 2 has great medical and clinical significance -- there's a huge gulf between 5000 in 100,000 people with a given condition and 10,000 in 100,000 people.

quote:

---

Fact: The study found a Relative Risk (RR) for spousal exposure of 1.16, with a Confidence Interval (CI) of .93 - 1.44. ... The 1.16 number is not statistically significant.

---

If the 95% confidence interval for an RR includes 1.0, than, statistically, the RR is no different from 1. On this point he's right -- assuming he's reported the numbers accurately.

Joe

quote:

---

Burnin pub carpets, fartin, belchin, unholy bunch of uncivilised hypocrytical yobbo's:

---

Thanks for establishing the difference between me and a smoker.

Thanks -- but I am still none the wiser!

His analysis of the EPA report is here but I am far from qualified to say if he is talking nonsense -- but he does seem to say that the EPA report is essentially worthless and it does still great a lot of coverage and quoting.

He also claims the WHO report basically says ETS does not give you lung cancer and that's why it never gets quoted.

Matthew

I was a smoker myself for ~10 years.

We've had the smoking ban in Vancouver Canada for 7-8 and there's been nothing but positive outcomes.
Initially, bars and restaurants warned that they'd all go out of business, but that never happened. There are far fewer smokers around now and frankly those that do are pretty much lepers of society. They are the ones who have to leave 3-4 times at a restaurant to smoke and come back smelling rather unglamourous. They are the ones who are huddled out in the freezing rain to get their fix. It's pretty lame, and the sooner they get wise the better.

Everyone, including my smoker friends enjoys having clean air in the venues, pubs and restaurants. Also, those who haven't already, are quitting not only for health reasons but political ones.

I understand in Europe, almost everyone smokes, so the social impact of a total smoking ban will be different, but hey if you guys are so progressive prove it!

Chaps

I was in Tenerife airport last Saturday and like most spanish airports, smoking is permitted nearly every where.

I was really proud of the British smokers who puffed away within a few feet of children and babies.

Do these people have no sense of duty or shame.

But then, they are only exercising their freedom to smoke. Live and let live etc.

No wonder smokers are rapidly becoming the lepers of society.

Regards

Mick

All of my friends who smoke (3, total) step outside for a puff, out of respect for those with whom they're sharing public spaces. I don't think they were taught to do this; I think they simply see it as the proper thing to do. Why can't everyone have the courtesy to do this?

Smoking in public places isn't a right; it's a bad habit of those who are unashamedly disrespectful and selfish.

OK, I admit one negative of the smoking ban. You can expect a plummeting of national productivity, as smokers must leave the office every 45 minutes for a "smoke break".

Who decided that it was acceptable for smokers to leave their posts 5-6-7 times a day to go outside to smoke? What a waste. Non-smokers should likewise be given 10 minute breaks every hours to play tiddlywinks.
OK, maybe it's pity for them that we allow this smoke break BS to continue.
I remember some companies giving bonuses to employees that quit smoking. I wonder how that's going.

Ludwig, you mean there's no ban in Seattle? That's surprising. Get Gary Locke on it right away!

Mike, not yet and not soon enough.

All eyes are on the Pierce County (Tacoma) ban.

Hey Ludwig, Smoking also causes horrific bush fires. That book was excellent by the by check it out, and hat's off to Air Canada for it's pioneering non smoking policy, bann all smoking on all flights.

Fritz Von Blackcat

P.S. I bet you're all cussing² my Chief Engineer Sean for that false alarm ?

Matthew,

quote:

---

Thanks -- but I am still none the wiser!

---

I asked Suzanne to take a quick look at Dave Hitt's Epidemiology 101 and 102 pages and she said he's a wanker with an agenda. And that was her professional opinion. ;-)

Joe

Then I am happy to ascribe a CI of 1.0 to Suzanne's opinion.

Matthew

quote:

---

As smokers generally don't dispose of their fag ends in a considerate manner, they just dump them on the ground,

---

quote:

---

Hey Ludwig, Smoking also causes horrific bush fires.

---

More than 200 homes destroyed in Kelowna BC last summer.
Caused by someone's cigarette butt, no joke.
Not sure how the Cali fires started?
Maybe this is a good argument for indoor smoking only

The older British folk amongst you will recall the infamous Derek & Clive tapes, and their worst ever jobs, one being "Picking up Winston Churchill's bleedin cigar butts", Sheila Hanckock's famous chart topper "Just one more cigarette", and without sounding tedious one wonders how pre-historic aboriginie insurance brokers assessed lightning started bush fires, though I'm sure the Professional Indemnity Dept sorted it in the end, innit ?

Fritz Von T'blazeswiththelotofthem

P.S. I heard they make great off the cuff fuses ?

I've no idea what Suzanne's agenda is but what does she say to

quote:

---

The results of this study, which have been completely misrepresented in recent news reports, are very much in line with the results of similar studies both in Europe and elsewhere: passive smoking causes lung cancer in non-smokers.

The study found that there was an estimated 16% increased risk of lung cancer among non-smoking spouses of smokers. For workplace exposure the estimated increase in risk was 17%. However, due to small sample size, neither increased risk was statistically significant. Although, the study points towards a decreasing risk after cessation of exposure.

---

Extracted from http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html

'Passive smoking causes cancer, but our study doesn't show this'

The risk to your health from living with a smoker is very small, so small as to be hard to find in well funded research. The risk to your health from smoke in public places must be very much smaller since the dosage of carcinogens is very much smaller. I suspect it vanishes into the noise of increased risk from venturing out of your home. IMO it doesn't justify the use of the law to control what is allowed in privately owned premises. Especially when government simply won't just ban tobacco, which would actually have a health benefit in the general population in return for the infringement of liberty.

Paul

If there is a market for non-smoking pubs, then they will open and do good business. If there isn't such a market then the reason will simply be that the majority of pub-goers either smoke or have friends who smoke. My father is a non-smoker and is a member of a golf club where smoking in the club house has always been against the rules.

He objects to the ban on smoking there simply because good conversations are brought to a halt each time one (or more) of his smoking friends in his company needs/wants to go outside for a fag.

Back in 1992 the French introduced such a ban on smoking in all public places including bars and restaurants. On the day the ban came into effect café owners simply put up signs in the window stating that the place was reserved for smokers. What I love most about the French apart from their ability to prepare and eat fantatic food is that they simply won't stand for rules they disagree with and won't be afraid either to flout them or find ways around them.

At a lovely country pub in a village near me it was interesting to note that the non-smoking part was completely empty while the there was standing room only in the area reserved for smokers.



Regards,

Steve.

Toy, if friends are leaving your father's conversations for something as pointless as a smoke, the problem isn't the smoking ban.

PS- Is there not already a massive market for smoke-free pubs and restaurants in the UK? If not, I imagine most Americans would be surprised (me included).

Just for info:

I am a smoker.
I think it is a terrible addiction and threat to health that I would like to see eradicated.
I don't believe I have the right to inflict it on others.
I always go outside - even where it is permitted indoors - except in bars where most people are smoking.
I think I DO have the right to smoke in the open air or at home, but I won't stand next to you if you are a non-smoker.
Health scare tactics will not cause me to 'choose' to stop (I have seen lung cancer down an endoscope) - this is an addiction.
I have stopped smoking many times, my problem is staying stopped.

And Count, I am not gay

quote:

---

The study found that there was an estimated 16% increased risk of lung cancer among non-smoking spouses of smokers. For workplace exposure the estimated increase in risk was 17%.

---

quote:

---

The risk to your health from living with a smoker is very small

---

Paul.
16% or 17% is high imo.

But the point (and I'm not qualified to say if he is correct or not) is that statistically that number is not significant. In otherwords it might be 16% or it might be 0% -- in short the study did not show that passive smoking caused cancer.

Matthew

quote:

---

Originally posted by count.d:

quote:

---

Why argue

---

Mick,

What else are we supposed to do?

---

count.d, you are so right!



Can we all meet up for a real-life argument? I find theis net stuff a bit frustrating.

Stephen

quote:

---

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

---

We could call them crematoria.