Smoking bans in public places - how are they doing?
Posted by: Stephen Bennett on 25 February 2004
There's a debate in The UK at the moment about whether smoking should be banned in all public places. Of course, some people put up their hands in horror and say 'If you did that all pubs/restaurants/clubs/gigs would have to close down. I'm interested in how the bans that have been announced (Norway, Dublin, NY et al) are progressing?
Regards
Stephen
[This message was edited by Stephen Bennett on WEDNESDAY 25 February 2004 at 14:19.]
Regards
Stephen
[This message was edited by Stephen Bennett on WEDNESDAY 25 February 2004 at 14:19.]
Posted on: 26 February 2004 by Trevor Newall
quote:
Originally posted by domfjbrown:
Cars are NOT a neccessity for the VAST majority of people.
I think if you were to check the statistics, you'd find that you are wrong.
those living in some rural areas where there is often little or no public transport facilities, and where it's miles to the nearest big town, would I'm sure agree.
TN
Posted on: 26 February 2004 by BrianD
Paul
You must have suffered the smelly clothes, surely????
quote:
I suffer none of those when I go to a pub where smoking is permitted. Sorry.
You must have suffered the smelly clothes, surely????
Posted on: 26 February 2004 by BrianD
dom
The destruction of 'communities' by the tory party ensured that people do need their cars.
Unlike potential price hikes on tabs, where people would actually have a choice to keep their cash, many would have to pay extra costs for running a car because they MUST have a car to get to work. There is no adequate public transport in many parts of the country. This is the case in many parts of the country for millions of people I would imagine. It is fair to say I haven't lived 'everywhere', but for 10 years I lived in the midlands, I could not get to work on public transport. I have now moved to Yorkshire and been here for 5.5 years. I still cannot get to work on public transport.
quote:
Cars are NOT a neccessity for the VAST majority of people. If petrol quadrupled in price and cartax tripled, we'd soon see who really needs a car. It's no wander there's so many fat gits in this country.
The destruction of 'communities' by the tory party ensured that people do need their cars.
Unlike potential price hikes on tabs, where people would actually have a choice to keep their cash, many would have to pay extra costs for running a car because they MUST have a car to get to work. There is no adequate public transport in many parts of the country. This is the case in many parts of the country for millions of people I would imagine. It is fair to say I haven't lived 'everywhere', but for 10 years I lived in the midlands, I could not get to work on public transport. I have now moved to Yorkshire and been here for 5.5 years. I still cannot get to work on public transport.
Posted on: 26 February 2004 by count.d
quote:
The destruction of 'communities' by the tory party ensured that people do need their cars.
The vast majority of people do need their cars in today's society. This obviously excludes anyone who lives in London.
However, I'm not sure where you get to blame the tories.
Posted on: 26 February 2004 by BrianD
I blame the tories for the 'get on your bike' idea, and the fact that they destroyed 'communities'. It is down to their policies over 19 years that people now have to drive to work many, many miles. The shite state of public transport in this country is down to the tories, in my opinion.
The tories are a selfish bunch of greedy rich twats who would let you die in the gutter if you are not 'productive'. But's thats probably for another thread because this one is about smoking. I digress, I apologise to the starter of the thread.
The tories are a selfish bunch of greedy rich twats who would let you die in the gutter if you are not 'productive'. But's thats probably for another thread because this one is about smoking. I digress, I apologise to the starter of the thread.
Posted on: 26 February 2004 by ErikL
If we all brought really massive German Shepherds to pubs to shit and piss all over, causing eyes to water, clothes and shoes to smell bad, and in general an unpleasant environment with a permanent odor, would that be okay? I assume yes.
Ludwig von That'smyFritzoftheday
Ludwig von That'smyFritzoftheday
Posted on: 26 February 2004 by Mick P
I think to conclude, the concensus of opinion is that smoking in a pub or restaurant is downight selfish espescially when children are around.
Believe it or not, a few months ago, I saw a woman smoking in a car with a 2 or 3 year old child strapped in the back seat. That poor little thing must have black lungs by now.
They really are awful people.
Regards
Mick
Believe it or not, a few months ago, I saw a woman smoking in a car with a 2 or 3 year old child strapped in the back seat. That poor little thing must have black lungs by now.
They really are awful people.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 26 February 2004 by Paul Ranson
[quote]If we all brought really massive German Shepherds to pubs to shit and piss all over, causing eyes to water, clothes and shoes to smell bad, and in general an unpleasant environment with a permanent odor, would that be okay? I assume yes.[quote]
If the proprietor of the pub wants dog shit all over the floor, that's his (short lived) business.
You don't have to go!
After the smokers, who's next? Hippies? Fat people? Drinkers? Productive members of society (otherwise known as 'tories')? The local Christians interfere with my life. Ban them!
Paul
If the proprietor of the pub wants dog shit all over the floor, that's his (short lived) business.
You don't have to go!
After the smokers, who's next? Hippies? Fat people? Drinkers? Productive members of society (otherwise known as 'tories')? The local Christians interfere with my life. Ban them!
Paul
Posted on: 26 February 2004 by Paul Ranson
quote:
Believe it or not, a few months ago, I saw a woman smoking in a car with a 2 or 3 year old child strapped in the back seat. That poor little thing must have black lungs by now.
The WHO suggests that his chance of lung cancer is less than my daughters...
Paul
Posted on: 26 February 2004 by BrianD
quote:
Productive members of society (otherwise known as 'tories')?
LOL
Do you think only tories are productive? I'm productive and I'm not a tory. Just thought I'd mention it.
As it happens, I'm not a hardline Labour man either. I voted for the tories in 79 because I could see the shite Labour had put the country in. I also voted tory in the election after that one, they then lost the plot and I stopped voting for them. I look at what a party is achieving, not their name, I don't believe in any party or vote for any particular party "just because I do". Labour are now losing the plot in a similar fashion imo, so I don't know who to vote for next time. So, I'm not putting a view that is negative tory simply from the viewpoint of, "I'm from the north so I must be a Labour man", or anything of that nature. I truly think that tory beliefs, which imo are mainly based on, "I'm alright Jack, sod you", and also on greed, are to blame for a lot of what we see today. The lack of standards in society, that kind of thing. It's all borne from a lack of respect and a selfish attitude that was propagated by the tories during their 19 years. We have a lot of companies with chairmen who were working their way through the 'ranks' during the tory years. These people believe in nothing but greed imo and unfortunately these people are running everything, that's why we still have a selfish attitude throughout the country now. People are only bothered about themselves and this is where it all began. Look after number 1. If you're not productive, you're a drain on society and should be put down. It's a terrible attitude, but that's just my opinion.
End of rant. This is a good topic, I wish I could stay on it.
Paul, I appreciate that people do not have to go to a pub, which seems to be your main answer to those complaining about smokers, but can you tell me any good reason why these smokers must do it IN the pub? Why on earth can't they restrict themselves to smoking in their own homes?
Posted on: 26 February 2004 by matthewr
The likes of Tom and Trevor with their "I want, me, me, me, demand, damand, demand" rants about smoking do the case for banning it a gross diservice. This attitude is the flip side of someone who not only smokes in public but blows smoke in your face.
Like I say it seems simple to me:
1. If its dangerous ban it on the grounds of public safety.
2. If it isn't let people who don't like smoke go to places where its not allowed and people who want to smoke go t oplces wher it is allowed.
3. The situation will find its natural balance and either the 15% of smokers who freak out when denied the opportunity to smoke will moan about it continually until they are all dead or else, vice versa, the 15% of non-smokers who are profoundly sensitized to it will have to stay out of certain bars and restaraunts or else loudly complain about the terrible fumes before rushing off home to wash their contaminated clothes. Given the way this has gone in the last 30 years my money is on the former and in the meantime everybody else who manages to accomdate the current impass will carry on having a good time in places which happen to allow smoking.
Matthew
Like I say it seems simple to me:
1. If its dangerous ban it on the grounds of public safety.
2. If it isn't let people who don't like smoke go to places where its not allowed and people who want to smoke go t oplces wher it is allowed.
3. The situation will find its natural balance and either the 15% of smokers who freak out when denied the opportunity to smoke will moan about it continually until they are all dead or else, vice versa, the 15% of non-smokers who are profoundly sensitized to it will have to stay out of certain bars and restaraunts or else loudly complain about the terrible fumes before rushing off home to wash their contaminated clothes. Given the way this has gone in the last 30 years my money is on the former and in the meantime everybody else who manages to accomdate the current impass will carry on having a good time in places which happen to allow smoking.
Matthew
Posted on: 26 February 2004 by Steve Toy
My understanding of the statistics is as follows:
38000 people die each year of lung cancer of which 90% were smokers and 10% were non-smokers.
So, 34200 people die of lung cancer as a direct result of active smoking.
A further 3800 die of lung cancer from other causes including passive smoking.
If you are a non smoker then being continually exposed to the smoke exhaled by others as well as that given off by the burning end of their cigarettes increases deaths fom lung cancer by 16%.
So how many of the 3800 were passive smokers and didn't, say, strip asbestos for a living?
If the figure was as much as 16% then around 600 people are dying each year from passive smoking. This compares with around 3500 people a year dying on our roads...
Several years ago I attempted to quit smoking. I found I could manage quite easiy not to smoke until I had a couple of beers. So for the last ten years I have only smoked when I am on my second or third pint by which time the urge to smoke becomes irresistible.
I never smoke in the house or in the car. I only smoke in the pub, outside or in the garage.
To me, pubs are places reserved for people who smoke and drink. Licensees should of course have the option of banning smoking on their premises if they see fit, but it should never be imposed upon all of them by the health fascists who have the option of staying away and finding a non-smoking hostelry to suit.
As for smoking in the workplace, a separate room for smokers should always be an option. I failed to understand why schools that had a separate staffroom reserved for smokers were later forced to close them. Passive smoking would only have an effect on anyone who ventured into the room of their own free will. When the cleaners later turned up to do their job, although the smell may have been unpleasant, the smoke itself would have long since disappeared.
Regards,
Steve.
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on FRIDAY 27 February 2004 at 05:39.]
38000 people die each year of lung cancer of which 90% were smokers and 10% were non-smokers.
So, 34200 people die of lung cancer as a direct result of active smoking.
A further 3800 die of lung cancer from other causes including passive smoking.
If you are a non smoker then being continually exposed to the smoke exhaled by others as well as that given off by the burning end of their cigarettes increases deaths fom lung cancer by 16%.
So how many of the 3800 were passive smokers and didn't, say, strip asbestos for a living?
If the figure was as much as 16% then around 600 people are dying each year from passive smoking. This compares with around 3500 people a year dying on our roads...
quote:
Paul, I appreciate that people do not have to go to a pub, which seems to be your main answer to those complaining about smokers, but can you tell me any good reason why these smokers must do it IN the pub? Why on earth can't they restrict themselves to smoking in their own homes?
Several years ago I attempted to quit smoking. I found I could manage quite easiy not to smoke until I had a couple of beers. So for the last ten years I have only smoked when I am on my second or third pint by which time the urge to smoke becomes irresistible.
I never smoke in the house or in the car. I only smoke in the pub, outside or in the garage.
To me, pubs are places reserved for people who smoke and drink. Licensees should of course have the option of banning smoking on their premises if they see fit, but it should never be imposed upon all of them by the health fascists who have the option of staying away and finding a non-smoking hostelry to suit.
As for smoking in the workplace, a separate room for smokers should always be an option. I failed to understand why schools that had a separate staffroom reserved for smokers were later forced to close them. Passive smoking would only have an effect on anyone who ventured into the room of their own free will. When the cleaners later turned up to do their job, although the smell may have been unpleasant, the smoke itself would have long since disappeared.
Regards,
Steve.
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on FRIDAY 27 February 2004 at 05:39.]
Posted on: 26 February 2004 by BrianD
Matthew
I'd say you have the right balance, here. Same as earlier when I was on about properly separated smoking areas. I see no reason really why people shouldn't smoke if they want to, we just need more areas that are completely smoke free for those of us who find it disgusting.
Steven
I don't associate pubs as being reserved for a smoke at all. Why should it be, pubs aren't primarily a retailer of fags, are they? Why should fags be associated with a pub? I associate pubs and restaurants with food and alcohol in the main, where else do you buy food or alcohol that is served and to be consumed on the premises? Pubs and restaurants are places to gather on a social basis with friends and/or family, have a meal and a few glasses of wine or beer etc. Nowt to do with smoking at all. People don't have to smoke in these places.
I doubt that you're alone in this. The fact that some won't smoke at home yet find it acceptable to smoke in public is something I find pretty mind-boggling. But there you are, everyone is different.
There is a clear case imo for proper separation of smoking and non-smoking areas in public places. When it becomes the norm that the smoker has to either stay away or 'find' a smoking hostelry to suit, then we'll be making some progress. While it is the other way around, there is a problem.
I'd say you have the right balance, here. Same as earlier when I was on about properly separated smoking areas. I see no reason really why people shouldn't smoke if they want to, we just need more areas that are completely smoke free for those of us who find it disgusting.
Steven
quote:
To me, pubs are places reserved for people who smoke and drink.
I don't associate pubs as being reserved for a smoke at all. Why should it be, pubs aren't primarily a retailer of fags, are they? Why should fags be associated with a pub? I associate pubs and restaurants with food and alcohol in the main, where else do you buy food or alcohol that is served and to be consumed on the premises? Pubs and restaurants are places to gather on a social basis with friends and/or family, have a meal and a few glasses of wine or beer etc. Nowt to do with smoking at all. People don't have to smoke in these places.
quote:
I never smoke in the house or in the car. I only smoke in the pub, outside or in the garage.
I doubt that you're alone in this. The fact that some won't smoke at home yet find it acceptable to smoke in public is something I find pretty mind-boggling. But there you are, everyone is different.
quote:
but it should never be imposed upon all of them by the health fascists who have the option of staying away and finding a non-smoking hostelry to suit.
There is a clear case imo for proper separation of smoking and non-smoking areas in public places. When it becomes the norm that the smoker has to either stay away or 'find' a smoking hostelry to suit, then we'll be making some progress. While it is the other way around, there is a problem.
Posted on: 27 February 2004 by Mick P
Chaps
I had to walk through Swindon yesterday for a dental appointment.
The sort of people wandering around at 3.00 pm during a working day appeared to be those from the lower social orders and most of them smoked. Even though it was in the open air, the street stank of tobacco.
I would have liked to have hosed the lot of them down.
Judging by their appearance (they were dressed in shell suits etc), most of them were on social security and claiming to be poor and yet they were wandering around like aimless oiks with a fag hanging from their mouths. None of them looked like they could hold down a job for more than a couple of hours.
Total peasants.
Regards
Mick
I had to walk through Swindon yesterday for a dental appointment.
The sort of people wandering around at 3.00 pm during a working day appeared to be those from the lower social orders and most of them smoked. Even though it was in the open air, the street stank of tobacco.
I would have liked to have hosed the lot of them down.
Judging by their appearance (they were dressed in shell suits etc), most of them were on social security and claiming to be poor and yet they were wandering around like aimless oiks with a fag hanging from their mouths. None of them looked like they could hold down a job for more than a couple of hours.
Total peasants.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 27 February 2004 by syd
Yeah Mick
Remember Churchill, lounged about in a boiler suit, never had a cigar out of his mouth, drank like a fish and lived of the government too.
What a peasent.
Yours in Music
Syd
Remember Churchill, lounged about in a boiler suit, never had a cigar out of his mouth, drank like a fish and lived of the government too.
What a peasent.
Yours in Music
Syd
Posted on: 27 February 2004 by Mick P
Thanks to Churchill, you can sit behind your screen and type out drivel without fear or favour. You ungrateful little oik.
Regards
Mick
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 27 February 2004 by Stephen Bennett
quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Thanks to Churchill, you can sit behind your screen and type out drivel without fear or favour. You ungrateful little oik.
Regards
Mick
Surely he didn't invent the Internet too?
What a guy
Regards
Stephen
Posted on: 27 February 2004 by syd
Mick
Thanks to Churchill, and all the citizens of this nation, we beat an evil man and an evil regime which also condemned people they didn't like the look of and who had done nothing to them whatsoever.
BTW this is the first time in my life I've been called an OIK. Damn my lack of an english public school education. My schools did teach me though about irony and also never to judge a book by it's cover.
Yours in Music
Syd
Thanks to Churchill, and all the citizens of this nation, we beat an evil man and an evil regime which also condemned people they didn't like the look of and who had done nothing to them whatsoever.
BTW this is the first time in my life I've been called an OIK. Damn my lack of an english public school education. My schools did teach me though about irony and also never to judge a book by it's cover.
Yours in Music
Syd
Posted on: 27 February 2004 by count.d
There was a poor Scottish farmer and his name was Fleming. One day, while trying to make out a living for his family, he heard a cry for help coming from a nearby bog. He dropped his tools and ran to the bog. There, mired to his waist in black muck, was a terrified boy, screaming and struggling to free himself. Farmer Fleming saved the lad from what could have been a slow and terrifying death.
The next day, a fancy carriage pulled up to the Scotsman's sparse surroundings. An elegantly dressed nobleman stepped out and introduced himself as the father of the boy Farmer Fleming had saved.
"I want to repay you," said the nobleman. "You saved my son's life." "No, I can't accept payment for what I did," the Scottish farmer replied, waving off the offer. At that moment, the farmer's own son came to the door of the family hovel. "Is that your son?" the nobleman asked. "Yes," the farmer replied proudly. "I'll make you a deal. Let me take him and give him a good education. If the lad is anything like his father, he'll grow to a man you can be proud of."
And that he did. In time, Farmer Fleming's son graduated from St. Mary's Hospital Medical School in London, and went on to become known throughout the world as the noted Sir Alexander Fleming, the discoverer of Penicillin.
Years afterward, the nobleman's son was stricken with pneumonia. What saved him? Penicillin.
The name of the nobleman? Lord Randolph Churchill. His son's name? Sir Winston Churchill.
The next day, a fancy carriage pulled up to the Scotsman's sparse surroundings. An elegantly dressed nobleman stepped out and introduced himself as the father of the boy Farmer Fleming had saved.
"I want to repay you," said the nobleman. "You saved my son's life." "No, I can't accept payment for what I did," the Scottish farmer replied, waving off the offer. At that moment, the farmer's own son came to the door of the family hovel. "Is that your son?" the nobleman asked. "Yes," the farmer replied proudly. "I'll make you a deal. Let me take him and give him a good education. If the lad is anything like his father, he'll grow to a man you can be proud of."
And that he did. In time, Farmer Fleming's son graduated from St. Mary's Hospital Medical School in London, and went on to become known throughout the world as the noted Sir Alexander Fleming, the discoverer of Penicillin.
Years afterward, the nobleman's son was stricken with pneumonia. What saved him? Penicillin.
The name of the nobleman? Lord Randolph Churchill. His son's name? Sir Winston Churchill.
Posted on: 27 February 2004 by Trevor Newall
quote:
Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
The likes of Tom and Trevor with their "I want, me, me, me, demand, damand, demand" rants about smoking do the case for banning it a gross diservice. This attitude is the flip side of someone who not only smokes in public but blows smoke in your face.
matthew, I apologise if that’s how I come across to you, but I feel strongly about the health risks of passive smoking and having to put up with the filth that comes from people smoking every time I’m out in public.
are you a non-smoker?
if so from reading your replies here you are obviously less concerned than I am about being forced to inhale cigarette smoke, your clothes stinking of cigarette smoke every time you return from a pub, and all sorts of unpleasantness that you wouldn’t have experienced if smoking was not allowed in public places or if smokers had the courtesy to do their smoking in areas where it has little or no effect on others.
you're entitled to your opinion, but why on earth should non-smokers going about their daily lives have to endure the unpleasantness of a smoker’s habit?
I don’t care what people do when their actions aren't affecting others, drunks can drink themselves to death if they want as it’s only their health that's being damaged, but when it comes to people smoking in public, the dangers and unpleasantness of their addiction are shared by everyone.
the fact is matthew, the precise reasons for people not wanting to smoke cigarettes are the same things that smokers are forcing upon non-smokers every time they go out in public!
so where is this “freedom of choice” you mention?
if people want to smoke, then fine, but I see no logical reason to do it in enclosed areas shared by non-smokers.
TN
Posted on: 27 February 2004 by Madrid
quote:
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.
Smoking is absolutely prohibited by a 1998 Royal Decree in any Spanish airport. To increase public awareness, public authorities have recently added large signs (beyond the thousands of existing, smaller ones) and designated smoking areas.
Unfortunately, neither Spaniards nor others seem to have any interest in complying with the law. I think this should cause one to reflect a bit about the "tolerance" smokers have for others involuntarily breathing cigarette smoke.
Regarding children, Spain also prohibits smoking anywhere women of unborn children (ie, pregnant) work. I don´t think this has ever been observed or enforced in this country.
Steven
Posted on: 27 February 2004 by Trevor Newall
quote:
Originally posted by BrianD:
The fact that some won't smoke at home yet find it acceptable to smoke in public is something I find pretty mind-boggling.
me too!
I wonder why that is.
perhaps they don't want to experience at home what non-smokers are forced to experience when out in public??
selfish? no, of course not!!
TN
Posted on: 27 February 2004 by TomK
Count.d,
As you probably know, this may be an interesting little anecdote but that's all it is. It's about as truthful as saying that smoking is good for you and causes no harm or discomfort to those round about you.
It's a lovely story though and I wish it was true.
As you probably know, this may be an interesting little anecdote but that's all it is. It's about as truthful as saying that smoking is good for you and causes no harm or discomfort to those round about you.
It's a lovely story though and I wish it was true.
Posted on: 27 February 2004 by Stephen Bennett
Mick
It's not only 'oiks'! Nearly all of the people I see smoking on a day to day basis are students from middle class backgrounds. And most of them are women. They know the risks, but they still do it.
The thing that upsets me most, smoking wise, is seeing pregnant women smoke or parents smoking in the presence of their kids.
Regards
Stephen
Now ON TOPIC PLEASE!!!!!
It's not only 'oiks'! Nearly all of the people I see smoking on a day to day basis are students from middle class backgrounds. And most of them are women. They know the risks, but they still do it.
The thing that upsets me most, smoking wise, is seeing pregnant women smoke or parents smoking in the presence of their kids.
Regards
Stephen
Now ON TOPIC PLEASE!!!!!
Posted on: 27 February 2004 by Trevor Newall
yes sir!!!!!
all off-topic bad boys prepare for a right good royal botty spanking.
TN
all off-topic bad boys prepare for a right good royal botty spanking.
TN