Smoking bans in public places - how are they doing?

"Tim -- You are of course welcome to smoke your head off around my place any time you like.
Matthew"

Matthew

Thanks for your offer - but I thought your office was already non-smoking, or is the French influence still that strong?

Tim

quote:

---

Originally posted by Basil:
Cancer killed my Father and he never smoked.

There are no guarantees.

---

Too true Basil. However, you can reduce risk by lifestyle choice. The fitter I get, the more I get annoyed with others trying to make me ill.

My father died of stomach cancer, possibly, probably caused by 30 years down the pit from the late 1930s onwards.

Stephen

quote:

---

I started reading this thread but skipped to the end after reading about 40 posts – I actually got sick and tired of reading the usual rants from the usual suspects. The noxious attitudes displayed by Mick Parry, Count D and all those other smug, sanctimonious bores

---

I don't recall writing any other "rant" on the Naim forum.

After reading your long winded, boring, rant, it seems to confirm the opinion that substance abuse leads to aggressive behaviour.

quote:

---

PS I've just decided - I'm going to give up. Right now.

---

At least something good will come from this thread. One less selfish sod to worry about when I go out drinking.

PS I've just decided - I'm going to give up. Right now. ....KW

You see, we are good for you because we inspire you to give it up.

Regards

Mick

could you stop wearing perfume too, please

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rockingdoc:
could you stop wearing perfume too, please

---

The only passive effect perfume has on me is acting on impulse.......



Stephen

Since researching my induced migraine where specific perfumes are the only trigger, I have become very interested in scents. I feel another thread coming on

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Bennett:
The only passive effect perfume has on me is acting on impulse.......

---

The really strange thing about Impulse is - it really DOES make me notice a woman who wears it! Any other perfume mings but Impulse is pretty OK...

Perfume in the main though does my head in - it's infinitely worse than fag smoke. Perfume plays havoc with my GP contact lenses - fag smoke doesn't...

__________________________
Make your choice, adventurous Stranger;
Strike the bell and bide the danger
Or wonder, till it drives you mad,
What would have followed if you had.

anyone know what's happened to the rest of this thread?
there are about 5 or 6 pages missing!!

TN

TN

With the forum crash infopop have had to return to the last reliable backup which is 10 days old.

Yours in Music

Syd

Trevor,
hopefully there up there in the ether,along with all that unwanted smoke, could we please leave them there
oldie.

Smoking Bans - How are they doing?

Evidently, they are saving human lives.

From the Guardian: "...research suggested that such a measure could almost halve the number of heart attacks.

The call came in response to a study conducted in a town that outlawed smoking in enclosed public places. It showed that hospital admissions for heart attacks fell by 40 per cent in the six months covered by the ban.

It is the first time that a smoking ban has been shown to cut heart attacks and the British Medical Association (BMA) has renewed its demand for the Government to implement a ban in the UK."

You have absolutely no evidence at all for your assertion.

Go and read the paper and see what it actually says.

Paul

Anyone any news on the situation in Ireland? The news on TV and the press just seemed to dry up after the first day of the blanket ban. Any Irish contributers on the forum?

Yours in Music

Syd

There was a story today or yesterday about a bar with a bus for smokers getting into trouble. And a politician losing his job for lighting up in a Dail bar (after being refused access to the outside smoking area, which wasn't further explained.)

One would expect clear trends down in heart attack statistics from New York, '40%' surely couldn't be obscured by stress?

What was odd (to me) about the Montana numbers was the substantial unexplained rise in the two years before the ban. The paper doesn't cover many years, and doesn't cover what happened in the rest of the year for the years in question, one wonders what's going on. The '40%' number makes great headlines but seems very much too large to be likely. It fails the 'common sense' sanity check.

Paul

quote:

---

It fails the 'common sense' sanity check.

---

"Common sense" means taking into account a clear pattern which emerges over time when taking onboard a large body of emperical evidence.

Although the sample size and timescale in the Montana study are somewhat small, the conclussion is consistent with many other studies. Another study published in the same issue of the BMJ considered more than 19,000 deaths since the 1981 census.

It concluded that the extra risk for men from passive smoking was 16 per cent, and for women 28 per cent.

The link persisted even after correction was made for age, ethnicity, marital status and socioeconomic background.

That's people living with smokers, not exposure to smokers in public places.

And you're using unqualified numbers, to give an idea of the actual risk you have to tell us how likely we are to die rather than the percentage change in the risk.

If it's morally acceptable to ban smoking in bars then surely it's morally required to also ban smoking in dwellings? I'd like to see some consistency rather than chipping away at liberties for the sake of personal convenience. I care far more for the children of smokers (or drinkers, eaters and teleaddicts) than I do for the once a week pub customer offended by smoking in the next room.

Paul

I understand from a non-smoking Irish friend that there are lots of pubs building extensions with no walls, heaters etc etc.

No doubt there's a legal debate impending about how many walls render a lean-to 'inside' and therefore non-smoking. I wonder how low the eaves can go before outdoor space becomes non-smoking.

Timo