Smoking

[Valandil]

Did anyone see the one 'anti-smoking' commercial during the Superbowl? The 'shards of glass pops'... I was like, "Where are they going with THIS?" - and then they compared it to cigarettes.

[HOBBIT]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
They eliminated that I think. Restaurants and bars were losing too much business - people were coming over to NJ.

no, i dont think so.

Maybe it would be better - like I said in the beginning of this thread to require stronger ventalation systems inorder for restaurants to have smoking sections.

You can't really require that - good ventalation systems that actually work and lessen the smoke are expensive! And most restaurants (as bussinesses) fail what is the statistic, within months of opening or whatever?

Newly opened restaurants and small ones etc could not afford that - especially if they face going out of bussiness in a year or two.

Just make the whole place a smoke-free restaurant.

And that is your choice. I see nothing wrong with allowing smoking in a restaurant - as long as it isn't right next to me. I can hardly breath around smoke. As for bars - that goes with the territory.

Why must you comment on everything even if you agree with me?
How is that any different than what I said?

Smoking in the same restaurant IS FINE, as long as i can't smell it and the non-smoking and smoking sections are well separated.

Usually, this is not the case.

Why should smoking be allowed in bars (or around the bar)? Just because people who drink are more likely to smoke or whatever??? Like I said, I believe it is illegal in NY and California too I think?

That would help solve the problem of more smoke wafting around.

It's not - but it's also against school rules. So what do you suggest?

I was just giving an example of how horrible others' smoke can be.

They do try to stop it, to no avail.

Now pay attention JD, I have no comments on the rest of your post, therefore im not going to quote it or comment on it

[Hemel]

This morning I am ill. Yesterday I was ill too. The reason why I am ill is because of other people's cigarette smoke. There was a function I had to go to - couldn't avoid. Within two minutes of our getting into the room, one person had lit up. Once she did, then a whole lot of others followed. The only time they stopped smoking was while they were actually eating. They smoked before and after courses - and while other people were eating. Several of us complained. Our complaints were ignored. I was told in a very rude way by one of the smokers to "go" away. We spent four hours in an atmosphere that was full of thick cigarette smoke - we, the non-smokers, breathing in other people's filth.

Yeah, well, thanks. My social life is severely curtailed simply because I cannot cope with other people smoking around me. Alleluia that theatres and cinemas have now banned it. At least I can go there. But I can't go to pubs or clubs or restaurants. Ventilation systems don't work. Separate areas don't work. The only thing that will work is banning smoking altogether in these places.

I don't want people dismissing me as a moaner. I don't want people telling me it's just my hard luck that I'm so sensitive to cigarette smoke. I am sensitive and it makes me ill. I have been in hospital several times because of inhaling other people's smoke. I don't want to be made ill because other people have an unnecessary habit they can't control. I have a right to be free from harm, and people who smoke walk right over that right.

I'm sorry if this sounds bitter. But this morning I am ill. Yesterday I was ill. The reason I am ill is because of other people's cigarette smoke. Is this fair?

[Nerdanel]

That is absolutely not fair.

I hate that smoke, but it does't make me ill. I think people should have at least that much respect for others!
It's like forcing people with allergies to eat or drink something they're allergic to - the "problem" is that it's not as easy as smoking in the precense of others.

I hope that the situation someday gets better for you, Hemel.

[Millane]

look im not trying to defend these obviously inconsiderate smokers Hemel (not against my fellow MM fan ) but i think that its a limited few that would be like that, although many more people die from smoking each year, i would think that they are mainly the smokers, the number of passive smokers who die each year would be considerably less than the number of passengers in cars with drunk drivers.... for me it boils down to this, i dont think its right for me to interfere with other peoples choices if it is harming themselves, when there choices are harming others i think it can be judged to a certain extent, now in my opinion i think more people would die as a result of a drunks behaviour than a smokers... just so its clear im not saying dont have a whinge at smokers, go right ahead, my point is if you want smoking banned where do you draw the line?

[Hemel]

Sorry, I know I ranted - I'm a bit ratty today

I honestly don't know about figures for passive smoking and victims of drink drivers - (heh! you're not going to believe this, Millane, but I was actually a victim of a drunk driver too, just over a year ago ) - but I suppose the one thing they have in common is that they inflict avoidable harm on others, and that harm need not happen.

I don't say ban smoking completely, because then I'd be imposing my particular ways on other people, which equally isn't on. But what I would like to see is that smoking is not permitted in public areas that are enclosed. So places like restaurants, pubs, and the like - where escape isn't easy and where the smoke will be confined and concentrated. Out in the open air - yes, it can still cause me problems if I accidentally get a whiff of cigarette smoke, but I can usually move away and normally it is only a whiff, rather than permeating the whole atmosphere so constant inhaling.

In defence of smokers, I honestly believe they really don't realise what effect the smoke has, and how it can be offensive to those who don't. I know three or four (including my mum) who have finally managed to give up and they now say things like - I had no idea what it smelt like, I had no idea how stifling a smoky atmosphere is - along with things like - hey, food really does have a taste! And I do feel sorry for what they go through, with the cravings for another cigarette, because that really can't be pleasant.

[HOBBIT]

just because people dying of second hand smoke isn't high it is not serious???

The more smoke you inhale the more harmful it is.

I don't know how accurate this statistic is, but they always say that every cigarette smoked or whatever is another 7 minutes taken from your life - something like that.

Figure sitting in a room for about an hour with cigarette smoke all over is the equivalent of smoking one or two, if not more.

Second hand smoke may not harm you AS MUCH as the person smoking, but it certainly harms you.
Stupid arugment.

My mom grew up in a family where both parents smoked - she figures now that it was as if she actually smoked until they quit, with all that smoke she inhaled!

My grandparents smoked - well before they knew it was harmful. My grandfather started when he was about 12. He died on lung cancer and my grandmother quit a few years after. They have excuses, these new smokers do not.

Hemel - that is so silly.

Maybe only the idiots (sorry, but this is how i feel) don't realize the harmful effects of what they do. Now everyone smoking knows how dangerous it is to themselves and to others - they have to be complete morons NOT to know.

They are either addicted or stupid - or both.

Why would you start smoking after the warnings started coming out? Mind boggling.

And they don't know that their smoke bothers others???? Give me a break - I always make faces and/or show in someway my dissatisfaction at smokers. Many others do the same. Many tell them it bothers them.

They know.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
You can't really require that - good ventalation systems that actually work and lessen the smoke are expensive! And most restaurants (as bussinesses) fail what is the statistic, within months of opening or whatever?

Newly opened restaurants and small ones etc could not afford that - especially if they face going out of bussiness in a year or two.

If you look at my recommendations from before - they still stand. it's not a REQUIREMENT - but if they can't afford the ventilation system - then the restaurants have to be non-smoking.

This will have the effect of having some restaurants be smoking and others not - it will then give EVERYONE a choice. The restaurants that have the good ventilation will be able to cater to the smokers and non-smokers can go there - because of the ventilation sysem and not worry about the smoke.

Just make the whole place a smoke-free restaurant.

Why not require the ventilation systems in order for a restaurant to allow smoking. As I said - this gives everyone a choice.

Why must you comment on everything even if you agree with me?
How is that any different than what I said?

Because I was saying that is your choice to leave the restaurant and if I am bothered by the smoke I will leave too. You have choice whether you want to go somewhere - I say let the market decide - not government.

Smoking in the same restaurant IS FINE, as long as i can't smell it and the non-smoking and smoking sections are well separated.

Usually, this is not the case.

Well what I ma saying is that this should be a requirement - for a restaurant to allow smoking. There is NO NEED to eliminate smoking from ALL restaurants - just put the requirements in there to protect non-smokers - that is the real issue anyway.

Why should smoking be allowed in bars (or around the bar)? Just because people who drink are more likely to smoke or whatever??? Like I said, I believe it is illegal in NY and California too I think?

Why should big brother dictate that restaurants can't allow smoking? I'm against it and I don't smoke - and personally can't stand smoking. But as long as the restaurants are set up so I can't smell it - I don't really care. If bars are made completely smoke free they wil lose half their business. People who smoke, the majority of bar goers, will just go to people's houses. Yoiu have to look at how it will affect the business and it will hurt them.

That would help solve the problem of more smoke wafting around.

And loss of freedom.

Now pay attention JD, I have no comments on the rest of your post, therefore im not going to quote it or comment on it

So why comment on the fact that you didn't have anything to say about it?

[Hemel]

I understand from a friend that over in Canada bars and restaurants are no-smoking. Apparently there was a huge fuss from owners that they'd lose business when the ban was going through. Whether they actually did or not I don't know - unfortunately our conversation got interrupted at that point

What I can say is that over here we have about seven (AFAIK) totally non-smoking pubs. One of the owners who decided to ban smoking got no end of warnings about how he'd lose trade, no one would ever come, he'd go out of business and so on. But the reverse happened. He's so busy you're hard put to find a table there. His takings have gone up. People travel specially to go there. So it looks to me as though the 'market' has certainly given approval to this venture.

But, on this question about the 'market'. Well, perhaps we could let the market decide. Right now we can't, because the vast majority of places here are for smokers. So there isn't actually a choice. But how do we know how many people there are, like me, who'd love to go out for a drink, but can't, because of the smoke? Or who go much less often, because they don't like the smoke? I reckon an experiment would soon prove that there's a big market demand for smoke-free atmospheres.

I reckon too that a lot of people who enjoy pubbing and clubbing and eating out won't be put off just because they can't smoke. There's a lot more to the experience than just being able to have a cigarette. And certainly the cinemas here and the theatres still seem to manage to get patrons, even though they have smoking bans.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Hemel
But, on this question about the 'market'. Well, perhaps we could let the market decide. Right now we can't, because the vast majority of places here are for smokers. So there isn't actually a choice. But how do we know how many people there are, like me, who'd love to go out for a drink, but can't, because of the smoke? Or who go much less often, because they don't like the smoke? I reckon an experiment would soon prove that there's a big market demand for smoke-free atmospheres.

you reckon? well ok pilgrim...

actually its been shown in places like california and some other places that have had smoking bans for some time that its really a wash about the effect on business. some bars took a hit at first but other clientel have filled in and it turns out they are making about the same now as they were making before the ban. also restuarants have actually picked up in business since the ban which counter weigh those hard core smoking bars that didnt survive or took a severe hit because of the ban. so overall the numbers tend to show theres no difference over time.

[Millane]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
just because people dying of second hand smoke isn't high it is not serious???

HOBBIT i dont think you understand my point, i was merely trying to put another point of view that if you want to ban smoking where are you going to draw the line, Alcohol is bad for the user and as a consequence those people go out and kill other people, why not ban alcohol ohhh maybe because it doesnt affect you at the moment

Second hand smoke may not harm you AS MUCH as the person smoking, but it certainly harms you.
Stupid arugment.

uuuuuhhh yeah your right stupid argument, who argued that

Maybe only the idiots (sorry, but this is how i feel) don't realize the harmful effects of what they do. Now everyone smoking knows how dangerous it is to themselves and to others - they have to be complete morons NOT to know.

as people who drink also know, but for some reason i dont think we'll be hearing what ****heads they are...
there are many things that are bad for us Hobbit, smoking one of them, have you ever eaten McDonalds, idiot

[Linaewen]

Originally posted by Millane
HOBBIT i dont think you understand my point, i was merely trying to put another point of view that if you want to ban smoking where are you going to draw the line, Alcohol is bad for the user and as a consequence those people go out and kill other people, why not ban alcohol ohhh maybe because it doesnt affect you at the moment

Alcohol has been proven to have beneficial effects on your body in moderate amounts. As for cigarettes- those ads that you see on TV (here, at least) say it all- every cigarette is doing you damage.

[Millane]

Originally posted by Linaewen
Alcohol has been proven to have beneficial effects on your body in moderate amounts. As for cigarettes- those ads that you see on TV (here, at least) say it all- every cigarette is doing you damage.

im not trying to defend cigarettes at all, they are irrelevant all im saying is if you want to ban one bad thing then where do you stop?

[Hemel]

IR:
actually its been shown in places like california and some other places that have had smoking bans for some time that its really a wash about the effect on business. some bars took a hit at first but other clientel have filled in and it turns out they are making about the same now as they were making before the ban. also restuarants have actually picked up in business since the ban which counter weigh those hard core smoking bars that didnt survive or took a severe hit because of the ban. so overall the numbers tend to show theres no difference over time.

Ah thanks So then this presumably confirms that the 'market' can sustain no-smoking places, and that in some instances they become more desirable, and demonstrates also that there is more about going to bars etc than their merely being a place to smoke.

Quick sidetrack - wasn't there some reverse in the research about alcohol being beneficial? I know they suggested red wine was good for the heart, but then didn't they go on to say there was no point taking up drinking it if you didn't already, and that maybe grape juice would be just as good?

[The Gaffer]

No, the evidence suggests that one unit of alcohol per day (doesn't matter what type) is good primary prevention for cardiovascular disease.

There's a vascular surgeon in Swindon who prescribes a glass of red wine to all of his patients while they're in hospital.

Cheers to that!

(Unfortunately, if you drink too much, it does CV harm. That includes binge drinking (i.e. taking all of your week's supply on a Friday night))

[Millane]

yeah i heard that a glass of red wine only worked for males who had been doing it for over 10 years and in there 40+ years

[The Gaffer]

Oh, and HOBBIT, the evidence is that a little bit of passive smoking does you negligible amounts of harm. See my previous post on this. It's a myth that one cigarette takes X minutes off your life (jeez, I'd have died ten years ago).

[Elvengirl]

Smoking absolutely disgusts me, I can't even be in the same room with one who is smoking. I do not understand how one gets enjoyment from it and considering what it does to your health, I just don't see why people choose to do it.

[HOBBIT]

Originally posted by Millane
im not trying to defend cigarettes at all, they are irrelevant all im saying is if you want to ban one bad thing then where do you stop?

whats wrong with banning all bad things??? Bad things being all bad, no health benefits, harm the user in no matter what quantity taken and harm others around the user.



Who knows how much damage passive smoking is. If the harm isn't huge, it's still there. Oh, passive smoking is ok because your studies show that it doesn't do that much damage? Who really knows, and it IS still harming me. Plus, smoke really bothers me.

[The Gaffer]

I agree that the fact that it bothers you is reason enough to object to it. It's polluting the air you breathe, after all. When I smoked, I would always ask if people objected, and refrain if anyone did.

Obviously, if smoking wasn't already done by around 20% of the population, it would be illegal; one of the statistics is that the UK death toll is the equivalent of a fully loaded jumbo jet going into the ground every day.

However, if we accept the evidence which says that the actual damage to others (of occasional passive smoking) is negligible, then the element of choice becomes more important. IMO, you shouldn't prohibit anything unless the consequences are serious.