Vote on smoking ban in public places

[Nitefly]

You're correct in saying that smoking is dealt with more easily. I cannot argue with that. But why deal with one and at the same time encourage the other?

Well i don't think the late night drinking laws will cause more binge drinking in all honesty, although time will tell. Saying that, you can't deny it might encourage it. People only have a set amount of money to spend on drink, and from what I have experienced people only binge drink at parties when its an all you can grab situation, or at home.

I find that only a doctor can estanblish a person is drunk very interesting. Hmm...

EDIT: Oi, you changed it
I don't think binge drinking is more acceptable at all. Whilst its mainly heavey drinking that causes inconviniance for people even several cigarettes can be very frustrating. Not saying one is more dangerous than the other of course. I think its a slightly unfair comparrison.

 

[Richdog]

Do you think you'll stay quit? I'm on quit number 3, 14 months into it, quit number one lasted over 3 years, quit number 2 lasted a few weeks.

Yeah I do think i'll stay quit. My food tastes so much better, my lung capacity has improved & my martial arts training also as a result. I've saved a shedload of money, and the biggest factor is that I want kids and I personally think that smoking and having children is a terrible thing whether it is near them or not. I don't want them to think it's acceptable and I don't want to take years off my life that I could have spent with them or have them watch me die a slow and painful death. We only get one life, and there's no need to speed up the process.

Lots of reasons to quit that for me far outweigh reasons for carrying on doing it.

 

[GordyR]

Well i don't think the late night drinking laws will cause more binge drinking in all honesty, although time will tell. Saying that, you can't deny it might encourage it.

You're right there. It remains to be seen exactly what effect the late night drinking laws will have. I truly hope I am proved wrong and that it will help with regards to "loutism". From what I have seen so far though it has made no positive difference whatsoever, at least in my part of the country.

People only have a set amount of money to spend on drink, and from what I have experienced people only binge drink at parties when its an all you can grab situation, or at home.

Perhaps my opinion is skewed then because where I live binge drinking is considered the norm amongst late teens and twenty-somethings. they don't only do it at parties but every time they set foot in an establishment with a bar. Night after night.

EDIT: Oi, you changed it

Yep I forgot the 'Social acceptability part'.

 

[PeterNem]

Indeed, I understand that point of view completely. But then it could be argued that even "normal" drinkers have killed people through drink driving or have comitted assaults which would not have happened were they not under the influence etc. Not only alcoholics commit these offences. But to be honest thats besides the point.

From my point of view, a group of completely plastered lads, falling all over the place, acting threateningly, starting fights etc. would ruin my 'pub-going' experience far more than having to put up with the smell of smoke. Go in to any pub on Friday/Saturday night and you are bound to see the behaviour I have described from multiple groups of young men.

I am not against alcohol nor am I pro-smoking, I just find the way the government have relaxed the laws on one poison while tightening the laws on another to be hypocritical.

Well said mate! Despite being a non-smoker I also find it highly hypocrytical and would also cite the drunken yobs as much more likely to put a downer on my night.

 

[VeNT]

Well said mate! Despite being a non-smoker I also find it highly hypocrytical and would also cite the drunken yobs as much more likely to put a downer on my night.

strange as it may seem some of us "normal" drinkers are able to go out, have a few drinks and go home without causing a huge riot, yobbish behavior, or driving.

but people smoking near me in the bar will ALWAYS make my skin crawl

strange ey?

 

[GordyR]

strange as it may seem some of us "normal" drinkers are able to go out, have a few drinks and go home without causing a huge riot, yobbish behavior, or driving.

but people smoking near me in the bar will ALWAYS make my skin crawl

strange ey?

As strange as it may seem some of us non smokers are able to go out, have a few drinks alongside smokers and go home without being in the slightest bit bothered by it, complaining about it and without dying from lung cancer.

But binge drinking louts near me in the bar, threatening others and acting like hoodlums will ALWAYS make my skin crawl.


Okay so that was very tongue-in-cheek but i'm sure you get the point mate. That argument works both ways and is equally as valid whichever side of the fence you sit on.

 

[Chronos-X]

Fighting is illegal already, and rightly so

 

[Soogs]

coolio im all for it. the only time i feel to smoke is when im drinking and if i cant then ill never go back to it

 

[AJUK]

And it says that on his death certificate does it ??

Yes, I expect it says lung cancer which he contracted from passive smoking.

Whinge all you want, there is no denying that passive smoking kills hundreds and causes respiritory disease in thousands every year and to that end, banning in public is the only sensible way forward.

 

[GordyR]

Yes, I expect it says lung cancer which he contracted from passive smoking.

You do realise that there are plenty of people out there who contract lung cancer without ever having smoked a cigarette and without ever having breathed in second hand smoke. I'm not saying that passive smoking wasn't a contributing factor to his lung cancer but to assume that he contracted it purely because of second hand smoke and that he wouldn't have contracted it otherwise is a little over the top. Not even doctors are able to determine this currently.

Whinge all you want, there is no denying that passive smoking kills hundreds and causes respiritory disease in thousands every year and to that end, banning in public is the only sensible way forward.

Slight correction to the above sentence and then I agree completely. In my opinion it should read...

"There is no denying that passive smoking has been shown to contribute to the onset of diseases that kill hundreds and cause respiritory disease in thousands every year"

I was under the impression that not one single death has ever been medically attributed to "passive smoking". Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[AJUK]

Deaths from secondhand smoke

Whilst the relative health risks from passive smoking are small in comparison with those from active smoking, because the diseases are common, the overall health impact is large. Professor Konrad Jamrozik, formerly of Imperial College London, has estimated that domestic exposure to secondhand smoke in the UK causes around 2,700 deaths in people aged 20-64 and a further 8,000 deaths a year among people aged 65 years or older. Exposure to secondhand smoke at work is estimated to cause the death of more than two employed persons per working day across the UK as a whole (617 deaths a year), including 54 deaths a year in the hospitality industry. This equates to about one-fifth of all deaths from secondhand smoke in the general population and up to half of such deaths among employees in the hospitality trades.

Taken from the ASH website. www.ash.org.uk There are lots of reference links to respected medical studies that can be accessed trough the factsheets.

 

[nikebee]

Sorry if this has been covered, I did do a search on the word wales but found nothing.

Do the new smoking laws that have just been past cover Wales as well? Or is it just England?

We were talking about it in work today, I was under the impression it was for England and Wales (not sure about Scotland though) - others were just saying England.

Anyone care to clear it up for me?

 

[GordyR]

Taken from the ASH website. www.ash.org.uk There are lots of reference links to respected medical studies that can be accessed trough the factsheets.

Thanks AJUK that clears up where you got your information from. However the study you quoted only actually shows 'evidence' for a potential risk increase of developing cancer in those subjected to passive smoking. The doctor is merely 'estimating' the amount of deaths that could be attributable to it. And i'm not getting at you here but I for one would like something a little more reliable than simply an estimate.

Something else to bare in mind is that the website you linked to is an "anti-smoking" website and such they are conveniently neglecting to mention all the studies which show no links whatsoever. One such study was done by the WHO if I remember correctly and they deliberately witheld it from publication due to the controversial nature of its results.

The world's leading health organization has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could have even a protective effect.

And here is another quote relating to another study:

LEADING cancer experts have conceded that the World Health Organisation's study of the link between passive smoking and lung cancer failed to find any statistically significant extra risk, as exclusively revealed by The Telegraph last week.

The experts include Prof Sir Richard Doll, the world's leading authority on the link between direct smoking and cancer, who said that the rejection was on the grounds that the results were simply yet more evidence of the kind produced by dozens of earlier studies, which have also usually failed to give conclusive results. He insisted, however, that taken together the studies point to a significant risk: "On its own, the WHO study is not definitive, but it contributes to the weight of evidence."

However, the rejection of the non-significant findings from the WHO study looks set to trigger accusations that "politically correct" scientists deliberately suppress data which fails to support their own beliefs. Despite repeated requests last week to the WHO team to put its own side of the story, and an undertaking from a senior team member to give a response to specific questions, none was given.

However, The Telegraph this week reveals the full extent of the flaws in the WHO report, including the fact the scientists appear to have over-interpreted the figures leading them to claim the risk is greater than it is.

The study, conducted by the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer, compared 650 lung-cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers. The WHO scientists and Ash incorrectly claim that the results show that there was a 16 per cent risk of a spouse living with a smoker developing lung cancer.

Dr Rudolfo Saracci, a senior scientist on the WHO team, yesterday declined a request to give further details of the research findings pending publication in a medical journal. However, he said the "soundest interpretation" of the results was that there is "an increase in risk related to spousal exposure".

I think it is clear that there is still some uncertainty about the true dangers of passive smoking. With the way the media is, any medical research which goes against popular thought will conveniently be skipped over. It makes it very hard for us, the general population to get a truly realistic idea of the potential hazards.

Even if there is a true link between passive smoking and cancer (and funnily enough I actually agree with you that there likely is) then that only means that passive smoking increases a persons risk of developing said cancer. It does not mean that every single person who has been subjected to second hand smoke and subsequently died of lung cancer only contracted it because of passive smoking.

This next sentence might seem strange considering all I have just typed but basically I want you to know that I agree with you. I am just trying to put across the other side of the argument here as I don't think it is as clear cut as the media would have us believe. I think it is highly probable that passive smoking has contributed to many deaths. Whether they actually caused the deaths or not is another matter and as I said before I don't think any study anywhere has ever shown conclusive proof for passive smoking actually 'causing' a single death.

 

[Sleepy]

Sorry if this has been covered, I did do a search on the word wales but found nothing.

Do the new smoking laws that have just been past cover Wales as well? Or is it just England?

We were talking about it in work today, I was under the impression it was for England and Wales (not sure about Scotland though) - others were just saying England.

Anyone care to clear it up for me?

The Health Act bans smoking in England, the Scottish Assembly has allready passed a law for Scotland doing much the same. For Wales this act gives The Welsh Assembly the authority to pass a ban for Wales. For Northern Ireland the ban will be ordered by the Northern Ireland Secretary around april according to a BBCi page though on what authority I don't know.

s82 Health Act

Note none of these bans apply to the House of Commons where its buisness as usual.

IANAL

 

[El Gringo]

Woohoo, I can't wait to go out in Aberdeen and not reek when I get back in. It's really quite horrible. Went to Dublin last week and it's great over there. You want to smoke, you go outside, simple.

 

[beh]

Good news indeed