Smoking Ban.

leisa

Active Member
Yes, well, right then is it? NO it isn't, the landlord, the landlady , the four staff, plus most of the customers including myself, all smoke. Yet we are forced to go outside if we want to light up. Ludicrous is what I call it, what is going to happen in winter when it is freezing outside? just typical of all none smokers, you won't care will you? That is when a lot of folk will be wishing a curse on the anti smoking brigade. (I would like to use some slightly stiffer language about none smokers but this is a family forum after all.)

How ridiculous, your having a go at none smokers for basically not smoking. I am sure some none smokers would like to use that sort of language about smokers as well. If you have a concern about catching a cold why are you not equally concerned about gettin cancer or some other smoking related diesease!
 

Griffin

Active Member
In winter? Are you suggesting that non smokers should be worried about your health in case you catch a cold when you're going outside to breathe in your cigarette fumes. Now that is funny.
Colds are a contagious virus.. not contracted from standing in the 'cold'

and true.. nobody forces us to smoke (well, maybe peer pressure in kids..) but it seems we're been forced to not smoke...

I dont mind standin outside... gives me a chance to chat to randomers without the boom boom of the annoyin house music they play at ridiculous amount of decibels!

Not much point in arguin about it tho.. its 70:30 against us (the smokers)
I just really hate the people who gloat about it
 

Morghoven

Member
How about the equally sensible statement that sitting / working in a smokey atmosphere isn't pleasant if you don't happen to be a smoker?

I've never said that isn't a sensible statement. I would argue vehemently against anyone who did. I've always been pro-choice, and I would always maintain that the majority of rooms in any kind of workplace or public space should be non-smoking. Because that's real freedom of choice.

True. But if you smoke you are something like 10 times more likely to catch lung cancer - its a proven fact. Of the 40000 people who die of this per year (on average) then about 4000 are non-smokers. Maybe that's a significant figure - it does still seem high to me, but 10 times more likely is significantly more likely in my book!

But that's still 4,000 cases a year of non-smokers dying of lung cancer - that's a lot of people! Once again, I have never said that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer. Just it's not the only cause. Some people get it regardless.

Perhaps not, but there have been many studies that prove that tobacco smoke is the primary cause of lung cancer. Unless it magically morphs into something much less harmful in the atmosphere (which it doesn't) then I would argue that there is a link between the inhalation of tobacco smoke (ie passive smoking) and a heightened risk of contracting lung cancer.

Tobacco smoke in atmosphere is still tobacco smoke - the carcinogens are still in it - albeit in obviously diluted proportions. I should know, I work for a company who (amongst other things) make lab equipment to test cigarettes - robotic beagles if you like.

And traffic fumes in the air are also carcinogenic. So does walking to work directly cause cancer? A properly ventilated pub didn't have smoke hanging in the air like some people seem to imagine...And in any case, the smoke that was exhaled must have been significantly diluted, otherwise what was harming the person who was smoking the damn thing?!

So 40-odd years of worldwide government studies, countless amounts of scientific research, numerous medical papers, lectures, real-life case studies and millions of deaths are all just examples of soapboxing then?

No...because all those things have indisputably proved there are links between smoking and respiritory diseases. Even the most hardened smokers know that and accept it. But there is not anything close to the same level of proof about passive smoking. Therefore, the tendency some people have to demonise smokers and smoking is soapboxing because they are doing so without any weight of evidence or reasoned argument.

The legislation now in force is a perfect example; sure people don't want to come home from the pub smelling of smoke, I can perfectly understand that. If every pub was forced to have at least one no-smoking room (not just area), then the problem is solved and everyone is catered for - but no, it's more politically expedient to blanket ban it from everywhere, including places the Government have no right to interfere (private member's clubs? Do we understand the word private?!). Well, here's a thing...it wouldn't be so politically expedient if we'd all given up and put a huge hole in the tax revenue, 'cos then everyone's income tax would go up.

I know all the arguments against smoking. I know it's bad for me. I respect that most people don't smoke, don't want to smell it and certainly don't want to breathe it in. But in many eyes (especially political ones), smoking is now more socially unacceptable than prostitution or heroin addiction. Now that just seems plain crazy to me.
 

Cornet Nev.

Member
Well I don't really need to add any more, other than the replies from smokers are all like myself, sick to death of having our freedom of choice destroyed without any say in the matter. I agree there should be a separate room for us smokers, but forcing us outside without any consideration, just stinks as much as tobacco smoke to those who don't smoke.
OK you none smokers may feel you have a right to clean air, but so do I, however none of us, including none smokers, seem to have any escape from diesel fumes from the heavy transport on our roads, and I would argue the oil and other carcinogenic material in diesel exhaust is far more contributory to cancer than second hand tobacco smoke.
 
OK you none smokers may feel you have a right to clean air, but so do I, however none of us, including none smokers, seem to have any escape from diesel fumes from the heavy transport on our roads, and I would argue the oil and other carcinogenic material in diesel exhaust is far more contributory to cancer than second hand tobacco smoke.

Non-smokers won't buy that argument. Car exhaust contains all of the carcinogens found in tobacco smoke and the carbon emissions are destroying the planet but the fact of the matter is that if you go out for a drive, you don't come back smelling of smoke. Which seems to be all that matters really ...
 

dyl

Active Member
how do we make a living?
He never mentioned having to make a living - he just said he had no escape from the fumes, and I offered a solution. ;)

It's rather similar to the Roy Castle scenarion mentioned earlier don't you think?
 
Well I don't really need to add any more, other than the replies from smokers are all like myself, sick to death of having our freedom of choice destroyed without any say in the matter. I agree there should be a separate room for us smokers, but forcing us outside without any consideration, just stinks as much as tobacco smoke to those who don't smoke.
OK you none smokers may feel you have a right to clean air, but so do I, however none of us, including none smokers, seem to have any escape from diesel fumes from the heavy transport on our roads, and I would argue the oil and other carcinogenic material in diesel exhaust is far more contributory to cancer than second hand tobacco smoke.

Sorry, but just because other things are just as bad, doesn't mean smokers have to make things even worse. With your argument of other things being as bad or worse, nothing changes ever.

You do also have the right to stop smoking as I did.

No, smokers should not have a separate room. They should be outside. It is a dirty habit, and one that should be shown NO respect.

The next thing that is needed is for the Police to start fining smokers for dropping their ends outside of places of work, Pubs, etc. Some places are starting to look like tips.

I am in favour of a full ban on smoking, being one of those nasty X smokers.

Petrol and Oil products is a separate issue. They need to be addressed, but separately.
 

WoodenFlugel

Moderator
Staff member
Morghoven said:
But that's still 4,000 cases a year of non-smokers dying of lung cancer - that's a lot of people! Once again, I have never said that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer. Just it's not the only cause. Some people get it regardless.

I've been pondering that as we both agree 4000 deaths a year is high. I imagine the "smoking related" deaths are if the patient smoked or did smoke within a period of time before passing away, so any cases that could be attributed to passive smoking would not get counted as smoking related. It'll be interesting over the next few years to see if the ratio between smoking related and non-smoking related cases widens are the smoking ban takes effect.

Morghoven said:
And traffic fumes in the air are also carcinogenic. So does walking to work directly cause cancer? A properly ventilated pub didn't have smoke hanging in the air like some people seem to imagine...

Similiar toxins - yes. Which is why only a very stupid or suicidal person would sit next to a car exhaust pipe with the engine running. The toxin levels are more for vehicles, but is it so different to sitting next to someone smoking?

Morghoven said:
And in any case, the smoke that was exhaled must have been significantly diluted, otherwise what was harming the person who was smoking the damn thing?!

I'm not sure how exhaled smoke compares to the stuff you inhale, but what about the stuff thats being generated when you're not smoking? How much of the emitted smoke is being inhaled when you smoke? 50%? 30%?

Anyway - I've said my piece on this subject. I'm glad the government had the balls to take the legislation through to the logical conclusion (for a change). I'm sure the smokers amongst us here big to differ.
 

Maestro

Active Member
I welcome the ban strangely enough, and I am a smoker.

When I could smoke anywhere, I did, and I smoked a lot. Now the ban is in, I have to smoke outside. As a result I don't smoke anywhere as many as I did, but I can still enjoy my nicotine injection. I don't smoke in non smoker's houses, so I can't really see the difference in that case.

I just don't smoke so much when I go out, and let's face it fellow smokers, don't we all smoke more when we go out for drinks etc, before the ban came in?
 
Last edited:

Griffin

Active Member
I welcome the ban strangely enough, and I am a smoker.

When I could smoke anywhere, I did, and I smoked a lot. Now the ban is in, I have to smoke outside. As a result I don't smoke anywhere as many as I did, but I can still enjoy my nicotine injection. I don't smoke in non smoker's houses, so I can't really see the difference in that case.

I just don't smoke so much when I go out, and let's face it fellow smokers, don't we all smoke more when we go out for drinks etc, before the ban came in?
I totally agree... I don't mind goin outside.. I always tried to stay from smoking in front of none smokers, I just chat with the other outcasts about how chuffing cold it is and stuff

I just take it personally when people say i'm being disgusting, filthy, dirty etc... via my smoking habit
 

Morghoven

Member
No, smokers should not have a separate room. They should be outside. It is a dirty habit, and one that should be shown NO respect.

You're as entitled to your opinion as anyone else. But it's that sort of aggressive, confrontational attitude that gets people's backs up. Comments like that undermine all the excellent, reasoned, evidenced debate that has gone on in this thread.

The next thing that is needed is for the Police to start fining smokers for dropping their ends outside of places of work, Pubs, etc. Some places are starting to look like tips.

That's fine, as long as there's proper places to dispose of cigarette butts in the first place. In too many places smokers - who have been forced outside by law - find there are still none of those wall-mounted ash-tray things to get rid of the rubbish into. I don't like putting cigarette ends into normal public litter bins...what if it's not quite out and lands on a newspaper? Whole thing catches fire. That's no good for anyone!
If there's somewhere safe to properly dispose of the butt, most reasonable people will use it - and you'll never stop the people who won't. If it's not there, what are we supposed to do?
 
Last edited:
You're as entitled to your opinion as anyone else. But it's that sort of aggressive, confrontational attitude that gets people's backs up. Comments like that undermine all the excellent, reasoned, evidenced debate that has gone on in this thread.

allowed, but slated I see. Hardly aggressive though, just a stand point. You can not have a room that effects no other unless it is built completely separately. Answer is to smoke outside. It is not new for smokers as companies have had smoking bans in place for a very long time.

It is only a little about evidence. The main reason I don't want smoking inside is because it makes everything stink. You might have a room where you can smoke, but someone will be employed to go in there to clean. Not fair on them.

If you want to smoke, fine. Just do it where it has no effect on anyone else.


That's fine, as long as there's proper places to dispose of cigarette butts in the first place. In too many places smokers - who have been forced outside by law - find there are still none of those wall-mounted ash-tray things to get rid of the rubbish into. I don't like putting cigarette ends into normal public litter bins...what if it's not quite out and lands on a newspaper? Whole thing catches fire. That's no good for anyone!
If there's somewhere safe to properly dispose of the butt, most reasonable people will use it - and you'll never stop the people who won't. If it's not there, what are we supposed to do?

Why aren't smokers made responsible for these things? You are now saying the public as a whole are responsible for providing ashtrays and smoking bins, and I presume the emptying of them regularly as well.

Sorry, but so far the only argument I see from smokers is that everyone owes them somewhere to carry on their habit, with all the utilities.

It is down to the smoker to carry on their habit without interfering with any other, not all others being there to accommodate.........

that isn't being aggressive, that is being reasonable.

Smoking is not a social activity.
Smoking is not accepted by the majority
Smoking makes you and everyone in a smoking area stink
Smoking is bad for you and those forced to suffer smoking 2nd hand

There is no argument to smoke other than it is a habit. Kick it!!
 

Bryan_sop

Active Member
I've waited for a while to see what people have had to say about this. I am completely against smoking, having lost one family member to it and I can see it finishing off other members of my family too. My nan died ten years ago this year because of smoking and my Grandad's lungs, although he packed it up over a year ago, are now damaged beyond repair and he's on about 3 inhalers plus a nebuliser.

I'm loving the ban, when I get home from a night out I don't stink of smoke and even better, I'm hardly having to use my reliever inhaler.

My Dad is one of the 'This is an infringement of my civil right's' brigade. All I can say to people with his attitude is, what about the civil rights of the people that don't want to stink and/or breathe in your smoke but have had to because of your ignorance in the past!?

It has been the case, that in my circle of friends, being a non-smoker, I was in the minority. I had a choice, I could either stay at home and not have a social life, I could sit in the no-smoking section of the pub/go to the no-smoking pub round the corner, or I could sit with my friends. Hardly a choice really!

One of the 4 or 5 (I think?) smokers in my band gave up smoking a couple of months ago. He was already probably the best player in the band, but now he's given up the fags, people have noticed the improvement and he's said himself how much easier playing is now. Just proves that it does have an effect on your playing. Also, rather than buying 20 Cancer-sticks a day, he put £5 in a pot, it's surprising how it all mounts up!

Please or offend, my opinion is that smoking is Rude, anti-social, dirty and basicaly stupid
 
Please or offend, my opinion is that smoking is Rude, anti-social, dirty and basicaly stupid

I agree, and I apologise to everyone I used to smoke around.

With the money I used to spend on fags, I have bought a new Horn. Just need to learn how to play the thing now:wink:

Getting caught up in rights of the individual is always going to be a tussle, and one that can't be resolved so everyone wins. In my mind, the smoker must lose as it must be the responsibility of the smoker to carry out their habit safely (for others) and without inconvenience to others.

You want rights, then also accept the responsibilities!
 

Bryan_sop

Active Member
The next thing that is needed is for the Police to start fining smokers for dropping their ends outside of places of work, Pubs, etc. Some places are starting to look like tips.

Reminds me of a program I saw a few months ago, A life of grime or something similar. A Traffic warden was seen dropping a cigarette butt on the floor on camera, and was duely fined and giving a telling off 'As a uniformed employee of the city council you should be setting an example' :clap:

I have to say, all of the pubs I frequent had their wall-mounted ashtrays fitted well before the ban started, and where I work. The staff here are complaining now though because people from neighbouring buildings are using our smoking area because their employers haven't been so thoughtful!
 

Rapier

Supporting Member
I'm amazed that this thread is still going. I think we just have to accept the fact that us non smokers love it and that it's a good thing and nothing we say say will convince the drug addicts otherwise!
 
Top