The smoking ban

g hall · 01-05-2007, 06:13 PM

No debate needed if we are a Libertarian Party

Mark Croucher · 01-05-2007, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kernow

Quote:

Originally Posted by harryaldridge

[Ah, but Kernow the point you have made is in support of "the tyranny of the majority". Is it any more right that 80% of people can impose their will on the other 20% than those 20% can impose theirs on the 80%? Why?

.

When the health of the majority is affected by the actions of the minority, then in my opinion it is OK for the will of the majority to be imposed!

There is of course no evidence that ETS (environmental tobacco smoke, or passive smoking) causes any ill effects whatsoever, in fact, the two largest studies conducted so far conclude that there are no ill effects.

Take a look at the FOREST website and its details of studies on passive smoking - you can find it at http://www.forestonline.org/output/Page16.asp.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FOREST

If that wasn't damning enough, in March 1998 the World Health Organisation was forced to admit that the results of a seven-year study (the largest of its kind) into the link between passive smoking and lung cancer were not 'statistically significant'. This is because the risk of a non-smoker getting lung cancer has been estimated at 0.01%. According to WHO, non-smokers are subjecting themselves to an increased risk of 16-17% if they consistently breathe other people's tobacco smoke. This may sound alarming, but an increase of 16-17% on 0.01 is so small that, in most people's eyes, it is no risk at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FOREST

British Medical Journal report

Most recently of all, an explosive new study that seriously questions the impact of environmental tobacco smoke on health was published by the British Medical Journal (16 May 2003). According to the study, one of the largest of its kind, the link between environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.

The analysis, by James Enstrom of the University of California, Los Angeles and Geoffrey Kabat of New Rochelle, New York, involved 118,094 California adults enrolled in the
American Cancer Society cancer prevention study in 1959, who were followed until 1998. Particular focus was on the 35,561 never smokers who had a spouse in the study with known smoking habits.

The authors found that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, as estimated by smoking in spouses, was not significantly associated with death from coronary heart disease or lung cancer at any time or at any level of exposure. These findings, say the authors, suggest that environmental tobacco smoke could not plausibly cause a 30% increased risk of coronary heart disease, as is generally believed, although a small effect cannot be ruled out.

Aside from that, I've just received the government's guidelines on the new non-smoking regime. It is clearly written by someone who's never lived in the real world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by idiot government advice

Point out to the smoker that they are breaking the law, and that both you and they face heavy fines. If they still refuse to stop smoking, ask them to leave the premises..... if you are threatened with violence, remind them that it is a criminal offence, and seek advice or assistance from the police

Clearly the author has never had to deal with a load of beered up pikeys looking for an excuse to kick the **** out of someone. Given that police response times are more easily measured with a calender than with a watch, I'm sure that publicans across the nation can look forward to healthy doses of hospital food. Quite apart from that, if they refuse to stop, and refuse to leave, why should I be fined, or face the alternative of a beating? The government brought the law in, let the government enforce it, not offload it onto the owners of cafes, pubs, shopping centres etc.

Personally, I think non-smokers should pay a special tax: after all, you get to breathe in all the benefits of our cigarettes without having to pay a penny in tobacco duty. But then maybe I'm just a militant smoker

Rgds

Mark

gc · 01-05-2007, 07:34 PM

Interesting that it seems to be only smokers who believe that passive smoking is harmless. As interesting as it is that only oil companies (and their paid fellow-travellers) think that burning fossil fuels does not contribute to global warming!

tito · 01-05-2007, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gc

Interesting that it seems to be only smokers who believe that passive smoking is harmless. As interesting as it is that only oil companies (and their paid fellow-travellers) think that burning fossil fuels does not contribute to global warming!

I neither smoke nor have anything to do with oil.

Besoeker · 01-05-2007, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by harryaldridge

However if so many people feel this way then an establishment would be wise to ban smoking for the gain of the extra business it would receive.

Any establishment that could gain extra business by banning smoking would already have done so.

Besoeker · 01-05-2007, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kernow

When the health of the majority is affected by the actions of the minority, then in my opinion it is OK for the will of the majority to be imposed!

Are you required to go to places where smoking is permitted?

Mark Croucher · 01-05-2007, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gc

Interesting that it seems to be only smokers who believe that passive smoking is harmless. As interesting as it is that only oil companies (and their paid fellow-travellers) think that burning fossil fuels does not contribute to global warming!

Is that overlooking the fact that there is no such thing as global warming in the sense that governments would have us believe, merely temperature variations in the earth's atmosphere which have happened since time immemorial?

Rgds

Mark

PS I'm not an oil company

Mark Croucher · 01-05-2007, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Any establishment that could gain extra business by banning smoking would already have done so.

Exactly the point

Probably 90% of my customers are smokers.

Rgds

Mark

g hall · 01-05-2007, 09:38 PM

I suspect passive smoking can have an effect, I base these suspicions on the state of the ceilings of the pub my parents had in the 60's as the freshly painted ceilings slowly "matured"

I prefer to stand upwind of a smoker unless they roll their own

devilskitchen · 02-05-2007, 08:16 PM

I believe that a report that was issued in December showed that the effect of the Scottish smoking ban has been to reduce takings by 14% and, even more interestingly, the number of punters by 12%.

I seriously doubt that compared, for instance, to the cancers caused by car exhaust fumes, the passive smoking effect is negligible. It is worth pondering on the fact that the tetra-ethyl lead, used as an anti-bumping agent in leaded petrol, was replaced with benzene compounds. Benzene is a Class 1 carcinogen, cancer-causing by skin contact.

It's also worth remembering that, whilst ventilation is better and per capita smoking is down, per capita lung cancer is on the increase.

Just sayin', is all...

01-05-2007, 06:13 PM	#21 (permalink)
g hall Uber Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 4,772	No debate needed if we are a Libertarian Party __________________ "That government is best which governs least." "This is a sharp Medicine, but it is a Physician for all diseases and miseries". "To be "matter of fact" about the world is to blunder into fantasy --and dull fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful."

01-05-2007, 09:38 PM	#29 (permalink)
g hall Uber Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 4,772	I suspect passive smoking can have an effect, I base these suspicions on the state of the ceilings of the pub my parents had in the 60's as the freshly painted ceilings slowly "matured" I prefer to stand upwind of a smoker unless they roll their own __________________ "That government is best which governs least." "This is a sharp Medicine, but it is a Physician for all diseases and miseries". "To be "matter of fact" about the world is to blunder into fantasy --and dull fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful."

02-05-2007, 08:16 PM	#30 (permalink)
devilskitchen Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: London Posts: 414	I believe that a report that was issued in December showed that the effect of the Scottish smoking ban has been to reduce takings by 14% and, even more interestingly, the number of punters by 12%. I seriously doubt that compared, for instance, to the cancers caused by car exhaust fumes, the passive smoking effect is negligible. It is worth pondering on the fact that the tetra-ethyl lead, used as an anti-bumping agent in leaded petrol, was replaced with benzene compounds. Benzene is a Class 1 carcinogen, cancer-causing by skin contact. It's also worth remembering that, whilst ventilation is better and per capita smoking is down, per capita lung cancer is on the increase. Just sayin', is all... __________________ Unio Europaea delenda est

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

01-05-2007, 07:34 PM	#23 (permalink)
gc Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 372	Interesting that it seems to be only smokers who believe that passive smoking is harmless. As interesting as it is that only oil companies (and their paid fellow-travellers) think that burning fossil fuels does not contribute to global warming!