smoking-ban

[James]

About time too. I think it comes into force summer next year.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/smoking/Story/0,,1709881,00.html

[Amusing Scrotum]

Ah poo! :(

I was actually in a Weatherspoons in Bath yesterday and that was "No Smoking" - I almost died of hypothermia going outside for a fag.

Personally, I don't see why they don't divide places up into "Smoking" and "No Smoking" sections and ventilate the "Smoking" sections really well.

Anyway....


Originally posted by Guardian
Fresh, the Campaign for a Smoke Free North East, welcomed the ban as a major breakthrough for the health of the people in the North East, which it said has the worst health rates in the country.

Yeah the Government is helping ensure the "health" of people by banning smoking, but the same Government won't give women with breast cancer a potentially beneficial drug.

There's bound to be something "fishy" about this and I can't wait to find out what.

[Intifada]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 14 2006, 10:43 PM
Yeah the Government is helping ensure the "health" of people by banning smoking, but the same Government won't give women with breast cancer a potentially beneficial drug.
To fund the drug herceptin, the NHS would have to divert money away from the treatment of other patients.

That would be unfair on the affected patients, wouldn't it?

It's a dilemma that would be avoided if capitalism was not in existence, or if the government would simply put more money into the NHS, rather than a stupid war in Iraq or ID cards.

[Sentinel]

It was done here in Sweden last summer. While it was sort of "ok" in the summer it's a real pain in the ass in the nordic winter!


Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
Personally, I don't see why they don't divide places up into "Smoking" and "No Smoking" sections and ventilate the "Smoking" sections really wel

I think that's because then the smoking sections get crowded and the nonsmoking sections are empty. The non-smokers like the company of us "cool smokers" it seems! ;)

This phenomenon can be seen clearly on working places where there is a smokers and non-smokers pause room. Some bars have made smoking booths, but drinking is not allowed in them. Even these are rare, though. :(

[James]

dividing a room up seems a silly idea: i have never seem it work (although true, it may with expensive extraction fan things - although these are expensive and tend to be noisy... going off the pubs i've worked in). Having a seperate room, for smokers, is a better idea in my opinion. I don't see any problem with it if everyone wants to go in there and smoke their lungs to bits.

The "it's my human rights" argument is really pathetic though: surely the first and fundamental right is that of life, not of being able to partake in drug addiction which affects those around you (AS: surely the problem isn't weatherspoons, but your addiction to a drug?).

As you can probably see, i have strong feelings on the subject (mainly due to my asthma).

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Sounds good to me. That should be the rule everywhere. If you wanna smoke go ahead and handle that, but I don't want to be exposed to that shit.

[Sentinel]

Oh and I forgot to tell you people who like the idea this:

with the smoke gone, the smell of sweat and alcohol get's rather dominating in a small room with drunken people jumping around and dancing.

Just wait and see, or smell I mean. :D

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Intifada+Feb 14 2006, 10:56 PM--> (Intifada @ Feb 14 2006, 10:56 PM)
Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Feb 14 2006, 10:43 PM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Feb 14 2006, 10:43 PM) Yeah the Government is helping ensure the "health" of people by banning smoking, but the same Government won't give women with breast cancer a potentially beneficial drug. [/b]
To fund the drug herceptin, the NHS would have to divert money away from the treatment of other patients. [/b]

You asked the question, and then provided the answer....


Originally posted by Intifada
It's a dilemma that would be avoided if capitalism was not in existence, or if the government would simply put more money into the NHS, rather than a stupid war in Iraq or ID cards.

:D


Originally posted by The Sentinel
I think that's because then the smoking sections get crowded and the nonsmoking sections are empty. The non-smokers like the company of us "cool smokers" it seems!

Absolutely&#33; <_<


Originally posted by James
Having a seperate room, for smokers, is a better idea in my opinion.

I&#39;d settle for that, though really I&#39;d settle for somewhere warm to have a fag. It&#39;s going to be freezing in the winter and you know the cheap bastards won&#39;t put heaters outside.


Originally posted by James
The "it&#39;s my human rights" argument is really pathetic though....

It&#39;s my "human right" not to get hypothermia&#33; :lol:

Anyway, you&#39;d think they&#39;d do a "swap" - say ban smoking and make another drug which doesn&#39;t cause passive harm to other people legal and in turn bring down the "market price". :)


[email protected]
AS: surely the problem isn&#39;t weatherspoons, but your addiction to a drug?

Nah, I prefer to blame Weatherspoons. :P


CompañeroDeLibertad
If you wanna smoke go ahead and handle that, but I don&#39;t want to be exposed to that shit.

If you feel that strongly about it, you should avoid barbecues and busy roads at all costs. They&#39;re far more damaging to your health.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 14 2006, 11:23 PM
Oh and I forgot to tell you people who like the idea this:

with the smoke gone, the smell of sweat and alcohol get&#39;s rather dominating in a small room with drunken people jumping around and dancing.

Just wait and see, or smell I mean. :D

Yeah, I&#39;ve heard in Ireland all the Pubs now stink of piss&#33; :o

[Sentinel]

Anyway, you&#39;d think they&#39;d do a "swap" - say ban smoking and make another drug which doesn&#39;t cause passive harm to other people legal and in turn bring down the "market price".

In sweden, which has an exception from the EU ban of snuff (snus, the kind of "chewing tobacco" you don&#39;t actually chew but put under your lip, very popular here)
the sales of this product have increased after the smoking law was introduced.

Unsurprisingly, the snuff prices have gone up dramatically.

[monkeydust]

I support the ban.

I like the odd smoke now and then, but even I can see that people who don&#39;t smoke don&#39;t deserve to compromise their health for the sake of other people&#39;s pleasure.

[widget_man]

I was listning to the radio at work today and the forest guy said that there is no scientific proof that second hand smoke causes all these harmful dieseases. This is not the first time i have heard this so i think its all crap. An unhealthy diet costs the NHS more than smoking does and cars cause more damage to your health than smoking does anyway.

[monkeydust]

To be perfectly honest, I don&#39;t know the science myself either. It comes down to a matter of trust: do you trust the vast majority of the scientific community and those who have critically looked at their opinions, or do you trust the odd person here-or-there speaking on the radio? I think the former&#39;s more reliable.

The issue of healthy eating is totally different since one person&#39;s engaging in unhealthy eating doesn&#39;t compromise the health of someone else.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 14 2006, 11:40 PM
Yeah, I&#39;ve heard in Ireland all the Pubs now stink of piss&#33; :o
Oi :ph34r:

[ReD_ReBeL]

Im very supprised that the majority on the thread are supporting the ban.It&#39;s just the government abusing there power and being more authorative. Why the hell should the government tell us if we can smoke in pubs and clubs etc? Shouldent it not be up the the owner of the place and not the government?

[FidelCastro]

a lot of places here in canada are non smoking and i think it is great. You don&#39;t walk out of the bar with sore lungs.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I agree. Cuba, many major cities in the U.S. and other countries put the ban in effect along time ago.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 14 2006, 11:58 PM

Anyway, you&#39;d think they&#39;d do a "swap" - say ban smoking and make another drug which doesn&#39;t cause passive harm to other people legal and in turn bring down the "market price".

In sweden, which has an exception from the EU ban of snuff (snus, the kind of "chewing tobacco" you don&#39;t actually chew but put under your lip, very popular here)
the sales of this product have increased after the smoking law was introduced.

Unsurprisingly, the snuff prices have gone up dramatically.
Wow, snuff is banned in the EU? What&#39;s that all about?

[Sentinel]

Wow, snuff is banned in the EU? What&#39;s that all about?

The authorities in Bruxelles were afraid that the usage of it would spread within the union from the nordic countries, so selling it was made illegal. Usage isn&#39;t though.

I see that as idiotic since it&#39;s a healthy alternative for smoking, many athletes do it since it doesn&#39;t affect your breathing capacity negatively.

There used to be a sticker on the snuff boxes that said "causes cancer".
It has been removed, though, since there isn&#39;t enough evidence of any connetion between lip cancer and snuff.

In Sweden snuff is so popular that the "Yes" side could never have won the popular vote about joining the union or not, had Sweden not got an exception from the law. So we got it, but it&#39;s in effect in the rest of the union.

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by ReD ReBeL+--> (ReD ReBeL) Shouldent it not be up the the owner of the place and not the government? [/b]

The problem is of course that no-one could do it if they wanted to stay in business.
Like I said earlier, people tend to prefer the places where it&#39;s allowed, even non-smokers. They follow their smoking friends.

It would be economic suicide for an owner of a small pub to ban smoking if it&#39;s allowed everywhere else.


CompañeroDeLibertad
I agree. Cuba, many major cities in the U.S. and other countries put the ban in effect along time ago.

I&#39;ve heard that New York mayor Bloomberg is bragging that tens of thousands of people have quit smoking because of the law.

But I&#39;d like to know how many of those were more than occasional smokers, people that only smoke when drunk.

My opinion on this issue is that although I don&#39;t like it of personal reasons, I understand those who support the ban. People have the right to a smoke-free environment, especially at work.

But heated smoking booths should be mandatory, at least in countries with cold winters.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

That&#39;s insane. Why would they spend money on something like that when people are starving to death? If you wanna smoke you gotta go stand in the cold, deal with it.

[Eoin Dubh]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 15 2006, 03:38 AM
If you wanna smoke you gotta go stand in the cold, deal with it.
Exactly.
Come outside and join the Marijuana smokers who have never had the privilege of indoor smoking.

[Sentinel]

That&#39;s insane. Why would they spend money on something like that when people are starving to death? If you wanna smoke you gotta go stand in the cold, deal with it.

Do you think the bar owners would send the money to charity organizations if they aren&#39;t forced to build smoking booths or something? Capitalists aren&#39;t known for their solidarity exactly. Expecting that from them is very naive.

We are talking about a law in a capitalist society here, not managing the revolution.
Everything that happens in a capitalist society is unfair.

Also, a very large percentage of the population choose to smoke and their opinions actually do matter. Or are you claiming some kind of moral superiority as a non-smoker?

[redstar2000]

Lenin and Trotsky hated smoking and refused to permit it in their presence.

Marx and Engels were both enthusiastic tobacco smokers. :D

Both Hitler and Himmler thought that smoking was harmful to racial health and intended to ultimately ban it completely.

China recently announced that no new cigarette factories will be permitted to be built in China by foreign corporations.

In New York City, what has emerged are "smoke-easys" -- that is, people with large apartments can turn them into informal pubs (one or two nights per week) where alcohol is served and people can smoke. This is completely illegal, of course. :D

In San Francisco, it is now a crime to smoke a cigarette in a public park. :(

Prior to World War I, cigarettes were actually banned in a few midwestern states under the influence of the Protestant "war on sin" that led to the adoption of alcohol prohibition after the war...as well as the first anti-drug laws.

It will likely be sometime after proletarian revolution before people will be able to enjoy tobacco again as they did, say, prior to 1980 or so.

At the moment, the anti-tobacco neo-puritans are even more disgustingly triumphant than the capitalists after the Berlin Wall was torn down.

May they all live into their 90s...spending the last decades of their extended lives being tied to a chair in some nursing home sitting in their own excrement. :angry:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This latest example of nanny-statism ticks me off to say the least. I can think of a much better solution off the top of my head that can satisfy both smokers and non-smokers alike, simply let pub and club owners decide whether or not they want their patrons to smoke and make any potential employees aware that they are applying for a job in a pub/club where smoking is allowed, and add a clause in their contract which prevents the employee from later suing for smoke-related health complications.
But of course such a solution would be too libertarian for our control-freak government <_< :angry:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Um, isn&#39;t that how it&#39;s always been? "Pubs" have always been able to choose whether or not they allowed smoking. None of them chose not to allow it, why would they?

Service workers in the food and drink &#39;industries&#39; had no choice but to be exposed to poisonous smoke for hours on end.

Like I said, I don&#39;t care what you want to do to yourself, just don&#39;t bring me and other people into it. If you wanna shoot heroin in your eyeball that doesn&#39;t bother me, cuz it doesn&#39;t deteriorate my health.

What about with allergies to ciggarette smoke or asthmatics? You know, something that&#39;s not actually a choice. Fuck them I guess huh?

[Martin Blank]

No smoking in pubs? What&#39;s next -- no drinking and no talking?

[Lights a cigarette -- takes long puff]

Look, I don&#39;t have a problem with individual bars and pubs banning smoking. But I do have a problem with the state telling me that I can&#39;t enjoy a smoke with my beer in a bar or pub that otherwise would allow smoking.

People are welcome to their opinions and their morals about smoking. But that does not give those same people the right to turn their morals into my laws. If you want to go get a drink in a smoke-free bar, use that big bundle of yellow paper called a phone book and find one to go to. Leave my fucking bar alone.

Miles

[monkeydust]

Basically what all these pro-smoking arguments come down to is "I like smoking, and I want to be able to smoke wherever I want, so balls to the rest".

Redstar: smoking cigarettes has nothing to do with proletarian freedom.

This, for example...


People are welcome to their opinions and their morals about smoking. But that does not give those same people the right to turn their morals into my laws.

...is balls. It&#39;s not an issue of anyone forcing their morals onto you. It&#39;s an issue of preventing you from forcing any health issues you might incur from smoking onto somebody else.


Look, I don&#39;t have a problem with individual bars and pubs banning smoking. But I do have a problem with the state telling me that I can&#39;t enjoy a smoke with my beer in a bar or pub that otherwise would allow smoking.

I&#39;m pretty certain that a great many other people have a problem with you increasing their chances of developing lung cancer when all they want to do is have a chat and a nice pint.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by widget_man+--> (widget_man)I was listning to the radio at work today and the forest guy said that there is no scientific proof that second hand smoke causes all these harmful dieseases. This is not the first time i have heard this so i think its all crap.[/b]

Well I read somewhere that standing over a barbecue for 10 minutes is the equivalent of sitting next to twenty "chain-smokers" for a year, or something like that.

As I said, I&#39;m sure there&#39;s a sinister reason for this.


Originally posted by RedStar1916+--> (RedStar1916)Oi :ph34r: [/b]

"Oi" what? ....pubs usually have piss all over the floor of the toilets (and in some cases sick) and luckily us smokers perform a public duty by masking that smell. :D


Originally posted by The Sentinel
But I&#39;d like to know how many of those were more than occasional smokers, people that only smoke when drunk.

Yeah they probably were "part-time" smokers who didn&#39;t really have their "hearts" in it.

Sellouts&#33; :lol:


Originally posted by The Sentinel
But heated smoking booths should be mandatory, at least in countries with cold winters.

....and tables and chairs.


[email protected]
In San Francisco, it is now a crime to smoke a cigarette in a public park. :(

That is really bizarre.


CommunistLeague
[Lights a cigarette -- takes long puff]

Ditto. :D


I&#39;m pretty certain that a great many other people have a problem with you increasing their chances of developing lung cancer when all they want to do is have a chat and a nice pint.

Were the fuck do you go for a pint? ....nearly all of the Pubs I drink in have at least a 50-50 ratio of smokers to non-smokers and on the occasions I&#39;ve found myself in a "Workies" of some sort, I&#39;ve found the old men who drink there virtually all smoke - and really strong tobacco too.

Indeed I&#39;ve noticed that in the more expensive places - Wine Bars" etc. - fewer smokers are found.

I like the implications of that observation - smoking is a class issue&#33; :P

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 15 2006, 03:00 PM
I like the implications of that observation - smoking is a class issue&#33; :P

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Actually I just remembered that in the MP&#39;s Private Bar in the House of Commons, smoking won&#39;t be banned.

Plus I also found out today that this ban won&#39;t affect Wales - for the minute at least - which made this little smoker very happy&#33;

[redstar2000]

Smoking is and probably always has been a "class issue".

In recent decades, smoking rates have been shown to be substantially higher among workers than among the middle and upper classes.

When the American Protestants began their "war on sin" (c.1890 or so), the use of tobacco was considered to be a sign of "moral degeneracy" in the working class.

Another objection was that tobacco use (in the forms of cigars and pipes) was considered a sign of upper-class status...and it was thought unseemly that the "lower orders" should emulate their "social betters" in this regard.

The truly enormous taxes on cigarettes these days (400% in the U.K.) are a "special tax" on the working class.


Originally posted by monkeydust
Redstar: smoking cigarettes has nothing to do with proletarian freedom.

Actually it does. :angry:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[violencia.Proletariat]

Restaurants and bar collectives should obviously be able to choose to allow it or not. But I think smoking shouldnt be allowed in some places, hospitals/doctors offices/food preparation, etc. Smoke rooms, or something similar can be adopted in these places instead of making people go outside.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by nate
But I think smoking shouldn&#39;t be allowed in some places, hospitals...

Imagine what it&#39;s like to be hospitalized. Chances are you feel like shit anyway...otherwise you wouldn&#39;t be there, right? And then, just to add to your suffering, you are deprived of the solace of tobacco. :o

There could easily be smoking and no smoking rooms in hospitals...and the additional ventilation costs would be trivial compared to the overall costs of building and running a hospital.

Indeed, ventilation is really the key to this whole controversy. Except that the anti-tobacco neo-puritans are not really concerned about health at all...they think tobacco use is "immoral" and want to make it "socially unacceptable".

Bastards&#33; :angry:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 03:54 PM
There could easily be smoking and no smoking rooms in hospitals...and the additional ventilation costs would be trivial compared to the overall costs of building and running a hospital.

Indeed.

Ventilation is surprisingly cheap and not only that, but I&#39;m pretty sure that all "New Builds" over a certain size have to have - by law - a certain amount of good ventilation, like they have to have "Zoned Heating".

[cormacobear]

Pubs have been the last to have smoking dis allowed in them in Canada, where prohibitions were done municipally and then provincialy. The argument being that the waitresses are exposed to second hand smoke, and that only in rare cases does anyone choose to be a bar waitress. At this point I don&#39;t care anymore as long as it stays legal outside and in my home.

A better return in terms of health savings would be taxing junk food and applying the revenue to reduce the cost of whole grain bread and vegetables.

[piet11111]

smokers have the same rights to be in a bar as everyone else.
and before all this those owners of those bars allowed smoking in those bars and smokers know that.
if they are moaning about that they also have the right to go outside and bugger off.
and due to my statements i feel obligated to say that i also have been astmathic and i am also a non-smoker but i somehow seem to be able to expect poeple to be smoking in bars and hence i avoid bars.
and i reccomend to the other non-smokers to do the same aswell because i sure as hell dont want to be the one to tell them they cant smoke.

also i live on an island where the connection to the mainland is by a ferry that takes 2 hours and only a very small section the bar (gee what are the odds ?) is for smokers
the rest of the boat is pretty much empty.

also the topic reminds me of a dutch book i once read where the netherlands where taken over by a 1984&#39;ish government obsessed with public health.
smokers had the same status as gunsmugglers and where placed into reëducation centers.

smoking to me is a matter of choice and as such a matter of personal freedom and nobody has the right to fuck with personal freedom.

[Delirium]

My school just put up signs that say &#39;NO SMOKING within 50 ft of entrance&#39;, not only can we not smoke inside but we are denied a windblock and a shelter from precipitation.

Good thing i cant read&#33; :lol:


Indeed, ventilation is really the key to this whole controversy. Except that the anti-tobacco neo-puritans are not really concerned about health at all...they think tobacco use is "immoral" and want to make it "socially unacceptable".


I agree

[James]

AS:

You are quite right about traffic, sadly though i have to suffer this as i get around on a bike (although i do go to uni via the country lanes if i set off early enough).
For me personally though, smoke is one of my "triggers" (asthmatics have things which set them off, "triggers"). Barbi&#39;s are fine, because i simply don&#39;t stand down wind from the thing. Sadly it is impossible to do this in a pub, as it just goes everywhere. And smokers sometimes find ME rude if i ask them not to smoke in my face.

Although of course, i would not be against attempts to get rid of current engine systems and find a more envionrmentally friendly solution (indeed, get more of the fat bastards in cars sharing rides, or even walking/bike riding: of course i realise not all those who drive are fat, nor are other existing solutions practical).

To all:

i think there are some interesting issues here.

One person said it is the "nanny state". From a supposed communist, this is a bit silly (you sound more like a die hard liberal). The state is increasingly becoming made up of normal citizens, it is no longer wholly the aristocracy looking after the plebs. The social heirarchy is breaking down (although it still exists of course). In effect therefor, it is us ourselves and our elected representatives who are banning it. The state isn&#39;t that seperate from us.

In general this smoking issue isn&#39;t a case of "liberty" either: if we use Mill as our grounding. I think he provides a decent limit to liberty - that of the "harm principle". You can do whatever you want, where-ever you want, as long as it doesn&#39;t harm another. Smoking quite clearly damages those around you (thus why doctors are so happy with the ban). It is also bloody annoying in general (i&#39;m not sure if this counts under the harm principle: as it does effect others). It is like someone coming up to you and shitting all over your clothes, and ramming crap down your throat.

Your liberty ends when it effects someone else&#39;s liberty.
Yes, you have the freedom to enjoy yourself, but not when it kills those around you (my support of this general argument explains why i personally wasn&#39;t after a full blanket ban).

In general though it does seem to be on the decline, and is becoming increasingly socially unacceptable. People are waking up. I think in another ten years in britain, smoking will be such a minor thing. I think this will help kill this drug addiction (which afterall props up some rather revolting companies).

I think in general, it is only those who are addicted to the drug who are opposed to harsh smoking restrictions.

[widget_man]

this is a stupid law. in england its innocent till proven guilty so since there is no absolute proof that second hand smoke causes cancer it must therefore be innocent. its been linked with cancer but think about it all these people who say it causes cancer i havent seen them produce one bit of proof.

To do with the bar staff i was a barman once and its all part of the job. its like saying a builder cant work on a construction site because he could fall off a ladder and die.

I hate it also when people say alcahol is different but is it because if i have ten ciggeretttes in a pub that will not kill someone but if someone has ten pints and is pissed and beats the shit out of me i would have to say that alcahol is very dangerous. Ive never heard of someone going home and beating there wife cos they smoked to many fags

Last point of my rant is i was reading the paper today and it had an interview with the owner of a working mens club in london. He stated that 80% of the working class members smoke. So your telling that 80% they cant smoke in there own club because of the 20% also the owner went on to say that people will not go to the club as much and a 5% drop of revenue would mean it would have to close. So people who say smoking has nothing to do with class is wrong

[monkeydust]

Were the fuck do you go for a pint? ....nearly all of the Pubs I drink in have at least a 50-50 ratio of smokers to non-smokers and on the occasions I&#39;ve found myself in a "Workies" of some sort, I&#39;ve found the old men who drink there virtually all smoke - and really strong tobacco too.

I don&#39;t think the proportion of smokers compared to non-smokers makes a difference. In fact the effect might "balance out" anyway: the greater the proportion of smokers in an establishment the greater the effect of passive smoking will be on those who don&#39;t smoke.

The issue remains the same: those who dont smoke and want to go to or work in pubs deserve not to have their health damaged by smokers.

And for the record, I smoke&#33;


Smoking is and probably always has been a "class issue".

In recent decades, smoking rates have been shown to be substantially higher among workers than among the middle and upper classes.

When the American Protestants began their "war on sin" (c.1890 or so), the use of tobacco was considered to be a sign of "moral degeneracy" in the working class.

Another objection was that tobacco use (in the forms of cigars and pipes) was considered a sign of upper-class status...and it was thought unseemly that the "lower orders" should emulate their "social betters" in this regard.

The truly enormous taxes on cigarettes these days (400% in the U.K.) are a "special tax" on the working class.

I don&#39;t dispute all of this. I simply dispute the implications of what you and some others are insinuating here.

It seems to me that what the pro-smokers are saying here is that in some way the ruling classes are setting out to piss off the working classes by banning smoking in pubs and bars.

That doesn&#39;t make sense. The ruling class has no particular "beef" with the working class. The issue is purely structural: those with the money want to be able to extract as much wealth from workers as possible for as long as they feasibly can. In this respect pissing off workers is actually detrimental to their cause - any law that servers to agitate and annoy the working classes runs counter to their goal.

The point on tobacco tax doesn&#39;t make sense either. If ruling classes established high taxes on smoking simply to extract more money from workers, why try and reduce cigarette consumption?


Ventilation is surprisingly cheap and not only that, but I&#39;m pretty sure that all "New Builds" over a certain size have to have - by law - a certain amount of good ventilation, like they have to have "Zoned Heating

I kind of agree on this point actually. If it could be proven that ventilation will eliminate passive smoking, and if it could be proven that it&#39;s cheap and easy to install, then I&#39;d be in favour of encouraging its installation over a blanket ban.

[piet11111]

the point still stands why cant non-smokers not go somewhare else ?
or better yet why cant they start non-smoking bars ?

if you go to a bar you are going into smokers territory you know that so imo you dont have the right to complain about it.
the arrogance to force smokers to leave their bars and other public spaces brings up associations with segregation.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by monkeydust+--> (monkeydust)The issue remains the same: those who dont smoke and want to go to or work in pubs deserve not to have their health damaged by smokers.[/b]

Well as far as I know, there is a "causal link" between passive smoking and cancer. What I missed from the original article was this....


Guardian
Fresh, the Campaign for a Smoke Free North East, welcomed the ban as a major breakthrough for the health of the people in the North East, which it said has the worst health rates in the country.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/smoking/Story/0,,1709881,00.html

What folks does the North-East have loads of? ....you guessed it, Heavy Industry.

There&#39;s a town not far from me - Port Talbot - and it used to be an Industrial power and now has one of the highest cancer rates in Britain, I bet that&#39;s blamed on smoking too.

It seems to me that I may have stumbled upon the "sinister" motive, big business doesn&#39;t want to have to pay compensation for high cancer rates and therefore by switching the focus onto smoking, you avoid more "pay-outs" like the ones the retired Miners received.

Passive smoking my arse&#33;

[monkeydust]

It seems to me that you&#39;re trying hard to force a conclusion by selecting only the evidence that tends to support it.

Think for a minute here. Balance the likelihood of the two possibilities.

Either:

A) Passive smoking is a reality. The scientific community&#39;s research is more or less conclusive and there is a direct causal relation between exhaled smoke and smoking-related illnesses appearing in those who do not smoke but inhale the smoke of others.

Or

B) The evidence and research is all fabrication and conspiracy. Lung cancer and other diseases are in fact caused by industrial smoke outputs and passive smoking is a myth.

I find it hard to believe the latter. Consider the fact that the percentage of business involved in heavy industry in Britain today is very small. How likely is it that they&#39;d be able to insinuate a scientifically-backed myth in order to save money that might come from lawsuits?

[Eoin Dubh]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 08:32 PM


if you go to a bar you are going into smokers territory you know that so imo you dont have the right to complain about it.
the arrogance to force smokers to leave their bars and other public spaces brings up associations with segregation.
Bars are drinkers territory. Smokers have no exclusive right to them.
I quit smoking tobbacco for a reason, and to be forced to breathe the second hand smoke really bugs me.
When you could still smoke in pubs here, after a few hours , my throat was burning and painful, I smelt like dirty socks, my eyes were sore, more often than not I would skip a meal with my pints as to try and eat while sitting next to a chimney is really quite disgusting.
Once for a little while just for fun and to show how hypocritical cigarette junkies could be, I purchased a pipe and a tin of tobbacco and would light up in the pub. Ha&#33; More often than not , the cigarette smokers would give me annoyed glares and the staff often asked me to go outside if you can believe it&#33;

You chose to smoke. It is unfair to force others to breathe your vile noxious fumes.

I have had super long hair most of my life and often I found it frustrating and wondered why I bothered to bathe for as soon as some addict lights up, I had to smell the stench of tobbacco smoke in my hair for days afterward.

Tobacco sucks and will kill you. Smoke something better like Ganja.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"Ganja" will kill you too. Smoking a joint is actually much worse for your lungs than smoking a cig; but who cares? I don&#39;t give a fuck if people smoke crack, do what you do, just don&#39;t bring me and other people into it.

And I have to admit, I&#39;m laughing my ass off that people here are actually saying &#39;there may be a link between cig smoke and cancer&#39;&#33; WTF? I guess asbestos might be bad for you too, huh? :lol:


If you want to go get a drink in a smoke-free bar, use that big bundle of yellow paper called a phone book and find one to go to.

Can you show me one &#39;smoke free bar&#39; in a location where smoking hasn&#39;t been banned? I&#39;ve never heard of that in my life.


Leave my fucking bar alone.

Leave my fucking lungs alone. When did it become &#39;your bar&#39;? Did you switch sides and buy a bar? :lol:

Why is it &#39;the smokers bar&#39; but not &#39;the non smokers bar&#39;? Why should people that smoke be more valued in society than those who don&#39;t?

There is one thing that is actually yours, and that&#39;s your home. No one is suggesting banning smoking there, so light up and enjoy yourself.


Were the fuck do you go for a pint? ....nearly all of the Pubs I drink in have at least a 50-50 ratio of smokers to non-smokers and on the occasions I&#39;ve found myself in a "Workies" of some sort, I&#39;ve found the old men who drink there virtually all smoke - and really strong tobacco too.

I don&#39;t go anywhere &#39;for a pint&#39;, but if I did I wouldn&#39;t want to breathe your poisonous fumes. And your point about &#39;smoke filled bars&#39; is relative. In New York every bar was full of people smoking before the ban. After the ban, guess what? The bars are still full of people, they&#39;re just not smoking.

By the line of logic of the smokers here, I could say that I get personal enjoyment out of throwing asbestos around when I go outside. Would that be alright with you all? I mean hey keep your morals out of my asbestos throwing fun you fucking prudes.

[SittingBull47]

I don&#39;t support a general smoking ban either. I agree that there are places where you shouldn&#39;t be allowed to smoke, but really.

If there&#39;s ever a law that gets passed which prevents me from having a camel with my coffee at 2:30 am in a small diner outside of Philly, I&#39;ll be pissed.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Get ready to be pissed cuz it&#39;s comin this year.

[Atlas Swallowed]

They have the no smoking crap in NY also. It used to be nice to be able to go down to the bar and have a smoke and a beer inside(I do not smoke in my home because I have children). If you don&#39;t like cigarette smoke do not go to bars, why make a law about it. Thier would have already been non-smoking bars and clubs if it were such a big demand for it. Guess some people like the government telling them what they can and can not do.

The pollution from car exhaust is alot worse than cigarette smoke for those whinning about thier lungs. If I am smoking you can get away from me, try escaping air pollution which government does little or nothing about. This is just a distraction from real issues and has more to do with control than anything else. Conditioning, fuck the state.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by CompañeroDeLibertad+Feb 15 2006, 07:53 PM--> (CompañeroDeLibertad &#064; Feb 15 2006, 07:53 PM)
If you want to go get a drink in a smoke-free bar, use that big bundle of yellow paper called a phone book and find one to go to.

Can you show me one &#39;smoke free bar&#39; in a location where smoking hasn&#39;t been banned? I&#39;ve never heard of that in my life.[/b]

There are several around where I live, and they were around long before any kind of public smoking bans went into effect.

But, for your information, here is "one &#39;smoke free bar&#39; in a location where smoking hasn&#39;t been banned". (http://www.karrasbros.com/home.htm) Also, FYI, most of the smoke-free bars around here are in the suburbs.


Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 15 2006, 07:53 PM

Leave my fucking bar alone.

Leave my fucking lungs alone. When did it become &#39;your bar&#39;? Did you switch sides and buy a bar? :lol:

Nice try. But you know what I mean.


Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 15 2006, 07:53 PM
Why is it &#39;the smokers bar&#39; but not &#39;the non smokers bar&#39;? Why should people that smoke be more valued in society than those who don&#39;t?

It&#39;s not a matter of being "more valued" at all. This is more about the fact that smokers are being devalued. It&#39;s a question of social control.


Compañ[email protected] 15 2006, 07:53 PM
There is one thing that is actually yours, and that&#39;s your home. No one is suggesting banning smoking there, so light up and enjoy yourself.

Actually, yes they are -- if you live in an apartment, that is. But, what is interesting is that the places where this is happening the most is in public (i.e., poor people&#39;s) housing.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by monkeydust+Feb 15 2006, 08:48 AM--> (monkeydust &#064; Feb 15 2006, 08:48 AM)This, for example...


People are welcome to their opinions and their morals about smoking. But that does not give those same people the right to turn their morals into my laws.

...is balls. It&#39;s not an issue of anyone forcing their morals onto you. It&#39;s an issue of preventing you from forcing any health issues you might incur from smoking onto somebody else.[/b]

And private property is an issue of preventing me from going where others don&#39;t want me to go. Nobody forces a non-smoker to go into a bar that is populated with smokers.


[email protected] 15 2006, 08:48 AM

Look, I don&#39;t have a problem with individual bars and pubs banning smoking. But I do have a problem with the state telling me that I can&#39;t enjoy a smoke with my beer in a bar or pub that otherwise would allow smoking.

I&#39;m pretty certain that a great many other people have a problem with you increasing their chances of developing lung cancer when all they want to do is have a chat and a nice pint.

They can find a non-smoking bar and go there. They&#39;re not hard to find.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 10:54 AM
Imagine what it&#39;s like to be hospitalized. Chances are you feel like shit anyway...otherwise you wouldn&#39;t be there, right? And then, just to add to your suffering, you are deprived of the solace of tobacco. :o
I don&#39;t have to imagine. When I was in the hospital for extended stays, they gave me a nicotine patch. That, combined with the straws from the ice water they gave me (which dealt with the hand-to-mouth fixation) seemed to do the trick.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by monkeydust+Feb 15 2006, 03:24 PM--> (monkeydust &#064; Feb 15 2006, 03:24 PM)It seems to me that what the pro-smokers are saying here is that in some way the ruling classes are setting out to piss off the working classes by banning smoking in pubs and bars.

That doesn&#39;t make sense. The ruling class has no particular "beef" with the working class. The issue is purely structural: those with the money want to be able to extract as much wealth from workers as possible for as long as they feasibly can. In this respect pissing off workers is actually detrimental to their cause - any law that servers to agitate and annoy the working classes runs counter to their goal.[/b]

Pissing workers off is not the goal; social control is the goal. They have cops to deal with pissed off workers. This is about controling working people&#39;s private lives and what we do with our personal time. And this social control dovetails into your argument about wanting "to be able to extract as much wealth from workers as possible for as long as they feasibly can".


[email protected] 15 2006, 03:24 PM
The point on tobacco tax doesn&#39;t make sense either. If ruling classes established high taxes on smoking simply to extract more money from workers, why try and reduce cigarette consumption?

Are they really trying to reduce cigarette consumption among workers? I walk into a store or gas station in my neighborhood, and there are wall-to-wall signs and posters for cigarettes. On the other hand, when I walk into a store or gas station in a more well-off neighborhood, I damn near have to ask if they sell cigarettes at all (and some don&#39;t). Most of the anti-smoking ads on television (apart from youth-oriented ads) are on shows or channels that appeal more to "middle class" elements. It seems to me that they&#39;re only really trying to reduce consumption among non-workers.

Miles

[encephalon]

In ohio, a lot of companies are starting to test potential empoyees for nicotine; if you have it in your system, you don&#39;t get hired. Somehow, that&#39;s legal in this state.

So much for smoking in your own home, eh?

Look: I have lung problems that far surpass that of mere asthma. Without a moment&#39;s notice, my lungs will collapse just for fun. (FYI: I am a former smoker, but the disease has nothing to do with smoking).

However, this little fact does not give me the right to impose my own will upon society as a whole. Actually, the excessive bass in cars passing by has a likelier chance of inducing a lung collapse than second hand smoke. Does this mean that I have the right to say that nobody is allowed to drive past me with loud bass-filled music on? Of course not. I can ask them to stop, and explain to them why, but they are under no obligation.

An establishment has the ability to ban or allow smoking just as much as an individual has the right to go to one establishment or another. If the majority of people want to go to a restaurant without smokers, the majority of restaurants will be non-smoking with or without legislation. The same goes for pubs.

In the anti-smoking logic, I could go to a steakhouse and complain that the carcinogens released into the air from merely cooking a steak that someone in the next booth is eating harms me, and therefore should be made illegal. I could also claim that people eating onions releases an unpleasant smell, which in turn increases my stress levels and in turn lowers my immune system, affecting my overall health. Does this mean people shouldn&#39;t be allowed to eat well-done steaks or onions?

Fucking of course not. If I have a problem with what they are doing and afraid it might affect my health, then it is my responsibility to minimize my exposure to it without impeding upon the right of others to do actions which I find unhealthy. It&#39;s as simple as that.

[dusk]

I&#39;ve recently learned that the british government is gonna put in a smoking ban
in to pubs restaurants and other public places in januari 2007.
Me as a smoker from the netherlands, sees the storm already coming.
I know that non-smokers are happy about it (probably).
And I understand that offcourse. (health issues).
But I can&#39;t see myself in a bar without my familiar sigaret.
I&#39;m one of those people who needs to smoke with a drink.
And knowing my country, we&#39;ll have a smoking ban soon.
And I&#39;m afraid about what happens next&#33;
A garlic ban?
So many small things are getting restricted these days.
That I start to have problems even living my life&#33;
Does anybody has a opinion about this subject? :blink:

[Nathe]

after having a few smokes myself without letting it get out of controll, i rekon theres no real advantage other then the small relaxation, and the &#39;cool&#39; bit (and its always cool to go smoking and fuck up your lungs so much you have to carry an oxygen bottle(someone told me a story how 30 years of heavy smoking reduced a man to having trouble getting to the letter box )).

its personally stupid, and i rekon it will slowly die out after the destruction of capitalism... half of it is due to advertising and peer pressure, half which will dissapear with capitalism...

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by CompañeroDeLibertad
There is one thing that is actually yours, and that&#39;s your home. No one is suggesting banning smoking there, so light up and enjoy yourself.

An increasing number of ads for apartments in the U.S. actually include the phrase "non-smokers only".

Discrimination against smokers in rental units is perfectly legal in the U.S.


"Ganja" will kill you too.

Funny, I missed that "medical breakthrough".

But then, isn&#39;t it the case these days that all of the new "scientific" results claim that every form of chemical pleasure is "bad for you"?

If I didn&#39;t know better, I&#39;d be tempted to conclude that the entire edifice of "science" concerning drugs was firmly in the hands of the Mormon Church&#33; :lol:

Be that as it may, we&#39;ll have to do the basic research "all over again" after the revolution. People with a neo-puritan agenda cannot be trusted to tell the truth...about tobacco use or anything else. :angry:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Funny, I missed that "medical breakthrough".

Apparently it was before 1984, cuz that&#39;s when this was published:


Originally posted by National Institue on Drug Abuse (US)+--> (National Institue on Drug Abuse (US))Marijuana smoke has been found to contain more cancer-causing agents than is found in tobacco smoke. Examination of human lung tissue that had been exposed to marijuana smoke over a long period of time in a laboratory showed cellular changes called metaplasia that are considered precancerous. In laboratory test, the tars from marijuana smoke have produced tumors when applied to animal skin. These studies suggest that it is likely that marijuana may cause cancer if used for a number of years.

Scientists believe that marijuana can be especially harmful to the lungs because users often inhale the unfiltered smoke deeply and hold it in their lungs as long as possible. Therefore, the smoke is in contact with lung tissues for long periods of time, which irritates the lungs and damages the way they work. Marijuana smoke contains some of the same ingredients in tobacco smoke that can cause emphysema and cancer.

Marijuana use increases the heart rate as much as 50 percent, depending on the amount of THC. It can cause chest pain in people who have a poor blood supply to the heart - and it produces these effects more rapidly than tobacco smoke does.[/b]


Ask Alice
Conclusions about long-term drug effects need long-term research studies, and that&#39;s why the jury is still out on some of the cannabis consequences that may show up down the road. Despite the fact that humans have been growing the marijuana plant for thousands of years, and using it recreationally in the U.S. since the early twentieth century, its effects have not been as thoroughly studied as those of tobacco and cigarette smoking.

From the studies which have been conducted, we know that incidents of cancer from cigarette smoking are far more numerous than cancers from smoking pot, at least in part because more people smoke cigarettes. Also, even frequent marijuana users consume less than heavy cigarette smokers. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that marijuana smokers do tend to inhale more deeply and keep the smoke in their lungs for a longer period than tobacco smokers. It is possible that these behaviors increase the lung&#39;s exposure to the chemical by-products of smoking. Burning marijuana for smoking releases many substances other than THC, the ingredient which produces the drug&#39;s psychoactive effects. THC does not appear to be carcinogenic, but some of the other chemicals released by both marijuana and tobacco smoke are problematic. These include tar, carbon monoxide, and cyanide. One known carcinogen, benzopyrene, though found in both types of smoke, seems to be greater in pot smoke.

When it comes to health problems related to breathing and their lungs, heavy smokers of either substance have more difficulty than nonsmokers. These include chronic cough, phlegm, wheezing, and bronchitis. Recent studies have indicated that people who smoke both marijuana and tobacco may be more likely to develop lung cancer, and at an earlier age, than smokers of tobacco alone.

There are some other things to think about. For one, pot is usually not smoked with a filter. Using one would cut down on the amount of "bad" chemicals entering the body. Also, consuming marijuana through a water pipe, or bong, would eliminate some of the by-products of smoking. Some researchers also suggest that inhaling marijuana deep into the lungs and holding it there is something smokers should stop doing. Apparently, this ritualized practice does not significantly increase the drug&#39;s effect anyway.

For now, it does appear that pot smokers may run an increased risk of cancer, as well as bronchial irritation and possibly other health problems.

[Eoin Dubh]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 09:39 AM

An increasing number of ads for apartments in the U.S. actually include the phrase "non-smokers only".

Discrimination against smokers in rental units is perfectly legal in the U.S.


Could this perhaps be a result of higher fire insurance premiums?
The people who lived in the apt. above mine were careless with a smoke and the resultant fire, smoke, water, and looter damage ruined my whole year. :(

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by monkeydust+--> (monkeydust)It seems to me that you&#39;re trying hard to force a conclusion by selecting only the evidence that tends to support it.[/b]

I admit my speculation is probably a bit "far out", but one things for sure - the ruling class always has a motive and it&#39;s often very sinister.

There&#39;s bound to be a "catch" and one day we&#39;ll find it out.


Originally posted by CompañeroDeLibertad+--> (CompañeroDeLibertad)And I have to admit, I&#39;m laughing my ass off that people here are actually saying &#39;there may be a link between cig smoke and cancer&#39;&#33; WTF? I guess asbestos might be bad for you too, huh?[/b]

Well your making a bit of a strawman here.

Firstly, asbestos is incredibly damaging and you only need to have a couple of strands enter your lungs before it starts causing problems.

Secondly, from my limited knowledge of school Science, I remember that the main problem with smoking is that the tar blocks your "cilia hairs" and this in turn prevents your "natural defences" from blocking out damaging fumes.

So it seems to me that the likely link between smokers and cancer is that after they smoke and block their "cilia hairs", toxins from the air - not cigarettes - start entering the lungs and causing problems.

The higher cancer rates in areas with high toxin levels in the air - Industrial towns - supports such a hypothesis.

Indeed whilst I accept that smoking in and of itself can cause cancer in certain people - I think there have been some studies that have shown people with certain genes are immune to the negative effects of smoking. I&#39;d dispute that passive smoking in and of itself could, especially as most passive smokers don&#39;t inhale all that much of the damaging chemicals.

It seems to me that if anything, smoking simply makes it easier to inhale damaging toxins whilst only contributing a tiny amount to the actual damage. And I doubt that passive smoking actual contributes anything of note at all, certainly not enough to warrant a ban.


Originally posted by CompañeroDeLibertad
There is one thing that is actually yours, and that&#39;s your home. No one is suggesting banning smoking there, so light up and enjoy yourself.

Well a few people have suggested that only allowing smoking in peoples homes is especially damaging if you&#39;re really worried about "passive smoking".

People sleep, eat and shit in that environment and also there are often also children there. Pubs on the other hand have decent ventilation, are only occupied for a short period of time and as a rule - exclude children.

After all, if there was to be any sense in a law stopping passive smoking, you&#39;d look at how best to stop children getting harmed first wouldn&#39;t you?


Atlas [email protected]
Thier would have already been non-smoking bars and clubs if it were such a big demand for it.

As someone already commented, us smokers are more interesting people.

After all, what does someone who doesn&#39;t drink, smoke or do drugs talk about? ....tofu and yoga of course. :lol:


CommunistLeague
When I was in the hospital for extended stays, they gave me a nicotine patch.

I found nicotine patches horrible, they gave me really weird and horrible dreams.

Plus, if you have a fag whilst wearing one, you feel like you&#39;ve entered another world.

[fernando]

This is really horrible..no more smoking in pubs&#33; Earlier in the thread it was mentioned that if a pub would get seperated with a smoking section and a non smoking section it would result in a full smoking section and an empty non smoking section. Well duh&#33; Non smokers want fresh air when they go out? Well stand outside&#33;&#33;&#33; healthy fuckers...I want to smoke a ciggy when Im in a pub, that shouldnt be a too horrible problem&#33; Oh wait...this law was put into action in the UK right...I&#39;ll just totally ignore the air pollution there <_<

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 08:36 AM
In San Francisco, it is now a crime to smoke a cigarette in a public park. :(
Now that is completely sick. :angry:
Nobody tells me if I can smoke or not, unless of course it disturbs people around me, in which case I&#39;ll just go smoke somewhat further away.
Fuck this ban.

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Feb 14 2006, 10:43 PM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Feb 14 2006, 10:43 PM) Ah poo&#33; :(

I was actually in a Weatherspoons in Bath yesterday and that was "No Smoking" - I almost died of hypothermia going outside for a fag.

Personally, I don&#39;t see why they don&#39;t divide places up into "Smoking" and "No Smoking" sections and ventilate the "Smoking" sections really well.

Anyway....


Guardian
Fresh, the Campaign for a Smoke Free North East, welcomed the ban as a major breakthrough for the health of the people in the North East, which it said has the worst health rates in the country.

Yeah the Government is helping ensure the "health" of people by banning smoking, but the same Government won&#39;t give women with breast cancer a potentially beneficial drug.

There&#39;s bound to be something "fishy" about this and I can&#39;t wait to find out what. [/b]
do you live in bath? we should meet up. no better way to get the rev going than meeting each other.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by chairmanmick
do you live in bath?

Nah, I live in Swansea.

I went to Bath on a "College trip" to look at architecture, however Weatherspoons and O&#39;Neils seemed more attractive venues so we spent the day in there. :)

It&#39;s a nice city though.

[FULL METAL JACKET]

In New York City, what has emerged are "smoke-easys" -- that is, people with large apartments can turn them into informal pubs (one or two nights per week) where alcohol is served and people can smoke. This is completely illegal, of course. biggrin.gif


Never heard of that, New Yorkers aren&#39;t that desperate to smoke.