what about kippers?
lp
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Pubs vs smoking?
last reply
127 replies
5.7k views
1 watcher
0 likes
Where's the human rights lawyers when you need one. 
For the record I still smoke in my works unit, I will continue to smoke in it. I will not have some health twit dictating to me that I cannot smoke in my own unit, or in my own van.
If people want to come into MY unit and complain, they have the choice that I do not.;...they can feck off.
For the record I still smoke in my works unit, I will continue to smoke in it. I will not have some health twit dictating to me that I cannot smoke in my own unit, or in my own van.
If people want to come into MY unit and complain, they have the choice that I do not.;...they can feck off.
Sex God
Quote by kentswingers777
Where's the human rights lawyers when you need one.
For the record I still smoke in my works unit, I will continue to smoke in it. I will not have some health twit dictating to me that I cannot smoke in my own unit, or in my own van.
If people want to come into MY unit and complain, they have the choice that I do not.;...they can feck off.
We do as well mate (confidentially), but watch out for the smoking police , instant two grand fine and the feckers will search right to the bottom of your bins and every corner of the feckin place.
Got a light ?
Sex God
Quote by __random_orbit__
what about kippers?
lp
Smoke me one for breakfast
I remember having this debate just before the ban came into force, my thoughts now are exactly the same as they were then, the only sane, respectful and sensible way to do it was to have non smoking and smoking pubs at a level which tracked the amount of smokers in the population.
I see the 'how much does smoking cost the NHS' argument has come up again, in response, the figures are there, I'm sure Google will be your friend, but in a nutshell the answer is,
Not nearly as much as cigarette tax puts into the economy, if i remember correctly about 4-5 billion less actually and by way of balance, the cost to the NHS and society of alcohol related treatment (this includes violence, RTC's, the aftermath of drunk driving as well as the disease's it causes) is somewhere near double that of smoking.
Go figure eh?
I see the 'how much does smoking cost the NHS' argument has come up again, in response, the figures are there, I'm sure Google will be your friend, but in a nutshell the answer is,
Not nearly as much as cigarette tax puts into the economy, if i remember correctly about 4-5 billion less actually and by way of balance, the cost to the NHS and society of alcohol related treatment (this includes violence, RTC's, the aftermath of drunk driving as well as the disease's it causes) is somewhere near double that of smoking.
Go figure eh?
Sex God
Morning folks,
Forgive me, but I can't figure out how to copy and paste several responses into a single thread and I'm a bit pushed for time but I wanted to clarify a couple of issues:-
Firstly I am not for a total ban on smoking or making it illegal. I am for choice. The choice to go to a pub that will be smoke free or not. I think Mr Kent mentioned it before but I think perhaps having Smoke Free and Smoker Friendly pubs is a great idea. To be honest, I wonder why this hasn't been talked about at Governmental level. Perhaps it is too difficult (IE, they can't be arsed) to implement? I certainly cannot find any fault with this idea.
The Tax issue, I have sympathy with you on. I feel that smokers are an easy victim for any Government to levy unfair taxes against, as are drivers. I don't have time to research figures of generated tax revenue against costs as I don't see that adds weight to your or my argument, all I would say is tha most of the tax we generate does not get spent on what we would like it to, in the same way all the money raised from car tax does not get spent on the roads. So smokers are no different on that score to many other members of society whose taxes are used to subsidise other areas. For me that's an argument with Governmental financial policy (and a good one) not an argument against not smoking in pubs.
As for you smoking in your car Mr K, that should remain your choice? I'm baffled if this is against the law for some reason? Or is it company policy?
As for the comment about Human rights, they are not denying you your rights to smoke, but simply to smoke in areas where it can impact others who do not wish to share in it. In the same way as if I decided to practice throwing the Javelin on a school playground, it may be better if I did it in an open field somewhere away from people.
As for the smoking lobbyists who declare that no research has ever proven anything I found this article which backs up your claim.
But then again you delve a little deeper.
I know it is Wikipedia and I don't quote it as weighty evidence, merely an overview of the issues at hand.
From the Roy Castle site : "Every year nearly 3,400 people die in UK from lung cancer caused by passive smoking."
- Link to a document, make of it what you will.
(BAT in the initial quotation is British and American Tobacco)
-
The last lines of the article which details the claims of those who say passive smoking isn't a risk read - "Additionally, far more reliable data was obtained in the ACS Cancer Prevention Study II (CPS-II) study, which was about 10 times larger than Dr. Enstrom's work. They enrolled patients in the 1980s, when fewer exposures to tobacco smoke outside the home existed, and therefore far less "background noise", and follow-up has been much better (over 99 per cent). The results unquestionably show an increased risk of lung cancer and heart disease."
That was just from the first page of Google.
Please don't think I am a smoke Nazi, and I am all for everyone having a choice. As Mr Kent said, and I think someone else mentioned too, i see no problem with smoke free and smoke friendly pubs. I have no interest in stopping smokers, only stopping the effects impinging on others negatively.
And... I think this was a fairly rational argument. Just because I haven't agreed with certain people this time, I don't think makes it any less balanced or reasonable than any other posts. I've ignored the attempts at condescending sarcasm, which usually start a thread down the slippery slope to ruin and tried to keep the argument on task and backed up what I believe with the evidence I've seen first hand myself and read.
I've no wish to fall out with anybody so this will be my last word on the topic. I'll just say that I can agree to disagree, but as Silk and Big G rightly say it is an issue of civil liberties. Liberties which until recently Non Smokers had no say in. They went into pubs and put up with it. Smokers can still smoke, and non smokers can now go places and not have to put up with it. That to me is greater freedom of liberty than what was previous.
Finally, these articles also makes interesting reading:
Smokers have a right to feel aggrieved at some things. Taxation for one and the double standards of the fact that they are taxed so much and yet seemingly vilified. That is not my intention here. My argument is not to stop smoking but to negate the detrimental impact it has on others who do not want to suffer it's effects. It is not about taking liberties away from anybody, but ensuring everyone has the option to drink / eat / work in a place where smoke will not cause them problems.
Forgive me, but I can't figure out how to copy and paste several responses into a single thread and I'm a bit pushed for time but I wanted to clarify a couple of issues:-
Firstly I am not for a total ban on smoking or making it illegal. I am for choice. The choice to go to a pub that will be smoke free or not. I think Mr Kent mentioned it before but I think perhaps having Smoke Free and Smoker Friendly pubs is a great idea. To be honest, I wonder why this hasn't been talked about at Governmental level. Perhaps it is too difficult (IE, they can't be arsed) to implement? I certainly cannot find any fault with this idea.
The Tax issue, I have sympathy with you on. I feel that smokers are an easy victim for any Government to levy unfair taxes against, as are drivers. I don't have time to research figures of generated tax revenue against costs as I don't see that adds weight to your or my argument, all I would say is tha most of the tax we generate does not get spent on what we would like it to, in the same way all the money raised from car tax does not get spent on the roads. So smokers are no different on that score to many other members of society whose taxes are used to subsidise other areas. For me that's an argument with Governmental financial policy (and a good one) not an argument against not smoking in pubs.
As for you smoking in your car Mr K, that should remain your choice? I'm baffled if this is against the law for some reason? Or is it company policy?
As for the comment about Human rights, they are not denying you your rights to smoke, but simply to smoke in areas where it can impact others who do not wish to share in it. In the same way as if I decided to practice throwing the Javelin on a school playground, it may be better if I did it in an open field somewhere away from people.
As for the smoking lobbyists who declare that no research has ever proven anything I found this article which backs up your claim.
But then again you delve a little deeper.
I know it is Wikipedia and I don't quote it as weighty evidence, merely an overview of the issues at hand.
From the Roy Castle site : "Every year nearly 3,400 people die in UK from lung cancer caused by passive smoking."
- Link to a document, make of it what you will.
(BAT in the initial quotation is British and American Tobacco)
-
The last lines of the article which details the claims of those who say passive smoking isn't a risk read - "Additionally, far more reliable data was obtained in the ACS Cancer Prevention Study II (CPS-II) study, which was about 10 times larger than Dr. Enstrom's work. They enrolled patients in the 1980s, when fewer exposures to tobacco smoke outside the home existed, and therefore far less "background noise", and follow-up has been much better (over 99 per cent). The results unquestionably show an increased risk of lung cancer and heart disease."
That was just from the first page of Google.
Please don't think I am a smoke Nazi, and I am all for everyone having a choice. As Mr Kent said, and I think someone else mentioned too, i see no problem with smoke free and smoke friendly pubs. I have no interest in stopping smokers, only stopping the effects impinging on others negatively.
And... I think this was a fairly rational argument. Just because I haven't agreed with certain people this time, I don't think makes it any less balanced or reasonable than any other posts. I've ignored the attempts at condescending sarcasm, which usually start a thread down the slippery slope to ruin and tried to keep the argument on task and backed up what I believe with the evidence I've seen first hand myself and read.
I've no wish to fall out with anybody so this will be my last word on the topic. I'll just say that I can agree to disagree, but as Silk and Big G rightly say it is an issue of civil liberties. Liberties which until recently Non Smokers had no say in. They went into pubs and put up with it. Smokers can still smoke, and non smokers can now go places and not have to put up with it. That to me is greater freedom of liberty than what was previous.
Finally, these articles also makes interesting reading:
Smokers have a right to feel aggrieved at some things. Taxation for one and the double standards of the fact that they are taxed so much and yet seemingly vilified. That is not my intention here. My argument is not to stop smoking but to negate the detrimental impact it has on others who do not want to suffer it's effects. It is not about taking liberties away from anybody, but ensuring everyone has the option to drink / eat / work in a place where smoke will not cause them problems.
Paying taxes to the government doesn't buy anyone the right to make me ill.
Smoker friendly pubs could work in principle. However, ensuring they were staffed by people who had genuinely volunteered for the jobs couold be a nightmare. I'd imagine they'd have to sign disclaimers too...it could be a minefield.
Smoker friendly pubs could work in principle. However, ensuring they were staffed by people who had genuinely volunteered for the jobs couold be a nightmare. I'd imagine they'd have to sign disclaimers too...it could be a minefield.
Sex God
Quote by kentswingers777
Where's the human rights lawyers when you need one.
For the record I still smoke in my works unit, I will continue to smoke in it. I will not have some health twit dictating to me that I cannot smoke in my own unit, or in my own van.
If people want to come into MY unit and complain, they have the choice that I do not.;...they can feck off.
You don't need a human rights lawyer... you just need some common sense! :wink:
By smoking in your work you're already breaking the law. If your work unit is inhabited by other employees then not only are you breaking the law but you're being pretty selfish too.
I'm a smoker. I've smoked for the best part of 20 years. Not proud of that, it's merely a fact. I'd like to think I'm a considerate smoker and in fact can't really find fault with Res's post above.
The smoking ban didn't really affect me much and it was enforced in Scotland at least (if not more than) a year before it was brought out in England. I've smoked outside for the best part of the 20 years I've smoked so it was neither here nor there for me when the law changed. I still smoke outside, even at home I hang out the window. I do smoke in my car, but generally not if there are non smokers with me.
I choose to smoke. Other people choose not to. I'm not going to force others to breathe in my smoke, just as I'd expect other people not to force their habits on me. I sometimes have a ciggie at the bus stop in the mornings, I stand at least 20 metres away from anyone else. It's just about being considerate and having some respect for the other people around you.
If they brought in smoking pubs alongside the non-smoking pubs, I'd still go to the non-smoking pub and stand outside. I like to smoke outside. :wink:
The tax bothers me... my best mate lives in Gibraltar and you can buy 20 fags there for just over a quid.
That gets my goat but to be fair I do smuggle a whole heap more than I should out of there when I go to visit as she does when she comes home. :lol:See now all this chat about smoking has made me want one!
Sex God
I hate the smell of smoke...it makes me feel sick, my clothes and hair stink and it's very expensive and could potentially make me die. Absolutely no benefits for me whatsoever. So I choose not to smoke or be near it.
Someone who smokes can go the the pub and smoke in the designated area for smokers. If their local pub doesn't have an acceptable area, that is a failure of the pub to keep it's customers happy not the fault of a non smoker. They can also smoke in their own car or in their own house or whilst walking the dog etc etc...There are many opportunities to smoke whilst not affecting anyone else who doesn't.
I can't see a problem really. The argument that more tax is generated from smoking carries no weight with me either as I don't give a toss about how much tax is generated as I don't see the benefit of that in my daily life either.
Someone who smokes can go the the pub and smoke in the designated area for smokers. If their local pub doesn't have an acceptable area, that is a failure of the pub to keep it's customers happy not the fault of a non smoker. They can also smoke in their own car or in their own house or whilst walking the dog etc etc...There are many opportunities to smoke whilst not affecting anyone else who doesn't.
I can't see a problem really. The argument that more tax is generated from smoking carries no weight with me either as I don't give a toss about how much tax is generated as I don't see the benefit of that in my daily life either.
Sex God
Quote by Witchy
Excellent, sensible post that woman. Now, who are you, and what have you done with DG?
Why thank you... normal service will be resumed when I've got some nicotine in my system! :giggle:
Sex God
Quote by Resonance
(I just wanted to see if I could do an "angry" thread as I've not done one yet really... What do you think? Was it a good first attempt?)
It's not bad Res, not bad at all. I have only minor criticisms of it really. First off, it's a bit too coherent for my liking. In my opinion, you cannot be said to have dived headlong into full-on rant mode territory if your post still makes some kinda sense when you read it back in the morning. The acid test is when you're forced to wonder 'WTF were you on about you daft sod?'
Second, there's not enough swearing in it. Yes, you made a valiant attempt with the odd bloody and shite, but I'd have preferred a good smattering of fecks and stuff, just to add a bit more of the old 'I'm really fuckin' angry now, now look what you made me do!' authenticity to it. Still, on the whole it's a fine first attempt. 
Hope this helps? ;)
Anyways, back on topic . . . I've actually come to quite like the smoking ban. It turns nipping out for a social fag with a load of drunks talking shite at you into a social event.
Gem doesn't much like being left on her own, so I only nip out when I really need one, which saves me a fortune. Can't remember the last time I went through 40 fags on a night out in the pub, which was par for the course previously. Not entirely convinced we couldn't have muddled on with no-smoking sections or an optional scheme tailored to the clientele, depending on whether we're talking spit and sawdust traditional boozer, or up-market eatery, and I'm not entirely convinced the passive smoking argument applies in circumstances where the staff are already smokers themselves, so again, optional seems preferable, but I do agree as a smoker I have no real right to expect others to put up with what I admit to be a filthy, disgusting, massively damaging habit.
Neil x x x ;)
Quote by Dirtygirly
Where's the human rights lawyers when you need one.
For the record I still smoke in my works unit, I will continue to smoke in it. I will not have some health twit dictating to me that I cannot smoke in my own unit, or in my own van.
If people want to come into MY unit and complain, they have the choice that I do not.;...they can feck off.
You don't need a human rights lawyer... you just need some common sense! :wink:
By smoking in your work you're already breaking the law. If your work unit is inhabited by other employees then not only are you breaking the law but you're being pretty selfish too.
I'm a smoker. I've smoked for the best part of 20 years. Not proud of that, it's merely a fact. I'd like to think I'm a considerate smoker and in fact can't really find fault with Res's post above.
The smoking ban didn't really affect me much and it was enforced in Scotland at least (if not more than) a year before it was brought out in England. I've smoked outside for the best part of the 20 years I've smoked so it was neither here nor there for me when the law changed. I still smoke outside, even at home I hang out the window. I do smoke in my car, but generally not if there are non smokers with me.
I choose to smoke. Other people choose not to. I'm not going to force others to breathe in my smoke, just as I'd expect other people not to force their habits on me. I sometimes have a ciggie at the bus stop in the mornings, I stand at least 20 metres away from anyone else. It's just about being considerate and having some respect for the other people around you.
If they brought in smoking pubs alongside the non-smoking pubs, I'd still go to the non-smoking pub and stand outside. I like to smoke outside. :wink:
The tax bothers me... my best mate lives in Gibraltar and you can buy 20 fags there for just over a quid.
That gets my goat but to be fair I do smuggle a whole heap more than I should out of there when I go to visit as she does when she comes home. :lol:See now all this chat about smoking has made me want one!
I have plenty of that, shame others sometimes do not. :wink:
There are three of us working here and we all smoke. So we must all be selfish then?
As for what Res asked about smoking in my van. It is ILLEGAL to smoke in a company van, whether you own it or not. But I will take my chances with the state police.
Sex God
Quote by kentswingers777
Where's the human rights lawyers when you need one.
For the record I still smoke in my works unit, I will continue to smoke in it. I will not have some health twit dictating to me that I cannot smoke in my own unit, or in my own van.
If people want to come into MY unit and complain, they have the choice that I do not.;...they can feck off.
You don't need a human rights lawyer... you just need some common sense! :wink:
By smoking in your work you're already breaking the law. If your work unit is inhabited by other employees then not only are you breaking the law but you're being pretty selfish too.
I'm a smoker. I've smoked for the best part of 20 years. Not proud of that, it's merely a fact. I'd like to think I'm a considerate smoker and in fact can't really find fault with Res's post above.
The smoking ban didn't really affect me much and it was enforced in Scotland at least (if not more than) a year before it was brought out in England. I've smoked outside for the best part of the 20 years I've smoked so it was neither here nor there for me when the law changed. I still smoke outside, even at home I hang out the window. I do smoke in my car, but generally not if there are non smokers with me.
I choose to smoke. Other people choose not to. I'm not going to force others to breathe in my smoke, just as I'd expect other people not to force their habits on me. I sometimes have a ciggie at the bus stop in the mornings, I stand at least 20 metres away from anyone else. It's just about being considerate and having some respect for the other people around you.
If they brought in smoking pubs alongside the non-smoking pubs, I'd still go to the non-smoking pub and stand outside. I like to smoke outside. :wink:
The tax bothers me... my best mate lives in Gibraltar and you can buy 20 fags there for just over a quid.
That gets my goat but to be fair I do smuggle a whole heap more than I should out of there when I go to visit as she does when she comes home. :lol:See now all this chat about smoking has made me want one!
I have plenty of that, shame others sometimes do not. :wink:
There are three of us working here and we all smoke. So we must all be selfish then?
As for what Res asked about smoking in my van. It is ILLEGAL to smoke in a company van, whether you own it or not. But I will take my chances with the state police.
Ahhh, thanks for that Mr K, I wasn't aware that it was a company van... I thought it was your own, which to me sounded ludicrous...
If it's the companies property then I suppose they have the right to ask for it to be used in a certain way. You may see it as a "state police", I just see it as good manners and consideration for others.
Sex God
Quote by kentswingers777
I have plenty of that, shame others sometimes do not.
There are three of us working here and we all smoke. So we must all be selfish then?
As for what Res asked about smoking in my van. It is ILLEGAL to smoke in a company van, whether you own it or not. But I will take my chances with the state police.
If the three of you choose to smoke there then you're still breaking the law but it's up to your employer to enforce it, if they're turning a blind eye then lucky you... until someone reports them or until you have a non-smoking employee work with you in the future.
If you ever have anyone who is a non-smoker enter the building you all choose to smoke in then yes, it's selfish. If not then you're only passively smoking each others' smoke so knock yourselves out. I just hope a non-smoker doesn't have to come and work in your building because that's not particularly nice environment to come into, not only will you three have to stop, but the new employee will have to sit in your stinky stale smoke unit.
Oh... and just so you know... State Police are American and the last time I looked we were in the UK so you'd need to drive pretty far to get stopped by the State Police!
For the record....it is my and my partners van and company. So I suppose I am also an employer.
I shall choose to do what I want with regard to my smoking in MY van and MY unit.
With reference to the " state police ", that word has always meant to me to mean like those KGB agents in Russia.
As Silk said, I can imagine them from the local bully boy council, searching your bins for the " evidence ". My God what has happened to this country?
It is going down a slow slippery slop into oblivion. No wonder the rest of Europe laugh at us.
I shall choose to do what I want with regard to my smoking in MY van and MY unit.
With reference to the " state police ", that word has always meant to me to mean like those KGB agents in Russia.
As Silk said, I can imagine them from the local bully boy council, searching your bins for the " evidence ". My God what has happened to this country?
It is going down a slow slippery slop into oblivion. No wonder the rest of Europe laugh at us.
Quote by Resonance
Why mention the cars? that's an entirely different issue, last time I looked most vehicles tended to be outside too, where smoking IS allowed. My argument is why inflict on others something potentially harmful, even if you don't believe it to be so, what they don't want simply because you do?
I also believe even 1 life is worth saving, regardless of how many smokers are inconvenienced.
For the record, I'd love all cars to be powered by hydrogen fuel celled and produce nothing but water as a byproduct. I'd happily support that too. Hopefully in time it will come to pass.
Forgive the hijack..
Now that the oil magnates are out of the White House, maybe, just maybe we'll get serious injections of cash into the development of alternative clean fuels. seems to doing the right thing there.
The comment about outside clean air and it's apparent disassociation with the smoking issue isn't misplaced. Remember the "Clean Air Act"? I well remember smogs in the 50's and 60's caused by uncontrolled burning of fossil based fuels and the health issues that it caused.
Transport/industrial pollutants are still a significant issue and there is little, if any reprieve from the harm these do to those unfortunate enough to live in or downwind from highly populated/industrialised areas in proportion to the smoking issue.
Take to the hills above some of the northern industrialised areas (if there are any left!) and look at the filthy "haze" covering the area :shock: I doubt that smoking inside or outside makes very much difference there.
I'm a non smoker btw.
Sex God
Well Kenty, provided your building belongs to you, is not open to the public, never has anyone other than you and your fellow smoking employees in it then I dare say there's not much anyone could do. If you do have visitors to your place of work then you'd best hope they don't report you.
The Environmental Health Officers (as they are correctly known) certainly wouldn't have to rake through your bins looking for evidence. With three smokers in one unit I'd imagine the evidence is fairly obvious to whoever comes in.
So unless one of your employees decides to quit smoking then I guess you can carry on polluting each other. If that changes then you'd have to change your way of thinking.
The Environmental Health Officers (as they are correctly known) certainly wouldn't have to rake through your bins looking for evidence. With three smokers in one unit I'd imagine the evidence is fairly obvious to whoever comes in.
So unless one of your employees decides to quit smoking then I guess you can carry on polluting each other. If that changes then you'd have to change your way of thinking.
Sex God
Quote by GnV
Why mention the cars? that's an entirely different issue, last time I looked most vehicles tended to be outside too, where smoking IS allowed. My argument is why inflict on others something potentially harmful, even if you don't believe it to be so, what they don't want simply because you do?
I also believe even 1 life is worth saving, regardless of how many smokers are inconvenienced.
For the record, I'd love all cars to be powered by hydrogen fuel celled and produce nothing but water as a byproduct. I'd happily support that too. Hopefully in time it will come to pass.
Forgive the hijack..
Now that the oil magnates are out of the White House, maybe, just maybe we'll get serious injections of cash into the development of alternative clean fuels. seems to doing the right thing there.
The comment about outside clean air and it's apparent disassociation with the smoking issue isn't misplaced. Remember the "Clean Air Act"? I well remember smogs in the 50's and 60's caused by uncontrolled burning of fossil based fuels and the health issues that it caused.
Transport/industrial pollutants are still a significant issue and there is little, if any reprieve from the harm these do to those unfortunate enough to live in or downwind from highly populated/industrialised areas in proportion to the smoking issue.
Take to the hills above some of the northern industrialised areas (if there are any left!) and look at the filthy "haze" covering the area :shock: I doubt that smoking inside or outside makes very much difference there.
I'm a non smoker btw.
I agree with the notion of investing in cleaner cars for the future. Air pollution is of course a major problem. As you say getting rid of the oil magnates and their influence from The Whitehouse will hopefully have a huge effect. It needs to be huge too I feel.
I'm not saying air quality isn't a problem, or the smogs or pollution caused by them. That does need to be addressed. However I would argue that smoking inside is far more potent because the carcinogens are condensed into a much smaller confined area, rather than dispersed into an atmosphere of trillions of tonnes of other gases. Further evidence is provided by research into smokers and non smokers who live in the same area. I think I linked to it in an earlier post. These families breathed the same air outside (however polluted) and yet homes where a person was a smoker led to 24% increase in smoking related illnesses amongst those who lived in that environment but didn't smoke. To quote the summation of the article :-
"More than 50 studies on the health impacts of passive smoking have been carried out over the past 25 years, including a number of landmark studies providing significant evidence of passive smoking risks. Such work includes research by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health and the ACS.
Notable research includes a study published in the BMJ in 1997, conducted by Hackshaw and colleagues, which analysed 37 passive smoking studies and found a 24 per cent increase in lung cancer among people living with smokers. In fact, said the charity Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), "Tobacco specific carcinogens found in the blood of non-smokers provided clear evidence of the effect of passive smoking."
Additionally, far more reliable data was obtained in the ACS Cancer Prevention Study II (CPS-II) study, which was about 10 times larger than Dr. Enstrom's work. They enrolled patients in the 1980s, when fewer exposures to tobacco smoke outside the home existed, and therefore far less "background noise", and follow-up has been much better (over 99 per cent). The results unquestionably show an increased risk of lung cancer and heart disease."
To me that suggests you are not far off increasing the chances of giving someone who you spend time with, near 25% of a chance more of Lung of Heart Disease. Before anyone says that for this to happen you'd need to spend all day and every day with them, the WHO stated that negative effects of passive smoking start within 30 minutes of being exposed to it. To quote :
"Breathing in other people's smoke can cause eye irritation, headache, cough, sore throat, dizziness and nausea. Just 30 minutes exposure can be enough to reduce blood flow through the heart."
"There is also evidence to show that people with asthma can experience a significant decline in lung function when exposed."
The same article reveals that research has shown that people subjected to passive smoking at home, and in the workplace see their likelihood of disease increase to around 50%.
As such, I think despite air quality outside being poor, I wouldn't see that as being the equal of passive smoking inside at all.
That said, we still have to take drastic steps to improve air quality for all. As soon as the Hydrogen Fuel Cell is widely available here at a price that is affordable, I'll be changing to it immediately.
Incidentally, I've purposely not stated if I am a smoker or non-smoker. Though it seems many people have already made up their mind!
Quote by Dirtygirly
Well Kenty, provided your building belongs to you, is not open to the public, never has anyone other than you and your fellow smoking employees in it then I dare say there's not much anyone could do. If you do have visitors to your place of work then you'd best hope they don't report you.
The Environmental Health Officers (as they are correctly known) certainly wouldn't have to rake through your bins looking for evidence. With three smokers in one unit I'd imagine the evidence is fairly obvious to whoever comes in.
So unless one of your employees decides to quit smoking then I guess you can carry on polluting each other. If that changes then you'd have to change your way of thinking.
Well Dirty as you have obviously never broken the law, then I bow to your superior thinking.
Sex God
Quote by kentswingers777
Well Kenty, provided your building belongs to you, is not open to the public, never has anyone other than you and your fellow smoking employees in it then I dare say there's not much anyone could do. If you do have visitors to your place of work then you'd best hope they don't report you.
The Environmental Health Officers (as they are correctly known) certainly wouldn't have to rake through your bins looking for evidence. With three smokers in one unit I'd imagine the evidence is fairly obvious to whoever comes in.
So unless one of your employees decides to quit smoking then I guess you can carry on polluting each other. If that changes then you'd have to change your way of thinking.
Well Dirty as you have obviously never broken the law, then I bow to your superior thinking.
Full of assumptions this afternoon aren't we? :giggle:
Would you like to point me to where I've said I've never broken the law? Or in fact, where I've said I my thoughts are superior?
ive always believed that the publican should decide whether his/her pub should allow smoking and if they do allow they should have clear signs stating that it is a smoking pub and that way people can decide whether to use that pub(id be in like a shot lol).as for supermarkets killing the pub trade well thats rubbish,the whole idea of a british pub was(yes was)to socialise with people while having a drink in a relaxing envoiroment,this hoever has changed due to the smoking ban,with lots of people having to stand outside in the cold when they could be at home in the warmth,so yes people are spending more on beer in supermarkets but id wager a bet if the smoking ban was lifted supermarket sales of beer would drop and the pub trade would recover and also id spend less time on this site and more time back in my lcal lol
Sex God
Oh come on Res you cant quote the Roy Castle site. He should not have smoked all those trumpets in jazz clubs. Personally I can never get trumpets to light.
I think trumpet players, like all wind instrument players have a very much shortened life span.
Sex God
I am not sure of the facts there Ben. However I have never approved of women playing brass instruments, as it develops their mouth muscles as specialist blowing instruments when obviously they should all be training to suck more efficiently.
Quote by Silk and Big G
I am not sure of the facts there Ben. However I have never approved of women playing brass instruments, as it develops their mouth muscles as specialist blowing instruments when obviously they should all be training to suck more efficiently.
Diversion :shock:
Why is it called a blow job when, as you say, they should all be training to suck more efficiently?
I have no idea chaps but I am alarmed that this discussion is leading me to findng G's avatar arousing.
Quote by Dirtygirly
Well Kenty, provided your building belongs to you, is not open to the public, never has anyone other than you and your fellow smoking employees in it then I dare say there's not much anyone could do. If you do have visitors to your place of work then you'd best hope they don't report you.
The Environmental Health Officers (as they are correctly known) certainly wouldn't have to rake through your bins looking for evidence. With three smokers in one unit I'd imagine the evidence is fairly obvious to whoever comes in.
So unless one of your employees decides to quit smoking then I guess you can carry on polluting each other. If that changes then you'd have to change your way of thinking.
If it has more than one person in then it is breaking the law.
A person has to be physically seen smoking to be classed as smoking. No need to rake through the bins.
A vcompany vehicle only driven by one person can be allowed to be used and smoke in it. If anybody else is carried a s a passenger or somebody else drives the van then it is covered by the legislation.
The likelyhood to being caught is very low. The smoking officers in councils were only employed for a year. The task now falls to the EHOs who really do have far more serious things to deal with. They will respond to complaints but do not actively go looking for it.
Dave_Notts
Not going to get into the smoking kills debate as everyone knows its not healthy, however what people fail to see is that 60 years ago 80% of adults smoked and they were not all dropping like flies, having said that, this was all before we got our pylons spread around the country, nuclear power, televisions in every home, now nearer 3 or 4 in every home, fridges in every home, microwaves, mobile phones, in fact the average home is full of gadgets pumping out radiation, we now have 2 cars to every home, when back then one in every street was scarce, thats not including fast food outlets popping up everywher, but everything healthwise seemed to be blamed on smoking, just wonder why that is, and how anyone can conduct any kind of factual evidence with everything else that's going on and changing at the same time.
Back on topic though, the smoking ban is a good thing, we live in a small town which only had one small pub, it closed 8 months after the smoking ban, and the landlord, who still lives in the town insisted then and still insists now it was due to the ban, however non smokers shouldn’t have to breathe in someone else’s smoke, but the fact that you cannot have a smokers pub is wrong, surely it should work both ways, and the smoking in the workplace is a bit of a farce when MP’s can do it at their place of work, and to add injury to insult, prisoners can even smoke, but the law abiding citizens cannot…
What is fact though and not botched up research, and funnily enough is seldom mentioned, is that most of the oldest living people in history were smokers.
Back on topic though, the smoking ban is a good thing, we live in a small town which only had one small pub, it closed 8 months after the smoking ban, and the landlord, who still lives in the town insisted then and still insists now it was due to the ban, however non smokers shouldn’t have to breathe in someone else’s smoke, but the fact that you cannot have a smokers pub is wrong, surely it should work both ways, and the smoking in the workplace is a bit of a farce when MP’s can do it at their place of work, and to add injury to insult, prisoners can even smoke, but the law abiding citizens cannot…
What is fact though and not botched up research, and funnily enough is seldom mentioned, is that most of the oldest living people in history were smokers.
