UK Public Smoking Ban - July 1st

[CyberPitz]

So, Ab, it's our fault that since we smell it, we can tell it's in the air, it seriously BOTHERS us, then it's completely negligable that the smoke could get in our lungs and cause us harm over time? It's foreign to our bodies, it's been proven to be bad for your health, yet you are just throwing at us "Stop crying over it".

I don't even see a point to your post then a flame.
There has been study, and proof, that second hand smoke causes damage over long stretches of time. We don't want that. Why is it so hard to understand?

 

[Seppo]

Yes I smoke, but ATM smokers and non smokers have a choice. In July smokers will have none.

Smokers you made the choice when you started smoking. Now deal with it and let us non smokers stay healthy

 

[sarcastinator]

All of those studies relate to constant high-level exposure in confined spaces. That is not what we're talking about. Why is that so hard to understand?

If you're that bothered by a passing whiff of smoke, you already have serious health problems and should probably refrain from leaving your home ever again. It's not my responsibility to bubble-wrap the whole world for you.

 

[3ssence]

Personally, i dislike smoking, and am glad that it is being banned in enclosed spaces, where's its effects are more likely to affect others. However, even as much as i don't like smoking, i don't think it's fair to deny smokers the right to smoke out in the open, go outside for a quick puff when they are down the pub etc, because that's not harming anybody else, and it's taking it a little too far tbh.

 

[Seppo]

It's not my responsibility to bubble-wrap the whole world for you.

it's your duty to protect us from the poisons that you inhale!! I DUN WAN TAHT IN ME LUNGS

 

[Absinthe]

So, Ab, it's our fault that since we smell it, we can tell it's in the air, it seriously BOTHERS us, then it's completely negligable that the smoke could get in our lungs and cause us harm over time? It's foreign to our bodies, it's been proven to be bad for your health, yet you are just throwing at us "Stop crying over it".

I don't even see a point to your post then a flame.
There has been study, and proof, that second hand smoke causes damage over long stretches of time. We don't want that. Why is it so hard to understand?

Flame? What flame? Do not mistake my incredulous tone with that of an insult.

"Over time" is the key phrase in your post. The dispersion of cigarette smoke in outdoor areas hugely reduces any possible threat to you. It's no worse than car exhaust, and there's certainly plenty of that going around. And seeing as how smokers are in the minority, it's not like it's everywhere you go. I'm failing to see how passing a smoker in the street is of any more danger to you than using a cell phone.
As I said, the danger of second-hand smoke has been largely in regard to kin or otherwise people close to each other continuously subjected to smoke in confined areas (ie. lighting up in the living room).

If you want to argue against smoking outdoors, then do so purely on a basis of health. Distaste for the smell doesn't cut it.

 

[kirovman]

Wait what's this about banning smoking outdoors?

I thought the ban was about indoor smoking.

 

[Seppo]

what's the big deal with this law anyway. If you're in a restaurant and want to smoke just get outside and smoke all you want. it's not like the law tells you not to smoke ANYWHERE outside your own house

Wait what's this about banning smoking outdoors?

I thought the ban was about indoor smoking.

aye that's what I thought too

 

[Absinthe]

It is about indoor smoking, but I think we're just now entertaining the thought of an outdoor ban.

An indoor ban is something I can understand. It pisses me off and I don't like it, but I can accept it. I would only hope that select exceptions would be available (ie. smoking bars). But an outdoor ban? Seems little more than a product of fear-mongering.

 

[kirovman]

I can't see the sense in a total outdoor ban, that's more like a prohibition.

You'd probably have to ban fires too.

 

[Seppo]

and an outdoor ban wouldn't work anyway. no chances

 

[Absinthe]

what's the big deal with this law anyway. If you're in a restaurant and want to smoke just get outside and smoke all you want. it's not like the law tells you not to smoke ANYWHERE outside your own house

Winter. :O

At least when it comes to pubs, it's just an absolute pain in the ass. Alcohol and smoking go hand in hand. And having to get up every 25/30 minutes is a mood kill.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

In Anchorage some buildings have little smoking booths. Technically they are outside, but technically they are inside.

I'm sure with this ban will come workarounds and special designated areas for people who have no will to quit.

I'm really not bothered either way because the only time I even see people smoke is on their break, usually outside their place of business, or in their car. I rarely encounter it.

I do think it is a disgusting self destructive habit, however, and a great deal of attractive females do it, which disappoints me. I won't even talk to a woman who smokes. I have no interest in them.

 

[Alig]

I think it's absolutely pathetic. I do smoke myself and i'm not arsed come July i'll just light a cig up and blow it in the nearest non smokers face before i get fined, then i'll get hit for it, then the non smoker will be arrested for assault. ?50 well spent. Smokers can be as ignorant as non smokers.

I'd laugh my ass off if a company managed to create something that can make you knock an addiction on the head for good because Britain would collapse at the amount we're charged for a packet of cigs.

There is a pub in Sussex in which the landlord is imposing a ban on non smokers in his pub. Every 30 minutes non smokers are forced outside for 10 minutes while smokers can have a cig. This is what more landlords need to start doing... give all the whiny non smokers something to really whine about.

2nd hand smoke can be life threatning - So can crossing the road.

 

[Ennui]

So, Ab, it's our fault that since we smell it, we can tell it's in the air, it seriously BOTHERS us, then it's completely negligable that the smoke could get in our lungs and cause us harm over time? It's foreign to our bodies, it's been proven to be bad for your health, yet you are just throwing at us "Stop crying over it".

I don't even see a point to your post then a flame.
There has been study, and proof, that second hand smoke causes damage over long stretches of time. We don't want that. Why is it so hard to understand?

Ever been camping?

As long as you have a campfire burning, it's like having 10 people smoke cigarettes around you. Secondhand smoke is not that big a deal, though I imagine it could be... if you followed a heavy smoker around all day and stood downwind of him taking deep breaths every time he lit up.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

I'm undecided on my views here. On the one hand, it's good for public health.

On the other hand, no more cigars.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Raziaar]

Ever been camping?

As long as you have a campfire burning, it's like having 10 people smoke cigarettes around you. Secondhand smoke is not that big a deal, though I imagine it could be... if you followed a heavy smoker around all day and stood downwind of him taking deep breaths every time he lit up.

As far as I'm aware, there are none of the dangerous toxins and chemical additives in the smoke of most wood, especially wood burned at campsites. We even flavor our food with the smoke, and that doesn't make it less healthy.

Cigarette smoke composition I'm sure is far more hazardous on a molecular level than campfire smoke.

Then again, I don't know this for sure because I haven't gone looking for scientific research papers on the makeup of wood smoke vs cigarette smoke, but common sense tells me that because wood doesn't have all the harmful chemicals in it, it should at least be much healthier on the lungs. From my experiences, wood smoke is not something you have in your face all the time. It doesn't hang heavy in the air unless you're in the middle of a forest fire. The wind carries it away and what you smell is just the aroma, not the concentrated particles. Sure, if the wind blows it in your face you're going to have a hacking fit, but no camper ever puts up with that for long at all.

So comparing wood smoke vs cigarette smoke is silly, even if they're comparative.


EDIT: Here's a website, it doesn't support my claim. http://burningissues.org/

However, as I said above... no camper puts up with having the smoke blown in their faces or lets it hang around them as it does in restaraunts with mostly stagnant airflow.

 

[Max35]

Cigarettes carry as much as seventy toxins I believe. Think it's around that number anyway.

 

[Solaris]

I think it's absolutely pathetic. I do smoke myself and i'm not arsed come July i'll just light a cig up and blow it in the nearest non smokers face before i get fined, then i'll get hit for it, then the non smoker will be arrested for assault. ?50 well spent. Smokers can be as ignorant as non smokers.

I'd laugh my ass off if a company managed to create something that can make you knock an addiction on the head for good because Britain would collapse at the amount we're charged for a packet of cigs.

There is a pub in Sussex in which the landlord is imposing a ban on non smokers in his pub. Every 30 minutes non smokers are forced outside for 10 minutes while smokers can have a cig. This is what more landlords need to start doing... give all the whiny non smokers something to really whine about.

2nd hand smoke can be life threatning - So can crossing the road.

:hmph:

 

[Ennui]

As far as I'm aware, there are none of the dangerous toxins and chemical additives in the smoke of most wood, especially wood burned at campsites. We even flavor our food with the smoke, and that doesn't make it less healthy.

Cigarette smoke composition I'm sure is far more hazardous on a molecular level than campfire smoke.

Then again, I don't know this for sure because I haven't gone looking for scientific research papers on the makeup of wood smoke vs cigarette smoke, but common sense tells me that because wood doesn't have all the harmful chemicals in it, it should at least be much healthier on the lungs. From my experiences, wood smoke is not something you have in your face all the time. It doesn't hang heavy in the air unless you're in the middle of a forest fire. The wind carries it away and what you smell is just the aroma, not the concentrated particles. Sure, if the wind blows it in your face you're going to have a hacking fit, but no camper ever puts up with that for long at all.

So comparing wood smoke vs cigarette smoke is silly, even if they're comparative.


EDIT: Here's a website, it doesn't support my claim. http://burningissues.org/

However, as I said above... no camper puts up with having the smoke blown in their faces or lets it hang around them as it does in restaraunts with mostly stagnant airflow.

I stand corrected; it was a stab in the dark for me to say that anyway.

Most resturants around here are non-smoking, except for bars and the like.

 

[Raziaar]

I stand corrected; it was a stab in the dark for me to say that anyway.

Most resturants around here are non-smoking, except for bars and the like.

No no, apparently you don't stand corrected as any type of smoke is very hazardous to health. However, the nature of burning wood at a campfire is far different than being around smokers, in say... a restaraunt where you are eating, with the way the wind carries it up and away. Or if it carries it into your face you simply move to the other side, or at least I do.

 

[Absinthe]

They are indeed different, but the comparison is not void because it depends heavily on context: the outdoors. I think everybody pretty much accepts that second-hand smoke is hazardous indoors (hence why I would favor the existence of smoking bars as an alternative to the ban). Contention lies with how dangerous it could possibly be in the open air, and I don't believe there has been a strong body of evidence favoring an outdoor ban other than "smokers passing by are stinky".

 

[NeptuneUK]

There's been plenty of times I have been gagging on someones smoke at the bus stop, which is outside by the way. So yes it is possible to inhale toxic fumes from someones smoke outdoors.

 

[Ennui]

An outdoor ban would be completely unreasonable.

Neptune, couldn't you move to get out of the smoke (since I assume there was at least SOME air current)?

Also, you are aware that you're inhaling pollution every time you breathe, from passing cars and the like?

There are far more pressing, widespread issues of personal health to be alarmed about than secondhand smoke.

 

[Raziaar]

Ban the outdoors! Hikers and mountain men should be Criminalized.

 

[NeptuneUK]

Im not calling for an outdoor ban, I just do not believe that one can simply claim that all negative effects on health due to passive smoking can be ignored just because you are outside.
People should begin behaving more considerate however.
I will look into what chemicals are present in car fumes, compared to cigarette smoke. However, it should be noted that cars are used as a popular method of transportation (huge benefits to society) whereas smoking.... has.... no beneficial value...?

 

[Ennui]

I think that negative health effects from secondhand smoke outside is probably such a negligible thing that it can reasonably be ignored, or mostly ignored anyway. It's really a matter of comfort on your part, and I think that it's rude for people to smoke in an area where there are other people who might be irritated by it, and they can't leave, like a bus stop, but it's a matter of courtesy not health

 

[NeptuneUK]

Ban the outdoors! Hikers and mountain men should be Criminalized.

Then theres nowhere to smoke!!!

I think that negative health effects from secondhand smoke outside is probably such a negligible thing that it can reasonably be ignored, or mostly ignored anyway. It's really a matter of comfort on your part, and I think that it's rude for people to smoke in an area where there are other people who might be irritated by it, and they can't leave, like a bus stop, but it's a matter of courtesy not health

I don't know of anyone qualified enough to state what damage or not 'second hand smoke' could do to your health

 

[Absinthe]

So yes it is possible to inhale toxic fumes from someones smoke outdoors.

Did I say otherwise? I never said "toxic fumes" don't enter your lungs. I said it's a negligible amount, especially when considering the various other chemical properties that exist in the air, such as car exhaust, industrial chemicals, garbage, hairspray... the sort of things that generally come with any industrialized nation.

Note that I made exception to bus stops in an earlier post. They are places with relatively heavy and often enclosed populations. So at the very least I wound understand non-smoking legislation aimed at them. But even so, the amount inhaled on such occasions would still be better seen - as Ennui put it - as a matter of courtesy rather than public health. The issue of second-hand smoke is primarily found in victims continuously subjected to passive smoking for extended periods of time. Five minutes waiting for the bus doesn't really cut it.

And please, enough with the "no benefits to smoking" spiel.

 

[NeptuneUK]

"toxic fumes" .

Do the speech marks suggest that they could be otherwise?

Toxic: Poisonous, carcinogenic, or otherwise directly harmful to life.
Fumes: smoke, vapor or gas

hmm?

Smoke from cigarettes contains nasty chemical thingies like carbon monoxide, ammonia, dimethylnitrosamine, formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide and acrolein.


Here is my very scientifically thingy report on smoke:

Carbon monoxide - toxic
Ammonia - you get that in the human body.. but uh... its bad... yeah
(This is ammonia -> )
Dimethylnitrosamine - **** knows what that is, but i can't even say it, it HAS to be bad!!
Formaldehyde - wikipedia says its toxic and is a carcinogen, also it sounds nasty
Hydrogen cyanide - cyanide!!!! I know enough about cyanide to say it's bad! (it inhibits a cell's ability to respire)
Acrolein - carginogen

So it's safe to say that it are bad!!!



There's actually no benefits to smoking, but there are benefits from NICOTINE any benefits are just unwanted 'side effects' of smoking

 

[Ennui]

I don't know of anyone qualified enough to state what damage or not 'second hand smoke' could do to your health

Perhaps not specifically, but outdoor secondhand smoke is almost certainly not large enough of a health hazard to really warrant legislation against it. Social stigma / intolerance should do that job well enough.

Like I said, pollution is probably much more of a problem to your health than inhaling the occasional whiff of a cigarette.

 

[NeptuneUK]

Perhaps not specifically, but outdoor secondhand smoke is almost certainly not large enough of a health hazard to really warrant legislation against it. Social stigma / intolerance should do that job well enough.

Like I said, pollution is probably much more of a problem to your health than inhaling the occasional whiff of a cigarette.

'Probably', See if there's anywhere on the internets that tells us whats in car fumes and do a better investigation than me.

Needless to say, it's most definitely going to be less harmful outdoors than indoors.

 

[The Monkey]

It has been banned here in resturants and bars for a while now (since July last year I think). We're already seeing the positive effects, especially for the employees.

EDIT: From wiki:

In Sweden, smoking was banned in restaurants, cafes, bars and nightclubs in June 2005.

 

[Absinthe]

Do the speech marks suggest that they could be otherwise?

Actually, I was merely avoiding the usual pejorative demonization of an inanimate substance. But yes, technically it would be considered toxic. So is alcohol.

You don't need to fill me in on what cigarettes contain. I'm very much aware.

There's actually no benefits to smoking, but there are benefits from NICOTINE any benefits are just unwanted 'side effects' of smoking

That's your judgment. My benefit from smoking is relaxation, taste (shocking, yes I know), and its social uses. Hell, I never would have met one of my best friends if neither of us found a reason to get off the tram a stop earlier to walk and smoke while heading home. There are certainly very few, if any, physical advantages to smoking other than the mind-altering component. But let's be realistic here. People obviously do find uses for smoking, otherwise there wouldn't be a market for them. Addiction, while certainly a very relevant component of such a market, does not explain why you still get people starting up today when they're well aware of the consequences (both possible and inevitable).

 

[Ennui]

Plus, it increases alcohol appreciation and enjoyment by about 200 percent.

 

[NeptuneUK]

Taste I'll give you that one! I guess eating nicotine is awful! Oh and benefits to social life.

Plus, it increases alcohol appreciation and enjoyment by about 200 percent.

I've been missing out all these years!! Wait..... that isn't based on scientific fact! *shakes fist*


Everyone still wants to know why the less dangerous substance known as cannabis is not legal, it's much less harmful than; tobacco, alcohol, paracetamol, cars and spackers (which are all legal)

 

[Absinthe]

Plus, it increases alcohol appreciation and enjoyment by about 200 percent.

This is an indisputable fact and I don't care what anybody else says. IT'S A GOD DAMN AXIOM.

Neptune, I'm getting the strong sense that this discussion has moved from "public health issues" to a "why smoking is absolutely horrid and you shouldn't do it" tirade. I can only think of the memorable Bill Hicks' comedy routine...

 

[jondy]

My benefit from smoking is relaxation, taste (shocking, yes I know), and its social uses. Hell, I never would have met one of my best friends if neither of us found a reason to get off the tram a stop earlier to walk and smoke while heading home.

I know exactly what you mean. I would never have found my current best friend if we hadn't turned up at the dealers house simultaneously looking to score some K.

 

[Pulse]

Plus, it increases alcohol appreciation and enjoyment by about 200 percent.

They do make a winning pair, I'll endorse that.

 

[Raziaar]

I tried a cigarette and cigar a long time ago when I was around twelve or thirteen. I hated them.

I don't see what the allure is. Easy enough to hang around and socialize with smoking people, without actually doing it.