English smoking ban

[Phobia]

The two studies cited by most people who support smoking bans are a WHO study and an EPA study.

The WHO study found that the link between second-hand smoke and lung cancer in adults wasn't statisically viable. Basically, chances of developing lung cancer when exposed to second hand smoke are 12 in one million, where as the chances of developing lung cancer when not exposed are 10 in one million. This didn't affect the Press Release which stated that the link was real and a major difference in rates (a lie).

The EPA study cited the most was thrown out by a federal court because the EPA ignored their own study guidelines to arrive at a preconceived conclusion.


If you don't like cigarette smoke, that's just groovy, but don't believe the hype about second-hand smoke giving you cancer. You're more likely to get struck by lightning or get killed by a falling coconut.

They passed a "No Smoking In Restaurants or Public Buildings" ban here in my home state. They're about to pass a "No smoking outside public buildings or in your car if there's a child present" ban. It's retarded.

I'm sorry, but that's bull. So your saying that all the poisonous fumes that cigarettes give out go inside your lungs, but none of them are given out with the smoke or invisible gases? That's two studies, and there has been dozens of studies that have proven second hand smoke can give you cancer. And there have been so many cases of children and adults dieing because of lung cancer due to second hand smoke, and they have never smoked before.

As for bungee jumping, as long as it's correctly done, there is no reason why people die because of it, so yeah, you are probably more likely to be killed by falling fridges

[sam_levi_11]

i agree with you, and honestly, its s cientific study they realised by that ur more likely to be killed by falling fridges

[unriggable]

Saying that secondhand smoke doesnt have a negative effect is like saying that fishbowling doesn't get you high.

[Bertros Bertros]

If you don't like cigarette smoke, that's just groovy, but don't believe the hype about second-hand smoke giving you cancer. You're more likely to get struck by lightning or get killed by a falling coconut.

The WHO don't agree about that interpretation...

http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html

[btownmeggy]

If you don't like cigarette smoke, that's just groovy, but don't believe the hype about second-hand smoke giving you cancer. You're more likely to get struck by lightning or get killed by a falling coconut.

The WHO don't agree about that interpretation...

http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html

Well, that link doesn't say anything about falling coconuts.

[Bertros Bertros]

If you don't like cigarette smoke, that's just groovy, but don't believe the hype about second-hand smoke giving you cancer. You're more likely to get struck by lightning or get killed by a falling coconut.

The WHO don't agree about that interpretation...

http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html

Well, that link doesn't say anything about falling coconuts.

Sorry meant to post this one... http://www.unisci.com/stories/20022/0523024.htm

[Stopper]

There's more I want to respond to, but first:

I've been a degenerate smoker for the last 17 years. I've quit countless times and currently am in a happy(ish) place where I only smoke some weekends, and when it seems appropriate, like at Glasto.

Now, I'm not a smoker, but I sometimes smoke. Maybe about 1 pack per month.

I can't really relate to people who only smoke occasionally, or consider themselves "social smokers", or even, in btownmeggy's case, an apparent smoking non-smoker. That's just odd - I have always had a 20-40-a-day habit, or nothing at all - I've never found it possible to stick to anywhere in the middle.

Now I realise you've both said different things, but my query is related to both. Presumably neither of you have a proper, full-time habit, because of the long-term health hazard (or at least, partly because of that.)

So, is there any reason to believe that what you are currently doing is significantly better than a full-time habit, in terms of the long-term health risk? Is having an average of 1 cig a day significantly different to having 20 a day? If not, is there any basis on which either of you can say that you are not, in fact, "smokers"?

I'm not trying to catch anyone out here - I have had this discussion/argument before, and didn't make any headway, as it was difficult to find reliable information on the subject. This old news item, for instance, I find hard to credit.

[unriggable]

I don't see the point of cigarrettes in the first place. If you want a buzz, smoke weed

[Bertros Bertros]

Now I realise you've both said different things, but my query is related to both. Presumably neither of you have a proper, full-time habit, because of the long-term health hazard (or at least, partly because of that.)

So, is there any reason to believe that what you are currently doing is significantly better than a full-time habit, in terms of the long-term health risk? Is having an average of 1 cig a day significantly different to having 20 a day? If not, is there any basis on which either of you can say that you are not, in fact, "smokers"?

Well first up I only smoke from time to time more because it makes my life with a non-smoking girlfriend significantly easier, the health thing is there as well but its not the primary motivation, if I'm honest I'd smoke much more if I was single or she smoked... Its never easy...

I think if you have only ever smoked a bit then its ok, but if you've been a fulltime smoker then your a smoker for life... I know people who haven't smoked for 10 years and still get the urge from time to time. Depressing isnt it!

As for the health thing I remember many years ago seeing a statistic that suggested that if you smoke 10 a day your 10x more likely to get lung cancer, 20x for 20 and so on... I don't know if there is any validity in it or not though...

[Stopper]

I think if you have only ever smoked a bit then its ok, but if you've been a fulltime smoker then your a smoker for life... I know people who haven't smoked for 10 years and still get the urge from time to time. Depressing isnt it!

Yes, yes. I sometimes wonder if the stress entailed in trying to give up completely wouldn't just do for me as surely as the all the other maladies you get with smoking. My sole motivation for the moment is an ill-advised long-distance run I have put it on myself to do, and am training for.

As for the health thing I remember many years ago seeing a statistic that suggested that if you smoke 10 a day your 10x more likely to get lung cancer, 20x for 20 and so on... I don't know if there is any validity in it or not though...

This, actually, is more or less what I can't confirm. In more general terms, whether the size of your decrease in life expectancy is directly proportional to the amount you smoke. There's definitely a fair bit of obfuscation on this point, by all the authorities you'd normally check with for these facts, the NHS, whoever. I realise they don't want to encourage people to take to 5-a-day habits because of the risk of moving back up to 20-a-day, but it'd be nice to have this information made easily available. We are supposed to be adults, after all.

[Anarkistsdream]

I don't see the point of cigarrettes in the first place. If you want a buzz, smoke weed

Yep.

[b.k. barunt]

There should be no ban at all in private establishments. If you don't like the smoke, stay the hell out. Restaraunts, coffee shops, and especially bars - all should be left to the discretion of the owners. Public places i can see for a ban, but what are you going to do when they ban you from smoking in your house because of your children? I quit once for over a year, and then took a trip out to California - i started again just to piss off those self righteous California yuppies. It's a real kick to go in a restaraunt there and hold one unlit in your mouth - actually had one chirpy little twat walk up to me and say "sir, my wife is allergic to cigarette smoke, and you're making her nervous. I told him that i was allergic to anal retentive twats, and that he was detracting from the quality of my life. I then stood up, lit up, blew a puff in his face, and stopped at the door to take a bow before making good my escape.

[DAZMCFC]

to Stopper, you are right. i have never smoked in my life. my dad died of cancer at the age of 46, i was 18 at the time, my mother was living with someone else(her husband now). he use to smoke at least 40 a day, maybe more in the late 70`s. my wife does not smoke, my brothers, well one doesn`t and the 1 in aus, he didn`t, but he smoked a lot of weed and then "socially" smoked ocassionally. dopn`t get me wrong, if this law had not come in, i would not of been arsed. it has come in for the better though.

to BK Bar. please don`t say in resteraunts, you should be aloud to smoke. that is so wrong and is quite rightly banned.

[Stopper]

to Stopper, you are right. i have never smoked in my life. my dad died of cancer at the age of 46, i was 18 at the time, my mother was living with someone else(her husband now). he use to smoke at least 40 a day, maybe more in the late 70`s. my wife does not smoke, my brothers, well one doesn`t and the 1 in aus, he didn`t, but he smoked a lot of weed and then "socially" smoked ocassionally. dopn`t get me wrong, if this law had not come in, i would not of been arsed. it has come in for the better though.

OK. For some reason, goodness knows why - probably confused over a past thread - I thought you had been a smoker - so I was surprised when you commented. My paternal grandfather died of lung cancer when my dad was 15 (three years before I was born) and he has been hostile to smoking, ever since. Nevertheless, most of my extended family, and family friends, smoked so it was always there when I grew up.

Not that I know why I ever started - and this is where the libertarian and hedonistic arguments that some in this thread have made, run into problems. The stuff is horrifically addictive, I can vouch for that. People don't make a rational, informed choice to smoke the stuff. So how "draconian" can any measures against smoking really be?

[The1exile]

I'm in favour of the ban. It's not perfect but getting it in I think should be the first step. Draconian? Yeah right. If you argument compares this to the ID card malarkey then you've lost all sympathy from me. ("oh noes! they issued us with ID cards! disregarding the fact they can traces our phones [mobile or landline] not to mention our TV licenses, car registration plates, passports and so on, the fact that they have us registered with cards is the devil!")

That said, I don't smoke (I'm 16) and never understood the hype about cigarettes having tried them (like unrig said, if you want to get high, smoke weed) so I don't empathise with the smokers so much. But my mum smokes, and I used to sell fags to a few mates in school (admittedly, not the most ethical of business ventures, but hey ).

[DAZMCFC]

if you smoke you smoke, i could not give a flying f*ck if you did or didn`t.
i am just saying, my wife finds it more refreshing than it use to be.

[b.k. barunt]

Yes, restaraunts too should be left to the discretion of the owner. Most restaraunts in and around New Orleans do not allow smoking, as the owners have decided that people don't like to eat around smoke, but some owners, thinking to attract the smoking crowd, still have smoking sections. Patrons have a choice of which restaraunts they choose to patronize, and that's the way it should be. What is it with these modern day yuppies with their plethora of rules and regulations? You got us out of public places now, so leave it at that - if you can't find a bar that doesn't ban smoking, maybe it's because you're in the minority there - so if you don't like the smoke, stay the f*ck home and stop pushing your likes and dislikes on those around you.

[btownmeggy]

There's more I want to respond to, but first:

I've been a degenerate smoker for the last 17 years. I've quit countless times and currently am in a happy(ish) place where I only smoke some weekends, and when it seems appropriate, like at Glasto.

Now, I'm not a smoker, but I sometimes smoke. Maybe about 1 pack per month.

I can't really relate to people who only smoke occasionally, or consider themselves "social smokers", or even, in btownmeggy's case, an apparent smoking non-smoker. That's just odd - I have always had a 20-40-a-day habit, or nothing at all - I've never found it possible to stick to anywhere in the middle.

Now I realise you've both said different things, but my query is related to both. Presumably neither of you have a proper, full-time habit, because of the long-term health hazard (or at least, partly because of that.)

So, is there any reason to believe that what you are currently doing is significantly better than a full-time habit, in terms of the long-term health risk? Is having an average of 1 cig a day significantly different to having 20 a day? If not, is there any basis on which either of you can say that you are not, in fact, "smokers"?

I'm not trying to catch anyone out here - I have had this discussion/argument before, and didn't make any headway, as it was difficult to find reliable information on the subject. This old news item, for instance, I find hard to credit.

To be honest, I don't think I have EVER considered the health risks associated with my very occasional smoking until now, probably because I just presumed that they were practically nil.

There are plenty of reasons that I'm not a heavier smoker: I'm not addicted, it's inconvenient, chain smoking makes me feel sick, few of my friends and practically none of my family smoke, I'm ashamed of smoking around work colleagues (none of whom smoke, so far as I know), and I don't want to be a REAL smoker (of course).

Anyway, I looked up some articles about light smokers versus heavy smokers:

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/smokwlth (about wealth, not health)

http://www.clinicianreviews.com/index.asp?page=8_102.xml (concerning health, though it doesn't really address smoking non-smokers like myself... just light smokers ~10/day)

[Stopper]

To be honest, I don't think I have EVER considered the health risks associated with my very occasional smoking until now, probably because I just presumed that they were practically nil.

There are plenty of reasons that I'm not a heavier smoker: I'm not addicted, it's inconvenient, chain smoking makes me feel sick, few of my friends and practically none of my family smoke, I'm ashamed of smoking around work colleagues (none of whom smoke, so far as I know), and I don't want to be a REAL smoker (of course).

Sorry if I came across a bit aggressively, BTW - I've had emotive discussions (ie, arguments) on this before.

I was obviously mistaken in my assumption that the health risks would be a factor in whether you smoked or not - it's always been at the back of my mind, and I automatically assume everyone is as neurotic as I am.

Without wanting to come across as a hectoring old git, BTW, I would have said practically everything you did in that second paragraph when I was 20. My transition to proper, full-on, phlegm-hocking, orange-fingered chain-smokery was unplanned, swift and unnoticed.

http://www.clinicianreviews.com/index.asp?page=8_102.xml (concerning health, though it doesn't really address smoking non-smokers like myself... just light smokers ~10/day)

Actually, the larger of the two studies you've linked to in this link is the same one as I linked to in the news item, although reading the review suggests that the study was larger than the initial impression I got, so thanks.

[Bertros Bertros]

Not that I know why I ever started - and this is where the libertarian and hedonistic arguments that some in this thread have made, run into problems. The stuff is horrifically addictive, I can vouch for that. People don't make a rational, informed choice to smoke the stuff. So how "draconian" can any measures against smoking really be?

Horrifically addicitive is a bit easy going perhaps. It is more addictive than any other drug I have known, including the really evil ones that the media likes to falsely suggest are one hit and your hooked. The withdrawl symptons may not be as awful but the addictiveness and the way it infilitrates every aspect of your life are far worse. How many other addictions are there that once broken suck people back in 5, 10 or 15 years later? Alcohol maybe...

Draconian? OK that comment was said for effect. But the legislation is heavy handed and I honestly don't think the health impact on the individual, or others around them considering this can be mitigated by more targetted legislation, is acceptable cause to remove the choice. If it was none of us would still be driving cars would we? We mostly make a rational informed decision to start smoking, I was 13 when I had my first fag and was fully aware at the time of the health risks and addicitivity of it having lived all my life with a 40+ a day parent, its the decision to continue to smoke, or to restart, which is not made rationally.

Yes, yes. I sometimes wonder if the stress entailed in trying to give up completely wouldn't just do for me as surely as the all the other maladies you get with smoking. My sole motivation for the moment is an ill-advised long-distance run I have put it on myself to do, and am training for.

I did the British 10k last weekend, it was my first long(ish) distance race, I loved it. I can certainly say that reducing my smoking helped with this but the most important thing is the training. Good luck with which ever run your doing and try not to get hooked, running is almost as addictive as smoking it would seem (and considering the damage it does to your ankles/knees nearly as bad for you!)...

[reverend_kyle]

There's more I want to respond to, but first:

I've been a degenerate smoker for the last 17 years. I've quit countless times and currently am in a happy(ish) place where I only smoke some weekends, and when it seems appropriate, like at Glasto.

Now, I'm not a smoker, but I sometimes smoke. Maybe about 1 pack per month.

I can't really relate to people who only smoke occasionally, or consider themselves "social smokers", or even, in btownmeggy's case, an apparent smoking non-smoker. That's just odd - I have always had a 20-40-a-day habit, or nothing at all - I've never found it possible to stick to anywhere in the middle.

Now I realise you've both said different things, but my query is related to both. Presumably neither of you have a proper, full-time habit, because of the long-term health hazard (or at least, partly because of that.)

So, is there any reason to believe that what you are currently doing is significantly better than a full-time habit, in terms of the long-term health risk? Is having an average of 1 cig a day significantly different to having 20 a day? If not, is there any basis on which either of you can say that you are not, in fact, "smokers"?

I'm not trying to catch anyone out here - I have had this discussion/argument before, and didn't make any headway, as it was difficult to find reliable information on the subject. This old news item, for instance, I find hard to credit.

I smoke cigars socially, really anytime you can celebrate I smoke them but probably not more than 1 per month.. is that the same thing?

[Guiscard]

There should be no ban at all in private establishments. If you don't like the smoke, stay the hell out. Restaraunts, coffee shops, and especially bars - all should be left to the discretion of the owners. Public places i can see for a ban, but what are you going to do when they ban you from smoking in your house because of your children? I quit once for over a year, and then took a trip out to California - i started again just to piss off those self righteous California yuppies. It's a real kick to go in a restaraunt there and hold one unlit in your mouth - actually had one chirpy little twat walk up to me and say "sir, my wife is allergic to cigarette smoke, and you're making her nervous. I told him that i was allergic to anal retentive twats, and that he was detracting from the quality of my life. I then stood up, lit up, blew a puff in his face, and stopped at the door to take a bow before making good my escape.

Just to answer this, although I don't 100% agree with the smoking ban in its extent...

I think a major part of the drive behind the ban has to do with employment. Passive smoking damages your health, makes you stink and generally a smoky environment is not a nice environment for anyone, smoker or not, to work in. You should not have be forced to work in that kind of environment, just as a factory worker shouldn't be exposed to dangerous chemicals. If we the owners of restaurants and bars have the right to choose then it theoretically means that all the establishments in a particular town could choose to go pro-smoking, and so employees would have no choice but to work in an unsafe environment. The only real solution to me would be to have to apply for a 'smoking license' sort of thing, and only a certain number would be granted... but we start getting a bit ridiculous when we go down that route.

I'm an ex smoker (hopefully, quit in September), and I can certainly say that it is much nicer for me to work in a smoke-free environment (I'm a bar-man part time). I did smoke between 10 and 40 a day. I fully support the ban in principle, but I do mourn the loss of some of the 'heritage', as it were... I doubt pubs will have the same atmosphere, but I'll certainly crave for nicotine less when I'm in them

[Nobunaga]

... Are there any special conditions that can be met by pub owners to work around the thing? For example, setting aside an isolated, separate area for smoking (aside from the dumpsters out back, I mean).

... No doubt it would represent a considerable expense, but might well be worth doing if it's a workable method.

... Personally, I quit smoking last year (about 30 to 40 a day) and I cannot stand being around smoke now. It's not that it makes me want to start smoking again, it just smells... so bad. But to completely ban smoking in bars would, I think, alienate a great many people.

... Smokers could just start up chewing, I suppose . . . works for the Swedes.

[Guiscard]

... Are there any special conditions that can be met by pub owners to work around the thing? For example, setting aside an isolated, separate area for smoking (aside from the dumpsters out back, I mean).

... No doubt it would represent a considerable expense, but might well be worth doing if it's a workable method.

... Personally, I quit smoking last year (about 30 to 40 a day) and I cannot stand being around smoke now. It's not that it makes me want to start smoking again, it just smells... so bad. But to completely ban smoking in bars would, I think, alienate a great many people.

... Smokers could just start up chewing, I suppose . . . works for the Swedes.

Smoking has to be outside. Clubs, pubs and restaurants can have covered areas with patio heaters and the like, so it isn't exactly punishing, but it has to be a separate area in the 'open air', as it were... although many pubs seem to be converting barns and sheds with various degrees of illegality.

[alex_white101]

i think its an awesome ban, i hated it whenever you went anywhere there was always some twat with a ciggarette in your face or worse blowing it into your face. especially as i have recently returned to the UK and currently have a job collecting glasses in a pub (im not 18 yet so cant serve behind the bar) and its definately become alot more pleasent since the ban. i mean i can now get home and not stink of fags. its excellent and in my opinion long overdue. plus its helped a couple of my friends quit (since now they cant sit and have a social ciggarette they have to go outside in the cold by themselves.) so overall i think it was a great idea. and yes i dont know how to properly spell cigarette, but im not really too fussed as its a disgusting habit which im not going to be involved in, ever.