Merged Smoking should be banned universally

[dafydd]

That which can be stated without proof, can be dismissed without proof!

....and one more point, the benefits are not perceived, you can check out the actual proven benefits published by the NHS in the UK, published in the last year.

....and a final point. My local is much more social and enjoyable now the fug has gone. A very tangible benefit, in my book!

Why are so many pubs closing? Why are the cafe owners in Belgium protesting? My local cafe is almost empty a lot of the time and it used to be the focal point of the village. Why are bar owners in the Nederlands openly defying the ban,with the support of non-smoking customers? I know the owner of one of the oldest cafes in Antwerp,it's a protected building and a lot of her custom came from Dutch tourists who used to stay there all evening but now have only one drink and leave because the regulars are all outside. Since the ban business has dropped by fifty percent. She is going to go out of business because of this silly ban. I live here, I know what's going on,no strawman crap please.

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2008/07/smoking_ban_leads_to_new_relig.php

 

[23_Tauri]

ETA: more recent research demonstrating link between smoking ban and pub closures in the UK:

SMOKINGBAN TO BLAME FOR PUB DECLINE, SAYS NEW RESEARCH - 6th Sept 2010

New research suggests that the smoking ban is the main cause of pub closures in the UK. Using data from a respected industry database, researchers found that the number of pub losses demonstrate a very close statistical relationship between the introduction of smoking bans and the acceleration of the decline of the British pub.
This relationship, says the report, is considerably stronger than those that could be attributed to other factors such as the recession, alcohol duty or supermarket competition.
Researchers found a striking similarity in the rate of closures in Scotland, England and Wales following the introduction of smoking bans in each country.

 

[dafydd]

. Give up the coffin nails!!!!!

Give up whatever it is it that will eventually kill you!!!

 

[23_Tauri]

I would rather spend an evening in a Belgian bruin cafe than an afternoon in the middle of Mexico City.

Me too. Last time I was there, we were served these little snacks called bitterballen with our Belgian beers. They were fantastic. Nyom nyom!

Smoking ban = no more bitterballen

 

[dafydd]

Me too. Last time I was there, we were served these little snacks called bitterballen with our Belgian beers. They were fantastic. Nyom nyom!

Smoking ban = no more bitterballen

I like the bitterballen but not the incendiary mustard that they serve with them. Ketchup for me.

 

[23_Tauri]

I like the bitterballen but not the incendiary mustard that they serve with them. Ketchup for me.

I liked the mustard. We can order both, ketchup and mustard.

 

[dafydd]

I liked the mustard. We can order both, ketchup and mustard.

Why not? You only live once,smoking or no smoking.

 

[23_Tauri]

""All credible scientific evidence shows that passive smoking irritates in the short term and is a major cause of illness in the long term."

ASH say that passive smoking is responsible for 600 cases of lung cancer and 12,000 cases of heart disease a year."

You're not exactly convincing me that it isn't a concern. The risk being a bit less than was thought is a LOT different from no risk at all.

ASH would say that. They're an anti-smoking prohibitionist campaign group.

Back to SHS... Were you aware, Drachasor, that the EPA were found by Judge Osteen to have cherry-picked their data, and had to lower its Confidence Interval to an unheard of 90%, in order to 'prove' that exposure to SHS led to an increased incidence of US non-smokers developing lung cancer?

Because anyone with an interest in the anti-smoking movement and the creation of the 'passive smoking kills' meme should, in my opinion, know about these things.

 

[dafydd]

I would believe it, Dafydd. I used to holiday in Belgium and the Netherlands quite a bit with my ex-husband. He was a bit of a beer aficionado so we'd go over to learn about beer and drink it too. Not once did I see anyone acting roudy on the streets of either country, despite the fact the locals were drinking the strongest beer this side of Alpha Centauri. Being obviously drunk in public is just not socially acceptable, and people don't do it. I love Belgium.

True. One of the worst things that you can call a person here is a zatlap,a hopeless habitual drunk.

 

[23_Tauri]

Why not? You only live once,smoking or no smoking.

Let's live dangerously, eh, and order ketchup AND mustard.

 

[dafydd]

ASH would say that. They're an anti-smoking prohibitionist campaign group.

Back to SHS... Were you aware, Drachasor, that the EPA were found by Judge Osteen to have cherry-picked their data, and had to lower its Confidence Interval to an unheard of 90%, in order to 'prove' that exposure to SHS led to an increased incidence of US non-smokers developing lung cancer?

Because anyone with an interest in the anti-smoking movement and the creation of the 'passive smoking kills' meme should, in my opinion, know about these things.

'Reputable research shows that a non-smoker inhales between a 500th and 1,000th of the toxins inhaled by the smoker himself. No matter what poor Roy Castle believed about the effects of years in smoky jazz clubs, there is little scientific proof that secondary smoke causes cancer'

'

We sent our non-smoking testers to five different pubs across Wales to measure just how much cigarette smoke entered their systems within a three-hour period.

Our reporters' saliva was tested before and after the three-hour period for the chemical cotinine - which is made by the body from nicotine.

While cotinine is not harmful in itself, scientists say it is the most effective way of measuring how much nicotine has been ingested. And nicotine is just one of 50 carcinogenic chemicals contained in tobacco smoke.

A person in the open air should have a reading of zero cotinine in their system.

Our results were processed and supervised by the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health at University College London.

The highest reading showed that in Copa bar, Cardiff, our tester smoked the equivalent of one twentieth of a cigarette in three hours. If taken over the year, spending 20 hours a week in the pub - not unusual for pub staff - this would equate to 19.4 cigarettes a year.

Two readings showed the same results - The Godfrey Morgan pub in Newport, and The Bryncoch in Neath - where our testers 'smoked' the equivalent of one sixtieth of a cigarette each. This equates to just over five cigarettes a year.

The tester at The Godfrey Morgan was sitting in a no-smoking area, although he had to walk through the smoking area and was sat just a few feet away from smokers.

The final two pubs, Revolution in Swansea and The Wynnstay Arms, Llanbrynmair, recorded negligible results, and both our testers found the places were well air-conditioned.'


I'd rather take my chances in a pub that allows smoking than take a stroll through the lovely fresh air in Los Angeles or Mexico City

 

[dafydd]

Let's live dangerously, eh, and order ketchup AND mustard.

And a Duvel.

 

[Explorer]

Look up the meaning of strawman. All the bars in Belgium are required by law to have an extremely effective extractor fan, a large black box on the ceiling. I would rather spend an evening in a Belgian bruin cafe than an afternoon in the middle of Mexico City.

Yep! I've checked out the meaning of "strawman".. and here it is:

"To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition"

(source Wikipaedia)

i.e. in this case passive smoking in enclosed environments being compared with breathing in fumes in open streets. No comparison at all and invalid as a reinforcement of your views.

Does the large Black Box do the job? What was the actual air quality when they are running. What is the position of the black box? Does it provide a suitable "crossflow" ventilation to be effective? Is there a suitably postioned fresh air inlet for the box to be efficient?

We have building regulations in the UK for extractor fans to be fitted into wet rooms by law, but most are not fitted correctly, and suffer from the shortcomings mentioned in the above paragraph.

 

[Explorer]

'Reputable research shows that a non-smoker inhales between a 500th and 1,000th of the toxins inhaled by the smoker himself. No matter what poor Roy Castle believed about the effects of years in smoky jazz clubs, there is little scientific proof that secondary smoke causes cancer'

'

We sent our non-smoking testers to five different pubs across Wales to measure just how much cigarette smoke entered their systems within a three-hour period.

Our reporters' saliva was tested before and after the three-hour period for the chemical cotinine - which is made by the body from nicotine.

While cotinine is not harmful in itself, scientists say it is the most effective way of measuring how much nicotine has been ingested. And nicotine is just one of 50 carcinogenic chemicals contained in tobacco smoke.

A person in the open air should have a reading of zero cotinine in their system.

Our results were processed and supervised by the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health at University College London.

The highest reading showed that in Copa bar, Cardiff, our tester smoked the equivalent of one twentieth of a cigarette in three hours. If taken over the year, spending 20 hours a week in the pub - not unusual for pub staff - this would equate to 19.4 cigarettes a year.

Two readings showed the same results - The Godfrey Morgan pub in Newport, and The Bryncoch in Neath - where our testers 'smoked' the equivalent of one sixtieth of a cigarette each. This equates to just over five cigarettes a year.

The tester at The Godfrey Morgan was sitting in a no-smoking area, although he had to walk through the smoking area and was sat just a few feet away from smokers.

The final two pubs, Revolution in Swansea and The Wynnstay Arms, Llanbrynmair, recorded negligible results, and both our testers found the places were well air-conditioned.'


I'd rather take my chances in a pub that allows smoking than take a stroll through the lovely fresh air in Los Angeles or Mexico City
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_234094e8353408adb7.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_234094e8353532e0f1.jpg[/qimg]

Who is talking about cancer? In tests I have seen carried out in pubs, they tested CO2 levels in the blood. This of course is related to heart disease. I cannot understand why the report you have posted failed to test for this important aspect of passive smoking.

As for Mexico. I would not go to Mexico City until they get their emissions act together. You are nicely proving my point about bans. A laissez faire attitude to atmosphere pollution is dangerous and irresponsible. Banning certain types of activites through governmental legislation in the interest of public health, is essential, and the ultimate moral thing to do.

 

[dafydd]

Who is talking about cancer? In tests I have seen carried out in pubs, they tested CO2 levels in the blood. This of course is related to heart disease. I cannot understand why the report you have posted failed to test for this important aspect of passive smoking.

As for Mexico. I would not go to Mexico City until they get their emissions act together. You are nicely proving my point about bans. A laissez faire attitude to atmosphere pollution is dangerous and irresponsible. Banning certain types of activites through governmental legislation in the interest of public health, is essential, and the ultimate moral thing to do.

Everything In say say proves your point. I get it. There is no point in discussing anything with you. Ban everything and pack us in cotton wool. You'll be cutting down the maypoles next. Enjoy your eternal life. Cheerio

 

[dafydd]

Does the large Black Box do the job? What was the actual air quality when they are running. What is the position of the black box? Does it provide a suitable "crossflow" ventilation to be effective? Is there a suitably postioned fresh air inlet for the box to be efficient?

We have building regulations in the UK for extractor fans to be fitted into wet rooms by law, but most are not fitted correctly, and suffer from the shortcomings mentioned in the above paragraph.

They are inspected regularly by the local council,or were. Someone is out of a job. As for the last paragraph,you would know, being an omniscient anti-smoker. I suppose you have inspected every extractor fan in the UK. Toodle pip.

 

[Explorer]

Give up the sanctimonious attitude!!!!

Who are you to lecture dafydd and I on our lifestyle choices? Perhaps we don't want to give up. I like the Lady Nicotine on the occasions I choose to commune with her. [qimg]http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p133/debs711/smoke1-1.gif[/qimg]

Of course you dont want to give up, nicotiine chooses you, not the other way round, as it is a highly addictive drug. I am not at all sanctamonious, You are simply in denial, but having said that, and as you have obviously forgotten what I said a few posts ago, if you want to die ten years early, then go ahead and be my guest, nothing sanctomnious about that.

 

[23_Tauri]

Who is talking about cancer? In tests I have seen carried out in pubs, they tested CO2 levels in the blood. This of course is related to heart disease.

Is it? In what respect? Show me the evidence that demonstrates that short-term increases in CO2 concentration that would result from being in a smoky environment for a short period (such as being in a pub) leads to heart disease.

I'll tell you what's a strawman: discussing ventilation when it has never been proven that anyone ever contracted a disease from SHS. One of the - many - assumptions made by the EPA (and subsequently, others) is that because there is an association between active smoking and lung cancer, there also must be a similar association between SHS and lung cancer. This is not proven. Contracting disease from an environmental toxin is based on the principle of 'dose response', that is it takes a certain amount of the substance to cause a reaction in the body that leads to disease.

The amounts of ETS (environmental tobacco smoke aka SHS) inhaled by non-smokers is a fraction of that inhaled by the smoker, and it has not been proven that such minute amounts are large enough to cause disease.

ETA: I'm not against ventilation, I think it's a good idea, because it makes for a more comfortable environment for both smokers and non. But to say it's essential to have adequate ventilation, or even James Repace's ludicruous "veritable indoor tornado", to avoid diseases, is patently absurd.

 

[dafydd]

Of course you dont want to give up, nicotiine chooses you, not the other way round, as it is a highly addictive drug. I am not at all sanctamonious, You are simply in denial, but having said that, and as you have obviously forgotten what I said a few posts ago, if you want to die ten years early, then go ahead and be my guest, nothing sanctomnious about that.

That is entirely sanctimonious. Is English your first language, by the way, or is your spell checker just broken? What else would you like to ban just because it may shorten a person's life? I would like to ban Rap,because it causes drive-by shootings and pollutes the musical atmosphere. I would also like to ban people who try to ban things that only harm the person using whatever it may be.

 

[dafydd]

Yep! I've checked out the meaning of "strawman".. and here it is:

"To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition"

.

You accused me of making a strawman,not attacking one. Please try to get things right.