The smoking ban

[bearcub]

smokers get used to the idea of not being allowed to poison themselves and everyone sitting in the same room as them.

......watch out car drivers.....you're next

[foxy]

smokers get used to the idea of not being allowed to poison themselves and everyone sitting in the same room as them.

......watch out car drivers.....you're next

Last company I worked for over 7 years ago...you weren't allowed to smoke in your company car

[bearcub]

Last company I worked for over 7 years ago...you weren't allowed to smoke in your company car

No smoking, even if you fork out $1.75M

[Maria]

Hey Marya...how was the land of the free...did you have a nice day

Nothing makes you appreciate our local Scotmid assistants quite like a week in the USA Foxy

We had a great time thanks, though I don't know how we would have coped if we wanted to smoke as Florida is very much a no-smoking state. However, Disney did provide some screened off areas where groups of furtive smokers could huddle together for a quick blast of nicotine before heading off to the next 90 min queue.

My son also managed to halt a ride at Seaworld 'due to technical difficulties'. Half way round the ride, his face banged off the inadequately padded safety bar in the car. When the ride ended he had blood spread all over his face and tee shirt thanks to the G forces. It looked quite spectacular and there was a mountain of documentation to fill in. Think they were mightily relieved to find out we were Brits and not likely to be running off to the nearest lawyer

[tom nimmo]

Never fear Epykat, I've been in The Plough lots of times and never tripped over a wheelie bin. The Plough is actually Porty's best live music venue every Saturday night. When I'm not otherwise occupied acting as roadie, sound engineer, bodyguard and general factotum to Rosy Blue I will always try to catch the bands that are on. Bob got it slightly wrong. The Plough is a rock and blues venue, not jazz (thankfully) and if you want to see just how good it is why not witness the wonderful Rosy Blue rock and blues band lifting the roof off on March 18th. The fag draggers will still be slowly killing themselves and fugging the air though so don't wear your best clothes.

[Porty]

It does worry me slightly that by banning smoking the Government will start taxing something that I do to make up the money

Relax Epykat, until such tome as conspiracy theory tax is introduced your money is safe. Well except for the pallet load of alchohol you ship on a monthly basis

[Porty]

I agree about the Plough. It is great fun on a saturday evening and there is some good live music. I was in there a few saturdays ago and there was a group of 3 or 4 grizzly rockers who did a pretty good job.

In fact I would say the Plough is PoP and I's pub of choice when we gp for a pre-up town drink, sometimes we just leave the uptown bit out.

Whenheard about a non-smoking ban the Plough was the first vision that swam into my head. If they can do it, everywhere can. I can't wait for March 26th.

As for Rosy Blue? I find her performances intoxicating, well I think its her fault

[Pal of Porty]

That's not a debate - it's a US-style election campaign with all the mud coming from the smug middle classes who have inflicted their desire to have smoke-free restaurants on the working class.

Totally correct Dadaist - I wanted it banned, I wasn't too interested in the debate.

[Dadaist]

That's not a debate - it's a US-style election campaign with all the mud coming from the smug middle classes who have inflicted their desire to have smoke-free restaurants on the working class.

Totally correct Dadaist - I wanted it banned, I wasn't too interested in the debate.

Bah, yada, blah, rights etc etc

You win some, you lose some.

*walks off into the sunset with the sound of the "Hamlet" music playing*

[bellybabe]

Either because of the way it's shot (filters on the lenses) or the fags used (no filters!) the cigs smoked in the movie Blade Runner are really yellow - the smoke and the paper. You can't beat a bit of film noir in colour with plenty of steam and smoke.

What have we got for a bit of atmosphere now it's almost the teens of the century and smokes are out the window - Ben Affleck's cfc-free deodorant?

Pah. I want my actors not only to have guts, but to cough them up too. Cheroots are part of the plot in the Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

Actually, after a dip, Hollywood is now showing smoking in its films as much as it did in the 50s:

The number of Hollywood films showing on-screen smoking is back up to the levels of the 1950s, with nearly 80% of films rated for young audiences including scenes in which characters light up, according to researchers in California.

The study claims the reason why nearly half teenage smokers in the US try cigarettes can be linked to on-screen smoking, leading the researchers to call for an adult rating for all films that depict tobacco use. "The science is very solid. Smoking in the movies has a very substantial effect on the risk that kids will get addicted to nicotine," said Stanton Glantz, one of the researchers at the University of California San Francisco.

A sample of the top-grossing films over the last 50 years found that smoking decreased from an average of 10.7 events an hour in 1950 to 4.9 in 1982 - and then shot up to 10.9 by 2002. An "event" ranges from a character lighting a cigarette to a shot of a tobacco advertisement.

A spokeswoman for the Motion Picture Association of America told the San Jose Mercury that industry statistics showed that only about half of PG-13 movies over the past two years had featured tobacco use. "Everybody agrees that ... our industry shouldn't be encouraging or glamourising smoking," the spokeswoman said. But the study, published in December's issue of the journal Pediatrics, found that nearly four out of five PG-13 movies show somebody smoking cigarettes or cigars or chewing tobacco.

(From the guardian, Dec 7th 05)

And in a survey of 87 films from the past twenty years, taken from the Internet Movie Database of the top 200 of all time, 68% depicted tobacco use.

BB

[Dadaist]

four out of five PG-13 movies show somebody smoking cigarettes or cigars or chewing tobacco

Woof! I mean, I'm all for creative expression and that, but I hardly want the Gummi Bears smoking Strand, or Big Bird endorsing Skoal Bandits!

[Epykat]

It does worry me slightly that by banning smoking the Government will start taxing something that I do to make up the money

Relax Epykat, until such tome as conspiracy theory tax is introduced your money is safe. Well except for the pallet load of alchohol you ship on a monthly basis

Watch it you or I'll stub my fag out on your pink shirt.......

[Scorpion]

As an ex-smoker I would just like to say that I agree with the ban on smoking in pubs. There, I've said it and there's no going back. It's not that I do not like smokers, it's just that once you are a smoker, you're always a smoker. Latterly I used to smoke 30 a day. I was addicted to it and I would have been the first to criticise this government for bringing in the ban. Then one day about 5 years ago I decided that enough was enough and I gave up. It was the third or fourth time that I had tried but I was determined that it would be the last. However, whenever I stand at a bus stop or when I am on a bus and someone lights up a cigarette it really annoys me. As I said, once a smoker always a smoker. It NEVER goes away. It's like a drug and will be with me for the rest of my life. I can't say that I will never smoke again. However, I am determined to try. I don't go to the pub very much but it will be nice to go and not find the temptation to start smoking there as well.

[Dadaist]

It's interesting how some subjects are taboo and some aren't, some attitudes are frowned upon and some aren't - and how this shifts over time and also depends on a sort of snapshot of culture at the time.

Right now, we're unfortunately subjected to the kind of attitude you might see in a born-again christian who has forgotten to hate the sin and love the sinner and decided it's much easier to gun for the easy target.

I hope that if I was an ex-smoker I would direct my anger at the tobacco companies.

Imagine if some of the language used here against smokers, who have committed no crime, was directed against the morbidly obese.

[promqueen]

Aye, but the morbidly obese are only harming themselves, and not you, unless you had your eye on that pie they've just bought!

[Dadaist]

Aye, but the morbidly obese are only harming themselves, and not you, unless you had your eye on that pie they've just bought!

I assume therefore that you aim a proportionally larger amount of anger against car drivers, coal burners and anyone who uses products, by-products or is connected with heavy industry or the nuclear industry - for example - given that they cause more damage than passive smoking.

Just keep saying "passive smoking" enough times - it's such a taboo phrase that the smear value alone will work - it's much easier than trying to explain why it's ok to have a hate group to target.

[Porty]

Right now, we're unfortunately subjected to the kind of attitude you might see in a born-again christian who has forgotten to hate the sin and love the sinner and decided it's much easier to gun for the easy target.

I love when write do stuff like this.

Imagine if some of the language used here against smokers, who have committed no crime

Its true that smoking as an act is not a criminal offence. It is also true that few smokers have been prosecuted. I await the day when some victim of passive smoking raises a charge of GBH or assualt on a nearby smoker.

[Dadaist]

Heh. Surely it has happened already in the States?

[xxxx]

Just keep saying "passive smoking" enough times - it's such a taboo phrase that the smear value alone will work - it's much easier than trying to explain why it's ok to have a hate group to target.

The passive smoking argument is a bit mystifying, the people who are most at risk from this are the non smoking partners and children of people who smoke. These are actually going to be more at risk as this group is now confined to their homes, banned from the last public place you can smoke.

From thebbc:

"Analysis of urine samples has indicated that people who are married to smokers are exposed to around 6% of the dose that is received by an active smoker."

Thats for people married to smokers.
I don't know how much time the anti smokers spend in the boozer, but it can't be a very large proportion of their lives.

"What about the workers?" I hear you cry.
"Air Filters" I reply

[foxy]

I love when write do stuff like this.

Maybe you should stop inhaling

[Pal of Porty]

The passive smoking argument is a bit mystifying, the people who are most at risk from this are the non smoking partners and children of people who smoke. These are actually going to be more at risk as this group is now confined to their homes, banned from the last public place you can smoke.

Ah I see now. The best way a smoker can protect their loved ones is to spend as much time away from them as possible, which up until the end of March is in the pub.

[xxxx]

Ah I see now. The best way a smoker can protect their loved ones is to spend as much time away from them as possible, which up until the end of March is in the pub.

Not at all, the best way would be to quit smoking, as the majority of people do when the family comes along.

I am just pointing out that those most at risk will be more likely to suffer while those at least risk, the occasional light passive smoker, will benefit in a trivial way.

[ifstar]

Not at all, the best way would be to quit smoking, as the majority of people do when the family comes along.

Where are you getting the statement that most people stop smoking when the family comes along from?

[xxxx]

Where are you getting the statement that most people stop smoking when the family comes along from?

should have qualified that as in my experience, one of the early signs of pregnancy is the abandonment of fags, however the data here suggests my experience must be atypical

"Pregnancy is a minor trigger to stopping smoking but encourages quit attempts more in pregnant women than in men."

[ifstar]

This was originally going to be posted as an Edit but xxxx beat me to it with the reply.

Not at all, the best way would be to quit smoking, as the majority of people do when the family comes along.

Where are you getting the statement that most people stop smoking when the family comes along from?

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/924/0019811.pdf
The above link will take you to the 2003 Scottish Health survey document where they state that the percentages of people that smoke in the 25-34 age range (which is probably also the most likely range where people will start a family) is 39% for men and 35% for women. This is also the highest percentage for both sexes across all age ranges.

The BBC also provide some information too
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4709394.stm
This document also has the following statement which you put forward earlier
"But it has also been suggested that children will be more likely to be exposed to smoke, as their parents will light-up at home instead. "

Now, if these people are making the decision to leave the house and go to the pub to smoke because they don't want to inflict their smoke on their family are they all of a sudden going to abandon their good intentions and just smoke in front of their family because they are no longer allowed to do it at the pub? If so, then it didn't take much for them to stop their good intentions as they could have easily went to another room in the house when requiring to smoke, thus still protecting their family at least a bit.

should have qualified that as in my experience, one of the early signs of pregnancy is the abandonment of fags

The data here suggests otherwise

"Pregnancy is a minor trigger to stopping smoking but encourages quit attempts more in pregnant women than in men."

I would fully expect a woman to at very least try and stop smoking when pregnant. But as you have pointed out, your argument has been cancelled out by the evidence you were able to find (and the information I posted above).
The link below provides information of what smoking while pregnant can do to your child, this also covers if the female doesn't smoke but the partner does.
http://www.hebs.com/readysteadybaby/pre ... egnant.htm


Also worth pointing out, from your link
Two-thirds of UK smokers (67% of women and 66% of men) say they would like to give up smoking altogether (ONS, 1997a); that is around 8 million people in the UK.

Can I ask a question xxxx? I gather from your post you gave up smoking when you started a family, do you still not smoke or did you start back up again?

[xxxx]

This was originally going to be posted as an Edit but xxxx beat me to it with the reply.

Not at all, the best way would be to quit smoking, as the majority of people do when the family comes along.

The BBC also provide some information too
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4709394.stm
This document also has the following statement which you put forward earlier
"But it has also been suggested that children will be more likely to be exposed to smoke, as their parents will light-up at home instead. "

Now, if these people are making the decision to leave the house and go to the pub to smoke because they don't want to inflict their smoke on their family are they all of a sudden going to abandon their good intentions and just smoke in front of their family because they are no longer allowed to do it at the pub? If so, then it didn't take much for them to stop their good intentions as they could have easily went to another room in the house when requiring to smoke, thus still protecting their family at least a bit.

Thats far too much remote psychology for me, I don't know what or how people think most of the time. I was drawing the perfectly reasonable conclusion that people who smoke will most likely smoke more at home after the ban. It seems to be generally agreed that children are most vulnerable, so the ban disadvantages the most vulnerable.

should have qualified that as in my experience, one of the early signs of pregnancy is the abandonment of fags

The data here suggests otherwise

"Pregnancy is a minor trigger to stopping smoking but encourages quit attempts more in pregnant women than in men."

I would fully expect a woman to at very least try and stop smoking when pregnant. But as you have pointed out, your argument has been cancelled out by the evidence you were able to find

That wasn't my argument , it was my observation, rashly extrapolated and rapidly retracted.

(and the information I posted above).
The link below provides information of what smoking while pregnant can do to your child, this also covers if the female doesn't smoke but the partner does.
http://www.hebs.com/readysteadybaby/pre ... egnant.htm


Also worth pointing out, from your link
Two-thirds of UK smokers (67% of women and 66% of men) say they would like to give up smoking altogether (ONS, 1997a); that is around 8 million people in the UK.

That leaves 4 million housebound lovers of the cigarette.

Can I ask a question xxxx? I gather from your post you gave up smoking when you started a family, do you still not smoke or did you start back up again?

I gave up because its a stupid unhealthy and expensive habit. However I still recognise that nicotine is the craftiest of molecules, and it will easily persuade many smokers to continue. I just think it rather sanctimonious to deny people who smoke their last refuge. Non smokers have everywhere else.
Personally, I'll live with the ban quite happily. However the exchequer is not going cold turkey with its cigarette habit. It will taper off quite nicely as the horrible smokers die off at home. Double bubble there.

[ifstar]

That leaves 4 million housebound lovers of the cigarette.

And about 46 million non smokers and 8 million smokers who would like to stop.

They aren't exactly housebound though are they, they can still go out if they wish but will have to go outside to enjoy their cigarette. It works in other places without much fuss - I was in Stockholm last year and to be able to go out and not get fumigated was wonderful. Do you not find that when you come out of a smokey place that your throat feels horrible and your eyes nip?

How do smokers cope if they work in for a non smoking company? They will probably have better facilities at pubs than at their workplace if they have to stand outside there.

The majority of smokers will probably smoke less now, how is this a bad thing? I don't really believe the argument that most smokers won't go to the pub because they can't smoke inside. If you speak to any smoker they will tell you they smoke more when they are around other smokers, especially in a social environment like pubs. It stands to reason that they will smoke less.

[xxxx]

That leaves 4 million housebound lovers of the cigarette.

4 million is a substantial minority in my book, but I shouldn't make offhand comments like that, it allows respondents to avoid the single consistent point I have been making, once again:
those most vulnerable are likeliest to suffer, those least vulnerable are the beneficiaries
(as the bbc article shows, I am not alone in thinking this)

And about 46 million non smokers and 8 million smokers who would like to stop.

They aren't exactly housebound though are they, they can still go out if they wish but will have to go outside to enjoy their cigarette. It works in other places without much fuss - I was in Stockholm last year and to be able to go out and not get fumigated was wonderful. Do you not find that when you come out of a smokey place that your throat feels horrible and your eyes nip?

I don't know which country you live in, but our climate does not encourage outdoor smoking for around 6 months of the year. A bit of smoke doesn't really outrage me I'm afraid, I found the smell of smoke in the home far more distateful

How do smokers cope if they work in for a non smoking company? They will probably have better facilities at pubs than at their workplace if they have to stand outside there.

In most workplaces, people who smoke have no choice, and accept this

The majority of smokers will probably smoke less now, how is this a bad thing? I don't really believe the argument that most smokers won't go to the pub because they can't smoke inside. If you speak to any smoker they will tell you they smoke more when they are around other smokers, especially in a social environment like pubs. It stands to reason that they will smoke less.

Questions like this seem to suggest I approve of smoking, for the third time, (I think), I don't. I don't agree with incoherent policy making either.

Yes, its comforting to use the prim "its for their own good" argument. Take that a bit further and you should take their children away from them. Do you not care about their children of people who smoke?

You are suiting yourself by ensuring you can go everywhere and people who want to smoke are barred from ,de facto, the only place they can smoke in public.

I'm sure this will be used in classrooms as the classic example of noolabour legislation. It has all the hallmarks:
Someone else did it first
It doesn't affect revenue
It picks on an already demonised minority
Its a hamfisted answer to an inconvenience, not a problem
It pretends to be about rights, when its really about preferences
It sweeps the actual problem out of view

[Pal of Porty]

If people want to smoke all over their family in their own house, then that is up to them. I am just absolutely delighted that in in a few weeks time, they won't be able to smoke all over me when I am in a public place.

[ifstar]

it allows respondents to avoid the single consistent point I have been making, once again:
those most vulnerable are likeliest to suffer, those least vulnerable are the beneficiaries
(as the bbc article shows, I am not alone in thinking this)

I don't think the majority of smokers will stop going to the pub though.
Sorry I never answered this before, I thought I had mentioned that when I was talking about people smoking in front of the children but I must have forgotten to add it.

So if you were still a smoker and the pub was your "last refuge", when the ban came into place would you stop going to the pub altogether and just smoke in the house in front of your family?

I'm sure this will be used in classrooms as the classic example of noolabour legislation. It has all the hallmarks:
1) Someone else did it first
2) It doesn't affect revenue
3) It picks on an already demonised minority
4) Its a hamfisted answer to an inconvenience, not a problem
5) It pretends to be about rights, when its really about preferences
6) It sweeps the actual problem out of view

I have added numbers to your points to make it easier to talk about
1) Does this make it a bad idea? If it works elsewhere then why is this a bad thing?
2) I am sure that cigarette sales will drop - people are likely to smoke less, so tax received from the the sale of them will drop.
3) Its what the majority want
4) Yes smoking and smoking related diseases are just an inconvience Whatever you might think, many people will smoke less or even stop completely. The following link provides some timelines of when the benefits of stopping smoking kick in
http://www.quitsmokingsupport.com/benefits.htm
The following link has some information about the benefits of just reducing your intake
http://www.no-smoking.org/august01/08-22-01-1.html
5) Not sure on this, surely it should the right of the majority of the poplulation to be able to go into a pub and enjoy a drink without being exposed to smoking? Or would you say that all non smokers know that pubs might have smoke in them, so just shouldn't go if they don't want exposed? If so then surely that is taking away their choice?
6) How does it sweep the problem out of view? Do you mean because you assume more people will smoke at home? If so then the following link may be of interest http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4672005.stm
A couple of snippits
The Royal College of Physicians reviewed research into passive smoking, and the impact of banning smoking in public places.
It found that bans encourage smokers to cut down, or quit completely - rather than to smoke more at home.

Professor John Britton, chair of the college's Tobacco Advisory Group, said: "The evidence shows that if you make public places smoke-free a lot of people who smoke quit and a lot of people who continue to smoke stop smoking at home.
"You become used to the idea that smoking is not normal and you don't do it in front of other people."

It sounds to me like your real objection is this part
I'm sure this will be used in classrooms as the classic example of noolabour legislation.

[ifstar]

If people want to smoke all over their family in their own house, then that is up to them. I am just absolutely delighted that in in a few weeks time, they won't be able to smoke all over me when I am in a public place.

If they are happy enough to do it to their family after the ban then they are probably happily enough do it already.

[Porty]

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index ... =301352006

Some of the quotes regarding pubs going out of business and the bloke from FOREST claiming that ashtrays look "really nice" are farcical. These bins are just another advertising space.

[Pal of Porty]

The count down begins - not long to go now.

[foxy]

[ecm]