HOME | CATALOG | DOWNLOADS | LINKS | EDITORIALS | DISCUSSION | CONTACT

Smoking Ban

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Log Out | Edit Profile | Register
Night Shade Message Boards » Politics and Religion » Smoking Ban « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Neal Asher
Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 04:06 am:   

So, for the good of our health, the British government is to ban smoking in all bars, pubs, clubs and restaurants. Apparently the owners of these establishments cannot be trusted with deciding themselves whether or not to allow smoking, and those who work in those places are not adult enough to decide what to tolerate in their working environment. More power to the government, more nanny statism, more of our freedoms eroded. How long before this government, in its wisdom, then decides to limit how much we are allowed to drink or eat in such places, since excess of either is unhealthy? How long will it be before you have to buy a permit and fill in a risk-assessment form for farting in public?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Patrick M.
Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 05:07 am:   

How would you implement a no farting section? Float an enzyme in the air that glows when encountering farts?

Otherwise, I'd probably sit in the no farting section illegally.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Neal Asher
Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 06:29 am:   

Maybe maintain naked flames near seat level? Perhaps employ sniffer dogs?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Andrew Fox
Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 07:09 am:   

Hi, Neal. You have my sympathies. I've never been a smoker, but I think outlawing smoking in public places where smoking has traditionally been a part of the experience, like bars and clubs, is on the edge of ridiculous. I was astounded when New York City instituted its ban; I never thought that would happen. There's been plenty of civil disobedience over that issue up there. Hey, if you want to smoke to your heart's content (no pun intended), move over here to New Orleans. . . we may be 80% destroyed, but we still let people smoke in bars, restaurants, and night clubs!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Neal Asher
Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 08:22 am:   

Hah, thanks Andrew, you've reinforced my contention on another board:

Why is smoking 'disgusting' and why is the smell it produces a 'stink'? Equally someone could call the smells of certain foods 'stinks' and consider drinking a gin-and-tonic 'disgusting'. Usually when people use such strong terms about smoking they are 'born-again non-smokers' who have built up a body of hatred for the habit as a necessary defence against the temptation. In my experience people who have never smoked rarely object to the smell or the habit.

I think my greatest objection to this ban is that it's more state control. The decision should be left individually to the bar, club and restaurant owners.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ellen Datlow
Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 08:31 am:   

Cigarette and cigar smoke make me ill. Whenever I go to London it's been really difficult to find restaurants with no smoking sections. I walk out immediately. I think it's only fair to have smoking and no smoking sections.
I had't been to a bar in years because of the smoke, although now I will occasionally drop in at one because gee, I can breathe.

I'm not for banning smoking everywhere but if restaurants and bars can't provide no smoking areas they don't get my business and there are millions of other non-smokers who feel the same way. Deal with it. NYC has and AFAIK there's been no ill effect on restaurants or bars.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

simon
Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 08:56 am:   

Neal,
Don't have strong views on smoking. Never have smoked, don't much like breathing other peoples smoke but what the hey (might feel differently if I worked in a bar though).

State control is an interesting one though. So you wouldn't mind, say, the Licensed Victuallars association introducing a blanket ban on smoking in bars? Or supermarkets banning the sale of cigarettes (like they would) because, say, their shareholders thought it was bad for PR. These forms of control are OK, just not state control.

Why is state control so much worse than other imposed controls? We have recourse to the state at least.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bruce
Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 09:31 am:   

As a reformed cigarette smoker - none in 13 years - and a very occasional cigarillo smoker - a few dozen a year - I can say that I find the smell of cigarettes abhorrent but not cigar or pipe smoke. My wife, who has never smoked, can't tolerate cigarettes but doesn't mind the smell of a cigar or pipe. There's something about the smell of cigarettes that's particularly unappealing, at least to this born-again non-smoker.

I'm all for segregated smoking and non-smoking areas in restaurants provided they're actually physically separated. Having a non-smoking section in the same volume is like having a no peeing section in a swimming pool. I couldn't eat around cigarette smokers even when I was one.

Bars are a lot different. I don't spend much time in them but am glad that non-smoking drinking establishments are available, and that there are regular smoking-permitted bars for those who like tobacco with their alcohol...I sure did back in the old days.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Matt Hughes
Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 10:06 am:   

A ban is not intended to protect the patrons from themselves. It's a health and safety issue for the people to have to spend eight-hour shifts, day after day, breathing in smoke. If you're a bartender or waiter, and all the bars are full of smokers, what are you going to do? It's not as if people doing those jobs have a whole lot of career options.

In British Columbia, there's been a ban on smoking in pubs and restaurants for a few years now, and there was a certain amount of crankiness when it was first put in place. But a survey by the BC Lung Association last year showed that 91 per cent of us now think that the ban should cover any indoor public space. See link.

We also have the lowest percentage of smokers in Canada -- 16 per cent of the adult population -- and the lowest number of households in which kids are exposed to their parents' smoke. We're becoming a non-smoking culture, which will save us billions upon billions in health-care costs, lost productivity, accidental fires, car accidents -- oh, and as a byproduct, it will keep tens of thousands of people a year from dying prematurely.

Matt Hughes
www.archonate.com
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

des
Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 10:16 am:   

Life, I feel, is the unavoidable amalgam of humanity's good and bad habits ... from which we hope at least for some bearable (optimised?) synergy of behaviour and existence.

The perceived bad habits or the perceived good habits both play their part in that synergy.

Meanwhile, these very perceptions vary and change - and become part of the synergy itself.

des
http://www.weirdmonger.com
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Neal Asher
Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 11:50 am:   

Let me lay this one on you:

Apparently, breathing secondhand cigarette smoke increases your chances of getting lung cancer by 25%. Most people, whose acquaintance with mathematics was an unhappy affair from childhood to teens and quickly forgotten, will illogically look at that percentage and think breathing secondhand smoke gives them a one in four chance of getting lung cancer. They don’t seem to realise that to understand the statement you need to first know what your chances are without breathing that smoke. They are about 1% – one in a hundred. A 25% increase in your chances of getting lung cancer means these odds rise by a quarter per cent – substantially less than your odds of being killed in a car accident, of committing suicide or being gunned down. But how much passive smoking are we talking about: a lifetime serving behind a bar or a whiff of cigar smoke in your high street? Well, you can guarantee those odds are predicated on the first instance and not the second.

Zen, Des, Zen -- stop smoking that stuff.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Drunky McDrunkdrunk
Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 12:58 pm:   

I only smoke when I'm really, really drunk. At that point, hitting my head on the toilet is a bigger concern than second hand smoke.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Matt Hughes
Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 02:55 pm:   

Always fun to argue statistics. The odds of being murdered are even lower than getting cancer from second-hand smoke, yet we try to discourage it all the same.

And, of course, if the insignificant fraction of the population that gets lung cancer that way is suddenly found to include the person who is evaluating the seriousness of the problem, or even just someone the evaluator would prefer to keep alive, a reassessment of that insignificance will often follow.

Matt Hughes
www.archonate.com
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Nathan
Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 03:59 pm:   

Well, I'm not a smoker (aside from the very occasional cigar), but I have spent the last eight years of my life behind a smoky New Orleans bar. I think banning smoking in restaurants is a fine idea. I think designating smoking sections for bars which are add-ons to restaurants and hotels is also peachy.

Where I have to draw the line, though, is when someone drags the neighborhood bar into this argument about "health" and the "public good." (No one here has done it, but it does come up in the general debate.) That's when the hypocrisy gets a little deep. This kind of bar, like it or not, is a place to practice vice. It is as much about smoking and loud cursing and -- in New Orleans, at least -- sexual escapades as it is about drinking. It's the place you pound some Wild Turkey and tell the world to go fuck itself, and if it won't you knock your ashes onto its shoe and poke it in the eye.

If you took smoking away from the people who came into my bar, would they come back? Yeah, probably. But the heavy hand of the state would weigh a little heavier on their shoulders, and frankly most of these people have enough to bear already. The life of the place would be diluted, and I use that word without irony. I find I'm very protective of the sanctity of the neighborhood bar.

But what do I know? I think we ought to legalize prostitution.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Thomas R.
Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 04:36 pm:   

I don't smoke and have a respiratory condition, but I know people who smoke. The pressures to make them quit are maybe a good idea, but for many of the long-addicted I don't think it does anything. And as for bars, something I also don't do, aren't people there often kind of unhealthy anyway? The few times I've been to bars the people are largely overweight and the food is greasy crud.

Does anyone watch House? That episode last night the parents were all "We're open with our son on everything. He tells us who he's having sex with and we gave him marijuana to demystify it." Then at the end House sees signs the kid smoked cigarettes and when he asks them on how they'd respond to that the Dad goes "I'd kill him." I get the sense there really are parents like that out there.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Nathan
Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 07:04 pm:   


quote:

As for bars, something I also don't do, aren't people there often kind of unhealthy anyway? The few times I've been to bars the people are largely overweight and the food is greasy crud.




That's right, and all the people in health clubs are ripped vegetarians. Healthy people do actually go to bars; I've even seen some skinny people there, though I do my best to make them feel unwelcome.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Trashhauler
Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 07:49 pm:   

The best comment I ever heard about second hand smoke was spoken by Sharon Stone in some movie or other. Playing a calculating woman contemplating the murder of her lover's abusive husband, she distractedly lit up in a public place.

Up bustled an officious little man who lectured Stone in the manner of many bold non-smokers, "Don't you realize that secondhand smoke can kill people?!"

Giving him an irritated glance, Stone snapped, "Yes, but not reliably."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Nathan
Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 07:51 pm:   

:-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Thomas R.
Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 10:18 pm:   

Good line, agree.

Nathan I don't go to health clubs either. I'm just kind of anti-alcohol in general. In fact I'm more anti-alcohol than I am anti-cigarette. If it weren't for my respiratory condition I might consider smoking. They've made it so over-the-top taboo it's vaguely seductive. That's probably the only reason young people would go into it as the cost and isolation of it would be prohibitive. Plus it does smell and look disgusting. (Pipes look cool, but that's a different deal)

Maybe when the baby-boom "I want to live forever" generation dies off there'll be a more balanced view of these things.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

James M. Pfundstein
Posted on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 07:25 am:   

A balanced view of cancer? You may be asking too much. I understand it's not nearly as much fun as it looks on TV and in the movies.

If Neal Asher or anyone else wants to increase their chances of dying a particularly horrible death, who could object? I don't see that their right to amuse themselves as they wish necessarily includes inflicting this increased risk on others, though.

JMP
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lawrence A
Posted on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 08:40 am:   

actually every ecologist will tell you that smoking does damage in other ways. All that land given over to farm tobacco, forests have been wiped out to make room for tobacco plantations and the monocropping of tobacco depletes the soil. the problem though lies with demand and not supply. that is why do people smoke? No good blaming the tobacco companies and their advertisers. The problem lies with smokers, or rather I think it lies at a deeper level, a rat race society in which stresses and strain lead people to need smoking as a kind of way to relax, just like the need for alcohol.

That said it's not like all that land given over to farm tobbacco would have been left as virgin wilderness or used to farm food to be given to the poor, any more than would be the case with all the crops that are farmed for all alcohol/liquor - wine, beer, whisky etc. It's worth giving pause though to think just how much acreage must be given over worldwide for the farming of crops for alcohol and tobacco consumption.

Although I would prefer a nation of drinkers and smokers to a a nation of tee-totalling non-smokers who riot over a bunch of cartoons and threaten all infidels with death. The British govt seems more concerned with fighting the menace of smoking than the menace of "kill the infidel" fanaticism. The Liverpool docks could go up in a terrorist blast but you know what matters is that the bars and clubs there are smoke free zones. That's how the Blair govt seems to measure its priorities. there's a satirical short story somewhere here Neal.

Also I gotta say this law is ridiculous, I don't smoke but this is taking things too far, I mean nightclubs and bars??!! this law is so misguided. People will probably drink more now that they can't have ciggies to hand in bars and pubs, more drunkenness and brawling even? Maybe, maybe not.

I could never have imagined the UK passing this law just ten years ago, but this is not Churchill's Britain anymore, (thank God he did not live long enought to see what Britain has become), this is mad Ken "embrace fanatical Egyptian clerics and stop the evil pigeons from shitting in Trafalgar Square" Livingstone's Britain.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dave G.
Posted on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 01:23 pm:   

The tide is really turning against smoking. Even the Virginia Senate in Richmond (hometown of Philip Morris) voted for a smoking ban this week.

The problem with all the "individual choice" arguments is that a smoker is choosing not just for himself but for everyone who breathes the same air.

I don't know what all the fuss is about. Kids get into smoking to make them look like cool rebels and renegades. Outcasts. Outsiders. So now, the reality can fit the pose. Perfect.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Neal Asher
Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 05:29 am:   

"increase their chances of dying a particularly horrible death"

In reality how many of us do not die a horrible death?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Matt Hughes
Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 07:02 am:   

I've seen people die of lung cancer and emphysema. There's no comparison to a sudden heart attack or stroke, or an instant impact death in a car accident.

Matt Hughes
www.archonate.com
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sue
Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 06:57 pm:   

My son and daughter play with a brother and sister who live with two smoking parents who still insist on chain smoking in the house.

These parents expose both their kids to constant chain smoking all day long (luckily, both kids have to be away at school for 7 hours a day -- probably the only time they are free from second-hand smoke) and expose my kids to it as well -- I no longer let them go there because it's practically blue in the house.

When they come to my house, these poor kids stink of cigarettes. They are both sick all the time with constant colds, flus and ear infections, and to top it off, both have asthma. Both are mouth breathers because they are constantly plugged up.

They are like vitamin c hounds at my house -- I always make a point of putting out fruits as snacks, including oranges and grapes and other fruits rich in vitamin c and these poor kids just gobble them up like it's their last meal. I bet they are chronically short on vitamin c because of all that smoke. The daughter even sucked on a lemon I had out and was using for a vinagrette!

Their doctor told the parents that both kids have asthma, ear infections and constant colds because the parents smoke in the house and that if they would just smoke outside, their kids would stop being sick all the time.

Did it have any effect? Nope. The parents still insist on smoking in the house.

It's child abuse, IMO. However much I condemn these parents, I condemn the tobacco industry and government as well. Tobacco manufacturers produce a lethal weapon that addicts children and keeps them addicts. Governments should convert the tobacco industry into a part of the pharmaceutical industry and regulate it, treat them like medicines or other drugs because of the potency of nicotine. Give people prescriptions for nicotine instead of them smoking. Sure, the parents are at fault, but they are addicts who are addicted to one of the most powerful legal drugs out there.

I support the ban on smoking in public places, including bars and restaurants. It's a health and safety issue for workers and non-smoking patrons. If only we could ban it in households where there are children present or maybe fine parents who expose their kids to second-hand smoke. What gives parents the right to pollute their kids and make them sick like this? 16 years of passive second hand smoke by these poor kids probably will kill them one day, even if they don't smoke themselves.

I have nothing but contempt for parents who still smoke in their homes when they have kids present. The fucking least they could do is stand on the porch and light up. Kill themselves, sure, but not their kids.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Thomas R.
Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 09:40 pm:   

My parents smoked, I have only one fully functioning lung and a genetic condition as you know. I had my problems with my Dad when little, but on the whole I don't think I could've done better. I've seen few people in my life with my condition who are as healthy and academically successful as I have been. A girl I knew with OI had a protective Mom and I heard the other day she broke her pelvis so had to quit college. Her mother was a good mother, I don't want to say anything negative there, but she was a single mom and on the whole I'd say I was better off. Lastly only one of my five siblings smoke.

I don't like parents smoking around their kids, but I'd definitely rather kids have good parents who smoke then kids not having parents at all. (These parents sound pretty poor on top of being smokers, but I don't know as I don't know them) Kids aren't going to have 100% perfect parents. No matter what their parents try to do they are going to be exposed to things that aren't healthy. I knew this kid whose parents moved from Taiwan to rural Paraguay because they thought it'd be healthier for his asthma. The boy grew up to be a smoker anyway. If these kids in the smoking home are very unhappy with it as you indicate then I hope the parents do wise up. If they are basically do well with it I hope they just learn to, frankly, tune people like you out. If your parents have an illness you deal with it especially when there are much worse things out there.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sue
Posted on Saturday, February 18, 2006 - 01:40 pm:   

Thomas, there is no excuse in this day to smoke in your home when you have kids.

Would you condone a parent who daily filled their house with the following chemical-filled smoke?

Ammonia
2-aminonapthalene
1-aminonapthalene
4-aminobiphenyl
3-aminobiphenyl
Benzo[a]pyrene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Acrolein
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Methyl ethyl ketone
Butyraldehyde
Hydrogen Cyanide
Mercury
Lead
Cadmium
Nitric Oxide
N-nitrosonornicotine (NNN)
4-(N-nitrosomethylamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK)
N-nitrosoanatabine
N-nitrosoanabasine (NAB)
Pyridine
Quinoline
Hydroquinone
Resorcinol
Catechol
Phenol
M + p-cresol
o-cresol
Tar
Nicotine
Carbon Monoxide
1,3-butadiene
Isoprene
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Toluene
Styrene

As disclosed by the manufacturer of Du Maurier cigarettes in Canada.

That's what smokers do when they smoke in the house.

To me, that constitutes a bad parent. They can take their lazy ass outside on the porch and smoke.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

smoker
Posted on Saturday, February 18, 2006 - 03:28 pm:   

The Who Study

The World Health Organization's study is a textbook example of the right way to conduct an epidemiological study. Unfortunately for them, it yielded unexpected results.

Fact: The World Health Organization conducted a study of Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) and lung cancer in Europe.

Fact: ETS is commonly referred to as Second Hand Smoke (SHS). The two terms are interchangeable.

Fact: This was a case control study using a large sample size.

Fact: The purpose of the study was to provide a more precise estimate of risk, to discover any differences between different sources of ETS, and the effect of ETS exposure on different types of lung cancer.

Fact: The study was conducted from twelve centers in seven European countries over a period of seven years.

Fact: The participants consisted of 650 patients with lung cancer and 1542 control subjects. Patients with smoking related diseases were excluded from the control group. None of the subjects in either group had smoked more than 400 cigarettes in their lifetime.

Fact: Three of the study centers interviewed family members of the participants to confirm the subjects were not smokers.

Fact: The study found no statistically significant risk existed for non-smokers who either lived or worked with smokers.

Fact: The only statistically significant number was a decrease in the risk of lung cancer among the children of smokers.

Fact: The study found a Relative Risk (RR) for spousal exposure of 1.16, with a Confidence Interval (CI) of .93 - 1.44. In layman's terms, that means

• Exposure to the ETS from a spouse increases the risk of getting lung cancer by 16%.
• Where you'd normally find 100 cases of lung cancer, you'd find 116.


• The 1.16 number is not statistically significant.



Fact: The real RR can be any number within the CI. The CI includes 1.0, meaning that the real number could be no increase at all. It also includes numbers below 1.0, which would indicate a protective effect. This means that the number 1.16 is not statistically significant.

Fact: A RR of less than 2.0 is usually written off as an insignificant result, most likely to be due to error or bias. An RR of 3.0 or higher is considered desirable. (See Epidemiology 101 for more details.)

Fact: The study found no Dose/Response relationship for spousal ETS exposure. See Epidemiology 102 for more information.

Fact: The RR for workplace ETS was 1.17 with a CI of .94 - 1.45, well below the preferred 2.0 - 3.0, and with another CI that straddled 1.0.

Fact: The RR for exposure from both a smoking spouse and a smoky workplace was 1.14, with a CI of .88 - 1.47.

Fact: The RR for exposure during childhood was 0.78, with a CI of .64 - .96. This indicates a protective effect! Children exposed to ETS in the home during childhood are 22% less likely to get lung cancer, according to this study. Note that this was the only result in the study that did not include 1.0 in the CI.

The WHO quickly buried the report. The British press got wind of it and hounded them for weeks.

Fact: On March 8, 1998, the British newspaper The Telegraph reported "The world's leading health organization has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could have even a protective effect."

Finally, the WHO issued a press release. Although their study showed no statistically significant risk from ETS, their press release had the misleading headline "Passive Smoking Does Cause Lung Cancer - Do Not Let Them Fool You." (I say "misleading" because it would be impolite to call it an outright lie.)

Fact: In paragraph four they admitted the facts: "The study found that there was an estimated 16% increased risk of lung cancer among nonsmoking spouses of smokers. For workplace exposure the estimated increase in risk was 17%. However, due to small sample size, neither increased risk was statistically significant." (Emphasis added.)

Fact: The press release doesn't mention the one statistically significant result from the study, that children raised by smokers were 22% less likely to get lung cancer.

Fact: The WHO tried to blame the results on a small sample size. However, the in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, where the results were published, the researchers clearly state: "An important aspect of our study in relation to previous studies is its size, which allowed us to obtain risk estimates with good statistical precision..." It should also be noted that a larger sample size wouldn't have changed the numbers significantly, just narrowed the CI a bit.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

AliceB
Posted on Saturday, February 18, 2006 - 05:07 pm:   

Sue, I think it's a bit harsh to equate smoking with child abuse. Perhaps in the case you describe, the smoking is harming the children, but then there may be other factors as well that you know absolutely nothing about and are, truthfully, none of your business. And the parents are probably providing something very good that you also know nothing about.

There is an enormous risk in making conclusions based on anecdotal evidence. Take my family, for example. We are a very big family--several hundreds of cousins. We are also a non-smoking family--less than 1 percent of us smoke. The heaviest smoker of all, a great aunt who lived in Mexico City no less (with some of the worst air quality in the world), lived into her 90s, smoking a pack a day (down from two) up until the day she died. Based on this narrow anecdotal evidence, should I conclude that smoking is healthy? Or perhaps that smoking is protection from pollution? Of course not. Large scale studies have shown that smoking is a risk factor for a large number of medical problems. Large scale studies have also shown that animal dander, a common and strong allergen and a trigger for a large number of people with athma, when found in the homes of children correlates with a lower incidence of athma in those children--which seems consistent with the WHO study. Does that mean that every child who grows up with cats will be protected. Of course not--I have a family member who had cats from birth until his early 20s and developed an allergy so strong it triggers an athma attack when he enters a home where a cat has been, even if the cat hasn't been there for over a month (I witnessed this).

All this is to say that I don't like cigarette smoke, and have avoided many a bar because of it. But I'm leery about telling people who do smoke that there is no public space where they are welcome, especially based on health claims that aren't all that clear to me.

Best,
Alice
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Thomas R.
Posted on Saturday, February 18, 2006 - 10:34 pm:   

You can think whatever you wish Sue. I certainly think smoking is bad although I'm not overheated on it. I consider my parents to have a kind of illness. That said I learned pretty well to ignore busy bodies on this issue. If I was at a friends house as a kid and their parents went on about my parents being "bad" because they smoke in-doors I'd just tune them out. (Thankfully this never happened. Busybodies like that were more often teachers or what not)

I did not like them smoking in the car and I discouraged them from doing so as much as possible. Although I was conflicted there as car accidents are a big risk for me so I didn't want them driving tense. At home we lived in a large well-ventilated house and they stayed away from me a fair amount. To be honest I didn't like how conscientious they got on that. I was a fairly smart kid and I was willing to take my chances. I didn't want smoking to make them feel distanced from me or me from them. Especially as my mother did try, but she has depression issues that makes it difficult.

I'm not going to die of lung cancer or heart disease anyway. I'd say it's fairly certain I'll die of respiratory failure due to pneumonia or accident. Second-hand smoke may increase my risk of death by pneumonia, but I'm willing to accept that. I can't imagine demanding my parents be pushed outdoors whenever visiting them and certainly not as a kid. Especially as it's their house. Added to that so many parents, especially in 1977 when I was born, just shuffle kids like me to an institution. What an ungrateful snotty thing it would've been to basically push them out of the house after being(well usually although every kid has their annoyances with parents) glad I could have them at all. Because if they had to go outside every time they smoked I couldn't have seen them much of the day. They aren't chain smokers, but the way smoking works you do smoke some for most of a day. If they'd done that when I was injured, which was most of the time in the first ten years, that would've been horrendous and frankly dangerous.

This family you speak of is kind of over the line, but what do you want of them? Because if they are that addicted smoking outdoors means they're basically out of the kids lives unless they raise them outdoors. So are you going to help them quit? Is the doctor? Or are you just saying kids should be taken away from such parents? If you are consider the myriad things people consider unhealthy that adults do. An ultra-conservative region could say that as homosexual men have an increased risk of AIDS it's an unhealthy environment for a child. That maybe silly, but you can't open floodgates to wide here. (If the parents are intentionally burning the kids with cigarettes, have often set their own house on fire due to them, or purposely blow most of their smoke in the kids faces it's a bit different)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Thomas R.
Posted on Saturday, February 18, 2006 - 10:40 pm:   

That said they should likely work to have say a "non-smoking area", with separate ventilation, that the kids can go. In least until they can quit. This is close to what I had. If they don't have the money for that maybe you could help them do so.

If they're generally selfish stupid parents in most other respects too I don't know.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

BJ
Posted on Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 06:23 pm:   

Quote:

Fact: The press release doesn't mention the one statistically significant result from the study, that children raised by smokers were 22% less likely to get lung cancer.


Tell that to my uncle, who died of lung cancer at the age of 52. His father, my grandfather, lived into his 80's before getting cancer from smoking most of his life.

Does smoking stink? Yes. Badly. And the tar in cigarettes makes the stink stick to your clothing, so you stink, too.

I'm not a smoker, and have never smoked. I *am* allergic to smoke. Smoke makes my sinuses and bronchial tubes swell, and gives me sinus infections. I have no sympathy for smokers, because I've never received sympathy from smokers. My experience is, if you tell a smoker you're allergic, they'll 'hold the cigarette away from you' -- for as long as they remember. Doesn't work, folks. Neither does 'opening a window'. And I've always had to wonder why someone's 'right to smoke' had precedence over my 'right to breathe' or 'right to try to be healthy'.

Do I sound bitter? Yeah, maybe I am. I have good reason.

And, sorry, folks, but smoking around children *is* child abuse. It's like punching them in the chest, the throat, the nose -- but it doesn't leave bruises. And, just like the parent who abuses with a fist, it doesn't matter how nice or good that parent otherwise is, it's still child abuse. Just like not using the proper seat restraints for a child is child abuse. Just like not taking care of a child's health needs is child abuse. And if a parent can't be bothered to protect their child from such abuse, that child is going to grow up feeling like their health doesn't matter.

And people wonder why today's children are so unhealthy...

BJ Muntain
http://theword.zentao7.com
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sue
Posted on Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 06:34 pm:   


quote:

especially based on health claims that aren't all that clear to me.




Given that you've said that, there's not really much for us to discuss, but I will close with this:

Plain and simple, if parents know the bad health effects of smoking on children -- which are well documented in the medical literature, I might add -- and are so selfish that they can't even step onto the porch to light up for that 7 minutes of puffing, they are bad parents. Maybe 40 years ago when the advertisers told the public "smoking was good for you" because it relieved stress, parents couldn't be blamed, but today? Uh uh.

What goes on inside the home is our business. Are you seriously going to claim it's none of our business when sexual abuse occurs? What about beatings that leave broken bones and bruises? What about emotional abuse that leaves the psyche scarred for life? One friend of mine slept with a kitchen knife under his pillow in case his father tried to kill him. His dad showed him his handgun and told him there was one bullet in there for him if he misbehaved. Of course what goes on in the family is our business.

How about the scars on the developing lungs of a newborn, the effect of CO on the brain and other organs because of second-hand smoke? Why is that OK?

Sheesh. Being a parent is not a license to abuse and the private family household is not a shield.

Oh, and I am harsh about this. I see the effects of second hand smoke on these kids and I know the parents have been told by the family physician that the kids are sick directly because of the smoking. And nothing changes.

They are addicts. They are so addicted they can't even think straight enough to go outside to smoke to ensure their kids live in a smoke-free environment. If nicotine was illegal, you can bet these parents would be commiting crimes to get their drugs and endangering their kids in other ways, but because the drug is legal, they are merely neglecting their kids.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jesus Wept
Posted on Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 07:26 pm:   

Satan is a smoker. 'Nuff said.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Trashhauler
Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 04:47 am:   

One must worship the religion of health above all else when one's personal existence is the only god.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

AliceB
Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 06:24 am:   

I will concede, for the sake of this argument, that second-hand smoke has negative health effects. I'll use that as an axiom even--does not require proof for further discussion.

Then you must also concede that driving cars, especially SUVs, is an inherently more dangerous activity than second-hand smoke since far more people die or are seriously injured, particularly children, in car accidents--SUVs being the worst. Should we prohibit children from being transported in cars?

And violence, as portrayed in our media, especially television, correlates with an increase with ADD--actually watching television, period, correlates with an increase of ADD. And there are more kids with ADD than with health problems associated with second-hand smoke. So let's ban all TVs.

There are also more kids injured by bicycles, skateboards, jungle gyms, and all kinds of organized sports activities. Bicycles are the worst though. They are much, much more dangerous, and cause far more severe injuries, every year, than second-hand smoke. Go to an emergency room, one nice summer day. See how many kids don't end up badly injured that way. Then count on one hand the number of children who are hurt by second-hand smoke in the hospital--if you can find them. Should we outlaw bicycles?

Or let's tackle for a moment the spiralling number of obese children in the U.S.--which correlates directly with a spiralling number of children with diabetes. It's reached epidemic proportions--not my words, but health officials'. There are neighborhoods in NYC where the percentages of people with diabetes is in the double digits (I have thrown out the NYTimes articles on the subject, but my memory places it around one third or higher.) So, aren't the parents to blame for their children's health problems?

The entire world is filled with things that are dangerous or unhealthy. Kids face some really serious health problems, right now, as we speak. Are all their parents child abusers? No--in case you've missed my point.

I'm sorry, but second-hand smoke is a health issue--and compared to many daily, real-life problems that kids face every single day, a small one. To equate a health issue with sexual abuse is so over the top, it's preposterous. Calling parents who smoke child abusers is the equivalent of saying that we should jail every single poor parent in this country because every single one of their children is at a significantly higher risk of health problems than a child born in a middle class household--higher risk, by the way, than being in a household with second-hand smoke.

Being a parent is hard enough without people thinking that they have the right to micro-managing your life.

Best,
Alice
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Neal Asher
Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 07:08 am:   

To people like Sue Utopia will not have arrived until two words are wiped from the English language and utterly forgotten - 'common' and 'sense' - and until, as I said above, we live in the kind of world where it is necessary to write out a risk-assessment for farting in public.

Anti-smoking is as much a 'Left' political touchstone as global warming, and in just the same way the 'facts' are loaded and spun like washing machines.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Neal Asher
Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 07:20 am:   

Oh, and Sue, just to update you on a little bit of science: everything is made of 'chemicals'. Presenting a list like that is meaningless unless of course you just want spook the idiots who think only in terms of 'chemical bad nature good'. How about these terrible sounding compounds: diallyl disulphide, diallyl trisulphide, S-2-propenylcysteine sulphoxide … the list is a long one, but can be contracted to one word: garlic.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Alistair Rennie
Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 07:49 am:   

At the earlier mention of cars, petro-chemical emissions and the garbage air quality of urban "spaces" worry me much more than passive smoking, which seems a trifle by comparison. I'm not talking about global warming here (though, personally, that worries me even more). There are plenty of studies appearing today telling us about how living, say, in the centre of Glasgow or Florence is equivalent to smoking 16 or 17 cigs a day. That's a bum deal for a lot of people, but the legacy of complaint is much lesser than it is for smoking. The reason for that seems obvious enough. Virtually everyone uses cars. Most people using them believe they can't live their lives without them. Many people actually CAN'T live their lives without them.

When you visit a real big city like London, going into a smoke-filled pub is a breath of fresh air, seriously. In relative terms, this passive smoking thing seems a bit of a white elephant, if that's the right term. We can attack it because it's convenient to attack it--but to tackle something like traffic emissions--to really tackle it--is too damned tricky. There's a sort of guilty silence or a consensus recognition of our mutual blame which prevents us from dealing with it. Was Professor What's-His-Name (who discovered a link between lung cancer and smoking) really so wrong about his earlier suspicion that increases in lung cancer were perhaps caused by the emergence of petrol-driven vehicles? Makes you wonder.

But, anyway, my biggest objection to banning smoking in pubs has been expressed by Nathan above. Pubs, after all, are not traditionally called "Free Houses" for nothing. It's maybe a cliche to say it, but it's true that you go to pubs to forget about the worrying details and indulge in a temporary release from gloomy truths, or maybe to moan about them a little. Besides, the whole issue of passive smoking (in pubs) can be dealt with perfectly easily: proper ventillation. It works. And also no smoking at the bar is a good safeguard for people working there. And no smoking areas. Or a separate room for smokers. Crivens! the options are limitless.

For me myself, I have to say that the thing about this ban is not so much the actual smoking itself. It's more that the whole thing sets a dangerous precedent. There's a definite question (which perhaps prompted Neal's initial post) regarding freedom and the sort of values that freedom ought to signify. What annoys me, for example, is that the choice we have of smoking or not in a pub is taken away from us with the wave of some magic governmental wand; but, when it comes to traffic, it's a case of breathe and be damned.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ellen Datlow
Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 08:26 am:   

Not seriously. Untrue. I've done it and start hacking away.

Btw, I'm not for banning smoking in every public place. Common sense and common courtesy would provide smoking and non-smoking areas in places where people congregate. Or...I have very occasionally been in a restaurant (in London in fact) where there was smoking but the ventilation system was so good the smoking didn't bother me at all. That is what I'd like to see around the world.

"When you visit a real big city like London, going into a smoke-filled pub is a breath of fresh air, seriously."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Alistair
Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 08:55 am:   

Maybe not literally, but it's not the smoke in the pubs that blackens your nostrils and makes you spit soot after an hour or two of walking in London. That's really my point.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Thomas R.
Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 10:53 am:   

And, sorry, folks, but smoking around children *is* child abuse. It's like punching them in the chest, the throat, the nose -- but it doesn't leave bruises. And, just like the parent who abuses with a fist, it doesn't matter how nice or good that parent otherwise is, it's still child abuse. Just like not using the proper seat restraints for a child is child abuse. Just like not taking care of a child's health needs is child abuse. And if a parent can't be bothered to protect their child from such abuse, that child is going to grow up feeling like their health doesn't matter.

TR: You have issues I admittedly can't relate to at all. You have a right to them, but I do sincerely hope they never become mainstream.

Not that there's any chance of it. I believe studies showed people who actually smoked for eighteen years and then quit had a life expectancy reduction for those smoking years that was around two years. I think it's fair to say that the reduction from passive smoke for eighteen years is less than that. Only one of my siblings smoke in adulthood. Being raised by smokers can actually reduce it's appeal in some cases. Actual child abuse can kill or severely injure children in those eighteen years.

To go international in Australia rates of smoking are about the lowest in the modern world, but even then something like 17% of adults smoke. Possibly the percent among parents is lower, but to deem them all child abusers is nothing any sane society would ever do. There's too many actual abusive parents to be concerned about to obsess on dealing with those who merely are unhealthy or imperfect. Also nations like Iceland, where 23% of adult women smoke, have some of the longest lived people on Earth.

Considering something abusive parenting is certainly the right of the individual. I know parents who were so into their kid being in sports they ended up having kids who could barely walk by age 30. I consider many athletic parents to be engaging in a kind of child abuse and I think this is basically just true. However I also realize that it's not clearcut enough to be widely accepted.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Neal Asher
Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 11:45 am:   

Getting back to the issue of the ban in pubs and clubs:
No one forces anyone into a smoky pub, and no one forces anyone to stay in a smoky pub. Whether a pub should be smoking or non-smoking or have separate areas for each should be a matter for the publican, not the fucking government. Pubs are businesses, not government buildings. Of the publicans I’ve known, all of them would prefer the ten beer-supping fag-smokers they have around the bar every night to the one or two health-fascists who come in for an orange juice and a pack of nuts and stand about coughing dramatically and whingeing about the smoke. Those who object to smoking ought to realise that it could be one of their freedoms that goes next, to save their health, or more likely because of the objections of some loud-mouthed minority.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sue
Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 07:24 pm:   


quote:

Those who object to smoking ought to realise that it could be one of their freedoms that goes next, to save their health, or more likely because of the objections of some loud-mouthed minority.




Neal, we think it's fine for adults to kill themselves slowly by smoking as long as they don't inflict their stinky cancer-causing heart-disease causing lung-disease causing habit on children and others who don't want to breathe it. That means no smoking in public places and I personally think no smoking around children, who have no choice in the matter and are particularly susceptible to its ill effects.

As to the issue of pubs, there are health and safety issues involved. Workers shouldn't have to breathe in cancer-causing cigarette smoke for hours at a time at their workplace. Pub owners, like all other business owners, have to provide safe working conditions for their workers. If you work in a mine and are exposed to toxic gasses, you are given a gas mask. Should waiters in bars wear gas masks too?

No one has the "right" to harm others through their addictions. That demeans the whole concept of "rights" and "freedoms".

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sue
Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 07:26 pm:   


quote:

One must worship the religion of health above all else when one's personal existence is the only god.




One can easily and selfishly ignore the living hell on earth when all you care about is your own personal ticket into heaven.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sue
Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 07:42 pm:   


quote:

Calling parents who smoke child abusers is the equivalent of saying that we should jail every single poor parent in this country because every single one of their children is at a significantly higher risk of health problems than a child born in a middle class household--higher risk, by the way, than being in a household with second-hand smoke.




I'm not going to play your silly game. I never said parents who smoke in their homes should be jailed -- please point out where I said that.

The issue is whether parents should be allowed to pollute their children's lungs and damage their health by smoking in their homes.

I say they shouldn't be able to do so.

Research has shown that nicotine is as addictive as cocaine. If nicotine were an illegal drug similar to cocaine, I know you'd all be yelling that these horrible nicotine addicts should be thrown into jail for exposing their kids to such toxic environments -- imagine making your baby addicted to nicotine and all those toxic chemicals in the womb! Or when they are toddlers!

Because nicotine is legal, you think it's no problem the harm their parents do to them through exposing them to second hand smoke.


quote:

Being a parent is hard enough without people thinking that they have the right to micro-managing your life.




I am a parent. I don't need anyone to tell me that I shouldn't allow people to smoke in my home around my children because I know it's harmful to them. I didn't need anyone to tell me not to drink while I was pregnant or smoke while I was pregnant -- I knew both were risks to my fetuses and because their health was important to me, I didn't do those things.

People who know these things and yet still do them are deliberately choosing to expose their children to harm.

I don't believe they should be give that kind of freedom.

They can step out of the fucking house and smoke on the porch just like they can ensure their kids are strapped into a child car seat when they are in the car, or wear bicycle helmets when they ride their bikes, or when they skateboard, or rollerblade... They can child-proof their houses to prevent accidental poisonings, etc. People who aren't prepared to do what is necessary to ensure their kids are raised in a healthy environemtn shouldn't be having kids in the first place.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sue
Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 07:54 pm:   


quote:

Oh, and Sue, just to update you on a little bit of science: everything is made of 'chemicals'. Presenting a list like that is meaningless unless of course you just want spook the idiots who think only in terms of 'chemical bad nature good'




Neal, as someone who has studied chemistry, I know that everything is made up of "chemicals." There are chemicals that are dangerous and there are chemicals that are safe.

Are you saying that the chemicals that are in second hand smoke are not dangerous?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Trashhauler
Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 10:58 pm:   

One can easily and selfishly ignore the living hell on earth when all you care about is your own personal ticket into heaven.

But one's personal ticket into Heaven is more easily gained by regularly practicing Charity, isn't it? While some sects seem to urge divorcing oneself from the World, others don't. Likewise, doing harm can be a sin, but only if inappropriate, intentional, and direct. For example, creating secondhand smoke might be a sin if it were a certainty that particular people might get sick, but by that standard, so is doing anything that might eventually result in harm to someone, no matter how remote the causality.

Sins against the religion of wellness are chosen very selectively. How do we know if that sweet we give a child isn't what trips the switch for diabetes? If a child's life is so precious, why do we let them ride bicycles? Shouldn't we outlaw swimming pools? And, of course, we should immediately outlaw drinking, guns, automobiles, campfires, and matches. The truth is, of course, that there are always quite a few people in favor of one or more of those things.

Smoking is a stupid habit. It's smelly, dirty, expensive, and personally harmful. But it took the secondhand smoke correlation to move it into the "sin" category for wellness worshippers. It is, by now, dogma. Which is why contrary evidence, such as the WHO study on the effects on children of secondhand smoke, has to be suppressed. Such evidence is heresy, which is an inevitable byproduct of every religion.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Trashhauler
Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 11:11 pm:   

I should correct one thing. Smoking is a sin against the religion of wellness, even if no one else gets a whiff of the smoke. The secondhand smoke correlation compounds the sin in the eyes of the wellness clergy.

Smokers are well advised to give it up. They are progressively becoming a major part of the group know as people-it-is-permissible-to-fuck-over. As such, they serve a useful place in society - every society needs its lower castes. But it gets progressively less fun from here on.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Thomas R.
Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 11:44 pm:   

Sue:The issue is whether parents should be allowed to pollute their children's lungs and damage their health by smoking in their homes. I say they shouldn't be able to do so

TR: And how do you stop them? Four in 10 Canadian households include someone who regularly smokes in the home according to Smoke free Canada. Even if that's too high 20% of Canadian adults smoke so it's plausible a similar percentage of kids are in homes with parents who smoke. So do you suggest 20% of Canadian kids be taken away from their families? Because the ideal that they'll do all their smoking outdoors is intensely implausible. Especially in the winter months. (And I don't mean because I have a stereotyped image of Canadian winters, as smokers in Arkansas wouldn't willingly or consistently smoke outdoors in the dead of winter either)

Added to that many who smoke are in lower income brackets. I presume that rates of smoking among First Nations parents are also high. I imagine it would not be too popular for the state to take their kids away while they're involuntarily rehabbed from smoking.

In general I just don't see how it'd work. It'd be an enormous effort to keep kids from cigarette smoke in their own homes and I'm not sure it's one any free nation could manage. It'd just about require smoking be illegal or that those who start smoking be sterilized.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Neal Asher
Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 01:36 am:   

Sue, I wonder how the thousands who have lost their jobs through smoking bans feel about your concern for their health? When the ban was introduced in Ireland, 2000 staff ended up unemployed in Dublin alone. This kind of thing has happened wherever a smoking ban has been introduced. They didn't have to work in smoky bars, now many of them don't even have the choice.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Neal Asher
Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 01:51 am:   

Here's a little bit from Wikipedia. Perhaps parents should smoke around their children to give them protection?

Others critics maintain that official bodies in the field of public health have shown a biased approach to the issue. In 1988, the World Health Organisation published research on passive smoking with a press release headlined “Don’t Let Them Fool You: Passive Smoking Does Cause Cancer”. However, the study itself showed no statistically significant results to justify that headline and the only statistically valid conclusion reached by the study was that the children of smokers had a lung cancer rate 22 per cent lower than children of non-smokers. The official abstract characterised that statistic as having “no association”.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

AliceB
Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 06:35 am:   

Sue, child abusers do get arrested--not every one, not all the time, but given your beyond the pale association of smoking with sexual abuse and a murder threat, I think I was pretty mild.

More to the point, however, child abusers do lose their children. Is that what you're proposing for smokers? And tell me, where would you place all those children when we don't have enough places for children who are facing real physical abuse? Is it really better for them to be wrenched from parents who love them and to be placed into a stranger's home or an institution--where, by the way, there are, right now, a significant number of smokers? What exactly are you proposing? Reality check here. How do you think you are going to improve these children's lives without making it much, much worse?

I worked for years in a legal services office, and know only too well how the Department of Family and Children works. The social workers are so stressed out by the crushing load of real abuse cases that this kind of overboard child protection you are proposing would shut down the system.

No one promised anyone a perfect world. If we did, we would have cities with clean air, ample parks, free health care, and easy and cheap access to healthy and tasty food. But the fact is, even in the "good old days" people died young. Smoking is a nasty habit. I, like many people here, know people who have lost lungs or died of lung cancer. There are effective anti-smoking campaigns everywhere--go join them.

But get off your high horse. Deal with real people, real institutions, real problems. You know of two children with health problems, condemned their parents on limited facts, and have extrapolated to include millions of people. It's *your* game no one wants to play.

I'm wasting time here. Sorry Neal to have gone off this way.

Best,
Alice
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

James M. Pfundstein
Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 07:04 am:   

Neal Asher quoted

quote:

a little bit from Wikipedia




Wow. A Wikipedia entry really has an impact. It's not as if any deranged asshole can post whatever he wants there, or anything. (I understand this is the policy at Encyclopedia Britannica and most information sources.)

NA:

quote:

2000 staff ended up unemployed in Dublin alone. This kind of thing has happened wherever a smoking ban has been introduced. They didn't have to work in smoky bars, now many of them don't even have the choice.




These claims conflict but Neal Asher can't see it through the smoke clouding his vision. If the staff didn't have to work in smoky bars, then they can find other employment. If they can't find other employment, maybe they did have to work in smoky bars.

Trashhauler mounted a sermon:

quote:

doing harm can be a sin, but only if inappropriate, intentional, and direct. For example, creating secondhand smoke might be a sin if it were a certainty that particular people might get sick, but by that standard, so is doing anything that might eventually result in harm to someone, no matter how remote the causality.




Trashhauler's standard looks more like a legal one rather than a moral one. I don't presume to know Trashhauler's religion (it's clearly not the fictitious "religion of wellness") but some faiths or moral principles do consider negligence immoral. (See Matthew 25, for instance.)

JMP("Poke 'em if you got 'em")
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Neal Asher
Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 08:59 am:   

Pfundstein, you're raving. Wikipedia is not the only place you'll find that stuff about lung cancer rates REDUCING for the children of smokers.

The point about the smoky bars is that most people who work in them aren't really all that bothered about the smoke, unless it gets excessive. It's only loons like you that start frothing at the mouth.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Trashhauler
Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 09:53 am:   

James, I did not intend a sermon, but rather, was simply examining the essential elements of the religion of wellness. I make no claim to know how far that religion, or any other, might want to extend personal responsibility. I might add, though, that the negligence mentioned in Matthew 25:41 refers to the failure to perform positive acts of Charity, rather than failure to refrain from acts with only indirect relationship to any specific harm. Still, just as for other sins, the definition of negligence can be as much in the eye of the heholder as any other. "Mileage may vary," etc., etc.

The religion of wellness is relatively new, so it's only understandable that they have not quite yet set all their dogma into stone.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sue
Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 10:40 am:   


quote:

But get off your high horse. Deal with real people, real institutions, real problems. You know of two children with health problems, condemned their parents on limited facts, and have extrapolated to include millions of people. It's *your* game no one wants to play.




AliceB, you don't know anything about me.

Get off your high horse.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

James M. Pfundstein
Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 10:49 am:   

Neal Asher raved:


quote:

Pfundstein, you're raving. Wikipedia is not the only place you'll find that stuff about lung cancer rates REDUCING for the children of smokers.




I don't know if you noticed this, but Wikipedia was what you actually quoted. Its authority is nil. Had you quoted something else you might have gotten a different response. But you still haven't quoted anything else.

Rather more reasonably, Trashhauler said:


quote:

the negligence mentioned in Matthew 25:41 refers to the failure to perform positive acts of Charity, rather than failure to refrain from acts with only indirect relationship to any specific harm.




The injunction to do positive good naturally includes the obligation to refrain from unneccesary harm, because to do a benefit is to alleviate (at least a potential) avoidable harm. (But if this text doesn't seem to cover the issue, have a look at Matthew 7:12.)

The harm of the nonsmoker inhaling a smoker's smoke is not indirect. You're resting your entire claim on the ostensibly indirect relation between second-hand smoke and cancer (or other diseases associated with smoking). Let's ignore that. Suppose the harm is just choking: it's still harm. It may seem relatively trivial but it is not indirect or debatable and the nonsmoker's right to breathe without avoidable nuisances is not less trivial than a smoker's right to light up where (s)he pleases.

Let smokers breathe smoke. Let nonsmokers not breathe smoke. This is raving? This is some weird imaginary religion? Why?

JM("Moon's my constant mistress")P
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bruce
Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 11:07 am:   

Sue: The issue is whether parents should be allowed to pollute their children's lungs and damage their health by smoking in their homes. I say they shouldn't be able to do so.

Hmmm. What do you propose, Sue? Hell, why stop there! Let's remove children from their homes because they're fat from too much junk food and not enough forced exercise. Sheesh.

Sue: I have nothing but contempt for parents who still smoke in their homes when they have kids present. The fucking least they could do is stand on the porch and light up.

I don't have any problem with that statement. The few parents I know who smoke do just that.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

AliceB
Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 11:45 am:   

Sigh. The dangers of writing something in anger. Nix the "get off your high horse". The rest stands.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sue
Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 03:34 pm:   

Let me repeat what I said above so that people don't misrepresent what I have said:

I said being exposed to second-hand smoke is a health hazard to children. I said that cigarette smoke contains dozens of cancer-causing chemicals and noxious chemical compounds that are hazardous to health. I said that I supported a ban on smoking in the workplace and in all public spaces. I said that I thought parents who still continue to smoke in the home, exposing their children to second hand smoke, were bad parents. I said nicotine was as addictive as cocaine and should be regulated like any other addictive substance. I said smokers have every right to kill or harm themselves, but they do not have any right to kill or harm others by exposing them to second-hand smoke. I said parents who smoke can get their lazy ass outside and smoke on the porch.

I never said the government should take children away from parents who smoke.

Parents who do not put a safety belt on their children when they are driving in a vehicle are given a ticket. Parents who leave their children alone without supervision are given some kind of ticket, reprimand, etc. I think that there should be some means of educating parents, providing supports so they can quit, and if that fails, parents who are found to still smoke in their homes around their children should be fined.

The only reason smokers are tolerated is that smoking tobacco has never been illegal. Therefore, it's socially acceptable (or was until recently) to be a nicotine addict and smoke in public or around children. If tobacco/nicotine was treated the way every other addicting mind-altering substance was treated, I can just bet the lot of you smoker-apologists would be clamouring to condemn the terrible parents who spend their precious money to buy tobacco illegally.

As it is now, the poor do spend a whole lot of their income on cigarettes because of taxes -- money they could spend on nutritious food or dental care for their children, or heavens -- maybe decent clothes. That's why I think nicotine should be treated as a drug rather than a consumer product. Regulate it, then the poor could receive help to stop smoking or get the drug paid for by medicare.

Depending on where you live, it costs between $60 - $80 Can for a carton of cigarettes in Canada. If both parents smoke a pack a day, that's close to $500-$600/month. You can make that cheaper by rolling your own, but even at $300 a month, that's a lot of good food or clothes or other necessities a poor family could spend on their children. So, the parents who smoke in their homes, besides exposing their children to second-hand smoke, also deprive them of that income that could be used for better purposes.

I've already said I condemn the tobacco industry and the government for allowing such madness to occur given the long term health costs to individuals, families and the health system. But I also condemn adults who continue to smoke in the fucking house when they could just step outside the bloody door and smoke their fool heads off.

I live in a very cold province in Canada. I know a number of parents who both smoke. And guess what? They get their foolish addicted asses out of the house and into the porch or garage or on the front step to smoke even in the middle of winter. That's what good parents who are also smokers do.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sue
Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 04:03 pm:   


quote:

Sue, I wonder how the thousands who have lost their jobs through smoking bans feel about your concern for their health? When the ban was introduced in Ireland, 2000 staff ended up unemployed in Dublin alone. This kind of thing has happened wherever a smoking ban has been introduced. They didn't have to work in smoky bars, now many of them don't even have the choice.




Can you point me to the studies that show the number of hotel and restaurant and bar workers who lost their jobs directly because of a smoking ban?

Because when I do the research, I find studies from reputable journals like JAMA and the CDC and others that find that there has been no negative and even a positive effect on the industry since the ban was put in place. Even the industry has found the effects to be positive.

The tobacco industry beefed up fears about the effect of bans, and has funded many of the bogus claims that bans would harm the industry, but it just hasn't panned out.

So I'd really like to see your evidence.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Neal Asher
Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 01:20 am:   

"In Ireland, where a ban has been in place since March 2004, trade has been hit by up to 30 per cent and some pubs have been forced to close. In County Clare 26 pubs closed in the first year of the ban and an estimated 170 licences were lost in Cork over the same period."

Plenty of articles here: http://www.thepublican.com/ and elsewhere. There's this thing called google, Sue.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Neal Asher
Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 01:29 am:   

"As it is now, the poor do spend a whole lot of their income on cigarettes because of taxes -- money they could spend on nutritious food or dental care for their children, or heavens -- maybe decent clothes."

So, Sue, what you are basically saying is the government is responsible for the lack of nutrition, dental care and clothes?

Funny how the British Labour government fails time and again to learn the lesson of history. I guess they're all too thick to have heard of Prohibition.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

James M. Pfundstein
Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 06:44 am:   

Who liveth by the Google etc.


quote:

Locals say the decline of the Irish pub has more to do with high prices and lifestyle changes than the smoking ban.

Alcoholic drinks cost more in Ireland than in any other EU country -- some 82 percent above the eurozone average -- according to figures from the EU statistics agency Eurostat last year.

"One year on, there's no doubt that sales have been hit by the ban, but prices are the bigger issue," said Bettina MacCarvill, associate director of market research group Millward Brown IMS.

"Many people are opting to spend more on their leisure time at home or in the homes of friends and family, rather than pricey nights out in bars and restaurants," she added.




From a Reuters story about the Irish smoking ban which is archived a few places on the web.

A more recent story about the health effects of the ban at the URL(s) below.

http://tinyurl.com/r94h7

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2005/09/18/healthy_effects_foun d_in_irish_smoking_ban/

Apparently these "indirect" health effects are directly measurable.

JM("Melibeus")P
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sue
Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 10:27 am:   


quote:

Funny how the British Labour government fails time and again to learn the lesson of history. I guess they're all too thick to have heard of Prohibition.




Where did I say anything about prohibiting tobacco? Don't put words in my mouth, thanks.

I said nicotine and nicotine delivery systems like cigarettes should be regulated as a dangerous addictive drug. FYI, I am pro-decriminalization of drugs. I advocate medicalizing addiction -- taking it out of the criminal world and putting it in the medical world where it should be.

Since government has made tobacco and nicotine addiction legal, and has taxed the living shit out of it so that addicts choose between buying their drug and paying for their children's necessities, I do think governments are morally obligated to step in and provide the children's necessities in the addicted parent's stead.

Children shouldn't pay for their parent's addictions and the government's bad policy decisions.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Neal Asher
Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 11:58 am:   

Sue, who said my comment about prohibition was directed at you? Are you paranoid, or is that the guy following you?

I wonder how the statistics for smoking in Britain are affected by the Prohibition effect. It may be that government statistics are producing a false low predicated on tobacco and cigarettes bought legally. I look around me and see very few smokers who actually buy their fix from the local shop, but everyone knows their local smuggler.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Thomas R.
Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 01:25 pm:   

They get their foolish addicted asses out of the house and into the porch or garage or on the front step to smoke even in the middle of winter. That's what good parents who are also smokers do.

TR: Or what foolish people overly harrassed by people like you do. Still the idea of fines isn't that excessive so mostly I may have been too harsh.

On another issue I'd also agree with another poster that you shouldn't use Wikipedia as a source. I'm a Wikipedian and I would never trust it except as an entryway. Meaning I'll see the name of someone I've never heard of before at Wikipedia and then I'll look for a credible source to see what the story is. Wikipedia is based on "truth by concensus" which is essentially nonsense. In the US "truth by concensus" would likely say Sydney is the capital of Australia and rabbits are a kind of rodent.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

AliceB
Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 01:43 pm:   

Wait a second. Rabbits aren't rodents?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

A rabbit
Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 02:11 pm:   

No. They are lagomorphs, an order all their own (with hares and pikas, that is.)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hazel
Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 02:18 pm:   

That would imply that Thomas R = lagomorph, being essentially a rabbity kind of chap.

At least, that's the 'consensus'.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Thomas R.
Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 03:49 pm:   

"A rabbit" is correct, rabbits are lagomorphs. They may in fact be related to rodents, but the issue is controversial.

Still even if it's a related order to rodentia they are not rodents.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sue
Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 04:08 pm:   


quote:

Or what foolish people overly harrassed by people like you do.




If my harrassing them makes them do the right thing and take their lazy irresponsible addicted ass outside to smoke, more power to ME!

For the record, other than ranting here and to my family members who don't smoke around kids, I have not harrassed anyone about this.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

AliceB
Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 04:58 pm:   

Well both my OED and Webster's are wrong, then. They both define rabbit as "a burrowing rodent." Phooey on them.

Wikipedia, on the other hand, states that "rabbits and hares were formerly classified in the order Rodentia until 1912, when they were moved into a new order Lagomorpha. This order, in addition to containing rabbits and hares, also includes the pikas." So there you go.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Thomas R.
Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 05:39 pm:   

If my harrassing them makes them do the right thing and take their lazy irresponsible addicted ass outside to smoke, more power to ME!

TR: When you talk this way I just have trouble seeing how you're any different than the kind of Fundamentalist religious types you oppose.

I mean what's the difference between this and religious Right types badgering on what they deem unhealthy? Maybe parents shouldn't watch porn in their own homes. Or Muslims could say they shouldn't eat pork in their own house citing obesity or something.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sue
Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 06:15 pm:   

Thomas, I have never badgered anyone about smoking in their own house when they have kids except on this bloody thread. Fer Cripe's Sake, give me a break.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Byron Bailey
Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 08:11 pm:   

Hmmm...that's intersting. Maybe it's because I live in Indiana but I always thought that the controversy with rabbits was whether they were varmints or critters. :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

James M. Pfundstein
Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 08:12 pm:   

This talk of lagomorphs and badgering people reminds me of when I was recruiting bandits in the Southwest for Hedley Lamar. Business was kind of slow, so we announced a special offer: everyone who joined our thuggish band by a certain date would receive, free of charge, a relatively fresh sample of a plantigrade quadruped, intermediate between the weasels and the bears. (You can't say I'm not giving you fair warning here.) We did eventually get some people to join, but they violently refused to accept their free gift. (The carcasses had been in the sun all day and were getting pretty ripe.) They shouted, "Badgers! We don't need no stinking badgers!"

JMP("Pfred C. Dobbs")
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Thomas R.
Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 08:27 pm:   

Sorry Sue, I've been in an occasional bad mood of late. Also both of us I think at times sound more extreme than we are in reality.

I'm giving up the Internet for Lent so will be gone after next Tuesday not to return until Easter.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Fiver
Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 08:39 pm:   

TR: You're still a bunny.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tenner
Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 11:45 pm:   

Ten bucks he's back before Easter.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Thomas R.
Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 12:20 am:   

It's not Lent yet. It's not even Mardi Gras. I didn't say I leave today.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Neal Asher
Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 01:36 am:   

Regarding the smoking thing, and freedoms being taken away: Apparently the British Medical Association, which recommended the smoking ban to the Labour government, also recommended that people should be limited to a maximum of three drinks in a pub. The politicians did not go with this one because they thought the stricture impossible to enforce ... not because they thought it wrong to be so dictatorial.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sue
Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 07:09 am:   

Thomas, I'm a lapsed Catholic, so I'll join you in a "no-political-debates-during-Lent" pledge. I can't leave the net entirely as I have to do my research for my writing and it is too important a resource.

Of course, all bets are off is some rilly rilly big political story breaks during Lent. A wonk has to wonk, after all. But if it's just the usual frauds, lies and crass imperialism of the current crop of politicos, I'll abstain.

:-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sue
Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 07:23 am:   

Publicans should be free to let their patrons buy as many drinks as they want, get stinking drunk and go out, get in their car and kill some innocent bystander.

In America in 2001, 41% of traffic fatalities involved alcohol, which works out to over 17,000 people who died in alcohol-related crashes. That's 46 people a day.

I guess a drunkard's freedom to drink until blotto trumps a citizen's right to their life.

Freedoms are freedoms, after all.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Neal Asher
Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 08:55 am:   

There you go -- a blanket ban on drinking, perhaps? Forgetting that it is not drunkards that cause traffic fatalities, but drunkards in cars. They are already breaking the law. You don't need a new law (the way of New Labour) but the laws we already have need to be enforced properly. This does not happen in Britain because the police here have been castrated by Leftist political correctness and bureaucracy.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sue
Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 09:28 am:   

No, I've already said I'm against prohibition, and besides, I like to visit a pub now and then and quaff a dram or two. But I don't drive if I do.

I agree that the laws already in place need to be enforced more thoroughly. If the government put enough money into enforcement of the laws, and followed through with the punishments for breakers of the laws, then maybe fewer people would drink and drive. I am sick to death of reading about people who drink and drive and then kill people when they crash their cars.

And maybe if a few publicans got charged when they fed their customers way too many brewskis and the customer left in such bad shape that they crashed their car and killed some innocent bystander, then maybe the publicans would be a bit more responsible. But you have to hit their bottom line or they won't care. I worked in a bar as a cocktail waitress for 5 years and I know the score.

I don't think I would suppport limits on the number of drinks served to a customer -- it might actually make them get up off their drunk ass and drive their car to the next pub to buy some more and more likely to kill someone.

You're not going to do much about the hard-core drink-drivers who drink and drive even when they've had their licenses suspended and cars impounded. They should rot in jail if they persist in drinking and driving. But fatalities and drink-driving accidents have declined since there has been a forcible public campaign against it. More can be done.

I just don't see drinking until "floor-licking pissed" as we call it out West to be some kind of inherent right we need to protect or lose civilization itself.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Neal Asher
Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 12:07 pm:   

But again, penalizing the publicans you are taking responsibility away from the individual drinkers. You take away people's responsibility for their actions and you make them more irresponsible. Come down on them hard, yes, but give over with the social engineering.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sue
Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 05:52 pm:   

Publicans have to keep their establishments clean and not sell tainted or spoiled beer, etc. They have to follow labour legislation and building and fire codes. They have to pay taxes, etc.

What's the big deal about them following some law about not serving obviously inebriated patrons more alcohol?

It just seems to be common sense.

Everyone has to be responsible for their actions, both drinkers and publicans alike. Publicans who sell too many drinks to patrons who are already drunk, who then go out and either kill themselves and their passengers or innocent bystanders in car crashes should be partially responsible in my view. They have the right to refuse to sell patrons a drink; they should also have the responsibility not to if the patron is obviously drunk.

It might inconvenience some publicans, it might piss some patrons off, but it also might save some lives. To me, the lives saved are worth some inconvenience.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Trashhauler
Posted on Sunday, February 26, 2006 - 07:29 am:   

No publican is going to make much money waiting for the health crowd to "drop in for a glass of wine." Such folks tend to leave rather quickly. You won't see them sitting on a barstool keeping the buzz going with Chardonnay. Good for them, but hardly good for the till.

Health, like the environment, is a new trump card, easily replacing more abstract concepts, such as freedom, or states rights, or poverty rights. Much more direct, more immediately arguable, regardless of the merits.

Cite that it's "for the children" and you can make any fascist sound like a caring person.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

James M. Pfundstein
Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 05:51 am:   

Trashhauler: Cite that it's "for the children" and you can make any fascist sound like a caring person.

O.K. I challenge you to do this with the career of any actual (i.e. self-identifying) fascist.

Children's health issues don't have much to do with smoking in bars, so this seems like a red herring anyway.

Also a false dilemma: the publicans' ostensible choice between smoking drinkers and nonsmoking Chardonnay-sippers. Most people, whether they drink or not, don't smoke. Neither Trashhauler, nor anyone else on this thread, seems to have taken full notice of this. What about the non-smoking majority's freedom to breathe without avoidable nuisances?

This isn't a conflict between freedom and health (or some nefarious social force using health as a pretext). It's a clash of individual rights. Smokers are going to have to find a way to exercise their undoubted right to smoke without annoying the rest of us. Here, in fact, is a new business opportunity: smoking shops with liquor licenses. Get in on the ground floor.

JMP
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Neal Asher
Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 06:17 am:   

"Most people, whether they drink or not, don't smoke."

However, the majority of people who drink in pubs in Britain, do smoke.

'smoking shops with liquor licenses' Wake up, smoking has been banned in all public places. Now they want to ban patio heaters so when it's cold it will be unpleasant to go outside for a cigarette. They've tried banning nurses from smoking even when they have finished work and are walking home. Do you honestly think there'll be any loopholes? It'll be banned in the open next, then after that in people's homes. Of course people like yourself won't be worrying too much about that, except when you go to report those flouting the ban to your local commissar.

The government should have left this to the publicans or, at the most, made those publicans decide which their place is going to be, smoking or non-smoking.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

James M. Pfundstein
Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 07:53 am:   

Neal Asher, standing by the parish pump, shrieked, 'smoking shops with liquor licenses' Wake up, smoking has been banned in all public places.

Not in most places in the English-speaking world that have smoking bans. I read somewhere (take that for what it's worth: it's at least as good as a citation of Wikipedia) that the pub-owners lined up against a smoking exemption for private clubs, fearing that the competition would hurt their business. If this is true, you can thank your local publican that you don't have an option available elsewhere.

JMP("publicani et peccatores")
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Matt Hughes
Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 08:40 am:   

However, the majority of people who drink in pubs in Britain, do smoke.

Perhaps because all the smoking keeps away non-smokers?

I can only cite the British Columbian experience (where some five out of six adults don't smoke): no pubs went out of business after the ban came into effect. In the town where I live, new places are opening up. It seems that the ban effectively expanded the market by bringing in people who used to avoid smoke-filled pubs.

Matt Hughes
www.archonate.com
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sue
Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 03:39 pm:   

Matt, that's the experience here as well. As soon as there was no smoking in the restaurants and even donugt shops, people started going out and frequenting them when they didn't before. I used to only go to the ones that were non-smoking by choice because even the donughts tasted like cigarettes. Bars and restaurants are the same. Smokers are the clear minority. They shouldn't stink up and pollute the air the rest of us breathe.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

BJ
Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 06:45 pm:   

Quote:
As soon as there was no smoking in the restaurants and even donugt shops, people started going out and frequenting them when they didn't before.

I've noticed the same thing. We instituted a province-wide ban on smoking in public places a bit more than a year ago. The hot spots are still packed, the restaurants are still quite successful. People sure haven't stopped drinking, so the bars are still going strong. The non-smokers I know have started trying a lot more new restaurants, now that we don't have to worry about being engulfed in smoke. In most places, non-smoking sections were a laugh, anyway. You could still be sitting right beside a smoker, but because there was a decorative curtain or a half-wall between you, you were in the 'non-smoking' section.

Quote:
It seems that the ban effectively expanded the market by bringing in people who used to avoid smoke-filled pubs.

And that's common-sense to me, too. It does seem a little odd that restaurants, bars, hotels, etc., would keep the majority of their possible clientele away by allowing smoking. And now, around here, they're learning that.

And as someone else said earlier, a smoker isn't only affecting themselves. If they were, all power to them. But since their habits infiltrate my air and make me sick, and make children and other people sick, they are not just hurting their own health. I happen to enjoy breathing. Wheezing is not my idea of a good time.

Anyway, I just wanted to give Sue, Matt, James, and the others my support. You're doing great.

BJ Muntain
http://theword.zentao7.com
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Thomas R.
Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 07:44 pm:   

I think it'd depend on the country and what kind of people go to bars in said country.

In Canada rates of adult smoking are relatively low. The rates of daily smokers might be lower in Canada than anywhere In a country like Spain, Japan, Greece, and maybe parts of the UK too it'd be a good deal different.

In a good portion of the US non-smokers are not as interested in the bar scene as smokers. I think in the Northeast and Pacific Coast ending smoking would likely gain business, but for most of the South I think it'd be quite opposite. In my region I have a feeling it'd make little difference. They'd lose a fair amount, but gain a bit. Many smokers would stay though because they're more addicted to alcohol than cigarettes. Other bar patrons are virtuous non-smokers who spare their kids the damages of smoking in favor of just getting drunk every other night and smacking them. (No cancer risk involved in beatings)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Trashhauler
Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 05:39 am:   

Me. Pfundstein wrote:
_____________

Trashhauler: Cite that it's "for the children" and you can make any fascist sound like a caring person.

O.K. I challenge you to do this with the career of any actual (i.e. self-identifying) fascist.
______________

Aside from a few sorry characters who seem to relish the social disapproval that comes from displaying Nazi flags and such, I can't offhand think an any self-identified fascists. I haven't any particular persons in mind. There are already too many people willing to name someone a fascist at the drop of a metaphor.

But my mention of the term "fascist" was in reference to the classical interpretation of fascist economic theory in which private industry theoretically stays in the hands of its owners but government controls certain key priorities. There are quite a few reform initiatives that fit within that (admittedly unfairly narrow) definition.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Trashhauler
Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 06:04 am:   

Upon reflection, I should have used the a different term, it being an article of faith on the Left that they cannot have fascist inclinations because, well, because they are anti-fascist, of course. A better term would have been statist, which fits anyone who seeks greater government control over the assorted failings of humankind. I believe Robert Heinlein referred to these people as being the "Mrs. Grundy" type, whose first impulse is always to say, "There oughta be a law!" It seems increasingly possible that eventually, no matter what the subject, we'll be able to respond, "There is."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Thomas R.
Posted on Sunday, March 05, 2006 - 03:23 pm:   


quote:

In reports to be published in science journals this week, two groups of researchers hope to add evidence to the theory that soda and other sugar-sweetened drinks don't just go hand-in-hand with obesity, but actually cause it. Not that these drinks are the only cause -- genetics, exercise and other factors are involved -- but that they are one cause, perhaps the leading cause.

A small point? In reality, proving this would be a scientific leap that could help make the case for higher taxes on soda, restrictions on how and where it is sold _ maybe even a surgeon general's warning on labels.

"We've done it with cigarettes," said one scientist advocating this, Barry Popkin at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill.
Mainichi Daily News




TR: I'm not surprised by this, but am mildly disturbed if things are finally getting further along this path. Unlike with cigarette smoking my parents "soda addiction" did carry on to the majority of my siblings so likely the "effect on the children" thing will heat up eventually. In a related vein.

O.K. I challenge you to do this with the career of any actual (i.e. self-identifying) fascist.

TR: You don't have to do the "for the children" deal you can relate health extremism directly to Fascism/Nazism if one is so inclined. Hitler was fairly well-known as a health nut. The Nazis had some of the earliest anti-smoking laws on the books and leading Nazis smoked far less than the leaders of the Allied states.

Although you can relate it to "for the children" if you wish. The Fascists in Italy were very much about kids. Children were to be bettered through strict obedience so they would be obedient adults. A variety of youth camps and organizations were founded "for the children." The Nazis were far more that way in several respects. They did possibly best among teachers as they felt they would create a "better environment for kids." They emphasized the idea kids under them would be healthier, cleaner, and generally better than other kids in the world. After the "Night of Long Knives", where they purged the homosexuals and socialists in the party, the Nazis furthered emphasized that they'd be more pro-kid than the Weimar. They would get rid of "depravity"(gays, Jews, communists, and other things deemed harmful to kids), improve mothering, and make sure kids were disciplined and clever.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

not a fan of the Asimov site
Posted on Sunday, March 05, 2006 - 03:44 pm:   

Trashhauler: Jeez, what a massive amount of ignorance and misinformation about the war. But I wonder why there aren't any recent posts on the subject? Are they all suffering from combat fatigue or did the moderators declare a general armistice?

Thomas R: Maybe even they get tired of agreeing with themselves endlessly. Also Bush's popularity really has plummeted so maybe they feel like they "won" and can bask in their moral victory.


Would you two fuckwits get a life and go back to Asimov's where Murphy and Sue will appreciate your drivel?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Thomas R.
Posted on Sunday, March 05, 2006 - 03:47 pm:   

I don't go there much either these days. I'm getting tired of SF forums in general of late. There's so many anonymous morons, like you, and other things.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jeremy Lassen
Posted on Sunday, March 05, 2006 - 11:35 pm:   

wait wait wait wait.....

Thomas R said
"I'm giving up the Internet for Lent so will be gone after next Tuesday not to return until Easter."



Tenner says:
"Ten bucks he's back before Easter."

Somebody give Tenner $10, just for being a prophet!!

What happened Thomas? Decided Jesus wasn't worth the hassle, or have you given something else up? Here I was hoping we had a Thomas R. free board for a while...
:-)

J/K I love it when you are around, Thomas. Nobody (except maybe Lawrence A) brings a smile to my face like you.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Thomas R.
Posted on Monday, March 06, 2006 - 01:02 am:   

For it to be forty days you have to discount Sundays, I'd forgotten that. Also I like sody-pop so I wanted to share news of it somewhere:-)

However now it is Monday and I am screwing up, but I've never claimed to be a perfect Catholic. I screw up in all kinds of ways from my own ethical standards as I assume most here do.

Still I'm mostly just posting this to give you an explanation. I hope not to be here again until Easter, but I may return on Sundays.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Matt Hughes
Posted on Monday, March 06, 2006 - 10:12 am:   

When I started smoking, forty years ago, the majority of adult Canadians were smokers. Today, only one in six adults smokes.

That is because we have now had decades of government and NGO efforts aimed at reducing smoking, including bans on doing it in pubs and other public places.

Matt Hughes
www.archonate.com
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Shrouding Thomas R
Posted on Monday, March 06, 2006 - 01:30 pm:   

Thomas R: I don't go there much either these days. I'm getting tired of SF forums in general of late. There's so many anonymous morons, like you, and other things.

Anonymous moron? Sheesh, look who's talking. You don't mind slamming the people at Night Shade and then show up here to beak off.

Thomas, you've been blacklisted by a number of writers who won't read anything with your byline. Can't say I blame them. Your hand-wringing, equivocal approach to argument makes anyone with an I.Q. greater than a houseplant gnash their teeth. Quit bleating on these forums and get a life.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Thomas R.
Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 05:29 pm:   

you've been blacklisted by a number of writers who won't read anything with your byline.

TR: You say I've been blacklisted by writers I never read, and never would, who aren't editors? And this is supposed to concern me? Outside of maybe not being invited to certain parties I don't see why this matters. Care to explain?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

STR
Posted on Sunday, March 12, 2006 - 06:02 pm:   

Thomas: You seem unable to resist taking time off these boards as you claimed was your intent. Someone remarked that you're like a dog returning to it's vomit. Very apt.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Thomas R.
Posted on Sunday, March 12, 2006 - 06:39 pm:   

A valid criticism. Although I have stayed gone for months before and I can do so again easy. Only disadvantage in doing so is it makes numskulls like you feel you've "won", but that's really not my problem.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

STR
Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 05:19 am:   

'I have stayed gone for months before and I can do so again easy'

Spoken like a true addict. Incidentally, it's spelled 'numbskull'.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Alexander Astrophysique
Posted on Saturday, August 18, 2007 - 11:07 pm:   

"First they'll come for your drugs, then your cigarettes, then you're grog."

Apparently what a friend of mine's grandmother told him.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Doug_finnerty
New member
Username: Doug_finnerty

Post Number: 2
Registered: 06-2008
Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2008 - 10:31 am:   

Feel free to file this tidbit under "hearsay" since I forgot where I read this one. But it seems in Amsterdam, the local health inspectors are raiding the local "coffee shops" trying to bust tobacco enthusiasts who dare to pass off their habbit as "canabis".
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Neal_asher
New member
Username: Neal_asher

Post Number: 52
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Friday, November 14, 2008 - 08:45 am:   

Popped in my local pub the other day: four customers and one member of the bar staff outside smoking. The other member of the bar staff inside cooking for one customer outside. They said once the smokers were gone the non-smokers would take up the slack. Yeah, right.

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Log Out | Edit Profile | Register

| Moderators | Administrators |