Val Posted November 2, 2005 Report Share Posted November 2, 2005 Yes' date=' but people who do not drink are just as capable of violence as those who do.Unless you are suggesting every act of violence committed is a result of alcohol.Conversely, it is impossible for a non-smoker to create the same problems as a smoker vis a vis passive smoking.[/quote']Have you ever been on Union Street on a Friday or Saturday night? "Only" 500 people die every year as a 'result' of passive smoking, and in the grand scheme of things, this is not a huge number. And you are not going to die of passive smoking by having a couple of pints down the pub twice a week. I agree with the smoking ban, but I believe stricter alcohol controls should be more of a priority. The thing that worries about going on a night out, is not inhaling other people's ciggarette slmoke, but actually if I can safely stand in a taxi rank or walk home. And if it's only the establishment who gets fined, those smokers who break the law get off scot-free, that seems slightly unfair to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Amy* Posted November 2, 2005 Report Share Posted November 2, 2005 As I said in another of these threads, we could all argue until we're blue in the face. I don't smoke and I am certainly looking forward to the ban. I'm not a fan of the croaky throat every Saturday/Sunday morning. I wouldn't object to smoking rooms in pubs/clubs but staff would still be working in among the smokers. I was in Dublin a couple of months ago. It was bliss. We came in and out of loads of pubs, feeling fresh and did not come across any trouble, even in the early hours. Those smokers within a group were out together just enjoying a cigarette, no harm there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrTchock Posted November 2, 2005 Report Share Posted November 2, 2005 *yawn*don't you ever get tired of talking shit?Put a cork in it, fatty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Posted November 2, 2005 Report Share Posted November 2, 2005 *yawn*don't you ever get tired of talking shit?Put a cork in it' date=' fatty.[/quote']Cut it guys. Please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chi 666 Posted November 2, 2005 Report Share Posted November 2, 2005 Bla Bla "please dont kill me with your passive smoking" Bla BlaYEH WELL STOP STEALING MY FUCKING SMOKE FUCKSTICK!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tv tanned Posted November 3, 2005 Report Share Posted November 3, 2005 Put a cork in it' date=' fatty.[/quote']Tried that once, it heightens the sensation apparently... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camie Posted November 3, 2005 Report Share Posted November 3, 2005 Bla Bla "please dont kill me with your passive smoking" Bla BlaYEH WELL STOP STEALING MY FUCKING SMOKE FUCKSTICK!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Does that mean you feel no guilt what so ever that in order to see some really good band say for example at The Moorings, then they have to put with your smoking. Do you not think that is slightly unfair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tv tanned Posted November 3, 2005 Report Share Posted November 3, 2005 Have you ever been on Union Street on a Friday or Saturday night?Frequently' date=' and yet I have never yet been attacked (touches lots of pieces of wood) I am not saying drink related violence does not occur, merely that your example is entirely disanalogous, because I can drink heavily and not be violent, I cannot smoke heavily and not contribute to atmospheric smoke and thus passive smoking. "Only" 500 people die every year as a 'result' of passive smoking, and in the grand scheme of things, this is not a huge number.One would be too many for a cause of death that is entirely preventable.And you are not going to die of passive smoking by having a couple of pints down the pub twice a week.Not instantly, but the cumulative effect, combined with a potential condition (i.e. asthma, heart trouble) will be very damaging over a long period.I agree with the smoking ban, but I believe stricter alcohol controls should be more of a priority.Fine. I fail to see why you need to compare the two to make this point though.The thing that worries about going on a night out, is not inhaling other people's ciggarette slmoke, but actually if I can safely stand in a taxi rank or walk home.Which is why we need to ensure taxi ranks are well lit and, where necessary, patrolled. Almost all of the taxi ranks in Aberdeen are poorly lit side streets. Nobody is going to feel entirely safe in them.And if it's only the establishment who gets fined, those smokers who break the law get off scot-free, that seems slightly unfair to me.No, if it is made a condition of the license then it is the establishment's responsibility. That's like saying if a club exceeds its licensed hours by staying open until 4am instead of 3am, then you should fine everyone in the club after 3am. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tv tanned Posted November 3, 2005 Report Share Posted November 3, 2005 Does that mean you feel no guilt what so ever that in order to see some really good band say for example at The Moorings' date=' then they have to put with your smoking. Do you not think that is slightly unfair.[/quote']You would have more luck reasoning with these turnips. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeker Posted November 3, 2005 Report Share Posted November 3, 2005 You would have more luck reasoning with these turnips.hahahaha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight of Swords Posted November 3, 2005 Report Share Posted November 3, 2005 People always say this to me when I indicate that I am entirely in favour of a smoking ban.My response is "fine' date=' ban smoking then."They then tell me that they pay tax on cigarettes, blah blah, irreplacable, blah blah, zzzzzIn any case, I find it morally reprehensible that the sole reason for letting people kill themselves (and sometimes other people) slowly, should be to keep the tax bill down.Give me a break.[/quote']I wasn't saying you shouldn't ban smoking because people would live longer, I was saying the government would never do it because of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight of Swords Posted November 3, 2005 Report Share Posted November 3, 2005 Also, all the arguments for banning smoking or for not banning smoking are weak. The government wants to ban it to look like it's doing something to stop the serious social evil that smoking is (but introducing 24 hour licensing and Uber-casinos is okay). People like getting lost up their arses about rights (infringing smokers' right to smoke is piffle) and the passive smoking argument is spurious. Nobody argues that smoking is good for you, but nobody actually knows how much damage passive smoking does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tv tanned Posted November 3, 2005 Report Share Posted November 3, 2005 nobody actually knows how much damage passive smoking does.If you can find me some definitive document from a body which is not the Tobacco Manufacturing Association, or a scientist in their pay, which states clearly that passive smoking is not damaging, then I will continue to listen to the BMA, who are far more likely to be telling me the truth.And they are telling me that passive smoking has serious detrimental effects on health. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight of Swords Posted November 3, 2005 Report Share Posted November 3, 2005 No. "Nobody knows how much damage passive smoking does" does not equate to "passive smoking does no damage". You put words in my mouth again.A large part of the "ban smoking" argument is based on the damage passive smoking does. Since nobody actually knows what damage this is (no definitive proof that banning smoking in pubs will make a difference to the health of non-smokers), this argument is spurious and misleading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tv tanned Posted November 3, 2005 Report Share Posted November 3, 2005 but we agree that damage is done, therefore it is a problem.Your argument is a microcosm of Val's rather nonchalant "oh, it only kills 500 people every year..." point.Any damage done is a problem, and the authorative health bodies are fairly unanimous in their view that the damage is not minimal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tv tanned Posted November 3, 2005 Report Share Posted November 3, 2005 Since nobody actually knows what damage this is (no definitive proof that banning smoking in pubs will make a difference to the health of non-smokers)' date=' this argument is spurious and misleading.[/quote']http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/humancosttobacco~Passive?OpenDocument&Highlight=2,passive,smokingPassive smoke and health Second hand smoke increases the risk of lung cancer by 20 30% Passive smoking increases the risk of heart disease by 25 35% Eight out of 10 asthmatics say second hand smoke can trigger an attack Passive smoking almost doubles the risk of stroke Second hand smoke causes asthma, respiratory illnesses and ear infections in children Eight out of 10 people know that second hand smoke can cause lung cancerSmoke free: Improving health for all Smoke free places help the 7 out of 10 smokers who want to quit, making it easier for them to stay stopped Smoke free places may reduce the risk of young people taking up smoking Smoke free laws have been associated with significant reductions in heart disease Smoke free workplaces could cut smoking rates by 4 percentage points and tobacco consumption by 7% When fewer adults smoke, childrens exposure to second hand smoke is reducedSmoke free: The international evidenceIn Finland, exposure to second hand smoke plummeted after voluntary measures were replaced with legislationNew Yorks law on smoking in public places is well respected: 97% of bars and restaurants are now smoke freeThe tobacco industry has encouraged opposition to smoke free bars, restaurants and clubs worldwideLung cancer rates declined six times faster in California than in US states without smoke free lawsThe tobacco industry promotes ineffective voluntary measures on smoking in public placesLegislation introduced in Ireland this year has proved a resounding success with more than 95% compliance and almost 7,000 smokers giving up the habit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrincessHolly Posted November 3, 2005 Report Share Posted November 3, 2005 I know quite a few people who only smoke when they're out drinking, and will sometimes get through 20 in a night out which is just ridiculous since they certainly wouldn't be doing it if they were sitting at home. Hopefully the ban will help those people stop completely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight of Swords Posted November 3, 2005 Report Share Posted November 3, 2005 What are the chances of getting cancer in the first place? How much passive smoking increases the risk? One fag or one million fags? And if you spend that much time in the pub, how much good are you doing your health? As I said, it's misleading.Smoking can do this, it might do that blah blah blah. None of this is substantial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tv tanned Posted November 3, 2005 Report Share Posted November 3, 2005 What are the chances of getting cancer in the first place? How much passive smoking increases the risk? One fag or one million fags? And if you spend that much time in the pub' date=' how much good are you doing your health? As I said, it's misleading.Smoking can do this, it might do that blah blah blah. None of this is substantial.[/quote']So you know better than the BMA then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight of Swords Posted November 3, 2005 Report Share Posted November 3, 2005 Come now, surely you can do better than that?I didn't actually say the BMA's statistics were wrong, but in the context of your argument, they don't mean what you claim they do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tv tanned Posted November 3, 2005 Report Share Posted November 3, 2005 Come now' date=' surely you can do better than that?I didn't actually say the BMA's statistics were wrong, but in the context of your argument, they don't mean what you claim they do.[/quote']Clearly they are talking about repeated exposure.Clearly I am as well.Clearly people who work in pubs, clubs and restaurants, or who regularly visit the pub, will be exposed to second hand smoke.I suppose you put the evidence down to coincidence do you?My argument is fairly simple. Rights have to be balanced. The right to breathe clean air outweighs other people's right to smoke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrincessHolly Posted November 3, 2005 Report Share Posted November 3, 2005 I couldn't agree with tv tanned more. I have asthma which is controlled through daily medication but since I started going out to bars and pubs I've had countless sore throats. It's not just about that though, I'm sick fed up of waking up with my clothes and my hair and my bed stinking of smoke. I don't think smokers understand it because they're accustomed to the smell but it's horrible.And please don't anyone say "well you shouldn't go out if you don't like it." That's just not a valid arguement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ch Black Posted November 3, 2005 Report Share Posted November 3, 2005 http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/humancosttobacco~Passive?OpenDocument&Highlight=2' date='passive,smoking[/url']Eight out of 10 people know that second hand smoke can cause lung cancerOkay, that's wrong. The medical profession are still debating this, so you're saying that 80% of the population know that passive smoking causes lung cancer. I'm not against your arguement, I totally agree with you. I have ambulances called to my house because I'm having an asthma attck due to passive smoking, soI think the ban is an ace idae, but I just think that if you're going to put up stupid 'facts' then people are less likely to take your arguement seriously.Sorry, I didn't mean to say your arguement was stupid, and I understand you got it from the BMA. But I just don't think that point can be factual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tv tanned Posted November 3, 2005 Report Share Posted November 3, 2005 Sorry' date=' I didn't mean to say your arguement was stupid, and I understand you got it from the BMA. But I just don't think that point can be factual.[/quote']Like any statistic it is based on an extrapolation.Most likely a survey of a thousand or so folk was undertaken, and they extrapolated from those results.Like any survey, it is not based on asking every individual, but on asking a wide cross section and then using the results as a basis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrTchock Posted November 3, 2005 Report Share Posted November 3, 2005 Like any statistic it is based on an extrapolation.Most likely a survey of a thousand or so folk was undertaken' date=' and they extrapolated from those results.Like any survey, it is not based on asking every individual, but on asking a wide cross section and then using the results as a basis.[/quote']Precisely. It's a fucking survey. Hence, very fallible indeed. Name-dropping "BMA" doesn't make your arguments any more credible in the matter, either, as much as you'd like to think it does. Regardless, BMJ also publish studies that prescribe to both sides of the argument. Evidently, the jury is still out on the matter. Evidently you're selective with regards to which "studies" you cite as excuses for your pompous, self-righteous crusade.You're still a bunch of selective hypochondriacs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.