 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Arthritis / February 2006Smoking ban in pubs
I was watching MPs debate this on the news and wondered if they saw any irony in the fact that they want to ban smoking in pubs because it's bad for your health, so drinking's not then!  SignatureAlison >I was watching MPs debate this on the news and wondered if they saw any >irony in the fact that they want to ban smoking in pubs because it's bad >for your health, so drinking's not then! They banned fox hunting,but if foxes could speak, do you you think they'd say "I'm sleeping better in my den for that" or "not much has changed around here, has it?" On the drinking issue, when they have totally nailed the smoking, I agree the drink will be the next target. With smoking it started with public information stickers on fag packets which get progressively stronger in tone. Following on from that what do you thing they'll put on bottles? initially = drinking alcohol can damage your health then maybe = alcohol 21 units/week blokes 14units/sheilas moving on to [TV ad, sung to backing tune by coldplay...]= DRINK THIS and you turn,,, YELLOW like the dessert in damascus is, your YELLOW cause your liver has matastacis... you're really f*#&%ed you know [ http://www.amateurtransplants.com/ then listen "snippets" about a third of the way along] -- preceed with 2006 to email >I was watching MPs debate this on the news and wondered if they saw any >irony in the fact that they want to ban smoking in pubs because it's bad >for your health, so drinking's not then! Another point to ponder regarding the no smoking rubbish is what would the government do if ALL smokers gave up ? . I go to Belgium every three months or so for our tobacco and bring back 3 Kilo's every trip at a cost of £ 250.00 including all expenses . The same amount in the UK cost £ 520.00 so a net loss to Mr Brown of around maybe £ 180.00 taking out the store profit . My point being how is dear Mr Brown going to get back the tax if every smoker gives up , pile more tax on food which isn't taxed at the moment and other items that people NEED to have . >... [snip] how is dear Mr Brown >going to get back the tax if every smoker gives up , pile more tax on >food which isn't taxed at the moment and other items that people NEED >to have . Smokers usually go on about the tax contribution they make to the exchequer but I am not sure this is going to be significantly affected by any ban on smoking in public places (dragging us back to the subject of this thread). I mean, how likely is it that a significant percentage of people will suddenly give up smoking just because they can't smoke in their local pub or workplace? I think smoking will decline gradually over a very long period of time, giving the chancellor plenty of time to adjust the tax regime to whatever suits the society at the time. :o) Chris R. >I was watching MPs debate this on the news and wondered if they saw any >irony in the fact that they want to ban smoking in pubs because it's bad >for your health, so drinking's not then! I think there are certainly parallels to be drawn and it does sound a bit hypocritical to focus on one addicition and not another. However, I think it is fairly well proven that moderate smoking does still seriously damage a person's health (and those that work around them), whereas moderate drinking is not a problem for most people and might actually have some health benefits. Where drink becomes a problem is when people abuse the stuff and drink too much. Cigarettes are a problem even at low-dosage. I have always lived by the creed that I like to think that what a person does in their own private space is up to them and I don't want to infringe on that - so I have no problems if people want to smoke. But where we all have a duty is to others around us and it is becoming increasingly certain that passive-smoking really is dangerous and therefore I think all smokers should really think hard about how their smoking affects others - either directly through coming into contact with their smoke - or indirectly by acting as a role-model to children. (gets off soapbox) ;o) Chris R. 2006-02-17, Responding to no@emails.thx... [...] > I have always lived by the creed that I like to think that what a > person does in their own private space is up to them and I don't want [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > with their smoke - or indirectly by acting as a role-model to > children. A key problem with the legislation for me is NOT that it *primarily* "protects" the unconsenting "passive smoker", but seeks to control/forbid something that is somebody's personal choice, under the *rationalle* of protecting. If "polluting a public environment" was the target "offense", then the so far ignored/dismissed argument about banning *cars* from anywhere where children have to breath becomes a far more important issue than if a bunch of non-smokers want a pub without smoke (What happened to all those defining "market forces" I wonder?). And, unlike the "non-smokers in pubs" argument, children DON'T have a choice or a voice in what buggers up their lungs as they grow. Much easier to make a big "stink" about selfish smokers and jump on a set of symptoms instead of even more serious root causes IMO. And once the "mind-set" (Won't somebody please think of the passive smokers! Eek!) is "validated" by public "acceptance", just watch for what comes next... :( "If you tolerate this..." Never trust a man in a suit that says "Trust me"! Mike@N.UK Signature---- * MikesBrain+WebStuff @ http://tinyurl.com/5ayqt - Schauen Sie immer auf der hellen Seite des Lebens! :) >Cigarettes are a >problem even at low-dosage. Why are they a problem I have smoked at least 20 a day since the age of 18 never even thought of having one before that age and I only started then due to coming face to face with the stupid public at large every hour of my working life and needed some relief from the stress . I have now got to the age of 63 and still showing no signs of the BIG C which some people seem to like threatening we smokers with, a very dear friend died from bowel cancer which spread to every organ in his body four years ago and had never touched a cigarette in his life . My Father died at the age of 82 from a totally unrelated to smoking illness and he smoked around 20 a day over the years that I knew him . Has I originally stated where is the money going to come from to pay for the upkeep of the country if we smokers decide to start believing all these nonsensical scare stories and give up smoking . Some say smokers are a drain on the health service but they forget to say that most not all have paid into that service every week via their pay packet . Are we supposed to pay every week and never even consider going anywhere near a doctors surgery or hospital no matter what !!!!!!! . The smoking ban does not bother me one little bit so long has they do not stop me from smoking in my own home ,I don't go in pubs or clubs although I do think it is an infringement of a persons human rights to bring in this ban. Never forget we ALL have to die of some health related illness be it cancer a heart attach or whatever so why bother . >>Cigarettes are a >>problem even at low-dosage. >Why are they a problem I have smoked at least 20 a day since the age >of 18 ... [snip] I have now got to the age of 63 and still showing no signs of >the BIG C which some people seem to like threatening we smokers with, That's really nice for you - I am genuinely glad and long may it remain so. But I don't think even the most rabid anti-smoker would suggest that all smokers will die before they reach 50. The fact that you are apparently healthy and you know others that lived to a rip old age and smoked like troopers doesn't lesten the fact that, statistically, smokers and passive smokers are at a much higher risk of contracting very nasty illnesses in later life. Denying the increasing body of evidence is just tantamount to sticking your head in the sand. Now, you might be happy with the risk - and I would heartily defend your right to take risks with your own body. I thought it was great victory when some people won the right to swim in their local lake despite the council not being able to "guarantee their safety" with a life-guard. It's just common sense that adults should have the right to freedoms like that - because they endanger only themselves when they take the risk. >Has I originally stated where is the money going to come from to pay >for the upkeep of the country if we smokers decide to start believing >all these nonsensical scare stories and give up smoking. Well, in the real world I think we all know smokers won't just give up like that :o) They will continue smoking in the car or at home or outside for some time to some. That will give the treasury the time to adjust the tax regime accordingly and we'll all just pay a bit more in other places. > Are we supposed to pay every week and never even consider >going anywhere near a doctors surgery or hospital no matter >what !!!!!!! . Well, we all pay (smokers or non-smokers) and hopefully we don't have to claim on it ... it's a form of insurance. I pay my car insurance every year but I damn well hope I don't have a big accident and have to claim on it! :o) >The smoking ban does not bother me one little bit so long has they do >not stop me from smoking in my own home ,I don't go in pubs or clubs >although I do think it is an infringement of a persons human rights to >bring in this ban. As I have said, I have no problem with smokers smoking as much as they like - it's their business when they are not affecting other people. However, I understand there have been many studdies done to show that people who have the misfortune to work in smokey environments have a much higher incidence of smoking-ralated illnesses - even when they themselves don't smoke. So at that point I'd say that there is a strong link and smokers have a duty not to needlessly endanger the lives of others around them - smoking is a non-essential past-time. If smokers stopped smoking tomorrow then the only thing that would happen (besides the drop in tax, a few frayed nerves and the deafening sound of smokers nervously biting their nails and eating sweets and snacks!) would be beneficial to them... if we all stopped driving tomorrow it'd be chaos because our whole society is based around freedom to travel over large distances and the public transport infrastructure just couldn't cope. To draw a similie ... I might like to drive fast and consider that it is my right to drive at whatever speed I like and I might think that I only endanger myself and I have never had an accident ... up to now. However, all drivers have a duty to consider those around them and to observe certain limits to their behaviour. ie. they can drive fast - but only on private race tracks. >Never forget we ALL have to die of some health related illness be it >cancer a heart attach or whatever so why bother . True, though that does seem a bit defeatist. I'd just prefer to extend good health as long as possibly :o) Best wishes, Chris R. > That will give the treasury the time to >adjust the tax regime accordingly and we'll all just pay a bit more in >other places. Now why should I or anyone else for that matter have to pay an extra 20p for a loaf of bread and an extra 20p on this that and the other just because the blasted do gooder MP's have hassled Joe Blogs so much with their no smoking campaigns and smoking bans that he and his fellow smokers give up just for a bit of piece and quite and to get away from all the hassle . No let them go hassling the blasted boozers for a change who cause the treasury more expense by ramming broken bottles in peoples faces and killing them with their cars every day of the week and committing numerous other crimes while intoxicated. I don't know of anyone who has had to have 20 stitches in their face through standing next to someone smoking in a pub but I do know a bloke who got a bottle rammed in his face and received 20 stitches in his face while out for a quite drink . >> That will give the treasury the time to >>adjust the tax regime accordingly and we'll all just pay a bit more in >>other places. >Now why should I or anyone else for that matter have to pay an extra >20p for a loaf of bread and an extra 20p on this that and the other >just because the blasted do gooder MP's have hassled Joe Blogs so much >with their no smoking campaigns and smoking bans that he and his >fellow smokers give up just for a bit of piece and quite and to get >away from all the hassle . You should be happy ... as smoking is a minority past time, when (according to you) it has ceased the burden of tax will be spread thinner across the wider population, thus reducing smoker's tax contributions considerably :o) Also, I think when all factors are taken into account (smoker's tax contributions vs. the directly negative affects on the NHS budget; the days lost to business due to sickness etc) the net positive contribution to the treasury by smokers will be far less than most smokers would have us believe. Therefore the tax needed to regain this money will be much less than is paid by smokers now through their taxes. >No let them go hassling the blasted boozers for a change who cause the >treasury more expense by ramming broken bottles in peoples faces and >killing them with their cars every day of the week and committing >numerous other crimes while intoxicated. You know, I have partaken of a drink or two in my time, and if I think back I actually know a lot of people - some of whom lived to a ripe old age - and none of them 'rammed' any broken bottles in anybody's face. :o) However, you raise a good point. The problems caused by the minority of drinkers who do cause violence is very visible and very easy to see. While the incideous way that smoking can destroy the health of many people over a greater period of time is far less easy to see, giving smokers a false sense of security that they're not doing any harm to themselves or the people around them. Best wishes, Chris R. Apologies to the group for keeping a way off-topic thread going but the group has so little posts in it anyway I thought it might liven things up a bit!! ;o) >While the incideous way that smoking can destroy the health of >many people over a greater period of time is far less easy to see, Why isn't there any public outcry about dirty eight wheelers and buses trundling through out cities and towns belching out black exhaust fumes which will do far more harm to more people in an hour than a guy sat quietly in some pub having a cigarette and a pint . What really intrigues me Chris is how people who are existing on basic benefits (job seekers allowence £57+ a week) can even afford to eat never mind smoke and drink at todays UK prices .I am getting three times that amount per week and I was on the verge of giving up smoking two years ago due to the rising cost until I found out about the prices in Belgum and how easy it was to get there and back from the UK. >>While the incideous way that smoking can destroy the health of >>many people over a greater period of time is far less easy to see, >Why isn't there any public outcry about dirty eight wheelers and buses >trundling through out cities and towns belching out black exhaust >fumes which will do far more harm to more people in an hour than a guy >sat quietly in some pub having a cigarette and a pint . Oh I agree that buses and lorries often belch out horrible amounts of exhaust smoke ... and I heard research says they are particularly bad because of the high concentration of carbon particles in the diesel exhaust gases. However, I usually just hang back a bit and I can control the amount of rubbish coming into the car. Also, I think by the time the smoke disperses in the air it becomes a much less severe problem, so people breathing 5m away don't really stand a high risk of any health problems - especially as they probably don't breathe it in for more than a few minutes. I think the problem is that in a pub/restaurant environment the workers would often have to breathe in quite concentrated smoke over a long period (from say 7pm to 11pm) and do that every day of their shift - not nice. I usually choose pubs with no-smoking policies or where I know the smoking area is well away from the non-smoking area. LOL, I never worked out how you can have a non-smoking area right next to a smoking area ... does the landlord really expect the smoke to stop and not drift across?! >What really intrigues me Chris is how people who are existing on basic >benefits (job seekers allowence £57+ a week) can even afford to eat >never mind smoke and drink at todays UK prices. Yeah, our benefits are pretty much a scandal - especially state pensions that people have paid into all their lives and then find they hardly have enough to live on. Then they start talking tough on incapacity benefits, as if the disabled people out there hadn't thought of working. Suddenly disabled people are supposed to apply for all those wonderful (and non-existant) jobs for people in wheelchairs or on crutches. Best wishes, Chris R. 2006-02-18, Responding to no@emails.thx... [...] > However, I usually just hang back a bit and I can control the amount > of rubbish coming into the car. Also, I think by the time the smoke > disperses in the air it becomes a much less severe problem, so people > breathing 5m away don't really stand a high risk of any health > problems - especially as they probably don't breathe it in for more > than a few minutes. Ya think? You need to do a bit more research into inner-city pollution and how it affects people. :( [...] >>What really intrigues me Chris is how people who are existing on basic >>benefits (job seekers allowence £57+ a week) can even afford to eat [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > all those wonderful (and non-existant) jobs for people in wheelchairs > or on crutches. We should maybe get jobs in accounting departments, based on our ability to survive on starvation budgets? The IS how many "get by", missing meals and living with bodies forced into partial starvation shutdown mode. Why d'you think so many "old dears" have whiskers? (Look up how the body responds to long-term malnutrition). Mike@N.UK Signature---- * MikesBrain+WebStuff @ http://tinyurl.com/5ayqt - Schauen Sie immer auf der hellen Seite des Lebens! :) >Why d'you think so >many "old dears" have whiskers? 'cause their pussy prefers it to other leading brand cat foods? -- preceed with 2006 to email >'cause their pussy prefers it to other leading brand cat foods? You mean this, didn't you? http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=54276 Talking of which, were is Alison, who started the thread? [she's clean shaven, it's her horse that has stubble!] -- preceed with 2006 to email |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.