Recession exacerbated by sSmoking Ban in public

macaque_2

In my last contribution, I pointed out that non smokers were entitled to be protected from passive smoke (easy to achieve with LEV). Immediately, the anti-smoking lobby start howling excitedly about the dangers of passive smoking. The fact that LEV eliminates this danger is an 'inconvenient truth'. The bottom line is that many in the anti smoking lobby are not really concerned about passive smoking but have an unhealthy obsession with imposing their own prejudices and values on other people. I say if a person wants to smoke, leave them to smoke (subject to due consideration to non smokers).

stephen163

I can guarantee that the vast majority of non-smokers are very concerned about passive smoking and the risk it poses to their health. To be fair, people don't care about prejudices, they just don't want to get cancer or the myriad of other nasty diseases it causes.

chewmylegoff

most smokers are quite happy to go and stand outside for 5 minutes every hour or so, people moaned at first but now they used to it - it's just how it is. personally i appreciate the change, as i means when i'm getting bored of someone i can just walk off and go outside for 5 minutes.

Austin_Allegro

stephen163 wrote: »

About 10% of all deaths are attributable to smoking (WHO). At least half of smokers are eventually killed by the habit (BUPA). As for passive smoking, I can on request produce a long list of references showing as conclusive as a scientific study can show how harmful the effects are.

Knowing this, will someone please remind me why this debate is still alive?

Even if you could conclusively prove passive smoking was harmful, that doesn't justify a blanket ban on smoking in public.

Licensed smoking premises with sealed, ventilated smoking rooms that employees did not have to enter would have been a solution, and indeed some were used for a while in New York.

But that would have obviously given people far too much freedom of choice, wouldn't it, and we can't have that in the brave new nanny state. Far better to just ban things.

stephen163

Well I can prove passive smoking is harmful and it does justify a blanket ban in enclosed public spaces. If we really did have a nanny state, smoking would be banned completely.

Austin_Allegro

stephen163 wrote: »

Well I can prove passive smoking is harmful and it does justify a blanket ban in enclosed public spaces. If we really did have a nanny state, smoking would be banned completely.

By 'enclosed public spaces' I am referring to seperate sealed, ventilated rooms clearly marked as smoking rooms. You could have double doors to prevent smoke escaping and a hatch system for glass rounds, which is what they had in New York cigar bars. You could have these in any public place.

By what rationale would you justify making this illegal? Nobody would be exposed to cigarette smoke unless they wanted to be. I don't care whether you can 'prove' passive smoking is harmful or not, because in this context it is irrelevant. Drinking alcohol is harmful - would you ban that as well?

Dithering_Dad

macaque wrote: »

In my last contribution, I pointed out that non smokers were entitled to be protected from passive smoke (easy to achieve with LEV). Immediately, the anti-smoking lobby start howling excitedly about the dangers of passive smoking. The fact that LEV eliminates this danger is an 'inconvenient truth'. The bottom line is that many in the anti smoking lobby are not really concerned about passive smoking but have an unhealthy obsession with imposing their own prejudices and values on other people. I say if a person wants to smoke, leave them to smoke (subject to due consideration to non smokers).

LEV doesn't work, especially in older pubs where there is not enough room for all the conduit. Even in huge, well ventilated clubs with state of the art, huge extraction fans (we have several clubs in Manchester that were old Mills or factories and so consist of large industrial spaces with high ceilings, I still ended up smelling like an ash tray. All smokers would have to have an air vent placed 1 foot above their heads to extract most of the smoke.

However, smoke particles would still stray into 'smoke free' areas. The only way to stop this is to have hermetically sealed rooms with airlock style doors, and how many pubs do you think can afford those, or have the capacity to install one? Would drinking be banned in such rooms, because otherwise how would the [strike]dirty stinking smokers[/strike] customers get served drinks and how would they collect the empties without putting themselves at risk?

It's just not feasible. The only solution that is fair is to introduce a blanket ban so that old and new pubs can compete on a level playing field.

chewmylegoff

obviously any non-smokers moaning about "dirty stinking smokers" wouldn't drive cars which emit exhaust fumes.

Dithering_Dad

chewmylegoff wrote: »

obviously any non-smokers moaning about "dirty stinking smokers" wouldn't drive cars which emit exhaust fumes.

Exactly. Eventually these dirty things will get banned too.

mymatebob

stephen163 wrote: »

Well I can prove passive smoking is harmful and it does justify a blanket ban in enclosed public spaces. If we really did have a nanny state, smoking would be banned completely.

Now there's a thought...........;)