TOT Smoking Ban 2007

In article ,
Zathras wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 23:53:05 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Zathras wrote:
Since you're an expert on the safety of passive smoking, what caused
Roy Castle's lung cancer and subsequent death if passive smoking
cannot kill?

I wondered how long it would be before someone brought this up. ;-)

It won't make a blind bit of difference. I know a *very* heavy smoking
pair of relatives - he a retired Pharmacist, she a retired
Anaesthetist - you'd think they'd have *some* clue. Their cat (FFS)
died of lung cancer and, in tears, they were completely, utterly and
genuinely dumbfounded at the cause. At least one of the chemicals in
the death sticks must damage the brain - talk about extreme 'in
denial'..sheeesh!

I'd suggest then you avoid everything which in rare cases can cause
death. Could be nuts, wheat, milk etc. And obviously your relatives.

I've not read anyone here who doesn't respect the views of non smokers to
live and work in a smoke free environment. But that is a different matter
from banning it totally from all pubs and clubs, etc.

Since so many reckon smoke stops them going to pubs and the majority
don't smoke we'll expect pubs to enjoy somewhat of a resurgence after the
ban? Existing evidence says not...

--
*All generalizations are false.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Roderick Stewart wrote:
No one may be "forced" to work in a smoky pub, but there can sometimes
be strong pressure to do so, for example where a non-smoker is part of
a group, or where spending time in a smoky environment is part of your
job. I have occasionally been obliged to work as part of a TV shoot
crew in a pub or night club where people were smoking. On one occasion
where the crew would have been in an enclosed space with a smoke
machine for about 10 hours, a female crew member who happened to be
pregnant at the time refused to take part unless the smoke machine was
turned off, and I was happy to support her, but it can take quite a
lot of determination to do something like that. I spotted another crew
member using an inhaler, though he hadn't said anything and would
presumably have felt obliged simply to endure the smoke if nobody else
had spoken up. There was a great deal of pressure from head office
several miles away where the besuited ones who would not have to
breathe the stuff all day tried to persuade us that it was harmless,
but we stuck to our guns and got it stopped.

WTF has a smoke machine got to do with smoking?
BTW I agree with you - nasty things. ;-)

--
*A 'jiffy' is an actual unit of time for 1/100th of a second.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Roderick Stewart wrote:


No one may be "forced" to work in a smoky pub, but there can sometimes
be strong pressure to do so, for example where a non-smoker is part of
a group, or where spending time in a smoky environment is part of your
job. I have occasionally been obliged to work as part of a TV shoot
crew in a pub or night club where people were smoking. On one occasion
where the crew would have been in an enclosed space with a smoke
machine for about 10 hours, a female crew member who happened to be
pregnant at the time refused to take part unless the smoke machine was
turned off, and I was happy to support her, but it can take quite a
lot of determination to do something like that.

A theatrical smoke machine is not producing tobacco smoke. They will
continue to be permitted after the smoking ban comes into force. You might
also like to know that one of the exemptions to the ban allows a performer
to smoke for artistic integrety reasons.

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

Jim Mason wrote:
In article ,
says...

Since so many reckon smoke stops them going to pubs and the majority
don't smoke we'll expect pubs to enjoy somewhat of a resurgence
after the ban? Existing evidence says not...

Really? It depends where you look. Many pubs were losing revenue
before the smoking ban came into place due to supermarket alcohol
discounting. However many pubs in Scotland have lost no business
whatsover due to the ban and as someone who drinks in pubs in
Scotland I can vouch for the fact that they seem as busy as ever.

http://www.cateringinscotland.com/ci...oking-ban.html


So you expect us to believe something written by Catering Scotland, which
will presumably be linked to the food side, which stands to gain with the
smoking ban?

Some pubs in working class areas will go to the wall, and these were pubs
where most of the regulars smoke, and cnuts like you would never have set
foot in one.

This issue really shows how incredibly selfish some people can be.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.php
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php

In article ,
Jim Mason wrote:
Since so many reckon smoke stops them going to pubs and the majority
don't smoke we'll expect pubs to enjoy somewhat of a resurgence after
the ban? Existing evidence says not...

Really? It depends where you look. Many pubs were losing revenue before
the smoking ban came into place due to supermarket alcohol discounting.
However many pubs in Scotland have lost no business whatsover due to
the ban and as someone who drinks in pubs in Scotland I can vouch for
the fact that they seem as busy as ever.

Not the point. They should be far more busy. Unless the smoking ban stops
smokers going to them - which I doubt. Alcohol has a stronger calling than
nicotine.

--
*You can't teach an old mouse new clicks *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Zathras wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 22:33:18 GMT, "DAB is the Betamax of digital
radio" [email protected] wrote:

This bit by Richard Smith, Editor BMJ is telling

"We are certainly interested in the question of whether passive
smoking kills, and it's clear to us that the question has not been
definitively answered. Indeed, it may well never be answered
definitively. It's a hard question, and our methods are inadequate.""

..all that *tells* me is that they don't know.


Einstein, congratulations on that fantastic piece of insight.

When the full ban was passed they were saying it would save hundreds of
lives per year. They were lying, because no link has ever been proven.

The anti-smokers say "but it kills smokers", but I'm sorry, if you can't
prove a link then you don't have a leg to stand on for a full ban.


This means that either
answer is possible so the government will choose the one that it wants
knowing the medics (at present) can't say the government is wrong.

Vote for a political party that supports smokers or, if none, start
one - that's democracy. Failing that, emigrate somewhere better..


So I have to emigrate because of a bunch of Nazis stopping me and millions
of other people from doing something just because they don't happen to like
it?



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.php
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php

On 2007-04-11, Pyriform wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Smoking, on the other hand, is highly addictive and regular smoking
will undoubtedly cause you harm.

You think you can't get addicted to alcohol?

Of course. But addiction to nicotine is an almost inevitable consequence of
smoking, whereas addiction to alcohol (which is much worse, I grant you)
takes a certain amount of determination on the part of the drinker...

You think alcoholics are determined to become addicted to alcohol?

--
David Taylor

In article ,
Jim Mason wrote:
So I have to emigrate because of a bunch of Nazis stopping me and
millions of other people from doing something just because they don't
happen to like it?

Nobody is stopping you do anything - they are merely moving you to a
place where you can smoke without interfering with non-smokers air.

But they're not - that's the whole point. Unless you mean outside
somewhere. Pubs aren't allowed to set aside a special room for smokers -
or even it seems a covered area outside.

Not a lot to ask it it? Or are you just being selfish?

Not that it would matter anyway - plenty of virulent anti-smoking types
would object to people smoking in a pub garden as well.

--
*Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
David Taylor wrote:
On 2007-04-11, Pyriform wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Smoking, on the other hand, is highly addictive and regular smoking
will undoubtedly cause you harm.

You think you can't get addicted to alcohol?

Of course. But addiction to nicotine is an almost inevitable
consequence of smoking, whereas addiction to alcohol (which is much
worse, I grant you) takes a certain amount of determination on the
part of the drinker...

You think alcoholics are determined to become addicted to alcohol?

Of the several I know who died young through alcohol related disease, non
showed any symptoms of abnormal drinking.

--
*The hardness of the butter is proportional to the softness of the bread *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 2007-04-12, Jim Mason wrote:
In article , [email protected] says...

So I have to emigrate because of a bunch of Nazis stopping me and millions
of other people from doing something just because they don't happen to like
it?

Nobody is stopping you do anything - they are merely moving you to a place
where you can smoke without interfering with non-smokers air. Not a lot to
ask it it? Or are you just being selfish?

I don't think its selfish to think that an appropriate solution would
be "smoking" and "non-smoking" areas, rather than banning all indoors
"smoking" areas.

--
David Taylor