As a smoker myself 🙁 I was interested to hear about Ireland banning smoking in public places such as restaurants & bars and the varied reactions it got.
IMHO I think it is a good thing & should be banned over here.... [&:] It would certainly make it easier to give up because the times I enjoy smoking most is either after a meal or whilst out having a drink 🙂
I believe with the knowledge we have on the harm its doing (not only to oursleves, but to others) its about time it was banned. Now all I need to do is nip to the chemist & get the patches !! 😀
RE: Should smoking be banned in public?
I think it should - I hate going to clubs and pubs because of the smoking. I always come back feeling sick and reeking of cigarette smells as well.
The worst is getting off the tube in the morning and walking to work to have smoke blown in my fac by the smoker infront of me who needs a fag.
Have a read of
Rakhee
RE: Should smoking be banned in public?
rakee, thanks for the link - very interesting! Its about time.... they should carry it on throughout the uk!
RE: Should smoking be banned in public?
I'm in favour of not smoking in public places. If you look back a few weeks you will find a very long and heated discussion on the subject.
Jan X
RE: Should smoking be banned in public?
I too think it is time for a ban. The right of people not to inhale other people's smoke should take precedence over the right to smoke at all times. This to me is common sense. The idea of non smoking areas in pubs and restaurants is a bit of a misnomer anyway, as it still drifts wherever you sit.
June
RE: Should smoking be banned in public?
YES! Most definitely - stupid, smelly habit which fills public places with vile, toxic stench. Yuk, I hate it.
Especially when my boyfriends family smoke between meal courses!!! How inconsiderate is that to non-smokers?!
The sooner the better I say. NY is an extra nice place to go as you are free to choose where to eat/drink without your freshly washed hair/clothes coming out smelling of an ash tray, and red eyes and an irritated throat and nose to boot!
If anyone sees an online petition, let me know.
😀
RE: Should smoking be banned in public?
But then what's next? [sm=scratchchin.gif]
Banning eating in public, because obesity is such a growing problem - no pun intended. 😀
RE: Should smoking be banned in public?
I take your point Anahata, but people have a choice of whether or not to carry on eating, whereas non smokers have no choice over whether to inhale this foul, obnoxious stench that has now been proven to affect their health.
June
RE: Should smoking be banned in public?
I quite agree June. People's eating habits don't affect the health of others.
I have had friends who have developed lung cancer through passive smoking.
Time to call a halt on smoking in public, I'd say.
[sm=soapbox.gif]
Love
RE: Should smoking be banned in public?
I must admit as a non-smoker the prospect of air free from tobacco smoke really appeals there is nothing worse than visiting a client and then having to leaving visit another stinking of smoke.
I'm also tired of losing relatives too early in life due to smoking related illnesses.
RE: Should smoking be banned in public?
But eating will only damage yourself if you eat too much - smoking damages those around you, so it's not comparable is it? Unless you force feed others he he he!
RE: Should smoking be banned in public?
ORIGINAL: Jan
If you look back a few weeks you will find a very long and heated discussion on the subject.
RE: Should smoking be banned in public?
ORIGINAL: rakhee
Have a read of
From this link -
London is set to become the first city in Britain to ban smoking in public places. The move is being backed by the two front-runners in the race to become the next Mayor. Ken Livingstone and rival Steve Norris said they supported a ban, with the Conservative saying it could deliver " extraordinary health benefits".
Mr Norris described bans in New York and Ireland as "extraordinarily successful" and predicted Britain would soon follow suit.
This is very interesting that the Ireland case is said to be 'extraordinarily successful' because I think on the Ireland thread some people suggested it wouldn't work.
Dr L
RE: Should smoking be banned in public?
From 'The Guardian' newspaper last week -
Huge support for public smoking ban
Huria Choudhari and agencies
Thursday May 20, 2004
More than half of Britons are in favour of a total ban on smoking in public places, a new poll reveals.
In the survey of more than 1,500 adults, conducted by Mintel, 52% supported moves to outlaw smoking in places including pubs, bars and restaurants.
Those who had never smoked were most likely to support a ban, as 67% of the poll revealed. But even among smokers, almost three in 10 also favoured a smoking ban...
Amanda Lintott, consumer analyst at Mintel, said: "The fact that a significant proportion of smokers support a ban on smoking in public places highlights that many do have a conscience.
"They are aware that their habit can be detrimental not only to their own health, but also to the health of those around them."
More than a quarter of adults said they thought it was not right that taxpayers footed the bill for treating smoking-related illnesses, but only 18% of smokers agreed.
Over half of ex-smokers said they gave up for the sake of their health, while 25% quit to save money.
Earlier this week, new research by the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) revealed that hundreds of workers and other people visiting smoky venues die as a result of passive smoking each year.
Passive smoking was estimated to cause at least 49 deaths a year among those working in the hospitality industry, and a further 700 people die due to environmental smoke in the workplace generally, according to the research.
Moreover, almost 4,000 people die due to being exposed to tobacco smoke in their own homes each year.
Professor Carol Black, the RCP's president, said: "Environmental tobacco smoke in pubs, bars, restaurants and other public places is seriously damaging to the health of employees as well as the general public. Making these places smoke-free not only protects vulnerable staff and the public, it will also help more than 300,00 people in Britain to stop smoking completely."
The government has so far refused to commit itself to introducing a public smoking ban, instead relying on voluntary initiatives to cut tobacco fumes in pubs and nightclubs. But campaigners have long been calling for a new law to be introduced.
Ian Willmore, of Action on Smoking and Health (Ash), said: "This is yet another piece of evidence that public opinion wants action on the dangers of second-hand smoke. It is the single simplest and cheapest step the government could take to meet its targets for public health.
"A new law is necessary and overdue. The time for consultation is over, the time for action has arrived."...
RE: Should smoking be banned in public?
Hi Jan,
Yes, there was a very long and heated discussion about smoking, a few weeks ago on one of the forums. Since it provoked so much argument and temper, I wonder why it's been resurrected now?
Love,
Patsy.
[:-]
RE: Should smoking be banned in public?
Hi Poppy,
There was a long and very, very argumentative discussion about this a few weeks ago. People were being slated for having different points of view, so I wondered why you have resurrected a similar thread?
Love,
Patsy.
😮
RE: Should smoking be banned in public?
Ooops, sorry songstress.... I actually didn't see the thread. Only started on the forum a few backs myself, so I didn't really know my way about ! [&:]
Sorry!! Will take a look at the old thread! Didn't mean to cause any upset 🙁 Just genuinally wondered what peoples opinions were!
RE: Should smoking be banned in public?
Hi Poppy,
That's okay. No, I just remembered an old thread about smoking being banned in Ireland some weeks ago, and it became quite heated, with differing points of view causing tempers to warm up!
Personally speaking, my view is 'live and let live.'
Love and blessings,
Patsy.
😀
RE: Should smoking be banned in public?
ORIGINAL: songstress
Personally speaking, my view is 'live and let live.'
Mine too - I would like to live and that's why I don't want to get cancer from other people's smoke 😉
Dr L
RE: Should smoking be banned in public?
BBC NEWS
Smoke-damaged saliva fuels cancer
Cigarette smoke transforms healthy saliva into a "deadly cocktail" which can fuel the development of mouth cancer, scientists have found.
Saliva normally defends the body from illness, as it contains enzymes which can neutralise harmful substances.
But the British Journal of Cancer study by Israeli researchers says tobacco smoke destroys these protective agents.
This leaves a "corrosive mix" of tobacco chemicals and saliva that can eventually turn mouth cells cancerous.
There are almost 8,000 cases of cancers of the nose, mouth, lips, tongue, gums, tonsils, pharynx and larynx cancer in the UK each year, and 3,000 people die of the disease.
The main causes are smoking cigarettes, cigars and pipes, chewing tobacco or betel quid with tobacco and regularly drinking more than safe levels of alcohol.
'Lethal combination'
Saliva contains anti-oxidants, molecules that can help protect the body against cancer.
It should act to protect the cells lining the mouth.
But cigarette smoke destroys these cells, leaving highly damaging free radicals acting in conjunction with carcinogens from the tobacco smoke.
The team from the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel, recreated the effects of cigarette smoke on cancerous cells of the mouth...
'Body turns against itself'
Dr Rafi Nagler, one of the lead authors of the study, said:..."Our study shows that once exposed to cigarette smoke, our normally healthy saliva not only loses its beneficial qualities but it turns traitor and actually aids in destroying the cells of the mouth and oral cavity.
"Cigarette smoke is not only damaging on its own, it can turn the body against itself."
Dr Lesley Walker, director of cancer information at Cancer Research UK, told BBC News Online: "This is a fairly vivid warning for smokers that the damage starts as soon as you start inhaling tobacco...
RE: Should smoking be banned in public?
Proof Dr L, that talking about smoking causes more stress than the act of smoking itself.
Patsy.
RE: Should smoking be banned in public?
ORIGINAL: songstress
Proof Dr L, that talking about smoking causes more stress than the act of smoking itself.
Patsy.
Huh? Sorry Patsy, you have lost me there.
RE: Should smoking be banned in public?
From today's 'The Independent' newspaper:
Blair considers smoking ban in bars and the workplace
By Marie Woolf Chief Political Correspondent
05 June 2004
A ban on smoking in bars, clubs and the workplace is being considered by the Government, Tony Blair said yesterday.
The Prime Minister suggested he may make a U-turn on the issue when he hinted that local authorities could be given the power to outlaw smoking in enclosed public spaces.
His remarks were welcomed by anti-smoking groups, which have accused Downing Street of blocking a ban on smoking in public places.
Yesterday, in an interview on BBC Breakfast, Mr Blair acknowledged that passive smoking harmed people's health. "We are considering it [a public smoking ban] and that's as much as it is at the moment," he said. "Until we have done the various consultations, it would be wrong to give a final view.
"What we know is there is no doubt about the damage smoking does, and for a lot of people who aren't smokers, they would prefer to be in an environment where there's not smoking taking place...Mr Blair's remarks follow a report to the Cabinet by Derek Wanless, the Government's adviser on public health, which suggested smoking in bars and clubs should be banned to avert thousands of deaths. The British Medical Association estimates that at least 1,000 people a year die from second- hand smoke.
Smoking in public spaces has been banned in Ireland and Norway. But in Britain the Government has been heavily lobbied by the hospitality industry which is concerned that a ban would lose it millions of pounds in revenue.
Downing Street is believed to have resisted calls for action over fears that it would be accused of presiding over a "nanny state" and of being anti- business. But Jean King, director of tobacco control at Cancer Research UK, said a ban was crucial to protect employees of pubs and clubs. "A ban on smoking in public places would safeguard employees and encourage more smokers to quit," she said. "Surveys have revealed overwhelming support across the UK for a ban on smoking in public places."
Deborah Arnott, director of Action on Smoking and Health, welcomed the Prime Minister's comments. "We know that ending smoking in workplaces and enclosed public places is the single simplest and most effective thing the Government could do to encourage more smokers to quit," she said.
A spokeswoman for the Royal College of Nursing said: "Smoking continues to be the greatest single cause of preventable illness and premature death in the UK and there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke."...
RE: Should smoking be banned in public?
I do and I don't agree with it.
I agree as I am sick of having someones fag smoke waft in my face or my kids when we're out. But I believe car fumes are far more dangerous, our planet is suffering enough already with the polution from traffic etc and yet not much is being done about that. [&:]
RE: Should smoking be banned in public?
Hi Whispers,
I am in agreement with you. I don't smoke - in fact, I hate people smoking, but pollution and the artificial additives in food causes greater harm, in my view. Banning smoking would drive it underground and give rise to criminality (remember the problems that arose from Prohibition in 1920's America?) Banning an addictive substance creates criminal behaviour, racketeering, loss in taxable revenue, and costs a fortune to enforce.
I hope that any smoking ban is confined to pubs and restaurants, and not banned outright. Addictions are very strong, and it is easy for we non-smokers to say 'ban it', but we aren't driven by the need for a fag every now and again. If smoking was banned across the board, Heaven knows what sort of lawlessness it might breed. Added to that, our taxes would skyrocket to alleviate the loss of tobacco tax.
By saying, 'I don't want cancer from passive smoking other peoples' fags' is far too simplistic a statement. Cancer is mostly a genetic illness, and not everyone who smokes cigarettes (actively or passively) is in danger from contracting it. Bracken is carcinogenic, and people are in danger from inhaling its dangerous spores. Smoking isn't the only cancerous hazard in our midst, nor is it a modern illness. Folks were dying of it long before ciggies were ever introduced in England.
Love,
Patsy.
xxxxxxx
RE: Should smoking be banned in public?
ORIGINAL: songstress
I am in agreement with you. I don't smoke - in fact, I hate people smoking, but pollution and the artificial additives in food causes greater harm, in my view.
Hi Patsy,
As I said in the Ireland thread, I am all for addressing the problem of toxins in other areas such as traffic pollution, and as you mention, food.
Banning smoking would drive it underground and give rise to criminality (remember the problems that arose from Prohibition in 1920's America?)
I don't think there is any question of banning smoking completely and I agree that prohibition doesn't work. If people are stupid enough to smoke then they should be allowed to as long as they don't inflict it on non-smokers and they pay very high taxes.
Cancer is mostly a genetic illness
Yes genetics is a factor in cancer but this is a somewhat sweeping and unsubstantiated statement.
not everyone who smokes cigarettes (actively or passively) is in danger from contracting it.
This is a very strange argument - not everyone who smokes gets cancer therefore smoking is ok? I agree that there is an element of Russian Roulette in that some people exposed to smoke will not suffer major effects while other will. The problem is that we don't know who is in which group, and personally I don't want to take the risk.
I have mentioned cancer as the most serious smoking-related illness but of course there are numerous others. Perhaps you don't think that smoking is a major health problem but I will go with the British Medical Association on this one...
The BMA's report on passive smoking, 'Towards smoke-free public places', concludes that there are at least a thousand preventable deaths every year as a result of passive smoking...There is no longer any debate about whether passive smoking is a health risk. The debate now is what should be done to protect and improve people's health from the damaging effects of tobacco-polluted air.
The BMA is calling on the Government to introduce legislation immediately to ban smoking in public places. By not introducing such a ban, the Government is putting the health of vast numbers of the population at risk and is also placing a huge burden on the NHS.
Tobacco smoke is a potent cocktail of over 4,000 chemicals. More than 50 of these cause cancer...
There is no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke and certain people are particularly vulnerable to adverse effects...Scientific and medical evidence demonstrates that exposure to second-hand smoke causes illnesses – including fatal illnesses – and worsens existing health problems. There is conclusive evidence that passive smoking causes lung cancer, coronary heart disease, asthma attacks, the onset of symptoms of heart disease and worsening of symptoms of bronchitis in adults. In addition, there is substantial evidence that passive smoking causes stroke, reduced foetal growth and premature birth. In children it causes cot death, middle ear diseases, respiratory infections, the development of asthma in those previously unaffected and asthma attacks in those already affected.
RE: Should smoking be banned in public?
Dr L,
I think that you may have misunderstood me - I have never, ever said that smoking wasn't harmful. All I have said is, that I question the health impacts of passive smoking. You quote all of this information from the BMA, but I'd like to know how these doctors came to that conclusion.
Cancer can be traced back to genetric reasons in 90% of cases. My grandma died of lung cancer, never having smoked a fag in her life, so did my son's friend of 17 years old, again a non-smoker. Both my grandma and Natasha had a hereditary predisposition to cancer, and I think that this is the case for many people, and smoking will not necessarily spark it off. I have never smoked in my life, but had suspected cancer of the cervix a few years ago.
It seems that some people have a 'downer' on others. When smoking has been fully outlawed, the 'health police' will be picking on those who are 'obese', as seems to be the case now. Any slight with which to poke their noses in to other peoples' business. Why can't these busybodies go away and let people get on with their lives? Perhaps we will get nasty sicknesses from passive smoking, who knows, but until then, can we please all get on with our lives whilst they're still worth living?
Love,
Patsy.
🙁
RE: Should smoking be banned in public?
Dear Doc L
Just a polite request to please clearly distinguish between direct quotes & you own paraphrasing. 😉
Otherwise some might actually think that what you are saying is what is said by the BMA and there seems to be some discrepencies.
RE: Should smoking be banned in public?
ORIGINAL: Anahata
Dear Doc L
Just a polite request to please clearly distinguish between direct quotes & you own paraphrasing. 😉
Otherwise some might actually think that what you are saying is what is said by the BMA and there seems to be some discrepencies.
Dear Anahata,
Re my above post, the text in black is mine, the text in blue is direct quotes from the BMA website - I thought that was clear. 😉 I'm not sure what you think are the discrepancies.
Dr L
RE: Should smoking be banned in public?
ORIGINAL: songstress
Dr L,
I think that you may have misunderstood me - I have never, ever said that smoking wasn't harmful. All I have said is, that I question the health impacts of passive smoking. You quote all of this information from the BMA, but I'd like to know how these doctors came to that conclusion.
You will have to check the BMA reports for this but personally I am happy to accept their professional qualified opinion. That doesn't mean that I trust everything that doctors say, but in this case there are no vested interests ie money involved, so I have no reason to doubt what they say.
Cancer can be traced back to genetric reasons in 90% of cases.
I don't know where you get this figure from but if you are saying that genetics is the only factor in 90% of cancer cases then I would say guess that your figure is way out. Some cases of cancer are purely genetic but many require some environmental toxin to trigger the genetic weakness. It's back to the Russian Roulette thing - not everyone who smokes gets cancer - that doesn't make it ok in my book.
When smoking has been fully outlawed, the 'health police' will be picking on those who are 'obese', as seems to be the case now. Any slight with which to poke their noses in to other peoples' business. Why can't these busybodies go away and let people get on with their lives?
I don't call it busybodying because the heatlh problems caused by smoking (and obesity for that matter) are IMO not trivial but very serious.
Perhaps we will get nasty sicknesses from passive smoking, who knows,
I guess I don't share your relaxed attitude about getting nasty sicknesses. For me it's not a question of 'who knows?' - we do know, and I quote again the British Medical Association above which I trust, There is no longer any debate about whether passive smoking is a health risk
Dr L