Would you change the smoking laws?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by minimarshmallow
A cash machine. A bus stop that isn't in a station. For a public toilet that is outdoors. For a rollercoaster at a theme park. Plenty of places I could be queuing and someone sparking up would mean I'd either have to breathe in their smoke or leave the queue that I am waiting in.
Similarly, smokers generally huddle around an entrance, particularly if it's raining, which means I'm forced to either stand at the window of a place with a loudspeaker and ask them all to move so I don't have to breathe it in, breathe it in as I walk past, or not leave the building.
Yes, if I am standing next to a smoker at a bus stop or whatever and they get out their fags I can move away from them or politely ask them to move away from me - but this is rarely what happens when I'm encountering second hand smoke.
Now, I'm not looking for smoking to be completely banned or banned in public places or whatever, but I would like the current laws on things like doorways and bus shelters to be enforced better - so last week when my choice was between stand in the rain or have some girl smoking in a bus shelter she shouldn't have been smoking in in the first place blow her smoke in my face, I shouldn't be forced to make that decision for something she is choosing to do.
Similarly, smokers generally huddle around an entrance, particularly if it's raining, which means I'm forced to either stand at the window of a place with a loudspeaker and ask them all to move so I don't have to breathe it in, breathe it in as I walk past, or not leave the building.
Yes, if I am standing next to a smoker at a bus stop or whatever and they get out their fags I can move away from them or politely ask them to move away from me - but this is rarely what happens when I'm encountering second hand smoke.
Now, I'm not looking for smoking to be completely banned or banned in public places or whatever, but I would like the current laws on things like doorways and bus shelters to be enforced better - so last week when my choice was between stand in the rain or have some girl smoking in a bus shelter she shouldn't have been smoking in in the first place blow her smoke in my face, I shouldn't be forced to make that decision for something she is choosing to do.
I was always under the impression that smoking was banned in Theme parks, I haven't seen any smokers in them. Maybe I just haven't noticed. Either way, a ban on smoking in theme parks wouldn't be too bad, or just in the queues in theme parks. As for cash machines for me personally it's just being polite not to smoke near them, unless it's 3am and I'm pissed and need a fiver for a kebab and am all alone, then there's nobody to be polite for.
My main point is that these things don't really need any more state intervention, with murderers and rapists for the police to deal with it wouldn't be wise to have a policeman at every bus stop telling smokers to "put it out", which would be the only way to effectively enforce the smoking ban. I personally smoke under an umbrella when it's raining, because it's polite, and it's purely voluntary, I could smoke under a bus shelter if I wanted to, because the law can't be enforced.
Banning smoking, or just in public places would probably work about as well as the volstead act. It would put added strain onto the economy, and billions would have to be spent on enforcement. It's much better to keep things such as this voluntary.
Original post by James Milibanter
What's behind your fascination behind lead and asbestos?
I have already said that if someone was getting off on asbestos you'd move away not stand next to them and breathe it in, the analogy is stupid. Lead and Arsenic aren't the same thing. There are 4000 chemicals in tobacco and 69 of those are carcinogenic, in open air second hand smoke is virtually harmless and doesn't count as a pollutant. If this is a health issue for you then you're are wrong and should withdraw your argument.
I have already said that if someone was getting off on asbestos you'd move away not stand next to them and breathe it in, the analogy is stupid. Lead and Arsenic aren't the same thing. There are 4000 chemicals in tobacco and 69 of those are carcinogenic, in open air second hand smoke is virtually harmless and doesn't count as a pollutant. If this is a health issue for you then you're are wrong and should withdraw your argument.
Not looking for a fight (I'm a smoker) but I need evidence that second hand smoke in open air (and what's defined as "open air") is virtually harmless. Would be interested in reading the paper/evidence before I recite this claim.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by RollerBall
Not looking for a fight (I'm a smoker) but I need evidence that second hand smoke in open air (and what's defined as "open air") is virtually harmless. Would be interested in reading the paper/evidence before I recite this claim.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
of course it's not true http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/health_effects/
Earlier (you can see I took quotes out of it in a prevous comment) someone linked an article which was claiming second hand smoke doesnt cause problems, and the article casually linked a reserach paper to "back up" its claims, which when you read it explicitly lists lots of problems second hand smoking causes, but states that due to the reserach methods they used, such as not taking into account degrees of exposure, and the fact that 90% of the non-smoking subjects had been exposed to second hand smoke, they could not reliably deduce from statistics derived from their study that it causes cancer (over other factors in the environment), though also goes on to state that their study alone should not be relied on and should be combined with other studies out there and the researchers absolutely do not want people to think that second hand smoking does not cause cancer. This is what the study said and some article was making out that there are no health problems from second hand smoke and linking this lol, relying on people not to read the actual study they were linking.
Original post by wsxcde
of course it's not true http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/health_effects/
Earlier (you can see I took quotes out of it in a prevous comment) someone linked an article which was claiming second hand smoke doesnt cause problems, and the article casually linked a reserach paper to "back up" its claims, which when you read it explicitly lists lots of problems second hand smoking causes, but states that due to the reserach methods they used, such as not taking into account degrees of exposure, and the fact that 90% of the non-smoking subjects had been exposed to second hand smoke, they could not reliably deduce from statistics derived from their study that it causes cancer (over other factors in the environment), though also goes on to state that their study alone should not be relied on and should be combined with other studies out there and the researchers absolutely do not want people to think that second hand smoking does not cause cancer. This is what the study said and some article was making out that there are no health problems from second hand smoke and linking this lol, relying on people not to read the actual study they were linking.
Earlier (you can see I took quotes out of it in a prevous comment) someone linked an article which was claiming second hand smoke doesnt cause problems, and the article casually linked a reserach paper to "back up" its claims, which when you read it explicitly lists lots of problems second hand smoking causes, but states that due to the reserach methods they used, such as not taking into account degrees of exposure, and the fact that 90% of the non-smoking subjects had been exposed to second hand smoke, they could not reliably deduce from statistics derived from their study that it causes cancer (over other factors in the environment), though also goes on to state that their study alone should not be relied on and should be combined with other studies out there and the researchers absolutely do not want people to think that second hand smoking does not cause cancer. This is what the study said and some article was making out that there are no health problems from second hand smoke and linking this lol, relying on people not to read the actual study they were linking.
Pretty standard science reporting then. I'm not familiar with the evidence base at all. Any conclusive systematic reviews pointing either way?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by RollerBall
Pretty standard science reporting then. I'm not familiar with the evidence base at all. Any conclusive systematic reviews pointing either way?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
It's pure logic.
69/4000 chemicals in tobacco smoke are harmful, even less are cancer causing, any research will back this up as it's pretty common knowledge for anyone that's studied chemistry for any amount of time. So just over 1% of the smoke is harmful and that would be if the air was 100% cigarette smoke which it is not.
I found this on a anti-smoking website, so it's purely objective:
Researchers found that air quality improved as they moved away from the smoker. "These results show what common sense would suggest—when you're within a few feet downwind of a smoker, you get exposed," Ott explained. "But likewise, when you go a little distance or stay upwind, the exposure goes way down. If there's just one smoker, and you can sit six feet away, you would have little problem. At the same time, if there are a lot of smokers nearby, you may be exposed to very high levels of secondhand smoke. So this thing that critics have been dismissing as trivial is not."
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2007/may9/smoking-050907.html
Original post by James Milibanter
It's pure logic.
69/4000 chemicals in tobacco smoke are harmful, even less are cancer causing, any research will back this up as it's pretty common knowledge for anyone that's studied chemistry for any amount of time. So just over 1% of the smoke is harmful and that would be if the air was 100% cigarette smoke which it is not.
I found this on a anti-smoking website, so it's purely objective:
Researchers found that air quality improved as they moved away from the smoker. "These results show what common sense would suggest—when you're within a few feet downwind of a smoker, you get exposed," Ott explained. "But likewise, when you go a little distance or stay upwind, the exposure goes way down. If there's just one smoker, and you can sit six feet away, you would have little problem. At the same time, if there are a lot of smokers nearby, you may be exposed to very high levels of secondhand smoke. So this thing that critics have been dismissing as trivial is not."
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2007/may9/smoking-050907.html
69/4000 chemicals in tobacco smoke are harmful, even less are cancer causing, any research will back this up as it's pretty common knowledge for anyone that's studied chemistry for any amount of time. So just over 1% of the smoke is harmful and that would be if the air was 100% cigarette smoke which it is not.
I found this on a anti-smoking website, so it's purely objective:
Researchers found that air quality improved as they moved away from the smoker. "These results show what common sense would suggest—when you're within a few feet downwind of a smoker, you get exposed," Ott explained. "But likewise, when you go a little distance or stay upwind, the exposure goes way down. If there's just one smoker, and you can sit six feet away, you would have little problem. At the same time, if there are a lot of smokers nearby, you may be exposed to very high levels of secondhand smoke. So this thing that critics have been dismissing as trivial is not."
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2007/may9/smoking-050907.html
Are you taking the piss? Have you read that article you've posted?
And sorry mate, your 'logic' isn't worth ****. It doesn't even make sense.
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Wade-
Maybe put the price of every hamburger and french fry because some studies say that obesity kills more people than smoking.
I think the law should be changed so that if individual premises owners wish to allow smoking they can
Posted from TSR Mobile
I think the law should be changed so that if individual premises owners wish to allow smoking they can
Posted from TSR Mobile
The problem with allowing it on a per-premises basis is that if enough decide to allow it in their establishment it takes the choice away from those who work there who are the main ones meant to be protected by this.
Original post by DasSnipez
The problem with allowing it on a per-premises basis is that if enough decide to allow it in their establishment it takes the choice away from those who work there who are the main ones meant to be protected by this.
Well then they can go and find a new job
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Wade-
Would I be entitled to job seekers allowance if I quit a job for that reason?
Would my jobseekers allowance be sanctioned for not taking a job for that reason?
Original post by Wade-
Workplaces are required to provide a healthy environment for their workers, you can't fire someone because they are unwilling to work in a dangerous environment.
Well you could, you'd get taken to court and beaten on a wrongfully dismissal case though.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
