Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    That is absolutely untrue. What's worse is, you have some inkling it's not true & you keep repeating it. If you're about to call me an "addict in denial," fine---look at these statements (not from me, not from anyone who smokes):


    "The estimates of ETS caused deaths are guesstimates at best ... Maybe there are no deaths due to ETS in the workplace." --- Elizabeth Whelan, president: American Council on Science and Health, anti-tobacco activist, author of the book Smoking Gun: How the Tobacco Industry Gets Away with Murder

    "[C]oronary heart disease, lung cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (including chronic bronchitis and emphysema) are closely linked to active smoking .... However, there is considerable controversy over whether secondhand smoke bears on one's likelihood of developing these diseases." --- Kimberly Bowman, ACSH researcher (my emphasis)

    "the impact of environmental tobacco smoke on health remains under dispute." ---George Davey Smith, professor of clinical epidemiology

    "[A]nti-tobacco activists are exaggerating the dangers of second-hand smoke." --- Jeff Stier, ACSH spokesman

    "We must be interested in whether passive smoking kills, and the question has not been definitively answered." --- Richard Smith, editor, British Medical Journal

    This is only the tip of the iceberg. People in the medical/scientific community, and even people on the anti-smoking side, say things like this every day. Why? Because the research on passive smoking---after 2 decades and billions of dollars---hasn't proven a solitary thing (except possibly that secondhand smoke is not dangerous).
    you do realise that all the arguments the cig industry and yourself are churning out against the idea of passive smoking are exactly the same as were being given against the notion that active smoking was in anyway harmful or substance assoc addictive 50 years ago.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    That is reprehensible, very rude behavior, & as a smoker I certainly don't do that. Blowing smoke in people's faces or lighting up next to a group of non-smokers is just boorish. (The only thing I object to here is saying that "smokers" do this, rather than something like "rude individuals who smoke." Because I don't think it's true of smokers as a rule.)
    So if you were out in a pub and there was a group of non-smokers next to you then you wouldn't light up? I would say you are in a very small minority. The other problem is that smoke gets everywhere anyway. I find it doesn't make much difference whether someone is smoking 1 metre or 10 metres away; I still leave the pub stinking of ****.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by englishstudent)
    So if you were out in a pub and there was a group of non-smokers next to you then you wouldn't light up? I would say you are in a very small minority. The other problem is that smoke gets everywhere anyway. I find it doesn't make much difference whether someone is smoking 1 metre or 10 metres away; I still leave the pub stinking of ****.
    I dont disagree that smoking is bad for health.
    I dont disagree that it smells.
    I dont disagree that it lingers on your clothes.
    Im a non-smoker, and always have been, but when I go out, noone tricks me into a smoking bar, noone pushes me in and locks the door. Im adult enough to know that this is private property, I am invited onto that property under the premise that I abide by the house regulations. If one of those regulations is to permit smoking, then I fully expect people to be smoking. If one day it gets too much, I wont enter that bar.

    I agree with a ban on smoking in PUBLIC places, which, for those of you who are confused, means places which are state owned or funded by the taxpayer. Libraries, public transport etc. I have a right of access to those services and as a result I have a right to not breathe in smoke.

    Where I disagree clearly, is that no such right of access applies to private property. You have no right over how that property is managed. What we have here, time and time again is people advocating state interference into the management of this property because they personally want to frequent THAT bar, and thus if it means private propety comes under state control, if it means we undermine any assumption that any adult human being can make a rational choice, if it assumes that other people cannot decide for themselves how to lead their life, if it comprises all these freedoms and liberties because at 20h00 on a friday night, 60+ TSR members dont have to find a non-smoking bar then of course it is fully justified.

    Id ask that large majority to declare if they were among the large majority that voted in favour of free markets. Clearly some of them are lying through their back teeth.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    .. if it assumes that other people cannot decide for themselves how to lead their life, if it comprises all these freedoms and liberties because at 20h00 on a friday night, 60+ TSR members dont have to find a non-smoking bar then of course it is fully justified.
    Unfortunately, finding a non-smoking bar is impossible where I live. As a result, I think it's grossly unjust that a minority of smokers should be in a position to influence the social habits of those who find smoke so disgusting (i.e., have to put up with smoke in eyes/clothes, or just not go out).

    If I lived in a place where there was a viable option (never going out to the pub is simply not one of these.. - nor should it be due to the actions of a selfish minority), then it could well be a different matter.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    Unfortunately, finding a non-smoking bar is impossible where I live. As a result, I think it's grossly unjust that a minority of smokers should be in a position to influence the social habits of those
    As if to prove my point - I-cant-find-a-non-smoking-bar-because-all-the-
    evil-smokers-have-influence-over-the-bar-owner. Thats right they do, its called THE MARKET.

    Are you here, on record, going to argue for state interference into the running of private business? If so, may I further ask what your position is on socialism?

    And dont do what yawn does: Im not a communist! What rubbish! I just believe that the state should have control over all private property!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jamie)
    you do realise that all the arguments the cig industry and yourself are churning out against the idea of passive smoking are exactly the same as were being given against the notion that active smoking was in anyway harmful or substance assoc addictive 50 years ago.
    There's no way that could be true. The numbers involved are massively disproportionate.

    People who smoke 20+ cigs/day have an increased lung cancer risk somewhere on the order of 300 times.

    People who are exposed to secondhand smoke (for 2+ decades) have either no risk at all or, if the most alarming studies are to be believed (a big "if"), an increase in risk of 1.2 and 1.3 times. However, even this risk is suspect. Consider the fact that epidemiologists typically discount risks of less that 2.0 or 3.0:

    "As a general rule of thumb, we are looking for a relative risk of 3 or more before accepting a paper for publication." --- Marcia Angell, editor of the New England Journal of Medicine

    "My basic rule is if the relative risk isn't at least 3 or 4, forget it." --- Robert Temple, director of drug evaluation at the Food and Drug Administration.

    "Relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident." --- The National Cancer Institute

    "An association is generally considered weak if the odds ratio [relative risk] is under 3.0 and particularly when it is under 2.0, as is the case in the relationship of ETS and lung cancer." --- Dr. Jeffrey Kabat, IAQC epidemiologist

    A study Yawn cited on the other thread was based on accepting, as Bible truth, the results of a New England study that found a risk of 1.24. This is typical. Other environmental carcinogens show much, much larger numbers under testing. Asbestos, for instance, a universally known workplace hazard, has shown an increase in risk of around 10 to 14 times. Secondhand smoke has never cut the mustard---hence the controversy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by englishstudent)
    So if you were out in a pub and there was a group of non-smokers next to you then you wouldn't light up?
    No, I'd go to another part of the bar.
    Offline

    13
    Pubs may be leased by individuals or owned by breweries but their product is sold for public consumption

    This makes them a public place and therefore subject to regulation in the same way as any other public place. They have to apply for a licence to sell intoxicating liquor, they have to abide by the regulations on opening times. They have not being deregulated. In essence they are not private in the same way as someone's own home is private.

    This is the reason that the idea the enforcement of a ban on smoking within these premises is tyrannous is nonsense - and I suspect that if the proposals were being mooted by the Tory party they would be seen as innovative by some posters!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    As if to prove my point - I-cant-find-a-non-smoking-bar-because-all-the-
    evil-smokers-have-influence-over-the-bar-owner. Thats right they do, its called THE MARKET.

    Are you here, on record, going to argue for state interference into the running of private business? If so, may I further ask what your position is on socialism?

    And dont do what yawn does: Im not a communist! What rubbish! I just believe that the state should have control over all private property!
    Must everything be so black and white? I don't necessarily advocate state interference in all walks of life, but I do not advocate its exact opposite either.

    Let me put a question do you: Is it just that a minority should be able to put a majority in a situation where they either have to put up with something really quite uncomfortable, or just not go out to pubs at all? That is the situation where I live, and the situation from which I'm arguing.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Pubs may be leased by individuals or owned by breweries but their product is sold for public consumption

    This makes them a public place and therefore subject to regulation in the same way as any other public place. They have to apply for a licence to sell intoxicating liquor, they have to abide by the regulations on opening times. They have not being deregulated. In essence they are not private in the same way as someone's own home is private.
    Exactly.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Vienna)

    And dont do what yawn does: Im not a communist! What rubbish! I just believe that the state should have control over all private property!
    Again, you make the mistake of attributing comments to me that I have not made!

    If I took the puerile arguments you are raising over this thread at all seriously I would, by now, be considering suing you for libel!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'll chip in my two penneth...
    Although many people find smoking intolerable or maybe just nasty, it is...how shall I put this...tantamount to back-door removal of civil liberties (I was going to say dictatorship or fascism but chose not to for obvious reasons). If smoking is something that a sizeable group of people enjoy doing, then it is wrong to ban it, and before anyone jumps on this I don't mean that things like murder are acceptable etc, or that smoking harmful drugs like heroin is acceptable etc. The solution is to spend more money on helping people who want to quit to do so my parents have already tried and failed once (and before you all think I'm some nutter, my parents both smoked when I was unborn and I personally suspect it has had some minor effect on me but the point of liberality remains), and to have smoking and nonsmoking sections in bars clubs and other places. Banning something is a removal of our fundamental civil liberties and should not be accepted!
    :flute:I wanna be in the minority:flute:
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by MrSornia)
    I'll chip in my two penneth...
    Although many people find smoking intolerable or maybe just nasty, it is...how shall I put this...tantamount to back-door removal of civil liberties (I was going to say dictatorship or fascism but chose not to for obvious reasons). If smoking is something that a sizeable group of people enjoy doing, then it is wrong to ban it, and before anyone jumps on this I don't mean that things like murder are acceptable etc, or that smoking harmful drugs like heroin is acceptable etc. The solution is to spend more money on helping people who want to quit to do so my parents have already tried and failed once (and before you all think I'm some nutter, my parents both smoked when I was unborn and I personally suspect it has had some minor effect on me but the point of liberality remains), and to have smoking and nonsmoking sections in bars clubs and other places. Banning something is a removal of our fundamental civil liberties and should not be accepted!
    :flute:I wanna be in the minority:flute:
    Smokers will still be able to smoke - they are being allowed the right to injure their own health if that is their wish. What they are being banned from doing is injuring the health of those who choose not to injure their health by this means.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think we should have a full ban in public places, but it could be hard to enforce.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Again, you make the mistake of attributing comments to me that I have not made!
    Show me one inaccurate quote that I have attributed to you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Pubs may be leased by individuals or owned by breweries but their product is sold for public consumption

    This makes them a public place
    No it doesnt, it means the sale of that product for public consumption ON PRIVATE PROPERTY has to be licensed, so the state may TAX that products SALE through PRIVATE BUSINESS. Unless you are now suggesting that your local corner shop is property of the state?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    Must everything be so black and white? I don't necessarily advocate state interference in all walks of life, but I do not advocate its exact opposite either.

    Let me put a question do you: Is it just that a minority should be able to put a majority in a situation where they either have to put up with something really quite uncomfortable, or just not go out to pubs at all? That is the situation where I live, and the situation from which I'm arguing.
    And you are willing to remove everyone elses liberty and right to choose, aswell as undermine private business, because of what you want. I, as a free market Conservative, find that selfish and quite appalling.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    And you are willing to remove everyone elses liberty and right to choose, aswell as undermine private business, because of what you want. I, as a free market Conservative, find that selfish and quite appalling.
    And you are willing to allow the selfish behaviour of a minority to dictate the lifestyle of a majority guilty of nothing. I, as a person, find that selfish and quite appalling. I am actually advocating the liberty of non-smokers to go into a pub environment (we simply don't have non-smoking pubs where I live) without having to breathe in others smoke.

    I think we've gone around in a circle once or twice by now, and neither of us are going to convince each other of anything.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrSornia)
    I'll chip in my two penneth...
    Although many people find smoking intolerable or maybe just nasty, it is...how shall I put this...tantamount to back-door removal of civil liberties (I was going to say dictatorship or fascism but chose not to for obvious reasons). If smoking is something that a sizeable group of people enjoy doing, then it is wrong to ban it, and before anyone jumps on this I don't mean that things like murder are acceptable etc, or that smoking harmful drugs like heroin is acceptable etc. The solution is to spend more money on helping people who want to quit to do so my parents have already tried and failed once (and before you all think I'm some nutter, my parents both smoked when I was unborn and I personally suspect it has had some minor effect on me but the point of liberality remains), and to have smoking and nonsmoking sections in bars clubs and other places. Banning something is a removal of our fundamental civil liberties and should not be accepted!
    :flute:I wanna be in the minority:flute:
    Well, at least someone is advocating choice and a sentiment other than their own hedonistic interest.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    if this had been 2 years ago i would of fought this ban ALL the way so would my parents and staf. simply from a busines point of veiw - pub owner. thje no smoking ban in ireland has killed alot of business for people. so it would be a matter of fight the ban or have a chance of your profits droping so bady you have to join a company pub ring and just be a manager, or just loose your house....

    but if some one is smoking when im sitting under a bus stop that is just rude. cause how do they know theres not a person under there who has lung problems... or a young child even. some people just need to be a lot more considerate of non smokers.

    pubs which have half smoking and half non smoking have got the right idea in my opinion. the non smoking area in our pub was also the childrens area.
 
 
 

2,072

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.