This discussion is closed.
technik
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#41
Report 14 years ago
#41
(Original post by Howard)
Do you take me for a moron? I'm hardly likely to advance research paid for by Phillip Morris am I? :rolleyes: I'm actually referring to an independent study conducted by the University of California at Berkeley. (I did have the link and I'll try and find it for you)
google a simple query eg "effects of passive smoking" and see how many results come up saying theres little or no risk. perhaps sparkle will try too
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#42
Report 14 years ago
#42
(Original post by ChemistBoy)
Maybe it's because some people can't understand why someone would want inhale a cloud of toxic fumes and highly addictive narcotics? Especially whilst drinking (as this increases the chance of you getting cancer by 20 times).
I think you've hit the nail on the head. This has more to do with the "well, however reasonable your proposals I'm still going to object, whine, moan, and complain because I dislike smoking and regard it as a filthy habit so won't shut my fcukin mouth until it's banned and everyone lives a pure life like me" type attitude than anything else.

"I am a holier than though non-smoker and I demand that ALL pubs meet MY personal fresh air standards and requirements and fcuk the liberty of everyone else because I am in the majority.....ME, ME, ME, I, I, I :rolleyes:
0
technik
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#43
Report 14 years ago
#43
(Original post by Howard)
I think you've hit the nail on the head. This has more to do with the "well, however reasonable your proposals I'm still going to object, whine, moan, and complain because I dislike smoking and regard it as a filthy habit so won't shut my fcukin mouth until it's banned and everyone lives a pure life like me" type attitude than anything else.

"I am a holier than though non-smoker and I demand that ALL pubs meet MY personal fresh air standards and requirements and fcuk the liberty of everyone else because I am in the majority.....ME, ME, ME, I, I, I :rolleyes:
thats exactly it...

a public ban is just a first step.

fascism. you bet it is. and about time
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#44
Report 14 years ago
#44
(Original post by technik)
google a simple query eg "effects of passive smoking" and see how many results come up saying theres little or no risk. perhaps sparkle will try too
Let's not get drawn into a "is passive smoking dangerous" day of research. We're talking about banning smoking in pubs. You wouldn't be exposed to "the dangers and horrors and almost certain death :rolleyes: " caused by the passive smoke from my cigarrette if I drank in one pub (a smoking bar) and you another (a non smoking bar)
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#45
Report 14 years ago
#45
(Original post by technik)
thats exactly it...

a public ban is just a first step.

fascism. you bet it is. and about time
Fascist scum.
0
technik
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#46
Report 14 years ago
#46
(Original post by Howard)
Let's not get drawn into a "is passive smoking dangerous" day of research. We're talking about banning smoking in pubs. You wouldn't be exposed to "the dangers and horrors and almost certain death :rolleyes: " caused by the passive smoke from my cigarrette if I drank in one pub (a smoking bar) and you another (a non smoking bar)
indeed so, but i believe people need protection from their own stupidity
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#47
Report 14 years ago
#47
(Original post by technik)
indeed so, but i believe people need protection from their own stupidity
Really? So, your stance has more to do with an opinion that the state should intervene and tell people what to do than any logical objection you have to dividing pubs into smoking & non-smoking bars? I think we're getting somewhere.

Sounds rather fascist to me. I was hoping that form of politics had become passe and was only really followed by my grandfather's generation "the man in Whitehall knows best......do as you're bloody well told....." Apparently it's a genetic strain.
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#48
Report 14 years ago
#48
(Original post by technik)
indeed so, but i believe people need protection from their own stupidity
Do you think fat pie munching *******s should all be rounded up and sent to fat camp or have a personal advisor paid for my the state to supervise meal times for them?
0
Jamie
Badges: 18
#49
Report 14 years ago
#49
(Original post by amazingtrade)
So are you seriusly suggesting that smoking funds the NHS?
There goes my 3000th post...

The tax on ciggies is quite huge, and the reveunues on it are so massive that if smoking were entirely banned today, it would bankrupt the government.
HOWEVER
Its a misguided notion that smoking 'funds' the NHS, or even the taxes. The reason we can't just ban smokers is
Smoking diseases usually take some time to manifest. Thus it would be near 40 odd years before we started seeing real reductions in smoking related diseases. In the mean time all the revenue from cig taxes would be lost, plus the cost of cold turkey treatments like patchs and busoprion.

Thus cig taxes are a vicious catch 22. We need the tax to fund the health system NOW, but the act of smoking costs us dearly in the future.
0
Jamie
Badges: 18
#50
Report 14 years ago
#50
(Original post by Howard)
Do you think fat pie munching *******s should all be rounded up and sent to fat camp or have a personal advisor paid for my the state to supervise meal times for them?
there is now investemnt in the health services on people who are trained to get people to lose weight, and the results are looking quite promising.
0
DoctorDeath
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#51
Report 14 years ago
#51
Ban, ban, ban! It's really nice living in such a 'free' society isn't it?

Eventually the UK can become like 'the land of the free', the US, who have a ridiculous amount of restrictions on their lives.

Stop being such a bunch of pansies.

I'm an ex-smoker, but I don't mind other people smoking. Passive smoking is nowhere near as horrendous as the scaremongers want you to believe, and a ban would effectively close down lots of smaller pubs, as they can't afford to lose the smoking trade (In Ireland, profits are DOWN, we can assume something similar will happen here). I know it would be the final nail in the coffin for my village local...
0
viviki
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#52
Report 14 years ago
#52
I think that it would work if they had designated smoking areas in pubs which were away from the non smoking areas enough so the smoke didnt come through. Different room or floor maybe but I am against smoking in pubs because I'm fed up of getting asthma attacks on nights out and feeling breathless for 3 days after.

i don't see why there can't be specifically smoking pubs and people know this and take their own risk to go in them but there need to be enough non smoking pubs clearly designated for there to be a decent choice available.
0
viviki
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#53
Report 14 years ago
#53
(Original post by amazingtrade)
So are you seriusly suggesting that smoking funds the NHS?

yes it provides a significant contribution to the NHS budget.

I think that rather than a ban there should regional guidelines making there be some non smoking pubs. Obviously the pubs do not want to lose the business of the smoker and the non smokers want somewhere to drink so there should be some sort of guideline providing that there are x amount of smoking and non smoking pubs in a town to provide a fair mix.
0
DoctorDeath
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#54
Report 14 years ago
#54
Smoking does help swell the NHS coffers. As someone else said, the smokers are subsidising the non-smokers with all that extra tax they pay.

As I'm an ex-smoker, all the cigarette tax I paid, will now help pay for any NHS treatment I receive.

Ergo, I'm subsidising myself.

Therefore, I am doing the nation a great favour and should receive a knighthood.

Or something.

Even a luncheon voucher would be nice.
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#55
Report 14 years ago
#55
(Original post by viviki)
I think that it would work if they had designated smoking areas in pubs which were away from the non smoking areas enough so the smoke didnt come through. Different room or floor maybe but I am against smoking in pubs because I'm fed up of getting asthma attacks on nights out and feeling breathless for 3 days after.

i don't see why there can't be specifically smoking pubs and people know this and take their own risk to go in them but there need to be enough non smoking pubs clearly designated for there to be a decent choice available.
Exactly. I think that's a reasonable stance and the one I am proposing.
0
technik
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#56
Report 14 years ago
#56
(Original post by DoctorDeath)
Ban, ban, ban! It's really nice living in such a 'free' society isn't it?

Eventually the UK can become like 'the land of the free', the US, who have a ridiculous amount of restrictions on their lives.

Stop being such a bunch of pansies.

I'm an ex-smoker, but I don't mind other people smoking. Passive smoking is nowhere near as horrendous as the scaremongers want you to believe, and a ban would effectively close down lots of smaller pubs, as they can't afford to lose the smoking trade (In Ireland, profits are DOWN, we can assume something similar will happen here). I know it would be the final nail in the coffin for my village local...
its funny you talk about scaremongering with regards to proven fact, then proceed to scaremonger yourself based on opinion in your final sentence...
0
viviki
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#57
Report 14 years ago
#57
(Original post by Howard)
Exactly. I think that's a reasonable stance and the one I am proposing.
Its difficult from a logistics point of view though isn't it.

If you had non smoking pubs designated who would enforce which pubs were non smoking. If the council divided the town into smoking and non smoking areas I'm sure there would be arguments that one side was getting more business than the other. you would get landlords who didnt like smoking owning a smoking pub and vice versa. If you left it up to the landlords to decide there might not be enough non smoking pubs for there to be a decent choice. I'm not sure how it would work in practice.
0
ChemistBoy
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#58
Report 14 years ago
#58
(Original post by DoctorDeath)
Smoking does help swell the NHS coffers. As someone else said, the smokers are subsidising the non-smokers with all that extra tax they pay.

As I'm an ex-smoker, all the cigarette tax I paid, will now help pay for any NHS treatment I receive.

Ergo, I'm subsidising myself.

Therefore, I am doing the nation a great favour and should receive a knighthood.

Or something.

Even a luncheon voucher would be nice.
As far as I am aware, estimates on the amount of money it costs the NHS to treat smokers is still greater than the amount of money it receives from taxation of cigarettes, etc.
0
ChemistBoy
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#59
Report 14 years ago
#59
This will and should be dealt with as a health and safety issue for those employed in pubs, clubs and restaurants. As it is seen as unacceptable practice to smoke in other workplaces it is only a matter of time before this gets extended into the aforementioned areas. People should be able to work in a safe environment with pollutants and toxins minimised to neccessary amounts - smoking is a luxury pastime that produces pollutants and toxins into the atmosphere, it is not neccessary to smoke so these toxins and pollutants can be easily removed from the working environment thus making it safer.
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#60
Report 14 years ago
#60
(Original post by ChemistBoy)
As far as I am aware, estimates on the amount of money it costs the NHS to treat smokers is still greater than the amount of money it receives from taxation of cigarettes, etc.
Then you need to do some more reading on the subject.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you made up your mind on your five uni choices?

Yes I know where I'm applying (153)
59.3%
No I haven't decided yet (60)
23.26%
Yes but I might change my mind (45)
17.44%

Watched Threads

View All