Public Smoking Ban

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
Ok here's what I think.  Smoking should not be allowed in civil buildings (schools, universities,  government buildings etc.),  and as far as private restaurants, bars etc.,  it should be up to the owner to decide.  Personally,  I think there should be in every restaurant a split section for smokers,  and one for non-smokers. 

And what's with that discrimination example about Jews or homosexuals?  Being close to any of the two doesn't do me any harm.  Whereas if I'm next to a smoker,  I DO get harmed.  It's not about discrimination at all.  It's about protection. 

IronDuke,  well said.
 
SneakySneaky said:
and as far as private restaurants, bars etc.,  it should be up to the owner to decide. 
Click to expand...

And what about the employes? They might not be able to get a different job, and they have to endure all the smoking, despite possible healthproblems. Is that fair? If it should be a section for non-smokers and one for smokers, then I think all restaurant/bars and similar business that has that system should be forced to build a good airconditioning system, so that the employes won't have to endure the smoking to the full.
 
Yax said:
And what about the employes?
Click to expand...
What a pub in my town does is forbids smoking at the bar after a certain time (19:00 to be precise). So, if you wish to smoke, you have to move away from the bar - a bit of a compromise I think.
 
Yax said:
And what about the employes? They might not be able to get a different job, and they have to endure all the smoking, despite possible healthproblems. Is that fair? If it should be a section for non-smokers and one for smokers, then I think all restaurant/bars and similar business that has that system should be forced to build a good airconditioning system, so that the employes won't have to endure the smoking to the full.
Click to expand...

If the employes don't like the smoke, then they must find another job. And if they can't find an other job - then they have a problem.
 
It's interesting to see that everybody takes for granted that smoking causes diseases, cancer among others. Athought there is a statistical link between smoking and the risk of developing cancer somewhere in the respiratory system, there is -- to the best of my knowledge -- no biological evidence that smoking causes cancer. It is a myth to scare people off from smoking, a bit like telling a kid that he'll go blind if he plays too much with his willy.

As for passive smoking, the risk is vastly reduced as the smoke had already been filtered by the smokers' lungs before the passive smoker inhales it. There is also no evidence that passive smoking is dangerous in any way.

It think it's mostly a question of comfort, and I perfectly understand that non-smokers don't want to be in the middle of stinking smoke or come home with their clothes smelling of cold tobacco. I am in favour of partitioned public areas, where smokers and non-smokers can be separated for their respective comfort -- that not to have to suffer the smell of cigarettes, as well as that to enjoy a few puffs with a drink.

I am a tolerant smoker and I always refrain from smoking if asked not to (within reason, of course!). I also try not to blow my smoke in other people's direction. Let's all be tolerant, respectful and use common sense, and there won't be any reasons to enforce a ban of any kind.
 
Maverick said:
It's interesting to see that everybody takes for granted that smoking causes diseases, cancer among others. Athought there is a statistical link between smoking and the risk of developing cancer somewhere in the respiratory system, there is -- to the best of my knowledge -- no biological evidence that smoking causes cancer. It is a myth to scare people off from smoking, a bit like telling a kid that he'll go blind if he plays too much with his willy.
Click to expand...
I guess you are the biologists and can provide a better argument about this. ;)

But one thing smoking does do to individuals is cause their voice to change. This change in peoples voice is not natural and surely cannot be doing their throat any good at all. Seemingly people who get throat cancer, are smokers. I do aslo know that some people have had lung cancer and not smoked - Roy Castle as an example, who famously blamed it on passive smoking.
 
Albie said:
This change in peoples voice is not natural and surely cannot be doing their throat any good at all...
Click to expand...

The voice changes naturally, but it's true that some of the tar contained in cigarette smoke may have an effect on the vocal cords that increases this natural change.

Incidentally, this reminds me of an ad I saw in the respectable journal Nature a few years ago: the university of Windsor (Ontario, Canada) was looking for volunteers for a study on... the effect of 'all-the-way' fellatio on vocal cords! I never saw anything published in the scientific literature, but that would certainly have been eligible for an Ig Nobel Prize!  ^_^
 
Maverick said:
It's interesting to see that everybody takes for granted that smoking causes diseases, cancer among others. Athought there is a statistical link between smoking and the risk of developing cancer somewhere in the respiratory system, there is -- to the best of my knowledge -- no biological evidence that smoking causes cancer. It is a myth to scare people off from smoking, a bit like telling a kid that he'll go blind if he plays too much with his willy.
Click to expand...

There is, however, sufficient scientific proof that if you for example work with cancerogenous (sp?) substances such as Asbestos and you're a smoker, the risk of you getting cancer of the lungs is increased 10-fold or more. You are more succeptible (sp again?) to certain kinds of lung cancer if you already smoke. The risk is much higher that I, as a heavy smoker for 28 years, get cancer and emphysema and other diseases than somebody that never smoked a fag in his life.
On another note, since nicotine substitutes the body's own production of an important signal substance in you brain (unfortunately I've forgotten the name of it), you'd actually get more stupid, or slow witted, if you're a smoker and quit...for a few months, until the body takes up the production again. In short, you become stupid if you quit smoking :p :wacko:
 
Maverick said:
Incidentally, this reminds me of an ad I saw in the respectable journal Nature a few years ago: the university of Windsor (Ontario, Canada) was looking for volunteers for a study on... the effect of 'all-the-way' fellatio on vocal cords! I never saw anything published in the scientific literature, but that would certainly have been eligible for an Ig Nobel Prize!  ^_^
Click to expand...

I will make the sacrifice and provide prpoer equipment for this study. Science!
 
Maverick said:
It's interesting to see that everybody takes for granted that smoking causes diseases, cancer among others. Athought there is a statistical link between smoking and the risk of developing cancer somewhere in the respiratory system, there is -- to the best of my knowledge -- no biological evidence that smoking causes cancer. It is a myth to scare people off from smoking, a bit like telling a kid that he'll go blind if he plays too much with his willy.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised by this statement, Mav'. I'm not aware of the relevant literature but I believe that smoke contains various components among which some are really dangerous. Obviously we have to deal with a correlation rather than a true experimental data but everybody knows how difficult these kind a designs are to set...
Maverick said:
As for passive smoking, the risk is vastly reduced as the smoke had already been filtered by the smokers' lungs before the passive smoker inhales it. There is also no evidence that passive smoking is dangerous in any way.
Click to expand...
We probably only have correlations once again but it remains very likely that passive smoking is dangerous, too.
Maverick said:
It think it's mostly a question of comfort, and I perfectly understand that non-smokers don't want to be in the middle of stinking smoke or come home with their clothes smelling of cold tobacco. I am in favour of partitioned public areas, where smokers and non-smokers can be separated for their respective comfort -- that not to have to suffer the smell of cigarettes, as well as that to enjoy a few puffs with a drink.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what I wrote before: separated areas is the best solution in my opinion.
 
Sure,  smoking may not be dangerous alone.  But,  combined with other factors such as alcohol,  stress,  smoker doesn't exercise at all,  etc.,  it can be.  I mean,  if you guys look at my uncle,  he's 65 smokes the shit out of himself,  but he walks everywhere he goes,  and that has helped him a lot,  I think.
 
Smoke is not what causes the cancer. First of all Nicotine IS addictive, ON TOP of that, cigarrete companies ADD crap to the cigarrette "for flavor" such as amonia, rat poison and who know's what else.. THAT is what is killing people
 
Onhell said:
Smoke is not what causes the cancer.
Click to expand...
No. Tar is killing people, it comes from smoke.
Nicotine is addictive and it's bad for e.g. the blood system but it differs from tar.
You can't say (or write) that there is no relationship between smoke (tar) and cancer. :nonono:
Unfortunately.
 
Talking of smoking bans (as exists in Scotland), Keith Richards looked like he may get the £50 ($95) fine for lighting up on stage with the Stones whilst performing at Hampden Park, Glasgow. However, as it is not classed as an public enclosed space, he may also get away with it - but a smoking ban is prevalent in sporting venues - such as Hampden Park. Confused?

Source1
Source2
 
Albie said:
Talking of smoking bans (as exists in Scotland), Keith Richards looked like he may get the £50 ($95) fine......
Click to expand...
In Ireland, the fine for smoking in a public place is €3000 (£2,025.57 or $3,836.27). This soon puts a stop to smoking cigarettes or cigars. To put it in perspective, it would cost you less to smoke cannabis in a public place than a  cigarette as the fine for cannabis is drastically less than that for a normal cigarette.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top