Which happens to be most pubs at the moment...Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
Printable View
Which happens to be most pubs at the moment...Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
Yer but a lots of pubs serve food, even if its only things like chips and not a proper meal. Would these places still be exempt? like yrwyddfa it doesnt seem fully thought though and just a quick vote catcher for people who don't like the smell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
Yes, I understand that. But . . . . once the legislation is in place it's far easier to make an ammendment to an Act here or a change there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
I would like to ask: why legislate? If there is scientific evidence let's hear it. If the majority of people want it: where's the polls. If you can't provide these then why spend the money on passing a law?
I suspect, like always, the majority say nothing and simply just look on (without a whimper)
True, true.
Either way it doesn't really bother me. None of my family and only two of my friends smoke so I won't really be that affected. :D
I assume from your name yrywddfa that you've been up that mountain in Snowdonia?
Yup - I've been up that mountain every way possible except by train.
I know the risks because I work for the Government and it is my job to study microwaves every day :afrog:Quote:
Originally Posted by BodwadUK
I too studt microwaves every day. Usually by putting a Microwave meal in it :pQuote:
Originally Posted by agmorgan
Try cutting a grape in half, putting the two halfs a few mm apart then turning it on.
You should create a plasma field and get sparks jumping between the two :afrog:
In which case you would understand that mobile phones are in the high radio-band not the microwave band. Besides if you know the risks why not share them?Quote:
Originally Posted by agmorgan
I know it is not safe to stick my head in a microwave oven - even on defrost.
It wont be legal when they finish :afrog: :lol:Quote:
What I object to is the legislating against a free people engaged in a fully legal action
Dont you find it expensive and unpolite then? :confused:
If I ban driving that won't be legal after it's passed either :rolleyes:
The term 'expense' is relative to income - so no - I don't find it expensive. And I find smoking as impolite as you 'texting' your best mate.
Smoking is impolite to everyone. Texting is impolite if you didn't bother replying. Besides it's attitudes like that which is the cause of this legislation :bigyello:Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
Why is smoking impolite?Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
Because you are killing the people next to you. Doesn't that bother you? :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
Says who? How do you know that? Presumption kills the mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
It has been proven that smoking kills. As you breathe that smoke out I then have to breathe it in causing the same effect to meQuote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
Look at Roy Castle, never smoked in his life but died of lung cancer because he played the trumpet in smoky bars and clubs.
R.I.P. Roy
Where's the study? What's it called? Who did the study? Where's the link?Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
[devil's advocate here - because I believe you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about]
face it dude, attitutdes on smoking have changed big time. Within the next year smoking will be banned in ALL public places.....and I welcome it because frankly the habit is disgusting
You can say what you want but you should base it on evidence else accept it's heresay and opinion (which is fine) Which is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
Smells of bigotry to me.
I really can't be bothered to go looking for the multitude of journals on the subject. You could always argue it breaches huma rights and all that rubbish but we'd end up being hear all day and there is alcohol to consume.
Have a good time peeps! :wave:
Anyone could have written that. Where are the data sources? Incidentally - I agree - but you guys are spouting health issues with no evidence.
Admit it you just don't like it. You couldn't give a monkey about the health issues - you just don't like it. If you believe there are health issues I must presume you have evidence . . . and I would like to see it so I can apologize to you all.
The article meantioned did not reference even one study - that's appalling.
Yup - cheers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
It doesn't breach my human-rights perhaps yours if you could provide evidence of a health issue (you after all haven't but have continued to purport that there is)
I have provided a reasonable concern regarding the UN's seven country study that found no link (as it happens I don't believe it - but at least I made the effort: primarily because what gets legislated is important to me)
Ok - alright then. Merry Christmas, mate.
I can remember back in the 70's people were saying the same thing about smoking that you are saying about second hand smoke. Yeah smoking isn’t addictive and it can't kill you so why is "big brother" trying to put warning labels on my pack of smokes? Where’s the evidence it kills? And so on. There is no way anyone would support a habit that effects others health so smokers continue to pick apart studies that find that second hand smoke effects people standing around them and in enclosed area's like a pub. Saying like you do they have "questions" about the findings.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
While I don't believe in legislating everything under the sun the government does have a responsibility to protect the health and well being of its citizens, and I think that as long as they don’t totally outlaw smoking like in your home but simply banning it from public area's, it is fine.
X
You will need to read the summary :afrog:
http://www.bupa.co.uk/health_informa...0503smoke.html
I think you should re-read my posts.
Despite this study that seems to show that passive smoking isn't harmful, experts are not convinced. They say there's overwhelming evidence that shows that secondhand smoke is dangerous and they recommend that non-smokers limit their exposure to it as much as possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by BodwadUK
And? If experts are agreeing that secondhand smoke is dangerous what’s the problem with banning it in public places? My point was that before everyone realized how dangerous smoking was to the individual there were studies out saying how perfectly fine smoking was. We of course know now these so called studies were all to keep in place a billion dollar industry of hooking them young and keeping them smoking until they were able to raise a new generation of smokers.
Now the smokers are circling the wagons and decrying the banning of smoking in public places by stating there is no reliable data stating the harm of second hand smoke or pointing to specious studies to bolster their claims.
Like I said before I have no problem with banning smoking in public places as its not about "the smell" but about health and well being.
X
Did I miss something in my cursory perusal of your posts? You are a smoker who is against legislation to ban smoking in public because you believe it to be a smell issue rather than a public health issue. If that is not it I guess I will have to re-read and re-evaluate your posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
X
Almost. I am a smoker who has no reason to stand in the way of a ban except on legislation grounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
Anyone who can reason that breathing in smoke second-hand or directly is safe is stupid. I have played devil's advocate to people who claim a health issue but failed to provide evidence. Where evidence (one website) has been provided it still doesn't refute the UN, or the US FDA studies. So one could say that there is conflicting evidence. Which doesn't really matter, anyway, as it clearly cannot be good for you.
As you know X belief and fact are two very different things.
It can't be good for smokers, to have to stand out in sub-zero weather to smoke, either.
Can't be good for smokers to smoke, either, for that matter.
I haven't gone cruising the web looking for references, because it does seem pretty obvious to me, as well, that breathing in smoke first-hand, second-hand, or third-hand isn't going to do you any good. However, it does seem to me that there was a study done on some group like airline stewardesses or nurses or nuns or some such that did show a harmful effect. However, since smoking is so restricted in the US, it is hard to get really excitable about it. The restrictions aren't simply in legislation, but have become a part of the culture. I don't know that it is discussed frankly by any group, but there is certainly an accepted social stigma against smokers in places I have been. Smokers seem to accept that they have to go 'somewhere else' to smoke, whether it is outside, or into a special room.
Not very long ago, someone who wanted to smoke wouldn't have thought twice about lighting up wherever they were. Perhaps legislation has changed, this, but I think the advertising of the negative effects of smoking may have done more to change things. Now there are rules governing smoking in many parts of the US, but most people are probably unaware of many of them simply because smoking just isn't that common now.
Good point :thumb:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
I'd like to point out that Italy has now implemented a ban on smoking in public places.
It seems the tide is turning :afrog:
they are really cracking down on sales to kids. big offenses, and the gov't is sending kids in to try to buy. if they get sold to, the shop get fined. pretty nasty stuff. between the taxes, and the laws, I've given them up again.
I quit when they were $5/pack, started again, and quit when the tax went up another 50 cents on the first of this month. $5.80/pack discounted.
They are over $7 most other places. It makes the GF happy. She despises the habit, and can smell a smoke from 500 yards!
They've been doing the "cracking down" using kids for almost 15 years in the UK but it doesn't do a thing because they target the supermarkets instead of the corner shops. Personally I welcome this law with open arms because it is frankly a good thingQuote:
Originally Posted by dglienna
I heard an interesting bit in the news the other day. The state of California has decided to try to reduce the incidental inhalation of cigarette smoke by kids. They are looking at the air pollution aspect of smoking, and air quality in public areas. In general, public areas are pretty good when it comes to cigarette smoke because smoking is banned in them. The only locations where you will be impacted by smoke is in designated smoking areas....and homes!
The upshot of it is that the state air quality board mentioned that it could go as far as banning smoking in houses! Now that would be something! Almost completely unenforceable, but it would make smoking at home when kids are present, a form of child abuse. Likely? Probably not, but the program talked to constitutional lawyers from across the spectrum, and it sounds like the consensus is that the state could actually impose that, and the courts would uphold it if it were written as defending children's health. Interesting.
That is spooky. Right when I thought that they'd be legalizing grass. This can't be good.
Like you said it will be totally unforceable unless a neighbour reports you.
To be honest I don't care how far they go because it doesn't really affect me as I don't smoke :lol:
You can't smoke cigarettes, weed is ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by dglienna