1 week in to the smoking ban, how you coping?

12 Jul 2007

Quote by Jaq__kryps
O the nerve of some non-smokers...
why didn't they just say in the first place, we want it banned cause it's smelly and we don't like being smelly. that way we could have non-smoking bars and smoking bars.
my local club has had 2 separate bars for years, one smoking , one non-smoking. guess what, the non smoking bar was barely ever used. and by barely , i think somebody used it once.
If it was health reasons the government wouldn't of had to suppress health reports from independent sources that the health issue was between none and insignificant. As for passive smoking causing Cancer ya having a laugh ain't ya.

Yeah, lets all fall-about giggling about it.
Being exposed to second-hand tobacco smoke causes a reduction in lung function. Especially in those with an existing pulmonary disease (many of who are undiagnosed).
It presents a significant risk to those with asthma, especially children.
Mind you, studies found only a small risk to children from passive smoking in public areas, but noted a larger risk to children of smoking parents.
The law has been passed, it won't be un-passed. I may even start to go to pubs again.
So, to the 26.5% of the population who smoke: Please carry-on, but you cannot do it in workplaces anymore.
According to a royal college of physicians report, banning parents from smoking would improve the health of children.
Looks like you may have a few chances to give up and stop affecting your kids health, or face the kids disappearing out the door elsewhere......

12 Jul 2007

Interesting concept,
Would the same apply to those parents who drive? Doesn't exposure to exhaust fumes also link to childhood asthma and reduce lung function?
Or is it just 'Smokers give up or your kids disappear'?
I wonder how they disappear, because you were very vague on this point.
Social services take your kids?
Your kids walk out of their own accord and volunteer to be put into care?
Which one?
Does either benefit any child? Are you saying that no matter the upbringing the child is receiving, if the parents smoke they shouldnt be allowed to keep children they may be doing a wonderful job of raising?
Not only damaging the child in some cases beyond help, but also adding more strain on the already overloaded social services who at times can't prevent children being killed with the caseload they already have?
How about we get the interventions right in sexual, physical and mental abuse cases first, you know the ones where children die, day in day out?
Or are you saying that smoking when you have children, (and you didnt qualify this in anyway) is worse than sexually abusing a child?
I have children, guess what i smoke too......in the garden.....does that make me an abusive parent? rolleyes

12 Jul 2007

In 1998 and 2003 came the results of by far the biggest studies of passive smoking ever carried out. One was conducted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organisation. The other, run by Prof James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat for the American Cancer Society, was a mammoth 40-year-long study of 35,000 non-smokers living with smokers. In each case, when the sponsors saw the results they were horrified. The evidence inescapably showed that passive smoking posed no significant risk. This confirmed Sir Richard Doll's own comment in 2001: "The effects of other people's smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me"

12 Jul 2007

Quote by flower411
After years of avoiding pubs, restaurants and clubs etc. Non smokers are not going to fill these places up overnight. It will take time but gradually people will realise that they can go out and have a drink in pleasant less-polluted and stinky surroundings.
Let`s face it, only a totally selfish smoker could suggest that because thay smoke in a different room, the stink doesn`t permeate the whole area !!

Well lets pray that as soon as the masses of non smokers get their arses into gear and make use of that which they so rightly demanded, there are enough pubs left open to cater for them, it don't look good if you go by the anecdotal evidence already popping up.
Also considering that on the whole air pressure inside a building is far lower than outside....and most smoking will be done within feet of entrances, windows etc...this is going to change how?
:twisted:

12 Jul 2007

and my stance wasn't on this issue in particular, just this governments record on knee jerk reaction, lies and propaganda to achieve it's objectives.

12 Jul 2007

Quote by flower411
Let`s face it, only a totally selfish smoker could suggest that because thay smoke in a different room, the stink doesn`t permeate the whole area !!

Complete and utter codswallop !!!!!
Air conditioned rooms would eliminate any smells or smoke being transfered anywhere bar out the air con outlet..

12 Jul 2007

There was me thinking it was ok to voice my opinion without personal comments being made. My opinion isn't a direct attack on any individual, but my own humble musings. rolleyes

If people wish to see a disagreement as a personal attack, there isn't much I can really do about that. Also rather than making sarcastic/unhelpful comments in what I thought was actually quite an interesting debate, please feel free to send me a PM and we can thrash it out.
I think I'll make one last post and bow out. confused

I hate smoking, I hate being a smoker (so I DO appreciate the urge/craving and difficulty in giving up!) and I personally think that anyone who smokes around kids/non-smokers is a selfish person.
Ok why am I so against smoking in public places? As some people know Mrs Kiss has had breast cancer and that involved 6 weeks of radiation treatment on her chest. She has been told in no uncertain terms that if she were to ever smoke or be exposed to passive smoking she WILL get lung cancer. Not might but will.
I never smoke around her EVER. So we don't go out basically. We can't. Well not until now anyway.
People can eat what crap they like and give themselves a heart attack, become obese, cause the onset of diabetes - but it doesn't effect me or mine and it's your own body.
If some smokers really resent the government taxes, not being able to smoke in public places etc give up!!
To be honest I don't care why the government have banned it, I don't care for the main motivations of the lobbyists. I just care that people who don't smoke, have asthma, are at greater risk of lung disease/cancer etc now have the freedom to be in a cigarette free atmosphere.
Smoking does harm others if you expose them to it, how can that ever be justified?

12 Jul 2007

And you still smoke?

12 Jul 2007

Quote by Kiss
There was me thinking it was ok to voice my opinion without personal comments being made. My opinion isn't a direct attack on any individual, but my own humble musings.
If people wish to see a disagreement as a personal attack, there isn't much I can really do about that. Also rather than making sarcastic/unhelpful comments in what I thought was actually quite an interesting debate, please feel free to send me a PM and we can thrash it out.
I think I'll make one last post and bow out.
I hate smoking, I hate being a smoker (so I DO appreciate the urge/craving and difficulty in giving up!) and I personally think that anyone who smokes around kids/non-smokers is a selfish person.
Ok why am I so against smoking in public places? As some people know Mrs Kiss has had breast cancer and that involved 6 weeks of radiation treatment on her chest. She has been told in no uncertain terms that if she were to ever smoke or be exposed to passive smoking she WILL get lung cancer. Not might but will.
I never smoke around her EVER. So we don't go out basically. We can't. Well not until now anyway.
People can eat what crap they like and give themselves a heart attack, become obese, cause the onset of diabetes - but it doesn't effect me or mine and it's your own body.
If some smokers really resent the government taxes, not being able to smoke in public places etc give up!!
To be honest I don't care why the government have banned it, I don't care for the main motivations of the lobbyists. I just care that people who don't smoke, have asthma, are at greater risk of lung disease/cancer etc now have the freedom to be in a cigarette free atmosphere.
Smoking does harm others if you expose them to it, how can that ever be justified?

Ok, i'm going to try and tip toe round this, i will apologise in advance if i cause any upset, that is not my intention.
What is the link between lung cancer and breast cancer? I thought breast cancer was caused by everything except smoking? Genetic factors, alcohol intake, radiation exposure, family history and such.
Is the increased risk because of the breast cancer, or because of the treatment? Chemo and radiation therapy does have the nasty side effect of killing off your immune system iirc.
The other activities you mention DO have an impact on others.....heart attacks cause bereavement, its tenous but im sure we've all heard of the 'massive heart attack whilst driving leading to huge pile up' story, again an effect on others....obesity leads to an effect on others, as does alcohol abuse, what about the folks who are assaulted, beaten and killed because someone is too pissed to hold back?
Whilst i will comply fully with the new law, i DO care what the motivation behind it all is, this is the huge elephant in the room that everyone seems to miss....what is to be next? Something else that the 'majority' of people if asked would find morally wrong and a risk to the health of others?.....You know whats coming dont you?
I agree that smoke free pubs are the way forward, i do really....but only if there is compromise allowing equal pro rata treatment to both sides. Surely this is the only fair way to do it? Otherwise are we saying we are happy to allow the rights of a minority, taking part in a perfectly legal activity to be removed or restricted? I wonder how many would be up in arms if the police had a massive clampdown on dogging, not becuase anyone was breaking the law, but because a majority of people who shouldnt really be affected complained about it?

12 Jul 2007

Pubs will close, there is no doubt about it. Particularly the 'drinking' pubs where historically working class men went after work for a couple of pints and a smoke. Those establishments will not survive the new legislation.
Life goes on though and natural evolution means that cafe bars and food outlets will flourish as we lose the traditional pubs. Yes, it's a shame and yes it is sad that some people will lose their business or their 'local' pub - but life moves on and the next generation will not yearn after the traditional local pub that seems to be so important to us.

12 Jul 2007

er just to inform you, Dogging is on the "next to be banned list" as well

12 Jul 2007

Quote by sheddy
Well it's been a week(ish) since our lovely government placed restrictions on my favorite vice and I was wondering if those it had affected had noticed a big difference or not.
Has it affected your social life in anyway? Perhaps your spending less time in the pub or have you turned into some nicotine starved 2 headed monsters due to having to restrict your intake. Also have the non smokers amongst us noticed any difference? Is your local a more enjoyable environment for you?

Just to remind people of Sheddy's original question. I don't think it was particularly about the political aspects of it - he wondered how people had personally been affected. Nor did he ask about any other 'hidden' agenda by any organisation.
I'm sure he'll come in and correct me if I'm wrong though.

12 Jul 2007

I stopped smoking tobacco about 25 years ago, but continued to smoke mary jane bananas on and off for a few more years. I had to stay away from smoky places and often found them to be really unpleasant to visit.
Doing that did help me stay off the fags. I don't smoke anything now as it gives me chest problems. I am glad I stopped.
I still think a really good quality cigar or pipe tobacco is a wonderful smell. But fags are just the dirty end of the business, full of nasty things.
I hope anyone trying to quit does succeed, It will be one of the best things to do for yourself.

12 Jul 2007

ok back to on topic...
i will still visit the same restaurants that have been non-smoking for years.
will still work in the same place that has been a smoke free environment for years
will still visit the same clubs
so not really going to affect me at all.

12 Jul 2007

Quote by Dave__Notts
....
5) Salt - Causes heart disease, yep ban it
.......
8) Fatty foods - Causes heart disease, yep ban it
Well, what do we have left? Ah feck it.......I'll impose a self ban and go live in a hole covered by bracken and when I peg out at 70.......I'll be pissed off that I have died of nothing

No salt - you drop dead. You really want to ban it?
No fatty food - you could get you energy from sugar and protein.
Somethings we need, in the right quantity. Somethings we do not need.
Salt is already in food. You do not need to add extra. So you wouldn't die.
Ditto for essential fats.
Dave_Notts
Japan has a problem with salty foods in their diet, that's before adding salt. The fact is salt and fat are just as much a part of a balanced diet as arsenic is. But when we walk into a restaurant we are not force to intake what everyone else has on their plait. We are forced by the act of breathing to intake what is in the air. I still value my right to breath clean air, relatively clean air over someone right to pollute it. That is why so much effort was put into stopping the London smogs, that killed so many.

12 Jul 2007

Quote by Jaq__kryps
ok back to on topic...
i will still visit the same restaurants that have been non-smoking for years.
will still work in the same place that has been a smoke free environment for years
will still visit the same clubs
so not really going to affect me at all.

In answer to the original question....
Same as above.

12 Jul 2007

Quote by staffcple
What is the link between lung cancer and breast cancer? I thought breast cancer was caused by everything except smoking? Genetic factors, alcohol intake, radiation exposure, family history and such.
Is the increased risk because of the breast cancer, or because of the treatment? Chemo and radiation therapy does have the nasty side effect of killing off your immune system iirc.

No probs Staffcple, happy to answer any questions.
Mrs Kiss had a radical mastectomy and they also had to remove a part of her chest wall. After her Chemo finished she then had daily radiation treatment on her chest for 6 weeks.
Basically the Consultant Oncologist sat there and said that the radiation therapy would have severely weakened her right lung, and that if she was exposed to passive smoking or smoked herself lung cancer would be inevitable.
At least now she will be able to come to all my gigs!
And don't get me started on alcohol! If either tobacco or alcohol were 'invented' today - no way would either of them be legalised! lol

12 Jul 2007

Thanks Kiss,
It is a horrible situation to be in when the cure can lead to other things. Rock and a hard place comes to mind.
I wish both you and Mrs. Kiss all the best and hope Mrs K enjoys better health soon.
xxxx

12 Jul 2007

Quote by Kiss
And don't get me started on alcohol! If either tobacco or alcohol were 'invented' today - no way would either of them be legalised!

How true :thumbup:
So how do we all feel about goverments who appear to condone smoking and drinking and even cream huge amounts of money off the back of it ??

12 Jul 2007

Quote by Mallock2006

And don't get me started on alcohol! If either tobacco or alcohol were 'invented' today - no way would either of them be legalised!

How true :thumbup:
So how do we all feel about goverments who appear to condone smoking and drinking and even cream huge amounts of money off the back of it ??
I think it's highly hypocritical of the government. Apart from the obvious health issues one reason I want to give up is because on one hand the government is always telling us how bad it is for everyone, but on the other hand they are raking in billions from it.
I may smoke 4 or 5 a day now but I'm still paying cigarette tax.
Another example of complete and utter hypocrisy is the fact social services got involved when my brothers youngest daughter started putting on a lot of weight and was the same height as her older sister.
They made my brother and his wife jump through hoops and made them feel they were doing something wrong, with visits from dieticians etc and turned out my niece actually has a genetic condition that is making her grow too quickly. She's now being treated by specialists.
Anyway, there is actually a point to this. My brother and his wife both smoke, and they both smoke in the house and in around their children and always have done. (My feelings on that are a different matter entirely.) But my point is nobody from social services or a doctor ever questioned it. confused

12 Jul 2007

Quote by Mallock2006

And don't get me started on alcohol! If either tobacco or alcohol were 'invented' today - no way would either of them be legalised!

How true :thumbup:
So how do we all feel about goverments who appear to condone smoking and drinking and even cream huge amounts of money off the back of it ??
It makes me feel sick and wish that I lived somewhere in a cave away from civilisation where governments etc etc etc were not necessary :cry: . In fact I watched a great program the other day called Wolfman about a man that is living full time with a pack of wolves and I actually found it very appealing.
Anyway that was alot off topic, sorry about that confused

12 Jul 2007

Quote by flower411

Let`s face it, only a totally selfish smoker could suggest that because thay smoke in a different room, the stink doesn`t permeate the whole area !!

Complete and utter codswallop !!!!!
Air conditioned rooms would eliminate any smells or smoke being transfered anywhere bar out the air con outlet..
So air conditioning removes the stink of smoke from a room and the surrounding area !!!!!

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
And lets face it .. nobody said the room was air conditioned so it was hardly codswallop !!! Maybe you should think before you post rolleyes

Ditto !!!!!!
If its a smoking room then why would a holier than thou non smoker want to go in there in the first place ?????
Or would they go in there simply to complain that someone was enjoying doing something ???
:roll:
The air conditioning would remove smoke from the atmosphere and would be better than making poor non smokers walk through a cloud of smoke at the entrance to a venue....

12 Jul 2007

hi went to the local last night, spent all night counting the pickled eggs in the jar coz every fooker was outside smoking.

12 Jul 2007

Quote by
....
5) Salt - Causes heart disease, yep ban it
.......
8) Fatty foods - Causes heart disease, yep ban it
Well, what do we have left? Ah feck it.......I'll impose a self ban and go live in a hole covered by bracken and when I peg out at 70.......I'll be pissed off that I have died of nothing

No salt - you drop dead. You really want to ban it?
No fatty food - you could get you energy from sugar and protein.
Somethings we need, in the right quantity. Somethings we do not need.
Salt is already in food. You do not need to add extra. So you wouldn't die.
Ditto for essential fats.
Dave_Notts
Japan has a problem with salty foods in their diet, that's before adding salt. The fact is salt and fat are just as much a part of a balanced diet as arsenic is. But when we walk into a restaurant we are not force to intake what everyone else has on their plait. We are forced by the act of breathing to intake what is in the air. I still value my right to breath clean air, relatively clean air over someone right to pollute it. That is why so much effort was put into stopping the London smogs, that killed so many.
In that case, I'll refer you to points 2, 3 & 4 of my previous post
Dave_Notts

12 Jul 2007

don't mind the smoking ban its just a pity that the tossers who voted it in also voted against a smoking ban in the houses of parlement. but thats politicians for you.

12 Jul 2007

Quote by cplintheNE
don't mind the smoking ban its just a pity that the tossers who voted it in also voted against a smoking ban in the houses of parlement. but thats politicians for you.

They didn't vote against of Parliment are a Royal Residence. Residences are exempt from the Act
Dave_Notts

12 Jul 2007

does that include your own residence

12 Jul 2007

Quote by Dave__Notts
don't mind the smoking ban its just a pity that the tossers who voted it in also voted against a smoking ban in the houses of parlement. but thats politicians for you.

They didn't vote against of Parliment are a Royal Residence. Residences are exempt from the Act
Dave_Notts
and the butlers, chef, footmen, chamber maids, bar staff all take immune pills.
as do prison wardens

12 Jul 2007

lol jaq

12 Jul 2007

Quote by cplintheNE
does that include your own residence

:doh: Have you read anything about the smoking ban at all?