Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Steve H on November 12, 2018, 02:09:23 PM
-
Apparently, my thread was removed because it started with a longish exchange copied and pasted from Facebook, and the others, not being members here, can't reply. Anyway, to summarise: someone posted a link to a news item about a Welsh Assembly member who wants to ban smoking in all city centres in Wales, even in the open. I said that that was outrageous, and that restrictions on smoking had already gone too far, but someone els welcomed it, and later said that he'd like smoking banned altogether. I said that pubs etc. should be allowed (but not obliged, which I should have added) to provide a room for smokers which didn't directly connect with food or drink preparation or serving areas. That was criticised because staff would have to go in to clear up and clean. I said that users could be asked to return their own glasses, and cleaning is done when the pub (or whatever) is closed and empty.
So what do people think?
-
Steve H,
Anyway, the question is simple enough I'd have thought: is the right to smoke in public more or less important than the right of others not to breathe their smoke or to be coated in it? I say less, but if there are arrangements whereby no-one has to breathe the smoke of others that's just a matter for the smokers themselves. Those filthy glass boxes they often have in airports come to mind as an example. (Dear god how desperate must you be to want to go into one of those?)
As a parent by the way, when our children were in buggies and/or toddlers what infuriated me in the street was smokers holding their fags at their head height, often close to their eyes too. That can't be right surely? While I'm on one I'd also want segregated areas in pub gardens, by pools etc. It's such a pain having to move sun bed when having set up someone a few feet away starts blowing clouds of carcinogens over you and yours.
Final thought: an under-appreciated fact is that net smokers save more money than they cost because enough of them die before old age significantly to lower the burden of expensive geriatric care. Thank you!
Apart from that though...
-
Apparently, my thread was removed because it started with a longish exchange copied and pasted from Facebook, and the others, not being members here, can't reply. Anyway, to summarise: someone posted a link to a news item about a Welsh Assembly member who wants to ban smoking in all city centres in Wales, even in the open. I said that that was outrageous, and that restrictions on smoking had already gone too far, but someone els welcomed it, and later said that he'd like smoking banned altogether. I said that pubs etc. should be allowed (but not obliged, which I should have added) to provide a room for smokers which didn't directly connect with food or drink preparation or serving areas. That was criticised because staff would have to go in to clear up and clean. I said that users could be asked to return their own glasses, and cleaning is done when the pub (or whatever) is closed and empty.
So what do people think?
Smoke can linger in the air for 2 to 3 hours after you've finished a cigarette, even with a window open, according to the NHS website. It also says 'Most secondhand smoke is invisible and odourless, so no matter how careful you think you're being, people around you still breathe in the harmful poisons.' & 'Also, even if you limit smoking to one room, the smoke will spread to the rest of the house where people will inhale it.' So unless you introduce airlocks, expensive air filtration equipment, isolation periods or the like then staff would still be exposed to toxins in the scenario you suggest.
I don't think the bans on smoking have gone too far at all and think other bans should be considered and introduced based on the evidence of secondary exposure just as the current bans have. I don't know what the evidence is for needing to ban smoking in city centres but would support it if there is evidence of harm.
-
Any ban on smoking in the open air is a ban too far. I do miss going into a pub and being able to smoke whilst drinking.
-
Any ban on smoking in the open air is a ban too far. I do miss going into a pub and being able to smoke whilst drinking.
That's sad for you, but any bans should be based on a risk assessment and evidence not opinion.
-
Smoking should be banned in ALL public places in my opinion.
-
Smoking should be banned in ALL public places in my opinion.
Can you define public just so we know what places you are talking about?
-
I think a smoking room should be allowed in a pub - an adult space. I'm not convinced that staff are at any more risk from breathing in air in a smoking room (especially one that is vented - maybe an extractor fan?) than they are from the air they breathe stick in traffic driving to work. If we are going to talk about toxins in the workplace then just as bad are the chemicals use to make fabric fire retardant and in paints, MDF, particle board, stain retardants, etc - heck, even easy iron shirts are stiff with formaldehyde.
I don't think smoking should be allowed in family spaces (restaurants and cafes for example - I remember when I was pregnant going into a cafe and a woman at the next table chainsmoking and blowing fag smoke my way) or where food is served - I love being able to eat out and not get smoked.
I agree completely with Blue about smokers waving their fags around too close to babies in buggies. I don't think that is reason enough to ban smoking on the street though.
-
Can you define public just so we know what places you are talking about?
Everywhere to which the general public has access.
-
LR,
Everywhere to which the general public has access.
At the top of Ben Nevis for example?
-
Incidentally, I think I'm right in saying that smoking in cars with children in them is now banned. A few years back when I dropped my children at primary school there always seemed to be a car opposite with two kids in the back, the windows closed and the driver (presumably mum) in the front chain smoking until the school bell went. You could even see the clouds of smoke in the air when she opened the door.
I remember being appalled, and wondering whether to say something. Being British of course I never did, but I still wonder sometimes whether I should have done.
-
LR,
At the top of Ben Nevis for example?
Of course.
-
LR,
Of course.
Blimey.
-
Of course.
What if I stand in my garden by my front gate and blow smoke over you as you walk past?
-
LR,
Blimey.
I think you'll find that smokers are mindless scum.
-
LR,
At the top of Ben Nevis for example?
Yep. There's enough rubbish left at the summit without more pollutants adding to it.
-
I think a smoking room should be allowed in a pub - an adult space. I'm not convinced that staff are at any more risk from breathing in air in a smoking room (especially one that is vented - maybe an extractor fan?) than they are from the air they breathe stick in traffic driving to work. If we are going to talk about toxins in the workplace then just as bad are the chemicals use to make fabric fire retardant and in paints, MDF, particle board, stain retardants, etc - heck, even easy iron shirts are stiff with formaldehyde.
I don't think smoking should be allowed in family spaces (restaurants and cafes for example - I remember when I was pregnant going into a cafe and a woman at the next table chainsmoking and blowing fag smoke my way) or where food is served - I love being able to eat out and not get smoked.
I agree completely with Blue about smokers waving their fags around too close to babies in buggies. I don't think that is reason enough to ban smoking on the street though.
As a former smoker, and now a confirmed vaper, I agree with you Rhi. I think your approach is sensible and well balanced.
-
Rhi,
I think you'll find that smokers are mindless scum.
Ah, that must be it then.
I have to say that I hate bloody smoking when it's around me and mine, but I'm also a libertarian at heart. If people want to smoke in environments that don't affect others, that's no-one's business but their own. As I mentioned before, exiting the gene pool before they need expensive geriatric care probably does society more good than harm in any case.
-
As we know how much harm smoking can do to both smokers and non smokers, I am of the opinion those who smoke should find it increasingly hard to find a place where they can indulge in that unpleasant habit.
-
As we know how much harm smoking can do to both smokers and non smokers, I am of they opinion those who smoke should find it increasingly hard to find a place where they can indulge in that unpleasant habit.
Can you cite a study that shows smoking in open places is harmful to non smokers?
-
Yep. There's enough rubbish left at the summit without more pollutants adding to it.
People smoking don't have to leave any rubbish. That others leave sweetie wrappers is irrelevant to the question of smoking.
-
Can you cite a study that shows smoking in open places is harmful to non smokers?
https://news.stanford.edu/news/2007/may9/smoking-050907.html
-
Rhi,
Ah, that must be it then.
I have to say that I hate bloody smoking when it's around me and mine, but I'm also a libertarian at heart. If people want to smoke in environments that don't affect others, that's no-one's business but their own. As I mentioned before, exiting the gene pool before they need expensive geriatric care probably does society more good than harm in any case.
I stopped smoking when I was 18 so in a sense I don't really give a toss. But I have friends who smoke and I have dated someone who smokes. Not even being able to stand outside a pub having a smoke or to slip outside in the night for a puff when staying in a hotel would not only have a severe impact on their ability to socialise, but also on mine.
-
https://news.stanford.edu/news/2007/may9/smoking-050907.html
Are you calling for a ban on cars and planes? Woodburning stoves?
-
https://news.stanford.edu/news/2007/may9/smoking-050907.html
Thanks. So if you sit next continually to a smoker you inhale some of the cigarettes. Where does it show that people smoking are substantially increasing background pollution. When you drive your car, and pollute the air you are saying that you shouldn't do that?
-
Are you calling for a ban on cars and planes? Woodburning stoves?
I believe electric cars are to replace petrol and diesel vehicles by 2030, I think it is, and electric planes are being developed. I wouldn't regret the demise of wood burning stoves.
-
Rhi,
I stopped smoking when I was 18 so in a sense I don't really give a toss. But I have friends who smoke and I have dated someone who smokes. Not even being able to stand outside a pub having a smoke or to slip outside in the night for a puff when staying in a hotel would not only have a severe impact on their ability to socialise, but also on mine.
An old one:
A: Do you smoke after sex?
B: I don't know - I've never looked!
(Boom-tish, I'm here all week folks etc).
-
I believe electric cars are to replace petrol and diesel vehicles by 2030, I think it is, and electric planes are being developed. I wouldn't regret the demise of wood burning stoves.
But you are still happy to harm people by using cars and planes?
-
But you are still happy to harm people by using cars and planes?
Electric tractors? HGV vehicles? Presumably LR doesn't buy food that gets moved around by road. Or plane. And in the meantime...
Oh, she wants me to get rid of my stove.
-
Rhi,
An old one:
A: Do you smoke after sex?
B: I don't know - I've never looked!
(Boom-tish, I'm here all week folks etc).
I'm coming over all Fenella Fielding.
-
Rhi,
I'm coming over all Fenella Fielding.
Pardon?
-
Smoking should be banned in ALL public places in my opinion.
A typically extreme, crude, ill-thought-out opinion from the queen of them.
-
Rhi,
Pardon?
;D
-
Rhi,
PS Carry on Screaming era Fenella Fielding is very much the mental image I have of you by the way...
-
A typically extreme, crude, ill-thought-out opinion from the queen of them.
As you are a smoker one would expect you to be biased against any measures to curb the habit. ::)
-
I believe electric cars are to replace petrol and diesel vehicles by 2030, I think it is, and electric planes are being developed. I wouldn't regret the demise of wood burning stoves.
Elecrtric cars still cause congestion and kill people, and they only move pollution back a stage, since the electricity used to recharge them comes from polluting power stations.
-
As you are a smoker one would expect you to be biased against any measures to curb the habit. ::)
I'm not. I agree with him.
-
Rhi,
PS Carry on Screaming era Fenella Fielding is very much the mental image I have of you by the way...
How did you know? Is it that obvious?
-
As you are a smoker one would expect you to be biased against any measures to curb the habit. ::)
I'm not, actually. I think it should be very restricted in puiblic, but banning it out of doors is ridiculous.
-
I'm not, actually. I think it should be very restricted in puiblic, but banning it out of doors is ridiculous.
It's about balance, isn't it?
-
LR,
As you are a smoker one would expect you to be biased against any measures to curb the habit. ::)
That's not fair. The argument is to curb it when it adversely affects others (passive smoking), not to curb it across the piece.
-
I'm not. I agree with him.
Ditto. (and just to note the idea that someone's opinion should be disregarded because they do x, is an ad hominem fallacy)
-
It's about balance, isn't it?
Do you permit people to smoke in your home when your children are there?
-
It's about balance, isn't it?
Indeed. I wonder if LR also wants to ban unhealthy food, cars, and dangerous sports.
-
Rhi,
How did you know? Is it that obvious?
No, it's just a gift I have...
-
Indeed. I wonder if LR also wants to ban unhealthy food, cars, and dangerous sports.
What a good idea. I would ban boxing for sure, and no doubt others if they come to mind.
-
Do you permit people to smoke in your home when your children are there?
What the hell has that got to do with legal restrictions in public places?
-
What a good idea. I would ban boxing for sure, and no doubt others if they come to mind.
Gymnastics? People break their necks doing that.
-
How about banning stupid people expressing their opinions?
-
Gymnastics? People break their necks doing that.
Rugby.
-
Crossing the road.
-
Dishwashers - apparently several people a year are killed or injured by them when they put the sharp knives in blade side up, leave the door open and then trip over it and impale themselves.
I tell you, they're lethal those things!
-
Cows. In 2013 João Maria de Souza was crushed in his bed by a cow falling through the roof of his home in Caratinga, Brazil. The cow had climbed on top of the house from a steep hillside behind it. Both the cow and de Souza's wife (who had been in bed next to him) were unharmed.
-
Winter should be banned - the number of sprained ankles and fractured arms and ribs from slipping on ice is unacceptable.
-
Golf clubs, soup, hair extensions. :o
-
I’ve heard that if you are alive you will actually die. I think it should be banned immediately. It’s far too risky.
-
I think you'll find that smokers are mindless scum.
That post wins the Internet for today.
-
I’ve heard that if you are alive you will actually die. I think it should be banned immediately. It’s far too risky.
Worse you will almost certainly harm someone else!
All of the joking aside, how we accept risks is a complex balance of freedom and harm. A simplistic idea that harm must be stopped is obviously problematic. Cases need to be considered individually. I'm pretty happy with where we are on smoking. There might be some tweaks that could be done but the general aim is right.
-
Dishwashers - apparently several people a year are killed or injured by them when they put the sharp knives in blade side up, leave the door open and then trip over it and impale themselves.
I tell you, they're lethal those things!
Surely that's knives, not dishwashers. All knives that are capable of cutting things should be banned. Also, scissors that are light enough to run with.
-
Surely that's knives, not dishwashers. All knives that are capable of cutting things should be banned. Also, scissors that are light enough to run with.
I'm loving the idea of properly heavy scissors.
-
Jeremy,
Surely that's knives, not dishwashers. All knives that are capable of cutting things should be banned. Also, scissors that are light enough to run with.
It's both - you need an open (and forgotten about) dishwasher door to trip over for the full horror to emerge...
-
Can you cite a study that shows smoking in open places is harmful to non smokers?
No, of course she can't. Mere facts never bother her.
-
Worse you will almost certainly harm someone else!
All of the joking aside, how we accept risks is a complex balance of freedom and harm. A simplistic idea that harm must be stopped is obviously problematic. Cases need to be considered individually. I'm pretty happy with where we are on smoking. There might be some tweaks that could be done but the general aim is right.
I think it crazy that smoking isn't allowed in pubs. At the same time I think we have out attitude to drinking distinctly skewed. It's ok to both drink in public and be drunk in public, but if I had the choice between sitting next to a table of smokers or a table of drunks give me the smokers any day - even more so if I'm just walking around town, smokers will leave me alone, a drunk might not. With drinking it's not just physical harm but harassment. But try to talk about restrictions and all you get is, 'but Jacintha and I want to have a glass of fizz with our picnic'...
-
I gave up smoking several years ago when I found that I did not enjoy it any more.
To ban smoking in a town centre is plain silly, it is difficult enough enforcing a booze free zone, and that is far more of a danger to passers-by than is cigarette smoke.
-
I don't smoke but don't mind others doing it. If anyone visits me and wants to smoke they go in the garden or if bad weather a small room that has a door to the garden, with door open.A bit of 'passive' smoke out of doors is not going to hurt anyone, you'd have to be in a smoky atmosphere for a long time to be harmed and even then probably wouldn't be though the smell would linger on clothes. In the 1980s I remember people smoking at their desks at work, nobody said anything, but that all changed later in the decade.
SteveH has said he smokes pipe & not heard of any problems with pipe smoking except rarely on the lip. Steven most your pipe around, don't always park it in the same place in your mouth. I expect where you work you're not allowed to smoke so it's only in the evening or weekends. I quite like smell of pipe smoking.
-
I don't smoke but don't mind others doing it. If anyone visits me and wants to smoke they go in the garden or if bad weather a small room that has a door to the garden, with door open.A bit of 'passive' smoke out of doors is not going to hurt anyone, you'd have to be in a smoky atmosphere for a long time to be harmed and even then probably wouldn't be though the smell would linger on clothes. In the 1980s I remember people smoking at their desks at work, nobody said anything, but that all changed later in the decade.
SteveH has said he smokes pipe & not heard of any problems with pipe smoking except rarely on the lip. Steven most your pipe around, don't always park it in the same place in your mouth. I expect where you work you're not allowed to smoke so it's only in the evening or weekends. I quite like smell of pipe smoking.
Apparently my maternal grandfather was a pipe smoker, he died at the young age of nearly 53 due to problems with his lungs.
-
LR,
Apparently my maternal grandfather was a pipe smoker, he died at the young age of nearly 53 due to problems with his lungs.
Just out of interest, would you also re-criminalise attempted suicide? After all, smoking is arguably a form of slow suicide albeit with less consistent results.
-
I thought pipe smokers didn't inhale. We'll have to ask Steve as he's the only active pipe smoker here as far as I know. Both of my grandfathers and an uncle smoked a pipe and lived to ripe old ages, one cousin of my mother in Filey whom I saw this year (the cousin) does. He's old and sprightly. Cigarettes are the worst thing, smokers take it all down into lungs and clog up the cilia which causes all sorts of problems if they're heavy smokers. There are people who smoke one or two fags a day or occasionally after a meal (a friend does that) which doesn't hurt.
-
Robbie,
Cigarettes are the worst thing, smokers take it all down into lungs and clog up the cilia which causes all sorts of problems if they're heavy smokers.
Cilia Black?
I'll get me jacket...
-
I thought pipe smokers didn't inhale. We'll have to ask Steve as he's the only active pipe smoker here as far as I know. Both of my grandfathers and an uncle smoked a pipe and lived to ripe old ages, one cousin of my mother in Filey whom I saw this year (the cousin) does. He's old and sprightly. Cigarettes are the worst thing, smokers take it all down into lungs and clog up the cilia which causes all sorts of problems if they're heavy smokers. There are people who smoke one or two fags a day or occasionally after a meal (a friend does that) which doesn't hurt.
If you smoke, however few, you are putting yourself at risk. The first question you are asked when receiving medical care is, 'Do you smoke?' We were asked that the other day when we went for our flu jabs.
-
If you smoke, however few, you are putting yourself at risk. The first question you are asked when receiving medical care is, 'Do you smoke?' We were asked that the other day when we went for our flu jabs.
Isn't that personal choice though?
-
Apparently my maternal grandfather was a pipe smoker, he died at the young age of nearly 53 due to problems with his lungs.
And you know that was due to pipe smoking how? My uncle has never smoked but has lung problems due to exposure to particles in his working life. There are all kinds of problems in the past that don't factor so much now - TB for example.
-
Rhi,
And you know that was due to pipe smoking how? My uncle has never smoked but has lung problems due to exposure to particles in his working life. There are all kinds of problems in the past that don't factor so much now - TB for example.
To be fair I know for certain that smoking killed my uncle. He was run over by a Benson & Hedges lorry...
-
Apparently my maternal grandfather was a pipe smoker, he died at the young age of nearly 53 due to problems with his lungs.
My mum smoked cigarretes.
She couldn't quit, but cut down.
She contracted tongue cancer.
-
No, of course she can't. Mere facts never bother her.
except when asked she did. There may be questions around its method but it's still cited.
-
I think it crazy that smoking isn't allowed in pubs. At the same time I think we have out attitude to drinking distinctly skewed. It's ok to both drink in public and be drunk in public, but if I had the choice between sitting next to a table of smokers or a table of drunks give me the smokers any day - even more so if I'm just walking around town, smokers will leave me alone, a drunk might not. With drinking it's not just physical harm but harassment. But try to talk about restrictions and all you get is, 'but Jacintha and I want to have a glass of fizz with our picnic'...
That's a false equivalence. If you sit next to a table of people having a drink, your health is not threatened unless they really do overindulge. This is not the case with smokers. In fact, just being in the same room as somebody smoking puts you in danger.
-
eremy,
That's a false equivalence. If you sit next to a table of people having a drink, your health is not threatened unless they really do overindulge. This is not the case with smokers. In fact, just being in the same room as somebody smoking puts you in danger.
I once heard someone describe a smoking area in a pub as akin to a peeing area in a swimming pool.
-
That's a false equivalence. If you sit next to a table of people having a drink, your health is not threatened unless they really do overindulge. This is not the case with smokers. In fact, just being in the same room as somebody smoking puts you in danger.
As a consequence of non intentional ideas, maybe. But how many people are harmed by the actions of someone drinking?
-
That's a false equivalence. If you sit next to a table of people having a drink, your health is not threatened unless they really do overindulge. This is not the case with smokers. In fact, just being in the same room as somebody smoking puts you in danger.
No, you don't know how much someone needs to drink before they turn into a harassing, boorish bully, and you don't need too be on the receiving end of it to find it upsetting. An increase in stress and anxiety is a threat to my health and I take it every bit as seriously as a threat to my physical health.
-
As a consequence of non intentional ideas, maybe. But how many people are harmed by the actions of someone drinking?
Fewer than would be harmed by the same person smoking. Right now, I am sitting in a Premier Inn restaurant waiting for some food and somebody has just delivered a pint to my table. I will drink it, eat my food and then retire to my room. Nobody will have been harmed by my actions.
On the other hand, were I to light a cigarette (obviously that is illegal now), my fellow diners will have their experience degraded by the smoke and will have their lives shortened by some (admittedly quite small) amount.
-
No, you don't know how much someone needs to drink before they turn into a harassing, boorish bully, and you don't need too be on the receiving end of it to find it upsetting. An increase in stress and anxiety is a threat to my health and I take it every bit as seriously as a threat to my physical health.
Well, in my experience, it’s more than one beer, but only one person smoking one cigarette can be detrimental to your health.
Excessive consumption of alcohol is a pretty big problem but to suggest cigarette smoking shouldn’t be controlled because of that is whataboutism.
-
jeremy,
Right now, I am sitting in a Premier Inn restaurant...
You big shot you...
-
jeremy,
You big shot you...
Indeed. The budget is such that I don’t need to go for a Travelodge.
-
jeremy,
Indeed. The budget is such that I don’t need to go for a Travelodge.
The last time I stayed in a Premier Inn a very pretty maid knocked on my door and asked whether she could turn down my bed.
"Why not" I thought, "every other woman does..." ;)
-
Fewer than would be harmed by the same person smoking. Right now, I am sitting in a Premier Inn restaurant waiting for some food and somebody has just delivered a pint to my table. I will drink it, eat my food and then retire to my room. Nobody will have been harmed by my actions.
On the other hand, were I to light a cigarette (obviously that is illegal now), my fellow diners will have their experience degraded by the smoke and will have their lives shortened by some (admittedly quite small) amount.
Been there but not seeing the relevance.
-
That's a false equivalence. If you sit next to a table of people having a drink, your health is not threatened unless they really do overindulge. This is not the case with smokers. In fact, just being in the same room as somebody smoking puts you in danger.
That is a fair point, and is why even I accept that it should be restricted in public.
-
Apparently my maternal grandfather was a pipe smoker, he died at the young age of nearly 53 due to problems with his lungs.
Anecdotal evidence is no evidence. He may have had the lung problem in any case.
-
I thought pipe smokers didn't inhale. We'll have to ask Steve as he's the only active pipe smoker here as far as I know. Both of my grandfathers and an uncle smoked a pipe and lived to ripe old ages, one cousin of my mother in Filey whom I saw this year (the cousin) does. He's old and sprightly. Cigarettes are the worst thing, smokers take it all down into lungs and clog up the cilia which causes all sorts of problems if they're heavy smokers. There are people who smoke one or two fags a day or occasionally after a meal (a friend does that) which doesn't hurt.
You're not supposed to inhale pipes of cigars (or rather the smoke from them, ho ho ho), and most don't, but some do. I don't. Most pipe tobacco is strong enough to make your head explode if you do inhale it. I remember aged about 15 trying a cigar for the first time at a friend's house. I didn't know you weren't meant to inhale, and spent about 15 minutes throwing up down the bog afterwards.
-
Rhi,
To be fair I know for certain that smoking killed my uncle. He was run over by a Benson & Hedges lorry...
;D
-
jeremy,
The last time I stayed in a Premier Inn a very pretty maid knocked on my door and asked whether she could turn down my bed.
"Why not" I thought, "every other woman does..." ;)
When I stayed at a Premier Inn, a maid arrived with tea on a tray, set it down on the bedside cabinet, and gave me a blow job. Apparently, they provide a gobblin' teasmaid in every room.
Go on, then, mods - delete it.
-
Well, in my experience, it’s more than one beer, but only one person smoking one cigarette can be detrimental to your health.
Excessive consumption of alcohol is a pretty big problem but to suggest cigarette smoking shouldn’t be controlled because of that is whataboutism.
That wasn't really my point. I agree that smoking should be controlled, but in an adult only space (a pub or bar) I don't see the problem with a smoking room. My point about alcohol wasn't whataboutery but was trying to point out how muddled our thinking is around this, or at least the thinking of the authorities is.
-
When I stayed at a Premier Inn, a maid arrived with tea on a tray, set it down on the bedside cabinet, and gave me a blow job. Apparently, they provide a gobblin' teasmaid in every room.
Go on, then, mods - delete it.
The only reason I can think of to delete it is that I've heard it before. As others may have missed it I think it can safely stand. ;)
That and the fact that I've always had a sense of humour that leaned towards filth.
-
Oh good! :D
-
The smoking ban in pubs is to do with the H&S legislation relating to the employees working in the pub. It is evidence based and is correct according to the law. The pleasant consequence for me is that if I go into a pub I don't get exposed to the smoke.
Every possible way of reducing air pollution should be enacted so if there is evidence that smoking in public contributes to air pollution and health risks then it should be enacted. Just because other forms of pollution are harder to reduce doesn't mean we shouldn't both with smoking if there is evidence to support the ban.
-
That wasn't really my point. I agree that smoking should be controlled, but in an adult only space (a pub or bar) I don't see the problem with a smoking room. My point about alcohol wasn't whataboutery but was trying to point out how muddled our thinking is around this, or at least the thinking of the authorities is.
Pubs are no longer adult spaces. Pubs are places where families go.
Following the edict from the Thatcher government that the concept of the tied house was anti-competitive, the public house has changed. Where once it was an establishment whose primary purpose was to ensure constant cash flow for the owning brewery it became a cost and profit centre for a property company. The majority of pubs are no longer drinking dens reeking of feral masculinity but family-friendly restaurants.
As for smoking in pubs, along with a significant number of my acquaintances, I did not visit pubs frequently. I found that the foul air (accompanied by yellowed ceilings) disgusting. I now regularly eat and drink in pubs - and enjoy the experience. There is a lingering mythology that the decline of the pub was a consequence of banning smoking. This is not the case. It was Margaret Thatcher's ideological interference in a milieu she did not understand that was responsible. (She never demanded that Marks & Spencer had to stock brands other than its own ...)
-
Pubs are no longer adult spaces. Pubs are places where families go.
Following the edict from the Thatcher government that the concept of the tied house was anti-competitive, the public house has changed. Where once it was an establishment whose primary purpose was to ensure constant cash flow for the owning brewery it became a cost and profit centre for a property company. The majority of pubs are no longer drinking dens reeking of feral masculinity but family-friendly restaurants.
As for smoking in pubs, along with a significant number of my acquaintances, I did not visit pubs frequently. I found that the foul air (accompanied by yellowed ceilings) disgusting. I now regularly eat and drink in pubs - and enjoy the experience. There is a lingering mythology that the decline of the pub was a consequence of banning smoking. This is not the case. It was Margaret Thatcher's ideological interference in a milieu she did not understand that was responsible. (She never demanded that Marks & Spencer had to stock brands other than its own ...)
I did differentiate between family spaces where food is served and a proper boozer. Both exist around here. There are family friendly pubs, and there are pubs you would never take kids to.
-
Been there but not seeing the relevance.
Try reading the posts leading up to it.
-
in an adult only space (a pub or bar) I don't see the problem with a smoking room.
Because pub employees have to go in there to clean the room. The smoking ban is about providing a safe working environment as much as anything.
-
Because pub employees have to go in there to clean the room. The smoking ban is about providing a safe working environment as much as anything.
I agree, it is unfair to endanger others. Our middle daughter has asthma, a smokey environment makes her wheeze.
-
I agree, it is unfair to endanger others. Our middle daughter has asthma, a smokey environment makes her wheeze.
I assume your daughter isn't a barmaid, so what's the problem?
-
Because pub employees have to go in there to clean the room. The smoking ban is about providing a safe working environment as much as anything.
And if it were a condition that the regulars were responsible for keeping the area clean and taking out the empties? Or if employees couldn’t be forced to clean?
What about street cleaners? Refuse collectors? How do we make their workplace free from pollutants?
And I realise that this will sound like whatsboutery but the cocktails of chemicals found in offices and in new build homes are potentially life limiting too. It seems that smoking is singled out because of the social stigma.
Life has risks. Even in the workplace.
-
I assume your daughter isn't a barmaid, so what's the problem?
You can't always avoid the idiots who smoke, especially if they are doing it outdoors.
-
And if it were a condition that the regulars were responsible for keeping the area clean and taking out the empties? Or if employees couldn’t be forced to clean?
I don’t suppose anybody seriously considers it a workable solution to rely on the clientele to keep the place clean. And I think there is a worry that it’s almost impossible to police the situation of forcing an employee to clean a smoking area.
What about street cleaners? Refuse collectors? How do we make their workplace free from pollutants?
You can’t, you have to provide them with the equipment they need to do their job safely.
And I realise that this will sound like whatsboutery but the cocktails of chemicals found in offices and in new build homes are potentially life limiting too. It seems that smoking is singled out because of the social stigma.
No it doesn’t sound like what about dry, unless you have evidence for this lethal cocktail of chemicals, it sounds like bullshit.
Life has risks. Even in the workplace.
Some of which are deemed acceptable and some of which are not. Passive smoking in the work place is currently in the latter category.
-
Jeremy,
I live with a formaldehyde allergy. Medically diagnosed, in hospital. Among thing I have to avoid are fire retardants, easy care clothing, dry cleaning fluid, newsprint, stain retardants, MDF, plasterboard, antifungals, pesticides, fumigant sprays, air fresheners, dry cleaning fluid. Many people with formaldehyde allergy develop it when working in the textile industry or as a dry cleaner. I have done neither and it was regular exposure in regular living that triggered it for me.
https://www.dermnetnz.org/topics/formaldehyde-allergy/
The misery of that aside, it is a probable human carcinogen.
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/formaldehyde.html
Further,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3168108/
I think you owe me an apology for your bullshit comment. I'm not holding my breath though.
-
I'm sorry to learn about your problems with formaldehyde. It must be difficult for you.
The misery of that aside, it is a probable human carcinogen.
Have a look at the bar chart associated with this article. It will give you an idea of the seriousness of tobacco as a human carcinogen, hence the need to protect other people from the effects of smokers' behaviour.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-46179118
-
I'm sorry to learn about your problems with formaldehyde. It must be difficult for you.
Have a look at the bar chart associated with this article. It will give you an idea of the seriousness of tobacco as a human carcinogen, hence the need to protect other people from the effects of smokers' behaviour.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-46179118
Thanks, HH, I'm lucky that I get eczema and not breathing issues and it's at the milder end, I can go about my day to day life relatively normally.
I am aware of that, HH. I just think there needs to be balance. If a way could be found for a pub or bar to include a smoking space (maintained by its users, staffed by smokers, whatever) then it would be nice if it could.
-
Thanks, HH, I'm lucky that I get eczema and not breathing issues and it's at the milder end, I can go about my day to day life relatively normally.
I am aware of that, HH. I just think there needs to be balance. If a way could be found for a pub or bar to include a smoking space (maintained by its users, staffed by smokers, whatever) then it would be nice if it could.
H&S legislation doesn't allow an employee to agree to work in an environment where there is a recognised health hazard without the necessary protection, so the 'staffed by smokers' bit isn't really an option. If this approach was allowed then employers could pressurise their employees to do this thereby cutting their overheads. A slippery slope towards the total undermining of H&S legislation.
-
... staffed by smokers, whatever ...
Now you are suggesting that being a smoker should be a necessary qualification for employment. You also appear to be suggesting that smokers should be treated as an oppressed minority and given protection. Surely, the best thing that can happen to a smoker is that he or she is persuaded to give up. Smoking presents a danger - not only to those who practise it but to anyone else in their presence.
According to ASH:
Fewer than 1 in 5 (17%) of adults in the United Kingdom now smoke: 19% of men and 15% of women. This means there are about 9.1 million adult smokers in the UK and 8.7 million in Great Britain.
Smoking rates have more than halved since 1974 when 51% of men and 41% of women smoked.
Smoking prevalence is highest in the 25-34 age group (24%) and lowest amongst those aged 60 and over (10%).
More than half (59%) of all adults report that they have never smoked.
Smoking rates are much higher among poorer people. In 2015, 12% of adults in managerial and professional occupations smoked compared with 28% in routine and manual occupations.
In a typical pub, for every adult that smokes there will be at least four that do not. As I said earlier, for many years I avoided going into pubs because I found the environment so unpleasant. It is only since smoking in pubs was banned that I have used them. Perhaps if your idea of special smoking rooms is to be adopted then perhaps there should be an entry fee for the room of, say, £5 a session, to pay for the constant cleaning, air extraction facilities etc.
-
No, I'm not, HH. That's a distortion of what I said. But if a smoker is happy to work in a smoking environment, why shouldn't they? If I'm happy to work in a smoking environment, shouldn't I have that choice? If I ran a pub and my locals were happy to clean a smoking room and maintain it why shouldn't that be allowed to happen?
I like your idea of paying a charge for a smoking room in a pub - it'd be a way of finding out whether smokers really wanted it or not.
Just watching refuse collectors on the street full of fumes collecting rubbish with nothing to protect their breathing. Ditto a couple of guys in hi vis with stop go boards controlling traffic.
-
Jeremy,
I live with a formaldehyde allergy. Medically diagnosed, in hospital. Among thing I have to avoid are fire retardants, easy care clothing, dry cleaning fluid, newsprint, stain retardants, MDF, plasterboard, antifungals, pesticides, fumigant sprays, air fresheners, dry cleaning fluid. Many people with formaldehyde allergy develop it when working in the textile industry or as a dry cleaner. I have done neither and it was regular exposure in regular living that triggered it for me.
So there should be reasonable measures put in place so you can avoid formaldehyde just as with nuts (for people with nut allergies) and smoking for everybody. But houses are hardly considered lethal because of it. Passive smoking is lethal and not just to people with allergies.
The misery of that aside, it is a probable human carcinogen.
At this point I'd be more astonished if something turned out not to be a carcinogen in high enough quantities.
In the right circumstances, pretty much everything is lethal. Water can kill you.
I think you owe me an apology for your bullshit comment. I'm not holding my breath though.
No. Don't hold your breath. It will kill you.
-
Hi Rhi,
No, I'm not, HH. That's a distortion of what I said. But if a smoker is happy to work in a smoking environment, why shouldn't they?
I'm not sure that woks does it? To extend the principle, no matter how much a worker at Sellafield said, "I don't mind working unprotected around radioactive material provided you pay me enough" there's no way that an employer would be permitted to allow it. In principe at least what's the difference - can workers in any environment be allowed to work around harmful substances even if they want to?
Just watching refuse collectors on the street full of fumes collecting rubbish with nothing to protect their breathing. Ditto a couple of guys in hi vis with stop go boards controlling traffic.
But there's a difference between unpleasant fumes and carcinogens I'd have though. If the dustvan was emitting carcinogens I don't think the dustmen would be allowed anywhere near it without suitable protection. The stop/go guys is a bit closer as an analogy I supposes, but again you'd have to show that their exposure to harmful exhaust fumes was materially higher than background levels.
Incidentally I rode through your way earlier - Thaxted/Finchingfield/Gt Bardfield/Dunmow etc. Bit overcast, but lovely nonetheless. Finchingfield full of cars though - something going on?
-
If a way could be found for a pub or bar to include a smoking space (maintained by its users, staffed by smokers, whatever) then it would be nice if it could.
It would be nice, but the problem is that there is too much scope for abuse. It means you have to have several smokers on staff (one smoker can't do every single shift) in order just to clean one room, and if you don't have enough smokers the room either goes uncleaned or the manager puts pressure on a non smoker to illegally clean the room.
-
It is interesting to consider whether my father's heavy smoking for the first 13 years of my life; smoking allowed in offices when I worked in London and in trains to and from; also at social events ; quite a few of my friends smoked and I married a smoker.
I wonder how much that was the cause of my cancer 31 yers ago and the present one.
-
It is interesting to consider whether my father's heavy smoking for the first 13 years of my life; smoking allowed in offices when I worked in London and in trains to and from; also at social events ; quite a few of my friends smoked and I married a smoker.
I wonder how much that was the cause of my cancer 31 yers ago and the present one.
You have cancer, Susan? :-\
-
You have cancer, Susan? :-
Yes, I have breast cancer. Found nearly two years ago. Surgeon thinks that, because it is about level 2, and the risks of anaesthetic are probably, on balance, greater than the risk of not operating, I am taking Letrozole, which is proving to be successful, particularly in old ladies! It has shrunk a bit and when I saw her in September, she said come back in a year.
-
Yes, I have breast cancer. Found nearly two years ago. Surgeon thinks that, because it is about level 2, and the risks of anaesthetic are probably, on balance, greater than the risk of not operating, I am taking Letrozole, which is proving to be successful, particularly in old ladies! It has shrunk a bit and when I saw her in September, she said come back in a year.
I think I remember now, Susan. I'm sorry to hear it, and also not sorry at the same time, as you are doing so well. :)