Doric Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 But to be honest it is a bit naughty an uncivilised to puff smoke out into peoples atmospher just because of an addiction. If you weren't an addict you would be able to control your'e smoking to just when you were at home and in private to enjoy them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 If you read my post fully, you would see that I do control my addiction and avoid puffing smoke into others' atmospher (sic). What I am railing against is the smug, condescending, self-righteous anti-smokers who feel quite justified in being downright rude and boorish to smokers, even though they are keeping their habit to themselves! I will keep my habit to myself as long as the anti-smokers keep their anti-social and rude behaviour to themselves! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
www.theislandinsider.co.uk Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 We shouldn't be looking to ban smoking at all. im not a smoker, but i do believe in freedom of choice Firstly were not living in a nanny state and so shouldnt be told what to do by our Government Secondly, you know if you choose to go to the pub there are going to be people smoking there, so either dont go to a pub or go to a specifically non smoking pub. Thirdly, there is no scientific evidence that second hand smoke causes cancer, even the British Medical Journal produced a report saying there was no link Its a simple consumerism market. If you dont want to buy from Tesco because you believe they give third world farmers a bad deal, you go somewhere else. If you dont want to buy coca cola because you believe they might be doing dodgy things in columbia then buy pepsi. Its the same for pubs, buy your drinks/food from a pub you feel happy with, only go to the pubs where you want to go. I dont see the Government wanting to ban Tesco or Coca Cola from the Island on Human Rights issues, yet there quite happy to ban something thats still legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lfc84 Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 there is no scientific evidence that second hand smoke causes cancer, even the British Medical Journal produced a report saying there was no link So the carcenegenics listed here http://www.givingupsmoking.co.uk/shsmoke/shs_what/ are from this scientific evidence http://www.tobaccoscam.ucsf.edu/Secondhand/Secondhand_ti.cfm and this information also appears in CMO Annual Report 2003 (CMO = Cheif Medical Officer) http://www.givingupsmoking.co.uk/ask/faqs/...peid=4&faqid=55 Smoking doesnt just harm smokers it harms those around them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 If smoking was banned it would probably help them kick the habit, If only smokers could see the damage they are doing to themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarahc Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 They should just ban tobacco altogether, stop the hypocrisy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
www.theislandinsider.co.uk Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 nice set of links! now find me the scientific evidence to back it up whilst second hand smoke may do a lot of things, there is no proven link to cancer the idea that second hand smoke caused cancer was dreamt up by anti smoking parties, which they have since tried to prove and have never been able to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 surely anything that you can get from smoking, you can also get from second-hand smoke... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
www.theislandinsider.co.uk Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 In theory, yes but its never been proven im not writing again whats on my site Smoking news what has to be kept clear of here is opinion reported as fact, the majority of things people are saying here are purely opinion, not proven fact yes there are lots of chemicals in second hand smoke, but there is NO LINK between second hand smoke and cancer. When we talk about something as important as people's civil liberties and imposing restrictions on them, then we need to talk in fact not opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Smelly Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 If someone wants to kill themselves due to smoking then crack on. But don't smoke near people who choose not to. why don't the pubs just have smokers rooms like the old days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nipper Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 In the olden days it seemed to work fine, but (in general of course) the smoker is a selfish being in pursuit of his/her nicotine fix. The reekers started started encroaching everywhere, as if it was their God given right. Like the 'No Smoking at the Bar' rule. It was a great initiative by the Brewery but the very selfish of the smokers stuck two fingers up didn't they, and so now there is a chance of a total ban by law. Good. So next time you are in a pub and you see the toughie smoker at/near the bar you can blame them for what is about to happen. See it in a similar way to speed limits on the road - they are only put there for the idiots who don't have common sense and consideration for other people. I appreciate there are one or two decently minded smokers but please don't bleat for the majority of your fellow addicts. (gtbb !). So, back on topic. I am sick of the Brewery and Bushy's whinging away about the impending Smoking Laws. They had every chance to enforce the No Smoking at ther Bar rule but in so many cases they, their managers and their clients have shown themselves to have just payed lip service to the rule. Hence the Law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
www.theislandinsider.co.uk Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 ok you all seem to be missing the point, completely theyre banning smoking because they say second hand smoke causes cancer that has never been proven With the speed limits, it has been factually proven that speeding motorists kill innocent drivers/pedestrains once again ill reiterate that I am not a smoker, but as a society we need to stand up for civil liberties and regardless of whether you smoke or not, or if you like it or not, or if you believe smoking should be illegal or not, we need to stand up and say to the Government Don't tell us what we can and cant do based on your opinions, dont turn us into a nanny state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 ...even the British Medical Journal produced a report saying there was no link No link, or no proven link yet? Pubs will survive just fine, because people aren't going to stop wanting to have a drink and a chat with their mates. So what if some people have to leave every now and then for a cigarette? They do it in offices without moaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 ban it.......... improved environment when no one enters the premises Edited for realism! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman8180 Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Firstly were not living in a nanny state and so shouldnt be told what to do by our Government Oh come on! We are constantly told what we can and cannot do by Government. It's called law and order. I could now go on and list instance after instance where this is the case. But, frankly if you fail to see the point now, I can't be arsed to try and explain it to you. Smoking causes cancer and is a contributory factor to many other illnesses and diseases. The fact that they may have not linked second hand smoke to cancer is largely irrelevant. This smoke contains carcogenic agents which have been linked to a variety of illnesses. Even if you ardently believe that there isn't the remotest link to cancer, you must accept that their is some form of risk to health, not to add that it is extremely unpleasant to some people. (ask any severe asthmatic) This is evidence enough. And the Civil Liberties issue is null and void. Non smokers have a right to be in an enclosed space without being exposed to a risk to their health, even a 'potential' risk. Under Health and Safety regulations, employers also have a duty to ensure that their staff are not unecessarily exposed to risk. If you examine the options, (i.e. filtration, air-purification etc) the option which reduces the risk, in fact it removes the risk, is not to allow smoking in the first place. So, in short, a ban makes sense all round. Accept it. And move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.