Will Pubs Survive?

[Theskeat]

Which would kill you first.

The fumes off a car engine or a room full of smokers ?

[iomcombat]

Ideally the fumes from a car. BUT since there are likely to be more objections I'd go for the room of smokers. Are you implying that because we can't get rid of the larger scale bad thing that we should ignore the smaller?

 

Incidentally try

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...l=pubmed_docsum

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...l=pubmed_docsum

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...l=pubmed_docsum

 

 

NB the third article is called "The consequences of passive smoking in adults."

 

You see, not being a biomedical scientist I asked a biomedical scientist. The above are drawn from a few articles about the effects of passive smoking. Particular note are the comments

 

This is no longer the case for ischaemic heart disease and lung cancer where the effect of passive exposure of non-smokers to cigarette smoke is recognised. The biological plausibility together with the concordance of results obtained over successive years, as well as the large numbers of patients included in the studies, lead to a confident conclusion that the risks in adult non-smokers are increased by the order of 25%

 

Smoking of both bidis and cigarettes, and ETS exposure among nonsmokers, were two important risk factors at all centres.

 

High exposure to secondhand smoke suggests a need for countries to pass strong and effective smoke-free policies.

 

and my current fav:

The evidence that active smoking is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and the leading cause of preventable death is overwhelming. However, numerous epidemiological findings indicate that even passive exposure to cigarette smoke may exert detrimental effects on vascular homoeostasis.

taken from

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...l=pubmed_DocSum

 

Go to google put in pubmed and click on the first link. Put in "passive smoking and disease" into the search box and enjoy. Smoking doesn't just cause cancer kiddies.

 

New Fav:

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/174/3/309

Use of tobacco is the second-leading cause of death in the world. It is responsible for 1 in 10 adult deaths, or more than 4.9 million deaths each year.1 If current smoking trends continue, it will kill 10 million people each year by 2020.2 Around the world, there are currently about 1.3 billion smokers; 84% of these live within developing and transitional economies.1 Tobacco is estimated to cost governments US$200 billion per year through direct health care costs and loss of productivity from death and illness; a third of these costs are borne by developing countries.2 In poor households, tobacco costs may constitute up to 10% of their total yearly household expenditure.1,2

 

and another

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...l=pubmed_docsum

As many as 5000 nonsmokers are estimated to die annually from lung cancer as a result of exposure to ETS. There is great potential for prevention of these premature deaths. The two major preventive actions are a/ eliminating the source by reducing the amount of direct smoking and B/ limiting the level of exposure by restricting where tobacco can be smoked.

 

And:

Passive smoking--also called involuntary or environmental smoking--is the exposure of non-smokers to the tobacco smoke released by smokers. The physico-chemical composition of tobacco smoke, and notably its contents in toxic and carcinogenic substances, is the same in the secondary stream between puffs as in the primary stream released by the smoker. The pathogenic effects of passive smoking are increasingly well known and accepted. A high incidence of respiratory tract infections and of chronic respiratory and asthmatic symptoms is observed in children. In adults, passive smoking seems to be one of the main risk factors for cardiovascular diseases. Its repercussions on the respiratory tracts is difficult to evaluate, but there are marked by an increase of respiratory symptoms and perhaps of chronic obstructive lung diseases. Finally, it is now recognized that passive smoking is a major risk factor for primary lung cancer in non-smokers exposed to tobacco smoke

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...l=pubmed_docsum

 

NB ETS = Environmental Tobacco Smoke.

 

Last one and this is a beaut:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...l=pubmed_DocSum

This toll makes passive smoking the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States today, behind active smoking and alcohol.

[catchy]

Genuine question that I could possibly find out on google but haven't tried, has anyone ever died from a disease that has been identified as being caused by secondhand smoking? All of the facts regarding second hand smoking are exageratted at best, outright lies at worst. This makes me dubious about the proposals, there was more evidense about the war in Iraq for gods sake!

I like smoke free areas as much as the next woman but is it not just the start of a long slippery slope? Forcing the issue and banning it in pubs, the last bastion of the lonely smoker!

 

A pub is simply a business, owned by someone trying to make a living like the rest of us, these type of laws will only end up hurting them, the small man especially. the brewery and the big men will be fine, although they will no doubt close down some premises they will survive. The small local traditional freehold pub will not. there are no big bands of healthy non smokers waiting to claim the pubs if they become smoke free, heck, if you go to any pub midweek it is virtually empty, any smokers and non smokers can sit far away from each other as they like

 

I have not seen any evidense that is powerful enough to excuse this proposal, it all seems to boil down to "us" against "them", with non smokers (of which I am one) wanting smoke free areas so much they are prepared to believe and repeat any statistics they see, but argue them for a while and their true agenda is clear: they do not like the smell. is this a good enough reason for such a law though.

I fear it is inevitable, and I do not deny I will likely enjoy a night out more without the smell clinging to me, but that is by the by, there does not seem to enough reason for this proposal, there must be a halfway compamise that would be better, serving food possibly, private clubs maybe.

[catchy]

On an aside, I belive that 90% of the replies in the recent smoke free questionnaire were in support of a ban. Though the questions were more than a little biased that is a strong figure. So strong I am not sure I actually believe them.

[iomcombat]

All of the facts regarding second hand smoking are exageratted at best, outright lies at worst.

 

 

 

Passive smoking and heart disease. Epidemiology, physiology, and biochemistry.

 

Glantz SA, Parmley WW.

 

Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco 94143-0124.

 

The evidence that ETS increases risk of death from heart disease is similar to that which existed in 1986 when the US Surgeon General concluded that ETS caused lung cancer in healthy nonsmokers. There are 10 epidemiological studies, conducted in a variety of locations, that reflect about a 30% increase in risk of death from ischemic heart disease or myocardial infarction among nonsmokers living with smokers. The larger studies also demonstrate a significant dose-response effect, with greater exposure to ETS associated with greater risk of death from heart disease. These epidemiological studies are complemented by a variety of physiological and biochemical data that show that ETS adversely affects platelet function and damages arterial endothelium in a way that increases the risk of heart disease. Moreover, ETS, in realistic exposures, also exerts significant adverse effects on exercise capability of both healthy people and those with heart disease by reducing the body's ability to deliver and utilize oxygen. In animal experiments, ETS also depresses cellular respiration at the level of mitochondria. The polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in ETS also accelerate, and may initiate, the development of atherosclerotic plaque. Of note, the cardiovascular effects of ETS appear to be different in nonsmokers and smokers. Nonsmokers appear to be more sensitive to ETS than do smokers, perhaps because some of the affected physiological systems are sensitive to low doses of the compounds in ETS, then saturate, and also perhaps because of physiological adaptions smokers undergo as a result of long-term exposure to the toxins in cigarette smoke. In any event, these findings indicate that, for cardiovascular disease, it is incorrect to compute "cigarette equivalents" for passive exposure to ETS and then to extrapolate the effects of this exposure on nonsmokers from the effects of direct smoking on smokers. These results suggest that heart disease is an important consequence of exposure to ETS. The combination of epidemiological studies with demonstration of physiological changes with exposure to ETS, together with biochemical evidence that elements of ETS have significant adverse effects on the cardiovascular system, leads to the conclusion that ETS causes heart disease. This increase in risk translates into about 10 times as many deaths from ETS-induced heart disease as lung cancer; these deaths contribute greatly to the estimated 53,000 deaths annually from passive smoking. This toll makes passive smoking the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States today, behind active smoking and alcohol.

 

 

These are not people just guessing at figures, these are leading scientists in their fields. Read that last sentence again. The THIRD LEADING preventable cause of death. And this is in a country where you can buy automatic guns without too much hassle.

[nipper]

you kinda get my overly paranoid point though?

 

Sort of, but really I see it this way: Smoking is an utterly, utterly bizarre thing to do. It's unfortunate that society has become so used to it that people think it's normal and their "right" to do it around other people, even though it's causing harm to them.

 

Now society is starting to come round and see sense, like a drunk man wanking in the corner at a party, who suddenly thinks "hang on, what the fuck am I doing?"

 

Eventually cigarettes will be banned from sale. It's no great loss.

 

LoFL

I , ahem, gave up smoking quite a few years ago.

 

iomcomat - too many post to quote, but I like the style.

 

 

catchy - there are nearly 1000 people a year from the Island go to the cardiothoracic centre in Liverpool. Some may need accompanying. It will do you good to go along with someone as a companion. Robert Owen House.

 

Who knows you may even be going as a patient yourself sometime. Either way, the chances are pretty high you will be involved somewhere in the future.

 

So go along if/WHEN the chance arises.

 

All those people. All that sadness. Perhaps some in their 30s with split aortas and the rest of their (....2 weeks...) life in intensive care. Beautiful wife crying. He a smoker indeed.

 

Another beautiful wife who's husband had been diagnosed with lung cancer 2 weeks previously. And little chance of pulling through............never touched a cigarette in his hardworking life. Just retired after a lifetime of looking after the childha and parents. "This was to be our time".......

________________________________________

 

....hang on, what the fuck are you doing?

[joeyconcrete]

disease that has been identified as being caused by secondhand smoking

 

Cancer. It may not say "died because he passive smoked" - but if they had lung cancer or some other cardiovascular disease the medical experts would say it was a contributing factor. Yes, they can't be 100% that the individual died because of passive smoking but its pretty damn certain it played a part.

[Lonan3]

[Mr. Sausages]

But it doesnt make it right to pass legislation based on opinion and non-proven allegations

 

That argument is bollocks. There's no proof that stealing, murdering, and rape are "bad". It's all about opinions.

[GD4ELI]

Which would kill you first.

The fumes off a car engine or a room full of smokers ?

The car because I wouldn't be in a room full of b******d smokers.

[sarahc]

Genuine question that I could possibly find out on google but haven't tried, has anyone ever died from a disease that has been identified as being caused by secondhand smoking?

 

Roy Castle never smoked in his life but died from lung cancer. I think it's been generally accepted that it was his performing in smoky clubs that did it.

[LoneWolf]

Genuine question that I could possibly find out on google but haven't tried, has anyone ever died from a disease that has been identified as being caused by secondhand smoking?

Roy Castle never smoked in his life but died from lung cancer. I think it's been generally accepted that it was his performing in smoky clubs that did it.

 

That was certainly his belief and who are we to argue ?

There is an established statistical link between passive smoking and serious illness but this, as yet, hasnt translated to positive scientific / medical findings. Its only a matter of time until it does.

Having said that I still feel put upon that I will no longer be able to go out and enjoy a quiet pint and a fag or two. I feel even more put upon by the level of taxation that is extracted from me everytime I buy a packet of cigarettes. But thats just my personal feelings.

The whole no smoking thing is driven by fear of litigation based on duties on employers in Health and Safety at Work legislation rather than concern for anyone's health. I would guess that set against that background some form of legislation was always inevitable.

As for pubs losing business, well Im sure they will unless they make some sort of provision for smokers.

[pontiuspilot]

heard recently on MR someone from Lic Vit being encouraged byStu Peters to talk up the potential adverse impact of the proposed smoking ban - now the brewery have stuck up its prices...

 

surely putting the prices up invokes the laws of diminishing returns...

 

As for smoking bans an article on the BBC says:-

 

the Brewery group Diageo, which has seen its pub trade decline 8% as the off licence trade has improved 3% - was also cautiously optimistic.

 

"The jury is out," said spokeswoman Jean Doyle.

 

"The feeling is that in the short term there could be an impact, but it remains to be seen.

 

"Pubs may actually become more attractive because of the ban, research has shown certain people are put off by smoking - the atmosphere, the smell on their clothes."

 

Some pubs in the capital have started to prepare for the ban with wall-mounted ashtrays outside and heated outdoor areas for smokers.

 

NY BAN - TOBACCO LOBBY*

17% fall in waiter/waitress jobs, bartender numbers down 11% after the ban

33% of establishments have reported an overall decline in jobs since the ban

Two thirds of respondents say they now have fewer customers than before the ban

*SOURCE: International Communications Research

 

 

its probably only the inherent value of the property portfolio that's supporting IOM Breweries B/s so if perhaps I were a shareholder I might be thinking about a call to Ramsey Crookall & Co with a sale order...

 

what does anyone else think about the price rises and impact on foot fall through the doors....

 

 

yes this will be the end of all drinking in the iom. we will all turn tea total wether we were smokers or not in the first place.

[Theskeat]

The Government want to ban smoking in pubs and Public places , but at the Airport the staff are still allowed to smoke, also smoking is banned on buses but ive noticed the drivers smoking while driving.

[Albert Tatlock]

According to Dame Helena Shovelton, Chief Executive, British Lung Foundation: “42% of children in the UK live in a house where at least one person smokes, it is estimated that 17000 children under five years are hospitalised each year as a result of passive smoking. Around 10-15% of childhood asthma may be attributed to parental smoking”.

 

Based on 1996 Isle of Man census figures, 42% of Isle of Man children would mean that over 6000 of the islands children live in a house where at least one person smokes.

 

In most democratic societies public health/government intervention becomes an issue when:

 

1) People are exposed to risks to which they have not consented which 2) pose dangers to the community at large from which 3) individuals cannot realistically protect themselves.

 

The instigation of the smoking ban in Ireland, according to the brewer Heineken, has resulted in a marked increase in home drinking there, indicated by significant increases in off-licence sales (up 7%), with an overall decrease (down 8.7%) in on-licence sales, yet with overall profits increasing (i.e. Heineken’s turnover in Ireland rose from 305 million euros to 311m euros in 2004, where it expects the off-trade to continue to gain a higher share of the overall drinks market). As the law in Ireland tackled smoking in public places, and these changes in purchasing behaviour occurred during the same period, this evidence is significant and has not been properly addressed during the smoking ‘consultation’.

 

The failure to acknowledge such evidence, demonstrates either a failure to understand, or a willingness to accept, that banning tobacco in public houses and other private establishments will force smokers to smoke more at home (many in homes where children and vulnerable adults live), and that as a direct consequence this will:

 

1) Expose children and vulnerable adults (suffering from a wide range of respiratory illness) to longer-term and thus far greater risks to which they have not consented which 2) the government states it recognises as posing a danger to them and from which 3) children and vulnerable adults cannot realistically protect themselves.

 

The failure of the proposed Isle of Man Act to allow for ‘run-off areas’ i.e. not to encourage smoking, if it is to take place, to take place only in areas such as public houses or private clubs where children are not present, will NOT be creating a better life for our children.

 

Surely we should be encouraging and not criminalising smokers who would smoke only in areas where they could continue to damage only their own health, and the health of any adults that choose to subject themselves to such atmospheres, and discouraging smokers in areas such as public houses serving food where children are present, in vehicles carrying children, and in those places where there is but no choice for adults and children to enter.

 

Many public houses are not suitable places for adults accompanied with children to frequent for many reasons. Allowing smoking to continue in controlled premises (public houses and private clubs) would ensure that:

 

1) Individuals (including smoking employees) were fully aware that they were consenting to risks that 2) the government consider poses a danger to them and 3) about which they can make their own choice as to whether to protect themselves whilst d) encouraging the protection of vulnerable children and adults.

 

Additionally, there has been little or no discussion as to how increased drinking in the home will likely impact children, vulnerable adults and neighbourhoods in other ways e.g. the sharp increase in house-fire rates already demonstrated in Ireland, domestic violence, noise levels etc. There has also been little discussion regarding subsequent rates of respiratory illness in children and vulnerable adults in other jurisdictions that have instigated such bans (e.g. recent Dublin hospital respiratory admissions and age groups).

 

Surely it is highly objectionable for children and vulnerable adults to be seen as ‘acceptable casualties’ under this proposed legislation. However, that such evidence could be ignored implies only that our politicians are willing to accept such a situation, or more likely, that banning smoking in pubs is just the start.