It's a toughie. Pain is the bodies way of telling you something is wrong and needs attention. In trauma, the bodies shock reaction dulls the pain to allow flight or fight reactions. Doing the same through medicine is very difficult and often creates side-effects that are worse than the pain. Medicine is partly to blame, a couple of hundred years ago you'd already be dead from it and it's a non-issue. The body isn't designed to be repaired as we can now.
Have you considered medical marijana? Supposed to be very good for pain relief, without the side-effects.
Already exists. There are many laws covering child negligence. Smoking isn't considered negligence. Doing drugs is.
Again, back out with the two wrongs theories we know you love so much, there are many other ways to fsck up your children. Not spending time with them, treating them badly (but not abuse), letting them watch/play inappropriate media etc. Should we pass laws in those cases?
While I would not necessarily support all of the deduction that could be taken from the C4 survey, it does have some signifance.
This is more a question of awareness and ease of access.
The majority of the population are likely to be unaware of the C4 coverage at all.
A few million either watched the program and/or saw the web site article
11500 voted. As you say, that is likely to be people who felt strongly enough one way or the other.
It is still statistically significant, although perhaps not rigorously scientific. The poll was open to anybody who had a telephone and not done selectively as is often done with election polls.
With a 3:1 majority in favour of a ban, this simple survey indicates that almost certainly a majority of the population would support it.
However, there are more scientific studies.
For example, the ONS has done numerous recent surveys in this area.
Living in Britain Results from the 2001General Household Survey, Office for National Statistics, 2002.
formatting link
example is that the percentage of the population currently smoking has fallen steadily and in 2001 was at 27%
In a recent ONS study
Smoking-related behaviour and attitudes, 2002. Office for National Statistics, July 2003.
there were questions about support for smoking restrictions.
At work
-----------
70% of current smokers, 89% of ex smokers, 92% of never smokers and
86% of adults overall supported a ban.
In restaurants
--------------------
72% of current smokers, 89% of ex smokers, 94% of never smokers and
88% of adults overall supported a ban.
In pubs
-----------
28% of current smokers, 55% of ex smokers, 67% of never smokers and
54% of adults overall supported a ban.
The interesting point is that the majority for the support of a ban in pubs was first passed in 2002.
For workplaces and restaurants the figures are similar, and even 70% of current smokers favour a ban.
It is only pubs where the concensus is less overwhelming. It's interesting to note that only 28% of current smokers support a ban, suggesting the correlation between cigarettes and alcohol mentioned earlier.
Nevertheless it is clear that the writing is on the wall even as regards pubs.
Taking the average of the three figures for different places for all adults gives a figure of 76%.
Different ways of slicing and dicing the data, but the conclusions are clear enough.
You don't know me, so how can you even suggest that? You doing so implies the opposite. In a battle of wits, based on your discussions so far, I'd beat you hands down. But, I'm not going to get into this arguement, short of an IQ test in exam-conditions, it's never going to go anywhere.
And just try to pick a fight. Seriously. I love it when usenet gets to that level, not much else on the planet is as funny. Makes me feel as if I'm in primary school again.
By the way, where I come from, the full pint in the face is usually followed by the glass. ;-) Dangerous ground my friend.... ;-)
I like your style. You have the makings of a good politician, able to fight an argument not on basis of fact, but by trying to appear wittier or smarter than your opponent. Not that it's an admirable trait generally, but it makes things interesting.
Nope. We are discussing passive smoking. Big difference. Passive smoking _probably_won't_ kill you.
I'd disagree, but you don't seem to be like the socialable type who others would enjoy having around, so your pub experience is probably quite low. Some bars are exceptionally smokey, and some are very clean. The average has improved greatly over the past 50 years.
"Massively higher". Cite your source please, MAKING SURE it refers to passive smoking and NOT direct smoking.
I work in professions where langauage has to be accurate. Implying things in text, intended or not, is deceptive and error-prone. The above statement has nothing to do with "probablities".
No, we are arguing about PASSIVE SMOKING RISKS. The direct risks to smokers are well documented and not under debate.
Passive smoking figures are controversial at best, from either side.
And as a non-smoker, you know this how? I'm sure you've been in cars that have had smokers in them, but you've never noticed.
Oh, we agree on something? Can we go for a double? What colour is the sky on a clear day?
The point was about being able to go into a pub and not have to breathe smoke. Nobody is suggesting banning smokers from pubs, only disallowing the act of smoking in them. That is not the same thing.
Refer to my other post. In a recent ONS study, 54% of the adult population (and increasing) were in favour of a smoking ban in pubs and 85-90% in other public places.
How so? IMM believes that "freedom" entitles him to stop me from doing something. That's isn't freedom, in anyones book!
Perhaps he should switch his claim to "human rights". Not affecting others adversly fits nicely in there. But not "freedom".
formatting link
is quite good for people who don't know what words mean. Here is the entry for "freedom":
free·dom ( P ) Pronunciation Key (frdm) n. 1.. The condition of being free of restraints. 2.. Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression. 3.. a.. Political independence. b.. Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty: freedom of assembly. 4.. Exemption from an unpleasant or onerous condition: freedom from want. 5.. The capacity to exercise choice; free will: We have the freedom to do as we please all afternoon. 6.. Ease or facility of movement: loose sports clothing, giving the wearer freedom. 7.. Frankness or boldness; lack of modesty or reserve: the new freedom in movies and novels. 8.. a.. The right to unrestricted use; full access: was given the freedom of their research facilities. b.. The right of enjoying all of the privileges of membership or citizenship: the freedom of the city. 9.. A right or the power to engage in certain actions without control or interference: "the seductive freedoms and excesses of the picaresque form" (John W. Aldridge).
See points 1, 3b, 5, 8a, 8b and especially 9. As for the others:
2, 3a, 6, 7 aren't relevant to this use of the word
4 isn't relevant, as you are not forced to go to bars
So, tell me again how me smoking in a pub affects your "freedom".
Good post, finally, some sensible discussion. I hope IMM stays out of this one, I see no further point in answering his posts.
Yes, it does indicate a trend, but I'm still wary of polls as a rule. Just found this one via Google:
formatting link
is kinda along the right kind of lines to my thinking here, though I'm sure there are better articles out there. Paragraph 6 of this article is of the most interest, explaining how the wording of the poll affects the result. Consider the following imaginary poll questions:
a) Should people be allowed to smoke in pubs? b) Should smoking in pubs be banned to prevent deadly passive smoking?
Now, most people prefer to answer yes to questions. It happens. Don't ask me why, ask a phycologist! Note how both questions are worded in opposite ways. If you were to run both polls, you'd get completely varying results, for what is exactly the same question. Throw in the "deadly" connotations used in b, it's meaningless.
This is why, with any poll, you must know who paid and designed it. This is the most important issue! If it proves what they want it to prove, some suspission is essential. You don't get to hear about the polls they do that don't back their case.
Other reasons I'm not too bothered by this C4 poll:
a) I didn't see it, so can't form an opinion on the validity of the poll methods b) Many "nay" voters were down the pub instead of watching TV. Ask them instead! Their thoughts are far more relevant than the TV viewing public, most of whom rarely go to pubs. c) Most peoples anti-passive smoking is formed from misleading research
Now, c is very important, the most important issue of all. As much as I am in favour of democracy, a key component in democracy is an educated electorate. (hense the disaster that is US politics, where fear has been used to get votes since the cold-war proved how well it worked)
So, public opinion here is of limited relevance, as the publics responses are affected by the poll itself, as well as current campaigns that have influenced them. The decission to ban smoking in pubs should be made on:
a) genuine, undisputed health issues b) consensus amoung the pub-going public c) consensus amound the land-lords
In my mind, should it ever happen, there also needs to be an opt-out clause. Otherwise, you'll just get "speakeasy" style places that publicly flaunt the law. That is no use to anyone. I'm all for giving non-smokers the choice to go to smoke-free places, however that wouldn't work if the law was ignored.
One can split hairs over definitions of words - especially fairly abstract ones like "freedom" and "human rights", which have charged meanings depending on context.
However, I would simplify the whole thing to three basic principles in a civilised society.
1) The right to do what you like provided that it does not negatively affect the equal rights of others
2) That if one chooses to ignore (1), then one must be prepared to accept the consequences of one's actions.
3) Abiding by the will of the majority
In terms of how this affects whether or not smoking should be allowed in pubs, I think that one could draw the following conclusions.
- Current smokers often appear to like to go to a pub and smoke along with their drink. OK, I'll accept that that is what they would like to do. Let's assume it's 72% since only 28% of the current smoking population would like to see smoking banned in pubs
- The rest of the population would also like to go to pubs, since they sell alcohol and provide a social environment. Ignoring the landlord's discretion, they have an equal right to go to the pub as the smoker, taking the basic principle from above.
- 55% of ex-smokers and 67% of never smokers support a ban on smoking in pubs. If the current smokers are included as well then it is still the case that 54% of the adult population are not in favour of smoking in pubs.
Whether or not you want to apply the labels "freedom" and "human rights" to describe this doesn't really matter.
There are more people who do not want to have smoking in pubs than do.
{Source} Smoking-related behaviour and attitudes, 2002. Office for National Statistics, July 2003
After a ban in pubs, there will be a settling in period of trade, some up some down. As most pubs are owned by multi-million pound concerns they can afford to see off any dips here and there. Then once non-smokers start to go back to pubs, I know many that will not go into them because of the thick smoke, the overall trade should increase. More people don't smoke than smoke by approx 3:1.
Then all those addicted to this drug can go and get therapy.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.