Cigarette smoke perculates through the walls from next door. Ugh. How can I seal it?

Page 6 of 13  


..out resident clown comments...

He obviously wants some sort of NAZI totalitarian state.
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.542 / Virus Database: 336 - Release Date: 18/11/2003
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nothing strange about valuing and, wanting and demanding freedom my good chappie.

In your dictionary, does freedom specifically mention that freedom means indirectly killing others with toxic fumes?

..and our new clown goes on...

< snip incoherent babble to save you the torture of reading >
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.542 / Virus Database: 336 - Release Date: 18/11/2003
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You don't know what clearly don't understand what "freedom" is. If a person wants to open a bar and sell booze while allowing them to smoke, that is their choice. It's our choice if we want to go there.
On the other hand, freedom also allows a person to open a no-smoking bar. Where are they all then? Or, perhaps are you in the minority here?

Yawn...you don't need to go there, blah blah blah.
F.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

...our addicted one is at it again...

Freedom is going into public places and not having to breath in toxic fumes.

And when we do go there the proprietor must not endanger our health.

--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.542 / Virus Database: 336 - Release Date: 18/11/2003
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, freedom is the choice to go to these places. Not the ability to stop others from doing so.
Do you get your lessons in what Freedom is from G.W. Bush?

But he already is by serving more than two alcoholic drinks to one person in one sitting. I know, two wrongs and all that, but it's clearly hypocracy.
Did you know, by the way, that bars technically aren't allowed to sell booze to drunk people?
F.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That statement makes no sense.
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.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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".
www.dictionary.com is quite good for people who don't know what words mean. Here is the entry for "freedom":
freedom ( 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".
F.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Smoking-related behaviour and attitudes, 2002. Office for National Statistics, July 2003
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It's being discussed on Question Time, BBC 1, right now (23:30 GMT)
F.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yes, this seems to have been hammered out too far already!

Well said. I still stand by my beliefs though, because (I believe) none of your examples applies to the passive-smoking in pubs. 1) has yet to be proven, and 3) is even more debatable.

No, they said "restrictions" might be a good idea. That's not banning, big difference. Again, I refer to my posts on the fallacies of polling. Without quantifying what it meant, the poll was conducted very poorly. Often, unfortunatly, this sort of thing is done deliberately. I'm all for restrictions myself, designated areas, clean-air standards, the option to run a fully non-smoking environment etc. If asked that question, I'd probably say yes, even though my views on a total ban are quite clear.
I'd be seriously surprised to hear as many as 10% of smokers wanting an outright ban, never mind 28%.

Conjecture. Firstly, it is not know how many non-smokers avoid pubs purely because of the smoke, so "the rest of the population" is quite a leap. I personally believe that figure to be very small, from my experience.
If you are looking at the non-pub-going public, there are a number of reasons why they don't go:
a) lazyness, why bother, Eastenders is on tonight anyway b) unsociable, a lot of people just aren't into socialising in a big way. We are discussing this on usenet, so that really needs no debate! ;-) c) they just don't drink very much d) they don't like loud music
I can reel off a whole list of names of folk I know who rarely go to pubs, for any one or all reasons above. I can't remember anyone complaining about smoke. The last one often influences which pub, rather than a total no-go situation.

It's interesting that the study you reference breaks these figures into two sections (Table 6.16). The first is those who believe in undeniable health risks with passive smoking, and those who don't. The results for each vary widely.
Basically, until passive-smoking is shown to be a genuine risk, I'm not gonna want a ban myself. Even then, you'd still have to be damn good to change my mind on the subject!! ;-)

Thanks for citing sources. At least someone round here knows how an adult discussion works.
F.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think that depends on where you sit in the debate. If you are already a smoker - in effect on the transmitting end of said passive smoking - then you are more likely to take a sceptical view since further acceptance and evidence that passive smoking is a problem is more likely to result in further curbs to smoking in the form of restrictions and price increases.

I'm only quoting the figures from the ONS survey.
As regards restrictions vs. total ban, in the same study, when asked about workplace smoking, 50% of the total supported an outright ban, 36% designated areas, 9% no restriction and 5% didn't work with others. These figures correlate quite closely to the "never smoked" view.
There has been a trend over the last few years towards outright ban at work - Table 6.9

There are obviously factors that are not smoking related which affect the decision whether to go to a pub or not.
In the same study, the respondents were asked about whether they took non smoking areas into an account when deciding where to go for a drink. or a meal.
In effect that eliminates your points a - d above because they are predisposed to go out.
Of the total population 43% take it into account for a meal and 19% for a drink. For the never-smoked the figures were 55% and 26%, for the ex-smokers 48 and 20%. For all current smokers, the figures were 14% and 2%
From these I would deduce that among the non smokers, having at least a non smoking area is important for eating and that perhaps they don't expect it for drinking. For the smokers, there seems to be an indication that they expect to be able to smoke anyway or that they don't care about there being non-smoking areas.

Look at the table again. The percentages are remarkably similar in pairs for all places except pubs which have their own correlation.
Also, it has to be realised that the vast majority of the population are not skilled in interpreting statistical evidence and are guided by newsbites. Almost all of the studies and papers that I've read on the subject point to an increase in a variety of diseases in the presence of ETS. There is a variation between studies in the numbers, but I find the evidence fairly compelling.

I wouldn't attempt it. Those most affected by ETS are not the smokers but those around them, so that is fairly intuitive.
I suspect that in reality we will see an introduction of a requirement to have non smoking areas in restaurants followed later by pubs.
This will be difficult for the smaller establishments because it would have to have some form of associated air quality standards or a requirement for there to be totally separate rooms. Otherwise, just having two tables in the corner designated for non-smoking would be used by publicans and that would not achieve the result.
For a number of years restaurants in California had to have non smoking areas, then it was extended to bars. It was then banned in restaurants, and finally more recently in bars as well.
There hasn't been a decline in trade due to this, although over the past year or two the economy in general has reduced restaurant and bar attendance.

.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Sure. It goes without saying that people find it easy to believe what they want to believe.
Price increases don't work by the way. You might be able to make a 40-a-day smoker turn to a 20-a-day, but that's about it. People just pay more. They are adicts. Healthwise, it's not a big improvement either, you have to stop 100% to get the benefits. Increasing tobacco duty hurts the poorest the most, as the majority of smokers are in the lower income scale of the economy.
On the other hand, you also have the government hiking up the price on a highly addictive drug. Sounds like the drug dealers we are all warned about at school!! Given the fact that most folk don't buy their first smokes (free samples to get you hooked), it's clear that tobacco is pretty much on a par with heroin!!

I've never argued the case for offices, totally agree with that one. I prefer a non-smoking environment, it's "cleaner" and clearly more suited for business.
How about tradesmen though? (to bring it vaguely back in the realms of DIY). I don't I've ever had a tradesman do work that didn't smoke. Do they smoke in non-smoking houses? Obviously, as a smoker myself, the smell and ashtrays give it away, they ask and they get.

I wanted to cut some of that out, but just couldn't. It's basically exactly what I've been saying from the start.
I've always said non-smoking sections should be mandatory in resteraunts. I actually thought they were, legally, but someone in this thread suggested otherwise.
As for bars, take a look at the figures of folk who want a ban:
Smokers 2% Ex-smokers 20% Never-smoked 26%
Overall 19%
Now, that just says it all. Would IMM please stand up and take a look at what we grown-ups call "proof". You do not represent the majority.

True. It's a pretty comprehensive breakdown of public opinion, showing that the publics attitudes to smoking in pubs are much more tolerant than they are to offices etc.
Now that I've looked closer, I realise that this isn't really an opinion poll you've cited. It's a proper government study done by the Office for National Statistics! That carries quite a lot more weight than a Channel 4 phone in poll!!
Will get round to reading the two papers you posted elsewhere tomorrow, Andy. Spent enough time on this debate already today.

Sadly true, especially given the public support for the Iraq war. Probably explains IMM, our resident fool's, atitudes. The thing is, most of these folk watch the news every night on TV and think they have a clue as to what's going on. Sad.
For those who don't realise it, TV news is dreadful. It's a bad medium for news, because the most compelling moving images to watch are always war, famine and disasters. Good things don't work on TV because they just aren't "visual" enough. Some hi-tech computer imagary and "neat" pictures of wrecked buildings will keep the viewer coming back for more, while the newscasters pay basic lipservice to the story. And stay tuned, we'll be right back after these important messages...

Yes, prolonged exposure is bad. Getting a few hours a week at the pub isn't.
Anyone that ever becomes a poster-child for ETS (had to look that TLA up!) is always the long term spouse of a heavy chain smoker, or been exposed through work. Roy Castle, played trombone, a heavy-going wind instrument in jazz bars for many many years. It's always extremes, because it's almost impossible to prove if causual exposure made a difference or not.
But those days are gone now. Things have changed drasticly over the past ten years. Parents don't smoke in front of kids. Most offices are non-smoking. Most resteraunts have very clean air. Even pubs are infinitely better now.
While looking up what ETS meant (I knew what you meant, just couldn't figure it out ;-), I came across this site:
http://www.davehitt.com/facts
The Epidemiology 101 & 102 pages are quite interesting, to see how the relative risks are calculated as well as distorted by both sides in this debate.
The site does seem to have a pro-tobacco "slant" that takes a little reading to pick up on. They do cite a World Health Organisate study (worth checking out) that said the risk of second hand smoke is very small, almost insignificant. There was a bit of controversy at the time, and the report was buried. Not the first time an organisation has had to duck for cover when a study didn't go the way it wanted...

This is going to stir it up a little. The same WHO report said (quoting the site):
<quote> The RR for exposure during childhood was 0.78, with a CI of .64 - .96. This indicates a protective effect! Children exposed to ETS in the home during childhood are 22% less likely to get lung cancer, according to this study. Note that this was the only result in the study that did not include 1.0 in the CI. The WHO quickly buried the report. The British press got wind of it and hounded them for weeks.
On March 8, 1998, the British newspaper The Telegraph reported "The world's leading health organization has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could have even a protective effect."
</quote>
The plot thickens...

As I tried to suggest in a reply to IMM, which he graciously ignored, I'm all for that. I'd like a symbol, like the VISA/SWITCH ones you get in shops, on the door of each pub explaining it's policies. You could have fully smoking, both & open, both and separate rooms, or no-smoking entirely. Leave it to the landlord and the public to decide. You might be screwed if you live in a small one-pub town, but you didn't move there for the nightlife, did you? :-)
But banning it outright would be a loss for common sense, and a victory for close-minded intolerant people who can't stand others having fun with things they don't even understand. This calls for some Hunter S Thomson:
"With a bit of luck, his life was ruined forever. Always thinking that just behind some narrow door in all of his favorite bars, men in red woolen shirts are getting incredible kicks from things he'll never know. "

Any economy figure is going to be skewed by the downward global trend since early 2001.
F./
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Most places I work at have a smoking ban, although some have designated areas like part of the canteen or bar - if it has one. I don't think even the heaviest smoker objects to this, although the ban is probably more to do with insurance and prevention of possible law suits than the genuine concern for the health of 'employees'.
Of course, as has been said, people also work in pubs. It would be easy enough to provide proper ventilation over bar areas etc, but of course a great deal of the anti lobby don't want solutions to a perceived problem but an outright ban. Which will be just about as effective as the ban on any drug...
--
*Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@argonet.co.uk London SW 12
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

will "negatively affect the equal rights of others" to a greater or lesser degree.
Society functions partly because we moderate anti-social activities and partly because we tolerate them.
--
Chris Green ( snipped-for-privacy@x-1.net)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 28 Nov 2003 12:38:17 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@isbd.co.uk wrote:

Agreed. I was trying to use a high level guiding principle. After that, everything is a negotiation .andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Emitting toxic fumes to others is a very GREAT extent.
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.542 / Virus Database: 336 - Release Date: 18/11/2003
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snip>

To be replaced by other nasty, but more politically acceptable, emissions (both in the exhaust and from the manufacturing of components to eliminate the emissions you are referring to...

Well I know of cases where a run away horse has either killed or seriously injured members of the public.
As for model aircraft enthusiasts, how about the fumes and noise pollution from radio controlled models ?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry. wrote:
injured members of the public.

Ere. Some of us fly electric exclusively you know!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Are horses regularly driven through restaurants and bars killing people like the toxic fumes in them right now.
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.542 / Virus Database: 336 - Release Date: 18/11/2003
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
IMM wrote:

No, but I can arrange it if you tell me where you are eating out next time.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.