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

Page 9 of 13  


Yeah, of the people who bothered to vote. It's fairly safe to say that the "don't really care about it" people made up most of the several million viewers that didn't phone it it. People passionate enough to phone in fall into two groups, those for the ban, and smokers against it.
You've never studied statistics, and it shows.
F.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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

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:
http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/hayward/98/polls.html
which 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.
F.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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.
--
--

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 go to some shit pubs if you think they are all (or mostly) multi-million pound chains. The best pubs are independent, and these people will go out of business because of this. The multi-million pound chains will snap up these pubs. McBeer anyone? That's not the kind of pub I want to go to.
Some example stories in the media:

Utter nonsence. The number of people who don't go to pubs because of the smoke will be far lower than the number of people who:
a) smoke themselves and no longer go to pubs b) have friends who smoke, and now have no one to go with
Who are these people who don't go to pubs because of the smoke? I have a massive circle of friends, and I can't remember anyone ever actually saying that.
Aw, feck it. I prefer a good party to a night out clubbing anyway. You can do things that they won't let you do in pubs anyway. Have your ban. I'm out of this mindless discussion.
F./
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Oops, damn OE ctrl-enter keyboard shortcut!!
http://www.gazette.net/200345/kensington/news/186101-1.html
I had more, but I've lost them. There are other news articles that say the opposite as well.
F.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Other's use of alcohol probably has more effect on the health of the nation than passive smoking. Apart from Roy Castle, how many people do you know who have definitely been harmed by this? But drunk drivers, etc, are all too common.
It would be very easy to provide a ventilation system in restaurants etc which removed any chance of smoke irritating those in a non smoking area. But a drunk filter is rather more difficult.
--
*If you ate pasta and anti-pasta, would you still be hungry?

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
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 00:31:55 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman

If smoking kills 50% of all addicts one way or another, it is a little hard to believe in the argument that the unfiltered smoke is harmless to anyone in the vicinity, frankly.
--
If all the world's a stage I sure got lousy seats...

Mail john rather than nospam...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Apart from drink driving and killing people, I can't see how an alcoholic affects other people, apart from their immediate family. I worked alongside a man for 5 years and did not know he was an alcoholic. It never affected his work life and he worked very hard.
Apart from Roy Castle, how many people do you

A relative, whoes mother chain smoked from when he was born. The doctors said if his mother did not smoke in front of him when so young his lungs would not be half shot as they now are.

Very true.
--
--

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
Obviously selected for maximum effect; but just to mention some 'actual life' (or should that be 'death'?) situations: A current ad on Canadian TV is a waitress who has never smoked but has spent her working life in a bar where people smoked. She has terminal lung cancer due to 'Second Hand Smoke'. Many bars and restaurants now do not allow smoking. Another, a woman, not yet 60, worked for me and was an inveterate smoker. She has a slightly mentally challenged daughter who is dependent on her. Met her recently following the removal of one complete lung. Terry. PS. One day my son and I stopped because there was a two to three year old used vehicle, in seemingly very good condition, posted with a more than reasonable price and low mileage. The moment we opened the door to look inside the reason was obvious. The 'stink' was awful. The driver must have been a chain smoker (maybe he had died?). Our estimate was that due to the smoke damage the vehicle had lost 'at least' several thousand dollars due to smoke damage. If you take conservative estimates of a) The loss of value (-$4000); together with b) The cost of cigarettes for say three years at two packs a day? (-$7500) plus higher life insurance premiums for someone in mid life, say (3 X 1000 = -$3000). Total dollars around -$15000 over three years plus health costs? If that $approx. $5000 per year figure is anywhere near correct that's a heck of a cost over a lifetime; and considering that's after paying income tax is equivalent to gross earnings of somewhere around $300,000! WOW!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yup, and bars know they now have to make an effort to clean the air. So we do have an improvement.
Secondly, people without exposure to second-hand smoke also get terminal lung cancer. Who is to say she wouldn't have gotten it even if she spent her life working in the open air in the country? Your wording is very interesting, when scientifically, there isn't really away that you can say - "She has terminal lung cancer due to 'Second Hand Smoke'" and be 100% accurate.
What's more accurate would be:
"She worked in a smoky atmosphere for a very long time, and it's very likely that it led to her terminal lung cancer". I'm a stickler for things like this, campaigners for just about everything (both sides!) use similar leading wording like yours to imply connections. Like Bush every time he uses the word "Terror" in relation to Iraq. Total manipulation.
But she is an extreme case. Extreme cases, or shock tactics, don't work for everyone. If people don't see the "shock" around them in day-to-day life, then they figure it doesn't apply to them. Of course, I'm sure they work for some folk, "what price a life" and all that!!

Tragic. Yes, smoking kills unfortunatly. That's never been the debate here.

Hmm, horrible. I smoke in my car, but always with the window open. Combined with an anti-tobacco air freshener, it's not smelly at all. The previous owner must have smoked on mine as well, ashtray and lighter had been used. Your guy must have been like a chimney, minus the open window to get rid of the smoke!! You could have probably gotten rid of the smell with a little work and household cleaners, and made a killing reselling it all cleaned up. Given the care he took of himself (smoking in confined space = bad!), I doubt the engine would have been up to much tho!!

Ignore that, it's small fry. ;-)

Two packs a day is a lot, most smokers are probably under one. But it's still a ridiculous sum. Do some calcs with groceries and rent/mortgages, and you'll it's not all that bad, but still a healthy (pun intended) chunk of your cash.
By the way, you can remove the "health costs" from the calculation. Even as a non-smoker, you are still going to die, and likely need medical care during the process. If you somehow manage survive whatever it is that gets you first, you then get to spend your money you saved on residential care, while you rot away.
F.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How many of them? Few and far between.

Oh my God the addicted are at it again!! "They would have got it anyway", and "my granddad died at 90 and chain smoked and was siuper fit (as if)", etc.
The probability of getting lung cancer when smoking is massively higher.
...and he rambles on....

He fails to understand probabilities.

Are you mad? many here are telling us it doesn't or the risk is so low it is not worth talking about and smokers have this God given right to ruin other people's health.
..and more absolute garbage from the addicted...

You can NEVER get rid of the awful nicotine small in a car. The only way is to replace the capets and roof lining and hope you have wash down leather seats. he NEVER goes away.
I only buy new cars as I know there hasn't been a smoker in it.

Sure it is!
--
--

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

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

Or maybe the driver/owner had killed a couple of kids while driving when under the influence of alcohol ;-(
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Or maybe he was on the grassy knoll too.
--
--

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
wrote:

Marlboro always had large ads on TV and boards and in mags, etc, showing a cowboy smoking on a horse in open prairie, giving the message of health and fresh air. Smoke these and you will be healthy was the message.
The actor who mostly played the cowboy was dying of lung cancer caused by cigarettes. He was being interviewed on TV recalling an add shoot. He noticed all the top Marlboro managers and executives never smoked. He was curious and asked them why none of them smoked, being very strange he thought for a tobacco company telling everyone else to smoke. They responded by saying "we know what this shit does to you, but we reserve the right for the stupid, the poor and blacks to smoke".
--
--

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

I happen to work with Mr Aspel frequently, and you're as accurate about him as about everything else.
The ability to learn lines often in a short time is a skill most can only wonder at - or even to read it convincingly off a prompter.
Quoting 'facts' from a maker's website or catalogue is something a near imbecile can do easily. And some do.
--
*I'm really easy to get along with once people learn to worship me

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
John Laird wrote:

Of course, the next stage will be to ban aromatherapy and scented candles in the home as well. FAR worse. And definitely band teh buring of incense in 'public places' like churches and mosques and ashrams..
Oh, and while we are at it, peanut butter. Nasty stuff, peanut biutter, if you are allergic to it.
And household pets. They cause allergic reactions and carry toxic parasites...
You know, the only thig left to do with our kids is seal them in white plastic bags and give them to Michael Jackson.

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

If they make people ill then ban them.
...our resident clown imparts some wisdom to us all....

--
--

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

This 'our resident clown' business that you insist on adopting in your quoting.....it has to be the most patronising, arrogant approach I've seen on usenet. So well done, I can't even remember what you're arguing about anymore, but I disagree with you on principle ..
F
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.