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

[IMM]

What are you on about?

[Fraser]

So, you don't like people who don't share your view? Are you a facist?

Personally, I disagree with friends on key issues a lot. An important part of getting along with people is understanding that everyone is different.

Doesn't look that way to me. Every time I post a comment that you can't find a "witty" answer for, it gets ignored or not included in the next message from you. Had the roles been reversed, you'd probably be cutting and pasting them in shouting "see!! you don't have an answer".

In terms of actual content from you, I've yet to see anything that might convince anyone round to your point of view. You seen to have the debating skills of a teenager, if things don't go your way, logic is thrown out of the window and you stamp your feet saying "no no no no no"...

So, with proof or figures, explain what you find at fault with my statement above, which is entirely factually accurate.

F./

[Fraser]

No, it's irresponsible. Big difference.

F./

[Fraser]

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, f*ck 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./

[Fraser]

Hmm, I thought you viewed yourself as "brighter than me". OK, I'll explain:

The "shouting fire in a theatre" is one of the oldest conflicts in "freedom" legislation, and has been debated over a gazillion times in many countries. It actually forms part of the US constitution/amendments, IIRC. Now, free speech says you can say what you want, when you want. Now, if you went into a movie theatre and shouted "fire!!" at the top of your voice, you'd create a panic.

So, the point is that, yes, freedom is a good thing, but everything has limits.

In some ways, this furthers your argument, I'll concede that. My smoking could be conceived as the "fire!!", trying to cause you harm. But there are two differences:

a) In a theatre, you don't expect to be running out for false alarms b) In a bar, you expect to see people smoking

Knowing this, it is your choice to go there or not.

F.

[Fraser]

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.

[Fraser]

multi-million

Oops, damn OE ctrl-enter keyboard shortcut!!

had more, but I've lost them. There are other news articles that say the opposite as well.

F.

[IMM]

It is both!

[Andy Hall]

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

[Fraser]

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:

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):

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."

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./

[Jerry.]

So what is your excuse ?!...

[Ferger]

Sometimes you have to behave on gut instinct and throw rational analysis out of the window. This is one of those times. --

F

[Dave Plowman]

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...

[usenet]

But it's been pointed out that just about every single thing we do 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.

[usenet]

I think you need a rethink of your philosophy of life somewhere if you really believe that! In particular one's mental health ('happiness') is very tightly coupled to one's 'physical' health so you can't really have one without the other.

[Andy Hall]

Agreed. I was trying to use a high level guiding principle. After that, everything is a negotiation .andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

[IMM]

Emitting toxic fumes to others is a very GREAT extent.

[IMM]

That is sick isn't it!

Too true.

[Fraser]

It's not a philosophy, just an observation. Most things that are enjoyable are bad for you.

F.

[IMM]

Yu really scrape the barrel to justify this nicotine addiction. Smoking IS NOT enjoyable, as the majority of people will tell you.