Jobsworths.

[Andy Hall]

Good luck. I hope it continues to work.

[Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remaile]

Learn some grammar, idiot.

[dennis]

So you expect the staff in a shop to:

be cigar experts have similar tastes to you be able to afford decent cigars on minimum wage be married to partners who don't mind them smelling like a pile of burnt corpses to quit their jobs if they have a health problem that requires them to stop smoking

The last one by the way is discrimination and is illegal.

No just a few reasons including the law before the actual ban was enacted.

Why do you think so many companies were no smoking before the ban, they had lawyers that knew H&S laws and told them to ban it.

I did, I was one. But that was 35 years ago, I still never drink and drive so I am a teetotal pub visitor now. Now wasn't that a silly thing to ask?

[dennis]

Its easy to tell, if you know how. No need for ant special kit either. I will leave that as an exercise for the reader to explain in no more than twenty words.

[Stephen Howard]

Your research is dismally flawed...

...doubly so.

Regards,

[PCPaul]

It's not about changing my mind, it's about being convinced. And I'm not.

For instance, about the BMJ published paper that the article you reference rubbished - such was the rabid anti-smoking criticism (remember, I'm anti smoking, but pro-science) that the editor of the BMJ wrote this:

Amongst other points, he wrote "Fourthly, I found it disturbing that so many people and organisations referred to the flaws in the study without specifying what they were. Indeed, this debate was much more remarkable for its passion than its precision."

*That* is what I was talking about when I said it was as much smoke and mirrors as with global warming. Both sides passionately believe they are right. I can't see the science for the noise. If you think you can, then either prove it by supplying good solid sources or just go along believing without them, that's your choice.

Of course if you believe it but can't prove it, then that isn't science, is it?

[Dave Plowman (News)]

As you would trying to fill a car with cigarette smoke...

[Arfa Daily]

Ok. I see what you are saying now. In fact, now I come to think about it, it only has one tarp at the end that the prevailing wind comes from, so it is not illegal, it is 'only just' legal

Arfa

[Arfa Daily]

My local club never was a cinema in the first place. As far as their business being 'fragile', I wouldn't say that it was, any more so than any other business. In fact, prior to all this, I would have held it up as a shining example of a very well managed business, that ran like a well oiled machine. The club holds getting on for 1500 people, and prior to the smoking ban, probably about 300 seats were in the "non smoking" area, so that tells us that, although there is a surprisingly broad spectrum of people who frequent the place - and I'm talking 18 to 90 years old, manual workers to white collar managers, and an equal mix of male and female, for some reason, a large proportion of them are smokers. When you are waiting on one or two numbers to win a big prize (I have won a lot of money there over the years -

300 quid last Sunday night) it can get pretty nerve wracking, which is why, I guess that the smokers liked to smoke whilst playing. Now that they can no longer do that within the club, I imagine that has an influence on how much they really want to be there. Any single factor can easily wreck a business that was previously solid. A village shop that has always did good business, could be wrecked by Tesco building a store up the road. A pub could be finished off by a bypass or a change in traffic or parking restrictions. In the case of the bingo hall, it's the smoking ban.

It's not as if it actually caused any real problem. The club has air conditioning, that kept the air very smoke-free. I certainly never used to notice it sitting in the non smoking area, and I am really sensitive to it, being an ex-smoker.

Arfa

[Arfa Daily]

Well I don't know about any clubs where you are, but that certainly isn't the case in my club. And as for 'casinos', there aren't any in this country. The tarted up sheds and converted old factories that they call 'casinos', are little more than glorified slot palaces, with payouts of a few percent, with a couple of card tables and a roulette wheel shoehorned in where they can. Oh, and I forgot, a bar that charges £5 for a pint of beer ...

Arfa

[Rod]

Could you please confirm what species you are? Most earth-based animal species find that carbon dioxide is poisonous. (As with most poisons, the actual amount is important.)

Or does your car (with cat) not produce any carbon dioxide either?

[Andy Hall]

People with addictive behaviour perhaps? There are alcoholics and smokers from across the spectrum of people as well....

I seem to remember reading somewhere that something like 60% of bingo players smoke, which does suggest a connection.

Liked to smoke, or needed to smoke because of the situation? Take away the opportunity to smoke, and now people don't want to go there any more because it's too stressful for them?

You talk of having "won" £300. Taking a reasonable length of time - e.g. a year, do you show a profit?

Believable, I think. Stay at home, drink cheap booze from the supermarket and smoke? Play on-line bingo?

These are comparable, in the sense that something external to the business affects it. However, all business involves some risk. Sometimes it is not under the control of the business to address these influences..

However:

- For the village shop it could be moving up market and specialising in some things that would attract people from a wider area.

- Same thing for the pub. I can think of numerous pubs that have had their passing trade removed by a bypass and have successfully reinvented and remarketed themselves

However, I think that the bingo hall case is rather different. Presumably they make their money from gambling and selling alcohol, predominantly? They haven't been hit by a new competitive influence (e.g. there isn't a Tesco), nor by access problems (the pub), but by something that theoretically shouldn't be core to their business. Yet it apparently is. The business owners should be thinking about why and what they can do about it. It's unlikely that there will be a change to smoking legislation, so it would be unwise for them to campaign for that. They could build smoking shelters outside, although one wonders whether they would want to do that since it would pull people away from the opportunity to spend.

It seems unlikely also that the bingo companies would be able or willing to incent their core clientele not to need to smoke and just do the gambling and drinking. They are much more likely to re-use the premises for other things or close and sell or re-let them. Perhaps that will be by expanding their on-line bingo offerings, although I suspect that that is much more competitive. I have every confidence that they will come up with ways to part people from their money even if it's not in bricks and mortar places any longer.

The debate about passive smoking and for that matter active smoking continues. Alcohol prohibition didn't work in the U.S. as a means to address alcoholism on a mass scale. It's unlikely that a public smoking ban will make much difference on a grand scale to those addicted to nicotine. Gambling is regulated in some way already. All of these do affect other people than the participants, be it on an immediate or longer term basis.

We don't know in a clinically rigorous way, yet, what all of the influences are between secondary exposure to tobacco smoke and various health issues. That will take decades of further epidemiological study. However, since there are demonstrable factors such as the same toxins being found in the bloodstream of people exposed to passive smoking as for active smoking, it seems prudent to address that where possible. If it turns out that the demise of all of the bingo halls in the country saves just a handful of lives, then it is clear that the priorities are in the right place.

[Andy Hall]

I remember at old episode of Star Trek where they found holes in cave walls. it turned out to be a silicon based life form. Eventually it was discovered that it was injured and repaired it with mortar. Fascinating.

[Rod]

What? There are some episodes that aren't old? :-)

Amazing what they must have in the stores of the USS Enterprise! But I don't recall that episode. They had some excellent story lines - even if the resulting programs didn;t always do them justice.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

IIRC, CO2 isn't actually a poison. It's simply that it doesn't support human life on its own. So death would be caused purely by suffocation - whereas C0 in large enough quantities will actively kill you even if adequate oxygen is still present. A fine distinction, maybe.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

There's quite a lot of evidence that people who get truly addicted to say alcohol will exhibit other addictive behaviour - although not necessarily to another drug.

[Rod]

Dave,

"It is dangerous when inhaled in high concentrations (greater than 5% by volume, or 50,000 ppm). The current threshold limit value (TLV) or maximum level that is considered safe for healthy adults for an eight-hour work day is 0.5% (5,000 ppm). The maximum safe level for infants, children, the elderly and individuals with cardio-pulmonary health issues is significantly less."

Of course, Wiki isn't the definitive source for things, but this accords with what I remember. Certainly not just suffocation.

Yes - Carbon Monoxide does form the stable carboxyhaemoglobin which precludes the person's blood from carrying sufficient oxygen to maintain life. And that is certainly a different mechanism. And offer me a choice of a couple of percent of CO versus CO2 in my air supply and I know which I would choose. :-)

[Ian White]

"Dammit, Jim, I'm a DIYer, not a bricklayer!"

[dennis]

And free food and tea and coffee and no smoke! ;-)

[dennis]

Oxygen is a poison too, what is your point?