Smokers suck

[ChezGiven 0]

First important point is that the largest study ever undertaken on smoking was a passive smoking study in LA which used data from over 100,000 people. The original Doll study which proved the link between smoking and cancer only had 30,000. That is to do with statistical power and the incidence of the event under investigation. Whatever, the passive smoking study showed no increased risk of smoking related illness through exposure to passive smoking.

 

Banning smoking from public houses for the convenience of workers who dont like the smell or for 'cosmetic' reasons is akin to banning fish from fish and chip shops because the staff smell of fish.

 

Source? Who funded the study? My old professor once conducted a meta-analysis on passive smoking and came to the same conclusion. The fact he was funded by BAT had no bearing whatsoever.....

 

From any rational viewpoint, it is glaringly obvious that the particulate matter present in passive smoke will increase the risk of a huge range of respiratory diseases. The only question that can be debated is by how much, and you know as well as I do this question can't be resolved ethically by any controlled trials.

 

Your point about "cosmetic" reason is invalid too I'm afraid. The majority of people don't smoke, and believe me, it's pretty disgusting if you don't. You end up stinking of it which can make you feel nausous.

 

Ref = E. Enstrom and G. C. Kabat Br. Med. J. 326, 1057; 2003

 

The cosmetic reason is valid if the exposure to the risky agent is not strong enough to cause diseases.

 

We are exposed to the sun every day and this has risks but the exposure level is not high enough generally to be problematic. You should know Renton that exposure does not lead to outcomes if the exposure level is considered safe. Sunlight, car fumes etc. All dangerous at certain levels but safe at others. The passive smoking study suggests that exposure via this method is not strong enough.

 

Hence if there is no evidence it is a cosmetic reason as it is not a health related one, on the basis of the evidence. Hence the comparison to another of our wonderful traditions, the fish and chip shop is equally valid.

 

 

I'll have a look at that ref when I get the chance, cheers.

 

You're analogy is still bogus though, I go into a Fish and Chip shop to buy said goods, and the smell of them is part of the process. I don't go into a pub to smoke and don't want it inflicted on me.

 

I had a great burger in Copperfields yesterday, for the first time ever the experience wasn't tainted with second hand smoke.

 

It was more about the employees of pubs as this is the main reason behind the ban.

 

Employees of fish and chip shops hate smelling of fish.

 

What have people done in pubs for the last 5 centuries? When you started going to oubs were you not aware of this half a millenium long tradition?

 

Doesnt matter, am happy for the ban to be in place but without a shred of evidence to suggest that passive smoking causes diseases, what else is the ban but cosmetic and an incentive to give up?

[The Fish 9010]

Aren't cigarettes and alcohol taxed then?

not enough imo

[Guest alex]

it was a throw away post to be fair, not like I put much thought into it.

 

if you took it seriously you definitely need your head read

 

even in the post I said it was an extreme view which I didn't subscribe to, I was just posting through boredom. Pay attention.

 

anyhoo them what wants to smoke will smoke and thems what don't, won't.

 

*backtrack*

 

You do sound a bit judgemental Fish, I reckon you do subscribe to some of what you said.

 

I do think that smokers, morbidly obese people and heavy drinkers should in some way "pay" the extra cost to the NHS that they create.

 

in regards to the drinkers and fatties ( ), this could be in levies or mandatory attendance to courses to help buck their trend.

 

obviously there's a million and one reasons why this won't work and there's a million and one reasons why this opinion is abhorent to many. That's ok because I freely admit it's a little extreme and equally am unsurprised that it will probably never come to pass. I don't bemoan and rail against the system because I know the view of the majority vastly contradicts my own and so I am not that bothered. I don't take it seriously because I know that my view is not based on facts and figures, just a gut (scuse the pun)reaction and it is dismissed by others as such (justifiably so). I'm not expecting people to rally behind my flag because it's a ridiculous opinion, ridiculous in the truest sense of the word.

 

the rest was just for melodrama

Students shouldn't get treatment because they aren't contributing to the NHS much. Or is that different?

[Renton 17824]

Aren't cigarettes and alcohol taxed then?

not enough imo

 

Really? Smokers more than make up for the extra expense they get from the NHS, plus they die quicker, so aren't a burden in old age. Everyone's a winner.

[ChezGiven 0]

it was a throw away post to be fair, not like I put much thought into it.

 

if you took it seriously you definitely need your head read

 

even in the post I said it was an extreme view which I didn't subscribe to, I was just posting through boredom. Pay attention.

 

anyhoo them what wants to smoke will smoke and thems what don't, won't.

 

*backtrack*

 

You do sound a bit judgemental Fish, I reckon you do subscribe to some of what you said.

 

I do think that smokers, morbidly obese people and heavy drinkers should in some way "pay" the extra cost to the NHS that they create.

in regards to the drinkers and fatties ( ), this could be in levies or mandatory attendance to courses to help buck their trend.

 

obviously there's a million and one reasons why this won't work and there's a million and one reasons why this opinion is abhorent to many. That's ok because I freely admit it's a little extreme and equally am unsurprised that it will probably never come to pass. I don't bemoan and rail against the system because I know the view of the majority vastly contradicts my own and so I am not that bothered. I don't take it seriously because I know that my view is not based on facts and figures, just a gut (scuse the pun)reaction and it is dismissed by others as such (justifiably so). I'm not expecting people to rally behind my flag because it's a ridiculous opinion, ridiculous in the truest sense of the word.

 

the rest was just for melodrama

 

The thing is though Fish we already do as the tax revenue from smoking is higher than the estimated cost of smoking realted diseases.

 

Things that are 'bads' rahter than 'goods' have always been taxed. If we had a 'fat tax' i understand that you might be a little more out of pocket too

[Renton 17824]

First important point is that the largest study ever undertaken on smoking was a passive smoking study in LA which used data from over 100,000 people. The original Doll study which proved the link between smoking and cancer only had 30,000. That is to do with statistical power and the incidence of the event under investigation. Whatever, the passive smoking study showed no increased risk of smoking related illness through exposure to passive smoking.

 

Banning smoking from public houses for the convenience of workers who dont like the smell or for 'cosmetic' reasons is akin to banning fish from fish and chip shops because the staff smell of fish.

 

Source? Who funded the study? My old professor once conducted a meta-analysis on passive smoking and came to the same conclusion. The fact he was funded by BAT had no bearing whatsoever.....

 

From any rational viewpoint, it is glaringly obvious that the particulate matter present in passive smoke will increase the risk of a huge range of respiratory diseases. The only question that can be debated is by how much, and you know as well as I do this question can't be resolved ethically by any controlled trials.

 

Your point about "cosmetic" reason is invalid too I'm afraid. The majority of people don't smoke, and believe me, it's pretty disgusting if you don't. You end up stinking of it which can make you feel nausous.

 

Ref = E. Enstrom and G. C. Kabat Br. Med. J. 326, 1057; 2003

 

The cosmetic reason is valid if the exposure to the risky agent is not strong enough to cause diseases.

 

We are exposed to the sun every day and this has risks but the exposure level is not high enough generally to be problematic. You should know Renton that exposure does not lead to outcomes if the exposure level is considered safe. Sunlight, car fumes etc. All dangerous at certain levels but safe at others. The passive smoking study suggests that exposure via this method is not strong enough.

 

Hence if there is no evidence it is a cosmetic reason as it is not a health related one, on the basis of the evidence. Hence the comparison to another of our wonderful traditions, the fish and chip shop is equally valid.

 

 

I'll have a look at that ref when I get the chance, cheers.

 

You're analogy is still bogus though, I go into a Fish and Chip shop to buy said goods, and the smell of them is part of the process. I don't go into a pub to smoke and don't want it inflicted on me.

 

I had a great burger in Copperfields yesterday, for the first time ever the experience wasn't tainted with second hand smoke.

 

It was more about the employees of pubs as this is the main reason behind the ban.

 

Employees of fish and chip shops hate smelling of fish.

 

What have people done in pubs for the last 5 centuries? When you started going to oubs were you not aware of this half a millenium long tradition?

 

Doesnt matter, am happy for the ban to be in place but without a shred of evidence to suggest that passive smoking causes diseases, what else is the ban but cosmetic and an incentive to give up?

 

I can't argue the toss on the evidence really having not read it (yet), but I still reckon your analogy's crocked.

[Park Life 70]

Spain is interesting I think the smoking ban came into affect a year ago. My mate who lives there says pretty much no one has paid much attention to it apart from Govt type places.

 

 

Won't happen in Italy either and the Germans have seen sense.

 

 

ONLY PRISON ISLAND GOES FORWARD.

 

It'll be like living in LA soon.

[ChezGiven 0]

First important point is that the largest study ever undertaken on smoking was a passive smoking study in LA which used data from over 100,000 people. The original Doll study which proved the link between smoking and cancer only had 30,000. That is to do with statistical power and the incidence of the event under investigation. Whatever, the passive smoking study showed no increased risk of smoking related illness through exposure to passive smoking.

 

Banning smoking from public houses for the convenience of workers who dont like the smell or for 'cosmetic' reasons is akin to banning fish from fish and chip shops because the staff smell of fish.

 

Source? Who funded the study? My old professor once conducted a meta-analysis on passive smoking and came to the same conclusion. The fact he was funded by BAT had no bearing whatsoever.....

 

From any rational viewpoint, it is glaringly obvious that the particulate matter present in passive smoke will increase the risk of a huge range of respiratory diseases. The only question that can be debated is by how much, and you know as well as I do this question can't be resolved ethically by any controlled trials.

 

Your point about "cosmetic" reason is invalid too I'm afraid. The majority of people don't smoke, and believe me, it's pretty disgusting if you don't. You end up stinking of it which can make you feel nausous.

 

Ref = E. Enstrom and G. C. Kabat Br. Med. J. 326, 1057; 2003

 

The cosmetic reason is valid if the exposure to the risky agent is not strong enough to cause diseases.

 

We are exposed to the sun every day and this has risks but the exposure level is not high enough generally to be problematic. You should know Renton that exposure does not lead to outcomes if the exposure level is considered safe. Sunlight, car fumes etc. All dangerous at certain levels but safe at others. The passive smoking study suggests that exposure via this method is not strong enough.

 

Hence if there is no evidence it is a cosmetic reason as it is not a health related one, on the basis of the evidence. Hence the comparison to another of our wonderful traditions, the fish and chip shop is equally valid.

 

 

I'll have a look at that ref when I get the chance, cheers.

 

You're analogy is still bogus though, I go into a Fish and Chip shop to buy said goods, and the smell of them is part of the process. I don't go into a pub to smoke and don't want it inflicted on me.

 

I had a great burger in Copperfields yesterday, for the first time ever the experience wasn't tainted with second hand smoke.

 

It was more about the employees of pubs as this is the main reason behind the ban.

 

Employees of fish and chip shops hate smelling of fish.

 

What have people done in pubs for the last 5 centuries? When you started going to oubs were you not aware of this half a millenium long tradition?

 

Doesnt matter, am happy for the ban to be in place but without a shred of evidence to suggest that passive smoking causes diseases, what else is the ban but cosmetic and an incentive to give up?

 

I can't argue the toss on the evidence really having not read it (yet), but I still reckon your analogy's crocked.

 

Ok its not brillant but its nots that bad either.

[Park Life 70]

Aren't cigarettes and alcohol taxed then?

not enough imo

 

Really? Smokers more than make up for the extra expense they get from the NHS, plus they die quicker, so aren't a burden in old age. Everyone's a winner.

 

The figures from Ash are earlier in this thread. Fop I think it was.

 

Sumamt like £10bn collected and £2-3bn used for smoking related treatment. iirc

[Guest alex]

Spain is interesting I think the smoking ban came into affect a year ago. My mate who lives there says pretty much no one has paid much attention to it apart from Govt type places.

 

 

Won't happen in Italy either and the Germans have seen sense.

 

 

ONLY PRISON ISLAND GOES FORWARD.

 

It'll be like living in LA soon.

I thought it already had happened in Italy. Everyone went outside to smoke when I was there last summer.

[ChezGiven 0]

Spain is interesting I think the smoking ban came into affect a year ago. My mate who lives there says pretty much no one has paid much attention to it apart from Govt type places.

 

 

Won't happen in Italy either and the Germans have seen sense.

 

 

ONLY PRISON ISLAND GOES FORWARD.

 

It'll be like living in LA soon.

 

the Italians were one of the first countries and they are very strict about it. I was in a hotle just outside Rome in early 2005 and they had just introduced it and it was on the street only.

 

I still smoke in hotel Lobby's in France.

 

The Spanish have completely ignored it on the whole and it is unworkable there.

[Renton 17824]

Spain is interesting I think the smoking ban came into affect a year ago. My mate who lives there says pretty much no one has paid much attention to it apart from Govt type places.

 

 

Won't happen in Italy either and the Germans have seen sense.

 

 

ONLY PRISON ISLAND GOES FORWARD.

 

It'll be like living in LA soon.

 

I was in Spain yesterday and I can assure you you can smoke just about anywhere there. The rest of the EU will follow the UK in time.

[Park Life 70]

Spain is interesting I think the smoking ban came into affect a year ago. My mate who lives there says pretty much no one has paid much attention to it apart from Govt type places.

 

 

Won't happen in Italy either and the Germans have seen sense.

 

 

ONLY PRISON ISLAND GOES FORWARD.

 

It'll be like living in LA soon.

I thought it already had happened in Italy. Everyone went outside to smoke when I was there last summer.

 

It's not overtly strick in Italy apparently....Not sure. I'll call up some Italians and ask.

Lorenzo just came back from Sardinia and Genova and he didn't say anything (smoker).

[ChezGiven 0]

The Spanish have a smoking ban. They just ignore it.

[Guest alex]

Spain is interesting I think the smoking ban came into affect a year ago. My mate who lives there says pretty much no one has paid much attention to it apart from Govt type places.

 

 

Won't happen in Italy either and the Germans have seen sense.

 

 

ONLY PRISON ISLAND GOES FORWARD.

 

It'll be like living in LA soon.

I thought it already had happened in Italy. Everyone went outside to smoke when I was there last summer.

 

It's not overtly strick in Italy apparently....Not sure. I'll call up some Italians and ask.

Lorenzo just came back from Sardinia and Genova and he didn't say anything (smoker).

So, you're making it up then?

[Park Life 70]

Spain is interesting I think the smoking ban came into affect a year ago. My mate who lives there says pretty much no one has paid much attention to it apart from Govt type places.

 

 

Won't happen in Italy either and the Germans have seen sense.

 

 

ONLY PRISON ISLAND GOES FORWARD.

 

It'll be like living in LA soon.

I thought it already had happened in Italy. Everyone went outside to smoke when I was there last summer.

 

It's not overtly strick in Italy apparently....Not sure. I'll call up some Italians and ask.

Lorenzo just came back from Sardinia and Genova and he didn't say anything (smoker).

So, you're making it up then?

 

Lorenzo is Italian and his family live in Italy if he had hastles smoking I'd know about it.

[Renton 17824]

The Spanish have a smoking ban. They just ignore it.

 

 

Cigarettes are practically free, there are ash trays everywhere, and I didn't spot one no smoking sign!

 

Btw, maybe I missed out on somthing else earlier in the thread, but surely the main advantage of a ban will be to help people quit.

[Park Life 70]

The Spanish have a smoking ban. They just ignore it.

 

 

Cigarettes are practically free, there are ash trays everywhere, and I didn't spot one no smoking sign!

 

Btw, maybe I missed out on somthing else earlier in the thread, but surely the main advantage of a ban will be to help people quit.

 

The only thing I've noticed is that I can't smoke (in the dining car anymore) on my weekly train rides to Dusseldorf or Frankfurt. There is still a smoking carriage which reeks of evil old smoke.

[Guest alex]

Spain is interesting I think the smoking ban came into affect a year ago. My mate who lives there says pretty much no one has paid much attention to it apart from Govt type places.

 

 

Won't happen in Italy either and the Germans have seen sense.

 

 

ONLY PRISON ISLAND GOES FORWARD.

 

It'll be like living in LA soon.

I thought it already had happened in Italy. Everyone went outside to smoke when I was there last summer.

 

It's not overtly strick in Italy apparently....Not sure. I'll call up some Italians and ask.

Lorenzo just came back from Sardinia and Genova and he didn't say anything (smoker).

So, you're making it up then?

 

Lorenzo is Italian and his family live in Italy if he had hastles smoking I'd know about it.

Well, I'm only going off when I was there. The place I spent most of my time was one of those bar/cafe/ice cream parlour places they have there than double up as a tabacconists. It wasn't a toursity place and it was full of locals. I watched a fair few World Cup matches there. No one smoked. I didn't see anyone else smoking in similar places. I would have thought a small place full of locals in a part of Umbria where there weren't many tourists would have been a place that flouted the ban if anywhere did. Especially when it was full of all the local geezers watching Italia play. Maybe it wasn't an issue for you mate with it being summer anyway, i.e. sitting outdoors all the time.

[The Fish 9010]

 

The thing is though Fish we already do as the tax revenue from smoking is higher than the estimated cost of smoking realted diseases.

 

Things that are 'bads' rahter than 'goods' have always been taxed. If we had a 'fat tax' i understand that you might be a little more out of pocket too

 

 

I know smokers pay a phenomenal amount for their art, but to be honest, it's bad for you, you know it's bad for you, we know it's bad for you, we can tax the shit out of you because you don't want to quit. If you're damn fool enough to keep paying for something that's bad for you and (in comparison to more suspect products) gives you fuck all "buzz" then you have absolutely no right to complain about the taxation.

 

I think the drinking age should be raised and I think companies who target the youth should be punished, I think publicans and tradesmen with a license to sell alcohol should be forced to encourage responible drinking and rewarded for their efforts in that aim.

 

I think that the best place to start the movement away from the "cigarettes and alcohol" culture is in the schools.

 

if you trawl the site you'll find that I would fully and whole heartedly support a fat-tax.

[Renton 17824]

It's odd that the German's having banned smoking yet, and the Irish have. Quiz, who said words to the effect:

 

In Germany, anything that is not permitted is forbidden.

In England, anything that is not forbidden is permitted.

In Ireland, you can do what the fuck you want.

 

?

[Guest alex]

A fat tax is a fucking stupid idea too btw.

[The Fish 9010]

A fat tax is a fucking stupid idea too btw.

of course is it if you take it at face value, but the ideal is a noble one

[Park Life 70]

 

The thing is though Fish we already do as the tax revenue from smoking is higher than the estimated cost of smoking realted diseases.

 

Things that are 'bads' rahter than 'goods' have always been taxed. If we had a 'fat tax' i understand that you might be a little more out of pocket too

 

 

I know smokers pay a phenomenal amount for their art, but to be honest, it's bad for you, you know it's bad for you, we know it's bad for you, we can tax the shit out of you because you don't want to quit. If you're damn fool enough to keep paying for something that's bad for you and (in comparison to more suspect products) gives you fuck all "buzz" then you have absolutely no right to complain about the taxation.

 

I think the drinking age should be raised and I think companies who target the youth should be punished, I think publicans and tradesmen with a license to sell alcohol should be forced to encourage responible drinking and rewarded for their efforts in that aim.

 

I think that the best place to start the movement away from the "cigarettes and alcohol" culture is in the schools.

 

if you trawl the site you'll find that I would fully and whole heartedly support a fat-tax.

 

 

Who wants to end up living in fucking Gattacca?!11

[Guest alex]

A fat tax is a fucking stupid idea too btw.

of course is it if you take it at face value, but the ideal is a noble one

How does it work then?