You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
There are definitely benefits to be had from discouraging excessive consumption of high fat foods, but I think those benefits would be felt by all of us, regardless of body weight. One thing at a time, though, eh?
CX_Monkey another person curious as too which pub? Trusham or Lower Ashton based?
I just want to suggest to those who think the smoking ban killed pubs to maybe consider lifestyle changes, a decade ago Friday night I'd be in the pub socialising with friends of all ages, now on a friday night I am either riding, climbing or going to the gym/exercising with those friends.
The last decade or more has been like the digital camera for kodak IMO for pubs. Good pubs with good owners who have good relations with customers and adapted are doing well. Rubbish pubs, with bad owners who don't keep up are being left behind. Oddly I've found that whether pubs carry any alcohol free options a strong correlation between good and bad pubs.
I saw some comments about cans at home versus the pint due to price, yes some pints are £6 or £7 now, but you used to be able to get 8 cans for a £5 and now you can barely get 4 unless you want Fosters! I think the price of cans has increased more then the price of pints!
If you just want lager, you regularly see Stella on offer for about £14/£15 for 18 cans.
The price jump has been in the rise of "craft" beer.
I was of the understanding that nicotine was harmless?
Pretty much but not totally I believe. I can't remember the details but I did look into it some time back and there is some evidence that nicotine has a slightly negative effect on the your immune system but I can't remember which bit.
Certainly since I stopped all nicotine products, which I was on for many years after giving up (chewing gum/lozenges) I now hardly ever get colds and when I do they are usually extremely mild.
I don't think nicotine affects your cardiovascular system anymore than the caffeine from a strong cup of coffee would, eg increase your BP. I believe the damage that smoking does to your arteries is mostly from the carbon monoxide which makes cholesterol more likely to stick to your arteries, or sumfink
I was of the understanding that nicotine was harmless? It was just the delivery system that was the problem?
Do you have a source for the harm of nicotine?
It can cause acute inpacts such as raised heart rate, much like coffee. Google may tell you otherwise based on random studies of heavily dosed mice, but From the British heart foundation..
It does not cause acute cardiac events or coronary heart disease, and is not carcinogenic. But nicotine is a problem for people with heart disease. It raises the heart rate, contradicting the goal of most treatments. Tell your GP if you have heart disease and are using nicotine replacement.
And from someone else who probably knows what they are talking about..
https://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/features/addicted-to-nicorette
I think it probably doesn't do you any favours, but as vices go it's probably no worse than putting too much sugar in your tea..
I just want to suggest to those who think the smoking ban killed pubs to maybe consider lifestyle changes
Its not the job of you or anyone else, especially not governments, to suggest people change their lifestyles in accordance with your wishes, Kim Jong Un 😉
And going to the pub or going out riding isn’t an either/or situation. All rides end at the pub. Thems the rules. Well.., they’re my rules but I don’t feel the need to tell the rest of society that they need to comply with them
Heres one I did last week. Bike ride? Yip! Pub beer garden? Absolutely! We’re other people smoking? Dunno. Not something I generally notice
Why do you think a government might want to encourage people to adopt healthier lifestyles?
Nicotine is a poison with multiple adverse effe4cts including reduced coronary artery blood flow etc etc
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4363846/
now on a friday night I am either riding, climbing or going to the gym/exercising with those friends.
How lovely. How would you react if someone came along and told you you couldn't do that any more because it's bad for you? Would you say 'I'm very sorry, yes you're riight, I'll change my behaviour to what you want me to do', or would you tell them to f*** off?
Nicotine is a poison with multiple adverse effe4cts including reduced coronary artery blood flow etc
The clinical features of caffeine intoxication vary but have been reported to include cardiovascular symptoms (hypertension, hypotension, tachycardia, bradycardia, atrioventricular block, supraventricular tachycardia (SVT), ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation, myocardial ischemia, myocardial infarction, and cardiac arrest), gastrointestinal symptoms (nausea, vomiting, severe recurrent vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhea), psychological/neurological symptoms (delusions, hallucinations anxiety, agitation, excitation, seizures, headache, cerebral edema, coma), metabolic symptoms (hypokalemia, hyponatremia, hypocalcemia, metabolic acidosis, respiratory alkalosis, hyperglycemia, fever), musculoskeletal symptoms (weakness, rigidity, tremor, rhabdomyolysis), pulmonary symptoms (hyperventilation, respiratory failure), tinnitus, dizziness, diuresis, and death. Renal failure and questionable hepatic injury (i.e., based only upon modest transaminase elevation which is known to occur in cases of rhabdomyolysis) secondary to rhabdomyolysis have also been reported.
Don't drink coffee ! !
And it's probably best to avoid smelling it too.
Nicotine is a poison with multiple adverse effe4cts including reduced coronary artery blood flow etc etc
As above, so is coffee..
If the bhf think it's safe I'll go with that before your non expert analysis of its harmful effects, which have been based on a quick Google..
Thanks though..
How lovely. How would you react if someone came along and told you you couldn’t do that any more because it’s bad for you? Would you say ‘I’m very sorry, yes you’re riight, I’ll change my behaviour to what you want me to do’, or would you tell them to f*** off?
You've missed my point, I was giving my view on why pubs have shut or are shutting which I don't see linked to the first smoking ban.
For your point, as an adult, you get told you cant do stuff all your life, its how you learn right from wrong, stealing sweets from a cupboard at home, maybe okay, stealing from shops not okay.
To quote Fred Durst... Life is a lesson you learn it when your through...
Why do you think that those whose health they claim to be concerned about do not want the ban but the people they are apparently not targeting do?
Well, you're the second person who has dodged the question I asked, but I will try and answer your question. I think some smokers don't want the ban because it will prevent them from indulging a habit that they currently pursue when they are at the pub. Pretty straightforward. I think some non smokers support the ban because they recognise the negative health, social and economic effects of smoking, and think the ban will help to discourage people from smoking, and because they don't like experiencing cigarette smoke in outside areas of pub premises, and being exposed to some of the negative effects of smoking.
Mr badger - did you read the article? Nicotine has well documented adverse effects that have been known for a long time
To anyone daft enough to think vaping is safe, trust me, it isn't.
My missus worked as Molecular Toxicologist for one of if the UK vaping product providers in between real jobs and was quite clear that it has serious issues
Probably less than fags, but still far from harmless..
I think some smokers don’t want the ban because it will prevent them from indulging a habit that they currently pursue when they are at the pub.
Wow. Imagine that? Fancying a fag when you have a pint outdoors without some interfering busybody tutting at you and thinking there should be actual laws to stop you doing so.
How do you explain the fact that those of us objecting to this draconian nonsense on this thread are all non-smokers?
I think some non smokers support the ban because they recognise the negative health, social and economic effects of smoking, and think the ban will help to discourage people from smoking.
Again… Its not yours or anyone else’s job to dictate what people can and can’t do. when the only justification is ‘I don’t like it’. luckily, for the present at least…
Just to reiterate:
because of the volume of road traffic, combining this toxic air with cigarette smoke greatly exaggerates the health risks of from merely breathing.
Therefore I can understand the govts logic.
but, you need to go with the Dutch example and legalise cannabis as the ‘accelerated learning’ (remedial) from the weed makes it easier for Joe Public to make small alterations to their behaviour and leave their cars behind…cafe style, without thousands of vehicles grumbling past.
just building a few cycle lanes isn’t enough.
carrot/ stick, etc.
There’s an easy solution to this. Let’s have a referendum on the issue, because they always go well.
But… the votes are weighted, depending on your beer garden usage. The referendum is in 12 months time and everyone gets a scorecard to have stamped on every Occasion they use a beer garden. To make things fair, votes are allocated on each visit depending on location and time of year
So,…
That place we went to in Ambleside after we’d been out walking in June? You remember? The place that did the nice homemade hummus? - 1 vote
The night ride we did at the end of October at Rivi which finished at that nice boozer but we were caked in mud and you wanted to vape, so we sat outside and it was bloody freezing! - 50 votes
That place we went to in Salford in January where you wanted a fag but the beer garden was two rotting benches in a concrete yard and you got a massive splinter in your arse? It was about -4 and the sleet was coming in horizontally - 100 votes
That seems fair 😀
It will help more people to quit by eliminating another situation where they might be encouraged to just smoke out of habit.
If this was the case you would have expected to see an acceleration of the rate of decline when the smoking ban came into effect in 2007, but as can be seen from the graphs below no such acceleration is discernible - if anything the opposite is the case.. One thing that has been successful but which has nothing to do with the government or the non-smoking pressure groups is vaping but they are going to screw that up too now.
Again… Its not yours or anyone else’s job to dictate what people can and can’t do. when the only justification is ‘I don’t like it’. luckily, for the present at least…
Really? Really?
so no speed limits, no drink drive limits, heroin available in every corner shop? No need for any equality laws, ettc etc Fox hunting and bear baiting back in everyday life. Lets have cock fighting as well
As somone stuggling to stop smoking ( I have stopped and started a few times) the smoking ban was a huge help
So you’re not worrying about it being dangerous you just want to f*** a load of people over because your own fragile sensibilities are offended by the smell of a bit of fag smoke?
Please read what I write before arguing against something which is the opposite of what I said.
What do you do if someone farts in your vicinity? I suppose you’ll be banning that next?
If I was chain-farting in public I'd apologise and try to move away from others before dropping one if possible. Wouldn't you?
Do you feel that the whole of society should be forced, by threat of prosecution if necessary, to behave as you instruct them?
No but if the democratically elected government pass a law about some aspect of behaviour and it passes both houses and is bought into law then I think it's fair enough.
As somone stuggling to stop smoking ( I have stopped and started a few times) the smoking ban was a huge help
Eh? Last time I was out with you, you were still smoking. Unlike me 😛
As a smoker at the time it made ****all difference to me other than I had to go outdoors
Really? Really?
so no speed limits, no drink drive limits, heroin available in every corner shop? No need for any equality laws, ettc etc Fox hunting and bear baiting back in everyday life. Lets have cock fighting as well
Calm down dear. All those things have direct implications for others. Smoking in beer gardens doesn’t. We’re already established there are no health implications, it’s just you and others saying ‘I don’t like it so it should be banned’
I feel the same about rugby. Should I start a campaign to get that banned? I could get really draconian about that. Life imprisonment for wearing a polo shirt with ‘popped’ collars. That type of thing
Binners - what harm to others does heroin have? Bear baiting?
I started smoking again a few years ago. Stopped again now. stopped and started a few times.
@tjagain you don’t half talk some rubbish, the smoking ban in Scotland was 2006 it’s now 2024 and you’ve only just stopped smoking. So tell me how it helped?
I stopped several times and restatred again - once for five years around the time of the smoking ban 🙂
But you’ve smoked all the many years I’ve known you, you may have tried to stop but only lasted a couple of weeks, so I don’t think you can claim the smoking ban has helped you stop.
Binners – what harm to others does heroin have? Bear baiting?
Left to me, I’d legalise everything. Want to inject crack cocaine into your eyeballs? Fill your boots.
I’m thinking of buying a pub with a big beer garden, but you’re only allowed in there if you smoke or vape. Non-smokers can get tae ****! And if you turn up in a rugby top you get cast into a big pit where everyone gets to flick their fag butts at you 😛
There’s nothing bloody worse than an evangelical born again smoker
The law isn’t here to facilitate your lack of willpower 😛
Bikepawl - please do not tell me what I have and haven't done. I stopped smoking for 5 years in the mid 2000s. I have stopped for years plus 3 or 4 times and each time went back to it.
Highly offensive to accuse me of lying because you cannot remember this
There’s nothing bloody worse than an evangelical born again smoker
This is clearly wrong
I used to stop smoking about once an hour for 30 years 😀
A mate of mine stopped smoking, the last I heard he was down to 20 "moments of weakness" a day.
(He's dead now, but that was down to the booze doing for him rather than the fags.)
Oh dear bit of an overreaction, guess the “herbal” cigarettes don’t count then?
I stopped smoking for 5 years in the mid 2000s. I have stopped for years plus 3 or 4 times and each time went back to it.
So you literally stopped for years and still back to smoking even though you were no longer addicted and were fully aware of the dangers of smoking?
Did you maintain the same level of lecturing people over the evils of smoking throughout that period or did you suspend your lecturing during the periods that you smoked?
I stopped smoking for 5 years in the mid 2000s. I have stopped for years plus 3 or 4 times and each time went back to it.
That means you’ve never stopped, just paused then started again.
It's abundantly clear TJ could give Rees-Mogg a run for his money in the top filibuster stakes and could have an argument in an empty room 😉
I keep peeking in here to see if it's starting to peter out, but no. It's like opening the door on a western saloon and seeing a massive melee with the air full of bottles and bar stools. Marshal TJ is still trying to run the baccy varmints out of town (whilst hiding a cheeky cheroot behind his back).
That means you’ve never stopped, just paused then started again.
Well if he didn't smoke for years at a time he would have been classed as an ex-smoker. I think the NHS considers anyone who hasn't smoked for at least a year to be an ex-smoker.
He certainly wouldn't have had any physical addiction nor nicotine in his system, that resolves itself over a matter of days, although the psychological addiction will obviously last for very much longer
If I was chain-farting in public I’d apologise and try to move away from others before dropping one if possible. Wouldn’t you
Oh come off it! Who hasn’t s****ed to themselves after squeaking out an SBD just before getting out of a lift?
I wasn't even aware that the correct protocol is to publicly apologise to everyone before moving away.
My strategy has always been to avoid doing it in public or failing that to quietly slip away without saying anything.
Who the **** apologises?
Who hasn’t s****ed to themselves after squeaking out an SBD just before getting out of a lift?
Years ago on a packed, standing room only tube carriage one morning after a heavy night. A leaving do involving a beer festival followed by a curry. People were literally retching and I was biting my tongue so hard to stop myself laughing it bled. Not proud.
You didn't apologise?
I think I'd have been lynched if I'd identified myself by apologising.
Again… Its not yours or anyone else’s job to dictate what people can and can’t do.
Nonsense really. Lots of things you can't do, because of these things called laws and this thing called society. Things are changing. Old duffers will always struggle with change.
Again… Its not yours or anyone else’s job to dictate what people can and can’t do.
I'm not dictating anything to anyone, but I do think the proposed smoking ban is a good idea.
If this was the case you would have expected to see an acceleration of the rate of decline when the smoking ban came into effect in 2007
Why would you expect to see an acceleration in the rate of decline? I would expect that the smoking rate would tend to plateau and stabilise unless you keep innovating and introducing new interventions or nudge factors, so merely the fact that smoking has continued to decline could be partly due to the original ban. That would need to be confirmed by a proper investigation, however; you can't tell just from a graph.
This study claims there was a statistically significant increase in the number of smokers trying to quit at the time the smoking ban was introduced (equivalent to 300,000 smokers)
Well if he didn’t smoke for years at a time he would have been classed as an ex-smoker. I think the NHS considers anyone who hasn’t smoked for at least a year to be an ex-smoker.
Not once he started again they wouldn’t.
And to achieve what? So a few petticoat-ruffling bedwetters in Islington, who never went to the pub anyway, get to feel smug and pleased with themselves having saved us from ourselves
it's not about you, or any current generation (of smokers). It's about future generations. Do you honestly not understand that? That's what I call "wrapped up in your own bullshit", if so.
That means you’ve never stopped, just paused then started again.
"Quitting smoking is easy, I've done it loads of times."
Who the **** apologises?
Gentlemen?
Leaving a silent crop dusting upon exiting a lift, as Binners suggests I'd be giggling about that. Dropping a bag of flip-flops out of the loft at the theatre, I'd err towards a quiet "oops, pardon me" rather than "cor, you could get your breakfast out of that."
a few petticoat-ruffling bedwetters in Islington
...
Like a lot of people on this thread
At the risk of repeating myself, there's only one wildly overreacting sanctimonious bedwetter on this thread some 12 pages in and counting now. I can only assume you're going for the 'humour' vote because rabid condescending frothing rarely reinforces an argument.
it’s not about you, or any current generation (of smokers). It’s about future generations. Do you honestly not understand that? That’swhat I call “wrapped up in your own bullshit”, if so.
How many times? I haven’t smoked for over ten years
Do you not understand that people of any age don’t want the government telling them what they can and can’t do on this level?
You can do this there, but you can’t do it there. You can only do this where I say that you can
Its just typical sanctimonious bullshit from spirit-crushingly tedious people who are so inexplicably arrogant that they think they have some god-given right to tell everyone else how to live their lives
Next year: compulsory muesli and yoga?
Just leave people alone to get on with their lives, making their own choices, if they’re not harming anyone else FFS!
Its bollocks on stilts and all it achieves is fostering massive resentment towards those smug, condescending bastards issuing dictats from their ivory towers
Can anyone join in? Bit torn tbh. On the one hand who likes bans, and I like weaknesses in a person. All the best people used to smoke.
On the other hand, the tobacco industry is plain evil. Their business model is based on wrecking people's health (stopping smoking being the single best thing you can do for your health) and over the years they've done their best to continue unimpeded. Millions suffering and dying round the world as a result and I can evidence this statement if anyone particularly wants. Their tactics of disinformation are now adopted by the oil companies. Who wants to be on the same side as those guys?
So how do you eliminate it from the world in the face of the tobacco industry's tactics? Hoping people see sense ain't going to do it.
How many times? I haven’t smoked for over ten years
Yes you have. What do you suppose is in an e-cig, liquified Hob-Nobs?
Do you not understand that people of any age don’t want the government telling them what they can and can’t do on this level?
Too bad, this is the price you pay to live in a civilised society. There is a handful of people I would cheerfully drown in a bucket of Dulux, but sadly the "government" tells me I'm not allowed to do that.
Its just typical sanctimonious bullshit from spirit-crushingly tedious people who are so inexplicably arrogant that they think they have some god-given right to tell everyone else how to live their lives
... he said, with no trace of irony.
All you're doing here is trying to shout down anyone who disagrees with you, over and over and over, and then you accuse everyone else of being sanctimonious.
All you’re doing here is trying to shout down anyone who disagrees with you, over and over and over, and then you accuse everyone else of being sanctimonious.
I’m doing the opposite. You seem to be struggling with it. To clarify: I’m saying I have absolutely no right to tell anyone how to live their lives and the only assertion I’ve made is that other people don’t have that right either
You can do whatever the **** you like as far as I’m concerned and if you’re not harming anyone else, then good luck to you. I literally couldn’t care less
A principle that you and many others on this thread seem to be struggling with. You either don’t get it, despite it being easy enough to comprehend, or in a lot of cases actively object to it. For reasons that can only really be seen as ‘I know best. Do as you’re told’
You seem to think that ‘I don’t like it’ seems to be enough of a reason to have something banned.
It isn’t.
I don’t know how many times I have to repeat this but if people are making lifestyle choices that have no detrimental effect on others then leave them alone to get on with it
’I don’t like your lifestyle choices’ is not a reason to ban things you personally don’t like.
I’m not calling for anything to be banned, not even the sanctimonious, condescending, self-righteous bell-endery that this thread is absolutely chock full of
Nobody needs or wants you to save them from themselves
Do you not understand that people of any age don’t want the government telling them what they can and can’t do on this level?
You can do this there, but you can’t do it there.
So do you think smoking should still be allowed inside pubs?
There is a handful of people I would cheerfully drown in a bucket of Dulux
I’m stealing that phrase, superb!
So do you think smoking should still be allowed inside pubs
Of course not! Because smoking in an enclosed space obviously has impact on other peoples health. Nobody is disputing passive smoking is real. I certainly wouldn’t want to do it in an enclosed space with people smoking fags. It’s goppin’!
But smoking outdoors is completely different and has absolutely zero effect on other peoples health
The people proposing the ban know this full well but their basis for doing this isn’t to do with health, it’s ‘I don’t like it’
i don’t know how many times I have to repeat this but that isn’t a reason for banning things because once you start down that road, where does it stop?
Read some of the comments on this thread and I think it’s safe to assume that some would be happy to ban pretty much everything on the basis of ‘I don’t like it!’
Luckily we’re presently spared from their po-faced and joyless stick-up-the-arse disapproval from becoming law
But smoking outdoors is completely different and has zero effect on other peoples health
Please cite your evidence for this claim.
The burden of proof isn’t in me. It’s on the people proposing banning stuff. I note no evidence has been put up, other than ‘I want to ban it because I don’t like it’
You're not going to get lung cancer from the odd whiff of a Silk Cut, as is glaringly obvious unless you’re a complete idiot
Why would you expect to see an acceleration in the rate of decline?
Because smoking has been declining steadily in pretty much all OECD countries for years and years and will continue to do so as older cohorts die out and are replaced by new generations where take up rates are lower . To be fair the smoking ban wasn't aimed at reducing smoking but reducing disease caused by second hand smoke. That is also why the Evidence Review you linked is primarily focused on those outcomes. The evidence for the smoking ban leading to a reduction in smoking isn't at all robust which is openly discussed in the paper. For instance
The study employed qualitative methods which have the benefit of yielding rich
and detailed insight into people’s views and circumstances. However, this means
that the research was not and did not aim to be representative of the English
population as a whole. The views expressed were by their nature specific to the
individuals and communities included. The study was limited to six areas
in two parts of the country and therefore was not able to explore the views and
behaviours of people living in other parts of the country. It is also worth highlighting
that, although the study explored smoking behaviour including cutting down and
quitting pre and post-legislation, this was based on interviewees’ accounts
of their behaviour; no attempts were made to validate these accounts. Finally,
pre-legislation data were collected in the three months leading up to the
legislation, when publicity about the law was already in place. As a result,
differences in attitudes and behaviour may have been less marked than they
would have been if baseline data collection had started earlier.
and
However, it is important to note
that the results of the toolkit study and evidence of increased client numbers
attending Stop Smoking Services only provide evidence of short-term behaviour
change and are not necessarily indicative of longer-term shifts in smoking
prevalence that can be directly attributed to smokefree legislation. With relatively
few data points utilised from the pre-legislative period, it was also not possible
to examine the effects over and above longer-term trends using more
sophisticated time series analyses.
A more rigorous statistical approach was taken in this paper.
This concludes only the heaviest of smokers may reduce their consumption a bit because, in a massive simplification, there are only so many hours in a day and they can't replace all the consumption they missed out on when they were in a smoke free environment. In its review of literature it notes that the result of other studies from other countries are very mixed.
In my view. there is insufficient evidence that any ban would achieve any significant health benefits. However, there is evidence it would cause economic harm to an already embattled sector and it would impinge on individual's freedoms.
Please cite your evidence for this claim.
Well for a start the government supporters of this proposal are not claiming that it is designed for the benefit of non-smokers - it is reasonable to assume they would if it was indeed the case. So there is a clue right there.
However some people apparently believe that smoking is so unbelievably dangerous that just smelling a cigarette in the outdoors can have a potentially negative effect on your health. Although I don't think there is any scientific evidence that smelling a cigarette can be harmful.
So take your pick.
Just to drop in an anecdote of my own, drinking in a pub since the indoor smoking ban is a vastly more pleasurable experience. On the occasions when I sit outside a pub and have a drink, I honestly cannot remember any occasion, since the ban, when my enjoyment of drinking my pint or two has been impacted by someone smoking a cigarette.
It has just never happened.
*shrugs shoulders*
I’m doing the opposite. You seem to be struggling with it. To clarify: I’m saying I have absolutely no right to tell anyone how to live their lives and the only assertion I’ve made is that other people don’t have that right either
I'm not struggling. You're the one screaming from the rooftops with a side order of patronising folk about their comprehension. We all get it, your point has been very much made. You can stand down now, soldier.
The burden of proof isn’t in me.
Yes it is: you made what appears to be an extraordinary claim, so it's up to you to back it up. Or you could carry on being a petulant toddler.
You’re not going to get lung cancer from the odd whiff of a Silk Cut, as is glaringly obvious unless you’re a complete idiot
Non smoker here. But pretty sure my local would shut if smoking in the beer garden was banned. Smoking amongst regular drinkers is higher (in my local anyway) than in the population in general.
And the burden of proof is on those proposing banning anything. I've not read this entire thread, but has there been any proper scientific study regarding the impact of occasional exposure to outdoor secondary tobacco smoke ?
I’ve not read this entire thread, but has there been any proper scientific study regarding the impact of occasional exposure to outdoor secondary tobacco smoke ?
No one has mentioned one. And the government have made it clear that the proposed outdoor ban is to save smokers from themselves, not non-smokers.
Although TJ appears to believe that there risk to non-smokers if they can "smell" a cigarette, without providing any evidence.
There is a risk that my hearing will further deteriorate if I am regularly exposed to the live music at The Oval pub, I think that the scientific evidence for that is conclusive, perhaps I should be campaigning to have all live music banned from pubs?
I’ve heard that looking at burgers makes you obese
Perhaps we should ban those next?
You’re not going to get lung cancer from the odd whiff of a Silk Cut, as is glaringly obvious unless you’re a complete idiot
@tjagain - You seem to think that it's a risk to health?
I've point this out numerous times, on this thread and others. But some people think that passive smoking, in an outdoor environment, is a serious threat to health. God knows how they deal with real threats in everyday life?
We have a 200 year old smokehouse in our village, it smells when they are smoking fish. Should it be banned as well? I mean it's smack bang in the middle of a residential street. The cancer rates in the vicinity must be off the scale.
Whatever next, eh? Making me wear a seatbelt when I drive? Taking away my opium?
No one has mentioned one. And the government have made it clear that the proposed outdoor ban is to save smokers from themselves, not non-smokers.
Gotcha, my personal view is it might encourage a few to consider giving up but most remaining smokers are pretty hard core now. They'll just not come in but smoke at home with their cans and friends. The pub will close for everyone !! Unless smoking is completely banned (different debate), there should be a place for smokers to indulge. A pub smoking shelter or area in a beer garden seems a completely reasonable solution to me.
And the burden of proof is on those proposing banning anything. I’ve not read this entire thread, but has there been any proper scientific study regarding the impact of occasional exposure to outdoor secondary tobacco smoke ?
Given just how long it usually takes to kill oneself whilst being a smoker first hand, I would suggest such a scientific study would be entirely pointless, hell there's even loads of us (Roy Castle aside) who have lived through years of people smoking inside pubs with relatively little effect apart from perhaps a more frequent use of laundry services.
Whatever next, eh? Making me wear a seatbelt when I drive?
I think the outrage from a sizeable chunk of the motoring population when compulsory seatbelts came in was even greater than the fuss about this. See also compulsory motorcycle helmets*. Though I think the immediate and significant lifesaving benefits of both of those laws are something a pub garden ban smoking ban won't share!
*Completely off topic, but the story of Fred Hill, who campaigned against compulsory helmets is fascinating. He died in Pentoville prison aged 74 in 1984 - his 31st incarceration.
I’ve heard that looking at burgers makes you obese
Feel free to post the evidence for your claim.
Maybe all of these community minded smokers could give up smoking and still support their local pub, instead of being a snowflake and giving up on the pub because they can’t smoke there. In fact, with all the money saved on cigarettes, these fine outstanding citizens of the community will have more money to spend in the pub, and pubs will flourish.
This is a great idea, let’s get the ban through asap!
On the occasions when I sit outside a pub and have a drink, I honestly cannot remember any occasion, since the ban, when my enjoyment of drinking my pint or two has been impacted by someone smoking a cigarette.
It has just never happened.
It has happened to me more than once. But anecdotes eh?
Taking away my opium?
You have access to opium ?. PM sent.
For a friend.
A more rigorous statistical approach was taken in this paper.
If I'm reading that paper correctly, the authors developed a theoretical model of how smoking prevalence would be affected by a smoking ban, and tested that model using empirical evidence from the Scottish and English bans (which weakly supported the conclusions of the model). So they weren't simply analysing whether smoking prevalence dropped as a result of the bans; they were modelling smoking behaviour to predict if it would drop in the event of a ban.
So it's not so much a "more rigorous statistical approach" as a completely different sort of study.
The model did predict that people smoke less as a result of a ban, however.
However, there is evidence it would cause economic harm to an already embattled sector and it would impinge on individual’s freedoms.
Is there evidence of this? It must be difficult to disentangle the many other problems pubs and clubs are facing and identify how much economic impact they have today from the existing smoking ban (and what the economic effects of the outdoor ban would be - positive as well as negative, because a ban will encourage some new customers).
Impinging on individual freedom? We have many examples of individual freedoms that society has collectively agreed to limit. The freedom to smoke outside a pub is pretty low on the Braveheart scale.