Smoking ban killed the boozers

[Cyclone]

Where did you get that from? - The article stated that 90% of the people who contracted lung cancer were smokers. It did not say that those people contracted lung cancer through smoking. There's a difference between implying something is true and declaring it to be true.

 

I've no idea how many possible causes of lung cancer exist. If you - as the lawyer acting for somebody who was dying from lung cancer - tried to claim that the cancer had been caused by smoking, how long do you think it would be before the lawyers for the tobacco companies asked you to prove that the cancer was not caused by another known carcinogen?

 

And if you did manage to prove that the carcinogen they had required you to eliminate hadn't caused the cancer, what about another?

 

How long do you think it would go on? Who would run out of money first? - Your client or the tobacco companies?

 

Statistically you can show that smoking causes cancer.

For an individual case you can't do that.

[sally_sheff]

This was always going to turn into a thread of smokers and anti smoking brigade. Without detracting, it started off as being a discussion as to the smoking ban killing the pub trade, not as to whether smoking is a good or bad thing. The pubs may have been struggling prior to the ban and there are other factors but I think the fact that it has lost a lot more trade through the smoking ban has pushed the struggling pubs over the limit. The vehament non smokers simply refuse to accept this. Where is the problem in accepting that yes, it may have adversley affected the pub trade, but as a non smoker it is still a good thing that the pubs are now non smoking?? The people that can give proper answers are the publicans themselves because they will have seen first-hand what effect, if any, it has had on their business from the ban being enforced.

[beer]

Is that surprising? The Supreme Court will rule on the law - and particularly whether the lower courts made their rulings in accordance with the law. - Not whether 'smoking is bad for your health'. Doctors issue guidance on health, not judges.

 

 

 

{1} Those rulings probably hurt the tobaco industry, but there's a world of difference between 'illegally concealing dangers' and 'Acting in a manner which they knew was likely to cause the death of smokers.'

 

{2} I wonder why the administration might want to extract billions of dollrs from the industry? They're not short of money, are they? They don't have an un-funded Health Plan (amongst other things) to fund, do they?

 

{3} "Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?" - pace Mandy Rice-Davies.

 

 

 

Lying about the addictive properties of nicotine and manipulating the nicotine content. - Serious offences. Note that those 'adverse health effects of smoking' aren't detailed. Why do you think that might be?

 

Getting back to my original statement: No court has ever ruled (and not had that ruling dismissed at appeal by a superior court) that an individual who died of lung cancer contracted that disease through smoking.

 

(I'm not sure how we got here from a discussion on the damage done to publicans' incomes by the smoking ban, but: )

 

1. No country which has ever had a significant proportion of its inhabitants use tobacco has managed to eradicate tobacco. - Some of the penalties have been severe. Catherine the Great passed a law which required that smokers would have their noses cut off. - That may have reduced adult literacy in Russia (If you haven't got a nose, how are you going to keep your glasses in place?) but it didn't stamp out smoking.

 

2. Obama may well want to extract money from the Tobacco companies. He and his predecessors are (justifiably) very upset with countries which import other toxic alkaloids into America; why doesn't he ban the export of American tobacco to other countries?

 

3. The British government banned smoking in pubs (and in certain other places) but they aren't doing all they could to eradicate tobacco use in the UK. Why is that?

 

The answers to both of those questions are easy. Money.

 

The tobacco industry generates huge amounts of money for the economies of a number of nations. Furthermore, unlike the money generated by the trade in other drugs, much of that money is taxable.

 

It would be possible to reduce dramatically the use of tobacco in the UK, but it would take time, cost money (in enforcement, loss of tax revenue and additional expenditure on people who declined to die early.)

 

I understand that - at the moment - it is an offence to sell tobacco to anybody under the age of 18. If you want to (nearly) eradicate tobacco, then:

 

1. Make it an offence to import tobacco into the UK.

 

2. Make it an offence to grow tobacco in the UK.

 

3. Require all tobacco to be sold through licenced outlets.

 

4. Make it an offence to smoke in any public place (indoors or out of doors)

 

5. Make it an offence for anybody under the age of 10 to possess or use tobacco. Make it an offence punishable by 15 years imprisonment for any adult to supply tobacco to a person under the age of 10. That's the rule for 2011. In 2102, increase the ages by 1 year - So it becomes an offence for an 11 year old to possess or use; an offence punishable by 15 years for an adult to supply tobacco to a person under the age of 11 (and while you're at it, increase the '18' limit to 19.

 

In about 60 years time, neither of the people living in the UK would smoke.

 

Sorry old chap. Too busy having a drink at the pub to worry about your totally irrelevant rant.

 

The fact is that the WHO produced evidence that smoking causes lung cancer and so does passive smoking. They gave that eidence to governments around the world who studied it and those governments (over 100 so far) introduced exclusions on smoking in public places.

 

You can pick hairs and rant and rave all you like. The evidence is there, and as a result I am welome to sit in my local, or my tax office or my place of work, provided I don't smoke... and so are you.

 

But if you want to smoke, well you need to convince a lot of people far more informed than those on SF; and with the tripe you have posted so far you have a long way to go.

 

Gosh it was cold tonight. I really felt for those sat outside.

[beer]

This was always going to turn into a thread of smokers and anti smoking brigade. Without detracting, it started off as being a discussion as to the smoking ban killing the pub trade, not as to whether smoking is a good or bad thing. The pubs may have been struggling prior to the ban and there are other factors but I think the fact that it has lost a lot more trade through the smoking ban has pushed the struggling pubs over the limit. The vehament non smokers simply refuse to accept this. Where is the problem in accepting that yes, it may have adversley affected the pub trade, but as a non smoker it is still a good thing that the pubs are now non smoking?? The people that can give proper answers are the publicans themselves because they will have seen first-hand what effect, if any, it has had on their business from the ban being enforced.

 

There are now more lisenced premises than there were before the ban...

[happyhippy]

Too much of a coincidence for me how everywhere started shutting down when the fag ban came in, you can't just blame the breweries.

 

The pub trade was dead on its feet over 20 years ago. The MMC report inadvertantly sounded the death knell for pubs as the big breweries had to sell off its tied estate.

 

At the same time, we were allowed to buy loads of booze from the continent without paying duty. So people went on the 'booze cruises', and the former big breweries created 'pubco's' , whereby they could punt out cheap rubbish via a route which said they didn't own the pubs.

 

This led to the 'nitro-keg' revolution, and the reduction of real beer in most of Britain's pubs.

 

The knock on of all this, and possibly the net and SKY (I'm not kidding) meant that people stayed in, and didn't visit the pub for beer any more. The supermarkets then got to sell cheaper booze, and thus ended the pub.

 

£3 a pint like I paid last night for an average stout in a pub miles from where I live? That's what we have to put up with now.

 

The rot started a long time ago, albeit with with the right intent.

[staninoodle]

once beer went to a quid a pint,people went out 3 or 4 times a week,then it reached 2 quid,people went out weekends,now its over 2 quid,people go to tesco,pay a tenner,sup all weekend and scream at the nieghbours.

the british pub has died.

RIP

[Bulgarian]

That's what you said, not at risk.

 

So does not at risk = safe?

 

I never said smoking in public was safe.

 

I said that now (ie. after the ban) non-smokers are safe from public smoking, I didn't say (or imply) they were safe before that.

 

Your reading what you want to read.

[willman]

Sitting and watching a film is a little different than the traditional act of working class man going to the pub after work to smoke & drink isn't it?

 

No - its an indication that if the smoker wants to do so they can enjoy an experience without polluting everyone around them.

Perhpas your point does indicate that "working class" steelworkers,miners etc no longer exist in the numbers they did. Hece the change in ethos.

[dagaul101]

It's a double edged sword, smoking ban was for health reasons and favoured by the young, what is good for you in the long term may make you depressed in the short term, funny how many things in life are like that

[123456A]

It's the prices, not the smoking ban that keeps me away from pubs. £7 for 2 glasses of wine is too much! I'd rather invite friends to my home and enjoy a social evening than be overcharged like that in a public house. Or - sometimes we go out to the new style bar restaurants that seem to be taking over as premises are refurbished and we have one or two drinks with a meal.

Also, don't you think there are so many other things available to do these days than sit in a pub drinking [smoking] every night?