Smokers in pub and company door ways.

[Mr_Squirrel]

No its just you lying to yourself.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6091-passive-smoking-danger-was-underestimated.html

Passive smoking danger was underestimated

 

http://www.world-heart-federation.org/press/facts-figures/passive-smoking/

Non-smokers who breathe secondhand smoke (SHS) have between a 25% to 30% increase in risk of CHD.

 

 

Really?

 

Then as the dangers of smoking has been known about for over 30 years, why have the government only just decided to ban smoking from only public places this last 2 years? .... public health protection perhaps?

As the dangers of smoking have been known about for over 30 years, why have the government not decided to ban smoking and tobacco related products outright? .... public health protection perhaps?

As the dangers of smoking have been known about for over 30 years, why have the government only placed 'disclaimers' on tobacco products this last 2 years (or so) .. Public health protection perhaps?

 

Why have our government only implemented these bans and disclaimers following the lead of other countries that have suffered huge lawsuits from cases of 'passive smoking' in the past?

 

You posted links yourself about 'passive smoking'.... the bans are less to do with public health and much more to do with litigation. If public health was foremost in the governments agenda, smoking and tobacco products would have been banned outright years ago - end of!

If non smokers 'rights' were the concern of the government and litigation was not an issue, smoking would still be promoted in sports advertising and smoking in public would never have been banned.

Banning smoking in public places was only to remove the onus from the government, landlord/publican and business owner and on to the individual who chose to continue smoking.

[Bloomdido]

TBH, since the smoking ban, i have never seen anyone light up inside in any pub/bar i have been in and if i did see such an action, i would certainly not condone or defend it.

 

But i think anybody who has seen that happen are witnessing an extremely rare incident committed by somebody who blatantly dosent give a damn about the rules and are not witnessing a regular example committed by a majority of smokers.

 

I posted about someone flouting the rules in their shop and got slated for it.

[Mr_Squirrel]

I posted about someone flouting the rules in their shop and got slated for it.

 

Shouldnt have posted about it.....

 

 

Should have just thrown a bucket of water over him.

[Scabbydog]

Really?

 

Then as the dangers of smoking has been known about for over 30 years, why have the government only just decided to ban smoking from only public places this last 2 years? .... public health protection perhaps?

As the dangers of smoking have been known about for over 30 years, why have the government not decided to ban smoking and tobacco related products outright? .... public health protection perhaps?

As the dangers of smoking have been known about for over 30 years, why have the government only placed 'disclaimers' on tobacco products this last 2 years (or so) .. Public health protection perhaps?

 

Why have our government only implemented these bans and disclaimers following the lead of other countries that have suffered huge lawsuits from cases of 'passive smoking' in the past?

 

You posted links yourself about 'passive smoking'.... the bans are less to do with public health and much more to do with litigation. If public health was foremost in the governments agenda, smoking and tobacco products would have been banned outright years ago - end of!

If non smokers 'rights' were the concern of the government and litigation was not an issue, smoking would still be promoted in sports advertising and smoking in public would never have been banned.

Banning smoking in public places was only to remove the onus from the government, landlord/publican and business owner and on to the individual who chose to continue smoking.

 

You seem to be specialising in posting hogwash. The dangers of passive smoking have long been suspected but until scientific evidence was fully evaluated legislation was not put in place to protect non smokers vfrom its effects. It was following reports from the WHO that governments around the world reacted and put in place restrictions on where smoking could take place. Litigation wouldn't affect governments. Litigation would be brought by governments against tobacco companies as happened in the USA

 

The legislation is not to protect smokers. It is to protect others from harm due to passive smoke. Somers are free to smoke as much as they like. They just aren't free to poison anyone else. If smokers are harmed by smoking they have themselves to blame for smoking and tobacco companies to sue for selling them the means.

[beer]

People will be smoking in pubs again within two years. There is no doubt about it.

 

As a member of CAMRA I do visit rather a lot of pubs. I have to say that over the last 12 months I have not seen a single instance of anyone smoking inside a pub, although I have certainly seen hundreds of folks smoking in pub doorways.

The majority of people are happy with the current regulation and politicians know it is a popular measure. I really do not see any prospect whatsoever of the current measures being realaxed. Indeed I suspect that before too long the softly softly approach will give way to more rigorous policing with a clampdown on smoking in pub and hospital doorways.

It really is a no brainer. Many of my favourite pubs get away with folks drinking on the pavements outside. I am sure that if the authorities wanted to gently lean on them to shift smokers out of doorways in exchange for that blind eye to continue regarding street drinking they would readily comply.

[Noob]

In our local, we just wait till everyone else has gone and the doors are locked. After that, those invited to stay behind just blazes up. I dont mind having to go outside for a smoke during time, as we then get a couple of hours of smoking inside at the end. 50/50 split, fair with me.

[SUZIFACE]

I can make a FACT, smoking is legal, its the right of the individual, and for people to now start moaning they dont even want smokers outside pubs its just one step to far. Start saying bye to even more pubs, more jobs. Non smokers, this will be your doing!!!!

[sandie]

You seem to be specialising in posting hogwash. The dangers of passive smoking have long been suspected but until scientific evidence was fully evaluated legislation was not put in place to protect non smokers vfrom its effects. It was following reports from the WHO that governments around the world reacted and put in place restrictions on where smoking could take place. Litigation wouldn't affect governments. Litigation would be brought by governments against tobacco companies as happened in the USA

 

The legislation is not to protect smokers. It is to protect others from harm due to passive smoke. Somers are free to smoke as much as they like. They just aren't free to poison anyone else. If smokers are harmed by smoking they have themselves to blame for smoking and tobacco companies to sue for selling them the means.

 

Why dont you get a life and stop the pesicution of smokers, try a different crusade and attack the Buses who sit with their engins running in the town centre putting more toxic fumes in the air than smokers.

Come back when you have hard proof about passive smoking

[Scabbydog]

Why dont you get a life and stop the pesicution of smokers, try a different crusade and attack the Buses who sit with their engins running in the town centre putting more toxic fumes in the air than smokers.

Come back when you have hard proof about passive smoking

 

I presume by your lack of grammar and inability to spell that you aren't even old enough to go into public houses, so what is your problem with the current situation?

 

 

Oh and here's the proof regarding passive smoking.

 

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/healthyliving/smokingandtobacco/howdoweknow/

 

Second-hand smoking also causes cancer and kills thousands of people every year

Several studies have shown that breathing in other people’s smoke causes cancer in non-smokers. Second-hand smoke contains several cancer causing chemicals. Many of these chemicals are present in higher concentrations than in the smoke inhaled by the smoker themselves.

 

One study analysed 55 studies from around the world found that non-smoking spouses of people who smoke at home have 27% higher risks of lung cancer. And a review of 22 studies found that people exposed to second-hand smoke in the workplace have 24% higher risks of lung cancer. Those who were exposed to the highest levels of second-hand smoke at work had twice the risks of lung cancer.

 

One study estimates that passive smoking may kill over 11,000 people every year in the UK from cancer, heart disease, strokes and other diseases.

 

Second-hand smoking also causes other health problems in non-smokers including asthma and heart disease. One study showed that even 30 minutes of exposure to second-hand smoke can reduce blood flow in a non-smoker’s heart.

[Mr_Squirrel]

And here is the proof that non smokers are miserable, whinging, self obsessed puritans bereft of a sense of humor and is the reason why smoking should be reinstated in pubs in order to allow the unhealthy but happy people to enjoy a ciggy with their pint whilst having a bit of a laugh.

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=673348