Smoking establishments - Debate, not abuse.

[Guest]

That's all very well but carbon monoxide lingers around as do all the other toxins, so folks who are required to visit licenced premises would still face the same danger as those in the bar.

There is an even bigger problem though. You say that these places would be strictly smokers only. Nice.. That is rather descriminatory. Its a bit like saying men only, women only, no Jews or Irish. I think you are still living in the 1950s.

 

I'm afraid I don't agree with you about the carbon monoxide and other toxins lingering in a great enough quantity to be harmful when the premises were closed - I've spent many years in the full pub atmosphere and come to no harm yet and I'm no spring chicken now so we will have to agree to differ on this point.

 

These establishment would be aimed primarily at smokers but not exclusively.

If non-smokers wanted to use the place, which would be well signed about the dangers, both inside and out, accepting that it could possibly be harmful to their health, they would be perfectly free to do so.

Discrimination of a kind does still exist even now because children are not allowed in pubs after certain times and I do believe that they can be barred from pubs who don't serve meals.

In the same way you can't use the ladies toilets in pubs - this is discrimination of a kind but is for the greater good.

There would therefore, be no more discrimination than already exists.

[beer]

I'm afraid I don't agree with you about the carbon monoxide and other toxins lingering in a great enough quantity to be harmful when the premises were closed - I've spent many years in the full pub atmosphere and come to no harm yet and I'm no spring chicken now so we will have to agree to differ on this point.

 

These establishment would be aimed primarily at smokers but not exclusively.

If non-smokers wanted to use the place, which would be well signed about the dangers, both inside and out, accepting that it could possibly be harmful to their health, they would be perfectly free to do so.

Discrimination of a kind does still exist even now because children are not allowed in pubs after certain times and I do believe that they can be barred from pubs who don't serve meals.

In the same way you can't use the ladies toilets in pubs - this is discrimination of a kind but is for the greater good.

There would therefore, be no more discrimination than already exists.

 

You see that's where all your arguments fall apart. They are all based on your dismissal of all expert research, and dismissal of any inconvenient evidence.

 

You might be able to use that sort of tactic to gain agreement from fellow deniers of reallity on this forum, but it won't wash with anyone who has anything remotely to do with passing legislation. If you can't come up with anything that passes the reality check you are totally wasting your time.

[Guest]

You see that's where all your arguments fall apart. They are all based on your dismissal of all expert research, and dismissal of any inconvenient evidence.

 

You might be able to use that sort of tactic to gain agreement from fellow deniers of reallity on this forum, but it won't wash with anyone who has anything remotely to do with passing legislation. If you can't come up with anything that passes the reality check you are totally wasting your time.

 

 

I haven't seen any expert research which says that carbon monoxide and other toxins will linger in the air at dangerous levels, even after the place is closed - have you?

By this, I mean expert research from some recognised body, who don't have a vested interest in stopping smoking and are not backed or paid for by some body that has a vested interest in stopping smoking.

If so - provide it for us all to see.

 

I'm not using any tactics at all - I've tried to answer all your questions but, if you come up with new statements which I haven't heard of then this leaves me at a disadvantage.

 

Whether my arguments would wash with anyone who has anything to do with passing legislation, doesn't matter to me because I know full well, that they won't, at this time, even consider my idea.

 

The sole purpose of this debate is to open it up to both sides of the fence for logical discussion and see whether the government and the anti-smokers lobby, really do have good grounds for discriminating unfairly against smokers.

 

I will repeat for the umpteenth time - IF IT IS SO DANGEROUS, WHY ISN'T IT BANNED COMPLETELY?

I could add, why are you lot not campaigning vigorously for a complete ban on all smoking similar to that on hard drugs?

My thoughts are - that you don't want your taxes to rise.

[carosio]

I will repeat for the umpteenth time - IF IT IS SO DANGEROUS, WHY ISN'T IT BANNED COMPLETELY?

I could add, why are you lot not campaigning vigorously for a complete ban on all smoking similar to that on hard drugs?

My thoughts are - that you don't want your taxes to rise.

 

If tobacco was introduced today, and its dangers known, then it's most likely that its sale would be prohibited. It's still legal for pragmatic reasons, but government and health organisations are fighting a war of attrition against it.

[Guest]

If tobacco was introduced today, and its dangers known, then it's most likely that its sale would be prohibited. It's still legal for pragmatic reasons, but government and health organisations are fighting a war of attrition against it.

 

I completely agree that tobacco would be prohibited on introduction if the dangers had been known.

 

However, it doesn't alter the fact that, if the level of danger is as bad as governments/health organisations say, then you would expect that it would be prohibited now.

Legislation can be passed at any time (as has recently been done with some of the newer drugs which have surfaced on the dance/rave scene) without anyone wasting time & effort, fighting a war of attrition.

 

My view is that,

either the dangers are being exaggerated (like the danger of Sadam was) as an excuse to persecute smokers or,

The danger really is that bad but no one want's to lose the tax revenue it brings.

 

In other words, health is important but, if it comes to the push, not quite as important as money.

[beer]

I haven't seen any expert research which says that carbon monoxide and other toxins will linger in the air at dangerous levels, even after the place is closed - have you?

By this, I mean expert research from some recognised body, who don't have a vested interest in stopping smoking and are not backed or paid for by some body that has a vested interest in stopping smoking.

If so - provide it for us all to see.

 

I'm not using any tactics at all - I've tried to answer all your questions but, if you come up with new statements which I haven't heard of then this leaves me at a disadvantage.

 

Whether my arguments would wash with anyone who has anything to do with passing legislation, doesn't matter to me because I know full well, that they won't, at this time, even consider my idea.

 

The sole purpose of this debate is to open it up to both sides of the fence for logical discussion and see whether the government and the anti-smokers lobby, really do have good grounds for discriminating unfairly against smokers.

 

I will repeat for the umpteenth time - IF IT IS SO DANGEROUS, WHY ISN'T IT BANNED COMPLETELY?

I could add, why are you lot not campaigning vigorously for a complete ban on all smoking similar to that on hard drugs?

My thoughts are - that you don't want your taxes to rise.

 

You see that's your problem. You can't accept that organisations like the World Health Organisation actually provide unbiased reports. That is because you wish to rubbish evey bit of evidence that doesn't conform to your jaundiced point of interest.

You seem to get very upset when anyone disagrees with your point of view but I have to agree with them. You have a major problem, and its called stupidity.

[Guest]

You see that's your problem. You can't accept that organisations like the World Health Organisation actually provide unbiased reports. That is because you wish to rubbish evey bit of evidence that doesn't conform to your jaundiced point of interest.

You seem to get very upset when anyone disagrees with your point of view but I have to agree with them. You have a major problem, and its called stupidity.

 

I asked you to provide details of who had reported specifically regarding carbon monoxide and other toxics lingering to a point of being still dangerous at a later time after the pub had shut.

 

You have not provided any details so I don't believe that any organisation has reported any such thing.

 

Evidence is NOT evidence at all if you simply make it up without any proof.

 

I have agreed with many points put to me in this thread but not a single one of the anti-smokers has agreed with anything I've said - this would indicate that you want me to change my mind whilst you have no intention of doing so under any circumstances and are willing to make arguments which you can't substantiate in an effort to derail this thread.

 

I am not in the least upset and will acknowledge a point where I am wrong and I don't expect everyone to agree with me or no debate would be needed.

 

Whatever major problems I have, they do not include stupidity and, as I asked for a debate without abuse, and you have just proved that you are incapable of this, you can carry on to post and abuse me as much as you like but your posts will not be answered by me.

[alchresearch]

If second hand smoke can make clothes stink and make walls and ceilings yellow, its not rocket science in saying its not going to be good for you!

 

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with separate smoking rooms, but its just not going to be logistically possible, and would alienate people because a non smoker isn't going to necessarily want to sit in a smoky room all night and a smoker isn't going to want to sit in a non smoking part.

 

What I don't understand is the link between having a beer and a smoke. You can't do both at the same time. Most sensible people don't take and drink their pints to the bog when they need a pee.

[beer]

I asked you to provide details of who had reported specifically regarding carbon monoxide and other toxics lingering to a point of being still dangerous at a later time after the pub had shut.

 

You have not provided any details so I don't believe that any organisation has reported any such thing.

 

Evidence is NOT evidence at all if you simply make it up without any proof.

 

I have agreed with many points put to me in this thread but not a single one of the anti-smokers has agreed with anything I've said - this would indicate that you want me to change my mind whilst you have no intention of doing so under any circumstances and are willing to make arguments which you can't substantiate in an effort to derail this thread.

 

I am not in the least upset and will acknowledge a point where I am wrong and I don't expect everyone to agree with me or no debate would be needed.

 

Whatever major problems I have, they do not include stupidity and, as I asked for a debate without abuse, and you have just proved that you are incapable of this, you can carry on to post and abuse me as much as you like but your posts will not be answered by me.

 

 

OK I will indulge you.

 

Carbon Monoxide has an almost identical specific gravity to air and the gases will mix readily to form a pretty homogeneous toxic mix.

 

So we have a small pub where the public areas amount to around 800 square feet, and with 10 foot high ceilings that gives a volume of 8000 cubic feet or 226400 litres. How are we doing so far?

 

Now a mid range Xpelair will shift around 30 litres/second in an idea situation where fresh air is allowed to enter a room at the same rate that the fan removes it. 30 litres/second is 108000 litres per hour.

 

So how long after the smokers have gone do you think it will the fan take to remove the toxic gases? Easy isn't it?

[Scabbydog]

OK I will indulge you.

 

Carbon Monoxide has an almost identical specific gravity to air and the gases will mix readily to form a pretty homogeneous toxic mix.

 

So we have a small pub where the public areas amount to around 800 square feet, and with 10 foot high ceilings that gives a volume of 8000 cubic feet or 226400 litres. How are we doing so far?

 

Now a mid range Xpelair will shift around 30 litres/second in an idea situation where fresh air is allowed to enter a room at the same rate that the fan removes it. 30 litres/second is 108000 litres per hour.

 

So how long after the smokers have gone do you think it will the fan take to remove the toxic gases? Easy isn't it?

 

It will never get rid of them.