What next for the anti smoking lobby ?

[Cyclone]

Don't be silly! i'd look like a right weirdo taking my BBQ out to a pub with me

 

 

And they wouldn't let you light it. Which happens to tie up nicely with the way smoking is no longer allowed in publicly accessible buildings doesn't it.

Smoke in your garden next to your BBQ, nobody will complain except those you've allowed in your garden.

Hell, BBQ in the house if you like.

[smiggs]

Tobacco will have the same treatment as Cannabis within 30 years. As a non-smoker I couldn't careless as a smoker you'll be dead so I don't think this will be a problem for you either.

[Robin-H]

The banning of harming other people who are nearby doesn't really correlate with "fun".

 

Unless it's fun to spray carcinogenic gases over everyone around you.

 

I fully support the ban on smoking in public - pubs and restaurants are much more pleasant places to go to now. However, a recent study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute suggests that there is in fact no clear link between passive smoking and lung cancer.

 

The study can be read here http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/12/05/jnci.djt365.extract

[dangerousedd]

you can get lung cancer from asbestos exposure too, doesn't manifest for decades after the initial exposure though..

[Cyclone]

I fully support the ban on smoking in public - pubs and restaurants are much more pleasant places to go to now. However, a recent study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute suggests that there is in fact no clear link between passive smoking and lung cancer.

 

The study can be read here http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/12/05/jnci.djt365.extract

 

“Passive smoking has many downstream health effects—asthma, upper respiratory infections, other pulmonary diseases, cardiovascular disease—but only borderline increased risk of lung cancer,” said Patel.

 

Still good enough to ban it in public places IMO. That and the fact that it's just highly anti-social towards the non-smokers.

[LeMaquis]

However, a recent study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute suggests that there is in fact no clear link between passive smoking and lung cancer.

 

The study can be read here http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/12/05/jnci.djt365.extract

 

But the article does say;

 

"The only category of exposure that showed a trend toward increased risk was living in the same house with a smoker for 30 years or more".

 

Also;

 

“Passive smoking has many downstream health effects—asthma, upper respiratory infections, other pulmonary diseases, cardiovascular disease—but only borderline increased risk of lung cancer,” said Patel. “The strongest reason to avoid passive cigarette smoke is to change societal behavior: to not live in a society where smoking is a norm".

 

Which would include a smoking ban.

[biotechpete]

OK,start on the buses, and Diesel cars of which i am the owner of such a vehicle.

 

It's on the way with the tightening of the emissions regulations.

[LeMaquis]

if any of these folks are feeling the need to find something else to have a go at......

 

Can I have a go at self-pitying whinging on social forums?

[Robin-H]

But the article does say;

 

"The only category of exposure that showed a trend toward increased risk was living in the same house with a smoker for 30 years or more".

 

Also;

 

“Passive smoking has many downstream health effects—asthma, upper respiratory infections, other pulmonary diseases, cardiovascular disease—but only borderline increased risk of lung cancer,” said Patel. “The strongest reason to avoid passive cigarette smoke is to change societal behavior: to not live in a society where smoking is a norm".

 

Which would include a smoking ban.

 

Yea, don't get me wrong, as I said I fully support the smoking ban.

 

Even if passive smoke doesn't cause lung cancer, it is still disgusting. It is important however to make sure the argument does not rest on the lung cancer element if that turns out not to be a contributory factor. It should remain banned none-the-less.

[Cyclone]

The premise of the thread is nonsense anyway. The 'lobby' was just a group of sensible adults who all happened to agree on this issue. They don't operate as a group and aren't searching for something else to ban.

I supported and support the ban on smoking in public places. I don't feel the need to find some other cause to champion though.