The Stop Smoking Megathread [ including Champix]

[Cyclone]

I suppose I'm blaming Flowers because pollen is also a contributory factor and has been linked to Cancer also......

 

Rubbish, it's the usual Journo's, Government, "experts" pinning ALL the blame on 1 product when it's a handful of products combined that cause these problems, otherwise every single smoker would gain the effects. But they don't, so the argument you present is also flawed.

 

You're confusing several different issues here. Firstly, maybe pollen is harmful (although I've seen nothing to suggest that it's carcinogenic). Many things are carcinogenic, they can't all be addressed though, we can't 'ban' pollen.

 

Secondly, carcinogenic means that something increases the risk of a cell going cancerous, it doesn't guarantee it. And the body has a huge range of coping mechanisms that must fail before that cell actually becomes a cancer. So your argument that if cigarette smoke were carcinogenic all smokers would get cancer is clearly invalid (and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the underlying issue).

[Guzzrate]

You're confusing several different issues here. Firstly, maybe pollen is harmful (although I've seen nothing to suggest that it's carcinogenic). Many things are carcinogenic, they can't all be addressed though, we can't 'ban' pollen.

 

Secondly, carcinogenic means that something increases the risk of a cell going cancerous, it doesn't guarantee it. And the body has a huge range of coping mechanisms that must fail before that cell actually becomes a cancer. So your argument that if cigarette smoke were carcinogenic all smokers would get cancer is clearly invalid (and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the underlying issue).

 

Cancer is a mutation of the Cells within the body.

 

Anything can cause these mutations within the body. It all depend on the individual.

 

Therefore, what I said all along is: You can't ban a single product because it "Causes" Cancer.

 

It has been banned because of pressure from the Do-gooders and the PC brigade! What they fail to recognise is the fact that it will eventually cost them, because as the Government loses the Taxation on the Nicotine products and then Taxation goes up on something else, like Petrol (the next worse for health thing) or Alcohol. But as the smoking ban moves people away from the pubs, pubs shut and that's another tax that has to be put up OR Benefits like EMA and reducing other unemployed benefits to make ends meet.

 

A slippery slope.

 

That's my opinion, and yes I'm pretty bitter about losing my pub because of the smoking ban!

[Cyclone]

That's not true, many things can cause a cell to become cancerous, but not anything. And it doesn't really depend on the individual at all, certain compounds are carcinogens, they increase the chance of a cell becoming cancerous, it's an increased risk though, not a guarantee.

 

You can certainly ban a single product because it massively increases the risk of contracting cancer. Which is the situation regarding cigarettes. Of course they aren't banned, their use in locations where you subject others to that risk is banned, which seems entirely proportionate.

 

It has been banned because 2nd hand smoke increases the risk of cancer and it's morally wrong to expose workers in pubs to that risk (ignoring the 60% of customers who don't smoke and also don't want to contract cancer).

The loss of tax revenue has been recognised, what makes you think that it hasn't?

 

There is still no evidence that the smoking ban has stopped people going to pubs.

[Shogun]

The whole point of this tread is about the smoking ban in pubs,as a never been smoker I hate the stinking habit,but it has been a good thing for the health of every one who goes in a pub for a drink,but as a law it has had a detrimental affect on pubs,but that is not the only reason pubs are closing left right and center, the prices are to high pubs are full of nob heads and druggies there just is no fun in going in a pub anymore, you mite as well go to the local off license and sit in your house were no one can bother you, a lot of me says that the smoking ban was to draconian and the landlords should have had a choice in the matter,but when you get 75% of the people who don't smoke against them the smokers don't have a chance, I say good riddance to the stinking habit and the sooner its band completely the better for us all.

[Cyclone]

a lot of me says that the smoking ban was to draconian and the landlords should have had a choice in the matter,

 

 

I don't get this, it's about the 5th time someone has said it.

 

The landlords had the choice for the past 100 years, and none of them banned it, so clearly just 'giving' them a choice they already had wasn't going to solve the problem was it!

[buck]

Smoking in pubs or restaurants in the US has been banned for some years now, but not in all states. When it began, I stopped smoking and haven't had a cigarette since. It has not closed any pubs, people will step outside for a drag even in the winter, or will go as guests to the many clubs where smoking is still allowed.

[Guzzrate]

That's not true, many things can cause a cell to become cancerous, but not anything. And it doesn't really depend on the individual at all, certain compounds are carcinogens, they increase the chance of a cell becoming cancerous, it's an increased risk though, not a guarantee.

 

You can certainly ban a single product because it massively increases the risk of contracting cancer. Which is the situation regarding cigarettes. Of course they aren't banned, their use in locations where you subject others to that risk is banned, which seems entirely proportionate.

 

It has been banned because 2nd hand smoke increases the risk of cancer and it's morally wrong to expose workers in pubs to that risk (ignoring the 60% of customers who don't smoke and also don't want to contract cancer).

The loss of tax revenue has been recognised, what makes you think that it hasn't?

 

There is still no evidence that the smoking ban has stopped people going to pubs.

 

Evidence of people stopping using pubs is MY OWN!

 

I lost my entire Tap-Room trade, which in-turn increased prices, which destroyed the business, despite the fact my Dining area was still quite busy. Not as busy as when the smoking ban wasn't there. So Yes there is evidence I saw it myself in the space of a month of the ban being implemented.

 

When asking my old regulars, they said "because we can't smoke in there anymore, we might as well stay at home and smoke and drink in comfort."

 

I don't need anymore evidence, it destroyed my business and is 1 of the reasons pubs everywhere are failing and closing up.

 

And as before, why don't the Police, Politicians and Council Officers fine or enforce the Law when people continue to smoke at Bus Stops? Licencee's get fined and threatened with their licence if they allow smoking, Why don't bus companies or local council officers for not enforcing it at Bus stops?

 

"That's not true, many things can cause a cell to become cancerous, but not anything."

......

 

......Or just Dumb Luck. (Google what causes cancer)

[Cyclone]

Evidence of people stopping using pubs is MY OWN!

That's called anecdote, not evidence.

 

I lost my entire Tap-Room trade, which in-turn increased prices

Presumably it was you which increased prices.

which destroyed the business, despite the fact my Dining area was still quite busy. Not as busy as when the smoking ban wasn't there. So Yes there is evidence I saw it myself in the space of a month of the ban being implemented.

Strange how so many other pubs didn't close within a month of the smoking ban... And how only 1 smoker has actually claimed that they don't go to the pub anymore (on this thread).

 

When asking my old regulars, they said "because we can't smoke in there anymore, we might as well stay at home and smoke and drink in comfort."

 

I don't need anymore evidence, it destroyed my business and is 1 of the reasons pubs everywhere are failing and closing up.

 

And as before, why don't the Police, Politicians and Council Officers fine or enforce the Law when people continue to smoke at Bus Stops?

If you report it and the police aren't attending other incidents then they will enforce it. We don't have enough police officers to station one at every bus stop... And the politicians and council officers have no power to enforce the law.

Licencee's get fined and threatened with their licence if they allow smoking, Why don't bus companies or local council officers for not enforcing it at Bus stops?

Do I really have to explain the difference?

 

......

 

......Or just Dumb Luck. (Google what causes cancer)

I already know quite a lot about it, googling it is unlikely to tell me something new about it...

[buck]

It wasn't supposed to stop people smoking, it was supposed to stop smokers harming the other 60% of the population.

You have a little way to go yet, the non smoking population here is said to be 75%.

[Guzzrate]

I don't get this, it's about the 5th time someone has said it.

 

The landlords had the choice for the past 100 years, and none of them banned it, so clearly just 'giving' them a choice they already had wasn't going to solve the problem was it!

 

How it should have been implemented is let the customers decide.

 

Smoking area's would have got smaller as people gave up.

 

I had plans to move my smoking dining area to the tap room as my Drinking only non-smokers were getting much busier. But I couldn't do that after the smoking ban. Licencee's will move things around as demand grows or drops.

 

As non-smokers grew, which they have been doing for years prior to the ban. Smokers were becoming less and less as some fell in, stopped smoking even died. Your figures of non-smokers growing should have been left for them to continue growing, take over then smoking in pubs would have taken a natural less and less and most business's would have survived. The Blanket ban and Law was detrimental to the business and the Government has missed a trick.

 

Of course, don't take my word for it. Smoking has been becoming less and less since the early 80's from what I can gather.