h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

But a complete ban hasn't even been suggested. Except by defensive addicts...

It's referred to by the media, and most people I've spoken to as "the smoking ban". Just because someone's referring to it as a ban doesn't mean they're an addict.

OK if I slip out for a fag?

Did anyone see the programme on tv last night about smoking. The adverts were just amazing. So many doctors smoking Camels The Marlboro Man died of lung cancer and the faboulous use of the cigarette when beautiful actors and acresses used them sexily in films. John Travolta in Grease looked adorable with a fag in his gob. Lauren Bacall was sex on legs when lighting a fag with a match!!!!

Then there was Roy Castle talking about the fact he had lung cancer alathough he had never smoked in his life, I imagine that for him where ever he is 1st July was a very special day for him.

It was a *very* interesting programme!

So guys, is the ban motivated by politics, by concerns for health, concerns for the economy or some other factor, what do we think?

I blame sir walter or was it that drake bloke for bringing the stuff in here in the first place no one smoked here before he stuck his ore in?

I'd like to pass on a comment from a none smoking friend (a sentiment that I fully agree with):

"I actually miss the smell of smoke, the [local chain pub, rhymes with Leatherspoons) now just reeks of old man and stale beer. It's awful!"

Now I never saw /that/ coming.

>>
Cant ask addicts to compromise or be reasonable.
>> Robyn

<<
I'm not an addict but I don't agree with a complete ban.
<< daffofil

If you're not an addict then why think the comment was talking about you? There are alot of nicotine addicts, and some of them are strongly motivated by that to argue that their rights to pollute other people's bodies are more important than the people being affected by the smoke.

I've referred to addicts in this thread too, and I don't mean it in a derogatory sense (some of my best friends have been addicts of one sort or another). I just mean that addiction is a very strong force, stronger than the market, or even common sense sometimes.

>>It's referred to by the media, and most people I've spoken to as "the smoking ban". Just because someone's referring to it as a ban doesn't mean they're an addict.<<

That's not what I was saying.

Yes, it IS a ban... On smoking in enclosed public places and places of employment. That's somewhat different to a complete ban on smoking, i.e. prohibition. I was defining the difference between a total ban and a restriction, no matter what people refer to it as, for the sake of a proper debate. my implication was that those who smoke and are objecting to it being restricted are arguing as if they are being prevented from smoking, which simply is not the case. It makes all their arguments slightly ridiculous and makes my point about addicts being neither reasonable nor able to accept compromise.

Been away for a while, but in response from a few posts back:

<<"More people die from traffic pollution than second-hand smoke. >>



Yes, unfortunately estimates for the number of deaths in the UK from vehicle pollution triggered respiratory diseases is something like 40,000 pa, which is I believe in excess of even the most hysterical estimates for passive smoking.

As you correctly say, vehicle pollution is always released *outside*, compared with cigarette smoke released (until now) *inside* - that kind of puts the difference in scale into perspective. If you're still not convinced, consider that someone who smokes 20 a day all his life has a 50/50 chance of dying from it, but someone who breathes exhaust fumes in an enclosed space will die in a few minutes.

So great, I can now visit a nice cigarette-smoke-free restaurant and feel all healthy, new-age and virtuous, but in reality I'm breathing in sizable doses of carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides and particulates every minute of every day I live and work in the city.

And yes, I know there are limits on individual vehicle emissions, but there are far more vehicles, spending more time sitting in traffic jams. "Safe" levels are exceeded daily in parts of my home town.

What is your point? That we should have cigarette deaths as well as car exhaust ones?

yeah. what is your point? you are making no sense whatsoever

I think the point is that a less damaging form of pollution, that people actually enjoy, is being targeted as opposed to a much more damaging one which nobody enjoys. Unless there's someone out there who enjoys huffing exhaust fumes?

True Dave nothing in life is safe. More children did in cots than accidentally kill themselves with knives so should we lift bans on selling large shap knives to the under 16s?

I think not.

While I agree that vehicle exhaust emisions cause a bigger mortality risk the overall working environment and risk of mortality can be reduced by simply saying to people take you stinking habit outside. Not rocket scince is it. Why you and others in the pro smoking lobby (as Ive arbitarilly decided to call you) seem to be preoccupied with diversionary arguments and linguistic dishonesty I dont know.

Ive not seen any reasoned attempt as to why some should be allowed to foul up other peoples air with their addiction or passing fancy other than so far:

We were always allowed to before.

We dont kill as many as...[insert risk of choice]

This is PC/nanny state/brussels or whatever ruining our way of life.

The ban wont work.

The last argument is true to the point that similarly rules against murder dont work because sometimes people do kill other people unlawfully but I dont see many people saying laws against murder are unworkable.

well i dont care.
as long as i can walk to school without breathing in one single bit of a cigarette i dont care.

"well i dont care.
as long as i can walk to school without breathing in one single bit of a cigarette i dont care."



Then don't walk past a pub, any place of business that had a smoking shelter and now requires you to smoke outside the gates, etc....

I went to my local pub last night, and it was almost empty! Then I realised that all the smokers were out in the garden and had been followed by the non- smokers! The barmaid was moaning because she couldn't smoke, and said that the previous night had been awful with the smell of numerous perfumes and body odour.

well. when i walk to school.
i dont go near a opub coz there aint one where i live.
and its always opeople who are going past me.

>>I think the point is that a less damaging form of pollution, that people actually enjoy,<<

Ask people to choose - you have to give up your car, or your cigarette habit. Which would you choose? Or, to be more realistic, be forced to spend 20 or 30 grand on a new, low emission car, or be forced to smoke outside.

I can't, literally, buy a low emission car. Smokers can much more easily smoke outside.


Anyway, what blicky said. There is no sense in this line of argument

Car emissions *are* being targetted but not by this law obviously. however what about congestion charging any effect there or compulsory emissions tests or even many governments putting *some* weight behind the green movement all conspiring to cause a change in attitude and the production of hybrid and "eco fuel" cars. Plus this one glaring fact that many people want smoking restricted while eco fuel driven cars make up a tiny part of the market hospitality in countries with "smoking bans" have seen only a 10% roughly speaking drop in their business.

Only one in ten have voted with their feet because of the "ban" this means that 90% or thereabouts want it or are happy enough to carry lump it.