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

And since Roy Castle wasn't a doctor and since, as far as I can tell, the relationship between passive smoking and lung cancer is tenuous at best... I don't really need to elaborate do I?

Err just off to find the link but didnt Roy Catle go to court about this and win?

Well looks like I am wrong on that one.

Besides which last time I checked medical facts were decided in the laboratory/hospital and not in the court room.

Slightly off-topic:
Regardless of whether or not it was passive smoking that caused his lung cancer, Record Breakers was rubbish after Roy Castle stopped doing it.

Roy castle has been given Six months to live.

He says he is gonna do it in 3.

the one reason why passive pub smoking probably got such a hold on roy castle is that he played pub venues very regularly and all that huge huffing and puffing on a trumpet... really inhaling and the trumpet must have acted like a... er inhaler....

well thats one theory i've heard.. as for me if i'm in a smokey area i try to breath as little as possible.....faints

new york bars are great.. so nice to drink in a smoke free atmosphere.. all the bars were chock a block too so blues must be right...

also blues you are correct in that pit bulls can be very dangerous dogs.. but mostly they aren't.. for instance there were 2 pitbulls when they broke in.... the male slobbered all over them..kissy licks.. but my bitch bit the handler... didn't savage or get a grip on him.. she bit him probably as they were trying to arrest them...i don't blame her in the least... christ i wanted to murder them for forcing my front door...me.. never been in any trouble in my life!!!! i just had bad judgment in men...

swl no they didn't have their own dogs.. that would have been a bloodbath.. bad enough strange humans breaking in...but as for other dogs..doesn't bear thinking about...

but i have heard of such a case from the old pitbull curcuit.. when the owner of a show champion pit bull champion kruger i think it was.. the owner was raided with a police dog... massive fight broke out in his bedroom.. police not aware of krugers presence...

see i like the police in general..stand for law and order and i like that...but they really should do their homework more thoroughly sometimes..like raiding my house for a man that had moved out.

azahar i really like your reasoning.. and even more so as you smoke too.. yours is the voice of reason.. you are fully aware of how foul it is to breathe in smoke, and especially when eating...

some smokers WILL not aknowledge this... these are the hard line will not reason smokers.... the ignorant swine that even now still try and have a crafty ciggy in the cinema...

and as for smokers puffing away when i'm trying to eat...to me thats just as offensive as if someone farted at the table....

you can guarantee if i go into town with my litle girl and buy a greggs sarnie.. we find a bench to sit on and eat... and guess what some b**tard will come along, sit on the same bench and light up... now thats rude!!!

>> ...someone please explain why there is a difference between the addiction to smoking form addiciton to other things? <<

Good question! And difficult to explain in terms that can be understood by anyone who is pure of mind and body. Nicotine takes a hold on both physical AND psychological functions. These are subtle compared to the more notorious narcotics but in the long term the addiction becomes almost irreversible.

While the physical addiction to most narcotics can be overcome (painfully) in whatever length of time it takes to regain a healthy body, it is usually the psychological and social factors that cause users to fall back into old habits.

Tobacco is probably the hardest of all addictions to overcome and even those who broke the habit and remain tobacco-free for years, even decades, admit to ongoing cravings. Tobacco touches the soul.

Tobacco was (and is) after all, a sacred tool for many tribes of aboriginal North Americans. It was a social drug to be shared, and
some of this reality is retained in the modern Hollywood myth of the 'peace pipe'. Tobacco wasn't just used to sign peace treaties, it was enjoyed whenever good friends got together to relax and enagae in stimulated and stimulating conversation. Perhaps without realising it, the issue of 'religious freedom' is at the heart of most smokers' fear of oppression by non-smokers.

Tobacco relaxes the body and excites the mind, and as such became more than just 'popular' in the 2oth century where where one needed to be simultaneously hip and cool. (See Dean Martin, Sammy Davis Jr., etc.)

Because of the modern cigarette it has here-to-for been possible to integrate smoking into almost all aspects of life. We could (and were encouraged to) enjoy both the physical relaxation and the mental excitement at both work and play. The psychological aspects became engrained into the fabric of modern life. Advertising helped greatly to create an image of acceptability, even envy, of those who smoked. (See Dean Martin, Frank Sinatra, Sammy Davis Jr., etc.)

Caffiene and alcohol are now the only other addictive drugs that remain more or less socially acceptable. Even when opium was still common and legal (a century ago) its effects made it nearly impossible to maintain decorum in a social or work setting.

Most other addictions are, not just by force of law but by the very nature of their impact on the mind and body, harder to integrate into society, especially the work environment where attention, concentration or creativity are required.

Those who use 'speed' (in assorted forms) or cocaine are seldom able to carry on happily or safely as productive citizens. Like alcohol, an inevitable increase in dosage will sooner or later result in chaos or mayhem often causing pain and property damage to innocent third parties.

Curiously, marijuana which is the most harmless and generally non-addictive substance actually has the greatest impact on personal well being. It too is considered a spiritual and mental liberator and functions in many cultures the way tobacco served the native North American.

As many have discovered it is often (at the early stages) difficult to integrate marijuana into specific work settings or polite societies where spillage and laughter are frowned upon. And while I do not advocate its use while flying a plane or even washing dishes, it too is a social drug and like tobacco should be allowed in specific environments for the pleasure of those who enjoy it. For it truly is the pipe of peace.


~jwf~

interesting post jwf, thank-you.

however, rest-assured if something is enjoyable, somebody else will try to ban it.

>> ...answer the question of how smokers came to feel they have the 'right' to inflict their habit onto others? <<

No. No. No. No one has the right to inflict anything upon others. Nor would I subject anyone unwillingly to my second hand smoke. We agree on that, but like most you are missing the point.

Now pay attention:
What we are saying is that the law must continue to allow the right of smokers to assemble with other smokers, in places where non-smokers would be advised to avoid, just as the blacks had to have their own washrooms.

~jwf~

hi ~jwf~,

I totally agree that smokers should be allowed their 'smoking havens' whether they be 'smokers pubs' or whatever.

It's really all gone a bit stupid, saying that people can't smoke in their cars or at a covered bus shelter (that is otherwise open). I do think that people with children should not smoke in cars or even at home, but that's just me (having gone through this as a child with two chain-smoking parents - it was horrible).

The new non-smoking law that came into effect in Spain this past January is rather curious. Seemingly only bars/restaurants that have more than 100 square metres are required to provide a non-smoking area. Has anyone ever been to Spain? Most tapa bars are rather small, way under 100 square metres. It seems that these bars are now required to post a notice on their front door saying that smoking is allowed on the premises but that smoking is a health hazard.

The main difference with the new Spanish smoking rules is that people in offices and other working places cannot smoke on the premises. The woman I often deal with at my bank used to sit at her desk with an over-heaping ashtray of butts . . . wonder what she'll do now? To be honest, I never noticed a smoke problem at the bank as it is a place with very high ceilings and good ventilation.

Meanwhile, a friend of mine working at a government office is quite happy that her co-workers can no longer smoke-up her work space. It's a small office without proper ventilation - totally see her point.

Me? I just don't want people smoking in my face when I'm eating. And the few bars here that make my eyes sting and water after being there for five minutes, well, I just don't go there anymore.

Though I do like the idea of popular bars that offer live entertainment being smoke-free.


az

It finally occured to me that in addition to the wide variety of differing personal opinions and perspectives expressed here, we are also dealing with many different laws in several different countries.

I'm usually more conscious of this sort of narrow vision when cyberspacing but the subject is so important to me that I forgot that the "new laws" we're facing in parts of Canada have become much more oppressive and ill-thought-out than perhaps anywhere else.

There was for a time (late 1990s) a "limited ban" which demanded that bars, restaurants and workplaces provide a separate smoking area. Many smaller places could not comply and we sorta started getting used to not smoking or going outside.

Then it was stiffened to be "an air conditioned, separate and sealed smoking area". Of course only the most profitable restaurants and generous employers would spend the money for such renovations. We got even more accustomed to stepping outside for a smoke. But non-smokers objected to running a gauntlet of smokers huddled around entrances. And the Fire Marshall objected to crowds gathering around 'exits'.

So, recently, in Nova Scotia, the band has become TOTAL. There are no places reserved for smokers and unlike New York you cannot get a liquor license to open a 'cigar bar' for smokers only.

Worse, we can't smoke outside anymore either, because it is now illegal to smoke on a public sidewalk within 15 meters of any doorway or anywhere in the parking lot of a business or institution, even inside your own auto.

Sounds like what you have in Spain now was our situation about five years ago. Perhaps when these draconian 'new laws' catch up in the Euro-lands, more of the people (online above) will understand how oppressed we feel here to be denied all rights. We cannot have or create new areas for the exclusive use of smokers.


~jwf~

OMG, Canada definately scored off my "places to visit" list !!!

What has been the reaction in Canada to these laws?

I don't know if my opinion is off topic,or even if it has been mentioned,but here goes me,i believe in Ireland,where it was banned overnight,they are and have made many beer gardens,also outside heating,i know this because my brother lives there, (no action taken)
People WILL adapt,for one they have no choice,and two bars,pubs and clubs will facilitate for everyone,(quotes from various trade magazines)simply because they don't want to lose trade (no action taken)
I don't like the fact our rights are taken away,just as much as the next person,but we have NO choice,unless we unite and fight it???
Here's a little story;My sisters mother-in law was dying recently,with cancer,she had already lost her husband last year,after 50 years of marriage,anyway if she died before her house was sold,the goverment was taking 40% from the sale of the house......WHY? She and her husband worked all there lives and paid tax contributions etc;...INHERITANCE TAX! what the heck is that!
Anyway sadly and i mean sadly,she signed contracts literally on her
death bed.
so her family got the money...
We have three choices,we can accept,fight it,or simply complain and make conversation out of it!

I'm a non-smoker. I have no objections to pubs allowing smoking if they don't serve food. I'm not a pub-goer, so if I'm in a pub it's for the food rather than drink/socialising. I do object to any place that serves food allowing smoking. This is for hygiene reasons as much as being anti passive smoking. The people who cook and serve the food aren't allowed to smoke, so why should I share my eating-space with people who do. Splitting the restaurant (or whatever it may be) into seperate areas doesn't work. Smoke drifts, as do any particles.

As for workplaces providing smoking areas, I worked for a company that did that. The room they provided was so small and badly ventilated that it was unusable after a very short time. People went outside to smoke, 'cos they just couldn't bear the 'smoking room'. It seems that even if a company provides a smoking area, there's no guarantee they'll spend sufficient money to make it usable.

Oh, and opinion may be divided on the issue of whether passive smoking is really dangerous, but I don't want to take any chances. I have enough health problems (one of them is asthma, which isn't helped by smoke or fumes of any kind) without risking adding to them. Just my point of view.

Hate to say this Cheerful Dragon, but I am a asthma sufferer too.

My doc told me that passive smoking affects an asthma-sufferers lungs in the same way as Brycanyl, opening up the airways. It doesn't FEEL beneficial, but it is actually helping.

In moderation of course.

I don't care what your doctor says, I care about how I feel in a smokey room! Besides, asthma gives me an legitimate 'excuse' to avoid smokey places, so I'm sticking to that.