BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Conversation >

Ciao, Nicotine

  
  

Page: (1)23

 
 
Laughing
21:11 / 05.01.05
Italian smoking ban.

I live in Italy. I smoke. This ruined my day.

I guess they'll ban wine and espresso next.

Bastards.
 
 
Loomis
08:30 / 06.01.05
Bloody hell - I never thought this would happen in Europe, at least not so soon anyway. Mind you, this law does allow the creation of smoking areas:

"The law bans smoking in all indoor spaces unless they have a separate smoking area with continuous floor-to-ceiling walls and a ventilation system."

I'd like to see smoking areas allowed in countries which will be introducing bans, but it's not the case in Ireland as far as I know, and I don't think it's the plan for Scotland, which is going smoke-free in 2006.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
08:49 / 06.01.05
continuous floor-to-ceiling walls - but how would you get in?
 
 
Loomis
09:04 / 06.01.05
Through the floor or ceiling I suppose. Like Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible. Imagine a whole bunch of Italians suspended by ropes, smoking and drinking coffee. Like a particularly stylish mobile.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
09:14 / 06.01.05
They could fill the bottom with rolls of razor wire, Suspiria-style. Argento'd have a blast.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
09:17 / 06.01.05
On a more serious note... I was thinking the other day about why I am opposed to smoking bans. And believe me, I am. But I've realised that it IS purely for selfish reasons. Whenever I get in an argument on the subject, I realise I have no moral or ethical arguments to fall back on.
 
 
Smoothly
09:25 / 06.01.05
Not even a civil liberty argument?
 
 
Axolotl
09:29 / 06.01.05
Yeah, but smoking ban arguments are based purely on selfish arguments too - they don't want to breathe smoke.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
09:29 / 06.01.05
I can't really square one with my rabid hatred of other forms of air pollution. There IS a civil liberties argument, sure, but it's not one I can wield particularly well.
 
 
haus of fraser
13:48 / 06.01.05
Nah its all bollocks- I personally can't wait for the ban to come into place in this country.

I'm now two weeks down into giving up smoking- i've managed similar amounts of time before but its always sitting in a fucking pub that starts me off again- I'm avoiding pubs specifically for that reason at the moment -

I don't think smoking should be banned outright- however a more rigerous policing and licencing of smoking establishments of bars and restaurants can only be a good thing. Maybe a door entry fee for licenced smoking establishments- which is then passed on to employees as either health care or extra wages or "danger money" thus directly benefiting those effected.

I'm pretty sure that without smoking in pubs i would either not have smoked the last few years- or would have certainly smoked a lot lot less- i don't smoke at work or at home- go figure.

Before I get all the smokers calling me a facist remember i know how great a pint and a fag can be- i also know how painful bronchitis is and how excruciatingly painful pleurisy is as i have suffered both- both as a direct result of smoking and both before hitting 30.

God this rant sounds like i only just gave up, but i'm doing ok.....

really...

2 weeks today....
 
 
Smoothly
15:19 / 06.01.05
What's all bollocks?

As (ze's not)Laughing(anymore) pointed out, the rationale behind banning smoking could be applied to all kinds of things. And while certain curbs on freedoms might suit a particular individual or group, we all have to be careful about what kind of reasoning we give the thumbs up to.
As an obvious example, replace 'smoking' with 'drinking' in your post, Copey. In fact, you'd have an even stronger argument there, as no one seriously doubts that innocent people are killed by others' drinking.

Good luck with quitting though. I'm told that 14 days is, for many, something of a watershed. Should get easier from here.
 
 
Axolotl
15:43 / 06.01.05
Nicely put Smoothly. As a non-smoker I'd quite like pubs to be non-smoking but it's not a matter for legislation. If you want a pubs to be non-smoking organise petitions and boycotts not legislation.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
15:54 / 06.01.05
Well I'm about five days into my first go ever ( that's the first in fifteen years, sports fans, ) at giving up smoking, and to be totally honest, if that kind of self-pitying, sanctimonious dirge - " It was the pub wot made me do it... fucking pubs... should all be burnt down... and give me my own fucking column in The News Of The World while you're about it, I am teh character, " etc, however ironically intended, is the kind of thing I can expect from my post-cig self, then it seems a fair bet that I'll be back on the tabs faster than you can say Anne Robinson, another vocally reformed ex-smoker who, I'd imagine, is a whole barrel of laughs to have round at parties.

Seriously man, at the moment you're virtually a walking billboard for the tobacco industry, positing a horrible future as Victor Meldrew for anyone foolish enough to even think about quitting, and it really doesn't help.
 
 
haus of fraser
16:40 / 06.01.05
sorry i was sounding a bit grumpy- was half intended to be tongue in cheek- reformed smoker and all ;oP

but I would support stronger legislation restricing smoking in public places- some pubs should be smoking some shouldn't - on a lobbying front, surely governments looking to change the law are doing it for exactly that reason they have been lobbied by groups and health workers to change the law.

I was looking for a non smoking bar to drink in for birthday drinks in Soho after work, short of a couple of horrible suity 'all-bar-one' type joints with a small corner devoted to the healthy there aint nuthin'.

A few years ago you could smoke on the tube, on trains, on planes and many other places- as a smoker I never missed smoking in any of those places- I just accepted it and learnt to spark up when I left the area/ arrived at my destination- in a couple of years i'm sure we'll be wondering what all the fuss was about with bars and restaurants

I just got a call from a friend top see if i wanted an after work beer aghhh the temptation, the temptation

fuggin smokey shithole....

i luvz it
 
 
Smoothly
17:46 / 06.01.05
Boys, I've got lots of sympathy for your situation. I've never tried quitting myself, but I can well imagine how different the social landscape looks if you want to resist temptation.

And Copey, I agree with you - there should be non-smoking bars. And if you ask me, there should be dry bars for people trying to avoid the temptation of alcohol; there should be bars without music; there should be bars without tossers... (both of which are also hard to find in Soho). But are these things that the government and its agencies should enforce? There's already economic pressure on publicans and restaurateurs to provide facilities agreeable to non-smokers; most people are non-smokers. Should it be made *illegal* to offer a facilities for smokers, if that's the market you want to pursue? I don't see why.

And let's not forget, these smoking bans are not lobbied for by the anti-smoking organisations to protect non-smokers; their argument is that it encourages smokers to give up. Now, this might suit you very well indeed if you want to quit, but those who don't will resent the hell out of the government coercing them to do so. If they want smokers to stop, they should have the balls to ban it. Tutting censoriously while they take £10bn a year in tax is more than a little irksome.

A few years ago you could smoke on the tube, on trains, on planes and many other places ... in a couple of years i'm sure we'll be wondering what all the fuss was about with bars and restaurants

Funnily enough this is exactly what scares me.

"Ewww... Fox turned into a hardcore pornography channel so gradually, I hardly noticed." - Marge Simpson
 
 
Alex's Grandma
18:38 / 06.01.05
Sorry if I was sounding a bit grumpy

I also.

I suppose the argument to do with non-smoking pubs, why there aren't more of them around, and why the government feels it has to interfere on this matter, is that left to their own devices pub owners and licensees don't see the percentage in initiating smoking bans. But wouldn't it be easier, rather than placing one more burden on the already overstretched resources of the boys in blue, ( who I assume are going to be enforcing this - you can picture the scene, half past Ten on a Saturday night " Hello, Police ? Yes I'm in a licensed premises that serves hot food, and I can see several people with lit cigarettes. " " We'll send a squad car right round sir. " ) to instead just introduce a grant system or some such, whereby there's a financial incentive for running non-smoking places, which would mean owners would be more likely to self-police, bar staff would have more choice about where they worked, and smokers, non-smokers, and those of us somewhere in between would presumably all be happy ?

Except that, I suppose, would probably mean " sending out the wrong signals... "
 
 
Axolotl
19:32 / 06.01.05
They could encourage non-smoking pubs through the licensing system: make it a condition on 50% of new licenses or when a pub wants a late license. If the public do in fact want smoke-free pubs that would do enough to kick start them, and if they don't you've just proved that the legislation is wrong-headed.
At the risk of sounding like a Daily Mail reader why the goverment feels the need to interfere with personal liberties I just don't know, and why people don't understand the need to protect our civil liberies just plain baffles me (I can rant on this all night).
 
 
Bed Head
19:49 / 06.01.05
Hmmm. You don’t think it could have anything to do with the money a licencing system could bring in? On top of the tax and the fines, that is. Squeezing every last drop out of what is a diminishing number of smokers? You ban something people want, you create the context in which a licencing system can seem like a concession.

Because, y’know, educating people about the dangers of smoking/banning advertising/hiking the price... this approach seems to be working fine, over time. It's not particularly headline-grabbing stuff, but isn’t the number of adult smokers in Britain supposed to be falling? And more significantly, people are tending to give up at a younger age. Er, I think. I’m sure I read that somewhere.
 
 
Loomis
08:55 / 07.01.05
My experiences certainly support that, Bed Head. Giving up used to be something your dad did at 50 because his dcotor made him. Now just about everyone I know has given up by about 32.
 
 
haus of fraser
13:46 / 07.01.05
My experiences certainly support that, Bed Head. Giving up used to be something your dad did at 50 because his dcotor made him. Now just about everyone I know has given up by about 32.

hmm maybe i should start again as it seems i have another year in me as I turn 31 this weekend....

update on last night... i went to the pub and didn't smoke others did- just needed peanuts and good conversation- i think if the conversation had dropped i'd have been itching for a smoke... lets see if i can break this thing people.

Alex how are you getting on? Just get through the weekend then its gotta get easier...
 
 
alas
14:17 / 07.01.05
In the US more teenagers are smoking now--something like 1/3 of all kids under 18. Which is a lot, for us. I just read that part of the world-wide obesity epidemic is probably traceable to the decline in smoking. So there's something brilliant at work here: get us addicted at a young age to something that wigs up your metabolism and craving cycles, then get us to spend money quitting and at the same time getting fat, and we are doomed to spend a lot of money one way or another: either more smoking, more eating, more dieting tricks, more medical care, more . . . .

I don't smoke, spouse does, most of my friends do. Actually, I'm one of those annoying people who smokes when drinking about once every few months. Just because I can. So I'm definitely of two minds about this.

On the one hand: I enjoy a few fags every now and again. Especially while drinking, but sometimes after a wonderful long meal in a posh restaurant while pretending not to have gone into mild cardiac arrest at the amount I just charged to my credit card . . . I love the look of smoke. I love the buzz that I actually feel because I don't smoke very often. I love playing with fire. I love lighting up. I love the acridness. I like the way my partner tastes when he smokes--he tastes strange when he tries to quit. I like . . .

On the other hand: The cigarette industrial complex is about as bad an industry as there is. Why give any money to those guys? And the civil liberties argument makes about as much sense to me as people getting angry about being "forced" to wear seatbelts. I hate a sanctimonious ex-smoker as much as the next guy, honestly, but I certainly appreciate Stoatie's willingness to admit that it's pure selfishness that makes him resent smoking bans.

I too feel a kind of sadness that Italy has gone the route of no smoking in public, because I am embarrassed to admit that I still feel a kind of romance about smoking in Italian cafes and train stations left over from my youth and Merchant Ivory film productions. But I surely that's something to be mostly embarrassed by? Have you ever watched someone die from emphysema or lung cancer or had a friend with no health insurance (U.S. context I realize) have a lung collapse? Ok, ok, that probably feels mean or something but, well, I'm with Stoatie: can't quite square my own attraction to smoking with my other political stances.

It's just that unlike sanctimonious christians here, I (mostly) love the sin AND the sinners!

I wish I could really see this as civil liberties, but I can't really.
 
 
alas
14:20 / 07.01.05
(btw by "here" in the end, I don't mean Barbelith, I mean the U.S. anti-gay community.)
 
 
Smoothly
15:06 / 07.01.05
And the civil liberties argument makes about as much sense to me as people getting angry about being "forced" to wear seatbelts

Possibly I'm being really stupid, but what has one got to do with the other? As I understand it, the state has no obligation to protect us from harming ourselves. Suicide is perfectly legal.

I don't think the things we *like* about smoking (even if the emotional, barely tangible, instinctive things alas mentions) are irrelevant to the debate. Our attachment to privacy is pretty nebulous priority, but it's important, regardless of the positive consequences of disregarding it. Don't you agree?
 
 
haus of fraser
15:17 / 07.01.05
Suicide is perfectly legal.

as i understood it its not.... at least in the UK

scarey huh
 
 
Smoothly
15:21 / 07.01.05
I think it was made legal under the 1961 Suicide Act, Copey.
 
 
modern maenad
15:54 / 07.01.05
Though a smoker myself I really believe that smoking should be banned pretty much everywhere (except perhaps wide open spaces where there's no one in sight/smell as long as you take the debris away with you). My main reason for feeling this way is the recognition that cigarette smoke is toxic poison, and I should not be putting into the atmosphere. Whenever I light up around non smokers a little voice in my head reminds me that I'm being totally anti-social and irresponsible, but I squash it down with excuses like 'everyone else does it'. I am particularly haunted by my behaviour at a recent friends wedding, when I sat talking to a woman who was getting over breast cancer, smoking away. My feeble excuse is that I was drunk, but that's really not good enough. So, my base line is the belief that smokers are selfish, and, regretably, it is often the role of government to push social progress along, and there's nearly always a lobby against whatever it is. I'm also very aware of my own feebleness when it comes to the image of smoking-as-cool, and know that everytime I see a sexy/smart/interesting person light up, it reinforces that part of me that feels smoking is good. If smoking in public is banned, I'm sure it will help to undermine the status and acceptability of smoking (though I realise sub/counter cultures will always exist).
 
 
Smoothly
16:09 / 07.01.05
Yeah, there's no way of getting away from it - smoking is a selfish thing to do. I only do it because *I* enjoy it. And it can be antisocial - it can be extremely social too, of course, but none the less.
Thing is, and please do mock, I don't think it's that toxic, on the grand scheme of things. I mean, I light the things, purse my lips and the end and suck the smoke directly into my lungs - probably 20 or so great big lungfuls from each cigarette. I get through 20 or 30 of those a day, everyday, and have done for over 10 years. I've noticed no ill-effects yet so I kinda reason that it's not exctly plutonium; it's not even coal dust, it's not even exhaust fumes.
You raise a good point about prohibition though.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
18:16 / 07.01.05
It is often the role of government to push social progress along

Well that's what most governments would like us to think anyway, but as far as the current UK admin goes, in terms of most of their major social initiatives the words " piss-up " and " brewery " aren't the last ones that spring to mind, let's put it that way.

Alex, how are you getting on ?

Um, okay, I think. I've lapsed to the extent of allowing myself the occasional *herbal* cig in the evening as a means of appeasing the Gollum voices ( you know the ones - " Sssmmmokke the preccciousss... SMOKE IT !!! ) but apart from that, a qualified all right. I think.

So lots of room for manoeuvre there I suppose - Basically, this week I've had I think eight or so cigs when I'd otherwise have got through nearly two hundred, ( ie 198, 199, that type of thing, ) so I don't know, I remain optimistic. As a Leo, it's one of my most appealing features, apparently.
 
 
alas
23:18 / 07.01.05
Possibly I'm being really stupid, but what has one [i.e., my seatbelt comparison] got to do with the other? As I understand it, the state has no obligation to protect us from harming ourselves.

Well, in the US anyway, and especially when seatbelt laws were first made and enforced, the civil liberties argument was made quite a bit by people who felt the belts were constraining and the requirement to wear them a violation of their civil liberties. The state may not have an "obligation" to protect you from self-harm, but it does have an obligation to "promote the general welfare" (and oh yes that's a complicated little phrase). Anyway, if you don't wear a seatbelt, and you get into an accident, we all end up paying for your refusal one way or another--and if you die, and the accident is determined to be the "fault" of the other driver, well, that complicates things: your refusal to wear a seatbelt may have made that person a murderer.

Ok, in smoking the rules are different, but if you're polluting the air we all need to breathe--especially for people who don't have much choice about being there (a worker, esp. a low-wage worker) or little ability to move away (an infant), well then you are depriving them of a choice.
 
 
Smoothly
01:20 / 08.01.05
The state may not have an "obligation" to protect you from self-harm, but it does have an obligation to "promote the general welfare"

Sure. And wouldn't have thought anyone would object to the government *promoting* the use of seat-belts.
I'm not particularly concerned with governments promoting careful driving, safe sex, a sensible diet, sunscreen, the green cross code, regular exercise, good posture, healthy teeth and gums... I'm just not so wild about the idea od them insisting on it, on pain of criminal prosecution.
Don't we value the freedom to enjoy different lifestyles – even if some are more risky than others?


Anyway, if you don't wear a seatbelt, and you get into an accident, we all end up paying for your refusal one way or another

The fact that my taxes are spent on cleaning up after people who choose to take different risks from me is a price I'm very happy to pay. Really. If someone needs treatment for bowel cancer, I feel no urge to check if they've been eating their greens before kicking in my share.
And if we're talking about smoking-related injuries, I'd mention again the billions in tax (which, in the UK, covers the total NHS spend on smoking-related illness many many times over).


Ok, in smoking the rules are different, but if you're polluting the air we all need to breathe--especially for people who don't have much choice about being there (a worker, esp. a low-wage worker) or little ability to move away (an infant), well then you are depriving them of a choice.

This is true. But doesn’t everyone churn things into the atmosphere that others might find unpleasant - be it their Impulse all-over body spray, bad breath or noxious opinions (which, as we know, can also absorbed passively)? I think it’s good for us to tolerate things we don’t personally like. And in the case of infants, I just don't see the logic of confining smoking to the home.


Do I sound like I'm sponsored by BAT? I don't mean to. I share your concerns with the tobacco monopolies, alas. I just wish the government would focus its energies on tackling things like that instead of making sure the hospitality industries don't cater for smokers.
 
 
alas
01:40 / 08.01.05
I can see your point of view. I'm not sure I'm completely convinced by either of us. So that's something. Or nothing.

Shake hands?
 
 
Smoothly
01:53 / 08.01.05
Absolutely. Put it there.

I'm not totally convinced myself, you know.
 
 
alas
02:03 / 08.01.05
Ah, but see, with you it may be the demon nicotine talking, whereas I am obviously much more sound of mind on caffiene, a little red wine, the vitamins I took earlier, some extra zinc I'm inhaling for this cold, the antidepressant-I-take-like-the-body-of-Christ- himself, the chocolate on the malted balls I just ate . . . Anybody got anything else I should add to the cocktail I call my body?
 
 
Loomis
17:22 / 08.01.05
I'd be delighted to join the group hug, Smoothly and alas, as I'm very much in line with what you're saying. Particularly when Smoothly says:

Thing is, and please do mock, I don't think it's that toxic, on the grand scheme of things.

...

Do I sound like I'm sponsored by BAT? I don't mean to. I share your concerns with the tobacco monopolies, alas. I just wish the government would focus its energies on tackling things like that instead of making sure the hospitality industries don't cater for smokers.

This has been my bugbear for years. It is a misrepresentation of the facts to say that smoking *causes* cancer. If that was true then every single smoker would get cancer which obviously they don't. Smoking simply damages your body and increases the likelihood that you will get cancer, heart disease, etc. As does bad diet, lack of exercise, etc. When someone who subsists on cheeseburgers, is overweight, doesn't exercise, tells me that I'm killing myself with the 3 cigs I smoke a week, well, excuse me for seeing the irony.

IMHO, the anti-smoking movement is a red herring. It's as if when smoking is history, we'll all be healthy and free of cancer. A lot more good would be done by making laws on the amounts of chemicals, fat, salt that can be allowed in food products, and industrial and car pollution. If you live in a city then you are breathing in the exhaust of gazillions of cars in every breath. Add to that all the chemicals you take in with every mouthful of pre-packaged food, the chemicals on your clothes, the radiation in your phone, etc. We're lucky that we don't drop dead on the spot with the lives we lead, so to say that you're going to get cancer because you're forced to passive-smoke once a week for 3 hours on a Friday night is laughable. Likewise if Smoothly were to, god forbid, suffer ill health one day, it would be put down to his cigarette habit while no one is looking into the issue of all the pollution he breathes from the traffic.

However ....

Notwithstanding that rant, and even though there is plenty of other pollution out there, I can still see the other side, that people still shouldn't have to breathe my smoke. But again, I think the furthest the law should go is to insist that every bar maintains a non-smoking area. If I want to open a smoking bar, and all my staff agree to work there (even at a govt-regulated higher wage), and that I keep a smoke-free area, then I should be allowed to do it.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
17:55 / 08.01.05
I just find it interesting that, in direct contrast to the government's stated policy on most other drugs of leisure, in this case they find it more convenient to target the user, not the supplier. See also: booze.
 
  

Page: (1)23

 
  
Add Your Reply