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(2)3

18:21 / 14.02.06

So, toodle-pip Nicotine.

A free vote bans smoking in all enclosed public spaces (including private clubs). I know I'm pretty much on my own here, but I find it incredibly depressing.

Please, Barbelith, help me look on the brightside! I suppose I'll save a lot of money in the winter, but what else?

18:44 / 14.02.06

As I understand it, the state has no obligation to protect us from harming ourselves. Suicide is perfectly legal.

Not legal in the US, and certainly not in California where I have twice been the "guest" of hospitals on 72 hour holds. They take their responsibility to not let you commit suicide very seriously.

The only state that allows suicide is Oregon, and then only if you have a terminal illness and are certified to have less than six months to live.

As for the whole smoking in public places debate -

I think if you're going down the civil liberties road, you have to be willing to protect BOTH civil liberties. The rights of the smokers to smoke where they want to and the right of the non-smokers to have clean(er) air. Here in CA smoking is prohibited. Up in Oregon and Washington where I grew up, most of the bars and restaurants have a smoking section and a non-smoking section, so that you can take your pick. The one thing I will say about CA being such a non-smoking environment, however, is that far fewer people smoke here than do back home. When I first moved here, I found it quite odd that I could walk down a crowded street and not smell any cigarette smoke.

I'm the only one in my family who doesn't smoke. I don't have any prejudice against anyone else doing it and I actually find it rather sexy, on the whole. However, I'd rather not smell it when I'm getting ready to eat, thank you very much.

There is a famous saying that I've heard in a couple of different contexts throughout my life:

"Your right to wave your fist ends at the tip of my nose."

I don't support government regulation of private lives, but I do think they have a right to regulate what is and is not done in public space.

18:46 / 14.02.06

quick note that smoking is not prohibited in ALL of CA, just in public spaces, my bad for being non-specific

18:59 / 14.02.06

I don't really think this is about rights, at least not natural rights. I don't think anyone believes there is a natural right to smoke cigarettes, or that there is a natural right to breathe clean air for that matter. I currently have a *legal* right to smoke in pubs that permit smoking, but that right is shortly to be taken away. But that's how rights work so I'm not going to cry foul. Due process has been followed, and that's that.
I'm just sad about it.

I didn't know you had no right to kill yourself in CA. We do have that right here, and, FWIW, I'd be sad if that got taken away from us too.

Tryphena Absent

20:31 / 14.02.06

For anyone who wants to read about it- Smoking ban in all pubs and clubs.

10:25 / 15.02.06

Yes, suicide is legal here, although aiding and abetting suicide is not.

11:04 / 15.02.06

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.

In defence of the theoretical burger-muncher, their eating of the cheeseburgers only affects their health. Where as smoking three cigarettes affects the health everyone in breathing distance of the offending item.

I'm all for the ban, as I neither smoke nor find the smell of burning tobacco pleasant (unburnt tobacco on the other hand smells lovely). However I can see how parallels could be drawn between smoking and drinking as "offensive to others".

IMO Drinking is the less offensive of the two. Not everyone who drinks does so to excess, and not everyone who drinks to excess acts violently.

However, as I point out at the top of the post, even a light smoker is going to expose others in their immediate area to cigarette smoke if they're in an enclosed space.

I don't see the ban on smoking in pubs, etc as an attempt to ween smokers off cigs (let's face it, if the massive tax hikes on them won't put you off what will?). It's an effort to protect those who don't smoke.

The argument that smoking is just another form of pollution holds some sway with me. However, I'd complain if someone was gunning a motorbike engine inside a building whilst I was trying to enjoy a crafty pint.

Bans on drinking in the street are becoming more and more frequent in the UK. The smokers get to smoke in the sunshine and freeze in the winter, and the drinkers swelter inside in the summer, and drink hot rum toddies in the pub in winter.

Tryphena Absent

11:55 / 15.02.06

IMO Drinking is the less offensive of the two.

Less offensive yes but as a non-drinker I have to say that the scent of alcohol is really very distinctive and kind of gross. I think that without cigarette smoke there are quite a few pubs that I'm going to have to avoid because some of them are going to smell nasty.

Tryphena Absent

11:56 / 15.02.06

... this is going to cost a lot, not because people will stop going but because landlords/managers are actually going to have to clean beer lines (and pubs in general) far more religiously.

12:17 / 15.02.06

I think that without cigarette smoke there are quite a few pubs that I'm going to have to avoid because some of them are going to smell nasty.

True. There are one or two I can think of where the reek of cig smoke masked the vague vomity aroma quite nicely.

landlords/managers are actually going to have to clean beer lines (and pubs in general) far more religiously

How so?

12:22 / 15.02.06

smoking three cigarettes affects the health everyone in breathing distance of the offending item.

Could you point me to the evidence for this? Cheers.

12:56 / 15.02.06

Could you point me to the evidence for this? Cheers.

Happy to oblige Smoothly.

Here is a site with reports of various studies on the deleterious effects of secondary smoke.

This one gives a rather comprehensive overview of studies done in California.

Secondary smoke does damage health. The environmental tobacco smoke in an area inhabited by someone smoking cigarettes and someone eating cheeseburgers will be higher than one inhabited only by someone eating cheeseburgers.

14:10 / 15.02.06

As far as I can tell from those studies you need to spend years living with a heavy smoker before any increased risk of getting smoking related diseases begins to register. And even then, it’s touch and go whether the increased risk hits the threshold of statistical significance. Although I probably need to give them a closer reading to be sure.

But none of those seem to suggest that you have an increased risk of getting cancer or any other disease through exposure to smoke on occasional visits to smoky pubs, let alone by being within breathing distance of 3 cigarettes. In fact, is there any evidence that *smoking* three cigarettes presents a risk to health?

14:34 / 15.02.06

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.

In defence of the theoretical burger-muncher, their eating of the cheeseburgers only affects their health. Where as smoking three cigarettes affects the health everyone in breathing distance of the offending item.

Just to clarify the point I was making in that bit you quoted, what I meant was that a few hours in the pub once a week will do x amount of damage to you, as will other things you do such as bad diet, etc. And to make this massive change in social policy in order to improve the health of passive smokers by this small amount could achieve the same result by focusing on other areas of public health.

The dangers of passive smoking depend on the degree, and I would imagine for the vast majority of the public, they don't spend enough time in smoky pubs for it to affect their health any more than a whole range of other negative influences that are unregulated. Not to say that there aren't other reasons for banning smoking in enclosed areas (passive smoking of the staff being an obvious one), but I'm just not convinced that occasional passive smoking has a greater negative effect on people than other things like car pollution, diet, booze, etc.

14:43 / 15.02.06

One of the arguments in favour of this ban is that Pub staff have no choice in the matter currently if they want to work in their chosen profession. They will spend the majority of their day surrounded by people smoking and their chance of contracting cancer will be higher than if they didn't.

Now I don't think you should have to run a risk of a higher chance of cancer if you're running a pub.

The personal liberty arguments have to be balenced against the harm to others that smoking does.

And hey it's not like we're on a slippery slope to Judge Dredd style Smokatoriums just yet

.

14:47 / 15.02.06

Does anyone know all the exemptions planned for the ban? I know prisons and army barracks are exempted, and hospitals will still have indoor smoking rooms, but someone mentioned that they heard that the Palace of Westminster will also get an exemption. Anyone else hear that?

14:49 / 15.02.06

Have the Scottish Parliament's stringent measures (compulsory gelding and spaying of stray smokers etc.) come into force yet, L? You are further down that experimental smoke-free road than are we pleuritic, wheezing Southerners, no?

I am pleased about the bill passing, from a selfish point of view and from a public health perspective, but I'm concerned that the priority this was given speaks of more acquiescence to focus groups of Daily Mail readers from Middleshire. They're doing it because it's a vote winner, not because of the health benefits.

Tryphena Absent

14:51 / 15.02.06

In fact, is there any evidence that *smoking* three cigarettes presents a risk to health?

It reduces your lung capacity so possibly not directly but it's a contributory factor.

14:56 / 15.02.06

Xoc - it's not till March, so still time for a last gasp. 25th I think? In fact I am already irritated by people saying things like "32 days to go" as if everyone present should know what they're talking about and nod enthusiastically.

Especially annoying when it's someone who you recall rolling cigarettes for a mere couple of months previous ...

14:56 / 15.02.06

It reduces your lung capacity so possibly not directly but it's a contributory factor.

Measurably? Permanently? I don't understand how I’m still alive.

Tryphena Absent

15:05 / 15.02.06

That's because you refuse to accept that you would be healthier if you didn't smoke, which is due to your poor memory and stubborness. You know you can't run up stairs like a non-smoker and I wouldn't be surprised if you had a permanent cough.

Smoking makes you more susceptible to chest infections, colds etc. Even three a week. That's a health risk.

Tryphena Absent

15:09 / 15.02.06

You're still alive because you haven't killed your lungs yet, just damaged them.

15:11 / 15.02.06

That’s the thing, Nina. I can bound up all the escalators at Angel tube, I haven’t had so much as a cold in at least 3 years and have you ever heard me cough? I had one of those blow-down-the-tube lung capacity tests when I signed on to a new GP a couple of years ago and the nurse said my result was as high as she’d seen.
I might *look* like shit, but I seem to be pretty healthy. I think I must be smoking them wrong.

But I accept that my improbable, superhuman resistance might be giving me a skewed view of how ruinous they are generally.

ONLY NICE THINGS

15:12 / 15.02.06

With respect, is there not an entire thread kicking around already in which people offer anecdotal and scientific illustrations of the dangers of passive smoking and SW finds them all unconvincing?

15:14 / 15.02.06

Aye.

15:19 / 15.02.06

People survive gunshots, too, smoothly, so I'm not sure that the fact that people who smoke sometimes die of things other than lung cancer is an argument in favor of smoking.

Smokers love to lounge under the no smoking sign in the patio at my school, where the lunch tables and vending machines are. I used to confine myself to giving them dirty looks, but for a while there I thought I might be pregnant, so I felt I just couldn't go anywhere near. It turns out that smokers stand outside every exit to the building, so unless I wanted to go stand in the parking lot...

Perhaps not being to spew smoke into the lungs of unwilling passerby anywhere and everywhere you feel like is just one more annoyance you tough guys are going to have to live with.

15:33 / 15.02.06

I’m not presenting an argument in favour of smoking. Although imagine the ignominy if I did! Encouraging someone to use a potentially dangerous drug? Who could live with themselves? Couldn't happen on Barbelith, certainly.

I think people who smoke in non-smoking areas are cunts, fred. Personally, I don’t smoke near people who don’t want me to. I’m a tough guy, sure, but I’m civilised too.
Complaining about people smoking outside exits to buildings, though? Believe me, they’d rather be in a sealed room out of your way too. They’ve been banned though. Sorry.

16:08 / 15.02.06

wouldn't it make more sense if any establishment could apply for exemption on the proviso that they make it very clear that their establishment is smoking friendly?

but then, i guess everyone would apply...

*sigh*

clubbing without smoking is like toast without jam

17:59 / 15.02.06

Any word on how this legislation (which I'm also quite sad about - 72% of the population were in favour apparently, but I can't help wondering what pecentage of those polled actually use pubs on a regular basis, especially the kind of pub that doesn't serve food,) is going to be policed yet? Because it it's by the 'proper' police, then I dare say they're going to be delighted with the extra responsibility, having not much else to be getting on with these days.

Tryphena Absent

18:22 / 15.02.06

have you ever heard me cough?

Yes.

Tryphena Absent

18:24 / 15.02.06

And escalators are much easier to run up than stairs, it's more about jumping because of the way they're spaced.

19:43 / 15.02.06

Alex, the stats vary wildly depending on who you ask.

ASH have consistantly claimed that around 90% support a ban in pubs.
FOREST commissioned a Populus poll last August which put it at 30%.

The Newsnight/ICM poll yesterday was interesting. It put 64% in favour of the total ban, but even more people wanted a ban in homes where there were children (69%), and 68% supporting a ban on pregnant women smoking anywhere. 48% favour total prohibition.

I'm keen to know more about how the law will work. How it will be policed, for one, but also how the public/private distinction is going to be made. Will it be banned in houses that have staff, for example? I assume I can invite people into my living room and let them smoke. Can the landlord of my local (who lives above the pub) invite me up to his living room to do the same?

Tryphena Absent

19:49 / 15.02.06

I imagine it will be policed through large fines. You can't really risk a policeman walking past the window or popping his head round the door and walking into a cloud of smoke. You can't let one person smoke and restrict the rest...

20:14 / 15.02.06

All kinds of places that don't have ground floor windows or unlocked doors though. And as Alex says, I expect most coppers will think they have better things to do.

20:26 / 15.02.06

How on earth did they imagine one could ban pregnant women from smoking anywhere? (And what would happen to one if she got caught?). Crackers.

For me myself & I, I am not sad, because I am giving up and this will greatly reduce tempting opportunities to pinch other people's fags. But it seems jolly rough on people who smoke and intend to carry on smoking. Can't see why they don't allow smoking in some pubs or clubs (though the managers would have to find staff willing to work in the environment - can't imagine that this would be a hguge problem).

Also I do think smelly pubs might be a problem as Nina says - though the Polar Bear usually smells OK to me - I do wonder whether everywhere else will just smell of filthbeer and greasy fish and chips...

Page: 1(2)3