Gringo

Please, go ahead and name them. I don't know what this big stick you refer to all the time is, by the way. All I've said so far is that smoking is bad for you and people around you, and you shouldn't be allowed to puff smoke in a strangers face if said strangers doesn't want to. I think the example of the spanish legislation has been mentioned a fair number of times already. A fair equible solution liked by non-smokers. The big stick is the authoritarian state dictating what happens on private premises.

Well, all due respect, but their not your pubs and restaurants, their public places. Nope - they are private establishments. 50% of regular pub goers smoke. You have yours, we'll have ours and we'd all be happy.

With respect, this is a non-argument. If people don't like smoky atmospheres then they won't apply to work in a smoky pub. It would be their choice to work there if they so wished. And people who are willing to take the risk will end up getting compensated for that risk. Working in a cola mine is dangerous and people get compensated for the risk. BAN COAL MINING NOW. Such a childish argument, I expected better. There is plenty of other arguments there - I would have expected you to pick a better one to miss the point on. In a market with smoking and non-smoking establishments there will be a number of jobs in each environment. It is likely that a lof of the lemon fresh crowd will opt out of working in the smoking environments, thus causing workers to be a more scarce resource, thus pushing up the price of the labour and thus compensating the workers for suffering the increased risk. If you look at the value of coal miners wages in comparison with similar industries you will find that the those wages have decreased (in relative terms) as the number of casualties in the coal mining industry has fallen. Lower risk, lower compensation. Is that a bit easier for you?

With respect, this is a non-argument. If people don't like smoky atmospheres then they won't apply to work in a smoky pub. It would be their choice to work there if they so wished. And people who are willing to take the risk will end up getting compensated for that risk. Working in a cola mine is dangerous and people get compensated for the risk. BAN COAL MINING NOW.

It shouldn't be left to choice if people like, (I'm guessing you) refuse to stop, when people's health is at stake. Oh but I forgot passive smoking is a myth, even though I myself know 3 people who suffer from being in smoky rooms. I don't want shirt sniffers breathing in my smoke - I want segregation - a just and fair to all solution. Why would anyone oppose it? It works in Spain. The argument is whether passive smoking kills billions of people every hour - not whether smoke aggravates asthma. Segregation in office canteens and such like has existed for many years, there was one at my place of work and it never really worked too well. Could it be made to work? Probably, but why bother, when a complete ban will do more to help people kick the habit. I'm afraid this is one of the few areas where I quite rightly think that 'choice' as you put it should be removed because it may help people, like me, break the addiction. So I'm all for it. Have your canteens. Now can we have our pubs and restaurants back where we can enjoy what we want, and there's a nice big sign saying "WARNING - entering may cause your shirt not to smell nice". And you can have your pubs and compare the importance of lemon freshness.

Fair enough. But why are you against the idea of giving them their own shiny smoke-free pubs, while the smokers have theirs? Why are you against compromise and choice? I actually don't think peterms' idea of trying it out after a few years of a complete ban is too bad. Still, there is the question of the people having to work in an environment full of cigarette smoke, which is a question I feel we've covered well enough already. UK legislation doesn't get repealed - it would never happen - it's an imaginary carrot with zero substance.

I read this as you questioning the fact that smoking cigarettes increases the risk of lung cancer significantly. I was only skimming through, so it may have been taken out of context. My apologies if it was. It is a bit out of context but may lose something in the translation so I'll give you that one. What I am saying is there also a lot of other things causing lung cancer, yet the cancer research charities spend more money on campaigning against smoking than they do on researching what is causing the increased incidence relative to the decrease in smokers. If you smoke there is a statistically confident causal link to say that your chances of lung cancer will increase. So if smoking is reducing and lung cancer is not decreasing along similar lines, then something else is picking up the slack in the figures,

No, they are not. And if they are not capable of stepping outside for three minutes, how are they capable getting to the club in the first place? And don't try to question my empathy, Gringo, I thought you knew my politics better than that but clearly you don't. I just don't feel sorry for people if they have to step outside for three minutes to enjoy what is a fairly self-destructing bad habit - I feel more sorry for the people who have to deal with cigarette smoke without wishing to do so. Hey don't shoot the messenger. You don't smoke, you're not a smoking crip - you don't know how they feel - you read what the press tells you. I'm a smoker - you certainly don't empathise with my feelings. You may feel you empathise with what the MORI polls are telling you. And that's nothing to do with politics unless you think only right wingers disenfranchise minorities? There are plenty of solutions to segregating smoking and non-smoking outlets, but whilst you've got a big stick you seem to dismiss them and prefer the bish-bosh approach.

It shouldn't be left to choice if people like, (I'm guessing you) refuse to stop, when people's health is at stake. Oh but I forgot passive smoking is a myth, even though I myself know 3 people who suffer from being in smoky rooms. I don't want shirt sniffers breathing in my smoke - I want segregation - a just and fair to all solution. Why would anyone oppose it? It works in Spain. The argument is whether passive smoking kills billions of people every hour - not whether smoke aggravates asthma.

The question is about passive smoking and if you've got this far in the thread and not worked out the difference then you're comment is quite laughable really. Oh really, you haven't earlier in the thread questioned the link between lung cancer and smoking cigarettes using somewhat flawed statistics? My bad, then. Nope don't think I have, but feel free to quote the relevant portion. Not that the argument is relevant when the discussion this is based around is the fact that this flawed legislation was implemented on the unsupported claims that "passive smoking kills billions of people every day" © Roy castle foundation* *I might have made that bit up - but they started it

Carry on, and I hope you are happy and successful with your CHOICE.

Yes, of course, my comment about smokers embracing the ban is obviously me creating stories because of my horrbile anti-smoking bias :roll: About the people who risk losing their seat, forgive but I really can't make myself feel too sorry for them. First of all, asking someone if they'd kindly save your seat is hardly that much trouble. Second of all - tough luck, you choose to smoke, deal with it. As for the "what about the elderly?"-piece of cheapish rhetoric, I honestly feel that if they are capable of finding their way down to their local then I think they won't suffer tremedously if they have to walk five yards and stand outside for three minutes. Again, your abiloity to empathise with groups of which you are not a part is quite outstanding. Even been to a working mans club in the english suburbs, the age of the clientele, the british legions with plenty of infirm people whose only socialisation is the occassional chat over a pint and a fag who are now forced to buy their cans from tescos and sit at home. Carry on using that stick and punish the minorities for being different.

The question is about passive smoking and if you've got this far in the thread and not worked out the difference then you're comment is quite laughable really.

I think in principle the idea of separate smoking premises sounds reasonable. Personally, I'd rather have the smokers shut away in premises of their own, than have them standing in a smoky huddle around the doorway or monopolising the outside seats. If we were starting from a level playing field, it might work. But we're not. We're starting from a position where pubs see smoking as the status quo, where they have financial incentives to sell fags, where landlords are fearful that if they introduce a no-smoking rule by choice, they will lose some customers who they know and speak to, with the uncertain prospect of other, as yet unknown people replacing them. Unlike somewhere like Spain for example where smoking is much more prevalant than over here. In fact the last antitobaccofascist thread was started by someone who had just come back from spain and commented on how well the ban was working. As a non smoker that person wasn't even aware that there wasn't a ban, but merely a sensible segregation of premises. See even the non-smokers like the spanish implementation. But you've got this stick and you're so eager to use it.....

I don't think they did. They didn't even support it as a policy the morning that they voted the legislation in. They had a manifesto pledge for one thing and implemented another. Not really democracy in action now is it. But symbolic of the tin pot representation of democracy that the people seem content with.

Really, has the rate of smoking gone consistently down in women and men? Are men and women both equally likely to be affected by cancer? Are smoking related diseases made up or are there numerous afflictions which smoking increases the likelihood of? If passive smoking has been disproved by research why is it then that both the World Health Organisation and the British Medical Association have both presented evidence to the contrary? And that evidence was so strong and un-rebutted that it was used by the govt? Nope not really was it. WHO and BMA have both presented some evidence of a causal link, which has been rebutted as been poor analysis or weak sampling. So instead of working harder on the research they ignored the criticism and just carried on performing extrapolations of their previously discredited evidence. Keep on shouting loud and long enough and the gullible majority will listen eventually. The last lot of evidence presented on here all referenced each other and the original discredited evidence. It doesn't stand up to peer-review and critical analysis.

Indeed when liberties are so easily given up, people soon forget they had them Nah, but you see smokers embrace the ban as well. I don't think people are all too concerned about "liberties" such as being allowed to puff cigarette smoke in some strangers face - I think they are more concerned about a decent indoor climate and a compromise that suits all parts fairly well. Okay, maybe I'm wrong on that one, I don't know. But still, what are you saying? People should smoke more? Come on... Of course - as a non-smoker you are well placed to judge the emotion of smokers - and whats more we can all go outside and socialise - whoopee - great for people who go and drink and have a fag and read a book or a paper - pop outside, take all your belongings with you, lose your seat or risk having everything robbed. Great for the old and infirm who have to wobble out of the bar. Marginalising the weakest minorities is rarely the right answer.

I dare say they haven't, but then, no landlord in his right mind is going to be the first to experiment with a smoking ban and risk going out of business. With a total ban, it's a level playing field for everybody. Anyway, as Nayson said before, all this arguing is purely academic. It's coming in, AND THERE'S **** ALL YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! See that's the childish authoritarian in you bursting out. Lots of pubs tried non-smoking. They lost money. So some regulation was required. An outright ban wasn't. And there's plenty we can do. Bye bye, that's another big chunk of tax revenue gone somewhere else.

Always be suspicious of surreptitious arguments that pretend to be favouring the group being attacked by the legislation. It's like the USA arguing that subsidising their grain industries helps the poor because we can dump our surpluses on them destroying their local farmers.

I would be more in favour of a complete ban on tobacco products than this hypcoritical law where the non-smokers benefit from the revenues accrued from smoking but treat smokers like the shit on their shoe - and all in the name of liberty - pah.

Like a smoker forces smoke onto a non smoker you mean!? A situation that arose because of years feeble govt should not be rectified through authoritarian laws. Don't blame the smokers - blame the market, blame the MPs, blame your landlord. These people are only exercising their rights. As per tonyh's comments - I previously would find a seat in a restaurant away from non-smokers, would not smoke if there were pregnant ladies or children in my presence. Then witch hewitt lied and backtracked on the day the legislation was passed. Said one thing for months and weeks and even on the morning of the debate, but then spoke and voted in the opposite direction. Lying bitch hypocrite. Burn her.

That's a scary philosophy. So theoretically, protesting over anything at all is whining and shouldn't be done as it's all academic and gonna happen anyway ? Well, when it suits me and my interests, yes. Two other arguments i like: 1] Smokers should have the freedom to smoke. Would you want the freedom to piss in the swimming pool too? Polluting the space around you doesnt seem to be a problem for you. 2] Should we ban cars and lorries then, as they pump out more shit than a cigarette? Well, other than the blindingly obvious fact that it could never happen as the country would collapse economically, it also must be pointed out that cars are generally running outside on the open road, where smokers are free to smoke. 1) Of course if a group of people enjoy pissing in pools and swimming in it then they should be allowed to run such pools and control access to those who are agree with this particular fetish. 2) Economical necessity. Just like mobile phones, an economical nec essity which we didn't have 20 years ago. The world changes and we adapt to suit. People will adapt to suit this fascist law and the supermarkets will be coinging it in and lung cancer incidence will carry on at the same rate until priorities change and someone starts asking the right questions.

Basing the argument on the UK, tobacco brings in 5 times as much tax as the NHS spends on "smoking related" diseases (many of which would not actually have been caused by smoke, but "might have been", possibly).

Well the spanish seemed to reach a reasonable compromise without too much hard thinking. And if such backward countries can manage it surely the mother of all democracies could have worked it out.