No Smoking in Bars.....

dunkman

jeffbr wrote:

And if you can't find a non-smoking bar near you, open one. Why is it a requirement for someone else to accomodate you?

why is it a requirement for establishments to be wheelchair friendly?

fortunately they are all non-smoking near me as they are in the whole of Scotland. Its not a requirement but cant you see how selfish that is... just so one person doesnt have to move 10 yards of their fat arse to have a smoke i have to drive 42 miles to have a drink.. and if i have more than one pint i'll need to get a Taxi... wow.. that makes sense.. lets destroy the environment so i can have a pint in a non smoked-filled pub


i'm sorry but your argument is moronic... i have to open my own non-smoking pub, seriously... why did i never think of that?? :rolleyes:

Kann

hippiemom wrote:

Noise levels and operating times are regulated because they affect the entire neighborhood, not just the people who choose to go into the bar. Health regulations are put into place because it is impossible to look at a salad and tell whether or not it's crawling with e-coli. It's easy enough to take one look at an establishment, see that it's smoke-filled, and decide to take your business elsewhere.

following that logic the government should ask the restaurants to show the levels of e. coli infection, without forcing them to clean their salad and let the consumer choose for himself. Same thing with noise level, a little paper on the door that says "here we listen music at 136 db (the general surgeon advises you do not listen to sounds higher than 120 db) and let the public decide. After all we are all consenting, intelligent adults. We should decide for ourselves, we know how to do that.
Like someone said previously I understand ffg or jeffbr who want no regulations at all (though I don't agree), anywhere, but those who see it necessary in some places and not here it doesn't make sense to me.

Binaural

surfanddestroy wrote:

What about people who are forced to inhale other peoples second hand smoke, what about their freedom rights.

Without taking sides I've thought this was a really weak leaning post for anti smoking lobbyists. I mean noone is forced to walk into a bar where there is smoke, and as for the employees they chose to work there.

dunkman

Binaural wrote:

Without taking sides I've thought this was a really weak leaning post for anti smoking lobbyists. I mean noone is forced to walk into a bar where there is smoke, and as for the employees they chose to work there.

i am... 3 pubs in the nearest 21 mile radius.. if they were all covered in smoke then i have NO CHOICE.

no employee chooses to work in a smoke filled environment... it used to be a hazard of the job... just like coal-mining had its hazards, should we just have turned round to coal-miners and say "we could enforce your employer to issue you with respiratory equipment but its a business, why should we"

same with hard hats... why did the government enforce the wearing of hardhats on construction sites... to ensure people might be safe at their work

governments are shit, but in the case of peoples health these measures are good things, they ensure everyone is inclusive... i.e. smokers can still visit a non-smoking pub they just have to walk 10 yards to a covered, heated smoking area... but they can still visit a non-smoking pub... a non-smoker cant if they have regard for their health.. so then you make it difficult for a non-smoker to visit their local pub!

thats the crucial thing of this thread

non-smokers cant visit a pro-smoking bar (if they value their health)
whereas smokers CAN and DO go to non-smoking pubs (they just have to go outside to smoke... big fucking deal!)

i have to go to the toilet in a pub and i walk the 10 yards to the toilet... if i had a smokers mentality i'd just drop my trousers/lift my kilt and shit on the floor.... sure it'd smell, but thats not my problem

Collin

Does anyone know how many smoker die because they smoke. I'm not talking about correlation here, but cause and effect...

And does anyone know how many non-smoker die because of second hand smoke?

dunkman

health benefits to workers

http://www.globalink.org/documents/2005smokefreebarsandrestaurantsinNorway.pdf


as for the deaths Collin

http://www.clearingtheairscotland.com/facts/facts.html

Binaural

Collin wrote:

Does anyone know how many smoker die because they smoke. I'm not talking about correlation here, but cause and effect...

And does anyone know how many non-smoker die because of second hand smoke?

There was an article in The Gaurdian last year about this, the numbers didn't give much support to the second hand smoke issue. Fuck I can't even find it on the internet, Ill post back if I can find the paper in my house.

dunkman

30 minutes exposure to second hand smoke is sufficient to reduce coronary blood flow in otherwise healthy adults.
Source: Otsuka, R.
Acute effects of passive smoking on the coronary circulation of healthy young adults
[Journal of the American Medical Association 2001]


Non-smokers exposed to passive smoking in the home have a 25% increased risk of heart disease and lung cancer.
Source: Law, MR et al.
Environmental Tobacco Smoke exposure and ischaemic heart disease: an evaluation of the evidence
[British Medical Journal 1997]

Passive smoking can be a cause of lung cancer and ischaemic heart disease in adult non-smokers, and a cause of respiratory disease, cot death, middle ear disease and asthmatic attacks in children.
Source: Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health
[Department of Health 1998 and 2004]

Blood cotinine levels among non-smokers exposed to second hand smoke are associated with a 50%-60% increased risk of heart disease.
Source: Whincup, P et al.
Passive smoking and risk of coronary heart disease and stroke; prospective study with cotinine measurement
British Medical Journal, June 2004]

Exposure to second-hand smoke – passive smoking or Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) – is associated with:
Acute respiratory illness in early childhood
Chronic cough, phlegm, and wheeze in children
Chronic middle ear effusions in children
Reduced levels and growth of lung function in children
Increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)
Increased bronchial hyper-responsiveness in asthmatics
Increased lung symptoms in asthmatics
Decreased lung function in asthmatics
Irritation to the eyes, nose, throat
Increased risk of lung cancer and heart disease with long-term exposure
Source: Pechacek TF, Babb S.
How acute and reversible are the cardiovascular risks of second-hand smoke?
[British Medical Journal 2004]

42% of children in the UK live in a home where at least one person smokes.
Source: General Household Survey 1998
[Office for National Statistics]

In houses where both parents smoke, young children have a 72% increased risk of respiratory illnesses.
Source: Strachan DP and Cook DG.
Parental smoking and lower respiratory illness in infancy and early childhood
[Thorax 1997]

More than 17,000 children under the age of five are admitted to hospital in the UK every year because of the effects of passive smoking.
Source: Smoking and the Young
[Royal College of Physicians 1992]

Children’s mental development – reading and reasoning skills – was affected even a low levels of smoke exposure.
Source: Yolton K et al.
Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and cognitive ability among US children
[Abstracts Online May 2002]

Passive smoking is a cause of bronchitis, pneumonia, coughing and wheezing, asthma attacks, middle ear infection, cot death, and possibly cardiovascular and neurobiological impairment in children.
Source: International consultation on environmental tobacco smoke and child health
[World Health Organisation 1999]

Binaural

dunkman wrote:

i am... 3 pubs in the nearest 21 mile radius.. if they were all covered in smoke then i have NO CHOICE.

no employee chooses to work in a smoke filled environment... it used to be a hazard of the job... just like coal-mining had its hazards, should we just have turned round to coal-miners and say "we could enforce your employer to issue you with respiratory equipment but its a business, why should we"

same with hard hats... why did the government enforce the wearing of hardhats on construction sites... to ensure people might be safe at their work

governments are shit, but in the case of peoples health these measures are good things, they ensure everyone is inclusive... i.e. smokers can still visit a non-smoking pub they just have to walk 10 yards to a covered, heated smoking area... but they can still visit a non-smoking pub... a non-smoker cant if they have regard for their health.. so then you make it difficult for a non-smoker to visit their local pub!

thats the crucial thing of this thread

non-smokers cant visit a pro-smoking bar (if they value their health)
whereas smokers CAN and DO go to non-smoking pubs (they just have to go outside to smoke... big fucking deal!)

i have to go to the toilet in a pub and i walk the 10 yards to the toilet... if i had a smokers mentality i'd just drop my trousers/lift my kilt and shit on the floor.... sure it'd smell, but thats not my problem

Suddenly I don't like alcohol, I think its a terrible thing, I mean the amount of suicides, assualts, murders, thefts, driving accidents etc that arise from it is just awful and people get ADDICTED, my, that sounds like a drug that the government should take action on. Why should I for example have to leave a restauraunt and walk trhough town having to deal with these drunken idiots, some of whom are very agressive, not very safe, what about my rights and my protections? Why shouldn't alcohol only be consumed in private? All of a sudden this situation is solved for you because you can't drink in public places.

dunkman

Binaural wrote:

Suddenly I don't like alcohol, I think its a terrible thing, I mean the amount of suicides, assualts, murders, thefts, driving accidents etc that arise from it is just awful and people get ADDICTED, my, that sounds like a drug that the government should take action on. Why should I for example have to leave a restauraunt and walk trhough town having to deal with these drunken idiots, some of whom are very agressive, not very safe, what about my rights and my protections? Why shouldn't alcohol only be consumed in private? All of a sudden this situation is solved for you because you can't drink in public places.

thats a bi-product of the social times we live in... the drinking culture is entirely different in varying countries.. go to a village in Northern Spain and this wouldnt happen... passive smoking harms regardless of societal boundaries, regardless of geographical boundaries..

people use this argument a lot i.e. people get fat should we ban McDonalds... ehhhh a fat guy eating himself to death in no way affects my health... can you get drunk or fat by osmosis... no...

passive smoking harms people, thats fact... getting hammered and then attacking someone harms people, thats fact

both should be banned.... oh wait the second is..

RolandTD20Kdrummer

What's next... if you don't like smoking on this planet then create or find another one... :rolleyes:

shaddap!....quit killing yourselves and others out of weakness and sheer habit ya hosers! Gov't laws be damned..

get a grip on living already....

Heineken Helen

Lol, it’s odd cos I’ve just read through all the posts since yesterday and I pretty much agree with everyone :cool: apart from being too bothered about business owners rights, I’m a consumer so all I care about are my rights. Call me a selfish fucker… and see if I care

I like the smoking ban... but I also like when I travel and can smoke in pubs... it's weird though cos for a split second when you see someone light up you think 'huh? :eek: what the fuck's he doing?' and then ya think 'ahhhhhhh' and light one up yourself but you feel like you're a kid misbehavin! It's like knacker drinking again

Ericastrada

No one has answered why there can't be designated smoking bars. Sure, I hear the argument, "well then I couldn't go in there. I would have to go some where else." How is this not being selfish? businesses are not required, by law, to cater to everyone.

jlew24asu

Ericastrada wrote:

No one has answered why there can't be designated smoking bars. Sure, I hear the argument, "well then I couldn't go in there. I would have to go some where else." How is this not being selfish? businesses are not required, by law, to cater to everyone.

who decides which bars can be "designated smoking bars" ?

know1

I personally prefer and would seek out bars and restaurants that prohibit smoking.

That being said, I do not think this is any of the government's business.

farfromglorified

How come no one is demanding that we ban alcohol from bars and restaurants? I mean, it meets all the same standards. Hell, more people die from exposure to drunk drivers each year than from exposure to second-hand smokers. Plus, drunk people are annoying and selfish.

jlew24asu

farfromglorified wrote:

How come no one is demanding that we ban alcohol from bars and restaurants? I mean, it meets all the same standards. Hell, more people die from exposure to drunk drivers each year than from exposure to second-hand smokers. Plus, drunk people are annoying and selfish.

ha i'm surprised it took so long to make this suggestion. good point. drunk drivers kill so many people every year.

and where are the chicks? arent you sick of all the annoying drunk guys hitting on you?

dunkman

farfromglorified wrote:

How come no one is demanding that we ban alcohol from bars and restaurants?

you cant get your health harmed by someone drinking next to you... the drunk-driver excuse is of no fault of the bar.. its the idiot trying to drive home.

it could just as likely be lightning... should we ban lightning?

Heineken Helen

jlew24asu wrote:

ha i'm surprised it took so long to make this suggestion. good point. drunk drivers kill so many people every year.

and where are the chicks? arent you sick of all the annoying drunk guys hitting on you?

'drunk drivers' are a result of stupidity mixed with drink... not drink alone.

'drunk guys'... same formula!

Ericastrada

jlew24asu wrote:

who decides which bars can be "designated smoking bars" ?

And it all comes full circle. Maybe the people that actually own the bars could be allowed to make that decision.