Bring back...

[Lorns]

Peanut butter is banned in my salon and at home, particularly if eaten with bananas on Ryvita. For the sole reason of flatulence. Its a healthy diet option but more socially unacceptable than smoking in enclosed spaces.

[johnnyboy]

Neither you nor I (who both enjoy a smoke) can say with ANY certainty that it causes "no-one else any harm".

We can say that with near certainty, Gavin. There is no statistical evidence to suggest any short- or long-term threats to health by exposure to tobacco smoke.

As there is zero doubt as to the deleterious effects to the *actual* smoker I would sooner err on the side of caution when it comes to the health of others.

Smoking is not **good** for you as such, but it is nowhere near as bad as portrayed.

Some people obviously believe that there is a percieved threat, whether real or imaginary.

I doubt anyone will actually claim they are suffering any great loss by being denied their Snickers.

The smoking ban and now the peanut ban is a great and valid example of the "slippery slope" argument where freedoms, no matter how small, are being taken away from people by governments and authorities.

Have we as human beings, after surviving millions of years of evolution, become so fragile and gentle that we constantly have to have our governments banning things "for our own good"?

ID cards next. It'll be a fantastic wheeze for the government as they'll be able to control people's alcohol or food intake by tracking their purchases. The retailers, forced to comply with the scheme, will then refuse service because the central computer tells them that they are at their limit for that week/month from other purchases made.

Yes, but they'll do it for our own good.

[Gavin Scott]

Neither you nor I (who both enjoy a smoke) can say with ANY certainty that it causes "no-one else any harm".

We can say that with near certainty, Gavin. There is no statistical evidence to suggest any short- or long-term threats to health by exposure to tobacco smoke.

No we can't. I can't and neither can you.

Experts in many fields we are, but not in health.

As there is zero doubt as to the deleterious effects to the *actual* smoker I would sooner err on the side of caution when it comes to the health of others.

Smoking is not **good** for you as such, but it is nowhere near as bad as portrayed.

A routine CT scan of my chest recently revealed the early stages of emphysema. Emphysema is where the surface area of oxygen receiving lung is destroyed by smoke leading to (in the short term) loss of breath and in the long term - death. I have time to stem the damage, but there's no doubt damage is there. I've smoked for a decade and a half.

Lets not confuse the issues with Daily Mail nonsense such as, "Winterval" and peanut allergies. There are clear risks associated with smoking, and as much as I don't like people looking down their noses at me for my life choices I won't behave like a petulant child and ignore the facts.

If smoking was invented today it wouldn't be allowed, and none of us would question it. The only reason there is a problem is that once there was ignorance to the effects and millions were addicted across the world.

Public health is a worthy thing. All this talk of "nanny state" is frankly bollocks.

If I ran the country I would have banned the stuff. I would be better off in every respect if I hadn't started.

I can say that with confidence, just as I can also say I love my first ciggie of the day. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[johnnyboy]

No we can't. I can't and neither can you.

Experts in many fields we are, but not in health.

Virtually all of the evidence states that second-hand tobacco smoke does not cause short- or long-term health threats to people in smokey rooms.

That is a fact and we just can't get around that, regardless of whether you and I are experts in the health field.

A routine CT scan of my chest recently revealed the early stages of emphysema. Emphysema is where the surface area of oxygen receiving lung is destroyed by smoke leading to (in the short term) loss of breath and in the long term - death. I have time to stem the damage, but there's no doubt damage is there. I've smoked for a decade and a half.

I have smoked for just over 14 years now at the rate of around 20 a day, probably.

Although smoking will not have helped the situation, it could have been one of a number of factors in your condition. Other factors include a hereditary disposition, exposure to indoor/outdoor pollutants and so on (link)

I'm honestly not trying to be arsey, Gavin. Rates for cancer, heart disease, emphesema, asthma and a wide range of "smoking"- and "passive smoking"-related illnesses have soared in the last 30 years while smoking has halved.

It is lazy and easy for the medical professions to blame everything on smoking and smoking alone because it obviates the need for thinking.

If smoking was invented today it wouldn't be allowed, and none of us would question it. The only reason there is a problem is that once there was ignorance to the effects and millions were addicted across the world.

Agreed. However virtually everything humans have found pleasurable for the last few centuries would fall into that category too.

Public health is a worthy thing. All this talk of "nanny state" is frankly bollocks.

If I ran the country I would have banned the stuff. I would be better off in every respect if I hadn't started.

I can say that with confidence, just as I can also say I love my first ciggie of the day. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Public health is a worthy thing. However, it has to be based on proper statistics and observed medical phenomenon and not the loudmouth anti-scientific rantings of anti-tobacco/anti-alcohol/anti-food groups who are essentially subsidised to get things banned.

I too wish I hadn't started smoking. The health effects do not particularly scare me now I've done reading in the **actual** threat to primary smokers, not the rabid rantings of ASH and the like. It is primarily financial why I wish I hadn't started.

To ban anything so many people enjoy on zero worthy scientific evidence is a "nanny state". To pass such a law knowing that you will doom thousands of businesses, lose tens of thousands of jobs, disrupt established social patterns and have old grannies wheeled out into the cold from their nursing homes to have a smoke on the flimsiest of evidence is a vindictive, spiteful act from the people who are meant to be serving us, not the other way around.

[Alexia]

The one thing I find hard to believe is that the majority of smokers don't have the mental or physical willpower to go without a fag for an hour or two. If it's raining / cold / inconvenient to step out for a cigarette, here's a novel suggestion... DON'T! Have a Mars bar and carry on talking or playing pool or ItBox instead, take your mind off it.

Smoking is addictive because of Nicotine. So get some nicotine gum / inhalator / patch etc to control your craving.

Johnnyboy, by your posts I surmise that you see smoking as more of a right than a necessity. But no-one has the right to knowingly present a health issue to the wider public without being accountable for their actions. I guess you'd complain if someone sat next to you with a very-low radioactive bar in their pocket.

And don't forget, the decision to ban smoking in public places wasn't just your beloved Zanu Labour lot. It was cross-party, and it was also preferred by the whole of parliament to a partial ban or a circumstantial ban.

And it's not just us. It's now a domino effect. New York, Ireland, Portugal.... the tide of public majority opinion globally will eventually be against smoking so it's very little use spouting pro-smoking science in our faces because it won't cut any ice with the fact that the law is the law.

As someone who had childhood asthma, and who suffers with chest problems even now, I prefer a clean air pub, and infinately prefer a clean-air nightclub with a ventilation factor of zero. And I prefer not having my arm (and shirt sleeves) burnt by fags on the dancefloor, I prefer having cleaner smelling clothes after a night out which then don't stink up my washbasket and then my room. I prefer not having stinging, streaming eyes at 2am. And I imagine the pubs and clubs prefer having less cleaning to do, less liklihood of fire, less staff sick time, less equipment damage and less smoke marks on the ceiling.

[Gavin Scott]

I'm honestly not trying to be arsey, Gavin. Rates for cancer, heart disease, emphesema, asthma and a wide range of "smoking"- and "passive smoking"-related illnesses have soared in the last 30 years while smoking has halved.

It is lazy and easy for the medical professions to blame everything on smoking and smoking alone because it obviates the need for thinking.

Your casual dismissal of all health studies with the suggestion that they are either flawed, cobbled together or are engineered by sellers of nicotine replacement patches mean that you are unlikely to be trusting *any* results which show a risk to health.

Much as I want to have this debate, if you are so sure that everything that public health studies show is corrupt or misleading information then we're not likely to be able to resolve our disagreement.

I should say that I'm entirely comfortable with us having a difference of opinion. It wouldn't do if we agreed about everything!

[johnnyboy]

I guess you'd complain if someone sat next to you with a very-low radioactive bar in their pocket.

To be honest, Alexia, this is the problem debating with someone who REALLY hates the smell of tobacco smoke - you have zero perspective on relative risks.

There is NO real, verifiable evidence that shows second-hand smoke is a risk. Read that - NONE, ZILCH. That doesn't stop you comparing burning leaves with a radioactive bar.

It is cigarette smoke, Alexia, not mustard gas. Get some perspective!!!

And don't forget, the decision to ban smoking in public places wasn't just your beloved Zanu Labour lot. It was cross-party, and it was also preferred by the whole of parliament to a partial ban or a circumstantial ban.

I am not denying that. However, I believe the law is spiteful, vindictive and completely out of proportion to the "problem" at hand.

And it's not just us. It's now a domino effect. New York, Ireland, Portugal.... the tide of public majority opinion globally will eventually be against smoking so it's very little use spouting pro-smoking science in our faces because it won't cut any ice with the fact that the law is the law.

"The law is the law" is the ultimate return for someone who can't or doesn't want a debate.

You are correct in one sense that many countries are now passing laws similar to the one here. However, in most countries, smokers are allowed to stay inside and smoke in a separate ventilated area than being thrown out in the streets.

As someone who had childhood asthma, and who suffers with chest problems even now, I prefer a clean air pub, and infinately prefer a clean-air nightclub with a ventilation factor of zero. And I prefer not having my arm (and shirt sleeves) burnt by fags on the dancefloor, I prefer having cleaner smelling clothes after a night out which then don't stink up my washbasket and then my room. I prefer not having stinging, streaming eyes at 2am. And I imagine the pubs and clubs prefer having less cleaning to do, less liklihood of fire, less staff sick time, less equipment damage and less smoke marks on the ceiling.

The pubs are so happy about the ban that they are closing down at 4 times the rate prior to July 1st. They must be ecstatic about it.

I would be perfectly happy if they amended the ban here to be more like the ones on the continent where there is a choice for everyone. I am perfectly happy for you to have your choice - are you perfectly happy for me to have a choice too?

[Alexia]

Since when have the rights of the minority out-weighed the rights of the majority?

Question Johnny... when did you have your first cigarette? 12? 13? Did your parents smoke?

[Gavin Scott]

Since when have the rights of the minority out-weighed the rights of the majority?

Are you saying that the rights of the majority are more important?

Doesn't everyone have rights?

[Alexia]

Since when have the rights of the minority out-weighed the rights of the majority?

Are you saying that the rights of the majority are more important?

Doesn't everyone have rights?

Not at all....In my post I infer that everyone has rights, I'm merely stating that the will of the majority should win out in any debate situation. That's democracy - voice of the people.

[johnnyboy]

Since when have the rights of the minority out-weighed the rights of the majority?

In the supposed liberal democracy we inhabit, every individual's rights are as important as the next person's and they all deserve to be defended equally.

For example, I wouldn't want the ban overturned - just amended. That way my rights are respected as are yours.

We really don't want to go down this "majority rules" route either, Alexia. When homosexual activity was legalised 40 years ago, it flew in the face of the opinion of the majority at the time. If the majority had won out then, my gay best friend would now be miserable and lonely because he could not live his life the way he wants to live it.

Question Johnny... when did you have your first cigarette? 12? 13? Did your parents smoke?

I was 19 when I had my first cigarette and both my parents smoke.

I am unsure why this information is valuable to you. There really is no point in an anti-smoker trying to understand why a smoker smokes - you honestly will not understand it and you don't seem particularly interested or accomodating about it anyway.