MPs vote to ban smoking in pubs and clubs

[Marcellus]

MPs have voted by huge margins to ban smoking from all pubs and private members' clubs in England.

Ministers offered a free vote amid fears of a Labour backbench rebellion against government plans to exempt clubs and pubs not serving food.

MPs decided by a margin of 328 to ban smoking from all pubs. They then voted by 200 to extend this to clubs.

Lib Dems said the change would improve the health of workers. The ban is expected to start in summer 2007.

The Cabinet had been split on how far restrictions should go, with Conservatives calling government policy a "shambles".

Link to BBC report (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4709258.stm)

Personally, I'm very relieved at this news. Having someone smoking nearby is topped only by food poisoning when it comes to ruining a meal out, in my opinion. And the health benefits of a ban are great too. I'd be interested in hearing other people's opinions.

[Mongoose]

Forgive my ignorance, but...

Does being around smokers greatly increase the risk of lung cancer? If not, then I think that it should be up to the owners of the pub.

[Dutch_guy]

Well it is certainly unhealthy sitting next to a smoking person, some I believe argue that sitting next to a smoker is just as unhealthy as smoking yourself.

Personally I detest sitting near smokers while eating, and always try my best not sitting near them,it really does ruin a meal- thankfully restaurants have no-smoking zones ;)

As for the ban, I wouldn't mind, me being a non smoker, and I'd vote for banning it myself too, given the chance.


:balloon2:

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Does being around smokers greatly increase the risk of lung cancer?

It's fairly well established now that persistent exposure to others' smoke does indeed increase the risk of lung cancer.

The employees are most at risk.

[caravel]

Bar staff are also constantly exposed to other peoples smoke, and many have developed smoking related ilnesses, and even lung cancer. Passive smoking is a real problem. But the whole issue is education. People that smoke in their houses with their children around them cannot be stopped from doing so, they first have to realise that it's wrong. Those people will be doing this more, with their cans of beer, if they are banned from doing so at their night out at the pub...

[Crazed Rabbit]

Bad. It should be up to the owners of the establishments whether they want to allow smoking or not. It's their property, smoking is legal, and thus it is their right to decide.

All other things pale next to the importance of this. The health risks should not factor in this decision. Yes, it is unhealthy, but no one is forcing people to work there or eat there. But I guess that doesn't stop the government from telling the people what to do for heir own good, does it?

Crazed Rabbit

[Duke Malcolm]

Pff, after the Scottish ban in March, now this...

Employees can choose whether or not to work somewhere people smoke. If they do not wish to work in a smoke-filled environment, then get a job in some non-smoking place...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I hate these stupid laws. It should be up to the owner. If you dont like smoke dont go or work there. No ones forcing you too.

PS . And I think that smoking is a disgusting and dirty habit.

[Mongoose]

It's fairly well established now that persistent exposure to others' smoke does indeed increase the risk of lung cancer.

The employees are most at risk.

I've done a little research, and this does seem to be the case.




All other things pale next to the importance of this. The health risks should not factor in this decision. Yes, it is unhealthy, but no one is forcing people to work there or eat there. But I guess that doesn't stop the government from telling the people what to do for heir own good, does it?



I was strongly against the ban when I heard of it at first, but after doing some research, it doesn't seem that unreasonable. Other activites that pose a risk to public health are banned as well...such as other smokable substances...

To tell you the truth, and I don't really think there should be laws against either.

[Goofball]

Bad. It should be up to the owners of the establishments whether they want to allow smoking or not. It's their property, smoking is legal, and thus it is their right to decide.

But smoking (in English pubs) is no longer legal, therefor it is no longer the owners' right to decide...

:laugh4:

Seriously though, we went through all this where I live a few years ago. It is basically illegal to smoke in any workplace here. And if you look at it that way, it makes more sense. You can't smoke in a bank, or a pet store, or a government office, because those are all peoples' workplaces and it's not fair to force workers to breathe your smoke if they don't want to. So why should it be fair to force a waitress to inhale smoke at her workplace?

When the laws were first passed here, there was such a public uproar about the whole thing you would have thought the world was going to end.

But now if you ask people about it, the only response you're likely to get is "meh."

It's really not a big deal, except that now people don't stink (as much~:) ) when they come home from a night of drinking.

And the old "let them work somewhere else if they don't like it" is a fallacy. That option is not available to everybody. And, why not turn that around? How about "let the pub owners move to another country or start a different business if they don't like it," or "let smokers stay at home if they don't like it."

The actual fact is that neither will happen. The pubs will continue to be profitable, so the pub owners will eventually stop griping, and the smokers will find (as I did) that having to step outside every now and then for a smoke isn't really as bad as they had originally thought.

Life will go on, but it will just be a little healthier for everybody involved.

Edit: typo

[Crazed Rabbit]

Seriously though, we went through all this where I live a few years ago. It is basically illegal to smoke in any workplace here. And if you look at it that way, it makes more sense. You can't smoke in a bank, or a pet store, or a government office, because those are all peoples' workplaces and it's not fair to force workers to breathe your smoke if they don't want to. So why should it be fair to force a waitress to inhale smoke at her workplace?

You're not forcing the waitress to inhale smoke, and businesses should have the power to ban smoking.



And the old "let them work somewhere else if they don't like it" is a fallacy. That option is not available to everybody. And, why not turn that around? How about "let the pub owners move to another country or start a different business if they don't like it," or "let smokers stay at home if they don't like it."

It is not a fallacy. They do not own the stores, and have chosen to work there. They cannot force other people to change their legal actions because they don't like it. So what if they don't have other employment opportunities? That does not give them the right to decide how another person manages their property.

You can't turn it around because the pub owners are the owners, they own the property and should be able to do with it as they please. Employees have no such claim.


The actual fact is that neither will happen. The pubs will continue to be profitable, so the pub owners will eventually stop griping, and the smokers will find (as I did) that having to step outside every now and then for a smoke isn't really as bad as they had originally thought.

Really? In my town in Washington after they banned smoking in bars, business dropped steadly to 50% of what it was, and had to lay off several workers.

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." - Daniel Webster

Crazed Rabbit

[Goofball]

You're not forcing the waitress to inhale smoke, and businesses should have the power to ban smoking.

They do.

And if you are smoking where she is working, then you are forcing her to inhale smoke.



And the old "let them work somewhere else if they don't like it" is a fallacy. That option is not available to everybody. And, why not turn that around? How about "let the pub owners move to another country or start a different business if they don't like it," or "let smokers stay at home if they don't like it."It is not a fallacy. They do not own the stores, and have chosen to work there. They cannot force other people to change their legal actions because they don't like it. So what if they don't have other employment opportunities? That does not give them the right to decide how another person manages their property.

You can't turn it around because the pub owners are the owners, they own the property and should be able to do with it as they please. Employees have no such claim.

Don't get me wring here CR. I agree that the government passing a law that bans smoking in pubs is an infringement on a pub owner's right to say what goes on on his own property. And I know it makes your conservative blood boil to see the government mess with private property rights. ~;) In most cases, it bugs me too.

But when it comes down to it, every law that prohibits any behaviour is an infringement on somebody's right to do something. It just becomes a question of whether or not you agree that there is a net benefit to society that makes that infringement worthwhile. In this case, I believe the infringement is worth it, while you disagree. No big deal.



The actual fact is that neither will happen. The pubs will continue to be profitable, so the pub owners will eventually stop griping, and the smokers will find (as I did) that having to step outside every now and then for a smoke isn't really as bad as they had originally thought.Really? In my town in Washington after they banned smoking in bars, business dropped steadly to 50% of what it was, and had to lay off several workers.

I find that interesting (and a little bit suspect) because that didn't happen here (in fact, some bars/nightclubs saw their business increase dramatically) and we are very close to you geographically.

One explanation is that AFAIK Washington only passed the law banning smoking two months ago, so you might just be going through some growing pains with it, which will end when people realize that they really do like to go out for a night of dancing even if they have to go outside to smoke.

[Red Peasant]

Good.
The smokers can go outside and kill the wildlife with their noxious fumes.
I've seen it working in Italy and Ireland, so it should be fine here.

[Samurai Waki]

as a general rule I don't dislike smokers, I just don't like ash getting in my food or smoke getting blown in my face.:skull:

[Papewaio]

Meh!

It makes for a far nicer place to eat or drink. A lot more subtle flavours and aromas can be smelt when there is no cigarette smoke in a restaurant.

If anything a lot of clubs and pubs in WA had increased attendance... clubbers could club longer now that their lungs functioned better... and people who react badly to smoke could attend the same functions.

If I can smoke in a pub why can't I pick my nose and wipe it on someones plate of chips?

[rory_20_uk]

I'm against it. I detest smokers, but if they want to smoke in dens then that's their business. There are more important issues to worry about than smoking in private clubs. As has been said, it's your choice to work there, it your choice to be there.

Smoke, die and be done with you.

~:smoking:

[TB666]

Well the ban worked in Sweden as well.
The Pro-smoking side went out with the "Now restaurants and bar will go bankrupt" and all that.
But they seem to be doing fine maybe even better since I have seen a growing amount of restaurants and cafééés in my city and it seems like they aren't having trouble making a living now.

[Ronin]

Well the ban worked in Sweden as well.
The Pro-smoking side went out with the "Now restaurants and bar will go bankrupt" and all that.
But they seem to be doing fine maybe even better since I have seen a growing amount of restaurants and cafééés in my city and it seems like they aren't having trouble making a living now.

I´d say that is because of the fact that the majority of the population can now go to these places of business without having to worry about choking half to death....


good decision I say....way to go british government.....:2thumbsup:

no if only these morons over here in Portugal would do the same.

[English assassin]

I usually take a hefty pinch of scepticism with my freedom above all else arguments, but in this case I am not sure.

I don't smoke and have never smoked, but I really can't say smoke in a pub bothers me one bit. (restaurants are de facto non-smoking for about 90% of their covers already) Also I doubt the average pub customer really gets exposed to enough smoke to be at risk (and even if they do, given that they are apparently happy to run the risks associated with drinking I'm not sure I would rush in to protect them) So if its about anyone its about the bar staff.

But, while "they could get another job" arguments usually suck, (hell, putting guards on that machine would cost me $20. OK, so some people get their arms ripped off, but they could have got another job" ) in this case they really could get another job. A bar is almost never going to be the only employer, and barstaff could just as easily be waiting staff (basically non-smoking) or retail staff or any other unskilled job. Then either employers wouild pay more to attract the staff they needed, or bar staff would be exclusively smokers themselves.

I'm very wary of legislation to make people healthy by force rather than choice. My chosen method of transport is a motorbike, which carries something like a 250 times greater risk of a fatality per mile than driving a car. And I guess its not nice for the police and ambulance service to scrape all those bikers off the roads. By the same reasoning that we ban smoking in pubs we should ban people riding motorbikes. After all they have already banned hunting, handguns, and god knows what else.

No, I'm not too happy about this.

[BDC]

I'm happy with this. Finally, being able to go to pubs and not have to immediately wash all my clothes afterwards.

[Kanamori]

This is ridiculous.:dizzy2: Thank God it takes place after I leave so I can at least experience the cigar lounges w/ a cigar, since I've never been in them when I smoked them. Who gets the bright idea to work in a cigar club/lounge who cannot stand smoke and knows nothing of cigars?

I'd bet riding the tube everyday is worse for your health than working in a pub, where you cannot even smoke at the bar usually. Have you ever blown your nose after you've used the tube? Lots of soot is what comes out if you're in any doubt. So, I cannot see any reason why smoking in private clubs or all pubs should be banned when there are much larger public health issues that are not even talked about.

[English assassin]

Have you ever blown your nose after you've used the tube? Lots of soot is what comes out if you're in any doubt.

The funny thing is after you have lived in London for a bit that stops happening. True Londoners metabolise asbestos dust and turn it into ATTITUDE.

[Weebeast]

Oh so people who go to bars after work every night wanna live healthy now?

[Viking]

I'd bet riding the tube everyday is worse for your health than working in a pub, where you cannot even smoke at the bar usually. Have you ever blown your nose after you've used the tube? Lots of soot is what comes out if you're in any doubt. So, I cannot see any reason why smoking in private clubs or all pubs should be banned when there are much larger public health issues that are not even talked about.

Why don`t we just set up funnels everywhere, good smelling, but extremely dangerous to health? Cars pollutes the air heavily with soot anyway.

[Kanamori]

Cars pollutes the air heavily with soot anyway.

All that you blow out of your nose is lots and, lots of soot. In the states, where cars are everywhere, and I'm even talking about the big cities LA, Chicago, NYC, the cars don't make you blow soot out of your nose; only after I'm on the tube has that ever happened in my life.

Prior to this, I only expected yellow stuff to come out, but oh I was in for a surprise.


True Londoners metabolise asbestos dust and turn it into ATTITUDE.

:shame: By the end of my stay... I've already got the frown and the I-don't-care face, but apperantly, I've got one more thing to learn before I can be considered a Londoner. Are there any shots or medications I can take to speed the process up?

[solypsist]

I applaud this measure and yet somehow wish it wasn't happening. mixed feelings. i just don't like any gov't micromanaging stuff this far in detail.

[Big_John]

does that mean we can finally put the ban on drinking in cigar shops?

i'm tired of dealing with drunks spilling their rum on me when i'm picking out a humidor!

[Slyspy]

I work in the pub trade and greet the forthcoming ban warmly. Now I can go home without reeking of smoke and hopefully wake up without a cough! Sure I could get another job, and get better pay too, but I enjoy the work and will do so even more as of next year (or whenever my company decides to implement the ban). The company I work for has already banned smoking back of house. As a consumer I also welcome the ban. Despite my choice of employment I prefer a smoke-free environment, especially when eating. Around here there were only a few places which we smoke-free, now we all will be. It will be a new challenge business wise, but as a body the pub trade was all for a total ban on smoking and are prepared. They knew which way the wind was blowing and dreaded a partial ban.

[Ja'chyra]

I think it's a good idea in restaurants, but don't agree with it in pubs.

Restaurants are places where you go to eat and cigarette smoke is not cunducive to a good meal if we're all honest, but pubs are primarily for socialising, apart from the old guy that lives at the end of the bar, and as almost half of my friends smoke I would rather put up with it than half of the group disappearing every half hour or not turning up at all.

Oh, I am a non-smoker, always have been.

[Viking]

All that you blow out of your nose is lots and, lots of soot. In the states, where cars are everywhere, and I'm even talking about the big cities LA, Chicago, NYC, the cars don't make you blow soot out of your nose; only after I'm on the tube has that ever happened in my life.

Prior to this, I only expected yellow stuff to come out, but oh I was in for a surprise.

There are millions of health hazards waiting for you out in the big world. Some are bigger than others; like passive smoking. By removing some of the big, you`ve taken a big step in the right direction.
We`ll head for the Tube later.

[A.Saturnus]

I'd bet riding the tube everyday is worse for your health than working in a pub, where you cannot even smoke at the bar usually. Have you ever blown your nose after you've used the tube? Lots of soot is what comes out if you're in any doubt. So, I cannot see any reason why smoking in private clubs or all pubs should be banned when there are much larger public health issues that are not even talked about.

Well, there are no larger public health issues than smoking. Smoking kills 5 million people per year. That's more than AIDS. The only thing that kills more people than smoking is starvation. In most Western countries, lung cancer alone makes for a fourth of the total mortality rate.
Yes, I'm in favour of such measures in order to make people stop smoking. Why? Because smoking is a disease. And smoking bans are an antidote that cost nothing except the convenience of smokers.
It would be nice if pub owners could decide for themselves, but they can't. They have only the choice between allowing smoking or close for economical reasons. By leaving smokers no choice but not to smoke in bars, you save the bar owners, the non-smokers and, yes, the smokers.

[Proletariat]

Heart disease kills quite alot more people here than smoking. I say we out law fast food and fat people.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Skip to the chase and pass regulations banning death.





Reading the numbers in the studies, it seems clear that second-hand smoke (ETS) increases the risk of a number of ailments, though the numbers indicate that the risk is nowhere near the level of risk smokers impose on themselves.

This is a classic tension between public health and private propert rights.

[Kanamori]

Don't get me wrong, I hardly think it's that big of an issue to ban it in pubs/bars; it is mostly banned in restaurants and the such, but there are places where the atomosphere is all about smoking. In the private clubs I'm worried about, and the some others, people go there to smoke. To be blunt, you don't get a job in a private club like these if you are extremely adverse to smoke in the place; sorry, it's not just some bloke on the street that gets a job at these places anyway. The argument for the worker and for the person smoking is moot in such a case.


Because smoking is a disease.

You'll have to back a claim like that up, my friend. Somehow, I doubt you can show that smoking is a prima facie harm. Yet if you somehow show that, I see no reason why people who consent to the activity of smoking should be disallowed from it. More than anything, I cannot stand laws that make personal choices of lifestyle criminal.

Edit: We're talking about England, not even the UK in general if I understand the law correctly, so I don't see why you're citing worldwide figures and then comparing it to the Underground here. I read somewhere that over two million people use the tube everyday. Whether or not there is any validity to my hunch is yet to be seen.

[Goofball]

Heart disease kills quite alot more people here than smoking. I say we out law fast food and fat people.

Bad comparison.

We're not talking about banning people from smoking themselves, if they consciously choose to smoke cigarettes. We are talking about banning people from smoking in a location where they are forcing others (who have not made the conscious decision to smoke cigarettes) to smoke.

So a better comparison would be: "I say we outlaw Big Mac eaters from forcing bites of Big Mac down the throats of everybody else who happens to be in the room where the Bic Mac eaters are eating their Big Macs." And I'm pretty sure in most countries you could be charged with assault for trying to force food down somebody's throat, so it already is 'outlawed.' Problem solved!
:idea2:

And as a side note, a lot of that heart disease you are referring to can be directly attributed to smoking.

[Goofball]

You'll have to back a claim like that up, my friend. Somehow, I doubt you can show that smoking is a prima facie harm.

Well, addiction to alcohol is generally considered a disease. Why not addiction to nicotine?


Yet if you somehow show that, I see no reason why people who consent to the activity of smoking should be disallowed from it. More than anything, I cannot stand laws that make personal choices of lifestyle criminal.

I couldn't agree more. I think if people so choose, they should be allowed to smoke all the cigarettes they want, as long as they don't do it in places that force it on others.

When it comes down to it, while I agree with banning it in pubs for the sake of the workers, I would gladly trade that in for a law that made it illegal for people to smoke in any enclosed space (i.e. home or car) where children are present. Every time I see some idiot soccer mom smoking her brains out driving her Dodge Caravan (with all the windows up, mind you) with her three kids in the back, I want to pull her out of the car and slap her silly.

:furious3:

[Proletariat]

Bad comparison.


The common ground of outlawing any personal choice for someone's own health benefit is stupid enough for me. I'm glad I live in Virginia. :lights one up:

[Kanamori]

Well, addiction to alcohol is generally considered a disease. Why not addiction to nicotine?

Nicotine does not cause addiction as it is probably represented in your mind, and it cannot, by itself, cause the psychological addiction most think of. It doesn't even necessarily lead to dependence. Addiction is not a disease either, by any non-sensationalist definition I can think of. I've kind of been through this before in another thread a bit ago, but in my experiences most everything that is considered terribly addictive can be controlled.



When it comes down to it, while I agree with banning it in pubs for the sake of the workers, I would gladly trade that in for a law that made it illegal for people to smoke in any enclosed space (i.e. home or car) where children are present.

As I said though, this blanket of "enclossed spaces" does not cover only situations where there are non-consenters, but it also covers areas where only people who, entirely of their own will, consent to the environment, and so, the liberties are infringed when they don't have to be to get the same result; it is not the least restrictive means to the end.

[Papewaio]

So asbestos workers do not have a right to injury claims because they could have worked somewhere else.

Police widows should not be looked after if there husbands die on the job because their husbands could have chosen another job.

There should be zero veteran hospitals because the vets could have got a job somewhere else.

So what is so special about cigarettes that they have a different set of rules when it applies to looking after workers?

Particularly when you realise that it is the weakest set of workers that are having their rights to a healthy lifestyle hit (young, unskilled, probably trying to work through college or uni)... it seems a bit rich to let them have lung disease yet expect other members of society to be fully compensated... so much for egalitarian societies.

[Goofball]

The common ground of outlawing any personal choice for someone's own health benefit is stupid enough for me. I'm glad I live in Virginia. :lights one up:

But that common ground doesn't exist. "Outlawing personal choice for someone's own health benefit" is not happening in this case. The ban on smoking in pubs is not to protect the smokers who choose to smoke, but to protect workers who don't choose to smoke but until now have been forced to. You're a very bright woman, surely you must see the difference. Is your right to light up a cigarette in a bar really more important than a person's right to work in an environment that isn't filled with cancer-causing fumes?

[Goofball]

As I said though, this blanket of "enclossed spaces" does not cover only situations where there are non-consenters, but it also covers areas where only people who, entirely of their own will, consent to the environment, and so, the liberties are infringed when they don't have to be to get the same result; it is not the least restrictive means to the end.

What would be a good compromise then?

[Proletariat]

Is your right to light up a cigarette in a bar really more important than a person's right to work in an environment that isn't filled with cancer-causing fumes?

No, Goofball, you're right. Really I was just being an ass earlier, but I do completely agree with Kanamori's position. Have you ever been to a cigar bar in LA? It's absurd. There should've been made some exceptions, or a different way of implement this 'social engineering' rather than just banning it from all workplaces period, imho.

[drone]

The common ground of outlawing any personal choice for someone's own health benefit is stupid enough for me. I'm glad I live in Virginia. :lights one up:
Proletariat, you are aware of this bill, right? Who would have thought it would even get this far, here in the middle of tobacco country?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61820-2005Feb3.html

[Proletariat]

Anyone know where I can get some Commonwealth flags and some kerosene on the cheap? I've got some lighters already.

:furious3: :furious3: :furious3:

[BDC]

What would be a good compromise then?
They were going to compromise, but decided it was:

a) too hard to enforce
b) would confuse
c) would discrimate against poor people because it was more likely smoking would be allowed in poor areas

It's the way it should be. Smoking is evil. At least alcohol is fun...

[Kanamori]

It's the way it should be. Smoking is evil. At least alcohol is fun...

It's a popular misconception. In all of my experiences, alcohol is one of the hardest and most dangerous drugs out there; I would truthfully put it up there with heroin. The extreme effects of alcohol are worse than the extreme effects of many other drugs.

Nicotine can be simultaneously relaxing and motivational, since I get the feeling you've never experienced it and compared it to the effects of alcohol. I do not understand why it would be considered evil, since in the first place, one can easily smoke on a semi-regular basis w/o ever being addicted or dependent, and w/o ever experiencing health problems because of their use.


What would be a good compromise then?

In my honest opinion, I beleive it might've been a better idea to have some sort of lottery for a fixed number of smoking licenses, with a plaque or something displayed on the door, "this is a smoking area." That way, people can generally go to certain pubs for smoking, and non-consenting workers have a much better chance of being able to work in an environment they're comfortable with. I'm sure there are many other ways that are much less restrictive than this bill, and would be just as easy to enforce.

[English assassin]

I say we out law fast food and fat people.

Yeah, on aesthetic grounds.

Kate Moss smokes. She doesn't eat Big Macs. Case closed.

[A.Saturnus]

You'll have to back a claim like that up, my friend.

Sure: DSM-IV (http://www.psychnet-uk.com/dsm_iv/_misc/complete_tables.htm#Name)
Number 305.10 in the DSM-IV: Nicotine Dependence.

303 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=QuickSearchListURL&_method=list&_aset=V-WA-A-W-BUB-MsSWYWW-UUW-U-AAVWYWBYUA-AAVUVUVZUA-ZZDCECVDW-BUB-U&_sort=d&view=c&_st=13&_acct=C000047079&_version=1&_userid=877992&md5=4b7709b229e014ceb22b503a82147391) (the number of ScienceDirect entries on Nicotine & addiction)


Nicotine does not cause addiction as it is probably represented in your mind, and it cannot, by itself, cause the psychological addiction most think of. It doesn't even necessarily lead to dependence. Addiction is not a disease either, by any non-sensationalist definition I can think of. I've kind of been through this before in another thread a bit ago, but in my experiences most everything that is considered terribly addictive can be controlled.

The exact opposite of everything this paragraph says is rather close to the truth. Addictive behaviour is difficult to control, addiction is a disease (of course, the APA might just be sensationalist) and nicotine can cause psychological and physiological dependence.


I doubt you can show that smoking is a prima facie harm

That's a joke, right?

Number of smoking related deaths in the UK (numbers for 1990): 137000

Among men, 28% of all deaths are related to smoking!

http://data.euro.who.int/Default.aspx?TabID=2444



It's a popular misconception. In all of my experiences, alcohol is one of the hardest and most dangerous drugs out there;

Alcohol is a dangerous drug, however, it doesn't cause as much harm as smoking. By far.


Nicotine can be simultaneously relaxing and motivational, since I get the feeling you've never experienced it and compared it to the effects of alcohol. I do not understand why it would be considered evil, since in the first place, one can easily smoke on a semi-regular basis w/o ever being addicted or dependent, and w/o ever experiencing health problems because of their use.


Wrong. Nicotine is not relaxing or motivational. Smokers have no benefits over non-smokers. Only smokers who don't get nicotine become less relaxed and motivated. The nicotine brings you only back to baseline.
Even light smoking increases various health risks. Smoking is like suicide, only slow and expensive.

[A.Saturnus]

Heart disease kills quite alot more people here than smoking. I say we out law fast food and fat people.

Smoking is one of the main causes of heart disease. Besides, no one argues to outlaw smoking itself (or smokers), only the smoking at public places.

[rory_20_uk]

Ethanol doesn't cause as much damage as smoking? I think that depends on the individual and the amount that is consumed.

Ethanol is cytotoxic to every tissue in the body. There is no type of cell that is not inhibited and excess killed. The body does have a regenerative capacity, so this effect is not noted at first, but the damage does increase over time.

Possibly heavy smokers are more visable dying of COPD, whereas heavy drinkers appear fine and then die of massive haematemesis, or liver carcinoma.

There is also the case that massive progress has been done to alleviate the affects of liver disease in particular, whereas so far lungs are damaged, and there is no return.

And the other aspect is: danger. Smokers have never tried to beat the hell out of me for some random reason that 20 cigarettes makes clear. The same can not be said about alcohol where a few pints can make many people carefree (walking on roads etc etc) or surly buggers (might decide to give someone a "Chelsea Smile"

And on to smoking: the number of carcinogenic compounds in smoke is in the thousands; lead, cadmium and arsenic are also present. How can this be good for you???

Nicotine is an appetite supressant, so does help loose weight. But so does cocaine and amphetamines - so what?

Nicotine is extremely poisonous. If you added about 2 cigarettes to a pint of beer, let it sit for about an hour, the resultant mess might be sufficient to kill you... Nornicotine is used by some "indiginous peoples" to kill animals and fish...

~:smoking:

[A.Saturnus]

Ethanol doesn't cause as much damage as smoking? I think that depends on the individual and the amount that is consumed.

You misunderstood me. I do not mean to say that nicotine is more toxic than ethanol. In fact, an alcoholic is more at risk than even a heavy smoker. I'm talking about the society level. Alcohol does not cause as much damage to society as smoking. Most users of alcohol are casual drinkers who would probably stop if facing health problems. On the other hand, it is assumed that more than half of all smokers are nicotine dependent.

[Kanamori]

Addictive behaviour is difficult to control, addiction is a disease (of course, the APA might just be sensationalist) and nicotine can cause psychological and physiological dependence.

And smoking does not necessarily lead to addiction. If I have one cigar, I am not somehow automatically addicted to them and I do not get the compulsion to go out and buy and smoke more. IMO, people make addiction out to be some monster from which there is no return. If one recognizes the beginnings of an addiction, it is easy to control, even with the hardest things.


That's a joke, right?

Number of smoking related deaths in the UK (numbers for 1990): 137000

Among men, 28% of all deaths are related to smoking!

No joke. Repeated and obsessive use leads to the harm.


Wrong. Nicotine is not relaxing or motivational.

That must be why the first time I had a cigar I experienced those effects, and the last time I ever smoked was half a cigarette I couldn't stand to finish three months before then.

I don't really trust the DSM when it comes to classifying diseases. After all, they lable ADHD as a disease when it is simply an abnormality. Of course, labeling it as a disease is the only the government would allow it to be treated by medication closely related to amphetamine.

[rory_20_uk]

At a society level, although as you rightly say there is more physical dependance on nicotine, certainly in the UK the social impact of alcohol is enormous with the scum fighting each other and others, although recently it had decreased slightly.

Although I sounds like a cracked record for repeating myself, I'd rather cannabis and heroin were legal and ethanol and nicotine were illegal.

~:smoking:

[A.Saturnus]

And smoking does not necessarily lead to addiction. If I have one cigar, I am not somehow automatically addicted to them and I do not get the compulsion to go out and buy and smoke more. IMO, people make addiction out to be some monster from which there is no return. If one recognizes the beginnings of an addiction, it is easy to control, even with the hardest things.


Heroin does not necessarily lead to addiction either. There is a return from addiction but for most people, that return is a long, hard process that consumes enormes amounts of resources. Many don't make it. 75% of all smokers would like to stop.


No joke. Repeated and obsessive use leads to the harm.

Not just obsessive. As I said, even light use leads to substantially increased health risks. As for repeated, people who smoke 4 cigarettes in their life have a more than 90% chance to become full smokers.


That must be why the first time I had a cigar I experienced those effects, and the last time I ever smoked was half a cigarette I couldn't stand to finish three months before then.

That was probably a psychological effect of the stimulus. On average, smokers are not more relaxed or motivated than non-smokers. In fact, smoking decreases workers' effectiveness and increases health complains and absenteeism.



I don't really trust the DSM when it comes to classifying diseases. After all, they lable ADHD as a disease when it is simply an abnormality. Of course, labeling it as a disease is the only the government would allow it to be treated by medication closely related to amphetamine.

And why, precisely don't you think that ADHD is not a disease? Further, who do you think authorities should trust instead of the DSM when it comes to classifying diseases? You?