Originally Posted by Jack Napier

It's been a few years now since smoking in ALL public places in the UK, was made unlawful.

As a smoker (soon to quit ) it's been no problem for me to adapt. If I am being honest, if I am in a restaurant, then then it was horrible having to breath in the toxic fumes given off by another smoker. However, at the time, I did feel that if the place was privately owned, and the patrons of it were happy to accept smoking, as were the staff, then smoking should have been permitted, in such an instance, but that's not what we got, so fair enough.

If non smokers have the right not to have their lungs polluted by cig smoke, then don't non car users have the right not to have their lungs polluted by the absurd number of cars on the roads, most of which are likely making needless journey's?

After all, even in the days of being able to smoke in pubs and clubs, the non smoker could, if it really got to them that badly, leave the premises.

Citizens are not able to avoid the toxic fumes of cars AT ALL, for we share our space with them.

Of course, I am not suggesting that cars be banned, but I really do think that there are just too many on our roads in major cities, and more should be done to discourage this.

One idea could be to offer free public transport. Yes, a bus still gives off toxic fumes, however, at least it is only one vehicle, containing a few dozen people, rather than fifty cars, all carrying one person, if that makes sense?

City centres that are not already pedestrianised should be, so that it is a better shopping experience for the public, not to mention the fact that it would be a safer experience, since we could negotiate our way around, without having to worry about being mowed down by a driver wanting to save a few 'vital' seconds, on their journey time.

What positive ideas do you have that you feel would reduce the number of cars on roads?

Thanks

There are really a couple of issues here, the first being your remark that "the non smoker could, if it really got to them that badly, leave the premises". Why should they have had to if everyone has a right to breathe clean air? It's always been the smoker who is the cause of pollution, pollution which for many years has been acknowledged to be damaging to the health of non-smokers breathing it in, so the legal onus should really have always been on the smoker to leave the premises. The change in the law - which as a non-smoker I was very grateful for - was really just putting into practise what people should have done all along. OK, I know that's simplistic and doesn't deal with the issue of people's freedom to do what they like in their own premises, however over the last few decades, non-smokers have been in the majority (according to Cancer Research, in 2008 just 22% of the UK male population smoked, slightly less for women), so it's only right that the wishes of the majority should prevail.

The second point is regarding car pollution, and whilst there might well be too many on the roads given the infrastructure we currently have, you can't draw any parallels with it and with the pollution from smoking - the former is a necessity for many people whilst the latter is a matter of choice. Having said that I do agree that there is a great deal of pollution given off by cars, however according to Department of Transport statistics the total amount has changed very little over the last 20 years despite the huge increase in the number of cars on the road, indicating the far greater efficiency of modern engines. Within city centres I also agree that there there should be far more traffic-free areas with perhaps 'free' public transport to and from strategically placed car parks (although it's never really free is it, someone always has to pay), however as has been discussed elsewhere, public transport is a bit of a thorny issue especially if it's to make any form of economic sense, or even be value for money.

As for what to do about reducing the number of cars on the road, I'd look at it the other way round. Encourage the development and use of very low pollution forms of transport and make substantial improvements to the road infrastructure in order to get a higher and less impeded traffic flow, much of which could be done at relatively low cost by minor (in the scheme of things!) changes to road layouts and bans on parking on many more through routes.

Originally Posted by Midas

There are really a couple of issues here, the first being your remark that "the non smoker could, if it really got to them that badly, leave the premises". Why should they have had to if everyone has a right to breathe clean air? It's always been the smoker who is the cause of pollution, pollution which for many years has been acknowledged to be damaging to the health of non-smokers breathing it in, so the legal onus should really have always been on the smoker to leave the premises. .

Like I said, even as a current smoker, I was happy to accept the law change, it is not a problem for me.

However, let me throw out a hypothetical scenario.

If I used my own money to buy a bar/club, and I had permitted people to smoke in it, and the staff were happy to work in that environment, then what's the problem, and why should the state decide that people who want to drink and work there, cannot do so? I'm perhaps not explaining this v well. What is wrong with non smokers bars, and those which you can smoke in. That way both smokers and non's have choice. I would not attend a music festival, then moan about the potential damage to my ears that the volume was causing, if I was that sensitive to it, I could freely choose to attend another venue in which the music was not quite so loud.

JN

Originally Posted by Jack Napier

Like I said, even as a current smoker, I was happy to accept the law change, it is not a problem for me.

However, let me throw out a hypothetical scenario.

If I used my own money to buy a bar/club, and I had permitted people to smoke in it, and the staff were happy to work in that environment, then what's the problem, and why should the state decide that people who want to drink and work there, cannot do so? I'm perhaps not explaining this v well. What is wrong with non smokers bars, and those which you can smoke in. That way both smokers and non's have choice. I would not attend a music festival, then moan about the potential damage to my ears that the volume was causing, if I was that sensitive to it, I could freely choose to attend another venue in which the music was not quite so loud.

JN

I don't disagree with you on your hypothetical example, and it was my one point of uncertainty when the smoking ban was introduced. Blanket bans are never 100% satisfactory as there'll always be reasonable grounds for some exceptions for some people. At least that way people who wanted to smoke would have the option of places to go where they could legally do so, and the rest of us could avoid the same places like the plague! I have to say though that of the few smoking friends I have, virtually all of them agree with the ban, as you say you do; just because you might smoke doesn't necessarily mean you want to breathe in other people's secondhand smoke too.

Originally Posted by Midas

I don't disagree with you on your hypothetical example, and it was my one point of uncertainty when the smoking ban was introduced. Blanket bans are never 100% satisfactory as there'll always be reasonable grounds for some exceptions for some people. At least that way people who wanted to smoke would have the option of places to go where they could legally do so, and the rest of us could avoid the same places like the plague! I have to say though that of the few smoking friends I have, virtually all of them agree with the ban, as you say you do; just because you might smoke doesn't necessarily mean you want to breathe in other people's secondhand smoke too.

And that is all fine, I can live with it.

I still believe though, that there are double standard's.

If a non smoker is entitled to breath fresh air, then is a non car driver not entitled to breath fresh air?

It's not practical to implement a total ban on cars, but more could be done to lessen the numbers.

Free public transport?

Ban on cars being in the city centre?

Issuing grants for people to get one of these?

Was there ever any medical or scientific proof linkining passive smoking with ill health? I dont recall any apart from a few celebs saying it killed Roy Castle. Pubs were getting their houses in order with air con and no smoking areas anyway,the smoking ban was a heavy handed lets make the people enjoying themeselves pay manouver by the lefties.

Making public transport more attractive to use,cheap,less crowded,reliable and clean is the only way to get cars off the road apart from taxing them to death

Originally Posted by Jack Napier

And that is all fine, I can live with it.

I still believe though, that there are double standard's.

If a non smoker is entitled to breath fresh air, then is a non car driver not entitled to breath fresh air?

It's not practical to implement a total ban on cars, but more could be done to lessen the numbers.

Free public transport?

Ban on cars being in the city centre?

Issuing grants for people to get one of these?

Perhaps this is worthy of a thread on its own - I'll think of a few topical points and suggestions and start one off later - unless anyone beats me to it!

Originally Posted by Streetwalker

Was there ever any medical or scientific proof linkining passive smoking with ill health? I dont recall any apart from a few celebs saying it killed Roy Castle. Pubs were getting their houses in order with air con and no smoking areas anyway,the smoking ban was a heavy handed lets make the people enjoying themeselves pay manouver by the lefties.

Yes, I think there's been a significant amount of evidence gathered about the lethal effects of passive smoking in the past. I don't think it was a politically inspired move, simply a pragmatic one in response to the views of a majority who didn't want to be exposed to the second hand pollution of smokers. OK, perhaps it could have been better thought out and provision made for separate smoking-allowed rooms in pubs, but on the whole I'm sure it's been a positive move in cleaning up air quality and health.

Originally Posted by Midas

Yes, I think there's been a significant amount of evidence gathered about the lethal effects of passive smoking in the past. I don't think it was a politically inspired move, simply a pragmatic one in response to the views of a majority who didn't want to be exposed to the second hand pollution of smokers. OK, perhaps it could have been better thought out and provision made for separate smoking-allowed rooms in pubs, but on the whole I'm sure it's been a positive move in cleaning up air quality and health.

Erm , that will be the majority who were going to flock to the pubs when the ban started then? The closing of thousands of pubs since the smoking ban is proof that they got it wrong.
As usual they diddnt ask the people that it affected most. The People in the PUB.
The smoking ban has destroyed a part of the British way of life for no reason other than to satisfy the warped minds of the lefties.

Originally Posted by Streetwalker

Erm , that will be the majority who were going to flock to the pubs when the ban started then? The closing of thousands of pubs since the smoking ban is proof that they got it wrong.
As usual they diddnt ask the people that it affected most. The People in the PUB.
The smoking ban has destroyed a part of the British way of life for no reason other than to satisfy the warped minds of the lefties.

I quite accept that the smoking ban has affected a considerable number of pubs, and there have been many closures, although if you look at facts and through all the slanging between groups, the smoking ban was just one of several contributory factors involved, not the only one. However several pub chains have expanded quite considerably since the ban, opening hundreds of new pubs, and the 78% of the population who aren't smokers have breathed a sigh of relief! It's surely no coincidence that the number of smoking-related heart attacks has dropped by 1,200 a year since the ban - according to the NHS.

I know several of the pub landlords and owners round here, and according to what I hear trade is up in all of their premises, especially food sales now that people can eat without worrying about having second hand smoke blown over them. Also, according to The Publican, although there are now less pubs, actual on-premises sales have gone up 5% from before the ban, so it can't be all that bad; I for one would rather have fewer but better pubs around. Perhaps the majority of closures have been those old fashioned smoky dens, well known for their yellow-stained paint and sticky carpets; if those are what you'd term "part of the British way of life", all I can say is good riddance to them!

Originally Posted by Streetwalker

Was there ever any medical or scientific proof linkining passive smoking with ill health? I dont recall any apart from a few celebs saying it killed Roy Castle. Pubs were getting their houses in order with air con and no smoking areas anyway,the smoking ban was a heavy handed lets make the people enjoying themeselves pay manouver by the lefties.

Making public transport more attractive to use,cheap,less crowded,reliable and clean is the only way to get cars off the road apart from taxing them to death

Hi,

I will try to address your points, one by one.

Evidence of ill health due to passive smoking.

My honest answer is, I do not know how much peer reviewed, empirical evidence that there was.

Therefore, rather than offer an 'opinion', I have rooted around the net, to see what I could find.

Does passive smoking increase the risk of lung cancer?

Passive smoking involves exposure to the same numerous carcinogens and toxic substances which cause lung cancer in smokers. This implies some risk of lung cancer from exposure to secondhand smoke.
More than 50 studies have been published on lung cancer risk in people who have never smoked but who have been exposed to tobacco smoke, especially spouses of smokers. Most studies show an increased risk, particularly for persons with higher exposures. The overall finding is an increased risk of lung cancer in spouses of smokers of 20% in women and 30% in men. Non-smokers exposed at the workplace have a 12-19% increased risk of lung cancer.
This evidence is sufficient to conclude that passive smoking is a cause of lung cancer in never-smokers

Tobacco: 6. Does passive smoking cause cancer?


So, from that source, if it is to be accepted, the answer would be 'yes', there is sufficient evidence to suggest that passive smoking increases the risk of lung cancer.

However, then we find this; (sorry for the underlining, it just happened when I cut and pasted the story)

Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer - official
THE world's leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect.

The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks. The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report.
Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week. At its International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, which coordinated the study, a spokesman would say only that the full report had been submitted to a science journal and no publication date had been set.
The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups.
Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer. The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers.
The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood."
A spokesman for Action on Smoking and Health said the findings "seem rather surprising given the evidence from other major reviews on the subject which have shown a clear association between passive smoking and a number of diseases." Roy Castle, the jazz musician and television presenter who died from lung cancer in 1994, claimed that he contracted the disease from years of inhaling smoke while performing in pubs and clubs.
A report published in the British Medical Journal last October was hailed by the anti-tobacco lobby as definitive proof when it claimed that non-smokers living with smokers had a 25 per cent risk of developing lung cancer. But yesterday, Dr Chris Proctor, head of science for BAT Industries, the tobacco group, said the findings had to be taken seriously. "If this study cannot find any statistically valid risk you have to ask if there can be any risk at all.
"It confirms what we and many other scientists have long believed, that while smoking in public may be annoying to some non-smokers, the science does not show that being around a smoker is a lung-cancer risk." The WHO study results come at a time when the British Government has made clear its intention to crack down on smoking in thousands of public places, including bars and restaurants. The Government's own Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health is also expected to report shortly - possibly in time for this Wednesday's National No Smoking day - on the hazards of passive smoking.

Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer - official

Two sources, two very different conclusions, it would appear.

What are we to believe?

Who are we to believe?

Well, there is no question, that of the many cancers that exist, that lung cancer is one that almost exclusive to smokers. There is no question of that. However, passive smoking, that may be a different matter.

For centuries, before the blanket ban, one would assume that non smokers would breath the fumes of smokers.

Therefore, one would have to ask - why do we not have an entire generation today of non smokers who are suffering from lung cancer?

Finally, I am not really sure what you meant by this line;



'the smoking ban was a heavy handed lets make the people enjoying themeselves pay manouver by the lefties.'

Can you elaborate on that for me, please? The 'lefties' part, I mean.

Thanks

JN

Originally Posted by Streetwalker

Erm , that will be the majority who were going to flock to the pubs when the ban started then? The closing of thousands of pubs since the smoking ban is proof that they got it wrong.
As usual they diddnt ask the people that it affected most. The People in the PUB.
The smoking ban has destroyed a part of the British way of life for no reason other than to satisfy the warped minds of the lefties.

To be honest, I really think you are making this into a politically specific thing, since, once more, you mention 'lefties'. This is illogical. It would, to follow your rationale, mean that those on the left are primarily non smokers, hence wishing to politically punish non smokers, who, still keeping with the rationale, would be 'righties'.

That makes no sense to me, at all, however, I would be pleased if you could qualify it.

Have 'thousands' of pubs really closed since the ban, and exclusively due to the ban?

Do you have any evidence to support this statement?

Thanks

Originally Posted by Jack Napier

To be honest, I really think you are making this into a politically specific thing, since, once more, you mention 'lefties'. This is illogical. It would, to follow your rationale, mean that those on the left are primarily non smokers, hence wishing to politically punish non smokers, who, still keeping with the rationale, would be 'righties'.

That makes no sense to me, at all, however, I would be pleased if you could qualify it.

Have 'thousands' of pubs really closed since the ban, and exclusively due to the ban?

Do you have any evidence to support this statement?

Thanks

In excess of 5,500 pubs have closed since the smoking ban was introduced.The ban has been the main cause though as Midas points out there have been other contributry factors(26% rise in tax on beer during labours term in office for instance)

The Labour parties blueprint for our society was one of the nanny state.The quangos that advised policy without checking or indeed obtianing any facts were running this country. The thinking of the left (lefties) is not do as I do, but do What I tell you.The fact that they stopped us smoking in public places does not in any way surgest that they are non smokers themselves.

Originally Posted by Streetwalker

In excess of 5,500 pubs have closed since the smoking ban was introduced.The ban has been the main cause though as Midas points out there have been other contributry factors(26% rise in tax on beer during labours term in office for instance)

The Labour parties blueprint for our society was one of the nanny state.The quangos that advised policy without checking or indeed obtianing any facts were running this country. The thinking of the left (lefties) is not do as I do, but do What I tell you.The fact that they stopped us smoking in public places does not in any way surgest that they are non smokers themselves.

Hi SW, and thanks for getting back to me.

First of all, please tell me that you do not/did not regard New Labour, esp under Blair as being a left wing or socialist party? You don't really believe that they were, do you? Let me assure you, they most certainly were not. On the contrary, Blair shamelessly reformed Labour into what was tantamount to little more than a version of the Conservative Party. They disgracefully sold out the origins and heritage of their own party principles, in a quest for power. Under Blair, 'Labour' were little more than another right of centre party, embracing all the things that one would normally associate with the Tories.

Secondly, from what I have read, the fall in the numbers of pubs came before the ban, and perhaps grew, after it.

I have to say though, that in my city, there are still plenty of pubs, it is not as if I would have to look very hard to find one!

Like any other business, maybe some just fell by the wayside, as they did not move with the times, in other ways?

It is also worth considering that the cheap drink sold by supermarkets would have to be a HUGE factor, as well.

And lastly, as someone who has lived in Italy, and in Spain, the drink culture we have here in the UK is DISGUSTING. The attitiude to drink is appalling. In nations like Italy, Spain, Malta, kids are introduced to alchohol at a young age, but in a very different way, in a respectful way, a little red wine with a meal, that type of thing. As a result, none of those nations mentioned have anything like the anti social and health problems that the UK has, with drink.

JN

Oh Labour under Blair were socialists all right. The very worst kind at that.While they creamed off fortunes for their personal use ,sold the family silver and sent us bankrupt (that was before the financial meltdown)they expected the rest of us to live in some harmonious equality, pc and H&S mad multicultral, diversified utopia. Driving us deeper into the clutches of Euroland they forced upon us waves of forign peoples we didn't want or need,gave away previously hard fought for rebates and signed us up to a future of Fedralism.
Labour may have given the impression of moving to the center ground early doors,a bluff to capture votes,the record though speaks for itself .

The new "chain" type pubs that seem to be the ones on the increase are a fine example of where the drinking culture has gone tits.They have "managers" who are invisble half a dozen spotty teenagers serving drinks and absolutely no controll over the people in (or outside having a fag) their establishments. The Landlord of yesteryear was Master and commander of all ,no one stepped out of line,drunks were sent home and the bogs were on the ground floor.

Originally Posted by Streetwalker

Oh Labour under Blair were socialists all right. .

SW, I am truly staggered, truly, that you should think, even for a fleeting moment, that New Labour and Blair were 'socialists'.



Labour SOLD out on true socialist policies, whether you like socialism or not, that is a fact.

More....

From a socialists point of view maybe they did move to far to the right.Looking at it from ten yards to the right of Maggie it was a pigeon step.

Originally Posted by Streetwalker

From a socialists point of view maybe they did move to far to the right.Looking at it from ten yards to the right of Maggie it was a pigeon step.

With the greatest respect SW, there is no 'maybe'. I could list a hundred ways and reasons as to why 'New' Labour were not socialists, but in doing so, we would be straying from what the theme of this thread was meant to be about. I will say one thing, though - you weren't, since you mention 'her' name, a supporter of Thatcher, were you? If you were, I would find that a total paradox. Why would I find it so? For it is clear to me that you are most likely a 'working class' guy, and Thatcher HATED the working class, never missed an opportunity to take punative measures against them. I hold her (and her 'policies'), responsible for creating what I would call the generation of 'underclass' that we see today, in the UK. Do you understand what/who I mean, when I refer to the underclass?

Anyway, it seems to be primarily just you and I kicking around on this thread (you have been on this forum much longer than I, is it always so quiet on here?).

The theme of this thread was about my right, as a non car user to breathe clean air, if in fact non smokers have a right to breathe clean air.

I think we have both made our postion clear on the issue, what I am hoping for is that others may see this thread, and wish to chime in with their thoughts on the subject.

Have a good weekend,

JN

To get this thread back on topic, and more of a matter of interest than anything, has anyone here been influenced by any of the government's own publicity, or that of the wider media of course, about pollution from car exhausts when it's come to making a decision on what car to buy? In other words has anyone consciously though "I must get a car with lower exhaust emissions" or have any decisions in that direction been influenced more by the reduced running costs of higher mpg cars?

On the wider matter of exhaust pollution generally, has anyone given any serious thought to either hybrid or electric cars or is the general view that at their present stage of development (and perhaps more importantly, the supporting infrastructure for the latter) they're of academic interest only?