UCLA and Stanford university spent 30 years in an effort to prove the existence of 'passive smoking',eventually abandoning the crusade without publishing the results.The evidence of it's existence is so flimsy as to have no substance in law,based on the researcher having an out-come which they wish to prove,along the lines of 'have you ever smoked? no .has a partner? no. have you ever been in a room where somebody smoked? no .have you been in a town where somebody smoked ? probably. ahah that's it passive smoking.If the UK had followed the examples of other countries and offered segregation of the premises then there would be no argument/hardship.Both sides should have a choice,not just one side
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The UK Smoking Ban
- Thread starter mcmanus
- Start date
mcmanus
Well-Known Member
Bluebird1 said:blueinsa said:Tap room for smoking and lounge smoke free.
Its hardly fucking rocket science is it.
Everyone then has a choice including staff.
The staff probably wouldn't have a choice, they'd be told which one to work in.
If it continues there will be no probs because there won't be many locals/pubs to work in.
mindmyp's_n_q's
Well-Known Member
In 2005 the Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt declared that a ban on smoking in public places "will save thousands of lives". Official estimates assert that 12,000 people a year die in Britain from the effects of passive smoking. In Scotland, a ban on smoking in all public places began in March, following a lead set by the Irish government. The Welsh Assembly is preparing to follow suit. In England, smoking will be banned in pubs, clubs and restaurants from the summer of 2007.
But none of these restrictions is based on convincing proof that passive smoking kills. It is an assertion that owes a great deal to the sanctimonious superstition that there can be no smoke without death. Reputable scientists admit this. On Desert Island Discs in 2001, Sir Richard Doll, the man who proved the incontrovertible causal link between active smoking and lung cancer, said: "The effect of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me."
He was right not to fret. One of the largest studies of the health consequences of secondary smoking was published in the British Medical Journal in 2003. It tracked the health of 118,000 Californians over four decades in a rigorous attempt to identify a causal relationship between environmental tobacco smoke (the scientific term for secondary smoke) and premature death. It concluded: "The results do not support a causal relationship between ETS and tobacco-related mortality."
That caused a nasty row. Anti-smoking campaigners condemned the research as "biased" and "unreliable". The anti-smoking charity Action on Smoking and Health (Ash) declared. "This could be very damaging as it will be used by industry lobbyists to argue against laws to ban smoking in public places and workplaces." And Ash was not alone in being concerned about the threat posed to its ambitions by scientific honesty. The venerable BMJ found itself under attack from all sides.
Publication provoked a barrage of condemnation in which the then BMJ editor Dr Richard Smith was accused of every failing from naivety to active promotion of evil. His accusers demanded that he withdraw the article. To his credit, Smith refused, pointing out that the BMJ exists to publish science not polemic, and that the American study was proper, peer-reviewed science. A robust and persuasive anti-smoker, he replied that although the BMJ was "passionately anti-tobacco" it was not "anti-science". He went on to explain that "the question [of whether passive smoking kills] has not been definitively answered."
Doctors and scientists who make such statements come under extraordinary pressure to withdraw them. Three years later, Dr Smith appeared to be satisfied that passive smoking does kill. Doll was persuaded to emphasise that his lack of concern about secondary smoking was a purely personal perspective. The tragedy, for those who care about truth, reason and scientific method, is that it was not. Profound scepticism about the claim that secondary smoking kills is the only rationally tenable position. Look beyond the lazy political and media consensus that simply assumes that because smoking kills secondary smoking must as well, and the evidence is overwhelming.
When I interviewed her in 2004, Amanda Sandford of Ash acknowledged unintentionally that much secondary smoking science is unscientific. She said: "A lot of the studies that have been done on passive smoking produce results that are not statistically significant according to conventional analysis." In plain English, that means that if secondary smoking were not already the focus of a torrent of moral sanctimony, few reputable scientists would dare to assert that it causes lung cancer, heart disease or any of the other life-threatening conditions with which it is routinely associated.
Dr Ken Denson, a medical professional who is prepared say what others only think, puts it more bluntly: "The ill effects of passive smoking are still intuition rather than scientific fact... All in all, the medical evidence for any deleterious effect of passive smoking is extremely tenuous and it is unlikely that it would ever stand up in a court of law."
A recent report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer reveals that, "In total, 23 studies have been published on [workplace] exposure to secondhand smoke. Only one reported a statistically significant association between exposure to secondhand smoke at the workplace and risk for lung cancer." One out of 23 is usually dismissed as a rogue result.
Since then, further evidence has been published by the BMJ. In March 2005 it offered fresh data suggesting that passive smoking may kill 11,000 people a year in the UK. The crucial word is "may". If there is a direct causal link between secondary smoking and lung cancer it is so tiny that dedicated campaigners have struggled to identify it. Scotland's Green Party, hardly a promoter of smoking, recently alleged that more Scots are killed by exhaust fumes than by secondary smoke.
Of course secondary smoke can be irritating. Some people detest the smell; others believe it exacerbates their asthma - a claim for which there is some evidence, although it is noteworthy that the incidence of asthma in the UK has risen sharply during a period when the level of smoking has fallen. Nor is it a good idea to expose very small children to dense cigarette smoke.
But the best summary of the passive smoking debate was provided by Dr Smith at the time of the 2003 BMJ controversy. He said: "I found it disturbing that so many people and organisations referred to the flaws in the study without specifying what they were. Indeed, this debate was much more remarkable for its passion than its precision." That goes for every claim advanced by politicians, charities and health campaigners who demand a smoke-free environment and consider it legitimate to deny freedom to smokers by pretending that their habit harms non-smokers.
Reputable research shows that a non-smoker inhales between a 500th and 1,000th of the toxins inhaled by the smoker himself. No matter what poor Roy Castle believed about the effects of years in smoky jazz clubs, there is little scientific proof that secondary smoke causes cancer. And, if very little increased risk can be demonstrated for lung cancer, it is beyond improbable that an increased risk can be proven for other smoking-related diseases where the risks for the active smoker are much lower than for cancer.
The logic is that distortions paraded in a good cause are virtuous. But, a non-smoker myself, I find it alarming that the Government is prepared to base legislation on what is barely more than superstition. Smoking only kills you if you stick the cigarette in your own mouth. To pretend otherwise is mumbo-jumbo.
Those who disagree should remember a lesson from the history of anti-smoking. Doll's post-war study was not the first to prove that smoking caused lung cancer: Nazi scientists had reached the same conclusion 20 years earlier. The resulting evidence was ignored in this country because it came from a tainted source. It was assumed that good science could not come from an evil regime. In the modern-day debate over secondary smoking, campaigners who pretend there is proof that it kills are repeating that historic error in reverse. Excellent motives are producing grotesquely distorted science
But none of these restrictions is based on convincing proof that passive smoking kills. It is an assertion that owes a great deal to the sanctimonious superstition that there can be no smoke without death. Reputable scientists admit this. On Desert Island Discs in 2001, Sir Richard Doll, the man who proved the incontrovertible causal link between active smoking and lung cancer, said: "The effect of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me."
He was right not to fret. One of the largest studies of the health consequences of secondary smoking was published in the British Medical Journal in 2003. It tracked the health of 118,000 Californians over four decades in a rigorous attempt to identify a causal relationship between environmental tobacco smoke (the scientific term for secondary smoke) and premature death. It concluded: "The results do not support a causal relationship between ETS and tobacco-related mortality."
That caused a nasty row. Anti-smoking campaigners condemned the research as "biased" and "unreliable". The anti-smoking charity Action on Smoking and Health (Ash) declared. "This could be very damaging as it will be used by industry lobbyists to argue against laws to ban smoking in public places and workplaces." And Ash was not alone in being concerned about the threat posed to its ambitions by scientific honesty. The venerable BMJ found itself under attack from all sides.
Publication provoked a barrage of condemnation in which the then BMJ editor Dr Richard Smith was accused of every failing from naivety to active promotion of evil. His accusers demanded that he withdraw the article. To his credit, Smith refused, pointing out that the BMJ exists to publish science not polemic, and that the American study was proper, peer-reviewed science. A robust and persuasive anti-smoker, he replied that although the BMJ was "passionately anti-tobacco" it was not "anti-science". He went on to explain that "the question [of whether passive smoking kills] has not been definitively answered."
Doctors and scientists who make such statements come under extraordinary pressure to withdraw them. Three years later, Dr Smith appeared to be satisfied that passive smoking does kill. Doll was persuaded to emphasise that his lack of concern about secondary smoking was a purely personal perspective. The tragedy, for those who care about truth, reason and scientific method, is that it was not. Profound scepticism about the claim that secondary smoking kills is the only rationally tenable position. Look beyond the lazy political and media consensus that simply assumes that because smoking kills secondary smoking must as well, and the evidence is overwhelming.
When I interviewed her in 2004, Amanda Sandford of Ash acknowledged unintentionally that much secondary smoking science is unscientific. She said: "A lot of the studies that have been done on passive smoking produce results that are not statistically significant according to conventional analysis." In plain English, that means that if secondary smoking were not already the focus of a torrent of moral sanctimony, few reputable scientists would dare to assert that it causes lung cancer, heart disease or any of the other life-threatening conditions with which it is routinely associated.
Dr Ken Denson, a medical professional who is prepared say what others only think, puts it more bluntly: "The ill effects of passive smoking are still intuition rather than scientific fact... All in all, the medical evidence for any deleterious effect of passive smoking is extremely tenuous and it is unlikely that it would ever stand up in a court of law."
A recent report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer reveals that, "In total, 23 studies have been published on [workplace] exposure to secondhand smoke. Only one reported a statistically significant association between exposure to secondhand smoke at the workplace and risk for lung cancer." One out of 23 is usually dismissed as a rogue result.
Since then, further evidence has been published by the BMJ. In March 2005 it offered fresh data suggesting that passive smoking may kill 11,000 people a year in the UK. The crucial word is "may". If there is a direct causal link between secondary smoking and lung cancer it is so tiny that dedicated campaigners have struggled to identify it. Scotland's Green Party, hardly a promoter of smoking, recently alleged that more Scots are killed by exhaust fumes than by secondary smoke.
Of course secondary smoke can be irritating. Some people detest the smell; others believe it exacerbates their asthma - a claim for which there is some evidence, although it is noteworthy that the incidence of asthma in the UK has risen sharply during a period when the level of smoking has fallen. Nor is it a good idea to expose very small children to dense cigarette smoke.
But the best summary of the passive smoking debate was provided by Dr Smith at the time of the 2003 BMJ controversy. He said: "I found it disturbing that so many people and organisations referred to the flaws in the study without specifying what they were. Indeed, this debate was much more remarkable for its passion than its precision." That goes for every claim advanced by politicians, charities and health campaigners who demand a smoke-free environment and consider it legitimate to deny freedom to smokers by pretending that their habit harms non-smokers.
Reputable research shows that a non-smoker inhales between a 500th and 1,000th of the toxins inhaled by the smoker himself. No matter what poor Roy Castle believed about the effects of years in smoky jazz clubs, there is little scientific proof that secondary smoke causes cancer. And, if very little increased risk can be demonstrated for lung cancer, it is beyond improbable that an increased risk can be proven for other smoking-related diseases where the risks for the active smoker are much lower than for cancer.
The logic is that distortions paraded in a good cause are virtuous. But, a non-smoker myself, I find it alarming that the Government is prepared to base legislation on what is barely more than superstition. Smoking only kills you if you stick the cigarette in your own mouth. To pretend otherwise is mumbo-jumbo.
Those who disagree should remember a lesson from the history of anti-smoking. Doll's post-war study was not the first to prove that smoking caused lung cancer: Nazi scientists had reached the same conclusion 20 years earlier. The resulting evidence was ignored in this country because it came from a tainted source. It was assumed that good science could not come from an evil regime. In the modern-day debate over secondary smoking, campaigners who pretend there is proof that it kills are repeating that historic error in reverse. Excellent motives are producing grotesquely distorted science
Fame Monster
Well-Known Member
Great post mindmyp's_n_q's.
B
B
blueinsa
Guest
I am a non smoker yet i find the way this government who will greedily make billions on the back of smokers yet punish them a disgrace.
If they are that serious about wanting people to quit then ban the fucking sale of the things but we all know they wont.
2 faced hypocrites and smokers along with motorists, the other group singled out for financial fleecing keep the country going to a certain extent with the taxes they pay.
You want a fag and have bought them legally and paid tax/duty then light the fucker up i say and enjoy.
If they are that serious about wanting people to quit then ban the fucking sale of the things but we all know they wont.
2 faced hypocrites and smokers along with motorists, the other group singled out for financial fleecing keep the country going to a certain extent with the taxes they pay.
You want a fag and have bought them legally and paid tax/duty then light the fucker up i say and enjoy.
mindmyp's_n_q's
Well-Known Member
And just because I like reasoned debate..................
The link between passive smoking and lung cancer is beyond doubt, scientists declared yesterday.
An international team of 29 experts analysed more than 3,000 studies to confirm what has long been maintained by doctors and health campaign groups.
The same team also found that tobacco can trigger cancer in areas of the body not previously linked to smoking - meaning that those hooked on cigarettes are at an even greater risk of contracting the disease than previously feared.
The incontestable verdict on passive smoking was delivered by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is part of the World Health Organisation.
Their findings show that nonsmokers exposed to second hand smoke face an increased risk of 20-30 per cent of developing cancer.
Sir Richard Doll, whose research 50 years ago in the UK first linked smoking to lung cancer, and a member of the IARC group, said hundreds of thousands more cases of the disease worldwide could now be attributed to smoking.
'It is the first time there has been a formal evaluation by scientists of the carcinogenic risks of environmental tobacco smoke and it has concluded that it causes lung cancer,' he said.
'Environmental tobacco smoke that people experience at work or at home is definitely a cause of lung cancer.
'That has been discussed for a long time but this is the first time a group of independent scientists has reviewed all the evidence and said that there is no question.'
Sir Richard said the findings should have a significant influence on health policies and would strengthen the case for a ban on smoking in workplaces in the UK.
The IARC experts also found more types of cancer should be added to the 'already very long list' that can be caused by smoking, including cancers of the stomach, liver, uterus, cervix, kidney and myeloid leukaemia.
The group says half of all persistent cigarette smokers are eventually killed by a tobacco-related disease with half of the deaths occurring in middle age.
Tobacco is the largest cause of preventable cancers.
Sir Richard said smoking causes hundreds of cancer-causing chemicals to circulate in the body which is the reason why so many areas are vulnerable to the disease.
For example, the chemical benzene helps to trigger myeloid leukaemia. He said: 'I was personally not convinced about a link between cancer of the cervix and smoking but the evidence is now quite compelling.'
Those breathing in environmental smoke are exposed to the same chemicals as smokers, he added.
About 35,000 lung cancer deaths and a further 100,000 other deaths are attributed to tobacco in the UK each year. Around 28 per cent of adults smoke.
The group's conclusions were released at the same time as the Office of National Statistics revealed that calls to have smoking outlawed in workplaces, pubs, restaurants and public places are growing.
In 1996, 81 per cent of those questioned wanted restrictions at work but latest figures show 86 per cent now in favour.
There has also been a rise in the proportion of people wanting restrictions in restaurants - up from 85 to 87 per cent, in pubs, up from 48 to 50 per cent, and other public places, up from 82 to 85 per cent.
Although 90 per cent were aware passive smoking increases children's risk of chest infections, one-third are still prepared to smoke when in the same room as a child.
Marsha Williams, of the antitobacco campaigning group Ash, said: 'Passive smoking is quite clearly more than just the nuisance many of the world's tobacco companies would have us believe.
'People are harmed and killed by it and it is time industry, government and smokers themselves woke up to this fact.'
Around three million Britons are exposed to passive smoking in their workplaces, many of them from the hospitality industry, she said.
The link between passive smoking and lung cancer is beyond doubt, scientists declared yesterday.
An international team of 29 experts analysed more than 3,000 studies to confirm what has long been maintained by doctors and health campaign groups.
The same team also found that tobacco can trigger cancer in areas of the body not previously linked to smoking - meaning that those hooked on cigarettes are at an even greater risk of contracting the disease than previously feared.
The incontestable verdict on passive smoking was delivered by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is part of the World Health Organisation.
Their findings show that nonsmokers exposed to second hand smoke face an increased risk of 20-30 per cent of developing cancer.
Sir Richard Doll, whose research 50 years ago in the UK first linked smoking to lung cancer, and a member of the IARC group, said hundreds of thousands more cases of the disease worldwide could now be attributed to smoking.
'It is the first time there has been a formal evaluation by scientists of the carcinogenic risks of environmental tobacco smoke and it has concluded that it causes lung cancer,' he said.
'Environmental tobacco smoke that people experience at work or at home is definitely a cause of lung cancer.
'That has been discussed for a long time but this is the first time a group of independent scientists has reviewed all the evidence and said that there is no question.'
Sir Richard said the findings should have a significant influence on health policies and would strengthen the case for a ban on smoking in workplaces in the UK.
The IARC experts also found more types of cancer should be added to the 'already very long list' that can be caused by smoking, including cancers of the stomach, liver, uterus, cervix, kidney and myeloid leukaemia.
The group says half of all persistent cigarette smokers are eventually killed by a tobacco-related disease with half of the deaths occurring in middle age.
Tobacco is the largest cause of preventable cancers.
Sir Richard said smoking causes hundreds of cancer-causing chemicals to circulate in the body which is the reason why so many areas are vulnerable to the disease.
For example, the chemical benzene helps to trigger myeloid leukaemia. He said: 'I was personally not convinced about a link between cancer of the cervix and smoking but the evidence is now quite compelling.'
Those breathing in environmental smoke are exposed to the same chemicals as smokers, he added.
About 35,000 lung cancer deaths and a further 100,000 other deaths are attributed to tobacco in the UK each year. Around 28 per cent of adults smoke.
The group's conclusions were released at the same time as the Office of National Statistics revealed that calls to have smoking outlawed in workplaces, pubs, restaurants and public places are growing.
In 1996, 81 per cent of those questioned wanted restrictions at work but latest figures show 86 per cent now in favour.
There has also been a rise in the proportion of people wanting restrictions in restaurants - up from 85 to 87 per cent, in pubs, up from 48 to 50 per cent, and other public places, up from 82 to 85 per cent.
Although 90 per cent were aware passive smoking increases children's risk of chest infections, one-third are still prepared to smoke when in the same room as a child.
Marsha Williams, of the antitobacco campaigning group Ash, said: 'Passive smoking is quite clearly more than just the nuisance many of the world's tobacco companies would have us believe.
'People are harmed and killed by it and it is time industry, government and smokers themselves woke up to this fact.'
Around three million Britons are exposed to passive smoking in their workplaces, many of them from the hospitality industry, she said.
BimboBob
Well-Known Member
I used to smoke everywhere...and it's weird how after a few years you don't miss it.
We have a complete no smoking policy at work which means that you can't even nip out in your lunch break.
I don't smoke at home now and if i want a ciggie i go out side. Obviously when it's hammering it down i smoke less.
As far as pubs go i don't miss it. My local regularly gets the ashtrays out at 10.30pm after the doors have been shut and although i was keen to smoke at the bar the first time he did it when i got home i noticed i stunk of fags and it was bloody horrible.
So...
I smell better, i should quit as a packet lasts 3 days but...i do enjoy a fag now and then.
We have a complete no smoking policy at work which means that you can't even nip out in your lunch break.
I don't smoke at home now and if i want a ciggie i go out side. Obviously when it's hammering it down i smoke less.
As far as pubs go i don't miss it. My local regularly gets the ashtrays out at 10.30pm after the doors have been shut and although i was keen to smoke at the bar the first time he did it when i got home i noticed i stunk of fags and it was bloody horrible.
So...
I smell better, i should quit as a packet lasts 3 days but...i do enjoy a fag now and then.
mikey4
Well-Known Member
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.closedpubs.co.uk/lancashire/manchester.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.closedpubs.co.uk/lancashire/manchester.html</a>
The smoking ban has caused pretty much all of this.
The smoking ban has caused pretty much all of this.
tueartsboots
Well-Known Member
Went to Dubrovnik, Croatia last year, they have a smoking ban but nobody gives a shit. It felt quite strange, sitting having a beer, sparking up whenever you liked and watching the City/Newcastle game !
law74
Well-Known Member
johnmc said:Ive given up since the ban
So have I
I now get 20 regal kingsize and two bottles of Strongbow on my way home on a friday night and relax in my home where I can smoke as and when I like.