Smoking ban cop-out

[DodgyAgent]

They'll take a job where they can get it!

Name one job in the UK that someone is forced to take behind a bar

[AtW]

No but alcoholics and drunks beat up their wives, children and everyone else around them in the process of killing themselves.

This is rather rare, plus there is legal recourse against these criminal actions -- you can't however sue the smoker next to you for giving you cancer and can't even tell him to stop smoking: I noticed a number of scumbags keep smoking in areas clearly marked as smoke free and nobody would tell them off.

[DodgyAgent]

This is rather rare, plus there is legal recourse against these criminal actions -- you can't however sue the smoker next to you for giving you cancer and can't even tell him to stop smoking: I noticed a number of scumbags keep smoking in areas clearly marked as smoke free and nobody would tell them off.

I agree with you AtW, however I still think that alcohol causes far more social and health problems than smoking does, and that societies needs are being as ever disregarded in favour of political ambitions of NL. It is not safe to go into any town centre on a Friday/Saturday night, and most violence is fuelled by alcohol. I am all in favour of smoking bans on trains, aircraft, offices and anywhere where the public have restricted choice about where they are. However for pubs, restaurants and clubs, then it should be a matter of choice for customers and owners and employees alike.

[snaw]

They'll take a job where they can get it!

Name one job in the UK that someone is forced to take behind a bar

DA you can't have it both ways - people who work in bars aren't exactly at the top of the food chain. They can't walk in and demand that the pub be smoke free and there aren't too many smoke free pubs doing the rounds (I personally only know two in London, neither close to my work or home).

And the debate on passive smoking is over; on balance where peoples health is concerned, you have to err on the side of caution, especially when you are delaing with scum like tobacco companies who've spent tens of millions on suppressing evidence of the dangers of smoking for decades and to this day still deny links to cancer!

[AtW]

however I still think that alcohol causes far more social and health problems than smoking does

Problem is that ALL smoking is bad - every few smokes a day can increase chances of cancer, but reasonable alchogol consumption actually prolongs life - thus you can't just ban ALL achogol, but you can do so for smokes.

Naturally the real issue are tax revenues -- because the parasiting State started exploiting drug sales AND also growing pension problem makes the State interested in selling smokes because citizens die earlier while paying extra taxes.

Those who choose to kill themselves can do so but they should not:

a) affect lives of others (hence ban on smoking in public places)
b) count on NHS spending fortune on trying to prolong the lifes they chose to shorten

[Denny]

Problem is that ALL smoking is bad - every few smokes a day can increase chances of cancer, but reasonable alchogol consumption actually prolongs life - thus you can't just ban ALL achogol, but you can do so for smokes.

I agree that smoking may increase chances of getting lung cancer, but I'm not persuaded that it actually does. The scientific research linking one to the other is so vague to be almost useless. I'd be more persuaded if they could break down or define what the enhanced risk is of, say, smoking one ciggie a day over a year and 20 a day over 20 years. How long does a smoker have to inhale before the risk is enhanced, 1 year or 20 years? The information we have at the moment is useless really. To say smoking kills is like saying driving kills or alcohol kills.

There are numerous examples of how people smoke 80 a day all their life and never get cancer and other passive smokers contract lung cancer but have never smoked. Cancer is linked to other factors, not just smoking. Genes, bad diet, lifestyle choices and other variables.

It's not a matter of whether it's a matter of 'by how much.'

[snaw]

Like to see you try using that arguement with life insurance companies!

[AtW]

I agree that smoking may increase chances of getting lung cancer, but I'm not persuaded that it actually does.

You can smoke as much as you want on your own in your private room -- if we are wrong then nobody would die, but if YOU are wrong then there will be unrecoverable consequences, thus its smart to play safe.

[DodgyAgent]

DA you can't have it both ways - people who work in bars aren't exactly at the top of the food chain. They can't walk in and demand that the pub be smoke free and there aren't too many smoke free pubs doing the rounds (I personally only know two in London, neither close to my work or home).

And the debate on passive smoking is over; on balance where peoples health is concerned, you have to err on the side of caution, especially when you are delaing with scum like tobacco companies who've spent tens of millions on suppressing evidence of the dangers of smoking for decades and to this day still deny links to cancer!

they can opt to be cleaner, a recruitment consultant, care worker. You have a point, but bar people are basically free to do other jobs. I agree with you that restaurants and pubs are better places for not allowing smoking, but I think that society is now grown up enough to make its own decisions about whether to go to or run a smoking bar.

The problem with "erring on the side of caution" is that is what politicians live for and by. Any chance to interfere and create a name for themselves and they will take it. They are in Parliament for power, not one of them has ever succeeded in anything outside of politics. As a an entirely reasonable rule of thumb you can bet that the health of the nation is very low down their list of priorities.

[AtW]

they can opt to be cleaner, a recruitment consultant, care worker. You have a point, but bar people are basically free to do other jobs.

No they are not free to do other jobs -- they don't do bar jobs because its great career choice, they do it because its pretty much the only choice they have, so they are FORCED to take the job with risk to live. Why won't you suggest to remove masks that people involved in some dust related industries -- surely they have a CHOICE to go get another job so there is no point to try to minimise threat to their health on current job?

You are scammy capitalist shwine DA - and bad at that, you give bad name to capitalism and allow NL scum to get in power.