Posted By Peter Lee Should the rest of the UK follow the example of the ROI or is it another example of the nanny state?

Posted By Gareth Smith as a smoker, i think it is quite unfair to smokers. ban cigarettes completly, and the government will then be f****D like many other people who pay income tax, as they would then have to pay a substancial increase in tax to compensate. no one seems to mention this why dont they go the full hog and stop cooking fried foods in restaurants, after all they promote healthy lifestyles. stop people getting drunk in pubs, as that is a criminal offence for the drunken person and the person who sells it to him. shouldnt drug addicts just be shot upon conviction, as this is also socially unacceptable, they impose threats to society from the need for drug funding, stealing from households. what about co2 emissions from engine exhaust systems, shall we ban all vehicles as co2 poisoning is far superior to cigarette smoking, what about the food additives they place in fast food outlets like burger outlets, they entice and make people crave them, is this not harmfull. all the good people out their, sit back and contemplate of all the things they personally do to inflict harm on their own bodies, then take the amounts of incidences and multiply by the nations population, i wonder what is the worst, smoking or other habits. i say ban smoking, and see the income tax increases to compensate.......then see what people say

Posted By Ken Taylor A nanny state would stop you doing things that only harm or kill you, whereas a caring state would seek to stop you from unnecessarily harming or killing others.

Posted By ronnie hindle as a smoker myself i think that smoking SHOULD be banned in public places, this would encourage the likes of me me to give up this horrible habit

Posted By JamesK Over the past two days I have been holding toolbox talks on the new regulation here in Ireland and to my surprise I have found that the vast majority of construction workers are in favour of the ban on smoking in enclosed areas. ( Including unfinished apartments etc ) Alas, I tink emlpoyers will take the approach of allowing people to smoke on site regardless of the location as people will take time away from their respective jobs and smoke elsewhere if they are stopped. COMPROMISE should have been the approach I think. Esp on sites Jim

Posted By Emma Forbes Hi everyone, How exactly are they going to enforce this....I don't know if I missed that part? I would welcome a ban across here - it would certainly make me look less like the old dragon that I'm turning into when I report workers for smoking in Council vehicles etc -I think it does slightly take the onus off Health and Safety personnel.....it sometimes seems more likely for staff to break company policy than the law. Although I'm a smoker too, maybe it would help me kick the dirty habit too. Tried many times and have always failed when out in the pub, boozing, and people are smoking round about me. (I think it has recently been proven that alcohol tastes much better with a fag!) Although there is something inside of me that agrees that the Government are such hypocrites, allowing us to buy the bleedin' things and taxing us heavily for the "pleasure", but not allowing us to smoke them where and when we like. Another little idiosyncrasy of the bureaucrats.......?

Posted By Geoff Burt Whatever happened to tolerance?

Posted By Paul Costelloe I don't know why non-smokers waste their time in trying to have a 'reasonable' debate with smokers. Let's face it - anyone who willingly puts their own health at serious risk as well as that of others, in my mind forfeits the right to be regarded as a 'reasonable' person.

Posted By peter gotch Not only tolerance but a risk based approach to the issue. Richard - "inhaling tobacco smoke from someone elses cigarette is no less harmful than puting the cigarette in your own mouth." This statement is logically and proven to be incorrect. There is plenty of evidence to indicate a dose response relationship. Further exhaled smoke which is then inhaled by someone at a distance has less toxic content than the smoke which the smoker takes in. eg for every 25 parts of CO which is inhaled only 1 part is exhaled. There has been very little research to support the contention that passive smoking is a significant risk. I support the ROI decision that they should be concerned about eg bar staff and non-smoking customers but there has been little discussion either in ROI or in this thread of other ways of achieving this eg ventilated areas as an alternative to an outright ban. What of course may follow from this simplistic solution is that the smoker on eg a construction site may sneak off to somewhere "out of sight, out of mind" for a fly fag. Could readily result in overall risks being massively increased, eg smoking inside the metal container in which all the flammables are stored. Bang! Regards, Peter

Posted By Geoff Burt Nothing to do with tit for tat Peter. I consider it to be an emotive statement. If you can back it up I'll be the first to apologise. If safety professionals make statements comparing occasional passive smoking to asbestos being blown in a persons face then as a group we lose our credibility.

Posted By Geoff Burt Sorry Paul, probably a bit quick of the mark there. But the point remains that nowadays large numbers of people are looking for things to be offended by and will go out of their way to be offended by them. Hence my comment on tolerance.

Posted By Stuart Nagle On behalf of smokers everywhere, I would state that there should be a ban on non-smokers drinking in pubs. They bring the whole place down, constantly complaining that we are killing them and moaning over a simple bit of fag ash dropped, accidentally, in their medium sweet white wine or bishops finger pint!! - whats the harm of a bit of smoke wafting across the room whilst your eating your shrimp salad sandwich??? There are of course those who object to being anywhere in the vicinity of smokers, some of course would complain about being on the same street it seems, and who will fill this thread with continual moans concerning the subject of smokers and smoking, its effects on them, how unpleasant it is, how it harms their health and quoting so called factual reports by experts on this and that and so on and so on. The answer is simple - if you really dont like smoking and if you dont like smoke in pubs - don't go into them - or find a nice little trendy wine bar somewhere where you can sit in a non smoking area. What rights has anyone to prevent us from our personal enjoyment of the occassional ciggy, irrespective if its bad for my health. You do not have to particpate by being in proximity to me - IE IN THE PUB.... I repeat here - as I have said previously, there is no more proof that so called 'passive smoking' causes cancer than it can be proved that eating burgers causes CJD - it is, at best, an assumption. Yes there are reports that contradict this view (good grant money to be had no doubt), as there are those that support it... Unfortunately there is NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT and I challenge anyone to provide conclusive evidence on the subject - As for cancer - yes I know its not a nice subject - but it is true that statistically more non smokers die from cancer than smokers............. There...is that controversial enough for everyone!! In reality I have found that many non-smokers who I know and are aquaintances or personal friends have no quarrel at all being in the presence of, drinking with or otherwise whilst persons are smoking. But of course I stand to be corrected and probably will be lambasted by the non smoking lobby here for stating such a thing... I do find however that those who have smoked and have given up are far more vocal on the subject than those who have never smoked - getting to you a bit is it!! So, lets look at some tonge-in-cheek ways forward here....lets examine the options.... 1) ban smoking in pubs = loss of revenue in taxes on beer/wine/spirits? - even more pubs close or go down hill? and to make up for the loss they invite all the yobs back in? = all the nice non smokers leave because of yobs and drunks? = pubs go out of bussiness? = loss of revenue?, unemployment, taxes go up? etc etc... 2) Smokers only pubs? - doing a roaring trade and full to the gunals? - all smokers happy? trade continues apace? - non smokers not happy as their pub is now smokers only and make official complaints via their local MP that they are being discriminated against? - ends up in high court/European Court of Human Rights?, non smokers win high profile case on human rights issue of discrimination? - civil war breaks out in suburbia...!!! Smokers storm Parliament and government disolved? Republic declared? Queen leaves for Australia, who refuse her entry? and royal family forced to settle in shack on island of Mustique!! 3) Brewers decide, following discrete discussions with government behind closed doors (incognito), to incorporate non-smoking bars in pubs, with air conditioning, fancy smelly spray thingys that puff out essence of brass polish and beer mats (ah the nostalga) and have highly polished glass tappas bowls (that distictly resemble irish pub ashtrays - that were) full with fresh roasted cashews - but only if Govenment agrees to reduce taxes on drinks and allows a 2p a pint increase in prices - deal done?. Smokers however complain that they should also have special toilets as smokers use the ones they have to use and regardless of the smell, they can still be killed by passive smoking...Brewers put hold on developing further non-smokers only bars in pubs, and start installing air freshner dispensers in toilets at 50p a throw - never ones to miss an opportunity the brewers!! 4) the staus quo is maintained = non smokers (those that were always unhappy about smoke in pubs) are unhappy (those that always choose to moan about it but insist on being in the thickest smoke in the bar that is - just to ensure that everyone in the pub is as miserable as them!!), but everyone remains in employment = no loss of revenue or jobs - life in the UK continues apace - more trendy non smoking wine bars open where non smokers can choose to disassociate with the riff raff smokers...but non smokers complain to MPs about loss of facilities in their local areas as more and more shops, banks, post offices and bakers shops are converted to trendy non smoking wine bars. Gays decide to open gay non smoking wine bars and the situation worsens... Vigilante non smokers start to bomb wine bars!! 5) the government legislates to control the change of use of shops to wine bars, stating that there are too many wine bars and loss of stategic amenities for local areas must be halted - two jags seizes the opportunity for a press coup by being photographed in every pub and bar in fleet street. Local Authorities challenge government in the high court on local planning issues, the Judges decide to implement a working party (now theres a contradiction in terms!) to visit wine bars and investigate the situation...some judges force the issue of pubs onto the agenda to ensure all areas of the debate are included on an equla basis and two committees are formed - wine bars and pubs... Judges state it could take some time for the committees to report....!!!!! 6) the lords meet in special session over the controversial costs arising from the standing committees instituted by the judges on wine bars and pubs. It is estimated that, to date, some £1,850,000 of revenue has been spent in the enquiry so far.... Judges on the committees were unavailable for comment.... It is reported that a number of non smokers holding a vigil outside the houses of parliament have been admitted to hospital with lung/breathing problems. It is thought that could have arisen from carbon monoxide poisoning arsising from traffic fumes - traffic at a standstill during the prolonged protests in parliament square. A spokes-person for the group said...'This never jollywell happened when we were in the pubs'..... The debate continues....

Posted By Peter Lee From Ash.Org: Introduction Breathing other people's smoke is called passive, involuntary or secondhand smoking. The non-smoker breathes "sidestream" smoke from the burning tip of the cigarette and "mainstream" smoke that has been inhaled and then exhaled by the smoker. Secondhand smoke (SHS) is a major source of indoor air pollution. What's in the smoke? Tobacco smoke contains over 4000 chemicals in the form of particles and gases. [1] Many potentially toxic gases are present in higher concentrations in sidestream smoke than in mainstream smoke and nearly 85% of the smoke in a room results from sidestream smoke. [2] The particulate phase includes tar (itself composed of many chemicals), nicotine, benzene and benzo(a)pyrene. The gas phase includes carbon monoxide, ammonia, dimethylnitrosamine, formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide and acrolein. Some of these have marked irritant properties and some 60 are known or suspected carcinogens (cancer causing substances). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the USA has classified environmental tobacco smoke as a class A (known human) carcinogen along with asbestos, arsenic, benzene and radon gas. 1 How does this affect the passive smoker? Some of the immediate effects of passive smoking include eye irritation, headache, cough, sore throat, dizziness and nausea. Adults with asthma can experience a significant decline in lung function when exposed, while new cases of asthma may be induced in children whose parents smoke. Short term exposure to tobacco smoke also has a measurable effect on the heart in non-smokers. Just 30 minutes exposure is enough to reduce coronary blood flow. [3] In the longer term, passive smokers suffer an increased risk of a range of smoking-related diseases. Non-smokers who are exposed to passive smoking in the home, have a 25 per cent increased risk of heart disease and lung cancer. [4] A major review by the Government-appointed Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (SCOTH) concluded that passive smoking is a cause of lung cancer and ischaemic heart disease in adult non-smokers, and a cause of respiratory disease, cot death, middle ear disease and asthmatic attacks in children. [5] A more recent review of the health impacts of passive smoking by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) noted that “the evidence is sufficient to conclude that involuntary smoking is a cause of lung cancer in never smokers”. [6] Deaths from secondhand smoke Whilst the relative health risks from passive smoking are small in comparison with those from active smoking, because the diseases are common, the overall health impact is large. The British Medical Association has conservatively estimated that secondhand smoke causes at least 1,000 deaths a year in the UK. However, the true figure is likely to be much higher. Based on the findings of the SCOTH report and the review by the California Environmental Protection Agency11 ASH estimates that, each year in the UK, about 600 lung cancer deaths and up to 12,000 deaths from heart disease in nonsmokers may be attributed to passive smoking. [7] [1] Respiratory health effects of passive smoking. EPA/600/6-90/006F United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1992. [View document] [2] Fielding, JE and Phenow, KJ. New England J. of Medicine 1988; 319: 1452-60. [3] Otsuka, R. Acute effects of passive smoking on the coronary circulation in healthy young adults. JAMA 2001; 286: 436-441 [View abstract] [4] Law MR et al. Environmental tobacco smoke exposure and ischaemic heart disease: an evaluation of the evidence. BMJ 1997; 315: 973-80. [View abstract] Hackshaw AK et al. The accumulated evidence on lung cancer and environmental tobacco smoke. BMJ 1997; 315: 980-88. [View abstract] [5] Report of the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health. Department of Health, 1998. [View document] [6] Involuntary smoking. Summary of Data reported and evaluation. IARC, 2002. (Full report in press) View summary [7] Passive smoking: A summary of the evidence. ASH, November 2002 [View document]

Posted By Rod Douglas What about Prison Officers then? Inmates are allowed to smoke in their cells and in designated rooms thourghout the Prison however, Prison Offcers have no choice in the matter they have to go into those areas as it is their job. Should we ban Inmates from smoking inside Prisons and only alow them to smoke outside? The Prison Service has a Duty of care to protect their staff and people in their custody, so if they did not ban Inmates from smoking inside would they be neglecting their duty as an employer? This whole smoking ban thing will open a can of worms!!!! A wise old man once said to me "You solve one problem and create another" So true. Your thoughts... Yours Aye, Rod D

Posted By Andy Petrie As car exhausts, especially diesel ones, are equally damaging I personally think drivers should only be able to drive in private places. When in public I suggest routing the exhaust into the car for them to breath, this would quickly cut down pollution and congestion. If drivers did this, I would be prepared to stop smoking!

Posted By Richard Mathews Having read all these responses, including Stuart's epic which starts off by suggesting that non-smokers should be banned from drinking in pubs and goes on to the ridiculous argument that pubs would close if it weren't for smokers, I have not seen anything that convinces me that smoking in public places or workplaces should continue to be acceptable. All the arguments against a ban posted by the smokers only goes to emphasise their selfishness in continuing to defend their right to force other people to smoke. Lets no beat about the bush here that is what is happening, they are forcing people to do something that will, or could, seriously harm their health. And, they wont stop doing it until someone gives them irrefutable evidence that passive smoking is harmful, which will never happen because the scientists employed by tobacco companies wont let it! I myself like to odd gallon or two of beer (so much for smokers keeping pubs open). I know the risks to my health in drinking such quatities but is only my health, I don't force any down the throat of tht tee-totaler next to me. Yes ex-smokers like me do make the most noise about it (there's no prude like a reformed whore!). That is probably because, only having smoked for a number of years (20 in my case) and given up (15 years now) can the harmful effects be fully appreciated. People who have never smoked and people who still smoke can't really comprehend the difference. You have to stop to really understand, that is why I can't accept any argument put forward by a smoker. Stop for a few years then come back and try to convince me, I'll listen then! Richard

Posted By Geoff Burt Richard I may be wrong but my interpretation of your last contribution is that you are happy to state your opinion but you are not willing to listen to opinions you don't agree with -you say this in your last sentence. Mmmm. So much for this being called a discussion forum. For the record - and a point which destroys one aspect of your argument - I am an ex smoker. Geoff

Posted By John Webster A smoker for over 20 years and, after a couple of failed attempts, free of the habit for the past 13. But not one of the "whores turned prude", I hope. I was convinced of the risks to my own health. I made the choice to quit. I could quite easily pop over to the smoking cabin right now and cadge a fag and enjoy it. It might make me feel a bit light headed - just like those first few in my teenage years. I will, however, content myself with eating my also unhealthy bacon roll. Fags taste dreadful with bacon anyway. The point is, those are my health choices. I will not lecture anybody about the health risks they are taking by smoking, and I don't expect to be hectored about my bacon butty. We know. We know. I have no concerns about the health risk of passive bacon butty eating. The atmospheric hydrogen sulphide concentrations from flatulence are unlikely to exceed safe exposure levels. Whilst anecdotally, there appears to be a health risk from passive smoking, and I know from personal experience that many of those exposed will suffer irritant effects, there is little hard evidence to support long term adverse effects. Many of the individual constituents of tobacco smoke are extremely harmful, but do the concentrations in the atmosphere constitute a significant risk? Until each is analysed and set against recognised exposure standards, the arguments of the ban-smoking-on-health-grounds brigade can always be countered by the right-to-smoke-anywhere camp. Since neither side can actually prove its point, the result is stalemate. However, until I quit smoking, I had no idea what effect my tobacco smoke had on others, particularly on non-smokers. It is a medical fact that the sense of smell and taste (or to be more specific for the pedants, the function of the olfactory organ) is diminished by tobacco smoking. The organ also becomes de-sensitised to an ever-present smell. That way, the person with BO is always the last to know. How come everybody elses house smells of something but not your own? Fag smoke may or may not be a health hazard, but it irritates and it stinks (funnily, pipe tobacco leaves a much more aromatic smell behind). Like most non-smokers I can tell if somebody has smoked, or been in a room with smokers within the last hour or so. (Now I know how schoolteachers knew we had been smoking behind the bike sheds, even when we denied it). The smell lingers, so when you come home from the pub, all clothing has to be changed and hair washed to get rid of it. Unfortunately, the smoker cannot smell this any more than the garlic eater can smell his own breath. Even smokers may find smoking whilst eating is unpleasent. But that relaxing fag with the port and coffee is often taken whilst those at the next table are still eating, the smell completely ruining their food. We have a non-smoking guest house. If someone breaks the rules and smokes in the room, all the bedding (not just the sheets), the curtains, lampshades etc have to be laundered before the room can be re-occupied. In extreme cases, the walls and ceiling must be washed down to get rid of the smell. So tolerance, yes. But a great deal more understanding is needed. If I smoked, I would want to be able to enjoy my fag with my pint, and should be able to - without having to stand out in the rain. Equally as I don't, I want to be able to enjoy my meal and my pint without the taste of fag smoke, and to be able to go out to the same places of entertainment as everyone else without having red eyes and a pile of washing to do. I really think that is all that the majority of non-smokers want (no, I cannot support that assertion with statistical data, but it would be interesting to find out, as most of the polls I have seen simply ask if smoking in certain places should be banned or not). Talk of "bans" is putting peoples backs up. Use of unproven health arguments just produces counter arguments. We should only be looking at controlling - not necessarily banning - smoking in enclosed public spaces, so that there would be a requirement to design, build and maintain initially new and subsequently extend the provision to existing premises such that non-smokers can enjoy the facilities of the premises, and staff can work, without being subjected to the annoyance of tobacco smoke. Premises should be free to decide whether this means a ban, seggregated facilities or efficient directional ventilation according to need and practicability. Surely this could work and suit the vast majority of people?

Posted By Richard Mathews OK. good point Geoff, and a bad choice of words on my part. John Webster, I think, has hit the nail on the head with his contribution. By gum Peter, thas started fur flyin' 'ere.

Posted By Jonathan Breeze My goodness, a consensus is developing on a controversial issue in just over 40 posts, it must be a record. Thanks to John Webster for a very well balanced post. I would now like to suggest that the main controversy now remaining is Peter Lee's implication that the ROI is part of the UK... ...I'll get me coat!