Scotland to ban Smoking

[bathory]

again, your great aunt or whatever has lived with a smoker for how long?

i'm not denying prolong exposure to second hand smoke will cause problems, prolonged exposure to a hell of allot of things in our environment will do that.

Regardless of what you think of the habit, is 2nd hand smoke the big bad you guys make it out to be? EVIDENCE PLEASE.

What about exhaust fumes from cars and other polution in our atmosphere? could these things also be causing problems simply because of the prolonged exposure? lets ban cars because i don't want to have to breath in the exhaust and or risk getting killed in an accident or being hit by a careless driver

[Guest]

Regardless of what you think of the habit, is 2nd hand smoke the big bad you guys make it out to be? EVIDENCE PLEASE.

253613[/snapback]

YES second hand smoke is bad for you. Some studies have shown that it's actually worse than actually smoking. Type "second-hand smoke" in google and you'll get tones of links.

What about exhaust fumes from cars and other polution in our atmosphere? could these things also be causing problems simply because of the prolonged exposure? lets ban cars because i don't want to have to breath in the exhaust and or risk getting killed in an accident or being hit by a careless driver

YES exhaust fumes are bad too! No one said they weren't. They are causing problems. Human life spans are shorter in high-pollution areas.

Certain companies are still working on creating cars that burn either little or no fuel to help the environment. What you're not getting is that these things don't happen overnight.

You know, I'm sure when they banned smoking in hospitals a lot of people complained that it was "taking away their freedom/rights". But it makes a lot of sense now, doesn't it? Why would you smoke in an area with a lot of sick people? They want to be healthy, and second hand smoke sure as hell doesn't help.

In 3 years you'll forget all about the smoking ban. Ours has been in place since August 2001, and nobody really talks about it anymore. We've just all accepted it, because that's just the way it is.

[Stamford]

YES second hand smoke is bad for you. Some studies have shown that it's actually worse than actually smoking. Type "second-hand smoke" in google and you'll get tones of links.

I cannot see how 2nd hand smoke can be worse for you than 1st hand; when you smoke a ciggarette you are drawing the smoke directly, unfiltered into your lungs.

The 2nd hand smoke is not only filtered by the smolker's lungs, but also is dissipated in the air, it can therefore not be more harmful.

Edited September 3, 2004 by Stamford

[Guest]

I cannot see how 2nd hand smoke can be worse for you than 1st hand; when you smoke a ciggarette you are drawing the smoke directly, unfiltered into your lungs.

The 2nd hand smoke is not only filtered by the smolker's lungs, but also is dissipated in the air, it can therefore not be more harmful.

253647[/snapback]

Since you can't do it:

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/

http://www.smoke-free.ca/Second-Hand-Smoke/health_kids.htm

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/tobacco/f...secondHand.html

And from the Health Canada website:

- Two thirds of smoke from a cigarette is not inhaled by the smoker, but enters the air around the smoker.

- Second-hand smoke has at least twice the nicotine and tar as the smoke inhaled by the smoker.

[Velikovsky]

The thing with second hand smoke is that they've never been able to prove a direct link with second hand and the diseases it causes. It's all circumstantial evidence.

That said as the smoker you're exposing yourself to both first hand and second hand smoke. I fail to see how it can be more dangerous for the person who is only being exposed to second hand. It would be interesting to study the statistics and see how many of the second hand smokers already had the disease in their family history and the smoke just made it worse and happen sooner.

[Guest]

How have they never proved it?

They've done years of studies on second hand smoke. They definitely have a link between second hand smoke and respiratory ilnesses.

[Stamford]

Hmm, interesting.

I think in this case, I stand corrected.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

Makes me glad I never smoke in front of my child, or indeed in the house at all.

[Guest]

Stam, I'm happy to hear you at least don't smoke in front of or around your child. Unfortunately a lot of people do.

[Velikovsky]

It's all circumstantial evidence. That's why some smokers will sit there and argue against it. You can't prove what causes lung cancer. You can sit there and say we believe this was caused by second hand smoke. But they can't be 100% positive because it could have happened from pollution in the air. After all remember every illness smoking causes also happens naturally.

[Guest]

Velikovsky, why don't you find me some statistics on how many lung cancer patients smoked, didn't smoke but lived in a smoking household, and the ones who didn't expose themselves to cigarettes at all?

I'm serious. I think it might answer a lot of questions.

[Velikovsky]

I'll try and find it by tomorrow night, this is my last few hours of relaxation before I have to get very busy.

[Seraphina]

After all remember every illness smoking causes also happens naturally.

True....but smoking vastly increases the chances of them occuring. Much like I said earlier with X-rays...cancer can occur without them, but that doesn't mean you've happy having them blasted in your directing by someone.

A few years into the ban, and we're going to see the number of cases of heart disease, cancer, and other smoking ralted illnesses drop..."some smokers" can argue that second hand smoking isn't harmful all they like, but it is, and they're not going to convince anyone that is isn't (even if we drop the "disgusting" issue for a moment).

No smoker has any right to force the people around them to smoke too...point of fact. This law has stopped them doing so, and is therefore a good thing. There's not a great deal left to say about it except going over the same ground over and over again.

Edited September 3, 2004 by Seraphina

[Stellar]

We have seen with all prohibition, whether it be alcohol, marijuana, cocaine or heroin, that it doesn't prevent its use and in fact can encourage its use.

Not necessairly. Could be the same thing as opium. Anyway, I wouldnt care much if the prohibition kind of thing happens, cuz it wont last, and smokers still wont be able to smoke in any public places what so ever. You dont see people taking cocaine in the middle of the street because they fear getting caught by the police.

It's all circumstantial evidence. That's why some smokers will sit there and argue against it. You can't prove what causes lung cancer. You can sit there and say we believe this was caused by second hand smoke. But they can't be 100% positive because it could have happened from pollution in the air. After all remember every illness smoking causes also happens naturally.

But smoking increases the chances of it happening. Even if there was only circumstantial evidence, does that give smokers the right to take that chance for us?

[Dancing_Dumplings]

FILTER FOR SECOND-HAND SMOKE (A MALAYSIAN INVENTION)

Introduction

Smoking is harmful. Yet there are still millions of people who smoke regularly. Unfortunately, it is the non-smokers are more seriously affected by tobacco smoke. Passive smoking is a serious problem because second-hand smoke is extremely pervasive. It affects millions, maybe billions of people every day, both indoors and outdoors. Many of the chemicals present in tobacco smoke are known to be cancer causing.

 

The Invention  

This invention relates to a sleeve for filtering second-hand exhaled smoke. The sleeve may be fitted coaxially to the filter-end of a cigarette. Mainstream smoke may be inhaled through the mouth-end opening of the sleeve. Second-hand smoke exhaled back into the same opening is channeled by a special one-way valve for filtration through materials embodied the porous sleeve wall. Filtered air exits through the sleeve wall. In addition, the tobacco rod may be circumscribed by a substantially non-inflammable porous sheath f or filtering side-stream smoke produced by the burning tobacco tip.

The sleeve and sheath can be pre-fitted to a cigarette to provide a super-filter cigarette whereby filtration of second-hand smoke may be made more convenient for smokers. Alternatively, the sleeve may be manufactured and sold separately (like a cigarette holder).

here the link for the rest of the info....

Linky

ummm......is that real? even possiable?

Edited September 3, 2004 by Dancing_Dumplings

[LoPar]

So instead of stopping smoking we will make acceptable to smoke by eliminating the second hand smoke???

[Stellar]

its a start.

[bathory]

people are complaining about smokers ultimately forcing you to smoke their second hand uh smoke, how about this, don't go to a bar/resteraunt that caters for smokers! simple, if an establishment chooses to cater for smokers you don't have to go there, its not like they are forcing you into that situation

[Phenomenon]

That's a good point bathory. The attitude seems to be one of, "I don't smoke so please leave the establishment." Why can't the non smokers leave? Why can't the non smokers move away from a smoky atmosphere?

[Kismit]

if an establishment chooses to cater for smokers you don't have to go there, its not like they are forcing you into that situation

if we make an effort to reward healthy choices rather than make allowences for un-healthy choices wont we be helping to work toward a better society ?

Edited September 4, 2004 by Kismit

[wunarmdscissor]

Why should ni be forced to not be able tpo socialize in certain places.

My being in an establishment isnt damaging anyone's health theirs is.

Simple difference, they had the choice.

[Talon]

how about this, don't go to a bar/resteraunt that caters for smokers!

Excuse me? I have never seen a single pub which is non-smoking, and I've only seen a handleful of restraunts which have no-smoking policies. Since the owners themselves seem incapable of making this non-existing alternative you speak of, the government is doing it for them.

[Phenomenon]

Excuse me? I have never seen a single pub which is non-smoking, and I've only seen a handleful of restraunts which have no-smoking policies. Since the owners themselves seem incapable of making this non-existing alternative you speak of, the government is doing it for them.

You can't be looking hard enough then. There are plenty of places where smoking is not allowed. I have eaten in many establishments that have a no smoking policy.

[Talon]

Dude, your American, how on Earth do you know the state of Scottish pubs. There is a reason why we top the charts on Europe's smoke related deaths

[wunarmdscissor]

There is one pub in the whole of glasgow that is non-smoking.

Its called the cask and skill .

[Talon]

I can think of about 33 pubs in Paisley, I've been to at least 20 of them, the closest to non-smoking is the Last Post, and thats only because its so huge the smoke has to spread itself thin to cover the entire room.

Anyway this is a purely Irish, Scottish and Norweigan endevor, why do the Americans even care?