Quote Stephen Bennett:

---

Actually, yes. I don't go to BBQs and In live in a pretty clean environment, but hey that's me.
Regards

Stephen

---

I'm happy that you take your health seriously and am not trying to persuade anyone to do otherwise. The point I'm making is not that "this may be bad, but THIS is worse", it's simply that the ban is not the health oriented issue it appears to be, it's based on banning what people "don't like". It would be equally reasonable to ban "chewing with your mouth open" in restaurants or "the smell of cabbage" or "the music of Britney Spears", all of which I find unpleasant, but unfortunately there are no bogus papers based on the supposed health risks of these subjects.

Not yet anyway

well i don't give a toss about sources Robin, no-one is going to convince me that what i have to put myself through as part of my job is anything else but unhealthy.

I'm not particularly anti-smoking, i consider myself a pretty tolerant non-smoker, but AS a non-smoker, I know what it is like not to wake up and have to clear my lungs before i can perform any useful function. I know the DIFFERENCE in my own health between a morning after a couple of days off and a morning after a weekend in the clubs. I know what it's like to be able to TASTE my breakfast. and then there the smell...

as i told one smoker on new years eve who blew smoke in my face, "enjoy it, make the most of it, it's the last year you'll do it in my favourite pub".

I'm not a big fan of the new law, I think it shouldn't have been necessary, maybe much could have been done voluntarily, but there's some things I will look forward to!

Now can we have some legislation about guitarists with awful sounds?

--------------------
planet nine
lincoln, uk.

Quote Robin Lemaire:

---

Quote Nuno_:

---

And you are wrong that those are worse than passive smoking. If you stood 24 hours breathing smoke 7 days per week inside a crowded club, in the medium term your lungs would be much worse than they will ever get by living in the city.

---

Are these statistics or just your opinions? If they are the former then I'm sure you won't mind quoting your sources to back this up, if they are (as I suspect) the latter, then please don't try and pass off your ill informed opinions as health facts.

---

They are both. My experience with my asthma aggravation after a day in a polluted city center and a few hours in a smoke filled bar ar club clearly shows me that cigarette smoke is worse. But there is research pointing that way also. There is a documented incidence of around 28% (1) of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)in passive smokers, against around 4.5% (2) in people exposed to long term air pollution. If you need more let me know.

1-First Department of Family Medicine, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland. sylwia.kalucka@gmail.com

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), one of the most common respiratory problems of adults, is caused in 90% by cigarette smoking. The aim of this study was to evaluate the frequency of occurrence of COPD among cigarette smokers and among the passive smokers living with them. The research group consisted of 190 families in which at least one person was a smoker. A total of 500 adults were included, among them 290 were active smokers and 210 were passive smokers. The questionnaire including demographic and smoking habit data was used in the research. Additional tests, like spirometry, allowed diagnosing COPD and chest X-ray allowed diagnosing emphysema. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was diagnosed in case of 46.4% of active smokers and 28.0% of passive smokers. Respiratory symptoms, such as cough, expectoration and dyspnoea, occurred more frequently among active than passive smokers (p < 0.001). Changes in respiratory system in chest X-ray and obturation in spirometry were noticed at 114 of passive smokers as a result of long lasting smoke inhaling. Members of the families in which there is more than one active smoker more often suffer from COPD, smoke ten cigarettes per 24 hours more and smoke ten years longer than members of the families in which there is only one active smoker. Active smokers are more frequently affected by COPD than ex-smokers and passive smokers. Members of families in which there are two active smokers more often suffer from COPD than those who have only one active smoker in the family. Spirometry should be a stable element of early COPD diagnosis at the family members of an active smoker.

2-Institut fur Umweltmedizinische Forschung, Heinrich-Heine-University of Dusseldorf, Auf'm Hennekamp50, 40225 Dusseldorf, Germany. tamara.schikowski@uni-duesseldorf.de

BACKGROUND: Lung function and exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have been associated with short-term exposure to air pollution. However, the effect of long-term exposure to particulate matter from industry and traffic on COPD as defined by lung function has not been evaluated so far. Our study was designed to investigate the influence of long-term exposure to air pollution on respiratory symptoms and pulmonary function in 55-year-old women. We especially focused on COPD as defined by GOLD criteria and additionally compared the effects of air pollution on respiratory symptoms by questionnaire data and by lung function measurements. METHODS: In consecutive cross sectional studies conducted between 1985-1994, we investigated 4757 women living in the Rhine-Ruhr Basin of Germany. NO2 and PM10 exposure was assessed by measurements done in an 8 km grid, and traffic exposure by distance from the residential address to the nearest major road using Geographic Information System data. Lung function was determined and COPD was defined by using the GOLD criteria. Chronic respiratory symptoms and possible confounders were defined by questionnaire data. Linear and logistic regressions, including random effects were used to account for confounding and clustering on city level. RESULTS: The prevalence of COPD (GOLD stages 1-4) was 4.5%. COPD and pulmonary function were strongest affected by PM10 and traffic related exposure. A 7 microg/m3 increase in five year means of PM10 (interquartile range) was associated with a 5.1% (95% CI 2.5%-7.7%) decrease in FEV1, a 3.7% (95% CI 1.8%-5.5%) decrease in FVC and an odds ratio (OR) of 1.33 (95% CI 1.03-1.72) for COPD. Women living less than 100 m from a busy road also had a significantly decreased lung function and COPD was 1.79 times more likely (95% CI 1.06-3.02) than for those living farther away. Chronic symptoms as based on questionnaire information showed effects in the same direction, but less pronounced. CONCLUSION: Chronic exposure to PM10, NO2 and living near a major road might increase the risk of developing COPD and can have a detrimental effect on lung function.

Edited by Nuno_ (22/02/07 11:16 AM)

Quote Nathan:

---

Now can we have some legislation about guitarists with awful sounds?

---

Quite!

Quote Nuno_:

---

Quote Robin Lemaire:

---

Quote Nuno_:

---

And you are wrong that those are worse than passive smoking. If you stood 24 hours breathing smoke 7 days per week inside a crowded club, in the medium term your lungs would be much worse than they will ever get by living in the city.

---

Are these statistics or just your opinions? If they are the former then I'm sure you won't mind quoting your sources to back this up, if they are (as I suspect) the latter, then please don't try and pass off your ill informed opinions as health facts.

---

They are both. My experience with my asthma aggravation after a day in a polluted city center and a few hours in a smoke filled bar ar club clearly shows me that cigarette smoke is worse. But there is research pointing that way also. There is a documented incidence of around 28% (1) of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)in passive smokers, against around 4.5% (2) in people exposed to long term air pollution. If you need more let me know.

1-First Department of Family Medicine, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland. sylwia.kalucka@gmail.com

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), one of the most common respiratory problems of adults, is caused in 90% by cigarette smoking. The aim of this study was to evaluate the frequency of occurrence of COPD among cigarette smokers and among the passive smokers living with them. The research group consisted of 190 families in which at least one person was a smoker. A total of 500 adults were included, among them 290 were active smokers and 210 were passive smokers. The questionnaire including demographic and smoking habit data was used in the research. Additional tests, like spirometry, allowed diagnosing COPD and chest X-ray allowed diagnosing emphysema. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was diagnosed in case of 46.4% of active smokers and 28.0% of passive smokers. Respiratory symptoms, such as cough, expectoration and dyspnoea, occurred more frequently among active than passive smokers (p < 0.001). Changes in respiratory system in chest X-ray and obturation in spirometry were noticed at 114 of passive smokers as a result of long lasting smoke inhaling. Members of the families in which there is more than one active smoker more often suffer from COPD, smoke ten cigarettes per 24 hours more and smoke ten years longer than members of the families in which there is only one active smoker. Active smokers are more frequently affected by COPD than ex-smokers and passive smokers. Members of families in which there are two active smokers more often suffer from COPD than those who have only one active smoker in the family. Spirometry should be a stable element of early COPD diagnosis at the family members of an active smoker.

2-Institut fur Umweltmedizinische Forschung, Heinrich-Heine-University of Dusseldorf, Auf'm Hennekamp50, 40225 Dusseldorf, Germany. tamara.schikowski@uni-duesseldorf.de

BACKGROUND: Lung function and exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have been associated with short-term exposure to air pollution. However, the effect of long-term exposure to particulate matter from industry and traffic on COPD as defined by lung function has not been evaluated so far. Our study was designed to investigate the influence of long-term exposure to air pollution on respiratory symptoms and pulmonary function in 55-year-old women. We especially focused on COPD as defined by GOLD criteria and additionally compared the effects of air pollution on respiratory symptoms by questionnaire data and by lung function measurements. METHODS: In consecutive cross sectional studies conducted between 1985-1994, we investigated 4757 women living in the Rhine-Ruhr Basin of Germany. NO2 and PM10 exposure was assessed by measurements done in an 8 km grid, and traffic exposure by distance from the residential address to the nearest major road using Geographic Information System data. Lung function was determined and COPD was defined by using the GOLD criteria. Chronic respiratory symptoms and possible confounders were defined by questionnaire data. Linear and logistic regressions, including random effects were used to account for confounding and clustering on city level. RESULTS: The prevalence of COPD (GOLD stages 1-4) was 4.5%. COPD and pulmonary function were strongest affected by PM10 and traffic related exposure. A 7 microg/m3 increase in five year means of PM10 (interquartile range) was associated with a 5.1% (95% CI 2.5%-7.7%) decrease in FEV1, a 3.7% (95% CI 1.8%-5.5%) decrease in FVC and an odds ratio (OR) of 1.33 (95% CI 1.03-1.72) for COPD. Women living less than 100 m from a busy road also had a significantly decreased lung function and COPD was 1.79 times more likely (95% CI 1.06-3.02) than for those living farther away. Chronic symptoms as based on questionnaire information showed effects in the same direction, but less pronounced. CONCLUSION: Chronic exposure to PM10, NO2 and living near a major road might increase the risk of developing COPD and can have a detrimental effect on lung function.

---

Equally, the "Survey Of Air Pollution Perceptions" presented to the Foundation for Clean Air Progress suggests that only 2% of pollution can be attributed to cigarette smoke, whilst
the remaining 98% is comprised almost entirely of vehicle and industrial waste.

I'm not suggesting that smoke, either 1st or 2nd hand is good for anyone, I am suggesting that the governmental reasoning behind this ban is seriously flawed and represents personal distaste for something, passed off as a serious health risk. As the majority of the country are non smokers it is in the governments best interest to please this majority, even if the supporting evidence behind it's legislation is hogwash.

Quote Robin Lemaire:

---

Equally, the "Survey Of Air Pollution Perceptions" presented to the Foundation for Clean Air Progress suggests that only 2% of pollution can be attributed to cigarette smoke, whilst
the remaining 98% is comprised almost entirely of vehicle and industrial waste.

---

2% of pollution where? Inside a pub? That's delirious to say the least. That figure is of no interest here. The concentration of particles and vapors resulting from many people smoking in a closed environment will much larger than that.

Quote Robin Lemaire:

---

I'm not suggesting that smoke, either 1st or 2nd hand is good for anyone, I am suggesting that the governmental reasoning behind this ban is seriously flawed and represents personal distaste for something, passed off as a serious health risk. As the majority of the country are non smokers it is in the governments best interest to please this majority, even if the supporting evidence behind it's legislation is hogwash.

---

It's one step in the right direction. Cars and industry can not be taken away at this point with seriously disrupting our way of life, but cigarette smoking is no good to anyone and banning smoking in public places will make a positive difference in many people's health, especially to those with respiratory problems. Somkers may not give a rat's arse about the health of the professionals exposed to their smoke, like they don;t give about their own health, but shouldn't the government?

Edited by Nuno_ (22/02/07 12:42 PM)

I'd be more persuaded by your argument if I thought the government gave a toss about my baby daughter's health given the known, proven, massive risks of traffic fumes. Instead they can't wait to auction off the next franchise to build a new toll motorway to demonstrate that they have "done something" for the motoring lobby.

The only politician to speak consistently soundly and with conviction on this topic is Ken Livingstone.

The fuss about the 2 million signatures for the road pricing petition is ludicrous. Some people want a free lunch, at the expense of other people's health, forever. George Bush and his paymasters at Exxon for example.

Smokers might cause a bit of a fug in bars you a free to enter or not (there are several non-smoking pubs near me already). But they are not killing the planet.

This is typical cheap political grandstanding (like the foxhunting legislation) whilst pointedly ignoring the real issues. We all deserve better.

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

For everybody's info it will still be legal to smoke in the Houses of Parliament. Now how hypocritical is that?

But to keep the topic tobacco smoke and tars are still damaging to electronic equipment in studios.

Anybody ever had to clean a pub ceiling? You wouldn't believe how thick that gunge is.

--------------------
Success is round the corner. It's also round the bend.

Quote Steve Hill:

---

I'd be more persuaded by your argument if I thought the government gave a toss about my baby daughter's health given the known, proven, massive risks of traffic fumes......

This is typical cheap political grandstanding (like the foxhunting legislation) whilst pointedly ignoring the real issues. We all deserve better.

---

Very well said.


Steve

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

I agree.

Robin Lemaire,
As a scientist (biochemist/immunologist) I find it very frsutrating when issues of uncertainty are misinterpreted by people who misunderstand statistics and epidemiology, as well as, more fundamentally, science itself.

Epidemiological studies will not pick up a statistically significant link between factors in every case even if there is one - this is well-known and is the accepted, unavoidable nature of such studies. Furthermore, not every study is conducted to the same standard or (importantly) with the same degree of statistical power (ability to find links). This is why meta-analyses of the available literature incorporating good quality-control are the best guide as to the current scientific consensus.

It is also important to recognise that no evidence for is not the same as evidence against, i.e studies not able to demonstrate a link are not necessarily evidence against a link. Again, study quality and statistical power are all-important here.
See the BMJ 1997 for a meta-analysis supporting the hypothesis that passive smoking increases cancer risk, also the WHO's 1998 study for an example where risk was shown to increase substantially but the study lacked the power to make this statistically significant due to insufficient sample size. The weight of evidence, when taking account of the size and quality of each study, points firmly towards passsive smoking increasing incidence of cancer.

To address another point, risk factors are additive, so the argument that vehicle pollution causes disease therefore smoking should not be banned is nonsensical. Remove passive smoking and regardless of other factors number of premature deaths/ illness per year will fall by x amount.

Further, to talk about civil liberties is also logically inconsistent. If an individual indulges in a risky activity that jeopardises others this is not the same as one where the only risks are to the individual themselves. This is why there are restrictions on driving whilst drunk and speed limits on public roads.

There is also the issue that cancer is not the only problem associated with smoking. It is known to cause a wide range of circulatory problems, plus the smoke contains many irritants that cause particular problems to asthmatics and other allergy sufferers.

Finally, the assertion that gig attendences will drop contradicts the evidence from other countries where bans are already being enforced.

Oh yes,
Once it was demonstrated that lead in fuels had an impact on public health, it was banned. Futhermore, catalytic converters were introduced and emissions standards are raised regularly.
Within economically realistic bounds legislation does exist and is updated to protect your children, but the crunch point is still the economics. The disruptive impact of forcing dramatic change in the transport infrastructure in this country too rapidly would be too great and the collective lobby groups too powerful, but where is the economic catastrophe in banning smoking in public places?

Hi Lawrence. Thanks for your contribution from what is an obviously very knowledgeable standpoint.

I agree with a degree of what you say but, surely for the government of this country to spend a reported £30 million on enforcing a ban on smoking in public places is nonsense.

I just can’t believe that people do not question the phrase “Thousands of lives in England will be saved thanks to a ban on smoking in public places” as mentioned by Patricia Hewitt. That’s a pretty bold statement when you consider that nothing has been proven conclusively. Where have these figures come from? Where is the research? I appreciate what you say about evidence pointing toward health risks but this is a theory that most of the population have been told is “fact” for many years.

The point to my post was that if this is allowed to happen then where do you draw the line in state “protection”?

Should we also ban BBQs as, depending upon who you believe; their carcinogenic by-products can be far more harmful than second hand tobacco smoke?

My opinions about gig attendance are only that, my opinions. I personally don’t like people smoking near me when I’m eating. I will therefore always choose to eat in a non-smoking area, or a non smoking restaurant, but I don’t agree with banning it simply because I don’t like it. Perhaps a similar choice in pubs and clubs would have been an alternative to an outright ban?

I don’t want to get drawn into an argument but please don’t go putting words into my mouth. I’ve not suggested that the ban on smoking will lead to an economic catastrophe, nor have I suggested that “vehicle pollution causes disease therefore smoking should not be banned”, I have only mentioned these other factors to bring perspective to the point.

Robin.

The woman who introduced the no-smoking policy to our workplace proudly turned up in a 4 litre Jeep. It's satisfying to see the nanny state's turning against her pleasure now.

All these fads eventually go round in cycles based on the current best evidence, which is eventually disproven by the next batch of 'facts' and becomes tomorrows joke. Anyone remember 'Go To Work On An Egg'? Trust me, twenty years from now there'll be posters in GP surgeries saying 'Have You Had Your Five Fags A Day'.

Best advice poster I ever saw said 'Cold Kills The Old' under which someone had scribbled 'so open a window'.

--------------------
Not much in life worth running for. Or from.

Quote Dynamic Mike:

---

The woman who introduced the no-smoking policy to our workplace proudly turned up in a 4 litre Jeep. It's satisfying to see the nanny state's turning against her pleasure now.

---

It is ironic that in order to get my eco-friendly bins out for collection (one for this, another for that and bags for something else), I have to start up my car and reverse it out of the drive in order for me to get the various bins down my narrow drive ... and when they are collected, I have to start up my car and reverse it out to get the empty ones back up the drive ... as do all our neighbours. How daft is that?!

Quote Dynamic Mike:

---

All these fads eventually go round in cycles based on the current best evidence, which is eventually disproven by the next batch of 'facts' and becomes tomorrows joke.

---

Indeed. Almost every day, yesterday's ruinous substances are todays's life savers ... I am thinking some glasses of wine, a few beers, some chocolate, whatever - condemned on Tuesday, encouraged (within reason) on Thursday!

Quote Dynamic Mike:

---

Trust me, twenty years from now there'll be posters in GP surgeries saying 'Have You Had Your Five Fags A Day'.

---

Woody Allen did a good skit on this in his movie 'Sleeper' in 1973 when, as a neurotic health nut, he awoke in the future where ciggies were prescribed as 'healthy'.

Hmmmmm......

Steve

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

Quote Dynamic Mike:

---

Trust me, twenty years from now there'll be posters in GP surgeries saying 'Have You Had Your Five Fags A Day'.

---

I doubt it! Despite my libertarian views, I know smoking causes cancer. However three quarters of cancers are not caused by smoking. Arguably no cancers are caused by passive smoking, on current evidence. The biggest "cause" of cancer is people living longer (so die before you get old, as the bard said).

Smoking also causes heart disease. But not nearly as much as obesity or junk diets.

A sense of proportion is useful. Ministers anxious to claim their achievements are saving thousands of lives tend to lack that.

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

The Doctor told me to just have one a day, so i've asked the boys to roll me up one of these...

Quote Robin Lemaire:

---

I just can’t believe that people do not question the phrase “Thousands of lives in England will be saved thanks to a ban on smoking in public places” as mentioned by Patricia Hewitt. That’s a pretty bold statement when you consider that nothing has been proven conclusively. Where have these figures come from? Where is the research? I appreciate what you say about evidence pointing toward health risks but this is a theory that most of the population have been told is “fact” for many years.

---

The link between COPD and passive smoking is clearly proven. It hurts people's health, regardless of causing direct deaths or not. That should be enough.

Quote tex:

---

Anybody ever had to clean a pub ceiling? You wouldn't believe how thick that gunge is.

---

Yep, it took nearly 4days to get it back to clean!! Which is why you very rarely see a white pub!! (cream paint hides the stains!!)

Anyway, back on topic, I have a policy in my studio (and i let everybody know!) that there is no smoking, drinking or drugs of any kind at all allowed inside

I'm a smoker and i relegate myself to the back lane outside when i want a smoke, so why cant everyone else?!

Also. Mrs Muppet lives in edinburgh, and i love the fact that i can enjoy a pub lunch now without someone on the next table breathing smoke at me!

Ditto Ireland when i go over there!!

Personally think it may screw some of the little boozers round our way, but most have a well covered beer garden anyway!

ben

--------------------
The early bird may catch the worm, but it's the second mouse that gets the cheese!

Smokers are in the minority, and if their practices didn't infringe on other people's environment then no-one would mind them quietly killing themselves. But, as it is, a smoker detrimentally affects everyone in the same room, be it healthwise or just making clothes stink.
If I want to go out and enjoy a pint without coming home stinking like an ashtray (is that really asking too much?), I have the choice of precisely one pub, and unfortunately their beer sucks. Roll on July!

--------------------
clicky

All good points. Sure-there is nothing that proves that 2nd hand smoke causes cancer. I can tell you that since they banned smoking in pubs here I haven't had a major chest infection or a throat infection. I used to get at least 2 a year. I gig between 4 and 6 nights a week, and I smoke a pack a day. My better three-quaters tells me that I don't stink so much after coming in from a gig.My gig gear hasn't suffered any failures either since the ban came in. Most of my mates are on bands as well, and they report the same thing. I get far fewer hangovers as well.
Coincidence? Maybe-but standing on stage and having a couple of hundred people blowing smoke at you all night HAS to have some effect on your lungs.

Negatives on the smoking ban? Trying to get a crowd going at a wedding/party. They keep nipping out for a quick fag, and it spoils the night.
Also-it has impacted on crowds-actual numbers. So many more people are having house parties now. We're lucky enough that we've been hired to play lots of these, where room (or barn) permits-great fun!

--------------------
Billkath

Quote Steve Hill:

---

The biggest "cause" of cancer is people living longer

---

Recent research (in Sweden I think) seems to indicate that cancer is simply (??) a natural part of the ageing process (and the same report seems to indicate that it often goes unnoticed ... and that if it is discovered, especially in older age, ignoring it is often better as the invasive surgery and chemo/radiotherapy is more likely to kill you than the cancer itself).

I am not so naive as to think that smoking does not increase the risk of cancer and other problems but a woman up the road from us died of lung cancer not so long ago - never smoked and never been around anyone who smoked and rarely (if ever) frequented smoky environments. Not uncommon it seems but passive smoking is an easy excuse to point a wagging finger at. I wonder if it will ever become fashionable to claim that someone died of 'passive driving' - i.e. from something contracted through breathing in the carcinogenic shite spewed out by motor vehicles 24/7/365. Nah - doubt it ... we like our cars ... we don't like smokers.

Quote Steve Hill:

---

Smoking also causes heart disease. But not nearly as much as obesity or junk diets.

---

And that is just another example of this government's tactics - jump on one 'evil' coz it's a nice bit of visible and populist PR but leave others alone because that would cause voter outcry ... even though obesity is currently responsible for pretty much as many premature deaths as smoking. And obesity is rapidly on the increase (currently around 40% of the UK population is technically obese) whilst smoking is on the decrease (currently around 25% of Brits smoke).

Even if smoking was totally outlawed and reduced to 0%, I'd put good money on there being very little difference in the overall bad health statistics. The only difference would be that the chancellor's coffers would be down by £billions a year (15 million UK smokers contributing ~£4 in tax for a pack of twenty every day - do the maths!) and that shortfall will have to be made up for by every ordinary taxpayer!

Quote Steve Hill:

---

A sense of proportion is useful. Ministers anxious to claim their achievements are saving thousands of lives tend to lack that.

---

Yep!


Steve

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

Edited by hollowsun (23/02/07 03:00 PM)

Quote hollowsun:

---

Even if smoking was totally outlawed and reduced to 0%, I'd put good money on there being very little difference in the overall bad health statistics.

---

You'd lose good money based solely on the COPD incidence rate!

Quote hollowsun:

---

I am not so naive as to think that smoking does not increase the risk of cancer and other problems but a woman up the road from us died of lung cancer not so long ago - never smoked and never been around anyone who smoked and rarely (if ever) frequented smoky environments.

Steve

---

Of course non-smokers do get this dreadful disease but 90% of lung cancer cases are caused by smoking, according to Cancer Research.

http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=2962

--------------------
"Qui habet aures audiendi audiat"

Quote Nuno_:

---

You'd lose good money based solely on the COPD incidence rate!

---

Really? Like none of that is perhaps due to other airborne carcinogenic pollutants?

Besides, I'd probably claw my winnings back on cardiovascular and related disease through increasing obesity (especially - perhaps - when all those ex-smokers turn to snacking on sweets and crisps and other junk to replace their previous habit)!


Steve

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

Quote Shivanand:

---

Of course non-smokers do get this dreadful disease but 90% of lung cancer cases are caused by smoking, according to Cancer Research.

---

I know that - I'm not that daft!


Steve

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

Quote hollowsun:

---

Quote Nuno_:

---

You'd lose good money based solely on the COPD incidence rate!

---

Really? Like none of that is perhaps due to other airborne carcinogenic pollutants?

Steve

---

Well, they contribute, but I don't see what is the point you are trying to make there. Just because there other pollution other than cigarettes then it's ok for smokers to poison whoever is around them? Is that the point? If it is then it makes no sense whatsoever.

The incidence of COPD in passive smokers is significantly higher than in the rest of the population, there's plenty of research proving that. I'll even bother to look it up on Pubmed to show it to you.

Quote:

---

Within economically realistic bounds legislation does exist and is updated to protect your children,

---

I see the "think of the children..." sidestep has been brought up. You really must be a statistician.
Ah! Would these be the children that shouldn't be in pubs? Old legislation they shouldn't was also to protect them from drunk adults, smokers or not. If the leagislation really is to protect children then smoking must be banned in the home not at work.
The legislation still does not protect non smoking prison officers from the effects of passive smoking. Parliament (and the European Parliament) still allows smoking on it's premises. And any pub who's regular clientele carry knives and guns (I bet gun carriers outnumber smokers) will still give the finger to any smoking inspector just like they do now to the police. So sooner or later somebody is going to sue so they can have parity with this social group who's human rights are defended every day. And if you think that sentence is getting pretzelled logically just watch the hoops that the law will have to jump thru in the near future. Oh, and as smoking is already not allowed at most major venues they of course will not be affected further but watch the pub and club gigs decline.
A further point. Any handymen who do not smoke and are contracted to work in your house (and studio and of course the Houses of Parliament) can demand that you do not smoke while he's working in your property as it will then be a place of work.
Medical studies would be better employed working out how men gassed by mustard in WW1 managed to live into their 80's. More study should be into what keeps us alive rather than the morbidity of what kills us. Mostly it's good (non alco) spirits plus a little stress and a simple balanced diet.

--------------------
Success is round the corner. It's also round the bend.

Quote tex:

---

Quote:

---

Within economically realistic bounds legislation does exist and is updated to protect your children,

---

I see the "think of the children..." sidestep has been brought up. You really must be a statistician.
Ah! Would these be the children that shouldn't be in pubs? Old legislation they shouldn't was also to protect them from drunk adults, smokers or not. If the leagislation really is to protect children then smoking must be banned in the home not at work.
The legislation still does not protect non smoking prison officers from the effects of passive smoking. Parliament (and the European Parliament) still allows smoking on it's premises. And any pub who's regular clientele carry knives and guns (I bet gun carriers outnumber smokers) will still give the finger to any smoking inspector just like they do now to the police. So sooner or later somebody is going to sue so they can have parity with this social group who's human rights are defended every day. And if you think that sentence is getting pretzelled logically just watch the hoops that the law will have to jump thru in the near future. Oh, and as smoking is already not allowed at most major venues they of course will not be affected further but watch the pub and club gigs decline.
A further point. Any handymen who do not smoke and are contracted to work in your house (and studio and of course the Houses of Parliament) can demand that you do not smoke while he's working in your property as it will then be a place of work.
Medical studies would be better employed working out how men gassed by mustard in WW1 managed to live into their 80's. More study should be into what keeps us alive rather than the morbidity of what kills us. Mostly it's good (non alco) spirits plus a little stress and a simple balanced diet.

---

And wouldn't finding out how to keep us alive require us to be able to counteract what can kill us?

I smoked for 35 years. Stopped nearly two years ago (thanks to Allen Carr) but never smoked in the studio and I don’t allow anyone else to smoke in there either.

“Allen Carr was diagnosed with inoperable lung cancer in the summer of 2006. It seemed probable that the years he spent curing smokers in smoke-filled sessions at his clinics must have contributed to this illness. Allen said “Given that I am informed that I have cured at least 10 million smokers on a conservative estimation, even if that is the case, it’s a price worth paying”.

Before his death Allen remarked “Since I smoked my final cigarette, 23 years ago, I have been the happiest man in the world, I still feel the same way today”.”

More here

--------------------
Studio: www.kymatasound.com

Quote Tim Rainey:

---

“Allen Carr was diagnosed with inoperable lung cancer in the summer of 2006. It seemed probable that the years he spent curing smokers in smoke-filled sessions at his clinics must have contributed to this illness.”.

---

This seems improbable in the extreme. As an ex 40 a day man, even I would not have lit up in a non-smoking clinic I'd voluntarily chosen to attend to help me give up!

Do you blow smoke in the face of your doctor?

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

Quote Steve Hill:

---

Do you blow smoke in the face of your doctor?

---

Why is the doctor any different than the next guy in the pub?

I've just realised that if I stopped smoking today I could actually stay in the pub long enough to develop Korsakoff's Syndrome, alcoholic neuropathy, nephritis, renal failure and still have time to kill a few pedestrians on the way home to battering the wife & abusing the kids.

Oh Yeah, and with the money I save I'm gonna get myself one of those fancy 4 Litre Jeeps.

--------------------
Not much in life worth running for. Or from.

Quote:

---

Do you blow smoke in the face of your doctor?

---

No not me Steve… I don’t smoke

Several years ago, being admitted to a local hospital, a doctor leaned over me in ‘examining’ mode. I was rather concerned that the extended hot ash on the end of the fag hanging from his mouth was going to fall and burn my chest, or worse, fall in my eye.

The last doctor I had in London was a heavy smoker; can’t remember him ever offering me one and he was a chain smoker too… his surgery was a very unhealthy place; much like hospitals… full of sick people.

Anyway, I have no idea if the part I quoted could be true. I do think it somewhat ironic that he hadn’t smoked for 23 years, cured millions and died of lung cancer.

--------------------
Studio: www.kymatasound.com

Quote Nuno_:

---

Quote Steve Hill:

---

Do you blow smoke in the face of your doctor?

---

Why is the doctor any different than the next guy in the pub?

---

Is the answer:

The next guy in the pub knows he’s not a god?


(white) coat!

--------------------
Studio: www.kymatasound.com

Quote Nuno_:

---

Quote tex:

---

Quote:

---

Within economically realistic bounds legislation does exist and is updated to protect your children,

---

I see the "think of the children..." sidestep has been brought up. You really must be a statistician.
Ah! Would these be the children that shouldn't be in pubs? Old legislation they shouldn't was also to protect them from drunk adults, smokers or not. If the leagislation really is to protect children then smoking must be banned in the home not at work.
The legislation still does not protect non smoking prison officers from the effects of passive smoking. Parliament (and the European Parliament) still allows smoking on it's premises. And any pub who's regular clientele carry knives and guns (I bet gun carriers outnumber smokers) will still give the finger to any smoking inspector just like they do now to the police. So sooner or later somebody is going to sue so they can have parity with this social group who's human rights are defended every day. And if you think that sentence is getting pretzelled logically just watch the hoops that the law will have to jump thru in the near future. Oh, and as smoking is already not allowed at most major venues they of course will not be affected further but watch the pub and club gigs decline.
A further point. Any handymen who do not smoke and are contracted to work in your house (and studio and of course the Houses of Parliament) can demand that you do not smoke while he's working in your property as it will then be a place of work.
Medical studies would be better employed working out how men gassed by mustard in WW1 managed to live into their 80's. More study should be into what keeps us alive rather than the morbidity of what kills us. Mostly it's good (non alco) spirits plus a little stress and a simple balanced diet.

---

And wouldn't finding out how to keep us alive require us to be able to counteract what can kill us?

---

Ain't that obvious darling?

--------------------
Success is round the corner. It's also round the bend.

Quote Nuno_:

---

Quote Steve Hill:

---

Do you blow smoke in the face of your doctor?

---

Why is the doctor any different than the next guy in the pub?

---

I think you'll find that most posting here grew up in the days when it was compulsory to smoke in the pub. Non smokers just didn't go there. Find some old films. Not smoking in pubs is a new fangled thingy now all beers are in healthy frozen yuppie bottles. But even then they had things (and you can still see the legend in older pubs) called Smoking Rooms most of which were strictly adhered to without the need for the police to be involved.

--------------------
Success is round the corner. It's also round the bend.

Quote tex:

---

Ah! Would these be the children that shouldn't be in pubs? .....
If the leagislation really is to protect children then smoking must be banned in the home not at work.

---

A pertinent point - even pro-bansters are concerned that those who normally engage in their smoking activities at the local pub will now choose to stay at home and smoke there instead so ironically, MORE children may now be subject to 2nd-hand smoke because of this ban.

And others have expressed concern that those people who took a stroll to the pub were at least getting some exercise ... they may just now vegetate at home with a four-pack instead! And they may even snack more on crisps, etc., as it is (kind of) free at home.

Etc..


Steve

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

Quote tex:

---

But even then they had things (and you can still see the legend in older pubs) called Smoking Rooms most of which were strictly adhered to without the need for the police to be involved.

---

Indeed!

And we had smoking carriages on trains and other smoking areas cordoned off in public places.

But we also had more tolerance -- more of a cohesive 'society', if you like, rather than a collection of individuals only thinking of themselves and their damned rights all the time. Now we have people up in arms because their next door neighbour is having a ciggie in their own back garden (someone - in North Wales I think - was sent some warning from some meddling organisation or another recently for such a 'crime'!).

I spoke to someone in a service industry some years back who told me that the reason for banning smoking on trains and planes, etc., was bugger all to do with their customers' or employees' health or well-being. No - it saves a fortune in insurance premiums (and these days - presumably - litigation).


Steve

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

Quote hollowsun:

---

rather than a collection of individuals only thinking of themselves and their damned rights all the time.

---

Sounds like an pretty accurate description of today's smokers to me.

--------------------
clicky

Edited by Spangler (24/02/07 12:17 AM)