Jump to content

Smoking ban


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 178
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That may be annoying, but I am confident that there is zero evidence that exposure to second-hand smoke outdoors poses any health risk whatsoever.

How confident are you?

 

Quite confident. How would you do the study, for example?

 

Just living in LA affects people's lungs.

 

Yes, but that's not because of second-hand smoke. The dilution of smoke by air even in a large room is dramatic, let alone outdoors.

 

Being cooped up with smokers can't be beneficial.

 

I said outdoors.

 

One of the confounding variables in LA is the enormous impact of the oil refineries in Long Beach, Wilmington, Carson, etc. That came up in the discussions about limiting the use and manufacture of varnish, paint stripping supplies, etc which have had a huely toxic impact on air quality. Since LA is in a basin, with a curtain of mountains to the east and northeast, gases are often trapped in the area, and not dispersed quickly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
One of the confounding variables in LA is the enormous impact of the oil refineries in Long Beach, Wilmington, Carson, etc. That came up in the discussions about limiting the use and manufacture of varnish, paint stripping supplies, etc which have had a huely toxic impact on air quality. Since LA is in a basin, with a curtain of mountains to the east and northeast, gases are often trapped in the area, and not dispersed quickly.

That and the chrome plating companies. And we do love our chrome plated rims, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not true and not true.

"Schizophrenic men function much better if they are smokers and 92% are..." Most of the studies were done in places and times when the only relief of boredom were cigs and TV control, and when patients had nothing else to live for or look forward to, other than medication side effects. That's not true any longer and hasnt been for years. I run 2 Psychiatric hospitals, both non-smoking and, although some folks manage to smuggle in cigs, even then they cant possibly get more

 

"they now must be medicated on heavy anti-depressant pills instead". Uhh, nope. Anti-depressants are mostly used for folks (you guessed it) who suffer from depression. Although some anti-depressants are successfully used as part of the

 

Sorry for the lecture, but you opened this door. Just saying.

I appreciate your lecture. However, my experience is different. I do have a small background from a National Science Foundation grant in research of psychological and pharmacological aspects of, among other other things, nicotine addiction. Given the ADD and schizophrenics I know personally, they all smoke. Several years ago a study why was begun in Switzerland to learn why they self-medicate with cigarettes at a higher percentage than the "average" population. I have not followed their results. If you run non-smoking psychiatric hospitals, then the patients are not ALLOWED to smoke. This is not a freedom of choice or comfort option. I have explored current smoking cessation techniques, and most now include anti-depressant drugs like Zyban or Wellbutrim or even Prozak. As for the physiological aspects, I once found a wonderful visual MRI or CAT (can't remember) comparison of smoker and non-smoker women's brains. Truly astonishing. Am trying to find it again to show here . . . I get exasperated with the new lock-downs on access online to scientific research (and that's why the internet was created)(Grrrrr).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not true and not true.

"Schizophrenic men function much better if they are smokers and 92% are..." Most of the studies were done in places and times when the only relief of boredom were cigs and TV control, and when patients had nothing else to live for or look forward to, other than medication side effects. That's not true any longer and hasnt been for years. I run 2 Psychiatric hospitals, both non-smoking and, although some folks manage to smuggle in cigs, even then they cant possibly get more

 

"they now must be medicated on heavy anti-depressant pills instead". Uhh, nope. Anti-depressants are mostly used for folks (you guessed it) who suffer from depression. Although some anti-depressants are successfully used as part of the

 

Sorry for the lecture, but you opened this door. Just saying.

I appreciate your lecture. However, my experience is different. I do have a small background from a National Science Foundation grant in research of psychological and pharmacological aspects of, among other other things, nicotine addiction. Given the ADD and schizophrenics I know personally, they all smoke. Several years ago a study why was begun in Switzerland to learn why they self-medicate with cigarettes at a higher percentage than the "average" population. I have not followed their results. If you run non-smoking psychiatric hospitals, then the patients are not ALLOWED to smoke. This is not a freedom of choice or comfort option. I have explored current smoking cessation techniques, and most now include anti-depressant drugs like Zyban or Wellbutrim or even Prozak. As for the physiological aspects, I once found a wonderful visual MRI or CAT (can't remember) comparison of smoker and non-smoker women's brains. Truly astonishing. Am trying to find it again to show here . . . I get exasperated with the new lock-downs on access online to scientific research (and that's why the internet was created)(Grrrrr).

 

Okay, we'll agree to disagree. But I never disagreed that a higher % of people with schizophrenia smoke or that it has a self medicating effect. I disagreed that this was a good reason to smoke. Plenty of people self medicate their problems with things that just cause other problems. Doesnt make it a good thing. Doesnt mean that there arent less destructive ways of dealing with the original problem.

 

And just a couple of clarifications on the main points:

 

I never said it was "a freedom of choice or comfort" thing. You said they function better as smokers and I disagreed. I absolutely agree that my facilities are removing the choice. I'm fine with that, as much as I'm fine with the govt removing the restaurant owners' (and customers') choice. There's a place for regulation that's beneficial and not all regulations are indications of totalitarianism (not that you were implying that... you werent). Secondly, although anti-depressants may be used to help folks stop smoking, they are not generally used for schizophrenics for their mental illness. We have not added any anti-depressants to help folks with their smoking cessation and that's what your contention was... substituting cigs for large doses of anti-depressants instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To bring this back to the original point: Smoking in enclosed and semi-enclosed PUBLIC places is now banned in England.

As a smoker, this hasn't made a bit of difference to my life since

a) I smoke in my own home;

b) My car (used for personal only);

c) Outside and outside of restaurants (it was never cool to smoke whilst people were eating);

d) I don't and never frequented large smoky pubs - many had gone NS well before the ban;

e) Since 1990 we haven't been able to smoke in offices, even smoking rooms were abolished pre-ban;

f) Never smoked in non-smokers' houses or cars.

 

The only difference it will make is the persecution that is due to occur, i.e. planned, if smokers drop butts on the street.£75-£80 fines..no big deal as long as litter and chewing gum offenders are treated the same (I doubt this will happen 'cos litter fining has never happened in England). This on the spot fining is very prevalent in Glasgow & Edinburgh.

And cyclists who ride on the pavements(sidewalks) shoul be prosecuted too!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
And cyclists who ride on the pavements(sidewalks) shoul be prosecuted too!!!

NYC could make a fortune doing that.

City of London fine them and those who run red light! None of the other boroughs appear to do so!

Link to post
Share on other sites
To bring this back to the original point: Smoking in enclosed and semi-enclosed PUBLIC places is now banned in England.

As a smoker, this hasn't made a bit of difference to my life since

a) I smoke in my own home;

b) My car (used for personal only);

c) Outside and outside of restaurants (it was never cool to smoke whilst people were eating);

d) I don't and never frequented large smoky pubs - many had gone NS well before the ban;

e) Since 1990 we haven't been able to smoke in offices, even smoking rooms were abolished pre-ban;

f) Never smoked in non-smokers' houses or cars.

 

The only difference it will make is the persecution that is due to occur, i.e. planned, if smokers drop butts on the street.£75-£80 fines..no big deal as long as litter and chewing gum offenders are treated the same (I doubt this will happen 'cos litter fining has never happened in England). This on the spot fining is very prevalent in Glasgow & Edinburgh.

And cyclists who ride on the pavements(sidewalks) shoul be prosecuted too!!!

 

 

Your b will surely be next on there list.. Smoking in a car? Firstly, you are distracted only placing one hand on the wheel.. Lighting a cigarette while driving is very dangerous.. Perhaps, driving under the influence of nicotine might be the next way they are going to try to ban it..

 

Also your A, smoking in your home will certainly be argued.. There are already whole condo buildings that are smoke free and have neighbors sueing other neighbors in the US.. There are also cases in the US where neighbors have sued their next door neighbors in free standing houses about the smoke wafting..

 

Total smoking bans are not something that have happen over night, each victory for them is leading to the ultimate goal of wiping cigarettes out entirely..

Link to post
Share on other sites
To bring this back to the original point: Smoking in enclosed and semi-enclosed PUBLIC places is now banned in England.

As a smoker, this hasn't made a bit of difference to my life since

a) I smoke in my own home;

b) My car (used for personal only);

c) Outside and outside of restaurants (it was never cool to smoke whilst people were eating);

d) I don't and never frequented large smoky pubs - many had gone NS well before the ban;

e) Since 1990 we haven't been able to smoke in offices, even smoking rooms were abolished pre-ban;

f) Never smoked in non-smokers' houses or cars.

 

The only difference it will make is the persecution that is due to occur, i.e. planned, if smokers drop butts on the street.£75-£80 fines..no big deal as long as litter and chewing gum offenders are treated the same (I doubt this will happen 'cos litter fining has never happened in England). This on the spot fining is very prevalent in Glasgow & Edinburgh.

And cyclists who ride on the pavements(sidewalks) shoul be prosecuted too!!!

 

 

Your b will surely be next on there list.. Smoking in a car? Firstly, you are distracted only placing one hand on the wheel.. Lighting a cigarette while driving is very dangerous.. Perhaps, driving under the influence of nicotine might be the next way they are going to try to ban it..

 

Also your A, smoking in your home will certainly be argued.. There are already whole condo buildings that are smoke free and have neighbors sueing other neighbors in the US.. There are also cases in the US where neighbors have sued their next door neighbors in free standing houses about the smoke wafting..

 

Total smoking bans are not something that have happen over night, each victory for them is leading to the ultimate goal of wiping cigarettes out entirely..

Let's face it, it's been creeping up for the last 30 years. Smoking carriages on tubes - banned very early 80's. Tube stations '87 after King's Cross. Trains, finally all networks 2 years ago.

 

Cars, well once they fine all the twits who don't use hands-free, do their lippy, eat, argue with their passengers etc...smoking whilst driving will be banned. Meantime, I will continue to smoke in my stationary jallopy!

 

Homes will be interesting. The fascists are starting. Folks seem to want hermetically sealed homes with no ventilation. Choices will be comply with building regs or ?

 

Oh well, when taxes go up to replace the £10bn raised by smoking to meet the shortfalls at least the distribution will be fairer. Or we elect the other side.

 

Interestingly here, the whole debacle is seen as a breach of Human Rights even the right to smoke is supported by non-smokers. Non-smokers (of the non-fascist type) agree that everyone should have the choice/right.

 

All of this to save the estimated 600 deaths per year by alleged passive smoking. More death and illness have been caused by automative engine emissions!

Link to post
Share on other sites
The situation in Britain on 30th June was entirely adequate to protect non-smokers, and none but a tiny minority of zealots had a problem. The new legislation is nothing less than smug do-goodery.

You remind me of H. L. Mencken. â€Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.â€

That's strange. You don't remind me of anyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The situation in Britain on 30th June was entirely adequate to protect non-smokers, and none but a tiny minority of zealots had a problem. The new legislation is nothing less than smug do-goodery.

You remind me of H. L. Mencken. â€Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.â€

That's strange. You don't remind me of anyone.

OK, I'm unique. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Folks seem to want hermetically sealed homes with no ventilation. Choices will be comply with building regs or ?

Good point, also. I sat and looked around me last night to count things made with technologies and materials that did not exist 50 years or so ago. From the cling wrap in the kitchen drawer, to the double-paned windows, the carpeting, formaldehyde glues in particle board shelving, glazes and inks on magazines, vinyls, plastics, all kept locked tight with no air escaping, cocooning me. The plastic off-gasing has got to be as bad or worse than any second hand cigarette smoke.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Folks seem to want hermetically sealed homes with no ventilation.

Hence the high levels of radon (a gas that is the decay product of radium in granite) in Aberdeen houses. Mind you, if you lived in Aberdeen, dying of cancer would be a relief.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Folks seem to want hermetically sealed homes with no ventilation.

Hence the high levels of radon (a gas that is the decay product of radium in granite) in Aberdeen houses. Mind you, if you lived in Aberdeen, dying of cancer would be a relief.

Good point, too. Not familiar with this. Radium is worse? Like a poison or burn?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...