No - you have a choice, you can go hungry. If your feelings are so strong about smoking then you should be prepared to make that choice. Its a bit like saying I was bored so I HAD to watch Corrie on TV, no, you can switch it off and read a book. Life is full of choices, because your preferred option has unpleasant side effects it does not follow that there are no other options.

Providing he didn't drop any ash in the food, and washed his hands between handling the fag and handling the food - I wouldn't be bothered

Nice point Olly :D

I was in the Filling Station on the Royal Mile a few weeks back; on the wall in the smoking section there was a sign asking people to refrain from smoking pipes/cigars. Not a lot of places allow it now.

And if you have a problem with Cigars/Pipes, harrass the Cigar/pipe smokers :p

Yes, I do have the choice, but I'm just trying to get the point across to the inconsiderate brigade. It is a social conditioning thing.

As I said, just cos you can smoke, doesn't mean you should... :D Most people seem ok with smoking bans on planes, petrol stations, etc, so I don't see why eating establishments shouldn't be included ASAP.

...and how easy it'd be to add just one 3 letter word to that sign. :D

I think most smokers (and you admitted to it) feel guilty about doing it, so why do it??? Why did the need for a fag override your guilt?

From a health point of view I still think the passive risks are a red herring. Where are the statistics, where are all the people lying in hospitals who have never smoked and are dying from lung cancer, bronchitis or emphysema? The only case that I can remember that was ever attributed to passive smoking was Roy Castle.

I also amazed at those people who frequent pubs and then moan about the smell of smoke on their clothes, ffs pubs are full of sweaty, whiskey breathing, beer and curry induced farting and burping peeps, hardly an environment to come out of smelling as fresh as a daisy :)

It's to do repercussions of smoking in those places - Planes - you can get kicked off at an airport halfway if you refuse to stop, and petrol stations you can blow yourself up - the only thing that happens in most other places is a telling off - and most smokers can put up with that - a small price to pay.

Maybe non-smokers should spray deodorant over smokers in public places - If I'm going to smell of you, you might as well smell of me...

And btw, Ireland is in a right pickle over this, tourism is way way down, just wait until the winter comes in and folk dont want to stand in the pishing rain having a fag. I know a few m8's who were over at Dublin for a stag do and they said the place had lost all its atmosphere, especially the small traditional pubs where the old guys would sit in the corner all day supping a Guiness and smoking their pipes. A few pubs have shut already so even the non smokers have lost out.

The same can be said of most things, you can break the speed limits, the potential repurcussions can affect others and be fatal far more rapidly than passive smoking. You can jump off a cliff, but then that would be the end of some lively debates :D

Smoking is an easy target, there is a reasonable amount of evidence to suggest it can be harmful. The evidence for passive smoking is somewhat more tenuous, although personally I think there may well be something in it. I suppose it is an old argument but what's next once you have banned smoking?
Well here are some suggestions:
1) Wearing of aftershave / perfume in public - some people can have a nasty reaction to it
2) Driving petrol powered vehciles - lots of nasty polutants emitted
3) Eating meat - cruelty to animals
4) Eating non-organic vegatables - environmental damage
5) Eating vegatables period as farm land has devastated our forests and they should be replanted
6) Using wood due to the damage being caused in the rain forests.

The list is endless. You can always find something that you like, or like to do that other people object to. If you ban everything that somebody objects to, you may as well drop the A bomb on us all as nobody would be able to do anything.

As far as I am concerned it is about freedom of choice, people have been given the right to smoke historically, people have also always had the choice to go somewhere else if somebody is already there and smoking.

I always wonder why the non-smoking section is always furthest away from the bar making non-smokers have to walk through the crowds of smokers to get another drink. Go figure... :confused:

My local has signs up - no smoking at the bar - and a two foot wooden area (No-Man's land) between the bar and the carpet, as if that's going to stop the smoke drifting at the bar-staf! :rolleyes:

Foamy.

there are faily well researched studies on this - eg increased risks to children whose parents smoke. but feck it; it's their right to smoke. the bl00dy whinging kids should have been born some other place

:rolleyes:

Decent filtration systems could easily remove smoke from pubs etc, we have a smoking room at the hospital where I work and it usually has between 10 -15 patients and staff smoking in it with a massive extraction unit on the ceiling. I've never been bothered with smoke when I've been sitting in it with smokers.

References please!!

Yeah Charlie, research. Like eggs will kill us all and beef burgers were safe ;)

Oh, speed kills btw :D

there's sh*tloads:

here
here
here

just google for more.

From the John Reid thread.

Whats the silly moo doing spawning three then kids if shes skint? LOL :)

Olly,

I think you're always going to stand up for your rights....so I'm not going to get anywhere :D

I just think that buses/trains/planes have all banned smoking now, and everyone seems to cope with it. Given restaurants are another area where people have strong views on smoking, it'd be the next logical place to remove smoking from. Food & smoking aren't really great bedfellows. After all, you don't smoke DURING a food course, you smoke before/after it. Does that not say something?

Better ban all cars and diesels then Charlie, they cause more asthma problems in kids than smoking.

what a great argument - let's not tackle one problem that has no social value, because another factor with social value also causes a problem.

:rolleyes:

and btw - where's your research for the statement that cars are a greater factor in asthma than cigarretes?

:)

Say "No" to drugs. :)

Google it m8, you seen to have the hang of it ;)

why am i the one that has to do all the work? :(

that's it! i'm not playing anymore :mad:

here
here
here

Are other scientific reports that contradict the issue of passive smoking.

To be honest the jury is still out on the subject, although I am inclined to belive there MAY be something in it. The issue again is that many things are politically motivated and as soon as the first bit of evidence to support somebody's claim comes along they cling to it and refuse to take on board any further evidence.

People claim that many of the scientific reports that suggest the risk from smoking, directly or indirectly is not as significant as first thought are all sponsored by Tabacco companies, and others will put forward that the ones saying how bad smoking are are all sponsored by the government who has thier own agenda. There is some truth in both cases. The main thing to me is that many studies have been carried out independantly and the findings are lare largely inconclusive.

I may add, I'm not so bothered about the passive smoking aspects in terms of long term damage as I don't think I am subjected enough to smoke to suffer it.....

...it's just more a politeness thing. I don't want to have to eat in a mildly smoky room. It's just not pleasant.

OllyK, saved me doing it, there are loads of articles and studies saying the passive issue is a red herring. Lets face it, if the large numbers of people dying/becoming ill from the effects of passive smoke was in any way true this gvt would be in a sh*t load of trouble, especially in our 'sue anyone and everyone culture'.

Again - asthma is a great unknown. The highest growth in asthma cases are in industrialised countries where smoking generally is on the decrease compared to non-industrialised countries. If cigarette smoke was directly linked to asthma we would expect to see it decreasing in industrial countires and rising in third world countries where smoking uptake is on the increase. The figures do not support this. So while cigarettes may a contributory factor, it is unlikely to be the sole cause. Research continues and asthma and in particular the causes countinue to be very poorl understood.

I don't disagree, and I also find sitting next to somebody with a strongly smelling perfume unpleasant. In such cases I move elsewhere rather than suggest they go outside or go and wash it off.

So when I let off a smoke bomb in a restaurant, why did I get chucked out? :D

http://bcc.gn.apc.org/tbc/2002/spring/asthma.html