smoking ban makes me feel isolated

981 Comments
This discussion is now closed.
Sort by
This discussion is now closed.

1 Posts

hanagah  ·  14 Jun 2010

Help for smokers is an electronic cigarette. Helps to quit.

http://www.electronic-cigarette.ie/


http://www.electronic-cigarette.ie/

 

3,037 Posts

buzz  ·  20 May 2009

Anonymous2 please refrain from buying into and propagating the old school idea of "smog filled cities". You should know that since a few years ago, people in dublin are ONLY allowed to use SMOKELESS fuel, unlike rural areas where I have seen people from farming communities burning tyres (lethal) and gorse (which is in fact ILLEGAL). People who bang on about Dublin being filled with smog have a fixed idea of what the city is like and have obviously never ventured more than a mile from Heuston station and so miss out on all the beauty the Dublin mountains have to offer.

 

1,950 Posts

Anonymous2  ·  09 Jan 2008
Interesting programme on the other night. It appears that Obesity is causing far more of a problem for our health services than almost any other condition and is set to rise where 1 in every 2 children will end up with Type 2 diabetes.
Looks like smoking is not quite the bad guy that you would all like to sheepishly think.
The smoking ban has ruined rural Ireland.
Not my view, just take a look around. (That is, if you can get out of those polluted, smog full cities you all seem to live in)
 

582 Posts

RainyDay  ·  07 Jan 2008
Jack's story is pure fiction. The Gardai have no role in enforcing litter laws. That is the responsibility of litter wardens.
 

53 Posts

Martha-Stewart  ·  04 Jan 2008
Jack, did the pub you were at not provide an 'ashtray' of sorts outside???
I dont understand how the smoking ban makes people feel isolated!! The poor smokers??!!! I am a smoker and it doesnt bother me in the slightest. I agree 100% with the ban. Why should non smokers breath 2nd hand smoke??!! They shouldnt have to.
 

- Posts

Anonymous  ·  09 Sep 2007
For a long time I have been complaining about not being allowed to smoke in the pub. Recently on a cold, rainy and miserable evening I was smoking outside the pub. I threw the butt on the street. A young girl identified herself as a Ban Guard and fined me 135 euro. This fine has taught me good lesson. I have not smoked outside the pub since.
 

113 Posts

handycam  ·  02 Aug 2007
And our taxes have to pay for all the lung cancer, too. It's time to stop whining. The ban is working. We just have to clear up all the health fallout after years of smoking, primary and secondary.

My remaining gripe is the barrier of smoke I have to cross to get inside any main building. I think the ban was too easy on you lot.
 

7 Posts

mytwocents  ·  01 Aug 2007
Given the choice,this horrible legislation would be rescinded.Apparently we are in the minority.I want to have a smoke with my drink.I don't want to stand outside in the freezing cold.I want a lot of things I can't have.What I could have is decent shelter from the weather.How about that?Compromise.Let us smokers have decent shelter,and we'll try not to drop dead of frostbite or hypothermia in the meantime.Who decided how much of a shelter should be open to the elements?.Deal with the unfortunates dying on trolleys first.Only then can you send people around with tape measures trying to ascertain if a structure is 60% open to the air.Our taxes pay the tape measure peoples wages too!Isn't it fantastic?Being paid to visit pubs,what a great little country we have!
 

582 Posts

RainyDay  ·  15 Mar 2006
Hi Anon - If you have evidence of the caustic soda incident, why don't you take it to the Food Safety Authority? If (on the other hand) it is one of those 'a friend told me' stories, then I don't think anyone is going to take it too seriously.
 

400 Posts

The Publican  ·  15 Mar 2006
This is the huge problem that is all over the world. The truth is never coming out properly.
There are far too many cover-ups!
How did that stuff get in there in the first place? Who is regulating these things?
Caustic soda is a deadly thing.
I worked in a hospital for a while and a little seven year old was brought in after drinking the stuff. His whole insides were burnt from it and he spent a full five years in hospital over it. Today he has one of those voice boxes inserted in his throat. It should be banned off the face of the earth.
The same goes for cigarettes. What exactly is inside in them? Could they be open to abuse? Why are the government still selling them? We deserve to know the whole truth and nothing but the truth!
 

- Posts

Anonymous  ·  15 Mar 2006
A form of caustic soda as I understand is used as an industrial cleaner.

In any quantity, it would make a person violently sick (by which I refer to vomiting).
Large quantities have ben known to cuase death to birds and can cause serious illnress / damage to small animals (rodents or small house pets).
 

- Posts

Anonymous  ·  15 Mar 2006
A particular brewery found a batch of barrels that had caustic soda added to it! Obviously none of this information got out into the media and the whole thing was covered up. Caustic soda would do a lot of damage, wouldn't it?
 

- Posts

Anonymous  ·  15 Mar 2006
Anonymous - Something was added to something that shouldn't have and was spotted at the last minute?

Can you please explain what this as about?
 

- Posts

Anonymous  ·  15 Mar 2006
What? Something was added to something?? Can you elaborate?
 

- Posts

Anonymous  ·  15 Mar 2006
So sorry to hear about your friend Fifi. I also knew of a man who got throat cancer. He did smoke but he was also a heavy drinker. I think that it is time that alcohol was thoroughly looked into. I know of a particular episode that I didn't like at all. Something was added to something that shouldn't have and was spotted at the last minute. Someone lost their job over it. But the big question is how many times was it not spotted.
 

771 Posts

fifi  ·  13 Mar 2006
Sad news reached me today. My friend who was 48 passed away from throat cancer. He was a non smoker.
 

400 Posts

The Publican  ·  10 Mar 2006
Anon, It's very unfair of you to talk this way to a smoker. If you are not a smoker then you don't know what it is like. If you are an ex-smoker then you should understand. It is this kind of attitude that has caused bitterness amongst the people. All of this would never have happened if the smoker had a proper room.
It is time that anti-smokers got a life and left us smokers alone. Go away and wallow in your imagined thoughts and stay there. Ye are obsessed over nothing.
 

- Posts

Anonymous  ·  10 Mar 2006
i cannot believe tha this person is moaning that she has to go out side for a cigarette. get a life and have some consideration for all the people you were giving cancer to before with passive smoking.
 

- Posts

Anonymous  ·  04 Mar 2006
Is aritificial body available to the public.
 

- Posts

Anonymous  ·  17 Feb 2006
I think it's great for people to be able to go to a pub without breathing smoke. I have no problem with that.

But I am an adult. I _do_ want to smoke and drink at the same time in a proper Irish pub.

But I can't. So I no longer go to pubs.
There is no choice: I drink, I smoke ...no longer in pubs.

It's not about inflicting others with passive smoke ...for me, it's about lack of _any_ option for those adults that do wish to smoke.

There are *LOTS* of distateful issues that would walk through a YES vote if they went to a referendum.
"Ban" is the catchy vote-grabbing phrase for trigger-happy politicians.

Traditionally, politics never had a place in a public house. Now there are too many goose-steppers echoing through my local (ex) haunts for me to ever enjoy going there again.

Publicans should have been given clear and large incentives to instigate a no-smoking policy on their own premises... along the lines of lower taxes -which in turn would lead to lower prices in non-smoking bars... which would lead to _some_ choice for those that wish to pay more and smoke.

I hate the word ‘ban’. It’s a nasty, limiting, narrowing action. There were other ways to give everyone a choice. This ban was always about populist action and nothing else.

But I recognise none of that is going to change now. And I will be attacked for causing passive-smoke on those that don’t want it, etc., etc..
Before hitting that reply button though –just take a minute to re-read. I do comply with the smoking-ban.
That won’t change either.
Enjoy the ban. I don't -and won't ever.
 

8 Posts

sudz  ·  17 Feb 2006
One of the original posters said they "enjoy" smoking. Would any of the smokers here like to tell me what is the enjoyable part of smoking cigarettes?
 

400 Posts

The Publican  ·  30 Jan 2006
Come here! Would ye ever stop acting like babies and have a decent conversation??? I was pulled up on another site for using humor but this is worse!
 

582 Posts

RainyDay  ·  30 Jan 2006
"LOL! " - What a devastating response, Michael. I concede defeat - you win......
 

582 Posts

RainyDay  ·  29 Jan 2006
Hi Belinda - Can I suggest that you wait until you do actually understand these figures before you claim that the HSA report is wrong. Can I suggest that you wait until I do actually pour scorn on Michael's reports to castigate me for doing so. These two suggestions will help keep the debate grounded in reality.
 

61 Posts

Michael J. McFadden  ·  29 Jan 2006
RD wrote: "those of us who are grounded in reality understand the truth."

Grounded in reality eh? LOL!

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
 

582 Posts

RainyDay  ·  28 Jan 2006
Hi Michael - As it seems that the remainder of your arguements against the ban are as strong as your arguement against the Mandate survey, I'm really comfortable that the ban is build on a very solid foundation. Just like Belinda on the ETS ventilation issue, you have no solid basis for your concern about the Mandate survey. You have no evidence or no hint of any suspicion. But you seem to think that sensible debate consists of you throwing out wild allegations against anything you don't like, and sitting back and expecting the rest of us to scurry around and disprove your wild allegations. For someone who claims to be very interested in hard evidence, you aren't 'walking the talk'.

And of course, your concern about the funding of the HSA report is equally baseless. Both the HSA and the OTC are state agencies, so the report is entirely funded by Government. You can try and spin another conspiracy theory around this if you wish, but those of us who are grounded in reality understand the truth.
 

285 Posts

Belinda (VAT33244)  ·  28 Jan 2006
Rainy

Don't you worry, I am going to understand these figures. As I said, there is a difference between dangerous levels of pollutants and a legal threshold. That will be a clear difference but it seems highly unlikely that it will be in the order of thousands.

Forgive me for saying so but I think you would not hesitate to pour scorn on the findings and motives of any report that found ETS not to be harmful. You are only reacting to what seems to you implausible. You say to Michael that you don't have the expertise to check things out, but you expect me to do it. And also expect me to believe implicitly the words of any 'expert' even though we have been told since our schooldays not to believe everything we see in print.
 

582 Posts

RainyDay  ·  28 Jan 2006
OK - so we've clarified that the problem is not with the actual content of the report, but with Belinda's lack of understanding of the subject matter. I can't really help enlighten you, as I don't understand it any better than you. So I'd suggest that you do the necessary research before you cast aspersions on the report itself.
 

61 Posts

Michael J. McFadden  ·  28 Jan 2006
RD wrote: "... the authors of the HSA were paid for their work. Are you insinuating something here?"

I hadn't known that. I guess then the question boils down to who they were being paid by, right? If Big Tobacco paid them then their work would be worthless, correct? But if their funds came from Antismoking or Pharmaceutical Nicotine Replacement sources then their work would be golden, correct?

Sheeesh.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
 

61 Posts

Michael J. McFadden  ·  28 Jan 2006
Publican, you wrote: "It's getting harder and harder to know the truth. This is making me very uncomfortable. I abhor the thought of us all being lied to. And if this smoking ban has come from lies it will have been a huge injustice to the people. This would make me sick. "

Publican, all you need to do to see if you're being lied to is to go to one of the flagship studies on ETS that's been waved all over hell and hereafter by Antismokers as proof of the need for bans. I'm speaking of the four page Helena study (the one RD claims he "doesn't have the expertise" to read) and the Rapid Responses that come after it. You'll see that despite what Antismokers claim, the study clearly showed NOTHING AT ALL about the effect of ETS on nonsmokers.

They lie. Their entire campaign is based on lies. It's like when RD offered us the results of a survey supposedly based on bar workers, but when challenged to show that it wasn't more widely based has simply spent the last three months avoiding the question with word games.

Visit www.TheTruthIsALie.com and you'll see more of their lies.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
 

285 Posts

Belinda (VAT33244)  ·  27 Jan 2006
Rainy

At last some sensible questions. First of all I don't understand the terminology. 'Acceptable level' is not defined. I took it as meaning that there is a legal standard, and that the 'acceptable levels' meant that anything higher would be in breach of the legal standard. If there is a legal standard I guess there is some leeway. For safety's sake you would not expect ANY breach of the standard would be dangerous. So you would need to know the difference between an 'acceptable' level and a level that is actually dangerous. This is where my grasp of the subject breaks down. If we were discussing parts per million, I have no idea what this difference is.

Say an accepted legal standard is 10 parts per million carbon monoxide, 1,000 parts per million carbon dioxide, and particles at 0.15mg per cubic metre. This is quoted from a ventilation expert. At some level above this, the air would become dangerous. How many times would you have to concentrate these contaminants before the air would actually be dangerous? I have no idea.

So how about 15,000 times? How does this fit in? Is this the 'acceptable level' of toxicants that has to be multiplied by 15,000 to reach pre-ventilated levels? So we get to 2,250mg per cubic metre of smoke particles, 1,000 ppm carbon monoxide and an embarrassingly high amount of carbon monoxide ... yes you are right I am struggling ...

Since I am desparate I will revert to PJK. The proposal is to set measureable air quality standards, not just to say, 'ventilate' and then say afterwards the carcinogens are still there. Set the standard. Then the experts move in as this is their market opportunity. They will measure the contaminants in the air, work out an acceptable level, find the technology that will extract the pollutants and eventually find a way to make it affordable to the licensed trade. Nobody is proposing that unacceptable standards are to pass in pubs.
 

582 Posts

RainyDay  ·  27 Jan 2006
Hi Belinda - What is the basis for your lack of belief in this level of pollutants? Have you ever counted the pollutants in an air sample? Have you ever done serious research in this area? Have you studied in this area? Have you any relevant professional qualifications? What level of pollutants would you believe and why? Is there any rational basis for your lack of belief, or are you simply clutching at straws here?

Hi Publican - Let's face reality here. You just don't like the ban, and you're looking everywhere else for a solution when you should be looking closer to home. You can play the 'conspiracy theory - we've all been lied to' game if it makes you feel better. But those of us with some grasp on the real world know where the truth lies.

Hi John - Yes, amazingly enough the authors of the HSA were paid for their work. Are you insinuating something here? If so, please have the guts to come out & be specific. Don't hide being veiled comments. And I'm sure many Governments round the world would be really interested to hear from you if you've found some way of getting serious research done for free.

And yes, the report was a 'literature review' type of report, which is a well established academic protocol. Of course, if they had gone and done a specific study in Ireland, you'd now be claiming it is not relevant because those trusted experts over at Forces have a different set of reports. So you'd quibble about whatever style of report was done.

And it seems that once you've got past the introduction to the report, you've opted to ignore everything else it says and revert to trusting those nice guys over at Forces instead.

You can of course choose to keep attacking the windmill if you wish, but you don't have a snowballs chance in hell of persuading anyone with a grip on reality to accept the Forces point of view over the HSA experts. Do please tell us whether you reckon the eminent team of HSA experts were all corrupt or are they just too dumb to see your version of the truth?
 

- Posts

Anonymous  ·  27 Jan 2006
John & publican, I would suggest that you talk about something that you know about. You refer to hospitals & clean rooms in factories as being a solution in pubs. First off the clean rooms in factories are much more sophisticated that the air systems in hospitals even in operating tables. They are highly complex, eliminating particles as small as 10 micro-millilitres. (In case you don't have a concept of this size, there are one million micro-millimetres in one millilitre, and there are a thousand millilitres in a litre, so suffice it to say 10 micro-millilitres is pretty small). These air systems are very complex, and require intense monitoring & maintenance, and are highly regulated.

Now if this is the type of air system that you are proposing putting into pubs, I would see no problem from my point of view and would be happy to have smokers in there with me. However, in reality it is not a practical solution from the publican's point of view, as they would cost in terms of 10's of millions of euros to install, not to mention the maintenance costs.
 

285 Posts

Belinda (VAT33244)  ·  27 Jan 2006
Rainy

I just don't believe in the existence of that level of airborne pollutants in any indoor environment. I don't find the information clear.

The HSA are not the only people in the field with an opinion. There are other experienced people who disagree with them. I am following those whose methods and reasoning I can understand. Do you really think I should believe people implicitly just because they are 'experts'? Remember I asked for an explanation and they could not give one, or said I had to get it from the Office of Tobacco Control who did not write back. If they understood the figures they were talking about why would they fob me off instead of trying to clear up an enquiry from a member of the public?
 

400 Posts

The Publican  ·  27 Jan 2006
Yes, John, I must say that I wondered about the hospital ventilation and those in factories. How come they are sufficent but not in pubs? Ventilation is used in hospitals as well to clear out germs but couldn't be working very well when people are getting Sars.
Another thing that I have found weird is that there should be a huge loss of the ventilation workforce but I haven't heard anything here yet. Why is that?
I find that Forces site really good and what I am doing at the moment is flicking between the two places constantly. This site and their site. The latest one on lung cancer rates is an eyeopener I think. Did you read that one? A letter is sent making an enquiry but it is the reply that is well worth reading. I think it's dated 25th January.

Rainy Day, It's getting harder and harder to know the truth. This is making me very uncomfortable. I abhor the thought of us all being lied to. And if this smoking ban has come from lies it will have been a huge injustice to the people. This would make me sick.
Now that I don't feel any different and my husband doesn't feel any different the whole ban just doesn't make sense!
 

582 Posts

RainyDay  ·  26 Jan 2006
Hi Belinda - Now I understand your figures. But I've still no idea why you (with no professional experience or expert knowledge) are so absolutely convinced that you are right and the expert report is wrong, simply because the figures don't look right to you? Isn't this a bit arrogant?
 

207 Posts

John (IYM26386)  ·  25 Jan 2006
RainyDay,

Rather than answer Michael's and Belinda's questions, you constantly refer us all to the H.S.A. report on E.T.S. and, of course, advise that you are too busy to read anything else. Your fawning adulation for the "Health and Safety Authority" as a source of all information, led me to examine the report in detail. My findings may not please you.

Firstly, the authors of the report were, most lightly, paid well for their research. But the brief of their research was to "identify and report on the degree of consensus that exists among leading international scientific authorities on the question of the hazard and risk posed by environmental tobacco smoke to human health in the workplace". In other words, check on studies done by others in other countries to determine that they all agree on the dangers posed by E.T.S. So, no actual study in Ireland then, even with the Senior Lecturer in Epidemiology at Trinity College chairing the board. So what of the ACTUAL studies that have been done over the years. Well, up until last year, they were scattered all over the globe but thanks to "Forces", they are now all in one place and can be downloaded one by one at http://www.forces.org/evidence/study_list.htm. You can even get the whole lot in one handy zip file. But knowing that you might be too busy to look at all of them, there is a handy summary at that same URL that will show you the findings of all of the research in five minutes flat. In terms of objectivity, the reports are all in their original format and they feature those that contradict the Forces consensus, unlike the reports listed by the various anti smoking groups who will only present one side of the story.

In total, you will find that there have been 31 studies on E.T.S. done in the workplace of which, 25 found NO significant risk. Out of 81 spousal studies, 67 found NO significant risk. And better again, out of 37 childhood studies, 30 of them found NO significant risk. So, the brief of the "independent scientific working group" was to find this information and report back on the "consensus" that exists internationally. Objectively, the wealth of research, points to no danger at all much less a health risk. But it gets more hilarious. Their report states "The recent declaration (2002) by the World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is carcinogenic to humans reflects the position of the scientific community as a whole". Aaah, no, it does not reflect the position of the Scientific Community as a whole and it was the W.H.O. who carried out the largest research project of its kind into E.T.S. whose findings also concluded that E.T.S. was an insignificant threat. Also, the W.H.O. did not declare E.T.S. a carcinogen, it was the E.P.A. and I dealt in a previous mailing how this was thrown out of court as fraudulent. And worse was to come. It was not just the H.S.E. who commissioned this report but the "office of Tobacco Control paid for it also. Now RainyDay, if that is not a vested interest, I don't know what is.

The rest of the report is utter "flim-flam" and could have be written by a P.R. agency either in favour or against the motion. It is big on sentiment and generalities and short on fact. It is in fact, a classic piece of political text book spin which conveys an idea without any substance. It uses terms like "most agencies consider" or " an increased risk of lung cancer, possibly increased by 20-30%" and "an increased risk of heart disease, estimated at 25-30%". The agencies they speak of are not referenced, their estimate of 25 - 30% is at most a statement without referenced basis and they are merely guessing at lung cancer percentages. A bit of a tongue-in-cheek example of "in my professional opinion".

They then go on to your quote "Of proposed new technology, displacement ventilation is viewed as having the potential for a 90% reduction in ETS levels but even this would still leave exposure levels 1500 to 2500 times the acceptable risk level for hazardous air pollutants". No reference is provided for the contentions around what constitutes 'an acceptable risk'. What is striking is their dismissal of ventilation in one short paragraph. It smacks of a group unwilling to consider any outcome other than what was decided on before they began. These are the self same ventilation systems that are available to industry for clean rooms etc where dangerous gases and chemicals are used daily. But the "expert" group dismissed them outright.

If this is what you base your beliefs RainyDay, you are looking at the hole and not the doughnut,

John.
 

285 Posts

Belinda (VAT33244)  ·  25 Jan 2006
Rainy,

If the installation of ventilation equipment takes out 90% of the pollutants, this leaves 10% of the level of pollutants (ie 1,500 to 2,000 times acceptable levels, the figure given in the report) that was there BEFORE the installation. To reach the level that was there BEFORE the installation you have to multiply the AFTER figure by 10. Hence the level of hazardous air pollutants in the air space in question can be inferred to be 15,000 to 20,000 times acceptable levels.
 

582 Posts

RainyDay  ·  25 Jan 2006
Hi Belinda - Are you referring to this section of the report?

"Research suggests that presently available ventilation technology (well-mixed dilution ventilation) is unsatisfactory for controlling worker exposure to ETS. Air cleaning is similarly problematic. Of proposed new technology, displacement ventilation is viewed as having the potential for a 90% reduction in ETS levels but even this would still leave exposure levels 1500 to 2500 times the acceptable risk level for hazardous air pollutants."

If so, I think you've mis-understood. First, it refers to ETS levels AFTER ventilation equipment has been used, not before. Secondly, it refers to a factor of '1500 to 2500' times the acceptable level, which is an order of magnitude LESS than the figures you quote. Methinks you need to do a bit more studying before you discount the report.

I reckon if you give the average man in the street the choice between believing
a) the entire HSA expert panel were corrupt or dumb
b) John & Belinda are wrong

I don't think there will be too many votes for option a.
 

285 Posts

Belinda (VAT33244)  ·  25 Jan 2006
Rainy I wish I knew!

I mean that level of pollutants is just not plausible is it? If it was a simple clerical error that would have been easy to sort out.
 
This discussion is now closed.