Your question is rather cunningly framed. One has to accept that it is a fire risk, it invades clothes and furnishings and creates a mess that has to be cleaned up. For those reasons, it should not be allowed in the workplace, public buildings, and many other similar venues.
I would not, however, extend the ban to include public houses and restaurants. One should, at least, allow the owners of these establishments to decide whether they are going to allow smoking in the light of the perceived needs of their customers. Let market forces decide. I have little time for control freaks and anti-smoking zealots passing judgement, when they probably do not use pubs that often. And please, spare me the one that goes, " I would, if smoking was banned". Yer right.
I hope that it is possible to understand that there is a tradition of smoking and drinking in P&R, it is part of socialising and conviviality for many people. A persons company being more important than their personal habits. I think that there is a male/female thing here, in the sense that women are more likely to rush to judgement on this matter. If you don't like it, go to a pub that bans it, you can then work on banning the drinking of alcohol.
I also part company with the anti-smoking brigade, for having invented the concept of "passive smoking", in order to turn non smokers ( as against anti-smokers) against smokers. I do not believe for one moment, that there is any measurable affect on non smokers, by them being in the presence of smokers for relatively short periods of time in Pubs and Restaurants. Even smokers themselves ( in the main) are unlikely to be affected until later in life, and that is their decision.
Another devious piece of work, was the application of the health and safety rules to protect staff from the non existent threat of passive smoking. By obvious implication, that affects customers as well: how convenient. Remember, the business and its staff are there for the benefit of the customer, and not the other way round. Don't work there if you do not like it. Although, in my experience, many bar staff smoke themselves so, perhaps, they will have to give up their jobs.
Ironically, there are much worse toxins that we breathe and injest, petrol/diesel fumes, additives in food, toxins in many household products, cosmetic/hair dyes, the germs and viruses that other people breathe out, the list can go on and on.
It would make more sense to try and improve ventilation rather than making life so miserable for so many people. The purpose of life surely isn't to try and live as long as you can, at any cost. I would like to ask the anti-smoking zealots - what they would like me to die of. Bear in mind also, that smokers contribute a large amount in tax revenues and they don't live as long so they are saving a huge amount in pension costs.
What really bugs me though, is the sheer mean mindedness of the anti-smoking zealots. They are control freaks that just love to ban things. They definately won't stop until they have banned it completely. Smoking, might just be the thing that keeps some people going, failing that they may drink more, eat more, get fatter, and then perhaps, decide that life isn't worth living.
To all those intoerant anti-smoking zealots, I hope they ban something that you enjoy.
PS. I haven't even got onto the question of how addictive cigarette smoking is, particularly for some people. Why are those who partake in illegal drugs regarded as victims, whereas smokers are regarded as pariahs', particularly when we are supposed to be so tolerant towards minorities. And smokers must be the largest minority.
2006-07-11 09:52:03
·
answer #1
·
answered by Veritas 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Yes smoking affects surrounding people. The effect is called 'passive smoking'. You should effect an exit if you are a smoker or you may find that other people will affect annoyance.
2006-07-11 07:40:22
·
answer #2
·
answered by Owlwings 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes. I gave up smoking 6 years' ago, but since my neice who smokes moved into my flat, I've noticed that my breathing has been affected. Passive smoking does have negative effects on those unfortunate to be in the same room as the smoker. I make my neice go onto my balcony outside now!!!
Incidentally, she smokes cigarettes, whilst my partner smokes roll-ups. His cigarettes don't affect me in the same way as there seems to be a lot less smoke!
2006-07-11 07:52:44
·
answer #3
·
answered by thatchinnorgirl 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Second hand smoke in large amounts (say like a crowded bar in some states) is actually worse for the non-smoker, than for the smoker.
Reasoning I've heard for this is that the smoker has higher mucus amounts in their lungs caused by burning debris and dangerous chemicals that the smoker is frequently exposing themselves to.
Believe it or not, the extra mucus in the smoker's lungs, actually catches more of the harmful debris and therefore second-hand smoke is worse for second-hand smokers, both because of their normal amounts of mucus and that second-hand smoke is usually experienced in places where there is so much smoke in the air it bothers smokers (i.e. the bar scene I mentioned earlier) .
2006-07-11 07:44:32
·
answer #4
·
answered by cwillame 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, second hand smoke can cause lots and lots of health problems to people exposed to it, from allergy and asthma to many times of cancer, specially with kids, (I've seen women carrying new born babies and smoking!!,eww not in this country, but in Spain) Read more about the risks here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_hand_smoke
It's also uncomfortable to have to breathe someone Else's smoke, I cant stand the smell.
2006-07-11 07:48:36
·
answer #5
·
answered by Amy G 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Passive smoking
2006-07-11 07:35:33
·
answer #6
·
answered by Dirty Rob 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes this is what contributed to Roy Castle's Lung cancer a celebrity who played in clubs as a Jazz player a very smokey atmosphere he died a couple of years ago with it and his wife has written a book regarding his life and death and clearly says that her husband working in the smokey places was main cause of his lung cancer him not being a smoker himself
2006-07-11 08:00:35
·
answer #7
·
answered by theresa 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes
2006-07-11 07:36:07
·
answer #8
·
answered by dragonfly 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
YUP! More so than the smoker because there is no filter. So it sucks for all us that chose not to smoke. (Although smoking is just another piece of evidence to prove natural selection.)
2006-07-11 07:37:33
·
answer #9
·
answered by greeneyedfrog87 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes Roy Castle Died (Guinness book or records) and that was proven by a court and doctors of it, My sisters Hard Drive got clogged by it.
it make you and people around you smell, it affects their lungs and immune systems.. would you spray people nearby with acid because that's what smoking next to them is the equivalent of!!
2006-07-11 07:47:13
·
answer #10
·
answered by moikel@btinternet.com 3
·
0⤊
0⤋