Smoking on QM2 after UK ban

[colwill]

 

I've had enough of this topic. Just like the pubs the smokers have driven me from it. You can now add to your majority.

 

Most of the intolerant and frankly rather unpleasant posts have been from the anti-smoking faction; the smokers seem to me to have been pretty reasonable.

 

Colwill (a non-smoker, as is pnhmrk I believe)

[guernseyguy]

Most of the intolerant and frankly rather unpleasant posts have been from the anti-smoking faction; the smokers seem to me to have been pretty reasonable.

 

Colwill (a non-smoker, as is pnhmrk I believe)

 

Colwill,

 

The 'anti-smoking' (or to be precise anti-second hand smoking) have been called 'liars' and 'zealots' - we've asked to debate the subject on the basis of peer reviewed science - and all we've had is stuff paid for by tobacco. Why would we be the ones who would need to descend to abuse?

 

Peter

[colwill]

Colwill,

 

The 'anti-smoking' (or to be precise anti-second hand smoking) have been called 'liars' and 'zealots' - we've asked to debate the subject on the basis of peer reviewed science - and all we've had is stuff paid for by tobacco. Why would we be the ones who would need to descend to abuse?

 

Peter

 

Peter, your posts have been fair and moderate. I have no idea why some of the anti-second hand smoking posts have not been, so unfortunately cannot answer your question.

 

Colwill

[guernseyguy]

Peter, your posts have been fair and moderate. I have no idea why some of the anti-second hand smoking posts have not been, so unfortunately cannot answer your question. Colwill

 

Colwill, thankyou. I agree that some of the anti-second hand smoke posters have tended to get a bit excitable. You can generally spot the posts by an eruption of:

 

:eek:

 

:mad:

 

:(

 

:D

 

Peter

[HAMBURGCruiser]

Smoking ban, passive smoking, pollution of the environment, drinking, politeness and tolerance have been discussed. I missed food. Here we are:

Three out of four American households own a barbecue grill, according to the Health, Patio, & Barbecue Association. Yet many consumers are unaware that grilling some popular food items can produce cancer-causing compounds called heterocyclic amines (HCAs). HCAs, a family of mutagenic and cancer-causing compounds, are produced during the cooking of many animal products, including chicken, beef, pork, and fish. In January of 2005, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program, officially added HCAs to its list of known carcinogens http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/toc11.html.

Grilled meat yields some of the highest concentrations of heterocyclic amines (HCAs). These compounds form when a combination of creatine (a specific amino acid found in muscle) and sugars, which are both found naturally in meats, are heated during cooking. Grilling is particularly carcinogen-forming because the process involves high heat and long cooking times. Nearly all meats, including chicken and fish, produce significant amounts of HCAs when tossed on the grill.

Meat that is grilled, fried, or oven-broiled often produces large quantities of HCAs. The longer and hotter the meat is cooked, the more these compounds form. The major classes of HCAs include amino-imidazo-quinolines, or amino-imidazo-quinoxalines (collectively called IQ-type compounds), and amino-imidazo-pyridines. Within these families, MeIQx and PhIP are the members most abundantly found in cooked meats.

High meat intake has been correlated with increased risk of cancer, particularly of the breast and colon. While the fat in meat is most commonly associated with cancer risk, HCAs also play a role. As known mutagens, HCAs can bind directly to DNA, cause mutation, and promote cancer initiation.

Because HCA concentration increases with heat and time, it would be expected that well-done meat would increase the risk of cancer. This is exactly what researchers have found. In a recent review of 30 epidemiologic studies investigating the link between well-done meat consumption and cancer at various sites, 80 percent showed a positive correlation.

[guernseyguy]

duplicate post

[Norfolk Brit]

HamburgCruiser, you forgot to mention the anti-social element of barbecues; banished to the garden (possibly, and rather amusingly by my own guests to paraphrase an earlier poster) enjoying a crafty fag, my enjoyment is frequently ruined by noxious smoke and fumes from neighbours labouring under the delusion that our climate is suited to cooking al fresco.

 

Something must be done.

 

Mary

[guernseyguy]

enjoying a crafty fag, my enjoyment is frequently ruined

 

Mary,

 

Not all slang crosses the pond....you might want to translate that for the cousins.....or we'll be back in 'sex outdoors'.

 

Peter

[Norfolk Brit]

Mary,

 

Not all slang crosses the pond....you might want to translate that for the cousins.....or we'll be back in 'sex outdoors'.

 

Peter

 

Whoops. Thanks Peter; ok, I'm out of the closet, fag means cigarette over here:)

[mufi]

There are public areas in England and Wales where drinking is not allowed - the streets of Dunstable are one I believe.

 

Chester has one too, but as I think with Dunstable and other towns the (by) law states that drinkers in the street must stop if asked to do so by a police officer. And as our streets don't have police on them any more the drinkers go on as normal.

 

David.

[patwell]

Mary,

 

Not all slang crosses the pond....you might want to translate that for the cousins.....or we'll be back in 'sex outdoors'.

 

Peter

 

No problem...we've done this discussion so many times that all of us over here know what that expression means. Now....about that "sex outdoors" thing Peter....could be a whole lot more fun to engage in....a discussion of course;)

 

Cheers, Penny...who isn't going outdoors today to do anything! Too chilly!!

[HAMBURGCruiser]

I am with you, Mary.

....but are we aware that research has shown that women who began having sexual intercourse before age 18 and women who have had many sexual partners have an increased risk of developing cervical cancer? Women also are at increased risk if their partners began having sexual intercourse at a young age, have had many sexual partners, or were previously married to women who had cervical cancer.

So we better should stop not only smoking but drinking, eating and....

[Norfolk Brit]

I am with you, Mary.

....but are we aware that research has shown that women who began having sexual intercourse before age 18 and women who have had many sexual partners have an increased risk of developing cervical cancer? Women also are at increased risk if their partners began having sexual intercourse at a young age, have had many sexual partners, or were previously married to women who had cervical cancer.

 

So we better should stop not only smoking but drinking, eating and....

 

....in a hundred years time, when this debate is still rumbling on, there will be no-one left to argue with.

 

Mary (a tragic victim of passive barbecueing)

[travel-to-go]

The Golden Lion on the QE2 has 2 entrances so it is possible to get to the non-smoking area without passing through the smoking section. That said I still don't like it as a bar!

 

There are now bars in York that are entirely non-smoking (admittedly I can only think of two), there are lots of bars where the smoking area is entirely separate from the non-smoking area and there are still bars where there either isn't a non-smoking area or it isn't separately divided. Why should we go back from having a choice for everyone to having a sizable minority inconvenienced?

 

What is worrying is that a small minority of people can influence an entire government:eek:

 

Malcolm,

QM2, the second entrance is smoking area, the main entrance goes through the smoking area to get to non-smoking (I'm not sure about the first couple of tables by the entrance)

 

On your second question Why inconvenience a "sizable minority? " Because to the sizable minority, it is at most a MOMENTARY inconvenience. They can still have their butts outside or later. For those whose health makes them unable to tolerate smoke, it is a PERMANENT BAN. They CANNOT go in AT ALL, ANY TIME. They CANNOT chose to simply breathe LATER, like a smoker can chose with his. And because certain people feel entitled to do what they want, when they want, regardless of its effect on others. Their own selfish desires come before everyone else's needs, wants or preferences.

 

Which part of this can you STILL not get?

 

As for the government? No. A sizable minority rarely can influence. A small minority who has the ear of the politicians, usually through generous campaign donations has a LOT of influence. At least that's the way it works over here, more and more. I'm not sure about how things are over there, but I am certain there is some element of the same. For instance- on topic, why is tobacco not regulated as a drug, with certain requirements as to what may or may not be in it, or such? Because the tobacco lobbyists have been quite effective in keeping that most obvious step from happening. Likewise why Medicare (Government program for over 65) cannot negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceuticals and we cannot legally buy (cheaper, government negotiated prices) medications from Canada, even if it is closer to you than a US drug store. The Pharmaceutical companies have got a lock on congress. Even the strength in numbers of AARP (strong organization which lobbies for the elderly) and the voting power of the elderly who, as a rule, tend to vote in higher numbers than working people and young people, cannot seem to trump the big money of the pharms.

 

Karie,

who cannot understand why Malcolm cannot manage to understand this very simple issue. It is not rocket science. Think about what others have said. Most of the non-smoker side have given ground and do not advocate a total ban, only that you restrict WHERE the smokers may smoke in light of the GREATER need of those harmed, vs. the total lack of REAL harm to those who must wait or step outside. Is this too difficult to embrace? Are you that pig-headed that you cannot possibly be considerate of others, for just a few minutes?

[GAV BOY]

Most of the intolerant and frankly rather unpleasant posts have been from the anti-smoking faction; the smokers seem to me to have been pretty reasonable.

 

Colwill (a non-smoker, as is pnhmrk I believe)

 

 

mmmmmmmmmmmm :confused: Don,t think so !

[GAV BOY]

Malcolm,

QM2, the second entrance is smoking area, the main entrance goes through the smoking area to get to non-smoking (I'm not sure about the first couple of tables by the entrance)

 

On your second question Why inconvenience a "sizable minority? " Because to the sizable minority, it is at most a MOMENTARY inconvenience. They can still have their butts outside or later. For those whose health makes them unable to tolerate smoke, it is a PERMANENT BAN. They CANNOT go in AT ALL, ANY TIME. They CANNOT chose to simply breathe LATER, like a smoker can chose with his. And because certain people feel entitled to do what they want, when they want, regardless of its effect on others. Their own selfish desires come before everyone else's needs, wants or preferences.

 

Which part of this can you STILL not get?

 

As for the government? No. A sizable minority rarely can influence. A small minority who has the ear of the politicians, usually through generous campaign donations has a LOT of influence. At least that's the way it works over here, more and more. I'm not sure about how things are over there, but I am certain there is some element of the same. For instance- on topic, why is tobacco not regulated as a drug, with certain requirements as to what may or may not be in it, or such? Because the tobacco lobbyists have been quite effective in keeping that most obvious step from happening. Likewise why Medicare (Government program for over 65) cannot negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceuticals and we cannot legally buy (cheaper, government negotiated prices) medications from Canada, even if it is closer to you than a US drug store. The Pharmaceutical companies have got a lock on congress. Even the strength in numbers of AARP (strong organization which lobbies for the elderly) and the voting power of the elderly who, as a rule, tend to vote in higher numbers than working people and young people, cannot seem to trump the big money of the pharms.

 

Karie,

who cannot understand why Malcolm cannot manage to understand this very simple issue. It is not rocket science. Think about what others have said. Most of the non-smoker side have given ground and do not advocate a total ban, only that you restrict WHERE the smokers may smoke in light of the GREATER need of those harmed, vs. the total lack of REAL harm to those who must wait or step outside. Is this too difficult to embrace? Are you that pig-headed that you cannot possibly be considerate of others, for just a few minutes?

 

Hey Karie,

 

Well done, but im afraid the words " flogging " and " Dead Horse " ( as Peter would say ) come to mind !

 

Some people just can,t or won,t back down, even when they are wrong !

 

regards,

Gavin :cool:

[mufi]

Hey Karie,

 

Well done, but im afraid the words " flogging " and " Dead Horse " ( as Peter would say ) come to mind !

 

Some people just can,t or won,t back down, even when they are wrong !

 

regards,

Gavin :cool:

 

To be fair, whether they are wrong or not is what all this is about. Let's accept that they think they are right even though they are wrong.

 

David.

[GAV BOY]

To be fair, whether they are wrong or not is what all this is about. Let's accept that they think they are right even though they are wrong.

 

David.

 

:D ok !

 

regards,

 

Gavin :cool:

[squirrelgardens]

When the French concede that smoking can harm health, you'd might as well face it...the games up!

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/01/wsmoke01.xml

 

Peter

 

Rolling on the floor and spewing my coffee. Yes, true. What will Cunard do with the Germans if they are not able to smoke 24/7 all over the place.

Sorry about the sterotype but they have been spotted smoking in the sauna.

[GAV BOY]

Rolling on the floor and spewing my coffee. Yes, true. What will Cunard do with the Germans if they are not able to smoke 24/7 all over the place.

Sorry about the sterotype but they have been spotted smoking in the sauna.

 

Good Point ! :eek:

 

Im sure Peter will know ! :D

[guernseyguy]

Gavin,

 

In the words of the recently departed and much lamented Iain Richardson, 'You might very well say that, I could not possibly comment'.

 

Meanwhile, looks like England is taking the smoking ban seriously (or expensively, at any rate):

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6346435.stm

 

Interestingly the BBC file it under 'health' rather than 'politics'......

 

Peter

[travel-to-go]

Rolling on the floor and spewing my coffee. Yes, true. What will Cunard do with the Germans if they are not able to smoke 24/7 all over the place.

Sorry about the sterotype but they have been spotted smoking in the sauna.

I hate to admit this, (please, will you still respect me. I've changed., I really have!) but in my smoking days I had been known to have a cig in the shower! I swear! And not get it wet, either!

 

Anon!:o

[colwill]

Gavin,

In the words of the recently departed and much lamented Iain Richardson, 'You might very well say that, I could not possibly comment'.

 

Meanwhile, looks like England is taking the smoking ban seriously (or expensively, at any rate):

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6346435.stm

 

Interestingly the BBC file it under 'health' rather than 'politics'......

Peter

 

Thanks for the link Peter; you couldn't make it up, could you?

 

George Orwell

[transat_jon]

Scotland has had the smoking ban for a lot longer and the councils here are able to use this as a bit of a money spinner - the same as parking charges.

 

Pay some guy minimum wage and send him out with a camera. Catch a couple of people an hour and the council collects £100. If there is bother the police are called, but then the police are not paid for by the council so they don't loose out there!

 

I think it is an innapropriate measure but does not loose money in my understanding. The law must be upheld of course!

 

We also have litter wardens in the UK. How this works is they just follow smokers and when they throw the butt onto the ground: £50 fine. They catch six folk an hour and you can see how much money that nets the council.

 

If only it was so easy for the rest of us to make money as it is for govenment.

[GAV BOY]

Scotland has had the smoking ban for a lot longer and the councils here are able to use this as a bit of a money spinner - the same as parking charges.

 

Pay some guy minimum wage and send him out with a camera. Catch a couple of people an hour and the council collects £100. If there is bother the police are called, but then the police are not paid for by the council so they don't loose out there!

 

I think it is an innapropriate measure but does not loose money in my understanding. The law must be upheld of course!

 

We also have litter wardens in the UK. How this works is they just follow smokers and when they throw the butt onto the ground: £50 fine. They catch six folk an hour and you can see how much money that nets the council.

 

If only it was so easy for the rest of us to make money as it is for govenment.

 

Sounds good to me , ban a filthy habit and at the same time create new jobs ! :D

 

Everyones a winner, oh apart from the pro-smokers ! ;)