![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
It's selfish on both sides, because they both expect others to go out of their way to please them.
Smokers, though, harm other people with their smoke, so it's *more* selfish for them to expect other people to fit in with them. However, I think it is similarly selfish to wear strongly smelling perfume (or anything else strongly smelling) when you'll be in close confinement with other people, but other people (who do not have asthma) disagree with me.
Smokers, though, harm other people with their smoke, so it's *more* selfish for them to expect other people to fit in with them. However, I think it is similarly selfish to wear strongly smelling perfume (or anything else strongly smelling) when you'll be in close confinement with other people, but other people (who do not have asthma) disagree with me.
I don't have asthma, and I agree with you.
I am an asthmatic non-smoker who reacts to cigarette smoke, but I wouldn't put my dislike of smoke in pubs as strongly as thinking the other guy selfish. I'm not a regular pubgoer by temperament: many people who are regular pubgoers smoke, if a landlord feels his business is better off catering to the smokers and annoying the non-smokers, then that's mildly annoying to me as an individual if I happen to go in there and it's too cold to sit outside, but I don't think it's selfish of the smokers.
Similar to my views on dogs in pubs actually: my personal preference is that all pubs be dog-friendly: no doubt if you have a dog allergy or phobia, that preference seems very selfish, but it's still my preference.
On the front of trying to please as many people as possible, the best solution seems to be a good range of pubs catering to as many different sorts of preference as possible. Although I liked the idea of the antismoking legislation to start with, I've gone off it. It seems too pushy now.
Similar to my views on dogs in pubs actually: my personal preference is that all pubs be dog-friendly: no doubt if you have a dog allergy or phobia, that preference seems very selfish, but it's still my preference.
On the front of trying to please as many people as possible, the best solution seems to be a good range of pubs catering to as many different sorts of preference as possible. Although I liked the idea of the antismoking legislation to start with, I've gone off it. It seems too pushy now.
I'd like to ban people from smoking on the street too... I hate that I can't walk to the tube station from work without passing little groups of people polluting the air with their cigarettes. I'm probably less tolerant of that since I got pregnant...
Heavens, I seem to be out on a limb, looking at the other responses!
I grew up in an atmosphere of yacht clubs and big bands and my mother was a teacher, so my early youth was surrounded by fagends and beer: stale smoke has got that sort of nostalgia to it to me...
Aha, you say, that's why she's asthmatic! but honestly, I don't think it is, my grandfather was exactly the same: I think I just got the wheezy genes.
I grew up in an atmosphere of yacht clubs and big bands and my mother was a teacher, so my early youth was surrounded by fagends and beer: stale smoke has got that sort of nostalgia to it to me...
Aha, you say, that's why she's asthmatic! but honestly, I don't think it is, my grandfather was exactly the same: I think I just got the wheezy genes.
I know what you're saying, but is it selfish of me to expect others not to harm me?
Regarding asthma, are you saying that strongly smelling perfume can trigger an asthma attack for you? Strong smelling perfume is an asthma trigger for me too.
Regarding asthma, are you saying that strongly smelling perfume can trigger an asthma attack for you? Strong smelling perfume is an asthma trigger for me too.
I think it's selfish to smoke in front of other people, full stop, unless they also smoke. I used to think it was just annoying, but then I started working in a university health research department and now I can rattle off a list of all the major unpleasant diseases caused by smoking, plus the most accurate current estimate of how likely a smoker is to die as a direct result of smoking. (It is about 50%. Russian roulette, anyone?)
My former boss does a lot of work studying the effects of public health interventions. Time and again he finds that, in any given area (but particularly in poorer areas, where there tend to be more smokers), the most effective and cost-effective thing you can do to increase the general health of the population is to implement smoking cessation programmes that work.
My former boss does a lot of work studying the effects of public health interventions. Time and again he finds that, in any given area (but particularly in poorer areas, where there tend to be more smokers), the most effective and cost-effective thing you can do to increase the general health of the population is to implement smoking cessation programmes that work.
To compare the desire of (some) smokers to be permitted to smoke in pubs with your desire for pubs to be dog-friendly. The key difference is (ignoring the people who are allergic to dogs etc.) that the smoke harms everyone, while the dog harms nobody.
I can see where you're coming from when you say
I can see where you're coming from when you say
it seems too pushy now. However, I can see that smokers have failed to kerb their behaviour to the general detriment of everyone else (smoker and non-smoker alike). And without firm, in-you-face legislation (like this) I can't see that changing.
Ah, but do smoking cessation programs = no smoking in pubs? I'm not sure they do.
100% in support of getting people to stop smoking, but my impression of the smoking ban is that people aren't necessarily If the pub closes and people sit at home smoking and drinking instead I don't see that helps.
What I don't like about the smoking ban in pubs is it's so pushy. It's not about persuading people to take adult decisions for themselves and their families, it's about pushing people about, and I just am not quite comfortable with that.
100% in support of getting people to stop smoking, but my impression of the smoking ban is that people aren't necessarily If the pub closes and people sit at home smoking and drinking instead I don't see that helps.
What I don't like about the smoking ban in pubs is it's so pushy. It's not about persuading people to take adult decisions for themselves and their families, it's about pushing people about, and I just am not quite comfortable with that.
Perhaps we use the words differently - I would say that, by definition, when you put yourself first against other people's preferences, then you're being to some extent selfish. But when you've got a good reason to do so, it's sensible and not unreasonable.
I'm in agreement with ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sigisgrim. I rarely visited pubs when smoking was allowed, simply because the fact that it was allowed meant that people did it, and this made pubs in general an unpleasant and unhealthy environment for non-smokers. There were at that point a few enlightened pubs which allowed smoking in one half but not the other, and that suited most people on the whole, but not every pub is set up in such a way as to make that practicable.
When I talk about smoking cessation programmes, I'm not really thinking about blanket bans, although there is evidence that they help to some extent; they work on the basis that it is easier for a certain proportion of smokers to give up if they are in a situation where they can't smoke whenever the urge hits them. (Obviously not everyone is like that. We have here at work one researcher who smokes heavily and regularly pops outside for five minutes to have a cigarette, and one of the administrative staff who is a moderate smoker and can manage perfectly well having one or two at lunchtime and the rest of her cigarette intake outside office hours.) But what I really mean is stuff like nicotine replacement therapy and/or group advice/counselling sessions; these each work quite well on their own, but when combined they have a much higher success rate. My ex-boss could give you the figures.
sigisgrim. I rarely visited pubs when smoking was allowed, simply because the fact that it was allowed meant that people did it, and this made pubs in general an unpleasant and unhealthy environment for non-smokers. There were at that point a few enlightened pubs which allowed smoking in one half but not the other, and that suited most people on the whole, but not every pub is set up in such a way as to make that practicable.When I talk about smoking cessation programmes, I'm not really thinking about blanket bans, although there is evidence that they help to some extent; they work on the basis that it is easier for a certain proportion of smokers to give up if they are in a situation where they can't smoke whenever the urge hits them. (Obviously not everyone is like that. We have here at work one researcher who smokes heavily and regularly pops outside for five minutes to have a cigarette, and one of the administrative staff who is a moderate smoker and can manage perfectly well having one or two at lunchtime and the rest of her cigarette intake outside office hours.) But what I really mean is stuff like nicotine replacement therapy and/or group advice/counselling sessions; these each work quite well on their own, but when combined they have a much higher success rate. My ex-boss could give you the figures.
ignoring the people who are allergic to dogs etc.
With the way that asthma is on the increase, it wouldn't surprise me if this became a sizeable number of people in the future.
(I don't know whether they still routinely tell parents of asthmatics/sufferers of perennial allergic rhinitis to keep them away from all furry animals, or if it's just the severe cases.)
With the way that asthma is on the increase, it wouldn't surprise me if this became a sizeable number of people in the future.
(I don't know whether they still routinely tell parents of asthmatics/sufferers of perennial allergic rhinitis to keep them away from all furry animals, or if it's just the severe cases.)
I think that, as far as possible, there should be smoking-pubs and non-smoking pubs, and let the market decide; in villages that can only accomodate one pub, smoking and non-smoking bars. A blanket ban on smoking in pubs simply means ridiculous use of patio-heaters.
I knew that as soon as they'd got legislation against smoking they'd start in on drinking: and that is what is happening now.
I knew that as soon as they'd got legislation against smoking they'd start in on drinking: and that is what is happening now.
I've certainly been less inclined to avoid pubs since they stopped being toxic hell-holes where I was unable to breath properly.
On one level I agree with Bunn about the problem with pushing people about. But there are many banned habits and practices that are far less dangerous to the bystanders than smoking cigarettes is.
I'm also always gently puzzled/amused/annoyed by the perpetual complaint of many smokers that they 'just want to be treated like everyone else'. Any other activity releasing similar quantities of toxic and/or carcinogenic chemicals into the atmosphere is subject to much heavier regulation, if not outright banning. A company that dumped the equivalent of a 20-a-day habit into its offices would be facing huge fines and probably prison sentences for the responsible corporate officers.
On one level I agree with Bunn about the problem with pushing people about. But there are many banned habits and practices that are far less dangerous to the bystanders than smoking cigarettes is.
I'm also always gently puzzled/amused/annoyed by the perpetual complaint of many smokers that they 'just want to be treated like everyone else'. Any other activity releasing similar quantities of toxic and/or carcinogenic chemicals into the atmosphere is subject to much heavier regulation, if not outright banning. A company that dumped the equivalent of a 20-a-day habit into its offices would be facing huge fines and probably prison sentences for the responsible corporate officers.
In an effort to make my position slightly clearer: I have no objection to people doing whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes. But I don't see why smoking in public places (particularly in crowded public places) is any better than walking around punching people - both involve knowingly doing harm to those around you for your own pleasure. That's acceptable (IMO) if and only if the other people have consented to it (and there is a case for special smoking-allowed pubs on those grounds).
I think I agree largely with ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
tigerfort's position here. I think I would have been more supportive of legislation making it illegal to smoke on streets/ in parks etc - any public spaces. I'm certainly not complaining about it being banned in pubs, however.
tigerfort's position here. I think I would have been more supportive of legislation making it illegal to smoke on streets/ in parks etc - any public spaces. I'm certainly not complaining about it being banned in pubs, however.I see your point, it owuld be better all round if pubs were looked at and licenced by size (by the local magistrates) as to wether they could have indoor smoking in one room (say the old snug), or an outdoor are for non-smokers on sunny days (sited upwind of the smokers based on prevailing breeze), a child friendly area etc.
The dog bit is harder, although pubs could have signs up saying "Dogs Welcome/Not Welcome Here" so allergy/phobia sufferers knew that there may be a dog inside.
And I agree a lot of the anti-smoking stuff has gone too far, no smoking in bus shelters that are a roof and one wall!?!
The dog bit is harder, although pubs could have signs up saying "Dogs Welcome/Not Welcome Here" so allergy/phobia sufferers knew that there may be a dog inside.
And I agree a lot of the anti-smoking stuff has gone too far, no smoking in bus shelters that are a roof and one wall!?!
I think smoking in pubs *is* pushy. It is expecting everyone else in the room/building to breathe your smelly noxious fumes and go home having to wash every thread they are wearing if they happen not to like stinking - without even asking, just expecting that everyone will accept it. If I went around spraying complete strangers with perfume and getting on my high horse about my rights if people objected, I would probably be arrested, but it's okay if it's smoking? It's quite clear that the only way to stop people smoking is going to be to make it a social stigma on the level of smelling of sweat (which, conversely, I don't really mind the smell of - yet a billion-pound industry rests on persuading us all that we must smell of chemicals instead).
As someone who watched all four grandparents die painful and occasionally prolonged deaths from smoking-related causes -- heart attack, lung/liver cancer, and two cases of emphysema -- this is my view as well.
Speaking as somebody who suffers when in close proximity to cigarette smoke I certainly have problems if somebody is smoking at a bus shelter (roof and one wall) where I am. My asthma is very well controlled, but in most such situations I can feel an attach coming on; it is not pleasant.
I don't think I've ever been advised that, as an asthmatic from childhood with persistent rhinitis. Not that I would pay any attention to so absurd a suggestion, so it's possible that it's been said to me and I've rudely laughed in the person's face and as a result had some sort of note put on my permanent record...
I have every sympathy with people who have genuine serious allergies to other mammalian species, or for that matter, people who have genuine fears that they find it hard to conquer, but people who go 'oh, I have asthma, the cat must go' without investigating the matter properly, I have no time for them.
Apologies, pet rant triggered...
I have every sympathy with people who have genuine serious allergies to other mammalian species, or for that matter, people who have genuine fears that they find it hard to conquer, but people who go 'oh, I have asthma, the cat must go' without investigating the matter properly, I have no time for them.
Apologies, pet rant triggered...
Perhaps we use the words differently
Yes, I think we do. :-)
If I were standing near the bus exhaust then I'd get the same thing, and as for solid fuel boiler fumes, aaaaaargh. Sometimes you just have to be prepared to move away, I don't think one can reasonably expect the environment to eliminate all possible triggers.
But that assumes that one non-smoker making an occasional visit's comfort overrules that of, say 20 regulars all smoking like chimneys?
Rather than expect them all to stop, I'd rather just choose another venue.
Rather than expect them all to stop, I'd rather just choose another venue.
But it also assumes that one smoker making an occasional visit's comfort does not overrule that of, say, 20 regulars enjoying not breathing in noxious fumes. Rather than expecting them all to cough and wheeze, the committed smoker could just choose another venue, too.
At the end of the day I would favour the option that does not have a measurable chemical impact on bystanders to the activity in question.
Mind you, now lots of pubs smell of toilet cleaner, damp and eau de old gent's wee instead of stale tobacco, which is not the greatest improvement.
At the end of the day I would favour the option that does not have a measurable chemical impact on bystanders to the activity in question.
Mind you, now lots of pubs smell of toilet cleaner, damp and eau de old gent's wee instead of stale tobacco, which is not the greatest improvement.
Page 1 of 3