The slippery slope of not wanting smokers outside

[andybev1]

We had a thread a while back about a poster complaining about being in a pub gaarden and a smoker sitting next to them and lighting up. Although they had a valid point there is always the chance that the people that want to run (or should that be ruin) our lives to the way they would want others to live.

They are always there to take advantage and never let a good opporunity go to waste because of the way the law has gone in their favour oveer the last two decades and it seems that they have gotten so bold that they are now lobbying to have a ban on people who rent from council and housing assiciation properties, from smoking in their own homes and anywhere in the personal or communal grounds of those properties.

I try not to smoke in my living room (but still do now and again) but If I rented with the coucil et al know what I would be telling these idiots.

Here is where I saw what I am talking about....

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/opinion/brian-monteith-we-re-not-even-safe-from-mcnanny-state-at-home-1-4759885

[Steve-O]

We had a thread a while back about a poster complaining about being in a pub gaarden and a smoker sitting next to them and lighting up. Although they had a valid point there is always the chance that the people that want to run (or should that be ruin) our lives to the way they would want others to live.

They are always there to take advantage and never let a good opporunity go to waste because of the way the law has gone in their favour oveer the last two decades and it seems that they have gotten so bold that they are now lobbying to have a ban on people who rent from council and housing assiciation properties, from smoking in their own homes and anywhere in the personal or communal grounds of those properties.

I try not to smoke in my living room (but still do now and again) but If I rented with the coucil et al know what I would be telling these idiots.

Here is where I saw what I am talking about....

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/opinion/brian-monteith-we-re-not-even-safe-from-mcnanny-state-at-home-1-4759885

Surely if you don't own the property, then the landlord, whomever that may be, has the right to state whether smoking is allowed in the home?

I have been in houses where people have smoked and the places absolutely stink of stale smoke. Given this type of house could be passed onto other future tenants, why should they have to put up with that foul stench in their new home?

If it's outside on the property (i.e. in the garden) then I'd agree that is a step too far.

[calumhibee1]

Banning it in the garden is probably a step too far, but banning it in the stairwell and houses isn’t IMO. It’s not your house, you’re just renting it. The disgusting smell will linger in the house long after your gone if you allow smoking in it.

[Hibrandenburg]

You can only truly understand how minging stale smoke in a building is if you don't smoke. As a smoker I understood that some people found it absolutely disgusting but now as a non smoker I can appreciate why.

[Chic Murray]

Surely if you don't own the property, then the landlord, whomever that may be, has the right to state whether smoking is allowed in the home?

I have been in houses where people have smoked and the places absolutely stink of stale smoke. Given this type of house could be passed onto other future tenants, why should they have to put up with that foul stench in their new home?

If it's outside on the property (i.e. in the garden) then I'd agree that is a step too far.

I thought the purpose of the smoking ban was to cut down on the risk of secondary smoking (whether there was one or not.) it hasn't taken it long for people to think it extends to them not liking the smell.

Dangerous road, next it will be objecting to what people smell like, what they wear, what they eat, what they say, what they think, etc.

One small step at a time.

[Sylar]

Landlord's are well within their right to ban smoking.

Just like they're well within their rights to ban hammering nails into the walls for pictures, pets etc...

At the end of the day, the landlord would be left with a stinking house to try and sell once the person decides to move on. In such an instance, if that happens and the house is otherwise in fine condition, the landlord should be able to retain the security deposit.

[Hibbyradge]

I thought the purpose of the smoking ban was to cut down on the risk of secondary smoking (whether there was one or not.) it hasn't taken it long for people to think it extends to them not liking the smell.

Dangerous road, next it will be objecting to what people smell like, what they wear, what they eat, what they say, what they think, etc.

One small step at a time.

I'd happily ban people from wearing Lynx. :wink:

Seriously though, the smell of smoke is pervasive and very difficult to get rid of. Not only that, it discolours pretty much everything so it's no wonder landlords ban it.

Is it really excessive to ask tenants to respect your property and go outside for your fix?

I stopped smoking 15 years ago, but I used to go outside my own flat to smoke.

[Future17]

I thought the purpose of the smoking ban was to cut down on the risk of secondary smoking (whether there was one or not.) it hasn't taken it long for people to think it extends to them not liking the smell.

Dangerous road, next it will be objecting to what people smell like, what they wear, what they eat, what they say, what they think, etc.

One small step at a time.

The smoking ban isn't relevant if the OP is referring to people smoking on property belonging to other people (i.e landlord and tenant).

[Hibbyradge]

The smoking ban isn't relevant if the OP is referring to people smoking on property belonging to other people (i.e landlord and tenant).

Good point.

If smokers come to visit me, they don't even think about smoking in the house.

Even though they pay to have sole use of a property, doesn't change common courtesy.

[oldbutdim]

It’s pretty ridiculous really.
Even if a social landlord wanted to ban smoking in their properties, it’s entirely unenforceable. Would repeat offenders be evicted?
I’m sure social landlords have plenty other things to keep them busy – dealing with Universal Credit, and investing in property improvements may be just a little further up their to-do lists than checking to see if one of their thousands of tenants has just lit up a fag in the living room.

[Hibbyradge]

It’s pretty ridiculous really.
Even if a social landlord wanted to ban smoking in their properties, it’s entirely unenforceable. Would repeat offenders be evicted?
I’m sure social landlords have plenty other things to keep them busy – dealing with Universal Credit, and investing in property improvements may be just a little further up their to-do lists than checking to see if one of their thousands of tenants has just lit up a fag in the living room.

I'd take the cost of deep cleaning the flat out of their deposits.

I don't think the social pay the deposit.

[oldbutdim]

I'd take the cost of deep cleaning the flat out of their deposits.

I don't think the social pay the deposit.

I don't think Councils and Housing Associations take deposits of rent.
As I undestand the OP the suggestion is that it is these landlords that will be the ones to (possibly) apply the ban.

[speedy_gonzales]

Even if a social landlord wanted to ban smoking in their properties, it’s entirely unenforceable.

Would it be though? If it's in the lease agreement and signed for then the tenant would be putting their tenancy at risk.
There are already rules that must be followed, lodgers/sub-lets/pets/DIY,,,, what's one more rule to abide by,,,,

[oldbutdim]

Would it be though? If it's in the lease agreement and signed for then the tenant would be putting their tenancy at risk.
There are already rules that must be followed, lodgers/sub-lets/pets/DIY,,,, what's one more rule to abide by,,,,

I can't see a Sheriff granting an eviction order to boot out a family because dad is a compulsive smoker for instance.................

Nor can I imagine hard pressed staff 'checking up' to see if their tenants are having a fag on the sly.
It can be stuck in a tenancy agreement, and maybe whole estates/streets designated 'no smoking' but the management and enforceability of such draconian rules would be extremely expensive - and no doubt have the cost added onto the rent paid by the tenants.

Just seems a complete waste of time to me.


(I'm an ex-smoker, so normally I rail against the filthy smelly fag sooking miscreants, but this proposal is a bit too far!)

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

Don't think that there is common ground on this one. I grew up in a smoking family and the smell of stale smoke is always disgusting IMO. That said, I would not dream of ever telling someone that they can't. I like the odd pint and dram now and again and if I was told to stop that, the reply would be GTF.

[Chic Murray]

I'd happily ban people from wearing Lynx. :wink:

Seriously though, the smell of smoke is pervasive and very difficult to get rid of. Not only that, it discolours pretty much everything so it's no wonder landlords ban it.

Is it really excessive to ask tenants to respect your property and go outside for your fix?

I stopped smoking 15 years ago, but I used to go outside my own flat to smoke.

Wrong end of the stick here. I thought they were talking about pub landlords, and the growing trend of people objecting to smoking in beer gardens.

No problem with a landlord protecting their property.

[Hibbyradge]

Don't think that there is common ground on this one. I grew up in a smoking family and the smell of stale smoke is always disgusting IMO. That said, I would not dream of ever telling someone that they can't. I like the odd pint and dram now and again and if I was told to stop that, the reply would be GTF.

I've had my fair share of bad beer, but I've never had an odd pint.

Where would I get one of those?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I thought the purpose of the smoking ban was to cut down on the risk of secondary smoking (whether there was one or not.) it hasn't taken it long for people to think it extends to them not liking the smell.

Dangerous road, next it will be objecting to what people smell like, what they wear, what they eat, what they say, what they think, etc.

One small step at a time.

What they eat (and drink) is well underway- but these are legitimate public health issues, and as long as people expect society to pay for their healthcare, they will have to accept that public health campaigns like this are not only a good thing, but a necessity.

Likewise council houses, it's not your house, so suck it up or pay for your own place that you can use or abuse as much as you wish.

[Chic Murray]

What they eat (and drink) is well underway- but these are legitimate public health issues, and as long as people expect society to pay for their healthcare, they will have to accept that public health campaigns like this are not only a good thing, but a necessity.

Likewise council houses, it's not your house, so suck it up or pay for your own place that you can use or abuse as much as you wish.

Agree about the houses, but controlling what people eat is a step too far.

Legitimate public health issues tend to be the preserve of different vested interests. We are moving from a period where Cannabis use was considered detrimental to health, to one where it will be promoted as being beneficial to health.

In the meantime, people have been persecuted, and jailed, because they made a choice which didn't fit in with the wishes of the people in control.

It's a short step to controlling what they think after that.

[speedy_gonzales]

We are moving from a period where Cannabis use was considered detrimental to health, to one where it will be promoted as being beneficial to health.
Whoa there tiger, whilst some medical types are advocating the use of medicinal cannabis and in particular the CBD element to treat & alleviate symptoms, there’s still a healthy element of medical professionals against the recreational use of cannabis and the psychoactive THC within.

[Chic Murray]

Whoa there tiger, whilst some medical types are advocating the use of medicinal cannabis and in particular the CBD element to treat & alleviate symptoms, there’s still a healthy element of medical professionals against the recreational use of cannabis and the psychoactive THC within.

Precisely, in much the same way that some medical experts advocate a diet lower in cholesterol, whilst others say that sugar is the real culprit. Medical experts are often sponsored, and their evidence should be taken with a pinch of salt (ouch).

For that reason, it is very dangerous to be proscriptive about people's lifestyle choices. The best thing is that people are educated to make their own decisions.

However, it is perfectly OK for someone to restrict their property to non smokers. Not on health grounds, but on the basis of what smoking does to the fabric of the house.

[Pretty Boy]

We're probably only 2 or 3 decades from a post smoking developed world anyway.

The generation who were addicted before the full effects of tobacco smoking were known are dying out as most are or would be in their 70s or 80s now, over 60s are now actually the generation least likely to regularly smoke. Smoking amongst children (under 16) has dropped by 66% since the 80s, smoking amongst all age groups and genders has halved since 1970.

There's viable alternatives and the public health campaigns have worked. Re the OP I don't think I've ever stayed in a rented property that permitted smoking; whether it was enforced is irrelevant as the rule was in place. I've no issue with banning smoking on health grounds either, unlike other examples given the evidence around smoking and ill health is irrefutable.

[heretoday]

Smoking in the stairway is bad. The smoke goes into other people's flats. That's not fair. Cooking smells are bad enough.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Precisely, in much the same way that some medical experts advocate a diet lower in cholesterol, whilst others say that sugar is the real culprit. Medical experts are often sponsored, and their evidence should be taken with a pinch of salt (ouch).

For that reason, it is very dangerous to be proscriptive about people's lifestyle choices. The best thing is that people are educated to make their own decisions.

However, it is perfectly OK for someone to restrict their property to non smokers. Not on health grounds, but on the basis of what smoking does to the fabric of the house.

I do see what you mean to an extent, but ultimately those lifestyle choices are putting an unsustainable strain on the public health system.

Whether it's sugar or fat or anything else is moot, unhealthy fat people are a huge risk to themselves, but more than that are helping to bankrupt the NHS. The govt simply had no choice but to act.

[CropleyWasGod]

I do see what you mean to an extent, but ultimately those lifestyle choices are putting an unsustainable strain on the public health system.

Whether it's sugar or fat or anything else is moot, unhealthy fat people are a huge risk to themselves, but more than that are helping to bankrupt the NHS. The govt simply had no choice but to act.Have to agree.

A generation ago, it would have been unthinkable to have the controls over alcohol and tobacco that we have now. On the back of those, it's not a great leap to imagine similar controls over food.

All for the benefit of the individual and society.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Chic Murray]

[QUOTE=SouthsideHarp_Bhoy;5450410]I do see what you mean to an extent, but ultimately those lifestyle choices are putting an unsustainable strain on the public health system.

Whether it's sugar or fat or anything else is moot, unhealthy fat people are a huge risk to themselves, but more than that are helping to bankrupt the NHS. The govt simply had no choice but to act.[/QUOTE

Agreed, but people climb mountains, they drive their car too fast, they take risks every day that ultimately impact on the NHS.

What risks do we allow people to take, and which do we forbid?

Could be argued that the risks of dangerous behaviour are much more clearly defined.

[Chic Murray]

Have to agree.

A generation ago, it would have been unthinkable to have the controls over alcohol and tobacco that we have now. On the back of those, it's not a great leap to imagine similar controls over food.

All for the benefit of the individual and society.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Depending on who controls health policy. A generation ago, cholesterol was the big danger, now it's sugar. Can we trust the "experts"?

[CropleyWasGod]

Depending on who controls health policy. A generation ago, cholesterol was the big danger, now it's sugar. Can we trust the "experts"?Cholesterol is still a big issue, and we've made great progress in making people aware of it. Whether that's enough remains to be seen, but I wouldn't have a problem with pricing policies that encourage people to change their diet accordingly.

I would rather trust the experts than individuals.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Chic Murray]

Cholesterol is still a big issue, and we've made great progress in making people aware of it. Whether that's enough remains to be seen, but I wouldn't have a problem with pricing policies that encourage people to change their diet accordingly.

I would rather trust the experts than individuals.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

I agree with the pricing too.

As I said before, what do we do when experts disagree?

[Peevemor]

At 37 I was relatively young when I moved to France.

After a couple of months I went to the GP as I had the beginnings of tonsillitis. During my appointment the doctor asked me when was the last time I'd had my blood tested (when I was about 5 was the answer). He immediately gave me a prescription for a full set of blood tests). A mobile nurse took the samples in my house before I went to work and whisked them off to the laboratory, with the results arriving in the post a couple of days later with a copy going to the GP.

"Everything" was there. Sedimentation results, different sugar levels, cholesterol (good and bad) levels - you name it.

It's standard for adults to have this done once a year. It's not expensive and is reimbursed by your health insurance (which practically everyone has).

It's definitely a game changer when you can see what's fine and what's a bit iffy and, unless you have an underlying problem, it's easy enough to adjust your diet a wee bit to stay within the recommended levels.

I also spoke to the GP about my persistent problem with indigestion /heartburn. I'd already spoken to my GP in Edinburgh about this when I was in my early 20s. I can't remember what he said but it didn't fix anything. It was murder and I was constantly munching rennies or settlers. Across here I was sent for an endoscopy which showed that I have a hiatus hernia, probably caused by my playing bagpipes as a teenager. One wee tablet per day now means that I have no discomfort whatsoever. The endoscopy is repeated every 2-3 years to keep an eye on what's going on.

What I'm basically getting at is that, although the NHS is a wonderful principle/institution, the level of healthcare on offer to the majority of people is miles behind other European countries.

[Just Alf]

At 37 I was relatively young when I moved to France.

After a couple of months I went to the GP as I had the beginnings of tonsillitis. During my appointment the doctor asked me when was the last time I'd had my blood tested (when I was about 5 was the answer). He immediately gave me a prescription for a full set of blood tests). A mobile nurse took the samples in my house before I went to work and whisked them off to the laboratory, with the results arriving in the post a couple of days later with a copy going to the GP.

"Everything" was there. Sedimentation results, different sugar levels, cholesterol (good and bad) levels - you name it.

It's standard for adults to have this done once a year. It's not expensive and is reimbursed by your health insurance (which practically everyone has).

It's definitely a game changer when you can see what's fine and what's a bit iffy and, unless you have an underlying problem, it's easy enough to adjust your diet a wee bit to stay within the recommended levels.

I also spoke to the GP about my persistent problem with indigestion /heartburn. I'd already spoken to my GP in Edinburgh about this when I was in my early 20s. I can't remember what he said but it didn't fix anything. It was murder and I was constantly munching rennies or settlers. Across here I was sent for an endoscopy which showed that I have a hiatus hernia, probably caused by my playing bagpipes as a teenager. One wee tablet per day now means that I have no discomfort whatsoever. The endoscopy is repeated every 2-3 years to keep an eye on what's going on.

What I'm basically getting at is that, although the NHS is a wonderful principle/institution, the level of healthcare on offer to the majority of people is miles behind other European countries.

Don't know about the bloods bit but the story re the hernia... Take away the pipes and replace them with Rugby and I would have the exact same story.... About the NHS in Edinburgh! :greengrin

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

[QUOTE=SouthsideHarp_Bhoy;5450410]I do see what you mean to an extent, but ultimately those lifestyle choices are putting an unsustainable strain on the public health system.

Whether it's sugar or fat or anything else is moot, unhealthy fat people are a huge risk to themselves, but more than that are helping to bankrupt the NHS. The govt simply had no choice but to act.[/QUOTE

Agreed, but people climb mountains, they drive their car too fast, they take risks every day that ultimately impact on the NHS.

What risks do we allow people to take, and which do we forbid?

Could be argued that the risks of dangerous behaviour are much more clearly defined.

True, and there have been huge safety campaigns and rules around driving too - seat belts, airbags, speed limits are

This is about population level things - mountain climbing is a niche sport whose impact on NHS finances will be minute.

Diabetes is now responsible for 10% - a round 150m every year, of out country's total medicines spending and that's just for medicines, and that's with estimates that a huge number of people have it undiagnosed. This doesn't include amputations, management, etc etc

That means hundreds of millions are being spent on one single, largely preventable condition, that can't be spent elsewhere. It's a population level epidemic, and if I were FM I would be taking even more radical action.

We all want an NHS that works. Public health campaigns like this are vital to it's past success and it's future sustainability imo.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Depending on who controls health policy. A generation ago, cholesterol was the big danger, now it's sugar. Can we trust the "experts"?

Perhaps not always, and evidence will always move on. But what is the alternative? Sack all experts, scrap health policy, scrap the NHS, give us all a huge pay cut and let us gene for ourselves and pay for our own healthcare, like in the US?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I agree with the pricing too.

As I said before, what do we do when experts disagree?

It's a good question...

The real answer is ultimately, we will probably follow whatever advice best suits the politicians and the government of the day.

You make a good point, and politics is a bit of a hindrance to good (or bad but necessary) policy.

[Chic Murray]

It's a good question...

The real answer is ultimately, we will probably follow whatever advice best suits the politicians and the government of the day.

You make a good point, and politics is a bit of a hindrance to good (or bad but necessary) policy.

Yes, in so many aspects of our lives. Whether it's successive US Presidents keeping the Vietnam war going, because they didn't want to be the person that lost the war; or Edinburgh Council shutting off main routes through the city at the same time as the Royal Highland Show was on, to celebrate clean air day, too many decisions are made for what scans well with electors or funders, instead of what the evidence says - in our whitaboot world, somebody will also point out that these things can leave aromas, or damage the fabric of the house.

The acid test with this decision by the council will be, whether they allow e Cigarettes in their houses; after that they have decisions to make about deep fat fryers and whether residents are allowed to wear shoes in the house.

[Chic Murray]

Perhaps not always, and evidence will always move on. But what is the alternative? Sack all experts, scrap health policy, scrap the NHS, give us all a huge pay cut and let us gene for ourselves and pay for our own healthcare, like in the US?

I think there are other alternatives, to be fair, and people are being encouraged more and more to question decisions that are made on their behalf. Unfortunately too many people seem to lack the confidence to challenge the most ludicrous ones - 20 mph zones, anyone?

The first thing to do is to question what it is that gives an expert their expert status. Take Hugh Pennington, he was a bacteriologist and came to prominence during the eColi outbreak in Lanarkshire a couple of decades ago.

Now he is trotted out whenever there is any sort of epidemic, whether it's bacteriological, or not. He is the media's "go to" expert, the official man in a white coat. It matters nothing whether he knows what he is talking about.

We have to consider who sponsors some of the experts too, are they pharmaceutical companies, or food trade bodies. I keep coming back to cholesterol, but I read about a US doctor who insisted cholesterol didn't cause blood clots, three decades ago. However, as big pharmaceutical wanted to sell drugs that could reduce cholesterol, that was the way that informed opinion was to go.

[RyeSloan]

At 37 I was relatively young when I moved to France.

After a couple of months I went to the GP as I had the beginnings of tonsillitis. During my appointment the doctor asked me when was the last time I'd had my blood tested (when I was about 5 was the answer). He immediately gave me a prescription for a full set of blood tests). A mobile nurse took the samples in my house before I went to work and whisked them off to the laboratory, with the results arriving in the post a couple of days later with a copy going to the GP.

"Everything" was there. Sedimentation results, different sugar levels, cholesterol (good and bad) levels - you name it.

It's standard for adults to have this done once a year. It's not expensive and is reimbursed by your health insurance (which practically everyone has).

It's definitely a game changer when you can see what's fine and what's a bit iffy and, unless you have an underlying problem, it's easy enough to adjust your diet a wee bit to stay within the recommended levels.

I also spoke to the GP about my persistent problem with indigestion /heartburn. I'd already spoken to my GP in Edinburgh about this when I was in my early 20s. I can't remember what he said but it didn't fix anything. It was murder and I was constantly munching rennies or settlers. Across here I was sent for an endoscopy which showed that I have a hiatus hernia, probably caused by my playing bagpipes as a teenager. One wee tablet per day now means that I have no discomfort whatsoever. The endoscopy is repeated every 2-3 years to keep an eye on what's going on.

What I'm basically getting at is that, although the NHS is a wonderful principle/institution, the level of healthcare on offer to the majority of people is miles behind other European countries.

That’s always been my big bear about the U.K. system. We wait until someone is unwell to then treat them. We have 6 monthly dentist checkups but zero in place to assess general health on a regular basis.

If it was me I would introduce an annual health review where bloods etc were taken and people given a health report. A bit like an annual car service but for the body. Thankfully I think technology will deliver this over time but if we really want to ‘save the NHS’ then effective and systemic prevention is the key.

[pollution]

I think there are other alternatives, to be fair, and people are being encouraged more and more to question decisions that are made on their behalf. Unfortunately too many people seem to lack the confidence to challenge the most ludicrous ones - 20 mph zones, anyone?

The first thing to do is to question what it is that gives an expert their expert status. Take Hugh Pennington, he was a bacteriologist and came to prominence during the eColi outbreak in Lanarkshire a couple of decades ago.

Now he is trotted out whenever there is any sort of epidemic, whether it's bacteriological, or not. He is the media's "go to" expert, the official man in a white coat. It matters nothing whether he knows what he is talking about.

We have to consider who sponsors some of the experts too, are they pharmaceutical companies, or food trade bodies. I keep coming back to cholesterol, but I read about a US doctor who insisted cholesterol didn't cause blood clots, three decades ago. However, as big pharmaceutical wanted to sell drugs that could reduce cholesterol, that was the way that informed opinion was to go.


Re Hugh Pennington, he wrote to the The Times newspaper last weekend but he no longer uses his Professor title.

[RyeSloan]

Depending on who controls health policy. A generation ago, cholesterol was the big danger, now it's sugar. Can we trust the "experts"?

Yet despite the headlines sugar consumption has been on the wane since about 1970 and there actually an inverse relationship between sugar consumption and obesity (sugar consumption down, obesity up).

https://cefs.org/blog/2014/05/01/the-inconvenient-truth-about-sugar-consumption-its-not-what-you-think/

Yet reading the headlines you would think sugar consumption has gone through the roof in the last 20 years when actually the opposite is true.

[Billy Whizz]

Smokers outside pubs should be banned too. Like to sit outside on a nice summers day, and you get surrounded by folk puffing away

[Chic Murray]

Smokers outside pubs should be banned too. Like to sit outside on a nice summers day, and you get surrounded by folk puffing away

That's where they are all year. Why should they move because you want to sit outside?

Personally, I'd happily go indoors.

[CropleyWasGod]

Smokers outside pubs should be banned too. Like to sit outside on a nice summers day, and you get surrounded by folk puffing away


That's where they are all year. Why should they move because you want to sit outside?

Personally, I'd happily go indoors.

Where's Captain Trips to settle this? :greengrin

[CapitalGreen]

That's where they are all year. Why should they move because you want to sit outside?

Personally, I'd happily go indoors.

Because they stink

[Billy Whizz]

That's where they are all year. Why should they move because you want to sit outside?

Personally, I'd happily go indoors.

Shouldn’t be able to smoke in a public area, and this area is not just for smokers
Do any pubs have outside areas that are just for non smokers?

[Chic Murray]

Shouldn’t be able to smoke in a public area, and this area is not just for smokers
Do any pubs have outside areas that are just for non smokers?

Not sure if you're joking, or not,but I'll play.

The law is there to protect people from second hand smoking in enclosed spaces. If you think non smokers should have a separate planet, campaign for a change in the law.

As it stands, it's your problem, not theirs.

[Hibbyradge]

Shouldn’t be able to smoke in a public area, and this area is not just for smokers
Do any pubs have outside areas that are just for non smokers?

The balcony outside my golf club is no smoking.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Shouldn’t be able to smoke in a public area, and this area is not just for smokers
Do any pubs have outside areas that are just for non smokers?

Theres a no smoking area outside Lloyds @ The Omni Centre.

[Just Alf]

Not sure if you're joking, or not,but I'll play.

The law is there to protect people from second hand smoking in enclosed spaces. If you think non smokers should have a separate planet, campaign for a change in the law.

As it stands, it's your problem, not theirs.It's the last sentence that will be the eventually lead to the end of smoking in public areas... we had a chance back in the day when puns had the chance to have separate smoking areas, not enough did so legislation was brought in.

Places like the Juniper at least try to separate smokers/non in their beer garden making it suitable for all... hate to say it but if smokers are going to be selfish again then history will repeat itself again.



Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[Just Alf]

Just to add to my other post, it's been a while since I was in the Juniper nut they simply put all the ashtrays on tables to one side of the garden, mostly worked but never strictly enforced and of course there's always gonna be one!

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[Billy Whizz]

Not sure if you're joking, or not,but I'll play.

The law is there to protect people from second hand smoking in enclosed spaces. If you think non smokers should have a separate planet, campaign for a change in the law.

As it stands, it's your problem, not theirs.

Why would I be joking, it’s a serious issue, and something that’s needs tackled in the summer months

[Chic Murray]

It's the last sentence that will be the eventually lead to the end of smoking in public areas... we had a chance back in the day when puns had the chance to have separate smoking areas, not enough did so legislation was brought in.

Places like the Juniper at least try to separate smokers/non in their beer garden making it suitable for all... hate to say it but if smokers are going to be selfish again then history will repeat itself again.



Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

I don't think there should be any problem it people respect each other. It's all about being reasonable.

[Chic Murray]

Why would I be joking, it’s a serious issue, and something that’s needs tackled in the summer months

Leave you to it, you know what to do.

[Billy Whizz]

Leave you to it, you know what to do.

It will be the next stage smoking ban. Took us years to get the 1st one, now time to bring it to a conclusion

[Chic Murray]

It will be the next stage smoking ban. Took us years to get the 1st one, now time to bring it to a conclusion

Yup.

Careful what you wish for. First they came first the smokers....

[Billy Whizz]

Yup.

Careful what you wish for. First they came first the smokers....

Good to chat!

[Just Alf]

I don't think there should be any problem it people respect each other. It's all about being reasonable.Exactly, but from a smokers perspective I worry that too many will simply not even notice the impact on others. I can see history repeating itself.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[speedy_gonzales]

We already have well established no-smoking areas outside public buildings, hospitals and work places that are routinely ignored and not enforced in any way.
I can't see further exclusions working,,,,

[Chic Murray]

Exactly, but from a smokers perspective I worry that too many will simply not even notice the impact on others. I can see history repeating itself.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

The implications for freedom of choice and expression are interesting.

[Peevemor]

There could be huge economic repercussions of banning smoking in public places. We've already seen how many pubs closed when smoking was banned. What would happen if people weren't even allowed to nip outside for a fag? Restaurants would be affected too as would cinemas and even football attendances.

[Hibrandenburg]

There could be huge economic repercussions of banning smoking in public places. We've already seen how many pubs closed when smoking was banned. What would happen if people weren't even allowed to nip outside for a fag? Restaurants would be affected too as would cinemas and even football attendances.

Only temporarily, once the smokers start dying out things will return to normal.

[silverhibee]

It will be the next stage smoking ban. Took us years to get the 1st one, now time to bring it to a conclusion

Maybe just go the full hog and ban drinking as well, after all who wants to listen to some slaver who is full of the drink, only fair Billy. :greengrin

[Chic Murray]

Only temporarily, once the smokers start dying out things will return to normal.

In that case, shouldn't we be encouraging them to smoke more?

[Steve-O]

Don't think that there is common ground on this one. I grew up in a smoking family and the smell of stale smoke is always disgusting IMO. That said, I would not dream of ever telling someone that they can't. I like the odd pint and dram now and again and if I was told to stop that, the reply would be GTF.

Does beer and whisky cause a disgusting smell to linger in your house for months/years though? No, which is precisely the point here surely.

I don't think landlords are telling people not to smoke because they give two monkeys about the person's health, it is because they don't want their property tarnished by odour and discolouration.

[Billy Whizz]

Maybe just go the full hog and ban drinking as well, after all who wants to listen to some slaver who is full of the drink, only fair Billy. :greengrin

Fair point, but slavering doesn’t affect other people’s health

[Chic Murray]

Fair point, but slavering doesn’t affect other people’s health

Neither does smoking. Alcohol effects other people's health in many ways, just go up A&E about 2 am tomorrow to see.

[calumhibee1]

Neither does smoking. Alcohol effects other people's health in many ways, just go up A&E about 2 am tomorrow to see.

Yes, smoking does effect other people’s health.

[Scouse Hibee]

Neither does smoking. Alcohol effects other people's health in many ways, just go up A&E about 2 am tomorrow to see.

Smoking does affect other people’s health.

[Chic Murray]

Smoking does affect other people’s health.

In an open space? Does it cause admissions for falls, stabbings, Road traffic accidents, wife beating?

Need to be consistent and focussed on harm reduction if we are concerned with health.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2017/02/secondhand_smoke_isn_t_as_bad_as_we_thought.html?v ia=gdpr-consent

http://www.ias.org.uk/uploads/pdf/IAS%20reports/rp18072015.pdf

By all means use social exclusion to get people to stop smoking, but let's not overplay the effect it has on others, particularly when there are much bigger dangers to their Health around, such as traffic pollution.

[Geo_1875]

Find it funny that people mention Lloyds at Omni as a no smoking outside area where people can sit and inhale vehicle emissions while complaining about somebody smoking 30 feet away.

[CapitalGreen]

Find it funny that people mention Lloyds at Omni as a no smoking outside area where people can sit and inhale vehicle emissions while complaining about somebody smoking 30 feet away.

People smoking smell absolutely disgusting though.

[Chic Murray]

People smoking smell absolutely disgusting though.

So do Brussels Sprouts.

[CapitalGreen]

So do Brussels Sprouts.

Never seen a Brussels Sprout smoking a fag in my life

[Chic Murray]

Never seen a Brussels Sprout smoking a fag in my life

They fart though, at least that's how they Snell to me.

[Billy Whizz]

In an open space? Does it cause admissions for falls, stabbings, Road traffic accidents, wife beating?

Need to be consistent and focussed on harm reduction if we are concerned with health.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2017/02/secondhand_smoke_isn_t_as_bad_as_we_thought.html?v ia=gdpr-consent

http://www.ias.org.uk/uploads/pdf/IAS%20reports/rp18072015.pdf

By all means use social exclusion to get people to stop smoking, but let's not overplay the effect it has on others, particularly when there are much bigger dangers to their Health around, such as traffic pollution.

Was waking to my car in the Gyle shopping centre car park at lunch time
Woman pushing her trolley, smoking and blowing the smoke all around, and into my air space
About time it was banned in public

[RyeSloan]

Was waking to my car in the Gyle shopping centre car park at lunch time
Woman pushing her trolley, smoking and blowing the smoke all around, and into my air space
About time it was banned in public

Was on a bus yesterday and a fat person sat next to me and took plenty of my personal space.

About time fat folk were banned in public.

[speedy_gonzales]

Was on a bus yesterday and a fat person sat next to me and took plenty of my personal space.

About time fat folk were banned in public.

You were lucky, I was sat next to one on a long haul flight once,,,, they've banned smoking on flights,,,, only a matter of time!

***IT'S A JOKE***

[heretoday]

Was on a bus yesterday and a fat person sat next to me and took plenty of my personal space.

About time fat folk were banned in public.

Did he stink of fags though?

[RyeSloan]

Did he stink of fags though?

Why the gender assumption? Woman have the right to be fat now as well you know 🤪

I actually wasn’t on a bus yesterday (hate the things and avoid them if at all possible), my comment was a poor attempt at humour and wondering where banning things that occasionally impinge on folk might stop...

[Moulin Yarns]

Neither does smoking.

I give you Roy Castle, never smoked in his life, died of Lung Cancer at 62 because he worked in smoke filled clubs

[Chic Murray]

Was waking to my car in the Gyle shopping centre car park at lunch time
Woman pushing her trolley, smoking and blowing the smoke all around, and into my air space
About time it was banned in public

Your air space? You own air space?

[Chic Murray]

I give you Roy Castle, never smoked in his life, died of Lung Cancer at 62 because he worked in smoke filled clubs

Source, Roy Castle. How many other people didn't in the same circumstances?

[Moulin Yarns]

Source, Roy Castle. How many other people didn't in the same circumstances?

What planet are you on?

It's well documented that Roy Castle died as a result of passive smoking.

[Chic Murray]

What planet are you on?

It's well documented that Roy Castle died as a result of passive smoking.



Not looking for trouble, but in the spirit of the discussion, can I just say that all that is known is that Roy Castle was a non smoker who died of lung cancer. It is possible it was contracted by playing in smoke clubs, but can never be proved.

Roy made great play of that being the definitive source when he was still alive, but that doesn't make it right. That's why I say "source, Roy Castle", there was no scientific basis to his claim. We'd be as well citing all the non smokers who worked in smokey offices, or pubs, who didn't develop lung cancer.

Puts me in mind of the number of people who didn't vaccinate their children after the scare about the MMR causing autism in kids. The sample size of that survey was something like 15. Just because it's in print, doesn't make it true.

If we are going to be objective, we can say that evidence that inhaling second hand smoke causes cancer has been disputed. That would extend even further to second hand smoke outside of enclosed spaces.

[Moulin Yarns]

Not looking for trouble, but in the spirit of the discussion, can I just say that all that is known is that Roy Castle was a non smoker who died of lung cancer. It is possible it was contracted by playing in smoke clubs, but can never be proved.

Roy made great play of that being the definitive source when he was still alive, but that doesn't make it right. That's why I say "source, Roy Castle", there was no scientific basis to his claim. We'd be as well citing all the non smokers who worked in smokey offices, or pubs, who didn't develop lung cancer.

Puts me in mind of the number of people who didn't vaccinate their children after the scare about the MMR causing autism in kids. The sample size of that survey was something like 15. Just because it's in print, doesn't make it true.

If we are going to be objective, we can say that evidence that inhaling second hand smoke causes cancer has been disputed. That would extend even further to second hand smoke outside of enclosed spaces.

Cancer research says otherwise


https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/smoking-and-cancer/passive-smoking

[Chic Murray]

Cancer research says otherwise


https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/smoking-and-cancer/passive-smoking

Opinion is divided, and as I say, if it's in print, it's not necessarily true.

I wouldn't dream of telling someone that this is indisputable proof of it not causing cancer.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-finds-no-link-between-secondhand-smoke-and-cancer/#323b82d865d4

Also, how is second hand smoking defined. Is it daily exposure over a prolonged period, or merely exposure at some point in time.

I find it hard to believe that "any" exposure to second hand smoke is dangerous to health (US Surgeon General), any more than exposure to solvents or car exhaust on a casual basis. Yet health policy is formed on this flimsy evidence.

Read the evidence and form your own opinions. Roy Castle developed lung cancer although he never smoked.

Other non smokers develop it too, and never played trumpet in smokey clubs.

I'm out.

[cabbageandribs1875]

10 years and 4 months without a fag has been a pleasure, i absolutely detest walking anywhere and getting a whiff of cigarette smoke, i only have to paint in the house every 3 or 4 years now and no yellow on my car upholstery, my clothes must have stunk having fag doubts lying in various jacket pockets :cb i only wish the information now available about smoking was available 40+ years ago, your Lungs are your body air filters(and so much more)...STOP clogging them up people :agree:

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Opinion is divided, and as I say, if it's in print, it's not necessarily true.

I wouldn't dream of telling someone that this is indisputable proof of it not causing cancer.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-finds-no-link-between-secondhand-smoke-and-cancer/#323b82d865d4

Also, how is second hand smoking defined. Is it daily exposure over a prolonged period, or merely exposure at some point in time.

I find it hard to believe that "any" exposure to second hand smoke is dangerous to health (US Surgeon General), any more than exposure to solvents or car exhaust on a casual basis. Yet health policy is formed on this flimsy evidence.

Read the evidence and form your own opinions. Roy Castle developed lung cancer although he never smoked.

Other non smokers develop it too, and never played trumpet in smokey clubs.

I'm out.

Some good points here, made me pause for thought.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Find it funny that people mention Lloyds at Omni as a no smoking outside area where people can sit and inhale vehicle emissions while complaining about somebody smoking 30 feet away.

I was simply providing an example of an outdoor drink area with an area set aside for non-smokers. (I couldnae give a dugs dangler if someone sat next to me outside and started to smoke, it wouldnae bother me if they never asked first either).

[Chic Murray]

I was simply providing an example of an outdoor drink area with an area set aside for non-smokers. (I couldnae give a dugs dangler if someone sat next to me outside and started to smoke, it wouldnae bother me if they never asked first either).

Likewise. The thread title asks if this is a slippery slope. On the evidence of the discussion that followed, I'd have to conclude "yes".

If people want to ban smoking because it offends their morality, or because of the smell, fine. Just don't turn around and say it is based on any other evidence.

However, as these latest initiatives go beyond what was ever intended by the original legislation - protecting people from second hand smoke, people have to look at what other of their liberties can be taken away? Some of the examples here have been flippant, others less so.

We are already seeing our right to use cars being brought into question, on the back of equally dodgy and subjective evidence. Yeah, 20 mph outside a school, or in a residential area should be justifiable, but at 2 am in the morning?

My question on the second hand smoke is this. If it is so dangerous, and we have known about as long as is claimed, why was it not banned outdoors at the same time as indoors?

In summary, we are at the mercy of whichever vested interest holds control of our politicians, due to the inability or unwillingness of people to look beyond the headlines, use critical thinking and take an active part in decision making.

Be be careful what you wish for folks. If you think it's OK to pick on one group, because your not part of it, then accept that one day the group you are in might be the one picked on.

As I said, ban it outdoors, but be honest enough to say why.

[pollution]

I have never smoked but I did not mind smokers in pubs but strangely I detest smoking in out door

seating areas when eating. I feel sorry for smokers because I think the time will come when this will be banned too, outside.


I know it will never happen but a pub could be all smoking or none at all. Let the customer choose. Just a thought....

[Moulin Yarns]

Not about smoking, but related because the person who died never worked with asbestos.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-44794165

[stuart-farquhar]

[QUOTE=calumhibee1;5449464]Banning it in the garden is probably a step too far, but banning it in the stairwell and houses isn’t IMO. It’s not your house, you’re just renting it. The disgusting smell will linger in the house long after your gone if you allow smoking in it.[/QUOTE

I live in an owner occupied apartment block that is smoke free. So any residents who are "just renting" don't need to feel somewhat inferior to "owners" with or without mortgages

[Just Alf]

I deal with property rentals and (getting back on track for this thread) I'm waiting on contractors quoting for the replacement of all the carpets, total redecoration and on top of that the replacement of the white (now off white) goods in the kitchen and on top of all that a deep clean/polish of the double glazing hasn't come up to scratch, so for perfection, the double glazing now needs replacement.

It's gonna be a lot of money and they were heavy smokers to be fair but their deposit isn't gonna touch the sides so I can see why property owners may start to disallow smokers (as they do pets etc now)

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[calumhibee1]

I deal with property rentals and (getting back on track for this thread) I'm waiting on contractors quoting for the replacement of all the carpets, total redecoration and on top of that the replacement of the white (now off white) goods in the kitchen and on top of all that a deep clean/polish of the double glazing hasn't come up to scratch, so for perfection, the double glazing now needs replacement.

It's gonna be a lot of money and they were heavy smokers to be fair but their deposit isn't gonna touch the sides so I can see why property owners may start to disallow smokers (as they do pets etc now)

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

The deposit will be a drop in the ocean compared to all that work id imagine. No wonder some landlords don’t want smokers in their flats.