Sunday, 11 July 2010

Smoking Ban 3 Years On.


I say all this as an ex-smoker who quit the cancer sticks over 5 years ago now.Ok so it was reported by the MA this week that the smoking ban went live 3 years ago this week. Has it really been that long?
Whingers and Moaners of the world claim that the smoking ban caused hundreds of pubs to close in that time, well guess what, I think that's a pile of shit!
Publicans had plenty of time to get their pubs ready, it's not like this thing happened overnight and people didn't know it was happening, get real!
Pubs with licensees who took the time to prepare themselves have flourished or at least made a living, pubs that were run by bone idle fucking lazy twats have gone under, good riddance.
It is FACT that most people(including smokers!) that drink in pubs and bars agree that they are now nicer places to go into and as a result the industry has gained new customers and more people are drinking beer! Whoopie! I think that's cause for celebration myself.
I also welcome the news that the government has shelved plans to look at the ban again with a view to a possible relaxation of it, screw that, that would just mean if you moan enough about stuff you get your own way, where would we be if all parents acted like that, Christ on a bike we'd be in trouble!
Personally I say make it illegal but the government makes too much cash off of it to ever have the balls to do that!
Let the backlash begin.

6 comments:

Cigarette Sally said...

I'm a big drinker, hate smoking used to dread going out to drink- Loving it now.

Tandleman said...

Blimey. I thought I took a tough stance!

Rabidbarfly said...

@Cigarette Sally - Thanks for stopping by.

@Tandleman -I'm just one of those fascist ex-smokers I'm afraid.

Anonymous said...

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, Vol. 14, No. 1. (August 1991), pp. 88-105.

Abstract
Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is derived from cigarette smoldering and active smoker exhalation. Its composition displays broad quantitative differences and redistributions between gas and respirable suspended particulate (RSP) phases when compared with the mainstream smoke (MSS) that smokers puff. This is because of different generation conditions and because ETS is diluted and ages vastly more than MSS. Such differences prevent a direct comparison of MSS and ETS and their biologic activities. However, even assuming similarities on an equal mass basis, ETS-RSP inhaled doses are estimated to be between 10,000- and 100,000-fold less than estimated average MSS-RSP doses for active smokers. Differences in effective gas phase doses are expected to be of similar magnitude. Thus the average person exposed to ETS would retain an annual dose analogous to the active MSS smoking of considerably less than one cigarette dispersed over a 1-year period. By contrast, consistent epidemiologic data indicate that active smoking of some 4–5 cigarettes per day may not be associated with a significantly increased risk of lung cancer. Similar indications also obtain for cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. Since average doses of ETS to nonsmoking subjects in epidemiologic studies are several thousand times less than this reported intake level, the marginal relative risks of lung cancer and other diseases attributed to ETS in some epidemiologic studies are likely to be statistical artifacts, derived from unaccounted confounders and unavoidable bias


http://www.citeulike.org/user/vmarthia/article/7458828

Rabidbarfly said...

Thanks 'anonymous' you've just bored me to death.

Anonymous said...

Also, Anonymous.... If that text is pages 88-105, they must have used really big writing.