Public Smoking Ban (could affect Withdean)

[FG aka Football Genius.]

Carry on pipe dreaming/cancer stick puffing/tobaccoboganing or excuse me do you mind if i cough, splutter, blow, choke and p*ke on your smoke that im following as i walk behind you in the street.

Time to Stub out forever? Should the Government go one step further and force an all out ban after all it might be ones personal choice but then why should the medical profession treat people that have brought this upon themselves? Its all blown (up in smoke) out of proportions and no more dangerous than drinking and we arent gonna stop that are we? Labour gone looney again thinking of bringing out this ban? Storm in a tea cup.

Should football clubs and the Albion be taking a lead in this after all its a public place.

===========================
Doctors Urge Ban on Smoking in Public
===========================

New research shows the dangers of passive smoking are greater than previously thought

Doctors are stepping up pressure on the Government to ban tobacco in public places after a study showed the dangers of passive smoking could be even greater than previously estimated.

Delegates at the British Medical Association's conference in Llandudno are to call for smoking in workplaces, including pubs and restaurants, to be outlawed.

It came after a study showed that the risks of heart disease faced by passive smokers were double what was previously estimated.

Previous research has found that passive smoking is linked with a 25 per cent to 30 per cent increased risk of coronary heart disease.

But the latest study - published on bmj.com - found that non-smokers faced a 50 per cent to 60 per cent increased risk of falling victim to the disease.

The researchers noted that most studies on passive smoking examined the risks of living with someone who smoked.

They said while this was important, it did not take into account the additional exposure at work and other places such as pubs and restaurants.

The team said that by measuring cotinine - a by-product of nicotine - it could get a more accurate measure of exposure to smoke from all sources.

The study focused on 4,792 men from 18 British towns who were monitored for 20 years.

The researchers took blood samples to measure cotinine, concluding that higher concentrations in the blood of non-smokers were associated with a 50 per cent to 60 per cent greater risk of heart disease.

Researcher Prof Peter Whincup, of the Department of Community Health Sciences at St George's Hospital Medical School in London, highlighted the case for tackling passive smoking.

"This study adds to the weight of evidence that passive smoking is harmful and strengthens the case for limiting exposure to passive smoking as much as we can,'' he said.

"People are smoking less now so non-smokers are exposed to lower levels of second-hand smoke.

"But this study suggests the harmful effects of passive smoking have been underestimated in the past because previous studies only looked at the effect of a non-smoker living with a partner who smoked."

Deborah Arnott, director of anti-smoking campaign group ASH, said: "This important study provides yet more evidence of the serious health risks posed by second-hand smoke.

"It suggests that if you regularly breathe in other people's smoke at home or at work your chances of getting heart disease may rise by more than a half.

"This is a much bigger increase in risk than was previously thought - and the difference with previous estimates seems mainly due to smoking in the workplace.''

Dr Tim Bowker, associate medical director of the British Heart Foundation, said: "The need for a ban on smoking in public places in the UK has never been better illustrated than by this potentially pivotal study.

"We have known for some time that passive smoking was strongly associated with increased risk of coronary heart disease, but this study strengthens the evidence considerably.''

But Simon Clark, director of the smokers' lobby group Forest, said: "We would all like to know whether passive smoking kills and the jury is still out.

"An increased risk of 50 per cent to 60 per cent may sound alarming, but in statistical terms it would have to be 200 per cent to 300 per cent before it was significant.''

==============================================

Labour consider smoking ban

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3852149.stm

==============================================

Passive smoke risk even greater!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3850083.stm

==============================================

 

[ben andrews' girlfriend]

i personally think there should be smoking and non smoking areas. its not fair on the people who have asthma and those who dont want to breathe in other peoples smoke all the time

 

[Citrus]

i personally think there should be smoking and non smoking areas. its not fair on the people who have asthma and those who dont want to breathe in other peoples smoke all the time

Ditto.

 

[Rambo]

I have made my feelings qite clear on this issue in the past and do not wish to go there again.

 

[Dover]

Keep the law as it is for me.

Everyone knows the potential risks of smoking, and have done for most of my life. I have never smoked, but would not deny the choice of someone to do so. some of my freinds smoke, but they are very considerate, and stand away etc. when in public places.

 

[Kent Seagull]

I find it particularly annoying a a match when a nearby smoker blows smoke in my direction. Ban 'em for their own good I say!

I am often amazed to see parents with young kids in the car puffing away. They must know that they are putting their kids health at risk. Don't they care or are they just plain stupid?

 

[poke]

i dont think smokign should be banned in public places i've got asthma, but it doesn't really bother me.

Although i wouldn't mind at the football tho, cos when your standing behind someone whos smoking it can blow right back into your face, but i pubs or other places it doesnt bother me

 

[fatbadger]

I'm totally against a ban. I'm sick of all this need to control, control, control.

 

[Trigger]

Blimey, that's a long post FG...

Let me just spark a ciggy and i'll crack on with reading it.

 

[FG aka Football Genius.]

poke you say doesnt bother you but the overwhelming evidence says it IS bothering you i.e. secondary smoke IS affecting the health of others. Im sure the time will come when football grounds Withdean included will ban smoking take Cardiff for example did anyone actullay have a problem not being allowed to smoke in their seats? If they did they must have a very very serious addiction to not last 45 mins without one!

 

[poke]

poke you say doesnt bother you but the overwhelming evidence says it IS bothering you

it bothers me when its blown in my face, but how often does that actually happen.

 

[fatbadger]

poke you say doesnt bother you but the overwhelming evidence says it IS bothering you

You can say this about pretty much anything - you may say that all those aircraft fumes don't bother you, but the overwhelming evidence is that the pollutants are doing damage to your body ... you may say that all that crop-spraying doesn't bother you, but the overwhelming evidence etc ... you may say that car fumes do not bother you etc ...

Tell me, where would you draw the line? And why?

 

[FG aka Football Genius.]

if an aircraft was sat next to me blowing out fumes THAT WOULD bother me, so would a car exhaust fume in my face and a cig/pipe/cigar does that bother me?

 

[Gazwag]

As a non smoker I would like to see a total band but I appreciate that this would prove impossible. Just look at the total ban on mobile phone usage in cars - I still see as many people on phones after the ban as before.

The problem is the selfishness of smokers who use their right to do what they want to their own bodies without considering the effect on others

 

[tinx]

A fried of mines bird is up the duff and she's still smoking 20 a day. Now thats f***ing wrong.

 

[fatbadger]

if an aircraft was sat next to me blowing out fumes THAT WOULD bother me, so would a car exhaust fume in my face and a cig/pipe/cigar does that bother me?

This totally contradicts your argument against poke, who had said that smoking did not bother him in this direct way. You replied to say that, actually, smoking bothered him in a less direct, less detectable way.

You poor confused soul.

 

[FG aka Football Genius.]

it was meant to be humour u know sense of i mean who wouldnt be bothered by an aircraft puffing fumes out right next to them! there is no overwhelming evidence that secondary smoke is harmful whether it bothers u or not, two thirs here want a total smoke ban or sum description the public is demanding it and Withdean Stadium should enforse a total ban start next season

 

[Cadiz Seagull]

I may be wrong (it's been known ) but I thought Witdean already was a no smoking area - officially?

 

[FG aka Football Genius.]

think only on the stairways in South Stand not aware if ban in other areas and in any case its clearly not enforsed re postings above.

 

[fatbadger]

Fair enough, FG.

Still, lots of things bother lots of people - but only smoking gets the 'lets ban it' hassle.