 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
MMmm I'd like to see them try to enforce that one in France!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Banff has a smoking ban I believe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Have Italy enforced a smoking ban?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Pete, if they have, I haven't noticed I think it's manadatory for instructors to smoke in Italy and to use a mobile phone at the same time.
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Tue 25-01-05 15:15; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Ken Lingwood wrote: |
| Banff has a smoking ban I believe. |
If it has, I didn't notice it over the last 6 years, although there is less smoking than in Europe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Ross, yes they have, a fine of 200 euro's if caught .
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
I understand that the smoking ban in Italy is being generally respected, which I find astonishing. I wonder how long it'll last?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The ban in Italy relates only to bars and restaurants. Happily, the law is being widely flouted in true Italian fashion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
4thefunofit, The ban was in place in our hotel, ( Intermonti ) and havin a fag in minus 18 after a glass of wine is just not funny anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
I was amazed in Italy this year. Mobs of people hanging around outside bars for a fag. I found an some official sign that said something a long the lines of: "smoking prohibited - 16th Jan 2001 Act - blah , blah, blah - penalities of Euros 27.50 to Euros 275 which will be doubled if smoking in the presence of a preganent woman or child under 12". Forsa Italy !!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well we have had the ban in place in Ireland for about a year now and there is total compliance, which is unusual as normally us Irish don't like following rules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
mick newby,
| Quote: |
havin a fag in minus 18 after a glass of wine is just not funny anymore.
|
Which is what the law aims to promote.  Good, innit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Ken Lingwood,
Banff has this year introduced a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants, in town: These have to provide somewhere outside for smokers if they still want their custom.
This was being much discussed when I was in Banff last March, and the local free paper (rocky Mountain Outlook, or somesuch) published an amusing spoof (April 1st) story to the effect that Park Rangers would be armed and liscenced to shoot anyone not obeying the smoking restrictions when they were introduced.
It's not clear from the Telegraph report whether the smoking ban at Black Mountain applies only to restaurants/lodge/bars, or is a blanket ban over the whole mouintain (i.e. no lighting up in lift queues, or on the chair- though quite how they'd enforce the latter rather boggles the mind.)
I noticed during my stay at Winter Park that all smokers were required to remain outside the buildings on-mountain, and this type of restriction is now fairly common across North America.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
richmond, didn't see anyone smoking in any bars or restaurants in Gressoney last week. Plenty of stubs on the doorsteps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Acacia, I may need a re think here, so I could be shot for having a fag in Banff......ummm
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
"These have to provide somewhere outside for smokers if they still want their custom."
That'll be interesting, I've seen it so cold in Banff that even the Elk roaming the streets were wearing hats and scarves!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Manda wrote: |
mick newby,
| Quote: |
havin a fag in minus 18 after a glass of wine is just not funny anymore.
|
Which is what the law aims to promote. Good, innit. |
I assume that the law is to stop smokers from interfering with other people's fun rather than to stop smoking from being fun. Good? I'm not convinced, much as I dislike being in a room where anyone's smoking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
I think we should go all the way here, ban smoking, it is bad for you, ban booze ban loud music in bars, that cant be good for your ears, and ban sex in hotel bedrooms, its just not fair on the people next door.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
mick newby, Also we'd have to ban ski-ing because it's just too much fun!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
easiski, dont ya just hate it when people enjoy life. ( Tosser's )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
richmond, there's a difference between what's fun and what's funny. The two don't (necessarily) intersect.
BTW there ain't anything positive about smoking cigarettes - they do cause harm every single time you take a puff, no matter how skilled you are at smoking. Skiing's harmless so long as you're reasonably skilled at it.
And when was smoking "fun", anyway? I thought smokers kept smoking not cause it was fun, but because they were chemically addicted to it (and no, I won't entertain jokes about skiing being chemically addictive, cause it's not physically or mentally on the same planet healthwise as smoking).
Hrumph. Am off to polish my pedistal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
My understanding is that smoking is not chemically addictive, in the way in which, for example, alcohol or heroin are, although of course it is habit forming (psychologically addictive?). That's why so many people, including me and most of my friends, have given it up without great difficulty. It's a bit of a red herring anyway; if people want to indulge in addictive behaviour, who am I to stop them?
I'm not sure that I would classify smoking as fun, but it is enjoyable (I smoked Old Holborn in liquorice paper, and I enjoyed it); that's positive. Of course it has negatives as well, which in my view (but presumably not in the views of others) outweigh the positives, which is why I gave up. I don't think that smoking has ever really been funny, although I did once see someone inhale and blow the smoke out through his ears, which was pretty funny (you probably had to be there).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, nicotine causes physical changes in the brain that are "painful" to undo and also that the (diminishing) "rewards" through it's use (it's effect on dopamine release and sensitivity) are also physical in nature. It would therefore be pretty accurate to say that it is "chemically" or "physically" addictive. Also, the percentages of people actually managing to give up are very low:
| Quote: |
| An analysis of relapse to tobacco use showed that, in the context of a minimal treatment intervention approach, approximately 25% of persons relapsed within two days of their last cigarette and approximately 50% within one week.51,52 For people quitting on their own, the study by Hughes et al52 discovered that two-thirds were smoking within three days of their scheduled quit date. |
That quote from the Royal College Of Physicians who go on to say:
| Quote: |
On current evidence, we can conclude that cigarettes are properly categorised among the most addicting substances as this form of nicotine delivery maximises the addictive effects of the drug. The fact that nicotine is of low abuse potential in controlled dosage forms such as the transdermal nicotine patch or nicotine gum supports the conclusion that the form of delivery is an important determinant of its addiction potential. Thus, tobacco-delivered nicotine is of great concern, with the cigarette of greatest concern of all tobacco products because of its high toxicity and addictiveness.
The pharmacological effects of nicotine are not identical to those of heroin, alcohol or cocaine - nor, for that matter, are the effects of cocaine identical to those produced by heroin. In its arguments that nicotine is not addictive, the tobacco industry has often argued, as it did to the US FDA,36 that nicotine is not addicting because it does not meet criteria that the tobacco industry itself has developed. In essence, these criteria appear to be those achievable only by a drug whose composite profile would be as intoxicating as ethanol, would produce as severe withdrawal symptoms as ethanol or heroin, would have the euphoriant effects of cocaine, and would serve as a reinforcer for animals and naïve humans as readily as does cocaine.
Any one factor may be selected to argue that one of these drugs is more or less addicting than the others. However, this exercise makes it clear that addiction severity and society's level of concern about drug use are best evaluated by assessing several variables. We can, however, conclude, as was concluded in the 1988 Report of the US Surgeon-General,32 that:
The pharmacologic and behavioral processes that determine tobacco addiction are similar to those that determine addiction to drugs such as heroin and cocaine.
We can further conclude that tobacco dependence is a serious form of drug addiction which, on the whole, is second to no other. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
The effects of nicotine are indeed physical, otherwise they wouldn't exist. tobacco smoke does not, so far as I know, cause the sort of metabolic changes which can make withdrawl from some drugs such as heroin and alcohol dangerous (as well as unpleasant) and the Royal College of Physicians' paper doesn't seem to claim that it does, although I'm not sure what is meant by the 'pharmacologic ... processes that determine tobacco addiction ...'. I'm not aware that anyone has died during nicotine withdrawl.
A large number of people give up smoking, although a large number fail to do so, at least at the first attempt. That may suggest that those who do not do so do not wish to sufficiently; in other words, for them the positives outweigh the negatives. That is clearly the case for those who don't try to give up. I think that they are foolish, but that's their business.
The question of addicitiveness is, as I said, a bit of a red herring for me. People know about the consequences of smoking and can decide for themselves if they wish to smoke; if they wish to risk addiction (physical, chemical, emotional or any other type) to a harmful substance, that's up to them.
What is it about fags that upsets people so much? If (and I accept that for some it's a big if) people smoke in a way which does not impinge unacceptably on others, what's the problem? I have the strong impression that some people think that smoking is wrong per se and should not be allowed in any circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| Quote: |
| I'm not sure what is meant by the 'pharmacologic ... processes that determine tobacco addiction ...'. |
The chemical changes to the body that cause addiction. E.g. the changes to the synaptic receptors that make it difficult to most people (though, not physically dangerous) to give up.
| Quote: |
| people smoke in a way which does not impinge unacceptably on others |
I think the main crux of the argument (to the non-medical world) is the definition of that phrase.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
richmond, as skanky points out, smoking is addictive. Its addictiveness may not have the same reputation as other drugs, but that's due to popular misbelief and is not bourne out by research.
| Quote: |
A large number of people give up smoking, although a large number fail to do so, at least at the first attempt. That may suggest that those who do not do so do not wish to sufficiently; in other words, for them the positives outweigh the negatives. |
Rubbish. An addiction by its very nature is hard to kick - what puts people off quitting is lack of willpower to get through the shite periods of withdrawl, not because they think there's something positive about continuing to smoke (unless you're 14 and desperate to fit in).
BTW I've made it known previously on other threads that I'm of the camp that thinks smoking per se is wrong. But the UK government protects individual freedoms, which is why I can't throw rocks through your window if you light up in your own home/car/shed/garden. Neither can I storm over and start tearing strips if you smoke outside in a public place so long as your smoke isn't going to reach me. But if you start subjecting me to your smoke, then I run the risk of smoking related illnesses, and that's not on. And actually, I'm not a fan of my taxes being frittered away in the NHS system to repair diseases amongst smokers caused by their own "choice". So probably I do object to you smoking in the privacy of your own home. 
I certainly support non-smoking policies in both my home countries (UK & NZ) and I certainly support the prospect of non-smoking policies in resort. Hell, I'd support a worldwide ban on the sale and consumption of the stuff if I could!
(Pedestal becoming v. comfortable right now).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Manda, I agree totally with you, I hate smoking with a passion, it makes me phsically sick to be in a smokey room for too long and I really hate the disgusting smell it leaves on your hair and clothes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Hang on a minute, folks. There seems to be confusion between whether one likes smoking (which I don't - I find it increasingly unpleasant to be in a room with someone smoking) and whether one wants to ban it. I am deeply suspicious of those who wish to ban what they don't like. Why shouldn't people smoke, take drugs or otherwise abuse their bodies if they want to, subject to not interfering with anyone else's legitimate 'rights' or expectations?
The addiction question, although interesting, is not relevant to the question of the degree of freedom of choice which adults should be allowed.
The cost to the NHS thing is unsound. There is a cost to the NHS in dealing with cancers, lung diseases, heart diseases and all the other ghastly results of smoking  . There is an income to the treasury from tax (although what the increased treasury income is from to tobacco tax is hard to say, probably not as much as you'd think). There is a saving to the NHS and other public services in the reduced number of expensive-to-maintain old timers around. If all the people who died of smoking related disease didn't, how on earth would the NHS, local authorities and all the rest of it cope? We'd have to find another way to keep the numbers down.
I think that we should stop imagining that we know better than other people do how they should live their (on average shorter) lives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Seems to me (and this is only my impression) that most people merely want it banned in public places.
The addiction question does arise if people start smoking before they become adults, but then that's banned already.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| mick newby wrote: |
| I think we should go all the way here, ban smoking, it is bad for you, ban booze ban loud music in bars, that cant be good for your ears, and ban sex in hotel bedrooms, its just not fair on the people next door. |
Only one of these also directly affects the health of those who are not participating..............
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Helen Beaumont wrote: |
| mick newby wrote: |
| I think we should go all the way here, ban smoking, it is bad for you, ban booze ban loud music in bars, that cant be good for your ears, and ban sex in hotel bedrooms, its just not fair on the people next door. |
Only one of these also directly affects the health of those who are not participating.............. |
Loud music in bars is surely like smoking in bars so far as collateral damage is concerned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
richmond, no confusion at all. Those who don't like smoking want to ban it.
Booze is enjoyable and has health benefits if used safely. Sex is enjoyable and has health benefits if practiced safely.
I happen to know quite a lot about loud music in bars and its effect on hearing, both medically and legally. It ain't the same as smoking at all. I can go into a loud bar and wear earplugs and still enjoy the music while adequately protecting my hearing (ear plugs don't completely block noise, they dampen it). If I walk into a smokey bar, I can't protect myself in the same way from second hand smoke.
Smoking is "bad for you" in a way few other things are.
The cost to the NHS system theory is sound. If people don't smoke then there isn't a need to spend money on dealing with smoking-related illnesses. In any case, if a government wants to support a health care system then it will find sufficent money to do so.
Next dissenter, please!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
I thought that it was EU law that restaurants must provide a non-smoking area but when I was in Germany last week this wasn't the case. The smoke in the restaurants was horrendous with people smoking between mouthfuls of food! My eyes were really sore (I'm a contact lens wearer) and my clothes stank! I'm definitely pro a ban in public places.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Manda wrote: |
| richmond Next dissenter, please! |
You haven't finished with this one yet.
I wasn't suggesting that you were confused; I realised that you want to ban smoking regardless of whether or not it affects you.
I didn't suggest that loud music in bars is as dangerous as passive smoking (it might be, who knows, but I doubt it), but that it's something unpleasant (to some) and harmful which everyone has to put up with, whether they like it or not, if they want to be in that bar. They can always go to a different bar or stay at home. Ear plugs are not really much of a solution, in the same way that you see few people using SCUBA gear in bars (probably only because it makes drinking awkward).
Smoking is indeed very bad for you; that is insufficient reason to ban it. Suicide is very bad for you, but it is not illegal, and why should it be?
I find it inconceivable that smoking is not a net benefit to the Treasury given the number of people who die from it prematurely and the huge cost of looking after old timers. In the UK we do not look after old timers properly as it is; God knows what it would be like if there were more of them. Anyway, the financial argument is secondary (at best) to the 'personal freedom' argument.
I don't follow your comment 'In any case, if a government wants to support a health care system then it will find sufficent money to do so.' At the risk of broadening the discussion, there has to be a limit placed, abitrarily, on health spending; it is quite capable of swallowing a country's entire national product (as the French seem to be finding out). The demand for health care is effectively unlimited and must be rationed; in USA, that is done by cost, in the UK by waiting time (a percentage of people on a waiting list die, get better or learn to live with their ailment before it is dealt with, and many more are deterred from bothering to get on one, or go private). If your point is that the NHS etc could cope with lots more old timers if the will was there, as it would have to were smoking to be banned, that's probably true, but only at the expense of something else. Anyway, my point was not whether or not we could or should be able to cope with more old timers, but that the culling effect of smoking is a reduction of the burden on the NHS etc, which it undoubtedly is.
I think that we'll have to agree to differ. You know how people should live their lives better than they do; I don't (or rather I do, but I accept that other people are entitled to go to hell in their own way).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Er, in fact suicide is illegal - if you fail, you'll be sectioned. If you succeed there's no-one to charge. If anyone assists your sucide then they'll be charged with assisting your suicide. Do you not pay attention to the world????
The argument about one's personal freedom, as you put it (or exercise of individual rights as they're known) is as fine as far as it goes, if that's what you're actually getting at. But that theory's boundary goes only as far as one's obligations to everyone else to ensure that your own exercise of your rights doesn't infringe the exercise of anyone else's rights.
It's not that we agree to differ. It's that you've been coming up with some alarmingly illogical comebacks, and it's getting rather boring swatting them away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manda, I though richmond, was putting good arguments forward actually. If smoking can be relegated to areas where it only effects other smokers, then why ban it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
You're quite right to say that one's personal freedom can only extend so far; where we differ is in how far. I think that it quite properly extends far enough to allow you to smoke in the privacy of your own home, which you apparently do not. I'm a bit less clear about smoking in bars and so on, but on balance, given that being in a bar is not essential (questionable, I suppose, especially on a skiing holiday), I'd prefer to let people smoke unless the proprietor doesn't want them to, despite that fact that I'd much prefer them not to.
I don't see any lack of logic in my argument, or in yours.
I prefer a term like 'personal freedom' to any phrase involving 'rights'. Rights are granted to you, whereas personal freedoms are (in my mind) to be assumed unless explicitly removed. But that's just me, we all know what we mean.
BTW, suicide isn't illegal in England (it did use to be), and being 'sectioned' doesn't mean that you've done anything illegal. In fact the 'sectioning' provisions are specifically to allow people who have comitted no crime to be detained against their wishes, for their own or others' safety. Assisting suicide is of course illegal, which seems illogical but is probably for the best.
Last edited by You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net. on Fri 4-02-05 11:24; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manda, suicide isn't illegal any more. It doesn't also follow automatically that you'll be sectioned if you fail, in fact most people who attempt suicide do not get sectioned, or even need voluntary treatment for mental illness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
