Smoking ban in Spain

Alison&Simon

yes I agree. Why on earth are they not banned like aspestos or any proven deadly material?

As for the tax issue, how much value can you put on a loved one dying of a smoke related disease? As for comparisons with obesity or alchohol, once again as with pretty much everything else it comes down to being ok in moderation. Fags on the other hand can be addictive and deadly in small quantities.

I feel the loss of revenue from the sale of fags is meaningless compared to the cost of  human suffering that could be saved? Tax office might not see it that way though, but i'm sure they would find another way to screw us to make up for it!

Perhaps more warnings on high fat food should be introduced, rather than just calorific value. Hybrid has a point about obesity, we are becoming a fat nation and something needs to be done. Education on diet/exercise means you don't have to give up even fatty foods completely though. Same can't be said about fags.

Goodstich44,

Sorry, but you, too, have fallen for the received wisdom. Tobacco does not "cause" cancer and therefore does not count as a "proven, deadly material".

The smoking of tobacco has been seen to increase the risk of contracting cancer but, as with a good many other things, is subject to other, environmental factors. Cancer Research UK's own website says as much.

Genetic predisposition, ambient pollutants (such as exhaust fumes) and vocational pollutants (asbestos, coal dust, some have even suggested printer toner) will all have a contributory effect on a person's likelihood of contracting cancer.

Were that not the case, how would such cases as the woman who recently turned 100, having smoked 20 cigarettes a day, since the age of 16, be explained?

Cigarettes can be deadly in small quantities. As can peanuts. Or penicillin. Or cars. I return to cars, because the incidence of asthma and other, similar illnesses in children, has increased almost exactly in line with car ownership. At a time when the number of smokers, per head of population, has decreased. But where do we see the hysterical demands for the banning of all motor vehicles? Or the self-righteous "I used to be a driver, but now I can't so much as stand the smell of one"?

There's more than an element of self-interest and picking one's targets, according to one's own vices.

HybridAnglo

with due respect, fags are deadly. The evidence is there for all to see. Only an addict would deny that, and try and justify them with your reasons. Until you can face facts, then I guess giving up wont be an option for you. That's your choice, but no choice for the passive smoker.

Well, I did promise myself not to get into these smoking/anti smoking debates as they have been done to death so many times.  Smokers will not agree and non-smokers (especially ex-smokers) will continue to drag up spurious facts to prove their point.  However, as an ex-smoker (who gave up purely on grounds of cost) I am going to put my oar in one last time.  The argument about passive smoking may or may not be a load of gumf.  A few years ago, medics were saying that only smokers (or ex-smokers) or those who lived with smokers got lung cancer.  Now that some two thirds of people in UK don’t smoke, they have had to retract that statement.  When the majority smoked, those who got lung cancer were more likely to have smoked or to have lived with a smoker.  This does not happen nowadays so why are so many people still getting this disease?  I agree, smoking does increase the risk but it is not the only cause as was the believed doctrine.  Women, by the way, are more likely to get this disease than men, smokers or not.  The sad fact is, some people are liable to get this disease and others aren’t, just like the dreaded Big C. 

Do those who rail against smokers also not drive cars, take taxis, fly on planes?  As a smoker, you’d have to smoke 20 a day for your whole life to pollute the atmosphere as much as a 20 mile drive in car would do.  And don’t even get me started on aeroplanes. 

However, smoking does smell but not as bad as ex-smokers would have us believe.  I never, in all my years of smoking, agreed with smoking in restaurants but pubs?  Why not?  Surely the alcohol does more damage than smoking?  Smokers very rarely pick fights just because someone looks at them the wrong way.  Smokers aren’t the ones filling up A&E departments every night in the UK.  Smokers don’t endanger other peoples lives by getting into cars and driving when they’ve had a few.  Should we also ban drinking in pubs?

Smokers do contribute billions in taxes.  Those stuffing burgers and fries down their throats so they become a drain on the NHS don’t (food is VAT exempt in UK).  We spend billions a year on the treatment of illegal drug users and billions more on benefits for those same people who contribute not one red cent to the tax coffers.  We spend as much on treating sports injuries in the NHS as we do on smokers, so should we ban sports (a good case for a self-inflicted injury) and therefore increase the amount of obesity which will drain even more money?  I don’t think so.

Smokers, be considerate.  Non-smokers also be considerate.  (Can’t understand the argument about fag ends all over the place when dog crap, fast food cartons and chewing gum swamp our streets). 

As I said, an ex-smoker (but still enjoy the odd cigar in the comfort of my own home, until they ban that last little pleasure, anyway).  I have no problems with people smoking around me as long as they don’t do it in restaurants, don’t blow it in my direction (because it makes me really fancy one) or smoke in my house.  If you want to come and have a beer and sit on my veranda while enjoying a smoke, you are more than welcome, just don’t do it indoors.   If you’re a non smoker, you are more than welcome to sit and just have the beer.  If you’re an ex-smoker, you’re also welcome as long as you don’t start coughing and spluttering and giving me a lecture when I light up my first and only cigar of the week.

There’s nothing so refined as a reformed whore. 

Hi HybridAnglo

I agree with you, also what a alcohol on news today 19 year old teen through binge drinking requires a liver transplant, along with the mindless violence it can cause!

So basicaly we should all stop smoking, driving cars, drinking alcohol and only eat  what we are told to eat also gambling is another vice can affect others indirectly.

What boring life this could turn  into.

Going back to the smoking issue here in the Uk 50 pubs a week closing down, caused having a total ban.

Goodstitch44 mentioned in earlier post about choice, well in Spain you do get that by displaying notices on the door stating No Smoking, and as a smoker I respect the owners wishes, which should also apply to non-smokers entering a bar where smoking is permitted you have that choice wether to enter or not.

roddy1/Hybrid

well we all have a choice. I prefer cutting down the risk of cancer as much as possible, not encouraging kids to start a revolting addiction, clean lungs, not risking giving others cancer, and all the other massive health and cost benifits of not smoking. You choose otherwise.  I think a big part of addiction though is denial, that's something the addict has to deal with when and if they feel mentally strong enough. Well done to the ex-smokers on here, you have shown you have that strength and are probably even more aware of benifits of not smoking than regular non-smokers?

Hi Goodstitch44

The point I am trying to raise is that if I chose to smoke in enviroment where smoking is permitted what is ie Spanish bar etc. that is what freedom of choice means,  I would dream of entering a non-smoking and lighting up. I look forward to my monthly trips to my second home in Spain, where that choice is permitted. Personnally I would have thought that any non-smoker would not dream of entering such establishments unless they are on a mission to try and convert me of my ill ways. The reason I bought in Spain, was to escape the system in the UK which as become a nanny state for any person to dream up anything just to justify their role in life.

When ever I go abroad I always obey the law of the land wether that be muslim, christian, catholic country etc. I observe their rules and traditions with respect. What I don't understand is that when fellow brits on a mission not only trying to convert me, but also my Spanish friends, why did these people buy in Spain when they could have bought a nice home in non-smoking Skegness.

Goodsitch44 incidently you never commented on all the other vices mention! 

Hi roddy1

If the other vices were as addictive or such a health disaster even in moderation then I would feel the same way as I do about fags. I think you would have to be in denial not to recognise that.  I'm all for choice but when you become a fag addict you lose that choice, and that in itself is far more restrictive than anything I face in the UK.

I know where you are coming from with the freedom of Spain, but it's a double edged sword. As many have found, issues like smoking, justice, cruelty to animals (and women for that matter), corruption and many common sense planning issues we take for granted in the UK are a long way behind in Spain, but changing slowly. So it's a freedom at a price for those on the wrong end of it.

Hi Goodstich

I see you are on one of your favorite subjects again and you even managed to fit your obsession of repeating your views again and again  on corruption in Spain into the smoking thread. 

It is a fact that the majority of pub regulars in the UK were smokers and the smoking ban is a major cause of the vast number of closures we are seeing. Many smokers are now drinking (and smoking ) at home.

The argument that non or ex smokers will now go to the pub does not hold up unless you mean they  now go on there birthday as well as Christmas.

You and the nanny state UK Goverment should think more about the economic consequences of a total ban of smoking to jobs of those working in pubs and bingo halls.

Spain has this one right at the moment.

GJ

Yes, sory for going off subject.

I agree many pubs are shutting because of people drinking at home, but smoking no, I think that's just not true. It will obviously stop some going, but the majority of people say how much nicer it is in pubs without fags, and smelling like a stale ash tray when you get home. You can not, and probably will not see the human cost of suffering caused by fags, that's one of addictions cruelist tricks!

The avoidable loss of life and suffering can never be mearsured in £'s.

A nanny state, or a caring state?. Good and bad in both.

Goodstich wrote

Quote

I agree many pubs are shutting because of people drinking at home, but smoking no, I think that's just not true. It will obviously stop some going, but the majority of people say how much nicer it is in pubs without fags, and smelling like a stale ash tray when you get home.

End quote

The truth is non or ex smokers do say "  how much nicer it is in pubs without fags, and smelling like a stale ash tray when you get home." but they are not the regulars that kept the pubs open.

To deny that the majority of pub regulars smoke is just putting your head in the sand.

As for the argument that the price of alcohol is the main reason for pub closures in the UK. Take a look at the closure of the bingo halls.

Its a fact that smoking is BAD for your health

Its a fact that a total ban is CLOSING pubs and bingo halls in the UK

Its a fact that is costing THOUSANDS of jobs

The effects of passive smoking is not as strongly proven. Everyone now admits the recommended drink limits for men and women were just GUESSED and not based on any scientific research.

Goodrich is right to say how addictive smoking is, but then goes on to ignore that smokers addiction is strong enough for them to get out of the habit of the local.

Hi Goodstitch44

I think you are totally missing the issue of the start of the orginal thread!

Possible changes to smoking ban in Spain:

I at present the law, has I understand depending on the size of the establishments, have the right to place no smoking or smoking permitted signs on their door. Which I believe is a suitable balance for everyone. As for my health, that is my concern only, I have paid more than my whack in taxes, and I'm just about to sign another check to HMRC for some thieving MP to get his grubby hands one to squander away in the name of expenses. Incidently have been using their services for your own personal campaign. 

What that I detest most is hypocritical whinging brits!

Bullfighting = Foxhunting

Corrupt Spanish Law System = Thieving MPs

Non- Smokers = Trying to alter what is already perfect system

When will us Brits stop trying turn Spain into Little Britian, perhaps we should get our own house in order first, give me a good Spaniard any day! 

Goodstitch44 & Rachel by the way I have not been to the doctor's in the past twenty years, do I get a rebate.

GJ

no, I agree addiction will indeed keep some away, and some pubs may suffer as a result, but I think the smoking ban will attract some also, and will help those with strong self-discipline who want their health back  to kick the filthy habit. Home entertainment and the cost of beer is I think what keeps most people away.  Anything we can do to reduce cancer victims must be worth doing, whatever type of pollution causes it. Perhaps some pubs closing is a cost worth paying as banning cars of certain types might well be in the future? 

Goodstich44: "I prefer cutting down the risk of cancer as much as possible, not encouraging kids to start a revolting addiction, clean lungs, not risking giving others cancer, and all the other massive health and cost benifits of not smoking. You choose otherwise.  I think a big part of addiction though is denial, that's something the addict has to deal with when and if they feel mentally strong enough. Well done to the ex-smokers on here, you have shown you have that strength"

There's an awful lot of generality and supposition in that response, GS. How does my smoking encourage a kid to start? Last time I looked, and contrary to popular belief, I'm not a rock star, a sporting icon or an Oscar winning actor. But, I suppose the air of cool I radiate might have an effect.

Secondly, how many times do I have to point out that the supposed links between secondary smoke and cancer are being debunked almost weekly? Have a look on google. There are very many senior medical professionals and academics who have written papers providing evidence to the contrary of your stated position.

And, as I have stated earlier, I've not had any health issues related to my habit for the 24 years I've been smoking. I know a good many other smokers who are similarly unaffected by their habit. In fact, the only person I have known to have developed cancer, was my grandmother, who was nearly 80 and who never once suggested regretting her decision to smoke.I also had a great uncle who smoke 20+ cigarettes a day, unfiltered and who died age 93. After being knocked off his bicycle on his daily 2 mile ride to his allotment. But, hey, the scare stories about all smokers being riddled with disease are correct.

As to my denial, I'll refer you to what I've just written. It's not denial. It's a case of accepting the evidence of my eyes and my experience. I'm funny like that. The government can tell me something is true, but I'm cynical enough to want to find out for myself rather than just accepting what they say as the gospel.

But hey, I'm not addicted either. If you look below, I describe myself as an occasional smoker. I used to be a 20 a day man, when the government who tell me smoking is bad, used to subsidise my habit. How curious. Back then, because of the job I did for the government, it was cheaper for me to smoke than chew gum. Now, I smoke less than 10 a day. On the days I actually smoke. I can, and indeed do, go several days without a cigarette, without any ill-effects, cravings or mood swings. So, how does that square with the idea of addiction?

It's all very well swallowing all the misguided myths about smoking, but to regurgitate them and apply them to individuals, who could well have a different experience, as well as having done the research necessary to refute such allegations, is little more than provocation.

And I notice no-one is putting up their hand to the evils of the car ownership. Which is just about par for the course with the holier than thou brigade.

Goodstich wrote

Quote

 banning cars of certain types might well be in the future? 

End quote

Methinks true colours emerging!!!!!!!!!

Ban cars I dont like

Ban Alcohol I dont like

Ban all Tobacco

Ban McDonalds

Ban all people I dont like

Ban any opinion I dont like

Ban breathing without my authority

I am always correct in all my opinions and smoking is worse than anything anyone can do 

So will you all just DO AS I SAY 

GJ & Anglo

you carry on then. Good luck.

'Ban all people I dont like'

 Now there's a thought , GL ........