Liverpool FC Forum

[LFC2007]

but how can they decide? the pubs are not owned by the government? they are owned by indivduals who pay the governemtn to run!

it should be up to the pub owner, unless the government owns pubs, then they can do what they like!

Because the individual has the right to work in a healthy work environment - it is about respecting the health of others. If every pub/restaurant in the UK was smoking only, where does someone who aspires to be a top bartender go - they are forced to work in a smoking environment?

Where are their rights?

Do they also not have a right?

Where are their aspirations left?

waiters and barstaff dont have aspirations!!! if they did they wouldnt be waiters or bar staff!!!!

the owner of the pub should have the right to decide whther the premises that own should be smoking or non smoking.

the staff have the right to decide to work in a smoke atmosphere or not.

the non smoker has the right to f*ck off if they dont like it.

now the non smoker has no rights? a man buys a pub. he buys it himself, with me?

now he cant smoke on land he owns because the government says so? the government doesnt own the land, how can they have the right?

it has to be about choice and democracy and the freedom to decide for yourself!

the government is taking that away and you like it?

commie

Waiters and ba staff do have aspirations, aspirations in the HOSPITALITY AND LEISURE industry, they may want to become a manager one day.

Why should they have to go out of their way to accomodate a dirty habit?

[dawson99]

now he cant smoke on land he owns because the government says so? the government doesnt own the land, how can they have the right?

Wrong. he can smoke on that land if he has a private residence above.

Is it that hard to go up those stairs and light up, with me?

he shouldnt have to. he owns the pub, should be his choice.

when the government takes away choice you know its going wrong. we shouldnt be scared of our government, our government should be scared of us.

[LFC2007]

If I didn't want to fight I wouldn't join the Army. If I didn't want to deal with criminals I wouldn't join the police, if I didn't want to breath in smoke and smell of alcohol I wouldnt work behind a bar.

No, if you want to be a waiter you have the right just like you have in the police force to work in a non-smoking environment.

[LFC2007]

now he cant smoke on land he owns because the government says so? the government doesnt own the land, how can they have the right?

Wrong. he can smoke on that land if he has a private residence above.

Is it that hard to go up those stairs and light up, with me?

he shouldnt have to. he owns the pub, should be his choice.

when the government takes away choice you know its going wrong. we shouldnt be scared of our government, our government should be scared of us.

The government exists to protect the interests of the plural society.

Should people have the freedom to murder?

Is that a freedom we are being deprived under legislation also?

[account deleted by request]

He has freedom of choice, if he doesn't like his job for whatever reason he leaves.

[dawson99]

oh...f*ck off!!!

the industry for hundreds of years has had  smoking. now suddenly the staff are complaining?
im sorry but thats their fault for working there. and the fault of the manager. he should tell them that there is smoke. but then its not equal f*cking opportunities!!!

it is utter madness, cant believe you cant see it. the government already controls what we watch, what we say, where we demonstrate, now where we can smoke, what next?

[shanks72]

Cigarette smoke is an invisible killer...

if there were people going into places beating others up, then the govt would be expected to do something...it would not be tolerated!!

But because the poisons in cig' smoke are invisibe then it is assummed they aren't really there.Smokers go around blindly convincing themselves that they aren't harming anyone.

When the reality is as if they were to physically attack someone...and at last this reality has been recognised.

The govt's job is to safeguard it's people however it deems best. And yes there are other hazards and maybe they will be dealt with, but smoking is a very 'in your face' one and thankfully something is being done about it.

[LFC2007]

oh...f*ck off!!!

the industry for hundreds of years has had  smoking. now suddenly the staff are complaining?
im sorry but thats their fault for working there. and the fault of the manager. he should tell them that there is smoke. but then its not equal f*cking opportunities!!!

it is utter madness, cant believe you cant see it. the government already controls what we watch, what we say, where we demonstrate, now where we can smoke, what next?

Oh feck off, go and buy an island in the pacific and call it smokers island, you can build your own bar, make your own laws and smoke all day long.

The industry for hundreds of years hasn't realised the health effects of smoking. It's only been recently when the medical evidence of passive smoking has become overwhelming that this law has been introduced.

Belive me I can see it Dawson, I have my view you have yours and we can disagree. But the law will be there soon and I'm glad I won't have to put up with some ar.se who can't be fecked to nip outside for a quick fag.

Government control?

It's all relative.

[LFC2007]

He has freedom of choice, if he doesn't like his job for whatever reason he leaves.

That is not freedom of choice that is FORCED.

A bar worker has NO choice about the environment they work in, if they are dedicated to their work or want to be a bar manager how do they have a choice?

They don't, they have to seek a new job.

[shanks72]

oh...f*ck off!!!

the industry for hundreds of years has had  smoking. now suddenly the staff are complaining?
im sorry but thats their fault for working there. and the fault of the manager. he should tell them that there is smoke. but then its not equal f*cking opportunities!!!

it is utter madness, cant believe you cant see it. the government already controls what we watch, what we say, where we demonstrate, now where we can smoke, what next?

Oh feck off, go and buy an island in the pacific and call it smokers island, you can build your own bar, make your own laws and smoke all day long.

The industry for hundreds of years hasn't realised the health effects of smoking. It's only been recently when the medical evidence of passive smoking has become overwhelming that this law has been introduced.

Belive me I can see it Dawson, I have my view you have yours and we can disagree. But the law will be there soon and I'm glad I won't have to put up with some ar.se who can't be fecked to nip outside for a quick fag.

Government control?

It's all relative.

Nice one!.. 

[dawson99]

we will always disagree on tis one.

i think my civil liberties are being taken over by the government, u dont.

it just comes down to how much control the government should have over our lives... i think they have too much control. you dont.

i think i have the right to smoke as i buy the cigarettes and pay a f*ckload of taxes to do this. you dont.

i think we live in a country where we should be able to protest, where people can still eat red meat, drink alcohol and smoke a cig if they want. you dont.

i guess i just want a little more control over my life than you do. id lvoe to see what the government does now.

1: you cant smoke in public places even if owned privately!!!
2: car drivers have to pay to go on certain roads
3: u have to buy a tv licence, there is a reduction if u r blind!!!
4: if u drop something bio-degradeable on the floor like an apple core u can be fined up to £250 on the spot
5: u cant deompnstrate within 1km of the houses of parliament
6: cant hunt foxes, even tho they are a menace
7: if a woman gets pregnant she cannot be demoted or anything (sorry, but for men jobs are more important than to women, for women the kid will become the most important part of there life and the work WILL suffer, fact)

[Kharhaz]

Im a smoker and agree to a point with dawson, but I also agree with non smokers.  I dont like to smell smoke while im eating so yeah the restaurant ban im all for, its not fair on others. However, for many long years people have smoked and drank, and the non smokers dont mind the smoke, they dont like it but its down to the company in which they enjoy. The government are turning into dictators, we cant smoke inside a company in which we work or drink, fine by me, everywhere ive worked have had the same policy, without the ban. But it really is a case of the government saying what we can and cant do. Driving isnt a necessity, we can work locally and walk, why dont they ban cars and the emissions they produce? Because the people in government use cars, so that will never happen.

[account deleted by request]

And here's the arsenic answer btw:

"Epidemiological evidence has indicated that arsenic and cigarette smoking exposure act synergistically to increase the incidence of lung cancer. Since oxidative damage of DNA has been linked to cancer, our hypothesis is that aerosolized arsenic and cigarette smoke work synergistically to increase oxidative stress and increase DNA oxidation in the lung. To test this hypothesis male Syrian golden hamsters were exposed to room air (control), aerosolized arsenic compounds (3.2 mg/m 3 for 30 minutes), cigarette smoke (5 mg/m 3 for 30 minutes), or both smoke and arsenic. Exposures were for 5 days/week for 5 or 28-days. Animals were sacrificed one day after the last exposure. In the 28-day group, glutathione levels and DNA oxidation (8-oxo-2′-deoxyguanosine (8-oxo-dG)) were determined. Our results show that in the 28-day arsenic/smoke group there was a significant decrease in both the reduced and total glutathione levels compared with arsenic or smoke alone. This correlated with a 5-fold increase in DNA oxidation as shown by HPLC. Immunohistochemical localization of 8-oxo-dG showed increase staining in nuclei of airway epithelium and subadjacent interstitial cells. These results show that dual exposure of arsenic and cigarette smoke at environmentally relevant levels can act synergistically to cause DNA damage. "

(1989 Report of the Surgeon General  p. 80).

Most of these chemicals can only be found in quantities measured in nanograms, picograms and femtograms.  Many cannot even be detected in these amounts: their presence is simply theorized rather than measured.  To bring those quantities into a real world perspective, take a saltshaker and shake out a few grains of salt.  A single grain of that salt will weigh in the ballpark of 100 million picograms! (Allen Blackman. Chemistry Magazine 10/08/01).

To refer back to our earlier example of arsenic, a nonsmoker would have to work with a smoker 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year, for well over a hundred years to be exposed to a quantity of arsenic equal to one grain of salt.


Know any 100+year old barstaff?

[LFC2007]

we will always disagree on tis one.

i think my civil liberties are being taken over by the government, u dont.

it just comes down to how much control the government should have over our lives... i think they have too much control. you dont.

i think i have the right to smoke as i buy the cigarettes and pay a f*ckload of taxes to do this. you dont.

i think we live in a country where we should be able to protest, where people can still eat red meat, drink alcohol and smoke a cig if they want. you dont.

i guess i just want a little more control over my life than you do. id lvoe to see what the government does now.

1: you cant smoke in public places even if owned privately!!!
2: car drivers have to pay to go on certain roads
3: u have to buy a tv licence, there is a reduction if u r blind!!!
4: if u drop something bio-degradeable on the floor like an apple core u can be fined up to £250 on the spot
5: u cant deompnstrate within 1km of the houses of parliament
6: cant hunt foxes, even tho they are a menace
7: if a woman gets pregnant she cannot be demoted or anything (sorry, but for men jobs are more important than to women, for women the kid will become the most important part of there life and the work WILL suffer, fact)

You've made some wrong assumptions there Dawson,

1) Our civil liberties nowadays are relative to a) the past and b) other countries across the world.

Put in perspective and it is clear that Britain enjoys many more civil liberties than most of the world.

2) I think the government has too much control in certain areas of our lives, stealth taxes for example. I also think however that the government has a responsibility to protect individual liberties, one such liberty is the right to work in an environment that doesn't harm your health.

3) You have the right to smoke, you pay taxes on cigarettes. You can smoke in private, that is your liberty. Does it dominate your life so much as to demand to smoke in th epresence of other people? In the knowledge that you are harming them?

4) I don't think we shouldn't live in a country where we are not able to eat red meat, drink alcohol or smoke a cig. You can do the two first things wherever you like, and you can smoke in private so as not to harm others. Is that not a reasonable compromise for those who want to work in a smoke free environment? Even if that is their aspiration to work in an area where they have lived all their lives? Should they have to move to an area where smoking is not allowed?
Just because smokers don't want to go outside for a fag?



On the other issues you have not asked me my opinion, so your assumptions are wrong.

[LFC2007]

And here's the arsenic answer btw:

"Epidemiological evidence has indicated that arsenic and cigarette smoking exposure act synergistically to increase the incidence of lung cancer. Since oxidative damage of DNA has been linked to cancer, our hypothesis is that aerosolized arsenic and cigarette smoke work synergistically to increase oxidative stress and increase DNA oxidation in the lung. To test this hypothesis male Syrian golden hamsters were exposed to room air (control), aerosolized arsenic compounds (3.2 mg/m 3 for 30 minutes), cigarette smoke (5 mg/m 3 for 30 minutes), or both smoke and arsenic. Exposures were for 5 days/week for 5 or 28-days. Animals were sacrificed one day after the last exposure. In the 28-day group, glutathione levels and DNA oxidation (8-oxo-2′-deoxyguanosine (8-oxo-dG)) were determined. Our results show that in the 28-day arsenic/smoke group there was a significant decrease in both the reduced and total glutathione levels compared with arsenic or smoke alone. This correlated with a 5-fold increase in DNA oxidation as shown by HPLC. Immunohistochemical localization of 8-oxo-dG showed increase staining in nuclei of airway epithelium and subadjacent interstitial cells. These results show that dual exposure of arsenic and cigarette smoke at environmentally relevant levels can act synergistically to cause DNA damage. "

(1989 Report of the Surgeon General  p. 80).

Most of these chemicals can only be found in quantities measured in nanograms, picograms and femtograms.  Many cannot even be detected in these amounts: their presence is simply theorized rather than measured.  To bring those quantities into a real world perspective, take a saltshaker and shake out a few grains of salt.  A single grain of that salt will weigh in the ballpark of 100 million picograms! (Allen Blackman. Chemistry Magazine 10/08/01).

To refer back to our earlier example of arsenic, a nonsmoker would have to work with a smoker 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year, for well over a hundred years to be exposed to a quantity of arsenic equal to one grain of salt.


Know any 100+year old barstaff?

Although it's an argument over nothing, smoking KILLS - fact there is no question about the deadliness of the chemicals in cigarette smoke. The article you have cited is 18 years old. Times have moved on, my article is recent and I will try and find an exact date for you there.