Smoking in public places

[opus57]

Hi folks

I know that there was a topic about this subject, but the last post there was in March 2006 and so I think it is OK to start a new topic...

Now then: These days happened something very interesting in Switzerland: The parliaments passed a new law about smoking in public places. Why is this something special? Because restrictions of public smoking are absolutely new in Switzerland. This law says: Smoking is interdicted in public buildings and buildings of the administration, hospitals, vehicles of public transport, restaurants and bars without two rooms (one for non-smokers and one for smokers). But bars and restaurants can  request special authorizations if they are not able to build a second room up (the medias are calling this law "Smoking restriction light"). This is new in Switzerland because one year ago, every train and every public building had a smoking-corner or something like that and in every bar and restaurant was no non-smoking-area. But... one year ago you have been able to buy cigarettes at 16 years. This changed too. Now you have to be 18. Or you can buy the "lung snacks" at a cigarette machine.

I post this here, because I wonder how the world is changing and all countries on this planet are working against the poor people who are addicted to nicotine... If the people of a country hates smoking so much, there wouldn't be so much people who begin smoking. So bars and restaurants prohibit smoking without a law if there are sooo many people who get disturbed by the smokers (I know there is yet something else: the health problems (cancer, strokes, etc.) but a population should be intelligent enough to realize that, wouldn't it?)

Or do you have another opinion to that?

PS: In Switzerland are 31% of all people smoking (USA: 21%)

[steve jones]

I have mixed feelings.

In the UK, we've had several anti smoking measures put in place over a short period of time - ad campaigns, changes in age restriction and ultimately a ban in all public places. Yet, at the same time they're opening up the possibilities for drinkers - wide scale media promotion (wine is the 'new black' in this country  ), changes in licensing laws enabling bars to serve 24 / 7, marketing of drinks to youngsters, etc.

To me, this sounds like a gross double standard. We can go into a pub and drink for 24 hours a day... but we cant smoke a fag as well? This all leads me to believe that, once again, this whole anti smoking campaign is nothing to do our wellbeing, rather to satisfy some political / economic end.

That said...

Personally, Im glad smoking has been banned. Im not a smoker (quit 18 months ago) and dont appreciate having to suffer smoke polluted environments while eating at a restaurant or whatever.

However, I think its crazy that they should ban it in pubs. I mean, having a pint, a bag of pork scratchings and a fag is what 'the pub' is all about! If you cant go indulge in these vices at the pub, where the hell l can you? Isnt that the whole point???

Ban smoking in restaurants, work places, shops, etc... but leave the pub alone imo.

But if they're going to take the moral high ground on smoking, they should DEFINATELY do so with alcohol too. No one likes a double standard.

SJ

[thalbergmad]

To me, this sounds like a gross double standard. We can go into a pub and drink for 24 hours a day... but we cant smoke a fag as well?

It does seem strange. Thanks to Labour it is much easier to drink yourself to death and gamble yourself into oblivion, but you cannot have a smoke in a pub.

Perhaps the government realised that since 35% of cigs smoked are contraband, they would prefer to try to catch people out and fine them for smoking to recover loss of revenue.

Thal

[wotgoplunk]

There's a double-standard in place because smoking not only harms the person, but those around them.

No one likes going to a pub/restaurant and having to inhale everyone's second-hand smoke.

Alcohol affects you and you only, unless you get well and truly drunk. So therefore, tighter restrictions on alcohol, a la Norway.

[elspeth]

I'm a special case when it comes to appreciating the smoking ban in enclosed public spaces now in place in the UK. I'm allergic to nicotine - being in a smoky environment makes me ill. Prior to the ban - living in a big city - there was one pub in the whole city centre that had a decent non-smoking room, and even then the corridor outside was a permitted smoking area so it was 'less smoke' rather than 'no smoke'.

I wonder if the current ban hasn't gone a little too far, especially in view of the alcohol consumption double standard, but in the past - I couldn't go in pubs. Couldn't just go for a night out with friends. If I wanted to eat out it had to be a proper restaurant, not a pub. If I was standing waiting for a bus or a train, I frequently had to leave the queue under the shelter and go stand in the rain because people could smoke there and didn't have the courtesy to ask if the people around them minded their smoking.

I have nothing against smokers per se - I just wish that they were (I realise this is a gross generalisation) more considerate as a group. There are people around like me for whom being around smokers is not just unpleasant as a lifestyle option but actively a problem. Prior to the bans, no provision was made for people with problems like mine. Because of all those people with an addiction, and their 'right to choose' to smoke, those people like me whose lives it makes a misery were effectively denied rights. Sure, I can choose not to go to pubs if I don't want to breathe people's smoke. But in that case I can't go out for a quiet drink after work if I feel like it. Can't go out with my friends unless we go to a restaurant or a theatre or cinema where non-smoking premises are the norm. Can't get in a company car if the user smokes in it. Can't stand in a bus queue under a shelter. Can't wait for trains on the platform. I don't think I'm overly demanding, while smoking is legal I just want equal provision for those of us don't want to have to share enclosed spaces with people who are smoking. And unfortunately for smokers, as it's their habit that creates the problem, it's their 'right to smoke' which must therefore be curtailed.

[leahcim]

I think the problem is that they want people to stop smoking but they go around the houses about it rather than just banning it.

Now you won't necessarily get medical treatment for example.

Recently having noticed that people in Ireland still smoke, except, because of the ban, they do it outside now. Rather than suffering in the cold as the anti lobby perhaps hoped, they have heaters. Well, d'oh, what did they expect?

So the anti-smoking lot have decided to try and tax patio heaters based on the environmental impact. [Which is precisely the kind of political nonsense we're going to have to suffer over "climate change" for years now] One daft MP even said that it was "heating the outside air" as though the last few thousand years of civilization have used some deeper magic to keep warm.

As for me. I haven't been able to smoke inside at any place of work since about 1988 or so, around which time most places had either smoking rooms or smokers standing outside.
It was hardly "new" for a lot of workers.

Since 1998 or so I hadn't smoked inside my house for my son's sake. Around the time the current ban was passed and announced I haven't smoked at all - which is well over a year before the law actually came into effect IIRC, I'm not sure I would call that a 'short time' but I guess it's relative.

Why pubs? Well as SJ said he was happy about a ban in a work place I guess he doesn't work in a pub. Some do though. That said, they excuse some work places on the grounds that people live there, so I guess some pubs have regulars that may as well live there and they could make an argument along those lines

[ramithediv]

I gave up smoking cigarettes not long after the ban in pubs came in.

I do have a small cigar now and then.

Given up going to the pub now too, due to the extortionate price of a pint.

[steve jones]

It does seem strange. Thanks to Labour it is much easier to drink yourself to death and gamble yourself into oblivion, but you cannot have a smoke in a pub.

Perhaps the government realised that since 35% of cigs smoked are contraband, they would prefer to try to catch people out and fine them for smoking to recover loss of revenue.

Thal

I just think that smoking is not economically viable anymore. Whereas wine clearly is! Perhaps Big Tone made a few deals with the continent to consume X number of gallons per year. Who knows.

But what I do know is that I cringe when I see these functioning alcohols pontificating on 'Richard and Judy' about their drinking habits. Makes me sick. I feel like going on there with a joint and a pint... wonder if Id get to have civilized japes with Richard too? 

Vices are vices, at the end of the day.

SJ

[steve jones]

There's a double-standard in place because smoking not only harms the person, but those around them.

No one likes going to a pub/restaurant and having to inhale everyone's second-hand smoke.

Alcohol affects you and you only, unless you get well and truly drunk. So therefore, tighter restrictions on alcohol, a la Norway.

Does it though? Im not sure that mass alcoholism is quite so socially transparent as you'd like to suggest. I think that it has a significant social toll.

Though yes, Id agree that in most cases smoking may be more immediately inconvenient for the public. Indeed, I am very glad that smoking is banned in most places. My main issue is with the pub - a place specifically intended for those who wish to drink, smoke, perhaps tell the occassional crude joke, etc.

To me, banning smoking in a pub is like banning cheering at a football game. It just makes no sense!

You might say that not all pub goers are smokers. Indeed, its perhaps true that more arent! But that doesnt change the fact that pubs are really the last safe haven for the smoker / drinker. Thats the point. Yet these days, the breweries seem to be changing that concept. Nowadays, pubs seem to be family places where you pay through the nose for substandard, frozen food and watered down beer!

I guess my real 'beef' is the with the on going watering down of British culture. I worry about what might be lost, should we destroy such traditional British institutions. How will this affect our national identity?

SJ

[steve jones]

I think the problem is that they want people to stop smoking but they go around the houses about it rather than just banning it.

I agree.

Though Iv no idea how they'd enforce a ban. And given the shambles encompassing cannabis regulation, perhaps the government is concerned about demonstrating further just how incapable they are to control such substances?

Why bother with all of that if they can just convince not to smoke?

Indeed, they seem able to manipulate people into doing pretty much anything these days.

Why pubs? Well as SJ said he was happy about a ban in a work place I guess he doesn't work in a pub.

Lol, very true.

Errr, well as said above, I feel that pubs are kind of an institution in Britain. They are a place where people go to do those very things - smoking, drinking, etc. Pub culture, love it or hate it, is very much part of the British culture. And I am worried that by constantly whittling away at it, that it might in time become watered down into insignificance.

For me, British culture is something that should be protected. Probably not the most PC of views, but frankly, I never was one for PC anyway! 

SJ

[ramithediv]

I guess my real 'beef' is the with the on going watering down of British culture. I worry about what might be lost, should we destroy such traditional British institutions. How will this affect our national identity?

SJ

There's not much left.

We'll all be speaking Polish soon anyway.

[steve jones]

There's not much left.

We'll all be speaking Polish soon anyway.

Dont even get me started mate...

I was in Lichfield today. You know that they keep poaching the carp out of that central pool? The council have had to post a request in the local paper for them to stop it!

SJ

[steve jones]

I gave up smoking cigarettes not long after the ban in pubs came in.

I do have a small cigar now and then.

Given up going to the pub now too, due to the extortionate price of a pint.

Tsssssh, dont get me started AGAIN!

Its just insane.

But as you say, the silver lining has to be that most of us cant afford to drink and smoke anymore, lol.

I quit 18 months ago. I dont smoke at all now. Though I must confess, I still get mild cravings. Just talking about smoking is making me want one. Cigarette addiction is way more powerful than I ever imagined as a smoker.

SJ

[opus57]

I have nothing against smokers per se - I just wish that they were (I realise this is a gross generalisation) more considerate as a group. There are people around like me for whom being around smokers is not just unpleasant as a lifestyle option but actively a problem. Prior to the bans, no provision was made for people with problems like mine. Because of all those people with an addiction, and their 'right to choose' to smoke, those people like me whose lives it makes a misery were effectively denied rights. Sure, I can choose not to go to pubs if I don't want to breathe people's smoke. But in that case I can't go out for a quiet drink after work if I feel like it. Can't go out with my friends unless we go to a restaurant or a theatre or cinema where non-smoking premises are the norm. Can't get in a company car if the user smokes in it. Can't stand in a bus queue under a shelter. Can't wait for trains on the platform. I don't think I'm overly demanding, while smoking is legal I just want equal provision for those of us don't want to have to share enclosed spaces with people who are smoking. And unfortunately for smokers, as it's their habit that creates the problem, it's their 'right to smoke' which must therefore be curtailed.

This is exactly that what makes me agreeing with smoking restrictions. But I say purposely "restrictions" and not "bans" because I think, that it is necessary that both, smokers and non-smokers, have their rights and their free spaces to be and to do what they want, either drinking or smoking cigarettes (or weed?).

Further: Every smoker has to comprehend that there were more non-smokers than smokers and that in public places (e.g pubs and bars) are people who have to work there and who are maybe not very happy about being "besmoked"...

So I'm smoker, but I respect everybody who does not want to smoke passively when I have to take my portion of nicotine. So I ask always if I disturb somebody when I smoke or I wait until we're outside the pub...

REPECT is the key - on both sides.

[steve jones]

REPECT is the key - on both sides.

Very well said.


You know, my father always tells me that 'when he were a boy' pubs had specific smoking rooms. No one smoked in the lounge, only in the smoking room. I think in the US they call them cigar rooms? Anyway, point being, people had the respect to use them.

Nowadays, we are seriously lacking in that essential commodity. And THAT is the problem.

SJ

[thalbergmad]

For me, British culture is something that should be protected.

It no longer exists.

Labour has banned it in case it upsets someone who has been in the Country for 35 minutes.

Thal

[steve jones]

It no longer exists.

Labour has banned it in case it upsets someone who has been in the Country for 35 minutes.

Thal

Not in my house mate!

I still eat cold curry for breakfast and celebrate Christmas (every Friday) 

And they say British culture is dead...

SJ

[ramithediv]

Now both stop it.

You'll get me started. And I don't have the time tonight. 

[steve jones]

Now both stop it.

You'll get me started. And I don't have the time tonight. 

Lol 

SJ

[opus57]

Now both stop it.

You'll get me started. And I don't have the time tonight. 

Please! Be tolerant

[thalbergmad]

Breathing in a public space will be next on the Labour Party's every growing legislation.

My local Council sent me a leaflet advising that smoking in a bus stop was now illegal. Perhaps they failed to notice that my local stop is open on 2 sides and the glass has been kicked out of the other 2 and has been like that for some months.

There was talk of banning smoking whilst driving and i have heard that some council employees do not have to enter into a house where there are known smokers.

The health and safety as well as the PC brigade have been hard ar work recently. Two community police officers stood by and watched a 10 year old boy drown in a lake and were supported by their superiors, as it was considered dangerous for them to attempt a rescue. Playing conkers has been banned in the schools and it is OK to wear items displaying a religious faith as long as its not Christianity.

Anway, i am going to put on a turban and go out on my motorbike. It's the only way to avoid getting nicked for not wearing a helmet. After this, i am going to attempt to buy a bottle of whiskey from the Muslim cashier at Tesco's, get raging drunk and sing "I'm dreaming of a white Christmas" outside the 7th Day Adventist Church.

If i get beaten up and taken to hospital, i will pretend i am an Somalian and don't understand English. This will ensure i get helped first, whilst the taxpayers die on trollies in the car park. If my teeth are damaged, i will put on a silly accent and get free treatment from an NHS dentist, whilst the taxpayers join 3 mile long waiting lists or remortgage their houses for private treament. Perhaps my free dentist might be one of our Egyptian imports who qualified overseas by treating camels.

I was thinking of applying for a council house, but unfortunately i am white and in full time employment and have been paying tax for the last 20 years. I was thinking of changing my name to Dracul, faking a Romanian passport and depositing myself, my 6 wives and 48 children at the council offices. I could then get a council house for free whilst earning £1000 a week by mugging pensioners and selling clothes pegs and gold dust outside shopping centres. Of course, i would never be deported as i would claim the Romanian  Police would persecute me for stealing a donkey in 1975.

God, i am beginning to sound like Pianistimo.

Goodnight.

Thal

[opus57]

Okay... I think this is a very contructive solution

Joking apart: Exactly this is the problem: these laws hurt exactly the wrong people: it doesn't matter what your social background is, or you how high your taxes are. It's becoming a witchhunt...

[opus57]

What in hell's name wrote I? I'm a bit confused about myself... okay, it's late in the night. I'll try again tomorrow...

[leahcim]

Is it free Daily Mail week at McDonalds again?

 

[steve jones]

The health and safety as well as the PC brigade have been hard ar work recently. Two community police officers stood by and watched a 10 year old boy drown in a lake and were supported by their superiors, as it was considered dangerous for them to attempt a rescue.

You know, imo you have to wonder about the kind of person who just stands there and watches that... regardless of what orders they'd been given!

I mean, they were specials after all... its hardly as if they were going to get fired!

Disgusting... thats the only word I could think of when reading that article.

SJ

[ahinton]

Breathing in a public space will be next on the Labour Party's every growing legislation.

Probably so; after all, it's yet another case of avoidable CO2 emission, is it not? - and we all know how that kind of thing contributes to "climate change" don't we?!...

My local Council sent me a leaflet advising that smoking in a bus stop was now illegal. Perhaps they failed to notice that my local stop is open on 2 sides and the glass has been kicked out of the other 2 and has been like that for some months.

But Thal, do you have no sympathy at all for the economic plight of your local council? Surely you can understand that the cost of mailing out this and similar leaflets to all the good citizens of Le Fin des Graves leaves no money over to fund the repair of your local bus stop? Perhaps you might care to be a good citizen and repair it yourself?

There was talk of banning smoking whilst driving and i have heard that some council employees do not have to enter into a house where there are known smokers.

I'd not heard of the latter one but certainly the former; actually, that might not be such a bad idea in one way, to the extent that it might provide a more balanced view of what may affect driving safety than the obsessive plugging of alcohol consumption alone. What puzzles me about the latter is how council employees obtain advance information as to whether properties are inhabited by "known smokers"; does your local authority require you to declare your status as a smoker?...

The health and safety as well as the PC brigade have been hard ar work recently. Two community police officers stood by and watched a 10 year old boy drown in a lake and were supported by their superiors, as it was considered dangerous for them to attempt a rescue. Playing conkers has been banned in the schools and it is OK to wear items displaying a religious faith as long as its not Christianity.

I'm not quite sure how the last of these is related to Health & Safety, but your points are well taken; maybe the censorious attitude to the wearing of anything suggestive of Christianity owes its origin to a desire to avoid the risk of possible pianistimisation, in which case you might perhaps find it in yourself to take a more sympathetic view of it...

Anway, i am going to put on a turban and go out on my motorbike. It's the only way to avoid getting nicked for not wearing a helmet.

Well, you could go out on your bicycle without helmet or turban and not be prosecuted, I think (or have I missed the piece of legislation that was passed at 02.25.38 yesterday?)...

After this, i am going to attempt to buy a bottle of whiskey

What? That Irish stuff? When you can get good Scottish malt whisky? Shame upon you!

from the Muslim cashier at Tesco's, get raging drunk and sing "I'm dreaming of a white Christmas" outside the 7th Day Adventist Church.

If you're going to get that drunk, I hope for your own - er - Health & Safety that your local Seventh Day Adventist Church is close to your local Tesco. By the way, will anyone be folming this?

If i get beaten up and taken to hospital, i will pretend i am an Somalian and don't understand English. This will ensure i get helped first, whilst the taxpayers die on trollies in the car park. If my teeth are damaged, i will put on a silly accent and get free treatment from an NHS dentist, whilst the taxpayers join 3 mile long waiting lists or remortgage their houses for private treament. Perhaps my free dentist might be one of our Egyptian imports who qualified overseas by treating camels.

And you'd still visit that dentist just because he/she was free, would you? - even though he/she might not have been trained to know the difference betwee and root canal and the Suez Canal?...

I was thinking of applying for a council house, but unfortunately i am white and in full time employment and have been paying tax for the last 20 years. I was thinking of changing my name to Dracul, faking a Romanian passport and depositing myself, my 6 wives and 48 children at the council offices. I could then get a council house for free whilst earning £1000 a week by mugging pensioners and selling clothes pegs and gold dust outside shopping centres. Of course, i would never be deported as i would claim the Romanian  Police would persecute me for stealing a donkey in 1975.

But if you're a full time employee, why would you even WANT a council house? Anyway, didn;t you have one once and then buy it?

God, i am beginning to sound like Pianistimo.

Not at all! OK, this is probably your longest post ever, but length isn't everything (whatever soliloquy might tell you); at least your post was coherent at all times and amusing at almost all times as well - and it doesn't mention "God" until the final sentence.

No - very droll, Thal! Well done!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I think the problem is that they want people to stop smoking but they go around the houses about it rather than just banning it.

You're absolutely right, of course, although how successful a nicotinic equivalent of US alcohol prohibition would be in practice I have no idea...

Recently having noticed that people in Ireland still smoke, except, because of the ban, they do it outside now. Rather than suffering in the cold as the anti lobby perhaps hoped, they have heaters. Well, d'oh, what did they expect?

So the anti-smoking lot have decided to try and tax patio heaters based on the environmental impact. [Which is precisely the kind of political nonsense we're going to have to suffer over "climate change" for years now]

Tell me about it! Or rather don't! It's not just dangerous rubbish that gets talked about this subject but extremely expensive rubbish in the long run; indeed, I can well envisage some nations' economies eventually being paralysed by the immense cost of the imposition of so-called "climate change" defence measures. But that's another topic and I'd better not get started on the modern myths of man-made "climate change"; I'll confine myself for now to asking the almost certainly rhetorical question as to whether "envirnmentally conscious" governments would be encouraging us all to increase our gas-guzzling and other activities if the general perception was that we are at risk from global cooling?

One daft MP even said that it was "heating the outside air" as though the last few thousand years of civilization have used some deeper magic to keep warm.

Well, what would you expect from an MP other than hot air? That's what we pay them for, isn't it?!

Why pubs? Well as SJ said he was happy about a ban in a work place I guess he doesn't work in a pub. Some do though. That said, they excuse some work places on the grounds that people live there, so I guess some pubs have regulars that may as well live there and they could make an argument along those lines

Why pubs indeed, if restaurants are to be treated differently? More and more pubs are turning into restaurants anyway, especially in the area where I live, so I will easily envisage yet more money being wasted on petty bureaucrats deciding whether certain places are to be classified as "pubs" or "restaurants" for this particular purpose, just as another lot are now charged with deciding what does or does not constitute a three bedroom house for Home Information Pack purposes.

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

against all odds, i will make a short and concise point (unlike alistair and thal - who don't even smoke.  hmm.  i don't smoke either - but that is not the point).  smoke travels.  you can have a person over here and their smoke over there.  you can be near a person smoking and be utterly unable to breath if you are allergic to smoke.  therefore, it is in the best interests of all if the smoke is outside and far away from the general public and babies in particular. 

[ahinton]

against all odds, i will make a short and concise point (unlike alistair and thal - who don't even smoke.  hmm.  i don't smoke either - but that is not the point).  smoke travels.  you can have a person over here and their smoke over there.  you can be near a person smoking and be utterly unable to breath if you are allergic to smoke.  therefore, it is in the best interests of all if the smoke is outside and far away from the general public and babies in particular. 

Of course. That's what's called "passive smoking", as is well known.

This is a pithier post than yours, but I'm not competing...

Best,

Alistair

[steve jones]

against all odds, i will make a short and concise point (unlike alistair and thal - who don't even smoke.  hmm.  i don't smoke either - but that is not the point).  smoke travels.  you can have a person over here and their smoke over there.  you can be near a person smoking and be utterly unable to breath if you are allergic to smoke.  therefore, it is in the best interests of all if the smoke is outside and far away from the general public and babies in particular. 

True.

But lets put things in perspective... passive smoking is not nice... but neither is getting kicked in the face by a drunken yob!!!

Mass alcoholism is, imo, far more socially destructive than smoking. I would FAR rather live in a country that allowed smoking in controlled public areas than one that promotes alcoholism the way ours does. Again, we run into this gross double standard.

Look, to my knowledge, passive smoking was never monumental problem that it is being claimed these days. From what Im told by those older than myself... pubs, workplaces, etc, all had smoking rooms with smoking being restricted to them. Admittedly, some clubs, restaurants, etc, did allow smoking. And thats not good. But this could easily be controlled.

If you ask me, our government is once again trying to BLAG us. Just like they do with everything else health related. And the only end is to please the figures. Pure and simple.

And smoking is only a fraction of the issue. The big issue imo is with food. Diabetes and obesity are going through the roof in the UK. Many, many people are this way due to following our governments dietary advice over the past 30 years or so. Now they're doing a U-turn and blaming people for following said advice!

When I was a kid, you were being told that bread, potato, pasta... best things on gods green earth. Now we're all diabetic and obese... well, its your own fault for eating all those carbs!

Malnutrition is a massive problem. People simply arent getting the nutrients they need to function. Yet, due to EU bullshit, we are no longer 'allowed' to eat the stuff that our bodies require!!! I mean, we're all zinc deficient... and they're culling our beef stocks into non-existence.

Its all bullshit... if you can excuse my French. And this is just another reason why I get upset over the smoking issue. Anti smoking campaigns use 'health and wellbeing' as a smoke screen (no pun intended) to cover the fact they're manipulating and controlling our thoughts, our actions. The fact is we could quite easily accommodate for smokers with little or no risk to non-smokers. Quite easily.

They allowed widescale advertising of tobacco products. They continue to allow it to be sold. They clearly dont have the balls to ban it outright (as it would make them look foolish and inept). So instead, the consumer gets the shaft - they use PC to make the smoker todays 'dirty dog'.

Its facism wrapped up in pretty left wing Christmas paper. Opp, sorry, I meant 'holidays' paper 

Rant over 

SJ

[leahcim]

You sound like me in the first 3 days after stopping [albeit with a different perspective - I fail to see where all these obese kids are?] ....you're not using patches are you?

[elspeth]

There are implications of smoking besides the health issues both of direct and passive smoking. The theatre I work in used to permit smoking in certain areas, and the reason it was outlawed there wasn't the health of the customers, or I regret to say of the staff - it was because of the fire hazards. Our insurance company, especially in the light of funding we had just secured for refurbishment works, would not insure us if we continued to allow smoking because of the fire risk.

As someone who works in a public building, I've put out more bin fires than I care to recollect beause a smoker dropped a hot match or cigarette end into a bin. Even worse, it was a regular occurence to have to tell a customer off because they would drop their cigarette end on the carpet - I kid you not - and sometimes not even bother to tread on it to extinguish it.

People are irresponsible, and when you run a public building - especially a historically significant one - you can't afford to let them play with fire. If they do, they'll burn the building down given half the chance. Even if our insurers would countenance it, both the thoughts of the potential injuries to public and staff, and the very idea of losing the building, are too frightful to contemplate.

[steve jones]

You sound like me in the first 3 days after stopping [albeit with a different perspective - I fail to see where all these obese kids are?] ....you're not using patches are you?

You dont think that obesity and diabetes is on increase, with almost certainty that its due to our 'third world' diet?

Lol, actually, Iv been smoke free for 18 months. Never used patches. I heard they irritate the skin. Didnt fancy that. Nope, I did it the old fashioned way... by chewing through my bottom lip 

You might not believe this but I find passive smoking to be quite intolerable. Strangely, I hated it equally as a smoker. I remember thinking that smoke followed me around, always finding a way to go up my nose. I really dont like it.

But I try to remain 'real' enough not to jump on the band wagon with this one. Smoking is not good, but lets get real - we have a growing drug epidemic, mass alcoholism... frankly, I couldnt give a hoot if three people at work want to sit and smoke in the designated smoking room. There are far bigger fish to fry.

"People are irresponsible, and when you run a public building - especially a historically significant one - you can't afford to let them play with fire."

Would you also ban the motor car? A great big bomb on wheels!

People are irresponsible. But sadly we cant change that. And neither can we 'child lock' the world. The best we can do is educate people and attempt to cultivate a responsible and intelligent society.

Hence my outrage at the promotion of alcohol in the face of such a PC bs antismoking campaign.

SJ

[steve jones]

...

[thalbergmad]

I fail to see where all these obese kids are?]

Outside the kebab shop next to St John's School.

How about normal kids. If half the population is either obese or anorexic, is anyone the correct weight?

Thal

[leahcim]

You dont think that obesity and diabetes is on increase, with almost certainty that its due to our 'third world' diet?

I'd be willing to bet anorexia has risen too.

Well, I work it out roughly like this, I've been to a doctor once in the last 20 years. This suggests that I've not been that unhealthy. My Dad has been once in the last 40 years or so.

Prior to that, bar when I was a baby, I haven't been prodded,  weighed or measured since.

So what do they know about which illnesses my Dad or I have or even how much we weigh or how tall we are? If it matters he is, and has always been significantly heavier than I am.

3 days a week I walk my son to school, I note his school is full of kids of various shapes, tall, short, a few large, plenty skinny. No different to 3 decades ago when I went when there were some huge kids but most of us weren't. Same story with the other parents. Some might say "Ah, but these are primary school kids"?

Fair enough but 3 days a week we take him canoing, where, as well as his age group I see a wide range of people from 8 to 80. Again, some are large, some are skinny, with everything in between. Now of course, you're gonna say "But that's because the people you see all exercise and keep fit"

Well yes, but that's precisely the point....you can't look at bunch of ill people - and that's the group that doctors see - and deduce that we're all getting fat and ill and then start banning chips. We all used to die 30 years earlier too - what did they expect to happen to the number of ill and old people as a result of people still being alive?

I saw an advert clip for that "doctors in the street" with the doctor claiming that a huge number [I can't remember exactly] of people in whatever city they were in must have type 2 diabetes and be blissfully unaware of it. Because he says so? What's the opposite of the placebo effect? "You're all fat and ugly, but you're not going to die, you can suffer for years on our meds...MUHAHAHAHA are you scared yet? If not our next bulletin is about dangerous Muslims in your area!"

From that I deduce that not only do they really not have the first clue what, if anything people like I have or don't have, they are actually making statistics up about my health to support their agenda. In fact, the worst thing about it is, I bet I'm more unusual because I'm not registered with a doctor, whereas I suspect most people who never have to visit a doctor, even for decades, are still registered and that group will forms a chunk of the £100k+ a year the average useless-for-any-decent-medical-job GP screws from his practice.

Problem is, they are solving nothing. Once you get rid of whatever makes the top of the list, something else will become the top instead. People don't stop becoming ill, they just get something else.

I will become ill with something eventually, as will my Dad - at which point I fully expect some patronising buffoon addicted to nitrous oxide, pain meds and cough mixture to wail at me for daring to do whatever they've decide is the new morally wrong cause of illness "Oh, you're not still having sex are you? Sheesh...don't you read the papers? I don't think you should be treated until you stop..."

As for drinking, I disagree with you that they are doing nothing. I think it's just earlier in the process than smoking is.

It's the same with switching off lights and saving power, we had signs in our schools 30 years ago saying to switch of lights and don't smoke. Now, like smoking, things are on a much bigger scale for climate change and set to get even more so. Drinking and diet are just catching up.

[steve jones]

I'd be willing to bet anorexia has risen too.

I think you're right. Bulimia even more so.

I was in Miami a few months ago with a good friend of mine. She works as a pharmacist at a local hospital. She explained to me that MANY of the girls in that area were suffering with Bulimia. They still over eat... it just doesnt down for long! From what I can gather, over eating is far worse in the US than it is in the UK.

In the UK, I tend to think that the quality of the food is more the issue, along with the fact that people are very poorly educated towards food (imo). Kids are squeamish about eating anything that once looked like it was alive... yet they are happy to turn a blind eye to the truely harmful foods that they're eat.

For instance, we continue to consume WAY to much trans fats in our diet.

I saw an advert clip for that "doctors in the street" with the doctor claiming that a huge number [I can't remember exactly] of people in whatever city they were in must have type 2 diabetes and be blissfully unaware of it. Because he says so?

I think you're quite right to be weary of what the TV tells you. Without doubt.

However, I do honestly believe that diabetes is becoming a massive problem in the UK. The way we consume sugar is simple not good for us. Again, its all arranged that we are to consume X amount of sugar per year. The only way to avoid it is to sack any and all processed foods.

Problem is, they are solving nothing. Once you get rid of whatever makes the top of the list, something else will become the top instead. People don't stop becoming ill, they just get something else.

Sadly, thinks rarely get solved. They get controlled, usually through ingoing drug therapy. But as you say, once something is controlled, focus moves away from it. This is the real dangerous paradox of commercial medicine - it aims to treat rather than cure. By finding an adequate treatment, they're effectively destroying any chance of a cure.

Ofcourse, that is a whole other debate...

As for drinking, I disagree with you that they are doing nothing. I think it's just earlier in the process than smoking is.

Im sure there are powers, somewhere, trying to do something about the drink problem. Sadly, they are failing miserably. Over the past ten years, social changes have occured regarding attitudes to alcohol that will take decades to correct. It makes me sick (and I dont mean the drink).

It's the same with switching off lights and saving power, we had signs in our schools 30 years ago saying to switch of lights and don't smoke. Now, like smoking, things are on a much bigger scale for climate change and set to get even more so. Drinking and diet are just catching up.

Dont even get me started on this climate change bs. Next they'll be taxing you to take a crap  And the sad thing is, Im only half jesting!

[steve jones]

Incidentally, I discovered recently that trans fats are pretty much the next most dangerous consumable... after cigarettes.

And this is the food that we eat! Most people have no idea that it even exists! The stuff is poison.

And smoking is the problem??? Atleast we know how harmful smoking is. We can choice not to smoke, and we can choose to move away from people who are. But how are we to protect ourselves from poisons hidden in our food that we arent even aware of?

These are the issues I want to see dealt with.

SJ

[pianistimo]

i think the issue is choice.  can a non-smoking person choose to not breath smoke.  a drinking person can choose to drink and isn't pouring what they drink into the next person's glass.  however, drinking and driving has always been a problem until massive legislation in the last few years here and stiff fines and penalties.  also, car accidents being treated as manslaughter. 

what would scare me from drinking is to merely recall twice or three times seeing people in the emergency room or hospital in the final stages of renal failure.  people think their kidneys will last forever.  they don't.  and, it's rather terrible how they go.

my grandfather died of emphazema (sp?) from smoking all his life.  i'm not sure which is worse.  gasping for the last breath *with oxygen machine or tubes - or renal failure and everything bloating on you.  also, the accompanying blindness and whatever else goes wrong.  sepsis or something. 

as i see it - if you are tempted to try these things - at least do it in moderation.  don't be addicted.  it just ruins your health and your lungs.  if you know how it feels to fill up every last cavity in your lungs with air (and how you feel) - then you lose it over three years and can only breath in 1/2 capacity - it must be a terrible feeling.  after all, your brain needs oxygen to do simple tasks.

doctors say that when a person breaks a rib - they should attempt to still breath in to full capacity once in a while so that the cells of the lungs don't die and they lose lung capacity.  effectively, this is what smoking does for you without breaking any ribs.

[elspeth]

Would you also ban the motor car? A great big bomb on wheels!

People are irresponsible. But sadly we cant change that. And neither can we 'child lock' the world. The best we can do is educate people and attempt to cultivate a responsible and intelligent society.

Of course I wouldn't ban the car by extension, and nobody mentioned child-locking the world. But if someone dropped a lighted cigarette end on the carpet in your sitting room - and did so repeatedly, came to see you every week and did it every time -  I bet you wouldn't appreciate having to constantly repair and replace your carpets at best and rescue your family from your burning home at worst, and having no means of tracing the person who did the damage and not having any recourse against them because you allowed smoking in your home, and if your insurance premium didn't cover accidental fires started by the smoking that you allow nobody will help you pay to have your house rebuilt. Incidentally paying such a premium would bankrupt you and mean the loss of your home anyway.

One thing you soon learn in running public buildings is that it doesn't matter how responsible and intelligent most people are, it's the idiot few you have to protect against, because it only takes one idiot to burn the building down when the reason for their having lit a match inside the building is not necessary and can be avoided.

[steve jones]

i think the issue is choice.  can a non-smoking person choose to not breath smoke.  a drinking person can choose to drink and isn't pouring what they drink into the next person's glass.

 


Well, today I think that non-smokers can very easily avoid smoke polluted environments. Its not about stopping breathing... just avoidance! Smoking is banned in public places, so avoiding it is not difficult. However, I still say that controlled smoke rooms would achieve the same end.

Drinking is quite different. Avoiding direct contact with alcohol is easy. But it is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid the rather dire social impacts.

what would scare me from drinking is to merely recall twice or three times seeing people in the emergency room or hospital at the final stages of renal failure.  people think their kidneys will last forever.  they don't.  and, it's rather terrible how they go.

I have a friend who was told in his late teens that he was going to die from liver damage. He cut down on his drinking, but he isnt the same person now. His mind has been damaged, without question. He is like someone who's had a serious head injury.

Binge drinking is a death sentance.

Speaking of the emergency room...

In the UK, instances of doctors and nurses being attacked by drunken patients is going through the roof. Its a brave man / woman who works the weekend A&E nightshift. This is just one example of how widespread alcoholism affects society. We can turn a blind eye, but who knows where it will end?

my grandfather died of emphazema (sp?) from smoking all his life.  i'm not sure which is worse.  gasping for the last breath *with oxygen machine or tubes - or renal failure and everything bloating on you.  also, the accompanying blindness and whatever else goes wrong.  sepsis or something. 

Mine too, actually. My great grand father died from smoking. Im not sure if it was cancer, bronchitis, emphazema or what.

Now that I think of it, I know a few old people who've been destroyed by smoking. One old lady who had throat cancer and lost most of her throat and tongue. Another was emphazema. Both still smoke!

Something this dangerous should simply be banned out right, taken off the shelves. Instead they ponder whether or not to legalise pot. Just insane.

See, it has to do with what makes them look good and NOTHING to do with the well being of the people.

SJ

[steve jones]

But if someone dropped a lighted cigarette end on the carpet in your sitting room - and did so repeatedly, came to see you every week and did it every time -  I bet you wouldn't appreciate having to constantly repair and replace your carpets at best and rescue your family from your burning home at worst

I see your point, but I think you're exaggerating it slightly.

If someone came into my house and constantly rocked my carpet, I ban smoking in my house. Infact, scratch that, I wouldnt allow smoking in my house at all! I'd open the back door and ask them to stand just outside on the patio.

My point was that legislation is not the answer to such issues. We live in a dangerous world. Im not sure that cigarettes burning my house down while I sleep is enough of a reason to ban them. A better solution would be to make sure people werent dense enough to make such fatal mistakes!

I mean, the house is full of far more dangerous things than a cigarette. So is the workplace quite often.

However, I think you're talking more about public buildings, right? You're saying that damage from smoking causes unnecessary expense to companies, yeh?

I wouldnt argue with that in the slightest. But again, neither would I use legislation to correct the problem. If maintaining a smoking room is too expensive for a company, then they should either charge those using it for its up keep or get rid of it.

Its kind of like this ladder ban. Just insane. For those not aware, its now illegal to use a ladder in the UK! Window cleaners are breaking the law by going up ladders... instead they have use these bizarre (and completely ineffective) Ghostbuster style water jets.

Talk about the nanny state...

SJ

[elspeth]

I see your point, but I think you're exaggerating it slightly.

Unfortunately I'm not. Every week there were new burns in our carpets, and we just don't have the money to keep up with that kind of damage when it can be easily avoided. The many can't smoke in our building (and haven't been able to for long before the official ban came in) because of the idiocy of the few - but it means that the building does remain open and well maintained and safe to all of them.

My point was that legislation is not the answer to such issues. We live in a dangerous world. Im not sure that cigarettes burning my house down while I sleep is enough of a reason to ban them. A better solution would be to make sure people werent dense enough to make such fatal mistakes!

I mean, the house is full of far more dangerous things than a cigarette. So is the workplace quite often.

I agree with you that legislation shouldn't be the answer, people have to live with risks. The difference is in who you have responsibilities to. If you choose to live with the possibility of your house burning down because someone in your household smokes - fine. But suppose you live in a terrace, are you prepared to accept the risk - and therefore liability, either moral or financial - for all the other households in the terrace, because if your house burns down theirs probably will too? Taking responsibility for yourself and your possessions and your environment is one thing, but as soon as you also have responsibility for others and their possessions and their surroundings, your approach to what is acceptable risk changes. Things that you would accept for yourself may not be acceptable when others are affected.

However, I think you're talking more about public buildings, right? You're saying that damage from smoking causes unnecessary expense to companies, yeh?

I wouldnt argue with that in the slightest. But again, neither would I use legislation to correct the problem. If maintaining a smoking room is too expensive for a company, then they should either charge those using it for its up keep or get rid of it.

For private companies whose premises aren't open to the public and are merely interested in providing staff facilities, I would agree with that provided the room is properly air conditioned and filtered - it's hard to filter air sufficiently to get all the smoke out before unleashing the air outside that room. The company I work for has neither the space nor the budget to provide that facility, so we don't do so. I have a feeling that most smokers, given the choice between smoking outside for free or smoking inside for a price would go outside, making the provision of an indoor smoking room rather a waste!

Its kind of like this ladder ban. Just insane. For those not aware, its now illegal to use a ladder in the UK! Window cleaners are breaking the law by going up ladders... instead they have use these bizarre (and completely ineffective) Ghostbuster style water jets.

Talk about the nanny state...

SJ

I hadn't heard of the ladder ban, that's insane!

[leahcim]

However, I do honestly believe that diabetes is becoming a massive problem in the UK. The way we consume sugar is simple not good for us. Again, its all arranged that we are to consume X amount of sugar per year. The only way to avoid it is to sack any and all processed foods.

Yeah. I'd be happy to accept the stats reflect an increase. But I still have the issue with attributing it across the board. If you [or someone] eat nothing but processed foods and weighs 22 stone that hasn't changed my diet or weight at all.

So you get this situation where people talk in literal terms saying things like "we all..."  and "everyone..." which simply is not the case.

The first thing they are tackling is kids. Because groups of people are such suckers when it comes to believing they know how to bring up kids better than parents.

Thus it's simple for them to sell a few arguments that people will happily accept to allow anything / everything to be controlled and banned if children might eat or drink one.

"Kids are dumb so they can't figure out what to eat themselves"

"Older kids carry knives and are manic ADD/ADHD psycho killers rampaging on a diet high in sugar and E numbers!"

"Giving your kid bad food is child abuse!"
That used to be punching them or sexual assault. Now even having the TV on too loud is "abuse of their delicate ears" "Experts estimate that loud TV listening accounts for as many as 4 million cases of premature presbycusis a year! That will cost the NHS 4 billion a year by 2012!".

"Big Corporations make profits from selling food!" I can see folk grabbing the pitchforks as I type that one.

"Mobile phones might be dangerous for children. Microwaves used in ovens and phones, heat fat and sugar more than healthy foods. If you give you kid a bad diet and a mobile, he'll have been burnt to crisp by the time he waddles from your 4x4 into the school"

So evidently you start to see ridiculous rules and regulations on what your child can buy at school and take to school in a packed lunch. What adverts can show them, What shops can sell them. But completely irrespective and ignoring what their health and diet is like, just based on false statements like "we all eat too much <insert supposedly bad thing>...."

[soliloquy]

*puff puff*

[steve jones]

So you get this situation where people talk in literal terms saying things like "we all..."  and "everyone..." which simply is not the case.

Indeed. Speaking for myself, "we all" refers to a trend rather than the literal.

Im quite sure there are MANY people who try to eat more wisely. Id like to think that I am one of them, attempting to eat a balanced diet and stay away from processed foods as much as possible.

Never the less, we cant ignore that food is way under regulated in the UK. Go to any supermarket and you'll diet foods contain similar quantities of salt, sugar the like as the regular foods. Infact, I gave my sister quite a shock when I pointed out that her Special K contained only a few less cals than the Crunchy Nut!

I find it shocking that such foods can be marketed as being healthy... or marketed towards children. And while ofcourse, we're not all eating this stuff, it is true that patterns are forming.

Its also true that it is practically impossible for the average Brit to source and purchase foods free from such crap. If only we were all Rick Stein! 

Personally, Id like to see harmful ingredients such as trans fats banned outright (as I believe they've tried to do in NY). Id also like to see adequate labelling of additives such as monosodium glutimate (not just 'natural flavorings'). I would DEFINATELY like to see some of the quality UK caught seafood actually reaching our supermarkets! We get some of the best prawns in the world, yet they all go abroad... meanwhile, we're paying extortionate prices for undersized, water filled rubbish.

But more than anything, I want to see a significant cut down on the sneaking of salt and sugar into our foods to satisfy economic ends. Hopefully then we could generalise in a more optimistic fashion.

So evidently you start to see ridiculous rules and regulations on what your child can buy at school and take to school in a packed lunch. What adverts can show them, What shops can sell them. But completely irrespective and ignoring what their health and diet is like, just based on false statements like "we all eat too much <insert supposedly bad thing>...."

Seriously though... Im hardly on the PC bandwagon, but I really do think that kids needs protecting from this crap.

My younger brother LOVES Dolmio sauces. But do you think he'll eat the sauces that we cook fresh? Will he hell as like. Frankly, the Dolmio sauce is not good stuff. They use sugar to mask that fact that its processed rubbish. Iv had worse... but not by much.

And this is really indicative of how many kids seem to think - Ronald McDonald will feed them things that there parents couldnt dream too. Given that these food manufactures simply cant be trusted to produce food that is SAFE for us to consume, Id prefer tighter regulations in this area.

Oh, and if I hear the word 'Omega 3' used one more time in some techno jargon bs marketing campaign, I think Im going to sit outside Sainsburys throwing cans of mackral at everyone to buy an Actimal! 

Seriously... inventing products to help treat our malnutrition. Here's a thought - lets try eating a balanced diet instead? Lets eat red meat, eggs, fish... god forbid, even drink a pint of milk!

Grrr... makes me narky 

I guess it bothers me because I have so many young kids in my family. I see how they this marketing affects them, and how the parents are too clueless to know whats best. Its really sad.

SJ

[steve jones]

*puff puff*

Twos?

SJ

[steve jones]

But I must apologize for taking off topic.

My point was that smoking is something pretty easily controlled. I question why all the fuss when there are other related health issues (such as alcohol, such as drugs, such as food) that are proving to have far greater social impacts.

It seems to me that society needs a 'bad guy'. Today that bad guy is the smoker. But really, this is only taking attention away from the REAL issues. People who drink two bottles of red a night looking down their nose at some guy smoking a fag on the street is pretty rich imo.

I mean, seriously... I know people who are significantly overweight, yet eat chocolate on a daily basis. Im not saying that is the sole reason for their weight problems, but Im betting it does help matters. Iv seen these same people get pretty darn arsey about smokers! It really seems to be a social attitude these days.

SJ

[pianistimo]

yes.  we should all start grabbing chocolate out of 'fat' people's hands to make up for it.  frankly, i find the ladder part the most disturbing of all.  as i see it, if you're going to expect someone else to follow the 'signs' - then transfatty's should be in big bold letters on packaging and caffeine should be replaced with decaf.  everyone should be in some state of withdrawl for society to work properly.  only having 1/4 withdrawing from smoking when  (am i understanding you correctly) 3/4 of the population in UK is drinking two bottles of 'red ' every night.  this is hypocrisy.  walk down to your corner liquor store tonight, steve.  demand that they do not give bottles to people who have been in some sort of rehab once already. 

or, just forget the stress of the whole thing and secretly smoke wherever you like.  i haven't really seen anyone majorly cut down here for it.  perhaps there is some sort of glass encasing that you can put around the end of the cigarette so that you can get double the inhaling properties.  remember - losing your throat and tongue to cancer is really quite beautiful.  and, of course, if you accidentally burn the trash can up - well, it's just a trash can.  they're quite containable.  nevermind the incidents where people burn themselves alive in bed.  that's just something the fire department has to deal with. 

ps i really have no strong opinion about this actually.  there is some property to tobacco that i find very calming and peaceful.  the only part i don't like is that in some restaurants you come out smelling like you'd participated in a bbq.  if you don't mind the smell in your hair - just sit close to a smoker and ask them to blow it into your hair.  typically, i don't sit in the smoking section (patio) - but the bathrooms usually get the smoke.

[ahinton]

Yeah. I'd be happy to accept the stats reflect an increase. But I still have the issue with attributing it across the board. If you [or someone] eat nothing but processed foods and weighs 22 stone that hasn't changed my diet or weight at all.

So you get this situation where people talk in literal terms saying things like "we all..."  and "everyone..." which simply is not the case.

The first thing they are tackling is kids. Because groups of people are such suckers when it comes to believing they know how to bring up kids better than parents.

Thus it's simple for them to sell a few arguments that people will happily accept to allow anything / everything to be controlled and banned if children might eat or drink one.

"Kids are dumb so they can't figure out what to eat themselves"

"Older kids carry knives and are manic ADD/ADHD psycho killers rampaging on a diet high in sugar and E numbers!"

"Giving your kid bad food is child abuse!"
That used to be punching them or sexual assault. Now even having the TV on too loud is "abuse of their delicate ears" "Experts estimate that loud TV listening accounts for as many as 4 million cases of premature presbycusis a year! That will cost the NHS 4 billion a year by 2012!".

"Big Corporations make profits from selling food!" I can see folk grabbing the pitchforks as I type that one.

"Mobile phones might be dangerous for children. Microwaves used in ovens and phones, heat fat and sugar more than healthy foods. If you give you kid a bad diet and a mobile, he'll have been burnt to crisp by the time he waddles from your 4x4 into the school"

So evidently you start to see ridiculous rules and regulations on what your child can buy at school and take to school in a packed lunch. What adverts can show them, What shops can sell them. But completely irrespective and ignoring what their health and diet is like, just based on false statements like "we all eat too much <insert supposedly bad thing>...."

Amusing as all this may sound, it all seems rather ridiculous. And it is. Sadly, however, it is pretty much true as well - and it doesn't stop at "health & safety" and dietary issues, either; a distinctly unhealthy combination of a compensation culture and a climate of obsessive industrial/personal over-regulation (oh for some "climate change there! - if only!) has conspired to create havoc and wholly unnecessary and unproductive stresses in the lives of many professionals, especially farmers, teachers, social services employees and financial advisers. Take the last of these, for example; any UK financial adviser has by law to maintain professional indemnity insurance in case claims are made against him/her - well, that's fair enough in itself, of course. Not content with that alone, however, the financial services regulator also insists upon what is termed "capital adequacy" - in other words, the maintenance of a hefty five-figure (or in some cases higher) sum permanently on instant access in an adviser's bank account "in order to meet any possible claims". So what's the point of the insurance, then? Regulatory answer (if you ask repeatedly and often enough to get one at all): "the maintenance of capital adequacy is a measure of how financial services firms can meet claims against them if their insurance company fails". Now that's a good one, coming from a regulator that also regulates insurance companies, is it not?!

I realise that this is slightly off the issues that you raised and still farther from that of the thread topic, but I frequently get the feeling that the ban on smoking in public places is symptomatic of a government that has become obsessed with "governing" as many aspects of people's lives as possible and is more interested in pursuing that kind of agenda than with the health of the nation.

Best,

Alistair