[Archived] Smoking In The Riverside Loos At Halftime

[Sandiway Blue]

But just how dangerous is secondary smoking ?

I've never smoked a ciggy in my life but I simply don't accept this notion that passive smoking kills or even harms anyone .It's just nothing more than being slightly annoying when some ignorant bugger blows it your way - but that's a social problem more than a health problem . I suspect many people are taking in more propoganda from the health fascists than any smoke that might be out there .

You're also telling me that very few places have dangerous levels of fumes from cars ! ?

I think what you mean is that it's not been the policy of any government to highlight the problem of petrol and diesel fumes - it's too much of a toughy for them to solve .

Much easier to point the finger at smokers , bully them , and brainwash the gullible into thinking the nanny state is caring and knows best .

It'll be the Jews next .

Ask Roy Castle

[colin]

As a long standing smoker I fully understand the ban. It's not just some kind of "Nanny state" thing. It's protecting people from anti-social people like myself.

We make the pub stink, we make people's clothes smell.

We haven't smoked in our house for 12 years. It made it stink & we have a daughter to consider.

I don't know why non-smoking people who just happen to have jobs at pubs should have to put up with the filthy habit.

I've managed to go through all the home games this eason without lighting up. (Oh my! what a martyr!)

Live with it.

The stuff about car exhausts is a red herring. That's another issue.

[Anti Euro Smiths Fan]

I don't know why non-smoking people who just happen to have jobs at pubs should have to put up with the filthy habit.

As well as not smoking in your house for 12 years, I presume that during the years that the smoking ban wasn't in place, you didn't ever light up in a pub - believing as you do that non-smoking people shouldn't have to put up with the filthy habit from people like yourself ?

I'm a non-smoker myself. For anyone who didn't follow the "July 1st smoking ban" thread on the ICBINF section and who didn't see the link below, it's an interesting article from the singer Joe Jackson on what he perceives to be the exaggerated dangers of passive smoking.

LINK HERE

[colin]

As well as not smoking in your house for 12 years, I presume that during the years that the smoking ban wasn't in place, you didn't ever light up in a pub - believing as you do that non-smoking people shouldn't have to put up with the filthy habit from people like you

rself ?

A very good point Smithy, to which I have no answer. Guilty as charged. You've got me "bang to rights."

Hey, I'm not Mr Perfect, I'm not pretending to be.

[American Rover12]

On the contrary - it is even more stupid and dangerous than cigarettes.

That's not true, but thats another topic altogether.

EDIT: I wasn't disagreeing with the stupid part, just so we're all on the same page =]

[Tris]

But I think people should have the option to go outside for a cigarette if they want to. Freedom of choice. The only exception to this is on a plane where it isn't possible just to nip outside for one. It cant be too hard to have a controlled area outside each stand where people can have a quick smoke.

I've managed to go through all the home games this eason without lighting up. (Oh my! what a martyr!)

Absolutely nothing wrong with having a controlled area outside the stands IMO - in fact if smokers wanted the idea followed up I'm sure one of the resident Fans Forum members would happily take it to the next meeting.

That said, I have a feeling that the type of youth spotted smoking in the BBE Lower concourse is doing so simply because they get more of a kick from heroically breaking the rules in front of so many people than from the cigarette itself.

Whereas more "seasoned" smokers like Colin appear to be able to tough out the 90 minutes.

[Cocker]

I gave up smoking when my son was born - which was nice (and remember, there isnt a smoking ban in the Isle of Man yet) however, there was nothing I wanted more at half time at the footy that a pint and a fag to calm things down a bit. I was one of these smokers that didnt enjoy the smell of smoke but loved to smoke and the half time fag was always enjoyed. I do sympathise with people who cant get their fix anymore but also it must be better for those trying to enjoy their pie without a load of smoke blowing at them while they eat it.

[Ben-2000]

Absolutely nothing wrong with having a controlled area outside the stands IMO - in fact if smokers wanted the idea followed up I'm sure one of the resident Fans Forum members would happily take it to the next meeting.

That said, I have a feeling that the type of youth spotted smoking in the BBE Lower concourse is doing so simply because they get more of a kick from heroically breaking the rules in front of so many people than from the cigarette itself.

Whereas more "seasoned" smokers like Colin appear to be able to tough out the 90 minutes.

This is something I would like followed up. As well as letting smokers have their half-time fag it would no longer be necessary for stewards to be on the look out for people smoking and having to approach them to tell the to extinguish the cigarette (or at least no where near as much). All the smokers would be outside and not finding a place to have a sneaky one and the stewards would have better uses for their time.

[dcbrfc]

Just so I can have my say. I smoke and am completely for the smoking ban. Yes I was ready for a fag when I left the ground on Sunday but I wasn't getting desperate! The less smokey atmosphere you get in pubs and clubs, as well as at Ewood is much more pleasant and I don't mind going outside for a fag where I'm not annoying anyone who doesn't smoke themselves.

[brfcshabba]

Everton + Liverpool

Looks like it isn't just Ewood.

[Ben-2000]

I would imagine it's happening at every football ground in the country.

The smoking ban is not a problem anywhere else because you can choose to go outside for 5 mins where as if it's the same as Ewood you can't at half time.

[Hughesy]

Exactly! Its not allowed in public places and Ewood is for the public, get over it!

Those people who are breaking the law by smoking in the loos or trying to light up hoping no-one will be bothered have no respect for anyone else...

[ABBEY]

Exactly! Its not allowed in public places and Ewood is for the public, get over it!

apart from certain "cafes" in blackburn who cited a way of life ..allegdly

[OJRovers]

On a slightly different, but connected, point, I heard on Radio Lancs that Burnley are going to throw out any supporters caught smoking at their ground.

Good thing Stan Ternant is not their manager still, he wouldn't last the match without getting kicked out.

[waggy]

plenty off people are still alive who have smoked 20 fags every day off there life,the goverment used to encourage people to smoke .now a smoker is treated as a leper,or in some instances worse.as a non-smoker it really tickles me that the worst anti-smoking brigade are ex-smokers

[roversmum]

Trouble is, the message doesn't seem to be getting round to the youngsters not to start the daft habit in the first place.........

[adopted scouser]

You could get run down by a car tomorrow, go on, have a fag.

[American]

A very good point Smithy, to which I have no answer. Guilty as charged. You've got me "bang to rights."

Hey, I'm not Mr Perfect, I'm not pretending to be.

Actually, you usually are...

As for my opinion (if anyone cares), I'm a non-smoker who is adamantly against the government banning smoking from privately owned businesses. That being said, Rovers seemed to be initiating the ban before the new laws went into effect. It is a private business that has the right to allow or not allow smoking if it wants. You, as a smoker (not aimed at Colin), has the right to not give the business your money if you don't like the rules they lay down.

I've seen arenas here and in Canada that open up sections outside of the gates and cordon the area off for smokers to pop out for a quick ciggie with no problems.

[tonygreenbank]

You could get run down by a car tomorrow, go on, have a fag.

You could well do if the driver was smoking at the time.

[ABBEY]

tell you what after i saw my dad die of lung cancer due to the ciggies it baffles me as to why anyomne would even want to smoke..it was heartbreaking to see him with his neck broke,jaw broke and in excruciating pain...Ive never had a cig in my life it just seems pointless.

[den]

But just how dangerous is secondary smoking ?

I've never smoked a ciggy in my life but I simply don't accept this notion that passive smoking kills or even harms anyone .It's just nothing more than being slightly annoying when some ignorant bugger blows it your way - but that's a social problem more than a health problem . I suspect many people are taking in more propoganda from the health fascists than any smoke that might be out there .

Why wouldn't passive smoking harm anyone Phil? It's still the same combination of carcogenic chemicals that are being inhaled. - Except that the passive smoker is breathing in these fumes without the protection of the cigarette's filter. The smoke is MORE carcogenic.

[Sparky Marky]

There was nothing like the whiff of tabacco when you made it up the steps in the old blackburn end..ahh...takes me back...

[blue phil]

Why wouldn't passive smoking harm anyone Phil? It's still the same combination of carcogenic chemicals that are being inhaled. - Except that the passive smoker is breathing in these fumes without the protection of the cigarette's filter. The smoke is MORE carcogenic.

Maybe it is if you CHOOSE to take in the smoke all day and night - then it may very well be harmful . But how much would you have to take in before it actually contributed to serious harm let alone death ? Not half as dangerous as walking down the road alongside a traffic jam I reckon but a much easier target for the Health Nannies .....

Somebody mentioned Roy Castle earlier as if it's written in tablets of stone somewhere that passive smoking killed him as opposed , for example , to a genetic predeliction to cancer .

And even if it did kill him ....well (without sounding callous , which I'm not when it comes to cancer) , he did have the choice of not playing to smoke filled halls every night .

That's what is being denied people - freedom of choice . When some ignorant bugger used to smoke near me in the pub ....I'd simply move away . Relying on Nanny State to intervene is a bit pathetic IMO .

[den]

Maybe it is if you CHOOSE to take in the smoke all day and night - then it may very well be harmful . But how much would you have to take in before it actually contributed to serious harm let alone death ? Not half as dangerous as walking down the road alongside a traffic jam I reckon but a much easier target for the Health Nannies .....

Somebody mentioned Roy Castle earlier as if it's written in tablets of stone somewhere that passive smoking killed him as opposed , for example , to a genetic predeliction to cancer .

And even if it did kill him ....well (without sounding callous , which I'm not when it comes to cancer) , he did have the choice of not playing to smoke filled halls every night .

That's what is being denied people - freedom of choice . When some ignorant bugger used to smoke near me in the pub ....I'd simply move away . Relying on Nanny State to intervene is a bit pathetic IMO .

Lung cancer isn't genetic Phil, something must cause it. For certain smoking does.

Anyway, you didn't answer the question - why wouldn't passive smoking cause lung cancer, when smoking certainly does. I don't want to divert this topic, nor am I being clever. Seems a good question to me.

[Alan75]

Actually, you usually are...

As for my opinion (if anyone cares), I'm a non-smoker who is adamantly against the government banning smoking from privately owned businesses. That being said, Rovers seemed to be initiating the ban before the new laws went into effect. It is a private business that has the right to allow or not allow smoking if it wants. You, as a smoker (not aimed at Colin), has the right to not give the business your money if you don't like the rules they lay down.

I've seen arenas here and in Canada that open up sections outside of the gates and cordon the area off for smokers to pop out for a quick ciggie with no problems.

Private businesses do not have an option. Its a blanket ban on no smoking. Rovers or any other business would be fined for breaking the law if they allowed smoking on the premises. Heck you arent even allowed to smoke in a company car any longer.