As a smoker I welcome the total ban on smoking in pubs etc in Scotland and feel sure that nearly all Scots (as the vast, vast majority in Ireland) will observe it.

However, it amazes me that there has been so much talk and action (rightly so) about smoking, nicotine addiction, passive smoking, the cost to the Health Service of smoking-related illnesses and so little worry about the extnsion of drinking hours.

Does anyone have any statistics that would allow a comparison of the relative effects on the health of drinkers and others of alcohol abuse as opposed to smoking? Is alcohol looked at seriously as the deeply addictive, mood-chaging, long-term depressant that it is with all its effects on the health of the drinker and others?

Deaths of excessive / alcoholic drinkers themselves that are directly or indirectly attributable to alcohol abuse? Deaths of drinkers themsleves and / or others because of excessive drinking - violence against the person, road accidents, suicides, accidents at work are some areas worth investigation. This says nothing of the cost to the Health Service of the above plus non-fatal but widespread treatment of patients whose conditions are directly or indirectty attributable to alcohol abuse. It says nothing of sex attacks, violence against emergency services, physical, mental and emotional abuse in the home of those who live with and love the alcoholic / excessive drinker. These too must cost the Health Services and the individual victims a great deal.


I accept that my smoking might well affect the health of others and pollute the atmosphere around them and I, therefore, accept the need to observe the laws of the land and of common courtesy. I am not afforded the same courtesy by many, many drinkers. I must also make it clear that these are not just those exiting the city centre bars at the weekend but also so-called respectable, clubs, bars and restaurants where I might just be looking for a quiet meal.

I do not attack, abuse, intimidate, frighten others. I do not pollute a quiet restaurant with loud, raucous, 'can everyone hear how important I am' conversation. It does anger me, however, that some of the most strident, allegedly educated, self-appointed guardians of the public from smoking do exactly this. I wonder also how many of these who would lay pariah status at the doors of the smoker may well be among the categories of drinkers outlined above.

It would be interesting to hear from anyone. The figures for smoking and health are well known. Does anyone have figures (World Health Organisation and other sources) that allow for any comparative study of all drinking related health issues as opposed to smoking?

I don't have any statistics, so I'll just make a general comment. I can remember a time in my family when alcohol, except in tiny quantities on very special occasions, was considered almost as 'naughty-naughty' as sex outside marriage. Smoking was considered rather a luxury, perhaps a waste of money, but not antisocial. Both my parents often smoked a cigarette - very occasionally two, after lunch on Sunday and sometimes after a substantial meal when on holiday.

Incidentally, I don't think I had a puritan upbringing.

In recent decades I've been amazed by the highly indulgent attitudes to drink shown at almost all levels from the government downwards. The duty on tobacco is raised annually in the U.K. but when was the duty on spirits last raised? I even recall a Chancellor of the Exchequer who used to celebrate his refusal to raise the duty by drinking a glass of whisky in the House of Commons! In some circles it's still considered all right to press drink on people, whereas trying to press a cigarette on another person would be regarded as unthinkable.

I agree, drink is one of the worst killers in the world.

However, I think the comparison is not quite exact. It is possible, for the majority of people, to drink in a socially acceptable way that has no adverse effects on health and safety. It is not possible to smoke in this fashion.

There is also the practical aspect. It is possible to ban smoking in a reasonably effective way, whereas past events here and in the US, have shown that banning drinking is not very effective. Governments prefer easy solutions that more or less work, as opposed to difficult, expensive, and ineffective ones (Don't we all?)

I don't think there could be an effective way to ban excessive drinking in public. However, just as cigarette smoke has negative effects on nonsmoking bystanders, alcohol is a killer of nondrinkers as well. How about the many people who drive while intoxicated? They are a public hazard indeed.

Comments thus far are all very interesting and the topic merits serious discussion. I'm not sure that I suggested banning alcohol - I was making the point that whilst opportunity to smoke in public places was being denied (rightly so), opportunity to drink was being extended. I suppose I was thinking (as Bloomsby points out) that there is a double standard process going on at high levels.

There is a suggestion that socially acceptable levels of drinking do not carry health and safety risks. Well, that depends on what socially accpetable levels are in different environments and who the arbiters are of what constitutes socially acceptable levels. Even legal limits can impair judgment and very few people who are out for the night and who are not driving stick to what would be a legal limit.

A lot of people who see alcoholic / excessive drinkers as 'down and outs', 'winos' etc may well be exhibiting some classical symptoms themselves. Not all road accidents, crime, violence against the person, sex attacks, arson etc attributable to drinking are caused by stereotypical alcoholics or highly visible drunks. There is much respectable mayhem going on. Even this much should be enough of a health and safety hazard to the drinker, his / her family and the public in general to raise some questions about the extension of opening hours.

Quote:

---

There is much respectable mayhem going on.

---

Exactly! There are some quite well off people who think it's rather 'classy' to drink too much and who even half boast about their hangovers and inability to work properly (or at all) the next day. As well as being 'recreation', it's become a form of ostentation, of conspicuous consumption, that seems to enjoy an unmistakable wink and nod of approval from the highest quarters. The majority of these drinkers are, in my experience, status conscious and aren't at all like the stereotypical drunkards who are often rather obviously pathetic. 'Classy' drinkers seem to have a knack of avoiding trouble with the police.

Incidentally, in England and Wales (and, I believe, also in other parts of the U.K.) there is a long-standing offence of being 'drunk and disorderly [in public]'. If no other offence is committed, this - perfectly sensibly - isn't treated as a serious offence. Obviously, if the person assaults someone it's a different matter.

At the very least, I'd like to see the duty on alcohol raised on the same basis as that on tobacco. The recent Budget, if I've understood it correctly, provides for increases in duty on beer and wines with the exception of sparkling wines; duty on spirits also remains unchanged. Another concession to 'respectable mayhem'?

I maybe have a different slant on this - my husband is an alcoholic. No one looking at him would ever suspect - even some people who had known us for years were startled when he went into rehab. He's always held a job, been law abiding (from the outside, anyway), never drunk and disorderly in public, etc. However, I would not count him as a person who can drink in a "socially acceptable way that has no adverse effects on health and safety", believe me.

However, there are many millions of people (the estimation is that 10% of the population is alcoholic) who can drink normally - a beer on a hot afternoon, a glass of wine with dinner now and then, two cocktails at a party. The drinking they do does not harm them not anyone else, and they can keep it up all their lives without bad effects.

I'm not sure what the tax situation on liquor is here - I know that cigarettes are highly taxed, and quite expensive. In the last little while, the city near here has been thinking of putting a minimum price on drinks in bars - in some places, happy hours offer drinks for 25 cents each, and there is a real problem of very drunk young men, mostly, hitting the streets compeltely out of control. The excessive and "conspicuous consumption" type of drinking mostly seems to confined to them, around here. Young men and some women, between the ages of 18 (our legal age) and 25 or so, are the worst offenders.

I am just a little confused, the topic title is about the smoking ban in Scotland but your post is really to do with the extended drinking hours in the UK and excessive consumption of alcohol.

Many of our member will neither know of the smoking ban in Scotland nor the extended opening hours in the UK. It can be very useful to provide a link to a news website giving background information, I find that the BBC can be very useful for such links.

Marrying the two subjects, I have a feeling that banning smoking in public houses will lead to a reduction of people drinking in them and often drinking and smoking go hand in hand. People will drink at home.

Point taken, Sue. Perhaps the topic should have been simply 'Smoking Bans'. I agree that it would have been helpful to have linked it to news website about the smoking ban and / or extended drinking hours. Perhaps when I am more adept in using the computer and less new to the website area I will be more proficient. Then I will be able to do so.

Responses, however, indicate that most people found little or no difficulty in ascertaining and debating some of the main implications irrespective of where they hailed from. They refer to both smoking and drinking and have acknowledged (whatever their take on it is) that there is an ambivalence / dichotomy and maybe even hypocrisy in the treatment of the two. I do not see any major confusion thus far in responses from whatever quarter. The main point was, I suppose to highlight the speed with which governments (whether UK, US, Irish) are prepared to act on smoking and how slow (if at all) they are to tackle excessive drinking.


The questions that could and should be put are applicable to both. They are both highly addictive drugs whose legality does not reduce their lethal potential. They both kill large numbers of those addicted to them. They both carry attendant serious illnesses. They both cost health services money. They both affect the lives, welfare and safety of others They both cause the deaths of others? Drink related crime is astronomical (murder, arson, sex attacks etc) this includes the high incidence of attacks on all emergency services- smoking does not, of itself do this. There are many, many forms of aggression brought about by drinking and they do not just occur in the city streets but behind closed doors and expensive curtains. Smoking is an easy target, drinking is not so easy.

Why aren't we hearing of proposed bans on drinking? Why aren't the anti-smoking activists as strident on this one? If a ban is too drastic, why aren't we hearing about cutailing drinking hours as opposed to extending it? Is drinking somehow more respectable, less harmful, less anti-social, less vulgar? Or is that smoking is the curse of the more respectable and drinking classes?

I think most people in countries around the world could identify with some of the questions. It would be helpful if anyone out there has any comparative studies. We hear all the time about how many die from smoking each year and how many die from passive smoking. How many die from drinking and being the victims of those who drink etc. I never hear this statistic anywhere.

I smoke, and I drink, and I like to do both at bars. I go to bars only about 3 times a year, and its for entertainment. I can't smoke in my house, and I don't get out of hand at a bar.

I have been a smoker for ten years and I can remember smoking in McDonald's and at the mall between stores. Now, its boo this an boo that with smokers.. and the prices rise and the social impact drives some to smoke only in private.

Second hand smoke is bad- yes. But aren't most of these whiners ex-smokers?

And if its a health issue, someone needs to tax fast food. The morbidly obese hurt my eyes.

I'm one of the lucky ones - I don't smoke, (never have) and don't drink excessively either. On the rare occasions I do go out however, into a smoky atmostphere, the smoke clings to your clothes.

Quote:

---

The morbidly obese hurt my eyes.

---

Unfortunately, not everyone is built the same!

shutupmichelle, please take care when posting, your comment could be very upsetting to some of our members who have struggled with weight problems not of their own making. Obesity is not always as a result of eating junk food, I have a weight problem myself and virtually never eat at fast food outlets, to me a visit to KFC is a definite treat, not a way of life.

<The morbidly obese hurt my eyes. >
I think this is probably one of the nastiest remarks I have seen in these forums for many a long year. It warrants an apology, I think. Shame on you.

It's also objectionable to call those people 'whiners' who object to second hand or passive smoking. Equally it simply isn't true that most of those who object are ex-smokers themselves. I've never smoked a cigarette, cigar, pipe or anything else in my life, and don't like breathing in other people's tobacco fumes, and there are many more like me I can assure you. There are also many children, who don't like the smell of tobacco fumes, and have just as much right to object as anybody else - and very few of those will be ex-smokers.

Oh dear. I smoke, I drink and I'm probably close to morbidly obese. You can imagine how popular I am ... (and how early I am going to die)

Since the smoking ban came in here last year (only to 50% of a licensed premises, will be total in a couple years) I probably go only about half the time I would have before the ban, I just don't enjoy it as much. It's not only the smoking thing though - there are so many other rules and regulations in pubs and clubs that it's just not half as fun as it used to be.

I am an ex-smoker (smoked for nearly 30 years) and do not complain about other people smoking.

a lot off the bitterness amongst smokers comes from the double standards of politicians ,
and the fact that prisoners are allowed to smoke in jail ,well we dont want to upset all those nice murderers do we ?? if anyone else lights up ,they are fined 50 pounds , failure to pay this fine results in jail , and then you can smoke, all seems a bit strange to me

as for passive smoking effecting children , surely car exhaust fumes they encounter in virtually all towns and cities nowadays is far worse

What strikes me is that when I was young (many moons ago) many people smoked and no one complained, ever, about other people smoking. Pregnant women smoked, and drank, and there were no health warnings on anything. Children were subjected to smoke all the time, I can even remember a teacher smoking in class, but I didn't know one, not one, child with asthma. Very odd.

nowaday its hard to find a child without asthma or some other allergy

all the parents i know who smoke , say they are going to stay at home to drink , and of course smoke , so surely banning it completely is the answer

or is it because the scottish msp,s had nearly a third of there pension fund invested in tobacco companies a reason this did not happen ??

scum10, do you mean make ALL smoking illegal? This just isn't possible. If you are advocating this then I must assume that you have never been a regular smoker. Giving up smoking when you have been smoking for years is not easy, in fact it can be very, very difficult so to make many people into criminals just isn't fair.

What I find very strange, however, is that many young people take up smoking. Unlike my generation, they were taught the dangers of smoking while they were young, cigarettes and tobacco packets carry health warnings which they didn't in my youth. They have no excuse to start smoking, they cannot claim ignorance such as we can.

well to make something semi illegal just doesnt make sense to me

and i dont know if it will be the same in england , but up here it is also illegal to smoke in your own home for 2 hours before a council worker comes to sort something in your home , in the case of a gas leak i can see that makes sense , but for anything else then surely we have even lost control of what we can and cannot do in our own home

and sue , i have smoked for 30 years now , so i know about how hard it is to stop , which reminds me of another thing , as i stood waiting to pay for my " stop smoking gum " in the chemist ( am trying to cut down ) the couple in front of me were given there methadone free of charge , and which they proceeded to drink in full few of kids , another shining example of todays culture , and as any doctor will tell you smoking is harder to kick than heroine
so " wheres my social worker " ?? and free handouts

Sorry for jumping to conclusions then, so you are advocating that they ought to turn you into a criminal if you cannot kick the habit? So you are saying that in Scotland you cannot smoke in your home for two hours prior to a council worker coming to your home, who is to know that you didn't have a cigarette then open a window or switch an ioniser on? Are you still allowed to smoke in the street?

I smoked for more than 30 years before quitting, then quit cold turkey.

sorry for the rant, havent had a smoke in hours , cannot get for a smoke at my work either , and i do 12 hour shifts, am not advocating them turning me into a criminal if i cannot quit , am stating the law as it stands , you will be a criminal if you cannot quit and happen to light up in the wrong place , the problem is its the local council who decide what is an enclosed space , such as a playpark or any other outdoor facility they own, if theres a fence around it they can count that as an enclosed space , so the law will be diffirent in each town you go to , so you could be breaking the law in one town and not another , just by going for a stroll in the local park and having a smoke

well done on kicking the habit , hopefully i will join you soon in the ranks of former smokers, am going to try, for my sanity as much as my health

Oh! OH! My first submission seems to have stirred up a hornet's nest in relation to the whole matter of smoking. This was not really my intention at all. It seems to me that, whether you are a smoker, as I am, a reformed smoker or a non-smoker that the ban on smoking in public places is here to stay. I don't think that there is much dispute about this any more (even among the more inveterate smokers).

Some interesting points have been raised about how the law defines or fails to define a public place. If the situation is as bad as the 1984 idea of the 'smoking police'replacing the 'thought police'- then this is incredible.

My point was, accepting the ban on smoking - why isn't there reason to extend this to drinking? We know that total prohibition does not work and there can be no return to the speakeasy and the bootleggers but why do we condone and facilitate extended drinking?