Smoking ban and friendships

windowgazer · 04-04-2005 02:43PM #1

Want to get people's thoughts on this:
Since the smoking ban came into effect whenever we go out as a group we invariably get split up. Initially the smokers pop out in 1s or 2s, then later they go on smoking missions in groups.. by the end of the night, all the smokers are camped outside and the non-smokers are inside. This has caused friction and a few misunderstandings among groups I've been out with and its getting me down! Any solutions? Should all the nonsmokers (and recovering smokers) shift ass and join the others outside? Should the smokers remember to pop back in a little more often?
Finally, anyone else share this experience, got any examples to share?
I am generally content with the ban, it has helped me give up and I feel much better the next day (no smelly clothes, rough throat etc), this is my only complaint.

RuggieBear · 04-04-2005 02:49PM

Good post....i've been seeing this happening with my friends over the last year too. in the end the majority (the non smokers) browbeat the others into staying put but there is still abit of resentment there.

Branoic · 04-04-2005 02:58PM

Yeah, good observations. I've got three rather seperate groups of friends. My "home" friends, my work friends, and my ex-college friends. I'm lucky in that none of my home friends, who are my closest, smoke. Of my work friends, there's so many of us that different groups going to different places has very little impact. The only thing I've noticed is that with my former college friends, a lot of them smoke, and they tend to set up camp outside. I've only gone out with them twice now since the ban came into effect cos to be honest I couldn't be arsed sitting outside when I don't smoke. I think the ban is a fantastic thing, and I love the clean fresh air in the pubs and nightclubs. I'm not gonna exchange the warmth of inside for the cold of outside.

_blank_ · 04-04-2005 03:04PM

With my friends, most of us smoke, and we usually take it in turns to go out smoking. Usually in 2's or 3's, then head back in, and let the next group head out.

I have not experienced this "setting up camp" outside at all.

Another group of friends, I am the only smoker, and one of the lads usually accompanies me out for a smoke, sometimes he just stays put though.

Static M.e. · 04-04-2005 03:45PM

Different groups of friends have differnt rules \ habits

But generally what happens is someone says anyone poping out for a smoke and then either half the table goes out or one person joins them or whatever. But they wouldnt leave a person on their own while they all went out someone would inevitably stay behind and keep the other person company.

No one seems to mind really, I know what you mean about everyone all ending up in one big smoking group outside but they are trying to have a good laugh too on there night out, besides some times the fun outside is way better than inside, if all the lads want to stay outside and drink I am more than happy to do so aswell.

I love the Ban, I think its Brillant !! when it really hit me though was on a stag in Copenhagen I had to leave a pub actaully leave it because the smoke inside was so bad, it was horrible and its not like im not use to smoking, all my friends smoke but it was just so god awfull. Its great to walk into pubs now that arent all smokey. Even my friends who smoke love it too, agreed its sometime's annoying when its a **** day outside and you dont have decent smoking shelter, but all of them are smoking way less and are really noticing it so they are all happy about that.

Personally I would do what ever enables you to have a better night, sometimes I go out side, sometimes I stay in <shrug> I hve fun either way to be honest

kenmc · 04-04-2005 03:52PM

none of my friends smoke so it's not an issue whatsoever.
lovin the ban. missed the ban when abroad though. ick.

DrIndy · 04-04-2005 04:01PM

On a note of consolation, the warm summer nights are on the way and everyone can just stay outside without being too cold....

Sleepy · 04-04-2005 04:06PM

It's pretty much determined my friends' choice of night clubs for the last year or so. We always go to places with nice heated beer gardens and set up camp outside.

Abdiel · 04-04-2005 04:21PM

Have noticed it quite a bit alright. Happened in Sin E last Saturday, load of us outside smoking and eventually just stayed out there, while a few others stayed inside most of the night, popping out occasionally to see if we were still there. To be honest outside was the best place to be not because all the "good people" were there as David Brent might say but just because it was too hot and packed inside. I think a lot of smokers find it easier as well as at least they can smoke if they want rather than being inside where they definitely cant.
It has led to a few incidents alright of smokers being accused of desserting the non-smokers - but that accusation can go both ways.

The last few times I've been in pubs in town and gone out for a smoke usually come back to find some women sitting in our seats - jackets, pints nothing seems to stop them, just get the usual "Oh we thought you were gone". So eventually we just say fookit and when we go outside next time usually end up staying out there - depends on the pub as well though. When drinking in the local and there's no danger of people robbing your seats or something, its a very orderly affair everyone on one cig per pint, usually while waiting on pints and so it's no big deal - doesnt be too packed either usually so you dont have to face that battle back through the pub after having a smoke.

seamus · 04-04-2005 04:45PM

I haven't experienced this camping outside thing either. The vast majority of pubs don't supply a beer garden type of place, so invariably the smokers have to come inside to drink (most places rightly won't allow you outside the door with a drink in your hand).

Wibbs · 04-04-2005 05:37PM

In my circles if there's a group of people and half of them are smokers the usual thing is for the group to decamp outside. The smokers can have a smoke in peace and the non smokers don't have to suffer the bodily odours, cleaning products and stale beer that can be quite bad in some places(especially nightclubs). has anyone else found this?(and I'm a smoker with a diminished sense of smell). I've even heard non smokers comment that the craic can be better outside. More flirting opportunities too

Mostly I do see a trend towards entertaining at home as the drink is much much cheaper, smoking is not an issue and if you want food it's cheaper than the rip off prices in pubs. The pubs are losing money and the off licenses are making a fortune.

As far as going abroad, I found the lack of gov nannying refreshing and if the pub was well ventilated the smoke was a non issue. It may surprise some that as someone who enjoys a smoke with a pint(the horror, the horror :rolleyes: ) I found a lot of Irish pubs pre ban to have levels of smoke that were very uncomfortable for me.

Tiffany · 05-04-2005 02:09AM

I find it annoying if there's, e.g., 3 of us in the bar and the other two go out for a smoke and i'm left there on my own looking like a twat for about 10 minutes. And I can't join them outside because our seats will be taken. (Not to mention, about 100 people ask if the seats are taken).

dearg_doom · 05-04-2005 11:49AM

Tiffany wrote:

I find it annoying if there's, e.g., 3 of us in the bar and the other two go out for a smoke and i'm left there on my own looking like a twat for about 10 minutes. And I can't join them outside because our seats will be taken. (Not to mention, about 100 people ask if the seats are taken).

I'm sure there'd be someone right beside ye if the place is packed...

Why not talk to them for a couple of minutes, don't worry they won't eat you/expect you to sleep with them!

LegacyUser · 05-04-2005 12:00PM

yep, i've had this too, not v nice.

feel like a fekin seat minder.

Tiffany wrote:

I find it annoying if there's, e.g., 3 of us in the bar and the other two go out for a smoke and i'm left there on my own looking like a twat for about 10 minutes. And I can't join them outside because our seats will be taken. (Not to mention, about 100 people ask if the seats are taken).

KdjaCL · 05-04-2005 12:16PM

Handy all pubs i drink in let us smoke inside in seperate rooms from main bar and lounge very cool.

Tho seat minders are pissy bastards when told to start smoking or stfu

kdjac

the_syco · 05-04-2005 01:07PM

In the Sugarclub, @ Boardstock2, there was about 10 of us in the smoking area, and there was usually only about 5 or less of us smoking. We were mainly talking and drinking.

Giblet · 05-04-2005 01:30PM

True, at Boardstock I went to the smoking area even though I don't smoke. Can hear better

Tiffany · 06-04-2005 01:57AM

dearg_doom wrote:

I'm sure there'd be someone right beside ye if the place is packed...

Why not talk to them for a couple of minutes, don't worry they won't eat you/expect you to sleep with them!

My mommy told me never to talk to strangers.

Agent Smith · 06-04-2005 03:01AM

i smoke, and what we doi grab a table outside, and if we cant, then the smokers nip outside, and the non smokers stay put.

it was weird when i was in london in november....

Tusky · 06-04-2005 08:53AM

Yup, its very anoying and can often 'almost' wreck a night out. Its really hard to have a chat when people are constantly getting up and leaving, coming back (or not coming back ) and changing seats constantly. I usually end up outside with the smokers.

rubadub · 06-04-2005 10:19AM

KdjaC wrote:

Handy all pubs i drink in let us smoke inside in seperate rooms from main bar and lounge very cool.

Where are these pubs. I was in a small little "old mans" pub the other week and a guy lit up, there was a lynch mob after him instantly screaming at him "put that out you fuking kunt!" etc. I was shocked at the response, first time I have seen somebody light up.
I too am a "seat minder" but would rather be left sitting on my own for 5mins than go back to the old days of suffering physical abuse/poisoning for hours. More and more people are smoking cannabis outside the pubs since it is easier to get away with.

Wibbs · 06-04-2005 11:22AM

Do you not think the terms physical abuse/poisoning are a tad overwrought? Fair enough if you don't like the smell on your clothes the next day(never liked it myself), but as has been pointed out by many commentators, the risks from passive smoking are of such statistical insignificance as to be dubious science at best and a PC propaganda at worst.

Check this link out; http://www.data-yard.net/11/aus.htm It's a long read but worth it just to put the risks in context and remember this is the risk from primary smoking.

Another interesting link well worth a read; http://www.lcolby.com/b-chap7.htm
It examines the methodology of the original study which showed a link between disease and smoking. One interesting point is that it seemed to show pipe and cigar smokers actually lived longer than non smokers. It's funny that was ignored by the zealots. :rolleyes:

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RMP/execsumm.html An interesting study by a respected researcher on the overlooked connection between medical radiation and lung cancer/heart disease where smoking is only one of the co-factors.

Now that the accepted evils of tobacco are in the public mind more researchers are free to examine the benefits of nicotine for diseases like alzheimers, parkinsons and ulcerative colitis. Diseases that smokers are less prone too.

Sorry for the rant guys, but one of the reasons I did some research on this was because of a guy I knew who was diagnosed with lung cancer at 42. When he told the doctors treating him that he was a lifetime non smoker, they in so many words basically accused him of lying. On the ward where he was being treated(in London) he found quite a number of lifetime non smokers, but the doctors just repeated the accepted dogma which angered and frustrated him. Luckily they got it early and he's in remission.

http://www.data-yard.net/10/chitri/lucachic.htm. One of the points raised in this article is that 20% of lung cancer patients are non smokers, 50% are ex smokers which leaves only 30% current smokers. You could almost argue that never smoking or continuing to smoke would be the best options statistically. You would be wrong, but it shows how shaky some of this tobacco related research can be.

Basically I'm saying, don't believe everything you read/hear.

rubadub · 06-04-2005 04:51PM

Wibbs wrote:

Do you not think the terms physical abuse/poisoning are a tad overwrought?

No, not really, it is what it is, if somebody sprayed a toxic gas in a pub it would be described similarly. Thats what smoke fundamentally is but many people never really step back and look at it that way.

Wibbs wrote:

Basically I'm saying, don't believe everything you read/hear.

Don't worry I rarely do. The second I read your comment on cigar smokers living longer I just thought "yeah they are all loaded" then read the link and thats what they mentioned too. Then it said they didn't include pipe smokers who gave up due to illness! but of course do not mention if the illness was smoking related... :rolleyes:

I don't care what any statistics/reports say, I no longer wake up with a cough or sore eyes from a night out in the pub. I wonder if the people writing these reports would let their children smoke, "smoke up, or you won't grow up to be a big man" "no dessert till you finish your johnnie blue"

RAFALUTION · 06-04-2005 05:10PM

I think the smoking ban is a disgrace. I think that no one has the right to tell anyone else what to do. If people enjoy smoking whilst they have a alcoholic drink then they should be allowed. I think there should be at least a smoking room because they will get pneumonia standing in the cold.

Static M.e. · 06-04-2005 05:34PM

I think that no one has the right to tell anyone else what to do.

So many things wrong with this statement.

Smoking is bad mkay ! people are trying to help you

dahamsta · 06-04-2005 06:11PM

rubadub wrote:

would rather be left sitting on my own for 5mins than go back to the old days of suffering physical abuse/poisoning for hours

I'd say you're left sitting on your own for more than five minutes...

Wibbs · 06-04-2005 06:18PM

rubadub said

if somebody sprayed a toxic gas in a pub it would be described similarly

Again an overwrought statement. Everything is toxic given enough of a dosage. You can even die of water poisoning. Carbon dioxide, you know that stuff you breathe out all the time? Toxic in high enough concentrations. Do you eat smoked, fried or barbequed food? Well be afraid, they're chock full of carcinogens. Fruit and veg can be contaminated with low levels of toxic chemicals. Even the water you drink has chlorine in it. A highly toxic substance. Farmed salmon? don't even go there and we're told by dieticians to eat more of it. It's all down to acceptable risk not silly scaremongering.

The second I read your comment on cigar smokers living longer I just thought "yeah they are all loaded" then read the link and thats what they mentioned too.

All things being equal the poor die younger regardless of the effects of smoking. So you agree that smoking isn't the death sentence it's purported to be then?

Then it said they didn't include pipe smokers who gave up due to illness! but of course do not mention if the illness was smoking related.

The nature of their illness(if that was the reason for quitting) would have been conjecture on the part of the researchers anyway. The fact is that they still lived longer on average than non smokers regardless.

As for letting their kids smoke. I don't think they'd let their kids drink either. Do you suggest banning alcohol? A drug that kills more people at a younger age than smoking does. A drug that has caused more misery to society in general than smoking ever has.

That's the problem. If you look beyond the hype on both sides of the argument and read these reports(and others), you would see that logic has gone out the window when it comes to passive smoke and tobacco in general.

http://www.junkscience.com/news/euwsjets.htm
http://www.junkscience.com/news/berlau.htm
http://www.junkscience.com/news/prma.html

I don't care what any statistics/reports say

That about sums up your position on the matter.

is_that_so · 06-04-2005 06:25PM

Wibbs wrote:

Do you not think the terms physical abuse/poisoning are a tad overwrought? Fair enough if you don't like the smell on your clothes the next day(never liked it myself), but as has been pointed out by many commentators, the risks from passive smoking are of such statistical insignificance as to be dubious science at best and a PC propaganda at worst.

Check this link out; http://www.data-yard.net/11/aus.htm It's a long read but worth it just to put the risks in context and remember this is the risk from primary smoking.

Another interesting link well worth a read; http://www.lcolby.com/b-chap7.htm
It examines the methodology of the original study which showed a link between disease and smoking. One interesting point is that it seemed to show pipe and cigar smokers actually lived longer than non smokers. It's funny that was ignored by the zealots. :rolleyes:

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RMP/execsumm.html An interesting study by a respected researcher on the overlooked connection between medical radiation and lung cancer/heart disease where smoking is only one of the co-factors.

Now that the accepted evils of tobacco are in the public mind more researchers are free to examine the benefits of nicotine for diseases like alzheimers, parkinsons and ulcerative colitis. Diseases that smokers are less prone too.

Sorry for the rant guys, but one of the reasons I did some research on this was because of a guy I knew who was diagnosed with lung cancer at 42. When he told the doctors treating him that he was a lifetime non smoker, they in so many words basically accused him of lying. On the ward where he was being treated(in London) he found quite a number of lifetime non smokers, but the doctors just repeated the accepted dogma which angered and frustrated him. Luckily they got it early and he's in remission.

http://www.data-yard.net/10/chitri/lucachic.htm. One of the points raised in this article is that 20% of lung cancer patients are non smokers, 50% are ex smokers which leaves only 30% current smokers. You could almost argue that never smoking or continuing to smoke would be the best options statistically. You would be wrong, but it shows how shaky some of this tobacco related research can be.

Basically I'm saying, don't believe everything you read/hear.

Off topic I know but I felt a need to comment.

Good to see people's opinions honestly expressed, but do you hold the same position on alcohol and our appalling abuse of it?
Far more damage is done inside the pub that is carried into hospitals , homes and RTA statistics. To be consistent on health risks acknowledge them all.
I have always found the attitude to smoking more than a touch hypocritical.

Wibbs · 06-04-2005 06:53PM

Yea is_that_so, I do(3rd last paragraph in last post). Good point too BTW. Alcohol, diet, lack of exercise and other atmospheric poisons are equally if not more valid areas to attack. Every hippy I know drives a diesel and they pump out many noxious poisons that have been implicated by some in lung cancer, asthma and other conditions.

Smoking is just another scapegoat, another easy answer for difficult questions whose real answers are far more complicated than some gov. health warning.

A classic one in the run up to the smoking ban was various doctors citing smoking as one of the causes of asthma. Now I know that smoke may irritate the mucus membranes and cause or increase the severity of an attack, but cause it in the first place? Forty years ago when more people smoked, in more places, asthma was a much rarer disease.

Why do the Japanese who have among the highest rates of smoking in the world, yet live the longest and have very low levels of lung cancer? In Europe the Greeks have a higher smoking rate than us yet again live longer with less lung cancer.

Why has the incidence of lung cancer remained stable while the rate of smoking has declined?

Here's a challenge. Find me a link that gives us the name of one person who has died as a result of passive smoking. Actual cause of death(peer reviewed) now, not conjecture. When we're told 1000s of people are dying from it every year, I'm sure it won't be too difficult to find just one name.

StupidLikeAFox · 06-04-2005 07:07PM

You are my hero Wibbs

Wibbs · 08-04-2005 04:04PM

Cheers ColHol. I'm just sick and tired of health zealots taking every bit of fun out of people's lives by claiming they know best and using dubious science to back up their pet theories.

Hitler was one of the first who tried to bring in a smoking ban. Irritating joyless git that he was.

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id1.html

Where he failed m martin and his zealots succeeded.

Smoking ban and friendships

Comments