Sky Sports News Poll

[TrickyTrev]

We are talking about an open air enviroment the health effects are minimal at worst non-existance at best.

The only arguement is that it is not very pleasent, but personally I find the thickle chanting of such things like 'Jordan Stewart what a willy puller' and the loutish behaviour ofo a drunk far more unpleasent than the smell of tobacco.

[Cobbo]

We are talking about an open air enviroment the health effects are minimal at worst non-existance at best.

The only arguement is that it is not very pleasent, but personally I find the thickle chanting of such things like 'Jordan Stewart what a willy puller' and the loutish behaviour ofo a drunk far more unpleasent than the smell of tobacco.

60445[/snapback]

If ou are sitting right next to a smoker, the fact that it is an open air environment becomes irrelevant. It may not be as bad as an enclosed environment, but you still breathe a lot in!

I also hated the Jordan Stewart what a willy puller chanting

[Scow]

We are talking about an open air enviroment the health effects are minimal at worst non-existance at best.

The only arguement is that it is not very pleasent, but personally I find the thickle chanting of such things like 'Jordan Stewart what a willy puller' and the loutish behaviour ofo a drunk far more unpleasent than the smell of tobacco.

60445[/snapback]

The open air environment will dilute it's effect, but it's still a problem. Why should the majority of a crowd be intoxicated by subtances they don't want to inhale? And to be honest, I feel my health is much more important to me than a minority of mindless wankers singing derogatory songs about Jordan Stewart.

[Steven]

We are talking about an open air enviroment the health effects are minimal at worst non-existance at best.

The only arguement is that it is not very pleasent, but personally I find the thickle chanting of such things like 'Jordan Stewart what a willy puller' and the loutish behaviour ofo a drunk far more unpleasent than the smell of tobacco.

60445[/snapback]

The open air environment will dilute it's effect, but it's still a problem. Why should the majority of a crowd be intoxicated by subtances they don't want to inhale? And to be honest, I feel my health is much more important to me than a minority of mindless wankers singing derogatory songs about Jordan Stewart.

60448[/snapback]

However you will breathe smog filled air everytime you walk into the city centre of most good sized European towns. Moreover you will do that no doubt for longer than the length of a game.

My point is that you must put the risks in context. Is it more dangerous to have smog filled cities than putting up with two hours worth of smoking? I don't know. But I do know I would like the more dangerous one to my health dealt with first.

[TrickyTrev]

Indeed the smog is a MUCH bigger risk to our health, but people would have to blame themselves and their consumerist ways if they were to tackle that problem. Smoking is a much easier target and a tangiable scapegoat.

[Steven]

Indeed the smog is a MUCH bigger risk to our health, but people would have to blame themselves and their consumerist ways if they were to tackle that problem. Smoking is a much easier target and  a tangiable scapegoat.

60452[/snapback]

... and that is why I would not be rushing to ban it. The difference between allowing it and not at the ground in terms of my health is like being shot with a different calibre bullet.

[Cobbo]

Indeed the smog is a MUCH bigger risk to our health, but people would have to blame themselves and their consumerist ways if they were to tackle that problem. Smoking is a much easier target and  a tangiable scapegoat.

60452[/snapback]

I agree smog is much worse.

One of the reasons I have never had a driving lesson.

But it does not mean that smoking is not a problem.

[shen]

Indeed the smog is a MUCH bigger risk to our health, but people would have to blame themselves and their consumerist ways if they were to tackle that problem. Smoking is a much easier target and  a tangiable scapegoat.

60452[/snapback]

I agree smog is much worse.

One of the reasons I have never had a driving lesson.

But it does not mean that smoking is not a problem.

60456[/snapback]

It's hyped up thats for sure...there are soooo many worse problems than the smoking issue.. e.g. youth disinterested in politics, ^smog, traffic in general, overpopulation, and so on... of course it's not possible for clubs to do much about the latter 3, but its unjust to condemn and prohibit smokers.

[Guest]

Every little helps, and if smoking is banned all the better. Once that's out of the way, perhaps campaigners can concentrate better on issues like traffic pollution.

[TrickyTrev]

Every little helps, and if smoking is banned all the better.  Once that's out of the way, perhaps campaigners can concentrate better on issues like traffic pollution.

60815[/snapback]

I doubt it, campaining against smoking is easy as it has no personal cost to anyone but the smokers themselves.

There is no way people in this country will mass campaign for something that will have a hinderence on their convenient lifestyle, however damaging it is.

[Guest]

Every little helps, and if smoking is banned all the better.  Once that's out of the way, perhaps campaigners can concentrate better on issues like traffic pollution.

60815[/snapback]

I doubt it, campaining against smoking is easy as it has no personal cost to anyone but the smokers themselves.

There is no way people in this country will mass campaign for something that will have a hinderence on their convenient lifestyle, however damaging it is.

60877[/snapback]

Sadly I fear this is true. To reduce the amount of pollution omitted by cars would need significant investment by Government to drastically improve public transport systems.. It would also help if people got off their lazy backsides and walked, which will sadly never happen.

As this is the case, the automotive industry is spending millions on trying to find a solution by looking at alternative methods of fuelling cars. They've already done a lot of work to reduce emissions.

The tobacco industry, on the other hand, has done Jack Shit.

[TrickyTrev]

The tobacco industry, on the other hand, has done Jack Shit.

You have a very rosey view of the fuel/car industry.

Esso for example, despite an advertising campaign boasting a good environmental record di not even recognise the existance of global warming until last year, and that was only after a long pressure campaign.

[Katy]

At Filbert Street 9 times out of 10 I used to sit next to someone smoking for two hours and come away feeling quite ill. At least at the Walkers you can't smoke during the game, its a bloody horrible habit and I dont want to be subjected to it.

On a slightly different point, when I met some of the FT gang in the pub last Saturday I was amazed that no one lit up - a lot of my friends smoke so it made a nice change.

[shen]

Every little helps, and if smoking is banned all the better.  Once that's out of the way, perhaps campaigners can concentrate better on issues like traffic pollution.

60815[/snapback]

I doubt it, campaining against smoking is easy as it has no personal cost to anyone but the smokers themselves.

There is no way people in this country will mass campaign for something that will have a hinderence on their convenient lifestyle, however damaging it is.

60877[/snapback]

Sadly I fear this is true. To reduce the amount of pollution omitted by cars would need significant investment by Government to drastically improve public transport systems.. It would also help if people got off their lazy backsides and walked, which will sadly never happen.

As this is the case, the automotive industry is spending millions on trying to find a solution by looking at alternative methods of fuelling cars. They've already done a lot of work to reduce emissions.

The tobacco industry, on the other hand, has done Jack Shit.

60913[/snapback]

tbh it's quite obvious that the oil industry is hindering any breakthrough to alternative fuelled cars entering the market, as these have already been designed a few decades ago... if you want you can get a water-fuelled Mercedes.. if you have the money that is!

[Guest]

The tobacco industry, on the other hand, has done Jack Shit.

You have a very rosey view of the fuel/car industry.

Esso for example, despite an advertising campaign boasting a good environmental record di not even recognise the existance of global warming until last year, and that was only after a long pressure campaign.

60934[/snapback]

I didn't mention the oil industry, as they have their own agenda and will lose out ultimately if an alternative to fossil fuels is found.

If you really want to be pedantic, then every time you turn on your PC you are polluting the environment. Every time you shower, the clothes you wear, the food you eat, it all has an impact on the environment one way or another.

If you think that the issue of smoking should not be addressed because of 'bigger and better' things, then that is your opinion. I happen to think any move in the right direction is a bonus regardless of how insignificant some people think that may be.

[davieG]

The tobacco industry, on the other hand, has done Jack Shit.

You have a very rosey view of the fuel/car industry.

Esso for example, despite an advertising campaign boasting a good environmental record di not even recognise the existance of global warming until last year, and that was only after a long pressure campaign.

60934[/snapback]

I didn't mention the oil industry, as they have their own agenda and will lose out ultimately if an alternative to fossil fuels is found.

If you really want to be pedantic, then every time you turn on your PC you are polluting the environment. Every time you shower, the clothes you wear, the food you eat, it all has an impact on the environment one way or another.

If you think that the issue of smoking should not be addressed because of 'bigger and better' things, then that is your opinion. I happen to think any move in the right direction is a bonus regardless of how insignificant some people think that may be.

61058[/snapback]

Hear, Hear

[Simon]

Personally I dont smoke and nor do I like smoking but I dont think it should be banned completely- there is an area of the ground in the family's enclosure where it IS banned (and I think should perhaps be extended to a few other areas as well).

What narks me though is the lack of enforcement of the policy

[TrickyTrev]

The tobacco industry, on the other hand, has done Jack Shit.

You have a very rosey view of the fuel/car industry.

Esso for example, despite an advertising campaign boasting a good environmental record di not even recognise the existance of global warming until last year, and that was only after a long pressure campaign.

60934[/snapback]

I didn't mention the oil industry, as they have their own agenda and will lose out ultimately if an alternative to fossil fuels is found.

If you really want to be pedantic, then every time you turn on your PC you are polluting the environment. Every time you shower, the clothes you wear, the food you eat, it all has an impact on the environment one way or another.

If you think that the issue of smoking should not be addressed because of 'bigger and better' things, then that is your opinion. I happen to think any move in the right direction is a bonus regardless of how insignificant some people think that may be.

61058[/snapback]

I think you have made my point for me. We are tackling one of the minro issues that it would be pedantic to pick up upon, it is such a waste of time and effort as it makes no real difference to peoples lives and just distracts us from the real issues.

[Guest]

I think you have made my point for me. We are tackling one of the minro issues that it would be pedantic to pick up upon, it is such a waste of time and effort as it makes no real difference to peoples lives and just distracts us from the real issues.

61915[/snapback]

I disagree, as I've said, until you make the 'smaller' changes, then the bigger ones will never happen.

As for not making any difference to people's lives, banning smoking would have a significant impact, as organisations such as the WHO, BMA etc have reported. Why exacerbate the 'bigger' problems caused elsewhere by allowing a so-called 'smaller' problem to carry on?

[davieG]

I think you have made my point for me. We are tackling one of the minro issues that it would be pedantic to pick up upon, it is such a waste of time and effort as it makes no real difference to peoples lives and just distracts us from the real issues.

61915[/snapback]

I disagree, as I've said, until you make the 'smaller' changes, then the bigger ones will never happen.

As for not making any difference to people's lives, banning smoking would have a significant impact, as organisations such as the WHO, BMA etc have reported. Why exacerbate the 'bigger' problems caused elsewhere by allowing a so-called 'smaller' problem to carry on?

61978[/snapback]

Yeh stop being pedantic Lisa, we should also stop recycling after all a little bit of methane seeping from all those landfill sites, well who cares a drop in the ocean of polution. While we're at it lets not bother to insulate property and what a waste of time all those low energy bulbs are and those energy efficient washing machines, fridges; why on earth did we bother with going to all that trouble over cfc gases.

As for affecting peoples lives, just because your body can cope with it doesn't mean everyone can.

Just from another perspective why do the stewards ignore fans in the concourse standing under no smoking signs puffing away but lift your arse off your seat and your out! I know which of those bothers me the most.

[TrickyTrev]

I just think there is a rather tenious link between smoking and global pollution.