Cyprus-Forum.com

[SSBubbles]

Easy to say..

I know; it took me two attempts! If I can do it, anyone can!

(It has been nine years now - I only lasted 6 months or so the first time!)

[SSBubbles]

Good boy...... can I come to your office and have a fag with you..??

Stop smoking!

[cyprusgrump]

As I have said before , a disgusting smelly unhealthy third world filthy habit !!!

@ Milti and Bubbles,I believe the same goes for alcohol consumption as well. A filthy discusting habit which kills the users and other innocent people around them and ruins many families.

kafenes - drinking is ok, in moderation of course. Smoking on the other hand is foul, disgusting and harms others. Drinking a pint of beer doesn't effect other people but smoking one cigarette can harm people in the same room......which is not on

You can produce scientific proof that second-hand smoking is harmful I presume...? I look forward to reading the scientific papers you link to...

So, you saying that breathing 2nd hand smoke is not bad for you? It's certainly not good for youl, and can't be....really cant be bothered to look for scientific papers but feel free to prove me wrong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking
http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/strsfs.html
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... id=1747612
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/30421.php

You obviously misunderstood my last statement…

When I asked for scientific proof that second-hand smoke was harmful to your health I was looking for proven scientific fact and research… not your opinion or that of Roy Castle…

You made the statement that ‘smoking one cigarette can harm people in the same room’. I don’t think it is unreasonable for you to provide the scientific proof behind that statement…

Do you...?

You are also missing my point too CyprusGrump. Drinking one pint of beer will not harm the other person sat next to you where is you sat next to a smoker puffing on a B&H would. If you are a non smoker go-to your nearest bar and try both.

No, your point is quite clear thank you.

You claim that smoking one cigarette is harmful to those around you yet you are clearly unable to provide proof of that claim.

When I ask you to provide proof you merely make the same claim again and claim that I have misunderstood. I have not... I'll ask you again. Please provide scientific evidence to support your claim that smoking one cigarette in a room is harmful to those around you....

If you cannot just say so...

You are welcome.....on the other hand please provide me with proof that it is perfectly healthy to do so

So you are obviously unable to provide any proof that backs your ridiculous claim then? I thought so...

You are an idiot who believes everything he reads in the Daily Mail...

If you can cope with the long words, try The British Medical Journal

I'll quote a little for you...

No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98.

Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.

OK?

Personally I think smoking is disgusting... However, I don't believe everything I read in the papers and actually have an informed opinion on the subject.

You should try it...

I am bored of talking to you now.........come back when you have some 'sound' evidence please

You idiot!

Which part of the British Medical Journal report did you fail to comprehend?

\

What has the BMJ got to do with it?

We are in Cyprus, things are different here (says he, sitting in his office smoking like the proverbial chimney)!

Now who's the idiot? Doesn't even know which country he lives in

I'd guess that would be you then...?

You criticise me for quoting data from the UK then quote your own 'facts' from the USA...

And I'd suggest that 3,000 deaths from a population of 306 million hardly justifies your statement that ‘smoking one cigarette can harm people in the same room’ does it?

Even your own 'facts' which you fail to provide a link to state 'EPA has never claimed that minimal exposure to secondhand smoke poses a huge individual cancer risk.'

Idiot.

You want to see smoking banned yet have a car logo as an avatart and daily walk down streets where vehicles produce air quality significantly worse for your health than that in a pub...

[Milo]

Like WyomingCowboy I would like to see statistics proving the fall in smoking and the decrease in smoking related diseases both with smokers and IF proved beyond any reasonable doubt, passive smoking.

So far everything I have researched proves in the UK for example that smoking has depreciated rapidly in the last decade. But costs to the NHS have spiralled This does,nt add up.

Smoking related anything is costing the NHS on new revised figures £5 billion annually. The tax revenue from smoking is very nearly double that So if the different articles I have been reading are true, this is the reason the UK govt won,t ban the SALE of cigs.

In fact smoking has gone down in the last 50 years in the UK but 'smoking related' diseases have risen according to the NHS figures. When anyone tries to point out this to the anti-smoking lobby they dismiss the fact.

Imho although I don,t want to sit in smoky establishments ever, the real reason behind any ban in the corridors of power is never going to be the health of the country thats a diversion. I believe that the enviroment/diet is the real problem and the anti smoking ban was a great cover up for many countries failings elsewhere, of course I could be wrong

Bans on smoking are here to stay, BUT I would want to see statistics on dramatic falls within 5 years on any smoke related illness,s, or listen to the excuses why they have,nt As I suspect many more will give up or be encouraged to.

Smoking is not illegal, just WHERE you smoke, that says it all to me. A total ban on cigs would have made me believe.

As a footnote alchohol related illness,s have risen to £3 billion annually to the NHS and rising, it won,t be long me thinks before warnings appear on your beer bottles to your health, and supermakets will be banned from selling and advertising, but thats another big cash cow is it not?

I think banning smokers is right and proper BUT provision should have been brought in for smokers to have theri own establishments, then alongside that gentle encouragement to stop or not even start. At least in future generations a ban in force already should eradicate new smokers, but as drugs and underage drinking etc are already banned, and it goes on, does,nt banning anything make it MORE attractive to some?

I think Cyprus has got it right as far as the ban implimentation goes, but they have until January to amend the bill. It could become more stringent yet.

[Z4]

As I have said before , a disgusting smelly unhealthy third world filthy habit !!!

@ Milti and Bubbles,I believe the same goes for alcohol consumption as well. A filthy discusting habit which kills the users and other innocent people around them and ruins many families.

kafenes - drinking is ok, in moderation of course. Smoking on the other hand is foul, disgusting and harms others. Drinking a pint of beer doesn't effect other people but smoking one cigarette can harm people in the same room......which is not on

You can produce scientific proof that second-hand smoking is harmful I presume...? I look forward to reading the scientific papers you link to...

So, you saying that breathing 2nd hand smoke is not bad for you? It's certainly not good for youl, and can't be....really cant be bothered to look for scientific papers but feel free to prove me wrong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking
http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/strsfs.html
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... id=1747612
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/30421.php

You obviously misunderstood my last statement…

When I asked for scientific proof that second-hand smoke was harmful to your health I was looking for proven scientific fact and research… not your opinion or that of Roy Castle…

You made the statement that ‘smoking one cigarette can harm people in the same room’. I don’t think it is unreasonable for you to provide the scientific proof behind that statement…

Do you...?

You are also missing my point too CyprusGrump. Drinking one pint of beer will not harm the other person sat next to you where is you sat next to a smoker puffing on a B&H would. If you are a non smoker go-to your nearest bar and try both.

No, your point is quite clear thank you.

You claim that smoking one cigarette is harmful to those around you yet you are clearly unable to provide proof of that claim.

When I ask you to provide proof you merely make the same claim again and claim that I have misunderstood. I have not... I'll ask you again. Please provide scientific evidence to support your claim that smoking one cigarette in a room is harmful to those around you....

If you cannot just say so...

You are welcome.....on the other hand please provide me with proof that it is perfectly healthy to do so

So you are obviously unable to provide any proof that backs your ridiculous claim then? I thought so...

You are an idiot who believes everything he reads in the Daily Mail...

If you can cope with the long words, try The British Medical Journal

I'll quote a little for you...

No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98.

Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.

OK?

Personally I think smoking is disgusting... However, I don't believe everything I read in the papers and actually have an informed opinion on the subject.

You should try it...

I am bored of talking to you now.........come back when you have some 'sound' evidence please

You idiot!

Which part of the British Medical Journal report did you fail to comprehend?

\

What has the BMJ got to do with it?

We are in Cyprus, things are different here (says he, sitting in his office smoking like the proverbial chimney)!

Now who's the idiot? Doesn't even know which country he lives in

I'd guess that would be you then...?

You criticise me for quoting data from the UK then quote your own 'facts' from the USA...

And I'd suggest that 3,000 deaths from a population of 306 million hardly justifies your statement that ‘smoking one cigarette can harm people in the same room’ does it?

Even your own 'facts' which you fail to provide a link to state 'EPA has never claimed that minimal exposure to secondhand smoke poses a huge individual cancer risk.'

Idiot.

You want to see smoking banned yet have a car logo as an avatart and daily walk down streets where vehicles produce air quality significantly worse for your health than that in a pub...

Who cares!

[cyprusgrump]

Like WyomingCowboy I would like to see statistics proving the fall in smoking and the decrease in smoking related diseases both with smokers and IF proved beyond any reasonable doubt, passive smoking.

So far everything I have researched proves in the UK for example that smoking has depreciated rapidly in the last decade. But costs to the NHS have spiralled This does,nt add up.

Smoking related anything is costing the NHS on new revised figures £5 billion annually. The tax revenue from smoking is very nearly double that So if the different articles I have been reading are true, this is the reason the UK govt won,t ban the SALE of cigs.

In fact smoking has gone down in the last 50 years in the UK but 'smoking related' diseases have risen according to the NHS figures. When anyone tries to point out this to the anti-smoking lobby they dismiss the fact.

Imho although I don,t want to sit in smoky establishments ever, the real reason behind any ban in the corridors of power is never going to be the health of the country thats a diversion. I believe that the enviroment/diet is the real problem and the anti smoking ban was a great cover up for many countries failings elsewhere, of course I could be wrong

Bans on smoking are here to stay, BUT I would want to see statistics on dramatic falls within 5 years on any smoke related illness,s, or listen to the excuses why they have,nt As I suspect many more will give up or be encouraged to.

Smoking is not illegal, just WHERE you smoke, that says it all to me. A total ban on cigs would have made me believe.

As a footnote alchohol related illness,s have risen to £3 billion annually to the NHS and rising, it won,t be long me thinks before warnings appear on your beer bottles to your health, and supermakets will be banned from selling and advertising, but thats another big cash cow is it not?

I think banning smokers is right and proper BUT provision should have been brought in for smokers to have theri own establishments, then alongside that gentle encouragement to stop or not even start. At least in future generations a ban in force already should eradicate new smokers, but as drugs and underage drinking etc are already banned, and it goes on, does,nt banning anything make it MORE attractive to some?

I think Cyprus has got it right as far as the ban implimentation goes, but they have until January to amend the bill. It could become more stringent yet.

Excellent post!

I think you'll find tho that now the war on smoking is nearly won, the propaganda war on drinking has already started...

I'd urge you to read the following: -

Five myths about alcohol

It isn't about health - it is about control...

[DUNCAN]

Whilst I agree that this ban is long overdue and I welcome it I doubt that it will be enforced. Since I have lived in Cyprus I have noted a complete contempt for all laws including parking, driving whilst on the mobile and a number of others. Unless the Government enforces this with a team of people going around pubs and clubs etc strictly reporting offenders and fining them then the law will count for nothing.

[baby-come-fly-with-me]

House approves ban on smoking
By Elias Hazou

New law takes effect on January 1... but smokers can still find relief out of doors

CYPRUS yesterday joined a long list of EU countries that have banned smoking in public places, after parliament passed a bill following a lively debate that dragged long into the night.

The smoking ban goes into effect on January 1, 2010. Penalties for violators are up to €2,000, with managers and owners of establishments and venues facing fines of up to €1,000 for failing to place “highly visible” non-smoking signs where applicable.

Entitled ‘Legislation for the Protection of Health (Control of Smoking)’, the bill passed with 27 votes for, 3 against and one abstention.

Given the unanimous stance of the House Health Committee, which had drafted the bill, yesterday’s outcome was all but a foregone conclusion. The new law includes a long list of buildings and venues where lighting up will be prohibited.

These include: cinemas; theatres; hospitals – including rural sanitary centres – open-air infirmaries and old peoples’ homes; pharmacies, clinics, doctors’ and dentists’ surgeries; museums; galleries, concert halls and cultural centres; public libraries; factories; training and educational centres such as universities, colleges, schools; lifts, stairwells and ‘common areas’ of public buildings; covered athletic centres; governmental or semi-governmental service buildings; banks; ports and airports; event areas for adults; shopping centres, kiosks; reception rooms; recreational areas including hotels, restaurants, cafeterias, bars, coffee shops, clubhouses, cafés, internet cafés, pool halls, gaming arcades, betting shops, cabarets, discos, nightclubs and dance centres.

Smokers will still be allowed to light up in all external, open areas (except for school yards and medical areas), and in the internal courtyards or gardens of buildings.

It will also remain legal in internal courtyards and external areas that are covered by a canopy, such as the outside of cafés, courtyards of restaurants and the central cafeteria area of the Parliament.

Employers are also obliged to provide a “closed smoking area for employees with an appropriate ventilation system, in which exclusive access will be granted to employees who are smokers and who have submitted a written request to be permitted to smoke in that area.” This clause leaves out schools, which will become strictly smoke-free zones.

A late call by DIKO deputy Zacharias Koulias (opposed to the bill) to postpone voting until parliament reconvened after the summer recess was met with boos and groans, as it became evident that smoker deputies were outmatched by their non-smoker colleagues.

Given the voices of dissent, parliament pledged to revisit the law at a later date to take another look at some of the more contentious provisions – such as a clause that explicitly prohibits the establishment of smokers’ clubs.

Another detail is the exact starting date for the ban. Deputies had toyed with the idea of delaying implementation until January 15, having realised that the ban would wreck many a New Year party.

Despite realizing they were fighting a lost cause – or perhaps because of it – adversaries argued passionately that the law was too extreme, calling it harsh, paternalistic and even outright fascist.

European Party MP Rikos Erotokritou said that while the philosophy behind it was to protect non-smokers and respect their rights – which was perfectly valid – it took no account of the rights of smokers.

DISY’s Andreas Themistocleous, a vociferous opponent, said the ban would create “social racism” and make smokers feel like second-rate citizens.

“Since when does the majority decide the way of life of the minority?” he added.

“What about meat products? Alcohol? Fatty foods? These are all bad for you. Should we ban these as well?” he asked.

But the zealous deputy from Limassol shot himself in the foot by suggesting that a ban on smoking was “no less an authoritarian measure by the state than forcing people to wear seatbelts or undergo alcohol breathalisers.”

He closed his remarks with a warning: the law, he said, invited “civic disobedience.” Once smokers and establishments started flouting the law en masse, parliamentarians would be scrambling to amend it yet again.

Defending the law, DIKO deputy Angelos Votsis stressed that it was all about protecting people from the effects of passive smoking:

“When a 17-year-old goes to a disco for the first time, and sees everyone puffing away, what do you think he or she will do next? They will start smoking too.”




Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2009



Well does anyone have any thoughts on this? Cyprus like every other EU Country has stopped short of the very stringent ban on smoking in place in the UK. In fact the UK has the toughest ban globally so far, the ONLY exceptions being peoples houses and the bar in the houses of parliament, strangely enough the cafeteria in the parliament in Cyprus is excluded too.

While healthwise I agree with non smoking estabishments, really it appears to me to be another cash cow for governments, as fines are going to be big here(€2k) and for pub owners in the UK (£10k)if found abusing the law while in the same week in the same court in UK a pub owner was fined this amount, an old lady who had been mugged, her perpetrator was fined £250.

IF it was really about our governments concern for health surely the real answer is to ban cigarette sales totally?

Its been in force for a long time???
the paphos police have been too lazy to deal with it and will prob continue to do the same

[Floda]

Whilst I agree that this ban is long overdue and I welcome it I doubt that it will be enforced. Since I have lived in Cyprus I have noted a complete contempt for all laws including parking, driving whilst on the mobile and a number of others. Unless the Government enforces this with a team of people going around pubs and clubs etc strictly reporting offenders and fining them then the law will count for nothing.

Maybe the reason for such attitudes is that we Cypriots are not so eager to submit to the whim of some overly enthusiastic bureaucrats who wish to turn Cyprus into a 'Nanny State' like the UK.

Problem is, Cypriots prefer to be asked rather than told, which puts us leagues ahead of the downtrodden inhabitants of a particular nation which seems to thrive on it's ability to (metaphorically) piss up the backs of it's subjects and persuade them that they are sweating.

The smoking ban is a classic example of just how manipulative the authorities are, whilst everyone is so concerned about the fact that some people may enjoy a cigarette and react with the required coughing and spluttering demonstrations whenever a smoker lights up, little notice is taken of the filthy pollution we are subjected to from various more serious sources.

I am a non-smoker BUT, I can appreciate the fact that others enjoy their cigarette, pipe, cigar, dare I say 'Spliff' ?.

Live and let live people, the wool has been pulled over our eyes for long enough, why, not so long ago, it was quite usual for a man to be smoking a pipe in the underground trains of London and, far from objecting, other passengers would often remark that they enjoyed the rich aroma.

Similarly in theatres and cinemas, the smoke would be wafting through the beams emitting from the projectors and spotlights with seldom a cough heard in the auditorium, nowadays, you would think the smoker was out to KILL.

[miltiades]

Years ago also Londoners would visit the London Zoo and take along live cats to feed to the lions and tigers !
Progress must continue and banning this dirty smelly unhealthy drug addiction is a step in the right direction.