Smoke ban threat to shisha cafes
The smoking ban which comes into force in July could drive shisha cafes out of business, traders have warned.
Cafe owners in Edgware Road, west London, are campaigning for the popular Middle Eastern tobacco pipe to be exempt from the new legislation.
Cafe owner Ibrahim El-Nour said shisha contained "small amounts of tobacco" and was less harmful than cigarettes.
"Shisha smoking is a social activity enjoyed by different age groups in social gatherings and a happy environment," he said.
"By driving shisha cafes out of business and causing their closures, the government is showing disregard to the whole community."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6498099.stm
Smoking is a disgusting habit. It’s rude to smoke in front of non smoker and I totally agree with the smoking ban that will become into effect from July.
However, whilst I’m not a Shisha lover myself…doesn’t anyone think it’s silly to implement a smoking ban in a Shisha restaurant? It’s like enforcing a ‘no alcohol’ ban in Pubs.
I understand that this ban is for the benefit of non smokers….but why on Earth would a non smoker who can’t stand second hand smoke spend her/his time in a Shisha restaurant?
I don’t visit Shisha places…mainly cos, my local ones are full of teenagers. However, I’m not against them totally…I can see the appeal in classy shisha restaurants, especially the ones in Edgware Rd…
Is anyone else looking forward to the ban?
i'm definitely looking forward to the ban as far as cigarettes are concerned, like you said. but as for sheesha cafes, happened to discuss this with family recently. i don't see the point of it being banned in public because it is a social thing to do. when was the last time anyone heard of people getting together 'to smoke some cigarettes'. :? i don't think there's such a thing as 'passively' smoking sheesha because the tobacco content is negligible, and you have the choice of whether or not to walk into a sheesha cafe. also, the smoke actually has a sweet smell as opposed to leaving one stinking like a chimney.
[size=9]I NEVER WORE IT BECAUSE OF THE TALIBAN, MOTHER. I LIKE THE [b]MODESTY[/b] AND [b]PROTECTION[/b] IT AFFORDS ME FROM THE EYES OF MEN.[/size] [url=http://www.adherents.com/lit/comics/Dust.html]Dust, X-Men[/url]
I don't think it is the smell that is the point, but the effects.
Sweet smell does not make it less dangerous.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
[size=9]I NEVER WORE IT BECAUSE OF THE TALIBAN, MOTHER. I LIKE THE [b]MODESTY[/b] AND [b]PROTECTION[/b] IT AFFORDS ME FROM THE EYES OF MEN.[/size] [url=http://www.adherents.com/lit/comics/Dust.html]Dust, X-Men[/url]
I'm afriad shisha is actually MORE harmful to the person who smokes it:
source: http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/theuae/2006/Ju...
how disappointing, i used to like shisha...
Don't just do something! Stand there.
Im in-different on the subject. I have no opionon one way or the other.
I dislike smoke from cigs as it irritates my eyes.
Not really a Shisha smoker either ... tried it a few times... nothing happened ... waste of time ... so never touched it again.
I think i read somewhere that it degrades society or something... i'll see if i can find the article i was reading and post it up.
Back in BLACK
aaah man i need 2 find new places we cant do it in public now
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane, by those who couldn't hear the music...
I think it is extremely rude that smokers force non-smokers to breathe polluted air that is damaging to their health.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Lol.
Is it rude to be intolerent towards lung cancer, breathing problems, heart diesease and all other fatal illnesses that are caused cos of breathing in second hand smoke?
The smell of cigarettes spreads. It is the duty of the smoker to find a secluded spot to do his/her thing.
It is rude to force the people around you to breathe in carcinogens. If someone wants to slowly kill themselves, no need to force it on others, who just make the mistake of being in the vicinity.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Exposure to secondhand smoke in the UK causes around 2,700 deaths in people aged 20-64 and a further 8,000 deaths a year among people aged 65 years or older.
Exposure to secondhand smoke at work is estimated to cause the death of more than two employed persons per working day across the UK as a whole (617 deaths a year), including 54 deaths a year in the hospitality industry.
So...all of the people mentioned above who died as a result for breathing in second hand smoke were tolerent and not hypocrital? But look where that got them.
A smoker has no regard for his own life/health...its selfish of him/her to have no regard for the life of others.
i said i was SORRY
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane, by those who couldn't hear the music...
what bwt teanage smokers drunken smokers people who dont care
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane, by those who couldn't hear the music...
On the other hand there would be less expenses on the NHS, potentially less people off work.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
woooo tax da cigerrates i mean no dont do ittt
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane, by those who couldn't hear the music...
Why should non-smokers have to put up with smokers.
If you wanna kill yourself then go ahead mate but don't let me die with you.
You've got a good idea, build a spot for smokers only but make a few changes. Deny them NHS treatment if they were to get ill as a result of their smoking, then we'll see who smokes and who doesn't.
lol the majority of pakistanis smoking will go dooow if that happens lol
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane, by those who couldn't hear the music...
That's just tough then, same with Bangladeshi's.
We have this wonderful NHS in this country which provides free medical treatment and people just use and abuse it. IMO people who smoke, drink, take drugs, and others who bring illnesses to themselves should be denied NHS treatment, and if they wanted to be treated then they should pay. If they can't pay then tough luck.
There are people in other countries who have illnesses of no fault of their own and they are not able to afford medical treatment, these are the people I feel for and they should get free medical treatment, not the person who smokes or drinks themselves to death!
Then it no longer is the NHS.
I like the principle of free at the point of use no matter who is to blame.
It's not as if none ever does anything stupid in their whole life.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
But why....esp since it can cause death?
Stupidity shouldn't result in people dying.
The NHS is working beyond its maximum capacity and you got people who are on long waiting lists of no fault of their own.
And then you got the other "stupid" people who are getting free treatment when they are to blame for their illnesses.
It's all good getting free treatment no matter who is to blame but there is a limit and now is the time where these limits should be set. If this goes on any longer, we'll have people waiting years to get a simple check-up for cancer or something.
does tax and duty on fags go towards the nhs?
[b][i]Round and round the Ka'bah,
Like a good Sahabah,
One step, Two step,
All the way to jannah[/i][/b]
Smokers are the rude ones, Islam does ask you to be tolerant but not at the expense of yours and others lives nor the pollution of the environment.
so if some1 was to fall down the stairs the NHS shouldnt treat them for their broken leg because it was 'their stupidity' that caused it in the 1st place? what if the person who fell ws drunk, would it make a difference?
IMO every1 should stop drinking and smoking, but not because they want free hospital care, but for the sake of God (swt). Because God gave us our bodies, and we shouldnt damage our most important gift because its very ungrateful and disrespectful.
Don't just do something! Stand there.
Falling down the stairs is not stupidity, it is simply an accident. It has happened to me once and luckily nothing happened.
Being drunk and falling down the stairs can be excusable but drinking yourself till you develop some sort of disease is not.
It is stupidity if someone was trying to get down faster than the legs allowed. Who would decide?
Why did the person not look properly when crossing the road? Just leave them there on the side.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
what about being addicted to alcohol so you CANT stop drinking until u develop a disease.
it very easy for a muslim to say people should b able to stop themselves.
i used to b a non-muslim and drink alcohol. i can see its appeal. i know MANY sensible, intelligent, caring, god-fearing people who have become alcoholic, and its messed up the lives of their families as well as themselves. some of them got out of it, others havnt.
the one thing they need is help, whether its medical or psychological.
to take away this help or say they need to pay for it would cause more problems than good IMHO.
Don't just do something! Stand there.
I don't think there is a way to measure how fast someone can get up/down the stairs....is there?
If that happened then people may start to look properly before crossing the road for a change. The answer to your question, maybe they were blind, or the vehicle was speeding, or they were being chased by someone.
Being addictive doesn't mean that you can't stop, it just means its really hard to stop. It would be alrite to treat everyone regardless of who was to blame but the NHS can't handle it.
If you've got a situation where someone was born with a liver problem, and then you had another person who had a liver problem as a result of their smoking and you only had one liver left, who would you give the liver to? Or maybe you can give the people who are not at fault more priority then people who were.
And maybe the person did not look, or pay enough attention. Why is being chased by someone a good excuse? Who would be the judge of wether the road accident victim should recieve treatment?
There is a measurement of how fast someone can go up and fdown a flight of stairs - If the person was walking it was safe. If the person was running, s/he took risks.
I will repeat again that IMO the NHS should be free at point of service to everyone.
The NHS can handle it and has been for decades. Sometimes it just takes a little time.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
But that's the problem, people [i]should[/i] be looking before crossing the road. It's like changing lanes or moving off in a car then checking your mirrors. You can be chased by someone if you were in fear of your life or to prevent injury to yourself (people running away from dogs is a good example).
You can be walking down the stairs and accidentally missed a step and fell down. I myself live in a 3 floor house and take less than 2 seconds to run up the stairs, even when I'm carrying a glass of water 8).
When you say little time you mean months, or even years. Members of my family need regular hospital treatment of no fault of their own and you don't know how long the waiting list is. My mum had a check-up for something and was told that she would need a minor operation. She was expecting an appointment at the hospital sometime last year and guess what....she got the appointment this year. You go to a hospital (especially on a Friday/Saturday night) and see the amount of drunk people there, you'll be shocked. These, I don't even want to call them human beings waste police time and waste NHS resources. These....animals binge drink every Friday/Saturday night until they pass out and expect free NHS treatment, they should be left alone on the cold hard pavement.
So, you advocate leave the injured at the sides of the road? Afterall it is their fault.
If you mfall while walking you get treatment, but if you run, you don't?
They also pay the taxes that fund the NHS.
The NHS is free at point of service. It is not Free. People pay taxes. I pay taxes. I expect to be treated even if I did something stupid.
Almost all road accidents can be attributed to one party or the other. Maybe one should be left to bleed on the side of the road.
Thinking of them as subhuman allows you to categorise them in different ways, but I do not hold to that.
The scheduling for a minor operation would not be affected by extra people in accident and Emergency.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Pages