Kibkom North Cyprus Forum

Deleted

It,s not the only place that have "relaxed" the no smoking rules.

Most of the bars and restaurants run by "ex-pats" and some Cypriots still adhere to the law.but some establishments, west ,Lapta to Karsiyaka ,especially if the owner/staff smoke then they are a bit reticent to tell customers to go outside when they don,t have a covered no smoking area. Far to cold.
Firstly , why is there no "policing"of this law, I was told my one of my local haunt,s owner that everywhere in Lefkosia allows smoking inside.
Secondly, will we remember this non compliance ,if they are lack with this then I wonder what else they are lack with behind the scenes.(kitchen/health/staff cleanliness)
Forgot to say,I asked my friend/owner " what side of the road do you drive on?" Left" was the reply,"Why" because it,s the LAW . I rest my case.

Friends walked out of Lords Palace lat week everyone was smoking in Kumur restaurant.

I too have noticed the lax way in which the smoking ban is being applied nowadays. It is virtually absent in some places. Uncle Sams at the bottom of the Bellapaise, was reeking of smoke a while back because "it is too windy to open the sliding windows" was the reply and ash trays were on tables that not long ago were clear of them. And yes I did speak to someone and the looks I received back from adjacent tables were not very pleasant.

tutor4u wrote:Went there tonight, at least 50% of the patrons smoking inside the bar. Left after one drink, be warned.

I am amazed, since Happy Valley closed we have been using this place as our local along with the Grease Monkey , my husband a smoker always goes outside along with the other regular users. Annoys me in the cold weather they all huddle around the door and I have to fight my way in.
yes I have seen the electronic kind used when there are only the few i call do they live here crowd? He being a person who goes out every night I feel I can say I have never seen real cigarettes being allowed to be smoked inside in standard opening hours.

Been ill and confined in since Monday night so all must of changed since then.

Went to Grease Monkey last week, smokers inside, so we left there.

We went to Sea Point in Lapta a couple of nights ago and there were people smoking inside there. A pity because it''s a nice place but we won't be going again.

We left the Abbey Bell Tiwer, usually one of our favourite winter restaurant venues, because they were letting people smoke inside. Known the owner years and complained. Got the shrug and told they are old and it's cold. Cancelled dessert and coffee and said we wouldn't be back until the outside was open.

I went to Kybele last week lovely meal and no smokers.

I guess they are doing what appeals to the bulk of their customers. If you don't like it then vote with your feet and if they lose enough business then they will review.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:I guess they are doing what appeals to the bulk of their customers. If you don't like it then vote with your feet and if they lose enough business then they will review.

It should not have anything to do with the 'bulk of their customers ' it is the law brought in for HEALTH reasons following on from the rest of the world.

13roman58 wrote:
It should not have anything to do with the 'bulk of their customers ' it is the law brought in for HEALTH reasons following on from the rest of the world.

The rest of the world don't include the TRNC in much tbh and people's obedience to laws over here is eclectic to say the least.

I'm a smoker but have no problems with restaurants having a smoking ban for social reasons but the evidence on passive smoking is skinny to say the least.
So for customers vote with your feet and when the restaurant loses enough business they will ban smoking. Personally I think there is a good case for smoking and non smoking restaurants but then I'm a big believer in personal choice.

I am also a believer in personal choice, and being a severe asthmatic cannot be around anyone smoking, so yes I do vote with my feet, but its a shame if any of my favourite eateries are now off my list, but my health and well being is more important, and passive smoking is a fact.

mrsgee wrote: passive smoking is a fact.

Its as much of a fact as the fact that we will be being boiled under the sea if we don't get rid of all our cars and rely on windmills for power by the year 2050.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:

mrsgee wrote: passive smoking is a fact.

Its as much of a fact as the fact that we will be being boiled under the sea if we don't get rid of all our cars and rely on windmills for power by the year 2050.

Why don't we all stick our fingers in our ears, close our eyes and say la la la till the naughty man goes away.

13roman58 wrote:

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:

mrsgee wrote: passive smoking is a fact.

Its as much of a fact as the fact that we will be being boiled under the sea if we don't get rid of all our cars and rely on windmills for power by the year 2050.

Why don't we all stick our fingers in our ears, close our eyes and say la la la till the naughty man goes away.

Well it's a thought but it looks as if we might have to sell our eyes and ears to pay for what is at best a stab in the dark

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-shee ... il/tobacco" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How dare you quote accurate statistics,accepted worldwide. stick your fingers somewhere else.

Thank you Kanonier If people want to belittle the fact about passive smoking then that's up to them and they have never experienced someone who has suffered lung disease or cancer, but never smoked in their life, as I have never smoked in my life, particularly once I learned I had developed the worse kind of asthma, brittle asthma, which can be fatal in a very short space of time, literally minutes..... so, thank you 'enjoying the sun' ... may you long do so, and so may I, but not in a smoking environment. If people choose to smoke that is fine, I have to avoid it and that is fine also, so I remove myself.... I hope you never have to cope with asthma or copd..... or maybe you should just get a taste of it to understand.

The largest ever study on passive smoking which took 30-40 years on the largest ever sample and was carried out by non smokers who desperately wanted to find the link but didn't find a link. It was the gold standard of all research on the subject but unfortunately came up with the wrong answer.
Saying second hand smoke irritates you, you find it anti social and effects a pre-existing decision such as asthma are all valid points. Saying there is a certain scientific link between passive smoking and getting cancer etc isn't. Personally I would go in a non smoking restaurant than a restaurant which is smoky but that is a personal choice. Like I say if you boycott and it costs the restaurant enough money then they will ban smoking.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:The largest ever study on passive smoking which took 30-40 years on the largest ever sample and was carried out by non smokers who desperately wanted to find the link but didn't find a link. It was the gold standard of all research on the subject but unfortunately came up with the wrong answer.
Saying second hand smoke irritates you, you find it anti social and effects a pre-existing decision such as asthma are all valid points. Saying there is a certain scientific link between passive smoking and getting cancer etc isn't. Personally I would go in a non smoking restaurant than a restaurant which is smoky but that is a personal choice. Like I say if you boycott and it costs the restaurant enough money then they will ban smoking.

I reckon Roy Castle might disagree with you

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:The largest ever study on passive smoking which took 30-40 years on the largest ever sample and was carried out by non smokers who desperately wanted to find the link but didn't find a link. It was the gold standard of all research on the subject but unfortunately came up with the wrong answer.
Saying second hand smoke irritates you, you find it anti social and effects a pre-existing decision such as asthma are all valid points. Saying there is a certain scientific link between passive smoking and getting cancer etc isn't. Personally I would go in a non smoking restaurant than a restaurant which is smoky but that is a personal choice. Like I say if you boycott and it costs the restaurant enough money then they will ban smoking.

I bow to your superior knowledge..... you clearly have not experienced anyone suffering cancer from passive smoking.... I have.

Trigger wrote:

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:The largest ever study on passive smoking which took 30-40 years on the largest ever sample and was carried out by non smokers who desperately wanted to find the link but didn't find a link. It was the gold standard of all research on the subject but unfortunately came up with the wrong answer.
Saying second hand smoke irritates you, you find it anti social and effects a pre-existing decision such as asthma are all valid points. Saying there is a certain scientific link between passive smoking and getting cancer etc isn't. Personally I would go in a non smoking restaurant than a restaurant which is smoky but that is a personal choice. Like I say if you boycott and it costs the restaurant enough money then they will ban smoking.

I reckon Roy Castle might disagree with you

Not everyone who gets lung cancer gets it from smoking and the evidence that people get it from passive smoking is slim to non existent

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:

Trigger wrote:

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:The largest ever study on passive smoking which took 30-40 years on the largest ever sample and was carried out by non smokers who desperately wanted to find the link but didn't find a link. It was the gold standard of all research on the subject but unfortunately came up with the wrong answer.
Saying second hand smoke irritates you, you find it anti social and effects a pre-existing decision such as asthma are all valid points. Saying there is a certain scientific link between passive smoking and getting cancer etc isn't. Personally I would go in a non smoking restaurant than a restaurant which is smoky but that is a personal choice. Like I say if you boycott and it costs the restaurant enough money then they will ban smoking.

I reckon Roy Castle might disagree with you

Not everyone who gets lung cancer gets it from smoking and the evidence that people get it from passive smoking is slim to non existent

stick stick your fingers in your ears and go tinga linga loo, tinga linga loo.

13roman58 wrote: stick stick your fingers in your ears and go tinga linga loo, tinga linga loo.

On Desert Island Discs in 2001, Sir Richard Doll, the man who proved the incontrovertible causal link between active smoking and lung cancer, said: "The effect of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me." I would guess he knows more about it than either of us, no?

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-styl ... 02137.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From https://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/apr/24/smoking.medicineandhealth

“Three years ago on Desert Island Discs, Professor Doll said he had formulated a new strategy towards health education: 'Find out what the tobacco industry supports and don't do it, and find out what they object to and do it.' He chose Rhapsody in Blue, Beethoven's 9th, an excerpt from the old radio comedy The Glums, and a down pillow as his luxury item. At the end of the programme he told Sue Lawley something that came as a surprise to those who knew him well. He said the effect of someone lighting up a cigarette in his presence 'is so small that it doesn't worry me', a comment which some interpreted as a denial of the impact of passive smoking. In fact, he had just published a study from 12 European countries suggesting the opposite: it was estimated that non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke are between 20 and 30 per cent more likely to develop lung cancer. In other words, the damage first detected by a young doctor 55 years ago has turned out to be far worse than anyone ever imagined.”

Maybe Roy Castle would like a say...….

Mowgli597 wrote:
He said the effect of someone lighting up a cigarette in his presence 'is so small that it doesn't worry me', a comment which some interpreted as a denial of the impact of passive smoking.

Amazing that the comment could be interpreted like that!

Maybe he was the victim of the usual pile on when you make a comment that doesn't agree with the orthodoxy?
As I said the Enstrom and Kabat study on passive smoking took 40 years on nearly 120,000 subjects and proved nada.

Cally wrote:Maybe Roy Castle would like a say...….

Enjoying the sun, I cannot believe you are so flippant about a serious subject.... maybe you are a smoker? Lol

I don't have too much of a problem with people smoking in bars.

Restaurants are a different matter.

From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking

“In 2004, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) reviewed all significant published evidence related to tobacco smoking and cancer. It concluded:

These meta-analyses show that there is a statistically significant and consistent association between lung cancer risk in spouses of smokers and exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke from the spouse who smokes. The excess risk is of the order of 20% for women and 30% for men and remains after controlling for some potential sources of bias and confounding.

Subsequent meta-analyses have confirmed these findings.”

mrsgee wrote:Enjoying the sun, I cannot believe you are so flippant about a serious subject.... maybe you are a smoker? Lol

I'm not being flippant, lung cancer is a horrendous disease and I feel for anyone who knows someone who is suffering from it. I am just putting your minds at rest that if you should be unfortunate to sit next to someone who is smoking that there is no proof that you will get lung cancer.,

Mowgli597 wrote: reviewed all significant published evidence

Its like poker after a while you get to spot tells.
All significant is a very selective phrase. You would expect then that they would review the Enstrom and Kabat study given it is the largest and most in depth of its type? I'll save you the trouble of checking, they didn't.

If I go to Manchester United's ground and ask their supporters who is the best footballer in England do you suppose they will pick a Liverpool or Manchester City player?

Hedge-fund wrote:I don't have too much of a problem with people smoking in bars.

Restaurants are a different matter.

There are some that would stop people smoking in their own house

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:

Hedge-fund wrote:I don't have too much of a problem with people smoking in bars.

Restaurants are a different matter.

There are some that would stop people smoking in their own house

Nothing wrong with that. It’s my home and that’s what I say to people who smoke, go in garden or not at all.
I

Absolutely Dalartocat...... I would never let anyone smoke in my house, even my hubby, years ago when he did used to smoke, went outside because he knew it was bad for my health.

Dalartokat wrote:

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:

Hedge-fund wrote:I don't have too much of a problem with people smoking in bars.

Restaurants are a different matter.

There are some that would stop people smoking in their own house

Nothing wrong with that. It’s my home and that’s what I say to people who smoke, go in garden or not at all.
I

Operative word, own

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:

Mowgli597 wrote: reviewed all significant published evidence

Its like poker after a while you get to spot tells.
All significant is a very selective phrase. You would expect then that they would review the Enstrom and Kabat study given it is the largest and most in depth of its type? I'll save you the trouble of checking, they didn't.

Repace, James. (2003). Critique of Enstrom & Kabat's Epi Study BMJ 2006; 2003. BMJ: British medical journal. Rapid Response.

Abstract:
‘Enstrom and Kabatʼs scientific analysis is fatally flawed due to its incorrect definition of passive smoking exposure as a “nonsmokerʼs marriage to a smoker” [6]. It has long been known, but less widely appreciated, that studies of passive smoking and lung cancer based only on spousal smoking status and failing to take into account workplace exposures will underestimate risk [6,12]. Enstrom and Kabat [11] claim that in the 1950ʼs and 1960ʼs “most female nonsmokers married to neversmokers were not exposed.” This long discredited notion [6] remained demonstrably false even as recently as 1989-1991, when a national probability sample showed that a substantial fraction of U.S. nonsmokers reporting “no home or workplace passive smoking” in fact had passive smoking doses greater than those who did report such exposure [13] (see figure below). This means that even when epidemiological studies of passive smoking account for both home and workplace exposure, they will still suffer underestimated risk and depressed statistical significance unless they correct for exposure in the “unexposed” referent group.’

Mowgli597 wrote:
It has long been known, but less widely appreciated, that studies of passive smoking and lung cancer based only on spousal smoking status and failing to take into account workplace exposures will underestimate risk [6,12]. Enstrom and Kabat [11] claim that in the 1950ʼs and 1960ʼs “most female nonsmokers married to neversmokers were not exposed.”

I'm assuming neversmokers is a typo otherwise that doesn't make sense. Again you get a feel for these. In the 50s and 60s by and large the only exposure many women had to second hand smoke would've been at home because as a rule they weren't in the workplace.

Mowgli597 wrote:
when a national probability sample showed that a substantial fraction of U.S. nonsmokers reporting “no home or workplace passive smoking” in fact had passive smoking doses greater than those who did report such exposure

That's set my BS detector off.
So a couple of questions there.
One. how big was the sample.
Two. You would have to know how this was carried out to give any credence to it at all. For example I would imagine if it was done by questionaire that it would be pretty rare that those taking the sample follow the subjects to work or at home to check the accuracy of their answer!

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:

Mowgli597 wrote:
It has long been known, but less widely appreciated, that studies of passive smoking and lung cancer based only on spousal smoking status and failing to take into account workplace exposures will underestimate risk [6,12]. Enstrom and Kabat [11] claim that in the 1950ʼs and 1960ʼs “most female nonsmokers married to neversmokers were not exposed.”

I'm assuming neversmokers is a typo otherwise that doesn't make sense. Again you get a feel for these. In the 50s and 60s by and large the only exposure many women had to second hand smoke would've been at home because as a rule they weren't in the workplace.

I don't think it's a typo. It appears to be based on the Enstrom and Kabat study which made that assertion - that "most female nonsmokers married to neversmokers were not exposed" (to second-hand smoke) and that these were the cohort against which those female nonsmokers who were married to smokers were compared.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:

Mowgli597 wrote:
when a national probability sample showed that a substantial fraction of U.S. nonsmokers reporting “no home or workplace passive smoking” in fact had passive smoking doses greater than those who did report such exposure

That's set my BS detector off.
So a couple of questions there.
One. how big was the sample.
Two. You would have to know how this was carried out to give any credence to it at all. For example I would imagine if it was done by questionaire that it would be pretty rare that those taking the sample follow the subjects to work or at home to check the accuracy of their answer!

But again it would appear that the Enstrom and Kabat study itself was based on questionnaire responses, in particular the response to the question: "are you a nonsmoker exposed to spousal smoking?"

Their conculsions were based on a positive response to this question - hence Replace's claim that their exposure assesment is basically flawed. Their assumption was that a subject's total passive smoking exposure is captured by that positive response. No allowance was made for non-spousal exposure.

Let's put an end to the conversation.
It is against the law to smoke in enclosed public places.
Implementation is the government problem.
The police get revenue from fines for traffic offences, let's do the same with health and hygiene.

I wonder if it's against the law here to run your old trucks on dirty red diesel? Or for the power stations to emit filthy smog through the air and across the sea. Or for the hotels to expel their sewage straight into the bay's where you swim, or for the infrastructure of the sewage systems to be so broken that God knows what you can get in the way of disease, or for there to be no monitoring of the deadly pesticides used on your 'organically' grown Veg. Or for deadly Lannate in a weakened form to be used to kill snails, but to a strength that it can still kill a dog?
It seems that people living here with weakened immune systems or asthma should well look to these issues instead of railing against smokers

I can recall last year going to a restaurant on the Lapta strip. When the waiter was confronted by us complaining of people smoking and what would happen if the Police walked in he said , with a Cyoriot shrug, we have many policemen eating here. Point made and taken. Not been back since.

JayJaycbg wrote:I wonder if it's against the law here to run your old trucks on dirty red diesel? Or for the power stations to emit filthy smog through the air and across the sea. Or for the hotels to expel their sewage straight into the bay's where you swim, or for the infrastructure of the sewage systems to be so broken that God knows what you can get in the way of disease, or for there to be no monitoring of the deadly pesticides used on your 'organically' grown Veg. Or for deadly Lannate in a weakened form to be used to kill snails, but to a strength that it can still kill a dog?
It seems that people living here with weakened immune systems or asthma should well look to these issues instead of railing against smokers

let's not justify one problem by highlighting others.
Selecting whatever suits one person,

I am unfortunately a smoker and can not stand going into restaurants that allow smoking inside. The law of the land is that smoking is prohibited in public buildings, restaurant owners must abide by the law, if not report them and/or vote with your feet.

This thread is going nowhere with argument on passive smoking - breathing clean air IS better than breathing in passive smoke - no need to prove any point as to whether it causes cancer or not.

I dont want to breath in smelly smoke exhaled from anyones lungs cancer carrying or not!

Soner wrote:I am unfortunately a smoker and can not stand going into restaurants that allow smoking inside. The law of the land is that smoking is prohibited in public buildings, restaurant owners must abide by the law, if not report them and/or vote with your feet.

This thread is going nowhere with argument on passive smoking - breathing clean air IS be better than breathing in passive smoke - no need to prove any point as to whether it causes cancer or not.

I did propose to put an end to this in my message no 42

Thanks 13roman58.
Thread now locked.