Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
You are a typical addict.. any evidence that goes against your drug
is wrong. There is loads of evidence that smoking is harmful you
just choose to ignore it.

There's also loads of evidence that alcohol harms many many people -
more die from its effects each month than die in a year from heroin.
Nor can you say it only effects the users - many city centres are
near no go areas due to its abuse.

Irrelevant and typical of the junk smokers bring up to justify their
addiction.

Really? It's perfectly relevant since *you* brought up drugs and
addiction.


So I just hope as a likely boozer you'll be just as in favour of a
similar restriction on that when it comes - as it will, given all
government's love of control.

There are already laws to control drunkenness and they have been
there far longer than antismoking laws.

And are ignored or not enforced.

And I know of nobody that has suffered from secondary drinking in a
pub/restaurant or cinema.

I'm willing to bet far more have been killed by others under the
influence of alcohol than have ever been harmed by passive smoking.

Dave,

My last words on this subject.

To the best of my knowledge, no long term studies have ever been carried out
on the effects of passive smoking - but it is obvious that if non-smokers
live or work for a long period of time in the company of smokers, then this
*has* to have an effect on them simply because of the amount of noxious
chemicals that are produced from the tobacco and the residues exhaled by the
smoker.

(It has certainly happened with me as I stated in another post somewhere in
this thread).

To cite an example of this is the late Roy Castle, who was a non smoker but
developed lung cancer from the years that he spent inhaling the many cubic
yards of second-hand smoke produced by the audience whilst he was frequently
'playing the club circuit'.

It's also a similar effect to that of asbestosis - where a man's wife has
never worked with asbestos but died from the disease simply by inhaling the
(sometimes only very small quantities) of dust/fibres from his overalls.

So in effect, your statement -- "I'm willing to bet far more have been
killed by others under the influence of alcohol than have ever been harmed
by passive smoking." -- really is untested, as to die *OR* to kill after
taking excessive amounts of alcohol is given far wider publicity than
someone dying of lung cancer - or other ailments - due to passive smoking.

All best.

BRG