BRG wrote:
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.

Probably because you have realised your argument is completely flawed.

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.

Many studies have been carried out on the effects of passive smoking and non
have reached the conclusion that it is a health risk. You are clutching at
straws in order to support your argument.

(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'.

Oh dear, the old 'Roy Castle' argument again. This has been disproved so
many times its just plain silly. Typicically it has the support of the
hysterical anti smoking lobby who prefer anecdotal evidence to scientific
fact.

Let me spell it out for you. Non smokers do contract lung cancer, as did Mr
Castle. However it is an entirely different form of cancer and affects a
completely different part of the lung. The possibility of it being caused
by passive smoking is statistically & medically impossible. Roy Castle did
not die as a result of passive smoking, neither has anyone else.

Sorry that doesn't support your hysterical & over emotional view, but I'm
afraid its true. Zero out of ten, please try harder.

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.

Many research projects involving the non smoking wives of smokers have
concluded that they are far less likely to develop lung cancer than wives of
non smokers. Suppressed in the holey discredited WHO report for obvious
reasons.

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.

Interesting that. Yet another example of rabid hysteria. There is no
accurate data whatsoever to support the fallacy that passive smoking is
harmful, but there is a whole **** load of recorded data relating to death
caused by excessive alcohol intake, and a further **** load of data relating
to deaths/serious injury caused by people under the influence of alcohol.

Face it. Your arguments are hysterical, biased & based on an inability to
comprehend basic science. Get back to me when you have learned to think for
yourself.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257