"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
m...
dennis@home wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article , dennis@home
wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
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.

Its irrelevant as someone having a drink has zero effect on anyone
else unless it is taken to excess, which has been illegal for a lot
longer than the smoking ban but you didn't care then.

I'm quite happy with the smoking ban in public places. But don't
consider privately owned buildings like pubs or clubs to be public
places in the same way as you apparently do. And certainly don't see
the need to force smokers outside to the pavement etc when a smoking
area inside could easily be provided. That is simply trying to
punish them.

Smoking isn't banned in private buildings.. it is banned in places of
employment though.
Strictly speaking if the handyman smokes on a job it is an offence
AFAICS.

A smoker effects everyone around the second they light up even if
you choose to ignore that fact.

As does someone who farts. Are you going to make that illegal too?

As for bringing heroin into it then if you think smoking is
comparable to heroin I won't argue with you.. now how to get it
classified as "A"?

Think like all alcohol lovers you miss the fact that alcohol does
more damage than heroin - but is legal and positively encouraged.
Which makes you somewhat of a bigot. But we knew that, don't we?



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.

Apart from the fact that smokers often drink too, one type of
addiction is often associated with others, so many of those killed
have been killed by smokers. Who knows now they can't smoke in the
pub they may not get drunk and the smoking ban could be saving on
assaults too. Anyone got the figures yet?

Who knows indeed. Are you going to invent any more theories to back
your intolerance?

What's the problem with inventing theories?
That's what people do.
Then you try and prove them.
You don't lie like smokers do and claim there is no evidence even
when there is.

The entire passive smoking myth started when the World Health Organisation
published a report claiming the link. The reports was a synopsis of 30
studies wordwide which was later debunked as being rigged by the WHO to
support their theory. Once exposed they admitted that the link between
passive smoking and lung cancer were not 'statistically significant'.

Why restrict it to cancer? I have already posted enough proof that passive
smoking is harmful.
You can't change the facts.


In 1992, the US Environmental Protection Agency published a report about
the link between passive smoking and ill health in non-smokers. In 1996 a
US federal court ruled that the EPA had completely failed to prove its
case.

In 1997, the National Health & Medical Research Council in Australia was
found guilty by a federal court judge of acting improperly in preparing
its draft report on passive smoking because it didn't consider all the
relevant scientific evidence and submissions.

I think that makes your claim "You don't lie like smokers do and claim
there is no evidence even when there is" look rather stupid dont you?.
The entire passive smoking myth is based on lies. Sorry if you don't like
that RASF, but its true.


If I came into the pub and started glue sniffing next to you, would
you complain or just sit there and breath in the fumes?
Glue sniffing is not illegal BTW.

See John go to the "non glue sniffing pub" See janet go to the "glue
sniffng" pub. Got the idea?


You are wrong as you well know.