On Feb 10, 8:09*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in media.com...

dennis@homewrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
media.com...

I can't be arsed to even look at the rest of the ****e you have
Googled to support your claim. *I could find you 30+ studies, all
credible & published in scientific journals subject to critical peer
review that show the opposite - that non smoking partners of active
smokers are less likely to develop cancer, heart disease, diabeties
& ingrowing toenails.

Less likely than who?

Errrm. *The active smokers. *Yunno, those partners. *There is a clue in
the line "non smoking partners of active smokers are less likely...".

Not less likely than a non smoker who isn't poisoned by the ones that
supposedly love them then.

Sorry Dennipoo's, you lost me on that one, repeat it in English. Is
this the fluffy bunny argument again?

All you have proven there is that smoking is more dangerous than secondary
smoking!

Ah! At last you are getting the idea! Well done! Your concentration
level would of course be higher if you smoked.

One day, if you think hard enough, you will get the full picture.
Active smoking is proven to be dangerous to the active smoker, passive
smoking isn't dangerous to anyone.



If you can't read a paragraph in a post properly, what chance have you got
of understanding simple facts?

I think you have provided more evidence that you don't have a clue.

Oh do tell Dennipoo's, what evidence would that be?

Speaking of evidence, a while ago you made the outrageous claim that
smokers incurred additional costs to the tax payer that the NHS didn't
include in their (grossly exagerated) figures. Something to do with
aftercare.

I asked you about 5 times to provide the figures and every time you
evaded the question. I suspect because you made it up. A familiar
technique with hysterical anti smokers.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk