"Derek Geldard" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 18:28:01 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:



Not crap I'm afraid. Sir Richard Doll the scientist who discovered the
link between active smoking & cancer has publicly stated that he finds
the
passive smoking & cancer 'link' ridiculous.

Do you deny that there are any health problems caused by passive smoking?

There probably are.

But I've seen nothing to indicate that the risks are out of proportion
to other low grade occupational hazards such as "Baker's Itch",
"Glassblower's eye", "Fiddler's Elbow" etc.

Not the two wrongs make a right argument again. How pathetic!!!! No wonder
he votes Tory, the toxic smoke has fried his brain.

"Maria" wrote in message
...

Some health people Mersey are currently campaigning for a smoking ban
in the home.
http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/...4375-20061479/

I should think so. If in force and the health of child is impaired then the
parents should be prosecuted. As also those who allow their children to be
obese.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
.uk...

Hear, hear. New Liebour is history for me.

We can all go back to poverty and deprivation and people living on the
streets, while the rich strata got richer. Oh it was so good under those
fools wasn't it? Fab indeed!!

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
.uk...

New Liebour seems to fund black paraplegic lesbian theatre workshops?
Discrimination is relative.

A racist too.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
.uk...
Doctor Drivel wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message .uk...

The burden of proof is on the claiment and there is no credible
evidence that links passive smoking with a health risk.

********!!! Get your nicotine addiction sorted and stop acting the
prat!!

I think I've just won that point.

If you think you won anything, the toxic fumes have fried your brains.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
o.uk...
Clive George wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message .uk...

Do you deny that there are any health problems caused by passive
smoking?

I'm saying the burden of proof is on the proponent of the argument.
There is no credible scientific evidence to support the argument
that passive smoking is a health risk.

Well, that's just obviously complete and utter tosh. Trivially easy to
demonstrate that it is so - if the smoky atmosphere in a pub caused
somebody to so much as cough, it's evidence of a health risk.

Obviously complete and utter tosh? Give me some scientific study that
back up your claim. The BMA & Guvmint can't.

A clue. Coughs can be triggered by many things.

He was on about toxic smoke causing the cough. Please read again.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
I've always said that the residue of my pleasure ina pub is pee so if
anyone should impose their residue of their pleasure on me in the form
of toxic fumes would they like some of mine in return.

The

Please eff off as you are vacant in the head.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mark wrote:
I also think you have the worst case of denial about the ill
effects of smoking I have ever heard.

Eh? I've not said one word about its ill effects. I certainly don't deny
the rights of non smokers to have a smoke free environment - but I also
think smokers - and the owners of pubs etc have rights too. And I think a
perfectly acceptable compromise could have been reached.


The will was never there. It's a witch hunt pure and simple

Stuart Noble wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mark wrote:
I also think you have the worst case of denial about the ill
effects of smoking I have ever heard.

Eh? I've not said one word about its ill effects. I certainly don't
deny the rights of non smokers to have a smoke free environment -
but I also think smokers - and the owners of pubs etc have rights
too. And I think a perfectly acceptable compromise could have been
reached.

The will was never there. It's a witch hunt pure and simple

Spot on Stuart.


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

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 02:25:43 -0800, wrote:

On Nov 8, 12:36 pm, Phil Gardner wrote:
cut


In a nutshell - don't let one single article persuade you one way or
the other, do your homework and make an educated decision. You are
either an invester and as such take measured risks or you are not - in
which case keep your money in the bank.

Hope this helps

Thanks yes
I have calculated that I can withstand an interest rate rise to 7.5%
without any income from the property any higher then this and im close
to losing my shirt.
I still remember the problems my parents had when interests rates
rocketed to over 15% my prime concern was how the recent US subprime
problems would effect the UK economy short term as this is the period
when I will be most vulnerable.
Im also all too aware that no investment is risk free a friend of my
father was a Lloyds outside Name
Look were that got him

In article . com,
wrote:
I don't suppose it does; but then prisons don't seem in general to be
acting as much of a deterrent but rather an apprenctices college for
those wishing to further their careers in the alternative economy.

No matter how bad you make the conditions - and remember warders etc
have to work in the same ones - the deterrent aspect has never really
been proved to work. It may seem it *should* to law abiding citizens -
but they don't think in quite the same way as many criminals.

It certainly does work, if there were no deterrent there would be
many more crimes committed.

I meant the conditions within prisons. Being deprived of your liberty is
of course a deterrent.

It would be nice if it worked a lot more effectively of course.

The most effective deterrent is a certainty of being caught. This however
seems to have escaped those in authority.

And thats not hard to achieve, we just live in a system unwilling to
do it. One prisoner per cell, as close to solitary confinement as
possible. Loos not able to be used as communication lines, food
delivered to cells, kept indoors the whole time, just a whole lot of
silence and solitariness. Do that and you can then shorten the
sentences to get the same effect.

Any proof? It's fine having such beliefs but they need firm evidence to be
in any way true. And despite more and more being sent to prison crime
continues to rise.

As to having one per cell this would mean doubling - or more - the present
capacity. Delivering food to cells with the prisoners confined to them -
so not able to work in the kitchens etc - would need a huge increase in
staff. As would cleaning etc. I don't think you've thought this one
through...

--
*If your feet smell and your nose runs, you're built upside down.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
A good thing too. They are very responsible. Thank God it was banned in
pubs. What hell holes they were when thick with toxic fumes.

Does this mean your alcoholism was caused by drinking at home?

--
*If you think nobody cares about you, try missing a couple of payments *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
A good thing too. They are very responsible. Thank God it was banned in
pubs. What hell holes they were when thick with toxic fumes.

Does

You must eff off as you a total plantpot.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
o.uk...
Clive George wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message .uk...

Do you deny that there are any health problems caused by passive
smoking?

I'm saying the burden of proof is on the proponent of the argument.
There is no credible scientific evidence to support the argument
that passive smoking is a health risk.

Well, that's just obviously complete and utter tosh. Trivially easy to
demonstrate that it is so - if the smoky atmosphere in a pub caused
somebody to so much as cough, it's evidence of a health risk.

Obviously complete and utter tosh? Give me some scientific study that
back up your claim. The BMA & Guvmint can't.

Trivially easy to demonstrate. If the smoke causes somebody to cough when
they wouldn't have done so before, it's adversely affected their health. I
could arrange a formal survey for this if you want - except it's a bit
harder these days since the atmosphere in most public places no longer has
the problem.

A clue. Coughs can be triggered by many things. Non smokers also cough.

Clue : cough comes on when breathing in smoke.

You seem to be desperately clinging to the idea that smoke is some wonderful
benign stuff - it isn't. You've actually gone so far into that belief that
you're denying the obvious - the more obvious effects of smoke have been
known for ages, and even entered popular culture ("Smoke gets in your
eyes").

Give me the credible scientific evidence and I'll fall over & retract my
opinion - oh but you can't can you?

If you weren't so blinkered, you'd have noticed I'm only arguing at the
moment for the most blatently obvious effects - those which were known about
well before the link to cancer was demonstrated. Yet you still insist they
don't exist. Why is that? Why do you attempty to deny what is staring you in
the face?

(I've normally seen you as a fairly reasonable man - but on this subject
you're well off the mark.)

clive

On 2007-11-11 12:32:25 +0000, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article 4736e402@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-11-11 09:48:40 +0000, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article 4736b5f4@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
So what would be the difference if there were an outbuilding at a pub
for smokers only?

Not necessarily easy to implement

No pub would be forced to implement it.

Hmm.. but then those that couldn't for space reasons would be
bitching and moaning, as would those not allowed to implement for
planning reasons.

Why? According to most, pubs will make more money by the smoking ban - all
those who didn't like smoky pubs will now flock to them. And to eat in the
wonderful restaurants they all must have, apparently.

Ah well.

All that this creates is opportunity.

There's a big difference between removing an objection to a sale and
actually closing the business.

The ban makes it possible to go to said pub. It doesn't guarantee
them the business. They have allowed a major deterrent to persist
for decades. Now that has gone. But.... they still need to win the
business.

This is why many have gone for cleaning the places up, replacing the
carpets and all the rest of it.





Many have spent at least as much providing the maximum cover allowed
by the law in their gardens etc. And many have provided multiple patio
heaters too - simply great for the environment.

Certainly around the terraces anyway. The alfresco dining
opportunity should be appealing.

You'd eat outside with wind whistling through the sort of 'walls' allowed
and rain driving onto the table from the side with no wind break at all?

If you could put up with this a little smoke would be nothing. ;-)

With the right menu it would be excilerating.




Or a members only club for smokers?

Comments to geoff on that one

The fact that this isn't allowed is pure malice. Yet prisoners can
smoke indoors

that's a missed opportunity. It could have been made part of the
punishment and for those not in prison, part of the deterrent, and a
rather inexpensive one.

Heh heh. Given the ready availability of illegal drugs in prison - and
the blind eye turned to this - I'd guess you have little understanding
of the system and the notion that it does much as a deterrent.

I don't suppose it does; but then prisons don't seem in general to be
acting as much of a deterrent but rather an apprenctices college for
those wishing to further their careers in the alternative economy.

No matter how bad you make the conditions - and remember warders etc have
to work in the same ones - the deterrent aspect has never really been
proved to work. It may seem it *should* to law abiding citizens - but they
don't think in quite the same way as many criminals.

Perhaps we need to reintroduce some traditional values.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFlNyqeeifA





as can
some in patients of hospitals.

There's government involvement here. Looking for logic can be
difficult.

And towards the whole sorry business. I don't know of any smokers who
don't accept the rights of non smokers to have a smoke free
environment in public places. Pity they don't reciprocate. What was
needed was a little common sense when enabling the legislation. As if.

It comes back to the original and simple point.

A non smoker can pursue their activity of choosing not to smoke without
impinging on the smoker. There is nothing that prevents the smoker
going into any place where there isn't smoking.

The smoker can't do the reverse.

Exactly. Non smokers - especially those who were once smokers and have
stopped - simply want to try and *prevent* others smoking. Regardless. And
will invent all sorts of arguments to back up their prejudices. Exactly
like most religions.

Mmm... in that respect I can claim complete neutrality, never having smoked.

I am not so concerned about preventing anybody doing anything, but it
is pleasurable being able to go to places to eat that were not possible
before.

On 2007-11-11 15:41:03 +0000, "The Medway Handyman"
said:

Stuart Noble wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mark wrote:
I also think you have the worst case of denial about the ill
effects of smoking I have ever heard.

Eh? I've not said one word about its ill effects. I certainly don't
deny the rights of non smokers to have a smoke free environment -
but I also think smokers - and the owners of pubs etc have rights
too. And I think a perfectly acceptable compromise could have been
reached.

The will was never there. It's a witch hunt pure and simple

Spot on Stuart.

I think that that's rather sad.

Leaving aside what the government might want to do, it opens up choice
for non smokers to be able to go to places that weren't possible
before, while maintaining the ability for smokers to continue to be
able to go to them

In article 473742ce@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
The ban makes it possible to go to said pub. It doesn't guarantee
them the business. They have allowed a major deterrent to persist
for decades. Now that has gone. But.... they still need to win the
business.

There was nothing to stop a pub banning smoking before this law.
Restaurants too. In fact many of the latter did.

But even when pubs were non smoking - or had non smoking bars - they were
the empty ones. Like one local to me who turned the nicest and most busy
bar of three in the place into a non smoking area. Afterwards it was near
empty and the back bar which was usually quiet before became crowded.

--
*Why do they put Braille on the drive-through bank machines?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article 4737439d@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
Leaving aside what the government might want to do, it opens up choice
for non smokers to be able to go to places that weren't possible
before, while maintaining the ability for smokers to continue to be
able to go to them

I think you've missed the point. Most smokers like to supplement one drug
with another - ie alcohol and nicotine. And that 'right' has been removed.

Do you really think people would go to pubs if they didn't sell alcohol?
That would allow those who don't approve of it to use them too.

--
*Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 2007-11-11 18:28:35 +0000, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article 4737439d@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
Leaving aside what the government might want to do, it opens up choice
for non smokers to be able to go to places that weren't possible
before, while maintaining the ability for smokers to continue to be
able to go to them

I think you've missed the point. Most smokers like to supplement one drug
with another - ie alcohol and nicotine. And that 'right' has been removed.

OK.

So the situation is

- location

- drug A = alcohol

- drug B = nicotine


Previously the situation was that non smokers could have drug A plus
location in selected places provided that they were not affected by the
use of drug B by users of it.

Smokers had location plus drugs A and B


now non smokers have location plus drug A because they are no longer
prevented from entering location because of the use of drug B.

Smokers still have drug A and they still have location.

Really all that has happened is to make the situation more equitable.






Do you really think people would go to pubs if they didn't sell alcohol?
That would allow those who don't approve of it to use them too.

that would be unlikely. They are more more likely to go to pubs now
that there is no smoking. However I don't believe that pubs will lose
significant trade through absence of smoking any more than I think it
will increase either.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:473754da@qaanaaq...
On 2007-11-11 18:28:35 +0000, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article 4737439d@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
Leaving aside what the government might want to do, it opens up choice
for non smokers to be able to go to places that weren't possible
before, while maintaining the ability for smokers to continue to be
able to go to them

I think you've missed the point. Most smokers like to supplement one drug
with another - ie alcohol and nicotine. And that 'right' has been
removed.

OK.

So the situation is

- location

- drug A = alcohol

- drug B = nicotine

The situation is only nicotine. Alcohol has nothing whatsoever to do with
nicotine addiction and poisoning.

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 12:32:25 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

A non smoker can pursue their activity of choosing not to smoke without
impinging on the smoker. There is nothing that prevents the smoker
going into any place where there isn't smoking.

The smoker can't do the reverse.

Exactly. Non smokers - especially those who were once smokers and have
stopped - simply want to try and *prevent* others smoking. Regardless. And
will invent all sorts of arguments to back up their prejudices. Exactly
like most religions.

I don't think it was "Non-Smokers" who were behind this, I don't smoke
and smoking in restaurants only bothers me in certain very limited
circumstances *.

It was a political agenda promoted by those who could make Political
Capital out of it. It also seems to be a "good idea" (As in good for
the soul, like Part P and HIPS) picked up by Tony Blurr, Prezzer and
the like on trips overseas, the USA in particular. That self same USA
that Saint Tone appears to admire out of all rational proportion, and
where the really great idea of tuition fees came from.

* The circumstances (women are the chief offenders) are when sitting
at adjacent tables, those who feel compelled to get a fag going just
for show, don't actually like smoking or the smoke so they hold the
fag out at arms length and as far behind them as their shoulder joint
will permit so that the smoke pollutes adjacent tables that they can't
see.

More / less all other smoking behaviours I can put up with.

So: Not me guv.

DG

On 2007-11-11 18:25:15 +0000, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article 473742ce@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
The ban makes it possible to go to said pub. It doesn't guarantee
them the business. They have allowed a major deterrent to persist
for decades. Now that has gone. But.... they still need to win the
business.

There was nothing to stop a pub banning smoking before this law.
Restaurants too. In fact many of the latter did.

But even when pubs were non smoking - or had non smoking bars - they were
the empty ones. Like one local to me who turned the nicest and most busy
bar of three in the place into a non smoking area. Afterwards it was near
empty and the back bar which was usually quiet before became crowded.

Which really demonstrates that it's better to eliminate smoking from
inside premises altogether so that the pubs can open up all of the bars
and areas to all of their customers.

"Derek Geldard" wrote in message
...

It was a political agenda promoted
by those who could make Political
Capital out of it. It also seems to be
a "good idea" (As in good for
the soul, like Part P and HIPS) picked
up by Tony Blurr,

Not this nutball again!!!! Tory party brainwashed. Too dumb to see that
the aims of that bunch of goons is totally against him.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:473755d7@qaanaaq...
On 2007-11-11 18:25:15 +0000, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article 473742ce@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
The ban makes it possible to go to said pub. It doesn't guarantee
them the business. They have allowed a major deterrent to persist
for decades. Now that has gone. But.... they still need to win the
business.

There was nothing to stop a pub banning smoking before this law.
Restaurants too. In fact many of the latter did.

But even when pubs were non smoking - or had non smoking bars - they were
the empty ones. Like one local to me who turned the nicest and most busy
bar of three in the place into a non smoking area. Afterwards it was near
empty and the back bar which was usually quiet before became crowded.

Which really demonstrates that it's better to eliminate smoking from
inside premises altogether so that the pubs can open up all of the bars
and areas to all of their customers.

Many pubs are doing better business since the ban. The non-smokers who
liked a drink and hated the toxic substances in the air are gradually
populating pubs. Pubs that sell food are increasing sales in many areas,
especially those that allow children in.

Stuart Noble wrote:
Maria wrote:
Possibly. Depends if the politics is stronger I suppose. Hypocrisy has
never got in the way of politics before - that's why they can still
smoke in the House of Parliament bar!

This can't be true...can it?

Why not? One of the most flagrant breaches of the smoking laws in the
entire country is the lack of a warning sign on the main entrance to
some offices, used by many different people and visited by hundreds.

In case you should want to report it, the address is:

10 Downing Street.

Andy

Andy Hall wrote:

OK.

So the situation is

- location

- drug A = alcohol

- drug B = nicotine


Previously the situation was that non smokers could have drug A plus
location in selected places provided that they were not affected by the
use of drug B by users of it.

Smokers had location plus drugs A and B


now non smokers have location plus drug A because they are no longer
prevented from entering location because of the use of drug B.

Smokers still have drug A and they still have location.

Really all that has happened is to make the situation more equitable.


Before the smoking ban came in I was seeing the odd pub around that was
no smoking, and many restaurants. They were using it as a selling
point. This is market forces at work.

But here's a different thought. We have a major economic problem on our
hands, the Pension Crisis. Smoking is the ideal fix for this. Smokers
pay lots of tax, then dies before they can claim (all) their pensions.
I won't do it, but I'm more than happy for other people to smoke!

Andy

On 2007-11-11 19:59:53 +0000, Andy Champ said:

Andy Hall wrote:

OK.

So the situation is

- location

- drug A = alcohol

- drug B = nicotine


Previously the situation was that non smokers could have drug A plus
location in selected places provided that they were not affected by the
use of drug B by users of it.

Smokers had location plus drugs A and B


now non smokers have location plus drug A because they are no longer
prevented from entering location because of the use of drug B.

Smokers still have drug A and they still have location.

Really all that has happened is to make the situation more equitable.


Before the smoking ban came in I was seeing the odd pub around that was
no smoking, and many restaurants. They were using it as a selling
point. This is market forces at work.

Indeed


But here's a different thought. We have a major economic problem on
our hands, the Pension Crisis. Smoking is the ideal fix for this.
Smokers pay lots of tax, then dies before they can claim (all) their
pensions. I won't do it, but I'm more than happy for other people to
smoke!


Oh definitely. I haven't said that people should be discouraged from
smoking. In fact, based on this scenario I would encourage it.
However we can have the best of both worlds. They can now pickle
themselves without pickling me.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:473765a9@qaanaaq...
On 2007-11-11 19:59:53 +0000, Andy Champ said:

Andy Hall wrote:

OK.

So the situation is

- location

- drug A = alcohol

- drug B = nicotine


Previously the situation was that non smokers could have drug A plus
location in selected places provided that they were not affected by the
use of drug B by users of it.

Smokers had location plus drugs A and B


now non smokers have location plus drug A because they are no longer
prevented from entering location because of the use of drug B.

Smokers still have drug A and they still have location.

Really all that has happened is to make the situation more equitable.


Before the smoking ban came in I was seeing the odd pub around that was
no smoking, and many restaurants. They were using it as a selling point.
This is market forces at work.

Indeed


But here's a different thought. We have a major economic problem on our
hands, the Pension Crisis. Smoking is the ideal fix for this. Smokers
pay lots of tax, then dies before they can claim (all) their pensions. I
won't do it, but I'm more than happy for other people to smoke!


Oh definitely. I haven't said that people should be discouraged from
smoking. In fact, based on this scenario I would encourage it. However
we can have the best of both worlds. They can now pickle themselves
without pickling me.

Smoker will drain the NHS is funds as they will clutter the wards with
smoking related diseases. No one gains with smoking . NO one at all.

Andy Champ wrote:
Stuart Noble wrote:
Maria wrote:
Possibly. Depends if the politics is stronger I suppose. Hypocrisy has
never got in the way of politics before - that's why they can still
smoke in the House of Parliament bar!

This can't be true...can it?

Why not? One of the most flagrant breaches of the smoking laws in the
entire country is the lack of a warning sign on the main entrance to
some offices, used by many different people and visited by hundreds.

In case you should want to report it, the address is:

10 Downing Street.

Andy

I didn't see a spas-ramp there either. Disgraceful!

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:473765a9@qaanaaq...
On 2007-11-11 19:59:53 +0000, Andy Champ said:

Andy Hall wrote:

OK.

So the situation is

- location

- drug A = alcohol

- drug B = nicotine


Previously the situation was that non smokers could have drug A plus
location in selected places provided that they were not affected by
the use of drug B by users of it.

Smokers had location plus drugs A and B


now non smokers have location plus drug A because they are no longer
prevented from entering location because of the use of drug B.

Smokers still have drug A and they still have location.

Really all that has happened is to make the situation more equitable.


Before the smoking ban came in I was seeing the odd pub around that
was no smoking, and many restaurants. They were using it as a
selling point. This is market forces at work.

Indeed


But here's a different thought. We have a major economic problem on
our hands, the Pension Crisis. Smoking is the ideal fix for this.
Smokers pay lots of tax, then dies before they can claim (all) their
pensions. I won't do it, but I'm more than happy for other people to
smoke!


Oh definitely. I haven't said that people should be discouraged
from smoking. In fact, based on this scenario I would encourage it.
However we can have the best of both worlds. They can now pickle
themselves without pickling me.

Smoker will drain the NHS is funds as they will clutter the wards with
smoking related diseases. No one gains with smoking . NO one at all.

Sadly my kill file seems to have been deleted, and your inane posts are
drivelling through.

Actually the reverse is the case. E.g. my mother who is now in erament
care ad has bee for the last two years, ad whose knowedge of aythng at
all s less than yours s on everything put to gether, is a case in point/

£23k a year plus huge amounts of hospital acre. All because she hadn't
the good sense to die quickly of lung cancer.

Its an established fact that the NHS MAKES money out of smokers, and
loses it all to health nuts whose bodies carry on well beyond their
minds. Just like yours. How much is all your mental health care costing
the nation?

I think we should be told.

I you want to be a good socialist, kill yourself NOW.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

Smoker will drain the NHS is funds as they will clutter the wards with
smoking related diseases. No one gains with smoking . NO one at all.

There is 16Bn a year in tobacco duty so el gordo is happy.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article 4736e402@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
I don't suppose it does; but then prisons don't seem in general to be
acting as much of a deterrent but rather an apprenctices college for
those wishing to further their careers in the alternative economy.

No matter how bad you make the conditions - and remember warders etc have
to work in the same ones - the deterrent aspect has never really been
proved to work. It may seem it *should* to law abiding citizens - but they
don't think in quite the same way as many criminals.

Quite, Prison works as a deterrent for the sort of people who are most
unlikely to find themselves in prison, eg law abiding citizens.



--
djc

Clive George wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message o.uk...
Clive George wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message .uk...

Do you deny that there are any health problems caused by passive
smoking?

I'm saying the burden of proof is on the proponent of the argument.
There is no credible scientific evidence to support the argument
that passive smoking is a health risk.

Well, that's just obviously complete and utter tosh. Trivially easy
to demonstrate that it is so - if the smoky atmosphere in a pub
caused somebody to so much as cough, it's evidence of a health risk.

Obviously complete and utter tosh? Give me some scientific study
that back up your claim. The BMA & Guvmint can't.

Trivially easy to demonstrate. If the smoke causes somebody to cough
when they wouldn't have done so before, it's adversely affected their
health. I could arrange a formal survey for this if you want - except
it's a bit harder these days since the atmosphere in most public
places no longer has the problem.

A clue. Coughs can be triggered by many things. Non smokers also
cough.

Clue : cough comes on when breathing in smoke.

If someone coughs its in response to an irritant - that can be cigarette
smoke granted, but a cough can be triggered by traffic pollution, pets,
allergies, pollen, cooking fumes whatever - it doesn't mean its a health
risk. Typically you choose to demonise cigarette smoke as being the only
cause.

You seem to be desperately clinging to the idea that smoke is some
wonderful benign stuff - it isn't. You've actually gone so far into
that belief that you're denying the obvious - the more obvious
effects of smoke have been known for ages, and even entered popular
culture ("Smoke gets in your eyes").

I'm not suggesting that active smoking is wonderful, although it does have
some benefits (the evidence isn't PC so is therefore suppressed). What I'm
saying is that the health risks of passive smoking are completely unproven -
despite desperate attempts to do so.

Rather than clinging to an idea, I would suggest that I am able to see the
wood for the trees. The demonising of smokers is based on false premises &
bad science.

Give me the credible scientific evidence and I'll fall over &
retract my opinion - oh but you can't can you?

If you weren't so blinkered, you'd have noticed I'm only arguing at
the moment for the most blatantly obvious effects - those which were
known about well before the link to cancer was demonstrated. Yet you
still insist they don't exist. Why is that? Why do you attempt to
deny what is staring you in the face?

The trouble with 'blatantly obvious effects' is that they are at best
circumstantial evidence.

(I've normally seen you as a fairly reasonable man - but on this
subject you're well off the mark.)

As I said, give me credible scientific evidence instead of hysteria, hidden
agendas, pharmaceutical company propaganda & vested interests and I'm happy
to listen. Ad hominem attacks won't do the job.

Let me give you an example. I've seen figures that passive smoking kills
respectively 9,000, or 11,000 Brits per year and/or 16,000 Europeans per
year. All three figures obviously can't be correct. The BMA, UK Guvmint &
the EU have all been challenged to provide evidence of these alleged figures
and simply can't do so. First defence is to hide behind the data protection
act.

The simplest proof would be if one single solitary death certificate gave
the cause of death as Passive Smoke.

Not one single such certificate exists anywhere in the UK, Europe or the
USA. Not one.


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

John Rumm wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Smoker will drain the NHS is funds as they will clutter the wards
with smoking related diseases. No one gains with smoking . NO one
at all.

There is 16Bn a year in tobacco duty so el gordo is happy.

And according to NHS figures 'smoking related diseases' cost them 1.5Bn.


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

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-11-11 18:28:35 +0000, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article 4737439d@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
Leaving aside what the government might want to do, it opens up
choice for non smokers to be able to go to places that weren't
possible before, while maintaining the ability for smokers to
continue to be able to go to them

I think you've missed the point. Most smokers like to supplement one
drug with another - ie alcohol and nicotine. And that 'right' has
been removed.

OK.

So the situation is

- location

- drug A = alcohol

- drug B = nicotine

I think its you who have misssed the point Andy. We could have 'A' only
locations, or 'A+B' locations - and the customers could choose. It's really
very simple.

If the market chooses 80% A only thats fine. Its called free choice.

A pub local to me has reacted by advertising 'the best smoking area in
Medway. Roof, heaters, lights, nice furniture, table service etc - and is
packed out.


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

In article ,
The Medway Handyman wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Smoker will drain the NHS is funds as they will clutter the wards
with smoking related diseases. No one gains with smoking . NO one
at all.

There is 16Bn a year in tobacco duty so el gordo is happy.

And according to NHS figures 'smoking related diseases' cost them 1.5Bn.

And of course there's a good chance smokers don't live so long as non
smokers so cost the country less in their retirement. Caring for the very
elderly with dementia etc is a very expensive business.

Yet another example of dribble not understanding the most basic of
economics.

--
*If a mute swears, does his mother wash his hands with soap?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , The
Medway Handyman writes
Clue : cough comes on when breathing in smoke.

If someone coughs its in response to an irritant

And hawking up a load of phlegm in the morning is your body's way of
telling you that whatever lies your mind is telling you, the body's not
happy with that intake of tar and other dangerous substances you
inflicted it with the previous evening


I'm not suggesting that active smoking is wonderful, although it does have
some benefits (the evidence isn't PC so is therefore suppressed).

We're all ears ...

Rather than clinging to an idea, I would suggest that I am able to see the
wood for the trees.

I really don't think so

I can think of no other drug which, rather than making you feel good,
has no effect other than removing your need for it for a while after you
have taken it. It gives no sense of wellbeing or euphoria once the
immediate craving has been satisfied, it has no mind expanding
properties (nicotine does have slight memory enhancement properties)

Stop making excuses for what is basically an anti-social pastime with no
redeeming features

An addiction absolutely controls you, you can't turn it off, you can't
live without it you are a slave to it's power over you

be man enough to break the dependency

I bet you can't



--
geoff

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Smoker will drain the NHS is funds as they will clutter the wards with
smoking related diseases. No one gains with smoking . NO one at all.

There is 16Bn a year in tobacco duty so el gordo is happy.

They will spend their money on something else which is taxable, so no
change.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
o.uk...
John Rumm wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Smoker will drain the NHS is funds as they will clutter the wards
with smoking related diseases. No one gains with smoking . NO one
at all.

There is 16Bn a year in tobacco duty so el gordo is happy.

And according to NHS figures 'smoking related diseases' cost them 1.5Bn.

See my post. Give up smoking you pillock!

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
.uk...
Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-11-11 18:28:35 +0000, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article 4737439d@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
Leaving aside what the government might want to do, it opens up
choice for non smokers to be able to go to places that weren't
possible before, while maintaining the ability for smokers to
continue to be able to go to them

I think you've missed the point. Most smokers like to supplement one
drug with another - ie alcohol and nicotine. And that 'right' has
been removed.

OK.

So the situation is

- location

- drug A = alcohol

- drug B = nicotine

I think its you who have misssed the point Andy. We could have 'A' only
locations, or 'A+B' locations - and the customers could choose. It's
really very simple.

If the market chooses 80% A only thats fine. Its called free choice.

A pub local to me has reacted by advertising 'the best smoking area in
Medway. Roof, heaters, lights, nice furniture, table service etc - and is
packed out.

I would hose the *******s out!