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

Can I get a pint of whatever you are drinking? All I'm saying is that
smokers should have the right to have smoking venues.

Why would anybody provide a non-smoking venue in that situation? Where's
their commercial incentive to do so? That was the situation before the
smoking ban - what proportion of eg pubs were non-smoking? Bugger all.

clive

It was bugger all - and rising fast. In restaurants it was becoming a
quite reasonable proportion. I've never smoked (well, not as much as a
full packet anyway!), but I regard this legislation as a typical Nu
Laber authoritarian response. Over complicated, over expensive, over
detailed. For example, why do we have to have signs outside every
building saying smoking is illegal, when it's illegal in all buildings?

And come to that, why hasn't anyone prosecuted 10 Downing St for not
having a sign?

And another thought. We have a pensions crisis. Smokers pay enough tax
to pay for their health care, then die before they can claim their
pensions. Go ahead guys, be my guest. I'll sit by the window though if
you don't mind!

Andy

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
BRG wrote:
I take then that you are a smoker?

If you are, and I ever have to stand near you and are forced to
inhale your waste smoke, then I shall endevour to stand above you
(by whatever means) and empty the waste from my bladder over your
head.

I get your waste, you get mine - a fair deal I think - and I'm being
polite here to someone who thinks that they have the right to force
their obnoxious habit on all and sundry from babies to grandparents
without any objections!

Is it ok if I **** over your car or central heating boiler? Etc?

TMH,

Feel free, then I can come along and **** on yours - as well as in your old
bag of DIY tools (one pile of **** joining another)!

I must have touched a raw nerve somewhere then?

BRG

The Medway Handyman wrote:
BRG wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
BRG wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
"BRG" wrote in message
...
Frank Erskine wrote:
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 23:59:10 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:


It isn't an offence to hang about, if you think it is just
remember that the next time you stop in the street to talk to
someone you know.

Actually I think it IS an offence to loiter.

Define *loitering* as that can also apply to old farts like me
who could stand and gossip on the public highway all damn day!

Legally minors can't make purchases anyway, so they have no
valid reason to hang around shops.

Under the law minors *CAN* make purchases *AND* contracts for
*NECESSARIES*.

Necessaries are described under the Sales of Goods Act, 1893 as
Food, Clothing, Medical Attention and Educational Books.

Hence they have every right to frequent shops for purchases, but
not for the minority to hang around and create a damn nuisance
of themselves!

There are enough adults that hang around being a real pain, they
hang about pub doors, entrances to offices, and shops, all over
the place and they usually litter too. I wonder why its OK for
them but not for kids?

I quite agree - but it's usually the youngsters that are more
boisterous and appear to be more intimidating than their elders -
especially when they are intxicated or just out for trouble in
gangs.
If someone comes up with a way to shift them things will be much
better.

According to my son, America (which he treats as his second home
due to work commitments there) and New York particularly, have
laws preventing smokers etc from congregating within 20 feet or
so of any public access doorway - if they applied that law here,
then that would resolve the problem.

It wouldn't resolve the 'problem' - a non existent problem anyway,
it would just make non-smokers enjoy their Schadenfreude even more,
evil little *******s that they are.

That should have read;
anti smoking fascists enjoy their Schadenfreude even more, evil
little *******s that they are.

No offence to any normal non smokers.

TMH,

I take then that you are a smoker?

Dead sharp you non smokers, nothing slips past you :-)

Just a guess, but I always keep my tools sharp!

If you are, and I ever have to stand near you and are forced to
inhale your waste smoke, then I shall endevour to stand above you (by
whatever means) and empty the waste from my bladder over your head.

Calm down dear. Nobody is suggesting that we exchange waste products
are they? We could easily have smoking & non smoking venues - then I
wouldn't bother you and you wouldn't bother me.

Smoking or on-smoking venues, what a laugh! A smoker lights up anywhere
just to get the fix - and sod the non-smokers

If you want venues where you can urinate on people, I'm happy with
that. I will simply choose not to visit them. I don't like Tory
MP's anyway.

Well if you wish to do that as a perversion or fetish, I'm sure that you
will find someone leaning towards your ilk.

I get your waste, you get mine - a fair deal I think - and I'm being
polite here to someone who thinks that they have the right to force
their obnoxious habit on all and sundry from babies to grandparents
without any objections!

Please don't assume what I think. I don't wish to share my cigarette
smoke with anyone apart from other smokers.

I am not assuming anything! The simple fact is that no matter where you
smoke publicly [1], you will share it with everyone in the vicinity -
especially if you are pathetic enough to stand out in all winds and weathers
in doorways or open shelters just to feed your addiction - you also feed the
passers-by!

[1] - And if you have children, then when you smoke 'privately' in your own
home, you share it with them and they have no choice but to inhale your
*noxious* fumes - do they?



BRG

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
That is why many ex-smokers are so unsympathetic,
they see the losers for what they were and despise them.

Not so - they catch a whiff and want to smoke again. It's one of the most
addictive drugs around and unlike many you never loose the desire for it.
Ever.

It doesn't affect me that way

I've mentally switched into "non-smoker" mode

I don't like the smell any more, it doesn't make me feel like wanting to
smoke

(50 a day two years ago ...)


--
geoff

The Medway Handyman wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message . ..


Please don't assume what I think. I don't wish to share my
cigarette smoke with anyone apart from other smokers.

I am happy to find a smoker that agrees it is wrong to smoke anywhere
the public has access to or where there are any children like
streets, shops, houses, etc.

"anywhere the public has access to". Would that be the smoking
public or the non smoking public? 25% of the UK population enjoy a
perfectly legal activity.

But using your statistics, then the other 75% of the UK population find it
abhorrent - a majority I think (that's assuming there are no fence-sitters)!

And remember, that a non-smoker also wish to carry out a perfectly legal
activity - breathing clean air!

Think about it. If we had reasonable legislation instead of punitive
legislation, we could have specific smoking & non smoking venues.
Therefore 25% of the public could smoke in areas that 25% of the
population has access to.

But you do have legal 'smoking areas' - your own homes!

"streets"? Are you seriously suggesting second hand smoke is a
problem in the open air? Or are smokers responsible for global
warming?

It is a problem in the open air - smokers are polluting and here are some
statistics for you to inhale:

SECONDHAND SMOKE CONTAINS 4,000 TOXIC CHEMICALS
People that breath secondhand smoke are at risk of the same diseases as
smokers, including cancer and heart disease, because secondhand smoke
contains 4,000 toxic chemicals. It is estimated that secondhand smoke causes
thousands of deaths each year.


I see your train of thought. You are suggesting that second hand
smoke in the open air is a serious threat to the health of small
children & possibly fluffy bunnies.

That is a fact - see above or of you can find the time or effort - just do a
quick 'google' and look for yourself - or just in case you are a little
blinkered I'll do one for you

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/hea...micals/?a=5441

(or a shorter link: http://preview.tinyurl.com/3cmd72)

At what range? Can smokers injure the health of small children &
fluffy bunnies at 10 yards? 100yards? A mile?


That statement shows just how ignorant you are of the facts - if you have
kids yourself and you smoke in the house - then work it out for yourself!


"shops"? Shops are perfectly entitled to apply smoking bans if they
want to. Who smokes in shops anyway?


There used to be many smokers in shops before the ban was introduced - both
staff and clients!


"houses"? Surely people can do what they like in their own houses? Or
would you like to outlaw that as well?


Do what you like in your own home, that is yours - but remember the
children!


Fascist.


So what does that make you? A long term executioner and a suicide candidate
I would say!


When they came for the Jews and the blacks, I turned away
When they came for the writers and the thinkers and the radicals and
the protesters, I turned away
When they came for the gays, and the minorities, and the utopians,
and the dancers, I turned away
And when they came for me, I turned around and around, and there was
nobody left...


That is a *******isation of a disputed poem depicting mass slaughter, and
the use it in this context to justify your own habit really shows how
pathetic you are!


BRG

geoff wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
That is why many ex-smokers are so unsympathetic,
they see the losers for what they were and despise them.

Not so - they catch a whiff and want to smoke again. It's one of the most
addictive drugs around and unlike many you never loose the desire for it.
Ever.

It doesn't affect me that way

I've mentally switched into "non-smoker" mode

I don't like the smell any more, it doesn't make me feel like wanting to
smoke

(50 a day two years ago ...)


Agreed - now I hate the smell at a thousand paces...

But, somewhat ironically, giving up appears to precipitate or disclose
thyroid disease. Quite seriously, the nicotine may help to mask and
overcome the lack of thyroid hormone. If you are going to give up, I
suggest that you get your doctor to do a thyroid function test first.

--
Rod

In article ,
Clive George wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message ...

Can I get a pint of whatever you are drinking? All I'm saying is that
smokers should have the right to have smoking venues.

Why would anybody provide a non-smoking venue in that situation? Where's
their commercial incentive to do so? That was the situation before the
smoking ban - what proportion of eg pubs were non-smoking? Bugger all.

Which suggests there was no real call for the smoking ban in pubs. There
were non smoking pubs before the ban - and if they'd been a commercial
success others would have followed suit.

--
*A conscience is what hurts when all your other parts feel so good *

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

In article ,
BRG wrote:
If you are, and I ever have to stand near you and are forced to
inhale your waste smoke, then I shall endevour to stand above you
(by whatever means) and empty the waste from my bladder over your
head.

I get your waste, you get mine - a fair deal I think - and I'm being
polite here to someone who thinks that they have the right to force
their obnoxious habit on all and sundry from babies to grandparents
without any objections!

Is it ok if I **** over your car or central heating boiler? Etc?

TMH,

Feel free, then I can come along and **** on yours - as well as in your
old bag of DIY tools (one pile of **** joining another)!

I must have touched a raw nerve somewhere then?

You've certainly proved you can't reason things through. You object to the
pollution smokers cause - others can object to the pollution your car or
boiler causes. They can object to your cat or dog spreading disease. Or
anything else a bigot cares to think up.

--
*The man who fell into an upholstery machine is fully recovered*

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

dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message . ..
dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message . ..


Please don't assume what I think. I don't wish to share my
cigarette smoke with anyone apart from other smokers.

I am happy to find a smoker that agrees it is wrong to smoke
anywhere the public has access to or where there are any children
like streets, shops, houses, etc.

"anywhere the public has access to". Would that be the smoking
public or the non smoking public? 25% of the UK population enjoy a
perfectly legal activity.

That would be the public. You said you didn't want to share your
pollution with others.. changed your mind now?
Typical self centered smoker.. "I'm alright, sod everyone else".


Think about it. If we had reasonable legislation instead of punitive
legislation, we could have specific smoking & non smoking venues.
Therefore 25% of the public could smoke in areas that 25% of the
population has access to.

Think about it.. any excuse to inflict your habit on others.. not a
bit like you were claiming a post or two ago.


"streets"? Are you seriously suggesting second hand smoke is a
problem in the open air? Or are smokers responsible for global
warming?

Yes smoking on streets does inflict your **** on others or are you a
blind handyman?


I see your train of thought. You are suggesting that second hand
smoke in the open air is a serious threat to the health of small
children & possibly fluffy bunnies.

It stinks.. that is enough without its health effects.

At what range? Can smokers injure the health of small children &
fluffy bunnies at 10 yards? 100yards? A mile?

Do I care, its a public space are you suggesting we reserve some of
it for smokers to practice their drug taking in? And put a 100m
exclusion zone around it too. Funny enough that's what smoking
shelters are but do smokers use them.. no its to far to walk 20 feet
from the door. Do smokers walk about polluting everywhere they walk..
you bet they do.

"shops"? Shops are perfectly entitled to apply smoking bans if they
want to. Who smokes in shops anyway?

Smokers! You can't blame nonsmokers for it no matter how hard you try.


"houses"? Surely people can do what they like in their own houses? Or
would you like to outlaw that as well?

Only in the presence of kids or objectors.

Fascist.

It would be you that wants to inflict your problem on others.


When they came for the Jews and the blacks, I turned away
When they came for the writers and the thinkers and the radicals and
the protesters, I turned away
When they came for the gays, and the minorities, and the utopians,
and the dancers, I turned away
And when they came for me, I turned around and around, and there was
nobody left...

In the case of smokers I am the one that is coming for you and I
would be happy to find nobody left.

Now we now that none of what you said about being reasonable was true
and that you are quite happy, no want the right, to inflict your
habit on others.

You may now resort to the insults smokers use when they know they
have lost.

To me, smoking in public, which I do, has been to date quite straight
forward. In days of old when it was permissible in buildings, I would never
smoke in a restaurant to avoid offending others. In "my local" pub in areas
where folk were smoking, I would permit myself to light up provided that
there were not folks immediately adjacent who were not. When in a strange
pub/ hotel bar I would not light up unless others close by were, but ever
concious of those about.

For many years prior to the ban when outside during the limited periods of
an English summer, at an hotel or pub, I would ensure that I was always to
leeward of others to avoid offence. I still do the same; it is courteous to
do so.

BRG wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message . ..


Please don't assume what I think. I don't wish to share my
cigarette smoke with anyone apart from other smokers.

I am happy to find a smoker that agrees it is wrong to smoke
anywhere the public has access to or where there are any children
like streets, shops, houses, etc.

"anywhere the public has access to". Would that be the smoking
public or the non smoking public? 25% of the UK population enjoy a
perfectly legal activity.

But using your statistics, then the other 75% of the UK population
find it abhorrent - a majority I think (that's assuming there are no
fence-sitters)!
And remember, that a non-smoker also wish to carry out a perfectly
legal activity - breathing clean air!

Think about it. If we had reasonable legislation instead of punitive
legislation, we could have specific smoking & non smoking venues.
Therefore 25% of the public could smoke in areas that 25% of the
population has access to.

But you do have legal 'smoking areas' - your own homes!

"streets"? Are you seriously suggesting second hand smoke is a
problem in the open air? Or are smokers responsible for global
warming?

It is a problem in the open air - smokers are polluting and here are
some statistics for you to inhale:

SECONDHAND SMOKE CONTAINS 4,000 TOXIC CHEMICALS
People that breath secondhand smoke are at risk of the same diseases
as smokers, including cancer and heart disease, because secondhand
smoke contains 4,000 toxic chemicals. It is estimated that secondhand
smoke causes thousands of deaths each year.

It's time you looked at statistics. The same can be said for the effluvia
from a barbeque, coal or wood fires. The amount and concentrations of these
emissions must be taken into account. Your apparent appreciation of these
issues suggests that you have suffered from the doctrines of New Labour.

large snip

BRG wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message . ..


Please don't assume what I think. I don't wish to share my
cigarette smoke with anyone apart from other smokers.

I am happy to find a smoker that agrees it is wrong to smoke
anywhere the public has access to or where there are any children
like streets, shops, houses, etc.

"anywhere the public has access to". Would that be the smoking
public or the non smoking public? 25% of the UK population enjoy a
perfectly legal activity.

But using your statistics, then the other 75% of the UK population
find it abhorrent - a majority I think (that's assuming there are no
fence-sitters)!
And remember, that a non-smoker also wish to carry out a perfectly
legal activity - breathing clean air!

Then they could frequent non smoking venues and I could frequent smoking
venues. Simple isn't it?

Think about it. If we had reasonable legislation instead of punitive
legislation, we could have specific smoking & non smoking venues.
Therefore 25% of the public could smoke in areas that 25% of the
population has access to.

But you do have legal 'smoking areas' - your own homes!

"streets"? Are you seriously suggesting second hand smoke is a
problem in the open air? Or are smokers responsible for global
warming?

It is a problem in the open air - smokers are polluting and here are
some statistics for you to inhale:

SECONDHAND SMOKE CONTAINS 4,000 TOXIC CHEMICALS
People that breath secondhand smoke are at risk of the same diseases
as smokers, including cancer and heart disease, because secondhand
smoke contains 4,000 toxic chemicals. It is estimated that secondhand
smoke causes thousands of deaths each year.

Oh dear, not that old chestnut again. You really are gullible aren't you?

OK, for the hard of thinking, lets go through it one thing at a time;

"SECONDHAND SMOKE CONTAINS 4,000 TOXIC CHEMICALS" Indeed it does, but at
what dose? You don't know do you? Basic rule of toxicology 'the poison is
in the dose'. May I remind you that many other things also contain many
toxic chemicals.

"People that breath secondhand smoke are at risk of the same diseases as
smokers, including cancer and heart disease,"

Clearly riduculous. Smokers must absorb the majority of the toxins, or
smoking would have no adverse affect on them. Therefore smoke diluted by
the smoker cannot have the same effect.

As a matter of interest, non smokers also develop lung cancer. Before you
trot out the Roy Castle argument you should know that non smokers develop an
entirely different form of cancer in a copletely different part of the lung.

"It is estimated that secondhand smoke causes thousands of deaths each year"

Indeed it is. Estimated. 'Thousands' is an interesting term. There are
'official' figures for the number of deaths caused by passive smoking. The
UK Guvmint claim either 9,000 or 11,000 in the UK (depends which department
you listen to). The EU claim 16,000 Europeans (which includes the UK) every
year. I'll leave you to spot the anomaly in the figures.


I see your train of thought. You are suggesting that second hand
smoke in the open air is a serious threat to the health of small
children & possibly fluffy bunnies.

That is a fact - see above or of you can find the time or effort -
just do a quick 'google' and look for yourself - or just in case you
are a little blinkered I'll do one for you

What? Its a fact that second hand smoke in the open air is a serious threat
to the health of small children & possibly fluffy bunnies?

That statement shows just how ignorant you are of the facts - if you
have kids yourself and you smoke in the house - then work it out for
yourself!

Well strangely enough we designated the kitchen (with two extractor fans) as
our smoking area simply because they didn't like the smell.


So what does that make you? A long term executioner and a suicide
candidate I would say!

Keep the argument rational please. "Long term executioner"? Not letting
emotion get in the way are we?


When they came for the Jews and the blacks, I turned away
When they came for the writers and the thinkers and the radicals and
the protesters, I turned away
When they came for the gays, and the minorities, and the utopians,
and the dancers, I turned away
And when they came for me, I turned around and around, and there was
nobody left...


That is a *******isation of a disputed poem depicting mass slaughter,
and the use it in this context to justify your own habit really shows
how pathetic you are!

Alas it displays that the smoking ban is the thin end of the wedge. Who is
next? Drinkers? Bacon sarnie eaters? Drivers? Fat people? You?



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

BRG wrote:


I take then that you are a smoker?

Dead sharp you non smokers, nothing slips past you :-)

Just a guess, but I always keep my tools sharp!

If you are, and I ever have to stand near you and are forced to
inhale your waste smoke, then I shall endevour to stand above you
(by whatever means) and empty the waste from my bladder over your
head.

Calm down dear. Nobody is suggesting that we exchange waste products
are they? We could easily have smoking & non smoking venues - then I
wouldn't bother you and you wouldn't bother me.

Smoking or on-smoking venues, what a laugh! A smoker lights up
anywhere just to get the fix - and sod the non-smokers.

Errm. No. Smokers IME including me do (did) not light up in no smoking
areas.

The smoking ban would be just as easy to enforce in different venues as a
total ban. We could have had choice - but you and your type don't want
choice do you? You want to punish smokers.

Extremists like you are dangerous to society.



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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Clive George wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message ...

Can I get a pint of whatever you are drinking? All I'm saying is that
smokers should have the right to have smoking venues.

Why would anybody provide a non-smoking venue in that situation? Where's
their commercial incentive to do so? That was the situation before the
smoking ban - what proportion of eg pubs were non-smoking? Bugger all.

Which suggests there was no real call for the smoking ban in pubs. There
were non smoking pubs before the ban - and if they'd been a commercial
success others would have followed suit.

Eh? Rather the opposite, surely?

cheers,
clive

This is part of a(n off-topic) thread on uk.d-i-y. You may find the
final paragraph interesting?

d

In message , Rod
writes
geoff wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:

That is why many ex-smokers are so unsympathetic,
they see the losers for what they were and despise them.

Not so - they catch a whiff and want to smoke again. It's one of the most
addictive drugs around and unlike many you never loose the desire for it.
Ever.

It doesn't affect me that way
I've mentally switched into "non-smoker" mode
I don't like the smell any more, it doesn't make me feel like
wanting to smoke
(50 a day two years ago ...)

Agreed - now I hate the smell at a thousand paces...

But, somewhat ironically, giving up appears to precipitate or disclose
thyroid disease. Quite seriously, the nicotine may help to mask and
overcome the lack of thyroid hormone. If you are going to give up, I
suggest that you get your doctor to do a thyroid function test first.


--
Si

12) The Second Rule of Expectations
An EXPECTATION is a Premeditated resentment.

In message , Si
$3o&m writes
This is part of a(n off-topic) thread on uk.d-i-y. You may find the
final paragraph interesting?

fsck! - that was supposed to be emailed (to swmbo who smokes (in the
garden only (as did I when I still smoked) & has thyroid probs)

--
Si

BRG wrote:
snip

SECONDHAND SMOKE CONTAINS 4,000 TOXIC CHEMICALS
People that breath secondhand smoke are at risk of the same diseases as
smokers, including cancer and heart disease, because secondhand smoke
contains 4,000 toxic chemicals. It is estimated that secondhand smoke causes
thousands of deaths each year.


snip

Does giving up smoking (and thus avoiding the 4,000 toxic chemicals)
make us notice the 4,000 toxic chemicals [1] in the air vented from KFC
branches and similar? Or have they added them since I gave up?

I have never liked the smell of most commercial catering establishments,
but since giving up a few years ago, I feel nauseous when I pass such
places.

Is there any real research on the fowl air coming from KFC?

[1] Mandatory made up statistic.

--
Rod

Si wrote:
In message , Si
$3o&m writes
This is part of a(n off-topic) thread on uk.d-i-y. You may find the
final paragraph interesting?

fsck! - that was supposed to be emailed (to swmbo who smokes (in the
garden only (as did I when I still smoked) & has thyroid probs)

Si,

Just delighted that anyone was at all interested!

Have a look here (an article I happened to have displayed as I read your
post):

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/333/15/964

and get her over to http://www.thyroiduk.org/.

I am more than willing to receive emails on thyroid issues if we can
help at all. I think my posting email works.

--
Rod

Si wrote:
In message , Si
$3o&m writes
This is part of a(n off-topic) thread on uk.d-i-y. You may find the
final paragraph interesting?

fsck! - that was supposed to be emailed (to swmbo who smokes (in the
garden only (as did I when I still smoked) & has thyroid probs)


Si and everyone else,

Just chortled a bit at this smoking story from Germany:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/19/anti_smoking_german/

(Don't get any ideas, Si. :-) )

--
Rod

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 00:15:06 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

OK. I'll bite.

BRG wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

It is a problem in the open air - smokers are polluting and here are
some statistics for you to inhale:

SECONDHAND SMOKE CONTAINS 4,000 TOXIC CHEMICALS
People that breath secondhand smoke are at risk of the same diseases
as smokers, including cancer and heart disease, because secondhand
smoke contains 4,000 toxic chemicals. It is estimated that secondhand
smoke causes thousands of deaths each year.

Oh dear, not that old chestnut again. You really are gullible aren't you?

Absolutely. There are actually only 3996 toxic chemicals in cigarette
smoke. Four of them are safe.

OK, for the hard of thinking, lets go through it one thing at a time;

"SECONDHAND SMOKE CONTAINS 4,000 TOXIC CHEMICALS" Indeed it does, but at
what dose? You don't know do you? Basic rule of toxicology 'the poison is
in the dose'. May I remind you that many other things also contain many
toxic chemicals.

Just because there are other toxins in the environment does not
justify exposing people to more because of a drug addiction.

"People that breath secondhand smoke are at risk of the same diseases as
smokers, including cancer and heart disease,"

Clearly riduculous. Smokers must absorb the majority of the toxins, or
smoking would have no adverse affect on them. Therefore smoke diluted by
the smoker cannot have the same effect.

There is no evidence for this. If smokers absorb enough toxins
through their filters to harm themselves it proves nothing about the
level of toxins absorbed by people nearby.

As a matter of interest, non smokers also develop lung cancer. Before you
trot out the Roy Castle argument you should know that non smokers develop an
entirely different form of cancer in a copletely different part of the lung.

Where's the evidence for this?

"It is estimated that secondhand smoke causes thousands of deaths each year"

Indeed it is. Estimated. 'Thousands' is an interesting term. There are
'official' figures for the number of deaths caused by passive smoking. The
UK Guvmint claim either 9,000 or 11,000 in the UK (depends which department
you listen to). The EU claim 16,000 Europeans (which includes the UK) every
year. I'll leave you to spot the anomaly in the figures.

So 9,000 is acceptable and 16,000 is not? Even the lowest figure is
horrendous.

That statement shows just how ignorant you are of the facts - if you
have kids yourself and you smoke in the house - then work it out for
yourself!

Well strangely enough we designated the kitchen (with two extractor fans) as
our smoking area simply because they didn't like the smell.

So your neighbours get it instead?

Alas it displays that the smoking ban is the thin end of the wedge. Who is
next? Drinkers? Bacon sarnie eaters? Drivers? Fat people? You?

So we should let anyone do anything they like, no matter the
consequences?

M.

The message
from Rod contains these words:

Is there any real research on the fowl air coming from KFC?

Well, it is mainly chicken they sell, so the air would obviously be "fowl" :-)

Rod wrote:
BRG wrote:
snip

SECONDHAND SMOKE CONTAINS 4,000 TOXIC CHEMICALS
People that breath secondhand smoke are at risk of the same diseases
as smokers, including cancer and heart disease, because secondhand
smoke contains 4,000 toxic chemicals. It is estimated that
secondhand smoke causes thousands of deaths each year.


snip

Does giving up smoking (and thus avoiding the 4,000 toxic chemicals)
make us notice the 4,000 toxic chemicals [1] in the air vented from
KFC branches and similar? Or have they added them since I gave up?

I have never liked the smell of most commercial catering
establishments, but since giving up a few years ago, I feel nauseous
when I pass such places.

Is there any real research on the fowl air coming from KFC?

[1] Mandatory made up statistic.

Rod,

Well you could stick a stop *cock* on top of the *fowl* vent! And I'll
leave any comments to the imginations of others :-)

If they do that, it will not only stop the nauseating smell for you - but
also bring this subject back on topic as such a modification could well be
done by a competent staff D-I-Yer after a visit to the local 'shed' for the
bits and pieces.

I cannot comment as to whether -- "they added the 4,000 toxic chemicals"
since you gave up -- as *NEVER* being a smoker, I have always been able to
smell the good things in life [1] - and when down wind, the bad smell of
someone smoking a fag a hundred yards away along with the stink on their
clothes as they walk past in the street.

As a matter of interest, this happened today. Whilst shopping in Aldi's, a
female stood by the sliding entrance and exit doors smoking a rather 'fowl'
(foul) smelling fag, which meant not only did you have to inhale her
second-hand smoke whilst entering and leaving the store, but the damn stench
also permeated into the packing area at the front - catching you there as
well!

[1] This does not include catering premises btw, I worked next to one for
five years and know the feelings of nausea from the stench well.


BRG

In message , Rod
writes
In message , Si
$3o&m writes
This is part of a(n off-topic) thread on uk.d-i-y. You may find the
final paragraph interesting?
fsck! - that was supposed to be emailed (to swmbo who smokes (in the
garden only (as did I when I still smoked) & has thyroid probs)

Si,

Just delighted that anyone was at all interested!

Have a look here (an article I happened to have displayed as I read
your post):

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/333/15/964

Interesting - thanks

However, SWMBO is an extreme version of a TMH ;-) and since her mother
unfortunately (and I mean that *most* sincerely folks) lived to be 85
she's unlikely to be discouraged from the filthy weed by mere rational
scientific research.

--
Si

12) The Second Rule of Expectations
An EXPECTATION is a Premeditated resentment.

Mark wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 00:15:06 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

OK. I'll bite.

BRG wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

It is a problem in the open air - smokers are polluting and here are
some statistics for you to inhale:

SECONDHAND SMOKE CONTAINS 4,000 TOXIC CHEMICALS
People that breath secondhand smoke are at risk of the same diseases
as smokers, including cancer and heart disease, because secondhand
smoke contains 4,000 toxic chemicals. It is estimated that
secondhand smoke causes thousands of deaths each year.

Oh dear, not that old chestnut again. You really are gullible
aren't you?

Absolutely. There are actually only 3996 toxic chemicals in cigarette
smoke. Four of them are safe.

OK, for the hard of thinking, lets go through it one thing at a time;

"SECONDHAND SMOKE CONTAINS 4,000 TOXIC CHEMICALS" Indeed it does,
but at what dose? You don't know do you? Basic rule of toxicology
'the poison is in the dose'. May I remind you that many other
things also contain many toxic chemicals.

Just because there are other toxins in the environment does not
justify exposing people to more because of a drug addiction.

"People that breath secondhand smoke are at risk of the same
diseases as smokers, including cancer and heart disease,"

Clearly riduculous. Smokers must absorb the majority of the toxins,
or smoking would have no adverse affect on them. Therefore smoke
diluted by the smoker cannot have the same effect.

There is no evidence for this. If smokers absorb enough toxins
through their filters to harm themselves it proves nothing about the
level of toxins absorbed by people nearby.

I rather think it does. Smoke dilued by the smoker and then further diluted
in the air is clearly not the same as being an active smoker. Thus the
accusation that "People that breath secondhand smoke are at risk of the same
diseases as smokers, including cancer and heart disease,"

As a matter of interest, non smokers also develop lung cancer.
Before you trot out the Roy Castle argument you should know that non
smokers develop an entirely different form of cancer in a copletely
different part of the lung.

Where's the evidence for this?

In any medical text book.

"It is estimated that secondhand smoke causes thousands of deaths
each year"

Indeed it is. Estimated. 'Thousands' is an interesting term.
There are 'official' figures for the number of deaths caused by
passive smoking. The UK Guvmint claim either 9,000 or 11,000 in the
UK (depends which department you listen to). The EU claim 16,000
Europeans (which includes the UK) every year. I'll leave you to
spot the anomaly in the figures.

So 9,000 is acceptable and 16,000 is not? Even the lowest figure is
horrendous.

The figures have no credible basis whatsoever. They are made up to support
an argument. Since there is no scientific evidence to support such a claim
the RASF's [1] make the figurs up.

That statement shows just how ignorant you are of the facts - if you
have kids yourself and you smoke in the house - then work it out for
yourself!

Well strangely enough we designated the kitchen (with two extractor
fans) as our smoking area simply because they didn't like the smell.

So your neighbours get it instead?

I've never liked them :-)

Any smoke not absorbed by us is then diluted into the air. Look up
'diluted' if still confused.

Alas it displays that the smoking ban is the thin end of the wedge.
Who is next? Drinkers? Bacon sarnie eaters? Drivers? Fat people?
You?

So we should let anyone do anything they like, no matter the consequences?

If people choose to smoke it is their decision. If we had 'smoking' venues
no one else would be affected.



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

Si wrote:
In message , Rod
writes
In message , Si
$3o&m writes
This is part of a(n off-topic) thread on uk.d-i-y. You may find the
final paragraph interesting?
fsck! - that was supposed to be emailed (to swmbo who smokes (in
the garden only (as did I when I still smoked) & has thyroid probs)

Si,

Just delighted that anyone was at all interested!

Have a look here (an article I happened to have displayed as I read
your post):

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/333/15/964

Interesting - thanks

However, SWMBO is an extreme version of a TMH ;-) and since her mother
unfortunately (and I mean that *most* sincerely folks) lived to be 85
she's unlikely to be discouraged from the filthy weed by mere rational
scientific research.

There is no rational scientific research to support the passive smoking
hysteria. Give my regards to SWMBO, she sounds like a wonderful woman.


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

The Medway Handyman wrote:

The figures have no credible basis whatsoever. They are made up to
support an argument. Since there is no scientific evidence to
support such a claim the RASF's [1] make the figures up.

Sorry, forgot to explain RASF's. Its a new acronym I've just invented.

Rabid Anti Smoking Fascist.


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

The Medway Handyman wrote:

dennis@home wrote:

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message . ..

dennis@home wrote:

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message . ..



Please don't assume what I think. I don't wish to share my
cigarette smoke with anyone apart from other smokers.

I am happy to find a smoker that agrees it is wrong to smoke
anywhere the public has access to or where there are any children
like streets, shops, houses, etc.

"anywhere the public has access to". Would that be the smoking
public or the non smoking public? 25% of the UK population enjoy a
perfectly legal activity.

That would be the public. You said you didn't want to share your
pollution with others.. changed your mind now?
Typical self centered smoker.. "I'm alright, sod everyone else".


Can I get a pint of whatever you are drinking? All I'm saying is that
smokers should have the right to have smoking venues.

Think about it. If we had reasonable legislation instead of punitive
legislation, we could have specific smoking & non smoking venues.
Therefore 25% of the public could smoke in areas that 25% of the
population has access to.

Think about it.. any excuse to inflict your habit on others.. not a
bit like you were claiming a post or two ago.


FFS read the above paragraph again. I'll type this slowly so you
understand.

We could have 'non-smoking' venues. That means nobody would be allowed to
smoke.

We could have 'smoking venues'. That means anyone could smoke.

You could go to 'non-smoking' venues.

I could go to 'smoking venues'.

See John go to the smoking venue. See Janet go to the non smoking venue.

Perhaps you should have a fag, it improves your concentration apparently.

Fascist.

You typed that a bit fast for me to understand :-)

Dave

I can't see the original poster of this, as my reader dumps read posts, but

"streets"? Are you seriously suggesting second hand smoke is a
problem in the open air?

I was born with asthma and foolishly took up smoking at an age of about
17. Since giving up the weed and indeed before, I have had a reaction
whenever I walk past someone smoking in public. It literally takes my
breath away, as does the exhaust from most diesel engines.

Dave

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 00:15:06 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

OK. I'll bite.

BRG wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

It is a problem in the open air - smokers are polluting and here
are some statistics for you to inhale:

SECONDHAND SMOKE CONTAINS 4,000 TOXIC CHEMICALS
People that breath secondhand smoke are at risk of the same
diseases as smokers, including cancer and heart disease, because
secondhand smoke contains 4,000 toxic chemicals. It is estimated
that secondhand smoke causes thousands of deaths each year.

Oh dear, not that old chestnut again. You really are gullible
aren't you?

Absolutely. There are actually only 3996 toxic chemicals in
cigarette smoke. Four of them are safe.

OK, for the hard of thinking, lets go through it one thing at a
time; "SECONDHAND SMOKE CONTAINS 4,000 TOXIC CHEMICALS" Indeed it does,
but at what dose? You don't know do you? Basic rule of toxicology
'the poison is in the dose'. May I remind you that many other
things also contain many toxic chemicals.

Just because there are other toxins in the environment does not
justify exposing people to more because of a drug addiction.

"People that breath secondhand smoke are at risk of the same
diseases as smokers, including cancer and heart disease,"

Clearly riduculous. Smokers must absorb the majority of the toxins,
or smoking would have no adverse affect on them. Therefore smoke
diluted by the smoker cannot have the same effect.

There is no evidence for this. If smokers absorb enough toxins
through their filters to harm themselves it proves nothing about the
level of toxins absorbed by people nearby.

I rather think it does. Smoke dilued by the smoker and then further
diluted in the air is clearly not the same as being an active smoker.
Thus the accusation that "People that breath secondhand smoke are at
risk of the same diseases as smokers, including cancer and heart
disease,"
As a matter of interest, non smokers also develop lung cancer.
Before you trot out the Roy Castle argument you should know that non
smokers develop an entirely different form of cancer in a copletely
different part of the lung.

Where's the evidence for this?

In any medical text book.

"It is estimated that secondhand smoke causes thousands of deaths
each year"

Indeed it is. Estimated. 'Thousands' is an interesting term.
There are 'official' figures for the number of deaths caused by
passive smoking. The UK Guvmint claim either 9,000 or 11,000 in the
UK (depends which department you listen to). The EU claim 16,000
Europeans (which includes the UK) every year. I'll leave you to
spot the anomaly in the figures.

So 9,000 is acceptable and 16,000 is not? Even the lowest figure is
horrendous.

The figures have no credible basis whatsoever. They are made up to
support an argument. Since there is no scientific evidence to
support such a claim the RASF's [1] make the figurs up.

That statement shows just how ignorant you are of the facts - if
you have kids yourself and you smoke in the house - then work it
out for yourself!

Well strangely enough we designated the kitchen (with two extractor
fans) as our smoking area simply because they didn't like the smell.

So your neighbours get it instead?

I've never liked them :-)

Any smoke not absorbed by us is then diluted into the air. Look up
'diluted' if still confused.

Alas it displays that the smoking ban is the thin end of the wedge.
Who is next? Drinkers? Bacon sarnie eaters? Drivers? Fat people?
You?

So we should let anyone do anything they like, no matter the
consequences?

If people choose to smoke it is their decision. If we had 'smoking'
venues no one else would be affected.

TMH,

Why don't you just admit that you lack the willpower to give up the 'weed'
and you will use any excuse not too!

A little bit of info for you - I have *never* smoked but both my parents
used to smoke *60* a day *each* (1 died of lung cancer the other a stroke)
and I have suffered from chest problems for most of my 59 years - which
after a battery of tests some 12 years ago, it was concluded that the most
likely cause of this was passive smoking (something you deny can happen).

But I suppose you will still disbelieve this - so hide your head in the sand
and cause yourchildren problems because of your obnoxious habit!

As a matter of interest, would you expose your kids to asbestos?

BRG

In article ,
Clive George wrote:
That was the situation before the
smoking ban - what proportion of eg pubs were non-smoking? Bugger all.

Which suggests there was no real call for the smoking ban in pubs.
There were non smoking pubs before the ban - and if they'd been a
commercial success others would have followed suit.

Eh? Rather the opposite, surely?

No. There are other benefits commercially to non smoking premises - longer
lasting decorations, possibly lower insurance premiums, etc. But very few
pubs chose to be non smoking. If those that did were a commercial success
others would have followed.

I don't know of anyone who avoided pubs when smoking was allowed who now
is a regular pub user. I do know of a few smokers who no longer go as
often as they did, though.

Plenty said they avoided pubs because of the smoke - but that's not the
same as now using them as they're non smoking.

--
*It is wrong to ever split an infinitive *

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Clive George wrote:
That was the situation before the
smoking ban - what proportion of eg pubs were non-smoking? Bugger all.

Which suggests there was no real call for the smoking ban in pubs.
There were non smoking pubs before the ban - and if they'd been a
commercial success others would have followed suit.

Eh? Rather the opposite, surely?

No. There are other benefits commercially to non smoking premises - longer
lasting decorations, possibly lower insurance premiums, etc. But very few
pubs chose to be non smoking. If those that did were a commercial success
others would have followed.

Yes, and that was my original point - given the choice of going smoking vs
non-smoking, commercial reasons dictated all but a very few choose smoking.
So TMH's idea of having "smoking venues" would merely mean a return to the
previous situation of smoking pretty much everywhere.

cheers,
clive

On 2008-02-20 19:39:38 +0000, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article ,
Clive George wrote:
That was the situation before the
smoking ban - what proportion of eg pubs were non-smoking? Bugger all.

Which suggests there was no real call for the smoking ban in pubs.
There were non smoking pubs before the ban - and if they'd been a
commercial success others would have followed suit.

Eh? Rather the opposite, surely?

No. There are other benefits commercially to non smoking premises - longer
lasting decorations, possibly lower insurance premiums, etc. But very few
pubs chose to be non smoking. If those that did were a commercial success
others would have followed.

I don't know of anyone who avoided pubs when smoking was allowed who now
is a regular pub user. I do know of a few smokers who no longer go as
often as they did, though.

Plenty said they avoided pubs because of the smoke - but that's not the
same as now using them as they're non smoking.

Because now you can smell the rankness of the cooking fat trodden into
the carpets and permeating the decorations.

Dave wrote:

I can't see the original poster of this, as my reader dumps read posts, but

"streets"? Are you seriously suggesting second hand smoke is a
problem in the open air?

I was born with asthma and foolishly took up smoking at an age of about
17. Since giving up the weed and indeed before, I have had a reaction
whenever I walk past someone smoking in public. It literally takes my
breath away, as does the exhaust from most diesel engines.

Dave

Curiously my son's asthma improved once he started spending time in
smoky pubs...

Andy

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:18:47 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2008-02-20 19:39:38 +0000, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:


Plenty said they avoided pubs because of the smoke - but that's not the
same as now using them as they're non smoking.

Because now you can smell the rankness of the cooking fat trodden into
the carpets and permeating the decorations.

They don't use cooking fat in my (semi)local pub.

Nor indeed are there carpets, come to think of it (apart from a rug in
front of the log fire).

But they do a wonderful pint of cask Black Sheep...

--
Frank Erskine

Clive George wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Clive George wrote:
That was the situation before the
smoking ban - what proportion of eg pubs were non-smoking? Bugger
all.

Which suggests there was no real call for the smoking ban in pubs.
There were non smoking pubs before the ban - and if they'd been a
commercial success others would have followed suit.

Eh? Rather the opposite, surely?

No. There are other benefits commercially to non smoking premises -
longer lasting decorations, possibly lower insurance premiums, etc.
But very few pubs chose to be non smoking. If those that did were a
commercial success others would have followed.

Yes, and that was my original point - given the choice of going
smoking vs non-smoking, commercial reasons dictated all but a very
few choose smoking. So TMH's idea of having "smoking venues" would
merely mean a return to the previous situation of smoking pretty much
everywhere.

Market forces. When the smoking ban was enforced the RASF's told everyone
that the pub trade would boom. The LVA said different and were proved
right, the English Pub is on is last legs over this.



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

BRG wrote:



Why don't you just admit that you lack the willpower to give up the
'weed' and you will use any excuse not too!

I have no intention or desire whatsoever to give up smoking. I thoroughly
enjoy it.

There is a myth, perpetrated by the RASF's that 'most' or 'all' or 'the
majority' or 'thousands' of smokers want too give up. All without any
ststistics to back it up of course.

I'm coming to the inevitable conclusion that being a non smoker makes you a
lying *******.

A little bit of info for you - I have *never* smoked but both my
parents used to smoke *60* a day *each* (1 died of lung cancer the
other a stroke) and I have suffered from chest problems for most of
my 59 years - which after a battery of tests some 12 years ago, it
was concluded that the most likely cause of this was passive smoking
(something you deny can happen).

'most likely'? I think that means they had no idea.

But I suppose you will still disbelieve this - so hide your head in
the sand and cause your children problems because of your obnoxious
habit!

Interesting isn't it. I'm hetrosexual, but I don't rant hysterically about
gay people. I'm white but I don't rant hysterically about black people.
Why do non smokers rant hysterically about smokers?

To return to your point, my children are in the best of health thank you.

As a matter of interest, would you expose your kids to asbestos?

It would depend on the credible scientific research. Once again you have
fallen for a scare story. Because you read it in the papers doesn't mean
it's true.

If I were to start cutting or drilling asbestos, because there is credible
scientific evidence of the hazard, then I wouldn't let them near it. But I
have no problem letting them into the asbestos roofed garage.

Learn to think for yourself.


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

Dave wrote:
I can't see the original poster of this, as my reader dumps read
posts, but
"streets"? Are you seriously suggesting second hand smoke is a
problem in the open air?

I was born with asthma and foolishly took up smoking at an age of
about 17. Since giving up the weed and indeed before, I have had a
reaction
whenever I walk past someone smoking in public. It literally takes my
breath away, as does the exhaust from most diesel engines.

So its airbourne particulates that trigger an existing condition, rather
than passive smoking?


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

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:51:30 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

Mark wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 00:15:06 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

OK. I'll bite.

BRG wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

It is a problem in the open air - smokers are polluting and here are
some statistics for you to inhale:

SECONDHAND SMOKE CONTAINS 4,000 TOXIC CHEMICALS
People that breath secondhand smoke are at risk of the same diseases
as smokers, including cancer and heart disease, because secondhand
smoke contains 4,000 toxic chemicals. It is estimated that
secondhand smoke causes thousands of deaths each year.

Oh dear, not that old chestnut again. You really are gullible
aren't you?

Absolutely. There are actually only 3996 toxic chemicals in cigarette
smoke. Four of them are safe.

OK, for the hard of thinking, lets go through it one thing at a time;

"SECONDHAND SMOKE CONTAINS 4,000 TOXIC CHEMICALS" Indeed it does,
but at what dose? You don't know do you? Basic rule of toxicology
'the poison is in the dose'. May I remind you that many other
things also contain many toxic chemicals.

Just because there are other toxins in the environment does not
justify exposing people to more because of a drug addiction.

"People that breath secondhand smoke are at risk of the same
diseases as smokers, including cancer and heart disease,"

Clearly riduculous. Smokers must absorb the majority of the toxins,
or smoking would have no adverse affect on them. Therefore smoke
diluted by the smoker cannot have the same effect.

There is no evidence for this. If smokers absorb enough toxins
through their filters to harm themselves it proves nothing about the
level of toxins absorbed by people nearby.

I rather think it does. Smoke dilued by the smoker and then further diluted
in the air is clearly not the same as being an active smoker. Thus the
accusation that "People that breath secondhand smoke are at risk of the same
diseases as smokers, including cancer and heart disease,"

See my previous paragraph.

As a matter of interest, non smokers also develop lung cancer.
Before you trot out the Roy Castle argument you should know that non
smokers develop an entirely different form of cancer in a copletely
different part of the lung.

Where's the evidence for this?

In any medical text book.

Actually there are several types of lung cancer. Smoking is usually
the cause of one type but not always. You cannot conclude that
passive smoking is safe. Being exposed to cigarrette smoke increases
the risk of many diseases. This has been proved "beyond reasonable
doubt" in courts.

"It is estimated that secondhand smoke causes thousands of deaths
each year"

Indeed it is. Estimated. 'Thousands' is an interesting term.
There are 'official' figures for the number of deaths caused by
passive smoking. The UK Guvmint claim either 9,000 or 11,000 in the
UK (depends which department you listen to). The EU claim 16,000
Europeans (which includes the UK) every year. I'll leave you to
spot the anomaly in the figures.

So 9,000 is acceptable and 16,000 is not? Even the lowest figure is
horrendous.

The figures have no credible basis whatsoever. They are made up to support
an argument. Since there is no scientific evidence to support such a claim
the RASF's [1] make the figurs up.

That statement shows just how ignorant you are of the facts - if you
have kids yourself and you smoke in the house - then work it out for
yourself!

Well strangely enough we designated the kitchen (with two extractor
fans) as our smoking area simply because they didn't like the smell.

So your neighbours get it instead?

I've never liked them :-)

Because they don't smoke?

Any smoke not absorbed by us is then diluted into the air. Look up
'diluted' if still confused.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/denial

Alas it displays that the smoking ban is the thin end of the wedge.
Who is next? Drinkers? Bacon sarnie eaters? Drivers? Fat people?
You?

So we should let anyone do anything they like, no matter the consequences?

If people choose to smoke it is their decision. If we had 'smoking' venues
no one else would be affected.

The people who work there would be affected.

M.

Mark wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:51:30 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

Mark wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 00:15:06 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

OK. I'll bite.

BRG wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

It is a problem in the open air - smokers are polluting and here
are some statistics for you to inhale:

SECONDHAND SMOKE CONTAINS 4,000 TOXIC CHEMICALS
People that breath secondhand smoke are at risk of the same
diseases as smokers, including cancer and heart disease, because
secondhand smoke contains 4,000 toxic chemicals. It is estimated
that secondhand smoke causes thousands of deaths each year.

Oh dear, not that old chestnut again. You really are gullible
aren't you?

Absolutely. There are actually only 3996 toxic chemicals in
cigarette smoke. Four of them are safe.

OK, for the hard of thinking, lets go through it one thing at a
time;

"SECONDHAND SMOKE CONTAINS 4,000 TOXIC CHEMICALS" Indeed it does,
but at what dose? You don't know do you? Basic rule of toxicology
'the poison is in the dose'. May I remind you that many other
things also contain many toxic chemicals.

Just because there are other toxins in the environment does not
justify exposing people to more because of a drug addiction.

"People that breath secondhand smoke are at risk of the same
diseases as smokers, including cancer and heart disease,"

Clearly riduculous. Smokers must absorb the majority of the
toxins, or smoking would have no adverse affect on them.
Therefore smoke diluted by the smoker cannot have the same effect.

There is no evidence for this. If smokers absorb enough toxins
through their filters to harm themselves it proves nothing about the
level of toxins absorbed by people nearby.

I rather think it does. Smoke dilued by the smoker and then further
diluted in the air is clearly not the same as being an active
smoker. Thus the accusation that "People that breath secondhand
smoke are at risk of the same diseases as smokers, including cancer
and heart disease,"

See my previous paragraph.

As a matter of interest, non smokers also develop lung cancer.
Before you trot out the Roy Castle argument you should know that
non smokers develop an entirely different form of cancer in a
copletely different part of the lung.

Where's the evidence for this?

In any medical text book.

Actually there are several types of lung cancer. Smoking is usually
the cause of one type but not always. You cannot conclude that
passive smoking is safe. Being exposed to cigarrette smoke increases
the risk of many diseases. This has been proved "beyond reasonable
doubt" in courts.

"It is estimated that secondhand smoke causes thousands of deaths
each year"

Indeed it is. Estimated. 'Thousands' is an interesting term.
There are 'official' figures for the number of deaths caused by
passive smoking. The UK Guvmint claim either 9,000 or 11,000 in
the UK (depends which department you listen to). The EU claim
16,000 Europeans (which includes the UK) every year. I'll leave
you to spot the anomaly in the figures.

So 9,000 is acceptable and 16,000 is not? Even the lowest figure is
horrendous.

The figures have no credible basis whatsoever. They are made up to
support an argument. Since there is no scientific evidence to
support such a claim the RASF's [1] make the figurs up.

That statement shows just how ignorant you are of the facts - if
you have kids yourself and you smoke in the house - then work it
out for yourself!

Well strangely enough we designated the kitchen (with two extractor
fans) as our smoking area simply because they didn't like the
smell.

So your neighbours get it instead?

I've never liked them :-)

Because they don't smoke?

Any smoke not absorbed by us is then diluted into the air. Look up
'diluted' if still confused.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/denial

Alas it displays that the smoking ban is the thin end of the wedge.
Who is next? Drinkers? Bacon sarnie eaters? Drivers? Fat
people? You?

So we should let anyone do anything they like, no matter the
consequences?

If people choose to smoke it is their decision. If we had 'smoking'
venues no one else would be affected.

The people who work there would be affected.

If there was anything to affect them of course.

'The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't
worry me.' - Professor Sir Richard Doll (who discovered the link between
active smoking & lung cancer using credible scientific methods).


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


M.

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:06:40 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

Mark wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:51:30 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 00:15:06 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

If people choose to smoke it is their decision. If we had 'smoking'
venues no one else would be affected.

The people who work there would be affected.

If there was anything to affect them of course.

'The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't
worry me.' - Professor Sir Richard Doll (who discovered the link between
active smoking & lung cancer using credible scientific methods).

He said this when he was nearly 90! He probably believed it was
unlikely to have an effect on him in the rest of his lifetime.

He admitted in 1986 that passive smoking could cause lung cancer.

M.

Mark wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:06:40 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

Mark wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:51:30 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 00:15:06 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

If people choose to smoke it is their decision. If we had
'smoking' venues no one else would be affected.

The people who work there would be affected.

If there was anything to affect them of course.

'The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it
doesn't worry me.' - Professor Sir Richard Doll (who discovered the
link between active smoking & lung cancer using credible scientific
methods).

He said this when he was nearly 90! He probably believed it was
unlikely to have an effect on him in the rest of his lifetime.

Clutching at straws are we? He was still of sound mind at 90 and he didn't
mean that. I heard the quote live on Radio 4. He was on Desert Island
Discs.

He admitted in 1986 that passive smoking could cause lung cancer.

He did? I'm unable to find that, no doubt you have a link?


Typical RASF. If all else fails make it up.


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