The Medway Handyman wrote in


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?

I ain't entering the argument, you just made me curious and I found that
there are lots of links, this being fairly representative:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...0/ai_n12627478

Having said that, the Desert Island Disks remark gets a number of mentions
such as:
http://www.forestonline.org/output/Page159.asp

--
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

On 16 Feb, 11:40, Si $3o&m wrote:
In message , ALex
writes

Personnally i would have every home fitted with one,the thought of
repellng teenagers is just too good to be true

Doesn't just repel teenagers though. Repels all people with young
hearing including toddlers & babes in arms.

I can hear them, and I'm 47...

Regarss
Richard

In article ,
Huge wrote:
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.

What baffles me is that the non-smoking pubs I know of *were* a huge
commercial success.

It shouldn't be baffling anyone given it's said to be what the majority
wanted. But the truth of the matter is the trade has suffered from the
smoking ban.

--
*One tequila, two tequila, three tequila, floor.

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

PeterMcC wrote:

'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?

I ain't entering the argument, you just made me curious and I found
that there are lots of links, this being fairly representative:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...0/ai_n12627478

All I get from that is a site "BNET Today" which waffles on about
'action-oriented intelligence for managerial professionals' whatever that
is.

Having said that, the Desert Island Disks remark gets a number of
mentions such as:
http://www.forestonline.org/output/Page159.asp

An excellent article which all RASF's should read.


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

PeterMcC wrote:

I ain't entering the argument, you just made me curious and I found that
there are lots of links, this being fairly representative:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...0/ai_n12627478

Having said that, the Desert Island Disks remark gets a number of mentions
such as:
http://www.forestonline.org/output/Page159.asp


Well I am!

Forest are hardly a disinterested group, being largely funded by the
tobacco manufacturers.

So...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3826939.stm

.... is the BBC with the same quote.

But I notice the other one - where he says "This is the first time there
has been a formal evaluation by scientists that has concluded that
involuntary smoking causes lung cancer" - is a year later.

I'm firmly free market here, completely unlike Blair's Britain with its
authoritarian stance on practically anything. Restaurants were becoming
no smoking before the politicians got involved; pubs mostly weren't.
This is a reflection of consumer pressure.

Andy

The Medway Handyman wrote:
BRG wrote:


snip


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.

Endorsed. No problem provided no dust. Has made a fortune for some folk and
cost the country irrationally.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Huge wrote:
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.

What baffles me is that the non-smoking pubs I know of *were* a huge
commercial success.

It shouldn't be baffling anyone given it's said to be what the
majority wanted. But the truth of the matter is the trade has
suffered from the smoking ban.


I'm not sure that you are right about this. A close relative of mine has
approx. 10 pubs that are a complete mix between town centre, neighbourhood
and country pubs. There has been a fall off in trade at some of the "working
mens" town pubs whilst others in town centres have seen an increase in trade
through the ban - though a change in customers so that Barrelage has
declined though patrons use the pub throughout the day for feeding and
dropping in for a wine/ cup of coffee. Yes, the market has changed but not
sure yet whether there will be a longterm loss. I type as a smoker who
visits pubs far less frequently as a result of the ban.

If you do a search you will find that one of the locations worst hit have
been Bingo Halls and curiously cinemas that were just viable as a result of
the attached Bingo Halls, mostly in small towns, though not all. Did you see
the TV programme about "The Crinkles", not sure that was the right name but
the elderly folk who had a hit with the Who tune which showed how the loss
of a Bingo Hall was a sercious demise for folk who used as a social centre
somewhere in the middle of London? Though I do not go to the cinema or have
ever entered a Bingo Hall, I think that these are significant social losses.

In message , Clot
writes
The Medway Handyman wrote:
BRG wrote:


snip


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.

Endorsed. No problem provided no dust. Has made a fortune for some folk and
cost the country irrationally.

Asbestos roofing sheets aren't that dangerous anyway - at least I hope
not, having breathed loads of dust in while roofing garages (~3 / day
for about a year)

--
geoff

geoff wrote:
In message , Clot
writes
The Medway Handyman wrote:
BRG wrote:


snip


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.

Endorsed. No problem provided no dust. Has made a fortune for some
folk and cost the country irrationally.

Asbestos roofing sheets aren't that dangerous anyway - at least I hope
not, having breathed loads of dust in while roofing garages (~3 / day
for about a year)

Depends upon the type of asbestos! I'm still here, just short of my seventh
decade having cut asbestos panles in my youth for fireproofing buildings
with no dust protection. I do wheeze ocassionally but I put that down to
age - I hope!

Andy Champ wrote:
PeterMcC wrote:

I ain't entering the argument, you just made me curious and I found
that there are lots of links, this being fairly representative:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...0/ai_n12627478

Having said that, the Desert Island Disks remark gets a number of
mentions such as:
http://www.forestonline.org/output/Page159.asp


Well I am!

Forest are hardly a disinterested group, being largely funded by the
tobacco manufacturers.

So...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3826939.stm

... is the BBC with the same quote.

But I notice the other one - where he says "This is the first time
there has been a formal evaluation by scientists that has concluded
that involuntary smoking causes lung cancer" - is a year later.

I'm firmly free market here, completely unlike Blair's Britain with
its authoritarian stance on practically anything. Restaurants were
becoming no smoking before the politicians got involved; pubs mostly
weren't. This is a reflection of consumer pressure.

Most restaurants have been no smoking for years & I don't have a problem
with that at all. I don't have a problem with legislation that gives people
the choice & then makes sure its enforced.

But if I want a nanny I'll call Mary Poppins.


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

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Andy Champ wrote:
PeterMcC wrote:

I ain't entering the argument, you just made me curious and I found
that there are lots of links, this being fairly representative:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...0/ai_n12627478

Having said that, the Desert Island Disks remark gets a number of
mentions such as:
http://www.forestonline.org/output/Page159.asp


Well I am!

Forest are hardly a disinterested group, being largely funded by the
tobacco manufacturers.

So...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3826939.stm

... is the BBC with the same quote.

But I notice the other one - where he says "This is the first time
there has been a formal evaluation by scientists that has concluded
that involuntary smoking causes lung cancer" - is a year later.

I'm firmly free market here, completely unlike Blair's Britain with
its authoritarian stance on practically anything. Restaurants were
becoming no smoking before the politicians got involved; pubs mostly
weren't. This is a reflection of consumer pressure.

Most restaurants have been no smoking for years & I don't have a
problem with that at all. I don't have a problem with legislation
that gives people the choice & then makes sure its enforced.

But if I want a nanny I'll call Mary Poppins.

Did you have to? I now have visions of the film. How shall I get to sleep,
you rotten fellow?

In message , Clot
writes
geoff wrote:
In message , Clot
writes
The Medway Handyman wrote:
BRG wrote:


snip


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.

Endorsed. No problem provided no dust. Has made a fortune for some
folk and cost the country irrationally.

Asbestos roofing sheets aren't that dangerous anyway - at least I hope
not, having breathed loads of dust in while roofing garages (~3 / day
for about a year)

Depends upon the type of asbestos! I'm still here, just short of my seventh
decade having cut asbestos panles in my youth for fireproofing buildings
with no dust protection. I do wheeze ocassionally but I put that down to
age - I hope!

As I said -roofing sheets

I think that we can prolly do without another asbestos debate, though

--
geoff

geoff wrote:
In message , Clot
writes
geoff wrote:
In message , Clot
writes
The Medway Handyman wrote:
BRG wrote:


snip


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.

Endorsed. No problem provided no dust. Has made a fortune for some
folk and cost the country irrationally.

Asbestos roofing sheets aren't that dangerous anyway - at least I
hope not, having breathed loads of dust in while roofing garages
(~3 / day for about a year)

Depends upon the type of asbestos! I'm still here, just short of my
seventh decade having cut asbestos panles in my youth for
fireproofing buildings with no dust protection. I do wheeze
ocassionally but I put that down to age - I hope!

As I said -roofing sheets

I think that we can prolly do without another asbestos debate, though

Agreed, "Over and Out".

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:01:35 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:


An excellent article which all RASF's should read.

I'm pretty sure I'm not a RASF but this is my 3dth Dave (in the hope
that it might help you see it from 'the other side' but not saying
that you are a worst case smoker etc).[1]

I've never smoked, ever (never saw the point) but Dad smoked small
cigars now and again and if he did so in the car (Austin A40 Farina)
they often made me sick (physically, it was assumed it was just travel
sickness at the time).

From an impact point of view I often find rollups tolerable (not much
smoke and seem to go our frequently). Cigar smoke actually makes me
feel ill (probably bad memories) and some pipe smoke is even 'ok'.
Factory made cigarettes are VERY penetrating and I can smell the smoke
from meters away and over most high street traffic fumes.

However I prefer not to breathe smoke or fumes (given the chance), not
only because I often don't like the actual smell (and how much it
permeates my clothes (and hair when I had some g)) but the thought
that it's probably not doing me any good (even if it doesn't actually
do any obvious harm). Such instances could be fumes from vehicle
exhausts, cigarettes, paint, fiberglass, acetone, creosote, 2 pack
paint, petrol, etc etc.

If the smoke / fumes are strong enough then they affect my breathing
(I don't suffer from asthma etc) and can often make my eyes sting /
water. These reactions suggest to me they aren't 'good' things.

So, over the years I've learnt to adapt my social life by avoiding all
places where high levels of smoke / fumes are likely to be present,
including pubs, bars, cafe's, restaurants, clubs, car auctions,
betting offices etc etc. I've even not gone to leaving do's weddings,
birthday parties etc, unless the host has specifically chosen non
smoking venues (and such wasn't always available).

The wife and I ride motorbikes and tried to go to a few BMW Club
'Chatter Nights' but they were often held in a Pub or Hall and if
smoking was allowed we would give it one try then generally chose not
to go back.

A (The?) Virago Club (she rides an XV750) was advertised as 'Non
Smoking' so we rode the 50 odd miles to give it a try. We left early
the first time because of repeated instances of 'smokers' wandering in
with lit cigarettes (held behind their backs so you couldn't tell
hmmm) and they had to be ejected by the officials. They apologized
for the actions of a thoughtless (arrogant?) minority and "would we
give them a second chance?". We did and the same thing happened so we
haven't been back since. The irony of this situation is that the VENUE
set the no-smoking rules for this large (and very comfortable) room
and failure to follow the rules would risk the use of the venue for
the whole club (and the 50 or so people who were not smoking).

Since the smoking ban we have used a local cafe several times that we
had ignored for the seven or so years it had been there. I asked the
waitress if the smoking ban had affected the trade and she answered
"yes, it's busier". She continued that even though she was a smoker
herself she appreciated that she didn't go home "stinking of smoke"
(her words). What I found amusing (after 20 years) was the role
reversal, the non smokers sitting comfortably in the warm and the
smokers outside at the few tables on the pavement trying to keep
themselves warm with a coffee and a fag whilst their napkins and other
things blew down the road .. Ha!

Now if we go away on a motorcycle club camping weekend we can at last
join in with the evening entertainments and have a beer or two in the
bar without having to return to our tent, stinking of someone else's
'choice'?

And when it comes to habits, I would be more tolerant of someone else
shooting up or dropping tabs next to me, as I don't have to join in.

Both of my Wives smoked when I met them (one at a time of course) and
both stopped when it was obvious their habit would be an issue within
my friends and family in general. Both stopped 'cold turkey' and were
happy to do so saying they had been 'looking for an excuse / reason
to stop for ages' (neither have smoked since and that's 26 and 18
years respectively).

The one person who was 'never going to stop' is my (otherwise
brilliant) Mother in Law. Funnily she's stopped now but that's because
she can't go too far from her chair because the oxygen mask she has to
wear 24/7 won't stretch very far. :-( [2].

So, personally, I would like to think there was some mind-blanking
zappy pen gadget like they had in the 'Men in Black' film and apply it
to all the smokers out there (simultaneously). I wonder how many would
consider getting some dried leaves, rolling them up in a tube and
setting fire to the end ....?

All the best ..

T i m (now enjoying more of the World)

[1] Mum and Dad used to have friends round on Saturday night to play
Canasta. Dad's mate smoked cigarettes but Mum never associated her
being sick / migraine all the following day with breathing his second
hand smoke (or if she did, didn't want to say anything). 20 years
later his doctor has told him he stops smoking or dies.

[2] She is suffering smoking caused (no question apparently) emphysema
and also has heart issues for the same reason. We have taking her out
a couple of times with a portable oxygen bottle and in her wheelchair
but since suffering the emphysema she also suffers from agoraphobia
(typical of that complain apparently) so just exists indoors (and
that's a real pity because she still have a very sharp and keen mind).

T i m wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:01:35 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:


An excellent article which all RASF's should read.

I'm pretty sure I'm not a RASF but this is my 3dth Dave (in the hope
that it might help you see it from 'the other side' but not saying
that you are a worst case smoker etc).[1]

BIG SNIP

Not a RASF Tim, a reasoned & well written post, for which I thank you, after
the hysterical rantings of others.

I'm actually in favour of legislation to ensure that venues who choose to
become no smoking have enforcement. Perhaps it could be similar to a
license to sell alcohol.

I fully appreciate that many people dislike cigarette smoke and see no
reason why they should have to put up with it.

It would be very simple to allow choice & apply legislation to enforce it.

My beef is that the current blanket ban doesn't allow any choice and the
alleged health scares have been deliberately used to support a campaign to
demonise & punish smokers without any scientific basis.


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

Clot wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Andy Champ wrote:
PeterMcC wrote:

I ain't entering the argument, you just made me curious and I found
that there are lots of links, this being fairly representative:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...0/ai_n12627478

Having said that, the Desert Island Disks remark gets a number of
mentions such as:
http://www.forestonline.org/output/Page159.asp


Well I am!

Forest are hardly a disinterested group, being largely funded by the
tobacco manufacturers.

So...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3826939.stm

... is the BBC with the same quote.

But I notice the other one - where he says "This is the first time
there has been a formal evaluation by scientists that has concluded
that involuntary smoking causes lung cancer" - is a year later.

I'm firmly free market here, completely unlike Blair's Britain with
its authoritarian stance on practically anything. Restaurants were
becoming no smoking before the politicians got involved; pubs
mostly weren't. This is a reflection of consumer pressure.

Most restaurants have been no smoking for years & I don't have a
problem with that at all. I don't have a problem with legislation
that gives people the choice & then makes sure its enforced.

But if I want a nanny I'll call Mary Poppins.

Did you have to? I now have visions of the film. How shall I get to
sleep, you rotten fellow?


Chim Chiminy, Chim Chiminy, Chim Chim Chiree! When you're with a 'sweep,
you're in glad company. Never was there a more happier crew, than them what
sings Chim Chim Chiree Chim Chiroo! Chim Chim Chiminy Chim Chim Chiree
Chim Chiroo...

You'll be up all night now :-)



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

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...

I'm actually in favour of legislation to ensure that venues who choose to
become no smoking have enforcement. Perhaps it could be similar to a
license to sell alcohol.

How are you going to provide safe access for the disabled as required by
law?
Having breathing problems is a disability so you would have to break the
disabilities act to have a smoking venue.


I fully appreciate that many people dislike cigarette smoke and see no
reason why they should have to put up with it.

You keep saying that but disagree as soon as you want to smoke somewhere.
Why do you feel the need to smoke all over the place?

It would be very simple to allow choice & apply legislation to enforce it.

They have, they have made it safe for non smokers to go into pubs, etc.
They haven't stopped smokers going into them either.


My beef is that the current blanket ban doesn't allow any choice and the
alleged health scares have been deliberately used to support a campaign to
demonise & punish smokers without any scientific basis.

You are a typical addict.. any evidence that goes against your drug is
wrong.
There is loads of evidence that smoking is harmful you just choose to ignore
it.

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
My beef is that the current blanket ban doesn't allow any choice and
the alleged health scares have been deliberately used to support a
campaign to demonise & punish smokers without any scientific basis.

You are a typical addict.. any evidence that goes against your drug is
wrong. There is loads of evidence that smoking is harmful you just
choose to ignore it.

There's also loads of evidence that alcohol harms many many people - more
die from its effects each month than die in a year from heroin. Nor can
you say it only effects the users - many city centres are near no go areas
due to its abuse.

So I just hope as a likely boozer you'll be just as in favour of a similar
restriction on that when it comes - as it will, given all government's
love of control.

--
*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 message , T i m
writes
The wife and I ride motorbikes and tried to go to a few BMW Club
'Chatter Nights' but they were often held in a Pub or Hall and if
smoking was allowed we would give it one try then generally chose not
to go back.


Aren't you N London / Enfield way ?

A spring bimble or a BOTAFOT (google it) must be in order, then



--
geoff

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
My beef is that the current blanket ban doesn't allow any choice and
the alleged health scares have been deliberately used to support a
campaign to demonise & punish smokers without any scientific basis.

You are a typical addict.. any evidence that goes against your drug is
wrong. There is loads of evidence that smoking is harmful you just
choose to ignore it.

There's also loads of evidence that alcohol harms many many people - more
die from its effects each month than die in a year from heroin. Nor can
you say it only effects the users - many city centres are near no go areas
due to its abuse.

Irrelevant and typical of the junk smokers bring up to justify their
addiction.


So I just hope as a likely boozer you'll be just as in favour of a similar
restriction on that when it comes - as it will, given all government's
love of control.

There are already laws to control drunkenness and they have been there far
longer than antismoking laws.
And I know of nobody that has suffered from secondary drinking in a
pub/restaurant or cinema.

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

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

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 19:06:14 GMT, geoff wrote:

In message , T i m
writes
The wife and I ride motorbikes and tried to go to a few BMW Club
'Chatter Nights' but they were often held in a Pub or Hall and if
smoking was allowed we would give it one try then generally chose not
to go back.


Aren't you N London / Enfield way ?

Yus ..

A spring bimble or a BOTAFOT (google it) must be in order, then

Well, whilst it's entirely possible (and thanks for the thought) when
we do get a chance to go out on our bikes we generally try to combine
that with long unvisited friends / family etc.

All the best ..

T i m

p.s. I had looked up BOTAFOT previously ;-)

The Medway Handyman wrote:
BIG SNIP

It would be very simple to allow choice & apply legislation to enforce it.

My beef is that the current blanket ban doesn't allow any choice and the
alleged health scares have been deliberately used to support a campaign to
demonise & punish smokers without any scientific basis.

This thread is reminding me of the days of smoking on trains - when I
smoked and they allowed it! You would frequently see a group of people
in the smoking compartments only one of whom was a smoker. As the
proportion of smokers and the amount of smoking capacity reduced, you
ended up with the situation in which smokers could not find anywhere to
smoke as the seats were filled with non-smokers. I believe that a
similar effect occurred in pubs.

--
Rod

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:59:40 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

T i m wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:01:35 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:


An excellent article which all RASF's should read.

I'm pretty sure I'm not a RASF but this is my 3dth Dave (in the hope
that it might help you see it from 'the other side' but not saying
that you are a worst case smoker etc).[1]

BIG SNIP

Not a RASF Tim, a reasoned & well written post, for which I thank you, after
the hysterical rantings of others.

Thanks. I have long since lost the energy to defend my rights for such
issues. Luckily I don't have to do it so much now. ;-)

I'm actually in favour of legislation to ensure that venues who choose to
become no smoking have enforcement.

I fear that legislation is sometimes the only way to force some people
to respect other peoples rights. I suspect the main reason it was
allowed to go through 'blanket' was not to protect the rights of the
majority but to minimize the potential liability from health related
issues from the staff (in any employment role).

Perhaps it could be similar to a
license to sell alcohol.

I'm all for any legislation (that 'works') that forces the
inconsiderate minority to curtail their anti-social activities for the
benefit of the majority (in the absence of 'good citizenship /
respect' etc). I used to take our daughter over onto some 'waste land'
(Technically unused private property) for her to run her little Yamaha
PW50 motocrosser. I made a point of ensuring 1) The exhaust was
working properly (as in noise reduction), 2) the nearby houses
couldn't here it (I checked with some of them) and 3) whenever we came
across any dog walkers or other folk (also unofficially) using the
area we either went up the other end or stopped running the bike till
they left. We also used to use a public track but that facility was
closed due to 'environmental reasons' (which was bs) because of the
noise levels of a minority of the bikes. As always, we all lose out
because of the ignorant or arrogant actions of a minority.

I fully appreciate that many people dislike cigarette smoke and see no
reason why they should have to put up with it.

And I appreciate and respect your right to whatever you like, as long
as it doesn't negatively impact everyday folk, especially
for_no_reason (like knocking out a dented panel on your car is 'a
genuine reason', banging a old bath in the garden with a hammer
isn't). Most 'smokers' use the car pollution as a counter argument to
their public pollution whist (in most cases) being drivers themselves.
(I was always told two wrongs don't make a right g). The other
example they give is alcohol and whilst I agree 'all things in
moderation' we (these days) generally all need to drive (or be driven
or have our goods delivered etc) and all need to drink (something /
liquid) .. but *need* to smoke? Now, what could have saved the day
for the smokers was if the companies who make billions producing the
cigarettes spent some of that money developing one (or a suitable
gadget) that restricted that smell / smoke (and we can ignore medical
risks if you like) to the user. Similar if you like, to the fact we
are all expected to maintain a certain level of hygiene and use
anti-perspirant etc.

It would be very simple to allow choice & apply legislation to enforce it.

Agreed, but as mentioned elsewhere that might be difficult to manage
as at least now all smokers knows 'everywhere' (covered area etc) is
off limits (possibly for the legal reasons mentioned above).

My beef is that the current blanket ban doesn't allow any choice and the
alleged health scares have been deliberately used to support a campaign to
demonise & punish smokers without any scientific basis.

Whilst I agree any tax gained by the government from smokers can be
used to treat them, I personally would rather pay the shortfall in my
taxes and not have (had) to endure the outfall of other people habits
on such a regular and often confrontational basis. [1]

If you want to smoke in your own house and as you as you have the
honest and un-assumed permission of all you share it with [2] then
that I guess is fine. Even step out onto the pavement and light up,
you will never know how many people you offend who have done nothing
whatsoever ever to you (and I appreciate *you* may be considerate to
your family etc).

All the best ..

T i m


[1] I gave up trying to reason with folk who would insist on lighting
up in front of the 6' long 'No Smoking' signs, no matter how politely
anyone asked. Similar I guess as those who park in disable / mother
child bays or across my side gates.

Me: "Excuse me mate, could you not park there (white line, large
'Please do not obstruct these gates' sign etc) as I'm going out now
..."

Them: "Sorry mate, I'll only be 5 mins" walks off .. WTF ???

(the Police were called on rare occasions and the vehicle *was*
removed)

[2] If there are any babies or pets in the house who can't have their
say then I think the assumed answer should be NO.

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

I'm actually in favour of legislation to ensure that venues who
choose to become no smoking have enforcement. Perhaps it could be
similar to a license to sell alcohol.

How are you going to provide safe access for the disabled as required
by law?
Having breathing problems is a disability so you would have to break
the disabilities act to have a smoking venue.


I fully appreciate that many people dislike cigarette smoke and see
no reason why they should have to put up with it.

You keep saying that but disagree as soon as you want to smoke
somewhere. Why do you feel the need to smoke all over the place?

I don't RASF. I just want to be able to smoke in venues that choose to
allow it.

It would be very simple to allow choice & apply legislation to
enforce it.

They have, they have made it safe for non smokers to go into pubs,
etc. They haven't stopped smokers going into them either.

That assumes that passive smoking is a health hazard - it isn't.


My beef is that the current blanket ban doesn't allow any choice and
the alleged health scares have been deliberately used to support a
campaign to demonise & punish smokers without any scientific basis.

You are a typical addict.. any evidence that goes against your drug is
wrong.
There is loads of evidence that smoking is harmful you just choose to
ignore it.

And you are a typical RASF, any evidence that doesn't support your hysteria
must be wrong. There is scientific evidence that being an active smoker is
harmful, but there is none that supports the passive smoking myth.


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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
My beef is that the current blanket ban doesn't allow any choice and
the alleged health scares have been deliberately used to support a
campaign to demonise & punish smokers without any scientific basis.

You are a typical addict.. any evidence that goes against your drug
is wrong. There is loads of evidence that smoking is harmful you just
choose to ignore it.

There's also loads of evidence that alcohol harms many many people -
more die from its effects each month than die in a year from heroin.
Nor can you say it only effects the users - many city centres are
near no go areas due to its abuse.

So I just hope as a likely boozer you'll be just as in favour of a
similar restriction on that when it comes - as it will, given all
government's love of control.

Its already started Dave. Smoking was the thin end of the wedge.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../ndrink121.xml

Who's next?


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

dennis@home wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
My beef is that the current blanket ban doesn't allow any choice
and the alleged health scares have been deliberately used to
support a campaign to demonise & punish smokers without any
scientific basis.

You are a typical addict.. any evidence that goes against your drug
is wrong. There is loads of evidence that smoking is harmful you
just choose to ignore it.

There's also loads of evidence that alcohol harms many many people -
more die from its effects each month than die in a year from heroin.
Nor can you say it only effects the users - many city centres are
near no go areas due to its abuse.

Irrelevant and typical of the junk smokers bring up to justify their
addiction.


So I just hope as a likely boozer you'll be just as in favour of a
similar restriction on that when it comes - as it will, given all
government's love of control.

There are already laws to control drunkenness and they have been
there far longer than antismoking laws.
And I know of nobody that has suffered from secondary drinking in a
pub/restaurant or cinema.

Apart from the people assaulted by drunks that is. My daughter deals with
dozens every Friday & Saturday night.

Typical of the junk RASF's bring up to justify their hysteria.


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

T i m wrote:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:59:40 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

SNIP
As always, we all lose out
because of the ignorant or arrogant actions of a minority.

Nail, hit, head.

SNIP

Whilst I agree any tax gained by the government from smokers can be
used to treat them, I personally would rather pay the shortfall in my
taxes and not have (had) to endure the outfall of other people habits
on such a regular and often confrontational basis. [1]

Another common myth used by FASF's. The revenue gained by the Guvmint on
tobacco producst amounts to £12 billion a year. The NHS's figures on the
costs of 'smoking related disease's ( a broad & flexible term) is £1.5
billion.



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

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 20:43:07 GMT, The Medway Handyman wrote:

They have, they have made it safe for non smokers to go into pubs,
etc. They haven't stopped smokers going into them either.

That assumes that passive smoking is a health hazard - it isn't.

Provide proof of that statement please ?
--
Regards,

Hugh Jampton

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
You are a typical addict.. any evidence that goes against your drug
is wrong. There is loads of evidence that smoking is harmful you just
choose to ignore it.

There's also loads of evidence that alcohol harms many many people -
more die from its effects each month than die in a year from heroin.
Nor can you say it only effects the users - many city centres are near
no go areas due to its abuse.

Irrelevant and typical of the junk smokers bring up to justify their
addiction.

Really? It's perfectly relevant since *you* brought up drugs and addiction.


So I just hope as a likely boozer you'll be just as in favour of a
similar restriction on that when it comes - as it will, given all
government's love of control.

There are already laws to control drunkenness and they have been there
far longer than antismoking laws.

And are ignored or not enforced.

And I know of nobody that has suffered from secondary drinking in a
pub/restaurant or cinema.

I'm willing to bet far more have been killed by others under the influence
of alcohol than have ever been harmed by passive smoking.

--
*Born free...Taxed to death.

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
You are a typical addict.. any evidence that goes against your drug
is wrong. There is loads of evidence that smoking is harmful you just
choose to ignore it.

There's also loads of evidence that alcohol harms many many people -
more die from its effects each month than die in a year from heroin.
Nor can you say it only effects the users - many city centres are near
no go areas due to its abuse.

Irrelevant and typical of the junk smokers bring up to justify their
addiction.

Really? It's perfectly relevant since *you* brought up drugs and
addiction.

Its irrelevant as someone having a drink has zero effect on anyone else
unless it is taken to excess, which has been illegal for a lot longer than
the smoking ban but you didn't care then. A smoker effects everyone around
the second they light up even if you choose to ignore that fact.
As for bringing heroin into it then if you think smoking is comparable to
heroin I won't argue with you.. now how to get it classified as "A"?



So I just hope as a likely boozer you'll be just as in favour of a
similar restriction on that when it comes - as it will, given all
government's love of control.

There are already laws to control drunkenness and they have been there
far longer than antismoking laws.

And are ignored or not enforced.

And I know of nobody that has suffered from secondary drinking in a
pub/restaurant or cinema.

I'm willing to bet far more have been killed by others under the influence
of alcohol than have ever been harmed by passive smoking.

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
You are a typical addict.. any evidence that goes against your drug
is wrong. There is loads of evidence that smoking is harmful you
just choose to ignore it.

There's also loads of evidence that alcohol harms many many people -
more die from its effects each month than die in a year from heroin.
Nor can you say it only effects the users - many city centres are
near no go areas due to its abuse.

Irrelevant and typical of the junk smokers bring up to justify their
addiction.

Really? It's perfectly relevant since *you* brought up drugs and
addiction.


So I just hope as a likely boozer you'll be just as in favour of a
similar restriction on that when it comes - as it will, given all
government's love of control.

There are already laws to control drunkenness and they have been
there far longer than antismoking laws.

And are ignored or not enforced.

And I know of nobody that has suffered from secondary drinking in a
pub/restaurant or cinema.

I'm willing to bet far more have been killed by others under the
influence of alcohol than have ever been harmed by passive smoking.

Dave,

My last words on this subject.

To the best of my knowledge, no long term studies have ever been carried out
on the effects of passive smoking - but it is obvious that if non-smokers
live or work for a long period of time in the company of smokers, then this
*has* to have an effect on them simply because of the amount of noxious
chemicals that are produced from the tobacco and the residues exhaled by the
smoker.

(It has certainly happened with me as I stated in another post somewhere in
this thread).

To cite an example of this is the late Roy Castle, who was a non smoker but
developed lung cancer from the years that he spent inhaling the many cubic
yards of second-hand smoke produced by the audience whilst he was frequently
'playing the club circuit'.

It's also a similar effect to that of asbestosis - where a man's wife has
never worked with asbestos but died from the disease simply by inhaling the
(sometimes only very small quantities) of dust/fibres from his overalls.

So in effect, your statement -- "I'm willing to bet far more have been
killed by others under the influence of alcohol than have ever been harmed
by passive smoking." -- really is untested, as to die *OR* to kill after
taking excessive amounts of alcohol is given far wider publicity than
someone dying of lung cancer - or other ailments - due to passive smoking.

All best.

BRG

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:32:00 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:



"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
You are a typical addict.. any evidence that goes against your drug
is wrong. There is loads of evidence that smoking is harmful you just
choose to ignore it.

There's also loads of evidence that alcohol harms many many people -
more die from its effects each month than die in a year from heroin.
Nor can you say it only effects the users - many city centres are near
no go areas due to its abuse.

Irrelevant and typical of the junk smokers bring up to justify their
addiction.

Really? It's perfectly relevant since *you* brought up drugs and
addiction.

Its irrelevant as someone having a drink has zero effect on anyone else
unless it is taken to excess, which has been illegal for a lot longer than
the smoking ban but you didn't care then. A smoker effects everyone around
the second they light up even if you choose to ignore that fact.
As for bringing heroin into it then if you think smoking is comparable to
heroin I won't argue with you.. now how to get it classified as "A"?

Health risks aren't the only objection. Smoking and smokers smell
awful.
And it looks common.

--
Frank Erskine

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 20:55:22 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

T i m wrote:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:59:40 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

SNIP
As always, we all lose out
because of the ignorant or arrogant actions of a minority.

Nail, hit, head.

;-)

SNIP

Whilst I agree any tax gained by the government from smokers can be
used to treat them, I personally would rather pay the shortfall in my
taxes and not have (had) to endure the outfall of other people habits
on such a regular and often confrontational basis. [1]

Another common myth used by FASF's. The revenue gained by the Guvmint on
tobacco producst amounts to £12 billion a year. The NHS's figures on the
costs of 'smoking related disease's ( a broad & flexible term) is £1.5
billion.

No, sorry Dave, *I* was saying that if (say) there were no taxes
raised from tobacco (because it was banned etc) I would be happy to
pay (my share) of the loss of tax revenue just for the privilege of
not having to breathe / smell other peoples smoke. Or I would_have
because I had to moderate my (our) social life so much as a means of
avoiding such situations. We only have the open public places (like
pavement doorways) to really contend with now.

As a sort of an aside ... along with smoking comes other smoking
relates issues (and I'm not suggesting all smokers do the following
etc ..)

Fires (accidental) and arson (eg, I can't start a fire when I'm out
and about because I don't carry matches or a lighter).

Litter, not only the butts but the boxes and other packaging etc.

Accidents, burning (not fire) yourself or others, or their clothes /
carpets / furniture etc. I have had a lit butt flicked at me
(accidentally quite probably) from a car while I've been on my
motorbike.

Torture, I can't burn someone on purpose because I neither carry
cigarettes nor the means to light them (and it does happen, even to
babies etc).

Cost, I saw some old dear on TV News a while back on an article about
energy costs complaining that she couldn't have more that one electric
bar on. On the fireplace must have been 40 quid's worth of cigarettes?

Contamination, the amount of kit I have dealt with over the years that
either stinks or has a layer of yellow sticky slime in / on it. I can
tell instantly if something I have bought from eBay etc has come from
a smoking home when I unpack it [1]. Our lounge ceiling hasn't been
painted for ~25 years and it's still arctic white as no one has *ever*
smoked in here. I would never buy a second hand car from a smoker.

(Back on the original topic g) I would pay extra taxes to have armed
wardens patrolling the streets with a shoot_on_sight policy [2] where
if they see anyone committing vandalism (kicking wing mirrors off cars
etc). Strict but fair.

I wasn't saying what you think a FASF might say. ;-)

All the best ..

T i m

[1] I have never ever suspected they did heroin, drove a diesel, drunk
heavily, liked spicy food, played loud music, used pine air fresheners
nor had body odor.

[2] And they can be on commission ...

p.s. I predicted the banning of smoking in public places 20 years ago
and despite what some people have said here, it's not just 'our' nanny
state that's done it ..

BRG wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
You are a typical addict.. any evidence that goes against your
drug is wrong. There is loads of evidence that smoking is harmful
you just choose to ignore it.

There's also loads of evidence that alcohol harms many many people
- more die from its effects each month than die in a year from
heroin. Nor can you say it only effects the users - many city
centres are near no go areas due to its abuse.

Irrelevant and typical of the junk smokers bring up to justify their
addiction.

Really? It's perfectly relevant since *you* brought up drugs and
addiction.


So I just hope as a likely boozer you'll be just as in favour of a
similar restriction on that when it comes - as it will, given all
government's love of control.

There are already laws to control drunkenness and they have been
there far longer than antismoking laws.

And are ignored or not enforced.

And I know of nobody that has suffered from secondary drinking in a
pub/restaurant or cinema.

I'm willing to bet far more have been killed by others under the
influence of alcohol than have ever been harmed by passive smoking.

Dave,

My last words on this subject.

Probably because you have realised your argument is completely flawed.

To the best of my knowledge, no long term studies have ever been
carried out on the effects of passive smoking - but it is obvious
that if non-smokers live or work for a long period of time in the
company of smokers, then this *has* to have an effect on them simply
because of the amount of noxious chemicals that are produced from the
tobacco and the residues exhaled by the smoker.

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

(It has certainly happened with me as I stated in another post
somewhere in this thread).

To cite an example of this is the late Roy Castle, who was a non
smoker but developed lung cancer from the years that he spent
inhaling the many cubic yards of second-hand smoke produced by the
audience whilst he was frequently 'playing the club circuit'.

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

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

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

It's also a similar effect to that of asbestosis - where a man's wife
has never worked with asbestos but died from the disease simply by
inhaling the (sometimes only very small quantities) of dust/fibres
from his overalls.

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

So in effect, your statement -- "I'm willing to bet far more have been
killed by others under the influence of alcohol than have ever been
harmed by passive smoking." -- really is untested, as to die *OR* to
kill after taking excessive amounts of alcohol is given far wider
publicity than someone dying of lung cancer - or other ailments - due
to passive smoking.

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

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


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

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Clot wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Andy Champ wrote:
PeterMcC wrote:

I ain't entering the argument, you just made me curious and I
found that there are lots of links, this being fairly
representative:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...0/ai_n12627478

Having said that, the Desert Island Disks remark gets a number of
mentions such as:
http://www.forestonline.org/output/Page159.asp


Well I am!

Forest are hardly a disinterested group, being largely funded by
the tobacco manufacturers.

So...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3826939.stm

... is the BBC with the same quote.

But I notice the other one - where he says "This is the first time
there has been a formal evaluation by scientists that has concluded
that involuntary smoking causes lung cancer" - is a year later.

I'm firmly free market here, completely unlike Blair's Britain with
its authoritarian stance on practically anything. Restaurants were
becoming no smoking before the politicians got involved; pubs
mostly weren't. This is a reflection of consumer pressure.

Most restaurants have been no smoking for years & I don't have a
problem with that at all. I don't have a problem with legislation
that gives people the choice & then makes sure its enforced.

But if I want a nanny I'll call Mary Poppins.

Did you have to? I now have visions of the film. How shall I get to
sleep, you rotten fellow?


Chim Chiminy, Chim Chiminy, Chim Chim Chiree! When you're with a
'sweep, you're in glad company. Never was there a more happier crew,
than them what sings Chim Chim Chiree Chim Chiroo! Chim Chim
Chiminy Chim Chim Chiree Chim Chiroo...

You'll be up all night now :-)

B*gg*r!

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:08:42 GMT, wrote:

On 23 Feb,
Frank Erskine wrote:

Health risks aren't the only objection. Smoking and smokers smell
awful.
And it looks common.

A reformed smoker then?

Yes.

--
Frank Erskine

dennis@home wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
SNIP

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

And how do they affect others Dennis? A smell some may dislike? Or do they
trigger your personal bias?

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

Oh FFS! You are now getting seriously silly. Smokers are now serial
killers? And because they can't smoke in the pub they will go out and
murder someone?

Any credibility you held in the argument has just flown out of the window.

I've heard some completely stupid claims about smoking im my time. You have
just won the prize for the most completely idiotic, biased, emotional,
hysterical claim there is. I'll let Forest know in the morning, they would
like a good laugh.

You are a complete and utter ****wit.


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

Frank Erskine wrote:


Health risks aren't the only objection. Smoking and smokers smell
awful.
And it looks common.

Very true Frank. If you are a judgemental non smoker.


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

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...

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

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/

Not too hard, was it.

I know you're a big fan of Forest and believe everything they write, but
they're not exactly disinterested.

The Medway Handyman wrote:
BRG wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
You are a typical addict.. any evidence that goes against your
drug is wrong. There is loads of evidence that smoking is harmful
you just choose to ignore it.

There's also loads of evidence that alcohol harms many many people
- more die from its effects each month than die in a year from
heroin. Nor can you say it only effects the users - many city
centres are near no go areas due to its abuse.

Irrelevant and typical of the junk smokers bring up to justify
their addiction.

Really? It's perfectly relevant since *you* brought up drugs and
addiction.


So I just hope as a likely boozer you'll be just as in favour of a
similar restriction on that when it comes - as it will, given all
government's love of control.

There are already laws to control drunkenness and they have been
there far longer than antismoking laws.

And are ignored or not enforced.

And I know of nobody that has suffered from secondary drinking in a
pub/restaurant or cinema.

I'm willing to bet far more have been killed by others under the
influence of alcohol than have ever been harmed by passive smoking.

Dave,

My last words on this subject.

Probably because you have realised your argument is completely flawed.

To the best of my knowledge, no long term studies have ever been
carried out on the effects of passive smoking - but it is obvious
that if non-smokers live or work for a long period of time in the
company of smokers, then this *has* to have an effect on them simply
because of the amount of noxious chemicals that are produced from the
tobacco and the residues exhaled by the smoker.

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

(It has certainly happened with me as I stated in another post
somewhere in this thread).

To cite an example of this is the late Roy Castle, who was a non
smoker but developed lung cancer from the years that he spent
inhaling the many cubic yards of second-hand smoke produced by the
audience whilst he was frequently 'playing the club circuit'.

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

Let me spell it out for you. Non smokers do contract lung cancer, as
did Mr Castle. However it is an entirely different form of cancer
and affects a completely different part of the lung. The possibility
of it being caused by passive smoking is statistically & medically
impossible. Roy Castle did not die as a result of passive smoking,
neither has anyone else.
Sorry that doesn't support your hysterical & over emotional view, but
I'm afraid its true. Zero out of ten, please try harder.

It's also a similar effect to that of asbestosis - where a man's wife
has never worked with asbestos but died from the disease simply by
inhaling the (sometimes only very small quantities) of dust/fibres
from his overalls.

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

So in effect, your statement -- "I'm willing to bet far more have
been killed by others under the influence of alcohol than have ever
been harmed by passive smoking." -- really is untested, as to die
*OR* to kill after taking excessive amounts of alcohol is given far
wider publicity than someone dying of lung cancer - or other
ailments - due to passive smoking.

Interesting that. Yet another example of rabid hysteria. There is no
accurate data whatsoever to support the fallacy that passive smoking
is harmful, but there is a whole **** load of recorded data relating
to death caused by excessive alcohol intake, and a further **** load
of data relating to deaths/serious injury caused by people under the
influence of alcohol.
Face it. Your arguments are hysterical, biased & based on an
inability to comprehend basic science. Get back to me when you have
learned to think for yourself.

Steady, Dave, you are now showing emotion and therefore liable to be
irrational.I too am sceptical of the passive smoking argument and am not
sure that conclusive work has been done on this to date. However, from the
possible chance that this could be true, I did not smoke in the house until
my kids went to bed and also only smoked in one room.

The Romans used pewter mugs and lead piping. We now know what lead can do.
Folks of our age know what smogs could do.
I'm not of the Nanny fratunity but I do feel we need to be objective!