In article , dennis@home
wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

And are ignored or not enforced.

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

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

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

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





--
*Don't byte off more than you can view *

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

In article ,
BRG wrote:
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'.

One famous oft quoted example. How about all the other musicians and
performers in exactly the same position?

--
*Bigamy is having one wife too many - monogamy is the same

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

In article ,
Clot wrote:
The Romans used pewter mugs and lead piping. We now know what lead can
do.

Pray prove that lead piping etc is a hazard to health. And it was still
being installed in the last century in this country - let alone in Roman
times. Of course lead is harmful if ingested in various ways - but
assuming it dissolves in water is not one of them.

--
*Hard work has a future payoff. Laziness pays off NOW.

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

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

I will make it quite clear here.. secondary smoking is a health risk without
a doubt.. I suffer allergic reactions from it so it is proven without a
doubt. There are probably many others too. Now will you please stop using
lies to support your cause?

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

Is that what you think? I didn't say that so you must have a poor opinion
about smokers.


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

You have no credibility about smoking at all, you are addicted so nothing
you say about it is rational as is evidenced here.


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.

Make sure you post the whole of what I said so they can laugh at you for the
correct reasons.


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

As I said, addicted, irrational.
You have no argument to support inflicting your habit on others so you
resort to abuse and misquotes to try and win.
You may as well learn to live with the truth as it is out now and everyone
knows that smoking is bad for everyone.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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



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

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

And are ignored or not enforced.

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

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

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

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

What's the problem with inventing theories?
That's what people do.
Then you try and prove them.
You don't lie like smokers do and claim there is no evidence even when there
is.
As it happens it is easy to prove what I said above but not the magnitude of
the effect.

As for my intolerance then why not, it makes me ill and I don't see why I
should let you make me ill.
If I came into the pub and started glue sniffing next to you, would you
complain or just sit there and breath in the fumes?
Glue sniffing is not illegal BTW.

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
As for my intolerance then why not, it makes me ill and I don't see why
I should let you make me ill. If I came into the pub and started glue
sniffing next to you, would you complain or just sit there and breath
in the fumes? Glue sniffing is not illegal BTW.

If the pub had a sign saying 'glue sniffing allowed' I'd simply give it a
miss. There are plenty others. And I really don't see why the same can't
apply to smoking. Except to satisfy the anti smoking bigots.

--
*I can see your point, but I still think you're full of ****.

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

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:09:44 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
As for my intolerance then why not, it makes me ill and I don't see why
I should let you make me ill. If I came into the pub and started glue
sniffing next to you, would you complain or just sit there and breath
in the fumes? Glue sniffing is not illegal BTW.

If the pub had a sign saying 'glue sniffing allowed' I'd simply give it a
miss.

Pub's didn't have 'Smoking Allowed' signs because it was assumed that
it was and it was just sheer luck if you turned up at one (often if
you were out in the sticks the only one for miles) that was smoke free
(let alone 'No Smoking'). Even if it was smoke free when you turned up
there was no guarantee it would still be that way when yer food turned
up.

There are plenty others.

So would that mean me and my family going on a pub crawl (looking for
one that was non-smoking) when ALL we want is a drink, some pub grub
and maybe to sit in the warm for a bit? [1]

And I really don't see why the same can't
apply to smoking.

I can understand why smokers are feeling persecuted but maybe its
right that they should be now and we can have our turn at a bit of
choice at last. Equality and that?

All the best ..

T i m

[1] We tend to choose semi remote places when on our family motorcycle
camping holidays. You wouldn't believe the number of campsites where
we haven't been able to just walk to the local village for a pint (a
real treat for me as I'm normally driving) and a pie because when we
got there and looked through the door we couldn't see the bar for
smoke. And why should we sit outside, outside is for bonfires and
inside is for people! g Now we know we can go anywhere that sells
beer and food and that's all we are going to get. ;-)

p.s. I care less what you or anyone else does as long as I don't have
to join in whilst just going about my day.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
As for my intolerance then why not, it makes me ill and I don't see why
I should let you make me ill. If I came into the pub and started glue
sniffing next to you, would you complain or just sit there and breath
in the fumes? Glue sniffing is not illegal BTW.

If the pub had a sign saying 'glue sniffing allowed' I'd simply give it a
miss. There are plenty others. And I really don't see why the same can't
apply to smoking. Except to satisfy the anti smoking bigots.

That would be fine if you are going to restrict smoking to approved places
and nowhere else and none smokers get a say in where the approved places
are.


I have no problems with smokers going and killing themselves as long as they
don't inflict it on anyone that can't say OK or says no.

That is the problem, too many smokers have the "right" to inflict it on
others.
They still do it now.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

And are ignored or not enforced.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


--
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:
As for my intolerance then why not, it makes me ill and I don't see
why I should let you make me ill. If I came into the pub and
started glue sniffing next to you, would you complain or just sit
there and breath in the fumes? Glue sniffing is not illegal BTW.

If the pub had a sign saying 'glue sniffing allowed' I'd simply give
it a miss. There are plenty others. And I really don't see why the
same can't apply to smoking. Except to satisfy the anti smoking
bigots.

That would be fine if you are going to restrict smoking to approved
places and nowhere else and none smokers get a say in where the
approved places are.


I have no problems with smokers going and killing themselves as long
as they don't inflict it on anyone that can't say OK or says no.

That is the problem, too many smokers have the "right" to inflict it
on others.
They still do it now.

Do I detect a small amount of reason creeping in Dennis? Now your
hysterical arguments have been shown to be riduculous?


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

Clive George wrote:
"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.

Not too hard to read it & realise it was based on the discredited 1992
report either.


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

And are ignored or not enforced.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


You are wrong as you well know.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
As for my intolerance then why not, it makes me ill and I don't see
why I should let you make me ill. If I came into the pub and
started glue sniffing next to you, would you complain or just sit
there and breath in the fumes? Glue sniffing is not illegal BTW.

If the pub had a sign saying 'glue sniffing allowed' I'd simply give
it a miss. There are plenty others. And I really don't see why the
same can't apply to smoking. Except to satisfy the anti smoking
bigots.

That would be fine if you are going to restrict smoking to approved
places and nowhere else and none smokers get a say in where the
approved places are.


I have no problems with smokers going and killing themselves as long
as they don't inflict it on anyone that can't say OK or says no.

That is the problem, too many smokers have the "right" to inflict it
on others.
They still do it now.

Do I detect a small amount of reason creeping in Dennis? Now your
hysterical arguments have been shown to be riduculous?

Your lies are ridiculous.
I have never said smoking should be banned, just in *all* places the public
has access to and anywhere there are kids.
Its you that spouts out rubbish about links to caner being unproven, etc.

The same sort of rubbish the anti-MMR campaigners spout.

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

Not too hard to read it & realise it was based on the discredited 1992
report either.

You read *all* 500+ reports that date after 1992?
I don't believe you!

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
I have never said smoking should be banned, just in *all* places the
public has access to and anywhere there are kids.

So why is it banned in private clubs?

--
*Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
I have never said smoking should be banned, just in *all* places the
public has access to and anywhere there are kids.

So why is it banned in private clubs?

Including for example the Oxford Pipe Smokers Club?


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

On 2008-02-24 01:22:45 +0000, "The Medway Handyman"
said:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
I have never said smoking should be banned, just in *all* places the
public has access to and anywhere there are kids.

So why is it banned in private clubs?

Including for example the Oxford Pipe Smokers Club?

It's better for them. They can smoke virtually instead....

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 23:51:33 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
I have never said smoking should be banned, just in *all* places the
public has access to and anywhere there are kids.

So why is it banned in private clubs?

Because (I suspect and as I mentioned previously) it reduces the
insurance liability when one of the staff / cleaners tries to sue
because they have contracted a smoking related disease. [1]

I agree there could still be 'special' places which were obviously
only of interest to smokers (like 'Smoking Clubs') where members of
the general non smoking population would not need to be in contact but
I still suggest the above para is to do with it.

I'm not sure you could get a member of staff to waive their rights
either? "I hereby sign that if I become ill or die from a smoking
related disease from working here I (or my family) won't sue the
company" ?

All the best

T i m

[1] This is probably folk law (or will be discredited as such) but I
heard there was an instance of a smoker who contracted lung cancer who
then tried to sue her employer for 'encouraging her to smoke' (because
they had proved a 'smoking room' on the premises). This could be a
reason why many companies *don't* provide such facilities and further
don't allow smoking on their entire site.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Clot wrote:
The Romans used pewter mugs and lead piping. We now know what lead
can do.

Pray prove that lead piping etc is a hazard to health. And it was
still being installed in the last century in this country - let alone
in Roman times. Of course lead is harmful if ingested in various ways
- but assuming it dissolves in water is not one of them.

It does indeed dissolve in water. Folk with lead pipework are advised to
flush the pipe in the morning before drawing off water to fill the kettle.
Water companies are adding phosphate at treatment works to reduce the
solubility of lead in customers supply pipes.

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
I have never said smoking should be banned, just in *all* places the
public has access to and anywhere there are kids.

So why is it banned in private clubs?

Elf and safety at work.

An employer is obliged to take care of their staff as are other staff.

"Clot" wrote in message
news
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Clot wrote:
The Romans used pewter mugs and lead piping. We now know what lead
can do.

Pray prove that lead piping etc is a hazard to health. And it was
still being installed in the last century in this country - let alone
in Roman times. Of course lead is harmful if ingested in various ways
- but assuming it dissolves in water is not one of them.

It does indeed dissolve in water. Folk with lead pipework are advised to
flush the pipe in the morning before drawing off water to fill the kettle.
Water companies are adding phosphate at treatment works to reduce the
solubility of lead in customers supply pipes.

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


My dads house built in the 1950s has lead mains as does the entire estate of
a few hundred homes..
Fortunately its a hard water area so unlikely to have much effect.

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
I have never said smoking should be banned, just in *all* places the
public has access to and anywhere there are kids.

So why is it banned in private clubs?

Elf and safety at work.

An employer is obliged to take care of their staff as are other staff.

You could have a private club where there are no employees - same as some
pubs. And you're surely not claiming cigarette smoke is more harmful than
other chemicals that employees may have to handle in other businesses?

No matter how people wriggle there is no sense behind banning smoking
everywhere that the public *might* have access to - it is merely
punishment of smokers. And having accepted that other such laws will
follow.

--
*Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool*

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

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


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
I have never said smoking should be banned, just in *all* places the
public has access to and anywhere there are kids.

So why is it banned in private clubs?

Elf and safety at work.

An employer is obliged to take care of their staff as are other staff.

You could have a private club where there are no employees - same as some
pubs. And you're surely not claiming cigarette smoke is more harmful than
other chemicals that employees may have to handle in other businesses?

That would be a house wouldn't it?


No matter how people wriggle there is no sense behind banning smoking
everywhere that the public *might* have access to - it is merely
punishment of smokers. And having accepted that other such laws will
follow.

It is the only way to make sure smokers stop if someone that doesn't want to
smoke arrives and doesn't have to take loads of abuse and wait 20 minutes
for the sh!t to clear. Talk some sense rather than talking with anger.

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:13:19 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:


You could have a private club where there are no employees - same as some
pubs.

'Private smoking parties' .. have em round your place Dave .. ;-)


And you're surely not claiming cigarette smoke is more harmful than
other chemicals that employees may have to handle in other businesses?

I would have thought any 'harmful chemicals' would be covered by the
HSA and suitable protective clothing / breathing equipment would be
issued? If you were producing any smoke or fumes indoors in any other
circumstances than smoking they would be obliged to provide suitable
extraction or fume cupboards etc. Lead solder has now been replaced
with lead free for the exact same reasons ....


No matter how people wriggle there is no sense behind banning smoking
everywhere that the public *might* have access to - it is merely
punishment of smokers.

Or social freedom (at last) for the majority? Try and put yourself in
our shoes for a second and think about what we (the non smokers) have
an issue with. It's the fact that we choose not to have to breathe
(or smell) cigarette smoke / fumes, ever, anywhere we happen to go in
our everyday lives. Anyone imposing that on us (and from our point of
view for no logical reason) is acting 'antisocially' and should be
issued with an ASBO? ;-)

And having accepted that other such laws will
follow.

Good, because by definition, few stupid rules ever actually get
through (or stay).

Just out of interest, have I missed all the Pro Smoking marches? I
remember seeing some for Foxhunting and some other similarly bizarre
minority interests but not Pro Smoking?

All the best ..

T i m

p.s. What is also nice for me is that if the Missus goes out with her
mates for a meal she doesn't come home stinking like an ashtray.

In article ,
T i m wrote:
You could have a private club where there are no employees - same as
some pubs.

'Private smoking parties' .. have em round your place Dave .. ;-)

Pubs run by families? Partners?


And you're surely not claiming cigarette smoke is more harmful than
other chemicals that employees may have to handle in other businesses?

I would have thought any 'harmful chemicals' would be covered by the
HSA and suitable protective clothing / breathing equipment would be
issued? If you were producing any smoke or fumes indoors in any other
circumstances than smoking they would be obliged to provide suitable
extraction or fume cupboards etc. Lead solder has now been replaced
with lead free for the exact same reasons ....

And decent smoke extraction would be simple to provide in smoking pubs -
if they were allowed. It's not exactly rocket science.


No matter how people wriggle there is no sense behind banning smoking
everywhere that the public *might* have access to - it is merely
punishment of smokers.

Or social freedom (at last) for the majority? Try and put yourself in
our shoes for a second and think about what we (the non smokers) have
an issue with. It's the fact that we choose not to have to breathe
(or smell) cigarette smoke / fumes, ever, anywhere we happen to go in
our everyday lives. Anyone imposing that on us (and from our point of
view for no logical reason) is acting 'antisocially' and should be
issued with an ASBO? ;-)

Err, yet again you miss the point. If a pub were clearly marked as a
smoking one, just why would you want to go there - anymore than one that
played music you don't like or showed sports you weren't interested in all
the time. Or even a gay pub - assuming you're not gay?

And having accepted that other such laws will
follow.

Good, because by definition, few stupid rules ever actually get
through (or stay).

Just out of interest, have I missed all the Pro Smoking marches? I
remember seeing some for Foxhunting and some other similarly bizarre
minority interests but not Pro Smoking?

All the best ..

T i m

p.s. What is also nice for me is that if the Missus goes out with her
mates for a meal she doesn't come home stinking like an ashtray.

She went to smoking restaurants when the majority have been non smoking
for years?

--
*If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? *

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

T i m wrote in message
...


Just out of interest, have I missed all the Pro Smoking marches? I
remember seeing some for Foxhunting and some other similarly bizarre
minority interests but not Pro Smoking?



They started off ok, but run out of breath after a few yards ;(



-

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 23:40:18 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
You could have a private club where there are no employees - same as
some pubs.

'Private smoking parties' .. have em round your place Dave .. ;-)

Pubs run by families? Partners?

Well, I guess as long as everyone (and that might need a private
ballot as no everyone tells the truth to the 'do you mind' question)
then that's fine?


And decent smoke extraction would be simple to provide in smoking pubs -
if they were allowed. It's not exactly rocket science.

Indeed, and I'm surprised more places didn't do something about it ..
unless being 'No Smoking' was actually preferred?


Or social freedom (at last) for the majority? Try and put yourself in
our shoes for a second and think about what we (the non smokers) have
an issue with. It's the fact that we choose not to have to breathe
(or smell) cigarette smoke / fumes, ever, anywhere we happen to go in
our everyday lives. Anyone imposing that on us (and from our point of
view for no logical reason) is acting 'antisocially' and should be
issued with an ASBO? ;-)

Err, yet again you miss the point.

Smoking, 'point' .. lol

If a pub were clearly marked as a
smoking one, just why would you want to go there - anymore than one that
played music you don't like or showed sports you weren't interested in all
the time.

Ok, again just for you. My family and I are on a motorcycle camping
holiday. In the evening we walk to the only local pub and want a drink
and some grub. The chances are we won't mind the music whatever it is
and even if we don't like what's on Sky Sports the chances are we
won't go back to our tent smelling of it.

Or even a gay pub - assuming you're not gay?

Are you chatting me up Dave (can you recommend any good places should
I decide to go that way)? ;-)

p.s. What is also nice for me is that if the Missus goes out with her
mates for a meal she doesn't come home stinking like an ashtray.

She went to smoking restaurants when the majority have been non smoking
for years?

Did I say 'restaurant' Dave. As an ex smoker she has less of an issue
being in smoke than I do (although she still prefers not to). The Pub
they go to has a good no-smoking restaurant and is centrally located
to all of them. However, sometimes (depending on what way the wind is
blowing etc) the smoke stench blows through to the restaurant and I
can smell it on her as soon as she comes home. Ironically I can't
smell food or drink on her clothes nor diesel / car fumes from the
journey. ;-)

All the best ..

T i m

On Feb 19, 7:35 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"ARWadworth" wrote in message

...



"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
ARWadworth wrote:
That are the ones that have a mosquito ring tone on the phones so the
teacher cannot hear it.

I've heard this one and have my doubts that a phone speaker has either
the
frequency response or power to reproduce this properly.

We were thinking that at work. Still, you cannot stop made up stories from
doing the rounds.

I downloaded a wave file and played it on the rather tinny speakers of a
laptop and I couldn't hear it but my daughter was going to chuck the laptop
out the windows after 30 seconds.. she was 21 at the time. I expect that it
would work as a ring tone.

I would have though cheap and tinny were the perfect pitches for
mosquito coasters.

"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
...
On Feb 19, 7:35 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"ARWadworth" wrote in message

...



"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
ARWadworth wrote:
That are the ones that have a mosquito ring tone on the phones so the
teacher cannot hear it.

I've heard this one and have my doubts that a phone speaker has either
the
frequency response or power to reproduce this properly.

We were thinking that at work. Still, you cannot stop made up stories
from
doing the rounds.

I downloaded a wave file and played it on the rather tinny speakers of a
laptop and I couldn't hear it but my daughter was going to chuck the
laptop
out the windows after 30 seconds.. she was 21 at the time. I expect that
it
would work as a ring tone.

I would have though cheap and tinny were the perfect pitches for
mosquito coasters.

Just like phone speakers then. ;-)

"Mark" wrote in message
...

T i m wrote in message
...


Just out of interest, have I missed all the Pro Smoking marches? I
remember seeing some for Foxhunting and some other similarly bizarre
minority interests but not Pro Smoking?



They started off ok, but run out of breath after a few yards ;(

They should have followed Jimmy Savile's lighter.

Adam

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
...
On Feb 19, 7:35 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"ARWadworth" wrote in message

...



"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
ARWadworth wrote:
That are the ones that have a mosquito ring tone on the phones so
the
teacher cannot hear it.

I've heard this one and have my doubts that a phone speaker has
either
the
frequency response or power to reproduce this properly.

We were thinking that at work. Still, you cannot stop made up stories
from
doing the rounds.

I downloaded a wave file and played it on the rather tinny speakers of a
laptop and I couldn't hear it but my daughter was going to chuck the
laptop
out the windows after 30 seconds.. she was 21 at the time. I expect that
it
would work as a ring tone.

I would have though cheap and tinny were the perfect pitches for
mosquito coasters.

Just like phone speakers then. ;-)

Just like phone speakers.

Listen to a gang/group of teens walking down a steet (they are not all yobs)
and they are playing music in the worst possible way by using their mobile
phones. They do not know what they are missing.

Adam

"ARWadworth" wrote in message
...



Just like phone speakers.

Listen to a gang/group of teens walking down a steet (they are not all
yobs) and they are playing music in the worst possible way by using their
mobile phones. They do not know what they are missing.

That's the trouble with the young.. they are technologically challenged.
They have never heard of Bluetooth and certainly don't know about Bluetooth
stereo headsets.

They look at me a bit odd when I send full emails from my phone rather than
pay to send a stupid text message.

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 21:58:16 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

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?

Most gays don't ram their dicks up the arse of random heterosexual
strangers, whereas most, if not all smokers polluted my air.


--

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:53:12 +0000, Andy Champ
wrote:

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

Pure unadulterated bull****.


--

Matt wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:53:12 +0000, Andy Champ
wrote:

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

Pure unadulterated bull****.



I'll admit it's probably coincidence, but it isn't bull****.

Andy

Andy Champ wrote:
Matt wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:53:12 +0000, Andy Champ
wrote:

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

Pure unadulterated bull****.



I'll admit it's probably coincidence, but it isn't bull****.

It's certainly well documented that exposure to allergens can
desensitize people to them - eg kids from homes with pets have less asthma.

David

Lobster wrote:

Andy Champ wrote:

Matt wrote:

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:53:12 +0000, Andy Champ
wrote:

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


Pure unadulterated bull****.



I'll admit it's probably coincidence, but it isn't bull****.


It's certainly well documented that exposure to allergens can
desensitize people to them - eg kids from homes with pets have less asthma.

I had a dog by my side, as a child and I was born with asthma and
suffered it till the age of 13, when I learned to ride a bicycle. Now I
get hay fever and bronchitis.

Dave