On 2008-07-26 13:45:50 +0100, (Steve Firth) said:

Huge wrote:

The Wikipedia article on Passive Smoking has 144 references, mostly to peer
reviewed journals or to authoritative sources. Not one I've looked at so far
says "Passive smoking is harmless, don't worry about it."

Ah yes, but the fag smokers will tell you that this is because all those
researchers are in the evil pay of a sekrit konspiracy that is out to do
down the poor, harmless tobacco companies.

They will say this for two reasons. One is that nicotine causes
vasocontriction which, along with the carbon monoxide and other poisons
in tobacco smoke reduces the flow of blood to the brain and kills
numerous brain cells resulting in a dulling of the wits. The other
reason is that addicts are incapable of admitting that they are addicted
and that the addiction distorts their perceptions.

The same addicts denied that smoking caused *them* harm. I saw one
recently, in hospital for amputation of a leg, which was obviously
gangrenous. The surgeon had just told the addict that the leg would come
off and that they should stop smoking now, if they wanted to stand a
chance of living through the operation, let alone of keeping the other
leg.

As soon as the surgeon was out of sight the soon-to-be amputee was
reaching for her fags, saying "no ****ing poncy **** is going to tell me
what to do."

I saw a similar thing recently outside a major cardio thoracic hospital
in London. Three or four of them, I suspect with emphysema standing
in the street in their dressing gowns complete with drip on stand and
peristaltic pump driving the flow.

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:36:13 +0100, Peter Scott
wrote:

Andy Cap wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:21:47 +0100, (Steve Firth) wrote:

Clearly designed to harass smokers.
Good. Smokers have been harassing those of us who are not addicts for
long enough.

Don't be too smug. Something you enjoy like drink or fatty foods will be next on
the list of banned substances.


Not quite the same thing. The equivalent would be if the eater or
drinker threw up the semi-digested food or drink over a bystander.

I have a feeling that the figures on 'passive drinking' would prove to
be quite entertaining.

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:01:29 +0100, Anne Welsh Jackson
wrote:

"nightjar" cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message
m...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7524526.stm

Shows just how pathetic this legislation is. Clearly designed to
harass
smokers.

He should appeal. As a self-employed person with no employees, his
vehicle
is not required to be smoke-free.

Quote from the article:
"When stopped, both Mr Williams and his male passenger were found to be
smoking. "

It doesn't say that this _wasn't_ an employee - there again it doesn't
say that he was.

I certainly wouldn't have paid the fixed penalty notice - but then I can
be a right
stroppy bitch.

So when does a works van also used for pvt purposes not become a works
van.Just because an employee is in the van doesn't mean that he ( or
the driver) is working . He should just have told them that at that
particular time neither of them were working .

Then he could inform the tax people that he uses the van for private use so
he can have his tax relief cut too.

In article ,
Andy Dingley wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 10:44:12 +0100, wrote:

So when does a works van also used for pvt purposes not become a works
van.

This van wasn't insured for works use either, merely SDP. The driver,
when interviewed, tried to use this as an excuse that it thus wasn't a
"works van". OTOH, I think he might now fnd himself with invalid
insurance and being charged for such by the police, pour encourager les
autres.

If he's insured with Admiral, the temptation to make Byng jokes would be
irresistible.

He made a comment something like this:-

'Thought the law was about smoking at work. I paint houses - not vans.'

--
*If you must choose between two evils, pick the one you've never tried before

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

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
So when does a works van also used for pvt purposes not become a works
van.Just because an employee is in the van doesn't mean that he ( or
the driver) is working . He should just have told them that at that
particular time neither of them were working .

Then he could inform the tax people that he uses the van for private use
so he can have his tax relief cut too.

A house painter who pays tax?

--
*Black holes are where God divided by zero *

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

Huge wrote:
On 2008-07-26, The Medway Handyman
wrote:
Knotty wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:


Not that old bloody chestnut again.

Roy Castle categorically did not die from lung cancer caused by
passive smoking.

Non smokers do die from lung cancer, but it is an entirely
different form of cancer that occurs in a different part of the
lung. It has nothing to do with passive smoking whatsoever.

Not that the facts ever stop the anti smoking fascists from bending
the truth to support their arguments - far from it.



Back that statement with evidence

In a logical argument, the person making the claim supplies evidence
to back it up. Those who perpetuate the Roy Castle myth should
supply evidence to back their statement - alas they can't.

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

http://repositories.cdlib.org/contex...f/viewcontent/

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monogr...3/volume83.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15552776

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/267/1/94

http://oaspub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm....nload_id=36793

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6091

I have hundreds more. And every single one states that passive smoking is
bad for you.

None however substanciate the Roy Castle myth, because they can't.

I could enter into a ****ing contest here and quote as many articles that
show no connection, some from FOREST. You would no doubt 'rubbish' any of
these as being biased in favour of smoking. You need to be aware that the
sources you quote are certainly not gospel, they are also heavily biased
towards the anti smoking lobby.

You need to look at who is making the real money out of smoking. Its not
the ciggarette companies.

The tax on 20 cigs retailing at £5.66 is £4.33. So the retail price without
excessive tax would be £1.33 a pack, £9 a week for a light smoker, half of
that in many countries. A weeks supply of patches/gum/whatever would be
at least £16. The profits margins for 20 million 'prospective customers'
are simply huge. Especially if you get Guvmint & public opinion on your
side.

The multi national pharmacuticle companies have incredible influence on
political & public opinion, in my other life as a magician I've worked for
many of them.

One example; a multi national pharmacutical company developed a drug that
could be used for treatment of bone diesese. Every consultant in the field
was invited (with partner) to a four day 'seminar' at a top London hotel
(£200+ per night).

They were wined & dined at no concern for the expense. I was the after
dinner entertainment for one evening, at a fee that many people don't earn
in a week, booked via an event management company who provided everything -
at a huge margin. The next evening was a river cruise along the Thames,
after that a giant scalextrix race track evening.

Total cost for about 100 guests? No actual figures, but at a rough estimate
over £150K. Was that drug reccomended & prescribed? Of course it bloody
was.


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

On 2008-07-26 22:44:58 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article ,
Andy Dingley wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 10:44:12 +0100, wrote:

So when does a works van also used for pvt purposes not become a works
van.

This van wasn't insured for works use either, merely SDP. The driver,
when interviewed, tried to use this as an excuse that it thus wasn't a
"works van". OTOH, I think he might now fnd himself with invalid
insurance and being charged for such by the police, pour encourager les
autres.

If he's insured with Admiral, the temptation to make Byng jokes would be
irresistible.

He made a comment something like this:-

'Thought the law was about smoking at work. I paint houses - not vans.'

Unfortunately, ignorance of the law has never been an acceptable excuse.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
So when does a works van also used for pvt purposes not become a works
van.Just because an employee is in the van doesn't mean that he ( or
the driver) is working . He should just have told them that at that
particular time neither of them were working .

Then he could inform the tax people that he uses the van for private use
so he can have his tax relief cut too.

A house painter who pays tax?

Shhh they will be Part y if he hears you.

On 2008-07-26 23:02:05 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
said:


The multi national pharmacuticle companies have incredible influence on
political & public opinion, in my other life as a magician I've worked for
many of them.

The tobacco and drinks companies are pharmaceutical companies as well -
they just have a more limited inventory



One example; a multi national pharmacutical company developed a drug that
could be used for treatment of bone diesese. Every consultant in the field
was invited (with partner) to a four day 'seminar' at a top London hotel
(£200+ per night).

They were wined & dined at no concern for the expense. I was the after
dinner entertainment for one evening, at a fee that many people don't earn
in a week, booked via an event management company who provided everything -
at a huge margin. The next evening was a river cruise along the Thames,
after that a giant scalextrix race track evening.

Total cost for about 100 guests? No actual figures, but at a rough estimate
over £150K.

Probably and actually rather cheap for th ROI

Was that drug reccomended & prescribed? Of course it bloody
was.

Did it work? Almost certainly This is therefore a marketing event.
Perfectly normal business practice.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-07-26 23:02:05 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
said:


The multi national pharmacuticle companies have incredible influence
on political & public opinion, in my other life as a magician I've
worked for many of them.

The tobacco and drinks companies are pharmaceutical companies as well
- they just have a more limited inventory



One example; a multi national pharmacutical company developed a
drug that could be used for treatment of bone diesese. Every
consultant in the field was invited (with partner) to a four day
'seminar' at a top London hotel (£200+ per night).

They were wined & dined at no concern for the expense. I was the
after dinner entertainment for one evening, at a fee that many
people don't earn in a week, booked via an event management company
who provided everything - at a huge margin. The next evening was a
river cruise along the Thames, after that a giant scalextrix race
track evening. Total cost for about 100 guests? No actual figures, but
at a rough
estimate over £150K.

Probably and actually rather cheap for th ROI

Was that drug reccomended & prescribed? Of course it bloody
was.

Did it work? Almost certainly This is therefore a marketing event.
Perfectly normal business practice.

But a "Perfectly normal business practice" that shapes public opinion and
political action with no regard for the truth of the matter.


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

On 2008-07-26 23:21:51 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-07-26 23:02:05 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
said:


The multi national pharmacuticle companies have incredible influence
on political & public opinion, in my other life as a magician I've
worked for many of them.

The tobacco and drinks companies are pharmaceutical companies as well
- they just have a more limited inventory



One example; a multi national pharmacutical company developed a
drug that could be used for treatment of bone diesese. Every
consultant in the field was invited (with partner) to a four day
'seminar' at a top London hotel (£200+ per night).

They were wined & dined at no concern for the expense. I was the
after dinner entertainment for one evening, at a fee that many
people don't earn in a week, booked via an event management company
who provided everything - at a huge margin. The next evening was a
river cruise along the Thames, after that a giant scalextrix race
track evening. Total cost for about 100 guests? No actual figures, but
at a rough
estimate over £150K.

Probably and actually rather cheap for th ROI

Was that drug reccomended & prescribed? Of course it bloody
was.

Did it work? Almost certainly This is therefore a marketing event.
Perfectly normal business practice.

But a "Perfectly normal business practice" that shapes public opinion and
political action with no regard for the truth of the matter.

That's an assumption. There is nothing wrong with shaping public
opinion provided that the product does what it says on the packet.
If it doesn't then that's a different matter.

Given that the company will have spent probably tens of millions
developing the product and will have a relatively short period to
recover costs and make a profit before the patent runs out, they need
to hit the ground running in terms of growing sales rapidly, especially
if the drug is prescribed on an ongoing basis.

With that scenario, obviously they are going to target their marketing
towards the decision makers in terms of sales.

It's perfectly normal and reasonable marketing. All industry sectors
do the same, perhaps in different ways. Corporate entertainment is
nothing new. It's irrelevant how much they spent, bit it needs to be
enough to be effective while not so much that the marketing budget is
blown.

Do you feel bad about the fee? You shouldn't. If it's more than
some people earn in a week, that's a separate issue.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-07-26 23:21:51 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-07-26 23:02:05 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
said:


The multi national pharmacuticle companies have incredible
influence on political & public opinion, in my other life as a
magician I've worked for many of them.

The tobacco and drinks companies are pharmaceutical companies as
well - they just have a more limited inventory



One example; a multi national pharmacutical company developed a
drug that could be used for treatment of bone diesese. Every
consultant in the field was invited (with partner) to a four day
'seminar' at a top London hotel (£200+ per night).

They were wined & dined at no concern for the expense. I was the
after dinner entertainment for one evening, at a fee that many
people don't earn in a week, booked via an event management company
who provided everything - at a huge margin. The next evening was a
river cruise along the Thames, after that a giant scalextrix race
track evening. Total cost for about 100 guests? No actual
figures, but at a rough
estimate over £150K.

Probably and actually rather cheap for th ROI

Was that drug reccomended & prescribed? Of course it bloody
was.

Did it work? Almost certainly This is therefore a marketing
event. Perfectly normal business practice.

But a "Perfectly normal business practice" that shapes public
opinion and political action with no regard for the truth of the
matter.

That's an assumption. There is nothing wrong with shaping public
opinion provided that the product does what it says on the packet.
If it doesn't then that's a different matter.

And if it vaugely does the job, sort of, in some cases, as part of a
healthly lifestyle? Statins being a prime example, no direct evidence that
cholesterol levels are associated with cardiac problems, huge cost to the
NHS in prescriptions, huge profits for the drug companies.

Given that the company will have spent probably tens of millions
developing the product and will have a relatively short period to
recover costs and make a profit before the patent runs out, they need
to hit the ground running in terms of growing sales rapidly,
especially if the drug is prescribed on an ongoing basis.

With that scenario, obviously they are going to target their marketing
towards the decision makers in terms of sales.

Missing the point. They could equally spend their huge maketing budgets to
ensure smoking was demonised - and they have.

It's perfectly normal and reasonable marketing. All industry sectors
do the same, perhaps in different ways. Corporate entertainment is
nothing new. It's irrelevant how much they spent, bit it needs to be
enough to be effective while not so much that the marketing budget is
blown.

But when the size of the budget is enough to change public opinion
regardless of the truth?

Do you feel bad about the fee? You shouldn't. If it's more than
some people earn in a week, that's a separate issue.

Not at all. I always add 50% + to my fee when working for ,ulti national
pharmacutical companies.


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

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Andy Dingley
saying something like:

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 22:46:30 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

Roy Castle categorically did not die from lung cancer caused by passive
smoking.

Non smokers do die from lung cancer, but it is an entirely different form of
cancer that occurs in a different part of the lung.

Shatner's Bassoon?

That Old Toupé?
--
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a

"It's a moron working with power tools.
How much more suspenseful can you get?"
- House

The Medway Handyman wrote:

I could enter into a ****ing contest here and quote as many articles that
show no connection, some from FOREST.

That's FOREST as in 100% sponsored by the tobacco industry?

You would no doubt 'rubbish' any of these as being biased in favour of
smoking. You need to be aware that the sources you quote are certainly
not gospel, they are also heavily biased towards the anti smoking lobby.

Because of course the repeated assertions of a tobacco addicted odd-job
man are so much more valuable as insights than the evidence published in
peer reviewed journals. And someone who thinks that absence of evidence
is evidence of absence is obviously so qualified to make observations on
statistical risk.


http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/hea...obacco/howdowe
know/#Passive

Studies have consistently found that non-smoking spouses of people who
smoke at home have 20-30% higher risks of lung cancer.[44] And a review
of 22 studies found that people exposed to second-hand smoke in the
workplace have 24% higher risks of lung cancer. Those who were exposed
to the highest levels of second-hand smoke at work had twice the risks
of lung cancer.[45]

One study estimates that passive smoking may kill over 11,000 people
every year in the UK from cancer, heart disease, strokes and other
diseases[46].

Second-hand smoking also causes other health problems in non-smokers
including asthma and heart disease. One study showed that even 30
minutes of exposure to second-hand smoke can reduce blood flow in a
non-smoker's heart [47].

[44] Taylor, R., F. Najafi, and A. Dobson, Meta-analysis of studies of
passive smoking and lung cancer: effects of study type and continent.
Int J Epidemiol, 2007.PubMed
[45] Stayner, L., et al., Lung Cancer Risk and Workplace Exposure to
Environmental Tobacco Smoke. Am J Public Health, 2007.PubMed
[46] Jamrozik, K., Estimate of deaths attributable to passive smoking
among UK adults: database analysis. BMJ, 2005. Epub ahead of
print.PubMed
[47] Otsuka, R., et al., Acute effects of passive smoking on the
coronary circulation in healthy young adults. JAMA, 2001. 286: p.
436-41.PubMed

No doubt the long words confused you.

Andy Hall wrote:

Could it be that there is a more serious issue here? i.e. insuring the
van for personal use only, yet using it in connection with the business?

Its a grey area... driving to and from your place of work is not
considered "business mileage" by most insurers.



--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 2008-07-27 00:31:03 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
said:

Andy Hall wrote:

Did it work? Almost certainly This is therefore a marketing
event. Perfectly normal business practice.

But a "Perfectly normal business practice" that shapes public
opinion and political action with no regard for the truth of the
matter.

That's an assumption. There is nothing wrong with shaping public
opinion provided that the product does what it says on the packet.
If it doesn't then that's a different matter.

And if it vaugely does the job, sort of, in some cases, as part of a
healthly lifestyle?

Still legitimate. There are a lot of drugs that are in that category.



Statins being a prime example, no direct evidence that
cholesterol levels are associated with cardiac problems, huge cost to the
NHS in prescriptions, huge profits for the drug companies.

There are relatively few drugs where it's possible to guarantee that
they will have a clear and positive benefit with no downsides under all
conditions of use, when used at the same time as other drugs and so on.
Large scale, long term clinical studies are needed to determine that.

It is obviously necessary for drug companies to make profits. Their
shareholders (e.g. the investment plans and pension schemes) are
entitled to expect that. Moreover, R&D and regulatory procedures are
very expensive. OTOH, patents limit the time window of when these
costs can be recovered before the product goes generic. That is the
environment that has been imposed on them. If it is considered to be
desirable that they don't charge as much for on-patent drugs then the
period of the patent needs to be extended.

I would far rather see NHS funds spent on statins than on treating
people with emphysema through smoking.



Given that the company will have spent probably tens of millions
developing the product and will have a relatively short period to
recover costs and make a profit before the patent runs out, they need
to hit the ground running in terms of growing sales rapidly,
especially if the drug is prescribed on an ongoing basis.

With that scenario, obviously they are going to target their marketing
towards the decision makers in terms of sales.

Missing the point. They could equally spend their huge maketing budgets to
ensure smoking was demonised - and they have.

That's legitimate too provided that they are selling nicotine patches,
otherwise probably pointless.




It's perfectly normal and reasonable marketing. All industry sectors
do the same, perhaps in different ways. Corporate entertainment is
nothing new. It's irrelevant how much they spent, bit it needs to be
enough to be effective while not so much that the marketing budget is
blown.

But when the size of the budget is enough to change public opinion
regardless of the truth?

Now we are back to scales and periods of studies. In medicine there
are a certain range of drugs and procedures where there is a measurable
and definable short term benefit - e.g. break a leg, get it plastered
etc. There are some where a benefit such as symptomatic improvement
can be seen in a few weeks or months. There are others where it's
considerably longer and may even take a lifetime - in other words the
measurement can only be made when the patient dies. The study can only
be completed to a reasonable degree of statistical accuracy by the use
of a large population of patients.

In that sense, what defines truth? in th examples mentioned only the
fixing of the broken leg can be described as a clear cut truth.
For the others, it is much more analogue and is based on growth of
evidence over a period of time. It becomes "true" when there is enough
evidence and data such that there is a high probability that outcomes
are as predicted.

So what is to be done? Wait until there is a large weight of
clinical evidence for something before wide scale introduction? If
that route is followed, the clinical evidence can't be gathered because
of lack of numbers. This is pretty much the situation with statins.
As far as we know, there are not significant downsides in taking a
statin and where there are issues they can be readily identified and an
alternative one used. We won't finally know for a generation,
whether they can make a positive and identifiable improvement and so
are using circumstantial evidence and gathering the data using a large
population because that's the only way to do it.

On the point of smoking, we have known for a great deal of time that
smoking can harm the health of the smoker in numerous ways, many of
them due to the various toxic chemicals produced. Evidence for the
effects of passive smoking is less detailed and more needs to be
gathered. Given that we have some data covering several generations
where passive smoking has taken place, we clearly now need to gather
evidence for the effect of not having it. That needs to be done as
accurately as possible and the only way to achieve it is to a large
degree to create a situation where people are not forced to passively
smoke in public buildings or places to which there is public access.

Thus it becomes possible for the first time, for the non smoker to
avoid smoke altogether in places that he normally goes by virtue of
work and other activities and measurements can begin to be made.
Given that there is almost always an ethical element to clinical
studies and control groups are difficult, it wouldn't be reasonable to
say that smoking is allowed in 50% of workplaces and not in the other
50%. If it is determined that those in the non passive smoking
group had improved outcome over the passive smoking group, the latter
would not be happy. Hence the studies are necessarily longitudinal.





Do you feel bad about the fee? You shouldn't. If it's more than
some people earn in a week, that's a separate issue.

Not at all. I always add 50% + to my fee when working for ,ulti national
pharmacutical companies.

Is that all? I would have charged double. This is not a price
sensitive customer.

On 2008-07-27 01:33:54 +0100, John Rumm said:

Andy Hall wrote:

Could it be that there is a more serious issue here? i.e. insuring
the van for personal use only, yet using it in connection with the
business?

Its a grey area... driving to and from your place of work is not
considered "business mileage" by most insurers.

That is true for employees going to a fixed place of work each day.
They don't get reimbursement on a tax free basis for such mileage
either and this is easy to define.

It becomes complex when said employee drives to the nominal place of
work, then goes to a customer (business) and finally drives home.
There are HMRC rules for it, though.

Coming back to our taffy painter... How does he do his daily
activity? Most likely he goes to the suppliers of paint and wall
paper on his way to the customer or on the way home. I suppose
it's possible that he always goes to the customer, then to the
merchants and back and finally home, in which case the home to work bit
is separable. I think it's a bit unlikely as a way of working
however. Even more unlikely is that he orders all the materials by
phone or internet and has them delivered to site. That would be the
only way to say that the vehicle is used purely for non business
purposes.

As it is now, he has opened himself up to being pursued by his insurers
in regard to the vehicle being used for business with only personal
insurance, and by implication the police by not having valid insurance.

He would have been better off paying the fine and keeping quiet.
Clearly he hasn't thought the matter through before going to the press.
I didn't know that nicotine also creates muddled thinking.

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 01:33:54 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

Could it be that there is a more serious issue here? i.e. insuring the
van for personal use only, yet using it in connection with the business?

Its a grey area... driving to and from your place of work is not
considered "business mileage" by most insurers.

If it's a 'fixed' place of work, such as an office, 'home to office'
is usually considered to be private, but this guy is presumably going
to different places for different jobs, so his travel would definitely
be classed as business mileage, especially if carrying tools and
materials about.

--
Frank Erskine

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2008-07-26, The Medway Handyman
wrote:
Knotty wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

Not that old bloody chestnut again.

Roy Castle categorically did not die from lung cancer caused by
passive smoking.

Non smokers do die from lung cancer, but it is an entirely
different form of cancer that occurs in a different part of the
lung. It has nothing to do with passive smoking whatsoever.

Not that the facts ever stop the anti smoking fascists from bending
the truth to support their arguments - far from it.


Back that statement with evidence
In a logical argument, the person making the claim supplies evidence
to back it up. Those who perpetuate the Roy Castle myth should
supply evidence to back their statement - alas they can't.
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/

http://repositories.cdlib.org/contex...f/viewcontent/

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monogr...3/volume83.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15552776

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/267/1/94

http://oaspub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm....nload_id=36793

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6091

I have hundreds more. And every single one states that passive smoking is
bad for you.

None however substanciate the Roy Castle myth, because they can't.

I could enter into a ****ing contest here and quote as many articles that
show no connection, some from FOREST. You would no doubt 'rubbish' any of
these as being biased in favour of smoking. You need to be aware that the
sources you quote are certainly not gospel, they are also heavily biased
towards the anti smoking lobby.

You need to look at who is making the real money out of smoking. Its not
the ciggarette companies.

The tax on 20 cigs retailing at £5.66 is £4.33. So the retail price without
excessive tax would be £1.33 a pack, £9 a week for a light smoker, half of
that in many countries. A weeks supply of patches/gum/whatever would be
at least £16. The profits margins for 20 million 'prospective customers'
are simply huge. Especially if you get Guvmint & public opinion on your
side.

The multi national pharmacuticle companies have incredible influence on
political & public opinion, in my other life as a magician I've worked for
many of them.

One example; a multi national pharmacutical company developed a drug that
could be used for treatment of bone diesese. Every consultant in the field
was invited (with partner) to a four day 'seminar' at a top London hotel
(£200+ per night).

They were wined & dined at no concern for the expense. I was the after
dinner entertainment for one evening, at a fee that many people don't earn
in a week, booked via an event management company who provided everything -
at a huge margin. The next evening was a river cruise along the Thames,
after that a giant scalextrix race track evening.

Total cost for about 100 guests? No actual figures, but at a rough estimate
over £150K. Was that drug reccomended & prescribed? Of course it bloody
was.


But the Roy Castle story (whether myth or verifiable) is only one story
that is used against smoking.

Ignore it completely, in fact, ignore lung cancer entirely and there is
still plenty of evidence that smoking has a mostly deleterious effect on
human health. And I am pleased to see smoking on the wane (hopefully
that will continue).

But I wouldn't wish to see everyone banned from smoking if that is their
wish.

And one side effect of the recent bans has been on those with mental
disorders for whom smoking had long been recognised as providing some
benefits. The other day I heard of an expensively built centre for
sufferers which is no longer used - because they cannot now smoke there
- not even outside.

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

John Rumm wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:

Could it be that there is a more serious issue here? i.e. insuring
the van for personal use only, yet using it in connection with the
business?

Its a grey area... driving to and from your place of work is not
considered "business mileage" by most insurers.



The question I am always asked is whether I am carrying things related
to work. I always declare that I might occasionally have a disc drive or
book or something (not just my personal laptop), they have always been
perfectly content for that to be included in driving to work. They
appear to care about carrying samples, tools, and similar and delivering
items or driving to different places regularly (i.e. not usually at one
fixed place of work).

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 07:37:29 UTC, Rod wrote:

John Rumm wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:

Could it be that there is a more serious issue here? i.e. insuring
the van for personal use only, yet using it in connection with the
business?

Its a grey area... driving to and from your place of work is not
considered "business mileage" by most insurers.

The question I am always asked is whether I am carrying things related
to work. I always declare that I might occasionally have a disc drive or
book or something (not just my personal laptop), they have always been
perfectly content for that to be included in driving to work. They
appear to care about carrying samples, tools, and similar and delivering
items or driving to different places regularly (i.e. not usually at one
fixed place of work).

I found the difference in insurance rates for occasional 'business use'
was very small. Principally I just drive to work, but do go out and give
presentations etc. to schools and colleges, or take people to events.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
Could it be that there is a more serious issue here? i.e. insuring
the van for personal use only, yet using it in connection with the
business?

Its a grey area... driving to and from your place of work is not
considered "business mileage" by most insurers.

IIRC only if it's your usual place of work - ie one location. And carrying
tools of the trade comes into it too. But I'd expect a van to be insured
for this sort of thing anyway - I don't think it's now possible to insure
them for pure domestic use.

--
*You sound reasonable......time to up my medication

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

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
. ..
The Medway Handyman wrote:

I could enter into a ****ing contest here and quote as many articles that
show no connection, some from FOREST.

That's FOREST as in 100% sponsored by the tobacco industry?

You would no doubt 'rubbish' any of these as being biased in favour of
smoking. You need to be aware that the sources you quote are certainly
not gospel, they are also heavily biased towards the anti smoking lobby.

Because of course the repeated assertions of a tobacco addicted odd-job
man are so much more valuable as insights than the evidence published in
peer reviewed journals. And someone who thinks that absence of evidence
is evidence of absence is obviously so qualified to make observations on
statistical risk.


http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/hea...obacco/howdowe
know/#Passive

Studies have consistently found that non-smoking spouses of people who
smoke at home have 20-30% higher risks of lung cancer.[44] And a review
of 22 studies found that people exposed to second-hand smoke in the
workplace have 24% higher risks of lung cancer. Those who were exposed
to the highest levels of second-hand smoke at work had twice the risks
of lung cancer.[45]

One study estimates that passive smoking may kill over 11,000 people
every year in the UK from cancer, heart disease, strokes and other
diseases[46].

Second-hand smoking also causes other health problems in non-smokers
including asthma and heart disease. One study showed that even 30
minutes of exposure to second-hand smoke can reduce blood flow in a
non-smoker's heart [47].

[44] Taylor, R., F. Najafi, and A. Dobson, Meta-analysis of studies of
passive smoking and lung cancer: effects of study type and continent.
Int J Epidemiol, 2007.PubMed
[45] Stayner, L., et al., Lung Cancer Risk and Workplace Exposure to
Environmental Tobacco Smoke. Am J Public Health, 2007.PubMed
[46] Jamrozik, K., Estimate of deaths attributable to passive smoking
among UK adults: database analysis. BMJ, 2005. Epub ahead of
print.PubMed
[47] Otsuka, R., et al., Acute effects of passive smoking on the
coronary circulation in healthy young adults. JAMA, 2001. 286: p.
436-41.PubMed

No doubt the long words confused you.

I have no doubt about it, I find smokers to be pretty stupid in general.
The company I worked for specifically required non smokers during
recruitment for the last 10 years as they found smokers were less able to do
technical jobs. It was obvious which ones lied on the application form too.

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
I have no doubt about it, I find smokers to be pretty stupid in general.
The company I worked for specifically required non smokers during
recruitment for the last 10 years as they found smokers were less able
to do technical jobs.

But they employed you?

--
*When the going gets tough, use duct tape

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

Andy Hall wrote in
488ba021@qaanaaq

snip
Unfortunately, ignorance of the law has never been an acceptable
excuse.

....but I didn't know that.



--
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 2008-07-27 12:21:34 +0100, "PeterMcC" said:

Andy Hall wrote in
488ba021@qaanaaq

snip
Unfortunately, ignorance of the law has never been an acceptable
excuse.

...but I didn't know that.



Now you do, so there's even less excuse. ;-)

wrote:
On 27 Jul,
John Rumm wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

Could it be that there is a more serious issue here? i.e. insuring the
van for personal use only, yet using it in connection with the business?
Its a grey area... driving to and from your place of work is not
considered "business mileage" by most insurers.

Only to your 'normal' business address. Driving between/to client's premises
is another kettle^W can of worms.


The whole point about this incident is that it's small minded and
vindictive. A friendly warning might have been more appropriate, but we
no longer live in that kind of world

Frank Erskine wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 01:33:54 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

Could it be that there is a more serious issue here? i.e. insuring the
van for personal use only, yet using it in connection with the business?
Its a grey area... driving to and from your place of work is not
considered "business mileage" by most insurers.

If it's a 'fixed' place of work, such as an office, 'home to office'
is usually considered to be private, but this guy is presumably going
to different places for different jobs, so his travel would definitely
be classed as business mileage, especially if carrying tools and
materials about.

Again, not always clear cut. I know someone who is a professional
painter. He is employed full time by a firm, who do large painting
contracts. Its not uncommon for him to be commuting to the same site for
over a year painting out large apartment blocks as they are built and
finished.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

Bob Eager wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 07:37:29 UTC, Rod wrote:

John Rumm wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:

Could it be that there is a more serious issue here? i.e. insuring
the van for personal use only, yet using it in connection with the
business?
Its a grey area... driving to and from your place of work is not
considered "business mileage" by most insurers.

The question I am always asked is whether I am carrying things related
to work. I always declare that I might occasionally have a disc drive or
book or something (not just my personal laptop), they have always been
perfectly content for that to be included in driving to work. They
appear to care about carrying samples, tools, and similar and delivering
items or driving to different places regularly (i.e. not usually at one
fixed place of work).

I found the difference in insurance rates for occasional 'business use'
was very small. Principally I just drive to work, but do go out and give
presentations etc. to schools and colleges, or take people to events.

Yup same here, I don't think business use adds significantly to the cost
of my insurance.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

In article ,
stuart noble wrote:
The whole point about this incident is that it's small minded and
vindictive. A friendly warning might have been more appropriate, but we
no longer live in that kind of world

It goes further than that. If he is a one man business and owns his van
the law has no business interfering in whether he smokes in it or not.
I have a workshop as part of my house - and I sometimes carry out paid for
work in that. Should the law ban me from smoking in there too?

--
*Organized Crime Is Alive And Well; It's Called Auto Insurance.

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
stuart noble wrote:
The whole point about this incident is that it's small minded and
vindictive. A friendly warning might have been more appropriate, but we
no longer live in that kind of world

It goes further than that. If he is a one man business and owns his van
the law has no business interfering in whether he smokes in it or not.
I have a workshop as part of my house - and I sometimes carry out paid for
work in that. Should the law ban me from smoking in there too?

Not sure but I believe the test is whether any other employees or
co-workers will EVER be carried in the vehicle. I.e. The idea is to
protect those at work from danger.

On 2008-07-27 14:07:04 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article ,
stuart noble wrote:
The whole point about this incident is that it's small minded and
vindictive. A friendly warning might have been more appropriate, but we
no longer live in that kind of world

It goes further than that. If he is a one man business and owns his van
the law has no business interfering in whether he smokes in it or not.

One man business != one man place of work. At the time he was stopped
he was carrying a 16 year old family friend who had been helping him.

I have a workshop as part of my house - and I sometimes carry out paid for
work in that. Should the law ban me from smoking in there too?

If others visit it in the context of the work then smoking would not be
allowed in it as the law stands.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
stuart noble wrote:
The whole point about this incident is that it's small minded and
vindictive. A friendly warning might have been more appropriate, but we
no longer live in that kind of world

It goes further than that. If he is a one man business and owns his van
the law has no business interfering in whether he smokes in it or not.
I have a workshop as part of my house - and I sometimes carry out paid for
work in that. Should the law ban me from smoking in there too?


I guess if you're alone in there, they'll let you off for now. I hope
you don't claim for office cleaning on your tax return

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 14:33:54 +0100, Invisible Man
wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
stuart noble wrote:
The whole point about this incident is that it's small minded and
vindictive. A friendly warning might have been more appropriate, but we
no longer live in that kind of world

It goes further than that. If he is a one man business and owns his van
the law has no business interfering in whether he smokes in it or not.
I have a workshop as part of my house - and I sometimes carry out paid for
work in that. Should the law ban me from smoking in there too?

Not sure but I believe the test is whether any other employees or
co-workers will EVER be carried in the vehicle. I.e. The idea is to
protect those at work from danger.

How about motor mechanics who have to sit in the vehicle whilst
servicing it?
They should have some protection too...

--
Frank Erskine

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-07-27 14:07:04 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article ,
stuart noble wrote:
The whole point about this incident is that it's small minded and
vindictive. A friendly warning might have been more appropriate, but we
no longer live in that kind of world

It goes further than that. If he is a one man business and owns his van
the law has no business interfering in whether he smokes in it or not.

One man business != one man place of work. At the time he was stopped
he was carrying a 16 year old family friend who had been helping him.

I have a workshop as part of my house - and I sometimes carry out paid
for
work in that. Should the law ban me from smoking in there too?

If others visit it in the context of the work then smoking would not be
allowed in it as the law stands.

If the 16 year old or anyone else who ever works with him had been
helping him with his business and had to enter the van at any time or
was being carried as part of the arrangement then no smoking in the van.

"Frank Erskine" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 14:33:54 +0100, Invisible Man
wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
stuart noble wrote:
The whole point about this incident is that it's small minded and
vindictive. A friendly warning might have been more appropriate, but we
no longer live in that kind of world

It goes further than that. If he is a one man business and owns his van
the law has no business interfering in whether he smokes in it or not.
I have a workshop as part of my house - and I sometimes carry out paid
for
work in that. Should the law ban me from smoking in there too?

Not sure but I believe the test is whether any other employees or
co-workers will EVER be carried in the vehicle. I.e. The idea is to
protect those at work from danger.

How about motor mechanics who have to sit in the vehicle whilst
servicing it?
They should have some protection too...

--
Frank Erskine

Council tenants (in my area) must not smoke indoors 30 minutes prior to a
council workman/sub contractor/official/pen pusher entering their property.
One person I know, who works for the council, boasts that he managed to
smoke 3 cigs waiting outside a house for 30 minutes as the "client" answered
the door whilst smoking.

Adam

ARWadworth wrote:

"Frank Erskine" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 14:33:54 +0100, Invisible Man
wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
stuart noble wrote:
The whole point about this incident is that it's small minded and
vindictive. A friendly warning might have been more appropriate,
but we
no longer live in that kind of world

It goes further than that. If he is a one man business and owns his van
the law has no business interfering in whether he smokes in it or not.
I have a workshop as part of my house - and I sometimes carry out
paid for
work in that. Should the law ban me from smoking in there too?

Not sure but I believe the test is whether any other employees or
co-workers will EVER be carried in the vehicle. I.e. The idea is to
protect those at work from danger.

How about motor mechanics who have to sit in the vehicle whilst
servicing it?
They should have some protection too...

--
Frank Erskine

Council tenants (in my area) must not smoke indoors 30 minutes prior to
a council workman/sub contractor/official/pen pusher entering their
property. One person I know, who works for the council, boasts that he
managed to smoke 3 cigs waiting outside a house for 30 minutes as the
"client" answered the door whilst smoking.

Adam

Does this work both ways? Could/can a 'customer' (we're all customers
now :-) ) refuse access to someone who has smoked in the last half hour?

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

"stuart noble" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On 27 Jul, John Rumm wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

Could it be that there is a more serious issue here? i.e. insuring
the van for personal use only, yet using it in connection with the
business?
Its a grey area... driving to and from your place of work is not
considered "business mileage" by most insurers.

Only to your 'normal' business address. Driving between/to client's
premises
is another kettle^W can of worms.


The whole point about this incident is that it's small minded and
vindictive. A friendly warning might have been more appropriate, but we no
longer live in that kind of world

Friendly warnings don't work, why waste your time?
What was the last time you asked a drug addict to stop and got a reasonable
response?

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
stuart noble wrote:
The whole point about this incident is that it's small minded and
vindictive. A friendly warning might have been more appropriate, but we
no longer live in that kind of world

It goes further than that. If he is a one man business and owns his van
the law has no business interfering in whether he smokes in it or not.
I have a workshop as part of my house - and I sometimes carry out paid for
work in that. Should the law ban me from smoking in there too?

Yes!
It is a place of work and if you employ anyone a smoking ban is required.

Rod wrote:
ARWadworth wrote:

"Frank Erskine" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 14:33:54 +0100, Invisible Man
wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
stuart noble wrote:
The whole point about this incident is that it's small minded and
vindictive. A friendly warning might have been more appropriate,
but we
no longer live in that kind of world

It goes further than that. If he is a one man business and owns his
van
the law has no business interfering in whether he smokes in it or not.
I have a workshop as part of my house - and I sometimes carry out
paid for
work in that. Should the law ban me from smoking in there too?

Not sure but I believe the test is whether any other employees or
co-workers will EVER be carried in the vehicle. I.e. The idea is to
protect those at work from danger.

How about motor mechanics who have to sit in the vehicle whilst
servicing it?
They should have some protection too...

--
Frank Erskine

Council tenants (in my area) must not smoke indoors 30 minutes prior
to a council workman/sub contractor/official/pen pusher entering their
property. One person I know, who works for the council, boasts that he
managed to smoke 3 cigs waiting outside a house for 30 minutes as the
"client" answered the door whilst smoking.

Adam

Does this work both ways? Could/can a 'customer' (we're all customers
now :-) ) refuse access to someone who has smoked in the last half hour?

Smokers stink but so long as they are not still breathing out smoke
there is no realistic risk.