On 29/08/2011 09:48, Interloper wrote:
Astounded from Medway wrote:

Your stupidity is simply astounding.

Firstly you say "Rather like 'TMH', if the best you can come up with is a
personal insult, then you have lost the argument".

Followed by "When you have an IQ lower than your shoe size, it's usually
best to keep quiet".

That was a generalisation, but of course, if the cap fits... !


Thought so. Far too thick to realise you contradicted yourself.

Please examine feet for bullet holes.


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

On 29/08/2011 10:58, dennis@home wrote:


"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...

that's true.. you can choose not to go into smoke filled rooms.
in the other case they are taking away your freedom.

What about the freedom of smokers to go into smoke filled rooms?

Idiot!
No one has stopped smokers going and killing themselves in smoke filled
rooms.
You can go and do it if you want.

Which pub is that then Dennis?

What is banned is employers allowing workers to do so.

Nope. Smoking is banned.

The same as they aren't allowed to go into paint shops, asbestos
cleanup, etc.

False analogy.

This is because the overwhelming evidence is that smoke filled rooms are
dangerous to staff and you are not allowed to send employees into danger.

No there isn't.


Or is 'freedom' a one way street?

It would appear to be, smokers certainly don't allow others to enjoy
smoke free air if it means delaying their fix.

Look up the word 'choice' & get back to me.


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

On 29/08/2011 09:48, Huge wrote:
On 2011-08-28, Dave Plowman wrote:
In ,
Steve wrote:
The selfishness of smokers has always amazed me. I have worked with and
been friends with a number and two things stick out. Firstly, in the
days when you could smoke in pubs, the whole group had to sit and suffer
in the smoking area, even if there was only one smoker with us,
otherwise they'd whinge and moan so much that they'd ruin the evening.

I find it very amusing. Non smokers always said how much they hated pubs
because of the smoke. Now they're all non smoking, they're closing in
droves...

So the predatory behaviour of brewers, discount alcohol from supermarkets
and the drink-drive laws have nothing to do with it?


Nothing to do with the claims of the non smokers - no.

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

On 29/08/2011 02:04, Steve Walker wrote:
On 29/08/2011 00:46, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 28/08/2011 23:24, Steve Walker wrote:
On 27/08/2011 17:20, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 27/08/2011 16:18, Interloper wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" mocked:

Why don't you try getting a life?

Most likely Dave has already got a life and he is trying to hang on
to it
and his health by avoiding passive smoking.

Could you name someone who as died from passive smoking? Anywhere in
the
world will do.

Roy Castle?

Alas not. Lung cancer yes. 10% of lung cancer deaths occur in non
smokers.

Most of the people I know who don't want anyone smoking near them are
not overly concerned about passive smoking, they just can't stand the
odour, the sore eyes, the sore throat and the smelly clothes they end up
with from being around smokers.

An entirely reasonable view.

I have no wish to inflict the by products of smoking on others.

Equally, I can't see why non smokers should inflict their views on
smokers.

Because smokers are the ones carrying out an action and inflicting their
smoke on non-smokers, whereas non-smokers simply want them to stop doing
so. We don't care whether you smoke or not, we simply want you not to
inflict that smoke on us. If I kept squirting water around in a pub,
everyone near me would rightly want me to stop, they would however have
no objection to me watering my garden plants, as that wouldn't affect them.

But a separate pub or bar isn't possible?


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

On 29/08/2011 11:06, Fuschia wrote:
On 29 Aug 2011 08:45:35 GMT, wrote:

On 2011-08-28, Steve wrote:

The selfishness of smokers has always amazed me.

They're junkies. Junkies will lie, cheat, steal, do *anything* to get their
fix. Junkies deny realities obvious to non-junkies. The life of the junky
revolves around their addiction. Nothing else matters.

It's only natural for addicts to claim that they enjoy the habit and
that they are being persecuted. It's so much easier than admitting
they are too weak minded to give it up.

You fail to understand that some people have no wish to give it up.


Fortunately, smoking IS gradually dying out. Too slowly, but it is
happening.

Alcohol is next on the new puritan list. Hope you don't like a drink.


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

On 29/08/2011 10:52, 'Mike' wrote:
"Gib wrote in message
...
On 28/08/2011 3:10 a.m., wrote:

Well, if we ignore the obvious trolling and prejudice, cigarette
smoke makes a lot of people with breathing problems cough very
badly.

I think this is the main issue. Except in very smoky confined spaces, I'm
guessing that the cancer risk from other people's smoke is pretty minimal,
but those particulates can be very troubling for some. Any smoke is air
pollution, regardless of what's being burnt.

The smoker's attitude.'It's legal and therefore I can do it. If it pollutes
your airspace, .... tough'

The non smokers attitude. I don't like it so I want it banned
everywhere, if that restricts personal choice - tough.




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

In article , The Medway Handyman
wrote:
On 29/08/2011 10:52, 'Mike' wrote:
"Gib wrote in message
...
On 28/08/2011 3:10 a.m., wrote:

Well, if we ignore the obvious trolling and prejudice, cigarette
smoke makes a lot of people with breathing problems cough very badly.

I think this is the main issue. Except in very smoky confined spaces,
I'm guessing that the cancer risk from other people's smoke is pretty
minimal, but those particulates can be very troubling for some. Any
smoke is air pollution, regardless of what's being burnt.

The smoker's attitude.'It's legal and therefore I can do it. If it
pollutes your airspace, .... tough'

The non smokers attitude. I don't like it so I want it banned
everywhere, if that restricts personal choice - tough.

I think you mistake some non-smokers with all non-smokers.

Some of the legislation is stupid: if I give someone a lift in my car on
behalf of a charity, I need to display a "No Smoking" sign in the car.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

In article ,
Gib Bogle wrote:
On 29/08/2011 10:23 p.m., Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:
It's only natural for addicts to claim that they enjoy the habit and
that they are being persecuted. It's so much easier than admitting
they are too weak minded to give it up.

Sounds just like you with that glass of wine you so enjoy.


Do you think everyone who drinks alcohol is an alcoholic?

It was in reply to the addicts part. And yes, many who claim to simply
just enjoy a glass of wine - and it's always wine - are addicted.

--
*Never slap a man who's chewing tobacco *

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

In article ,
charles wrote:
Some of the legislation is stupid: if I give someone a lift in my car on
behalf of a charity, I need to display a "No Smoking" sign in the car.

You're acting like a form of taxi, and like all such vehicles, smoking is
not allowed by either driver or passengers. The same applies to works vans
- but is largely ignored.

--
*Two many clicks spoil the browse *

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

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:54:42 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 29/08/2011 11:06, Fuschia wrote:
On 29 Aug 2011 08:45:35 GMT, wrote:

On 2011-08-28, Steve wrote:

The selfishness of smokers has always amazed me.

They're junkies. Junkies will lie, cheat, steal, do *anything* to get their
fix. Junkies deny realities obvious to non-junkies. The life of the junky
revolves around their addiction. Nothing else matters.

It's only natural for addicts to claim that they enjoy the habit and
that they are being persecuted. It's so much easier than admitting
they are too weak minded to give it up.

You fail to understand that some people have no wish to give it up.

Keep telling yourself that. One day you might just believe it - if the
cancer doesn't get you first.


Fortunately, smoking IS gradually dying out. Too slowly, but it is
happening.

Alcohol is next on the new puritan list. Hope you don't like a drink.
A non-sequitur much beloved of smokers.
"Help, I've lost the argument again! - ah yes, the alcohol dodge."

In article ,
Fuschia wrote:
A non-sequitur much beloved of smokers.
"Help, I've lost the argument again! - ah yes, the alcohol dodge."

Plenty of similarities. Both are mind changing recreational drugs.
However, the detrimental effects of alcohol on behaviour (with many) make
it very different. And the havoc is causes to society in a totally
different league. But carry on thinking it's harmless. Just because you're
a user.

--
*Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.

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

On 29/08/2011 11:54, The Medway Handyman wrote:

Alcohol is next on the new puritan list. Hope you don't like a drink.

Far too useful in many occasions, and there's the big failed experiment
from the US too. It'll never happen.

"Hugh - Was Invisible" observed:

"The Medway Handyman" wrote:

You being their undisputed king ****wit.

TMH. Get your head out of the sand. You are making
yourself look a complete idiot.

Yes indeed!

Most people are good at something :-)
--
Interloper

The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 29/08/2011 10:58, dennis@home wrote:

It would appear to be, smokers certainly don't allow others to enjoy
smoke free air if it means delaying their fix.

Look up the word 'choice' & get back to me.


My choice would be to breathe air free of tobacco smoke, the smokers'
choice is to pollute the air around them with tobacco smoke. That makes
my only possible course of action to move away from their pollution,
which means that I have no other option. Their choice has limited my
choices.

My choice would be to sleep in a hotel room that does not stink of old
cigarette smoke. Your choice as a smoker to break the law in that hotel
room yesterday makes it impossible for me to have my choice.

I drive a coach for a living, and I have to walk through the cloud of
smoke generated by smokers who light up as they cross the threhold of
the exit door, and then just stand there, and get offended when I close
the door to keep their smoke out. Their choice of smoking place removes
my chance of staying smoke free.

Whose choice is more important? The drug addict's or the clean living
person's?

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:59:43 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:

On 29/08/2011 10:52, 'Mike' wrote:
"Gib wrote in message
...
On 28/08/2011 3:10 a.m., wrote:

Well, if we ignore the obvious trolling and prejudice, cigarette
smoke makes a lot of people with breathing problems cough very badly.

I think this is the main issue. Except in very smoky confined spaces,
I'm guessing that the cancer risk from other people's smoke is pretty
minimal, but those particulates can be very troubling for some. Any
smoke is air pollution, regardless of what's being burnt.

The smoker's attitude.'It's legal and therefore I can do it. If it
pollutes your airspace, .... tough'

The non smokers attitude. I don't like it so I want it banned
everywhere, if that restricts personal choice - tough.

The smokers' attitude. I like it so I want to be able to do it
everywhere, if that restricts personal choice - tough.



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 28/08/2011 23:47, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 28/08/2011 23:29, Steve Walker wrote:
On 27/08/2011 18:50, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 27/08/2011 17:37, 'Mike' wrote:
"The Medway wrote in message
...
On 27/08/2011 16:18, Interloper wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" mocked:

Why don't you try getting a life?

Most likely Dave has already got a life and he is trying to hang on
to it
and his health by avoiding passive smoking.

Could you name someone who as died from passive smoking? Anywhere in
the
world will do.

Margaret Horsborough
25 Colchester Road
Leicester

My next door neighbour when I lived in Leicester in the 60's and 70's

A non smoker, died of Lung Cancer due to secondary/passive smoking
whilst in
an office environment.

Alas she didn't. Nice try, no cigar.


Come off your 'I know my rights' high horse. YOU pollute the air I
breath. I
don't pollute the air you breath.

So you don't drive a car, heat your house, use aerosols or fart then?

Ah, the defence that all smokers resort to in the end. The difference is
that all the above serve useful purposes and the pollution is an
unfortunately necessary byproduct of that function,

Farting serves a useful purpose?

whereas smoking
simply prevents the addict's withdrawal symptoms as the previous fix
wears off.

The ploy anti smokers always resort to in the end.

Perhaps you could cite an incident of a smoker mugging someone to get a
'fix'?

I'm not going to search now, but there have been, over the years, a
number of cases in our local paper of someone on a night out being asked
for a cigarette and when they have refused or have said that they don't
smoke, they've been beaten up.

It is difficult to separate those from just the random attacks of
drunken yobs, but if they just wanted a fight, they'd not have asked for
the cigarette first, would they?

I would remind you that smoking is a perfectly legal activity that makes
an important contribution to Govmint funds.

So's music, but you can't inflict your music on your neighbours at night
on a regular basis without the intervention of the authorities.

SteveW

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Peter James wrote:
Could you name someone who as died from passive smoking? Anywhere in
the world will do.

How about Roy Castle a man who died from lung cancer and who never
smoked. Said he picked up the disease from the night clubs he worked in
and where smoking was rampant.
For further information see the following URL's.

One swallow - even with a famous name - does not a summer make. And even
if it did, there's a very big difference between working all your life in
smoky rooms and having neighbours who smoke outdoors.

The question (quoted above) was "Could you name someone who as (sic)
died from passive smoking?" Perhaps you could leave the goalposts where
you found them?

Huge wrote:

On 2011-08-28, Steve Walker wrote:

The selfishness of smokers has always amazed me.

They're junkies. Junkies will lie, cheat, steal, do *anything* to get their
fix. Junkies deny realities obvious to non-junkies. The life of the junky
revolves around their addiction. Nothing else matters.

Yup. I got stared at long and hard in company "personnel" meetings when
I asked if I could take 15-20 minutes off every hour to go and stand
outside and read a paper/chat with my mates/stare at girls as the
smokers appear to have free licence to do, or failing that to get paid
30% more per day than the smokers. The addicts of course claim that they
do just as much work as the non-addicts but don't seem to able to
explain how they make up their absences.

The difficult thing is that my libertarian leaning side says it's their
body they can abuse it as they wish, but another part of me says:

a) As long as they don't impact on my health/sensibility.
b) As long as they get their "fix" entirely in their own time.

As far as (b) goes, in a work environment smokers should clock in/out
for all tobacco breaks.

I still find the stench of working next to a smoker unacceptable, but it
seems that not much can be done about that, although workers with BO are
told by their superiors to clean themselves up.

Huge wrote:

On 2011-08-28, The Medway Handyman wrote:


http://www.forestonline.org/info/passive-smoking/

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha[gasp]hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
ahaha

My first real job was in the epidemiology department of a major teaching
hospital. The association between smoking and the diseases it causes is
not, as the smokers like to believe, some untested, unproven claim. The
epidemiological link is cast iron solid. As solid as observations that
variola virus causes smallpox.

The tobacco companies have been sponsoring bull**** publication and
"research" since Doll published "Smoking and Carcinoma of the Lung" in
1950. This gives the addicts something to cling to, to bolster their
hope that smoking isn't going to kill them.

On 29/08/2011 11:51, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 29/08/2011 02:04, Steve Walker wrote:
On 29/08/2011 00:46, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 28/08/2011 23:24, Steve Walker wrote:
On 27/08/2011 17:20, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 27/08/2011 16:18, Interloper wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" mocked:

Why don't you try getting a life?

Most likely Dave has already got a life and he is trying to hang on
to it
and his health by avoiding passive smoking.

Could you name someone who as died from passive smoking? Anywhere in
the
world will do.

Roy Castle?

Alas not. Lung cancer yes. 10% of lung cancer deaths occur in non
smokers.

Most of the people I know who don't want anyone smoking near them are
not overly concerned about passive smoking, they just can't stand the
odour, the sore eyes, the sore throat and the smelly clothes they
end up
with from being around smokers.

An entirely reasonable view.

I have no wish to inflict the by products of smoking on others.

Equally, I can't see why non smokers should inflict their views on
smokers.

Because smokers are the ones carrying out an action and inflicting their
smoke on non-smokers, whereas non-smokers simply want them to stop doing
so. We don't care whether you smoke or not, we simply want you not to
inflict that smoke on us. If I kept squirting water around in a pub,
everyone near me would rightly want me to stop, they would however have
no objection to me watering my garden plants, as that wouldn't affect
them.

But a separate pub or bar isn't possible?

No, because the selfish smoker will insist on everyone in a group being
in the smoking bar.

More importantly, the staff are stuck in there too and as has been
mentioned elsewhere, an employer has to minimise or eliminate risks -
regardless of whether the employee is willing to take them.

SteveW

On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 23:36:03 +0100, Steve Walker
wrote:



Of course blame the law for your situation. A room provided for smokers
with decent filtration and extraction (as before the law changed) saved
such things.

It certainly did and I'm all for re-introducing it. However, it did not
solve the problem of pubs, restaurants, etc. and the idea of smoking and
non-smoking areas in those just didn't work - in another post in this
thread, I have commented that a group of us (mainly non-smokers) used to
go out together and if even one smoker was with us, we'd all have to sit
in the smoking area, as otherwise the smoker would winge all night to
the extent of ruining everyone elses' night out.

Anti social sods ,I take it they must have had other qualities which
made their company worthwhile to put up with that behaviour rather
than telling them to bugger off.
I was a heavy smoker till about 7 years ago but never smoked close to
Non smoking friends or indeed other non smokers preferring to go
outside for many years before the law made it a requirement.
Sometimes being the Smoker could be an advantage,in a pub for example
if a smokers fumes started to drift over our group I was the one who
politely asked if they could consider people near them. Fair to say
that most politely did but there was the odd moaner "what do you
expect me to do " comment to which I would reply while pulling me
fags out "you can go somewhere where it doesn't matter like I am about
to do". This usually shut up all but the real arrogant or awkward
types but people like that are often the type you would normally not
have chosen to sit near in the first place.

G.Harman

On 29/08/2011 12:17, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Gib wrote:
On 29/08/2011 10:23 p.m., Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:
It's only natural for addicts to claim that they enjoy the habit and
that they are being persecuted. It's so much easier than admitting
they are too weak minded to give it up.

Sounds just like you with that glass of wine you so enjoy.


Do you think everyone who drinks alcohol is an alcoholic?

It was in reply to the addicts part. And yes, many who claim to simply
just enjoy a glass of wine - and it's always wine - are addicted.

The difference is that smoking is highly addictive (any regular smoker
that stops will experience cravings/withdrawal symptoms); serves no
useful purpose and is afflicted on averyone around.

Drinking is far less addictive (those who succumb generally have
addictive personalities anyway and can become addicted to a whole range
of things - even exercise - the rest suffer no effects on doing
without); in small quantities it can have health benefits and certainly
does no harm; it's only afflicted on those around by those who
overindulge - which we do have laws against, but somehow fail to enforce.

SteveW

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 08:37:27 +1000, Tony Bryer
wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 23:24:40 +0100 Steve Walker wrote :
As a smoker you won't have the experience, but I frequently recoil from
the smell of tobacco smoke

It's extraordinary now to think that there was a time (before I took up
travelling) when people smoked on planes. A good while back I had a
number of British Rail archive films of the 1950s and smoking at your
desk seemed to be the norm.

You don't have to got that far back when even characters in
children's entertainment were depicted smoking. The Lady Penelope
Character in Thunderbirds was one example and this caused a bit of
controversy when the series became popular again about 10 years ago.

G.Harman

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
On 29/08/2011 12:17, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Gib wrote:
On 29/08/2011 10:23 p.m., Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:
It's only natural for addicts to claim that they enjoy the habit and
that they are being persecuted. It's so much easier than admitting
they are too weak minded to give it up.

Sounds just like you with that glass of wine you so enjoy.


Do you think everyone who drinks alcohol is an alcoholic?

It was in reply to the addicts part. And yes, many who claim to simply
just enjoy a glass of wine - and it's always wine - are addicted.

The difference is that smoking is highly addictive (any regular smoker
that stops will experience cravings/withdrawal symptoms); serves no
useful purpose

it has a sedative effect (which you need to drink lots of coffee as an
antidote) and acts as an appetite suppressant.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Fuschia wrote:
A non-sequitur much beloved of smokers.
"Help, I've lost the argument again! - ah yes, the alcohol dodge."

Plenty of similarities. Both are mind changing recreational drugs.
However, the detrimental effects of alcohol on behaviour (with many) make
it very different. And the havoc is causes to society in a totally
different league. But carry on thinking it's harmless. Just because you're
a user.

Anyone who needs to take 15 minutes per hour off work to get a drink has
a problem. So does someone who needs to spend the same amount of time
smoking.

I've no objection to someone who smokes like most people drink. Do you
know anyone who has one to three cigarettes in an evening and who has
abstinences between cigarettes of several days or even weeks?

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 00:57:38 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

There is conclusive evidence to link active smoking with lung cancer.
Passive smoking is however a myth.

I believe that there is link, but I also believe that the increased risk
is probably low enough for me to ignore. I cannot however ignore the
awful smell, the affect on my eyes and my throat or the smell on my
clothes and my hair the next morning.

As a heavy smoker I can appreciate that.

Most of my working life was associated with public houses so stinking
of fags when I was a smoker was not really a problem at work as I
would have stunk the same from others.
Just wondering if it affects your jobs now that smoking is not the
Norm in most places and households.
I certainly know people who if they employed someone such as yourself
would if they detected the smell on you would not wish to you use your
services again or make negative recommendations such as , he did a
good job but stunk the place out. One mate wouldn't let you in the
first place if you smelt of smoke when you arrived.

G.Harman

In article , Steve Walker
wrote:
Do you think everyone who drinks alcohol is an alcoholic?

It was in reply to the addicts part. And yes, many who claim to simply
just enjoy a glass of wine - and it's always wine - are addicted.

The difference is that smoking is highly addictive (any regular smoker
that stops will experience cravings/withdrawal symptoms); serves no
useful purpose and is afflicted on averyone around.

The same can be thought of alcohol if you co to many town centres of an
evening.

Drinking is far less addictive (those who succumb generally have
addictive personalities anyway and can become addicted to a whole range
of things - even exercise - the rest suffer no effects on doing
without);

Hmm. Interesting the way you bend addiction to rule out a drug you use and
turn it to others.

in small quantities it can have health benefits and certainly
does no harm;

You'll find plenty of 'authorities' who disagree with this statement:
likely just as many as on passive smoking.

it's only afflicted on those around by those who
overindulge - which we do have laws against, but somehow fail to enforce.

Indeed. The snag with the smoking laws is most reasonable people think
them unfair as well as not actually doing what was wanted.

--
*Why is 'abbreviation' such a long word?

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

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 12:31:35 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Fuschia wrote:
A non-sequitur much beloved of smokers.
"Help, I've lost the argument again! - ah yes, the alcohol dodge."

Plenty of similarities. Both are mind changing recreational drugs.
However, the detrimental effects of alcohol on behaviour (with many) make
it very different. And the havoc is causes to society in a totally
different league. But carry on thinking it's harmless. Just because you're
a user.

And where did I say alcohol is harmless? Alcohol certainly has great
dangers and has to be controlled.

What I said is that it's a non sequitur. Look it up if you need to.
Alcohol is not relevant to the discussion on passive smoking, and has
no bearing on whether passive smoking is unpleasant and/or dangerous.

By all means let's talk about alcohol in another thread, but that's
not what the OP was complaining about.

In article ,
Fuschia wrote:
By all means let's talk about alcohol in another thread, but that's
not what the OP was complaining about.

He wasn't 'complaining' at all. Just the usual troll.

--
*If you don't pay your exorcist you get repossessed.*

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

On Aug 29, 12:21*am, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

No, we have a smoking ban because a fanatical group of anti smokers,
backed up by the lobbying of multi national drug companies, forced it
through.


Surely multinational drug companies would be in favour of smoking
because they could then sell anti-cancer drugs to the people who
became ill.

Which multinational drug companies are in favour of keeping people in
tip-top health and therefore without need of expensive
pharmaceuticals?

On 29/08/2011 14:40, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
Gib Bogle wrote:
On 29/08/2011 10:23 p.m., Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:
It's only natural for addicts to claim that they enjoy the habit and
that they are being persecuted. It's so much easier than admitting
they are too weak minded to give it up.

Sounds just like you with that glass of wine you so enjoy.


Do you think everyone who drinks alcohol is an alcoholic?

It was in reply to the addicts part. And yes, many who claim to simply
just enjoy a glass of wine - and it's always wine - are addicted.

Nothing wrong with wine. I had a glass yesterday. I'll probably have
another glass next Sunday too.


You must be made of money.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Peter James wrote:
Could you name someone who as died from passive smoking? Anywhere in
the world will do.

How about Roy Castle a man who died from lung cancer and who never
smoked. Said he picked up the disease from the night clubs he worked
in
and where smoking was rampant.
For further information see the following URL's.

One swallow - even with a famous name - does not a summer make. And even
if it did, there's a very big difference between working all your life
in
smoky rooms and having neighbours who smoke outdoors.

that's true.. you can choose not to go into smoke filled rooms.
in the other case they are taking away your freedom.

As you would take away theirs.

That's cr@p, smokers can go into smoke filled rooms, just not the ones in
pubs, etc.
It has been decided, based upon the evidence that some smokers continue to
deny, that its dangerous for staff to be in smoke filled rooms.
Therefore it is incompatible with pubs and other places where people work.
Its the same with anything else that is proven to be dangerous, employers
have to protect their staff.
It normally comes down to the employer to enforce it, but in public places
there also has to be a ban to stop non employees doing whatever it is that's
dangerous. An employer can just sack anyone that continues to endanger
themselves or others, they can't sack the public or ban them from public
places so its left to the authorities to ban and enforce.
Its quite simple, you never have the freedom to harm others, luckily for
smokers!

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...
On 29/08/2011 11:18, Kathy wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...
On 28/08/2011 19:35, 'Mike' wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 17:37:43 +0100,

wrote:





"The Medway wrote in message
...
On 27/08/2011 16:18, Interloper wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" mocked:

Why don't you try getting a life?

Most likely Dave has already got a life and he is trying to hang
on to
it
and his health by avoiding passive smoking.

Could you name someone who as died from passive smoking? Anywhere in
the
world will do.

Margaret Horsborough
25 Colchester Road
Leicester

My next door neighbour when I lived in Leicester in the 60's and 70's

A non smoker, died of Lung Cancer due to secondary/passive smoking
whilst
in
an office environment.


Was this the result of an autopsy - or just your guess.
Did it say on the death certificate : Lung Cancer caused by passive
smoking?

- or are you just guessing or suggesting that Lung Cancer is *only*
caused
by
inhaling cigarette smoke?

Oh dear :-((

Oh dear, oh dear.

Another smoker trying to justify their addiction to the obnoxious weed.

Another non smoker unable to support his biased opinion.

Why can't they just admit that they are wrong, pack up their vile
habit and
stop polluting the air WE breath and the pavements with their dog ends?

Why can't you appreciate that anally retentive, small minded people
like you will believe anything that supports your cause?

Many of your habits might well be vile to me.



On Monday March 7th, 2011, my eldest brother died, quite nastily, from
lung cancer caused by smoking. Smoking can cause lung cancer and lung
cancer can kill. Fact.

No one is disputing that. Which bit of 'passive' confused you?

Passive or active, tobacco smoke causes illness.
It is also, as you have acknowledged, polluting and frequently unpleasant.
No matter how many times you scream that it is your right to be a unpleasant
polluter, you do not have the right to pollute other people's airspace.

--
Kathy

On Aug 28, 12:40*am, Jon wrote:

For a more balanced view on the subject, the singer Joe Jackson decided
to look into REAL facts regarding smoking and wrote "Smoke Lies, and the
Nanny State"

It can be downloaded here as a doc or PDF file:

Jon

In what way are Joe Jackson's views on smoking any more "balanced"
than Gary Glitter's views on the age of consent?

On 29/08/2011 15:49, Kathy wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...
On 29/08/2011 11:18, Kathy wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...
On 28/08/2011 19:35, 'Mike' wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 17:37:43 +0100,

wrote:





"The Medway wrote in message
...
On 27/08/2011 16:18, Interloper wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" mocked:

Why don't you try getting a life?

Most likely Dave has already got a life and he is trying to hang
on to
it
and his health by avoiding passive smoking.

Could you name someone who as died from passive smoking?
Anywhere in
the
world will do.

Margaret Horsborough
25 Colchester Road
Leicester

My next door neighbour when I lived in Leicester in the 60's and
70's

A non smoker, died of Lung Cancer due to secondary/passive smoking
whilst
in
an office environment.


Was this the result of an autopsy - or just your guess.
Did it say on the death certificate : Lung Cancer caused by passive
smoking?

- or are you just guessing or suggesting that Lung Cancer is *only*
caused
by
inhaling cigarette smoke?

Oh dear :-((

Oh dear, oh dear.

Another smoker trying to justify their addiction to the obnoxious
weed.

Another non smoker unable to support his biased opinion.

Why can't they just admit that they are wrong, pack up their vile
habit and
stop polluting the air WE breath and the pavements with their dog
ends?

Why can't you appreciate that anally retentive, small minded people
like you will believe anything that supports your cause?

Many of your habits might well be vile to me.



On Monday March 7th, 2011, my eldest brother died, quite nastily, from
lung cancer caused by smoking. Smoking can cause lung cancer and lung
cancer can kill. Fact.

No one is disputing that. Which bit of 'passive' confused you?

Passive or active, tobacco smoke causes illness.

Afraid not - in the case of passive.

It is also, as you have acknowledged, polluting and frequently
unpleasant.

It may be unpleasant to some, but polluting?

No matter how many times you scream that it is your right to
be a unpleasant polluter, you do not have the right to pollute other
people's airspace.

I don't scream (do you?)


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

In article ,
The Medway Handyman wrote:

[Snip]

It may be unpleasant to some, but polluting?

you just need to look at the colour of the ceilings of rooms (particlarly
bars) to see the effect of tobacco smoke. Or - just exhale through a
hankie.

No matter how many times you scream that it is your right to
be a unpleasant polluter, you do not have the right to pollute other
people's airspace.

I don't scream (do you?)

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

On 29/08/2011 14:02, wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 00:57:38 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

There is conclusive evidence to link active smoking with lung cancer.
Passive smoking is however a myth.

I believe that there is link, but I also believe that the increased risk
is probably low enough for me to ignore. I cannot however ignore the
awful smell, the affect on my eyes and my throat or the smell on my
clothes and my hair the next morning.

As a heavy smoker I can appreciate that.

Most of my working life was associated with public houses so stinking
of fags when I was a smoker was not really a problem at work as I
would have stunk the same from others.

Just wondering if it affects your jobs now that smoking is not the
Norm in most places and households.

Not at all.

I certainly know people who if they employed someone such as yourself
would if they detected the smell on you would not wish to you use your
services again or make negative recommendations such as , he did a
good job but stunk the place out. One mate wouldn't let you in the
first place if you smelt of smoke when you arrived.


I don't need to work for anally retentive people thanks.

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

On 29/08/2011 15:15, mike wrote:
On Aug 29, 12:21 am, The Medway
wrote:

No, we have a smoking ban because a fanatical group of anti smokers,
backed up by the lobbying of multi national drug companies, forced it
through.


Surely multinational drug companies would be in favour of smoking
because they could then sell anti-cancer drugs to the people who
became ill.

You have no idea how profitable nicotine patches etc are.

Which multinational drug companies are in favour of keeping people in
tip-top health and therefore without need of expensive
pharmaceuticals?


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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Fuschia wrote:
It's only natural for addicts to claim that they enjoy the habit and
that they are being persecuted. It's so much easier than admitting
they are too weak minded to give it up.

Sounds just like you with that glass of wine you so enjoy.

There are a few differences, including..

drinking wine doesn't normally affect anyone nearby.
drink is nowhere near as addictive as smoking
you can drink without being addicted something that doesn't appear to be
true for smoking.
low levels of drinking appears to be healthy, unlike any level of smoking.

On 29/08/2011 13:18, John Williamson wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 29/08/2011 10:58, dennis@home wrote:

It would appear to be, smokers certainly don't allow others to enjoy
smoke free air if it means delaying their fix.

Look up the word 'choice' & get back to me.


My choice would be to breathe air free of tobacco smoke, the smokers'
choice is to pollute the air around them with tobacco smoke. That makes
my only possible course of action to move away from their pollution,
which means that I have no other option. Their choice has limited my
choices.

Choice means having non smoking & smoking areas & venues. Since the
rabid anti smoking fascists have forced smokers outside, the have
limited their choice - and now they whinge about smokers outside.

My choice would be to sleep in a hotel room that does not stink of old
cigarette smoke. Your choice as a smoker to break the law in that hotel
room yesterday makes it impossible for me to have my choice.

I wasn't in a hotel room yesterday? Where did you get that idea from?
Typical anti smoker - making things up.

I drive a coach for a living, and I have to walk through the cloud of
smoke generated by smokers who light up as they cross the threhold of
the exit door, and then just stand there, and get offended when I close
the door to keep their smoke out. Their choice of smoking place removes
my chance of staying smoke free.

Whose choice is more important? The drug addict's or the clean living
person's?

Both. But the anti smoking fascists removed choice from the equation.


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