On 29/08/2011 15:42, dennis@home wrote:


"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.

Its dangerous to active smokers 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!


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

On 29/08/2011 13:06, Interloper wrote:
"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 :-)

Where did you take your degree in higher stupidity?

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

On 29/08/2011 13:30, Steve Walker wrote:
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.

Are you some kind of wimp?

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.


Bar staff don't smoke of course.


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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

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

IME most reasonable people don't think the smoking laws go far enough.
I expect you know too many smokers and not enough non smokers.

On Aug 29, 4:17*pm, The Medway Handyman
wrote:
On 29/08/2011 15:15, mike wrote:

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.

I can well imagine how profitable nicotine patches are but surely a
constant supply of cancer-riddled addicts is more profitable than the
diminishing supply of patch-buying quitters that a ban would produce.

On Aug 29, 4:07*pm, Tim Streater wrote:

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

A meaningless question as perfect health for all doesn't and won't exist.

What?

Are there drug companies out there that are actively looking to reduce
sales and profits?

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Huge wrote:
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?

You think these only started after the smoking ban? Have you tried asking
those publicans who's pubs have had to close?

They were interviewing publicans on BBC WM a couple of months ago about the
closing of pubs.
Half of them said the smoking ban had had a positive effect and they now
served more food and had families in.
the other half said they were going broke.
You can draw whatever conclusion you like.
I note that there are now far more places to go than pubs, like smoke free
restaurants, cinemas, etc.
Pubs that don't offer more than drinking look like dying pubs to me. If you
just want to drink then its a lot cheaper at home.

On 30/08/2011 1:11 AM, The Medway Handyman wrote:
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?)



I don't, but my mother-in-law does whenever she is having an orgasm,
which is quite often since my father-in-law discovered Viagra. My wife
is no longer so keen to have them visit. Thank God for Viagra.

The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 29/08/2011 13:18, John Williamson wrote:

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.

"Your" choice as in the generic smoker, not your choice as in your
*personal* choice. And it happens to about one in fifty hotel rooms I
stay in. Although, for all I know you were in at least one of them.


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.


Just as smokers always did and still do. One bloke I know is no longer
welcome in my home because he does not understand that I do not want him
smoking in my living room, especially as he just lights up and puffs
away without asking my permission. The room reeks of smoke for days
afterwards.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 30/08/2011 1:40 AM, mike wrote:
On Aug 29, 4:17 pm, The Medway
wrote:
On 29/08/2011 15:15, mike wrote:

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.

I can well imagine how profitable nicotine patches are but surely a
constant supply of cancer-riddled addicts is more profitable than the
diminishing supply of patch-buying quitters that a ban would produce.



Using a nicotine patch isn't giving up smoking - it is just changing
brands.

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
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.

More like.. they can't prove it was my smoke that killed insert name so I
am alright and sod everyone else.

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:40:54 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

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.

He's not the 'usual' troll on the gardening group which I follow, so I
assume you are referring to the diy group.
But it's been quite enlightening to learn just how extreme some
addicts can be in defence of their habit. It's a reminder why we need
to have laws to protect the innocent majority from the diminishing few
who set their own needs above their neighbours' comfort and safety.

"Fuschia" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:40:54 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

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.

He's not the 'usual' troll on the gardening group which I follow, so I
assume you are referring to the diy group.
But it's been quite enlightening to learn just how extreme some
addicts can be in defence of their habit. It's a reminder why we need
to have laws to protect the innocent majority from the diminishing few
who set their own needs above their neighbours' comfort and safety.

Too true

Mike


--

....................................

Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out alive.

....................................

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

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

IME most reasonable people don't think the smoking laws go far enough.
I expect you know too many smokers and not enough non smokers.

But then you're neither sensible or reasonable.

--
*Where do forest rangers go to "get away from it all?"

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

In article ,
Fuschia wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:40:54 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

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.

He's not the 'usual' troll on the gardening group which I follow, so I
assume you are referring to the diy group.

I was referring generally. I don't know the gentleman. But since he hasn't
participated in the thread it's safe to say he's a troll

But it's been quite enlightening to learn just how extreme some
addicts can be in defence of their habit. It's a reminder why we need
to have laws to protect the innocent majority from the diminishing few
who set their own needs above their neighbours' comfort and safety.

It might be more to the point if you thought up some ways of answering the
problem. It's almost certain you have habits others would happily ban. The
nature of the human.

--
*If your feet smell and your nose runs, you're built upside down.

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" observed:

I was referring generally. I don't know the gentleman. But since
he hasn't participated in the thread it's safe to say he's a troll

You're right, we haven't heard much from the OP since he lit the blue
touch-paper and retired to a safe distance!

He initiated a lively, entertaining thread though ;-)
--
Interloper

In article ,
Interloper wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" observed:

I was referring generally. I don't know the gentleman. But since
he hasn't participated in the thread it's safe to say he's a troll

You're right, we haven't heard much from the OP since he lit the blue
touch-paper and retired to a safe distance!

He initiated a lively, entertaining thread though ;-)

;-) It comes up about every year. With the same predictable arguments.

--
*Thank you. We're all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view

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

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


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

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

IME most reasonable people don't think the smoking laws go far enough.
I expect you know too many smokers and not enough non smokers.

But then you're neither sensible or reasonable.

Well I don't smoke so that makes me far more sensible than all smokers.
I don't stop smokers smoking unless its harming others so I am also more
reasonable than most smokers.

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Interloper wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" observed:

I was referring generally. I don't know the gentleman. But since
he hasn't participated in the thread it's safe to say he's a troll

You're right, we haven't heard much from the OP since he lit the blue
touch-paper and retired to a safe distance!

He initiated a lively, entertaining thread though ;-)

;-) It comes up about every year. With the same predictable arguments.

Probably felt he couldn't add much to the experts comments.

My opinion of smokers was formed when it was legal to smoke in cinemas.
The smokers hand was invariably positioned so that the smoke did not
drift towards his own face.

I don't think 23 years exposure to office smokers has shortened my life
but I do still wish they wouldn't do it. I have now survived a further
28 years with hazards limited to harvesting dust, chemical sprays and
welding fumes:-)

regards


--
Tim Lamb

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"dennis@home" wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Huge wrote:
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?

You think these only started after the smoking ban? Have you tried
asking those publicans who's pubs have had to close?

They were interviewing publicans on BBC WM a couple of months ago
about the closing of pubs.
Half of them said the smoking ban had had a positive effect and they
now served more food and had families in.
the other half said they were going broke.
You can draw whatever conclusion you like.
I note that there are now far more places to go than pubs, like
smoke free restaurants, cinemas, etc.
Pubs that don't offer more than drinking look like dying pubs to me.
If you just want to drink then its a lot cheaper at home.

I can't see the point of a pub that doesn't do food.

Well you could get ****ed in it.

--
Adam

On 29/08/2011 19:30, ARWadsworth wrote:
Tim wrote:
In ,
wrote:

"Dave Plowman wrote in message
...
In ,
wrote:
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?

You think these only started after the smoking ban? Have you tried
asking those publicans who's pubs have had to close?

They were interviewing publicans on BBC WM a couple of months ago
about the closing of pubs.
Half of them said the smoking ban had had a positive effect and they
now served more food and had families in.
the other half said they were going broke.
You can draw whatever conclusion you like.
I note that there are now far more places to go than pubs, like
smoke free restaurants, cinemas, etc.
Pubs that don't offer more than drinking look like dying pubs to me.
If you just want to drink then its a lot cheaper at home.

I can't see the point of a pub that doesn't do food.

Well you could get ****ed in it.

I go to my local for a better pint of ale than I can get anywhere else
and to catch up on what is going on in the village. The smokers are
happy to go outside and I only have to walk 150 yards home soberly
without endangering anyone else.

"'Mike'" wrote in message ...




"The Medway Handyman" 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.


And Roy Castle, it must be true it's in Wikipedia.


I would also like to add that the treatment that I received in hospital recently when I firs,t had a quadruple heart by pass,
followed by a LUNG decortication, was enhanced because I didn't smoke and NEVER HAD SMOKED

You mean your prognosis was better. One would hope the treatment you received was appropriate
to your needs at the time regardless.
..


--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

On 29/08/2011 17:06, Elmo wrote:
On 30/08/2011 1:40 AM, mike wrote:
On Aug 29, 4:17 pm, The Medway
wrote:
On 29/08/2011 15:15, mike wrote:

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.

I can well imagine how profitable nicotine patches are but surely a
constant supply of cancer-riddled addicts is more profitable than the
diminishing supply of patch-buying quitters that a ban would produce.



Using a nicotine patch isn't giving up smoking - it is just changing
brands.

Oh I don't know. My father gave up smoking for a number of years, but
then the company he was working for wanted to make a number of
redundancies and he was the one that had to tell the employees. He was
stressed and uncomfortable with this and a smoker offered him a
cigarette, which he unfortunately took. A few years later on Father's
Day, I gave him a pack of nicotine patches, he never bought a second
pack, but he never smoked again!

SteveW

On 29/08/2011 14:11, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In , 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.

Except that in moderation, no-one around is affected, unlike smoking.

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.

It's simple fact, most people can drink all their lives without ever
devloping an addiction (defined as producing withdrawal symptoms when
they don't drink), most smokers who try to give up struggle and do
suffer physical withdrawal symptoms.

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.

There are frequent scientific reports of health benefits of small
quantities of alcohol, whereas the reports on cigarette smoke show harm
beginning at even the lowest levels.

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.

Oh, I think that the smoking laws are unfair to an extent - smoking in
company vehicles, etc. but I can't see any way to allow smoking in pubs,
restaurants, etc. without affecting either other customers or staff.

SteveW

On 29/08/2011 12:21, Fuschia wrote:
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.

I'm going to die of something - and so are you.


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."

You really should try & understand Latin phrases before you use them in
an effort to appear clever.


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

On 29/08/2011 13:51, Steve Firth wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

In ,
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.

15 minutes? How big is this cigarette?

Another gross exaggeration, typical of the anti smoking fascists.


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

On 29/08/2011 14:19, Fuschia wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 12:31:35 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In ,
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.

And thats not what I was talking about idiot.

Smoking has been demonised by the health police - fact.

Alcohol is next on their lists - fact.


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

On 29/08/2011 17:34, Fuschia wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:40:54 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In ,
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.

He's not the 'usual' troll on the gardening group which I follow, so I
assume you are referring to the diy group.

To which he cross posted.

But it's been quite enlightening to learn just how extreme some
addicts can be in defence of their habit.

Even more enlightening to learn how extreme rabid anti smoking fascists
can be in the persecution of a minority.

It's a reminder why we need
to have laws to protect the innocent majority from the diminishing few
who set their own needs above their neighbours' comfort and safety.

Its a reminder that we should be teaching people to think for themselves.

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

On 29/08/2011 12:44, Clive George wrote:
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.

Don't you believe it, thats what was said about smoking. The anti
alcohol campaign is following the anti smoking campaign almost exactly.

"A bid to impose a total ban on alcohol advertising on television has
been launched in Parliament".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/me...d-2257537.html


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

On 29/08/2011 13:23, Steve Firth wrote:
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.

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

Again, just how large is this cigarette that takes 20 mins to smoke?

Exaggeration is a standard tactic used by anti smoking fascists.


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

On 29/08/2011 12:06, charles wrote:
In , 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.

Entirely fair.

However, if I go on a job with my smoking mate, in the van I own,
technically its illegal. My van, we are both smokers.

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

On 29/08/2011 17:28, dennis@home wrote:


"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
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.

More like.. they can't prove it was my smoke that killed insert name
so I am alright and sod everyone else.

Passive smoking has never killed anyone.

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

On 29/08/2011 10:37 p.m., The Medway Handyman wrote:

That's why they deserve our sympathy. OK, so someone made a bad choice
in starting to smoke (probably as a teenager). We all make bad choices
when young, it's just that this decision is very hard to reverse.

Always assuming one wanted to.


Most smokers do.

On 29/08/2011 16:01, mike wrote:

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


Do I really need to explain that to you?

Jon

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
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.

Except that in moderation, no-one around is affected, unlike smoking.

most of the complaints about smoking here refer to the past, and to people
smoking outdoors at the entrance to buildings. The last part would be
easily addressed by having smoking rooms. With proper filtration.

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.

It's simple fact, most people can drink all their lives without ever
devloping an addiction (defined as producing withdrawal symptoms when
they don't drink), most smokers who try to give up struggle and do
suffer physical withdrawal symptoms.

Have you seen the figures for those treated for alcohol addiction? And the
numbers who drink every day is vast. Smokers can and do go for long
periods in a day without smoking too - just like many social drinkers.

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.

There are frequent scientific reports of health benefits of small
quantities of alcohol,

Yes - by those who use it or sell it. Plenty of doctors specialising in
such things is the only safe consumption is zero.

whereas the reports on cigarette smoke show harm
beginning at even the lowest levels.

It can be a useful drug for those who might otherwise need a different
medication. Of course it has well known downsides. But so do other forms
of medication. Especially with long term use.

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.

Oh, I think that the smoking laws are unfair to an extent - smoking in
company vehicles, etc. but I can't see any way to allow smoking in pubs,
restaurants, etc. without affecting either other customers or staff.

Given it's possible to provide a safe working environment for those
handling much more dangerous gases etc than smoke, it doesn't take too
much thought to realise you could make filtered smoking areas.

--
*Certain frogs can be frozen solid, then thawed, and survive *

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

On 30/08/2011 1:40 a.m., 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.


Addict!

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

And thats not what I was talking about idiot.

Smoking has been demonised by the health police - fact.

Alcohol is next on their lists - fact.

I doubt it. Too many in high places are addicted to it. And if not
actually addicted, just heavy users.

--
*How about "never"? Is "never" good for you?

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

On 29/08/2011 11:17 p.m., 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.


Silly boy.

On 29/08/2011 10:54 p.m., The Medway Handyman wrote:

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.

You think people who don't like tobacco smoking are puritans? Sillier
and sillier.

In message , 'Mike'
writes


"Judith" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 17:37:43 +0100, "'Mike'"
wrote:





"The Medway Handyman" 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 :-((

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

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?

Mmmm ... nicotine

Mmmm ... the hit from that first cigarette in the morning

Err ... Mmmm - gobbing up half a ton of brown phlegm 10 minutes later



--
geoff