On 30/08/2011 10:18 a.m., The Medway Handyman wrote:
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.



I think it would make sense to legalize cocaine and ban tobacco.
Smokers could then switch and become coke-heads. Cocaine is both less
harmful to the user and harmless to bystanders.

Does this make me a puritanical fascist?

On 30/08/2011 2:49 a.m., Kathy wrote:

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.


Even if we take health effects completely out of the equation, smoking
around people who hate tobacco smoke is like farting in a crowded lift.
Extremely discourteous. Although, according to TMH, anyone objecting
in this instance would be a stupid, puritanical fascist.

A big river in Africa.

On 30/08/2011 4:02 a.m., Elmo wrote:

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.

LOL

On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 19:35:34 +0100, "'Mike'"
wrote:

snip


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?

.


Oh dear :-((

Another person with an inability to answer simple questions, but the ability to
jump to wrong conclusions. AKA a ****wit.

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:18:38 +0100, "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.


Here is a clue: it was your brother who died - not you.

(Another clue : primary smoking is not secondary smoking)

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 08:00:27 +0100, TGH wrote:

snip

And Roy Castle, a famous case if I am not mistaken.

TGH


Yawn.

You are.

On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 19:37:20 +0100, "'Mike'"
wrote:



"Judith" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 21:47:18 +0100, David Rance
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011, The Medway Handyman wrote:

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, the entertainer.

Nope.

It is well documented that Roy Castle did die of passive smoking


Please point out the many scientific articles which support you claim.


(Letters from his wife to the Daily Mail do not count as such)



Oh dear :-((

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

Another ****wit jumping to wrong conclusions.

In message , Interloper
writes
Having analysed the various passive smoking arguments, "Keith" made the
following contribution to the discussion:

I believe that you are a ****wit. Is that good enough for you?

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


So some say, but why ?

There is no hard evidence to support it and few have died from it

--
geoff

In message , ARWadsworth
writes
Fuschia wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 22:06:16 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

David Rance wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011, The Medway Handyman wrote:

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, the entertainer.

Nope.

It is well documented that Roy Castle did die of passive smoking,
but if you are simply going to contradict anyone who doesn't agree
with you then I shall not waste my time with you.

He died of lung cancer. Passive smoking was a suggested cause of
that lung cancer. That does not make it a well well documented proof.

He believed it himself. That's good enough for me.

And if he believed that fairies lived at the bottom of the garden?


You mean ...



they don't ?

--
geoff

On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 08:33:52 +0100, (Peter James)
wrote:

snip


For further information see the following URL's.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d.../2/newsid_2493
000/2493567.stm

Mr Castle had never smoked, but said he contracted his illness after years of
playing in smoky jazz clubs



http://www.stopsmokingtoday.com/dync...e_Smoking.html

One US study observed that passive smoking increased the incidence of feline
lymphoma in cats and the likelihood of them developing health complications
increased the longer they were exposed to passive smoking.



Yep - that's proof if ever there was any

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Jon" wrote in message
...

Very true - there are a lot of myths about smoking, perpetuated by
those with an agenda and propagated by those who slavishly believe
whatever they're told.

Mostly by the addicts.


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"

Addicts and their suppliers always like to look at studies and ignore
those that don't agree with their findings.
remember how many decades the smoking lobby told everyone that smoking
didn't harm the addicts?
remember how many decades the smoking lobby claimed smoking was not
addictive.
Now they claim passive smoking does no harm.

You just can't trust the smoking industry or the addicts, they lie,
they lie lots.

There is no way an addict will admit that he has helped to kill someone
and they will cling on to any sliver of evidence to say they didn't,
such is life and death.

Its pointless arguing with addicts until they are cured.

Well, report back when you've been cured of your addiction to stupidity

What drugs have you tried dennis ?

Alcohol
caffeine
ketamine

?

What has addled those grey cells in your cranium?


--
geoff

In message , The Medway Handyman
writes
On 28/08/2011 18:57, dennis@home wrote:


"Jon" wrote in message
...

Very true - there are a lot of myths about smoking, perpetuated by
those with an agenda and propagated by those who slavishly believe
whatever they're told.

Mostly by the addicts.


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"


Hello Dennipoos.

You are well known around here for being a thick ****. This does
nothing to avoid that opinion.

Addicts and their suppliers always like to look at studies and ignore
those that don't agree with their findings.

The anti smoking fascists do exactly that. Any study refuting the
passive smoking myth are suppressed and never published - and they are
legion & many fold.

remember how many decades the smoking lobby told everyone that smoking
didn't harm the addicts?

Remember how the ASF spent years trying to denigrate smokers?

remember how many decades the smoking lobby claimed smoking was not
addictive.

You are going to have to provide some evidence for that.

Now they claim passive smoking does no harm.

You just can't trust the smoking industry or the addicts, they lie, they
lie lots.

Nothing like the anti smoking lobby. When it comes to lies, false
information & fudged reports they are in a league of their own.

Perhaps you would like to check out the well known anti smoking charity
Action on Smoking & Health?

Let me know when you do, we can talk about funding & lying.


There is no way an addict will admit that he has helped to kill someone
and they will cling on to any sliver of evidence to say they didn't,
such is life and death.

There is no way a small minded idiot like you would ever develop the
intellectual capacity to think for himself.

I think you have it slightly wrong there

If Deennis were to call any part of his imagined word into question, his
whole wall would come crumbling down

Take drugs dennis, take lots of them



--
geoff

In message
, mike
writes
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?

Not read it but ...

I think that the general thrust is that he has gone out to find real
facts rather than the oft peddled assumptions

Paul Gadd's sexual preferences are out of tune with the current commonly
accepted norms. I'm not sure what the relevance is

--
geoff

In message , The Medway Handyman
writes
On 27/08/2011 23:05, Huge wrote:
On 2011-08-27, David wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011, The Medway Handyman wrote:

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, the entertainer.

Nope.

It is well documented that Roy Castle did die of passive smoking, but if
you are simply going to contradict anyone who doesn't agree with you

Which he will. There's no point in arguing with junkies.


No point in arguing with anyone if you don't know the facts.

Well, the facts are, if you smoke (not talking about secondary smoking)

you are clogging up your lungs with tars and other carcinogenic
substances, impairing their ability to function properly

the carbon monoxide you inhale preferentially attaches to the
haemoglobin, further reducing the body's ability to get oxygen to the
cells which need it to produce the energy required to function correctly

There are no real benefits from smoking ( slight improvement in memory
aside) - no high, no tripping, no benefit to the body

They are now seriously expensive - what, £7/packet

So it begs the question - other than the nagging little voice of
addiction - why would any rational human want to smoke?

--
geoff

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
Sacha wrote:

There's no point in arguing about this at all. The OP finds the
smoke offensive and wants ideas to be rid of it. Why is not the issue.

I find fat stupid people offensive. And total vegetarian snobs. What is
the best method of blowing them away?

Sprouts


--
geoff

In message , The Medway Handyman
writes
On 28/08/2011 10:20, Peter James wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

In article1k6pbn0.zrjw1i1dikjd4N%pfjames2000@googlem ail.com,
Peter 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.

Indeed. But did you read the attached URL's?

I suppose you are a strong believer in the tobacco companies assertion
that there is no proven link between tobacco and lung disease?

There is conclusive evidence to link active smoking with lung cancer.


So, why do you smoke?



.



--
geoff

In message , The Medway Handyman
writes
On 28/08/2011 21:07, dennis@home wrote:


"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , 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.

not if your job depends on it.

That's why we have a smoking ban, you can't go into smoke filled rooms
because of your job anymore.

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

Which ones ?

forced it through.

Its undemocratic & basd on false evidence.

Good, though, isn't it



--
geoff

In message , The Medway Handyman
writes
On 28/08/2011 19:01, 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.

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

There should be no more publicly accessible smoke filled rooms


Or is 'freedom' a one way street?


Yeah - good, isn't it



--
geoff

In message , The Medway Handyman
writes

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.




You do have a choice

don't smoke in public places

or

get arrested


|Lets use a gun analogy

do you see it as everyone's personal right to carry a firearm?


--
geoff

In message , The Medway Handyman
writes
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?

So why do you smoke?

--
geoff

In message , Judith
writes
On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 08:33:52 +0100, (Peter James)
wrote:

snip


For further information see the following URL's.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d.../2/newsid_2493
000/2493567.stm

Mr Castle had never smoked, but said he contracted his illness after years of
playing in smoky jazz clubs



http://www.stopsmokingtoday.com/dync...e_Smoking.html

One US study observed that passive smoking increased the incidence of feline
lymphoma in cats and the likelihood of them developing health complications
increased the longer they were exposed to passive smoking.



Yep - that's proof if ever there was any


So ****ing what?

Look - you're a ****ing druggie

You are addicted to a substance which has no positive benefits and
plenty of negative ones in your means of absorption - i.e. smoking
tobacco

it controls you, you are a slave to nicotine, one of the most addictive
drugs in common circulation

Whatever pathetic excuses or justifications you care to post don't
change the fact that you are a spineless druggie unable to kick the
habit


Yeah - I was 60 / day ... I did it



--
geoff

In message , The Medway Handyman
writes
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?




Just a minute

you spend how much a week on a habit that seriously damages your health
and has no real benefit



who are you calling stupid?




--
geoff

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
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.

'Kin prosit, mate

So, are you an addict or not ?


--
geoff

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
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.

So how does a glass of wine / beer / whatever affect others in close
proximity in the same way that smoke does?



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.



Well, absolutely

I'm not that fussed about the smoke - any damage is already done

good fun to wind up though




--
geoff

In article , The Medway Handyman
wrote:
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?

The cigarette doesn't take 20 minutes to smoke - but the absence from work
could be that long:

Leave desk, go to toilet, wait for lift, use lift (which stops at all
floors), go outside, look in bag or pocket for cigarettes, same with
lighter/matches, smoke cigarette, go back indoors (having first found
security pass in pocket/bag, wait for lift, use lift, go to toilet, return
to desk. That's an easy 20 minutes.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

Tim Streater wrote:

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

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

Why would you want to get ****ed - unless you're a ****-artist.
Getting legless is something everybody should do once, but beyond
that it just ****es birds off.

The women are usually worse than the men when it comes to getting ****ed.

--
Adam

On 30/08/2011 07:50, charles wrote:
In , The Medway Handyman
wrote:
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?

The cigarette doesn't take 20 minutes to smoke - but the absence from work
could be that long:

Leave desk, go to toilet, wait for lift, use lift (which stops at all
floors), go outside, look in bag or pocket for cigarettes, same with
lighter/matches, smoke cigarette, go back indoors (having first found
security pass in pocket/bag, wait for lift, use lift, go to toilet, return
to desk. That's an easy 20 minutes.

You forgot continuing to chat with colleague who came out later until
he/she finishes their cigarette.

On 30/08/2011 6:02 PM, Hugh - Was Invisible wrote:
On 30/08/2011 07:50, charles wrote:
In , The Medway Handyman
wrote:
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?

The cigarette doesn't take 20 minutes to smoke - but the absence from
work
could be that long:

Leave desk, go to toilet, wait for lift, use lift (which stops at all
floors), go outside, look in bag or pocket for cigarettes, same with
lighter/matches, smoke cigarette, go back indoors (having first found
security pass in pocket/bag, wait for lift, use lift, go to toilet,
return
to desk. That's an easy 20 minutes.

You forgot continuing to chat with colleague who came out later until
he/she finishes their cigarette.

S/he also forget to wash hands.

"Judith" ranted:

Another ****wit jumping to wrong conclusions.

You are Mrs Medway Handyman and I claim my £5.

Or maybe you just use the same scriptwriter.
--
Interloper

In article ,
Gib Bogle wrote:
I think it would make sense to legalize cocaine and ban tobacco.
Smokers could then switch and become coke-heads. Cocaine is both less
harmful to the user and harmless to bystanders.

I'd suggest you do some research before writing such crap. Cocaine does an
incredible amount of damage to the body and mind. As can alcohol.

The safest of all the common drugs as regards physical damage is heroin.

But I'm not advocating using it or any other drug.

--
*Fax is stronger than fiction *

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

In article ,
geoff wrote:
Hmm. Interesting the way you bend addiction to rule out a drug you use
and turn it to others.

So how does a glass of wine / beer / whatever affect others in close
proximity in the same way that smoke does?

It's a different drug and effects others in a different way. Never been in
a restaurant next to a table full of rowdies?

--
*Who is this General Failure chap anyway - and why is he reading my HD? *

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

In article ,
Hugh - Was Invisible wrote:
The cigarette doesn't take 20 minutes to smoke - but the absence from
work could be that long:

Leave desk, go to toilet, wait for lift, use lift (which stops at all
floors), go outside, look in bag or pocket for cigarettes, same with
lighter/matches, smoke cigarette, go back indoors (having first found
security pass in pocket/bag, wait for lift, use lift, go to toilet,
return to desk. That's an easy 20 minutes.

You forgot continuing to chat with colleague who came out later until
he/she finishes their cigarette.

Indeed. And frequently talk about work. So work may not actually stop with
a fag break - or any other sort of break. Unless your job is sticking
wheels on a car in a factory. In which case you'll not be allowed fag
breaks. Only designated breaks that all get.
It was so in my job. Could only take a break when it was possible work
wise. Not just to suit myself. Not every one works in a poorly supervised
office, etc.

--
*Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it *

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

On 2011-08-30, charles wrote:

In article , The Medway Handyman
wrote:
On 29/08/2011 13:23, Steve Firth wrote:

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?

The cigarette doesn't take 20 minutes to smoke - but the absence from work
could be that long:

Leave desk, go to toilet, wait for lift, use lift (which stops at all
floors), go outside, look in bag or pocket for cigarettes, same with
lighter/matches, smoke cigarette, go back indoors (having first found
security pass in pocket/bag, wait for lift, use lift, go to toilet, return
to desk. That's an easy 20 minutes.

It seems a bit unfair to count "go[ing] to toilet", since all
employees do that anyway; if anything, combining the toilet & smoking
breaks is probably a bit more efficient than making separate trips.
;-)

Anyway, the OP didn't ask how to make his neighbours stop smoking, or
even stop smoking in their garden --- just how to keep the smoke/smell
away from him & his family in their own garden.

On 2011-08-29, Steve Firth wrote:

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.

An extremely libertarian perspective might be that employers should be
free to set whatever smoking/non-smoking policies they want, and
prospective employees can accept them or go elsewhere; *some*
libertarians seriously argue against anti-discrimination laws on the
grounds that, in the long term at least, racist employers will be less
successful than non-racist ones (because they are drawing employees
from a smaller pool selected without regard to competence). ("In the
long run we are all dead." -- J M Keynes)

In article ,
mike wrote:

It's as reliable as Gillian McKeith's poo-poking nonsense or David
Icke's alien lizards.

Thank you for mentioning the latter. Gillian McKeith is merely one
example of what has become a regrettably common phenomenon, but
David Icke does appear to have taken the Velikovsky, von Däniken
and Hubbard approaches to a new, er, dimension!

The trolls on this thread are far less amusing.


Regards,
A loyal subject of Her Reptilian Majesty.

On Aug 30, 12:10*am, Jon wrote:
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

You (by which I mean someone with an analytical mind so obviously not
you) could go through that article and point out assumptions, errors,
mischaracterisations and contradictions in virtually every sentence.

It has no scientific rigour and doesn't cite sources, so I don't know
where you get the notion that it contains "REAL facts" as opposed to
the less reliable lower case real facts or, indeed, facts. (It does
have a lot of exclamation marks though, doesn't it?)

It starts off from the premise - which it revisits frequently - that
any contrary view is "hysteria".

It's as reliable as Gillian McKeith's poo-poking nonsense or David
Icke's alien lizards.

Clearly, though, as an appeal to emotion, it finds its audience in the
sort of folk who just want their prejudices reinforced.

I imagine you mean it's balanced in the sense that creationism offers
a "balance" to evolution or that "psychic powers" offer a balance to
Uri Geller bending the ****ing spoon when you're not looking.

No doubt you checked out the "What Can be Done?" section. Amongst all
the front-organizations for the tobacco industry, you'll have seen the
link to Jackson's buddy, pro-smoking, pro-DDT, pro-asbestos, anti-
evolution, anti global warming loon and Glenn Beck-a-like, Steve
Milloy. Do you get your tinfoil hats from the same place?

So, yes, by all means explain why "singer" Joe Jackson's yellow
journalism is more valid than similar self-justifciation from "singer"
Gary Glitter.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"ARWadsworth" wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:

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

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

Why would you want to get ****ed - unless you're a ****-artist.
Getting legless is something everybody should do once, but beyond
that it just ****es birds off.

The women are usually worse than the men when it comes to getting
****ed.

These days, yes. The answer is to find a better class of bird.

You mean one that gets ****ed on champagne?

--
Adam

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

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.

So the barmaid is going to wear a face mask with filters and possibly an air
supply?
And the smokers are going to pay more for their drinks to pay for this?

There are easier solutions, like giving up the addiction.

On Aug 30, 1:39*am, geoff wrote:
In message
, mike
writesOn 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?

Not read it but ...

I think that the general thrust is that he has gone out to find real
facts rather than the oft peddled assumptions.

If you've not read it, you're "peddling assumptions" and you should
read it for the "real facts". Or for the insight into delusion or
maybe just the lulz.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...

8

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

Exaggeration is a standard tactic used by anti smoking fascists.

And by addicted handymen.
Who said it was one fag and one break?
They used to take two or three an hour in some departments.
Now we are down to they smoked it in only two minutes, how the hell did they
manage that?