TOT Smoking Ban 2007

In message , Bill Wright
wrote
To the chief protagonists (you know who you are)

I can only assume that you haven't got television sets, because I don't
think it would be possible to sleep, watch TV, and send so many messages in
one day.


For some it's a full time job, sponsored by the cigarette industry.

--
Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:02:08 GMT, "DAB is the Betamax of digital
radio" [email protected] wrote:

It's not good when inhaled in the concentrations that smokers inhale it at.
Non-smokers do not inhale smoke with anything close to the concentrations
that smokers inhale.

I suspect you're ill equipped to cope with this but here goes
(again)..sensitivity to different concentrations of smoke varies
depending on the person.

Since you're an expert on the safety of passive smoking, what caused
Roy Castle's lung cancer and subsequent death if passive smoking
cannot kill?

It causes lots of problems and some of them (emphysema)
can occur decades after exposure is removed (think of asbestosis in
this context). It is the clear duty of your employer to look after
your health. If they expose you to hazards they have to take
reasonable care to minimise the *risk* of injury. That responsibility
isn't just short term. Control of substances hazardous to health is
part of a raft of measures to try and avoid future occurrences of
things like the asbestos scandal.


It all sounds very exciting.

Really? I don't think you understand it then.

Save your pseudo-science for someone that wants to read pseudo-science. Try
providing facts to back up your arguments, or don't say anything at all.

I can say what I like here thank you. Quote you "There's also lots and
lots of evidence that shows that there's no link between passive
smoking and death. Don't ask me to provide it, because I can't".

I'm sure someone read all of that, unfortunately I didn't.

Don't worry, you wouldn't have understood it anyway.

Now, back to the subject: provide some definitive link between passive
smoking and health problems,

No thanks. I'm not your personal researcher..for free.

in particular that it causes death, which was the justification for this full ban being put into place in the first place,

Doh..

or kindly STFU.

Not on your say so.

--
Z

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 22:33:18 GMT, "DAB is the Betamax of digital
radio" [email protected] wrote:

This bit by Richard Smith, Editor BMJ is telling

"We are certainly interested in the question of whether passive smoking
kills, and it's clear to us that the question has not been definitively
answered. Indeed, it may well never be answered definitively. It's a hard
question, and our methods are inadequate.""

...all that *tells* me is that they don't know. This means that either
answer is possible so the government will choose the one that it wants
knowing the medics (at present) can't say the government is wrong.

Vote for a political party that supports smokers or, if none, start
one - that's democracy. Failing that, emigrate somewhere better..

--
Z

In article ,
Zathras wrote:
Since you're an expert on the safety of passive smoking, what caused
Roy Castle's lung cancer and subsequent death if passive smoking
cannot kill?

I wondered how long it would be before someone brought this up. ;-)

--
*Snowmen fall from Heaven unassembled*

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
DannyT wrote:
The dangers are different. I could drink alcohol till I fell over and
be no danger whatsoever to anyone, but if one person lights one
cigarette in an indoor space, nobody has any choice but to breathe it.

Rod.

Indeed. Plus the fact that regular drinking in moderation doesn't
particularly harm you - many medical experts say it's actually good for
you (especially red wine)!

Indeed. You only have a drink problem if you drink more than your doctor.
Of course everyone knows you can't get addicted if stick to wine or beer.
Oh no.

Smoking, on the other hand, is highly addictive and regular smoking will
undoubtedly cause you harm.

You think you can't get addicted to alcohol?

Also, how many of us have actually been harmed by people who have drunk
excessively?

The thousands killed by drunk drivers? Wives beaten up by drunken
husbands? Etc etc times a hundred.

All illegal last time I checked.

So, how about we propose outlawing actions of people that adversely
affect others? It has been done for alcohol already. Why should someone
pathetically addicted to some herbage be given special treatment?

Mike O'Sullivan wrote:
DannyT wrote:


Also, how many of us have actually been harmed by people who have
drunk excessively?
Quite a few I would imagine, That's why the breathalyser was invented.

Indeed, outlawing behaviour that potentially damages others. Shame the
addicted cannot see the parallel.

DAB is the Betamax of digital radio wrote:

Clearly you don't see the hypocrisy in you being against me making
things generally ****ter for other people yet the smoking ban will
obviously make life generally ****ter for me and all the other
smokers that go to pubs.

Why does it make your life ****ter?

Why should that reason allow you to make the majority other other's
lives ****ter?

DAB is the Betamax of digital radio wrote:
the dog from that film you saw wrote:
"stevo" wrote in message
...


So Mr 3 degrees, please explain your right to indulge in an activity
that makes life generally ****ter for those in your immediate
vicinity. What is so special about you?

Next, can others then freely involve in activities of their choice
that would make things generally ****ter for you?

he probably won't care as long as he still gets his fix. drug users
tend to be very singular in their thoughts.


It's quite simple - I just want to be free to enter a public house that
allows smoking and smoke whilst I drink. I am in favour of there being
non-smoking pubs, because non-smokers want them. But there is absolutely no
justification for banning smoking in all pubs when 25% of adults smoke and
nobody is forced to take a job behind a bar in a smoking pub.

It's actually quite amusing to see how people justify the full ban, because
it shows what an incredibly selfish society we've become. I mean, FFS, how
could you get more selfish than wanting smoking being banned from all pubs
when you would never have to enter a smoking pub ever again?

Well, perhaps you could consider the selfish smoker that cannot wait
until they get home before lighting up.

What you mean you cannot wait.

Perhaps you have a problem - but we all know that don't we.

DAB is the Betamax of digital radio wrote:
stevo wrote:
DAB is the Betamax of digital radio wrote:
Colin Stamp wrote:

"For us all"? Are Airwick going to produce cigs that don't produce
any smoke then?
Smokers will no-doubt feel aggrieved that they are about to lose the
incredibly privileged position they've enjoyed for centuries. I'll
try not to lose any sleep over it though.

I'm sure you won't lose sleep over it, but I think those supporting
the full ban should stop and consider why they're supporting a full
ban when they wouldn't have had to set foot in another smoking pub
ever again. And if we're going to ban activities that carry some risk,
then I
propose
Smoking is not being banned, as per usual you are writing the most
words about something when you have got the wrong end of the stick
again. So many words and yet again you are past the point of no
return and just bore everyone to death with your incessant rantings
supported by a lunatic minority...again.


Erm, who on earth are you again?

Anyway, the point I was making was that those supporting the passing of this
ban justified it by saying that there's a risk that passive smoking causes
people to die. But of course people don't have to work in smoking pubs - it
is a choice they make.

Basically, the ban is an absolutely ridiculous idea passed by the Nanny
State. People should have the choice to smoke in a smoking pub if they wish
to, and those that want to go to a non-smoking pub should also have the
choice to do that too - I'm not being selfish here, but the non-smokers are.


BTW: It is smoking in the workplaces that is banned, I assume you are
still (un)employed writing for some magazine (though presumably not
mentioning boycotting Sony), so your bedsit will be off limits for
smoking being a workplace.


Who are you again? "stevo" doesn't register, I'm afraid, and you're just a
Mr Nobody to me.

Really does it matter? Or it is just your usual stance of evading the issue?

Address the point.

You are addicted to something, you are ranting about being unable to
infilct your own weakness on others.

Have you ever tried giving up? Did you fail? How does it feel to be a
failure?

How does it feel to be controlled by a plant? It must be quite
embarassing you rant about something in such a way because of your
addiction.

Calling people Nazis! Are you aware of the attrocities committed under
Nazi rule. Doesn't it make you somewhat uneasy that you are comparing
your right to inflict the side-effects of your addication/weakness on
others those atrocities

Or are you really that arrogant?

Or are you just uneducated?

Of course we all know.

You cannot admit error...ever.

Pathetic really.

Just like being addicted.


that all non-smokers proposing this full ban should be banned from
having unprotected sex, as there's a possibility that their partner
in sexual activies might have AIDS. Not to do so would be
hypocritical.
Only in public places.


But there's a risk that you'll die if you have unprotected sex. It's a
chance you take, just like it's a chance that people working in a smoking
pub would take if this ridiculous smoking ban weren't enforced.

Smoking isn't being banned. Are you stupid or a liar.

DAB is the Betamax of digital radio wrote:
David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) wrote:
Ron Morgan wrote:

On 11 Apr, Roderick Stewart wrote:

Just for clarification - serious question - does anybody here know
if the ban also applies to private clubs? I honestly don't know the
detail of what the law says here, but it wouldn't surprise me if
it's acceptable for a private club to follow the interests of its
members. If so, that would seem to be an answer that would keep the
smokers happy - just change a few pubs to smoking clubs.

Rod.
It does indeed apply to private members clubs.

As a chain smoker of many years I (surprisingly?) support the
banning of smoking inside all public places and inside workplaces.
Doesn't surprise me. I've got friends who are smokers who are looking
forward to the ban.


They're few and far between, believe me.


References?