Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
I've checked
Thank gawd for that!
Thank gawd for that!
Show More
i think the shadow minister for health should know what he's on about
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Further to my post on Monday, Conservative Home reports that "58% of Tory members support relaxation of smoking ban".
Editor Tim Montgomerie writes:
58% of the 1,493 Tory members who voted in Conservative Home's end-July survey of opinion agreed with the contention that 'the Conservatives should relax the smoking ban so that pubs, restaurants and private clubs can apply to allow smoking on their premises'. 39% disagreed. The figures for Conservative voters are similar: 55% to 40%.
Further to my post on Monday, Conservative Home reports that "58% of Tory members support relaxation of smoking ban".
Editor Tim Montgomerie writes:
58% of the 1,493 Tory members who voted in Conservative Home's end-July survey of opinion agreed with the contention that 'the Conservatives should relax the smoking ban so that pubs, restaurants and private clubs can apply to allow smoking on their premises'. 39% disagreed. The figures for Conservative voters are similar: 55% to 40%.
Surgeon General: No Safe Level for Secondhand Smoke
Report Bolsters Clean Indoor Air Efforts
Secondhand smoke is dangerous in any amount, and the only way to protect people from that danger is to eliminate indoor smoking. SOURCE: US Surgeon General Richard Carmona. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke.
"The health effects of secondhand smoke exposure are more pervasive than we previously thought," said Carmona, vice admiral of the US Public Health Service. "The scientific evidence is now indisputable: Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance. It is a serious health hazard that can lead to disease and premature death in children and nonsmoking adults."
Cancer experts praised Carmona's report, which adds weight to efforts to get clean indoor air laws passed throughout the country.
"Today's report should end any lingering debate over the importance of enacting comprehensive smoke-free laws," said John Seffrin PhD, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society. "The report confirms that the only way to protect people from secondhand smoke is to eliminate their exposure."
Secondhand Smoke Causes Lung Cancer, Other Diseases
Medical experts and public health officials have long known that secondhand smoke poses a danger to non-smokers. A Surgeon General's report in 1986 found that secondhand smoke can cause lung cancer, and also concluded that merely separating smokers from nonsmokers doesn't eliminate the threat from secondhand smoke.
The new report pulls together evidence from the numerous studies that have been done on secondhand smoke since that time. It includes in-depth analyses of the toxic effects of secondhand smoke, including how it causes cancer, damages the respiratory tract, and harms the circulatory system. The report also examines the impact of secondhand smoke on children, and looks at exposure levels in the United States.
In terms of cancer, the report confirms that secondhand smoke can cause lung cancer and that nonsmokers who live with a smoker have a 20%-30% higher risk of lung cancer because of exposure to secondhand smoke.
The report says there isn't enough evidence to say for sure that secondhand smoke causes breast cancer, but existing evidence is "suggestive."
Other major conclusions:
Secondhand smoke causes premature death and disease in adults and children who do not smoke.
Exposure to secondhand smoke has immediate negative effects on the heart, and causes heart disease and lung cancer.
Secondhand smoke can worsen asthma in children, and puts them at risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), respiratory infections, and ear problems.
Scientific evidence shows that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.
Millions of American adults and children are still exposed to secondhand smoke at home and in the workplace.
Having separate smoking and nonsmoking areas, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate secondhand smoke exposure. Prohibiting smoking in indoor spaces does.
tHIS IS WHY THE SMOKING BAN IN PUBS MUST REMAIN IN FORCE
and theres more in a mo.....
Report Bolsters Clean Indoor Air Efforts
Secondhand smoke is dangerous in any amount, and the only way to protect people from that danger is to eliminate indoor smoking. SOURCE: US Surgeon General Richard Carmona. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke.
"The health effects of secondhand smoke exposure are more pervasive than we previously thought," said Carmona, vice admiral of the US Public Health Service. "The scientific evidence is now indisputable: Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance. It is a serious health hazard that can lead to disease and premature death in children and nonsmoking adults."
Cancer experts praised Carmona's report, which adds weight to efforts to get clean indoor air laws passed throughout the country.
"Today's report should end any lingering debate over the importance of enacting comprehensive smoke-free laws," said John Seffrin PhD, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society. "The report confirms that the only way to protect people from secondhand smoke is to eliminate their exposure."
Secondhand Smoke Causes Lung Cancer, Other Diseases
Medical experts and public health officials have long known that secondhand smoke poses a danger to non-smokers. A Surgeon General's report in 1986 found that secondhand smoke can cause lung cancer, and also concluded that merely separating smokers from nonsmokers doesn't eliminate the threat from secondhand smoke.
The new report pulls together evidence from the numerous studies that have been done on secondhand smoke since that time. It includes in-depth analyses of the toxic effects of secondhand smoke, including how it causes cancer, damages the respiratory tract, and harms the circulatory system. The report also examines the impact of secondhand smoke on children, and looks at exposure levels in the United States.
In terms of cancer, the report confirms that secondhand smoke can cause lung cancer and that nonsmokers who live with a smoker have a 20%-30% higher risk of lung cancer because of exposure to secondhand smoke.
The report says there isn't enough evidence to say for sure that secondhand smoke causes breast cancer, but existing evidence is "suggestive."
Other major conclusions:
Secondhand smoke causes premature death and disease in adults and children who do not smoke.
Exposure to secondhand smoke has immediate negative effects on the heart, and causes heart disease and lung cancer.
Secondhand smoke can worsen asthma in children, and puts them at risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), respiratory infections, and ear problems.
Scientific evidence shows that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.
Millions of American adults and children are still exposed to secondhand smoke at home and in the workplace.
Having separate smoking and nonsmoking areas, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate secondhand smoke exposure. Prohibiting smoking in indoor spaces does.
tHIS IS WHY THE SMOKING BAN IN PUBS MUST REMAIN IN FORCE
and theres more in a mo.....
Shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley "the Conservatives want "severe restrictions" on smoking in enclosed public places to protect workers and children"
under the tories propossed THE GREAT REPEAL BILL. under the civil deregulation xxii chapter1. states than the anti smoking laws could be ammended to allow pubs/clubs to decide themselves if they want their pubs/clubs smoking or non smoking.
Greg Knight, Conservative MP for East Yorkshire, said: Britain's pubs and clubs are at the heart of every local community and the UK approach of banning indoor smoking everywhere is damaging the viability of many licensed premises where people wish to smoke. Pub landlords and club committees know best what their customers want and they should be allowed to provide smoking rooms if there is a demand."
Having separate smoking and nonsmoking areas, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate secondhand smoke exposure. Prohibiting smoking in indoor spaces does.
tHIS IS WHY THE SMOKING BAN IN PUBS MUST REMAIN IN FORCE
tHIS IS WHY THE SMOKING BAN IN PUBS MUST REMAIN IN FORCE
According to Cancer Research UK, the increased risk of contracting lung cancer if you work in a profession that regularly exposes you to diesel fumes is 47% - twice that of exposure to SHS assumed in SCOTH.
Those living in areas with high levels of nitrogen oxide (usually caused by vehicle emissions) have an increased chance of about 33% of contracting lung cancer.
Workers in the ship-building or construction industry have been estimated to have an increased chance of contracting lung cancer of up to 50% - twice that assumed for workers exposed to SHS by SCOTH.
One study even suggests that women who dont smoke, but have a wood-burning fire at home, may have an increased risk of lung disease in excess of 300%.
A French study in 2003 suggested a typical barbecue in ones garden releases the same number of dioxins that would be emitted from 220,000 cigarettes.
So, even if one accepts the SCOTH reports numbers on the increased risk suffered by those working in smoke-filled pubs and clubs, these risks pale into utter insignificance compared to risks we readily and unquestionably accept elsewhere.
Those living in areas with high levels of nitrogen oxide (usually caused by vehicle emissions) have an increased chance of about 33% of contracting lung cancer.
Workers in the ship-building or construction industry have been estimated to have an increased chance of contracting lung cancer of up to 50% - twice that assumed for workers exposed to SHS by SCOTH.
One study even suggests that women who dont smoke, but have a wood-burning fire at home, may have an increased risk of lung disease in excess of 300%.
A French study in 2003 suggested a typical barbecue in ones garden releases the same number of dioxins that would be emitted from 220,000 cigarettes.
So, even if one accepts the SCOTH reports numbers on the increased risk suffered by those working in smoke-filled pubs and clubs, these risks pale into utter insignificance compared to risks we readily and unquestionably accept elsewhere.
EMR
if these activities concern you- do something about it.
This has nothing to do with smoking in pubs.
Do YOU smoke indoors in front of children?
if these activities concern you- do something about it.
This has nothing to do with smoking in pubs.
Do YOU smoke indoors in front of children?
I do yes. It's because I believe the risk of passive smoking is negligible ,compared to what factories and cars spew into the air.
Pretty pointless to stop smoking when the lungs of the children have been at the mercy of the polluted air in the street all day.
You've got on your high horse about nothing that is proven ( you can't replicate in scientific conditions how secondary smoke affects people and therefore ,you are guessing and have been scaremongered by the government.)
Silly sheep.
Pretty pointless to stop smoking when the lungs of the children have been at the mercy of the polluted air in the street all day.
You've got on your high horse about nothing that is proven ( you can't replicate in scientific conditions how secondary smoke affects people and therefore ,you are guessing and have been scaremongered by the government.)
Silly sheep.
Hang your head in shame if you smoke in the same room as children.
It's ridiculous to suggest that every single individual should personally replicate scientific results before being guided by them.
It boils down to credibility. These smoking bans are a rare example of the Govts standing up to big business, and should be lauded. Why would they falsify the results?
It's ridiculous to suggest that every single individual should personally replicate scientific results before being guided by them.
It boils down to credibility. These smoking bans are a rare example of the Govts standing up to big business, and should be lauded. Why would they falsify the results?
"The report confirms that the only way to protect people from secondhand smoke is to eliminate their exposure."
Secondhand Smoke Causes Lung Cancer, Other Diseases
Medical experts and public health officials have long known that secondhand smoke poses a danger to non-smokers. A Surgeon General's report in 1986 found that secondhand smoke can cause lung cancer, and also concluded that merely separating smokers from nonsmokers doesn't eliminate the threat from secondhand smoke.
The new report pulls together evidence from the numerous studies that have been done on secondhand smoke since that time. It includes in-depth analyses of the toxic effects of secondhand smoke, including how it causes cancer, damages the respiratory tract, and harms the circulatory system. The report also examines the impact of secondhand smoke on children, and looks at exposure levels in the United States.
In terms of cancer, the report confirms that secondhand smoke can cause lung cancer and that nonsmokers who live with a smoker have a 20%-30% higher risk of lung cancer because of exposure to secondhand smoke.
Secondhand Smoke Causes Lung Cancer, Other Diseases
Medical experts and public health officials have long known that secondhand smoke poses a danger to non-smokers. A Surgeon General's report in 1986 found that secondhand smoke can cause lung cancer, and also concluded that merely separating smokers from nonsmokers doesn't eliminate the threat from secondhand smoke.
The new report pulls together evidence from the numerous studies that have been done on secondhand smoke since that time. It includes in-depth analyses of the toxic effects of secondhand smoke, including how it causes cancer, damages the respiratory tract, and harms the circulatory system. The report also examines the impact of secondhand smoke on children, and looks at exposure levels in the United States.
In terms of cancer, the report confirms that secondhand smoke can cause lung cancer and that nonsmokers who live with a smoker have a 20%-30% higher risk of lung cancer because of exposure to secondhand smoke.
All smokers have to be in some form of denial. We all know that smoking is dangerous to our health but many smoke in spite of this. Smoking is not a rational act. We smoke because we are in denial of the obvious dangers of smoking. The short-term pleasure and gratification that we get from smoking can seem more important than the health problems that might await us one day in the future. Its easier to keep smoking than to face the difficulty of quitting and possibility of failure. Smokers live in denial. It is easier to take the easy road of tricking oneself into believing that the perils of smoking tobacco are so remote that they can be ignored. You know what I mean. Almost all smokers think this way.
If you drive a car passed a school Moon Light ,you should hang your head in shame my friend.
I want evidence that passive smoking is as damaging as you think it is.
Experts 50 years ago alongside the government pushed the cigarette question.
Now they are saying its bad.
Proof please ,otherwise it could be just uninformed nonsense similar to that which was peddled 50 years ago.
I want evidence that passive smoking is as damaging as you think it is.
Experts 50 years ago alongside the government pushed the cigarette question.
Now they are saying its bad.
Proof please ,otherwise it could be just uninformed nonsense similar to that which was peddled 50 years ago.
Lmfao ,tell me how they replicate the lab conditions?
Have they got a smoke inhaling machine that exhales next to a human being for say 4 hours a night for 10 years?
No of course they haven't.
It's all guesswork.
Non-smokers and smokers alike can get lung cancer so how does that marry up?
Have they got a smoke inhaling machine that exhales next to a human being for say 4 hours a night for 10 years?
No of course they haven't.
It's all guesswork.
Non-smokers and smokers alike can get lung cancer so how does that marry up?
two wrongs dont make a right Brodie
if you believe that driving emissions are harmless - do something about it.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with smoking
if you believe that driving emissions are harmless - do something about it.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with smoking
P.S. Do YOU smoke indoors in front of children?
Repeat ad nauseam.
Repeat ad nauseam.
brodie
Lung cancer incidence rates in men peaked in the late 1970s and since then have decreased by more than 45%. This reflects the decline in smoking rates in men after World War II.
Lung cancer incidence rates in men peaked in the late 1970s and since then have decreased by more than 45%. This reflects the decline in smoking rates in men after World War II.
Yes it does lmfao, How can I make this simple so you inderstand.
I believe the dangers of 2nd hand smoke are negligible.
Cancers etc are probably caused by pollution.
There is far more of it than 2nd hand smoke.
There is not much I can do about the pollution ,but I choose to do nothing about the smoking because I don't perceive it as a threat.
I believe the dangers of 2nd hand smoke are negligible.
Cancers etc are probably caused by pollution.
There is far more of it than 2nd hand smoke.
There is not much I can do about the pollution ,but I choose to do nothing about the smoking because I don't perceive it as a threat.
How common is lung cancer?
Lung cancer is the second most common cancer diagnosed in the UK
In 2006, around 39,000 people were diagnosed with lung cancer in the UK, thats 107 people every day
Lung cancer is the second most common cancer in men after prostate cancer, with more than 22,300 new cases diagnosed in the UK in 2006.
More than 16,600 women were diagnosed with lung cancer in the UK in 2006, making it the third most common cancer in women after breast and bowel cancer.
More than 8 in 10 lung cancer cases occur in people aged 60 and over.
Rates of lung cancer in Scotland are among the highest in the world, reflecting their history of high smoking prevalence.
Lung cancer is the second most common cancer diagnosed in the UK
In 2006, around 39,000 people were diagnosed with lung cancer in the UK, thats 107 people every day
Lung cancer is the second most common cancer in men after prostate cancer, with more than 22,300 new cases diagnosed in the UK in 2006.
More than 16,600 women were diagnosed with lung cancer in the UK in 2006, making it the third most common cancer in women after breast and bowel cancer.
More than 8 in 10 lung cancer cases occur in people aged 60 and over.
Rates of lung cancer in Scotland are among the highest in the world, reflecting their history of high smoking prevalence.
The new report pulls together evidence from the numerous studies that have been done on secondhand smoke since that time. It includes in-depth analyses of the toxic effects of secondhand smoke, including how it causes cancer, damages the respiratory tract, and harms the circulatory system. The report also examines the impact of secondhand smoke on children, and looks at exposure levels in the United States.
In terms of cancer, the report confirms that secondhand smoke can cause lung cancer and that nonsmokers who live with a smoker have a 20%-30% higher risk of lung cancer because of exposure to secondhand smoke
In terms of cancer, the report confirms that secondhand smoke can cause lung cancer and that nonsmokers who live with a smoker have a 20%-30% higher risk of lung cancer because of exposure to secondhand smoke
Lung cancer incidence rates in men peaked in the late 1970s and since then have decreased by more than 45%. This reflects the decline in smoking rates in men after World War II.
Yep less people smoking and directly inhaling the smoke.
As I say, I don't buy the 2nd hand nonsense.
Yep less people smoking and directly inhaling the smoke.
As I say, I don't buy the 2nd hand nonsense.
the evidence is incontrovertable - theres no need for the jury to retire
I dont want your second smoke weather it is dangerous or not. It stinks.
Most smokers are in denial about the dangers of their habit
According to Cancer Research UK, the increased risk of contracting lung cancer if you work in a profession that regularly exposes you to diesel fumes is 47% - twice that of exposure to SHS assumed in SCOTH.
Those living in areas with high levels of nitrogen oxide (usually caused by vehicle emissions) have an increased chance of about 33% of contracting lung cancer.
Workers in the ship-building or construction industry have been estimated to have an increased chance of contracting lung cancer of up to 50% - twice that assumed for workers exposed to SHS by SCOTH.
One study even suggests that women who dont smoke, but have a wood-burning fire at home, may have an increased risk of lung disease in excess of 300%.
A French study in 2003 suggested a typical barbecue in ones garden releases the same number of dioxins that would be emitted from 220,000 cigarettes.
So, even if one accepts the SCOTH reports numbers on the increased risk suffered by those working in smoke-filled pubs and clubs, these risks pale into utter insignificance compared to risks we readily and unquestionably accept elsewhere.
Those living in areas with high levels of nitrogen oxide (usually caused by vehicle emissions) have an increased chance of about 33% of contracting lung cancer.
Workers in the ship-building or construction industry have been estimated to have an increased chance of contracting lung cancer of up to 50% - twice that assumed for workers exposed to SHS by SCOTH.
One study even suggests that women who dont smoke, but have a wood-burning fire at home, may have an increased risk of lung disease in excess of 300%.
A French study in 2003 suggested a typical barbecue in ones garden releases the same number of dioxins that would be emitted from 220,000 cigarettes.
So, even if one accepts the SCOTH reports numbers on the increased risk suffered by those working in smoke-filled pubs and clubs, these risks pale into utter insignificance compared to risks we readily and unquestionably accept elsewhere.
LMFAO, I don't smoke mate. I just said that to get your Daily Mail knickers in twist.
Provide me with the outline of how these experiments into passive smoking are run.
Reports don't do it for me.
As I say ,50 years ago reports actually said smoking was good for you.
Provide me with the outline of how these experiments into passive smoking are run.
Reports don't do it for me.
As I say ,50 years ago reports actually said smoking was good for you.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/914475/still_smoking_watch_this/
lmfao 09 Nov 21:51
Most smokers are in denial about the dangers of their habit
If you dont smoke why does it worry you so much.
Most smokers are in denial about the dangers of their habit
If you dont smoke why does it worry you so much.
50 yeays ago they said Guinness was good for you. They got that wrong as well.
fouraces 09 Nov 21:53
lmfao 09 Nov 21:51
Most smokers are in denial about the dangers of their habit
If you dont smoke why does it worry you so much.
because he's one of those pc brigade people. because he dont smoke he dont want anybody else to smoke
lmfao 09 Nov 21:51
Most smokers are in denial about the dangers of their habit
If you dont smoke why does it worry you so much.
because he's one of those pc brigade people. because he dont smoke he dont want anybody else to smoke
Smoke all you want. Go outside and do it. There's a good chappie.
I dont doubt it EMR
I bet he and his fellow nanny state brigade all like a drink though
I bet he and his fellow nanny state brigade all like a drink though
Sorry I've given up with that amateur effort lmfao.
You say my smoking in front of my kids is gunna put them at risk from passive smoking.
To do that ,you have to provide an experiment that can replicate the conditions that my child will 'suffer'. It's impossible.
The increase in childhood asthma has increased massively in recent years.
Kids don't smoke. It's down to pollution.
It's like being dwarfed by a tidal wave and you think turning off a tap will save them drowning.
Nonsense I'm afraid.
You say my smoking in front of my kids is gunna put them at risk from passive smoking.
To do that ,you have to provide an experiment that can replicate the conditions that my child will 'suffer'. It's impossible.
The increase in childhood asthma has increased massively in recent years.
Kids don't smoke. It's down to pollution.
It's like being dwarfed by a tidal wave and you think turning off a tap will save them drowning.
Nonsense I'm afraid.
lmfao's gone to watch the news with a nice cup of oveltine ready for bed
lmfao, since you can report the death figures for cancer, can you also make this a complete picture and report the number of which were smokers, non smokers, and nonsmokers subject to regular passive smoking please. If not you are guilty of being bamboozled by statistics.
Also be very wary of claims of increase in risk measured as a % of the original risk. Calculating risk is a science and very often not understood by the average reader. I am 5% more likely to fall over when drunk. The thing is I am 1/1000 chance of falling over sober. Even more relevant is that the original risk of 1/1000 is not economical to bother trying to actively reduce that risk any further, and certainly from not drinking.
So we could say that a 0.02% chance of getting cancer from smoking, compares to a risk from passive smoking increasing to 0.028%.
Given that 90% of all pollution is industrial, [excluding cars which technology is not far away from solving], then lobbying industry would appear to be much more beneficial to your cause. suddenly we are not quibbling over fractions of a %.
Also be very wary of claims of increase in risk measured as a % of the original risk. Calculating risk is a science and very often not understood by the average reader. I am 5% more likely to fall over when drunk. The thing is I am 1/1000 chance of falling over sober. Even more relevant is that the original risk of 1/1000 is not economical to bother trying to actively reduce that risk any further, and certainly from not drinking.
So we could say that a 0.02% chance of getting cancer from smoking, compares to a risk from passive smoking increasing to 0.028%.
Given that 90% of all pollution is industrial, [excluding cars which technology is not far away from solving], then lobbying industry would appear to be much more beneficial to your cause. suddenly we are not quibbling over fractions of a %.
The hygiene hypothesis, which accepted as likely by the medical profession , says the increase in childhood asthma is down to children not being exposed to enough germs in the house resulting in an underdeveloped immune system.
The thing is I am 1/1000 chance of falling over sober.
Is that over your whole lifetime?
Is that over your whole lifetime?
no, it is one statistical event, in the falling over case it is per day, (of regular activity, not including sport or any other higher risk activity). The extra 5% is for the same statistical event, (though in reality we are unlikely to be drunk for 24 hours).
crediter, mate i'vetread your posts before and they are of the pub bore ilk.
Either tell me what you disagree with or bugger off.
Either tell me what you disagree with or bugger off.
CALLING HEAD IN HANDS MAN CALLING HEAD IN HANDS MAN, BRODIE NEEDS YOU TALKING COMPLETE **E
Would you like to say why you think I'm talking rubbish el chine or are you another knee-jerk idiot who goes with what he's told?
Are you waiting for someone to help you with a head in hands man?
I agree that the air in the citys maybe isnt the cleanest but to say because of this that it is ok to pollute a childs delicate organs with smoke is**ers, Pubs are far better now that you dont get home with ya hair an clothes stinking and going outside for a ciggy hasnt hurt anyone .
patience Brodie im a one finger type man , thats why i gave up the quizzes
But this is how I see it.
I do not see second hand smoke as a danger to my kids.
Therefore I don't stop.
Pollution is the major contributor to cancer and other bronchial diseases, imo.
There is no way of separating a person from the polution around us and then suibject them to 2nd hand smoke ,unless you stick them in a bubble for say 10 years to get an effective and true result in an experiment.
Pollution is all around us and so could be responsible for ALL chest diseases, it can't be disproven.
I would be negligent in the care of my children if I thought 2nd hand smoke was dangerous to them ,but i don't so am not negligent, imo
I do not see second hand smoke as a danger to my kids.
Therefore I don't stop.
Pollution is the major contributor to cancer and other bronchial diseases, imo.
There is no way of separating a person from the polution around us and then suibject them to 2nd hand smoke ,unless you stick them in a bubble for say 10 years to get an effective and true result in an experiment.
Pollution is all around us and so could be responsible for ALL chest diseases, it can't be disproven.
I would be negligent in the care of my children if I thought 2nd hand smoke was dangerous to them ,but i don't so am not negligent, imo
Isn't it a matter of degree? You may dislike smoking but to claim that you go home stinking after a night standing next to a couple smokers is ridiculous.
lol, wouldnt bank on it! last time they closed anything that was open!
anyway ,sorry for my swearing out burst ,I'm just repeating myself now.
be lucky......good night :)
be lucky......good night :)
Brodie 09 Nov 23:13
But this is how I see it.
I do not see second hand smoke as a danger to my kids.
You are in denial
One day you will want to give up or you will regret it
But this is how I see it.
I do not see second hand smoke as a danger to my kids.
You are in denial
One day you will want to give up or you will regret it
i have nothing agaisnt smokers but it didnt matter where you stood in a pub , surely if there was even a 100/1 chance that second hand smoke was dangerous you wouldnt take the risk with kids, and you cant tell me you think its a 100/1 more like 6/4
Dobbo 09 Nov 23:14
Isn't it a matter of degree? You may dislike smoking but to claim that you go home stinking after a night standing next to a couple smokers is ridiculous.
It is 100% true me old mukker
honestly - you have no idea how foul the stench of cigarette smoke is - tell you what: ask a reformed smoker - he/ she will tell you
you can't smell it
Isn't it a matter of degree? You may dislike smoking but to claim that you go home stinking after a night standing next to a couple smokers is ridiculous.
It is 100% true me old mukker
honestly - you have no idea how foul the stench of cigarette smoke is - tell you what: ask a reformed smoker - he/ she will tell you
you can't smell it
In Spain there would be a civil war if smoking were to be banned in public places, everyone seems to smoke. There you get to choose, the only place that I know of that stated it was a non smoking establishment was a ruby house and they went bust in 3 months. You just state on the door if smoking is permitted or not. Seems sensible enough to me.
If second hand smoke could kill there wouldn't be a smoker alive.
I've already told you i don't smoke lmfao.
I've a feeling you don't read what I say ;)
I used to smoke 5 years ago.
I've been speaking hypothetically
I've a feeling you don't read what I say ;)
I used to smoke 5 years ago.
I've been speaking hypothetically
Imfao I was a non smoker for five years and it bothered me not one jot to be in a smoking environment. You lot are just pussies. Find soething worth worrying about. Global warming will do you. equally ridiculous but its got legs
I do smoke but not that often, it has never bothered me one way or the other.
Im an ex smoker and can honestly say that the smell of a smoker is negligible. If smoking was so bad in pubs for non smokers then anyone with an ounce of sense would have opened no smoking pubs and the masses would have flocked there. They didn't! Logic dictates that only a very small minority cared. My cousin is one of the really bad anti smokers. It is no coincidence that he has an extremely sensitive, and therefore problematic, nasal and respitory system. I'm sensitive salmon, should we ban it? And yes, I do suffer the effects of it by proxy.
Brodie, you would not need to bubble the experiment from pollution to measure it. the trend would be observed in suitable samples of smokers and non smokers whom are subject to passive smoke and compared in regions of differing industrial pollution. This would suffice to form a fair opinion of risk, (which is all it is in the end, an opinion of RISK), of each situation.
Do you realise that more people die from the effects of poor sanitation, poor potable water supplies and missing very basic healthcare in the world than any disease you could mention. Why is no one reporting this as an increase in risk? I guess the VI's are elsewhere on this version of representing facts in numbers.
Brodie, you would not need to bubble the experiment from pollution to measure it. the trend would be observed in suitable samples of smokers and non smokers whom are subject to passive smoke and compared in regions of differing industrial pollution. This would suffice to form a fair opinion of risk, (which is all it is in the end, an opinion of RISK), of each situation.
Do you realise that more people die from the effects of poor sanitation, poor potable water supplies and missing very basic healthcare in the world than any disease you could mention. Why is no one reporting this as an increase in risk? I guess the VI's are elsewhere on this version of representing facts in numbers.
Do you realise that more people die from the effects of poor sanitation, poor potable water supplies and missing very basic healthcare in the world than any disease you could mention. Why is no one reporting this as an increase in risk?
Charities "reporting" this relentlessly, when they seek donations.
More diversionary tactics. Rearguard action now very desperate.
Charities "reporting" this relentlessly, when they seek donations.
More diversionary tactics. Rearguard action now very desperate.
I don't understand the reference to charities tbh. The simple facts are that sanitation and potable water have saved more lives and reduced disease, and is the single biggest reason in doubling life expectancy in the western world. At the same time the wolds largest population groups receive the least quality of both. Simple things sometimes.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539