July 1st ~ The End Of The Indoor Puff!
- Thread starter The Pro
- Start date
A
Ardross
Guest
Can't wait hooray
G
Griffin
Guest
Great news :clap: It's not nice having the kids complaining of the way I smell when I come home from work.
simmo
Senior Jockey
:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
simmo
Senior Jockey
PS. Don't tell Ardross or any of those sanctimonious non-smoking bar stewards, but it's not that bad really.
Not just internal, I work at a shopping centre that is open air but our outside seating is being made non-smoking. About time too, why do smokers believe they are persecuted, as far as I am concerned they should only be able to smoke in their own houses. What is fair about their habit causing me harm, I don't drive along the pavement so why should I have to breathe their toxic fumes???
Honest Tom
At the Start
- Joined
- May 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,272
Banning it ouside is bordering on neurotic. Maybe people should be advised not to paddle in the sea in case someone throws a live electric fire into New York harbour.
Euronymous
Senior Jockey
Yeah but you drive don`t you? Hypocrite.
Not the same composition, Euro. Petrol in this country is now unleaded, but even in low tar fags, there's still plenty of other stuff which is actually banned from being vented to air by factories, for example, because it's so toxic. I've yet to read any report by the cancer organisations linking lung, throat, and mouth cancers to vehicle use.
Colin Phillips
At the Start
...............but just a little pious? 
Whether people drive or not is immaterial. Goods aren't carried by canal boats, unwalkable/unbikeable trips to hospitals, schools, shops, airports, etc. are either made via ambulance, taxi, someone else's car, or coach or bus, not horse-drawn carriages. Our roads are full of millions of vehicles from tiny vans to enormous double-trailer wagons from and to Europe ferrying stuff for us. How do you think your Ikea furniture gets to its store, and from its store to your home? On a flying rug?
Let's get over the hysteria about personal driving and say that not having to take in someone else's toxic fag smoke is a good idea, please. Some of you need to go to Eastern Europe, most of Africa, India or Thailand and find out what unregulated vehicles really DO do to your lungs, eyes, and the environment. The UK's emissions regulations are excellent. Much of the rest of the world needs to play catch-up.
BTW, expect to see your Council taxes rise a bit more to take care of the additional street-cleaning that'll be required to get rid of the billions of fag-ends and packets, not to mention paper coffee cups, chucked in the streets as all the smoking office and shop workers are forced outside. Will businesses be made to clear up the street mess? Whaddya think!
Let's get over the hysteria about personal driving and say that not having to take in someone else's toxic fag smoke is a good idea, please. Some of you need to go to Eastern Europe, most of Africa, India or Thailand and find out what unregulated vehicles really DO do to your lungs, eyes, and the environment. The UK's emissions regulations are excellent. Much of the rest of the world needs to play catch-up.
BTW, expect to see your Council taxes rise a bit more to take care of the additional street-cleaning that'll be required to get rid of the billions of fag-ends and packets, not to mention paper coffee cups, chucked in the streets as all the smoking office and shop workers are forced outside. Will businesses be made to clear up the street mess? Whaddya think!
There is not one shred of true, statistically significant scientific eveidence that passive smoking has ever killed anyone ?
The DOH cant, ASH cant,and neither can Cancer Research. You have to read their words carefully, they are all full of might, possibility, maybe, estimate they cannot provide any evidence whatsoever.
The only report that came up with any risk was the EPA who gave a risk factor of 1.19, even this was discredited in court and thrown out after it was discovered that the EPA had fiddled the figures. Anything under a risk of 3 is not considered a risk at all and whole milk has a risk factor of 2.5.
Ah yes I see what you mean!
I've never been able to get my head around what my mum did, she was diognosed with Ovarian cancer 3 years ago & she was in hospital 9/10 days, in that time she did not smoke, yet as soon as she came home she started again shrug:: surely if you haven't had a ciggy for 10 days you must nearing the end of the worst stage? it really upset me as I can't understand why someone would do that cry I suppose if having cancer is not going to get you to give up, nothing will shrug::
I've never been able to get my head around what my mum did, she was diognosed with Ovarian cancer 3 years ago & she was in hospital 9/10 days, in that time she did not smoke, yet as soon as she came home she started again shrug:: surely if you haven't had a ciggy for 10 days you must nearing the end of the worst stage? it really upset me as I can't understand why someone would do that cry I suppose if having cancer is not going to get you to give up, nothing will shrug::
There is not one shred of true, statistically significant scientific eveidence that passive smoking has ever killed anyone ?
The DOH cant, ASH cant,and neither can Cancer Research. You have to read their words carefully, they are all full of might, possibility, maybe, estimate they cannot provide any evidence whatsoever.
The only report that came up with any risk was the EPA who gave a risk factor of 1.19, even this was discredited in court and thrown out after it was discovered that the EPA had fiddled the figures. Anything under a risk of 3 is not considered a risk at all and whole milk has a risk factor of 2.5. [/b][/quote]
Roy Castle?
It is now taken as gospel by most people that Roy Castle died from lung cancer "caused by passive smoking". It is a very sad situation when anyone who has the misfortune to contract lung cancer, in whatever form, automatically believes that it has been caused entirely on their own smoking, or if a non-smoker like Roy was, then other peoples smoking must be to blame. Nothing else is publically considered nowadays.
If passive smoking is the cause of some cases of lung cancer it is necessary to presuppose the following.
Tobacco smoke, inhaled by active smokers over many, many years is implicated in an increased risk of developing both squamous and oat cell cancers of the lung. But, that same tobacco smoke, when inhaled by passive smokers at infinitely lower doses is somehow supposed to cause an entirely different type of cancer, adenocarcinoma, in a different part of the lung, not associated with active smoking.
Sir Austin Bradford Hill, who first discovered the increase in risk of squamous and oat cell lung cancer among active smokers found absolutely no association whatsoever between smoking and adenocarcinomas.
When Roy Castle had the autopsy, it was found that he had the wrong type of cancer to be associated with smoking.