190 replies to this topic

[Bencrest]

At least someone on here agrees with me.

Cheers fistandantilus, nice to have some backup, and I see you've got a story which is far worse than mine

I'm not a preacher at all as some people may say, but what pisses me off is when people who can't see the blindingly obvious facts about smoking and try and make excuses for it.

Just don't expect any sympathy from me should the worst happen to you..................

[baz]

Here's a good read Page 5

http://www.fruit-emu...read.php?t=2308

[jamesb99_1999]

I am seriously allergic to smoke and spent my entire childhood not being able to travel anywhere (because smoking was allowed on public transport and we couldn't afford a car). I have seen many specialists about this, and the long and short of it is, everybody is allergic to smoking, it is just down to the degree. If someone lights up next to me in a pub and I don't notice I can end up having weeks off work and nearly dying, this is very common in children, and even though mine is an extreme case, everybody suffers through second hand smoke, whether it's drying out their skin or the smell it permeates through their clothes.. I think people should have the right to smoke, however not somewhere where other people have to work, as it takes away their rights to their own health, the imposition is always on the smoker I'm afraid to say.

I would not say these people shouldn't be able to smoke in their own homes, as I believe they get a lot of pleasure out of it, I just don't want them killing me and my children..... So full ban is my opinion, protect the workers and society while allowing people to kill themselves in their own homes....

[ady]

I smoke.............I like Smoking, I know the risk's to both myself and other's.

I respect non-smokers, I don't blow smoke in their faces nor in their air space....more than willing to step outside to condemn my body.

I don't smoke at work, on busses, in the shopping Centre, Pool Club or numerious other places.

Yes I put a burden on the NHS?.......No not really I pay for private medical snips 'n' stitches at £4.57 from my wages, on top of the £26.55 NI this week.

Therefore this could go on and on couldn't it.....Non smokers dont get a broken arm or claim a DSS payment and my wages will go up as I pay less NI, likewise I promise to continue smoking in the open air....

Which reminds me my old Diesel car.....geeze what a load of toxin's come from that....must get my bike out.

---------------------------------------

Before I get ripped, I have been reading this thread non-stop, same old answers on any forum or newspaper---Just trying to lighten it up for us all.

[fistandantilus]

T
1) I go to a restarant I go outside to smoke I hate f***ers smoking while I eat.

some of us hate f***ers smoking when we aren't eating too

2) When out with my mates i ask before I light up to see if there are any objections.

What about asking the person who walks into the room 10 minutes after you left?

3) At work smoking is only permitted outside

I have no problem with people smoking outside at all, I think it should be banned from public buildings and transport

4) Buses, shopping centre is already non-smoking

With good reason, if you can see the point for banning it on buses and trains why not pubs, resturants and clubs

What is being suggested by the bill is a COMPLETE ban from public places not just the pub but outside in the fresh clean (car) polluted air some folks need to look at the facts before posting FFS some c***s have posted on this thread that can't even vote for christ sake!

quoted from http://www.medicalne...hp?newsid=32827

The Health Bill delivers the pledge in the Choosing Health White Paper to ban smoking in all enclosed public places apart from licensed premises that do not serve or prepare food and private members' clubs.

I think you just contradicted yourself

Get a f*****g grip!


alth

you seem to get stressed very easily, perhaps you should go have a cigarette

[Jimmy_mac]

interesting read i just had a look at



"There is also this notion, repeated ad nauseam, that smokers are harming non-smokers through environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). But ETS is often confused with sidestream smoke - ETS is the final stage of tobacco smoke dispersion when it becomes highly diluted in surrounding air, sidestream smoke is a combination of exhaled smoke and that released from the end of a burning cigarette.



"So far, the scientific establishment has found it impossible to reach agreement on whether non-smokers are actually at risk from ETS.



"A report from the Restaurant Association also reveals that 45,000 jobs and £346 million could be lost if restaurants were forced to ban smokers. The recent Publican Market Report also showed that 92 per cent of the 1,000 licensees surveyed believed a ban would cost 41 per cent of their trade."

They key point that is made here is that although sidestream smoke may be harmful the enivronmental smoke, that which is in the air, has not been shown to be harmful.

Stick that in ya pipe and smoke it

[fistandantilus]

"So far, the scientific establishment has found it impossible to reach agreement on whether non-smokers are actually at risk from ETS.

Asbestos, lead and mercury were once believe to be harmless too

"A report from the Restaurant Association also reveals that 45,000 jobs and £346 million could be lost if restaurants were forced to ban smokers. The recent Publican Market Report also showed that 92 per cent of the 1,000 licensees surveyed believed a ban would cost 41 per cent of their trade."

I can't see this, do any of the other places that ban smoking see a loss of trade? People who like drinking in pubs will still go to pubs regardless of if they smoke or not.

They key point that is made here is that although sidestream smoke may be harmful the enivronmental smoke, that which is in the air, has not been shown to be harmful.

When something is diluted and can take many years to take effect it can be hard to prove. But does anyone really believe something that is proved to be harmful "cigarette smoke", when diluted down a bit is suddenly perfectly alright? Along with car fumes which should also be banned from confined public places lol cigarette smoke sounds like it might possibly be a reason asthma cases are growing significantly

[Jimmy_mac]

Asbestos, lead and mercury were once believe to be harmless too

Come on lad, scientific research has moved on considerably since then

I can't see this, do any of the other places that ban smoking see a loss of trade? People who like pubs will still go to pubs regardless of if they smoke or not.

So your saying you dont agree with research done by people within the industry...hmmmmm.

I have seen bars in Chester that stopped smoking completely and they never gained the trade they used to, to that extent they changed it back again and welcomed smokers!

When something is diluted and can take many years to take effect it can be hard to prove. But does anyone really believe something that is proved to be harmful "cigarette smoke", when diluted down a bit is suddenly perfectly alright?

Funny that, Arsenic is one of the most deadly poisons around, yet it is found in most foods. Why doesnt it kill us? well becuase its diluted down into low levels!

Although im sure that your medical degree is probably whats giving you the knowledge to go against this research


The problem is that as smokers we are made out to be basically on death row. Its assumed that cos we smoke we will die young guarenteed. But the increased risk with smoking is not as excessive as you may think.

Research suggests that if you start smoking as a teenager and quit aged 30, the risk of developing lung cancer is 2%; give up at 50 and the risk goes up to 8%; give up at 70 (by which time you have been smoking for more than 50 years) and the risk rises to 16%.

Now i apologise and sympathise with those that may have lost someone to lung cancer, i myself have a friend of the family who was recently diagnosed and has been given 2 months, wasnt a smoker though

[ady]

Not too sure what has more passes this or the WBA v Newcastle game on at the mo...

[Jimmy_mac]

Not too sure what has more passes this or the WBA v Newcastle game on at the mo...

cheers for the reminder lad, forgot that was on,

[fistandantilus]

[QUOTE=Jimmy_mac]Come on lad, scientific research has moved on considerably since then

Funny that, Arsenic is one of the most deadly poisons around, yet it is found in most foods. Why doesnt it kill us? well becuase its diluted down into low levels!

Although im sure that your medical degree is probably whats giving you the knowledge to go against this research[/QUOTE]


yes and who funds most of this medical research into smoking and publishes the findings? tobacco companies

lets face it, just about every corporation that is out to make a profit forgoes public safety.

as for the arsenic, any arsenic is still harmful no matter how small. A lot of toxicins accumalate over your lifetime

quoted from a goverment website
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts2.html
[/quote]

the bottom line is when a profit is involved public health rights are not considered

and does poisoning someone over a life time make it any less of a crime then poisoning them instantly?

[Dr DX]

errm.....anybody smell anything?

[fistandantilus]

errm.....anybody smell anything?

respectable abilities for a 29 year old. nothing superhuman by any means just a high level of overall fitness from someone with a healthly set of lungs, strong legs and a strong back. Oh I got a score of 74 in 8 minutes on my BARB test.

[Jimmy_mac]

yes and who funds most of this medical research into smoking and publishes the findings? tobacco companies

lets face it, just about every corporation that is out to make a profit forgoes public safety.

as for the arsenic, any arsenic is still harmful no matter how small. A lot of toxicins accumalate over your lifetime

quoted from a goverment website
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts2.html


the bottom line is when a profit is involved public health rights are not considered

and does poisoning someone over a life time make it any less of a crime then poisoning them instantly?

The quote on ETS was an overview of all the research that has been done on it, not just that research that may have been sponsored by people within the tobacco community.

There is a blindness in that anything researched by tobacco companies must be completely biased. These are medical research papers that have to be reviewed by peers within the community and passed by a board to ensure that they are not portraying a false vision.

As for the site about Arsenic, throughout it keeps stating 'exposure to high levels'. It also states towards the bottom tolerable levels of arsenic, thus proving my point that in dilution substances that are harmful can become harmless

[fistandantilus]

It also states towards the bottom tolerable levels of arsenic, thus proving my point that in dilution substances that are harmful can become harmless

your still missing the overall point that all smokers do. Forget the part that people might not wish to be surrounded by second hand smoke, you yourself admit sceintists just don't know if cigarette smoke is poisoning us.

They must have a pretty good idea that it is overwise they wouldn't keep researching it????

As for the bodies tolerance to vares toxins, poisons and radiation. Yes the body can handle these as they are found naturally in the enviroment, but the body is only designed to handle a finite amount of this over a lifetime, and with cancer, allergies and asthma on the increase it seems that this finite amount is been reached all the sooner

[Dr DX]

respectable abilities for a 29 year old. nothing superhuman by any means just a high level of overall fitness from someone with a healthly set of lungs, strong legs and a strong back. Oh I got a score of 74 in 8 minutes on my BARB test.

i was healthy, never smoked, my fitness was fantastic with all the pt and doing judo 5 nights a week, and i also got around the same mark anyway

[Jimmy_mac]

all we want as smokers is to have the choice as to if we smoke or not, in the same way that you want the choice as to if you enter a smokey atmosphere.

Banning us entirely in public places, personally i didnt think that the uk was a country that supported prohibition, are we really wanting to become a nanny state.

So we need a compromise, I think someone mentioned previously about pubs applying for seperate licenses. Maybe they should apply for a smoking license as they do a liqour license.

That way we can have non smoking and smoking pubs, you have your choice, we have ours.

[fistandantilus]

i was healthy, never smoked, my fitness was fantastic with all the pt and doing judo 5 nights a week, and i also got around the same mark anyway

yes than why imply i was talking bullshit?