In article ,
Gib Bogle wrote:

Well, if we ignore the obvious trolling and prejudice, cigarette
smoke makes a lot of people with breathing problems cough very
badly.

I think this is the main issue. Except in very smoky confined spaces,
I'm guessing that the cancer risk from other people's smoke is pretty
minimal, but those particulates can be very troubling for some. Any
smoke is air pollution, regardless of what's being burnt.

It's not just cancer, but that is what the statistics show. Actually,
one of the biggest dangers is to babies, and that is a problem with
the parents smoking at home and in cars rather than in 'public places'.
Unusually, the trolls have got one fact right - the absolute nature
of the ban was entirely due to fanaticism, largely driven by that
unspeakable prime minister of the time.

I found it truly mind-boggling that he pushed through a new crime,
driven entirely by some proven falsehoods in the Murdoch press;
that of making necrophilia a crime, because of the claimed widepread
practice by undertakers. Someone investigated the article and the
journalist admitted that he had invented it from whole cloth, because
he had been told to find a scandal. He also included bestiality, on
the grounds that there was no evidence that it actually occurred,
and therefore needed forbidding so that people were reminded of it.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...

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?

Idiot!
No one has stopped smokers going and killing themselves in smoke filled
rooms.
You can go and do it if you want.

What is banned is employers allowing workers to do so.
The same as they aren't allowed to go into paint shops, asbestos cleanup,
etc.
This is because the overwhelming evidence is that smoke filled rooms are
dangerous to staff and you are not allowed to send employees into danger.


Or is 'freedom' a one way street?

It would appear to be, smokers certainly don't allow others to enjoy smoke
free air if it means delaying their fix.

On 29 Aug 2011 08:45:35 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2011-08-28, Steve Walker 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.

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.
Fortunately, smoking IS gradually dying out. Too slowly, but it is
happening.

"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.

--
Kathy

On 29/08/2011 9:51 p.m., Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Gib wrote:
On 29/08/2011 10:47 a.m., The Medway Handyman wrote:

Perhaps you could cite an incident of a smoker mugging someone to get a
'fix'?

I'd wager that people have been killed for a packet of cigarettes - in
prison.

I've worked in prisons on a number of occasions and never once saw a
packet of cigarettes.


You probably never saw marijuana, cocaine or heroin either. Do you
think they are not there?

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.

--
*(on a baby-size shirt) "Party -- my crib -- two a.m

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

On 29/08/2011 10:23 p.m., Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
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.


Do you think everyone who drinks alcohol is an alcoholic?

On 29/08/2011 10:25, Gib Bogle wrote:
On 29/08/2011 9:36 a.m., John Williamson wrote:
Fuschia wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 19:41:10 +0100, Ron Lowe wrote:
So you think it's perfectly reasonable to inflict your smoking stench
on others?

A straight 'yes' will suffice.

Of course he does.
He doesn't care that it causes other people to cough,make their eyes
sore and their clothes smell.
He doesn't care that it may start an asthmatic attack.
He's happy to ignore these things.
He's a smoker.

AKA a drug addict.

Nicotine has been shown to be more addictive than heroin in a
controlled, peer-reviewed, experiment involving American college
students.

That's why they deserve our sympathy. OK, so someone made a bad choice
in starting to smoke (probably as a teenager). We all make bad choices
when young, it's just that this decision is very hard to reverse.

Always assuming one wanted to.

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 29/08/2011 10:28, Gib Bogle wrote:
On 29/08/2011 10:47 a.m., The Medway Handyman wrote:

Perhaps you could cite an incident of a smoker mugging someone to get a
'fix'?

I'd wager that people have been killed for a packet of cigarettes - in
prison.

But you have no evidence whatsoever. Rather like the passive smoking lobby.

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 29/08/2011 11:18, 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.

No one is disputing that. Which bit of 'passive' confused you?

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 29/08/2011 08:00, TGH wrote:
On 27/08/2011 17:37, 'Mike' 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.

I would also like to add that the treatment that I received in hospital
recently when I firs,t had a quadruple heart by pass, followed by a LUNG
decortication, was enhanced because I didn't smoke and NEVER HAD SMOKED


Come off your 'I know my rights' high horse. YOU pollute the air I
breath. I
don't pollute the air you breath.

We have the same argument with you very selfish polluters on the cruise
ships. I cruise a lot and have to endure you polluting MY balcony.

If you were meant to smoke, you would have been born with a chimney
out of
you head.


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

A famous case of someone who didn't die from passive smoking.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 29/08/2011 09:48, Interloper wrote:
Astounded from Medway wrote:

Your stupidity is simply astounding.

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

Followed by "When you have an IQ lower than your shoe size, it's usually
best to keep quiet".

That was a generalisation, but of course, if the cap fits... !


Thought so. Far too thick to realise you contradicted yourself.

Please examine feet for bullet holes.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 29/08/2011 10:58, dennis@home wrote:


"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...

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?

Idiot!
No one has stopped smokers going and killing themselves in smoke filled
rooms.
You can go and do it if you want.

Which pub is that then Dennis?

What is banned is employers allowing workers to do so.

Nope. Smoking is banned.

The same as they aren't allowed to go into paint shops, asbestos
cleanup, etc.

False analogy.

This is because the overwhelming evidence is that smoke filled rooms are
dangerous to staff and you are not allowed to send employees into danger.

No there isn't.


Or is 'freedom' a one way street?

It would appear to be, smokers certainly don't allow others to enjoy
smoke free air if it means delaying their fix.

Look up the word 'choice' & get back to me.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 29/08/2011 09:48, Huge wrote:
On 2011-08-28, Dave Plowman wrote:
In ,
Steve wrote:
The selfishness of smokers has always amazed me. I have worked with and
been friends with a number and two things stick out. Firstly, in the
days when you could smoke in pubs, the whole group had to sit and suffer
in the smoking area, even if there was only one smoker with us,
otherwise they'd whinge and moan so much that they'd ruin the evening.

I find it very amusing. Non smokers always said how much they hated pubs
because of the smoke. Now they're all non smoking, they're closing in
droves...

So the predatory behaviour of brewers, discount alcohol from supermarkets
and the drink-drive laws have nothing to do with it?


Nothing to do with the claims of the non smokers - no.

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 29/08/2011 02:04, Steve Walker wrote:
On 29/08/2011 00:46, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 28/08/2011 23:24, Steve Walker wrote:
On 27/08/2011 17:20, The Medway Handyman wrote:
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.

Roy Castle?

Alas not. Lung cancer yes. 10% of lung cancer deaths occur in non
smokers.

Most of the people I know who don't want anyone smoking near them are
not overly concerned about passive smoking, they just can't stand the
odour, the sore eyes, the sore throat and the smelly clothes they end up
with from being around smokers.

An entirely reasonable view.

I have no wish to inflict the by products of smoking on others.

Equally, I can't see why non smokers should inflict their views on
smokers.

Because smokers are the ones carrying out an action and inflicting their
smoke on non-smokers, whereas non-smokers simply want them to stop doing
so. We don't care whether you smoke or not, we simply want you not to
inflict that smoke on us. If I kept squirting water around in a pub,
everyone near me would rightly want me to stop, they would however have
no objection to me watering my garden plants, as that wouldn't affect them.

But a separate pub or bar isn't possible?


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk