On 29/08/2011 11:06, Fuschia wrote:
On 29 Aug 2011 08:45:35 GMT, wrote:

On 2011-08-28, Steve 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.

You fail to understand that some people have no wish to give it up.


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

Alcohol is next on the new puritan list. Hope you don't like a drink.


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

On 29/08/2011 10:52, 'Mike' wrote:
"Gib wrote in message
...
On 28/08/2011 3:10 a.m., 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.

The smoker's attitude.'It's legal and therefore I can do it. If it pollutes
your airspace, .... tough'

The non smokers attitude. I don't like it so I want it banned
everywhere, if that restricts personal choice - tough.




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

In article , The Medway Handyman
wrote:
On 29/08/2011 10:52, 'Mike' wrote:
"Gib wrote in message
...
On 28/08/2011 3:10 a.m., 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.

The smoker's attitude.'It's legal and therefore I can do it. If it
pollutes your airspace, .... tough'

The non smokers attitude. I don't like it so I want it banned
everywhere, if that restricts personal choice - tough.

I think you mistake some non-smokers with all non-smokers.

Some of the legislation is stupid: if I give someone a lift in my car on
behalf of a charity, I need to display a "No Smoking" sign in the car.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

In article ,
Gib Bogle wrote:
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?

It was in reply to the addicts part. And yes, many who claim to simply
just enjoy a glass of wine - and it's always wine - are addicted.

--
*Never slap a man who's chewing tobacco *

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

In article ,
charles wrote:
Some of the legislation is stupid: if I give someone a lift in my car on
behalf of a charity, I need to display a "No Smoking" sign in the car.

You're acting like a form of taxi, and like all such vehicles, smoking is
not allowed by either driver or passengers. The same applies to works vans
- but is largely ignored.

--
*Two many clicks spoil the browse *

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

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:54:42 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 29/08/2011 11:06, Fuschia wrote:
On 29 Aug 2011 08:45:35 GMT, wrote:

On 2011-08-28, Steve 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.

You fail to understand that some people have no wish to give it up.

Keep telling yourself that. One day you might just believe it - if the
cancer doesn't get you first.


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

Alcohol is next on the new puritan list. Hope you don't like a drink.
A non-sequitur much beloved of smokers.
"Help, I've lost the argument again! - ah yes, the alcohol dodge."

In article ,
Fuschia wrote:
A non-sequitur much beloved of smokers.
"Help, I've lost the argument again! - ah yes, the alcohol dodge."

Plenty of similarities. Both are mind changing recreational drugs.
However, the detrimental effects of alcohol on behaviour (with many) make
it very different. And the havoc is causes to society in a totally
different league. But carry on thinking it's harmless. Just because you're
a user.

--
*Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.

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

On 29/08/2011 11:54, The Medway Handyman wrote:

Alcohol is next on the new puritan list. Hope you don't like a drink.

Far too useful in many occasions, and there's the big failed experiment
from the US too. It'll never happen.

"Hugh - Was Invisible" observed:

"The Medway Handyman" wrote:

You being their undisputed king ****wit.

TMH. Get your head out of the sand. You are making
yourself look a complete idiot.

Yes indeed!

Most people are good at something :-)
--
Interloper

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

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.


My choice would be to breathe air free of tobacco smoke, the smokers'
choice is to pollute the air around them with tobacco smoke. That makes
my only possible course of action to move away from their pollution,
which means that I have no other option. Their choice has limited my
choices.

My choice would be to sleep in a hotel room that does not stink of old
cigarette smoke. Your choice as a smoker to break the law in that hotel
room yesterday makes it impossible for me to have my choice.

I drive a coach for a living, and I have to walk through the cloud of
smoke generated by smokers who light up as they cross the threhold of
the exit door, and then just stand there, and get offended when I close
the door to keep their smoke out. Their choice of smoking place removes
my chance of staying smoke free.

Whose choice is more important? The drug addict's or the clean living
person's?

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:59:43 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:

On 29/08/2011 10:52, 'Mike' wrote:
"Gib wrote in message
...
On 28/08/2011 3:10 a.m., 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.

The smoker's attitude.'It's legal and therefore I can do it. If it
pollutes your airspace, .... tough'

The non smokers attitude. I don't like it so I want it banned
everywhere, if that restricts personal choice - tough.

The smokers' attitude. I like it so I want to be able to do it
everywhere, if that restricts personal choice - tough.



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 28/08/2011 23:47, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 28/08/2011 23:29, Steve Walker wrote:
On 27/08/2011 18:50, The Medway Handyman 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.

Alas she didn't. Nice try, no cigar.


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

So you don't drive a car, heat your house, use aerosols or fart then?

Ah, the defence that all smokers resort to in the end. The difference is
that all the above serve useful purposes and the pollution is an
unfortunately necessary byproduct of that function,

Farting serves a useful purpose?

whereas smoking
simply prevents the addict's withdrawal symptoms as the previous fix
wears off.

The ploy anti smokers always resort to in the end.

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

I'm not going to search now, but there have been, over the years, a
number of cases in our local paper of someone on a night out being asked
for a cigarette and when they have refused or have said that they don't
smoke, they've been beaten up.

It is difficult to separate those from just the random attacks of
drunken yobs, but if they just wanted a fight, they'd not have asked for
the cigarette first, would they?

I would remind you that smoking is a perfectly legal activity that makes
an important contribution to Govmint funds.

So's music, but you can't inflict your music on your neighbours at night
on a regular basis without the intervention of the authorities.

SteveW

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Peter James wrote:
Could you name someone who as died from passive smoking? Anywhere in
the world will do.

How about Roy Castle a man who died from lung cancer and who never
smoked. Said he picked up the disease from the night clubs he worked in
and where smoking was rampant.
For further information see the following URL's.

One swallow - even with a famous name - does not a summer make. And even
if it did, there's a very big difference between working all your life in
smoky rooms and having neighbours who smoke outdoors.

The question (quoted above) was "Could you name someone who as (sic)
died from passive smoking?" Perhaps you could leave the goalposts where
you found them?

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.

Yup. I got stared at long and hard in company "personnel" meetings when
I asked if I could take 15-20 minutes off every hour to go and stand
outside and read a paper/chat with my mates/stare at girls as the
smokers appear to have free licence to do, or failing that to get paid
30% more per day than the smokers. The addicts of course claim that they
do just as much work as the non-addicts but don't seem to able to
explain how they make up their absences.

The difficult thing is that my libertarian leaning side says it's their
body they can abuse it as they wish, but another part of me says:

a) As long as they don't impact on my health/sensibility.
b) As long as they get their "fix" entirely in their own time.

As far as (b) goes, in a work environment smokers should clock in/out
for all tobacco breaks.

I still find the stench of working next to a smoker unacceptable, but it
seems that not much can be done about that, although workers with BO are
told by their superiors to clean themselves up.

Huge wrote:

On 2011-08-28, The Medway Handyman wrote:


http://www.forestonline.org/info/passive-smoking/

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha[gasp]hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
ahaha

My first real job was in the epidemiology department of a major teaching
hospital. The association between smoking and the diseases it causes is
not, as the smokers like to believe, some untested, unproven claim. The
epidemiological link is cast iron solid. As solid as observations that
variola virus causes smallpox.

The tobacco companies have been sponsoring bullshit publication and
"research" since Doll published "Smoking and Carcinoma of the Lung" in
1950. This gives the addicts something to cling to, to bolster their
hope that smoking isn't going to kill them.