On 29/08/2011 14:02, wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 00:57:38 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

There is conclusive evidence to link active smoking with lung cancer.
Passive smoking is however a myth.

I believe that there is link, but I also believe that the increased risk
is probably low enough for me to ignore. I cannot however ignore the
awful smell, the affect on my eyes and my throat or the smell on my
clothes and my hair the next morning.

As a heavy smoker I can appreciate that.

Most of my working life was associated with public houses so stinking
of fags when I was a smoker was not really a problem at work as I
would have stunk the same from others.

Just wondering if it affects your jobs now that smoking is not the
Norm in most places and households.

Not at all.

I certainly know people who if they employed someone such as yourself
would if they detected the smell on you would not wish to you use your
services again or make negative recommendations such as , he did a
good job but stunk the place out. One mate wouldn't let you in the
first place if you smelt of smoke when you arrived.


I don't need to work for anally retentive people thanks.

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

On 29/08/2011 15:15, mike wrote:
On Aug 29, 12:21 am, The Medway
wrote:

No, we have a smoking ban because a fanatical group of anti smokers,
backed up by the lobbying of multi national drug companies, forced it
through.


Surely multinational drug companies would be in favour of smoking
because they could then sell anti-cancer drugs to the people who
became ill.

You have no idea how profitable nicotine patches etc are.

Which multinational drug companies are in favour of keeping people in
tip-top health and therefore without need of expensive
pharmaceuticals?


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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
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.

There are a few differences, including..

drinking wine doesn't normally affect anyone nearby.
drink is nowhere near as addictive as smoking
you can drink without being addicted something that doesn't appear to be
true for smoking.
low levels of drinking appears to be healthy, unlike any level of smoking.

On 29/08/2011 13:18, John Williamson wrote:
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.

Choice means having non smoking & smoking areas & venues. Since the
rabid anti smoking fascists have forced smokers outside, the have
limited their choice - and now they whinge about smokers outside.

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 wasn't in a hotel room yesterday? Where did you get that idea from?
Typical anti smoker - making things up.

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?

Both. But the anti smoking fascists removed choice from the equation.


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

On 29/08/2011 13:06, Interloper wrote:
"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 :-)

Where did you take your degree in higher stupidity?

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

On 29/08/2011 13:30, Steve Walker wrote:
On 29/08/2011 11:51, The Medway Handyman wrote:
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?

No, because the selfish smoker will insist on everyone in a group being
in the smoking bar.

Are you some kind of wimp?

More importantly, the staff are stuck in there too and as has been
mentioned elsewhere, an employer has to minimise or eliminate risks -
regardless of whether the employee is willing to take them.


Bar staff don't smoke of course.


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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

Indeed. The snag with the smoking laws is most reasonable people think
them unfair as well as not actually doing what was wanted.

IME most reasonable people don't think the smoking laws go far enough.
I expect you know too many smokers and not enough non smokers.

On Aug 29, 4:17*pm, The Medway Handyman
wrote:
On 29/08/2011 15:15, mike wrote:

Surely multinational drug companies would be in favour of smoking
because they could then sell anti-cancer drugs to the people who
became ill.

You have no idea how profitable nicotine patches etc are.

I can well imagine how profitable nicotine patches are but surely a
constant supply of cancer-riddled addicts is more profitable than the
diminishing supply of patch-buying quitters that a ban would produce.

On Aug 29, 4:07*pm, Tim Streater wrote:

Which multinational drug companies are in favour of keeping people in
tip-top health and therefore without need of expensive
pharmaceuticals?

A meaningless question as perfect health for all doesn't and won't exist.

What?

Are there drug companies out there that are actively looking to reduce
sales and profits?

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Huge wrote:
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?

You think these only started after the smoking ban? Have you tried asking
those publicans who's pubs have had to close?

They were interviewing publicans on BBC WM a couple of months ago about the
closing of pubs.
Half of them said the smoking ban had had a positive effect and they now
served more food and had families in.
the other half said they were going broke.
You can draw whatever conclusion you like.
I note that there are now far more places to go than pubs, like smoke free
restaurants, cinemas, etc.
Pubs that don't offer more than drinking look like dying pubs to me. If you
just want to drink then its a lot cheaper at home.

On 30/08/2011 1:11 AM, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 29/08/2011 15:49, Kathy wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...
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?

Passive or active, tobacco smoke causes illness.

Afraid not - in the case of passive.

It is also, as you have acknowledged, polluting and frequently
unpleasant.

It may be unpleasant to some, but polluting?

No matter how many times you scream that it is your right to
be a unpleasant polluter, you do not have the right to pollute other
people's airspace.

I don't scream (do you?)



I don't, but my mother-in-law does whenever she is having an orgasm,
which is quite often since my father-in-law discovered Viagra. My wife
is no longer so keen to have them visit. Thank God for Viagra.

The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 29/08/2011 13:18, John Williamson wrote:

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 wasn't in a hotel room yesterday? Where did you get that idea from?
Typical anti smoker - making things up.

"Your" choice as in the generic smoker, not your choice as in your
*personal* choice. And it happens to about one in fifty hotel rooms I
stay in. Although, for all I know you were in at least one of them.


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?

Both. But the anti smoking fascists removed choice from the equation.


Just as smokers always did and still do. One bloke I know is no longer
welcome in my home because he does not understand that I do not want him
smoking in my living room, especially as he just lights up and puffs
away without asking my permission. The room reeks of smoke for days
afterwards.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 30/08/2011 1:40 AM, mike wrote:
On Aug 29, 4:17 pm, The Medway
wrote:
On 29/08/2011 15:15, mike wrote:

Surely multinational drug companies would be in favour of smoking
because they could then sell anti-cancer drugs to the people who
became ill.

You have no idea how profitable nicotine patches etc are.

I can well imagine how profitable nicotine patches are but surely a
constant supply of cancer-riddled addicts is more profitable than the
diminishing supply of patch-buying quitters that a ban would produce.



Using a nicotine patch isn't giving up smoking - it is just changing
brands.

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
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.

More like.. they can't prove it was my smoke that killed insert name so I
am alright and sod everyone else.

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:40:54 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Fuschia wrote:
By all means let's talk about alcohol in another thread, but that's
not what the OP was complaining about.

He wasn't 'complaining' at all. Just the usual troll.

He's not the 'usual' troll on the gardening group which I follow, so I
assume you are referring to the diy group.
But it's been quite enlightening to learn just how extreme some
addicts can be in defence of their habit. It's a reminder why we need
to have laws to protect the innocent majority from the diminishing few
who set their own needs above their neighbours' comfort and safety.